Feminist are better in bed

Well, Walter, I don't know about feminists, but I definitely know that sex is NOT a spectator sport. Razz

0 Replies

0 Replies

Francis wrote:

Montana wrote:
That's not true! I never said people who liked porn weren't decent human beings!

Glad that you aknowledge that!

Note, however, that that was a ironic comment based of some your replies to another thread..

Montana wrote:
I gather you're a porn fan, Francis?

No, franckly, real life is so much better! :wink:

My replies on the porn threads are based only on situations where someone is being hurt by it. I also stated on those threads that I don't think anything of it as long as no one is getting hurt.

Just sayin.

0 Replies

Feminist are better in bed
First, let's describe a Feminist in the 21st century. We don't burn our bra's these days. A Feminist these days can be described as the woman that works. She can be married, have children, get divorced and still manage to take care of her children when the absentee husband NEVER sends money. Today's feminist doesn't count on a man to provide a home, food, or comfort. Most women these day's have an education and a job/career. I'm hoping that instead of just relying on one spouse (as in the past) to make or break the household, there are now two people responsible for it. Let's just say that family and children should be an equal opportunity employer.

0 Replies

I agree completetely Aimus!

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

I remember the 80's here in Australia, where numbers of women didn't want to be treated like women (go figure) in the name of feminism.

I found it just...unnatural. I'm rather glad that period of history is gone.

They/we probably wanted to be considered & treated like equal people, rather than "the other" (sex).

(But I think this was the 1970s?)

0 Replies

Quote:

They/we probably wanted to be considered & treated like equal people, rather than "the other" (sex).

(But I think this was the 1970s?)

Oh yes, I realised that - but in wanting to be equal people, they seemed to need to deny that they were female - which isn't necessary at all. Intelligent, self confident women who know how to be women are quite attractive (in my opinion).

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
They/we probably wanted to be considered & treated like equal people, rather than "the other" (sex).

(But I think this was the 1970s?)

Oh yes, I realised that - but in wanting to be equal people, they seemed to need to deny that they were female - which isn't necessary at all. Intelligent, self confident women who know how to be women are quite attractive (in my opinion).

Perhaps being considered as "equal people" was the necessary first step! :wink:

I don't recall anyone going out of their way to be ugly, vikorr!
Perhaps there were/are different notions around about what constitutes attractive women? Cool

0 Replies

I don't buy this at all-- and I am sick of people jamming their view of "healthy sexuality" down our throats. Each person needs to discover their own sexuality.

There is no reason that you can't be a dominant man with multiple partners and not be satisfied (and satisfying) in bed.

Look at the blatant errors is obviously biased and clearly unscientific "study". It is clearly making invalid connections between Monogamy, gender roles and satisfaction.

1) The way they measure "sexual satisfaction" is by asking how often you consider having sex with others.

Am I to believe that monogamy is the only way to "sexual satisfaction"? This would tend to argue that fundamentalist Christians that follow their beliefs will rank very high in sexual satisfaction.

And men with a healthy libido... even if they are in a monogamous relationship that is fulfilling to both themselves and their partners are going to be rated "unsatisfied".

2) The study is self-selecting... one of the most obvious error in any study. People were recruited on-line. This is a very difficult place to get any kind of real real study even if you make the attempt to get a representative sample.

3) The term "healthy relationship" is defined in feminist terms. This invalidates the question-- of course if equality is defined as "laughing together" and "equality" (it is clear that a woman wrote this definition)... then of course men who are "feminist" are going to have "healthy relationship".

This means nothing more than people who are feminist will have relationships that feminists approve of.

But healthy? Yeah right.

This is more propaganda against strong men.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

This is more propaganda against strong men.

NO!

Surely not?

I don't believe that for a minute, ebrown_p!

0 Replies

Quote:

Perhaps being considered as "equal people" was the necessary first step!

Perhaps. I'm a little dubious about that though. Anyway, it is a thing of the past.

Quote:

I don't recall anyone going out of their way to be ugly, vikorr!

You know...at first I agreed with this, but then I remembered pictures of long unkempt hair, unshaved armpits in daggy clothing (hippy era)...then again, they probably thought they were beautiful that way.

Quote:

Perhaps there were/are different notions around about what constitutes attractive women?

Absolutely. Same with women for men. Lucky that !

0 Replies

I have yet to meet a feminist who truly believes in equality.

0 Replies

does anyone else see the title of this thread as ironic?

0 Replies

Endymion wrote:

does anyone else see the title of this thread as ironic?

As in "a bed needs a feminist like a bicycle needs a fish"?

0 Replies

msolga wrote:

ebrown_p wrote:
This is more propaganda against strong men.

NO!

Surely not?

I don't believe that for a minute, ebrown_p!

I don't either!

0 Replies

Montana wrote:

msolga wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
This is more propaganda against strong men.

NO!

Surely not?

I don't believe that for a minute, ebrown_p!

I don't either!

Would either of you like to answer the specific criticisms of the study, and of the dogma that is behind it, that I listed in my post?

0 Replies

Dear ebrown_p,

In my (quoted) response above, my tongue was firmly in my cheek. I'm sorry if you thought I was being serious. I was just joshing.
As much as they've been criticized as childish, silly, etc .... I think emoticons definitely have their place, in making a person's intent absolutely clear.
I should have used a few of these: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink:

Apologies for having caused confusion.

0 Replies

No need msolga.

I didn't mean to convey offense or frustration or anything else... I was merely trying to provoke an interesting discussion (even a tongue in cheek one is fine).

I hope everyone understands there is an implicit tongue-in-cheekness to these types of threads.

I personally think emoticons are overused and I certainly don't think you needed one in your post.

0 Replies

My point is that feminism is inherently unfair to men.

This "study" is simply one example of this.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

My point is that feminism is inherently unfair to men.

This "study" is simply one example of this.

ebrown, my idea of feminism is having equal rights where everything is 50/50.

Up until recently, men were paid more than the women where I live and that's quite a slap in the face to all women, as far as I'm concerned. If it hadn't of changed when I went to work here, I would have made some major noise about that.

Equality is all I'm interested in and that takes absolutely nothing from men, so I don't quite understand what you're saying about the unfairness to men.

0 Replies

Feminist are better in bed

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know