This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - realman
True enough outdoors- but "poor judgement" and "molestation" are not synonyms either. We don't say it was the rape victims fault for wearing a skirt out that night...
I have no problem with this, provided they are performing similar sting operations such as leaving diamond jewelry or stylish women's shoes lying around in the park and then arresting any women who stop to pick them up ... as a means of preventing shoplifting and robberies at jewelry and shoe stores, of course...
umm, because, like so many things, a woman's arousal is the responsibility of a man... if you can't get it up, that's YOUR problem. If she's as dry as a Brit's humor, that's your problem too.
It makes me want to pee on a wall
""Under this theory, male customers may actually benefit from ladies' nights in other ways and be encouraged to attend the club on those nights," she wrote."
Ah yes, because when it comes to dating and mating and sex and relationships, men are the only ones who "benefit", right? I mean, we all know those women at the clubs aren't looking for men, right?
I love how talk of hooking up, dating, and sex is always couched in terminology that makes it sound like the women are doing the men a favor by dating or screwing them, and the women themselves derive no benefits or pleasure from it.
Yeah, gotta love the double standard. Sexist jokes against men= funny. Against women- YOU SEXIST PIG!!!
ram- sometimes it does seem that way. Perhaps that is it ina nutshell- women hate men because it is outlet and a projection that takes their mind off the fact that they need men? That that need breeds contempt and resentment, and rather than accept it, it is turned against men? So until women could accept that men do in fact have their place and that they do on some level need men, they will always been trapped in a love-hate dichotomy? Sort of like a kid resenting his parents for establishing controls/limitations on him, or for coming to pick him up when he's fallen down- it's too hard to accept that he still needs his parents on some level, or that they are trying to protect him when he is "a big boy now"- so he channels that energy away from admitting his own needs and failrues and into aggression towards his parents.
I'm quite sure the pinata's would be used in the privacy of the host's home.
Of course the ad copy is upbeat... when was the last time you heard a bunch of women male-bashing, telling stories about "stupid men", or making jokes with castration overtones and not laughing? The entire concept of "grrl power", "strong inddepent women", being a "princess"< "girls just wanna have fun", "rights without reponsibilities", or "stikcing it to the patriarchy" is almost always upbeat... or at least, it is if you've got a vagina.
So getting back to my original topic... not much has been said about the "penis pinata"- do you guys find this product misandrist, or is it supposed to be taken in a "stupid, silly, immature, "sex is funny"" kind of way? Is the fun part simply taht it's a penis, or is the fun part beating said penis to bits? I can't help thinking the appeal to women is about smashing the likeness of a penis with a stick, as a "grrl power"/hit back at the patriarchy/"sometiems I wish I could really do this" kind of thing... maybe I've become a bit TOO cynical? But I still can't get past the idea that it's representative of mutilating a man's genitals, the level to which it does so may vary by the individual or group of woemn involved but I can't believe that most women would see this product as a "postive" representative of maleness or male sexuality.
This one is my favorite of the examples, she wakes up the next morning and realizes she was stupid and drunk and horny last night and regrets it and feels like a dirty whore so she blames the guy instead of taking responsibility for the fact that she actally decided to slut herself out last night (even a pity fuck takes *two*, darling
Your call this afternoon was flattering. I'm glad you thought last night was the best night of your life but I hate to burst your bubble; it certainly wasn't mine.
While you have been replaying the scenario in your mind in eager anticipation of future rendezvous, I have spent the day:
a) regretting every moment
b) changing my phone number
c) trying to enter the witness protection program
Your whining about lost loves, rejection, and heartbreak made me feel sorry for you. Thus, the sex we engaged in was:
a) an act of mercy
b) an act of stupidity
c) a result of forgetting to take my medication
d) all of the above, i.e., a PITY FUCK and nothing more.
Someone as pathetic as you should really try:
a) a good therapist
c) a tight noose and a tall ladder
Do me a favor and forget you ever met me,
Pentium I think were saying two sides of the same coin, just "it's their nature- they were that way from day one" vs. "it's their nature, eons of evolution has allowed behavior among women and disallowed it (either through men's own realizations, natural selection (i.e., those men who didn't fill their requirements, or those women who took on "male" roles, were weeded out) among men"
Edited in response to P4s last post: I think the types of flaws we're speaking about are largely flaws of human nature across gender lines... just that we have allowed it among women and disallowed it among men in greatly disproportioante degrees. The reasons for this are subject to interpretation and speculation and your mileage will vary, but I think plenty of men have it in their "nature" to be lazy, materialistic, selfish, etc... and that it is social contructs that are actually behind a man's motivation to work when he's tired, give when he'd liek to get, or act on behalf of others when he actually wants something from them. Or put simply, I think there is just as much "bad" in men as in women, but for whatever reasons men are more motivated to "fight" the "bad" within them, and women are more likely to "accept and embrace" it. I think men get into trouble for assuming in many cases that women fight the same internal fights that men do, when in fact it is questionable. Maybe because men are generally more cognitive, and that internal struggle is largely a cognitive one, so they just assume women think similarly when in fact the female thought processes are rather different? The difference seems to be that even a man who sleeps around on his wife will , when cornered, probably fully admit he was a pig for doing it- even IF she "deserved" it; whereas a woman who sexually mutilates her husband will feel that she was in the right and he deserved it... regardless of his actual infractions or lack thereof.
Regardless of how they got there though, the fact remains that women can act as they do without repercussions because the men are doling out passes instead of consequences... and I do believ that if everyone were okay with it, and human life could thrive despite it, men would act the same way. But for whatever reasons, men and women aren't okay with it, and if men WERE to act that way human life would more or less disappear from earth after a generation or two because nature doesn;t allow for it either.
So how many men out there would actually get a huge kick out of smashing a fake set of tits with a broom handle shortly before they marry a woman? I just don't think many men would find that funny or get a rise out of "sticking it to women" (no pun intended) that way? I really don't think too many would, and I don't know of any industry marketing such products as the "perky pair pinata".
Again, you make good points, but I would add:
How would men act if they were given the opportunity to act like western women? ()i.e., if women, other men, the government, society as a whole, etc. allowed it without consequences)
How would men be "by nature", were it not for the fact that nature and evolutionary selection has forced men to NOT be immature, materialistic and selfish- ESPECIALLY when it comes to how they treat and deal with women?
In short, I think both men and women are, by nature, in part selfish, lazy, immature, materialistic little snots. The difference is that nature and evolutionary gender roles gave women quite a bit more wiggle room than it gave men; and men either had more important things to worry about, weren't around, or saw the positive side of giving more to women (and presumably, correspondingly to their children) without asking for more in return. So, we started out as more or lesse qually selfish, lazy, etc....but as time goes on and nature and evolution conditioned us, the survival of the clan or the species was bettered by the selflessness and hard work of men and the contributions and efforts made by men to women; whereas women's efforts and sacrifices were better spent on the children. ANd so the pattern goes for ages, until one day women's lives have been made so safe and easy through men's work and sacrifice, and the survival of society is a given, so women are free to break out of their formerly rigid roles; but women are still looking at the world through "me and the children"-colored glasses, and men are still in the habit of being providers and protectors, and of given women passes; thus, women now have the best of bth worlds, and are free to flip between "strong and independent" and "weak and helpless"; between "I can do alright thank you" and "you're job is to provide for me"; and can say "I want to be loved and appreciated for who I am" but because of their distorted viewpoint do not even consider that a man might appreciate the same; and men, meanwhille, habituated and evolved to "do what men do", allow things to go on and look the other way...
Anyway, getting back to the original topic, does anyone else see the sad irony in women acting in such selfish, sexist ways even as they are about to profess their "love" for a man?
I don't disagree Pentium... but is it the chicken or the egg? I'm not sure that, in a society that did not punish men for acting selfishly and immaturely, men wouldn't be just as bad. I'm not sure that women are by nature "worse", or if it's just that society has been handing women passes, looking the other way when they behave badly, etc. for so long that it's under the radar at this point. Is it the nature of women, or is it a product of social conditioning of men to be "men" , and women to be girls but treated like "women"? That men might generally be less materiaslistic, less selfish, etc. because they are conditioned not to be, whereas there is no real reinforcement for women to not remain in a state of arrested adolescene (i.e., why grow up and deal with grown-up problems, when you don't have to? When everyone gives you sympathy and pats you on the head and says "that's ok" and gives you a lollipop, what positive reinforcement is there for giving that all up?
On the flip side though, the "female nature" side may have some validity from a natural/evolutionary standpoint... as once upon a time it was men's job, out of neccessity for continuation of the species, to provide for and protect themselves, women, and children; while women only had to look out for themselves and their offspring... and that therefore, thousands upon thousands of years of evolution has given women no biological or innate "need" to "provide for" or "protect" men, and every reason to view men as "providers and protectors" (and thus continue to view men as little more than work animals whose job in life is measured in terms of what they can do and provide for women). Of course, nature/evolution probably has a part in why men started to give women passes and look the other way at their selfish behaviors to begin with...
That being said, in a modern society where women don't generally need protection from hungry tigers and can make dinner for themselves and their children in a matter of minutes instead of literally devoting most of their life to obtaining sustenance and shelter, and in which women claim to want to be "equal" to men... well, if we're saying we're taking that huge evolutionary step and rejecting our "traditional"/evolved gender roles.... shouldn't that mean that if women are no longer viewed as cooks and baby makers and child caregivers, men should be entitled to get something back from women as well, i.e. not be viewed simply in terms of "What can HE do for ME" and reduced to the status of servant, sperm donor, and bodyguard?
OK, so I'm a bit in shock (if that's still possible these days).... I've heard some pretty childish, immature, and/or sexist stuff goes on at bachelorette parties that already makes me cringe (for instance, hearing about how much fun grown women can have with suggestively-shaped exploding volcano cakes and the like, and of course the inevitable usual ho-hum male-bashing sessions)... but I've just recently come to hear about a product on the market called the "penis pinata" that apparently is quite popular.
It makes me cringe to think that there are men out there who would marry women who consider beating apart the likeness of a penis with a big stick a "good time." On a personal level it came as a bit of shock to hear this, because the two women involved in the conversation were people who, up until now, I had held in fairly high esteem as "good peoples". This one comment has made me reconsider that a bit....
Seems to me that a bunch of men beating apart the likeness of female genitalia would be treated as more or less of a hate crime or a psychosis. And that the typical "bad behavior" by men at bachelor parties (hiring strippers, going to a "gentelman's club", drinking too much, joking about mourning for their "fallen" brother, etc..) are all fairly good, clean fun when compared with the level of sexism and debauchery I hear about going on at bachelorette parties. We're talking 20-30 something women finding humor on a level comparable or below that which the boys and I found hilarious in the 6th grade gym locker. Really makes one think about what really goes on in the minds of modern women when it comes to their feelings about love, marriage, sex, and men. Not to read too much into it, and admitting that what goes on at some bachelor parties is pretty juvenile and sexist too... but still, even the bad bachelor party stories are mostly just about drunk guys getting stupid, or about "sexism" in the sense of objectifying women as sex objects- not sexism in the sense of bashing apart symobols or likenesses of female sexuality in a violent sense. There seems a difference between that, and the level to which some bachelorette parties sink in terms of sexual immaturity and sexism (and the fact that perfectly sober women will still find things like bashing apart a papier mache penis "funny" when they tell the story later, and that there is even seemingly a social "acceptance" of this, whereas if the guys were telling stroies of debauchery in a mixed crowd later, there would probably be a tone of "grow up guys"). I'm not sure if this type of behavior reflects on the immaturity or sexism of the participants, their own lack of a comfort level in the topic of sex, or all of the above. I suppose it -could- amount to nothing more than allowing onesself to regress into a pit of juvenile hormonal disconnection from reality for an evening... but then again, you don't hear much about guys getting together and beating apart papier mache vulvas.
Just an observation from a guy who has just seen yet more evidence for being cynical about women. As I said, this really hit me because I heard this coming from women that I have known fairly well for about a year and had previosuly considered "quality people" and who I had never before heard or seen anything to suggest they bought into the typical "feminist/princess good-men BAD" mentalities. Anyone else have any thoughts or experiences to share on what goes on at bachelor vs. bachelorette parties and what it all might mean?
"You gotta do what you gotta do...
(to get laid)"
Which is what keeps the "pussy pass" alive and working generation after generation. Few men are willing to take the personal hits involved in "just saying no" or have the moral compositon to "take one for the team"; and there are few women who have the moral composition to refuse to "go with the flow" and give up whatever perks come their way in life just for being female. Not much will change as long as men won't act collectively take the hit, because women are not going to collectively give up their power out of any sense of social repsonsibility... that sense will only be learned at such time as the "pussy pass" is rendered void and all women have to function on the same level playing field as men.
Until then, all we can do is enocurage other men to think and act for themselves and be thankful that once in a while we come across an individual woman with the moral composition to not take advantage of every pass/easy out/excuse/protection/special privilege available to her.