Me too.

How should we think about weird things?
User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8655
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Me too.

Postby TJrandom » Sat Apr 14, 2018 11:15 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote: ... Nikki thinking that all men ...


Whut? Didn’t she expressly exclude some?

User avatar
AmeliaMichelle
New Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 8:53 pm
Custom Title: And Or Theory

Re: Me too.

Postby AmeliaMichelle » Sun Apr 15, 2018 1:30 am

(5.) go about it a different way.
Last edited by AmeliaMichelle on Sun Apr 15, 2018 1:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
AmeliaMichelle
New Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 8:53 pm
Custom Title: And Or Theory

Re: Me too.

Postby AmeliaMichelle » Sun Apr 15, 2018 1:32 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Let's parse this:

1. it's frustrating to see that women gain prominence through either sexual promiscuity or sexual scandal, /// you are ignoring all the other ways women gain prominence if that is their goal. Just list all the way men do and note the women that have as well.

2. as these are the few avenues really left us. /// Unless you are defining prominence in some special way...all avenues are open. I agree, choices are still made.

3. Even more unfortunate that we would further use these oppressive 'tools' that are all we have. /// No...you have all the tools, but yes some do make those choices.

4. more and more moralist detective box women and their proletariat general guards doling out executions based on accusations to 'clear out' their communities of those whom don't get along well enough. /// Ha, ha.... a fine mess of word salad. You could mean just about anything?

5. Propegation of our disparity as women through the further victimizing of our roles on earth isn't helping, 'giving awareness' of these situations in these ways is really making them worse,/// hmmm...as best as I can follow your thinking.... "usually" drawing awareness to a problem is a first step in correcting the situation. What would your alternative be?

6. and making interpersonal dynamics especially amongst workers much worse as well. /// See No 5.

7. gotta think, for every leftist zealot /// wut? You are making this a left/right issue? No problems/issues/opportunities in the non-leftist zealot groups? Is the issue more the leftist part or the zealot part?

8. sthere's another even unhappier housewife, /// hmmmm....are you saying the majority of the concerned/affected women are "housewives"? I think that is about 50 years behind the power cureve.

9. {!#%@} on by disparaging jargon and politically corrected extremes based on bunk stats. /// another jumble of a word salad

10. and if you refuse to agree with these vigilantes, your racist, sexist or perverted.. /// yeah.... too far down your own rabbit hole.... not to be racist, sexist or perverted.




...(5). Go about it a different way.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10858
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Me too.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Apr 15, 2018 1:55 am

Drawing awareness to a problem is fine. Total exaggeration is not.

An example is the USA approach to Islamic terrorism. If you average the number of Americans killed by Islamic terrorists per year, it come to roughly half the number of Americans who drown in their own bath tubs. The American government would save more lives by banning bath tubs than by spending billions of dollars on anti-terrorism security, which is a very good excuse for tyranny. Especially against innocent Muslims.

Sexual molestation of women is a problem, but getting excessively angry about it, as apparently Minnie Driver did, is not helping. Keep it in perspective, just as we should keep Islamic terrorism in perspective. Making people into monsters when they are not, does not help.

Aztexan
King of the Limericks
King of the Limericks
Posts: 8543
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:39 pm

Re: Me too.

Postby Aztexan » Sun Apr 15, 2018 4:15 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Aztexan wrote: Lance, she didn't say that the guy who buys her a drink is making her his property, she said that she has to check her drink if he does.

What Nikki said was: "On a date, the woman typically expects the man to pay...and the man expects to pay. They're both labeling her as property to be purchased." are you simply wrong....or making a fine distinction between making and labeling ?

Speaking of roofies.....one of my favorite hello lines (never a pick up) was "Does this smell like chloroform to you?" Good for a few giggles.


I was wrong. I was referring to a different part of her post. But as it is, this macho male culture is fast becoming a relic. If we are to advance as a species, we should walk the walk instead of just talking the talk.
trump is Putin's bitch

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 12781
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Me too.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Apr 15, 2018 4:42 pm

Good man......but what advances a species in Darwinian terms has nothing to do with how the sexes of any species treat each other except in the result of propagation. No human dignity about it. Point is...people have different walks and talks and it takes place over different terrains and times.

In a scy-fy kind of way, its fun to think about our sex roles. always with men and women having exactly all the same attritubes we have today but then change one of them. One of my first thoughts was: everything the same but its the men who get pregnant and give birth. What would be the consequential changes?

another is: everything the same but women have a magical strength that allows them to overpower men at their decision to do so (ie: role reveral)...What would be the consequential changes?

another is: we are all the same....just the smaller half of the population can get pregnant. ... What would be the consequential changes.

something I can't imagine: what changes would have to take place so that women could walk drunk down an alley late at night and be completely safe. What would those consequential changes be?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10858
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Me too.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Apr 15, 2018 8:41 pm

Easy. She needs 4 big male policemen to accompany her.

However, there is another message here. Even though the news media always emphasize how bad things are, they are actually much better than in previous times. Women today can walk about in public, go shopping, or off to work, at little risk. That is because of all those police. Law enforcement has made things safer. A few centuries back, she could not have done that.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 12781
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Me too.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Apr 15, 2018 9:07 pm

Positive trend lines always look bad compared to perfection.

Still.....how do you get a positive trend line without complaining?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Aztexan
King of the Limericks
King of the Limericks
Posts: 8543
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:39 pm

Re: Me too.

Postby Aztexan » Sun Apr 15, 2018 9:08 pm

I'm not protecting her. I read your post and mistakenly thought you were referring to a different part of hers.
trump is Putin's bitch

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Me too.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:36 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote: [*]Woman shows off the $8,000 diamond engagement ring her fiancé bought for her. She's bragging to her friends that she's now owned, and he's bankrupted his finances to purchase her. If you love each other, why does the woman require an expensive physical token of that love? And why does the man believe he needs to mark his territory? To me, this is irrational.
[*]The classic formal wedding, which costs upwards of $30G these days, is nothing more than a public display. The groom is showing off his new property, and the woman is doing her best to look like quality property. Meanwhile, the newly married couple has no money for a down payment on a house, no nest egg for emergencies. Insane. Not to mention the tradition of the bride's father paying for the celebration and "giving away" the bride...that's just handing off ownership from father to husband.[/list]

Maybe just me, but most guys act as you say because of social conformity and not wanting to lose or disappoint the girl. My property does not include my significant other. Just my tools and "stuff."
Yes, but that social conformity is predicated on woman-as-property. The transaction is not undertaken because of love, but as a public statement by both parties that the woman is now "owned." The man is forced to spend a ridiculous amount of money to "prove" to the world that he values his property. And the woman immediately runs around showing off how much her "owner" values her as property.

"Look at the huge one-carat diamond my man bought me, ladies."
"OMG, he must really love you."

It's not love; it's transactional, just like prostitution. Except that prostitution is honest in that both parties are up front about the nature of the transaction: temporary ownership...like renting a car. If it were love, women would be working overtime and taking out loans to buy their men overpriced engagement rings, right? But the overwhelming majority of women don't, even while they fully expect their men to do so.
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 12781
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Me too.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:43 pm

Nikki: I've told you just the opposite. I have so little sense of ownership..... the ladies take it as not caring. I was double dipped reversed screwed. Sad, when that happens.

there are general rules that need to be recognized...but few rules apply without exception. Individuals.... are just that.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10984
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Me too.

Postby OlegTheBatty » Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:57 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote: [*]Woman shows off the $8,000 diamond engagement ring her fiancé bought for her. She's bragging to her friends that she's now owned, and he's bankrupted his finances to purchase her. If you love each other, why does the woman require an expensive physical token of that love? And why does the man believe he needs to mark his territory? To me, this is irrational.
[*]The classic formal wedding, which costs upwards of $30G these days, is nothing more than a public display. The groom is showing off his new property, and the woman is doing her best to look like quality property. Meanwhile, the newly married couple has no money for a down payment on a house, no nest egg for emergencies. Insane. Not to mention the tradition of the bride's father paying for the celebration and "giving away" the bride...that's just handing off ownership from father to husband.[/list]

Maybe just me, but most guys act as you say because of social conformity and not wanting to lose or disappoint the girl. My property does not include my significant other. Just my tools and "stuff."
Yes, but that social conformity is predicated on woman-as-property. The transaction is not undertaken because of love, but as a public statement by both parties that the woman is now "owned." The man is forced to spend a ridiculous amount of money to "prove" to the world that he values his property. And the woman immediately runs around showing off how much her "owner" values her as property.

"Look at the huge one-carat diamond my man bought me, ladies."
"OMG, he must really love you."

It's not love; it's transactional, just like prostitution. Except that prostitution is honest in that both parties are up front about the nature of the transaction: temporary ownership...like renting a car. If it were love, women would be working overtime and taking out loans to buy their men overpriced engagement rings, right? But the overwhelming majority of women don't, even while they fully expect their men to do so.


I reckon these kinds of traditions persist because people are doing what is expected of them, without thinking too deeply about where the cultural affectations came from.

There are a lot of people who do not see relationships as transactionl any more. It's something that is slowly changing. My father was very much a product of his times (b.1914), but it was he who taught me that marriage does not mean ownership. In that regard, he was well head of his times. Or, was he? How many generations does it take such a profound cultural shift go from nobody to everybody?
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 12781
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Me too.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Apr 16, 2018 6:01 pm

Its how women got the vote.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Me too.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Mon Apr 16, 2018 6:34 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:I think Nikki is over the top with suggesting that a guy buying a gal a drink is making her into his property. Really, it is just a guy showing interest in her, and most gals understand that. Nor is the gal buying him a drink negating anything.
Your opinion is unsupported. Having 35 years of experience of being a woman, the drink-buying has, without fail, always been followed up with asking for my phone number, unwanted physical contact, and/or outright asking for sex...unless I've bought him a drink in return, in which case, the follow-up behaviors have never occurred.

Lance Kennedy wrote:I agree that most women has experienced sexual molestation, but in most cases, it is not terribly serious.
How would you know? Another unsupported opinion, since you're assuming that a woman's perception of unwanted touching is exactly like yours. When a complete stranger puts his arm around you, hugs you, or even repeatedly touches you, it engenders a sense of vulnerability. I don't go around touching complete strangers even if I happen to find them extremely attractive. But men do it all the time. And it is {!#%@} serious.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Most women want to have guys interested in them, and making the first move. As long as that prevails, minor cases that can be called sexual molestation will always happen.
Zip up; your misogyny is showing via your blatant attempt at victim-blaming. Women's cultural conditioning is the cause of sexual assault, but men's isn't? Gimme a {!#%@} break.

Lance Kennedy wrote:As long as it is minor and not repeated, I have to say that I think women need to be tolerant.
Well, thank you so much for telling me what to think about the way I'm treated. I honestly don't know what I would've done without your authoritative pronouncement, and I feel ever so much better know, knowing how I should feel. :roll: You proved my point. Well done.

I'll bet you a million dollars that, if a gay man put his arms around you, grabbed your ass, or tried to shove his tongue down your throat, you wouldn't "tolerate" it for a New York second. Payable in cash, non-sequential bills only.

The concept is really quite simple, Lance: Don't {!#%@} touch other people without their express consent. This is not a difficult concept to consider or put into practice. And I do not have to be tolerant of a complete stranger grabbing my ass, or wrapping his arms around me, or attempting to shove his tongue down my throat. None of these is "minor" or harmless. And all of them happen frequently. Just last Saturday, in fact, perpetrated by two different men. I don't have to tolerate it, and I won't. And I didn't. The worst offender had his unwanted touching returned...by me grabbing his balls and threatening to twist them off if he didn't back the {!#%@} off. He became extremely offended by the unwanted touching. Imagine that.
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 12781
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Me too.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Apr 16, 2018 6:55 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:I think Nikki is over the top with suggesting that a guy buying a gal a drink is making her into his property. Really, it is just a guy showing interest in her, and most gals understand that. Nor is the gal buying him a drink negating anything.
Your opinion is unsupported. Having 35 years of experience of being a woman, the drink-buying has, without fail, always been followed up with asking for my phone number, unwanted physical contact, and/or outright asking for sex...unless I've bought him a drink in return, in which case, the follow-up behaviors have never occurred.
I buy a round of drink "for everyone" quite often. Fairly rare one on one, but when done, just for the conversation to start or continue. I have never propositioned/touched any one. Have had the reverse. Should I be telling everyone that buying a woman a drink makes her think she owns you? I don't think so. Nikki: I believe what you say 100%....and actually informed the counter drink buy is that effective (I would have thought not?)==>but that is your experience only. It may be 99% true, but its not universal.

Nikki Nyx wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:Most women want to have guys interested in them, and making the first move. As long as that prevails, minor cases that can be called sexual molestation will always happen.
Zip up; your misogyny is showing via your blatant attempt at victim-blaming. Women's cultural conditioning is the cause of sexual assault, but men's isn't? Gimme a {!#%@} break
I see definitional ambiguity here. A line that could be fine, or a chasm. Just what is meant by "molestation?" Its a wide range. Innocent on the far left side, criminal assault on the far right. It could be parsed for what is meant? Its always a combo plate: cultural conditioning and individual choices. Owning up vs blaming anyone but yourself. People be People.

Nikki Nyx wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:As long as it is minor and not repeated, I have to say that I think women need to be tolerant.
Well, thank you so much for telling me what to think about the way I'm treated. I honestly don't know what I would've done without your authoritative pronouncement, and I feel ever so much better know, knowing how I should feel. :roll: You proved my point. Well done.
As above...I think you two could agree on the far left side of the continuum? aka: very minor, and not repeated? Ha, ha....I had one stranger practically spit at me because I opened a door for her. Must have been brand new to feminism?

Nikki Nyx wrote: I'll bet you a million dollars that, if a gay man put his arms around you, grabbed your ass, or tried to shove his tongue down your throat, you wouldn't "tolerate" it for a New York second. Payable in cash, non-sequential bills only.
None of those are "minor" in my book.===>you and Lance still might find agreement on what he (and I) mean by minor? synonym: polite?

Nikki Nyx wrote: The concept is really quite simple, Lance: Don't {!#%@} touch other people without their express consent.
I disagree. A light touch on the forearm is totally appropriate I think. Recall: I personally have never initiated even that timid a move.....but I think to ask permission is to turn what is a nuanced exploration of what still may be nascent into an expressed invitation that may be premature.

Gee.............lot's to be defined?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10858
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Me too.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Apr 16, 2018 8:56 pm

To Nikki

Enough with the extremist feminist superstitious bull dust. While "ownership " may have been a part of the male/female relationship 150 years ago, very few men feel that way today. I know because (surprise, surprise) I am a man.

There is a modification I should make to my earlier statement. Women do not enjoy being approached by unattractive men. But I have seen women on so many occasions virtually wriggle with pleasure when an attractive guy shows his interest. Sad for the unattractive guy (which was often me) but that is life.

Incidentally, I have had a gay man make such advances to me. I found it amusing.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 12781
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Me too.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:26 pm

I've been NOT saying this for awhile. I too have been "approached" by a gay man (ie--only once). He put his hand on my knee in an initial very tame approach. I found myself wondering what he was all about. Year later, I recognized this must be similar to what women feel on their first forays into the social world?

...........Lack of experience: Says thank you for that free drink....and so on, and so on.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8655
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Me too.

Postby TJrandom » Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:27 pm

I once had a woman press one breast and then the other against my back, somewhat forcefully - and repeat this several times. This was on a public train, standing near the doors but with enough of an angle that I could see her reflection in the windows. My guess is that she was looking for a companion for the evening, or maybe even a client - but it scared the {!#%@} out of me, since if I had turned toward her, she might have claimed molestation and here a guy doesn`t get off of that claim - ever. Molestation on trains is a major problem here. I got off at the first station and took the next train.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 12781
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Me too.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:32 pm

You could feel the pressing of a breast....then the other one? Those where some mighty fine breasts. Might have been a yard rake?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4540
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Me too.

Postby gorgeous » Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:46 pm

TJrandom wrote:I once had a woman press one breast and then the other against my back, somewhat forcefully - and repeat this several times. This was on a public train, standing near the doors but with enough of an angle that I could see her reflection in the windows. My guess is that she was looking for a companion for the evening, or maybe even a client - but it scared the {!#%@} out of me, since if I had turned toward her, she might have claimed molestation and here a guy doesn`t get off of that claim - ever. Molestation on trains is a major problem here. I got off at the first station and took the next train.

---haaa...wuss...she wanted you.....
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4540
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Me too.

Postby gorgeous » Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:47 pm

Nikki ..who grabbed you on Saturday and how?.....I had a boss who brushed against my butt...I didn't mind much...I didn't blame him... :mrgreen: we had an attraction though he was married with a pregnant wife...I've worked at places where a gay guy couldn't keep his hands off a female friend's butt....she didn't mind, a gay guy was obsessed with my ample bosom ----he always made stunned comments...was hilarious....other guys would squeeze any female's waist and make an excuse to touch us on arms or back, comment on my butt....just fun times...also had lesbians hit on me at various times..one obsessed with my aforementioned ample bosom...she followed me into the bathroom and got angry when I quickly left...lol....good times.....
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9005
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Me too.

Postby Poodle » Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:32 pm

I seem to have led a very sheltered life.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 12781
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Me too.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:52 pm

Poodle wrote:I seem to have led a very sheltered life.

Do you mean something more than not "as a woman?"
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10858
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Me too.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:25 am

The time a gay guy approached me, he felt my crotch. I left rather quickly, but I thought it funny.

I need to comment on Nikkis interpretation on the drinks situation. It is fairly obvious that Nikki is either a misandrenist or influenced by them. Such people have this unpleasant habit of interpreting anything a guy might do in the nastiest possible way. Nikki thought that if a guy bought her a drink, he was asserting possession . If she bought him a drink and he subsequently lost interest, it was because of possessiveness destroyed.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.
There is a universal convention surrounding gifts. Obligation. When a person gives a second person a gift, it creates obligation. The most important such obligation is friendship. That is true of one man giving a gift (which might be a drink) to another guy. This is true also of when a guy in a bar buys a woman a drink. She incurs an obligation, which has nothing to do with ownership. The obligation is minimal and normally repaid with courtesy. However, a woman who accepts a drink, and thus accepts the obligation is showing she does not mind a minimal obligation to that guy. Hence she demonstrates interest. If she insists on buying the guy a drink, she is cancelling the obligation, which normally would show she is not actually interested. Thus the guy loses interest too.

Obligation, not ownership.

The idea of ownership in this context is an idiotic, and overblown feminist superstition.

User avatar
Io
Poster
Posts: 106
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2017 3:56 am

Re: Me too.

Postby Io » Tue Apr 17, 2018 7:27 am

Nikki Nyx wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:I think Nikki is over the top with suggesting that a guy buying a gal a drink is making her into his property. Really, it is just a guy showing interest in her, and most gals understand that. Nor is the gal buying him a drink negating anything.
Your opinion is unsupported. Having 35 years of experience of being a woman, the drink-buying has, without fail, always been followed up with asking for my phone number, unwanted physical contact, and/or outright asking for sex...unless I've bought him a drink in return, in which case, the follow-up behaviors have never occurred.


Nikki Nyx wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Maybe just me, but most guys act as you say because of social conformity and not wanting to lose or disappoint the girl. My property does not include my significant other. Just my tools and "stuff."
Yes, but that social conformity is predicated on woman-as-property. The transaction is not undertaken because of love, but as a public statement by both parties that the woman is now "owned." The man is forced to spend a ridiculous amount of money to "prove" to the world that he values his property. And the woman immediately runs around showing off how much her "owner" values her as property.

"Look at the huge one-carat diamond my man bought me, ladies."
"OMG, he must really love you."

It's not love; it's transactional, just like prostitution. Except that prostitution is honest in that both parties are up front about the nature of the transaction: temporary ownership...like renting a car. If it were love, women would be working overtime and taking out loans to buy their men overpriced engagement rings, right? But the overwhelming majority of women don't, even while they fully expect their men to do so.


I think that the most likely motivation for the man in these sort of scenarios is more akin to a high-level courtship ritual (one that's been blurred and beaten up by the ridiculous and unnecessary complexity that human society has reached). The man feels he needs to prove his worthiness and viability as a mate, so he uses common standards of measure such as wealth, physical prowess, etc.
Men are basically very simple creatures and are always looking for a simple route along a convoluted path. From the perspective of the man, the woman holds the cards - she has the power of refusal and the man has to 'measure up' to her expectations and requirements. What can look like "buying" or "taking ownership" is really an attempt to gain the affection and attention of the woman, and to impress and demonstrate that he's a better choice than whatever other men might constitute the competition. The goal being to get the woman to not reject him, rather than to turn the woman into a possession.
The next logical step after this demonstration is to see if it's worked - hence the move for phone numbers, offers of sex or (very likely) unwanted physical contact. It's at this point that the man realises it's not worked and either backs off or acts like a {!#%@} - which is a separate issue aaaall of its own.

There is also a certain level of expectation that the woman has (or that the man believes the woman has) to keep providing and impressing. A flashy wedding is a fair example of this. It's 'her big day' and how many women would be happy with "Let's keep it cheap shall we?". Some, sure, but most would be insulted. If the man doesn't impress it's an insult.

Obviously I'm generalising here - I know that there will be some people for whom these roles don't fit or where genders are reversed. And I'm wording this only in heterosexual terms for the sake of simplicity.

None of this is meant to negate how the woman might herself feel about whatever the man is up to, or how concerned she might be about the actions he might take if he doesn't get his way. More men should take that into account, I think. It always serves best to consider how the people you interact with might see your interactions. Once day I'll remember that myself :)

I'm also not saying that there are no men who really do treat the woman into a possession - there definitely are, but they are probably the minority. Or maybe they are a larger percentage of those 'out on the pull' so it seems like there are more shits about.

Disclaimer: mine is an academic perspective as opposed to a practical one as I can't afford the drinks in the first place.


Nikki Nyx wrote:I don't go around touching complete strangers even if I happen to find them extremely attractive. But men do it all the time. And it is {!#%@} serious.

I've never understood men who do this. Maybe it's just me but I find casual physical contact really weird. I don't much like being touched or touching others. Well, outside of very very obviously mutual intimacy. And it always makes me wince when I see other people do it. Both men and women.

Other disclaimer: I've been awake for nearly 60 hours now so if this reads like gibberish, that's why.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8655
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Me too.

Postby TJrandom » Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:24 am

60 hours is dangerous... get some sleep.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10858
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Me too.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Apr 17, 2018 9:10 am

Io after 60 hours made more sense than Nikki when fresh.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 12781
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Me too.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:29 am

I like both counter thoughts of the male/female interactions being one of seeking friendship thru minor obligations and/or courtship BUT ALWAYS with the risk of criminal assault.

there was a line in a movie that made me laugh. Good ol' boys talking about the new woman. Some wanted to be friends, others basically wanted to force themselves on her. the scene ended when one of them said "Having sex would be a friendly thing for her to do."

friendship, obligation, assault, sex .... and more...all wrapped up with one another. Another favorite meme of mine again seen mostly in movies, but a few times in real life: the woman with the supposed male sex drive. She has sex for the activity of it, the conquering if you will, and then moves on. "Some Men" get upset they have been "used." Its the reverse emotional issues played out: Gee, if we had sex, you are supposed to like me.

Hard to enjoy a game when everyone has different rules.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 12781
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Me too.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:36 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Io after 60 hours made more sense than Nikki when fresh.

I do wish we had a "thumbs down" button.

Lance: you like so say other people "make no sense" when what you are actually experiencing is disagreement with what has been said. Check it out.

Nikki's post makes emmimentally good sense. Its her own experience and understanding of it. I don't even fault the direction/interpretation she gives it other than its a tad over extended? ie: more right than wrong.....which is to say it is both and a question of where you put the emphasis.

When: "....♫...Love takes control....." sounds like an ownership interest to me...........
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Aztexan
King of the Limericks
King of the Limericks
Posts: 8543
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:39 pm

Re: Me too.

Postby Aztexan » Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:43 pm

A few years ago, on this very forum, there was a thread where the discussion was abortion and female reproduction rights. There were those who were arguing against it and those of us who thought it was between the woman and her doctor. We posted our thoughts, patting ourselves on the back as we were championing women's rights. Then a female member who no longer posts here chimed in and said something to the effect that all she saw was a bunch of men talking about a subject that we will never experience first hand, which disqualifies us from even opining on the matter.
She was right. No matter how much it stung that this woman told even those of us who were for women's rights to stay out of the discussion, she was right.

This whole MeToo movement is like that. Now is the time us men need to shut up and listen.

Men have been the aggressors, the wannabe proprietors, and the takers of women. We need to acknowledge that and, as has been stated, actively work to change that. To try to mansplain it to women or defend our good intentions or to say it doesn't exist is the wrong way to go about it. We need to work to change how we treat, see, and perceive women or stay the {!#%@} out of their way.
Last edited by Aztexan on Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
trump is Putin's bitch

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 12781
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Me too.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:45 pm

Ideas.............are for anyone with a brain to talk about.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 20910
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Me too.

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:18 pm

Aztexan wrote:Men have been the aggressors, the wannabe proprietors, and the takers of women.

Sweeping generalization alert.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

Aztexan
King of the Limericks
King of the Limericks
Posts: 8543
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:39 pm

Re: Me too.

Postby Aztexan » Tue Apr 17, 2018 3:04 pm

I didn't mean every single swinging dick. I'm just saying there is no movement of men fighting for better pay or to stop being raped, stalked, or killed by women.
Sorry for the sweeping generalization but women will mop the floor with us and put us in the dustpan of history if we're not careful.
trump is Putin's bitch

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 12781
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Me too.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Apr 17, 2018 3:18 pm

Aztexan wrote:I didn't mean every single swinging dick.
Thats not what you said. Sweeping generalizations don't allow for single swinging dicks.

Aztexan wrote: I'm just saying there is no movement of men fighting for better pay or to stop being raped, stalked, or killed by women.
Lots of them: ACLU, Unions, Religions Organizations..."of men" might be the hang up. Men are part of every group that doesn't formally exclude them. Think of white men "fighting" for civil rights.....for all.

Aztexan wrote: Sorry for the sweeping generalization but women will mop the floor with us and put us in the dustpan of history if we're not careful.
Amusing you apologies for one sweeping generalization while making another one?

...........Stop the Madness........... Course, if you are going to separate the world into US vs Them.... you might be right....about yourself.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Io
Poster
Posts: 106
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2017 3:56 am

Re: Me too.

Postby Io » Tue Apr 17, 2018 3:46 pm

Hey good advice... I finally managed to get to sleep...

Well, I think that the notion that men have no right to speak on the subject of abortion and childbirth is just as fallacious as the notion that men can dictate the rules about it and control the rights of women in matters about which they have no direct experience. I might not be able to make music but the idea that I can't have any opinion on someone else's ability at it is silly.

Women obviously have a direct and personal understanding of it and it's utterly stupid for a man to assume he comprehends the ramifications and implications of either childbirth or abortion better than a woman. Ignoring the opinion of women about how it affects their lives is cruel at best, and women should have more say than men in matters that affect them more than they affect men, but to say that men can't empathise, draw parallels or have an opinion is also wrong. We're all humans above everything else, and we often forget that as we gather ourselves into our silly little groups by trait.

Ok, that previous music example might not be the best one as it's a) far too trivial, and b) I do make music, but hopefully it illustrates the general vague point I'm trying to make. Hey, I just woke up! Take it easy on me.

Aztexan is right though about the fact that men do need to do more shut-up-and-listen-ing where appropriate. There's clearly a problem with (almost entirely) men using power and influence as a method of walking over the rights and lives of (almost entirely) women, just to get them into bed or satisfy their already over-sated lust for more power and influence.
There's a danger of #MeToo being abused by some to attack men unjustly, and the movement needs to guard against that as it demeans those who have been abused, but on the whole the fact that this has started to gain momentum is a good thing. The dirty underbelly of the beast needs a bit of de-lousing.

I'd also like to add that I disagree with Nikki on very little - she's one of the most clear thinkers that post here. To say she doesn't make sense is not what I was trying to say at all. In fact, probably the reason I picked out that minor point was because it's much easier to address something that I nearly agree with than something that's totally batshit crazy like some folks say.

Right, on with the day.

User avatar
Io
Poster
Posts: 106
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2017 3:56 am

Re: Me too.

Postby Io » Tue Apr 17, 2018 3:54 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Io after 60 hours made more sense than Nikki when fresh.


Also, describing Nikki as 'fresh' is walking on dangerous ground... :!:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 12781
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Me too.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:21 pm

More generalities?

............I like turtles.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10858
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Me too.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Apr 17, 2018 7:38 pm

Love and sex normally are just love and sex. Surprise, surprise. Ownership and slavery normally are not a part.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 12781
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Me too.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Apr 17, 2018 9:25 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Love and sex normally are just love and sex. Surprise, surprise. Ownership and slavery normally are not a part.


So what "is" buying a woman a drink?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10858
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Me too.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Apr 17, 2018 9:50 pm

Buying a woman a drink is an indication of interest. It is a guy saying he wants to get to know her. Both he and she will be aware that he has probably got sexual intent, but the drink simply shows interest. If she accepts the offer of a drink, she is indicating a reciprocal interest, and things can proceed from there.

There is an implied obligation on the part of anyone who accepts a gift, but for a drink, it is minor and can be repaid by simply being courteous. The idea that buying a drink is claiming ownership is simply feminist, misandrenist bull-shit.


Return to “Skepticism and Critical Thinking”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest