Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
"New law could criminalise men for buying sex" (IT)
Options
Comments
-
I'm not giving out about women, saying something that is true that women might not want me to say is not giving out about them.
No, the view seems contradictory though.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
No, the view seems contradictory though.
No, Im not saying that what we call prostitution is ok and that women trading sex for secondary benefits (commitment etc) as a matter of course is not, I'm saying a variety of things including that there is a false distinction in society between the two and that what we call prostitution should be legalised and destigmatised.
and saying something that a woman might not want me to say is not giving out about women.0 -
No, Im not saying that what we call prostitution is ok and that women trading sex for secondary benefits in relationships as a matter or course is not.
Im saying a variety of things including that there is a false distinction in society between the two and that what we call prostitution should be legalised and destigmatised.
and saying something that a woman might not want me to say is not giving out about women.
So prostitution is in some way similar to sex in a relationship so therefore we should decriminalise it?Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Seeing as my last warning was not heeded the next off topic post will result in a 2 day ban and the posts will be deleted,no exceptions.0
-
Reward,Ive deleted your last post as it was off topic however I will not be imposing the ban as your post was written while I posted the warning.0
-
Advertisement
-
Ive just done a quick google on this, the swedish model is specifically not the harm reduction model.
We don’t work with harm reduction in Sweden. Because that’s not the way Sweden looks upon this. We see it as a ban on prostitution: there should be no prostitution‘, said governmental inquirer Anna Skarhed smilingly to the journalist attending the press conference on the release of the report on an inquiry meant to evaluate the effects of the sex purchase law but not to question the law itself. And later: ‘Harm reduction is not the Swedish model.’ (long English summary pp 29-44, or key excerpts in English ).
They seem to have told lies about the experiences of sex workers
The report’s claim that sexworkers are not marginalized is bafflingly arrogant, ignoring what many sexworkers say about how the law increases stigma and therefore their marginalization in society. See this video with Pye Jakobsson of Rose Alliance, as an example.
Looks like a good article http://www.lauraagustin.com/behind-the-happy-face-of-the-swedish-anti-prostitution-law0 -
No strings attached sex is not the norm, strings attached (sex dependent on some sort of commitment) is the norm.
Trading sex for secondary benefits on some kind is the norm.
dude, as a moderator, I'll happily defend your right to express your opinion, however unpopular that might be. However, meet me half-way here and express your opinion, don't try to pass off your opinion as being "the norm" unless you can link to studies to back up what you are saying. It may be your experience that the women you've had sex with have attached strings, it's not mine (or a lot of others by the sound of things).0 -
dude, as a moderator, I'll happily defend your right to express your opinion, however unpopular that might be. However, meet me half-way here and express your opinion, don't try to pass off your opinion as being "the norm" unless you can link to studies to back up what you are saying. It may be your experience that the women you've had sex with have attached strings, it's not mine (or a lot of others by the sound of things).
Look, everyone knows that no strings sex in not the norm and that most women are looking for commitment in return for sex and that ongoing sex often depends on ongoing commitment. As I pointed out "he only used me for sex" is a very common female phrase that directly pertains to trading sex for secondary benefits. There is a rather large, measurable male to female cash and asset transfer, There is a large gap in spending on luxury items despite men spending 20% more time in the work place, a lot of this extra money comes from to male to female relationship cash and asset transfer. The average wife spends x5 more of the family budget on herself than the average husband.
I think the problem is that many people stigmatise and look down on prostitutes and so what I'm saying seems offensive. "Prostitutes trade sex for secondary benefits, prostitutes are bad therefore all people that trade sex for benefits are bad, the women I know can't be bad".0 -
I cant back up it up studies, but everyone knows that no strings sex in not the norm and that most women are looking for commitment in return for sex. As I pointed out "he only used me for sex" is a very common female phrase that directly pertains to trading sex for secondary benefits. There is a rather large, measurable male to female cash and asset transfer, There is a large gap in spending on luxury items despite men spending 20% more time in the work place, this extra money comes from to male to female relationship cash and asset transfer.
I think the problem is that many people stigmatise and look down on prostitutes and so what I'm saying seems offensive. "Prostitutes trade sex for secondary benefits, prostitutes are bad therefore all people that trade sex for benefits are bad, the women I know can't be bad".
Ive stayed out of this thread, because for the most part, I find it quite it degrading to all human heterosexual relationships.
"Everyone" does not know this. What do you mean by 'no strings sex'? Do you mean lack of expectations, lack of responsibility, lack of emotions, what do you mean? Are you the type of man who if living with a woman, takes out the garbage once a week, expects regular sex and if you dont get it feel gipped? Do you commodify all your friendships, relationships like that? Do you feel like you should be REWARDED with sex for any kind gesture? Is it all transactional for you? Because for EVERYONE, it is not like this.
If you have such a problem with women, you can always try men.0 -
metrovelvet wrote: »Ive stayed out of this thread, because for the most part, I find it quite it degrading to all human heterosexual relationships.
"Everyone" does not know this. What do you mean by 'no strings sex'? Do you mean lack of expectations, lack of responsibility, lack of emotions, what do you mean? Are you the type of man who if living with a woman, takes out the garbage once a week, expects regular sex and if you dont get it feel gipped? Do you commodify all your friendships, relationships like that? Do you feel like you should be REWARDED with sex for any kind gesture? Is it all transactional for you? Because for EVERYONE, it is not like this.
If you have such a problem with women, you can always try men.
I don't have a problem with women. I'm saying that its the norm for there to be strings and sex for reward is not uncommon in heterosexual relationships.
Ok, can you tell me what the common phrase "he only used me for sex" is about if not trading sex for secondary benefits?0 -
Advertisement
-
Not true at all. I can only imagine the kind of women you're meetingLook, everyone knows that no strings sex in not the norm and that most women are looking for commitment in return for sex and that ongoing sex often depends on ongoing commitment.
It's neither common (except in some crappy American sitcoms), nor does it mean what you think it does. Does every woman who's had sex and wanted to continue a relationship when the guy didn't mean she was trying to trade? What about the reverse? I know more guys that have been devestated by the end of a relationship than I do girls.As I pointed out "he only used me for sex" is a very common female phrase that directly pertains to trading sex for secondary benefits.
Except you're making the massive assumption that if that gap wasn't there, woman would abandon marriage en masse, which there is no evidence for at allThere is a rather large, measurable male to female cash and asset transfer, There is a large gap in spending on luxury items despite men spending 20% more time in the work place, a lot of this extra money comes from to male to female relationship cash and asset transfer. The average wife spends x5 more of the family budget on herself than the average husband.Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.
Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/
Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce
0 -
Not true at all. I can only imagine the kind of women you're meeting
It's neither common (except in some crappy American sitcoms), nor does it mean what you think it does. Does every woman who's had sex and wanted to continue a relationship when the guy didn't mean she was trying to trade? What about the reverse? I know more guys that have been devestated by the end of a relationship than I do girls.
Except you're making the massive assumption that if that gap wasn't there, woman would abandon marriage en masse, which there is no evidence for at all
All this stuff is so ingrained most of us are unaware of it.
Can one person tell me what "he only used me for sex" is about if not a direct reference to trading sex for secondary benefits?
I think the repulsion to what I'm saying is rooted in societal prejudice against sex workers , tbh.0 -
Look, everyone knows that no strings sex in not the norm and that most women are looking for commitment in return for sex and that ongoing sex often depends on ongoing commitment.
With respect, OP, this is crap. You have a choice, you can either post a link to peer-reviewed studies which back up your opinion, or you can quit posting in this thread.
so, to make it clear: unless you're posting a link to a study which backs up what you are saying, don't post in this thread again.0 -
Reward: You have a point.
However, relationship relations are not considered for prostitution.
They are considered for rape and sexual abuse cases.
In a dispute women will bring the inadequacies of their partner to the public far faster than men will in the same situation, be that a genuine experience [at the time] or not.0 -
Or you're just making up your own prejudices. I'm well aware of why I have sex and relationshipsAll this stuff is so ingrained most of us are unaware of it.
Show that it's in any way a common sentiment, and that sentiment is not shared by many men (even if it doesn't have a catchy phrase to go with it)Can one person tell me what "he only used me for sex" is about if not a direct reference to trading sex for secondary benefits?
It's more to do with the fact that no-one can believe that anyone would have such a backwards view of sexI think the repulsion to what I'm saying is rooted in societal prejudice against sex workers , tbh.
Incidentally, if your position is accurate (it's not) then every single human interaction is also a 'trade'. When I have a conversation, I'm "trading" my company for another's. The same is true of this discussionBoardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.
Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/
Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce
0 -
You are applying a conscious trading/reward scheme to something that is not prearranged and fixed in a relationship. It is not a case of gift = reward of sex, for most people sex is an intimate thing that they do with people they trust and care about, this trust and caring is built up over time. When a suitable level of trust and care has been built up then people feel comfortable with engaging in the sexual part of their relationship.
This is the exact same as a friendship relationship, if a random person came up to you and asked you do you want to go back to theirs to watch a dvd together most people would say no, but if you have built up a level of trust and familiarity with someone then you feel comfortable with that person and identify them as a friend then you have no problem going back to theirs to watch a dvd. Friendship is not a reward scheme of invest X cash to get Y companionship, just as an intimate relationship is not invest X cash to get Y sexual return.
The "used for sex" comment does not mean what you imply, they are not saying "I gave him sex but he never got me that jewelry I wanted" they are saying "I thought we had an emotional bond, I thought we were going to have a long term relationship together, but he just feigned that sort of interest so as soon as we had sex he bailed".
While there are some out there that will go into a relationship as gift = sex where you have the sugar daddies etc this is certainly not the norm as you are suggesting.0 -
With respect, OP, this is crap. You have a choice, you can either post a link to peer-reviewed studies which back up your opinion, or you can quit posting in this thread.
so, to make it clear: unless you're posting a link to a study which backs up what you are saying, don't post in this thread again.
Ok, here is a discussion about the very same thing on a feminist site, its probably more acceptable when women say it themselves.
"Stigma is an interesting beastie. Whore stigma is particularly interesting, in part because it makes no sense and falls apart the minute it’s exposed to any rational analysis whatsoever. Yet somehow, even though it makes no sense, it is a constant and often overwhelming social force that shapes the lives of all women.
There’s an old joke about a man who walks up to a woman at a bar and asks, “Would you have sex with me for a million dollars?” She says, “Yes.” He says, “What about fifty dollars?” and she snaps, “What the hell do you think I am — a whore?” He replies, “We’ve already established that you’re a whore; now we’re just negotiating the price.”
Inherent in this joke, and in the slide I showcase at the top of this post, is the tension and confusion that happens pretty much automatically whenever anyone tries to point out the difference between a “nice girl” and a “whore”. It’s one of the best ways to show that whore stigma makes no sense: the difference is impossible to pin down....."
rest here http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2010/12/17/whore-stigma-makes-no-sense/
I will post details on male to female asset transfer and spending gap, brb (its huge).
I'm using american figures, women earn 75% of what men do, allegedly but control most of the spending and spend far more on personal luxury items than men, the surplus spending money comes from male to female relationship cash and asset transfer.
Facts about the "Purse Power" of women:
Women are the dominant spending force in almost every retail/business category and are the most affluent and influential consumers of today.
* Of all consumer purchases, women are responsible for 83%
* Homes: Directly purchase or influence the purchase of 91% of all new homes
* Home fix-up purchases: More than 55%
* Retail: Account for 88% of customers in the US & Canada
* Auto: Make more than 50% of all auto purchases and influence 85%.
* Home furnishings: 94%
* Vacation choices: 92%
* House purchases: 91%
* Consumer electronics purchases: 51% (women are involved in 89% of all consumer electronic purchase decisions)
* Home Computers: Account for 66% of all purchases
* Bank Accounts: Hold 89% of all accounts
* Credit Cards: Women carry 76 million credit cards, 8 million more then men—(Fast Company, 2004)
* Healthcare: Make 80% of Healthcare decisions and account for 67% of spending
* Health: Purchase 65% of herbal remedies, vitamins and minerals and purchase 80% of all healthcare
* Beauty and hygiene: Purchase more than 90%
* Clothes, accessories: Wear more than 90% of items such as jewelry and perfume
* Meetings: Plan the meetings and comprise the majority of certified meeting planners
* Office Supplies: Purchase $44.5 billion
* Lawn movers: Purchase approximately 81% of riding lawn mowers
All facts noted above are from the 2005 Wow! Quick Facts book and the U.S. Census Bureau, 2004
Male to female cash and asst transfer is huge money.0 -
What the hell are you talking about?0
-
metrovelvet wrote: »What the hell are you talking about?
Im not going to keep repeating myself because repeatedly answering the same questions for multiple people makes it look like I'm monopolising the thread.
Everything I have to say has been said already. I suggest that others that disagree move on at this stage.0 -
thats a blog link, tho, reward, it's not a study.
look, like I said, you are entitled to your opinion. However, I don't want you passing your opinion off as fact. You pass your opinion off as fact when you say things like:
-you couldn't possibly know that.all I'm saying is that the norm for women is to trade sex for secondary benefits, "strings" if you like.
- you couldn't possibly know that.No not at all, but many women will only exchange sex for secondary benefits and strings.... like love, affection, support financial or otherwise etc.
-you couldn't possibly know what most peoples sexual relationships are based on.No. Its not unusual for sex to depend on ongoing emotional support, "commitment" which usually entails benefits and traditional entitlements, so its a fair question.
You won't accept it's the norm?I'm happy to take your word for it that you will have sex with men for no pay back in other ways whatsoever, "no strings" as the saying goes, I just wont go with claims that its the norm.Not all but most, have you ever heard a woman complain that men are only after sex? We all have, many, many times.
So, again, put very simply: I will not allow you to say tell the rest of us what the norms are, based solely on your experience. You can say "In my experience, women want something before they have sex with me".
You cannot say "All women want something in exchange for sex".
If you continue to make statements like that, I'm removing you from the forum.0 -
Advertisement
-
A post on a blog is not a peer reviewed study.
Just because you read ( or write ) something on the internet doesn't make it fact, it just makes it words.
Also, "He used me for sex" is normally a phrase used by women ( or men ) whereby a partner lied to them about an emotional interest and possibly led them on through actions or words.
For a lot of people, sex is not a transaction, it is something that occurs after a relevant emotional connection has been made.0 -
I'm well aware of why I have sex and relationships
Of the conscious reasons, yes...to at least some extent, we all are. We all know what our conscious motivators are.Incidentally, if your position is accurate (it's not) then every single human interaction is also a 'trade'. When I have a conversation, I'm "trading" my company for another's. The same is true of this discussion
This is true. Every single human interaction is a trade. James Youniss at Catholic University of America spent most of his career discussing the concept of social reciprocity and conscious/unconscious motivators.
We all seek reciprocity in our interactions with others. If we did not, there would be no such thing as the awkward silence. For example, upon meeting someone for the first time, you hold out your hand to shake theirs....they don't reciprocate...it's just weird. We seek it in all things -- eye contact, verbal exchange, physical proximity or touch, etc.
The notion of emotional trading is not new and it isn't exclusive of sex. men and women both complain at times about a lover who just 'doesn't seem present' or 'doesn't seem into it'. Isn't reciprocity what we are seeking there? And earlier someone mentioned the "he used me for sex" complaint. Obviously the woman in the example was looking for more, after the act of sex; he did not reciprocate, ergo, she feels used.
it's a basic, yet frequently unconscious process.0 -
Logical Fallacy wrote: »For a lot of people, sex is not a transaction, it is something that occurs after a relevant emotional connection has been made.
And flowers, a meal, a glass of wine, an open fire .....
.... but this could be construed as a benefit or payment .... OK, from now on she pays half .. fixed
0 -
thats a blog link, tho, reward, it's not a study.
look, like I said, you are entitled to your opinion. However, I don't want you passing your opinion off as fact. You pass your opinion off as fact when you say things like:
-you couldn't possibly know that.
- you couldn't possibly know that.
-you couldn't possibly know what most peoples sexual relationships are based on.
You won't accept it's the norm?
So, again, put very simply: I will not allow you to say tell the rest of us what the norms are, based solely on your experience. You can say "In my experience, women want something before they have sex with me".
You cannot say "All women want something in exchange for sex".
If you continue to make statements like that, I'm removing you from the forum.
I'm not basing anything solely on my experience, at all and I'm talking about, demonstrable norms like the expectation of a diamond ring on engagement, expecting "commitment" and terms like "used for sex" and the foolishness of stigmatising prostitutes for requiring minimal commitment as opposed to more ... not hard and fast rules based on my own experience.0 -
Of the conscious reasons, yes...to at least some extent, we all are. We all know what our conscious motivators are.
This is true. Every single human interaction is a trade. James Youniss at Catholic University of America spent most of his career discussing the concept of social reciprocity and conscious/unconscious motivators.
We all seek reciprocity in our interactions with others. If we did not, there would be no such thing as the awkward silence. For example, upon meeting someone for the first time, you hold out your hand to shake theirs....they don't reciprocate...it's just weird. We seek it in all things -- eye contact, verbal exchange, physical proximity or touch, etc.
The notion of emotional trading is not new and it isn't exclusive of sex. men and women both complain at times about a lover who just 'doesn't seem present' or 'doesn't seem into it'. Isn't reciprocity what we are seeking there? And earlier someone mentioned the "he used me for sex" complaint. Obviously the woman in the example was looking for more, after the act of sex; he did not reciprocate, ergo, she feels used.
it's a basic, yet frequently unconscious process.
Thank you.0 -
I'm not basing anything solely on my experience, at all and I'm talking about, demonstrable norms like the expectation of a diamond ring on engagement, expecting "commitment" and terms like "used for sex" and the foolishness of stigmatising prostitutes for requiring minimal commitment as opposed to more ... not hard and fast rules based on my own experience.
The expectation of a diamond ring for an engagement present has only existed since about the late 1940's due to a very clever add campaign. As such, this states more about the susceptibility of the human mind to suggestion than anything else.
The idea of the diamond ring also goes hand in hand with the concept of the bride buying the groom an expensive watch...so that one works against both sexes.
I'm not seeing where you where you are going with "expecting commitment". People, in the main, enjoy exclusive relationships, they become emotionally invested in their partner and feel special and gratified by the concept of loyalty. This is not a trait exclusive to women and is found in men also.0 -
So what relavance does it have? All human interaction is a "trade", so why single out sex? Women "trading" sex (which is not what actually happens in the vast majority of cases, it's infinitely more complex than that) is no different to a man "trading" sex, or conversation, or anything else.Of the conscious reasons, yes...to at least some extent, we all are. We all know what our conscious motivators are.
This is true. Every single human interaction is a trade. James Youniss at Catholic University of America spent most of his career discussing the concept of social reciprocity and conscious/unconscious motivators.
We all seek reciprocity in our interactions with others. If we did not, there would be no such thing as the awkward silence. For example, upon meeting someone for the first time, you hold out your hand to shake theirs....they don't reciprocate...it's just weird. We seek it in all things -- eye contact, verbal exchange, physical proximity or touch, etc.
The notion of emotional trading is not new and it isn't exclusive of sex. men and women both complain at times about a lover who just 'doesn't seem present' or 'doesn't seem into it'. Isn't reciprocity what we are seeking there? And earlier someone mentioned the "he used me for sex" complaint. Obviously the woman in the example was looking for more, after the act of sex; he did not reciprocate, ergo, she feels used.
it's a basic, yet frequently unconscious process.
Again, you haven't shown the term "used for sex" is anything close to a demonstrable norm, nor that the same sentiment isn't expressed by men in different terms. Engagement rings are a demonstrable norm, but you haven't shown that women would abandon marriage en masse if it didn't exist.I'm not basing anything solely on my experience, at all and I'm talking about, demonstrable norms like the expectation of a diamond ring on engagement, expecting "commitment" and terms like "used for sex" and the foolishness of stigmatising prostitutes for requiring minimal commitment as opposed to more ... not hard and fast rules based on my own experience.Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.
Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/
Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce
0 -
I personally both agree and disagree with Reward.
I disagree because while the financial dimension in relationships was far more clear cut in the past, it is no longer so and people - both male and female - will enter relationships that have no financial dimension nowadays.
However, I do think that it is either deluded or dishonest to pretend that money is not a consideration. Women still overwhelmingly provide the homemaker-caregiver role in long-term relationships and so while financial considerations may be unimportant in many relationships, you quickly find that the emphasis changes when you're thinking about "the rest of your life".
"Only about one-quarter of individuals in cohabiting couples perceive any disadvantage, and women are more likely to see a disadvantage. (Table 3). The disadvantage mentioned most is ‘financial insecurity’ (Table 4)."
http://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/files/iser_working_papers/2000-27.pdf
Thus it is logical that a woman, unless she is financially and independently successful, will want to consider the financial dimension. After all, if she has children and gives up her job, how is she going to be able to afford it? Either she is with a man who can or she will be will have serious problems taking on such a role.
Similarly, men consider what a woman will bring to a long term relationship in a similar fashion. For example, once married, the choice for a woman to remain in a career or not is up to her - he can't force her to get a job. And as a similar choice is not socially available to men, we have to consider the possibilities; will she quit her job? Can I afford to carry her and potentially one or more children financially? If she does quit her job and stay at home what will she contribute?
The last question is interesting because as the article posted earlier points out, there's no guarantee that a housewife will actually fulfill the roles of a housewife and you could easily end up trapped in a relationship where the other party brings little or nothing to the table and that would be very costly to get out of.
An interesting finding I remember reading a few years ago (in the book "Making bread" by Brody Sweeney) was from dating sites, where the thing most women were likely to lie about in their profiles were age or weight, while men it was salary. Added to social customs and expectations, such as the tradition of men to buy dinner for women when courting, that an engagement ring needs to be of a particular minimum value (traditionally two or three months of the man's salary), it is difficult to simply discount the financial expectations as simply the ramblings of a misogynist.
However, as I intimated in at the start of this post, society has changed and you cannot simply paint all women, or men, with the same brush. Neither is it as two-dimensional as that and there are many other considerations that both will have beyond the financial.
Money is a factor for women, but it is not necessarily the most important, only or for all women. That would be a gross generalization.
All of which is irrelevant to the OT, which was that banning the 'release valve' of prostitution for men, would give women in relationships far greater control over the relationship. Whether the end of such control is financial or otherwise is irrelevant to the discussion.0 -
Of the conscious reasons, yes...to at least some extent, we all are. We all know what our conscious motivators are.
This is true. Every single human interaction is a trade. James Youniss at Catholic University of America spent most of his career discussing the concept of social reciprocity and conscious/unconscious motivators.
We all seek reciprocity in our interactions with others. If we did not, there would be no such thing as the awkward silence. For example, upon meeting someone for the first time, you hold out your hand to shake theirs....they don't reciprocate...it's just weird. We seek it in all things -- eye contact, verbal exchange, physical proximity or touch, etc.
The notion of emotional trading is not new and it isn't exclusive of sex. men and women both complain at times about a lover who just 'doesn't seem present' or 'doesn't seem into it'. Isn't reciprocity what we are seeking there? And earlier someone mentioned the "he used me for sex" complaint. Obviously the woman in the example was looking for more, after the act of sex; he did not reciprocate, ergo, she feels used.
it's a basic, yet frequently unconscious process.
It's a lot more complicated that that, read Giddens instead of that hack Youssin.0 -
Advertisement
-
Logical Fallacy wrote: »The expectation of a diamond ring for an engagement present has only existed since about the late 1940's due to a very clever add campaign. As such, this states more about the susceptibility of the human mind to suggestion than anything else.
The idea of the diamond ring also goes hand in hand with the concept of the bride buying the groom an expensive watch...so that one works against both sexes.
I'm not seeing where you where you are going with "expecting commitment". People, in the main, enjoy exclusive relationships, they become emotionally invested in their partner and feel special and gratified by the concept of loyalty. This is not a trait exclusive to women and is found in men also.
The marketing campaign with the diamond ring wouldn't have worked were it not for ingrained behaviour, it exploited a norm.
I can't keep responding to everyone because I will be deleted, a far better representation of what I'm saying can be found here...
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2010/12/17/whore-stigma-makes-no-sense/0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement