|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 129 responses total. |
senna
|
|
response 18 of 129:
| 
May 20 13:14 UTC 2002 |
That's the point, it's all determined by our usage and emphasis of the words.
The application is rather uneven, still.
|
jazz
|
|
response 19 of 129:
|
May 20 17:18 UTC 2002 |
It's not necessarily sexist to say that the same behaviour is okay in
one gender, and not in another, when members of that gender have different
roles to play.
|
edina
|
|
response 20 of 129:
|
May 20 20:27 UTC 2002 |
Ok - I'm going through a phase where I am involved with several people, not
all sexually. It's not a permanent thing.
|
jazz
|
|
response 21 of 129:
|
May 20 23:24 UTC 2002 |
Not all ... heh ...
|
viper2
|
|
response 22 of 129:
|
May 21 14:04 UTC 2002 |
I don't argue that we have different roles to play in society, but I do
think that it is unacceptable (not necessairly sexist) to say it is ok
for men to sleep around and not ok for women.
Firstly, if women don't sleep around then who are all the men sleeping
with?
Secondly, though we do have different roles in society it doesn't mean
we are on different levels in society. Women have been second class
citizens in the past and that is no longer the case.
|
jazz
|
|
response 23 of 129:
|
May 21 17:03 UTC 2002 |
The argument I'm putting forth - which may or may not be as a devil's
advocate - is that, in a very real sense, there is still a marked gender
difference. Men generally pursue women. Therefore, the implications of a
man not being discriminatory are different than a woman's not being
discriminatory, in the same way that the implications of a man not going out
and pursuing someone are different from the implications of a woman not doing
so.
It's not quite a right versus wrong issue; but it is fair to say that
if the burden of discrimination should be the same, then the burden of pursuit
should too, and that isn't happening.
|
phenix
|
|
response 24 of 129:
|
May 21 17:22 UTC 2002 |
salon.com has an interesting article on that today
,.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 25 of 129:
|
May 21 19:48 UTC 2002 |
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2002/05/21/boys_and_girls/index.html
Not bad-- it provokes some thought.
I think part of the psychology is that some men want to be sexually
experienced when they reach marriage, to therefore be able to teach
their virgin brides. The ideal, apparently, is to get someone
untouched, unfettered, and inexperienced.
There are exceptions, however. I don't doubt for a moment that my
relationship with my perfectionist mother, and some subsequent bad
dating relationships, provoked some dark fantasies of domination.
To be more general and realistic, I can see that children develop
sexual attitudes based on their parents'-- so if fathers are winking,
nudging, and encouraging their sons to swagger and go with their
hormones, and mothers and passive and silent-- then I can see boys
developing bad attitudes. But conversely, I would expect to see
opposite behavior if mothers humiliate, berate, and abuse their sons.
That's not to say D/s is entirely based on this, and that it's not a
preference, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was a possible factor.
Even more so, I think it has mystique based on the notion that the
opposite is the norm.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 26 of 129:
|
May 21 19:49 UTC 2002 |
whoops, wasn't clear-- my implication was negative female authority,
especially from moms, might be expressed in submissive sexuality in
sons.
|
jazz
|
|
response 27 of 129:
|
May 21 20:23 UTC 2002 |
The parental involvement for a woman is much higher than with a man,
though, so there's a strong genetic reason for a man to impregnate as many
women as possible, and a strong genetic reason for a woman to find a partner
who will care for her children and remain monogamous. It's oversimplifying
the case, but there are good reasons why this hasn't changed markedly.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 28 of 129:
|
May 22 07:49 UTC 2002 |
I've heard that theory, and I generally agree with it. However, I've
heard comments on the somewhat opposite situation-- that a woman may
find a mate that is not necessarily physically attractive but provides
and nutures for the child, and then she occasionally mates on the
side.. (basically a bio/psychological argument for cheating).
I may be inaccurate in summarizing the argument-- the discussion was
on NPR quite a while back as a comparison of biological advantages of
monogamy and polyamory.
|
viper2
|
|
response 29 of 129:
|
May 22 15:20 UTC 2002 |
re #23 you think that the burden of pursuit isn't equal? I don't if
it's just me and my friends or just the area in which I live but for
myself and most of my single girl friends the female does most of the
pursuit. The male might make the inital gesture, but it is the female
who pursues.
One example my roomie met a guy who was "very interested" [his words]
in her and asked for her number. He "tried to call" 3 or 4 times but
didn't leave a message, but instead told a mutual friend that he'd
tried to call and to have my roomie call him. So she pursued him for a
week leaving messages etc... That is just one example but I find that
more and more the women are doing the pursuing and the men are enjoying
being pursued.
Of course this isn't always the case. In my current "relationship" we
pretty much take turns for the dates. I suggest doing something, I
pick him up [bring him flowers ocassionaly], pay for dinner, open his
doors, etc... and the next time he does it.
I think maybe in the majority of the general population men still
pursue women, but there are numerous women who pursue as well =)
|
jazz
|
|
response 30 of 129:
|
May 22 17:22 UTC 2002 |
Re #28:
Different characteristics have different weights in genetic decisions.
Though you're always going to see physical appearance - which translates, in
genetic terms, to health and social status - as being important, both for the
good things that health and social status can directly provide for a child,
and indirectly provide through the passing on of good genes, other factors
may vary by situation and gender. A mate's ability and willingness to support
a child is markedly more important for women; even in today's liberated
society, it's much more common to see single mothers raising their children
than single fathers, partially due to the huge investment that is pregnancy,
and therefore a willing male provider is less of a given.
Re #29:
That doesn't happen around here much, and though it's more common in
some subcultures - the Peace Posse in Ypsilanti seems to be entirely made of
female pursuers and male deciders - and I don't think it's that common
throughout midwestern America. I could be biased by my perceptions, though.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 31 of 129:
|
May 22 18:10 UTC 2002 |
It seems to me that on most issues, everyone thinks their own side is doing
all the work and the other side is having all the fun. This one's probably
no different.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 32 of 129:
|
May 22 21:24 UTC 2002 |
Re #30: Okay, what's the Peace Posse?
|
jazz
|
|
response 33 of 129:
|
May 22 22:26 UTC 2002 |
I'm not saying that men are doing all the work here; what I am saying
is that men tend to do the lion's share (biology pun intended) of the work
asking people out, and women the lion's share of the work discriminating
between suitors. Still. Despite the advances that our society has made in
equality.
The burden of discrimination lies upon the person who isn't asking,
but is being asked.
|
senna
|
|
response 34 of 129:
|
May 22 23:22 UTC 2002 |
Wait a second, John, am I hearing you say essentially what I think I'm hearing
you say? What it sounds like is that you're saying that because all a woman
has to do is flex her hip muscles enough to open her legs when a guy comes
along, it's okay to hold her to a higher standard than the guy who does the
seeking and pursuit? It sounds like you're putting a higher level of value
on the work the man does in a sexual encounter, that of choosing who to sleep
with and making it happen, than the woman, and thus defending (devil's
advocating or otherwise) the use of separate, differing terms for promiscuous
members of the two genders.
That's a wild overstatement, obviously, but it still sounds like you're
holding a woman more responsible for who she sleeps with since she basically
just has to give a "yay" or "nay." I'm sure my impression is innacurate, but
still.
|
flem
|
|
response 35 of 129:
|
May 23 17:04 UTC 2002 |
More responsible? where do you get that?
|
jazz
|
|
response 36 of 129:
|
May 23 17:09 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
jazz
|
|
response 37 of 129:
|
May 23 17:25 UTC 2002 |
Hrm, that didn't make sense. Let's try that again.
The role of the pursuer and the role of the pursued are different, as
you mentioned. A successful pursuer must be able to make quick decisions as
to who they are interested in, and must have the ability to pursue and create
new relationships, and often must be willing to pursue more than one person
with the understanding that pursuit sometimes does not work out. A successful
pursuee must be able to make effective decisions on much less superficial
qualities, and often must be willing to hold back on getting into a
relationship if they aren't sure about a person.
The role that, in this simplified duality, makes the final decision
is the pursuee. Shouldn't the one who makes the final decision be held to
a different standard than the person who originally proposes the idea?
Shouldn't managers who approve a product to be released be held to a different
sort of standards - not higher or lower, but different - than the engineers
that came up with the product idea?
|
pthomas
|
|
response 38 of 129:
|
May 24 00:33 UTC 2002 |
It would be logical to hold the manager who approves the release to the
same standard as the manager who approved development of the product in
the first place. The factors involved in the decision are essentially
the same - given the available information, is it reasonable to conclude
that action would have a high probability of success/profit? Is the
product/proposal of high quality? You get the idea.
Tying this analogy into the main topic of the discussion, this means that
the decision to pursue someone should be evaluated by the same standard
as the pursued's decision to accept the pursuer's advances.
|
oval
|
|
response 39 of 129:
|
May 25 17:31 UTC 2002 |
thanks you. i didn't quite buy #37.
if someone pursues me, it's probable that they would be showing off their
finer qualities. if i accept and then they do something horrible to me, i
really don't want to be held accoutable for their actions.
|
i
|
|
response 40 of 129:
|
May 26 12:09 UTC 2002 |
Hmmm. It's reasonable that some New Product Concepts guy somewhere
might be required to crank out X ideas (good, bad, or indifferent) per
week and that he'd be ranked "excellent performance" if just one idea
per month was worthy of serious consideration. But this is about like
a guy noticing gals in the parking lot. Actual pursuit is far more
like building a small factory & trying to sell widgets in a test market.
There are plenty of "Johnny Wild Oats" guys who'll pursue pretty much
any gal they notice, do their hormone thing, leave because of boredom/
dumping/pregnancy/responsibility, and repeat the pattern. I don't know
if i'd call 'em sapient, and probably wouldn't oppose the government
castrating 'em as public health hazards (espec. AIDS vectors).
On the flip side, i knew a guy in college who believed that he could
NOT, as a man, refuse to have sex with any woman who wanted it. He
was otherwise quite intelligent, nice, and very good looking. It would
interesting (in a sad sort of way) to know how his life worked out.
|
emblem
|
|
response 41 of 129:
|
May 27 06:31 UTC 2002 |
Sex with different partners before settling down has its risks, but it can
be beneficial. Not being married, or a solid girlfreind/boyfriend can make
sex a difficult thing because genetically and hormonally humans need it...to
a point. And having a sexual partner thats always there helps you with that.
But when a steady sexual partner isnt available, then different partners ehlp
you, and i think that people's sexual interests change throughout thier life,
weather its a homo thing or just different things turn them on in a person.
Ofcourse there are the "Johnny Wild Oats" guys, but just because a
relationship didn't work out doesn't mean people should stop having sex. And
if you are still in a learning process or discovering new things that you
like, than sex with different people is acceptable. And slutty phases that
men/women go thru happens to almost everybody at some point in thier life.
Then again, maybe society is just more accepting of sex than it has ever been
before.
|
i
|
|
response 42 of 129:
|
May 27 12:04 UTC 2002 |
Re: #41:
Speaking in the very limited context of young people developing and
discovering themselves in a world free of consequences, i mostly agree
with you. And if HIV infections progressed like ebola virus infections
(killing victims/vectors very quick, very sure, & (medical costs) very
cheap), i might be tempted to agree with you in the real world. But
that ain't the case. More realistic would be to tell young folk to
stick to masturbation and burn HIV vectors at the stake on-air during
major league sports half-times. Maybe castrate skip-town fathers and
Clinton Syndrome sufferers while we're at it.
|