A Man’s Perspective on Leggings

  
Via:  bob-nelson  •  4 months ago  •  316 comments

A Man’s Perspective on Leggings
Shaunti Feldhan asked four hundred men this hypothetical question: “Imagine you were sitting alone in a train station and a woman with a great body walks by and stands in a nearby line. What is your reaction to the woman?” Ninety-eight percent of men admitted they would look. (I think the other two percent were either gay or lying.)

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


A few weeks ago an Indiana mother wrote a letter to the Notre Dame University school newspaper, asking women not to wear leggings to Catholic mass. After sitting behind a group of girls in church with her four sons she wrote:

I was ashamed for the young women at Mass. I thought of all the other men around and behind us who couldn’t help but see their behinds. My sons know better than to ogle a woman’s body — certainly when I’m around (and hopefully, also when I’m not). They didn’t stare, and they didn’t comment afterwards. But you couldn’t help but see those blackly naked rear ends. I didn’t want to see them — but they were unavoidable. How much more difficult for young guys to ignore them.

original Predictably, Twitter went nuts. Comments like these poured in:

Maryann, I’m so sorry that leggings have made it so “difficult” for you to teach your sons that women are people before they are bodies. Maybe you need to be lectured on proper parenting instead of lecturing us about our clothing choices.

If you raise boys that can only treat women as people when they are dressed a certain way, something has gone terribly wrong. This reminds me of the “if you’re wearing a skirt you’re asking to be raped” mentality.

I’m sorry if my leggings are making men ogle me. Maybe they should have some restraint and the brainpower to realize I’m more than a body part.

Women, including myself, my nieces, my 75-year-old mother, should wear whatever the heck they want. We should wear what makes us feel good, strong, smart or pretty. Anyone else’s “discomfort” is not our problem.

Many Christian women share these attitudes. Any suggestion that they dress modestly is seen as oppression, body shaming or victim blaming. Drew Brown writes in Relevant magazine:

You’d also hear…how women are temptations to men, and should be crossing their own legs to help temper the male sex drive. You’d think women held responsibility for keeping men pure. Turtlenecks and chastity belts and all that.

When women are made responsible for the sex drives of men, they are conditioned to feel responsible for sexual abuse, often defaulting to silence for fear of the retribution they will receive for their perceived role in that abuse. Women don’t come forward because they think they were wrong for having been in the situation in the first place. Or they shouldn’t have been wearing those clothes. Or drinking that much. The shame and false responsibility flows out of this broken view of a woman’s sexual responsibilities.

These tweets and comments are built on a set of flawed assumptions about men. As a man, I’d like to set the record straight.

First, men don’t choose to have sexual thoughts, so you can’t teach a man not to look at a woman’s body.  Men won’t necessarily lust, but they will look. Men’s sexual interest in women is driven primarily by testosterone – not poor parenting. Young men have twenty times as much T coursing through their bodies as young women do.

Shaunti Feldhan asked four hundred men this hypothetical question: “Imagine you were sitting alone in a train station and a woman with a great body walks by and stands in a nearby line. What is your reaction to the woman?” Ninety-eight percent of men admitted they would look. (I think the other two percent were either gay or lying.)

Feldhan summarizes her findings this way: “Men can’t not  want to look at a beautiful woman.” The desire itself rises unbidden. Men cannot stop it. All they can hope to do is control their response.

Second, most Christian men really do want to see women as people and not merely bodies.  But society makes this very difficult for us.

We live in the most sexually stimulating society in history. Images of beautiful, airbrushed, surgically enhanced women are everywhere. On the web. In our e-mails. On TV. At the mall. Lining the grocery store check stand. Companies use sexy images of women to sell their products to both genders – and there’s nowhere to go to escape these images.

No generation of men has ever been exposed to this level of constant sexual stimulation and visual temptation. It’s completely unprecedented. This nonstop parade of gorgeous women trains our brains to seek out more attractive women.

Third, women and their clothing are not responsible for “making men ogle” them.  If a man has lustful thoughts toward a woman, it’s 100% the man’s fault. It’s up to men to control their thoughts. Which leads us to our next point:

Fourth, men can control their desires. Women don’t have to do it for them.  Truth is, men control their desires every day. Every hour of every day. From the time they wake up to the time they go to sleep.

Fifth, men are not trying to control, oppress, blame or objectify women by hoping they would dress modestly at church. We just want a break from the nonstop sexual imagery and temptation that bombards us every day. Church should be a sanctuary, a safe place for us to focus on God and nothing else.

Sixth, no one is blaming the victim.  Men (and their mothers) are just asking for women’s help dealing with a very strong, testosterone-driven temptation that’s common to all men.

Seventh, comments and tweets like the ones above discourage men. There’s a modern tendency to take a simple request and re-interpret it in the worst possible light. By imagining all sorts of impure motives and absurd consequences (such as chastity belts) we justify our refusal to help. To illustrate this, here’s the story of two roommates, Juanita and Rebecca.

One day Rebecca brings home a fifth of whiskey, cracks it open and leaves it on the kitchen counter. Juanita comes to Rebecca and admits past struggles with alcoholism. Rebecca can respond two ways:

Response #1: “Juanita, I don’t understand your problem, but I’m going to do what I can to help. I’ll keep this stuff locked in the liquor cabinet so you won’t have to think about it.”

Response #2: “Juanita, this is your problem, not mine. This is my apartment and I have every right to keep a legal substance here. Why are you blaming me for your weakness? Are you trying to shame me for having a drink after work? Who made me responsible for your sobriety?”

With Response #1, Rebecca offers understanding. With Response #2, Rebecca offers judgment, interpreting her roommate’s request in the worst possible light. By putting words in Juanita’s mouth, dismissing her concerns and questioning her motives Rebecca frees herself from having to care about her friend’s predicament.

When men read tweets and articles like the ones I quoted above, they hear Response #2.

Men have admitted a weakness. They’ve asked for help. But instead of compassion, their request is met with anger and defiance. On top of this, the person they’ve asked for help dismisses, disparages and ridicules them for making the request.

Men have no desire to control, shame or blame women for their choice of wardrobe. Men are not holding women responsible for male chastity. Nor are they casting women in the role of temptress or telling them to be ashamed of their bodies.

Men are simply admitting a weakness and asking for help. Isn’t that what Christians are supposed to do?

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Bob Nelson
1  seeder  Bob Nelson    4 months ago

I'm not sure that I agree with much, here... but it has me thinking...   tenor.gif

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2  JohnRussell    4 months ago

original

This clothing is not appropriate for church. 

I tend to agree with the guy writing the article. 

The last few times I have gone to a wake I have been struck by the young  ( late teens or early 20's) women at these wakes who wear short or extremely short skirts or other sexually provocative clothes. I think to myself, "where do these people think they are at ?"  There are times for some level of respect for the occasion and a funeral is one of them, I think.  And church services is too, in my opinion. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  JohnRussell @2    4 months ago

You know, I actually agree that it's not appropriate for church.

This article doesn't really seem to confine disapproval of leggings to church settings, though.  I doubt Mom is only worried about her sons ogling women in church, and nowhere else.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  JohnRussell @2    4 months ago
This clothing is not appropriate for church. 

I think that's so subjective as to be virtually meaningless.

That would be enough to have a woman arrested and punished in many Mosques around the world, yet there are nudist Churches where this would be overdressed.

I believe making something taboo is what creates the excitement, it's similar to supply and demand. If you grew up as a male but had reached age 18 without ever even having seen a woman's ankle, that bare ankle is going to be pretty exciting once you get to see it. If you lived all your life in some places in Europe, you've seen women's naked breasts everywhere, from beaches to TV commercials, like it's no big deal, and thus it really is no big deal.

So what we need is for every woman to wear leggings all the time and men will acclimate to where leggings arouse a man about as much as bare ankles do today. Increasing the supply will inevitably decrease demand.

 
 
 
CB
2.3  CB   replied to  JohnRussell @2    4 months ago

It is called, "dressing to fit the occasion." Many women (see picture) would have a scarf in their bag or around the neck which can be draped around them front to back or the inverse accordingly. The aware woman understands the sway she holds over heterosexual men. I see it all the time around me. Despite all the patriarchy nonsense men engage it—women are influential power-brokers in a man's life!

The focus of Church/sanctuary is calm from the 'noises' of life. The same would go for men "sagging" or "manipulating (holding) themselves in their clothing" while in the sanctuary. Heaven forbid!

These are faux-pas in a place of worship - while relatively harmless on the street!

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.3.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  CB @2.3    4 months ago
These are faux-pas in a place of worship - while relatively harmless on the street!

And to me (and this just my opinion), strapless wedding gowns are a faux pas in church. But that's just me

 
 
 
mocowgirl
2.3.2  mocowgirl  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.3.1    4 months ago
And to me (and this just my opinion), strapless wedding gowns are a faux pas in church. But that's just me

If Yahweh was offended by nudity, then why didn't he clothe Adam from day 1 and then Eve after cloning her from Adam's rib?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.3.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  mocowgirl @2.3.2    4 months ago

I have no argument, Mo. It's just my personal opinion. It's illogical and emotional but it's all mine

 
 
 
evilgenius
2.3.4  evilgenius  replied to  CB @2.3    4 months ago
It is called, "dressing to fit the occasion.

Which is fully subjective.

The aware woman understands the sway she holds over heterosexual men.

Interesting choice of words. Sounds very close to victim blaming, but it's true that history is filled with woman using their "famine whiles" to accomplish goals.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
2.3.5  mocowgirl  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.3.3    4 months ago
It's just my personal opinion. It's illogical and emotional but it's all mine

No problem.  The question was meant philosophically.  

 
 
 
CB
2.3.6  CB   replied to  evilgenius @2.3.4    4 months ago

So what does, ""dressing to fit the occasion" mean to you, Eg? Say it slowly (no condescension) intended, but I really want you to think about it:

"Dressing. . . to. . . fit. . .the. . .occasion."

Church is the occasion. If one is a regular- or intend to be regular churchgoer  -a set of "success" guidelines sprang to mind. I have no desire to belabor this point, nevertheless. If people do not want to be impacted by the ideas, rituals, and customs of others—come as you are!

If you get past the "authorities" (deacons, church mothers, pastors and teachers) attend away.

 
 
 
CB
2.3.7  CB   replied to  evilgenius @2.3.4    4 months ago
The aware woman understands the sway she holds over heterosexual men. I see it all the time around me. Despite all the patriarchy nonsense men engage it—women are influential power-brokers in a man's life!

Are women by nature victims, Eg? Women are not victims in my opinion.

Being a voluptuous women (top/front/back) is not a crime or guilt-factor - any more than a man or boy "packing" is a crime or guilt-factor.I hope you understand that male sexual urban expression.

However, churches have experiences with women who in the "heat" of services, become excessively 'wrapped up in the spirit' and stuff tumbles out for all to see! Maybe, its because those two organs were not 'stowed' properly in her top. Or, a man/woman/boy/girl front pants crotch is too tight and you can see a certain 'shape of things.' Or, the back of the pants have wording which draws the eye, or over-accentuate "the bigness," "the roundness," and/or "the goodness" —suggesting its may be holding a "meet and greet ."

Uh-uh. Church ain't for that. No victim-blaming need apply (if one knows the rules beforehand).

Women do have sway over heterosexual men and I would think that is something positive a woman can be proud of being able to do. Lord knows, I see it and frankly if I was a jealous type of person, I would envy a woman for it. (I am not the "covetous" type. It is not in my nature.)

 
 
 
devangelical
2.3.8  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.3.1    4 months ago

a closet prude. I knew it. looks like there's a few catechism dust bunnies left over from the past.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.3.9  Trout Giggles  replied to  devangelical @2.3.8    4 months ago

LOL! You figured me out

 
 
 
SteevieGee
2.4  SteevieGee  replied to  JohnRussell @2    4 months ago
This clothing is not appropriate for church.

Perhaps church is not appropriate for this woman.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3  Vic Eldred    4 months ago

I feel bad for young men in this day and age. The seeded article highlights more issues than I think the author realizes.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @3    4 months ago

Why do you feel bad for young men in this day and age?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @3.1    4 months ago

A few reasons. First, I'm sure the young guys no longer know what the rules are. Second is what has become regarded as attractive these days. Take a look at the seriously underweight girl in the picture. It almost looks like a young boy walking down the street.

 
 
 
evilgenius
3.1.2  evilgenius  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.1    4 months ago
First, I'm sure the young guys no longer know what the rules are.

Yes, as a male parent of a now grown young man, it was impossible to teach him to be polite and respectful to everyone. /s

Second is what has become regarded as attractive these days. Take a look at the seriously underweight girl in the picture. It almost looks like a young boy walking down the street.

Media and advertising that show a variety of body types and ethnicity are doing better business today than those that are clinging to the pale waif look. Also there are whole studies done on attraction. While part of attraction is hard wired we often end up with people we believe matches our own self image. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  evilgenius @3.1.2    4 months ago
Yes, as a male parent of a now grown young man, it was impossible to teach him to be polite and respectful to everyone. /s

jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  evilgenius @3.1.2    4 months ago
Yes, as a male parent of a now grown young man, it was impossible to teach him to be polite and respectful to everyone. /s

Those would be the old rules. 

While part of attraction is hard wired we often end up with people we believe matches our own self image. 

Childlike women are matching wha?

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.4    4 months ago

Their are no new rules or old rules.

If they can't keep it in their pants, it's not the womans' problem.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.6  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.5    4 months ago

Are you familiar with the American Psychological Association’s new guidelines on traditional masculinity?

 
 
 
evilgenius
3.1.7  evilgenius  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.4    4 months ago
Those would be the old rules. 

The golden rule still applies. The only "rule" that has changed is that Men are not responsible for women. Women are not property. They cannot be bought and sold. They have minds and wills. They are not inherently good, bad, pure, impure, or whatever other idea someone else wants to attribute to them. They are just people and should be treated like people and all the complexities that go along with it.

 
 
 
evilgenius
3.1.8  evilgenius  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.6    4 months ago
Are you familiar with the American Psychological Association’s new guidelines on traditional masculinity?

Yes. Straight white macho men are not the apex of civilization. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.9  Vic Eldred  replied to  evilgenius @3.1.7    4 months ago

It is male masculinity that is under attack not femininity 

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.10  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.9    4 months ago

Oh, please. 

How is it that male masculinity is under attack?  Must be quite be quite fragile to begin with if it's 'under attack'

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.11  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.6    4 months ago

'Are you familiar with the American Psychological Association’s new guidelines on traditional masculinity?'

No and I do not care.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.12  Vic Eldred  replied to  evilgenius @3.1.8    4 months ago
Yes. Straight white macho men are not the apex of civilization. 

Without men's courage and aggressiveness where would we be?   Still in the stone age?

 
 
 
katrix
3.1.13  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.9    4 months ago
It is male masculinity that is under attack not femininity 

Says the man who has made comments about how horrible it is that women have great careers these days, because it's hurting men.  We're supposed to remain unfulfilled and not live up to our intellectual potential so the snowflakes don't get their egos bruised and so they don't have to compete with women for these jobs.  It's just not fair that more women than men are graduating from college and that men have to compete for jobs with qualified women as well as qualified men.  They deserve these jobs more than we do because they have dicks, apparently.

What specifically can you no longer do, due to the "attack on male masculinity?"  Unless you're a creep, which I don't think you are, why are you so threatened by having to treat women as human beings?

 
 
 
evilgenius
3.1.14  evilgenius  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.9    4 months ago
It is male masculinity that is under attack not femininity

Masculinity is NOT under attack. All that the APA is saying is that we all don't fit into one stereotype and that's okay. Nurture who were are instead of a forcing an idea that doesn't work. Men & women can be both strong and vulnerable. we can be both needy and supportive. We can all help and ask for help. Life is complex. I don't have to like gaming, cars and guns to feel manly.  

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.1.15  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.12    4 months ago
Without men's courage and aggressiveness where would we be?   Still in the stone age?

Or perhaps exploring other galaxies by now. There is as much an argument for mankind achieving far more if we had been less aggressive and more cooperative than there is for the caveman testosterone filled "aggressiveness" some men seem revere.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.16  Tessylo  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.1.15    4 months ago

My thoughts as well on the 'aggressive' aspect of male masculinity.  

 
 
 
evilgenius
3.1.17  evilgenius  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.12    4 months ago
Without men's courage and aggressiveness where would we be?

Any man or woman can still be courageous and aggressive without being unkind or destructive. Any man or woman can still be a strong leader without being cruel and unjust. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1.18  Trout Giggles  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.1.15    4 months ago
Or perhaps exploring other galaxies by now.

At least putting the atom to good use other than killing ourselves

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.1.19  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.5    4 months ago
If they can't keep it in their pants

This is the extreme reaction talked about in the article. There's nothing here about keeping anything in anybody's pants. Is the concept of appropriate or sensitive fashion choices complete anathema for you?

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.20  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.19    4 months ago

jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
epistte
3.1.21  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.1    4 months ago
A few reasons. First, I'm sure the young guys no longer know what the rules are.

Teach sons and young men how to control themselves and that we are not his sex toys for the taking. We don't need to dress in a burka just because they cannot control themselves. 

Second is what has become regarded as attractive these days. Take a look at the seriously underweight girl in the picture. It almost looks like a young boy walking down the street.

She definitely isn't underweight.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.22  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @3.1.13    4 months ago
Says the man who has made comments about how horrible it is that women have great careers these days, because it's hurting men.

I never said that. Why would you say that?  That must be your interpretation of me defending uneducated women, who suffer the consequences in today's society.


 We're supposed to remain unfulfilled and not live up to our intellectual potential so the snowflakes don't get their egos bruised and so they don't have to compete with women for these jobs.  It's just not fair that more women than men are graduating from college and that men have to compete for jobs with qualified women as well as qualified men.  They deserve these jobs more than we do because they have dicks, apparently.

When have I denied women the right to an education? All of my daughters have graduated college. I want women to have options and to be anything they want to be. I think you are referring to a discussion I initiated involving highly educated women who wanted to have the sexual freedoms savored by successful men in the 1950's. As you might remember the focus of that little discussion was the negative results on our society - especially for uneducated women!


What specifically can you no longer do, due to the "attack on male masculinity?" 

Me, personally?  (BTW, this stuff should never get personal)
It dosen't really affect me. I'm 67 and I've lived a full life, mostly in a much better time. I have kids and gradkids and believe it or not I still have women in my life, not feminists, but women with feminine instincts.

why are you so threatened by having to treat women as human beings?

Threatened by whom? 

Feminists?

Not threatened, just disenchanted.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.23  Vic Eldred  replied to  epistte @3.1.21    4 months ago
Teach sons and young men how to control themselves and that we are not his sex toys for the taking. We don't need to dress in a burka just because they cannot control themselves. 

I'm all for it.
Just so these young guys don't wind up frightened to even say hello to a young woman, maybe you could be kind enough to define sexual harassment for them?


She definitely isn't underweight.

I think my brothers in the hood would disagree

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.24  Vic Eldred  replied to  evilgenius @3.1.17    4 months ago

So we agree...

 
 
 
katrix
3.1.25  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.22    4 months ago
I never said that. Why would you say that?  That must be your interpretation of me defending uneducated women, who suffer the consequences in today's society.

What you said was:

What of the women who are not well educated and need a man to support them, while all these independent divas are living the life of a professional man of the 1950's?

You don't take that as an insult to career women, calling us "independent divas"?  And you pretty clearly disapprove of our "living the life of a professional man" when actually, we're simply living our lives, using our brains, getting the intellectual stimulation we need, getting the social stimulation we need, and not being dependent on someone else to support us.    And apparently we're taking jobs away from the men who are needed to support uneducated women, or some such.

 
 
 
Veronica
3.1.26  Veronica  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.22    4 months ago

You have no idea what a feminist is.  You apply your definition to it even though it is wrong. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.27  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @3.1.25    4 months ago
You don't take that as an insult to career women, calling us "independent divas"?

Nope.  What I have noticed is that you have little regard for the uneducated woman who needs a man to be accountable.


 And apparently we're taking jobs away from the men who are needed to support uneducated women, or some such.

That's your perception of it. Those men don't need your jobs. They have jobs.  It's about accountability!

Why would those guys support a woman when they can enjoy a non-committal sexual relationship so easily?   

That is my point, which you seem to be resisting!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.28  Vic Eldred  replied to  Veronica @3.1.26    4 months ago
You have no idea what a feminist is.

Did you want to tell me?

 
 
 
Veronica
3.1.29  Veronica  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.28    4 months ago

I can tell you, but I cannot make you believe it.

A feminist is a man or a woman that believes in gender equality and that both sexes should be allowed to make decisions that are best for themselves without interference from outsiders.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.30  Vic Eldred  replied to  Veronica @3.1.29    4 months ago
but I cannot make you believe it.

You never know. I have changed my opinion on certain things.

A feminist is a man or a woman that believes in gender equality and that both sexes should be allowed to make decisions that are best for themselves without interference from outsiders.

Based to that definition, I would say most of us are feminists

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1.31  Trout Giggles  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.27    4 months ago
uneducated woman who needs a man to be accountable.

Why do uneducated women need men to be accountable? My niece seems to be doing pretty well considering she isn't educated and has a 6 year old daughter to support. And no man!

 
 
 
Veronica
3.1.32  Veronica  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.30    4 months ago

Based to that definition, I would say most of us are feminists

That is the definition of feminism - too bad some people made it into a dirty word and have put so much negativity on it.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.33  Vic Eldred  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.31    4 months ago
Why do uneducated women need men to be accountable?

You don't believe a man should take care of (provide for) a woman?


My niece seems to be doing pretty well considering she isn't educated and has a 6 year old daughter to support. And no man!

I'm happy to hear she is doing ok. Do you think she really wants it that way?


 
 
 
Veronica
3.1.34  Veronica  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.33    4 months ago
Do you think she really wants it that way?

You do realize not every woman wants a man.

You don't believe a man should take care of (provide for) a woman?

How about a woman providing and taking care of a man?  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.35  Vic Eldred  replied to  Veronica @3.1.34    4 months ago
You do realize not every woman wants a man.

I absolutely get that.

How about a woman providing and taking care of a man?  

Even though you skipped my question, I'll answer yours. On the few occasions when Iv'e seen a woman taking care of a man, the "man" was playing the woman. That is strictly a personal observation. I'm not saying that it is universal, though you raise a reasonable question - a modern day question.

 
 
 
katrix
3.1.36  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.27    4 months ago
What I have noticed is that you have little regard for the uneducated woman who needs a man to be accountable.

I don't have much regard for men who need a woman to be accountable, either.  Education isn't necessarily a factor - plenty of uneducated people manage to support themselves just fine.  If someone needs another person to support them and they don't have physical or mental disabilities, yeah, that's a problem.  I'm a fan of personal responsibility. 


That's your perception of it. Those men don't need your jobs. They have jobs.  It's about accountability!

I really don't understand what you mean here about accountability.  And what does this having to do with your calling women with professional careers independent divas?  That clearly implies that you think women should be dependent on men - "diva" is not a compliment in this context. 

Why would those guys support a woman when they can enjoy a non-committal sexual relationship so easily?   

Now I'm really confused.  So, it's not career women you have an issue with - it's all women who enjoy sex and therefore are keeping the poor uneducated women from finding men to marry and support them, because these men can get sex for free from the independent divas?  You think these uneducated women are prostitutes or something, and the only way a man will support them is if he can't get sex for free anywhere else and has to "pay" them for it by marrying and supporting them?  What a horrible view of marriage.  If you love someone and want to be married, you'll marry them whether they're already having sex with you or not, unless you have some weird hangup about virgins and whores.  And many happily married men don't want to support their wives, they want their wives to contribute financially for the benefit of the family.

The "why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free" adage went out the window years ago.  Hell yeah, I'm resisting your point.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1.37  Trout Giggles  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.33    4 months ago

She chose to have a baby without getting married so, um, yeah, I really do think she wants it that way

 
 
 
Veronica
3.1.38  Veronica  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.35    4 months ago
Even though you skipped my question, I'll answer yours. On the few occasions when Iv'e seen a woman taking care of a man, the "man" was playing the woman. That is strictly a personal observation.

I believe a woman should be able to take care of herself & her family because nothing is ever certain.  Husbands die - husbands leave - if  a woman is dependent upon men to support (provide for) her what does she do then?  Find another man?  To me that sounds like she is "playing" the man.  

My brother in law is not able to work at this point due to health issues - should his wife not care for & provide for him.  Damn good thing she was independent enough to have a decent job & is able to maintain a good lifestyle for them.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.39  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @3.1.36    4 months ago
So, it's not career women you have an issue with - it's all women who enjoy sex and therefore are keeping the poor uneducated women from finding men to marry and support them, because these men can get sex for free from the independent divas? 

BINGO!

 And many happily married men don't want to support their wives, they want their wives to contribute financially for the benefit of the family.

Not my idea of a man

 
 
 
Veronica
3.1.40  Veronica  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.37    4 months ago

Good for her.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1.41  Trout Giggles  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.39    4 months ago

O.M.G.

You really do have a warped sense of women and sex. At least you finally admitted to it

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.42  Vic Eldred  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.37    4 months ago

She didn't like the guy?  Don't know if I dare use the word, maybe I should say "she wasn't in love with him?"

 
 
 
Veronica
3.1.43  Veronica  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.39    4 months ago

That statement right there makes katrix's take on you correct.  3.1.25

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1.44  Trout Giggles  replied to  Veronica @3.1.40    4 months ago

Yeah, well. I would have preferred her to graduate high school, get a decent job, then have a baby....but I didn't raise her.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1.45  Trout Giggles  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.42    4 months ago

Why does it matter?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1.46  Trout Giggles  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.39    4 months ago
And many happily married men don't want to support their wives, they want their wives to contribute financially for the benefit of the family. Not my idea of a man

Maybe some men love their wives so much that they want their wives to be happy not mucking around the house all day with a passel of crotch goblins hanging on her skirts. It also gives the wife a sense of self worth when she's contributing to the family coffers. Maybe they can afford to take the kids out for a pizza and a movie once in awhile instead of staying at home all the time.

Not all families are like yours, Vic and  THANK FUCKING GOD I DON'T HAVE A HUSBAND WITH YOUR VALUES!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.47  Vic Eldred  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.44    4 months ago

Understood

 
 
 
Veronica
3.1.48  Veronica  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.44    4 months ago

Well, not much you can do when their minds are made up.  Better than entering a bad marriage.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.49  Vic Eldred  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.46    4 months ago
Not all families are like yours

And neither are not all like yours

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.50  Vic Eldred  replied to  Veronica @3.1.48    4 months ago
Better than entering a bad marriage.

Yup that saves us all!

 
 
 
epistte
3.1.51  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.30    4 months ago
Based to that definition, I would say most of us are feminists

You cannot claim to be a feminist and oppose the right of choice to have an abortion.

 
 
 
epistte
3.1.52  epistte  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.41    4 months ago
O.M.G. You really do have a warped sense of women and sex. At least you finally admitted to it

Vic sounds like a bit of [a deleted or an MRA.]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.53  Vic Eldred  replied to  epistte @3.1.51    4 months ago
You cannot claim to be a feminist and oppose the right of choice to have an abortion.

Veronica just told me the definition of a feminist:

"A feminist is a man or a woman that believes in gender equality and that both sexes should be allowed to make decisions that are best for themselves without interference from outsiders."

You mean there's more to it?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1.54  Trout Giggles  replied to  Veronica @3.1.48    4 months ago

I totally agree with that

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1.55  Trout Giggles  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.49    4 months ago
And neither are not all like yours

Is that your little tit for tat answer, Vic? I know all families are not like mine. I at least can accept that people are different than me. Can you?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1.56  Trout Giggles  replied to  epistte @3.1.52    4 months ago

I know what an InCel is but what is an MRA?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1.57  Trout Giggles  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.53    4 months ago
both sexes should be allowed to make decisions that are best for themselves without interference from outsiders."

that's the the whole friggin' abortion debate, Vic

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.58  Vic Eldred  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.55    4 months ago
I know all families are not like mine. I at least can accept that people are different than me. Can you?

Of course. Even somebody with my "values" can accept that!

 
 
 
epistte
3.1.59  epistte  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.56    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.60  Vic Eldred  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.57    4 months ago
hat's the the whole friggin' abortion debate, Vic

I see

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.61  Vic Eldred  replied to  epistte @3.1.59    4 months ago
Professional misogynists.

I'm glad you've established what I am.  I think I'll just take my shitty values & professional misogyny and move along. 

Have a good one

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
3.1.62  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  epistte @3.1.59    4 months ago

Great example of misandry.

#Male Lives Matter

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1.63  Trout Giggles  replied to  epistte @3.1.59    4 months ago

got it

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1.64  Trout Giggles  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @3.1.62    4 months ago

Well, let's take stock:

1) he thinks women shouldn't be using sex like men do

2) he fears that we career women are keeping uneducated women from getting a man

3) he doesn't like women wearing pants

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1.65  Trout Giggles  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @3.1.62    4 months ago

White men are now the biggest victim group on the planet

 
 
 
r.t..b...
3.1.66  r.t..b...  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.39    4 months ago
And many happily married men don't want to support their wives, they want their wives to contribute financially for the benefit of the family.Not my idea of a man

 I was fortunate to marry a woman who had her own dreams and desires for a career that ultimately came to fruition. Due to her education, hard work, sacrifices and competency, rose to the point where it made more economic sense for her to be the main 'bread-winner', allowing me to enjoy and cherish the role as the stay-at-home figure in our household. Never did I feel emasculated..quite the contrary, allowing me to achieve my goals if on a slightly postponed timeline.  Don't for a second dismiss the role a smart and independent woman contributes to the family as our boys have gravitated to the same...brilliant young women who relish the support in their efforts to attain their individual dreams while understanding the sacrifices any committed relationship requires. So, Vic, take your idea of what makes a 'man' and keep it to yourself, and as respectfully as I can muster, you have no clue. And she still looks fantastic in her leggings!

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3.1.67  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.65    4 months ago

   jrSmiley_47_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
3.1.68  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.65    4 months ago

It's not easy being a white male. I didn't really have much of a choice in the matter. I wanted to be Giraffe.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.69  Vic Eldred  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.64    4 months ago
Well, let's take stock:

1) he thinks women shouldn't be using sex like men do

2) he fears that we career women are keeping uneducated women from getting a man

3) he doesn't like women wearing pants



You are making a case for the things Iv'e just been called?

I'd say a big decision is about to be made here.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1.70  Trout Giggles  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @3.1.68    4 months ago

Then go be one. You claim we all can all change our identities at any time.

Be a giraffe and free yourself

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1.71  Trout Giggles  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.69    4 months ago

It looks like I am, Counselor

 
 
 
epistte
3.1.72  epistte  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @3.1.62    4 months ago
Great example of misandry. #Male Lives Matter

Male lives always matter but they do not and cannot have any power over my life or my choices.

 
 
 
epistte
3.1.73  epistte  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @3.1.68    4 months ago
It's not easy being a white male. I didn't really have much of a choice in the matter. I wanted to be Giraffe.

Call Jack Hannah at the Columbus Zoo. He might be able to help you out.

 
 
 
epistte
3.1.74  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.61    4 months ago
I'm glad you've established what I am.  I think I'll just take my shitty values & professional misogyny and move along. Have a good one

Have a nice day.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
3.1.75  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.70    4 months ago

But what if I become a Giraffe and someone buys me and drives me on the highway and I can't duck under the overpass and i lose my head.

256

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
3.1.76  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  epistte @3.1.73    4 months ago

Thank you, I appreciate the suggestion.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.77  sandy-2021492  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.46    4 months ago

I love you, you know.  Not in a lesbian way.  Not that there's anything wrong with that. 

 
 
 
dave-2693993
3.1.78  dave-2693993  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.46    4 months ago
Maybe some men love their wives so much that they want their wives to be happy not mucking around the house all day with a passel of crotch goblins hanging on her skirts.

My gauge is the sparkle in their eyes.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.79  Tessylo  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @3.1.75    4 months ago

That's so cute!

 
 
 
pat wilson
3.1.80  pat wilson  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.64    4 months ago

Or getting tattoos. 

 
 
 
epistte
3.1.81  epistte  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.46    4 months ago
Maybe some men love their wives so much that they want their wives to be happy not mucking around the house all day with a passel of crotch goblins hanging on her skirts. It also gives the wife a sense of self worth when she's contributing to the family coffers. Maybe they can afford to take the kids out for a pizza and a movie once in awhile instead of staying at home all the time.

100% agreement.

Not all families are like yours, Vic and  THANK FUCKING GOD I DON'T HAVE A HUSBAND WITH YOUR VALUES!

You and me both. id vote this up 10 times if it were possible.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1.82  Trout Giggles  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @3.1.75    4 months ago

Adapt...adjust...overcome

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1.83  Trout Giggles  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.77    4 months ago

I love you, too. :)

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1.84  Trout Giggles  replied to  dave-2693993 @3.1.78    4 months ago

Judging by your words here at NT, Dave, I say you have happy women in your life. Excuse me, girls.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1.85  Trout Giggles  replied to  pat wilson @3.1.80    4 months ago

Forgot that one.

I wonder what kind of decision Vic came to

 
 
 
evilgenius
3.1.86  evilgenius  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.24    4 months ago
So we agree...

If you also agree that one doesn't have to be courageous or aggressive to be considered manly and that a woman can also be courageous and aggressive and not be called bitchy or slept their way to their position. 'Cuz I've read any number of Sad Puppies posting from their mommies' basement about how horrible and unfair it is for women to excel in industries that have been traditionally dominated by straight white men. I'd certainly be glad to hear you do agree with me.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.87  sandy-2021492  replied to  katrix @3.1.36    4 months ago

Well done.  How anybody can read the quoted comments and not see the disdain for women they display us beyond me.

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.1.88  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.1    4 months ago
A few reasons. First, I'm sure the young guys no longer know what the rules are.

To a point I agree. Society has changed dramatically since the internet became a "thing" in the early 1990's. Now, I think a lot of younger people are losing social skills because they communicate, (mostly), with their phones. Face to face communication isn't really required anymore for even the most basic of needs. Amazon sells damn near anything anyone would ever need. You can order groceries online, renew your license, get laid, etc...all online. 

I love using the internet, but from a social standpoint, it is harmful when it comes to face to face social interactions with regards to "tweens" and young adults. 

 
 
 
dave-2693993
3.1.89  dave-2693993  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.84    4 months ago
Judging by your words here at NT, Dave, I say you have happy women in your life. Excuse me, girls.

Thank you Trout.

She's a looker in leggings too.

 
 
 
SteevieGee
3.1.90  SteevieGee  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.1    4 months ago
It almost looks like a young boy walking down the street.

Are we looking at the same picture?  That's definitely not a boy.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
3.1.91  dave-2693993  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.1    4 months ago
It almost looks like a young boy walking down the street.

LOL, okay Vic, I am going to disagree with you on this one. Not a boy.

 
 
 
epistte
3.1.92  epistte  replied to  dave-2693993 @3.1.91    4 months ago
LOL, okay Vic, I am going to disagree with you on this one. Not a boy.

I have to wonder what boys he is looking at? I wonder what he thinks that a woman is supposed to look like if she looks like a teen boy

I'm in decent shape but I wished that I looked that good in pleather leggings.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
3.1.93  dave-2693993  replied to  epistte @3.1.92    4 months ago
I have to wonder what boys he is looking at? I wonder what he thinks that a woman is supposed to look like if she looks like a teen boy

Falls into the I don't know category.

 
 
 
CB
3.1.94  CB   replied to  epistte @3.1.92    4 months ago

Maybe I can help out with the thought-process on this one:

tumblr_lks6hnALKX1qfm9c9o1_500.jpg '

This image hails from the "child-bearing hips" category.

 
 
 
epistte
3.1.95  epistte  replied to  CB @3.1.94    4 months ago

That is cartoonish.  I would never want those hips or thighs.

 
 
 
CB
3.1.96  CB   replied to  epistte @3.1.95    4 months ago

The ah expression goes, "More cushion for the pushin'." (I do understand your point of view, epistte.)

 
 
 
katrix
3.1.97  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.39    4 months ago
And many happily married men don't want to support their wives, they want their wives to contribute financially for the benefit of the family.Not my idea of a man

A real man is secure enough to handle an equal partner.  Besides, many women would go insane if they had to suppress their intelligence and devote their lives to catering to a man.  I have better things to do than play mommy to a grown man.

And apparently while you're busy resenting the "independent divas" it doesn't occur to  you that uneducated women enjoy sex just as much as educated women, so blaming the "divas" for making it impossible for uneducated women to find old-fashioned, backward men with warped attitudes about relationships is ridiculous.

 
 
 
epistte
3.1.98  epistte  replied to  katrix @3.1.97    4 months ago
A real man is secure enough to handle an equal partner.  Besides, many women would go insane if they had to suppress their intelligence and devote their lives to catering to a man.  I have better things to do than play mommy to a grown man.

I agree with you 100%.

And apparently while you're busy resenting the "independent divas" it doesn't occur to  you that uneducated women enjoy sex just as much as educated women, so blaming the "divas" for making it impossible for uneducated women to find old-fashioned, backward men with warped attitudes about relationships is ridiculous.

I cannot imagine why anyone would want a man with warped attitudes about sex and relationships, but I'm sure that there are more than a few out there. I can only suggest that they find a conservative church picnic where they might congregate.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.99  sandy-2021492  replied to  katrix @3.1.97    4 months ago

I took 6 weeks off if work when I had my son, and damn near went stir-crazy.  I'm not domestic.  Never have been.  I see no reason to spend my life trying to force myself to be what I'm not, especially when it would leave me financially vulnerable. 

 
 
 
katrix
3.1.100  katrix  replied to  epistte @3.1.98    4 months ago

I honestly can't imagine marrying someone I hadn't had sex with.  It's too important to me - you need to make sure you're compatible in that area just as much as in other areas.

 
 
 
epistte
3.1.101  epistte  replied to  katrix @3.1.100    4 months ago
I honestly can't imagine marrying someone I hadn't had sex with.  It's too important to me - you need to make sure you're compatible in that area just as much as in other areas.

I absolutely agree. I am not ashamed to say that I like sex.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4  sandy-2021492    4 months ago
Fifth, men are not trying to control, oppress, blame or objectify women by hoping they would dress modestly at church.

If you tell a woman what and what not to wear, you're trying to control her, whether you're a man or a woman yourself.

This mother sounds like a nightmare future mother-in-law.

Men have no desire to control, shame or blame women for their choice of wardrobe. Men are not holding women responsible for male chastity. Nor are they casting women in the role of temptress or telling them to be ashamed of their bodies.

Almost every other word of this article shows this to be bullshit.

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
4.1  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4    4 months ago

In Biblical times, women were not allowed to attend the Temple. Churches and Religions are relics of the past.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
4.1.1  dave-2693993  replied to  Eat The Press Do Not Read It @4.1    4 months ago
In Biblical times, women were not allowed to attend the Temple

Not true. They participated in the outer courtyard.

 
 
 
nightwalker
5  nightwalker    4 months ago

Simple to fix. Don't let any female under 50 or not wearing a circus tent in your church. churches can afford to turn younger members away. Did the woman and sons HAVE to sit or stay sitting right behind those girls?

I've been in church, you are allowed to move and even change pews.

I wish the best for this woman and her sons, and hope they never again have to be exposed to any attractive women anywhere. Just so I can keep looking.

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1  Tacos!  replied to  nightwalker @5    4 months ago

So, is it cool if men start going to church dressed like this?

51e6eQbLEML._SY355_.jpg

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
5.1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tacos! @5.1    4 months ago

Maybe I'll start going to church if that's what's walking thru the door these days

 
 
 
katrix
5.1.2  katrix  replied to  Tacos! @5.1    4 months ago

We'd need a front view to make that determination.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
5.1.3  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Tacos! @5.1    4 months ago

When did Kavika shave his head?

 
 
 
r.t..b...
5.1.4  r.t..b...  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.1.1    4 months ago
Maybe I'll start going to church if that's what's walking thru the door these days

Requiring a 'pound of flesh' so to speak.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
5.1.5  Raven Wing  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @5.1.3    4 months ago
When did Kavika shave his head?

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
pat wilson
5.1.6  pat wilson  replied to  Tacos! @5.1    4 months ago

Oh my ! I may be returning to the flock !

 
 
 
evilgenius
6  evilgenius    4 months ago
First, men don’t choose to have sexual thoughts...

Perhaps, but they can chose their words and actions.

Second, most Christian men really do want to see women as people and not merely bodies. But society makes this very difficult for us.

Oh, so men acting like leg humping dogs is societies fault?

If a man has lustful thoughts toward a woman, it’s 100% the man’s fault. It’s up to men to control their thoughts.

Make up your mind. This third point contradicts the first point.

Fourth, men can control their desires. Women don’t have to do it for them. 

I don't even know what this fucking means. Are not desires thoughts & ideas? 

Fifth, men are not trying to control, oppress, blame or objectify women by hoping they would dress modestly at church.

Yes, they kind of are.

Sixth, no one is blaming the victim. 

Denying it happens all too often isn't helping the problem. 

To illustrate this, here’s the story of two roommates, Juanita and Rebecca...

An illustration making men again out to be driven by impulses they can't control? It's clear the author is trying to rationalize men's behavior and put all the onus on the women. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.1  Tacos!  replied to  evilgenius @6    4 months ago
so men acting like leg humping dogs

This is the extreme reaction the writer referred to. It's unfair. No one is trying to justify humping anyone's leg.

An illustration making men again out to be driven by impulses they can't control?

How are you going to "control" an autonomic physiological response to stimuli?

It's clear the author is trying to rationalize men's behavior and put all the onus on the women. 

There's actually nothing in there about rationalizing any male behavior.

 
 
 
epistte
6.1.1  epistte  replied to  Tacos! @6.1    4 months ago
How are you going to "control" an autonomic physiological response to stimuli?

Just because you have a biological reaction doesn't mean that you are required to act on it. Please learn to control yourself.

There's actually nothing in there about rationalizing any male behavior.

You are trying to defend your inability to control yourself.

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.1.2  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @6.1.1    4 months ago
Just because you have a biological reaction doesn't mean that you are required to act on it. Please learn to control yourself.

I didn't say anything about acting on it and neither has anyone else. Please read the seed before commenting. That distinction is a key point in the article.

You are trying to defend your inability to control yourself.

I have done any such thing. Please try reading both the article and the comments before posting.

 
 
 
evilgenius
6.1.3  evilgenius  replied to  Tacos! @6.1    4 months ago
There's actually nothing in there about rationalizing any male behavior.

Putting the onus on the woman for the reaction of men to how she's dressed is exactly rationalizing poor male behavior. This article is only trying to be polite on the surface, but underneath is the normalization of victim blaming.

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.1.4  Tacos!  replied to  evilgenius @6.1.3    4 months ago
Putting the onus on the woman for the reaction of men

And what's wrong with that? We put the onus for the reaction of women on men all the time. We see story after story about toxic masculinity, mansplaining, and other nonsense. These stories are never about action taken against women. They're all about how men make women feel. We're supposed to care about that and change the things we say and do, but apparently women are free to not give a shit about how their behavior makes men feel.

rationalizing poor male behavior

What "behavior" are you talking about? There's nothing in this article about behavior.

This article is only trying to be polite on the surface, but underneath is the normalization of victim blaming.

Oh! Well, if we want to talk about what's "underneath," we can invent anything that enters our imagination, can't we? Suppose we just assess the article for what it actually says and not what you imagine it could mean? Otherwise, we can freely go down any rabbit hole you choose.

victim blaming

There's no victim to blame in this article. See above.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
6.1.5  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.4    4 months ago
but apparently women are free to not give a shit about how their behavior makes men feel.

What behavior do women exhibit that make men feel shame, weak, terrified, terrorized, exhausted, and bored?

 
 
 
evilgenius
6.1.6  evilgenius  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.4    4 months ago
And what's wrong with that?

I don't know about you, but I take responsibility for my own actions and taught my son the same.

We see story after story about toxic masculinity, mansplaining, and other nonsense...They're all about how men make women feel. 

It's interesting, but predictable. Toxic masculinity is NOT how men make women feel by simply wearing tight pants in public.

We're supposed to care about that and change the things we say and do...

Why is polite and respectful so difficult? 

....if we want to talk about what's "underneath," we can invent anything that enters our imagination, can't we?

You can pretend we aren't talking about the objectification of women all you want. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.1.7  Tacos!  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1.5    4 months ago
What behavior do women exhibit that make men feel shame, weak, terrified, terrorized, exhausted

For starters, the reaction to articles like this seed, where men are asking women to simply dress a little more modestly in church and they are being treated as if they are trying to justify rape.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
6.1.8  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  evilgenius @6.1.6    4 months ago

There is nothing toxic about masculinity. There are good people and bad people of both genders. I've raised two sons and taught them that masculinity comes with responsibility and that's why we have brains.

Masculinity is a positive attribute in society.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6.1.9  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.7    4 months ago
... like this seed, where men are asking women to simply dress a little more modestly in church...

I didn't see that when I seeded... and having just now re-read the article, I still don't. I see

Men have no desire to control, shame or blame women for their choice of wardrobe.
 
 
 
Trout Giggles
6.1.10  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.7    4 months ago
where men are asking women to simply dress a little more modestly in church

But it wasn't a man in this article asking women to dress modestly....it was a woman

So....any answer to my question?

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.1.11  Tacos!  replied to  evilgenius @6.1.6    4 months ago
Why is polite and respectful so difficult?

Yes! Why IS it so difficult to respond politely and respectfully to men trying to talk about how the behavior of some women makes them feel? Why is the response that men are just trying to justify outrageous behavior of their own when no such behavior has even been referenced? How is that polite or respectful?

the objectification of women

You reference that vaguely as if it's some thing that only evil men do. A certain amount of objectification is natural for men. As I have said already elsewhere here, it's not the end or limit of a male/female relationship, but it is a biological fact that men are attracted to what they see more than women are.

The Triggers of Sexual Desire: Men vs. Women

“Men’s greater sex drive may be partially due to the fact that their sexual motivation pathways have more connections to the subcortical reward system than in women.” [Or, in short] “men’s brains are designed to objectify females.”

No one is trying to justify rape or sexual harassment. All I am suggesting (like this author) is that women be a little bit sensitive to this biological/physiological reality in certain situations. That, to me, would be "polite and respectful." 

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.1.12  Tacos!  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1.10    4 months ago
it was a woman

True. Nice to see a woman care about what's going on with the men around her. I don't see how that changes the importance of what she's saying. As I said, the female behavior is referenced in the article and in the reaction we see to this article.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
6.1.13  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.12    4 months ago

So...again...how do women make men feel threatened?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
6.1.14  Trout Giggles  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @6.1.8    4 months ago

I would like an example of toxic femininity

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
6.1.15  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1.14    4 months ago

https://medium.com/@CleoJ/yes-there-is-a-toxic-femininity-9f9afaef0587

I personally find these blanket labels created by the new breed of social revolutionary to be demeaning and unnecessary. Some people are just assholes and deserve to be labeled as such.

As it relates to this article, women don't need anyone's permission to dress how they choose. People that want to control other people are assholes. Someone's fashion chose does not cause other people to behave in any particular way. We all make our own choices, to blame someone else's choice doesn't fly.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.16  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1.13    4 months ago

No answers, just twisting, twisting, twisting.

Got some mustard for that pretzel?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.17  Jack_TX  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1.14    4 months ago
I would like an example of toxic femininity

Like someone getting her knickers in a knot over hot girls wearing leggings in front of her sons and writing the college newspaper about it?  You mean like that?

Or how about the 90+% of America's "shaming" that women are responsible for?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
6.1.18  Trout Giggles  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.17    4 months ago

No...I don't think that's quite it.

Toxic masculinity affects women. Its opposite....toxic femininity affects men. I need an example.

Your examples are just Mean Girls.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6.1.19  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @6.1.15    4 months ago

Everyone should follow and read Bf's link

https://medium.com/@CleoJ/yes-there-is-a-toxic-femininity-9f9afaef0587

It is...  ...  ... interesting ...   jrSmiley_30_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.20  Tessylo  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.17    4 months ago
'Or how about the 90+% of America's "shaming" that women are responsible for?'

Maybe I'm dense but what does this mean?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6.1.21  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.20    4 months ago

It's a number for which I'm sure Jack will be happy to supply a link...

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.22  Jack_TX  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1.18    4 months ago
No...I don't think that's quite it. Toxic masculinity affects women. Its opposite....toxic femininity affects men.

Why would you presume either of those to be the case?  Why would "toxic" masculinity not affect men, and why would "toxic femininity" not affect women?   

Your examples are just Mean Girls.

Yes.  Toxic femininity.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.23  Tessylo  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.22    4 months ago

No answer.  Not surprised.  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
6.1.24  Trout Giggles  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.22    4 months ago

Ok, then....what aspect of toxic masculinity affects you?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6.1.25  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1.24    4 months ago
... what aspect of toxic masculinity affects you?

The Reply should be interesting...

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
6.1.26  Trout Giggles  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.1.25    4 months ago

If I get one....

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6.1.27  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1.26    4 months ago

     jrSmiley_22_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.28  Jack_TX  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.20    4 months ago
Maybe I'm dense but what does this mean?

"Shaming" is all about controlling other people by manipulating their emotions. 

Men don't generally use "shame" as a means of control.  

Generally speaking, we don't "shame" fat girls, we ignore them.  We don't "shame" scantily clad women, we enjoy the view...yes, even in church.  We don't "shame" promiscuous women because we don't actually want a world with less sex in it.  We don't "shame" women who drink because the more they drink the better we look and the more the other shaming wears off.  

We don't try to "shame" each other because it almost never works.

A small number of men engage in "shaming".  They are usually members of the great shaming institutions, like churches, and the driving force behind all churches are middle-aged and old women, who account for the majority of both attendance and activity.  The other great shaming institutions include political groups, where the shaming is driven by young women and co-opted by the young men who want to sleep with them so they go along.

The lady in this article is trying to use shame as a tool for hanging on to her boys and not having somebody else become the most important woman in their lives.  It's such a mom stereotype they make commercials about it.

Intellectually, she knows the day will come when some other woman will steal her little boy away from her.  It's the inevitable and natural course of life.   Emotionally, she's dreading that day, and if she can just get every young woman in America to stop dressing like a tart/hussie/floozie/*insert your favorite shaming phrase here*....she can postpone it a little longer. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.29  Jack_TX  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1.24    4 months ago
Ok, then....what aspect of toxic masculinity affects you?

The idea that it only impacts women is a bit strange.  I'm just curious though, were you thinking that ALL of the violence committed as part of "toxic masculinity" was directed at women?   You don't think guys get their asses kicked?  You don't suspect guys change behavior to avoid getting their asses kicked?  You don't imagine lots of guys get intimidated in those situations?

The first idea many people miss is that men aren't really even allowed to talk about how they're impacted without being told to "turn in their man card", so I guess it follows women might not have any idea about what they're going through.

That said, it affects friends of mine more than me personally.  I'm 6'4", 210 lbs, I lift weights, and I was a coach for 27 years.  I'm a large, confident guy who has spent years bossing around athletes, who tend to be other large, confident guys.  Even utter neanderthals recognize I'm not really somebody they want to bother.

But as an example, one of the guys who works for me is 5'8" and 140lbs.  He's straight, but a bit artistic.  When we've been out at restaurants or happy hours other places together, I've overheard people say things to him and treat him like shit....until they realize he's with me....at which point it's remarkable how quickly attitudes and tones of voice change.  He knows it's happening, I know it's happening, and I've seen him physically shaking a time or two.  But he can't change it and he talk about that to anybody.

I have gay friends who've been beaten up.  I other friends who've been bullied in public.  Guys aren't really allowed to complain about that, or they have to turn in their "man card".   You're supposed to "not let it happen" or "do something about it".  

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.30  Tessylo  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.28    4 months ago

So because this one woman does this 90+% of women do the same thing?

Nonsense

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
6.1.31  sandy-2021492  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.11    4 months ago

The difference between mansplaining and a woman's wardrobe is the object. Mansplaining is done TO women.  A woman isn't choosing her wardrobe to belittle men.  Multiple women here have said they wear leggings because they're comfortable, not to torment or belittle men.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
6.1.32  sandy-2021492  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.29    4 months ago

I'm going to agree with you about toxic masculinity affecting men, too.  I'd use as an example the derision faced by stay-at-home dads.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6.1.33  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6.1.32    4 months ago

I bumped into an article on "toxic masculinity" this afternoon. (It's 5h30 pm right now.)

I'll seed it tomorrow - I've already seeded five today.

 
 
 
evilgenius
6.1.34  evilgenius  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @6.1.8    4 months ago
There is nothing toxic about masculinity.

Never said their was. I wasn't the one that brought it up.

 
 
 
evilgenius
6.1.35  evilgenius  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.11    4 months ago
You reference that vaguely as if it's some thing that only evil men do. A certain amount of objectification is natural for men. As I have said already elsewhere here, it's not the end or limit of a male/female relationship, but it is a biological fact that men are attracted to what they see more than women are.

Below is the standard definition of "Objectification". Degrading, or demeaning, a woman to a mere thing is not a good idea. It isn't a good basis of any healthy relationship. My girlfriend/mother/sister/daughter is NOT a thing! They are not objects to set on a pedestal to be admired, traded or possessed. They complete persons with thoughts, ideas and feelings of there own. When one reduces another to an object it is the first step in what all too often does end in evil. 

ob·jec·ti·fi·ca·tion
/əbˌjektəfəˈkāSH(ə)n/
  1. 1.
    the action of degrading someone to the status of a mere object.
    "the objectification of women in popular entertainment"
 
 
 
Tacos!
6.1.36  Tacos!  replied to  evilgenius @6.1.35    4 months ago

Have you not heard of "love at first sight?"

They are not objects to set on a pedestal to be admired, traded or possessed.

OK. Then there is no reason to worry about how we look. No reason to be concerned about fit bodies, fashion choices, hair styles or makeup. And yet . . . people are.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.37  Gordy327  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.36    4 months ago
Have you not heard of "love at first sight?"

That's more like "lust" at first sight. It's an immediate hormonal response, mostly from elevated testosterone levels. Oxytocin release, among other hormones, leads to feelings of love.

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.1.38  Tacos!  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.37    4 months ago
That's more like "lust" at first sight.

And that's sort of the point.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.39  Gordy327  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.38    4 months ago

Nothing wrong with lust.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.40  Jack_TX  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.30    4 months ago
So because this one woman does this 90+% of women do the same thing? Nonsense

Do at least attempt to follow along, won't you?

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.41  Tessylo  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.40    4 months ago

jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
evilgenius
6.1.42  evilgenius  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.36    3 months ago
Have you not heard of "love at first sight?"

Attraction and objectification are two different things. 

OK. Then there is no reason to worry about how we look. No reason to be concerned about fit bodies, fashion choices, hair styles or makeup. And yet . . . people are.

I really don't get why you equate physical attraction, which we have little control over, with attitude which we do have control... Frankly it's weird.

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.1.43  Tacos!  replied to  evilgenius @6.1.42    3 months ago
I really don't get why you equate physical attraction, which we have little control over, with attitude which we do have control

I'm not. I didn't do that. I didn't say anything about long term relationships or attitudes.

Everything about this seed is the first moments when we see a person. On the one hand, we have a voice saying "hey, let's give the men in church a break and dial back the sex appeal a little" but the responses are "you're condoning rape" and "why can't men control themselves?" So, I'm not the one equating a moment of physical attraction and distraction with something more. That's coming from the other side.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7  JohnRussell    4 months ago

I can see this discussion is not going to center on the appropriateness of clothes for church or other occasions. The writer probably should have stayed in that realm rather than make excuses for all of men's paying attention to women's appearance. The real question is if there is anything wrong with men noticing women who look sexy. I dont think so, but you also have to keep it to yourself , usually.  

 
 
 
katrix
7.1  katrix  replied to  JohnRussell @7    4 months ago

I would agree that at churches, funerals, etc. people should not be wearing sexy clothes - whether it's a woman in skin tight leggings or a man in a muscle shirt.  It's just common courtesy. 

We need a petition against construction workers - they need to start wearing loose, long sleeved shirts.  Because a construction worker with great arm and back muscles always catches my eye, and it's not fair for them to tempt me like that.

 
 
 
epistte
7.1.1  epistte  replied to  katrix @7.1    4 months ago
We need a petition against construction workers - they need to start wearing loose, long sleeved shirts.  Because a construction worker with great arm and back muscles always catches my eye, and it's not fair for them to tempt me like that.

I like guys in Carhartt bibs. Or the UPS guy.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
7.1.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  epistte @7.1.1    4 months ago

My heart stops when I see a Marine in his dress blues.

 
 
 
epistte
7.1.3  epistte  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.1.2    4 months ago
My heart stops when I see a Marine in his dress blues.

I never got that. I like them in their khaki Class Ds instead of the formal dress uniform.

 I also like guys in nice jeans and ironed white shirt with the cuffs rolled up instead of a suit or a tux.

 Guys in a Nomex firesuit tied around the waist get my attention. That and cyclists in very sweaty and shiny spandex(Tour De France) YUMMMMM!

British, French, or Australian accents also work for me. 

 
 
 
Veronica
7.1.4  Veronica  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.1.2    4 months ago

Pitter Patter goes my heart - those dress blues....

 
 
 
Veronica
7.1.5  Veronica  replied to  epistte @7.1.3    4 months ago
nice jeans

My husband could always fill out the butt of  a pair of black levis - YUM 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
7.2  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  JohnRussell @7    4 months ago

As I read the seed, "men's paying attention to women's appearance" is the article's topic. Church is just an exacerbated case.

The real question is if there is anything wrong with men noticing women who look sexy. I dont think so, but you also have to keep it to yourself , usually.

Yup. It's not simple. If you don't compliment a woman... you're callous. If you do compliment her...  ... there are other risks...

 
 
 
evilgenius
7.2.1  evilgenius  replied to  Bob Nelson @7.2    4 months ago
If you don't compliment a woman... you're callous

Really? I don't find this to be true except with my girlfriend. A very different dynamic than say a co-worker or the young lady at the coffee shop.

If you do compliment her...  ... there are other risks...

There's less risk when saying, "You look nice today." than "Nice ass!" 

Less risk in saying, "That top looks great on you." than "You are hot!"

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.2.2  Tacos!  replied to  evilgenius @7.2.1    4 months ago
"You look nice today."

This has been cited as harassment.

Less risk in saying, "That top looks great on you."

I would never say that to someone I didn't know or even to a female I worked with. No way. You are just asking for a complaint if you do.

 
 
 
katrix
7.2.3  katrix  replied to  Tacos! @7.2.2    4 months ago

I'll compliment people I work with (male or female), and a guy at work might tell me he likes my dress.  So might a woman.   I'm fine with that.  One guy had on a really cool shirt the other day and I told him I liked it. 

If I'm out with friends and a woman I don't know walks by, I might compliment her clothes, but if it's a man I don't know, I don't.  Unless it's shoes - one guy had Washington Capitals sneakers on and I just had to compliment them.  Shoes seem safe.

The best compliment isn't "that top looks good on you" but rather "you make that top look good."  Try the difference out on your wife and see!

As far as "you look nice today" - watch out.  I knew one person who was so messed up that she accused the person of implying that normally she doesn't look nice, but today she happened to look nice.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
7.2.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  katrix @7.2.3    4 months ago

I could take something like that the wrong way depending on my mood.

I once had a woman tell me my make-up looked good that day. Since I rarely wear make-up I wasn't sure how to take it so I just said thanks and went about my business.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
7.2.5  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Tacos! @7.2.2    4 months ago
Less risk in saying, "That top looks great on you."  
I would never say that to someone I didn't know or even to a female I worked with.

Here's the crux! We really do not know what's unacceptable, acceptable, welcome, desired, ...

 
 
 
mocowgirl
7.2.6  mocowgirl  replied to  Bob Nelson @7.2.5    4 months ago
Here's the crux! We really do not know what's unacceptable, acceptable, welcome, desired, ...

1.  How about understanding that women are individuals with individual personalties?  What would bother one woman won't faze another. 

2.  Unless you KNOW the individual well enough to comment on their appearance - DON'T.  

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
7.2.7  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  mocowgirl @7.2.6    4 months ago

Why are you shouting?

 
 
 
mocowgirl
7.2.8  mocowgirl  replied to  mocowgirl @7.2.6    4 months ago
2.  Unless you KNOW the individual well enough to comment on their appearance - DON'T.  

To do everything that I can to clear up the confusion that some males have about what is acceptable.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
7.2.9  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  mocowgirl @7.2.8    4 months ago

Do you think that shouting makes it easier to understand you?

 
 
 
evilgenius
7.2.10  evilgenius  replied to  Tacos! @7.2.2    4 months ago
This has been cited as harassment.

You'll have to link me to a particular case. That comment on it's own cannot be construed in any way shape or form as harassment. 

I would never say that to someone I didn't know or even to a female I worked with. No way. You are just asking for a complaint if you do.

I have said it dozens of times to co-workers. I've also said, "I like your blouse/shirt/shoes/pants/tattoo/hair" to any number of random women. 

 
 
 
mocowgirl
7.2.11  mocowgirl  replied to  Bob Nelson @7.2.9    4 months ago
Do you think that shouting makes it easier to understand you?

Like most things in life, it is an individual thing.  Make of it what you will and allow others to do the same.  Most people realize that other people's lives do not revolve around them.  

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
7.2.12  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  mocowgirl @7.2.11    4 months ago
Most people realize that other people's lives do not revolve around them.

I certainly do. For example, I would never shout at someone in an initial contact unless I had a good reason - good enough to be explained in public.

 
 
 
MrFrost
7.2.13  MrFrost  replied to  Bob Nelson @7.2.9    4 months ago
Do you think that shouting makes it easier to understand you?

Bob, go have a cup of coffee and relax. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
7.2.14  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  MrFrost @7.2.13    4 months ago
Bob, go have a cup of coffee and relax.

I don't need to relax. I'm not upset.

Don't tell me what to do!

     jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.2.15  Tacos!  replied to  evilgenius @7.2.10    4 months ago
You'll have to link me to a particular case. That comment on it's own cannot be construed in any way shape or form as harassment. 

I don't know what you mean by "on its own." There will always be context for something. For some people in certain settings, those words would be enough.

‘Complimenting’ Women At Work Is Sexual Harassment

“That dress looks great on you,” another male coworker told me one day as he stepped into the lift – his eyes scanning up and down my body. Yet again, I found myself smiling through gritted teeth, silently praying I could materialise and be somewhere,  anywhere,  but in that seven-foot-square box.

I'm not saying you have to agree with it, but the threat of losing your job over what you thought was an innocuous human interaction is real.

 
 
 
CB
7.2.16  CB   replied to  evilgenius @7.2.10    4 months ago
I have said it dozens of times to co-workers. I've also said, "I like your blouse/shirt/shoes/pants/tattoo/hair" to any number of random women. 

Me too. I can be civil, say it, accept a comment in reply, and move on.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
8  seeder  Bob Nelson    4 months ago

Two things...

First, the author is a man. Several Comments seem to think it's a woman.

Second, I think the article must be read with nuance. For example:

First, men don’t choose to have sexual thoughts...  
Perhaps, but they can chose their words and actions.

The author obviously agrees:

Fourth, men can control their desires. Women don’t have to do it for them. Truth is, men control their desires every day. Every hour of every day. From the time they wake up to the time they go to sleep.

The situation is crazily contradictory.

Female beauty is everywhere: on TV, in the press, on the Internet. Advertising presses women to be beautiful and presses men to take note. The reward for conforming to these pressures, according to the same sources, is a fantastic sex life!

But then... mustn't touch... mustn't say anything out of line...

Our species is kinda odd, sexually. Among large mammals, we're quite dimophic. We're in heat all the time.

It's complicated.... jrSmiley_26_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
evilgenius
8.1  evilgenius  replied to  Bob Nelson @8    4 months ago
It's complicated....

Yes. It's complicated, but (as a straight middle aged white man) I vehemently don't agree that men can't control their impulses. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.1.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  evilgenius @8.1    4 months ago
I vehemently don't agree that men can't control their impulses. 

I agree, but they can't help their thoughts which have been biologically put there by evolution. 

so...

If the purpose of church is to be spiritual, then leggings defeats that purpose. The guy behind you is busy looking at your butt. Sorry ladies, but I kind of get this. Time and place counts. 

 
 
 
epistte
8.1.2  epistte  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.1.1    4 months ago
If the purpose of church is to be spiritual, then leggings defeats that purpose. The guy behind you is busy looking at your butt. Sorry ladies, but I kind of get this. Time and place counts. 

Leggings, especially the pleather leggings in the picture are for evening or personal time. 

Religious services or work environments deserve pants or a knee length skirt and a blazer. 

 
 
 
katrix
8.1.3  katrix  replied to  epistte @8.1.2    4 months ago
Religious services or work environments deserve pants or a knee length skirt and a blazer

I don't do skirts and blazers.  I wear dresses instead.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
8.1.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  katrix @8.1.3    4 months ago

When I have to do a hearing, I have a suit I like to wear. It looks more professional to me than a dress. Of course, the men only have to wear a tie.

 
 
 
evilgenius
8.1.5  evilgenius  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.1.1    4 months ago
If the purpose of church is to be spiritual, then leggings defeats that purpose.

I've been thinking on just this point. It seems to me (and I can only speak for me here) why would one really need to change their behavior (and dress in this case) for church? Why should church be anymore spiritual than anywhere else for a religious person? Is not the God of Abraham all knowing and all seeing? If He does not approve of leggings in Church then why would He approve of leggings at Starbucks? I'm again struck by they seeming hypocrisy of human nature and I find it fascinating and bewildering at the same time.

 
 
 
katrix
8.1.6  katrix  replied to  evilgenius @8.1.5    4 months ago
I'm again struck by they seeming hypocrisy of human nature and I find it fascinating and bewildering at the same time.

I think it's just a matter of respect for your fellow people, not because any god would care what you wore.  Certain occasions deserve more formal attire IMO.

 
 
 
evilgenius
8.1.7  evilgenius  replied to  Trout Giggles @8.1.4    4 months ago
When I have to do a hearing, I have a suit I like to wear. It looks more professional to me than a dress. Of course, the men only have to wear a tie.

I was told by clients that I couldn't wear t-shirts and jeans in the office and that I should wear "business casual" dress shirt and khakis. I often have to crawl around under desks and move dusty, dirty computer components. I still wear jeans, but most often now wear a polo shirt with my business logo as a compromise.  

 
 
 
evilgenius
8.1.8  evilgenius  replied to  katrix @8.1.6    4 months ago
I think it's just a matter of respect for your fellow people...

I don't really get it. So it's not a woman's fault that all men are dogs, but they should still be respectful and not dress too sexy anyway? And leggings are too sexy? 

Devil's advocate aside; I understand I shouldn't wear a clown suite to wedding. There are levels of taste, but I who's to say what those are for other people. Personally I can only judge for myself what I think is appropriate for me. I don't wear skinny jeans - I don't like how they look (on anyone) so I don't wear them and try not to judge those guys that do. That's just me...

 
 
 
Raven Wing
8.1.9  Raven Wing  replied to  Trout Giggles @8.1.4    4 months ago
Of course, the men only have to wear a tie.

I can understand why most in the room would not be paying as much attention to the hearing as to the men in the room.

jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
8.1.10  Trout Giggles  replied to  Raven Wing @8.1.9    4 months ago

LOL!

Took me a minute....but ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bad choice of words

 
 
 
mocowgirl
8.1.11  mocowgirl  replied to  Trout Giggles @8.1.10    4 months ago
Bad choice of words

Nah!  Brightened my day.  Thank you.  jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
CB
8.1.12  CB   replied to  evilgenius @8.1.5    4 months ago

It's a designation and a destination. Tradition holds that houses of worship are reserved for being "set apart." One would no more undress oneself or copulate or 'spoil' the location, because it is another's (and the many) destination. This holds even for outside temples, mosques, or civil establishes. One should not labor to defeat the purpose for which the building was intended. That would be considered bad form.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
8.1.13  Trout Giggles  replied to  mocowgirl @8.1.11    4 months ago

You're welcome

 
 
 
evilgenius
8.1.14  evilgenius  replied to  CB @8.1.12    4 months ago
Tradition holds...

CB, that is the laziest excuse to continue doing something.

One would no more undress oneself or copulate or 'spoil' the location...

There have been plenty of splinter sects of the Christian religion that have AND DO just that. They aren't main stream and they aren't widely excepted but it does happen. 

One should not labor to defeat the purpose for which the building was intended. That would be considered bad form.

Why does the manner in which I dress have any bearing on the purpose for which the building was intended? Especially in the context this article where we're just talking about seeing the shape of woman's backside, I fail to see how it's relevant except for the prudery of some church goers.

 
 
 
MrFrost
8.1.15  MrFrost  replied to  Trout Giggles @8.1.4    4 months ago
Of course, the men only have to wear a tie.

I have an exceptionally long tie for just such occasions. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
8.1.16  Trout Giggles  replied to  MrFrost @8.1.15    4 months ago

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
8.1.17  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  MrFrost @8.1.15    4 months ago

You mean a fupa extension?

 
 
 
CB
8.1.18  CB   replied to  evilgenius @8.1.14    4 months ago
in the context this article where we're just talking about seeing the shape of woman's backside

Are we JUST talking about the shape of a woman's backside, Eg? Really? Or, should we talk like 'down and dirty' because we simply can't 'catch' what's at stake here? Even NT has standards against gratuitous vulgarity for its own sake. Why can't a religious sanctuary simply be a 'temple for a person's mind and spirit?

We, you, have the rest of the whole world (outside the church) and a clock for of time to be 'just so' in. But, not to worry: EG, the "sects" can play by their own set of rules. Right? Fixed it!

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
8.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  Bob Nelson @8    4 months ago
First, the author is a man. Several Comments seem to think it's a woman.

It's an article written by a man, in agreement with a statement written by a woman.  I object to both.

As others have said, it puts the onus for upholding men's emotional comfort on women.  Women they might not even know.  Men aren't owed that.  No woman is obligated to tailor her attire to satisfy random men on the street who might feel guilty if they glance at her ass (or cleavage, or whatever).  Women are responsible for their clothing choices, not for male reactions to them.  If a man can't behave respectfully toward a woman who is wearing leggings, he'd better stay away from the beach, or pretty much any warm area during summer, when shorts and tank tops abound.

Women who wear leggings (or other revealing clothing) are well aware that men will look.  So there is no need, other than an overdeveloped sense of prudery, to feel guilty for looking at a woman.  Women look at men, too.  Just recognize that the fact that a woman is attractive and is wearing clothing to enhance that attractiveness is not an invitation to all who look to act on their attraction.  I certainly don't think every man with nice pecs and a tight t-shirt is inviting me to comment on or touch his pecs.  I just enjoy the view and go on with my life.  Men can do the same.  It's neither difficult nor complicated.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
8.2.1  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  sandy-2021492 @8.2    4 months ago
... there is no need, other than an overdeveloped sense of prudery, to feel guilty for looking at a woman.  Women look at men, too.

If only everyone could agree with that... and relax with it... jrSmiley_34_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
katrix
8.2.2  katrix  replied to  sandy-2021492 @8.2    4 months ago

Very well said. 

 
 
 
mocowgirl
8.2.3  mocowgirl  replied to  sandy-2021492 @8.2    4 months ago
Women who wear leggings (or other revealing clothing) are well aware that men will look.  So there is no need, other than an overdeveloped sense of prudery, to feel guilty for looking at a woman.  Women look at men, too.  Just recognize that the fact that a woman is attractive and is wearing clothing to enhance that attractiveness is not an invitation to all who look to act on their attraction.  I certainly don't think every man with nice pecs and a tight t-shirt is inviting me to comment on or touch his pecs.  I just enjoy the view and go on with my life.  Men can do the same.  It's neither difficult nor complicated.

Nailed it!!!!!

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
8.2.4  sandy-2021492  replied to  katrix @8.2.2    4 months ago

Thank you.  And thanks, mocowgirl.

 
 
 
Tacos!
8.3  Tacos!  replied to  Bob Nelson @8    4 months ago
mustn't touch... mustn't say anything out of line

I think most men who have been raised to be civilized gentlemen know you don't just touch or grab a woman in certain ways or say certain things. There is a collection of behaviors most of us would agree are appropriate or inappropriate.

Unfortunately, the lines don't always make sense anymore. Women go to an effort to look attractive that men do not. Logically, this effort is for the benefit of everyone who will see that effort. But sometimes if you merely acknowledge the success of that effort - no matter how politely - it's sexual harassment.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
8.3.1  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Tacos! @8.3    4 months ago

That’s how it seems to me.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
8.3.2  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Tacos! @8.3    4 months ago

In the workplace, you basically have to ignore their provocations and remain silent on anything related to appearance.  It will save you a lot of problems.  Among friends, shouldn't be an issue unless you're hitting on someone across natural boundaries.  Family has its own natural protocol.  Which leaves us with the public domain.   Those situations are highly contextual and can certainly change significantly depending on the players and where you are at the time.

e.g.  Pussygrabbing by a rich celebrity among a group of hypergamous exhibitionists.

Don't expect them to admit it though.  They'll maintain all pretenses accorded to them.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
8.3.3  mocowgirl  replied to  Freedom Warrior @8.3.2    4 months ago
hypergamous exhibitionists.

I had to google because I did not know the definition of hypergamous.  

I did find that studies are showing that as countries become more gender equal there is less "gold digging".  In a gender equal society, women have the same education, occupation and financial opportunities as men.  

Gender equality is beneficial to everyone with the possible exception of men who feel the need to buy, own, control and/or feel superior to the female gender.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergamy

Hypergamy   (colloquially referred to as " marrying up " or " gold-digging ", occasionally referred to as "higher-gamy" [ citation needed ] ) is a term used in   social science   for the act or practice of a person marrying a spouse of higher   caste   or   social status   than themselves. The term does not always need to imply marriage, nor does it need to be restricted to social status, but rather, can be implied to several categories which could be deemed hierarchical, such as higher physical or sexual attractiveness.

The antonym " hypogamy " [1]   refers to the inverse: marrying a person of lower social class or status (colloquially " marrying down "). Both terms were coined in the   Indian subcontinent   in the 19th century while translating classical   Hindu law   books, which used the   Sanskrit   terms   anuloma   and   pratiloma , respectively, for the two concepts. [2]

Mating preferences [ edit ]

Studies of   mate selection   in dozens of countries around the world have found men and women report prioritizing different traits when it comes to choosing a mate, with men tending to prefer women who are young and attractive and women tending to prefer men who are rich, well-educated, ambitious, and attractive. [7]   Evolutionary psychologists   contend this is an inherent sex difference arising out of   sexual selection , with men driven to seek women who will give birth to healthy babies and women driven to seek men who will be able to provide the necessary resources for the family's survival. [ citation needed ]

Social learning theorists , however, say women value men with high earning capacity because women's own ability to earn is constrained by their disadvantaged status in a male-dominated society. [ citation needed ]   They argue that as societies shift towards becoming more gender-equal, women's mate selection preferences will shift as well. Some research supports that theory, [8]   including a 2012 analysis of a survey of 8,953 people in 37 countries, which found that the more gender-equal a country, the likelier male and female respondents were to report seeking the same qualities as each other rather than different ones. [9]   However, Townsend (1989) surveyed medical students regarding their perception of how the availability of marriage partners changed as their educational careers advanced. Eighty-five percent of the women indicated that "As my status increases, my pool of acceptable partners decreases." In contrast, 90 percent of men felt that "As my status increases, my pool of acceptable partners increases." [10] : 246

Gilles Saint-Paul (2008) argued that, based on mathematical models, human female hypergamy occurs because women have greater lost mating opportunity costs from monogamous mating (given their slower reproductive rate and limited window of fertility), and thus must be compensated for this cost of marriage. Marriage reduces the overall genetic quality of her offspring by precluding the possibility of impregnation by a genetically higher quality male, albeit without his parental investment. However, this reduction may be compensated by greater levels of parental investment by her genetically lower quality husband. [11]

An empirical study examined the mate preferences of subscribers to a computer dating service in Israel that had a highly skewed sex ratio (646 men for 1,000 women). Despite this skewed sex ratio, they found that "On education and socioeconomic status, women on average express greater hypergamic selectivity; they prefer mates who are superior to them in these traits... while men express a desire for an analogue of hypergamy based on physical attractiveness; they desire a mate who ranks higher on the physical attractiveness scale than they themselves do." [12] : 51

One study did not find a statistical difference in the number of women or men "marrying-up" in a sample of 1,109 first-time married couples in the United States. [13]

Another study has shown that in the UK, hypergamy has decreased significantly since the 1950s. [14]

Prevalence [ edit ]

In relatively gender-equal societies it is generally accepted that young women will sometimes partner with powerful older men; [15]   with the general rule being that older men have had more time to gather wealth and status than younger men and they are on average wealthier and of higher status.

Forms of hypergamy have been practiced throughout history, including in the   Indian subcontinent ,   imperial China ,   ancient Greece , the   Ottoman Empire , and   feudal Europe .

Today most people marry their approximate social equals, and in some parts of the world hypergamy has decreased. It is becoming less common for women to marry older men. (hypergamy does not require the man to be older, only of higher status, and social equals usually refers to social circles rather than economic equality). [16] [17] [14]

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
8.3.4  Freedom Warrior  replied to  mocowgirl @8.3.3    4 months ago

You won't find a meaningful percentage of women marrying down in any of those studies.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
8.3.5  mocowgirl  replied to  Freedom Warrior @8.3.4    4 months ago
You won't find a meaningful percentage of women marrying down in any of those studies.

If relationships are becoming more equal, then neither are men.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
8.3.6  Freedom Warrior  replied to  mocowgirl @8.3.5    4 months ago

It's well known that the preference of most women is to marry “up”   Single men will attest to that. Women have always preferred to marry men of a higher status, or men who make more money or have the ability to earn  more via their career choice.

Some argue it's because most women leave the workforce for a period of time after they have children and thus need a husband on whom they can rely for a period of time. If a woman has married “down,” she will be less likely to have this as an option.

Another problem often mentioned regarding women marrying down is the divorce stats among this group. Largely the result of  wives losing respect for or becoming dissatisfied with their husbands. because either they don’t share the same drive, or because the dude's inability to earn enough money puts a lot of pressure on the wife to produce.

There are also those who find that when women earned more than their husbands, they were more likely than men to use anti-anxiety medications and more likely to suffer from insomnia. You can speculate as to why that is.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
8.3.7  mocowgirl  replied to  Freedom Warrior @8.3.6    4 months ago
You can speculate as to why that is.

Not necessary to speculate one iota.  Lived, observed and studies bear it out.  

Marriage is more advantageous to men than women.  Therefore, women should be far choosier than they are before committing to a long term relationship because it very likely will be detrimental to their mental, physical and financial well-being.

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/uk/culture/culture-news/a27606192/women-happier-without-marriage-and-children/

Society has long taught us that marriage and children lead to happiness, but a new study suggests that the opposite may be true. Unmarried, childless women have been revealed as the country's happiest subgroup, according to research.

Behavioural scientist Paul Dolan said at Hay Festival this weekend that the traditional markers used to denote success may not be as relevant as they once were. He said that he also believed that women without spouses or children lived longer than their child-raising peers.

“Married people are happier than other population subgroups, but only when their spouse is in the room when they’re asked how happy they are. When the spouse is not present: fucking miserable,” he said, as reported by the   Guardian .

“We do have some good longitudinal data following the same people over time, but I am going to do a massive disservice to that science and just say: if you’re a man, you should probably get married; if you’re a woman, don’t bother.”
Dolan, who was referencing findings made in his new book,   Happily Ever After , said that men benefitted from marriage as they "calmed down".

“You take less risks, you earn more money at work, and you live a little longer," he explained. "She, on the other hand, has to put up with that, and dies sooner than if she never married. The healthiest and happiest population subgroup are women who never married or had children."

He continued to say that, although the current narrative makes single women feel inadequate about their marital status, in reality they were better off than their married friends.

“You see a single woman of 40, who has never had children – ‘Bless, that’s a shame, isn’t it? Maybe one day you’ll meet the right guy and that’ll change.’ No, maybe she’ll meet the wrong guy and that’ll change," he said. "Maybe she’ll meet a guy who makes her less happy and healthy, and die sooner.”
 
 
 
Trout Giggles
8.3.8  Trout Giggles  replied to  mocowgirl @8.3.7    4 months ago
Society has long taught us that marriage and children lead to happiness, but a new study suggests that the opposite may be true. Unmarried, childless women have been revealed as the country's happiest subgroup, according to research.

That's gonna make some heads explode. Take cover

 
 
 
mocowgirl
8.3.9  mocowgirl  replied to  Trout Giggles @8.3.8    4 months ago
That's gonna make some heads explode. Take cover

This should not be new news.  LOL!

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2016/10/18/fish-bicycle/

A Woman Without a Man Is Like a Fish Without a Bicycle

Gloria Steinem? Irina Dunn? Erica Jong? Florynce Kennedy? Charles S. Harris? Anonymous?

bikeicon08.jpg Dear Quote Investigator:   A famous feminist slogan asserts that a woman is capable of living a complete and independent life without a man. Here are two versions:

A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.
A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.

Would you please explore the origin of this saying?

Quote Investigator:   The earliest published instance known to   QI   appeared in “The Sydney Morning Herald” of Sydney, Australia in January 1975. The expression occurred as an unattributed graffito. Emphasis added to excerpts by   QI :   1

We found this anonymous contribution to International Women’s Year on a wall at Forest Lodge:   “A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.”

Thanks to Fred R. Shapiro, editor of “The Yale Book of Quotations”, who located this citation and shared it with fellow researchers. Prominent feminist Gloria Steinem often receives credit for this saying, but she has ascribed the words to the Australian social activist Irina Dunn who claimed that she created the adage and wrote it on a bathroom wall in 1970. More details about these assertions are presented further below.

QI   believes that the saying evolved from a family of related expressions. Below are additional selected citations in chronological order.

In 1858 a newspaper in North Carolina reprinted a poem from a paper in Winchester, Virginia. The humorous lines of verse commented on bachelorhood:   2

What a Bachelor is Like?

From the pen of Launcelot Goosenberry, Esq., Poet Laureate, and dedicated to all Poets and Poetesses around these diggings.

Why a pump without a handle, A mouldy tallow candle,
A goose that’s lost its fellows, A noseless pair of bellows,
A horse without a saddle, A boat without a paddle!
A mule—a fool, A two-legged stool!
A pest—a jest! Dreary, weary, Contrary, uncheery—
A fish without a tail,   A ship without a sail. . .

The phrase “a fish without a tail” was an intriguing precursor to the modern expression. The underlying formula was: a man requires a woman in the same way that a fish requires something essential. Years later the genders were swapped and the notion was subverted.
 
 
 
mocowgirl
8.3.10  mocowgirl  replied to  Trout Giggles @8.3.8    4 months ago
Take cover

Later.  I am painting exterior of my house and need to get back to it.  We are expecting intermittent thunderstorms for a week beginning on Sunday.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
8.3.11  Freedom Warrior  replied to  mocowgirl @8.3.7    4 months ago

ConSider the  growing MGTOW movement..

 Not to mention coach red pill and redonkulas.com 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
8.3.12  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Freedom Warrior @8.3.11    4 months ago

Wow......   jrSmiley_27_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
mocowgirl
8.3.13  mocowgirl  replied to  Freedom Warrior @8.3.11    4 months ago
ConSider the  growing MGTOW movement..

There is absolutely nothing wrong with men going their own way.  However, in the case of the MGTOW movement it sounds as if these are self-centered males (probably with multiple personality disorders) who want a woman for breeding purposes and can't secure one of their choosing.

I find it best to deal in reality instead of fantasy.  Relationships can be very difficult and are not for everyone. 

There is not someone for everyone.   There never has been throughout our history.  It is what it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_Going_Their_Own_Way

Views on relations with women

According to the columnist   Martin Daubney , members of the MGTOW community believe that legal and romantic entanglements with women fail a   cost–benefit analysis   and   risk–benefit analysis . [21]   Jeremy Nicholson, writing for   Psychology Today , similarly described MGTOW as "guys who have been frustrated and punished to the point that they see no further incentive to relate [to dating] [...], they focus on making themselves happy". [22]

According to   Vice   magazine's Mack Lamoureux, there are a number of levels to MGTOW, ranging from the perception that gender equality is a lie, through rejection of relationships, to economic and societal disengagement. [14]

Kay Hymowitz   has stated that some self-identified MGTOW express discontent because they see women as   hypergamous   and manipulative. [23]   The   Business Insider   reporter Dylan Love wrote a "fully-realized MGTOW (there are levels to it) is someone who shuns all relationships with women, short-term, long-term, romantic, and otherwise. He eventually shuns society as a whole." [24]   Some MGTOW have many short-term casual relationships or engage in sex with prostitutes. [10]   Celibacy, however, is also an option. A MGTOW that chooses celibacy over sex and relationships is said to be "going monk" [25]   and some embrace maintaining their   virginity . [16] [26]   Some MGTOW members advocate having sex with prostitutes or using   sex dolls . [27]

Reception

Some writers have generally held a critical perspective of the MGTOW community. An article in   The Economist   about MGTOW states that the "rebalancing of the sexes has spawned 21st-century   misogyny ", with slogans like "Save a male and stop a wedding™" being an unregistered trademark of MGTOW.com. [11]   Leah Morrigan states that the MGTOW.com founder Sandman's videos "proclai[m] his bitter, indiscriminate hate towards women", who he claims are all "manipulative whores and liars" whom Sandman "slut-shames, fat-shames, and age-shames". [12]   When women are discussed on MGTOW forums, it is often "angrily"; [32]   the   Southern Poverty Law Center   has identified the community as a   male supremacist   group, placing it "on the borders of the hateful   incel   community". [13]

Pick-up artists "disparage the community", calling their   " 'philosophy'...completely wrongheaded". [14]

Barb MacQuarrie, Community Director at Centre for Research & Education on Violence against Women & Children at   University of Western Ontario , described the community as "misinformed", and said "They have no real ability to identify the global forces that are at work in their life, so they hang the blame on feminists", and interact with other "disillusioned, disenfranchised men" using "deplorable" rhetoric. She says that MGTOW advocates show "a complete lack of self-reflection", and their decision to live separatist lifestyles is "pathetic". MacQuarrie summed up her views with the comment, "They're only reinforcing each other's really distorted perceptions of what's happening in the world. They are confining themselves knowingly to a life of isolation and a lot of limitations. It's sad." [32]

 
 
 
mocowgirl
8.3.14  mocowgirl  replied to  Trout Giggles @8.3.8    4 months ago
That's gonna make some heads explode.

There is a very nice young woman in the UK that explains that women are people, too.  

I have watched a few of her videos that I have found comforting and inspirational.  I hope you like.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
8.3.15  Freedom Warrior  replied to  mocowgirl @8.3.13    4 months ago

I don't necessarily agree with their point of view.  Not unlike the old FnF'em approach.  However, many of their complaints are legit.  I think a lot of them are pussies but at least they aren't cucks.

There is always a power struggle in relationships.  Someone will ultimately be dominant but partitionng that dominance is what works for me.

 

 
 
 
Ender
8.3.16  Ender  replied to  Freedom Warrior @8.3.15    4 months ago

Where I come from, a relationship is a partnership. One does not have to be dominate.

Having a disagreement over some things is not domination over another.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
8.3.17  mocowgirl  replied to  Freedom Warrior @8.3.15    4 months ago
However, many of their complaints are legit.

Which of their complaints do you believe are legit?

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
8.3.18  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Ender @8.3.16    4 months ago

You can’t possibly believe that partnerships do not have dominance in the equation, in fact the reality is the better partnerships combine elements of dominance to create a greater synergy.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
8.3.19  dave-2693993  replied to  Freedom Warrior @8.3.18    4 months ago
in fact the reality is the better partnerships combine elements of dominance to create a greater synergy.

Not sure I understand. Can you give examples?

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
8.3.20  Freedom Warrior  replied to  mocowgirl @8.3.17    4 months ago

There is a complete guide to MGTOW on everydayape.com ,  I haven’t found much of anything really I can disagree with because it has to do mostly with how those particular men feel they been treated by women and society.   Plus they really aren’t asking anything of anybody and as the moniker says they just tend to go in their own direction without any intention of harming  anybody.

 Where I tend to disagree with them is in situations where they actually are still pursuing relationships and having difficulties finding a woman that doesn’t exhibit the characteristics and hypergamous behavior they shun and then tend to extrapolate that to the larger population. Which of course not something exclusive to men. Wouldn’t work for me of course. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
8.3.21  Freedom Warrior  replied to  dave-2693993 @8.3.19    4 months ago

 That’s fine I’m off to party.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
8.3.22  dave-2693993  replied to  Freedom Warrior @8.3.21    4 months ago

Have a good time.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
8.3.23  mocowgirl  replied to  Freedom Warrior @8.3.20    4 months ago
it has to do mostly with how those particular men feel they been treated by women and society.

As long as these particular men are going their own way, women and society will probably benefit immensely because these men have completely self-centered, ego driven personalities.  Some of these particular men might benefit from therapy, but it really isn't in a woman's best interest to have men channeling Henry VIII's personality in her life.  The same is true for men.  

I believe it would be beneficial for everyone to research and understand various personality types in order to better understand themselves and others.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
8.3.24  mocowgirl  replied to  Freedom Warrior @8.3.20    4 months ago
Where I tend to disagree with them is in situations where they actually are still pursuing relationships and having difficulties finding a woman that doesn’t exhibit the characteristics and hypergamous behavior they shun and then tend to extrapolate that to the larger population.

These guys could be narcissists seeking a target for their rage....and occasionally finding one and abusing the target until they drive them away.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
8.3.25  sandy-2021492  replied to  mocowgirl @8.3.23    4 months ago

I saw an article about MTGOW guys seeing suicide as a way to "stick it" to women.  What woman would want to saddle herself with such an idiot?

 
 
 
mocowgirl
8.3.26  mocowgirl  replied to  sandy-2021492 @8.3.25    3 months ago
I saw an article about MTGOW guys seeing suicide as a way to "stick it" to women. 

Do "sane" people threaten suicide?  Is this a red flag that these guys need professional help?

MTGOW seems to be an organization of irrational guys who need intense therapy to gain perspective on life and respect for others.  It may not be possible for anyone to help men with the mental deficiencies that make it impossible for these men to form respectful relationships with women.

From everything I have read to date, no woman should ever have contact with these men for the sake of her own mental and physical safety.  Self-centered men rarely commit suicide to "stick it" to women....they usually vent their hatred of women on women by beating and/or murdering them.

I wonder how many of the MTGOW were cited for domestic abuse at some point in their life?  

https://anthemstrongfamilies.org/domestic-violence-is-an-epidemic/

Domestic Violence has become an epidemic in the United States and the statistics are shocking:

 
  • In America a woman is assaulted every nine seconds
  • A domestic or dating violence incident takes place every 24 minutes
  • Domestic violence   costs more than   $5 billion   in medical and mental health care each year,
  • An estimated 8 million days of paid work are lost annually
 
 
 
sandy-2021492
8.3.27  sandy-2021492  replied to  mocowgirl @8.3.26    3 months ago

They might need professional help, but it's unlikely they'd seek or accept it.  So yes, women should avoid them, as they are and choose to remain a risk to themselves and others.

I actually think most are sane in the sense that they know what they're doing.  They're just too angry to care who is harmed by their behavior, and too immature to express their anger in a healthy way or even examine their anger to determine whether it's  justified.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
9  Freedom Warrior    4 months ago

ANybody notice how much the promoted content on this page is purposefully choosing to tempt those interested in women for explciit sexual desires?

Really people.  It this really a frickin mystery that men like to admire the natural beauty of women.  I won't speak for the female side of this equation but how in the hell can someone place themselves among the natural beauty of the world and  pretend not to notice or appreciate what's around them.  May as well not be human at that point.

 
 
 
evilgenius
9.1  evilgenius  replied to  Freedom Warrior @9    4 months ago

I don't think anyone is denying that men should not find an attractive woman desirable. The point is that it's NOT the woman's fault if a man does find her attractive. It's also NOT true that men can't help themselves from acting like jackasses around beautiful women. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
9.1.1  Freedom Warrior  replied to  evilgenius @9.1    4 months ago

Thank you captain obvious.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
9.1.2  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  evilgenius @9.1    4 months ago

The problem is the limits.

A glance is OK... but what about a lengthy examination? There seems to be a problem linked to duration, even if there are no words or gestures.

Likewise, it's hard for know the limits on speech.

It's complicated...

 
 
 
Tessylo
9.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Freedom Warrior @9.1.1    4 months ago

Meow 'freedom warrior' meow.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
9.1.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  Bob Nelson @9.1.2    4 months ago
it's hard for know the limits on speech.

I think most women will let you know how far you can go with speech when it comes to her appearance or anything else. I know I will let you know when you've crossed a line instead of running to a supervisor or your mother. If you fail to heed my first warning, then I'm telling your mother

 
 
 
evilgenius
9.1.5  evilgenius  replied to  Bob Nelson @9.1.2    4 months ago
The problem is the limits.

Maybe.

A glance is OK... but what about a lengthy examination? There seems to be a problem linked to duration, even if there are no words or gestures.

I often think I'm a horny old perv, but maybe drooling should be frowned upon. LOL! 

Likewise, it's hard for know the limits on speech.

I don't think its too difficult to understand what is polite and respectful and what isn't. I do understand what is permissible may be subject to whom one is talking to, and possibly what setting it's being done in. I also don't think it's difficult to figure out "when she's just not into you".

I do think it's important we discuss these topics and for everyone to communicate honestly so that those who may be confused can understand how others feel. It is complicated in that we all are different and often change attitudes based on mood, mental health and physical health.

I've dated many (too many to count) women (I've had more female friends than male too) and they were all often very different, but I listened to them when they talked. I did my best to understand what they were trying to say, and sometimes not trying to say. I wasn't perfect either. I made a lot of mistakes. I just hope I learned from them and passed that knowledge onto my son.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
9.1.6  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Trout Giggles @9.1.4    4 months ago
If you fail to heed my first warning, then I'm telling your mother

Gonna be tricky... She's been dead for fifty years.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
9.1.7  Trout Giggles  replied to  Bob Nelson @9.1.6    4 months ago

Ok, I'll tell Mrs Bob. Or somebody.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
9.1.8  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Trout Giggles @9.1.7    4 months ago

Oh, no... You said you'd tell my mother...   zombi.gif~c200

 
 
 
Veronica
10  Veronica    4 months ago

I can honestly say I hate seeing women wearing leggings as pants in public.  I really do not want to see all their goods.  If I wear leggings in public I have a tunic or dress covering all the interesting parts.  My daughter does the same.  However, I would never tell someone NOT to wear them.  I just look the other way.  

I do believe there are places that leggings should not be worn as pants out of respect and professionalism.  Church, a funeral, even an office.  BUT again that is my opinion.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
10.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Veronica @10    4 months ago
I do believe there are places that leggings should not be worn as pants out of respect and professionalism.

I suppose there are some places where dromedary digits just aren't acceptable...

 
 
 
Veronica
10.1.1  Veronica  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @10.1    4 months ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
pat wilson
10.1.2  pat wilson  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @10.1    4 months ago

Too funny ! About 15 years ago my daughter and I were sitting in the airport. I was reading a newspaper (that's how long ago it was). My daughter was listening to her music. All of a sudden she says "Did you see that camel toe ?!". I start looking at people's feet for the camel toe. She had to explain. Lol.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
10.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Veronica @10    4 months ago

I think leggings with a skirt or long shirt/tunic looks good on any woman. And, you have to admit, they are comfy.

We're not supposed to wear them at work but I see women wearing them with long tops, so maybe the rule means they aren't to be worn as just pants. Who know? Our dress code is outdated

 
 
 
katrix
10.2.1  katrix  replied to  Trout Giggles @10.2    4 months ago

I'll wear leggings with long tops to work.  But I wear them more as tights than as pants, except when I'm going to the gym.

Honestly, I'm addicted to skorts in the spring/summer/fall for casual wear.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
10.2.2  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Trout Giggles @10.2    4 months ago

I live in leggings. They are just too comfortable. And yes I cover my butt with a tunic or long sweater. 

 
 
 
Veronica
10.2.3  Veronica  replied to  Trout Giggles @10.2    4 months ago

I wish the women at my place of employment would wear them with a skirt, dress or long tunic.  However, it is their choice.  They are very comfy and I run around in them at home all the time with a t-shirt, but I would never in my wildest dreams wear them to work as a pair of pants.  That's just me....

 
 
 
Veronica
10.2.4  Veronica  replied to  katrix @10.2.1    4 months ago
wear them more as tights

That's how my daughter wears them.  They do not run as easily. 

 
 
 
Veronica
10.2.5  Veronica  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @10.2.2    4 months ago
They are just too comfortable.

That they are, just like pajama bottoms, which again I would never wear out in public.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
10.2.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  Veronica @10.2.4    4 months ago

They make great tights!

 
 
 
mocowgirl
10.3  mocowgirl  replied to  Veronica @10    4 months ago
I can honestly say I hate seeing women wearing leggings as pants in public. 

I mostly agree.   I honestly don't notice what most people wear unless they look disgustingly gross.

I wear jeans with either t-shirts or dress shirts wherever I go.

 
 
 
Larry Hampton
11  Larry Hampton    4 months ago

I wear leggings all the time and nobody gives me shit.

;~)

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
11.1  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Larry Hampton @11    4 months ago

Oh, yeah...

I really needed that image stuck in my head...

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
11.1.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Bob Nelson @11.1    4 months ago

Hummmm.... Larry in leggings? I'm intrigued. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
11.1.2  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.1.1    4 months ago

         puke.gif

 
 
 
Larry Hampton
11.1.3  Larry Hampton  replied to  Bob Nelson @11.1.2    4 months ago

Don't knock it till ya try it lol!

But I was only being partly silly though;,,,,I mean it seems like a double standard. Men aren't judged the same.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
11.1.4  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Larry Hampton @11.1.3    4 months ago

I wear shorts, t-shirt and sandales almost all the time. Probably not the summum of elegance.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
11.1.5  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Larry Hampton @11.1.3    4 months ago

I got news for you guys.

On the beach in France, the women were checking out the men in speedos and the men were checking out the women with no bathing tops. 

Again, time and place. 

And no I am telling you what I was wearing. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
11.1.6  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Larry Hampton @11.1.3    4 months ago
I mean it seems like a double standard. Men aren't judged the same.

There are some men who certainly shouldn't wear short shorts in public for fear of flashing some low hanging fruit...

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
11.1.7  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @11.1.6    4 months ago

LMAO!!!!!

 
 
 
Ender
11.1.8  Ender  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @11.1.6    4 months ago

At least shorts are not as short as they were in the 70's, 80's.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
11.1.9  Raven Wing  replied to  Ender @11.1.8    4 months ago

Some women don't look that good in 'Daisy Duke's.' (grin) 

 
 
 
Tacos!
12  Tacos!    4 months ago

Great article. 

It seems to me the Christian thing to do would be to show a little compassion for the men, rather than accuse them of trying to do something awful to women. I think it's a strange response to get angry. It's as if wearing the most revealing clothing possible is the only way a woman can show she is strong, free, worthy of respect, etc. But think about that. Being sexual is the filter through which you seek respect? I thought you wanted men to respect you for your character? Here, the men are asking for just that. Be less sexual in this situation. Just be another person in the room.

Now and then I see women appear in church as if they were going to the club - tight leggings with short tops, short and/or tight dresses, low-cut tops, 4 or 5 inch heels - and I have to wonder what drives that fashion choice. Surely they want people to look at them, no? Surely, they know men will look at them.

Some people don't like to hear this, but men are hard-wired to objectify women. They literally see women as sex objects. Of course, this is not only how they perceive women and it's not the limit of the kind of relationships they want with women. But if you think it's some kind of natural state for men to be oblivious to the female form, you're ignorant or in denial of basic male biology and sexuality.

 
 
 
katrix
12.1  katrix  replied to  Tacos! @12    4 months ago

By the same token, if I see a well-built man without a shirt, I'm going to look.  I just can't help it.

Some people like to look sexy and that's up to them.  I think they should expect to be looked at - and my assumption is they want the attention - but it doesn't give anyone the right to catcall or ogle or make inappropriate comments.  Sure, take a glance, but that's it - same as when I see a hot scantily clad man.   

To me, it's simply a matter of respecting the place where you are and dressing appropriately.  I might try to look attractive at church just as I would anywhere else, but I definitely wouldn't be trying to look sexy.  You don't wear clothes to church or work that you'd wear out to a club IMO (well, depending on where you work, that might not be accurate).   I recall one woman I worked with years ago - she was in business development and she had a "closing skirt" that she deliberately wore to try to get more sales.

The beach is a different matter but I still can't stand seeing men in speedos or anyone in thongs.  I find the speedos to be a turnoff, and the idea of dental floss between butt cheeks has never appealed to me.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
12.1.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  katrix @12.1    4 months ago
By the same token, if I see a well-built man without a shirt, I'm going to look.  I just can't help it.

There you go. Me too. 

but it doesn't give anyone the right to catcall or ogle or make inappropriate comments. 

agreed.

To me, it's simply a matter of respecting the place where you are and dressing appropriately.  I might try to look attractive at church just as I would anywhere else, but I definitely wouldn't be trying to look sexy. 

Exactly!

The beach is a different matter but I still can't stand seeing men in speedos or anyone in thongs.  I find the speedos to be a turnoff, and the idea of dental floss between butt cheeks has never appealed to me.

I'm not a speedo fan, but I do see the women checking it out. It kind of reminds me of baboons presenting. And I hate thongs. My daughters wear them because they don't want visible panty lines, but I would rather go commando and do more laundry than have something up my butt. 

 
 
 
 
Trout Giggles
12.1.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @12.1.2    4 months ago

Oh....I don't believe you.

If you grow some love handles then she'll probably make you wear a t-shirt at the beach

 
 
 
katrix
12.1.4  katrix  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @12.1.1    4 months ago
I'm not a speedo fan, but I do see the women checking it out. It kind of reminds me of baboons presenting

*snort*

 
 
 
Raven Wing
12.1.5  Raven Wing  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @12.1.1    4 months ago
And I hate thongs.

I agree. I can't even stand bikini undies. But, having some strap stuck up my rear is totally uncomfortable. 

 
 
 
epistte
12.1.6  epistte  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @12.1.1    4 months ago
I'm not a speedo fan, but I do see the women checking it out. It kind of reminds me of baboons presenting. And I hate thongs. My daughters wear them because they don't want visible panty lines, but I would rather go commando and do more laundry than have something up my butt. 

I've tried thongs but I just can't wear them for more than an hour or so.   I'd wear Spanx so there isn't a panty line instead of a thong wherever possible.  I feel like I sat on dental floss and it stuck to me.

 
 
 
MrFrost
12.1.7  MrFrost  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @12.1.1    4 months ago
I'm not a speedo fan, but I do see the women checking it out.

I am not a fan either. Wore one to a beach once.....once. Not very comfortable. Without saying too much, um....not a lot of room in there if you need to make an adjustment. jrSmiley_16_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
13  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh    4 months ago

Leggings aren't for everyone.

384

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
13.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @13    4 months ago

Yes, in this case, a longer t-shirt would have been preferrable.

But.....if she doesn't care, why should we?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.1.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Trout Giggles @13.1    4 months ago

I'm OK if she doesn't bend over. 

I'm not a fan of plumbers butt. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
13.1.2  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @13.1.1    4 months ago

Can i just make it through Walmart without getting attacked by a camel toe?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
13.1.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @13.1.2    4 months ago

I think in that photo it would be considered a case of elephant foot...

 
 
 
Ender
13.1.4  Ender  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @13.1.1    4 months ago

With some, it is hard to tell where the actual butt begins...

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
13.1.5  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Ender @13.1.4    4 months ago
With some, it is hard to tell where the actual butt begins...

It does look like there should be some crack there, but it an optical illusion. Her back fat is being mistaken for ass, which, in cheetah print spandex, is apparently easy to do. Either that or she sat in some flesh colored wood putty and it's been all sealed up... Also, is it just me or does it appear she may be wearing an adult diaper under there? Those pants are skin tight, but there is quite a panty bulge, so unless she's wearing some inch thick wool underwear, I'm not sure you'd get that large a bulge...

 
 
 
Raven Wing
13.1.6  Raven Wing  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @13.1.1    4 months ago
I'm not a fan of plumbers butt.

After my Father retired from the Police force he became a plumber. My Mother always made his shirts long enough to cover his rear when bending over, squatting or sitting cross-legged on the floor in order to prevent his "plumber's butt" from showing. Many of the women he had to see when working were the wives of high ranking military officers, so to show respect she made sure he was well covered. 

jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif  

 
 
 
Veronica
13.2  Veronica  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @13    4 months ago

Some things you just cannot UNSEE

 
 
 
Ender
13.3  Ender  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @13    4 months ago

The new craze, meggings...

512

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
13.3.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Ender @13.3    4 months ago

It's very cute long underwear

 
 
 
Ender
13.3.2  Ender  replied to  Trout Giggles @13.3.1    4 months ago

Gold lame is for disco night.

 
 
 
MrFrost
13.3.3  MrFrost  replied to  Ender @13.3    4 months ago

Perfect for showing off my buffalo knuckle. 

 
 
 
Veronica
13.3.4  Veronica  replied to  MrFrost @13.3.3    4 months ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gordy327
13.3.5  Gordy327  replied to  Ender @13.3    4 months ago
The new craze, meggings...

"I'm Batman!" LOL

 
 
 
Ender
14  Ender    4 months ago

Ok, I think sexual repression leads to over sexualization.

Teaching things like body parts are bad and something to be ashamed of, imo, just leads to more confusion, curiosity.

The more sexual repressed tend to be the ones doing things in back alleys and bathroom stalls.

I knew a woman from Germany. She was going to wait to take her son to see her home country when he was older. She said there and other places one can see women topless all over the place. It is normal there and she didn't know if her son could handle it, as he was Americanized.

We need to stop teaching that bodies are bad or need to be hidden. Stop treating normal parts as taboo.

Repression can lead to aggression.

I don't know how some manage to go to the beach or a pool. My god, everyone looks. That is what sunglasses are for.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
14.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Ender @14    4 months ago
That is what sunglasses are for.

That's funny right there

 
 
 
Ender
14.1.1  Ender  replied to  Trout Giggles @14.1    4 months ago

It's the simple things that make life easier.

jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
mocowgirl
14.2  mocowgirl  replied to  Ender @14    4 months ago
We need to stop teaching that bodies are bad or need to be hidden. Stop treating normal parts as taboo. Repression can lead to aggression.

I completely agree.

We need to quit allowing sexual predators to victim blame....which is kinda what articles like this are really about.  Thankfully, our society is becoming somewhat less tolerant of supporting sexual predators by trying to openly or covertly blame their victims of any age or gender.

 
 
 
Veronica
14.3  Veronica  replied to  Ender @14    4 months ago
Teaching things like body parts are bad and something to be ashamed of, imo, just leads to more confusion, curiosity.

I have always wondered why people think it is better to teach their children words like "peepee" instead of penis and "girl areas" for the vagina, vulva, labia...  I taught my children the correct terms early on.  Makes for less confusion and shame later on.  The worst one ever that I have heard is "girlness".  That is what my grandniece was told...I told my niece that pretending that vagina, and labia are dirty words may lead to feelings of shame.  Breasts, vagina, labia, clitoris, penis, testicles, and scrotum are not dirty words.

 
 
 
MrFrost
14.3.1  MrFrost  replied to  Veronica @14.3    4 months ago

Very well said. 

 
 
 
Veronica
14.3.2  Veronica  replied to  MrFrost @14.3.1    4 months ago

Thank you.

 
 
 
It Is ME
15  It Is ME    4 months ago

I know I'd look for sure. jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

But there are a bunch that should really get a full length mirror before they go outside ! jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Vic Eldred
JohnRussell
Dean Moriarty
igknorantzrulz
Sunshine


36 visitors