(April 13, 2014 at 11:33 am)Sedna Wrote: The real issue here, I think, is that we don't have enough scantily clad men.

You sound more like a third wave feminist.

Wikipedia - Third-wave feminism
"Also considered part of the third wave is sex-positivity, a celebration of sexuality as a positive aspect of life, with broader definitions of what sex means and what oppression and empowerment may imply in the context of sex. For example, many third-wave feminists have reconsidered the opposition to pornography and sex work of the second wave, and challenge existing beliefs that participants in pornography and sex work are always being exploited."

(April 13, 2014 at 11:33 am)Sedna Wrote: Just have to throw that in there, I know too many men who are asexual/ low libido and have to deal with society believing they are sex-crazed. And as a women myself, I get a bit annoyed when people insinuate that my gender isn't "visual" or interested in sex.

I have very high libido at times, but I find it distracting. What's worse is prejudicial stereotypes. I may be easily aroused, but I don't go to parties trying to get laid.

I found a supplement that takes the edge off.

(April 13, 2014 at 11:48 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: Markets respond to demand. Perhaps if women get equal pay for equal work and their spending power increases, that'll improve?

Frankly, I don't know much on the topic of equal pay and what-not, but I doubt that'd help much anyway. The problem seems to be the collective mentality of society says that men are this way, women are that way- and not enough people make the effort to stop perpetuating the myths.

---

(April 13, 2014 at 12:01 pm)Coffee Jesus Wrote: You sound more like a third wave feminist.

Wikipedia - Third-wave feminism
"Also considered part of the third wave is sex-positivity, a celebration of sexuality as a positive aspect of life, with broader definitions of what sex means and what oppression and empowerment may imply in the context of sex. For example, many third-wave feminists have reconsidered the opposition to pornography and sex work of the second wave, and challenge existing beliefs that participants in pornography and sex work are always being exploited."

Yeah, based on that definition you could call me a third-wave feminist. I'm definitely sex-positive. I'm not very educated on the various waves/ groups in feminism though.

(April 13, 2014 at 1:22 am)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(April 12, 2014 at 11:44 pm)FlyingNarwhal Wrote: Do you not hear yourself? Men are expendable? Really dude, really?

I said, "if need be, we are the more expendable". This is true from a reproductive standpoint as well as a psychological one. A society that loses half its male population will recover in a generation. A society that loses half its female population is decimated and will take much longer to recover, if it ever does. We are psychologically also wired to be the protectors of women and children, placing our bodies between them and harm's way. It's what we do.

I don't think if half the men in the world died, women would a) suddenly become polyamorous and b) start having more children. Monogamy is the in thing, if half the men die women are still going to find one man they want to have kids with and have the amount of kids she wants to have. Unless considering women then choose to fulfill their biological design, as men did through their death, and literally are required to be baby makers to replenish the population. That is only if we are talking about having a government force a biological role onto its citizens though, it's ludicrous.

(April 13, 2014 at 1:22 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: Societies may vary on some of the other issues you hyperbolically brought up. Some may treat women equally while others regard them as chattel, per your example. But what remains unchanged in every example I know of is "women and children first". It's the golden rule that stays in place when the cities are burning, the land is overrun and all else needs to be dumped in favor of survival. When things really get bad for a civilization, when most of the men are dead, the women will take on a similar role guarding the children, risking their own lives as need be.

And again another golden rule of society was "fags can't get married" because if they do society would fail, and your rule is no different. Your just abstractly claiming that without your rule the pillars of society would crumble, with no real reasoning behind it. Why are men's life expendable to our government? Your pushing this idea that the genders should be forced to fulfill their biological role, but I should not be forced to sign away my life because when it came time for the gender coin flip, I got a dick at random. And you know what would be a better rule than "Woman and children first"? How about just "children first". I'm sure we could probably save more children that way.

(April 13, 2014 at 1:22 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: Sorry, I know this isn't politically correct to say. I know every time I point this out, the PC cops, white knighters and other idealists spring into action to deny this fundamental aspect of gender dimorphism, acting under the misguided notion that, dammit, equality requires nothing less than total and complete interchangeability!

I'm not worried about something being politically incorrect. The PC stuff is bullshit, I hear ya. I'm not mad about that, I'm not mad at all really. I just disagree that any government should make anyone adhere to their biological role. And I know I keep taking it back to gay stuff, but if you were to really look at the biological role of a man the main purpose is to fuck women, and only women. From a purely biological stance. But you and I will agree that you shouldn't be forced to follow that role by your government. It's not that what you said may not be politically correct, it's that your reasoning falls flat with this biological role thing. As a personal moral stance I have no problem with what you said either. There are a lot of men that would risk their life for their woman, and believe that if they were floating on driftwood after the Titanic crash they should freeze in the icy water so their girl can live. That's all fine, well, and dandy. Its their life and their choice as to what they want to do with it. But as far as taking that personal moral stance, and making it a government enforced moral stance? Nah fuck that shit.

(April 13, 2014 at 1:22 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: Luckily, equality doesn't require interchangeability, contrary to the prevailing PC wisdom. Women can be equal and yet different.

I also believe in equal yet different, however I don't think this is one of those cases. For example women get maternity leave and some men get a little paternity leave. Now I think men should get more paternity leave then they have now, but definitely not as much as a woman needs. I think that is an instance where you can treat someone different, and yet still fairly.

(April 13, 2014 at 12:21 pm)FlyingNarwhal Wrote: I don't think if half the men in the world died, women would a) suddenly become polyamorous and b) start having more children. Monogamy is the in thing, if half the men die women are still going to find one man they want to have kids with and have the amount of kids she wants to have. Unless considering women then choose to fulfill their biological design, as men did through their death, and literally are required to be baby makers to replenish the population. That is only if we are talking about having a government force a biological role onto its citizens though, it's ludicrous.

artificial insemination

Each loss of a fertile woman willing to concieve is the loss of potential servants to the government. That's not a big deal if you have too many people already, but it's a big deal if your population suddenly drops.

(April 13, 2014 at 12:21 pm)FlyingNarwhal Wrote: And I know I keep taking it back to gay stuff, but if you were to really look at the biological role of a man the main purpose is to fuck women, and only women. From a purely biological stance. But you and I will agree that you shouldn't be forced to follow that role by your government.

Then why do gay men enjoy frot?

(April 13, 2014 at 12:30 pm)Coffee Jesus Wrote: Each loss of a fertile woman willing to concieve is the loss of potential servants to the government. That's not a big deal if you have too many people already, but it's a big deal if your population suddenly drops.

Bolded by me--that is an epic statement ...may I use it in my signature? (being serious) That just struck me funny reading it today.

I don't understand when people talk about things like "biological role". The men who have sex with women and the women who have sex with men are the only ones who are going to reproduce (ignoring things like artificial insemination or whatever), but that doesn't mean it's their role. Nature/ biology/ whatever doesn't (and can't) give two shits about what you do.

(April 13, 2014 at 12:36 pm)Sedna Wrote: I don't understand when people talk about things like "biological role". The men who have sex with women and the women who have sex with men are the only ones who are going to reproduce (ignoring things like artificial insemination or whatever), but that doesn't mean it's their role. Nature/ biology/ whatever doesn't (and can't) give two shits about what you do.

Some here might be interested to note that the most 'gender neutral' time period in terms of role playing, in all of history, was back during pre-Neanderthal times. Yep. Women and men pretty much just shared tasks, for the better of the community. It wasn't until many centuries later than men started dominating women in all areas of society, holding them back from education, voting, and government positions--insisting that they were nothing more than second class citizens only useful in terms of child bearing.

(April 13, 2014 at 12:36 pm)Deidre32 Wrote:

(April 13, 2014 at 12:30 pm)Coffee Jesus Wrote: Each loss of a fertile woman willing to concieve is the loss of potential servants to the government. That's not a big deal if you have too many people already, but it's a big deal if your population suddenly drops.

Bolded by me--that is an epic statement ...may I use it in my signature? (being serious) That just struck me funny reading it today.

Don't forget to add or potential tither.

(April 13, 2014 at 12:21 pm)FlyingNarwhal Wrote: And again another golden rule of society was "fags can't get married" because if they do society would fail, and your rule is no different.

...and again, I'll point out that your point is a red herring. Same gender relationships do serve a biological role as well. Even in the animal kingdom, we observe same gender couples that adopt orphaned offspring of their heterosexual counterparts. In human civilizations, the prohibition on same gender relationships (contrasted with "women and children first") is far from universal, though in modern times the Islamo-Christian influence may make it seem so.

Quote:How about just "children first". I'm sure we could probably save more children that way.

When the shit REALLY hits the fan, that is the rule.

(April 13, 2014 at 12:36 pm)Deidre32 Wrote:

(April 13, 2014 at 12:30 pm)Coffee Jesus Wrote: Each loss of a fertile woman willing to concieve is the loss of potential servants to the government. That's not a big deal if you have too many people already, but it's a big deal if your population suddenly drops.

Bolded by me--that is an epic statement ...may I use it in my signature? (being serious) That just struck me funny reading it today.

Go ahead.

I'm flattered.