Thu'um Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 any way men happen to loose their rights when women demand equailty, like that law that dicatase that colleges must have equal amounts of sprts for both sexs, resulting in the cuting of sports in colleges Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unoservix Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 no they don't. for one, sports in college is not a right for anyone. for another, Title IX isn't why sports teams get cut; budgets and lack of marketability are why teams get cut. this is why the football and basketball teams generally get gorged on funding, while the lacrosse and fencing and gymnastic and whatever other teams get the shaft. claiming that somehow gender equality means men have to "give up rights" is one of the more fallacious and insidious forms of keeping women in a subordinate position. the only thing men have to "give up" is the social privilege of being a man over a woman, and removing that privilege ultimately benefits everyone, men and women alike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drasiana Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 Men aren't losing their rights because women are allowed to play sports, you dolt. The only real major instances of men getting the short end of the stick that currently comes to mind is in custody trials when the women are more often sympathized with, and that is extremely grey and certainly not a case of the evil amazonian uprising in which men everywhere will be dominated like animals. Do you feel particularly threatened because girls are allowed to do the same things as you are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harlow Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 Sorry, that was taken a bit out of context ^^; I was once told about the "liberation working against some women" some time ago and the reason's a bit blurry at the moment... And, on the never exactly equal... Sure everyone has the right of security, health care, respect, you name it. But what I tried to say was that everyone has different needs on their lives... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unoservix Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 that is not something related to gender, except for the social construct of gender that makes men and women think they have different needs. and why would you bring that up in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drasiana Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 Uh, putting it "in context" isn't helping. Are you agreeing with it, or not? And "different needs"? Yeah so women need tampons and men don't. But general biological differences are not the same as "equality" and are poor argument for this mythical vast difference between the sexes that many people see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harlow Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 Uh, putting it "in context" isn't helping. Are you agreeing with it, or not? On a certain extent. Ex. "A woman can marry the one she wishes to" I agree with this 100%, but unfortunately some women take this as "Who can sleep with the most people?", so, in a way, their liberties work against them. It's a bit complicated explaining all of this, so forgive me if I'm not sounding so concrete... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drasiana Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 Sleeping with as many people as they want to isn't "working against them" unless they don't do it safely. Usually women who have lots of sex...like having sex. I know this is a crazy-insano concept that people have a hard time wrapping their minds around, but yes, women can have as much of a sex drive as men. Also funny how it isn't particularly frowned upon for men to go to clubs and pick up chicks like there's no tomorrow; it's what men are tailored to strive for. But when women do it, they're sluts who have their "liberties working against them" and deserve to get back in the kitchen where making sandwiches is the porn equivalent. Funny double-standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unoservix Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 Sleeping with as many people as they want to isn't "working against them" unless they don't do it safely. To say nothing of how this makes no sense anyways, because it's not like there are no men who go out trying to screw as many women as they can, risking STDs and such in the process. That's not "liberties working against you," that's being responsible for your own well-being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redeemer Posted May 29, 2011 Author Share Posted May 29, 2011 Also funny how it isn't particularly frowned upon for men to go to clubs and pick up chicks like there's no tomorrow; it's what men are tailored to strive for. But when women do it, they're sluts who have their "liberties working against them" and deserve to get back in the kitchen where making sandwiches is the porn equivalent. Funny double-standard. So glad you said this. Both genders can behave like complete sluts and it's the women that are more frowned upon. Sure, it's not ladylike behavior, but manwhores are just as unattractive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drasiana Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 It's the saying that it's not "ladylike behaviour" that makes it so frowned upon. It seems to be within the female tailored reality, all the world doesn't want to admit that women like having sex, and that having normal biological urges as such is somehow sinful or "slutty". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redeemer Posted May 29, 2011 Author Share Posted May 29, 2011 It's the saying that it's not "ladylike behaviour" that makes it so frowned upon. It seems to be within the female tailored reality, all the world doesn't want to admit that women like having sex, and that having normal biological urges as such is somehow sinful or "slutty". Well, yeah, but just because we like sex, doesn't mean we should go sleeping around. I mean, if that's what people are into, fine, but personally I don't think it's entirely right for either gender to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drasiana Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 If they're not harming anyone, then why is it wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redeemer Posted May 29, 2011 Author Share Posted May 29, 2011 If they're not harming anyone, then why is it wrong? Well it's my personal opinion, mostly, but I'm also taking medical risks into consideration. Like unwanted pregnancy (which isn't 100% protected against by condoms/the pill), and STDs. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm not a prude and I'm just as hot-blooded as anyone else, haha, but I just have strong morals I guess. I meant no offense. It can affect relationships too. As in, cheating and lying. If people are single then they can do what they want, but relationships require honesty and commitment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulvokunvrii Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 Well, i do agree that Women, are indeed good at thse tasks (kitchen and etc.), but most have wanted the same freedom as Men. That is commendable, trully. But like you said when men arent always good at cooking, some women aren't always good at what men can do. So its a touch-and-go scenario. Half and half; some men are good at what women are experts at, and some women are good at what men are experts at. But not always. As a species capable of reason, not all will be completely infallible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sylum Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 If they're not harming anyone, then why is it wrong? Take this for example, Have your boyfriend sleep around and see who it harms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drasiana Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 Sylum, the idea isn't for people who are in relationships. It's single people that have sex with other single people. Cheating is a whole other ballpark and completely unrelated to anything I am saying. Also, I clearly said "if it's not harming someone", so I don't even know why you bothered to say that. Well it's my personal opinion, mostly, but I'm also taking medical risks into consideration. Like unwanted pregnancy (which isn't 100% protected against by condoms/the pill), and STDs. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm not a prude and I'm just as hot-blooded as anyone else, haha, but I just have strong morals I guess. I meant no offense. Unwanted pregnancies and STD's aren't guarenteed to happen if someone sleeps around. That's why, if they're smart, they'll be safe. "Unwanted pregnancies" happen with monogomous couples, for crying out loud. A woman who has casual sex isn't necessarily a big bag of disease with eighteen children, nor are they bad people. Well, i do agree that Women, are indeed good at thse tasks (kitchen and etc.), but most have wanted the same freedom as Men. That is commendable, trully. But like you said when men arent always good at cooking, some women aren't always good at what men can do. So its a touch-and-go scenario. Half and half; some men are good at what women are experts at, and some women are good at what men are experts at. But not always. As a species capable of reason, not all will be completely infallible. Duh. It's not "girl things" and "boy things". It's "things". Some people are good at some things, other's aren't. It's not as related to gender as some think it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redeemer Posted May 29, 2011 Author Share Posted May 29, 2011 Unwanted pregnancies and STD's aren't guarenteed to happen if someone sleeps around. That's why, if they're smart, they'll be safe. "Unwanted pregnancies" happen with monogomous couples, for crying out loud. A woman who has casual sex isn't necessarily a big bag of disease with eighteen children, nor are they bad people. Yeah, they can happen in relationships, but then we have a totally different scenario. We have a couple who have to make a choice. If a girl gets pregnant from a one-night stand, then she's in a significantly more difficult situation. And I never suggested that women who have casual sex are bad people or "bags of diseases", but they're still at greater risk of encountering STDs because they have multiple sexual partners. And it's fair enough to say "if they're smart, they're safe", but what is safe? Condoms? The pill? Regular health checks? You can never fully prevent pregnancy and STDs. Condoms are about 98% successful, and the pill is about 95% effective. And even if you use both, it's not as simple as combining their effectiveness and being fully safe. And you're still at a huge risk of getting an STD from oral sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sylum Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 I said it because everything is up to interpretation. I dont specifically remember single people ever being the only thing talked about in this topic. Therefore I said it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unoservix Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 I'm not sure how we assumed that "sleeping around" means "sleeping around without taking any steps towards safe sexual practices" but okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drasiana Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 but what is safe? Condoms? The pill? Regular health checks? Um, yes? And there are methods to prevent catching STD's from oral, too. It's also perfectly common to get into a difficult situation with a current partner, if say the girl's boyfriend leaves her or forces her to have an abortion, OR forces her to have the kid. There are far too many variables to just cut it down to CASUAL SEX, BAD. ABSTINENCE, GOOD. Edit: Good god, I hate how this forum doesn't notify you if people post while you're typing. Anyway Sylum, no, I didn't specifically say "single". But I specifically said "if no one gets hurt". Cheating = hurting. So your response made no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redeemer Posted May 29, 2011 Author Share Posted May 29, 2011 I'm not sure how we assumed that "sleeping around" means "sleeping around without taking any steps towards safe sexual practices" but okay. My point was that you're never 100% safe. I'm just reciting what I learned in my last degree. And Dras, I know that even in a relationship there are difficult situations, but I would rather have my partner there to help me than tackle it alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drasiana Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 Well, that's understandable. But again, it isn't black and white at all. As I said with my examples of forced abortions/pregnancies or the boyfriend even leaving our hypothetical woman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redeemer Posted May 29, 2011 Author Share Posted May 29, 2011 Well, that's understandable. But again, it isn't black and white at all. As I said with my examples of forced abortions/pregnancies or the boyfriend even leaving our hypothetical woman. Yes, those scenarios are unfortunately very, very real, but then that takes us into another topic. I'm aware of them though. It's a sad truth that boyfriends can be less than understanding when under pressure. Same goes for girlfriends I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drasiana Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 Yes. And this is still all in response to the poorly-wrought idea that women's liberties are "working against them". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts