Sexual objectification

[Faolon]

11 hours ago, stargatedalek said:

No, men aggressively hit on women because they know they won't face any repercussions. If a man gets rejected he can move on to the next girl in the room, because it's expected that he will act that way and some women will even ignore it on those grounds alone. If a woman goes after a man and gets rejected she's likely to get automatically rejected by every man in the room, since they feel like she is challenging them by taking on what they perceive as their role.

 

Plenty of women can be nasty, awful people, the difference is that society both expects and enables men to be horrible, to the point where they're even granted privilege over genuinely good men.

 

I never said anything about men talking to other men about their female partners. I was referring to men sexually harassing women in public.

 

You know what men are the ones at high risk of suicide? The ones who are suffering from pressures placed on them to be manly, to be sexually aggressive, etc. when they would rather be themselves, and instead they feel devalued because they're expected to live up to toxic standards of masculinity. Men are a lot more likely than women to be harassed or mistreated for having low income jobs, for mental illness, or for being homosexual. But this harassment comes almost entirely from other men.

 

 

No repercussions? Have you ever been rejected? Imagine that happening over and over and over and over.

What universe do you live in where men view women asking them out as a challenge? You have to stop using tumblr as a basis for your beliefs.

 

Men are not expected to be horrible. Again, you need to stop basing your beliefs on the things you read from tumblr feminists. Women are, however, given excuses when they act horrible. If a woman stabs a man 14 times, she doesn't get to serve any prison time because it might negatively affect her career. If a woman hangs a toddler and then drives over people, people blame spousal abuse. If a woman rapes a boy, the boy gets blame for it and it gets called "seduction" or a "relationship" instead of RAPE.

 

You were talking about people talking about their partners.

 

You don't understand what it means to be a man, so don't try and tell me what we suffer from. We're not killing ourselves because of societal pressures to be "manly". Men are killing themselves because their wives take their children away from them in divorce and use them as leverage to suck as much money out of them as possible, leaving them destitute. Men are killing themselves because their careers and lives fell apart. Men are killing themselves because if we do not prove ourselves as good providers to women, we are not considered "real men". It's got nothing to do with toxic masculinity and whatever bullshit feminists are going to try and come up with. The amount of damage feminists have done to men is probably a huge factor in the suicide rate.

[wokking56]

23 hours ago, stargatedalek said:

The fact that "the old guy" comment is the one that men are in a position to be offended by is pretty good evidence. It's rare (not unheard of) for men to be sexually harassed in the same way that women are, but when a man gets harassed the societal expectation (see, not always what he does) is that he can do whatever is within his means to get the woman away from him, we are not granted the luxury of that expectation. If a man gets aggressively hit on a woman he can yell at her, push her away, etc., but if a woman tries to force away a man we get ostracized, or he claims that we're playing hard to get and only continues. Heck, a lot of men actually expect women to enjoy it when they walk up to us and start touching us.

Wrong!!! While it is just fine and dandy for a woman to strike a man the way society as a whole sees it if a man raises his hand or even shoves a woman it is considered an act of aggression. "Men should NEVER hit a woman no matter the reason."

 

23 hours ago, stargatedalek said:

It is indeed strange that the article doesn't use the word rape at any point, but they sure don't sugar coat anything. They explain in detail exactly what she did and really run home just how fucking bat-shit crazy she is. It's entirely possible they didn't say rape because they didn't feel it was needed after going into detail. Rape is a much broader term than people often realize, rape is any non consentual sexual contact, which includes not only forced intercourse but also groping, or intercourse with people who are not in a position to consent (drunk, minor, etc.).

Yes this article states " Samantha Ray Mears, 19, was charged Friday with two felonies — aggravated burglary and assault with a weapon." In yet another article we find that "Samatha Ray Mears, 19, faces six new charges, including unlawful restraint, partner family member assault and two counts of criminal mischief. In April, she was charged with felony strangulation for allegedly assaulting the same victim." This second article also tells of how she broke in and waited for him to return home (so clearly premeditated). Now I don't know how you see it but she held a weapon to his face and forced him to have sex (I would call that RAPE). Yet in neither article is that one of the charges, yet had the roles been reversed people would have had him convicted and sentenced (in their minds at least) as soon as the story broke.

The man was able to get the Mears off him, "but was hesitant about physically protecting himself, as he thought he would get into legal trouble if he did."

You see this poor mans statement bears out my next statement. While I will willing concede that "unwarranted sexual contact" is wrong, today's "me too" "4th wave feminism" society makes it near impossible for men. Hell sometimes merely speaking to a woman can get a man in trouble. Before I completely retired this year I worked part-time as a janitor at a local grocery, I was collecting trash in a low wheeled cart. I was coming through the kitchen area and announced myself, well one of the female workers started to back away from her station as I passed by. I in what I thought was an act of "kindness" put my hand out so she would not fall into the cart full of garbage, well unfortunately my hand contacted the small of her back. The very next day I was called to the managers office and was told about my "sexual harassment" violation. Thankfully it is just a blot on my now defunct work record and not a legal mess that would put me on some list of offenders.

 

23 hours ago, stargatedalek said:

The father should never have a say in an abortion. All he needed to do was orgasm, the woman needs to face expensive medical bills, spend many months unable to work, and go through the painful and dangerous ordeal of child birth. If he wants the child so badly (and she doesn't) he should offer to cover all of those expenses, and even then it wouldn't be ethical for him to have any way to force this woman to risk her life in order to deliver his baby.

One: who said he wouldn't cover the expenses. Two: so you are telling me that a man has no reprodutive rights, is that correct. Three: how is it that a woman can go to a fertility clinic (basically buy sperm) yet later if she feels that the financial burden is to high sue the donor for child support. Sorry but women have all the reproductive rights and men just get the short end of the stick.

 

23 hours ago, stargatedalek said:

You do have a point that attacks perpetrated on men often get very little media attention, but the reasons for that aren't the ones you say they are. Men don't like to have their own masculinity challenged, so they try to ignore attacks perpetrated on other men, "I would never loose a fight like that!" or "weak men aren't relevant to me" is a typical response. It's not every man, but it's a sizeable enough amount that the media doesn't linger on these events since they don't garner as much attention.

Sorry but I am going to call BS on this one. Sure there are plenty of men that don't want to admit that a "woman" beat them yet there are plenty that will. The thing is it's not that "the media doesn't linger on these events since they don't garner as much attention" its " these events don't garner as much attention since the media doesn't linger on them".

 

23 hours ago, stargatedalek said:

I don't understand that second statement. Are you saying that women's equality in modern times trivializes men dying in past historical events? That is about as ridiculous a statement as I have ever heard.

Okay I have reread my post three times now and I still don't have the slightest freakin idea where you got that shit from.

[jdods13]

On 8/31/2018 at 1:09 PM, Faolon said:

 

 

If a woman were to be honest with men, she would lose the ability to use them. Men, on the other hand, hit on women publicly because it works. If it never worked, they wouldn't do it.

 

I've never heard men talk about their girlfriends the way you're picturing they do. A man will not share their sexual experiences with women they care about.

 

 

Go look up the suicide rate for men. When you bring this fact up, you'll often get met with "yeah, but women attempt it more". One woman suffers and the world stops. Millions of men suffer, and you don't even bat an eye.

 

[wokking56]

13 hours ago, Faolon said:

 

 

No repercussions? Have you ever been rejected? Imagine that happening over and over and over and over.

What universe do you live in where men view women asking them out as a challenge? You have to stop using tumblr as a basis for your beliefs.

Exactly, men are expected (even in today's world) to be the one that asks for a date. Yet some women can be brutal when turning you down. Here's a couple of rejections I suffered through: "No F***ing way not even if you were the last man on Earth" or the ever popular "Sorry I am busy this weekend, and before you ask I will be busy every weekend from now on" and let's not forget this old gem "I'ld love to go out with you but I just became a lesbian sorry". Hell a simple "no I'm not interested would have done just fine".

 

14 hours ago, Faolon said:

Men are not expected to be horrible. Again, you need to stop basing your beliefs on the things you read from tumblr feminists. Women are, however, given excuses when they act horrible. If a woman stabs a man 14 times, she doesn't get to serve any prison time because it might negatively affect her career. If a woman hangs a toddler and then drives over people, people blame spousal abuse. If a woman rapes a boy, the boy gets blame for it and it gets called "seduction" or a "relationship" instead of RAPE.

I don't know there have been a couple over the years where the woman did do time. For instance [woman drowns her three children in bathtub] or [woman locks her two children in car and pushes it into a lake]. Now both of those poor women were suffering from postpartum depression and received reduced sentences. Because that's fair right?

 

14 hours ago, Faolon said:

You don't understand what it means to be a man, so don't try and tell me what we suffer from. We're not killing ourselves because of societal pressures to be "manly". Men are killing themselves because their wives take their children away from them in divorce and use them as leverage to suck as much money out of them as possible, leaving them destitute. Men are killing themselves because their careers and lives fell apart. Men are killing themselves because if we do not prove ourselves as good providers to women, we are not considered "real men". It's got nothing to do with toxic masculinity and whatever bullshit feminists are going to try and come up with. The amount of damage feminists have done to men is probably a huge factor in the suicide rate.

That paragraph is so true. Now once upon a time way back in the 70s I was all for 1st wave feminism (women just wanted to be treated equally) a fair request to be sure. However over the years it has mutated and morphed into something unholy. It's no long about being equal it's purely about shitting on men.

[DoctaSax]

17 hours ago, Faolon said:

If a woman stabs a man 14 times, she doesn't get to serve any prison time because it might negatively affect her career. If a woman hangs a toddler and then drives over people, people blame spousal abuse.

 

2 hours ago, wokking56 said:

For instance [woman drowns her three children in bathtub] or [woman locks her two children in car and pushes it into a lake]. Now both of those poor women were suffering from postpartum depression and received reduced sentences.

This sounds incredibly anecdotal to me.

I think you all need to cool down a bit.

[Jazzman]

Since humans can't get rid of the territorial chimpanzee cousin within with violence as the means to an end in conflict solution about collective (territorial) and individual property we often create first to give voice to our aggression and greed for more, there will always be objectification and thus sexual objectification as well. Even if there never was a paradise for us in the past, the chimpanzee subgroup of the bonobo lives in one - no territory, no property, no violence, but sharing and caring and sex for free all the time with whoever (!) is within reach by chance to suppress aggression (mother and siblings excl., nobody knows who the father is). We'd just love to live in such a paradise, to believe in its real existence and that's why we find it in the myths of creation. Guess some two million years ago we had a brief close encounter* with these happy cousins and the faint memory of their awesome paradise has never left mankind again... marvelous, or is it?

 

* We've encountered all cousins. That's why the human pubic louse is close related to the gorilla body louse whereas our head louse is not. Cum-ba-yah, big momma!

[Guest]

59 minutes ago, Jazzman said:

Since humans can't get rid of the territorial chimpanzee cousin within with violence as the means to an end in conflict solution about collective (territorial) and individual property we often create first to give voice to our aggression and greed for more, there will always be objectification and thus sexual objectification as well. Even if there never was a paradise for us in the past, the chimpanzee subgroup of the bonobo lives in one - no territory, no property, no violence, but sharing and caring and sex for free all the time with whoever (!) is within reach by chance to suppress aggression (mother and siblings excl., nobody knows who the father is). We'd just love to live in such a paradise, to believe in its real existence and that's why we find it in the myths of creation. Guess some two million years ago we had a brief close encounter with these happy cousins and the faint memory of their awesome paradise has never left mankind again... marvelous, or is it?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bishop-ariana-grande-aretha-franklin-funeral-apologizes-touching-on-stage/

 

Poor guy.

This very very long thread. His faux-pas, It's like radioactive fallout.

 

 

 

[Jazzman]

7 hours ago, 2dk2c said:

Poor guy.

This very very long thread. His faux-pas, It's like radioactive fallout.

 

Well, I'm neither surprised nor upset. Ten years ago I'd have grabbed between his legs on cam in return to set the holy record straight, once and for all. I'm getting soft ha. Or maybe it's b/c "Destroy one (of us) and a hundred will replace him", Harbinger to Shepard (Mass Effect) - the Pyrrhic victory. Unfortunately, Ariana Grande has played the role of a confused sheep from the get go and got treated as such by a patronizing shepherd, the big bad wolf. Just look at her posture and mimic, the faked smile. Grin and bear it. A classic. Action, reaction. Cause and effect. Causality. We signal self-confidence or the lack thereof. So, she has a fair share in the outcome imo. I fell sorry for her. The guy is an arrogant contemporary, apparently pretty familiar with crossing the inter-personal red line of the "Don't touch me... uninvited!", the take-over.

[wokking56]

12 hours ago, DoctaSax said:

 

This sounds incredibly anecdotal to me.

I think you all need to cool down a bit.

Not anecdotal at all these are factual cases. Now since neither of these cases are exactly new and my memory is a bit off only one of them is actually about postpartum depression. The other one is even more screwed up IMO and she did receive a rather hefty sentence. However my point being a male committing either of these crime would most likely get life.

1: Yates, now 51, was convicted of the June 20, 2001 killings in a case that drew widespread media attention, both for the outrage and sadness over the children’s deaths and for Yates’s defense of severe postpartum psychosis. Years later, her conviction was overturned, and in 2006, Yates was found not guilty by reason of insanity and has since lived in mental hospitals.
LINK TO ARTICLE: https://people.com/crime/andrea-yates-15-years-after-drowning-five-children-in-a-texas-mental-facility/

 

2: Contempt for Smith was overwhelming, not only because of the racial tension ignited for the false accusation of a black man, but because her alleged motive was to get rid of her children in order to carry on a relationship with a wealthy man who wasn't interested in a woman with sons.
LINK TO ARTICLE: https://www.biography.com/people/susan-smith-235800

 

[GrimReaper]

There's a couple of issues I have with the current discourse. First, suffering is not a competition, so 'but men/women suffer, too!' is irrelevant because that much should be obvious. Such statements are often used and understood as a relativization, so it's best to not use them. Second, tribalism between the sexes is an extra stupid idea for obvious reasons. Third, I do not like the term 'Patriarchy' especially because it's often used by people who otherwise claim that the use of proper language is very, very important. The same folks saying that calling a fireman a fireman will prevent girls from becoming firefighters will call the big bad Patriarchy. If not using gender neutral descriptions prevents women from becoming firefighters what will naming the evil tyrant after men do to boys and men?

 

Lastly, I'd like to point out that a lot of ideologies are self-serving to the point where they can essentially considered infallible within their own framework. Admitting that something didn't work because the issue wasn't properly identified and thus the supposed cure did fuck all seems impossible for many, case in point: The STEM paradox. The ensuing mental gymnastics to try to fit the result that entirely contradicts your theory into the very theory it contradicts is hilarious and concerning at the same time.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, GrimReaper said:

There's a couple of issues I have with the current discourse. First, suffering is not a competition, so 'but men/women suffer, too!' is irrelevant because that much should be obvious. Such statements are often used and understood as a relativization, so it's best to not use them. Second, tribalism between the sexes is an extra stupid idea for obvious reasons. Third, I do not like the term 'Patriarchy' especially because it's often used by people who otherwise claim that the use of proper language is very, very important. The same folks saying that calling a fireman a fireman will prevent girls from becoming firefighters will call the big bad Patriarchy. If not using gender neutral descriptions prevents women from becoming firefighters what will naming the evil tyrant after men do to boys and men?

 

Lastly, I'd like to point out that a lot of ideologies are self-serving to the point where they can essentially considered infallible within their own framework. Admitting that something didn't work because the issue wasn't properly identified and thus the supposed cure did fuck all seems impossible for many, case in point: The STEM paradox. The ensuing mental gymnastics to try to fit the result that entirely contradicts your theory into the very theory it contradicts is hilarious and concerning at the same time.

I'd need to be good at math (prolly science, technology and engineering too) to answer you.

You sound *exactly* like my uncle when I was seven or so, going on about world affairs and referring to books I never read.

"But I can do this!! " I tell myself, which is always my frustrating downfall.

The inventor of a type of a computer network before computer networks were invented told me about his invention, and I grasped 20 per cent.

The fact that "people" (aka men and women) suffer objectification goes along with the title of the thread.

Or were we only supposed to lament the plight of women?

relativism (I'll get back to you) is bad because it's relativistic, isn't fair. Hmm.

If forums could solve the world's problems with rhetoric, and the most adept speakers (who could make the rules) would win, if everyone bowed to the superior knowledge of a very few,

These forums wouldn't have much to say.

You don't like Patriarchy because it's used by the wrong people,

and the STEM paradox (which forces me to go off and read some tome) is laughable (so why read it)

 

And if we all narrowed the scope, that only women are objectified, that Patriarchies are fallacious, and people attempting to right wrongs are fools,

uhm, THEN (and then I got stuck)

 

[27X]

On 8/31/2018 at 12:00 PM, stargatedalek said:

That is about as ridiculous a statement as I have ever heard.

 

 

What people say in public and what they actually think can be rather different things, why you would ever assume they'd be 1:1 when they never have been, ever, is beyond me.

 

https://archive.is/ZJymw

 

 

[GrimReaper]

2 hours ago, 2dk2c said:

I'd need to be good at math (prolly science, technology and engineering too) to answer you.

You sound *exactly* like my uncle when I was seven or so, going on about world affairs and referring to books I never read.

"But I can do this!! " I tell myself, which is always my frustrating downfall.

The inventor of a type of a computer network before computer networks were invented told me about his invention, and I grasped 20 per cent.

The fact that "people" (aka men and women) suffer objectification goes along with the title of the thread.

Or were we only supposed to lament the plight of women?

relativism (I'll get back to you) is bad because it's relativistic, isn't fair. Hmm.

If forums could solve the world's problems with rhetoric, and the most adept speakers (who could make the rules) would win, if everyone bowed to the superior knowledge of a very few,

These forums wouldn't have much to say.

You don't like Patriarchy because it's used by the wrong people,

and the STEM paradox (which forces me to go off and read some tome) is laughable (so why read it)

 

And if we all narrowed the scope, that only women are objectified, that Patriarchies are fallacious, and people attempting to right wrongs are fools,

uhm, THEN (and then I got stuck)

 

Relativism is a different thing than relativization. Relativism claims that there's nothing absolute, while relativization generally means trivialising what someone says. So for example, if you say that you're not feeling well because something bad happened to you, I might answer with 'There are kids starving in Africa'. Since starving kids are probably much worse than what you're currently dealing with, this is a simple way to silence someone. This is a false dilemma of course, since these things have nothing to do with each other and talking about one doesn't negatively affect the other topic.

 

It's not that I dislike the word Patriarchy because it's used by the wrong people, I dislike it because it places a very negative connotation on all people who happen to have been born male. The claim that Patriarchy also negatively affects men is quite bizarre, given that the modern definition is that it's a system that benefits men and oppresses women. It's an ill-defined, loaded definition and I personally don't like that. The STEM paradox is a wonderful example because it proves basically everyone wrong.

[Celedhring]

On 8/25/2018 at 3:22 PM, Jazzman said:

The female vampire has attracted people at least since the invention of written language. It is demonization,

the missing link between objectification and idolization, in fact negative glorification. You'll find her occasionally

in literature, from the Bible to J.R.R. Tolkien and it's always the same illustration - a beautiful woman that lives

two lives, one as wife of gentle birth in sunlight and one as demon under the moon. Her hair and eyes are black

as the darkness. She's the claw-armed bat from Hell, the orgasmically screaming night owl, the last shadow her

target ever sees when the succubus wears nada. She's the stuff forbidden dreams are made of, the suppressed

guilt that has haunted the sanctimonious hypocrites by night for ages. She's the avenging angel of old. Boorah!

 

Thuringwethil  (J.R.R. Tolkien), Oblivion 2007

 

Let us pray...

Sheridan le Fanu's "Carmilla" comes to mind.  Or Poe's "The Tomb of Ligeia"

[Jazzman]

12 hours ago, Alkpaz said:

[snip]

It is the same question in BDSM, who holds the power? The Dom or the Sub? 

BDSM is an internal sexual strategy that has little up to nothing to do with non-sexual external strategies of the couple or group involved.

If you look at a lion pride that gets taken over by a new leader (often with the help of a companion), the females get sexually paralyzed which

makes them look totally submissive to the male up to the point that they show just little resistance when their cubs get killed, an oxymoron

for mothers in nature, so it seems. But is it? Who holds the true power in the pride?

 

Well, the Masai Mara go after the male lion in groups of up to two-three dozen warriors armed with nothing but shield, spear and axe. For the

mane as trophy, you might think and that is partly true. On the other hand white big game hunters with a life-long experience in the lion hunt

say that the Masai don't go after the lioness simply b/c it's far more dangerous. The females are the real article, the perfect hunters, the born

'killers' of the Savannah, not the males. So who holds the power? The Dom or the Sub? It depends on what we're looking at and if violent sex

(or internal violence in general) is involved...

[RitualClarity]

14 hours ago, Jazzman said:

BDSM is an internal sexual strategy that has little up to nothing to do with non-sexual external strategies of the couple or group involved.

If you look at a lion pride that gets taken over by a new leader (often with the help of a companion), the females get sexually paralyzed which

makes them look totally submissive to the male up to the point that they show just little resistance when their cubs get killed, an oxymoron

for mothers in nature, so it seems. But is it? Who holds the true power in the pride?

 

Well, the Masai Mara go after the male lion in groups of up to two-three dozen warriors armed with nothing but shield, spear and axe. For the

mane as trophy, you might think and that is partly true. On the other hand white big game hunters with a life-long experience in the lion hunt

say that the Masai don't go after the lioness simply b/c it's far more dangerous. The females are the real article, the perfect hunters, the born

'killers' of the Savannah, not the males. So who holds the power? The Dom or the Sub? It depends on what we're looking at and if violent sex

(or internal violence in general) is involved...

Culturally Masi are forbidden to hunt female lions not because they are more dangerous but are seen as the as the bearers of life in every species. (religious reasons not to mention the mothers of future lions. It only takes one male for a pride... several females are part of the pride. ) They will however not hesitate if they are a danger to their livestock or themselves (village.) However, that apparently rarely happens as females seem to avoid the Masi where the male lions are stupid and push the issue.

 

There are very strict cultural rules and code of conduct for hunting a lion for the Masi... they used to in fact encourage the solo hunting but now that there are so few due to hunting(from "white hunters" and such) they now do it in groups so that everybody (male) can have a chance for the experience.

 

  They are truly interesting people and culture. I had a class and instructor that had extensive experience with them (with videos)

[Jazzman]

11 hours ago, RitualClarity said:

Culturally Masi are forbidden to hunt female lions not because they are more dangerous but are seen as the as the bearers of life in every species. (religious reasons not to mention the mothers of future lions. It only takes one male for a pride... several females are part of the pride. ) They will however not hesitate if they are a danger to their livestock or themselves (village.) However, that apparently rarely happens as females seem to avoid the Masi where the male lions are stupid and push the issue.

 

There are very strict cultural rules and code of conduct for hunting a lion for the Masi... they used to in fact encourage the solo hunting but now that there are so few due to hunting(from "white hunters" and such) they now do it in groups so that everybody (male) can have a chance for the experience.

 

  They are truly interesting people and culture. I had a class and instructor that had extensive experience with them (with videos)

Defense of the own property and the hunt on human terms are two different animals, and that's why the lions avoid hunting cattle of the Masai Mari but not the livestock of other people - it's far less risky and thus occasionally an option predominantly for isolated males that hunt alone or as male pair. But surely, we all know a guy who was just recently in Kenya that knows far more than renowned big game hunters that rely on Masai trackers/guides (nowadays armed /w assault rifle for the job) and just tell cock 'n' bull stories like fishermen anyway, what else?

 

So, the Masai hunting party exclusively goes after the wandering males that roam either alone or /w a companion in the open Savannah or bush land and never the females of a pride that always operate as a group. See a lioness and you've just missed the others... that might be the intro to a banquet on lion terms in areas where the lions have acquired a taste for humans as was the case along the old slave routes, but not the script of a traditional hunt /w spear and shield in a collective dogfight or the .375 H&H Magnum of a hunter /w permit at some 50 yards... in both cases far from human settlements.

 

How the actual strategy and tactics on the hunt get justified in mythic terms just to feel more confident in the ancestral tradition is irrelevant, to say the least. The mysteries of hunting excl. rest on risk minimization. That goes for all predators and for human hunters as well. It takes an enormous food pressure for a predator or a unique, atypical behavior pattern (as /w the famous male lion pair in the Tsavo and some 130 human kills in a few months) to take any risk and then all bets are off.

 

Heia safari ya Bamba, bwana. The lion sleeps tonight... so we might return to the role of doms and subs in objectification, totally unafraid, shall we? 

[DarkFireTim]

I've got to agree with the point that I think @GrimReaper is making. Just because it sucks to be you doesn't mean it doesn't suck to be someone else, and competing about who's life sucks more is not helpful.

 

As a man who was sexually harassed at several different jobs by several different gay men, was straight up assaulted by two different female managers, and spent his whole childhood being told he was stupid and couldn't understand emotions because he had a penis (by his female teachers). I can tell you @stargatedalek that, based on your posts in this thread, you have absolutely no idea how much it sucks to be a man right now, or how much it has sucked to be a man for at least the last 20 years. With that being said nothing that has happened to me or will happen to me means, or makes, anything that has, or will, happen to you or anyone else less valid or less of a problem.

 

At the same time @wokking56 our experiences do not change the fact that it very much sucks to be a woman right now, and has for a very long time. As my sister and mother have experienced things on the same level as, if not worse than, myself I can say this with great certainty.

 

My point is that rather than compete or argue about which gender has it worse we should be discussing how to solve the problem for everyone. While acknowledging that solutions may not be the same for both sides and should include responses to, or measures against, people, of both genders, who have absolutely no intention of allowing this problem to be resolved.

[wokking56]

8 hours ago, DarkFireTim said:

I've got to agree with the point that I think @GrimReaper is making. Just because it sucks to be you doesn't mean it doesn't suck to be someone else, and competing about who's life sucks more is not helpful.

 

As a man who was sexually harassed at several different jobs by several different gay men, was straight up assaulted by two different female managers, and spent his whole childhood being told he was stupid and couldn't understand emotions because he had a penis (by his female teachers). I can tell you @stargatedalek that, based on your posts in this thread, you have absolutely no idea how much it sucks to be a man right now, or how much it has sucked to be a man for at least the last 20 years. With that being said nothing that has happened to me or will happen to me means, or makes, anything that has, or will, happen to you or anyone else less valid or less of a problem.

 

At the same time @wokking56 our experiences do not change the fact that it very much sucks to be a woman right now, and has for a very long time. As my sister and mother have experienced things on the same level as, if not worse than, myself I can say this with great certainty.

 

My point is that rather than compete or argue about which gender has it worse we should be discussing how to solve the problem for everyone. While acknowledging that solutions may not be the same for both sides and should include responses to, or measures against, people, of both genders, who have absolutely no intention of allowing this problem to be resolved.

Look I will readily concede that women have had it rough over the years. However now is about the best time to be a woman so far. I will refrain from enumerating all the perks again. I hate to burst your bubble but men the oppressed sex right now. We are still expected to be the ones that ask for a date yet depending on the female in question it might be an unwanted advance (now we are creeping). Not to mention I can ask one of my male friends if he wants to get something to eat and maybe a few drinks, he wont expect me to pay unless I specifically say "it's on me".  Not so with a woman to her it's a date and I need to pay. Furthermore as I already stated once I touched a woman out of concern for her safety (not in a sexual or lascivious manner) and was called in for sexual harassment.

 

As for a solution I don't see that happening. Men just want what women originally asked for "to be treat equally", yet somehow everyone seems to think we are still top dog. Women on the other hand can't even reach a consensus, ask 10 different women what the problem is with today's society and they will give you 10 different answers.

 

Sorry but 4th Wave Feminism, Me Too, and SJWs have ruined our society. You are no longer allowed to talk to anyone, look at anyone, enter their safe zone or have an opinion because it will offend or somehow (magically) physically harm someone. No one wants to have a discussion anymore, everyone has their personal belief and nothing anyone else says matters. Even when you present facts they are disbelieved because (they are made up by whatever group is being reviled at the moment).

 

So hate me if you must but that is the way I see it.

[Jazzman]

1 hour ago, wokking56 said:

Sorry but 4th Wave Feminism, Me Too, and SJWs have ruined our society. You are no longer allowed to talk to anyone, look at anyone, enter their safe zone or have an opinion because it will offend or somehow (magically) physically harm someone. No one wants to have a discussion anymore, everyone has their personal belief and nothing anyone else says matters. Even when you present facts they are disbelieved because (they are made up by whatever group is being reviled at the moment).

 

So hate me if you must but that is the way I see it.

You are on the right track... now its time to get rid of the orange glasses and the narrow view of things that comes with it.

What's ruining our society as still ongoing process is the consciously implemented identity politics, the artificial creation of

still more tiny factions that split the society in a dog eat dog fashion that paralyzes the people to balance the powers-that-be

one way or the other or even to see the existential problems they create. The today situation is far more dangerous than at

any moment in the historical Cold War, and yet we're sleepwalking, totally distracted by the minor problems created for us, the

media wars of group secession, the You's against the Me's, men vs women vs other women vs other men vs everything in

between and so forth. We might find the real game they're playing with us w/o seeing it fatal at the end of the day, and then?

Then what? Piss or pee in the pants as a last farewell? I say fuck you on top! Objectify yourselves! I'm not your Indian anymore.

[GrimReaper]

3 hours ago, wokking56 said:

However now is about the best time to be a woman so far.

If you're educated, rich and attractive, yeah. There's a lot of advantages that come with money and good looks, which often get confused with 'privilege'. Life's good when you check all the boxes on the lottery regardless of sex or skin color.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Jazzman said:

You are on the right track... now its time to get rid of the orange glasses and the narrow view of things that comes with it.

What's ruining our society as still ongoing process is the consciously implemented identity politics, the artificial creation of

still more tiny factions that split the society in a dog eat dog fashion that paralyzes the people to balance the powers-that-be

one way or the other or even to see the existential problems they create. The today situation is far more dangerous than at

any moment in the historical Cold War, and yet we're sleepwalking, totally distracted by the minor problems created for us, the

media wars of group secession, the You's against the Me's, men vs women vs other women vs other men vs everything in

between and so forth. We might find the real game they're playing with us w/o seeing it fatal at the end of the day, and then?

Then what? Piss or pee in the pants as a last farewell? I say fuck you on top! Objectify yourselves! I'm not your Indian anymore.

There's a cartoonist I never heard of before saturday who says he has "politically incorrect" cartoons.

I disagree, political correctess is bannon limbaugh and the cartoonist, and we're all anarchists (apparently).

 

Skipping tons....

It's extremely politically correct today thanks to cartoonists and talk-show-hosts, to spout a few reverential words on forums,

"E Plebnista" (the sacred words)

and "SJW" (and other acronyms,

to proudly announce you hate everyone, and wear a hat.

I blame the hats.

OK maybe bumper stickers too.

People need to belong to something even while announcing they are alone (or what the hell are they doing here typing they wanna be alone?)

I wanted to say, women smile better than men (yes, they do).

Your Avatar for instance.

So endearing.

So disarming.

So toothy.

Down with common sense, down with history, they regret nothing and say so, and anyone trying to tone them down gets hit by a stray meme.

I think I'm done....not sure. Where was I?

o. "civil wars" and the pundits who start them, and the phrase "Divide and conquer".

But I'm out of space

 

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2018/09/upskirting-debate-misogyny-hate-crime-stella-creasy-street-harassment

[DarkFireTim]

11 hours ago, wokking56 said:

Look I will readily concede that women have had it rough over the years. However now is about the best time to be a woman so far. I will refrain from enumerating all the perks again. I hate to burst your bubble but men the oppressed sex right now. We are still expected to be the ones that ask for a date yet depending on the female in question it might be an unwanted advance (now we are creeping). Not to mention I can ask one of my male friends if he wants to get something to eat and maybe a few drinks, he wont expect me to pay unless I specifically say "it's on me".  Not so with a woman to her it's a date and I need to pay. Furthermore as I already stated once I touched a woman out of concern for her safety (not in a sexual or lascivious manner) and was called in for sexual harassment.

 

As for a solution I don't see that happening. Men just want what women originally asked for "to be treat equally", yet somehow everyone seems to think we are still top dog. Women on the other hand can't even reach a consensus, ask 10 different women what the problem is with today's society and they will give you 10 different answers.

 

Sorry but 4th Wave Feminism, Me Too, and SJWs have ruined our society. You are no longer allowed to talk to anyone, look at anyone, enter their safe zone or have an opinion because it will offend or somehow (magically) physically harm someone. No one wants to have a discussion anymore, everyone has their personal belief and nothing anyone else says matters. Even when you present facts they are disbelieved because (they are made up by whatever group is being reviled at the moment).

 

So hate me if you must but that is the way I see it.

Your rhetoric is all well and good, especially when your so interested in saying it that you totally ignored everything that I said that agree'd that it sucks to be male right now, but what does it actually mean? If you follow your arguments to the logical conclusion what are you actually asking for? If you believe there is no hope for a solution then what should we, as a people, do? Even if it's a far fetched 3000 years in the future answer I would very much like to hear a solid direct answer from you as to what you want and how you think we should go about achieving it.

 

Because I can tell you that I very much want to be able to get a job again with out worrying that I'll be raped by my female boss, or fired for alleged sexual harassment, or denied a raise or promotion because I have a penis. However I am totally unwilling to get those things at the real and serious expense of my sister and mother.

[Jazzman]

12 hours ago, 2dk2c said:

I wanted to say, women smile better than men (yes, they do).

Your Avatar for instance.

So endearing.

So disarming.

So toothy.

So... so... I know, I know. It's the natural looks, no more, no less.

Say cheese! but just to look like cheese in private shots, indeed.

That's not exactly the sexualized objectification wet dreams are

made of, but who cares ha - this is LoversLab, any lover will do!

Oh well, almost any... 

[wokking56]

7 hours ago, DarkFireTim said:

Your rhetoric is all well and good, especially when your so interested in saying it that you totally ignored everything that I said that agree'd that it sucks to be male right now, but what does it actually mean? If you follow your arguments to the logical conclusion what are you actually asking for? If you believe there is no hope for a solution then what should we, as a people, do? Even if it's a far fetched 3000 years in the future answer I would very much like to hear a solid direct answer from you as to what you want and how you think we should go about achieving it.

 

Because I can tell you that I very much want to be able to get a job again with out worrying that I'll be raped by my female boss, or fired for alleged sexual harassment, or denied a raise or promotion because I have a penis. However I am totally unwilling to get those things at the real and serious expense of my sister and mother.

You want an actual solution OK here goes. Everyone (male, female, black, white, feminist, conservative, liberal or what the hell ever you may be) get the F over yourself. Live and let live, quit trying to cram your brand of BS down my throat and I'll do the same and last but not least live by the "golden rule" treat people the way you wish to be treated. That is and has always been the only solution, but since it is a simple and actually easy solution it will never happen. Everyone forgets the golden rule in the new "me first" society.