Gender Issue Discussion

@Serious

TV and Magazine articles targeted at each gender do not reflect anything but the fact that BOTH men and women are interested in sex.

Men's health: http://www.menshealth.com/sex-md/better-sex-diet
http://www.fhm.com/upgrade/sex-relationships/10-sex-tips-that-will-make-you-a-better-man-83913
http://www.details.com/blogs/daily-details/2013/06/health-myth-do-men-really-hit-their-sexual-peak-at-18.html

The point I am making is, as noted above, that society has an ongoing double standard when it comes to how that sex interest is applied.

The reality TV thing is even ridiculous, there are plenty of shows where men sleeping around is seen as fine.  A Shot at Love, a reality TV show which was often about sex and how experienced people were which was seen as a positive.  Jersey Shore features men on TV bragging about sex.  

It mainly depends on who the focus is upon.  If you are talking about something like Keeping up with the Kardashians, the main characters focused upon are Kardashian women, and I've caught one of their boyfriends bragging about their sex life.  The Real Housewives of Jersey shore is similar, with the women talking about sex since they are the main focus of the show.

With something like Jersey Shore though were main characters are male you'll see them talking about it just as much.  

Now I hope I never have to analyze a reality TV show again in any capacity or admit I've seen them.  Reality TV really isn't a good place to go for any sort of information, studies show it literally lowers a person's intelligence and focus to constantly watch such shows.

EDIT:  I just noticed part of it was the idea that women can talk about sex with men, but men can't talk about sex with men.  That is something completely different, that is a stigma against homosexuals which is present in many countries.

Fex's citations are astute and also show something easily overlooked. The words a society uas at its disposable are a clear way to determine what that society values. We need to look no further than the lexicon to understand which gender's libido is repressed.

I prefer to be known as a gigolo myself

Serious_Much wrote:I prefer to be known as a gigolo myself

 

Serious_Much wrote:I kinda agree about some of the points steve is making. I mean I've never seen a mens mag talk about "Position of the week" or other tat about sex, yet theres a lot of women's mags such as cosmo who are rife with the stuff.

Maybe you aren't looking hard enough. Which men's magazines are you reading, Serious?

Spoiler:

Men's magazines are marketed for masculinity, but sex still sells.

I'm not claiming that anyone is claiming all men want them but dear God,I would not bother with those magazines.I feel insulted that any man would.

bunnywink wrote:

Serious_Much wrote:I kinda agree about some of the points steve is making. I mean I've never seen a mens mag talk about "Position of the week" or other tat about sex, yet theres a lot of women's mags such as cosmo who are rife with the stuff.

Maybe you aren't looking hard enough. Which men's magazines are you reading, Serious?

Spoiler:

Men's magazines are marketed for masculinity, but sex still sells.

I don't read tat

Hahaha, I don't read women's magazine either. I can hardly blame you.

FexDS wrote:

steveswede wrote:
 That's complete bullcrap and you know it.

I disagree. Your sources please?

My sources?  Do I really need to go out and buy magazines, newspapers and scan them as proof, spend an age digging up a ton of old programmes and music videos showing women finding it great to have sex in so many ways with loads of different toys.  I ain't doing it on that level because one it's pointless when the stuff is so easy to find and two my comment was to call bluff on your bull.  How can you even disagree when there is evidence when just walking around towns and cities.



http://www.annsummers.com/storelocator

This is the reality of it and this is just one piece.  Men don't have this privilege in the UK, they have to resort to private shops with windows all blackened with no product advertisement outside or on the windows if they want to get access to products of a sexual nature.  Ann Summers is a female only shop and their parties are female only.  I have female friends that go to them.  Women get commended in society for this sexual liberation, men get laughed at because like with slut shaming, a man's worth is reduced to nothing if he is found out that he uses any instrument to get himself off.  People in society will think that there must be something wrong with a man if they have to resort to plastic.

Also, having plenty of female friends has gained me some insight on just how bad it can be for a man to reveal his high libido and his conquests.  No end of them have said they would not go with a man who talks so openly about their past sex experiences in fear they might talk about them and wouldn't go with a guy who has paid for sex.  They don't like going out with guys that have a local known history and usually get rid of them if they find out soon after.

FexDS wrote:

steveswede wrote: Everyone here doesn't have to look far in society to find women liberating with sex.

What do you mean by this? That women are finding more "liberation" in sex? That modern standards are less prude than they used to be?

Both.  They are less prude and because of that women find more liberation.

FexDS wrote:

steveswede wrote:TV reality shows of women going on sex conquests on holiday, women being praised for sleeping with footballers and selling their stories to the newspapers, Ann Summers parties where women openly promote selling of sex toys and discussion of using them, music videos promoting the power of female sex and they are all doing it willing with no one forcing them to do it.

How are TV instances of females doing sexual things ultimate proof that society does not tell women they should not sleep with many guys?

Because if it wasn't acceptable, they would be removed from TV with media outlets condemning them saying that women don't do that.  Sex and the City came and went and society did not kick up a fuss because we were already there socially.

FexDS wrote:

steveswede wrote:Men are the ones that are told to repress it.

What? Men are often characterized as having an all high libido that is almost uncontrollable, and "think about sex all the time"

In society (lets be clear here when I say society I mean western society and more specifically the UK) being vocal about having a high libido is only good to the people in your personal group that you want to hear and who want to hear it.  Taking about that in the public eye gets looked down on and become trash talk in the newspapers.

FexDS wrote:

steveswede wrote:So no, you are so wrong on this.

I don't think so. I think you are just throwing around personal and narrow observation as fact.

I can also say the same about you.  You make the claim that society tells females to repress their sex drive, or to a more extent told to repress more than males because lets be real about this there are bodies that tell both sexes what they can and can't do.  Women having more promiscuous words than men does not mean that they get repressed more, that's silly logic.  Perhaps you should check some of those words you posted to see just how crazy they are.  Gypsy, Vamp, Crumpet, I had to LOL at them being used for promiscuous women.

And as for the private observations of realtime TV are superior to studies and encyclopedic entries comment, didn't you make the point about the Power Puff Girls earlier about the kiss is sexist?  I mean that is a cartoon and you talked as if that brain washes kids to think that sex is a tool to get yourself out of a situation.

And just to clarify, I have done more than just looked and studied at TV, I have spent years making observations, reading other people's research, listening to many people and experienced it in my own life due to my surroundings and hobbies.  The gender issue is a small piece out of the discrimination research I've done.

This entire post is absurd conjecture.  Yes you need to cite sources or it's still a limited personal opinion.  Fex's post had ample citations from reputable journals and yet you ignore the evidence presented by sound social science. She called your bluff and handed it to you with more than adequate backing up of her claims. Don't inject yourself into a conversation with such vitriol and then back it back it up with only pictures.

Ok fine I'll look into those, though so far can a group of less than 100 people on each test really be reliable social science of the world?  And what to say that later tests show drastically different results to what we have now, especially if the test are done in different countries?

Threads full of dumbass posts haha.. Had to listen to em all second hand these past days and finally had the pleasure of reading and confirming them myself
 
That's all I got haha *sneaks back to pvp.

Rifter7 wrote:Threads full of dumbass posts haha.. Had to listen to em all second hand these past days and finally had the pleasure of reading and confirming them myself
 
That's all I got haha *sneaks back to pvp.

 This post is both relevant and helpful to the current discussion....

Slarg232 wrote:

Rifter7 wrote:Threads full of dumbass posts haha.. Had to listen to em all second hand these past days and finally had the pleasure of reading and confirming them myself
 
That's all I got haha *sneaks back to pvp.

 This post is both relevant and helpful to the current discussion....

Sad thing is its more relevant and helpful then a lot of the others.

I think Emergence's avatar sexually objectifies men.

The time comes in every man's life when the shrubs need trimming. It's a beautiful, natural thing, like making salad. Grabbing life by it's horns and making salad.

steveswede wrote:. . . though so far can a group of less than 100 people on each test really be reliable social science of the world?  And what to say that later tests show drastically different results to what we have now, especially if the test are done in different countries?

It is more reliable than personal experience though. It is objective observations without preconceived notions. On top of that, it doesn't rely on memories or grouping and analyzing memories encompassing years and years. As we all know, memories are terrible and never relay the full truth. Memories are also ephemeral, changing many many times over different recountings.

Most of the time when examinations like that are done by professional researchers they take things like that into account too. I know when I took the few sociology courses I have taken in college the introductory course had a whole section on proper research methods, that covered how good field research is done, and it all includes things like using several control groups, and carrying them out across specified amounts of time, and implementing them across several demographics, like cultural or geographical, then averaging the results of many tests. It's never just a set 100 people. Usually when you get statistics like that it's tests that are done extremely broadly in order to come up with more focused results and theses. It's actually pretty complex how they go about doing these things when they do them properly. Enough so that I had to read that section of the textbook a few times before the exam.

reim0027 wrote:

steveswede wrote:. . .  though so far can a group of less than 100 people on each test really be reliable social science of the world?  And what to say that later tests show drastically different results to what we have now, especially if the test are done in different countries?

It is more reliable than personal experience though.  It is objective observations without preconceived notions.  On top of that, it doesn't rely on memories or grouping and analyzing memories encompassing years and years.  As we all know, memories are terrible and never relay the full truth.  Memories are also ephemeral, changing many many times over different recountings.

Agreed but what bothers me about these papers is that the results look negligible yet have be portrayed with a much wider gap.  I haven't got round to reading and fully understanding them yet (I can't find what M and SD stand for in the tables) and I'm too tired to look into them ATM but none the less looking forward to reading them.  It's actually nice to see a paper with extensive research in it instead of reading sham papers with nothing but one graph and a agenda that the popular press use.

If anyone wants to read what I'll be reading soon is here.

http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/group/busslab/pdffiles/sexual%20strategies%20pursued%20and%20mate%20attraction%20tactics%20deployed%202006.pdf

http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/group/busslab/pdffiles/schmitt%20and%20buss%201996.pdf

http://www.niu.edu/user/tj0bjs1/papers/chs07.pdf

I won't answer your previous post since it has already been pointed out it was conjecture and to be honest does not support your point that males are repressed nor does it do anything for any argument against the existence of "slut shaming" in modern society and how that can make it seem that females have a lower libido.

Now I will clarify, again, what this discussion was about since you seem to be missing the point

1. Sexual promiscuity is seen as a bad trait in potential mates to a majority. Its influences on friendships are varied since there are contextual factors for the message.
2. Sexual promiscuity is often wrongly related and explained by referring to libido.
3. Sexual promiscuity in females receives more and harsher criticism from society because of vestiges of "virgin" desirability - your exposure to this will vary.
4. Sexual promiscuity in males receives less and more excused criticism from society because "males are males" (Read back a few pages, example right here as Animaal was -absurdly- claiming men can't control this and would sleep with trees)

Do we live in a less repressed society towards female sexuality? Sure we do
Has this double standard where a woman who sleeps with dozens of men is a slut and a man who sleeps with dozens of women is a "winner" gone away? No

On the links you posted: First, don't bother, it's not pertinent to this particular discussion since it focuses on sexual attraction "tactics". Second one is about strategic friend selection based on promiscuity, which is also not directly relevant to this discussion.The third one is also about sexual strategies and mating decisions which are unrelated to the subject at hand.

The point that I made was not to argue females are sexually repressed. It was to highlight that the *perception* that women don't like or think about sex comes from the ongoing societal encouragement to "keep your legs closed" - which is a real thing or we would not have the phraseology posted before, nor would we have the famous "headache" or "my gf is holding out" etc that are such common phrases.

http://www.clarissapinkolaestes.com/women_who_run_with_the_wolves__myths_and_stories_of_the_wild_woman_archetype_101250.htm

Guys read it if you dare but most importantly if you really care to be enlightened.

Ladies call forth your wolves!

I'm going to tread in here with caution from now on and try not to get too involved since I don't trust myself to discuss these kinds of things anymore, but I will occasionally drop thoughts I'm curious about to see what people think.

What do you all think about naming conventions? Is it appropriate to have male and female names? Is it okay to name a female baby something masculine like Brock or Hank, or to name a male something feminine like Elizabeth or Samantha?

I actually had a gym teacher whose name was Courtney, it was a dude.

I want my name to be something more "Feminine"

The two names you mentioned are both wonderful...