Feminism at its best by gorillas!
that is a really interesting twist. quite thought-provoking!
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105
_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList
Gorilla feminism? I do believe the some primates have proto-societal structures.
However we should be cautious when comparing with human abstract concepts.
Behaviors can be extremely transient (even in humans). In this case they are reacting to the scenario that they are in, and much of it is fairly typical. It doesn't mean they hold a view or would be morally consistent in a different scenario. There is some evidence of empathetic response, but also empathy is selective (as in humans), and also hormones are powerful enough to mask these emotions.
On the whole I would say Gorillas are among the least violent of primates. People say that Bonobos are less violent, what they are actually doing is managing their aggression with sex.
^^^ Perhaps men should masturbate more to manage their aggression!It might explain why I'm not so agressive! I know tmi!
_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList
Well, here is an article on The Male Sense of Entitlement to Sex
http://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2 ... nt-to-sex/
I know that she's not trying to be funny, but I can't read this stuff without laughing out loud. We established above that sex is not an entitlement, and Feminists know this. But they keep using the buzzword "sexual entitlement", the same way that Republicans keep accusing President Obama of being a "Socialist."
She should at least give men who are homosexuals, asexuals, and priests credit for not wanting sex with women. But, no. Men, with their desire for sex with women, are no better than flies attracted to fly paper. Even men who are atheists, anarchists, and antinatalists (what the heck is that?), and who have been indoctrinated to know better, are still the same as primitive beasts, dragging their knuckles, their tongues hanging out, while looking for an innocent woman to ruin.
Of course she does.
While using the word "salient" does make her look smart, sex would be more salient than breathing and sleeping. Eating might be more salient, if it were a particularly good meal.
Well, I think that it is.
I gather that there is something of a war going on between Feminists and Mens Rights Activists. But, they seem to carry on like 13-year-olds who are secretly in love with each other, while pretending not to like each other.
Feminists always seem to invoke "rape", and feminists also oppose prostitution for some reason.
We've established above, and Feminists know, that the entitlement doesn't exist. Therefore, "all woman-hating is backed and fueled by" something that doesn't exist.
More pining for the good old days of our hunter-gatherer ancestors.
This just gets sillier and sillier.
No. When you pipe up and say "men are not entitled to sex from women", you seem to be wanting to rub it in. So, we're not entitled to sex from women. Does that mean that we should go and get sex from goats instead?
A "need", but not an "entitlement"
The rest of her essay just descends into absolute silliness.
Last edited by ArrantPariah on 24 Jan 2013, 2:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If women are entitled to dress sexy, then we should at least be entitled to look.
i wouldn't disrespect my boyfriend by checking out a man that walked by or something. it wouldn't matter how he was dressed. it isn't every person that stares at other people when in the company of their mate, so it's definitely not an uncontrollable instinct. so i'd question why a person would choose to be disrespectful instead of thinking of their partner's feelings. there are plenty of times when alone that a person could do all the looking that they want, so it seems unnecessary to hurt someone's feelings just to get a good look.
I'll admit that if a really hot well presented guy walked by me and my boyfriend, I might do a double-take for a second, but I would never stare. That would make my b/f feel awful.
Even if I was alone, I wouldn't stare. I have no idea why they are dressed the way they are and I wouldn't assume that they are receptive of staring just because of the way they are dressed.
http://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2 ... nt-to-sex/
That is from a rad-fem blog and I don't think sex-positive feminists would agree for instance. But wow, so does that mean women are allowed to desire sex but men aren't because they're not "entitled"?
Arrant you should check out this:
http://lightariel.businesscatalyst.com/ ... nd-schisms
It explains how isms and schisms (ideologies) corrupt thinking. Ideologies mimic legitimate thinking and corrupt the mind. They cause you not to think. You just accept the ideology and it becomes your official creed which leads to a divide among men (and women.) Ideologies lead to thought failure.
The way I see it is, most people marry with this idea they will be with one person and this person will have sex with them more than they might expect if they would have if they were single. That's one of the perks of the deal. So, people should consider this carefully. If they aren't interested in sex they should make sure the person they are going to marry is not interested too. To pair someone who has a high sex drive with someone who hasn't much of one at all is unfair to both parties. At least it looks that way to me. It's not a matter of marrying just for sex and neither should force themselves on the partner. Basic compatibility should not be overlooked as very important for the relationship to work.
I would do the same.
I don't think that's a proper analogy. It's just rude behaviour on the part of the husband, both to the one being observed and to the wife whose probably not interested in her husband's wandering thoughts.
We're entitled to look, aren't we? Otherwise, why do women dress sexy? Just for the sake of getting old men in trouble with their wives and other Feminists?
If women are entitled to dress sexy, then we should at least be entitled to look.
i wouldn't disrespect my boyfriend by checking out a man that walked by or something. it wouldn't matter how he was dressed. it isn't every person that stares at other people when in the company of their mate, so it's definitely not an uncontrollable instinct. so i'd question why a person would choose to be disrespectful instead of thinking of their partner's feelings. there are plenty of times when alone that a person could do all the looking that they want, so it seems unnecessary to hurt someone's feelings just to get a good look.
This is so true. Consideration is important. Respect your partner's feelings above everything else!