Everyone should be responsible for their behaviour. Our society has now been forced to accept bad behaviour by women as they believe they have a right to badly behave just because they are female. My husband and I took our two impressionable grand-daughters to the beach. We were enjoying our day until two young females removed almost all their clothing and then started touching each other inappropriately in full view of our grand-daughters. As adults, myself and my husband have been around the block to many times to let this behaviour concern us, yet I looked at my grand-daughters and could see the confusion on their faces. Theses girls have been bought up in a traditional home. Being a grand-mother I wanted to protect these girls from their lewd behaviour and yet I did nothing. I considered reporting this to police but I was mindful of the response from police, I know they are told to ignore this type of behaviour. I myself ignored their behaviour being mindful of how our laws make them the victim if I spoke to them. We went home that day angry and upset that our rights would be ignored because of the lewd behaviour of these two women. Everyone should be responsible for their behaviour.
Parents should teach their girls don’t get yourself in a situation they can’t get out of.
The biological and physiological drive to find companionship and a mate is perhaps as ancient if not more, than the evolutionary flight or fight response, where the hormone adrenaline is released in response. The flight or fight response will in most instances override the cerebral cortex, the section of the brain where logic and rational thought occurs.
On the molecular level, I hypothesise in men in particular, that the visual cortex in response to subliminal visual stimuli detected on a subconscious level the barely perceptible micro signals. The visual stimuli then trigger the release of certain neurotransmitters and endorphins thus engaging various neurotransmitter pathways and resulting in the physiological response to the stimuli.
Certain drugs in particular the SSRI, selective serotonin uptake inhibitor can block these pathways resulting in decreased interest in sex and lack of sexual arousal.
The olfactory sense in humans occurs well and truly below the level of the conscious in detecting the release of pheromones.
Much has been written about the horrendous male gaze in order to demonize men and shame men. Men, perhaps without being consciously aware, when they look at a woman whom they think might be a prospective partner are looking for an invitation that it is safe to approach and they won’t be rebuffed. So there is an evolutionary reason for the male gaze.
So far, no one has mentioned a related conflict. It's over allowing women to go topless in public (partly but not only to breastfeed their infants). If the relation isn't obvious, please bear with me.
Advocates of toplessness argue that men are allowed to go topless, so why not women? The analogy is false, however, because men are definitely not allowed to go bottomless--that is, without trousers or shorts. Men who do so are routinely arrested for "indecent exposure," and no feminist opposes that legal measure. What explains this obvious double standard? I can think of at least two factors.
First, feminists misunderstand the function of clothing. We don't wear clothes merely to keep warm, and we don't discard them merely to stay cool. Nor does clothing merely provide a venue for self-expression or a way of making ourselves attractive. It does those things but also much more. Clothing is a visual language (just as consent is a verbal one). We use it to signal our willing, even necessary, participation in a cultural and communal order, not merely to signal our own personal fantasies or individual identities. Consequently, clothing for both sexes always requires some measure of restraint. That brings me to the second factor.
Feminists misunderstand our need to separate the public and private realms, too, which is not surprising in view of their slogan: The personal is political. In the bad old days of "patriarchy," everyone knew that this was not true. So the same rules of decorum did not apply for either sex to both realms. The streets, buses, subways, stores, offices and factories--even beaches--were, and still are, public spaces. The house or at least the bedroom was, and still is, private space. Reasonable people speak, act and dress accordingly.
Now, back to the argument of this blog. It makes no sense to argue, as most feminists do, that women have some "right" to send mixed signals to men. If women don't want straight men to "objectify" them by examining their bodies, for instance, then should dress and speak accordingly despite beguiling messages from the fashion industry. The double message of "look but don't touch" is not only disrespectful and confusing to men but also dangerous for women. No, this doesn't mean that provocatively dressed or seductively behaved women deserve to be harassed, let alone raped. It does mean that women, like men, live in communities and therefore have social responsibilities. They don't have any "right" to live as they please without considering the consequences for both themselves and others..
Bettina and commentators have already referred more specifically to the new rules of consent, and the double standard on which they depend, so I won't repeat what they've said.
“Even if you don’t have a particular experience with being harassed or assaulted, I don’t know a single woman who hasn’t had to change her behaviour because of the behaviour of dangerous men.”
This was a response from a "victim" who appears to have done her own (detailed) research. Papers please!
The feminist's movement will not "win" because they don't want equality ... they want inequality to keep there movement going. Females will win because they want equality.
This is from a very experienced senior who has coached male and females in a disciplined sport for 52 years.
The feminists have a problem and therefore we should only respond by saying "Your Problem"
While it is extremely politically incorrect, and I offer Mea Culpa to the easily offended, my sense of male/female relationships over more than half a century of experience and observation, is that women are more likely to seduce men than the other way around.
Yes, of course there are predatory males, but there are more predatory females because that is what females have needed to be to survive and thrive. After thousands of years of evolution females are still hardwired to 'desire' a protector and if they find someone who fits the bill, they will employ all skills, conscious and unconscious to secure the male.
Let us also be realists, men are more physically vulnerable when it comes to sex than are women. This may not always be the case but, since we have still not emerged from a patriarchal age where males were taught to hide, deny, repress their emotions, it seems to me that males are often more dependent, and therefore more vulnerable, in terms of sex because it is the one thing which allows them to feel and express their emotional natures, albeit generally totally unconsciously.
Ironically, given again, thousands of years of evolution, it is far more likely to be females who retain analytical control of their emotions in terms of sexual encounters and relationships.
A woman who sets out to get a man, particularly but not necessarily if she is young and attractive, is more likely to succeed than if roles were reversed. There are valid biological reasons no doubt why so many religions have seen the female and the feminine as the enticer, the lure and source of entrapment, and often destruction of the male.
In the current obsession with 'consent' we see another form of female dominance over males. One would have thought there were enough problems in terms of male/female relationships without emotionally and psychologically castrating our boys and men in new forms.
I wish i had the language to describe what I see that is happening. Basically there are from my perspective I think three issues. The first is that men are expected to approach women who they are interested in, however if they don't approach, nothing will happen unless the guy is extremely attractive, rich or famous. The next issue is that men, suspect that they are suppose to do something, but they don't know what it is? Psychologist Toby Green in her body and soul column wrote about how women are the testers in relationships. A common test is "Let's see if he still finds me attractive?"
Everyone should be responsible for their behaviour. Our society has now been forced to accept bad behaviour by women as they believe they have a right to badly behave just because they are female. My husband and I took our two impressionable grand-daughters to the beach. We were enjoying our day until two young females removed almost all their clothing and then started touching each other inappropriately in full view of our grand-daughters. As adults, myself and my husband have been around the block to many times to let this behaviour concern us, yet I looked at my grand-daughters and could see the confusion on their faces. Theses girls have been bought up in a traditional home. Being a grand-mother I wanted to protect these girls from their lewd behaviour and yet I did nothing. I considered reporting this to police but I was mindful of the response from police, I know they are told to ignore this type of behaviour. I myself ignored their behaviour being mindful of how our laws make them the victim if I spoke to them. We went home that day angry and upset that our rights would be ignored because of the lewd behaviour of these two women. Everyone should be responsible for their behaviour.
Parents should teach their girls don’t get yourself in a situation they can’t get out of.
the biological drive is built into our DNA
The biological and physiological drive to find companionship and a mate is perhaps as ancient if not more, than the evolutionary flight or fight response, where the hormone adrenaline is released in response. The flight or fight response will in most instances override the cerebral cortex, the section of the brain where logic and rational thought occurs.
On the molecular level, I hypothesise in men in particular, that the visual cortex in response to subliminal visual stimuli detected on a subconscious level the barely perceptible micro signals. The visual stimuli then trigger the release of certain neurotransmitters and endorphins thus engaging various neurotransmitter pathways and resulting in the physiological response to the stimuli.
Certain drugs in particular the SSRI, selective serotonin uptake inhibitor can block these pathways resulting in decreased interest in sex and lack of sexual arousal.
The olfactory sense in humans occurs well and truly below the level of the conscious in detecting the release of pheromones.
Much has been written about the horrendous male gaze in order to demonize men and shame men. Men, perhaps without being consciously aware, when they look at a woman whom they think might be a prospective partner are looking for an invitation that it is safe to approach and they won’t be rebuffed. So there is an evolutionary reason for the male gaze.
So far, no one has mentioned a related conflict. It's over allowing women to go topless in public (partly but not only to breastfeed their infants). If the relation isn't obvious, please bear with me.
Advocates of toplessness argue that men are allowed to go topless, so why not women? The analogy is false, however, because men are definitely not allowed to go bottomless--that is, without trousers or shorts. Men who do so are routinely arrested for "indecent exposure," and no feminist opposes that legal measure. What explains this obvious double standard? I can think of at least two factors.
First, feminists misunderstand the function of clothing. We don't wear clothes merely to keep warm, and we don't discard them merely to stay cool. Nor does clothing merely provide a venue for self-expression or a way of making ourselves attractive. It does those things but also much more. Clothing is a visual language (just as consent is a verbal one). We use it to signal our willing, even necessary, participation in a cultural and communal order, not merely to signal our own personal fantasies or individual identities. Consequently, clothing for both sexes always requires some measure of restraint. That brings me to the second factor.
Feminists misunderstand our need to separate the public and private realms, too, which is not surprising in view of their slogan: The personal is political. In the bad old days of "patriarchy," everyone knew that this was not true. So the same rules of decorum did not apply for either sex to both realms. The streets, buses, subways, stores, offices and factories--even beaches--were, and still are, public spaces. The house or at least the bedroom was, and still is, private space. Reasonable people speak, act and dress accordingly.
Now, back to the argument of this blog. It makes no sense to argue, as most feminists do, that women have some "right" to send mixed signals to men. If women don't want straight men to "objectify" them by examining their bodies, for instance, then should dress and speak accordingly despite beguiling messages from the fashion industry. The double message of "look but don't touch" is not only disrespectful and confusing to men but also dangerous for women. No, this doesn't mean that provocatively dressed or seductively behaved women deserve to be harassed, let alone raped. It does mean that women, like men, live in communities and therefore have social responsibilities. They don't have any "right" to live as they please without considering the consequences for both themselves and others..
Bettina and commentators have already referred more specifically to the new rules of consent, and the double standard on which they depend, so I won't repeat what they've said.
“Even if you don’t have a particular experience with being harassed or assaulted, I don’t know a single woman who hasn’t had to change her behaviour because of the behaviour of dangerous men.”
This was a response from a "victim" who appears to have done her own (detailed) research. Papers please!
Another issue is what is beginning to emerge about teaching boys about misogyny in schools https://theconversation.com/why-misogyny-needs-to-be-tackled-in-education-from-primary-school-157276
I am removing derogatory comments. It is not helpful to start slagging off at women or making racist comments.
The feminist's movement will not "win" because they don't want equality ... they want inequality to keep there movement going. Females will win because they want equality.
This is from a very experienced senior who has coached male and females in a disciplined sport for 52 years.
The feminists have a problem and therefore we should only respond by saying "Your Problem"
or YP
It works
Society expects women to not act responsibly under the influence of alcohol, and thus renders them blameless.
Society expects men to act like perfect gentlemen under the influence of alcohol.
Society has convenient forgetfulness regarding the effect of alcohol on behavior. Society has ridiculous standards and expectations.
While it is extremely politically incorrect, and I offer Mea Culpa to the easily offended, my sense of male/female relationships over more than half a century of experience and observation, is that women are more likely to seduce men than the other way around.
Yes, of course there are predatory males, but there are more predatory females because that is what females have needed to be to survive and thrive. After thousands of years of evolution females are still hardwired to 'desire' a protector and if they find someone who fits the bill, they will employ all skills, conscious and unconscious to secure the male.
Let us also be realists, men are more physically vulnerable when it comes to sex than are women. This may not always be the case but, since we have still not emerged from a patriarchal age where males were taught to hide, deny, repress their emotions, it seems to me that males are often more dependent, and therefore more vulnerable, in terms of sex because it is the one thing which allows them to feel and express their emotional natures, albeit generally totally unconsciously.
Ironically, given again, thousands of years of evolution, it is far more likely to be females who retain analytical control of their emotions in terms of sexual encounters and relationships.
A woman who sets out to get a man, particularly but not necessarily if she is young and attractive, is more likely to succeed than if roles were reversed. There are valid biological reasons no doubt why so many religions have seen the female and the feminine as the enticer, the lure and source of entrapment, and often destruction of the male.
In the current obsession with 'consent' we see another form of female dominance over males. One would have thought there were enough problems in terms of male/female relationships without emotionally and psychologically castrating our boys and men in new forms.
I wish i had the language to describe what I see that is happening. Basically there are from my perspective I think three issues. The first is that men are expected to approach women who they are interested in, however if they don't approach, nothing will happen unless the guy is extremely attractive, rich or famous. The next issue is that men, suspect that they are suppose to do something, but they don't know what it is? Psychologist Toby Green in her body and soul column wrote about how women are the testers in relationships. A common test is "Let's see if he still finds me attractive?"