Hypocrisy against women

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6285
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Hypocrisy against women

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Lacewing wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 4:56 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 4:06 pm False, you wanted to become one with the universe...this is what the universe presents. Accept it or not, it is your choice.
What is false?
That the argument I present is wrong.
User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: Hypocrisy against women

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck »

Lacewing wrote: Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:01 pmI've never understood the mentality of calling women "whores" as if that's some terrible insult.
Well, you're not trying very hard if you don't at least understand where the mentality comes from; You don't have to dive very deeply into the most popular religions to find that all of them stand against promiscuous behavior, and obviously that's primarily where this is coming from. Now I'm not even religious, but I actually think this is a good principle. I find there are still secular reasons why we should discourage people from having a lot of sex. Course, I diverge from more conservative, sex-negative views on a few things like being gay - in fact, back before gay marriage was legal in my country, one of the arguments I used to try and persuade the devoutly religious who were mostly the ones who sided against it was that gay marriage would help a lot of these individuals settle down and get their life in order. I don't know if it really changed any minds, but I considered it to be pretty effective because it at least addresses one of the few substantive generalizations about the lifestyle of gay people.

I believe there's this wide-spread, subconsciously-held belief that people are more collected in a monogamous, long-term and loving relationship, so when I addressed the issues of a situation often heterodox to this, explaining how marriage could change that, I found people changing their perception of gay marriage. They started coming over to my side - and that tells me something about the human phyche; Maybe there's something justifiable to this monogamy thing? You know, maybe that really is the most ideal human situation.
What is wrong with a woman having a lot of sex...
For me, it's mostly about not settling down. I think most people are at their best in a loving and monogamous relationship. It's good to uphold principles you set for yourself, as well. But I'm sure you could talk to others that would try to make a point about the spread of STDs and all that.
even if she does it for money?
You're talking about literal prostitution now, which is very dependent on the local politics and circumstances of the place it's taking place in; There are systems like in Thailand which seem to be working comparatively okay..But then there are situations such as in the US inner cities where people are only prostitutes in order to not be homeless. That is an extraordinarily bad situation...There are few people I have more sympathy for in this world. Of course most of them have drug habits, and what people don't realize is that they mostly maintain those drug habits because it's the only way they can deal with the constant trauma of being forced to commit these absolutely atrocious things. I can't even imagine what that's like - frankly, I don't want to.

So I don't think it takes a great imagination to wonder why this degrading thing would be used to insult someone, but I'm right there with you that it definitely shouldn't be; If you're sitting by the corner of the street poking fun at prostitutes as they run through the grind of their day, I have about as high of an opinion of that as someone who's making whispers about the guy with downs syndrome.
So what? It's business. If a man did it, would HE be a whore... and would that be bad? Or would HE be a good businessman?
The old homeless war veteran selling his mouth for money is definitely not seen as a good businessman, no.
Furthermore, men often hurl the label at women they don't even know, as if it's simply the worst insult they can think of.

It just doesn't make sense to me
I mean I think you should try not to dwindle the meaning of insults down to their bare bones. Why is calling someone a faggot bad? Why is calling someone a bitch bad when dogs are better than people? Why is calling someone a dick bad? I mean I see why being an asshole is a bad thing, because c'mon, who wants to be an asshole?

It's just taking it a little too personally. Language has more meaning to us based on our experiences of how those words have historically been used rather than what they actually mean.
Last edited by Sir-Sister-of-Suck on Wed Apr 24, 2019 8:50 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: Hypocrisy against women

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck »

I didn't really say anything about the whole narrative about men vs women having a lot of sex, so I guess I'l talk about that real quick because I actually agree and think it's a good point on your end.

..But I do have to say it's largely exaggerated by the internet. You know, you go onto a place like twitter and you can see all these people making a similar point about how women are chastised for sleeping around a lot while men aren't. That sort of thing can cook up in your mind, and give you a false perception of the world actually operates, because you don't realize you're looking at people who already agree with you, and you end up validating beliefs without any actual experience.

I can say without a doubt, people judge a guy who sleeps around a lot, or isn't in a long-term relationship in certain ways. Particularly, I find people trust you with their kids a lot more if you're a dude who is settled down in some way; I have a lot of nieces and nephews in my family, and back when I was in a good relationship, people had this idea of me that definitely doesn't exist now that I'm not with anyone. Doesn't exist for the other uncles that sleep with lots of chicks, either. People won't ask you to watch their house, go places with their family, etc. You'll be ostracized in a weird way, by your family in particular, not to the extreme but I think you could do some digging yourself to see this is the case.

That's been my experience, anyhow.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 4173
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Hypocrisy against women

Post by Lacewing »

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: Wed Apr 24, 2019 3:20 am
Lacewing wrote: Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:01 pmI've never understood the mentality of calling women "whores" as if that's some terrible insult.
Well, you're not trying very hard if you don't at least understand where the mentality comes from
Yes, I get that. My post was trying to make the collective point that: a) women are held to different (and, to me, primitively conventional) standards, and b) there shouldn't be anything wrong with having sex for free or for money. So, it seems ignorant and absurd when a man calls any woman a whore, as an insult. It seems like a very primitive mentality.

Your points were interesting about the way people treat you differently as a singly guy.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 4173
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Hypocrisy against women

Post by Lacewing »

Dachshund wrote: Mon Apr 15, 2019 10:30 am since ancient times, prostitutes have been consistently damned as extremely wicked and the lowest of the low. For thousands of years they have been characterised as unclean/diseased, obscene, depraved, vulgar, devious, duplicitous, cunning and mendacious, etc; And today, in 2019 nothing has really changed.
That's what surprises me. Humankind appears to evolve in so many ways, while remaining so short-sighted in attitudes, and religiously stunted.

I think there are so many people who are all of those characteristics above, while they strut around in a supposedly "dignified" way, dressed in suits. Their actions destroy others all the time in such ugly and toxic ways. How would that be more moral than what a woman does with her body?
Dachshund wrote: Mon Apr 15, 2019 10:30 amBUT have you ever considered the psychologicaland spiritual impact and ramifications that a male (a "john") experiences when he pays to have sex (oral/vaginal/anal) with a prostitute? (in particular on a regular basis). What if I told you that the "john" experiences the same kind of suffering (mental pain/hurt) as prostitutes evidently do, and not just that, but he also experiences it for precisely the same reasons.
I hadn't considered that. I can imagine all sorts of effects are possible, in varying ways for different people.

I do tend to focus on the energetic costs of all sorts of things -- rather than surface appearances, ideas, rules. When people focus on judging or maintaining certain appearances as some sort of "proof" of anything, it is like a mask which distorts/hides the truth behind it. And all kinds of crazy notions get further built on top of that.
Dachshund wrote: Mon Apr 15, 2019 10:30 am In his defence, it has to be said that Kant was an extraordinary clever man, who is universally acknowledged as the European Enlightenment's greatest philosopher, and if his life was painfully boring, his ethical theory was not; not, at least, to any philosopher who had an interest in the subject of morality and read his "Metaphysics of Morals" at any point during the past 234 years.
Brilliance can flicker alongside ignorance. Truly wise people must surely be able to discern that in every moment, rather than embrace all of it with the same value because of an intoxicating surface appearance.
Dachshund wrote: Mon Apr 15, 2019 10:30 amwe should not use ourselves or other people as objects
Agreed. It appears to me that treating everything as an object is a dense, primitive mental state. In contrast to recognizing this rich and luscious landscape of vibrant life and spirit with which to ecstatically dance and revel. :) (Oh...I'm so poetic today. Currently listening to CSNY's "So Far". Makes me want to go out and dance around in the sunshine.)

I treasure all that I have, and I take good care of it, but I could also let go of any of it if that appeared to be the right thing to do or a good way to move onward. I'm not a saint, and I don't have to be -- we all have our moments of brilliance and ignorance. Primarily, I just want to be as real and free as possible while playing this earthly game of life as well and as joyfully/productively as I can (not just for myself, but for others too).

Probably most of us experience toxic circumstances and mindsets at times in our lives. I don't think that defines who we ultimately are or what we're capable of or what the limitations/possibilities are. So much can change in an instant.

There aren't the "moral ones" and the "immoral ones" -- there are just rippling vibrations throughout all. :D

That's my view.
Dachshund wrote: Mon Apr 15, 2019 10:30 am Finally Lacewing, I can't imagine any civilised male in the West calling women he barely knows, "whores" no matter how many prostitutes they may have seen. It sounds to me more like the kind of insult an uneducated/working male would use?
Agreed. Yes, it happens... it has happened on this forum... and supposedly intelligent men do it. This is why I think ignorance and brilliance can be right alongside each other, from moment to moment, based on all kinds of mental distortions.
Dachshund wrote: Mon Apr 15, 2019 10:30 amSo my advice to you Lacewing is that if you're a young women, you should avoid sleeping around too much, because if ever you get a reputation for it, no boys will hang out with you.
:D Your cautionary advice is sweet. I'm not young... and I don't sleep around... but I wouldn't worry about such a thing because I don't take it as seriously as some might. My reasons for what I do are thoughtful and genuine, and I trust that leads me well -- and leads me better than any particular notions or rules that are based on distorted or fearful thinking. For me, there's clarity in each and every moment if I keep "noise" out of it. This may not make sense to some... but it has absolutely worked for my life and continues to prove itself as energetically efficient and successful.
User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: Hypocrisy against women

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck »

Lacewing wrote: Wed Apr 24, 2019 5:52 pm My post was trying to make the collective point that: a) women are held to different (and, to me, primitively conventional) standards, and b) there shouldn't be anything wrong with having sex for free or for money. So, it seems ignorant and absurd when a man calls any woman a whore, as an insult. It seems like a very primitive mentality
It seems like this insult bothers you quite a bit. At least in terms of that, it seems pretty effective, so maybe someone who's looking to insult you shouldn't stop using the word?
User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: Hypocrisy against women

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck »

To expand on my point about language - honestly, I think there's a bit of an epistemological fallacy in this line of PC thinking that tries to take this hyper-literal stance on what words have to mean. You see certain people trying to argue that words like 'retard' and 'faggot' go too far because they end up stigmatizing someone or something you shouldn't, but I don't think that's actually true. If I call someone 'retarded', I'm not using any legitimate definition of the word, or making a statement that there's something wrong with people who actually have an intellectual disability. I'm probably just trying to say that person is acting really, really dumb. I mean If you've ever gotten so mad that you started to curse someone out, you probably didn't think in this careful and introspective way about the best word to use before hurling something out.

Like I said, I think you can whittle away at any insult if you wanted to.
User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: Hypocrisy against women

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck »

Dachshund wrote: Mon Apr 15, 2019 10:30 amI'll tell you one truth about young men and young women that I think is pretty universal, Lacewing, and that is this : for whatever reasons, young guys, say 19, 22, 25 years old, will, almost universally, have absolutely no respect for a female in their age group if they know that she sleeps around a lot. I'm not saying that this is right or wrong or fair or unfair, but trust me, rather that it's just the "way of the world"; and its the same in Australia as it is in England as it is in the US. Funny isn't it how when it comes to how to their views about how the fair sex ought conduct themselves (sexually), young guys in the 21st century have got morals just like a Victorian lawyer in a Dickens novel. So my advice to you Lacewing is that if you're a young women, you should avoid sleeping around too much, because if ever you get a reputation for it, no boys will hang out with you.
...It always blows my mind to think about how socially naive some of you guys have to be.

You give us too much credit.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 4173
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Hypocrisy against women

Post by Lacewing »

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: Wed Apr 24, 2019 11:39 pm
Lacewing wrote: Wed Apr 24, 2019 5:52 pmit seems ignorant and absurd when a man calls any woman a whore, as an insult. It seems like a very primitive mentality
It seems like this insult bothers you quite a bit. At least in terms of that, it seems pretty effective, so maybe someone who's looking to insult you shouldn't stop using the word?
I can see how you might come up with something like that, but that's not accurate in regard to me. If someone wants to call me a whore, it just shows how stupid and primitive THEY are (and that actually gives me a chuckle). It's a reflection on the mentality of the person who does it... not a reflection on me. It's fascinating to see a supposedly intelligent person reveal themselves on such a narrow level -- as it provides a good example of how ignorance lies right alongside supposed intelligence.
Gary Childress
Posts: 2027
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: The Domain of Confusion

Re: Hypocrisy against women

Post by Gary Childress »

Lacewing wrote: Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:01 pm I've never understood the mentality of calling women "whores" as if that's some terrible insult. What is wrong with a woman having a lot of sex... even if she does it for money? So what? It's business. If a man did it, would HE be a whore... and would that be bad? Or would HE be a good businessman?

A lot of men WANT whores, yet they speak of them in such disparaging terms.

Also, how is it that so many men want their woman to be sexually unlimited like a "personal whore", yet they will still insult such behavior in women in general?

Furthermore, men often hurl the label at women they don't even know, as if it's simply the worst insult they can think of.

It just doesn't make sense to me. It seems archaic and primitive and ignorant. Can anyone here offer more perspective and personal opinion about this?
I've heard men call women who weren't faithful to them, "whores" or "skanks", etc.. As far as wanting "whores", I don't think many men want a "whore" in the sense of a women who has sex with other men (even for money). I think most of us want a woman who is good at sex and who will be faithful and not sleep around.

Also, as far as "hurling labels", I've heard that some women can be pretty harsh on other women who sleep around too. I believe it's generally known as "slut shaming". The same goes for guys to some extent. Guys can sometimes be critical of other guys who are sexually promiscuous with the women of other men. For one example, in the US military, I believe there's a term "Jodie", which is used to refer to a civilian male who sleeps around with a soldier's wife while the soldier is on deployment. There's also a nasty term (often used in the military) for a man who's wife has sexual relations with other men; "cuckold" (or "cuck" for short). Apparently some really nasty stuff seems to come out of military life sometimes (alongside the noble aspects such as honor, duty, sacrifice and so forth).

So I think it's not so much that anyone wants a "whore" (someone who sleeps around with other people). What they want is someone who is a skillful sexual partner but who is also faithful.
Walker
Posts: 7392
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Hypocrisy against women

Post by Walker »

Gary Childress wrote: Thu May 02, 2019 3:00 am I've heard men call women who weren't faithful to them, "whores" or "skanks", etc.. As far as wanting "whores", I don't think many men want a "whore" in the sense of a women who has sex with other men (even for money). I think most of us want a woman who is good at sex and who will be faithful and not sleep around.
Pig is a popular pejorative.

What a whore does for money a pig does for pleasure, which is not to say any particular act in and of itself, but rather, is to say of the pearls before swine aspect.
Gary Childress
Posts: 2027
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: The Domain of Confusion

Re: Hypocrisy against women

Post by Gary Childress »

Walker wrote: Thu May 02, 2019 8:07 am
Gary Childress wrote: Thu May 02, 2019 3:00 am I've heard men call women who weren't faithful to them, "whores" or "skanks", etc.. As far as wanting "whores", I don't think many men want a "whore" in the sense of a women who has sex with other men (even for money). I think most of us want a woman who is good at sex and who will be faithful and not sleep around.
Pig is a popular pejorative.

What a whore does for money a pig does for pleasure, which is not to say any particular act in and of itself, but rather, is to say of the pearls before swine aspect.
That's interesting. I've heard the word "dog" applied to men before in relation to sex. Or I've heard the word used as a verb such as "he's dogging her". I've taken it mostly as denoting a male who engages in or who is after sex with a female for reason of pleasure without intent of procreating. Not sure, though.
Walker
Posts: 7392
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Hypocrisy against women

Post by Walker »

Dogging refers more to the pursuit, as in a hound, and hounds are the second choice for truffle hunters.

Pigs are the first choice, but they are willful and will eat the truffles, so the dog deficiencies outweigh the pig's natural abilities.

Pig references both women and men.
Walker
Posts: 7392
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Hypocrisy against women

Post by Walker »

As Foghorn Leghorn says, that's a joke, son.
Barnyard humour. You're supposed to laugh. Joke. Laugh. Do you see the connection? (little slow)

:lol:

What makes it a joke:

"Just state the facts, Ma'am."
- Sgt. Friday, Dragnet. Badge #714
IvoryBlackBishop
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:55 pm

Re: Hypocrisy against women

Post by IvoryBlackBishop »

Lacewing wrote: Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:01 pm I've never understood the mentality of calling women "whores" as if that's some terrible insult. What is wrong with a woman having a lot of sex... even if she does it for money? So what? It's business. If a man did it, would HE be a whore... and would that be bad? Or would HE be a good businessman?

A lot of men WANT whores, yet they speak of them in such disparaging terms.

Also, how is it that so many men want their woman to be sexually unlimited like a "personal whore", yet they will still insult such behavior in women in general?

Furthermore, men often hurl the label at women they don't even know, as if it's simply the worst insult they can think of.

It just doesn't make sense to me. It seems archaic and primitive and ignorant. Can anyone here offer more perspective and personal opinion about this?
You're referring to degenerate parts of "human nature" in the form of stereotypes, generalizations, and clichés. Bertrand Russell and others allegedly wrote about the sociological concepts of "modesty" as something distinct from more aberrant or degenerate "jealously", but's a very tricky concept to define, let alone in anything approaching a "mathematical way"; much as how even in times stereotyped or romanticized for their supposedly high standards of 'modesty' (e.x. the Victorian era), the same "types" of modesty and jealousy concerns allegedly existed, even if the overall "standard" of modesty was supposedly higher. (Much as how the Boomer generation has been stereotyped, and not entirely without merit for sexual libertinism).
Post Reply