# Double Standard of Sexual Conduct



## katherine22 (Aug 30, 2009)

There has existed in our culture and remains prevalent in other cultures "the double standard of sexual conduct" where men can address their sexual needs with impunity, and women can address their sexual needs within a committed relationship or marriage and to veer outside those contexts for women is to be judged harshly. Does the "double standard of sexual conduct" still resonate with younger women today? Do women still judge other women harshly who operate outside sexual societal norms? Do you think that fat women are perceived to be more sexual or is that a fantasy perpetrated by FAs?


----------



## Linda (Aug 30, 2009)

I think that fat women are perceived as more sexual out of desperation. People think we are easy because we can't get a decent man to love us so we will get ours wherever we can. Is it true? In some instances yes but you also have that skinny women or ugly women or drop dead gorgeous women. If a woman does not think highly of herself then she will tend to throw herself into destructive situation after destructive situation.


----------



## BubbleButtBabe (Aug 30, 2009)

See that is where I differ in thought...To me having sex for sex's sake is not destructive behavior..I mean we all need orgasms,our bodies thrive off of them..To me there is nothing destructive about having multiple sexual partners as long as you are having safe sex..I know I have been called a slut a few times in my life but I truly never saw myself that way..I just loved the way my body reacted during sex and craved more of it,but then again I have been divorced since hector was a pup and spot didn't give a shit..


----------



## Teleute (Aug 30, 2009)

I think the difference between your situation and the one Linda describes is not the behavior, but the motivation behind it. Having a lot of sex with multiple partners because you enjoy it, don't have any emotional hangups around it, and know how to have safe sex and get tested regularly: healthy and awesome! Having a lot of sex with multiple partners because you feel worthless and you're looking for someone to show you positive attention because it makes you feel like you're not quite so hideous: not so healthy, and decidedly NOT awesome. Also, women in the second category are more likely to give in to someone pushing for unsafe sexual practices, and therefore put themselves at more physical risk as well.


----------



## Keb (Aug 30, 2009)

I personally try to hold men and women both to the same standard...but I'm in the "sex is for marriage" camp, regardless of what bits you happen to have to bring to it. So, for me, male or female, sex outside of marriage is wrong; understandable in our culture due to the state of marriage as a whole, but still wrong. 

(And yes, most people do need sex, most people are healthier with an active sex life--I just happen to believe that means most people should be married. ...and find it amazingly frustrating that marriage doesn't even seem to be on the horizon for myself.)


----------



## katherine22 (Aug 30, 2009)

Teleute said:


> I think the difference between your situation and the one Linda describes is not the behavior, but the motivation behind it. Having a lot of sex with multiple partners because you enjoy it, don't have any emotional hangups around it, and know how to have safe sex and get tested regularly: healthy and awesome! Having a lot of sex with multiple partners because you feel worthless and you're looking for someone to show you positive attention because it makes you feel like you're not quite so hideous: not so healthy, and decidedly NOT awesome. Also, women in the second category are more likely to give in to someone pushing for unsafe sexual practices, and therefore put themselves at more physical risk as well.



You make a good point about the difference in motivation. You suggest that some women can have multiple sexual partners since they enjoy sex and act responsibly regarding safe sex practices. However, according to a lot of relationship advisors, women are given a lot of rules of don't have sex on the first date or the male will never consider you marriage material. The double standard of sexual conduct means that rules are imposed on women's sexual behavior, and I wonder if there is a price a woman pays to be in conflict about addressing her sexual needs for fear of judgment.


----------



## Tau (Aug 31, 2009)

Have you watched Cruel Intentions with Ryan Phillpe and Sarah Michelle Gellar? (pls excuse the probably incorrect spelling) The heroine was a virgin, and sworn to stay that way till she got married and the villainess was a coke sniffing 'slut' who'd been dumped numerous times by men who'd slept with her and then found more virginal girlfriends to committ to. The stereotypes still hold very true today. Just the way young men and women speak about sexual activity tells you that - chicks 'sleep around' while guys 'score'. 

The female body is not meant to have sexual appetite or desire. Culturally it is still considered up to the female in the relationship to be sensible, to 'respect herself' and not allow whatever randy young man she's with to 'take advantage of her.' Women are still taught, over and over again, that they have real power, which is marrying power, as long as they remain virginal and that they forfeit that right once they've lost their hymens. 

We've had several awful stories come to light in the papers recently, all involving Mixit and teenagers under 16. Cases where school girls created slut lists about school mates and posted them online and on Mixit. One particularly awful story is where a 16 year old girl was filmed having sex with 7 school boys. They of course shared this on Mixit. When her parents found out they took it to the courts and her father claimed the boys involved raped her. I watched that video - no raping was involved. It's almost as if nobody could believe that a girl could enjoy a sexual experience as extreme as that and the only way she could have possible agreed to participate was if she was forced. The case was thrown out of court and the way the media and general public are speaking about this child is actually hair raising. It just showed me that we haven't come very far from stoning women accused of adultery And the boys who took part - heroes!:doh:

I think as women, friends, sisters and mothers we need to teach girls that their only power does not reside in their genitals or reproductive organs. We also need to teach them that it is perfectly fine to enjoy your sexuality, to relish the sexual act, as long as you do it safely - contraceptives and condoms are key. I also think that we need to stop making excuses for and about men and how hard they find it to control their penises...penii??

There are times I feel immense shame at being South African. An accused rapist is the leader of my country. The rape and abuse stats against women and children match those of Columbia during its war. There is so much hatred against women by men and by other women here that it honestly leaves me terrified. 6 of my close female friends have been raped more than once in childhood. Two of my aunts were gang raped and are raising children born as a result of that horror. I escaped being kidnapped and raped when I was 17 by the grace of God alone. And yet people will still speak as if rape is something the victims have incited and deserved. _Look at what she was wearing! She had so much make up on! She wore a g-string!_ How does a 9 month old 'arouse' you to the point of rape ?

Anyway, I digress. I don't think anything has changed, not for the vast masses anyway.


----------



## katherine22 (Aug 31, 2009)

Tau said:


> The female body is not meant to have sexual appetite or desire. Culturally it is still considered up to the female in the relationship to be sensible, to 'respect herself' and not allow whatever randy young man she's with to 'take advantage of her.' Women are still taught, over and over again, that they have real power, which is marrying power, as long as they remain virginal and that they forfeit that right once they've lost their hymens.
> 
> We've had several awful stories come to light in the papers recently, all involving Mixit and teenagers under 16. Cases where school girls created slut lists about school mates and posted them online and on Mixit. One particularly awful story is where a 16 year old girl was filmed having sex with 7 school boys. They of course shared this on Mixit. When her parents found out they took it to the courts and her father claimed the boys involved raped her. I watched that video - no raping was involved. It's almost as if nobody could believe that a girl could enjoy a sexual experience as extreme as that and the only way she could have possible agreed to participate was if she was forced. The case was thrown out of court and the way the media and general public are speaking about this child is actually hair raising. It just showed me that we haven't come very far from stoning women accused of adultery And the boys who took part - heroes!:doh:
> 
> ...




You are right, Tau. Unless women take control of their sexual power and view male assessment of their behavior as the only valid assessment rape as a form of women control will prevail. Women have a right to enjoy their sexuality and the moral judgments that men confer on women who are sexual is a form of control.


----------



## mergirl (Sep 1, 2009)

Keb said:


> I personally try to hold men and women both to the same standard...but I'm in the "sex is for marriage" camp, regardless of what bits you happen to have to bring to it. So, for me, male or female, sex outside of marriage is wrong; understandable in our culture due to the state of marriage as a whole, but still wrong.
> 
> (And yes, most people do need sex, most people are healthier with an active sex life--I just happen to believe that means most people should be married. ...and find it amazingly frustrating that marriage doesn't even seem to be on the horizon for myself.)


Doesn't this mean that gay people don't get to have sex in America? Or are there different rules regarding those who are not allowed to be married?


----------



## Keb (Sep 1, 2009)

mergirl said:


> Doesn't this mean that gay people don't get to have sex in America? Or are there different rules regarding those who are not allowed to be married?



Do you really want to open that debate here? It's asking for flameness. 

My answer would be: Does the government issuing a document really make a marriage exist, or is it possible that marriage is something more than that? 

Which isn't much of an answer, but it's the best I've got.


Buuuuuuuuuuut...if you want to bring it back on topic, I think the double standard is even weirder with gay couples--male couples are far more taboo than female in society as a whole, for example. It's almost a reversal of the hetero standard, yet the root of it is probably still masculine desires (straight guys thinking lesbians are hot, and homosexual men icky).


----------



## mergirl (Sep 2, 2009)

Keb said:


> Do you really want to open that debate here? It's asking for flameness.
> 
> My answer would be: Does the government issuing a document really make a marriage exist, or is it possible that marriage is something more than that?
> 
> ...



I don't want any flames. Just to be able to have sex outside marrage without it being deemed "Wrong" or even better to be aforded the right to actually be allowed to marry in the first place. I speak on behalf of my American friends who are not allowed this basic human right. Over here we are allowed to be married. 
hmmmm, see i only think gay males are seen as 'icky' by 'some' hetrosexual men (In my experience, and i feel it is possibly something to do with a fear of anal). Have you never seen 'sex in the city' or any show with a group of females -they all have gay male best friends. Ive never known any females to find gay males 'icky' (well unless they had some predjudice to begin with). Also, its not true that straight guys find lesbians hot-They find hetrosexual women pretending to be lesbians in porno hot. If most hetro guys were faced with the reality of a butch androgynous lesbian if anything they feel slighty threatened. Men cant have real lesbians and when they realise that the fantasy is somewhat diminished. I do agree there is a double standard though. I have met very few women who want to watch gay men having sex while it seems to be in the top 3 male fantasies to watch two women having sex.


----------



## Mies (Sep 2, 2009)

The "double standard" that you posit varies widely in its applicability among different groups - our culture is far too fragmented for the type of "one size fits all" morality that characterized our culture in the grey flannel suit era. A man might be looked down upon in certain conservative religious groups for sleeping around. Do you belong to one of them? If your peer group doesn't accept your actions, maybe you're in the wrong group. Of course, you're pretty much stuck with your family, but even families are not monolithic - you'll find some aunt to agree with you even if your cousin doesn't.

Katherine, you post these "provocative" questions with amazing regularity, trying to make some sort of point or continue an agenda, but there is a certain staleness to them: they ask questions that might best have been asked back in the 70's and are less relevant today. Things have changed. 

Look at the acceptance of gays in our culture. Sure, some people are never going to be OK with that, but so what? Unlike in previous times, if you're not related to them, you can pretty much write them off and move on. Why do you expect to change everyone? Isn't it enough to be free to do what you want? Whose opinion do you treasure more than your own?


----------



## mergirl (Sep 2, 2009)

katherine22 said:


> There has existed in our culture and remains prevalent in other cultures "the double standard of sexual conduct" where men can address their sexual needs with impunity, and women can address their sexual needs within a committed relationship or marriage and to veer outside those contexts for women is to be judged harshly. Does the "double standard of sexual conduct" still resonate with younger women today? Do women still judge other women harshly who operate outside sexual societal norms? Do you think that fat women are perceived to be more sexual or is that a fantasy perpetrated by FAs?



I have actually noticed on here that people are judged harshly if they have nothing of substance in any of thier other posts other that sex. I think this is true of both male and females. I think that women and men who have proved themselves not to just be after one thing are supported and encouraged here as far as thier sexuality goes. I am talking of fat sexuality and Fa sexuality, other sub catagories i feel can still be judged depending on various factors regardless of how the poster comes across in other threads. I could be wrong, but it seems that way.


----------



## Ruffie (Sep 2, 2009)

I find it is till alive and well here in today's society. A man can have many conquests and he is a stud, a mans man! A woman is sexually aggressive/ progressive and has multiple partners and she is a slut. I have gotten into many arguments with guys who say "If I have a daughter she is going to be locked up in the house till she is 25!" Why can't she enjoy herself, learn what she likes and doesn't, just as your son's will be expected to? Their response almost always is "well I know how I was at that age and have to protect my daughter"! That's being a hypocrite in my mind and I tell them so. I work with teens and while I know the dangers of whats out there for the girls and tell them how to protect themselves, I don't treat them any different than the males when discussing the issues around sex. In fact the guys get told no glove no love should be your rule. Ohh too bad it doesn't feel as good without it suck it up and use a condom! I joke with them it will make them last longer too for the gals cause that can be a problem at your age lol. I remind them they have sisters, mothers, cousins and aunts who they would want to be respected so they should do the same for women. For the girls its about deciding what YOU want. Not being pressured to do something to fit in, make a guy like you/stay with you. Its about doing what is right for you and you alone. 

I have been friends with a couple of self professed sluts in my life. Maybe they had issues that contributed to this thats not for me to judge or say. Plenty of other people judged them, and wondered why I hung with them. I just smiled and said I am living vicariously through them.


----------



## superodalisque (Sep 2, 2009)

heck yeah there is a double standard. society percieves it as some kind of a threat if a woman is sexually demanding herself. i think people are frightened by the sexual power of women. i feel there are some people who are angered by the sway thier attraction to women holds over thier lives. i don't know if its a stereotype or not on my side of things but i don't feel that women are as dominated by thoughts of sex as men are even if we do love sex and enjoy sex. or maybe it just appears to be that way. its hard to say.

okay this is gonna sound really old fashioned so brace yourself. but i think some of the double standards that have evolved also have the potential to serve a woman well. maybe they were originally to reinforce the power of men but it seems that women can find a way to make any system benefit them at least to some extent. i find myself thinking about the cow giving the milk scenario a lot. women now tend to give guys everything and get nothing in return. they have thier beautiful sexuality, they bring emotional caring and income. the children they can have are a kind of immortality for a guy. they seem to often commit thier entire selves to a relationship they are in. but what is required of guys? not much these days it seems. culturally it seems okay if they can show up be crass and underachieving. we are supposed to feel sorry fo them or be tolerant of that.

i find it kind of interesting that other men in our lives who love us would never chose such men for us. my brothers always want to know what someone's intentions are; what they do for a living, what kind of family they come from and the kind of people they spend time with. do they know something we don't know? now dating ettiquette says a guy shouldn't even meet our family until much later, we can't talk politics or religion etc... in other words anything that informs us of who we are dealing with and how they think. women are just supposed to flirt vapidly and talk about sex in a none threatening way. we are supposed to sleep with him before we know if he even wants the kind of relationship that we do. we are supposed to lay ourselves and our hearts open to people who might have no other intention than misusing us. but we are in no way supposed to ask about anything that really concerns us. we might "scare him away".

the other night we were talking about how to get a guy to behave nicely toward a woman in chat the other night and a guy friend of ours said bluntly "stop having sex with him". maybe some problems that we have come from giving too much to guys who give too little. maybe the double standard serves as part of a situation that shows a man that he has to do some work to recieve our attention and it won't just be handed to him. he has a responsibiity as well in the double standard. i think that half of the double standard has been done away with and all women seem to be lef with is the part that they are subject to. even though the double standard restrains women is it possible that when it does so that it can allow us to set the terms of engagement if we make demands for the other side? do you think there are some aspects of it can be protective of us and our value and worth in society?


----------



## katherine22 (Sep 2, 2009)

Ruffie said:


> I find it is till alive and well here in today's society. A man can have many conquests and he is a stud, a mans man! A woman is sexually aggressive/ progressive and has multiple partners and she is a slut. I have gotten into many arguments with guys who say "If I have a daughter she is going to be locked up in the house till she is 25!" Why can't she enjoy herself, learn what she likes and doesn't, just as your son's will be expected to? Their response almost always is "well I know how I was at that age and have to protect my daughter"! That's being a hypocrite in my mind and I tell them so. I work with teens and while I know the dangers of whats out there for the girls and tell them how to protect themselves, I don't treat them any different than the males when discussing the issues around sex. In fact the guys get told no glove no love should be your rule. Ohh too bad it doesn't feel as good without it suck it up and use a condom! I joke with them it will make them last longer too for the gals cause that can be a problem at your age lol. I remind them they have sisters, mothers, cousins and aunts who they would want to be respected so they should do the same for women. For the girls its about deciding what YOU want. Not being pressured to do something to fit in, make a guy like you/stay with you. Its about doing what is right for you and you alone.
> 
> I have been friends with a couple of self professed sluts in my life. Maybe they had issues that contributed to this thats not for me to judge or say. Plenty of other people judged them, and wondered why I hung with them. I just smiled and said I am living vicariously through them.



Good for you in treating boys and girls equally. What do you think it costs girls emotionally to think that if they have sexual urges they do not feel the same freedom to act on their needs. Why do we judge women for having sex?


----------



## katherine22 (Sep 2, 2009)

Mies said:


> The "double standard" that you posit varies widely in its applicability among different groups - our culture is far too fragmented for the type of "one size fits all" morality that characterized our culture in the grey flannel suit era. A man might be looked down upon in certain conservative religious groups for sleeping around. Do you belong to one of them? If your peer group doesn't accept your actions, maybe you're in the wrong group. Of course, you're pretty much stuck with your family, but even families are not monolithic - you'll find some aunt to agree with you even if your cousin doesn't.
> 
> Katherine, you post these "provocative" questions with amazing regularity, trying to make some sort of point or continue an agenda, but there is a certain staleness to them: they ask questions that might best have been asked back in the 70's and are less relevant today. Things have changed.
> 
> Look at the acceptance of gays in our culture. Sure, some people are never going to be OK with that, but so what? Unlike in previous times, if you're not related to them, you can pretty much write them off and move on. Why do you expect to change everyone? Isn't it enough to be free to do what you want? Whose opinion do you treasure more than your own?




Miles if you find my questions so boring, tedious and stale - don't concern yourself with answering them. Shall I come to you for topic approval?


----------



## mossystate (Sep 2, 2009)

Ruffie said:


> I find it is till alive and well here in today's society. A man can have many conquests and he is a stud, a mans man! A woman is sexually aggressive/ progressive and has multiple partners and she is a slut. I have gotten into many arguments with guys who say "If I have a daughter she is going to be locked up in the house till she is 25!" Why can't she enjoy herself, learn what she likes and doesn't, just as your son's will be expected to? Their response almost always is "well I know how I was at that age and have to protect my daughter"! That's being a hypocrite in my mind and I tell them so. I work with teens and while I know the dangers of whats out there for the girls and tell them how to protect themselves, I don't treat them any different than the males when discussing the issues around sex. In fact the guys get told no glove no love should be your rule. Ohh too bad it doesn't feel as good without it suck it up and use a condom! I joke with them it will make them last longer too for the gals cause that can be a problem at your age lol. I remind them they have sisters, mothers, cousins and aunts who they would want to be respected so they should do the same for women. For the girls its about deciding what YOU want. Not being pressured to do something to fit in, make a guy like you/stay with you. Its about doing what is right for you and you alone.



This is just a wonderful post, Ruth! 

I love how I can feel all the energy you find to beat a drum, where some might just resign themselves to , " well, boys will be boys ". Brava. 

My youngest sister has a 9 year ( will be 10 in Oct. ) niece, and we were talking about when she gets to date. My sister said that she can be dropped off ( by a parental unit...no older friends ) to see a movie with another ' couple ', when she is 13. She said it will be the same for her son, when he gets to be that age. I know this will be the case, as I know my sister. lol My brother-in-law will have to be on board with it. There will be no double standard when it comes to how sex is discussed, and the information passed to both children. 

---

Mies...as a man, I don't know why you felt a need to come to the bbw forum to scold a bbw who put out a topic for people to discuss. There is no need for you to talk about it....but, as you think some of the subjects are best left to the history books....I would suggest you soak in some of what is said. You think things have changed so much, and you are so very wrong. Ruffie works with young people, and if you bothered to read what she said, this stuff is rooted....deeply. Start a thread elsewhere, to talk about your being ticked off.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Sep 2, 2009)

Yeah, I'm so sick of that double standard that I started sending random PMs to people with a picture of my vagina. 

That'll teach them......


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Sep 2, 2009)

Mies said:


> The "double standard" that you posit varies widely in its applicability among different groups - our culture is far too fragmented for the type of "one size fits all" morality that characterized our culture in the grey flannel suit era. A man might be looked down upon in certain conservative religious groups for sleeping around. Do you belong to one of them? If your peer group doesn't accept your actions, maybe you're in the wrong group. Of course, you're pretty much stuck with your family, but even families are not monolithic - you'll find some aunt to agree with you even if your cousin doesn't.
> 
> Katherine, you post these "provocative" questions with amazing regularity, trying to make some sort of point or continue an agenda, but there is a certain staleness to them: they ask questions that might best have been asked back in the 70's and are less relevant today. Things have changed.
> 
> Look at the acceptance of gays in our culture. Sure, some people are never going to be OK with that, but so what? Unlike in previous times, if you're not related to them, you can pretty much write them off and move on. Why do you expect to change everyone? Isn't it enough to be free to do what you want? Whose opinion do you treasure more than your own?




Your opinion/point about "not worrying what other people think" might have been taken more serious if you weren't so quick to rush in to criticize the OP....as if she must care what you think 







******************


That being said, I think that women help to perpetuate a lot of these double standards. Women less open sexually judge other women that are sexually open, they shun and call them sluts and older generations (such as my mothers) taught that we should wait until marriage. 
Women don't always back each other up like we should. 

The only "message" I have given my oldest daughter is to wait until she is an adult and can understand/handle the consequences of sex, to always protect herself from disease/unwanted pregnancy and to respect herself and her choices....not letting others decide what is best for her.



And yeah, I'm with you Ruth. I cringe when people say "It's harder to raise daughters than sons". If I ask them to explain why, it seems to be some attitude about not letting them be sexually promiscuous or protecting them from men/pregnancy. You don't want to teach your sons the same? You don't want to know where your male child is at all times until he reaches adulthood? It's okay for your son to go around not using protection? You don't want him to wait until he's grown to have sex? It's "different"?

WTF?


Also good on you Ruth for reminding them that their loved ones are women, too. It seems to me that some males tend to separate "women" from the women they love. I don't get it......


----------



## katherine22 (Sep 3, 2009)

Mies said:


> There seems to be a double standard about having an opinion around here. Oh well, I guess I should keep my thoughts to myself and just look pretty. My wife mentioned that she had some shirts that need ironing too.



You failed to appreciate that you were in a forum that was devoted to topics that were of interest to women. You behaved arrogantly and men of your ilk is the reason we need a BBW forum in the first place. You're certainly no example of wit and style - you would be better served at the paysite forum.


----------



## BubbleButtBabe (Sep 3, 2009)

Mies said:


> There seems to be a double standard about having an opinion around here. Oh well, I guess I should keep my thoughts to myself and just look pretty. My wife mentioned that she had some shirts that need ironing too.



Before you ever posted to this forum you should have read the rules first..This is a protected BBW forum,where women can post what ever crosses their mind about issues concerning *women*..Men's opinions are welcome as long as they are not derogatory and are on topic..Instead you thought you had ever right to come in and criticize Katherine about her choice of topic..


----------



## Tau (Sep 3, 2009)

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> Yeah, I'm so sick of that double standard that I started sending random PMs to people with a picture of my vagina.
> 
> That'll teach them......




Ahahahaha! Can I have one if I ask nicely??


----------



## katherine22 (Sep 3, 2009)

Mies said:


> I did read the rules first.
> 
> I wasn't off topic. I wasn't being derogatory. I was disagreeing with her on the relevance of the content of her topic. Many women openly post about their sexual escapades on these very boards. How often are they met with "You are an amoral slut for doing that. Sleeping around is something that only men are allowed to do"? Katherine is only a couple of years older than I am, so I can also remember a time when that might have happened. I don't see it happening now, do you?




You have a right to say that I am boring - big deal. If my topic is irrelevant why has it generated long responses by other women? Who the hell are you to decide what is interesting to talk about in a women's protected forum?


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Sep 3, 2009)

Mies said:


> I did read the rules first.
> 
> I wasn't off topic. I wasn't being derogatory. I was disagreeing with her on the relevance of the content of her topic. Many women openly post about their sexual escapades on these very boards. How often are they met with "You are an amoral slut for doing that. Sleeping around is something that only men are allowed to do"? Katherine is only a couple of years older than I am, so I can also remember a time when that might have happened. I don't see it happening now, do you?



It does happen, usually among women. 

Sure plenty of women openly discuss their sexual excapades on these boards, but how many of them ever make note that they were all with different men? If I were to make 50 posts talking about different sexual experiences with 50 different men you could bet your sweet ass I'd be labeled a slut in a hot second. 

I'd have lots of men messaging me trying to "get to know me" because of course to have fucked 50 men I must be easy, and women pming each other behind my back talking about what a slut I am and that's why its so hard for girls to find a good guy when whores like me just give it up without making the guy wait for it.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Sep 3, 2009)

Mies said:


> I did read the rules first.
> 
> I wasn't off topic. I wasn't being derogatory. I was disagreeing with her on the relevance of the content of her topic. Many women openly post about their sexual escapades on these very boards. How often are they met with "You are an amoral slut for doing that. Sleeping around is something that only men are allowed to do"? Katherine is only a couple of years older than I am, so I can also remember a time when that might have happened. I don't see it happening now, do you?





Mies said:


> I never said that you were boring. I thought that the topic was interesting enough to offer my take on the issue; others have different opinions. I'm fine with that. Why aren't you?



I'm confused Mies....I didn't realize that you were actually a woman. Katherine wanted to discuss the experiences of women. The only opinion you seem to have about the experiences of women is that Katherine is lying or being dramatic or just incorrect....how would you know??
She shared her own experiences- who are you to come in and say that it didn't happen????

Oh and yeah, people do judge women based upon their sexual preferences, experiences and behaviors. I know that from being a woman in our society.

Share your OWN experiences and stop trying to discount or debate the experiences of others. 

Yeah, yeah, YOU haven't heard anyone being called XYZ lately....could that be because you're a man?? :blink:


----------



## Teleute (Sep 3, 2009)

Mies, you may not see it as often as we do, but I assure you that this is ABSOLUTELY still an issue that we face. I know you've been around to see major progress in society in terms of women's rights and status, so in comparison to what you've witnessed before it may seem small; however, we are FAR from being equal on this matter. More later, when I'm not supposed to be working >_>


----------



## superodalisque (Sep 3, 2009)

i have to agree with that to some extent. in some ways i think when you look at very young girls we have even gone backwards in some ways. but Mies has a point though. i think more of it is self imposed than imposed by men. sure, there are some men who try to get away with it but its usually the type who are insecure and maladjusted anyway and would use anything to try and be superior to anyone they could. if they felt their position was secure in the company of men they wouldn't care either way what women did or did not do, especially women they weren't involved with. they are the type that may as well wear a kkk hood. 

but i still see more of it among women in general. even when i was young that was true. it was generally the "why is he dating her she is such a slut" "why is she wearing that" " she is such a whore". i have hardly ever come across men saying those things. those kinds of guys are very few and far between and not not worth anyone's consideration. they should be left in the dust where they belong.

i still wonder why women give men like that so much power over them to determine how they feel about themselves even though intellectually they know they shouldn't. would a double standard really matter so much in todays world if we as women did not didn't adhere to it? what if we didn't experience the world in ways where we thought we were powerless? what if we just took and used the powere we did have? would the double standard matter at all? why do we feel so ineffectual and powerless in its face to begin with--even when we are not?


----------



## olwen (Sep 3, 2009)

Mies' posts offer up a point of view that is valid, however at this point they are disruptive, and I'd like to remind non-bbw posters who participate here to not be disruptive. 

That said, yes advancements have been made regarding sexual freedoms for women, and in some ways young women today do have choices that they wouldn't have forty years ago, but make no mistake, those double standards are far from over.


----------



## Mies (Sep 3, 2009)

olwen said:


> Mies' posts offer up a point of view that is valid, however at this point they are disruptive, and I'd like to remind non-bbw posters who participate here to not be disruptive.
> 
> 
> > Thank you. Sorry for my part in sending this thread off track.


----------



## BubbleButtBabe (Sep 3, 2009)

Mies said:


> I did read the rules first.
> 
> I wasn't off topic. I wasn't being derogatory. I was disagreeing with her on the relevance of the content of her topic. Many women openly post about their sexual escapades on these very boards. How often are they met with "You are an amoral slut for doing that. Sleeping around is something that only men are allowed to do"? Katherine is only a couple of years older than I am, so I can also remember a time when that might have happened. I don't see it happening now, do you?



I took offense to you comment about Katherine's topics being stale and some sort of agenda..You could have answered the question and left the commentary off and it would have been fine..

I grew up in the '70 and the same thing that was said back then about "loose" women is being said today..Maybe not as vocal but it is still there..Young women talk about other young women being sluts because they have slept with X amount of men..It is still happening 30-40 years later so it has not changed much..The best part of the women's sexual revolution is the fact we were are finally able to stand up and say we want to be satisfied just like the men and we deserved to be satisfied..We want sex to be just as enjoyable to us as it is to the men and if that meant sleeping with more then 2 guys during our life time so be it! Instead we get the words slut and easy banded about..Other women call us sluts and men tell their friends which women are easy..


----------



## superodalisque (Sep 3, 2009)

BubbleButtBabe said:


> I took offense to you comment about Katherine's topics being stale and some sort of agenda..You could have answered the question and left the commentary off and it would have been fine..
> 
> I grew up in the '70 and the same thing that was said back then about "loose" women is being said today..Maybe not as vocal but it is still there..Young women talk about other young women being sluts because they have slept with X amount of men..It is still happening 30-40 years later so it has not changed much..The best part of the women's sexual revolution is the fact we were are finally able to stand up and say we want to be satisfied just like the men and we deserved to be satisfied..We want sex to be just as enjoyable to us as it is to the men and if that meant sleeping with more then 2 guys during our life time so be it! Instead we get the words slut and easy banded about..Other women call us sluts and men tell their friends which women are easy..




the statistics for us when it comes to real sexual liberation isn't all that much different if you take out the necessities of divorce etc.. i sometimes think this so called modern sexual liberation is more of an action of necessity than anything else. its my opinion that quite a few women are more sexually available because they think they have to be and there is a lot of pressure to be that way. i think thats especially true for young women without fathers who crave positive male attention. is an orgasm enough if i leaves you feeling stupid or used afterwards?

americans talk a good talk but they aren't very sexually liberated at all. i kind of believe its just as fake as club only lesbians who pretend to be attracted to other women because it gets them male attention without regard for women who are truly lesbians. i'm not sure that this sort of sexual liberation is good thing. it left a nasty taste in the mouths of people who participated in the 60s and the 70s. the high drug use was not only about an idea of freedom. that was just a masquerade for the same thing it has always been about--a way to escape painful experiences. no one feels that happy about being used. its probably why everything got so conservative on the whole in the 80s because wild sexual abandon with unevolved people is not necessarily all that its cracked up to be what with the broken hearts and STDs. i think we are facing the same problems that result now in the rise in impotence and depression. sex sometimes seems to be just another battleground and a way to try to control,accuse and critisize each other instead of working together so that both people can get the best from it. i think there were always plenty of orgasms to be had before all of this by people who actually cared for each other and were honest with each other. i'm not sure that just having more effective sex without real understanding is going to solve much. we'll just go back to our corners as we do now when the match is over.

go to the mattresses--the godfather


----------



## Donna (Sep 3, 2009)

olwen said:


> *snipped*That said, yes advancements have been made regarding sexual freedoms for women, and in some ways young women today do have choices that they wouldn't have forty years ago, but make no mistake, those double standards are far from over.



Do you think the double standards will ever be over? (I am asking this of everyone participating here, not just you Olwen...I quoted you because you broke it down so plainly.) And what do we (human beings we, not just women) need to do to kill off the double standards?


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Sep 3, 2009)

Donna said:


> Do you think the double standards will ever be over? (I am asking this of everyone participating here, not just you Olwen...I quoted you because you broke it down so plainly.) And what do we (human beings we, not just women) need to do to kill off the double standards?



Behave differently- and teach our children differently


----------



## Tina (Sep 3, 2009)

Just a reminder that this forum is for the constructive, size-positive discussion of BBW issues, not for criticizing or questioning such issues; therefore, some posts have been removed, but quotes left as a reference.


----------



## katherine22 (Sep 3, 2009)

I think that the dynamics of this thread has been very interesting. I asked if the women on this forum about their thoughts as to whether "the double standard of sexual conduct" was still an influence. I would like to understand why a man had to judge whether the topic was relevant to women - as if that were not enough he had to insult me for raising it in a discussion. He upped the ante some by inferring that I had an agenda. I do have an agenda since I am considering doing a Ph.D and to have raised the question in this forum was to find out if it resonated with anyone. I think at some level this man felt threatened by the question and women discussing the question. I think that some men are threatened by intelligent women, and I also think that some women feel this maternal need to protect men from thoughtful discussions with women. If the BBW Forum is strictly for light commentary where we can discuss the thrills of belly rubbing for the titillation of men then you can count me out. Perhaps Dimensions has evolved beyond the orginal plan of the creator but here it is. Maybe we no longer live in a world where we remain silent while we are the fodder for someone else's fantasies.


----------



## Fascinita (Sep 3, 2009)

Mies said:


> Katherine, you post these "provocative" questions with amazing regularity, trying to make some sort of point or continue an agenda, but there is a certain staleness to them: they ask questions that might best have been asked back in the 70's and are less relevant today. Things have changed.
> 
> Look at the acceptance of gays in our culture. Sure, some people are never going to be OK with that, but so what? Unlike in previous times, if you're not related to them, you can pretty much write them off and move on. Why do you expect to change everyone? Isn't it enough to be free to do what you want? Whose opinion do you treasure more than your own?




Dude, there's venom dripping from your words. She's. Just. Posting. Some. Questions. Like anyone else, she's allowed to do that. What do you have against it? I don't see you taking aim at other posters. 

Maybe we should each just run what we post by you... You know: an arbiter of timeliness, cool, and urbanity... that's you.


----------



## Keb (Sep 3, 2009)

Katherine, something in your approach to Mie's post makes me cringe. I saw nothing in his comments to warrant such bile, but maybe I just failed to see it. It comes off as a double-standard for this thread, to me. 

I believe that to gain some kinds of power, women have sacrificed the kinds of power that we possessed in earlier times. In some ways, it is a positive trade-off, but not entirely. For example, in recasting history to illuminate real inequity and real pain, I believe we have cast aside some of our predecessors' greatest accomplishments. Not every woman in history was treated as or felt like a slave; many demonstrated impressive leadership, in both (traditionally) masculine and feminine roles. Many worked the system to reach their goals, and were genuinely happy. Do we really honor our grandmothers by dismissing their power and casting them as victims in our narrative? 

As was stated, an expectation of chastity may limit choices, but it also offers protection I fear many young women suffer from a lack of. Now that most women (as well as men) are taught to have sex "when you are ready", I think it makes it more difficult for women to say no when we are not. It is not supposed to work that way, but it does. It also makes it more difficult for boys, who are treated as if something is wrong with them if they choose not to be sexually active at a fairly young age. 

Both women and men are losing out with the present standard--having one choice seems to make another cease to be an option. And I believe it is causing negative effects to self esteem, health, and families.

I believe the double standard doesn't exist to the degree it used to, but our new standard is seriously lacking, too. I would prefer a standard of responsibility in sexuality, one acknowledging it is much more than a pleasant activity. The consequences will always fall more heavily on women due to biology, unless society compels men to be responsible for their actions. Just now, it does not.


----------



## katherine22 (Sep 4, 2009)

Keb said:


> Katherine, something in your approach to Mie's post makes me cringe. I saw nothing in his comments to warrant such bile, but maybe I just failed to see it. It comes off as a double-standard for this thread, to me.
> 
> I believe that to gain some kinds of power, women have sacrificed the kinds of power that we possessed in earlier times. In some ways, it is a positive trade-off, but not entirely. For example, in recasting history to illuminate real inequity and real pain, I believe we have cast aside some of our predecessors' greatest accomplishments. Not every woman in history was treated as or felt like a slave; many demonstrated impressive leadership, in both (traditionally) masculine and feminine roles. Many worked the system to reach their goals, and were genuinely happy. Do we really honor our grandmothers by dismissing their power and casting them as victims in our narrative?
> 
> ...



Mies could not address my question without accusing me of being, provocative, demeaning my questions as stale and not reflective of life as we know it. I felt that he was telling my indirectly to shut up, not be provocative while posting questions that he found uninteresting in a BBW forum. I am not going off Dims because some man thanks that I am irrelevant, uninteresting and provocative. I am not going off Dims, Keb, because you think that I am dripping of "bile." I have as much right to post here as you do.


----------



## Keb (Sep 4, 2009)

katherine22 said:


> Mies could not address my question without accusing me of being, provocative, demeaning my questions as stale and not reflective of life as we know it. I felt that he was telling my indirectly to shut up, not be provocative while posting questions that he found uninteresting in a BBW forum. I am not going off Dims because some man thanks that I am irrelevant, uninteresting and provocative. I am not going off Dims, Keb, because you think that I am dripping of "bile." I have as much right to post here as you do.



I never asked you to go anyplace. I think it is a very interesting question and I was enjoying the debate quite a bit, save for that. But Hyde Park is history. 

It was your words, not you, that struck me as so angry and felt out of proportion to the offense. As you are an intelligent woman with a clearly inquisitive mind and a desire to learn, I did not expect you to react in that manner to someone questioning your logic; it seems to me to defeat the purpose to silence anyone, even with offensive or stupid points of view, if you want to understand other people's experiences.

It is your thread, I suppose.


----------



## rollhandler (Sep 4, 2009)

The double standard exists, this much we have ascertained. It is alive and well in this modern age, this much we acknowledge. Education in my book is what will change it or at least amend it but that will take generations of unlearning and accepting the changes a little at a time.

From my experiences though the women and girls tend to treat each other much more harshly than the men do in reference to the double standard.
I am a very sexually open person. I am also very nonjudgmental, and in my own way knowledgeable on the topic, having studied and done a lot of book research on the topic of human sexuality over the years.
As such, I had the joy of being the sexual educator of a family of 2 boys and one girl whose parents really didn't feel comfortable teaching it to their children. The _boys_ were regularly directed to me for all manner of questions about what it was, how it felt and the list continued ad infinitum. Since they were the eldest in the family I saw no need to question it and planned on using exactly the same teaching for the girl when I inevitably expected her to also be sent to me for these answers. 

The boys got chapter and verse about just exactly COULD produce babies and I held nothing back in reference to the act itself. Age adjusted for the answers of course, the older they were the more information they got. But they were let know in no uncertain terms that if those parts ever got together what the consequences could be and to use common sense about it. I taught preparedness and use of protection in any and all circumstances, not to trust her to be on the pill, but to take responsibility for their own protection, and also that protection of any sort other than abstinence was not always perfect. I also taught them the economics of what a night of passion could entail protected or not. I asked regularly during these conversations if they could support a family on what they earned. I taught them to value the experiences but to value higher the gaining of experience with a life partner over a one night stand. I taught quality over quantity and how much more fulfilling emotional investments of a LTR were over casual encounters. I gave them food for thought about the topics brought before me. I even referenced the points of judgment on appearance in the context that just because a girl acts a certain way or dresses a certain way that doesn't give you the right to treat her as less than anything short of the same respect you would give any other girl who didn't. The word reference of the word slut was decidedly and immediately a cause to take the children to task and used as a learning tool about respect for people in general and more specifically females. It wasn't used nor was it tolerated if it slipped by either gender.

I planned on using exactly the same mental script for the girl when she would come to me with her questions with only pronoun changes. The parents thought my teaching was perfect for the boys, however they did not like my liberal script where their daughter was concerned. She was to be taught abstinence at all costs. Teaching protection condoned the act in their estimation and promoted the behaviour. I asked them if that was the way they were taught? Then I asked how well it worked? The mother of these children was pregnant before her graduation BTW. Regardless of the logic I presented to them they refused to be swayed. Needless to say I did not have a part in her education. Her rebuttal to me was "It's different when it's YOUR daughter." 

Sexuality is a value to be taught when teaching children about their bodies, and the double standard is unfortunately taught out of fear, shame and, arrogance, from the cradle. It won't get better until we can start teaching our children that they are sexual beings and to teach respect of each other sexually, as well as to stop thinking of sex as a four letter word and a topic of shame,and discomfort to be avoided lest we invoke curiosity. We also need to start teaching human sexuality from a less gender biased slant and start teaching it from a humanistic point of view. But even then it will still take generations to see any result and unfortunately, I don't see that happening within my lifetime.
Rollhandler


----------



## katherine22 (Sep 4, 2009)

rollhandler said:


> The double standard exists, this much we have ascertained. It is alive and well in this modern age, this much we acknowledge. Education in my book is what will change it or at least amend it but that will take generations of unlearning and accepting the changes a little at a time.
> 
> From my experiences though the women and girls tend to treat each other much more harshly than the men do in reference to the double standard.
> I am a very sexually open person. I am also very nonjudgmental, and in my own way knowledgeable on the topic, having studied and done a lot of book research on the topic of human sexuality over the years.
> ...



I appreciated your thoughtful response. Girls pay dearly for the doublestandard in that they experience such shame about their own impulses.


----------



## bigmac (Sep 4, 2009)

I wasn't going to get involved in this thread but I had a conversation with a coworker today that I think is relevant. I work with a beautiful (but unfortunately skinny) young lawyer. She just bought a new house and was joking that what she needed was a part-time husband who would help with the home improvement projects and perhaps more  and then go home. She is actively participating in stereotypically male water-cooler banter and no one thinks any the less of her.

This coworker is not an anomaly. In the offices I've worked in (in New Jersey and California) many women have openly talked about and even flaunted their sexuality with no deleterious effect. Indeed in the New Jersey office I worked with an attorney (a BBW and a lesbian) who was about as open with her sexuality as its possible to get -- news of her latest escapades were eagerly awaited every Monday morning.

Neither of these co-workers have suffered for being open about their sexuality. Both are well respected *and* well liked. While professional offices in liberal states are obviously not representative of society as a whole I think my experiences show there are at least some area's where the sexual double standard is no more.


----------



## BBW Betty (Sep 4, 2009)

I'd have to agree that a double standard exists, but my thoughts take a different twist. I don't have time this morning to delve deeply into the conversation, but I just want to throw this general thought out there:

The real shame is that in trying to change the double standard, there's an encouragement for women to behave as badly as the men traditionally have, instead of encouraging men to live up to the standards that women were always supposed to. Sexuality is beautiful, not shameful. But on both sides of the equation, IMHO, it really should be reserved for marriage / committed relationships where the emotional connection is part of the experience.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Sep 4, 2009)

BBW Betty said:


> I'd have to agree that a double standard exists, but my thoughts take a different twist. I don't have time this morning to delve deeply into the conversation, but I just want to throw this general thought out there:
> 
> The real shame is that in trying to change the double standard, there's an encouragement for women to behave as badly as the men traditionally have, instead of encouraging men to live up to the standards that women were always supposed to. Sexuality is beautiful, not shameful. But on both sides of the equation, IMHO, it really should be reserved for marriage / committed relationships where the emotional connection is part of the experience.



But not everyone feels that way. Me having sex outside of marriage does not automatically make me a bad person and in my opinion isn't anything to be ashamed of.


----------



## olwen (Sep 4, 2009)

Donna said:


> Do you think the double standards will ever be over? (I am asking this of everyone participating here, not just you Olwen...I quoted you because you broke it down so plainly.) And what do we (human beings we, not just women) need to do to kill off the double standards?





Green Eyed Fairy said:


> Behave differently- and teach our children differently



What Greenie said. But also, I think that as long as puritanical shame about our bodies is present it will be difficult to get rid of that double standard. We need to do away with the idea that women's bodies are supposed to remain pure, or that this purity gets sullied by a man's touch except within the confines of marriage. This madonna/whore business is just ridiculous. That we have to guard our sexuality because we are seen as too weak or incapable of making sexual decisions is a travesty. That men are taught to have some kind of ownership or paternalistic feelings over women's bodies is also a travesty. These kinds of attitudes just have to go.

My mother thinks monogamy is an unachievable standard because other mammals in the animal kingdom are in fact promiscuous. So she feels the expectation to be monogamous is the root of a lot of problems.....this then makes me wonder how different our sexual/relationship expectations would be if we lived to be 200 years old. That would give new meaning to the words "Till death do us part."


----------



## mergirl (Sep 4, 2009)

fatgirlflyin said:


> But not everyone feels that way. Me having sex outside of marriage does not automatically make me a bad person and in my opinion isn't anything to be ashamed of.



I agree. I think we are socially conditioned to belive that sex outside marrage is wrong. I can't think of any reason why it should be; For male or females. I have always enjoyed sex more when i have been really attracted to someone, (whether they are married or not)..but then i guess that makes sense. Hmmm...i don't know the history of this but i'm sure some pope or other decided sex outside marrage was wrong to save money on child benifits or something like that..


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Sep 4, 2009)

mergirl said:


> Hmmm...i don't know the history of this but i'm sure some pope or other decided sex outside marrage was wrong to save money on child benifits or something like that..



Or some man, way back in the day in the times of the scarlett (sp?) letter.


----------



## ashmamma84 (Sep 4, 2009)

BBW Betty said:


> I'd have to agree that a double standard exists, but my thoughts take a different twist. I don't have time this morning to delve deeply into the conversation, but I just want to throw this general thought out there:
> 
> The real shame is that in trying to change the double standard, there's an encouragement for women to behave as badly as the men traditionally have, instead of encouraging men to live up to the standards that women were always supposed to. Sexuality is beautiful, not shameful. But on both sides of the equation, IMHO, it really should be reserved for marriage / committed relationships where the emotional connection is part of the experience.



For the most part, I agree with how you feel. It's something that's worked for my partnership. I'm not a woman that can have sexual experiences without any emotional connection. However, I have friends that can. I don't look down on them or think any less of them because they choose to have as much sex as I am, but with many partners. 

I think that's the thing that chaps my (chubby) hide. The judgement that we women place on each other can really stifle our freedom and in some ways, I'd say personal development. Sometimes people arrive at the same conclusions via vastly different routes. Why isn't that okay? Why can't women explore who they are and what they really want without criticism from the peanut gallery? 

As a side, I was talking to my aunt and my Mother about this. They both feel men and women can be "whores"; women can explore their sexuality but when children result because of it...that's where the problem arises, then it's not as simple as getting a feel for who you are. It's maybe apart of a bigger problem underneath it all; because with each encounter the woman (or in some cases, the girl child) is looking for something--love perhaps. Have you noticed that the age for having children is getting younger and younger? I mean, to me it's not just about SES or race anymore. We need to look a little closer. Children learn to love by example and they aren't being shown the way. There's a consequence for having sex and unfortunately it has fallen and probably will always fall on/more harshly on the woman.


----------



## Keb (Sep 4, 2009)

mergirl said:


> I agree. I think we are socially conditioned to belive that sex outside marrage is wrong. I can't think of any reason why it should be; For male or females. I have always enjoyed sex more when i have been really attracted to someone, (whether they are married or not)..but then i guess that makes sense. Hmmm...i don't know the history of this but i'm sure some pope or other decided sex outside marrage was wrong to save money on child benifits or something like that..



To me, it comes down to responsibility. Since I believe abortion is wrong except as self defense and should be as rare as possible, sex that could even remotely create a child cannot, in my mind, be responsible without reasonable provisions made by both parents for that potential person. No birth control is 100% perfect, and I believe people have a right to know and be loved by both bioloical parents, and to see them love each other, too. World is not perfect, and stuff occurs to make my ideal unattainable--but we can decide to risk our kids lives and futures or not to. 

My logic is probably not perfect, but it is why I make my decisions about sex. It is also not sexist, since I expect men and women alike to respect each other and their potential children.


----------



## BubbleButtBabe (Sep 4, 2009)

mergirl said:


> I agree. I think we are socially conditioned to belive that sex outside marrage is wrong. I can't think of any reason why it should be; For male or females. I have always enjoyed sex more when i have been really attracted to someone, (whether they are married or not)..but then i guess that makes sense. Hmmm...i don't know the history of this but i'm sure some pope or other decided sex outside marrage was wrong to save money on child benifits or something like that..




I think monogamy was started to protect wealthy men from raising and giving their wealth to say the stable helps child..I found the following in an article I was reading and thought it says a lot..

_monogamy may have its roots in the control of female sexuality so that men could keep track of their lineage, thus historically linking monogamy with women's oppression throughout human history. And in a final huge ironic twist, the modern stereotype requires that women have to nail men down and make them commit to monogamy!_

I know in Roman times polygamy was very much practiced and not just between men and women but also men and men,women and women..JMO


----------



## BubbleButtBabe (Sep 4, 2009)

Keb said:


> To me, it comes down to responsibility. Since I believe abortion is wrong except as self defense and should be as rare as possible, sex that could even remotely create a child cannot, in my mind, be responsible without reasonable provisions made by both parents for that potential person. No birth control is 100% perfect, and I believe people have a right to know and be loved by both bioloical parents, and to see them love each other, too. World is not perfect, and stuff occurs to make my ideal unattainable--but we can decide to risk our kids lives and futures or not to.
> 
> My logic is probably not perfect, but it is why I make my decisions about sex. It is also not sexist, since I expect men and women alike to respect each other and their potential children.




Even children born in to a marriage are not 100% safe from being abandoned by a parent when said parent decides to leave the marriage or even feel abandoned when 1 of the parents die..There are a lot of children raised in single parent homes that get lots of love and grow up to be model citizens..


----------



## Tad (Sep 4, 2009)

BubbleButtBabe said:


> I know in Roman times polygamy was very much practiced and not just between men and women but also men and men,women and women..JMO



I'm pretty positive that in roman law you could marry only one person. Of course in many societies unofficial relationships were common and accepted, especially amongst the wealthy where marriage was often more about alliances between families than about love, lust, or even being able to stand each other, but that is a whole different matter.

Also the romans were quite against homosexual relations between men (I forget what the military punishment for it was, but it was quite horrific, and their name for a homosexual male was considered to be a grave insult)

However there were other societies in ancient times with very different views on these things, of course.


----------



## mossystate (Sep 4, 2009)

bigmac said:


> I think my experiences show there are at least some area's where the sexual double standard is no more.



While all those individual examples ( not to the women living the lives, but, in terms of how society at large reacts ) are fine and dandy...and necessary, I would not be closing any book on the bad old double standard. These women do not live in a bubble. Fucking the men you want to fuck does not mean jack in terms of how the sexual double standard operates in our society. The sexism is still there...glaring. There are a million subtle ways that this sexism is expressed, no matter how it looks on the surface. 

Again..I am happy to see any woman trying to live her life how she...she...sees fit. I personally feel that the male model AND the female model are extremely ridiculous and suffocating. Sexuality, as long as it is held in such strangleholds....the ' typical ' male response/allowances....or the ' typical ' female upholding of virtues, attached to religious and male decided rules of the road....it does not stand a chance. 

The double standard does not just play out...or not play out... when the body parts are colliding. The fallout happened long before that, and continues to seep into society as a whole, when it comes time to punish and to deny, and assign appropriate behaviors.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Sep 4, 2009)

I do think there still is a double standard. For example, promiscuity in men still seems to be considered to be a positive manly trait and promiscuous men are called things like studs or womanizers. I personally consider promiscuous men to be sluts and whores.


----------



## katherine22 (Sep 4, 2009)

mossystate said:


> While all those individual examples ( not to the women living the lives, but, in terms of how society at large reacts ) are fine and dandy...and necessary, I would not be closing any book on the bad old double standard. These women do not live in a bubble. Fucking the men you want to fuck does not mean jack in terms of how the sexual double standard operates in our society. The sexism is still there...glaring. There are a million subtle ways that this sexism is expressed, no matter how it looks on the surface.
> 
> Again..I am happy to see any woman trying to live her life how she...she...sees fit. I personally feel that the male model AND the female model are extremely ridiculous and suffocating. Sexuality, as long as it is held in such strangleholds....the ' typical ' male response/allowances....or the ' typical ' female upholding of virtues, attached to religious and male decided rules of the road....it does not stand a chance.
> 
> The double standard does not just play out...or not play out... when the body parts are colliding. The fallout happened long before that, and continues to seep into society as a whole, when it comes time to punish and to deny, and assign appropriate behaviors.




I am so enjoying this "stale" conversation. You expressed it perfectly in that the social sexual conditioning of both men and women can be stifling and the fall out permeates to other areas of life. I am trying to understand the necessity to view sex within moral confines, what was it about the sexual act itself that religions felt they needed to codify the conditions. My guess is that there is something about the sexual act under certain circumstances that contributes to transcendence which is often the goal of religious ritual.


----------



## frankman (Sep 4, 2009)

Jack Skellington said:


> I do think there still is a double standard. For example, *promiscuity in men still seems to be considered to be a positive manly trait* and promiscuous men are called things like studs or womanizers. [...]



I know I'm posting in the BBW thread, and I'm well aware of the dangers in asking this, but:

Is the bolded bit in the quote still true?

I've seen it being brought up in so many arguments, but personally, I don't know anyone that really thinks promiscuity for promiscuity's sake in men is a good thing. And there's a whole bunch of you here who don't think that's how it should be. Is there some silent majority somewhere? (I am talking about North America, Europe and Oceania here, there's all kinds of silly shit going on in Africa and certain (middle) Eastern countries, but I believe that's a whole different problem)

I think that what is said in previous posts; about both stigma's being stifling, the removal of the taboo that rests on sexuality, that's where IMHO the points of interest are.


----------



## mossystate (Sep 4, 2009)

It almost doesn't matter if promiscuity for promiscuity's sake is said to be a great thing for men. Most people do not say, " yes, let's teach our boys to fuck everything that moves, for this is a good thing ". The problem has come from the silence...and comes from the sly comments over how big a stud a boy/man might be. So, yes...it has become a positive, manly, trait...just one that is denied, with superficial comment like..." oh, that's bad ".


----------



## Keb (Sep 4, 2009)

mossystate said:


> It almost doesn't matter if promiscuity for promiscuity's sake is said to be a great thing for men. Most people do not say, " yes, let's teach our boys to fuck everything that moves, for this is a good thing ". The problem has come from the silence...and comes from the sly comments over how big a stud a boy/man might be. So, yes...it has become a positive, manly, trait...just one that is denied, with superficial comment like..." oh, that's bad ".



See, I know that such stereotypes get bandied about...but I personally, and those in my immediate family/circle of friends, don't see it as a great thing when a man is promiscuous. Not in the least. We tend to value integrity, responsibility, and honesty. So while the stereotype may exist in our culture, it doesn't exist in the people I associate with on a day-to-day basis. 

OTH, I have had men online brag to me about how many women they've had sex with. One keeps telling me how he's had 27 women. When he tells me that, I don't think "ooh, what a stud," I'm thinking wow, that sucks for your kid, and I'm glad I'm not one of those women (nor am I going to be 28, thank you). 

I don't realistically expect that most people are going to stick it out as long as I have on the virgin side of things in our modern culture, but I do find it more revolting than alluring to hear a man bragging about all his women. The men who are attractive in my eye are the ones who focus on one women--the one who is with them. They're the ones who are there for their kids, when/if they have them, and care about their personal imprint on the world.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Sep 4, 2009)

bigmac said:


> I wasn't going to get involved in this thread but I had a conversation with a coworker today that I think is relevant. I work with a beautiful (but unfortunately skinny) young lawyer. She just bought a new house and was joking that what she needed was a part-time husband who would help with the home improvement projects and perhaps more  and then go home. She is actively participating in stereotypically male water-cooler banter and no one thinks any the less of her.
> 
> This coworker is not an anomaly. In the offices I've worked in (in *New Jersey and Californi*a) many women have openly talked about and even flaunted their sexuality with no deleterious effect. Indeed in the *New Jersey* office I worked with an attorney (a BBW and a lesbian) who was about as open with her sexuality as its possible to get -- news of her latest escapades were eagerly awaited every Monday morning.
> 
> Neither of these co-workers have suffered for being open about their sexuality. Both are well respected *and* well liked. While professional offices in liberal states are obviously not representative of society as a whole I think my experiences show there are at least some area's where the sexual double standard is no more.




You worked with professionals in California and Jersey. Been to the bible belt lately? Just saying......


Far as this waiting for marriage stuff....it's a real crock of uber-shit IMO. 
If someone wants to wait for marriage then good for them, but to think that decision is right for EVERYONE is unreasonable. 
I want to have effed him real good, many times before I say he's all I'm with the rest of my life. Let's leave it at that.......

I tend to think that only selfish lovers, premature ejaculators or guys with small peenies might want to wait for marriage....but hey, that's just MY opinion of waiting. See how unreasonable tossing your personal opinions on other people's relationships can be?


----------



## Tina (Sep 4, 2009)

mossystate said:


> It almost doesn't matter if promiscuity for promiscuity's sake is said to be a great thing for men. Most people do not say, " yes, let's teach our boys to fuck everything that moves, for this is a good thing ". The problem has come from the silence...and comes from the sly comments over how big a stud a boy/man might be. So, yes...it has become a positive, manly, trait...just one that is denied, with superficial comment like..." oh, that's bad ".


Exactly. And between that and porn, boys and girls get the message _very_ quickly.

As well, while people may not admit to teaching their children that whole double-standard mindset, children are very good at noticing subtleties, and they learn very well by watching. So while a parent's mouth might say one thing, their actions and offhand comments say another.


----------



## Keb (Sep 4, 2009)

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> You worked with professionals in California and Jersey. Been to the bible belt lately? Just saying......
> 
> 
> Far as this waiting for marriage stuff....it's a real crock of uber-shit IMO.
> ...



Fortunately for probably everyone, I'm not dictator of the world. I don't have any desire to force anyone else to make the same choices I do, but I have sincere reasons for making them and I'm not shy about sharing them. If I didn't think they were good reasons--I wouldn't think the way I do. (And likewise, vice versa--I recognize that you do have good reasons for making your choices. I hope they serve you well and bring you happiness.) And because I think my reasons are sound, I believe other people would benefit from the same choices I'm making.

Seriously, though, if what you're doing only has the potential to hurt you and/or other consenting adults, it really isn't any of my business. I don't have to agree it's a good idea to say go ahead, enjoy, be happy with it. It stops being benign when it harms other people, and I believe that can be the case with some sexual choices--most specifically those that have the potential to create new lives. 

Your choices are your own and my opinion on the subject as a whole should not be construed as an attack on your rights or your choices. 

I am trying hard to be a loving person in my life, which I fail a lot at. I don't always give people the benefit of the doubt that they deserve, and I don't always notice or do things that could help other people. But I do think the most loving thing I can do for my family--present and future--is to wait until I am married to take the risk of motherhood. So in that way, having sex before marriage would be, for me, the opposite of love.

*giggles* As serious as I am, I always feel like I'm a bit ridiculous when I try to formulate my philosophical thinking into words.

Oh, I wanted to add: I'm bringing this up mainly because I think there IS a different approach to ending the double standard. We don't have to expect everyone to be promiscuous. We can expect everyone to be responsible.


----------



## bigmac (Sep 4, 2009)

Jack Skellington said:


> I do think there still is a double standard. For example, promiscuity in men still seems to be considered to be a positive manly trait and promiscuous men are called things like studs or womanizers. I personally consider promiscuous men to be sluts and whores.



Just who are these people who consider sexually adventurous women sluts and whores -- I've not met them. Over the years I've gone to school with and worked with hundreds of men and women and I can honestly say that I've never encountered such a person.




mossystate said:


> These women do not live in a bubble. Fucking the men you want to fuck does not mean jack in terms of how the sexual double standard operates in our society. The sexism is still there...glaring. There are a million subtle ways that this sexism is expressed, no matter how it looks on the surface.
> 
> ....
> 
> The double standard does not just play out...or not play out... when the body parts are colliding. The fallout happened long before that, and continues to seep into society as a whole, when it comes time to punish and to deny, and assign appropriate behaviors.



I must live in a different society -- well actually I probably do since I'm a liberal atheist.

Just how exactly does your nebulous society punish and deny unchaste women. I don't think I know an adult women who has had less than 15 sex partners (one is well into three digits). The esteem or reputation of my female acquaintances in my circle has absolutely nothing to do with the number of partners they have had.

I'll concede that there are many religious and conservative groups that cling to their peculiar ideas of virtue. Such groups are unlikely to ever embrace equality. Thus I'd encourage woman who feel oppressed to seek new social groups. The days of any kind of monolithic society are long gone -- options are available. If your so called friends and neighbors are punishing you for your sexual decisions its time to kick them to the curb. In the extreme case this may require packing up the U-haul. But that's not a bad thing -- lots of the interesting women I met in San Francisco came from the fly over states.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Sep 4, 2009)

katherine22 said:


> There has existed in our culture and remains prevalent in other cultures "the double standard of sexual conduct" where men can address their sexual needs with impunity, and women can address their sexual needs within a committed relationship or marriage and to veer outside those contexts for women is to be judged harshly. Does the "double standard of sexual conduct" still resonate with younger women today? Do women still judge other women harshly who operate outside sexual societal norms? Do you think that fat women are perceived to be more sexual or is that a fantasy perpetrated by FAs?



I have to admit, I do adhere to certain beliefs that some might consider outdated, closed minded and immature when it comes to sexual liberty. I'm not motivated by any "woman in her place" type thinking. I guess it's more cootie fear than anything else. The thought of having a lot of partners just seems gross to me mentally. I wouldnt do it but I don't judge others harshly for making their own choice. I just hope they're being safe and all that good stuff. This feeling isn't reserved only for women though, I get cootie fever when I consider getting involved with men who sleep around. It's just not for me is all. I think it's okay to prefer what you prefer but not okay to shun or shame people who prefer something else either way, as long as it doesn't harm anyone.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Sep 4, 2009)

bigmac said:


> Just who are these people who consider sexually adventurous women sluts and whores -- I've not met them. Over the years I've gone to school with and worked with hundreds of men and women and I can honestly say that I've never encountered such a person.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



bigmac, all of your arguments come from a 'first person' kind of place. You and all your friends have good valid opinions but that doesn't mean any of those women you know could run for public office. No need to go through the list of men in public office who had a randy old time before they settled down with the missus. Society at large still thinks poorly of women who exercise within the same sexual liberty that men enjoy. In fact, if women came forward one by one claiming that they dated Senator X before he married no one would even care unless she could claim he was a drunk, he did drugs or doesn't pay his child support.


----------



## KittyKitten (Sep 5, 2009)

katherine22 said:


> There has existed in our culture and remains prevalent in other cultures "the double standard of sexual conduct" where men can address their sexual needs with impunity, and women can address their sexual needs within a committed relationship or marriage and to veer outside those contexts for women is to be judged harshly. Does the "double standard of sexual conduct" still resonate with younger women today? Do women still judge other women harshly who operate outside sexual societal norms? Do you think that fat women are perceived to be more sexual or is that a fantasy perpetrated by FAs?




To be honest, it's really women who judge other women harshly. When you see some chick with a skimpy outfit, 9 times out of 10, it is another women that would call her a 'ho' or 'slut'. Women are the ones who bring themselves down. Yes young women still do it. It still goes on and will never go away. 

We women are pushed to be competitive.

And sadly, men too, will treat you based on how you carry yourself. Yeah the man can mess around with a lot of women, but that same man would disrespect you and not take you seriously if he finds out you have been around the block. That is why so many women lie about their sexual past.

Also women who are promiscuous are more likely to get STDs---condoms don't prevent all these diseases either. Look at HPV which can lead to cancer, condoms don't stop this disease. 

A woman is more likely to obtain an STD from a man than vice versa since we are built anatomically different. 

And if the woman becomes pregnant, she is on her own. While the man can just easily bounce.

Promiscuity, whether from men or women, should not be condoned. And that is why we have all these nasty diseases these days. 

As for fat women, I never understood that crap about them being easy. That is so not true. I can never say a certain category of women are more easy than others, that is truly garbage. Alot of fat women I know are certainly not easy! Then again, many skinny flat chested females have been around the block.


----------



## katherine22 (Sep 5, 2009)

happyface83 said:


> To be honest, it's really women who judge other women harshly. When you see some chick with a skimpy outfit, 9 times out of 10, it is another women that would call her a 'ho' or 'slut'. Women are the ones who bring themselves down. Yes young women still do it. It still goes on and will never go away.
> 
> We women are pushed to be competitive.
> 
> ...


----------



## KittyKitten (Sep 5, 2009)

katherine22 said:


> happyface83 said:
> 
> 
> > To be honest, it's really women who judge other women harshly. When you see some chick with a skimpy outfit, 9 times out of 10, it is another women that would call her a 'ho' or 'slut'. Women are the ones who bring themselves down. Yes young women still do it. It still goes on and will never go away.
> ...


----------



## bigmac (Sep 5, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> bigmac, all of your arguments come from a 'first person' kind of place. You and all your friends have good valid opinions but that doesn't mean any of those women you know could run for public office. No need to go through the list of men in public office who had a randy old time before they settled down with the missus. Society at large still thinks poorly of women who exercise within the same sexual liberty that men enjoy. In fact, if women came forward one by one claiming that they dated Senator X before he married no one would even care unless she could claim he was a drunk, he did drugs or doesn't pay his child support.



I don't believe there is any "society at large" anymore -- we're living in an age of increased segmentation. There will always be people who dwell insignificant things such as who a woman slept with in college. I've always been of the opinion that its best to ignore such people (e.g. when asked about his indiscretions Clinton should just have said none of your damn business.) Shame only works if the target cares. Male or female, any person facing moral inquisition can disarm his foe by simply refusing to accept his inquisitor's premise (in this case by refusing to accept the social conservative assertion that a political candidate's sex life is of any public importance). 

If twenty guys came out of the woodwork and told Rush Limbaugh that they slept with Nancy Pelosi years ago Rush's wacko listeners might care but I doubt many of the people who actually voted for Ms. Pelosi would. Indeed the private life of California's big three politicians (Pelosi, Feinstein, and Boxer) is pretty much a non-issue in the golden state which is as it should be.


----------



## Tina (Sep 5, 2009)

Mac, it's nice that you live in your insulated little world there, but your experiences and the people you know do not define the rule. While California has its conservative areas, it is, by and large, way more liberal in its collective thinking than, say, much of the rest of the U.S., and particularly the Midwest and Southern states. Just because you haven't seen it, that doesn't change reality, and no amount of you denying it will change the fact that in some ways the U.S. -- and CERTAINLY many other countries -- are living in the dark ages when it comes to attitudes towards women, and particularly as regards sexuality.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Sep 5, 2009)

katherine22 said:


> To denigrate another woman's sexual conduct is to assert superiority over the other woman.



BINGO! Ding, Ding, Ding. I hate it when I see women do this crap to other women. 

What are women "notorious" for anyway? 

The majority of people in prison and violent offenders are male. (Yes, there are women that commit crimes and female serial killers....just saying that the majority of violent offenders are not women)

Domestic Abuse:


> *85-95% of all domestic violence victims are female.
> *Over 500,00 women are stalked by an intimate partner each year.
> *5.3 million women are abused each year.
> *1,232 women are killed each year by an intimate partner.
> ...



Men are put down for not being "sucessful enough" and making a lot of money seems to be the key to acceptance for them often time.

When women are vilified though....it tends to usually be over sexual behavior (real or unreal). We are sluts and whores.....as if we can corrupt all of society by having sex. Often time, we have sex with men....but it's not bad when they do it. Never understood that part....it takes two to tango. :blink:

Article I came across....very interesting read for anyone that might interested. It seems related to this subject, IMO. 



> *Why We Vilify Single Moms*
> 
> It was incomprehensible how those of us left with children were not only held accountable while biological dads walked away Scott-free, but were to blame for all of society’s ills. Even those who raised children alone by design & without public assistance were vilified, a la Murphy Brown. It wasn’t just moral outrage (though that did & does exist); it wasn’t an ignorance — these were educated people saddling us with unrealistic responsibilities and ludicrous outcomes. We were being scapegoated with such an intensity that it must be hiding a deep fear of some sort… Was it simply another way to display the classic fear & hatred of “female,” or was there more?
> 
> http://www.twolia.com/blogs/kitsch-slapped/2009/07/23/why-we-vilify-single-moms/



Our society and it's notions.....it is usually full of shit, methinks.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Sep 5, 2009)

bigmac said:


> I don't believe there is any "society at large" anymore -- we're living in an age of increased segmentation. There will always be people who dwell insignificant things such as who a woman slept with in college. I've always been of the opinion that its best to ignore such people (e.g. when asked about his indiscretions Clinton should just have said none of your damn business.) Shame only works if the target cares. Male or female, any person facing moral inquisition can disarm his foe by simply refusing to accept his inquisitor's premise (in this case by refusing to accept the social conservative assertion that a political candidate's sex life is of any public importance).
> 
> If twenty guys came out of the woodwork and told Rush Limbaugh that they slept with Nancy Pelosi years ago Rush's wacko listeners might care but I doubt many of the people who actually voted for Ms. Pelosi would. Indeed the private life of California's big three politicians (Pelosi, Feinstein, and Boxer) is pretty much a non-issue in the golden state which is as it should be.



Basically what it seems you are saying is that you know that it's true, you just feel it's better to ignore it like all the other progressive people who outnumber the backward thinkers. I would agree but I have this cloying habit of seeing the glass as half empty. I have diffuculty ignoring the blatantly obvious that I witness from day to day and read reported in the papers. The fact that it's _reported_ is enough for me. You don't think that if it was discovered that Sara Palin was the town whore growing up it would be all over liberal news media? Or one of her daughters?


----------



## Donna (Sep 5, 2009)

katherine22 said:


> To denigrate another woman's sexual conduct is to assert superiority over the other woman. I recently saw on a t.v. series where a single woman lawyer was having dinner in a restaurant with a group of friends and later on it is revealed that she met up with the waiter who served her in the restaurant for a one night stand. The impression was that the female lawyer was glamorous and smart for getting her needs met with the waiter. I am wondering if it would have appeared glamorous if a sweatshop seamstress went and had a one night stand with the bus driver. Women taking care of their needs who are of the professional class seems glamorous while a working class woman doing the same would be judged a slut. I can keep this "stale conversation" going a long time.



This conversation is anything but stale. Using the example you have given (which I believe is dead on,) would you then say that there is more than sexism involved in the double standard? Classism seems to be getting mixed in with old school sexism. Possibly ageism (going on what Happyface said later on.)


----------



## katherine22 (Sep 5, 2009)

Donna said:


> This conversation is anything but stale. Using the example you have given (which I believe is dead on,) would you then say that there is more than sexism involved in the double standard? Classism seems to be getting mixed in with old school sexism. Possibly ageism (going on what Happyface said later on.)



Thanks for your response. It is a combination of factors socioeconomic class, religious and sexism. In my research I have been reading a lot of dating expert books "How to get the man of your dreams - strategies" and these dating coaches both male and female are adament that if a woman sleeps with a man on the first date she will not be considered by the man as a suitable marriage partner. Of all the factors in considering the desirability of a woman such as intelligence, decency, work ethic, etc. - why should the fact that she slept with someone on the first date totally override her other characteristics. Inferred in this observation by the dating coaches is what is valuable about a woman is that she does not sleep around. My focus on this research is to see if there is a connection between feeling ashamed to act on one's sexual desires and eating disorders in women.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Sep 5, 2009)

katherine22 said:


> My focus on this research is to see if there is a connection between feeling ashamed to act on one's sexual desires and eating disorders in women.




That would be an interesting read indeed.....


----------



## Keb (Sep 5, 2009)

katherine22 said:


> Thanks for your response. It is a combination of factors socioeconomic class, religious and sexism. In my research I have been reading a lot of dating expert books "How to get the man of your dreams - strategies" and these dating coaches both male and female are adament that if a woman sleeps with a man on the first date she will not be considered by the man as a suitable marriage partner. Of all the factors in considering the desirability of a woman such as intelligence, decency, work ethic, etc. - why should the fact that she slept with someone on the first date totally override her other characteristics. Inferred in this observation by the dating coaches is what is valuable about a woman is that she does not sleep around. My focus on this research is to see if there is a connection between feeling ashamed to act on one's sexual desires and eating disorders in women.



I've actually been scanning a few of those books myself lately--I read one and then had to see how the others compared. The main logic I've seen behind the "don't sleep with a guy on the first date" is the idea that men prefer to pursue and want a challenge. If a girl gives in too quickly, they lose interest, according to this theory, before there is time to build up an emotional connection. And this is in books that assume sex will be an early part of the relationship.

This of course paints men as horribly shallow and is incredibly sexist, but there might be a grain of truth to it all the same, as often as it is repeated.


----------



## mossystate (Sep 5, 2009)

Keb said:


> This of course paints men as horribly shallow and is incredibly sexist, but there might be a grain of truth to it all the same, as often as it is repeated.



Men like that are shallow and sexist...and...there is a grain of truth to it. This, however, does not mean we can't work towards changing such thinking and actions....and...' truths '. If I met a man with this attitude, there would be no sex...right away, or months down the road. Would be such a slap in the face. That is not the kind of controlling insecurity I would have in my life.

And...we need to stop viewing it as a woman ' giving in '. Makes it seem that women have no personal responsibilty/needs/desires/choices in how they operate within their own lives.


----------



## frankman (Sep 5, 2009)

Keb said:


> I've actually been scanning a few of those books myself lately--I read one and then had to see how the others compared. The main logic I've seen behind the "don't sleep with a guy on the first date" is the idea that men prefer to pursue and want a challenge. If a girl gives in too quickly, they lose interest, according to this theory, before there is time to build up an emotional connection. And this is in books that assume sex will be an early part of the relationship.
> 
> This of course paints men as horribly shallow and is incredibly sexist, but there might be a grain of truth to it all the same, as often as it is repeated.



Well, you can't expect writers not to paint with a broad brush, otherwise those books wouldn't even exist. In reality of course, every person probably is a beautiful unique snowflake when looked at from a specific angle which differs per person, but that makes for a rather short book.

I think there is an element of truth in the whole too easy thing, although I myself do not agree at all with the statement. I do believe sex is an early part of the relationship.

It's an odd thing, those books. As if they are self-fulfilling prophecies; they often hold water, but are they correct because their assumptions are right, or because people read them and adapt their behavior to fit the book? 

Chicken - egg

Same goes for the alleged sexism of the men described in the book. Doesn't that automatically make the writer just as sexist?


----------



## mossystate (Sep 5, 2009)

frankman said:


> Same goes for the alleged sexism of the men described in the book. Doesn't that automatically make the writer just as sexist?



If someone is pointing out real, sexist attitudes...then...no, that is not sexist.


----------



## katherine22 (Sep 5, 2009)

Keb said:


> I've actually been scanning a few of those books myself lately--I read one and then had to see how the others compared. The main logic I've seen behind the "don't sleep with a guy on the first date" is the idea that men prefer to pursue and want a challenge. If a girl gives in too quickly, they lose interest, according to this theory, before there is time to build up an emotional connection. And this is in books that assume sex will be an early part of the relationship.
> 
> This of course paints men as horribly shallow and is incredibly sexist, but there might be a grain of truth to it all the same, as often as it is repeated.






You are correct, Keb, men who would judge a woman on the basis of having sex early in a relationship are horribly shallow. The reason that those dating strategy books sell is due to the sexual double standard. If women felt free to behave sexually according to their desires like men, there would be no market for those books. The market is predicated on women's fears that they cannot formulate a self-definition without it based on male judgment of their conduct. To buy into a relationship model of being appropriate for marriage based on whether the male judged you as "too easy" vs. "a challange" is once again based on men judging our worth. It makes me wonder about the validity of the institution of marriage as some ancient carry over from patriarchal imperialism. The energy of human beings begins with primal energy that is sexual. The sexual part is not a separate part of us it is integrated into our being - how dare anyone suggest that a woman must put restraints on that energy that is the source of creativity in the world. It is no accident that most seekers of psychological services are women - repression has a price.


----------



## Keb (Sep 5, 2009)

katherine22 said:


> [/COLOR][/COLOR]
> 
> 
> You are correct, Keb, men who would judge a woman on the basis of having sex early in a relationship are horribly shallow. The reason that those dating strategy books sell is due to the sexual double standard. If women felt free to behave sexually according to their desires like men, there would be no market for those books. The market is predicated on women's fears that they cannot formulate a self-definition without it based on male judgment of their conduct. To buy into a relationship model of being appropriate for marriage based on whether the male judged you as "too easy" vs. "a challange" is once again based on men judging our worth. It makes me wonder about the validity of the institution of marriage as some ancient carry over from patriarchal imperialism. The energy of human beings begins with primal energy that is sexual. The sexual part is not a separate part of us it is integrated into our being - how dare anyone suggest that a woman must put restraints on that energy that is the source of creativity in the world. It is no accident that most seekers of psychological services are women - repression has a price.



Men often do not seek help they need because of societal expectations that they suck it up and be a man. Men are also more likely to successfully commit suicide. Repression has its price, you're right. And that double standard--that women can act on their feelings when men cannot, that women can ask for help when men cannot, is also a really negative standard. Double standards hurt everyone, whereever they exist.

But some restraint is a good thing, whether the urges we're restraining involve sex, thrill-seeking, shopping, violence, wallowing in self pity, gloating, or whatever. No restraint is a quick way to wind up with serious consequences for both yourself and society. I agree with you that asking women to restrain their desires while telling men to do whatever they please is wrong, wrong, wrong--but: Telling everyone to do as they please without at least offering some guidance or education on the choices they are making is just as bad. A more consistent message on both the positive and negative consequences of various choices--one based in rigorous scientific and historical evidence--that is given as advice when regarding choices that really do affect no one else but the participants, would be preferable. (I've already stated I think that sexual intercourse itself, protected or not, -does- affect third parties, but I also think that may be another debate and not necessarily for this thread.) 

The dating advice books are mostly silly fluff, imo. Too many generalizations and not enough hard data to back them up with give them little real credibility. Our society is entering territory that we're not quite sure what to do with, socially; like any other huge wave of technology and social change, we adapt piecemail until we find what works. I'm not sure that it is working quite the way most people want, though.


----------



## rollhandler (Sep 5, 2009)

mossystate said:


> Men like that are shallow and sexist...and...there is a grain of truth to it. This, however, does not mean we can't work towards changing such thinking and actions....and...' truths '. If I met a man with this attitude, there would be no sex...right away, or months down the road. Would be such a slap in the face. That is not the kind of controlling insecurity I would have in my life.
> 
> And...we need to stop viewing it as a woman ' giving in '. Makes it seem that women have no personal responsibilty/needs/desires/choices in how they operate within their own lives.



This is also a fine line that a lot of women have trouble understanding what side of the line to be on. In many cases they feel that if they DO NOT give sex up early in the relationship they may not keep his attention, but then if they DO give up sex early the man will see them as easy and not want them.
It seems like a double edged sword.
Rollhandler


----------



## rollhandler (Sep 5, 2009)

Keb said:


> I've actually been scanning a few of those books myself lately--I read one and then had to see how the others compared. The main logic I've seen behind the "don't sleep with a guy on the first date" is the idea that men prefer to pursue and want a challenge. If a girl gives in too quickly, they lose interest, according to this theory, before there is time to build up an emotional connection. And this is in books that assume sex will be an early part of the relationship.
> 
> This of course paints men as horribly shallow and is incredibly sexist, but there might be a grain of truth to it all the same, as often as it is repeated.



I read this often in male based gender books and articles about why the nice guys don't get the girls or why the girls go after the BAD boys. It seems that the same thrill of the challenge is present in both genders, and if a guy is already trained there is no challenge for the woman to nurture it out of him. There's no mystery, there is no piquing of curiosity about his nature, so there's little allure.
Basically it is seen as a negative trait in males to be or seem eager to please.
This is a paraphrased combination mesh of several articles but basically that is the spirit of the point they make in in article after article.
Rollhandler


----------



## mossystate (Sep 6, 2009)

rollhandler said:


> This is also a fine line that a lot of women have trouble understanding what side of the line to be on. In many cases they feel that if they DO NOT give sex up early in the relationship they may not keep his attention, but then if they DO give up sex early the man will see them as easy and not want them.
> It seems like a double edged sword.
> Rollhandler



It is not that we women do not understand it...we understand it all too well. And....again...we women are not ' giving it up '. Why is this so difficult to understand...that it is not all about what the man wants...does not want...might think about her...might not think about her...etc..etc.. It is oh so patronizing. Women need to NOT be on any side with a man who thinks this way, and makes a woman wrong if she does not choose the ' right ' door.


----------



## olwen (Sep 6, 2009)

rollhandler said:


> This is also a fine line that a lot of women have trouble understanding what side of the line to be on. In many cases they feel that if they DO NOT give sex up early in the relationship they may not keep his attention, but then if they DO give up sex early the man will see them as easy and not want them.
> It seems like a double edged sword.
> Rollhandler



Yes, I've talked to my niece and her friends about that very thing when they were younger. It turned into a discussion about what does and doesn't count as sex. That seemed to be how they negotiated it - that it was okay to do certain things just because it wasn't penetration, and I had to set them straight. It was rather upsetting to know that's how they were thinking. Now that they are all older tho, they do understand that they dont' have to do anything they don't want to, and if a guy does try to pressure them, they can just walk away.


----------



## Donna (Sep 6, 2009)

rollhandler said:


> *This is also a fine line that a lot of women have trouble understanding what side of the line to be on. *In many cases they feel that if they DO NOT give sex up early in the relationship they may not keep his attention, but then if they DO give up sex early the man will see them as easy and not want them.
> It seems like a double edged sword.
> Rollhandler



Double edged sword is just another euphemism for sexual double standard, though. As long as people believe there is a fine line and women (or men for that matter) must stay on a certain side of said line, the double standard will continue to be perpetuated. What Mossy has said more than once, and I agree with her 100%, is that in saying when a woman makes the decision to enter into a physical relationship with her partner, that she is somehow "giving it up" is a subtle way of saying the woman is somehow relinquishing her power. 

The decision of when a couple becomes intimate is a mutual decision that shouldn't hold any significance to anyone outside the relationship. And it should never be about power or control or games (the whole "thrill of the chase" thing.) It should, in my opinion, simply be another choice a couple or potential couple has to make.


----------



## katherine22 (Sep 6, 2009)

In patriarchal cultures there are blatant consequences for a woman "giving it up." A woman is considered damaged goods if she gave it up outside the rules. When I think about how women are treated in the Middle East in terms of having to wear a veiled face or clothes that completely cover the body, it seems that the society places great effort in covering up women. What are the men afraid of that they have to make rules to cover women? Are they afraid that a woman could possibly have 15 orgasms to his 1?


----------



## olwen (Sep 6, 2009)

katherine22 said:


> In patriarchal cultures there are blatant consequences for a woman "giving it up." A woman is considered damaged goods if she gave it up outside the rules. When I think about how women are treated in the Middle East in terms of having to wear a veiled face or clothes that completely cover the body, it seems that the society places great effort in covering up women. What are the men afraid of that they have to make rules to cover women? Are they afraid that a woman could possibly have 15 orgasms to his 1?



I think in those cultures that men are afraid of giving up their power, which is absolute, both morally (when justified and sanctioned thru sharia law) and legally. Women are covered so men won't be tempted to 1) steal their women 2) shame their families 3)undermine male authority. All of the moral burden is placed on women unfortunately. While some of the women in those cultures fight back other women see the burqua as a way to protect their propriety, propriety that they have a religious duty to uphold. Then western influences are seen as threating to undermine male authority and religious authority. I hope there will be a day when religion is no longer used to justify such power imbalances.


----------



## katherine22 (Sep 6, 2009)

olwen said:


> I think in those cultures that men are afraid of giving up their power, which is absolute, both morally (when justified and sanctioned thru sharia law) and legally. Women are covered so men won't be tempted to 1) steal their women 2) shame their families 3)undermine male authority. All of the moral burden is placed on women unfortunately. While some of the women in those cultures fight back other women see the burqua as a way to protect their propriety, propriety that they have a religious duty to uphold. Then western influences are seen as threating to undermine male authority and religious authority. I hope there will be a day when religion is no longer used to justify such power imbalances.



I hope so too, Olwen.


----------



## BubbleButtBabe (Sep 6, 2009)

Wouldn't that be great...Women all over the world having the same rights as men..


----------



## superodalisque (Sep 6, 2009)

Keb said:


> I've actually been scanning a few of those books myself lately--I read one and then had to see how the others compared. The main logic I've seen behind the "don't sleep with a guy on the first date" is the idea that men prefer to pursue and want a challenge. If a girl gives in too quickly, they lose interest, according to this theory, before there is time to build up an emotional connection. And this is in books that assume sex will be an early part of the relationship.
> 
> This of course paints men as horribly shallow and is incredibly sexist, but there might be a grain of truth to it all the same, as often as it is repeated.



yes i think there is more than a grain of truth to that. but does it necessarily mean a guy is shallow? i'm not sure. i'm thinking about it in relationship to myself and how i feel about men who are promiscious. could it be that to someone looking for a stable connection with someone, a woman who is always chasing after sex with a lot of different people and is indescrimminant just does not look like safe partner? does a lot of the criticism by men really come into play with women they are thinking of building something long term with? is that a bad thing? 

i think if you are looking for a partner for real intimacy and a real bond ideally you might want to see evidence of trustworthiness, psychological stability, self discipline, confidence, intelligence and good judgement. i'm not sure a one night stand initially gives the impression that a woman or a man has that to give. for example, i don't get the feeling that i can have that with a guy who is always on the prowl. i'm looking for a certian kind of man who wants more and has a deeper understanding of life. 

in my experience i've found that men who are past a certain stage in life and are promiscious are mainly emotionally distant and have some trauma in thier lives that seems to prevent them from really connecting with a woman on that level. they seem to have self esteem issues and are always trying to use thier conquest of women to prove themselves with other men. he often tries to lose himself in sex because the other stuff is too difficult for him. sex is a close as he might come to intimacy and he might have a hard time discovering that there are other kinds of intimacy in life because he might be blocked by fear. i feel the same can be true of women.

i've noticed in what i've experienced as well that these guys also tend to be the very prescriptive ones as well. they have all kinds of conditions on how you are supposed to be when you are with them. i feel that they use this as an excuse for not connecting with women inimately. i think some FAs blow up thier preference to titanic proportions because underneath it all there is a whole lot of fear and lack of trust. i don't think all of those men have those tendencies but they seem as though they might because the physical seems to be oddly out of whack as a component in a real love relationship. i mean look around, the media says everyone hates fat and does not want a fat partner, but in the real world that has absolutely nothing to do with what is really happening. so that just might mean that even if people prefer a particular body image its not necessarily the person that they might end up really loving. its like saying i think brunettes are hot but then ending up falling in love with a blonde. it shouldn' be that big of a deal --in my personal opinion. i think some women have thier various preferences that they can over emphasize as well and probably for the same reasons--they need an emotional ten foot pole.

so just like i feel that way about promiscious guys i think some men might have the same or similar feelings about promiscious women. i think that a lot of women depend on the media and even academia for their impressions about why men make the choices that they make. but i have the opinion that the truth is somewhat closer to our own. would a man feel special around someone who is always off after someone else? would a man feel he could completely trust someone who was always off after someone else? if we don't feel very good about being treated that way in general as women then why should a man? that would also be a double standard if he should not have the same wants wishes and needs that we do. 

if i'm going to become vulnerable with someone i would want some kind of indication that i could. i would want to feel as though i wasn't just the same as everyone else this person knew if i wanted to be close with him. i wouldn't want to feel disposable either. isn't it also a kind of double standard if we want those things and feel that men should not also naturally want those things? does it have to be a power grabbing social construct that directs everything about how men and women feel? i think we do exist outside of those. i think there might be men who have no concern about how much power women have but care more about their own personal happiness and what makes them feel good as an individual. maybe to a man a woman who holds off to see what she is dealing with in todays world of AIDS STDs emotional instability, violence etc... is actually showing that she would make an intelligent thoughtful partner who takes her time to make judgements about things before she puts herself , or maybe in future --her family at risk. i think more than anything, if any person male or female is easy it says to me that its not a very disearning, intelligent or self confident person if they don't care enough about themselves to at least take the time to know what they are getting into. to me it says they are someone who is driven by something that they don't have any control over. there is nothing wrong with sex with whomever you like but there is in my opinion something wrong with having sex in ways that disregard and endanger your own well being and the well being of others.

if a woman thinks they are being unsafe in the name of feminism they are using that to delude themselves. there is nothing feminist about a woman who puts herself and other people at risk to prove she can immulate the worst characteristics of some men. she is still a victim of a system that would put her down. its only when you act in the best interest of everyone involved instead of in reaction to another person , system or policy that you know you have really freed yourself from artificial roles.


----------



## superodalisque (Sep 6, 2009)

olwen said:


> I think in those cultures that men are afraid of giving up their power, which is absolute, both morally (when justified and sanctioned thru sharia law) and legally. Women are covered so men won't be tempted to 1) steal their women 2) shame their families 3)undermine male authority. All of the moral burden is placed on women unfortunately. While some of the women in those cultures fight back other women see the burqua as a way to protect their propriety, propriety that they have a religious duty to uphold. Then western influences are seen as threating to undermine male authority and religious authority. I hope there will be a day when religion is no longer used to justify such power imbalances.



i'm not sure the sharia law thing is a good example of double standards. you are exactly right about modern sharia law. its really directed in a horrendous way towards women for the most part. but it tends to only function that way among the poor in general. wealthier islamic people tend to educate thier girls, allow them to participate in sports, have careers, etc...i think the bigger issue in the case of the islamic world is income. when islam was a new religion the koran actually could have been seen as a revolutionary feminist document. even the US only caught up with many of them late last century--how do we explain that as leaders of the so called free world that islamic countries have had more female heads of state than we have? at teh moment we have had zero. muhammed spoke with great respect for the intelligence of his wife. the original document allows for divorce and women owning property in thier own right without any requirement for the approval or consent of men. the recent changes to the law were done by "modern" practicers of the religion. it would be something like the far right religious right being seen as all of modern christian religion. they've mixed politics in religion to try and keep men in the middle east from revolting against thier central and unfair governments that have been raiding the countries of their wealth that truly belong to the many for a few. countries like saudi arabia has a dirty little secret when it comes to how most in thier society truly live. there is not much negative in sharia law that hasn't been going on in the west in one aspect or the other as well.

right now the money train is running out and these nations are very frightened. in trade they give poor powerless men the veneer of feeling powerful by subjugating women--same as in the US with our demeaning porno and the dumbing down of the female image. so its unfair to blame things on religion that are only done in the name of religion. this would be happening anyway under some other banner. its just the particular excuse/mask they've chosen to wear this time--that the powerful use for everything sinister that there isn't a logical answer for. often when religion is misused its by people who already have decided that they are going to try to use women as a scapegoat for the inadequacies of thier societies. when you look at any religion and the original philosophy most of them have no mention of subjugating women--as most scholars have found. its only when you get down to practice on the ground that religion is used as a tool much as it was to say that blacks were inferior. but generally behind all of it is economc concerns. thats why women in the US are in a special position to really change the terms on which the world works. and things like microbanks have a lot of potential to free women everywhere from the true thing that oppresses them--their low economic status. hopefully one day we we chose to focus on the things that really matter instead of all of the empty rhetoric going nowhere that destracts us from the thing thats really the driving momentum behind the negative aspects of how we are treated. i agree totally with what Katherine said earier in this thread about a poor woman being much more likely to be subject to constarints and controls assigned to her sex role but i think thats true in any system. i think economic freedom would change a lot for a lot of women.


----------



## Keb (Sep 6, 2009)

Superodalisque, I so want to rep the amazing intelligence and thought you've put into your posts, but the button won't let me again .


----------



## katherine22 (Sep 6, 2009)

superodalisque said:


> i'm not sure the sharia law thing is a good example of double standards. you are exactly right about modern sharia law. its really directed in a horrendous way towards women for the most part. but it tends to only function that way among the poor in general. wealthier islamic people tend to educate thier girls, allow them to participate in sports, have careers, etc...i think the bigger issue in the case of the islamic world is income. when islam was a new religion the koran actually could have been seen as a revolutionary feminist document. even the US only caught up with many of them late last century--how do we explain that as leaders of the so called free world that islamic countries have had more female heads of state than we have? at teh moment we have had zero. muhammed spoke with great respect for the intelligence of his wife. the original document allows for divorce and women owning property in thier own right without any requirement for the approval or consent of men. the recent changes to the law were done by "modern" practicers of the religion. it would be something like the far right religious right being seen as all of modern christian religion. they've mixed politics in religion to try and keep men in the middle east from revolting against thier central and unfair governments that have been raiding the countries of their wealth that truly belong to the many for a few. countries like saudi arabia has a dirty little secret when it comes to how most in thier society truly live. there is not much negative in sharia law that hasn't been going on in the west in one aspect or the other as well.
> 
> right now the money train is running out and these nations are very frightened. in trade they give poor powerless men the veneer of feeling powerful by subjugating women--same as in the US with our demeaning porno and the dumbing down of the female image. so its unfair to blame things on religion that are only done in the name of religion. this would be happening anyway under some other banner. its just the particular excuse/mask they've chosen to wear this time--that the powerful use for everything sinister that there isn't a logical answer for. often when religion is misused its by people who already have decided that they are going to try to use women as a scapegoat for the inadequacies of thier societies. when you look at any religion and the original philosophy most of them have no mention of subjugating women--as most scholars have found. its only when you get down to practice on the ground that religion is used as a tool much as it was to say that blacks were inferior. but generally behind all of it is economc concerns. thats why women in the US are in a special position to really change the terms on which the world works. and things like microbanks have a lot of potential to free women everywhere from the true thing that oppresses them--their low economic status. hopefully one day we we chose to focus on the things that really matter instead of all of the empty rhetoric going nowhere that destracts us from the thing thats really the driving momentum behind the negative aspects of how we are treated. i agree totally with what Katherine said earier in this thread about a poor woman being much more likely to be subject to constarints and controls assigned to her sex role but i think thats true in any system. i think economic freedom would change a lot for a lot of women.



Wonderful post Felicia - I learned so much reading it.


----------



## katherine22 (Sep 6, 2009)

superodalisque said:


> yes i think there is more than a grain of truth to that. but does it necessarily mean a guy is shallow? i'm not sure. i'm thinking about it in relationship to myself and how i feel about men who are promiscious. could it be that to someone looking for a stable connection with someone, a woman who is always chasing after sex with a lot of different people and is indescrimminant just does not look like safe partner? does a lot of the criticism by men really come into play with women they are thinking of building something long term with? is that a bad thing?
> 
> i think if you are looking for a partner for real intimacy and a real bond ideally you might want to see evidence of trustworthiness, psychological stability, self discipline, confidence, intelligence and good judgement. i'm not sure a one night stand initially gives the impression that a woman or a man has that to give. for example, i don't get the feeling that i can have that with a guy who is always on the prowl. i'm looking for a certian kind of man who wants more and has a deeper understanding of life.
> 
> ...



Felicia - this is interesting however I disagree with some of your points. I do not think that any woman or man should be judged on sexual behavior per se as long as it occurs between consenting adults. There are women, and I am one of them who are no longer interested in a long term relationship with anyone, a marriage or a committed relationship. I want sex - a one night stand. I do not think that desire makes me a bad person. I am not mentally ill, and I am not deficient in relationships skills or the ability to connect with another person. I simply choose not to go that route. To judge me or any other human being on the basis of what occurred between two consenting adults on an agreed upon condition of one night is extremely short sighted. I do charitable work; I am a scholar and I care about small dogs and children and I want to engage in the freedom to have sex without someone thinking I am on the fringe element for my choices.


----------



## BBW Betty (Sep 6, 2009)

I used to teach in a residential treatment facility for teenage sex offenders, and I will admit that the experience has probably colored my opinions. Having said that, though, I found some prominent themes in the backgrounds of many of those boys. One was a history of abuse; many were the victims of someone using sex for power. It didn't matter who did the abusing, but making sex have *anything* to do with power dehumanizes others completely. Just my opinion, but if you are having sex without the emotional connection, you might as well be using a vibrator or blow-up doll or whatever, because the other person is a means to an end for you, even if you "consent" to be used by each other. Feel free to disagree -- I know many of you will, and I respect that -- but I really think you're missing out on something that is a beautiful part of being human.


----------



## superodalisque (Sep 6, 2009)

katherine22 said:


> Felicia - this is interesting however I disagree with some of your points. I do not think that any woman or man should be judged on sexual behavior per se as long as it occurs between consenting adults. There are women, and I am one of them who are no longer interested in a long term relationship with anyone, a marriage or a committed relationship. I want sex - a one night stand. I do not think that desire makes me a bad person. I am not mentally ill, and I am not deficient in relationships skills or the ability to connect with another person. I simply choose not to go that route. To judge me or any other human being on the basis of what occurred between two consenting adults on an agreed upon condition of one night is extremely short sighted. I do charitable work; I am a scholar and I care about small dogs and children and I want to engage in the freedom to have sex without someone thinking I am on the fringe element for my choices.



you make a perfectly valid point here. i apologize if my post made you feel that way. but i think thats the problem with my having to generalize from a huge stereotype to a particular. individual people probably don't fit into our big over arching prejudices--like the ones i have. these are just feelings i have not based on actual people but an overall impression that i have because of my experiences. maybe thats the problem in the first place--us stereotyping each other and expecting people we meet to be the same as the people we already know--or think we know and understand. but still my prejudices are there and i'm acknowledging them honestly. i can't pretend i feel otherwise. if i have prejudices i'm sure men probably do as well, and they might not be based specificly on gender but on other beliefs he has formulated over time about how he personally thinks things should work and why. some will be influenced by society and sex roles but not necessarily all of them. so there are other reasons why some men may not prefer women who have sex on the first date besides the expected sex role related behavior. it could look like a gender bias but it might not really be. so i think it would be hard as well to say that men who don't prefer women who will sleep with someone on the first date are trying to enforce sex roles on an individual basis. and unlike your situation i am speaking of those who have intentions of a long termed committed relationship. i think that might make a bit of a difference in the kind of assumptions i'd make if i were interested in that myself. and the judgements that i do make are for myself and not for other people to follow and i wouldn't fault them if they didn't becasue i'm very likely to be wrong --which i am a lot. but since i'm not looking at it from your position i don't have any judgements on that because i lack experience in that area. no info-suspend judgement.

i have a another question. do you think the double standard is applied more to women who are younger than us since people think they are more sexually active anyway and generally at teh beginning of what i would call a realtionship life? and also can the generational thing work the other way? is it more likely that women our age are more likely to be judged because we come from an era when men and women seemed more likely not to question the double standard or do we have more freedom because we are not at the beginning of what people might consider our traditional relationship life?


----------



## katherine22 (Sep 6, 2009)

superodalisque said:


> you make a perfectly valid point here. i apologize if my post made you feel that way. but i think thats the problem with my having to generalize from a huge stereotype to a particular. individual people probably don't fit into our big over arching prejudices--like the ones i have. these are just feelings i have not based on actual people but an overall impression that i have because of my experiences. maybe thats the problem in the first place--us stereotyping each other and expecting people we meet to be the same as the people we already know--or think we know and understand. but still my prejudices are there and i'm acknowledging them honestly. i can't pretend i feel otherwise. if i have prejudices i'm sure men probably do as well, and they might not be based specificly on gender but on other beliefs he has formulated over time about how he personally thinks things should work and why. some will be influenced by society and sex roles but not necessarily all of them. so there are other reasons why some men may not prefer women who have sex on the first date besides the expected sex role related behavior. it could look like a gender bias but it might not really be. so i think it would be hard as well to say that men who don't prefer women who will sleep with someone on the first date are trying to enforce sex roles on an individual basis. and unlike your situation i am speaking of those who have intentions of a long termed relationship. i think that might make a bit of a difference in the kind of assumptions i'd make if i were interested in that myself. but since i'm not looking at it from that emotional position i don't have any judgements on that because i lack experience in that area. no info-suspend judgement hehe.
> 
> i have a another question. do you think the double standard is applied more to women who are younger than us since people think they are more sexually active anyway and generally at teh beginning of what i would call a realtionship life? and also can the generational thing work the other way? is it more likely that women our age are more likely to be judged because we come from an era when men and women seemed more likely not to question the double standard or do we have more freedom because we are not at the beginning of what people might consider our traditional relationship life?



I do think that the sexual double standard is more applied to younger women since the double standard is connected to whom men view as suitable marriage partners. I do not think that men care much what women do until they decide they want to marry someone then the judgment begins. Women judge men too but for different reasons other than sex. I just don't think that there is anything intrinsic to the sex act between two consenting adults that warrants a moral judgment.


----------



## superodalisque (Sep 6, 2009)

katherine22 said:


> I do think that the sexual double standard is more applied to younger women since the double standard is connected to whom men view as suitable marriage partners. I do not think that men care much what women do until they decide they want to marry someone then the judgment begins. Women judge men too but for different reasons other than sex. I just don't think that there is anything intrinsic to the sex act between two consenting adults that warrants a moral judgment.



again sorry if it sounded like an overall moral judgement on you or women like yourself. i only thought of it as a logistical judgement about what i personally might or might not want and how i think someone who is male could possibly share the same thoughts --not based on sex roles.


----------



## katherine22 (Sep 6, 2009)

BBW Betty said:


> I used to teach in a residential treatment facility for teenage sex offenders, and I will admit that the experience has probably colored my opinions. Having said that, though, I found some prominent themes in the backgrounds of many of those boys. One was a history of abuse; many were the victims of someone using sex for power. It didn't matter who did the abusing, but making sex have *anything* to do with power dehumanizes others completely. Just my opinion, but if you are having sex without the emotional connection, you might as well be using a vibrator or blow-up doll or whatever, because the other person is a means to an end for you, even if you "consent" to be used by each other. Feel free to disagree -- I know many of you will, and I respect that -- but I really think you're missing out on something that is a beautiful part of being human.



Betty your comments suggest that all people can have an intimate relationship with another. I am not sure if that is true. Two people who meet each other and can connect deeply is partly due to luck and timing. If I follow your argument correctly if you are one of the unfortunate women who was not been chosen by someone for marriage or an intimate relationship then you should not desire sex with someone.


----------



## superodalisque (Sep 7, 2009)

BBW Betty said:


> I used to teach in a residential treatment facility for teenage sex offenders, and I will admit that the experience has probably colored my opinions. Having said that, though, I found some prominent themes in the backgrounds of many of those boys. One was a history of abuse; many were the victims of someone using sex for power. It didn't matter who did the abusing, but making sex have *anything* to do with power dehumanizes others completely. Just my opinion, but if you are having sex without the emotional connection, you might as well be using a vibrator or blow-up doll or whatever, because the other person is a means to an end for you, even if you "consent" to be used by each other. Feel free to disagree -- I know many of you will, and I respect that -- but I really think you're missing out on something that is a beautiful part of being human.



its a great point that the sexual power struggle is damaging in and of itself no matter who is engaging. i think when people are using one another for sex they often can get hurt by a lot if unintended emotional entanglements etc... they can't even admit it because if they do they lose the sexual power game. and that might be the new modern problem. people are working out a lot of abuse on each other and it tends to be accepted. i'm not even sure that sex is as much of an issue anymore as the emotional games we play with each other and our need to win instead of doing the work to form real meaningful longterm intimate relationships on an equal basis and confront our own demons. thats hard to do when everyone is so focused on keeping score. 

it makes me wonder if the culture of divorce that was played out in front of children did a lot to create a lot of damage that resulted in problems now that should have been cured by feminism. when children see parents who are so intent on winning at any cost that they can't either work out thier issues or part amicably, what are they teaching children about how they should function inside of a serious long termed relationship? i also think there are people who have been victims of some kind of abuse or have witnessed it, as you have said who also need to feel that they are winning in a relationship. not because they are bad people but because they have been damaged by witnessing "the game " or being forced to play it on some level. someone said something interesting -- in a relationship if one person is winning everyone has already lost.


----------



## BubbleButtBabe (Sep 7, 2009)

If I am reading that right what you are talking about it some sort of relationship..Yes if any relationship is just based on sex then everybody looses and everybody gets hurt..Friends with benefits does not work...

To me a one night stand is not a relationship,nor should it be the start of one..It is just for sexual satisfaction and nothing more..It's just when women do this sort of behavior she is called all types of names and when men do it it's a slap on the back and told what a stud he is..It is that double standard that is more hurtful to women then to men..In reality there should be no difference..A man should be called on the carpet for his sexual exploits just like a woman is..

If a person wants to begin a relationship then I think sex should be taken out of the equation for the first 3 weeks at least..Take time to get to know the person and see if it is going to go beyond a few dates..Then the topic of sex should be brought up..


----------



## superodalisque (Sep 7, 2009)

BubbleButtBabe said:


> If I am reading that right what you are talking about it some sort of relationship..Yes if any relationship is just based on sex then everybody looses and everybody gets hurt..Friends with benefits does not work...
> 
> To me a one night stand is not a relationship,nor should it be the start of one..It is just for sexual satisfaction and nothing more..It's just when women do this sort of behavior she is called all types of names and when men do it it's a slap on the back and told what a stud he is..It is that double standard that is more hurtful to women then to men..In reality there should be no difference..A man should be called on the carpet for his sexual exploits just like a woman is..
> 
> If a person wants to begin a relationship then I think sex should be taken out of the equation for the first 3 weeks at least..Take time to get to know the person and see if it is going to go beyond a few dates..Then the topic of sex should be brought up..




yes exactly . there is a big difference in just having sex and having a relationship. how much of an impact do you think the fact that in general women don't seem give each other the congradulatory slap on the back that men do figure into the equation? does it matter at all? do men take cues from us on how they judge other women in this respect? or do women take cues from male expectations? do women really get the downside of things when they engage in consentual sex with men from men? that hasn't really been what i've seen--at least not as a grown up. i haven't really heard many men that i know down a woman for having sex with them unless they feel somehow rejected or there is some kind of a relationship issue anyway. usually they seem to act sort of happy and grateful when someone says yes , no strings and means it. if its consentual and neither have any expectations i don't usually hear anything negative about it. all i hear is that someone is happy they broke thier drought. i don't really know but it only seems to come up when someone gets thier feelings hurt and has an axe to grind--both on the male and the female part. am i being too simplistic?


----------



## BBW Betty (Sep 7, 2009)

katherine22 said:


> Betty your comments suggest that all people can have an intimate relationship with another. I am not sure if that is true. Two people who meet each other and can connect deeply is partly due to luck and timing. If I follow your argument correctly if you are one of the unfortunate women who was not been chosen by someone for marriage or an intimate relationship then you should not desire sex with someone.






BubbleButtBabe said:


> If I am reading that right what you are talking about it some sort of relationship..Yes if any relationship is just based on sex then everybody looses and everybody gets hurt..Friends with benefits does not work...
> 
> To me a one night stand is not a relationship,nor should it be the start of one..It is just for sexual satisfaction and nothing more..It's just when women do this sort of behavior she is called all types of names and when men do it it's a slap on the back and told what a stud he is..It is that double standard that is more hurtful to women then to men..In reality there should be no difference..A man should be called on the carpet for his sexual exploits just like a woman is..
> 
> If a person wants to begin a relationship then I think sex should be taken out of the equation for the first 3 weeks at least..Take time to get to know the person and see if it is going to go beyond a few dates..Then the topic of sex should be brought up..



Again, it's just my own experiences and background working on my own POV. I've never considered Desire itself to be inappropriate. That's just based on our attractions. To me, a 1-night-stand for sexual satisfaction indicates objectification of anther person; he or she becomes a tool for "meeting your needs." I believe that as humans with souls and self-awareness we are all better than that. Men and women both should be holding ourselves to that higher standard. 

I know I'm idealistic in many ways, and I won't judge anyone concerning this. I hate the double standard, though. Whether or not we see the same problems / issues resulting from it, we can all agree it does exist and creates problems for both genders.


----------



## BubbleButtBabe (Sep 7, 2009)

superodalisque said:


> yes exactly . there is a big difference in just having sex and having a relationship. how much of an impact do you think the fact that in general women don't seem give each other the congradulatory slap on the back that men do figure into the equation? does it matter at all? do men take cues from us on how they judge other women in this respect? or do women take cues from male expectations? do women really get the downside of things when they engage in consentual sex with men from men? that hasn't really been what i've seen--at least not as a grown up. i haven't really heard many men that i know down a woman for having sex with them unless they feel somehow rejected or there is some kind of a relationship issue anyway. usually they seem to act sort of happy and grateful when someone says yes , no strings and means it. if its consentual and neither have any expectations i don't usually hear anything negative about it. all i hear is that someone is happy they broke thier drought. i don't really know but it only seems to come up when someone gets thier feelings hurt and has an axe to grind--both on the male and the female part. am i being too simplistic?



In my opinion I think women do not slap each other on the back because we do not need that type of ego boost... In my experience it really does not matter to other women who our sexual conquest are as long as it is not someone else's boyfriend...I think men take cues from the way they were raised about women that sleep around also if he has slept with a certain woman, he is not as fast to judge her..While I was in my 20's, sex was a big deal,it was all everyone in that age group talked about...When I hit my 30's it was something that was discussed if it was brought up but it wasn't as hot of a topic as it was in my 20's..In my 40's it was hardly ever discussed and if it was it was to tell our children what to do and what not to do..Can't tell you about my 50's yet because I have seem to have hit a dry patch in life plus I haven't been in them long enough yet! You are right about it only coming up when someone has been hurt then they bash person X for the way they are sexually..Most people past a certain age really don't care any more if a person sleeps around or not..


----------



## Mies (Sep 8, 2009)

BubbleButtBabe said:


> I think monogamy was started to protect wealthy men from raising and giving their wealth to say the stable helps child..



I know that this is a popular opinion, but it seems that this sort of argument could be used to show that monogamy might work more to the woman's advantage. If the true lineage of her offspring could be concealed (not too hard before DNA testing), then ALL of her children would reap the benefits of her husband's position (even those bearing a striking resemblance to the milkman), while any children that a man had with a woman other than his wife would be recognized as illegitimate and would generally receive nothing. (Just throwing this out for intelligent debate, if that's allowed. Otherwise, please accept my apologies beforehand.)


----------



## mergirl (Sep 8, 2009)

katherine22 said:


> My focus on this research is to see if there is a connection between feeling ashamed to act on one's sexual desires and eating disorders in women.



That sounds like interesting research. I have read a few papers and articles that link Ed's with OCD. I wonder if in some cases a woman feels that acting out sexual desires is in some way makes her out of control, which would kind of link in with OCD. Anyway, that is a bit off point.. though i'm sure that more women suffer from ED's than men and perhaps this could be a contributing factor. Repression turning into obsession.. hmm.


----------



## olwen (Sep 8, 2009)

Mies said:


> I know that this is a popular opinion, but it seems that this sort of argument could be used to show that monogamy might work more to the woman's advantage. If the true lineage of her offspring could be concealed (not too hard before DNA testing), then ALL of her children would reap the benefits of her husband's position (even those bearing a striking resemblance to the milkman), while any children that a man had with a woman other than his wife would be recognized as illegitimate and would generally receive nothing. (Just throwing this out for intelligent debate, if that's allowed. Otherwise, please accept my apologies beforehand.)



Not monogamy, marriage. They are different things to me. Marriage is what would work in a woman's favor since it would have been the only practical way for her to obtain wealth, since she wasn't allowed to have a profession (other than manual labor if she was poor), own property, or have a bank account, or vote. There could have been cases where even if she had no husband but only sons, all the wealth would have to pass thru him even if he was still a minor.

Even if the man had several wives, in which case he wouldn't be monogamous, then marriage would still in some cases be the only way for women to get ahead economically.


----------



## Mies (Sep 8, 2009)

olwen said:


> Not monogamy, marriage. They are different things to me. Marriage is what would work in a woman's favor since it would have been the only practical way for her to obtain wealth, since she wasn't allowed to have a profession (other than manual labor if she was poor), own property, or have a bank account, or vote. There could have been cases where even if she had no husband but only sons, all the wealth would have to pass thru him even if he was still a minor.
> 
> Even if the man had several wives, in which case he wouldn't be monogamous, then marriage would still in some cases be the only way for women to get ahead economically.



Good point. BBBabe used the word "monogamy". I wonder which she intended.


----------



## superodalisque (Sep 8, 2009)

Mies said:


> I know that this is a popular opinion, but it seems that this sort of argument could be used to show that monogamy might work more to the woman's advantage. If the true lineage of her offspring could be concealed (not too hard before DNA testing), then ALL of her children would reap the benefits of her husband's position (even those bearing a striking resemblance to the milkman), while any children that a man had with a woman other than his wife would be recognized as illegitimate and would generally receive nothing. (Just throwing this out for intelligent debate, if that's allowed. Otherwise, please accept my apologies beforehand.)



that may be true but thats the past. what informs a woman of today who has her own financial ability or can just get a DNA test and petition for child support etc...? for me, i like monogamy just because it makes my life simple. its good for my feelings and my ego. it keeps other people i don't have any control over or interest in out of my personal business. for me it cuts down on a lot of negativity and drama. i prefer dealing directly with the person i chose and not him and a bunch of strange women i don't know who probably have an axe to grind with me even when they pretend they don't because they might adhere to all kinds of things i might not believe in. so really that has nothing to do with a sexual double standard but the way that its comfortable for me to approach the world. i can make that choice because i am not dependent.

i think in terms of the double standard today its important to look at why it might or might not benefit us now. even though some of the same issues are still alive and well and the past has an influence on how we think and feel, i also believe it might be important to think about why we are the way we are in our current generation. are there any new reasons that shape how the sexes relate to each other today? what do women or men really get out of sexual double standards right now? if we dwell on past standards too much it can become a philosophical exercise that doesn't take much account of the fact that people do what benefits them most in the now. we might be truly different from our grandparent's generation in many ways out of practicality. so in that light what does a sexual double standard actually represent in society today where men are no longer the cash weilding bread winners that they used to be? 

what changes when we live in the kind of economy where men generally don't have the economic power that is indicated by your question? what about the many women who now make more money than their partners? i heard about a recent study that said that in this recession men are more likely to be laid off than women. they compose a much greater number of the unemployed. and even when they were employed they were the same men who tended to make less than thier female partner. thats a great change form the past. now that many aren't the father and husband figures they once were in the past have they actually lost some of thier income earning protection and potential as a result? because they may not be in their old double standard role of being the breadwinner does that mean society no longer guards thier financial postion as it once did? are women going to be the new breadwinners since they are still mainly responsible for children? so this begs the question; is the sexual double standard really about creating a stable environment for children or families moreso that it is just a fashionable social statement giving power to men for no reason other than that they are men? is there something deeper inside of the double standard? is power really related to who is best at producing future generations of workers? if men take themselves out of the family unit in large numbers are they lessening the power they once had?

sorry about all of the questions:blush:


----------



## Tad (Sep 8, 2009)

I thought this article might interest some of the participants in this thread. 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/family-and-relationships/frosh-sex-myth/article1275059/

It is only based on a survey in one subject in one college, but over 24 years it probably does tend to track changes in attitude in youth (even if the levels of responses may not be indicative of the wider population, most likely the changes roughly track). Unfortunately the article online does not have the graphs that the dead trees version had.

The article is based on a book which has a preview here: http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/sexandyouthpreview.pdf I've not read the book and make no claims as to its quality in any way....after copying in the link to the article it occurred to me to google the author of the book, and this preview came up, so I'm adding it in, sight-unseen.


----------



## Mies (Sep 8, 2009)

superodalisque said:


> i think in terms of the double standard today its important to look at why it might or might not benefit us now. even though some of the same issues are still alive and well and the past has an influence on how we think and feel, i also believe it might be important to think about why we are the way we are in our current generation. are there any new reasons that shape how the sexes relate to each other today? what do women or men really get out of sexual double standards right now? if we dwell on past standards too much it can become a philosophical exercise that doesn't take much account of the fact that people do what benefits them most in the now. :



These are all important questions. Addressing your last statement above is what got me into trouble earlier, and it may earn me the boot now, but here goes:

From the Wikipedia: "The term double standard, coined in the early 1950's, refers to any set of principles containing different provisions for one group of people than for another. Double standards between the sexes is common in many cultures."

Look at the responses in this thread. Is there one set of principles, applied differently to men vs. women, that the various posters hold in common, or are the posters actually representing different groups with different standards? Some of the men are saying that there is no set of principles: neither men nor women are criticized for having a long string of sexual partners. Some of the women are saying that it's other women who criticize them for having the same. Do women have a different standard for men? Some of the women have written that they believe that neither sex should be promiscuous. Can you discern one "set of principles containing different provisions for one group of people than for another"? There may have been one in the past, but in today's fragmented society, I don't believe that you can.

On the other hand, look at all of the issues you've raised. I agree that it is more important that we address those "new reasons that shape how the sexes relate to each other today", and even then, they will be changing as we do.


----------



## BubbleButtBabe (Sep 8, 2009)

Mies said:


> Good point. BBBabe used the word "monogamy". I wonder which she intended.



Monogamy because all wealthy people did not get married at the time but they did favor just 1 woman...


----------



## katherine22 (Sep 8, 2009)

mergirl said:


> That sounds like interesting research. I have read a few papers and articles that link Ed's with OCD. I wonder if in some cases a woman feels that acting out sexual desires is in some way makes her out of control, which would kind of link in with OCD. Anyway, that is a bit off point.. though i'm sure that more women suffer from ED's than men and perhaps this could be a contributing factor. Repression turning into obsession.. hmm.



Thanks for your response if a girl lives in a society that says acting out sexually puts you in the fringe element of women that can be pretty scary to a young woman who does not have the life experience to question those rules.


----------



## katherine22 (Sep 8, 2009)

superodalisque said:


> that may be true but thats the past. what informs a woman of today who has her own financial ability or can just get a DNA test and petition for child support etc...? for me, i like monogamy just because it makes my life simple. its good for my feelings and my ego. it keeps other people i don't have any control over or interest in out of my personal business. for me it cuts down on a lot of negativity and drama. i prefer dealing directly with the person i chose and not him and a bunch of strange women i don't know who probably have an axe to grind with me even when they pretend they don't because they might adhere to all kinds of things i might not believe in. so really that has nothing to do with a sexual double standard but the way that its comfortable for me to approach the world. i can make that choice because i am not dependent.
> 
> i think in terms of the double standard today its important to look at why it might or might not benefit us now. even though some of the same issues are still alive and well and the past has an influence on how we think and feel, i also believe it might be important to think about why we are the way we are in our current generation. are there any new reasons that shape how the sexes relate to each other today? what do women or men really get out of sexual double standards right now? if we dwell on past standards too much it can become a philosophical exercise that doesn't take much account of the fact that people do what benefits them most in the now. we might be truly different from our grandparent's generation in many ways out of practicality. so in that light what does a sexual double standard actually represent in society today where men are no longer the cash weilding bread winners that they used to be?
> 
> ...




In lieu of women's economic power, God forbid Felicia men may have to re-invent themselves.


----------



## katherine22 (Sep 8, 2009)

Mies said:


> These are all important questions. Addressing your last statement above is what got me into trouble earlier, and it may earn me the boot now, but here goes:
> 
> From the Wikipedia: "The term double standard, coined in the early 1950's, refers to any set of principles containing different provisions for one group of people than for another. Double standards between the sexes is common in many cultures."
> 
> ...




Suddenly this conversation does not look too stale or boring to you??


----------



## Keb (Sep 8, 2009)

katherine22 said:


> Thanks for your response if a girl lives in a society that says acting out sexually puts you in the fringe element of women that can be pretty scary to a young woman who does not have the life experience to question those rules.



I would say from the perspective of a 29yo that -not- acting out sexually puts you on the fringe element of women in our society today. My choice not to have sex outside of marriage raises a lot more eyebrows than someone of my age (or much younger) being sexually promiscuous. There are plenty of people who respect my choice, of course, and plenty of people who promote it as the right choice. But I think there are a lot more people in (American/western) culture who respond to it with a very big "why?" It sometimes feels like a choice I have to defend (on those occasions it comes up), because it has become outside the norm. (I saw a statistic saying that only 1% of people my age are still virgins; a lot of those who agree with my stance married younger, and the rest made different choices.) 

This is why I said earlier that women aren't entirely free to make a choice, even if the culture allows/promotes women to freely enjoy sex. People assume that if you are not having sex, something is wrong with you--either you're part of some demented religious cult (I'm mainstream protestant Christian, Lutheran, for the record, and hardly the most frequent of church attenders), or something's wrong with you physiologically, or you're a closet homosexual, or you're UGLY. (Seriously.) 

So girls have sex at a younger age than they might otherwise because everyone else believes it's what they should do if they're normal, whether or not that would be their choice were they truly free to make one. 

It isn't easy to make a choice that doesn't fit the norm, whether that choice is to have more sex or less. Society doesn't like people who don't obey the rules, whatever they are. I think the "norm" now is serial monogomous sexual relationships, and if you don't choose to engage in that norm, then (as a woman) you wind up with either the label of slut or frigid prude. 

My choice is at least as costly socially as yours, Katherine. But neither of us really deserve to be judged for it so long as we are being responsible for ourselves, honest to our partner(s), and responsible for our children. 

(That last bit is still the rub for me with more open sexuality, though. Since intercourse can result in pregnancy, it involves an implied risk and an implied responsibility to care for any child concieved in my moral beliefs. Live and let live works fine for me, until the lives of innocent third parties are involved.)


----------



## Mies (Sep 8, 2009)

katherine22 said:


> Suddenly this conversation does not look too stale or boring to you??



Look, I regret using a word that offended you. I'm not an asshole. What I meant was that the old double standard makes no sense in today's world, where there seem to be no fixed standards at all, and I didn't understand why you were trying to bring a dead concept back to life.

I am 57 years old. I was young when you were young. I have supported feminism since I first understood the term. I walked next to you. It made sense to me that no one should be restricted by their gender any more than they should be by the color of their skin. But I don't want to take that entire load onto my shoulders, and I don't see the point of talking about this like it's never been talked about before, or like nothing has changed in 40 years. And I'm offended that I wasn't being allowed to say these things because I'm a man.

Yes, the conversation is interesting. It has always been interesting. I wish that you had presented it in a way that didn't make me feel like I was being set up to take the blame for everything all over again, just because I'm a man. Maybe you didn't do that, but maybe there is a certain tenor to your threads that makes them feel that way to me, having heard those all of those words before. 

I remember a friend commenting on how he felt that he had been betrayed by feminism. That he had supported women and then their movement had turned on him. My mother-in-law once asked my wife why I was so down on feminism. My wife replied that I wasn't, that I was just down on the rhetoric. Talk to me like I'm human.

By the way - I do iron my wife's shirts. Her mother is a feminist and never taught her how.


----------



## Mies (Sep 8, 2009)

katherine22 said:


> In lieu of women's economic power, God forbid Felicia men may have to re-invent themselves.



So after my last post, I read this. Look again. Some men have reinvented themselves. Some women haven't. Sheesh!


----------



## olwen (Sep 8, 2009)

Mies, you should tell your friend it's not that the women's movement has turned on men, it's that the women's movement has in some ways forced men to hold a mirror up to their own behavior and to analyze what male privilege really means. Maybe he's just wracked with guilt.


----------



## mossystate (Sep 9, 2009)

Mies, you have mocked this protected forum, on another forum. You called a woman, a bbw posting on the bbw forum, a poster of stale subjects. You said that there are no stupid bitches, just ask one , and back away. This stuff is starting to sound like you are saying, ' some of my best friends are...... , and thinking that means you can backhand women, and it will be ok. Maybe you could start a thread elsewhere, where you can get it all out, what is stirring inside your guts. Why come here to just prove you can?

Your wife was not taught how to iron shirts by her feminist mother.


----------



## BubbleButtBabe (Sep 9, 2009)

Mies said:


> Look, I regret using a word that offended you. I'm not an asshole. What I meant was that the old double standard makes no sense in today's world, where there seem to be no fixed standards at all, and I didn't understand why you were trying to bring a dead concept back to life.
> 
> I am 57 years old. I was young when you were young. I have supported feminism since I first understood the term. I walked next to you. It made sense to me that no one should be restricted by their gender any more than they should be by the color of their skin. But I don't want to take that entire load onto my shoulders, and I don't see the point of talking about this like it's never been talked about before, or like nothing has changed in 40 years. And I'm offended that I wasn't being allowed to say these things because I'm a man.
> 
> ...




Mies,I do not dislike men in general or blame all men for the way women are treated, but I do hate some asshole that thinks women need to be put in their "place"..Those are the ones I rant and rave about..Those are the ones that piss me off to no end..These are the ones that still believe in double standards..

I watched Dr. Phil the other day because he had some men on that had lost their jobs and were now househusbands..These men were whining and griping because they did not like that they were doing "woman's work"..One man even had the nerve to stand up and say he wished his wife would get fired,he didn't care that they would loose everything..He was bothered that he was now doing her "job" and didn't like it...He really did not care at all because his ego was hurt that she was the one working and trying to provide for the family..This man was in his mid 30's(he looked it to me) so that would make him younger then the 40 year concept..See stuff like that is bullshit and is double standard..It is ok for him to go out there and work hard to provide for the family but for his wife to do it was horrible..

I was raised by a set of parents in the 60's and 70's who believed if you could do something and it needed to be done,no matter your sex,do it..My brothers were taught how to cook,clean,do laundry,sew,iron and all the chores..I was taught how to milk a cow,mow,chop wood,run the tiller,work the garden,make household repairs,work on cars..We all knew how to do other things besides what society said we needed to know and if we didn't do it right,there was hell to pay..My parents were using feminism before the word was invented!

I had a lot of problems finding men that wouldn't get upset when they realized I could do so much...Most didn't want to date me...I heard*"well you really don't need me then do you"*..It was really hard to find men that were comfortable enough to let me be me...On top of that I had a job that paid me twice as much as most of the men I met..This was not 40 years ago..This was about 15 years ago and some men were still using double standards..Now that is bullshit as well...

Any ways I am ranting now and not to good..Sleeping pills make me do this and I hardly make sense at time...


----------



## katherine22 (Sep 9, 2009)

Mies said:


> So after my last post, I read this. Look again. Some men have reinvented themselves. Some women haven't. Sheesh!




Don't kid yourself for a minute - you have not reinvented yourself. You are threatened by women who don't pay to you your proper deference. There is nothing unique about my tone except that I think it is alright to call it the way I see it - just like men have been doing for centuries. Finally women are making more money, they outnumber men in the graduate schools and are equal to them in the professions. Men will become irrelevant if they think they can engage in some old male imperialist tactics, some hold over behavior from the Nixon presidency and still remain desirable to women. There are many social scientists focusing on this topic in America and the third world. You would prefer that it was a dead topic since you wouldn't have to think about the power differential.


----------



## katherine22 (Sep 9, 2009)

Keb said:


> I would say from the perspective of a 29yo that -not- acting out sexually puts you on the fringe element of women in our society today. My choice not to have sex outside of marriage raises a lot more eyebrows than someone of my age (or much younger) being sexually promiscuous. There are plenty of people who respect my choice, of course, and plenty of people who promote it as the right choice. But I think there are a lot more people in (American/western) culture who respond to it with a very big "why?" It sometimes feels like a choice I have to defend (on those occasions it comes up), because it has become outside the norm. (I saw a statistic saying that only 1% of people my age are still virgins; a lot of those who agree with my stance married younger, and the rest made different choices.)
> 
> This is why I said earlier that women aren't entirely free to make a choice, even if the culture allows/promotes women to freely enjoy sex. People assume that if you are not having sex, something is wrong with you--either you're part of some demented religious cult (I'm mainstream protestant Christian, Lutheran, for the record, and hardly the most frequent of church attenders), or something's wrong with you physiologically, or you're a closet homosexual, or you're UGLY. (Seriously.)
> 
> ...



I respect your choice, Keb, as it is well thought out and works for you and appreciate that women have the added responsibility of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. Your choice would be interpreted as noble since you would be acting from your Christian principles, and my choice would be interpreted as a sign of mental illness, or an inability to have a relationship with another or some other interpretation such as being a nymphomaniac or whore.


----------



## Mies (Sep 9, 2009)

BubbleButtBabe said:


> I watched Dr. Phil the other day because he had some men on that had lost their jobs and were now househusbands..These men were whining and griping because they did not like that they were doing "woman's work"..One man even had the nerve to stand up and say he wished his wife would get fired,he didn't care that they would loose everything..He was bothered that he was now doing her "job" and didn't like it...He really did not care at all because his ego was hurt that she was the one working and trying to provide for the family.



Other than to say that Dr. Phil is a freak show and looks for assholes, I think you're right, those guys are assholes. But, if I were to lose my job and my wife was the only one working to provide for the family, my ego would be hurt too, simply because I am capable and want to provide for my family and can't.


----------



## Mies (Sep 9, 2009)

I guess it's too late to bow out gracefully, but I am still bowing out. In the end, I think that I'm just not suited to getting my thoughts and feelings across in this format. In trying to be precise and concise, I fear that only the anger comes through, and I don't like that, because I'm more than just that. Much more. I'm sure that doesn't come across here. 

Katherine, your last post confirms my feelings that this is about more than equality for some women. Women are indeed making more money, they outnumber men in the graduate schools and are equal to them in the professions. This is all good, yet it is still not enough for some, and that is why I'm hopping off this bus right here.


----------



## mergirl (Sep 9, 2009)

Mies said:


> I guess it's too late to bow out gracefully, but I am still bowing out. In the end, I think that I'm just not suited to getting my thoughts and feelings across in this format. In trying to be precise and concise, I fear that only the anger comes through, and I don't like that, because I'm more than just that. Much more. I'm sure that doesn't come across here.
> 
> Katherine, your last post confirms my feelings that this is about more than equality for some women. Women are indeed making more money, they outnumber men in the graduate schools and are equal to them in the professions. This is all good, yet it is still not enough for some, and that is why I'm hopping off this bus right here.



Yeah, you men take up far too much room on the busses!!! Busses need to be for wimmins only.. Though, i would concent to being carted around by some men dressed as ponies with butt plug tails. Only if you are nice though.. and you will have to pay me for it!!!
 och men! lmao


----------



## Spanky (Sep 9, 2009)

BubbleButtBabe said:


> Mies,I do not dislike men in general or blame all men for the way women are treated, but I do hate some asshole that thinks women need to be put in their "place"..Those are the ones I rant and rave about..Those are the ones that piss me off to no end..These are the ones that still believe in double standards..
> 
> I watched Dr. Phil the other day because he had some men on that had lost their jobs and were now househusbands..These men were whining and griping because they did not like that they were doing "woman's work"..One man even had the nerve to stand up and say he wished his wife would get fired,he didn't care that they would loose everything..He was bothered that he was now doing her "job" and didn't like it...He really did not care at all because his ego was hurt that she was the one working and trying to provide for the family..This man was in his mid 30's(he looked it to me) so that would make him younger then the 40 year concept..See stuff like that is bullshit and is double standard..It is ok for him to go out there and work hard to provide for the family but for his wife to do it was horrible..
> 
> ...



BBB,

I wanted to ask a question to you and any other BBWs interested in answering. I grew up in the 70s and 80s and saw the transformations from kids learning the preconceived Man = work and Woman = housewife to Man = work and Woman = work or housewife or both or neither. Again, I am speaking of my perceptions (and not trying to specifically interject the marriage component). 

I guess I saw girls around me being given strong examples in school, media, books etc, of women going out in the world to work. Not just the Mad Men secretaries, but any job they could get, CAREER women, degrees, graduate education, science and engineering. The backlash seemed to come in the 90s and even today, where other women stood up and said that they could be in charge of the house and be a full time mom and that was just fine too. I think the ebb and flow of these pulls on expectations of women in society are expected and predictable with the end result being an American girl growing up with the full range of life goals being everything from A to Z. And all being acceptable. 

As for boys. It is still Men = work, IMO. I think the stereotypes that have been broken down for women, and rightly so, have still left the perception of men to be working and in the case of having a family of more than one....providing. 

Tell me if you notice this, too. I am not defending the rubes on Dr. Phil. I just wonder if their upbringing gave them one self-perception of Men = work. If that is taken away, and the alternative never offered positively while growing up, the result is what you see. I think until we work on the stereotypes of BOTH sexes, we will continue to see an imbalance of perceptions. This would go hand in hand with Katherine's original post regarding sexual conduct. 

It is an interesting convo. I hope I am staying within the boundaries of the BBW Forum.


----------



## superodalisque (Sep 9, 2009)

Spanky said:


> BBB,
> 
> I wanted to ask a question to you and any other BBWs interested in answering. I grew up in the 70s and 80s and saw the transformations from kids learning the preconceived Man = work and Woman = housewife to Man = work and Woman = work or housewife or both or neither. Again, I am speaking of my perceptions (and not trying to specifically interject the marriage component).
> 
> ...



good points to think about. i think you really have something when you talk about the backlash in the 90s. i believe both groups of women felt threatened by the idea that they had possibly made the wrong choices and maybe they took it out on each other. women who worked worried about what that was doing to thier children and women who stayed at home worried about thier individual identity. the truth might have been somewhere in the middle. it also seemed to me that the media fanned the flames and women fell for it not thinking that a lot of women had always had some mix of home and work. its as though the actual past had been totally erased. historically speaking for women only the wealthiest even had the consideration of making the choice. most other women just did what they had to do. even the most uneducated had what we would call micro businesses today. they sold eggs , produce and services like sewing and cleaning at he low end. in the middle the things they did probably varied as much as women did. but as usual we fell for some artificial portrait of us that never really existd in the first place that only served to turn us on each other and have us judge another woman for her personal choice.


----------



## rainyday (Sep 9, 2009)

superodalisque said:


> i have a another question. do you think the double standard is applied more to women who are younger than us since people think they are more sexually active anyway and generally at teh beginning of what i would call a realtionship life? and also can the generational thing work the other way? is it more likely that women our age are more likely to be judged because we come from an era when men and women seemed more likely not to question the double standard or do we have more freedom because we are not at the beginning of what people might consider our traditional relationship life?



The double standard may still be applied to them, but that doesn't mean younger women are paying much attention to it. My take is that in fact they aren't, and in doing so they're rendering it less powerful. The younger women I know don't spend much time deciding whether they should or shouldn't sleep with someone or focusing on what people will say if they do. They just do as they choose. 

If you look here at the posters list for this thread, except for a couple, the women who've participated in this thread are all over thirty. Could be that age makes us more likely to wrestle with things intellectually. I think a likelier answer is that younger women may feel the mantle of judgement but because they haven't worn it as heavily they aren't knotted by it and simply choose not to continue carrying it. I'm curious whether they read this thread and see women boxing with old shadows that really aren't there as much anymore.


----------



## superodalisque (Sep 9, 2009)

rainyday said:


> The double standard may still be applied to them, but that doesn't mean younger women are paying much attention to it. My take is that in fact they aren't, and in doing so they're rendering it less powerful. The younger women I know don't spend much time deciding whether they should or shouldn't sleep with someone or focusing on what people will say if they do. They just do as they choose.
> 
> If you look here at the posters list for this thread, except for a couple, the women who've participated in this thread are all over thirty. Could be that age makes us more likely to wrestle with things intellectually. I think a likelier answer is that younger women may feel the mantle of judgement but because they haven't worn it as heavily they aren't knotted by it and simply choose not to continue carrying it. I'm curious whether they read this thread and see women boxing with old shadows that really aren't there as much anymore.



that makes perfect sense . the thing i do love about them, the young ones, most is that they have more of an ability to put the opinions of other people and society in their proper place. we could learn a whole lot from them by just living our lives as we see fit and telling everybody else its not thier business when they make a personal comment. i think older women like us tend to take in other people's opinions like its a personal judgement more often than we should. i think younger girls see them for what they are more often--just opinions. so its easier for them to escape torturing themsleves that way. its good they understand that they don't have to give people power they really don't have. 

i think the impressions we have of them calling each other slut whore etc... is much more about them demystifying those words than we give them credit for. and maybe its really just the media that pretends that young women care about what other people think so much. hey, if you don't care what people think the media is not needed. i often think of the reality shows i see out there. is this a way that the media and who they represent are trying to put women back into a place that they are well aware that they'll never really will go back to? is it an old dilapidated defunct last stab done as parody as a way to finally kiss this stuff goodbye by showing us exactly how stupid we look when we engage in pushing our ideas on other women? or how neurotic we are when we give other people's opinions of us over every little thing too much weight?


----------



## katherine22 (Sep 9, 2009)

Spanky said:


> BBB,
> 
> I wanted to ask a question to you and any other BBWs interested in answering. I grew up in the 70s and 80s and saw the transformations from kids learning the preconceived Man = work and Woman = housewife to Man = work and Woman = work or housewife or both or neither. Again, I am speaking of my perceptions (and not trying to specifically interject the marriage component).
> 
> ...




Hi-Spanky,

I appreciate your posting. It is true that men have suffered too from sexual stereotyping. A result of male stereotyping is that some men have difficulty expressing a broad range of feelings beyond sexual desire, lust and rage. Men who show sensitivity, an interest in the fine arts or wear glasses and love education are judged to be effete. When a woman feels comfortable in addressing her sexual needs and both sexes have them, then that translates into feeling more comfortable in other areas of life. I hope young women have gained an independence of spirit so that their judgment of their conduct supersedes everyone else judging. Some men feel that they have been disrespected on this thread. I think this thread has been valuable and thought provoking for the participants and has hopefully lead to more understanding of each other. Some men want to pretend that they never had power over others and this topic reminds them that they had the power. Olwen said it best when she suggested that femininism held the mirror and men saw the power that they really had. History shows that no one gives up power easily.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Sep 9, 2009)

Mies said:


> I guess it's too late to bow out gracefully, but I am still bowing out. In the end, I think that I'm just not suited to getting my thoughts and feelings across in this format. In trying to be precise and concise, I fear that only the anger comes through, and I don't like that, because I'm more than just that. Much more. I'm sure that doesn't come across here.
> 
> Katherine, your last post confirms my feelings that this is about more than equality for some women. Women are indeed making more money, they outnumber men in the graduate schools and are equal to them in the professions. * This is all good, yet it is still not enough for som*e, and that is why I'm hopping off this bus right here.



Why do you think you should decide when enough is enough for others? Particularly if you're not one of the people that had to fight for a simple fair share to begin with?


----------



## Keb (Sep 9, 2009)

superodalisque said:


> that makes perfect sense . the thing i do love about them, the young ones, most is that they have more of an ability to put the opinions of other people and society in their proper place. we could learn a whole lot from them by just living our lives as we see fit and telling everybody else its not thier business when they make a personal comment. i think older women like us tend to take in other people's opinions like its a personal judgement more often than we should. i think younger girls see them for what they are more often--just opinions. so its easier for them to escape torturing themsleves that way. its good they understand that they don't have to give people power they really don't have.
> 
> i think the impressions we have of them calling each other slut whore etc... is much more about them demystifying those words than we give them credit for. and maybe its really just the media that pretends that young women care about what other people think so much. hey, if you don't care what people think the media is not needed. i often think of the reality shows i see out there. is this a way that the media and who they represent are trying to put women back into a place that they are well aware that they'll never really will go back to? is it an old dilapidated defunct last stab done as parody as a way to finally kiss this stuff goodbye by showing us exactly how stupid we look when we engage in pushing our ideas on other women? or how neurotic we are when we give other people's opinions of us over every little thing too much weight?



I agree with you a lot; I also think that people who are confident (which I know is a loaded word around here) in the choices they are making tend to care a lot less what other people think about them. If you aren't confident about what you're doing, then you're more likely to seek societal approval or even demand it for your choices. When you really believe/know you're doing the right thing, it's a lot harder for other people's opinions to affect you.

Of course, we develop our beliefs about what is right and wrong in a societal environment, so we can't really come to an objective viewpoint on it without a lot of thinking, learning, and debating. 

And as one of the (barely) under 30s...yes, some of what's been said did seem like people resurrecting arguments that were dead and buried by the time I was aware of them. I've seen both positive and negative effects of living in a somewhat post-feminist world, though. For example, my mother, who is often depressed because she chose the role of military wife and mother, supporting my father during a 23-year career as an officer and bringing up three kids. In a society that tends to base success on how much you make or how famous your work is, the fact that she's been the cobackbone of a fairly successful family just isn't enough. She strives for some recognition through her art and her writing and her teaching, and never feels good enough. Ever. 

To me, the roles that she's taken on have been vital to both my family and the communities I've lived in. She's influenced probably thousands of students by introducing them to different cultures and different ways of looking at art, both in her volunteer and paid classes. She's created beautiful works of art that now add beauty to many people's homes and even one museum. (Okay, it's a railway museum, not an art museum, but so what?) None of her kids are a drain on society, criminals, or mean people. Her efforts made my father's successful career possible, and I don't think he's ever considered the income from his position "his" rather than "theirs." Yet because successful women are supposed to have it all, and get paid for it, she feels like a failure--as much as we depend on volunteer parents in our schools and communities (and she was always one of them), you don't get paid for it. As much as our military men and women depend on their spouses to support them and hold together their families (and often give up having a solid career due to the general fluxuations of married life), it isn't a paid position. Being a good parent: Not paid. Teaching and art? Very poorly paid, and difficult to make a living on the side with. 

I see her life as an amazing influence touching thousands of lives and making them better in small and large ways. She wonders why, if it's all so important, nobody is willing to pay her for what she does.

Meanwhile, in the men's department, I think guys are drifting more because women no longer need them. People want to be independent, but they also want to have purpose and feel needed. We haven't gotten to the stage of equality where men are equally accepted as house-spouses or single fathers. Men who want to work in childcare face suspicion as to their motives, and men who choose careers in other traditionally female roles wind up working for much lower salaries, while simultaneously facing societal derision, than otherwise. I actually think the remainder of the difference between male income and female income is partly due to that, as well as women's choices. 

Men have also lost out on having a lot of modern positive role models as we've sought out feminine role models to inspire our girls. I don't think gains for one sex at the expense of another are a positive thing. We're all people, and we should be working together towards our common goals. Men and women have always been strongest when supported by one another, our differences (which we should be able to acknowledge exist without denying anyone equal opportunities or rights) complementing each other and our similarities bringing us together.


----------



## katherine22 (Sep 9, 2009)

Keb said:


> I agree with you a lot; I also think that people who are confident (which I know is a loaded word around here) in the choices they are making tend to care a lot less what other people think about them. If you aren't confident about what you're doing, then you're more likely to seek societal approval or even demand it for your choices. When you really believe/know you're doing the right thing, it's a lot harder for other people's opinions to affect you.
> 
> Of course, we develop our beliefs about what is right and wrong in a societal environment, so we can't really come to an objective viewpoint on it without a lot of thinking, learning, and debating.
> 
> ...



Keb, Your mother sounds like a wonderful person who contributed to others. It is a shame that no one valued her work to fight to see that your mother and others like her be paid for it. Women gravitated to the professions because they were trying to make a living. I beg to differ with you if you think that women thrived at the expense of men, As far as I can tell, men are still ruling most of this world. I wish more men would be housekeepers and child rearers because they would use their political know how to see that they were paid for those services.


----------



## Keb (Sep 9, 2009)

katherine22 said:


> Keb, Your mother sounds like a wonderful person who contributed to others. It is a shame that no one valued her work to fight to see that your mother and others like her be paid for it. Women gravitated to the professions because they were trying to make a living. I beg to differ with you if you think that women thrived at the expense of men, As far as I can tell, men are still ruling most of this world. I wish more men would be housekeepers and child rearers because they would use their political know how to see that they were paid for those services.



No, I don't think women have thrived at the expense of men--men do still have a lot of power in many spheres that is disproportionate. In other spheres, though, men have severely lost power. For example, I don't know how many men have told me that they feel women have virtually all the control when it comes to their access to their own children. One of my uncles very rarely saw his son after the divorce (which was not his choice), at least until his son grew up, because his mother kept him away. It was heartbreaking for my uncle. 

In addressing the needs of female students in our schools, I think that boys have been somewhat neglected; the evidence is showing that the current structure of our public schools seems to better support the way young girls develop than the way young boys do. (Boys are the ones who tend to be diagnosed with ADHD and medicated, and are often kept back a year in kindergarten so they can compete with earlier-developing girls. Boys are less likely to say they enjoy reading, which is a key to success in school and life. And the evidence is in that there are more girls in college than boys; yay for the girls, but shouldn't boys be equally represented in upper education?) 

There are still plenty of places that women need to find equal representation, and we should think about why they have not yet. Even so, there is now a certain inevitability to there being, say, a woman president. We know it will happen; it came quite close to happening in the last election (though given the particular women on the various tickets...thank God neither of them won). 

Society has changed, and I think most young women now do feel that men or traditions are not capable of holding them back from success, positions, or power that they dream of in western society. The double standards that exist aren't holding us back anymore; many of them are simply the echoes of the past, like the enduring poverty among the African American community that is an echo of slavery and segregation. The echoes of women's oppression are probably going to fade way far more quickly; a generation of women who are outnumbering men in professional accredidations are also going to outnumber them in their professional fields in coming years, even if many choose lower-paying careers that appeal to their abilities or decide to become full-time mothers and/or wives. 

Men, on the other hand, haven't entirely been offered the same choices. Yes, they still have the advantages that the past has bestowed upon them, but men and women are not yet truly equal. And in some realms, like the ability to choose between domestic and professional life, men are still lagging. We have to address the needs and desires of both men and women, whatever they may be, to achieve true equality.

Feminism fails when it attempts to overcompensate for the historical inequality by promoting women's rights above men's in any way. Though they might benefit in some ways from traditional roles and expectations, young men are not at fault for the crimes of their fathers and should never be punished for them. They should be as permitted socially to express their traditionally feminine qualities as women are to express their traditionally masculine ones, they should be treated as equals under the law, and where our physical differences demand a different approach, both women's and men's special needs should be addressed. 

We should have equally high expectations for both men and women, with equally high rewards for equally important contributions.


----------



## Keb (Sep 9, 2009)

BTW, Katherine, thanks for this thread--I do love a good debate and perhaps get carried away with a juicy intellectual challenge more than I should!


----------



## katherine22 (Sep 9, 2009)

Keb said:


> BTW, Katherine, thanks for this thread--I do love a good debate and perhaps get carried away with a juicy intellectual challenge more than I should!



Keb- I am glad you enjoyed it. I hope some young BBW takes the opportunity to read it. Can you imagine having a thread like this available to young women and men when we were younger.


----------



## BubbleButtBabe (Sep 10, 2009)

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> Why do you think you should decide when enough is enough for others? Particularly if you're not one of the people that had to fight for a simple fair share to begin with?




Exactly GEF..I had to prove my worth to be allowed my good paying job..When I went to get my job there were less then 150 women in a factory with over 3,000 jobs,so I had to prove to the men I worked with I could do it and to the men I worked for I could do it..


----------



## BubbleButtBabe (Sep 10, 2009)

Spanky said:


> BBB,
> 
> I wanted to ask a question to you and any other BBWs interested in answering. I grew up in the 70s and 80s and saw the transformations from kids learning the preconceived Man = work and Woman = housewife to Man = work and Woman = work or housewife or both or neither. Again, I am speaking of my perceptions (and not trying to specifically interject the marriage component).
> 
> ...



I wonder that as well Spanky..I know some men have a preconceive notion that they should be the only ones working in their household but in this economy that doesn't work..I have noticed in households where the men were harsh or hard on their wives the boy/men grew up thinking men/work,women/home...These are the men that use the double standard more then anyone..


----------

