What do you think, are men having the last laugh?

Whitewinged

I came across this piece on 'the independent' website which I think makes a few very good points.

Niamh Horan - "men are having the last laugh in womens sexual revolution"

(it wont let me post the link in one line because I am a new user but if you google the name and title it will come up for you)

Thank god I am not on the dating scene now however this is a topic that I have thought about from hearing from friends difficulties in forming solid intimate relationships (both men and women) , from new social online apps like tinder and even from reading some threads and posts here on boards. I agree with a lot of what the article states.

"It has become the norm. More women having no-strings sex with more men. Everyone is happy."

But is this making everyone happy? Numerous superficial fleeting relationships or instances without any real lasting connection.

Also with porn so readily available what are the expectations that people have with regard to sex and appearance from a partner. I remember when porn was considered a guilty pleasure but it seems to me to be now that you would be considered a prude or not very adventurous if you did not watch porn. I personally think there is a good side and a bad side to peoples use of porn but I do think that it is almost too available if that makes sense that some people are becoming desensitised and out of touch with real sex and intimacy.

Friends with Benefits also seems to be becoming a popular theme and I keep hearing that eventually there is always one side that is more into it than the other and that very often someone does get hurt. I'm not that old but fwb relationships were not around when I was dating (well they didn't have a name for it) and while I'm sure it happened, it was not something that was bragged about. I have read a few personal issues threads where it seems the person is being shamed for feeling something for someone that they are being extremely vulnerable with and not being able to keep their emotions out of the sexual arrangement. It all sounds so robotic and controlled and humans are just not like that.

I don't think this is negative for just women, I think that men and women are impacted by this. I know that some people use the argument that men are not emotionally attached when it comes to sex however that does not mean that they don't want an emotional attachment, but what happens when he does get emotionally attached or wants to get emotionally attached to a women? Will she be so burned out or cold from suppressing her emotions that she cant trust a man and he cant trust her, then they cant form a connection?

Essentially men and women are objectifying each other and placing no value on one another if we are both just having sex for the sake of having sex. It seems that higher emphasis is being put on sexual performance, outer appearance and easy access rather than love, connection, trust, security and a genuine care for the other person (which ironically when you have these things makes you feel that the other persons performance and appearance are attractive and a turn on and also you will get easy access anyway).

Of course there are women who are enjoying this however for the ones who are just going with it, I feel that it does seem to me that women are being shamed or kind of peer pressurised to believe and behave in a way that being promiscuous or 'easier' is being sexually liberal when that is not what sexual liberation is about.

IMO sexual liberation is about being yourself and feeling sexy and being able to acknowledge and open up with someone that you trust about what you desire but also about considering the other person that you are going to have sex with and their needs and wants too. Sexual liberation to me is more about mutual respect and knowing what you want and also I like a bit of role playing too ha

Dial Hard

I got as far as "Niamh Horan" and stopped reading, tbh.

She's an utter, utter hack. If she thinks something is wrong then I daresay all is probably fine with the world.

drunkmonkey

If they just brought back the slow dance at the disco it'd cure a lot of this. I think it should be put in the constitution.

I've friends on both sides of this revolution, male and female and neither side is the better for it. There relying on the Internet to find love and failing miserably at it.

Whitewinged

Dial Hard wrote: »

I got as far as "Niamh Horan" and stopped reading, tbh.

She's an utter, utter hack. If she thinks something is wrong than I daresay all is probably fine with the world.

I didn't know of her before reading this but she sounds about as nice as yee lot

Celly Smunt

So women are becoming more sexually liberal but men are having the advantage because it takes a man to have sex with a straight woman?

I guess the whole theme of the article is that men are pigs because they have penises that woman want.

Whitewinged

Celly Smunt wrote: »

So women are becoming more sexually liberal but men are having the advantage because it takes a man to have sex with a straight woman?

I guess the whole theme of the article is that men are pigs because they have penises that woman want.

No the point of the article is that woman are feeling pressure to be something that they are not under the guise of sexual liberation. That's not liberating.

Like i said i dont think men are necessarily benefitting either.

Ave Sodalis

The whole thing reads like a bitter person who either doesn't get the ride at all, or falls in love with every person they kiss. It reads bitterly as someone who is trying to justify herself by painting everyone else the same as her.

Celly Smunt

Whitewinged wrote: »

No the point of the article is that woman are feeling pressure to be something that they are not under the guise of sexual liberation. That's not liberating.

Like i said i dont think men are necessarily benefitting either.

Do these women not have a mind of their own? It seems to me that it's nothing more than the author categorising women the way her skewed vision fits for the sake of an article.

Nobody joins a dating site without the intention of dating or ego stroking, there are no victims here.

NotCominBack

Dial Hard wrote: »

I got as far as "Niamh Horan" and stopped reading, tbh.

She's an utter, utter hack. If she thinks something is wrong than I daresay all is probably fine with the world.

lol - I read that as Niall Horan, and thought "what a muppet"

Whitewinged

Celly Smunt wrote: »

Do these women not have a mind of their own? It seems to me that it's nothing more than the author categorising women the way her skewed vision fits for the sake of an article.

Nobody joins a dating site without the intention of dating or ego stroking, there are no victims here.

If ego stroking has become so important and prominent in society and what you end up with is two people falsely talking to one another in order to stroke the others ego then all of the people involved are victims.

When ego starts to become more important than reality then you are going to end up with a lot of very lonely big headed people!

Whitewinged

NotCominBack wrote: »

lol - I read that as Niall Horan, and thought "what a muppet"

I read it like that at first too

Celly Smunt

Whitewinged wrote: »

If ego stroking has become so important and prominent in society and what you end up with is two people falsely talking to one another in order to stroke the others ego then all of the people involved are victims.

When ego starts to become more important than reality then you are going to end up with a lot of very lonely big headed people!

Granted and I don't disagree, though the statement that men are having the last laugh is a laughable title in itself as both party's are suffering equally.

Whitewinged

Celly Smunt wrote: »

Granted and I don't disagree, though the statement that men are having the last laugh is a laughable title in itself as both party's are suffering equally.

yes the title is misleading and Niamh Horan or whoever didn't mention the negative impact it could also have on men but I don't think she was blaming men. Generally my take on it was that we are very much moving away from real lasting and into more fleeting egotistical and superficial relations and we as a society are making this easier and putting pressure on people to conform with this as the norm now.

of course people will have one night stands and fwb and people will watch porn and no one is saying that women should be waiting till they are married or anything of the sort.

I just see and hear a lot of people finding it more difficult to connect with people and I feel the message from things like tinder and fwbs and porn is a pressure and a shame associated with having emotions when it comes to sex.

Ave Sodalis

Whitewinged wrote:

I just see and hear a lot of people finding it more difficult to connect with people and I feel the message from things like tinder and fwbs and porn is a pressure and a shame associated with having emotions when it comes to sex.

I don't find that at all. If anything, there's still a shaming culture in existence for those who participate in ONS or the like.

Whitewinged

sup_dude wrote: »

The whole thing reads like a bitter person who either doesn't get the ride at all, or falls in love with every person they kiss. It reads bitterly as someone who is trying to justify herself by painting everyone else the same as her.

of course sup dude, and this is what I'm talking about, woman are either bitter because they cant get the ride or a delusional crazy who falls in love with every person they kiss type of category woman for expressing the fact that they might think their is nothing wrong with wanting to feel a connection with someone they are having sex with right?? it can only be one or the other.

Ave Sodalis

Whitewinged wrote:

of course sup dude, and this is what I'm talking about, woman are either bitter because they cant get the ride or a delusional crazy who falls in love with every person they kiss type of category woman for expressing the fact that they might think their is nothing wrong with wanting to feel a connection with someone they are having sex with right?? it can only be one or the other.

No, of course not. But to say everyone is the same is completely ridiculous and seems like someone just wants to justify themselves by trying to shame everyone else into being like them. Furthermore, to say that anyone who has sex for the sake of sex is doing it for any other reason than they like sex is also ridiculous.

Whitewinged

sup_dude wrote: »

No, of course not. But to say everyone is the same is completely ridiculous and seems like someone just wants to justify themselves by trying to shame everyone else into being like them. Furthermore, to say that anyone who has sex for the sake of sex is doing it for any other reason than they like sex is also ridiculous.

If you read the post I didn't say everyone was the same. I said it works for some.

What I am saying here is that the message woman are getting is conflicting. And while i agree that women have been shamed for a long time for having something like a one night stand, it's now starting to do a 180 in the opposite.

People have their own minds and are individual however people are impacted by the message given to them by society. A lot of young people are using dating apps, watching things like Geordie shore where hooking up with as many peopl as possible is the norm and mentality.

when I said "having sex for the sake", I don't mean that they don't enjoy it but if they are just doing it because society is telling them that women having casual hookups with men they dont know is liberating then that is wrong. It is only liberating if you feel it is liberating. Or if they are doing it thinking that it will definitely lead to a relationship or of they think they are already in a relationship because they have been chatting online.

Ave Sodalis

Whitewinged wrote: »

Or if they are doing it thinking that it will definitely lead to a relationship or of they think they are already in a relationship because they have been chatting online.

That is communication problems.

Whitewinged wrote: »

If you read the post I didn't say everyone was the same. I said it works for some.

Your post certainly didn't come across that way:

Friends with Benefits also seems to be becoming a popular theme and I keep hearing that eventually there is always one side that is more into it than the other and that very often someone does get hurt. I'm not that old but fwb relationships were not around when I was dating (well they didn't have a name for it) and while I'm sure it happened, it was not something that was bragged about. I have read a few personal issues threads where it seems the person is being shamed for feeling something for someone that they are being extremely vulnerable with and not being able to keep their emotions out of the sexual arrangement. It all sounds so robotic and controlled and humans are just not like that.

however that does not mean that they don't want an emotional attachment

Will she be so burned out or cold from suppressing her emotions that she cant trust a man and he cant trust her, then they cant form a connection?

placing no value on one another if we are both just having sex for the sake of having sex.

(which ironically when you have these things makes you feel that the other persons performance and appearance are attractive and a turn on and also you will get easy access anyway).

All of the above quotes (which are most of your post) are hugely sweeping statements, some of which are blatantly untrue

I feel that it does seem to me that women are being shamed or kind of peer pressurised to believe and behave in a way that being promiscuous or 'easier' is being sexually liberal

I haven't noticed that pressure at all.

Penny Tration

I don't think sexual liberation is just about accepting that women also like no strings sex, or lots of sex.

That's definitely one aspect of it, but it's also about accepting that women are sexual beings and that our choices are absolutely fine to make.

Most of the women I know happily engage in lots of casual sex. Personally, that's not for me. I've never had casual sex and most likely never will. I've never, ever felt that I wasn't sexually liberated. I feel totally liberated because I was able to make my own choice as to the kind of sex I want. I don't need casual sex to be liberated and tbh, I've never, ever been made to feel anything other than good about my sexual choices.

That's what it's about - choice. The choice to have or not have casual sex.

zeffabelli

I think there was/ is a peer pressure on young girls/women to gain experience. And not just from boys and men but their own peer groups.

The question of relating is then double barrelled because of the evolutions of technology and how people communicate. When you see a group of college students at the same table, texting EACH other rather than talking....one has to wonder is this the end of relationship.

No I don't think men are having the last laugh really.... not sure what she means there....Im assuming she means they get lots of commitment free sex..... because women are freed up via birth control and the removal of stigma and perhaps cultural peer pressures. It might look that way on the surface, but all pleasures are perilous.... somehow these gender feudists missed the boat on that... the gods will always exact a price for your choices.

While a man may enjoy lots of disconnected sex, surrogate masterbatory experiences, like a woman can too if she likes, though lets not fool ourselves into thinking the same moral scrutinities apply, the lone cowboy myth, the lone wolf myth has become all too appealing to men...family is no longer desirable... its no longer a piece in the picture of manhood. Now why is that? Might Niamh Horan consider its a natural consequnece of being told you are redundant for several generations?

So no, ageing bachelors at the end of a bar on a Saturday afternoon, with no kids, spouse, or grandkids......yeah maybe they are laughing.... hard to imagine that though....

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

eviltwin

I've been with the same guy my whole adult life but I would consider myself sexually liberated. Why does liberation always have to be connected to having lots of sexual partners? To me liberation is being free to be who you are, to feel confident enough to take the lead, tell your partner what you want, to say no to sex, to have control over your fertility....I think when it comes to sex and its emotional and mental impact, men and women are more alike than we think. On as aside I hate articles like this that over think sex and relationships and make sex a battle of men vs women.

meeeeh

I think the article is a mashup of completely different issues. I agree with the points made in the last two posts (although I can easily do no strings attached sex) but I think the bigger problem is that dating changed. I would imagine that people who used to write in lonely hearts sections or joined dating agencies were mostly interested in serious relationships. From what I hear now it is very hard to figure out if someone on dating website or tinder is just looking for a ride or for a relationship. And that can cause some heartache with people who bring their hopes up and are then never contacted again after they slept with someone.

the evasion_kid

Interesting article she refers to in her original piece :

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2015/08/tinder-hook-up-culture-end-of-dating

Seemingly it sparked a 30 tweet twitter rant by tinder.

Whitewinged

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I said in my post that I am giving my opinion based on what I hear from friends, stories from tinder, and even posts and threads on the Internet. I did not say that anything is fact or that I havecomposed a statistical study on it.

I think there is some misinterpretation on what I am actually saying though.

I am not saying that hookup culture is wrong or right. I am not saying that saving yourself until marriage is wrong or right. Or any way anyone goes about their sex life in between that is wrong or right (as long as it's legal)

What I am saying is that imo from stories I have heard from friends, marketing of apps like tinder, tv (George shores, ex on the beach), Internet (porn, online escorts agencies), music, magazines, boards personal issues is that there does seem to me to be a general idea that sex is easy to get and there doesn't need to be any connection or responsibility, respect or commitment involved. The emhphasis seems to be just on sex and increasing numbers and apparently this is the way forward.

This is fine and I am not saying that it is wrong to have casual sex or that there are nymphomaniac s going around trying to hump everything on sight. But the culture along with technology are changing and moving and where is that going to go?

Note in my op I was talking about men and women and the loss of connection and the difficulties the generation raised on hookup culture are going to have when or if there does come a time when they do want to settle and have a family.

And yes rock n roll music was surely the music spawned by the devil everyone knows that

and also before anyone starts calling me a bitter emotional prude who hates sex, sex is fun for everyone including me. However fleeting hookups and casual encounters can be addictive and ego boosting or damaging ones self esteem and core values which cannot be good for people or society in general. And let's face it casual sex, when all is over with and you have had you fun, you go your way and he goes his, is really a self serving pleasure and as with all self serving pleasures too much of a good thing can be bad.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Whitewinged

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Very true and a lot of people are settling down later and having children later which brings with it a need for freezing eggs and ivf and things like that. So with that there has been an impact evolutionary. To be clear not saying this is wrong with these great medical advances. It's great as long as people feel fulfilled with their choices.

But the hookup culture is not at a standstill and is progressing and while people might not necessarily be hooking up as much as we are led to believe, the message is dominating a lot of the technologies and media that young people use today.

I would not be surprised at all by the statistic that 90 percent of American college students want to get married. When people are asked this question, they answer with an ideal in mind. Who doesn't want to find man/woman of their dreams and live happily ever after? It doesn't mean that they will and it doesn't mean that their expectations are in line with reality or their past experiences and mind set will not effect them later on.

One eyed Jack

You're talking about a tiny minority of people in society there OP, there's no need to fear any appalling vista scenarios or society falling apart at the seams just yet. Technology has simply created greater opportunities for choice, not taken any away, and so nobody has to be married off to their next door neighbour to keep land in the family or any of the rest of it (the original purpose of the marital contract when society was all about dowrys and so on, when an emotional connection in the marriage was usually the last thing on anyone's mind).

Whitewinged

the evasion_kid wrote: »

Interesting article she refers to in her original piece :

Seemingly it sparked a 30 tweet twitter rant by tinder.

Had I attached the vanity fair link that evasionkid posted above in my original post maybe posters would have a better idea of what I was trying to debate rather than using it as an avenue to voice their dislike for niamh horan.

No one eyed jack, I'm am not trying to promote the sanctity of marriage here or create a fear that society is falling to pieces. I am just trying to point out the possible negative effects of online interaction and how it is taking away from genuine connections and a lot of things are becoming too easy and loosing their value.

Whitewinged

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Also Permabear I wonder if the 5.65 partners by age 24 includes online sex.

zeffabelli

Whitewinged wrote: »

Also Permabear I wonder if the 5.65 partners by age 24 includes online sex.

It's not just the online sex, it's how people are relating.

How can one be fully present with their attentiveness focused on their phones? You can't really listen or relate with half attentiveness.

zeffabelli

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Hook up culture is not new. Has been around since the 60s.

What has changed is presence. People stuck on their phones or relating through Facebook and pretending there is connection.

iwantmydinner

Firstly everyone would be doing themselves a massive favour if they just stopped reading what Niamh Horan writes. Seriously.

Secondly everything is fiiiine. Women are making their choices, learning about themselves and what they like and want, and generally getting on grand. Men, as far as I can see, are also getting on grand.

I worry a bit about the effects of early exposure to what I think is appropriately termed plastic porn - with the fake boobs and the extreme waxing and the glassy-eyed fake enjoyment - but I guess as teenagers mature the effects of that will balance out for the most part.

As for Tinder and online dating in general - it's mighty. I don't understand why some people are so worried about it. If someone can tell me why it's different or worse than meeting someone in a pub, then swapping numbers and arranging a first date, I'm all ears.

But again, stop reading Niamh Horan.

Neyite

iwantmydinner wrote: »

As for Tinder and online dating in general - it's mighty. I don't understand why some people are so worried about it. If someone can tell me why it's different or worse than meeting someone in a pub, then swapping numbers and arranging a first date, I'm all ears.

Some people act like connecting with strangers and communicating with them is some newfangled horror, but we've had Matchmakers in the past all over Ireland who made introductions for couples. The classifieds in the back of Ireland's Own was all adverts from people wanting to meet potential mates in a given age range/location who liked similar hobbies, for fun and maybe more. Throughout the 80's it was all through phone lines I think. Knock Shrine ran one of the most successful dating agencies in the state up until the Internet age in the guise of the Knock Marriage Bureau.

From the dawn of time, people have used intermediaries to meet potential mates, the only thing that has changed slightly is the delivery medium.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Whitewinged

Neyite wrote: »

Some people act like connecting with strangers and communicating with them is some newfangled horror, but we've had Matchmakers in the past all over Ireland who made introductions for couples. The classifieds in the back of Ireland's Own was all adverts from people wanting to meet potential mates in a given age range/location who liked similar hobbies, for fun and maybe more. Throughout the 80's it was all through phone lines I think. Knock Shrine ran one of the most successful dating agencies in the state up until the Internet age in the guise of the Knock Marriage Bureau.

From the dawn of time, people have used intermediaries to meet potential mates, the only thing that has changed slightly is the delivery medium.

Some people go online and are talking to people for months implying there is going to be a meet up later on but have no intention of actually taking it anywhere. They are solely there to see how desirable they are. online interaction is the "relationship" for one without the other person's knowledge that is as far as it goes and waisting the other person's time.

I've heard of people who are in relationships joining sites like tinder just to see if they get matches and the lines are blurred whether this is a betrayal of the relationship or not.

people are also taken in by the profile which can be a very unrealistic version of who the person is. Also if they do then meet they will find that the person is not so much of the person they envisaged because there is only so much of a personality that a person can reveal online. A lot of people can mistakenly get too invested.

Some people when behind a screen can be very mean and feel anomonous sending crude and hurtful comments to people that they wouldn't dare do in real life.

people can have as many "relationships" as they like going at once.

people can just dissappear and never be heard of again.

of course there are versions of all these things in real life but they are not as easy to do. It is easier to do these things online so people will do it.

There are a lot of positive parts to online interaction too and I have heard also of people forming relationships. Perhaps it's that thing where you only hear most of the negative experiences than the positive.

Ave Sodalis

Whitewinged wrote:

Some people go online and are talking to people for months implying there is going to be a meet up later on but have no intention of actually taking it anywhere. They are solely there to see how desirable they are. online interaction is the "relationship" for one without the other person's knowledge that is as far as it goes and waisting the other person's time.

That's communication problems.

Whitewinged wrote:

I've heard of people who are in relationships joining sites like tinder just to see if they get matches and the lines are blurred whether this is a betrayal of the relationship or not.

Same blurry lines as visiting a prostitute.

Whitewinged wrote:

people are also taken in by the profile which can be a very unrealistic version of who the person is. Also if they do then meet they will find that the person is not so much of the person they envisaged because there is only so much of a personality that a person can reveal online. A lot of people can mistakenly get too invested.

Same as in real life

Whitewinged wrote:

Some people when behind a screen can be very mean and feel anomonous sending crude and hurtful comments to people that they wouldn't dare do in real life.

You can do that through other means too.

Whitewinged wrote:

people can have as many "relationships" as they like going at once.

No they can't.

Whitewinged wrote:

people can just dissappear and never be heard of again.

Same as in real life

Whitewinged wrote:

of course there are versions of all these things in real life but they are not as easy to do. It is easier to do these things online so people will do it.

I don't agree.

B0jangles

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Firstly everyone would be doing themselves a massive favour if they just stopped reading what Niamh Horan writes. Seriously.

I disagree, I think Niamh should get a TV show where she travels around Ireland talking to people about their sex lives, something like Nationwide but y'know Sexier.

Maybe call it "Horan Around Ireland"?


:pac:

Whitewinged

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There is no reason why people can't form meaningful relationships while studying or progressing in their career and if they want to have casual relationships too that is fine.

You can still have connection with a casual relationship or someone even in a one night stand but I think that with the advances online it is too easy to get wires crossed, get yourself involved with someone who is not who they portray them self's to be and can very easily be replaced or objectified.

In no way have I romanticised 1950s culture.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Whitewinged

sup_dude wrote: »

That's communication problems
ree.

Sup dude you've made that point before however honest communication and clear communication is a very significant part of connecting, being intimate and relating to someone which is my point. That connection is easily lost.

Whitewinged

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If that is the case then why pick 1950s and not any other time?

Being concerned with the direction that something is going does not mean that you believe that you must take huge leaps backwards.

I would never describe a boyfriend ad a "complicating factor". We would decide as adults together the best possible steps to take in that scenario. Also I have already said that casual hookup does not necessarily mean no connection but it's how you go about the process of the casual hookup.

Whitewinged

Whitewinged wrote: »

Some people go online and are talking to people for months implying there is going to be a meet up later on but have no intention of actually taking it anywhere. They are solely there to see how desirable they are. online interaction is the "relationship" for one without the other person's knowledge that is as far as it goes and waisting the other person's time.

I've heard of people who are in relationships joining sites like tinder just to see if they get matches and the lines are blurred whether this is a betrayal of the relationship or not.

people are also taken in by the profile which can be a very unrealistic version of who the person is. Also if they do then meet they will find that the person is not so much of the person they envisaged because there is only so much of a personality that a person can reveal online. A lot of people can mistakenly get too invested.

Some people when behind a screen can be very mean and feel anomonous sending crude and hurtful comments to people that they wouldn't dare do in real life.

people can have as many "relationships" as they like going at once.

people can just dissappear and never be heard of again.

of course there are versions of all these things in real life but they are not as easy to do. It is easier to do these things online so people will do it.

There are a lot of positive parts to online interaction too and I have heard also of people forming relationships. Perhaps it's that thing where you only hear most of the negative experiences than the positive.

All that means is the internet has given some people the means and opportunity to be their worst selves, however the motive to behave like that was always present in the individual concerned and no matter how they arrived at meeting someone they would still behave the same way.

Conclusion some people both men and woman are weak, dislikeable and have very little understanding or empathy for other people. The internet did not make them like that.

kylith

Whitewinged wrote: »

You can still have connection with a casual relationship or someone even in a one night stand but I think that with the advances online it is too easy to get wires crossed, get yourself involved with someone who is not who they portray them self's to be and can very easily be replaced or objectified.

I can categorically state that people misrepresenting who they are and what their intentions are is not confined to the world of internet dating, it is perfectly easy for someone to do IRL too.

Ave Sodalis

Whitewinged wrote:

Sup dude you've made that point before however honest communication and clear communication is a very significant part of connecting, being intimate and relating to someone which is my point. That connection is easily lost.

I don't agree that has anything to do with the Internet or a "hookup culture". Bad communication is bad communication. If you assume that something is going somewhere and the other person assumes it's not, without actually talking about it, then they're going to be disappointed. If it's established early on what direction the relationship is going, serious or casual, there's less chance of people getting hurt. However, this requires communication which has nothing to do with whether it's through the Internet or not.

Whitewinged

kylith wrote: »

I can categorically state that people misrepresenting who they are and what their intentions are is not confined to the world of internet dating, it is perfectly easy for someone to do IRL too.

It is easy but it's easier on the online. You can be anyone online.

I met my husband on line so I think its great.

I suppose before all the on line stuff, people had to invest more in meeting someone their was no way round for a shy person or someone with social issues except approaching and talking to some one.

kylith

Whitewinged wrote: »

It is easy but it's easier on the online. You can be anyone online.

You can be anyone in real life too. I could walk into a bar, meet a guy, and tell him I'm a banker, or a nurse, or that I travel a lot for work and in a way that's worse. If I'm on the computer telling someone that I'm a brain surgeon then they are, at some level, aware that they have no way of knowing whether or not I'm lying. People tend to take having someone lie to their faces a lot worse.

Whitewinged

Whitewinged wrote: »

It is easy but it's easier on the online. You can be anyone online.

But what do you want to do about it, what could you do about it, The distance in online communication probably make empathy harder but I would still argue it has a lot to do with the kind of person you are in the first place and immaturity could be a factor in this.

Whitewinged

mariaalice wrote: »

All that means is the internet has given some people the means and opportunity to be their worst selves, however the motive to behave like that was always present in the individual concerned and no matter how they arrived at meeting someone they would still behave the same way.

Conclusion some people both men and woman are weak, dislikeable and have very little understanding or empathy for other people. The internet did not make them like that.

Where did they get the motive to begin with marialice? They learned that is the way to treat people.

Girls receiving d--k pics that they don't want from strangers is a normal occurance online but not a lot of those men would send in someone's letterbox. You hear about it all the time and it has become a kind of joke. Now when it starts to become a joke and not something to be ashamed of or there are no repercussions and lads get the impression that sending a pic is normal and might get you a hookup then you will get people coming round to the idea and say sure ill give it a try and see if she responds!

If you ingrain things as normal within a culture then people llearn that is how to behave towards one another.

ancapailldorcha

Whitewinged wrote: »

If you ingrain things as normal within a culture then people llearn that is how to behave towards one another.

Sending pictures of one's penis isn't normal though. While women might receive a lot of these, most men wouldn't stoop this low for obvious reasons?