To Swear Or Not To Swear

"As you have very little idea who I am, and absolutely no idea about my mother, it seems really unlikely that that's anything more than a speculative punt on your part which, if untrue, is just silly, and if true is hardly something I'd argue with you about, but in either case, it's a bit irrelevant to the issue of whether or not I nudged your elbow as I walked past on my way to the restrooms, isn't it?"

He seemed a tad nonplussed by that response.

Yeah... you really put him in his place with that retort.:rolleyes:

Or he assumed you were gay.:smilewinkgrin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Or he assumed you were gay.:smilewinkgrin:

---

Many people do, especially Americans. I can't say it worries me much.

What would you have done if someone had said that to you? Or Darcy, what would you have done?

The idea of the stay at home wife is itself a late 19th century middle class pretension. Most women at most points in history (with perhaps the notable exception of the 1950s and 60s in the west) have worked on top of being mothers anyway, because there was no way for the household to stay afloat otherwise. It's a fantasy that the wives of poor people sat around the house taking care of the children, in most cases they would either be doing piece work, working fields, or increasingly in the 19th century they might even be factory workers. The main difference was that women at that time could not gain long-term employment of any value, and most of their labour went unpaid since it was involved in the maintenance of the household and amounted to slave labour for their husband's benefit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

The idea of the stay at home wife is itself a late 19th century middle class pretension. Most women at most points in history (with perhaps the notable exception of the 1950s and 60s in the west) have worked on top of being mothers anyway, because there was no way for the household to stay afloat otherwise. It's a fantasy that the wives of poor people sat around the house taking care of the children, in most cases they would either be doing piece work, working fields, or increasingly in the 19th century they might even be factory workers. The main difference was that women at that time could not gain long-term employment of any value, and most of their labour went unpaid since it was involved in the maintenance of the household and amounted to slave labour for their husband's benefit.

---

My great-grandmother stayed at home. My grandmother stayed at home while her 4 daughters all got themselves careers. Maybe my family is out of the ordinary, I don't know.

Quote:

---

most of their labour went unpaid since it was involved in the maintenance of the household and amounted to slave labour for their husband's benefit.

---

It was also for the benefit of their children. And its not exactly like my great-grandfather spent his long days in the mine lounging on a feather-bed being fanned and fed grapes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

All I really said was that men should respect women and regard them as special. And yes, my statement that "women may not be weak, but they will always be in need of good men to protect them from the bad, whether that means a brother or husband acting out of love or a cop just doing his job" is true and I don't see how it can be disputed.

---

How about because it isn't true? Women can protect themselves just fine. Mace, pepper spray, and, get this, they can even use guns. And here's another shocker--women can exercise and become physically fit and even take men in a fight! And (sit down for this one) there are many women cops. *gasp*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

are capable of doing pretty much anything a man can do, and should be allowed to do whatever they want

---

Except protect themselves, right? They must find big, strong man to protect then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

Then at the opposite extreme you have a feminism which posits that whatever differences that exist between men and women are purely cultural and looks down with utmost disdain on those women who assume traditionally female roles and don't mind depending on a man to take care of them physically and financially.

---

The idea that differences between men and women are only cultural is structuralist feminism. The opossite, Essentialist feminism, argues that women are indeed born with inherent traits that make them a woman and different from men, and that those

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

The idea of the stay at home wife is itself a late 19th century middle class pretension. Most women at most points in history (with perhaps the notable exception of the 1950s and 60s in the west) have worked on top of being mothers anyway, because there was no way for the household to stay afloat otherwise. It's a fantasy that the wives of poor people sat around the house taking care of the children, in most cases they would either be doing piece work, working fields, or increasingly in the 19th century they might even be factory workers. The main difference was that women at that time could not gain long-term employment of any value, and most of their labour went unpaid since it was involved in the maintenance of the household and amounted to slave labour for their husband's benefit.

---

There is actually now more of a trend of working women looking down on women who decide to become stay-at-home moms. And it's not any better for stay-at-home dads, either.

Zounds what a thread!

I think the key to swearing is that it’s meant to offend: The person swearing means to offend somebody, either directly or indirectly. And the offended person knows the swearer intended to offend him. And the swearer knows that the offended person knows that the swearer meant to offend…and so it goes. And you just can’t let that sheet slide.

True swearing is tailored to the audience. In certain circles the F-bomb has about as much heft as Zounds has with me. But then again, you can say just about anything to Sancho (the crass bastard), unless he happens to be standing there with his mother, in which case I’ll be forced to defend my mother’s honor by any means necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi

How about because it isn't true? Women can protect themselves just fine. Mace, pepper spray, and, get this, they can even use guns. And here's another shocker--women can exercise and become physically fit and even take men in a fight! And (sit down for this one) there are many women cops. *gasp*

Except protect themselves, right? They must find big, strong man to protect then.

---

No, women rarely carry guns or mace while at a bar, a party, at school or walking a street. The average Canadian man outweighs the average woman by 40 pounds, well over double the difference between weight divisions in the ufc. I suppose it is sexist whenever I offer to walk a girl home at night. My neighbourhood is somewhat crime-ridden, I suppose I should be a good feminist and send any female visitors on their way alone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

No, women rarely carry guns or mace while at a bar, a party, at school or walking a street. The average Canadian man outweighs the average woman by 40 pounds. I suppose it is sexist whenever I offer to walk a girl home at night. My neighbourhood is somewhat crime-ridden, I suppose I should be a good feminist and send any female visitors on their way alone.

---

You made the claim that all women need the protection of men. That just isn't true. SOME women might, just as weaker men may need the protection of other men, or even women.

Plus, how do you know know women rarely carry mace? Maybe it's different in America, bug there are a lot of women who carry macs or tazers. But that's not really the point. The very fact that the can pokes holes in your claim that women need to be protected by men.

And there's a difference between being a sexist, feminist, and a decent human being, which I think walking woman home falls under. (There really is a straw-man epidemic going around on these boards.) That's being nice, not some sort of admission that you think women are weak. It's safe for two men to walk the streets than one man alone, after all.

What would you have done if someone had said that to you? Or Darcy, what would you have done?

Considering that I'm over 6 ft. tall and over 250 lbs and often sport a rather surly-looking beard there aren't too many guys that would actually take the chance of saying something like that too me.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7203/6...bc62f5ec_z.jpg

My students on the other hand...? We'll they all know we can't touch 'em... We can't cuss at them. The best we can do is write their butts up for an office referral and call their mommas...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi

You made the claim that all women need the protection of men. That just isn't true. SOME women might, just as weaker men may need the protection of other men, or even women.

Plus, how do you know know women rarely carry mace? Maybe it's different in America, bug there are a lot of women who carry macs or tazers. But that's not really the point. The very fact that the can pokes holes in your claim that women need to be protected by men.

And there's a difference between being a sexist, feminist, and a decent human being, which I think walking woman home falls under. (There really is a straw-man epidemic going around on these boards.) That's being nice, not some sort of admission that you think women are weak. It's safe for two men to walk the streets than one man alone, after all.

---

If I had a female friend over I would not let her walk through my neighbourhood alone. A male friend I would not be very concerned. I don't see how this can be controversial. If you had twin 17 year olds, a son and a daughter, and you lived in a rough neighbourhood would you be equally wary of letting your daughter go for a walk after dark as you would be your son?

That original statement of mine you took issue with was an afterthought I added at the end. I did not mean it to stand as an absolute truth but rather as a generalization that in many circumstances holds.

Quote:

---

That's being nice, not some sort of admission that you think women are weak.

---

I made sure to say that I didn't think women are weak, but keep in mind that the record women's bench press is 530 pounds while the men's is 1075.

Here is my original statement:

Quote:

---

Furthermore, women may not be weak, but they will always be in need of good men to protect them from the bad, whether that means a brother or husband acting out of love or a cop just doing his job.

---

Throughout much of our history and even in many instances in our relatively safe and heavily policed western world that statement holds true. How many muggings or assaults or rapes of women might not have happened if that woman had not been walking some dark street alone. One happened not far from my town last Halloween, a young high school girl raped and murdered. I'm not so retarded I think women totally helpless and vulnerable if left to their own devices. But just think of a war-zone or a riot let alone any dark alley in any big city.

I don't swear with the intention of offending someone. I do it once in a while to punctuate or add flare to a conversation. It's hilarious because I'm adorable.

This whole argument may have been avoided if the word "weak" wasn't used, Or misinterpreted, because it implies that women are inherently worse than men. I think maybe it would be more accurate to say that women (may) need more protection because they are often a target because they are [I]seen[/] as weak..

I said they are not weak. You misread it and I understand. My viewpoint is not savoury.

I think that Darcy made a very logical point in this thread.

I think there's good in both viewpoints. I consider myself a strong woman in many areas; mentally, creatively, even physically. I will never be some super mega muscle woman though. I've been vulnerable many times. I would never say that I need someone else to protect me, but it certainly isn't bad if someone wants to, and at times people have.

As for being offended by swearing, I don't think anyone should be. Perception is what gives weight to words. If you consider a word to be powerless, it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

As for being offended by swearing, I don't think anyone should be.

---

Actually, there is one word that will usually offend me. That word is 'retard'. I don't care for the incorrect use of the word 'retarded' used to imply stupid, because the word does not mean that. I have a sweet little girl that will probably never understand the intent of those words, but I will always understand what is meant by them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

I think that Darcy made a very logical point in this thread.

---

Thanks Bien. Its not fun arguing somewhat heatedly in multiple threads with multiple individuals both of whom I greatly respect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

Thanks Bien. Its not fun arguing somewhat heatedly in multiple threads with multiple individuals both of whom I greatly respect.

---

Not to mention that the "bully" types will usually target women (and leave most men alone), based purely on their own perceptions that they are an easier target. Or sometimes an attractive woman may be targeted because of her beauty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

Actually, there is one word that will usually offend me. That word is 'retard'. I don't care for the incorrect use of the word 'retarded' used to imply stupid, because the word does not mean that. I have a sweet little girl that will probably never understand the intent of those words, but I will always understand what is meant by them.

---

I understand that. Advocacy is one of the best things that humans do. Still, sometimes a person is better served by pitying and shunning bigots, rather than engaging them in discourse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

I understand that. Advocacy is one of the best things that humans do. Still, sometimes a person is better served by pitying and shunning bigots, rather than engaging them in discourse.

---

Discourse nothing...I was thinking about knocking their block off...
:boxing_smiley:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

Thanks Bien. Its not fun arguing somewhat heatedly in multiple threads with multiple individuals both of whom I greatly respect.

---

Really? I found it great fun. Don't mistake my sarcastic tone for anger or hostility, it's just me. I thought it was a pretty good back-and-forth, really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

Many people do, especially Americans. I can't say it worries me much.

What would you have done if someone had said that to you? Or Darcy, what would you have done?

---

Punched him, anything else is cowardice.

But thats just me, I value dignity and honor.

Another man may value not feeling pain over his dignity and honor. Thats fine too, but I don't like that mentality. That we are just flesh and bones and that honor is a ussless virtue. Ofcourse honor can lead to another extreem. Where every man who looks at you in a slightly suspicious way you attack them. But I would rather be mad than a coward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

Punched him, anything else is cowardice.

But thats just me, I value dignity and honor.

Another man may value not feeling pain over his dignity and honor. Thats fine too, but I don't like that mentality. That we are just flesh and bones and that honor is a ussless virtue. Ofcourse honor can lead to another extreem. Where every man who looks at you in a slightly suspicious way you attack them. But I would rather be mad than a coward.

---

…or dead. Pistols at dawn!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

Actually, there is one word that will usually offend me. That word is 'retard'. I don't care for the incorrect use of the word 'retarded' used to imply stupid, because the word does not mean that. I have a sweet little girl that will probably never understand the intent of those words, but I will always understand what is meant by them.

---

That’s exactly what I was talking about earlier. True swearing is meant to offend. It’s got nothing to do intrinsically with the word itself. Calling a stupid person a retard (or a sensitive fat girl a pig, or a black guy a monkey, or a gay guy a Twinkie) is meant to offend and therefore is swearing. But a bunch of young dudes hanging out, laughing and joking, and dropping the F-bomb every other word is not really swearing because nobody’s offended. Unless of course they’re standing next to a bunch of nuns, and they’ve gotta know that their language is offensive to nuns, and they’re using it anyway – well, then it’s swearing.

This is serious stuff. Alexander seems ready to defend his honor with physical violence – possibly even to the death if need be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

Punched him....

---

Okay. But what would you have been punching him for?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

Punched him, anything else is cowardice.

But thats just me, I value dignity and honor.

---

Well, I guess we have a pretty clear window into your view of homosexuals, don't we?

Plus, the tough guy act is laughable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

Actually, there is one word that will usually offend me. That word is 'retard'.

---

As I go out of my way to make it plain that I disagree with you when that's the case, it seems only fair that I make the effort when I agree with you.

I agree with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Considering that I'm over 6 ft. tall and over 250 lbs and often sport a rather surly-looking beard there aren't too many guys that would actually take the chance of saying something like that too me.

---

But, still, what would you have done?

sometimes swearing has a cathartic effect... or when I stub my toe, I usually swear.

I generally do not find most swear words that offensive... I think as an insult they are rather bland (well in English at least) and not so creative. I can be far more insulted by really clever comments that are meant to degrade me or subtle patronizing words... But I will add that I do find one word quite offensive, and I would never use it to describe a woman... and that is the word used for female genitalia starting with c and ending with nt.

Alex and Darcy are taking what I said too much to heart, I'm not foaming-at-the-mouth and calling you insensitive condescending douchebags. I've known men who try chivalry with me, I consider them kind of cute and childish, I continue to present myself in the way I choose and they generally get the hint right away and stop trying to censor themselves. I honestly don't feel that strongly about this issue, talking to a woman with "chivalry" doesn't put me out, it puts you at a disadvantage because I can walk all over you (and I will, for the lol's). I simply prefer to make friends and lovers who are smart enough to see me for what I am and brave enough to behave accordingly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

I don't think its men looking on women as weak. Its respect. The two most important people in most men's lives are a man's mother and his wife. I may belong to a prior century but I lament the near total loss of chivalry. Women bring us into this world, give us life, and to live is to love and it is woman that we love most. No matter what cultural developments take place, all decent men will forever feel it imperative to protect the feminine and regard women as special. Furthermore, women may not be weak, but they will always be in need of good men to protect them from the bad, whether that means a brother or husband acting out of love or a cop just doing his job.

---

The number of female cops is sharply on the rise, and men need protection from the police as well. How many times have you actually physically defended a damsel in distress? That's not the modern world. Size and relative strength counts for very little in the modern age. Success depends on your brain, and safety depends on your gun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

My mother raised me to always behave like a gentleman, and treat women like princesses. At the end of the day there is not one woman in the world who does not wish to be treated princess, and the feminists tend to be the ones who were never treated with respect, and their rage is not directed towards men, but to other women, who are treated like princesses by men. It is all envy. I will concede that it is not equal, that is the point, for the man to show himself subservient towards the woman.

---

I don't like the feminist movement, because they pushed a law in the 1970's which entailed that cheerleading shouldn't be considered a sport and it passed. The reason why they don't want it to be a "sport" is because they don't want it to be officially recognized by the general public. They don't want girls to be seen as people who like dancing and looking pretty. The problem is, very many girls DO like dancing and looking pretty (dancing isn't for me, but I myself sure do like dressing up pretty) and all the feminist movement accomplished in making a law to inhibit cheerleading from being considered a "sport" is that funding for cheerleading safety regulation is now next to nil. Cheerleading is dangerous as **** and now it has a higher number of both serious and non-life threatening injuries than every other sport combined (look it up) because they don't even have trained safety staff or regulation mats to fall on, and have the head honchos of the feminist movement so much as batted an eye? No, they sure as **** haven't. They care more about the IMAGE of women suiting their own worldview, they want women to change to become what they want women to be. They don't care about the safety of REAL girls and women, that's literally ANTI-female. Don't call me a feminist.

Anyway, personal issues aside, I honestly don't want princess treatment, and I wouldn't be treated like a princess unless you have aspergers and can't pick up on communication cues in language, tone and facial expression. Talk to me for five minutes and you WILL pick up on my personality and adjust yourself accordingly, that's how human interaction works. Some women are different, some WANT to be coo-ed at and so they'd arrange your social interaction to pull that behavior out of you (which puts YOU at a huge disadvantage, if you want my opinion). You would come to learn very quickly through direct interaction with them that they expect you to be a "gentleman," and that's their choice (and your choice whether or not you follow their lead). They aren't the majority though, and neither am I. Most women probably don't even think about it, they're just being themselves. You can't expect all women to be exactly the same, or to be "mostly into being treated like a princess" or "mostly spit and curse like a sailor," we have personalities just like everyone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KCurtis

(except for your dislike of my favorite book :cryin:)

---

Well really, The Great Gatsby?!? It's so - no, no, I'll leave it alone...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KCurtis

but my husband would never use the c word because of these reasons;
he finds it disrespectful
he thinks it's inappropriate in ALL situations
He is also the most "feminist" man I know. He treats women as equals, he loves smart, funny women who can challenge him intellectually, many of his favorite poets, singers, songwriters are women. I could go on.
At the same time, he opens doors for me all the time, has me order first in a restaurant.
These are the reasons I married him, and the one clue to his character was that he is able to be friends with women.

---

My boyfriend is almost exactly the same way with the word "b*tch," and the rest of your description of your husband matches my boyfriend exactly. He thinks it will hurt my feelings. What's annoying is that he's right, it does hurt a little. That word, which has nothing to do with my anatomy or our sexual inclinations (like "slut" - I've had some great retorts to words like "slut" over the years, haha!), exists for the purpose of equating me with a dog, less than human because I have a vagina. There's no way to argue against it using a clever little thing that I can come back with that makes an accurate and precise counter-point. Still, I don't want anyone to ban or censor this word on my account. The existence of the word b*tch makes us stronger, as does everything which hurts. We are considered less than human by some people - better we're aware of that fact and try to change it through our own behavior than have daddy (or as more commonly the case, "big sister," ie. the feminist movement) strip that word from the English vocabulary so we can pretend that everything is "nice."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

You see more male CEOs and surgeons and politicians not only because of bias against women (which I believe is definitely out there and a significant contributor to the phenomenon) but because not all women hold up professional success up as the ultimate goal while that is precisely the case with most men. The current state of affairs, where a woman can choose to be independent or dependent, can look at a female Secretary of State, head of the IMF or German Chancellor and think "I can do anything I want," while still knowing she has the option of marrying, having children and making a home, to me that's a fine circumstance.

---

It's also TIME. The way you think, that women and men are intellectually equal, is the purveying opinion in today's world and that puts women in a great position to succeed (and they're acting on it) for which I'll always be greatful towards pre-1960's feminists and sufferegettes. This wasn't the way of the world before they fought and won our social and professional liberty. Most CEOs ect. were just starting out roughly forty years ago. They're at the top after decades of work. Forty years ago, women weren't starting with the intention of being on top, so you can't expect them to be at the top yet, not today, they haven't put in the time. We're just STARTING within the last few decades, at the bottom, with the other men who are starting today, in this atmosphere of gender intellectual and professional equality. Give it another forty years, another few decades of struggle and work and promotion for the people who are at the bottom in professional fields TODAY, and you'll see that those women who are starting out will, in the future, hold a greater chunk of the upper-tier jobs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

I don't swear with the intention of offending someone. I do it once in a while to punctuate or add flare to a conversation. It's hilarious because I'm adorable.

---

:smilielol5: I’m liking you more and more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

I said they are not weak. You misread it and I understand. My viewpoint is not savoury.

---

Your point is that we’re small and people like to rape us. That's true, that’s just biology, denying facts only ends up screwing us in the end (no pun intended). However, your conclusion that our smallness requires large people around to protect us from being raped is flawed: depending on "chivalry" to protect you is for suckers, it's unreliable at best. You don't really know a person until you're in a scary situation with them. If I'm jumped by a gang in an ally, the coward I'm with is liable to run away. I wouldn’t travel without a gun, this is 2012. Tech, my friend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

I don't like the feminist movement, because they pushed a law in the 1970's which entailed that cheerleading shouldn't be considered a sport and it passed. The reason why they don't want it to be a "sport" is because they don't want it to be officially recognized by the general public. They don't want girls to be seen as people who like dancing and looking pretty. The problem is, very many girls DO like dancing and looking pretty (dancing isn't for me, but I myself sure do like dressing up pretty) and all the feminist movement accomplished in making a law to inhibit cheerleading from being considered a "sport" is that funding for cheerleading safety regulation is now next to nil. Cheerleading is dangerous as **** and now it has a higher number of both serious and non-life threatening injuries than every other sport combined (look it up) because they don't even have trained safety staff or regulation mats to fall on, and have the head honchos of the feminist movement so much as batted an eye? No, they sure as **** haven't. They care more about the IMAGE of women suiting their own worldview, they want women to change to become what they want women to be. They don't care about the safety of REAL girls and women, that's literally ANTI-female. Don't call me a feminist.

---

Again, this is just one type of feminist viewpoint, the structuralist kind. It's not representative of ALL feminist ideology. It sounds to me like you, as most people are, her pretty much in sync with essentialist feminism, which posits that women do have inherit, biological based traits that make women what they are--such as that love of dressing up and looking pretty. Essentialist feminism argues that women should embrace their differences from men and find empowerment through those differences. Structuralist feminism, which seems to be largely comprised of lesbians, argues differently. And, not surprisingly, the seem to be much, much louder than essentialist feminists.

I used to think the same way, that all feminists think the way you describe above, but I'm taking a class based on feminist theory, and now realize that, like most things, it's more complicated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

I don't swear with the intention of offending someone. I do it once in a while to punctuate or add flare to a conversation. It's hilarious because I'm adorable.

---

I can't be the only one wanting to see pictures of Varenne. Her profile picture is plenty cute, but I wants more! Enough teasing with comments referring to your perfect breasts and adorability. As they say on the internets, pics or it didn't happen!

[QUOTE=Mutatis-Mutandi;1115804]

Quote:

---

Enough teasing with comments referring to your perfect breasts and adorability. As they say on the internets, pics or it didn't happen!

---

You seem to have an obsession with breasts lately, so how about these?


http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/3...argebreast.jpg

Whoa! I'll bet her back hurts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

I don't swear with the intention of offending someone. I do it once in a while to punctuate or add flare to a conversation. It's hilarious because I'm adorable.

---

I suppose I’m giving Swear the relatively narrow definition of an Invective or a Vituperation. The type of swearing, or profane speech, that you’re talking about I think of as cussing – a sort of punctuation mark. And you’re right, it can be fun, and as somebody else mentioned: stress relieving - just so long as you’re not doing it next to a bunch of nuns, or a playground, or something.

[QUOTE=Emil Miller;1115811]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi

You seem to have an obsession with breasts lately, so how about these?


http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/3...argebreast.jpg

---

I'd bop those things like I was Sugar Ray Leonard.

I've had a strange phobia of fake boobs ever since I saw China's pop when I was a kid (the wrestler, she jumped off the top rope or something, I can't remember). Ever since then, it's only been real-boob porn for me, because in my world A FAKE ONE COULD BURST AT ANY MINUTE AND SPRAY EVERYONE WITH BLOOD AND FATTY TISSUE AND SYNTHETIC JELLY!

http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lw...axefo1_500.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

Alex and Darcy are taking what I said too much to heart, I'm not foaming-at-the-mouth and calling you insensitive condescending douchebags. I've known men who try chivalry with me, I consider them kind of cute and childish, I continue to present myself in the way I choose and they generally get the hint right away and stop trying to censor themselves. I honestly don't feel that strongly about this issue, talking to a woman with "chivalry" doesn't put me out, it puts you at a disadvantage because I can walk all over you (and I will, for the lol's). I simply prefer to make friends and lovers who are smart enough to see me for what I am and brave enough to behave accordingly.

Anyway, personal issues aside, I honestly don't want princess treatment, and I wouldn't be treated like a princess unless you have aspergers and can't pick up on communication cues in language, tone and facial expression. Talk to me for five minutes and you WILL pick up on my personality and adjust yourself accordingly, that's how human interaction works. Some women are different, some WANT to be coo-ed at and so they'd arrange your social interaction to pull that behavior out of you (which puts YOU at a huge disadvantage, if you want my opinion). You would come to learn very quickly through direct interaction with them that they expect you to be a "gentleman," and that's their choice (and your choice whether or not you follow their lead). They aren't the majority though, and neither am I. Most women probably don't even think about it, they're just being themselves. You can't expect all women to be exactly the same, or to be "mostly into being treated like a princess" or "mostly spit and curse like a sailor," we have personalities just like everyone else.

---

Well when it comes to female friends I do that and match my behaviour to what they want, which is often to be treated just like a guy. But I still won't say the c word around them nor will I insult them the way my male friends and I break each other's balls. I don't treat them like crowned queens but I still treat them a little differently, perhaps better, than I would if they were male. My statement earlier about princesses might have been hyperbole, but I still think a man should have two standards of conduct around each gender, but without taking it too far.

I also sort of see now why some women might interpret excessive chivalry on a man's part to mean that he considers women weak, in need of sheltering. I can put myself in a woman's shoes and imagine such treatment making me feel like I'm regarded as a child. And I've dated girls who would only let me pay for dinner after my repeated imploring protest. I think the latter is due to the fact that so many men are douche bags a lot of women don't want to feel dependent on them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

I've had a strange phobia of fake boobs ever since I saw China's pop when I was a kid (the wrestler, she jumped off the top rope or something, I can't remember). Ever since then, it's only been real-boob porn for me, because in my world A FAKE ONE COULD BURST AT ANY MINUTE AND SPRAY EVERYONE WITH BLOOD AND FATTY TISSUE AND SYNTHETIC JELLY!

http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lw...axefo1_500.jpg

---

I can't stand fake boobs (the reply to Emil was a joke, in case some don't pick up on that). They just look weird. I've yet to see a pair that doesn't look like two stiff, hard, immovable balloons. I'll take a flat chest any day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi

Again, this is just one type of feminist viewpoint, the structuralist kind. It's not representative of ALL feminist ideology. It sounds to me like you, as most people are, her pretty much in sync with essentialist feminism, which posits that women do have inherit, biological based traits that make women what they are--such as that love of dressing up and looking pretty. Essentialist feminism argues that women should embrace their differences from men and find empowerment through those differences. Structuralist feminism, which seems to be largely comprised of lesbians, argues differently. And, not surprisingly, the seem to be much, much louder than essentialist feminists.

---

I didn't know that. The feminism I so often encounter is what you label "structuralist." This "essentialist feminism" seems to accord rather closely to my own beliefs. Funny, I thought I was an anti-feminist but I guess I'm just a feminist of a certain kind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

I didn't know that. The feminism I so often encounter is what you label "structuralist." This "essentialist feminism" seems to accord rather closely to my own beliefs. Funny, I thought I was an anti-feminist but I guess I'm just a feminist of a certain kind.

---

Ditto.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi

Well, I guess we have a pretty clear window into your view of homosexuals, don't we?

Plus, the tough guy act is laughable.

---

I have always been pro-gay. The fact that you equate homosexuality and efeminacy speaks more about the hillbilly stereotypes you are acustomed to than anything else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

Anyway, personal issues aside, I honestly don't want princess treatment, and I wouldn't be treated like a princess unless you have aspergers and can't pick up on communication cues in language, tone and facial expression. Talk to me for five minutes and you WILL pick up on my personality and adjust yourself accordingly, that's how human interaction works. Some women are different, some WANT to be coo-ed at and so they'd arrange your social interaction to pull that behavior out of you (which puts YOU at a huge disadvantage, if you want my opinion). You would come to learn very quickly through direct interaction with them that they expect you to be a "gentleman," and that's their choice (and your choice whether or not you follow their lead). They aren't the majority though, and neither am I. Most women probably don't even think about it, they're just being themselves. You can't expect all women to be exactly the same, or to be "mostly into being treated like a princess" or "mostly spit and curse like a sailor," we have personalities just like everyone else.

---

Ok, look, you have to realize that you are an abnormal female, you deviate from norm. Yes you may not be like that, but the majority of girls do like that. Heck the majority of guys would like that too, why do you think waitresses and such always flirt, because men just like women enjoy being validated, enjoy being treated as if they were princess and princes. Waitress makes guy feel like a handsome movie star, guy will tip. Guy makes girl feel like princess she will be more favorable to him.

We come from very different worlds. The girls you know are rougher than the norm and the girls I know are more demanding than the norm. But the majority of girls enjoy being treated as if they were the center of the universe. That is human nature.

But I guese we all adapt to our environments. Like amongst the jersey shore people, gals will screw the man who treats them like a douchebag. Ergo men learn to behave like douchebags in order to get women. But when you no longer look at an isolated peice of humanity, but rather the whole. When a girl has the option of being treated like a pal, or being treated like the center of the universe - the majority will always pick the latter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi

I can't be the only one wanting to see pictures of Varenne. Her profile picture is plenty cute, but I wants more! Enough teasing with comments referring to your perfect breasts and adorability. As they say on the internets, pics or it didn't happen!

---

Haha. I don't feel the need to prove anything, but I've been meaning to post more pictures. I'm not some breast flasher, so no one should get their hopes up. Scarlett Johansson is pretty much my boob twin (I think mine are better). For comic-con dress up purposes, I'm very lucky to be stacked like a marvel girl. I only brag because I'm very impressed with myself.