...and so you discovered the differences between cultures. Congratulations!
Statutory rape
- Thread starter Asguard
- Start date
...and so you discovered the differences between cultures. Congratulations!
All true. However that doesn't stop your precious "Civilization" from "advancing" and attempting to change thousands of years of male instinct, with a few laws that most men think are bullshit.
I thought this was going to be another thread about Mohammed.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
My point was, a number does not make you an adult on the inside, and likewise, you can be much more mature than society insists you are because of your age.
ops i apologise, i forgot anti flag
My bad
Well most men unfortunately don't share our attitude Asguard.:shrug:
I remember when I was 13 there were a lot of women I didn't want to fuck.
exactly, i couldnt have imagined anyone uglier (from a young sexually inexperianced perspective) than a 30 year old when i was 16. It was just gross, i always wondered why young women seemed atracted to old men because the thought of all those wrinkles was such a turn off (i would like to apologise to all the women at this point, i dont think like that now im older
).
I would suggest a girl is MORE likly to want to have sex with an older man than a boy is.
So if anything is "against nature" as Syzygys likes to put it is older women younger man
No i dont belive that combination should be punished any harsher than older man, younger women. They should be punished EQUALLY
).I would suggest a girl is MORE likly to want to have sex with an older man than a boy is.
So if anything is "against nature" as Syzygys likes to put it is older women younger man
No i dont belive that combination should be punished any harsher than older man, younger women. They should be punished EQUALLY
I still think it's hilarious how sexists on this thread think that young boys are emotionally fulfilled by being manipulated to have sex with an adult woman, yet young girls are traumatised when they have sex with a male teacher that they have a crush on.
A point of agreement
Well, while hilarious isn't the word I would use, it is a curious phenomenon. I've encountered and lived within the idea in my own time, although I never slept with a significantly older woman until I was in my twenties.
But where does this attitude come from?
Lepustimidus said:
Well, while hilarious isn't the word I would use, it is a curious phenomenon. I've encountered and lived within the idea in my own time, although I never slept with a significantly older woman until I was in my twenties.
But where does this attitude come from?
my thory is that it comes from the secrete belife that women only have sex to please men (inspite of all evidence to the contry like the existance of lesbians)
This and the desire to keep your property (ie your daughter) pure untill her weding night so that you can get a better price for her (im sorry to give offence but this is how it was looked at historically)
This and the desire to keep your property (ie your daughter) pure untill her weding night so that you can get a better price for her (im sorry to give offence but this is how it was looked at historically)
Bells
Staff member
Think about the notion of 'sowing the wild oats'. Think about the times when fathers would take their young sons to see a much older prostitute, just so that he can become "a man".
Apparently young boys are meant to be so desirous of having sex, that if the individual he happens to have sex with is old enough to be his mother or grandmother, he is supposed to consider himself lucky for having gotten some. But a young girl and an older man? Well no. That's just unacceptable. Girl's are meant to remain pure and virginal until their marriage. She is viewed as having been desecrated while the young boy having sex with an older woman and thus, removing his virgin status, is a right of passage.
Return to the double-standard
Would it be unfair, or otherwise inappropriate, if I filed that under "double-standard"?
I don't disagree with your point at all. In fact, I don't disagree with Asguard's, either, although I admit I was surprised to see it. I would suggest that Lepus has described the most common manifestation of the double-standard, and what is curious is the implication—and a valid one, to be sure—that the conflict, which is most often held up as an example of deep cultural misogyny, hurts males as well. It is not impossible to find this point in the annals of feminism, but it generally doesn't get much attention.
As I noted to Bells, I don't disagree with the assertion of that belief, although it has largely disappeared from the public discourse in the United States. Perhaps I'm underestimating the number of people who still believe this; it is usually a stereotype assigned to a certain brand of narrow-minded, ultra-conservative Christian, but there are more of those in the U.S. than I generally like to admit.
Bells said:
Would it be unfair, or otherwise inappropriate, if I filed that under "double-standard"?
There is, for instance, what is generally described as a double-standard: a male engaging in a lot of sexual intercourse has long been regarded with an air of admiration, while a female having a lot of sex is considered of ill repute ....
.... All of this pertains to certain presumptions that some might describe as intuitive, instinctive, or even visceral. Intuitively or instinctively, at least, the (double-) standard pertains to the fact that men deliver and women receive seed. That is, a woman can become pregnant. Viscerally, people seem to regard in different contexts the acts of depositing and receiving or holding seed. Long tradition suggests that a woman is made unclean by the reception of semen into her body, most specifically into the vagina ....
.... Whatever anthropological or evolutionary merits the double-standard might bear are generally perverted, according to human will, in their practical manifestations. Standards upheld for the fact of tradition tend to see their contexts transformed according to the circumstances of the times. If, indeed, for every thing there is a season (Ecc. 3.1), we must consider the context of that season ....
.... What modernity brings is twofold at least, engaging both the dilution of traditional standards and the transformation of their contexts. Yet these oft-superstitious assertions persist on the merit of tradition. While it is certainly arguable, indeed almost assured, that the resulting isolation of superstitious tradition is not the whole explanation of the difference about how Western society views heterosexual sex crimes perpetrated by men and women, I would suggest that the accused double-standard regarding sexual promiscuity is a vital, persuasive, and perhaps dominant component. Certainly, we cannot ignore it.
(#1897707/15)
.... All of this pertains to certain presumptions that some might describe as intuitive, instinctive, or even visceral. Intuitively or instinctively, at least, the (double-) standard pertains to the fact that men deliver and women receive seed. That is, a woman can become pregnant. Viscerally, people seem to regard in different contexts the acts of depositing and receiving or holding seed. Long tradition suggests that a woman is made unclean by the reception of semen into her body, most specifically into the vagina ....
.... Whatever anthropological or evolutionary merits the double-standard might bear are generally perverted, according to human will, in their practical manifestations. Standards upheld for the fact of tradition tend to see their contexts transformed according to the circumstances of the times. If, indeed, for every thing there is a season (Ecc. 3.1), we must consider the context of that season ....
.... What modernity brings is twofold at least, engaging both the dilution of traditional standards and the transformation of their contexts. Yet these oft-superstitious assertions persist on the merit of tradition. While it is certainly arguable, indeed almost assured, that the resulting isolation of superstitious tradition is not the whole explanation of the difference about how Western society views heterosexual sex crimes perpetrated by men and women, I would suggest that the accused double-standard regarding sexual promiscuity is a vital, persuasive, and perhaps dominant component. Certainly, we cannot ignore it.
(#1897707/15)
I don't disagree with your point at all. In fact, I don't disagree with Asguard's, either, although I admit I was surprised to see it. I would suggest that Lepus has described the most common manifestation of the double-standard, and what is curious is the implication—and a valid one, to be sure—that the conflict, which is most often held up as an example of deep cultural misogyny, hurts males as well. It is not impossible to find this point in the annals of feminism, but it generally doesn't get much attention.
• • •
Asguard said:
As I noted to Bells, I don't disagree with the assertion of that belief, although it has largely disappeared from the public discourse in the United States. Perhaps I'm underestimating the number of people who still believe this; it is usually a stereotype assigned to a certain brand of narrow-minded, ultra-conservative Christian, but there are more of those in the U.S. than I generally like to admit.
tiassa firstly i didnt say i belived it, in order to know the untruth in it all i have to do is watch my partner
and though you may never hear it if you watch sociaty for a little while you will see that it still permiates out exteligence (i hope you understand the meaning of that word)
watch a few tv shows or movies about married couples and you see that the man is almost ALWAYS the instigator and the women reluctant acceptor. Sexist (in the less harmful sence) and crude jokes always go along those same lines that men ask for sex and there wife always says "no ive got a head ache"
Even when talking about the reasons for cheating its always "the mans not getting enough sex" and (if the women's cheating) "hes not forfilling her emotional needs"
You will VERY rarly (if ever) see a man portraided as the one turning down his wife because he has a "head ache"
and though you may never hear it if you watch sociaty for a little while you will see that it still permiates out exteligence (i hope you understand the meaning of that word)
watch a few tv shows or movies about married couples and you see that the man is almost ALWAYS the instigator and the women reluctant acceptor. Sexist (in the less harmful sence) and crude jokes always go along those same lines that men ask for sex and there wife always says "no ive got a head ache"
Even when talking about the reasons for cheating its always "the mans not getting enough sex" and (if the women's cheating) "hes not forfilling her emotional needs"
You will VERY rarly (if ever) see a man portraided as the one turning down his wife because he has a "head ache"
Last edited:
just to add:
take the new US show on australian TV at the moment "rules of engagement"
You have a married man who's theory is everything a women says means "no sex for a month" no matter what it is
You have a horny imature guy who spends his whole time chacing skirts who in turn do things like spray him with capsicum spray
Or everyone loves raymond whos wife is always "to tired", "to busy" ect and always gives him a flat stare whenever he asks for sex
I think you are only looking WAY to shallowly at this steriotype
take the new US show on australian TV at the moment "rules of engagement"
You have a married man who's theory is everything a women says means "no sex for a month" no matter what it is
You have a horny imature guy who spends his whole time chacing skirts who in turn do things like spray him with capsicum spray
Or everyone loves raymond whos wife is always "to tired", "to busy" ect and always gives him a flat stare whenever he asks for sex
I think you are only looking WAY to shallowly at this steriotype
Lazy writing
Maybe in Australian culture such a myth still persists, but in the case of Everybody Loves Raymond, it's just lazy writing. That show is absolute shit. That part of the "war of the sexes" has been beaten to death in American comedy; it is, simply, a convenient cliché.
As to the question of how many people are stupid enough to believe it? I don't really know. It's not exactly taken seriously in the American sociopolitical dialogue, and perhaps this is a tragedy. The issue of wifely duty does arise from time to time, but it's generally a marginalized issue. I saw it most recently in one or another page I was using for statistical information on marital rape, so apparently it still comes up in rape relief.
Asguard said:
Maybe in Australian culture such a myth still persists, but in the case of Everybody Loves Raymond, it's just lazy writing. That show is absolute shit. That part of the "war of the sexes" has been beaten to death in American comedy; it is, simply, a convenient cliché.
As to the question of how many people are stupid enough to believe it? I don't really know. It's not exactly taken seriously in the American sociopolitical dialogue, and perhaps this is a tragedy. The issue of wifely duty does arise from time to time, but it's generally a marginalized issue. I saw it most recently in one or another page I was using for statistical information on marital rape, so apparently it still comes up in rape relief.
i dont disagree of the quality but i wonder how much these mems tend to subconciously pervade our psyice. Take for instance the harm that crocidile dundee did to australia, yes it gave an imidiate bost to toriusm but in the long term how many people (epecially in the US) think that australians ride kangroo's and wressle crocidles?
These sorts of shows are aimed at the young where people are just learning about the differences between men and women. As you yourself said you felt there was something "sinful" about your earliest sexual experimentation. So it maybe true that adults MAYBE able to dismiss them at least in the concious mind, an adolessant just learning about there own sexuality dont have that luxury. Also once these predudes become established in the subconciouse its not easy to shift them (take the myth that all blacks in the US are vilont hoods, tell me how many people even with black fiends wouldnt still flinch when alone with a black young man on a dimlit street)
on a slightly different (but highly related topic) how many men do you think have wondered if there partner was faking it? It comes back to the same issue (hell when PB and i started having sex i wasnt sure if she was actually enjoying it)
its also related to the sexist terms "slut" "tramp" ect any women who enjoys sex is seen as a lesser class so either your partner is a low class "slut" or she doesnt really want sex no matter how much she apears.
In the end all this goes back to the demonisation of the devine femine (now do you see why im so against these actions by the catholic church and the harm its done to sociaty?)
These sorts of shows are aimed at the young where people are just learning about the differences between men and women. As you yourself said you felt there was something "sinful" about your earliest sexual experimentation. So it maybe true that adults MAYBE able to dismiss them at least in the concious mind, an adolessant just learning about there own sexuality dont have that luxury. Also once these predudes become established in the subconciouse its not easy to shift them (take the myth that all blacks in the US are vilont hoods, tell me how many people even with black fiends wouldnt still flinch when alone with a black young man on a dimlit street)
on a slightly different (but highly related topic) how many men do you think have wondered if there partner was faking it? It comes back to the same issue (hell when PB and i started having sex i wasnt sure if she was actually enjoying it)
its also related to the sexist terms "slut" "tramp" ect any women who enjoys sex is seen as a lesser class so either your partner is a low class "slut" or she doesnt really want sex no matter how much she apears.
In the end all this goes back to the demonisation of the devine femine (now do you see why im so against these actions by the catholic church and the harm its done to sociaty?)
Scary
On the one hand, I don't know. To the other, I don't want to know.
Indeed. But according to some, watching something better—or turning off the damn television—would be "an attack on masculinity".
Asguard said:
On the one hand, I don't know. To the other, I don't want to know.
Indeed. But according to some, watching something better—or turning off the damn television—would be "an attack on masculinity".