Why women have difficulties crossing streets?

@Do all to the glory of God then maybe you should take a look on post written by women. This way you can be convinced that we are just as visual as you, and also let our minds wander to 'forbidden' aspects. I do this too, and all women on this platform do, as well as hundred of other you will come across the internet. Also just go take a look on places that will give you further insight. It's impossible, for us girls, to view some attractive man naked and not feel anything. And it gets even harder when we are fertile and our bodies seek to reproduce.

This is the summary of the conditions that allowed men most privilege and granted them endless access to pivotal and influential positions. While, at the same time, denigrating women and labeling them as inferior. That's quite a shitty deal, females put up with it because they knew they'll become scapegoats and outcasts, demonized in the worst way possible if they ever voiced their objections to this unfair discrimination. So, they endured, since no better option was in sight.

It's also because those conditions you stated fueled a lot of female denigration, that many went as far as to claim that Elizabeth the first was actually a man, and that Joan Of Arc was a man too. Despite the evidence provided by the females who bathed them. All of this, because the general public of male dominated society, didn't accept a competent female lead.

• The increase in gender dysphoria is a solid proof how ingrained and rigid gender roles create a great deal of anxiety, and existential crisis. The fact that gender identity is associated so intensely with a bunch of roles, specific tasks or simply a way of dressing, makes people forget that all gender is really about is basic reproductive organs : male makes sperm cells, and females provide Eggs. Anything else is relative, and is molded in the way society dictates it.
  
• I think we should look at gender dysphoria, and compare it's proportions with the rigidity of the role attributed by gender. To the point it had become impossible to separate maleness or femaleness from those specific tasks or role. This way, it will become easier to recognize how certain traits are cultivated, making each group act in a specific pattern.
  
• Feminism is meant to remove old prejudices preventing misogyny and male supremacy. So, of course women gaining equal rights will make them 'similar' to men in that fashion. Since men always had access to those rights , as 'privilege'.
  
• It's not the main biological differences between males and females that are seen as objectionable, in the end it's mostly a matter of reproductive organs and hormones. It's the act of maliciously using the known fact that sexes are biologically different (reproductive systems and hormones) to form speculative 'explanations' , around observed contrasts in important fields as 'biological'. While knowing how most of the working class is still dominated by men, as much as every other domain far from traditional 'female roles'.
  
• Using this method is downright manipulative, because in order to truly grasp the biological influence upon behavior, we need to remove gender roles and the way society perceives competence according to gender out of the equation. And not jump into conclusion dismissing how they still constitute the most dominant aspect in this whole problematic.

 

I was in a hurry earlier as I had something else pressing on my time, so I think I was unable to clarify something about this.

I agree with you that at least you and many of the women participating in this forum have a visual interest in men. I believe, however, that you would not have had this same interest without the influences of things like pornography and the modern sexualization of virtually everything. And it goes further. Today's world presents a cocktail of chemical sources that are changing people's hormones, and the traditional gender-associated attributes are in flux as well. Hormones fed to livestock to accelerate their growth then enter the food supply; soy products with their phytoestrogens; Teflon; BHA in baby products; and the list goes on. Some of these tend to emasculate/feminize men. Some of them tend to make people more masculine. Few of them existed before the last 100 years.

Soy is a dominant/staple food throughout Southeast Asia. Its phytoestrogens may well account for a shift toward femininity within the cultures of the region. In Thailand, for example, many men desire to be women. Ladyboys/transvestites/crossdressers are common, and every school will have at least a handful of boys who, though government rules prohibit them from wearing girls' clothing, will nonetheless walk, talk, and act like girls. Few Asian men can grow a beard, with some not even producing the common fuzz. Asians are not heavy meat eaters, and their meats are less influenced by the additional of hormones.

Americans, on the flip side, eat soy only occasionally, but have a heavy emphasis on meat and dairy products within their diet. The infusion of hormones, testosterone one of the major ones, swings their culture toward the masculine side. Men are heavy, strong, aggressive, and grow thick beards. Women want to be like men.

Neither of these cultures represents the balance that traditionally existed.

Are your own eyes sensitized to be aroused by the male figure? I do not doubt that this may be so. My own wife, however, is not. When once I commented about someone's fly being unzipped--or the pants being so tight as to be immodestly showing a bit much (I don't remember the exact conversation), my wife's naive response was simply: "Why would anyone look there?" She may notice the overall figure and muscular build, but her eyes are definitely not attracted to the nether regions. In fact, she may be somewhat naturally repulsed by this (such as when seeing a man relieving himself at the side of the road--she finds it disgusting).

I believe the feminist movement, pornography, modern gender dysphoria/confusion, and the sexualization of virtually everything these days has habituated many women into becoming more visually oriented. But this was not always so, and is also not the case with many women today. Any woman participating on these forums has had ample time to think about sexual themes, and will the more readily be inclined in that direction; but women's inherent interests, without this conditioning, are far less sexual. Women do have a natural interest, a tendency toward obsession, even, in their own beauty. They have a natural interest in food and in attracting a man. But their reasons for these are not predominantly sexual.

A young Asian lady (girl? -- in her late teens) once told me bluntly during a discussion on the differences between men and women: "Men have more lust." Not a person in the room disagreed. I was a bit taken aback that she would state the fact so plainly! But modern society is trying to change that.

Dare we think of why? Could it be that men desire women to be more sexualized in order to match up with their own lustful natures?

I realize that women are not merely naive, innocent, pure creatures who never entertain a sexual thought. But if you were to do a survey of married couples, I am certain you would find most of them where both parties would agree that the man was the sexual aggressor in their relationship and that the woman rarely initiated intimacy. I've been married for many years and my wife has not come and initiated it even once in all those years. She enjoys it. But she isn't interested in it until she gets warmed up. She is a traditional woman.

I knew of one case where a woman had become a nymphomaniac following a car accident. Her husband complained to me that he couldn't satisfy her--he just didn't need it so much as she did. And while women don't necessarily have to go through an accident to be like this, it is still uncommon. Many men fantasize about marrying such a one--or just having multiple wives, as is common in some cultures. But not many women have an equivalent fantasy.

 

wtf? go outside, read a book, get a job.

I would advice against this nonsense

 

I told them, they just need a nice cup of calming Jasmine tea!

 

Don't ask her directly. If she is a woman who had been raised traditionally, that would be a typical response to expect. Sometimes, when watching a movie with a good looking man, look at her physical response, the way her eyes might be focused and express interest.

I experienced this ever since I had my first period. That's when I truly began to examine males more. So it's not a matter of P influence, if I didn't already possess the prerequisite needs and visualness, P wouldn't even induce arousal in me in the first place.

The 'balance' you speak about is mostly us concealing our sexual interest to avoid being called whores. But by no means, it was a matter about our lack of visual interest toward the opposite sex.

 

It's the other guy who needs it most. I am perfectly relaxed on my flu meds

 

What you are talking about is called neotony, it's a genetic trait among south east Asians. And many native Americans lack facial hair. It has nothing to do with food or any external influence, other than maybe the view that it is an attractive feature. Which lead to it becoming widespread.

 

Just out of curiosity, did you @Do all to the glory of God vote for Trump in 2016 ?

 

I truly wish to go outside, but I can't since I am stuck at home with a flu. But I agree that stopping this argument is the right thing to do, since it became pointless to me as well.

 

Cursed thread

 

This cursed thread is still going

 

Well I can rejoice, I finally decided to free myself form the curse.

 

I’ll forgive you this once.

 

Was he even the one arguing to begin with ? I only saw his username at the very beginning and today.

 

My silence was my argument.

 

Speaking fairly, an argument is supposed to convey a message during any sort of debate. And silence is the absence of any message.

 

My silence was my message.

Hence our current debate now. About silence v. posting.

In this cursed ass thread.

 

That's a line Eric Cartman would have made to save face in case he feels at disadvantage.