Well, you’re all forgetting one major thing… STDs aside, sex has no lasting (non-emotional) effect on men. Women, however, don’t have that luxary, and instead face rather profound consequences. Further, men are genetically programmed to spread their seed. Like a genetic addict, they must take this into account and behave responsibly. It is really of no surprise that these have social consequences - it is natural for men to prowl, and it is natural for women have to put up with the aftermath. None of this is an excuse, or makes anything right - it just means that women have a bum rap, and we have to personally, socially, and culturally work to balance this out.
As in my addict example, just having it in your nature does not make it a necessary consequence - it just means that you have to work hard to overcome it. I think it is safe to say that society has progressed leaps and bounds in the past few decades, and with constantly improving methods of birth control (whatever your views may be on some of them), we are finally at a state where women have more say in the matter. Even culturally, we are progressing to the point where an unwed mother is no longer as much of a social pariah as she would have been in the past.
Which only goes to show that the author - Roy Pugh - doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about. Cases in which witches were accused of having had sex with their accusers (as opposed to with the Devil or with other witches) were so rare (nonexistent?) that Edinburgh University’s Survey of Scottish Witches database does not include it as a separate analytical category. Nor can it be said that the post-Reformation Church of Scotland showed any obvious reluctance to prosecute men for alleged sexual misconduct.
You must be a lawyer - no one else argues so nebulously with such conviction. If you wish to expose a flaw in my argument, i’m quite happy to consider your criticism, but it looks like you’re just trying to get a dig in - probably because you associate some values with being male.
Blowero quoted you. You did make broad assed statements about men “attitude” and their unability to take responsability about their “perverted” lusts. There’s no need to be a lawyer to notice that. You did make judgemental comments about half the population, giving ludicrous examples to back your prejudiced views (like the “perverts” and the dominas, which is laughable, since you apparently fogot to notice that there were “pervert” women involved with male dominants). I’m sure you would have noticed how offensive this OP was if it were including caricatural comments about women’s personnality instead of men’s.
And attacking the poster about his supposed mindset instead of responding to his well-funded criticisms doesn’t cut it. You should rather reevaluate your own perceptions and the values you associate with being male (apparently being an irresponsible pervert).
This OP should have ended in the pit, not in GD, IMO.
The more posts I read by clairobscur the more impressed I am.
The OP (from my depraved, perverted, desirous, lustfull viewpoint) is most definitely casting an attitude upon all men. If this is not what was intended, perhaps a bit more thought should have gone into wording it.
As a perverted, depraved, lustful, deviant, evil male I feel I can say with some authority that this statement is not true.
If I’m having sex with a woman and I knock her up, my life as I knew it is over. I’m somebody’s father. If I choose not to be a man, some judge somewhere will hunt me down and take half my paycheck to pay for the kid’s clothes, food, and education.
Oh, I forgot. All men run around spreading their seed anywhere they can, then they run off to do it to someone else. :rolleyes:
You must be a woman – no one else argue with such inept cluelessness. If you have a point I’m quite happy to consider it, but it looks like you’re just trying to stomp around to make up for female inadequacies – probably because you (mistakenly it goes without saying) associate some values with being women. But since you are a women I’ll give you a pass for this one seeing as your sex dictates a lower intelligence and, as has been thoroughly proved and we all know, women are generally good only for smelling good and making babies. I wonder if it’s too late to go back to a male-only voting system, since women clearly, like children, cannot be expected to make rational decisions?
“This OP should have ended in the pit, not in GD, IMO.”
Oh no! Not the pit! You risk having it collide with msmith537: “Why men are more successful than women in business“. Like matter and anti-matter it’ll explode in pure energy that’ll tear the very fabric of space-time asunder! Though, if I were of the conspiracy leaning personality, I’d claim it proves something or other that his thread was moved to the pit while this was moved to GD.
I tend to agree with Zagadka on this one. The legal obligations that you’re speaking of are a fairly recent development (relative to human development). Prior to this, there was individual charity and community shame, but applying the force of the law (let alone the means to verify paternity) is a new idea in child support.
As far as the ‘spreading of the seed’ thing…well, I am of two minds on this. I’d be lying if I denied some sort of biological imperative toward this, but on the other hand, I don’t think that we are slaves to biology.
I must chime in here.
In many churches I have been in, when summer rolls around, an annoucement is made that in church and picnics get togethers, proper dress must be worn, no short shorts, too skimpy clothes.
This has to be directed to the women, as most of us women would ot be lust-filled looking at these guys in skimpy clothes.
Its always seemed to be the woman’s fault: If a guy is turned on by you, and you are wearing something “skimpy” it is YOUR fault, not his.
This does not seem right to me.
>Its always seemed to be the woman’s fault: If a guy is turned on by you, and
>you are wearing something “skimpy” it is YOUR fault, not his.
I assume you support the OP in that men should be responsible for their “depraved desires”. If so, and men cannot control said desires (they can control the actions, but not the inherent desires), shouldn’t the women be even more responsible for their clothing, which they can control?
Or…right. Women are never responsible for anything - it’s always a man’s fault. Right. Forgot my gender-comparinson LA classes for a bit there. Sorry.
You lost me. Are you saying you think it is appropriate to wear skimpy clothes at church functions? Modesty is considered a virtue in most religions; if you disagree, why would you go to a church that extolls it? It applies to men just as much as it does to women. Can’t say I’ve seen a lot of men wearing skimpy clothes in any of the churches I’ve ever been in. I’m not seeing as how this constitutes a double-standard, as you seem to imply.
BTW, if you like to dress provocatively, that’s great - just don’t get upset when I take a good long gander at your boobs. If you’re gonna put 'em on display, I’m gonna check 'em out.
Now I’m confused. If the church holds standards of decency for a public church gathering and a woman choses to wear something that has been specifically prohibited, whose fault is it? Clearly, the going argument is that it cannot possibly be the woman’s fault, because men are to blame for everything. :rolleyes:
Maybe it’s the church’s fault for creating standards nobody particularly wants to adhere to, because we all know that the church is a monolithic organization made up of rulebooks and not made up of people, and the church forces people to attend and obey. The woman is evidently forced to attend a church in whose core tenets she does not believe, mm?
Maybe it’s the fault of men, because we know how catty men can be about what women are wearing: how those shoes don’t go with that dress, how her socks don’t quite match, how the cut of that hem is soo-ooo last year, how she’s wearing the wrong kind of bra for that tank top, how that one is dressing like a complete tart I can’t believe she’s wearing that in public, and we all know she’s wearing that jewelry to show off the expensive—wait a tic, that’s not men who do that, it’s women. Men are the other ones, the guys who don’t give a rat’s ass what anybody is wearing.
And we all know how angry scantily-clad women get when married men admire them for their clothing and … no, I’ve got it wrong again, it’s the wives that get angry when their husbands look at some other scantily-clad woman.
It’s a good thing women set such good examples for men and never ever ever ever shirk their responsibility for their unpredictable crying jags and psychotic emotional yo-yo behavior and would no woman would ever dream of blaming such behavior on hormones or biological clocks or PMS or other physiological reactions they can’t control.
I guess the bottom line is that men don’t accept responsibility because people don’t, and since men and women are subsets of people then it is behavior common to all of us. Did you have a evidence that this is a male-only habit, or are you just venting?
you misunderestistood me.
I don’t think mens’ (straight mens) desires upon gazing at a woman depraved.
I was commenting on the fact that some think its a womans fault (and I’m not saying she’s dressing ho-like, just suitable for hot weather) when the men are turned on, as if woman are responsible for grown mens feelings and desires.
Does that make it clearer?
Almost like saying its the stores fault I tried to steal the pretty jewelry, they just had it out there on display…
So…how is it that men can dress appropriately for hot weather and not be breaking the rules set for the church picnic? Is not possible for women to do the same?
Yes, absolutely. It is her “fault”, though fault is the wrong word, that the man is turned on. It is also the fault of the jeweler that people on the street see the jewelry and wish to own it. Things are being displayed in a way that is distinctly attractive to people. Now if the man does something about it that the woman does not want then it is his fault, just as it is the fault of the criminal that they stole.
Fault is a poor word choice. Her manner of dress results in his being turned on, and she knows it will even if that is not her primary intention. There is nothing wrong with turning men on though (unless you happen to be going to a church picnic where they frown on that sort of thing). If I walk around flaunting how much money I have I know that it is going to make people feel avarice. I caused it. If they try to take my money in order to satisfy their feelings, though, it is their responsibility.
If you’re gonna put 'em on display, I’m gonna check 'em out.
:eek: 