|
you all know about this 'controversy' feminists are often rubbin in people's faces.
The one that says it's discriminating to call a promiscuous male a stud (which is a compliment), while if the same person were female, she'd be called a slut, which is a bad word.
This morning in half-sleep just before waking up, this topic crossed my mind and I immediately gave an answer to it.
"Coz the slut is probly pregnant."
It's easy to understand why calling someone a stud is a compliment, and the reason for that is that the term alpha-male is very known these days. So people can draw parallels easily. The alpha male is the best male in the herd, so all females want his semen for best possible genetic combination.
But I didn't realize why 'slut' would be a bad, unappealing thing.
Well, it's because if you've witnessed a female getting phyisical with another male, she's probably gonna carry his baby and she's not worth your time. In evolution terms.
One other thing.
Why do women constantly throw little tests at men?
Again, to determine if he's alpha.
The top dog won't look over his shoulder, he will be confident, coz he knows he's superior to all other males out there.
However, we all watched documentaries where we could see a young male dethroning an alpha male (who's perhaps getting old). The old alpha get's insecure and the switch happens, all females go to the new alpha.
So, imo, all this testing it just to keep "up to date", it connects directly to each mans internal indicator of status among other men.
  
|
males can have multiple mates and females can't
|
As an omega male I find this depressing.
|
|
|
Korea (South)17174 Posts
um...well...i mean yeah..
but...ok...
|
more like they woman are betraying their own kind while the men stick together. It's the girls who call each other sluts, and they are the one who sleeps with the stud and increasing his status. But yes, we are still so primitive in alot of ways, but our ability to think and comprehend makes us able to change the way of nature.
|
i think its kind of bullshit how slut and stud carry the opposite meanings =/
'sluts' and 'studs' are held in exactly the same regard to me
|
On October 24 2009 21:20 niteReloaded wrote:
It's easy to understand why calling someone a stud is a compliment, and the reason for that is that the term alpha-male is very known these days. .
very chauvinist if you ask me. in a society where gender sensitivity is given primacy, it's hardly ideal to stick to a "top dog" mentality.
|
On October 24 2009 21:52 JohnColtrane wrote:
i think its kind of bullshit how slut and stud carry the opposite meanings =/
'sluts' and 'studs' are held in exactly the same regard to me
On October 24 2009 22:17 Harpoon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2009 21:20 niteReloaded wrote:
It's easy to understand why calling someone a stud is a compliment, and the reason for that is that the term alpha-male is very known these days. . very chauvinist if you ask me. in a society where gender sensitivity is given primacy, it's hardly ideal to stick to a "top dog" mentality.
gender instincts were never about whats wise or smart or fair.
You can only learn how they work, and it may actually help understaning that it's nothing to do with chauvinisim, it's just how men and women are hard-wired to operate.
|
On October 24 2009 22:17 Harpoon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2009 21:20 niteReloaded wrote:
It's easy to understand why calling someone a stud is a compliment, and the reason for that is that the term alpha-male is very known these days. . very chauvinist if you ask me. in a society where gender sensitivity is given primacy, it's hardly ideal to stick to a "top dog" mentality. This isn't about, unless i'm misunderstanding, what is ideal in society. Rather, he's explaining why certain mentalities within our society exist.
edit: that being said we should try to surpass our lower, base instincts, and attempt to equalize social norms. "It's the way evolution made us" is a poor excuse for social injustices.
|
in this blog the op points out the obvious
edit: fuck I love being a man. sure it's a little harder than being a girl, but you just have so much more potential. fuck yeah
|
On October 24 2009 22:30 lazz wrote:
in this blog the op points out the obvious
edit: fuck I love being a man. sure it's a little harder than being a girl, but you just have so much more potential. fuck yeah
some things seem obvious even tho you never thought of them in a way that now seems obvious.
I just explained why 'slut' has a negative conotation.
Were you aware of that?
|
United States24637 Posts
On October 24 2009 22:47 niteReloaded wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2009 22:30 lazz wrote:
in this blog the op points out the obvious
edit: fuck I love being a man. sure it's a little harder than being a girl, but you just have so much more potential. fuck yeah some things seem obvious even tho you never thought of them in a way that now seems obvious. I just explained why 'slut' has a negative conotation. Were you aware of that?
Just ignore lazz, he doesn't know what he's talking about. I enjoyed reading about your little realization.
|
|
|
rubbin' in peoples faces?
It's the truth unfortunately. I never got why guys think that equality is a good thing but not feminism, it's the same thing lol
|
United States24637 Posts
On October 24 2009 22:57 Foucault wrote:
rubbin' in peoples faces?
It's the truth unfortunately. I never got why guys think that equality is a good thing but not feminism, it's the same thing lol
Usually, it is not. There are some feminists out there who want to fight for true equality as it is meant to be. Then there's the rest of them who can go take a long walk off a short pier.
|
On October 24 2009 21:20 niteReloaded wrote:
you all know about this 'controversy' feminists are often rubbin in people's faces.
The one that says it's discriminating to call a promiscuous male a stud (which is a compliment), while if the same person were female, she'd be called a slut, which is a bad word.
This morning in half-sleep just before waking up, this topic crossed my mind and I immediately gave an answer to it.
"Coz the slut is probly pregnant."
It's easy to understand why calling someone a stud is a compliment, and the reason for that is that the term alpha-male is very known these days. So people can draw parallels easily. The alpha male is the best male in the herd, so all females want his semen for best possible genetic combination.
But I didn't realize why 'slut' would be a bad, unappealing thing.
Well, it's because if you've witnessed a female getting phyisical with another male, she's probably gonna carry his baby and she's not worth your time. In evolution terms.
One other thing.
Why do women constantly throw little tests at men?
Again, to determine if he's alpha.
The top dog won't look over his shoulder, he will be confident, coz he knows he's superior to all other males out there.
However, we all watched documentaries where we could see a young male dethroning an alpha male (who's perhaps getting old). The old alpha get's insecure and the switch happens, all females go to the new alpha.
So, imo, all this testing it just to keep "up to date", it connects directly to each mans internal indicator of status among other men.
Because men have to work to get laid, a woman doesn't.
|
On October 24 2009 22:30 lazz wrote:
in this blog the op points out the obvious
edit: fuck I love being a man. sure it's a little harder than being a girl, but you just have so much more potential. fuck yeah
It's a little harder than being a girl?
Whaaaaat?
Girls:
- Have a period
- Have to worry about pregnancy
- Are more susceptible to STDs
- Are still archaically viewed as a "slut" if they're promiscuous like a man
- Are paid, on average, 40% less than a man is for doing the same job worldwide
The only consolation is that they're given an easier ride if they're physically attractive. However, being handed freebies through life typically does not make you a good person.
Can you think of 5 reasons that come EVEN CLOSE to any of those? I tend to bugger off around women because the lot of them are psycho, but on the flipside, they have to deal with a lot more shit than we do.
|
haha a guys life is easier then a girls period. anyone who whores themselves out though is pretty sad, whether it be man or woman.
|
On October 24 2009 23:48 PokePill wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2009 21:20 niteReloaded wrote:
you all know about this 'controversy' feminists are often rubbin in people's faces.
The one that says it's discriminating to call a promiscuous male a stud (which is a compliment), while if the same person were female, she'd be called a slut, which is a bad word.
This morning in half-sleep just before waking up, this topic crossed my mind and I immediately gave an answer to it.
"Coz the slut is probly pregnant."
It's easy to understand why calling someone a stud is a compliment, and the reason for that is that the term alpha-male is very known these days. So people can draw parallels easily. The alpha male is the best male in the herd, so all females want his semen for best possible genetic combination.
But I didn't realize why 'slut' would be a bad, unappealing thing.
Well, it's because if you've witnessed a female getting phyisical with another male, she's probably gonna carry his baby and she's not worth your time. In evolution terms.
One other thing.
Why do women constantly throw little tests at men?
Again, to determine if he's alpha.
The top dog won't look over his shoulder, he will be confident, coz he knows he's superior to all other males out there.
However, we all watched documentaries where we could see a young male dethroning an alpha male (who's perhaps getting old). The old alpha get's insecure and the switch happens, all females go to the new alpha.
So, imo, all this testing it just to keep "up to date", it connects directly to each mans internal indicator of status among other men. Because men have to work to get laid, a woman doesn't.
That is actually the most simple explanation that explains why being a stud is good but being a slut is bad. +1
|
On October 24 2009 23:05 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2009 22:57 Foucault wrote:
rubbin' in peoples faces?
It's the truth unfortunately. I never got why guys think that equality is a good thing but not feminism, it's the same thing lol Usually, it is not. There are some feminists out there who want to fight for true equality as it is meant to be. Then there's the rest of them who can go take a long walk off a short pier.
Now that is just wrong.
Since men still have the power at large women who fight for equality are labeled strange and stupid and are considered to "hate men". This is a result of a patriarchal structure that basically doesn't want women to rise up and claim their position of equality.
The fact of the matter is that feminism is the struggle for equality between the sexes and I believe that a simple thing such as changing the word "feminism" into something more suitable would attract more men to the cause too. We should ALL want equality in some way or another so why the hate.
You could say that patriarchal discourse has labeled feminists as "evil" women, who want to "take over". Which is correct in some minor cases, but the majority of feminists want equality, plain and simple.
What's also funny about your post is that men have always tried to keep their power and superiority at the expense of women in society. In Sweden for example, women weren't allowed to vote up until a 100 years ago, which says quite alot about how long men have been in charge of everything in society. Now when women want more rights and want equality, men think that women should off themselves in a literary sense. How does this even make sense while claiming to want equality at the same time?
Maybe you don't want true equality between men and women though, what do I know.
|
Lol @ it's easier being a woman than being a man. Seriously?
May make an argument if she's incredibly good looking, but even then, there's huge plus and minuses.
And wtf with foucault being right. Hmm... or am I confusing you with someone else. I'm getting senile.
|
On October 25 2009 01:08 Foucault wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2009 23:05 micronesia wrote:On October 24 2009 22:57 Foucault wrote:
rubbin' in peoples faces?
It's the truth unfortunately. I never got why guys think that equality is a good thing but not feminism, it's the same thing lol Usually, it is not. There are some feminists out there who want to fight for true equality as it is meant to be. Then there's the rest of them who can go take a long walk off a short pier. Now that is just wrong. Since men still have the power at large women who fight for equality are labeled strange and stupid and are considered to "hate men". This is a result of a patriarchal structure that basically doesn't want women to rise up and claim their position of equality. The fact of the matter is that feminism is the struggle for equality between the sexes and I believe that a simple thing such as changing the word "feminism" into something more suitable would attract more men to the cause too. We should ALL want equality in some way or another so why the hate. You could say that patriarchal discourse has labeled feminists as "evil" women, who want to "take over". Which is correct in some minor cases, but the majority of feminists want equality, plain and simple. What's also funny about your post is that men have always tried to keep their power and superiority at the expense of women in society. In Sweden for example, women weren't allowed to vote up until a 100 years ago, which says quite alot about how long men have been in charge of everything in society. Now when women want more rights and want equality, men think that women should off themselves in a literary sense. How does this even make sense while claiming to want equality at the same time? Maybe you don't want true equality between men and women though, what do I know.
It would be kind of you if you could define exactly what you mean by "true equality" in this case. I'm just curious, so don't take it as a "i don't trust you" 
It's just that whenever I hear people discuss equality between genders, they usually come to a certain limit where they think it's starting to get ridiculous. Equal payment? Sure, why not. Same requirements for a job? Of course. Males breastfeeding their babies? A bit over the line. (I actually saw it in some newspaper the other day, some guy using machines to try and grow breasts. He was hailed by quite a few feminists, according to the journalist, since it would apparently "help equality". How, I don't know, but completely erasing the lines between what is male and female, is just horrifying)
The only real problem with the lack of equality nowadays is about jobs positions and payment, as far as I know. Correct me if I'm wrong.
|
[QUOTE]On October 25 2009 00:21 madnessman wrote:
[QUOTE]On October 24 2009 23:48 PokePill wrote:
[QUOTE]On October 24 2009 21:20 niteReloaded wrote:
you all know about this 'controversy' feminists are often rubbin in people's faces.
The one that says it's discriminating to call a promiscuous male a stud (which is a compliment), while if the same person were female, she'd be called a slut, which is a bad word.
This morning in half-sleep just before waking up, this topic crossed my mind and I immediately gave an answer to it.
"Coz the slut is probly pregnant."
It's easy to understand why calling someone a stud is a compliment, and the reason for that is that the term alpha-male is very known these days. So people can draw parallels easily. The alpha male is the best male in the herd, so all females want his semen for best possible genetic combination.
But I didn't realize why 'slut' would be a bad, unappealing thing.
Well, it's because if you've witnessed a female getting phyisical with another male, she's probably gonna carry his baby and she's not worth your time. In evolution terms.
One other thing.
Why do women constantly throw little tests at men?
Again, to determine if he's alpha.
The top dog won't look over his shoulder, he will be confident, coz he knows he's superior to all other males out there.
However, we all watched documentaries where we could see a young male dethroning an alpha male (who's perhaps getting old). The old alpha get's insecure and the switch happens, all females go to the new alpha.
So, imo, all this testing it just to keep "up to date", it connects directly to each mans internal indicator of status among other men.[/QUOTE]
Because men have to work to get laid, a woman doesn't.[/QUOTE]
This cleared everything up for me. Thanks!
I never thought about it like this, but now that you bring it up, it's pretty true.
|
On October 25 2009 01:41 Captain Mayhem wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2009 01:08 Foucault wrote:On October 24 2009 23:05 micronesia wrote:On October 24 2009 22:57 Foucault wrote:
rubbin' in peoples faces?
It's the truth unfortunately. I never got why guys think that equality is a good thing but not feminism, it's the same thing lol Usually, it is not. There are some feminists out there who want to fight for true equality as it is meant to be. Then there's the rest of them who can go take a long walk off a short pier. Now that is just wrong. Since men still have the power at large women who fight for equality are labeled strange and stupid and are considered to "hate men". This is a result of a patriarchal structure that basically doesn't want women to rise up and claim their position of equality. The fact of the matter is that feminism is the struggle for equality between the sexes and I believe that a simple thing such as changing the word "feminism" into something more suitable would attract more men to the cause too. We should ALL want equality in some way or another so why the hate. You could say that patriarchal discourse has labeled feminists as "evil" women, who want to "take over". Which is correct in some minor cases, but the majority of feminists want equality, plain and simple. What's also funny about your post is that men have always tried to keep their power and superiority at the expense of women in society. In Sweden for example, women weren't allowed to vote up until a 100 years ago, which says quite alot about how long men have been in charge of everything in society. Now when women want more rights and want equality, men think that women should off themselves in a literary sense. How does this even make sense while claiming to want equality at the same time? Maybe you don't want true equality between men and women though, what do I know. It would be kind of you if you could define exactly what you mean by "true equality" in this case. I'm just curious, so don't take it as a "i don't trust you" It's just that whenever I hear people discuss equality between genders, they usually come to a certain limit where they think it's starting to get ridiculous. Equal payment? Sure, why not. Same requirements for a job? Of course. Males breastfeeding their babies? A bit over the line. (I actually saw it in some newspaper the other day, some guy using machines to try and grow breasts. He was hailed by quite a few feminists, according to the journalist, since it would apparently "help equality". How, I don't know, but completely erasing the lines between what is male and female, is just horrifying) The only real problem with the lack of equality nowadays is about jobs positions and payment, as far as I know. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Yep, it's very hard to define what equality is and if you want to do it, you will have to think where you stand regarding biological and sociological explanations for gender. Some people believe that there is almost no biological gender to how men and women behave, but it's rather gender-roles that have been used and refined through thousands of years. Of course our bodies are different and what not but the actual difference in how men and women "are" has alot to do with how we are being raised. We are molded into men and women through socialization, where society tells us what we can do and say in line with our designated gender roles.
I think men and women are different in many biological aspects, some which also carry over to behavior but the majority of characteristics for behavior stem from gender roles, and personal differences not having anything to do with biological gender.
Oh and wages and employment is just the tip of the iceberg, the concrete symptoms of a patriarchy that is still very much in effect. Sweden has come quite far in terms of equality, but gender roles still dictate to a large degree how men and women interact with eachother and within in the same gender.
|
On October 24 2009 22:57 Foucault wrote:
rubbin' in peoples faces?
It's the truth unfortunately. I never got why guys think that equality is a good thing but not feminism, it's the same thing lol
No it is not. Feminism is often about women having more rights then men.
|
Russian Federation1381 Posts
On October 24 2009 22:30 lazz wrote:
in this blog the op points out the obvious
edit: fuck I love being a man. sure it's a little harder than being a girl, but you just have so much more potential. fuck yeah
Raising kids spending all the time with them is damn hard, even if enjoyable. However current social norms and morals in many countries enforce men to do that as well. Men and women are far different and far from being equal in instincts, needs for happiness and satisfaction, some people are forgetting that, this situation with studs and sluts is just one of many things.
|
On October 25 2009 01:53 Mastermind wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2009 22:57 Foucault wrote:
rubbin' in peoples faces?
It's the truth unfortunately. I never got why guys think that equality is a good thing but not feminism, it's the same thing lol No it is not. Feminism is often about women having more rights then men.
Most definately not, that's such a weird idea. Why do you think that?
Oh yeah these evil women want to smash men. And what, live with other women only? Nah
"The term Feminism can be used to describe an academic discourse, or to describe a political, cultural or economic movement aimed at establishing more rights and legal protection for women."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism
One thing that's iffy about the internet is, I have no idea if you're 25 or 14.
|
On October 24 2009 23:48 PokePill wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2009 21:20 niteReloaded wrote:
you all know about this 'controversy' feminists are often rubbin in people's faces.
The one that says it's discriminating to call a promiscuous male a stud (which is a compliment), while if the same person were female, she'd be called a slut, which is a bad word.
This morning in half-sleep just before waking up, this topic crossed my mind and I immediately gave an answer to it.
"Coz the slut is probly pregnant."
It's easy to understand why calling someone a stud is a compliment, and the reason for that is that the term alpha-male is very known these days. So people can draw parallels easily. The alpha male is the best male in the herd, so all females want his semen for best possible genetic combination.
But I didn't realize why 'slut' would be a bad, unappealing thing.
Well, it's because if you've witnessed a female getting phyisical with another male, she's probably gonna carry his baby and she's not worth your time. In evolution terms.
One other thing.
Why do women constantly throw little tests at men?
Again, to determine if he's alpha.
The top dog won't look over his shoulder, he will be confident, coz he knows he's superior to all other males out there.
However, we all watched documentaries where we could see a young male dethroning an alpha male (who's perhaps getting old). The old alpha get's insecure and the switch happens, all females go to the new alpha.
So, imo, all this testing it just to keep "up to date", it connects directly to each mans internal indicator of status among other men. Because men have to work to get laid, a woman doesn't.
At first I was gonna bring up all the celebrity men who don't have to work to get laid, but then I realized that they had to work or be lucky to get where they're at to get laid so easily. Damn, I can't find anything wrong with your theory.
|
That explains why male sluts are seen as studs but not why it's viewed at in a negative light for women.
I think nitereloaded has the right idea. Back in the day (maybe even today), men didn't like their women sleeping around while women never had much say in the matter so there isn't as much of a stigma.
I guess you could tie that into the evolution bit where a man doesn't like the idea that his woman could be carrying another man's child.
Meh, speaking out of my ass here but it sounds good.
|
You can go on and sleep with as many men as you want, you have the right to.
And I have the right to call you a slut, because you are, evolutionarily speaking, and unwanted woman.
Women are supposed to have standards, unlike men. So if you don't have them, there's something wrong about you. For this disorder, the word is currently - a slut.
|
United States24637 Posts
On October 25 2009 01:08 Foucault wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2009 23:05 micronesia wrote:On October 24 2009 22:57 Foucault wrote:
rubbin' in peoples faces?
It's the truth unfortunately. I never got why guys think that equality is a good thing but not feminism, it's the same thing lol Usually, it is not. There are some feminists out there who want to fight for true equality as it is meant to be. Then there's the rest of them who can go take a long walk off a short pier. Now that is just wrong. Since men still have the power at large women who fight for equality are labeled strange and stupid and are considered to "hate men". This is a result of a patriarchal structure that basically doesn't want women to rise up and claim their position of equality. The fact of the matter is that feminism is the struggle for equality between the sexes and I believe that a simple thing such as changing the word "feminism" into something more suitable would attract more men to the cause too. We should ALL want equality in some way or another so why the hate. You could say that patriarchal discourse has labeled feminists as "evil" women, who want to "take over". Which is correct in some minor cases, but the majority of feminists want equality, plain and simple. What's also funny about your post is that men have always tried to keep their power and superiority at the expense of women in society. In Sweden for example, women weren't allowed to vote up until a 100 years ago, which says quite alot about how long men have been in charge of everything in society. Now when women want more rights and want equality, men think that women should off themselves in a literary sense. How does this even make sense while claiming to want equality at the same time? Maybe you don't want true equality between men and women though, what do I know.
I thought it was clear what I meant but apparently you misunderstood me. My problem is not with feminism, in theory. My problem is with a good percentage of feminists who I have observed. I must admit this is an opinion, but I don't think many people share it with me simply because they have desires for inequality.
Many feminists want it 'both ways' and are not fighting for equality at all. As I admitted, some are fighting for their cause correctly and seek equality and I salute them... they just aren't loud and obnoxious enough to get my attention usually.
|
On October 25 2009 01:49 Foucault wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2009 01:41 Captain Mayhem wrote:On October 25 2009 01:08 Foucault wrote:On October 24 2009 23:05 micronesia wrote:On October 24 2009 22:57 Foucault wrote:
rubbin' in peoples faces?
It's the truth unfortunately. I never got why guys think that equality is a good thing but not feminism, it's the same thing lol Usually, it is not. There are some feminists out there who want to fight for true equality as it is meant to be. Then there's the rest of them who can go take a long walk off a short pier. Now that is just wrong. Since men still have the power at large women who fight for equality are labeled strange and stupid and are considered to "hate men". This is a result of a patriarchal structure that basically doesn't want women to rise up and claim their position of equality. The fact of the matter is that feminism is the struggle for equality between the sexes and I believe that a simple thing such as changing the word "feminism" into something more suitable would attract more men to the cause too. We should ALL want equality in some way or another so why the hate. You could say that patriarchal discourse has labeled feminists as "evil" women, who want to "take over". Which is correct in some minor cases, but the majority of feminists want equality, plain and simple. What's also funny about your post is that men have always tried to keep their power and superiority at the expense of women in society. In Sweden for example, women weren't allowed to vote up until a 100 years ago, which says quite alot about how long men have been in charge of everything in society. Now when women want more rights and want equality, men think that women should off themselves in a literary sense. How does this even make sense while claiming to want equality at the same time? Maybe you don't want true equality between men and women though, what do I know. It would be kind of you if you could define exactly what you mean by "true equality" in this case. I'm just curious, so don't take it as a "i don't trust you" It's just that whenever I hear people discuss equality between genders, they usually come to a certain limit where they think it's starting to get ridiculous. Equal payment? Sure, why not. Same requirements for a job? Of course. Males breastfeeding their babies? A bit over the line. (I actually saw it in some newspaper the other day, some guy using machines to try and grow breasts. He was hailed by quite a few feminists, according to the journalist, since it would apparently "help equality". How, I don't know, but completely erasing the lines between what is male and female, is just horrifying) The only real problem with the lack of equality nowadays is about jobs positions and payment, as far as I know. Correct me if I'm wrong. Yep, it's very hard to define what equality is and if you want to do it, you will have to think where you stand regarding biological and sociological explanations for gender. Some people believe that there is almost no biological gender to how men and women behave, but it's rather gender-roles that have been used and refined through thousands of years. Of course our bodies are different and what not but the actual difference in how men and women "are" has alot to do with how we are being raised. We are molded into men and women through socialization, where society tells us what we can do and say in line with our designated gender roles. I think men and women are different in many biological aspects, some which also carry over to behavior but the majority of characteristics for behavior stem from gender roles, and personal differences not having anything to do with biological gender. Oh and wages and employment is just the tip of the iceberg, the concrete symptoms of a patriarchy that is still very much in effect. Sweden has come quite far in terms of equality, but gender roles still dictate to a large degree how men and women interact with eachother and within in the same gender.
Agree on every point. Our instincts might be in the way of trying to raise children into equality. I mean, in the early years of school, boys and girls automatically separate into two groups, and later in puberty you have a ton of hormones, estrogen and whatnot kicking in, so it's going to be impossibly hard to stop ALL the social differences with these unstoppable biological things happening.
(Also, it is my belief that the brains between genders function in different ways too. I can't prove it, so I'll just put it in parenthesis. Anyway, I believe males have a higher capability of logical thinking, while females have a higher capability for empathy. Might affect behavior as well to various degrees.)
However breaking the ancient "tradition" of males being the workers and females nursing the children is going to be a bit easier. It's well on the way at least, and pretty impressive seeing that it has been that way ever since we started walking on two legs. Easier, because the need for it disappeared with the arrival of civilization, and we're pretty much just going on with it out of old habit so to say.
|
On October 24 2009 23:49 VorcePA wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2009 22:30 lazz wrote:
in this blog the op points out the obvious
edit: fuck I love being a man. sure it's a little harder than being a girl, but you just have so much more potential. fuck yeah It's a little harder than being a girl? = Girls: - Have a period - Have to worry about pregnancy - Are more susceptible to STDs - Are still archaically viewed as a "slut" if they're promiscuous like a man - Are paid, on average, 40% less than a man is for doing the same job worldwide
What? I don't consider promiscuous women sluts; I'd consider them insightful. Speak for yourself.
|
On October 25 2009 02:53 Captain Mayhem wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2009 01:49 Foucault wrote:On October 25 2009 01:41 Captain Mayhem wrote:On October 25 2009 01:08 Foucault wrote:On October 24 2009 23:05 micronesia wrote:On October 24 2009 22:57 Foucault wrote:
rubbin' in peoples faces?
It's the truth unfortunately. I never got why guys think that equality is a good thing but not feminism, it's the same thing lol Usually, it is not. There are some feminists out there who want to fight for true equality as it is meant to be. Then there's the rest of them who can go take a long walk off a short pier. Now that is just wrong. Since men still have the power at large women who fight for equality are labeled strange and stupid and are considered to "hate men". This is a result of a patriarchal structure that basically doesn't want women to rise up and claim their position of equality. The fact of the matter is that feminism is the struggle for equality between the sexes and I believe that a simple thing such as changing the word "feminism" into something more suitable would attract more men to the cause too. We should ALL want equality in some way or another so why the hate. You could say that patriarchal discourse has labeled feminists as "evil" women, who want to "take over". Which is correct in some minor cases, but the majority of feminists want equality, plain and simple. What's also funny about your post is that men have always tried to keep their power and superiority at the expense of women in society. In Sweden for example, women weren't allowed to vote up until a 100 years ago, which says quite alot about how long men have been in charge of everything in society. Now when women want more rights and want equality, men think that women should off themselves in a literary sense. How does this even make sense while claiming to want equality at the same time? Maybe you don't want true equality between men and women though, what do I know. It would be kind of you if you could define exactly what you mean by "true equality" in this case. I'm just curious, so don't take it as a "i don't trust you" It's just that whenever I hear people discuss equality between genders, they usually come to a certain limit where they think it's starting to get ridiculous. Equal payment? Sure, why not. Same requirements for a job? Of course. Males breastfeeding their babies? A bit over the line. (I actually saw it in some newspaper the other day, some guy using machines to try and grow breasts. He was hailed by quite a few feminists, according to the journalist, since it would apparently "help equality". How, I don't know, but completely erasing the lines between what is male and female, is just horrifying) The only real problem with the lack of equality nowadays is about jobs positions and payment, as far as I know. Correct me if I'm wrong. Yep, it's very hard to define what equality is and if you want to do it, you will have to think where you stand regarding biological and sociological explanations for gender. Some people believe that there is almost no biological gender to how men and women behave, but it's rather gender-roles that have been used and refined through thousands of years. Of course our bodies are different and what not but the actual difference in how men and women "are" has alot to do with how we are being raised. We are molded into men and women through socialization, where society tells us what we can do and say in line with our designated gender roles. I think men and women are different in many biological aspects, some which also carry over to behavior but the majority of characteristics for behavior stem from gender roles, and personal differences not having anything to do with biological gender. Oh and wages and employment is just the tip of the iceberg, the concrete symptoms of a patriarchy that is still very much in effect. Sweden has come quite far in terms of equality, but gender roles still dictate to a large degree how men and women interact with eachother and within in the same gender. Agree on every point. Our instincts might be in the way of trying to raise children into equality. I mean, in the early years of school, boys and girls automatically separate into two groups, and later in puberty you have a ton of hormones, estrogen and whatnot kicking in, so it's going to be impossibly hard to stop ALL the social differences with these unstoppable biological things happening. (Also, it is my belief that the brains between genders function in different ways too. I can't prove it, so I'll just put it in parenthesis. Anyway, I believe males have a higher capability of logical thinking, while females have a higher capability for empathy. Might affect behavior as well to various degrees.)However breaking the ancient "tradition" of males being the workers and females nursing the children is going to be a bit easier. It's well on the way at least, and pretty impressive seeing that it has been that way ever since we started walking on two legs. Easier, because the need for it disappeared with the arrival of civilization, and we're pretty much just going on with it out of old habit so to say.
Yeah basically it's very hard to say what's what. What's biology and what's defined gender roles?
About brains being different I think this is huge fallacy and I don't believe it for one bit. I mean, brains function differently between individuals too, someone can't metabolize certain vitamines as well as someone else and one person might have higher levels of catecholamines in the brain, while another person is naturally "calm" (as in less stress-hormones).
This is kind of a trap too, because we know brains function differently between individuals and the entire reason that we even consider thinking that womens brains are better at emotions than ours is to reinvent the notion that women aren't logical. Logic = better alot of the times according to the male norm, thus this idea just states over again that women are inferior. Do you follow?
I think the "difference" you are talking about is almost 100% about gender roles. Women aren't encouraged to be logical and intelligent in the same way that men are. And men are supposed to be "badass" "tough" and whatever adjectives there are to describe the male persona. This is imo a huge social construct; gender roles. They were practical centuries ago(which doesn't make them more moral or better) but aren't really needed today.
Yeah, I think it's ridiculous how the human species still hold on to alot of old prejudice. We are truly blind and awkward in many areas, especially with women's role in society today and historically. We need to step into the 21:th century. Women make up 50% of the earths population, word.
|
I always thought that the reason was the guy is giving sex were in most cases the girl is receiving sex, pretty much the guy is fucking the girl. The girl is not fucking the guy. Therefore the girl is the slut.
|
On October 25 2009 03:22 Foucault wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2009 02:53 Captain Mayhem wrote:On October 25 2009 01:49 Foucault wrote:On October 25 2009 01:41 Captain Mayhem wrote:On October 25 2009 01:08 Foucault wrote:On October 24 2009 23:05 micronesia wrote:On October 24 2009 22:57 Foucault wrote:
rubbin' in peoples faces?
It's the truth unfortunately. I never got why guys think that equality is a good thing but not feminism, it's the same thing lol Usually, it is not. There are some feminists out there who want to fight for true equality as it is meant to be. Then there's the rest of them who can go take a long walk off a short pier. Now that is just wrong. Since men still have the power at large women who fight for equality are labeled strange and stupid and are considered to "hate men". This is a result of a patriarchal structure that basically doesn't want women to rise up and claim their position of equality. The fact of the matter is that feminism is the struggle for equality between the sexes and I believe that a simple thing such as changing the word "feminism" into something more suitable would attract more men to the cause too. We should ALL want equality in some way or another so why the hate. You could say that patriarchal discourse has labeled feminists as "evil" women, who want to "take over". Which is correct in some minor cases, but the majority of feminists want equality, plain and simple. What's also funny about your post is that men have always tried to keep their power and superiority at the expense of women in society. In Sweden for example, women weren't allowed to vote up until a 100 years ago, which says quite alot about how long men have been in charge of everything in society. Now when women want more rights and want equality, men think that women should off themselves in a literary sense. How does this even make sense while claiming to want equality at the same time? Maybe you don't want true equality between men and women though, what do I know. It would be kind of you if you could define exactly what you mean by "true equality" in this case. I'm just curious, so don't take it as a "i don't trust you" It's just that whenever I hear people discuss equality between genders, they usually come to a certain limit where they think it's starting to get ridiculous. Equal payment? Sure, why not. Same requirements for a job? Of course. Males breastfeeding their babies? A bit over the line. (I actually saw it in some newspaper the other day, some guy using machines to try and grow breasts. He was hailed by quite a few feminists, according to the journalist, since it would apparently "help equality". How, I don't know, but completely erasing the lines between what is male and female, is just horrifying) The only real problem with the lack of equality nowadays is about jobs positions and payment, as far as I know. Correct me if I'm wrong. Yep, it's very hard to define what equality is and if you want to do it, you will have to think where you stand regarding biological and sociological explanations for gender. Some people believe that there is almost no biological gender to how men and women behave, but it's rather gender-roles that have been used and refined through thousands of years. Of course our bodies are different and what not but the actual difference in how men and women "are" has alot to do with how we are being raised. We are molded into men and women through socialization, where society tells us what we can do and say in line with our designated gender roles. I think men and women are different in many biological aspects, some which also carry over to behavior but the majority of characteristics for behavior stem from gender roles, and personal differences not having anything to do with biological gender. Oh and wages and employment is just the tip of the iceberg, the concrete symptoms of a patriarchy that is still very much in effect. Sweden has come quite far in terms of equality, but gender roles still dictate to a large degree how men and women interact with eachother and within in the same gender. Agree on every point. Our instincts might be in the way of trying to raise children into equality. I mean, in the early years of school, boys and girls automatically separate into two groups, and later in puberty you have a ton of hormones, estrogen and whatnot kicking in, so it's going to be impossibly hard to stop ALL the social differences with these unstoppable biological things happening. (Also, it is my belief that the brains between genders function in different ways too. I can't prove it, so I'll just put it in parenthesis. Anyway, I believe males have a higher capability of logical thinking, while females have a higher capability for empathy. Might affect behavior as well to various degrees.)However breaking the ancient "tradition" of males being the workers and females nursing the children is going to be a bit easier. It's well on the way at least, and pretty impressive seeing that it has been that way ever since we started walking on two legs. Easier, because the need for it disappeared with the arrival of civilization, and we're pretty much just going on with it out of old habit so to say. Yeah basically it's very hard to say what's what. What's biology and what's defined gender roles? About brains being different I think this is huge fallacy and I don't believe it for one bit. I mean, brains function differently between individuals too, someone can't metabolize certain vitamines as well as someone else and one person might have higher levels of catecholamines in the brain, while another person is naturally "calm" (as in less stress-hormones). This is kind of a trap too, because we know brains function differently between individuals and the entire reason that we even consider thinking that womens brains are better at emotions than ours is to reinvent the notion that women aren't logical. Logic = better alot of the times according to the male norm, thus this idea just states over again that women are inferior. Do you follow? I think the "difference" you are talking about is almost 100% about gender roles. Women aren't encouraged to be logical and intelligent in the same way that men are. And men are supposed to be "badass" "tough" and whatever adjectives there are to describe the male persona. This is imo a huge social construct; gender roles. They were practical centuries ago(which doesn't make them more moral or better) but aren't really needed today. Yeah, I think it's ridiculous how the human species still hold on to alot of old prejudice. We are truly blind and awkward in many areas, especially with women's role in society today and historically. We need to step into the 21:th century. Women make up 50% of the earths population, word.
Hahaha, yeah I follow. Very good point about the brain! I think I just read it in some study, but I have never bothered to check it up further. On the flip side though, your theory hasn't been fully proven either. In any case, congratulations! You just converted me to be neutral about that subject from now on Thanks!
It seems we agree on everything else though, so any further discussion between the two of us would simply be material for the club of internal admiration.
|
On October 25 2009 03:29 nAi.PrOtOsS wrote:
I always thought that the reason was the guy was receiving sex were in most cases the girl is giving sex, pretty much the guy is fucking the girl. The girl is not fucking the guy. Therefore the girl is the slut.
I agree with this. Human nature has a tendency to admire male attributes (dominance, aggressiveness, etc). In intercourse, it is generally that the man is the aggressor of the action and the woman is the receiver. While the male is seen as dominant, bold, aggressive in intercourse, the woman is submissive, and easily taken by her lust.
Edit: I actually just realized that you said the guy is receiving sex and the girl is giving sex.. I think it's the other way around.
|
I disagree with the idea men and women are hard wired in specific ways. I think that's a load of shit by people looking for excuses to oversimplify the world.
I also don't admire guys who don't have steady relationships. Why do you want to be around someone like that? So they can cheat on you if you have intercourse with them? So they can make passes at your girl if you are their 'friend.' Do these people even have real friends? If they use women as masturbation toys instead of as partners? "Stud?" Give me a break. Idiots having sex with each other.
Maybe if I went to an American High School I would feel different.
|
On October 25 2009 03:29 nAi.PrOtOsS wrote:
I always thought that the reason was the guy is giving sex were in most cases the girl is receiving sex, pretty much the guy is fucking the girl. The girl is not fucking the guy. Therefore the girl is the slut.
So that sums up as: He's putting something in - She's taking something out.
This explains everything on so many levels.
|
On October 25 2009 02:42 micronesia wrote:
Many feminists want it 'both ways' and are not fighting for equality at all. As I admitted, some are fighting for their cause correctly and seek equality and I salute them... they just aren't loud and obnoxious enough to get my attention usually.
Agreed with this. An example would be equal parenting rights, basically some feminists (one could argue not true feminists) would say "We want equal such and such here" but when parenting rights come up it's "No the woman should always be given the top status".
It's these people that can put others off the idea of feminism even if they truly arn't part of it. The idea of feminism itself is a just cause and I believe there should be complete equality, but it has to swing both ways.
|
Political feminism and gender as social construct aside, there will always be biological differences between man and woman which will affect our behavioural patterns, which overall affect our position to those around us, and as thus, there will never be "true equality" in the form of gender-neutrality. That being said, equal freedoms and economic possibilities are easilly doable, and should be presented to everyone equally, irrelevant of gender.
Anyhow, all that bullshit aside;
I'll start calling a slut for a girl-stud the day she initiates the pickup, pays for the drinks, seduces me, takes me home and does most the work in bed.
|
Russian Federation1381 Posts
On October 25 2009 03:22 Foucault wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2009 02:53 Captain Mayhem wrote:On October 25 2009 01:49 Foucault wrote:On October 25 2009 01:41 Captain Mayhem wrote:On October 25 2009 01:08 Foucault wrote:On October 24 2009 23:05 micronesia wrote:On October 24 2009 22:57 Foucault wrote:
rubbin' in peoples faces?
It's the truth unfortunately. I never got why guys think that equality is a good thing but not feminism, it's the same thing lol Usually, it is not. There are some feminists out there who want to fight for true equality as it is meant to be. Then there's the rest of them who can go take a long walk off a short pier. Now that is just wrong. Since men still have the power at large women who fight for equality are labeled strange and stupid and are considered to "hate men". This is a result of a patriarchal structure that basically doesn't want women to rise up and claim their position of equality. The fact of the matter is that feminism is the struggle for equality between the sexes and I believe that a simple thing such as changing the word "feminism" into something more suitable would attract more men to the cause too. We should ALL want equality in some way or another so why the hate. You could say that patriarchal discourse has labeled feminists as "evil" women, who want to "take over". Which is correct in some minor cases, but the majority of feminists want equality, plain and simple. What's also funny about your post is that men have always tried to keep their power and superiority at the expense of women in society. In Sweden for example, women weren't allowed to vote up until a 100 years ago, which says quite alot about how long men have been in charge of everything in society. Now when women want more rights and want equality, men think that women should off themselves in a literary sense. How does this even make sense while claiming to want equality at the same time? Maybe you don't want true equality between men and women though, what do I know. It would be kind of you if you could define exactly what you mean by "true equality" in this case. I'm just curious, so don't take it as a "i don't trust you" It's just that whenever I hear people discuss equality between genders, they usually come to a certain limit where they think it's starting to get ridiculous. Equal payment? Sure, why not. Same requirements for a job? Of course. Males breastfeeding their babies? A bit over the line. (I actually saw it in some newspaper the other day, some guy using machines to try and grow breasts. He was hailed by quite a few feminists, according to the journalist, since it would apparently "help equality". How, I don't know, but completely erasing the lines between what is male and female, is just horrifying) The only real problem with the lack of equality nowadays is about jobs positions and payment, as far as I know. Correct me if I'm wrong. Yep, it's very hard to define what equality is and if you want to do it, you will have to think where you stand regarding biological and sociological explanations for gender. Some people believe that there is almost no biological gender to how men and women behave, but it's rather gender-roles that have been used and refined through thousands of years. Of course our bodies are different and what not but the actual difference in how men and women "are" has alot to do with how we are being raised. We are molded into men and women through socialization, where society tells us what we can do and say in line with our designated gender roles. I think men and women are different in many biological aspects, some which also carry over to behavior but the majority of characteristics for behavior stem from gender roles, and personal differences not having anything to do with biological gender. Oh and wages and employment is just the tip of the iceberg, the concrete symptoms of a patriarchy that is still very much in effect. Sweden has come quite far in terms of equality, but gender roles still dictate to a large degree how men and women interact with eachother and within in the same gender. Agree on every point. Our instincts might be in the way of trying to raise children into equality. I mean, in the early years of school, boys and girls automatically separate into two groups, and later in puberty you have a ton of hormones, estrogen and whatnot kicking in, so it's going to be impossibly hard to stop ALL the social differences with these unstoppable biological things happening. (Also, it is my belief that the brains between genders function in different ways too. I can't prove it, so I'll just put it in parenthesis. Anyway, I believe males have a higher capability of logical thinking, while females have a higher capability for empathy. Might affect behavior as well to various degrees.)However breaking the ancient "tradition" of males being the workers and females nursing the children is going to be a bit easier. It's well on the way at least, and pretty impressive seeing that it has been that way ever since we started walking on two legs. Easier, because the need for it disappeared with the arrival of civilization, and we're pretty much just going on with it out of old habit so to say. Yeah basically it's very hard to say what's what. What's biology and what's defined gender roles? About brains being different I think this is huge fallacy and I don't believe it for one bit. I mean, brains function differently between individuals too, someone can't metabolize certain vitamines as well as someone else and one person might have higher levels of catecholamines in the brain, while another person is naturally "calm" (as in less stress-hormones). This is kind of a trap too, because we know brains function differently between individuals and the entire reason that we even consider thinking that womens brains are better at emotions than ours is to reinvent the notion that women aren't logical. Logic = better alot of the times according to the male norm, thus this idea just states over again that women are inferior. Do you follow? I think the "difference" you are talking about is almost 100% about gender roles. Women aren't encouraged to be logical and intelligent in the same way that men are. And men are supposed to be "badass" "tough" and whatever adjectives there are to describe the male persona. This is imo a huge social construct; gender roles. They were practical centuries ago(which doesn't make them more moral or better) but aren't really needed today. Yeah, I think it's ridiculous how the human species still hold on to alot of old prejudice. We are truly blind and awkward in many areas, especially with women's role in society today and historically. We need to step into the 21:th century. Women make up 50% of the earths population, word.
It not a matter of belief, it a solid fact. There is a great amount of respectable sources all over the internet if you don't like this one.
http://www.mastersofhealthcare.com/blog/2009/10-big-differences-between-mens-and-womens-brains/
I consider ultra-liberalism by far the most dangerous direction, that ends up restricting people, instead of actually liberating. Disposing of so called prejudice and inherent values equals disposing of happiness, because going along with inherent desires and going along with instinctive prejudices are the ultimate purpose of life, which is living the way you truly want deep inside you. Every prejudice and desire is explained from the standpoint of biology and evolution, belief in that the modern times rendered all that useless can't be correct, nothing really has changed other than influental uprise of mass media, structures of the brain, body and the way psyche works didn't change.
Nobody can be happy guiding his life from the standpoint of lies betraying his own nature, taking on inappropriate tasks, because equality implies that if somebody can do it, then everybody can do it. The natural instincts and desires are getting substituted by completely artificial and made up policies and morals. The organism won't reward you with satisfaction and sense of happiness and achievement when you go this path. Speaking by simple example, by far the least happy, the most suffering women are the women of business and labor. And the most healthy, proud and happy are those who put own children on pedestal and not pursue ultra-stressful careers, while with men it's different when the sense of happiness can often be achieved with acquiring power or physical activity in a team. Personalities vary, so i don't claim this applies to every single person. Speaking of women, do you really consider women to be oppressed and suffering during the entire history of humanity barring the last couple of decades?
Just a two-three years ago i was writing the exact same stuff as you. I know how it is to be ultra-liberal
I'd like to add, that many of us live in social structures, that restrict people, not in physical, but in a social way, when a lot of individuals go on to follow the set of rules while not feeling true passion and inner desire to pursue the goals in front of them. Ultra-liberalism only adds to that. It all renders the mass of people who have no reason to consider themselves unique or different, who took the wrong path confused, not having the way of life that suits them and questioning the life's purpose. Passion and culture die and the mass of simply working and eating people become thicker. It's a way of modern slavery, fueled and created by the work of mass media and political powers.
|
On October 25 2009 00:01 ZeeTemplar wrote:
haha a guys life is easier then a girls period. anyone who whores themselves out though is pretty sad, whether it be man or woman.
I was going to mention that you forgot to add a comma, but that first sentence would be correct either way, eh?
|
On October 25 2009 00:01 ZeeTemplar wrote:
haha a guys life is easier then a girls period.
Guys want sex most of all in their life, girls have it much easier getting sex than girls and thus guys thinks that girls have it easier. A slut is roughly as forward as a shy guy.
About life in general, just look at animals. They usually have very different behaviour patterns between males and females, it would be very strange if humans did not follow the same rule. Different patterns leads to continuously different choices throughout life, and while this might not be that noticeable in a single person this will strongly impact statistics.
|
On October 25 2009 06:09 ilovezil wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2009 00:01 ZeeTemplar wrote:
haha a guys life is easier then a girls period. anyone who whores themselves out though is pretty sad, whether it be man or woman. I was going to mention that you forgot to add a comma, but that first sentence would be correct either way, eh?
LOL
As for the "slut vs stud" debate - I don't look down on either. In fact, I think it can be a good thing.
|
On October 24 2009 22:47 niteReloaded wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2009 22:30 lazz wrote:
in this blog the op points out the obvious
edit: fuck I love being a man. sure it's a little harder than being a girl, but you just have so much more potential. fuck yeah some things seem obvious even tho you never thought of them in a way that now seems obvious. I just explained why 'slut' has a negative conotation. Were you aware of that?
It's connotation. And yes, I already realised why "slut" has a negative connotation, because girls who have sex with many different guys are less likely to carry your baby. that's the evolutionary reason behind it.
On October 24 2009 22:55 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2009 22:47 niteReloaded wrote:On October 24 2009 22:30 lazz wrote:
in this blog the op points out the obvious
edit: fuck I love being a man. sure it's a little harder than being a girl, but you just have so much more potential. fuck yeah some things seem obvious even tho you never thought of them in a way that now seems obvious. I just explained why 'slut' has a negative conotation. Were you aware of that? Just ignore lazz, he doesn't know what he's talking about. I enjoyed reading about your little realization.
Ahahahahaha
|
I don't see the point of this thread. If this is something related to school, then yes, your answer bears some truth, as historically speaking a male who got around was spreading his seed while a female who got around was probably giving birth to children other than her lover's. It's only very recently in human history that birth control has existed and even so it's not 100% effective.
Realistically speaking though, I despise the femi-Nazi idea that it's okay to promote free sex for girls just because guys do it. It's the whole "if he jumped off a bridge would you do it to?" kind of deal. It's fine if people want to get around a lot, but statistically speaking, odds are that such people have picked up an STD at some point.
Edit: at least if they live in the USA, anyway. An estimated 25% of American college students have picked up an STD at some point. GG
|
On October 25 2009 02:56 Archaic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2009 23:49 VorcePA wrote:On October 24 2009 22:30 lazz wrote:
in this blog the op points out the obvious
edit: fuck I love being a man. sure it's a little harder than being a girl, but you just have so much more potential. fuck yeah It's a little harder than being a girl? = Girls: - Have a period - Have to worry about pregnancy - Are more susceptible to STDs - Are still archaically viewed as a "slut" if they're promiscuous like a man - Are paid, on average, 40% less than a man is for doing the same job worldwide What? I don't consider promiscuous women sluts; I'd consider them insightful. Speak for yourself.
Usually when people use the word "archaically," it's because they consider it a negative concept and consider themselves "progressive". I am no different.
The majority's consensus, especially in America and other sexually repressed nations, is that if a woman is promiscuous in the same way men attempt to be, she's slutty and undesirable.
|
people in this thread are pretty drastically under-read re feminism
|
|
|
On October 24 2009 22:28 DamageControL wrote:
edit: that being said we should try to surpass our lower, base instincts, and attempt to equalize social norms. "It's the way evolution made us" is a poor excuse for social injustices.
except in bed. then you can call them a slut and it will just turn them on
|
United States24637 Posts
A 'friend' of mine in high school used to say slut constantly. Whenever he was saying hi to someone he'd say 'what up slut' or something like that. It was mildly annoying but I didn't really care. MLIA.
fusionsdf's comment made me think of that.
On October 25 2009 10:34 KurtistheTurtle wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2009 22:28 DamageControL wrote:
edit: that being said we should try to surpass our lower, base instincts, and attempt to equalize social norms. "It's the way evolution made us" is a poor excuse for social injustices.
except in bed. then you can call them a slut and it will just turn them on
Yeah but you have to draw the line at 'fowl-mouthed venereal disease infested street walking whore.'
|
I actually find sluts attractive. It makes for bad relationships.
edit : Not because it's a bad thing in and of itself, just that the ones I've met have all done so for weird self-confidence issues or because they were uber repressed southern christians. In effect, the way society is structured is to encourage people with certain negative traits to act in this way as a method to feel emotionally connected/attached to someone.
|
|
|
On October 24 2009 21:20 niteReloaded wrote:
The top dog won't look over his shoulder, he will be confident, coz he knows he's superior to all other males out there.
But how does he know he's the best if he doesn't look over his shoulder? That just implies he wants to live in a dream world where he won't compare himself to others and will believe what he wants, which is a likely path to downfall - evolutionary success favors those who take into account their surroundings.
|
On October 25 2009 04:00 NeVeR wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2009 03:29 nAi.PrOtOsS wrote:
I always thought that the reason was the guy was receiving sex were in most cases the girl is giving sex, pretty much the guy is fucking the girl. The girl is not fucking the guy. Therefore the girl is the slut. I agree with this. Human nature has a tendency to admire male attributes (dominance, aggressiveness, etc). In intercourse, it is generally that the man is the aggressor of the action and the woman is the receiver. While the male is seen as dominant, bold, aggressive in intercourse, the woman is submissive, and easily taken by her lust. Edit: I actually just realized that you said the guy is receiving sex and the girl is giving sex.. I think it's the other way around.
And the attributes you are talking about are largely social constructs and have much less to do with biology.
|
On October 25 2009 00:01 ZeeTemplar wrote:
haha a guys life is easier then a girls period. anyone who whores themselves out though is pretty sad, whether it be man or woman.
why? Sex rocks! I really don't see the problem with having lots of sex... I mean as long as you're not constantly breaking up what are supposed to be committed relationships there is really no problem with having sex with different people.
|
The word slut was invented by a man paying alimony, true story.
|
yea whats wrong with sluts?
|
On October 26 2009 04:22 Count9 wrote:
The word slut was invented by a man paying alimony, true story.
slut Look up slut at Dictionary.com
1402, "a dirty, slovenly, or untidy woman," probably cognate with dialectal Ger. Schlutt "slovenly woman," dialectal Swed. slata "idle woman, slut," and Du. slodder "slut," but the ultimate origin is doubtful. Chaucer uses sluttish (c.1386) in ref. to the appearance of an untidy man. Also "a kitchen maid, a drudge" (c.1450; hard pieces in a bread loaf from imperfect kneading were called slut's pennies, 18c.). Meaning "woman of loose character, bold hussy" is attested from c.1450; playful use of the word, without implication of loose morals, is attested from 1664.
"Our little girl Susan is a most admirable slut, and pleases us mightily." [Pepys, diary, Feb. 21, 1664]
Sometimes used 19c. as a euphemism for bitch to describe a female dog. There is a group of North Sea Gmc. words in sl- that mean "sloppy," and also "slovenly woman," and that tend to evolve toward "woman of loose morals" (cf. slattern, also Eng. dial. slummock "a dirty, untidy, or slovenly person," 1861; M.Du. slore "a sluttish woman").
|
Well, this blog is pretty sexist and uninformed. How's the weather in the 1920s?
|
United States24637 Posts
On October 26 2009 05:39 Orbifold wrote:
Well, this blog is pretty sexist and uninformed. How's the weather in the 1920s?
Sexist? No. Uninformed? Maybe. In the 1920s? Definitely not.
|
On October 25 2009 06:09 ilovezil wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2009 00:01 ZeeTemplar wrote:
haha a guys life is easier then a girls period. anyone who whores themselves out though is pretty sad, whether it be man or woman. I was going to mention that you forgot to add a comma, but that first sentence would be correct either way, eh?
I don't have time to worry about minor stuff. I guess you get hard off of trying to public humiliate someone over trivial stuff. Seems you have to much time on your hands lol,but keep at! :D  At the very least you're contributing SOMETHING to the community/blog.
I decided to PM this as well, so you don't feel left out. have a great day! :D
|
United States24637 Posts
ZeeTemplar... he was not trying to humiliate you.
|
>.< He was remarking that your statement could be taken two ways.
A guy's life is easier than a girl's, period. This states that a girl's life is harder than a guy's.
A guy's life is easier than a girl's period. This state's that a girl's period is harder to get through than a guy's entire life, implying that a girl's entire life is much tougher.
Anyway on topic:
I definitely agree that there are some sexist origins to the stud/slut thing, but I don't see what's so wrong about it. Surely you could use some other words to describe a promiscuous male.  Though for the sake of equality I guess I could start calling guys like that sluts.
|
On October 26 2009 05:02 Hypnosis wrote:
yea whats wrong with sluts?
nothing wrong with sluts. you just wouldnt want to breed with one.
|
not all females are whores, but all whores are female
|
Canada8029 Posts
On October 25 2009 07:56 VorcePA wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2009 02:56 Archaic wrote:On October 24 2009 23:49 VorcePA wrote:On October 24 2009 22:30 lazz wrote:
in this blog the op points out the obvious
edit: fuck I love being a man. sure it's a little harder than being a girl, but you just have so much more potential. fuck yeah It's a little harder than being a girl? = Girls: - Have a period - Have to worry about pregnancy - Are more susceptible to STDs - Are still archaically viewed as a "slut" if they're promiscuous like a man - Are paid, on average, 40% less than a man is for doing the same job worldwide What? I don't consider promiscuous women sluts; I'd consider them insightful. Speak for yourself. Usually when people use the word "archaically," it's because they consider it a negative concept and consider themselves "progressive". I am no different. The majority's consensus, especially in America and other sexually repressed nations, is that if a woman is promiscuous in the same way men attempt to be, she's slutty and undesirable.
I'm pretty sure he was making a joke about his name here. Took me a while to figure it out. 
|
Ugh, this is 2009 dudes. If a bish wants to go bang a bunch of dudes, have at 'er... that's why we invented birth control.
Seriously it doesn't matter anymore really.
|
Actually in todays society sluts are held in high esteem by idiots, just like studs.
Holy hell, you can copulate? Well fuck, sit right here, you're cool now.
|
eh, i hope an AI takes over so we can end this primitive bullshit
matrix FTW
|
Braavos36374 Posts
On October 26 2009 10:19 ZeeTemplar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2009 06:09 ilovezil wrote:On October 25 2009 00:01 ZeeTemplar wrote:
haha a guys life is easier then a girls period. anyone who whores themselves out though is pretty sad, whether it be man or woman. I was going to mention that you forgot to add a comma, but that first sentence would be correct either way, eh? I don't have time to worry about minor stuff. I guess you get hard off of trying to public humiliate someone over trivial stuff. Seems you have to much time on your hands lol,but keep at! :D At the very least you're contributing SOMETHING to the community/blog. I decided to PM this as well, so you don't feel left out. have a great day! :D
he made a joke... it wasn't about criticizing your grammar
mad props for the angry response though, before fully reading/understanding his comment
|
On October 26 2009 10:19 ZeeTemplar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2009 06:09 ilovezil wrote:On October 25 2009 00:01 ZeeTemplar wrote:
haha a guys life is easier then a girls period. anyone who whores themselves out though is pretty sad, whether it be man or woman. I was going to mention that you forgot to add a comma, but that first sentence would be correct either way, eh? I don't have time to worry about minor stuff. I guess you get hard off of trying to public humiliate someone over trivial stuff. Seems you have to much time on your hands lol,but keep at! :D At the very least you're contributing SOMETHING to the community/blog. I decided to PM this as well, so you don't feel left out. have a great day! :D
lol
|
United States24637 Posts
Has ever been used on tl in a non-retarded way?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.forumspile.com/Spelling-GrammarNazi.jpg)
