What is a feminist, what is feminism, and what is a 'feminazi'? Do you know what they are?

I don't think it's "cute", either - I think that it borders on downright evil, and certainly unfair! That's just the way it is, though.

But, you are not acknowledging the other point.

" When women had no legal rights, they only had themselves"

Feminine Wiles was born out of necessity.

a reply to: Tangerine

Maybe you think a diamond ring is more valuable. It's subjective I suppose. Laugh all you want, but women have lost their sense of virtue. Is wanton sex really that worth it that we have to go out and give ourselves away like that? I don't think so. I guess that's just me.
Women in the 1800's were often accompanied by female guardians to protect their chastity. So while you are laughing at such a notion, chastity in previous centuries was considered valuable. (by the way, the white wedding dress is a Victorian era symbol of purity)
There is a metaphysical component to this as well. It has to do with the kundalini force, and is the reason why Sadhus in India do not engage in sexual activity. When I was in India, I was told that women should keep a distance away while the high level Brahmin priests were having their meeting(during the Mahakumbhmela in Allahabad) because they had not been in close contact with women for many years.
I'm sure that's a foreign concept to you, but you are the worldly one here.

But now that I think of it, perhaps a deeper implication of the women's movement is that it has not done what it set out to do, and that is to eliminate the objectification of women as sex objects(or at least as Betty Friedan portrayed it when she complained that women have to wear makeup to be attractive to men. )

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: Tangerine

Maybe you think a diamond ring is more valuable. It's subjective I suppose. Laugh all you want, but women have lost their sense of virtue. Is wanton sex really that worth it that we have to go out and give ourselves away like that? I don't think so. I guess that's just me.
Women in the 1800's were often accompanied by female guardians to protect their chastity. So while you are laughing at such a notion, chastity in previous centuries was considered valuable.
There is a metaphysical component to this as well. It has to do with the kundalini force, and is the reason why Sadhus in India do not engage in sexual activity. When I was in India, I was told that women should keep a distance away while the high level Brahmin priests were having their meeting(during the Mahakumbhmela in Allahabad) because they had not been in close contact with women for many years.
I'm sure that's a foreign concept to you, but you are the worldly one here.

This is where they start complaining about double standards, when really there are people who think casual sex in general is degenerate. I would think a man with 20+ partners is just as disgusting as a female who sleeps around. Spreading STD's is degeneracy.

a reply to: BanTv

It's just a different culture. In a way it is not dissimilar to the covering of women with black shrouds head to toe(which I would never want to have imposed on me by the way), only the Hindu understanding is more metaphysical. (and Hindu women are allowed to show off their mid-section and feet as well.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: WilsonWilson

I think using the derogatory term about someone who has different sexual morals is wrong.

Men have always been given the social nod to do what they want sexually, while I think a double standard still holds for women. Honestly, while women have been given the green light to be sexually open, men still want to marry the virgin, but have fun with the open woman and men rarely get called the same names. Women have paid the price for their foray into sexual equality, that is while on the surface it feel like equality to have the same ability to have casual sex, in truth women are just freely giving away that which should be treated as their most priceless possession, sexual exclusivity.
And how many times have we heard the story that after living with a woman for years he suddenly dumps her then marries a woman he's known for a few months.

Her sexual exclusivity is a woman's most priceless possession? I don't recall when I've laughed so hard. What utter, sexist rubbish.

I have to agree with T.E.H. here - "priceless" is the precisely proper terminology. Think of the logic of what you are saying here - you know what it's called when they DO put a price on it, right?

BTW - accuse me of being "sexist" all you like. I think it's already been pretty well established here that I'm a sexist, misogynistic, mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, obsolete, foul-mouthed troglodyte - I don't see how another shovelful on the muck heap can hurt anything!

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: WilsonWilson

I think using the derogatory term about someone who has different sexual morals is wrong.

Men have always been given the social nod to do what they want sexually, while I think a double standard still holds for women. Honestly, while women have been given the green light to be sexually open, men still want to marry the virgin, but have fun with the open woman and men rarely get called the same names. Women have paid the price for their foray into sexual equality, that is while on the surface it feel like equality to have the same ability to have casual sex, in truth women are just freely giving away that which should be treated as their most priceless possession, sexual exclusivity.
And how many times have we heard the story that after living with a woman for years he suddenly dumps her then marries a woman he's known for a few months.

Her sexual exclusivity is a woman's most priceless possession? I don't recall when I've laughed so hard. What utter, sexist rubbish.

I have to agree with T.E.H. here - "priceless" is the precisely proper terminology. Think of the logic of what you are saying here - you know what it's called when they DO put a price on it, right?

You know very well that he didn't mean "priceless" as you are using the word. However, it's interesting that you chose to reveal your mindset in this regard.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: nenothtu

Legislation is useless. More laws just lead to more criminals when they're broken - they don't "fix" anything. laws are there so that politicians have something to point at if someone asks them what they're being paid for, and that's about it.

Oh, totally disagree. Women had very little legal protection ---- accompanied with social/cultural expectations.

We might have to agree to disagree - because here, you disagree, but I've got to agree with what you say... very little legal protection. Practically none. They didn't need it - and if they'd wanted it back then, they'd have employed some of those "feminine wiles" you mentioned and got 'er done.

"Legal protection" is a two-edged sword. it brings legal responsibilities as well.

Just one law: financial credit. It used to be everything was in the mans name, especially if the wife was a homemaker. The man could just up and leave ----- leaving the woman with nothing. No established credit, or financial history.

Allow me to make an example, using the "credit" structure you mention. When my first wife wanted credit, she insisted. I mean REALLY insisted. "feminine wiles" insisted. I finally gave in (or course I did - was there ever any real doubt?) but told her she'd have to get it in her name, because I wanted no part of any "credit".

Now, you already know that those wallet-rapin' buzzards who issue credit wouldn't give her any credit, right? So after a bit more, ummm.... "negotiation".... I caved in again, and got us some credit to keep mama happy - upon which my OWN happiness hinged.

When everything went south, can you guess WHO got stuck with the bills for all the credit, and who got stuck with all the "stuff" it bought? She got the house and everything in it, the new car, etc. I got to keep a 20 year old 200 dollar beater, what mass of my own clothes and books I could stuff into it, and... the bills for it ALL.

I still think I came out ahead, all things considered... I legally got the bills, because I legally had the credit - and the responsibility for it. My first order of business was to cut up every credit card i could find, but I still had legal responsibility to pay them off. I just fixed it so no new charges would accrue.

She DID get her own credit after that - off MY record no less - but I think she learned a little something about it through my experience. Good on her!

And I still want mandatory paternal DNA testing for every baby born.

I've got no problem with that - I think there are a lot of GUYS out there who would like to be sure, too. My second wife flat out TOLD me my son wasn't mine - I tried like hell to get a DNA test, to no avail. As it turned out, she lied, but I'd have liked to have known a lot sooner, so I could have set my OWN mind at ease.

originally posted by: Annee

I don't think it's "cute", either - I think that it borders on downright evil, and certainly unfair! That's just the way it is, though.

But, you are not acknowledging the other point.

" When women had no legal rights, they only had themselves"

Feminine Wiles was born out of necessity.

And it worked better than any law could ever hope to.

With a lot less paperwork.

a reply to: BanTv

Actually, a point I think I didn't really make clear is that no matter how liberated women have become, I think there is a part in each of us which knows that casual sex is degrading. A woman may even pretend to herself that she deserves to have as much casual sex as a man, but in the end, is that what makes her happy?
I read some of Thomas Moore's works(the contempory one I am referring to) where he makes references to ancient gods and goddesses as archetypes, Hera being one related to marriage, and Hestia also as guardian of the hearth.

a reply to: nenothtu

Women didn't/don't need legal protection and laws for independent rights?

That is what you said, right?

a reply to: nenothtu

Methinks you may have the essence of chivalry. Plus you made me laugh in a good way.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
I think there is a part in each of us which knows that casual sex is degrading.

Really? Good thing you're only speaking for yourself.

I got divorced right in the middle of the sexual revolution. I had a blast.

No, I do not regret any if it, and No I did not and do not feel degraded.

Recreational sex is fun, natural, and normal. Nothing like first time lust.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

But now that I think of it, perhaps a deeper implication of the women's movement is that it has not done what it set out to do, and that is to eliminate the objectification of women as sex objects(or at least as Betty Friedan portrayed it when she complained that women have to wear makeup to be attractive to men. )

That's another area where I'm a little off in the head - right up there with my inability to understand why some men desire virgins. I hate makeup.

I mean I really HATE makeup.

I don't understand why a pretty woman would want to cover up the pretty - and they're ALL pretty, one way or another. I used to ask 'em if it was to cover up the ugly (as a rhetorical question to get 'em not to wear it), but you know I didn't win any bonus points like that, so I stopped. I never got an actual black eye over it, but I don't think I missed it by much.

besides - makeup tastes Awful. I mean just plain AWFUL. it tastes like soap, even when I haven't said any bad words.

Yup, can't stand the stuff.

I've always thought that women wear makeup for other women, because the guys I hung out with always had to figure out a way to work around the makeup. I've been told by a reliable source that there really are some guys out there who insist on it, but I've not run into them.

Losers.

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: Annee

I don't think it's "cute", either - I think that it borders on downright evil, and certainly unfair! That's just the way it is, though.

But, you are not acknowledging the other point.

" When women had no legal rights, they only had themselves"

Feminine Wiles was born out of necessity.

And it worked better than any law could ever hope to.

With a lot less paperwork.

No, it didn't. And it doesn't.

Apparently being worldly and materialistic is the IN thing these days. Women especially seem to take to it.

Have at it ladies I know I won't look back on my life and wish I had more sex and spent more money.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: WilsonWilson

I think using the derogatory term about someone who has different sexual morals is wrong.

Men have always been given the social nod to do what they want sexually, while I think a double standard still holds for women. Honestly, while women have been given the green light to be sexually open, men still want to marry the virgin, but have fun with the open woman and men rarely get called the same names. Women have paid the price for their foray into sexual equality, that is while on the surface it feel like equality to have the same ability to have casual sex, in truth women are just freely giving away that which should be treated as their most priceless possession, sexual exclusivity.
And how many times have we heard the story that after living with a woman for years he suddenly dumps her then marries a woman he's known for a few months.

Her sexual exclusivity is a woman's most priceless possession? I don't recall when I've laughed so hard. What utter, sexist rubbish.

I have to agree with T.E.H. here - "priceless" is the precisely proper terminology. Think of the logic of what you are saying here - you know what it's called when they DO put a price on it, right?

You know very well that he didn't mean "priceless" as you are using the word. However, it's interesting that you chose to reveal your mindset in this regard.

I don't think I've hidden my mindset - but I'm not quite sure you've actually figured it out, either.

There ain't but one meaning for "priceless" - it's the opposite of having a price, or being priceable.

Don't they teach about money and finances in school any more?

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: nenothtu

Women didn't/don't need legal protection and laws for independent rights?

That is what you said, right?

That is correct. The law has not been made that conferred any "rights". They confer something called a "civil right", of which I have none, because I want none. A "civil right" is not a "right" at all, because it can be revoked by the same government that issued it to begin with. "Civil rights" are just "privileges" with a fancy name to obscure their real nature.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: nenothtu

Methinks you may have the essence of chivalry. Plus you made me laugh in a good way.

SHHHH!

You'll ruin my reputation!

Besides - there's a live one on the hook!

a reply to: Annee


Yes, you are right, perhaps I am only speaking for myself. Anyway, my point is not necessarily to go through life wearing a chastity belt, I just don't think it's the glamorously fulfilling activity the media has made it out to be.
(But lest you think I haven't had any fun, I have, I took ballroom lessons and that included both latin and rhythm dances. ) In fact I just love how Sadie Robertson was able to fun and flirty in this dance.

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: nenothtu

SHHHH!

You'll ruin my reputation!

Besides - there's a live one on the hook!

Giggle ... and shhh don't tell Tangerine I'm not a "He" It might blow his/her stereotype of me as a sexist troglodyte