There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
The Sexual Cartel
Comments
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,174 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 59102
The Corinthian wrote: »People tend to forget that our particular subspecies, Homo Sapien Sapien, has been around for about 200,000 years (the overall Homo Sapien group for about 500,000 years). Civilization, as we call it, where we went from being hunter-gatherers to developing permanent settlements, underpinned by agriculture and leading to law, writing, organized religion, government and so on, only occurred with the Neolithic Revolution, which began only about 10,000 years ago.
So when we look at human evolution, it's important to remember that it was formed in the context of a hunter-gatherer paradigm, which made up 95% of our history.
Interestingly the biggest evolution of humans on the genetic level occurred in the last 10-15,000 years. More changes in our genome in that time than in the previous 40,000 years. So one could also argue that we're a very different animal to the humans of 40,000 years ago who would otherwise look identical to us. Most are dietary adaptations, but there are many other changes. (Some seem to apply to sperm production in men. Something, some social pressure selected for these genes).And what you describe is perfectly correct (at least as far as evolutionary biologists and anthropologists are concerned). Females of the species were highly disadvantaged by how we reproduce, which greatly limited their ability to provide food for themselves or their offspring. And naturally this led to a series of evolutionary strategies to allow the female to manage or control the male so that he would provide and protect her - hardly unique, as you'll find it in many other animal species, such as many species of birds and even primates, such as the bonobo.we're one of the few (if not the only) mammals to develop breasts before pregnancy, specifically for sexual reasons. Think about it; what use are breasts prior to child baring?we can't forget that some of it is directed against other women tooNonetheless, none of this is concious. None of this is planned. Both men and women are hard-wired this way thanks to the 95% of our evolutionary history that overshadows our recent dalliance with civilization. So to suggest a conspiracy, some sort of organized effort by women is to ignore these biological facts and instead replace them with a fanciful theory which has absolutely no evidence supporting it. In my experience, jumping to such theories does tend to be misogynistic, as it presumes some form of premeditated malice on the part of women.Another evolutionary trait that's been examined has been the cuckold syndrome; when choosing a mate, evolution will cause a female to seek two things - good genetics and good provision. Sometimes you can't get both in one man, which leads to the old scenario whereby a woman is with a good provider, yet having sex (and children) with a handsome 'bad boy', on the side.On the other side of the scale, you can have a simple fact; such as that Asians are far less able, as a whole, to process alcohol than Europeans (a product of how both regions developed water purification differently over 10,000 years). While both factual and lacking any social or political agenda, such a statement would be considered racist by many.KyussBishop wrote: »All of that makes perfect sense anthropologically and in an evolutionary way, the bit where it snags for me though, are the implicit claims about limitations in human behaviour/psychology in society.
We can see clear examples of behaviour limits too. Take the Israeli Kibbutz social experiment. It was noted that boys and girls who grew up in such collective environments nearly always looked outside their kibbutz for partners. Because they'd grown up together as children the innate instinct to avoid incest kicked in, so they looked for people who weren't their kibbutz "brothers" and "sisters". Adopted brothers and sisters don't find each other sexually attractive(and society would go ape if they did), though genetically there is zero reason why they shouldn't.
Like I said the idea that we could trump nature with nurture(or culture) has it's roots in the counterculture 1960's and roots in more left wing political thought(though ironically your fascists would agree with them). It's not nature > nurture either. It's a two way street that puts limits and selection pressures on each other.This is where it breaks down: A huge amount of the reasoning for this being the case in the past, is starting to disappear now as society changes, and (as good/interesting the points are in discussion here) I just don't see what is still left.
*travelers in 18th century London noted, even complained about the amount of openly copulating couples you'd see while walking about the place. In broad daylight too. Check out medieval maps of towns for street names like "Grabcock" and "Gropecúnt" lane". Sex wasn't invented in the 1960's we've been shagging in all sorts of ways with all sorts of people for as long as records are around. Victorian values and all that guff was the outlier, we're living more in the reset from that.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
Well yes and no. While Homo Sapiens has been around for a while, with early versions coming along 200,000 ago, they weren't quite "us". If you dressed one of those guys in jeans and a shirt, he'd look really odd, not quite human.
The point I was making was that even in our current subspecies iteration, our entire history of civilization (including prehistoric civilization) is a relatively short, and while the changes that came with its development have been profound, we would do well to remember that there's a lot of evolutionary history that preceded it which can't be forgotten completely either.
Didn't know about Neanderthal biscuits though - interesting.0 -
but there are limits in human behaviour and psychology in society and not just in the reproduction sphere. While we as societies do vary and do allow for some outliers, societies draw lines all over the place. We always have and we always will.
We can see clear examples of behaviour limits too. Take the Israeli Kibbutz social experiment. It was noted that boys and girls who grew up in such collective environments nearly always looked outside their kibbutz for partners. Because they'd grown up together as children the innate instinct to avoid incest kicked in, so they looked for people who weren't their kibbutz "brothers" and "sisters". Adopted brothers and sisters don't find each other sexually attractive(and society would go ape if they did), though genetically there is zero reason why they shouldn't.
The issue with saying avoiding incest is an innate instinct (implying psychological nature, rather than nurture), is that is making unsubstantiated implications about human psychology (I do agree that applies to our reproductive biology though, of course); I think that is better explained by social pressure, than by instinct, especially when you take reproduction out of the picture.
It's a matter of confusing as natural, what is actually brought about through nurture - though at the moment, there is no way to definitively say one way or the other.I think the idea that a huge amount is changing in society is a fallacy. It's one with legs I grant you, some of the ancient Greeks in their times reckoned so too. Every generation thinks they are inventing the future anew and every previous generation thinks "in my day, harrumph!". In the west there has been a gender revolution and sexual revolution over the last century. So here we are in the warm afterglow of the revolution and yes more people are having sex with more people*, however the vast majority of people, old and young, gay and straight, faced with apparently more choice than ever before still fall into the old serial monogamy vibe, like we've been doing for tens of thousands of years across tens of thousands of cultures and tens of thousands of societal changes. If someday we become more machine than man things will no doubt change, but so long as we're human I'm not so sure. More's the point what would be the advantage, the selective pressure that would make us change?
I think some of the advantages of dropping strict-monogamy or serial-monogamy, are a lot of the disadvantages it causes, like cheating/affairs (a lot of people want to have their cake and eat it, it seems), plus divorce and such, which hurt partners and children often, plus just the dissatisfaction a lot of people have if they start to feel trapped in a relationship over time (as happens with a lot of families); it's certainly not straight-forward as being an advantage mind, it's just different way of doing things with its own set of issues.*travelers in 18th century London noted, even complained about the amount of openly copulating couples you'd see while walking about the place. In broad daylight too. Check out medieval maps of towns for street names like "Grabcock" and "Gropecúnt" lane". Sex wasn't invented in the 1960's we've been shagging in all sorts of ways with all sorts of people for as long as records are around. Victorian values and all that guff was the outlier, we're living more in the reset from that.0 -
Here is actually a good article I just came across, on evolutionary psychology, which is specifically about the problem I picked up on, of drawing claims about behaviour/psychology based on genetic selection:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/07/28/tackling-pinkers-defense-of-evolutionary-psychology/0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Well of course, you don't even have to go that far for our ancestors to be not quite 'us' - the development of the overbite, for example, is actually very recent. Average height, even more so.
The point I was making was that even in our current subspecies iteration, our entire history of civilization (including prehistoric civilization) is a relatively short, and while the changes that came with its development have been profound, we would do well to remember that there's a lot of evolutionary history that preceded it which can't be forgotten completely either.
Didn't know about Neanderthal biscuits though - interesting.
I don't buy that overbite theory. Does half the world who don't use forks not have overbites?0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »Here is actually a good article I just came across, on evolutionary psychology, which is specifically about the problem I picked up on, of drawing claims about behaviour/psychology based on genetic selection:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/07/28/tackling-pinkers-defense-of-evolutionary-psychology/
The psychs like to use biology because they are still deluding themselves and the world they are a science, when they are so interpretive it seems more like an art. And that's fine that its an art, but its the pretence that bugs me.
I doubt incest taboo is innate. Too many instances of distant siblings falling in love and incest within families where external sexual mores are very stringent.0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,174 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 59102
The Corinthian wrote: »Well of course, you don't even have to go that far for our ancestors to be not quite 'us' - the development of the overbite, for example, is actually very recent. Average height, even more so.
What has happened at a base level is our teeth have gotten smaller in the last 50,000 years. As have our skulls(and brains funny enough). More recently more and more people are being born without the capacity to grow wisdom teeth. Likely as a response to smaller palates. What's interestng about that is people are hardly dying from impacted wisdom teeth before passing on their genes, so why this is happening is, like I say interesting.
Height is another developmental attribute and down to diet. In medieval times the aristocracy were notably taller than the peasant classes. Back then tall=rich for the most part. Japanese Americans grow in stature generation by generation compared to their relatives back in Japan.The point I was making was that even in our current subspecies iteration, our entire history of civilization (including prehistoric civilization) is a relatively short, and while the changes that came with its development have been profound, we would do well to remember that there's a lot of evolutionary history that preceded it which can't be forgotten completely either.Didn't know about Neanderthal biscuits though - interesting.KyussBishop wrote: »True, but these lines get redrawn and recede all the time - as we see now regarding homsexuality and other gender/orientation issues.The issue with saying avoiding incest is an innate instinct (implying psychological nature, rather than nurture), is that is making unsubstantiated implications about human psychology (I do agree that applies to our reproductive biology though, of course); I think that is better explained by social pressure, than by instinct, especially when you take reproduction out of the picture.in general there's an increasing (but slow) liberalization of many parts of society, which I just don't think has ever been seen on quite the same social/economic/intellectual scale before.I think some of the advantages of dropping strict-monogamy or serial-monogamy, are a lot of the disadvantages it causes, like cheating/affairs (a lot of people want to have their cake and eat it, it seems), plus divorce and such, which hurt partners and children often, plus just the dissatisfaction a lot of people have if they start to feel trapped in a relationship over time (as happens with a lot of families); it's certainly not straight-forward as being an advantage mind, it's just different way of doing things with its own set of issues.Haha, yes I remember reading about that before - I'm certainly curious how social conservatism was back then, as I would think the church still played a large part in things at the time.KyussBishop wrote: »Here is actually a good article I just came across, on evolutionary psychology, which is specifically about the problem I picked up on, of drawing claims about behaviour/psychology based on genetic selection:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/07/28/tackling-pinkers-defense-of-evolutionary-psychology/clairefontaine wrote: »The psychs like to use biology because they are still deluding themselves and the world they are a science, when they are so interpretive it seems more like an art. And that's fine that its an art, but its the pretence that bugs me.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
clairefontaine wrote: »I don't buy that overbite theory. Does half the world who don't use forks not have overbites?
Either way, I wouldn't place too much emphasis on the fork theory; the point is that the incidence in overbites in humans has increased dramatically in the last few hundred years.What's interestng about that is people are hardly dying from impacted wisdom teeth before passing on their genes, so why this is happening is, like I say interesting.Height is another developmental attribute and down to diet. In medieval times the aristocracy were notably taller than the peasant classes. Back then tall=rich for the most part. Japanese Americans grow in stature generation by generation compared to their relatives back in Japan.Yea and they weren't that short either. Same height as we were back then and one lad found in Iran was nearly a 6 footer. Note to self avoid picking a fight with him0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,174 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 59102
The Corinthian wrote: »That is actually.Well, the same goes for younger generations of Japanese. The shift from the traditional to a Western one has seen a number of changes in Asia; increased height, decrease in health issues associated with an Asian diet (e.g. high blood pressure) and a corresponding increase in health issues associated with a Western diet (e.g. cancer).
Basically, we're not as homogenous a species as is popular to believe(even PC to believe. I said the PC word :eek::eek:). Even in genetics we can see this. Non African folks have Neandertal DNA*, up to 5% and in the past(like Otzi the iceman) that was even higher. Go to some east Asian populations and we see nigh on 10% of their genes come from archaic humans. Makes sense, humans from the get go like to get jiggy jiggy.
And that's no bad thing either IMHO. TBH I dislike the idea that is a given these days, that humans are basically the same. Yes I DO see the real racist shíte that might be extrapolated from the idea we were "races" in the past and the horrible results that came out of that. However I think it's more important to tell the story of how we all came to be this fantastic bunch of muppets and kings who we are today. The reason I hate racism is not because it's obviously moral to do so, it's because it's obviously daft in a scientific way.
Then again I might be odd in this. I firmly believe the Neandertal and Denisovan(and undiscovered others) folks before us were people just like you and me, just different and different is good. Indeed, given a couple of hundred million of us carry their genes today, I'd say they didn't go nearly as extinct as the easy story goes(Speaking as someone with 4 odd % Neandertal DNA, I'm just rooting for my peeeeople** ) I like that we may be all "sub species" of "human", each of us with our own adaptive advantages. Bringing difference, but with mutual recognition, is for me a way better way forward for our humanity. It makes us more future proof too.Pre-Neolithic man wasn't actually short. It was the shift from a meat rich diet to a cereal based one that did that.
* you can be sure that African folks have their own archaic DNA going on, it;s just that it's harder to see, because of preservation issues and there's an element of "oh well they're different, even among the most "right on". Bollocks I say. Africans have the widest genetic variance on this planet and they didn't lick it from a stone.
**from a very early age I was fascinated by them. These amazing looking people who survived countless ice ages and shít. And this was in the 70's when they were seen as a shambling buffoon. I don't buy the idea of race memory, but by god I was a good example of it On holidays to Lourdes(very fash in the 70's) followed by trips to Spain and other parts of France I tried to collect bits of them. I found a fair few too(and pre regulation it was so easy). An 8 year old weirdo I was. Nada has changed much on that score.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
Advertisement
-
Yes I DO see the real racist shíte that might be extrapolated from the idea we were "races" in the past and the horrible results that came out of that. However I think it's more important to tell the story of how we all came to be this fantastic bunch of muppets and kings who we are today. The reason I hate racism is not because it's obviously moral to do so, it's because it's obviously daft in a scientific way.
Firstly, it's still largely based on theories that were first developed in the latter half of the 18th century, but became popular in the latter half of the 19th, with the rise of racial anthropology. Indeed, they were more observations, rather than theories, which originally noted broad differences between three basic racial groupings*.
Thing is that races are not so tidy as to fit into such classifications. They 'blur' into each other once you get to geographical boundaries between peoples, and even within a theoretically homogeneous region, variations occur. Europeans or Aryans, for example, got subdivided further into Nordic, Alpine, Mediterranean and Slavic sub-groups, and the sub-divisions continued into the modern age, to smaller and smaller groups - all based upon these original observations, that were not only meant to be at best broad classifications, but also were never empirically confirmed.
Secondly, was the ideological influence on the study. Historically, it's no secret that race theory was used politically as a means to justify slavery and later imperialism**. This influence continued into the 20th century and can be seen in the almost schizophrenic approach that Nazi Germany used racial classifications; Slavs (who were previously considered an Aryan subset) were reclassified as Mongoloid, while previously, non-Aryan groups were suddenly reclassified as such or placed in special categories as the War progressed, because membership into the SS needed to be expanded due to demand.
This resulted, overall, in an flawed approach to research. As with most scientific process, a hypothesis would be developed then would be either proven or dis-proven; however only hypotheses that followed an ideological agenda were put forward and if dis-proven, the results would be discounted. As time went on 'proven' hypotheses became dubiously so, with many relying on 'proof' which in reality was simply a reference to another unproven hypothesis.
As a result of the above, racialism or racial anthropology pretty much lost any credibility as a serious science. Like Intelligent Design, it fails to follow the scientific process and is too ideologically influenced to be considered objective.
This process of reductio ad absurdum and ideological influence can be seen today. If you go to one of the most popular racialist sites out there, Stormfront.org, you'll find numerous racial sub-classifications and fora. Where it becomes amusing is not only the antipathy even between many of the various sub-racial groups, but even within a single forum; the Italian forum appears to be populated by a mixture of Italian-Americans (who are predominately of southern Italian stock) and Northern Italians. Problem is that the latter consider the former to be 'terroni' and little more than North Africans, with hilarious results.
Personally I think it's a pity; the study of variations between different populations of humans on our planet, would be an interesting field, but it has been so discredited as a scientific field and so politically tainted that it's practically a taboo. I think it only, just about, exists in serious scientific circles, to a very limited extent, as a branch of modern anthropology today***.
* Blumenbach originally postulated five; Caucasian, Mongoloid, Malay, Negroid and (native) American races, however both the Malay and American ones were soon reclassified as subsets of the Mongoloid classification.
** Two classic examples of race being used to rationalize imperialism would be the doctrines of 'Manifest Destiny' and 'White Man's Burden'.
*** Academics, such as Ruth Benedict are still staples of anthropology in universities today, although for how much longer I'm not sure as many of her writings would be classified as 'racist' today and thus may well be prohibited in the future.
0 -
Femme_Fatale wrote: »It's not meant to be a counter-argument, it's meant to show up how utterly ludicrous what the site-banned OP has said (a global cartel between women - really?) is.
In a nutshell, the post translates as "Women are bitches for not fancying me and giving me the sex I'm entitled to, therefore I'll come up with some outlandish theory rather than accepting they don't fancy me and working on my self confidence and improving where I'm going wrong."
It's not a literal cartel, but in effect it does appear to be one. No one is realistically suggesting women secretly meet up and have "sexual cartel" meetings, but the effect of women's behaviours whether conscious or subconscious results in a dynamic similar to that if a cartel did exist. But realistically it could be every women just behaving in their own best interests, so no collaboration is needed.
Just recently, a woman I know slagged my brother because his 2 year old daughter bosses him around, she said " she doesn't even have a hold over you", the implication being that it's understandable that your wife could boss you around because she can withhold sex to gain power, so it's humiliating that he was wing bossed around by someone who doesn't have the withholding sex card.
She didn't specifically state she uses sex for power over her boyfriend but from what she said it's quite obvious she uses sex to gain power over her boyfriend.0 -
Steamed Hams wrote: »It's not a literal cartel, but in effect it does appear to be one. No one is realistically suggesting women secretly meet up and have "sexual cartel" meetings, but the effect of women's behaviours whether conscious or subconscious results in a dynamic similar to that if a cartel did exist. But realistically it could be every women just behaving in their own best interests, so no collaboration is needed.
Just recently, a woman I know slagged my brother because his 2 year old daughter bosses him around, she said " she doesn't even have a hold over you", the implication being that it's understandable that your wife could boss you around because she can withhold sex to gain power, so it's humiliating that he was wing bossed around by someone who doesn't have the withholding sex card.
She didn't specifically state she uses sex for power over her boyfriend but from what she said it's quite obvious she uses sex to gain power over her boyfriend
Wow.
Even if I squint, I can't see any connection. This woman was hardly alluding to some sort of universal female agenda to keep men subjugated or celibate that his daughter is not yet a part of. The toddler has no hold over her father because he's the adult and and complete agency over her, why would there be any other interpretation?
I would think that only a very powerless person would interpret that as alluding to some sort of powerplay. Extrapolating that remark to that degree is very telling though, perhaps it's projection.
There is nothing 'quite obvious' about any of that, except in your head.
Are you the OP?0 -
Wow.
Even if I squint, I can't see any connection. This woman was hardly alluding to some sort of universal female agenda to keep men subjugated or celibate that his daughter is not yet a part of. The toddler has no hold over her father because he's the adult and and complete agency over her, why would there be any other interpretation?
I would think that only a very powerless person would interpret that as alluding to some sort of powerplay. Extrapolating that remark to that degree is very telling though, perhaps it's projection.
There is nothing 'quite obvious' about any of that, except in your head.
Are you the OP?
She quite clearly was aware of a power dynamic whereby it's possible to boss a man around by "having a hold over someone" by using sex or sex withdrawal. It's certainly not in my head.0 -
This woman was hardly alluding to some sort of universal female agenda to keep men subjugated or celibate that his daughter is not yet a part of.
Of course, this does not imply that such a "universal female agenda" actually exists, but the very existence of this thread is proof enough that some believe that it does and it would be naieve to believe that this belief would be limited to men alone.
In short, there are some women with this attitude. That does not mean that it is the norm or part of some international conspiracy, by any stretch of the imagination, but it would be equally false to presume that it does not exist at all either.I would think that only a very powerless person would interpret that as alluding to some sort of powerplay.
This is all well and good, but once married and/or there are children in the relationship, there can be very serious consequences to ending a relationship for men, which does leave them pretty powerless. You frequently get threads started, from men in such situations, on the PI forum, for example.0 -
Steamed Hams wrote: »She quite clearly was aware of a power dynamic whereby it's possible to boss a man around by "having a hold over someone" by using sex or sex withdrawal. It's certainly not in my head.
They only have a hold over you if you feel like a junkie and treat your wife like a dealer.0 -
Advertisement
-
clairefontaine wrote: »They only have a hold over you if you feel like a junkie and treat your wife like a dealer.
What0 -
Steamed Hams wrote: »What0
-
A counter example against the OPs assertions would be society in the Middle East. Correct me if I'm wrong but women hold very little power over men in these societies. As casual sex is rare, the OPs model would predict women in those societies to hold even more power over men. But then again the culture there is such that a man can negate that power with physical force and intimidation which isn't tolerated nearly as much in western society, or so I'm lead to believe.0
-
The Corinthian wrote: »Apparently the human need for sexual relations is akin to a narcotic addiction, that clearly we can cure ourselves from...
There you go, NEED. If you are that dependant, and your attitude to a women or women,is like looking for supply, then that's when they have a "hold over you" as it was put.0 -
clairefontaine wrote: »There you go, NEED. If you are that dependant, and your attitude to a women or women,is like looking for supply, then that's when they have a "hold over you" as it was put.
How do you suggest a person switches off their need for sex?0 -
Advertisement
-
clairefontaine wrote: »There you go, NEED. If you are that dependant, and your attitude to a women or women,is like looking for supply, then that's when they have a "hold over you" as it was put.
Secondly, such a need does not put any 'hold' over one. What puts a 'hold' over one is where one is left with no realistic option when it is used as a weapon.
As I already pointed out, if you're in a relationship and someone withholds sex for ulterior motives, you can always end the relationship. However, if married, with children, and so on, the consequences can be devastating, leaving the person effectively trapped or blackmailed; damned if he does and damned if he does not.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Firstly, a need for sex is natural. While this need varies in level and can be influenced by many social and psychological factors, ultimately it is neither unnatural nor unhealthy to have such a need. It's simply human.
Secondly, such a need does not put any 'hold' over one. What puts a 'hold' over one is where one is left with no realistic option when it is used as a weapon.
As I already pointed out, if you're in a relationship and someone withholds sex for ulterior motives, you can always end the relationship. However, if married, with children, and so on, the consequences can be devastating, leaving the person effectively trapped or blackmailed; damned if he does and damned if he does not.
Life is not full of perfect solutions. If your wife is using sex like a dealer and you the junkie, then you will have to make some choices, and all choices have consequences. Whether you choose to continue this, or have an affair or visit prostitutes, or leave the marriage. Welcome to adulthood. It's painful but doable.0 -
Hankmarker wrote: »How do you suggest a person switches off their need for sex?
And now your switching to gender neutral language. So I'm guessing you thnk men withold sex from their wives to control them also?0 -
clairefontaine wrote: »And now your switching to gender neutral language. So I'm guessing you thnk men withold sex from their wives to control them also?
What's your opinion on the OP?0 -
clairefontaine wrote: »Life is not full of perfect solutions. If your wife is using sex like a dealer and you the junkie, then you will have to make some choices, and all choices have consequences. Whether you choose to continue this, or have an affair or visit prostitutes, or leave the marriage. Welcome to adulthood. It's painful but doable.
Couldn't agree more.
If we could remove the final chinks of stupidity from the family law courts, we could begin to provide a much more stable environment in which men or women, but mainly men, could safely indulge their sexual needs outside a loveless marriage without fear of losing their home and children.
Oh to love in wonderland!0 -
clairefontaine wrote: »Life is not full of perfect solutions. If your wife is using sex like a dealer and you the junkie, then you will have to make some choices, and all choices have consequences. Whether you choose to continue this, or have an affair or visit prostitutes, or leave the marriage. Welcome to adulthood. It's painful but doable.0
-
To the OP:
My dear friend, as far as the "Cartel" analogy goes, I'm not on the same ground with you.
However I completely understand the frustration of not having been able to make a meaningful relationship with a woman or girl.
Women, unlike us men, tend to attract to opposite sex for quite different reasons. Contrary to the common belief that portrays men as some beasty sex-crazed creatures who see women nothing but some joy toys, I think it is us men, that approach women with the need for love and finest human emotions in mind. On the other hand however, they seek something else in this trade that being the protection and guarantee of financial provision and survival for themselves and their offsprings.
In short, it is them who actually act out of pure animal instincts.
Of course I am not to blame them for this, as i myself said they're doing what just their genes told them to do.
So what to do in this situation, it really seems nothing can be done, as far as you are trying to make a deal between two parties with each offering something that the other one does not need in the first place.
The world without women ain't that bad as hell as you might think.0 -
I'm a single woman since 2009. Haven't met any guy to have a meaningful relationship with, just the odd casual encounter.
Yet, funnily enough, I don't blame all men or think there's a conspiracy against me, and I don't have a problem with men and still hope to meet that guy some day. It makes life a lot easier really.0 -
Femme_Fatale wrote: »I'm a single woman since 2009. Haven't met any guy to have a meaningful relationship with, just the odd casual encounter.
Yet, funnily enough, I don't blame all men or think there's a conspiracy against me, and I don't have a problem with men and still hope to meet that guy some day. It makes life a lot easier really.
Easier for you maybe, but perhaps not for that guy (or men in general).
And I am a 40 year-old single man who has never had any relationship of any kind whatsoever (even that "odd casual ones"). I don't know what you call it in English... celibacy or virginity or..? Yeah, I am that. And I'm gonna remain one till death, cause I can see how miserable the married or in-relationship people around me are.
There are so many important joys and satisfactions in my life, that stuff like women or relationships or dating... virtually account for nothing in, Zilch.0 -
Femme_Fatale wrote: »Yet, funnily enough, I don't blame all men or think there's a conspiracy against me, and I don't have a problem with men and still hope to meet that guy some day.
You'll always find members of either gender evangelizing such theories. Doesn't mean every man or woman does so though.0 -
Advertisement
-
Femme_Fatale wrote: »I'm a single woman since 2009. Haven't met any guy to have a meaningful relationship with, just the odd casual encounter.
Yet, funnily enough, I don't blame all men or think there's a conspiracy against me, and I don't have a problem with men and still hope to meet that guy some day. It makes life a lot easier really.
Probably because you are not a dependant creature who treats men like a drug dealer for sex.
Even the title of this thread suggests that paradigm. Note CARTEL.0 -
Easier for you maybe, but perhaps not for that guy (or men in general).
And I am a 40 year-old single man who has never had any relationship of any kind whatsoever (even that "odd casual ones"). I don't know what you call it in English... celibacy or virginity or..? Yeah, I am that. And I'm gonna remain one till death, cause I can see how miserable the married or in-relationship people around me are.
There are so many important joys and satisfactions in my life, that stuff like women or relationships or dating... virtually account for nothing in, Zilch.The Corinthian wrote: »You might not, but that doesn't mean that women are not as prone to their own conspiracy theories or blamestorming as some men are - I've heard, and read, more than once the explanation that the increased reluctance of men to settle down or marry being put down to things such as male immaturity, for example.
You'll always find members of either gender evangelizing such theories. Doesn't mean every man or woman does so though.
It shouldn't be difficult at all to train yourself not to think in such a resentful, self-damaging way... unless you want to wallow in it.0 -
Femme_Fatale wrote: »Yeh I'm not interested in "But... but what about" stuff. Saying "Women do it too" is... zero argument.
And why put so much attention to those men who "do this" anyway? It's a minority, who have been repeatedly been rejected by the majority of men in this thread - yet we repeatedly need to return to talking about them, rather than discuss the topic; why?
Bottom line? The discussion gets hijacked and instead of debating where such perceptions come in the first place, we end up discussing how men, and only men, are wallowing in conspiracy theories against women.
As a result all comments by men on the subject end up dismissed, tainted by the conspiracy theories of the few. Indeed, you quote hotaru, as if to prove a point. His approach is extreme, in my view, however, he hasn't claimed any conspiracy theory, only that he's been put off by how often he's seen people made miserable by their relationships.
I can sympathize with that, even if I wouldn't be driven to celibacy by it. Yet you don't seem to bother. Glad to see we have such open dialogue here...0 -
clairefontaine wrote: »And now your switching to gender neutral language. So I'm guessing you thnk men withold sex from their wives to control them also?
I'd say in a minority of relationships some men do use sex to control women, however it seems obvious to me that many women use sex in subtle ways to control their partner.
I believe men on average have less tolerance to the pain of being celibate therefore that tips the balance of power into women's control.
This is why many women despise so called sluts, they are a threat to the cartel. They give it away for free tgus threatening the catel's price.0 -
The sooner we have a 'male pill' the better. In the end this always boils down to an argument over who looks after children and who pays for them.
When men have control over their fertility then we can have balance.
How many men wind up with children they never asked for after being assured that protection is in place?
SD0 -
StudentDad wrote: »The sooner we have a 'male pill' the better. In the end this always boils down to an argument over who looks after children and who pays for them.
When men have control over their fertility then we can have balance.
How many men wind up with children they never asked for after being assured that protection is in place?
SDBoardsie 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 -
-
The Corinthian wrote: »That's pretty misogynistic.
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 -
Have you never heard of a condom?
Of course I have. Condoms tear. There is also the added complication of men finding themselves paying for children they have no access to or having a say in their upbringing.
When it comes to children men get the short end of the stick. We need equality in relation to family issues. Equal maternity and paternity leave and equal control over fertility.
SD0 -
Advertisement
-
StudentDad wrote: »Of course I have. Condoms tear.
The pill is more effective than condoms in typical use over a year, but not by much, and it's far from "total control" over fertility. A man who doesn't want a child should wear a condom for every sexual encounter, just like a woman who doesn't want a child should be on the pillStudentDad wrote: »When it comes to children men get the short end of the stick. We need equality in relation to family issues. Equal maternity and paternity leaveBoardsie 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 -
In what way? Any man with access to condoms has as much control over resulting pregnancies as a woman with access to the pill
The pill does not work for all women. Side effects etc. Like I said above, condoms tear. As it stands a man can be celibate or have a vasectomy. The latter is extreme but necessary in some cases, such as long term relationships where a pregnancy is undesired or forms too great a health risk to the woman.
SD0 -
In what way? Any man with access to condoms has as much control over resulting pregnancies as a woman with access to the pill
It might, in practical terms, be the smart thing to do, but it also is based upon the suspicion that the woman may be looking to get pregnant, thus you should not trust her word. And that, as a generalization, is misogynistic.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »You were responding to a scenario where the man agrees to unprotected sex "after being assured that protection is in place" though, thus to dismiss this assurance is essentially a vote of no trust in the woman's competence or agenda.
It might, in practical terms, be the smart thing to do, but it also is based upon the suspicion that the woman may be looking to get pregnant, thus you should not trust her word. And that, as a generalization, is misogynistic.
Secondly, it is in no way either misogynistic or misandrist to state that each person should take responsibility for their own contraceptive methodsBoardsie 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 -
Actually, I was responding to the post as a whole, not specifically the last line. There already is a good (if not perfect) contraceptive method available for men. A male pill would make very little difference to unwanted pregnancy rates.
Secondly, it is in no way either misogynistic or misandrist to state that each person should take responsibility for their own contraceptive methods
In the scenario I suggested above the man is led to believe contraception is in place. What sort of an insult to the woman would result if he were then to say, 'that's great but we're still going to use condoms?'
If the man in question has control over his own fertility in the form of a male pill he does not have to worry about such assurances. It cannot come to market fast enough as far as I am concerned.
This article is a little old but we can hope that progress has been made since then
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7857262/Scientists-invent-first-male-contraceptive-pill.html
SD0 -
Actually, I was responding to the post as a whole, not specifically the last line.A male pill would make very little difference to unwanted pregnancy rates.Secondly, it is in no way either misogynistic or misandrist to state that each person should take responsibility for their own contraceptive methods
Bottom line is that while it is practical to take responsibility for your own contraception and not trust anyone, that mistrust is ultimately based upon gender based generalizations. Logically, you cannot avoid that conclusion.0 -
Advertisement
-
StudentDad wrote: »In the scenario I suggested above the man is led to believe contraception is in place. What sort of an insult to the woman would result if he were then to say, 'that's great but we're still going to use condoms?'The Corinthian wrote: »So you were not actually responding to the post, but what you would have liked the post to be.The Corinthian wrote: »I wouldn't agree. A male pill would not require any additional thought, pause in activities or sobriety - all things that condoms need to some extent or other. As you said, condoms are not much worse than the pill, in terms of effectiveness, but only if properly used and that's often where problems arise.The Corinthian wrote: »Actually, it is and I stated why. If you trust someone, then their assurance should suffice as 'taking responsibility', otherwise trusting anyone in any scenario would be irresponsible as you would have not directly verified or taken your own precautions.The Corinthian wrote: »And if the reason you mistrust them is gender based, which it is in this case, then it is misogynistic or misandrist by definition.The Corinthian wrote: »Bottom line is that while it is practical to take responsibility for your own contraception and not trust anyone, that mistrust is ultimately based upon gender based generalizations. Logically, you cannot avoid that conclusion.
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 -
No insult at all. The pill fails, even with perfect use. Two methods of contraception are far safer than oneNope, I responded to the central point of the post.Why do you think the male pill would be used any more properly than the female one?Is a gay man misandrist if he takes responsibility for his own sexual health by insisting on condoms?No it is not. I don't insist on condoms because I mistrust my partner or all people of that gender, I insist on condoms because I take responsibility for my own contraception.0
-
The Corinthian wrote: »He may be homophobic if his partner assures him that he has no STI's and he refuses to believe him on the basis that homosexual men are prone to lie on this.
And again, you're totally ignoring the fact that contraception fails, even when used perfectly. I can lessen the likelihood that I will end up with an unwanted pregnancy by making sure I use contraception. This is true regardless of what actions my partner takesBoardsie 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 -
The Corinthian wrote: »
He may be homophobic if his partner assures him that he has no STI's and he refuses to believe him on the basis that homosexual men are prone to lie on this.
I have seen gay men comment on articles related to Truvada that they use it because there are gay men who deliberately spread hiv.
Do you really think they are homophobic for protecting themselves?0 -
And again, you're totally ignoring the fact that contraception fails, even when used perfectly. I can lessen the likelihood that I will end up with an unwanted pregnancy by making sure I use contraception. This is true regardless of what actions my partner takes
If your partner tells you a particular task is taken care of, do you check anyway, and if so why? You can rationalize it as being 'responsible', but ultimately because you do not trust that they've carried it out.
So fundamentally the issue is of trust, be it their motivations or their competence, but trust nonetheless. The condom is used because they do not trust their partner - full stop.
And where this stems from presumptions based upon sexual orientation or gender then it becomes a decision not to be 'safe' because contraception fails, but ultimately because of prejudice.
You simply cannot escape that fact unless you simply pretend it's not there, as you are doing.0 -
Advertisement