Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Hiiri]

How much is cultural and how much is evolutionary?

I'm not very well versed on ancient civilizations but I do remember that there were a few in which women were warriors and hunters and such as well. Hell, Agriculture is "new" on an evolutionary timescale, so I don't quite buy the "men = hunters, women = farmers/housemakers" thing either.

I don't see how anyone could argue traditional gender roles being cultural. It is pretty much universal that men have been the disposable action figures on the shelf, while women have been the passive porcelain vases. It can't be cultural, when it applies to multiple civilizations/tribes completely separated from each other.

I'm not saying that's how it should be, but it might be something we're stuck with.

[LordBucket]

Maybe LordBucket should've described his relationships as 'sadist' versus 'masochist'. It would've made less assumptions
about essential gender roles (and by extension the gender binary) while being slightly more entertaining.

I agree.  I will retract all criticisms of LordBucket's theory if he starts doing this.

Except that doing so would be both inaccurate and missing the point.

This notion that masculinity is somehow "wrong, hurtful or evil" is exactly the source of a lot of the problem some guys have with women. They think masculinity is wrong, so they act like girls. It's like connecting two identically charged electrical leads. Electricity doesn't flow.


Why would you equate acting upon a willing partner with "sadism?"

[Darvi]

I'd mention Amazons, but I'm pretty sure they're fictional outside of internet stores.

[Glowcat]

Why would you equate acting upon a willing partner with "sadism?"

Please don't take a joking if obscure reference I made into a derail where we discuss the difference between sadism in a broader context and sadism with regards to S/M relationships.

[GlyphGryph]

Except that doing so would be both inaccurate and missing the point.

This notion that masculinity is somehow "wrong, hurtful or evil" is exactly the source of a lot of the problem some guys have with women. They think masculinity is wrong, so they act like girls. It's like connecting two identically charged electrical leads. Electricity doesn't flow.
Why would you equate acting upon a willing partner with "sadism?"

They were obviously referring to the sadism and masochism of S&M. Man, keep up. It's a much, much better analogy than "masculine" and "feminine", honestly. For one things, the words actually fill the roles you've set out for them.

It's not our fault your bias casts the situation you've described as "wrong, hurtful, or evil" when the words are changed to something more appropriate.

[LordBucket]

For one things, the words actually fill the roles you've set out for them.

If you believe that, then answer the question: Why would you equate acting upon a willing partner with "sadism?"

your bias casts the situation you've described as "wrong, hurtful, or evil"

Ok, great. It's my bias. Now...please answer the question:

Why do you believe that acting on a willing partner is "wrong, hurtful, or evil"?

[GlyphGryph]

For one things, the words actually fill the roles you've set out for them.

If you believe that, then answer the question: Why would you equate acting upon a willing partner with "sadism?"

Because in S&M, the sadist exclusively works his will on willing partners?

Ok, great. It's my bias. Now...please answer the question:
Why do you believe that acting on a willing partner is "wrong, hurtful, or evil"?

I don't, and the only one who seems to have put the idea forward is you?

[LordBucket]

I don't, and the only one who seems to have put the idea forward is you?

The thread that spawned this one was locked because the author got angry at me over this very point.

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=118837.msg3781998#msg3781998

 -- "You don't just walk up to women and say 'Hey, you're attractive and I'm talking to you because I want to have sex with you in the future' in the real world, friend. Unless you're a) shallow b) only care about sex c) a giant tool because you only see women as a sex opportunity. Or drunk as all hell and making bad decisions."



When I see that...and I see both Glowcat and Leafsnail equating my position with sadism...my natural reaction is not to conclude that "everybody's just joking, ha ha." Sounds to me like that's exactly what some people in this discussion believe.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I can't even make coherent sense of what you are trying to argue.

[GlyphGryph]

We're saying that Sadism is a more accurate descriptor for what you're describing than Masculine. And it is. But only because "masculine" has nothing but a weak correlation to what you're describing - there are plenty of better words than Sadism, too, it's just an improvement.

Use accurate terminology instead of loaded language, and maybe you'll get a more reasonable response?

Although I don't have any problem with that hypothetical situation (except maybe the lack of subtlety to make it enjoyable), unlike whoever originally proposed it, so don't forget not to lump me in with them.

[Leafsnail]

It was a joke based on S&M but you're still wrong.  I again ask: do nice girls get all the guys?  Under your theory they should do.

[LordBucket]

We're saying that Sadism is a more accurate descriptor for what you're describing than Masculine. And it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadism
 -- "Sadism is the derivation of pleasure as a result of inflicting pain, cruelty, degradation, or humiliation, or, watching such behaviors inflicted on others"

...hence, I ask: Why would you equate acting upon a willing partner with "sadism?"

You keep agreeing with the correlation, but you keep backing away when I ask you to justify it.

But only because "masculine" has nothing but a weak correlation to what you're describing
- there are plenty of better words than Sadism, too, it's just an improvement.

I'm speaking of masculine/feminine in the context of yin/yang, and not in the context of "arbitrary western social convention." I've said so several times. This being a conversation in english I think using closest english language equivalent to the idea I'm referring to is reasonable.

Especially since...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/masculine
 -- " having qualities appropriate to or usually associated with a man"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculinity
 -- "possessing qualities or characteristics considered typical of or appropriate to a man."

...I am asserting that there is a correlation between "male" and "active/actor/doer/etc." I am asserting that...to return to the original intent of this thread...the incorrect notion that "women don't like nice guys" is often the result of biological males failing to act in harmony with the underlying forces that constitute "maleness."

You and others appear to disagree with this assertion. That's fine.

Nevertheless...I ask...

Sadism is a more accurate descriptor for what you're describing than Masculine

Why?

I'm describing the relationship between "giver" and "receiver" as relates to basic energy exchange. I'm describing the relationship between "that which does" and "that which becomes." I'm describing the relationship between "that which acts upon" and "that which is acted upon."

Why do you believe that a word meaning "taking pleasure in the suffering of others" is a more accurate descriptor for this concept than "masculine/feminine" is an accurate descriptor for it?

I understand that I'm offering a definition that you disagree with. That's ok. Why do you equate "taking pleasure in the suffering of others" with the concept that I'm describing?

[GlyphGryph]

Because in an S&M relationship, the sadist gives/acts/does, and the masochist receives. Duh.

There's an actual explicit role cast there. While males do plenty of receiving and women do plenty of giving/acting/doing, even traditionally. A whole host of traditionally femimine traits are based around giving/acting/doing, so... your assertion is baseless?

In fact, it's worse than baseless, because you're using it to make an argument that presupposes your solution.

It's dishonest, on the face of it. It would be like me describing why we should turn right instead of turning left, and starting by defining turning right as "correct turns" and left as "false turns", and then making an argument that of course we would naturally want to make correct turns.

Instead, use words like giver/receiver, or agent/object. Word pairs that describe the argument you're making without presupposing your conclusion.

[Glowcat]

*gets back to discover there indeed is a S&M derail*

What have I done?!!

For the context: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadomasochism

Similarly, sexual sadism within the context of mutual consent should not be mistaken for acts of sexual violence or aggression

I was playing off your (LB's) description of active to a passive, giving versus receiving, not ascribing malicious intent to the active partner.

[LordBucket]

do nice girls get all the guys?  Under your theory they should do.

Girls who are receptive to being put to use are often put to use.

I think most of you would agree with that. The question is whether you read that and take it as simply a blandly accurate statement...or have an emotional reaction to it because "men who do so are evil" and feel the need to protect women from those "evil, horrible men who want to use women."

Because in an S&M relationship, the sadist gives/acts/does, and the masochist receives. Duh.

There's nothing unique about S&M in this. I've given plenty of examples of giver/receiver that don't even involve humans.

If you are not seriously claiming that my position relates to sadism, then may I suggest in the future that when having a discussion with someone who asserts that "some people believe X, and X is silly" as I have, that you don't assert X unless you really mean X? Glowcat has followed up to clarify that the original comment was merely an attempt to be playful...but I've said several times that some guys perceive masculinity in the sense that I describe as somehow "wrong" or evil. Given that I've said so...to follow up by equating it with sadism isn't obviously construed as a joke.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PoesLaw

It's dishonest, on the face of it.

No. I am asserting a correlation. I am asserting that "masculine/feminine" correlate with the concept being described. I am therefore using those words because I believe in the correlation. It's ok if you disagree with the correlation, but don't accuse me of being "dishonest" simply for making an assertion you disagree with. 

Liking football and belching, and being emotionally stunted and sexually insatiable are not "masculine traits." These are cultural traits that might arbitrarily be associated with men. Liking the color pink and knitting are not "feminine traits." These are cultural traits that might arbitrarily be associated with women.

Masculine
-- "Having qualities or appearance traditionally associated with men, esp. strength and aggressiveness."

Strength
 -- "the quality or state of being strong; bodily or muscular power;"

Power
 -- "ability to do or act; capability of doing or accomplishing something."

Possessing the ability to do is masculine. In order to do, there must be a doer and something for the acting of doing to be acted upon.

The "more proper meaning" for these words of masculine/feminine is the yin/yang active/passive giver/receiver concept. It is masculine to have power and be able to do, because that's what the concept of masculinity is...once you separate it from arbitrary social convention.