hush that fuss, everybody move to the back of the bus

i meant that i am more intended for things otherwise. i have sex. i love sex. i am sexually attracted to people. but it is not my purpose and generally easily ignored. i'm just saying that these men are clearly not demonstrating their potential to be rational and reasonable members of society. neither, the men who were sitting at the table next to me the other day at lunch who were wondering how one's 19yo son who had gone to a playboy party could stand to go back to school (presumably to deal with normal women wearing clothes).i think it's because people raise their sons to think that they can't control themselves, while girls must be taught "feminine restraint". "boys will be boys."

I just thought it would be polite to let you know that I will probably steal this line.Thanks for the laugh.Edited by docpotato, : No reason given.

np. i made it up on the spot. but i'm sure i'm not the first to say it.

I agree. My question is just how holy are these men if seeing a woman's leg will turn them into rapists?But then again, I speak as a living version of star trek vulcan, so perhaps normal men can't really control themselves whenever they see a woman's hair or leg...

quote:

---

But then again, I speak as a living version of star trek vulcan, so perhaps normal men can't really control themselves whenever they see a woman's hair or leg...

---

My standard response to this is this:If she had a gun pointed at him, any sane man would have no problem whatsoever completely controlling any and every inappropriate sexual impulse he might have had towards that woman.Therefore, any sane man most certainly can control any and every inappropriate sexual impulse towards any woman.They just don't think that they have to.

I understand, though I wouldn't ignore it, just learn to control it - like you said before. Agreed, but I still don't think that the root of the problem is not sex limited - it exists in both the sexes, but manifests itself in different ways. I am referring to dogma/religion. Yes, some men are jerks. I don't see how this has anything to do with the topic. You mean like "Ladies first"? Or maybe that men are automatically assumed to have greater physical strength and therefore must do the physical work (from personal experience). I don't care for that type of thought one way or the other - and I think that, relative to our parents, we have actually made a lot of progress in this area.

quote:

---

Or maybe that men are automatically assumed to have greater physical strength

---

Er, that would be a reasonable assumption, since most men are physically stronger than most women.

True, and most women cook better than most men, but I still wouldn't ask only women to cook, because its not true in every situation. Instead, I would search for the best cook - regardless of sex.

you really hit it right there.

i don't think so either, i'm really just being frustrated here. did i ever say this was appropriate?but i really hardly think that an allowance for men behaving improperly and abusively towards others really compares to opening a door for someone.

i have two words for you.pon farr.

---

I have six words for you. That's what the wife is for.On a different note, I guess the vulcans never discovered masturbation...

Obviously you've never flogged the bishop with the Vulcan salute.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Continuing our little conversation the other night, wouldn't it be better if they don't get the sexual impulse at all?But on the other hand, I also sort of don't think I agree with you on this. Just about every major current living religion has a long history of sexual suppression. If you look specifically at the measures these religions have taken, they look like the measures were taken out of the assumption that men cannot control their sexual urges. Muslim women are required to cover themselves from head to toe (the ones that do anyway) because supposedly the assumption seems to be that men cannot control themselves therefore instead of taking measures to teach the men how to control themselves they just cover up the women.Middle ages christians also had a similar attitude. It was always the women seducing the men...I can't speak for these men we are talking about, but it seems like it's more than a conscious choice they make about their control, or the lack thereof, over their sexual impulses.And no, I don't think the gun example is sufficient enough. A lot of people do things at gunpoint they would otherwise never do.

quote:

---

True, and most women cook better than most men,

---

???How is that a valid comparison. Cooking is learned. Gendered physical characteristics, including strength, are not learned, but inherent.

quote:

---

but I still wouldn't ask only women to cook, because its not true in every situation. Instead, I would search for the best cook - regardless of sex.

---

How about you replace "cooking" with "ability to grow visible facial hair" and see how you get on with women.Look, I want to make it clear that I am very, very much in favor of equal opportunity for everyone regardless of gender, but it isn't sexist to assume that men, in general, are physically stronger than women, in general. It's the same as assuming that most men will have a lot more ability to grow visible facial hair than most women.