The First Date Shag Consequences..

OutlawPete · 11-01-2011 5:09am

Darlughda wrote: »

You know what Pete, I reckon you keep good company and quality of mates that you would not be familar with the frequent labelling of women in silly derogarotary terms.

Perhaps but I am in my late 30's and like to think I have a cross section of friends who would represent most personality types.

Genuinely, even when out and about I just don't find that women are seen being less for enjoying sex, quite the opposite if anything.

I mean, if a woman doesn't hold a door open for a mate, or gets treated rudely for no apparent reason - then yeah, they'll bring it up and slate the women, but in only in the same way that they would if a man done similar.

The very notion that a guy would meet a girl, fancy her and end up having a ONS - only to then tell his mates:

"Well, she's stunning, lovely personality - but I'm gonna leave it there as I wouldn't date a slut"

.. just seems laughable to me as I know of no guy that would have that attitude.

Now, I have mates who will shag women and say that they wouldn't date them, but as said earlier, that's a different think entirely and both sexes do that in equal measures tbh.

Darlughda wrote: »

However, by all accounts it does seem to happen. Maybe indeed, it utterly depends on the quality of company one keeps.

Perhaps, but even just from observation I don't see any double standards.

I know we are not supposed to speak in generalities, but if I could be forgiven just this once: I really and truly think that women have no idea how much men are in awe of them.

Darlughda wrote: »

To refer to a woman in such terms makes a derogratory statement amongst all present , does it not?

Of course but if men see or hear of a women being disrespected, they will speak up. If one of my mates said to us that he was with a girl the night before but she is only a slut as she slept with him and was pretty uninhibited, we would all laugh at him and take piss. More than likely we would call him a slut (jokingly) but yet still with an air of 'well, if she is then you are too, but yet still making it clear that what he said was unfair.

I see the anger here from women who think that men are seeing them in that way and so they plod on with trying to find someone to date. All I can say: just be thankful that you're not a guy, as at least with being a woman there are gonna be loads of fish snapping for your bait, whereas with men, even the highest quality bait, will only get a fraction of that level of snapping

The Corinthian · 11-01-2011 11:10am

The idea that a woman who sleeps around is a 'slut' has largely fallen out of fashion. That is not to say that there are not men out there who still hold to this, only that I believe that they tend to be a minority, IMO. Men who think this way, tend to be very conservative, traditional and often provincial. In the worst cases, they are also they type of men who suffer serious virgin-whore complexes and literally can only love women whom they don't have sex with. Screwed up, I know.

I don't know if I've ever known any woman who I would have considered a 'slut'. Certainly, I've used the term jokingly, but sleeping around alone would not cause me to think any less of anyone. However, that's just me and I can't speak for all men.

My experience, on the other hand, is that women are often far more judgmental in this regard than men and I suspect the reason is anthropological; 'slutty' women are competition or, if you are already in a relationship, a threat.

I do however believe that there is a logic in not having sex on the first night. There is a period of 'getting to know each other' at the start of any relationship where a bond will form between the man and woman and the 'promise' of future sex can act as an incentive for a man to do this longer than if he had already had sex on the first night.

I've no doubt that there have been occasions where I've had sex on the first night and I lost interest as I no longer had to put in an effort. With that incentive gone, so was any significant interest in 'getting to know each other'.

Of course, the reverse is not always a good thing. I had the occasion of dating a woman many years ago who 'held out' for the first three or four weeks of dating. When we eventually did have sex and with the 'promise' of future sex was finally gone, I realized that in getting to know her, I discovered that actually did not much like her character.

There is another way of retaining that incentive to pursue a 'getting to know each other' period, however. Good sex. You'd be surprised how rare it is to really have good sex with someone and when you do, you will stick around. Naturally, good sex is no more a guarantee that things will develop any more than 'holding out'.

If I was to look back on the women in my life, I'd have to say that sex on the first night or not hasn't made a huge amount of difference. The longest relationship I had began with a one-night-stand. The second longest, I had to wait for. Both of them, however, were good sex from the onset - and first night or fiftieth, I would not have stuck around without that, TBH.

liah · 11-01-2011 2:05pm

I really and truly think that women have no idea how much men are in awe of them.

You know, I've never heard it in so many words but I've kinda had that suspicion before, though I REALLY don't understand it; we're just people too.

Why are men in awe of us?

Wibbs · 11-01-2011 2:56pm

liah wrote: »

You know, I've never heard it in so many words but I've kinda had that suspicion before, though I REALLY don't understand it; we're just people too.

Why are men in awe of us?

There is a notion among many men about how difficult it is to "get a woman"(it's not really). This makes men think women, particularly attractive women are rare(they aren't really). The dating/mating game is much more a sellers market for a woman. All things being equal, the plainest Jane will be approached by more men, then the handsome John will be approached by women. Many women will make a man work for her attention which bolsters this even more. Through in a lot of men with mammy complexes and that's where I reckon you get most of this awe thing from. I reckon it may even start with the mammy complex. Every single player type guy I've known didnt put his mother on a pedestal. Either was estranged from her or just saw her as another human being.

The Corinthian · 11-01-2011 3:15pm

Wibbs wrote: »

All things being equal, the plainest Jane will be approached by more men, then the handsome John will be approached by women.

Not sure if that's really true. Handsome John will find that women will often maneuver themselves to 'bump' into him for conversation. They are more receptive to talking with him, less likely to end the discussion and more likely to prolong it.

Plainest Jane will be approached if no prettier girls are around, and there are many wallflowers out there who rarely get approached before the last dance of the night, when men historically cut their losses and settle for 'any port in a storm'.

Ironically, I suspect that women feel that it is much easier for a man to find a relationship than a woman. Women may generally be the gatekeepers on sex, but men are typically the gatekeepers on (the initial stages of) relationships.

Peanut2011 · 11-01-2011 4:13pm

I guess if you look at it this way it might show a different point of view.

On the night out most men (let's assume they are not attached) would look at the woman at the first glance as:

Yes I would.
No thank you.

This is the animal instinct that women have too and it's natural. However than when or if they get talking to them the category 1 would be further filtered.

This is not based on their intellectual level, but rather on the flirty reply. If a man manages to "bag it", well guess what, he knows nothing about that person apart from some flirting and whether they are compatible that way. Guess what, next day they are hardly thinking "God I'd love to go to the theatre with her!".

All they know from that person is what they got so far. The thought process regarding the longer relationship does not even enter it.

Guess what, soon after he is out again and new "fresh" list is made. And the circle continues.

As to the argument of wanting to find out if they are compatible in the bedroom at the early stage, all I will say is that at that stage you have no idea if you are compatible otherwise so why rush that.

It's all relevant!

Wibbs · 11-01-2011 5:03pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not sure if that's really true. Handsome John will find that women will often maneuver themselves to 'bump' into him for conversation. They are more receptive to talking with him, less likely to end the discussion and more likely to prolong it.

Plainest Jane will be approached if no prettier girls are around, and there are many wallflowers out there who rarely get approached before the last dance of the night, when men historically cut their losses and settle for 'any port in a storm'.

Oh I agree, but I'd still say in general an average woman at 25 has been approached both subtly and overtly in a sexual way much more than the average man.

Ironically, I suspect that women feel that it is much easier for a man to find a relationship than a woman. Women may generally be the gatekeepers on sex, but men are typically the gatekeepers on (the initial stages of) relationships.

Very much agree with that.

nxbyveromdwjpg · 11-01-2011 5:32pm

grungepants wrote: »

purley out of curiousity... How did you get the date with this girl?

Met her out before Christmas and have been texting her, basically.

LegacyUser · 12-01-2011 2:16pm

I've never heard a woman say that she met some fella out and she went back to his place and he "smashed the box off me" and climbed out the window to get away from her.

I have heard this type of thing countless times from various lads about girls they picked up. There is no doubt that there is a subset of men who use every trick in the book to get women and at the end of it, have zero respect for her and will tell their mates every detail.

I am not sure there is a female equivalent of this type of predatory guy.

OutlawPete · 13-01-2011 5:39am

Wibbs wrote: »

Through in a lot of men with mammy complexes and that's where I reckon you get most of this awe thing from. I reckon it may even start with the mammy complex.

I kinda rushed that post but what I really meant by "in awe of" was actually: respect, cherish, instinctively want to protect etc. I think putting women on a pedestal is something totally different and very damaging to society and indeed, individuals - as to place one sex above another the terms of warranting respect and love, means that you then have to be somewhat disparaging of the other. Society without question has placed women on a pedestal and at the same time, showed a callous disregard for males and without doubt society has and is paying a very heavy price for that. I don't think men have paid a bigger price than women, just a much different one.

Some men clearly believe that women should indeed be put on a pedestal and are that they are in fact fully deserving of it, the white-knighting brigade for example and perhaps it is those twits that are guilty placing that unreasonable (double standard) expectations on women with regards to sex, not quite sure. The problem is that some women will take advantage of this "pedestal" by walking all over men, pushing for rights that are not afforded to both sexes etc and inevitably (all-be-it unfairly) give all other women a bad name. I think women see these behaviors in other women, far more than any guy ever could.

What I feel is, that the only type of women than men truly have little or no regard for, are women that don't see men as their 'true' equals, that see men as beneath them and so are rude for little or no reason other than that it is accepted by society - that and of course women who are just generally unpleasant anyway, and most likely would be, even had they come into this world as man.
Long story short (ish) ..

Both men and women will have ONSs with the opposite sex and have no intention of even calling that person again, just purely because they feel that they can "do better" and just see that person as 'shag material' and not 'relationship material'. Then there are the ONS that never go anywhere based on other factors entirely but the bottom line is that men love women, respect women, appreciate women etc etc, far far more than women realize and genuinely: the possible 'promiscuousness' of woman that a guy has a ONS with, is really not that very high on the list of why he the might not then want to even think about a relationship. It's the other things on that 'list' that women should really be concerning themselves with tbh, not whether or not he will just think she's a slut if she expresses herself sexually on the first night they meet and even if you do meet a guy like that, do you really want date someone like that anyway.

Darlughda · 13-01-2011 7:40am

OutlawPete wrote: »

Men love women, respect women, appreciate women etc etc, far more than women realize and genuinely - the possible 'promiscuousness' of a woman that a guy has a ONS with, is really not that very high on the list of why a guy wouldn't be all that interested maybe having a relationship. It's the other things on that 'list' however that women should really be concerning themselves with tbh, defiantly not that one.

Interesting post Outlaw Pete, and indeed the last few post from The Corinthian, Wibbs et al, have been food for thought.

Indeed. both parties in a ONS scenario have many other factors to consider before even considering if they want the relationship to progress further. Even the basic, do they really want to see the person again?

Dolph Starbeam · 14-01-2011 1:00pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Every single player type guy I've known didnt put his mother on a pedestal. Either was estranged from her or just saw her as another human being.

Oh my god i've never noticed that before but you are right, one of my best friends fits right into that theory plus a couple other people i know, very interesting.

The Corinthian · 15-01-2011 9:05am

OutlawPete wrote: »

I kinda rushed that post but what I really meant by "in awe of" was actually: respect, cherish, instinctively want to protect etc. I think putting women on a pedestal is something totally different and very damaging to society and indeed, individuals.

I don't want to seem rude, but if to "respect, cherish, instinctively want to protect" someone is not putting them on a pedestal, what on Earth is?

OutlawPete · 15-01-2011 9:33am

The Corinthian wrote: »

I don't want to seem rude, but if to "respect, cherish, instinctively want to protect" someone is not putting them on a pedestal, what on Earth is?

Not sure why you would think that men wanting to:

Respect, Cherish, Instinctively Want to Protect women = womenare better / more worthy etc.

I think men feel these thing for women because it's our nature to do so. When an Lion protects a lioness, is that them putting them on a pedestal? What I see as putting women on a pedestal is:

Never telling them when they are wrong, in fact going along with them just to please them.
Seeing them as having no flaws.
Seeing them as being pure in thought.
Seeing them as not being as wanting to sexually experimental.
Giving them lesser prison sentences.
Giving them preferential treatment in the courts.
Think that a woman hitting a man is less of a crime as a man hitting a woman.
Thinking that a woman sexually abusing a child is not as bad as when a man does it.
Etc etc etc.

Instinctive feelings that men have ( I feel) for wanting to protect, provide, respect and cherish women are all to do with us being males. I think as men, some of us begun to suppress these feelings as we have been taught over time that they are negative, by our overly-feminized society. Masculine traits have become something that now have negative connotations and that they must mean men have a desire to dominate women and control them.

Masculine traits were once a virtue in society, this is no longer true - however, I do still think that women seek them out, much to Germaine Greer's displeasure.

liah · 15-01-2011 1:36pm

I can't think of how being masculine is a disadvantage? Being a girl is considered far more of an insult colloquially, in fact, if a guy is "acting like a girl" it's seen as negative and he'll get told to "man up", because masculinity is prized and femininity is still seen as "weak." Which, frankly, is crap. For both genders. It's very limiting.

It's also become very popular for girls to "disown" previously feminine activities and make a big fuss out of it because again, being outwardly feminine is seen as "weak."

OutlawPete · 15-01-2011 2:14pm

liah wrote: »

I can't think of how being masculine is a disadvantage?

Not a "disadvantage" just that masculine traits are suppressed by men today for a variety of reasons, just as women are suppressing some of theirs - so as not to offend society.

liah wrote: »

Being a girl is considered far more of an insult colloquially, in fact, if a guy is "acting like a girl" it's seen as negative and he'll get told to "man up", because masculinity is prized and femininity is still seen as "weak." Which, frankly, is crap. For both genders. It's very limiting.

I don't really agree with the way you are looking at this here, I think you are mixing two different issues.

The whole "man up" thing gets on my nerves and I hate when I see it being posted, particularly by other guys, just because a guy has complained, but has not being because he was being girly and even it was, why should "weakness" be associated with "femininity" - that's just clowns being clowns.

liah wrote: »

It's also become very popular for girls to "disown" previously feminine activities and make a big fuss out of it because again, being outwardly feminine is seen as "weak."

I TOTALLY agree with you here and it winds me up, I am constantly seeing girls trying to hide their feminine side and you can tell is an attempt to avoid being seen as "weak".

Anyway, I have derailed the topic now

Have you ever read Christina Hoff Sommers, her books would pretty much sum up how I view all things relating to the how and why the sexes relate to each other now and the problems that have and will continue to result from that.

The Corinthian · 15-01-2011 4:00pm

OutlawPete wrote: »

Not sure why you would think that men wanting to:

Respect, Cherish, Instinctively Want to Protect women = womenare better / more worthy etc.

It sounds like they are entitled to a man's service; be it to be cherished (to tenderly care for) or protected. And service does imply a pecking order.

Now, if you said the individual woman you love, then I could see your point, but you've suggested a general attitude to the entire gender by the other is putting the former on a pedestal - you don't need to go to extremes to do that.

I think men feel these thing for women because it's our nature to do so. When an Lion protects a lioness, is that them putting them on a pedestal?

Poor analogy as a lionesses do the almost all the provision of food (hunting) and share in protecting the group. Males don't actually pull their weight, as it were.

Instinctive feelings that men have ( I feel) for wanting to protect, provide, respect and cherish women are all to do with us being males.

It they are instinctive or not is irrelevant. You can instinctively want to put someone on a pedestal, after all. Presuming they are instinctive, of course, which given your understanding of the social dynamics of the Panthera leo is questionable.

I think as men, some of us begun to suppress these feelings as we have been taught over time that they are negative, by our overly-feminized society. Masculine traits have become something that now have negative connotations and that they must mean men have a desire to dominate women and control them.

You're confusing masculine traits with chivalry - another historical pedestal.

Chivalry is however based upon the idea that you are protecting someone weaker than, or somehow inferior to, you. Or can you explain why one 'equal' in society should protect the other 'equal' and not vice versa?

OutlawPete · 15-01-2011 4:27pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

And service does imply a pecking order.

Your word not mine.

The Corinthian wrote: »

.. you've suggested a general attitude to the entire gender by the other is putting the former on a pedestal.

No, you take it that I have suggested that, but I am saying that it is not what I suggested and that the two things are entirely different.

You say "serving" but I don't see it like that.

I believe humans instinctively have roles in society (as controversial as that may sound) and so they gravitate towards them. I don't think that is men feeling more protective over women than other men is "servicing" as much as I don't think women being more instinctive care givers is "servicing".

Both sexes are capable of both of course but I do believe that there is a difference between the sexes that goes beyond conditioning.

The Corinthian wrote: »

It they are instinctive or not is irrelevant.

I don't believe it is irrelevant you see.

The Corinthian wrote: »

You can instinctively want to put someone on a pedestal, after all.

If you want to take that road, then you could argue that it can be instinctive to murder someone and totally misses my point. I believe men to be hardwired to want to provide for women, to protect women. None of this do I see as putting women on a pedestal.

The Corinthian wrote: »

You're confusing masculine traits with chivalry - another historical pedestal.

No, chivalry comes from that, sure - but it's not in itself, chivilary.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Chivalry is however based upon the idea that you are protecting someone weaker than, or somehow inferior to, you. Or can you explain why one 'equal' in society should protect the other 'equal' and not vice versa?

Perhaps they shouldn't - now, but as I said - I believe it to be a natural instinct for men and at different times in our history men could express that, today he would more likely be called a 'Neanderthal' if he were to express such views, and no doubt that's what I will be called

Back to the topic, I think the true "pedestal" position that some men place women on has more to do with religion than it has to do with any other factor.

HavingCrack · 15-01-2011 4:39pm

OutlawPete wrote: »

I believe men to be hardwired to want to provide for women, to protect women. None of this do I see as putting women on a pedestal

Has there been much research done into this theory or is this just your opinion? It's not a criticism just a question

Certainly if you apply this to other species of animal the majority of males don't necessarily provide or protect females so it would interesting if humans were different.

The Corinthian · 15-01-2011 4:46pm

OutlawPete wrote: »

Your word not mine.

Derived from yours. If you disagree address what I said.

You say "serving" but I don't see it like that.

You only described one side of your social relationship, which was for one gender to be servile to the other. If there is more to it, you need to explain.

I believe humans instinctively have roles in society (as controversial as that may sound) and so they gravitate towards them. I don't think that is men feeling more protective over women than other men is "servicing" as much as I don't think women being more instinctive care givers is "servicing".

So it's chauvinism; men have their place and women have theirs. Correct?

Both sexes are capable of both of course but I do believe that there is a difference between the sexes that goes beyond conditioning.

You'll have to be more specific as you appear to be avoiding the point - are you suggesting that one gender is superior in certain roles to the other?

I don't believe it is irrelevant you see.

That is simply an opinion, please back it up just as I have mine.

If you want to take that road, then you could argue that it can be instinctive to murder someone and totally misses my point. I believe men to be hardwired to want to provide for women, to protect women. None of this do I see as putting women on a pedestal.

You don't seem to understand what I said. I'll try to simplify it; I questioned if what you were arguing was in reality putting women up on a pedestal. Whether the reasons for doing so are social, instinct, or whatever is irrelevant - either they are put on a pedestal or they're not. Hence your entire argument on instinct is irrelevant.

Perhaps they shouldn't - now, but as I said - I believe it to be a natural instinct for men and at different times in our history men could express that, today he would more likely be called a 'Neanderthal' if he were to express such views, and no doubt that's what I will be called

Actually, the correct term would be a chauvinist or sexist.

OutlawPete · 15-01-2011 6:53pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Derived from yours. If you disagree address what I said.

I don't care if you "derived" it or not, it's not what I said nor implied, let alone come close to my point.

The Corinthian wrote: »

You only described one side of your social relationship, which was for one gender to be servile to the other.

Your replies to my posts all loaded, why?

I did not say one gender needs to be "servile" to the other, again suggesting I implied something I did not.

The Corinthian wrote: »

If there is more to it, you need to explain.

I already did.

I don't think that is men feeling more protective over women than other men is "servicing" as much as I don't think women being more instinctive care givers is "servicing".

The Corinthian wrote: »

So it's chauvinism; men have their place and women have theirs. Correct?

No, and that is not what chauvinism means either.

The Corinthian wrote: »

You'll have to be more specific as you appear to be avoiding the point - are you suggesting that one gender is superior in certain roles to the other?

Avoiding what point??

The Corinthian wrote: »

That is simply an opinion, please back it up just as I have mine.

Back up what? I have no clue what you are talking about.

Are you asking me to prove that gender is more than conditioning?

The Corinthian wrote: »

Whether the reasons for doing so are social, instinct, or whatever is irrelevant - either they are put on a pedestal or they're not.

Some men put women on a pedestal and some don't, that is what I said.

You then came along and said that the traits I said some men are hardwired with, are in fact forms of putting women on a pedestal, I don;t agree - what do you want me to keep arguing with you? You disagree, so what.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually, the correct term would be a chauvinist or sexist.

Are you serious??

I made a joke and said that I might be called a 'Neanderthal' for that opinion and you then tell me the "correct term" is "chauvinist or sexist"?? You have to be winding me up.

The Corinthian · 15-01-2011 7:15pm

OutlawPete wrote: »

I made a joke and said that I might be called a 'Neanderthal' for that opinion and you then tell me the "correct term" is "chauvinist or sexist"?? You have to be winding me up.

No. I am only addressing what you've said - if it is not what you mean then you need to explain yourself properly.

To begin with you claimed that to "respect, cherish, instinctively want to protect" women in general is not putting them up on a pedestal. Yet to cherish is to tenderly take care of, effectively a form of service, as is protection. This attitude does put women, in your eyes, in some form of special category that somehow differentiate them from men, who we presumably do not owe the same service too.

You can call it what you will, but that is putting them up on a pedestal.

However then you later expanded on why you would treat them differently, which was because "there is a difference between the sexes that goes beyond conditioning". Logically this would imply that the difference necessitates that women need to be serviced so - something that men do not require.

Instead, you define them as "care givers", which ultimately betrays the other side of you equation. You are saying that men and women are different and because of this women need to be taken care of and protected (while men do not need this) - they are the care givers, the home makers, the good little wives and mothers.

Call a spade a spade, but that's good old-fashioned chauvinism.

If not, you'll have to explain why, because you've not done so far.

OutlawPete · 16-01-2011 12:44am

The Corinthian wrote: »

No. I am only addressing what you've said - if it is not what you mean then you need to explain yourself properly.

No, what you are doing is quoting what I say, spinning it, adding words that give what I said a totally new meaning and then asking me to explain it, quite the debating tactic and for what reason you are doing it, I don't know.

Look, the following comment was made by user describing how they sometimes feel men think of women:

..hate women, they're all cheating lying whores until they prove otherwise ..

I disagree with this and so said that in my view men want to:

..respect, cherish, instinctively want to protect women

Then you come along and say that this is putting women on a pedestal and explain to you that it is not and gave many reasons of what I feel 'putting women on a pedestal' to be.

You then come back and use phrases such as:

'To service', 'chauvinism', 'superior', 'men have their place and women have theirs', 'pecking order' etc etc etc.

Now, I have no issue with you disagreeing with my opinions, none what-so-ever - but at least just leave my words the way they were when asking me to explain my opinions, don't rephrase what I said.

The Corinthian wrote: »

.. to cherish is to tenderly take care of, effectively a form of service, as is protection.

Women and men can cherish each other in relationships and it has ZERO to do with one partner "servicing" the other. Again, here you seem to have an agenda to portray me as someone who thinks women should serve men.

The Corinthian wrote: »

This attitude does put women, in your eyes, in some form of special category that somehow differentiate them from men, who we presumably do not owe the same service too.

^^^^^^^^^^
See, suggest my words mean "to serve" and then accuse me of having an attitude that they should "serve" men.

The Corinthian wrote: »

.. they are the care givers, the home makers, the good little wives and mothers.

^^^^^^^^^^
And again

All you are doing is implying that I think these things that most certainly DO NOT and then berate me for it, laughable.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Call a spade a spade, but that's good old-fashioned chauvinism.

This tactic that you are employing here is nothing new. You are taking an comments about how I feel that in general men cherish women, have respect for them and how I feel it is men's nature to want to protect them, to that somehow meaning this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w

Darlughda · 16-01-2011 5:42am

Firstly Outlaw Pete, I think you are misunderstanding Greer. Her bugbear with society seems to be the patriarchal order and inherent misogyny rather than trying to stamp out masculine traits.

Secondly, It might be helpful you you gave a definition/list of what you consider to be masculine and feminine traits. Actually, it can be interesting how these definitions can change depending on the person.

OutlawPete wrote: »

Never telling them when they are wrong, in fact going along with them just to please them.
Seeing them as having no flaws.
Seeing them as being pure in thought.
Seeing them as not being as wanting to sexually experimental. .

Now, this stuff is more to do with the madonna/whore complex, and/or putting women on a pedestal and the retarded idea that a sexual women is a whore etc.

OutlawPete wrote: »

Giving them lesser prison sentences.
Giving them preferential treatment in the courts..

Now, I am not an expert in this, but I suspect the reason is the crimes tend not to be the same as men.

OutlawPete wrote: »

Think that a woman hitting a man is less of a crime as a man hitting a woman.

Domestic violence affecting men is gaining ground in being recognised as a highly important issue.

OutlawPete wrote: »

Thinking that a woman sexually abusing a child is not as bad as when a man does it..

Again, like the domestic violence against men issue, this is gaining ground in being recognised, however as the numbers still tend to outsway this side, it is inevitable that it is in public conciousness that domestic violence and sexual abuse of a child is primarily a man's crime.
Etc etc etc.

The Corinthian · 16-01-2011 10:53am

OutlawPete wrote: »

No, what you are doing is quoting what I say, spinning it, adding words that give what I said a totally new meaning and then asking me to explain it, quite the debating tactic and for what reason you are doing it, I don't know.

With all due respects, I am not. I am simply basing what I am saying on your own words. There is no spin, no "debating tactic", and to dismiss it as such is a bit of a cheap shot, TBH.

Then you come along and say that this is putting women on a pedestal and explain to you that it is not and gave many reasons of what I feel 'putting women on a pedestal' to be.

You gave an extreme list of examples of 'putting women on a pedestal' - that does not mean that lesser, more subtle, examples would not also be guilty of the same behaviour - it is like suggesting that to be vulgar you need to sit around throwing your feces around, but picking your nose is not.

Women and men can cherish each other in relationships and it has ZERO to do with one partner "servicing" the other. Again, here you seem to have an agenda to portray me as someone who thinks women should serve men.

To begin with, this is the first time you have suggested that women can or should cherish men. You only focused on the reverse up to now. You sound like you're backtracking.

Secondly, you do know what cherish actually means, do you? It is a form of affectionate service, even worship. Look it up in the dictionary if you doubt me.

All you are doing is implying that I think these things that most certainly DO NOT and then berate me for it, laughable.

Hold on - you assigned the role of "care givers" to women. Now you're denying that you ever suggested that they have this role? More backtracking.

This tactic that you are employing here is nothing new. You are taking an comments about how I feel that in general men cherish women, have respect for them and how I feel it is men's nature to want to protect them, to that somehow meaning this:

Straw man; just because you may have a somewhat old-fashioned, traditional or even chauvinistic attitude towards gender roles, does not automatically make you a Victorian parody of same.

However, you do clearly have an old-fashioned, traditional or even chauvinistic attitude towards gender roles, as betrayed by your own language and arguments. You even admitted it yourself earlier:

OutlawPete wrote: »

Perhaps they shouldn't - now, but as I said - I believe it to be a natural instinct for men and at different times in our history men could express that, today he would more likely be called a 'Neanderthal' if he were to express such views, and no doubt that's what I will be called

My original point is that to "cherish and protect" someone on the basis of their gender alone is in fact putting them up on a pedestal. Just because you don't think that, based on some extreme definition, does not change that fact or the irony of your other statements.

OutlawPete · 16-01-2011 6:25pm

Darlughda wrote: »

Firstly Outlaw Pete, I think you are misunderstanding Greer. Her bugbear with society seems to be the patriarchal order and inherent misogyny rather than trying to stamp out masculine traits.

I partly agree with you, but I take issue with these things to begin with - well, at least in the way that she has historically presented them. I think she is a misandrist and has done more harm to women than good. Whenever I criticize radical feminism I get told a few things: that I am exaggerating the negative effects it has had on society, that I am ignoring the positive effects it has had and that when Germaine wrote in The Female Eunuch it was reflective of it's time and it was a book that was "needed" - all of which, I disagree.

Without going down the whole avenue of what I feel Radical Femisim's effect on society has been and still is to a great degree, my opinion on on Germaine Greer is that she does not just have an understandable "bugbear" at all. What she was peddling in the 70's in the name of "equality", she is still trying to peddle today (all be it much less successfully) and what can only be described as: man-hating, fear-mongering, self-pitying, women-are-all-just-victims-of-the-patriarchy bile and in just as equal measures and as much vigor and venom as before. Only as far back as ten years ago she wrote:

"I reckon that in the year 2000 more men hate more women more bitterly than in 1970."

"The truth seems to be that men resent having to work and harbor a positive ambition to do nothing, which women do not share. ...In male heirarchies idleness is associated with status."

"Men have dispensed with any necessity to work on their appearance, beyond the choice of shaving or not."

"Women seek relief in tears where men seek relief in masturbation, which may be a distinction to be valued."

Just a few months back, she was giving a lecture and called for a website to be set up where women could post rape allegations against men, name them and shame them without a trial so women would have somewhere to go to check and see if a man they know is a rapist - yeah, Germaine Greer has changed alright.

It is that sort of misandric nonsense that has led to men being seen as disposable is society, as not being worthy of the same respect as women. A contempt for men runs though the heart of society. As one comedian famously put it, if you see a homeless man and a dog, you feel sorry for the dog. There is [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]a crisis undermining masculinity but you won't hear many men complain, as if they do, they will just be told to stop whining and man-up. [/FONT]

Darlughda wrote: »

Secondly, It might be helpful you you gave a definition/list of what you consider to be masculine and feminine traits. Actually, it can be interesting how these definitions can change depending on the person.

The masculine traits you ask about are not about being tough, or able to kick someone's ass but more that men suddenly stopped were less and less needed to be a provider or protector. Shortly after the feminisation of western society began, almost all aspects of being a man was seen as negative. Certain areas of the workplace were almost gender cleansed such as education, which is why we are at the point today where there is almost no male role models in our primary schools.

Feminism pushed the notion that men were the enemy and that women were being controlled by the patriarchy, which just created victimology. Men started to become what women said they wanted (the new sensitive man). [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]The media have played a crucial part in defining just what modern masculinity[/FONT] should be, but it is feminism that has that has controlled the media for the past 30 years or more, so it is feminism that has basically moulded man to be what he is today. Which kinda makes me laugh, as now we hear women constantly complaining that they can't find a "real man" and how they just broke up with a guy cause he was too clingy.

Not that women haven't got a raw deal from the effects of radical feminism also, they have. The whole gender neutral nonsense has had women afraid to be girly in any way, if she is too "feminine", then she cannot be a strong, intelligent woman also. Or worst of all, making women feel guilty because they wanted to ger married, have children and had no interest in having a career.

Darlughda wrote: »

Now, this stuff is more to do with the madonna/whore complex, and/or putting women on a pedestal and the retarded idea that a sexual women is a whore etc.

Well, women put themselves on that pedestal in certain ways, well - as far as society is concerned at least. When Men began being portrayed in society as always horny, thoughtless, neanderthal numskulls, brutal, cruel, sex crazed idiots who can’t control their urges, who generally have their brains in their trousers, then naturally that elevates women to a higher standard, or a perceived one at least.

Darlughda wrote: »

Now, I am not an expert in this, but I suspect the reason is the crimes tend not to be the same as men.

Women get far harsher sentences for the same crimes.

Darlughda wrote: »

Again, like the domestic violence against men issue, this is gaining ground in being recognised, however as the numbers still tend to outsway this side, it is inevitable that it is in public conciousness that domestic violence and sexual abuse of a child is primarily a man's crime. Etc etc etc.

With regards to domestic violence, it has always been as affected both sexes equally. Just read about Erin Pizzey and you will see how it was just hidden from society it actually was and why.

OutlawPete · 16-01-2011 7:11pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

With all due respects, I am not. I am simply basing what I am saying on your own words.

If you were, I would not be saying what I said.

You keep using phrases like: 'To service', 'superior', 'men have their place and women have theirs', 'pecking order' and nothing I have posted suggests that I believe women should "service" men or men women, let alone that one sex is "superior" to the other, or lower in the "pecking order". If you are getting that from my posts, it is becuade you that is what you wanted to get from them.

The Corinthian wrote: »

You gave an extreme list of examples of 'putting women on a pedestal' ..

No I did NOT and no matter how many times you say it, it won't make it true.

The Corinthian wrote: »

To begin with, this is the first time you have suggested that women can or should cherish men. You only focused on the reverse up to now. You sound like you're backtracking.

Are you serious?? You can't be. Let me spell this out for you ..

A comment was made that men have some sort of hatred for women and I replied and said that they would surprised at just how much most men respect, cherish, instinctively want to protect women.

Now you are saying that because I did not say at the time that women should also respect and cherish men, that now means I am back-tracking?? Ha! Yeah, of course it does and I suppose I have wrote similar on other threads on Boards over the years, just so I could have alibi.

The accusation that I am backtracking also has the implication that I am what you are trying to portray me as, a sexist chauvinist I guess and the rest of your post is full of the same type of nonsensical accusations of backtracking and so no real sign that you are ever going to reply to one of my posts with anything other than with that mindset, so what's the point in even trying.

If you want to think that I believe men are "superior" than women and that they 'have their place and women have theirs' - so be it, good for you. Not a chance am I going to engage in a yes-you-do-no-I-don't exchange till kingdom come.

I bid you good day Sir.

liah · 16-01-2011 7:24pm

OutlawPete wrote:

Well, women put themselves on that pedestal in certain ways, well - as far as society is concerned at least. When Men began being portrayed in society as always horny, thoughtless, neanderthal numskulls, brutal, cruel, sex crazed idiots who can’t control their urges, who generally have their brains in their trousers, then naturally that elevates women to a higher standard, or a perceived one at least.

By "portrayed" I take it you mean via the media, and I hate to break it to you but men perpetuate that image themselves far more frequently than women do, all you have to do is look to AH to see men playing up to the stereotype constantly, or my Formspring for that matter where I've got some lovely and mature (:rolleyes:) questions relating to sex. I'd wager well over half of the commercials and films and TV shows depicting men in this manner are written and/or directed by men, so why do you blame exclusively women for this in this paragraph?

I'm not saying women never perpetuate this idea, in fact sometimes it's very, very difficult not to when you're faced with a lot of men who actually are at least a few of those traits on a regular basis. Luckily, most of us can recognize it for what it is-- bullsh!t. But it's insane to say it's just women's fault and not men's; the blame lies equally and it's unfair to suggest otherwise.

metrovelvet · 16-01-2011 7:31pm

Outlaw pete-

Out of curiosity what do you want to protect women from exactly?

OutlawPete · 16-01-2011 7:44pm

liah wrote: »

But it's insane to say it's just women's fault and not men's; the blame lies equally and it's unfair to suggest otherwise.

I'm not blaming "women", I am blaming society (both men and women) that was feminised. A society that's main aim became to appease women and to not offend women. In fact, it was more men that made the changes than women, as they were the ones in the positions to be manipulated by feminists. Politicians, newspaper editors, studio executives etc etc etc.

Anyway, we are getting further and further away from the topic. As I said, I don't believe men in general hate women and believe it to be a lie fed to women by feminists with an agenda.

I've been either on or around (single friends) the dating scene now for over twenty years and never once have I heard a guy say he wasn't gonna date a girl, because the night he met her, she had sex with him.

And on that note, I is out.

The First Date Shag Consequences..

Comments