Page 1 of 2 [ 25 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

pbcoll
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,892
Location: the City of Palaces

26 May 2008, 9:13 am

There seems to be an assumption among some people that women are binary - either domineering, or sumissive. By extension, this implies that men that don't want a sumissive woman want one that will boss them around, and those that don't want one that will boss them around must want a submissive one. personally I want a partner, not a boss and not a servant. I don't feel much respect for submissive women, nor for the all-men-are-bastards, I'm-a-feminist-until-a-restaurant-bill-needs-paying, men-are-responsible-for-everything-that-is-wrong-with-the-world type.

Examples of contemporary strong women (not of the latter type above, and certainly not the feminazi, mother-hating type) I can think of:

Latin Americans: Isabel Miranda de Wallace, Lydia Cacho, the mothers and grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo
Muslims: Taslima Nasrin, the Afghan women that organised secret girls' schools under the Taliban


_________________
I am the steppenwolf that never learned to dance. (Sedaka)

El hombre es una bestia famélica, envidiosa e insaciable. (Francisco Tario)

I'm male by the way (yes, I know my avatar is misleading).


ToadOfSteel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,157
Location: New Jersey

26 May 2008, 10:02 am

that could just be the binary logic inherent in most aspies manifesting itself...



sinsboldly
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,488
Location: Bandon-by-the-Sea, Oregon

26 May 2008, 11:11 am

pbcoll wrote:
There seems to be an assumption among some people that women are binary - either domineering, or sumissive. By extension, this implies that men that don't want a sumissive woman want one that will boss them around, and those that don't want one that will boss them around must want a submissive one. personally I want a partner, not a boss and not a servant. I don't feel much respect for submissive women, nor for the all-men-are-bastards, I'm-a-feminist-until-a-restaurant-bill-needs-paying, men-are-responsible-for-everything-that-is-wrong-with-the-world type.

Examples of contemporary strong women (not of the latter type above, and certainly not the feminazi, mother-hating type) I can think of:

Latin Americans: Isabel Miranda de Wallace, Lydia Cacho, the mothers and grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo
Muslims: Taslima Nasrin, the Afghan women that organised secret girls' schools under the Taliban


if you limit the 'types' of woman to binary opposites you will miss all of us that are neither.

Merle

______________________________
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Hamlet, William Shakespeare



pbcoll
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,892
Location: the City of Palaces

26 May 2008, 11:24 am

sinsboldly wrote:
pbcoll wrote:
There seems to be an assumption among some people that women are binary - either domineering, or sumissive. By extension, this implies that men that don't want a sumissive woman want one that will boss them around, and those that don't want one that will boss them around must want a submissive one. personally I want a partner, not a boss and not a servant. I don't feel much respect for submissive women, nor for the all-men-are-bastards, I'm-a-feminist-until-a-restaurant-bill-needs-paying, men-are-responsible-for-everything-that-is-wrong-with-the-world type.

Examples of contemporary strong women (not of the latter type above, and certainly not the feminazi, mother-hating type) I can think of:

Latin Americans: Isabel Miranda de Wallace, Lydia Cacho, the mothers and grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo
Muslims: Taslima Nasrin, the Afghan women that organised secret girls' schools under the Taliban


if you limit the 'types' of woman to binary opposites you will miss all of us that are neither.

Merle

______________________________
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Hamlet, William Shakespeare


Of course. I've mentioned only the submissive, pseudofeminist, and genuinely very strong types, but naturally it's a continuum. My point is some people seem to believe only the first two types exist at all instead of a broad spectrum.
Nice sig, by the way.


_________________
I am the steppenwolf that never learned to dance. (Sedaka)

El hombre es una bestia famélica, envidiosa e insaciable. (Francisco Tario)

I'm male by the way (yes, I know my avatar is misleading).


techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,148
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

26 May 2008, 11:48 am

Yeah, its one factor of many. Most important to me are self-sufficiency and independence (can make herself happy), altruism (prides herself on seeing things from all angles), and of course a decisive lack of narcissism. If we talk about domineering or submissive, both extrema are bad if they're the mechanics of how they deal with the other person in the relationship - if your talking about just physiology where the girl either has a lot of social power or is the alpha natural-jock, or on the other end naturally more frail and reserved - nothing wrong with either of those at all as long as they have a healthy sense of balance in, of course, how they view a partner and what respect level they're willing to maintain so long as their matched from the other side with the same respect.



tailfins1959
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 319

26 May 2008, 2:06 pm

At any rate, I'm not putting much stock in what this pbcoll dweeb says since he compared by wife to a prostitute.


_________________
Yeah with all of these men lining up to get neutered
It's hip now to be feminized
I don't highlight my hair
I've still got a pair
Yeah honey, I'm still a guy


sinsboldly
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,488
Location: Bandon-by-the-Sea, Oregon

26 May 2008, 3:41 pm

oh, sorry, I seem to have stumbled into a private confrontation!
I will just let you fellows pat yourselves on the back and agree with each other and quarrel about a lady's honor amongst your selves, then. Have a good day.

Merle



NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,837
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

26 May 2008, 4:07 pm

I have noticed there are a few types of American heterosexual women:

  • Geek/gamer girl
  • Fatty + emotionally unstable (maybe their obesity derives from emotional eating)
  • Progressive activist (some would say hippi)
  • High-strung achiever
  • Nurturer
  • Independent/determined
  • Demure
  • Christian/conservative
  • Materialist (not in the philosophical sense)
  • B*tch
  • $lut

Many of these are negative, but depending on the extent to which they manifest themselves and in what combination, they may not be so bad. More mature womem are likely to be of more types and able to switch types as needed. For example, a mature woman (not as in the euphemism meaning old lady) with strong nurturing instincts knows how not to be nurturing to people who are not nice to her and unlikely to reciprocate; she will not be nurturing in a way where she will later resent the people she nurtures because she isn't indiscriminate about it. Even a "s1ut" can be a good thing if she's mature about it. Think of the woman with a strong and insatiable sexuality but is still capable of a monogamous relationship; you'd probably find that desirable.



YowlingCat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,004

26 May 2008, 4:14 pm

NeantHumain wrote:
Even a "s1ut" can be a good thing if she's mature about it. Think of the woman with a strong and insatiable sexuality...

Hmmm. What does one call a male who has "strong and insatiable sexuality"...



DWill
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 167

26 May 2008, 4:46 pm

YowlingCat wrote:
NeantHumain wrote:
Even a "s1ut" can be a good thing if she's mature about it. Think of the woman with a strong and insatiable sexuality...

Hmmm. What does one call a male who has "strong and insatiable sexuality"...


Player? Normal? I guess it depends if he acts on his insatiable sexuality. I'm assuming you are alluding to the double standard society has men and women.



NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,837
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

26 May 2008, 4:55 pm

YowlingCat wrote:
NeantHumain wrote:
Even a "s1ut" can be a good thing if she's mature about it. Think of the woman with a strong and insatiable sexuality...

Hmmm. What does one call a male who has "strong and insatiable sexuality"...

If that male is an aspie, most likely the answer is sexually frustrated.



Cyberman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,736
Location: hibernating

26 May 2008, 5:08 pm

I actually use the term "slut" to refer to both men AND women. I see no real difference. But IMO, having a "strong and insatiable sexuality" alone does not make you a "slut." Having promiscuous intercourse DOES. As to why it's more "admirable" to be one if you're a guy... there's no real justification for it... it's just an artifact of a defective culture. Some will cite the pseudo-scientific BS that we're more biologically designed for it, but since humans don't function on the same level as animals, that isn't really an excuse.



YowlingCat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,004

26 May 2008, 5:17 pm

Dwill wrote:
I'm assuming you are alluding to the double standard society has men and women.

Of course
NeantHumain wrote:
If that male is an aspie, most likely the answer is sexually frustrated.

:lol:
But I don't understand why so many males don't get that referring to a female as a "slut" is incredibly offensive. It's jaw-droppingly offensive. It demeans women who - what? - enjoy sex outside of marriage? - have had more than one partner? - or just enjoy sex? And the idea that a woman can be a "slut" inside marriage...wow.
Cyberman wrote:
Having promiscuous intercourse DOES.

No it doesn't. I'm pretty sure the term "promiscuous" has rarely been used in connection with "males," either.

Harry: "Oh that Bronson! He is so promiscuous! He sleeps around with every woman he can get! He has no morals at all!"



Last edited by YowlingCat on 26 May 2008, 5:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.

sinsboldly
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,488
Location: Bandon-by-the-Sea, Oregon

26 May 2008, 5:28 pm

NeantHumain wrote:
I have noticed there are a few types of American heterosexual women:
  • Geek/gamer girl
  • Fatty + emotionally unstable (maybe their obesity derives from emotional eating)
  • Progressive activist (some would say hippi)
  • High-strung achiever
  • Nurturer
  • Independent/determined
  • Demure
  • Christian/conservative
  • Materialist (not in the philosophical sense)
  • B*tch
  • $lut
, a mature woman (not as in the euphemism meaning old lady)

Even a "s1ut" can be a good thing if she's mature about it.
Think of the woman with a strong and insatiable sexuality but is still capable of a monogamous relationship; you'd probably find that desirable.


I find it desireable to BE!

NeantHumain wrote:
[*]Demure


that's a type?



sinsboldly
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,488
Location: Bandon-by-the-Sea, Oregon

26 May 2008, 5:32 pm

Cyberman wrote:
I actually use the term "slut" to refer to both men AND women. I see no real difference. But IMO, having a "strong and insatiable sexuality" alone does not make you a "slut." Having promiscuous intercourse DOES. As to why it's more "admirable" to be one if you're a guy... there's no real justification for it... it's just an artifact of a defective culture. Some will cite the pseudo-scientific BS that we're more biologically designed for it, but since humans don't function on the same level as animals, that isn't really an excuse.


A vulgar promiscuous woman who flouts propriety is the definition of slut that appeals to me.

I am a discrete woman who sleeps with whom I care to and flouts propriety. . . is there a word for that?

Merle



Cyberman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,736
Location: hibernating

26 May 2008, 5:38 pm

YowlingCat wrote:
I'm pretty sure the term "promiscuous" has rarely been used in connection with "males," either.

Harry: "Oh that Bronson! He is so promiscuous! He sleeps around with every woman he can get! He has no morals at all!"

You're right, it isn't applied often enough to males. I'm agreeing with you on that. Like I said, I think the term should apply to both genders, and only when you're regularly having intercourse with people you don't really give a damn about. And just to set the record straight, I think there are much worse things to be than a "slut."