# Treating men like human beings, not things!



## Bishop (Nov 16, 2014)

If you’re not one of “those girls,” and you really do want to treat men like human beings, go ahead and internalize these simple truths:



> 1) He is more than just his physical appearance.
> 
> 2) He has a complex inner life.
> 
> ...


There are no “but”s when it comes to men’s humanity. Not “but” you’re lonely, not “but” you’re horny, not “but” you’re nice, not “but” that’s how your grandparents met, not “but” he was naked in your bed. Men are people, and men just get to exist and set boundaries and say no. Always. Any time. Just like you.

Ladies, please internalize these truths, and stop treating us men like pieces of meat, we are not just here for your viewing pleasure.


----------



## OffTheBooks (Jan 5, 2012)

*Face-palm*


----------



## Du Toit (Mar 2, 2014)

Let's see how this goes.


----------



## FourLeafCloafer (Aug 5, 2014)

1) Obviously.

2) If you are talking about gut bacteria, then yes, he has. If you are talking about a mind, well, can we prove that humans have minds at all?

3) Obviously. How could a male give my fulfillment anyway? After all, I can only do that myself. And, guys, don't do that stupid 'read between the lines' thing, please. I don't get it and it won't make either of us happy.

4) Obviously, and ew.

5) Obviously, but please come on time if we have made an appointment.

But still, I would prefer if you kept your clothes on. That is beneficial to my viewing pleasure. That goes double for the internet.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

I don't know... it sounds kinda complicated.


----------



## f8alz28 (Nov 13, 2014)

Yes, male empowerment! I stuck up for you ladies in the "Pursuing sex is not a crime" thread, I expect you all to reciprocate.


----------



## Emerald Legend (Jul 13, 2010)

What are you even talking about. Men treat THEMSELVES like objects:


























































Despicable and disgusting if you ask me..


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)




----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Let me get this straight, people are compartmentalized into groups through physical distinctions and stereotypes of these groups are used to devalue and weaken their individual personhood and achievements in life? How fascinating.


----------



## sleepingnereid (Oct 31, 2014)

I object, i once said 'sex is all you're good for' to my exboyfriend and he said 'YEAH!!!!!!' biggest smile ever, he was psyched for days...not my intent!!!!
:laughing:

u sure guys dont want to be objectified???

lol


----------



## Golden Rose (Jun 5, 2014)

My xbox's interested in knowing when a "treating things like human beings" thread will be posted.


----------



## stargazing grasshopper (Oct 25, 2013)

Somewhat recently I visited a group that's advocating for men to distance themselves from women & the shackles of marriage/cohabitation? I really don't get what's fueling this growing divide between the sexes & why women are so hostile towards men.

I almost laughed while reading this article today.
The latent sexism of the male marriage proposal - The Week


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

I really don't see what all the fuss is about.

Things were much better before Masculism, when I could just go down to the local meat market, buy me a nice beefy man and take him home to be my domestic servant/sex slave. I don't see ANYTHING wrong with objectifying men. 

But now...everytime I slap one on the bum and tell him to smile and say thank you, he acts all like "equal rights for men!" As if he doesn't like that kind of attention? Stop sending mixed signals then! Don't you know I'm a nice girl? You don't want me to dominate you, do you? Or do you?

Men and women are different though...why on earth would we avoid treating men or women like objects? I can't agree with anything that OP said. It's misogynistic. Make me some pancakes.


----------



## Emerald Legend (Jul 13, 2010)

Arturo said:


> I really don't see what all the fuss is about.
> 
> Things were much better before Masculism, when I could just go down to the local meat market, buy me a nice beefy man and take him home to be my domestic servant/sex slave. I don't see ANYTHING wrong with objectifying men.
> 
> ...



Good..good...
Let the catharsis flow through you.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

Arturo said:


> You don't want me to dominate you, do you? Or do you?


Maybe?


----------



## EternalFrost (Jan 12, 2013)

Treat white people like regular members of society, not criminals! 
Treat heterosexuality like valid romantic relationships, not lust based sinful deviancy! 
Treat men like human beings, not things!


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

I don't know what you're all going on about. My favorite part about being a white cisgendered male with an average complexion and middle class income is no one cares about any of those facts unless I go into a community where I am a minority.


----------



## FourLeafCloafer (Aug 5, 2014)

As one comedian once said: There are a lot of minorities. Many people belong to one minority. There's a lot of people who belong to multiple minorities. There's also people who don't belong to any minority, but there's very few of them.


----------



## sleepingnereid (Oct 31, 2014)

Arturo said:


> I really don't see what all the fuss is about.
> 
> Things were much better before Masculism, when I could just go down to the local meat market, buy me a nice beefy man and take him home to be my domestic servant/sex slave. I don't see ANYTHING wrong with objectifying men.
> 
> ...


Best_Post_Ever!!!!!!!

and now i want pancakes, guys make great pancakes, good for nothing else but...oh the pancakes!!:tongue:


----------



## Tezcatlipoca (Jun 6, 2014)

Thank goodness for all the open minded and open hearted women out there who refuse to judge men based off their physical appearance <3 <3 <3


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

monemi said:


> But why is it blamed on feminists? Mainstream women go out of their way to say they aren't feminists and these are their views. And extremist feminists who just hate men obviously find it amusing. But this has nothing to do with most feminists.


I have a theory that is because that's what many people get to see on the internet. On sites like Youtube, tumblr, Facebook. People go in there with a mask, talk shit and we no longer can tell if it's a troll or not.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Emerald Legend said:


> The whole set of pictures it satire of instagram/selfie subculture.


Then why is it evidence of what men do to themselves?


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Eska said:


> Indeed.
> 
> It would be a fallacious statement to say that a woman is a "whore" based on the only fact that she is promiscuous.
> 
> Although, "slut" would be fairly accurate.


Even if the terms are accurate, there's no good reason for anyone to use them. Again, they're derogatory. Why go around insulting people?


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Mee2 said:


> Even if the terms are accurate, there's no good reason for anyone to use them. Again, they're derogatory. Why go around insulting people?


Well, it's not necessarily insulting.

If a woman happens to fit the description, it would be accurate to label her as such, regardless of whether you feel insulted or not.

If a woman fits the definition of a "slut", you would be accurate by saying; "This woman is a slut."


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Aya Saves the World said:


> Not the forum. I've seen this video a while a go where they put two actors in a city in the UK. One the man was shouting at the woman and everybody cared. When was the woman doing the same and actually hitting the man and throwing him around like (some) men do, nobody cared. They just looked and smiled.


I wouldn't call random women on the street self-proclaimed feminists. Given most women these days don't call themselves feminists (they associate feminism with extremists) but then say they believe in crap like 'girl power', I group that in with the rest of the crap I see in mainstream society. 



Aya Saves the World said:


> I have a theory that is because that's what many people get to see on the internet. On sites like Youtube, tumblr, Facebook. People go in there with a mask, talk shit and we no longer can tell if it's a troll or not.


Maybe. 



Mee2 said:


> Even if the terms are accurate, there's no good reason for anyone to use them. Again, they're derogatory. Why go around insulting people?


Bigger question is what is the concrete term for slut? Whore is pretty straight forward. Slut... is it when a woman has slept with two men? Twenty men? What if they're 80 and they've been single their whole lives? That's 1 man every 37 months or approx 1 every 3 years. That still qualifies as a slut? If we're going to use terminology like this I'd like it to at least be accurate. I've seen virgins called a slut for flirting. It really seems to mean any woman that won't sleep with the guy calling her a slut.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Aya Saves the World said:


> Oh welp. I must the exception. Again. This is becoming a running gag.


Yes you are the exception. A unique individual who does not have a hostile attitude toward men. But you if must know, in today's culture you do not need to actually be hostile toward a group in order to be considered hostile toward a group.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> Yes you are the exception. A unique individual who does not have a hostile attitude toward men. But you if must know, *in today's culture you do not need to actually be hostile toward a group in order to be considered hostile toward a group.*


Are you referring to misinterpretation/misunderstanding of actions that unjustly causes you to be labeled as "hostile"?

Or, are you referring to irrational generalization? "You are a man, therefore, you are a woman-hating rape apologist."


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Eska said:


> Well, it's not necessarily insulting.
> 
> If a woman happens to fit the description, it would be accurate to label her as such, regardless of whether you feel insulted or not.
> 
> If a woman fits the definition of a "slut", you would be accurate by saying; "This woman is a slut."


Define slut.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

monemi said:


> Bigger question is what is the concrete term for slut? Whore is pretty straight forward. Slut... is it when a woman has slept with two men? Twenty men? What if they're 80 and they've been single their whole lives? That's 1 man every 37 months or approx 1 every 3 years. That still qualifies as a slut? If we're going to use terminology like this I'd like it to at least be accurate. I've seen virgins called a slut for flirting. It really seems to mean any woman that won't sleep with the guy calling her a slut.


I liked my definition lol: a slut is "any woman who expresses her sexuality (or not) in a way that you don't like." That's about as close as I can get to what I think people mean when they use it .


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Okay I'll say something because I stop spamming this.

I do not support "feminists" or MRAs. What I support is however I feel is more correct in the situation at hand.

Bad experiences with people who claimed to be feminists both in real life and online have lead me to create a bad image around it, of course, I do not hold such a grudge right now, but I do believe SOME feminists and especially the wannabes ignore certain meanings and concepts that are at hand.

A slut is, generally, slag for a prostitute, like whore or hooker. Of course, this is seem as offensive because these are people who sell their body to others and that is illegal, might carry illness and might destroy you in more ways than one.
Let's also not forget that dick is also used as an insult and it's also slag for penis, before jumping on that bandwagon as well.

Having nothing against either of the parts, I must say that many men nowadays see "feminism" as a bad thing because of their experience online. #KillAllMen, Anita Sarkeensian, Gamergate, going to tumblr and seeing all these things being told about men. How bad they're, how they should be killed, how they cannot be raped. I recall hearing about an outcry from "feminist" about how the Princess of England had a baby boy and how they're disappointed and she should get rid of the child. I also read various articles of women saying that they want baby boys because they will disgusting men. This is quite common on certain parts of tumblr as well.
Don't you feel threaten when a man catcalls you? Imagine how it's to go online, sometimes the only escape you have from bullies, horrible workmates or a terrible family and seeing this horrible things directed at you, at the things you love and give you comfort. How would you feel?

The same goes for women being catcalled.
I understand why it came be uncomfortable, sometimes you don't want to show off, maybe you don't want to do it at all. Men should put themselves in women's shoes as well and understand how uncomfortable that must feel.
Of course, like the above wasn't true for all men, the same is for women. We can't ban everything we dislike simply because we dislike it.

I want to share a bit of a personal story, see if you and I can come to an understanding about this and how I sometimes and be harsh. Maybe after this, you can be a bit more understanding of my words and thoughts about feminism. I want you to take in consideration that this was my first contact with feminism outside of History classes. I don't often hear people call themselves feminist where I live.

I had a girlfriend some years ago. We were good, she was nice, a bit pushy at times, but I was okay with it. I have a bad habit, though. If sometimes becomes boring to me I stop enjoying it as much. No, I wasn't bored of my girlfriend, hell no! I was bored of the things we had in common and started looking for new things. At times time she showed her "feminism".
I tent to swear a lot, comes with the hours upon hours with being with male gamers (they swear when they're frustrated), it's also common to say lighter swears in my country, so I say them. And she wanted me to stop it. I couldn't say anything that she considered offensive (I recall a fight about the word pussy and I told her about how I always connect it to small defenseless kittens because I watched Top Cat as a child) and started going through my stuff.
_You can't play this and this and listen to this album because it's bad for women and you should known it because you're one.
_It's funny. She used to tell me with much pride how men flirted with her and how she showed her Batman panties to one. I pretended it was funny at the time. I was younger and more foolish, I wanted to keep her by my side, but things escalated.
I lost my best friend soon after and I grew angry, as I understood it it was part of grieving. She started to fight me, as she didn't saw things that way a threw more crap at me about how I should and should not do. That I shouldn't shave (even though I sweat and smell a lot and that's uncomfortable for everyone) and how I should things her way. 
Then she turned to my now fiancée. At the time he was a friend of mine, having problems as well. He was born female. She said such horrible things... About female pride and how all women should remain women at all times, no matter what. How he was wrong and would regret it, how he would try to rape me once he started treatment.
It broke my heart. I trusted this woman. I loved her with all my heart and manipulation and insults is what I got. From someone who says she's a feminist. Sure you can understand how much this destroyed my image of the new wave of feminism. Specially how she and her friends mobbed on me once I disagreed with her in any way.

Oh well, with that said, I shall sleep. Good night or good day, everyone.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Eska said:


> Well, it's not necessarily insulting.
> 
> If a woman happens to fit the description, it would be accurate to label her as such, regardless of whether you feel insulted or not.
> 
> If a woman fits the definition of a "slut", you would be accurate by saying; "This woman is a slut."


There are a lot of "accurate" things that I could say that would serve no purpose other than to insult someone. I don't say them and I don't think anyone should, in that context.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> Yes you are the exception. A unique individual who does not have a hostile attitude toward men. But you if must know, in today's culture you do not need to actually be hostile toward a group in order to be considered hostile toward a group.


You do have a good point. All you need to do is to poke at it a little bit. And then a shitstorm starts.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

monemi said:


> Define slut.


*http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/slut*

_slut
Line breaks: slut
Pronunciation: /slʌt/

A woman who has many casual sexual partners._



Mee2 said:


> There are a lot of "accurate" things that I could say that would serve no purpose other than to insult someone. I don't say them and I don't think anyone should, in that context.


Well, I suppose that's up to your personal values.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

monemi said:


> I wouldn't call random women on the street self-proclaimed feminists. Given most women these days don't call themselves feminists (they associate feminism with extremists) but then say they believe in crap like 'girl power', I group that in with the rest of the crap I see in mainstream society.


I'm not saying that either. I'm simply illustrating how the reactions are different. And idiots like to use these videos as examples of empowerment. Hitting someone isn't empowering to anyone, it makes you look like an ass, regardless of gender.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

@*Aya Saves the World*

So because you dealt with a feminist that was a jerk, you label feminism as a bad thing? It's just about equality to me. As a woman in a heteronormal relationship, I'm very rarely on the wrong end of the stick for sexism. For the most part, I'm not a victim. Meanwhile, I see where we still have problems. Things like: if one of my sons decides he wants to work in daycare when he grows up, he will absolutely face sexual discrimination. I've heard parents react to male daycare workers. There is absolutely discrimination against men in that field. My daughter enjoys science, but she comes home from school repeating back what kids have said to her and it's discouraging. The overall feedback from her peer group that she receives has her second guessing herself. She cares too much what other kids think. When my youngest liked the pink shirt at H&M and wore it to school, he got picked on. He had a big brother and sister on the same playground to stand up for him. I see things happening in my children's lives that gives me pause for thought. 

Just because sexism doesn't directly affect me or at least in a way that I give a crap about, doesn't mean that I feel free to ignore it. I don't want to see gender erased. I don't want to push people to do the opposite of their interests. But those who fall outside the social norms shouldn't be actively discouraged from living how they want to live. 

It's unfortunate that there are idiot people sending out inflammatory messages. Shit flies both ways.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Eska said:


> *slut: definition of slut in Oxford dictionary (British & World English)*
> 
> _slut
> Line breaks: slut
> ...


That doesn't say much. 50 years ago more than one sexual partner was enough to be labelled a slut. How many does it take now? Who gets ultimate authority in deciding how many sexual partners labels a person as a slut?


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

monemi said:


> This is really muddled and your ex's don't represent the majority of women.


I posted it because... as many here, we have seen it happening a lot (off course then you need stats, and must be convincing, don't worry I know how this threads go... it's a repetitive story) I won't bite.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

monemi said:


> That doesn't say much. 50 years ago more than one sexual partner was enough to be labelled a slut. How many does it take now? Who gets ultimate authority in deciding how many sexual partners labels a person as a slut?


The term is accurately defined in itself, although, the interpretation seems to be rather ambiguous.

Personally, I'd go by the definition, which would mean that "many" would be 2.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Eska said:


> The term is accurately defined in itself, although, the interpretation seems to be rather ambiguous.
> 
> Personally, I go by the definition, which would mean that "many" would be 2.


So the vast majority of women you know are sluts? Is your mother included?


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

monemi said:


> So the vast majority of women you know are sluts? Is your mother included?


I doubt that my mother has had sexual intercourse with anyone else than my father (due to the culture).

Although, the definition implies that it is "casual" sexual partners, thus, I suppose that there is a reasonable time frame to judge.

If my mother did/has in fact have/had more than 1 casual sexual partner, then yes, she would have been/is a slut.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Eska said:


> The term is accurately defined in itself, although, the interpretation seems to be rather ambiguous.
> 
> Personally, I'd go by the definition, which would mean that "many" would be 2.


Really? Two?

man·y
ˈmenē/
determiner, pronoun, & adjective



1.
*a large number of.*
"many people agreed with her"

synonyms:numerous, a great/good deal of, a lot of, plenty of, countless,innumerable, scores of, crowds of, droves of, an army of, a horde of, a multitude of, a multiplicity of, multitudinous, multiple, untold; More

noun




1.
the majority of people.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Unless I'm being mathematically/grammatically inaccurate, more than 1 would count as "many"/"multiple"?

"Many" is relative to a context, but it implies more than a single unite, as far I know.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Eska said:


> Unless I'm being mathematically/grammatically inaccurate, more than 1 would count as "many"/"multiple"?
> 
> "Many" is relative to a context, but it implies more than a single unite, as far I know.


Many generally refers to a large number. If we discount zero (as we should in this case) then two is the second smallest number. I do not see how that constitutes many in the majority of situations/contexts.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

BlackDog said:


> Many generally refers to a large number. If we discount zero (as we should in this case) then two is the second smallest number. I do not see how that constitutes many in the majority of situations/contexts.


A "large number" is relative to a context based on a subjective value of quantity to context ratio.

For instance,

1000 grains of salt in a bag of salt, is not "many" grains of salt, because it consists a very low amount of salt based on what is expected of a full bag of salt.

Although, owning 10 cars is considered owning "many" cars when compared the standard number of cars owned by families in the US.

10 is many, but 1000 is not many? Of course not, it's relative to the context.

When you say "majority", would you be referring to the 51% of men? Thus, for a woman to be labeled a slut, she must have casual sex with 51% of men?


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

Poor us. We have so many problems in today's world... /s



Mee2 said:


> Haha. Totally predictable for someone like me, but I can't help laughing a little thinking about how the anti-feminists might respond.


I mean.. this depends so much on the sample though. If we're talking about Tumblr rad-fem bloggers, I think it would be a very different story. Also, what questions are asked are extremely important.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Yomiel said:


> I mean.. this depends so much on the sample though. If we're talking about Tumblr rad-fem bloggers, I think it would be a very different story. Also, what questions are asked are extremely important.


I only scanned it but I think the sample was college students. Don't you think some college students might either have or visit those blogs that you're talking about? I mean, if not college students, who's making/consuming this stuff?


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Eska said:


> If my mother did/has in fact have/had more than 1 casual sexual partner, then yes, she would have been/is a slut.


If you ever have this conversation with your mother (please don't), film it.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Eska said:


> A "large number" is relative to a context based on a subjective value of quantity to context ratio.
> 
> For instance,
> 
> ...


I didn't say majority, I quoted the dictionary definition. 

So if two salt grains wouldn't be many, then how do we decide what constitutes as 'many' in a sexual context? Is that not a subjective and relative judgement? 

Presumably, we should be going by the average number of sexual partners that a person has in their lifetime, no? A conservative estimate I have seen of average sexual partners for a woman in her lifetime is about 4 (it was 3. something, something if I recall correctly). Ergo, two is not many by this standard.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

Men don't get it when I treat them like human beings. Even the most sensitive, sensual one who says he is such an emotional, deep person throws himself at you. Then will be angry and feel rejected for some reason.

Go figure it out.


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

Mee2 said:


> I only scanned it but I think the sample was college students. Don't you think some college students might either have or visit those blogs that you're talking about? I mean, if not college students, who's making/consuming this stuff?


Yeah, but I'm more skeptical of the questions. Most all feminists love to say they care a ton about all genders, but that doesn't mean that they can't still hold some troubling views.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

BlackDog said:


> I didn't say majority, I quoted the dictionary definition.
> 
> So if two salt grains wouldn't be many, then how do we decide what constitutes as 'many' in a sexual context? Is that not a subjective and relative judgement?
> 
> Presumably, we should be going by the average number of sexual partners that a person has in their lifetime, no? A conservative estimate I have seen of average sexual partners for a woman in her lifetime is about 4 (it was 3. something, something if I recall correctly). Ergo, two is not many by this standard.


I suppose we could, although, I'm not entirely certain about how "many" is interpreted, as I've said, as far I know, it's based on a personal value you attribute to a quantity, based on a context.

It could depend on the area/culture/religion.

Which would mean that you could be a slut based on specific context (culture), but not be a slut based on the global average.

Are you referring to the average number of sexual partners women around the globe have in a life time?

Also, note that the definition of "slut" says "multiple casual sex partners".

Doesn't "casual" limit us to a relative time frame? 

If you have 1 partner in 1995, and another one in 2025, I don't think that would describe you as a slut, would it?


----------



## Brian1 (May 7, 2011)

I'm sorry, I've got to do a Seth Meyers and Amy Poehler, Weekend Update, Really, and ad on to that Honestly, I don't see that as a problem.

Women, are sexual pieces of art, as Eileane Benis would say, and sure us men have our David, but, when was the last time you saw a man who walked down a busy street, and, he was hounded by groups of women doing dog ,and, wolf whistles, and it happened on a month to month basis? I mean, Really, and ad on to that Honestly, I don't see that as a problem.

Men, who women just met, and, asked for their number, had a great night of awesome wild sex, and, then early in the morning, as the guy was snoring, the lady just quietly dressed herself, and slipped out his door, very quietly, he didn't even hear her, and, when the guy wakes up, he has to focus on his feelings of hurt, and, pain, and, a feeling of being used! I mean, Really, and ad on to that Honestly, I don't see that as a problem.

Men, who have to suffer the trauma, of a limit to success, and, have to deal with some sort of glass ceiling, that hits them, and hits them hard, when they have to decide either district manager, or father, to the love child of his mistress, he cheated on with his wife. I mean, Really, and ad on to that Honestly, I don't see that as a problem. Unless you're former Senator John Edwards.

Men, who have to deal with outside religious, and, political groups, telling them, when they plant their seed, they should of known better! Why do all my tax dollars have to go to support some sort of over the counter Trojan male condom? This War On Men needs to end, Gosh darnit! I mean, Really, and ad on to that Honestly, I don't see that as a problem.

Yes, us men have it rough, not just with the rough sex, but, all over the cultural landscape, is there no end to this constant abuse? Even in the name department, Richard, becomes a Dick, and, the persecution of playing with it. No one, no one, should be playing with our Dicks, because, it's bullying, and, bullying is wrong.

Let us, join together, to end this male malviolent, hostility in our world, and make it a better, safer, place, for us all, to live in?


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Eska said:


> I suppose we could, although, I'm not entirely certain about how "many" is interpreted, as I've said, as far I know, it's based on a personal value you attribute to a quantity, based on a context.
> 
> It could depend on the area/culture/religion.
> 
> ...


Define _casual_. What level of emotional intimacy, if any, is required to constitute a non-casual sexual encounter? Or is time interval the only discerning factor?


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

BlackDog said:


> Define _casual_. What level of emotional intimacy is required to constitute a non-casual sexual encounter?


Then again, that is something that cannot be realistically measured, degrees of emotional intimacy vary.

Would you be comfortable with defining "casual"? I personally have no guidelines for this question.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Yomiel said:


> Yeah, but I'm more skeptical of the questions. Most all feminists love to say they care a ton about all genders, but that doesn't mean that they can't still hold some troubling views.


Your scepticism is predictable. Why not open it up and see if any of your doubts are grounded at all?


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

Mee2 said:


> Your scepticism is predictable. Why not open it up and see if any of your doubts are grounded at all?


Open it up? I don't have any particular aversion to interacting with feminists (not as if I could sniff it out on someone irl anyway). I just find most of them have frustrating and self-serving viewpoints, but that's true of all of us.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Eska said:


> Then again, that is something that cannot be realistically measured, degrees of emotional intimacy vary.
> 
> Would you be comfortable with defining "casual"? I personally have no guidelines for this question.


Not really, no. My point being that the definition of slut is ambiguous, and that calling 'two' partners 'many' is arbitrary. Unless you can offer solid ground for why 'two' in this context is above average?

I just googled it and apparently the *global* average of sexual partners is nine. Two seems low then.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Yomiel said:


> Open it up? I don't have any particular aversion to interacting with feminists (not as if I could sniff it out on someone irl anyway). I just find most of them have frustrating and self-serving viewpoints, but that's true of all of us.


OK, I just wonder why you'd speculate about the study's legitimacy when you could simply open it up and find out for yourself. That is all.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

BlackDog said:


> Not really, no. My point being that the definition of slut is ambiguous, and that calling 'two' partners 'many' is arbitrary. Unless you can offer solid ground for why 'two' in this context is above average?
> 
> I just googled it and apparently the *global* average of sexual partners is nine. Two seems low then.


This is the issue, it's ambiguous and can be adapted based on different set of "rules".

For instance, 

In a culture or religion that teaches/promotes having 1 sexual partner at most, having 2 could label you a "slut".

I'm uncertain of how "many" applies in the context, or if there's any objective measure to that (global average, for instance).

I suppose people could refer to "promiscuity" rather than "slut", but I doubt that people will conform to "She's a promiscuous woman.".

*Promiscuity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*

"_In human sexual behaviour, promiscuity is the practice of having casual sex frequently with different partners or being indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners. The term can carry a moral judgement if viewed in the context of a mainstream social ideal for sexual activity to occur only within exclusive committed relationships. A common example of behavior viewed as promiscuous within the mainstream social ideals of many cultures is a one-night stand._"

"_What sexual behavior is considered promiscuous varies between cultures, as does the prevalence of promiscuity, with different standards often being applied to different genders and civil status._"

Although, "slut" doesn't seem to utilized as a way to say "she's promiscuous", rather, it seems to conform to the years ~1400's definition of the term.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slut*

"_Although the ultimate origin of the word "slut" is unknown, it first appeared in Middle English in 1402 as slutte (AHD), with the meaning "a dirty, untidy, or slovenly woman". Even earlier, Geoffrey Chaucer used the word sluttish (c. 1386) to describe a slovenly man; however, later uses appear almost exclusively associated with women. The modern sense of "a sexually promiscuous woman" dates to at least 1450._"


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

Mee2 said:


> OK, I just wonder why you'd speculate about the study's legitimacy when you could simply open it up and find out for yourself. That is all.


Oh, ofc. I don't think I could find anything definitive by looking at it. I don't really care though; I just think it's sort of a funny study.


----------



## FourLeafCloafer (Aug 5, 2014)

Apolo said:


> The same could be said for a lot of terms that we use to call people. It's not my job to walk on egg shells for everyone. But I think we are getting off topic now.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Speaking only for myself, because that's the only person I can speak for:

The* bold* ones: Because everyone is. (I imagine that by 'get it up' you mean something like 'getting a hold of themselves'?)

underlined ones: Depends on the guy. If he has gotten a better education, I expect him to make more money. If he prides himself on being good at fixing things, I expect him to help others fixing things. If he is in the military or in law enforcemen, I expect him to fight and save the day. Not that I wouldn't expect the same from a woman in the same position.

The other one: no idea. I don't. Not everyone can win. There has te be winners and losers.


----------



## Apolo (Aug 15, 2014)

stultum said:


> Speaking only for myself, because that's the only person I can speak for:
> 
> The* bold* ones: Because everyone is. (I imagine that by 'get it up' you mean something like 'getting a hold of themselves'?)
> 
> ...


It refers to the sexual notion. And the male is almost always expected to make the money/be the provider... Why? 

Stiff upper lip refers to men being discouraged from showing emotion. A man who cries is weak, and one who shows emotion is vulnerable, aka weak. 

Being strong refers to being physically strong. Men are expected to be physically strong, and to be the protectors, why? Why is it our job to protect? 

But culturally, men are "expected" to make more money, be the fixers, be the fighters, and be the ones to come to the rescue... Why?





monemi said:


> I use cocksucker as a term of endearment. Apolo is a cocksucker.


Awe shucks! :wink: You too!


----------



## FourLeafCloafer (Aug 5, 2014)

Apolo said:


> It refers to the sexual notion. And the male is almost always expected to make the money/be the provider... Why?
> 
> Stiff upper lip refers to men being discouraged from showing emotion. A man who cries is weak, and one who shows emotion is vulnerable, aka weak.
> 
> ...


Men are stronger than women, on average, that's just how our bodies work. There's nothing sexist about that. 

Men being the protectors makes sense, in a biological way. You need fewer men than women to sustain the species, and men are stronger on average anyway, so they are more dispensable. This is natural. So is sleeping outside. It is stupid that our culture still assumes that women should be protected by the men in their lives. (By the way, a father protecting his children is both natural and desirable: children can't protect themselves after all. Still, the mother should do the same.) It should be a more general 'strong protect the weak' thing. I guess it's easier to assume that men are stronger, as on average, they are.

The other things are cultural things I don't agree with, and, as such, can't give you an answer to. I expect everyone to not be a crybaby. (If you are sad, you are sad. But don't make a scene because you cut yourself peeling potatoes for heaven's sake) I expect everyone to contribute in some way. As I said, I was only speaking for myself.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

stultum said:


> But for something being insulting, it doesn't matter what the intention of the speaker is, if that speaker knows what the effect is. If I didn't intend to run over your cat while driving down the street, that doesn't make your cat any less dead. If I don't intend to insult you, that doesn't make what I say any less insulting.
> The only thing I can do is be more careful while driving down the street or talking. If I run over your other cat while driving in the exact same way, I probably don't care that I am killing your cats. If I insult you again by using the same word, I don't care that I am insulting you.
> Please tell me, why does it matter that someone doesn't intend to insult someone while they know that what they say will insult them? The effect is the same, and the intention of 'insulting someone or not, I don't care' is hardly different from 'purposefully insulting someone'. If there is a difference, the first one is more hurtful, as, apparently, the other person isn't even worth insulting on purpose.


I'm not sure I understand what you're arguing.

It's irrelevant whether it's insulting or not, the word has it's own definition and describes something.

There can be certain connotations associated to the words, but that doesn't dismiss their definition.



monemi said:


> When the word has always been used as an insult, it's an insult. ****** will always be an insult. Slut will always be an insult.


It can have a certain connotation, but the word itself is not an insult.



monemi said:


> Statistically the odds are very low that your mother has only slept with one person and the majority of women aren't open to talking about their sexual history with their children. Slut isn't a derogatory term if it's correct right? So we can start a thread titled "Eska's mother is a slut". By your definitions we are most likely correct.


Indeed.


----------



## Morfy (Dec 3, 2013)

stultum said:


> Men are stronger than women, on average, that's just how our bodies work. There's nothing sexist about that.
> 
> Men being the protectors makes sense, in a biological way. You need fewer men than women to sustain the species, and men are stronger on average anyway, so they are more dispensable. This is natural. So is sleeping outside. It is stupid that our culture still assumes that women should be protected by the men in their lives. (By the way, a father protecting his children is both natural and desirable: children can't protect themselves after all. Still, the mother should do the same.) It should be a more general 'strong protect the weak' thing. I guess it's easier to assume that men are stronger, as on average, they are.
> 
> The other things are cultural things I don't agree with, and, as such, can't give you an answer to. I expect everyone to not be a crybaby. (If you are sad, you are sad. But don't make a scene because you cut yourself peeling potatoes for heaven's sake) I expect everyone to contribute in some way. As I said, I was only speaking for myself.


How many jobs today really require physical strength?
...


----------



## FourLeafCloafer (Aug 5, 2014)

Eska said:


> I'm not sure I understand what you're arguing.
> 
> It's irrelevant whether it's insulting or not, the word has it's own definition and describes something.
> 
> ...


This is an interesting philosophical discussion. If everyone agrees on what comprises an insult but you, who is right?

*Insult:*
A disrespectful or scornfully abusive remark or act:

'he hurled insults at us'
'he saw the book as a deliberate insult to the Church'

The second sentence is interesting: it speaks about a 'deliberate insult'. This points towards the existence of insults that are not deliberate. 

You seem to think that words are neutral descriptions of things, and that they are not loaded. Otherwise, I cannot fathom how you could consider calling someone a 'slut' is descriptive rather than insulting.

Thing is, they are. And it is.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

stultum said:


> This is an interesting philosophical discussion. If everyone agrees on what comprises an insult but you, who is right?
> 
> *Insult:*
> A disrespectful or scornfully abusive remark or act:
> ...


It's not because something is offensive for someone, that it's necessarily offensive for someone else.

There is a matter of context.

As I've said, 

If I say "The word '******' is offensive.", would it be offensive in that context? Most likely not.

If I say, "You are a ******." and by that, I mean that you are a black person, without any intent to harm, but due to my limited knowledge on the different interpretations for the word, and/or my lack of awareness on the connotation of that word, would that be an insult? No.

It could be insulting, relatively speaking, yes.

What I mean is that the word itself is not an "insult", it's up to your subjective interpretation to value it based on the context/connotation.

It's similar to aesthetic appeal. 
Nothing is inherently beautiful, it has to be contextualized and then valued subjectively.


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

Jetstream Aya said:


> Usually people who are like me and @AriesLilith were talking about were probably going to be called Social Justice Warriors.
> 
> Urban Dictionary: social justice warrior


Thanks to the internet I'm learning new terms and definitions every now and then. XP


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

AriesLilith said:


> Thanks to the internet I'm learning new terms and definitions every now and then. XP


You're most welcome.


----------



## Du Toit (Mar 2, 2014)

monemi said:


> Statistically the odds are very low that your mother has only slept with one person and the majority of women aren't open to talking about their sexual history with their children. Slut isn't a derogatory term if it's correct right? So we can start a thread titled "Eska's mother is a slut". By your definitions we are most likely correct.


I think it's quite shady to bring people's mom/sister/daughter into play. People who kill kids are monsters; my mom kill kids. Is she a monster ? Of course she is, even if it pains me to call her that.

That's just an hypothetical scenario to show that your affiliation to the person should in no way alter the truth.

@Eska I speak French too, and my French teacher always told us that despite ''many'' being more than one, 2 can't be considered many.

Edit: Btw, "slut" is an accurate description of someone who sleeps with many (I'd establish "many" here as being more than 3 - From personal exposure to different cultures, I've never seen 3 or lower sex partner worthy of a girl being called a slut, unless the three encounters where successive); just as the term "prostitute" is an accurate description of someone who is into the sex business. 

Both term can be used to depict the reality, or to insult. That doesn't remove their
meaning regardless.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Laf said:


> @Eska I speak French too, and my French teacher always told us that despite ''many'' being more than one, 2 can't be considered many.
> 
> Edit: Btw, "slut" is an accurate description of someone who sleeps with many (I'd establish "many" here as being more than 3 - From personal exposure to different cultures, I've never seen 4 or lower sex partner worthy of a girl being called a slut, unless the three encounters where successive); just as the term "prostitute" is an accurate description of someone who is into the sex business.
> 
> ...


Interesting, thanks for sharing.

Agreed with your point.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Laf said:


> I think it's quite shady to bring people's mom/sister/daughter into play. People who kill kids are monsters; my mom kill kids. Is she a monster ? Of course she is, even if it pains me to call her that.
> 
> That's just an hypothetical scenario to show that your affiliation to the person should in no way alter the truth.
> 
> ...


I was curious if he applied his version of 'many' to every situation. Any woman he sleeps with or is related to could fit his definition of slut and he likely wouldn't know.


----------



## 172harmonic (Jan 19, 2012)

monemi said:


> When the word has always been used as an insult, it's an insult. ****** will always be an insult. Slut will always be an insult.


Untrue and faulty logic.


----------



## Du Toit (Mar 2, 2014)

@monemi Fair enough then. I've just seen this ''your mom'' argument used so much online that my gut reaction is to be upset, whether its intent is legit or not.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

172harmonic said:


> Untrue and faulty logic.


Call your teacher or boss a slut or a ****** and get back to me.


----------



## 172harmonic (Jan 19, 2012)

monemi said:


> Call your teacher or boss a slut or a ****** and get back to me.


You said "****** will always be an insult" currently, I would agree that yes it is an insult. It will not always be an insult and your argument is a logical fallacy.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

monemi said:


> Call your teacher or boss a slut or a ****** and get back to me.


Had to quote because this is what it really boils down to. Lots of words have legit definitions but are considered extremely rude. Technically I am a bastard but nobody will call me one unless they are trying to insult me. Furthermore, since the definition of slut is so ambiguous and subjective, what you are saying to somebody is not "you are a woman who has had X number of casual partners" but rather "you are a woman who has had more sexual partners than I am personally comfortable with, and in a manner which I deem to be not meaningful enough and is thus 'casual'".

There is really no way of utilizing the term without passing some kind of negative judgement.


----------



## Morfy (Dec 3, 2013)

monemi said:


> Call your teacher or boss a slut or a ****** and get back to me.


Heathen used to be a really bad insult, same as heretic.
also queer used to be a bad insult while now people call themselves queer.


----------



## 172harmonic (Jan 19, 2012)

BlackDog said:


> Had to quote because this is what it really boils down to. Lots of words have legit definitions but are considered extremely rude. Technically I am a bastard but nobody will call me one unless they are trying to insult me. Furthermore, since the definition of slut is so ambiguous and subjective, what you are saying to somebody is not "you are a woman who has had X number of casual partners" but rather "you are a woman who has had more sexual partners than I am personally comfortable with, and in a manner which I deem to be not meaningful enough and is thus 'casual'".
> 
> There is really no way of utilizing the term without passing some kind of negative judgement.


Yes, I would say that is a fairly accurate summation of how words work. Connotation and subjective circumstances are a huge part of how words are used. I was just pointing out that words will not always remain the same and have the same connotations. That would imply that words have an objective meaning that cannot be argued which is clearly not true.

On a side note this thread started on a brilliantly satirical note and has been entertaining to read through.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

172harmonic said:


> You said "****** will always be an insult" currently, I would agree that yes it is an insult. It will not always be an insult and your argument is a logical fallacy.


You think it will change within your lifetime?  That's just being anal retentive.


----------

