4 ms·

Don't you think it has more to do with the fact that it's difficult to convince a lot of women to have sex with you? This statement depends on who you are.

Don't you think it has more to do with the fact that it's difficult to convince a lot of women to have sex with you? This statement depends on who you are. Attractive males and females both get more sex than unattractive ones. Society has a systemic problem however, regarding how women are viewed. is shaming not an appropriate tool to improve society Ideas A & B are moot. It's bad for society to oppress classes of people based on their gender (discrimination). Shaming people for their gender in the name of "improving society" is pretty ludicrous. do you believe that sex has the same effect on women that it has on men and that the sort of personality traits that cause a woman to seek out sex with men other than a life partner are the sort of personality traits that men find desirable in life partners? What I believe is that people (but mainly men) should not look for sex toys as life partners. That's what objectification is, and it's unfortunate that every society currently has varying levels of objectifying women built-in; that is, this is not something on just an individual basis but something systemic which is my broader point. Generalizing about the effects of sex on men vs women is pointless; sex means something different to every person and affects every person differently.

jimmyk 10y ago
>This statement depends on who you are. Attractive males and females both get more sex than unattractive ones. It's difficult in the sense that not a lot of people can do it. >It's bad for society to oppress classes of people based on their gender (discrimination). Shaming people for their gender in the name of "improving society" is pretty ludicrous. Why is it "ludicrous" for society to discourage women from engaging in certain behaviors, if it turns out that it's bad for society if women engage in those behaviors? That sounds eminently reasonable to me. >What I believe is that people (but mainly men) should not look for sex toys as life partners. Should they not look for chaste women as life partners, if it turns out that marriages to chaste women end up being the most successful? Should society not then encourage women to be chaste, if society cares about how many marriages end up being successful? >Generalizing about the effects of sex on men vs women is pointless; sex means something different to every person and affects every person differently. Why is it pointless? If casual sex tends to have some particular effect on men and some other effect on women, or if it turns out that the sort of personality traits that lead a woman to engage in casual sex tend to be different from the sort of personality traits that lead a man to engage in casual sex, why is it not reasonable for men to treat women who have casual sex differently from how women treat men that have casual sex? If the effect of casual sex on women tends to make them less desirable life partners in the opinion of men, why is it not reasonable for men to discourage women from engaging in casual sex if those men are primarily interested in long term relationships?
- kajecounterhack 10y ago
  Why is it "ludicrous" for society to discourage women from engaging in certain behaviors, if it turns out that it's bad for society if women engage in those behaviors? That sounds eminently reasonable to me. Define "behaviors" and "bad for society" because your bringing this up makes me think you actually believe specific such things. It's ludicrous because saying we should decide social policies based on generalizations of groups of people is a bad idea. Replace women with any group: LGBT, people of color, poor people, foreigners, etc. You'll see that it's kind of a crazy statement. It might benefit some people to oppress people of color, for example, and so you might say it "benefits society" depending on what society you're talking about. It might even lead to technological progress! But does that make it right, and is it good? Should they not look for chaste women as life partners, if it turns out that marriages to chaste women end up being the most successful? Should society not then encourage women to be chaste, if society cares about how many marriages end up being successful? Society should care about the rights of the individual to freedom and happiness to live their lives: equally, without regard to gender. You also fail to define successful marriage: you could mean if they successfully rear children, or you could mean they are happy long term, or you can mean any other number of things. To encourage systemic behavior on poorly defined things like this leads to people getting hurt. In this case, it means women not having the same rights as men. And not only that: men with what are considered more feminine characteristics sometimes suffer similar consequences. Feminism is a misnomer; gender equality benefits both men and women because gender is not a binary and all men are not the same and all women are not the same. You keep saying "if x turns out to y" but we don't have such data. Either say something or don't, that's why it's pointless. I think you'll find that there are actually no hard and fast rules like the ones you say we should consider may be the case, and that people actually occupy a very diverse spectrum. As such social policy should be as permissive as possible to avoid hurting classes of people not considered the "majority."
  - jimmyk 10y ago
    >It's ludicrous because saying we should decide social policies based on generalizations of groups of people is a bad idea. Replace women with any group: LGBT, people of color, poor people, foreigners, etc. We don't let foreigners vote because, generally speaking, their interests are less closely aligned with the best interests of the country compared with citizens. Should we let foreigners vote now? Certain racial minorities tend to come from poorer backgrounds, so we mandate that they receive certain advantages in hiring and college admissions and so on. Should affirmative action be ended? Why is it necessarily a bad idea to base social policies on generalizations of groups of people? If the generalizations are correct, why is it automatically bad to take them into account when deciding policy? In what other circumstance is it a good idea to discard correct information when making decisions? >Society should care about the rights of the individual to freedom and happiness to live their lives: equally, without regard to gender. We all sacrifice some of our freedoms to make society a better place. Why should society not be allowed to take gender into account when making policies, if gender is actually relevant to the policy? >You also fail to define successful marriage: Generally speaking I mean they produce children that become productive members of society. >To encourage systemic behavior on poorly defined things like this leads to people getting hurt. Ignoring facts also leads to people getting hurt. >You keep saying "if x turns out to y" but we don't have such data. I'm not going to bother getting into specifics because it sounds to me like you wouldn't change your mind even if I provided such data. It sounds to me like you believe it's morally wrong in and of itself to hold men and women to different standards, even if there is good reason to do so. >I think you'll find that there are actually no hard and fast rules like the ones you say we should consider You're saying there is no statistical relationship between, say, the amount of casual sex people have and any other statistic that society has an interest in increasing or decreasing?

jimmyk 10y ago

>This statement depends on who you are. Attractive males and females both get more sex than unattractive ones. It's difficult in the sense that not a lot of people can do it. >It's bad for society to oppress classes of people based on their gender (discrimination). Shaming people for their gender in the name of "improving society" is pretty ludicrous. Why is it "ludicrous" for society to discourage women from engaging in certain behaviors, if it turns out that it's bad for society if women engage in those behaviors? That sounds eminently reasonable to me. >What I believe is that people (but mainly men) should not look for sex toys as life partners. Should they not look for chaste women as life partners, if it turns out that marriages to chaste women end up being the most successful? Should society not then encourage women to be chaste, if society cares about how many marriages end up being successful? >Generalizing about the effects of sex on men vs women is pointless; sex means something different to every person and affects every person differently. Why is it pointless? If casual sex tends to have some particular effect on men and some other effect on women, or if it turns out that the sort of personality traits that lead a woman to engage in casual sex tend to be different from the sort of personality traits that lead a man to engage in casual sex, why is it not reasonable for men to treat women who have casual sex differently from how women treat men that have casual sex? If the effect of casual sex on women tends to make them less desirable life partners in the opinion of men, why is it not reasonable for men to discourage women from engaging in casual sex if those men are primarily interested in long term relationships?

kajecounterhack 10y ago
Why is it "ludicrous" for society to discourage women from engaging in certain behaviors, if it turns out that it's bad for society if women engage in those behaviors? That sounds eminently reasonable to me. Define "behaviors" and "bad for society" because your bringing this up makes me think you actually believe specific such things. It's ludicrous because saying we should decide social policies based on generalizations of groups of people is a bad idea. Replace women with any group: LGBT, people of color, poor people, foreigners, etc. You'll see that it's kind of a crazy statement. It might benefit some people to oppress people of color, for example, and so you might say it "benefits society" depending on what society you're talking about. It might even lead to technological progress! But does that make it right, and is it good? Should they not look for chaste women as life partners, if it turns out that marriages to chaste women end up being the most successful? Should society not then encourage women to be chaste, if society cares about how many marriages end up being successful? Society should care about the rights of the individual to freedom and happiness to live their lives: equally, without regard to gender. You also fail to define successful marriage: you could mean if they successfully rear children, or you could mean they are happy long term, or you can mean any other number of things. To encourage systemic behavior on poorly defined things like this leads to people getting hurt. In this case, it means women not having the same rights as men. And not only that: men with what are considered more feminine characteristics sometimes suffer similar consequences. Feminism is a misnomer; gender equality benefits both men and women because gender is not a binary and all men are not the same and all women are not the same. You keep saying "if x turns out to y" but we don't have such data. Either say something or don't, that's why it's pointless. I think you'll find that there are actually no hard and fast rules like the ones you say we should consider may be the case, and that people actually occupy a very diverse spectrum. As such social policy should be as permissive as possible to avoid hurting classes of people not considered the "majority."
- jimmyk 10y ago
  >It's ludicrous because saying we should decide social policies based on generalizations of groups of people is a bad idea. Replace women with any group: LGBT, people of color, poor people, foreigners, etc. We don't let foreigners vote because, generally speaking, their interests are less closely aligned with the best interests of the country compared with citizens. Should we let foreigners vote now? Certain racial minorities tend to come from poorer backgrounds, so we mandate that they receive certain advantages in hiring and college admissions and so on. Should affirmative action be ended? Why is it necessarily a bad idea to base social policies on generalizations of groups of people? If the generalizations are correct, why is it automatically bad to take them into account when deciding policy? In what other circumstance is it a good idea to discard correct information when making decisions? >Society should care about the rights of the individual to freedom and happiness to live their lives: equally, without regard to gender. We all sacrifice some of our freedoms to make society a better place. Why should society not be allowed to take gender into account when making policies, if gender is actually relevant to the policy? >You also fail to define successful marriage: Generally speaking I mean they produce children that become productive members of society. >To encourage systemic behavior on poorly defined things like this leads to people getting hurt. Ignoring facts also leads to people getting hurt. >You keep saying "if x turns out to y" but we don't have such data. I'm not going to bother getting into specifics because it sounds to me like you wouldn't change your mind even if I provided such data. It sounds to me like you believe it's morally wrong in and of itself to hold men and women to different standards, even if there is good reason to do so. >I think you'll find that there are actually no hard and fast rules like the ones you say we should consider You're saying there is no statistical relationship between, say, the amount of casual sex people have and any other statistic that society has an interest in increasing or decreasing?