Page 13 of 27 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 270

Thread: Questions For Women

  1. Top | #121
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NOT laying back and thinking of England
    Posts
    11,390
    Archived
    3,655
    Total Posts
    15,045
    Rep Power
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by Emily Lake View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Emily Lake View Post

    The red bit above is what I was getting at - by controlling the girl's reproductivity, and ensuring that she only has one sex partner, they also ensure that any offspring are theirs.

    Thus... child brides and women viewed as property. All to control access to baby-making for that man alone. It's not about them being at peak fertility, it's about making sure that their children aren't someone else's get.

    Sure. I read the part in red the first time. A couple of times. I thoroughly understood the logic. Plays very well into the male world view. But not modern reality.

    Tell me how important all that part in red is in the United States, Europe, Australia. Most of Asia. Much of Africa and the Middle East.

    There is nothing 'natural' about men wanting barely pubescent girls.
    I think we're talking past each other. I don't think it's "natural". I think it's a result of a brutal, violent patriarchal society viewing females as their property and chattel. It's not hardwired, it's a result of males being bigger, stronger, more aggressive, and pretty much running the entire world on a "might-makes-right" principle... which includes raping and mutilating women across the globe and treating women as sub-human. It's culturally ingrained, and is something that has entered the culture of males as a result.

    It's NOT something I approve of. In case that part wasn't clear?
    I’m sorry. It’s really that I think your take allows (some) men and maybe some women off the hook way too easily by seeing this attraction for too young kids as being somehow the result of powers (societal, evolutionary, whatever) being just too big and powerful to resist.

    I don’t see it that way at all. I see your descriptions as convenient excuses to cover pathological insecurity and desire to control someone else, with the added bonus of sexual access to someone who isn’t in a position to stand up for themselves or to understand ramifications —all with the convenient excuses: It’s not pedophilia! They are (barely) pubescent—so ages about 11 to 14 or 15. AND men are just *programmed* that way. It’s all bullshit whether we are talking about men or women who are supposed to be grown preying on kids too young (or fantasizing about it).

    I don’t see it as societal pressures. I see it as grotesque immaturity and selfishness with a pathological need/desire for control.

  2. Top | #122
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    18,726
    Archived
    41,943
    Total Posts
    60,669
    Rep Power
    84
    I believe I am a man. I never thought of having sex with a prepubescent girl. Does that mean I need to have my programming corrected?

  3. Top | #123
    Might be a replicant Emily Lake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Northern Hemisphere, Bordering the Pacific
    Posts
    2,931
    Rep Power
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Emily Lake View Post

    I think we're talking past each other. I don't think it's "natural". I think it's a result of a brutal, violent patriarchal society viewing females as their property and chattel. It's not hardwired, it's a result of males being bigger, stronger, more aggressive, and pretty much running the entire world on a "might-makes-right" principle... which includes raping and mutilating women across the globe and treating women as sub-human. It's culturally ingrained, and is something that has entered the culture of males as a result.

    It's NOT something I approve of. In case that part wasn't clear?
    I’m sorry. It’s really that I think your take allows (some) men and maybe some women off the hook way too easily by seeing this attraction for too young kids as being somehow the result of powers (societal, evolutionary, whatever) being just too big and powerful to resist.

    I don’t see it that way at all. I see your descriptions as convenient excuses to cover pathological insecurity and desire to control someone else, with the added bonus of sexual access to someone who isn’t in a position to stand up for themselves or to understand ramifications —all with the convenient excuses: It’s not pedophilia! They are (barely) pubescent—so ages about 11 to 14 or 15. AND men are just *programmed* that way. It’s all bullshit whether we are talking about men or women who are supposed to be grown preying on kids too young (or fantasizing about it).

    I don’t see it as societal pressures. I see it as grotesque immaturity and selfishness with a pathological need/desire for control.
    Okay. I don't think men are *programmed* that way, any more than they are *programmed* to see women as second class citizens with no brain for leadership and no ability to make hard decisions. I certainly don't intend to provide cover, just citing the historical crap that has gone into that view.

    I also think there's a difference between depictions of women in media and fiction as being infantilized to the cusp-of-puberty stage and actually fantasizing about pubescent girls. I don't think the two are identical or synonymous. I was launching from my long post here.

  4. Top | #124
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NOT laying back and thinking of England
    Posts
    11,390
    Archived
    3,655
    Total Posts
    15,045
    Rep Power
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by Emily Lake View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Emily Lake View Post

    I think we're talking past each other. I don't think it's "natural". I think it's a result of a brutal, violent patriarchal society viewing females as their property and chattel. It's not hardwired, it's a result of males being bigger, stronger, more aggressive, and pretty much running the entire world on a "might-makes-right" principle... which includes raping and mutilating women across the globe and treating women as sub-human. It's culturally ingrained, and is something that has entered the culture of males as a result.

    It's NOT something I approve of. In case that part wasn't clear?
    I’m sorry. It’s really that I think your take allows (some) men and maybe some women off the hook way too easily by seeing this attraction for too young kids as being somehow the result of powers (societal, evolutionary, whatever) being just too big and powerful to resist.

    I don’t see it that way at all. I see your descriptions as convenient excuses to cover pathological insecurity and desire to control someone else, with the added bonus of sexual access to someone who isn’t in a position to stand up for themselves or to understand ramifications —all with the convenient excuses: It’s not pedophilia! They are (barely) pubescent—so ages about 11 to 14 or 15. AND men are just *programmed* that way. It’s all bullshit whether we are talking about men or women who are supposed to be grown preying on kids too young (or fantasizing about it).

    I don’t see it as societal pressures. I see it as grotesque immaturity and selfishness with a pathological need/desire for control.
    Okay. I don't think men are *programmed* that way, any more than they are *programmed* to see women as second class citizens with no brain for leadership and no ability to make hard decisions. I certainly don't intend to provide cover, just citing the historical crap that has gone into that view.

    I also think there's a difference between depictions of women in media and fiction as being infantilized to the cusp-of-puberty stage and actually fantasizing about pubescent girls. I don't think the two are identical or synonymous. I was launching from my long post here.
    I do think that they are two different things, slightly, anyway and in terms of practicality, yes. But I think that a large part of the attraction is the mythological pure virginal girl. I don't think it is now or ever was all about ensuring that any offspring are genetically related to the man who 'owns' the woman. I think it is about control of a lot more than just that. On the female side, I think that there are plenty of women who are attracted to older men because older men are more stable in many ways, economically, socially, emotionally. Less likely perhaps to stray or want to stay all night with the boys (or whoever). Of course there is often a disparity in maturity between men and women, at least up to a certain age.

  5. Top | #125
    Might be a replicant Emily Lake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Northern Hemisphere, Bordering the Pacific
    Posts
    2,931
    Rep Power
    28
    I pretty much agree.

  6. Top | #126
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Gallifrey
    Posts
    1,823
    Archived
    2,829
    Total Posts
    4,652
    Rep Power
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by southernhybrid View Post
    Next question.....

    But first....why do men wear ties? Are they trying to hang themselves? What's the deal with wearing something around your neck that might strangle you?
    Bowties are COOL

  7. Top | #127
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Gallifrey
    Posts
    1,823
    Archived
    2,829
    Total Posts
    4,652
    Rep Power
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by prideandfall View Post
    i don't think i need to do that at all, because i didn't.


    i actually went out of my way repeatedly to claim exactly the opposite, so... that's fun i guess.

    But facts are - many many women are NOT dressing for men. They actively do not like the attention of men on their body. It’s creepy and gross to be treated like a target. And evolutionarily speaking, females do not always want to display, and indeed shun the advances of the male, so that is quite wrong as well.
    all of that is true, and none of that is related to what i said nor a refutation of the point.
    So I'm confused. No one ever dresses for comfort? Ever? Just dresses with whatever works for the environment? (ie: long sleeves, short sleeves, jacket). Or wears a t-shirt of their favorite band because, they like the music? It's always about mating? Yeah, I'm calling bullshit on that.

  8. Top | #128
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Gallifrey
    Posts
    1,823
    Archived
    2,829
    Total Posts
    4,652
    Rep Power
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    I have two questions for women. What do you think the probability is that a man asking you a question about why do you something
    either cares about your answer or accepts that you know why?
    Depends on the man and the question. If my husband asks me, I genuinely believe he cares and will accepts that I know the answer.

  9. Top | #129
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Gallifrey
    Posts
    1,823
    Archived
    2,829
    Total Posts
    4,652
    Rep Power
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by James Brown View Post
    Can I ask some questions to women?

    How would your life change if all men had a curfew of 9:00pm?

    Suppose you were magically provided with an hour of free time. No obligations to anyone else, no demands. What would you do during that hour?

    What if it was a year? Again, no obligations, no expectations, and at the end of the year you pick up your old life right were you left off. What would you do with a free year?

    They're forming up a Martian colony. The life will be rugged, hard, and immensely rewarding. (Imagine that the odds of survival in just reaching Mars is the same as flying to another continent on Earth.) Would you go? What if you could take one person with you--would that change your answer, and who would that person be? What do you think you would do in a harsh frontier?

    If you have children, and if you could go back in time before you had kids, would you do it again? Would you want the same number of kids you have now?

    What do you hope to accomplish in the next 10 years?

    When you look back on your life, what do you think will be your biggest accomplishment? What will be your biggest regret?

    What would you tell your teenage self?
    1. I don't know..seems like you just did.
    2. Not at all - except my son couldn't work till 10PM
    3. Read
    4. If money were no object, travel
    5. No, not at this point in my life. 40 years ago, definitely
    6. Not sure as it would be very hard to imagine. I love having kids so probably not.
    7. Stay alive and have fun
    8. A. Raising my kids to be strong, independent and hopefully happy. B. Not learning more about my father's history.
    9. Sex =/ love and don't smoke-it's gross.

  10. Top | #130
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    31,078
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    127,830
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Playball40 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by prideandfall View Post
    i don't think i need to do that at all, because i didn't.


    i actually went out of my way repeatedly to claim exactly the opposite, so... that's fun i guess.

    But facts are - many many women are NOT dressing for men. They actively do not like the attention of men on their body. It’s creepy and gross to be treated like a target. And evolutionarily speaking, females do not always want to display, and indeed shun the advances of the male, so that is quite wrong as well.
    all of that is true, and none of that is related to what i said nor a refutation of the point.
    So I'm confused. No one ever dresses for comfort? Ever? Just dresses with whatever works for the environment? (ie: long sleeves, short sleeves, jacket). Or wears a t-shirt of their favorite band because, they like the music? It's always about mating? Yeah, I'm calling bullshit on that.
    I guess us hikers don't exist. Once you're past the crowd of people near the trailhead it's all about practicality, not looks. The only thing even resembling fashion you'll see 5 miles in is stuff with names like "North Face" or "Patagonia"--but that's because some of our practical gear has become a kind of fashion. (And, yes, there is a difference. I have a North Face vest and a very similar-looking store brand vest. The North Face is somewhat warmer, thinner, lighter and considerably more packable than the store-brand. Around town, the differences are minor, it's pretty much about the brand name. Out there the difference is important, especially when temperature changes make you put it on or put it in your pack.)

    I've had the experience of sitting next to a woman and part way through the presentation we realized we knew each other casually--it's just we had only seen each other dressed for the trails rather than in street wear. Had it not been a hiking-related thing I suspect we wouldn't have recognized each other at all.

    I have even told a novice that if it's fashionable and not from one of the major outdoor brands it's almost certainly not suitable for hiking. (She had posted a picture of some boots and asked if they were suitable--hell, no!)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •