• 1 Vote(s) - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5


RCs and nootropics: a male thing?
#31
(21-04-2016, 09:17 AM)Marzipam Wrote: Any studies to back up your claims ?

"Across many real-world domains, men engage in more risky behaviors than do women.."


Google it. http://journal.sjdm.org/jdm06016.pdf

Theres tons of info you could find easily. It's also what you learn when you take psychology classes.
Reply
#32
(18-03-2016, 06:07 PM)J.S. Wrote: Is that the clue again. Are females in general much more directed at preventing harm whereas we men are more risktakers? Or are we more interested in boosting our brains?

Too busy gettin busy mebe to give that much of a  shit?

:P

(08-04-2016, 02:15 PM)J.S. Wrote: That fact that someone, male or female, notices the exterior of another person and consistently finds it beautiful or attractive does not mean you now made an object out of them. If you would only do that and have  no consideration  for the rest or in  fact cannot consider anything but the visual aspect you are very  close to psychopathy in which the person does not (cannot) attach value to living things, their feelings, their thoughts. It is why they kill them with ease or pleasure and they only have a function  for this persons pleasure.

When a person also notices that he loves women, especially or also the outside or the looks that is just that. It does not detract for the respect, the interest for the thoughts or anything else that also comes with that person. However: when you are on a street and females pass you by the  only thing you can see is that exterior. It still does not mean they are now objects, but the visual part is the only thing you can truely assess if you want to.

It's a disgusting lie that so many people are still prepared to entertain, that in spite being entirely puritanical in origin, that being sexually attracted to how someone looks and enjoying looking at them sexually is somehow a dehumanising attack on them. They will say they aren't really saying that, when you tell them this, but that's exactly what they're doing. They don't FEEL like they're doing that, because  they know how stupid that sounds. But they'll never be able to justify the logic that finding a man or woman sexually attractive and lusting after them should be seen this way (though you'll notice they only care if that person being lusted after is female). It's this weird cognitive dissonance where they have the same mindset of puritanical religions that lead to burkas (designed to "protect" women from men, not repress them, that's just the effect), while at the same time saying we should be free from religious sexual repression. It's bonkers.

 "Yo girl, you shouldn't be ashamed of your sexuality, get yer tits out, show yer skin!!!   MEN YOU ARE DISGUSTING PIGS FOR LOOKING AT HER SEXUALLY!!"


They're often so resistant to accepting they're wrong about this that I have to believe it's because THEY dehumanise and objectify the people they are sexually attracted to and think everyone else thinks the same way. It's like how so many of the most fervent anti-gay religious people turn out of be gay. It makes sense. If someone truly believes being gay is a choice, they're probably thinking that because THEY are attracted to the same sex and can't fathom the idea that everyone else isn't also choosing not to be gay like they are (or trying to).

And that may be the slightly scary thing here, because those who won't back down on this notion that a man is some kind of sociopath for enjoying looking at women they're sexually attracted to, they're really telling you what they think and projecting their own lack of compassion and lack of empathy. What should really concern you is that I can't see why it would stop at just looking at attractive people. So if you get a taxi somewhere, if you hire removal guys, the UPS delivery driver with your package, your waiter, your doctor, your nurse, the store assistant etc. They're all seen as dehumanised objects, or at least, there's a good chance they are for someone that sees things this way, and maybe the only reason we don't see them talk about people objectifying their doctors, cabbies and waitresses is because they don't care when they do that. For some reason they DO care about the sexual issue and their tactic to make them feel better about it is to tell everyone else how awful they are for something THEY'RE doing.

THEY feel deep shame for how they feel and want you to feel it too. Making people feel shame and guilt are tactics of the abusive person, an abusive belief system, and abusive ideologies, most often as a means of control. Look at the anti-drugs rhetoric, it always comes back to what what's "morally" right. They are anti-drugs because they believe it's immoral to take drugs and therefore people should be ashamed for taking them and ashamed for defending liberalising drug legislation.  So it is here. You can literally look at what they say and quote directly from the Bible for backup for why lust is a sin and see virtually no difference. But for some reason they're able to condemn that, but then go on to more or less say the same exact thing. Except not exactly, because the only relevant difference here is that they dislike Christian/Biblical views about sex because they don't like what it says about women. They've just taken the same anti-sex beliefs and just projected it all onto men and male sexuality.  Ironically that still doesn't change much since female sexuality was always see as pure, the reason women were considered damaged or dirty if they had sex is because they came into contact with male sexuality. It was always male sexuality that was seen as dirty and dangerous. So really all we're seeing here is a secular version of the most puritanical religious beliefs about sex, but with all the restrictions on women removed. The sad thing is that it hurts men being told they're terrible people based on this nonsense and they feel shame and hurt because they actually do care, whereas women are put in a position of having their minds warped to see male sexuality as a dirty and dangerous thing and to be paranoid and on edge when they don't need to be. The funny thing is they still treat men as the actors and women as acted upon, then they complain about a view of men and women they themselves are helping to sustain. It bolsters the same bullshit gender roles they themselves claim to be so against by turning them up to 11 and thinking if they frame it without a religious context somehow it's different. It's abusive to instil fear and paranoia in little girls, and it's abusive to instil such deep shame in little boys for perfectly natural and harmless feelings. If you want to stop "slut shaming" you need to figure out why it is that "slutty women" is considered a negative, but they can't do that because the answer means we need to make people see male sexuality as not dirty and not harmful. Instead they do the opposite and tell us even more how male sexuality is harmful to women ensuring "slut shaming" will continue.


With the Bible you had all of humanity rolling around in the dirt but they didn't like that so women are now depicted as more angelic and men as monstrous. I'm not sure how this is an improvement on the religious version except that the way our secular society is set up it's so far stopped these ideological regressives (people that think they're progressive) from getting what they want. Though having said that, especially in the last several years we have seen them achieve a worrying amount of success. At least with anti-sex religious belief they tend to have an actual agenda with actual goals, whereas I don't think you could appease these man-hating ideologues even if you tried to give them everything they ever asked for. Luckily we've now seen a sharp increase in push back against it, which hopefully will continue.
Reply
#33
(23-04-2016, 12:04 AM)baltar Wrote: It's a disgusting lie that so many people are still prepared to entertain, that in spite being entirely puritanical in origin, that being sexually attracted to how someone looks and enjoying looking at them sexually is somehow a dehumanising attack on them.

What the fuck are you talking about? Nobody is saying this.

(23-04-2016, 12:04 AM)baltar Wrote: They will say they aren't really saying that, when you tell them this,

Because they're not.

(23-04-2016, 12:04 AM)baltar Wrote: but that's exactly what they're doing.

No they're not.

(23-04-2016, 12:04 AM)baltar Wrote: They don't FEEL like they're doing that, because  they know how stupid that sounds. But they'll never be able to justify the logic that finding a man or woman sexually attractive and lusting after them should be seen this way

Why should anyone be expected to justify the logic of an argument that they are not, in fact, making?

(23-04-2016, 12:04 AM)baltar Wrote: (though you'll notice they only care if that person being lusted after is female). It's this weird cognitive dissonance where they have the same mindset of puritanical religions that lead to burkas (designed to "protect" women from men, not repress them, that's just the effect), while at the same time saying we should be free from religious sexual repression. It's bonkers.

No, what's bonkers is refusing to engage with the actual arguments people are making and instead substituting your own brain-dead straw-man argument and then proudly proclaiming that you're against it.

(23-04-2016, 12:04 AM)baltar Wrote:
 "Yo girl, you shouldn't be ashamed of your sexuality, get yer tits out, show yer skin!!!   MEN YOU ARE DISGUSTING PIGS FOR LOOKING AT HER SEXUALLY!!"

They're often so resistant to accepting they're wrong about this that I have to believe it's because THEY dehumanise and objectify the people they are sexually attracted to and think everyone else thinks the same way.

Why the fuck should anyone accept they're wrong about something they have never claimed to be true?

(23-04-2016, 12:04 AM)baltar Wrote: It's like how so many of the most fervent anti-gay religious people turn out of be gay. It makes sense. If someone truly believes being gay is a choice, they're probably thinking that because THEY are attracted to the same sex and can't fathom the idea that everyone else isn't also choosing not to be gay like they are (or trying to).

And that may be the slightly scary thing here, because those who won't back down on this notion that a man is some kind of sociopath for enjoying looking at women they're sexually attracted to.

Nobody has said this except you.

(23-04-2016, 12:04 AM)baltar Wrote: they're really telling you what they think and projecting their own lack of compassion and lack of empathy.

Who is doing this? Is it not more likely that this lack of compassion and empathy is the mindset of the person who falsely claims that the people who have said nothing more than that making other people feel threatened by persistent and unwanted sexual advances are puritanical sociopaths?

(23-04-2016, 12:04 AM)baltar Wrote: What should really concern you is that I can't see why it would stop at just looking at attractive people. So if you get a taxi somewhere, if you hire removal guys, the UPS delivery driver with your package, your waiter, your doctor, your nurse, the store assistant etc. They're all seen as dehumanised objects, or at least, there's a good chance they are for someone that sees things this way, and maybe the only reason we don't see them talk about people objectifying their doctors, cabbies and waitresses is because they don't care when they do that. For some reason they DO care about the sexual issue and their tactic to make them feel better about it is to tell everyone else how awful they are for something THEY'RE doing.

Read some fucking Marx or something. Jesus fucking christ. Do you even understand what any of the words you're using mean?

(23-04-2016, 12:04 AM)baltar Wrote: THEY feel deep shame for how they feel and want you to feel it too. Making people feel shame and guilt are tactics of the abusive person, an abusive belief system, and abusive ideologies, most often as a means of control.

No, the tactics of an abusive person are to rant on and on in semi-coherence when told they they might want to think about whether their unexamined behaviour is hurtful to other people.

(23-04-2016, 12:04 AM)baltar Wrote: Look at the anti-drugs rhetoric, it always comes back to what what's "morally" right. They are anti-drugs because they believe it's immoral to take drugs and therefore people should be ashamed for taking them and ashamed for defending liberalising drug legislation.  So it is here. You can literally look at what they say and quote directly from the Bible for backup for why lust is a sin and see virtually no difference.

Again, this is your own invented argument you're doing this with, not the actual arguments which you either do not understand or intentionally ignore.

(23-04-2016, 12:04 AM)baltar Wrote: But for some reason they're able to condemn that, but then go on to more or less say the same exact thing. Except not exactly, because the only relevant difference here is that they dislike Christian/Biblical views about sex because they don't like what it says about women. They've just taken the same anti-sex beliefs and just projected it all onto men and male sexuality.

No they haven't.

(23-04-2016, 12:04 AM)baltar Wrote:   Ironically that still doesn't change much since female sexuality was always see as pure, the reason women were considered damaged or dirty if they had sex is because they came into contact with male sexuality. It was always male sexuality that was seen as dirty and dangerous.

What the fuck are you even saying here?

(23-04-2016, 12:04 AM)baltar Wrote: So really all we're seeing here is a secular version of the most puritanical religious beliefs about sex, but with all the restrictions on women removed. The sad thing is that it hurts men being told they're terrible people based on this nonsense and they feel shame and hurt because they actually do care, whereas women are put in a position of having their minds warped to see male sexuality as a dirty and dangerous thing and to be paranoid and on edge when they don't need to be.

Do you think sexual violence against women is a myth?

(23-04-2016, 12:04 AM)baltar Wrote: The funny thing is they still treat men as the actors and women as acted upon, then they complain about a view of men and women they themselves are helping to sustain. It bolsters the same bullshit gender roles they themselves claim to be so against by turning them up to 11 and thinking if they frame it without a religious context somehow it's different. It's abusive to instil fear and paranoia in little girls, and it's abusive to instil such deep shame in little boys for perfectly natural and harmless feelings.

Nobody is saying your feelings are bad. It's people's conduct that is the issue here. Why are you unable to separate these two things?

(23-04-2016, 12:04 AM)baltar Wrote: If you want to stop "slut shaming" you need to figure out why it is that "slutty women" is considered a negative,

Or, y'know, just make it clear that it's not acceptable to do that until people get the message. Or go off on weird rants about this stuff and make themselves look like idiots.

(23-04-2016, 12:04 AM)baltar Wrote: but they can't do that because the answer means we need to make people see male sexuality as not dirty and not harmful. Instead they do the opposite and tell us even more how male sexuality is harmful to women ensuring "slut shaming" will continue.

Sexuality isn't harmful. Hurting other people is. Sometimes hurting other people is motivated by sexual feelings. This doesn't make the feelings wrong.

(23-04-2016, 12:04 AM)baltar Wrote: With the Bible you had all of humanity rolling around in the dirt but they didn't like that so women are now depicted as more angelic and men as monstrous. I'm not sure how this is an improvement on the religious version except that the way our secular society is set up it's so far stopped these ideological regressives (people that think they're progressive) from getting what they want. Though having said that, especially in the last several years we have seen them achieve a worrying amount of success. At least with anti-sex religious belief they tend to have an actual agenda with actual goals, whereas I don't think you could appease these man-hating ideologues even if you tried to give them everything they ever asked for.
Luckily we've now seen a sharp increase in push back against it, which hopefully will continue.

You are an idiot.
Reply
#34
Proper focused venting there Nif
  
Try everything twice Because who knows, you might have got it wrong the first time
.
  
C
Reply
#35
women have their males to buy nootropics and RCs for them, like everything else ;) jk
Reply
#36
(24-04-2016, 07:34 AM)TedytheJunky Wrote: women have their males to buy nootropics and RCs for them, like everything else ;) jk

My boyfriend wouldn't know what a nootropic was if it walked up to him and enhanced him in the brain.
Reply
#37
(24-04-2016, 12:32 PM)Azcat Wrote:
(24-04-2016, 07:34 AM)TedytheJunky Wrote: women have their males to buy nootropics and RCs for them, like everything else ;) jk

My boyfriend wouldn't know what a nootropic was if it walked up to him and enhanced him in the brain.


Hahaha, Brilliant the pair of you
  
Try everything twice Because who knows, you might have got it wrong the first time
.
  
C
Reply
#38
I usually don't negative rep anyone, but this time I have to open an exception. Verbal diahrreia really deserves it.
Reply
#39
(24-04-2016, 03:48 AM)niflheim Wrote:
(23-04-2016, 12:04 AM)baltar Wrote: It's a disgusting lie that so many people are still prepared to entertain, that in spite being entirely puritanical in origin, that being sexually attracted to how someone looks and enjoying looking at them sexually is somehow a dehumanising attack on them.

What the fuck are you talking about? Nobody is saying this.

Are you saying that no one on this thread is saying this, or are you saying that no one is saying this?

The claim is usually that when a man enjoys looking at or thinking about women for sexual pleasure you are "objectifying" and "dehumanising" them into "objects" of sexual pleasure. I can find comments by you in this thread that seem to match, but maybe you're right. Maybe it's your choice of words that threw me (triggered me, if you will) and you don't mean to say the same thing as the people I'm talking about even though you're using their vernacular.

So can you confirm which it is? Do you think that those who you usually find talking about "sexual objectification" don't believe what I said they believe (such as people like Anita Sarkessian), or are you just saying that you don't believe this?

Is this a simple misunderstanding? Should I just interpret your comments where you talk about sexual objectification you're referring to when J.S. emphasised his love of women and immediately referred to his sexual attraction to the female body?  I understand that, and I can see where you're coming from, if that's all you were saying. 



Quote:
(23-04-2016, 12:04 AM)baltar Wrote: they're really telling you what they think and projecting their own lack of compassion and lack of empathy.

Who is doing this? Is it not more likely that this lack of compassion and empathy is the mindset of the person who falsely claims that the people who have said nothing more than that making other people feel threatened by persistent and unwanted sexual advances are puritanical sociopaths?

The comment you replied to is referring to the assumption of what's going on inside the minds of people they're accusing of sexually objectifying women. Anita Sarkessian is a great example because she does it so shamelessly. For example, she's descried the Mario games as if the entire reason people play is not for the game at all but to get to the end implication of a sexual reward with Princess Peach. Or that the reason Tomb Raider was so successful wasn't the actual gameplay, but because male gamers just wanted to stare at a low-res blocky CG woman with pointy boobs and her butt for hours and hours. At this point I can't see any alternative than to conclude that that's how SHE thinks. Look at her video on video game "butts" and how long she goes on about how you couldn't see Batman's butt properly even claiming it was like the cape was created to cover up the butt so male gamers wouldn't have to see it. It's like all she did is spend the entire time just trying to look at Batmans butt rather than play the game, as if that's what everyone else that wants to play these games cares about. She shows complete ignorance of the game, it's players, and all the male comic book charterers that have very prominent "butts". They can't exist in her world so just ignores them. The point is she's an example of someone that doesn't just say she feels uncomfortable with it, she tells people what they're thinking and imbues a malicious and insidious nature to it.  I mean either she's projecting onto everyone else how she sees the world, or she's just that shamelessly dishonest. Take your pick really, because I don't see any other explanation.

Quote:Read some fucking Marx or something. Jesus fucking christ. Do you even understand what any of the words you're using mean?

I don't know what you're referring to here. What does Marx have to do with it?

Quote:No, the tactics of an abusive person are to rant on and on in semi-coherence when told they they might want to think about whether their unexamined behaviour is hurtful to other people.

What do you mean no? Are shame and guilt not the top 2 methods of abusive control for individuals and ideologies?

Just because someone has negative feelings doesn't mean it's justified and doesn't mean it's not paranoid or delusional. You wouldn't care if a group of female KKK members felt uncomfortable and threatened around black men and wanted them to change their behaviour to accommodate to their racism, would you? Of course not. So that in itself isn't enough.


Quote:
(23-04-2016, 12:04 AM)baltar Wrote:   Ironically that still doesn't change much since female sexuality was always see as pure, the reason women were considered damaged or dirty if they had sex is because they came into contact with male sexuality. It was always male sexuality that was seen as dirty and dangerous.

What the fuck are you even saying here?

I'll simplify. The reason women are traditionally considered "cheapened" and "dirty" is only after  they come into contact with male sexuality. Male sexuality being seen as damaging to women is the root cause of what "slut shaming" is based. To really change the perception of women you'd first have to change the perception of men causing the perception of women.


Quote:
(23-04-2016, 12:04 AM)baltar Wrote: So really all we're seeing here is a secular version of the most puritanical religious beliefs about sex, but with all the restrictions on women removed. The sad thing is that it hurts men being told they're terrible people based on this nonsense and they feel shame and hurt because they actually do care, whereas women are put in a position of having their minds warped to see male sexuality as a dirty and dangerous thing and to be paranoid and on edge when they don't need to be.

Do you think sexual violence against women is a myth?

I'd answer this question but I'm not sure what context you're coming from, I don't why you'd ask it in response to what you quoted from me. Unless you think it's not possible for women to be paranoid or have an unreasonable level of fear of violence?


Quote:Nobody is saying your feelings are bad. It's people's conduct that is the issue here. Why are you unable to separate these two things?


As I said at the start of this post, if I misunderstood what you were saying because of the words you used then I get what you're talking about, yes.
Reply
#40
Well..a lot of words are used here (for sure also by me) for something so simple and obvious:  people (man and women) look at the outside. There is a reason why there are stripbars, hookers, why porn  is so much downloaded on the net etc. It is because of physical attraction and arousal. Some numbers indicate that men are much more focussed on physical parts than women but these like men physically also.

If someone calls it objectifying it is a subjective term. You can also call it admiring, desiring or whatever  view you have on it. How it makes others feel is not clearcut and irrelevant also. Some women  very much like it. Some might not.

It is a fact that when women see a guy they fancy subconsciously they will flirt and that is in part by showing the man how desirable she is. Via her female parts like showing her neck etc or touching parts she wants you to touch etc.

So ones objectification is anothers admiration or a source of physical arousal and sexual thoughts....
Reply

Reddit   Facebook   Twitter  




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

   
DISCLAIMER
Any views or opinions posted by members are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the UKCR staff team.