Mornin' BD.
Would you care to expand a little on that bald assertion.
spendius wrote:Mornin' BD.
Would you care to expand a little on that bald assertion.
Morning.
Well, most women I know today have no problem with their sexuality. But most guys I know still have the mentality that a girl who sleeps with a lot of guys is a "slut". Masturbation is 100% expected from men but still taboo for a women to say she pleasures herself. Porn is geared toward men and very little is geared toward women because "women don't like porn". But the fact is, many women are more sexual than their male counterparts.
It all goes down to gender roles really and I think that we here in the states have a huge issue with blending gender roles. Men are horney, irresponsible pigs. Women are prudent, responsible mothers (except in the privacy of the bedroom. There she is expected to be a wild sex kitten). Men can acceptably scratch their privates but when a woman does it, it's appaling. You can't even say the word vagina without lowering your voice. It's a "dirty" word.
Now, this is not to say that there aren't women who are afraid of their sexuality or men who love a women who is in touch with her sexuality. I am just saying that women are suppose to be one thing in private but another in public where as men can be however they want, whenever they want.
I would like to dispell the myth of the Victorian woman.
She was wealthy and had sex only with her husband till her first-born; then she was free to take as many lovers as she wanted. Heredity had to be assured, since the man would be passing on significant accumulated wealth to the first-born.
Often invitations were sent to her and she could bring either her husband or her lover of the moment--after giving birth to her first-born, whose paternity was certain.
The poorer, working females, had more personal power in their homes and in their choices of lovers throughout their lives.
The underlying "cause" of monogomy is economic.
It is hypothesized that
"When our forbears lived in the trees and females walked on all four limbs, the newborn had clung to mother's abdomen; as the infant aged, it rode on mother's back as the female walked along unimpeded by her child. But [later] in the grass women walked erct. Now they had to carry the infant in their arms instead.
How could a fmale carry sticks and stones, jump to catch a hare, dart after a lizard, or hurl stones at lions to drive them from a kill--and carry an infant too? How could a female sit in the dangerous grass to dig for roots, collect vegetables, or dip for ants--and protect her child? In the forest children played among the trees. Safety was everywhere. On the plains children had to be carried and watched constantly, or they would end up in a lion's belly.
Could you survive in the Austrailian desert carrying a heavy, noisy basketball for several years? With the beginning of bipedalism mothers needed protection and extra food, or they and their infants would not survive. The time was ripe for the evolution of the husband and the father." --Anatomy of Love
And, I say, if the time was "ripe" then, the time is "rotten" now.
The "causes" are no longer issues.
Paternity tests can determine paternity, if necessary.
And, a woman can earn enough to pay her way now.
So, the underlying reasons for "fidelity" and "marriage" and "chastity" are just no longer valid.
And women are seizing their individual choices and freedom with gusto as well they should.
Who wants to put up with one man, cooking, cleaning, getting the groceries, putting up with his bizarre relatives, taking out the trash, paying the bills, sheduling repairmen, and the list goes on and on and never stops? All, for what? A little sex? And after those brief moments of ecstasy, the "honey-dos" come back full throttle.
Why do any of that when she can have sex with several men and then--the best part here!--they leave her, taking their few possessions with them out of her house, they leave her to her own life, her own goals, her own interests?
BD-
Doesn't using the word "sleep" as a euphemism suggest prudishness which doesn't sit well with your statement that "most women you know have no problem with their sexuality"?
One of the main reasons why the word "slut" is often used to describe a woman who has casual sex is that the word means that to them.Thus if you accept women having casual sex with a number of men you are expected to accept the word "slut" to describe them.What word would you suggest they use.How about "buttered bun"?The fact that the word is usually taken pejoritively means that the behaviour is considered to be rude and worthy of disparagement.You can try to have it both ways if you wish.
The number of vibrators sold in the UK can be gauged by the volume and long continuity of the adverts offering them.Nobody will advertise a product that isn't selling for long.I know plenty of women who mention vibrators in conversation.If the subject is taboo in the US once again it doesn't sit well with the idea of having no problem with sexuality.
Your statement that men are horny irresponsible pigs is true in the main but its very veracity means that that is what you have to work with and complaining about it is a daft as complaining about the weather.
I have no idea what "blending gender roles" means.
Vagina is not a nice word because it is so clinical.The language has much nicer words which I have heard plenty of women use.Ration Book for example but that is now out of date.If US women have to lower their voice to utter the word "vagina" then,again,that is inconsistent with having no problem with sexuality.I find "privates" a disgusting word.It is only used in my experience for irony.
It is incorrect to say that men can "be however they want" in public.That is not the case at all and we should be grateful for it.
I have seen with my own eyes the graffiti on the doors in ladies toilet cubicles.I knew a demolition contractor who knocked down a few pubs,factories and such like and he had a collection of them.It made me feel like a 19th century country parson.And that was a good few years ago.And private party strippers are notorious for having no problem with their sexuality.And lady porn stars look to be the same.And quite a few young women who go in the pub I frequent.
There is nothing worse for a man than women who declare they have no problem with their sexuality and then turn out to be hung up to every hook the bluestockings provided.
Just to clarify-
when I use the term western woman I do NOT mean every single woman in america or anything west of africa for that matter .
I am using that term in general to describe a 'type' of woman. In my mind, it is the type of woman who is taught sexual repression, shame and ignorance when it comes to the dynamics of a sexual relationship. The certain women who DO HEAR statements from their own mothers like the one spedius said " Just lay back and think of france"
I am not speaking as a generation or society as a WHOLE. I am just using blanket statements and discussing a 'type' of womAn and not all womEn.
Sorry if there was any confusion. I should have stated that before hand..
spendius wrote:BD-
Doesn't using the word "sleep" as a euphemism suggest prudishness which doesn't sit well with your statement that "most women you know have no problem with their sexuality"?
No. It's a common phrase. If you "sleep with someone", you've had sex with them.
spendius wrote:
One of the main reasons why the word "slut" is often used to describe a woman who has casual sex is that the word means that to them.Thus if you accept women having casual sex with a number of men you are expected to accept the word "slut" to describe them.What word would you suggest they use.How about "buttered bun"?The fact that the word is usually taken pejoritively means that the behaviour is considered to be rude and worthy of disparagement.You can try to have it both ways if you wish.
I hate the word slut. I don't think there is such a thing, personally. It is, however, a slang term for "a woman who has sex with multiple partners".
spendius wrote:
The number of vibrators sold in the UK can be gauged by the volume and long continuity of the adverts offering them.Nobody will advertise a product that isn't selling for long.I know plenty of women who mention vibrators in conversation.If the subject is taboo in the US once again it doesn't sit well with the idea of having no problem with sexuality.
Vibrators are sold undercover here. Many are sold as personal massagers. Turst me. People don't like to talk about bedroom behavior.
spendius wrote:
Your statement that men are horny irresponsible pigs is true in the main but its very veracity means that that is what you have to work with and complaining about it is a daft as complaining about the weather.
I don't think that men are that at all. And to assume that I do, is just ignorant.
spendius wrote:
I have no idea what "blending gender roles" means.
Men doing "women's work" and vice versa. "Wall Street power bitches" acting like men.
spendius wrote:
Vagina is not a nice word because it is so clinical.The language has much nicer words which I have heard plenty of women use.Ration Book for example but that is now out of date.If US women have to lower their voice to utter the word "vagina" then,again,that is inconsistent with having no problem with sexuality.I find "privates" a disgusting word.It is only used in my experience for irony.
And penis isn't? I've heard far more people use the word "penis" than vagina. Women have no problem saying vagina but men do.
spendius wrote:
It is incorrect to say that men can "be however they want" in public.That is not the case at all and we should be grateful for it.
Men can be however they want. They have lots of sex with strangers and they are studs. A man picks a girl up in the bar, screws her and his friends think he is a god. Sex without strings is huge for guys.
spendius wrote:
And private party strippers are notorious for having no problem with their sexuality.And lady porn stars look to be the same.And quite a few young women who go in the pub I frequent.
What do men think of strippers? Women who flaunt their sexuality? They are dirty. They are whores. They are not the kinds of girls men want to take home to mom. Men want women like this around to screw. Not to respect and marry.
spendius wrote:
There is nothing worse for a man than women who declare they have no problem with their sexuality and then turn out to be hung up to every hook the bluestockings provided.
Are you insinuating that I have hangups? I can assure you that I do not.
BD wrote-
Quote: Men are horney, irresponsible pigs.
When I agreed she then wrote-"I don't think men are that at all.And to assume that I do is just ignorant."
Could you explain please?
spendius wrote:BD wrote-
Quote: Men are horney, irresponsible pigs.
When I agreed she then wrote-"I don't think men are that at all.And to assume that I do is just ignorant."
Could you explain please?
I was making the statement that this is how men are generally thought of when it comes to sex. I surely don't think all women are prudent either.
Quote:spendius wrote:
There is nothing worse for a man than women who declare they have no problem with their sexuality and then turn out to be hung up to every hook the bluestockings provided.
Are you insinuating that I have hangups? I can assure you that I do not.
How can anybody possibly derive the idea that I insinuated anything about BD from what I said?It was a general statement and obviously so.Had I wished to insinuate anything about BD I would forget about insinuating and say it straight.I am not lacking in the ability to do so if I am motivated.
Bella Dea wrote:
Men are horney, irresponsible pigs. Women are prudent, responsible mothers (except in the privacy of the bedroom. There she is expected to be a wild sex kitten). Men can acceptably scratch their privates but when a woman does it, it's appaling. You can't even say the word vagina without lowering your voice. It's a "dirty" word.
This entire paragraph is in regards to generalized sex roles.
BD wrote-
Quote:What do men think of strippers? Women who flaunt their sexuality? They are dirty. They are whores. They are not the kinds of girls men want to take home to mom. Men want women like this around to screw. Not to respect and marry.
That does not apply to all men.The sort of men who it doesn't apply to think that the men it does apply to confuse actually respecting women with saying that they do.
You are probably right. And everything I say applies to a general population, not all people.
If we are going to generalise,which is the right and proper thing to do,then I am not much use as a guide or spokesman.The generality of males seem to be keeping very quiet.
Have you got them cowed girls because it sure does look like it from where I'm sat.
Could "what makes a woman" have anything to do with resignation on the part of men?
Reading through this thread, I can't help noticing (and wondering why) all the talk is about sexuality.
Strippers, whores, sluts.... vaginas...
Blimey, come on... there's more to women than what they can do for men.
The women I have great respect for, I don't think about sexually.
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, who became the leader of the opposition to the Burmese military Government, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize "for her nonviolent struggle for democracy and human rights."
Dian Fossey (1932-1985) Fossey spent 22 years studying the ecology and behavior of mountain gorillas. In 1985 she was found murdered at her campsite. Some authorities believe she was murdered in retaliation for her efforts to stop the poaching of gorillas and other animals in Africa. Due largely to Fossey's research and conservation work, mountain gorillas are now protected by the government of Rwanda and by the international conservation and scientific communities.
Marie Curie
Rigoberta Menchú - whose work focuses on the promotion of the defense of human rights, peace and Indigenous Peoples' rights. She received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1992, becoming the first Indigenous and the youngest person ever to receive this distinction.
Ida B. Wells-Barnett - fearless and respected, an uncompromising fighter for the rights of all human beings.
The list goes on and on...
I understand that it is men who have made some women feel like sexual objects,
but only women can change that...if they want to.
As far as I can see, women are divided. While some are willing to strip, make pornography and use their bodies to make money, the world will continue to see women as the weaker, more 'willing to please' sex.
A more interesting thread title would be: What do women want? I'd like to know... not how women see themselves now... but how they would like to be seen.
Peace,
Endy
Endy-
I agree,especially about Madame Curie.
A lot of women,it seems to me from my field work in the pub and elsewhere,use their sexual attraction out of sheer idleness.
Would any man bother with women (in general I mean in BD's sense) had they no sexually attractive features.From my observations I would say that most women want to snare a bloke and then have him keep her for life.The ones who don't go into media where they try to make their minority choice seem normal.Such a distortion has created a great deal of confusion in the mass of ordinary women.A fair number of the minority in media are now having second thoughts.It's pathetic.
