|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:01 PM August 28th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
"A woman's sexuality does give her power."
Yes indeed.
And feminism is all about more power for women (feminists in particular)...and less for men.
However, a woman's sexuality gives her power ONLY because men permit this to be so.
If men wish to regain power in this realm (i.e. negate the power of women's sexuality), then it will be necessary to put into effect certain radical structural changes WITHIN MALE CULTURE ITSELF.
That's all I'm gonna say. I leave it to others to snap to what I 'm talking about here. Put on your thinking caps, fellas..!
.
-Fidelbogen-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by SacredNaCl on 07:58 AM August 29th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm somewhat neutral on the porn exploiting men angle...But strip clubs are maximum cash extraction engines. Pure exploitation of men.
Freedom Is Merely Privilege Extended Unless Enjoyed By One & All.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:46 AM August 29th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
I think there are some good points in this issue, but overall it was one-sided.
Yes, women gain power through sexuality, but as an earlier response said--only cuz this is one of the FEW outlets men give to women for power.
Secondly, porn DOES exploit women because it objectifies them and puts them in dominated positions--creating misperceived notions of how to treat women.
Thirdly, yes MEN are exploited in terms of MONEY they spend on it. But that's what men like--SEX. WOMEN are interested in what? FASHION? MAKEUP? They are the CASH COWS (EXPLOITED) there.
This issue is serious and has legitimate points no doubt, but I think it pales in comparison to other more pressing injustices towards men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:14 PM August 29th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
There was an excellent piece in the 8/25/05 edition of the Christian Science Monitor with a whole different take on the "porn crisis."
It seems that a lot of good Christians, including ministers, are falling prey to the temptations of porn, and this "elephant in the pews" is becoming a hot topic for congregations nationwide.
(Excerpt)
"For 25 years, I would have said that the pro-life issue is the most pressing threat to America morally, but pornography has overtaken it," says the Rev. Richard Land, a prominent leader in the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest US Protestant denomination.
"More people's lives are being destroyed on a daily basis by addiction to pornography than through abortion."
Douglas Weiss, a counselor with divinity and psychology degrees, speaks at churches of many denominations on sexuality issues. "Wherever I am ... and no matter what the denomination, at least half of the men in the church admit to being sexually addicted," he says.
Link to article at --
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0825/p14s01-lire.htm l
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:17 PM August 29th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
"Yes, women gain power through sexuality, but as an earlier response said--only cuz this is one of the FEW outlets men give to women for power."
I disagree. "Power," in this context, is best defined by the number of options one has in life (not by the raw percentage of women to men in high-level positions). Women today have far more options than men do. They can work full time at home, work full time outside home, or a combination of both, and can switch back and forth between the two, much more easily than men can. And men have helped women in their liberation from gender roles far more than women have helped men liberate from theirs (and a big part of men's liberation is learning to complain without shame about anti-male discrimination which we're conditioned as men to chivalrously accept). So, as Warren Farrell puts it in "The Myth of Male Power," we have created the multi-optioned woman and the no-optioned man, and it is not true at all that pornograph is one of the few areas where men "give women power."
"Secondly, porn DOES exploit women because it objectifies them and puts them in dominated positions--creating misperceived notions of how to treat women."
A significant percentage, possibly even half or more, of porn involves women dominating men (and there an enormous amount of porn is same sex). Is the women-dominating-men porn exploiting men? Or is this argument you're making just another example of feminist double standards?
"Thirdly, yes MEN are exploited in terms of MONEY they spend on it. But that's what men like--SEX. WOMEN are interested in what? FASHION? MAKEUP? They are the CASH COWS (EXPLOITED) there."
Personally, I don't think either sex is more exploited than the other when it comes to porn or strip clubs or consensual prostitution, because it's all still a choice. On the other hand, I think men are all the more exploited in general where and to the extent that porn, strip clubs and prostitution are made illegal, and I think making prostitution illegal is oppressive of both women and men, so I strongly support the legalization of all of it.
"This issue is serious and has legitimate points no doubt, but I think it pales in comparison to other more pressing injustices towards men."
I would certainly agree, but I think articles like this are still important to help dispel the radical feminist myth that porn is an example of the exploitation of women by men.
Marc A.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:40 PM August 29th, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Yes, women gain power through sexuality, but as an earlier response said--only cuz this is one of the FEW outlets men give to women for power." .
.
Marc A said: I disagree....
.
Being the author of the earlier response in question, I too disagree. Sexuality is by no means one of the "few" outlets for power available to women, and I certainly intended no such meaning in my statement. What i DID mean was, that women do exercise an inordinate power through their sexuality only BECAUSE men, individually and collectively, permit such a status quo to remain operative. Let's just say that men extended that power, and they have the power to ....withdraw it.
But as I suggested, cultural change within the male collective would be needed, in order to fully inaugurate the alternative status quo.
Marc A. said: A significant percentage, possibly even half or more, of porn involves women dominating men (and there an enormous amount of porn is same sex). Is the women-dominating-men porn exploiting men? Or is this argument you're making just another example of feminist double standards?
Let's not forget the cases where it's just people having relatively normal sex, and neither partner is clearly "dominant". This would account for a good portion of pornographic imagery as well..
-Fidelbogen-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:47 PM August 29th, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
The feminist's convenient, infantile oversimplification of gender power has served their cause well for over 100 years now.
The whole myth of the Evil Patriarchy depends for its existence on buying into the feminit's lobotomized version of all power as "power over."
Women have now, and have always had multiple forms and sources of power, not the least being their sexuality and the subtle cultivation of male chivalry (another infantile state-of-mind).
Feminism's genius has been to define women as a victim class, and then use that definition of reality, in conjunction with naive male chivalry, as an engine for achieving the subjugation of men.
American women today are the most privileged, pampered, pompous class that the planet has ever had the tragedy to support.
But they are all still "victims!"
Why?
Because if you stop being a victim, you lose your victim power, and have to become an adult, an individual who takes responsibility for her choices.
Without the scapegoat of the evil male oppressor class (and it's wearing a bit thin...), modern women might have to actually experience what it means to be "liberated."
(Roy)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:47 PM August 29th, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
I am the original poster of this thread, and I agree in various levels to all the responses to it.
YES, all MEN and WOMEN know that WOMEN have more options in life than MEN. MEN are brainwashed by WOMEN and other MEN that we have the advantage, when really, we are oppressed in terms of being free to be ourselves. Women can be manly and womanly and get away with it. A man can only be what society says a "man" should be, hence many of us who want more than simply that are deprived.
But this is getting a little too deep from the original story, which was about porn.
Someone mentioned the popularity of the female-domination porn genre, which I believe is true. But I am not sure how it translates to real life. Is it just a sexual fantasy, a sexual role, which one feminist once tried to argue--that men allow women to occasionally dominate in sex but solely for that temporary thrill only, and then to put her back in her place afterwards. We see a lot of male-domination in terms of the levels of rape against women by men in society, which is always much higher than male rape (which is NOT to diminish the seriousness of that either). The only way I can see this porn genre translate into real life is that men want to have girlfriends or wives to dominate them in AND out of the bed????
Still, women have power with their sexuality yes, but do they have RESPECT? Men have gained power through their words and actions, which by any standard is more dignified and of greater substance. I am not siding with any raging feminist, but to objectify women is still to say you don't respect her intelligence but only her ability to satisfy your sexual needs and nothing more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:21 PM August 29th, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Anon. wrote - "I am not siding with any raging feminist, but to objectify women is still to say you don't respect her intelligence but only her ability to satisfy your sexual needs and nothing more."
Nope, sorry.
To objectify any individual woman is to assess her intelligence as deficient, which also disqualifies her from satifying your sexual needs, because she will be as unimaginative in that area as she is in her nonexistent mental life.
"Respect"?
Why is that word always thrown out by rad-fems as an entitlement, due perhaps to having a vagina?
Any man who objectifies a woman has very sound logic backing up his conclusion.
It's not any different than how women survey the population of male wallets and make identical "objectifying" judgments.
And yes Anon. .... you did in fact "side with" raging feminists.
If her intelligence is apparent, believe me, I will respect it.
As for the masses of bimbos.... you're kidding, right?
(Roy)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:18 PM August 29th, 2005 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
"Someone mentioned the popularity of the female-domination porn genre, which I believe is true. But I am not sure how it translates to real life. Is it just a sexual fantasy, a sexual role, which one feminist once tried to argue--that men allow women to occasionally dominate in sex but solely for that temporary thrill only, and then to put her back in her place afterwards."
The point about female-on-male domination in porn was made in direct response to the claim that male-on-female domination in porn exploits women. If it exploits one sex in one way, then it exploits the other in the other way too. But we only like to talk about the male power myth because it's more fun and we hear of it far more often and it fits our gender steretypes. You've raised another issue by asking how this translates into real life, but I think that goes beyond the point. In any case, if we were to go there, I'd say women dominate men just as much as the reverse in real life, if not alot more, and often in different ways, and to whatever extent the porn issue affects this, it affects it in both directions.
"We see a lot of male-domination in terms of the levels of rape against women by men in society, which is always much higher than male rape (which is NOT to diminish the seriousness of that either)."
First, some data shows otherwise about the comparable numbers. It's not all that clear, because nobody has done adequate enough studies of prison rape. Second, I have not seen any data showing that porn increases men-on-female rape, and I know there is data to counter that. Third, there arguably haven't been enough fair studies on rape overall for us to really know the figures, because a number of the studies use ridiculous definitions of rape such as "unwanted sex" (I've had plenty of "unwanted" sex, which doesn't necessarily mean unconsensual sex). Fourth, if we counted false accusations of rape as a form of rape, the number of rapes of males would skyrocket. Fifth, I think equating male-on-female rape in society as somehow equivalent to male domination of women, either overall, or even with regard to the rape itslef, is highly speculative and theoretical. Warren Farrel makes a strong case that male-on-female rape actually reflects a feeling of powerlessness. I do agree that fear of rape does limit women in alot of ways. But the fact that they fear it is evidence of the fact that society has paied attention to it enough to raise strong awareness about it, whereas men don't fear alot of the things they should fear from women, such as false accusations, paternity fraud, DV against men, etc., because society has ignored these things. In some ways, a high degree of fear is actually a sign of empowerment. Women fear breast cancer more than men fear prostate cancer, largely because we have not educated men about the latter while we have educated women about the former. Who is empowered there?
"The only way I can see this porn genre translate into real life is that men want to have girlfriends or wives to dominate them in AND out of the bed????"
Again, one could ask the exact same question in reverse (with regard to male-on-female domination. In fact, alot of women fantasize about abusive, dominent men for sexual purposes, just as alot of men do. Why do we assume it only translates into real life in one way for one sex but not the other? Same sex couples fantasize about domination alot as well. Why do we only select one form of it and highlight that as an argument that males want to dominate women? This is typical feminist cherry-picking.
"Still, women have power with their sexuality yes, but do they have RESPECT?"
Women have at least as much respect as men do in general. Men open doors for women and act genlemanly toward them far more than the rervese, an far more than men act disrepectfully toward women. If women's sexuality doesn't earn them respect, neither does men's sexuality. I don't buy the "slut/stud" distinction at all, and in fact recent studies have discounted it. We don't call a man a stud for sleeping around alot, we call him a stud for his ability to attract women (and, therefore, his *ability* to sleep around alot if he chose to). The proof is, we call some guys sleezes for sleeping around alot, and we call some guys studs who don't sleep around at all. The same is true for women. The distinction is not nearly as strong as feminists say. And, in fact, we call men who sleep around alot "womanizers," which is worse than "slut" because it denotes a victimization of someone else . . . another anti-male double standard.
"Men have gained power through their words and actions, which by any standard is more dignified and of greater substance."
This is a very vague comment and hard to evaluate without further clarification. But in any event, how is this true for men but not for women? And, in fact, men are faced with a situation that women aren't faced with to the same extent, which is that, in order for men to advance (what you seem to be calling "power" here), they have to make themselves the disposable sex, in order to gain "stripes." Warren Farrell makes the case that this is not "power" at all, but an illusion of power, i.e. The Myth of Male Power. If you haven't read that yet, I highly recommend it.
"I am not siding with any raging feminist, but to objectify women is still to say you don't respect her intelligence but only her ability to satisfy your sexual needs and nothing more."
I know you're not, but you're buying into their myth of male power. What you just said about women is also true about men, especially because men are objectified not only for their looks (at least as much as women are, in my opinion) but also based on the added burdens of status, wealth, performance and disposability. Again, if you haven't done so, I highly suggest you read "The Myth of Male Power; Why Men Are the Disposable Sex," or else re-read it if you have.
Marc A.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:26 PM August 30th, 2005 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Marc A.
Original poster here. Thanks for not being like other posters who are too set on picking fights. Your clear, articulate voice was appreciated.
I do agree about your idea that women dominate men as much as the reverse in everyday life. When a woman does it, it's not seen in a bad light as men, so we don't question it nearly as much.
I am not too sure about your argument on respect for women. Just because men open doors for women doesn't mean they respect them, no offense to anyone. The practice of being a gentlemen does not originate solely in respect, but as courtesy for the dare I say more "delicate" sex (i don't believe this personally, but it is an old belief). Being a gentlemen is winning a woman over for affection, etc.
Also, while on the subject of respect, I have seen pretty clear examples of disrespect for women in public places of power. Recently graduating from college, I recall how the (few) female lecturers I had were treated vastly less respectfully by students, compared to my male lecturers. It came as a shock to me how my peers did not seem to want to listen to a woman dominating such a large crowd. I actually felt sorry for them. Just an interesting note.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:17 PM August 30th, 2005 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
"The practice of being a gentlemen does not originate solely in respect, but as courtesy for the dare I say more "delicate" sex (i don't believe this personally, but it is an old belief). Being a gentlemen is winning a woman over for affection, etc."
And this folks, is the logic of a college graduate! :-0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by frank h on 02:31 PM August 30th, 2005 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
I continue to hear, and I do not buy, the notion that 'chivalry' and 'gentlemanly conduct' were purely originated to the benefit of women. They both have broader histories and broader meaning, and I, personally, refuse to gratify women by granting them the notion that these two elements of civilized behavior are purely dedicated to them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by jname967 on 06:38 PM August 30th, 2005 EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
"And this folks, is the logic of a college graduate!" :-0
---And I suppose you sound any more intelligent? I doubt it, and I won't even bother stooping to your level. I did not want to say this but, a lot of people (men and women) practice good behavior to get something in return. Need I say more? It's not PC but it's true. That was one explanation for the "gentelemen" behavior.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:18 PM August 30th, 2005 EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
jname....
Did you major in economics?
Or prostitution?
i.e - "good behavior to get something in return?"
Ah well, it's a toss up as to your politics.
Missionary or doggie-style?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:29 PM August 30th, 2005 EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
"That was one explanation for the "gentelemen" behavior"
Very true. Some time ago a study was done in a major London railway station. Two female actors were used. One was an unattractive, elderly heavily laden passenger who was clearly struggling with her luggage and in need of assistance. The other was a young attractive passenger who could clearly manage her luggage without assistance.
The objective was to see which passenger would get more assistance from gallant chivalrous men. Needless to say, it was the latter passenger, and overwhelmingly so.
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by jname967 on 12:31 AM August 31st, 2005 EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
Thankyou, Hotspur.
I am not afraid to admit that MEN and WOMEN, by human nature do this: when we go to a job interview, visit a friend's house, in-laws, go on a DATE, we put ourselves on our best behavior. Why? Because we want to be reciprocated in some form or another. (Keep your dirty minds in check, that's not what I mean). There's nothing wrong with that; it's basic human nature and rules of socializing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:54 PM August 29th, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
...if you are not a slave to your hormones you will never be a slave to women.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:26 PM August 29th, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Thundercloud: Thank you for the wonderfully concise summary of my own sentiments -- hinted at in the opening post on this discussion!
.
-Fidelbogen-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:48 PM August 29th, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, there's this little problem.
It's called DESIRE.
I could be wrong, but even the most hardcore MRA I've known will turn his head to admire a beautiful woman.
So, men are now, in order to defeat feminism, being called to ignore and repress their natural desires, right?
Isn't that exactly what feminism planned for?
The extinguishing of male desire, by any means necessary?
(Roy)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:24 PM August 29th, 2005 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
Also, while it's true we can often avoid enslavemeent to women by repressing hormonal desires, it's also true that our laws and our courts frequently make men enslaved to women regardlss of how they acted on their homones.
Marc A.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:31 AM August 30th, 2005 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
|
DESIRE will never go away of course. But really, that's beside the point. One may indeed feel the impulse to turn one's head, but....one is in no way forced to do so in fact. That's an important distinction, and useful to keep in mind.
I'm not so sure that feminism "planned for" the extinguishing of male desire, although I have no doubt that certain schools of feminism have talked about such things. What feminism fundamentally seeks, IMO, is power over men in every possible form.They work their game from many angles, and extinction of male desire would deprive feminists (via women generally) of one very important control handle upon the male population.
I think what feminists actually want is not to extinguish male libido, but rather to manipulate men (to "train" them) by governing their access to sexual gratification in the first place, -- thereby imposing a form of "behavior mod.". For example, women in the female domination subcultures (avant-garde feminists indeed!) are tinkering with prototype versions of this in their intellectual 'garages' and their lifestyle laboratories, dreaming of ways that they can translate it onto the stage of larger culture when the time is ripe.
Just for the record, there is no need for ALL men to ignore and repress their natural desires altogether, but.... it sure would be handy if some men could do this markedly more some of the time in some situations. It would send a message, putting women (and feminists especially) on notice that the age-old female power to manipulate men via "Mr. Happy" can no longer be taken for granted. And what a bargaining chip that could be!
Anything that abates female power over men also abates feminist power, and is all to the good.
-Fidelbogen-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:50 PM August 30th, 2005 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
Fidelbogen and I are on the same page, here.
I'm not saying that you can't notice an attractive woman, that's fine. I'm saying do not let her or any woman for that matter manipulate you by using sex as a tool.
Too many women do it, and too many men fall for it. As long as she has you by the 'nads, SHE is the one holding all the power.
DON'T give her that power.
It's not that hard to do. Personally, I am celibate, (but you don't have to go that far if you don't want to.)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:28 PM August 30th, 2005 EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following snippet is taken from Jack Kammer's celebrated book, If Men Have All the Power, How Come Women Make the Rules? I share it here because it is so highly pertinent to themes talked about in the last few posts on the present thread.
"Professor Nigel Nicholson of Reed University in Portland, Oregon teaches a class on sex and gender in ancient Rome. His class notes say "An aspect of sexual behavior that defined a man's masculinity was how much sex he had. Oddly, the right amount was not what we would expect; it was not very much.....A large sexual appetite, whether directed at men or women or both, was considered effeminate [because] it tokened a lack of self-control, an inability to dominate oneself....." He notes a contemporary criticism of the Emperor: "Claudius enjoys sex too much, becomes overly fond of his partners, and so gives them control over him."
Hmmmm.....food for thought!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Uberganger on 08:02 AM August 31st, 2005 EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
I think it's a question of being openly conscious of what you like about a woman. If it's her genius brain, it's her genius brain. If it's her dazzling wit, it's her dazzling wit. If it's her massive hooters, it's her massive hooters. Some women need to have their egos popped. Being a good-looking piece of meat doesn't mean you're the most wonderful person ever to have walked the surface of the earth. Maybe men need to reclaim the right to see women as sex-objects, and stop pretending that they love minds that are stuffed full of manhating trash.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:51 PM August 31st, 2005 EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
Frankly, it IS many women's minds that make them unattractive to me.
Jessica Lang is (okay WAS) physically attractive but she openly hates men, so I find her completely repulsive. That goes for a lot of "attractive" women. There are a lot of pretty ones out there, but it is their mentality that makes them truly ugly.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:30 PM August 31st, 2005 EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
Great thread!
This is like getting an education in gender warfare.
So, here's what I'm wondering.
What, precisely, do any of you clearly intelligent, insightful men hope for in a woman?
(Assuming they have not yet totally turned you into the "cross-the-street-if-I-see-one-coming" camp?)
What "qualities" would a woman worthy of your attention have to possess?
And, please ..... no tittie or booty references.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:48 PM September 1st, 2005 EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm a bit different, I guess.
I don't really care too much what she looks like, although personal hygiene is a must, as long as she has a good head on her shoulders, hates feminism, is reasonably intelligent, and likes being in the woods.
Like I said, I'm different.
...okay, maybe weird.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:25 PM August 30th, 2005 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Bush forgot to say; "show girls an ideal of woman hood that RESPECTS MEN"!
We need THAT more than the other.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
bandersnatch writes "