Print

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

[hops]

Hmm, it stands to reason in a marital environment. Actually, I think that the concept that men only like sex is really just based on the idealized male fantasy, anyways.

I still find it surprising that women value sex more than men when they're married, though. It sheds some interesting light on abstinent couples. My parents became sexually abstinent not long after my birth (I asked, and I doubt they had any reason to lie) and sometimes they can have trouble relating to each other.

[Neonivek]

Hmm, it stands to reason in a marital environment. Actually, I think that the concept that men only like sex is really just based on the idealized male fantasy, anyways.

I still find it surprising that women value sex more than men when they're married, though. It sheds some interesting light on abstinent couples. My parents became sexually abstinent not long after my birth (I asked, and I doubt they had any reason to lie) and sometimes they can have trouble relating to each other.

It is based on a lot more than the idealized male fantasy (a thing that has been demonized to hell and back), but for a general idea it is acceptable as it doesn't matter where the idea came from.

Remember that biologically women have a greater sex drive and they reach their sexual peak later than men (assuming that info is still true)

So in many ways this is just putting together info we already knew free from the "Men are Satyrs" stereotype.

(Lets also add that Men seek out sexual stimulation but do not seek out intimacy through that stimulation. A man who watches porn isn't emotionally cheating on anyone)

[hops]

Hmm, it stands to reason in a marital environment. Actually, I think that the concept that men only like sex is really just based on the idealized male fantasy, anyways.

I still find it surprising that women value sex more than men when they're married, though. It sheds some interesting light on abstinent couples. My parents became sexually abstinent not long after my birth (I asked, and I doubt they had any reason to lie) and sometimes they can have trouble relating to each other.

It is based on a lot more than the idealized male fantasy (a thing that has been demonized to hell and back), but for a general idea it is acceptable as it doesn't matter where the idea came from.

Well, I mean that in a more mature company I think it is already taken for granted that healthy, mature males aren't sex-hungry pick-up artists. It's just that those minority resonate more with media.

[Neonivek]

It is a topic worthy of speaking on its own given the whole "Men are rapists" thing gone out of dang control and reached a serious boiling point.

Then again I also looked at the concept of pick-up artists and sort of realized that a big part of it has to do with the fact that men, as a whole, need to initiate in our society and as such the entire hones is on them to be charming.

Which means they are more observable.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Spoiler: over if Neo wants it to be (click to show/hide)

My words was a counterpoint that any advantage someone has over someone else "needs to be dealt with".

I don't think we have a common understanding of "advantage," then. In this context, an advantage is when possessing a particular trait improves your success without improving your skills, or above and beyond the level to which it improves your skills.

So I gave an example of an advantage that not only cannot be dealt with, but would be oppressive if it could.

I suppose "unfair advantage" would be a better term... you see, intelligence only improves success insofar as it improves ability or skills.

As well if an advantage doesn't lead to success, you are no longer advantaged.

An advantage leads to increased success, not absolute success. If you're poor and white, you still had a smaller chance of being poor than if you had been black, and you are probably less poor than you would have been if you were black.

That's hardly a meaningful disadvantage.

I think your drawing a lot more from what I am saying than what I intended, but let me try to catch you up to the conversation. Yes it isn't a meaningful disadvantage, well it is sociopathy if taken to its logical conclusion, but I was simply laying the ground work that just because something is an advantage it doesn't mean that advantage cannot come with sizable or even overwhelming disadvantages that might make it impossible to gauge.

Hmm... within a particular context, this is untrue, but this might be holistically true. Still, since privilege is more the property of a trait than a person, it should still be possible to say that on the whole, being white is more advantageous than being black, ferex.

I was simply calling back to an earlier point in the conversation where it was outright said that "Privilege" comes with that disadvantage, therefor one cannot say that privilege is always pure advantage.

Has anybody ever said that an advantageous trait always comes with absolutely no drawbacks?

Or rather my goal is to challenge the precepts that "Check your Privilege" is based on. That it requires a lot of assumptions about a person, society, their gender, their race, the color of their skin, their orientation. That it requires assumptions about their lives and how the advantages present themselves.

...I am somewhat lost. What is "check your privilege", and how does it require these assumptions?

It requires an assumption of perpetual victimhood and eternal victimizer.

I really do not see how anything requires that assumption.

To say nothing of how it is actually used "Do something about it!" Vs. What it actually means. (At which I have yet to see it used properly once)

Doesn't it "actually mean" that one should be aware of their privilege?

It is a topic worthy of speaking on its own given the whole "Men are rapists" thing gone out of dang control and reached a serious boiling point.

Nobody is saying that literally all men are rapists. We are saying that men are significantly more likely to rape or sexually assault people than are women.

On the other hand, "guilty until proven innocent" is terrifying as hell and should be killed with fire.

Then again I also looked at the concept of pick-up artists and sort of realized that a big part of it has to do with the fact that men, as a whole, need to initiate in our society and as such the entire hones is on them to be charming.

There's a rather big difference between initiation and coercion. Coercion requires initiation, yes, but it's more than that.

Which means they are more observable.

True - women are discouraged from doing certain things romantically, and pick-up artistry is a subset of those things.

[Neonivek]

 

I was hoping that conversation was over! It is so semantic and it is my own fault!

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Very well. Semantic arguments are rarely interesting or fruitful, anyway.

[Neonivek]

Thanks, I just can't take it anymore. If anyone else wants to discuss it fine. Though it was mostly Everyone else vs. Me so it isn't like anyone else can hold up one end.

I like it when I have a second person... It might be because a chorus is calming but it also helps me feel like I am not the only one carrying the load or that I am not tunneling straight ahead.

[hops]

It is a topic worthy of speaking on its own given the whole "Men are rapists" thing gone out of dang control and reached a serious boiling point.

Then again I also looked at the concept of pick-up artists and sort of realized that a big part of it has to do with the fact that men, as a whole, need to initiate in our society and as such the entire hones is on them to be charming.

Which means they are more observable.

I don't think this has more than a tangential relation to the behaviors of sexual deviants. The beliefs that men are rapists are a product of fear of men, which in turn is caused by machismo. Society is doing well so far to disassociate controlling behaviors from gender.

[Neonivek]

It is a topic worthy of speaking on its own given the whole "Men are rapists" thing gone out of dang control and reached a serious boiling point.

Then again I also looked at the concept of pick-up artists and sort of realized that a big part of it has to do with the fact that men, as a whole, need to initiate in our society and as such the entire hones is on them to be charming.

Which means they are more observable.

I don't think this has more than a tangential relation to the behaviors of sexual deviants. The beliefs that men are rapists are a product of fear of men, which in turn is caused by machismo. Society is doing well so far to disassociate controlling behaviors from gender.

It is caused by a strong belief in Rape Culture and the perpetuated insistence of constant female victimhood... And having ALL of this target exclusively men.

If you want to do "Well so far" then just look for "Teach men not to rape"

As for Machismo (AKA: Masculinity) You are right that society often considers masculinity itself to be bad.

It is why society has pathologized masculinity and why many schools had to follow suit with that belief.

Which is a shame to be honest since we actually saw this problem as far back as the 90s but for some reason the whole "Masculinity is bad" has been doubled down? I don't exactly understand.

---

So no, I do not hold the belief that society is handling it well. Anymore then I'd believe Salem caught witches. At least in terms of how we treat males.

Edit: Changed a few of the Feminisms. Even though the main issue is that a vocal minority (Assuming it is even that) and thus Feminism can be thought as "The overall effect" I still don't want to vilify Feminists or even all forms of Feminism. Only to suggests that the ideologies, that are currently being used as a whole and proposed, as well as the zealously in which it is being followed out is harmful and that it isn't being strongly resisted within feminist lines due to suppression from within its own community. The solution is more that it needs to be looked at critically and more importantly is needs to be ABLE to be looked at critically especially from outside that ideology among other things.

And that isn't even a problem individually held within Feminism itself, even though it actively polices those outside of it, but in how ingrained feminism is in our society that we have put it on a pedestal and gave it the near monopoly. That is why if Feminism says "This group is bad" very few sources will contradict that, or if the leaders of Feminism shut down certain "dissenters" that they are no longer considered of critical worth (such was the fate for the Feminist who said "Women are just as violent as men are") and should be barred, and there is no one with the authority to contradict it (and if it does occur, often times it leads to strong resistance, protests, bomb threats, vandalism, assault)

Actually that is an interesting discussion into itself about the differences between the leaders, the people within it, what it preaches, and how it acts.

I wonder if the solution I put is even the solution. I dunno too complicated for me at the moment... Nor if I even know if this is the proper way to address it, nor if I did the groundwork that is usually required for people who might not be well versed in the topic.

-Edit Edit: There, that should be enough to kill this topic dead!

[Solifuge]

I think the idea you're looking for is "Toxic Masculinity", IE. the domineering, "No means 'Yes, but I'm playing hard to get'", Gender-Inequality-reinforcing, "Men are Breadwinners and Women are Homemakers" and etc. etc. etc. thing. Which, I think most people would agree, is a bad thing? Unless you disagree.

Assuming you do though, be cautious about conflating statements about "People who are Toxically Masculine", and seeing them as statements about "All People who are Male-Identifying". Because that's fucking absurd. And is probably what leads to the majority of the "Feminists think Men are Bad" arguments you hear out of various internet asshats.

[Neonivek]

Lets just get Wikipedia's definition for a moment:

Such "toxic" masculine norms include dominance, devaluation of women, extreme self-reliance, and the suppression of emotions.

Assuming you do though, be cautious about conflating statements about "People who are Toxically Masculine", and seeing them as statements about "All People who are Male-Identifying". Because that's fucking absurd. And is probably what leads to the majority of the "Feminists think Men are Bad" arguments you hear out of various internet asshats.

Actually looking at the definition it seems like it is an inference that these ARE male norms. Yet ignoring that it also includes a demonization of domineerance and emotion suppression.

The problem with Toxic Masculinity is two fold
-1) It is an accusation onto men and an insistence of societal norms that are harmful to women but cannot be proven: You know like the "I am a stud" parade men have.
-2) It makes a value judgement as to what personality traits and mechanisms a man should and should not have.

Toxic Masculinity when it was first explained to me makes perfect sense. It was about men who are stuck in a world where they must be tough so constantly that it eats them up inside and makes them incapable of coping and that the toxicity towards women was more a result of being unable to even open up to a woman and seeing that influence as dangerous. THAT I can agree with.

The problem is Toxic Masculinity has more than overreached those bounds... Once again Wikipedia can you tell me traditional male norms?

risk-taking, violence, dominance, primacy of work, disdain for homosexuality, need for emotional control, desire to win, and pursuit of social status

But those are traditional male roles... But what about Toxic ones?

"toxic" masculine norms, such as self-reliance, seeking power over women, and sexual promiscuity or "playboy" behavior

Men who are self-reliant and men who like sex.

So Toxic Masculinity uses an appealing shell to make you agree with its basic premise but the full idea is anything but. In fact looking at the sources a lot of its studies were performed in Prisons.

So what happens when you apply this idea to say: Elementary school children?

---

So now what is Toxic Femininity? Wikipedia... Hmm no article.

The reason why so many people pick up "Feminists think Men are Bad" is because there is a lot that is said but not acted upon... Or that is said but contradicted. Or the fact that men are used as a straw man a disproportionate amount of the time or where simple male activities are demonized or a bunch of other legitimate reasons where one could come to that conclusion.

This is why a common phrase you will here is: "I have nothing against Feminism, just Third Wave Feminism" or "Modern Feminism"

---

Mind you this was all at the top of my head. I can dip further into this Toxic masculinity issue. I wish I could find another article I once read that outright debased the idea that "Controlling your emotions" was a bad thing.

For example I haven't found a statistic for how many men are toxically masculine... Or official psychological papers on it... Or even the studies that were performed.

And hey maybe I am wrong and it is perfectly legitimate in everyway and this pathology is unrelated, maybe this problem is overblown, or maybe some idiot took the idea of Toxic Masculinity and used it VERY incorrectly.

[Solifuge]

I'm trying really hard, Neonivek, for a good while prior to now. But I keep getting the sense there's facets of this discussion that you balk at, or preconceptions just don't want to step back and examine.

This is gettin' silly. I'm checking out of the thread.

[Neonivek]

I'm trying really hard, Neonivek, for a good while prior to now. But I keep getting the sense there's facets of this discussion that you balk at, or preconceptions just don't want to step back and examine.

This is gettin' silly. I'm checking out of the thread.

We just started talking! and I was about to apologize for my last post too because I don't think I was well informed enough to correctly identify the issues of Toxic Masculinity outside just highlighting the Wikipedia page.

Though... "Your silly, Bye" I guess is fine.

[Solifuge]

You and I, or you and someone else, get into this discussion (and discussions very like it) about once every month or so, and it always yields the same result. Plus, the earlier "There, that should be enough to kill this topic dead!", kinda makes your motivation seem questionable, whether it was entirely a joke or not.

That's all I care to say further, on that.

EDIT: I slightly lied. Adding that the pattern of discussion that seems to happen is very much one where you argue in favor of the status quo, cheerfully defend gender bs, borrow the arguments of Men's Rights Activists and Radical Feminists to make your points (generally at the expense of Feminism), etc. And the constant discussions or counterpoints don't seem to change any of that at all? So yeah, hence checking out.