File: 1605105738250.jpg (11.22 KB, 225x224, 225:224, download (27).jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Honestly, this thread may seem like an old man's rant on the times of today and I don't even know if I have the drive to engage in a serious discourse on this, but I do want to vent my thoughts on this matter somewhat.
So I was reading the news and there was an article where they were looking for a young man who approached a young woman for sexual favours in exchange for money. She turned him down a few times but he would have pressured her to follow him into a fast food joint - bathrooms and there she would have performed sexual favours on him. It was to be classified as rape, as this was under pressure and the woman had some mental disabilities. She herself has come out to her attendants and clearly wasn't consensual in the act.
So reading some comments on the article, I did find people ask "why didn't she just leave?" It bothers me that that is exactly what the man will claim and what might be his ticket to getting away with this. He was just offering money for sex, she agreed. he paid her and now why is she saying he raped her?
Which falls under that old victim blaming. It was pointed out that she was mentally challenged, to have the mind of a younger child, so she didn't know any better. personally, I think that when being pressured you always put someone in a hard place. If you refuse and they turn away, you can just go on with your day. but if they stand over you, plead, maybe threaten or hide their intentions with different requests... you're also getting intimidated by the others insistence and you do get set up with the fear of what will happen if you don't comply, especially if threats are involved.
Anxiety and discomfort will simply put you in the mind that if you comply, then maybe it will just be over and you can live on safely again...
Anyways, I do find some point where I have problems with this and where I feel this is an issue with society overall as well. What is it with men like these who simply approach a woman and haggle over sexual favours like that out of the blue. To me that's as if sexual intimidation has become such a normalcy in society that to some it becomes a legit means of getting off. If you're out dating with someone online , or meet some woman at the club and you pop up the option of having sex, I can sort of understand. Or if you meet a woman in public, chat up and exchange contact to be followed up by the possibility of sex on one of the following dates.
But simply approaching some girl on her own and immediately asking for sex and being very pushy about it seems so out there and troublesome behaviour. Maybe not outright ripping her clothes off, but keep pushing, keep cornering her until she gives in feels like a thing that is on par with rape, whether you actually used physical violence or not.
And that makes me wonder, why do men have the thought that this is a very reasonable way to approach women like that. IS it considered cool because women are into sex as well? Is it because we learn from all sorts of sources that you can ask for sex and get sex in return?
I feel like this part of society should be tackled somewhere. that in a world of porn and sexualisation people should turn down again and say "This is not how sex works. This is not how you approach it at all." This kind of fundamental respect for each other should be found again. Maybe on an individual scale, maybe in the media actions need to be taken. Maybe crackdown on very sexualised portion of media and, somehow the internet?
Maybe people need to be taught virtues back regarding sex and how we go about it, massively, in their own lives as well. it might not be enforceable by law, but maybe even in the place where we trade sexual favours voluntarily, people can learn to have some restraint and build in meaningful interactions before sleeping with others.
I don't really think it's fair to request or hope for this. But we do need to find ways to signal to as many people that it should not be okay to pressure random strangers into sex.
While pressuring someone into sex may well be something that ought be illegal, I don't think it should be called rape.
That takes away from the term.
In this case I would say the big problem is essentially the same as for pedophilia. Incapability to consent.
But as there, rape is a different animal. >To me that's as if sexual intimidation has become such a normalcy in society that to some it becomes a legit means of getting off
I rather doubt this is a common occurrence in greater society.
I've certainly never seen anything of the like anywhere I've ever been, and given the suggestion of a fast food bathroom, I'm inclined to suspect it took place in a particularly shitty area.
I do not assume there is, say, a normalized understanding in society that you can point a gun at someone and get money just because the bad part of town had that happen. >And that makes me wonder, why do men have the thought that this is a very reasonable way to approach women like that. IS it considered cool because women are into sex as well?
They don't? I don't think anyone, anywhere thinks repeatedly begging a woman for something is anything but pathetic. >Maybe on an individual scale, maybe in the media actions need to be taken. Maybe crackdown on very sexualised portion of media and, somehow the internet?
To be quite honest with you, I think the rise of more public sexuality has little to do on the porn industry. That seems to be more a specifically campaigned for result.
Nonetheless, no amount of censorship would change the realities of the world;
Prostitution is the second oldest pasttime in the world. And pathetic people have existed well before any online interactions were possible.
Side thing in relation to your image;
Why is the responsibly always placed on the man?
If two people are drinking, surely they're both as inebriated as the other. So why wouldn't the woman be just as guilty of rape?
Its a bit of an annoying double standard I've seen
Pathetic people propositioning others is not at all unique to America, nor do we have some kind of culture that encourages it.
I am highly skeptical there is any data to show this.
I agree with what you are saying, and I think there is a double standard as well. I honestly see women being more forceful towards men, more often than I do men being more forceful and pushy with women, and I think this is because of the double standard. Especially in bar settings.
If a guy is hounding a women at a bar, after the second or third time, almost everyone starts telling him to piss off. But on the flip side, if a women is hounding a guy, it takes quite a bit for anyone to tell them to piss off, and usually even then, it's only that particular guys group of friends that stick up for him.
It is a double standard that needs to be seen.
It's something that sadly seems to be avoided.
Same with the supposed "toxic masculinity" that honestly seems to be primarily caused by women.
But I digress. Anyone who nags and begs repeatedly you do something, regardless of gender, is pathetic.
Hounding a potential romantic partner is lame
The trouble is that the primary enforcers for those standards and expectations are women.
Men privately with one another will act entirely different than when around women.
I disagree, and I would have to say that what I was saying here:>>7962
Partly falls under the toxic masculinity blanket because, when women hound men at the bar, most of the time the guys is deemed "lucky" to be "getting some", and their comfort level is largely ignored except by close friends (if they have them), who can see they are uncomfortable.
I also strongly disagree with the men act differently around women than with guy friends. I think it is much more dependent on context and social situations.
Then perhaps you're just had different experiences than I.
It's certainly been my experience that strangers with just men are more friendly and supportive than when dealing with mixed gender groups.>>8020>I also strongly disagree with the men act differently around women than with guy friends. I think it is much more dependent on context and social situations.
I was meaning more groups of those you're not familiar with. Not friends.
Friends typically dodge those social boundaries. Proper ones, anyhow.
Or it's possible that you just happen to meet the gender stereotype better than I do, or go out of your way to do so and only notice it when men are overperforming to try and impress women.
Do you experience this same thing in groups of mostly or all women (excluding yourself, of course)
If I'm honest with you, at least going as you describe, I think I just keep better company. Mostly because I've never seen anyone called a faggot outside of the internet.
I'm not exactly bad off, but neither would I claim to be the pinnacle of masculinity. Mostly due to my lack of any interest really in the opposite sex, care for sports off any kind, or my tastes in fashion. >Do you experience this same thing in groups of mostly or all women (excluding yourself, of course)
Assuming you mean mostly men or mostly women, bit of both I would say. Sometimes fifty fifty, but usually whatever get together it is prioritise one over the other.
But doesn't this only say that these toxic behaviors don't come from
women, but from men trying to seem more "masculine" in the presence of women. It doesn't necessarily reflect on women that men choose to do this because it's their choice. Women do not exude this magic force that makes men act toxically. It's a choice.
>>8025>But doesn't this only say that these toxic behaviors don't come from women, but from men trying to seem more "masculine" in the presence of women.
In a sense, but that goes back to what I said earlier. They're the primary enforcers. They're the ones who seem to, at least in my experience, hold the most social power. A laugh from a woman seems to hold far more weight than some angry insults from other guys, for instance. >It doesn't necessarily reflect on women that men choose to do this because it's their choice.
Choice in action, perhaps.
Choice in acceptance, encouragement, and rewarding?
Not so much. >Women do not exude this magic force that makes men act toxically.
Certainly not. I never suggested that they did.
They simply are a primary enforcer.
Well, to be quite frank and honest, this doesn't sound like it has any actual evidence and seems more along the line of "nice guy" bitterness that women "only date assholes". Which I was once a victim of myself, but when you push past your own bitterness and resentment, you'll see that the idea is blown out of proportion.
So with that in mind, what actual evidence do you have that women are "enforcing" toxic masculinity? If anything, toxic masculinity puts women in danger.
File: 1605151115419.jpg (59.76 KB, 441x600, 147:200, homura-with-time-shield.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>8034>what actual evidence do you have that women are "enforcing" toxic masculinity? If anything, toxic masculinity puts women in danger.
If you're suggesting that (toxic masculinity putting women in danger) is good evidence against (women are "enforcing" toxic masculinity), I'd like to argue against this claim. Although human courtship rituals vary a lot across current and past societies, there is still an innate component that has evolved over hundreds of thousands of years. And even in regard to culturally-varying courtship rituals, there is a collective action problem and/or coordination problem in altering those courtship rituals, so that even if every man and woman believes that an aspect X
is detrimental and should be reformed, nevertheless actually reforming X
can still be a major challenge.
I don't have any particular care personally. Besides just not really holding interest, I also make effort to deal with just decent people as best I'm able.
Partly due to being an introvert, anyway. Few quality friends are better to me.>So with that in mind, what actual evidence do you have that women are "enforcing" toxic masculinity?
It's why men proposition, whereas women select from suitors.
This is something that has changed somewhat in modern culture, but it still remains the standard. I would argue the loss of other pressures and arranged marriages balances this difference out anyway.
What you are both describing is called "evolutionary psychology". And it is not a universally agreed upon truth of the human condition or mind and is widely criticized. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psychology
Also, in order for you to claim that evolution is what drives women to "enforce" "toxic masculinity", then you would have to explain what behaviors you are including within "toxic masculinity" and how those traits would have benefited mating on an evolutionary standpoint and also explain why changing times has not also changed what traits are desirable. Evolution is still going.
>>8038>What you are both describing is called "evolutionary psychology". And it is not a universally agreed upon truth of the human condition or mind and is widely criticized.
Specific claims grounded in evolutionary psychology are controversial, but among scientists (e.g., excluding creationists), I'm pretty sure that it's well accepted that a lot of human psychology is, in principle, explainable by evolutionary factors. After all, what would be the alternative?>in order for you to claim that evolution is what drives women to "enforce" "toxic masculinity", then you would have to explain ...
I'm not making that claim. I'm just saying that is one of several possibilities. In fact, I even gave another possibility in >>8035
: that is is driven by difficult-to-change culturally-dependent courtship rituals.
It's shitty, but it's kindof what people are forced into. Men have a few options here, at least for those who are not rich/have clout or are otherwise within the 10-20% range of men who women actually find attractive, which is the vast majority of men. A) Harassment/intimidation, B) Spending enough money to occasionally rent the illusion of women being interested in you, C) opting out of courtship.
I think we're not taking the context of women's social and economic freedoms into perspective as much as we should. I think social and economic incentives were the vast majority of incentives when it came to why women engaged with men on a romantic or sexual level at all. As social norms become more permissive to women, and women become more economically independent, those incentives go away. All that's left with is women's sexual desire for men, which any study will tell you is a fragile, weak, pathetic little thing, if it exists at all.
In the end, that isn't what happens. Men trade something in exchange with sex for women, at least, that's what happens on the macro scale. I mean, the veil is being lifted with the rise of onlyfans. Women never loved men romantically. It was never an evolutionary incentive. They just needed to be picky enough to deny those with poor genes, and permissive enough to begrudgingly allow a man to have sex with her if he provided her enough benefit in a different way.
Last point, i agree that women cause toxic masculinity. Any woman could eliminate all the inceldom in her immediate vicinity if she wanted to. Women don't fuck for morals tho, they fuck for money and social standing. Which, hey, no shade, it's not your fault you don't have a real sexuality/it's only activated in extraordinarily narrow situations. We just have to come to terms with what that means for everyone, what that means for our male/female sexual interactions, and what that means for the increased egalitarianism of the human race where men have less and less to barter with women in exchange for sex.
Women have all the power when it comes to changing courtship rituals, and they are doing so in the most logical way, given my points above. That is, they are simply exchanging sexual access to themselves for money. That's just the most reasonable thing to do when lots of people are attracted to you, but you yourself don't really have a sexuality, and it's what we're seeing.
It's rather frustrating since we're not even defining our terms at all
in this thread but simply are waving jargon around like flags.>>8051
I realize that this might come across as a personal attack without me meaning anything negative, let alone me wanting to be a moral high horse (hah), but still: have you tried actually sitting down and talking to women in depth about their lives?
Honestly, your perspective appears like one that would be formed by a Venusian or somebody else incapable of direct communication with women.
To start with, well, you appear to be under the impression that women in general don't enjoy the act of sex itself and view it as a grudging obligation. That's sort of like saying "men are hairy and love listening to heavy metal music while riding motorcycles in their leather jackets" or "transgender people are depressive and suicidal but lighten themselves up with constant partying" or whatever. Not only are we talking extremely broad stereotypes but flimsy ones at that. Seriously.
I would propose that "toxic masculinity" is sort of like air pollution.
Nobody wakes up one morning and decides "I'm going to contaminate the atmosphere and contribute to horrid diseases today! Yay me!". That just doesn't happen. Regular folks wake up and go to their non-expensive cars. They go to their jobs at facilities that require a lot of energy and other resources. And so on.
John Q. Public's old Chevy just happen to spew out things that contribute to an aggregate that's awful when he's out on the road with thousands of others. His manufacturing firm where he works uses machines that guzzle fuels in a way that, also in the aggregate, leads the nation more down a negative path. One can't really blame John. He's a cog in a big clockwork, basically.
Defining "toxic masculinity" as something like "behaviors and/or beliefs about ideas perceived as 'masculine' that general society as well as specific individuals are a part of which perpetuate dangerous stereotypes and other notions about gender and sex such that both men, non-binary people, and women alike live worse lives as a result"... it's the same story, really. Some Jane Q. Public who's interested in dating likely feels forced to use certain ques as signals that a guy is more likely to be kind and morally decent. These ques are cultural and highly dependent on circumstances, thus making them illogical and unfair often. Bob might be a genuinely better guy compared to Steve in personality or whatever, but Steve has the body hair, college degree, and nose shape that matches what Jane has seen in all of the movies and TV shows that she's grown up, so even subconsciously she'll regard Steve as more of a 'gentlemen' or whatever. Not that, if she really thought about it, she'd say that dudes with something tinier below their eyes are any more or less anything in terms of her preferences. And she's surely also agree that class prejudice against those who can't afford college educations is wrong. It's all complex.
What woman exactly would i sit down and have a discussion about her sex life with? My co-workers? Pretty sure that constitutes sexual harassment. My family members? Ew, no.
As for your point about women enjoying sex itself, well, possibly, but the data suggests women basically never have sex just for the sake of sex, or even take any interest in men purely for attraction's sake. When a man and a woman are courting, he buys her food and gifts, monetary exchange, when they get married, he buys her a diamond ring, and the promise of more money if theu get divorced. You also don't see nearly as many men on things like onlyfans, and there are only a fraction of male sex workers as female sex workers, the demand for them is lower, and they get payed far less. Women are sexually harassed more, and more men sexually harass than women. Culturally, straight men view nudes from women as a great thing, an occasion to be celebrated. Straight women do not view dick pics in nearly as generous a light.
Do all these facts point to women being as in to sex with men as men are into sex with women? The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from these facts is my original point. It's clearly you who is either uninformed, or is being unreasonable. This isn't stereotyping, it's,drawing reasonable conclusions from decades of hard data.
File: 1605400355840.png (297.73 KB, 663x837, 221:279, 2484433.png) ImgOps Google
There's a lot of comments and I'm not going to read them all.
I do find some men to be very persistent when it comes to dating and sex. Like, to many, being simply polite is romantic interest. (And I shouldn't be impolite.) I am to respect the established dating system -- at least when the state does not label something crime -- I suppose, but it's problematic for me because I'm not that interested in men generally.
File: 1605529504226.png (90.06 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, large.png) ImgOps Google
I've always been a bit uncomfortable rejecting or accepting people based on their gender identity alone...but that does seem to be the pattern so far.
File: 1605567947562.png (760.78 KB, 1024x1024, 1:1, large.png) ImgOps Google
Yes, my preferences are not on topic. Perhaps whether a woman may appropriately be lesbian is, as it requires women to be independent of the power of men. Another model is women's love is earned as a symbol of man's courage, social status, and persistence -- a woman's stated preference forms merely another hurdle for a deserving mate to overcome. I think I see both models in use, depending on the crowd.
Well no, if a woman is a lesbian, that shouldn't be taken as a "hurdle" for men to overcome. And even if she is heterosexual, if a woman is not into you, treating that as a "hurdle" to overcome can devolve into sexual harassment or worse rather quickly.
Much of the difficulty for men in dating is picking up on when a woman is interested. I know it's something I'd have no clue about and have heard similar from other men. It's why simple politeness is sometimes mistaken for romantic interest. Women are discouraged from being too forward with their romantic or sexual interests, and so the impetus falls on men to pick up on subtle cues men are not very adept at reading.
I believe the solution to this is to meet each other half way. Women should be allowed to be more forward and direct, and men should be taught what is and isn't a cue toward romantic or sexual interest and how to read said cues better.
File: 1605573256352.jpg (265.56 KB, 928x1024, 29:32, large.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>8090>impetus falls on men to pick up on subtle cues
I see that. If a woman is suppose to coyly play 'hard to get' when interested, how is a man to distinguish that from 'not interested at all?', especially if raised mostly in segregation from females, he is somewhat unfamiliar with their culture?>to meet each other half way
I respect that cultures of inequality must have their purposes in human society, but that seems reasonable, if communication in dating needed to be made more efficient, and the pairing more mutually acceptable.
File: 1605579298002.jpg (91.25 KB, 397x635, 397:635, 1351049106274.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>8090>men should be taught what is and isn't a cue toward romantic or sexual interest and how to read said cues better.
Are there some good online teachings in this regard? (Or books, etc.)
Societal pressures that tell women that being forward makes you look like a "slut", and that being a slut diminishes your value as a person. And that the only thing worse than being a slut is being or looking like a desperate woman.
That's really the long and short of it. Even men who would say they don't dislike "slutty" women still respect women perceived as such a lot less. It's very hard for a woman to be taken seriously in any capacity if she has a reputation for sexual promiscuity. You could argue that women on the whole are taking it too far, but I cannot blame them for erring on the side of caution when their reputation and social lives are constantly on the line in a way men's are not.
>>7923>what exactly is discouraging them?
An authority would have to do that. It is a good question: who are the authorities for dating and how do they punish?>>8096>a "slut",
Yes, such language is derogatory and can be used to punish. It is yet to identify which people are agents of punishment in the dating domain.
These are good points. It would be good to really hone in on the authorities/enforcers of these stereotypes and tell them to fuck off.
I don't think that solves the issue of why a woman would date a guy for free when she could charge him, tho. That just doesn't make economic sense. If we're being super optimistic, maybe enough women would have enough lust for men that the whole thing would supply/demand itself out. I do think that's being unrealistically optimistic, though.
We as a society have evolved from "Women perceived as 'sluts' are burned to death" to "Women perceived as 'sluts' are fired from their jobs or otherwise not hired in the first place, not promoted, not given adequate benefits, et cetera plus are kicked out of their homes plus are forced out of their social communities plus... it goes on". Progress? Yes, of course, and it's wonderful.
That doesn't change the fact that authoritarian sexual morality still contaminates U.S. social life the same way that, say, horrendous smog used to cover England. No one individual or institution is solely to blame. Yet it's still an active problem nonetheless.
To be honest, I'm rather exasperated with you still relying on that gender stereotype that women aren't into sex but men are as the be-all-and-end-all here. If the stereotype was encoded to our DNA and inescapable, say, then why the hell would be need cliques that the American Catholic Church that work their hardest day-in and day-out to make sure that those who defy traditional sexual morality suffer as much as possible?v If it was in our DNA, why would there need to be enforcers of those stereotypes? They're pretty solidly cultural, I think.
When it comes to biology, a lot of statistical associations are true. Men are generally taller than women. Men generally perspire more. Men generally weigh more. And so on.
Yet none of those extremely broad generalizations really apply when you're looking at individual circumstances and small group circumstances. Not only is it not difficult to find a sweaty, tall woman with a full-figure, but they might as well grow on trees. With sex, well, you're just flatly wrong. Women who enjoy sex a great deal exist in very large numbers. It might very well be true (I've yet to see concrete scientific evidence on the subject) that mens' libidos are so much different than womens' generally that a statistical gap exists that can be measured noticeably. Maybe. That still doesn't change things for the individual and the small group.