A new film opens this Friday called "The Proposal," about an overbearing boss (Sandra Bullock) who cajoles her much younger male assistant (Ryan Reynolds) to marry her so she can avoid immigration problems (she's from Canada). The young man is anything but interested in marrying her but plays along to save his job. Ms. Bullock is 45 and Mr. Reynolds is 32.
Note that if the genders were reversed, this arrangement would be considered severely politically incorrect; some gender feminists would classify it is a kind of rape.
But since the oppressed party is a male, it's not rape -- it's a romantic comedy.
On the comment section for this film at the Internet Movie Database, the following appears:
I Love the age difference!
by celine285 1 day ago (Sat Jun 13 2009 23:07:59)
UPDATED Sat Jun 13 2009 23:09:37
I know theres a few debates on the board here, but i think its awesome theres 13 years between the grown actors. She's turning 45 next month, he's 32 (and married to a 24 years old!) I'm tired of seeing old men with younger hotter women. Have you guys seen NEXT? Jessica Biel was 25 and Nicolas Cage was 43, can you say ew? But no one blinks an eye? But what i really love about the age difference: at 45, she's playing roles that are usually reserve for girls 20 years younger than she is. Not since Kate Hepburn can an actress play a romantic comedy to a younger man without it being a part of the plot. Cameron Diaz is 34 and she's playing a mom to a teenager in her latest movie. It's just a good image, or counter-image coming out of hollywood - So, I say, go sandra!
Read it again to catch the full flavor of it.
Did you get it? When the male is older, there is an "ew" factor (this is so despite the logical reasons why older men hook up with younger women all the time: men can produce sperm long after women have left their child-bearing years; women often look for financial security from men and older men are generally far more financially secure (and, yes, some of the women are gold-diggers); and young women often believe that men their own age lack maturity).
But when the genders are reversed and the female is older, that doesn't carry an "ew" factor; that's empowerment.
It's a "you go, girlfriend!" moment.
The older women doesn't need to financially rely on a man, so we applaud her for having her very own "boy toy" that she can toss away when she tires of him or realizes that she has nothing in common with an early-20s-something guy who'd rather play video games than paint the nursery.
Older man-younger women: disgusting; older woman-younger man: a sign of progress.
The object of disgust for an older man-younger woman tryst is usually not the young woman who, truth be told, might just be a gold-digger. Gold-digging is perfectly acceptable. The object of the disgust is usually the middle-aged man, who is disgusting precisely because he's a middle-aged man.
Now let's be clear. Adults should be able find love at any age. But why not leave it at that? Why can't we just say "it's great that older women and younger men can hook up!"
Why must we always take that extra step to slam males? Here is the bottom line: male sexuality that women don't approve of is regarded as disgusting, depraved or evil. And neither women nor men hold women to the same standard.
This is symptomatic of a larger, nefarious trend.
Adult males having sex with children are viewed as the lowest form of life. In contrast, adult females who molest boys are seen as "mixed up" and emotionally immature. They are given notoriously light sentences because their disorders are seen as more pathetic than evil. (But a female teacher's callow male lover is lucky if the teacher doesn't sacrifice him to save her skin by accusing him of raping her -- one such teacher recently tried that to no avail.) Reverse the genders and assume a girl accuses an adult male teacher of rape -- he will be sent away for years, without question.
But it doesn't stop there. Who, for example, is considered the greater criminal, the hard-working, saintly prostitute or the evil businessman who frequents her? The question scarcely survives its statement.
Strip clubs are viewed as places frequented by dirty old disgusting men who objectify women. Civic groups want to impose "sin" taxes on them, and nobody complains except the strip club owners. But enjoying naked male dancers and explicit penis cakes that depict ejaculation at raunchy bachelorette parties is viewed as "empowerment" for the liberated young women in attendance.
The rape of a woman or a child is second only to murder on the scale of acts considered to be evil. In contrast, the rape of a man in prison is a punchline. And sometimes the men who are raped are only in prison because they were falsely accused of rape or some other sexual offense -- the ultimate tragic irony.
Men who suffer from premature ejaculation are "selfish." They, too, are a punchline. Or worse: after her arrest for mutilating her husband with an 8-inch knife, Lorna Bobbitt told police: "He always have [sic] [an] orgasm and he doesn't wait for me to have [an] orgasm. He's selfish." Mrs. Bobbitt was hailed as a feminist heroine.
Men who don't wear condoms are "pigs" in TV ads. Some feminist legal scholars want to go so far as to subject any male who has intercourse without a condom to be jailed as a kind of lesser form of rape (the burden would be on the male to prove that the woman consented to sex without a condom). Never mind that a woman can see if the guy is wearing a condom and that she can say "no." In contrast, when a female lies to a male that she's on the pill -- he has no way of knowing that, nor does he know that she intends to get pregnant without the man's knowledge. Guy not wearing condom: selfish pig. Woman who lies about being on the pill: not selfish in any manner because, you see, it's her right to do as she pleases with her body. The fact that she will saddle the guy for child support for 18 years because of a lie is neither here nor there.
When two underage teenagers have consensual sex, usually only one is considered a statutory rapist, and only one will be classified as a "sex offender," possibly for the rest of his life. Can you guess his gender?
Feminists tout the glories of the "hook up" culture -- except if any obligations are expected of the female. If both the guy and the girl purposefully get drunk intending to have sex, she's a rape victim who retains her anonymity. He, on the other hand, is a rapist who goes to prison for years, his name is splashed all over the news, and his reputation is destroyed forever. And in prison, he'll probably have done to him what he did NOT do to her.
And it goes on and on and on. Women believe this nonsense, and men are taught to "take it like a man" because they, too, have been brainwashed by the feminist urban myth that there are sex double standards that favor men and boys.
It's time to inject some balance, some fairness, some facts into the discourse. Because right now, men are regarded as pigs, and women are regarded as oppressed, regardless of the circumstances, and usually when it's simply not so. And some of us have grown mighty weary of it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
54 comments:
Keep preaching, Arch. I trust you know that people ARE listening.
"Can you say ew?" Feminism always makes me say "ew." It's a vile religion which is subsidized by the state, in violation of the First Amendment.
And all of these examples are documened on this website. Thanks, Archivist, for distilling so many of the themes you touch on in one post.
But when the genders are reversed and the female is older, that doesn't carry an "ew" factor; that's empowerment.
I see what you're saying. But I hope you're not basing your argument about this:
male sexuality that women don't approve of is regarded as disgusting, depraved or evil.
...on that one quote from one female. I think what she was saying was more of a reaction of how for the longest time, and even still today, an older woman is looked down upon for dating a younger man. It shouldn't be automatically assumed that he's a "boy toy" like it shouldn't be assumed that a younger woman dating an older man is a "gold-digger". I know that there aren't biological reasons for the older-woman, younger-man couple, but not every woman or man wants kids and yes some woman have large bank accounts and don't need financial security from a guy.
And anyway, back to that quote, you can say that the reverse is true for females, especially if they aren't virgins. The difference is they are seen as whores, sluts, etc. It's been this way for YEARS. Look at how many articles focus on girls and sex. Boys are RARELY if NEVER mentioned.
If both the guy and the girl purposefully get drunk intending to have sex, she's a rape victim who retains her anonymity.
You should rephrase this. If they're intending to have sex then there's no rape involved.
Even if they're both drunk (which I'm not excusing), if she NEVER intended to have sex in the first place and he uses physical force and overpowers her, ignoring her FORCEFUL "no's" and "stop's", then yes that's rape. Sadly you hear plenty stories of those types of rapes never getting prosecuted.
And it goes on and on and on. Women believe this nonsense, and men are taught to "take it like a man" because they, too, have been brainwashed by the feminist urban myth that there are sex double standards that favor men and boys.
I'm sorry but the double-standard DOES exist, even today. If a guy has sex with 10 women, he's considered a stud, popular, and a man. If a woman has sex with 5 men, she's considered a slut. This is especially true among young people. Men get away with behaviors that women would be critized for. Anytime someone raises the issue of the hook-up culture, sex, oral sex, among young people, GIRLS are almost aways the main focus. Another example is if a man is assertive, he's well, a man. If a woman is assertive, she's mean, a bitch, etc.
I agree with many things that you've said, but not EVERYTHING can be blamed on feminism. Some of it is due to age-old societal ideas and some is due to other men supporting the ideas.
UGH, once again I wrote a book.
"But when the genders are reversed and the female is older, that doesn't carry an "ew" factor; that's empowerment."
"...on that one quote from one female. I think what she was saying was more of a reaction of how for the longest time, and even still today, an older woman is looked down upon for dating a younger man. "
OK, Renee, so how is her commnet in any way an approrpiate response? She is jsut slinging the same shit and that is supposed to be right?
"It shouldn't be automatically assumed that he's a "boy toy" like it shouldn't be assumed that a younger woman dating an older man is a "gold-digger". "
It's not an assumption that he's a boy boy, it's an explicit part of the stroy - the Bullock character is using him as an object.
"If both the guy and the girl purposefully get drunk intending to have sex, she's a rape victim who retains her anonymity.
You should rephrase this. If they're intending to have sex then there's no rape involved. "
No, he phrased it right. He phrased it the way these cases are handled under the law, which conveniently ignores it when "she" changes her mind about the "intending to have sex" part.
"Men get away with behaviors that women would be critized for."
The diffenrece here, and the REAL double standard is that the women get"criticized" boo-hoo, and the men go to jail. Big difenrece, don't you think?
But as for criticism, the sam double standard works for men as for women, except exactly in reverse - men get criticized for NOT having sex with lots of woemn; men who don't have lots of sex with lots of women are "losers" and even supposedl;y progessive feminsts types love to sling this on on boards - "Oh I can see why yopu never get laid!"
Again, considering how the presumption that a man is always going to go for sex can easily land him jial, where the reputation of being a slut will never dfo that to a woman, that's the real double standard.
Here's another double standard for you - a owman with a reptuationas a slut can still bring rape cahrges and get them taken seriously these days (good thing, too!) but when a boy is raped by an adult woman, it's just fluffed of as how he got lucky or some such sick shit. There's a double standard - rapists going free because they are women and the victims are male.
Thank you, Jim. I am so very tired of this feminist canard about the "double standards." Yes, it is a bald-faced lie in this day and age. A lie.
Will respond to her in a separate post soon.
Great blog guys and the comments are almost as good, but as far as "double standards" are concerned you're missing the point.
Whether or not double standards exist is neither here nor there - the important thing about double standards is whether or not they help to promote a stable, safe, secure, and prosperous society or if they serve to destroy society.
The traditional double standards were beneficial - they made our society better. Feminist double standards our destroying our society and must be ended.
Russ, you make a good point.
Are parents concerned about daughters getting pregnant? You bet they are. As they should be. Sons can't get pregnant.
That irrefutable point -- so fundamental that everyone outside Womyn's Studies classes recognizes it -- lies at the heart of the so-called "double standard."
Are feminists concerned about our daughters getting pregnant? In fact, they actively encourage "hook ups." Why? Because the boys can do it. No other reason.
I rest my case. And that may be what Russ is talking about.
In case it needs to be spelled out to the feminists, no rational parent is encouraging his or her son to engage in hook-ups. No sane father is winking at his son when the boy gets a girl pregnant. That sort of twisted hyper-masculine behavior exists only in feminist wet dreams.
The only people touting the "studs/sluts" dichotomy aside from feminists are inane high school children. The fact that high school students admire "studs" and ridicule "sluts" shouldn't be the determining factor in concluding that there is an unfair double standard. High school kids also admire basketball players far more than Pulitzer Prize winners; they watch or actively encourage bullies to beat up "fags" or weaker boys; they make catty, hateful comments about other girls to destroy their self-esteem, which sometimes leads to suicide; and to most, getting a date with a popular kid is far more important than getting good grades.
Feminists want women to be treated with the same respect that high school students give "studs"? THAT'S the culture that we aspire to?
If so, they can take their feminism and shove it up their asses.
Biology has dictated that boys and girls are different. Another epiphany that everyone knows excetp the feminists. But how about instead of perpetuating this myth about a double standard that favors males, we teach our sons not to engage in promiscuous sex and that being a "stud" could bring 18 years of child support obligations? And how about we teach our daughters that the hook-up culture is an empty dream that will only bring regret, pregnancy and false rape claims? How about we teach both our sons and daughters about the dangers of alcohol and drugs and engaging in sex play with people they don't know well?
You know, I suspect parents are already teaching their kids those things.
And how about we stop treating men and boys as evil, depraved or disgusting merely because they were born with an enhanced sex drive? THAT'S the only real double standard.
Renee - "I'm sorry but the double-standard DOES exist, even today. If a guy has sex with 10 women, he's considered a stud, popular, and a man."
And, just who's fault is it that a male slut (once known as a cad back when men still called the shots) has today been re-branded as a "playa"?
Here's a hint, Renee, playa's are (sexually) sucessful because WOMEN go for playa's.
That's right, Renee, that mean old double standard that's buggin' you is the fault of women. If women were to devalue promiscuous men the same way men tend to devalue promiscuous women, the double-standard would vanish.
But, as I'm sure you know quite well yourself, women PREFER men who are desired by other women. When a man has had many sexual partners, women don't think twice about the probability that he carries STD's, they only see his "success" as an endorsement by all those other women of his sexual desirability.
It's outside the normal realm and intended scope of this forum, but this stuff is "old hat" on literally dozens of others - so don't pretend you've never heard about it.
Today's playa's are only idolized and admired because sexually liberated women make them so. Again, years ago, when the opinions of men were still valued as steering mechanisms for culture and society, such promiscuous men were known as cads, lotharios, and assorted other names emblematic of the disrespect they were (rightfully) owed.
Now, thanks to feminism and the sexual revolution they inspired, the shaming terms of men have been swept away with all the rest of what was once termed the "patriarchy", and now the values and opinions of women hold sway. Thanks to women, the cads of yesteryear are the hot bad boys and playa's of today.
So, don't come around nagging at men for the double standard you women have brought about; thank your "sista's" instead.
slwerner, once again, you said it better than I could.
Ok Jim,
OK, Renee, so how is her commnet in any way an approrpiate response? She is jsut slinging the same shit and that is supposed to be right?
I never said it was appropiate or right. I was just explaining her point of view.
It's not an assumption that he's a boy boy, it's an explicit part of the stroy - the Bullock character is using him as an object.
It seemed like to me that he wasn't talking about the story. Rather, he was talking about the general belief surrounding women dating younger men. But that's just me.
The diffenrece here, and the REAL double standard is that the women get"criticized" boo-hoo, and the men go to jail. Big difenrece, don't you think?
Go to jail for what? What behaviors are YOU talking about. I'm talking about how it's ok for guys to cuss, act a little rowdy and loud, get drunk (not saying it's ok to - but like for guys it's almost expected), etc. Look at the media. If a female celebrity parties hard and sleeps with alot of guys, she's looked at in a negative light. For guys it's different. But as for actual,certain crimes, I see what you're saying. I never denied that.
But as for criticism, the sam double standard works for men as for women, except exactly in reverse - men get criticized for NOT having sex with lots of woemn; men who don't have lots of sex with lots of women are "losers" and even supposedl;y progessive feminsts types love to sling this on on boards - "Oh I can see why yopu never get laid!"
I completely agree with you, it drives me crazy. It really goes BOTH ways. Many guys think that sleeping around is one of the basics of masculinity, and it's not. No one encourages boys to save themselves for marriage, only girls. There's a whole culture of virginity with females as the main focus. The guys don't matter, and that's a shame.
Again, considering how the presumption that a man is always going to go for sex can easily land him jial, where the reputation of being a slut will never dfo that to a woman, that's the real double standard.
Now this I don't understand. How can a presumption land someone in jail?
Here's another double standard for you - a owman with a reptuationas a slut can still bring rape cahrges and get them taken seriously these days (good thing, too!) but when a boy is raped by an adult woman, it's just fluffed of as how he got lucky or some such sick shit. There's a double standard - rapists going free because they are women and the victims are male.
I agree with this too. In fact I've mentioned it before. Guys and girls and society in general need to take rape of males seriously.
I am so very tired of this feminist canard about the "double standards." Yes, it is a bald-faced lie in this day and age. A lie.
No it's not a lie. Just because you never experienced that version of it, aren't a witness to it, or noticed it doesn't mean it not there. The double standards I descibed exists, just like the double standards that Jim descibed exists. It comes in many forms. But all of them are wrong.
There is a slight double standard when it comes to promiscuous sex, which has largely been eliminated. But there is a huge double standard in the legal system, favoring women over men is all situations. And the moral prohibitions against female promiscuity that we used to have were also a way of protecting women, and giving them leverage: men used to face enormous pressure to get married. Women used to face much less sexual competition because of the old morality, but now that morality has almost entirely been replaced.
No wonder women describe themselves as less happy than they were over 30 years ago! Women used to be happier than men, but now the reverse is true -- in spite of the unfair treatment that men face.
Are parents concerned about daughters getting pregnant? You bet they are. As they should be. Sons can't get pregnant.
But they CAN get girls pregnant, how do you think girls get pregnant in the first place. Parents whould be concerned about this too. But it has been shown that the way parents give the "sex talk" to boys and girls differ. That's half the problem.
Biology has dictated that boys and girls are different. Another epiphany that everyone knows excetp the feminists. But how about instead of perpetuating this myth about a double standard that favors males, we teach our sons not to engage in promiscuous sex and that being a "stud" could bring 18 years of child support obligations? And how about we teach our daughters that the hook-up culture is an empty dream that will only bring regret, pregnancy and false rape claims? How about we teach both our sons and daughters about the dangers of alcohol and drugs and engaging in sex play with people they don't know well?
*Applauds* I agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY
Are feminists concerned about our daughters getting pregnant? In fact, they actively encourage "hook ups." Why? Because the boys can do it. No other reason.
I would say that they are. They also encouraged teens being educated about sex if they choose to do so. And I don't think they encourage it, but are realistic to it. And also to show girls that there isn't anything wrong with them if they are interested in sex or like boys are (I'm speaking in general terms here). It's a backlash against gender stereotypes about females not being interested in sex AT ALL or that they should acknowledge their sexuality, or something like that. Just because girls don't have as much of a sex drive as guys for the most part, doesn't mean we don't have one PERIOD. Besides, do you think that only boys should "hook up"?
If you have the time, PLEASE check out the following links. They really help expand my points.
Study busts myth that women want less sex.
Another Awkward Sex Talk
How to Talk to Your Teen Son About Sex.
The slut/stud dichotomy isn't only in schools. It's in general society. Do you think those ideas just go away after high school?
Can anyone tell me the difference between a "slut" and a "stud"?
What the "Hook-Up" Culture Really Says About Women
Grant it these two links are in a high school setting, but their interesting none the less:
Double Standard
Teens Face Double Standard When it Comes to Sex
Phew, now you slwerner,
And, just who's fault is it that a male slut (once known as a cad back when men still called the shots) has today been re-branded as a "playa"? Here's a hint, Renee, playa's are (sexually) sucessful because WOMEN go for playa's.
And you're right.
That's right, Renee, that mean old double standard that's buggin' you is the fault of women. If women were to devalue promiscuous men the same way men tend to devalue promiscuous women, the double-standard would vanish.
Now this is where you're wrong. Don't try to blame it all on women. You just need to look back at history to see what I'm talking about. Women were encouraged and even ordered to be virgins and to be "pure". You said it youself, men tended to devalue promiscuous women or women who had sex outside of marriage period. Nobody really asked men to do the same. Why do you think prostitution and whore-houses were around for so long. But yeah, the second part I agree with. You can also say if people don't look down on women who have casual sex, then the double standard would dissapear.
But, as I'm sure you know quite well yourself, women PREFER men who are desired by other women.
DUH of course. But does that have to come with many sexual partners, no.
When a man has had many sexual partners, women don't think twice about the probability that he carries STD's, they only see his "success" as an endorsement by all those other women of his sexual desirability.
Although I don't necessarily agree with the whole disregarding STD probability, I agree with you. I also think that women don't really ask men about their sexual history. But I wonder what happens if a guy finds out that the woman he's with had more sexual partners than he does. I've read comments from men who have had multiple partners themselves who prefer to have a virginal wife.
Today's playa's are only idolized and admired because sexually liberated women make them so.
Once again, don't try and blame everything on women and feminism. "Playas" of years and centuries past and today have been and are still idolized by males too. Ever heard of Zeus (yes I know he's not real)? Is it because they think it attracts other females, probably so. But I think it's more about them being a "man" more than anything. But hey what do I know, I'm a chick. And why the emphasis on women being sexually liberated? What is your personal definition of being sexually liberated? Just curious.
Horseshit, Renee. Pure horseshit. I'm going to put this in language young feminists can understand: you are all fucking nutz.
Anonymous, no need for that language -- just ignore her. She'll find her way to the light, like that evil spirit in "Poltergeist" did.
A woman has to be very, very promiscuous these days to be considered a slut. Nobody objects to a woman having had multiple lovers these days. What Renee is talking about exists, but just isn't that imporatnt anymore.
Anonymous, good point. Almost every single extra-marital scandal involving a male politician involves another woman. When do you ever hear of the other woman being criticized? It is always the man.
Daytime TV is the first to rip men who have affairs -- they are pigs, etc. But when Barbara Walters went on with Oprah to admit having an affair with a married male politician, it was considered a beautiful, candid, empowering revelation.
THAT is what you call a double-standard.
Renee - ”I've read comments from men who have had multiple partners themselves who prefer to have a virginal wife.”
But I’d imagine that such men are a very small fringe group of the whole male population. And, women are perfectly free to have the exact same demand of a man they would marry. That they choose not to is their own free-will. The only double standard here, is also therefore of their free-will.
”And why the emphasis on women being sexually liberated? What is your personal definition of being sexually liberated? Just curious.”
Free from the old social stigma’s which served to keep young women (especially) from simply sleeping around, and, in particular, doing so with questionable men – including those who might well end up using force to gain sex from them. Feminists prefer to rail against the sexual mores which used to constrain women’s sexuality and “hold them down”; yet those strict rules also served to protect women from the results of their own likely follies.
For all your concern about “slut shaming”, I really don’t see much of it occurring any more – other than in the way men tend to choose long-term partners. Even though it’s “low hanging fruit” and not strictly keeping with reality, I’d point out the huge popularity of “Sex & The City” as an example of how the women DON’T experience the shaming today that they once did.
Of course, what we’re finding out is that in real life, after years of promiscuity, the Carrie Bradshaw’s of the world seldom end up with the man of their dreams – they find they squandered their prime years, and are no longer valued as long-term mates by men who have the luxury to be “choosy”.
I’m sort of getting the idea that this is what you are bemoaning in your earlier post – that promiscuous women end up being devalued by men.
Well, the fact is that there are perfectly sound reasons for this. As published research has shown, those who’ve had many partners have increasing difficult “bonding” to partners. Even before research left little doubt, people had long been aware of this. A man (as should a women in the reversed scenario) is wise to consider that if a women has had a history of sleeping around, she’s quite likely to continue to do so; and is therefore a poor choice for a man seeking to marry and start a family. And, due to a double standard entire the fault of biology, women are more likely to have acquired an STD during a lengthy sexual history. Again, making them a poor choice for long-term relationships.
But, women are now free from social stigma’s which once caused them to have second (third, fourth, and so on….) thoughts about seeking such a life style. This IS the sexual liberation long sought and fought for by feminists. That this sexual liberation has had unintended consequence for women (not equaled by the similar consequence for men) is, well, just the way things turned out.
Still, men are not nearly so responsible for this turn of events as women have been. Sure some men have found ways to take advantage of the situation, but as we see in so many instance report here, men also are now regularly accused of rape (even falsely so) for merely engaging in the very activities that women’s sexual liberation has inevitably lead to. Women feel free to get drunk, used drugs, strip naked at parties, and wind up having sex with guy’s they barely (if at all) know the first thing about. And, the next day, if they regret what they’ve done, well, they always have the option of converting the consensual sex that they’ve often initiated to rape.
But, Hey, you know what? If a guy has regrets, he doesn’t (realistically) have that option. Well, what do you know? We have a double-standard here too.
Well, at least if a slut is shunned, she doesn’t face prison time for it.
The "I'm a stud, you're a slut" double standard is indeed real but it is an example of female privilege, it is the patriarchy protecting it's daughters. Think about it, what are the benefits of this double standard for men? You get to sleep around and some people will admire you for it whereas others, including my swinish self, will think your'e a bit of a dog. Now, what are the benefits for women? You avoid unwanted parenthood and sexually transmitted diseases. Which sex is gaining more from this double standard? Females obviously, they avoid disease and unwanted motherhood, we just avoid a few nasty names while actually increasing our risks for diseases and unwanted parenthood.
I remember what my evil feminist ex foster mother/abuser told me once, in regards to sex; "All sex is dirty and perverted. Anyone who has sex is a pervert and all perverts will have their place in the lake of fire"
She lied. It wasn't until I got relased from that prison of a foster home, that I discovered she had lied. I am a male. I feared having sex because of her lie. I didn't lose my virginity until I was 38. My first and only girlfriend had a long history of sex with other men. I found out,after we broke up (her decision) that she was still married. I am now 44 and have missed out on my chance to get married, all because a feminist lied to me.
I guess she supposed I wouldn't have found out HOW she had children.
"The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men." -- Sharon Stone; Actress
Does anyone remember the famous crotch shot in the movie basic instinct?
The men had the last laugh on Ms. Stone, did they not? Male actors in Hollywood her age are flourishing, but we all know what happens to females when they reach a certain age in Tinseltown. Oh, well . . . . The men at the box office proved more powerful than Ms. Stone, and they've given her the big thumbs down.
Porky,
"The "I'm a stud, you're a slut" double standard is indeed real but it is an example of female privilege, it is the patriarchy protecting it's daughters. Think about it, what are the benefits of this double standard for men? You get to sleep around and some people will admire you for it whereas others, including my swinish self, will think your'e a bit of a dog. Now, what are the benefits for women? You avoid unwanted parenthood and sexually transmitted diseases. Which sex is gaining more from this double standard? Females obviously, they avoid disease and unwanted motherhood, we just avoid a few nasty names while actually increasing our risks for diseases and unwanted parenthood."
HOW IS THIS AN EXAMPLE OF FEMALE PRIVILEDGE?! So what, the patriarchy doesn't need to protect its sons? This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. They're being ignored and left by the way-side when it comes to these issues. If boys are taught to wait like girls are, then they "avoid unwanted parenthood and sexually transmitted diseases." Once again, girls are the main focus. So if boys become fathers when they aren't ready and have STDs, that doesn't matter!?
There is no positives to ANY double standard, all it does is cause confusion. I personally believe in abstience, but at the end of the day, if men and women choose to have sex outside of marriage, as long as they are responsible, educated, and mature enough, females shouldn't be looked down upon for having sex while the males are praised. It doesn't make any sense.
It protects women by enabling them to withhold sex, until such time as the man is willing to offer a deep commitment. It gives women social leverage.
Or it used to! But these days men get the milk for free -- except when they are falsely accused of rape. But luckily most men never have that very worst of experiences.
slwerner (part 1, yeah I had to split it up),
Free from the old social stigma’s which served to keep young women (especially) from simply sleeping around, and, in particular, doing so with questionable men – including those who might well end up using force to gain sex from them.
So, who do you think the women were sleeping around with. Yes that's right, other men. But with men, the stigma surrounding men and sex was less that (if any) than it was for women. Look at the English language. There are words specifically targeted at women for "sleeping around":
Slut:
-slattern: a dirty untidy woman
-adulteress: a woman adulterer
-Slut or slattern is a pejorative term for a person who is deemed sexually promiscuous. The term has traditionally been applied to women and is generally used as an insult or offensive term of disparagement
-A derogatory term. Refers to a sexually promiscuous person, usually female. One who engages in sexual activity with a large number of persons ...
Whore:
Besides the literal definition (prostitute):
-A person who is considered to be sexually promiscuous.
For men, there isn't any. The closest one is "Lothario", but here's a few definitions:
-a successful womanizer; a man who behaves selfishly in his sexual relationships with women
-Lothario is a character in the play The Fair Penitent (1703), by Nicholas Rowe. In the play, Lothario seduces and betrays Calista. The word lothario has thus entered the English language as an eponym: a lothario is a handsome, seductive ladies' man.
-A man whose chief interest is seducing women
See how the contextes are different? Although both are related to sex, "sluts" and "whores" are used as offensive terms toward women while "lothario" is not (based from the definitions as a whole). "Cads" isn't specifically link to a person committing sexual acts.
@Archivist,
I agree with 99% of what you're saying, except that I believe the traditional double standard of teaching our sons to be bold in pursuing sex and teaching our daughters to be demure is extremely beneficial to both and to society at large.
It enables them to develop strong relationships with the other gender. If a man isn't bold and assertive a woman can't tell if he is really interested in her and she can't gauge his real intentions. If a women isn't demure then a man can't ascertain whether or not she can be trusted to be the mother of his children. In other words if she gives it up too easily then how does he know or not if she's giving it up to other men if and when he marries her?
Both a lack of assertiveness in men when pursuing women and female promiscuity create a destructive environment of distrust that negatively effects both genders ability to build a strong relationship with the other gender.
Encouraging "studliness" in men is good and discouraging "sluttiness" in women is equally good. The traditional standards were in place because they made our society better. We need to re-implement them.
slwerner (part 2)
Free from the old social stigma’s which served to keep young women (especially) from simply sleeping around, and, in particular, doing so with questionable men – including those who might well end up using force to gain sex from them. Feminists prefer to rail against the sexual mores which used to constrain women’s sexuality and “hold them down”; yet those strict rules also served to protect women from the results of their own likely follies.
Wow, ok. So women needed to be PROTECTED from their sexuality by society and social norms but the same didn't need to apply to men? They needed protected from themselves and their choices when it comes to sex but not men? It was ok to tell women that they shouldn't have NO interest in sex or have sexual desires and if they do there was something seriously wrong with them? It was ok to tell them to ONLY have sex just to make babies? They shouldn't have been trusted when it came to making sexual decisions?
I understand that for the better part of human history there wasn't birth control (that we knew of). But still, to go to the point of telling ONLY women some of the things I mentioned isn't right. What, the ends justified the means?
As published research has shown, those who’ve had many partners have increasing difficult “bonding” to partners. Even before research left little doubt, people had long been aware of this.
From what I've seen, the main or ONLY subject of this research were women, but I'll google to see if some of it is universal.
A man (as should a women in the reversed scenario) is wise to consider that if a women has had a history of sleeping around, she’s quite likely to continue to do so; and is therefore a poor choice for a man seeking to marry and start a family. And, due to a double standard entire the fault of biology, women are more likely to have acquired an STD during a lengthy sexual history. Again, making them a poor choice for long-term relationships.
True, I don't deny this. The rest of your comment I agree with too.
Just because "slut-shaming" isn't noticeable or you don't see it, doesn't it's not there. It's still out there.
Anonymous,
It protects women by enabling them to withhold sex, until such time as the man is willing to offer a deep commitment. It gives women social leverage.
Once again, women needed to be PROTECTED from their sexuality but not men? If this is all about protecting women from getting pregnant, you're forgetting that men are the ones who IMPREGNATES women in the first place.
Anonymous,
Horseshit, Renee. Pure horseshit. I'm going to put this in language young feminists can understand: you are all fucking nutz.
LOL, that's the best response you can come up with? No ACTUAL argument about the subject at hand? And anyway, why do you assume that I'm a feminist?
Pierce,
Almost every single extra-marital scandal involving a male politician involves another woman. When do you ever hear of the other woman being criticized? It is always the man.
Ummm...I don't know...because he was a politician?
I've said it before, MULTIPLE forms of "double standard" exist, not JUST yours/what the others mentioned and not JUST mine. They all exist.
Renee - "See how the contextes are different? Although both are related to sex, "sluts" and "whores" are used as offensive terms toward women while "lothario" is not (based from the definitions as a whole)"
Renee,
I'm not arguing that there isn't a double-standard - indeed, I agree with you that even though it is greatly reduced toady (your concern seems to be, shall we say, stuck in Betty Friedan's view from the 50's), some vestiges do still exist.
But, again, I contend that this is mostly due to women not exercising their God-given free-will to demand otherwise. Their failure to do so (yes, their "failure") is what allows men to "get away" with being promiscuous.
And, while I'd acknowledge that the socio-sexual dynamic of previous generations acted to keep women from effectively objecting, such is no longer the case.
today's women have choices (some argue to a far great extent than do men today - but that's a lengthy argument for another time), and could, if they so chose to, reject male promiscuity, and use derisive terminology to express their disdain.
But, the cold hard reality is that, given their sexual liberation, rather than choose to use their sexual desirability to leverage better behaviors from men, they've instead choose to essentially give it away for free, and to give us the "slut generation" we see today.
This IS the fault of the women who are doing so. It is not to say that men are not without sin here, but rather that women are exercising their free-will not to encourage men to be better, but rather to act just as badly as the men.
In an earlier comment, you proposed that the double standard of perceptions could be dealt with by, "...if people don't look down on women who have casual sex, then the double standard would dissapear."
This indicate to me that your approach would be rather than have women demand men behave better, that men should just accept womens bad behaviors.
Well, the reality here is that they do. They accept them to the extent that they can enjoy greater sexual access to these women. But, they still are not going to accept it in long-term partners for the reasons I indicated earlier.
So, at this point we're left with women enjoying their right to do as they sexually please; but unwilling to accept the consequences of their choices.
If women don't like the playa/slut double-standard, it is going to be up to women to alter their expectations of mens promiscuity - not to demand that men ignore sound engagement and ingrained biology so as to no devalue promiscuous women (we could go into volume on the aspects of reproductive strategies involved, but suffice it to say their continue to be damned good reasons why men prefer non-promiscuous women as wives).
Again, despite your protestations about the double-standard, it remains clear that it exists primarily because women allow it to.
Renee - ”Wow, ok. So women needed to be PROTECTED from their sexuality by society and social norms but the same didn't need to apply to men?”
I never said nor implied any such thing. I only pointed out the cultural circumstances which used to actually exist.
“ They needed protected from themselves and their choices when it comes to sex but not men? It was ok to tell women that they shouldn't have NO interest in sex or have sexual desires and if they do there was something seriously wrong with them?”
Again, I’m making no such argument. I’m simply pointing out the cultural norms used to serve to dissuade younger women from making bad choices in men, and that this was often in their greater interest. It kept many of them from being taken advantage of by men who had only bad intentions towards them – like the PUA’s of today.
Even though you apparently don’t like it, it IS what actually happened. Feel free to continue to argue against history if you please; but, unless you have a time machine, you’ll not be able to change it.
And, I’m certainly NOT arguing that we need to go back to the norms of the 50’s; rather that we all need to accept the consequence of our individual choices.
For women, the reality of this is that if they choose (of their own free-will) to be sluts, they can expect to be devalued wrt long-term relationships because of that choice.
Russ,
I agree with 99% of what you're saying, except that I believe the traditional double standard of teaching our sons to be bold in pursuing sex and teaching our daughters to be demure is extremely beneficial to both and to society at large.
No, I don't think so. All it'll do is cause confusion. It'll also encourage the stereotypes that all boys want is sex and that they're absolutely helpless when it comes to their sexual urges. It relinquishes responsibility. For girls, it'll encourage the belief that they aren't interested in sex PERIOD and that they don't have their own urges. And anyway, if all the girls are supposed to be demure, who are the boys pursuing for sex?
It enables them to develop strong relationships with the other gender.
Not like this.
If a man isn't bold and assertive a woman can't tell if he is really interested in her and she can't gauge his real intentions.
He can be bold and assertive without pursuing sex. Sex doesn't have to be a requirement in a relationship. And what, she shouldn't question if HE can be trusted to be the father of her children based on his sexual history? Put it this way, if he gives it up too easily then how does she know or not if he's giving it up to other women if and when she marries him?
If a women isn't demure then a man can't ascertain whether or not she can be trusted to be the mother of his children. In other words if she gives it up too easily then how does he know or not if she's giving it up to other men if and when he marries her?
I touched on this in the above quote. Anyway, if she's had past sexual partners like him, she should be trusted LESS. If guys are supposed to be pursuing sex, wouldn't that make him less trustworthy?
Personally I was brought up believing that BOTH men and women should wait until marriage before having sex. God didn't want ONLY women to follow abstience. That's not even in the Bible. So for you to say that one of the main ways for men to be assertive and bold is through sex really bothers me. This is why so many males have a warped view of masculinity.
@Renee
You appear to have misunderstood my entire post.
You are, of course, right about one thing - both men and women should abstain from sex until marriage. I'm not religious and didn't learn this from the Bible - as you did - it is simply a sensible way to run a society.
Encouraging young men to be bold in the pursuit of sex is not the same as encouraging extra-marital sex (which is properly defined as any sex outside of marriage). In fact, encouraging women to be demure (or more accurately "empowering" them to be so) will prevent the sex act (outside of marriage) from occurring.
Women - contrary to what you've been taught to believe by the vicious, misandristic, malcontents that control most of the "dialog" on these issues today - crave and need a bold appoach from men, in order, to determine their suitability as mates.
This is beneficial to society in precisely the way I explained in my last post.
slwerner,
But, again, I contend that this is mostly due to women not exercising their God-given free-will to demand otherwise. Their failure to do so (yes, their "failure") is what allows men to "get away" with being promiscuous. And, while I'd acknowledge that the socio-sexual dynamic of previous generations acted to keep women from effectively objecting, such is no longer the case. Today's women have choices (some argue to a far great extent than do men today - but that's a lengthy argument for another time), and could, if they so chose to, reject male promiscuity, and use derisive terminology to express their disdain.
...It is not to say that men are not without sin here, but rather that women are exercising their free-will not to encourage men to be better, but rather to act just as badly as the men.
I ABSOLUTELY AGREEE with everything.
But, the cold hard reality is that, given their sexual liberation, rather than choose to use their sexual desirability to leverage better behaviors from men, they've instead choose to essentially give it away for free, and to give us the "slut generation" we see today.
I see what you're saying. But not to be nit-picky, but I HATE to term "giving it away", as if this only should apply to females.
In an earlier comment, you proposed that the double standard of perceptions could be dealt with by, "...if people don't look down on women who have casual sex, then the double standard would dissapear." This indicate to me that your approach would be rather than have women demand men behave better, that men should just accept womens bad behaviors.
I had a feeling this was going to come up in one way or another. I didn't mean it like that. I was just saying that it could go both ways. But yeah I see what you're saying.
I agree with 99% of what you said, I just think that men should look at themselves and not fall for "playas" as being one of the the ultimate definitions of manliness. I hope that made sense.
Thanks for explaining Russ ;-)
Renee - "I just think that men should look at themselves and not fall for "playas" as being one of the the ultimate definitions of manliness. I hope that made sense."
Renee,
I think you greatly over-estimate the degree to which most men admire the promiscuity of playas/PUAs/alphas.
A lot of men might be a bit jealous of their "success", but those same men also recognize that those promiscuous guys are also likely to attract their wives, girlfriends, and those who could otherwise potentially be their girlfriends.
The supposed admiration for for promiscuous men by other men is, I believe, largely a construct of media (TV, Movies, music); while, in reality, the majority of the admiration they receive comes from women.
I'm getting the impression that you're a "good girl" who doesn't go for that sort of thing; but, hard as it may be for you to accept, a great many women (a substantial majority, in all likelihood) DO desire promiscuous men. For some, it is in spite of their promiscuity - they are simply strongly attracted to them. But, for some other women, it is precisely because they are promiscuous that they become desired.
I don't want to descend into too crude of terms here, but, the fact that they've "had" many other women suggests to these women that these men are "good in bed" - and that is exactly what these women are looking for in a man (a quality sexual experience - even if only short-term). [This is why that double-standard isn't going to go away]
And, while some women see male promiscuity as equaling sexual prowess; men tend to see female promiscuity as equaling ease of sexual access - not necessarily a quality sexual experience so much as an easy one.
Such differing perceptions of promiscuity between the genders is not going to be easily overcome. Still, I would add that, if women (collectively) weren't such sluts (as they are), women of good character would have a much better chance of channeling the male desire for sex towards less promiscuous behaviors by men.
Again (maybe just to beat that dead horse one more time for good measure), the playa/slut double-standard continues to be the result of women choosing to make decisions on men based on short-term goals, effectively rewarding male promiscuity.
Renee: regarding women "giving it (sex) away" - "But not to be nit-picky, but I HATE to term "giving it away", as if this only should apply to females."
Sorry, Renee,
Again we're coming up against biological realities. Men are hard-wire to seek sex (and from as many as possible), whereas women are hard-wired to take advantage of male desire in order to be selective wrt mates.
This is why women are considered (or, rather, were once considered) the "gatekeepers" of sex. It's not that women have less sexual desire, but rather that they have less physical sexual "drives" that allows (or, allowed) them to be "choosy" - enabling them to "demand" of a man that he be willing to meet certain expectations first.
Unfortunately, the pill and condoms have enabled women to forgo pregnancy concerns and hop in bed with whomever they felt attracted to (bad boys, etc.); and the relaxation of social mores has largely eliminated the more immediate consequences of such promiscuous behaviors.
So, what we now have is a situation in which far too many women are "giving it away" without regard to the considerations they once (for all intents and purposes) had to make.
All of this is not to suggest that now, in 2009, men shouldn't act in their own best interests and be equally "choosy" about whom they, um, shall we say, share their "seed" with, and not "give it away" with regard to potential consequences - indeed, they very much should. Just look at all the guy's who've found themselves facing 18 years of handing over a third of their incomes due to a "gottcha pregnancy".
Men need to wise up too!
"with regard"
Hardly!
That was supposed to be without regard.
slwerner,
I never said nor implied any such thing. I only pointed out the cultural circumstances which used to actually exist.
Again, I’m making no such argument. I’m simply pointing out the cultural norms used to serve to dissuade younger women from making bad choices in men, and that this was often in their greater interest. It kept many of them from being taken advantage of by men who had only bad intentions towards them – like the PUA’s of today.
Even though you apparently don’t like it, it IS what actually happened. Feel free to continue to argue against history if you please; but, unless you have a time machine, you’ll not be able to change it.
Ok, now I get you. It seemed like to me that you was arguing that the social norms back then were OK and justified, like you were defending it. Kind of like "the ends justified the means" type of thing. I am fully aware that it happened back then and that I can't change it. I guess I jumped the gun and wanted to express what that old way of thinking was wrong and illogical and that it was more than about the freedom to have sex period without scorn.
Here's what I've been thinking about. How many sexual partners does it take to become a slut? A woman can have sex with one or two people and be called a slut.
"Ummm...I don't know...because he was a politician?"
Renee, when Barbara Walters "confessed," her story was "empowering." When a male politician has an affair, female features writers use the occasion to blast men (I've written about it). It is treated as a gender character flaw. Never mind the women who cheat.
One thing you are correct about: there are plenty of double standards. But the only ones you ever hear about are the ones involving that make the men to look like pigs -- because the only people writing about such matters, aside from an isolated groupt of men, are female features writers.
P.S. Renee, who calls women "sluts" nowadays? I think you feminists have this goofy notion that men are sleeping all over the place and then calling the women they slept with "sluts" behind their backs. Maybe some constipated old women are calling other women "sluts" for having sex, but it is more of a straw-man argument used by feminsts to suggest women are oppressed. Seriously. Who is doing it? Evidence, please?
Archivist - ”… who calls women "sluts" nowadays? I think you feminists have this goofy notion that men are sleeping all over the place and then calling the women they slept with "sluts" behind their backs. Maybe some constipated old women are calling other women "sluts" for having sex, but it is more of a straw-man argument used by feminsts to suggest women are oppressed.”
I’m with you. Renee is way over-stating the supposed slut shaming, and the playa admiring.
Renne - ”Here's what I've been thinking about. How many sexual partners does it take to become a slut? A woman can have sex with one or two people and be called a slut.”
Renee,
I don’t think that numbers alone tell the whole story. One needs to consider the character of her partners, the circumstances of the “encounters”, the duration of relationships, and even a women’s reactions to her decisions in order to adequately gauge “sluttines”.
For example, let me pose four hypothetical situations in a whicha women has sex with one man one time:
A) A young women has sex with a man she’s been dating for 3 months prior.
B) A woman goes on an arranged date with a man, and after dinner and a movie, ends up having sex with him.
C) A woman goes to a bar, has a few drinks, and ends up having sex with a PUA type.
D) A woman goes to a party, gets hammered, dances around, stripping off her clothes, and has uninhibited video-taped wild public sex with a random guy she’s never met before.
Four women, having a single sexual encounter with one man each – but certainly not four equivalent episodes in relationship to their “sluttiness”.
Now I’m a realist, and I understand human nature, so with example “A”, this woman still counts as a “good girl” in my book. Although unmarried, she’s in a committed relationship that is likely to continue on – not a slut at all. With “B”, while not particularly advisable, having been out on a date shows at least some effort at mate selection, so, as long as this isn’t a oft repeated pattern, benefit of the doubt tells me she’s no slut either.
Now, with “C”, I understand no one is perfect – people make mistakes. If this only happens once (maybe twice), and afterward she realizes that it is not how she wants to live, I’d even give her a pass. Of course if she’s either married or in a long-term relationship when she does this, just this one occurrence bumps her up to slut status in my book. And, if she (the single one) has regrets about it, and files a false rape charge on him – she gets upgraded to slut (Duh!).
And, as for “D”, she a slut, full on. And, if as I understand is hardly uncommon these days, she bounces around from dick to dick – congratulations, she graduated to complete skank in one night (and not even her likely claim of being gang-raped the next day will ever change that rankness ranking).
As to a simple numerical consideration, I do believe the “more the sluttier”; but some qualifiers are in order. For instance, if she catches a boyfriend cheating on her, and dumps him, I’d consider it to be less damning than a boyfriend she simply broke up with – and that less damning than a boyfriend whom she cheat on and broke up with.
Also, a several longer-term relationship suggests less slutty inclinations than the same number of shorter ones (worse if they are one, right after the other, with now time in between).
So, hopefully, I been able to convey to you here that I believe this to be a rather complicated analysis, requiring that individual circumstances be carefully considered.
And on slwerner's scale, the male in each of those instances is viewed by most people in a far worse light than the woman in each. Even in number four -- for as many people as would call her a "slut," twenty would call him a "rapist." Neither description is necessarily accurate.
The fact that any whore's false rape accusation will be treated as the word of God proves that there is no longer any such thing as slut-shaming. Just look at Crystal Mangum. That slut/liar/whore just landed a book deal as a reward for her crimes.
Porky makes a very good point. On a broader scale it is true that many things viewed as 'oppression', actually amount to, or are due to, female privelege.
Just as one example: Renee complains that the 'focus is on women' in some of the contexts being discussed in this thread. But, in cases where that is true, this is because society cares more about women than men.
It also gives the false appearance that women are held to higher standards than men, wheareas quite the reverse is true, and always has been.
The main cause of people not seeing that women are priveleged compared to men, is because most of this 'doing down' of males comes from the unconscious. The other problem is we are too close to it to see this abuse of men - we ALL do it, as it is evolved behaviour.
Not only has this recently come to light, but for the last several decades the thing has actually been turned on its head, inverted, to make it appear it is WOMEN who are at a disadvantage.
What we are witnessing now with our notions of female oppression and male privelege, is nothing less than the greatest social injustice in all of history. Many of us on this board will not live to see it corrected.
I encourage everyone on this board to read Steve Moxon's 'The Woman Racket". It uses sceince to completely debunk feminism, and as Warren Farrell has said in his review of the book, "It is utterly persuasive to the objective reader."
I remember in high school no girl wanted to date,or be seen with, an ineperienced boy. Yet a few boys desired girls who were virgins. Most of these boys were playas. Most of the young women and girls I see today desire men and boys who are thugs or thuggish. Yes some of the men and boys desire hos' There are very few men/boys women/girls who seem to have any interest in anyone who could be considered wholesome and virtuous. Our nation lost its' innocence a long time ago. Honor,courtesy,respect(even self respect),chastity,integrity,patience and,virtue, do these things not mean anything anymore? Males are,it seems, "programmed" with the desire to mate. Liberation, it seems, has corrupted this " programming". I'm sure there was a time whne no father would tolerate either his son or daughter to lose their virginity as loosely as our youth do today. I like to think there are a few cultures that forbid having sex until one is married and provide other things for their youth to do to keep their minds off of sex until they are of age and ready to get married. I'm not what anyone should consider to be a christian but, I remember hearing these words; there will be a time when a man will give everything he has to have a virtuous woman.
Norm - "It also gives the false appearance that women are held to higher standards than men, wheareas quite the reverse is true, and always has been"
Excellent point, Norm.
All Renee's complaints about supposed "slut shaming" of promiscuous women vs. her imagined idolization of "studs" by men is a perfect example.
There is very, very little slut shaming going on, and women are generally not held to even logical standards vis-a-vis their sexual behaviors - they are the ones who are allowed the greatest latitude in their debauchery.
As one additional example, a mild one, to be sure, but; technically speaking, women who flash their breast in public (here, in Colorado) are subject to having to register as sex-offenders (it's technically a sex-based crime, so it comes under that statute).
Yet, no prosecutor has ever wished to see a woman have to register (and suffer all the difficulties/inconveniences associated therewith), so, even though hundreds of women get arrested for flashing, there is not one on the Colorado sex-offender registry for that crime (or so I've been told by someone I believe would know). They are typically plead down to a public disturbance charge.
However, there ARE men on the registry for such comparable offenses as public urination.
Men are, indeed, held to higher standard than are women - especially in matters related to sexuality (even in only slightest of ways).
I gave you a standing ovation for this blog post. Succinctly put and comprehensive. Bravo.
slwerner,
I've always been of the opinion that indecent exposure shouldn't even be considered a sex crime in most cases (male or female). I guess that's a different topic though.
For one thing, laws such as this enable the persecution of improperly dressed homeless people, or even people on the beach, based on gray areas and subjectivity, honest 'mistakes' such as urinating in a remote, hidden spot, etc.
I say, bring back the days when guys could piss on the roadside! (women are welcome too, if they don't mind the potential mess. I even saw a lady stooping in a parking lot once.)
Alleged rape victim is a liar: lawyers
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/831499/alleged-rape-victim-is-a-liar-lawyers
The woman who claims senior Victorian MP Theo Theophanous raped her is regarded by friends as "deceitful, untrustworthy, dishonest and abusive", his defence team has told a court.
They also say she was involved in two other relationships around the time of the offence she alleges occurred at Parliament House in Melbourne in 1998.
Theophanous' lawyers want to challenge the woman's claims that her personal life and mental state had deteriorated as a result of the alleged rape and that she has since been unable to engage in relationships with men.
The lawyers told the Melbourne Magistrates' Court that friends of the woman say she told them her problems began when the man with whom she was having an affair ended their relationship.
In support of an application to cross-examine the woman on aspects of her private life, defence lawyer Amanda Fox said the woman had told friends of her distress over the termination of the affair.
"We don't say she's got a problem, she does," Ms Fox said.
"People who've known the woman for 20 years are saying this.
"The clear picture is that the real reason (for her distress) is that she was having an affair with this man."
The court had earlier heard that as a result of the alleged rape the woman had a breakdown in 2003 and was hospitalised.
The defence also plans to challenge the woman on her claim that on the night of the alleged rape she told two friends that Theophanous had assaulted her.
"Both of them positively claim this did not happen," Ms Fox told the court.
Phone records show she twice telephoned a male friend on the night of the alleged offence.
The defence wants to know whether she visited the man on the same night and, if so, "in what circumstances".
The defence also says the woman's obsessive behaviour is revealed in telephone records that show she had once telephoned the man who ended their affair 27 times in 40 minutes.
The woman, who now lives in Greece, has also said she discussed the relationship with Theophanous.
"You wouldn't do this with the man who allegedly raped you," Ms Fox told the court.
Prosecutor Michele Williams, SC, described the defence application as a "smokescreen", arguing the possible existence of other relationships made no difference to the case.
"This is someone who has had a relationship with a married man. So what?" Ms Williams said.
Magistrate Peter Reardon granted the application.
A committal hearing of the charge against Theophanous, who remains a member of the Victorian upper house, is due to begin next Monday.
Truth of the matter is, even though some feminist would not like to admit it, there is a double standard on date rape or intoxicated intercourse. KEEP IN MIND BOTH PARTIES ARE INTOXICATED Ex." Two people who do not know each other, 1 male and 1 female, go to a party and begin drinking. After about 2hrs each has had more than .0825 BAC. They are both legally drunk. Now they meet and engage in sexual intercourse. Morning comes along and they both wake up next to each other. They go back to their respective homes. (At this point ask yourselves this question? Who Date Raped who?) The male picks up the phone and calls the police to report the date rape. This is his legal right. Police come and take report while continually asking him are you sure you want to report this. Even after the report is done, the awful truth is the D.A most likely will not follow up on charges. ..Imagine the reverse; the female goes home calls the police to report the crime. This is her legal right. Police come to take the report, not one time trying to coerce her to not report it. After about 24hrs the male is picked up for date rape and charges are filed by the D.A. Date Rape does happen, but it can go both ways: Male on Female, Female on Male, Female on Female, or even Male on Male. This is why most defense attorneys for date rape, while both parties are... intoxicated, press counter-charges on the opposing party. This usually results in acquittals since no proof can be ascertained if either party was intoxicated, or which is the aggressor. However despite this the defendant usually male has been publicly shamed and his reputation tarnish. If he is a student most Universities academically suspend the student until investigation is done thus losing scholarships or other types of monies. Unfortunately double standard exists in almost every law since the feminist movement. I do believe in equal treatment; however I DO MEAN EQUAL TREATMENT.
PS. Myth. Erection and Ejaculation is voluntary. This is not true both erection and ejaculation are involuntary responses that do not require mental awareness.)))
Post a Comment