|
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 01:47 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 01:25 Simberto wrote:On September 08 2017 00:49 Kickboxer wrote:On September 08 2017 00:42 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I know several girls who are happy about their slutty past. I also know girls who are unhappy about not having had a slutty past. I think it's extremely likely that you hang out in circles where such girls are unlikely to be found, or that you espouse views that make it so that they aren't honest about their sexuality around you.
I'm not gonna argue that girls and guys are equally promiscuous from a biological point of view. That's entirely irrelevant to me. My pov is that girls who find themselves enjoying the occasional gangbang should be allowed to do so without feeling like they are less feminine than other girls are. Just like a guy who has never really cared or been able to get laid much should be allowed to walk around without feeling like a lesser man. I don't even mind stereotyping much tbh, but I really object to finding it objectionable when people don't adhere to your stereotypes. Fair game. Maybe my personal cultural surroundings are different. I also don't object to girls being slutty, it's their own choice, but I won't respect them for that, and that's my own choice. Enjoyed a lot of your comments today, tho, thanks for the time and effort. I think you should really consider that your experiences might not be universal. To me, all of what you are saying sounds as if you come from a very traditional milieu focusing on basically the values of the 50s, and you don't realize that what you see as obvious isn't as obvious to someone who lives in a more open society. It might have something to do with eastern europe being a bit more conservative in these regards when compared to western europe. You seem to have this very classic image that a man needs to be strong, muscular, and never shed a tear. He needs to protect his family through justified violence. Meanwhile a woman needs to be chaste and pure, and take care of the household.To me, this image of what the world looks like is completely outdated. I live in a safe city. I don't need to be violent to protect anybody because there is neither a threat of rampaging barbarian hordes nor wild animals. My girlfriend is a strong person who can protect herself. I see no reason to jealously guard her from other males because i trust her. She is not my possession. I would never judge anybody based on their sex life, just because that has no impact in my relationship to them. You should not respect girls for being "slutty" as you call it. You should also not disrespect them due to it. Unless you are one of the persons they are sleeping with, it is simply none of your business. What i am asking of you is having an open mind and questioning your assumptions. Try to find an actual reason as to why you think things should be the way you think they should be. If it is just "Because that is how things have always been" or "This is how things should be!", that is not a good reason. Especially if the net effect is that they are making people unhappy. You should probably swallow a little of your own advice about having an open mind. You're clearly using superlatives and assumptions about who he is as a person just based on his mate selection preference with women. Bolded paragraph implies you brashly judge others while preaching tolerance.
Are we not allowed to have opinions about other people in this thread any more? Are you now the thought police?
|
On September 08 2017 01:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 01:39 Danglars wrote:On September 08 2017 01:17 xDaunt wrote:On September 08 2017 01:03 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2017 00:57 xDaunt wrote:On September 08 2017 00:43 Kickboxer wrote:
When my child asks me if "boy" and "girl" are social constructs or in any way interchangeable terms, I will tell them they're not. It would seem science actually agrees with me on that front, so that's pretty fortunate. And unless my son specifically wants to dance ballet, he's doing martial arts from an early age. I never really understood how "gender as a social construct" became a thing. Anyone who has had kids will tell you that the kids were who they were biologically regardless of what the parents did. You can no more force a girly girl to be a tomboy than you force a gay guy to be straight. You sort of summed up the entire argument. That children decide if they want to be. It is society that decided which of those things were related to being a boy or a girl, and who could do what. I don't think that the children are deciding anything. They just are what they are. Does that include gender dysphoria for you (are what they are)? We're having debates about public school instruction in California if books aimed towards prompting transgender discussion are appropriate in Kindergarden or K-3 in general. Parents are a little pissed. "Parents are pissed" is probably the least meaningful statement you can hear about public school education. Parents are a pissy bunch.
As to why it came up as an issue, not to have deep meaning on the topic. Coincidentally, do you have a meaningful opinion on the topic?
|
On September 08 2017 01:48 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 01:47 Danglars wrote:On September 08 2017 01:25 Simberto wrote:On September 08 2017 00:49 Kickboxer wrote:On September 08 2017 00:42 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I know several girls who are happy about their slutty past. I also know girls who are unhappy about not having had a slutty past. I think it's extremely likely that you hang out in circles where such girls are unlikely to be found, or that you espouse views that make it so that they aren't honest about their sexuality around you.
I'm not gonna argue that girls and guys are equally promiscuous from a biological point of view. That's entirely irrelevant to me. My pov is that girls who find themselves enjoying the occasional gangbang should be allowed to do so without feeling like they are less feminine than other girls are. Just like a guy who has never really cared or been able to get laid much should be allowed to walk around without feeling like a lesser man. I don't even mind stereotyping much tbh, but I really object to finding it objectionable when people don't adhere to your stereotypes. Fair game. Maybe my personal cultural surroundings are different. I also don't object to girls being slutty, it's their own choice, but I won't respect them for that, and that's my own choice. Enjoyed a lot of your comments today, tho, thanks for the time and effort. I think you should really consider that your experiences might not be universal. To me, all of what you are saying sounds as if you come from a very traditional milieu focusing on basically the values of the 50s, and you don't realize that what you see as obvious isn't as obvious to someone who lives in a more open society. It might have something to do with eastern europe being a bit more conservative in these regards when compared to western europe. You seem to have this very classic image that a man needs to be strong, muscular, and never shed a tear. He needs to protect his family through justified violence. Meanwhile a woman needs to be chaste and pure, and take care of the household.To me, this image of what the world looks like is completely outdated. I live in a safe city. I don't need to be violent to protect anybody because there is neither a threat of rampaging barbarian hordes nor wild animals. My girlfriend is a strong person who can protect herself. I see no reason to jealously guard her from other males because i trust her. She is not my possession. I would never judge anybody based on their sex life, just because that has no impact in my relationship to them. You should not respect girls for being "slutty" as you call it. You should also not disrespect them due to it. Unless you are one of the persons they are sleeping with, it is simply none of your business. What i am asking of you is having an open mind and questioning your assumptions. Try to find an actual reason as to why you think things should be the way you think they should be. If it is just "Because that is how things have always been" or "This is how things should be!", that is not a good reason. Especially if the net effect is that they are making people unhappy. You should probably swallow a little of your own advice about having an open mind. You're clearly using superlatives and assumptions about who he is as a person just based on his mate selection preference with women. Bolded paragraph implies you brashly judge others while preaching tolerance. Are we not allowed to have opinions about other people in this thread any more? Are you now the thought police?
If you're getting preachy about having an open mind, beware your own hypocrisy of a closed mind.
|
On September 08 2017 01:44 Kickboxer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 01:25 Simberto wrote:
What i am asking of you is having an open mind and questioning your assumptions. Try to find an actual reason as to why you think things should be the way you think they should be. If it is just "Because that is how things have always been" or "This is how things should be!", that is not a good reason. Especially if the net effect is that they are making people unhappy. The actual reason is very simple. "It works". You erroneously believe I'm somehow traditional. I'm not. I smoke weed 24/7 and would fit the label of a "progressive" on a variety of subjects. Economically, I'm basically a leftist, I'm happy to pay my taxes and want them to go to the poor. But on the gender front, I can see and observe the world around me, and the more people are confused by their gender roles, the more problems they seem to have not only with their psyche but also with their relationships. Less and less people form stable committed relationships, you have cancer like PUA and women-hate groups on one end, and cancer like late feminism and man-hate groups on the other, and it's all shaping up to be a giant mess. I just want no part in that. As for my background, I was a wimpy, geeky kid who got bullied a lot for reading books during gym class. Accordingly, though I'm rather good looking, I also had little success with women up until my twenties. Then, relatively late in my life, I took up kickboxing and stuck to it, and the transformation the physical discipline and "patriarchal" environment has had on me is basically incredible. 10+ years into it, I'm insanely more confident, my body feels and looks great, I could realistically maul five of my old self in a physical confrontation - which prevents me from getting in those kinds of situations in the firs place - and women basically chat me up when I go out. That's why I've come to believe healthy masculinity is great for a guy, and until I'm persuaded otherwise by practical examples, I'll believe it not because of some rusty and tired patriarchal values, but simply because I can see that it works. Also, where I'm from, the jock life is long out of style. Young guys now shape their eyebrows, use facial creams and show their ankles, so it's not like I'm enforcing some kind of social terror. People like me are now the minority.
Suicide is the biggest killer of men under 40 in the UK for 2 reasons. The first is we have universal healthcare that is pretty good, the second is that the whole concept of 'manning up' leads to men repressing feelings until they kill themselves. It 'works' up until it doesn't.
|
On September 08 2017 01:50 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 01:48 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2017 01:47 Danglars wrote:On September 08 2017 01:25 Simberto wrote:On September 08 2017 00:49 Kickboxer wrote:On September 08 2017 00:42 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I know several girls who are happy about their slutty past. I also know girls who are unhappy about not having had a slutty past. I think it's extremely likely that you hang out in circles where such girls are unlikely to be found, or that you espouse views that make it so that they aren't honest about their sexuality around you.
I'm not gonna argue that girls and guys are equally promiscuous from a biological point of view. That's entirely irrelevant to me. My pov is that girls who find themselves enjoying the occasional gangbang should be allowed to do so without feeling like they are less feminine than other girls are. Just like a guy who has never really cared or been able to get laid much should be allowed to walk around without feeling like a lesser man. I don't even mind stereotyping much tbh, but I really object to finding it objectionable when people don't adhere to your stereotypes. Fair game. Maybe my personal cultural surroundings are different. I also don't object to girls being slutty, it's their own choice, but I won't respect them for that, and that's my own choice. Enjoyed a lot of your comments today, tho, thanks for the time and effort. I think you should really consider that your experiences might not be universal. To me, all of what you are saying sounds as if you come from a very traditional milieu focusing on basically the values of the 50s, and you don't realize that what you see as obvious isn't as obvious to someone who lives in a more open society. It might have something to do with eastern europe being a bit more conservative in these regards when compared to western europe. You seem to have this very classic image that a man needs to be strong, muscular, and never shed a tear. He needs to protect his family through justified violence. Meanwhile a woman needs to be chaste and pure, and take care of the household.To me, this image of what the world looks like is completely outdated. I live in a safe city. I don't need to be violent to protect anybody because there is neither a threat of rampaging barbarian hordes nor wild animals. My girlfriend is a strong person who can protect herself. I see no reason to jealously guard her from other males because i trust her. She is not my possession. I would never judge anybody based on their sex life, just because that has no impact in my relationship to them. You should not respect girls for being "slutty" as you call it. You should also not disrespect them due to it. Unless you are one of the persons they are sleeping with, it is simply none of your business. What i am asking of you is having an open mind and questioning your assumptions. Try to find an actual reason as to why you think things should be the way you think they should be. If it is just "Because that is how things have always been" or "This is how things should be!", that is not a good reason. Especially if the net effect is that they are making people unhappy. You should probably swallow a little of your own advice about having an open mind. You're clearly using superlatives and assumptions about who he is as a person just based on his mate selection preference with women. Bolded paragraph implies you brashly judge others while preaching tolerance. Are we not allowed to have opinions about other people in this thread any more? Are you now the thought police? If you're getting preachy about having an open mind, beware your own hypocrisy of a closed mind.
So have you hit the third level of inspection at this point? How deep are you on the hypocrisy scale?
|
On September 08 2017 01:44 Kickboxer wrote:
But on the gender front, I can see and observe the world around me, and the more people are confused by their gender roles, the more problems they seem to have not only with their psyche but also with their relationships. Less and less people form stable committed relationships, you have cancer like PUA and women-hate groups on one end, and cancer like late feminism and man-hate groups on the other, and it's all shaping up to be a giant mess. I just want no part in that.
A few questions. What do you think constitutes being "confused by their gender roles"? Is this a woman who didn't have the good sense to know her place and just watch the kids, or is this something else? Moreover, how does this directly link to having trouble in relationships? I for instance believe very little in gender roles, since it's a fluid concept to begin with, and I'm having no problems in my relationships/lack thereof. What in your mind equates the bucking of traditional gender roles with men and women hating each other? Without hearing further justification on these, it sounds to me like you're just walking away from these issues and adhering to stereotypes because it's easier, not necessarily because it's better. Am I wrong?
|
On the topic of parental shittiness, I pose the following question: Is it ethical for a parent to name their kid something that is spelled so weird, no one will ever successfully read their name correctly in the place they live?
A friend of mine recently named his kid "Aine", pronounced "awn-yuh". To me, this could basically be labeled as ego stroking. Parents take a lot of pride in what they name their kids, and while I understand this is a common Irish way to spell the name, they don't live in Ireland. The kid will grow up in the US and their name will be mispronounced their entire lives.
How about just using a different spelling? Keep the name, but spell it in a way that their kid won't go their entire life having to correct people. My name is somewhat commonly mispronounced, and I hate it. It's just a bother at this point having to say the same thing I have said at least 8000 times. It wears on me. I mean, it isn't like the most awful god damn thing in the world, but having that not be the case would be AMAZING. My name is mispronounced maybe 10% of the time. Aine? That's gotta be at least 50%.
Essentially, my argument is that a parent deciding to name their kid in some way that is significant to them for whatever dipshit reason, is in many ways not a decision I feel like they have the right to make. They shouldn't be able to knowingly sign their kid up for correcting people their entire lives.
|
On September 08 2017 01:47 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 01:42 Ghostcom wrote:On September 08 2017 01:27 Plansix wrote:
High level leftist tip: Slutty is the wrong word. The term commonly used is sex positive. So would you say we should adapt a new term because the other holds too many negative connotations and is pointlessly divisive? + Show Spoiler +I like the implication of the term in that everyone else must then be sex negative (or at least sex neutral?). We should likely treat each word in its own context and how it is used, rather than trying to make blanket rules for how we should treat all words. Call critical thinking and critique all the time. And yes, sex negative is part of appeal of using the term sex positive.
I was ironic. It's a dumb as fuck expression because very few if any can truly be said to be sex negative in the intuitive sense of the expression.
|
United States42009 Posts
On September 08 2017 01:32 Kickboxer wrote:
As for my friend, I can explain his situation in brief: he's been with his wife for over ten years, is the sole owner (paid all the money) of the apartment they live in, and has been the major provider for all this time. Though working on and off, she's mostly been a stay-at-home mom. They have two children together, and their relationship is completely fucked, they basically hate each other, for which they are naturally both equally responsible. Difference is, she is perfectly happy with her position, she barely talks to him, refuses to have sex, expects him to pay the bills and basically is happy dealing with their twin daughters. The poor guy is not only constantly pissed off, he's also sexually frustrated to the orbit and back, because she's nasty enough to have told him, repeatedly, she will pack the kids and file for divorce if he cheats on her and she finds out. In Slovenia, provided they do divorce, roughly 30% of the property goes to her, the kids, whom he loves very much and are practically the only thing keeping him sane go to her by default, and you can be bloody sure she will make it hard for him to spend time with them, as well as mandatory alimony in the amount of some 600€, which is exactly half of my friend's gross pay, to be enforced for the next 10 years. I probably don't have to explain this would effectively ruin his life. Would you say that's a fair and balanced situation in any way? I really don't think so.
Sounds to me like your friend needs some kind of intellectual movement that examines the expectations and roles of men and women in society and how they're treated by the institutions in power, particularly in the event of divorce in his case.
|
On September 08 2017 01:44 Kickboxer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 01:25 Simberto wrote:
What i am asking of you is having an open mind and questioning your assumptions. Try to find an actual reason as to why you think things should be the way you think they should be. If it is just "Because that is how things have always been" or "This is how things should be!", that is not a good reason. Especially if the net effect is that they are making people unhappy. The actual reason is very simple. "It works". You erroneously believe I'm somehow traditional. I'm not. I smoke weed 24/7 and would fit the label of a "progressive" on a variety of subjects. Economically, I'm basically a leftist, I'm happy to pay my taxes and want them to go to the poor. But on the gender front, I can see and observe the world around me, and the more people are confused by their gender roles, the more problems they seem to have not only with their psyche but also with their relationships. Less and less people form stable committed relationships, you have cancer like PUA and women-hate groups on one end, and cancer like late feminism and man-hate groups on the other, and it's all shaping up to be a giant mess. I just want no part in that. As for my background, I was a wimpy, geeky kid who got bullied a lot for reading books during gym class. Accordingly, though I'm rather good looking, I also had little success with women up until my twenties. Then, relatively late in my life, I took up kickboxing and stuck to it, and the transformation the physical discipline and "patriarchal" environment has had on me is basically incredible. 10+ years into it, I'm insanely more confident, my body feels and looks great, I could realistically maul five of my old self in a physical confrontation - which prevents me from getting in those kinds of situations in the firs place - and women basically chat me up when I go out. That's why I've come to believe healthy masculinity is great for a guy, and until I'm persuaded otherwise by practical examples, I'll believe it not because of some rusty and tired patriarchal values, but simply because I can see that it works. Also, where I'm from, the jock life is long out of style. Young guys now shape their eyebrows, use facial creams and show their ankles, so it's not like I'm enforcing some kind of social terror. People like me are now the minority.
Athleticism != masculinity.
Not much of a secret that people who take care of their own bodies are more attractive, which applies if you're kick boxing, running 20km a day or doing yoga. Unless you went full Conan and are now 300 pounds of muscle, you're basically just associating being an active male with being "masculine".
|
On September 08 2017 01:51 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 01:50 Danglars wrote:On September 08 2017 01:48 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2017 01:47 Danglars wrote:On September 08 2017 01:25 Simberto wrote:On September 08 2017 00:49 Kickboxer wrote:On September 08 2017 00:42 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I know several girls who are happy about their slutty past. I also know girls who are unhappy about not having had a slutty past. I think it's extremely likely that you hang out in circles where such girls are unlikely to be found, or that you espouse views that make it so that they aren't honest about their sexuality around you.
I'm not gonna argue that girls and guys are equally promiscuous from a biological point of view. That's entirely irrelevant to me. My pov is that girls who find themselves enjoying the occasional gangbang should be allowed to do so without feeling like they are less feminine than other girls are. Just like a guy who has never really cared or been able to get laid much should be allowed to walk around without feeling like a lesser man. I don't even mind stereotyping much tbh, but I really object to finding it objectionable when people don't adhere to your stereotypes. Fair game. Maybe my personal cultural surroundings are different. I also don't object to girls being slutty, it's their own choice, but I won't respect them for that, and that's my own choice. Enjoyed a lot of your comments today, tho, thanks for the time and effort. I think you should really consider that your experiences might not be universal. To me, all of what you are saying sounds as if you come from a very traditional milieu focusing on basically the values of the 50s, and you don't realize that what you see as obvious isn't as obvious to someone who lives in a more open society. It might have something to do with eastern europe being a bit more conservative in these regards when compared to western europe. You seem to have this very classic image that a man needs to be strong, muscular, and never shed a tear. He needs to protect his family through justified violence. Meanwhile a woman needs to be chaste and pure, and take care of the household.To me, this image of what the world looks like is completely outdated. I live in a safe city. I don't need to be violent to protect anybody because there is neither a threat of rampaging barbarian hordes nor wild animals. My girlfriend is a strong person who can protect herself. I see no reason to jealously guard her from other males because i trust her. She is not my possession. I would never judge anybody based on their sex life, just because that has no impact in my relationship to them. You should not respect girls for being "slutty" as you call it. You should also not disrespect them due to it. Unless you are one of the persons they are sleeping with, it is simply none of your business. What i am asking of you is having an open mind and questioning your assumptions. Try to find an actual reason as to why you think things should be the way you think they should be. If it is just "Because that is how things have always been" or "This is how things should be!", that is not a good reason. Especially if the net effect is that they are making people unhappy. You should probably swallow a little of your own advice about having an open mind. You're clearly using superlatives and assumptions about who he is as a person just based on his mate selection preference with women. Bolded paragraph implies you brashly judge others while preaching tolerance. Are we not allowed to have opinions about other people in this thread any more? Are you now the thought police? If you're getting preachy about having an open mind, beware your own hypocrisy of a closed mind. So have you hit the third level of inspection at this point? How deep are you on the hypocrisy scale?
You should really calm down. Anchor what you're saying in substance, explain what you mean, or use PMs to bitch at me. I made a point on his suppositions, and clarified my point to you. I don't see much meaning in what you said beyond "get out you mean hypocrite." We might need to end this early.
|
On September 08 2017 01:53 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 01:47 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2017 01:42 Ghostcom wrote:On September 08 2017 01:27 Plansix wrote:
High level leftist tip: Slutty is the wrong word. The term commonly used is sex positive. So would you say we should adapt a new term because the other holds too many negative connotations and is pointlessly divisive? + Show Spoiler +I like the implication of the term in that everyone else must then be sex negative (or at least sex neutral?). We should likely treat each word in its own context and how it is used, rather than trying to make blanket rules for how we should treat all words. Call critical thinking and critique all the time. And yes, sex negative is part of appeal of using the term sex positive. I was ironic. It's a dumb as fuck expression because very few if any can truly be said to be sex negative in the intuitive sense of the expression.
Ok, let me simplify it for you: Don't call women sluts or say they had a slutty past. Reach deep into the lexicon of the English language and find other words.
|
On September 08 2017 01:55 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 01:51 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2017 01:50 Danglars wrote:On September 08 2017 01:48 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2017 01:47 Danglars wrote:On September 08 2017 01:25 Simberto wrote:On September 08 2017 00:49 Kickboxer wrote:On September 08 2017 00:42 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I know several girls who are happy about their slutty past. I also know girls who are unhappy about not having had a slutty past. I think it's extremely likely that you hang out in circles where such girls are unlikely to be found, or that you espouse views that make it so that they aren't honest about their sexuality around you.
I'm not gonna argue that girls and guys are equally promiscuous from a biological point of view. That's entirely irrelevant to me. My pov is that girls who find themselves enjoying the occasional gangbang should be allowed to do so without feeling like they are less feminine than other girls are. Just like a guy who has never really cared or been able to get laid much should be allowed to walk around without feeling like a lesser man. I don't even mind stereotyping much tbh, but I really object to finding it objectionable when people don't adhere to your stereotypes. Fair game. Maybe my personal cultural surroundings are different. I also don't object to girls being slutty, it's their own choice, but I won't respect them for that, and that's my own choice. Enjoyed a lot of your comments today, tho, thanks for the time and effort. I think you should really consider that your experiences might not be universal. To me, all of what you are saying sounds as if you come from a very traditional milieu focusing on basically the values of the 50s, and you don't realize that what you see as obvious isn't as obvious to someone who lives in a more open society. It might have something to do with eastern europe being a bit more conservative in these regards when compared to western europe. You seem to have this very classic image that a man needs to be strong, muscular, and never shed a tear. He needs to protect his family through justified violence. Meanwhile a woman needs to be chaste and pure, and take care of the household.To me, this image of what the world looks like is completely outdated. I live in a safe city. I don't need to be violent to protect anybody because there is neither a threat of rampaging barbarian hordes nor wild animals. My girlfriend is a strong person who can protect herself. I see no reason to jealously guard her from other males because i trust her. She is not my possession. I would never judge anybody based on their sex life, just because that has no impact in my relationship to them. You should not respect girls for being "slutty" as you call it. You should also not disrespect them due to it. Unless you are one of the persons they are sleeping with, it is simply none of your business. What i am asking of you is having an open mind and questioning your assumptions. Try to find an actual reason as to why you think things should be the way you think they should be. If it is just "Because that is how things have always been" or "This is how things should be!", that is not a good reason. Especially if the net effect is that they are making people unhappy. You should probably swallow a little of your own advice about having an open mind. You're clearly using superlatives and assumptions about who he is as a person just based on his mate selection preference with women. Bolded paragraph implies you brashly judge others while preaching tolerance. Are we not allowed to have opinions about other people in this thread any more? Are you now the thought police? If you're getting preachy about having an open mind, beware your own hypocrisy of a closed mind. So have you hit the third level of inspection at this point? How deep are you on the hypocrisy scale? You should really calm down. Anchor what you're saying in substance, explain what you mean, or use PMs to bitch at me. I made a point on his suppositions, and clarified my point to you. I don't see much meaning in what you said beyond "get out you mean hypocrite." We might need to end this early.
I am totally calm. I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of calling out people for being preachy, while also tell them to "swallow a little of your own advice about having an open mind." Maybe you should take a step back and just let people talk, rather than trying to police people's language by calling them intolerant.
|
On September 08 2017 01:48 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 01:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 08 2017 01:39 Danglars wrote:On September 08 2017 01:17 xDaunt wrote:On September 08 2017 01:03 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2017 00:57 xDaunt wrote:On September 08 2017 00:43 Kickboxer wrote:
When my child asks me if "boy" and "girl" are social constructs or in any way interchangeable terms, I will tell them they're not. It would seem science actually agrees with me on that front, so that's pretty fortunate. And unless my son specifically wants to dance ballet, he's doing martial arts from an early age. I never really understood how "gender as a social construct" became a thing. Anyone who has had kids will tell you that the kids were who they were biologically regardless of what the parents did. You can no more force a girly girl to be a tomboy than you force a gay guy to be straight. You sort of summed up the entire argument. That children decide if they want to be. It is society that decided which of those things were related to being a boy or a girl, and who could do what. I don't think that the children are deciding anything. They just are what they are. Does that include gender dysphoria for you (are what they are)? We're having debates about public school instruction in California if books aimed towards prompting transgender discussion are appropriate in Kindergarden or K-3 in general. Parents are a little pissed. "Parents are pissed" is probably the least meaningful statement you can hear about public school education. Parents are a pissy bunch. As to why it came up as an issue, not to have deep meaning on the topic. Coincidentally, do you have a meaningful opinion on the topic?
Not really. Well, I guess my opinion is "kids are not going to turn out the way you want anyway", so trying to mould them into anything is a giant mess regardless of who is doing it.
And if the fear is that exposure to ideas will ruin them, then RIP parents.
|
On September 08 2017 01:32 Kickboxer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 01:18 Artisreal wrote:
Rant:
Dude. It was you who posted that people live in different realities a few pages back. Maybe you live in 1990 in accordance with the restrictions posed on women to be sexy as fuck and at the same time Virgin Mary and that getting raped is due to promiscuous clothing or behaviour. And that boys don't cry (read express emotion). But others live in 2017, where veganism is a thing and people play videogames for a salary and footballers come out as homosexuals. Incidentally it is also a year where women and PoC do speak up against discrimination and even men start the fight against 'Manning up' (read suck it up).
You don't have to be up to speed, bring imperfect is fine in these times. Even for a man.
And to go back to your earlier example of your friends being stuck with bitchy wives and kids.
They supposedly suffer from some sort of discrimination because of they split alimony is due and the wife gets the house and yada yada.
Ok. They marry a person, impregnate them and afterwards say oops that's not for me. Tough shit. Your wife probably have up lots of career opportunities to be your child's mother while you went off and had a career. Now you're like... Bah this girl isn't for me. Whoops, your bad, have fun with the kids and no pension. Haha thanks for nothing.
What else do their wives have to live on if not the continued support of theirs kids' father?
Go back to their family and rely on their help until the kids are grown up? Go be a successful single mother managing work and kids and live a life worth living?
Ask yourself whether you would want that for your daughter or even for yourself. I don't understand why you need to misrepresent my position, especially since I'm not sugarcoating anything and it's therefore "reactionary, primitive" etc. to begin with. Rape is atrocious and has no justification under any conditions, we can get that out of the way. I don't want women to be virgins, but I do believe it's pretty healthy for them to be picky who they go to bed with, since they can basically choose to fuck whomever they want, whenever they want. There are also very technical reasons why casual sex has a different psychological effect on a man compared to a woman. I think persuading women they have the same libido as men is not only wrong but also rather harmful, since in my personal experience, women who are overly promiscuous have various problems and mostly regret it, especially those blackout episodes that end in the walk of shame and no recollection of the guy's name. If that happens to a guy, it's mostly just funny. As for my friend, I can explain his situation in brief: he's been with his wife for over ten years, is the sole owner (paid all the money) of the apartment they live in, and has been the major provider for all this time. Though working on and off, she's mostly been a stay-at-home mom. They have two children together, and their relationship is completely fucked, they basically hate each other, for which they are naturally both equally responsible. Difference is, she is perfectly happy with her position, she barely talks to him, refuses to have sex, expects him to pay the bills and basically is happy dealing with their twin daughters. The poor guy is not only constantly pissed off, he's also sexually frustrated to the orbit and back, because she's nasty enough to have told him, repeatedly, she will pack the kids and file for divorce if he cheats on her and she finds out. In Slovenia, provided they do divorce, roughly 30% of the property goes to her, the kids, whom he loves very much and are practically the only thing keeping him sane go to her by default, and you can be bloody sure she will make it hard for him to spend time with them, as well as mandatory alimony in the amount of some 600€, which is exactly half of my friend's gross pay, to be enforced for the next 10 years. I probably don't have to explain this would effectively ruin his life. Would you say that's a fair and balanced situation in any way? I really don't think so.
First of all, I apologize for supposedly misrepresenting. But what I read from your post makes me doubt I actually did that.
It is very tempting to take the bolded part and remind you of my post about marital rape in Germany being outlawed in 1997. Why exactly is it worth mentioning that she does not want to have sex with someone he hates?
Apart from that I perfectly sympathise with the situation the poor bloke is in. Having to fight to see ones own kids is not something you should have to do. But the fault of this situation is not to be seen in the woman, you said yourself that they both fucked it up, but in the law that, by your account, decides a default attribution of parental rights to the woman. Direct your anger to the system. If that is such a common occurence, why wasn't it changed already? Are the politicians' wives threatening to withhold sex should they pass such an amendment?
And if you tell me that a father should not provide for his underage children under (virtually) every circumstance, I don't know where your so heroic values of old went all of a sudden. The nuturer of the community and such.
Isn't it perfectly normal that you have to take responsibility if you put a new human into life? By my account it is.
If you have to fight through court to get your rights granted you do.
|
On September 08 2017 01:53 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 01:47 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2017 01:42 Ghostcom wrote:On September 08 2017 01:27 Plansix wrote:
High level leftist tip: Slutty is the wrong word. The term commonly used is sex positive. So would you say we should adapt a new term because the other holds too many negative connotations and is pointlessly divisive? + Show Spoiler +I like the implication of the term in that everyone else must then be sex negative (or at least sex neutral?). We should likely treat each word in its own context and how it is used, rather than trying to make blanket rules for how we should treat all words. Call critical thinking and critique all the time. And yes, sex negative is part of appeal of using the term sex positive. I was ironic. It's a dumb as fuck expression because very few if any can truly be said to be sex negative in the intuitive sense of the expression.
Abstinence-only sex ed, purity rings, and other fairly sex-negative attitudes are still pretty common here in the US.
|
On September 08 2017 02:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 01:48 Danglars wrote:On September 08 2017 01:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 08 2017 01:39 Danglars wrote:On September 08 2017 01:17 xDaunt wrote:On September 08 2017 01:03 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2017 00:57 xDaunt wrote:On September 08 2017 00:43 Kickboxer wrote:
When my child asks me if "boy" and "girl" are social constructs or in any way interchangeable terms, I will tell them they're not. It would seem science actually agrees with me on that front, so that's pretty fortunate. And unless my son specifically wants to dance ballet, he's doing martial arts from an early age. I never really understood how "gender as a social construct" became a thing. Anyone who has had kids will tell you that the kids were who they were biologically regardless of what the parents did. You can no more force a girly girl to be a tomboy than you force a gay guy to be straight. You sort of summed up the entire argument. That children decide if they want to be. It is society that decided which of those things were related to being a boy or a girl, and who could do what. I don't think that the children are deciding anything. They just are what they are. Does that include gender dysphoria for you (are what they are)? We're having debates about public school instruction in California if books aimed towards prompting transgender discussion are appropriate in Kindergarden or K-3 in general. Parents are a little pissed. "Parents are pissed" is probably the least meaningful statement you can hear about public school education. Parents are a pissy bunch. As to why it came up as an issue, not to have deep meaning on the topic. Coincidentally, do you have a meaningful opinion on the topic? Not really. Well, I guess my opinion is "kids are not going to turn out the way you want anyway", so trying to mould them into anything is a giant mess regardless of who is doing it. And if the fear is that exposure to ideas will ruin them, then RIP parents.
From my personal experience working with parent, they will object to pretty much anything. Including teaching US history with any level of accuracy or nuance.
|
This article is so well written. Which is to be expect from Ta-Nehisi Coates.
We are now being told that support for Trump’s “Muslim ban,” his scapegoating of immigrants, his defenses of police brutality are somehow the natural outgrowth of the cultural and economic gap between Lena Dunham’s America and Jeff Foxworthy’s.
|
my HS was actually abstinence-only on paper. that was what they professed in various curricula, though i think i wound up with a proper education regardless. it was long ago enough that my memory's a bit hazy.
|
A couple of my close friends from HS were basically the leaders of the local "we're cool through God-inspired restraint" brigade, so my rule-breaking heathen ways certainly made for interesting conversations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
