(January 17, 2016 at 9:31 am)MTL Wrote:(January 17, 2016 at 2:53 am)pool the great Wrote: Here's the two things I find in your posts that I know are wrong:
1. The reason for men to get aroused when they see a sexy chick is because it is how men are programmed by evolution, not society, if you want proof of this go look at some animals with no social norms that get a hard on, it's not because anyone taught them they should get a hard on, get it?
2. Your idea of how everything is standardized in subjects relating to sexuality. A man may get aroused at how physically attractive a women is, this doesn't mean that a women has to, strictly, get aroused at how physically attractive a man is. Of course pedophiles should suppress their sexuality, shit, that's even a bad example example at best, they don't suppress it because of they know they are supposed to - they suppress it because children are not legally allowed to have sexual relationships, society suppress their sexuality because it is harmful to the society. Why should the sexuality of a heterosexual man that is supposedly objectifying a women by looking at her when she is explicitly dressed sexy be suppressed? What harm does this do to society so much that the sexuality of a heterosexual man has to suppressed and if possible social engineeringly altered to fit how a women or people that are opposed to this idea wants to fit? I call bullshit.
I wish we had a thumbs-down button.
Yeah, feminists tend to have an aversion to logic. Nothing new here. *flies away*