A socially acceptable form of hypocrisy?

bfa1509

Being hypocritical has a negative connotation close to 100% of the time. But what about a father who doesn't like his daughter going out with boys but applauds his son for seeing lots of girls. I think this is a common enough occurrence (I'm not a father, but this would definitely be my attitude if I was). Is this not acceptable?

And if this offends any female (or males for that matter), do not fret, I think it's a hypocrisy that is borne out of love; as the father believes no man is good enough for his daughter but any girl is good enough for his son.

Would you agree? If not, are there any acceptable forms of hypocrisy?

hatrickpatrick

Personally I don't agree, and I find the whole "parents being overly involved in their teenage childrens' choice of date" thing extremely disturbing, regardless of gender.

eviltwin

I have a son and daughter and I have to be honest I have zero interest in their sex life once they are happy. I'm a sex positive parent, I see sex as a good and healthy thing so I'm quite happy to have my daughter's various partners stay over the years. Same for her brother when he's at that age.

Autecher

The way I look at hypocrisy is that everybody is a hypocrite. EVERYBODY. It’s unavoidable in life imo. Not really what the thread is about but I am an anarchist who wants to see the world burn.

FFred

eviltwin wrote: »

I have a son and daughter and I have to be honest I have zero interest in their sex life once they are happy. I'm a sex positive parent, I see sex as a good and healthy thing so I'm quite happy to have my daughter's various partners stay over the years. Same for her brother when he's at that age.

Reading this, as a parent myself, and how different my views are to yours, I now realise that I am in fact a prude.

One eyed Jack

bfa1509 wrote: »

Being hypocritical has a negative connotation close to 100% of the time. But what about a father who doesn't like his daughter going out with boys but applauds his son for seeing lots of girls. I think this is a common enough occurrence (I'm not a father, but this would definitely be my attitude if I was). Is this not acceptable?

And if this offends any female (or males for that matter), do not fret, I think it's a hypocrisy that is borne out of love; as the father believes no man is good enough for his daughter but any girl is good enough for his son.

Would you agree? If not, are there any acceptable forms of hypocrisy?

It’s not a hypocrisy that’s borne out of love, it’s a hypocrisy that’s borne out of experience, and I wouldn’t want my son putting it about any more than I wouldn’t find it acceptable if my daughter were putting it about.

That being said, there are plenty of acceptable forms of hypocrisy and what often appears to be hypocrisy but isn’t, because the circumstances are completely different, like thinking that the circumstances of a son putting it about are the same circumstances as a daughter putting it about - they’re completely different circumstances which can have potentially different outcomes.

eviltwin

FFred wrote: »

Reading this, as a parent myself, and how different my views are to yours, I now realise that I am in fact a prude.

Not too late to change

FFred

eviltwin wrote: »

Not too late to change

Who said I wanted to change?

looksee

Its only five minutes since a girl getting pregnant was disaster for her and shame for the whole family, whereas a boy was entitled to be a bit of a lad and the girls he got pregnant were no better than they should be and certainly not marriage material. It takes a while for these notions to fade.

Realtai

Autecher wrote: »

The way I look at hypocrisy is that everybody is a hypocrite. EVERYBODY. It’s unavoidable in life imo.

I agree, it's part of the human condition

skallywag

bfa1509 wrote: »

(I'm not a father, but this would definitely be my attitude if I was)

Are you an adult yet?

Leg End Reject

I'm just imagining being asked for an opinion on a friends outfit. If my honest answer was "it looks cheap, ill-fitting and frumpy" I'd be a c**t, so I think I'll stick with being a hypocrite.

Gimme A Pound

FFred wrote: »

Reading this, as a parent myself, and how different my views are to yours, I now realise that I am in fact a prude.

No you're not. Not being super liberated when it comes to sexual behaviour doesn't automatically mean being a prude - there's a spectrum between the two.

Gimme A Pound

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Personally I don't agree, and I find the whole "parents being overly involved in their teenage childrens' choice of date" thing extremely disturbing, regardless of gender.

It's hardly "extremely disturbing". Of course a parent will be concerned about who their teenage children (minors still) are going out with.

As for what the OP describes, I can't stand it - but it's a view a lot of people can't help having.

kowloon

Daughters should be locked away from society until they are old enough to bear children and strengthen our alliance with France.

FFred

Gimme A Pound wrote: »

No you're not. Not being super liberated when it comes to sexual behaviour doesn't automatically mean being a prude - there's a spectrum between the two.

When it comes to my own sexual behaviour, I would make Ron Jeremy blush :pac:

But, when it comes to my children and their future sexual behaviour then I’m proud to be a prude

Jimbob1977

A lock that can be opened by many keys is a bad lock

A key that can open many locks is a good key

ILoveYourVibes

bfa1509 wrote: »

Being hypocritical has a negative connotation close to 100% of the time. But what about a father who doesn't like his daughter going out with boys but applauds his son for seeing lots of girls. I think this is a common enough occurrence (I'm not a father, but this would definitely be my attitude if I was). Is this not acceptable?

And if this offends any female (or males for that matter), do not fret, I think it's a hypocrisy that is borne out of love; as the father believes no man is good enough for his daughter but any girl is good enough for his son.

Would you agree? If not, are there any acceptable forms of hypocrisy?

I dont think this kind of hypocrisy is bad. Its from a good place etc of being protective.

I mean you would prob help your daughter in more ways sometimes than you do your son.

You might expect more from your son in certain ways too.

Shrug.

And i mean if your daughter did see a lot of guys you wouldn't disown her etc just maybe worry about her.

Also my brain REALLY wanted to spell hypocrisy ..hypocrazy. True story.

ILoveYourVibes

Jimbob1977 wrote: »

A lock that can be opened by many keys is a bad lock

A key that can open many locks is a good key

Love that analogy.

bfa1509

A few people read into my OP as it being a case of a father who interferes with or displays an interest in their children's sex/relationship lives (which is fine, it wasn't clear that this wasn't the case). But I was thinking more along the lines of it being an attitude that the father has (some hide it better than others)

Let's say for instance if I had a 16 year old daughter who brought a boy home, I might smile and shake his hand (but I would squeeze it very hard and in my head I would likely be thinking something like "You little pr*ck, you better hope we don't cross paths in a dark alleyway"

But if I had a 16 year old son and he brought home a girl, I would probably be delighted for him and be very happy. (this sounds terrible as I am typing, but it's true)

People can say this is an archaic way of thinking but I would say it's the attitude of most fathers! Or maybe I am just old fashioned...

Gimme A Pound

Jimbob1977 wrote: »

A lock that can be opened by many keys is a bad lock

A key that can open many locks is a good key

A key that can open many locks is massively dodgy for security.

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Love that analogy.

You love an analogy that makes uncontrolled shagging around by men out to be a positive?

eviltwin

bfa1509 wrote: »

A few people read into my OP as it being a case of a father who interferes with or displays an interest in their children's sex/relationship lives (which is fine, it wasn't clear that this wasn't the case). But I was thinking more along the lines of it being an attitude that the father has (some hide it better than others)

Let's say for instance if I had a 16 year old daughter who brought a boy home, I might smile and shake his hand (but I would squeeze it very hard and in my head I would likely be thinking something like "You little pr*ck, you better hope we don't cross paths in a dark alleyway"

But if I had a 16 year old son and he brought home a girl, I would probably be delighted for him and be very happy. (this sounds terrible as I am typing, but it's true)

People can say this is an archaic way of thinking but I would say it's the attitude of most fathers! Or maybe I am just old fashioned...

Assuming your daughter is straight I'm sure you don't want her to settle down with the first man she is sexually active with. Sex is a normal part of our development and women are just as sexual as men

As her parent you need to raise her to be sexually assertive and not feel shame over normal feelings. Same goes for your sons.

They will do it anyway, it's better for them that they know they can be open with you regarding any worries or questions they may have.

Gimme A Pound

Given the difference in take-up when it comes to sexual services, I would say men overall are built to be more sexual than women overall.

bfa1509 wrote: »

A few people read into my OP as it being a case of a father who interferes with or displays an interest in their children's sex/relationship lives (which is fine, it wasn't clear that this wasn't the case). But I was thinking more along the lines of it being an attitude that the father has (some hide it better than others)

Let's say for instance if I had a 16 year old daughter who brought a boy home, I might smile and shake his hand (but I would squeeze it very hard and in my head I would likely be thinking something like "You little pr*ck, you better hope we don't cross paths in a dark alleyway"

But if I had a 16 year old son and he brought home a girl, I would probably be delighted for him and be very happy. (this sounds terrible as I am typing, but it's true)

People can say this is an archaic way of thinking but I would say it's the attitude of most fathers! Or maybe I am just old fashioned...

I can understand you being protective of your daughter and nothing wrong with being delighted for your son bringing home a girl. So I get it to an extent. Males and females are different.

But thoughts of violence towards your daughter's boyfriend - that's completely irrational. And guys who think it's great if their sons are riding around like mad - idiocy. Especially if those same men want to lock their daughters up. No bother if it's other people's daughters being ridden by their sons though.

One eyed Jack

bfa1509 wrote: »

A few people read into my OP as it being a case of a father who interferes with or displays an interest in their children's sex/relationship lives (which is fine, it wasn't clear that this wasn't the case). But I was thinking more along the lines of it being an attitude that the father has (some hide it better than others)

Let's say for instance if I had a 16 year old daughter who brought a boy home, I might smile and shake his hand (but I would squeeze it very hard and in my head I would likely be thinking something like "You little pr*ck, you better hope we don't cross paths in a dark alleyway"

But if I had a 16 year old son and he brought home a girl, I would probably be delighted for him and be very happy. (this sounds terrible as I am typing, but it's true)

People can say this is an archaic way of thinking but I would say it's the attitude of most fathers! Or maybe I am just old fashioned...

Where’s the hypocrisy though?

In one circumstance you’re speaking of how you treat your daughter (or rather your daughters boyfriends), and in the other circumstance, you’re speaking of how you treat your son (no mention of how you’d view his girlfriends?).

I get where you’re coming from, but you’re trying to equate two different circumstances as though they’re the same. They very clearly aren’t the same, and so it stands to reason your attitude in both circumstances is also completely different.

It’s just really not an example of hypocrisy at all tbh.

Edgware

eviltwin wrote: »

I have a son and daughter and I have to be honest I have zero interest in their sex life once they are happy. I'm a sex positive parent, I see sex as a good and healthy thing so I'm quite happy to have my daughter's various partners stay over the years. Same for her brother when he's at that age.

It's time you took the camera out of the bookshelf

meeeeh

I grew up in a different country so the whole staying overnight thing was around when I was young. One of my friends moved in her boyfriends since she was 15 or 16. Her mother even ended doing their washing every so often. Then her brother started having his girlfriend over and the house was quite crowded.

I'm not that liberal, I don't mind kids bringing home gf or bf (I have boy and a girl) but I draw the line at doing their laundry.

One eyed Jack

meeeeh wrote: »

I grew up in a different country so the whole staying overnight thing was around when I was young. One of my friends moved in her boyfriends since she was 15 or 16. Her mother even ended doing their washing every so often. Then her brother started having his girlfriend over and the house was quite crowded.

I'm not that liberal, I don't mind kids bringing home gf or bf (I have boy and a girl) but I draw the line at doing their laundry.

Was it common where you’re from though? I’m genuinely curious because it happened here too, but it wouldn’t have been all that common.

And yes, there was mothers doing the laundry and treating the boyfriend like a son and all!

bfa1509

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Where’s the hypocrisy though?

In one circumstance you’re speaking of how you treat your daughter (or rather your daughters boyfriends), and in the other circumstance, you’re speaking of how you treat your son (no mention of how you’d view his girlfriends?).

I get where you’re coming from, but you’re trying to equate two different circumstances as though they’re the same. They very clearly aren’t the same, and so it stands to reason your attitude in both circumstances is also completely different.

It’s just really not an example of hypocrisy at all tbh.

I wasn't thinking of it that much. Having a strict ideology for one child and showing an ideology of complete indifference for another could be considered hypocritical

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not a hypocrisy that’s borne out of love, it’s a hypocrisy that’s borne out of experience, and I wouldn’t want my son putting it about any more than I wouldn’t find it acceptable if my daughter were putting it about.

That being said, there are plenty of acceptable forms of hypocrisy and what often appears to be hypocrisy but isn’t, because the circumstances are completely different, like thinking that the circumstances of a son putting it about are the same circumstances as a daughter putting it about - they’re completely different circumstances which can have potentially different outcomes.

Eh, no. The potential consequences are exactly the same.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

Eh, no. The potential consequences are exactly the same.

You’re perfectly entitled to view the potential consequences as the same from your perspective, that’s fine, I have no issue with that. From my perspective though, males cannot become pregnant as a result of sexual intercourse, females can. That’s why I suggested that the potential consequences are not the same, and that’s only one example of where the potential consequences aren’t the same.

jam_mac_jam

The world is hypocritical so its normal. The consequences of sex is still worse for women, having unplanned babies. I have a son and worry about it much less then if I had a daughter. Don't get me wrong I don't not worry but just less.

So I am also a complete hypocrite. I say it should be the same for women and men but its not really

meeeeh

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Was it common where you’re from though? I’m genuinely curious because it happened here too, but it wouldn’t have been all that common.

And yes, there was mothers doing the laundry and treating the boyfriend like a son and all!

Yeah it was fairly common. I was mostly single so I'm not a great example (my husband stayed over, all others were not around long enough) but my brother had girlfriends over although in his case my parents just knew they were there but we almost never met them. A lot of my friends would have their bf or gfs staying but I don't know anyone who would have over their one night stands.

jam_mac_jam

volchitsa wrote: »

Eh, no. The potential consequences are exactly the same.

unfortunately not. The consequences of sex can be pregnancy which is not the same for a man and a woman.

volchitsa

FFred wrote: »

When it comes to my own sexual behaviour, I would make Ron Jeremy blush :pac:

But, when it comes to my children and their future sexual behaviour then I’m proud to be a prude

I wonder what result you expect from that though - I mean, do you really expect your children to be influenced by your negative attitude to their sexuality and behave differently from you as a result? Or do you simply hope not to have to be aware of their sexual activity which may well be similar to your own?

One eyed Jack

bfa1509 wrote: »

I wasn't thinking of it that much. Having a strict ideology for one child and showing an ideology of complete indifference for another could be considered hypocritical

Complete indifference? I’d hold them both to the same standards, as I suggested earlier -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I wouldn’t want my son putting it about any more than I wouldn’t find it acceptable if my daughter were putting it about.

eviltwin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’re perfectly entitled to view the potential consequences as the same from your perspective, that’s fine, I have no issue with that. From my perspective though, males cannot become pregnant as a result of sexual intercourse, females can. That’s why I suggested that the potential consequences are not the same, and that’s only one example of where the potential consequences aren’t the same.

Have you not heard of contraception and abortion?

volchitsa

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

unfortunately not. The consequences of sex can be pregnancy which is not the same for a man and a woman.

So if your son is producing multiple children with various women who may not be able to care for them, you wouldn't care about those children's lives as much as if your daughter had a single child with someone?

Really?

What if some of these girls take him to court for maintenance, or perhaps as a decent guy he just feels obliged to participate in their lives because some if the mothers are so hopeless, thus limiting his chances of meeting a girl you'd like to see him married to?

I just don't see how, other than in the most old fashioned "a girl who is not a virgin is ruined" sort of way, the potential negative outcomes are all that different nowadays.

Littlehorny

As Jim Jeffries once said "it's very easy to be a slut, but it's very hard to be a stud."
That's the way it still is for women even in the 21st century unfortunately. Both sexes will be judged unequally for the foreseeable future.

Omackeral

bfa1509 wrote: »

are there any acceptable forms of hypocrisy?

You can absolutely hate England and 'de Brits' while being clad in a Man United/Liverpool/Arsenal jersey and nobody will bat an eyelid.

One eyed Jack

eviltwin wrote: »

Have you not heard of contraception and abortion?

I have, and that still doesn’t make the potential consequences the same. I haven’t ever heard of a man having to avail of an abortion for example.

eviltwin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I have, and that still doesn’t make the potential consequences the same. I haven’t ever heard of a man having to avail of an abortion for example.

Yeah and that's one of the reasons I tend to worry more about my son tbh. But I'm not going to raise him to be afraid of sex. I'm teaching them to be responsible, the rest is up to them.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I have, and that still doesn’t make the potential consequences the same. I haven’t ever heard of a man having to avail of an abortion for example.

So much for all the Iona talk of men being harmed by abortions their girlfriends had had. Interesting to know that you don't think that can possibly be the case.

meeeeh

For me there is no difference if gfs or bfs are staying. I would actually find my son's position more risky because in the end the girl decides what she wants to do if there is unwanted pregnancy. But I wouldn't be very accommodating to drunken one night stands. Not because I am a prude but because that can be a lot more risky and consequences a bit more serious when they sober up.

FFred

volchitsa wrote: »

I wonder what result you expect from that though - I mean, do you really expect your children to be influenced by your negative attitude to their sexuality and behave differently from you as a result? Or do you simply hope not to have to be aware of their sexual activity which may well be similar to your own?

Huh?
Before I respond, please humour me, how old are your children?

One eyed Jack

eviltwin wrote: »

Yeah and that's one of the reasons I tend to worry more about my son tbh. But I'm not going to raise him to be afraid of sex. I'm teaching them to be responsible, the rest is up to them.

I haven’t raised my son to be afraid of sex either, and certainly I would expect he would be responsible, not just for himself but for anyone he chooses to be with too!

eviltwin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I haven’t raised my son to be afraid of sex either, and certainly I would expect he would be responsible, not just for himself but for anyone he chooses to be with too!

Same here. And same for my daughter.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

So much for all the Iona talk of men being harmed by abortions their girlfriends had had. Interesting to know that you don't think that can possibly be the case.

I don’t think what could possibly be what case? Genuinely I can’t make out what you’re trying to say there.


EDIT: I think I understand what you’re trying to say now. The Iona Institute don’t represent my opinions, they’re perfectly entitled as are you to express their opinions. I don’t agree with their opinion. Nothing interesting there really, but they’re entitled to their opinions.

I certainly wouldn’t view the consequences of my daughter having to avail of an abortion as the same for the man who impregnated her, if that’s what you mean?

ILoveYourVibes

Gimme A Pound wrote: »

A key that can open many locks is massively dodgy for security.

You love an analogy that makes uncontrolled shagging around by men out to be a positive?

Jeeze.

jam_mac_jam

volchitsa wrote: »

So if your son is producing multiple children with various women who may not be able to care for them, you wouldn't care about those children's lives as much as if your daughter had a single child with someone?

Really?

What if some of these girls take him to court for maintenance, or perhaps as a decent guy he just feels obliged to participate in their lives because some if the mothers are so hopeless, thus limiting his chances of meeting a girl you'd like to see him married to?

I just don't see how, other than in the most old fashioned "a girl who is not a virgin is ruined" sort of way, the potential negative outcomes are all that different nowadays.

Yeah that's exactly what I said about my son. I am not going to a argue a strawman.
If you don't see how the consequences of having babies is worse for women then I am not going to explain to you.

eviltwin

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Yeah that's exactly what I said about my son. I am not going to a argue a strawman.
If you don't see how the consequences of having babies is worse for women then I am not going to explain to you.

The best way of dealing with that is to teach your daughter to be informed about safe sex and to be assertive.

Gimme A Pound

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Jeeze.

What? That saying is completely sh1t towards women.