A series of questions for both sexes
31 Jan 2013, 10:22 pm
hyperlexian wrote:
Shau, comments are commonly sexist without knowing the intent. [brevity snip]
I'm pretty sure we were fierce political rivals in another life. We don't seem to agree on much, and are more than happy to butt heads about it. We have a fundamental difference in how we believe language and information works.
answeraspergers wrote:
Are you the bf trying to be alpha here? I notice the linked accounts.
Will you knock it off? You're not exactly helping here.
meems wrote:
The hostility toward females in this sub-forum is kind of ridiculous, and talking about it just garners ten times more hostility and it's BS and impossible to have a conversation about it without the thread devolving into a bunch of people just arguing in circles that they aren't misogynists, some of them going all victim-complex mode... all the while maintaining the misogynistic/sexist language they use and defending it.
Would it have made you feel better if I had used "all men are horndogs" instead? You're digging for gold that doesn't exist, I'm afraid. Unless you want to point out my generally cynical view of humanity which I happily and readily apply to both sexes, which is less about hate and more about....being cynical.
Quote:
That said, saying "Oh, it's OK for me to say whore because of my intent" doesn't change the character of the statement "All women are whores/promiscuous", because the world doesn't revolve around you, and you are responsible for your words once you put them out there.
The whole point here was to demonstrate that the word misogyny (and misandry, and misanthrope...) are being used incorrectly. "All men are horndogs" is stereotypical, quite possibly dickish, but not necessarily misandrist. I'm fully aware that using the word whore is going to piss people off.
Quote:
Someone can say it's OK to use a racial slur amongst friends who know you don't mean it with malice(I have friends who call me a dirty Jew all of the time) but beyond the people who understand your personal intent, you're going to be perceived as racist. If your method of dealing with that is saying "I didn't mean it in a racist way." that's not really very effective, because you said something offensive and HURTFUL regardless of how you meant it. It means different things to different people. You are responsible for considering your audience.
All of this is irrelevant to the point I was making.
Quote:
Here's a quote I'm having an impossible time locating the source of:
"I don’t expect gay people to prove to me, a straight person, that there’s actually homophobia. I don’t expect poor people to prove to me, a Harvard grad, that hunger and poverty are widespread problems. And if someone asked me, as an Asian person, to “prove” to them that racism exists, I would laugh all the way back to Chinatown. Marginalized groups are not responsible for explaining their marginalization to you. If you are actually concerned, you would take the initiative to do some research yourself instead of showing up at some oppressed group’s door step demanding a list of citations for things (racism, sexism, etc.) that are proven time and time again in the real world."
"I don’t expect gay people to prove to me, a straight person, that there’s actually homophobia. I don’t expect poor people to prove to me, a Harvard grad, that hunger and poverty are widespread problems. And if someone asked me, as an Asian person, to “prove” to them that racism exists, I would laugh all the way back to Chinatown. Marginalized groups are not responsible for explaining their marginalization to you. If you are actually concerned, you would take the initiative to do some research yourself instead of showing up at some oppressed group’s door step demanding a list of citations for things (racism, sexism, etc.) that are proven time and time again in the real world."
None of this has anything to do with the point I was making.
Quote:
No one has to prove to you that the word whore is sexist, misogynistic, and it hurts.
I disagree, it's not misogynistic until used for such an intent. You can call it hurtful sure, insensitive sure, but if Orwell has taught me ANYTHING about words, is that the widespread misappropriation of them and the concepts associated with them are capable of warping thought. The last thing I want to see is the entire fields of sociology, neurology, and evolution constantly hammered with accusations of misogyny, misandry, and misanthrope just because people get their feelings hurt when they're generalized. THAT is what this is all about. People are DESPERATE to conflate generalizations and stereotypes with hatred, and I'll see nothing of it, I don't care how many feminists or men's rights activists it pisses off.
Quote:
You're posting on a forum full of people of different genders and expecting people to see those words and believe/understand your intent, but the thing is, the great majority are likely not your close personal friends who will extend to you the benefit of the doubt or assume you really aren't sexist/misogynistic etc.
Irrelevant. My entire argument is about highlighting a clear difference between stereotyping and hatred. The fact that they are becoming conflated is a bit of an issue, imo, as I stated earlier.
Quote:
This isn't meant to be an attack on you, I'm trying my damnedest to explain why it hurts to see someone say that word is OK to use casually, because the word itself carries meaning in culture and society that goes way beyond your personal intent. It's not OK.
I don't think it's ok to use it casually, but it serves as the most jarring example that clearly highlights the nature of what I was discussing. And don't worry about feeling like you're attacking me, I can handle it. If I can't I'll quietly bow out of the discussion.
dunya wrote:
Question 1 is different for men and women. It assumes certain beliefs and behaviours. Why?
In biology, males of a species usually favor the reproductive strategy of simply mating with as many females as possible, whereas the female strategy favors mating only with the best males. The purpose of the difference is to explore to what extent this might be true in humans. I tend to believe it is true, or was a short time ago on an evolutionary time scale.
Quote:
I think generalisations like "most men" or "most women" are unhelpful.
Generalizations are sometimes correct, to varying extents, imo.
31 Jan 2013, 10:44 pm
Shau wrote:
2. If someone were to tell you that most women would probably take the chance to have sex with such a very high quality man at the expense of not having sex with lesser men, would this offend you? Would you consider this misogyny?
Hang on, are you saying she can't have sex with any lesser men ever again? And was that the assumption in question 1? That would change my answer to question 1.
31 Jan 2013, 10:46 pm
yellowtamarin wrote:
Shau wrote:
2. If someone were to tell you that most women would probably take the chance to have sex with such a very high quality man at the expense of not having sex with lesser men, would this offend you? Would you consider this misogyny?
Hang on, are you saying she can't have sex with any lesser men ever again? And was that the assumption in question 1? That would change my answer to question 1.
It doesn't apply to question 1, but it does apply for question 2.
Philosoraptor
Pileated woodpecker
Joined: 16 Jan 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 180
Location: Massachusetts, United States
31 Jan 2013, 11:13 pm
Shau wrote:
Try not to overthink these, boys and girls.
Men:
1. If you had the chance to have consequence-free sex with lots of beautiful and appealing women, would you take it? Why or why not?
2. If someone were to tell you that most men would probably take the chance [edit]at the expense of never being monogamous[/edit], would this offend you? Would you consider this misandry?
2a. If you would consider this misandry, would you consider it so if the person otherwise expressed no scorn for men?
3. What do you believe most men would do given such a chance?
4. Would you consider it wrong if a man were to take such a chance?
Men:
1. If you had the chance to have consequence-free sex with lots of beautiful and appealing women, would you take it? Why or why not?
2. If someone were to tell you that most men would probably take the chance [edit]at the expense of never being monogamous[/edit], would this offend you? Would you consider this misandry?
2a. If you would consider this misandry, would you consider it so if the person otherwise expressed no scorn for men?
3. What do you believe most men would do given such a chance?
4. Would you consider it wrong if a man were to take such a chance?
1. I would only do it IF AND ONLY IF both myself and every sexual partner involved agreed that such actions would be purely of a sexual nature. I would feel terrible to lead someone on when I have no intentions of holding a long-term relationship with them. If I did find someone who I would have intentions of holding a long-term relationship with, my sex-crazy spree would end there.
2. I wouldn't be offended. I am in college, and I have seen first-hand the effects of undeveloped brains combined with high levels of testosterone.
3. I believe most men would take it.
4. It depends. If such a man took the chance without any regard for the people (and instead treated his partners as mere sex objects), I consider it cruel and pathetic. If such a man made absolutely sure that all the partners understood all intentions and agreed to it without pressure, then I consider it merely a social contract.
01 Feb 2013, 12:29 am
Regarding the "consequence-free" part of the questions.
I'm assuming here that that includes all potential consequences: no babies, no disease, no social stigma, and no guilt at having gone against one's own principles.
I know a lot of people who wouldn't take the consequence-free sex because it would go against their principles. If said principles were excised from the person so that they could enjoy their sex guilt-free, would it really be them enjoying it?
_________________
Music Theory 101: Cadences.
Authentic cadence: V-I
Plagal cadence: IV-I
Deceptive cadence: V- ANYTHING BUT I ! !! !
Beethoven cadence: V-I-V-I-V-V-V-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I
-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I! I! I! I I I
04 Feb 2013, 12:23 pm
Men:
1. If you had the chance to have consequence-free sex with lots of beautiful and appealing women, would you take it? Why or why not?
No, I'd rather have one companion who I could really connect with than lots. Comfort and connection are mandatory pre-reqs to sexytimes when I'm involved..
2. If someone were to tell you that most men would probably take the chance [edit]at the expense of never being monogamous[/edit], would this offend you? Would you consider this misandry?
2a. If you would consider this misandry, would you consider it so if the person otherwise expressed no scorn for men?
Yes it would offend me.. since while I'm sure there are men like that.. there are just as many like me who want one partner and have no desire for others.. I'm not sure about the other... I'd say that whoever said it was likely a person who had been burned by unfaithful partners..
3. What do you believe most men would do given such a chance?
I don't know, honestly about this.. I imagine a lot would take it for all it was worth...
4. Would you consider it wrong if a man were to take such a chance?
I'd probably feel he was being a bit of a dog for it...
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Random Questions |
21 Apr 2024, 8:31 am |
| Questions about the terms Neurodiversity uses |
02 Mar 2024, 7:24 am |
| Are you a leftist or a liberal? Dennis Prager's 32 questions |
21 Apr 2024, 1:10 am |
| Why an autistic teen’s death raises questions about police t |
09 Apr 2024, 12:39 pm |
