|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 08 2017 00:00 Jockmcplop wrote:If terms like toxic masculinity are so persistently mischaracterized you would think that people would stop using them. That they don't suggest that maybe they want them to be mischaracterized. Using an ambiguous term with obvious linguistic connotations to make a point that could just as easily be made without using that term only suggests one thing. Show nested quote +On September 07 2017 23:58 Plansix wrote:
Here is the thing: people are going to use the words “toxic masculinity”. If that drives people to instantly become upset and claim it is an attack on, that is pretty much their problem. No one is going to hold meeting saying “lets pick a new word that won’t make men uncomfortable” only to then here them say that the new word makes them uncomfortable. It the topic is what bothers people, the word is an excuse. I see the same thing when I use the phrase “white people”. Even if it is true, the very concept that white is not the default causes intense discomfort to some, who are perfectly happy to use the phrase “black people” all the time. Exactly my point. You start a conversation on false pretenses using faulty language in the hope that it will garner a reaction, and then complain about the reaction. Absolutely zero interest in a positive outcome, just loving the argument.
What if we all work really hard and find a nice word and are told that word is bad and attacks men? And then we do it 10 more times and every time we get the same response? What if this has been happening for the last 100 years of women’s rights? What if the attacks on feminism today are almost identical to the attacks 100 years ago?
Do you know who called white moderates the greatest enemy of equality?
|
On September 08 2017 00:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 00:00 Jockmcplop wrote:If terms like toxic masculinity are so persistently mischaracterized you would think that people would stop using them. That they don't suggest that maybe they want them to be mischaracterized. Using an ambiguous term with obvious linguistic connotations to make a point that could just as easily be made without using that term only suggests one thing. On September 07 2017 23:58 Plansix wrote:
Here is the thing: people are going to use the words “toxic masculinity”. If that drives people to instantly become upset and claim it is an attack on, that is pretty much their problem. No one is going to hold meeting saying “lets pick a new word that won’t make men uncomfortable” only to then here them say that the new word makes them uncomfortable. It the topic is what bothers people, the word is an excuse. I see the same thing when I use the phrase “white people”. Even if it is true, the very concept that white is not the default causes intense discomfort to some, who are perfectly happy to use the phrase “black people” all the time. Exactly my point. You start a conversation on false pretenses using faulty language in the hope that it will garner a reaction, and then complain about the reaction. Absolutely zero interest in a positive outcome, just loving the argument. What if we all work really hard and find a nice word and are told that word is bad and attacks men? And then we do it 10 more times and every time we get the same response? What if this has been happening for the last 100 years of women’s rights? What if the attacks on feminism today are almost identical to the attacks 100 years ago? Do you know who called white moderates the greatest enemy of equality?
You guys searched long and hard with toxic masculinity, good job.
|
On September 08 2017 00:08 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 00:06 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2017 00:00 Jockmcplop wrote:If terms like toxic masculinity are so persistently mischaracterized you would think that people would stop using them. That they don't suggest that maybe they want them to be mischaracterized. Using an ambiguous term with obvious linguistic connotations to make a point that could just as easily be made without using that term only suggests one thing. On September 07 2017 23:58 Plansix wrote:
Here is the thing: people are going to use the words “toxic masculinity”. If that drives people to instantly become upset and claim it is an attack on, that is pretty much their problem. No one is going to hold meeting saying “lets pick a new word that won’t make men uncomfortable” only to then here them say that the new word makes them uncomfortable. It the topic is what bothers people, the word is an excuse. I see the same thing when I use the phrase “white people”. Even if it is true, the very concept that white is not the default causes intense discomfort to some, who are perfectly happy to use the phrase “black people” all the time. Exactly my point. You start a conversation on false pretenses using faulty language in the hope that it will garner a reaction, and then complain about the reaction. Absolutely zero interest in a positive outcome, just loving the argument. What if we all work really hard and find a nice word and are told that word is bad and attacks men? And then we do it 10 more times and every time we get the same response? What if this has been happening for the last 100 years of women’s rights? What if the attacks on feminism today are almost identical to the attacks 100 years ago? Do you know who called white moderates the greatest enemy of equality? You guys searched long and hard with toxic masculinity, good job.
People came up with a simple, to the point, descriptive phrase for the problems imposed upon men(and women by extension) by society, but because you don't agree with that, that's not what it means anymore. Don't worry, I got it.
|
United States43219 Posts
On September 08 2017 00:08 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 00:06 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2017 00:00 Jockmcplop wrote:If terms like toxic masculinity are so persistently mischaracterized you would think that people would stop using them. That they don't suggest that maybe they want them to be mischaracterized. Using an ambiguous term with obvious linguistic connotations to make a point that could just as easily be made without using that term only suggests one thing. On September 07 2017 23:58 Plansix wrote:
Here is the thing: people are going to use the words “toxic masculinity”. If that drives people to instantly become upset and claim it is an attack on, that is pretty much their problem. No one is going to hold meeting saying “lets pick a new word that won’t make men uncomfortable” only to then here them say that the new word makes them uncomfortable. It the topic is what bothers people, the word is an excuse. I see the same thing when I use the phrase “white people”. Even if it is true, the very concept that white is not the default causes intense discomfort to some, who are perfectly happy to use the phrase “black people” all the time. Exactly my point. You start a conversation on false pretenses using faulty language in the hope that it will garner a reaction, and then complain about the reaction. Absolutely zero interest in a positive outcome, just loving the argument. What if we all work really hard and find a nice word and are told that word is bad and attacks men? And then we do it 10 more times and every time we get the same response? What if this has been happening for the last 100 years of women’s rights? What if the attacks on feminism today are almost identical to the attacks 100 years ago? Do you know who called white moderates the greatest enemy of equality? You guys searched long and hard with toxic masculinity, good job.
Toxic masculinity is the term for the part of the overall issue that impacts men, the part that makes them kill themselves without giving anyone warning etc. Toxic femininity would be the female equivalent.
I don't think toxic masculinity is the broad overarching name for everything. If it was that wouldn't make much sense to me. Again, I think I'm in agreement with you but I'm not sure that the thing you're arguing against is a thing. If I'm understanding you correctly you think that toxic masculinity is a bad name for the broad overarching cultural problem. I agree, but I don't think it is the name for that.
|
It has about as much unbiased worth as "toxic cuckoldery". No one to the right of your ideological position is willing to embrace this term, no matter how hard you pretend its legitimacy is self-evident.
Call it sadism, psychopathy, bullying, machismo, anything accurate. Don't invent words and pretend everyone agrees with your own understanding of them, it makes no sense.
|
On September 08 2017 00:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 00:08 bo1b wrote:On September 08 2017 00:06 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2017 00:00 Jockmcplop wrote:If terms like toxic masculinity are so persistently mischaracterized you would think that people would stop using them. That they don't suggest that maybe they want them to be mischaracterized. Using an ambiguous term with obvious linguistic connotations to make a point that could just as easily be made without using that term only suggests one thing. On September 07 2017 23:58 Plansix wrote:
Here is the thing: people are going to use the words “toxic masculinity”. If that drives people to instantly become upset and claim it is an attack on, that is pretty much their problem. No one is going to hold meeting saying “lets pick a new word that won’t make men uncomfortable” only to then here them say that the new word makes them uncomfortable. It the topic is what bothers people, the word is an excuse. I see the same thing when I use the phrase “white people”. Even if it is true, the very concept that white is not the default causes intense discomfort to some, who are perfectly happy to use the phrase “black people” all the time. Exactly my point. You start a conversation on false pretenses using faulty language in the hope that it will garner a reaction, and then complain about the reaction. Absolutely zero interest in a positive outcome, just loving the argument. What if we all work really hard and find a nice word and are told that word is bad and attacks men? And then we do it 10 more times and every time we get the same response? What if this has been happening for the last 100 years of women’s rights? What if the attacks on feminism today are almost identical to the attacks 100 years ago? Do you know who called white moderates the greatest enemy of equality? You guys searched long and hard with toxic masculinity, good job. Toxic masculinity is the term for the part of the overall issue that impacts men, the part that makes them kill themselves without giving anyone warning etc. Toxic femininity would be the female equivalent. I don't think toxic masculinity is the broad overarching name for everything. If it was that wouldn't make much sense to me. Again, I think I'm in agreement with you but I'm not sure that the thing you're arguing against is a thing. If I'm understanding you correctly you think that toxic masculinity is a bad name for the broad overarching cultural problem. I agree, but I don't think it is the name for that.
It also describes the pressure put on men to treat women terribly and justify it. That is is fine for them to sleep around, while women are seen as damaged if they do the same.
|
On September 08 2017 00:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 00:00 Jockmcplop wrote:If terms like toxic masculinity are so persistently mischaracterized you would think that people would stop using them. That they don't suggest that maybe they want them to be mischaracterized. Using an ambiguous term with obvious linguistic connotations to make a point that could just as easily be made without using that term only suggests one thing. On September 07 2017 23:58 Plansix wrote:
Here is the thing: people are going to use the words “toxic masculinity”. If that drives people to instantly become upset and claim it is an attack on, that is pretty much their problem. No one is going to hold meeting saying “lets pick a new word that won’t make men uncomfortable” only to then here them say that the new word makes them uncomfortable. It the topic is what bothers people, the word is an excuse. I see the same thing when I use the phrase “white people”. Even if it is true, the very concept that white is not the default causes intense discomfort to some, who are perfectly happy to use the phrase “black people” all the time. Exactly my point. You start a conversation on false pretenses using faulty language in the hope that it will garner a reaction, and then complain about the reaction. Absolutely zero interest in a positive outcome, just loving the argument. What if we all work really hard and find a nice word and are told that word is bad and attacks men? And then we do it 10 more times and every time we get the same response? What if this has been happening for the last 100 years of women’s rights? What if the attacks on feminism today are almost identical to the attacks 100 years ago? Do you know who called white moderates the greatest enemy of equality?
Frankly I don't care if you're suggesting that white moderates are the greatest enemy of equality, because that is bullshit no matter who said it. A few rich people who hoard all the world's resources are the greatest enemy of equality. But go ahead and draw the line by race, if that's your game.
I mean Toxic Islam could be another word for Jihadism, right? Shall we start that phrase and see how far it gets. After all, we are only referring to the toxic parts of the Quran.
No, but its ok when you are attacking white men because a few of them are in power.
|
On September 08 2017 00:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 00:08 bo1b wrote:On September 08 2017 00:06 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2017 00:00 Jockmcplop wrote:If terms like toxic masculinity are so persistently mischaracterized you would think that people would stop using them. That they don't suggest that maybe they want them to be mischaracterized. Using an ambiguous term with obvious linguistic connotations to make a point that could just as easily be made without using that term only suggests one thing. On September 07 2017 23:58 Plansix wrote:
Here is the thing: people are going to use the words “toxic masculinity”. If that drives people to instantly become upset and claim it is an attack on, that is pretty much their problem. No one is going to hold meeting saying “lets pick a new word that won’t make men uncomfortable” only to then here them say that the new word makes them uncomfortable. It the topic is what bothers people, the word is an excuse. I see the same thing when I use the phrase “white people”. Even if it is true, the very concept that white is not the default causes intense discomfort to some, who are perfectly happy to use the phrase “black people” all the time. Exactly my point. You start a conversation on false pretenses using faulty language in the hope that it will garner a reaction, and then complain about the reaction. Absolutely zero interest in a positive outcome, just loving the argument. What if we all work really hard and find a nice word and are told that word is bad and attacks men? And then we do it 10 more times and every time we get the same response? What if this has been happening for the last 100 years of women’s rights? What if the attacks on feminism today are almost identical to the attacks 100 years ago? Do you know who called white moderates the greatest enemy of equality? You guys searched long and hard with toxic masculinity, good job. Toxic masculinity is the term for the part of the overall issue that impacts men, the part that makes them kill themselves without giving anyone warning etc. Toxic femininity would be the female equivalent. I don't think toxic masculinity is the broad overarching name for everything. If it was that wouldn't make much sense to me. Again, I think I'm in agreement with you but I'm not sure that the thing you're arguing against is a thing. If I'm understanding you correctly you think that toxic masculinity is a bad name for the broad overarching cultural problem. I agree, but I don't think it is the name for that.
Yes, but I also think it's an overstated problem in some ways. When I see a man welding without goggles on I don't think of it anything remotely like "wow what a guy", I think "that guy's a moron". Since I'm feeling insecure I must say that people completely missing the point like the guy above the quoted post are starting to become tiring. Oh well this really is the last thing I'll say on the topic.
|
United States43219 Posts
On September 08 2017 00:13 Kickboxer wrote:
It has about as much unbiased worth as "toxic cuckoldery". No one to the right of your ideological position is willing to embrace this term, no matter how hard you pretend its legitimacy is self-evident.
Call it sadism, psychopathy, bullying, machismo, anything accurate. Don't invent words and pretend everyone agrees with your own understanding of them, it makes no sense.
At a certain point you will have to start using the same words as everyone else and accept the meanings used by everyone else if you want to have a conversation. All words are invented, it is general consensus on the meaning of them that makes communication possible.
You can refuse to accept the meaning if you like, but do it quietly. Otherwise you'll end up in an argument doing the equivalent of shouting that 1+2=4 because you're using a definition of 4 that means 3 and everyone else isn't.
|
On September 08 2017 00:13 Kickboxer wrote:
It has about as much unbiased worth as "toxic cuckoldery". No one to the right of your ideological position is willing to embrace this term, no matter how hard you pretend its legitimacy is self-evident.
Call it sadism, psychopathy, bullying, machismo, anything accurate. Don't invent words and pretend everyone agrees with your own understanding of them, it makes no sense.
Are you equating masculinity with cuckoldry? The fuck?
It's a well-established topic. Well-established to the point that I'm bending over backwards trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not trolling. It even has a wikipedia page.
Can people even be bothered to google shit if they don't understand it anymore?
|
On September 08 2017 00:16 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 00:13 Kickboxer wrote:
It has about as much unbiased worth as "toxic cuckoldery". No one to the right of your ideological position is willing to embrace this term, no matter how hard you pretend its legitimacy is self-evident.
Call it sadism, psychopathy, bullying, machismo, anything accurate. Don't invent words and pretend everyone agrees with your own understanding of them, it makes no sense. Are you equating masculinity with cuckoldry? The fuck? It's a well-established topic. Well-established to the point that I'm bending over backwards trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not trolling. It even has a wikipedia page. Can people even be bothered to google shit if they don't understand it anymore?
In some circles, you're either a man's man or a cuck. Kickboxer, as far as I can tell, seems to come from one of those circles.
|
United States43219 Posts
On September 08 2017 00:16 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 00:11 KwarK wrote:On September 08 2017 00:08 bo1b wrote:On September 08 2017 00:06 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2017 00:00 Jockmcplop wrote:If terms like toxic masculinity are so persistently mischaracterized you would think that people would stop using them. That they don't suggest that maybe they want them to be mischaracterized. Using an ambiguous term with obvious linguistic connotations to make a point that could just as easily be made without using that term only suggests one thing. On September 07 2017 23:58 Plansix wrote:
Here is the thing: people are going to use the words “toxic masculinity”. If that drives people to instantly become upset and claim it is an attack on, that is pretty much their problem. No one is going to hold meeting saying “lets pick a new word that won’t make men uncomfortable” only to then here them say that the new word makes them uncomfortable. It the topic is what bothers people, the word is an excuse. I see the same thing when I use the phrase “white people”. Even if it is true, the very concept that white is not the default causes intense discomfort to some, who are perfectly happy to use the phrase “black people” all the time. Exactly my point. You start a conversation on false pretenses using faulty language in the hope that it will garner a reaction, and then complain about the reaction. Absolutely zero interest in a positive outcome, just loving the argument. What if we all work really hard and find a nice word and are told that word is bad and attacks men? And then we do it 10 more times and every time we get the same response? What if this has been happening for the last 100 years of women’s rights? What if the attacks on feminism today are almost identical to the attacks 100 years ago? Do you know who called white moderates the greatest enemy of equality? You guys searched long and hard with toxic masculinity, good job. Toxic masculinity is the term for the part of the overall issue that impacts men, the part that makes them kill themselves without giving anyone warning etc. Toxic femininity would be the female equivalent. I don't think toxic masculinity is the broad overarching name for everything. If it was that wouldn't make much sense to me. Again, I think I'm in agreement with you but I'm not sure that the thing you're arguing against is a thing. If I'm understanding you correctly you think that toxic masculinity is a bad name for the broad overarching cultural problem. I agree, but I don't think it is the name for that. Yes, but I also think it's an overstated problem in some ways. When I see a man welding without goggles on I don't think of it anything remotely like "wow what a guy", I think "that guy's a moron". Since I'm feeling insecure I must say that people completely missing the point like the guy above the quoted post are starting to become tiring. Oh well this really is the last thing I'll say on the topic.
The severity of the problem is hard to estimate. But if we take the example of veteran suicides, which in the United States happen at a rate of 22/day, I think it's reasonable to want a conversation about the drawbacks of the hypermasculine military culture. Just one example.
|
On September 08 2017 00:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 00:16 bo1b wrote:On September 08 2017 00:11 KwarK wrote:On September 08 2017 00:08 bo1b wrote:On September 08 2017 00:06 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2017 00:00 Jockmcplop wrote:If terms like toxic masculinity are so persistently mischaracterized you would think that people would stop using them. That they don't suggest that maybe they want them to be mischaracterized. Using an ambiguous term with obvious linguistic connotations to make a point that could just as easily be made without using that term only suggests one thing. On September 07 2017 23:58 Plansix wrote:
Here is the thing: people are going to use the words “toxic masculinity”. If that drives people to instantly become upset and claim it is an attack on, that is pretty much their problem. No one is going to hold meeting saying “lets pick a new word that won’t make men uncomfortable” only to then here them say that the new word makes them uncomfortable. It the topic is what bothers people, the word is an excuse. I see the same thing when I use the phrase “white people”. Even if it is true, the very concept that white is not the default causes intense discomfort to some, who are perfectly happy to use the phrase “black people” all the time. Exactly my point. You start a conversation on false pretenses using faulty language in the hope that it will garner a reaction, and then complain about the reaction. Absolutely zero interest in a positive outcome, just loving the argument. What if we all work really hard and find a nice word and are told that word is bad and attacks men? And then we do it 10 more times and every time we get the same response? What if this has been happening for the last 100 years of women’s rights? What if the attacks on feminism today are almost identical to the attacks 100 years ago? Do you know who called white moderates the greatest enemy of equality? You guys searched long and hard with toxic masculinity, good job. Toxic masculinity is the term for the part of the overall issue that impacts men, the part that makes them kill themselves without giving anyone warning etc. Toxic femininity would be the female equivalent. I don't think toxic masculinity is the broad overarching name for everything. If it was that wouldn't make much sense to me. Again, I think I'm in agreement with you but I'm not sure that the thing you're arguing against is a thing. If I'm understanding you correctly you think that toxic masculinity is a bad name for the broad overarching cultural problem. I agree, but I don't think it is the name for that. Yes, but I also think it's an overstated problem in some ways. When I see a man welding without goggles on I don't think of it anything remotely like "wow what a guy", I think "that guy's a moron". Since I'm feeling insecure I must say that people completely missing the point like the guy above the quoted post are starting to become tiring. Oh well this really is the last thing I'll say on the topic. The severity of the problem is hard to estimate. But if we take the example of veteran suicides, which in the United States happen at a rate of 22/day, I think it's reasonable to want a conversation about the drawbacks of the hypermasculine military culture. Just one example.
Overstated is the wrong word, overly encompassing is probably what I mean. Veterans shooting themselves is probably the most perfect example of toxic masculinity I can think of.
This really is the last time I'll post.
|
On September 08 2017 00:15 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 00:06 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2017 00:00 Jockmcplop wrote:If terms like toxic masculinity are so persistently mischaracterized you would think that people would stop using them. That they don't suggest that maybe they want them to be mischaracterized. Using an ambiguous term with obvious linguistic connotations to make a point that could just as easily be made without using that term only suggests one thing. On September 07 2017 23:58 Plansix wrote:
Here is the thing: people are going to use the words “toxic masculinity”. If that drives people to instantly become upset and claim it is an attack on, that is pretty much their problem. No one is going to hold meeting saying “lets pick a new word that won’t make men uncomfortable” only to then here them say that the new word makes them uncomfortable. It the topic is what bothers people, the word is an excuse. I see the same thing when I use the phrase “white people”. Even if it is true, the very concept that white is not the default causes intense discomfort to some, who are perfectly happy to use the phrase “black people” all the time. Exactly my point. You start a conversation on false pretenses using faulty language in the hope that it will garner a reaction, and then complain about the reaction. Absolutely zero interest in a positive outcome, just loving the argument. What if we all work really hard and find a nice word and are told that word is bad and attacks men? And then we do it 10 more times and every time we get the same response? What if this has been happening for the last 100 years of women’s rights? What if the attacks on feminism today are almost identical to the attacks 100 years ago? Do you know who called white moderates the greatest enemy of equality? Frankly I don't care if you're suggesting that white moderates are the greatest enemy of equality, because that is bullshit no matter who said it. A few rich people who hoard all the world's resources are the greatest enemy of equality. But go ahead and draw the line by race, if that's your game. I mean Toxic Islam could be another word for Jihadism, right? Shall we start that phrase and see how far it gets. After all, we are only referring to the toxic parts of the Quran. No, but its ok when you are attacking white men because a few of them are in power.
Toxic Islam would be a way better descriptor than Radical Islam, to be honest.
And it was Martin Luther King that said white moderates were the greatest enemy to equality.
Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action";
|
On September 08 2017 00:15 Plansix wrote:
It also describes the pressure put on men to treat women terribly and justify it. That is is fine for them to sleep around, while women are seen as damaged if they do the same.
I've yet to see a promiscuous woman who, once she grows out of her misguided slutty years, is either proud or happy about her past. Or a mom who would advise her daughter to sleep around, because hey, women and men are exactly the same.
When it comes to men, it would appear to be precisely the opposite.
To you that appears toxic, and I'm undoubtedly a "sexist bigot" for stating the obvious and perpetuating these horrible stereotypes, but to someone who recognizes the inherent biological, emotional and social differences between men and women, rooted not in social constructivism as you might erroneously believe but more or less in simple biology, it might seem perfectly normal. This is where the divide between us is practically unbreachable. You think I'm wrong and a complete idiot, and vice versa.
Would you encourage your daughter to be promiscuous, though? How about your son, would you tell him to keep his penis in check? I'm not going to do any of those things. I'll raise my kids into stereotypes, because that's what I see working for myself (my fiancee agrees with me, naturally).
|
On September 08 2017 00:26 Kickboxer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 00:15 Plansix wrote:
It also describes the pressure put on men to treat women terribly and justify it. That is is fine for them to sleep around, while women are seen as damaged if they do the same. I've yet to see a promiscuous woman who, once she grows out of her misguided slutty years, is either proud or happy about her past. Or a mom who would advise her daughter to sleep around, because hey, women and men are exactly the same. When it comes to men, it would appear to be precisely the opposite. To you that appears toxic, and I'm undoubtedly a "sexist bigot" for stating the obvious and perpetuating these horrible stereotypes, but to someone who recognizes the inherent biological, emotional and social differences between men and women, rooted not in social constructivism as you might erroneously believe but more or less in simple biology, it might seem perfectly normal. This is where the divide between us is practically unbreachable. You think I'm wrong and a complete idiot, and vice versa. Would you encourage your daughter to be promiscuous, though? How about your son, would you tell him to keep his penis in check? I'm not going to do any of those things. I'll raise my kids into stereotypes, because that's what I see working for myself (my fiancee agrees with me, naturally).
If sex didn’t lead to kids or run the risk of STDs, I would tell me kids to have safe fun and don’t hurt themselves.
As for sexually active women, I know more than a few that are perfectly happy with their sexual exploits in their youth. And they have zero plans changing their habits.
|
United States43219 Posts
Why on earth would I want to be involved in my daughter's sex life at all? Am I keeping her for use in a strategic marriage with a rival house? Honestly I don't know what I'd find more weird, actively encouraging your daughter to have sex (presumably while you listen from the other side of the door?) or weirdly fetishizing her purity because if you can't have her then no-one can.
Can't you just say "here's how you avoid getting pregnant" and leave it at that?
|
Availability heuristics strike again.
|
On September 08 2017 00:20 Gahlo wrote:
In some circles, you're either a man's man or a cuck. Kickboxer, as far as I can tell, seems to come from one of those circles.
Yes, in overly broad strokes, that is somewhat correct. I'm a big advocate of traditional gender roles, as I've stated several times already. I think it's ok for boys to be boys, and for girls to be girls, I don't think these two are the same in any way, and my bias is confirmed daily when looking at functional couples, or happy and well functioning members of both genders. An overwhelming majority of these, at least in the surroundings I find myself in, stick to the old school ideals of masculinity and femininity. They just work. People who relativize these things, on the other hand, often have trouble forming stable successful relationships with the opposite sex. I know you believe that's society's fault, but this is where we simply disagree.
I know it's a terribly unpopular position to have these days, and people will label me a troglodyte and many other names, but I really don't care. Maybe us cavemen will just die out, and the genderbender utopia can finally begin.
|
because you want her to be safe..
also lol at the slut shaming.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
