"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
 

ablac:

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.

Moral qualms? WTF?

Are you saying that sex is bad?

Owyn_Merrilin:

Stasisesque:

Owyn_Merrilin:

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.

I can't link it because it's an exhibit at the British Museum - but there is quite a lot of evidence that vibrators, not dildos, have existed for quite a lot longer than the past 200 years. Some were attached to horse drawn motors to simulate motion - which, when you really think about it, is pretty damned disturbing. And of course, as you say, dildos have been around for almost as long as penises.

Edit: Oh dear god, do NOT Google this. Even taking the appropriate cautions, just don't.

Stasisesque:

Owyn_Merrilin:

Stasisesque:

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.

I can't link it because it's an exhibit at the British Museum - but there is quite a lot of evidence that vibrators, not dildos, have existed for quite a lot longer than the past 200 years. Some were attached to horse drawn motors to simulate motion - which, when you really think about it, is pretty damned disturbing. And of course, as you say, dildos have been around for almost as long as penises.

I wish you could link that; that would definitely be a historical curiosity that I've never heard of before. Likely to be something like the Antykythera mechanism, though; a technological curiosity in its own time that was lost and independently reinvented centuries later. Although I can't picture any woman with enough money and power to get someone to use the town mill to power a dildo in /any/ time -- or a man with that much money, frankly. That is definitely an odd thought.

Yeah i got to agree with most of this

gender roles on the whole are a bad thing for both men and women not to be too dramatic but its a very oppressive force. to be expected to act aspire to certain things just because your born one sex or the other.

each these issues. have their effect and counter effects on the opposite sex

for example the one you mentioned
Women: slut shamming
Men: virgin shaming

also the child custody
Men: its much harder to get full custody of child than for a woman. but easier for them to walk out their responsibly (not considered a good thing at all but its still easier for men)
Women: much easier to gain full custody for the child. much harder for them walk out on their responsibility

Anti-feminism also an issue, its getting pushed back recently which is good it was a lot worse a few years ago. when there was a lot of books/films/t.v shows that depicted women struggling with careers and only being happy when they found a man that looked after them. Fortunately in last year or two have seen an increase in sales of feminism texts (texts that feminist academics consider good ones at that) to the extent that they are frequently on the top sellers list at book stores.

one issue i do have is that some feminist texts are criticized by other feminists for literally not blaming men enough and thereby inadvertently blaming women. i'm my opinion i don't valid reason to disregard a feminist text, just because you don't blame men doesn't mena you blame women either. I think its the system and culture we live in (which in all likelihood was made by men) that causing all problems. to throw blame at either sex just causes antagonisms which will just further any resentment between men and women and make this serious problem that much harder to solve. that's not to say you can't blame individuals if you meet a sexist pig, you have every right to tell them "you are sexist pig."

ablac:

Revnak:

ablac:
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.

I don't think you get it. Would you not fight for the custody of your child simply to make a statistic more balanced? Of course not. The fault lies with the courts who always rule in favor of the mother, not the mothers themselves.

Also, women are impoverished. Just take a short glance at the poverty rates for single female headed households. Go ahead, I'll wait. Pretty steep in comparison to every other type of household, huh?

And I really don't think Lilith has stepped as far out of line as you think, you just can't read women's studies. It is a language that is beyond many of us. That later half of the first paragraph was basically Lilith saying that feminists do care about these issues, they just see it as being a product of gender roles and patriarchy, something I'm inclined to agree with.

Edit- Sorry for misleading you as to what sex Lilith is. I can't read profiles correctly apparently. Whoops.

Stasisesque:

Owyn_Merrilin:

Stasisesque:

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.

I can't link it because it's an exhibit at the British Museum - but there is quite a lot of evidence that vibrators, not dildos, have existed for quite a lot longer than the past 200 years. Some were attached to horse drawn motors to simulate motion - which, when you really think about it, is pretty damned disturbing. And of course, as you say, dildos have been around for almost as long as penises.

A horse powered dildo! What a marvelous coming together of virility, sexuality and freedom!

God I love people.

Revnak:

ablac:

Revnak:

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.

Theres also the fact that amongst women who become single mothers poverty rates are pretty high anyway as in they start poor before becoming mothers. The potential to be a parent whom will need to devote care and attention to a child rather than a job simply isnt attractive to an employer. My father has told me this many times that if he thinks a women is going to have a child or has a young child he will simply conduct an interview in such a way to stop them getting a job. Heisnt sexist at all but he knows that if he doesnt he will be sacked from interviewing and someone else will do what he does and people he lets in will all have to go under scrutiny as his judgement is now under question. This is rampant and he has been doing this for decades. He works for network rail by the way. This is anecdotal but it is a good insider view of it. On the other hand my mother who is a single mother, whom I still legally live with, has, since my early childhood, been going from high end job to another from head of east coast stations to negotiating high grade contracts. This sint showing off we arent wealthy or rich but it causes me atleast to question your argument from my personal experience as she is like most of her freinds in this regard (single mother with high paying job). Being a single mother does not necessarily cause poverty its just that the poor, for many reasons, have many more children in unstable familys. That seems to be the case and its a shame.

Bertylicious:

ablac:

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.

Moral qualms? WTF?

Are you saying that sex is bad?

Can you read? I said people, for whatever reason, dont share your view on sex. Some believe promiscuity is wrong and many dont desire it. to encourage it is to make those people somehow wrong when it really shouldnt be encouraged or discouraged. some believe that sex is only for reproduction, this isnt merely a religous argument befoe you say it. Some believe that people shouldnt have sex casually as they are not prepared for the natural consequences that might come about. Are you that ignorant to not know these things?

Well, in junior high and elementary school, my best friend was a guy (I'm female myself). Actually, he's still my best friend, but as we went to different universities, we aren't as inseparable any more.

In any case, our relationship was never sexual, at all. Me being a lesbian having a lot to do with that.
But, as we were spending so much time together, obviously we must have been a couple, and as we denied it, certain people started bullying us about it.
Especially about our wild sex-life that few of the bullies really went out of their way to invent and describe...

I don't actually know, whether they did it because they knew we weren't having sex, or because they thought we were. Probably both, but we both got bullied the same way.

As for virgin shaming, there was that for girls as well. One girl made up sex stories (I might have been a virgin, and a lesbian, but I knew enough about biology to know penises did not work the way she claimed) because she was bullied for being a virgin, and of course she got then the reputation for being a whore...

ablac:

Revnak:

ablac:
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.

Theres also the fact that amongst women who become single mothers poverty rates are pretty high anyway as in they start poor before becoming mothers. The potential to be a parent whom will need to devote care and attention to a child rather than a job simply isnt attractive to an employer. My father has told me this many times that if he thinks a women is going to have a child or has a young child he will simply conduct an interview in such a way to stop them getting a job. Heisnt sexist at all but he knows that if he doesnt he will be sacked from interviewing and someone else will do what he does and people he lets in will all have to go under scrutiny as his judgement is now under question. This is rampant and he has been doing this for decades. He works for network rail by the way. This is anecdotal but it is a good insider view of it. On the other hand my mother who is a single mother, whom I still legally live with, has, since my early childhood, been going from high end job to another from head of east coast stations to negotiating high grade contracts. This sint showing off we arent wealthy or rich but it causes me atleast to question your argument from my personal experience as she is like most of her freinds in this regard (single mother with high paying job). Being a single mother does not necessarily cause poverty its just that the poor, for many reasons, have many more children in unstable familys. That seems to be the case and its a shame.

Well the anecdotal evidence you're throwing out does and doesn't seem to agree with what I'm saying. The former piece about your dad just may be evidence that could be used to say that in fact single mothers simply are looked down upon in our society and presented with less opportunities, unless you can also claim he did the same with poor, young fathers, single or otherwise. The latter simply doesn't agree with the data at all. Be happy you're one of the lucky ones I suppose. As for poor people having more children in unstable families, I don't know if that can reasonably be claimed. I'm not going to call you out on it as I need to sleep, but I don't think you're quite right on that or the idea that single mothers were usually poor beforehand.

Revnak:

ablac:

Revnak:

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.

I don't think you get it. Would you not fight for the custody of your child simply to make a statistic more balanced? Of course not. The fault lies with the courts who always rule in favor of the mother, not the mothers themselves.

Also, women are impoverished. Just take a short glance at the poverty rates for single female headed households. Go ahead, I'll wait. Pretty steep in comparison to every other type of household, huh?

And I really don't think Lilith has stepped as far out of line as you think, you just can't read women's studies. It is a language that is beyond many of us. That later half of the first paragraph was basically Lilith saying that feminists do care about these issues, they just see it as being a product of gender roles and patriarchy, something I'm inclined to agree with. And please stop calling Lilith a she. Lilith is a man. A man-y man man man.

Ok then shes a man who acts like a woman ignorant of men. I dont see in that paragraph anything supportive or sympathetic towards men. I read 'men have complete control of society and the law and thus the law pushes children upon men' men have a hard time getting a fair custody trial simple as that. The law is bias in favour of women and has been for a long time. The latter half reads 'society is a patriarchy and thus feminists do not care about male problems because women are a minority' they arent. I cant see how you view this in any way sympathetic and that is a fair translations ive read that paragraph plenty to tyr and see where your coming from but I just dont see it. I never, ever, said that single mothers are not empoverished. I agree with you that they have the highest poverty rate. I simply said it wasnt solely down to being a single mother which is true. It comes from all sources. Most notably that many single mothers were either in poverty or pretty poor to begin with. It takes little to push them over the line and you seem to be saying thats not the case.

ablac:

Bertylicious:

ablac:
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.

Moral qualms? WTF?

Are you saying that sex is bad?

Can you read? I said people, for whatever reason, dont share your view on sex. Some believe promiscuity is wrong and many dont desire it. to encourage it is to make those people somehow wrong when it really shouldnt be encouraged or discouraged. some believe that sex is only for reproduction, this isnt merely a religous argument befoe you say it. Some believe that people shouldnt have sex casually as they are not prepared for the natural consequences that might come about. Are you that ignorant to not know these things?

There's a homeless bloke in the local park who believes that the Russians are out to get him and the only way to conteract polonium poisoning is to drink lighter fluid. Hilarious as he is it doesn't stop his beliefs from being wrong.

I will say it again: sex is awesome and should be encouraged. People that don't think sex is awesome and should be encouraged are wrong and, like poor old Jake, damaged.

Bertylicious:

ablac:

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.

Moral qualms? WTF?

Are you saying that sex is bad?

If I may weigh in here.

Not sure if this is what ablac means but wanted to add my two cents :P.

Sex isn't bad but it is a serious matter.

On the simplest level there are STDs and pregnancies, both of which you risk even when using protection. Above that are the emotions that come with sex, especially for less experienced people it can be a very, very intimate thing with heavy and serious emotions that come along with it. Both your own emotions and those of your partner have to be taken into account. There are other things as well that come into play when sex gets involved.

Promiscuity can easily lead to many problems when sex is no longer taken seriously and unfortunately it's not so rare for promiscuous people to forget about these things. And even if they themselves are capable of dealing with it all their partners may not be.

That's not to say that promiscuity is bad, there are undoubtedly many promiscuous people who do take sex seriously. But it's not something that should overall be encouraged for everyone and it certainly is possible to have moral qualms with it. It shouldn't be discouraged either of course.

Everyone should figure out for themselves how promiscuous they want to be and not be encouraged or discouraged in either direction. And everyone should take sex seriously, I do think it's amoral if you do not as there is another person involved.

Revnak:

ablac:

Revnak:

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.

Theres also the fact that amongst women who become single mothers poverty rates are pretty high anyway as in they start poor before becoming mothers. The potential to be a parent whom will need to devote care and attention to a child rather than a job simply isnt attractive to an employer. My father has told me this many times that if he thinks a women is going to have a child or has a young child he will simply conduct an interview in such a way to stop them getting a job. Heisnt sexist at all but he knows that if he doesnt he will be sacked from interviewing and someone else will do what he does and people he lets in will all have to go under scrutiny as his judgement is now under question. This is rampant and he has been doing this for decades. He works for network rail by the way. This is anecdotal but it is a good insider view of it. On the other hand my mother who is a single mother, whom I still legally live with, has, since my early childhood, been going from high end job to another from head of east coast stations to negotiating high grade contracts. This sint showing off we arent wealthy or rich but it causes me atleast to question your argument from my personal experience as she is like most of her freinds in this regard (single mother with high paying job). Being a single mother does not necessarily cause poverty its just that the poor, for many reasons, have many more children in unstable familys. That seems to be the case and its a shame.

Well the anecdotal evidence you're throwing out does and doesn't seem to agree with what I'm saying. The former piece about your dad just may be evidence that could be used to say that in fact single mothers simply are looked down upon in our society and presented with less opportunities, unless you can also claim he did the same with poor, young fathers, single or otherwise. The latter simply doesn't agree with the data at all. Be happy you're one of the lucky ones I suppose. As for poor people having more children in unstable families, I don't know if that can reasonably be claimed. I'm not going to call you out on it as I need to sleep, but I don't think you're quite right on that or the idea that single mothers were usually poor beforehand.

Alright what I was saying is that, from someone with plenty of experience, yes there is discrimination. However it is not because of societal prejudice but because they wont be able to do the job as well. Society doesnt hate women. Reality stops women from being employed as easily. It isnt a matter of 'your a guy, thus you are better' its 'your a woman, you stand a good chance of getting pregnant/having to deal with children rather than do your job and we dont want to employ you because it costs us more and your probably gonna work less as theres only so much time in a day'. The pint I was trying to make with the second one was that competent, skilled people get jobs. If you arent like that then things such as gender, when there are few other differing factors, and the previously mentioned practicality issues, matter a whole lot more.

Hagi:

Bertylicious:

ablac:
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.

Moral qualms? WTF?

Are you saying that sex is bad?

If I may weigh in here.

Not sure if this is what ablac means but wanted to add my two cents :P.

Sex isn't bad but it is a serious matter.

On the simplest level there are STDs and pregnancies, both of which you risk even when using protection. Above that are the emotions that come with sex, especially for less experienced people it can be a very, very intimate thing with heavy and serious emotions that come along with it. Both your own emotions and those of your partner have to be taken into account. There are other things as well that come into play when sex gets involved.

Promiscuity can easily lead to many problems when sex is no longer taken seriously and unfortunately it's not so rare for promiscuous people to forget about these things. And even if they themselves are capable of dealing with it all their partners may not be.

That's not to say that promiscuity is bad, there are undoubtedly many promiscuous people who do take sex seriously. But it's not something that should overall be encouraged for everyone and it certainly is possible to have moral qualms with it. It shouldn't be discouraged either of course.

Everyone should figure out for themselves how promiscuous they want to be and not be encouraged or discouraged in either direction. And everyone should take sex seriously, I do think it's amoral if you do not as there is another person involved.

God you make it all sound so solemn and dramatic. Sex isn't some kind of contract and the emotional damage you're talking about stems, I reckon, from people damaged by loneliness and sexual isolation. If we had a healthier attitude to sex it'd be heaps better.

As for this business about STDs and the horror of conception I would advise using protection, although we desperately need to come up with alternative to the condom.

Bertylicious:

ablac:

Bertylicious:
Moral qualms? WTF?

Are you saying that sex is bad?

Can you read? I said people, for whatever reason, dont share your view on sex. Some believe promiscuity is wrong and many dont desire it. to encourage it is to make those people somehow wrong when it really shouldnt be encouraged or discouraged. some believe that sex is only for reproduction, this isnt merely a religous argument befoe you say it. Some believe that people shouldnt have sex casually as they are not prepared for the natural consequences that might come about. Are you that ignorant to not know these things?

There's a homeless bloke in the local park who believes that the Russians are out to get him and the only way to conteract polonium poisoning is to drink lighter fluid. Hilarious as he is it doesn't stop his beliefs from being wrong.

I will say it again: sex is awesome and should be encouraged. People that don't think sex is awesome and should be encouraged are wrong and, like poor old Jake, damaged.

Crack, Cocaine, Ecstasy. They can also be pretty awesome. People look down on the users and they fear the consequences and dont like people who are so damn irresponsible. You dont seem to uderstand that just because something is enjoyable and possibly healthy in some ways doesnt make it right and those who dont like it wrong. Ever heard of a little thing called subjective opinion? It means people can have different views with no one being 'right' and no one being 'wrong'. Sex has a lot of consequences and I dont respect people who dont respect that fact and press on anyway. Not saying you should go celibate but im saying that its ignorant to think that enjoyable=good. what about children? What if the rubber breaks or she forgets to take the pill? What then? Abortion? well nice work your irresponsibility just created a whole new wave of nasty. Abortion is a seperate argument but thats how people can view it. Things have consequences and you dont seem to care for them.

Well I have one thing to say on topic...<.<


and Jim Jefferies says it fine...

and as far as the whole feminist speech... well we already have legal equality... which seems to be at this time fairly skewed to support women... though social equality has yet to surface... mostly because, socially, men and women are expected to fill different roles and thus different expectations are applied... Now I'm not one to preach gender roles, I simply don't believe in them... however, it seems to be the driving force behind a lot of inequalities for both genders... but the idea that we live in a society that actively represses women is just wrong... but the OP is very biased and seems to generalize most men as objectifying scum bags that conspire against women rights...

Is it not ironic that in 50 years from now, people will look back and think "wow, they were really backwards back in 2010+. Women were insulted for simply enjoying sex while men were idolized for it? and they never actually tried to determine which parent is best for child custody?!"

Same thing as we do now about the 1950's and treating women like crap. But yeah, I lost my virginity fairly late and was ridiculed to the EXTREME at work. Double standards suck!

Bertylicious:

Hagi:

Bertylicious:
Moral qualms? WTF?

Are you saying that sex is bad?

If I may weigh in here.

Not sure if this is what ablac means but wanted to add my two cents :P.

Sex isn't bad but it is a serious matter.

On the simplest level there are STDs and pregnancies, both of which you risk even when using protection. Above that are the emotions that come with sex, especially for less experienced people it can be a very, very intimate thing with heavy and serious emotions that come along with it. Both your own emotions and those of your partner have to be taken into account. There are other things as well that come into play when sex gets involved.

Promiscuity can easily lead to many problems when sex is no longer taken seriously and unfortunately it's not so rare for promiscuous people to forget about these things. And even if they themselves are capable of dealing with it all their partners may not be.

That's not to say that promiscuity is bad, there are undoubtedly many promiscuous people who do take sex seriously. But it's not something that should overall be encouraged for everyone and it certainly is possible to have moral qualms with it. It shouldn't be discouraged either of course.

Everyone should figure out for themselves how promiscuous they want to be and not be encouraged or discouraged in either direction. And everyone should take sex seriously, I do think it's amoral if you do not as there is another person involved.

God you make it all sound so solemn and dramatic. Sex isn't some kind of contract and the emotional damage you're talking about stems, I reckon, from people damaged by loneliness and sexual isolation. If we had a healthier attitude to sex it'd be heaps better.

As for this business about STDs and the horror of conception I would advise using protection, although we desperately need to come up with alternative to the condom.

Yes ok how about you invent this magic alternative. Ever heard of Freud? Much of psychology is related to sex and that can mean people feel strongly when its present in their lives. It can affect people and your arrogance to claim a theory of psychology oyu invented holds any ground, by your own admission you have no expertise, is insulting and degrading to the scraps of an argument you have.

LilithSlave:

Matthew94:
It's no better than the "men are the source of the worlds problems" argument.

Men != Patriarchy. This is the problem with typical antifeminism and other people getting defensive about privilege. Always asserting that when someone says something like "patriarchy" or "male supremacist thought" or "male privilege" or in terms of race, "white privilege", they're saying that white heterosexual men are evil and need to go away.

That's a farcical strawman. I'm tired of anti-feminists using these farcical, extreme comparisons to things. Society is littered with male supremacist thought. It's called male privilege. In fact most language lends itself to the idea that men are better than women.

It doesn't mean that men are bad or even to blame. It means that male privilege exist as a descriptor of society.

The way to stop what your calling "male farcical strawmans" is to change the type of language that your using, as the terminology used by feminists is indictive of blame against one gender, and is hypocritical seeing as how both genders have allowed and encouraged the subjugation of women. In fact women have even encouraged the subjugation of specific groups of women from within the feminist movement itself, as early feminist would not allow African American women to march with them in their protests. Even the term "feminist" denotes exclusivity, that it's a girls club were men are not allowed. The term "feminist also denotes a selfish single-mindedness that prioritizes the equality of women above the equality of everyone else. Don't take this post to mean that I am against the ideals of feminism, because that could not be farther from the truth. I am an egalitarian, and so believe in the equality of all people. I just think that more good could be accomplished if we could stop the finger pointing (both the consciences kind, and the linguistic kind) and instead of dividing ourselves into smaller groups such as feminist and so on, work as one people (female, male, black, white, etc) towards the equal treatment of everyone.

Edit: It is also because of your use of that specific language that I read your OP as more hate speech against men than anything else.

ablac:

Bertylicious:
snip

Yes ok how about you invent this magic alternative. Ever heard of Freud? Much of psychology is related to sex and that can mean people feel strongly when its present in their lives. It can affect people and your arrogance to claim a theory of psychology oyu invented holds any ground, by your own admission you have no expertise, is insulting and degrading to the scraps of an argument you have.

Steady on now. It's not like I was suggesting free love with your mum or something.

All I'm saying is that sex is great and makes people happy. Is that so terrible?

Actually, I guess I am suggesting free love with your mum. Is that what is so upsetting?

What I always find the most interesting with virgin shaming is the "nerds shaming other nerds" type of comment you find on the internet. I mean you are sort of shaming yoursef, because you know nothing of the other person, and yet you sit there on the internet throwing shame around... Always make me chuckle :P

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 unno, think I disagree with you there. Doesn't matter how many people the girl has slept with, as long as she is a nice person that fits my personality :)

Bertylicious:
God you make it all sound so solemn and dramatic. Sex isn't some kind of contract and the emotional damage you're talking about stems, I reckon, from people damaged by loneliness and sexual isolation. If we had a healthier attitude to sex it'd be heaps better.

As for this business about STDs and the horror of conception I would advise using protection, although we desperately need to come up with alternative to the condom.

Hardly solemn and dramatic. Merely realistic.

I'm not talking about emotional damage. I'm talking about normal emotions. Sex tends to amplify emotions. For happiness that's great. But it unfortunately also works for sadness.

Casual sex with people you don't really know isn't always based on mutual happiness. There can be a score of emotions and motivations behind it. I'm not saying all of this is your personal responsibility but I am saying that you shouldn't go around sleeping with everyone without a care for the consequences.

Neither am I talking about the 'horror' of conception. I'm merely saying that sex has consequences beyond a single night and that the only attitude towards sex that is required is to be aware of those consequences.

If you're not careful you can get pregnant, you can get STDs, you can have serious regrets and you can feel like shit over it. If you're aware of all those things then it's totally up to you how promiscuous you are.

It's totally fine to sleep with a different stranger every night, as long as you're careful and know what can go wrong.
It's totally fine to wait completely until you're married, as long as you're careful and know what can go wrong.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with a casual attitude on sex if you've had what's basically decent Sex Ed.
But there's a lot wrong with a casual attitude on sex if you haven't had what constitutes basic Sex Ed. That's harmful, both to yourself and others.

And that's the only thing that should be encouraged about sex, Sex Ed. For the rest it should be left totally to each person themselves as to what place they wish to give sex in their lives. Which can be anything from casual entertainment to a deep romantic gesture.

ablac:

Bertylicious:
[quote="ablac" post="18.367382.14299644"][quote="Bertylicious" post="18.367382.14299599"][quote="ablac" post="18.367382.14299553"][quote="Bertylicious" post="18.367382.14299476"]snip

Crack, Cocaine, Ecstasy. They can also be pretty awesome.

I'm glad we agree!

Look, we're clearly not going to settle this on this forum. Tell you what; come on over to Amsterdam and we'll get some hookers, some coke and then we'll head down to the university for a big night in.

Bertylicious:

ablac:

Bertylicious:
snip

Yes ok how about you invent this magic alternative. Ever heard of Freud? Much of psychology is related to sex and that can mean people feel strongly when its present in their lives. It can affect people and your arrogance to claim a theory of psychology oyu invented holds any ground, by your own admission you have no expertise, is insulting and degrading to the scraps of an argument you have.

Steady on now. It's not like I was suggesting free love with your mum or something.

All I'm saying is that sex is great and makes people happy. Is that so terrible?

Actually, I guess I am suggesting free love with your mum. Is that what is so upsetting?

Im gonna stop now, you're a lost cause. Why do you come to a discussion forum if you simply wish to trivialise everything anyone says? I never suggested it was free love you were asking for nor sex with my mum, though you said that because you cant come up with an actual counter argument because your too busy mouth-breathing. Merely that not everyone shares your views and that you were being fairly arrogant and ignorant about you own views. You encourage irresponsibility and I tried to press you on your points but you threw it back in my face rather than grow some and argue back.

Well if it isn't the Escapist's own Valerie Solanas. Hi. Thanks for stopping in for the 50th time to remind us we're sexist. Can't wait for your next thread. Maybe you can talk about how the shape of ice cream popsicles are secretly brainwashing children to worship an all-powerful phallic symbol and thus drag our society down into a dark age of brutal male supremacy. Jesus titty-fucking Christ.

You are a person, not a gender. I hope one day you stop burning bras long enough to realize this.

17 year old white male,
I have yet to see any virgin shaming among my peers over the age of around 16. It could just be the fact that the people who I hang out with generally aren't into the 'alpha male' mentality. Slut shaming is also not a part of my life in any way. If a girl (or a guy) enjoys having sex, and isn't harming anyone, then who the heck am I to judge them for doing what they want to do?
Again, this is probably just due to the fact that my peers are all similarly open minded, as I am.

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 think it boils down to the guy being sexually insecure so if he is with a virgin he feels like he doesn't have to be ashamed or something. Doubt it's a IM A MAAAYUUUN! BEESHES SHOULD BE PURE AND SHIT! type of thing.

OT: OP comes of as a bit of a flamebaiter and a feminazi with the whole "Men are pigs and women are victims" mentality, it's craftily sugar coated though. I guess the next thread will be "WOMEN ARE ABUSED BY MEN AT HOME! WAI U AGGRESSIVE AND EVIL MEN?!?!?! WAAAAAI!?!?!?!?" but written with a nice sugarcoating of innocence and a dab of victim mentality.

Modern feminists are sexist scumbags and are no longer needed in society. What's needed now is an actual "EQUALITY MOVEMENT" for the genders and those of "other". That flattens everything out and balances it. Because that's what equality is, don't like it feminists? Too bad, you are no longer needed and your ideology is old and redundant.

ablac:
snip

Alright, I'm sorry. I was feeling playful and felt the only way to move the discussion forward was to lampoon it a bit.

I just don't believe that it is impossible to not go out and have fun whilst at the same time living responsibly, by which I mean being able to create and sustain long term relationships with other people.

Edit: I also believe that life should be about joy. Yes, there are risks both emotional and physical but that shouldn't prevent us from living life to its fullest.

Ricky 49:

also the child custody
Men: its much harder to get full custody of child than for a woman. but easier for them to walk out their responsibly (not considered a good thing at all but its still easier for men)
Women: much easier to gain full custody for the child. much harder for them walk out on their responsibility

No, I don't believe that's true.

For custody you are right but I disagree in terms of responsibility.

If a man wants to opt out he had to pay child support for 18 years but if a woman wants to pot out she can just put the child up for adoption.

hooksashands:
Well if it isn't the Escapist's own Valerie Solanas. Hi. Thanks for stopping in for the 50th time to remind us we're sexist. Can't wait for your next thread. Maybe you can talk about how the shape of ice cream popsicles are secretly brainwashing children to worship an all-powerful phallic symbol and thus drag our society down into a dark age of brutal male supremacy. Jesus titty-fucking Christ.

You are a person, not a gender. I hope one day you stop burning bras long enough to realize this.

image

Egads you are on to something!

Not popsicles but it's the double ice cream cone which is a tool of the patriarchy, let us lobby to have it banned at once!

Joking aside I do agree with your post and the points it makes.

Matthew94:

hooksashands:
Well if it isn't the Escapist's own Valerie Solanas. Hi. Thanks for stopping in for the 50th time to remind us we're sexist. Can't wait for your next thread. Maybe you can talk about how the shape of ice cream popsicles are secretly brainwashing children to worship an all-powerful phallic symbol and thus drag our society down into a dark age of brutal male supremacy. Jesus titty-fucking Christ.

You are a person, not a gender. I hope one day you stop burning bras long enough to realize this.

image

Egads you are on to something!

Not popsicles but it's the double ice cream cone which is a tool of the patriarchy, let us lobby to have it banned at once!

All hail the delicious patriatchy, now with sprinkles!

hooksashands:
Well if it isn't the Escapist's own Valerie Solanas. Hi. Thanks for stopping in for the 50th time to remind us we're sexist. Can't wait for your next thread. Maybe you can talk about how the shape of ice cream popsicles are secretly brainwashing children to worship an all-powerful phallic symbol and thus drag our society down into a dark age of brutal male supremacy. Jesus titty-fucking Christ.

You are a person, not a gender. I hope one day you stop burning bras long enough to realize this.

Valerie Solanas was a very foolish person, in my opinion. And Andy Warhol is a person I greatly respect. He died far, far too young. I don't want to "remind people they are sexist", but that society has gender problems.

I don't appreciate such untrue, outrageous caricatures of myself being portrayed as fact.

Sorry for the ridicule, Lilith.

Speaking seriously, I'm glad you brought up the whole "virgin/slut" problem, but...

Honestly? I've seen it work both ways. I wasn't intimate until I was 21, and all my friends got laid way earlier (or claimed to at least), but I never got any shit about being a virgin except from people who's opinion I could care less about. It's the same thing with girls. The only people who are gonna call you a slut are the ones who know nothing about you, similar to how I (jokingly) call you Valerie Solanas (again, I apologize) because you carry around an aggressive feminist mindset.

I'm not an "anti-feminist, I'm just tired of everything being turned into a gender issue on these forums. We're all nerds and we've been fighting stereotypes our whole lives. What really gets me rabid is when someone claims that one set of genitals has it worse than the other set of genitals.

lacktheknack:
Another thought for you - how did so many cultures start agreeing that men like sex more than women if it wasn't true? I've never seen the reverse in my history classes.

You mean those cultures that reward men (well, the ones that "mattered" anyway, meaning mostly rich, influential straight (and depending on country white) guys) for wanting or having sex and punish women for wanting or having sex (there's even examples where women get shamed for being raped, even today)?

Those cultures where for several centuries if not millennia men controlled women's fertility through social pressure and, well, actual control?

Anoni Mus:

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

Because women (still, and more than men) get discouraged from following through with theirs.

Not because they actually have a smaller sex drive biologically.

hooksashands:
What really gets me rabid is when someone claims that one set of genitals has it worse than the other set of genitals.

I get that, I really do. But what about the group with one set of genitals that DOES get treated badly, if only in certain circumstances, because of their genitals?

Do they not exist? Does it not matter? Having it worse than others is a question of measure, if you will.
People getting treated badly or worse than others because of gender, sex, race, sexuality, sexual identity, religion (or lack of), color and what not is fact.

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

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked