"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
 

*Vomits*

Oh. One of THESE threads. Joy.

I know that people on both sides love the gender specific nouns and adjectives, but it makes you look like uncompromising nutcases when you go tossing around such loaded and isolating language. I appreciate what you are trying to say, Lillith, but it comes across in an incredibly grating way to those who don't already share your views (at least on the gender divide).

Can we all agree on something? Every human being on earth has it bad in some way, is discriminated and hated in some way. Men have it bad. Women have it bad. Children, old people, Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, Asians, the rich, the poor, the ugly, the beautiful, the smart, and the dumb... everyone.

Do women have it harder than men in some fields? Hell yes! That does not, however, mean that a majority of men is not also harmed by the very same perceived "advantage". Using language such as "Patriarchy" is an inherently male-linked word. It has a male history and a male origin. You cannot say something is "patriarchal" without implying patriarchy, which conjures images of a shadowy male conspiracy. This, in turn, means that you cannot say "oh, but some women also encourage patriarchy" without playing them off as unwitting pawns of their societal upbringing... the poor servants of an exclusively male conspiracy. No matter how you look at it, that is going to raise hackles on all sides. Unless you wish to give a definition of terms at the beginning of your post with extensive explanations of each, it is more diplomatic and engendering of a proper discussion to simply use "society" in place of "patriarchal society".

Particularly, when the majority of men I know feel more oppressed and injured by the assumptions of the so-called "patriarchal society", it is no longer an apt term. You cannot honestly say an aspect of culture is geared towards male-advantage, "patriarchal", when that advantage is viewed as damaging by those who receive it. To use a poor analogy, it would be like saying that a law was patriarchal because all men were decreed to be buried under a mountain of gold. Yes, we are all suddenly rich beyond our wildest dreams (until the gold market crashes anyway), but we are also crushed to death.

Dense_Electric:

- Women usually get served first at restaurants, get into many clubs for free, get free drinks, while men rarely get such special treatment.

Just going to point this out: women are rarely asked first what they wish to order in restaurants, assuming that you look like a guy who is financially capable. The implicit assumption is that the male will offer both orders and handle any complications or additions. Even when the food is served, according to etiquette, neither party should start eating before all food is on the table and the server has left... meaning that this itself is a moot point. It is, in fact, another way in which men are treated preferentially. Free drinks are another thing like this; it's assumed that the man has more income to toss about and thus, in an objectifying way, should be paying for what he wants.

As for clubs? That tends to be bouncers trying to score points and keep competition out... it's just men being dicks to each other.

To sum that little bit up, while perhaps fiscally disadvantageous, it is by no means negatively discriminatory against men; unless you are in the camp that believe everyone should pay the same taxes regardless of income. This is, unfortunately, yet another (though minor) example of the inherent cultural assumption that men are, at least financially, superior to women. Assumptions of superiority are the exact opposite of discrimination in fact.

Starik20X6:
It's the 'lock and key' situation: a 'lock' that can be opened by any 'key' is a shitty lock, but a 'key' that can open lots of 'locks' is a great key.

Before anyone yells at me, I'm not saying it's right, in fact it's pretty bad. Women should be able to be as forward about enjoying sex just as much as men are, and virgin males shouldn't be shamed for their lack of sex. But thousands of years of society and millions of years of evolution have led to this, it's not something that's going to change overnight.

Everyone has pants (locks) and hands (keys). That's how people should be viewing that metaphor. And even then it's not a good metaphor. I've always hated that "argument".

Sucky thing about injustices of the world due to past generations ignorance and "how it use to be is better attitude" is hard to weed out in one generation or even several. Its the same case with casual racism or traditional gender roles that seem kind of irrelevant in a world where people can be more open to who they are and who they want to be. These kind of things will go away gradually (hopefully) then some other thing will be the big "this is the terrible thing about humans" will pop up and then that will be something that will be weeded out as the old things cycle back in. I even think one day if humans cycle enough everything will end up the opposite of the male dominated life that is slowly going away (unless we learn from history and don't repeat...wait nvm humans are dumb as a whole)

Sorry went off topic there I always end up projecting these things into more then just this is my stance and end up depressing myself XD

On topic (hopefully) I think peer pressure ,the root cause of all of this in my opinion (that and the whole past generations of human rights violations), is a terrible thing and honestly there not much that can be done about it besides ignore it all and go with what you want to do with yourself no matter what others say. Sad thing is this is more easier said then done like everyone here probably knows as this is a "nerd/geek/person of the internet persuasion" gathering place. Having less friends because you fight the peer pressure seems not worth it to most "normal people"(in quotation because normal in my opinion is a word that has little to no meaning.) because social creatures like being social(always see that as the sims social meter needing to be filled)

Also another variable in this is differences in the person which makes this whole thing an impossible equation (or rather a EXTREMELY hard one) Myself I don't like people or socialization but I see why some need it but I don't see the reason for gender roles or typical assignment of who someone should be. It's all pointless humans are just humans genders don't matter for anything besides biological things that are all just considered to be opposite because of humans need to make a coin have completely reverse sides for no other reason besides that is how are minds try and make sense of the world. Ya I did not stay on topic sorry about that hope any of you that made it this far got some kind of idea of what I was saying. Looks like dribble to me but meh maybe you guys understand where I am coming from lol

p.s I know that () don't go in normal wrighting but I always ocdly add them with extra info that I think needs to go in the middle of a sentence for no reason.

imperialwar:
Fair enough. Yes I realize there couldnt have been formal studies of our caveman ancestors.
So maybe fast forward a few thousand years to the beginning of recorded history with the ancient greeks, romans and egyptians. What kind of sexual institutions were in place then ? Possessing woman as prizes and spoils of war, a reflection of dominance by men. As women weren't allowed to fight. If a woman was caught cheating she was typically executed. If she slept around she was usually seen as a Harbinger and impure and sent to her death.
Im mostly trying to reflect the current sexual institutions in place arent far removed today as they probably should be. The thing we should ask is why.

That's definitely true. There have certainly been serious trends in recorded history when it comes to the roles of men and women. And those roles can still be identified today although not as extreme of course.

Even here I have to place a side-note though in that recorded history can be quite selective. Not saying these trends weren't present but what gets remembered is often the most extreme situations.

Most average people of those times aren't going to be remembered and I do wonder if amongst the vast majority of people in those times, the peasants so to speak, things were as unequal as the better recorded ruling castes.

It does seem rather impractical for your average farmer to go around executing cheating wives, locking up daughters and conquering women. And whilst this is entirely speculation I personally wouldn't be all too surprised if, amongst those people, things were somewhat more equal out of necessity.

Food had to be put on the table, survival was hard. Everyone was responsible for that, men and women both. Whilst there likely would still have been male dominance and such the extremities you mention could possibly have been luxuries that only the most powerful (and thus likeliest to be remembered) were able to afford.

This might even be a possible explanation of why these things persist to such an extent in modern society. We can easily afford them, no matter how sexist we are there'll still be food on the table.

Of course, all just speculation on my part. I could very easily be wrong.

ablac:
OK OP I want to ask about your first paragraph. Feminists don't recognise men's problems because "they realize that society is a patriarchy". It isnt. Your just a fucking moron who thinks that because they possess a pair of tits they are consistently discriminated against for totally impractical reasons. I want to have a long ass discussion and I can bet many of your dumbass feminist beliefs can be dismissed on account of practicality and, while there is certainly discrimination, it is not as widespread as you believe. Men arent a minority but nor are women. Just because you think half the fucking species(big generalisation there kind of, I dunno, sexist?) runs the country (it doesn't)that you are obliged to not recognise that men face problems as well especially in child care laws. Please explain to me how the hell men dont deserve the same rights as women in that regard as you infer this is correct or that it doesn't matter. I sympathise with reasonable feminists who can actually see where they are persecuted and where they are not and actually give a flying fuck about the fact that women, wrongfully, have superior rights to men in certain areas. If oyu overlook that then dont you dare complain about exclusivity and discrimination because you exercise it just as much.

1. Edit- made a mistake here. Ignore it. I don't understand profiles. Damn.
2. Gender roles and patriarchy are the reason for those problems that men face too. I really don't get how people always miss that.
3. When the fuck did child care come into this? Right now you're getting pissed off at someone for things they never said, never even addressed.
4. Society is still very patriarchal and men still are in charge. Not you certainly, but men. There are better examples I could come up with, but fuck it.

FUCK YOU RAV4!!!!

Revnak:
Women- make less money on average, are underrepresented in virtually all non-pornographic media, are objectified in a large portion of media, are obscenely underrepresented in positions of wealth and power, and the the most terribly impoverished type of family is the single female headed household, with women being vastly more likely to be impoverished. Yeah, that sounds like a minority to me. Sure they aren't being killed in the streets, but I sure as fuck am happy to be a man and not have to deal with all of that shit, and I certainly am willing to look at it as the problem that it is and try to deal with it.

I agree with most of what you said, and I think they're legitimate issues in need of fixing. But to call women a minority is to underestimate women, which could be called sexist if you wanted to get pedantic. They're not a minority, voting wise, or ability wise. That fundamentally dismisses their ability to act. If they are a minority, then the only way they can achieve equality is through the aid of some of the majority, ie men. That doesn't seema at all empowering.

They are unfairly discriminated against, there are unfortunate prejudices, and social customs, that need to be stopped. My point is, presenting an invalid comparison just makes people dismiss your claims. If you want to compare women to black people in South Africa, then you're going to be cut to shreds by anyone with a trace of reason. If you've got a logically sound, which is both a moral and ethical imperative, you don't need to damage it with hyperbole.

I've never gone for the whole "virgin" thing.

I've always had a thing for older women and those with a bit more "experience" just because they know what they are doing and it's damn good. And they have things to teach and i'm nothing if not a student of that particular art.

However, I would never abuse someone based on their sex life.

Mainly because I have kids and, as i've said around here before, they are staying virgins until they turn 40 or i'm dead whichever comes latest.

The only talk I ever gave my kids about sex is ... they are not getting any ... EVER.

I'm far too young and pretty to be a grandad.

Yeah I never understood that....Our society is so ass backwards and fucked up it's ridiculous. If a woman has sex a lot she's a slut, but if a guy does it he's a stud? Why can't she just be in command of her sex life or why can't he be a slut? Their's really no difference besides one's an innie and one's and outie. Read Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and it's Sequels besides being a good read the main character is a great and complex female character. I think it's the first book that has in front of each chapter little tidbits about how women are abused in sweden and most people turn a blind eye. It really makes you think.

I'm tired so if anything I post seems odd or rambling it's just cause my brain is trying to sleep and my hands won't shut up.

I never got Slut Shaming as I never thought it was my business what a woman was doing on her own time. And I think the point I figured out that it was pointless was when a boy in my school got a girl pregnant and he bragged about how much sex he got on the side to his friends and they...fucking cheered him on. Course that guy was the scum of the earth and if theirs any justice in the world he's now in jail with a large black man named Bubba. I know that's an example of a guy but it shows the horrid double standard. As when i saw that girl walk threw the halls she had her head cast down. I don't know if it was slut shaming or that she was just upset she got pregnant with that fuckheads kid. I know if I where in that situation I'd be grabbing a coat hanger.

And Virgin shaming just makes no bloody sense to me. "Ha ha you didn't fuck at first sight ha ha." Again none of mine and none of their business. The media is kinda to blame for this too look at just a few shows on TV and you'll see how Male Promiscuity is almost defied. Granted 'sex and the city' was just as guilty as doing that for women. (I object to the show as a whole not just that bit though.)

Bottom line fuck the haters. (not literally of course.)

LilithSlave:
There's plenty wrong though with expecting men to have a large sex drive. And thus 'slut shaming', or in the case of men, "virgin shaming".

But men do have larger sex drive, there are studies that proves it. I admit it the differences between both genders aren't that big, and man are easier to please than woman, but in the end it's still a fact than in general man have bigger sex drive.

LilithSlave:

And this sounds like another problem in society, the expectation for men to 'initiate' or 'be dominate', and a woman to 'be submissive'. The whole idea of male dominance like that screams of patriarchal thought.

Whose fault is that? I don't think it's either man or woman. Woman even expect to have some benefits, a user up there mentioned some.

Isn't sexual liberation meant to be an essential element of women's rights? Aren't "slut slammers" just parroting pre-lib patriarchal sobriquets?

Personally I think an experienced woman is extra sexy. A woman who enjoys sex, who enjoys my body and wants me to enjoy hers, is far more appealing than a woman who doesn't.

Sex is awesome, healthy and should be encouraged.

Loonyyy:

Revnak:
Women- make less money on average, are underrepresented in virtually all non-pornographic media, are objectified in a large portion of media, are obscenely underrepresented in positions of wealth and power, and the the most terribly impoverished type of family is the single female headed household, with women being vastly more likely to be impoverished. Yeah, that sounds like a minority to me. Sure they aren't being killed in the streets, but I sure as fuck am happy to be a man and not have to deal with all of that shit, and I certainly am willing to look at it as the problem that it is and try to deal with it.

I agree with most of what you said, and I think they're legitimate issues in need of fixing. But to call women a minority is to underestimate women, which could be called sexist if you wanted to get pedantic. They're not a minority, voting wise, or ability wise. That fundamentally dismisses their ability to act. If they are a minority, then the only way they can achieve equality is through the aid of some of the majority, ie men. That doesn't seema at all empowering.

They are unfairly discriminated against, there are unfortunate prejudices, and social customs, that need to be stopped. My point is, presenting an invalid comparison just makes people dismiss your claims. If you want to compare women to black people in South Africa, then you're going to be cut to shreds by anyone with a trace of reason. If you've got a logically sound, which is both a moral and ethical imperative, you don't need to damage it with hyperbole.

Minority should and must apply to any people who are, as part of a group, oppressed. Limiting that definition robs it of it's value as a term for promoting social change and understanding inequality. It is not insulting, it is fact.

Revnak:

2. Gender roles and patriarchy are the reason for those problems that men face too. I really don't get how people always miss that.

...because you and the OP have been using language which is incredibly charged and villainizes an entire 50% of the population. No matter what you reasons, your terminology is aggressive and will be perceived as such. Especially by those of us males who detest the notion of being clumped into a specific societal conception of gender, masculinity, or patriarchy.

[/quote]

See, this is what I was talking about earlier with the bad history. Ever hear of Lysistrata? It's a Greek play about how a war was stopped because the women refused to have sex with their husbands until they stopped fighting. I mean, yes, women were occasionally seen as spoils of war... but then so were men. Slavery was a thing, sex slavery was something both genders had to face (at least for the Greeks and, especially, the Romans), and in general, while things may have been sexist by modern standards, they weren't anywhere near as bad as we like to believe. They may have even been better in some respects.[/quote]

Actually no, i cant say ive heard of that play.
It's quite a novel way to fix a war :)
Yes I'm aware of male POWs as slaves, and particular strong male specimens used as breeding stock by female aristocracy.

Do you feel the Victorian era, being relatively recent, still has its hooks in today's outlook on sex ? I think religious connotations also have a significant influence. Christianities purity of sin, and aspects of Muslim women only being second class.

Anoni Mus:
But men do have larger sex drive, there are studies that proves it.

Well then! You'd be well to cite them!

Not to mention some studies have cultural biases that slip in. Or that come to faulty conclusions(the ever common "correlation does not equal causation" issue, for starters). There are plenty of cases like that. What I'm saying, is that just because there is a study out there, doesn't mean it's proven.

But either way, you haven't cited them. And I'm not inclined to believe you.

*shrug* I can't say I've witnessed either problem since leaving school. Teenagers are obnoxious to each other in all sorts of ways. I got far more abuse at school for not wearing makeup than I ever got for being a virgin (which was just as much a stigma for girls as it was for guys).

Even at university (hardly a bastion of adult behaviour!) most people were mature enough to realise that other people's sex lives (or lack of) are none of their god-damn business.

*blissful sigh* The adult world is nice.

As much as we'd all like to women and men are not the same. Especially not in the social standard department.

I'd love us all to be equals I really would, but in today's society, especially the one dominated by commercial stereotypes it just isn't viable on large scale, though it starts with yourself, so I do what I can.

Another thing holding it back is the extremely assertive standpoints of feminists, it's actually working against you. On the same levels as for say, PETA.

imperialwar:

snip

Double posting so you can get a notification. (To mods: there was a misplaced tag that made a nested quote completely broken. I've fixed it in my post, but it didn't fix the notification problem.)

Edit Edit: Aw crap, extra mixup here; I edited what I only meant to copy and paste from. New post going in below.

Anoni Mus:

LilithSlave:
There's plenty wrong though with expecting men to have a large sex drive. And thus 'slut shaming', or in the case of men, "virgin shaming".

But men do have larger sex drive, there are studies that proves it. I admit it the differences between both genders aren't that big, and man are easier to please than woman, but in the end it's still a fact than in general man have bigger sex drive.

LilithSlave:

And this sounds like another problem in society, the expectation for men to 'initiate' or 'be dominate', and a woman to 'be submissive'. The whole idea of male dominance like that screams of patriarchal thought.

Whose fault is that? I don't think it's either man or woman. Woman even expect to have some benefits, a user up there mentioned some.

There are an equal, or greater number, of studies which say the exact opposite. That, when protected by anonymity, women report higher sex-drives and urges than men protected by that same anonymity. The "males are hornier than women" studies I've seen haven't taken into account and attempted to minimize societal pressures... which no one is arguing encourages the "playa/virgin" dichotomy of the genders.

On a personal level, I don't go after promiscuous women for the same reason I wouldn't go after a promiscuous guy: I find sex to be a highly emotional act that I only have with someone I deeply care for. Having sex frequently and outside of relationships doesn't make you a lesser person in my eyes, it just makes you one with an at least apparently different morality than my own.

Damien Black:

Revnak:

2. Gender roles and patriarchy are the reason for those problems that men face too. I really don't get how people always miss that.

...because you and the OP have been using language which is incredibly charged and villainizes an entire 50% of the population. No matter what you reasons, your terminology is aggressive and will be perceived as such. Especially by those of us males who detest the notion of being clumped into a specific societal conception of gender, masculinity, or patriarchy.

Patriarchy isn't some vast conspiracy, it is a term used to describe the typical distribution of power and wealth within society. Whoever told you otherwise is a moron. This unjust distribution of power and wealth is the root of a major chunk of society's problems.

Anyone who isn't getting nookie is getting short changed me thinks.

on the topic though, people are still just as (or a teeny weeny less) primitive now as they were thousands of years ago....give them some more time.

Your or else self sufficient, a leech, or withering away....single or not....bottom line.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h71PxUz4_g0

Revnak:

ablac:
OK OP I want to ask about your first paragraph. Feminists don't recognise men's problems because "they realize that society is a patriarchy". It isnt. Your just a fucking moron who thinks that because they possess a pair of tits they are consistently discriminated against for totally impractical reasons. I want to have a long ass discussion and I can bet many of your dumbass feminist beliefs can be dismissed on account of practicality and, while there is certainly discrimination, it is not as widespread as you believe. Men arent a minority but nor are women. Just because you think half the fucking species(big generalisation there kind of, I dunno, sexist?) runs the country (it doesn't)that you are obliged to not recognise that men face problems as well especially in child care laws. Please explain to me how the hell men dont deserve the same rights as women in that regard as you infer this is correct or that it doesn't matter. I sympathise with reasonable feminists who can actually see where they are persecuted and where they are not and actually give a flying fuck about the fact that women, wrongfully, have superior rights to men in certain areas. If oyu overlook that then dont you dare complain about exclusivity and discrimination because you exercise it just as much.

1. OP is a man. I can neither confirm nor deny that Lilith has tits, but Lilith is a man.
2. Gender roles and patriarchy are the reason for those problems that men face too. I really don't get how people always miss that.
3. When the fuck did child care come into this? Right now you're getting pissed off at someone for things they never said, never even addressed.
4. Society is still very patriarchal and men still are in charge. Not you certainly, but men. There are better examples I could come up with, but fuck it.

FUCK YOU RAV4!!!!

Ok I should clarify although I thought I was pretty clear. Read the first paragraph. Mentions custody rights as a way men believe they are persecuted and dismisses them. That is truly insulting. I knwo this is about sexuality but that couldnt go ignored its simply too ignorant and to ignore it would make me feel like I was agreeing with him when he was blatantly wrong. I figured Lilith was a girl because he talks like a girl who knows sod all about guys. I still think from how he has responded in the thread that he is a girl because no guy would be that ignorant of their own gender. What she said about men having unequal rights (dismissing them) meant found it hard to take anything she said seriously and my post was about this attitude and ignorant feminism which this stemmed from. If you are going to make points like 2. and 4. then elaborate. Gender roles are the cause of the problem with custody laws but the OP dismissed female gender roles sometimes benefitting women being complained about by men. Patriarchy is a fallacy and you need to elaborate past making the point if your going to say something like that.

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

This is off topic, but I really had know idea that you were a lady Vault101; now I feel like I am meeting you for the first time.

Damien Black:
*Vomits*

Dense_Electric:

- Women usually get served first at restaurants, get into many clubs for free, get free drinks, while men rarely get such special treatment.

Just going to point this out: women are rarely asked first what they wish to order in restaurants, assuming that you look like a guy who is financially capable. The implicit assumption is that the male will offer both orders and handle any complications or additions. Even when the food is served, according to etiquette, neither party should start eating before all food is on the table and the server has left... meaning that this itself is a moot point. It is, in fact, another way in which men are treated preferentially.

Huh. In my experience the female members of my party almost always have their orders taken first. I'd say maybe it's a regional thing, but the part of Florida I'm from is the polar opposite of the American deep south, so I don't know.

Free drinks are another thing like this; it's assumed that the man has more income to toss about and thus, in an objectifying way, should be paying for what he wants.

Perhaps, but in that case it's a sweeping generalization. To assume that all men have such disposable income (or that no women do) is absurd.

As for clubs? That tends to be bouncers trying to score points and keep competition out... it's just men being dicks to each other.

That's probably true, and part of the reason I don't club - the bouncers in every single venue I've ever been to were phenomenal assholes who I'd like to shoot. I guess this merely heightens my desire to shoot them.

To sum that little bit up, while perhaps fiscally disadvantageous, it is by no means negatively discriminatory against men; unless you are in the camp that believe everyone should pay the same taxes regardless of income. This is, unfortunately, yet another (though minor) example of the inherent cultural assumption that men are, at least financially, superior to women. Assumptions of superiority are the exact opposite of discrimination in fact.

Negatively discriminatory or not (of course it's negative, I'm paying for something I could get for free if I'd happened to have been born with a vagina instead of a penis), discrimination is discrimination is discrimination.

Often times I bring up the restaurant/club/drink/door/whatever thing and people jump on me because it's "no big deal." But that line of thinking doesn't hold up - after all, how much effort was it for blacks to walk the extra twenty feet to the back of the bus? They didn't fight it because it was a huge inconvenience, they fought it because of the principle of the thing.

TheVioletBandit:

This is off topic, but I really had know idea that you were a lady Vault101; now I feel like I am meeting you for the first time.

Hi, Im Vault101 and Mass effect is my favorite game on the citadel...

nice to meet you :D

Revnak:

Damien Black:

Revnak:

2. Gender roles and patriarchy are the reason for those problems that men face too. I really don't get how people always miss that.

...because you and the OP have been using language which is incredibly charged and villainizes an entire 50% of the population. No matter what you reasons, your terminology is aggressive and will be perceived as such. Especially by those of us males who detest the notion of being clumped into a specific societal conception of gender, masculinity, or patriarchy.

Patriarchy isn't some vast conspiracy, it is a term used to describe the typical distribution of power and wealth within society. Whoever told you otherwise is a moron. This unjust distribution of power and wealth is the root of a major chunk of society's problems.

What your on about is elitism and wealth inequality. Wealth equals power, separate discussion on whether thats rights or not, and wealth resides with men because men are the most likely to become wealthy through business because of discrimination but also practical reasons. Women have kids or can have kids and thus are less attractive to employers and so have trouble getting into business. There are many women in business but thye have either inherited their role or started their own business. Discrimination is illegal but its difficult to outright claim sexism was the reasoning of a decision. Most employers can avoid hiring anyone they dont want to and this goes for most things with wealth and power.

I'm just going to step into this thread and state for the record that I'm a male virgin, and I'll be 28 in August.

In part because I have little interest in sex for the sake of sex, and largely because of low self-esteem not leading to any lasting relationships. Oh well. It's not my primary concern right now, though, since I'm trying to get back to school with university studies in order to become a teacher.

Reading LilithSlave's opening post, I didn't feel like I had anything to object to.

imperialwar:

Actually no, i cant say ive heard of that play.
It's quite a novel way to fix a war :)
Yes I'm aware of male POWs as slaves, and particular strong male specimens used as breeding stock by female aristocracy.

Do you feel the Victorian era, being relatively recent, still has its hooks in today's outlook on sex ? I think religious connotations also have a significant influence. Christianities purity of sin, and aspects of Muslim women only being second class.

The victorian era definitely still has bearing on the modern world, and it definitely was a high point for sexism -- at least as we view it today[1]. However, the rumors of its prudery have been greatly exaggerated. It seems like humans in general like to remember the past as a better time than the present (the fabled "good old days,") but also like to remember the people who have come before them as more primitive mentally, socially, and technologically, even in cases where none of the above are true.

Oh, by the way, the male sex slaves comment was actually aimed more at male masters of male slaves. The ancient Greeks and Romans had a very different view of sexuality than most westerners do today; to put a simplified form of the Roman view into modern terms, it's only gay if you're the one receiving, and freed slaves were assumed by society to have received at some point. Women didn't exactly have problems procuring sex either, but my point was that it wasn't only women who were taken by men as spoils of war, nor were they the only ones raped as a part of that.

[1] Many institutions that we see as sexist had a pretty logical basis in the reality of the times they came from; even dowries and bride prices were a good thing for both sexes in their heyday.

Bertylicious:
Isn't sexual liberation meant to be an essential element of women's rights? Aren't "slut slammers" just parroting pre-lib patriarchal sobriquets?

Personally I think an experienced woman is extra sexy. A woman who enjoys sex, who enjoys my body and wants me to enjoy hers, is far more appealing than a woman who doesn't.

Sex is awesome, healthy and should be encouraged.

UNless of course you have moral qualms about the whole promiscuity thing. To each his/her own but dont ecourage it if you dont want it actively discouraged either. Sexual liberation is a part of feminism sure but that doesnt mean they want to be promiscius but simply the right to be promiscius.

Owyn_Merrilin:

Stasisesque:

Owyn_Merrilin:

More to the point, "Hysteria" was a medical term for "horny woman," and orgasms -- the medical term for which was "hysterical paroxysm," were prescribed and given by doctors. Husbands actually paid money to have this done, and it was during the victorian era, where most of those anti-sex ideas that the hypothetical overbearing parents have would have come from. In this hypothetical situation, the overbearing parents would be lining up to pay for their daughter's orgasm. Long story short: History isn't quite as anti-woman as it's been made out to be. It's a lot weirder than that.

Captcha: Describe BOSE with any word(s)

Mid-fi and overpriced.

Erk, no, sorry. Hysteria was well known about during ancient Greece. The Victorian era brought about the invention of the clockwork dildo, and a lot more recording of the disease - but it had existed for centuries.

It had, but in the modern sense the victorian version is the one most people think of, and it is where we got the vibrator from. Besides, the "hysterical paroxysm" part, while not exactly unknown in ancient times, wasn't something that upper class women just paid a doctor to come in and give them; looking it up, and I was unaware that there was much more on the matter in ancient times than some characteristically misogynist remarks from Plato, the options were pretty much have sex with your husband, get a husband, or as an absolute last resort, get some help from a midwife. And even then, it's not exactly as sexless as most people think it was. Humans really haven't changed much over the millennia; we only think we're hypersexualized today because the steamy parts were the last thing your average historian wrote about.

Again, the vibrator was invented centuries before the Victorian era - it just required a bit of good ol' elbow grease to work, the Victorians simply added some of their much adored industrial strength to the long-since accepted method of relieving "female tension".

I agree that historians are the main reason we have so much dodgy male-bias in our records, but people fall victim to popular myth far more often than men have distorted the truth in books. I strongly believe we're at a point now where false information is far more at fault for misandrist views. The Ancient Greeks knew very well hysteria was sexual, the prescribed treatment was sex, or at least sexual release. The fact that they would turn the other cheek to a woman being treated by someone other than a husband is perhaps more progressive than some areas of the world today. The problem with the 19th century is that everything and its psychological cousin could be attributed to hysteria - so yes they did manage to jump back a bit in terms of progression, but less so concerning female sexuality and moreso concerning mental and emotional health. Men would also be diagnosed with female hysteria - when they more typically suffered from some other non-sexual mental disorder.

ablac:

Revnak:

ablac:
OK OP I want to ask about your first paragraph. Feminists don't recognise men's problems because "they realize that society is a patriarchy". It isnt. Your just a fucking moron who thinks that because they possess a pair of tits they are consistently discriminated against for totally impractical reasons. I want to have a long ass discussion and I can bet many of your dumbass feminist beliefs can be dismissed on account of practicality and, while there is certainly discrimination, it is not as widespread as you believe. Men arent a minority but nor are women. Just because you think half the fucking species(big generalisation there kind of, I dunno, sexist?) runs the country (it doesn't)that you are obliged to not recognise that men face problems as well especially in child care laws. Please explain to me how the hell men dont deserve the same rights as women in that regard as you infer this is correct or that it doesn't matter. I sympathise with reasonable feminists who can actually see where they are persecuted and where they are not and actually give a flying fuck about the fact that women, wrongfully, have superior rights to men in certain areas. If oyu overlook that then dont you dare complain about exclusivity and discrimination because you exercise it just as much.

1. OP is a man. I can neither confirm nor deny that Lilith has tits, but Lilith is a man.
2. Gender roles and patriarchy are the reason for those problems that men face too. I really don't get how people always miss that.
3. When the fuck did child care come into this? Right now you're getting pissed off at someone for things they never said, never even addressed.
4. Society is still very patriarchal and men still are in charge. Not you certainly, but men. There are better examples I could come up with, but fuck it.

FUCK YOU RAV4!!!!

Ok I should clarify although I thought I was pretty clear. Read the first paragraph. Mentions custody rights as a way men believe they are persecuted and dismisses them. That is truly insulting. I knwo this is about sexuality but that couldnt go ignored its simply too ignorant and to ignore it would make me feel like I was agreeing with him when he was blatantly wrong. I figured Lilith was a girl because he talks like a girl who knows sod all about guys. I still think from how he has responded in the thread that he is a girl because no guy would be that ignorant of their own gender. What she said about men having unequal rights (dismissing them) meant found it hard to take anything she said seriously and my post was about this attitude and ignorant feminism which this stemmed from. If you are going to make points like 2. and 4. then elaborate. Gender roles are the cause of the problem with custody laws but the OP dismissed female gender roles sometimes benefitting women being complained about by men. Patriarchy is a fallacy and you need to elaborate past making the point if your going to say something like that.

I apologize, I had not seen where Lilith mentioned that in passing, but the later sentences kind of explain why it is kind of strange to think Lilith is dismissing the problems that men have.
Winning custody cases is part of why women are so impoverished. Women are forced into the role of caregiver, which comes with a few benefits that actually aren't benefits at all. Women are both expected and allowed to be the nurturer within society according to current gender roles, meaning that while they win custody cases, it is in a way because they are being forced to win custody cases. This is the same reason that leads many women to aim to get pregnant despite being impoverished, they see raising children as a purpose, specifically theirs, and once they have a whole lot of mouths to feed and one salary to pay for it, they wind up even worse off than before. This also applies to single mothers as a product of divorce.

Damien Black:

Anoni Mus:

LilithSlave:
There's plenty wrong though with expecting men to have a large sex drive. And thus 'slut shaming', or in the case of men, "virgin shaming".

But men do have larger sex drive, there are studies that proves it. I admit it the differences between both genders aren't that big, and man are easier to please than woman, but in the end it's still a fact than in general man have bigger sex drive.

LilithSlave:

And this sounds like another problem in society, the expectation for men to 'initiate' or 'be dominate', and a woman to 'be submissive'. The whole idea of male dominance like that screams of patriarchal thought.

Whose fault is that? I don't think it's either man or woman. Woman even expect to have some benefits, a user up there mentioned some.

There are an equal, or greater number, of studies which say the exact opposite. That, when protected by anonymity, women report higher sex-drives and urges than men protected by that same anonymity. The "males are hornier than women" studies I've seen haven't taken into account and attempted to minimize societal pressures... which no one is arguing encourages the "playa/virgin" dichotomy of the genders.

On a personal level, I don't go after promiscuous women for the same reason I wouldn't go after a promiscuous guy: I find sex to be a highly emotional act that I only have with someone I deeply care for. Having sex frequently and outside of relationships doesn't make you a lesser person in my eyes, it just makes you one with an at least apparently different morality than my own.

LilithSlave:

Anoni Mus:
But men do have larger sex drive, there are studies that proves it.

Well then! You'd be well to cite them!

Not to mention some studies have cultural biases that slip in. Or that come to faulty conclusions(the ever common "correlation does not equal causation" issue, for starters). There are plenty of cases like that. What I'm saying, is that just because there is a study out there, doesn't mean it's proven.

But either way, you haven't cited them. And I'm not inclined to believe you.

How do you know if the studies are correct or not?

Fact is, if you google sex drive gender differences or something similar, most studies shows that man have more sex drive, so we can consider it as a fact. At least admit it man do think more about sex.

And if you are the one disagreeing with such studies, you have to prove otherwise.

Stasisesque:

Owyn_Merrilin:

Stasisesque:

Erk, no, sorry. Hysteria was well known about during ancient Greece. The Victorian era brought about the invention of the clockwork dildo, and a lot more recording of the disease - but it had existed for centuries.

It had, but in the modern sense the victorian version is the one most people think of, and it is where we got the vibrator from. Besides, the "hysterical paroxysm" part, while not exactly unknown in ancient times, wasn't something that upper class women just paid a doctor to come in and give them; looking it up, and I was unaware that there was much more on the matter in ancient times than some characteristically misogynist remarks from Plato, the options were pretty much have sex with your husband, get a husband, or as an absolute last resort, get some help from a midwife. And even then, it's not exactly as sexless as most people think it was. Humans really haven't changed much over the millennia; we only think we're hypersexualized today because the steamy parts were the last thing your average historian wrote about.

Again, the vibrator was invented centuries before the Victorian era - it just required a bit of good ol' elbow grease to work, the Victorians simply added some of their much adored industrial strength to the long-since accepted method of relieving "female tension".

I agree that historians are the main reason we have so much dodgy male-bias in our records, but people fall victim to popular myth far more often than men have distorted the truth in books. I strongly believe we're at a point now where false information is far more at fault for misandrist views. The Ancient Greeks knew very well hysteria was sexual, the prescribed treatment was sex, or at least sexual release. The fact that they would turn the other cheek to a woman being treated by someone other than a husband is perhaps more progressive than some areas of the world today. The problem with the 19th century is that everything and its psychological cousin could be attributed to hysteria - so yes they did manage to jump back a bit in terms of progression, but less so concerning female sexuality and moreso concerning mental and emotional health. Men would also be diagnosed with female hysteria - when they more typically suffered from some other non-sexual mental disorder.

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.

Vault101:

TheVioletBandit:

This is off topic, but I really had know idea that you were a lady Vault101; now I feel like I am meeting you for the first time.

Hi, Im Vault101 and Mass effect is my favorite game on the citadel...

nice to meet you :D

Well, I'm TheVioletBandit and my favorite game is probably Shadow of the Colossus, though it's hard to choose a favorite. Nevertheless, it's very nice to meet you as well.

ablac:

Revnak:

Damien Black:

...because you and the OP have been using language which is incredibly charged and villainizes an entire 50% of the population. No matter what you reasons, your terminology is aggressive and will be perceived as such. Especially by those of us males who detest the notion of being clumped into a specific societal conception of gender, masculinity, or patriarchy.

Patriarchy isn't some vast conspiracy, it is a term used to describe the typical distribution of power and wealth within society. Whoever told you otherwise is a moron. This unjust distribution of power and wealth is the root of a major chunk of society's problems.

What your on about is elitism and wealth inequality. Wealth equals power, separate discussion on whether thats rights or not, and wealth resides with men because men are the most likely to become wealthy through business because of discrimination but also practical reasons. Women have kids or can have kids and thus are less attractive to employers and so have trouble getting into business. There are many women in business but thye have either inherited their role or started their own business. Discrimination is illegal but its difficult to outright claim sexism was the reasoning of a decision. Most employers can avoid hiring anyone they dont want to and this goes for most things with wealth and power.

Looking at the concepts of the glass ceiling and the glass escalator leads me to believe that there is still a whole lot of discrimination going around, just not active discrimination. And rarely is the reason for this discrimination so. Usually people just do it. A family man usually has no problems getting hired. A single father? maybe. A single mother? Definitely. If it were true that having children would make someone less attractive to an employer those three would be at least relatable, but the poverty rates for single mothers is absolutely staggering.

Revnak:

ablac:

Revnak:

1. OP is a man. I can neither confirm nor deny that Lilith has tits, but Lilith is a man.
2. Gender roles and patriarchy are the reason for those problems that men face too. I really don't get how people always miss that.
3. When the fuck did child care come into this? Right now you're getting pissed off at someone for things they never said, never even addressed.
4. Society is still very patriarchal and men still are in charge. Not you certainly, but men. There are better examples I could come up with, but fuck it.

FUCK YOU RAV4!!!!

Ok I should clarify although I thought I was pretty clear. Read the first paragraph. Mentions custody rights as a way men believe they are persecuted and dismisses them. That is truly insulting. I knwo this is about sexuality but that couldnt go ignored its simply too ignorant and to ignore it would make me feel like I was agreeing with him when he was blatantly wrong. I figured Lilith was a girl because he talks like a girl who knows sod all about guys. I still think from how he has responded in the thread that he is a girl because no guy would be that ignorant of their own gender. What she said about men having unequal rights (dismissing them) meant found it hard to take anything she said seriously and my post was about this attitude and ignorant feminism which this stemmed from. If you are going to make points like 2. and 4. then elaborate. Gender roles are the cause of the problem with custody laws but the OP dismissed female gender roles sometimes benefitting women being complained about by men. Patriarchy is a fallacy and you need to elaborate past making the point if your going to say something like that.

I apologize, I had not seen where Lilith mentioned that in passing, but the later sentences kind of explain why it is kind of strange to think Lilith is dismissing the problems that men have.
Winning custody cases is part of why women are so impoverished. Women are forced into the role of caregiver, which comes with a few benefits that actually aren't benefits at all. Women are both expected and allowed to be the nurturer within society according to current gender roles, meaning that while they win custody cases, it is in a way because they are being forced to win custody cases. This is the same reason that leads many women to aim to get pregnant despite being impoverished, they see raising children as a purpose, specifically theirs, and once they have a whole lot of mouths to feed and one salary to pay for it, they wind up even worse off than before. This also applies to single mothers as a product of divorce.

Ok well thats as much a psychological need as a societal one. Women do not have to fight for custody aand if they dont want it then thye shouldnt. They might be pressured to take it but it isnt fair on the child to do that. Men are equally competent. Women arent impoverished and if custody is an issue then they had the children by choice or atleast what led to the children. Read what Lilith has been saying all throuhout the thread. Its passive aggressive sexism against men from the start. To dismiss such a blatant aspect of gender inequality 'because they're men' is ignorant and offensive. She said nothing to remedy this that I can see so im not sure where you are coming from. Op has demonstrated she is competent at being a consistently stupid poster with this thread and everywhere else she has opened her damn mouth and im sick of hearing it so I want to confront her about this because I find it unacceptable.

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

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked