Sexual Discrimination and Violence: Changing men's attitudes

[Randwolf]

See #1894446/16 and your response in #1894478/19.

Maybe if you paid more attention to the posts you responded to, you wouldn't be asking such questions. Oh, right.

/ignore

At any rate, nobody is pretending that changing men's attitudes toward women in this culture is an easy task. This is acknowledged in the topic post, which also suggests that such changes are a generational proposition.

Can not macro and micro approaches coexist?

 

[visceral_instinct]

Whether you equate rape to any other act is really irrelevant in this context, precautions are sensible.

What bothers me is, we're told not to dress 'like a cocktease' and such, but what if you turned that around the other way? If I'm on the way up a downhill track with no uplifts and it's scalding heat and one of the guys I'm with quite reasonably takes off his shirt so he won't have a febrile convulsion, is he being a tease and giving me the right to sexually assault him??!!!! No, I didn't think so. Why is the male body seen as functional but the female body seen as one big metre and a half genital that if visible is 'being a cocktease'?????

 

[Randwolf]

What bothers me is, we're told not to dress 'like a cocktease' and such, but what if you turned that around the other way? If I'm on the way up a downhill track with no uplifts and it's scalding heat and one of the guys I'm with quite reasonably takes off his shirt so he won't have a febrile convulsion, is he being a tease and giving me the right to sexually assault him??!!!! No, I didn't think so. Why is the male body seen as functional but the female body seen as one big metre and a half genital that if visible is 'being a cocktease'?????

Because the world is not the way it "ought" to be. Let's try, slowly, to change the way the world is. In conjuunction with this, let's take reasonable and sensible precautions to keep our individual selves out of harm's way.

It is patently not fair, nor right, nor sensible, that a man can take his shirt off in public whereas a woman can not. However, it is what it is. Let's try to change the perception of the world, at the same time we take care of ourselves, shall we? It wasn't fair for Nazi Germany to take the stance it did either, but unfair as it was, if you were Jewish, you didn't tell anyone. This is not saying that being "female" equates to being "Jewish", but precautions are precautions. No matter how unfair the external world is, we have to deal with it. Living in idealogical bubbles is great, except they are not real. How can we, as individuals, make a difference?

 

[visceral_instinct]

It is patently not fair, nor right, nor sensible, that a man can take his shirt off in public whereas a woman can not.

It wasn't the literal fact that these dudes sometimes take off their shirts to avoid extreme heat, that puts anger in me. It is that the male body is seen as functional unless in a specifically sexual situation, whereas the prevailing attitude to the female body is that if you can see it at all, she is being sexual and is inviting harassment.

Living in idealogical bubbles is great, except they are not real. How can we, as individuals, make a difference?

Good question. *heaves a sigh*

We could point such things out to people when the issues arise, but that just seems to earn you a reputation as a weirdo with an issue.

 

[Repo Man]

It wasn't the literal fact that these dudes sometimes take off their shirts to avoid extreme heat, that puts anger in me. It is that the male body is seen as functional unless in a specifically sexual situation, whereas the prevailing attitude to the female body is that if you can see it at all, she is being sexual and is inviting harassment.

That is true (to a ridiculous extent) in our culture. But it isn't true of all cultures. But we have to deal with the one we have, and we have to acknowledge reality if we want to change it.

Gay men like to look at other men the same way that straight men like to look at women. I remember being younger and in better shape, and having a college aged guy just stare at me as I walked my bicycle out of a shop while wearing my Lycra cycling clothes. It did freak me out a bit, and gave me a tiny bit of insight into how women might feel. But there have been a few times when women stared at me, and even honked their car horns when I was doing a track stand at a stoplight, which apparently showed off my cycling toned gluteus maximus. I thought that was great! I felt like shouting "Give me your phone number!", but I'm much too shy to ever do anything of the sort.

I have a hard time keeping myself from staring at attractive women. I greatly enjoy looking at them, but I don't want to offend them. I do try to be discrete, but it takes self discipline.

 

[Prince_James]

Superstring01:

Actually, you are wrong. Open up a psychology book. Rape is a violent act done so in order to demonstrate dominance. Forced sex is merely the gateway. Rape is very rarely about "getting" off. Just because a man ejaculates doesn't mean it's about the sex. The reason why a man turns to rape isn't because of mental insecurity and dominance issues and has nothing to do with the woman, at all. Rape is prevelent in conservative and liberal societies alike. The only reason why you "think" there are more rapes in liberal societies is because the stigma (at least in part) is assuaged, and because the perps are brought to justice far more often.

You can state our disagreement with this outcome but time, studies, and even former rapists attest to the fact that it was always about venting pent up emotions regarding their deep seated insecurities.

The problem with this is, to put it bluntly, feminist nonsense.

In contrast, even people opposed to evolutionary psychology recognize that evolutionary psychology offers a sexual explanation for rape and even encourages women to avoid being cockteases as I suggested to avoid rape:

http://www.slate.com/id/1004368/

 

[Asguard]

ummm tiassa, i wasnt talking about melbourne. I was talking about adelaide

And drunks are unfortuantly a factor EVERYWHERE. Yes they used to be a concern when i had to change trains at ringwood after work when i lived in melbourne but not really in the city or in my suburb, just in ringwood. however since i moved, because i work on a sat night and i always have to walk past this one pub which is a real problem i have become more concerned for my safty in that situation (ironic concidering i used to live around the courner from that guy who did the snowtown murders without knowing it).

Prince james your an idiot. NO ONE can take on a group of 50 or so and NOT get injured and as david hooks assult shows it only takes one punch to kill

 

[Simon Anders]

Superstring01:



The problem with this is, to put it bluntly, feminist nonsense.

In contrast, even people opposed to evolutionary psychology recognize that evolutionary psychology offers a sexual explanation for rape and even encourages women to avoid being cockteases as I suggested to avoid rape:

http://www.slate.com/id/1004368/

As always, men's behavior is inevitable, but women should work on theirs.

Notice that when men whine about how women are attracted to assholes or are too emotional or whatever
none of the men who make 'practical' suggestions for being attractive to these women come up with practical suggestions for men to take up. No, then again, the focus is on the women and what is wrong with them

 

[visceral_instinct]

That is true (to a ridiculous extent) in our culture. But it isn't true of all cultures. But we have to deal with the one we have, and we have to acknowledge reality if we want to change it.

Gay men like to look at other men the same way that straight men like to look at women. I remember being younger and in better shape, and having a college aged guy just stare at me as I walked my bicycle out of a shop while wearing my Lycra cycling clothes. It did freak me out a bit, and gave me a tiny bit of insight into how women might feel. But there have been a few times when women stared at me, and even honked their car horns when I was doing a track stand at a stoplight, which apparently showed off my cycling toned gluteus maximus. I thought that was great! I felt like shouting "Give me your phone number!", but I'm much too shy to ever do anything of the sort.

I have a hard time keeping myself from staring at attractive women. I greatly enjoy looking at them, but I don't want to offend them. I do try to be discrete, but it takes self discipline.

There's nothing wrong with looking at a woman, so long as you don't get in their face and make them feel threatened. I do respect you for trying not to offend them.

The problem with this is, to put it bluntly, feminist nonsense.

In contrast, even people opposed to evolutionary psychology recognize that evolutionary psychology offers a sexual explanation for rape and even encourages women to avoid being cockteases as I suggested to avoid rape:

Yeah, rape is primarily about uncontrolled sexual drive. That would be why elderly women and prepubescent girls get raped. That would be why despite going out at night looking like a veritable androgyne in clothes that make me look about 20kg heavier than I actually am, I still get harassed by some stupid fuck who asks his mate to come get me to 'talk' to him. What the fuck do you make of that? Oh, wait, I'm being a cocktease by wearing a leather jacket that obscures my female form and makes me look 3ft thick. Men just love it when you look like a heavyset androgyne with no visible curves. What did I expect?

As for your use of the word 'cocktease', see my post above #122.

As always, men's behavior is inevitable, but women should work on theirs.

Agreed. It's a fucked up attitude. Some monstrous fucker with a brain more twisted than the wire cleaner I use on my dishes commits rape and that's just life, but a woman dares to show her morphology and she's being heinously irresponsible.

 

[iceaura]

Considering war is generally fought for "living space" and the wealth war brings, rape is of secondary or even tritary focus.

As long as you're sure, for some reason, that the anticipated "wealth" of war does not include the opportunity for sex, you go right on repeating that assertion as fact. The recent biography of Genghis Khan provides an example: as a young man, in a nomad culture of comparatively little wealth and not much to plunder (but considerable violence nevertheless, as is common), his group suffered an attack by a neighboring group that took his new wife. He followed them, and in an early example of his abilities in war he took her back. The paternity of his eldest son was questioned from then on - it being assumed that of course she had been raped.

In his later years, after establishing his reputation as the most fearsome bringer of violence upon civilizations that the world had yet seen, he was quoted as claiming that the most satisfying benefit of war was the opportunity to rape the wives and daughters of his defeated enemies.

If we add to such frequently encountered and behaviorally revealed sentiments, the ordinary observation that the main benefit of great wealth is often said to be sexual opportunity - near-quoting Aristotle Onassis: "Without women, all the money in the world would be a mistake" - we find the idea of war for "wealth" is not a simple one.

They are more recent, as you said. As such, they aren't very useful for the discussion attempting to be made.

Wall-less cities are not more recent in the evolution of civilization than walled, they are earlier - they come first, as the violent learn to cooperate, and the walls come later as other violent ones come to plunder the civilization created by the less violent.

The less violent, or those who have learned to curb and guide violence into arranged games and arenas, accumulate weatlh, create civiilizations, cities, etc. The more violent plunder them, if they can.

Maybe if the harasser of women was more and more frequently referred to, viewed, and treated, as just another species of cheat and betrayer, someone who "ruins it for everyone" by punishing women for the freedom and availability upon which better optimized male desires depend, we could make a beginning ?
”
Save women adore them. It is their biological imperative.

Biological imperatives have sociological expression, in humans. Women adore wimpy-ass singers, dough-bellied software millionaires, and so forth, as well. What we are talking about here is the arranging of comparatively greater opportunities for non-abusive men, and lesser tolerance for abusers (no protection of intra-male status, for example - less of the respect among the peers that is a large part of women's attraction).

A shift of the payoff matrix to higher numbers in the non-abuse column.

And the payoff ? We know that women curb their behavior to avoid threat now. Less threat -> less curbing of behavior. And freer women mean freer men. Freedom plus more willing, naked women - sound like a deal ?

 

[Prince_James]

Iceaura:

As long as you're sure, for some reason, that the anticipated "wealth" of war does not include the opportunity for sex, you go right on repeating that assertion as fact. The recent biography of Genghis Khan provides an example: as a young man, in a nomad culture of comparatively little wealth and not much to plunder (but considerable violence nevertheless, as is common), his group suffered an attack by a neighboring group that took his new wife. He followed them, and in an early example of his abilities in war he took her back. The paternity of his eldest son was questioned from then on - it being assumed that of course she had been raped.

I am not denying the long history of rape and war going together. It's absurd to claim that they haven't shared a long history. Many men will rape women when given the chance to do so when they are considered enemies and no one will even remotely get in trouble for doing so. Sex, after all, is a very powerful drive.

In his later years, after establishing his reputation as the most fearsome bringer of violence upon civilizations that the world had yet seen, he was quoted as claiming that the most satisfying benefit of war was the opportunity to rape the wives and daughters of his defeated enemies.

Considering most men would agree, this doesn't bear much on the fact that war itself has been primarily lead for the sake of rape. This is ocmpletely unsubstantiated by the strategic and tactical aims of wars and battles.

If we add to such frequently encountered and behaviorally revealed sentiments, the ordinary observation that the main benefit of great wealth is often said to be sexual opportunity - near-quoting Aristotle Onassis: "Without women, all the money in the world would be a mistake" - we find the idea of war for "wealth" is not a simple one.

This view does not hold amongst many men. Many would prefer the money to the woman.

Wall-less cities are not more recent in the evolution of civilization than walled, they are earlier - they come first, as the violent learn to cooperate, and the walls come later as other violent ones come to plunder the civilization created by the less violent.

The less violent, or those who have learned to curb and guide violence into arranged games and arenas, accumulate weatlh, create civiilizations, cities, etc. The more violent plunder them, if they can.

Characterizing people with an organized warrior caste (a feature of settlements) supplied with armour, defenses, weapons, and political power as "less violent" is hardly at all a correct assessment. Furthermore, we again find one of the earliest towns ever found as having walls. In fact, it mgiht well be reasonably assumed that towns without walls were only due to the poverty or stupidity of the residences, as walls are intrinsically good for defense.

Also, all the great civilizations killed millions of people. Julius Caesar alone put to the sword a million Gauls. Alexander killed hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children. Almost every king, prince, despot, dictator, shah, pharaoh, emperor, et cetera, went on large scale campaigns of slaughter and conquest. If this is not indicative of the violent ruling, controlling, and creating culture, nothing is.

Biological imperatives have sociological expression, in humans. Women adore wimpy-ass singers, dough-bellied software millionaires, and so forth, as well. What we are talking about here is the arranging of comparatively greater opportunities for non-abusive men, and lesser tolerance for abusers (no protection of intra-male status, for example - less of the respect among the peers that is a large part of women's attraction).

Millionaires have power. Singers themselves exert power over individuals (go to a rock concert and see how a Mick Jagger can cause 50,000 people to lose their minds for 3 hours). Respect amongst peers is actually not something women like: Many men who are disdained (criminals, outcasts, bad boys) have a large scale female following. The reason? Power, again. Fear of an individual (which most exiled individuals are) tends to turn into admiration from women. "Lesser tolerance" will not result, because human nature is to respect abusers. "Greater opportunities" will not work for less-abusive men so long as men and women are as they are.

And the payoff ? We know that women curb their behavior to avoid threat now. Less threat -> less curbing of behavior. And freer women mean freer men. Freedom plus more willing, naked women - sound like a deal ?

Women don't give it up to men who don't have power. As such, expect greater frigidity and less poontang than normal, actually.

 

[Tiassa]

Well enough

ummm tiassa, i wasnt talking about melbourne. I was talking about adelaide

Well enough. Melbourne was one specific example that had entered the discussion.