A
female
age
30-35,
anonymous
writes:Hi, I am openly dating. And my brother seems to think that I am a potential hoe even though I do not have sex with these men. He's young and is influenced heavily by society and the media and the defintion of what a woman is "supposed" to normally act like. For instance, my sisters and mother are head over heels in love with men who do not give two shits about them. The classic Yvette and Jody case from the movie, "Baby Boy". If you haven't seen it, it is basically about a woman dealing with her baby's father open infidelity whom has issues letting go of his mom (momma's boy)and is jobless with no ambition. However, I see nothing wrong with dating and being open about your intentions with any man you are interested in especially when I'm not having sex with any of them. AND, even if I was, I'm single. My serious last relationship of 31/2 almost 4 years ended in february and I have no loyalty to no one. If I wanted to have sex, I could. It's my body and it's my choice; however, the question is, and this is to men, where the hell do you guys, not all (I stress) get off judging women for having options while being single whereas men is just so easily accepted. I can not stand that. I am a very independent, free thinking individual and I don't believe in labels. It seems socially acceptable for men to date, fuck, and eat whatever women or girl (pedophiles) they see in a skirt or the outline of boobs in there bosom area. My question is, What's the thinking? And I can forgive my brother's lack of knwledge and influence from mainstream society and not being able to think for himself but there are men much older I find that have the same ways of thinking, so I ask again, what's the thinking?
View related questions:
ambition, boobs, infidelity Reply to this Question
Share |
Fancy yourself as an agony aunt? Add your answer to this question! A
female
reader, Ciar  + ♥, writes (17 December 2012):
 Equality, like charity, begins at home and if you're prepared to give your brother a free pass to apply a different standard to women, then you're not in a position to condemn the rest of the male population for doing the same.
A
female
reader, Ciar + ♥, writes (17 December 2012):
Disparity in sexual freedom among the genders isn't the only double standard I see here. 'And I can forgive my brother's lack of knwledge and influence from mainstream society and not being able to think for himself...' Why is that? Is your brother profoundly retarded? He's old enough to know what a 'ho' is but not old enough to be capable of independent rational thought? He gets a free pass to be a mindless drone, but other men must live up to a higher standard?
Besides the already overstated* and rather weak biological arguments in favour of, or at least explaining, the disparity in sexual freedom, the simple reason is this. Men, as a group, are more likely to sacrifice peace for the sake of what they want while women, as a group, are more likely to sacrifice what they want for the sake of peace. Because of the latter men have traditionally been in a position to make their personal preferences public policy. What these legislators have in common with your brother is they too have sisters, mothers, grandmothers and aunts who can forgive their lack of knowledge and influence by mainstream society and not being able to think for themselves.
And thanks in part to them and those who think like them, we have the disparity in sexual freedom we currently enjoy today.
I'm not sure what society you live in and what cultural influences may be brought to bear, but from what I have observed most men in most communities are not high fived by society as a whole for all of their sexual exploits. Many of them have lost their jobs, their families and the respect of their peers for some of their sexual choices. Society may be somewhat more forgiving of a man but I would not go so far as to say that male reckless sexual abandon is condoned, by any stretch of the imagination. Do you remember Jim Baker or Gary Hart?
Men have power because they don't wait around for it to be given them. They are not quick to assume they're in the wrong and that someone else knows so much more than they do, as women have. Ultimately, the reason women haven't had the power men have is because collectively, we've chosen not to use (or use it more effectively). When men passed laws that restricted our freedom, in effect, we said 'Ok' often enough that it was a huge struggle getting those freedoms back.
And that is the biggest reason of all for the imbalance.
*By 'overstated' I mean in general whenever this topic comes up. I haven't actually read all of the responses here (only some) so I can't say the biological argument has been overstated here.
...............................
A
male
reader, Yos  +, writes (5 December 2012):
 I've had similar experiences Cerberus. I live in Holland now, but have also lived in the USA and the UK.
"Imagine my surprize when I discovered if a Dutch or German etc. woman liked you she wouldn't hesitate to come over and talk to you. In our culture it's still the case she has to stand there looking pretty and stare at you in the hope you'll approach her."
I think this is important to understand. Seen through the cultural lens of a more traditional paternalistic culture (eg USA / UK), a woman approaching a man is seen as potentially promiscuous and slutty. Which puts 'feminists' in these cultures in a real bind: they behave in a way that many men will label and judge. Just witness some of the bile in this thread on the subject.
Yet in a culture where 'real / healthy' feminism has taken root, a woman who does so is not judged in the same way. In Holland a woman who approaches a man is seen as perfectly ordinary. This works because it's not seen as an automatic invitation for the man to be sexual or overly flirtatious. And because it's acceptable for a woman to reject a man's advances at any point, and women feel they can, and generally know how to. Having the first (the approach) without the second (the tools to manage it) is really tricky.
I guess it comes back to the traditional view of an encounter that might lead to sex:
- Woman notices man and gives signals that she is approachable by him.
- Man notices and makes the approach.
- Woman acts coy and plays hard to get.
- Man demonstrates charm / intelligence / resourcefulness etc
- Woman eventually 'gives in'.
It's a silly game really. I'd say the feminist version runs like this:
- Person notices other person and approaches them.
- Approached person accepts the advance and engages in conversation.
- As the conversation continues, flirting increases with both sides as they figure out whether they really are attracted to each other, and how interested the other person is.
- Both participants demonstrate charm / intelligence / resourcefulness etc.
- By mutual consent both people indicate the desire for more.
If someone want's to label a woman who does the latter 'promiscuous' or a 'slut' then personally I believe they need to re-examine their values.
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (4 December 2012): I know Yos, I lived in Holland for years and am half Dutch. I loved it there. I think the difference in Holland and the English speaking countries is that the Dutch trust their people to be nice in more ways than we do. They have a liberal outlook on life, do what you want, when you want as long as you stay within the law and don't hurt others. In English speaking countries we more take the position that people will do bad if given the chance every time and can't be trusted. America is crazy for that kind of thing. In Ireland you can walk down the road and if you make eye contact with a person passing by you can say hello and salute them. In America, according to the people I know who've emigrated, unless you know that person and they're a neighbour people will get hostile if you say hello to them on the street.
Here the idea to fix something isn't to give people more freedom to choose and educate them better, it's to restrict their choices. It's not to educate but to enforce rules. America is very similar, the govt. just doesn't trust it's own people to do good by each other. It has to legislate kindness. Of course that's just a blanket stereotype, America is too big and diverse to say that about all of America but experiences of it from the people I know who've been there are that American's are very paranoid and demanding. If you know them personally they're the nicest people you will meet and will do anything they can to help you out without even asking, but the stranger on the street is someone to be feared there.
The only time I experienced that in Holland was with Moroccans who I came across on the street who would openly insult me and try to start trouble.
I think when it comes to feminism in different countries you're completely correct the culture of the country has to be taken into consideration. Women in Europe are deliciously strong willed and determined. Imagine my surprize when I discovered if a Dutch or German etc. woman liked you she wouldn't hesitate to come over and talk to you. In our culture it's still the case she has to stand there looking pretty and stare at you in the hope you'll approach her. Not in all cases of course but the women who are forward are generally the promiscuous ones. Women here don't choose their men like they on the mainland, they[re supposed to take their pick from the guys who approach them. Which is why when you hear of women complaining about not being able to find a man, well they're not actually looking. They're waiting and hoping to be approached and probably are they just don't like the ones who do.
...............................
A
male
reader, Yos +, writes (4 December 2012):
"Feminism ignores that and it excuses the weaknesses of women and then finds the weaknesses of men unacceptable. To me that's a double standard."
Good post Cerberus and I agree with much of it. Except that my experience of feminists has not been the same. Maybe it's a cultural thing, but the places I have seen where feminism is strong are places where women are expected to stick up for themselves, and do. These places being Sweden and Denmark, where I have visited a lot, and the Netherlands, where I live. In these countries if a guy tries it on with a woman in an inappropriate way he's usually going to get repelled with force (by the well-adjusted women at least). At the same time in these countries it's considered acceptable for women to hit on men. Also note that people generally have fewer sexual partners and longer relationships than in the US and the UK, despite society being 'more feminist'. The 'hook up culture' that appears to pervade the US is less present here. Thankfully.
This stuff has many aspects. For example, dutch children are taught at the age of 5 how to identify an inappropriate sexual advance by an adult, and what to do about it. Likewise when girls reach their early teens they are taught extensively about 'loverboys': basically the word used to describe players / manipulating men who will take advantage of them sexually and emotionally. This includes descriptions of how to identify that behaviour, and very much how to stand up to themselves.
I notice the difference in this strongly in the two countries. In my experience, if I hit on an American woman and she's not interested she struggled to communicate this comfortably. The times this happened in Holland I was told to get lost in no uncertain terms. I remember talking to a dutch girl and about 1 minute into the conversation she looked me right in the eyes and said 'I like you but there's no way i'm going to sleep with you so don't get the wrong idea'.
The reality is that feminism is about both men and women equally: it's about establishing new social norms between the sexes that undo thousands of years of inequality. It's not about whose fault it is, or blaming anyone. But both sexes need to evaluate their behaviour towards each other.
...............................
A
female
reader, Miamine  +, writes (4 December 2012):
 Feminism... who cares what other people think.. create your own honourable morality.. know in your heart what's right and true...
Why are you watching other people... why did you care if they judge you.
Feminism for me means freedom... the right to bake cakes, the right to equal pay, the right to climb mountains and the right to wear make up... promiscuity or virginity, it's all about the same to me. Date a lot, don't date, date men, date women... who the hell cares in the 21st century? Why live by the old outdated male hierarchical rules, built for 19th century people? The history of feminism is old and long, what rules we have now have not always existed. Throughout history women have had times when they were weak, and times when they were strong. Women have been abused, but women in different places and at different times have been feared too. Feminism has more than enough space for men too. (nods @ Yos) Dare to be different, dare to dream, stop comparing and judging and just do something. Right now, I know more promiscuous women than men, the men I know are mostly faithful or celibate and are definitely more romantic... There are no general rules today, men can wear make up, or like babies too. That's in my world, other countries and cultures are different. No man oppresses me, but I may dictate to them as I please.
Live your own life, make it count for something, make it beautiful. We all end up dead in the end.
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (4 December 2012): "I know Cerberus will hate this, hehe, but he is a feminist."
Ah no I don't hate that and I am in a lot of ways. it's not myths and false facts I fight against it's practical application of many feminist groups and the fact other feminists rarely criticise them openly.
Second wave feminism and it's practical applications are what I rally against as it is still the most widely publicised version. Although there are elements of third wave that I think are counter-productive.
But still feminism is very ego-centric as a movement, even the third wave is all about women, men are simply not represented as anything other than people who need to be re-educated. Feminism still works under the assumption that men have it all and women need to take that from us, although they do not see it as such, they see it as an enhancement of us somehow. But ask many men and you'll see they don't view it that way, not because we don't understand feminism or have a skewed view of it but because in practical application it is very much against men and teaches women to have no responsibility for their actions.
I think in subjects like rape there is no responsibility of personal safety on the woman ever. I understand that from a treatment and victim point of view, it's never the woman's fault that it happened, it shouldn't happen ever but personal responsibility for taking greater risks of that happening is never discussed, anyone who brings it up is "victim blaming". A woman cannot safely walk down the road on her own at 3am, plastered drunk, the risk of being attacked is immeasurably high in those circumstances, it's not her fault if she is then attacked but she is at fault for the risk she is in charge of her personal safety. Just as a smoker is at fault for risking lung cancer or a man walking down that road on his own at that time of night if he was mugged.
Any time I discuss this with feminists their answer is always the same "women should be able to walk anywhere, dressed in anything, in any state of sobriety and be safe" of course they should but the fact is they can't, that's the world we live in unfortunately. Just because it's something that shouldn't happen doesn't negate the fact that women should not put themselves at greater risk of it happening.
All my life I have drummed personal safety into my sister's heads. Never accept a drink from a strange guy unless you're at the bar with him and get handed it by the barman, never ever walk home alone at night always stay in a group or call me any time and I'll pick you up. If you're going to get wasted at a party make sure your friends are always close by and always keep a close watch on your friends if they pass out.
Women are first and foremost responsible for their own safety but feminists disagree, at least all the ones I have debated such topics with. You're not ever allowed to call a woman who walked home alone at night stupid, she should have that right etc. Well my answer is always the same, the rapist is not going to give a damn about your rights, what should or should not happen and you will never, ever educate men to the point where it never occurs, there will always be sick minded bastards predators out there and while it's not the woman's fault it happened it is her responsibility to not put herself at greater risk.
I read an article recently by a feminist I can't remember the title but in it she basically stressed the need to educate teenage boys that girls are not sex objects there merely for their pleasure. Yes that's true and a good idea but her reasoning and position were flawed. She went into great detail to describe what she saw as "abuse" from teenage boys all through her teens. One such example was a neighbour boy who would come over to her house and make any sly excuse he could to touch her boob, like leaning over to grab the remote he would grab her boob. She described this as an assault that made her feel worthless and the reason she said she didn't react to him or all the other boys who did that kind of thing to her is she felt social pressure to fit in and that she'd lose her standing in society if she kicked up a fuss.
So I responded by saying that allowing those boys to do it once and get away with it, she taught them nothing. If she and every girl who felt that way about being touched reacted very negatively and stood up for themselves that boys would learn not to do it.
Needless to say I got many furious responses about it not happening in the first place, that we need to teach boys not to think that way and do it in the first place and it wasn't authors fault. I agreed it wasn't her fault but then pointed out personal responsibility if she stood up for herself it wouldn't keep happening with the same boy. He would be less inclined to do it if he got that response from every woman but again I was called sexist, boys are the problem not girls. They simply couldn't understand how I, a silly man who just could "never understand" could say such things, that I was defending sexual assault like a typical man.
I then asked why girls then aren't thought about social pressures to ease this, or taught strength to stand up for themselves or that if you tolerate unacceptable behaviour from anyone it will keep happening, the answer is always the same "teach boys not to" fix boys and there will be no problem, it shouldn't happen etc.
Again that's not how the world works and it never will. You only teach anyone anything behavioural through reward and punishment, those boys got rewarded for their "abusive" actions, they got to feel tit. Where was the punishment?
I mean the first time any boy tried that with my eldest sister she went crazy on him. When I found out I waited for him after school and sent him home crying to his mother. He didn't do anything like that to her again and it went around that my sister wasn't an easy target either, not only would she fight her corner but she had a big brother who was a nasty bastard. He got no reward for that behaviour and the punishment was severe, he still gives me fearful looks when I pass him on the street.
I explained this on that article and again, "he shouldn't have done it in the first place, if he was educated properly then he wouldn't have" that not all girls are that strong and the weak ones need to be protected by educating boys.
Look the point of my long stories are the same. Feminism fights against men and gives us disproportionate blame for things. We're the ones who need to change and women never have to accept personal responsibility or be taught strength, that women should be allowed to be weak and men should always be in control. But men can be weak too and men will be weak to those kind of urges. If you want to teach a man about control you must also teach a woman about standing up for herself and to control herself too.
Feminism ignores that and it excuses the weaknesses of women and then finds the weaknesses of men unacceptable. To me that's a double standard.
...............................
A
male
reader, Yos +, writes (4 December 2012):
"Feminism, along with past promiscuity, lying and cheating are total dealbreakers "
Wow. Well that goes to show how utterly misunderstood feminism is!
...............................
A
male
reader, anonymous, writes (2 December 2012): I am an el. engineer, currently finishing my Ms in nanotechnology and I know enough about feminism to know that feminism, along with past promiscuity, lying and cheating are total dealbreakers when it comes to women.Feminism has never been about equality, if someone has the minimum intelligence to scrape beneath the surface. Seriously, your parents made a comment about you not getting an education and suddenly we have to turn the world upside down and figure out what's wrong? Doesn't it seem ridiculous to sell the "me woman, me strong" scenario while you can't even stomach a few disparaging remarks? This just shows how weak you really are. The world is FULL with people who will try to "convert" you! Deal with it. Make your choices and pay for your mistakes. You are the one responsible for the choices you make, not the social constructs or whatever excuse you tell yourself AFTER you've misbehaved.The so-called double standards (which are perfectly logical for reasons mentioned previously by others) cut both ways. Yet, how is it that I've never seen virgin guys complain, or unemployed guys? It's always the same scenario: average-looking insecure girl goes wild, wakes up at some point and sees the damage to her reputation and then rationalizes it by becoming a feminist. I've seen it too many times to count. Feminism, however, is not a cure for weakness. A strong person is in control of his life and makes informed choices.
...............................
A
female
reader, chigirl  +, writes (2 December 2012):
 I think this entire thread has just inspired me to write an article on a "short introduction to feminism", so that we can straighten this out. There are differences in feminism, not double standards per se, but different perceptions. Just like there are many different types of democrazy, there are different types of feminism, and this is probably what is causing confusion unless you're already familiar with it/read up about it. There are also several ideas running around here which are not true, such as feminists (as a whole) seeing men as an enemy, or that there is some "woman vs man" battle going on. There isn't. Second, the idea that "all women are feminists" is also not true. Not all women are feminists, which again makes the entire "battle" between sexes meaningless, there is no such battle. There are also men who are feminists, just to add that point. I am a feminist, and nowhere in my posts have I portrayed men as the enemy. I have simply stated, as we are all aware of, that there is a double standard for men and for women. I have not said men are to be blamed for this double standard, yet most of the male posters here seem offended somehow, almost trying to deny that there is a double standard, and then arguing that women have double standards too. Well, yes, women have double standards too. But no one was ever saying they didn't. The blame isn't passed to either gender, the argument is just that there is indeed a double standard, and then we have the historical explanation as to why this double standard is there. To then say that feminists are against men, in some battle between the sexes, goes against everything I've written. " Sure they can sleep with anyone they want, when they want without being cast down by everyone " No, they can't. It surprises me that anyone thinks so, because this entire thread is centered around the fact that women can't sleep around without being judged for it (and the judgement falls differently on girls than it does on men, standard idea is that a man who can get many women is a "top dog" or "alpha male", when a woman who can get a lot of guys is a slut or a bimbo (as said by BOTH genders, just to underline this)).Feminism has worked in great advantage for women, and for men too when it comes to being equal to women (which is a plus, unless you're a believer in women as the weaker sex). I think I will also write about what exactly feminism has contributed with, in my article. If I ever get around to actually writing it, as I fear it will get too long too fast. But I will try. I see this is a topic few know much about (aside from my fellow students), and there are several popular "myths" surrounding it which works against the purpose. I know Cerberus will hate this, hehe, but he is a feminist. He just finds himself surrunded by these "myths" and "false facts" about feminism, which he fights against. Many feminists fight the very same problems and dilemmas as Cerberus mentioned. And, "feminists" aren't a united whole, as previously mentioned. You can still be a feminist, while arguing against other feminists, which is the case of Cerberus. And myself for that matter, there are several feminist ideas I don't subscribe too, but most of these ideas have grown out of date long time ago. Again, this is also something that I need to include in an article...
...............................
A
male
reader, Yos +, writes (2 December 2012):
This has turned into a really interesting discussion. However we're all falling into the trap of using 'straw man' arguments.
What is a straw man argument? It's when you hold up a 'straw man' that you can then beat down By design the straw man is intended to fall apart. In this case each of us has our own idea of what feminism is, and then defends it or attacks it. Since we each have our own unstated definitions, it's not really communicating that much. Which is perhaps the problem with the whole 'debate about feminism' in the first place.
For example, I learned about feminism when I studied it formally as part of my university philosophy degree. Meaning I mostly read Simone De Beauvoir and her text the Second Sex. I don't agree with everything she said, but I do with most, hence I see myself as a 'feminist'. As you might imagine this is a highly philosophical and intellectual definition. The book was written in 1949… so this is hardly modern. I also am influenced by Betty Frieden and Germaine Greer. All very 'old school'.
But that's my 'definition'. For another person here, perhaps feminism might be the opinions yelled at them angrily by a young woman who has weekly one night stands and uses feminism to justify her behaviour. Or perhaps a man-hating lesbian who believes feminism is about attacking men. Or perhaps a 'traditional' woman who believes feminism is about establishing clear gender roles with a big role for things like motherhood and family.
I guess what i'm saying here is it saddens me when I hear people attacking feminism and saying they are not one, because I believe in 95% of those cases it's because they're misunderstanding feminism and basing it off at least a definition that I don't share.
...............................
A
male
reader, aresu  +, writes (2 December 2012):
 i agree with cerberus and male anon, feminism is more about giving men a hard time than making them equal, they asume that men have it so easy when it comes to discrimination in the sense that they think men aren't discriminated like women are. in a sense that is true, we dont get discriminated in the same way that women do, but boy do we get some other crap.for example when it comes to sexual abuse no one makes it a big deal if a man is raped by a woman, because tons of people dont even takes seriously that a man would find it undesirable to have sex with a woman no matter the circumstances. i have heard this a lot, most people say that if a man complains about it then they must be gay or something. and that is in the sexual abuse aspect, in jobs that is another can of worms. i think women now have the highest possible job opportunities out of the 2 sexes, there is practically no job that is considered innapropiate for a woman, at least not as many as jobs not considered appropiate for men, now is not unusual for a woman to be a politician for example, or a police officer, but i know a lot of men who wouldnt be caught dead as a babysitter/daycare for example.i dont know how things are in other places so i cant talk for everyone, but im my city jobs opportunities for women are better than for men, i have seen a lot of jobs here that they wouldnt give a man a job over a woman, and they are not even jobs that are considered sex exclusive either, im talking about things like doctors, cashiers, engineers, etc.im serious when i say i have seen in the job requierements written ''for women only'' or ''women preferably'' for jobs that have no reason for being gender exclusive. and then there is the missconception that men have it easier when it comes to sexual freedom, yes is true that men are rarely caled names as ''manwhore'' as women are called sluts, but i know a lot more women that are promiscuous than i know men that are, and i mean a lot more, and that is because is harder for men to get laid than is for women. a woman doesn't even need to be that pretty to get easy sex, even if she isnt attractive she will always find at least one guy desperate enough to sleep with her.but men need to be more than just handsome to get laid, they need to have skills to get the attention of girls, they basically need to be interesting and charming enough to score. so yea actually there are not as many ''manwhores'' as there are ''sluts'' because men cant be players as easily, that is one of the reasons why most men wouldnt deny free sex, because opportunities like that dont come often.but know you must be thinking 'well, if women dont give sex easily then it must mean that they arent as easy as men right?' WRONG, well more or less, you see there was a study made, i cant remember where i saw it but some scientists i believe, did this study where they made a test of sorts to determine why this happens and to see if women are really as modest as they think they are, and it turns out they aren't, in the study women did reject men advances most of the time, but that is is, MENS ADVANCES, they discovered that if is another woman (obviously they did this with bisexual women) they are much more willing, just as much as men are willing. people arent sure yet why is that, but is believed that men have almost assured that they will be satisfied, because men orgasm much more easily, but women do not, they need more work for that, and they dont want to risk pregnancy, stds, stigmas,etc AND the EFFORT in a random hook up if they dont even have assured that they will be satisfied.so women are just as willing as men, as long as is in a safe situation with a competent sex partner, whereas men know that they will get sarisfaction no matter what.i had more to say, but when i was writting this i forgot.
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (2 December 2012): Unfortunately male anon I agree somewhat with your position I disagree with your points. There is massive double standards in feminism. They fight for sexual liberation for women and the right for women to be free to wear what they like in public without harassment or judgement, then fight against any public display of that unless the woman is ugly and not in direct competition for men's gaze under the guise of preventing objectification. When it's actually women who objectify other women far more than guys do and in a far more condemning way.
There was interesting study done on it recently.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0047870
Basically most women when they see a woman look at her body and breasts, while guys look at face and eyes.
The problem as I see it is inequality in feminist doctrine, even moderate feminism, feminists see us as either the enemy, or misguided drones that just don't know enough yet to agree with them. But the fact remains, they completely ignore men in the equation as anything other than a problem to be fixed. It's our attitudes they want to change, it's our sexuality that needs to be restricted. Then they use history, a nice ego-centric version to highlight their 'plight', yet they completely ignore the effects that it is having on women in general because feminists simply do not engage men on any kind of conciliatory way, we have to change to suit them and that's it, they completely fail to even consider how it will effect men and it's having a massive very negative impact on men. They just assume give women the right to act like men in every single way and train guys to accept that and everything will be okay but it's not.
Because of that things have gotten worse for women not better. Sure they can sleep with anyone they want, when they want without being cast down by everyone but now they have a massive increase in body issues anorexia/obesity at epidemic levels, sexual liberation also means young girls are pressured into being sex objects far earlier now in fact of the generation of 18-21 year olds that I know, not having had sex with lots of boys is now becoming the weird thing, look around you at how teenage girls are dressing, who they idolize and how they're behaving and feminists blame us for all of that, it's always guys faults that girls are sexualised too young, self harming, making bad choices and it's nothing to do with the confusion of our roles at all.
You see no one sticks up for men if they do we're sexist, or too traditional or stupid. "You've had the power, you're the enemy, you're the one who needs to accept change." But the consequences for men are wide ranging and having an impact on women too, penis envy is increasing massively, something which was unheard of, retro-jealousy is also a massively growing concern, the list goes on and on, basically feminism is breeding huge insecurity in men and it's not being addressed at all. The answer is always "it's okay to be sensitive and open up, or penis size doesn't matter to us girls just accept it, are you stupid?" domestic violence is on the rise, in fact another recent study I read said that prevalence of DV in relationships were the woman had a job was 60% and only 30% in ones where the woman was a homemaker.
Feminism's solution to inequality is to convert women into a more masculine role and tell men they have to be more like women.
Well in ignoring what guys want, when not accepting that we can be different but still work well together in a society you just put your head in the sand to some massive underlying issues.
For the record I'm for equality in pay, in terms of sexual freedom and in all practical senses for all genders, races and sexualities, I just wish feminists would consult us guys about these things and take what it is to be a man in to consideration too and not try to take that away from us and not because I'm some macho asshole, although I can be but the way things are going now is causing a male backlash, a siege mentality because male sexuality is being constantly attacked as a problem and we're derided or patronized for it even being a thing. Told we're just being egotistical, too macho or sexist for wanting our voices heard too.
men are massively under-represented in this discussion and the only voices listened to are those of guys who are feminised, sensitive and weak.
You're trying to change a deeply ingrained, cultural and social dynamic from only one position, it's not going well if you ask me.
...............................
A
female
reader, chigirl +, writes (2 December 2012):
"Feminism has never been about equality. It's just a process that promiscuous women use to rationalize their behavior."
What is your field of education? You do not sound like you know much if anything about feminism, and if so, should you really be debating a topic you do not know anything about?
And if you want to know my education, since I asked yours: I have a masters degree in political science, and have been teaching international politics.
...............................
A
male
reader, anonymous, writes (1 December 2012): Men are encouraged to be promiscuous? What world are feminists living in exactly? Men are encouraged to be "white knights" and "nice guys". Most men are not promiscuous.So, if I understand correctly, feminists are proud and independent but they're fighting so that people won't make comments against women pursuing an education?! Are we talking about comments here or did I miss something? So, if I want to wear a skirt for example I should start a "clothes equality campaign" and expect people to take me seriously?And about promiscuity, that one made me laugh. Feminists are well into double digits, with most of them into three. Why would a chaste person obsess about the word "slut"?Feminism has never been about equality. It's just a process that promiscuous women use to rationalize their behavior. You see a bunch of men screw around, assume that everyone else is the same and then BAM, you're normal and the enemy is the social construct. Not surprisingly, sexual past is the #1 thing that "modern", "proud" women lie about. At which stage, I wonder, does feminism entail taking responsibility for your actions? Because this is a quality that seems to be scarce in females.
...............................
A
male
reader, Yos +, writes (1 December 2012):
Sex and the city?
One amusing fact about that TV show: it was written and produced by a very very gay man: Darren Star.
This is why if you picture the 4 characters as gay men living in new york the show suddenly rings much truer and makes sense.
...............................
A
male
reader, aresu +, writes (1 December 2012):
Cerberus hit the nail in the head, I couldn't have said it better myself
...............................
A
male
reader, anonymous, writes (1 December 2012): Let's all pretend we could wave a magic wand and say "Create a world where men have no double standards."
Do you know what it would look like? Not much different.
The double standard would still be alive and well, because women are just as responsible for it as men. And a lot of men would still disapprove of female promiscuity, because they disapprove of both sexes being sluts and that is not a double standard.
...............................
A
male
reader, JustHelpinAgain +, writes (1 December 2012):
I think there are a few undeniable and unchangeable differences. Firstly men have more testicles and a lot more testosterone in our blood than most women. This enhances our competitivness and agressivness. We are designed to be hunter- gathers and protectors of our wife and children. However when it comes to sexual behaviour the biological message is more complicated. Both men and women clearly have a need to reproduce and over the millenia we built social structures that supported that. Childbirth generally followed sex and there was a need to feed and protect children. The social structures imposed rules, either explicitly or implicitly in order to maintain society. Then came the ability to control birth and now men and women can feel free to have sex how they like. But the old social rules have not yet disappeared. The whole equality question is very confused. In the old social structures there were well defined but very different roles. Now we can all do as we please but we still have a need to surround ourselves with a value system. These values are mostly inherited from our parents and childhood environment. As we get older and wiser we modify these values to suit our personal needs. When it comes to relationships generally we are most comfortable with people who have similar "values". These define how gender roles should work. The big question is how we should consider people who have significantly different value systems. Here education and inteligence plays a big role. Do we value less the different people, are we offensive to them, or do we accept them as rightfully being able to do what they want?Do we really care what other people think? Well probably only if we share some similar values. This is where the OP is having a problem. Its not specifically a gender issue but that she herself has inherited similar values to her brother and this makes her feel resentment at being critisized. She has the right to have sex how she likes, and she has the right to ignore anything her brother says. What her brother thinks should not affect her unless she also inside feels the same.
...............................
A
female
reader, chigirl +, writes (30 November 2012):
"Sex and the City" is the one and only show that highlights womens sexuality. It was more or less one of a kind, and a starting point to make women and men equal. The existence of this show does however not mean the stereotypes aren't still alive out there... Which is what I think you guys are overlooking. The OP is getting these comments from her younger brother for a reason. Maybe we should advice him to watch "Sex and the City"? Or what? You claim the brothers comments aren't real, they must be made up, because clearly, because of "Sex and the City", women are somehow now accepted as promiscuous beings just as men are?
Uhm, take a step back and remember the real world. The little brothers comments. The comments given to me about NOT bothering to get educated, because it is a WASTE on women. Has nothing at all to do with me being able to have children, why would that mean I would suddenly leave work, and be a stay at home mom? The mere assumption that all women would just leave their jobs the moment they fall pregnant, just goes to show what double standards we have out there. Men ARE being encouraged to get education, women are being LESS encouraged to get the SAME education. Its got NOTHING to do with men not being able to bear children, because men can be stay at home dads as much as women can be stay at home moms.
" men get very little time off for paternity leave but women get months, even years off for it. " This isn't a counter argument, it actually just backs up my argument. Yes, there's inequality. That's exactly what I'm saying. And if men were to stay at home with children as much as women are "supposed" to, then there would be no more ignorant comments about education being a waste on women. This favourism of women as "mothers", opposed to men as "fathers" works against feminism. And it IS sexist to have such a favourism, and it works against equality between the genders, and it is linked to every other gender-problema there is. Such as education, women are expected to drop out once they get children, and stay at home, while the man is expected to continue working. Just recently a top politician here in Norway got massive critique, because he decided to stay at home with his child, hence leaving the office for some months. A mother is halways forced to leave, while the man is criticized for doing it. It was "unprofessional" of him to do so, they argued. And that's in one of the countries where they say equality between the sexes has reached furthest....
Feminism isn't judging whether being promiscuous is negative or positive, that's a matter of personal opinion and personal beliefs. The problem isn't whether it is supposed to be encouraged or not, but just that men are being encouraged (as a matter of fact), and women are being discouraged, to do the exact same thing (and vice versa). And that is the core of inequality.
I do hope the word "slut" can either be replaced by "promiscuous", or that "slut" can come to mean both male and female. Either way it'd be equality, but it is still inequality if one is a slut, while the other is the less negative "promiscuous". But by and large, there is still a gender difference there in the large masses of the population, which you can not deny. The OP's little brother has so nicely demonstrated it.
...............................
A
male
reader, anonymous, writes (30 November 2012): Show women an American man who wants his wife to have slept with no more than about 5 or 6 people. They will bash him mercilessly for holding a double standard.
Do you know what the average number of lifetime sex partners is for an American man? About 5 or 6 people.
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (30 November 2012): "The issue of this post is, why is Charlie applauded for his "conquests", when women are looked down upon as "hores" for doing the exact same?"
Well if you're going to talk about TV shows, then Sex and the City is worth considering.
Promiscuity was promoted as virtuous in that. Indeed the Charlotte 'virginal, innocent' character was pitied to a certain degree and mocked as being inept. Samantha the casual sex woman was viewed as powerful and dominant, whereas the serial dater Carrie, (also promiscuous) was viewed as the most identifiable and relatable character and thus the most accurate depiction of a modern woman.
""Sure, education for women is nice, but a waste, because you get pregnant and then you end up sitting at home anyway". I haven't heard men being told this, have you?"
That's because we can't be mothers. Can't get pregnant etc. Discrimination works both ways Chi. men get very little time off for paternity leave but women get months, even years off for it. Women get far better treatment in courts, their crimes are seen as emotional crimes and they get lesser sentences because they're apparently less able to control their emotions, in custody battles the advantage is always with the woman. There are many ways in which both men and women are discriminated against based on gender. The idea that a woman sleeping around is a slut, is dying out or at least the people those think it's slutty are also putting that tag on the guys who do it too.
It's kind of strange though, feminists love to through the "slut shame" card around like everyone should accept promiscuity is okay for both genders. I have just as much respect for a person who thinks both genders are wrong or sluts for sleeping around as I do people who find nothing wrong with it at all.
...............................
A
female
reader, chigirl +, writes (30 November 2012):
Male anon, your logic says it's "unfair" that some are prettier than others. Your logic is not at all relevant to this discussion. Equality between sexes is not about men getting laid less than women. World wide women do not have the same opportunities as men to do anything, and women are kept down by social stigmas such as being called a "hore" when we do the exact same thing men are being called "bachelors" or "players" for. Other men look at those who sleep around with jealousy, such men are being honoured in the social media. Just look at the popular TV show "Two and a Half Men". The man Charlie sleeps around and is applauded for it, in fact he is looked up to, and his brother is jealous of him and his "luck" with women.
This is what we're debating. Not how many women Charlie can get to sleep with him, nor how many men our dear OP can get to sleep with her. It's not equality in terms of everyone getting to sleep around with just as many people. If so, there is inequality between Charlie and his brother, as the brother does not get women to sleep with him as easily. But that's not what is in question here.
The issue of this post is, why is Charlie applauded for his "conquests", when women are looked down upon as "hores" for doing the exact same? Why is it seen as a POSITIVE for men to sleep around, while it is a NEGATIVE for women to sleep around.
It is also seen as a POSITIVE for men to get an education, while women in most parts of the world are being told NOT to get educated. NOT to earn more money than a man, NOT to be smarter than him.
Men and women technically do not have the same opportunities to anything unless you're living in a fantasy land. Not even here in Norway are women and men given the same opportunities, and it's because of reasons mentioned before: old stigmas and old ideas about how women and men should be. It takes time to change it. And, we're not there yet. The OP being discouraged from sleeping around, while young men are encouraging each other to sleep around, proves this fact.
Heh, while I was taking my education I was even told "Sure, education for women is nice, but a waste, because you get pregnant and then you end up sitting at home anyway". I haven't heard men being told this, have you?
...............................
A
male
reader, anonymous, writes (30 November 2012): at Chigirl:
Men and women technically have the same access to education and job opportunities now. But entrenched cultural habits and natural differences between the sexes have kept men doing better than women.
I guess that is perfectly fine too. There is nothing wrong with other factors keeping things very unfair as long as both sexes technically get the same rules, right?
This is exactly your logic. I just applied it to a different topic.
...............................
A
female
reader, chigirl +, writes (29 November 2012):
"The result is inequality. The more casual/sexual the relationship, the more women will flock to the most attractive men at the expense of all the others. All women do better, the top 10% of men do a whole lot better, and 90% of men do worse."
Hahahahaha! I'm so going to steal this line and tell it to everyone who asks about a sexist perspective on women having casual sex: they're against it because it lowers THEIR chances of getting laid! Nice!
Listen, equality is NOT about women becoming men. Nor is it about.. well, equal chances of getting laid. It's about women having the same opportunities/rights as men. Women should not be judged for having casual sex as long as it's approved that men do it. And while some men do not have casual sex, I've only met a small percentage who would turn a woman down if he was asked.
...............................
A
male
reader, anonymous, writes (29 November 2012): Myth: Men are sluts.
Fact: Most men are not.
Myth: Men respect other male sluts.
Fact: Most men do not have much respect for excessive promiscuity in either gender.
...............................
A
male
reader, N91 +, writes (29 November 2012):
 It already sounds like you don't give a f@ck what people think about you.
I'd just keep trucking on with that attitude.
Good luck
...............................
A
male
reader, anonymous, writes (28 November 2012): When these subjects are discussed, I frequently get the feeling that women think total sexual freedom is equalizing and better for everyone. It most certainly is not. Because women with total sexual freedom still do not act like men.
Most men are less selective about partners for casual sex. They will sleep with a woman who is farther below their attractiveness standards for a casual fling. Most women are MUCH LESS WILLING to do this. In fact the more casual the relationship the higher their attractiveness standards get.
The result is inequality. The more casual/sexual the relationship, the more women will flock to the most attractive men at the expense of all the others. All women do better, the top 10% of men do a whole lot better, and 90% of men do worse.
...............................
A
female
reader, anonymous, writes (28 November 2012): I also agree that biology is how the double standard got started.
Anyway, don't worry about what your brother or any other man (or woman) says about you. For one thing, you aren't even sleeping around. And even if you were, as long as you're sticking to SINGLE men, no harm done. The real definition of a "whore" is a woman who uses her body for financial gain. A woman who has one night stands or sleeps with the men she dates is just more open sexually than one who doesn't, and there's really no more to it than that. As long as she takes the proper precautions to go with her lifestyle, and she doesn't try to sleep with men who are already spoken for, then no one should judge her. If they do, they are just petty, judgmental, and probably insecure people that shouldn't be listened to.
...............................
A
male
reader, daletom +, writes (28 November 2012):
The shrinks and evolutionary biologists can make all kinds of speculations about the "why" but unfortunately it's a standard feature of many cultures. I don't mean to dismiss or belittle your question but it's probably better to put your efforts into deciding how to face the problem rather than speculating about its ancient origins.
How old is your brother? Unless your parents raised him with this idea, it sounds like he's in his mid to late teens and a little unsure of his own sexuality. If so, he'll likely grow to a more accepting and tolerant attitude in a few years.
As you have mentioned, not ALL men feel this way - and I suspect those who do are becoming less common, though no less vocal about their position. As the old proverb says, you can either light a small candle or curse the darkness.
...............................
A
female
reader, Honeypie + ♥, writes (28 November 2012):
 I agree with YOS.
Biology has a LOT to do with it.
But in all honesty - do as you please, if your brother can't handle it, don't involve him in it.
I also DO think that is comes down to how religion has shaped the society. I mean FIND me a religion where it's OK for the woman to NOT be a virgin at marriage but the man NEEDS to be a virgin.. It doesn't exist.
For millennia there have been a understanding that in order for a man to KNOW 100% that his off-spring is HIS the wife needs to be a virgin at marriage and no sleep around. Where as.... there is plausible deniability for a man who sleeps around about the paternity of ALL other children then that of his wife (well until DNA tests were invented).
Be who you are, do what makes YOU happy (as long as it doesn't involve purposely hurting other beings) and SCREW what others think. Be safe, be smart, be happy, be good and do good!
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (28 November 2012): I have to disagree OP, it's nothing to do with sexism, women condemn other women as hoes far more readily than we do.
The thinking is simple OP, firstly no one believes you're not sleeping with these guys, no one, and your brother doesn't either.
I have a few friends who are "options" girls, like to have more than one man on the go at once. I don't consider them sluts and none of our social group men or women do either. But none of us guys see them as relationship material while they do that and maybe even no afterwards, but only as 'fun' girls because most of us don't like being an 'option'. It's nothing to do with sexism, I can't imagine you'd be too keen on dating a 'player' the male version of a ho or see him as long term dating material. We don't somehow think players are better than hoes OP, they're just not in our dating pool so we don't give a damn unless of course he's playing one of our friends.
OP the idea that women have to virginal and monogamous is dying out in a huge way but the old idea of 'a key that opens many locks is a great key, a lock that is opened by any key is a shitty lock' still exists. Complain about sexism all you want it's going to take a lot more than 60 years to change our society when we spent nearly our entire history with that kind of social structure. The pill, sexual liberation etc. is all very, very new and without that social structure we had our species wouldn't have succeeded.
Look if you're interested in knowing why the human race did things that way you may find some history reading beneficial. I'm a history teacher and I find it fascinating, for example in early Irish society before Christianity arrived women had more rights, were thought of more highly and were more equal than they even are now in terms of divorce etc, even if they were more highly valued as slaves and bartered as currency if they were slaves. The reason women couldn't just sleep around is because society would have broken down. Domestic duties, cooking, cleaning, milking cows, making preserves for winter, nursing children were the backbone of our society those tasks literally took all day, cleaning clothes for example was a three hour manual task. Men couldn't nurse (breastfeed) children, the infant mortality rate was so appalling that you could expect only 1 in 4 of your children to survive to adulthood so women spent most of the time pregnant just to raise a family that could be contributors to the clan and family, while men had the stamina and muscle power to fight off invaders, hunt for food and negotiate from a position of power with other tribes and clans. The more kids you have, the more warriors, hunters, breeders and the higher numbers the greater strength against others. Cleaning homes then was vital because of the lack of medical facilities, the prevalence and ease of contracting disease and even the most pro-women historian can see very clearly their role was the most important in our society.
It therefore served no one well to have a woman sleeping around who would have children by lots of men and no one to provide for them, they became a burden on the entire family and clan. Feminists love to ignore that very simple side of things and focus mainly on things like education and jobs etc. but our distinct roles were very necessary and remained so until late 19th century when medical science made it so infant mortality rates improved, domestic chores became mechanised, and antibiotics were discovered. I have yet to meet a feminist that could actually point out a different way of doing things historically. How would we have survived as a race if women were off fighting wars, hunting for days on end or working? I have yet to hear a feminist address those issues. You send your 50 strongest, healthiest women off to battle and they get injured, killed etc. Then who has the babies?
The point to my history lesson is this, you don't erase 10,000's of years of human social norms in 60 years. Times are changing and things are changing with these times but patience is called for. Equality in the manner women call for in terms of sexuality is very, very new it's not going to happen over night. And the fact religion is still so wide spread doesn't help matters because all religions are very anti-equality. Want to get rid of that double standard? Stop praying to the god of a 2000 year old book that says women are impure whores. You see equality won't exist when religion is so prevalent because those religions and the ethos of those religions comes from those times when a woman's "purity" was viewed as important and men ruled with iron fists. Religion is what says women are less. In pre-Christian Ireland a woman's role was very much cherished, they were protected more than men in that society because their role was more important than our role. Women could do all the tasks we men could except for one hugely important thing, breeding and raising kids.
That's where it came from OP and that's the thinking but religion and that thinking are dying out. But it won't happen over night.
Plus feminists are actually making things worse. Attacking male sexuality is not going to win you any favours. Feminists are just trying to impose on men the idea that female sexuality is dirty and impure. Don't believe me? Then why is that any advert, movie etc. that has women in low cut tops or displaying their bodies is attacked? They say it's to prevent objectification but aren't they just shunning the woman as a sexual creature by trying to remove all overt displays of female sexuality from the media? Makes no sense.
Female sexuality, sexual freedom, expression and equality of sexual behaviour should be a given and will be in the future but that won't come for criticizing women who like to show off their bodies, or use them to sell products.
You say it's not okay for men to look but it's perfectly fine for women to look at us and to dress in a sexually appealing fashion. Makes no sense to us. You're just trying to attack us then. Put your boobs in our faces and tell us not to look, dress in your sexiest clothes to feel desirable and then get pissed off because it works and we desire you? That's like me walking around with my dick hanging out and getting pissed off at women for looking at it.
Look OP if you want to know why we think that way, look in the mirror, women think that way about other women too, they think that about us men too. Sexism goes both ways and women are far more vitriolic when it comes to condemning women who are promiscuous than we guys are, we like an easy lay why wouldn't we? But the idea of our daughters or sisters being that easy lay doesn't sit too well with us because we're very territorial and protective. I quite literally have more female friends that ruthlessly slut shame than I have male friends that do.
Like it or not that's going to take a long time to change because it's not men's attitudes who have to change, it's women's too. You want all of the benefits and then expect guys to make all the sacrifices because apparently we're the bad guys. You either want your sexual freedom and allow us or ours, or you can expect us to fight tooth and nail to protect ours. You can't have it all your own way.
Your brother is just being protective, I really doubt he means anything bad by it. Our sisters, mothers etc are just not sexual creatures to us, we don't like the idea that they'd be used and thrown away by guys like trash. But your brother will figure things out for himself when he gets older.
...............................
A
female
reader, So_Very_Confused +, writes (28 November 2012):
 simple... women get pregnant. men don't.
...............................
A
female
reader, anonymous, writes (28 November 2012): The other side of women emancipation :you fighted for it , now you have all the benefits of a modern woman. Pay your bills, and pick up a check at the restaurant, work like a man, support a family like men use to do, have sex like men, meaning sleeping with whoever comes your way. How pleasurable and convinieng for men.
Do you Want to make it so convenient and easy for men? Your choice.
I agree with first poster, we have the power to control what is happening in this area, only us women can do it, not men. Be equal to them in this aspect is a terrible idea, regardless of what they call women who sleep around.
...............................
A
male
reader, anonymous, writes (28 November 2012): Women have great power over men and power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. OP-how will you choose to exert your power?
...............................
A
male
reader, Yos +, writes (28 November 2012):
The double standard has roots in biology: that casual sex for a man can be responsibility-free, whilst for a woman can result in 9 months of pregnancy then a child to bring up. Hence women are 'supposed' to be more discerning.
However there is another consequence of our biology: a woman always knows who the mother is, a man can never be 100% sure who the father is. As a result men desire to control women and limit their access to other men. A woman locked up at home is more likely to bear your children than one that is out and about all the time. The greatest biological disaster for a man is to bring up a child believing it is his own, whilst it turns out not to be. It happens quite a lot as it turns out.
This is really the fact behind modern sexism, or the 'patriarchy' as it is often called. Men attempting to control the sexual behaviour of women because it suits men to do so. Popular culture is so steeped with this stuff that it's almost impossible to identify it clearly. Which is the argument behind feminism: that culture and language itself has been twisted by generations of patriarchy to limit and control women. I agree with those feminists, that is indeed what has happened, and your brother is just reciting what he has learned.
But we live in interesting times. Women are on the ascendency, with better education, more earning potential, and with the natural social skills that lend themselves to our modern professions better than men.
Anthropological studies give some indications of what female-dominant cultures look like (given we now live in a male-dominant culture). A few interesting things tend to show up:
In a female-dominant culture:
- Marriage was invented by men to control women. In a culture where women have the most power, they do not get married. This is surprising given how so many women feel compelled to get married.
- Women tend to have various sexual partners rather than seek only monogamous relationships. The men are kept guessing about which of her children they are fathers to, and are expected to provide gifts and favours in order to retain 'access' to the woman. This varies very much between individuals of course.
- Women and men tend to live separately, with women looking after the younger children. The women live socially with other women. The men are invited to visit them, but do not get to stay too long.
This is based on limited studies of the few tribal cultures found where women are in charge... ie not very representative of our modern culture. But interesting nonetheless.
...............................
A
female
reader, chigirl +, writes (28 November 2012):
I also want to say that it comes down to birth control really. A man never gets pregnant, and doesn't have to deal with any consequences of having casual sex (well, not unless you can track him down). His life does not change by having casual sex, whereas a woman can get pregnant, and not be able to work/provide for herself/it might ruin her chances of finding a husband.
But, all of this changed with the birth control pill. Suddenly women are in charge of whether they want to become pregnant or not, so casual sex is not only for the man any longer. But it takes time for people to change their mindset, people grow into having certain beliefs and stereotypes. At this modern age, men do not "get away" with having children either, they can be dragged to court for child support, and custody battles. It is no longer such a carefree thing for a man to have casual sex, and he gets "tied down" with a child as well, although it is STILL considered the womans job (but courts will starts to change on this topic as well I am sure).
The same problem is with sperm donations. They are allowed in Norway, however women are not allowed to donate the eggs. Why? There is no difference, but donating sperm is legal, whereas donating eggs are not. Again it comes down to the exact same discussion, why should a man be allowed to "sow his seeds" whereas a woman is supposed to not do the same?
Logically, it makes no sense. The entire thing is based on culture and tradition.
...............................
A
female
reader, Fender  +, writes (28 November 2012):
As a feminist myself i agree and often ask those questions. As a youth worker i say:These men /ppl [as there some elders and other women whom think this way]are still stuck in the old ways and have yet learn to be as accepting and open minded as we are. Society is always changing and views are always different. I often forget not everyone not as open as we are. Question i get most from friends n cilents how can you be so open? My answer is because there still human being, just like you and me. Just have different presences. Ask your bother does it matter if do or dont, would really change his love for you. I normal psychological and logic points. One my sociology talking about guess similar issues he was talking to a classmate about feminism issues like if you the boss whom would you give the job to women or the guy. he went on how some boss would hire the guy cause the guy wouldn't get have materially leave as long as women which dont have hire and train a new person. plus nor could they physical breast feed. Despite my attractions to the teacher i caught him on and said 'whom ever made that last breast-feeding. comment. There a new inventions called power milk for baby, so you boys can stay home and feed the baby and we girls can bring home the cash'. My teacher didnt know whether to be impressed or what but i did see a sparkle in his eye[we kinda had this unspoken, forbidden nonexistence attractions] Point is sometimes they need to slap in face with logic
...............................
A
female
reader, k_c100 +, writes (28 November 2012):
 Sexim is historical, dating right the way back to the beginning of the human race. Men were supposed to 'sow their seed', to impregnante as many women as possible to help expand the human race. This is when there were not many humans on earth, and humans lived until they were 30, so there was not much time to populate the earth - hence why they would have sex with as many women as quickly as possible.
Women on the other hand had to care for the children, and in order to provide the care the child needed the woman needed a man, because the man was the hunter providing the food. The woman had to be loyal to the man in order for him to bring her food - if she was seen with other men the man would worry he had been cuckolded into providing food for another man's children, and he would abandon the woman and child. So loyalty to a single man was a good trait in evolutionary terms.
I know it sucks, but since humans began on this earth men and women had specific roles and unfortunately it has never changed. If anything modern media has only made it worse, making it cool for men to be 'playboys' and 'bachelors', whereas women are sluts and whores if they date more than one man.
If you are truly the free thinking, independent female that you claim to be - ignore all of this and carry on regardless. You know you are doing nothing wrong, you are not sleeping around - you are simply dating again after you have come out of a long term relationship. Who cares what other people think? The true sign of being a modern independent woman is to stop caring what others think, and only care about what you think and meeting your own moral stadards. As long as you are happy with the decisions you make then forget about everyone else. It is your life, you live it the way you want. It will just be you on your death bed at the end of your life, only you will experience regrets - so as long as you live the way you want to live you wont have regrets, and you can look back on life at the end with fondness and happiness.
The world sucks in many ways, sexism is just one of these injustices in the world and not a lot is going to change it, apart from women living the way they want and not giving a s**t about what anyone else thinks.
...............................
A
female
reader, chigirl +, writes (28 November 2012):
"Why is there such a double standard regarding men's and women's sexuality?"
Because women don't have the same value as men just yet. There's not equality between the sexes yet. Just look at the politicians, how many of them are women? We've just ever had ONE female prime minister in Norway, same in the UK. Why is this you think? Because of the exact same thing, gender politics and inequality between the sexes. Those who think women are "liberated" have their eyes closed, we're far from equal with men even now.
"And I can forgive my brother's lack of knwledge and influence from mainstream society and not being able to think for himself but there are men much older I find that have the same ways of thinking,"
Your brother is young, but the old values that women are less than a man are still in society. That's where he got it from. As for older men, well they grew up in the days when women actually were, on paper, of less value, and belonged to the man and not to themselves. So if anything, it is them you should excuse, and not your brother who is growing up in different times and should know better.
It's sexism.
...............................
A
female
reader, anonymous, writes (28 November 2012): I know, it doesn't seem fair, but with all this equality talk that we have, women started thinking that we can compare ourselves to men, that we are the same. We are not the same, we are very different. Especially when it comes to sex.This is our bodies that get pregnant and give birth, not men. This our job to select a mate. We are the ones who control the whole process of reproducing, not men, who how you described will have sex with whoever. We need to be selective, that's why to sleep around for a woman is very different than for a man.Of course your brother is worried. He knows them men, he is one of them, he knows if the word gets around this is what these men will do, come to you for sex, and then disregard you like a piece of old jeans.Women need to love to have sex, at least most of us, men just need to get hard. It's a physical process for them, for us it all goes through our heads. We are very different in this area.
...............................
|
