- Nov 3, 2011
Nah you have missed the boat on many parts.evilthecat said:I'm confused about what you're saying here, and I'm not sure if you're misusing the word "gender" or not. Remember, "Sex" refers to the anatomical, endocrinal and genetic differences between people which make them male and female. "Gender" refers to the way in which these male and female bodies are socially differentiated from each other.Giftfromme said:It's all well and good for acceptance, but what difference does it make to the guy who wants to be banged by his girlfriend with a strap on? There are differences in our genders, studies have shown that guys and girls learn differently.
Assuming you actually meant to say "gender" then yeah, countless studies have provided overwhelming evidence of that, to the point that it's a common sense assumption accessible via a cursory glance at our society. That's actually what I've been saying all along.
If you meant to say "sex", then no. There isn't very much evidence. A handful of studies does not "prove" anything just by getting published, they must be repeatable (anyone, regardless of prior belief, must be able to come to the same result), logically consistent (any original theory must be the product of analysis) and it must eliminate alternative explanations. Sexual difference theories regarding cognitive functioning have never been able to do any of these things.
In truth, we actually don't know how different the sexes are from one another in their cognitive functioning, but given that even the most hardline study in this area is only asserting a generalization, the logic answer is "not very". Moreover, once you put together how human sex actually develops it becomes a pretty pointless question, there isn't a magic binary switch which gives you a magically different brain and physical appearance, it's all regulated by differences (sometimes very subtle differences) in the production of androgenic hormones. What we're looking for when we study "sex differences" is actually the effects of those hormones, which vary enormously between individuals anyway. In short, we all learn differently and we all think differently. A crude generalization is no basis for organizing our society.
And if he had said "I'm tired of feeling weird for enjoying my girlfriend's strap on" that would be highly relevant. However, he didn't. He said "I'm tired of feeling unmanly". This isn't an issue of what's generally "weird", it's not remotely weird for women to want to be anally penetrated despite the fact that the physical rewards for them are usually close to non-existent.Giftfromme said:Yes that opinion is formed and informed by societal standards, but some things will always be weird or deviant to us.
The reason why its "unmanly" to enjoy receptive anal sex is not because men are just different and are "programmed" to hate it. In fact, anatomical sexual differences mean that receptive anal sex can be far more pleasurable for us than it can ever be for women, and yet it is highly taboo in many societies is because it is seen as a feminine position.
And, going back to my very original post to you.. why is that such a bad thing?
Just like everyone else's sexuality is completely private??Giftfromme said:So there is simply no point in waiting for that. His sex life doesn't need to be political and can be 100% private.
Except it's not, is it? We are saturated with very public sexuality all the time, generally very boring and normative sexuality which may be why it's so hard to notice. Perhaps it's become so normal that you don't register it as sexuality any more, but it is nonetheless. Everything from advertisements to the basic conversations you have with people will include references which position their sexuality as normal or abnormal, or which clues about whether their sexual behavior is manly or unmanly or feminine or unfeminine or gay or straight or whatever.
Many. That's why people still do it.Giftfromme said:How many people actually think that a girl feels attractive if she is ogled in the street or whatever?
You've mistaken this issue completely. It's nothing to do with the "quality" of the guy, it's to do with behavior which is aggressive or insensitive.
If you stare at someone, fine. It happens. But if you happen to make eye contact and you don't get a smile or something, then you break off. This isn't even etiquette, it's basic body language. If you make eye contact with a gorilla and don't break it then you're going to get your arms ripped off because it's an aggressive gesture. If you keep staring at someone who has not given you a positive reaction, if you stare at them as if they're an object without displaying any regard for their feelings, it's no better than chasing someone down the street when they've rejected you telling them you'll leave them alone if they'll give you a handjob.
This is not something guys do by accident, it might be something guys do if they never learned how to behave properly, but it isn't accidental. It is clearly and obviously aggression. The issue is that some guys still believe that women respond to aggression and feel complimented by it, when the much more likely reaction is that they feel embarrassed or even afraid.
How many guys? Far fewer than 30 years ago. Why is that? I'll give you a clue, it begins with an 'F'.
Again, this is pure supposition.Giftfromme said:Men are typically the ones who will "hunt" for a girl, or is generally the one who initiates contact with a girl. Our brains formed on the savannah (for roughly 2 million years, known as the Pleistocene period) and we haven't been out of it long enough for deeply ingrained values and attitudes to change.
Anyone can take a present day social trend and claim it's something humans have evolved to do. It doesn't make it accurate. Observe:
Women like pink because they evolved to find berries in the undergrowth and became very sensitive to red-spectrum colors.
This one is actually, patently untrue (which hasn't stopped people trying to claim it). It's only in the last hundred and fifty years or so in one particular society that pink has been considered a feminine colour. You cannot extrapolate evolutionary trends from social trends without eliminating alternative explanations.
There is no Flintstonian constant, particularly since for the past few thousand years marriage and sex has been explicitly about political kinship ties and the pursuit of sexual pleasure has generally been entirely secondary. Most of these ideas about the most "naturally" attractive female body shapes are Victorian preoccupations, there's no real evidence for them prior to that.
Science aside, before you go down this road, I want you to sit and think about the social implications of what you are saying for a minute.Giftfromme said:If the urges are strong enough in a man and he rapes a woman, he will use any excuse to justify it, and education cannot fix that. These urges are not trivial, this is your very DNA pushing you get pass on your genes by getting laid.
I'm assuming we're both male. If what you just said was true, and if it was accepted to be true, what would the logical solution be? How that would solution impact on people like you and me?
Do you really think none of the women in those pictures could get laid if they wanted to? Do you think they couldn't score way out of their league if they wanted to? You're assuming randomly that they're subject to exactly the same situation as their male counterparts, that "success" means the same thing to them and thus all they need to achieve that "success" is a little self-confidence.Giftfromme said:I've seen some decidedly unattractive guys who are good with woman, but they could have easily given up.
They clearly are self-confident to some degree. They've posted pictures of themselves online. One is showing us her armpit hair, the other has stated that she "loves her body". I don't understand how you get from this to "they need more confidence". Why, so they can get men to have sex with them? You're assuming that's in any way difficult, or that it's what they're looking for.
Bingo.Giftfromme said:No I don't think my arguments are original. Of course others have them. That's the point. If I was the only, I might think something is wrong with me.
Do you get why we need feminism yet?
"You've mistaken this issue completely. It's nothing to do with the "quality" of the guy, it's to do with behavior which is aggressive or insensitive."
Utter nonsense. I have real world experience here, that's where I'm talking from. I'm guessing you're talking from experience of reading magazines and how they tell you someone should act. Many, many of these are self-serving and are just incorrect. What is aggressive to one girl may not be to another. What does insensitive behaviour mean? It's meaningless when applied in broad strokes. There is absolutely no way to tell how a particular girl will react to a certain type of advance. You can get cues but you could also be misreading cues. I have done many things when approaching girls that you would consider "aggressive" or "insensitive" and these experiences have turned out 100% fine. I've tried these same tactics on other girls and been turned down. Nothing I can do to predict such reactions. What is defined as aggressive changes from each person to the next. There are many, many shades in there. Men practice approaches all along the scale and it is after the fact that it is decided whether or not the approach or whatever was too aggressive etc.
You look at a girl and she doesn't keep eye contact? She could be shy you know. Please don't bring up these examples in a condescending manner when you don't know what you're talking about. Again, I've tried to hold eye contact with a chick, she dropped her eyes, I approached her and it was fine. Girls can be shy too. Sometimes little to nothing about the nature of a girl can be determined beforehand. Hence guys try many, many strategies. I do indeed agree that some are wrong, especially when coming from a place of ego, but many times it's just the type of man that does it, and not his approach.
"This is not something guys do by accident, it might be something guys do if they never learned how to behave properly, but it isn't accidental. It is clearly and obviously aggression. The issue is that some guys still believe that women respond to aggression and feel complimented by it, when the much more likely reaction is that they feel embarrassed or even afraid."
Completely subjective as already explained. There is no such thing as "behaving properly" as I will behave differently around my friends then others. I will also behave differently around different groups of strangers. When you say how woman will respond to "aggression", it could be that in fact one woman will accept a guys advance that you see as "aggressive".
People will always negotiate what is normal, abnormal etc regarding sexual positions and this will inevitably involve gender roles. But what is the point of enforcing equality in this arena? You can't nor should you enforce people change their opinions on this arena. These opinions are formed over centuries and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand or considered irrelevant. Why would everything be considered sexually equal? People feel weird for many fetishes, including ones where the man is submissive and they continue to do them, despite what others feel about it. If we somehow had complete gender equality regarding sex, then nothing would be considered deviant or weird. Is that a realistic hope? Of course not. Who cares if he is tired of how society feels about his sexual act. You can negotiate gender roles and relationships over the course of a larger society, but you should never serve to neutralize these. That would defeat the ongoing negotiation in society on gender roles etc. You can't nor should you aim to enforce what people perceive as gender roles, male, female etc. These come with a long history and are not trivial or should be discarded. So currently yes, it is considered unmanly to take it in the ass with a dildo from your girlfriend. This did not just come out on its own one day and people felt this way. There's a hell of a lot of history behind it, and you can't just dismiss that history. Whether or not you feel the history is right (like woman traditionally who were and are still seen as submissive) is a value judgement on your part (and others who judge history), but many people felt they were right at the time to perpetuate these beliefs. Some of these have carried on into the present day and this means most people would think its unmanly to take it in the ass by a dildo. You have to ask yourself why this is. It's not just men who decide social values, it's women too. You might find that many woman would agree that the guy is unmanly. You will find that many woman will hold to gender roles too, whether traditional ones or new age ones. They will say they want a man who makes the moves, leads etc. There is little place in this view for a man who takes it in the ass by a dildo. These views can't just be invalidated out of hand and attempting to enforce equality from this stance is just silly.
Yes we are bombarded with images of what a normal sex life etc is. But these are done by both genders. We have to form our own opinions (or just go along with everything if that's what you want to do) in the face of a hell a lot of advertising telling us how to live. You have to decide which ones, if any, you adopt and there is little use in in wanting acceptance in every area you choose. Polygamy is generally not considered acceptable. And yet many people have engaged in it throughout history and continue to do so today. Do these people care about equality or acceptance? It could indeed be seen as sexist. But you don't see these men complaining about how what they're doing is viewed as in the larger society. The man living with two women might see it as his right to do so and be offended by your opinion that it's sexist. You cannot be guaranteed acceptance for every life choice you make. Your view and his view on what gender equality is will be different. Who is correct?
When we talk about evolutionary history, you need to understand that it's mostly institutions that we have put a blanket over our age-old ways that stops us from acting like we used to. We have not been living in cities long enough to evolve to these new standards of living. Never in history has anything closely resembling our cities been part of our day to day lives and we are definitely not accustomed to it as a species. It was only in 2007, that more than 50% of people lives in cities. For the vast majority of human history, the vast majority of people have lives in rural areas. We did not evolve to live in cities and this new mode of living would not be possible without institutions that we have put up over many of our age old behaviours and predispositions. A hell of a lot of our behaviours come from when we were still on the savannah. Want an example? A study was done where people who went to marriage counseling, for both instances, where man felt that his wife's jealousy was ruining their relationship and where the wife felt that the man's jealousy was ruining the relationship.
The researchers pulled aside the person who was the partner of the jealous person and they were asked if they really did cheat on their partner. The vast majority of people said that yes they did. Their partners could not explain their suspicions but had what you might call a "gut instinct" (none had evidence of the cheating) but in most cases they were correct. Surely in our new evolved society, such a trait, behaviour etc (or whatever you call it) that in fact evolved while we were on the savannah should have been wiped out by now? But no it still with us, along with a myriad other behaviours. We have not lived a city life long enough to evolve into it. People still act irrationally and are very violent. We have codes of conduct, we have police, we have the courts, jail etc. to curb this behaviour.
Dunno what else to say about the rape thing. Biological urges are powerful and any amount of mental acrobatics can be done to justify a particular act. A man might look at all the advertising and think that everyone bar him is getting laid. He might then use that as an excuse to get rape if he's desperate enough. Anything could be used as an excuse. Education will hardly stop that from happening. I don't have a solution in this area.
Regarding the last point, yes I choose to hold these opinions. I know many of my opinions only a small minority of people would agree with, but I don't care. If I was literally the only person in the world to hold these opinions, than shit, maybe something is wrong. This guy is not the only guy in the world who likes to get done in the ass by a dildo, but he is in the minority. I certainly don't give a shit about acceptance for my views (some of which I've expressed in my posts) as I feel that they're right. They're definitely in the minority but this doesn't bother me one bit.