udolipixie Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 My sense is yes. Do you agree? Why to why not? No human beings always had a very sexual society it's just that the sex is now open instead of behind closed doors or hidden in the closet. Ads were always sexual take a look at some 1950s ads it's there it's just not overt.
oldguy Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 Formal education is garbage. Young men are trained in colleges to be sheepish to the feminist doctrine. Colleges have lost their places in a young man's heart and their privilege to give informed, detailed, strong education has retreated to give rise to feminist teachers who use these establishments to properly create more meek little soldiers and husbands for the women who are banging away the players and casanovas during their youth. A Fraternity is the only holy ground for a man who hasn't abdicated from his right to be a man. I'd rather learn from men who lived during manly times. Hemningway, Isaac Asimov, Huxley, Orwell, Darwin, and from many other 'social engineers.' So in other words you never attended college and have no idea of what you are saying or bombed out & are cynical. sorry.
udolipixie Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 Men are retrieving their power. What a wonderful world it is, indeed, to be alive on, and to laugh as women think that by putting out for free(or throughout prostitution) they're achieving the same grounds as the beings who are responsible for the existence of nearly everything, have been on, until the interruption in our chain of rule, 2000 years ago. Really men are retrieving their power? How? I haven't seen much male only/male dominated scientific breakthroughs and advancements. I haven't seen much worthwhile breakthroughs or advancements to be honest. Unfortunate as it seems most of our society has negated science and is instead materialistic, narcissistic, and glamorizing petty things. Even American movies lack creativity and innovation since most are adaptations of novels. As for women thinking putting out for free/prostitution means they're achieving the same as the great men in the past.......pretty sure that notion wasn't shared with great women in the past who broke the mold and contributed to civilization just like past men who built civilization did. As for modern society I think most women believe that being self sufficient and independent not putting out for free makes them equal to men. As for being equal to the past great men who built civilization I don't think most modern women think putting out means they share the same ground. If they did it's no different or worse than the modern men who think since they share genitals with the men who built civilization that they are on the same grounds as men of that caliber. In today's society very few men and women are achieving the same grounds as men who built civilization and the subset of women who contributed. As for the interruption in the chain or rule........what great advancements/breakthroughs did feminism interrupt that men are incapable of doing now? Men can still be researchers, engineers, and scientists they can still make inventions. Or is being in a power position the only way that modern men only be as useful, great, or contribute like past men who built civilization?
oldguy Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 To a certain point they can.During many centuries women couldn't divorce their husbands and if they were caught cheating; they'd be killed. extreme, I am aware of that, but look at today's marriage atmosphere; a woman cheats and is rewards. I'd say that whoever is in power can, to a certain point, legislate social norms. prohibition had it's day too, but eventually it crumbled under the weight of, 'social norms' & the fact that bootlegging went on shows that the legislation banning alcohol was not successful.
Author bluenightowl Posted October 7, 2011 Author Posted October 7, 2011 I think that sexuality is a powerful force in people's lives, and like most things that are powerful it can have good or bad effects. Our ancestors, being astute students of human nature, noticed over the course of centuries that certain types of sexual interactions tended to bring about overall happiness for a person (long-term committed relationships usually codified as marriage), while others didn’t. That is where the traditional ideas of marriage came from. Societies saw that the people who flourished the most were those that had stable sexual relationships, and especially stable parenting relationships for raising children. This is interesting. Is it possible monogamy evolved, not just out of religion, but as a means to create stronger societies. I suspect its goes deeper than just religion. The part that seems missing is that bond between a man and a women that goes beyond just sex. To me that is very real. In nature you see both monogamous relationships and polygamous relationships, so perhaps monogamy isn't just a human or religious invention solely.
udolipixie Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 I believe so. When you've got women like Kim Kardashian, Lady Gaga, Rihanna, etc..being glamorized and painted as idols when in reality they're just skanks, it's pretty bad. How is that any different than the awful male celebrities that young men idolize? Most of the male celebrities are just skanks as well and in fact their skankiness is touted as proof of being masculine. Young women are growing up to idolize these loose women, and become loose women themselves. Broken households, single parents, etc...**** is ****ed up right now. And it's only going to get worse. No different from how men idolize loose men and either become loose men or desire to be loose men. Hopefully contraceptive, abortions, and adoptions will ease the broken household bit. Not sure what's the issue with single parenthood when it's a choice as plenty of young and old women I know have decided to be single parents either through adoption, in vitro, or surrogates. Their kids are mentally stable and socially normal. I've been single for so long now because most girls I meet, all they want to do is party and ****. Its such a turn off. But the saddest part about that is, men have now become conditioned to accept this kind of behavior in women. And now all men think its a-okay for a woman to act like her vagina is a drive-thru. Most guys just want to party and have sex too in fact most men don't want to settle down until much later than women do. As for the saddest part . Women were "conditioned" and still are conditioned to accept this kind of behavior in men with the boys will be boys and the whole key/lock deal. Most men will tout the accept the consequences for your actions but don't uphold it. After all it's fine for them to want to be a master key that is open to all but not okay to have a sh*tty lock that is open to all. Rather than being a key that fits one lock and a lock that fits one key. As for the vagina is a drive-thru . Not much different than the guys who treat their d*cks like that and expect women to be a-okay with them slutting around while they hold women to a higher standard that they immensely value and they make bs excuses not to uphold. It's a goose gander deal. Have fun with your STD's. The STDs is a people thing the only gender thing about it is that men are twice more likely to give an STD than get one.
oldguy Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 I attended college in Europe to safeguard myself from being trained to be a good man i I seems as though you have succeeded then, but did you complete college or simply attend? I used the examples of my not-so-formal education to better show you the background for the formulation of my opinion. I think of my education as the key & my decades of life as my true education. Both valuable.
oldguy Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 I wish I could stay but we where off topic anyway. Good talking to you. Later
silvermercy Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 New around here. Anyway, I've only passed quickly through the needless misogynistic drivel, so my only comment will be on marriage being established after Christianity. Marriage pre-existed Christianity in very ancient times. A few examples: http://www.examiner.com/dc-in-washington-dc/marriage-ancient-times http://ehistory.osu.edu/world/articles/articleview.cfm?aid=58 http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/28837 Also, if you read the articles, definitely not the invention of beta males and alpha females. Most definitely alpha males (and some beta males).
AHardDaysNight Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 No, I don't think we're becoming an oversexualized society. Sex is beautiful. However, I do believe that we're becoming a lustful society. It's okay to admit that you lust after a girl, after all I see someone like Avril Lavigne and go, "Damn!"...but when you'd rather make love to the idea of a beautiful woman, rather than a beautiful woman...well, that never goes well for you.
udolipixie Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/year/ You could fix that bad eye-sight by making an appointment with the ophthalmologist. LMAO XD how is that men retrieving their power? That's just men making contributions to society. That's not taking back some position of power. You shouldn't be so hard on yourself. Plenty of people don't pay attention to the words they use but love to talk nonsense; You shouldn't be so hard on yourself to ASSume that others aren't aware of such old news...yeah it's old news to me. That old piece of news still doesn't negate the fact that most of modern society hasn't made any innovate/creative breakthroughs.Most of our advancements are discoveries of existing things without utilization. Few creations involved. You speak of a handful of women doing something worthwhile can be compared to the far superior numbers of men who tamed the planet, created agriculture,medicine, and almost everything you take for granted, and whilst you claim that women were oppressed, most men were the property of overlords, but still had the brains, the creativity, the strength and the endurance to create civilization. Claim that women were oppressed.......in the past women were oppressed and in some countries today they still are that's a fact not a claim. Almost everything I take for granted? So you're aware of what I think and feel? If anything most men and women take these inventions for granted. Not too many men now of that old news piece or which male/female invented this and that. Yep these men in the past had the brains and creativity to do those things just like women in the past had the brains and creativity to accomplish the same in the area. Not the same amount but the fact that both genders contributed to civilization is comparable. The jobs women have were originally made for men, and many of the women in employment are so because of the laws that force companies to have a 50%/50% gender payroll. That is to say, many men aren't offered a job and have to work menial jobs because women are more likely to be given a job, lest they're completely oblivious to the necessary skills to fill a role, although many men with better qualifications are without a job, and not because they want to be unemployed. What does the fact that they were originally made for men when they are capable of doing the job. As for this many men with better qualifications I actually doubt that it's like the white mens argument for how black men are taking their jobs. While it may be true it's doubtful that most or all women with jobs are taking the job of a better qualified man. Especially considering that more women are in college and earning degrees than men. Plus the fact that companies state that female doctors make less medical errors and have less malpractice suits than male doctors. Interpretation of a text. Here's how it goes. Women, when confronted with their 'shabby' behaviors excuse themselves by saying that men of long ago did it and they didn't suffer from it. What am I saying? I'm saying that many women think that by putting out for players or casanovas, or by being promiscuous can be compared to anything or anyone, great or lesser or whatsoever. That explains my affirmation that women think they're enrolling in their acquired freedom whenever they have sex, outside of the compounds of a relationship. I agree that most women think they are enrolling in their acquired sexual freedom to not have shame for liking and participating in sex. I doubt many women think putting out means they can be compared to other things or people. The men who marry or let themselves be dragged into a relationship have their time consumed(and resources, albeit not so important to the point I'm trying to drive you into understanding without you trying to imitate the powerpuff girls) by the marriage; many men are diverted from their dreams, their goals, their ''destinies'' and many men can't continue to work in their field which would undoubtedly advance each of their own individual fields, even by small steps, because marriage can and has destroyed the life of many men. Women also have their time consumed and their resources...most men aren't the majority or the sole breadwinners in marriages so the resource/time bit is usually equal. Many women are also diverted from their dreams, goals, and destinies and can't advance due to marriage and having the gender role of the nurturer. Along with the stigma of having nannies and the whole work at home vs stay at home vs work outside the home mommy bs. So the marriage limiting mens advancement is basically bs since women can use the same argument as for why they lack in contributing to society yet most don't. The only time marriage diverted my dreams comes into play with most women is when they are resentful and bitter not bsing about how if they weren't married they could have greatly contributed to society. It is amusing that marriage is what's stopping modern men considering how marriage is on the decline, more men are boycotting marriage, and that most great men in the past still managed to make achievements and breakthroughs while being married. You'd think those loads of unmarried men would have made such great advancements. Though the logical fallacy in this argument is that the most of the modern men who are married had such great destinies because honestly in my opinion it's only a small few that will truly change the world and a great number that will help those small few. Though considering you're promoting this marriage is what's keeping the modern man from contributing achievements/breakthroughs looks only a handful of women contributed to society because they were held back since they were married along with how most weren't taken seriously. I wonder what straw-men argument and logical fallacies you'll use so much, you have a knack for such stuff lol. Only one using straw men arguments and having logical fallacies is you.
OnyxSnowfall Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 Only one using straw men arguments and having logical fallacies is you. Yes... Ely is good at spewing straw men out
udolipixie Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 Why do people confuse brutal honesty for misogyny? I don't think the women of thousands of years ago were that tarnished by the assumption their men made about their own capacities and that, if it wasn't for male brute power, women would have been eaten-up by the beasts. Just an example. If it weren't for grouped male brute power most of those men if they went solo would have been eaten-up by the beast. Male brute power wasn't to protect or benefit women it was to protect and ensure the survival both men and women. You're also negating that this male brute power also harmed women but of course most men only want to focus on the positives men did and minimize/excuse/downplay the negatives.
udolipixie Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 ely is good at pulling people out of their cognitive dissonances. I'm sure that the emperor of China wasn't pleased with the commies told him that he shared nothing with the Sun-God. The actions of the commies could have sent him into a spiral of negation; ''something is wrong with them, not with me.'' Plus, it's a lot of fun to see the weak attempts many people do, in this Matriarchy to deny what a person with eyes can see. It is amusing to see how many men will coattail and claim gender superiority based on other mens actions. Only the positive actions after all these guys tend to get butthurt and claim feminist or misandry if you also do what they're doing and apply the negative male actions. Quite amusing how these men don't want to be judged on their own actions and character but only the positives of past great men and other men. Besides, it would hardly be possible to arrange support from the sex that has the most to gain from marriage and relationships. Still a lot of fun. Most to gain from marriage & relationships What more than men do women have to gain from marriage & relationships? Honestly women have the most to gain from the end of marriage since thanks to bias laws. As for in the marriage women are mentally & physically worse and their happiness is at it's worst. A study showed women are happiest divorced, then single, then lastly married. While men are healthiest & happier being married.
udolipixie Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 (edited) Your mother probably did something to you that you do not like. But she is still your mother and you respect her because she helped you out a lot. So since I don't have some positive only view of the male gender where men were the protectors and defenders of women and only a few small few oppressed women and instead I'm aware that the men in the past have done good and bad to society and women...... my mommy must have hurt me? Not sure how this implies my mommy must have hurt me Why do people confuse brutal honesty for misogyny? I don't think the women of thousands of years ago were that tarnished by the assumption their men made about their own capacities and that, if it wasn't for male brute power, women would have been eaten-up by the beasts. Just an example. If it weren't for grouped male brute power most of those men if they went solo would have been eaten-up by the beast. Male brute power wasn't to protect or benefit women it was to protect and ensure the survival both men and women. You're also negating that this male brute power also harmed women but of course most men only want to focus on the positives men did and minimize/excuse/downplay the negatives. Seems like you just handle brutal honesty. As a unit, the vast majority of men protected women(and still do). Still do..how? In what way do the vast majority men protect women that they do not also protect men. Policemen aren't there to protect women they are there to protect men and women. Soldiers aren't there to protect women they are there to protect men and women in their country. A husband protecting his wife doesn't truly equate since if given the reverse women would also protect their partner as best they could. Men as a majority protected men and women not just women. Would you like for men to stop caring about women? After all, a handful of men raped women? Would you stop using the computer? It was created by men? Handful of men...there's that minimizing/excusing/downplaying. I'd like for men to stop coattailing on other mens actions and past mens actions. I'd like for men to stop stating that they are this and that and thinking the entire gender deserves praise for what other men did. NO just no those men who accomplished those things deserves praise for their actions. I'd like men who coattail on the positives to admit their hypocrisy when they whine about how feminism applies the negatives to the whole gender. They're doing the same applying the positives and minimizing the negatives just that feminism is applying the negatives and minimizing the positives. I'd also like for men to stop approaching me. How do you know it was a handful? It's a toss up in fact it's a slightly bias toss up to more than a handful considering how women in the past were devalued, treated as property, had no to little rights, the whole rape by marriage, and how rape wasn't even a truly prosecuted crime. What does me not using the computer have to do with this? I'm stating that men have done both good and bad to women so this idealized view of men being protectors/defenders and only a very small few hurt women is bs and just a whiners way of trying to negate the bad that men have done rather than be realistic. That instead of going with a positive only/negative only view just accept that men are good and bad and just individual men based on their own character/actions instead of apply positive only/negative only traits. Now, I don't mind talking to you, but you gotta come up with some concrete, not with this ''oh, you looked at me the wrong way, all men are rapists'' stuff that you ''marriage-oriented'' women use when the ''fair'' sex is under-siege. When did I state all men are rapists? Show me and sidenote my turnarounds on Woggle and other users for their female negative gender generalizations do not count. I stated that men also used their brute power to harm women. That's the truth. Men used their brute power in ways that benefited women and harmed women. Keyword is benefited since men did not in most cases use their brute power to protect women as they did it to protect society aka both men and women. You marriage oriented women? LMAO XD you must have gotten the wrong impression of me with society as it is and the average guys opinion of women in general I have no desire to marry a man.....unless he''s asexual that could work. Edited October 7, 2011 by udolipixie
FrustratedStandards Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 I don't think we are becoming over sexualized. I just think we aren't suppressing our sexualities anymore and finally becoming normal. It's not overtly sexual to be promiscuous, we are animals, it's in our nature to have sex. The fact that so many people don't do it because of certain beliefs is fine, but having sex and being sexy is not over sexualized. It's part of our nature to be sexual. Trashy and slutty is something different, that's about taste, not sexuality.
udolipixie Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 I obviously quoted your claim that no breakthroughs have recently been made by men. I consequently linked you to proof that denies your claim. What do you do? You ask me what this has to do with men retrieving their power. You seem to forget that you obviously quoted me asking how men are retrieving their power and then posted a link of nobel prize lists. Hence why I asked what does that list have to do with men retrieving their power. The quote you used: Really men are retrieving their power? How? I haven't seen much male only/male dominated scientific breakthroughs and advancements. You: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/year/ You could fix that bad eye-sight by making an appointment with the ophthalmologist. You quoted my claim of no worthwhile breakthroughs when you posted a link about the breakthrough and posthumous award. The quote you used: I haven't seen much worthwhile breakthroughs or advancements to be honest. Unfortunate as it seems most of our society has negated science and is instead materialistic, narcissistic, and glamorizing petty things. Even American movies lack creativity and innovation since most are adaptations of novels. You shouldn't be so hard on yourself. Plenty of people don't pay attention to the words they use but love to talk nonsense; A Canadian-born scientist was awarded the Nobel Prize in medicine on Monday for his discoveries about the immune system but hours later his university said that he had been dead for three days. The Nobel committee, which does not knowingly give posthumous awards, had been unaware of Ralph Steinman's death. "We can only regret that he didn't have the chance to receive the news he had won the Nobel Prize," said Nobel committee member Goran Hansson. http://www.drudge.com/news/148939/dead-man-wins-nobel-prize I responded accordingly to your posthumous award where you quoted my statement of no worthwhile breakthroughs. You shouldn't be so hard on yourself to ASSume that others aren't aware of such old news...yeah it's old news to me. That old piece of news still doesn't negate the fact that most of modern society hasn't made any innovate/creative breakthroughs.Most of our advancements are discoveries of existing things without utilization. Few creations involved. Do you type down without looking at the words or you are using the old tactic of annoying the person you're talking to by filling your posts with extrapolations that have nothing to do with what your ''opponent'' said? Do you have short term memory and forget what you typed? You quoted me asking how are men retrieving their power and posted a link of nobel prize lists. I asked what does that have to do with men retrieving their power. I was not asking what the posthumous award have to do with men retrieving their power. I was asking that about what does the nobel prize list link you gave after quoting me asking how men are retrieving their power. All of your posts are like that. I talk about x and why x came to be and you start to talk about rocks and oceans. Amazing is the quality of the modern establishments of education. All your posts seem to be you trying to deflect and lacking reading comprehension and forgetting what you typed. Amazing how people forget what they type and try to make it seem like the other person is misintrepreting. They are happiest when divorced because of the money and benefits they will gain.. the men are happier in marriage, until they're divorced, which is far likely to happen, and by divorcing, the men are ruined and women thrive.. This is not complicated to understand.. It's not that complicated. You quoted me asking how are men retrieving their power and underneath that quote you put the noble prize link list. I responded asking what does that have to do with men retrieving their power. You quoted me stating there are no worthwhile breakthroughs and underneath that quote you put the posthumous award article bit and link. I responded saying to me that's old news and is a discovery of an existing thing not true creation or utilization. Why do you insist in trying to talk to me when your natural reaction is not to contest what I say, but to make irony of what I say by implying that I'm claiming gender superiority based on other men's actions? When did I state you were claiming gender superiority? I stated I'd like men to stop doing that. Perhaps you shouldn't be so emotional and paranoid to assume I was talking about you when I stated that. The only time I stated you were claiming gender superiority was when you stated men were superior than women in another thread. In this thread I was stating that you were only looking at the positives and downplaying/minimizing/excusing the negative actions of men. Do I need to assume that all men are as strong as the governor of California was in his prime, to know that most men are stronger than most women? The discussion wasn't that men are stronger than women your train of thought was really that modern men are of the same caliber of men in the past due to you applying the same traits/praise of past great men to modern men. Seriously, your trail of thought might work in women's studies, but I ain't a feminized teacher. Nope I doubt you could be any sort of teacher with your habit of forgetting what you typed.
Scottdmw Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 Anyone else think Elysian Powder and udolipixie might be a perfect match?????
antinko Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 No, we're not. Nothing's really changed that much other than the way that sex is presented to us. Human civilizations have always been hugely sexualised - just research ancient Rome, Greece and Egypt, to name a few ancient civilizations, and you might be surprised.
udolipixie Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 I don't want to treat you as a retard, so can you please stop talking like one? The only one talking like a mentally deficient person is you. I like how you cut off the quote. Me: If it weren't for grouped male brute power most of those men if they went solo would have been eaten-up by the beast. Male brute power wasn't to protect or benefit women it was to protect and ensure the survival both men and women. You're also negating that this male brute power also harmed women but of course most men only want to focus on the positives men did and minimize/excuse/downplay the negatives. You: Your mother probably did something to you that you do not like. But she is still your mother and you respect her because she helped you out a lot. Me: So since I don't have some positive only view of the male gender where men were the protectors and defenders of women and only a few small few oppressed women and instead I'm aware that the men in the past have done good and bad to society and women...... my mommy must have hurt me? Asking you to show how you got my mummy must have done something is not talking like I'm mentally deficient. It's being curious how someone could have gotten your mummy must have done something to you from a statement that shows you don't hold this positive only view of men but see that men have both positives and negative actions.
udolipixie Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 Anyone else think Elysian Powder and udolipixie might be a perfect match????? Why do you think that?
Scottdmw Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 Why do you think that? You strike me as both being vocal on opposite sides of a modern version of the gender battle, each other's nemesis. It's like one of those Hollywood perfect opposite situations.
antinko Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 Hm, ad hominem comes to mind in regard to a certain sparring contest taking place in this thread...
udolipixie Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 You strike me as both being vocal on opposite sides of a modern version of the gender battle, each other's nemesis. It's like one of those Hollywood perfect opposite situations. Gender battle? By stating that it's best not to have a positive only/negative only view of men and that instead men have positive & negative actions and rather than praise or hate the male gender for some other mens actions judge a man on his own actions/character...... I don't see where my posts indicate I'm in this gender battle considering I'm not promoting a woman is better or men are worse platform. Wow just wow if disagreeing with an idealized positive only and minimizing negative actions of men is being opposing and doing a gender battle. Guess when it comes to men it most be all/most men are great and only a very small few are bad otherwise you're opposing men.
Author bluenightowl Posted October 7, 2011 Author Posted October 7, 2011 I don't think we are becoming over sexualized. I just think we aren't suppressing our sexualities anymore and finally becoming normal. It's not overtly sexual to be promiscuous, we are animals, it's in our nature to have sex. The fact that so many people don't do it because of certain beliefs is fine, but having sex and being sexy is not over sexualized. It's part of our nature to be sexual. Trashy and slutty is something different, that's about taste, not sexuality. We are animals, but somewhat evolved ones. It might be in my nature to want money and wealth, but I don't go out and steal. It might be in my nature as man to want to punch a guy I really dislike, but I don't. And it might be in my nature to want to @#!! all beautiful women. That said, that doesn't mean its in my best interests to behave this way and it goes the idea that we are a society evolved towards monogamy because it is our cultures and our own personal best interests. I see an evolution or stages of people here on LS: 1 - the ones who can't get it 2 - the ones who can get it and want it whenever that can get it (in case it stops) 3 - the ones that can get it and know how to get it, but are selective on who gets them
Recommended Posts