Double Standards..

[millefiori]

Originally posted by scratch

So, if a girl can only go out with an adult chaperone but a boy can go out alone, it's not a double standard? I expect some of the ladies reading this to take issue with your not considering that a double standard. Good luck defending that one.

I think that would depend on the girl's age. If she was so young that she needed an adult chaperone I honestly would assume that the guy is also a tad too young to run around alone at night.

 

See posts 22, 24 and 25 for explanations of the rationale behind this double standard. Also, recally my thread on evolution.

Ok, so if the woman was ugly and had managed to sleep with a 100 men she is not a slut, because she also must possess some great qualities that made her attract that many men? And a "mess" is still not the same as a "slut".

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "my moral." Hypocrisy is asking for one thing, and giving something less. How am I being hypocritical?

By applying double standards.

[TUDOR]

Originally posted by millefiori

Aha, so he's kicking the sh*t out of me and you guys are standing at the sideline, cheering for me? Thank you, you guys are sooo cute. ( )

 

Cheering for you, YES! You getting the sh*t kicked out of you, no way. Every one has an opinion and when it comes to a clashing of the minds on a topic like double standards....it only proves why double standards exists for those arguing. You both agreed, I agreed, that double standards do exist on many areas of life. Why, wrong or right, are completely separate arguments.

 

All you can do is state your opinion and how you derived to that opinion. You and scratch have done that, now it is just debating to debate, which I love but there is no winner in this. Its the people that speak up on this site or in life and make their opinion known and challenge others to question their own words that make it fun and interesting. Problem is some take it personal and others they just like to battle it out for fun.

[millefiori]

Originally posted by TUDOR

Cheering for you, YES!

Ok, you're forgiven.

[millefiori]

Originally posted by A Fly onThe Wall

We are just trying to live a double standard

Where's my fly-swat???

[scratch]

Originally posted by millefiori

I think that would depend on the girl's age. If she was so young that she needed an adult chaperone I honestly would assume that the guy is also a tad too young to run around alone at night.

 

The adult chaperone was the compormise YOU suggested. You're arguing against yourself on this point - have I really got you going in circles that badly?

 

Originally posted by millefiori

Ok, so if the woman was ugly and had managed to sleep with a 100 men she is not a slut, because she also must possess some great qualities that made her attract that many men? And a "mess" is still not the same as a "slut".

 

There are exceptions within every gender. If a guy hires 100 hookers, he isn't considered all that grand. We are discussing relatively normal people here.

 

Quick note - no woman is so ugly that no guy will do her.

 

Originally posted by millefiori

By applying double standards.

 

What double standard, exactly, am I applying? To hold that I am so doing, not only do we need to agree to your definition of the term, but we also need to agree to your subjective notion of fairness. Thus, at best, you hold that I am being hypocritical by judging fairness based on my own subjective ideas. Is that really hypocritical? I fear you may soon pull a Tiki on me and say "I can have whatever opinion I want and don't have to defend it, so there!"

[d'Arthez]

Gender is a concept that differs from sex. Sadly a lot of psychologists use the terms interchangeably. That makes it really hard to find out if they are talking about sex or gender (proper). It leads to great misunderstandings.

 

Sex can be called an objective and determinable fact. You are either male or female. It is a purely biological definition. If you have 1 or more Y chromosomes you are biologically speaking a male, if I am not mistaken. If you don't have Y-chromosomes, you are biologically speaking a female.

 

Gender refers to an individual's male or female status and issues related to that status. The moment your sex is determined, right after (or even before) birth, it will have an impact on you. You are not just "male" or "female", but also a person, with expectations put on your shoulders by those around you. By your father, your mother et cetera. Of course as a little baby or a small child you are barely aware of that.

 

Your parents will behave in a different way, will be having different ideas about you because of your sex. That expresses itself, in for instance the color your baby-room should get. The toys you get, the tasks you should do. If your father is passionate about football (soccer for the Americans), but finds out you are / will be female, he will forget in all likelihood about the football career of his child.

 

To complicate matters a bit more, ideas about gender are not the same in different cultures, or even in subcultures. Or are held by all members of a culture. What you may refer to as typical for the male gender, I may see different because of that. And what I see as typical for the male gender, you don't have to see that the same.

 

In some cultures it is considered simply not done for a male to go into the kitchen to fix himself something. It is considered a feminine and unmanly act. In most Western cultures, things are a bit different now. We simply perceive the roles of males and females in a different light compared to other cultures.

 

In short: gender allows for all kinds of double standards, with us hardly aware of the fact. Some of them are more rational than others, while others are highly irrational.

Only when the naturalness of something is questioned, we can try to change these things. For instance, the gender roles of females has changed drastically in the past 50 years. That did not happen overnight, and did not happen without political fights.

 

When the sex of the person does play an influence in the notion of appropriateness / inappropriateness of some behavior, it probably points to a double standard.

[millefiori]

Originally posted by scratch

The adult chaperone was the compormise YOU suggested. You're arguing against yourself on this point - have I really got you going in circles that badly?

I'm not against a chaperone, I just assume that when I really believe that she needs a chaperone that she must be pretty young, so young that a guy her same age also shouldn't be running alone at night. If both were, let's say 16, and the girl was not allowed to go out as late as her brother then I tend more to believe that the parents base their decision on a double standard.

 

Quick note - no woman is so ugly that no guy will do her.

That was very cute how you expressed it.

 

What double standard, exactly, am I applying? To hold that I am so doing, not only do we need to agree to your definition of the term, but we also need to agree to your subjective notion of fairness. Thus, at best, you hold that I am being hypocritical by judging fairness based on my own subjective ideas. Is that really hypocritical? I fear you may soon pull a Tiki on me and say "I can have whatever opinion I want and don't have to defend it, so there!"

Tiki is not here.

 

Ok, so let's agree that you're not hypocritical, you just think it's acceptable that a men sleeps with a lot of women, but for women it's not ok. If you do it, it's fine, if a woman does it, she's a mess. You would like to have fun with an experienced woman, but you would not like to marry her. Okaaaay...............

[scratch]

Originally posted by d'Arthez

Post

 

I read you. Gender is a product of a (fe)male emulating how older (fe)males around her (him) act, thus it often follows that behavior diverges along sex-drawn lines. That leads to double standards.

 

Does that nutshell it?

 

Originally posted by millefiori

Ok, so let's agree that you're not hypocritical, you just think it's acceptable that a men sleeps with a lot of women, but for women it's not ok. If you do it, it's fine, if a woman does it, she's a mess. You would like to have fun with an experienced woman, but you would not like to marry her.

 

I think a woman who sleeps with many (or no) men will have weird emotional issues. I'd like to marry a woman with an age-appropriate level of experience, but also some concept of personal value. The overwhelming majority of women who sleep with a new guy each month don't have that value.

 

Do I need to elaborate on why men can whore around and usually maintain that sense of value while women cannot?

 

Per my definition, this is a double standard of questionable propriety. Per your definition, I wouldn't see it as a double standard at all, because it isn't patently unfair or baseless.

[millefiori]

d'Arthez, I still don't understand the need to differentiate between sex and gender. I mean, you can not be biologically male and have a female gender and vice versa. So, why making the distinction?

[d'Arthez]

The distinction is necessary, as biological attributes (genitalia) are always there. A woman will have breasts. Has high levels of estrogens in her body, et cetera. Just as a man has a penis, higher levels of testosterone and other hormones in his body et cetera. Whatever your beliefs about men and women, these things are not open for debate - they are factual. Men cannot give birth to a baby (unless medical technology steps in).

 

However, if we are looking at the gender issue, most things are open for debate. Being a male kid in no way implies not having an interest in playing with dolls, nail polish. Being female in no way implies that you have to play with dolls and not with cars. It in no way implies that you will have to be a tomboy to play football (soccer for the Americans). That are cultural influences on our perceptions and behaviors.

 

Consider metro-sexual males. Are they men? Or are they weak and idiotic? Sexually speaking you may be certain that these males are all men. However, if you look at it from a point of view involving gender, that is by no means a certainty.

 

It is partly due to the cultural influences which make us believe that one set of behaviors is normal for a boy, and another set of behaviors is normal for a girl. In no way all differences between males and females are based on gender.

[millefiori]

Originally posted by scratch

Do I need to elaborate on why men can whore around and usually maintain that sense of value while women cannot?

Because of evolution men are predestined to run around and spread their semen and women should stay at home. If they don't feel the urge to stay at home, it's because something in their pretty head is messed up.

 

Per my definition, this is a double standard of questionable propriety. Per your definition, I wouldn't see it as a double standard at all, because it isn't patently unfair or baseless.

As I said I call it double standard when all the circumstances are equal and just because of the gender people come up with different judgements.

 

Personally, I don't think it's great when people sleep around, be it men or women. And despite your claim, I can't really say that women who sleep around are more messed up than men. On the other hand most people I know just don't do this, so my observations may not be really representative.

[millefiori]

That made more sense to me now, d'Arthez. Thanks.

 

Even though, if I remember it correctly, Americans use sex and gender interchangeably and instead of asking for your "sex" in forms, they ask for your "gender" now.

[scratch]

Originally posted by millefiori

Personally, I don't think it's great when people sleep around, be it men or women. And despite your claim, I can't really say that women who sleep around are more messed up than men. On the other hand most people I know just don't do this, so my observations may not be really representative.

 

Why don't the people who don't sleep around not do it? I'd venture to say the men are unable to, while the women are able to but choose not to.

 

If you don't know people who sleep around, what are your observations based on? I know quite a few people who do. More often than not, the men seem to derive empowerment from it, and tend to be outgoing and gregarious. Conversely, the women seem to do it so as not to upset the guys who like them, and consider themselves somewhat shameful.

 

Those are my observations. While some women do derive emotional satisfaction from random sex acts, I cannot recall any man who was ashamed of them.

[millefiori]

Originally posted by scratch

Why do the people who don't sleep around not do it? I'd venture to say the men are unable to, while the women are able to but choose not to.

 

If you don't know people who sleep around, what are your observations based on? I know quite a few people who do. More often than not, the men seem to derive empowerment from it, and tend to be outgoing and gregarious. Conversely, the women seem to do it so as not to upset the guys who like them, and consider themselves somewhat shameful.

 

Those are my observations. While some women do derive emotional satisfaction from random sex acts, I cannot recall any man who was ashamed of them.

Well, I agree with you when you say that a lot of men who not do it, probably would like to. And it is easier in some ways to get along with the playboys, things are out in the open and there's no need to pretend that you don't know anything....

 

I do know some guys who seem to have no problems to separate love from sex and therefore feel less inhibitions to satisfy their physical needs. I also know some women who have less trouble with changing partners, but these are fewer and they do not do it because of their partner, they do it for themselves.

[Bacardi Silver]

Originally posted by millefiori

 

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).

 

I find it inacceptable when a man hits a woman.

 

I believe that if a woman slaps a man in front of everyone it puts him in a lose-lose situation. If he walks away and doesn't do anything he is seen as weak and has no backbone. But, if he hits her back he is seen as dangerous and a woman-beater.

[millefiori]

Originally posted by Bacardi Silver

I believe that if a woman slaps a man in front of everyone it puts him in a lose-lose situation. If he walks away and doesn't do anything he is seen as weak and has no backbone. But, if he hits her back he is seen as dangerous and a woman-beater.

No, it depends on how you handle it. It's not always necessary to throw a tantrum to earn respect, the ones I respected most were the ones who were able to shut up and not start arguing about petty things. It's the ones who simply walk away that hurt you the most.

[d'Arthez]

Originally posted by scratch

Why don't the people who don't sleep around not do it? I'd venture to say the men are unable to, while the women are able to but choose not to.

 

Do not ascribe that to an inability. You assume that the motive does exist. It does not necessarily exist.

 

Due to existing archaic notions sleeping around is considered damaging for women, but not for men. If there is truth in that statement, these men have no problem with abusing the women with whom they sleep around. Shall we draw the consequences from that?

[Cecelius]

If it's archaic, it sure seems to have a lot of life nowadays...

[scratch]

Originally posted by Bacardi Silver

I believe that if a woman slaps a man in front of everyone it puts him in a lose-lose situation. If he walks away and doesn't do anything he is seen as weak and has no backbone. But, if he hits her back he is seen as dangerous and a woman-beater.

 

A possible compromise is to spit in her face. Very humiliating, not violent. Not the classiest move in the world, but as you said, it's a lose-lose situation.

 

Originally posted by d'Arthez

Do not ascribe that to an inability. You assume that the motive does exist. It does not necessarily exist.

 

Allow me to correct myself. I am not referencing you in particular, as you are a special, strong yet sensitive, perfect man. Or, at least you play on one the internet, again and again and again. If you want to ignore the fact that most men are limited in terms of sex by women rather than by their own sense of restraint (e.g. men who insist on only having sex when they are in long term relationships) and continue along with your holier than thou self-fellation, don't let me ruin your party.

 

Originally posted by d'Arthez

Due to existing archaic notions sleeping around is considered damaging for women, but not for men. If there is truth in that statement, these men have no problem with abusing the women with whom they sleep around. Shall we draw the consequences from that?

 

Where does abuse come into this? I offered empirical evidence that the men who sleep around have positive qualities related to that behavior, and the women who do so have negative qualities related to it. I understand the path you're trying to go down, but it hinges on abuse being defined as anytime you act despite the fact that it will make somebody else feel sad. Interestingly enough, that's why a lot of the sluts end up with sleeping with so many guys - they don't want to make them feel sad, or as you put it, abuse them. Way too broad a definition of abuse for my taste.

[d'Arthez]

Yes, partly due to the existing archaic notions. You can't offer the fact that an apple falls down towards the earth, as the proof that the earth does not move towards the apple.

[millefiori]

Originally posted by scratch

A possible compromise is to spit in her face. Very humiliating, not violent. Not the classiest move in the world, but as you said, it's a lose-lose situation.

Spitting????? Are you nuts?? Maybe you should try to get better company, then you could avoid these kind of arguments where people get violent or start lowering their standards to this extent. I'd still recommend to simply walk away. It's often the subtle moves that are the most effective. Spitting is for drama queens.

 

And stop being so aggressive or attacking people when you argue.

[scratch]

Originally posted by millefiori

Spitting????? Are you nuts?? Maybe you should try to get better company, then you could avoid these kind of arguments where people get violent or start lowering their standards to this extent. I'd still recommend to simply walk away. It's often the subtle moves that are the most effective. Spitting is for drama queens.

 

And stop being so aggressive or attacking people when you argue.

 

If a woman slaps a man, he's pretty much screwed. Walking away, as Bacardi said, still makes you look foolish. I think spitting or throwing your drink in her face is a decent middle ground. It's a Hobson's choice problem.

 

I seriously hope you see the irony in the last sentence. Also, isn't that far more appropriate as a PM?

[A Fly onThe Wall]

Originally posted by scratch

A possible compromise is to spit in her face. Very humiliating, not violent. Not the classiest move in the world, but as you said, it's a lose-lose situation.

 

so you believe it is a lose-lose situation ? How can walking away be losing ? In who eyes would you be trying to impress ? Tell me

[millefiori]

Originally posted by scratch

If a woman slaps a man, he's pretty much screwed. Walking away, as Bacardi said, still makes you look foolish. I think spitting or throwing your drink in her face is a decent middle ground. It's a Hobson's choice problem.

Well, from my point of view a guy who spits someone in his/her face is showing a considerable lack of education and control over the situation. You'd definitely lose if you lower yourself to this kind of action.

[d'Arthez]

If a woman slaps a man, look her in the eyes, as to say "You did not do that!" And leave it at that.