24
   

What is your attitude towards your gender?

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jul, 2009 12:35 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

what women want is very often different from what they say that they want. How this is dealt with in the collective should take into consideration the nature of the relationship. Long term/short term should factor, so should married/not married.

given that in my opinion a man does not have the right to go against what a woman says that she wants unless he knows her very well, I would say that in your situation you had no choice but to take this woman at her word about what she wanted, as frustrating and as unnatural as this is. The woman was clearly frustrated with the need to supply overt consent, it did impede the natural flow of the evening.

By what reasoning
can a man 's RIGHTS be affected by how well he knows someone ?

Is that a factual question for the jury:
"did he know her well enuf that he acquired additional RIGHTS?"


IF he forgets information about her,
does he forfeit those RIGHTS ?
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jul, 2009 01:41 pm
My attitude toward my gender?

This whole gender thing is becoming more elastic from both a social and medical science perspective.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jul, 2009 04:59 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
By what reasoning
can a man 's RIGHTS be affected by how well he knows someone ?
Just as when you read you judge one sentence in the context of all of the sentences around it when you judge an action you must judge it in the context of history and what the relationship is. If the law is not versatile enough to judge action within context then it is the law that must be improved upon, not the individuals.

Juries and judges can judge context, but we moderns don't like that, thus the rise of the idiotic and cruel mandatory minimums and a host of other mechinisms to remove the choice outcomes once an individual has been put into the system. The law in your lifetime has gone backwards, it has prostituted itself to the thugs that want to improve human nature by force....to the thugs who insist on punishing those who don't agree with them. Sexual law is near the top of the list of the most corrupt and unjust areas of the legal establishment.

Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jul, 2009 05:14 pm
@hawkeye10,
...so says an oppressor of gays.

T
K
O
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jul, 2009 05:25 pm
@Chumly,
Quote:
This whole gender thing is becoming more elastic from both a social and medical science perspective.


That's very true Chum. There's elastic suspenders and elastic gussets and elastic brassieres and elastic bottoms and elastic corsets. Elastic credit cards I should imagine as well.

The think to bear in mind is not to stretch elastic further than its tensile strength is designed for. It can backfire.
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jul, 2009 05:28 pm
@spendius,
Snappy comeback Master Speddius!
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jul, 2009 05:44 pm
@Diest TKO,
Quote:
so says an oppressor of gays.


Too easy TK. What I think hawk was trying to say was that you lot take each concept, like religion or homosexuality, or war, and you put it in a inspection chamber all on its own and look it over and you ignore the possibility that it might be connected up to everything else.

You go from concept to concept with this procedure and at the end of the day you become so confused that you can't think straight any more but you know everything anybody needs to know about everything under the sun except how it all fits together. To distract yourself from this confusion you then become an expert on taking wide angle, dramatic photographs of historical objects and nature's beauties which you then express a desire to eat.

Basically you think you are smarter than a thousand years of theologians who fitted it together to get you that luxurious life-style you have got.

Boy would you squeal if ******* atheists had been in charge. And justifiably too.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 25 Jul, 2009 05:48 pm
@Diest TKO,
Quote:
so says an oppressor of gays


says the one who says that the majority has the right to suppress homosexual behaviour if it can be shown that such behaviour degrades the collective. We don't know, thus we should not take any action on permitting homosexual behaviour (or in the case of homsexual marriage rewarding such unions) until we have more information.

Clearly we will not do that, we are going to allow the courts to legislate from the bench, and so it will be only after the decision is taken that we will learn what the consequences are. This is another in a long list of proofs that modern American style democracy is deeply ill, for while the idea of choice is championed, in truth one is only free to choose one of the options. The outcome is decided before the poll is taken, the exercise is a sham.

Refuse to support the right choice, or at least stay quiet about your deviance from the mandated opinion, and watch all hell break loose.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sat 25 Jul, 2009 06:06 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
Too easy TK. What I think hawk was trying to say was that you lot take each concept, like religion or homosexuality, or war, and you put it in a inspection chamber all on its own and look it over and you ignore the possibility that it might be connected up to everything else.


not concepts, humans......humans are dynamically and nearly completely interconnected, what is right or wrong at any given time depends upon a lot a variables, to include our relationships. The original idea was to go before a jury of our peers, and if they thought that given all the variables what was done was wrong then the person was guilty. We have replaced that with a system where juries are told (if you think he or she did XYZ then you must find them guilty). We no longer judge the person, we have made juries finders of fact. We have written down a list of things that are not allowed, and if a jury can be convinced that you did one of them the collective will put you away, often for a long time. Who you are, why you did what you did, what we would have done had we faced that situation, is no longer relevant.

The law has become fundamentalist, in the worse possible way. It no longer can see gray, it operated as if all is black or white. The law has become inhumain, because humans are fundamentally not either black or white. The legal establishment works off of a fantasy that deviates from reality, and then it wonders why the law does not seem to be working to solve drug problems, relationship problems, does not tamp down the greed of individuals.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  3  
Reply Sat 25 Jul, 2009 06:15 pm
@Diest TKO,
I guess what I was saying is that I personally find lots of straight men interested in it, and certainly talking about it when women are there.

I can't vouch for what they are saying when no woman is there.

Wink


I don't know who has more rigid gender stereotypes these days.

I think women fought for and have partially (in the advanced western countries, anyway...and I think comunism made a difference in countries like the USSR and China.....and maybe in places I have no real knowledge about) achieved more latitude.......

I guess I had hoped you guys generally had a less rigid set of expectations amongst yourselves these days.

I don't observe a lot of rigidity affecting the majority of men I know as friends/co-workers....but we all kind of inhabit little villages with their own cultures and mores, socially, in the main, I think.
Diest TKO
 
  0  
Reply Sat 25 Jul, 2009 06:16 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
so says an oppressor of gays


says the one who says that the majority has the right to suppress homosexual behaviour if it can be shown that such behaviour degrades the collective.

But you just said...
hawkeye10 wrote:

The law in your lifetime has gone backwards, it has prostituted itself to the thugs that want to improve human nature by force....to the thugs who insist on punishing those who don't agree with them.

Which way is it hawk? Does the majority get to say that you "radicals" degrade the "collective?"

You double speak.
hawkeye10 wrote:

We don't know, thus we should not take any action on permitting homosexual behaviour (or in the case of homsexual marriage rewarding such unions) until we have more information.

Loki's wager. We have plenty of information, you refuse it because the date doesn't align with your conclusion.

hawkeye10 wrote:

Clearly we will not do that, we are going to allow the courts to legislate from the bench, and so it will be only after the decision is taken that we will learn what the consequences are.

What consequences? The sky isn't falling because some countries and some states allow gay marriage. Those states aren't experiencing some sort of crisis, nor do I expect that they will.

hawkeye10 wrote:

This is another in a long list of proofs that modern American style democracy is deeply ill, for while the idea of choice is championed, in truth one is only free to choose one of the options. The outcome is decided before the poll is taken, the exercise is a sham.

What does a poll have to do with anything? Could a poll make 2+2=7? You argue for a majority rule, but we live in a republic with protections for the minority. You speak in the tongue of tyranny and fascism.

hawkeye10 wrote:

Refuse to support the right choice, or at least stay quiet about your deviance from the mandated opinion, and watch all hell break loose.

I'm still waiting for hell to break loose. It's not happening. Cards have been played hawk. How long do you expect us to wait before you concede that society isn't going to collapse when gays get equal rights?

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  2  
Reply Sat 25 Jul, 2009 06:18 pm
@dlowan,
I think you're correct. I feel more comfortable discussing the topic with women despite how open I am about the topic.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jul, 2009 06:37 pm
@CalamityJane,
CalamityJane wrote:

This statement makes it all the more prevalent that you've been living exclusively (and narrow minded) in the 1940s, Foofie.


Perhaps, you should have used the word "obvious," rather than "prevalent"?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jul, 2009 06:47 pm

The 1940s were GOOD,
especially the 2nd half.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jul, 2009 07:02 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
Quote:
Boy would you squeal if ******* atheists had been in charge. And justifiably too.

Explain the reason for the squealing ?
tarakesh
 
  3  
Reply Sat 25 Jul, 2009 08:49 pm
@BorisKitten,
I knew woman who proudly stated to me that she could count the number of female friends she had on one hand. Although, she was girly, not a tomboy.
I don't get it.

Interesting topic. I'm a woman, and happy with it. I'm a mother but I don't think I started feeling more like a woman after I had my child. I've never felt feminine (no makeup usually, never thought about planning the perfect wedding with the perfect wedding dress, focused more on career than on dating) but I have always found it easier to talk to/ emotionally connect to other women.

I think that one difficulty I have had throughout my life is a pressure to be more outgoing, more flirty, whereas I am naturally more reserved (um, and maybe slightly socially awkward :p ). It seems to me that less talkative/ less outgoing women have a harder time than men with the same qualities-- meaning that others are quick to label these women as snooty or unfriendly while men with such characteristics are seen as simply reserved.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jul, 2009 11:33 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Explain the reason for the squealing ?


Do you think atheists could have got us to here Dave? I would take a lot of persuading.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jul, 2009 03:57 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Quote:
Explain the reason for the squealing ?


Do you think atheists could have got us to here Dave?
I would take a lot of persuading.

(The non-celebate ones?)
In this context "here" means what?
Technologically ?


Note, incidentally, that I am not an atheist.





David
kozyavkina
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jul, 2009 08:38 am
i'm the cute girl and sometimes it is hrt to defeat another virile man, i'm satisfied with my gender
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jul, 2009 08:40 am
@kozyavkina,
viriles are hard to defeat, think of the common cold.
 

Related Topics

Sex and Evolution - Discussion by gungasnake
Sex Affairs and Public Figures - Discussion by Thomas
Pre cum and ejaculate - Question by Chelsea120
Does every woman have her price...? - Question by nononono
sexodus - Discussion by gungasnake
Why Judaism rejected homosexuality - Discussion by gungasnake
am i addicted to masterbation? - Question by 23Flotsofquestions
Hairfall and sex - Question by out-mounty
I'm 31 and bad at sex - Question by BadAtSex
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 11/28/2021 at 02:35:34