Poll of the Day > Mum says why shes teaching her five daughters there's no such thing as virginity

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2
Philip027 03/02/21 1:21:10 AM #51:	The key difference being that "newbie" is a general-purpose term, which is modified by context and qualifiers to provide a useful description of experience levels. "Virgin" is a special term made just for sex (it can be adopted into other contexts with specific qualifiers, but I feel it goes without saying that those aren't particularly relevant here), which is assigned significance in far more contexts than the one in which it's relevant. Even during sex, it's an arbitrary milestone that indicates very little about overall sex-having ability (the only functional difference between "I've had intercourse once" and "I've never had intercourse" is the fact that there might be a bit of blood/pain during penetration, and even then, dildos are a thing), meaning it's a pretty useless description. We have plenty of "pretty useless" descriptor terms. That doesn't stop them from being terms. Again, people attaching weight to virginity that doesn't belong is their own problem, not the fault of virginity itself The mere existence of the term "virginity" isn't what's being objected to here (hence my disclaimer that "virginity doesn't exist" isn't entirely accurate), it's treating virginity as a special concept that requires specific recognition and should have social significance attached to it. It's really not, and I'm all in favour of this mother teaching her kids not to put it on a pedestal the way so much of society does. Teaching not to put it on a pedestal is all fine and good, as I said. But that's not what we're talking about here -- she's explicitly teaching "no such thing as virginity", which is categorically and demonstrably untrue. One's discomfort with a term or concept doesn't stop the term/concept from existing. <cite>Philip027 posted [p:951241624] in Mum says w... [t:79322784]...</cite> <quote><quote>The key difference being that "newbie" is a general-purpose term, which is modified by context and qualifiers to provide a useful description of experience levels. "Virgin" is a special term made just for sex (it can be adopted into other contexts with specific qualifiers, but I feel it goes without saying that those aren't particularly relevant here), which is assigned significance in far more contexts than the one in which it's relevant. Even during sex, it's an arbitrary milestone that indicates very little about overall sex-having ability (the only functional difference between "I've had intercourse once" and "I've never had intercourse" is the fact that there might be a bit of blood/pain during penetration, and even then, dildos are a thing), meaning it's a pretty useless description.</quote> We have plenty of "pretty useless" descriptor terms. That doesn't stop them from being terms. Again, people attaching weight to virginity that doesn't belong is their own problem, not the fault of virginity itself <quote>The mere existence of the term "virginity" isn't what's being objected to here (hence my disclaimer that "virginity doesn't exist" isn't entirely accurate), it's treating virginity as a special concept that requires specific recognition and should have social significance attached to it. It's really not, and I'm all in favour of this mother teaching her kids not to put it on a pedestal the way so much of society does.</quote> Teaching not to put it on a pedestal is all fine and good, as I said. But that's not what we're talking about here -- she's explicitly teaching "no such thing as virginity", which is categorically and demonstrably untrue. One's discomfort with a term or concept doesn't stop the term/concept from existing. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 03/02/21 4:50:13 AM #52:	Seems like a pretty reasonable approach to me. I've never understood the emphasis society tries to put on virginity. Like, losing your v-card is built up as this huge, important thing that totally changes your life, then it happens and it's just kind of a ".....wait, that's it?" moment. Muscles posted... Discriminate breeding on the females part is important because it let's the species get better instead of letting every bum water down the gene pool This is a horrible mangling of evolutionary science. Biologically speaking, no one cares about whether a certain action is advantageous or disadvantageous to the species as a whole; they care about whether a specific action is more likely to get their genetics passed on. Purely from a sexual perspective, promiscuity is generally evolutionary advantageous, because the more children you have, the more likely one or more of them will survive to breeding age themselves. There are other reasons why monogamy or selective breeding can be advantageous to an individual, but "it's for the good of the species" does not generally factor into evolutionary breeding patterns. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:951244781] in Mum says w... [t:79322784]...</cite> <quote>Seems like a pretty reasonable approach to me. I've never understood the emphasis society tries to put on virginity. Like, losing your v-card is built up as this huge, important thing that totally changes your life, then it happens and it's just kind of a ".....wait, that's it?" moment. Muscles posted... </cite> <quote>Discriminate breeding on the females part is important because it let's the species get better instead of letting every bum water down the gene pool</quote>This is a horrible mangling of evolutionary science. Biologically speaking, no one cares about whether a certain action is advantageous or disadvantageous to the species as a whole; they care about whether a specific action is more likely to get their genetics passed on. Purely from a sexual perspective, promiscuity is generally evolutionary advantageous, because the more children you have, the more likely one or more of them will survive to breeding age themselves. There are other reasons why monogamy or selective breeding can be advantageous to an individual, but "it's for the good of the species" does not generally factor into evolutionary breeding patterns. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 03/02/21 9:29:06 AM #53:	Philip027 posted... Again, people attaching weight to virginity that doesn't belong is their own problem, not the fault of virginity itself As pretty much the entire topic has consisted of saying, the central point is not "the concept of virginity doesn't exist at all," it's "the concept of virginity has no particular value, so I'm going to treat it accordingly and criticize anyone who acts otherwise." It doesn't exist meaningfully. Some people are really struggling with the whole non-literal interpretation thing in this topic. darkknight109 posted... There are other reasons why monogamy or selective breeding can be advantageous to an individual, but "it's for the good of the species" does not generally factor into evolutionary breeding patterns. Ehh, yes and no. Evolutionary psychology is a pretty vague, inconclusive field, but speaking very broadly and without any definite examples, there's an argument to be made in some cases that desiring monogamy (and, more saliently, tending toward biparental care) is a behaviour that provides a selective advantage. It also provides individual advantages, certainly (and some degree of selfishness is also a behaviour that provides a selective advantage), but the benefit doesn't entirely stop there. Of course, none of this changes that Muscles has committed the incredibly common fallacy of believing that evolution is performed for the "good of the species." That's an entirely backwards interpretation of the causality: It's not a matter of fitter individuals having more reproductive success, it's a matter of defining more successful individuals as fitter, which in turn increases the frequency of their heritable traits. Bonus points for the "we'd be little more than monkeys" line, which seems to suggest that sexual selection is unique to humans. It's not. Literally every species that reproduces sexually engages in it to some degree or another. Heck, ducks have a ridiculous arms race going where males have coiled penises that are 120% of their body length with special bristles on the end to brush out other males' semen, while females have evolved vaginas that coil the other way so they can decide whether or not to uncoil them and let a male in (females are currently winning: an estimated 80% of duck sex is rape, but only about 3% of duck babies result from such rape). Humans are nothing special. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:951249008] in Mum says w... [t:79322784]...</cite> <quote>Philip027 posted... </cite> <quote>Again, people attaching weight to virginity that doesn't belong is their own problem, not the fault of virginity itself</quote> As pretty much the entire topic has consisted of saying, the central point is not "the concept of virginity doesn't exist at all," it's "the concept of virginity has no particular value, so I'm going to treat it accordingly and criticize anyone who acts otherwise." It doesn't exist meaningfully. Some people are really struggling with the whole non-literal interpretation thing in this topic. darkknight109 posted... </cite> <quote>There are other reasons why monogamy or selective breeding can be advantageous to an individual, but "it's for the good of the species" does not generally factor into evolutionary breeding patterns.</quote> Ehh, yes and no. Evolutionary psychology is a pretty vague, inconclusive field, but speaking very broadly and without any definite examples, there's an argument to be made in some cases that desiring monogamy (and, more saliently, tending toward biparental care) is a behaviour that provides a selective advantage. It also provides individual advantages, certainly (and some degree of selfishness is also a behaviour that provides a selective advantage), but the benefit doesn't entirely stop there. Of course, none of this changes that Muscles has committed the incredibly common fallacy of believing that evolution is performed for the "good of the species." That's an entirely backwards interpretation of the causality: It's not a matter of fitter individuals having more reproductive success, it's a matter of defining more successful individuals as fitter, which in turn increases the frequency of their heritable traits. Bonus points for the "we'd be little more than monkeys" line, which seems to suggest that sexual selection is unique to humans. It's not. Literally every species that reproduces sexually engages in it to some degree or another. Heck, ducks have a ridiculous arms race going where males have coiled penises that are 120% of their body length with special bristles on the end to brush out other males' semen, while females have evolved vaginas that coil the other way so they can decide whether or not to uncoil them and let a male in (females are currently winning: an estimated 80% of duck sex is rape, but only about 3% of duck babies result from such rape). Humans are nothing special. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 03/02/21 3:41:44 PM #54:	adjl posted... Evolutionary psychology is a pretty vague, inconclusive field, but speaking very broadly and without any definite examples, there's an argument to be made in some cases that desiring monogamy (and, more saliently, tending toward biparental care) is a behaviour that provides a selective advantage. It also provides individual advantages, certainly (and some degree of selfishness is also a behaviour that provides a selective advantage), but the benefit doesn't entirely stop there. Of course, none of this changes that Muscles has committed the incredibly common fallacy of believing that evolution is performed for the "good of the species." That's an entirely backwards interpretation of the causality: It's not a matter of fitter individuals having more reproductive success, it's a matter of defining more successful individuals as fitter, which in turn increases the frequency of their heritable traits. That's more or less what I was getting at - hence the qualifier "purely from a sexual perspective" on the statement that promiscuity is advantageous. There are other, non-sexual reasons why monogamy can be beneficial, such as offspring raised by two parents being more likely to survive to breeding age than those raised by one or simply left to fend for themselves after birth, but that gets into a whole host of new conversations on social structure, competition for resources, and so on. The point is, individuals won't go against their own interests for the good of the species under natural selection; the idea is that evolution will favour those traits that benefit both the individual and the species. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:951261515] in Mum says w... [t:79322784]...</cite> <quote>adjl posted... </cite> <quote>Evolutionary psychology is a pretty vague, inconclusive field, but speaking very broadly and without any definite examples, there's an argument to be made in some cases that desiring monogamy (and, more saliently, tending toward biparental care) is a behaviour that provides a selective advantage. It also provides individual advantages, certainly (and some degree of selfishness is also a behaviour that provides a selective advantage), but the benefit doesn't entirely stop there. Of course, none of this changes that Muscles has committed the incredibly common fallacy of believing that evolution is performed for the "good of the species." That's an entirely backwards interpretation of the causality: It's not a matter of fitter individuals having more reproductive success, it's a matter of defining more successful individuals as fitter, which in turn increases the frequency of their heritable traits.</quote>That's more or less what I was getting at - hence the qualifier "purely from a sexual perspective" on the statement that promiscuity is advantageous. There are other, non-sexual reasons why monogamy can be beneficial, such as offspring raised by two parents being more likely to survive to breeding age than those raised by one or simply left to fend for themselves after birth, but that gets into a whole host of new conversations on social structure, competition for resources, and so on. The point is, individuals won't go against their own interests for the good of the species under natural selection; the idea is that evolution will favour those traits that benefit both the individual and the species. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JigsawTDC 03/02/21 4:05:13 PM #55:	My favorite part of this thread is adjl just casually dropping that he has a big dick. <cite>JigsawTDC posted [p:951262367] in Mum says w... [t:79322784]...</cite> <quote>My favorite part of this thread is adjl just casually dropping that he has a big dick. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Metalsonic66 03/02/21 4:50:31 PM #56:	--- PSN/Steam ID: Metalsonic_69 Big bombs go kabang. <cite>Metalsonic66 posted [p:951263971] in Mum says w... [t:79322784]...</cite> <quote> </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 03/02/21 5:55:51 PM #57:	darkknight109 posted... The point is, individuals won't go against their own interests for the good of the species under natural selection; the idea is that evolution will favour those traits that benefit both the individual and the species. Pretty much. It's mostly just important to avoid attributing natural evolution to anyone's decisions. When somebody decides to do something for evolution's sake, that immediately moves into artificial selection territory. JigsawTDC posted... My favorite part of this thread is adjl just casually dropping that he has a big dick. Subtlety is important. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:951266287] in Mum says w... [t:79322784]...</cite> <quote>darkknight109 posted... </cite> <quote>The point is, individuals won't go against their own interests for the good of the species under natural selection; the idea is that evolution will favour those traits that benefit both the individual and the species.</quote> Pretty much. It's mostly just important to avoid attributing natural evolution to anyone's decisions. When somebody decides to do something for evolution's sake, that immediately moves into artificial selection territory. JigsawTDC posted... </cite> <quote>My favorite part of this thread is adjl just casually dropping that he has a big dick.</quote> Subtlety is important. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
deoxxys 03/02/21 6:18:35 PM #58:	I like how everything is somehow about how its harmful to women, it can never just be for "people". The term virgin in highschool is usually to make fun of people (primarily men) who cant get laid and men are the sex who have a lot harder time getting laid. Thats part of the reason why men are congratulated when they get laid, because its not easy unless you are really good looking. Also the whole body positivity thing? It again was all about how the idea of being anything but skinny was harmful to, yet again women...but yet woman can easily get laid even if they are 250+ lbs. Men? lmao forget it, body positivity doesnt really exist for men because yet again. Domestic abuse? Yet again it only exists when women are the victims. Men? Hell no get laughed out of the room for saying your girlfriend/wife abused/abuses you. For anyone who doesnt know me personally as a person just know I have no issue with women, but things only seem to gain steam/traction when its a women's problem. Will discuss this topic civilly if anyone would care to. --- twylite sprinkle http://tinyurl.com/jeqyas3 https://tinyurl.com/mgvx7h2 <cite>deoxxys posted [p:951267091] in Mum says w... [t:79322784]...</cite> <quote>I like how everything is somehow about how its harmful to women, it can never just be for "people". The term virgin in highschool is usually to make fun of people (primarily men) who cant get laid and men are the sex who have a lot harder time getting laid. Thats part of the reason why men are congratulated when they get laid, because its not easy unless you are really good looking. Also the whole body positivity thing? It again was all about how the idea of being anything but skinny was harmful to, yet again women...but yet woman can easily get laid even if they are 250+ lbs. Men? lmao forget it, body positivity doesnt really exist for men because yet again. Domestic abuse? Yet again it only exists when women are the victims. Men? Hell no get laughed out of the room for saying your girlfriend/wife abused/abuses you. For anyone who doesnt know me personally as a person just know I have no issue with women, but things only seem to gain steam/traction when its a women's problem. Will discuss this topic civilly if anyone would care to. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Philip027 03/03/21 1:40:47 AM #59:	As pretty much the entire topic has consisted of saying, the central point is not "the concept of virginity doesn't exist at all," it's "the concept of virginity has no particular value, so I'm going to treat it accordingly and criticize anyone who acts otherwise." It doesn't exist meaningfully. Some people are really struggling with the whole non-literal interpretation thing in this topic. I'm going by what the other person literally said, verbatim. If that isn't what she meant, then she should have chosen her words more carefully before making them public. I really don't care what you or anyone else in this topic chooses to interpret those words as, or what they think the "central point" is. Unless you are the mom in question, you can only make guesses as to what she "really" means. <cite>Philip027 posted [p:951280312] in Mum says w... [t:79322784]...</cite> <quote><quote>As pretty much the entire topic has consisted of saying, the central point is not "the concept of virginity doesn't exist at all," it's "the concept of virginity has no particular value, so I'm going to treat it accordingly and criticize anyone who acts otherwise." It doesn't exist meaningfully. Some people are really struggling with the whole non-literal interpretation thing in this topic.</quote> I'm going by what the other person literally said, verbatim. If that isn't what she meant, then she should have chosen her words more carefully before making them public. I really don't care what you or anyone else in this topic chooses to interpret those words as, or what they think the "central point" is. Unless you are the mom in question, you can only make guesses as to what she "really" means. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 03/03/21 12:01:42 PM #60:	Philip027 posted... I really don't care what you or anyone else in this topic chooses to interpret those words as, or what they think the "central point" is. You don't care about the actual meaning behind what's being said? That's not the most effective way to approach communication. Philip027 posted... Unless you are the mom in question, you can only make guesses as to what she "really" means. This is true of all communication: You're only ever making the best guess you can based on the information you have available, including the words chosen, the conversational context the speaker provides for the words, and the socio-cultural context in which they are speaking. Limiting yourself to strict literal interpretations of words while ignoring context is going to result in you sacrificing a sizable amount of your ability to understand the people and world around you. deoxxys posted... I like how everything is somehow about how its harmful to women, it can never just be for "people". To be fair, that's kind of the point of feminism: Addressing problems that harm women. Complaining that they focus on that over looking at how problems harm men is roughly akin to complaining that your plumber didn't install your new lamp while they were fixing your leaky tub. It also really doesn't help that a whole lot of very legitimate men's rights issues often only get brought up to discredit feminists and dismiss whatever they're complaining about, not in a genuine effort to recognize them as problems and look for solutions. "Stop complaining about your problem because I also have a problem" is a thoroughly unproductive approach, but that's how a lot of "MRA" types respond to feminism. That said, pretty much everything you're talking about there falls under the umbrella of "toxic masculinity," which gets plenty of attention. Also, any effort to effect a cultural shift away from treating sex and virginity like such a big deal is inevitably going to affect everyone whose sense of self-worth is being attacked based on how much sex they do/don't have. That's the fun thing about feminism: when you fix society believing too strongly that women should be/act a certain way and do certain things, those things stop being associated with femininity and therefore become more acceptable for men to do. That doesn't mean feminism will single-handedly fix every problem men have (perhaps most notably, could we stop normalizing male genital mutilation?), but it does mean that characterizing them as being opposed to one another is often pretty silly. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:951291540] in Mum says w... [t:79322784]...</cite> <quote>Philip027 posted... </cite> <quote>I really don't care what you or anyone else in this topic chooses to interpret those words as, or what they think the "central point" is.</quote> You don't care about the actual meaning behind what's being said? That's not the most effective way to approach communication. Philip027 posted... </cite> <quote>Unless you are the mom in question, you can only make guesses as to what she "really" means.</quote> This is true of all communication: You're only ever making the best guess you can based on the information you have available, including the words chosen, the conversational context the speaker provides for the words, and the socio-cultural context in which they are speaking. Limiting yourself to strict literal interpretations of words while ignoring context is going to result in you sacrificing a sizable amount of your ability to understand the people and world around you. deoxxys posted... </cite> <quote>I like how everything is somehow about how its harmful to women, it can never just be for "people".</quote> To be fair, that's kind of the point of feminism: Addressing problems that harm women. Complaining that they focus on that over looking at how problems harm men is roughly akin to complaining that your plumber didn't install your new lamp while they were fixing your leaky tub. It also really doesn't help that a whole lot of very legitimate men's rights issues often only get brought up to discredit feminists and dismiss whatever they're complaining about, not in a genuine effort to recognize them as problems and look for solutions. "Stop complaining about your problem because I also have a problem" is a thoroughly unproductive approach, but that's how a lot of "MRA" types respond to feminism. That said, pretty much everything you're talking about there falls under the umbrella of "toxic masculinity," which gets plenty of attention. Also, any effort to effect a cultural shift away from treating sex and virginity like such a big deal is inevitably going to affect everyone whose sense of self-worth is being attacked based on how much sex they do/don't have. That's the fun thing about feminism: when you fix society believing too strongly that women should be/act a certain way and do certain things, those things stop being associated with femininity and therefore become more acceptable for men to do. That doesn't mean feminism will single-handedly fix every problem men have (perhaps most notably, could we stop normalizing male genital mutilation?), but it does mean that characterizing them as being opposed to one another is often pretty silly. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Blightzkrieg 03/03/21 12:14:10 PM #61:	adjl posted... (perhaps most notably, could we stop normalizing male genital mutilation?) Ah, so now we know Adjl is uncut This topic has helped me develop a much clearer image of Adjl's penis --- https://imgur.com/1XbPahR <cite>Blightzkrieg posted [p:951291972] in Mum says w... [t:79322784]...</cite> <quote>adjl posted... </cite> <quote>(perhaps most notably, could we stop normalizing male genital mutilation?)</quote>Ah, so now we know Adjl is uncut This topic has helped me develop a much clearer image of Adjl's penis </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ClarkDuke 03/03/21 12:38:35 PM #62:	Blightzkrieg posted... Ah, so now we know Adjl is uncut This topic has helped me develop a much clearer image of Adjl's penis huh, now im thinking about it, ok? --- https://imgur.com/qL0DHFI https://imgur.com/JL9rRLt https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ <cite>ClarkDuke posted [p:951292956] in Mum says w... [t:79322784]...</cite> <quote>Blightzkrieg posted... </cite> <quote>Ah, so now we know Adjl is uncut This topic has helped me develop a much clearer image of Adjl's penis</quote>huh, now im thinking about it, ok? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ReturnOfFa 03/03/21 12:53:06 PM #63:	deoxxys posted... I like how everything is somehow about how its harmful to women, it can never just be for "people". The term virgin in highschool is usually to make fun of people (primarily men) who cant get laid and men are the sex who have a lot harder time getting laid. Thats part of the reason why men are congratulated when they get laid, because its not easy unless you are really good looking. Also the whole body positivity thing? It again was all about how the idea of being anything but skinny was harmful to, yet again women...but yet woman can easily get laid even if they are 250+ lbs. Men? lmao forget it, body positivity doesnt really exist for men because yet again. Domestic abuse? Yet again it only exists when women are the victims. Men? Hell no get laughed out of the room for saying your girlfriend/wife abused/abuses you. For anyone who doesnt know me personally as a person just know I have no issue with women, but things only seem to gain steam/traction when its a women's problem. Will discuss this topic civilly if anyone would care to. I understand what you're getting at, but the majority of feminists I speak to care dearly about men's issues. --- girls like my fa <cite>ReturnOfFa posted [p:951293518] in Mum says w... [t:79322784]...</cite> <quote>deoxxys posted... </cite> <quote>I like how everything is somehow about how its harmful to women, it can never just be for "people". The term virgin in highschool is usually to make fun of people (primarily men) who cant get laid and men are the sex who have a lot harder time getting laid. Thats part of the reason why men are congratulated when they get laid, because its not easy unless you are really good looking. Also the whole body positivity thing? It again was all about how the idea of being anything but skinny was harmful to, yet again women...but yet woman can easily get laid even if they are 250+ lbs. Men? lmao forget it, body positivity doesnt really exist for men because yet again. Domestic abuse? Yet again it only exists when women are the victims. Men? Hell no get laughed out of the room for saying your girlfriend/wife abused/abuses you. For anyone who doesnt know me personally as a person just know I have no issue with women, but things only seem to gain steam/traction when its a women's problem. Will discuss this topic civilly if anyone would care to.</quote>I understand what you're getting at, but the majority of feminists I speak to care dearly about men's issues. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
deoxxys 03/03/21 2:39:12 PM #64:	ReturnOfFa posted... I understand what you're getting at, but the majority of feminists I speak to care dearly about men's issues. Not sure if joking or not, strangely enough I recently tried to get to know and date a hardcore feminist but it was kind of bothering to see that among her blm art, she had a piece declaring "men aint shit" which kind of came off as misandrist. I personally would never even say "women arent shit" let alone get an art piece drawn for it -___- adjl posted... To be fair, that's kind of the point of feminism: Addressing problems that harm women. Complaining that they focus on that over looking at how problems harm men is roughly akin to complaining that your plumber didn't install your new lamp while they were fixing your leaky tub I too get this, but what hurts is people dont care about the leaky tub. Believe me I am not the guy sitting around pointing this out every time a womens issue is brought up. But when an issue equally effects men just as much, its a human issue not just a women's issue. --- twylite sprinkle http://tinyurl.com/jeqyas3 https://tinyurl.com/mgvx7h2 <cite>deoxxys posted [p:951297120] in Mum says w... [t:79322784]...</cite> <quote>ReturnOfFa posted... </cite> <quote>I understand what you're getting at, but the majority of feminists I speak to care dearly about men's issues.</quote>Not sure if joking or not, strangely enough I recently tried to get to know and date a hardcore feminist but it was kind of bothering to see that among her blm art, she had a piece declaring "men aint shit" which kind of came off as misandrist. I personally would never even say "women arent shit" let alone get an art piece drawn for it -___- adjl posted... </cite> <quote>To be fair, that's kind of the point of feminism: Addressing problems that harm women. Complaining that they focus on that over looking at how problems harm men is roughly akin to complaining that your plumber didn't install your new lamp while they were fixing your leaky tub</quote>I too get this, but what hurts is people dont care about the leaky tub. Believe me I am not the guy sitting around pointing this out every time a womens issue is brought up. But when an issue equally effects men just as much, its a human issue not just a women's issue. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 03/03/21 2:54:10 PM #65:	Blightzkrieg posted... Ah, so now we know Adjl is uncut This topic has helped me develop a much clearer image of Adjl's penis Technically, that doesn't actually indicate that. Just that I'm opposed to circumcision. The persistence (or lack thereof) of my foreskin is not a prerequisite for that position. ClarkDuke posted... huh, now im thinking about it, ok? We all know you never stopped, babe. ReturnOfFa posted... I understand what you're getting at, but the majority of feminists I speak to care dearly about men's issues. Also this. Most people that care about social justice one way or another quite agree with you on those fronts. Feminists tend to be more vocal about feminist issues, for obvious reasons (again, plumber's not going to fix your broken window), but the vast majority at least acknowledge that men have legitimate issues stemming from unreasonable social norms and expectations, if not actively campaigning to right those wrongs. The notion that feminists don't care about men's issues is largely a fabrication from the sort of people that feel that straight white males are oppressed. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:951297640] in Mum says w... [t:79322784]...</cite> <quote>Blightzkrieg posted... </cite> <quote>Ah, so now we know Adjl is uncut This topic has helped me develop a much clearer image of Adjl's penis</quote> Technically, that doesn't actually indicate that. Just that I'm opposed to circumcision. The persistence (or lack thereof) of my foreskin is not a prerequisite for that position. ClarkDuke posted... </cite> <quote>huh, now im thinking about it, ok?</quote> We all know you never stopped, babe. ReturnOfFa posted... </cite> <quote>I understand what you're getting at, but the majority of feminists I speak to care dearly about men's issues.</quote> Also this. Most people that care about social justice one way or another quite agree with you on those fronts. Feminists tend to be more vocal about feminist issues, for obvious reasons (again, plumber's not going to fix your broken window), but the vast majority at least acknowledge that men have legitimate issues stemming from unreasonable social norms and expectations, if not actively campaigning to right those wrongs. The notion that feminists don't care about men's issues is largely a fabrication from the sort of people that feel that straight white males are oppressed. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Blightzkrieg 03/03/21 3:13:35 PM #66:	Don't patronize me adjl. You've been in at least as many penis discussions as I have. You know that nobody on GameFAQs has is capable of criticizing their own dick, particularly when it comes to anteaters vs mushrooms. --- https://imgur.com/1XbPahR <cite>Blightzkrieg posted [p:951298297] in Mum says w... [t:79322784]...</cite> <quote>Don't patronize me adjl. You've been in at least as many penis discussions as I have. You know that nobody on GameFAQs has is capable of criticizing their own dick, particularly when it comes to anteaters vs mushrooms. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GunslingerGunsl 03/03/21 3:14:22 PM #67:	ReturnOfFa posted... I understand what you're getting at, but the majority of feminists I speak to care dearly about men's issues. Same from my experiences as well. Feminism isn't inherently linked to hating men like I hear some people suggest. <cite>GunslingerGunsl posted [p:951298331] in Mum says w... [t:79322784]...</cite> <quote>ReturnOfFa posted... </cite> <quote>I understand what you're getting at, but the majority of feminists I speak to care dearly about men's issues.</quote>Same from my experiences as well. Feminism isn't inherently linked to hating men like I hear some people suggest. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 03/03/21 3:16:27 PM #68:	Blightzkrieg posted... Don't patronize me adjl. You've been in at least as many penis discussions as I have. You know that nobody on GameFAQs has is capable of criticizing their own dick, particularly when it comes to anteaters vs mushrooms. I consider myself transcendent, no longer beholden to the limitations felt by so many GameFAQs users. My penile objectivity knows no bounds. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:951298414] in Mum says w... [t:79322784]...</cite> <quote>Blightzkrieg posted... </cite> <quote>Don't patronize me adjl. You've been in at least as many penis discussions as I have. You know that nobody on GameFAQs has is capable of criticizing their own dick, particularly when it comes to anteaters vs mushrooms.</quote> I consider myself transcendent, no longer beholden to the limitations felt by so many GameFAQs users. My penile objectivity knows no bounds. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
dedbus 03/03/21 4:38:32 PM #69:	deoxxys posted... Not sure if joking or not, strangely enough I recently tried to get to know and date a hardcore feminist but it was kind of bothering to see that among her blm art, she had a piece declaring "men aint shit" which kind of came off as misandrist. I personally would never even say "women arent shit" let alone get an art piece drawn for it -___- Please don't bring your fabrications of misandry here lol. <cite>dedbus posted [p:951301297] in Mum says w... [t:79322784]...</cite> <quote>deoxxys posted... </cite> <quote>Not sure if joking or not, strangely enough I recently tried to get to know and date a hardcore feminist but it was kind of bothering to see that among her blm art, she had a piece declaring "men aint shit" which kind of came off as misandrist. I personally would never even say "women arent shit" let alone get an art piece drawn for it -___-</quote> Please don't bring your fabrications of misandry here lol. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
deoxxys 03/03/21 5:02:45 PM #70:	dedbus posted... Please don't bring your fabrications of misandry here lol. The women literally posts craps about men in general all the time on her Snap and has a piece of artwork dedicated to it on her wall, the only fabrication here is your brain. I dunno why I am bothering even replying to such a obvious troll post but, "hey"! --- twylite sprinkle http://tinyurl.com/jeqyas3 https://tinyurl.com/mgvx7h2 <cite>deoxxys posted [p:951302154] in Mum says w... [t:79322784]...</cite> <quote>dedbus posted... </cite> <quote>Please don't bring your fabrications of misandry here lol.</quote>The women literally posts craps about men in general all the time on her Snap and has a piece of artwork dedicated to it on her wall, the only fabrication here is your brain. I dunno why I am bothering even replying to such a obvious troll post but, "hey"! </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
zebatov 03/03/21 5:30:47 PM #71:	Ive had three, and none of them were random. --- C was right. <cite>zebatov posted [p:951303103] in Mum says w... [t:79322784]...</cite> <quote>Ive had three, and none of them were random. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
EvilMegas 03/03/21 6:05:19 PM #72:	deoxxys posted... The women literally posts craps about men in general all the time on her Snap and has a piece of artwork dedicated to it on her wall, the only fabrication here is your brain. I dunno why I am bothering even replying to such a obvious troll post but, "hey"! Nice generalization. Also yes, all you do is post really bad troll posts. --- Official Former King of Black People(Lost to Joe Biden) You are getting this discount. <cite>EvilMegas posted [p:951304202] in Mum says w... [t:79322784]...</cite> <quote>deoxxys posted... </cite> <quote>The women literally posts craps about men in general all the time on her Snap and has a piece of artwork dedicated to it on her wall, the only fabrication here is your brain. I dunno why I am bothering even replying to such a obvious troll post but, "hey"!</quote>Nice generalization. Also yes, all you do is post really bad troll posts. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ReturnOfFa 03/03/21 6:37:57 PM #73:	deoxxys posted... Not sure if joking or not, strangely enough I recently tried to get to know and date a hardcore feminist but it was kind of bothering to see that among her blm art, she had a piece declaring "men aint shit" which kind of came off as misandrist. I personally would never even say "women arent shit" let alone get an art piece drawn for it -___- Nope, not joking! Well, a lot of people do make things quite reductionist. That being said, I've met enough men that have screwed me around, been dishonest, cowards etc that I can get behind a statement like "Men ain't shit!", even though I am one. I'm not personally offended by it. Obviously that 'hardcore feminist' wasn't offended by the fact that you were a man, even though she had created that art! In that sense, I -personally of course-, would not be that upset by it. I think if you're going to say things like 'women ain't shit!', well, you can! I just think that women have been historically treated quite a lot worse than men, and I have personally seen a lot of that still in the workplace. Of course, I have also been mistreated by women, so that's why I'm fine with some creative jokes that dunk on women. People are probably going to not like it if all you say is negative things about women, in simple terms. If you have creative jokes about women, but are also nice to women 99% of the time, people will probably be fine with you, except the most extreme folks. I just personally don't find a sign that says 'men ain't shit' has much of an effect on my life. Even if it's someone in my life that made it. Maybe they just needed to express that because they had been mistreated by a majority of men in their life. Did you ask her about the men in her life? I would maybe just be patient if dating someone like that - I'm sure they would tell you about such things in time. --- girls like my fa <cite>ReturnOfFa posted [p:951305319] in Mum says w... [t:79322784]...</cite> <quote>deoxxys posted... </cite> <quote>Not sure if joking or not, strangely enough I recently tried to get to know and date a hardcore feminist but it was kind of bothering to see that among her blm art, she had a piece declaring "men aint shit" which kind of came off as misandrist. I personally would never even say "women arent shit" let alone get an art piece drawn for it -___-</quote> Nope, not joking! Well, a lot of people do make things quite reductionist. That being said, I've met enough men that have screwed me around, been dishonest, cowards etc that I can get behind a statement like "Men ain't shit!", even though I am one. I'm not personally offended by it. Obviously that 'hardcore feminist' wasn't offended by the fact that you were a man, even though she had created that art! In that sense, I -personally of course-, would not be that upset by it. I think if you're going to say things like 'women ain't shit!', well, you can! I just think that women have been historically treated quite a lot worse than men, and I have personally seen a lot of that still in the workplace. Of course, I have also been mistreated by women, so that's why I'm fine with some creative jokes that dunk on women. People are probably going to not like it if all you say is negative things about women, in simple terms. If you have creative jokes about women, but are also nice to women 99% of the time, people will probably be fine with you, except the most extreme folks. I just personally don't find a sign that says 'men ain't shit' has much of an effect on my life. Even if it's someone in my life that made it. Maybe they just needed to express that because they had been mistreated by a majority of men in their life. Did you ask her about the men in her life? I would maybe just be patient if dating someone like that - I'm sure they would tell you about such things in time. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
deoxxys 03/03/21 7:07:18 PM #74:	EvilMegas posted... Nice generalization. Also yes, all you do is post really bad troll posts. Um no? But arent you generalizing based off of 1-2 posts? XD ReturnOfFa posted... Nope, not joking! Well, a lot of people do make things quite reductionist. That being said, I've met enough men that have screwed me around, been dishonest, cowards etc that I can get behind a statement like "Men ain't shit!", even though I am one. I'm not personally offended by it. Obviously that 'hardcore feminist' wasn't offended by the fact that you were a man, even though she had created that art! In that sense, I -personally of course-, would not be that upset by it. I mean I dont think she was offended by me being a man because obviously she had me over and things got intimate but I got red flags going up when I see multiple instances of her posting a displaying anti-men sentiments. Of course this didnt change my opinion of her that much because I know humans are complicated and diverse creatures. What it really comes down to is not that "men aint shit" but regardless of gender we are always going to have assholes no matter what lifestyle you live or where you live. --- twylite sprinkle http://tinyurl.com/jeqyas3 https://tinyurl.com/mgvx7h2 <cite>deoxxys posted [p:951306306] in Mum says w... [t:79322784]...</cite> <quote>EvilMegas posted... </cite> <quote>Nice generalization. Also yes, all you do is post really bad troll posts.</quote>Um no? But arent you generalizing based off of 1-2 posts? XD ReturnOfFa posted... </cite> <quote>Nope, not joking! Well, a lot of people do make things quite reductionist. That being said, I've met enough men that have screwed me around, been dishonest, cowards etc that I can get behind a statement like "Men ain't shit!", even though I am one. I'm not personally offended by it. Obviously that 'hardcore feminist' wasn't offended by the fact that you were a man, even though she had created that art! In that sense, I -personally of course-, would not be that upset by it.</quote>I mean I dont think she was offended by me being a man because obviously she had me over and things got intimate but I got red flags going up when I see multiple instances of her posting a displaying anti-men sentiments. Of course this didnt change my opinion of her that much because I know humans are complicated and diverse creatures. What it really comes down to is not that "men aint shit" but regardless of gender we are always going to have assholes no matter what lifestyle you live or where you live. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sega9599 03/03/21 7:23:18 PM #75:	ReturnOfFa posted... Also another note. Hymens can remain intact or not intact regardless of 'virginity'. That's very rare. Might as well say "women over 50 can give birth, therefore we should normalize and show more 50+ year old mothers giving birth in media" --- Needed: New Pokemon Puzzle League, Shining Force and Left 4 Dead.... <cite>Sega9599 posted [p:951306868] in Mum says w... [t:79322784]...</cite> <quote>ReturnOfFa posted... </cite> <quote>Also another note. Hymens can remain intact or not intact regardless of 'virginity'.</quote> That's very rare. Might as well say "women over 50 can give birth, therefore we should normalize and show more 50+ year old mothers giving birth in media" </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2

Poll of the Day > Mum says why shes teaching her five daughters there's no such thing as virginity (+) Yeah! (+)

Poll of the Day > Mum says why shes teaching her five daughters there's no such thing as virginity