FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » New York Times: Slut-shaming is primarily driven by women (Page 2)

  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: New York Times: Slut-shaming is primarily driven by women
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Godric...I think that's a question whose answer is biology.

Men are designed to spread their seed while women take on most of the risk & consequence of mating and therefore tend to be more selective when picking a mate.

Of course we are beyond that what with our not being rutting animals and all, but the concept behind it is not hard to find. It is on us as humans and not animals to abandon these Paleolithic ideals and strive for equality.

And Sa'eed...you don't get it...it's okay...just listen and save the info for another time in your life when you may be capable of grokking it: You are sexest.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sa'eed
Member
Member # 12368

 - posted      Profile for Sa'eed   Email Sa'eed         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Stone_Wolf, you refer to why a woman herself might be selective. Your explanation says nothing about why she might be shamed.

Her family might shame her lest she gets used or left high and dry by some dude. And other women will shame her for being promiscuous and, therefore, gaining more favor with men than the women who aren't promiscuous, putting pressure on these latter women that they resent, which is why they work hard to reign in the easy woman.

There isn't a similar dynamic in play amongst men.

Alternatively, there is the "cartel" view of Female Erotic Capital, as explained by this comedian (adult language):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQbpoXhEa-g&feature=youtu.be&t=1h15m50s

Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JanitorBlade
Moderator
Member # 12343

 - posted      Profile for JanitorBlade   Email JanitorBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sa'eed: From the TOS

quote:
You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening
I've tried to give you leeway with this thread, but you calling women who don't subscribe to your moral standards sluts and "broken locks" is further than I'm willing to allow.

See your email for further instructions.

Posts: 1171 | Registered: Jun 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Godric 2.0
Member
Member # 11443

 - posted      Profile for Godric 2.0   Email Godric 2.0         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Godric...I think that's a question whose answer is biology.

Men are designed to spread their seed while women take on most of the risk & consequence of mating and therefore tend to be more selective when picking a mate.

So our biological imperatives also shape popular perception and culture?

I think that's a cop out.

Posts: 382 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I disagree.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Godric...I think that's a question whose answer is biology.

Men are designed to spread their seed while women take on most of the risk & consequence of mating and therefore tend to be more selective when picking a mate.

No. Some men are wired to be monogamous while others are wired to promiscuous. All men aren not that way and it's the exact same with women. There are some of type for both genders and there always has been. Surely you can find men who aren't into seed-spreading and women who aren't very stable at all just among the people in your facebook feed.

In The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins asserts that the promiscuous people are likely to have more children with many partners, but couples dedicated to rearing them are more likely to raise them to adulthood with more resources. The one-sided situation is something in the middle, and a promiscuous person in a promiscuous-non paring can take advantage of the non-partmers. Double promiscuous is not so great, but if one person is promiscuous in a sea of non-promiscuous people, they end up having lots of well-raised kids who may inherit being promiscuous.

If you make a computer simulation, you can assign probabilities to all these things and have promiscuity be heritable. Run the simulation and you eventually get a steady state where the percentages of each type of trait-- promiscuous and not for both male and female-- becomes a fixed number in the population. It's kind of cool.

Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I often get frustrated with the argument 'this is what biology does' when one examines the behavior of a fully-grown adult with decades of upbringing in a given culture.

I can certainly understand someone leaning more towards nature than nurture in the classic debate, but to assert that it's anything close to a sure thing that we can say 'this is genes' or even 'this is in large part due to genes' of a behavior that has enormous cultural support and even indoctrination-such as male status being tied in some ways to one's success as a 'womanizer'-well. Seems entirely too soon to me.

Find me a society where these huge cultural imperatives are even approaching mitigated, and show me the behaviors of the men and women in them and I think the argument can be made. As it is, though, how do you look at an adult and say 'this behavior was in his genes' if he was taught all of his life to value and strive for it?

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A man can physically impregnate...well half the women in the world per ejectulation...but let's just say for simplicity sake...many MANY women.

But physically, a woman, no matter how many partners, usually only carries one partner's dna to fruition.

If every single man in the world was killed but one, the species would be fine in a couple generations. If only one female survived with all males intact, bye bye homo sapiens.

It isn't a cop out or a function of monogomy vs promiscuity, it's biology.

But as I said before, that's where it starts, not where it should end

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If every single man in the world was killed but one, the species would be fine in a couple generations. If only one female survived with all males intact, bye bye homo sapiens.
Goodness, this is not at all a sure thing.

Anyway, if you had confined your remarks to strict arithmetic biological imperatives, that'd be one thing. But you went a bit further than that. It's not quite the same thing to examine what would happen in a species in the wild if such and such were the case. We're a self-aware intelligent species with control over our own behavior, and the extent of that control is difficult to gauge.

How much impact, really, do our biological imperatives have on our behavior? I have an imperative to snatch the first bit of food I see if I'm even sufficiently-even if that food happens to belong to someone else. We're quite comfortable in reasoning, though, that it's bad for the species if everyone steals and so no one sees a problem with saying that examining such a thing on strictly biological grounds isn't quite enough.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*nods* It breaks down even further when you realize a large number of males and females tend towards sexual behavior different than that of the supposed "biological imperative." There are quite a few men who desire only one sexual partner, desire loyalty and intimacy from that sexual partner more than anything, and really want to father, raise, and nurture children. I count myself part of that group, actually.

For that matter, there are quite a few women who desire many sexual partners, don't place a high value on loyalty and intimacy, and really, really, really don't want anything to do with kids.

I'd argue the psychological impulses behind both behaviors are complex, have a lot to do with how one was raised and one's values and beliefs as opposed to just "how they are wired", and that the part of it that is hardwired is a bit more nuanced than just "biological imperative".

The implication behind that line of reasoning - that those who fall outside of the "men are promiscuous, women are chaste" expectation are somehow aberrations, social outcasts, perverts, and/or are "learning to act more civilized" is pretty condescending and even insulting.

Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sa'eed
Member
Member # 12368

 - posted      Profile for Sa'eed   Email Sa'eed         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
Sa'eed: From the TOS

quote:
You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening
I've tried to give you leeway with this thread, but you calling women who don't subscribe to your moral standards sluts and "broken locks" is further than I'm willing to allow.

See your email for further instructions.

I did not convey judgement of promiscuous women in this thread. It's you people who interpreted non-judgmental use of the word "slut" as being judgmental. Even my metaphor describes a PERCEPTION, not a judgement.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:


But physically, a woman, no matter how many partners, usually only carries one partner's dna to fruition.


Usually. Google superfecund twins. [Evil]
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You repeatedly used a perjorative, and furthermore you didn't confine yourself to discussing what *other* people thought, why they thought it-you endorsed their reasoning as sensible. Your key and lock metaphor, by the way, was also insulting and I don't believe you didn't get some satisfaction in defining women in a way you believed was both insulting and permissible.

Either that or you're simply very ignorant, and fail to see why praising a man that 'unlocks' every woman as a 'master' while criticizing a woman who can be 'unlocked' by any man as 'broken'...well. Come on, Clive, you usually have the small balls needed to muster up sufficient Internet bravery so this prevarication isn't necessary. Men who are sexually liberal are masterful, women who are the same are broken-that's what you said. You might as well own it-you've never shied away from public expressions of misogyny before.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dkw
Member
Member # 3264

 - posted      Profile for dkw   Email dkw         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh come now Rakeesh, what could possibly be misogynistic about a metaphor that calls one person a "Master" and the other, for engaging in the same behavior, "broken"?

I mean, clearly it's not a value judgement, it's just simple biology. Men's parts go into women's parts, so that makes them the key. The rest just follows. [Roll Eyes]

Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LOL
Posts: 15081 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sa'eed:
quote:
Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
Sa'eed: From the TOS

quote:
You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening
I've tried to give you leeway with this thread, but you calling women who don't subscribe to your moral standards sluts and "broken locks" is further than I'm willing to allow.

See your email for further instructions.

I did not convey judgement of promiscuous women in this thread. It's you people who interpreted non-judgmental use of the word "slut" as being judgmental. Even my metaphor describes a PERCEPTION, not a judgement.
This is not up for debate here Sa'eed. Read your email.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dkw:
Oh come now Rakeesh, what could possibly be misogynistic about a metaphor that calls one person a "Master" and the other, for engaging in the same behavior, "broken"?

I mean, clearly it's not a value judgement, it's just simple biology. Men's parts go into women's parts, so that makes them the key. The rest just follows. [Roll Eyes]

Hey! Butt out if you don't mind! The mans are over here deciding about the particularly of male and female (especially female) sexuality, and *extra*-especially when we get to criticize women!

We'll let you know later what our decision is, an if you've been a harlot or a virtuous woman, so if you don't mind wait anxiously for this question to be decided for you?

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dogbreath...

I wonder if you are responding to me...it seems like you are relying to a post that isn't here at all.

The phrase you quote isn't in this thread til you say it.

All I am saying (and not all that hogwash you are replying to from a ghost post) is biology is where it -starts-. Not the middle or the end. Also I speciffically said we shouldn't leave it there.

I couldn't care less what concenting adults do to each other in the privacy of their own bed rooms. Simply not my business. A much more useful criteria for judging others is how well they treat other people.

[ November 24, 2013, 04:19 AM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Black Pearl
Member
Member # 11788

 - posted      Profile for The Black Pearl   Email The Black Pearl         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Life is like a math equation. You're genes are a complex combination of variables that are highlighted or trivialized, by a huge set of co-efficients supplied by the environment you grow up in...or you could say its vice-versa.
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dkw:
Oh come now Rakeesh, what could possibly be misogynistic about a metaphor that calls one person a "Master" and the other, for engaging in the same behavior, "broken"?

I mean, clearly it's not a value judgement, it's just simple biology. Men's parts go into women's parts, so that makes them the key. The rest just follows. [Roll Eyes]

::golf clap::
Posts: 21897 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Black Pearl
Member
Member # 11788

 - posted      Profile for The Black Pearl   Email The Black Pearl         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[Hat]
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Awkward.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Dogbreath...

I wonder if you are responding to me...it seems like you are relying to a post that isn't here at all.

The phrase you quote isn't in this thread til you say it.

All I am saying (and not all that hogwash you are replying to from a ghost post) is biology is where it -starts-. Not the middle or the end. Also I speciffically said we shouldn't leave it there.

I couldn't care less what concenting adults do to each other in the privacy of their own bed rooms. Simply not my business. A much more useful criteria for judging others is how well they treat other people.

Yeah, and I don't think it's necessarily biological at all. YMMV. My post was responding to Rakeesh though, and I was addressing a trope present in our society. Rakeesh touched on it when he responded to you and I elaborated... I didn't quote anyone though so... [Dont Know]
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You twice used the phrase "biological imperitive" with quotation marks.

As to addressing a trope...seems odd to me to refute something no one said but hey, if it blows sunshine up your skirt, don't let me stop you. [Razz]

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes. Rakeesh used the term biological imperative (twice). I was responding to his post, so naturally I used it. Reread his post if you don't believe me. Is there a reason you're critiquing my posts today, or do you just feel like being condescending and unpleasant?
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well I see I got that wrong.

Not trying to be either of those things, just misread. Sorry.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No problem. [Smile] FWIW, I was thinking about an artical I read a few uears back about how men are basically just animals who need xivilization constantly there threatening then to keep them from "following their natural impulses" and raping everything in sight. I feel I know enough about you (especially seeing as you've made it clear that your wife and kids are the most important part of youe life) that that is obviously not your opinion. Sorry if it seemed it was aimed your way - it was really just a "btw this is why I really don't like this line of reasoning."

So. What do you guys think *is* the main cause of slut-shaming? Is it just a disrespectful behavior used to help maintain a social class? By this I mean, any time there is inequality in society, the more priviledged class tends to have certain rituals/acts of violence/disrespectful gestures to help remind themselves (and everyone else) that they are indeed different and better and in posession of more power. This can be seen in school bullying, or rich kids beating up (or murdering) homeless men, or frat boys raping girls, etc. Slut shaming, by a man or woman, seems less about actually condemning sexual promiscuity and more about saying "I'm better than her." (usually the "shamer" feels insecure and feels that the woman being shamed is the source of that insecurity)

I actually know several virgins (well, they were at the time, I mean) who got very severely shamed and ridiculed because A) a few guys got mad because they got rejected and B) a few girls felt insecure because they were extremely attractive. Not a good combo.

[ November 25, 2013, 07:42 AM: Message edited by: Dogbreath ]

Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dogbreath,

quote:
So. What do you guys think *is* the main cause of slut-shaming? Is it just a disrespectful behavior used to help maintain a social class? By this I mean, any time there is inequality in society, the more priviledged class tends to have certain rituals/acts of violence/disrespectful gestures to help remind themselves (and everyone else) that they are indeed different and better and in posession of more power. This can be seen in school bullying, or rich kids beating up (or murdering) homeless men, or frat boys raping girls, etc. Slut shaming, by a man or woman, seems less about actually condemning sexual promiscuity and more about saying "I'm better than her." (usually the "shamer" feels insecure and feels that the woman being shamed is the source of that insecurity)
I think it's too deeply rooted and too complicated a social behavior to even have a main cause. For example, the main cause for an 'ordinary' man (whatever that means) might in a given instance simply be inertia and fitting in. It's socially acceptable and even encouraged among groups sometimes to focus on a woman's appearance and her sexuality to the near-exclusion of anything else. It's fun to perceive an attractive woman and it's also fun to imagine having sex with attractive examples of the gender one is attracted to, so it feeds into what ends up being shaming without much conscious thought necessary at all.

There are of course men and women who make a conscious and committed effort to engage in shaming. Men like Clive, who do so regularly and in a variety of ways, attempting to advance the inferiority of women as something of a real cause in and of itself. Women like those who shamed your virgin friends for reasons not directly or at least not much related to their sexuality. Their motives may vary, but they're also pretty straightforward. They're angry, or jealous, or afraid, or resentful, or hurt, and they lash out in acceptable ways. One of those acceptable ways not only criticizes the party they're unhappy with-the shamed woman-but also elevates them in social terms. Not unlike how sometimes when angry, someone will lash out with unrelated insults if someone is fat, or has acne, or bad breath or something.

I suppose if I had to pick a single main cause, might most likely guess would be something along these lines: for most of human history, up to and including the present, sexuality for women and men has been defined and regulated by men. Not in absolutely totalitarian unchallenged terms of course, but in broad strokes it's been the male gender of the two that has decided what is permissible, what isn't, what's to be encouraged or condemned, what's taboo and what's fit fodder for ribald humor.

Men don't just do this for women, of course, but for other men-those who step out of the norm in terms of sexuality are quick to be criticized even if they're men. Lyrhawn has touched on something of this by pointing out that while traditional shot-callers have almost always been men by enormous margins, and even continue to be men by gradually decreasing margins, most men too are far flung from these positions of power. Anyway, when this kind of situation exists-when there's a group that's widely and especially universally accepted as inferior in some way...well, over time more and more bad behaviors are simply going to creep in. Without pushback, without being challenged by another party on equal footing, even high-minded, self-disciplined people male and female alike won't be able to avoid stumbling into bad behaviors that build and build on themselves over generations.

Anyway, that's pretty rambling. I'll try to shorten my answer: I suspect the main cause of slut-shaming is an artificially-enforced lack of female input into what female sexuality is and means, both with respect to men and from a woman with respect to herself and her female peers.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I know I'm probably over generalizing this, but men look at sex very differently than women. For men sex is a more physical act than emotional, and for women it is more emotional than physical.

Whenever there has been a woman who has intimate physical contact with multiple men, society has conditioned people to look down on that person. They call her names, say she has a low self esteem, has "daddy issue", is a "Homie Hopper" etc. My exchange student made me laugh when she told me that last one.

Likewise, when a man has intimate physical contact with multiple women, society has conditioned people to think that the man is something to aspire to. The man is a "pimp" or "player" or "baller."

Society has been changing rapidly in the past decade or so. Men are starting to exhibit more emotional qualities when dealing with women, and women are starting to become more confident with their own sexuality and physical attributes. The gap between how men and women view sex and other physical contact is shrinking rapidly.

We still see "slut shaming" in many forms, but over the past few years there has been a huge push to put a stop to this. "Slut shaming" is, put simply, bullying. There is that case in Florida in which two girls bullied a girl so much she eventually chose suicide. The AG is now hoping this will cause those in the state legislature to pass new anti-bullying laws.

We've still a long way to go, but what I have seen lately with the high school kids in my area have me hopeful.

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
For men sex is a more physical act than emotional, and for women it is more emotional than physical.
To what extent that is true (for the women who you could say it is true, and excluding those for whom it really is not) it is not shown to be an inherent biological explanation and tends to be an issue of societal influence or self-affirming cultural explanation (i.e., it's something we tell ourselves about the way men and women 'are' since it's a cultural expectation)
Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jake
Member
Member # 206

 - posted      Profile for Jake           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
For men sex is a more physical act than emotional, and for women it is more emotional than physical.
To what extent that is true (for the women who you could say it is true, and excluding those for whom it really is not) it is not shown to be an inherent biological explanation and tends to be an issue of societal influence or self-affirming cultural explanation (i.e., it's something we tell ourselves about the way men and women 'are' since it's a cultural expectation)
I was going to say "That's...certainly the cultural narrative" and leave it at that, but your response is probably the better of the two.
Posts: 1087 | Registered: Jul 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That is, actually, an example of what I was referring to. I have no doubt about your good intentions, Geraine, and although I'm disputing something you said right now I want to be very clear I'm not associating you with the likes of Sa'eed.

That said, my criticism of what you said echoes Samprimary's and Jake's. And perhaps you didn't even mean that this perceived difference in how sex is experienced by men and women is anything inherently tied to gender. But I would say, as they did, that this is so deeply connected to cultural and social forces that we really can't say to what extent these differences are innate-where they even exist, for there are certainly plenty of men and women who are inverted in emotional and physical experience-or not inverted, but equal. We can't really say with much reliability how much if any is innate, because we all grow up and socialize in our various cultural habitats, so by the time it can be measured there are years and even decades of nurture to compete against the nature.

But while there's ambiguity about how powerful nature is in this question, the power of nurture would be difficult to overstate.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's why I said I was over generalizing.

Society has conditioned men and women to look at sex in different ways. Look at how sex and romance is portrayed in film and television.

The way male characters talk about sex is completely different, almost carnal. Women in film tend to focus more on how the man makes him feel.

My mistake for making my point seem like I was saying men and women are inherently like this, it wasn't my intent.

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sa'eed
Member
Member # 12368

 - posted      Profile for Sa'eed   Email Sa'eed         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rakeesh...


quote:
I think it's too deeply rooted and too complicated a social behavior to even have a main cause. For example, the main cause for an 'ordinary' man (whatever that means) might in a given instance simply be inertia and fitting in. It's socially acceptable and even encouraged among groups sometimes to focus on a woman's appearance and her sexuality to the near-exclusion of anything else. It's fun to perceive an attractive woman and it's also fun to imagine having sex with attractive examples of the gender one is attracted to, so it feeds into what ends up being shaming without much conscious thought necessary at all.

These things don't just happen. People don't focus on a women's appearance just cause. It doesn't start at "it's socially acceptable to focus on a woman's appearance" as if society just decided that on a whim. There's likely deeper, biological cause. If it's "socially acceptable and even encouraged among groups sometimes to focus on a woman's appearance and her sexuality to the near-exclusion of anything else" then it might because a woman's appearance and sexuality are the most important assets she brings to a relationship, and everyone instinctively realizes it.


quote:
There are of course men and women who make a conscious and committed effort to engage in shaming. Men like Clive, who do so regularly and in a variety of ways, attempting to advance the inferiority of women as something of a real cause in and of itself. Women like those who shamed your virgin friends for reasons not directly or at least not much related to their sexuality. Their motives may vary, but they're also pretty straightforward. They're angry, or jealous, or afraid, or resentful, or hurt, and they lash out in acceptable ways. One of those acceptable ways not only criticizes the party they're unhappy with-the shamed woman-but also elevates them in social terms. Not unlike how sometimes when angry, someone will lash out with unrelated insults if someone is fat, or has acne, or bad breath or something.
Nice psycho-babble. I've never insulted women.

quote:
I suppose if I had to pick a single main cause, might most likely guess would be something along these lines: for most of human history, up to and including the present, sexuality for women and men has been defined and regulated by men. Not in absolutely totalitarian unchallenged terms of course, but in broad strokes it's been the male gender of the two that has decided what is permissible, what isn't, what's to be encouraged or condemned, what's taboo and what's fit fodder for ribald humor.
Female sexuality was controlled...by society, which last time I checked includes both men AND women. This is the sort of dim man-blaming nonsense the article in the OP dispels. Moreover, anytime in history women's sexuality was controlled so too was men's. Strict monogamy limits both men and women's sexuality: Men cannot hoard female erotic capital, and women are denied the option of "sharing" top men.

quote:
Men don't just do this for women, of course, but for other men-those who step out of the norm in terms of sexuality are quick to be criticized even if they're men. Lyrhawn has touched on something of this by pointing out that while traditional shot-callers have almost always been men by enormous margins, and even continue to be men by gradually decreasing margins, most men too are far flung from these positions of power.
This is undeniably true and falls in line with why various civilizations decided to limit women and men's sexuality: Males at the top, the ones with status and power, would dominate multiple women at the expense of the lower order of men, leading to societal instability. Controlling men and women's sexualities as to insure a 1 to 1 mating ratio was the solution to that problem, but feminists look back at this as "controlling women's sexuality" while missing the reason it was necessary. Researcher Roy F. Baumeister mentions in his work that 80% of women who ever lived manage to reproduce while only 40% of males have. Peoples sexuality was controlled as to give that other 40% of males a reason to invest in society.

quote:
Anyway, that's pretty rambling. I'll try to shorten my answer: I suspect the main cause of slut-shaming is an artificially-enforced lack of female input into what female sexuality is and means, both with respect to men and from a woman with respect to herself and her female peers.
It's artificial, much like civilization itself is artificial: A rebellion against tribal hunter-gatherer ways under which the human species lived under for hundreds of thousands of years. Civilization required different mores that stifled people's sexual instincts in some significant ways for the greater good. These are not arbitrary constraints but are an attempt to limit some fundamental selfish tendencies of the typical human.

Also, the hypocrisy of complaining that women's sexuality in the past was controlled while ignoring that men's sexuality today is controlled (by prohibiting prostitution) is a bit much.

Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You know, male prostitution is every bit as illegal as female prostitution, Sa'eed. Do you not consider that "controlling women's sexuality"?
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sa'eed
Member
Member # 12368

 - posted      Profile for Sa'eed   Email Sa'eed         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Feminists want to remove all constraints from female sexuality while not extending the same privilege to all males. The only males that privilege will be extended to are the top ones. The main card that the rest of the other males use to play -- being providers -- are neutered by a government that chooses to act as a sort of surrogate husband to all women by using all those other males as a tax base (remember, women vote more than men). Indeed, remember the "Life of Julia" ads? Julia didn't have a husband. Instead, Obama was promising her that the government would be her main provider in so many ways. All the while in her youthful years Julia is free to frolic with those top men, and perhaps even conceive their children, without having to deal with a beta male. However, the beta male is still taxed to support Julia (flagrant example...Obamacare.)
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Geraine,

No worries, I can see how you meant what you clarified. Should've asked for a clarification first, since there were some mixed signals. Happens in a very complicated, pervasive topic such as this.

--------

Clive,

quote:
These things don't just happen. People don't focus on a women's appearance just cause. It doesn't start at "it's socially acceptable to focus on a woman's appearance" as if society just decided that on a whim. There's likely deeper, biological cause. If it's "socially acceptable and even encouraged among groups sometimes to focus on a woman's appearance and her sexuality to the near-exclusion of anything else" then it might because a woman's appearance and sexuality are the most important assets she brings to a relationship, and everyone instinctively realizes it.
Well at least you had the decency to throw in that likely. But you're suggesting a very conscious long-term social process here-that there are only two likelihoods. That customs arise because society has consciously chosen them, or that there is some ingrained biological tendency. The truth is almost certainly much more complex than that. But the way you expand on your thoughts reveals more than perhaps you intended. Among men (and women, truly) for whom appearance and sexuality are such enormously important factors-as in, of sufficient importance to drown out any other qualities or deficiencies the person might have)...well yes, they will focus on those things in the figures of their desire.

Shocking.

quote:
Nice psycho-babble. I've never insulted women.
I'm really curious: do you actually believe this, or is it just more of your usual horse puckey? Or is it that you know-c'mon, you've got to know-that women routinely feel insulted by you (men too, btw), but that you don't feel they should because you're a straight-shooter or something?

quote:
Female sexuality was controlled...by society, which last time I checked includes both men AND women. This is the sort of dim man-blaming nonsense the article in the OP dispels. Moreover, anytime in history women's sexuality was controlled so too was men's. Strict monogamy limits both men and women's sexuality: Men cannot hoard female erotic capital, and women are denied the option of "sharing" top men.

Yes, I'm familiar with your line of reasoning on this subject. Despite that even a cursory glance at almost any point in history of almost any society on Earth will reveal that women exercise less power over the world and their own lives on nearly every level of human life, you'll simply offer up that society has been comprised of men and women, so of course women must have had equal input into social customs as men.

The article in the OP doesn't dispel this 'man-blaming' nonsense, because as has been mentioned repeatedly it doesn't even include men in its study at all. You may as well abandon that claim you've enjoyed making, or at least resign yourself to it not going unchallenged. The study in the OP doesn't prove or even address what you claim it does. Full stop.

And as for 'female erotic capital' (I almost hope you talk about this in person with people regularly, though I suspect you know better), historically speaking even though male and female sexuality has been controlled, female sexuality has been more controlled, and been more controlled by the other gender than male sexuality. You can attribute this to biological realities if you like-consequences of child birth, etc.-but please don't try and handwave it away as though you could look at a time anywhere in the past and see that, yup, male sexuality is as tightly regulated as female sexuality. It's so absurd that if it were anyone else I would be dubious they even meant it.

Male sexuality isn't even as tightly regulated by social custom today, among the more liberal societies on Earth much less historically. Men are lauded for sexual promiscuity, women are more often scorned. You can claim all you like that there are reasons, that biology means this must be so, but please don't treat everyone as though they are stupid and insist that there is equal regulation.

quote:
This is undeniably true and falls in line with why various civilizations decided to limit women and men's sexuality: Males at the top, the ones with status and power, would dominate multiple women at the expense of the lower order of men, leading to societal instability. Controlling men and women's sexualities as to insure a 1 to 1 mating ratio was the solution to that problem, but feminists look back at this as "controlling women's sexuality" while missing the reason it was necessary. Researcher Roy F. Baumeister mentions in his work that 80% of women who ever lived manage to reproduce while only 40% of males have. Peoples sexuality was controlled as to give that other 40% of males a reason to invest in society.
The males at the bottom of the pile exert vastly more control over the sexuality of their women than is exerted upon them by those same women. Historically speaking married men have had the oft-exercised right to the 'female erotic capital' of their wives, with or without their consent-a situation I suspect you'd approve. Are you going to suggest that this was true in reverse?

quote:
Also, the hypocrisy of complaining that women's sexuality in the past was controlled while ignoring that men's sexuality today is controlled (by prohibiting prostitution) is a bit much.
The staggering ignorance of likening these two 'stiflings' while also insisting you've never insulted women is more than just a bit much, but comes as no surprise.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Clive,

quote:
Feminists want to remove all constraints from female sexuality while not extending the same privilege to all males. The only males that privilege will be extended to are the top ones. The main card that the rest of the other males use to play -- being providers -- are neutered by a government that chooses to act as a sort of surrogate husband to all women by using all those other males as a tax base (remember, women vote more than men). Indeed, remember the "Life of Julia" ads? Julia didn't have a husband. Instead, Obama was promising her that the government would be her main provider in so many ways. All the while in her youthful years Julia is free to frolic with those top men, and perhaps even conceive their children, without having to deal with a beta male. However, the beta male is still taxed to support Julia (flagrant example...Obamacare.)
Yeah, you're in a singularly bad position to make pronouncements on what feminists want.

As for the rest-since you clearly buy into this alpha and beta business, I wonder-is it that you find it hopeless to become what you perceive to be an alpha? Too lazy to try? Or-wait, I'm sure this is it-it's a high-minded pursuit of justice for men generally, right?

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sa'eed
Member
Member # 12368

 - posted      Profile for Sa'eed   Email Sa'eed         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
You know, male prostitution is every bit as illegal as female prostitution, Sa'eed. Do you not consider that "controlling women's sexuality"?

How many women get busted for soliciting sex for male prostitutes? Eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap. Women have men come to them. It's simply not in women's nature to seek sex through prostitution. Rather, nature gives them an allure for 20 or so years such that hundreds of millions of men would probably mate with them, and when they lose that allure they also happen to lose interest in sex except when placating their husbands needs.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't want to get mired in this conversation, I haven't been following it post for post, but Sa'eed, a couple things jumped out at me from your reply to Rakeesh.

quote:
Nice psycho-babble. I've never insulted women.
Okay, well, did you read what you wrote in the paragraph above this one? The one where you said the best contributing asset women make to a relationship is their attractiveness? Yeah...

And to reply to your first comment...you need to reframe your view of historical society through a patriarchal lens. Historically, the most important asset a woman brought to the relationship wasn't her body, it was her daddy's money. Dowries were the most important factor in marriages. After that it might have been a combination of looks and money, but "looks" are a subjective issue that changes both by society and by time period. There's never been a single standard for beauty for women that spans time and geography. It is, thus, by the very nature of its existence, completely arbitrary.

Moreover, if you want to narrow the discussion to American society, then you're talking about a society where women carried very little power with them in relationships until very recently. A woman has many diverse and valuable assets beyond her body and her ability to make her husband a sandwich. But men only valued those assets until recently (by and large) because in up through the Don Draper era, men felt challenged and threatened by a woman who spoke her mind. That's not the woman's fault. This ties into your next comment:

quote:
Female sexuality was controlled...by society, which last time I checked includes both men AND women. This is the sort of dim man-blaming nonsense the article in the OP dispels. Moreover, anytime in history women's sexuality was controlled so too was men's. Strict monogamy limits both men and women's sexuality: Men cannot hoard female erotic capital, and women are denied the option of "sharing" top men.
Yes, society includes both men and women, in the same way that Earth contains both the United States and Swaziland, but that doesn't mean both are an equal force or equally represented in human society as a whole. And I think you'll find that men were far more sexually mobile in just about every era of American history when it comes to monogamy.

quote:
This is undeniably true and falls in line with why various civilizations decided to limit women and men's sexuality: Males at the top, the ones with status and power, would dominate multiple women at the expense of the lower order of men, leading to societal instability. Controlling men and women's sexualities as to insure a 1 to 1 mating ratio was the solution to that problem, but feminists look back at this as "controlling women's sexuality" while missing the reason it was necessary. Researcher Roy F. Baumeister mentions in his work that 80% of women who ever lived manage to reproduce while only 40% of males have. Peoples sexuality was controlled as to give that other 40% of males a reason to invest in society.
I think you're conflating some things here. While marriage may have fallen down the priority list among women (in a recent study I read, marriage was actually more highly sought after and rated among young men than young women), that doesn't mean modern feminists are calling for a wholesale elimination of marriage so they can sleep around. They just want an end to the disparity between how single men who sleep around and single women who sleep around are treated. The double standard is a huge, damaging problem. Most women still, at some point even if deferred, want to get married and start a traditional marriage. And so do most men.
Posts: 21897 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
How many women get busted for soliciting sex for male prostitutes? Eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap. Women have men come to them. It's simply not in women's nature to seek sex through prostitution. Rather, nature gives them an allure for 20 or so years such that hundreds of millions of men would probably mate with them, and when they lose that allure they also happen to lose interest in sex except when placating their husbands needs.
Another real curiosity: do you actually believe that women are alluring for only a couple of decades? And that after this time they are no longer interested in sex? C'mon, don't be coy.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sa'eed
Member
Member # 12368

 - posted      Profile for Sa'eed   Email Sa'eed         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rakeesh...

quote:
Well at least you had the decency to throw in that likely. But you're suggesting a very conscious long-term social process here-that there are only two likelihoods. That customs arise because society has consciously chosen them, or that there is some ingrained biological tendency. The truth is almost certainly much more complex than that.
Funny you mention "complexity" because the "society has consciously chosen them" explanation is laughably cartoony and simplistic position which, conveniently, happens to vilify one gender. An evolutionary psychology explanation is more fitting and satisfying without blaming any gender.

quote:
I'm really curious: do you actually believe this, or is it just more of your usual horse puckey? Or is it that you know-c'mon, you've got to know-that women routinely feel insulted by you (men too, btw), but that you don't feel they should because you're a straight-shooter or something?
If feminists feel insulted, good. But I have no desire to give insult to other sorts of women.

quote:
Yes, I'm familiar with your line of reasoning on this subject. Despite that even a cursory glance at almost any point in history of almost any society on Earth will reveal that women exercise less power over the world and their own lives on nearly every level of human life, you'll simply offer up that society has been comprised of men and women, so of course women must have had equal input into social customs as men.
Men are more variable than women. There are more men at the top of society and more men at the bottom. In all those societies you mention in which "men exercised more power," the men paid a price for that "power" by being the expendable ones. By the being the ones that did the back breaking labor and died in wars, while the women stayed indoors nurturing children and caring for domestic duties. The men themselves did not have a way of opting out of doing back breaking labor or dying in wars, so what the is the point of complaining that ONE gender had it tough when clearly both of them did in different ways?

quote:
The article in the OP doesn't dispel this 'man-blaming' nonsense, because as has been mentioned repeatedly it doesn't even include men in its study at all. You may as well abandon that claim you've enjoyed making, or at least resign yourself to it not going unchallenged. The study in the OP doesn't prove or even address what you claim it does. Full stop.
It put a spotlight on how women instinctively and automatically engage in slut shaming. When feminists often speak about "society" they use that word to mean "men." The piece in the OP makes clear that women are doing this to each other.


quote:
And as for 'female erotic capital' (I almost hope you talk about this in person with people regularly, though I suspect you know better), historically speaking even though male and female sexuality has been controlled, female sexuality has been more controlled, and been more controlled by the other gender than male sexuality. You can attribute this to biological realities if you like-consequences of child birth, etc.-but please don't try and handwave it away as though you could look at a time anywhere in the past and see that, yup, male sexuality is as tightly regulated as female sexuality. It's so absurd that if it were anyone else I would be dubious they even meant it.
That was merely a means. The effect was that both gender's sexuality was controlled as a consequence.

Women are the limiting factor in reproduction as Stone_Wolf mentioned upthread. Controlling their sexuality is de facto controlling men's sexuality as well. If a woman is discouraged from acting lose, then men won't have the opportunity to frolic with her. If, on the other hand, men were the main focus of sexual prohibitions, then even one man who breaks the rules can sire a lot of bastards. So it makes perfect logical sense to discourage women rather than focusing the shaming on men (not that this didn't happen as well.)


quote:
Male sexuality isn't even as tightly regulated by social custom today, among the more liberal societies on Earth much less historically. Men are lauded for sexual promiscuity, women are more often scorned. You can claim all you like that there are reasons, that biology means this must be so, but please don't treat everyone as though they are stupid and insist that there is equal regulation.
No, since the Sexual Revolution male sexuality is not regulated in some ways. Top men are free to hoard female erotic capital.

As for the rest, women use knowledge of a man's past sexual successes as a sort of indicator about the quality of that man. The reasoning is: If other women were that interested in him, surely he must have something! And then the woman becomes interested in him. Many a married man or attached man has remarked about how women seem to find him all the more attractive for being in a relationship. So once again, while men might envy or admire a Don Juan -- the Don Juan often finds himself rewarded for his past sexual successes by other women. So, once again, who is to blame for this? Maybe women are logical to use the fact that man has had many relationships as an indicator of the man's status/attractiveness. And maybe men aren't necessarily in the wrong to admire (or envy) that Lothario. Maybe these two behaviors are intimately related and cause each other! Certainly all of this is more interesting than "society did it just cause." amirite

quote:
The males at the bottom of the pile exert vastly more control over the sexuality of their women than is exerted upon them by those same women. Historically speaking married men have had the oft-exercised right to the 'female erotic capital' of their wives, with or without their consent-a situation I suspect you'd approve. Are you going to suggest that this was true in reverse?
Those relationships in the olden days were more role based, with the man bringing in resources and the women naturally trading their female erotic capital for those resources. Certainly women were harmed in not having a way to opt out of the demands of an aroused husband. Perhaps this burden can also be comparable to the burden faced by males in being the more disposable sex, the ones expected to lay their lives down to save their women/children in those bloody societies.


quote:
The staggering ignorance of likening these two 'stiflings' while also insisting you've never insulted women is more than just a bit much, but comes as no surprise.
...he spluttered.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Clive,

quote:
Funny you mention "complexity" because the "society has consciously chosen them" explanation is laughably cartoony and simplistic position which, conveniently, happens to vilify one gender. An evolutionary psychology explanation is more fitting and satisfying without blaming any gender.
Vilify? No, not really. I don't think men as a gender are especially wicked or violent-I think they're human, and humans when they become accustomed in any circumstance as a group to being the unchallenged top dog are not to be trusted. As for evolutionary psychology, no Clive, you don't get to cherry pick and claim to be resorting to clinical evidence for your reasoning. You routinely object any medical and psychological explanations which might be viewed as supporting 'the feminists'.

When you stop doing that and start using sources honestly, then you can expect to get credit for them.

quote:
If feminists feel insulted, good. But I have no desire to give insult to other sorts of women.
So were you lying when you said you never insulted women? Since, you know, most feminists are women. Anyway, if you have truly no desire to insult 'other sorts of women'...well. You're a very bad communicator. I would say ask women, but then there would be another chance for your confirmation bias to come into play. If you asked a woman and she felt insulted, clearly she's a feminist.

quote:
Men are more variable than women. There are more men at the top of society and more men at the bottom. In all those societies you mention in which "men exercised more power," the men paid a price for that "power" by being the expendable ones. By the being the ones that did the back breaking labor and died in wars, while the women stayed indoors nurturing children and caring for domestic duties. The men themselves did not have a way of opting out of doing back breaking labor or dying in wars, so what the is the point of complaining that ONE gender had it tough when clearly both of them did in different ways?
For most of human history, in fact no women didn't 'stay indoors and raise children'-they were out there working, farming, and hunting and gathering right alongside the men. But even if we accept the rest of your statement entirely for the sake of argument, will you deny that women didn't get a choice as a gender? Men might be miners, farmers, bankers, carpenters, cobblers, masons, writers, politicians, soldiers, sailors, the list goes on. Women get...child-rearing and wife-hood.

quote:
It put a spotlight on how women instinctively and automatically engage in slut shaming. When feminists often speak about "society" they use that word to mean "men." The piece in the OP makes clear that women are doing this to each other.
Again the most it can possibly be said to 'make clear' is that women shame other women. You've gone much further than that in claiming that it demonstrates women drive the process, and that men are secondary. Since you lack the spine to just admit it, why not simply drop it? I assure you, I'm happy to continue bludgeoning you over the head with this particular lie of yours.

quote:
That was merely a means. The effect was that both gender's sexuality as controlled as a consequence.
So because control is exerted on both, that means control is equivalent? Piffle.

quote:
Women are the limiting factor in reproduction as Stone_Wolf mentioned upthread. Controlling their sexuality is de facto controlling men's sexuality as well. If a woman is discouraged from acting lose, then men won't have the opportunity to frolic with her. If, on the hand, men were the main focus of sexual prohibitions, then even one man who breaks the rules can sire a lot of bastards. So it makes perfect logical sense to discourage women rather than focusing the shaming on men (not that this didn't happen as well.)
Again, you're shifting the topic. I'm not discussing the reasons, I'm pointing out there were different degrees of control. Furthermore, while there was shame for men, are you seriously attempting to suggest that loose men were equally shamed as loose women?

quote:
As for the rest, women use knowledge of a man's past sexual successes as a sort of indicator about the quality of that man. The reasoning is: If other women were that interested in him, surely he must have something! And then the woman becomes interested in him. Many a married man or attached man has remarked about how women seem to find him all the more attractive for being in a relationship. So once again, while men might envy or admire a Don Juan -- the Don Juan often finds himself rewarded for his past sexual successes by other women. So, once again, who is to blame for this? Maybe women are logical to use the fact that man has had many relationships as an indicator of the man's status/attractiveness. And maybe men aren't necessarily in the wrong to admire (or envy) that Lothario. Maybe these two behaviors are intimately related and cause each other! Certainly all of this is more interesting than "society did it just cause." amirite
God, you really do view women in general as prostitutes in one form or another. Nowhere in your little analysis is there anything about women being attracted to men for the man's own sake, as reflected in that particular woman's personality. As for married men-many married women, too, remark upon this extra attractiveness for some men when they're married! But of course they're lying, or feminists, or they want to cuckold, or something. There will be a reason for you to claim they're lying.

Oh, and by all means, continue to assert that my explanation was 'just cause'. You won't be slipping that past unchallenged either.

quote:
Those relationships in the olden days were more role based, with the man bringing in resources and the women naturally trading their female erotic capital for those resources. Certainly women were harmed in not having an out of the demands of an aroused husband. Perhaps this burden can also be comparable to the burden faced by males in being the more disposable sex, the ones expected to lay their lives down to save their women/children in those bloody societies.
When the women are forbidden universally from obtaining those resources directly, by all means it's 'natural' for them to trade their bodies for them. Or for their fathers to do so in their name. And goodness yes, you're absolutely right that men everywhere are expected at all times to die in warfare. War being the common state of humanity as a proportion of time spent. And everyone knows that female life expectancy has historically been decades longer than men, and of course in no way at all is this 'expendibility' of men in any way mitigated by the whole 'never dying in childbirth' thing adult men face either.

Remember, Clive: you've never insulted women, but it's only natural for women to trade their bodies for male resources.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sa'eed
Member
Member # 12368

 - posted      Profile for Sa'eed   Email Sa'eed         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I don't want to get mired in this conversation, I haven't been following it post for post, but Sa'eed, a couple things jumped out at me from your reply to Rakeesh.

quote:
Nice psycho-babble. I've never insulted women.
Okay, well, did you read what you wrote in the paragraph above this one? The one where you said the best contributing asset women make to a relationship is their attractiveness? Yeah...
It's about as much an insult to women as saying that material provisioning/ability to provide is a main asset that men bring to a relationship is an insult to men. I have a generous definition of "attractive." I believe that most women are attractive to hundreds of millions of men at some points in the baby making years of their lives.

quote:
And to reply to your first comment...you need to reframe your view of historical society through a patriarchal lens. Historically, the most important asset a woman brought to the relationship wasn't her body, it was her daddy's money. Dowries were the most important factor in marriages. After that it might have been a combination of looks and money, but "looks" are a subjective issue that changes both by society and by time period. There's never been a single standard for beauty for women that spans time and geography. It is, thus, by the very nature of its existence, completely arbitrary.
What sort of women were rich enough to have daddies that had dowries? I didn't consider the issue of dowries, I'll reflect on it.


quote:
Moreover, if you want to narrow the discussion to American society, then you're talking about a society where women carried very little power with them in relationships until very recently. A woman has many diverse and valuable assets beyond her body and her ability to make her husband a sandwich. But men only valued those assets until recently (by and large) because in up through the Don Draper era, men felt challenged and threatened by a woman who spoke her mind. That's not the woman's fault. This ties into your next comment:
I have a theory that the women who made a fuss in the Don Draper era were discontent not because they couldn't be like Don Draper but because they lived far from their kin and couldn't engage in meaningful feminine social roles while their husbands went out and earned the bacon. Capitalism causes people to become more rootless and distant from their kin, so perhaps women becoming discontent in some ways was inevitable. But I don't agree with your framing that men became upset because they felt challenged by women. They might have felt repulsed by their women acting like men, much like women feel repulsed by men who display feminine traits.

quote:
Yes, society includes both men and women, in the same way that Earth contains both the United States and Swaziland, but that doesn't mean both are an equal force or equally represented in human society as a whole. And I think you'll find that men were far more sexually mobile in just about every era of American history when it comes to monogamy.
If by "sexually mobile" you mean "visit prostitutes" then you're right. But men didn't engage in serial relationships as a consequence of not having the opportunity to do so with women who mere mercilessly slut shamed.

quote:
I think you're conflating some things here. While marriage may have fallen down the priority list among women (in a recent study I read, marriage was actually more highly sought after and rated among young men than young women)
Because young men want an easy and dependable sexual outlet (among other things!). It's harder for them to attain that then women, who can always "share" a smaller subset of top men.

quote:
that doesn't mean modern feminists are calling for a wholesale elimination of marriage so they can sleep around
When it comes to marriage, what feminists want to eliminate above all else is women swallowing the bitter pill of settling for a beta male early in life. Thus, the beta male's resources are transferred to women through the government, and young women are free to give themselves to top men in their first decade of adult sexual maturity. Feminists want to realize for women the state of pre-civilization, when women could share the top men of the tribe. But feminists want to stifle the sexual agency of the other men of the tribe, and their means of countering feminist machinations.

[ November 26, 2013, 03:22 AM: Message edited by: Sa'eed ]

Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sa'eed:
How many women get busted for soliciting sex for male prostitutes? Eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap. Women have men come to them. It's simply not in women's nature to seek sex through prostitution.

Nor is it in men's nature. Come to think of it, I've never just had a hankerin' to go buy me a hooker. That being said, male prostitution is a fairly common practice. You can google it if you want.

quote:
Rather, nature gives them an allure for 20 or so years such that hundreds of millions of men would probably mate with them, and when they lose that allure they also happen to lose interest in sex except when placating their husbands needs.
Jeez dude, do you even know any middle aged women? There's a reason 50 Shades of Grey was so popular among the 40+ crowd, and it's not because of it's literary merits. Speaking as a guy who has buddies who go out "Cougar hunting", I can tell you that older women are very much interested in sex.

I had a few questions for you, though. What exactly is a "top man"? What do you feel is the ratio of top men to other men in society? What makes you feel like you are not a "top man"? Do you really think there are that many men out there who have multiple concurrent sexual partners? ("hoarding female erotic capital" as you put it) Do you know that a large majority of men have managed to find sexual partners, and that 51% of adult American men are married? Do you really think the "hoarding" of "Female Erotic Capital" is a serious problem? Why?

Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sa'eed:
Feminists want to remove all constraints from female sexuality while not extending the same privilege to all males. The only males that privilege will be extended to are the top ones. The main card that the rest of the other males use to play -- being providers -- are neutered by a government that chooses to act as a sort of surrogate husband to all women by using all those other males as a tax base (remember, women vote more than men). Indeed, remember the "Life of Julia" ads? Julia didn't have a husband. Instead, Obama was promising her that the government would be her main provider in so many ways. All the while in her youthful years Julia is free to frolic with those top men, and perhaps even conceive their children, without having to deal with a beta male. However, the beta male is still taxed to support Julia (flagrant example...Obamacare.)

gentlemen, we have reached peak misogynist word salad
Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"lets get me straight on this one: controlling female sexuality is a good thing because that makes sure that some women are forced to settle for someone like me and I think I'm entitled to that"

-saeed, 2013

Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reticulum
Member
Member # 8776

 - posted      Profile for Reticulum           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To what extent is this discussion merely each individual's expression of justification about what kind(s) of sexuality they prefer in a partner, as opposed to an actual sharing of ideas and thought?

I have not seen one person directly concede a point, with humility, to another person. However, I may be wrong, and I would love to be wrong.

Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It's about as much an insult to women as saying that material provisioning/ability to provide is a main asset that bring to a relationship is an insult to men.
Yep, when my fiance agreed to share her Female Erotic Capital exclusively with me (we had to get the contract notarized, really it was quite a hassle) her main concern was my material provisioning skills and my ability to provide for her needs. I mean, the fact that her income is 50% higher than mine is irrelevant, since she immediately quit her job upon signing the contract. (it's not the kind of work you can do barefoot in the kitchen)

It had absolutely nothing to do with my looks, my personality, my intelligence, my sense of humor, passion, commitment, religious views, philosophical outlook, political stance, hobbies, or writing abilities. Just like I merely appraised her by estimating how many heirs she could pop out before she died in childbirth. I paid no attention to her personality, her passion for life, her fierce intellect, or the way she dances, or her voice, or her musical ability, or the way she smiles, or how gentle she is with kids, or how she makes me feel warm and safe and loved.

I'm glad we have people like you who know what's really important in sexual relationships. Could you imagine how horrible marriage would be if it were based on things like mutual attraction, respect and love?


...yes, it is an insult to men, too.

Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Too didn't say anything at all about how much livestock and acreage her father offered, Dog-surely that was also a factor?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2