Feminism and the Reorganization of Society

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I think dontreally is under the impression that just because he's a sex addict that all men are. He doesn't understand that most men would stare at a topless woman but wouldn't drag her off to their caves as he apparently would. Poor bastard can't keep it in his pants so he wants women to maintain his self control for him.

reply to post by EndlessFire

I think dontreally is under the impression that just because he's a sex addict that all men are. He doesn't understand that most men would stare at a topless woman but wouldn't drag her off to their caves as he apparently would.

What the # is your problem?

My sex drive is probably above average, but I speak for man in general.

You on the other hand are either a-sexual, or have an extremely low sex drive, or you could care less for the morality I and others seek to preserve in this society.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I don't think white was saying men should be able to control abortion, just that men should have the same choice as to whether or not they want to be parents after pregnancy has occurred.

PS I love your posts, short, sweet, and logical.

reply to post by dontreally


Oh how wrong you are. My sex drive is cruising right on along like a convertable in fall on an empty California highway. And you don't speak for man in general, the men I know would love some topless chicks only they would flirt and seduce and possibly beg but never get so aroused that they couldn't control themselves. That's a proven fact, New Years 2006 was a good night!

As for morality, it's subjective. Wasn't your god that made Adam and Eve run around naked and told them not to eat from the tree of knowledge so they wouldn't know they were naked? Seems like your god loved him some topless women too.

reply to post by EndlessFire


Wow, you are dumb.

I never said once that I would be so compelled by the image that I would act. I said the visual itself would torment me because I would prefer not to look at woman thinking those things.

Read my last post, on page 2, on the biology part. That should be enough to deconstruct this fantasy you girls have in your heads that men can just 'overcome' their thoughts.

By the way - how many married guys do you know?? A single guy with an active sex life would not be too bothered by the sight of a topless woman....since that is right up his ally.

However, a married man would be tortured by the image. He would see it and immediately be drawn to look. And if he resists, the more his torture to look increases. THAT is what I call invasive, because knowing what we do about male biology and psychology, we know the effect such a sight has, and how it infringes on another persons spiritual existence.

It forces on us an attitude towards life only held by the libertine.

reply to post by EndlessFire


Yes, I already get that you think morality is relative. In which case, move on.

Seems like your god loved him some topless women too.

That was before they at from the tree of knowledge; post tree of knowledge eating, or rather, post consciousness (since that is what the narrative is really speaking about) post knowledge of the situation, man can no longer live the same as before in his wild ignorance.

I think you need to study primitive cultures. I think you might find that they are not primitive - they still have moral laws and universal rules they abide by. They are not animals, they are people too. The only reason they are considered primitive to us is they don't have technology like we do. Does technology really make us any better than another human being?

I still believe that culture is what sexualizes a body part. Wasn't it Chinese culture that once sexualized small feet?

Of course all cultures are going to have bottoms covered. There's a hygiene aspect to consider.

Cultures that cover the breast I believe originally started doing it for support. I'm sure there are men out there with large breasts that would love to get the support a wrapping/bra can provide.
Cultures that don't cover the breast are often cultures in very warm climates. Air circulation is probably more valued than hiding shame that doesn't exist because the breast is viewed functionally rather than a play thing.

Seeing another mother's breasts will happen to children if the mother is nursing. Be honest, would you be really that turned on by your friends mom if our culture didn't make the breast taboo.

As a woman, I am focused on my looks more around other women than men. Women compete and compare. I always look my best around other women, but when I'm around men I really don't care.

You say hedonists are comfortable around beaches and nude beaches. Well if that's the case, then all the coastal cities, especially in the south, and most of Europe must be hedonistic. Your logic states that in order to not be hedonistic, we must be covered up at the beach. But if that's the case, then how would people get tanned? How would people enjoy the water? If a woman were to be fully covered, like in a burka, she could not enjoy the beach. She would be physically hot and if she goes into the waves to enjoy herself, she would risk drowning due to the water pulling at her dress folds.

I see a lot of anger in your words. I feel you have a hatred for women's power to give life and want to subjugate them. I also feel you have a dislike for what your male body does. Perhaps someone made the male physiology taboo for you and now it's a shameful mystery?

It really sounds like you would be more comfortable living in an Islamic society in the middle east. I say Middle East because their are some Islamic societies on this Earth that have kept their "primitive" attitudes toward women.

reply to post by AussieAmandaC

There is also nothing wrong with strong moral convictions of which you live by, the issues always arise when you try to force that kind of moral code down throats at force, or carry yourself with a sense of higher moral living looking down over another whom is built just like you on the inside.

That's a moot point. If I have a different morality from you, it's because I think it is a better one, no?? And you - the opposite of me, with your relativism, think the same haughty thoughts you accuse me of, in relation to me...no?? OH! How the cookie crumbles both ways.

In anycase, nature is at a natural advantage, as I've already said. To just 'accept everything' is something incredibly and exceedingly easy to do. No law need be enacted; in fact, in your private life, you can flout every moral law like the bacchae for all I care. But when It comes to preserving MY morality, it is a NECESSITY that there be physical concrete institutions in place to preserve. Otherwise, my belief system and my morality will fade away. That's just how it is.

Something also tells me you know it, but just don't care.

Abuse of power comes in all forms as well, to label the woman and her inherent, inherited energy to blame for the masculine species getting out of control is the first step to trying to cage and conform that femanine aspect, again.

That feminine aspect is naturally dominant; thus, man - a symbol for that outside influence, and so, themselves reflecting the 'masculine energy', imposes order in order to bring balance to the creation.

How can you fail to see the beauty in that conception?

That story is getting very boring indeed, and you're basically saying God got it wrong with women (?!)

No, not at all. The biblical conception is this: Man is a co-creator with God. God provided the basic creation - the feminine, or primal ground (prima materia). Man, in his part, is to bring order to this prima materia by enacting laws which preserve his inner freedom from external factors.

So, man ADDS to nature. He adds, both in his technological and scientific understanding, as well as in his moral and ethical understanding. Man is a surplus to the natural order.

You are wrong on a few points, at least from my prospective, woman can be 'played' just as easily as a man when in a suitably sensitive/heightened state, to say otherwise really only says something about yourself.

If you've followed my posts, I acknowledged that. The difference is intensity and frequency. Man, on the whole, is at the disadvantage. He's mostly at the whim of woman, not the other way around.

As John Adams said, and as any many rightly knows, a woman exercises an esoteric power over his thinking. Yet you deny it.

as indeed since you profess men are so weak they also can not be held accountable?

Ok, lets get something clear. A man who violates a woman is a rapist and deserves a very harsh punishment in my opinion.

What I'm referring to is purely psychological.

I have an entirely different prospective of men than the one in which you portray, you would seem to me to be struggling with a few personal issues, which are not mine to list.

Or, I'm just very aware of my self. I am extremely self aware.

Just look at the sex industry. Look at the strip clubs, massage parlors, escort agencies, all catering to male perversity. If my thinking strikes any of you as 'weird' perhaps its due to my actual understanding of the world we live in - to a natural mans weakness before his sexual urge. Everywhere it is catered to. And if men aren't satisfied with females, then its other men they succumb to.

There is also much 'undirected' anger in your words.

I have no idea what you mean by 'undirected' anger. It's hard to really infer in what mood people speak in online. I've never been angry with anyone here. I'm annoyed with the issue at hand, but I try hard to argue rationally and calmly.

When you underestimate a 5" Police woman, one wonders what else you have underestimated, and we are not all witches in the negative sense either.

So you took offense to that as well? That seems to be common sense. A 5 foot cop is no good at being a cop. I would say this about a man or a woman. They are simply ineffective.

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by EndlessFire

 

By the way - how many married guys do you know?? A single guy with an active sex life would not be too bothered by the sight of a topless woman....since that is right up his ally.

However, a married man would be tortured by the image. He would see it and immediately be drawn to look. And if he resists, the more his torture to look increases. THAT is what I call invasive, because knowing what we do about male biology and psychology, we know the effect such a sight has, and how it infringes on another persons spiritual existence.

It forces on us an attitude towards life only held by the libertine.

I think you are very wrong. As a married woman, I know a lot of married men and women.
Like single guys, we all have a very active sex life with our own partners.
I know from experience that my husband would look, just like I would look at the woman. If we have been enjoying each others company lately, neither of us will be getting aroused because we are satisfied.
If we have been busy and haven't been having sex, we'd probably both get aroused but then enjoy each others company later. It would be the same if it was a sexy man. It isn't torture. We understand it's human nature to look at attractive people, compare body parts and get aroused if our body needs it.

If it's torture for you as a married man, perhaps you need to be having conversations with your wife about how often you should be enjoying each other.

I believe there was a part of the bible that said married couples should be enjoying each other often so they aren't tempted by other people.

reply to post by collietta


That was my thought, if the guy is married then he'll shag his wife or his hand. It's like saying that even though you just ate a huge 7 course meal you'll wreck your car trying to stop at an all you can eat buffet. It's not torture, besides didn't the politician's or somebody say that porn was an epidemic? Wouldn't that mean that men are already 'torturing' themsleves? so they must like it, right?

reply to post by collietta

I think you need to study primitive cultures. I think you might find that they are not primitive - they still have moral laws and universal rules they abide by.

I have studied primitive cultures i.e. Mircea Eliade, Joseph Campbell, James Fraser, etc and I personally enjoy reading religious philosophy, Buddhism, Hinduism (Shaivism, Vishnavaya, Shaktism etc), Sufism.

I also never said that they didn't have any moral understanding. My exact words were "With civilization, and self understanding - which primitives have only a primitive consciousness of - comes morality" i.e. they have a primitive consciousness of morality. Which means, it's still highly undeveloped.

They are not animals, they are people too.

Of course. I meant they were an in between, in a purely spiritual - and not a biological - sense.

The only reason they are considered primitive to us is they don't have technology like we do. Does technology really make us any better than another human being?

Really? I think civilization is what accounts for our calling them primitive. It's technology, AND morality, together.

Your logic states that in order to not be hedonistic, we must be covered up at the beach

No, my logic never said that. I made the distinction between topless or bottomless. If you go to the beach with your ordinary covering i.e. two piece bathing suit, than that's different.

I feel you have a hatred for women's power to give life and want to subjugate them.

So much for woman's intuition, eh?? So far, two different women - clearly offended by my argument, since they probably hold to an opposite liberal view (the popular mainstream view, supported by CNN, Hollywood etc, might I add) have accused me of something that I sweat to God I am not feeling, anger; either for woman, or for people I'm speaking with.

It really sounds like you would be more comfortable living in an Islamic society in the middle east.

That's downright insulting.

reply to post by EndlessFire


Or, they are addicted.

Do you know what addiction means? It means doing something you know is self destructive (and frankly, If i were a woman I would be offended if my husband was being fueled by sexual thoughts of other women) but out of sheer obsessiveness, can't help doing.

It's a horrific affliction. I admit, I love sex. I absolutely love it. I don't know another guy alive who doesn't feel the same way.

Unlike them, I choose not to justify my addictions by 'normalizing it' and sanitizing it (and so my relationship with it) by admitting it as a feature of my personal philosophy.

Others may do it. They may. However, for myself, I would prefer to wrestle with it, to struggle with the problem and hope to overcome it.Life is about trying, wrestling with life's challenges. Not succumbing and saying in unison 'kumbaya all is well'. Israel - the name bestowed by the angel (or divine being) Jacob fought with - literally means 'to wrestle with God'.

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by collietta

 

I feel you have a hatred for women's power to give life and want to subjugate them.

So much for woman's intuition, eh?? So far, two different women - clearly offended by my argument, since they probably hold to an opposite liberal view (the popular mainstream view, supported by CNN, Hollywood etc, might I add) have accused me of something that I sweat to God I am not feeling, anger; either for woman, or for people I'm speaking with.

It really sounds like you would be more comfortable living in an Islamic society in the middle east.

That's downright insulting.

I'm not a follower of MSM. I'm not a liberal, I am a libertarian. Thanks for putting me in a box without any basis.

Your word choice conveys a condescending tone, which comes off as angry or insulting.

If you are insulted by suggesting you live in a ME culture, then tell me, what is this thread really about?
Is it not about women needing to cover themselves up and be submissive to their men because women cause impure thoughts in the weak male mind? Since women are so powerful, they must be controlled by man because we are more tied to the Earth and men are tied to the ethereal? Is that not your argument?

Tell me, where else on Earth, besides the ME, would your beliefs about women be common and acceptable to all people?

reply to post by collietta

I'm not a liberal, I am a libertarian

Liberal is an attitude towards life. Libertarian (notice the first part of the word 'liber' latin for 'free') is a political ideology.

They are two different things.

Your word choice conveys a condescending tone, which comes off as angry or insulting.

I can't help how I make you feel. I can only reassure you that I am not trying to come as condescending, and I apologize if I am.

If you are insulted by suggesting you live in a ME culture, then tell me, what is this thread really about?

Umm, not promoting shari'a law, thank you very much. Thank you for putting ME in a box, a very closed and backwards one.

Politically I'm conservative, but more to the center than the far right. I'm for liberal democracy in the classical sense.

But nowhere does liberal democracy support rights such as what I'm currently discussing i.e. a womans right to walk around topless.

Is it not about women needing to cover themselves up and be submissive to their men because women cause impure thoughts in the weak male mind?

What do you mean 'submissive'? A woman who subscribes to the same moral system I do - And I assure, they still exist, as Christians, Jews, Muslims, Secular Conservatives - would want to preserve the traditional ethic into the modern world.

Since women are so powerful, they must be controlled by man because we are more tied to the Earth and men are tied to the ethereal? Is that not your argument?

In metaphysical terms, the natural condition is feminine, which is paralleled in humanity by the female sex. Just as external sensation draws man's (humankind) attention outwards, so too does woman exercise that same effect in her relations with man. Because her power is furtive i.e. occurs emotionally, subconsciously, and thus exercises great power over human thinking, yes, you got it correct, but are grossly misrepresenting, or misunderstanding it.

There is a parallelism. Man is no more closer to God than woman. Each has their proper station. Biology, nature, has predisposed man to cling to woman, and this means intense biological-psychological attraction of man for woman. This psychological-biological influence is exacerbated by laxity of reason - by not acknowledging the over-whelming impact it has on mans (human kinds) over all behavior.

So when I say woman - I really mean woman as an archetype, or metaphysical principle. When its too much in this way - in that direction, it has to be brought back in that direction. When I say "that direction" I mean mankind, which is paralleled by man in his relation to woman. Thus, enacting laws is not only for mans benefit, but for womans benefit; for MANKINDS benefit.

This paranoia you have of me secretly wanting to 'subjugate' and control woman the way Muslim misogynists do is a gross distortion and defamation of my central argument.

I no longer wish to enter this male versus female debate.The Chinese,Muslims and Spainish speaking countries are breeding by leaps and bounds while our pro female society shrinks.There will be no debate soon.All rights and freedoms will be taken and these Male dominated societies will take over.They will see how our society turned on itself and laugh at us.We have been trojan horsed and are slowly being overrun and soon our petty differences will no longer matter as lack of money means lack of freedom.Our soceity will now implode by virtue of the fact we aren't repopulating and the new masters wont give a crap about rights etc.

"Wee,I am the captain of the Titanic!"

reply to post by dontreally


"something also tells me you know it, but just don't care"

really? That was rude

Let me tell you that you have no understanding of woman in her natural form (you can't have possibly seen it), because you're constantly at war within yourself over granting supposed consessions to said harlet.

Naturally dominant heh? I thought I was protecting myself from ignorant men all these years, who knew?

I believe what you are trying to achieve as a 'co-creator' (as are we all by the way) is antiquated and confining and would become suphocating in the extreme, although your clear intellegence is somewhat interesting.

A question for you, should women be allowed to study all the same information that men do, or is there literature which you deem too dangerous for her to read? I'm guessing there is....

You know she can choose to not use don't you, as a thinking functioning human, she also has choices to make and I don't necessarily think a man should decide those perameters, unless it's 'him', which has already been done.

Gotta go now, my husband wants me to dominate him no really...I just asked him! x

Let them live in the fantasy until reality kicks in. Hard work and loud mouths do not get along easily.

I get the feeling that is already a lost argument when someone says "men" when talking about men, but uses the term "females" when talking about women. It's like you subtract their humanity and seeing them as nothing but a gender.

I dunno what it's like in the USA. I like how it is here. Women have equal rights for voting and working, yet society recognises that women are different to men. This is not a bad thing at all. It's a good thing, to appreciate the differencees of genders and respect equally for that.

In regards of men being not able to control their sexual desires, this is ridiculous. Walk through Moscow in the summer - everywhere are beautiful girls often not wearing much. I like this. I'm married and I am not unfaithful, and to seeing these girls does not torture me. I am happy to look and not touch.

I dunno, I just think, that women should have totally equal rights and totally equal respect, while also acknowledging differences between gender like biological characteristics and behaviour and so on. This is good for society. Is simple.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
in all honesty I agree with the OP,, without all the words,, only for the simple fact that ( although i agree with you it may eventually be desensitized) once women were initially aloud to walk around topless,,, if it was there choice and all,,, i think they would regret it ( unless they love all kinds of attention) from all the creeps that would be staring and taking pictures,,. I wouldnt want every guy in new york city staring at my sisters ( or girlfriends) breasts,,, even if the affect would ware off in a few years..,,.,.

Women have their breasts stared at whether they are covered or not. Your sisters and girlfriend can no more choose who stares at them if they are clothed than if they were to walk around naked, the only thing that is removed is the element of imagination involved. And I am sure that given that the vast majority of women require support to keep their breasts under control that once you have had a few experiences of looking at all those breasts flapping around you all the time, including your mother's and grandmother's, the eagerness to look below the neck would soon diminish, and you'd begin to realise how we women feel having to be confronted by topless males as soon as the sun comes out. It ain't always pretty let me tell you, but it does teach you to focus your attention.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
so yea,.,.,. i have no problem with a girl walking topless down the street,, but I think they would initially want to do it more as a rebellion,,, yes they should be able to feel comfortable and free,,,, but i think they would quickly become skeeved out, creeped out, bothered,, harassed,, and have a hundread pictures of their bare breasts on twitter and facebook by the end of the day.,,.

Personally, I don't think going topless is a choice in terms of comfort and freedom, I like my bra and the support it gives me and find it uncomfortable if I go out and about without one, but as I have already pointed out, men stare anyway, whether you are naked, or in a shroud, they look, and some girls will always get more attention than others. I doubt that any woman who had taken the choice to parade in public with bared breasts would be overly concerned about that public display being made even more public, on the contrary, what upsets women is when such photos taken in the intimacy and privacy of a relationship are circulated without their choice. By making the choice to bare all, in many ways, they take command of their own bodies and their individual right to use that body how they choose. A women's body is not the property of the men in her life and it is not their place to dictate who does and doesn't get to see it.

Originally posted by dontreally
Ahh. So that's the purpose of midget police women.

I thought that could be performed by a police woman of at least average height, 5'5-5'6, and moderate build. But no. Apparently only a woman the size of my niece can do that.

I think you're just falling into incredulous (I want to say pub level) hearsay arguments unless you live somewhere very different from me.

Specialist police units (and likely army units) don't go soft on women really. The baseline isn't that high but baseline fitness is for most police roles. Baseline for a woman's beep test for example is generally 1.01 below the male standard for the person's age. For the specialist response and security team though the baseline for both genders is 8.05. For upper body strength endurance, again the female baseline is lower. In the SRS both genders are the same.

The message is pretty clear, if you're going to be in a physical situation be prepared for it regardless of gender. There are still plenty of male dominated or simply male only areas in both the police and the armed services for various reasons.

Originally posted by dontreally
However, the best of their best would not even be able to compete with the most mediocre of Male olympic athletes in the same sport or event.

Wrong year to say that. This year a 16 year old Chinese girl took out the world record. In the last 50 metres she was swimming faster than Ryan Lochte who has the second fastest time in history in her event.

There is no denying that generally men are stronger. There's also no denying, however, that more money and time and resources have been spent on the technology of the male sports body by a giant margin.

Originally posted by dontreally
Heres a question for you. Why are women so much more preoccupied with their looks then men? Is it because - nature has made them care more about it? Or is "environment" responsible for that concern?

I think you've reached the heart of your issue to a degree here.

You believe in intelligent design, ergo you believe nature made women preoccupied with gaining sexual attention as a protection mechanism as written by the bible. The issue here is, this would occur anyway. Any species with a nine month incubation period is going to be successful only if it develops and nurtures traits which defend the mother during that 9 month pregnancy ... or has a cast iron womb and shoots lightening bolts from its eyes. The bible, in this instance, is doing nothing but stating the absolute obvious.

Your overall idea is a gross generalization and over simplifying the issue into a happy meal box. I can over simplify too. Why do men hit the gym? Why do they buy flash things and show off? Clearly they're aiming to subjugate women to their will using their superior earning capacity and are against my flying spaghetti monster book which clearly states men should eat more noodle related products rather than do these things! I demand men immediately attempt to all look the same as one another as I find it difficult to concentrate on his noodley goodness what with their showing off and general tardiness!

Men are slave to women as much as women are slave to men in a lot of ways. They both do things to impress each other. I don't see how that is women's fault? Nor really is it men's fault exactly. I find it amazing how you can narrow it down to one half of the equation and place the blame.

Ironically you're making an excellent case for lesbians here, since the make up gets a lot less thick, and the clothes a lot more sensible once men are taken out of the equation. To me I can't see the difference between you saying women are the problem and me saying 'oh men are the problem, they make women dress up and act weird ... clearly everyone should be a lesbian instead.'

Edit and TLDR version: Honestly, if feminist agenda is to take control of men by getting naked and tempting you ... someone taught me wrong!