And don’t even get me started on “Football Sundays.” Fortunately for me, my husband doesn’t watch football - and there are women who do like football. But every Sunday millions of women (oh, this is great debates, I need a cite) - lots of women - end up with football on TV.
Talking about horror movies, it happens quite often (for some strange reason) that, on their dating site profiles, girls quote the Saw films as their favorite.
But I guess it’s an age thing more than a gender thing.
You really should have those things in your car. It’s not a huge deal like you should immediately cancel your cable to save money to buy them but I would acquire them sooner rather than later. Once you have them, take your car out into the driveway or wherever and practice changing a tire. Your first time doing it should not be on the side of a road.
Or it could be a “Exaggerate or lie on your dating profile in order to attract more interest” thing. The Saw franchise has been successful enough that there must have been plenty of women who really did enjoy the movies, and it’s certainly not unheard of for women to like horror films, but it’s also common for people to put things in their dating profiles that they think potential partners will want to hear – even if it’s not strictly true.
Is liking horror so weird for women? I thought they did a study that showed that more women than men liked the genre.
Of course women get more slack cut for them. Take the case of date rape where the women is deemed to to have been raped and a victim if having been in a drunken condition she participated in sexual acts, and regrets it the next morning. Never mind if the guy is drunk also. He’s still responsible and answerable to the law
Or an unwanted pregnancy. She can simply abort the fetus and evade the lifetime responsibility. He is on the hook and answerable to the law unless she releases him.
Or, a man exposes himself in public. He gets charged and labeled a pervert. At worst, if she flashes some nudity she is simply labelled an exhibitionist.
I’m not even touching the rest of your post, but this is plainly false. Women can and have been charged with indecent exposure. In the US women have occasionally been charged with indecent exposure for daring to breastfeed in public, despite this being about the most decent reason one could have for exposing oneself. (About half the states do have indecent exposure laws specifying that breastfeeding is not a violation, though.) I don’t believe there’s an indecent exposure law on the books anywhere that says it’s only a crime for men, and I’m going to need to see a damn good cite if you want to claim otherwise.
Indecent exposure laws are if anything more restrictive when it comes to women, because under many laws a larger portion of our body is considered indecent when exposed. I don’t know if there’s anyplace in the US where it’s not perfectly legal for a man to mow his front lawn or take a walk down a public sidewalk wearing nothing but a pair of shorts. In most places in the US a woman could be arrested for this, and even if she wasn’t then “exhibitionist” is hardly the strongest term that would be used. You’d be more likely to hear “slut”, “whore”, and “psycho”.
I agree that women do have to make compromises in this situation, but I guess the difference to me is . . . how often do the men in the situation get upset when their significant others don’t watch football or horror movies with them? If the women do watch, isn’t more a situation of the woman wanting to spend time with their men than the men wanting their women to join them in their activities?
That’s because breasts are an indication that a person is female. Just like the penis, ballsack, and vagina, it’s directly connected to one sex, and is thus sexual. Thus, if you choose to expose this sexual part of your body, you are assumed to be doing it for sexual reasons.
And it is true that women flashers don’t get into as much trouble, as there are plenty of places where it is expected. Going around topless may get them in trouble, but merely showing them? Rarely. It’s not that the laws are biased, but that people are less likely to report them. A male flasher is always a pervert, but a female flasher is okay in many situations. When’s the last time you’ve heard of women giving beads to men?
The breast feeding thing is an odd one, as it seems involving the baby removes the sexuality, and thus makes it more likely to be reported. Plus, there’s the whole “bodily fluids should be discharged in private” concept.
I disagree with BigT’s assertion that women are cut more slack in regards to indecent exposure.
I agree with BigT’s assertion that women are less likely to be reported for flashing.
Those two ideas sound contradictory. If women are less likely to be reported, how are they NOT being cut more slack? Volume. I can go outside topless right now if I so chose and I’d be fine. If I was a woman I could be put in jail.
Funnily enough, a woman who wants to go topless to protest indecency laws can typically get away with it, but if she chooses to go topless just for the fuck of it she’ll be put in jail.
I think women are cut more slack, but NOT when it comes to indecency laws. Women get the short end of the stick in this regard, hands down.
Pretty often, if I am to believe the things I hear from other women. I’m sure I’ve heard some exaggerated stories…but so have you. When people complain about things they often exaggerate and try to portray themselves as the more reasonable party. If you have more male than female friends, you’re getting men’s exaggerated version of things. I have more female than male friends, so I’m getting women’s exaggerated version of things. Unless you can cite some sort of study on this subject, I don’t think there’s any way to determine through anecdotal evidence which sex is more willing to compromise about entertainment or which is more likely to get upset when their partner doesn’t agree with their choices.
*I’m sure it varies from couple to couple. Although there are probably some women who demand that their partners watch Bridget Jones’s Diary with them, there must be a lot more men who actually enjoy spending time with their wives and girlfriends and choose to sit through “girly” TV shows and movies they don’t really like for that reason.
Less likely to report them than what? A woman who briefly shows her bare chest is a hell of a lot more likely to be reported than a man who briefly shows his bare chest, because the latter isn’t even a crime anyplace that I’ve heard of.
*Although it is often illegal under indecent exposure laws, it seems to me that flashing one’s buttocks is popularly viewed as a fairly harmless prank whether it’s a man or a woman who’s doing it. Mooning might get a man arrested, but unless it were some especially weird situation like he was mooning a little girl then I doubt many people would consider him a pervert. Immature or stupid, but not a pervert. A man who flashes his genitals in public would be viewed much more harshly, but I don’t think it’s considered “okay in many situations” for a woman to expose her genitals in public either.
If your point is that a woman who exposes her breasts is regarded less negatively than a man who exposes his penis then that’s probably true, but that’s apples and…bananas. A woman who exposed her vulva in public would also be considered by many people to have done something more “wrong” or “disgusting” than a woman who exposed her breasts, although both forms of self-exposure would often fall under the same indecent exposure law.
*The same as the last time I heard of men giving beads to women – during Mardi Gras. Women ride on those floats and toss beads too. I’ve never been to New Orleans for Mardi Gras, but it’s been my understanding that men and women both frequently expose themselves in an attempt to attract the attention of the bead-tossers.
If there’s some non Mardi Gras reason why a man would be giving beads to a woman as a prize for exposing herself then I’ve never heard of it, and I don’t see how it would be relevant here anyway. Handing out beads doesn’t have anything to do with the law or even “cutting women slack”. If a particular man reacts to a female flasher by thinking “Alright, boobies! That deserves some beads!” rather than “Yikes, call the police!” then that’s not him cutting her some slack. It’s him rewarding her for doing something that he enjoyed. A man who wasn’t happy about being flashed could cut the woman some slack by thinking “That was inappropriate, but she seems harmless and I’d hate to make trouble for her.” But you aren’t cutting someone slack when they do something you like and you don’t punish them for it.
Before this indecent exposure line of discussion goes too far, I want to backtrack and re-quote the post that originally introduced the subject:
He isn’t just claiming that men have a rougher time of it than women, he’s saying that the worst thing that could possibly happen to a woman who exposed herself in public would be that she’d be called an “exhibitionist”. She wouldn’t be charged with a crime, and she wouldn’t even be insulted.
This is patently false. Even if there is some difference in the way people regard male and female flashers, it is absolutely not true that women are never charged with indecent exposure. It took me a few seconds on Google News to find a recent item about a woman who’d been charged with indecent exposure, as well as burglary, after robbing a store while topless. And here’s a story about another woman who was charged with indecent exposure after allegedly deciding to clean up after her dog outside while naked from the waist down.
Oilcap. Plastic. Can remove by hand. It also tends to have that oil can symbol on it.
Radiatorcap. Metal. If you’ve been driving, don’t open with your bare hand.
Thisshould help.
They’re probably in your trunk. Open the trunk and look for a compartment in the floor of the trunk. Everything you should need is there.
Cue for story about dumb blonde going into parts shop to buy a new “seven-ten” cap for her car… it got lost. Assistant is puzzled, so she draws him a picture of something circular, about three inches across, with the number 710 on it.
Confused? Turn it upside down.
I’ve thought more over the weekend about why I would never consider offering to help a guy change a tire. And I’ve figured it out and am comfortable with what I’ve found.
See, I’m not a mechanic. I’m not particularly “handy”. My dad never taught me how to change a tire or fix a leaking sink. So, when I bought my first junker car, I got a book and taught myself how to change a tire, change the oil, clean the battery terminals, etc. I once owned a Ford Escort that needed ball joints to pass state inspection. I couldn’t afford to have it done, so I got the parts through a JC Whitney catalog, bought the Ford Escort book, and did the labor myself. It took me a week of crawling under the car after work each night, but I eventually did it, even though I used concrete blocks as make-shift jack stands. In my home I’ve installed a gas hot water heater and replaced a bad circuit breaker, all the time looking at pics and praying I do not kill myself. Out of necessity.
So, although I absolutely *hate * changing a tire, at least I know I can. And if I can, any guy can as well. I guess I look at women differently and cut them more slack (getting back on topic).
Of course, if you ever approach me in a parking lot and say, “Kayaker.…is that you? I’m AClockWorkMelon and I have a flat tire”. Sure, I’d help ya out. 
Well, I think it’s pretty silly that you’d have that “If I can do it, so can you!” ideology for men but not women but as long as you’re willing to help me I don’t particularly care.
I think a lot of people probably feel the same way about lower expectations for women doing “handyman” stuff like changing a tire.
On the other side of the coin, a lot of people would expect a woman to be able to, say, cook up a pot of noodles or sew on a button or select the proper settings on the washing machine, whereas they’d cut a man more slack for being “helpless” or clueless about that sort of domestic task.
This isn’t a very good example, though. A woman who (for whatever reason) carries an unwanted pregnancy past the legal time limit for choosing an abortion at will is just as much “on the hook” for the unwanted child as the child’s father is. She has to bear the child, and if the father doesn’t want to give it up for adoption, then she’s on the hook for child support.
A woman does have the option of aborting an unwanted pregnancy during the fairly narrow time window in which her right to control her body is legally considered to outweigh the fetus’s right to life. And a man doesn’t have the option of making that choice, since it’s her body and not his. However, that’s not really a case of society “cutting women more slack”, it’s just society recognizing a very fundamental and major biological difference between the sexes in the physical aspects of reproduction.
Meanwhile, of course, a pregnant woman is on the hook for all medical costs and other inconveniences associated with pregnancy and childbirth, while the man who is equally responsible for the pregnancy doesn’t incur them, since it’s her body and not his. One could just as well argue that that’s a case of society “cutting men more slack”.
In fact, all the male posters here who responded rather reflexively and without qualification that “of course we cut women more slack” and listed examples (TFD, Der Trihs, etc.) seem to have just overlooked comparable ways in which we cut men more slack. Classic confirmation bias effect, I guess; if you’re a man, the advantages of being a man seem automatic and natural to you, whereas the advantages of being a woman seem somehow “special” and “unfair”, so they’re what you notice.
Same here. I mean, does having a penis mean someone should be able to change a tire? Can a penis double as a jack? (I wonder if there’s porno about that.)