"Virgin shaming": I know we have a lot of "but what about men's problems?" people out there.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT
 

Revolutionaryloser:
Is it necessary? The harsh truth is that this is necessary and until a culture arises where men aren't for some reason natural born criminals then the system isn't going to change. It is my belief that feminism holds the answer to cure the criminal impulses of men.

You're insane. Straight-up, off the walls, loony-bin-worthy insane.

Is it OK to say that all blacks are born criminals? Is it OK to say that all Mexicans are born drug dealers? Is it OK to say that all white people are born bigoted rednecks?

No, it's not, because those are dirty fucking stereotypes perpetrated by hateful idiots. And that's exactly what you're doing here.

Get your head straight.

Virgin shaming always makes me laugh. Millions of years of evolution, thousands of years of scientific advancement, and all certain men can do with their lives is fulfill our most basic animal urge. The bacteria we evolved from would be so proud! Me, though, I'm an artist. I'm no Michelangelo, but with my art I contribute to our culture and society. I may be a virgin and I may get teased for it from time to time, but I like to remind myself that even if I haven't bedded lots of women, I actually contribute to human culture. Honestly, all virgin shaming is is guys being condescending to other guys to make themselves feel more important because they themselves can't contribute anything to humanity other than passing on their genetic material.

Vault101:

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

Vault101:
also if I guy has "virgin" as a pre-requisite...yeah..fuck you

I know right?

HOW DARE PEOPLE HAVE PREFERENCES??? HOW DARE THEY?!?!? DAMN FUCKING SEXIST PIGS!

alright..I may have come across as a little more agressive than needed..suuure its their right and all

but its damn hypocritical if you ask me (mabye less if they guy himself is a virgin) to me its less about treating me as a person..and more as property..or a "prize"

liek I said..I dont think virginity is all that "special" and coming from the days of relious, I dont think anyone is "unpure" or "corrupted" if they have had sex

I don't care how many sexual partners the girl I am interested in has had, as long as she doesn't discuss them with me, I know that if I know then there is a chance it will make me feel like crap, so I don't really care, I won't ask, and I don't want to know.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
Just out of interest, what would you consider to be slut shaming?

Because I got a lot of shit for being turned off by women who were... Well, lets call them promiscuous. I dunno guys, I just cant go into a relationship knowing the woman next to me has slept with more than 20 men, some of them at the same time. It just aint fucking sexy man. I dont want to pressure every woman into being a fucking nun until she meets me at which point she should drop her pants faster than a guy who had taco bell for lunch, but I think a little self control (and respect) isnt always amiss. Just to be clear, I dont refuse to sleep with anyone who is not a virgin like some men out there, but you know.

I completely agree, it doesn't help that I tend to be a tad insecure and I would be convinced she was comparing me with every other guy, but that's my issue to work out.

LilithSlave:

Then you'll stay ignorant of the truth.

Oh you're one of those people? I'm out to see ya

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
It just aint fucking sexy man.

Who cares about sexy?

Matthew94:

1. Men, no matter how much they seem themselves as a victim never see themselves as a minority. I have NEVER seen a man think they are in the minority, ever.

Come on, that's not true and I bet you know it.

2. The way feminists twist issues so they are the victim. The 2nd quote just rings of the "women are the true victims of war" mentality.

Yes, I don't know why women would feel like victims just because they're treated like objects to be acquired.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

And some dudes have a virgin preference? I'm honestly interested to understand that. Unless it's some sort of fetish. Is it some sort of fetish?

It's a cultural thing. So much of a prize has been put on virginity, it's not surprising that men value either the associated purity or the aquisition of such a "trophy."

It's a cultural thing, not so much a fetish. And it's basically the equivalent of a car losing half its value when you drive it off the lot.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
Just out of interest, what would you consider to be slut shaming?

Because I got a lot of shit for being turned off by women who were... Well, lets call them promiscuous. I dunno guys, I just cant go into a relationship knowing the woman next to me has slept with more than 20 men, some of them at the same time. It just aint fucking sexy man. I dont want to pressure every woman into being a fucking nun until she meets me at which point she should drop her pants faster than a guy who had taco bell for lunch, but I think a little self control (and respect) isnt always amiss. Just to be clear, I dont refuse to sleep with anyone who is not a virgin like some men out there, but you know.

Ah, the infamous "but then is what I like okay?" question. On one hand, attraction is a funny thing. For example, I am attracted to guys who are funny, smart and understand the meaning of the word kyriarchy. Does that mean I have to date everyone who comes my way, even if they believe that women are meant to be pregnant, bare-foot and so submissive that it's difficult to differentiate her from the doormat? No. At least in my version of democracy, I have the right of free association, which means I can pick and chose who I am friends with, even if they are arse-holes.*

On the other hand, "the personal is political". Basically, if is very, very difficult, if nigh impossible, for humans to remove our beliefs, thoughts and feelings about the world from the world. Which means that even if you are the most rational person alive, one can still be influenced by the world around them. For example, you wrote "but I think a little self control (and respect) isnt always amiss" in referrence to those who have a large number of sexual partners. But feminists have argued that this is a false association; not every woman who attends an orgy is doing it because they feel even a little bit bad about themselves. However, not your fault. This is a common trait in society and makes you a normal, average person who did a normal average thing.

tl;dr: Kid, you're fine.

*Which is not to say that I cannot be shunned by everyone else. I have the right to freely associate, but not the right to be accepted by everyone else without reserve.

Ha, I'm still a virgin and I've never cared about having sex....now companionship on the other hand, that is another story.

Owyn_Merrilin:
Actually, the dildo was invented millennia ago. The vibrator was a Victorian invention.

Allegedly Cleopatra created the first recorded vibrator by filling a gourd full of bees.

Owyn_Merrilin:

Revolutionaryloser:
-snip-

Is absolutely wrong then. I left it unspoilered to drive the point home.

I'm sorry I don't see where the contradiction lies. You are going to have to point it out.

Matthew94:

Revolutionaryloser:
sniiiiiiiiiiiiip

You make a good point about gender roles and I agree with that. I always have agreed gender roles should be removed from society.

Back to my main point though, it's increasingly looking like feminists are living up to their name. ie Being women centric, you still haven't listed 1 example where the movement has fought for men.

I'm still open to having my mind changed but in all this time I have yet to be shown 1 example of when the feminist movement has fought for men despite supporters saying they do.

To those individuals that fight for all genders, I applaud you. But the biggest effect can come from the movement as a whole and there has been no evidence presented to me to indicate that the movement cares for men at all.

I'll end this by saying that I don't think feminism is wrong as fundamentally it seeks to improve things for people which is a good cause. I still believe there should be 1 group for all genders as feminism clearly is not filling this role. The way I see it, feminism and whatever MRAs call themselves should fall and 1 group for all should rise up to fight for all people.

I just listed like 8 cases of where women and men are fighting to solve problems that affect exclusively men.

In our society, men are encouraged to act like dicks. It is in great part a social pressure thing. Men have to be tough, they can't like girly things and they are trained to act like selfish douchebags. This leads to men being more violent, more prone to committing crimes, worse fathers, emotionally stunted and disturbed, afraid of expressing themselves with honesty and less happy with their lives. Those are all problems that feminists hope to end.

Fawxy:

Revolutionaryloser:
Is it necessary? The harsh truth is that this is necessary and until a culture arises where men aren't for some reason natural born criminals then the system isn't going to change. It is my belief that feminism holds the answer to cure the criminal impulses of men.

You're insane. Straight-up, off the walls, loony-bin-worthy insane.

Is it OK to say that all blacks are born criminals? Is it OK to say that all Mexicans are born drug dealers? Is it OK to say that all white people are born bigoted rednecks?

No, it's not, because those are dirty fucking stereotypes perpetrated by hateful idiots. And that's exactly what you're doing here.

Get your head straight.

It's not my fault. I'm just saying that women lack the instinctive reactionary nature that men developed over millions of years that makes them more prone to committing crimes without considering the long term consequences. As I also said, women take much less time to rehabilitate and I'm a supporter of the prison system being a system of rehabilitation over a system of punishment. Once somebody is capable of functioning as a decent human being and does not show signs of going back into crime there is not much reason to keep them locked up. Of course, it's a divided issue what the nature of the prison system is. In polls usually we get about 50% voting for punishhment and 50% voting for rehabilitation. This means the government compromises and as such, there are very many cases of people who have to stay in jail much longer than they need to rehabilitate and there are cases of people who have a relatively short stay that is not enough for their rehabilitation.

This isn't something I decided. I don't see why I'm the one that should be called crazy.

Revolutionaryloser:

Fawxy:

Revolutionaryloser:
Is it necessary? The harsh truth is that this is necessary and until a culture arises where men aren't for some reason natural born criminals then the system isn't going to change. It is my belief that feminism holds the answer to cure the criminal impulses of men.

You're insane. Straight-up, off the walls, loony-bin-worthy insane.

Is it OK to say that all blacks are born criminals? Is it OK to say that all Mexicans are born drug dealers? Is it OK to say that all white people are born bigoted rednecks?

No, it's not, because those are dirty fucking stereotypes perpetrated by hateful idiots. And that's exactly what you're doing here.

Get your head straight.

It's not my fault. I'm just saying that women lack the instinctive reactionary nature that men developed over millions of years that makes them more prone to committing crimes without considering the long term consequences. As I also said, women take much less time to rehabilitate and I'm a supporter of the prison system being a system of rehabilitation over a system of punishment. Once somebody is capable of functioning as a decent human being and does not show signs of going back into crime there is not much reason to keep them locked up. Of course, it's a divided issue what the nature of the prison system is. In polls usually we get about 50% voting for punishhment and 50% voting for rehabilitation. This means the government compromises and as such, there are very many cases of people who have to stay in jail much longer than they need to rehabilitate and there are cases of people who have a relatively short stay that is not enough for their rehabilitation.

This isn't something I decided. I don't see why I'm the one that should be called crazy.

Because you think its totally acceptable to give all men all the time longer scentences because "men reoffend" but it ISNT ok to give blacks longer scentences because "blacks reoffend". How is this not crazy. Youve justified blatent and undeniable sexism.

Define Sexism: Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination on the basis of sex.

Men re offend more and deserve harsher scentences and men make bad parents are sexist statements pure and simple because youre judging everyone with a dick the same way and assuming they are all the same. And if youre NOT saying they are all the same why do some men who honestly would never reoffend deserve longer scentences and some men who are good parents not deserve custody? Because they are being branded by what OTHER men do?

I dont know why you ignored my post but its pretty undeniable you are wrong and sexist to hold this viewpoint. Its a little sad watching you try and dogde it.

BiscuitTrouser:

Revolutionaryloser:

Fawxy:

You're insane. Straight-up, off the walls, loony-bin-worthy insane.

Is it OK to say that all blacks are born criminals? Is it OK to say that all Mexicans are born drug dealers? Is it OK to say that all white people are born bigoted rednecks?

No, it's not, because those are dirty fucking stereotypes perpetrated by hateful idiots. And that's exactly what you're doing here.

Get your head straight.

It's not my fault. I'm just saying that women lack the instinctive reactionary nature that men developed over millions of years that makes them more prone to committing crimes without considering the long term consequences. As I also said, women take much less time to rehabilitate and I'm a supporter of the prison system being a system of rehabilitation over a system of punishment. Once somebody is capable of functioning as a decent human being and does not show signs of going back into crime there is not much reason to keep them locked up. Of course, it's a divided issue what the nature of the prison system is. In polls usually we get about 50% voting for punishhment and 50% voting for rehabilitation. This means the government compromises and as such, there are very many cases of people who have to stay in jail much longer than they need to rehabilitate and there are cases of people who have a relatively short stay that is not enough for their rehabilitation.

This isn't something I decided. I don't see why I'm the one that should be called crazy.

Because you think its totally acceptable to give all men all the time longer scentences because "men reoffend" but it ISNT ok to give blacks longer scentences because "blacks reoffend". How is this not crazy. Youve justified blatent and undeniable sexism.

Define Sexism: Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination on the basis of sex.

Men re offend more and deserve harsher scentences and men make bad parents are sexist statements pure and simple because youre judging everyone with a dick the same way and assuming they are all the same. And if youre NOT saying they are all the same why do some men who honestly would never reoffend deserve longer scentences and some men who are good parents not deserve custody? Because they are being branded by what OTHER men do?

This isn't a case of men getting longer sentences. It's a case of women getting shorter sentences. Obviously, if you look back in history the sentences given were inhuman and they have been reduced as people began to become more civil and crime rates dropped. Seeing that the crime rates of women dropped down to such miniscule levels it was decided that there were no negative effects to reducing sentences on women. One thing you may not have realized is that to keep a person in prison costs money to the taxpayers. This is obviously a very big concern and if decreasing the sentences is going to save something around 50 billion dollars with absolutely no negative repercusions I would think it is an unwise government indeed that didn't even consider it.

Revolutionaryloser:

This isn't a case of men getting longer sentences. It's a case of women getting shorter sentences. Obviously, if you look back in history the sentences given were inhuman and they have been reduced as people began to become more civil and crime rates dropped. Seeing that the crime rates of women dropped down to such miniscule levels it was decided that there were no negative effects to reducing sentences on women. One thing you may not have realized is that to keep a person in prison costs money to the taxpayers. This is obviously a very big concern and if decreasing the sentences is going to save something around 50 billion dollars with absolutely no negative repercusions I would think it is an unwise government indeed that didn't even consider it.

It doesnt matter what way around this is. You think. That in a court of law. People should get. Different scentences. Because of what genetalia they own. You are a sexist. How can we even deny this.

It doesnt matter "how many people commit a murder from group A" you cant reduce the scentence based on that! If one woman in a single year, only one commited a murder it would be a scentence of ONE day apparently. It should be the same scentence as if a MAN commited a murder. As if anyone did. The fact that a minority or whatever commits it less does NOT affect how serious the crime is! And thus shouldnt affect societies repercussions for that action! Its pretty obvious too that scetence length isnt a deterrent because countries with the death penalty do not see reduced crime rates.

BiscuitTrouser:

Revolutionaryloser:

This isn't a case of men getting longer sentences. It's a case of women getting shorter sentences. Obviously, if you look back in history the sentences given were inhuman and they have been reduced as people began to become more civil and crime rates dropped. Seeing that the crime rates of women dropped down to such miniscule levels it was decided that there were no negative effects to reducing sentences on women. One thing you may not have realized is that to keep a person in prison costs money to the taxpayers. This is obviously a very big concern and if decreasing the sentences is going to save something around 50 billion dollars with absolutely no negative repercusions I would think it is an unwise government indeed that didn't even consider it.

It doesnt matter what way around this is. You think. That in a court of law. People should get. Different scentences. Because of what genetalia they own. You are a sexist. How can we even deny this. It doesnt matter "how many people commit a murder from group A" you cant reduce the scentence based on that! If one woman commited a murder it would be a scentence of ONE day. It would be the same scentence as if a MAN commited a murder. As if anyone did. The fact that a minority or whatever commits it less does NOT affect how serious the crime is! And thus shouldnt affect societies repercussions for that action! Its pretty obvious too that scetence length isnt a deterrent because countries with the death penalty do not see reduced crime rates.

So you are saying we should eliminate the prison system? You obviously have an alternative that works better so I'd like to hear it.

Revolutionaryloser:

BiscuitTrouser:

Revolutionaryloser:

This isn't a case of men getting longer sentences. It's a case of women getting shorter sentences. Obviously, if you look back in history the sentences given were inhuman and they have been reduced as people began to become more civil and crime rates dropped. Seeing that the crime rates of women dropped down to such miniscule levels it was decided that there were no negative effects to reducing sentences on women. One thing you may not have realized is that to keep a person in prison costs money to the taxpayers. This is obviously a very big concern and if decreasing the sentences is going to save something around 50 billion dollars with absolutely no negative repercusions I would think it is an unwise government indeed that didn't even consider it.

It doesnt matter what way around this is. You think. That in a court of law. People should get. Different scentences. Because of what genetalia they own. You are a sexist. How can we even deny this. It doesnt matter "how many people commit a murder from group A" you cant reduce the scentence based on that! If one woman commited a murder it would be a scentence of ONE day. It would be the same scentence as if a MAN commited a murder. As if anyone did. The fact that a minority or whatever commits it less does NOT affect how serious the crime is! And thus shouldnt affect societies repercussions for that action! Its pretty obvious too that scetence length isnt a deterrent because countries with the death penalty do not see reduced crime rates.

So you are saying we should eliminate the prison system? You obviously have an alternative that works better so I'd like to hear it.

Its called the nothing works theory. As long as a punishment is there of any kind crime falls somewhat but huge scentences dont deter anything since criminals never commit a crime on the basis of being caught. If this was the case wed see VERY low theft in countries where theft results in the loss of the hand. We do not. These people do NOT steal and think "what if my hand is chopped off?" They think "im going to steal and fuck me if im caught cus ill lose a hand, so ill just get away with it". No one assumes they will suffer the punishment. Thats the mindset of the criminal. There's huge amounts of evidence for this if youd like 10 or so links on the subject. I dont know what to replace it with. I just know it doesnt work. I can offer conclusions based on evidence but not solutions seeing as i know little about how to plan and build a law system.

And you ignored my other points? Cmon at least address the obvious sexism. The idea that "if a group commits less crimes scentences should be lower" is fucking lunatic. It doesnt even make any sense. So if ONE dangerous woman murders 90 people and thats the only women murder her scentence should be light? No! Its not about how many are doing it. Its about punishing those that do and hopefully reforming them. And splitting who gets what on basis of dick or vagina is sexist.

Matthew94:

It's things like this I dislike about feminists.

1. Men, no matter how much they seem themselves as a victim never see themselves as a minority. I have NEVER seen a man think they are in the minority, ever.

2. The way feminists twist issues so they are the victim. The 2nd quote just rings of the "women are the true victims of war" mentality.

Those ones are the nutty, vocal minority. Most of them are reasonable, sensible people who want a greater degree of equality.

BiscuitTrouser:

Revolutionaryloser:

BiscuitTrouser:

It doesnt matter what way around this is. You think. That in a court of law. People should get. Different scentences. Because of what genetalia they own. You are a sexist. How can we even deny this. It doesnt matter "how many people commit a murder from group A" you cant reduce the scentence based on that! If one woman commited a murder it would be a scentence of ONE day. It would be the same scentence as if a MAN commited a murder. As if anyone did. The fact that a minority or whatever commits it less does NOT affect how serious the crime is! And thus shouldnt affect societies repercussions for that action! Its pretty obvious too that scetence length isnt a deterrent because countries with the death penalty do not see reduced crime rates.

So you are saying we should eliminate the prison system? You obviously have an alternative that works better so I'd like to hear it.

Its called the nothing works theory. As long as a punishment is there of any kind crime falls somewhat but huge scentences dont deter anything since criminals never commit a crime on the basis of being caught. If this was the case wed see VERY low theft in countries where theft results in the loss of the hand. We do not. These people do NOT steal and think "what if my hand is chopped off?" They think "im going to steal and fuck me if im caught cus ill lose a hand, so ill just get away with it". No one assumes they will suffer the punishment. Thats the mindset of the criminal. There's huge amounts of evidence for this if youd like 10 or so links on the subject. I dont know what to replace it with. I just know it doesnt work. I can offer conclusions based on evidence but not solutions seeing as i know little about how to plan and build a law system.

And you ignored my other points? Cmon at least address the obvious sexism. The idea that "if a group commits less crimes scentences should be lower" is fucking lunatic. It doesnt even make any sense. So if ONE dangerous woman murders 90 people and thats the only women murder her scentence should be light? No! Its not about how many are doing it. Its about punishing those that do and hopefully reforming them. And splitting who gets what on basis of dick or vagina is sexist.

Correct me if I'm wrong but there isn't there death penalty in the US for a woman who kills 90 people? If so, wtf are you talking about?

Revolutionaryloser:

BiscuitTrouser:

Revolutionaryloser:

So you are saying we should eliminate the prison system? You obviously have an alternative that works better so I'd like to hear it.

Its called the nothing works theory. As long as a punishment is there of any kind crime falls somewhat but huge scentences dont deter anything since criminals never commit a crime on the basis of being caught. If this was the case wed see VERY low theft in countries where theft results in the loss of the hand. We do not. These people do NOT steal and think "what if my hand is chopped off?" They think "im going to steal and fuck me if im caught cus ill lose a hand, so ill just get away with it". No one assumes they will suffer the punishment. Thats the mindset of the criminal. There's huge amounts of evidence for this if youd like 10 or so links on the subject. I dont know what to replace it with. I just know it doesnt work. I can offer conclusions based on evidence but not solutions seeing as i know little about how to plan and build a law system.

And you ignored my other points? Cmon at least address the obvious sexism. The idea that "if a group commits less crimes scentences should be lower" is fucking lunatic. It doesnt even make any sense. So if ONE dangerous woman murders 90 people and thats the only women murder her scentence should be light? No! Its not about how many are doing it. Its about punishing those that do and hopefully reforming them. And splitting who gets what on basis of dick or vagina is sexist.

Correct me if I'm wrong but there isn't there death penalty in the US for a woman who kills 90 people? If so, wtf are you talking about?

Im confused as to what arguement you are trying to make, its good how you address one point to try and avoid the other good points as to why what you are saying is rediculous. Im saying that we punish and should punish based on action and not on how many of the groups that the criminal belong to tend to re offend or commit crimes.

Im saying that if we use your awesome idea that we should let women off with lighter scentences because less of them are criminals why shouldnt we, in this hypothetical scenario, punish this woman less. It was a hypothetical thing in which we had only a single woman in an entire year commit a terrible crime but using the logic that, if less are criminals scentences should be lighter, her punishment shouldnt be severe.

BiscuitTrouser:

Revolutionaryloser:

BiscuitTrouser:

Its called the nothing works theory. As long as a punishment is there of any kind crime falls somewhat but huge scentences dont deter anything since criminals never commit a crime on the basis of being caught. If this was the case wed see VERY low theft in countries where theft results in the loss of the hand. We do not. These people do NOT steal and think "what if my hand is chopped off?" They think "im going to steal and fuck me if im caught cus ill lose a hand, so ill just get away with it". No one assumes they will suffer the punishment. Thats the mindset of the criminal. There's huge amounts of evidence for this if youd like 10 or so links on the subject. I dont know what to replace it with. I just know it doesnt work. I can offer conclusions based on evidence but not solutions seeing as i know little about how to plan and build a law system.

And you ignored my other points? Cmon at least address the obvious sexism. The idea that "if a group commits less crimes scentences should be lower" is fucking lunatic. It doesnt even make any sense. So if ONE dangerous woman murders 90 people and thats the only women murder her scentence should be light? No! Its not about how many are doing it. Its about punishing those that do and hopefully reforming them. And splitting who gets what on basis of dick or vagina is sexist.

Correct me if I'm wrong but there isn't there death penalty in the US for a woman who kills 90 people? If so, wtf are you talking about?

Im confused as to what arguement you are trying to make, its good how you address one point to try and avoid the other good points as to why what you are saying is rediculous. Im saying that we punish and should punish based on action and not on how many of the groups that the criminal belong to tend to re offend or commit crimes.

Im saying that if we use your awesome idea that we should let women off with lighter scentences because less of them are criminals why shouldnt we, in this hypothetical scenario, punish this woman less. It was a hypothetical thing in which we had only a single woman in an entire year commit a terrible crime but using the logic that, if less are criminals scentences should be lighter, her punishment shouldnt be severe.

If you asked me, I would say that the prison system punishes women more harshly than men. As I said, I believe in prison as rehabilitation. Most women have to serve sentences longer than what it takes to rehabilitate them while men have much shorter sentences. That seems unfair to me.

Imagine that we installed a different system. Imagine that for any crime you committed, you were put in jail for however long it took to rehabilitate you, however after 5 years of no results you would get the death penalty. Notice how up until this point I haven't said anything about gender. However, with this system the majority of people going to death row would be men while women would not even need to stay the whole 5 years. Now I ask you. Which system is fairer? I think the system we have right now favours men. I obviously don't think it's ideal. I'm not very interested in the prison system mind you. I think looking at punishment and rehabilitation to solve social problems is a fatalistic and slow approach. I'm a much greater fan of actually educating people into being better citizens not tempted so easily by crime to solve their problems. A massive part of feminism deals with educating future generations to be better. The day men are taught to not be implusive retards and the crime rate drops will be the day we can have real equality.

Johnny Impact:

Loop Stricken:

Vault101:
I dont think anyone is "unpure" or "corrupted" if they have had sex

Bah, and I was all set on charging in yelling "Corrupt me, defile me, make me unpure, PLEASE!"

Well, you can still do that. In fact, put on some fake elf ears, wave an inflatable sword around, and call me "Kirkronicus the Terrible" while you do it, and you've got yourself a date.

........Wait, did I say that out loud?

Sounds like a plan. Your place or mine?

OT: LOLno. Getting involved in any of these gender/sex based threads just seems like a terrible, terrible idea. Good day.

Sorry if this is seen as low content but the the only thing I have to say is "lol, teenage problems". This isn't an issue to anyone whose grown up.

I don't shame people for having sex with lots of people, but I do look down on it, for both sexes. I can't help it, but to me, sex is something important, and it should be about connecting and sharing vulnerability with somebody you care about. Sure, a lot of people would probably think I'm a dinosaur for that outlook, but I don't care. Just like they shouldn't care about what I think.

Raven's Nest:
Sorry if this is seen as low content but the the only thing I have to say is "lol, teenage problems". This isn't an issue to anyone whose grown up.

I'd argue its especially an issue to those who have grown up and are still virgins ;)

Otherwise kinda agree with OPs assessment, for women having too many sexual partners is frowned upon and can be looked down via slut shaming. The male equivalent is indeed virgin shaming which is rife with stigma (look at the poster i just quoted who dismisses it as merely a problem for teenage males, that once you past that stage it's obvious all guys got laid cos thats what us guys do, put our dick in things) and follows its own protocols and stereotypes.

Revolutionaryloser:

BiscuitTrouser:

Revolutionaryloser:

Correct me if I'm wrong but there isn't there death penalty in the US for a woman who kills 90 people? If so, wtf are you talking about?

Im confused as to what arguement you are trying to make, its good how you address one point to try and avoid the other good points as to why what you are saying is rediculous. Im saying that we punish and should punish based on action and not on how many of the groups that the criminal belong to tend to re offend or commit crimes.

Im saying that if we use your awesome idea that we should let women off with lighter scentences because less of them are criminals why shouldnt we, in this hypothetical scenario, punish this woman less. It was a hypothetical thing in which we had only a single woman in an entire year commit a terrible crime but using the logic that, if less are criminals scentences should be lighter, her punishment shouldnt be severe.

If you asked me, I would say that the prison system punishes women more harshly than men. As I said, I believe in prison as rehabilitation. Most women have to serve sentences longer than what it takes to rehabilitate them while men have much shorter sentences. That seems unfair to me.

Imagine that we installed a different system. Imagine that for any crime you committed, you were put in jail for however long it took to rehabilitate you, however after 5 years of no results you would get the death penalty. Notice how up until this point I haven't said anything about gender. However, with this system the majority of people going to death row would be men while women would not even need to stay the whole 5 years. Now I ask you. Which system is fairer? I think the system we have right now favours men. I obviously don't think it's ideal. I'm not very interested in the prison system mind you. I think looking at punishment and rehabilitation to solve social problems is a fatalistic and slow approach. I'm a much greater fan of actually educating people into being better citizens not tempted so easily by crime to solve their problems. A massive part of feminism deals with educating future generations to be better. The day men are taught to not be implusive retards and the crime rate drops will be the day we can have real equality.

This is getting rediculous. Men get 40% more jail time. Women get a LOT of breaks in the eyes of the law. How can you say that the prison system is UNFAIR TO WOMEN WHEN IT SO OBVIOUSLY DISCRIMINATES AGAINST MEN. You are falling back on your "all men are thieves" bigotry and it just doesnt hold in intellectual discussion. Prove it. Prove this "the majority of people going to death row would be men while women would not even need to stay the whole 5 years" is any more than wishfull thinking and guesswork.

http://www.womeninprison.org.uk/statistics.php

"51% of women leaving prison are reconvicted within one year - for those serving sentences of less than 12 months this increases to 62%. For those women who have served more than 10previous custodial sentences the reoffending raterises to 88%."

Looks like we are going to have quite a few women on death row in your system aye?

Please tell me where i am going wrong.

1. You believe people in court should be treated differently based on their genetalia due to the average actions of people with said genetalia.

2. They should be grouped together and punished/tried seperately in these groups and be viewed as different in the eyes of the law.

3. Its ok to generalise that men are usually worse and as such punish them more.

4. The above system is unfair to women since men deserve this punishment and more while women deserve lighter scentences than they already get, 40% isnt enough.

Lets get one thing very straight. You dont want men to be treated the same as women. You dont want them to be equal and the same in law. You want inequality between men and women. That is sexist. How can you possibly refute this. You havnt even tried once.

This is loony.

BiscuitTrouser:

Revolutionaryloser:

BiscuitTrouser:

Im confused as to what arguement you are trying to make, its good how you address one point to try and avoid the other good points as to why what you are saying is rediculous. Im saying that we punish and should punish based on action and not on how many of the groups that the criminal belong to tend to re offend or commit crimes.

Im saying that if we use your awesome idea that we should let women off with lighter scentences because less of them are criminals why shouldnt we, in this hypothetical scenario, punish this woman less. It was a hypothetical thing in which we had only a single woman in an entire year commit a terrible crime but using the logic that, if less are criminals scentences should be lighter, her punishment shouldnt be severe.

If you asked me, I would say that the prison system punishes women more harshly than men. As I said, I believe in prison as rehabilitation. Most women have to serve sentences longer than what it takes to rehabilitate them while men have much shorter sentences. That seems unfair to me.

Imagine that we installed a different system. Imagine that for any crime you committed, you were put in jail for however long it took to rehabilitate you, however after 5 years of no results you would get the death penalty. Notice how up until this point I haven't said anything about gender. However, with this system the majority of people going to death row would be men while women would not even need to stay the whole 5 years. Now I ask you. Which system is fairer? I think the system we have right now favours men. I obviously don't think it's ideal. I'm not very interested in the prison system mind you. I think looking at punishment and rehabilitation to solve social problems is a fatalistic and slow approach. I'm a much greater fan of actually educating people into being better citizens not tempted so easily by crime to solve their problems. A massive part of feminism deals with educating future generations to be better. The day men are taught to not be implusive retards and the crime rate drops will be the day we can have real equality.

This is getting rediculous. Men get 40% more jail time. Women get a LOT of breaks in the eyes of the law. How can you say that the prison system is UNFAIR TO WOMEN WHEN IT SO OBVIOUSLY DISCRIMINATES AGAINST MEN. You are falling back on your "all men are thieves" bigotry and it just doesnt hold in intellectual discussion. Prove it. Prove this "the majority of people going to death row would be men while women would not even need to stay the whole 5 years" is any more than wishfull thinking and guesswork.

http://www.womeninprison.org.uk/statistics.php

"51% of women leaving prison are reconvicted within one year - for those serving sentences of less than 12 months this increases to 62%. For those women who have served more than 10previous custodial sentences the reoffending raterises to 88%."

Looks like we are going to have quite a few women on death row in your system aye?

Please tell me where i am going wrong.

1. You believe people in court should be treated differently based on their genetalia due to the average actions of people with said genetalia.

2. They should be grouped together and punished/tried seperately in these groups and be viewed as different in the eyes of the law.

3. Its ok to generalise that men are usually worse and as such punish them more.

4. The above system is unfair to women since men deserve this punishment and more while women deserve lighter scentences than they already get, 40% isnt enough.

Lets get one thing very straight. You dont want men to be treated the same as women. You dont want them to be equal and the same in law. You want inequality between men and women. That is sexist. How can you possibly refute this. You havnt even tried once.

This is loony.

You realize you want women to rot in prison longer because it will make you feel better and not because it will a sort of benefit, right?

Revolutionaryloser:

You realize you want women to rot in prison longer because it will make you feel better and not because it will a sort of benefit, right?

I realize i want both men and women to spend the appropriate time in prison decided by the nature of their crime rather than the time being assumed from what is between their legs. No one is generalised, everyone is analysed and imprisoned accordingly. You have yet to provide any evidence that women reform faster. I provided evidence they do not. Your move.

BiscuitTrouser:

Revolutionaryloser:

You realize you want women to rot in prison longer because it will make you feel better and not because it will a sort of benefit, right?

I realize i want both men and women to spend the appriate time in prison decided by the nature of their crime rather than the time being assumed from what is between their legs. You have yet to provide any evidence that women reform faster. I provided evidence they do not. Your move.

But I just explained to you why they do spend the appropriate time in jail according to how long it takes to make sure they don't commit the crime again and how serious the punishment has to be to disuade potential criminals from breaking the law because they deemed it as worth it. FYI, the amount of time you spend in jail isn't decided by the nature of the crime; the only people who still think that is a good idea are islamic extremists.

Revolutionaryloser:

BiscuitTrouser:

Revolutionaryloser:

You realize you want women to rot in prison longer because it will make you feel better and not because it will a sort of benefit, right?

I realize i want both men and women to spend the appriate time in prison decided by the nature of their crime rather than the time being assumed from what is between their legs. You have yet to provide any evidence that women reform faster. I provided evidence they do not. Your move.

But I just explained to you why they do spend the appropriate time in jail according to how long it takes to make sure they don't commit the crime again and how serious the punishment has to be to disuade potential criminals from breaking the law because they deemed it as worth it. FYI, the amount of time you spend in jail isn't decided by the nature of the crime; the only people who still think that is a good idea are islamic extremists.

Nonsense the implication there was the nature of the crime is a good indication of if you will reoffend. Notice i said "nature" not "what the crime was and nothing else". A sadistic phycopathic murderer will likely reoffend. Someone doing a one off illegal thing probably wont. Its about motivation and context when i say "nature". People should be jugded based on what was commited, why it was commited and how it was commited and then punished accordingly.

Ive already shown harshness of punishment doesnt prevent crime. I have already asked you to demonstrate that women always reform faster than men and that rather than judging each individual seperately and free of gender roles its better for everyone to assume based on gender and set punishments like that. You have not.

http://inthenews.berkeleylawblogs.org/2009/11/04/jonathan-simon-says-harsh-punishments-dont-deter-crime/

There are literally HUNDREDS of articles showing harsh punishments dont deter criminals.

It also looks like we are Islamic Extremists seeing as we punish murderers more than shoplifters despite the fact the murderer might not ever do it again and the shoplifter will.

Why is the gender role of "cant cook" wrong but the gender role of "criminal and bad father" ok?

And again i would ask would it be fair to give black people harsher scentences because they reoffend more and commit more crimes?

BiscuitTrouser:

Revolutionaryloser:

BiscuitTrouser:

I realize i want both men and women to spend the appriate time in prison decided by the nature of their crime rather than the time being assumed from what is between their legs. You have yet to provide any evidence that women reform faster. I provided evidence they do not. Your move.

But I just explained to you why they do spend the appropriate time in jail according to how long it takes to make sure they don't commit the crime again and how serious the punishment has to be to disuade potential criminals from breaking the law because they deemed it as worth it. FYI, the amount of time you spend in jail isn't decided by the nature of the crime; the only people who still think that is a good idea are islamic extremists.

Nonsense the implication there was the nature of the crime is a good indication of if you will reoffend. Notice i said "nature" not "what the crime was and nothing else". A sadistic phycopathic murderer will likely reoffend. Someone doing a one off illegal thing probably wont. Its about motivation and context when i say "nature". People should be jugded based on what was commited, why it was commited and how it was commited and then punished accordingly.

Ive already shown harshness of punishment doesnt prevent crime. I have already asked you to demonstrate that women always reform faster than men and that rather than judging each individual seperately and free of gender roles its better for everyone to assume based on gender and set punishments like that. You have not.

http://inthenews.berkeleylawblogs.org/2009/11/04/jonathan-simon-says-harsh-punishments-dont-deter-crime/

There are literally HUNDREDS of articles showing harsh punishments dont deter criminals.

It also looks like we are Islamic Extremists seeing as we punish murderers more than shoplifters despite the fact the murderer might not ever do it again and the shoplifter will.

Why is the gender role of "cant cook" wrong but the gender role of "criminal and bad father" ok?

And again i would ask would it be fair to give black people harsher scentences because they reoffend more and commit more crimes?

Well, as you have said then, that is how the la works so I don't see the problem. And it's interesting that you have apparently proven that the prison system is useless. If it is as useless as you claim it is I don't know why you want the punishment for women raised instead of the whole thing abolished. It's funny though, I must be completely crazy because I often want to punch people or take things that aren't mine just to realize if I did so I would probably be punished which effectively deters me from doing so. Weird, isn't it?

And just to clarify, we punish murder more harshly than shoplifting because we are making a larger effort to prevent it seeing that it has much more negative consequences, not that I expected you to understand the nuances of social order or anything.

Criminals and bad fathers isn't a gender role. It is a reality that the world has had to adjust to. Nobody sat down and said "men are bad fathers so we should take away their kids" rather "we have all these fatherless kids and we have to find some way of protecting them so we will just have to concede full responsibility to their mother's who are physically obliged to take care of them". It is a reality that men have unwittingly laid upon themselves. It wasn't the product of anyone's discrimination. It's the product of the direct repercusions of their own actions. Women don't get custody because they want to. They take it because they have to because men refused to take it in the first place and given that the birth was recorded they can't turn round and pretend those children aren't their sons which is a right men have fought long and hard for for millenia.

Again, because you can't read very well I'll just have to say it in simple words. We don't increase sentences, we reduce them. Black men's sentences are the same as white men's sentences because neither have reduced their crime rates sufficiently for it to be deemed safe for the sentences to be reduced without crime rates skyrocketing.

Owyn_Merrilin:

Actually, the dildo was invented millennia ago. The vibrator was a Victorian invention. (Almost) all vibrators are dildos; not anywhere near all dildos are (or were, at any rate) vibrators. Other than that, I don't really have anything to disagree with in this post.

Just to nit-pick, the Victorian period was roughly 150 years ago, not 1000.

Revolutionaryloser:

Well, as you have said then, that is how the la works so I don't see the problem. And it's interesting that you have apparently proven that the prison system is useless. If it is as useless as you claim it is I don't know why you want the punishment for women raised instead of the whole thing abolished. It's funny though, I must be completely crazy because I often want to punch people or take things that aren't mine just to realize if I did so I would probably be punished which effectively deters me from doing so. Weird, isn't it?

And just to clarify, we punish murder more harshly than shoplifting because we are making a larger effort to prevent it seeing that it has much more negative consequences, not that I expected you to understand the nuances of social order or anything.

Criminals and bad fathers isn't a gender role. It is a reality that the world has had to adjust to. Nobody sat down and said "men are bad fathers so we should take away their kids" rather "we have all these fatherless kids and we have to find some way of protecting them so we will just have to concede full responsibility to their mother's who are physically obliged to take care of them". It is a reality that men have unwittingly laid upon themselves. It wasn't the product of anyone's discrimination. It's the product of the direct repercusions of their own actions. Women don't get custody because they want to. They take it because they have to because men refused to take it in the first place and given that the birth was recorded they can't turn round and pretend those children aren't their sons which is a right men have fought long and hard for for millenia.

Again, because you can't read very well I'll just have to say it in simple words. We don't increase sentences, we reduce them. Black men's sentences are the same as white men's sentences because neither have reduced their crime rates sufficiently for it to be deemed safe for the sentences to be reduced without crime rates skyrocketing.

Youre getting rather insulting but sure ill keep biting.

I havnt shown the prison system is useless. Reform works. But harshness of punishment doesnt change the criminal mindset. You dont have the criminal mindset. These people do not care about consequences and its a well accepted fact that making all punishments extremely severe doesnt stop crime 100%. Only the desperate or the oppertunistic are truely criminals, both either dont think theres any chance of being caught or dont care if they are because they think they have no other option.

A punishment and reform system does reduce crime by making those with little motivation not commit crimes. However this group of people with the "criminal" mindset will commit crimes regardless of what the punishment is. See what im saying here? The existance of any punishment system will deter some. However that isnt the group im talking about, there is a sizable group of people with the mindset that means no matter how harsh the punishment they still commit crimes. Harshness cannot deter these people. And it never will. I said nowhere its useless, thats putting words into my mouth. Im talking about this group of people.

The second paragraph builds on the idea that harshness = deterrence which is wrong. Again.

"men have unwittingly laid upon themselves" You keep saying this like all men brought it on all men. This is false. Some men brought it on all men which is sexism and unfair. You seem to have this idea that we need to adjust things by generalising and sterotyping because "thats the way most are". This is nonsense. You havnt yet proved this sexist and obviously wrong system is better than personally judging each person irrespective of gender for competance as a father and giving custody like that, instead saying that because some people as a group did it we "brought it on ourselves" which is complete bullshit. No good father brought this on themselves. Innocents suffer because youre using a blunt and crude system of assumption to do things rather than ya know treating each person like an individual.

Ill even accept that in some circumstances MOST even the MAJORITY of men can do something. That STILL gives no right to generalise the rest of them based on that.

"They take it because they have to because men refused to take it in the first place"

This says nothing for the father who wants to see his kids after a divorce but is denied because courts favor women despite being a good dad. This isnt fair. This is sexist. He did not "bring that on himself". No group he is affiliated with "brought that on him". It isnt fair to be jugded for owning a cock because other cock owners didnt accept their kids. This guy is accepting his. And this guys getting denied. And that isnt his fault. Why use such a blunt and crude system. Its rediculous and theres no reason to keep it around.

"neither have reduced their crime rates sufficiently for it to be deemed safe for the sentences to be reduced without crime rates skyrocketing."

Reducing scentences wouldnt make crime rates skyrocket. Its just a fact. The idea that women are "safe" and we can let them off easier for murder is just insanity. If a women is a murderer she is just as dangerous and just as likely to re offend as if a man did it under the same circumstances. Youll probably refute this but the chance youll show any evidence other than "men are natural born criminals" or other biggotted crap is unlikely. This means the scentence for both should be the same.

Alright lets call it a hypothetical scenario: In this world white people basically dont commit crimes. Can we reduce their scentence now? What about gay people who in this world commit no crimes? Or people with blue eyes, same deal? Can we reduce theirs in this hypothetical world? What if im in both?

Colour-Scientist:

Owyn_Merrilin:

Actually, the dildo was invented millennia ago. The vibrator was a Victorian invention. (Almost) all vibrators are dildos; not anywhere near all dildos are (or were, at any rate) vibrators. Other than that, I don't really have anything to disagree with in this post.

Just to nit-pick, the Victorian period was roughly 150 years ago, not 1000.

I don't think he referenced the vibrator as being 1,000 years old. I think he meant the dildo was around since prehistoric times, which it has. Its actually older than 1,000.

LilithSlave:
Snip

Ok I really don't get your point, Slut and virgin shaming exists for both genders and is looked down upon by both genders, As it should, looking down on some one for any reason is a dick move. I do think you need to word your argument better, Not using the word 'Minority' properly, and the whole 'Women should not be expected to not have sex, and men should not be expected to have sex.' suggests you think the situation should be reversed which would be just as bad. Lastly you really need to be less condescending, through out the thread I've read you saying things like "Then you'll stay ignorant of the truth.", seriously, this is arrogant, do you think your self some sort of oracle with all the answers, what you have is opinion (which is absolutely fine) not fact. Honestly, reading alot of the posts I was reminded of this.
http://philebersole.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/sheeple.png

Loop Stricken:

zelda2fanboy:
When I tell men I don't drink (and never have) they look at me like I have three heads.

I agreed with you completely in your previous post, but man... you don't drink?!
You're clearly not from the UK then.

I'm from the UK, I don't drink, EVERYONE COME LOOK AT THE CRAZY MAN.

Sober Thal:
-'virgin shaming'-

Well, to be honest, if you (anyone) is a virgin, then you have yet to experience an important part of life.

This stuff right here is worse because it doesn't look like virgin shaming but the underlining idea is still there. And also from what I can tell, you are not a god, so who are you to say what a fundamental part of life is or isn't. This attitude is just as damaging as any other form of pier pressure, weather it be for sex, alcohol, or skydiving.
This mind set is just inherently stupid any way, to put value on one arbatry and ultimately pointless action is just dum.

I have to admit that I have only read the first few pages but this thread seems a bit hypercritical, to a one point say 'Grrrrrr dam sexism' and then assign particular traits to a given gender is... well.... sexist, and to make blanket statements about entire groups is further evidence of that. This isn't a gender issue, this is a societal issue.

Sorry for the text wall but just one more point, to those sujesting men are the cause and root of all these problems, just shut up, I'm sick of this kind of feminist spewing bullshit, and no that note, feminists, you need to clean up your ranks because it's not men who are hurting your cause it's hate filled idiots using your name. One final, final point, if feminists want equality why are they called FEMinists? '
"I'm sick of all this racial in equality, I'm guna start a white people are awesome movement, that wont get used by racists in any way!"

Ignoring the massive amount of arguing going on, I merely would like to point out something personal that I have experienced and sorta contradicts some of what's been said, mostly that it's a high-school/teenage problem.

The tension to have sex may be high there, possibly at it's highest throughout life. But at least for me, High school was not the end of people belittling me for the fact that I have not gotten laid. It's been more than a few years since I've been out of high-school and into the real world and co-workers, friends, people around me are still generally always interested in who sleeps with who. It doesn't end as you grow up, depending, I think, on where you live and your social circle.

Recently my girlfriend broke up with me after a relationship of some years. We hadn't had sex due to her reservations about it and I was fine with that. I wasn't a fan at first but I grew to be genuinely okay with it. Her companionship was far more important to me than just getting some. However every time I crashed at her place or she stayed with me, invariably the first question out of my friends' mouths was: "So did you get any?!". It makes me facepalm to this day. Even recently when I told them while we were playing a few rounds of Magic at a friend's house the first reaction after a moment of silence was "you shoulda poked that". No offering of condolences, not even an attempt to share in my lament that a valued partner and great comfort in my life is gone, just the regret that I hadn't gotten any sex. Ugh.

I have yet to understand, and doubt I ever will, the rampant fascination with sex. It doesn't just exist as a teenager, it exists at almost all levels of life. I have been looked at weird and questioned by guys in their forties and fifties because when they say "there's a hot girl over there!" I simply respond with "busy doing work, don't care.". I enjoy the possibility of sex, I have my own quirks and things in regards to such. But it need not be, and I am getting tired of people demanding it be, a central tenant in my everyday life. I have enough problems on my plate without worrying about the fact that I don't have someone I can bed tonight.

Revolutionaryloser:

Fawxy:

Revolutionaryloser:
Is it necessary? The harsh truth is that this is necessary and until a culture arises where men aren't for some reason natural born criminals then the system isn't going to change. It is my belief that feminism holds the answer to cure the criminal impulses of men.

You're insane. Straight-up, off the walls, loony-bin-worthy insane.

Is it OK to say that all blacks are born criminals? Is it OK to say that all Mexicans are born drug dealers? Is it OK to say that all white people are born bigoted rednecks?

No, it's not, because those are dirty fucking stereotypes perpetrated by hateful idiots. And that's exactly what you're doing here.

Get your head straight.

It's not my fault. I'm just saying that women lack the instinctive reactionary nature that men developed over millions of years that makes them more prone to committing crimes without considering the long term consequences. As I also said, women take much less time to rehabilitate and I'm a supporter of the prison system being a system of rehabilitation over a system of punishment. Once somebody is capable of functioning as a decent human being and does not show signs of going back into crime there is not much reason to keep them locked up. Of course, it's a divided issue what the nature of the prison system is. In polls usually we get about 50% voting for punishhment and 50% voting for rehabilitation. This means the government compromises and as such, there are very many cases of people who have to stay in jail much longer than they need to rehabilitate and there are cases of people who have a relatively short stay that is not enough for their rehabilitation.

This isn't something I decided. I don't see why I'm the one that should be called crazy.

You are a sexist, topic-changing bigot.

You said, and I QUOTE: "men [are] natural-born criminals". DON'T CHANGE THE SUBJECT to something completely unrelated in an attempt to save face. THIS IS SEXISM. YOU ARE SEXIST.

Stop trying to justify your bigotry.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked