quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: To what extent is this discussion merely each individual's expression of justification about what kind(s) of sexuality they prefer in a partner
????????
I mean, if this was a conversation about preferences and Sa'eed was saying "hey guys, I'd really just prefer to have a partner who looks like a supermodel and cooks and cleans for me and raises me children and tells me I'm an alpha male and has only ever had sex with me but lets me sleep with tons of prostitutes and stuff..." I'd say "well, good luck finding her buddy!" and leave it at that. This seems to be a discussion on the way society treats women, specifically in the way people demean and disparage women who have multiple sexual partners (or are thought to have multiple sexual partners), and I really, really don't think I'm going to concede on that point, or even compromise. (even if it would be the gracious thing to do)
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Too didn't say anything at all about how much livestock and acreage her father offered, Dog-surely that was also a factor?
Five cows and a hectare of barley.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Guys, I have asked Sa'eed to stop participating in this thread, or starting other threads on the topic. I'd appreciate it if you guys would forbear trying to get him to respond to questions, taunts, etc. You may continue to discuss the topic, but Sa'eed can't participate, and it wouldn't be fair if everybody tries to get him to break the terms I've imposed.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
A Masaii once offered 500 cows for me. I am not sure it was a sincere offer though it was during my peak child-bearing years. You know, before I lost all interest in sex.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:This seems to be a discussion on the way society treats women, specifically in the way people demean and disparage women who have multiple sexual partners (or are thought to have multiple sexual partners), and I really, really don't think I'm going to concede on that point, or even compromise. (even if it would be the gracious thing to do)
I'm always happy (or at least I try to be, or hope I try to be) to reach a compromise, in any disagreement. Nonetheless there are times when the distance between two people or two points of view is so wide that compromise becomes very difficult even between two people who are genuine and interested in actual discussion.
I think this is one such issue. Focusing on the distance between the two stances rather than anything else, I find that there are simply too many enormous disparities that are still reflected in the treatment of men versus the treatment of women. In order to reach a compromise that men and women are generally equivalent in their power over their selves and their sexualities, much less to begin to seriously consider the possibility that men are on the low end of that teeter totter, how many realities would need to be explained away or overlooked?
Women are the victims of violence, both 'ordinary' and sexual, at the hands of men by staggering amounts greater than can be said in the reverse. How will this imbalance be addressed to square the circle? Women are hugely underrepresented in politics-how will this be addressed? These are just two of the not just mountains but mountain ranges that must be overcome before we can even begin to arrive at something that spells out a world where women are equally much less more in control of things than men.
So it becomes difficult when faced with someone who just waves all of that off and insists you skip over those things and focus on theories which rest on a foundation of everything that would need to be demonstrated before, having already been done.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
