OceanGirl Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 Shhhhhhh, you lot, please. All this commotion will get my high-quality posts moderated again. I'm getting into trouble a lots lately, like when I was a naughty boy, I was always getting into trouble. We seriously need to start you dating. I am going to look for some suitable women in your area
zengirl Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 (edited) I think another reason this is a double standard, especially in the scenario the OP poses, is physical strength. If the same woman came in with a weapon and did that, it'd be a different scenario, and, frankly, most men are strong enough to overpower most women (not all, of course, but it is common enough to warrant a generalization). I know I'm a pretty tiny girl. So someone physically stronger than me slipping into my bedroom. . . that's pretty terrifying. If I knew I could easily overpower them, it'd be closer to annoying and degrading, at worst. Which is not to say that the behavior should be "okay" obviously, but to understand why different parties may "take" it differently, beyond it being about any kind of desire for sex. As far as sexual harrassment goes, which was also brought up, women are sued for sexual harassment plenty. Sure, less than men, but there are less female executives than men. Some men get away with harassment more easily than other men---there are a lot of factors involved. The degree of charisma in the person, the people they choose to harass, the degree of fear involved, the manner in which it occurs, and the documentation. Men get away with sexual harassment too, quite readily, and then some men pay penalties for very mild "harassment" that was actually not intended as such. There's certainly room for improvement all around. And, perhaps, because men are less sensitive about being seen as sexual objects (because it happens less frequently, generally), I suppose I'd believe they'd be less likely to complain, in general. However, it's not as though men have never won sexual harassment suits. Basically this. Well, one is not the cause of the other, but they do balance eachother out. The reason is that having a casual lay is a cheap and easy way to spread your genes as a guy and thus evolutuonary very interesting, while for a woman it's a shot at getting pregnant and having to take care of it all by herself, which is not a favorable situation. Anticonception is too recent for our biologic programming to take into account. Most of the data we have shows that early humans screwed tribe members like bunnies and didn't care who the father of offspring was. And the tribes took care of the young, as a group. In fact, despite the risks, women's bodies appear to be built with hormones that make it chemically favorable to have sex and become pregnant---there's nothing chemically or biologically in a woman that makes her less likely to enjoy sex or even to enjoy sex with multiple partners, nor nothing chemically or biologically in a man that makes him disgusted by women who've had many sexual partners OR gives him the desire to have multiple partners any more than a woman. Nor does early human history support this oft-spouted thesis. Really, it comes from a time when women and children were property, which was much after we'd evolved past our biology and rounded into our cultural evolution instead. It's a socialized idea. Not a biological imperative. Edited January 5, 2011 by zengirl
Jynxx Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 Most of the data we have shows that early humans screwed tribe members like bunnies and didn't care who the father of offspring was. And the tribes took care of the young, as a group. In fact, despite the risks, women's bodies appear to be built with hormones that make it chemically favorable to have sex and become pregnant---there's nothing chemically or biologically in a woman that makes her less likely to enjoy sex or even to enjoy sex with multiple partners, nor nothing chemically or biologically in a man that makes him disgusted by women who've had many sexual partners OR gives him the desire to have multiple partners any more than a woman. Nor does early human history support this oft-spouted thesis. I'd like to see that dataset, since the conclusions are completely out of what is more or less proven. If a guy cannot be sure the childeren of a woman are his, he will be less likely to take care of them than if he were sure they were his. It's one of the major factors in evolution. If you're interested in this sort of thing, you should read "sperm wars" by Dr. Robin Baker. There's a "scientific" version with lots of data and analysis and a more popular version which is easier to read. It's a great read and helped me understand dating and relationships alot better.
EasyHeart Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 It's got less to do with gender and more to do with attractiveness. If your hot boss hits on you, it's your wildest dream come true; if your fat, ugly boss hits on you, it's sexual harassment. If your hot roommate crawls into your bed, you'll squeal with delight; if your fat, ugly roommate crawls into your bed, you'll scream "Get out"!
Woggle Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 There are plenty of double standards that go both ways which is why I don't get why some women get so upset on using a woman's past as criteria for choosing a partner.
zengirl Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 I'd like to see that dataset, since the conclusions are completely out of what is more or less proven. If a guy cannot be sure the childeren of a woman are his, he will be less likely to take care of them than if he were sure they were his. It's one of the major factors in evolution. If you're interested in this sort of thing, you should read "sperm wars" by Dr. Robin Baker. There's a "scientific" version with lots of data and analysis and a more popular version which is easier to read. It's a great read and helped me understand dating and relationships alot better. Grab a college anthropology book or watch a study on nomadic humans. They didn't pair off. They did have sex. They did raise offspring. Incidentally, one thing we learned was that the male tendency to be sleepy after sex (much stronger than the female chemical tendency for the same), likely allowed a woman to have sex with several men in a row, which was good for early human survival. Sounds gross to me, but it was biologically sound. Some of that sperm was likely to take. I read a lot about brain chemistry and biology in general, but I'll admit I'm too lazy to dig up old articles for the purpose of proving my point on a message board. I don't really care that much.
EasyHeart Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 Oh, and this so-called double-standard some women complain about ad nauseum in some of these threads? It's caused by women. If women didn't consider "experienced" men desirable, men would have some incentive to keep their pants on. Just look at this forum: when a woman wants to insult a man, she calls him things like "dateless" or a "virgin". Those aren't insults when they're aimed at women, only at men. Yes, many men prefer to date women who aren't promiscuous. They also prefer to date women who wear lipstick and shave their legs. That's just reality. No one is forcing women to do anything they don't want to do.
zengirl Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 There are plenty of double standards that go both ways which is why I don't get why some women get so upset on using a woman's past as criteria for choosing a partner. Well, everyone uses the other person's past as a criteria to some degree. I understand seeking an opposite if it is to complement you (i.e. I'm very organized, and the men I've dated seemed to really like that about me, particularly because they aren't), but there's no complementary benefit to chastity and whorishness meeting. The chaste partner cannot help the other become 'more chaste.' It's not a developed skill. In fact, it is a lack of development, if anything. A sort of ignorance (I don't mean this with the negative connotation of the word, but innocence and ignorance are related). At any rate, usually the guys who care too much about past sexual partners seem creepy about it, and generally hypocritical (all the chaste guys I know, who respect sex and have boundaries about it, couldn't care less about a girl's number), which is more the issues I have. Judging someone by their overall past, the maturity they've gained from it, the choices they've made, and their views towards important subjects, like sex and love, in a mature fashion seems normal. Going by some random number seems shallow and immature, barely scratching the surface of the real issues in play. At any rate, just because double standards exist doesn't mean they're healthy. Acid rain exists. Nuclear bombs exist. Doesn't mean I've got to like them, or that the answer to nuclear bombs is more nuclear bombs.
EasyHeart Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 Oh, and this so-called double-standard some women complain about ad nauseum in some of these threads? It's caused by women. If women didn't consider "experienced" men desirable, men would have some incentive to keep their pants on. Just look at this forum: when a woman wants to insult a man, she calls him things like "dateless" or a "virgin". Those aren't insults when they're aimed at women, only at men. Yes, many men prefer to date women who aren't promiscuous. They also prefer to date women who wear lipstick and shave their legs. That's just reality. No one is forcing women to do anything they don't want to do.
zengirl Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 Oh, and this so-called double-standard some women complain about ad nauseum in some of these threads? It's caused by women. If women didn't consider "experienced" men desirable, men would have some incentive to keep their pants on. Just look at this forum: when a woman wants to insult a man, she calls him things like "dateless" or a "virgin". Those aren't insults when they're aimed at women, only at men. Yes, many men prefer to date women who aren't promiscuous. They also prefer to date women who wear lipstick and shave their legs. That's just reality. No one is forcing women to do anything they don't want to do. FTR, I don't completely disagree with this whole idea, as you put it. I am not a huge fan of promiscuity in either gender (though I think it's about way more than number, as I said), but I think both men and women do their part with this particular double standard. Neither the men, nor the women, who feed into it are the types I'd want to associate it with. I do think it's gross to pester a girl about her number or whatnot (same with pestering a guy about it), and I'd never date a guy who needed to know mine, even though it's actually quite a short list and all LTRs. Most of the time I see it brought up in a thread, a man is bringing it up, though---not a woman posting a thread to complain about it. So not sure what you mean about "ad nauseum." Even in this thread, it was a man who started this vein of conversation.
AD1980 Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 Men get away with sexual harassment too, quite readily, and then some men pay penalties for very mild "harassment" that was actually not intended as such. There's certainly room for improvement all around.
carhill Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 I've consistently noted that, as time goes by and the ladies become more 'comfortable', the number and 'variety' goes up markedly. Of course, dates won't hear this (the ladies have made this statement directly), only the friendzone girlfriend guys (implied). Remarkable. That said, in my one marital datapoint, my exW was a lot more open about such matters *after* we got married. In general, OP, my experience aligns with your assertions. I see examples of it all the time in business colleagues workplaces, as well as socially. It is what it is. I just find another path.
sally4sara Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 Oh, and this so-called double-standard some women complain about ad nauseum in some of these threads? It's caused by women. If women didn't consider "experienced" men desirable, men would have some incentive to keep their pants on. Just look at this forum: when a woman wants to insult a man, she calls him things like "dateless" or a "virgin". Those aren't insults when they're aimed at women, only at men. Yes, many men prefer to date women who aren't promiscuous. They also prefer to date women who wear lipstick and shave their legs. That's just reality. No one is forcing women to do anything they don't want to do. You're ignoring the larger picture here. We can't medically ensure virginity in men, but you can medically ensure a woman still has her hymen in tact. The introduction of marriage had women with an intact hymen a more valuable commodity and they were the possessions of their father and then their husband. The father chose her husband, someone he could not prove to be a virgin. So male virginity was not a valued commodity. Women had their husbands chosen for them. They did not have the right to say "oh I heard he got around with many so I'd rather someone else". Generations of accepting a man whether or not he was promiscuous prior to marriage has resulted in this quality not being a deal breaker for many women and generations of not accepting a woman who was promiscuous still has many men viewing it as a deal breaker. As well, the poor did not have the luxury of buying a virginal bride. So the virginal bride became a status symbol. We still see the much diminished but still relevant ripple effect today. To the trash bin with this "women allow it" crap. Its a conditioning left over from our past. Just how often in the history of our species has virginity ever been a high expectation of men? Why would it be shocking that women don't expect it near so often?
Feelin Frisky Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 Yep. There are a lot of double standards. But I can live with them. I have been harassed too. I've also been "flashed" by a woman. I was working in an orthopedic shoe store during college where we not only sold shoes, we altered them and filled prescriptions for various corrective attachments and what not. This large but young and not so unattractive woman who worked there briefly left the door to the restroom open. I was working outside and saw her in there wiping her self. She had one leg up on the sink and she looked me straight in the eye and lifted up her dress so I could see "it" and gave this little laugh. What the hell am I supposed to do with that? And, yes, if the roles were reversed--not necessarily with her--I'd be considered a sicky.
AD1980 Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 Yep. There are a lot of double standards. But I can live with them. I have been harassed too. I've also been "flashed" by a woman. I was working in an orthopedic shoe store during college where we not only sold shoes, we altered them and filled prescriptions for various corrective attachments and what not. This large but young and not so unattractive woman who worked there briefly left the door to the restroom open. I was working outside and saw her in there wiping her self. She had one leg up on the sink and she looked me straight in the eye and lifted up her dress so I could see "it" and gave this little laugh. What the hell am I supposed to do with that? And, yes, if the roles were reversed--not necessarily with her--I'd be considered a sicky. Disgusting! Sweet Jesus theyres some whackos out there
Feelin Frisky Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 Disgusting! Sweet Jesus theyres some whackos out there Well, to tell you the truth, if she were 70 lbs lighter it would have made my day. Perhaps we'd be married.
AD1980 Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 Well, to tell you the truth, if she were 70 lbs lighter it would have made my day. Perhaps we'd be married. We all wish for a hot girl to do that to us
sally4sara Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 I went to a male revue one time for a friend's bachelorette party. There was this group of really scary, large, and clearly drunk women that had no regard for keeping their hands to themselves. The guys looked so bewildered with them and I felt bad for them. Till what I saw later anyway, they would take nice looking women's hands and try to put them on their bodies. They came over to our group and tried to do that with some of us. It seemed to me that many men only find unfamiliar aggressive women to be harassing if the woman isn't very attractive to them. I use to work for an agency that booked these revues for both men and women. I asked some of the male dancers how they felt about it. Their take on it was in line with what I perceived for all the hetero guys. They considered the grabby audience members a perk when they were attractive and a bother when they were not. This was not the same for the female dancers, grabby audience member got bounced no matter how nice looking they were. So I'm going to serve the attitudes expressed in the thread right back atcha men. Maybe if you had better standards, were not likely to stick it in any hole made available to you and didn't respond favorably to any decent looking unfamiliar women who comes your way, the uglies wouldn't believe you'd welcome the attention of all women and respect your boundaries a little more.
AD1980 Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 Ive seen some of those clips of bacholorette parties ther stuff the women do to the male dancers if Men did that to women strippers a task force would be there whitin minutes
Feelin Frisky Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 Ive seen some of those clips of bacholorette parties ther stuff the women do to the male dancers if Men did that to women strippers a task force would be there whitin minutes I've seen some too on redtube. I wonder how much this goes on or if it rare or staged. I wouldn't think so many women would want to be seen doing what they do in front of each other. I know I sound like waynebrady here but did I really live a sheltered life?
AD1980 Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 I've seen some too on redtube. I wonder how much this goes on or if it rare or staged. I wouldn't think so many women would want to be seen doing what they do in front of each other. I know I sound like waynebrady here but did I really live a sheltered life? I used to think the same but i realized women can be as or more classless then dudes when it comes to stuff like that
sally4sara Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 I've seen some too on redtube. I wonder how much this goes on or if it rare or staged. I wouldn't think so many women would want to be seen doing what they do in front of each other. I know I sound like waynebrady here but did I really live a sheltered life? Well the one I went to, most of the women just went for the giggle effect and didn't want to touch the goods. But like I said, there was a pack of rabid dogs that were way out of line. In this mix it was about 50 women with about 6 of them grabby and rude. Zero bouncers used where as women dancers almost always have bouncers to deal with the grabby and rude.
Feelin Frisky Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 Well the one I went to, most of the women just went for the giggle effect and didn't want to touch the goods. But like I said, there was a pack of rabid dogs that were way out of line. In this mix it was about 50 women with about 6 of them grabby and rude. Zero bouncers used where as women dancers almost always have bouncers to deal with the grabby and rude. Women don't seem to be exempt from the "mob" mentality. I can't stand mobs. What happens is that the pressure of the moment and the visibility of everyone creates a "dare". Some people then feel compelled to answer the dare. Some want to top the dare. I don't know if I'm just a prude or what but scenes like that just make me very uncomfortable. I never acquiesce to mob pressure. But standing alone is disquieting too. So, I won't go to strip clubs or what have you. I can't imagine groping some professional cock-teaser in the presence of a bunch of guys being all that enjoyable.
sally4sara Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 Women don't seem to be exempt from the "mob" mentality. I can't stand mobs. What happens is that the pressure of the moment and the visibility of everyone creates a "dare". Some people then feel compelled to answer the dare. Some want to top the dare. I don't know if I'm just a prude or what but scenes like that just make me very uncomfortable. I never acquiesce to mob pressure. But standing alone is disquieting too. So, I won't go to strip clubs or what have you. I can't imagine groping some professional cock-teaser in the presence of a bunch of guys being all that enjoyable. You know, in the 2+ years I worked as a dancer, I never perceived the guys who tried to get grabby to be doing it out of admiration. Not some kind of "your tah-tahs are so lovely they overpower my self control!" Quite the opposite. It seemed laden with an aim at punishment. More of a "you shouldn't have worn that dress; you're asking for it and this is for every women that rejected me" payback attitude. I hate to say it, but the instance was well more than some 6 out of 50 too. I worked in a better atmosphere than a girl working in a strip club but I sure enough learned good aim with a stiletto heel can crush a finger or two. The grabby women came off the same. "I know I'm fat and ugly but I gotcha now buddy!" The big payback! So am I to believe that many many men walk around thinking just like an angry, fat or ugly woman?
Woggle Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 Having a partner with fewer partners does not make a person more chaste but I just get the feeling that many of these women talking about double standards and sexuality just want an excuse to cheat and when a man takes issue he gets a feminist lecture. This is how many men feel.
Recommended Posts