 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in Femine's Corner. |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - Femine's Corner - The Double Standard. |
New poll |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
Snow Tomato Snap Dragon                   Since: 12-31-05 From: NYC Last post: 6300 days Last view: 6286 days |
| ||
| This is about to get heated.
There are double standards that exist between the sexes. In my government class we were talking about Roe v. Wade, and somehow the subject came up about having children and what sex you would like to have them be. I was surprised to hear a guy say "I would like to have girls because they would be going out and doing bad things." Blatently applying that if his boys were to go out and do the same things... they wouldn't be "bad". There are alot of people who think like this. If a woman has sex with multiple partners, she must be a slut... but when a guy has sex with multiple partners it's accepted as being completely normal... and they're "the man." To go with a less conventional example. Guys aren't allowed to cry. If guys cry, they're pussies or what have you. Why can't guys cry? And how come when Guys fight it's considered heroic and justified to an extent... like the person who loses "must have done something wrong"... but when girls fight it's considered a spectator sport? It's hysterical even though these girls could have the exact same grievances against one another that the guys may have had. Can you aknowledge that double standards exist between the sexes still? And if you can... do you think this is necessarily a bad thing? (I don't want any "WELL MEN SUCK AND ARE PIGS!" or "WELL WOMEN SUCK AND THEY ARE SLUTS!!" arguments. I want you to take a serious introspective look at the social conditions which bring these standards about... comment on them and interpret them. I'll offer my two cents later on.) |
|||
Danielle     6730 Administratorrrr HELLO THERE     Since: 11-17-05 From: California Rate me ^_^ Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| I actually just finished writing a paper about this topic, which I took from The Canterbury Tales. The topic of polygamy is rampant in this novel, but it's only accepted with men. The church during the 14th century supported men having multiple wives, because it was "to produce more offspring," but if a woman were to have multiple husbands, or even an affair, she was a harlot for cheating on her husband. Of course, times have changed a little since then, but the basic concept and beliefs are still the same. A guy with a bunch of girls is considered a stud, but a girl with a bunch of guys is a whore.
I'm extremely against polygamy in any what whatsoever, so the change I would like to see is on the topic of men. I don't want it to become acceptable for women to sleep around the same as some men do, I want both sexes to shape up and have monogamous relationships. As for the other stereotypes, I think they're all connected. If men can have the upper hand on women, then they're obviously the "tough guy" so to speak. They feel they have to stick to the manly standards by not crying, by showing they can win a fight, etc. It works the same way for girls, I suppose... it's just not as frowned upon. |
|||
drjayphd Torosu OW! BURNY!  Since: 11-18-05 From: CT Last post: 6282 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Danielle How about polyamory between consenting adults? Everything's above-board. |
|||
ibz10g Spiny Since: 08-10-06 From: Altoona, Iowa Last post: 6325 days Last view: 6325 days |
| ||
| That's the society we live in. I can't say I'm not guilty of thinking some of your examples, but you do make a good point. I know that as a society, we are striving to get rid of any beliefs that may belittle anyone, but it's here right now, and it isn't going anywhere soon.
This is a little like racism. Not matter which way you look at it, white people are the only race that are typically considered racist. Heres what I mean. We have the United Negro College Fund. If we had a United Caucasian College Fund, we would be racist. So to be quite frank, there are unfair standards for everyone in any given situations. I can't tell you why we have them, but we do. It's actually a little upsetting to think about. |
|||
Rydain Sir Kibble Blaze Phoenix Runs with the Dragon Within  Since: 11-18-05 From: State College, PA Last post: 6284 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
Originally posted by drjayphdExactly. Not everyone is interested in monogamous relationships, and I think it's unfair to hold monogamy up as some sort of gold standard because it isn't everyone's preference. Some people prefer casual sex, and others might wish to be in serious relationships with more than one person at the same time. As long as all partners are aware of the arrangements and consent to them, I fail to see the problem. |
|||
JDavis Nintendo Fanboy Local Mod Affected by 'The Golden Power' +  Since: 11-17-05 From: Ada, OK, USA Last post: 6293 days Last view: 6281 days |
| ||
| I'm going to have to agree with drjayphd and Rydain on the polygamy thing. While I, personally, would almost certainly never feel comfortable in a polygamous relationship, I'm not about to tell other people that they can't have one. As long as none of the involved parties are being deceived about it, and all are a-okay with the arrangement, then they have every right to go ahead.
Honestly, this mirrors my stance on male homosexuality. Personally, I can't fathom how anyone, including women, manages to find the male form attractive. However, I'm not going to go around telling anyone that they're wrong for their sexual preferences. In fact, more power to them if they've managed to find someone they're happy with. Back to the main topic, though... As much as we don't like it, there are ALWAYS going to be gender-based double standards. That is, until the day that we're all homogeneous bi-sexuals. Maybe also hermaphrodites. That'd get rid of it, for sure. |
|||
|
Danielle 6730 Administratorrrr HELLO THERE Since: 11-17-05 From: California Rate me ^_^ Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| Oh, I don't care of two other people both agree to be in an open relationship... I should have been more specific. I'm against it if only one party consents to it, or if I'm involved in any way whatsoever. I was speaking about the book I read and did my paper about, in which the women didn't consent to their husbands sleeping around while they weren't allowed to do the same. | |||
|
Silvershield 580  Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6292 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Snow TomatoWhile I am personally of the opinion that any promiscuous person, whether male or female, is really kinda gross, I won't hesitate to acknowledge that society at large might have a double standard. Let me try and reason it out though, at least as far as I can perceive the situation: Males typically have a more intense sex drive than females. I know I'll get all kinds of protests about this point, and all sorts of sources saying that the two are equal, but I will stand quite firm in this regard. Males are more sexually driven that females are, even if that means that the sexes have identical drives but that they manifest in different ways (as in, a male will want to satiate his sexual desire through actual sex, while a woman might appreciate any sort of physical contact at all). Even if you disagree with this point, understand that it is the greater popular consensus, and so the greater population subscribes to it and draws other beliefs from it. Now, since a male always wants sex - and, realize that I'm intentionally going to an extreme here, saying "always" just to more easily illustrate my point - a female can effectively have sex whenever she wants to. She can count on always having a willing male available, and so she always has access to it. On the other hand, since a female does not always want sex, a male cannot always count on having access to it. A girl who is not promiscuous is not to be commended, because it's what she "should" be doing. Since her gender does not desire sex so intensely, it is essentially the norm, and she doesn't get any extra credit for adhering to the norm. A girl who is promiscuous, on the other hand, is going against her gender stereotype and, as such, is breaking a sort of taboo barrier. Girls don't want sex, so a girl who is chasing it with any sort of gusto is surely not right in the head. That perception manifests as scorn toward the girl. A guy who is not promiscuous is to be commended, because he is using his will power to defy the urges innate to his gender. On the other hand, a promiscuous male is essentially just adhering to his undeniable male urges, and so he cannot truly be faulted. I kinda just reasoned that all out as I wrote it, so I'm not sure the logic follows completely, but I think that's a possible explanation for the double standard. Note that I don't personally approve of it; as I said before, I have equal disdain for promiscuous people of either sex. But that's another story. Originally posted by Snow TomatoGender roles may be an artificial societal construct (and then again, they might not be), but they do serve some purpose. You essentially need a masculine role and a feminine role in a relationship, even if those roles aren't filled by a man and a woman respectively. You'll note that many (most? all?) gay relationships, even, have a partner that is more masculine and one that is more feminine. But, the point is, an archetypical masculine trait is the repression of emotion. And so, a man who is filling the masculine role will adhere to archetypically masculine traits. Originally posted by Snow TomatoAgain, violence is a masculine trait, passivity a feminine trait. |
|||
emcee Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| Although society obviously plays a large role, it most likely also instinctual. What causes a species to prosper, instead of fail is its ability to produce offspring. The male of the of the species can go on producing offspring (or at least getting the process started) everyday of the week, while the female on the other hand will be out of the game for a while. So it doesn't come as to much of a surprise that its more accepted in most societies for men to be promiscuous. | |||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6292 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
Originally posted by emceeOf course, but does that mean that the mores of modern Western society are governed directly and solely by ancient evolutionary instincts? |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Danielle Can I get a source on this? |
|||
|
emcee Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Silvershield Not solely. |
|||
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6281 days Last view: 6281 days |
| ||
| I disagree with SS that it's got anything to do with sex-drive intensity. Plenty of girls get plenty horny, and I think SS is very exactly putting the horse before the cart. Girls are seen as wanting less sex because that's what they're conditioned to act like (note the word "act" as opposed to "actually feel"). It's a feedback loop as much as anything.
This double standard can, I think, get traced back down to the continuing entrenched nature of traditional sexual roles. The conquest/domination paradigm is still strong and has essentially survived the sexual revolution in tact*, and as a result we still have this tension between what we theoretically believe (equality and sexual liberation) and what we instinctively feel. The result is the general mass of society treating women who fuck a lot and men who fuck a lot quite differently and this even extends to most more enlightened, otherwise liberal and egalitarian males and even some feminists. There's still something there, which says women having lots of sex is bad. I think the reason for this is actually related to the accepted "normal" sexual paradigm of the dominant male and the submissive female. The male endeavouring to conquer females, to own and dominate... the females in turn seen as being passively or willingly conquered, penetrated, etc. Truly sexually aggressive women, existing outside this paradigm (as opposed to the merely submissive but promiscuous variety) still scare a LOT of people, and it still sounds weird to talk of women using men for sexual gratification, and hyper-sexual musical artists like Peaches just confuse the fuck out of people with their overt sexuality... and this is part of why. So what that means, essentially, is that a woman who sleeps around will still be seen as "conquered" and "soiled" and "spoiled goods" because they've allowed themselves to be penetrated and "used" and so forth. Whereas no equivalent situation can be imagined for men... at most they're indiscriminate, they're aggressive, and these are far lesser offenses. The unfortunate thing is that given that it goes very deeply into sexual roles and stuff, it's pretty damn difficult to alter. Even for those who recognise the way these sex roles are distorting things and maintaining inequalities in society, it's difficult to go against the entire grain of the society you're raised in. Hell, we aren't even really linguistically capable of exp *Note that I'm not saying this dominant male/submissive female sexual roles are in any way natural or ingrained. They're very much a socially constructed thing... I mean, ever stop to wonder why we think of sex as penetration of the woman by the man, rather than reversing the agency and thinking of women enveloping the man? (edited by Arwon on 12-11-06 04:29 AM) (edited by Arwon on 12-11-06 04:34 AM) |
|||
Kasumi-Astra Flurry Since: 11-18-05 From: Sheffield England Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Silvershield Not really, that's a stereotype. It's common, but not mandatory. (edited by Kasumi-Astra on 12-11-06 05:51 AM) (edited by Kasumi-Astra on 12-11-06 05:52 AM) |
|||
Stalle Red Goomba  Since: 11-20-06 From: Atlanta, GA Last post: 6344 days Last view: 6344 days |
| ||
| I'm probably alone in saying that both sexes are guilty of being entirely too sexual these days.. Heh.
Instead of saying that women should be as sexual as men.. why not call men on their disgusting behavior? |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6292 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
Originally posted by ArwonI didn't say I naturally believe all of that rhetoric word for word, just that it's the common perception in society. But I will still contend that the male sex drive takes a different character than the female sex drive, just by virtue of evolutionary factors that would inherently design each gender to desire sex for a different purpose. Originally posted by Kasumi-AstraI was quick to note my general lack of knowledge on the issue (by not using an exact descriptor, and instead leaving it open), mainly because my experience really does come from popular stereotypes. The only real first-hand knowledge I have comes from the one close gay relative I have - in that case, there is definitely a masculine and a feminine role in her relationship. The stereotype is, of course, that one partner will be "butch" while the other is more feminine and submissive, but I really don't think that perception is too far from the truth, just considering the nature of relationships. I mean, any specific details aside, the very nature of most human romantic bonds more or less requires a sort of give-and-take action - that is, frequent compromise on various issues - and the partner who traditionally "gives" or is more submissive is called feminine while the one who traditionally "takes" or is more dominant is masculine. Sure it doesn't apply in every case, and sure it may be more evident in some cases than in others, but I would contend that the basic theme is present in almost every relationship to some degree or another. |
|||
|
Danielle 6730 Administratorrrr HELLO THERE Since: 11-17-05 From: California Rate me ^_^ Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| ziff: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/aug-marr.html
"Now, although the fact of the matter is, that while nature loves singleness in her dominations, but we may see plurality existing more readily in the subordinate portion of our race; yet for all that, it was at no time lawful for one man to have a plurality of wives, except for the purpose of a greater number of children springing from him. Wherefore, if one woman cohabits with several men inasmuch as no increase of offspring accrues to her therefrom, but only a more frequent gratification of lust, she cannot possibly be a wife, but only a harlot." And I'd just like to add, in regards to SS's comments about needing a masculine and feminine role in a relationship, that I completely disagree. That really has very little to do with relationships, outside of stereotypes. If two people like each other, who cares if they're both "masculine" or "butch," or if they're both "feminine." I can say about myself that I fall directly in the middle, and could easily lean in either direction, depending on how I feel. Guys could do the same, I'm sure, they just don't always want to. (edited by Danielle on 12-12-06 12:19 AM) |
|||
DahrkDaiz Nipper Plant U wan hax Mario?!  Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6281 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| The thing about "guys can have sex a lot be a stud, girls can't cuz they a slut" thing: I've noticed, girls tend to be highly attracted to guys who have had more partners. When a guy at work comes around, if he has had several girlfriends, the other girls flock to him, even more so if he's already taken. This is just an observation I have noticed. Girls sometimes instictively see a male with many partners as "poweful". It even happens in nature, the dominant male will have many partners in a pack, even a queen in a tribal animal structure will have many men who serve only to have sex with her so she may make babies. I think this double standard is an instinct we mix with morality and it just comes out all nasty and wrong. (I'm not condoning the double standard, I think it's crap guys get treated better for it, just offering an possible explanation) | |||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| Danielle, just for future reference. Be careful when quoting Augustine on Church affairs. He was an important Church Father, but to say that the Church was sanctioning polygamy is a massive jump in logic. Particularly when you're saying the "Church in the 14th century". Augustine wasn't around then. | |||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6292 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
Originally posted by DanielleI think you're misinterpreting me. It's not about one partner wearing flannel and the other wearing lace, one liking dogs and the other cats, or one having short hair and the other long. It's about one person in a relationship generally displaying traits that are traditionally called masculine - assertiveness, outspokenness, general dominance - and the other leaning more toward feminine qualities - submission (to some extent), introversion, acquiescence. A woman could very easily be the "masculine" one in a relationship, while her male partner is the "feminine" one. It's not about gender stereotypes, but about the dynamics of a relationship. |
| Pages: 1 2 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - Femine's Corner - The Double Standard. |
| |
