Feminism

[Tomwa]

 

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but that sounds like you're saying that a person in a committed relationship is obligated to sexually pleasure their partner, regardless of their own feelings on the matter, which would be very, very rape-y. That's not the case, right? Because couples aren't responsible for their partner's sexual pleasure or lack thereof. Everyone has the right to seek their own sexual satisfaction, and people have the right to help them seek it in a safe, consensual manner, but that doesn't mean that the outside party is responsible for the first party's pleasure. That just turns sex into a power thing, which should never be an issue in a decent relationship.

Of course you should never force anyone into any sort of sexual activity. (Or any other activity for that matter) But it is much more complicated than just saying "No responsibility."

 

But being in a committed relationship does bring certain responsibilities and obligations that you've chosen to accept by engaging in that relationship. If you don't want to be in a sexual relationship with someone, then don't be in one! It's as simple as that. A relationship is much more than just sexual. But to deny that sex is a part of it is just denying the point of such a relationship. (Biologically, sociologically, psychologically speaking) It's a really basic human need, you can't ignore it and expect things to just be all right.

 

Sticking with someone in a relationship for whatever reason but declining the sex is putting your partner in a very difficult position. At that point you need professional help, someone needs to make the tough choice and bail, or if you do want to continue your paths together you need to have a sit down and find some kind of agreement that will truly satisfy both partners.

 

 

You're a jerk.

 

That's what I said only smart.

[Rathlord]

There are actually many asexual people out there in happy non-sexual marital relationships out there. It's kind of a weird topic, but at the end of the day sex is ultimately about propagation, not pleasure. Not that that's stopping me from enjoying it, but I think there isn't any obligation for sex at all. Obligation to help your partner or make them happy? Yes? But obligation for sex? Of argue no.

[willow512]

There are actually many asexual people out there in happy non-sexual marital relationships out there. It's kind of a weird topic, but at the end of the day sex is ultimately about propagation, not pleasure. Not that that's stopping me from enjoying it, but I think there isn't any obligation for sex at all. Obligation to help your partner or make them happy? Yes? But obligation for sex? Of argue no.

I'd humbly suggest that in spite of their numbers they are still minorities, and that those minority numbers are increased by a variety of restrictive beliefs and customs we in our western societies have adopted as normal.

 

But I do hear you and agree with what you're saying. Maybe the best way to say it is "Obligation to be true to your relationship, and honest and open about each others needs and expectations when you get involved in one?" In the end a relationship is a more profound and deeply rooted version of "You scratch my back and I scratch yours." Of course if both partners have no interest in sex who am I to suggest they should get to it?

 

Surpisingly deep topic for a games forum 

 

You're a jerk.

 

That's what I said only smart.

 

 

I'm not sure I understand you, but to be certain, I apologise if I caused offense, I try to be a broad minded person who is sensitive to the needs of others, not a jerk at all. (That english language huh? )

[Tomwa]

You're a jerk.

 

That's what I said only smart.

 

 

I'm not sure I understand you, but to be certain, I apologise if I caused offense, I try to be a broad minded person who is sensitive to the needs of others, not a jerk at all. (That english language huh? )

 

My comment was poorly written humor aimed at pointing out that your statement was basically my original statement on the topic just far more articulate. I also jokingly threw out an insult while actually meaning the opposite for the sake of humor.

[Dr. Strangelove]

There are actually many asexual people out there in happy non-sexual marital relationships out there. It's kind of a weird topic, but at the end of the day sex is ultimately about propagation, not pleasure. Not that that's stopping me from enjoying it, but I think there isn't any obligation for sex at all. Obligation to help your partner or make them happy? Yes? But obligation for sex? Of argue no.

Depends on the persons involved, really. Different people have different levels of sexual desire; if one partner isn't getting any and needs it I'd say they are being neglected in that aspect of the relationship. IMHO, sex is what differentiates a relationship from a Platonic friendship.

[Rathlord]

Depends on the persons involved, really. Different people have different levels of sexual desire; if one partner isn't getting any and needs it I'd say they are being neglected in that aspect of the relationship. IMHO, sex is what differentiates a relationship from a Platonic friendship.

 

 

I guess this probably comes down to opinion. Like I said, I'm never one to turn down sex, but I think calling sex the penultimate definition of a romantic relationship is missing the point a bit. I mean... 50 years ago pretty much anyone would tell you that the point of a relationship was having children, not having sex. But eh... times are changing I suppose.

[willow512]

I guess this probably comes down to opinion. Like I said, I'm never one to turn down sex, but I think calling sex the penultimate definition of a romantic relationship is missing the point a bit. I mean... 50 years ago pretty much anyone would tell you that the point of a relationship was having children, not having sex. But eh... times are changing I suppose.

 

I tend to look at these things through the eyes of an evolutionist. We've evolved to develop relationships like this one, and the problems involved. Considering that relationships and their problems are so similar across culture and time I guess it's safe to say it's to a large degree an instinctual affair. From that perspective reproduction is the penultimate goal. It doesn't mean I think that a relationship that does not reproduce is a failed one. Just that non reproducing relationships essentially will still follow the same archetype. Every individual in your gene line was a successful reproducer after all

 

Theres many perspectives on gender. I'm personally a big fan of the one where the man and woman are considered equal, but two sides of a coin. Different, with idiosyncracies that complement the other gender and both sides adapted to lives that require flexibility and many different roles. The point to a relationship in my humble opinion is to more fully experience life. Some aspects of life(of our own nature) will only come into play when we are in a comitted relationship. I don't mean that everyone needs that experience to the same degree. Just that we have the need in general because it's programmed into us.

 

When a man gives a woman a rose it's much more than obedience to commercialism. It really taps into that primal act that once started as the man showing a woman that he can provide. For her and thus for her children as well. Yet it has become much more than that. That's why the experiences can be so powerfull so deep and so meaningfull. Sex is much broader than pleasure and procreation. It literally extends to meaningful and intellectual discussion and to the almost spiritual connection where two lovers are so in tune that they say the same thing at the same time, hum the same tune at the same time, literally know the other is thinking of them even when they're miles away from each other.

 

Anyway, that's just my interpretation of things! There's many ways you can put it and they all touch on the truth, funny thing is we all probably understand it in similar ways in our heart of hearts. Even if the minds find different ways of saying it.

[Brandon354]

 

I guess this probably comes down to opinion. Like I said, I'm never one to turn down sex, but I think calling sex the penultimate definition of a romantic relationship is missing the point a bit. I mean... 50 years ago pretty much anyone would tell you that the point of a relationship was having children, not having sex. But eh... times are changing I suppose.

 

I tend to look at these things through the eyes of an evolutionist. We've evolved to develop relationships like this one, and the problems involved. Considering that relationships and their problems are so similar across culture and time I guess it's safe to say it's to a large degree an instinctual affair. From that perspective reproduction is the penultimate goal. It doesn't mean I think that a relationship that does not reproduce is a failed one. Just that non reproducing relationships essentially will still follow the same archetype. Every individual in your gene line was a successful reproducer after all

 

Theres many perspectives on gender. I'm personally a big fan of the one where the man and woman are considered equal, but two sides of a coin. Different, with idiosyncracies that complement the other gender and both sides adapted to lives that require flexibility and many different roles. The point to a relationship in my humble opinion is to more fully experience life. Some aspects of life(of our own nature) will only come into play when we are in a comitted relationship. I don't mean that everyone needs that experience to the same degree. Just that we have the need in general because it's programmed into us.

 

When a man gives a woman a rose it's much more than obedience to commercialism. It really taps into that primal act that once started as the man showing a woman that he can provide. For her and thus for her children as well. Yet it has become much more than that. That's why the experiences can be so powerfull so deep and so meaningfull. Sex is much broader than pleasure and procreation. It literally extends to meaningful and intellectual discussion and to the almost spiritual connection where two lovers are so in tune that they say the same thing at the same time, hum the same tune at the same time, literally know the other is thinking of them even when they're miles away from each other.

 

Anyway, that's just my interpretation of things! There's many ways you can put it and they all touch on the truth, funny thing is we all probably understand it in similar ways in our heart of hearts. Even if the minds find different ways of saying it.

 

no offense but I don't think having sex with each other gives you the ability to do what you stated such as mind reading. people misuse the words technically and literally a lot too.

[Rathlord]

no offense but I don't think having sex with each other gives you the ability to do what you stated such as mind reading. people misuse the words technically and literally a lot too.

 

 

Having been with my woman for 4 years now I'd say you're wrong. It's not mind reading at all (and he never said that, either). As you get to know someone, do things with them, and share experiences your brain actually begins to "expect" the things they do. The pathways the neurons travel through get 'known' better by your brain and you actually begin to know what they're going to do next by instinct and experience. I've had many times where I've known what my girl was thinking just by looking over at her, even when she wasn't making a facial expression at all. There was even one night we were apart that we both sat down and put in the exact same movie, and then called each other at the same time. So no, I don't think there's anything 'mystical' going on but there is a perfectly logical and definable connection that is made.

[Brandon354]

 

no offense but I don't think having sex with each other gives you the ability to do what you stated such as mind reading. people misuse the words technically and literally a lot too.

 

 

Having been with my woman for 4 years now I'd say you're wrong. It's not mind reading at all (and he never said that, either). As you get to know someone, do things with them, and share experiences your brain actually begins to "expect" the things they do. The pathways the neurons travel through get 'known' better by your brain and you actually begin to know what they're going to do next by instinct and experience. I've had many times where I've known what my girl was thinking just by looking over at her, even when she wasn't making a facial expression at all. There was even one night we were apart that we both sat down and put in the exact same movie, and then called each other at the same time. So no, I don't think there's anything 'mystical' going on but there is a perfectly logical and definable connection that is made.

 

He did in fact say that or at least what would lead one to assume that.  "literally know the other is thinking of them even when they're miles away from each other." the only way to literally know is to read minds or have the person tell you.

[willow512]

no offense but I don't think having sex with each other gives you the ability to do what you stated such as mind reading. people misuse the words technically and literally a lot too.

 

I never said having sex caused that, I said sex is much broader than pleasure and procreation. I mentioned the "almost spiritual" connection in the discussion of sex as part of the evolved mechanism. Sex in it's broadest meaning includes those experiences.

 

So in short: We've evolved to have those experiences because it helps us raise healthy kids.

 

I didn't philosophise about the mechanism. I just noted the phenomenon exists, since it's being reported by lovers to such a degree, it evidently is a phenomenon. I never mentioned mind waves or other so called woowoo stuff. You added those interpretations yourself.

 

Note that I said: "Almost spiritual" because on the one hand I understand it can be experienced as such and I want to acknowledge that, and on the other hand I believe that the spiritual aspect is (in this case) not required to understand what's going on.

 

I used the word literally in it's meaning of "without embellishments or exageration" They literally know what the other is thinking = They know what the other is thinking, I'm not exaggerating.

 

I think you interpreted literal as verbatim, that would indeed be wrong in combination with thoughts. You can't word for word reproduce something that isn't words to begin with.

[Brandon354]

 

no offense but I don't think having sex with each other gives you the ability to do what you stated such as mind reading. people misuse the words technically and literally a lot too.

 

I never said having sex caused that, I said sex is much broader than pleasure and procreation. I mentioned the "almost spiritual" connection in the discussion of sex as part of the evolved mechanism. Sex in it's broadest meaning includes those experiences.

 

So in short: We've evolved to have those experiences because it helps us raise healthy kids.

 

I didn't philosophise about the mechanism. I just noted the phenomenon exists, since it's being reported by lovers to such a degree, it evidently is a phenomenon. I never mentioned mind waves or other so called woowoo stuff. You added those interpretations yourself.

 

Note that I said: "Almost spiritual" because on the one hand I understand it can be experienced as such and I want to acknowledge that, and on the other hand I believe that the spiritual aspect is (in this case) not required to understand what's going on.

 

I used the word literally in it's meaning of "without embellishments or exageration" They literally know what the other is thinking = They know what the other is thinking, I'm not exaggerating.

 

I think you interpreted literal as verbatim, that would indeed be wrong in combination with thoughts. You can't word for word reproduce something that isn't words to begin with.

 

No I did not confuse it with verbatim and that wouldn't even fit if that was what I meant and it is not a phenomenon it is coincidence/luck. I think more than a thousands of thought a day, you guess one after knowing me and my patterns for a long time good for you.

[EnigmaGrey]

I'm not even sure what this thread is about anymore.

[PK'EZ-54]

I'm not even sure what this thread is about anymore.

Here, here! I'll drink to that.

[DrummerKidJack]

Once upon a time, this thread was about feminism.

[Pixel Bombs]

Once upon a time, this thread was about feminism.

But that all changed when the Fire Nation attacked...

[willow512]

Go back to feminism. I think this little side track had been followed through to it's natual end.

[Raptrix]

My 10 pence worth...

 

1: Wage Gap-

I think it is a fairly widely recognised fact that pay grades for similar roles can differ not between gender but also within gender. The confident extrovert may achieve a higher salary for the same role as an introvert with fairly similar work output. Alot of the time, the woman's right to maternity leave can damage that wage catch up. The majority of women may wish to have a child at some point in their adult career (40 weeks pregnancy) with maternity of up to 11 weeks prior to due date (UK law). I myself as an employer am hesitant to imply women in their mid 20 ins long term relationships due to the fact that alot of my employees have done it (it is in my experience, not definite fact). I think in a nutshell, wage gaps are down to more then just gender but the male female divide is definitely a top end factor.

 

2. Rape culture

I think that we definitely still, in the modern world (even first world communities) have pockets of people with the mentality that woman are a the lesser of the species. In the UK, it was fairly common, especially in the north to view women as utilities by some. Domestic violence and sexual assault even in marraige was considered common practice. It was frowned on sometimes, but only as much as excessively drinking on a night out or owing someone money etc. I know the middle east is seen as terrible for the debasement of women but i think that the mentality of thinking of women as lesser isnt geographical, merely substantiated in severity by local law enforcement. In the UK, assault, rape and murder is illegal however certain points in foreign laws allow honor killings or marital rights enforcing that violation of women's rights is a legal and 'right' thing to do. Slowly, alot of these countries are starting to remove many of the (in my opinion barbaric' practices but not soon enough sadly.

 

3. Abortian rights:

Wow...now we are into seriously ethical balance territory. Sadly you didn't have a 'both' option as i believe these both apply. I believe that up to the legal point of abortion is is a woman's right, after that point it is human rights AND the woman's rights to consider. Having a close family member working for the BPAS (British pregnancy advice service) conducting late term abortions, you gain a keen understanding on some of the scnarios for late term abortions. 13 year olds raped by stepfathers and to scared to come forward early term....or council house delinquents that use it as a form of contraception... Its an ethical grey zone that is hard to define and when you through in religion...well...what a mess. 

 

Overall, I think feminism is a questionable enterprise. My fiance of 5 years if a feminist by admission and strives for equality but also recognizes that many right wing feminists or 'extreme' feminists are not campaigning for equality but for the superiority of women and demasculination of men. I think that we need to understand that as a species we are equal and deserve the same legal rights but down to a chromosomal level we are not the same and need to come to terms that both genders are dominant in certain ways that compliment one another. I know some women don't like men that are stronger same as some men don't like woman who are emotionally expressive (stereotypes i know, but just examples) but to me, a balanced relationship is one that recognises and fixes each others weakness with the others strength.

 

This is only my opinion and i am always open to counter debate so please, feel free to poke holes, question and chat!

 

Tinks

[Tomwa]

I'm not even sure what this thread is about anymore.

 

I really don't know, I seem to have lost control.

 

His opinion on feminism and such.

 

Thank you for that, it's nice be back on topic.

 

I agree that foreign nations have women's rights issues. However, I just do not even remotely believe, not even for a second, that feminism is capable of handling women's rights issues in the Middle East. First wave feminism (That's the stuff that ended in 1920) THAT was feminism, it had it's crazies too sure but they had a defined purpose and they accomplished it. That's what they need in the middle east (Accompanied soon after by revolts and military action as I'm sure there will be certain groups that flip shit) not our new brand of self-entitled crazies.