jackssmirkingrevenge wrote:This NSFW image is a bit crude but it sums it up pretty nicely.
The image is clearly based on the misconception I'm talking about - the one that women are not interested in sex for its own sake (extending it into the idea that they're only willing to have sex because it gets them something).
And if you're using that as a core to an argument, I'm doubtful you're really clear by what I mean by sexually passive.
All of those scenarios come about as a form of sexual economics - supply and demand.
If the default is that women are expected to not supply sex, those who will supply it are naturally given a monopoly to exploit.
Imagine how most of those scenarios would go if women weren't chastised for being sexually promiscuous or those girls that wanted to go slower in a relationship weren't ignored and sidelined. If five times as many women were available, suddenly those that are in it for the shallow reasons like that image claims can't set their price as high.
It's simple - the more of the market you control, the more you can set your price. But less repression of female sexuality would sink any "gold-diggers" (not a positive term, but I'm not doubting that some people are this shallow) in about six seconds flat.
Most women are more than happy to leave the risk of rejection to men.
Because that's what society tells us it should be like. It's all "You've got to ask her out" and "I'm waiting for him to ask me out". When it comes to engagement, it's seen as somewhat emasculating if the man is proposed to by the woman.
If those cultural attitudes were allowed to be re-evaluated, making it more acceptable for interactions to be initiated in either direction, women would ask a lot more men out.
The moment I realised that both genders operate on different levels and not everything a woman says has to make sense was the biggest epiphany I've ever had. Believing otherwise is a sure road to insanity.
And herein I have two problems.
Firstly, both men and women are human. Despite the old adage about Mars and Venus, the different sexes are not from different planets. Their reasoning might be different, but that applies to so many other possibilities.
A different country, for example - Americans and Brits don't act the same. Compare people in Birmingham (the one in the English Midlands, not the one in Alabama) to those in Austin, and you'll find they behave quite differently. But I don't look at Americans and go "who knows what they're thinking?"
People
are different, yes. But trying to understand, being willing to understand, is not a road to insanity, but one to unity. No two people, any two people, think exactly the same way - sex/gender isn't special in that respect.
Secondly, I don't see gender as a dichotomy. An individual might be physically female, but feel they should be male. Or vice versa. Some people feel they're third gender, bigender, trigender, neuter...
What about gays, bisexuals or asexuals? (Although that's of course sexuality rather than gender).
These aren't just delusions, these things are
demonstrably visible in brain structure. Similarly,
gay men tend to have brains structured more like heterosexual women (similarly, lesbian women more like heterosexual men).
It's a complete and utter spectrum. Where does the line get drawn before someone is an alien to you?
If a stereotype persists, its because there is a ring of truth to it.
Ha. If only.
As an example, the French have the best military history of any European power in the last 2,400 years - meaning the competition includes
the Romans. The English language itself shows the impact of the French military - it's the reason why we get beef from cattle, mutton from sheep, pork from pigs*.
*
Basically, the Lords were French. So the animal on the plates in front of them got called by the French name, while the animals in the field kept their English names. This resulted in having different names for the meat and animal.
That's hardly accurately reflected in the stereotype of the French as "surrender monkeys". Stereotypes are shallow parodies created by people who want to malign their subject matter, trying to garnish themselves with a pretence of any meaningful truth.
Sure, the French did surrender in WWII, but that's not in anyway a true or complete representation of their military. "Surrender monkeys" came up a lot when the French refused to go to war in Iraq.
... so
exactly how many of Saddam's WMDs were actually found? But when actual proof of chemical weapons in Syria
came up though...
If stereotypes had any meaningful truth to them, that one would be about people surrendering to the French.
POLAND_SPUD wrote:retribution?? Nah meant in a sense if I had changed my mind none of that would have happened.
Hardly well described as the "best part" of the story though.
it seems that she was subconsciously following some sort of plan to get pregnant.
Acceptance of a situation isn't the same thing as planning it or bringing it about.
I accept that most of my grandparents are dead, but that doesn't mean I arranged cases of pancreatic cancer, pneumonia and traumatic aortic rupture.
quite the opposite!
