Barack Obama says women should not be shamed for having sex while men get a pat on the back

a reply to: Bluesma

What was yours?

See above.
Or your quote of what I said above.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Bluesma

In what way do you see the "painful" part in that changing?

The enactment and implementation of the change involved much effort, pain, and controversy.

Okay, you mean the effort before the change. Got it.

...and here, with this issue?

What is the change you would wish to support?
What is the discomfort part of it?

a reply to: Bluesma

The discomfort part is...?

The idea that men should not be celebrated for their sexual conquests.
The idea that the sexual drives of women should not be condemned.

That thing you were talking about? Mores?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Bluesma

The discomfort part is...?

The idea that men should not be celebrated for their sexual conquests.
The idea that the sexual drives of women should not be condemned.

It is painful for men not to be celebrated for their sexual conquests?
It would be painful for women to not be condemned for their sexual drives?

I'm sorry but that doesn't make much sense to me.

If these are the changes you would wish to champion, I do not see where the "necessary pain" in them is.

a reply to: Bluesma

It is painful for men not to be celebrated for their sexual conquests?

For a good number, I would say yes. "Bro, I got laid by twins last night!" "Meh."

It would be painful for women to not be condemned for their sexual drives?

I think they might welcome it.

I'm sorry but that doesn't make much sense to me.

Clearly.

originally posted by: Phage

It is painful for men not to be celebrated for their sexual conquests?
For a good number, I would say yes. "Bro, I got laid by twins last night!" "Meh."

My goodness, we have different ideas of painful experiences!! I guess that fits in with the whole "microaggression" concept?? OKay... LOL... at least I know where you are coming from then.

It would be painful for women to not be condemned for their sexual drives? I think they might welcome it.

I don't see any shaming going on. I see young women bragging about their sexual activity publicly.

My only concern is making sure it doesn't go back to the extreme of putting pressure on women to prove they are liberated through sexual activity that is not what they feel okay with inside.

a reply to: Bluesma

I don't see any shaming going on. I see young women bragging about their sexual activity publicly.

I see women talking about it. Bragging, not so much but then, I'm not privy to their conversations.
What I do see is the term slut being applied in conversations that I do hear. Don't hear that used much about men.

My only concern is making sure it doesn't go back to the extreme of putting pressure on women to prove they are liberated through sexual activity that is not what they feel okay with inside.

Oh, slippery slope kind of thing. Ok.

Hm.

Like I said, I guess I am not privy to this predator/prey, slut and conquerer part of the population and culture.

a reply to: Bluesma

If it helps, I notice that in Europe, boys feel less pressured to "prove" themselves through such wild claims of sexual conquest- they seem to be fine with being seen as a human with emotional needs instead of a " predator".

That's good, and I don't doubt it. Europe seems to have more reasonable mores regarding sex.

In 'merica things is different and that's what the President was talking about.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Bluesma

If it helps, I notice that in Europe, boys feel less pressured to "prove" themselves through such wild claims of sexual conquest- they seem to be fine with being seen as a human with emotional needs instead of a " predator".

That's good, and I don't doubt it.

In 'merica things is different and that's what the President was talking about.

OH! I didn't see the whole speech- did he say something about how we should treat men differently?
-or was that part of your guess?

a reply to: Bluesma
You could have read the article linked in the OP, but here you go:
www.whitehouse.gov...

a reply to: Phage

I should clarify then. Everyone should do what makes them happy as long as it doesn't directly or indirectly influence another human being in a negative way.

I've always been a defender of 'do what makes you happy as long as it doesn't hurt others'.

I just think a lot of people read and interpret it as 'do whatever you want'.
I may not always agree with what a lot of people do, because I don't think it's going to bring them true happiness, but I'll defend their right to do it. It ain't none of my business anyway

Why always on the defensive Phage? I think we're in agreement here, but it doesn't feel like you see it that way.

a reply to: [pgost=20879896]Bluesma[/post]
Raising children is not a perfect science. Even those that many may think of as perfect parents, rarely produced perfect results. I have five brothers, four of them waited until late in life to marry and father children. Now they are old farts with young children. I admit they are more mellow, more patient, and probably better fathers, than they may have been in their younger years.

My mother's mantra for my brothers was, "If she isn't the woman you want to have in your life until the day you die, or if she isn't the one you want as the mother of your children, then she is not the woman you want to have sex with."

She explained that the mother of their children will always be a part of their lives, whether they shared a bed or not.

She used to tell us five girls that a man rarely marries a woman that is easy to bed. He thinks if she will have sex with me, she will have sex with anyone.

We were lucky to have five brothers. We learned volumes from the men in our lives. We were able to learn vicariously, the possible results of well or poorly matched relationships.

No matter how well you teach your children, they will follow their own path, and the gods of fate never grow tired of the game.

a reply to: shredderofsouls

well from what ive read , monotheism is the reason why women are shamed for pretty much anything !
as soon as monotheism came along women became second class citizens

in pre christian cultures women had multiple partners and everyone was humping like rabbits

also in tribes before we developed single partners and marriage the men shared the women and did not trace their lineage to children the tribes children were the responsibility of every man

I support Abstinence and Chastity.
We should not celebrate anyone that has sex with a lot of random people, it's extremely risky behavior, and it is disgusting.

Few ever talk about it but STDs are everywhere. HIV is far more widespread than the latest stats reveal.

I don't need any of you to respect me, I have self respect.

This society is so putrid that you are shamed for not getting around much.

Im 35, the only woman I've ever been with was my X wife. I'd like a new wife but she's gotta have self respect and be virtuous. I've got really high standards.

a reply to: Bluesma

I don't think we see this the same way. You see loose behavior leading to more kids to raise/feed, I see it as a step backwards for the human race. If we wish to evolve and become more intelligent creatures we must leave behind our animilistic side and embrace the rational.

Risque behavior leads to STD's, unplanned pregnancies and abortions - oh my

But it also allows the individuals to embrace a side of ourselfs that is very well mirrored in other animals, especially monkeys (with the whole coitus standing up thing).

I just want the human race to evolve towards positive, intelligent creatures, I want us to be able to control our instincts.

a reply to: shredderofsouls

Almost sounds like something a Muslim would say.

originally posted by: geezlouise
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

I think the point is that if a woman gives one man a blowjob and talks about it, then she's a ho.

Hell, she doesn't even have to give anyone a blowjob, she just has to talk about how sometimes she gets horny... then she's a massive slut basically asking to get her throat fugged. Right?

But a man can stick it in twenty girls and it's just biology. It's a-ok. Talk about it all you like... men are "horn-dogs." We all accept it.

So it seems... men are allowed to be horny. Women are not.

And isn't that unfair?

I really love your logic and honesty, it's refreshing.

I think it actually boils down to this. The president is dividing people whether the masses understand this, he is.

This has nothing to do with fairness, but rather division of the genders and leaders are not suppose to divide.

A true leader, and a man of ethics would have said this:

"I find it extremely tasteless when "People" talk about their sexually exploits publicly. Something to those lines.

But a president should not be talking about these kinds of issues when so many other things are screwed up, and need talking about.

I'm just hoping that a portal will open up and suck all the madness and chaos off this planet.

a reply to: Realtruth

But a president should not be talking about these kinds of issues when so many other things are screwed up, and need talking about.

It really does look like we are being scripted.

Just yesterday a small group, of about eight people, were discussing their dislike for the schools placing all their attention on their children passing a single test. When I asked them why did they think this has become the standard, they just looked at me. At first I thought it was because they didn't know me, then the only female in the group said, "I don't know, but I don't like it."

When I asked, what are they spoon feeding your children that is so important that they most learn it and the expense of learning anything else?

One of the men replied, "I never thought about that."

One of our biggest problem is that we are accepting everything the media throws at us. We are so busy ducking and throwing the poo, that we have stopped looking at where all the poo is coming from.

a reply to: shredderofsouls

Maybe he'd like to issue another Executive Order.