female-teacher sexpidemic

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ZenDrake, Jan 9, 2006.

  1. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    I can ALWAYS count on you to say such things!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    In seriousness, there is probably quite a bit of truth in this statement.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    I've edited the above post so pl. read it again!
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,844
    America.. FUCK YEAH!

    Man this is my instinct almost verbatum. Get your fuck on and stop your whining you pussies.

    Then again, some boys are "sensitive" and can actually be "damaged" (assuming there is such a thing) by the intense emotions for a "role model" that is supposed to be showing them how to behave.

    While my instinct says "what a bunch of pussies to think such a thing", I cannot entirely refute the point.

    On the side supporting you however, is not "damage" one's birthright? Is it not an integral part of life to do things that are weird and challenging... to follow your circumstance? It is arguable that most great things that have been accomplished have been done in internal retaliation to percieved circumstance. Like an "I'll show them" kind of thing or a better or worse variant on that theme.

    Then again to counter that, it seems that regardless should an adult, who is responsible for themselves, be demonstrating this potentially negative behavior to children or "youths" in their care?

    IMO, the problem is the subjectivity of the deal. For some boys, fucking the teacher would be a great fucking thing. A badge of honor that could be a great memory for them their whole life, at least a great memory and who knows what kind of good things it could mean personally to the kid. On the other hand, it could be that the get ends up all fucked up from it because they weren't so stable in the first place, and the teacher who is supposed to be taking care of them fucks them up worse.

    That makes in a tough subject so society ends up having to deal with it as an aggregate basically, since each case cannot feasibly be properly addressed, we have to pick somethign and go with it even if it's wrong in some cases. What say you?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,844
    Hey aren't you the guy who called me a panzy or something before? Hehe..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I agree with the above as a generalization.

    I'll buy this, but implemented subjectively the need is damned near impossible to separate from the desire such that we can examine each for what it is. I think some guys are prone to cock and some not, some buy society, some by their own natural expression of their biology. But it's also easy to argue that a MAN doesn't NEED cock, as cock is for vagina and propogation. I'm just sayin. I think there's a smidge of truth to the latter there, but ultimately the subjective expression of biology and its impact on the individual's psychology leaves plenty of room for cock hungry men IMO. I mean, all humans are .. I think female, by default. The expression of a gene or something like 8 weeks in determines sex. Sure they are pre-destined for the most part to be whatever sex happens at that eight week thing or whatever, because it's a consequence of the interaction between the two contributor's DNA... but for that time we are all basically the default gender from one perspective. I think at minimum, that leave plenty of room for all kinds of expressions of sexual identity later in life.

    In general of course, in the specific, some more than others..

    Generally speaking I'll buy it okay. I'm not sure about the distinction between need and desire though. Seems like a very fuzzy line.

    Well, that would make perfect sense in terms of evolutionary psychology no? It seems natural to me that a species capable of placing value on things would value the mechanisms that lead to the perpetuation of the species mroe than the individual's sexual desire/need. Is it fair? Not really, but it does make sense to me.

    Which makes perfect sense in terms of what I just said...

    IMO, it's easier if you think of humans as "complicated apes".

    The term "artificial" in that context is highly debatable, but I think I know what you mean and don't think you're necessarily incorrect.

    I'm sure you're right in some cases. In others much less so I'm also sure.
     
  8. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    Wesmoris, even though you've quoted superluminal, why does it seem to me that you're actually talking to me?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Unfortunately, we all know that it is not the 'pussies' but the 'macho'/ tough kinds who seek to conform more to the pressures of 'social masculinity'. But in the final analysis, no one escapes from it.

    We had this stall on mascuilinity in South Africa in a conference. An American middle aged man comes to us and pointing to the posters talking about pressures on men, says with an heterosexual 'air', "We don't have any such pressures in Americal"......then goes on to say that he doesn't feel any such pressures. When my female colleague asked him if in his country men can say 'no' to a woman who approaches them for sex, without feeling less of a man, he thought for a moment and then said "No!" and then went his way!

    Let me tell you, that given the nature of male pressures, it is actually the 'softer' males who can say 'no' to women without feeling any less of themselves as a human being (they don't often feel a lot manly in the first place!).
    I don't quite understand what you're saying here.

    On a hunch, let me say that whenever we act under social pressures and do something which goes against our 'nature', we harm end up harming ourselves.
    I'd say, if the society condones sex between teens, and in fact promotes it, then it doesn't serve any purpose to stop sex between adults and teens. But then things change when we consider the kind of pressures that men live under.
    It's not people who are fucked up. It's the society which is all fucked up --- the people are only trying to deal with the fucked up society, especially the young people.

    And yes, given the way our society works, teens do preserve any kind of sexual entangle with a woman as a trophy --- it helps them to consider themselves as 'men'. You know pass that eternal test of 'manhood' that men have had since the dawn of civilisation (although it was never sex with women!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    !).

    However, it still does not condone their sexual exploitation.
    In principle, it sounds good that young people should be free do choose to do sex with whoever they please.

    Especially, youth is the main time when the sexual need for men is at the peak, and it can really help the youth if male-male relationships are healthily institutionalised by the society.

    But as long as men, especially boys live under pressures of 'fake social masculinity' (including the pressure to prove that they can have sex with women which also gives them masculinlity points that gets them status within the peer-group), we can never ensure that boys indeed want what they say they want!

    or that they indeed dont want that they say they dont want!
     
  9. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    And for the most part, its the softer ones who strongly like males who easily leave straighthood (which is manhood in a heterosexual society: Our language relfects what we want to promote, saying straight = heterosexual is an artificial way to promote it!) ---- and happily take on the 'gay' identity.

    It's all a matter of 'gender orientation'.
     
  10. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    O.K. I apologise. But your statement was the typical 'power statement' that is so widely used to put pressure on men......and this is the last thing that men should be doing as men!
    Now that is the artificial pressure being mounted from what --- religious or scientific institution? It's difficult to distinguish, they're both hand-in-hand in spreading lies about male gender sexuality.

    We have discussed this before, but since you're obviously a sincere debater I'll enumerate some of the important points here:

    1. Our body organs and qualities can be for multiple important purposes. Mouth is used to eat. But it is also used to speak. Then again, you can also kiss with it! Can you say with any amount of fairness that mouth is primarily for eating and not for speaking. And if nature did not intend mouth to give sexual pleasure, why did it make it sensual to touch. Everything --- and that means everything in naure has a purpose, even if our science or religion fails to understand that!

    2. Nature has created only as much sexual need for procreation in humans as is healthy. Beyond that it starts becoming detrimental both --- to the species and to the nature as a whole. So the argument that sexual need is only for procreation is dangerous to say the least. In nature only a limited number of males indulge in sex with females. This sex happens only once or twice in most males' lives and is restricted to sex for procreation. There is no romance or bonding at all. Furthermore this happens only in the 'mating' (a misnomer and how our language tries to taint our perceptions --- there is hardly any mating going on, just pure sex, often for a couple of minutes) season. Everseen two males fighting for sex with a female. Notice how the rest are coolly chewing grass in the background!
    (the above is true for all species, especially mammals, but excludes birds).

    3. In nature (non-bird species, i.e.), on the other hand a lot of bonding between males (and between females) takes place (pl. consider the latest researches by a series of biologists like Paul Vasey, Bagemihl and Johann Roughgarden). This bonding is often life-long and even monogamous --- except for the couple of times in their lifetime that the males go for reproductive sex. In mammals these sexual bonds cover 90% to 100% of males. The same figures are just not true for even male-female reproductive short-sex, leave alone bonds --- which occur as an exception in the wild. Now humans beings are basically mammals and there is no reason why we should be different, especially when other things prove otherwise.

    (please refer to the thread "heterosexuality is unnatural")

    More lies that are spread as part of the pressure tactic (even if you sincerely believe in them!)

    I don't know if all humans are females by default (this is probably true!), but most certainly that notion that it is femininity in males that leads to a sexual desire for women is another lie spread both by traditional societies and by the science.

    I've already shown how femininity and 'softness' in males is related to heterosexuality (heterosexuality by the way does not refer to male-female sex that is for procreation; it refers to male-female sex for emotional bonding) in the now merged thread "Heterosexuality is queer".

    Give me time and I'll show how a sexual desire for men in masculine men is nothing but the essence of their natural masculinity. In gay men it works differently of course.

    Let me take an example to show the difference between a real straight man (who would have a basic drive to bond sexually with men!) and a real heteroseuxal guy (straight would be the last suitable word to describe the thing!):

    The brave father in the movie 'the Lion King' would be an example of the first kind (even though he is shown as a 'heterosexual', while the 'cunning' uncle who kills the lion through treachery would be a negative example of the second kind.

    Although the above is a negative example of a typical heterosexual man, heterosexuality is not essentially negative. Cunningness is a typical heterosexual trait (but not bravery!). Real heterosexual men are practical and take good care of children.

    It is not surprising that foxes (who are cunning) have more share of 'heterosexuals' than are common amongst the mammals.

    I'm not making a distinction between need and desire. Our desires often reflect our needs! They should in nature.
     
  11. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    If there is anything like evolutionary psychology then we should have moved away from heterosexuality long back --- when the first signs of overpopulation started showing.

    It does not make any sense at all, when the modern society invests millions in condoms --- which harm the environment and other harmful/ costly/ artificial/ painful contraceptive methods on the one hand and overvalues sex with women on the other.

    And evern if we were to believe in having the kind of evolutionary edge you're talking about, there is no evolutionary sense in forcing men away from their natural needs by way of social pressures --- because men can very well do both --- bond with men and have procreative sex with women.

    Neither is there any evolutionary sense in forcing heterosexuality, i.e. male-female long or short term bonds. More so if they are the non-marital, casual stuff that is not going to help in raising children.

    Peace!

    Let's debate. That's what sciforums is for!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    :m:
     
  12. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,844
    Buddha, it's late for me here at the moment and I'm beat. I just wanted to make the quick point that evolutionary psychology is a perspective, like trying psychology from an anthropological view sort of, even thogh that's not quite right. I'm far from an expert on the topic, but really dig it the general idea as I have bastardized it in my own context.

    If you've never heard of 'memes' I suggest you google and think about them a bit in terms of the argument you're presenting. I think you'll like it. Of course you're not obligated, I just think you'll like the ideas there, even if you don't embrace them. I find them a very useful conceptual tool for examining these types of problems. I don't generally think of them explicitely, they are usually implicit to my thinking.
     
  13. Daremo Registered Member

    Messages:
    2
    What is wrong with you people?

    A grown person should not be exploiting a child REGARDLESS of the child's gender.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    How can you consider it molestation when its a male teacher with a young girl and think it's great when a female teacher does it to a young boy?!?!
    It is a crime and a horrible atrocity for an adult to take advantage of a child. Yes sometimes teens have fantasies, that does not mean they have the mental capacity to enter into a sexual relationship with an adult. I have 2 sons, and a daughter. ANY adult touches any of my kids & I guarantee they will regret it
     
  14. Daremo Registered Member

    Messages:
    2
    Finally someone is thinking about this rationally!
     
  15. visceral_instinct Monkey see, monkey denigrate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,913
    Why??

    What happens to a female to damage her, that does not happen to a male?
     
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,445
    This thread is 4 years old.
     

Share This Page