Misogynist

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by Orleander, Apr 17, 2009.

  1. copernicus66 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    639
    In case you have trouble reading the abstract, here's the pie chart.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    And who influences children more?

    On camera being the relevant term. Are men embarassed for women to see their penises off camera?

    Or the pornography a woman looks at/reads. How many women would actually do it [let alone on camera]?
    Have you ever looked at womens clothing? We like frills!!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Why was this scary?
    Oh come on, seriously. You think women care about comfort over looking sexy!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    So oral sex and rimming is a purely heterosexual phenomenon where the subservient woman tortures herself for the man. Men don't it to each other, women don't do it to each other?
    Theres womens work and theres mans work. Women doing mans work have to do better than the man to be considered equal.
    Or, they just found it funny?
    .

    There is a whole S&M culture devoted to the dominatrix.

    What makes you think men are all that easy to figure out?
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. copernicus66 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    639
    Exactly. This has been explained to Tiassa before, but he simply feigned obtuseness.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. copernicus66 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    639
    Oral sex is an inherently violent act where the man delights in humiliating a woman by forcing his cock down her throat until he makes her vomit, doncha know? There is no such thing as both parties enjoying an act of oral sex, or heaven help us, a woman actively wanting to give oral sex for her own pleasure. And of course there phenomenon of a man going down on a woman doesn't exist, because that would mean the man is being subservient to the woman, and such a thing doesn't happen in a patriarchy!
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2009
  8. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Has Andrea Dworkin's fat carcass risen from the dead or something?
     
  9. copernicus66 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    639
    By the way, the above is a serious accusation. You're essentially accusing a current poster and a former poster of being misogynists. Back that assertion up or shut the hell up.
     
  10. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Hmmm.. you're lucky I'm the forgiving type

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Cannon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    207
    Lol, this is a great topic to explain. Has you dad ever beat you? Now has he ever done it with a belt? Did someone tell you god is always watching? Did mother not care about what you did? Lastly, men have a problem with who they are.

    They cope with this by drinking or finding other ways to deny this. I think it comes down to the ever desire to change for the better, but some I think lose what "Better" means.

    If they become better to themselves, they may become "Bitter" to others. It's easy to spot abuse and depression when you've been part of it isn't it. But sometimes it's hard to spot abuse or depression in ones self because of Denial.

    Denial makes a man that way. The lack or inability to cope with change or the blatent disregard to change.
     
  12. Cannon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    207
    Hey, I go down on my woman because I want to... and yes, I've gotten it in the face k... Not good. Don't blow without at least saying something common thats just mean.

    As far as oral sex goes, 69 to keep it fair...
     
  13. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Don't know if this was directed at me, but no.

    I disagree. Overgeneralizing.

    I disagree. I think abusers know perfectly well that they are abusers, they just can't help themselves.

    Do you have a problem with men ?
     
  14. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,875
    Porno Dreams, and Stranger Things

    Is this multiple choice? Or should I just theorize randomly and hope to trip over the point you're trying to convey?

    I don't know, but I'm also not sure it's relevant. The incongruity is that people want to imagine these women as uncomfortable when, in fact, it is the men who are uncomfortable.

    Would it affect you if your lover one day told you that you weren't sexy unless you looked frightened or embarrassed? That you needed to depict the situation as somehow harmful, frightening, or otherwise negative? The core attraction of "ENF" pornography is the sympathetic or empathetic sense of violation and privilege.

    Two parts there. First, I've seen very little pornography created for female audiences. It's not that it's not out there, but I just haven't seen much of it. What I have seen, however, suggests that it's of at least a slightly different nature. Not that you can't find butch-dyke porn that involves the same kind of degradation that you find in male-oriented het porn, but it seems that when the dominant partner calls the submissive a sleazy fucking cunt, nobody pretends it's love.

    (There's also a het porn subsection called "Loving Wives", in which men prostitute their wives for gangbangs and the like in order to get out of a business or criminal debt. Yes, it's so romantic watching five unwashed strangers take turns tripling up your wife.)

    As to doing it on camera? Well, it depends on how you qualify the quantities. Compared to all the women in the world, no, I can't say I have any proof that the answer is "a lot". But, to the other, it ain't exactly uncommon.

    And high heels. And nylons in the humid urban summer. And spending forty minutes painting your faces because ... um ... well, I still haven't figured that out. I mean, while I'm aware that women don't wear makeup for men's sake, perhaps it's that inner cattiness, then. "We have to look good," is the answer I usually heard back when I bothered asking. Look good for whom? The answer usually wavered between self and, frankly, that catty competition between women that so many men like to point out. And, as to that, the competition either is or is not for men's sake, depending on who you ask.

    As to frills, though, I hear what you're saying. But there comes a point when this isn't underwear that you're going to throw on before heading off to spend a day in the lab.

    And, having engaged in some transvestism before (strangely, for the entertainment of a girlfriend ... oh, and her mother just adored the outfit the first time she saw me in the black skirt and see-through white blouse with black polka dots ...), I actually understood when a female friend of mine stripped off, asked to borrow some of my underwear, and then showed me where the satin frills had managed to rub her skin raw. The lesson of the day was to be cautious with tight, unyielding clothes and lots of spare frills.

    A confluence of factors. The kids were what some would call holy terrors. And when sitting six holy terrors as well as your own kid, all it takes is one to throw everything into dangerous disarray. And when it was all six of them, the flashpoint was usually the sexually-precocious nine year-old girl. Not that I didn't empathize as much as possible; her premenstrual outbursts were seismic; I don't envy her.

    But I've seen that look in a woman's eye before, and if she was of age, well, that would be one thing.

    Indeed. In truth, part of me fears I'm taking you too seriously, but another is looking for a way to turn each point back to my original statements.

    There's that quote from Emir Ali Khan that I drag out on an increasingly regular basis:

    The members of all communities, including nations and whole civilisations, are infused with the prevailing ideologies of those communities. These, in turn, create attitueds of mind which include certain capacities and equally positively exclude others.

    The ideologies may be so ancient, so deep-seated or so subtle that they are not identified as such by the people at large. In this case they are often discerned only through a method of challenging them, asking questions about them or by comparing them with other communities.

    Such challenge, description, or questioning, often the questioning of assumptions, is what frequently enables a culture or a number of people from that culture to think in ways that have been closed to most of their fellows.

    And I'm as certain as I can be that much of the misunderstanding between the sexes stems from ideas that are "so ancient, so deep-seated or so subtle that they are not identified as such by the people at large".

    While I appreciate the general attempt at levity, you're approaching singularity with that one. The boundaries you propose are extraneous to the consideration at hand.

    All I'm saying is that if heterosexual men were treated the way women are, they'd freak the fuck out.

    I agree with the second sentence entirely. If I hesitate regarding the first, it's that I can't write your definition of a woman's work.

    Hmm ... let's try a few responses. I'll let you pick which to ignore and which one to make a point of brushing aside.

    (1) While it is easy to say, "The audience is stupid," and be correct, I tend to think that when 2,800+ people show up at the Paramount to see Dennis Freaking Miller, they're generally a little more intelligent than to laugh at a butt-sex joke that they don't understand. (For the record, my partner and I went to that show with a couple of friends, and when Miller popped (heh!) that joke, my friend's girlfriend had to ask him what it meant. And even in the dark, you could see this manly hetero man blush. See point 2 below.)

    (2) Perhaps it's one of those things where you had to be there. I mean, you're capable of distinguishing between various kinds of laughs, right? And when the fifty year old woman sitting in front of me looks at her husband that way, and he just tips his head and shrugs a shoulder with grinning lips pressed tight, yeah, you'll know exactly what you're seeing.

    (3) Do you ever actually stop to think about whatever you're aiming your ptomaine imitation of idiocy at, or is it just habit?​

    Yes, one of them writes a column for The Stranger. (Or read through her blog, if anyone is so inclined.)

    S&M is a subculture, and female domination is a part of that. I think your point depends on an overestimation of open, uncloseted female domination.

    Mistress Matisse, for instance, is a professional dominatrix. And over the years, there are two strange things I've noticed about alternative newspapers. One is the seemingly inordinate proportion of the color ads for prostitutes advertising trannies in Seattle. The other is that paid dominatrices have a tremendous client base. And no, you don't have to pay close attention to recognize that a lot of the clientele is married men looking for what their wives won't give.

    So in that context, it's hard for me to believe that, "I'm paying a woman so that I can cheat on you because you're a terrible, boring fuck," is the sort of outcome that stems from a healthy valuation of women. If the definition of a wife is invested in her ability to please her husband in all things (dinner, bed, general obedience, being seen and not heard, &c.), I would think that outcome would only reinforce my point.

    (To which end, I'll simply suggest to imagine a young boy growing up in that kind of household. Construct whatever affirmative explanation you might give; at what point do you actually explain things in detail? And I don't mean just how to stroke the flail just so, but if your seven year-old discovers the stash of videos or photographs, what do you say? I mean, it does go a bit beyond the whole "When two people love each other" speech. I mean, when little Billy points out that he's hitting her and she's crying, how do you explain that as love?

    And certainly it may be, but I recall a strange conversation I had once with a tech guy from the insurance firm where I used to work. We were out for a smoke break, and he lit my cigarette with a plain, tarnished, brushed aluminum Zippo, and then proceeded to tell me the story of that lighter. It was his friend's favorite lighter. One day, my co-worker, around age twenty, picked up a fifteen year old with drugs, and both he and his friend raped the shit out of her. And his friend gave him the lighter as a gesture of thanks and a symbol of their shared experience. What struck me most was the pride with which he recounted hammering this girl's ass while she puked on his friend's dick. The act itself? It's hard to say, "These things happen", but they do, and that says nothing about prevention or justice. But I can't figure out how the hell someone can be so goddamn proud of committing rape. There may be personal trauma involved, or it may just be cultural. In the late nineties, a study suggested that as many as seventy-thousand unreported rapes occurred on American college campuses each year. And for all the times I've heard a man say she really wanted it despite trying to scream, kick, and claw her way out of it ... well, I don't imagine I'm the only one who's ever heard that line.

    And this is what I explained to Orleander; trauma or natural psycopathy isn't required to bring about such a result. Young American men, at least—and, to judge by various attitudes expressed around the world, we might include most of Western civilization, and even most of human culture—are immersed in various forms of "background" bigotry, in this case misogyny. It's why I put the word "innocent" in quote marks when I say "'innocent' misogyny". Most of these men aren't trying to cause harm; they just don't understand the harm they might cause—they are culturally programmed in a way that interferes with the perception.

    What makes you think the question is relevant?

    More constructively, to reiterate: The one thing we cannot seem to figure out is how we relate to women.

    I'm not talking about figuring out women or men per se. In the long run, such questions are futile. But how we relate to one another? The last thirty years have been an incredibly confusing transition; I do sympathize to a certain extent with some men's confusion about how holding a door degrades a woman, and such. But I also believe that much of their confusion stems from their own internal conflicts because very frequently, the response is to get pissed off at women in general.

    The thing is that the answer is simple: Women are human beings, so treat them as such.

    Well, okay, describing the answer is simple. Actually making it work is a little more complicated. Still, though, therein lies the problem. Women are human beings. It's just four words. What those words mean, though? That seems largely elusive, else we would have gotten the hang of it by now. After all, we've had millennia to consider the question.

    • • •​

    I find the argument intellectually dishonest inasmuch as it deliberately pretends a particular represents the general. When you take a segment of a closeted subculture and hold it up as a general representation of everything else, you're not making much of an argument.

    Ignorance is one thing. But at some point, the combination of ignorance, sloth, and mulishness equals stupid. And that's exactly what the argument is. S.A.M. is playing a familiar game. But what's your excuse?

    Don't ever wonder at your low reputation in this community if that's the best you can come up with.

    Of course, neither would I discount your own experience performing fellatio. I, too, know that it can be enjoyable to suck a cock. But that fact does not mean the negative doesn't happen. Indeed, to consider the point from which your pathetic denunciation springs—

    And let's consider oral sex for a moment. Sure, if you get an average guy drunk enough, he'll probably put his mouth on a dildo. For a second, or something. But strap that thing on, shove it down his throat until he vomits, and then repeat rapidly for two minutes. Would you expect him to look at you in the morning and say, "I love you"?​

    —I challenge you to show us the establishment of the absolute boundaries from which you recoil. Come now, the paragraph is right there for you. Show it.

    The problem is that you have utterly failed in the sense of context and comprehension. That's not particularly surprising, but it certainly doesn't do much to advertise your intelligence.

    Man, you must hate windmills. What did they ever do to you?

    Remember that before your opinion of something someone else wrote carries any weight, you need to demonstrate that you know how to read. As your idiotic attack bears no regard for what was actually written, one might wonder what you expect to accomplish with such juvenile bullshit.

    Then again, life goes on. Continue to degrade yourself all you want. Fuck, look at Jim Carrey. He made millions professionally embarrassing himself by playing a completely hopeless idiot.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    The Stranger. "Author Archive: Mistress Matisse". TheStranger.com. Accessed April 18, 2009. http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Author?oid=9386

    Matisse, Mistress. Mistress Matisse's Journal. MistressMatisse.blogspot.com. Accessed April 18, 2009. http://mistressmatisse.blogspot.com/
     
  15. copernicus66 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    639
    And I find it intellectually dishonest when you misrepresent the arguments of individuals you disagree with. I never asserted that the BDSM community was representative of society as a whole, I simply point out that a significant number of men enjoy being dominated sexually, and this is borne out in part by the BDSM culture. It is highly dishonest for you to ignore the existence of such a significant social trend.

    There is no need to describe yourself in such a manner. I would not call you stupid, so much as a partisan who feels the burning need to revise reality to suit their misandry.

    To be fair, I've never had entire threads dedicated to me in Open Government where my integrity was questioned. You, on the other hand...

    Then why did you neglect to mention it? Why would you portray oral sex as a violent, oppressive and dominating act, when you know quite well that this isn't necessarily true?

    Quite true. But is the negative representative of the norm, or are men who forcibly throat fuck their partners so hard that they *vomit* just an aberration? I'd argue the latter, but then I've never had your sexual experiences.

    Not so much as you have failed to express concepts and ideas in a concise and clear manner.

    True intelligence is being able to explain even the most difficult of concepts to the most simple minded. Think on that little gem of advice.

    Your posturing and ad hominems are cute, but until you offer up something which isn't rhetoric, your credibility is nada.
     
  16. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    if you are making a genuine effort to analyze Tiassa or his stories you may as well bang your head into a wall.
     
  17. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,875
    You realize you're not actually fooling anyone, right?

    Yet the point is essential to your criticism. Next time, pay attention to the discussion before chiming in with one of your grudges.

    And as I noted in my response to S.A.M., this is a portion of a subculture that hides in the closet. The point depends on an overestimation of the classification. Additionally, a significant portion of the female domination subculture orbits around prostitution, and a significant number of those clients are married.

    So much for the sanctity of marriage, but that's a separate issue. Still, though, while leaving a lover because she's boring in bed is generally acceptable, right there is a great reason to not get married.

    The idea that a wife is inadequate because she does not wish to receive or inflict pain in pursuit of sexual gratification is clearly a sex-based standard. So among that portion, we still see misogyny.

    Interestingly, an American study in 1997 found that between 9 and 21% of respondents—depending on classification—admitted to entertaining BDSM fantasies. That is, 9% of heterosexual women, 11% of heterosexual men, 15% of openly gay men, and 21% of lesbians. One might suggest that BDSM becomes more popular when classic gender inequality is removed from the equation.

    The context of the discussion at the point you decided to spout off pertained to just how significant the female domination subculture really is compared to the broader issue at hand.

    Oh, come now. You can do better than juvenilia, can't you?

    Well, when you finally develop enough integrity to be a moderator, maybe we'll see.

    Because it was irrelevant to the point at hand:

    And let's consider oral sex for a moment. Sure, if you get an average guy drunk enough, he'll probably put his mouth on a dildo. For a second, or something. But strap that thing on, shove it down his throat until he vomits, and then repeat rapidly for two minutes. Would you expect him to look at you in the morning and say, "I love you"?​

    Strangely, didn't you just say something about finding it intellectually dishonest to misrepresent members one disagrees with? Or is that one of those rules that you are naturally excepted from?

    So we'll leave it up to you: Are you aiming to depict yourself as dishonest, or illiterate?

    I would challenge you to establish where I "portray[ed] oral sex as a violent, oppressive and dominating act" when I "know quite well that this isn't necessarily true", but you'd probably run from that one just like you did the last challenge to justify your misrepresentation.

    Your contextual failure is apparent. On the one hand, I don't blame you; it's a difficult subject to wrap one's head around. To the other, you don't appear to have tried at all.

    Whether it is the statistical norm or an aberration is actually irrelevant to the original point.

    The original point had to do with something considerably more complicated than you've demonstrated a capacity to understand: The question was misogyny without a religious foundation. The answer is significantly invested in cultural immersion. In this particular instance, the point pertained to myths of sexual intercourse that young men encounter in their development. If men were treated the same way as women, and held to the same expectations, they would freak the fuck out.

    So it's a simple question we can ask you directly: If someone jams their cock down your throat to the point that you puke, are you really going to thank them?

    As far as I can tell, I achieved my specific purpose, which was to address the thread topic. And tomorrow I'll be addressing the follow-up question. That I have failed to communicate with someone so determinedly illiterate as you choose to present yourself surprises me none. Your entry to this thread was a straw man argument, and you haven't done any better since.

    Well, you've certainly put a test before us, haven't you? A nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat, sir.

    You are complaining about ad hom?

    Sorry, dude, but when your argument depends on a misconstrual or misrepresentation of the discussion, your reading comprehension is going to fall into question. Maybe next time you should pay attention before you open your mouth and embarrass yourself.

    Oh, and just for the record:

    Two points here:

    (1) They're both widely recognized as misogynists around here.

    (2) Don't expect the community to constantly be rehashing old members.​

    Oh, and a third point I almost forgot ...

    (3) You're not actually fooling anyone, dude.​

    Lastly, I'll simply point out that you managed to misrepresent your wonderful CDC chart. Or, perhaps it would be more appropriate to say you underrepresented it. The statistics reflect a few trends, at least, and at least one of them is both long-established and included in the article (DV among age group reflects general violence among age group). The other is a more recent phenomenon, the rise of violence among young women. It's a shame you're taking such a superficial view of the numbers; this would be the time for men to start speaking up affirmatively about female domestic violence. And the key there is affirmatively. You know, as in, "We have a problem that needs to be addressed," instead of, "Get rid of VAWA because it's sexist!"

    The statistics do, indeed, raise some compelling questions, but as your contextual difficulties transcend mere personal grudges (and probably inspire a few), I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you're looking past those questions in pursuit of your hatred.

    I accept that you might not be a misogynist per se. You might simply be a misanthrope.

    Lovecraft was like that, too. Sexually confused and perpetually angry at people. He didn't care. He'd throw whatever there was to throw at a person. Yet despite his insane bitterness, he managed to redefine an entire genre, transform American literature, and even find time to put together a remarkable paper on horror and the supernatural in literature. Of course, he died at age 37 of complications related to syphilis. Still, though, there's hope for you, yet.
     
  18. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Sorry, too vague? Most men get their attitudes about women from other women not other men. At least this has been my experience. Which is why I find it strange that women continue to teach their children the "differences" between being one gender and the other in terms of practicalities, who distinguish between whats right for the girl to do and how the boy should interpret the differences. The onus is always on the girl to set the limits regardless of her inexperience. And well, if she sleeps on a first date, she's a slut. If she doesn't, she's a tease.

    I'll concede I don't see your point here. There are two kinds of men, those are alright with being unashamedly naked and those who are alright with being unashamedly naked in private. Most of them have no idea what they want the women to be like except of course, they want them to be attractive [a loaded term]. So you have the man who likes his women innocent but then gets bored because she takes no initiative and knows only what he knows. Or the man who likes his women experienced but then balks at her knowing more than he does. But I agree with you, its a rare man who treats a woman like a woman, ie recognizes that she can have more/less or different experiences and that is what makes her who she is. I'd like to say women are more understanding than that, but I've been around too many women who have issues with their husbands sexuality to be able to back that up.

    The way I see it is, there's a lot of porn out there that just makes me think "wtf???" but clearly, there are varied expressions of sexuality and somewhere out there are men and women who see sexual humiliation as attractive and arousing. Women are constantly accused of having rape fantasies or gang bang fantasies but in these fantasies of course, there is no punch to the face that breaks the nose or dislodges the teeth, no blows to the stomach that force her to curl up, no kick to the kidneys that make her piss blood. Reality is not often reflective of fantasies and sexual fantasies are no different. To imagine a hypothetical woman as embarrassed is very different from seeing the woman you know being humiliated.

    I've seen that. To that I direct my previous response to varied sexual practices and the difference between fantasy and reality. Although, in reality while I have come across swingers who seem to be happy together after the fact, I have yet to come across any "loving wives" who relished being a cum dump for voyeuristic pleasure. It puts me in mind of a random episode of Nip/Tuck.

    While I did not follow the series, I found that one episode quite extraordinary. You have the divorced back-in-the-market middleaged man who fantasises about having sex with the underage (??) daughter of the gay lover of his wife, who is exploring her sexuality. While he rejects that fantasy as impractical and "sinful" so to say, he meets a very attractive young woman who plays the gruesome role of being the object of his sexual attentions while he closes his eyes and pretends he is in fact screwing the teen girl he considers forbidden to him. The lover senses his lack of participation but puts it down to a drunken episode where she lost sphincter control and pooped in the bathtub, whereupon he was kind enough to come in and clean her up. She felt however that the episode degraded her and cleaning her poop or finding her in a circumstance of pooping in the shower made her a less attractive woman to him. So she embarks on the road to titillation and convinces him to tell her his fantasies, the ones which disengage him from her. Of course, the teenage schoolgirl being on his mind thats the one he goes with.

    While she is taken aback that her 50 something lover wants to pork sixteen year olds, she gets into the spirit of things and meets him in a school uniform. Except of course, then he feels [in the sense of being all metrosexual] obliged to ask her what her fantasies are and she wants to be screwed by others while he watches [preferably a black other, IIRC]. He's upset but goes along to a swingers club where he gets cold feet as soon as she finds a likely candidate for their threesome. Now she's upset and they have a showdown where he finally "confesses" that it was the poop in the shower thing all along, he just could not sleep with her after that without disengaging himself.

    Combining all of the elements of the story what I see is that even when a man has real motivations for using a woman, he wants to blame her for it.That to me is misogyny. But regardless, look at that entire situation and tell me what any other man would think and do in that situation in real life.



    Most men will not notice what a woman is wearing. Wear a really sexy teddy with a thong and put your hands over his eyes and coo, "darling do you like this green teddy" when its red and he'll say, "oh yes I do!" cos his mind has already moved on from irrelevant notions like colour. Women don't dress for other men, they'd live in a state of perpetual disappointment if they did, because they'd be long dead before a man saw the clothes around the skin. Women dress for other women. When they wear the tight clothes, the nylons, the heels, when they let the bra strap with the lacy flowers show, you think the man is going to see the clothes? The women will, and they will dissect every visible little aspect of it. Its a competition no doubt and as the extremely stick thin woman with the improbable high heels tottering down the airport lounge while wearing a tight tight teeshirt proved yesterday, some women will go to inordinate lengths and make themselves severely uncomfortable to stay ahead in this "game".

    Which you may have "learned" but I bet she was right there in the parlour spreading her legs and getting a brazilian the next time she wanted to feel "feminine"
    Thats odd, a kid tells you "wanna see my thong?" and you see a woman's look in her eye? I remember an occasion when a four year old showed me his dick and started rubbing it quite seriously. Or when the five year old wanted to feel my boobs and as soon as his mother allowed me to hold him, he took the liberty of doing what he wanted. Kids have curiosity too.

    Which heterosexual men? All of them? The ones who live by ancient standards of male and female roles? The ones who lose sexual attraction when they have to clean up poop in a shower? The ones who fantasise about sixteen year olds?

    Thats because its not consistent. The misogynist decides what womens work is. Even if the misogynist is another woman playing power games. You see this very often in Indian societies where the daughter in law moves in, not just with the husband, but also his entire family. Since Indian households revolve around the mother, this is an immediate setting for family wars where the lines are drawn early in the game. One archaic custom in some families is to "test" the bride the day after the wedding, give her a seemingly impossible task and a time limit and leave her to it. If she can accomplish it, she gains "respect", if not, she "loses". The entry of the new bride shakes up the existing dynamics, the entry of a second, a third or even a fourth even more so. There are interesting lessons to be learned from the way women manage these power equations, from the tussle between the mother and wife for being the priority in the son's life, to the quiet struggles for the alpha role.

    To that, I'd have to say that I'd have laughed even if I'd never received the finger and I know several men who would have. Perhaps you overestimate the necessity of getting the finger before finding it uproarious. Or perhaps, as you say one has to be there. From all the shows I have attended, I'd say that sometimes people laugh even if they don't understand exactly what the point was.
    Assuming these married men want their wives to give it to them. There are men who like their women compartmentalised and slut and wife or dominatrix and wife don't fall in the same compartments.

    To a seven year old who walks in on his parents having regular/anal sex with his mother moaning loudly it would still look like he was hitting her and she was crying. How do you explain that?

    Because many of these men confuse lubrication with desire.

    I'll agree with that. You should see these same men once they have daughters.
    The way I see it, its incredibly unfair to lay all the blame on men. Expectations about manliness have changed radically and most men are still wondering what the hell the status quo is. From the woman who expected to be "looked after" and who now faces a man that shrugs and says " well what did you expect when you wore those pants?" to the man who "protects" his woman and is called a neanderthal because he cannot relate to the modern woman who wants to be felt up, the ways of love are twisted as ever.
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2009
  19. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    There's some evidence that this happens a lot more frequently than some are willing to admit. There are a lot of people, both men and women, that hold the belief that when a woman claims she is raped, you're not allowed to be skeptical.
     
  20. copernicus66 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    639
    I'm afraid not. It's only essential to your distortion of my point of contention.

    'Hiding in the closet'? As demonstrated by the existence of wide availability of BDSM pornography, such an assertion is not grounded in reality. But then, that's hardly a surprise given that it is you making the assertion.

    Translation please. Are you claiming that a significant proportion of the population does not obtain sexual pleasure from BDSM activity or thoughts? That's laughable, given that you later post statistics that suggest that 11% of heterosexual men admit to entertaining BDSM fantasies.

    Relevance? Oh wait, there is none.

    Then why did you bring it up? Perhaps your posts would be more concise if you didn't continually introduce irrelevancies.

    So men who obtain sexual pleasure from being dominated by women are misogynists as well? Wow, you'll twist anything and everything to fit your misandry.

    Of course, but there is only so much effort I am willing to expend on one such as you.

    As the discussions regarding your conduct demonstrated, integrity is apparently the last thing a sciforums moderator needs.

    Explain why it is irrelevant without your usual rhetoric and waffling.

    Neither. But I do think I'm doing a fantastic job at depicted you as unable to make a concise and consistent argument.

    I'm sorry, I'll try and accommodate your short memory span. Remember how you first referred to the act of oral sex?

    "And let's consider oral sex for a moment. Sure, if you get an average guy drunk enough, he'll probably put his mouth on a dildo. For a second, or something. But strap that thing on, shove it down his throat until he vomits, and then repeat rapidly for two minutes. Would you expect him to look at you in the morning and say, "I love you"?"

    and when I argued that not all acts of oral sex are acts of violence and abuse, you backpeddled by claiming:

    "Of course, neither would I discount your own experience performing fellatio. I, too, know that it can be enjoyable to suck a cock."

    Your inability to offer up a consistent set of arguments for healthy criticism is notable.

    And I hardly blame you for being incapable of expressing your thoughts in a consistent, logical and concise manner. It seems that integrity isn't the only quality that moderators lack.

    Not at all. You cited the ' violent nature' of oral sex to demonstrate the misogyny inherent in Western culture, and now that you've been caught with your pants down, you're backpeddling. Just pathetic dude, pathetic. Who do you think you're fooling?

    or that you've demonstrated a capacity to explain...

    As you have yet to demonstrate that such behaviour is common in heterosexual relationships, I don't see the relevance of the question.

    Too bad you failed miserably.

    Indeed. One would think a moderator would adhere to the rules, but there's that lack of integrity I mentioned earlier.



    And I could argue that you're widely recognised as a charlatan. That doesn't necessarily make my argument true, does it now?

    If one is going to make a serious accusation regarding any member, I would expect them to support that assertion with evidence. Ya know, the same thing you always squeal for whenever your integrity as a moderator is called into question.

    I know you aren't. That fiasco where you were busted conspiring to ban Baron Max after he whipped your ass repeatedly in multiple discussions really caught you with your pants down.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    That's a serious accusation. How exactly did I misrepresent the graph? I pointed out that it suggests that domestic violence may be perpetrated equally by both genders, and you have offered up nothing to discredit my statement.

    The rest of your posturing has been snipped. If I wished to listen to the caterwauling of the mentally challenged, I'd visit my local home for the handicapped.
     
  21. Liebling Doesn't Need to be Spoonfed. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,532
    You are so full of shit. You've called Mike a misogynist on frequent occasions, including one just before you made this post. No one is that stupid.

    And mountainhare wasn't a misogynist either, he and I had discussions with him frequently and I quite liked him. mountainhare was a bit of a misanthrope in general, and he had some issues going on beneath the surface, but he was funny and engaging and smart when he wanted to be, and he didn't hate women. He just hates women who act like princesses. Most of us do, myself included.

    Just because someone doesn't like you and your attitude, doesn't make them a misogynist. Luckily, you aren't a representative of most women. I stay away from the soccer mom/cheerleader type because I'm not into gossip, idle chit-chat, snide remarks and bad behaviour. I stayed out of it in high school, but it's clear to me that some of the mean girls just never grow up. Perhaps it's your behaviour that make smart men not like you. I know you haven't thought of that, but the rest of us have.
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2009
  22. Liebling Doesn't Need to be Spoonfed. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,532
    You are allowed to be skeptical, you just aren't allowed to say it because then you are a misogynist, right?

    Couldn't be that there are women out there that are manipulative, conniving bitches who will do anything to get at someone who has slighted them in any way. Even if that slight is a one sided perception. In addition to rape, there are women who purposely get pregnant, women who only go after married men, gold-diggers and princesses who will cry wolf and play the victim just to get what they want. There are some women who will use their vag to get what they want, and they almos all believe that it's their right or their "power" over a man... and that it's a mans fault for not being able to combat it.

    One of my best friends served 28 months in prison because a girl claimed he raped her in high school. Then, evidence showed that the DNA wasn't even his, it was of another guy she was cheating on him with and she put him away so she could be with the other guy.

    Know how much time she got for lying and falsely imprisoning a man for more than two years? None. They didn't even prosecute... she plead out to 400 hours community service. My friend is just getting his life back now, and it took 14 years and moving 1200 miles away to do it. And there are still people in his family who believe her. It's so sad.
     
  23. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    Except the way rape is now classified, it is any sexual activity the woman doesn't want. So if you get drunk and hook up with a real minger? It's rape, if the woman decides it's rape.

    Conflation between having drunk sex the woman later decides counts as rape and kidnapping a woman and violently penetrating her with your buddy is the sort of intellectual dishonesty I would expect from someone who hates men. Do you hate men, Tiassa?

    The problem of widespread "rape" on college campuses, I think, is the conflict between one's puritanical childhood and the relatively new freedom of college, and then having to make a choice while drunk. It's common, especially for women, on my campus, to get loaded and hook up, then use the "I was drunk" line as justification for having sex, as opposed to admitting they like sex. For some, I think this a defensive reaction to society's eagerness to brand them slut, but I think the schizophrenia between being a sexually desirous woman at the same time being told you're bad for wanting sex, goes deeper. It's this schizophrenia that leads to higher cases of "rape", because some women can't reconcile that they were, indeed, asking for it with a judgemental androcentric heteronormative culture.
     

Share This Page