Cheating and Perception

[EmilyMiller]

While a lot of what we consider 'male' and 'female' is socially constructed, nevertheless there are aspects to our fundamental nature than seem hardcoded. The idea that this is not reflected in the brain's wiring is absurd. Arguing that it's all (or primarily) nurture and not nature is what leads to attempts at and justifications for conversion therapy.

Can you back that up with anything, hun?

Otherwise it’s just a random opinion.

Science disagrees with you.

Em

 

[EmilyMiller]

One of my favourite T-shirts: https://www.redbubble.com/i/t-shirt...t-White-Letters-by-ArkansasLisa/2820873.6N0CH

Missed this again. I want that T!

Em

 

[EmilyMiller]

Maybe, but the alternative is companies going, "We don't want to hire women because they might get pregnant, and we certainly don't want foreign or autistic or queer or disabled people for reasons."

What about female, autistic, queer people? We need a voice too.

Em

 

[AlinaX]

What about female, autistic, queer people? We need a voice too.

Em

Wasn't that my point?
And what science exactly disagrees with gender identity and sexual orientation being hard-coded? Or is there some other part of my random opinion that science contradicts?

 

[EmilyMiller]

Wasn't that my point?
And what science exactly disagrees with gender identity and sexual orientation being hard-coded? Or is there some other part of my random opinion that science contradicts?

Just a poor attempt at humor, hun .

Em

 

[policywank]

But how do we know which of those differences in aptitude and interest are genuinely intrinsic, and which are themselves caused by disparities in opportunity?

The difficulty with making "equal opportunity" a goal is that one of the most significant kinds of opportunity is the kind that comes with inherited wealth. (Not necessarily inheritance in cash; a stable childhood with good nutrition and no lead in the paint or the water gives tremendous advantages.)

The idea of abolishing such inherited advantages is unpopular, so when I hear people talking about "equal opportunity" it almost always turns out to mean equality within a very limited scope.

I think that you are right. It is a very challenging topic and it is very difficult to untangle these things. In my opinion it clearly isn't adequate to just put laws in place that theoretically ensure equality without addressing all the underlying factors that lead to inequality beyond obvious open bias. That is why I think that making a special effort as a society to engage people that haven't been given opportunity by establishing diversity targets and having programs aimed at certain sectors (i.e. encouraging women in STEM fields) is entirely appropriate.

My only point is that if we take equal outcomes as the only or primary gauge of whether we are achieving the desired results we are building our whole approach on a flawed premise. There is no scientific evidence to indicate that if we could truly remove all bias and inequality that the result would equal outcomes. That is just a flawed ideology. It is a useful gauge but is insufficient on its own. We need to be able to look at multiple factors - not just well you haven't achieved equal outcomes so you are obviously not doing enough for diversity.

 

[policywank]

Personally, I don't think that cheating is every "justified" in the sense that it is a fundamental deceit and betrayal of trust. We each possess the right to decide that we no longer want to be in a monogamous arrangement with our partner. But if that is the case we owe it to them to tell them so that they can make their own informed choice about what they want to do. Otherwise we are compelling another person to live under a false premise which amounts to stealing that which is most precious to them - the years of their life.

Having said that it isn't too difficult to imagine a scenario wherein cheating is at least understandable as the least bad option. For much of history if a woman was unhappy or unsatisfied in her marriage (sexually or otherwise) exiting the marriage was not a viable option. To do so would result in her and her children being cast to the fringes of society or her being cast out and losing her children altogether. If I were in a position where a man had that kind of power over me and the willingness to exercise it I would regard that as something close to being held hostage. In that case he forfeited the right to the truth when he claimed the right to mete out punishment for it at his whim. Whether he actually did that or society at large did that the effect is the same. If my choice is to stay in an unsatisfying marriage, be cast to the fringes of society or deceive I have no qualms with concluding that deceit is the least bad option. I don't feel like I should feel compelled to live an unfulfilling sex life because my husband is both a shitty lover and a controlling bastard who will ruin my life if I seek fulfillment elsewhere or simply choose to end the relationship.

I use that example because it is sufficiently extreme to illustrate the point. Things are obviously not like that anymore for women in western societies. But there are still examples of situations where there are extenuating circumstances for either gender. What of the man who has no sex life at home but knows that if he left his wife she would do everything in her power to take every penny he has and keep him from ever seeing his kids again? It is all well and good to say we should be forthright about our desires, but those are some pretty harsh consequences. Isn't she in her own way effectively holding him hostage in a similar way to my example above?

Where is the line between hey I just need to own my own shit even if there are negative consequences and I am married to someone who effectively demands that I be his/her compliant hostage or face horrible consequences?

Historically women were more likely to be put in this situation. I don't know that I would say we were "justified" in our deceit, but in context it is at least understandable.

It is also worth noting how men's attitudes on this have changed. There was a time when women were much more limited in our freedoms. Men found it pretty easy to justify the boys will be boys narrative - i.e. men are different and it is more justifiable for them - as long as their women were under lock and key so to speak. Somehow it became a moral and ethical matter only when women started to have some of the same latitude to stray.

 

[MillieDynamite]

It is also worth noting how men's attitudes on this have changed. There was a time when women were much more limited in our freedoms. Men found it pretty easy to justify the boys will be boys narrative - i.e. men are different and it is more justifiable for them - as long as their women were under lock and key so to speak. Somehow it became a moral and ethical matter only when women started to have some of the same latitude to stray.

Ever wonder how the men fucking other women felt about the women fucking them? I mean, he can't do that without the woman being there. So, can she fornicate while he adulterates, or are they both adulterating? Only if the men are gay is there a situation where the woman isn't on the same level as the man. He can't be less guilty than her, just because boys are boys if he is fucking with a woman. And she can't be more guilty than he. Men's minds justify their actions while condemning their partners for joining them. so, those men who cheated in those bygone days, are just mentally fucked up. Like a lot of men are today! No, I'm not a man-hater. Just can't abide double standards.

 

[theWollstonecraftWoman]

Please, Mil, stop hiding your opinions, tell us what you really think!

 

[XerXesXu]

Ever wonder how the men fucking other women felt about the women fucking them? I mean, he can't do that without the woman being there. So, can she fornicate while he adulterates, or are they both adulterating?

At Common Law, yes, if she's a 'common woman'. Common women(unmarried prostitutes) appropriately attired, or working from a common house enjoyed common tradespersons immunity at Common and Canon law.

 

[policywank]

Ever wonder how the men fucking other women felt about the women fucking them? I mean, he can't do that without the woman being there. So, can she fornicate while he adulterates, or are they both adulterating? Only if the men are gay is there a situation where the woman isn't on the same level as the man. He can't be less guilty than her, just because boys are boys if he is fucking with a woman. And she can't be more guilty than he. Men's minds justify their actions while condemning their partners for joining them. so, those men who cheated in those bygone days, are just mentally fucked up. Like a lot of men are today! No, I'm not a man-hater. Just can't abide double standards.

I think that is why some men are so committed to the double standard. They actually need to believe that their actions are ok while the woman's actions are not. They want to divide women into bad girls and good girls so that they can enjoy each for unique reasons. And there is an especially galling tendency among guys like that to be quite openly derisive towards the bad girls after they get what they want. The whole fucked up approach to double standards and vilifying the bad girls (which they really crave) is largely a social construct to avoid accepting that they are just being assholes.

Meanwhile when a woman is reserved and demure with the so called nice guys then goes and fucks a bad boy those same men will vilify her and call her the worst names. In many cases it won't matter to them that she didn't actually cheat on the nice guy because she wasn't in a relationship with him and made a point of being clear about that. Nor will the fact that she didn't bad mouth either man resonate.

They will vilify her anyway because she didn't accept either of the roles assigned to her by the patriarchy. She wasn't the good girl faithfully waiting on her man no matter how poorly he behaved. She wasn't the bad girl who accepted the role of disposable slut. She was an independent woman who insisted on making her own sexual choices and not succumbing to the double standard. They will invent all kinds of nonsense about why the "rules" should apply differently to men than women. They will try to paint her actions in the context of morality or somehow being unfair to the nice guy (because they still can't accept that her sex is solely hers and not something a man can earn if she doesn't want to give it). But it is really about selfish assholes who can't accept women wanting to be the lead in their own narrative rather than a supporting actor in a man's narrative.

 

[SimonDoom]

I think that is why some men are so committed to the double standard. They actually need to believe that their actions are ok while the woman's actions are not. They want to divide women into bad girls and good girls so that they can enjoy each for unique reasons.

I think you have to be careful about imputing intentionality to deeply-held, culturally-sustained beliefs. Most of the men that think this way don't think this way for a particular reason or with a particular motive. They were raised in their culture to think this way and they don't ever think about why they think this way. You can argue that men, as a class, developed this way of thinking for reasons that have to do with subjugating women, and you might be right, but I think it works at a large-scale level. Individually, men don't consciously think, "I'm going to apply a double standard so I can get what I want out of women." I think, too, you have to be careful about suggesting that all men who have this attitude are "selfish assholes," because in reality many of them are not especially selfish and don't necessarily act like assholes. This attitude is a product of culture, rather than a reflection of how much someone is an asshole. There are good men and bad men who have these attitudes. That's generally true about all people who hold traditional cultural attitudes.

I think it's fascinating how persistent the double standard remains, decades after the so-called sexual revolution. I've always thought it's ridiculous, and women should feel as free to have sex as men, but I know plenty of men who struggle with that idea. Many of them know, on some level, that it's the RIGHT way to think, but they can't quite accept it. They judge women negatively for behavior they accept fully in men.

To me it's silly, but the double standard is useful for erotica, because taboos and social pressures lend an extra sizzle to sexual activity. For instance, although the word "slut" is generally considered a pejorative term, applicable only to women, it's been appropriated by many women to describe themselves in erotic websites. For many it may just be a form of marketing, but for some it seems to give them genuine pleasure to think and talk about themselves that way. I use the term myself in some of my stories, although I try hard to make it very clear that my attitude as the author/narrator toward the characters and the use of the term is playful and positive, not pejorative. I think it lends an extra element of naughty excitement, and most readers (although not all, to be sure) seem to agree.

 

[policywank]

I think you have to be careful about imputing intentionality to deeply-held, culturally-sustained beliefs. Most of the men that think this way don't think this way for a particular reason or with a particular motive. They were raised in their culture to think this way and they don't ever think about why they think this way. You can argue that men, as a class, developed this way of thinking for reasons that have to do with subjugating women, and you might be right, but I think it works at a large-scale level. Individually, men don't consciously think, "I'm going to apply a double standard so I can get what I want out of women." I think, too, you have to be careful about suggesting that all men who have this attitude are "selfish assholes," because in reality many of them are not especially selfish and don't necessarily act like assholes. This attitude is a product of culture, rather than a reflection of how much someone is an asshole. There are good men and bad men who have these attitudes. That's generally true about all people who hold traditional cultural attitudes.

I think it's fascinating how persistent the double standard remains, decades after the so-called sexual revolution. I've always thought it's ridiculous, and women should feel as free to have sex as men, but I know plenty of men who struggle with that idea. Many of them know, on some level, that it's the RIGHT way to think, but they can't quite accept it. They judge women negatively for behavior they accept fully in men.

To me it's silly, but the double standard is useful for erotica, because taboos and social pressures lend an extra sizzle to sexual activity. For instance, although the word "slut" is generally considered a pejorative term, applicable only to women, it's been appropriated by many women to describe themselves in erotic websites. For many it may just be a form of marketing, but for some it seems to give them genuine pleasure to think and talk about themselves that way. I use the term myself in some of my stories, although I try hard to make it very clear that my attitude as the author/narrator toward the characters and the use of the term is playful and positive, not pejorative. I think it lends an extra element of naughty excitement, and most readers (although not all, to be sure) seem to agree.

I agree that many (probably most) men don't really consciously think about applying the double standard. It is something that they have been conditioned to believe and just accept at face value. The large-scale level dynamics do not necessarily apply to the individual, even those that support the large-scale group think dynamic. But that doesn't relieve the individual of personal responsibility, especially in a changing world. That is where the selfish asshole factor can become very real.

My grandfather was my age 60 years ago. For most of his life he exists in an environment in which the double standard was an accepted part of gender dynamics. It was only near the end of his life that a small but growing course of people started to push back against it. I would not say that he ever became "enlightened" but he didn't dismiss these things out of hand or cling doggedly to old school thought. I would not realistically expect him or anyone of his generation to have gotten past that way of thinking and I don't consider them selfish assholes for thinking that way when that is all the ever really knew. But the same does not play nowadays. We have been aware of and talking about this for decades. It is past the point where someone can easily make the argument that "I was just raised that way" as an excuse for sexist behaviour. Someone who thinks that way now hasn't been immersed in that way of thinking unless they were raised in a way that shut out any critical thought/discussion and they chose to carry that closed minded attitude over into adulthood.

Think of it like the way we regard people who are racist or homophobic. Maybe you were raised by racist and homophobic parents. But I think that the statute of limitations has run out on the "that is the way I was raised" attitude. If you are under the age of 65 you have had over half of a lifetime of alternative views and robust discussion on these matters. If you are still racist or homophobic then you are an asshole. Being intolerant of other people or seeking to control them and suppress their freedom of choice isn't just a matter of personal preference - it is a matter of personally choosing to be an asshole. There is a giant difference between never having been exposed to enlightened thought and having been exposed to it and simply choosing to ignore for self serving reasons. The statute of limitations on the double standard is up IMO.

 

[theWollstonecraftWoman]

So what your saying is that men are pigs by nature. Pigs aren't kosher, which makes them taboo for me, so that makes men a bit more interesting to me. Especially if they are black men.

 

[djrip]

So what your saying is that men are pigs by nature. Pigs aren't kosher, which makes them taboo for me, so that makes men a bit more interesting to me. Especially if they are black men.

Logic checks out.

 

[policywank]

So what your saying is that men are pigs by nature. Pigs aren't kosher, which makes them taboo for me, so that makes men a bit more interesting to me. Especially if they are black men.

I don't know if that was directed at me, but I most certainly did not say that men are pigs by nature or anything like that. I addressed some comments to the men that do embrace and support a sexual double standard by seeking to punish women for exercising their sexual prerogative. I said absolutely nothing to indicate that I think all men do so or that doing so was a fundamental part of their nature. There is nothing in my comments that indicates I was making a generalized statement about all men.

 

[theWollstonecraftWoman]

I don't know if that was directed at me, but I most certainly did not say that men are pigs by nature or anything like that. I addressed some comments to the men that do embrace and support a sexual double standard by seeking to punish women for exercising their sexual prerogative. I said absolutely nothing to indicate that I think all men do so or that doing so was a fundamental part of their nature. There is nothing in my comments that indicates I was making a generalized statement about all men.

It was just a joke.

 

[MillieDynamite]

I don't know if that was directed at me, but I most certainly did not say that men are pigs by nature or anything like that. I addressed some comments to the men that do embrace and support a sexual double standard by seeking to punish women for exercising their sexual prerogative. I said absolutely nothing to indicate that I think all men do so or that doing so was a fundamental part of their nature. There is nothing in my comments that indicates I was making a generalized statement about all men.

Mary was probably directing her comments at my statement and not yours. She knows there are some individuals of the other sex I have a low opinion of, a certain type of individual, who is a male, most often black, and traffics women on the street. But as she posted she made a joke and the comment shouldn't be taken seriously.

 

[policywank]

It was just a joke.

Mary was probably directing her comments at my statement and not yours. She knows there are some individuals of the other sex I have a low opinion of, a certain type of individual, who is a male, most often black, and traffics women on the street. But as she posted she made a joke and the comment shouldn't be taken seriously.

Got it. Thanks!

 

[MillieDynamite]

I agree that many (probably most) men don't really consciously think about applying the double standard. It is something that they have been conditioned to believe and just accept at face value. The large-scale level dynamics do not necessarily apply to the individual, even those that support the large-scale group think dynamic. But that doesn't relieve the individual of personal responsibility, especially in a changing world. That is where the selfish asshole factor can become very real.

My grandfather was my age 60 years ago. For most of his life he exists in an environment in which the double standard was an accepted part of gender dynamics. It was only near the end of his life that a small but growing course of people started to push back against it. I would not say that he ever became "enlightened" but he didn't dismiss these things out of hand or cling doggedly to old school thought. I would not realistically expect him or anyone of his generation to have gotten past that way of thinking and I don't consider them selfish assholes for thinking that way when that is all the ever really knew. But the same does not play nowadays. We have been aware of and talking about this for decades. It is past the point where someone can easily make the argument that "I was just raised that way" as an excuse for sexist behaviour. Someone who thinks that way now hasn't been immersed in that way of thinking unless they were raised in a way that shut out any critical thought/discussion and they chose to carry that closed minded attitude over into adulthood.

Think of it like the way we regard people who are racist or homophobic. Maybe you were raised by racist and homophobic parents. But I think that the statute of limitations has run out on the "that is the way I was raised" attitude. If you are under the age of 65 you have had over half of a lifetime of alternative views and robust discussion on these matters. If you are still racist or homophobic then you are an asshole. Being intolerant of other people or seeking to control them and suppress their freedom of choice isn't just a matter of personal preference - it is a matter of personally choosing to be an asshole. There is a giant difference between never having been exposed to enlightened thought and having been exposed to it and simply choosing to ignore for self serving reasons. The statute of limitations on the double standard is up IMO.

Misogyny, like racism, has systemic nature to it. The weight of all history pushes down on the future. That becomes a heavy burden to overcome. But in time, hopefully, the scales will balance. But in truth, there will always be misogynists and racists. For writers, this is a good thing.

 

[policywank]

Misogyny, like racism, has systemic nature to it. The weight of all history pushes down on the future. That becomes a heavy burden to overcome. But in time, hopefully, the scales will balance. But in truth, there will always be misogynists and racists. For writers, this is a good thing.

Yes I think that you are correct. Equality is an ideal to which we aspire, knowing full well that it may never be fully realized. But part of getting closer to it is to regard our world with eyes open and encourage others to do the same.