Obama's Agenda (political, of course)

[Stella_Omega]

I largely argee with you, although I believe that, among white Americans, women enjoy more privelege.

it's more that you notice the lessening of male privilege.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
I largely argee with you, although I believe that, among white Americans, women enjoy more privilege.

it's more that you notice the lessening of male privilege.

No, it's more like an leveling out. During my youth, in the Fifties, I faced the draft, but women never did. Generally speaking, women at 18 enjoyed the same rights as men at 21. A 19 year old male was still thought of as a boy but a female was consideed an adult for many purposes.

In the early 1960's, when I was looking for a job, almost all the low level white collar jobs, such as I wanted, were reserved for women.

An adult male who had sex with an underage girl was incarcerated. A woman who had sex with a boy was somewhat an object of scorn, but at least she stayed out of prison.

Almost any woman could have all the sex partners she wanted. She might develop what was called "a bad reputation" but she could still enjoy herself. Very few women were into casual sex, which meant ordinary men masturbated, while a few lucky guys took their choice of what few women were available.

Fortunately, some of these things are changing, too late to do me any real good, but at least things are leveling out.

 

[Stella_Omega]

That's an interesting viewpoint, Box. It's interesting to me because it's such a perfect example of Box-style myopia. You refer to some imagined effect without ever looking at the larger picture.

Some of the things you mention are, in fact, effects of women's disprivelege-- getting into bars younger than men? That's not a good thing for the younger women-- it is, however, a very good thing for the older men who control the bars. It's those guys viewing young women as pets, or as as fodder.

The rest of your examples, likewise, have only imaginary benefits for women. Your imagination. Your "bad reputation" shrug-off, is, well, hmm. An astounding piece of revisionism.

 

[Katyusha]

Almost any woman could have all the sex partners she wanted. She might develop what was called "a bad reputation" but she could still enjoy herself. Very few women were into casual sex, which meant ordinary men masturbated, while a few lucky guys took their choice of what few women were available.

Fortunately, some of these things are changing, too late to do me any real good, but at least things are leveling out.

I don't know about back then, but nowadays a woman who's known to have many sex partners is considered a slut, which is worse than just having "a bad reputation;" in addition to society looking down on her, her friends and family look down on her and maybe even shun her a bit. Meanwhile a man who has many partners is considered a stud, patted on the back by his friends and at least the male members of his family.

Or so has been my experience. According to my parents, their experience too.

 

[Guest]

That's an interesting viewpoint, Box. It's interesting to me because it's such a perfect example of Box-style myopia. You refer to some imagined effect without ever looking at the larger picture.

Some of the things you mention are, in fact, effects of women's disprivelege-- getting into bars younger than men? That's not a good thing for the younger women-- it is, however, a very good thing for the older men who control the bars. It's those guys viewing young women as pets, or as as fodder.

The rest of your examples, likewise, have only imaginary benefits for women. Your imagination. Your "bad reputation" shrug-off, is, well, hmm. An astounding piece of revisionism.

Beautifully and accurately stated, Stella.

Box myopia indeed.

 

[Boxlicker101]

That's an interesting viewpoint, Box. It's interesting to me because it's such a perfect example of Box-style myopia. You refer to some imagined effect without ever looking at the larger picture.

Some of the things you mention are, in fact, effects of women's disprivelege-- getting into bars younger than men? That's not a good thing for the younger women-- it is, however, a very good thing for the older men who control the bars. It's those guys viewing young women as pets, or as as fodder.

The rest of your examples, likewise, have only imaginary benefits for women. Your imagination. Your "bad reputation" shrug-off, is, well, hmm. An astounding piece of revisionism.

Actually, when I grew up in the Fifties while living in WI, beer bars had a minimum age of 18 and liquor bars had a minimum age of 21, regardless of gender. The main thing I was thinking of was marriage. Women could get maried at 16, with parental consent, and at 18 without it. Men could get married at 18 only with parental consent. There were probably some other differences, but that was a long time ago.

Out of curiosity, how could having MORE rights be disadvantageous?

As I said, any female who wanted could have sex with all the boys and men she wanted, because there wee so many availablel She would develop a reputaton as somebody who enjoyed sex. Women would scorn her for going contrary to what they thought was right, but boys and men would love her. A man who had sex with a lot of women would be congratulated and admired and envied by other men. Women, on the other hand, would despise him.

The reason for the difference, at least back then, is that females tried to give the impression that they were somehow too pure for carnal pursuits. Had it not been for this female attitude, men and women would have been sexual equals long ago.

 

[freshface]

Actually, when I grew up in the Fifties while living in WI, beer bars had a minimum age of 18 and liquor bars had a minimum age of 21, regardless of gender. The main thing I was thinking of was marriage. Women could get maried at 16, with parental consent, and at 18 without it. Men could get married at 18 only with parental consent. There were probably some other differences, but that was a long time ago.

Out of curiosity, how could having MORE rights be disadvantageous?

As I said, any female who wanted could have sex with all the boys and men she wanted, because there wee so many availablel She would develop a reputaton as somebody who enjoyed sex. Women would scorn her for going contrary to what they thought was right, but boys and men would love her. A man who had sex with a lot of women would be congratulated and admired and envied by other men. Women, on the other hand, would despise him.

The reason for the difference, at least back then, is that females tried to give the impression that they were somehow too pure for carnal pursuits. Had it not been for this female attitude, men and women would have been sexual equals long ago.

The men would love her, but would they marry her? And I've never known a man to be scorned for sleeping around. Women, yes. Men, not so much.

You're blaming women for a societal attitude in an age when women had little influence? There's always been a dichotomy for women-virtuous virgin versus whore, with little room in between.

Speaking as a single woman, society still tries to fit us into a mold. We're either sluts or ice queens, and the ice queens are further suspected of being closet lesbians.

 

[Boxlicker101]

The men would love her, but would they marry her? And I've never known a man to be scorned for sleeping around. Women, yes. Men, not so much.

You're blaming women for a societal attitude in an age when women had little influence? There's always been a dichotomy for women-virtuous virgin versus whore, with little room in between.

Speaking as a single woman, society still tries to fit us into a mold. We're either sluts or ice queens, and the ice queens are further suspected of being closet lesbians.

Eventually, a man would probably have married her, if she would have him. Or not, but the same thing could be said of any woman back then. O any man. Men envied and admired makeout artists. Women didn't, for whatever reason.

The "societal attitude" you are citing was primarily enfoced by women, in particular Anne Landers and Dear Abby. Generally speaking, boys and men would have been strongly in favor of full equality in sexual matters. They would have welcomed female sexual liberation with open arms. After all, it would have meant getting laid more often. There would have been some exceptions to this general attitude, besides priests, etc. Those would have been the makeout artists I mentioned before, who would have lost their place of admiration, since their talents would have no longer have been rare.

 

[freshface]

Eventually, a man would probably have married her, if she would have him. Or not, but the same thing could be said of any woman back then. O any man. Men envied and admired makeout artists. Women didn't, for whatever reason.

The "societal attitude" you are citing was primarily enfoced by women, in particular Anne Landers and Dear Abby. Generally speaking, boys and men would have been strongly in favor of full equality in sexual matters. They would have welcomed female sexual liberation with open arms. After all, it would have meant getting laid more often. There would have been some exceptions to this general attitude, besides priests, etc. Those would have been the makeout artists I mentioned before, who would have lost their place of admiration, since their talents would have no longer have been rare.

I guess we'll just have to disagree on this. A man might marry her, but would he be one she would want to marry? Would the one that she wanted reject her because she slept around? Men might buzz around the easy women, but do they really consider them suitable to be wives and mothers?

The societal attitude I was talking about was nurtured by men. In the 1950s, men made the movies, published the newspapers, designed the magazines, and selected the writers. I think that both Ann Landers and Dear Abby expanded society's view of women. I'm not trying to bash men here, but to suggest that women had that sort of power back then and men did not is to ignore an awful lot of facts and history.

I'm reminded of a scene in Analyze This. The mobster is talking to his psychiatrist about troubles with his mistress. The psychiatrist asks him why he needs a mistress when he has an attractive wife at home. The mobster replies that there are things, like oral sex, that he can get from his mistress but not his wife. The psychiatrist asks if he's asked for them from his wife. The mobster is horrified. "That mouth kisses my children!" That really resonated with me. His wife was on a pedestal. His mistress was a slut.

 

[xssve]

Palin, it appears, may have her own redistribution agenda: Palin's Movement Urges 'Godly' To 'Plunder' Wealth of 'Godless'

Via: Katherine Harris Was in Sarah Palin's Spiritual Warfare Network

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
Eventually, a man would probably have married her, if she would have him. Or not, but the same thing could be said of any woman back then. O any man. Men envied and admired makeout artists. Women didn't, for whatever reason.

The "societal attitude" you are citing was primarily enfoced by women, in particular Anne Landers and Dear Abby. Generally speaking, boys and men would have been strongly in favor of full equality in sexual matters. They would have welcomed female sexual liberation with open arms. After all, it would have meant getting laid more often. There would have been some exceptions to this general attitude, besides priests, etc. Those would have been the makeout artists I mentioned before, who would have lost their place of admiration, since their talents would have no longer have been rare.

I guess we'll just have to disagree on this. A man might marry her, but would he be one she would want to marry? Would the one that she wanted reject her because she slept around? Men might buzz around the easy women, but do they really consider them suitable to be wives and mothers?

The societal attitude I was talking about was nurtured by men. In the 1950s, men made the movies, published the newspapers, designed the magazines, and selected the writers. I think that both Ann Landers and Dear Abby expanded society's view of women. I'm not trying to bash men here, but to suggest that women had that sort of power back then and men did not is to ignore an awful lot of facts and history.

I'm reminded of a scene in Analyze This. The mobster is talking to his psychiatrist about troubles with his mistress. The psychiatrist asks him why he needs a mistress when he has an attractive wife at home. The mobster replies that there are things, like oral sex, that he can get from his mistress but not his wife. The psychiatrist asks if he's asked for them from his wife. The mobster is horrified. "That mouth kisses my children!" That really resonated with me. His wife was on a pedestal. His mistress was a slut.

I guess we probably will have to disagee. I was writing fom pesonal expeience as a young man in the Fifties and Sixties, but I don't know whee you deived you info.

As for whether or not the man who ended up marrying this hypothetical woman, who knows if it would be her first choice? I certainly didn't marry my first choice for a life partner, and I am inclined to believe that not very many do. Did you? I do believe, however, that he would be one she was willing to marry, which is all anybody can expect. As for whether or not "loose" of "fast" females would be consideed to be suitable wives? Yeah, most of them would be, and I say that because most of them do get maried.

In the Fifties, men may or may not have owned most of the news media. Even if they did, most of them would have been married, and were strongly influenced by their wives and other women in thei lives. Ann and Abby, who were actually twin sistes, may have begun as columnists in individual newspapers, but they quickly became syndicated, meaning they were their own bosses, and could express their own opinions on social mores, and not clear them through anybody, except for fact checking.

In fact, women have pretty much always been the arbiters of society, going at least back to Quen Victoria and probably further. It's women who make the rules on etiquette and social interaction and most things that become unwritten rules. Most men, except for a few pecksniffs and membes of the clergy, are inclined to mind their own business and not tell others how to live their lives.

Are you really trying to cite the attitude of a character in a comic movie as some kind of authority? Actually, you might have something of a point. I believe that when men have mistresses, it is to do the raunchy things they want to do, such as oral and anal sex. And, I also believe the mistresses are the women chosen because the wives refuse to do such "slutty" or "disgusting" things.

 

[freshface]

Quote:
Are you really trying to cite the attitude of a character in a comic movie as some kind of authority? Actually, you might have something of a point. I believe that when men have mistresses, it is to do the raunchy things they want to do, such as oral and anal sex. And, I also believe the mistresses are the women chosen because the wives refuse to do such "slutty" or "disgusting" things.

As I said, agree to disagree. But in answer to you're question-No, I was not in any way suggesting that the movie was any kind of authority. I was suggesting that the mobster's attitude reflected the point I was trying to make. He had a mistress because the idea of his wife giving him oral appalled him.

 

[Liar]

Actually, when I grew up in the Fifties while living in WI, beer bars had a minimum age of 18 and liquor bars had a minimum age of 21, regardless of gender. The main thing I was thinking of was marriage. Women could get maried at 16, with parental consent, and at 18 without it. Men could get married at 18 only with parental consent. There were probably some other differences, but that was a long time ago.

Hm. I was under the impression that marriage consent laws was there to protect kids from being married off at too young an age, something that was quite common in ye olde days.

And with that in mind, it would seem young women were less protected by the law than young men.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Actually, when I grew up in the Fifties while living in WI, beer bars had a minimum age of 18 and liquor bars had a minimum age of 21, regardless of gender. The main thing I was thinking of was marriage. Women could get maried at 16, with parental consent, and at 18 without it. Men could get married at 18 only with parental consent. There were probably some other differences, but that was a long time ago.

Out of curiosity, how could having MORE rights be disadvantageous?

As I said, any female who wanted could have sex with all the boys and men she wanted, because there wee so many availablel She would develop a reputaton as somebody who enjoyed sex. Women would scorn her for going contrary to what they thought was right, but boys and men would love her. A man who had sex with a lot of women would be congratulated and admired and envied by other men. Women, on the other hand, would despise him.

The reason for the difference, at least back then, is that females tried to give the impression that they were somehow too pure for carnal pursuits. Had it not been for this female attitude, men and women would have been sexual equals long ago.

Oh, dude.

I am almost positive you have more sense than this. But I can't be sure. And yanno, I can't even be bothered to get upset or irritated, or saddened-- maybe impressed by the extraordinary force of willpower it must take to rewrite history this way.

Just-- trust me, you're reinventing never-never-land.

Go practice pussy-licking, like a nice Box. Don't worry your sweet little head about anything else, okay? You've got a lovely talent. Use it.