One thing I’ve noticed about equality and sexuality.

You know, there’s a lot of hypocrisy on the part of women.

A lot of girls my age act “holier than thou” when a guy says he’s horny, but yet many women are upset that they can’t express their sexuality like men do.

Um, if you want sexual “equality” then you kind of have to let guys express their sexuality as well.

If you don’t want to be treated as a princess and want it to be “socially acceptable” to be a whore, then you kind of have to have the same expectation for men if you want “gender equality.”

And sure, if men want to fuck around, they have to accept the fact that women are going to want to do that, too. And if men do it and think it’s gross when women do it, then they have to expect the same thing to be said from women.

All I’m saying is that no one seems to be talking about the sexual hypocrisy about women having the “right” to express their sexuality, whereas men doing it makes them “pigs”, etc.

Do I get horny? Yes. Do I want to fuck hot girls? Absolutely. Do I find whores attractive? Absolutely not. But I also am not expecting girls to think I’m some type of saint, either.

But that’s the attitude that women on the Left are adopting, and it’s a little bit absurd.

Either accept the fact that you’re a whore or change your ways.

I’ve relished in my depravity for a looooooooooooooooong time, and it’s time you stop with the charade, women, and embrace whatever the fuck it is that you’re trying to get men to respect you for. There are some obvious ones, but other ones are more difficult to define, as you can see here.

What makes me sexist?

Things that apparently make me sexist to people my own age.

Things that I have for sale on Kindle.

Where you can financially support me if you so desire.

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “One thing I’ve noticed about equality and sexuality.

  1. Pingback: The liberal future of the word “queer”. | Cody Alan Reel's Writings

  2. Pingback: Labels and the Fear of Tyranny | Cody Alan Reel's Writings

  3. Pingback: Unjustly condemning ideas because of “ambiguity.” | Cody Alan Reel's Writings

  4. Pingback: Why isn’t THIS defined as a “social construct”, and then DEconstructed to be a meaningless term, just like everything ELSE the Left calls a “social construct”? | Cody Alan Reel's Writings

  5. The Arbourist

    A lot of girls my age act “holier than thou” when a guy says he’s horny, but yet many women are upset that they can’t express their sexuality like men do.

    Because there are no strictures or societal norms that govern women’s sexuality…

    Um, if you want sexual “equality” then you kind of have to let guys express their sexuality as well.

    I’d bet most women would like a set of societal norms that regards them as fully human, first, rather than objects for men to interact with.

    I’m curious as to your definition of “letting guys express their sexuality”. Does it involve respecting a woman’s right not to be objectified?

    If you don’t want to be treated as a princess and want it to be “socially acceptable” to be a whore, then you kind of have to have the same expectation for men if you want “gender equality.”

    How about as a regular human being? Now why would women strive for gender equality? Should women strive to act and be treated in the same crappy way men treat each other? Seems to be a rather low bar to strive for.

    All I’m saying is that no one seems to be talking about the sexual hypocrisy about women having the “right” to express their sexuality, whereas men doing it makes them “pigs”, etc.

    Because expressing sexuality as a woman is *exactly* the same as expressing sexuality as man and society treats both expressions of sexuality with exactly the same consequences….

    Apples…meet oranges. Failing to recognize the inherent power gradients in society can lead one to make comparisons that are just not valid.

    Do I get horny? Yes. Do I want to fuck hot girls? Absolutely. Do I find whores attractive? Absolutely not. But I also am not expecting girls to think I’m some type of saint, either.

    So would your gender equality include the virgin/whore dichotomy that would be applied to men as well? I’m curious because, so far, most of your missive seems to be blaming women for your problems.

    Either accept the fact that you’re a whore or change your ways.

    Well that noble push for gender equality ran out of steam rather quickly now didn’t it?

    I’ve relished in my depravity for a looooooooooooooooong time, and it’s time you stop with the charade, women, and embrace whatever the fuck it is that you’re trying to get men to respect you for.

    Ah, important male advice for the wimmenz. Consider it noted.

    Reply
    1. codyalanreel Post author

      “Because there are no strictures or societal norms that govern women’s sexuality…”

      Welp, you completely missed my point on that one, so congratulations.

      That’s typical, however. That one just flew RIGHT over your head.

      “I’d bet most women would like a set of societal norms that regards them as fully human, first, rather than objects for men to interact with.” Once again, you’re missing the point. The phrase “equality” means “equal.” There is a lot of talk in the Left about women’s “sexual liberation”: about how they should be able to experience sexual pleasure, and how they shouldn’t be shamed for expressing their sexuality. However, when it comes to men, the exact opposite of this is the case. Men are taught that their boners make them pigs. If a woman doesn’t want to be treated like an object, she should avoid men that treat her like objects. However, completely attacking male sexuality outright is not the answer, as is taught by many women on the Left.

      “I’m curious as to your definition of ‘letting guys express their sexuality’. Does it involve respecting a woman’s right not to be objectified?” I’m curious as to what your definition of “objectify” is. If it involves getting horny in public because a woman is attractive, then no, women do not have a “right” to not be “objectified.” There is a misunderstanding about what “rights” are: they solely involve LEGISLATION, as I discuss further down. If it’s wanting to engage in consensual sex with a woman, regardless of how lustful it is, then no, women do not have a “right” to NOT be “objectified.” It might repulse her and disgust her, and it is her RIGHT to feel that way. It is even her RIGHT to picket and ask for men to respect her for things that SHE instead wants to be respected for. However, if men continue to only want to use her for sex, she has no legal “right” to change this, unless, of course, she’s physically assaulted. If it means that women have the right to say no and that a man only wants to use a woman for sex, then yes, men have the “right” to “objectify” women. Women have the right to say no. Even if a man just wants to use a woman for sex, a woman can always say no. And if the man proceeds to attempt to rape her (or DOES rape her), THEN there is a problem. However, there is no problem with a man wanting to use a woman for sex. At least not from a legal standpoint. She can always say no, and that is that, and she can always say yes, and that is that as well. Once again, we must discuss “rights”, as I do below. “Rights” only involve legislation. There is a confusion with respect and rights. You don’t have a “right” to be respected, except within certain areas that involve physical violence. However, I’m kind of confused to what women on the Left want: if you don’t want to be “slut-shamed”, and you want females to have equal opportunity to experience sexual pleasure as men, then it’s a two-sided coin: you have to give men that same right if you want “equality.” If casual hook-ups are acceptable when a woman wants to initiate one, and if a woman only wants to use a man for sex and this is “liberating” and acceptable behavior, then the definition of “gender equality” means that you must give men this same right, although there are almost NONE on the Left that suggests this, which means that they do not really care about “sexual equality” in the least. It’s this type of illogicality that makes me believe that this movement does not really have its head on straight, and doesn’t really have any coherency and instead relies on people’s good-natures and ignorance to do something else. You don’t have a legal “right” to not be objectified. That’s absurd. If you want someone to respect you for something else other than your looks, that is noble. But you have no legal right to force them to do otherwise. You have no right to not be complimented in a public place.

      I understand that women get raped, and there’s almost no one that believes that is acceptable behavior (and it’s quite dishonest for the Left to label people as “rape apologists” when they’re in no way such; ANOTHER thing that discredits “the movement”). I also understand that women get into abusive relationships, and that is unacceptable as well: these women need to be helped, and violent people need to be prosecuted. However, there is this trend within the Left to equate these two with a man going up to a girl and asking for her number because he wants to have sex with her. This is absolutely absurd and blasphemous. They’re in no way compatible unless the man actually rapes the woman or physically assaults her. However, women on the Left are comparing ASKING FOR HER NUMBER FOR A HOOKUP to rape and assault, and that discredits the entire movement. There ARE parts of the movement that wish to help domestic violence victims, prohibit domestic violence, etc. And there is nothing wrong with this. However, it has become tainted with stupid things like “All sex is rape”, equating compliments to rape, and basically spitting all over ACTUAL rape victims, and THAT is patently absurd.

      Just because rape victims are treated like objects does not mean that all objectification is rape. This must be understood. It’s crystal clear, but most of the time, people can’t follow along with the logic.

      Also, you have no legal right to be perceived a certain way. Once again, it is noble for a woman to want to be valued for things besides her looks. But she has no LEGAL right to force others to do so. And if a man just wants a woman for her tits, she can go picket about it and call men nasty names, but she has no legal right to change this.

      Once again, we can say that women are human beings and that they should be listened to and respected as humans. I would agree with that statement. However, there can be no legal obligation on the part of men to not get horny, or to not try to get into a woman’s pants, PROVIDED that there is no rape involved.

      So I understand how women are raped and spiritually destroyed, and they need help. However, comparing all male sexuality to rape is patently absurd, and the idea must be destroyed before it gets too much more popular than it is (and this idea exists within “feminism”: some feminists profess this idea, so either they ARE feminists or they AREN’T. I grant you that most reasonable feminism involves obvious things like the right to not be raped, but if some “feminists” say that ALL sex is rape, then we must decide which one is feminism and which one is not, because they can’t BOTH be feminism: either men and women have “equal rights” to pursue consensual, casual sex, or NEITHER sex has the right to pursue consensual, casual sex (at least if we have any true standard of “equality”, as is professed)).

      You don’t have a “right” to be perceived a certain way. You don’t have a “right” for people to view you a certain way. “Rights” involve legislation, and only can involve violence against a person or a person’s property. Being “objectified” is not necessarily violent, although the Left tries to pervert the English language and suggest that it IS violent, but this is obviously ridiculous and a dishonest attempt to receive something that I don’t quite know what it is. Once again, women that are attacked ARE treated as objects. But just because someone wants to use you as a sex object does NOT mean that they are a rapist. That’s just a ridiculous lie that discredits the entire movement (or at least greatly harms its credibility).

      Legislation has to stay out of this. You can want someone to respect you all day long, but you have no “right” to be respected, except to the extent that violence occurs.

      I wish that people would accept me for being extremely intelligent, a talented writer, a visionary, a critical thinker, physically attractive, a world-changer, and I wish that they would value me so much in all of these areas that I could retire right now. But if people don’t do that, I can try to PERSUADE them to, but if they continue not to, I don’t have any legal right to MAKE this the case unless they use physical violence against me or my property. But their perceptions of me are in no way subject to legislation, as neither can be the non-violent (use of physical force) objectification of women.

      Also, once again, I’m not saying that I support rape. This has to be understood, because if “objectification” means “rape”, then I am against “objectification.” However, no woman has the right for every man to view her as a potential wife. That is not a right that any of us have; therefore, it is not a “right.”

      You must understand that the phrase “equal rights” means solely legislation: NOT how people perceive you in public.

      This is where one of the confusions lie.

      You don’t have a “right” to a nice date, unless by “nice” you mean SOLELY not being attacked, but you don’t have a right to a certain expensive item or meal paid for by your man, or a right to a certain standard of living, or a right to marrying a Prince Charming. You have a right to not marry a Ted Bundy (either a right to say no if he wants to marry you (or do anything else, for that matter)), but that doesn’t necessarily mean that you have a “right” to marry a Prince Charming.

      You don’t have a “right” to have a husband that isn’t a fat, hairy slob with a small dick.

      You DO have the right to LEAVE that, or any OTHER type of relationship, for that matter, if you wish to.

      But you don’t have a “right” to be perceived a certain way.

      “Rights” involve legislation, and you don’t have a “right” to use legislation to force someone to view you a certain way: legislation can only come into play when PHYSICAL VIOLENCE occurs.

      “Should women strive to act and be treated in the same crappy way men treat each other? Seems to be a rather low bar to strive for.” See, that’s loaded right there, obviously, and I’m not even going to warrant that with a response, because you KNOW how ignorant that is to say, and thus, I’m not going to give it any credibility whatsoever by giving it an honest response, because it will be a waste of a breath.

      “Because expressing sexuality as a woman is *exactly* the same as expressing sexuality as man and society treats both expressions of sexuality with exactly the same consequences….

      Apples…meet oranges. Failing to recognize the inherent power gradients in society can lead one to make comparisons that are just not valid.” If you want sexual equality, don’t you have to agree with me? Otherwise, what “sexual equality” do you want? If we’re talking about sex and not gender, that is.

      “So would your gender equality include the virgin/whore dichotomy that would be applied to men as well? I’m curious because, so far, most of your missive seems to be blaming women for your problems.” The fact that you said that I’m “blaming women for my problems”, once again, is a failure to comprehend ANYTHING that I’ve said, but that was to be expected. If it’s socially acceptable for women to find men that fuck around all of the time gross, repulsive, and unattractive, then “gender equality” must require that men can feel those same ways about women: otherwise, there IS no “gender equality.” That’s my basic point that I’m discussing. I DO find women that have a lot of promiscuous sex unattractive. I do NOT believe that women don’t also have the ability to do so as well. Once again, if I find promiscuous women unattractive, of COURSE I’m not saying that women have to find promiscuous MEN attractive. That’s where your logic is flawed. And if women have the “right” to force men to stop being promiscuous, then any definition of “equality” must require that men have the “right” to force WOMEN to stop being promiscuous as well. This is where I don’t think you’re quite following through with the logic of the language completely. You’re beginning with ONE idea, and then changing ideas while suggesting that you were still on the ORIGINAL idea, but that’s just merely flawed logic. You’re merely changing the scenarios around mid-argument to try to make a point, but it isn’t working. You need to stick with the logic of your idea COMPLETELY, and then you will make a more EFFECTIVE argument.

      “Well that noble push for gender equality ran out of steam rather quickly now didn’t it?” You took my phrase COMPLETELY out of context, and I have already discussed what “rights” mean above.

      “Ah, important male advice for the wimmenz. Consider it noted.” Once again, your sarcasm isn’t an argument. If you want to be respected, you need to give some respect as well.

      Almost none of what you said was an argument, and I’ve elaborated on everything above pretty precisely, I believe. Any failure to comprehend what was said above may result in me discontinuing the conversation, as since I’ve already made things pretty clear, there’d be no point in repeating myself.

      Here’s some more things related to this: https://codyalanreelswritings.wordpress.com/2014/09/08/liberalism-and-feminism-want-to-kill-male-sexuality/

      Reply
      1. The Arbourist

        Arb:“I’d bet most women would like a set of societal norms that regards them as fully human, first, rather than objects for men to interact with.”

        CAR: Once again, you’re missing the point. The phrase “equality” means “equal.”

        The point being made is that equality is not an option in a society that governed by rules and norms that perpetuate fundamentally unequal outcomes for its members.

        There is a lot of talk in the Left about women’s “sexual liberation”: about how they should be able to experience sexual pleasure, and how they shouldn’t be shamed for expressing their sexuality.

        The sexual liberation talk is mostly from dudes that think that liberal feminism means that women now have been given the wonderful gift to cater to their boners. I suggest you quote these bastions of sexual liberation theology – because outside of some of libfem movement I don’t see it.

        However, when it comes to men, the exact opposite of this is the case. Men are taught that their boners make them pigs.

        Oh indeed, street harassment has become a thing of the past – men don’t even dare raise the topic anymore… Woman and Men are inculcated by the patriarchal society that they inhabit – the amount of street harassment women receive today directly contradicts your assertion.

        If a woman doesn’t want to be treated like an object, she should avoid men that treat her like objects.

        This statement is model victim blaming. A woman should not have to curtail her activities to avoid being objectified. If she isn’t wearing a burka, is she asking for it?

        However, completely attacking male sexuality outright is not the answer, as is taught by many women on the Left.

        Feminist analysis of sexuality and male sexuality is criticism and is not an attack on any one man, but rather on the established norms and behaviours as men as a class.

        Even if a man just wants to use a woman for sex, a woman can always say no.

        LoL forever.

        However, I’m kind of confused to what women on the Left want: if you don’t want to be “slut-shamed”, and you want females to have equal opportunity to experience sexual pleasure as men, then it’s a two-sided coin: you have to give men that same right if you want “equality.”

        I said it before. Many women women want to be treated like human beings, not objects to be classified into patriarchal tropes e.g. prude,frigid,virgin/whore,slut,hussy etc. There is nothing mysterious or particularly confusing about this, no coins necessary.

        What it does sound like is that you may be trying to mounting a defense of aggressive, disrespectful male behaviour and saying to women, well if you wanna play the game, we menz get to act like arseholes because that’s what the game is.

        The points in my original comment is about changing the game, not the behaviour within it.

        If casual hook-ups are acceptable when a woman wants to initiate one, and if a woman only wants to use a man for sex and this is “liberating” and acceptable behavior, then the definition of “gender equality” means that you must give men this same right, although there are almost NONE on the Left that suggests this, which means that they do not really care about “sexual equality” in the least.

        Again – if defining sexual equality is the right to harass and objectify another person then your notion of sexual equality is a deeply flawed.

        But you have no legal right to force them to do otherwise. You have no right to not be complimented in a public place.

        It would seem to be ‘inbounds’ for normal male behaviour within a patriarchal society – however – feminism is bringing about a change to the flawed status-quo. “Compliments” are assertions of male dominance to female bodies in the pubic sphere – most women desire only to be left alone to go about their business and not have to exercise constant vigilance for the radical act of being a woman in a public place.

        (and it’s quite dishonest for the Left to label people as “rape apologists” when they’re in no way such; ANOTHER thing that discredits “the movement”).

        People who defend rape or make excuses for rapey behaviour should be called rape apologists. Also, the Left is far from monolithic, it would be more intellectually honest to stop referring to it as so.

        However, there is this trend within the Left to equate these two with a man going up to a girl and asking for her number because he wants to have sex with her. This is absolutely absurd and blasphemous. They’re in no way compatible unless the man actually rapes the woman or physically assaults her. However, women on the Left are comparing ASKING FOR HER NUMBER FOR A HOOKUP to rape and assault, and that discredits the entire movement.

        Citation needed.

        However, it has become tainted with stupid things like “All sex is rape”, equating compliments to rape, and basically spitting all over ACTUAL rape victims, and THAT is patently absurd.

        Also patently absurd, making shit up about what Andrea Dworkin said in Intercourse and then beating said straw argument to death. So, again in the interest of intellectual honesty – stop confabulating.

        Just because rape victims are treated like objects does not mean that all objectification is rape. This must be understood. It’s crystal clear, but most of the time, people can’t follow along with the logic.

        I never put forward the argument that “all objectification is rape”. This is your flawed construct and most certainly not mine.

        Once again, it is noble for a woman to want to be valued for things besides her looks. But she has no LEGAL right to force others to do so.

        Stop conflating harassment with free speech. Your right to free speech works all the way up to point where it hurts other people – then it becomes unacceptable, socially speaking.

        However, there can be no legal obligation on the part of men to not get horny, or to not try to get into a woman’s pants, PROVIDED that there is no rape involved.

        Your low opinion of men is noted.

        However, comparing all male sexuality to rape is patently absurd, and the idea must be destroyed before it gets too much more popular than it is

        What is evinced here is a compelling lack of nuance, either through ignorance or rhetorical necessity. Again, feminist critique of social norms is not monolithic – there is a range of opinion out there – most feminists are critical of parts of the social construction of male sexuality and many of their criticisms are valid and necessary for our society to move forward.

        (and this idea exists within “feminism”: some feminists profess this idea, so either they ARE feminists or they AREN’T. I grant you that most reasonable feminism involves obvious things like the right to not be raped, but if some “feminists” say that ALL sex is rape, then we must decide which one is feminism and which one is not, because they can’t BOTH be feminism:

        Forcing complex subjects into simple dichotomies just doesn’t work. There are some feminists who are on board with all sex is rape idea, others agree with them on different levels with different provisions. But using a misquote from Dworkin to try and draw lines into ‘acceptable’ and ‘unacceptable’ feminism is intellectually lazy at best, and absurd at worst.

        either men and women have “equal rights” to pursue consensual, casual sex, or NEITHER sex has the right to pursue consensual, casual sex (at least if we have any true standard of “equality”, as is professed)).

        I get it, you need to simplify feminism to a point where you can make your rhetorical hay and show how toxic(?) feminism is to the status-quo. Anyhow, you are repeating yourself now – pursing consensual relations is one category – sexual harassment is quite another. Please see the beginning of my reply for further detail.

        You don’t have a “right” to be perceived a certain way. You don’t have a “right” for people to view you a certain way. “Rights” involve legislation, and only can involve violence against a person or a person’s property.

        Are we just fapping on about legalistic definitions here? People absolutely have the right to be perceived a certain way – fully human with all the rights and responsibilities that go along with that title for one. I am talking about social constructions here while you’re going on about legal definitions in what I perceive to be defense of unacceptable male behaviour.

        Defending harassment isn’t a particularly noble endeavour.

        Being “objectified” is not necessarily violent, although the Left tries to pervert the English language and suggest that it IS violent, but this is obviously ridiculous and a dishonest attempt to receive something that I don’t quite know what it is.

        Sweet jebus – the monolithic left is out to get you – add some more tinfoil to the hat; your thoughts are getting out and they (I) am listening!

        You don’t see the problem with being treated like a thing rather than human? How might that lead to abuse and neglect – focus your keen philosophical mind on that question.

        But just because someone wants to use you as a sex object does NOT mean that they are a rapist.

        No, it just makes said person a very poor example of a human being.

        Legislation has to stay out of this.

        Legislation is already in this – sexual harassment is in the books and it is against the law. Case closed.

        But their perceptions of me are in no way subject to legislation, as neither can be the non-violent (use of physical force) objectification of women.

        I must, by legislative fiat and by the societal norms we all mostly follow, must treat you as if you are human. We legislate this treatment of people. The societal norms and the legal system which is a part of it are most certainly not perfect and are constantly being adjusted. Feminists seek to redress the current configuration of the social construction of what it is to be a woman, because as present, it isn’t a very good deal.

        You must understand that the phrase “equal rights” means solely legislation: NOT how people perceive you in public.

        This seems very important to you – yet not much to me. You can’t have equal rights in an inherently unjust society – it doesn’t work that way.

        Arb: “Should women strive to act and be treated in the same crappy way men treat each other? Seems to be a rather low bar to strive for.”

        COR – “See, that’s loaded right there, obviously, and I’m not even going to warrant that with a response, because you KNOW how ignorant that is to say, and thus, I’m not going to give it any credibility whatsoever by giving it an honest response, because it will be a waste of a breath.”

        Oh the sweet irony. Please do continue to not gratify my responses by not responding…

        The fact that you said that I’m “blaming women for my problems”, once again, is a failure to comprehend ANYTHING that I’ve said, but that was to be expected.

        Because most of what you say is only relevant your uniquely(?) circular perspective on feminism. As someone who knows a little bit of what feminism is about and is trying to tell you what it is rather than what you think it is, it may indeed come across as a “failure to comprehend”.

        If it’s socially acceptable for women to find men that fuck around all of the time gross, repulsive, and unattractive, then “gender equality” must require that men can feel those same ways about women: otherwise, there IS no “gender equality.”

        We can agree then. There is no gender equality, because societal standards do not apply in the same way to women and men. Wow, that was easy. 🙂

        That’s my basic point that I’m discussing. I DO find women that have a lot of promiscuous sex unattractive.

        And was that feeling, that preference, formed in a void? Nothing in preexisting society could influence or shape your point of view on that? Hmmmm?

        And if women have the “right” to force men to stop being promiscuous, then any definition of “equality” must require that men have the “right” to force WOMEN to stop being promiscuous as well.

        Sexual harassment is predominantly done by males to females. Women shouldn’t harass men sexually or otherwise as well.

        Almost none of what you said was an argument, and I’ve elaborated on everything above pretty precisely, I believe.

        Really? It just seemed like you repeated yourself trying to defend spurious male behaviour using a tiresome legalistic dodge.

        Any failure to comprehend what was said above may result in me discontinuing the conversation, as since I’ve already made things pretty clear, there’d be no point in repeating myself.

        Ah well, I did give it an honest try. You have fun with your logic and assertions, the monolithic left and I have some more conspiracies to plan, but not against you, honest.

      2. codyalanreel Post author

        Equality for men and women means equality under the law. NOT equality of outcome. There are other factors at play that most people on the Left are not considering when it comes to inequality of outcome.

        “This statement is model victim blaming. A woman should not have to curtail her activities to avoid being objectified. If she isn’t wearing a burka, is she asking for it?” The point that I was making flew DIRECTLY over your head. The point that I was making is that you can’t blame male sexuality altogether because rape occurs. You have to blame RAPISTS, but there are some that equate male sexuality WITH rape, which is obviously fallacious. You can’t blame all men because women get raped, although of course, women are going to be on the defensive after being raped. But the point is that you can’t equate male sexuality with rape, as some on the Left EXPLICITLY do. It sounds like you just have your blinders on and can’t comprehend what I am trying to say, but hopefully I’ve clarified this point for you, although I doubt it.

        “LoL forever.” We’re talking about LEGALITY. Apparently, my point about legality flew COMPLETELY over your head. I suggest you go back and read my point about legality before responding with any more points, because I thought I made this pretty clear. Of course, the nature of the rapist is that he violates rights. However, that does not mean that she DOESN’T have rights. I made this perfectly clear: I was talking about the law, NOT rapists. Legally, a woman has a right to say no, and rapists should be prosecuted. Please go back and actually read what I said, thank you. I won’t even SAY that I was talking about legality, because I said it enough times that anyone that understands English should understand that I was talking about legality. I was not talking about rapists, who don’t care whatsoever about women when I said that women have the right to say no. Of course I wasn’t. Because rapists don’t care. I was talking about the law. Please go back and read what I said about the law.

        “I said it before. Many women women want to be treated like human beings, not objects to be classified into patriarchal tropes e.g. prude,frigid,virgin/whore,slut,hussy etc. There is nothing mysterious or particularly confusing about this, no coins necessary.” I understand that women don’t want to be treated as sex objects. But this can’t morph into an all-out attack on ALL male sexuality, as exists within some of the feminist camp. I wasn’t talking about someone who wants a nurturing relationship or doesn’t want to be used for sex. I’m talking about the ones who LITERALLY say that all intercourse is rape, etc.

        “What it does sound like is that you may be trying to mounting a defense of aggressive, disrespectful male behaviour and saying to women, well if you wanna play the game, we menz get to act like arseholes because that’s what the game is.” I discussed what I meant above.

        “Again – if defining sexual equality is the right to harass and objectify another person then your notion of sexual equality is a deeply flawed.” Once again, I’m not talking about the harassment. Of course the harassment is unacceptable. I’m talking about the “branch” of feminism (for lack of a better term) that will LITERALLY say that all consensual sex is rape.

        “It would seem to be ‘inbounds’ for normal male behaviour within a patriarchal society – however – feminism is bringing about a change to the flawed status-quo. ‘Compliments are assertions of male dominance to female bodies in the pubic sphere – most women desire only to be left alone to go about their business and not have to exercise constant vigilance for the radical act of being a woman in a public place.” This is so lacking in objectivity that I can’t even grant it an objective compliment, because I’m sure that it would be a wasted breath on my part. I’ll suffice it to say that if complimenting a woman on her beauty is somehow an “assertion of dominance” on a female body, then saying “Nice hat” is an “assertion of dominance” on a hat. It’s completely absurd, and requires NO further elaboration. This is where the blinders come into play, for some unknown reason: when “agenda” trumps objectivity, for reasons that I’m not quite sure why unless it’s just a way to get “free” stuff.

        The “citation needed” is ALL OVER the internet. If you’d just like to trump pieces of information presented without providing facts, then I could say that I need a “citation” for your claim that I’m “…trying to mounting a defense of aggressive, disrespectful male behaviour and saying to women, well if you wanna play the game, we menz get to act like arseholes because that’s what the game is.” Once again, if all you have to do to make an argument against someone asking for a “citation”, then my request for a citation should be EQUALLY valuable.

        “I never put forward the argument that ‘all objectification is rape’. This is your flawed construct and most certainly not mine.” There are some within the ill-defined “feminist” movement that equate being checked out as rape. Hopefully, they are few and far between and thankfully, you don’t seem like one of the crazy bitches.

        “Stop conflating harassment with free speech. Your right to free speech works all the way up to point where it hurts other people – then it becomes unacceptable, socially speaking.” False. We’re getting into the nature of government here, which I’m not going to get into because it would take up a lot more space than I have here. I would have to explain to you the unjust nature of taxation: the fundamental building block of government, as well as government-citizen relations that rely on the initiation of force, as well as an analysis of what “rights” are, in order for me to provide a complete argument as to why verbal harassment is free speech. Once again, it’s deplorable, but we’d have to get into political theory here, which I do not want to do at the moment because that would take up so much more time than I’m willing to write for one simple response to one comment on the internet.

        “Your low opinion of men is noted.” Your statement makes NO sense.

        “Again, feminist critique of social norms is not monolithic.” I know, and that’s part of the problem. “Feminism” has to define SOMETHING if it is going to mean anything. There has to be something “feministic” if you’re going to identify as being a feminist. In other words, “feminism” has to represent some core set of values, otherwise, you have ONE definition of feminism meaning “black”, ANOTHER definition of feminism meaning “white”, and thus, feminism does not have any meaning as a term goes. It’s like someone calling letters “numbers” and numbers “letters”: the definitions only have meaning as far as they can be understood. I can CALL numbers “letters”, but the concepts of what are being discussed cannot be changed: in other words, whatever we call “letters” or “numbers”, what is being identified must be identifiable in order for its concept to have any meaning. What letters MEAN is more important than the fact that they are called “letters.” Likewise, what numbers are as a concept is more important than the fact that they are called “numbers”, and is more important than the particular shape that they take when they are drawn. The terms only have meaning as far as what the concept is actually defining. Likewise, “feminism” must take on this form if it is to have any TRUE meaning. If multiple ideas call themselves “feministic”, and these ideas contradict each other, then one has to be “feministic” whereas the other cannot be. I cannot say that I am not a racist if I hate black people: the term “racist” has a precise meaning, and thus there can’t be conflicting definitions of what that term means. “Feminism” must also fit this form, as ALL words do, not because of some ill-defined concept as a “social norm”, but because words only have meaning as far as the concept that they are actually defining. Therefore, whatever identifies as “feminism” is more important as a concept that it is describing than the fact that it is called “feminism.” The ideas and concepts are what is important: not simply the fact that multiple ideas and concepts call themselves “feministic.” And, to restate, words must have definitions if they are to have any meanings. If there are multiple forms of feminism, then they must each have something unified in order to identify as “feministic”, or else the term “feminism” does not mean anything at all. I can call the color black “white”, but I must be able to have a term to distinguish it from things that are different. I can’t call all of the colors “red”, because then I have no way to distinguish it from the other perceived colors. Likewise, there must be terms to describe the DIFFERENCES among feminism if not all forms of feminism are the same, OR there must be SOME core set of ideals that TRULY represent what the term “feminism” means. Hopefully, this is clear enough for you. You can’t attach a term to your position as if it was an irrefutable argument: concepts are more important than the words used to describe them, but the concepts must be defined and understood, and not hidden and blanketed by the words used to describe them as if the term used to describe them is an argument in and of itself.

        “Forcing complex subjects into simple dichotomies just doesn’t work. There are some feminists who are on board with all sex is rape idea, others agree with them on different levels with different provisions.” See the above paragraph. I’ve elaborated it pretty well, but I’ll restate it just one more time: WHAT is being described is more important than the TERM used to describe it, but terms have to have meanings if they are going to have meanings. I can’t say that the term “black” is used to describe light AND the ABSENCE of light: there must be a distinction between the terms when what is being described is of an opposite nature to one another.

        “I get it, you need to simplify feminism to a point where you can make your rhetorical hay and show how toxic(?) feminism is to the status-quo.” You’ve completely missed my point, and have put your agenda-blinders on. I’m not going to unfold that, because it’s pointless, as you’ve obviously disregarded all objectivity in that statement, and thus will not value any attempts at objectivity that I may present to you.

        “Are we just fapping on about legalistic definitions here? People absolutely have the right to be perceived a certain way – fully human with all the rights and responsibilities that go along with that title for one. I am talking about social constructions here while you’re going on about legal definitions in what I perceive to be defense of unacceptable male behaviour. Defending harassment isn’t a particularly noble endeavour.” The legal portion is important because of people that identify themselves as “Leftists” and “liberals” who want for there to be increased legislation about how we should feel about each other, such as people that would want to make the word “nigger” illegal. Also, the legislative process is often used to change “social constructions”, which is unacceptable. When there are calls to legislatively eliminate the “patriarchy”, then I start “fapping” about legislation here. If you wish to “change” the “social norms” of the “patriarchy” without legislation, then I could drop the legislation altogether. However, legislation is almost a constant when it comes to people that identify as Leftists that want for there to be “social changes”, and thus why I “fapped” so much about legislation, to use your disrespectful term.

        “Sweet jebus – the monolithic left is out to get you – add some more tinfoil to the hat; your thoughts are getting out and they (I) am listening!” Citation needed.

        “How might that lead to abuse and neglect.” Notice that you didn’t say that it DOES ALWAYS NECESSARILY lead to abuse and neglect. That is important, because you have just conceded that it MIGHT NOT lead to abuse and neglect (as evidenced by your use of the term “might”). However, many on the Left say that things like pornography DIRECTLY cause men to view women as sex objects and as non-human entities to be disrespected. But your use of the word “might” seems to suggest that their ALSO “might not” be a case where “objectification” leads to abuse and neglect. How would you treat those that look at pornography and “objectify” women without abusing and neglecting any woman in their actual life?

        “No, it just makes said person a very poor example of a human being.” I’m perfectly ok with that statement. As long as you don’t directly equate it with rape, as I’ve heard some people that call themselves “feminists” say, I am perfectly ok with that.

        “Legislation is already in this – sexual harassment is in the books and it is against the law. Case closed.” Once again, we’d have to get into the nature of politics which honestly could be novel-length if we want to get into GENUINE political theory, of which is so time-consuming and tedious that I do not wish to lay out the entire framework HERE. I’ll simply concede that this argument will not be good enough for you, and let it go. “To each their own” in this case, at least for the time being.

        “I must, by legislative fiat and by the societal norms we all mostly follow, must treat you as if you are human.” If someone only thought of me as a sex object, but did not violently act upon this thought, then this thought is not subject to legislation. If a woman looks at nude men and only perceives of fucking them and then being done with them, and values NOTHING ELSE about these men, then this cannot be subject to legislation.

        “This seems very important to you – yet not much to me. You can’t have equal rights in an inherently unjust society – it doesn’t work that way.” I’ve already discussed legislation above. And “Inherently unjust society”?: “Citation needed.”

        “Oh the sweet irony. Please do continue to not gratify my responses by not responding…” I will gladly do so. If I provide an answer that does not settle well with you, I have no qualms about it and can peacefully live with myself. I do not need acceptance from you as to why I believe what I believe. We can both perfectly live with this.

        “There is no gender equality, because societal standards do not apply in the same way to women and men. Wow, that was easy.” No, there isn’t. Of course not. I never claimed for there to be completely equal treatment of men and women regarding the perceptions of sex regarding the two sexes. I’m only concerned with keeping the legislative process at bay: I don’t care about anything else. Of course, it is hypocritical for men to be expected as being able to fuck around all of the time while women are seen as whores. That’s just basic logic. However, if men ACCEPT their depravity and don’t CARE that they’re called manwhores, then there still isn’t a “double standard”: it’s that men just don’t care about how disgusting they are perceived whereas women do. If everyone is treated as being disgusting for being promiscuous, then there is equality, and perceptions are not subject to the legislative process, so therefore, we must either accept that we can say that being promiscuous is disgusting, or we can say that it ISN’T disgusting, but obviously, there is going to exist a natural equality among the sexes about sex. At least, I believe that there should be. A man that fucks around is just as gross as a WOMAN that fucks around. And if you want to believe that men fucking around is great, then of course, women should be perceived the same way. I never understood the male “Yeah, let’s go fuck a lot of bitches!” attitude ANYWAY, and have perceived women that do the same way in the same light: with confusion and a little bit of repulsion.

        “Sexual harassment is predominantly done by males to females. Women shouldn’t harass men sexually or otherwise as well.” Perfectly fine with that statement. We are in agreement.

        “Really? It just seemed like you repeated yourself trying to defend spurious male behaviour using a tiresome legalistic dodge.” Citation needed. You don’t have any proof or evidence to defend your claim, and thus I see no reason to believe why it should be objective in any way, shape, or form.

        “Ah well, I did give it an honest try. You have fun with your logic and assertions, the monolithic left and I have some more conspiracies to plan, but not against you, honest.” Sarcasm isn’t an argument, so if that was your attempt, then congratulations for not making an argument. If that was your attempt, then we can both accept that and I can say “Well, he or she was just tired of defending their points, so I am more justified in going my separate way than I possibly could have been before.”

Don't make an ass of yourself for the whole internet to see. No pressure ;)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s