A series of questions for both sexes

Post Reply New Topic

Shau, how you personally feel about sex workers doesn't turn universally turn an insult into a compliment, so it would definitely be misogynistic to make a comment like that. FYI: not even sex workers usually like to be called whores. it is even insulting to them.

Human minds never cease to fascinate me, often in very morbid ways.



You don't understand the definition of misogyny, I'm afraid. That is also not my opinion of sex workers, as much as I'm sure you probably wish it was.

1. Depends on how drunk I was Srsly though, not sure I get what consequence free sex is? Like no emotional investment? If so I find that difficult and usually end up emotionally invested even if it wasn't my intent, so no I wouldn't.
2. No I wouldn't be offended, I would call that real life aka human nature.
2a. N/A
3. Depends on their values. Many women would probably go for it.
4. No, not particularly. I'm not sure why it would be considered misogynist in the first place, shallow perhaps but then again you haven't limited this ideal man to just aesthetics, so I don't think there's necessarily anything problematic for anyone (male or female) to go for the best that is on offer. That applies to pretty much everything in life. No one wants to settle.

uhhhh yeah i do understand it. looooooook, a handy definition! it would be a misogynistic comment as it puts down women as a whole. people are obviously aware that "whore" is viewed as insult, so if they characterise all women as whores, that is misogynistic by definition. as above.

i don't care about your opinion of sex workers.

You would probably find Australians very fascinating. "Oi you bloody c**t, get over here with that fookin' whore of a girlfriend ya gots and have a stubby mate!" <---- This is not an offensive comment in Australia.

That said, since you're struggling to understand this, go on and replace "all women are whores" with "all women are extremely promiscuous", and it really doesn't change anything. Liking whores, liking "promiscuous" women, neither involve any kind of hate necessarily.

I dont get what you are talking about. Sure everyone knows, that not all woman are whores, i mean even in vatican you have females at secretaries etc... If someones means it in the way, that a physical normal woman, that likes to have sex, and accepts that, would be a whore, then the problem is the person is an idiot. ^^

A whore simply a person, offering social physical working force against money, in an contract where both sides has to agree with each other. As long as both sides are grown up and choose to do so on their own, its nothing bad about it.

Sorry, but if someone has such predujices in the 21st century, is really weird, so the person really seems to have some issues.

Its just as dumb as if I´d say, every men was a channel-worker.
1) Its dumb to belive, 50% on earth had the same job.
2) Its dum to believe, doing a job, agreeing with other persons to do so, was something insulting at all.

Last edited by Schneekugel on 31 Jan 2013, 7:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

I think you and Moisha should have a conversation together, I'm pretty sure L&D would explode.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt222352.html

Go join that thread, I eagerly await the chance to observe you two conversing.

I'm Australian and offended. While the word c**t has somehow edged it way into colloquial language (amongst certain groups heh) I disagree the whore is used in the same blase fashion, and have yet to come across even men that would let a 'whore' comment directed at their girlfriend, even by one of their 'mates' slide. More likely, it would invite a punch in the face. Or these days, a glassing.

perhaps you don't really know what a generalisation is, but it's where you take a characteristic of some people and generalise it to all members of a group. some women are promiscuous, yes - i do understand that. that is a specific characteristic of some women, but that doesn't mean it can be applied to all members of the group.

some friends kid around with each other and throw around joke-insults - that is a bit of bonding. i do understand that as well. it isn't insulting because you are friends. you are calling a friend a "whore" in that example, not all women. i am sure you can see the distinction there, as it not at all similar to calling all women whores.

the difference is that if you paint ALL women as promiscuous or as whores, you're in different territory. it is obviously neither flattering nor accurate to those women who do not fit that description. and the generalisation is specifically misogynistic because in this example it is only applied to women. hopefully this is clear now, because i can't think of another way to explain it.

It's been my general experience that most younger, city-going, pub-crawling Australians are nothing quite like what you described, at least not in Melbourne. Getting butthurt about a mate jokingly referring to your girlfriend as a whore would probably be met with a comment that you need to...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unkIVvjZc9Y

I'm not even joking. I'm honestly shocked you're even offended by this, Australians are like some of the hardest people to offend on the planet (until you mention how often they get their asses kicked by New Zealand in the rugby).



This was nothing more than a cheeky statement, yet here you are analyzing it like it was some kind of debate point. Why, exactly?



If it doesn't involve any kind of hatred from the person saying it, then by definition it cannot be misogynistic. There's really no two ways about this.

if you are flush with cash i suggest this

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Polygamous- ... 0491017375

the statement itself stands on its own - if it is a negative generalisation about women, then it is by definition misogynistic.

what you are mistakenly speaking about it is the person themselves - i have not once called the speaker a misogynist. though the word misogynist is the root of misogynistic, misogynistic statements do not necessarily have to come from people who are themselves misogynists. the intention of the speaker is not necessarily relevant or even known. it is the statement that must be examined within the context of the conversation/society/etc.

if i say "all men are dogs" but i love dogs, that doesn't make my statement less sexist. i can try to argue and explain myself to soften the blow, but taken in isolation, my statement is misandrist.

i thought this was a good opportunity to explain something you have misunderstood.

another day another crazy statement

Last edited by answeraspergers on 31 Jan 2013, 8:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

Melbourne is actually probably the most progressive city in the country, though there are always rough types in every city and we are certainly not without our problems. I would certainly avoid using any derogatory terms around anybody from the Melbourne University arts building.

Last edited by ruckus on 31 Jan 2013, 7:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

Nope. Saying all women are whores (or promiscuous, if you prefer) doesn't meet the definition of misogynistic.

mi·sog·y·nis·tic (m-sj-nstk) also mi·sog·y·nous (-sj-ns)
adj.
Of or characterized by a hatred of women.

It isn't until you consider intent or interpretation that any possibility of misogyny becomes possible. And, if the person making the statement has no misogynistic intent, than any interpretation of misogyny is plain and simply wrong.



These aren't the "rough" people, these are the "drunk at a pub/club" people. Now if I wanted to get very specific about what was nothing more than a cheeky comment, saying something like that when you weren't drunk at a pub with good friends would definitely get your ass kicked.

“Don't argue! You cannot win, you cannot beat a woman in a arguement. It's impossble you will not win. Cause men, we are handicapped when it comes to arguing cause we have a need to make sense”

Chris Rock