(June 26, 2016 at 11:44 am)Rhythm Wrote: I had to deal with this one IRL recently.  My daughter was in tears about how unfair it was that she had to wear a shirt.  She's a snowflake, it's hot....we don't have ac, they run around the house stark naked.  The rules beyond my walls aren't the same as the rules within my walls.  It was her contention that this was unfair, particularly in that her brothers don't have to wear shirts.   I told her that it was unfair, but that I wasn't going to make her brothers do something I thought was silly anymore than I would make her do something I thought was silly -if it were up to me...but it isn't.

Hopefully, that instills in her the notion that the way to go about approaching equalty and inequality, is not to insist that puritan rules be applied to others.

What you did teach her was that unless everyone is effected no one is encouraged to change the rules to be fair. You taught her fairness does not apply to girls. If you have no restrictions it's unlikely you will concern yourself with the restrictions of others. The is the core power exchange of the remnants of a patriarchy.

(June 26, 2016 at 10:48 am)Heatheness Wrote:

(June 26, 2016 at 5:43 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Given that forum rules are driven by legal definitions, and the legal definitions have been overwhelmingly drawn up by male legislators, I'd say that the forum rules are sexist, but that the forum management is not responsible for the inherent sexism.

That's true but they are responsible for applying them equally.

I already promised no topless pics from me, I should think everyone's heaving a sigh of relief.

(June 26, 2016 at 11:58 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(June 26, 2016 at 10:48 am)Heatheness Wrote: That's true but they are responsible for applying them equally.

I already promised no topless pics from me, I should think everyone's heaving a sigh of relief.  

I was polishing my hammer just in case of such an event. 

Now it will have to go back in its case :-(

(June 26, 2016 at 10:48 am)Heatheness Wrote: That's true but they are responsible for applying them equally.

I'm reminded of the last verse to "The Trees":

(June 26, 2016 at 11:22 am)Heatheness Wrote:

(June 26, 2016 at 10:51 am)vorlon13 Wrote: I've always considered allowing mens to go topless and not womens to be a special perk for leering homos like me.

Not sure I would like to see that sensible policy changed.

I get that, that is your personal preference but as you well know it's not equality.

I have always considered allowing different gendered couples to have sex and get married to be a perk for a straight person like me.

But I'm absolutely sure I like that fact that same gendered couples can openly be with, have sex and/or get married to the gender they prefer and I worked to see the old policy changed to allow them to do that, even though it's didn't apply to me at all.

Why didn't you fight to get female-male marriage banned until gays could marry?

I haven't done an actual tally, but my impression is on the show Batched, half the cases are for breastesses, 1/3 noses, and the remaining 1/6 everything else.

{I'm a little surprised there is so much revision surgery for M-F transgenders, btw}

Not being much of a student of female angst, I am wondering if female toplessness were universally accepted to the same degree as it is for males, then there might be peer pressure on women not comfortable with it doffing their tops due to asymmetry, symmastia, ripples, contour issues, bad prior implant surgery, over or under sized aureolae (aureolas ?) etc. to go topless and that is going to be a bad thing for them.

* I could put about a dozen qualifications on this, but just keep in mind most things female related are really mysterious to me. LOL, I'm nearly 60 and finally developing curiosity about the opposite sex . . .

(June 26, 2016 at 12:06 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(June 26, 2016 at 10:48 am)Heatheness Wrote: That's true but they are responsible for applying them equally.

I'm reminded of the last verse to "The Trees":

Now there's no more oak oppression, for they passed a noble law,
and the trees are all kept equal ... by hatchet, ax, and saw.

Yes or... they could have freed all the trees.

(June 26, 2016 at 12:07 pm)Mamacita Wrote:

(June 26, 2016 at 11:22 am)Heatheness Wrote: I get that, that is your personal preference but as you well know it's not equality.

I have always considered allowing different gendered couples to have sex and get married to be a perk for a straight person like me.

But I'm absolutely sure I like that fact that same gendered couples can openly be with, have sex and/or get married to the gender they prefer and I worked to see the old policy changed to allow them to do that, even though it's didn't apply to me at all.

Why didn't you fight to get female-male marriage banned until gays could marry?

How do you know I didn't.

Thanks for the discussion, for those of you who were respectful, kudos.

(June 26, 2016 at 1:17 pm)Heatheness Wrote: Thanks for the discussion, for those of you who were respectful, kudos.

If you were serious about this you would make a statement by just breaking the rules.