Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
zk
Participant[quote=spdrun]
Both men and women are interested in sex. It’s OK. We’re designed to be. If G-d didn’t intend us to enjoy it, she’d have designed us to work something like: we need to have sex, or we die. (Sort of like ferrets, or Vulcan Pon Farr.)
[/quote]
Sure, they’re both interested in sex. But that doesn’t mean they’re interested for the same reasons, or even in the same way, let alone the same amount.Also, it’s more complicated than that. Some anthropologists think that rape occurred during our evolution as an adaptive behavior. Forced sex by males is common in nature. So a lack of interest in sex wouldn’t necessarily prevent a woman from passing on her genes. Certainly a lack of interest on the scale of a man’s interest wouldn’t.
[quote=spdrun]Stop conditioning women that interest in sex is something bad, evil, or “slutty.” There’s nothing wrong with being interested in sex — in fact, this country would likely be a better place if people have more time for good sex (and proper knowledge of/lack of shame about birth control).
[/quote]
If you stop conditioning women that interest in sex is something bad, evil, or “slutty,” they might be more interested. But not as interested (obsessed) as men.[quote=spdrun]
Why the Puritanical view that sex is something people should be less interested in? The issue is CONSENT, not sex.
[/quote]Again, it’s more complicated than that. Louis CK had consent. Actual, verbal, out-loud consent.
[quote=spdrun]
If women were conditioned to be more clear about what they wanted and when they were interested, things would be a lot less ambiguous regarding consent. [/quote]
Sure. But wouldn’t that involve sterilizing the whole “game” that men and women play? The chase, the coyness, the signals, the romance, etc? That game is as old as society (or older). Could we accomplish that? Should we?Maybe you’ve got a point there, though. Perhaps the natural tendencies of men and women are not compatible with society. Maybe the game we’ve been playing for thousands of years – women are sometimes coy and men are sometimes coercive (or worse) – just won’t work anymore. Maybe it’s never really worked in the context of society. Maybe we’ve always known it doesn’t work and now we’re finally getting around to holding ourselves responsible.
But what’s the alternative? Yes doesn’t always mean yes and no doesn’t always mean no. (Before anybody attacks – I’ve always taken no to mean no, as any provident man would. But that doesn’t mean that it always means no. It doesn’t.) How do you fix that? How do you eliminate the nebulousness that has been a part of human sexual relationships since there have been humans? Written contracts? I don’t see it working.
I’d be interested to hear any ideas about how that might work.
Participant[quote=njtosd]
This quote (based on a 2016 study) explains at least part of the problem: “Heterosexual men consistently overestimate a woman’s sexual interest, according to new research..” [/quote]
I’d be interested in CA Renter’s take on this whole subject. It seems to be her belief that males and females are basically the same at birth, and that virtually all the differences in male and female behavior are due to social conditioning. So, following that logic, all we have to do is stop conditioning men to be so interested in sex. CA Renter, do you think that would work? Anybody besides her think that would work?
ParticipantWell, what could be the worst thing about the trump presidency is coming. In addition to all the things I did predict that did come true, here’s one I didn’t predict:
This tax plan. If the media and the people weren’t already overwhelmed with ludicrous and horrific stories and issues regarding trump, this tax plan would be generating an uproar the like of which a tax plan has never generated.
The only people who like this tax plan:
1. Rich people
2. Large corporations
3. Republican politicians who are funded by the above.
4. Brainwashed idiots who watch fox news.Everybody else hates it. It’s bad for the middle class, it’s bad for the economy, and it’s bad for America.
And it’s going to pass because America is too busy fighting dozens of other trump battles to focus on this one. The most important one (assuming no nukes are set off in the NK situation).
5 or 10 or 50 years from now, people will look back and wonder how this happened. How these republican congressmen thought they could get away with this. trump is how.
Another prediction: Whenever historians have enough time passed since the trump presidency to rank him among other presidents, he will be the unanimous choice for last place.
Participant[quote=pokepud3]well you got your beliefs and I got mine. I can say your beliefs are false, and mine and right, and you can say the vice versa.. doesn’t change anything. Cheers.[/quote]
Well, it might not change anything, but if I’m using logic and reason and you’re using… wait, what are you using again? Just saying what you believe? And thinking that carries weight even though it makes no sense?
You’re living a lie. And, deep down inside, I think you know it. Cheers.
Participant[quote=spdrun]Outside of work, it should be none of society’s business, unless there’s some form of quid-pro-quo or physical coercion involved.[/quote]
Whether it should be or shouldn’t be, apparently it is. So you think Louis CK got shafted, then? What he did was ask women (with whom he did not work, but who were in the field of comedy) if he could masturbate in front of them. They said yes, and he did. The narrative is that they felt that there was some implied coercion. That if they said no, he might hurt (or not help) their careers. There was no explicit quid-pro-quo and no physical coercion. But he appears to have lost his career.
Participant[quote=harvey]
Natural selection has optimized the economics of the reproductive process.Mating is a risk/reward decision. The reward is offspring, which is continued existence, which is the only metric that matters in biology.
Biology has created a system with two genders, and the risk/reward profiles are very different for each. Females have limited reproductive resources and take a huge risk every time they mate since pregnancy is very dangerous. So female behavior has evolved to be selective. Males have effectively unlimited reproductive resources and incur very little risk for the same reward.
In the context of biology, men are not absurd because nothing is absurd. There is no right or wrong. There is only a single, binary standard: an organism exists or it does not.
But the ethics we’ve invented in modern society ignores biology, creating an irreconcilable chasm between reality and ideals.
That’s why we have, and probably will always will have, the mess that we are in today.[/quote]
+1
Participant[quote=spdrun]
People with the same interests tend to date, have sex, and occasionally even get married. Deal with it.
[/quote]
Perhaps I’ve been too cautious with my tone and too slow to get to my actual point. You say “deal with it” as though my problem is with people having sex and getting married. My problem is that people can’t have sex in some situations where maybe they should be able to.[quote=spdrun]
American society is way too Puritanical about the whole thing. And the Puritanism coming from the left is as bad as that coming from the right.
[/quote]
I agree. And, in fact, the very point I’m trying to make is something similar to that. I don’t think puritanicalness is the problem so much as unreasonableness. I was trying to get to that point through discussion. What happened to Garrison Keillor is ridiculous (if his side of the story is true). And I think Al Franken got the shaft, too. Of course, what Harvey Weinstein did was terrible, and he deserves what he’s getting. My point (and I admit I was taking too long to get to it) is that all of a sudden we’re not even looking at the situation any more. If a woman says, “a man did this to me and I didn’t like it,” the man is immediately and completely guilty in the eyes of society, and receives severe repercussions. Granted, it has been almost the opposite for… forever. But this pendulum, even more violently than society’s pendulum generally tends to, has swing way past “reasonable.” All of a sudden what Al Franken did is as bad as what Harvey Weinstein did. That’s not reasonable. All of a sudden, if, as a man of power, you make any sexual advance toward a woman in your field, your career seems to be in danger. I’m questioning whether that’s reasonable.[quote=spdrun]
(*) – same field is insane. That would mean that two lawyers or architects couldn’t date, even if working for different companies. But I don’t have a problem with dating even in the same company — what goes on outside of working hours is none of HR’s business. (And, in fact, dating policies have been ruled as illegal as a violation of privacy rights.)
[/quote]
Again, I’ve been unclear. I’m not questioning whether HR should police these things (when outside of work). I’m asking whether or how much society should. Louis CK and no doubt many others have lost their careers due to situations that didn’t happen necessarily happen within their companies.Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]approximately 70% of mens waking thoughts are about fucking.
men are pigs.
until society is able to talk openly about the intense, everpresent nature ofmale horniness, we will all pretend that reality is not reality.
i never suffered as bad from this myself due to lowish testosterone. but im an outlier.
but it is literally not possible for any normal man to meet any woman and not picture in his mind fucking her within 30 seconds.[/quote]
With this I could not agree more.
I’m not an outlier. And it’s hard.
Louis C.K. put it best. Of a typical woman he said, “you get to have these thoughts. I have to.” And, “You’re a tourist in sexual perversion. I’m a prisoner there.”
I really don’t think most women understand how constantly we have to fight off these thoughts. Louis exaggerates the type of thoughts for effect (well, they’re more exaggerated than mine, anyway), but not the constantness.
I’m with scaredy. Men, in general, are obsessed with sex. It’s our nature. It’s a lot of hard work for us to stay focused on non-sex things. And until society accepts that this is the case and decides to deal with reality, we’ll be trying to deal with an important issue from a false position. And that never really works.
Participant[quote=spdrun]
Nothing is simple and black and white…There could easily be consent between co-workers.
[/quote]
Well, of course. No one is saying there couldn’t.[quote=spdrun]
I know a few couples who met at work and ended up married. Even if one is a supervisor and one isn’t.
[/quote]
Well, sure. But if the supervisor is a man, and the subordinate is a woman, and he initiated the relationship, he was taking a chance when he made his first move. Where I work, you would lose your supervisor job if you did that. And even in workplaces where it’s not strictly prohibited, it’s taking a chance. Now more than ever.
[quote=spdrun]There isn’t necessarily coercion — it really depends how much each of them actually needs the job, what other options they have(*), how much they care about “career.”
[/quote]Well, the key word there is “necessarily.” Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t. Sometimes it isn’t meant to be, but it is received that way. So, all your protestations aside, my question remains unanswered.
Should a man in power be required to avoid any advances toward any woman in his field in order to not risk his career?
[quote=spdrun]
Is dating at work always bad? No.
Should employers prohibit it, butting into private lives? No.
Should everyone respect consent? Yes.[/quote]
Well, those are all the easy questions and answers.
Let me ask you this, spdrun: How would you paint a scenario where a man who is very powerful in his field, who has the power to help or hurt the careers of the women in that field, makes a sexual advance toward a woman in his field without risking his career?
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]
Just because a woman is seductive or flirtatious doesn’t mean she wants sex.
[/quote]I didn’t say it did. There are all different kinds of signals a person can give. Flirtatious, seductive, and “I want sex” are three different signals. And of course there are a million shades of gray within and between all these signals. And the same type of signals from one woman might mean something different from what they mean coming from another woman. That’s why I went on about the semaphore flags. To make it clear that I was talking about an unusually clear, unambiguous, overt set of signals, and not flirtation or a generally seductive demeanor.
[quote=FlyerInHi]
And why can a man not resist? There are so many other choices, why risk sex with someone in the company/enterprise?
[/quote]
That misses the point. A man can (should be able to, usually is able to) resist. But should he be required to? Most people spend a very large percentage of their time around people who are in the same field as them. So a man in power is required to avoid advances toward any woman in his field? That’s not a small thing.
[quote=FlyerInHi]
I also think your questions make you old fashioned. You imply that women can be distracting and tempting and men cannot resist.
[/quote]
I imply no such thing. I’m asking if they should be required to resist or risk their career.
[quote=FlyerInHi]
Like if a woman is wearing a mini skirt, she’s giving the signals.
[/quote]
Again, there are many different signals. And wearing a mini skirt is not an “I want to have sex” signal. It’s not much of a signal at all, really.Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]
I think it’s pretty easy to tell sexual harassment. Don’t have sex with people you supervise. [/quote]Your interpretation of sexual harassment is comically narrow. Many men have had their careers go to their doom because of, and many women have been damaged by, behavior that isn’t even close to your definition of harassment.
ParticipantBack to the subject of sexual misconduct.
Scenario:
You’re a guy like, say, Matt Lauer. You’re rich, famous, and good-looking. There are a lot of women out there who want to have sex with you. Even sex with no strings. And, of course, a lot who don’t.
And you’re also in a position of power. You can make or break careers.
Are you required to never approach a woman at work regarding sex? Are you required never to approach any woman in your entire field? It seems any approach would put the woman in a position that so many women have found themselves in. They think (some of them correctly) that refusing could hurt their careers. So they say yes, even though they don’t want to.
What if a woman is giving you “the signals?” Signals, Jerry, signals!! What if she’s got the semaphore flags out, with her arms fully extended and waving fiercely, flags making all kinds of noise as she flaps them around, and a look on her face that says, “look! I’m right here! I’m waving these flags at you!” You can’t act on that without risking your own career. You could say, “it appears you want to have sex with me. Is that correct?” Even if you say that (and on the off chance it doesn’t kill the mood), you’re still the one bringing it up and asking the woman to have sex (presumably asking, if she says that you are correct). What if she’s giving more subtle signals? You sure as hell don’t want to screw with that. What if she walks right up to you, unbeckoned, and says, “I want to have sex with you right now in that storeroom right there?”
While never approaching a woman regarding sex in this scenario might be a wise policy, should it really be required? Is there a way to approach a woman in that situation without putting her in a position that you shouldn’t put her in? I mean, even if you say, “yes, I’m Matt Lauer. I can make or break your career. But I won’t. A “no” from you won’t be a problem for you.” Even if you say something like that, there’s a chance they’ll feel pressured anyway.
Participant[quote=pokepud3]
Don’t see how you can look around at the world and the intricate design and beauty within it and still think God is a lie and that it’s all completely random. [/quote]The whole, “the world is so intricate and beautiful that there must be a god” idea is patently ridiculous. You can’t fathom that what we see could develop from random matter (even though science can explain most of it, and what it can’t explain isn’t some unfathomable mystery) but it makes perfect sense to you that a God – omnipotent, omniscient, and able to create all this intricacy and beauty – has always been there?
Most humans believe what they want to believe, which is the only reason anybody believes in their god.
Participant[quote=njtosd]
So you are saying that you were lucky to be a white male rather than ….. what? Because the alternative (a non white woman – gasp) would be unlucky?[/quote]
Of course. Do you not think that white males have had an advantage in our society over everybody else since our country was founded?
-
AuthorPosts
