laRubiaBonita Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 Originally posted by alphamale you forgot looks....but yes, you are essentially correct BROTHER AARON. See....the only dudes who really can bag a lot of women must have something going for them cause women generally don't have sex with ugly dudes who have no personality and no money. Unless, of course, she's a hooker. hookers want a guy with money.......and still have standards! Pretty woman would not sleep with the squat fat lawyer gy.
Cecelius Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 Originally posted by arcadia that whole, "sleep with a whore, marry a virgin" thing that i keep hearing about. Probably not too much different than the lament of all nice guys out there that girls want to date the bad boy (because he turns her on), but marry the nice guy ('cause she's had the best, now she needs someone to take care of her)...
Bacardi Silver Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 How about this double standard: A girl could literally kick the **** out of a guy and probably nothing would happen to her because she would someway turn it around to being the guys fault. She'll play the "poor little me" card. But if a guy was to touch a girl and hurt her he'll get the chair and jail for life.
A Fly onThe Wall Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 Originally posted by Bacardi Silver How about this double standard: A girl could literally kick the **** out of a guy and probably nothing would happen to her because she would someway turn it around to being the guys fault. She'll play the "poor little me" card. But if a guy was to touch a girl and hurt her he'll get the chair and jail for life. You think that is a double standard .. Poor You !!
Bacardi Silver Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 Why don't you tell me how it isn't. I'm not saying its ok for guys to beat their gfs or anything. But sometimes when girls think it is ok to slap or hit a guy as hard as they want, they deserve to get bitch slapped.
A Fly onThe Wall Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 Originally posted by Bacardi Silver I'm not saying its ok for guys to beat their gfs or anything. But sometimes when girls think it is ok to slap or hit a guy as hard as they want, they deserve to get bitch slapped. How can Physical Violence towards women be a Double Standard worth talking about ? Nobody deserves to get Bitch-slapped
scratch Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 Originally posted by A Fly onThe Wall How can Physical Violence towards women be a Double Standard worth talking about ? See, I hate posts like this. Complete non-sequitors suggesting that something is beyond the pale of discussion without a basis therefor, usually drawing attention to the fact that the poster is a wonderful, sensitive yet strong man. You're wasting my time; get your validation elsewhere. The fact is that there is a double standard regarding physical aggression, but it can be explained due to the disparity in physical strength between the sexes. Frankly, I feel that hitting a woman first is wrong and weak, but if she slaps a man as a means of humiliating him, she should be slapped back. If she hits him, he should use the minimum amount of force needed to cause her to stop. But I am in the minority, as most feel that men should just "suck it up," hence the double standard.
alphamale Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 Originally posted by scratch The fact is that there is a double standard regarding physical aggression, but it can be explained due to the disparity in physical strength between the sexes. Tens of thousands of men are physically battered by their wives or girlfirends every year in the U.S. But it is a non-issue cause of the double-standard.
Bacardi Silver Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 Originally posted by scratch The fact is that there is a double standard regarding physical aggression, but it can be explained due to the disparity in physical strength between the sexes. Frankly, I feel that hitting a woman first is wrong and weak, but if she slaps a man as a means of humiliating him, she should be slapped back. If she hits him, he should use the minimum amount of force needed to cause her to stop. But I am in the minority, as most feel that men should just "suck it up," hence the double standard. Finally, someone who knows what I am getting at.
A Fly onThe Wall Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 Originally posted by scratch See, I hate posts like this. Complete non-sequitors suggesting that something is beyond the pale of discussion without a basis therefor, usually drawing attention to the fact that the poster is a wonderful, sensitive yet strong man. You're wasting my time; get your validation elsewhere. Scratch.. Re-read the previous posts .. A girl could literally kick the **** out of a guy and probably nothing would happen to her because she would someway turn it around to being the guys fault. She'll play the "poor little me" card. But if a guy was to touch a girl and hurt her he'll get the chair and jail for life. I was mearly trying to squelch a post that didn't come across to me as part of the discussion.. The post sounded more along the lines of agreeing that it's okay to Bitch slap a women than looking at the double standard
A Fly onThe Wall Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 Originally posted by scratch Frankly, I feel that hitting a woman first is wrong and weak, but if she slaps a man as a means of humiliating him, she should be slapped back. This statement in itself is a double standard
scratch Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 Originally posted by A Fly onThe Wall Scratch.. Re-read the previous posts .. I was mearly trying to squelch a post that didn't come across to me as part of the discussion.. The post sounded more along the lines of agreeing that it's okay to Bitch slap a women than looking at the double standard I read it all. I saw you as picking on a weaker, less articulate guy expressing a contraversial position to make yourself look noble. Maybe that wasn't what you intended, but that's how I interpreted it. I don't think you're a bad guy, but posts like that here are a pet peeve of mine. I'm sure you can understand why.
A Fly onThe Wall Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 Originally posted by scratch I read it all. I saw you as picking on a weaker, less articulate guy expressing a contraversial position to make yourself look noble. Maybe that wasn't what you intended, but that's how I interpreted it. I don't think you're a bad guy, but posts like that here are a pet peeve of mine. I'm sure you can understand why. Point taken ..
scratch Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 Just saw this: Originally posted by A Fly onThe Wall This statement in itself is a double standard Not exactly. I am simply stating that being the initiator of physical aggression towards someone less powerful is wrong and weak, but drawing the distinction that slapping is more of a humiliation than an attack and that self defense against a woman may be merited. Do you not agree that there exists a double standard in this arena? Whether there should or should not be one is a seperate point.
MWC_LifeBeginsAt40 Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 Originally posted by alphamale Tens of thousands of men are physically battered by their wives or girlfirends every year in the U.S. But it is a non-issue cause of the double-standard. This is a fact. And many times it gets turned around and the no-tolerance laws have ruined alot of men's lives. As for the original double-standard in this post, are you referring to North America? Take a look at mid-east countries where men are expected to have a ton of experience and women are tortured or worse for being non-virgins. I like this one: Q. What's the difference between a b*tch and a Ho? A. A Ho will sleep with anyone....A b*tch will sleep with anyone but YOU!
A Fly onThe Wall Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 Originally posted by scratch Do you not agree that there exists a double standard in this arena? Whether there should or should not be one is a seperate point. First.. I do agree that a double standard exists in this arena I think that whether or not there is a double standard depends on what side of the fence you are standing on. Sometimes people consider some double standards " Okay " because of how it affects their lives. The double standard exists because of the court systems focus is being on the protection of women and as a result mens rights have somewhat been trampled on as well how we are raised as men by our parents to never hit a woman.
scratch Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 I think first we need to deliniate the two questions. Your first sentence is flawed. It should read "I think that whether or not there should be a double standard depends on what side of the fence you are standing on." And, I agree with that. But I cannot see how the mere existence of a double standard (as opposed to its propriety) can be placed into question. I think the double standard is proper in the case of intergender violence, to a point. I think it can be based on disparate strength and weight, not gender, and is therefore valid. But when safety isn't the issue, e.g. slapping, I think the double standard is improper.
TUDOR Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 Originally posted by scratch Not exactly. I am simply stating that being the initiator of physical aggression towards someone less powerful is wrong and weak, but drawing the distinction that slapping is more of a humiliation than an attack and that self defense against a woman may be merited. Do you not agree that there exists a double standard in this arena? Whether there should or should not be one is a seperate point. I totally agree that double standards do exist in that arena. But based on your distinction of a woman slapping a man being more of a humiliation than an attack, how then is slapping her back considered self defense when your slap back to her constitutes something more than humiliation. I'm all for tit for tat but even if you only half cock that slap it's intent is far more than that of humiliation which you received from her. I agree you would stop her with what ever minimal force is necessary but there are better and more equally weighed methods than hitting her. Watch your mom get slapped around regardless of her hitting a man first or not and then say you think its ok to hit back.
Cecelius Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 I thought this thread was about loose women? Can we get back to that?
scratch Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 Originally posted by TUDOR Based on your distinction of a woman slapping a man being more of a humiliation than an attack, how then is slapping her back considered self defense when your slap back to her constitutes something more than humiliation? I don't think it constitutes more. I've never seen a woman go down from being half-slapped. But, I'd agree that if you have the foresight to do so, you're better off spitting in her face than slapping her. Originally posted by TUDOR I'm all for tit for tat but even if you only half cock that slap it's intent is far more than that of humiliation which you received from her. Can you say from personal experience that when you've done that the intent has been more than humiliation? I can't. Not only are you speculating on the intent of others, but you are speculating on their intent in a situation in which I doubt you've ever contemplated finding yourself. Not exactly the best support for your position. Originally posted by TUDOR I agree you would stop her with what ever minimal force is necessary but there are better and more equally weighed methods than hitting her. 99% of the time I would agree with this. 98% of the time it also applies when you're attacked by other men. Originally posted by TUDOR Watch your mom get slapped around regardless of her hitting a man first or not and then say you think its ok to hit back. If my mom hacked up a guy's family with a chainsaw, I don't think I'd be okay with him hitting her. Try another debating tactic, this one is silly.
millefiori Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 In reference to another poster's comment: woof, woof.
TUDOR Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 Originally posted by scratch Can you say from personal experience that when you've done that the intent has been more than humiliation? I can't. Not only are you speculating on the intent of others, but you are speculating on their intent in a situation in which I doubt you've ever contemplated finding yourself. Not exactly the best support for your position. From personal experience I too can not say it would be more than humiliation for a man to hit back but I have never been in this position. My comment was based solely on your comment of hitting back being merited as self defense and nothing more. The point I raised is that hitting a woman back can be consider more than "self defense" when the action that preceded it was not one in which a man would find himself in grave danger but rather just humiliated. 99% of the time I would agree with this. 98% of the time it also applies when you're attacked by other men. I would agree with you on this because if a 300 lb women is beating my ass then despite the fact she is woman I am clearly out maned and better react with greater force. And as you pointed out before this becomes a standard of size and not gender. If my mom hacked up a guy's family with a chainsaw, I don't think I'd be okay with him hitting her. Try another debating tactic, this one is silly. You seem to fancy yourself as a debater but bowing out with "silly" ....... but you just illustrated one of the many reasons why double standards exist in this arena. When talking in general about a man responding to a woman hitting him you can justify the man responding, all be it with a "softer" hit back. But when you throw in a realistic scenario like a mother, sister or someone you actually care about, all the sudden it doesn't matter what the woman did to the man first he had better not hit back. Your last comment clearly is a double standard from your previous ones. My opinion is that neither the woman or the man should hit first for any reason out of anger. I would chastise the woman just as much as I would a man for hitting out of anger.
scratch Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 Originally posted by TUDOR You seem to fancy yourself as a debater but bowing out with "silly" ....... but you just illustrated one of the many reasons why double standards exist in this arena. When talking in general about a man responding to a woman hitting him you can justify the man responding, all be it with a "softer" hit back. But when you throw in a realistic scenario like a mother, sister or someone you actually care about, all the sudden it doesn't matter what the woman did to the man first he had better not hit back. Your last comment clearly is a double standard from your previous ones. The reason this point was silly was that you're asking the reader to be irrational and emotional. If your mom was going to shoot a person, and a cop had a gun on her, would you try to stop the cop or say, "well, yeah, she was going to kill somebody, so he did what he had to do." Do you understand that asking how someone would react when their loved one was in danger is not nearly as poignant an inquiry as what is fair, right or just? Is it a double standard to say that we stop applying equal rules when it comes to those we care about? Sure. That's another double standard altogether, which definitely exists, and is probably improper but an unchangeable element of humanity. No double standard with regard to humiliation - if a softer slap squares us, that's what one should use.
millefiori Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 Ok, guys, let me throw in my two cents. It's not really a double standard when you as a man are expected to refrain from hitting a woman. The majority of men is physically at advantage compared to a woman and that's why you don't hit her. In the case of a slap in the face, it's less about the physical pain, but the humiliation. In this case, by walking away you will cause her greater irritation than by hitting back and you can at least preserve your face (no pun intented). Men who hit women in my eyes are wimps who are not able to control their emotions and who act as hysterical as the woman. Who needs this kind of soap opera a la Richard Burton and Liz Taylor? I find it inacceptable when a man hits a woman.
TUDOR Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 Originally posted by scratch The reason this point was silly was that you're asking the reader to be irrational and emotional. If your mom was going to shoot a person, and a cop had a gun on her, would you try to stop the cop or say, "well, yeah, she was going to kill somebody, so he did what he had to do." Do you understand that asking how someone would react when their loved one was in danger is not nearly as poignant an inquiry as what is fair, right or just? Is it a double standard to say that we stop applying equal rules when it comes to those we care about? Sure. That's another double standard altogether, which definitely exists, and is probably improper but an unchangeable element of humanity. No double standard with regard to humiliation - if a softer slap squares us, that's what one should use. I think if more people treated their fellow compadres in life with the same respect and dignity they treat those they care about we wouldn't have all these double standards. Perfect world I know but the comparisons of loved ones opposed to others is necessary to question one's true feelings and beliefs on any matter. I totally agree with you that double standard do apply to loved ones right or wrong and certainly not going to change. But we (society) set the standards of what is acceptable and what the double standards are and will be. Our actions influence the next person, so on and so forth. So if I allow myself to treat another woman less than I would treat some one I loved and some other man witnesses this which later turns out to be the man who dates my sister....what kind of standards have I just influenced on this guy? Its all relevant whether it those you love or strangers!
Recommended Posts