NationStates Jolt Archive

A lot of this is simply not true. I think most men approach getting laid as vaginal penetration, whether or not orgasm is achieved. The orgasm part is generally the goal, yes, but even a "bad lay" is a lay.

That has not been my experience. However, I didn't claim that all guys worked this way. Obviously they don't, because if all guys worked that way then I'd be exclusively lesbian, and I'm not.


You also really don't understand what, exactly, blue balls is, apparently. The reason men avoid isn't because it sucks to not come, it's avoided because it is extremely physically painful.

I do know what "blue balls" is. I also know that it is NOT physically painful for all guys.


It is not simply a psychological thing.

Neither is the female equivalent.


I really can't understand how women often do not comprehend this. It's just the nature of the male anatomy and, unfortunately, being blue balled can be as bad as getting a swift kick to them multiple times over the course of some length of time.

Sorry, I call bunk on that. Maybe that's how it feels for you, I don't really know (or care), but not all guys work that way.

Furthermore, even if what you are claiming were categorically true for all males, it doesn't remotely undermine any of what I was saying. If anything, it further supports my point: if "blue balls" is this horrible painful experience, then obviously guys who are looking to "get laid" aren't looking to get blue balls.


I'm curious, though, as to how you evaluated sexual performance by social behavior? In my experience, the two don't often correlate.

In my experience, with college guys they almost always do. There may well be some exceptions, but why bother taking the risk? Particularly considering all the other costs that go along with a hook up (for girls, at least).

Guys who will act like jackasses when trying to pick you up will almost always be jackasses in the sack. Personally, I like that, because it makes it pretty simple to avoid bad sex.


Is there an assumption that self-absorption denotes a likelihood of poor sexual performance? Or is it that cluelessness in social situations is likely to continue into more intimate situations? It's not a rhetorical question, I'm actually genuinely curious.
I think it's a largely personal thing. Sexual compatibility is individual, after all!

Personally, I find that anything making me think the female involved is not enjoying herself, is the #1 biggest turn off for me.
I try my hardest to make sure she achieves at least 1 orgasm ;p (and usually succeed)... and I highly doubt I'd achieve one myself if I thought she wasn't enjoying ANYTHING I did, even if she were still wanting to have sex, for whatever reason.
I HATE an attitude to sex that degrades women, or makes 'having sex with them' the most important thing about them... it's just... urgh. It disgusts me that people can be treated the way some women are treated by some men. I am aware that not all responsibility can be shouldered by the man, for instance she does not have to put up with being treated that way (in most case). But it's the man's attitude that is the problem.

Please understand, I was not remotely claiming that all guys view women (or sex) in this manner. My (male) partner shares your opinion, and boy am I happy about that!


Tbh you get some disgusting hoes of women, but they're rarely if ever engaging in said activities with men who think of them as anything more than a pussy... strangely enough....

I stay away from terms like "ho" and "slut," because I know that I'm one by many people's definitions. I'm not going to shame anybody for the number of partners they choose to have, as long as they conduct themselves honorably and respectfully with those partners.


I'm not saying there's anything wrong with sex, or even with casual sex. But when you're effectively using the other person engaging in said act, as a wank toy- just something to pleasure yourself on, and don't care about them or even think of them as a person... :(
Agreed.

Even a "casual" hook up is, for me, a hook up with a PERSON. It's about having a mutually good time.

Well, consider this: A narcissistic guy that is selfish and only looks after himself will not likely care whether the girl he is sleeping with achieves an orgasm or not. A more outgoing and forthcoming guy will likely try harder (and possibly actually know what he's doing, because he's asked).
But, by the same token, the narcissistic, superficial assclown of a frat boy is likely to have more sex than his less narcissistic, though extroverted, counterpart. Confidence, in my experience, is one of the many, though arguably the most major, factor that gets men laid. The narcissist, for all his bad qualities, cannot be said to be lacking in self-confidence (at least, superficially...I realize that, in both a clinical and philosophical sense, the narcissist can be said to be the most lacking in self-confidence). But I realize that there is a lot more that goes into evaluating a worthy sexual partner than a simple cut-and-dry calculation of confidence and social reciprocity; this is what I'm curious about, though. What, exactly, is that calculation? Or, at least, what are the dominant variables in it?

I think it's an interesting question.
what is TRUE is that women arent guaranteed a good time. she HAS to pass up lots of willing but obviously inept (or dangerous, or hygenically disgusting) men if she wants a good sex experience. if a woman is looking for a quick orgasm (with a man) she must use her instinct and superficial indicators to try to guarantee orgasm and safety.

obviously those instincts and indicators vary from woman to woman and even from day to day.
That's what I'm asking, though. How are they obviously inept? What qualities designate this ineptness? Do you think this is an entirely instinct driven thing (this would make complete sense, as well) or is there more to it than that? From the opposite view-point, I've had sex with women who were abysmally terrible and boring at it, to my complete surprise; while, on the other hand, the ones who were the most engaging ended up blindsiding me with their...."talent," you might say. And often I'm told by my partners that they're surprised when we get to sex because my "social personality" apparently does not "correlate" to my, I guess you'd call it, "intimate personality." (Let me clarify that this has been used as a compliment to my "intimate personality"....though, I'm still not quite if that denotes an insult to my "social personality" or not.)

On the other hand, sex is a tricky topic because no one ever thinks they're bad at it (literally...I've never encounter anyone, man or woman, whose of the opinion that they are sub-par at sexual activity, regardless of truth), at least performance-wise, and no one ever tells someone that they're bad at sex. Granted, I've never had a "bad" breakup, where things ended on a sour note, so my personal experience is a bit skewed, but generally breakups have the "at least the sex was good" clause in them at the post-breakup chats.

What this whole spiel is getting at, and I apologize for the long-winded nature of it, is that there is a huge asymmetry of information going when determining a sexual partner, be it due to the nature of the beast or conscious (or otherwise) dishonesty. With this in mind, how is one, especially a woman, really able to evaluate likely sexual proficiency when making these pre-intercourse determinations? I know, as a man, I'm really at a loss for an answer and that, for myself, it simply boils down to random chance. I hold no illusion that I can determine how good of a lay a girl is going to be through anything but the actual act. So, short of some feminine sixth sense ("I see sexy people," says the shivering nymphomaniac), I don't understand how women can determine sexual performance through anything else but actual sex.
and, oh yeah, she has to be attracted to him. no woman wants sex so much that she is going to have it with a man shes not attracted to--barring bad psychology.

This is a given. Regardless of what anyone says, I refuse to believe you can have a relationship, a meaningful one (because sex does add meaning to a relationship...it's an emotional adhesive) at least, if you are repulsed by your partner. In fact, I would say that you have to find your partner attractive. Now, I'm not saying that a girl need start juicing at the very sight of her determined "lay of the night" or that a man is going to need to sit down immediately upon sighting his target for fear of an awkward social situation, but physical attraction is a given. I mean, even in the alcohol induced set of standards so many of us come to regret eventually (that morning where you look over to what you brought home...and then turn back over and hope it's all just a bad dream...that, for the most part, you don't actually remember), we are still attracted to that partner at the time of determining sexual value, it's just that what we deem as attractive then may not be what we deem as attractive under normal circumstance.

Considering women have been oppressed for the last few thousand years of human history and are still oppressed in many part of the world and still struggle with inequality, I'd say they had it a wee bit tougher than men. Men don't have a "glass ceiling" to overcome. Also, there's that whole menstruation thing and child birth. Men get to have a nice orgasm and that's the end of it. Women get to carry around some fetus for nine months while mobs of protestors tell her she must have the child. The man can just run off. She can't run off because to get an abortion some giant ethical debate springs up about some lump of flesh that's going to come out and demand 18+ years of her life.

I realize that there is a lot more that goes into evaluating a worthy sexual partner than a simple cut-and-dry calculation of confidence and social reciprocity; this is what I'm curious about, though. What, exactly, is that calculation? Or, at least, what are the dominant variables in it?
Your usual approach is useless here. ;)
Or, more seriously, it's not a simple calculation, thinking of the decision tree - an extremally complex one and different for each person might help.

But, by the same token, the narcissistic, superficial assclown of a frat boy is likely to have more sex than his less narcissistic, though extroverted, counterpart. Confidence, in my experience, is one of the many, though arguably the most major, factor that gets men laid. The narcissist, for all his bad qualities, cannot be said to be lacking in self-confidence (at least, superficially...I realize that, in both a clinical and philosophical sense, the narcissist can be said to be the most lacking in self-confidence). But I realize that there is a lot more that goes into evaluating a worthy sexual partner than a simple cut-and-dry calculation of confidence and social reciprocity; this is what I'm curious about, though. What, exactly, is that calculation? Or, at least, what are the dominant variables in it?

I think it's an interesting question.And it has nothing to do with the discussion, since we're talking about the #1 reason Bottle would turn someone down, not the #1 reason why any random guy would be turned down by any random girl.

Sorry for the double-post rather than an edited, expanded reply...this is just easier.

I'm a guy, but I don't have any idea what 'blue balls' is, to be honest. I'm halfway tempted to believe it's a conspiracy amongst those desperate for a shag... a sort of made-up ailment to use to guilt-trip prospective partners with.

Whatever it is - I think it's got to be your own fault. I've never encountered it.
I...don't really have a response to this. I'm happy you've never encountered blue balls, but I definitely have and most men I know (assuming this has come up in conversation....I don't exactly ask all my friends whether or not they've personally had blue balls, to be honest) have, as well.
That has not been my experience. However, I didn't claim that all guys worked this way. Obviously they don't, because if all guys worked that way then I'd be exclusively lesbian, and I'm not.
Granted, we're talking about perceived tendencies, not inherent traits that all specimens share.
I do know what "blue balls" is. I also know that it is NOT physically painful for all guys.Like I said, and you seem to have understood implicitly, we are talking about the tendency of the general populace. There are few things that can be said to be completely universal.
Neither is the female equivalent.There is a female equivalent to a physiological punishment of pain for failing to accomplish sexual intercourse? I'm not being facetious, I actually didn't realize this? Care to elaborate?
Sorry, I call bunk on that. Maybe that's how it feels for you, I don't really know (or care), but not all guys work that way.

Furthermore, even if what you are claiming were categorically true for all males, it doesn't remotely undermine any of what I was saying. If anything, it further supports my point: if "blue balls" is this horrible painful experience, then obviously guys who are looking to "get laid" aren't looking to get blue balls.No need to apologize, the nature of discussion is elaboration. Like I said, I don't disagree that every man is an individual, down to their physiological reactions to events. And nor did I say that men looking to get laid are looking to not achieve orgasm. My understanding of your stance is that mean are solely seeking their own orgasm when they have sex, and I simply disagree that this is the sole motivator, though of course a major one.

In my experience, with college guys they almost always do. There may well be some exceptions, but why bother taking the risk? Particularly considering all the other costs that go along with a hook up (for girls, at least).

Guys who will act like jackasses when trying to pick you up will almost always be jackasses in the sack. Personally, I like that, because it makes it pretty simple to avoid bad sex.


I think it's a largely personal thing. Sexual compatibility is individual, after all!

Fair enough. I'm just trying to get a feel for the basis of the perceived sexual compatibility. I made a big deal of how, at least in my experience (which seems patently different than yours, apparently), it is very difficult to determine sexual aptitude without actually engaging in the act. People are very different at an intimate level and, while sex does not necessitate emotional intimacy, there is still something to be said of physical intimacy and all that it entails, I believe.

To Nipeng (hope I spelled that right) and Laerod. I realize that it is a complex and varied determination. But even such, there are bound to be some very basic components to it. Even basic, simple foundations result in exhaustive and complex processes; those foundations are what I'm very curious about now and I find it much more interesting than the absurd premise of the OP. So if it is a thread hijack, which doesn't even seem to be the complaint here, I'd say it's a worthy one. :)

<snip>

I'm monogamous now, but in college I was happily promiscuous, and I can tell you that the #1 reason I turned down male sexual advances was my evaluation of the guy's behavior and my conclusion that he would be either unwilling or unable to provide me with an orgasm. Why should I want to help some dude get his cock sloppy if I'm not going to get mine? Simply "getting laid" meant "providing some dude with an orgasm," and yes, there was no shortage of offers for me to provide dudes with orgasms. Offers to provide ME with orgasms, however, were much more scarce.
Truth. I can't tell you how many times I've been chatted up at bars or parties, or gone on a date with a guy, and found him treating me/talking to me as if he expected me to just pick some convenient corner, right there and then, to drop my panties and bend over for him for a minute or two, so he could get on with his evening. I often wonder if the guys are aware that they are treating their dates, or coming on to women who aren't their dates yet, as if they are shopping for $20 whores under a bridge. Because if they became aware of it, it might clue them why they get sex so rarely.

<snip>

I'm curious, though, as to how you evaluated sexual performance by social behavior? In my experience, the two don't often correlate. Is there an assumption that self-absorption denotes a likelihood of poor sexual performance? Or is it that cluelessness in social situations is likely to continue into more intimate situations? It's not a rhetorical question, I'm actually genuinely curious.
The bolded part is the problem right there, because the opposite is actually true.

Unfortunately, I don't know where to look for the sources on this, because I learned it from several different articles in science magazines and a mini-series about human biology done by Sir Richard Leakey (the biologist) several years ago, in which quite a lot of academic/scientific studies were talked about.

But apparently it works like this: The human brain is hardwired to focus on certain body characteristics in processing a person's appearance -- face, height, overall body shape, hands, and feet. These are the parts that get fitted into the auto-template of human form in the brain, and these bits are what the brain uses to commit a new person's individual appearance to memory so you can recognize them again later.

At the same time that you are recording physical characteristics, you are also noting primary and secondary sexual characteristics -- body parts and shape as well as subtle clues like smell and skin and hair condition (indicators of age and health).

This seemingly complex process is automatic, not conscious, and studies have shown that it takes an average grand total of 30 seconds for all of those details to be noted. So within the first 30 seconds of looking at a person, you will have a general sense of what they look like, whether they seem healthy and clean, and whether you find them hot. This is equally true for both men and women.

So within 30 seconds of meeting a man, a woman already knows whether she would consider having sex with him maybe, or whether he is right out of the running. It's the same with men looking at women. The only difference is that women are typically socially conditioned not to immediately let a guy know if she thinks he's hot. That is a social inhibition. Not all societies have it, actually.

After those critical first 30 seconds, that's when social behavior comes into play to either close or kill the deal.

See, humans court sex partners the exact same way other animals do. Males act in ways that are designed to make females want to have sex with them more than with any other male. Females act in ways that are designed to clue the male whether he is succeeding or not. In other animals, we call that "courtship behavior," or "mating dances," etc. Among humans, we call it "the social scene" and "dating." Humans have the same mating signals that all other animals have, plus they have certain social signals that are determined by their culture.

For instance, universal mating signals include things like good grooming to show that you are a good physical specimen for sex (healthy, strong, energetic); dressing with good style and approaching others with an easy confident manner, because both of those indicate relatively good social status, which humans, like all primates, do care about (even if they deny it or define it differently from the mainstream); and acting in a sexual manner, which signals that you are up for sex, like sex, and are "into" the person you are talking to (i.e. that they are making you want sex). That last one is extremely hard to either fake or learn, by the way.

Human-specific mating signals include things like the specific social rules for how women and men are supposed to interact in public and what is considered polite or rude, friendly or unfriendly. For instance, in some places social touching is okay, in others it is not. In some places, men are expected to hold the door and let the woman enter a room first. In other places, the man is expected to enter first to "clear the way" for the woman, as it were. In some places, it is considered romantic for a man to make a great fuss over the woman and put the spotlight on her. In others, it is considered bad to put public attention on the woman and good for the man to hold the spotlight. In some places, unspoken signals are highly prized, in others dramatic emotional expressions are what people look for. In some places, women are expected to wait for men to choose and pursue them. In other places, women do the choosing and pursuing or beckoning while the men wait. And so on. The point is, that all these cultural patterns are part of the behavior-language that tells people whether you are likely to be a good sex partner who will bring benefits and not problems to a sex encounter. Benefits/problems would be social as well as physical.

I would say that, in my personal experience as a single woman, I reject up to 80% of all the men I meet as potential sex partners based on the initial 30-second look-see. After that, I further screen out potential sex partners based on the clues I get from their social behavior. I'd say at least 50-60% of guys I think are attractive still get knocked off the "yes/maybe" list by their behavior because it gives me the feeling that they won't be a good lover or they will cause me social problems (like hints that they might really be married, etc).

For example, there are two guys in my social circle right now who were "yes/maybes" who maneuvered themselves onto the "no" list by their behavior. Both meet my "hot" (or at least "cute) requirements, and both always give clear and pleasurable indicators that they are strongly attracted to me. But one turns all shy and backs off when it comes to making an actual date (and he is far too old for such shyness to be cute), so after about two months of pointless flirtation in front of mutual acquaintances, I wrote him off as going nowhere. The other is so unclear about his marital status -- he has a house and child with whom he is very involved, but he never mentions a wife -- that I am inclined to decide that he is married and doesn't mention her because that would ruin his fun in coming on to me. At the moment, I'm planning to just ask him next time I see him, but I'm making no plans to see him any time soon. His lack of clarity is annoying me enough to just drop him without even asking the question, really. EDIT: Both men are on the "no" list because their behavior signals likely social problems -- the first was just too much work and was embarrassing me in front of our friends; the other appears dishonest and I have a strict policy against dating married men.

EDIT: So what it all boils down to is that those old cliches really are the best advice: Groom yourself well, try to be polite, and just be yourself (whatever that is, even if you're shy, because not putting up a false front shows self-confidence). Also, you should make an effort to watch and learn the social dynamics in your community. Watch how other men do around you -- who fails, who succeeds, which women respond positively or negatively to what kind of behaviors, etc -- and play the game by the local social rules. And whatever you do, if your hook-up techniques are not producing results, do not blame the women for it. Change your tactics instead. It's like blaming the fish for not liking the kind of bait you put on your hook. You want to catch a fish? Use the right kind of bait.

There is a female equivalent to a physiological punishment of pain for failing to accomplish sexual intercourse? I'm not being facetious, I actually didn't realize this? Care to elaborate?

I can't speak for all women, but I've spoken to many and the general consensus is that getting all worked up and then not getting to come is lousy as hell. In particular, getting very close to orgasm and then being denied can border on physically painful (at least for some women). What's sad is that a lot of guys don't realize that yes, they CAN keep going for a bit after they splooge, and yes, they SHOULD keep going if their partner isn't quite done yet!


No need to apologize, the nature of discussion is elaboration. Like I said, I don't disagree that every man is an individual, down to their physiological reactions to events. And nor did I say that men looking to get laid are looking to not achieve orgasm. My understanding of your stance is that mean are solely seeking their own orgasm when they have sex, and I simply disagree that this is the sole motivator, though of course a major one.

I didn't say it was their only motivator. I said it was an assumed part of the sexual experience in our culture.

What's sad is that a lot of guys don't realize that yes, they CAN keep going for a bit after they splooge, and yes, they SHOULD keep going if their partner isn't quite done yet!Of course, but it's extremely difficult (depending on how long you've been at it) due to exhaustion (which is often only ignored because the guy is about to cum) weighing in. I've also read somewhere that the orgasm releases hormones which make you tired, but I can't find a source at the moment. I'm sure Bottle knows more on that issue.

But it can be done.

Of course, but it's extremely difficult (depending on how long you've been at it) due to exhaustion (which is often only ignored because the guy is about to cum) weighing in. I've also read somewhere that the orgasm releases hormones which make you tired, but I can't find a source at the moment. I'm sure Bottle knows more on that issue.

But it can be done.
I'll be honest, I'm not that much in favor of the simultaneous orgasm thing or even the idea of the woman having to get her orgasm from intercourse -- from the penis itself.

The best sex I have is when I climax a little before my guy. It's not that the orgasms are any better, but just that the whole thing seems to flow more smoothly and comfortably between me and the guy. So a lot of foreplay, oral sex, and other kinds of play can get me off just ahead of him, and then while I come down from that, I can be there for him and his orgasm. Again, I wish I could remember where I read these things, but I have read that some fertility experts consider this best for getting pregnant too, because of what the woman's body does during orgasm. Apparently, if the sperm doesn't get there until the woman's orgasm is already happening, it has a better chance of getting through the cervix.

Ok, so instead of starting a new thread on this, I'll just post it here.

Yesterday I was listening to "107.9 The Link" and they had a Dr. on who specializes in couple therapies. Well, she was taking calls and this one guy calls up, and says that his wife cheated on him, and get this...apparently it's HIS fault! No, it's not the wife's fault because apparently he has neglected her emotionally and that drove her into the arms of another man. Man you know you are whipped when your wife cheats on you and it's soley your fault!

Personally I blame both of them, the man for neglecting her emotionally and the woman for cheating on him instead of talking about it to him. I don't care who you are, or what the circumstances are, if you are an adult in a marriage (that isn't open) and you cheat on your spouse, it's your fault for cheating on your spouse. The circumstances may be bad, but how about instead of cheating on your spouse you try to work it out! This applies to both men and women.

Depends on the guy.

Got pun?
:D

Three or four days of cramps so bad I usually have to take an opiate to be anything close to functional. Sometimes accompanied by 'gastrointestinal discomfort'. It has a name, but I can never remember. My body produces too many prostglandins, which leak out of the uterus and into surrounding tissue, causing the above complaints. Anaprox, with vicodin or sometimes darvicet, work wonders.

Never said having a period didn't suck.

Just don't think getting kicked in the balls "isn't that bad" or it might be "funny to see what happens" or "he deserved it because he hit on me once in a bar".

yes but you can avoid being kicked in the balls. if youre careful you can go years without being kicked in the balls.

its not all that wonderful to go through the entire sex act with a man who manages to get himself off but leave you unsatisfied. all the mess with none of the fun.

Well that too. Personally, I like to educate myself about the female sexual organs, yeah?

I'm certainly not saying that guys don't suck at sex. I agree with whoever it was back there that said it's harder for guys to get sex and harder for girls to get good sex.

Of course, but it's extremely difficult (depending on how long you've been at it) due to exhaustion (which is often only ignored because the guy is about to cum) weighing in. I've also read somewhere that the orgasm releases hormones which make you tired, but I can't find a source at the moment. I'm sure Bottle knows more on that issue.

But it can be done.

I think it's just an issue of being able to ignore (or just not notice) great discomfort/exhaustion/what-have-you when you are working your way up to an orgasm. Which is why I absolutely can not cum before my partner...if I do, things suddenly become too painful/tiring/uninteresting. While I can be multi-orgasmic, it's generally extremely difficult and not really worth it. So I find myself in the 'male' position in the sense that, once I cum, I'm ready to roll over and sleep.

I've had lovers who try to make me cum before they do. I appreciated their efforts, but ultimately, their success would ruin the total experience. So I really do appreciate a man or woman who, after cumming, can still take the few extra minutes to either help ME finally get my rocks off, or barring that, at least hang out while I take care of it :P

It'd be kind of nice to be able to hook up with someone and just run through a quick checklist before having sex :P You know, like, "Okay, favourite position? Best way to make you cum? When do you prefer it to happen etc..."

It'd be kind of nice to be able to hook up with someone and just run through a quick checklist before having sex :P You know, like, "Okay, favourite position? Best way to make you cum? When do you prefer it to happen etc..."If I'm ever single again, I've seriously considered doing this.

Generally I think woman have it harder.

First, there's the bit about who get's to go through labour. And then all the unpleasantness that comes with it. Any men here heard of a 'rip to the third degree'? ...


I know that I am a horrible person for saying this, but WHO THE HELL HAS NATURAL BIRTHS THESE DAYS (in a modern western society, and not scientologist). In my lengthy experience upon this planet, I only know of one woman to take on childbirth without an epidural. Unless you are actually taking that pain, instead of sitting doped up for 10 hours, stop bringing this up.

I know that I am a horrible person for saying this, but WHO THE HELL HAS NATURAL BIRTHS THESE DAYS (in a modern western society, and not scientologist). In my lengthy experience upon this planet, I only know of one woman to take on childbirth without an epidural. Unless you are actually taking that pain, instead of sitting doped up for 10 hours, stop bringing this up.

Most women in the world have ‘natural’ (re: painful as all fuck) birth. Yes, even in the West, a great many women go through labour without epidurals, C-sections, or great amounts of morphine. I did it twice. Many women I know did it as well. Even if you don't go completely drug free, short of being completely frozen up, no amount of drugs is going to completely cut the sensation of the most intense cramping of your life, followed by the tearing, searing sensation of pushing a baby out of your womb.

But there is more to pregnancy than just the labour. Those 9 months aren't a fucking treat either. Some women get hypertension, diabetes, or other pregnancy-related illnesses...and by the time you're seven months pregnant you can't WAIT to get that thing out of there! Constantly swollen feet, joints going wonky from all the relaxing they are doing, and the strange shift in your centre of balance make for interesting times...not to mention the way you have to change your sleeping patterns due to the huge, swollen belly that prevents you from sprawling on your stomach, or even your back.

Then there is the time of recovery AFTER you have the baby. I don't care if you were drugged to the eyeballs during labour, at some point it wears off and your fucking vagina hurts like hell. Imagine shitting out a watermelon, and tell me how easy we have it. Women who have C-sections have it even worse...stitches that feel like they are going to pop open when you forget, and bend over a bit to pick up your newborn.

It takes at a minimum, 2 weeks to recover from giving birth. So instead of being a complete ass, and telling women to 'take the pain' or 'shut up about it', perhaps you could instead educate yourself a little.

I think it's just an issue of being able to ignore (or just not notice) great discomfort/exhaustion/what-have-you when you are working your way up to an orgasm. Which is why I absolutely can not cum before my partner...if I do, things suddenly become too painful/tiring/uninteresting. While I can be multi-orgasmic, it's generally extremely difficult and not really worth it. So I find myself in the 'male' position in the sense that, once I cum, I'm ready to roll over and sleep.

I've had lovers who try to make me cum before they do. I appreciated their efforts, but ultimately, their success would ruin the total experience. So I really do appreciate a man or woman who, after cumming, can still take the few extra minutes to either help ME finally get my rocks off, or barring that, at least hang out while I take care of it :P

It'd be kind of nice to be able to hook up with someone and just run through a quick checklist before having sex :P You know, like, "Okay, favourite position? Best way to make you cum? When do you prefer it to happen etc..."

Well, there you go. Neesika and Muravyets, two women with exact opposite responses to orgasm. So I guess the smart thing is just to not worry about it, try to share a good time with your partner, and don't obsess too much, just make what adjustments you have to and talk to each other!

In my experience, with college guys they almost always do. There may well be some exceptions, but why bother taking the risk? Particularly considering all the other costs that go along with a hook up (for girls, at least).

Guys who will act like jackasses when trying to pick you up will almost always be jackasses in the sack. Personally, I like that, because it makes it pretty simple to avoid bad sex.!

Coming from a guy who is still in college, this is truth. If a guy is a jerk off or is treating you poorly during the date or when coming onto you, chances are he sees you as something wet to just stick his dick in and come.

Then there are the guys who want to give girls they are hooking up with orgasms just so they can brag about their preformance. IMO theyre not much better, because while they at least are getting her off, their intentions are less than honorable.

In all honosty, the way I view sex is whats the point if your partner doesnt enjoy it?

I know that I am a horrible person for saying this, but WHO THE HELL HAS NATURAL BIRTHS THESE DAYS (in a modern western society, and not scientologist). In my lengthy experience upon this planet, I only know of one woman to take on childbirth without an epidural. Unless you are actually taking that pain, instead of sitting doped up for 10 hours, stop bringing this up.

The vast majority of women have natural births still, and even if your drugged beyond belief, it still sucks.

or barring that, at least hang out while I take care of it :P

I would have absolutally no problem with a girl doing that. Hell, viewing said act might even get me in the mood again :p

It'd be kind of nice to be able to hook up with someone and just run through a quick checklist before having sex :P You know, like, "Okay, favourite position? Best way to make you cum? When do you prefer it to happen etc..."

This would have made my life so much easier in my late highschool and early college years.


My my my this thread got very interesting :p

Well, there you go. Neesika and Muravyets, two women with exact opposite responses to orgasm. So I guess the smart thing is just to not worry about it, try to share a good time with your partner, and don't obsess too much, just make what adjustments you have to and talk to each other!

Yup! I think that's the point...we shouldn't be making assumptions about what works for our sexual partners. Nor should we be expecting our partners to somehow guess what works for us.

Then there are the guys who want to give girls they are hooking up with orgasms just so they can brag about their preformance. IMO theyre not much better, because while they at least are getting her off, their intentions are less than honorable.

In all honosty, the way I view sex is whats the point if your partner doesnt enjoy it?
Well these guys, the ones who got you off and then bragged about it, never bothered me all that much because AT LEAST THEY GOT ME OFF :D

Considering how hard it is to get me off, a little bragging might be in order. I could care less what their intentions were...I was using them as much as they were using me.

Well these guys, the ones who got you off and then bragged about it, never bothered me all that much because AT LEAST THEY GOT ME OFF :D

Yeah, thats how most girls I know view it. I guess I might just be jaded because I dont really care about hearing about a guys sexual conquests and am sick of hearing about them. I frankly could give a fuck. :p

The whole bragging about your own sexual preformance is just another part of that macho posturing that bugs me about "manly men".

To be honost, if youre really that good, why do you need to brag about yourself? :p

Considering how hard it is to get me off, a little bragging might be in order.


Is that a challenge? :p

Ahh, I remember my Sister-in-law Pregnancy, and I remember her birth too (I wasn't there for the actual birth, eww.). She appeared to be very very very very relaxed. Hell she was almost asleep, and was having contractions!

They must've pumped her full of the pain meds.

Ahh, I remember my Sister-in-law Pregnancy, and I remember her birth too (I wasn't there for the actual birth, eww.). She appeared to be very very very very relaxed. Hell she was almost asleep, and was having contractions!

They must've pumped her full of the pain meds.Or she was drunk. Yes, I'm kidding.

Is that a challenge? :p

Call me Dinah-Mo Hum.

Call me Dinah-Mo Hum.

Is it bad that I had to google search that? :(

Is it bad that I had to google search that? :(

Well I don't have sex with people who aren't Frank Zappa fans. Whether that's good or bad depends on your perception :D

Well I don't have sex with people who aren't Frank Zappa fans. Whether that's good or bad depends on your perception :D

Whooo hold it right there! There are people who aren't Frank Zappa fans?

Whooo hold it right there! There are people who aren't Frank Zappa fans?

I know, right? Scary thought that.

Well I don't have sex with people who aren't Frank Zappa fans. Whether that's good or bad depends on your perception :D

Show me a pic before I answer :p

Show me a pic before I answer :p

I posted pics here once. Won't do it again.

I posted pics here once. Won't do it again.

Wasnt expecting you to anyway.

Call me Dinah-Mo Hum.

I have a few other things I prefer to call you...

I...don't really have a response to this. I'm happy you've never encountered blue balls, but I definitely have and most men I know (assuming this has come up in conversation....I don't exactly ask all my friends whether or not they've personally had blue balls, to be honest) have, as well.
Granted, we're talking about perceived tendencies, not inherent traits that all specimens share.

Funny thing is - I do talk about that kind of stuff. And - I've either never met anyone that suffered from this 'blue balls' thing... or I've never met anyone who admitted it. I once met someone who said they KNEW someone who had suffered from it...

So - what is it - too long sans orgasm? Too much build-up before release? Neither of which sounds like anything that any partner has any responsibility for - if you're getting too built up, crack one off.

I suppose some might make the argument that if you're going to cum, it should be in someone... but, frankly, if that's your argument, you deserve blue-balls.

I thought that blue balls was going too long without an orgasm...in which case, as GnI says...freaking jerk it. Don't blame women for not being your willing recepticle.

Don't blame women for not being your willing recepticle.

Fuck that, you best get over here.

Of course, but it's extremely difficult (depending on how long you've been at it) due to exhaustion (which is often only ignored because the guy is about to cum) weighing in. I've also read somewhere that the orgasm releases hormones which make you tired, but I can't find a source at the moment. I'm sure Bottle knows more on that issue.

But it can be done.

Exhaustion from the first orgasm? I must be doing something wrong....

Fuck that, you best get over here.

That's different. I like it.

Coming from a guy who is still in college, this is truth. If a guy is a jerk off or is treating you poorly during the date or when coming onto you, chances are he sees you as something wet to just stick his dick in and come.

Then there are the guys who want to give girls they are hooking up with orgasms just so they can brag about their preformance. IMO theyre not much better, because while they at least are getting her off, their intentions are less than honorable.

What annoys me is the guys who think sex should be approached like a Playstation game: figure out the right button sequence, then enter it as hard and fast as you can to unlock the "orgasm" combo.

These guys are the ones who read Maxim magazine every month and thus are quite sure that they know the right series of button-pushes to unlock Female Orgasm Level 1. See, all females are interchangeable and all will respond to The Moves if performed correctly. If the female you are interacting with fails to respond to this onslaught, it is clearly because she is defective (or "frigid") in some way. Maybe if you jam the buttons harder?

I was with a guy once (ONCE) who actually got angry at me when I didn't orgasm. He was quite certain he had done everything right, and reacted to my lack of orgasm the way one might react if Tony Hawk 3 failed to credit you the points for having done a really sick rail grind. How dare I not recognize his skillz?! He did all the moves right!!!

I thought that blue balls was going too long without an orgasm...in which case, as GnI says...freaking jerk it. Don't blame women for not being your willing recepticle.

I think I read somewhere that it's supposed to be something to do with getting aroused, but not spilling within a certain amount of time. I'm not sure though. But - the same advice still applies - if you ain't got yours, don't be blaming your partner, you're involved too.

It doesn't sound too unreasonable to me.

I thought that blue balls was going too long without an orgasm...in which case, as GnI says...freaking jerk it. Don't blame women for not being your willing recepticle.

it's apparently from getting too excited and then not getting to "finish", however, like hubby says you don't need a woman to finish.

figure it out guys, seriously. you don't ever deserve sex, if she doesn't want to, end of story, don't whine, bitch, complain, just go take care of yourself....if you "need" it so bad.

it's apparently from getting too excited and then not getting to "finish", however, like hubby says you don't need a woman to finish.

figure it out guys, seriously. you don't ever deserve sex, if she doesn't want to, end of story, don't whine, bitch, complain, just go take care of yourself....if you "need" it so bad.

Totally. And, well - maybe I'm the token guy at this party agreeing with the girls - but, it just isn't that big a deal. If she's not in the mood (or has been satiated so hard she can't play no more), you really have no one to blame but yourself if you don't take care of what seems a pressing need.

What annoys me is the guys who think sex should be approached like a Playstation game: figure out the right button sequence, then enter it as hard and fast as you can to unlock the "orgasm" combo.

These guys are the ones who read Maxim magazine every month and thus are quite sure that they know the right series of button-pushes to unlock Female Orgasm Level 1. See, all females are interchangeable and all will respond to The Moves if performed correctly. If the female you are interacting with fails to respond to this onslaught, it is clearly because she is defective (or "frigid") in some way. Maybe if you jam the buttons harder?!

We get the same treatment, trust me. I was sitting in some supermarket line over the weekend and of course I'm staring at this Cosmo, ten tricks to great sex or something like that.

Do women who read this shit really believe that if you follow this list every man is going to be satisfied? I swear, speaking soley for myself I gaurentee that you wont find my interests for good sex in there.

That's different. I like it.

good girl

What annoys me is the guys who think sex should be approached like a Playstation game: figure out the right button sequence, then enter it as hard and fast as you can to unlock the "orgasm" combo.




What is also amussing is when they treat the process of coming on to a girl in the same manner, if you hit the right button combo, you will get laid.

I was at a party and this frat boy jerk off was by us and was complaining that this girl didnt suck him off, even though he had "said and done everything right" so clearly she must "be a rug muncher".

My buddy poured beer over his head. THAT ws funny.

Dunno if anyone watched the thing on health and poverty in america, but one of the people they interviewed who lived below the poverty line brought up an excellent point about welfare---if you're a single mother on welfare who finds a job to try and support her kids, you lose all your government assisstance, health care and daycare for your children, so you can't even get to your job. Welfare itself makes it nearly impossible to leave.

Yah, I know. Scary, isn't it? And that's the bandwagon I'm getting ready to jump on, because there aren't any damn jobs out her, and we've got to eat. Sigh.

lol, What i find funny is yet again another women who thinks they are the only ones who get raped. I admit more women do but atleast the police take it seriously...guess WHAT if a man gets drugged and raped they laugh him outta the station.

Okay, I am so fucking tired of this. WHERE in my post did I say that women are the only ones who get raped? NOWHERE? The fact is that most rape victims are women. The fact that men have problems reporting whn they've been raped is clearly a problem that needs to be addressed, but that doesn't diminish my point.

Your comment about anorexia is pathetic, Girls choose not to eat it is not like adverts put a gun to your head and tell you about getting fat. Sure they are pushed into it, but in the end it's like suicide it is your choice to go ahead with it in the end.

I once saw a documentary 'celebrating' some anniversary of Barbie's. It showed little (seven, eight year old) girls holding a Barbie and comparing their figures to hers. Hearing little girls say things like 'my hips are too flat' and 'my chest is too small' has cemented the role of advertising in body image and yes, eating disorders in my mind. Scientific proof? No, it's purely emotional.

Okay, I am so fucking tired of this. WHERE in my post did I say that women are the only ones who get raped? NOWHERE? The fact is that most rape victims are women. The fact that men have problems reporting whn they've been raped is clearly a problem that needs to be addressed, but that doesn't diminish my point.


That, and I dont know what country this person lives in where the every police officer takes girls who fail rape "complaints" seriously.

Never said having a period didn't suck.

Just don't think getting kicked in the balls "isn't that bad" or it might be "funny to see what happens" or "he deserved it because he hit on me once in a bar".

Maybe my memory is going, but I have no recollection of saying that. Ever. In fact, I avoid most of those home video shows because 'Americas Funniest Groin Injuries' just aren't all that funny.

We get the same treatment, trust me. I was sitting in some supermarket line over the weekend and of course I'm staring at this Cosmo, ten tricks to great sex or something like that.

Do women who read this shit really believe that if you follow this list every man is going to be satisfied? I swear, speaking soley for myself I gaurentee that you wont find my interests for good sex in there.

I think part of the problem is that some women think that the male orgasm is just so damn good, regardless of how he arrives at it, he's going to think the sex was great. They fail to consider that if this were actually the case, men wouldn't bother going through the trouble to find a partner, they'd simply buy caseloads of vaseline and tissue.

Shockingly, men can have bad sex AND cum, and even more shockingly, the orgasm doesn't somehow turn the bad sex into good sex. Women who follow a 'winning formula' of a short handjob, a bit of head, and then lay back and expect to be pampered after that, really shouldn't be patting themselves on the back for their performance. Lazy lovers of either gender don't deserve sex.

Women who follow a 'winning formula' of a short handjob, a bit of head, and then lay back and expect to be pampered after that, really shouldn't be patting themselves on the back for their performance. Lazy lovers of either gender don't deserve sex.

QFT

We get the same treatment, trust me. I was sitting in some supermarket line over the weekend and of course I'm staring at this Cosmo, ten tricks to great sex or something like that.

Do women who read this shit really believe that if you follow this list every man is going to be satisfied? I swear, speaking soley for myself I gaurentee that you wont find my interests for good sex in there.
I think most people, male or female, would really love for there to be some simple answer to the question of "How Do I Have Great Sex?" I think most people tend to be coming from a kind place with this, since they're really wanting to feel like they are satisfying their partner while also satisfying themselves (which are both good), it's just that there simply ISN'T one magical list of step-by-step directions to guarantee awesome sex all the time.

Also, magazine writers are lazy fucks. It's easy to write up a bullshit list of "Ways To Rev Her Motor!" or "Super-hot Moves He Wish You Knew!" because all you do is think of some weird things you saw in a porno once and people will read on. It's harder to write an accurate column on the subject, because most people just get annoyed and bored if you give them the real answer straight up: "Ask your partner what he/she wants, dumbass."

Sad thing is though, and I was like this too at one point, asking people what they like might not help. A lot of people don't really know what they like, because they haven't had a chance to try much out. I say that, even when the person in question has had a lot of sex. It might not have been quality.

Exhaustion from the first orgasm? I must be doing something wrong....How could it possibly be my fault? :pGot pun?
:DI was thinking of some way to incorporate my half-Yank heritage into it, but it didn't work out...I think it's just an issue of being able to ignore (or just not notice) great discomfort/exhaustion/what-have-you when you are working your way up to an orgasm. Which is why I absolutely can not cum before my partner...if I do, things suddenly become too painful/tiring/uninteresting. While I can be multi-orgasmic, it's generally extremely difficult and not really worth it. So I find myself in the 'male' position in the sense that, once I cum, I'm ready to roll over and sleep.Yeah, so far I've either had women that came early and often or ones that I didn't manage to get going (for various reasons), so that hasn't been an issue up to now.
I've had lovers who try to make me cum before they do. I appreciated their efforts, but ultimately, their success would ruin the total experience. So I really do appreciate a man or woman who, after cumming, can still take the few extra minutes to either help ME finally get my rocks off, or barring that, at least hang out while I take care of it :P

It'd be kind of nice to be able to hook up with someone and just run through a quick checklist before having sex :P You know, like, "Okay, favourite position? Best way to make you cum? When do you prefer it to happen etc..."Hm... I haven't asked the "when" question before engaging in sex... may have to change that.Well, there you go. Neesika and Muravyets, two women with exact opposite responses to orgasm. So I guess the smart thing is just to not worry about it, try to share a good time with your partner, and don't obsess too much, just make what adjustments you have to and talk to each other!Hey! Don't go revealing the secret for good sex! I had to read books and sacrifice my virginity to gain that knowledge!My my my this thread got very interesting :pIt doesn't even come close to the lingerie thread...Yup! I think that's the point...we shouldn't be making assumptions about what works for our sexual partners. Nor should we be expecting our partners to somehow guess what works for us.You speak as though this problem was somehow limited to sexual relationships between male and female...What annoys me is the guys who think sex should be approached like a Playstation game: figure out the right button sequence, then enter it as hard and fast as you can to unlock the "orgasm" combo. Get him a GameCube or a Wii. Faster and harder are often the path to failure on those.I think part of the problem is that some women think that the male orgasm is just so damn good, regardless of how he arrives at it, he's going to think the sex was great. They fail to consider that if this were actually the case, men wouldn't bother going through the trouble to find a partner, they'd simply buy caseloads of vaseline and tissue.There's a qualitative difference between jerking off and having sex. The latter tends to be more stimulating.

Sad thing is though, and I was like this too at one point, asking people what they like might not help. A lot of people don't really know what they like, because they haven't had a chance to try much out. I say that, even when the person in question has had a lot of sex. It might not have been quality.Get "My Secret Garden" by Nancy Friday and read it together. Half of good sex is the fantasy behind it.

Most women in the world have ‘natural’ (re: painful as all fuck) birth. . . . So instead of being a complete ass, and telling women to 'take the pain' or 'shut up about it', perhaps you could instead educate yourself a little.
Ah yes, because I said exactly, "Take the pain and shut up about it." I apologize for not fitting into the extremist picture you painted.
Natural birth is in all likelihood the worst pain the average woman goes through, and worse than what the average man goes through. The aftereffects seem the same as any surgery to me, so I am not even going to talk about that. The nine months leading up to it are, in my opinion, the worst part about pregnancy.
However - saying makes a woman's life harder than a man's - I don't buy it for a second.

The vast majority of women have natural births still, and even if your drugged beyond belief, it still sucks.

No, the vast majority of (read my qualifying statements) do not. So stop talking or writing, or whatever you call this.

How could it possibly be my fault? :pI was thinking of some way to incorporate my half-Yank heritage into it, but it didn't work out...Yeah, so far I've either had women that came early and often or ones that I didn't manage to get going (for various reasons), so that hasn't been an issue up to now.
Hm... I haven't asked the "when" question before engaging in sex... may have to change that.Hey! Don't go revealing the secret for good sex! I had to read books and sacrifice my virginity to gain that knowledge!It doesn't even come close to the lingerie thread...You speak as though this problem was somehow limited to sexual relationships between male and female...Get him a GameCube or a Wii. Faster and harder are often the path to failure on those.There's a qualitative difference between jerking off and having sex. The latter tends to be more stimulating.

Ok, understood.:D

Never said having a period didn't suck.

Just don't think getting kicked in the balls "isn't that bad" or it might be "funny to see what happens" or "he deserved it because he hit on me once in a bar".


id have to agree with that. thats an assholish attitude toward physical pain


Well that too. Personally, I like to educate myself about the female sexual organs, yeah?

its part of the fun, eh?


I'm certainly not saying that guys don't suck at sex. I agree with whoever it was back there that said it's harder for guys to get sex and harder for girls to get good sex.

its probably better to say that we have an equally hard time getting ORGASMS. after all when you look for sex you are wanting the orgasm not just the experience of putting your penis somewhere fun. if you were pretty sure that the woman was going to kick you out of bed before you finished, you would probably not bother taking her home.

We get the same treatment, trust me. I was sitting in some supermarket line over the weekend and of course I'm staring at this Cosmo, ten tricks to great sex or something like that.

Do women who read this shit really believe that if you follow this list every man is going to be satisfied? I swear, speaking soley for myself I gaurentee that you wont find my interests for good sex in there.

you mean that if a woman you were dating tried some new things that she hadnt thought of herself but had read about in cosmo you would be mad? does it matter where she gets the idea?

since the thread has been directed towards something completely different something about why women dont get on with men as much as men want to get on with women, i have supplied http://www.intellectualwhores.com/masterladder.html this is the ladder theory and this explains everything in humorous way, and on the talk of orgasms how important is sex in a relationship??, i mean im pretty selfish in the act, and my girlfriend has stuck with me, allegedly because of love for almost two years, and she is way higher up the ladder :confused:


semi back on topic; when it comes to sex and just sex , women have it easier, since it usually is a women who has to decide if something is going to happen. the other way around usually is not the case unless the man has a very good reason to reject the sexual encounter and willfully accept blue balls, and not get sum. the reason for this is the whole thing about growing up, a guy who gets a lot of chicks down by the fire is the Man, a women whom gets lain by the fire a lot is called a whore, this is the so called problem that makes it hard for women and men to be equal. men and women can be equal but they will always be different, after all to quote someone who has had the experience of all sexes and genders "i would never trust anything that bleeds for 3 or 4 days and doesn't die" :D Mr./mrs Garrison

in a general worldview, its way harder to be a woman especially in cultures where its traditional for women to be treated as ultra submissive and as objects

you mean that if a woman you were dating tried some new things that she hadnt thought of herself but had read about in cosmo you would be mad? does it matter where she gets the idea?

Mad? no, of course not. I merely comment that you're unlikely to find many of my interests in cosmo, and as such, any implication that these magazines or articles are going to teach you great and wonderful secrets about how to please men are just as silly, nonsensical, and unhelpful as any articles about the great and wonderful secrets about how to please women.

Mad? no, of course not. I merely comment that you're unlikely to find many of my interests in cosmo, and as such, any implication that these magazines or articles are going to teach you great and wonderful secrets about how to please men are just as silly, nonsensical, and unhelpful as any articles about the great and wonderful secrets about how to please women.

i dont read cosmo but in my mind its a monthly suggestion of sex stuff you might want to try out when you get the chance. things for vanilla good girls to try that the more sexually adventurous have passed long ago.

even the suggestions in maxim can be helpful for men who are kinda clueless as long as they dont take it as a recipe for success.

i dont read cosmo but in my mind its a monthly suggestion of sex stuff you might want to try out when you get the chance. things for vanilla good girls to try that the more sexually adventurous have passed long ago.

even the suggestions in maxim can be helpful for men who are kinda clueless as long as they dont take it as a recipe for success.

I was more in response to bottle's comments about how some men view sex as a game exercise, hit the correct buttons in the correct sequence and you win. Mis time it and you fall into a chasm.

To the same effect, some women view sex the same way, as evident by articles such as "great sex tips" and the like. Just as there are men who view satisfying a woman as some procedural process, there are women who view it the same way.

And just as many women may find themselves frustrated and irritated by men treating them in such a way, so to do men

Ah yes, because I said exactly, "Take the pain and shut up about it." I apologize for not fitting into the extremist picture you painted.
Natural birth is in all likelihood the worst pain the average woman goes through, and worse than what the average man goes through. The aftereffects seem the same as any surgery to me, so I am not even going to talk about that. The nine months leading up to it are, in my opinion, the worst part about pregnancy.
However - saying makes a woman's life harder than a man's - I don't buy it for a second. Ah, but you have pretty much told everyone to shut up based on your assertion that 'child birth really isn't that bad'.

Quite being a douche and then trying to cover it up with 'I didn't say that'. Yeah, yeah you did. Only it was 'take the pain OR shut up about it'. Pretty much summarized here once again:


No, the vast majority of (read my qualifying statements) do not. So stop talking or writing, or whatever you call this."Yes they do", "No they don't"....go get some sources for your assertions, rather than saying 'shut up' to the people who call you on your bullshit.

I think most people, male or female, would really love for there to be some simple answer to the question of "How Do I Have Great Sex?" I think most people tend to be coming from a kind place with this, since they're really wanting to feel like they are satisfying their partner while also satisfying themselves (which are both good), it's just that there simply ISN'T one magical list of step-by-step directions to guarantee awesome sex all the time.

Also, magazine writers are lazy fucks. It's easy to write up a bullshit list of "Ways To Rev Her Motor!" or "Super-hot Moves He Wish You Knew!" because all you do is think of some weird things you saw in a porno once and people will read on. It's harder to write an accurate column on the subject, because most people just get annoyed and bored if you give them the real answer straight up: "Ask your partner what he/she wants, dumbass."


Ive actually read some of the "hot moves he wishes you knew!" and thought "wow, these are all either basic or boring." Seriously, the people who write Cosmo are tards.

I cant comment on Maxim because Ive never read that garbage, but Im 100% sure it isnt much better.

its part of the fun, eh?
My dream is to teach a girl how to squirt. Not that I particularly care if she learns, it'd just be a lot of fun teaching her.

its probably better to say that we have an equally hard time getting ORGASMS. after all when you look for sex you are wanting the orgasm not just the experience of putting your penis somewhere fun. if you were pretty sure that the woman was going to kick you out of bed before you finished, you would probably not bother taking her home.

I think it leans towards the woman's favor because you can have 16 orgasms and we only get one, unless we're willing to milk the prostate, and no, we're not, because no.

I think it leans towards the woman's favor because you can have 16 orgasms and we only get one, unless we're willing to milk the prostate, and no, we're not, because no.

that is a definite advantage but it has to be balanced out by the need to learn how to orgasm at all.

that is a definite advantage but it has to be balanced out by the need to learn how to orgasm at all.

You're presumably female.
Which brings up the next set of questions:

Are you over 18?
Do you want to learn how to squirt?
And do you want to get together sometime?

Well, all right, I admit I made a mistake in assuming you're having problems finding sex even though you've never actually said that. I apologize.

Still, the bulk of my points still apply even if they don't actually apply to you. When a man is having problems finding sex, the reason is not the woman it's the man.

Yes thanks for your self-help quotes, but they're irrelevant. I'm not here to pass advice on how men can get laid more, nor speculate as to why they tend to have a difficult time as compared to women - I'm simply pointing out that they do. Which is like, the topic of the thread.

You're also assuming that *every* girl gets approached, or that there aren't men who don't get approached themselves.

No I'm not, and as I've pointed out several times so far I acknowledge there are exceptions and am still just pointing out a general trend.


You know what, I *would* say that. Why? Those who are wealthy (as opposed to "just being rich") did so because they knew what they were doing with money.

You think success = competence and therefore lack of success = incompetence. It's all very simple to you I see, but in the real world there are more possibilities.

Same thing with the men who succeed at getting sex- they know what they're doing with women. Yeah, some people can "stumble" upon wealth and become rich, but then again, some men also "stumble" upon sex and get laid that night- it works both ways.

Yeah some men do, some men can instead stumble, but in general men have a tougher time finding willing sex partners.

The problem is that you are thinking of sex from only one perspective.

See, when a (hetero) guy is trying to "get laid," he is working with the standard definition of "laid" that is used in our culture, to whit: the insertion of a penis into a vagina until the penis achieves orgasm.

Until HE has an orgasm.

For a (hetero) man, trying to "get laid" is the same as seeking orgasms.

Are you a hetero man? No. I am. So I think I'll just ignore the definition you seem to think I should have and go with the one I do have. ;)
Getting laid isn't about orgasm at all. Depending on the definition it may not even involve intercourse. Anyone who thinks differently is just being silly. But I don't see how any of this has to do with what I said exactly?

For a (hetero) woman, seeking orgasms requires a lot more than simply trying to "get laid," because "getting laid" in our culture is defined around the MALE sexual experience. If a woman actually wants to seek orgasms for herself, she must be a whole lot more selective about her partners, because most guys are socialized to view sex as revolving around their dicks instead of around her cooch.

Yeah OK. Again I was talking about getting laid, not about having magnificent orgasms. Sure it's more difficult for a woman to have an orgasm. But on the other hand you don't get blue balls. Then again you get childbirth and menstruation. But then again we have more difficult times convincing women that we're actual human beings. It all balances out. :p

Try imagining sex with the orgasmic roles reversed. Cripes, I hear guys whine about "blue balls" like it's just about the worst thing in the world. For guys, having sex without coming is a terrible horrible wrongness because OF COURSE the man gets to come if he's "getting laid." Women get no such assumption.

Blue balls IS just about the worst thing in the world. It's not about "I didn't come," it's about "I was overstimulated for too long without orgasm and now there's a physical and very real pain and Jesus, just shoot me in the head right now and bury me in the desert."

The lack of orgasm is nothing. I can deal with that. Blue balls however is a condition I've only experienced twice. It sucks.

I'm monogamous now, but in college I was happily promiscuous, and I can tell you that the #1 reason I turned down male sexual advances was my evaluation of the guy's behavior and my conclusion that he would be either unwilling or unable to provide me with an orgasm.

See, I wonder how you could possibly evaluate that in a non-intimate situation. I sure can't tell by a woman's behavior alone whether she's any good in bed. I think what you really did is just choose based on the ordinary sexual preferences and attractions and superficialities, and then retroactively justified it.

Why should I want to help some dude get his cock sloppy if I'm not going to get mine? Simply "getting laid" meant "providing some dude with an orgasm," and yes, there was no shortage of offers for me to provide dudes with orgasms. Offers to provide ME with orgasms, however, were much more scarce.

I would wager even your offers to 'provide you with orgasms' were greater than the average guy gets any offers at all.

You're presumably female.
Which brings up the next set of questions:

Are you over 18?
Do you want to learn how to squirt?
And do you want to get together sometime?

lol thanks for the offer but im older than your mother. that makes it all very creepy eh?

lol thanks for the offer but im older than your mother. that makes it all very creepy eh?
And if you haven't learned to squirt by now, you likely never will. You know what they say about old dogs... :p

Hehe, I kid, I kid. Yay the sisterhood?

*runs, hides, gets extensive plastic surgery, scarpers to tiny Pacific island, and prays Ashmoria won't find me, or else that a tsunami will get me before she does*

lol thanks for the offer but im older than your mother. that makes it all very creepy eh?

Somehow I don't think that would stop Rhyno...

Ah, but you have pretty much told everyone to shut up based on your assertion that 'child birth really isn't that bad'.

Quite being a douche and then trying to cover it up with 'I didn't say that'. Yeah, yeah you did. Only it was 'take the pain OR shut up about it'. Pretty much summarized here once again:

"Yes they do", "No they don't"....go get some sources for your assertions, rather than saying 'shut up' to the people who call you on your bullshit.

Don't ever, ever ask for sources when you are about to get your shit handed to you:
http://www.ynhh.org/healthlink/womens/womens_1_00.html - "Only 11 percent of obstetrical patients at large and midsize hospitals opted for no analgesia of any kind in 1997."
http://www.expectantmothersguide.com/library/chicago/epidurial.htm - "Around 70 percent of women have an epidural during birth."
Once again, thank you for quoting me directly, and the name calling sure brightened my day. Actually, this epic win that is a demand for sources did bring me to smile.
Now, if I dare ask, what bullshit are you calling me on? After 8,000 posts you would think you have learned your lesson.

Somehow I don't think that would stop Rhyno...

I'm actually not into the whole mature women thing.

But I can make an exception...


Not really into the whole Asian fetish thing, either. Nothing against Asians, I just don't get the fetish, eh?

I'm actually not into the whole mature women thing.

But I can make an exception...


Not really into the whole Asian fetish thing, either. Nothing against Asians, I just don't get the fetish, eh?

See Ash, I told you so...

Not really into the whole Asian fetish thing, either. Nothing against Asians, I just don't get the fetish, eh?

Agh! The Yellow Peril! The Yellow Peril!

I warned them.. that I did..right when we walked into the bar I warned them, but it was too late.. too late.....TOO LATE!

See Ash, I told you so...

Like you would turn down a chance to teach a girl how to squirt?

Ive actually read some of the "hot moves he wishes you knew!" and thought "wow, these are all either basic or boring." Seriously, the people who write Cosmo are tards.

I cant comment on Maxim because Ive never read that garbage, but Im 100% sure it isnt much better.

Tards? No. No, I'm sure they know exactly what they're saying and doing. It just isn't what everyone who buys it thinks they are.

I'm actually not into the whole mature women thing.

But I can make an exception...


Not really into the whole Asian fetish thing, either. Nothing against Asians, I just don't get the fetish, eh?

I'm actually really attracted to this Asian girl I know. She's half-Japanese, which happens to be my favorite brand of Asian as well. That's just a coincidence, mind you. But my spidey-sense is telling me to stop talking before I put my foot in my mouth.

Like you would turn down a chance to teach a girl how to squirt?

It would depend upon who the girl was...

I'm actually really attracted to this Asian girl I know. She's half-Japanese, which happens to be my favorite brand of Asian as well. That's just a coincidence, mind you. But my spidey-sense is telling me to stop talking before I put my foot in my mouth.

Lefties are superheroes now?

See Ash, I told you so...

alas i guess this helps prove GT's thesis because i am not interested in men quite so much younger than i am.

It would depend upon who the girl was...

Duly noted.

Which I suppose begs another question of Ash...
Are you hot?

Duly noted.

Which I suppose begs another question of Ash...
Are you hot?

Which begs the answer of a shameless flatterer.
Is water wet?

Which begs the answer of a shameless flatterer.
Is water wet?

Well then, Ash, let's get busy!

Lefties are superheroes now?

In short: yes.

As we draw nearer to our 18th birthdays, more and more of our powers reveal themselves to a limited degree. Then, on the fated day, we gain their full force.

On a related note, I'm no longer campaigning for left-equality. I'm now a Left-supremacist. We will make you apes bow.

In short: yes.

As we draw nearer to our 18th birthdays, more and more of our powers reveal themselves to a limited degree. Then, on the fated day, we gain their full force.

On a related note, I'm no longer campaigning for left-equality. I'm now a Left-supremacist. We will make you apes bow.

http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/Dziekuje.gif
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/WeAreNotWorthy.gif_http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/respect.gif_http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/WeAreNotWorthy.gif

http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/Dziekuje.gif
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/WeAreNotWorthy.gif_http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/respect.gif_http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/WeAreNotWorthy.gif

Acceptable. You may live.

Acceptable. You may live.

http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/hug6.gif

It varies for certain parts of the world, but in today's society, where the media can blow anything out proportion in a second, women can basically get any wrong righted (if they decide to speak up). This is not true in certain parts of the world obviously (i.e. most of it), but in the US I would say it is the case.

You need a source for the concept of supply and demand?

No.

I want a source because I smell bullshit.

I think you're basing this entirely on the fact that you can't get laid.

Try spelling it out.

That might possibly, maybe, get through.

Do your posts ever actually contribute anything, or are you satisfied with simply being an asshole?

Do your posts ever actually contribute anything, or are you satisfied with simply being an asshole?

Yes.

*chuckles merrily*

Do your posts ever actually contribute anything, or are you satisfied with simply being an asshole?

I'd like to think that being an asshole is a contribution.

I'd like to think that being an asshole is a contribution.

Only in certain bars/clubs which I tend to avoid.

I'd like to think that being an asshole is a contribution.

its a tough job but someone has to do it....

and under...uh...someone on this thread's theory, it should get you extra pay!

What annoys me is the guys who think sex should be approached like a Playstation game: figure out the right button sequence, then enter it as hard and fast as you can to unlock the "orgasm" combo.

This may possibly be the greatest simile I have ever seen in my life.

What annoys me is the guys who think sex should be approached like a Playstation game: figure out the right button sequence, then enter it as hard and fast as you can to unlock the "orgasm" combo.

Rboob+clit, clit, clit, Lboob+G, thrust up, left, up, right, down, clit, clit, G.
If you the combo correctly, you get the special bonus "backdoor" stage.

Yes thanks for your self-help quotes, but they're irrelevant. I'm not here to pass advice on how men can get laid more, nor speculate as to why they tend to have a difficult time as compared to women - I'm simply pointing out that they do. Which is like, the topic of the thread.

...

No I'm not, and as I've pointed out several times so far I acknowledge there are exceptions and am still just pointing out a general trend.

Your whole point is built upon the reaction many men have when they fail to find sex partners- they just conclude "it's easier for the woman" and forget to look at themselves. They think they represent all of manhood but they're really just representing themselves.

I do agree that *some* women have a very easy time finding sex. Just like some men. Most people- male or female- do not. I used to think the way you did but then I thought about it, started to observe and saw things aren't really any different for me, other men or women. The game is equally difficult for all of us.

What you've done is create some picture where every woman has ten men hanging on her arms with twenty others drooling as lapdogs behind her and that's simply not true. The whole idea that women don't have to do any approaching themselves is taken from the man not, frankly, "man enough" to go do it himself, but if he actually looked, he'd realize he's not alone- 99% of his mates aren't going after that girl either, he just sees another man going to her and concludes that since the woman didn't go to him, it must be the man that has to do that work (when he just happened to see the 1% of manhood that isn't actually afraid to strike). Plus, why isn't that woman going to the man? It's possible she's waiting for an approach, but it's also possible- and I suspect, highly likely- that she's just as shy and fearful of rejection as the man is. Love is a funny game that can turn the most outgoing of people into reserved, timid creatures, all because the thought of facing "rejection" from the object of their desire is just too great a feeling to go through, without actually realizing that letting the fear stop you from making the move is just as bad as a rejection, if not worse.

Last, but not least, I realized I never broached the idea of "why men approach women", since that's a main part of your premise- guys do all (or most of) the approaching and women do none (which doesn't happen if one actually looks around). Well, a man is most likely going to go to a woman he finds attractive, so that means that the woman herself must do all she can to ensure that she looks attractive. So she's got to do more than just "get up and get dressed"- she's got to fix her hair up a certain way, get the right kind of makeup/nail polish/whatever, put on the right kind of wardrobe and project the right kind of attitude (since no man wants an actually sullen woman). The woman, interested in acquiring the best man, has to do all she can to look her best- and that's a lot of work. It is true men have to do their share of "looking good" as well, but the perception is that men don't have to work quite as hard here, because women can be swayed by personality. Reality, I hold, is different (there's very few men who don't want a personality-less woman, and I doubt there's a lot of women who want an ugly man), but it seems to me, in the world of perceptions, the amount of work is equal- it's just different kind.

You think success = competence and therefore lack of success = incompetence. It's all very simple to you I see, but in the real world there are more possibilities.

"Success" is what you make of it. If you're equating "wealth" to "success", of course I'm going to tell you that you're mistaken, because what makes us happy varies from person to person. However, if you are going to tell me that "you can be wealthy without working hard", of course I'm going to call you out on that, because you *do* have to work hard to be wealthy. Just like you have to work hard to find sex- regardless of gender.

Paris Hilton disagrees with your "work hard and be wealthy claim"

Paris Hilton disagrees with your "work hard and be wealthy claim"
So do the male Hiltons.

Paris Hilton disagrees with your "work hard and be wealthy claim"

So do the male Hiltons.

Yes, and the Hiltons describe "every" rich person on the planet, right?

I think most people, male or female, would really love for there to be some simple answer to the question of "How Do I Have Great Sex?" I think most people tend to be coming from a kind place with this, since they're really wanting to feel like they are satisfying their partner while also satisfying themselves (which are both good), it's just that there simply ISN'T one magical list of step-by-step directions to guarantee awesome sex all the time.

There is a simple answer, and it ties in to success with male and female either way.

The simple freaking secret is to have fun. If you're looking to have great fun with a woman - coming from the angle that I'm a guy - you're probably more attractive to the opposite sex, you're probably going to have greater chances at chatting people up, you're probably going to have a great time in bed.

Too many people focus on tricks and tips to attract someone, converse with someone, get someone revved up, too many people obsess over whether they're any good in bed.

Relax, have fun, because fun is always a two way thing and it's the difference between masturbation and sex. It's also far more honest and if someone is relaxed and comfortable around you, they're probably more open to telling you themselves what works for them, what they'd like to try.

Am I cool, am I clever, am I good looking, am I good in bed?

Forget about it, the only question you need to ask is 'Are we going to have fun' because if you go in with that attitude, all the rest doesn't really matter.

*note: this doesn't equate to putting on a clown's nose and wearing a squirty flower, though that might work, fun is having a good time, enjoying yourself, looking forward to enjoying a conversation, entertaining someone, have a fun time.

There is a simple answer, and it ties in to success with male and female either way.

The simple freaking secret is to have fun. If you're looking to have great fun with a woman - coming from the angle that I'm a guy - you're probably more attractive to the opposite sex, you're probably going to have greater chances at chatting people up, you're probably going to have a great time in bed.

Too many people focus on tricks and tips to attract someone, converse with someone, get someone revved up, too many people obsess over whether they're any good in bed.

Relax, have fun, because fun is always a two way thing and it's the difference between masturbation and sex. It's also far more honest and if someone is relaxed and comfortable around you, they're probably more open to telling you themselves what works for them, what they'd like to try.

Am I cool, am I clever, am I good looking, am I good in bed?

Forget about it, the only question you need to ask is 'Are we going to have fun' because if you go in with that attitude, all the rest doesn't really matter.

*note: this doesn't equate to putting on a clown's nose and wearing a squirty flower, though that might work, fun is having a good time, enjoying yourself, looking forward to enjoying a conversation, entertaining someone, have a fun time.

*claps* That's beautiful...I've known that for quite a while. Reading all these "seduction experts" I realize they're all saying the same thing- basically what you're saying there (I'd add "mystery", because subconsciously we're always looking for something "deeper"- that, and it tends to come up a lot anyway).

Of course, the problem is actually doing that...I know it, but I don't do it. Sex isn't exactly something that comes up in "regular" converse with just about anyone and I tend to err on the side of caution (especially if I don't know the woman). Then there's the whole "fear of rejection" thing and the fact I just don't like the idea of "using someone" for anything. I've come to the conclusion that those of us who do actually get a lot of partners over a short period of time are "wired" that way and those looking to change that "wiring" do so without the desire (or even the willingness) to go through the work needed to do that. Not all of us were destined to be "the most popular guy in school", and this is the same idea.

(That, and it's my pet theory that those who pine for sex/relationships are really just missing their friends (http://dgrants.blogspot.com/2007/03/single-on-valentines-day.html))

This isn't to say that either way is wrong- I just think many of those who consult "the experts" might not understand what it truly takes (or even those steps are completely necessary, because I think promiscuity really boils down to personal taste).

5 men have sex with 10 different women (not all at the same time, mind you). So now, 5 men got laid but 10 women got laid. That's what I was getting at. From saying that men go for many partners, an women go for fewer, more quality partners, it's easy to say that it is likely fewer men are having sex with more women. Though, again, I don't know if this is enough to significantly tip the scales in "ease of sex" or not; my point is simply that it isn't unfathomable and, in fact, does make sense if it were so.

All right, fathomable...yes. Reasonable? No. Group sex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_sex#Prevalence) is particularly rare, so it would follow on any given night there's (more or less) the same amount of men spurned for sex as there are women spurned for sex.

Regardless, though, whenever I see an argument like that ("all the good women/men are taken") it's almost always a matter of the person shifting the blame for their problems from themselves to some abstract idea that's "beyond their control" so they don't *really* have to worry about their problem. Fact of the matter is that it *is* a problem within their control and "blaming 'reality'" won't change the fact they're not fixing it.

Considering women have been oppressed for the last few thousand years of human history

Who told you that? Did someone forget to tell you that "the past is a different country, they do things differently there"? *We* may think those women are oppressed, but that's looking at it through our 2008-coloured glasses and not recognizing that 641, 1341 or 1670 had different values than we do, and thus their idea of "oppression" is different than ours.

It's my estimation that the current idea of "oppression" had its roots in the 19th century (or so) when the European powers changed their governmental system from the feudal system to that of the "nation state". The feudal system held that everyone- male and female, rich and poor, warrior and merchant- were in different "classes" and were held to different sets of laws, with country borders (or even "countries") hardly ever "set". The "nation state" concept held that there is a country with a set border and a common culture and identity, meaning everyone inside that country is theoretically "equal" and thus can form a stable state. Everyone would be viewed as equals under the law, with the state providing service indiscriminately but also expecting service from everyone within their borders. It's from this idea where democracy truly comes from- if everyone actually *is* equal under the state and if the state is expecting something from everyone, then everyone ought to decide who gets to run the state.

Now, since the old feudal mindset was still in place (and most of the laws, especially dealing with the commoners), the 19th century establishments came up with all kinds of rationalizations as to why they kept certain laws- the kings ruled "by divine right", women "weren't rational enough to vote", the Jewish men "always stay home and do nothing", etc.- but none of them would ever stick as the "nation state" idea really took hold since none of them ever made sense. Thus, the idea of "oppression" is really a reaction against these outdated ideas and a message to those that hold them that their ideas didn't make any sense within the system they wanted to have. Before the 19th century (well, okay, maybe the 16th, because that's when the philosophy kick started in Western Europe), nobody ever thought of their situations in those terms- all their lives they've known that "they are who they are" and that they have a certain "function" to which they stick to; and they accepted it.

I've also read somewhere that the orgasm releases hormones which make you tired, but I can't find a source at the moment. I'm sure Bottle knows more on that issue.

But it can be done.

It happened to me (a guy) once, so I believe it.

Ok, so instead of starting a new thread on this, I'll just post it here.

Yesterday I was listening to "107.9 The Link" and they had a Dr. on who specializes in couple therapies. Well, she was taking calls and this one guy calls up, and says that his wife cheated on him, and get this...apparently it's HIS fault! No, it's not the wife's fault because apparently he has neglected her emotionally and that drove her into the arms of another man. Man you know you are whipped when your wife cheats on you and it's soley your fault!

Personally I blame both of them, the man for neglecting her emotionally and the woman for cheating on him instead of talking about it to him. I don't care who you are, or what the circumstances are, if you are an adult in a marriage (that isn't open) and you cheat on your spouse, it's your fault for cheating on your spouse. The circumstances may be bad, but how about instead of cheating on your spouse you try to work it out! This applies to both men and women.

I always look at cheating thinking "there's something missing within the relationship that's not being addressed- hence why one (or both) went outside of the relationship to seek it". Therefore, the problem rests with both partners because relationships involve both people, not just one.

I would say in that case the woman deserves a bit more of the blame than the man does because she initiated the cheating (from what I see there). Only a bit though- if the wife looked to someone else, it's probably because the husband wasn't providing something she liked (whatever that is) so he's not completely off the hook.

It'd be kind of nice to be able to hook up with someone and just run through a quick checklist before having sex :P You know, like, "Okay, favourite position? Best way to make you cum? When do you prefer it to happen etc..."

That's a great idea. I ought to try that the next time I find a girl to have sex with. I'll have to clip it somewhere, though, because it might be a while before that happens...

semi back on topic; when it comes to sex and just sex , women have it easier, since it usually is a women who has to decide if something is going to happen. the other way around usually is not the case unless the man has a very good reason to reject the sexual encounter and willfully accept blue balls, and not get sum.

*Some* women have it easier, just like some men. Most don't. Both sides have to do a lot of work (and the same kind of work) and besides, if women are really the only deciding factor in sex, then there wouldn't be women who have problems finding sex. Plus you can't tell me you've never seen a woman you didn't think you'd want to sleep with. The difficulty works both ways.

the reason for this is the whole thing about growing up, a guy who gets a lot of chicks down by the fire is the Man, a women whom gets lain by the fire a lot is called a whore, this is the so called problem that makes it hard for women and men to be equal. men and women can be equal but they will always be different, after all to quote someone who has had the experience of all sexes and genders "i would never trust anything that bleeds for 3 or 4 days and doesn't die" :D Mr./mrs Garrison

Maybe that applies where you live and that perception surely applied in Alliston (a small town where I happen to live; even though the reality was much different) but I can safely say in Toronto I find enough people who look at the idea of promiscuity differently that the idea I'm quoting from you above is becoming outdated. It's still the "traditional" view, but it's no longer the mainstream one.

Mad? no, of course not. I merely comment that you're unlikely to find many of my interests in cosmo, and as such, any implication that these magazines or articles are going to teach you great and wonderful secrets about how to please men are just as silly, nonsensical, and unhelpful as any articles about the great and wonderful secrets about how to please women.

I always loved reading those articles (okay, my brother bought it once because they did a spread on Kelly Clarkson, his favourite artist) just to see if any of them get me right; and they mostly don't. Sometimes they do hit something about me on the head but that's only because it's so painfully obvious that it's rare it couldn't apply to any other guy.

ITT Bullshit sexism.

Where the HELL do you get these facts? If it's true that if they drop out they can just marry a rich guy, then by that logic it's the men that are more successful to begin with, which is just more sexism.

Since your e-dick is too huge to process facts, let me put it this way:
If women get to drop out and marry a rich men, then that means that men don't have to deal with the rich people they marry beating them.

You aren't really smart enough to post on the internet, please just stop now.

*claps* That's beautiful...I've known that for quite a while. Reading all these "seduction experts" I realize they're all saying the same thing- basically what you're saying there (I'd add "mystery", because subconsciously we're always looking for something "deeper"- that, and it tends to come up a lot anyway).

Of course, the problem is actually doing that...I know it, but I don't do it. Sex isn't exactly something that comes up in "regular" converse with just about anyone and I tend to err on the side of caution (especially if I don't know the woman). Then there's the whole "fear of rejection" thing and the fact I just don't like the idea of "using someone" for anything. I've come to the conclusion that those of us who do actually get a lot of partners over a short period of time are "wired" that way and those looking to change that "wiring" do so without the desire (or even the willingness) to go through the work needed to do that. Not all of us were destined to be "the most popular guy in school", and this is the same idea.

(That, and it's my pet theory that those who pine for sex/relationships are really just missing their friends (http://dgrants.blogspot.com/2007/03/single-on-valentines-day.html))

This isn't to say that either way is wrong- I just think many of those who consult "the experts" might not understand what it truly takes (or even those steps are completely necessary, because I think promiscuity really boils down to personal taste).

I was thinking about really defining what I mean to say, and I guess it's a little hard - how do you have fun, how do you not clam up etc., because, fair enough it's easy to say and it does come naturally to some and not to others. However, it's not an innate quality as such, as you say, you know it, it's just a question of how to do it.

I'd say the first thing is to wipe sex completely from your mind when meeting someone - that's not necessarily true overall because there's great fun in flirting as well but I suspect, for the most part, it's a good start.

I guess what I'm saying is that many people clam up because they're thinking 'I don't want to make a fool of myself in case it ruins my chances', while knowing that clamming up or being nervous is just as ruinous.

If you can wipe any end goal from your mind and just look to entertain and be entertained for an hour or so, make that your only goal, then it's no magic cure but simply trying it should help.

I don't think I have ever gone into a conversation with a female with the idea in my head that I'm looking to get laid. Mostly I've seen someone and thought 'I want to know more about them'.

That might just be it, simple curiosity to know another human being.

From there you should naturally, if you can genuinely do it, have fun. From there...who knows.

Sad thing is though, and I was like this too at one point, asking people what they like might not help. A lot of people don't really know what they like, because they haven't had a chance to try much out. I say that, even when the person in question has had a lot of sex. It might not have been quality.I've found it necessary to sometimes ask during sex whether something feels good or not. I should approach it more clinically though, like an eye doctor.

"Is this one better...or this one."

I think it leans towards the woman's favor because you can have 16 orgasms and we only get one, unless we're willing to milk the prostate, and no, we're not, because no.Meh. Either do what it takes to have your orgasms, or don't complain about not having them.

I would say in that case the woman deserves a bit more of the blame than the man does because she initiated the cheating (from what I see there). Only a bit though- if the wife looked to someone else, it's probably because the husband wasn't providing something she liked (whatever that is) so he's not completely off the hook.I don't quite agree. While in some cases I can see your point, I don't see how a relationship is about getting everything you want. You have to make sacrifices sometimes, and that might include sacrificing something that you really want for the sake of making the relationship work.

Yes, and the Hiltons describe "every" rich person on the planet, right?
No more than Paris Hilton describes "every woman" on the planet.

<snip>

Who told you that? Did someone forget to tell you that "the past is a different country, they do things differently there"? *We* may think those women are oppressed, but that's looking at it through our 2008-coloured glasses and not recognizing that 641, 1341 or 1670 had different values than we do, and thus their idea of "oppression" is different than ours.

It's my estimation that the current idea of "oppression" had its roots in the 19th century (or so) when the European powers changed their governmental system from the feudal system to that of the "nation state". <snip>
The fun thing about history is that we know what's in it because someone who was there when it happened wrote it down. Because of that, we don't have to rely on just our "estimation."

When we actually look at the historical record, we see that questions about equality of the sexes under law, about women's rights and oppression against women has been a recurring topic in cultures since ancient Greece. Different societies approached the matter differently. Sex connected with social status in vastly different ways from one culture to another, and in some places the status quo was questioned, even challenged, and it others it was not. And this changed as the times and circumstances changed as well.

But it is simply false to say that older cultures did not have an idea of "oppression" against women as we think of it today, because there are plenty of historical records of people in older cultures saying exactly that in writing -- that this or that legal and/or social system was unfair to the women who lived under it. You see this precise debate in ancient Greece, in Romanized Europe where Roman gender status rules conflicted with local European tribal ones. You see it in Christianized Europe and with the various Catholic schisms as well as the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, as the laws concerning women were constantly being challenged and reasserted along with other rules. You see it in the spread of Islam and the breaking out of its various sects, which had and still have both conflicts with other cultures and internal conflicts on the matter. You see it in the various laws concerning women, marriage and property in feudal Japan, and as a perennial domestic issue in the various uprisings that mark China's history.

We see it in 17th-18th century Europe where Enlightenment thinkers began to actively challenge old social mores about women's roles and the laws that governed women's social and financial status. We see yet more mentions of it it in the 18th-19th century Industrial Revolution when women entering the work force opened up more changes, more opportunties and more repressions, which led ultimately to a global movement over 100 years long for women's suffrage, and gave us feminism as we know it in the 20th century.

To say, well, maybe they had a different idea of what "oppression" meant is simply nonsense. Those contemporary writers were quite clear about what they saw going on their societies. They described in detail social and legal systems that they considered unfair to women and why and how they were unfair. You don't have to rely on whether we have the same notion of "oppression" as they did. You can just read the details and the fact that people protested against it at the time and in the place it was happening, to judge for yourself what was going on. If anything, if there is a difference between historical and modern notions of "oppression," it is that things were allowed to get far worse in the old days before people did anything about it.

By the way, oppression against women is the same as oppression against any other group. Anywhere a society bases its functional systems on a "pecking order" hierarchy that depends on maintaining permanent inequality, so that some people will always be "qualified" to be leaders and others always cast in the role of followers, then you will find oppression of somebody going on. In the vast majority of cases, women have been the default oppressed group. I'm not really sure why that is or why that pattern has proved so hard to break, even though we know it is/was never universal. But the reason I think the usual target has been women for so long (I'm talking 1000's of years) is that there are always women present in every society. There might not always be people of different races or religions available to push around, but there are always women. So, to the extent that oppression in general is such a widespread and longstanding phenomenon, I see no reason to assume that oppression of women is a modern invention, especially since we have historical records indicating that it is not.

The fun thing about history is that we know what's in it because someone who was there when it happened wrote it down. Because of that, we don't have to rely on just our "estimation."


seems to me that every western philosopher from hesiod to sartre wrote about the issue of women and what to do about them. its not like no one ever thought about it. its not like women didnt try to get better deals throughout the ages. they knew they werent being done right by.

My mum, while telling a story yesterday about her being the birth partner for a friend when the Dad had gone awol, admitted that being the birth partner might just be more difficult than being the expectant mother.

I was pretty shocked by that one. But, it has been properly logged in my memory and will most definitely be used for future teasing and ribbing.

Don't ever, ever ask for sources when you are about to get your shit handed to you:
http://www.ynhh.org/healthlink/womens/womens_1_00.html - "Only 11 percent of obstetrical patients at large and midsize hospitals opted for no analgesia of any kind in 1997."
http://www.expectantmothersguide.com/library/chicago/epidurial.htm - "Around 70 percent of women have an epidural during birth."
Once again, thank you for quoting me directly, and the name calling sure brightened my day. Actually, this epic win that is a demand for sources did bring me to smile.
Now, if I dare ask, what bullshit are you calling me on? After 8,000 posts you would think you have learned your lesson.

Oooh, I just LOVE your threatening tone! And here you are, taking me to task for my handing out of low grades for your sub-par posting style...reeks of hypocrisy, no? If you get asked for a source, provide it. Behaving as though you are doing someone a favour in backing yourself up is foolish. The onus is always on you to prove what you assert. Telling people to shut up, and essentially 'just trust your word' simply doesn't fly here. Next time, provide the source without being told to.

Write that down, there'll be a quiz later.

What your stats fail to do is show that the 'vast majority' of women experience no pain during childbirth, even if we restrict ourselves specifically to the US. But let's NOT, because the US is not the industrialised West. Between 2001-2002, the rates (http://www.cihi.ca/cihiweb/en/downloads/GBC2004_errata_e.pdf) for epidural use are: Canada (45.7%), US (59%), UK (12%).

What is even MORE interesting is the number of women who are choosing to have midwife-assisted (http://www.bcmidwives.com/MABC___Midwifery_Benefits_sheet.pdf) births. Again, the percentages vary radically in the industrialised West. In Canada, midwives attend 2% of births. In the US, the percentage is 6% (url=http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/women/9905/20/natural.childbirth/). In New Zealand, and in the UK, the percentage is 70%. Seventy fucking percent.

Now, let's also point out the difference between 'pain free' (epidural) and 'pain relief' (various drugs). Pain relief is not pain free. Pain relief only dulls the pain, it does not take it away, and regardless of how good that morphine is, you are still going to be screaming your lungs out when you squeeze a person out of you.

What you have done, is erroneously asserted that in the West, the ‘vast majority of women’ do not give birth without epidurals. You were called on it. You got pissy and finally provided some sources that still fail to make your false statements true. No doubt you are going to want to say, ‘ oh well I uh, I mean, yeah well I meant the US, not the West. Yeah, yeah just the US. Oh, and maybe Canada. ‘ In which case, you will look even more foolish.

Your assertion:


No, the vast majority of (read my qualifying statements) do not. So stop talking or writing, or whatever you call this.


The majority of women IN THE WORLD give birth without epidurals. The majority of women IN THE WEST give birth without epidurals. Fact. And yet, even if every woman in the world had an epidural, your threatening bullshit would still be worthy of dismissal.

You do not get to dismiss the 9 month gestation period, and the recovery time after. They are inextricably linked, and incomparable to any experience men go through. I have never made the argument that birth = men have it easier, but your rant about how childbirth is such a lark, and unless a woman takes the pain, she should shut up about the entire experience, absolutely merits scorn, and another F.

Just in case you want to deny, again, that you said what you said:

I know that I am a horrible person for saying this, but WHO THE HELL HAS NATURAL BIRTHS THESE DAYS (in a modern western society, and not scientologist). In my lengthy experience upon this planet, I only know of one woman to take on childbirth without an epidural. Unless you are actually taking that pain, instead of sitting doped up for 10 hours, stop bringing this up.

Now you know...many women in modern western society have natural births; births with minimal assistance, without epidurals, and without pain relief that actually blocks the pain. Now you know that it is idiotic to be telling women to shut up about childbirth unless they’ve ‘taken that pain’.


Your parents are going to be VERY upset with your report card young man.

more stats, Netherlands, 30% (http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/publications/MSM_96_24/MSM_96_24_Chapter2Part2.en.html) of women give birth at home, with no pain medication. Only a very small percentage of low-risk women delivering in hospitals receive pain medication.

In the US, smaller hospitals have an epidural rate of 42% (http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:A8LLS8Grx2gJ:www.uic.edu/com/mcas/anesth_aug-2006_p394.pdf+number+of+women+using+epidurals+in+France&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=ca), and the rate in France is estimated at 50% and 40% in Switzerland

seems to me that every western philosopher from hesiod to sartre wrote about the issue of women and what to do about them. its not like no one ever thought about it. its not like women didnt try to get better deals throughout the ages. they knew they werent being done right by.

Indeed, if there is one thing history has never lacked it's the sexes bitching about each other, men giving advice about how women should live, and women wishing men would mind their own damned business for a change.

Oh, and PS: Yay NEESIKA! Well played. :D

You have to love the style of someone who finally tries to back up his sources like he's doing some sort of favor and reacts like a preening peacock with an "oh, it's ON NOW!" attitude.

I'd love to do this in my job one day. What? You want case citations? OH NO YOU DIDN'T!

You have to love the style of someone who finally tries to back up his sources like he's doing some sort of favor and reacts like a preening peacock with an "oh, it's ON NOW!" attitude.

I'd love to do this in my job one day. What? You want case citations? OH NO YOU DIDN'T!

Witnesses? Experts? Fuck that, if youre too ignorant to know it, go find and and ask my experts and witnesses on your own! Its not my job!


As the judge raises his eyebrow at you :p

Being a guy, I'mma say guys have it easier.
Guys don't menstruate.

Witnesses? Experts? Fuck that, if youre too ignorant to know it, go find and and ask my experts and witnesses on your own! Its not my job!


As the judge raises his eyebrow at you :p

Eyebrow? EYEBROW?? You're in serious contempt land at that point...

Being a guy, I'mma say guys have it easier.
Guys don't menstruate.

Look, I bitch about my period a lot, but I'm getting really tired of this 'women bleed = yucky' theme I'm seeing. No, it's not pleasant (at least not for me, other women just adore their periods) but it's part of life, and we deal with it. Menstruation is not an example of how men have it better than or are better than women. It just is.

Look, I bitch about my period a lot, but I'm getting really tired of this 'women bleed = yucky' theme I'm seeing. No, it's not pleasant (at least not for me, other women just adore their periods) but it's part of life, and we deal with it. Menstruation is not an example of how men have it better than or are better than women. It just is.

Oh I wasn't saying 'men have it better,' just that 'men have it easier,' sorta.
Women have their advantages, like multiple orgasms for instance.
:]

Look, I bitch about my period a lot, but I'm getting really tired of this 'women bleed = yucky' theme I'm seeing. No, it's not pleasant (at least not for me, other women just adore their periods) but it's part of life, and we deal with it. Menstruation is not an example of how men have it better than or are better than women. It just is.

Based on my wife's period, I'm gonna have to agree with him...
This has nothing to do with 'women bleed=yucky'.

Look, I bitch about my period a lot, but I'm getting really tired of this 'women bleed = yucky' theme I'm seeing. No, it's not pleasant (at least not for me, other women just adore their periods) but it's part of life, and we deal with it. Menstruation is not an example of how men have it better than or are better than women. It just is.

I look at it this way. My significant other has to shave a lot for work, and his beard grows quickly. It's freaking painful to shave short stubble...try it on your armpits every day for a week and you'll see what I mean. I have excruciating cramps for a week, sometimes a week and a half, and bleed like a stuck pig. Overall in the scheme of things, it evens out.

Look, I bitch about my period a lot, but I'm getting really tired of this 'women bleed = yucky' theme I'm seeing. No, it's not pleasant (at least not for me, other women just adore their periods) but it's part of life, and we deal with it. Menstruation is not an example of how men have it better than or are better than women. It just is.
Personally, I'm indifferent toward my period. I only notice it when I go to the bathroom and have to change out whatever sanitary supply I'm using. I don't experience any significant symptoms surrounding my cycle. I mainly just consider it a handy monthly confirmation that, thank heavens, I'm not preggers.

Hence I think it's rather funny when some people claim that periods are why women have it harder than men. Frankly, if I were going to list the number of inconveniences I must face due to my femaleness, menstruation might get tagged on at the very bottom of the list, maybe, if I remembered it enough to even put it there.

Yet another glowing example of how *SHOCK* not all women are alike.

Yet another glowing example of how *SHOCK* not all women are alike.

Blasphemer!!!
;)

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20080402.gif

Oh I wasn't saying 'men have it better,' just that 'men have it easier,' sorta.
Women have their advantages, like multiple orgasms for instance.
:]

I was referring to an overall trend, not just your post. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

I was thinking about really defining what I mean to say, and I guess it's a little hard - how do you have fun, how do you not clam up etc., because, fair enough it's easy to say and it does come naturally to some and not to others. However, it's not an innate quality as such, as you say, you know it, it's just a question of how to do it.

I'd say the first thing is to wipe sex completely from your mind when meeting someone - that's not necessarily true overall because there's great fun in flirting as well but I suspect, for the most part, it's a good start.

I guess what I'm saying is that many people clam up because they're thinking 'I don't want to make a fool of myself in case it ruins my chances', while knowing that clamming up or being nervous is just as ruinous.

If you can wipe any end goal from your mind and just look to entertain and be entertained for an hour or so, make that your only goal, then it's no magic cure but simply trying it should help.

I don't think I have ever gone into a conversation with a female with the idea in my head that I'm looking to get laid. Mostly I've seen someone and thought 'I want to know more about them'.

That might just be it, simple curiosity to know another human being.

From there you should naturally, if you can genuinely do it, have fun. From there...who knows.

I agree. In fact, I don't think, outside of physical limitations (for example, I'm 5'6" meaning I'll never be the starting centre for the Charlotte Bobcats) that it's necessarily impossible for humans to achieve *anything*- I mean, our bodies all contain the same parts, right? The only difference is we are born with a tendency to develop certain characteristics- our "wiring" if you will- so if someone wants to change something about themselves, it comes down to having to reroute their wires; and that takes a lot of work. The question is, therefore, "is it worth it"? I do believe when it comes to social impediments it *is* worth it, but for some the work will be hard.

I'll keep all that mind though, that's good advice for anyone- guy or girl.

I don't quite agree. While in some cases I can see your point, I don't see how a relationship is about getting everything you want. You have to make sacrifices sometimes, and that might include sacrificing something that you really want for the sake of making the relationship work.

I don't disagree- relationships do involve sacrifice and compromise, because it's impossible for two people to agree on 100% of everything. However, if one side is sacrificing "too much", that's a problem. A successful relationship shouldn't force one into "overhauling" themselves, and if one side is being asked to make too many "unwilling" changes they're not in the right relationship. At the end of the day you've got to be happy being involved with someone else- if you're not, it's a sign you've got to move on.

It's from there that I believe the urge to cheat comes from- those who know they've got to move on but are too "scared" to do so. I can tell you when I was happy in my relationship I never thought of anyone else- it's only when things got stale did my mind to start to drift. I ended it before I gave in to those urges, but I can say I only got them because I wasn't happy in my relationship, and I suspect that wife wasn't either.

The fun thing about history is that we know what's in it because someone who was there when it happened wrote it down. Because of that, we don't have to rely on just our "estimation."

Not all of it. Pictures, recovered tools, structures and other artifacts can say a lot for history as well. We only happen to know the names of the peoples that actually wrote things down.

Second of all, a lot *is* based on our estimation- for all the Tacituses (Tacitii? *shrugs*), Thucydideses, Herodotuses and Edward Gibbonses (all males, by the way, which shows you how they viewed history) we have, there are thousands of documents that say innocuous things like "Harry went to the store today", "the town of Pisa's tax record", and "I'm having a 'Christian' problem" that scream for interpretation and someone to put it all together. Considering it hasn't been until the last twenty or so years that women have entered that field (as well as the field of archeology), it should be no surprise the bulk of the history you're reading centres almost exclusively on the male. Doesn't mean that the interpretations they provide are completely incorrect but it is something to remember. How much the archeologists/historians of the past discarded (including, say, a philosophical treatise written by a Roman woman) and how much history might need "revisiting" is an open question, but the fact of the matter is that it shouldn't surprise you that the bulk of our history books favour men, as it is a man that wrote those books.

But it is simply false to say that older cultures did not have an idea of "oppression" against women as we think of it today

You'll have to provide me some sources, because I've never seen an ancient writer approach the topic quite the way we do. Sounds to me like it's someone reading Socrates/Plato/Cicero/etc., evaluated it based on their own morals and said "that's the way it was"; which is of course applying 2008 morals on people who lived between the 5th century BC and the 1st century A.D.

I mean, the idea of "what constitutes oppression" has changed within the last 50 years (heck, even within the last ten)...I doubt it's any different for times 2,000 years before and won't be 2,000 years from now.

Don't get me wrong- I wouldn't disagree that looking at Rome or Christendom from our vantage point they were oppressive; but that would mean applying a value system on a people that didn't recognize that system. You can't- for example- conclude that the Ottomans oppressed the Serbs because they took one out of five of their young boys for the Janissaries when parents wound up begging for their children to be taken (http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Janissaries), especially after realizing the "taken children" led a much better life (http://www.srpska-mreza.com/bookstore/kosovo/kosovo3.htm). We'd think it's cruel, but I doubt those people actually did.

When we actually look at the historical record, we see that questions about equality of the sexes under law, about women's rights and oppression against women has been a recurring topic in cultures since ancient Greece. Different societies approached the matter differently. Sex connected with social status in vastly different ways from one culture to another, and in some places the status quo was questioned, even challenged, and it others it was not. And this changed as the times and circumstances changed as well.

I wouldn't doubt such questioning existed- *all* societies question themselves. However, "questioning" and "looking at the issue the same way we did" are not the same thing.

...because there are plenty of historical records of people in older cultures saying exactly that in writing -- that this or that legal and/or social system was unfair to the women who lived under it.

Which is not my issue. I would agree that the one constant in every society we know (keep that in mind- we can only deal with "what we know"- there's so many others- major and minor- we know very little about and/or are just waiting to be discovered) is the idea of "equality" and "fairness" but they all looked at it far differently than we did. Therefore, it's wrong to assess those cultures based on our ideas because they didn't use them at all. In fact, I think it's wrong to pass a "moral judgment" on anything in history based on this idea, since it inevitably leads to the incorrect imposition of our morals on a society that didn't recognize them.

where Roman gender status rules conflicted with local European tribal ones.

Which should be an indicator to you that not every society looked at women the same way (and definitely not the way we do).

You see this precise debate in ancient Greece, in Romanized Europe where Roman gender status rules conflicted with local European tribal ones. You see it in Christianized Europe and with the various Catholic schisms as well as the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, as the laws concerning women were constantly being challenged and reasserted along with other rules. You see it in the spread of Islam and the breaking out of its various sects, which had and still have both conflicts with other cultures and internal conflicts on the matter. You see it in the various laws concerning women, marriage and property in feudal Japan, and as a perennial domestic issue in the various uprisings that mark China's history.

Again, I still doubt the equality they're looking for is the same kind of equality we look for.

We see it in 17th-18th century Europe where Enlightenment thinkers began to actively challenge old social mores about women's roles and the laws that governed women's social and financial status. We see yet more mentions of it it in the 18th-19th century Industrial Revolution when women entering the work force opened up more changes, more opportunties and more repressions, which led ultimately to a global movement over 100 years long for women's suffrage, and gave us feminism as we know it in the 20th century.

To say, well, maybe they had a different idea of what "oppression" meant is simply nonsense. Those contemporary writers were quite clear about what they saw going on their societies. They described in detail social and legal systems that they considered unfair to women and why and how they were unfair. You don't have to rely on whether we have the same notion of "oppression" as they did. You can just read the details and the fact that people protested against it at the time and in the place it was happening, to judge for yourself what was going on.

At this stage, I don't even know you're even addressing what I wrote. I don't contend to the idea that peoples never thought they were oppressed, just how they viewed what oppression was.

For what it's worth, it shouldn't be surprising that you can read thoughts we hold today in Western European writers- including the Classical authors like Plato and Cicero- since our society is built upon those cultures. However, many of those writers- all of whom are male (which would figure into any chauvinistic thoughts you come across)- were high society folks who aren't exactly speaking for the commoners and are hardly indicative of what the populace truly thought. Who knows if the commoners truly believed what Suetonius or Martin of Opava (the first person to write about "Pope Joan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Joan)") wrote or if they too thought they were "uppity hacks" who hadn't a clue what they were talking about. Today we know of all kinds of writers and commentators we don't agree with- the difference between us and the ancient Romans is that we can write about it. The ancient Roman commoner probably didn't so we don't really know what they truly thought.

If anything, if there is a difference between historical and modern notions of "oppression," it is that things were allowed to get far worse in the old days before people did anything about it.

Worse by whose standards? Yours or theirs?

By the way, oppression against women is the same as oppression against any other group. Anywhere a society bases its functional systems on a "pecking order" hierarchy that depends on maintaining permanent inequality, so that some people will always be "qualified" to be leaders and others always cast in the role of followers, then you will find oppression of somebody going on. In the vast majority of cases, women have been the default oppressed group. I'm not really sure why that is or why that pattern has proved so hard to break, even though we know it is/was never universal. But the reason I think the usual target has been women for so long (I'm talking 1000's of years) is that there are always women present in every society. There might not always be people of different races or religions available to push around, but there are always women. So, to the extent that oppression in general is such a widespread and longstanding phenomenon, I see no reason to assume that oppression of women is a modern invention, especially since we have historical records indicating that it is not.

Seems to me you're doing a couple of things:

-No. 1, you're reading history, looking at what those peoples were doing and evaluating it as if they were doing it in 2008. They were not. You *have* to keep things in context.

-No. 2, you seem to be basing a lot of your thoughts on Western European history and thinking Western European history (and worldviews) apply to everyone. They don't. I can certainly tell you that African/Australian/Native American/Asian/etc. cultures and histories developed far differently than the Europeans did (well, at least until the Europeans showed up).

-No. 3, you assume the study of history is "finished". It's not. I can assure you all the data isn't collected nor is the interpretation of everything we do know "binding". I know it's not a guarantee, but I'm certain one day we're going to find that "great matriarchal society" or that "great female philosopher", especially considering Western historians finally got around to admitting that Great Zimbabwe (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great Zimbabwe) was actually built by Africans and that the Greeks at least fantasized about a great matriarchal society (the Amazons). Maybe then we can put away the silly idea that "the white man oppressed everyone worldwide and now we're fighting back" because it's just not true.

In short, I never once stated that peoples never felt oppressed or societies never questioned their "roles"- my only contention is the assumption that our view of oppression applied to everyone throughout history and it doesn't. We don't *have* the views of the common Roman, the common medieval, the common Pole (heck, most likely, even the common Victorian-era Briton) because the only ones who wrote were the elites (who are of course going to rail on their "inferiors"- male or female). The fact of the matter is our version of oppression (and equality, for that matter) had its roots in the 19th century (influenced by the writers of the 17th and 18th centuries, yes, but those ideas certainly weren't mainstream ones- it's in the 19th and 20th centuries when it did), because only then were the laws of the nation truly conflicting with the society the countries wanted.

I can't believe that 28% of people have said women have it easier than men. This, as well as the OP, are on the same level as saying poor black teenagers from ghettos have it easier than middle-class whites because the black teenagers can just make easy millions becoming rappers.

Your whole point is built upon the reaction many men have when they fail to find sex partners- they just conclude "it's easier for the woman" and forget to look at themselves.

No, it isn't. It's an observation and it's really not rocket science.

And you're ad homineming AGAIN. Are you aware of the concept of a logical fallacy? It's getting tiresome.

They think they represent all of manhood but they're really just representing themselves.

Now that's a strawman, since "they" clearly means me.

I used to think the way you did

I seriously doubt it.

Actually I see how it is. YOU thought you were a "representative of all manhood" and that because YOU couldn't get laid, that women had it easier. And now because you see I have the same conclusion you assume I had your same, flawed reasoning. So you're arguing against that reasoning, instead of like, reading anything I write.

but then I thought about it, started to observe and saw things aren't really any different for me, other men or women. The game is equally difficult for all of us.

Oh, well "you thought about it." That's compelling there.

You started to observe? Apparently you didn't observe the discrepancy in numbers of heterosexual male prostitutes with heterosexual female prostitutes.

The whole idea that women don't have to do any approaching themselves is taken from the man not, frankly, "man enough" to go do it himself, but if he actually looked, he'd realize he's not alone- 99% of his mates aren't going after that girl either, he just sees another man going to her and concludes that since the woman didn't go to him, it must be the man that has to do that work (when he just happened to see the 1% of manhood that isn't actually afraid to strike). Plus, why isn't that woman going to the man? It's possible she's waiting for an approach, but it's also possible- and I suspect, highly likely- that she's just as shy and fearful of rejection as the man is. Love is a funny game that can turn the most outgoing of people into reserved, timid creatures, all because the thought of facing "rejection" from the object of their desire is just too great a feeling to go through, without actually realizing that letting the fear stop you from making the move is just as bad as a rejection, if not worse.

What are you babbling about now?

Last, but not least, I realized I never broached the idea of "why men approach women", since that's a main part of your premise- guys do all (or most of) the approaching and women do none (which doesn't happen if one actually looks around). Well, a man is most likely going to go to a woman he finds attractive, so that means that the woman herself must do all she can to ensure that she looks attractive.

Unless she's truly substandard or there is an unusual lack of males where she goes, this task will be considerably simpler than the man's. I note the man will be doing the same task anyway, in addition to having to make the effort. This alone means women do in fact have it easier.

So she's got to do more than just "get up and get dressed"- she's got to fix her hair up a certain way, get the right kind of makeup/nail polish/whatever, put on the right kind of wardrobe and project the right kind of attitude (since no man wants an actually sullen woman). The woman, interested in acquiring the best man, has to do all she can to look her best- and that's a lot of work.

*snort*

Yes, because the male human is a truly discerning and demanding creature, accepting only a woman at her best!

if you are going to tell me that "you can be wealthy without working hard", of course I'm going to call you out on that, because you *do* have to work hard to be wealthy.

inheritance (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/inheritance)
money managers (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/moneymanager.asp)

Call me out all you like, but you're just flailing helplessly in my crucible of common sense now.

Oh, well "you thought about it." That's compelling there.

You started to observe? Apparently you didn't observe the discrepancy in numbers of heterosexual male prostitutes with heterosexual female prostitutes.

Please don't make the mistake of thinking that the gender imbalance among sex workers is simply due to differences in sexual desire or sexual preferences among men versus women. It's not.


*snort*

Yes, because the male human is a truly discerning and demanding creature, accepting only a woman at her best!

Perhaps you don't have high standards. That's your business. My (male) partner is amazingly picky. My (male) brother is, too. Most of my male friends.

It's almost as if maleness doesn't automatically make somebody a sex-crazed moron who will stick his dick into any willing hole...

Don't try to pin your lack of standards on the fact that you're male. You can choose to have low standards if you want, but that's your choice and you should own it.

Men have the luxury of being less sexually choosy in our society. Because of the power imbalance between men and women, men face less severe consequences if they decide not to be picky about their partners. It is perfectly reasonable that women would end up being more choosy in light of this imbalance. But it has nothing to do with some inherent slutitude of the male gender, and everything to do with a social order that doesn't give women the same latitude when it comes to sexual behavior.

But it has nothing to do with some inherent slutitude of the male gender, and everything to do with a social order that doesn't give women the same latitude when it comes to sexual behavior.

Sustained as much by women as by men.

I don't disagree- relationships do involve sacrifice and compromise, because it's impossible for two people to agree on 100% of everything. However, if one side is sacrificing "too much", that's a problem. A successful relationship shouldn't force one into "overhauling" themselves, and if one side is being asked to make too many "unwilling" changes they're not in the right relationship. At the end of the day you've got to be happy being involved with someone else- if you're not, it's a sign you've got to move on.

It's from there that I believe the urge to cheat comes from- those who know they've got to move on but are too "scared" to do so. I can tell you when I was happy in my relationship I never thought of anyone else- it's only when things got stale did my mind to start to drift. I ended it before I gave in to those urges, but I can say I only got them because I wasn't happy in my relationship, and I suspect that wife wasn't either.I can agree with much of this.
I raised my objection primarily because when people say stuff like 'one person wasn't supplying the other with the things they needed', the 'things' referred to is typically some kind of sex. There are plenty of people who justify cheating because the partner at home isn't putting out as often enough (or in a specific enough manner). While I didn't assume that you personally meant it, I wanted to bring the objection up anyway.

Sustained as much by women as by men.
I don't agree that it is sustained by women as much as by men, simply because women do not have as much power over such matters (that's patriarchy, baby!), but many women certainly are complicit in this system.

There are plenty of sexist women out there. I've never remotely denied that.

I don't agree that it is sustained by women as much as by men, simply because women do not have as much power over such matters (that's patriarchy, baby!), but many women certainly are complicit in this system.

There are plenty of sexist women out there. I've never remotely denied that.

Women who say they should be submissive and that men really are stronger make me dies inside.

Women who say they should be submissive and that men really are stronger make me dies inside.

Wellllll....what if a woman says that SHE is submissive and that she likes obeying her man? Does that make you necrotic in your guts too?

Wellllll....what if a woman says that SHE is submissive and that she likes obeying her man? Does that make you necrotic in your guts too?

Oh no, thats fine. Again, the difference is choice. If a woman says she is perfectly capable of doing her own thing but just prefers to do whatever hubby says, hey its her funeral.


Its when you believe that its inherant for one gender to submit to another tha we have a problem. Its when you believe its unnatural or wrong for a woman to want to have a career rather than pop out babies that I am sad.

Oh no, thats fine. Again, the difference is choice. If a woman says she is perfectly capable of doing her own thing but just prefers to do whatever hubby says, hey its her funeral.


Its when you believe that its inherant for one gender to submit to another tha we have a problem. Its when you believe its unnatural or wrong for a woman to want to have a career rather than pop out babies that I am sad.

See? I was sure you weren't an idiot. Good boy:)

Women who say they should be submissive and that men really are stronger make me dies inside.

I couldn't agree more. I find tough women to be incredibly attractive. (Or, I find it to be an attractive trait. Physical appearance is an important factor, too).

For example, when I took martial arts, there used to be this chick that trained with me. Very good looking. (Half Asian, and a quarter each Scottish and Irish, as I recall... it all fit together quite well.) Also really tough. Damn, she was awesome. Now, she couldn't quite kick my ass, as I'd been training rather longer, but she could damn well come close. If she'd been some meek submissive girl, I'd still have thought she was attractive enough, but her toughness and personality shot her up into the "Holy Shit" category.

Or, say, Sarah Connor in the second Terminator movie. Dayum.

Yeah. Whoever says women should be submissive certainly doesn't speak for me.

To get back on topic, I really don't think you can say who has it harder (in Westernized society, anyway... I'd say that women in, say, Saudi Arabia basically have it a lot worse off.) Both genders have their own share of problems, and it's a subjective judgment on what you value or what you find easy or difficult. I mean, for me, I wouldn't care too much whether society considered me a "slut" or not, so that wouldn't make life any harder for me as a woman. It'd be a non-issue to me. But to some people it's a major issue.

By the same token, I don't care that society says I have to know about cars or follow sports statistics as a man. While I do enjoy watching a good game, I don't care what a given baseball player's batting average is, or what team has what ranking, or whatever. Society might say that makes me "less manly" or whatever. Do I care? Not really. I'll do what I enjoy, and there's enough other people with similar interests that I can just be friends with them.

I personally find it to be true that average men generally have to put in a bit more effort to get sex than do average women (though I don't think that it's constructive to just blame women or what not. I know I'm not good with women and that it's my own damn fault, so instead of complaining I'm working on it.), but that, honestly, we men are largely to blame for that with our patriarchal society. But that same culture also seems to make it harder for women, upon getting sex, to have satisfying sex. So I guess that balances it out.

I guess what I'm getting at is that asking "who has it harder" changes from person to person. Some people'd have it easier as a woman; some people would have it easier as a man. Me? Eh, I don't think it'd make a huge difference. To say that either men or women have it easier over-simplifies it.

Of course, I could be utterly wrong about all of this, and I'm sure that I'll be shot down by somebody who knows better.

Oh no, thats fine. Again, the difference is choice. If a woman says she is perfectly capable of doing her own thing but just prefers to do whatever hubby says, hey its her funeral.


Its when you believe that its inherant for one gender to submit to another tha we have a problem. Its when you believe its unnatural or wrong for a woman to want to have a career rather than pop out babies that I am sad.

Note: I agree with this too. I'm all for people doing their own thing if that makes them happy. I just happen to prefer strong, intelligent women.

Note: I agree with this too. I'm all for people doing their own thing if that makes them happy. I just happen to prefer strong, intelligent women.

Then you make the erroneous assumption that submission equals weakness, and/or lack of intelligence.

Note: I agree with this too. I'm all for people doing their own thing if that makes them happy. I just happen to prefer strong, intelligent women.
How about a strong, intelligent women who likes to do what her SO wants?
Then you make the erroneous assumption that submission equals weakness, and/or lack of intelligence.
QFT

Nearly one-third here are morons- after all, who wouldn't want to make three-quarters what a guy does?

I don't agree that it is sustained by women as much as by men, simply because women do not have as much power over such matters (that's patriarchy, baby!), but many women certainly are complicit in this system.

There are plenty of sexist women out there. I've never remotely denied that.

I'd have to pick my words far more carefully than I'm prepared to invest my time on in order to properly answer this.

In short, I think competition has a lot to answer for in sustaining inequality. Ultimately, there's no doubt that men have life far better, given the treatment women endure throughout the world. Yet it doesn't take all women to be sexist - I'm not sure that's the right word, perhaps accepting if not complicit in their role - for all women to be placed at a disadvantage.

Is there an innate need for women to be competitive for men, is it any higher than men's competitive need for women and how does this affect overall equality?

I'm forced to speak in generalities to some extent but patriarchy is common throughout the world - is it purely down to mere strength? Even if so, are women, on all criteria, at a disadvantage?

Hard to see the true side is.

Please don't make the mistake of thinking that the gender imbalance among sex workers is simply due to differences in sexual desire or sexual preferences among men versus women. It's not.


Oh I guess it must be completely unrelated then. Cuz you say so.

Perhaps you don't have high standards. That's your business.

Nice ad hominem... it's amazing how much of that is in this thread. Maybe I should just give up and start insulting your mother, that seems to be the thing to do.

My (male) partner is amazingly picky. My (male) brother is, too. Most of my male friends.

That's nice. In general men are not "picky."

It's almost as if maleness doesn't automatically make somebody a sex-crazed moron who will stick his dick into any willing hole...

Woo! One strawman burnt. Congrats.


Don't try to pin your lack of standards on the fact that you're male.

More ad hominem.

Men have the luxury of being less sexually choosy in our society. Because of the power imbalance between men and women, men face less severe consequences if they decide not to be picky about their partners. It is perfectly reasonable that women would end up being more choosy in light of this imbalance. But it has nothing to do with some inherent slutitude of the male gender, and everything to do with a social order that doesn't give women the same latitude when it comes to sexual behavior.

As far as my point is concerned, whether it's because of a "social order" or "inherent" is irrelevant. It is there, and I'm pointing it out. You don't like it cuz you're on some feminist tangent and hearing that women have anything easier at all cramps your style, but that's your problem and not mine.

That's nice. In general men are not "picky."

For someone who constantly complains about logical fallacies, you are amazing good at deflecting requests for sources.

But you aren't a teflon man GT, source up. Your 'observations' are not good enough to state the above bolded as unquestionable fact.

How about a strong, intelligent women who likes to do what her SO wants?

QFT

I feel I must clarify my position. I don't consider somebody doing what their SO wants because they want to do it submission. When I say "submission" in that context, I refer to women who do what their SO says, not because they want to, but because they feel that they have to. As I said, I'm all for people doing what makes them happy, and I can understand wanting to do as your SO wishes-- hell, I often want to do things that my friends ask me to do, because, well, they're my friends and I want to help them out. I don't do it because I feel I have to, though. It's my own choice.

It's like those people who call themselves feminists, but insult women who choose to stay at home and raise children. Ultimately, I have no problem with women staying home and raising children... as long as they do it because they want to, not because they feel it's "their place;" my problem is with assigned gender roles that people must fulfill, even if it makes them unhappy to do so.

Now, I personally find it an attractive trait for a woman to not completely bow to the will of her SO, but that's a personal preference-- and not even an absolute one at that. I would like a woman just fine who wanted to submit (willingly, and not in the sense that I used it earlier) to me as long as the rest of her personality was one that I enjoyed-- after all, nobody is going to be a perfect match for me.

I apologize for not making this clearer before, but I was trying to rush to post before running off to my next class. I should have waited until afterwards so I'd have time to elaborate more.

Oh I guess it must be completely unrelated then. Cuz you say so.

I didn't say it was "completely unrelated." Frankly, I don't think it's possible for us to know the relationship there, since the muddle of gender power imbalance gets in the way.


Nice ad hominem... it's amazing how much of that is in this thread. Maybe I should just give up and start insulting your mother, that seems to be the thing to do.

So when you made an assertion about how "men" are, you did not include yourself under that heading?


That's nice. In general men are not "picky."

Again, that may be your experience, but it has not been mine.



Woo! One strawman burnt. Congrats.

It's called hyperbole, dear.


More ad hominem.

Again, let's review:

You sarcastically remarked, "Yes, because the male human is a truly discerning and demanding creature, accepting only a woman at her best!"

Are you a male human? If so, why on Earth would it be "ad hominem" for me to assume that your statement about "male humans" would apply to yourself?


As far as my point is concerned, whether it's because of a "social order" or "inherent" is irrelevant. It is there, and I'm pointing it out.

Not really, no. Your point was that males aren't picky about who they fuck. I pointed out that 1) this isn't true, and 2) even if it were true that men are willing to have sex with a wider range of "acceptible specimens," in our culture that could be due as much to the power imbalance between the sexes as it is a true reflection of how picky people are. In other words, maybe women really aren't more picky than men, it's just that they are more restricted in how they express their sexuality and thus they don't act on their impulses as often as men do.


You don't like it cuz you're on some feminist tangent

So directly addressing your points qualifies as a tangent now...interesting...


and hearing that women have anything easier at all cramps your style, but that's your problem and not mine.
Given that my posts in this thread directly refute this blatant lie on your part, I'll content myself with a smug feminazi cackle at your pitiful attempt to deflect attention from the fact that you got busted.

Wellllll....what if a woman says that SHE is submissive and that she likes obeying her man? Does that make you necrotic in your guts too?
It pisses me off when ANYBODY, male or female, insists that they believe they should submit/dominate because of their gender.

If you, personally, like being submissive, fine. Own that choice. Don't say, "Oh, I like submitting because I'm a woman, tee hee!" Don't say, "I'm a man, so I like to be dominant, grrr!" That's just cowardly crap.

And for pity's sake don't bullshit around and try to claim that all persons who share your gender will also share your desire to submit/dominate. That's as stupid as claiming that all people of your ethnicity like to submit/dominate.

It pisses me off when ANYBODY, male or female, insists that they believe they should submit/dominate because of their gender.

If you, personally, like being submissive, fine. Own that choice. Don't say, "Oh, I like submitting because I'm a woman, tee hee!" Don't say, "I'm a man, so I like to be dominant, grrr!" That's just cowardly crap.

And for pity's sake don't bullshit around and try to claim that all persons who share your gender will also share your desire to submit/dominate. That's as stupid as claiming that all people of your ethnicity like to submit/dominate.Hmmm, perhaps why I quite deliberately said "if A woman says SHE is submissive and that SHE likes to obey HER man". If a woman said that because she likes to be submissive, all women should, or that all women are naturally submissive, I'd be tempted to slug her.

I'm assuming you understand the above and were simply adding your voice in agreement, rather than suggesting I've done what you are railing about.:P

Hmmm, perhaps why I quite deliberately said "if A woman says SHE is submissive and that SHE likes to obey HER man". If a woman said that because she likes to be submissive, all women should, or that all women are naturally submissive, I'd be tempted to slug her.

I'm assuming you understand the above and were simply adding your voice in agreement, rather than suggesting I've done what you are railing about.:P


Yep, the problem is when you think your personal choices are a common natural trait in your gender for whatever reason, be it religious or otherwise.


But hey, if you like it when your guy tells you what to do, and if that gets your rocks off in bed, hey, whatever makes you happy.

Yep, the problem is when you think your personal choices are a common natural trait in your gender for whatever reason, be it religious or otherwise.


But hey, if you like it when your guy tells you what to do, and if that gets your rocks off in bed, hey, whatever makes you happy.

Nice thing is, I like Dommes too...something about a woman with a whip...

Nice thing is, I like Dommes too...something about a woman with a whip...

Ok, now youre just trying to get Neo Art over here :p


Meh, my fiance likes to be submissive in the sack, cant say I mind. She always makes the joke though whenever I tell her to do something (occasionally to get a rise out of her Ill tell her to go make me a sandwitch) that she doesnt have to listen to me cause we're clothed. :p

Ok, now youre just trying to get Neo Art over here :p Na, I already know where he is. And Sumamba Buwhan's wife is an amazing Domme:)

Hmmm, perhaps why I quite deliberately said "if A woman says SHE is submissive and that SHE likes to obey HER man". If a woman said that because she likes to be submissive, all women should, or that all women are naturally submissive, I'd be tempted to slug her.

I'm assuming you understand the above and were simply adding your voice in agreement, rather than suggesting I've done what you are railing about.:P
Absolutely! I know you, of all people, comprehend the difference. If only all forum-goers could be so sane...

Absolutely! I know you, of all people, comprehend the difference. If only all forum-goers could be so sane...

NSG without the crazies? What would be the point? :confused:

Nice ad hominem... it's amazing how much of that is in this thread. Maybe I should just give up and start insulting your mother, that seems to be the thing to do.

That's nice. In general men are not "picky."


I'm not sure you gwet to claim ad hominem when you make an unsupportable generalisation like that, and evidence is suggested that would illuminate your proposal as wrong, and THAT is what incriminates you as being solitary in your 'standards', rather than merely one of the majority.

I don't know - I guess it depends how you discern 'picky'. You might not agree with what I find attractive - so you might not think me 'un-picky'... you might think your 'taste' better than mine, or the inverse might be true.

I'm picky. I've never been short of offers, and I've accepted far, far, far less of them than I've received. I don't buy into your 'Me man, me must fuck' stereotype.

A man can write his name in the snow with his pee!

Men win!

A man can write his name in the snow with his pee!

Men win!

Google Super pii pii brothers and you'll see we're catching up :D

A man can write his name in the snow with his pee!

Men win!
I wouldn't want to try writing my name in the snow (seeing as how I'd have to take my pants way down and that could be very cold), but I could write my name in the sand or something if it were warm enough that I wouldn't freeze my bits off.

Well, okay, I could probably only write my initials. But that's because my parents gave me a freakishly long name, and I don't think my bladder could keep up with it.

Google Super pii pii brothers and you'll see we're catching up :D

I'm afraid. The last time I did something like that it was entitled "tubguy".

Edit: So I looked it up anyways, and all I have to say is this:
Get back in the kitchen, cooking mama!

I voted women, b/c they have a longer average lifespan, b/c they're less prone to stress related diseases, so on average they must have less stressful lives.

<snip>
Not all of it. Pictures, recovered tools, structures and other artifacts can say a lot for history as well. We only happen to know the names of the peoples that actually wrote things down.
I see, so when people's actual words go against the argument you want to make, you opt to reject the contemporary written records and instead make up stories of your own based the stuff they owned. Yeah, that's convincing.

Second of all, a lot *is* based on our estimation- for all the Tacituses (Tacitii? *shrugs*), Thucydideses, Herodotuses and Edward Gibbonses (all males, by the way, which shows you how they viewed history) we have, there are thousands of documents that say innocuous things like "Harry went to the store today", "the town of Pisa's tax record", and "I'm having a 'Christian' problem" that scream for interpretation and someone to put it all together.
Is it your contention that an ancient Greek trash midden full of shopping lists and payroll notes scribbled on pot shards is the proof you need to support an assertion that people in older cultures did not have a concept of inequality in gender roles? Are you attempting to argue that the fact that not everything people wrote down had to do with gender equality issues is proof that there were no such issues? And these random personal notes and records that are not on topic cancel out any effect of the existence of writers who did address address the topic... how, exactly?

And what does the fact that most published writers of olden times were men have to do with anything?

Considering it hasn't been until the last twenty or so years that women have entered that field (as well as the field of archeology), (emphasis added)
You are not seriously suggesting that women did not enter the fields of history, archeology, philosophy, social commentary, politics or the law until the 1980s, are you? Because if you were, then you'd be grossly, obviously, laughably, ridiculously wrong.

it should be no surprise the bulk of the history you're reading centres almost exclusively on the male. Doesn't mean that the interpretations they provide are completely incorrect but it is something to remember. How much the archeologists/historians of the past discarded (including, say, a philosophical treatise written by a Roman woman) and how much history might need "revisiting" is an open question, but the fact of the matter is that it shouldn't surprise you that the bulk of our history books favour men, as it is a man that wrote those books.
So it is your contention that, since men wrote the histories in their own favor, then every time anyone wrote anything about women being oppressed or otherwise treated unfairly by the law or their society, that was just a load of shit? Those men were making up a false criticism of the power structure that favored them for...what reason, precisely?

And are you further suggesting that, if only we could hear from the women, we'd know they didn't feel oppressed at all? And you are basing that on the fact that you have not heard from the women?

Gosh, too bad, we actually have heard from the women, throughout history. At the end of this post I will put some links.

You'll have to provide me some sources, because I've never seen an ancient writer approach the topic quite the way we do. Sounds to me like it's someone reading Socrates/Plato/Cicero/etc., evaluated it based on their own morals and said "that's the way it was"; which is of course applying 2008 morals on people who lived between the 5th century BC and the 1st century A.D.
Well, considering that you seem to be laboring under the insane notion that women didn't have academic, legal, political, or literary careers until 20 years ago, I'm not sure that providing you with sources will do any good, but look to the end of this post.

I mean, the idea of "what constitutes oppression" has changed within the last 50 years (heck, even within the last ten)...I doubt it's any different for times 2,000 years before and won't be 2,000 years from now.
No, it has not changed within the last 10 years, nor the last 50 years. The idea of what constitutes oppression has not changed significantly since the revolutions of the 18th century. That's over 200 years ago, not 50.

If you claim that ideas of what constitutes oppression have changed so recently, then it is your turn to provide sources, because I want to see some documents from the last 50 years that will show me differences between "oppression" 50 years ago and "oppression" now.

Don't get me wrong- I wouldn't disagree that looking at Rome or Christendom from our vantage point they were oppressive; but that would mean applying a value system on a people that didn't recognize that system. You can't- for example- conclude that the Ottomans oppressed the Serbs because they took one out of five of their young boys for the Janissaries when parents wound up begging for their children to be taken (http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Janissaries), especially after realizing the "taken children" led a much better life (http://www.srpska-mreza.com/bookstore/kosovo/kosovo3.htm). We'd think it's cruel, but I doubt those people actually did.
That's the kind of argument that one can make if one cherrypicks one's evidence. For instance, if you decide that the existence of some people who were okay with a certain system proves your assertion that said system was not oppressive in a certain way, and if you further decide to simply ignore any evidence that other people were not so okay with it, then yes, it is possible to claim that because some Serbs thought it was better to give their kids a chance of surviving in the army rather than a certainty of starving at home, that means that people did not feel oppressed by Ottoman rule. Of course, there are quite a lot of sources you would have to ignore to carry that generalization through.

Remember, you said that before modern times, oppression of women was not an issue because of different cultural expectations. THAT is a generalization. I countered it by pointing out that there are plenty of specific examples of people in older cultures claiming that women were being oppressed or treated unfairly/unjustly, by the standards of their own times. I was using specific examples to undermine your generalization.

Now you seem to be trying to suggest that I made some kind of generalization that you can undermine with specific examples. But of course, I never made any generalization. You did.


I wouldn't doubt such questioning existed- *all* societies question themselves. However, "questioning" and "looking at the issue the same way we did" are not the same thing.
Bullshit, in two ways.

First, no shit they didn't look at it the same way we do. They didn't look at health/sickness or death the same way we do, either, but that doesn't mean they didn't mind dying of plagues and infections. Oppression/unjust treatment existed if the people of the time said it did. Not if I read their laundry lists and "interpret" them as oppressive. When people who lived in the time say there was oppression, I take that as good evidence that there was oppression.

Second, what do you mean precisely by your constant harping on "the same way we did"? Are you going to dismiss any social criticism that doesn't look like it was written Simone de Beauvoir or Gloria Steinem? I hope not, because that would be you applying the standards of the modern world to other, older cultures, which would invalidate your argument, according to your own rules.

Which is not my issue. I would agree that the one constant in every society we know (keep that in mind- we can only deal with "what we know"- there's so many others- major and minor- we know very little about and/or are just waiting to be discovered)
Don Rumsfeld, is that you? Known knowns, unknown knowns, known unknowns, etc, etc, etc...

is the idea of "equality" and "fairness" but they all looked at it far differently than we did.
How do you know?

So, when male and female writers of the times said things like "men and women should be treated the same," you think that did not mean that they thought women and men should get the same treatment in society?

Therefore, it's wrong to assess those cultures based on our ideas because they didn't use them at all.
How do you know?

And so, when writers of those cultures used words like "equal," "same," "fair," and "justice," you think that meant something significantly different from what they mean now? Tell me, what precisely do you think they mean now? Also, where do you think we got our notions of such things in the first place?

In fact, I think it's wrong to pass a "moral judgment" on anything in history based on this idea, since it inevitably leads to the incorrect imposition of our morals on a society that didn't recognize them.
Who said anything about passing a "moral judgment"? I'm talking about simple, plain vanilla facts, with no moral tinge whatsoever. People throughout history have complained of conditions that they themselves described as "inequality" and "injustice" between the sexes. Nations throughout history have written and rewritten laws that affected the sexes in various ways and were met with various responses by their populations. This is the historic record -- a collection of facts. You claimed, in a vague and general way, that older cultures did not have a notion of oppression against women. This is patently false because there are plenty of records of people in various older cultures complaining about gender roles, about changes to gender roles, about failure or success in changing gender roles, etc. It does not matter if the specific conditions that constituted "oppression," "inequality" or "injustice" were different from our own standards for specific conditions. You cannot say that people did not have a sense of the issue, if they themselves wrote about the issue. You cannot say that women did not consider their social status to be unjust, if they themselves called it unjust.

Which should be an indicator to you that not every society looked at women the same way (and definitely not the way we do).
No shit, Sherlock. When did I ever say they did?

Again, I still doubt the equality they're looking for is the same kind of equality we look for.
Irrelevant.

Also incorrect.

Also, unsupported by facts. You have some notion of what people in ancient worlds wanted out of life, yet you present no facts in support of your assertions. You keep using words like "I doubt," "estimation," interpretation," yet you make no effort to look up actual facts that you can know, not just make guesses about.

At this stage, I don't even know you're even addressing what I wrote. I don't contend to the idea that peoples never thought they were oppressed, just how they viewed what oppression was.
Who cares about that? The point is that people of older cultures expressed dissatisfaction with social gender roles. They used words and expressed concepts like "inequality," "injustice," "unfairness." What part of this is so hard for you to wrap your brain around? It doesn't matter what changes would have satisfied them. All that matters is that they had the debate, so your original assertion that women in older cultures were satisfied with their place in society (I remind you of your own original comments about feudal Europe) is just plain false.

For what it's worth, it shouldn't be surprising that you can read thoughts we hold today in Western European writers- including the Classical authors like Plato and Cicero- since our society is built upon those cultures. However, many of those writers- all of whom are male (which would figure into any chauvinistic thoughts you come across)- were high society folks who aren't exactly speaking for the commoners and are hardly indicative of what the populace truly thought. Who knows if the commoners truly believed what Suetonius or Martin of Opava (the first person to write about "Pope Joan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Joan)") wrote or if they too thought they were "uppity hacks" who hadn't a clue what they were talking about. Today we know of all kinds of writers and commentators we don't agree with- the difference between us and the ancient Romans is that we can write about it. The ancient Roman commoner probably didn't so we don't really know what they truly thought.
Your problem here is that you are wrong on your facts. The writers were NOT universally male, nor universally rich, nor universally anything. If you were as well read as you seem to be trying to portray yourself, you would know that. You would also know that radical social critics being dismissed as "uppity hacks" by the common mainstream is nothing new, either. If that is the criteria by which you "prove" that there was no such thing as dissatisfaction with traditional gender roles, then I suppose there is no such thing as dissatisfaction with gender roles today either, since people make fun of and dismiss feminism and feminists writers today, too.

Worse by whose standards? Yours or theirs?
Theirs.

I may read about an older culture and think to myself that, by my own standards, I would not want to live there, but if the writers from that culture said they liked it fine, I'm not going to say, no, no, they really hated it.

On the other hand, if they say they were dissatisfied and wanted change, that will likely lead me to conclude that they were dissatisfied and wanted change. I might not think the changes they wanted were very enlightened by my own standards, but that is beside the point.

Seems to me you're doing a couple of things:

-No. 1, you're reading history, looking at what those peoples were doing and evaluating it as if they were doing it in 2008. They were not. You *have* to keep things in context.

-No. 2, you seem to be basing a lot of your thoughts on Western European history and thinking Western European history (and worldviews) apply to everyone. They don't. I can certainly tell you that African/Australian/Native American/Asian/etc. cultures and histories developed far differently than the Europeans did (well, at least until the Europeans showed up).

-No. 3, you assume the study of history is "finished". It's not. I can assure you all the data isn't collected nor is the interpretation of everything we do know "binding". I know it's not a guarantee, but I'm certain one day we're going to find that "great matriarchal society" or that "great female philosopher", especially considering Western historians finally got around to admitting that Great Zimbabwe (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great Zimbabwe) was actually built by Africans and that the Greeks at least fantasized about a great matriarchal society (the Amazons). Maybe then we can put away the silly idea that "the white man oppressed everyone worldwide and now we're fighting back" because it's just not true.
You seem to be doing just two things:

1) Dismissing any dissenting arguments out of hand, rather than analyzing them; and

2) Ignoring or cherrypicking all offered evidence, both evidence from older cultures about what went on in those cultures AND the truth about what I have been saying as evidenced by what I actually said.

In short, I never once stated that peoples never felt oppressed or societies never questioned their "roles"- my only contention is the assumption that our view of oppression applied to everyone throughout history and it doesn't. We don't *have* the views of the common Roman, the common medieval, the common Pole (heck, most likely, even the common Victorian-era Briton) because the only ones who wrote were the elites (who are of course going to rail on their "inferiors"- male or female). The fact of the matter is our version of oppression (and equality, for that matter) had its roots in the 19th century (influenced by the writers of the 17th and 18th centuries, yes, but those ideas certainly weren't mainstream ones- it's in the 19th and 20th centuries when it did), because only then were the laws of the nation truly conflicting with the society the countries wanted.
And my contention is that none of that matters (nor is it all correct, just to mention it again). All that matters is that people felt oppressed and questioned their "roles." The specifics of what made them feel oppressed or how they questioned the status quo are irrelevant. "Oppression" is felt by people when they are forced to comply with a standard that is disadvantageous for them. That is the constant throughout history, regardless of changing specifics. Therefore, although the specific conditions are different, it is simply not true to say that the idea of oppression against women is a modern invention imposed upon older societies by modern thinkers commiting historical revisionism, or that when older writers talked about women's rights in their society, they were not really talking about women's rights in their society.

Also, I am not impressed by your harping all we don't know about the poor silent majority of historical commoners because it shows that your entire argument is dependent upon ignorance. You need to use a void of lack of information on which to float your opinions-dressed-up-as-facts. When pointed towards actual historical sources that undermine your assertions, you point instead to everything you do not know and claim it as the foundation for your position.

In other words, your entire argument boils down to, "Since we don't know what these particular people had to say about it, I'm going to just assume they would have agreed with me."

I am arguing on the basis of what we DO know, and what we do know is that gender roles have been a socio-political issue for several thousands of years, your quibbling notwithstanding.

The bottom line for me is this:

You presented a complicated argument that was based on nothing but speculations, suppositions, and generalizations. You make assertions of fact that are clearly and obviously wrong (really, "20 or so years"?). Even when you post a source, you do not refer specifically to it, but just post it and then go on with your "doubts" and "estimations" about what you think might have happened -- in the same posts in which you criticize people for basing arguments on what they think may have happened. When reminded that you have primary sources to refer to, you reject those and choose instead to "interpret" random bits and pieces that have nothing to do with the topic.

All this taken together reinforces my conclusion that you are just blowing smoke up our asses here.

Now, as promised, here is a selection of things you may want to look into, if you'd like to make an argument that looks like you know what you're talking about:

http://search.eb.com/women/article-9343946
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/re/women.htm
http://www.stoa.org/diotima/anthology/wlgr/wlgr-philosophers.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ancient_Greek_women_philosophers (just a list for starting further reading)
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/asbook-law.html (scroll through the list for references to women and click those links)

That should get you started. Unfortunately, it is difficult to find primary source documents online, and most of the least biased links I found today are actually just links to course descriptions that say what sources will be read in the course but do not quote from them. But if you are actually interested, this should keep you busy for a while.

A man can write his name in the snow with his pee!

Men win!

Women can pee on you, men.

Women win!

Women can pee on you, men.

Women win!

If we arc it right, we can hit you from across the room.

Women can pee on you, men.

Women win!

Men can write their names with pee on snow-covered women.
Men still win.
;)

If we arc it right, we can hit you from across the room.

What? Are you now claiming that you have a fire hose for a penis?:rolleyes:

Men can write their names with pee on snow-covered women.
Men still win.
;)

We women own that penis.

Women still win!:D

We women own that penis.

Women still win!:D

Drat, foiled again...
:(

Drat, foiled again...
:(

So it seems.:D

We women own that penis.

Women still win!:D

Only if you're willing to give [good] head.

What? Are you now claiming that you have a fire hose for a penis?:rolleyes:

Close enough.

Only if you're willing to give [good] head.



Close enough.

To you? Nope. I don´t want to catch some VD.:mp5:

I don´t think so...:rolleyes:

To you? Nope. I don´t want to catch some VD.:mp5:

I don´t think so...:rolleyes:

It's all good, I have flavored condoms.

Also, it's huge.

It's all good, I have flavored condoms.

Also, it's huge.

Put down the magnifying glass Rhyno...
:D

It's all good, I have flavored condoms.

Also, it's huge.

:rolleyes:
Still, you did not deny about having a VD.;)

Huge? You´re American, right? Hahahahahahaha, huge doesn´t truly describe you! More like, minuscule...:D

J/K.

Who has it easier? I'm tempted to say 'men, but by less than they used to'.

Men still earn more on average (atlhough rarely within the same job - the issue now is mostly women and men being in different fields, and the female-dominated industries paying less), and hold most power inasmuchas a majority of political representatives are men. However, equality of opportunity has mostly been obtained - the issue now is that the old inequality of opportunity is defended in such a way that it is hard for any legislation to penetrate it. The gender division of labour is a similar example.

Women have succeeded in closing the gender gap, but most of the particularly successful exponents have done so by playing a 'man's game', epitomised here in the UK by Thatcher. And I would sooner see both genders' natural differences - and only their natural differences, as opposed to constructed differences - accepted for what they are, knowing of course that they are generally mere tendencies.

Who has it easier? I'm tempted to say 'men, but by less than they used to'.

Men still earn more on average (atlhough rarely within the same job - the issue now is mostly women and men being in different fields, and the female-dominated industries paying less), and hold most power inasmuchas a majority of political representatives are men. However, equality of opportunity has mostly been obtained - the issue now is that the old inequality of opportunity is defended in such a way that it is hard for any legislation to penetrate it. The gender division of labour is a similar example.

Women have succeeded in closing the gender gap, but most of the particularly successful exponents have done so by playing a 'man's game', epitomised here in the UK by Thatcher. And I would sooner see both genders' natural differences - and only their natural differences, as opposed to constructed differences - accepted for what they are, knowing of course that they are generally mere tendencies.

Good point.

Put down the magnifying glass Rhyno...
:D

No, Dyakovo, I will not stop sticking a magnifying glass in your mother's cootch.

:rolleyes:
Still, you did not deny about having a VD.;)

Beware of the syphilis.

And girls named Michelle.

Huge? You´re American, right? Hahahahahahaha, huge doesn´t truly describe you! More like, minuscule...:D

J/K.

You apparently have never been to Texas.

No, it isn't. It's an observation and it's really not rocket science.

And you're ad homineming AGAIN. Are you aware of the concept of a logical fallacy? It's getting tiresome.

...

Now that's a strawman, since "they" clearly means me.

Since when did I say "I'm referring to you"? I have come across several posts online that state the exact same thing you did- two of them have even been in this thread and here's another posting (http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt22290.html) that states the same thing you did. My response to them is the same thing I said to you.

You know, it seems to me like you're just trying to wave "logical fallacies" in my face just so you don't have to actually address what I wrote. You should also be aware that all your "evidence" is anecdotal evidence and you should know that's a fallacy as well. I'm going to join the chorus and start asking you to provide sources that women do, in fact, have it easier than men in finding love and sex.

I seriously doubt it.

Actually I see how it is. YOU thought you were a "representative of all manhood" and that because YOU couldn't get laid, that women had it easier. And now because you see I have the same conclusion you assume I had your same, flawed reasoning. So you're arguing against that reasoning, instead of like, reading anything I write.

Wow. So who's ad homineming who now? Since when did I ever say any of that? Do I need to repost "the Nice Guy Rant" I provided earlier (because that clearly displays the idea of "women have it in for us men" is something many guys think of)?

I have stated many times before that *I* blame myself. You're sticking an awful lot of words in my mouth that I never said.

Oh, well "you thought about it." That's compelling there.

You started to observe?

I'm naturally observant. Of course, the observations don't mean much because neither of us can actually verify what the other saw.

I will provide this though:

http://lovesagame.com/a-womans-guide-on-approaching-men/
http://www.ehow.com/how_2136551_approach-a-man.html
http://www.alovelinksplus.com/advice/dr_dennis_neder/how-women-can-approach-men.htm

You tell me why someone would go through the trouble of writing all that if- as you stated- that the woman doesn't have to worry about men approaching her because the man's going to do that for her.

Unless she's truly substandard or there is an unusual lack of males where she goes, this task will be considerably simpler than the man's. I note the man will be doing the same task anyway, in addition to having to make the effort. This alone means women do in fact have it easier.

I don't take every woman I see and I sincerely hope you don't. You really do make it sound like men have incredibly low standards which is quite the generalization- and certainly not one *I* apply to myself.

inheritance (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/inheritance)
money managers (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/moneymanager.asp)

Call me out all you like, but you're just flailing helplessly in my crucible of common sense now.

I do believe I said before that "having a lot of money" and "being wealthy" are not the same things. "Being wealthy" means that you have a lot of money and can keep that large sum of money for a long period of time. I'm sorry, but that takes work.

I can agree with much of this.
I raised my objection primarily because when people say stuff like 'one person wasn't supplying the other with the things they needed', the 'things' referred to is typically some kind of sex. There are plenty of people who justify cheating because the partner at home isn't putting out as often enough (or in a specific enough manner). While I didn't assume that you personally meant it, I wanted to bring the objection up anyway.

Fair enough; although I would also say that "not having a good sex life" is a pretty big problem for a relationship since sex figures so prominently in them- well, most of them anyway.

I personally find it to be true that average men generally have to put in a bit more effort to get sex than do average women (though I don't think that it's constructive to just blame women or what not. I know I'm not good with women and that it's my own damn fault, so instead of complaining I'm working on it.), but that, honestly, we men are largely to blame for that with our patriarchal society. But that same culture also seems to make it harder for women, upon getting sex, to have satisfying sex. So I guess that balances it out.

I'll say to you what I've been saying to Greater Trostia- the amount of effort isn't disproportionate, no matter how you look at it. If you go by the maxim that "the man approaches the woman" bear in mind that the man surely isn't going to approach a woman he considers unattractive, so the woman has to work to be attractive enough to get approached. In that case, as much as the man is pressured to approach the woman the right way the woman is under pressure to be attractive, more so than the man (since the thought is always "the woman cares more about personality than appearance". Of course, I do think there is pressure on the man to look his best as well as the woman and there are as many women as there are men who actually do the approaching, so the struggles to find a relationship are equal for both.

I do applaud you for realizing it's a problem you've got to fix instead of blaming the women that reject you because that will lead to a real solution. Now all that's left is telling the scores of other guys (http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts956550.aspx) the same thing.

For someone who constantly complains about logical fallacies, you are amazing good at deflecting requests for sources.

But you aren't a teflon man GT, source up. Your 'observations' are not good enough to state the above bolded as unquestionable fact.

^ I second this.

I'm picky. I've never been short of offers, and I've accepted far, far, far less of them than I've received. I don't buy into your 'Me man, me must fuck' stereotype.

LOL. I like the caveman analogy there.

I do admit to having a time when I *did* accept any girl who opened her arms to me (before I had my relationship). That led me to seeing a girl for nearly two years (but only good for six months) that I wound up not liking, only because I was so desperate to "have that relationship" that I left my discernment at the door. Now that I've had that relationship I realized I ought to be more picky, and I am. I've been single for two and a half years and it's a bit longer than I had hoped, but if waiting means finding a girl I'll be happy with, it doesn't matter how long it takes.

Well, okay, I could probably only write my initials. But that's because my parents gave me a freakishly long name, and I don't think my bladder could keep up with it.

Who said you had to do it in one go? If you've got enough time (and the beach isn't particularly windy or busy) you could certainly do it in a couple of trips.

*shrugs* Just a thought...

<snip>

I think my argument is being misunderstood (my mistake). I'm going to try to re-phrase it.

The original commenter stated that "women have been oppressed throughout history". Usually whenever I see that comment, it's based on a reading of history, seeing every previous society mentioned using a legal/social system that runs counter to the way we do things, and believe that "it's only now that we're making things right".
That implies every previous society ran under the same moral code that we do and you and I both know that's incorrect. It's basically an extension of the "Dead white men" myth, where the most anyone actually learns about history are "dead white men (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_white_men)" and concludes that's all there was, which is a gross misrepresentation of history. The main reason for that is the fact that, for much of the 20th century, the bulk of historical academia (and those ultimately responsible for our textbooks) were men (according to this (http://www.historians.org/Perspectives/Issues/2002/0204/0204fig1.htm), the amount of women with PhD's didn't hit 30% until 1983...I've tried finding a graph that goes beyond 1979 but I can't find it, although seeing the steady climb in that graph leads me to believe the number wasn't higher before 1979). I had no doubt there were powerful minorities throughout history- they just don't receive the kind of attention in schools that their white male counterparts did (at least that's the way it was when I was in high school...I suspect things have changed now). There's nothing wrong with holding the opinion "no previous society treated minorities the way we do, and our way is better", just understand it's not history, because history makes no sweeping generalizations (or moral judgments- it's only goal is to see "how we got here").

That is what I was contesting. I never once suggested that "oppression is only a recent phenomenon" (which is how I'm understaning that you see my point as)- I was merely trying to point out how the modern idea of oppression really took hold in our society. I'm fully aware oppression happened throughout history.

(By the way, you wanted an example of how oppression changed within the past ten years- look at gay marriage. Ten years ago- at least in Canada, I should say- no one really thought the absence of it was oppression. It might have been if you pointed it out to them but the concept didn't appear until 2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_same-sex_marriage#2001))

Moving along, if you want to make the case that "women have been oppressed throughout history" you have to find every civilization that had existed throughout history, see how they treated women, see how the women felt about their treatment and if in every case the mainstream thought amongst women is that things are deplorable then you'd have a case. That's just notpossible nor is it correct- the existence of Zenobia and Boudicca, as well as the queens found on the annals of the Assyrians and on the Sumerian king list (I'd list "matriarchal societies" as well but it's a contentious topic, although it's my belief they existed) shows that not *every* society in history viewed women as "second-class". Doesn't mean that oppression "never happened" (I never once said that)- it just means that the idea that "women have been oppressed throughout history" cannot be applied to every society that ever existed.

Now, getting to the question of Western Europe (because that is something I'd like to discuss), I think a case could be made that women were second-class for much of their history- I wouldn't agree with it. Much of the case rests on the idea that it is "wrong" for the woman to be "in the home" (where they were held to be confined to) and there's no reason to automatically assume that to be the case. I'm going to quote one of the articles you provided me because it says "for most of recorded history, only isolated voices spoke out against the inferior status of women, presaging the arguments to come" (http://search.eb.com/women/article-216005). Well, if there weren't a lot of uprisings and voices of discontent it means one of two things- we haven't gotten around to finding these ancient feminists (very possible) or the women were actually content with their status. Plus, the fact that there were powerful women in Greece and Rome (Cleopatra, Agrippina), female writers and philosophers and other prominent female figures suggests that the status of women certainly wasn't static.

It's also worth remembering that the modern idea of the nation (where everyone within a set border was viewed equally under the law) didn't exist until the 19th century (at least in practice), so the question of female oppression must be looked through those lens. "States" before the beginning of nationalism generally just meant "the extent the most powerful person in a given area is able to control militarily" and didn't tend to have a homogenous culture, legal system or heritage (even in the most centralized of systems). Everyone identified by who they "were" (as in a job or religion), and the laws (or a facsimile thereof- many times, especially in Medieval Europe, laws were "implied" based on customs or past precedent and weren't actually written down) reflected that in confining people to their "roles". One could look at that and call that "oppression" but I think that goes too far- the system lasted for almost 500 years so it had to have worked without an inordinate amount of discontent. Looking at the question of women, it's not like they couldnt attain positions power- ther's Margaret I of Denmark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_I_of_Denmark) for one and she was quite the feisty one; and there's nothing within the Adoptive Emperor stage of Rome to suggest an "Augusta" couldn't have been selected (considering that the Emperors *were* the law), so the cards weren't always stacked in favour of the man.

Finally, I doubt if someone in 3008 would look at us today and think we've changed a lot since 1008. Even though legally we've stated that men and women are equal, many "positions of power" (governments, CEO's) are still held by men (especially in the most important spheres such as the role of U.S. president, although that might change come November), men make more money than women do, and many of the old ideas of gender roles (such as the man doing the "heavy work" and the woman "taking care of the house") still live on if only as stereotypes. So I have to openly wonder if things really "are" better today, or if we're just "repackaging" the same old ideas.

<snip>

I think my argument is being misunderstood (my mistake). I'm going to try to re-phrase it.

The original commenter stated that "women have been oppressed throughout history". Usually whenever I see that comment, it's based on ... <snip>
In other words, your argument was based on an assumption about what the other person meant, not on actual knowledge. And you made no effort to get that knowledge by asking them what they meant by the term you had issues with. Instead, you just went ahead with a long argument about history that was full of factual errors and unfounded speculations about things nobody knows and how you imagine that they would support your view if they were known, or even existed.

And here you "clarify" your position by posting yet more speculations, doubts, interpretations, and assumptions. Well, thank you for the effort, but, really, your position did not need "clarification." It has been clear from the start that you don't know what you're talking about.

<snip>

Finally, I doubt if someone in 3008 would look at us today and think we've changed a lot since 1008. ... <snip>
Ah, good move. Wild, vague speculation about the future is always safer than wild, vague speculation about the past because, unlike the past, the future doesn't exist, so there is no way someone can prove your "doubts" to be utter bull.

If you're going to talk nonsense and fantasy, definitely talk it about tomorrow, not yesterday.

Now that we have established that you don't actually know anything about history, but merely doubt and estimate things, I'm going to go back to enjoying the "who can do more things with their pee" debate, which is arguably far more on topic.

Now, as promised, here is a selection of things you may want to look into, if you'd like to make an argument that looks like you know what you're talking about:

http://search.eb.com/women/article-9343946
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/re/women.htm
http://www.stoa.org/diotima/anthology/wlgr/wlgr-philosophers.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ancient_Greek_women_philosophers (just a list for starting further reading)
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/asbook-law.html (scroll through the list for references to women and click those links)

That should get you started. Unfortunately, it is difficult to find primary source documents online, and most of the least biased links I found today are actually just links to course descriptions that say what sources will be read in the course but do not quote from them. But if you are actually interested, this should keep you busy for a while.The Olympe de Gouges (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympe_de_Gouges) story is a great example of what you're talking about.

Fair enough; although I would also say that "not having a good sex life" is a pretty big problem for a relationship since sex figures so prominently in them- well, most of them anyway.Perhaps, but I'm unaware of it being common for people in relationships to promise to fulfill each other's sexual needs at all times.
It's certainly not in standard marriage vows.

Since when did I say "I'm referring to you"?

I understand context just fine.

I have come across several posts online that state the exact same thing you did- two of them have even been in this thread and here's another posting (http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt22290.html) that states the same thing you did.

If you think I've ever mentioned jack shit about "aspies" no wonder you're so confused.

My response to them is the same thing I said to you.

Maybe you should quit with the form responses then, since they don't seem to be successfully applying.

You know, it seems to me like you're just trying to wave "logical fallacies" in my face just so you don't have to actually address what I wrote.

Ah yes. You know, I actually invented the concept of the logical fallacy, just so I wouldn't "have to" respond to your tiresome, irrelevant and condescending rants. It certainly isn't that you actually make logical fallacies, that couldn't be why i'm pointing them out!

You should also be aware that all your "evidence" is anecdotal evidence and you should know that's a fallacy as well.

My "evidence" is "observation," and if that's suddenly not allowed then your whole rants would clearly also not be.

I'm going to join the chorus and start asking you to provide sources that women do, in fact, have it easier than men in finding love and sex.

God gave you two eyes. Use them.

Wow. So who's ad homineming who now?

Oh it's still you. My argument is not based on personal attacks on you.

Since when did I ever say any of that? Do I need to repost "the Nice Guy Rant" I provided earlier (because that clearly displays the idea of "women have it in for us men" is something many guys think of)?

I have stated many times before that *I* blame myself.

You just answered your own question. I am doing you the favor of making assumptions about you like you have about me. And by your own admission these assumptions are correct. Not that I'm looking to place "blame" but then it was you who decided any of this was a "problem" too. It simply is the way it is.

I'm naturally observant.

I doubt it. You can't really seem to observe simple written text, for example.

I will provide this though:

http://lovesagame.com/a-womans-guide-on-approaching-men/
http://www.ehow.com/how_2136551_approach-a-man.html
http://www.alovelinksplus.com/advice/dr_dennis_neder/how-women-can-approach-men.htm

You tell me why someone would go through the trouble of writing all that if- as you stated- that the woman doesn't have to worry about men approaching her because the man's going to do that for her.

I never said that "the woman doesn't have to worry about men approaching her."

Nor did I say that every woman would be constantly satisfied, sexually.

You people really need to learn what my argument actually is before you start pretending to address it.

I don't take every woman I see and I sincerely hope you don't. You really do make it sound like men have incredibly low standards which is quite the generalization- and certainly not one *I* apply to myself.

As usual, you missed the point. Get back to me when you've had a chance to read this time.

I do believe I said before that "having a lot of money" and "being wealthy" are not the same things. "Being wealthy" means that you have a lot of money and can keep that large sum of money for a long period of time. I'm sorry, but that takes work.

I'm sorry, but one can hire money managers. Many people do. So, your point is once again neutralized.

Not to mention, your own personal definition of "wealthy" is complete bullshit made up merely to support your own failed arguments.

The Olympe de Gouges (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympe_de_Gouges) story is a great example of what you're talking about.

Excellent, thanks. :) My first link, from Encyclopedia Britannica online, mentions her in its long article, but this kind of detail is really good. If I had the time -- and felt like spending it on RomeW -- I would google many of the names listed in my links and try to find similar bios. Thanks again. :)

<snip>

First of all, I have a History Degree. Second of all, as I read your argument (correct me if I'm wrong) it's "he doesn't know female philosophers, therefore he doesn't know history". Knowing "random facts" isn't "knowing history"- it's using the historical method to find the useful facts so we can figure out how we got to where we are today. I'm not going to sit here and state I know what is "useful" and what isn't, but certainly I'm not going to know "everything". Not that the existence or non-existence of female philosophers figured much into my argument anyway- in fact, the existence of them just bolsters my own position.

Your position is based on an extreme generalization (and a gross violation of the rules of history) that not only uses arguments from silence (please tell me how much you can tell me about the status of women under (Gindibu the Arab (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gindibu) when only one recorded line about the Arabs of his time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Qarqar) is known) but has absolutely no basis in fact (and I provided facts, re-read what I said if you have to). You can try to deflect the argument and make it about myself but it still won't change the fact you've got to rectify those problems before your position even makes sense to me.

Of course, I don't even know that you know what I'm arguing since you keep mischaracterizing it. I decided to clarify my point because, as I read the discussion prior, I was going to respond to a lot of things I agreed with and it appeared to me that you were contesting a point I was not making. Now I'm just confused and it's getting frustrating. So I'm just going to flat out ask you what you think my point is because I don't know if I'm coming across clearly.

The Olympe de Gouges (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympe_de_Gouges) story is a great example of what you're talking about.

I admit, I shouldn't have written "all prior writers are male" (I do know better), but that doesn't really play much into what I was trying to say (in fact, the existence of female writers and philosophers just bolsters my own point because it showed women could do more than might have been thought). Viewing from the vantage point of "women have been oppressed for thousands of years" it would follow part of that would be seeing writers who viewed women in this way. I do know most- if not all- the best-known writers and philosophers in history are male (maybe it's changing now but when I was in high school my textbook never mentioned female writers), so whenever one sees a male look down on a female (I know St. Thomas Aquinas once equated women to "furniture") it can be because of a male-centred bias. To prove oppression you must prove there was actual discontent and not just a cultural leaning and reading that Encyclopedia Britannica article showed there isn't much evidence for discontent so discontent can't be claimed.

However, I know very well that there were "minorities" (in our sense of the word, anyway)- including women- who made a mark in history and I knew there had to be more- they're just not being emphasized in the classrooms. Their existence (and not all were "rebels"- many were rulers, writers and even the builders of great societies), however, should at least show that "minority oppression" certainly wasn't static, which *is* my case.

Perhaps, but I'm unaware of it being common for people in relationships to promise to fulfill each other's sexual needs at all times.
It's certainly not in standard marriage vows.

If sex is a part of the relationship then it ought to be talked about. The only reason why it isn't, I think, is because it carries with it a certain stigma towards it, and discussing it isn't the same thing as discussing where the cabinets ought to go. A guarantee of "good sex" might not be explicitly made but it's at least implied, because bad sex *can* ruin a relationship (otherwise, why do we have all those Cialis ads for one...).

First of all, I have a History Degree.

<snip a bunch of strawmen, putting your words into my mouth, deflections off the point, and other BS>
You should sue for a refund of your tuition.

*returns to following the pee debate*

Come on, guys. This is like arguing blacks have it easier than whites. The people with less power don't have it easier. Get real. Think. Use a little sense.

And if you're planning to argue women don't have less power- please don't be that stupid.

It's all good, I have flavored condoms.

Also, it's huge.

Anyone else notice that it's always the guys hung like a lightswitch that feel the need to trumpet the.... magnitude... or their 'achievement'?

You should sue for a refund of your tuition.

*returns to following the pee debate*

Glad we could be of service...

And if you're planning to argue women don't have less power- please don't be that stupid.

Women don't have less power.

Women don't have less power.

QFT

I'm not sure how to tell whether men or women have it worse. I'm inclined to say that "the poor" have it worse, but poverty isn't first and foremost a gender issue.

Really, how many of you would trade Michelle Obama's life for some rural white boy's in the West Virginia backwoods?

Women don't have less power.You, I believe, are just a smart-ass. Soviestan is that stupid. Say, how many Fortune 500 CEO's are female? Congress and Senate are what % female? Some people are smart-asses, some are dumb-asses.

Anyone else notice that it's always the guys hung like a lightswitch that feel the need to trumpet the.... magnitude... or their 'achievement'?

Is your name Michelle, and/or can you fit a man's cranium comfortably inside your vagina? If the answer is yes to either, you have no room to comment about any penis being too small.

If no, well, I happen to like my penis, and happen to think it's huge. Grand delusion, ODing on Enzyte, or actually a foot-long monster? I shall leave you in suspense.

Also, this (http://media.funlol.com/content/img/innovative-light-switch.jpg).

Besides, everyone knows the way you compensate for having a very tiny penis is to buy a very big SUV and/or sportscar.

I drive a minivan. Honestly, I have no idea what that says about the size of my penis. But fuck it all if minivans aren't the best cars ever.

Beware of the syphilis.

And girls named Michelle.



You apparently have never been to Texas.

Beware of the Rhyno. And idiots that assume they have big penises when it's not true.

Been to Texas? Oh yes, I have been to Texas. That's why I know you Texans just BS when it comes to yout members' sizes.;)

Come on, guys. This is like arguing blacks have it easier than whites. The people with less power don't have it easier. Get real. Think. Use a little sense.

And if you're planning to argue women don't have less power- please don't be that stupid.

QFT

Beware of the Rhyno. And idiots that assume they have big penises when it's not true.

Been to Texas? Oh yes, I have been to Texas. That's why I know you Texans just BS when it comes to yout members' sizes.;)

I'm not a Texan.

And you have no idea how large or small my penis is.

Man, this is gonna hurt...

No it isn't, because this is the Internet, and people are going to post idiocy with no repercussions.

<snip>

I'll say to you what I've been saying to Greater Trostia- the amount of effort isn't disproportionate, no matter how you look at it. If you go by the maxim that "the man approaches the woman" bear in mind that the man surely isn't going to approach a woman he considers unattractive, so the woman has to work to be attractive enough to get approached. In that case, as much as the man is pressured to approach the woman the right way the woman is under pressure to be attractive, more so than the man (since the thought is always "the woman cares more about personality than appearance". Of course, I do think there is pressure on the man to look his best as well as the woman and there are as many women as there are men who actually do the approaching, so the struggles to find a relationship are equal for both.

Ah, but all a woman really needs, I find, is to be mildly attractive, whereas a man has to be rather more attractive, even if the attraction stems more from his personality. (I also happen to think being physically attractive is a little bit easier than having an attractive personality, but that's very subjective.) I think that this is largely a result of our society-- it's more acceptable for men to have sex, so, because there is less of a "cost," they can settle for less benefit-- that is, somebody who is lower on their scale of attraction. Women, on the other hand, aren't "supposed to" enjoy sex, or they're sluts. Because of the added cost of this stigma, they need more of a benefit to convince them choose to have sex-- that is, the required level of attraction is higher. I admit this is armchair reasoning combined with anecdotal observation, but it seems to hold true as a general rule.

Now, this reasoning would imply that more conservative/religious women (on whom the "slut" label would have more of an impact, since it would have the added weight of being sinful) would be more likely to have a slightly higher threshold for the required attraction before having sex. (As would, but to a smaller degree, conservative/religious men.) This, at least from my own observations, seems to be true. The more religious women I know are less likely to have sex with a man that they're only mildly attracted to-- he has to "sweep them off their feet"-- but the less religious women I know are more willing to have sex with men that they are only mildly-- but still somewhat-- attracted to.
Admittedly, there are certain flaws with this observation:
Firstly, it's very anecdotal, based on my own observations. It's a smaller sample size, and one biased towards the people that I interact with, which might be different from the norm.
Secondly, there is the possibility that the religious conservative women are more likely to hide their sexual relationships-- they might have just as much as the nonreligious, but they don't admit to it as often. This probably has some impact on it, I think, but not enough to fully explain the disparity between the religious and the nonreligious-- there is still the drive to avoid feeling sinful, even if others do not know about it.
Thirdly, I'm not quite sure how strong my reasoning about societal expectations implies the bit about religion and conservativeness. If the implication isn't there, then my argument loses a fair amount of weight, since about half my observations have to be tossed out.


I do applaud you for realizing it's a problem you've got to fix instead of blaming the women that reject you because that will lead to a real solution. Now all that's left is telling the scores of other guys (http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts956550.aspx) the same thing.

<snip>


Well, I've never been one to sit back and accept my problems. That doesn't ever help anything.

Is your name Michelle, and/or can you fit a man's cranium comfortably inside your vagina? If the answer is yes to either, you have no room to comment about any penis being too small.

If no, well, I happen to like my penis, and happen to think it's huge. Grand delusion, ODing on Enzyte, or actually a foot-long monster? I shall leave you in suspense.


I have no idea what you are talking about. Nor, to be honest, do I care.

Curious that you took my general observation to be some kind of personal slight. Telling, perhaps. Comic, certainly.

I'm not a Texan.

And you have no idea how large or small my penis is.

And you boasting like this tells me a 2 year old's penis is bigger than yours, sweetheart.;)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Nor, to be honest, do I care.

Curious that you took my general observation to be some kind of personal slight. Telling, perhaps. Comic, certainly.

You have to admit that we can infer that his penis is quite small...

You have to admit that we can infer that his penis is quite small...

Again, in my experience - those who 'have' usually make a habit of minimising their impact, rather than engaging in some kind of pissing contest. By which rule...

Again, in my experience - those who 'have' usually make a habit of minimising their impact, rather than engaging in some kind of pissing contest. By which rule...

Is it in yet?

Again, in my experience - those who 'have' usually make a habit of minimising their impact, rather than engaging in some kind of pissing contest. By which rule...

We all can infer his penis is quite minuscule.:D

We all can infer his penis is quite minuscule.:D

Ohhh you wimmin, leave the poor small penised man alone.:D

Ohhh you wimmin, leave the poor small penised man alone.:D

I'd leave him alone, but I can't see his penis without an electron microscope...

Ohhh you wimmin, leave the poor small penised man alone.:D

Oh noes, you minn! We'll leave tha poor small penised man alone when he reshpects tha vagina's authoritay!!:D

Oh noes, you minn! We'll leave tha poor small penised man alone when he reshpects tha vagina's authoritay!!:D

Ahhh has he been disrespectfull? Well I'll say no more then!

You, I believe, are just a smart-ass. Soviestan is that stupid. Say, how many Fortune 500 CEO's are female? Congress and Senate are what % female? Some people are smart-asses, some are dumb-asses.

Ding ding ding!

I wasn't planning on arguing it and only intended to state a fact...er..hypothetical opinion.

At any rate, the point stands that 0% of Fortune 500 CEO's are me and less than 1% of me is in the Congress or Senate. So going by your 'guidelines' of power, women in those positions have more power than me. Which, through rampant generalization, I can assume that all women have more power than me and therefore all women have more power than men.

See I don't buy the whole Senators and CEO argument because while the men are the ones actually in the seat, a "no sex for a month" threat from their significant others will influence their decision spectacularly, I imagine.

Boobs are pretty awesome. Anyone with boobs must win.


Breasts are just annoying to me.

Breasts are just annoying to me.

Sacrilegious lies!

Sacrilegious lies!

They make my chest feel weird. They feel like they aren't supposed to be there and they get in the way.

Breasts are just annoying to me.

Are they so big you need breast reduction surgery to fix your back problems?

Are they so big you need breast reduction surgery to fix your back problems?

No, luckily. But they're still annoying and them having any size at all feels too big. They stop my chest from being flat, it makes shirts look weird because there's a lump instead of just being flat. It's annoying.

No, luckily. But they're still annoying and them having any size at all feels too big. They stop my chest from being flat, it makes shirts look weird because there's a lump instead of just being flat. It's annoying.

But flat girls are not as attractive as non-flat girls. Eh, for my part, I like small, perky breasts, not huge engulfing boobs that seem like they're going to eat me.

I'd say each sex has unique advantages and disadvantages (biological and social), but they generally balance out in the end. Though each sex is itching to say they have it tougher... I'd say the starving in Africa have it tougher than either of them.

I'd say each sex has unique advantages and disadvantages (biological and social), but they generally balance out in the end. Though each sex is itching to say they have it tougher... I'd say the starving in Africa have it tougher than either of them.

Yep, we should by them sexes.

Yep, we should by them sexes.

I'm sure we could find people to do it for free...like my ex...she'd do it for free.



Because she's a whore.

I'm sure we could find people to do it for free...like my ex...she'd do it for free.



Because she's a whore.

ROFL.

ROFL.

Actually, she's not that slutty.

Psychotic, though.



Maybe if we hit her over the head a few times she might do it.

But flat girls are not as attractive as non-flat girls.

I'd be more comfortable that way.

I'm sure we could find people to do it for free...like my ex...she'd do it for free.



Because she's a whore.

Well, Rhyno baby, in the male category for whores, you´re on the top. You told me you also do it for free.;)

Well, Rhyno baby, in the male category for whores, you´re on the top. You told me you also do it for free.;)

Only with you.

Only with you.

Oh, yes baby. Only with me.

Oh, yes baby. Only with me.

I'd do you for free any day.

Well, you'd have to take me out to dinner first. Maybe a movie.

I'd do you for free any day.

Well, you'd have to take me out to dinner first. Maybe a movie.

I think it´s the other way around, sweetie. I´m expensive.:D

I think it´s the other way around, sweetie. I´m expensive.:D

Well I'm cheap.

Well I'm cheap.

Let me think about it.

Remit to the Questions and Comments to Ask on a Date thread to answer de rigeur questions.:p

Let me think about it.

Remit to the Questions and Comments to Ask on a Date thread to answer de rigeur questions.:p

It's not really a date. More of a formality, you know?

I voted that nobody has it easier than Soviestan, because I'm sure that he lives some kind of bourgeois life and benefits from the patriarchy. And also because it's a funny option.

Seriously, what is the rhetorical purpose of this thread? That feminism is going too far? If anything, it's not going far enough, and where it's going "too far," it's because people have a stupid definition of feminism (feminism is about making women's lives better). Go read bell hooks. You will all be changed men (and maybe women, although I'm sure that what bell hooks has to say does not come as news to women).

Damn, dude, this thread is old.

Damn, dude, this thread is old.
Old old? I didn't realize. Someone must've necroed it. Sorry.

<snip>

<snip>

Old old? I didn't realize. Someone must've necroed it. Sorry.

That would be you.

Though, when I say old, I don't mean frigging old. Just like, half a month old. Dunno when they call it gravedigging.