Sexuality; Double Standards
- Thread starter Kakashi on crack
- Start date
Recommended Videos
There is a little bit of a double standard, as shown in another thread using humor between the sexes pointed out.
If a man gets hit in the balls and a woman laughs, it's okay because it was kind of funny, but if a woman gets hit in the crotch or breasts and a man laughs? He'll be laughing alone and probably get a lot of backlash for being insensitive and crude.
A man who rubs up against a woman and grab her breasts is seen as a pervert even though sleeping with many women makes him some kind of idol. A woman who rubs up against a man and grabs his junk is seen as sexy, even if sleeping with many men makes her a slut.
Maybe it's just an exaggeration of the primitive mind handling the traditional roles of the genders. Or it could be some social revolution making a shift to the opposite direction or what's been perceived as acceptable and normal for so many generations. "Boys will be boys" is no longer an excuse for them to do whatever they want, while women are now being encouraged to do just that.
Off Topic: Love the capcha for this. "level playing field"
If a man gets hit in the balls and a woman laughs, it's okay because it was kind of funny, but if a woman gets hit in the crotch or breasts and a man laughs? He'll be laughing alone and probably get a lot of backlash for being insensitive and crude.
A man who rubs up against a woman and grab her breasts is seen as a pervert even though sleeping with many women makes him some kind of idol. A woman who rubs up against a man and grabs his junk is seen as sexy, even if sleeping with many men makes her a slut.
Maybe it's just an exaggeration of the primitive mind handling the traditional roles of the genders. Or it could be some social revolution making a shift to the opposite direction or what's been perceived as acceptable and normal for so many generations. "Boys will be boys" is no longer an excuse for them to do whatever they want, while women are now being encouraged to do just that.
Off Topic: Love the capcha for this. "level playing field"
The most important word here is:
I could go on! It's terribly bias these days. Then again every time a women tries to play the 'ugh you're a pervert because you're a man!' card I'm just quite honest and explain I much prefer men anyway so she can stop complimenting herself!
Still. Staying on topic as possible, people do need to learn to 'practice what they preach' so to speak and stop completely ignoring such obvious contradictions in what they say and what they do.
Not you. How men are treated these days. It -used- to be all very much 'women's rights' now women have their rights - and more! Us men get mistreated terribly! I've heard in the UK, a man can't even sit next to a child that's not his - but a women can! In over 90% of the cases of couples with children that split up, the mother will get the child - tell me that's not bias!Kakashi on crack said:
I could go on! It's terribly bias these days. Then again every time a women tries to play the 'ugh you're a pervert because you're a man!' card I'm just quite honest and explain I much prefer men anyway so she can stop complimenting herself!
Still. Staying on topic as possible, people do need to learn to 'practice what they preach' so to speak and stop completely ignoring such obvious contradictions in what they say and what they do.
And a chick can only get sex if the man says she canMianusIzBleeding said:
Women enjoy sex just as much as men do
Babies are emotionally attached to the mother from birth, so it makes sense that the mother is more likely to get the child. The part that bugs me is when women assault men in the name of "self defense" when the man is just asking for directionsGraveeKing said:
I have little doubt about women enjoying sex as much as men do. However, it would seem that they don't want sex as much as men do. Of course, I'm speaking generally and from personal experience. You and others may have seen differently.artanis_neravar said:
one more that doesnt get the point? did i say that? read the post CAREFULLY again probably you will understand it. but i doubt it.artanis_neravar said:
well at that other thing well i just dislike it when people itnerpreting anything other than my point into the point i just made.
No thats not what i said, saying i said such a thing just makes it all rediculous.
but thats a great example of modern day stupidity. Yeah intepret something into a statement and then comment ON THE THING YOU JUST PULLED OUT OF YOUR ASS to make the otherone look stupid. Sorry do that with the stupid kind, not with me.
also this forum doesnt show me quotes. wich is weird.
For one I wasn't responding to you, I was responding to the other person, so get of your high horse and stop being a little *****Sordak said:
I don't want to sound like a dick, so read between the lines here.
I often feel that many feminists, along with other types of extremists, are causing a lot of problems in this world. Yes, I definitely think it's a double standard. Rather than having complete gender equality so we're all like the Eloi, we should have equality in some places and differences in others.
I often feel that many feminists, along with other types of extremists, are causing a lot of problems in this world. Yes, I definitely think it's a double standard. Rather than having complete gender equality so we're all like the Eloi, we should have equality in some places and differences in others.
Honestly I have never met a woman who has actually been able to withhold sex from their partner. And no I do not mean that the partner forces sex on her, I mean that she just can't go without it.shitoutonme said:
But then again I suppose that's only if you can actually please your woman.....BURN!
Sorry I couldn't resist
You actually didn't sound like a dick, and I agree. For example, I believe that Alimony is an archaic practice that needs to be stopped to help equalize the gendersStephen Wo said:
Yeah, especially in cases where it's payed unfairly. Maybe a morality jury?artanis_neravar said:
I'm not sure what it has to do with gender. I mean I've known cases in which the ex-wives were paying the ex-husbands, because they had the higher paying jobs. It's only a sexist concept if you assume it always goes one way. Which it doesn't.artanis_neravar said:
Now, it might go one way more often than the other. I'd say you have to look at it carefully. I can definitely believe that there is a bias (similar to how children are more often given to males) but on the other hand we all know that women tend to earn less and that could very well be playing a big part in that.
As for the person who mentioned welfare, it probably depends on the country, but here you have to produce paperwork explaingin why you're not getting an alimony if you're separated or divorced and applying for welfare. The state's responsibility goes after your spouse or ex-spouse due to the contract you signed when getting married, and the terms agreed to break that contract (so, the terms of the separation or divorce).
It also makes sense when there was a single income because one person was taking care of the home and the other had an outside job, because then the person whose job was to take care of the home won't get any unemployment or anything and will just be left with nothing. As the ex "employer", the ex has to pay a little something until the other person finds a job. I don't see anything wrong with that, if they hadn't been taking care of the house all day they might have a career or diploma by now but instead they're left with nothing.
I didn't say it was sexist, I said that it was archaic and needed to be eliminated. It's from a time where women didn't work and were supported by only their husbands income, so it made sense that the husband would still support her until she remarried. But now with women encouraged to work it is just out of date. And I do know that there are women who pay men alimony and I believe that should be stopped to. In the society we live in everyone has the same opportunities to find a good paying job, and while it is harder for some people, in the end it's the choices you make that depended on your success or not. I kind of forget where I was going with this but my point still standsAvistew said:
Sorry I missed your last paragraph. Unless I missed something (which is quiet possible) alimony only ends when the other person gets remarried. I could agree to alimony that is paid until the other person finds a job, as long as they can show that they are actually searchingAvistew said:
It depends. When the judge decides the alimony, they decide the conditions too. You can have one that's a specific amount of time, or until a specific event happens (for instance during a separation until the divorce, or after a divorce until a remarriage) and you can state that it's only if the person make less than a certain amount. It's not always the exact same thing in every case. What if the person decided never to get married and then got a much better job and earned more than their spouse? It would make no sense for them to keep getting the money.artanis_neravar said:
I think it's a family protection thing, that was probably put in place mainly for children (it's rarer to have alimonies with no kids involved) and then they're more about the responsibilities of the parents towards their kids, but I do think it makes sense to take the contract to heart (I mean marriage). It's something of significance and even after you stop being married, you can't just abandon each other, basically you're supposed to make sure each other can keep going with their life on their own, ideally. And I do think it makes more sense for the person who was in the relationship to still have some financial responsibility than for it to be the state's to pay (or in other words, the citizens').