I used to think my older sister was full of crap when she would go on about patriarchal society and enforced gender roles and what-not. As I got older (and read some of her spectacular papers and essays), I began to realize that we (in the States, at least) live in a heavily male-dominated society.

A few issues I have personally:

Femininity is equated with weakness, as is homosexuality. Why? Why is it that coaches call their players "girls" and "ladies" in order to degrade them? The same goes with being a "faggot." How does one's sexual preference determine one's character or physical strength, let alone suggest weakness (I'm sure PsychWardMike could kick a lot of straight guys' asses any day)?

Also regarding homosexuality, here's some edited quotes from a rant in my blog (which started this whole thing):

I remember being at a Shadows Fall concert and there were these two hot, [edit] foxes doing that let's-make-out-so-we-can-get-attention-from-the-drunk-horny-*ssh*les-watching-us makeout sh*t...It's completely acceptable in out patriarchal rape culture, though. However, it's not cool to see two guys kiss. What I find funny is that if two chicks kiss, they're still straight but if two guys kiss, they're "gay," which apparently is a bad thing...Oh, and have you noticed that in porn, your standard film has lesbian scenes and chicks fooling around with each other during group sex scenes, but you have to go to a whole different section to see two guys get into it? It's like women are expected to be ready, willing and able to f*ck other chicks but God for-[edit]-bid it's even suggested that guys do anything together. They'd be "faggots," right?

Homosexuality falls under quite a double-standard. Chick-on-chick action rules, right? The very idea of two guys even kissing is disgusting, right? Like I said, it's completely acceptable for chicks to kiss eachother and mess around with each other, often for the amusement of others (three words: Girls Gone Wild). I have a theory that in American society, women are conditioned to be exploited (which would explain why some chicks get a kick out of flashing their tits at concerts) and since making out with and feeling up on another hot fox at a concert gets a reaction from males, homosexuality among females is okay, even encouraged. Males who engage in any homosexual activity are often treated as substandard human beings (perhaps because a lot of males are conditioned to get "numbers" as though it's a cool thing). Homosexual male activity has no real merit to the heterosexual male masses and is, therefore, an undesirable deviation.

Gender roles are, at times, laughable. One of my co-workers declares that a woman has no place in the kitchen because it's the man's domain (bear in mind, he's a cook). I have a chick friend who's a firefighter and EMT (we once dated; guess who wore the figurative pants). I wear more makeup than most of my female friends combined, spend a lot of time on my appearence before I go out and am terrified of insects and spiders. My friend Meghan has, on many occasions, killed spiders for me and her wife and is more masculine than most people I know. Does that make any of uss less of a woman or less of a man? What is a woman or man outside of plumbing and chemistry?

Patriarchal societal values affect men as well. I recall in high school getting called a "faggot" based on my appearence. Whether they were thinking about what they were saying or not, I've no idea and is rather irrelivent. THe incident I recall most was duning senior year when I began to experiment with makeup. I was walking to lunch when I saw this guy staring at me. I don't remember exactly what was said, but I recall him telling me that I am a homosexual, that I engage in anal sex and that I was a woman (I can't make that up). Aside from my snappy comebacks (I was on a roll), I payed no real mind to him. Around the wrong people, I could have been assaulted or even beaten. I knew this one gay guy junior and senior year (bear in mind: he was a flamer and proud of it). I gave a speech on public speaking in an English class (my theater teacher recommended me) and these three guys used a lot of opportunities to take cheap shots at him (he was a really cool guy, too). WHy? Because he's gay and modern society isn't cool with it.

I blame societal conditioning for rape (to an extent, at least). Rape isn't about sex; it's about power and dominance. I don't see as much of a sexual motivation as a power motivation to drug up girls, take them into a bathroom and have four or five other guys go at her with you (I really, really, wish I was making that up). WOmen are supposed to be subservient, hence the term "bitch."

SLightly off-topic: In prisons, if you "pitch," you aren't gay, but if you "catch," your gay. "Catching" is demeaning and putting another person down results in a power trip. You do the math.

I'm rather militant about this. Not only because I'm concerned about the upcoming generation of females who are being thrown headfirst into American rape culture, but because I share a house with a sweet, little, red-headded nine-year-old who looks up to me as her big brother Jamie (only she's allowed to call me that; I once yelled as Spiffy for it). I hear about all of this and it literally makes me want to cry.

Am I the only one who sees things this way? Anyone agree? Anyone think I'm a looney?

As much as I'd like to agree that it's only in America that there seems to be a patriarchical and gender-role society, I'd have to say that it happens everywhere, if only simply because of our (human) culture, which is heavily influenced by our biological makeup.

As it is, we don't have a strictly patriacrchical society. It's more of a hierarchical than patriarchical one, however, within each level of the hierarchy, there is a patriarchy. This is the way human culture has been divided, even as far back as Egyptian times. I think the reason you may notice it more here is that America is founded on the basis that there (supposedly) is no real hierarchy to speak of, so the patriarchy is what dominates.

As for the subservience of gays, I have a biological theory, though it may be a bit of a stratch. I believe that, orriginally, being gay within a thriving population was a way to control the size of that population. As such, being a male and being gay did not serve to create new life (which I believe is the fundimental basis of life), but still served as a distraction and possible competition for the females. So in a way it makes sense that homosexual males were cast out. As for homosexuality in females, that still allowed the dominant male to produce offspring, so to speak (still keeping along the lines of male dominance in species), so it's not nearly as unaccepted as male homosexuality.

Of course, media has done one heck of a job enforcing views such as this on the public.

I agree with everything that yoou said. You have everything right and you are definately not a looney. In fact quite far from it. If everyone read what you wrote loads of peoples views would be changed. Keep it up!

WARNING! GENERALIZATIONS USED - NOT EVERYTHING WRITTEN HERE APPLIES TO ALL PEOPLE.



Well, females are weaker physically and they less wired for quick, decisive action, due to biology dating back to hunter/gatherer times. These traits are undesirable in many situations - sports rely upon both strength and quick action. Politics and business also both depend upon quick, decisive action - a political body which spends too much time debating, and weighing consequences is often, though not always, unable to deal with problems as they arise. Consider the town next to mine - they spent so much time trying to find the best place to put a new high school that they are now past the deadline for receiving money from the state. While long thought out actions can be better, and are even necessary in some cases, there are many times when quick action is necessary. Male homosexuality is often associated with the feminine for two reasons. First, many, though not all, male homosexuals display traditional 'female' traits. Second - it is in many ways a female side of a male - an attraction to the masculine.



This, I think, goes back to evolution. It is in a male's benefit to copulate with as many females as possible. A male can father as many children as he can fertilize females - it is probably possible for a male to fertilize, within one month, between ten and thirty females - thus being nearly ensured to pass on his genes. A female, on the other hand, can only have 1.25 children per year, and less than that if you take into account the fact that she will have a better chance of passing on her genes if she raises the child (the male can simply fertilize as many females as possible and probability will fall in his favor that at least one or two will survive). So, we have a population of males which all, on a biological level, desire multiple females, and a population of females which all, on a biological level, know that multiple males will not help them. So, a man sees two women kissing, and, biologically, he realizes that he has nearly twice the chance of passing on his genes. A female however, sees two males and has no such biological reaction.


I agree with you, and have said this for a long time. Rape is about someone who feels they deserve more control forcibly taking it from someone else.



However, I disagree with you here. Animals have been shown to rape, and I doubt that is it societal conditioning. I think that rape is like murder, in that even in a society where nobody had the concept of murder, it could still occur.

As for the full focus of the thread - I think that we may live in a society that is patriarchal, but I don't know whether it is because men are better suited for certain jobs, or because men are in control already and are more willing to give power to other men than women.

Um. You might want to balance that out a bit - for a start women have a far higher pain threshold. Think about giving birth for a second (bear in mind that drugs to ease this are a relatively recent thing). Guys on the other hand have _died_ from being kicked into the balls due to shock from going over their pain threshold so fast. If you're going to generalise I might as well also. In addition women are also generally better at sorting their emotions out (in some ways).

Just because men have some strengths women don't doesn't mean women don't have strengths men don't. You seem to have missed this due to your focus on ways that men are physically stronger than women and ignorance of the flip side of the argument, which is important in this case. Yes, women and men differ physically but again the strengths and weaknesses are mostly just redistributed, not actually gained and lost. Look at your average tough guy, he's muscular and strong but he's generally not terribly agile or quick. Women on the other hand tend to be more lithe and nimble (again a slight generalisation).

As for the thing you said about quick decisive action, sales is an area that requires quick decisions:
With regard to women in personal selling, there has been a dramatic increase in the proportion of sales personnel and sales managers who are female. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, women now comprise 50 percent of the total sales force in the United States and 41 percent of sales supervisors (up from 25 percent two decades ago). Also, mixed-gender sales teams led by women display significantly higher levels of job involvement, job satisfaction (with supervision, fellow workers, and customers), as well as lower levels of role ambiguity, job anxiety, and burnout. [Quoted from: Marketing in the 21st Century by Joel R. Evans and Barry Berman.

We could therefore say that although men may be slightly physically stronger (in some ways) women tend to be mentally stronger.

The opinion of most of society on this may of course differ.

Like most of the posts in this thread, beware of my gross generalisations.

The reason we at least appear to live in a Patriarchal society is because Patriarchy is an issue of overt power and control. Such attributes are those which are typically associated with men, as opposed to women. Exactly how that is so has already been discussed.

Women have the upper hand in many areas of society. You can work out for yourself what those areas are, but because they don't have the same socially constructed importance attached to them as power and control, they tend to be relatively ignored.

I don't deny that Patriarchy is unfair, but I believe it is balanced out by areas in which there is in fact a subtle Matriarchy. The system as it is gets the flak for being Patriarchal because Patriarchy's attributes are very overt and unmistakable.

My theory on society's reaction to gay men vs. lite lesbians is based on scientific observation of my brother and his friends. They were not a non-religious, mixed group of teenagers. Average high school boys. Based on that I think that there's some simpler explanations than evolutionary theory, however true that may or may not be.

There's a 'theme' of the macho and guys getting the girl. Movies, commercials, cartoons, ect. Men are very clearly defined as being on top, strong and dominant-ish from grade school on. This is very powerful. There are teenage boys that have the reading, support, intelligence or whatever else to go against the norm and form opinions with input from psychology, science, philosophy and so on. But there's a hefty chunk that doesn't. They have a far narrower preview of masculinity, one that doesn't necessarily allow for 'feminine' or submission, which tends to be equated with the first.

Flamers tend to be some of the most visible gay men. Those that are flaming that I've known tend to be feminine, speak differently, have girly-ish accessories and so on. That, caricatures on tv, a few movies and drag queens tend to form pop culture images of male homosexuals. That vision goes strongly and dramatically against what boys are told they should be. My brother and the boys like him had nothing in common with the flamboyent blonde at school or Jack from Will and Grace. It would seem foreign, weak and 'betray' what a man should clearly be. I don't think we can ignore those completely opposing popular ideals and wonder why boys don't always relate or think that being gay would make you more feminine. Prison sexuality has more to do with how women are viewed than homosexuals I think and goes back to those first stereotypes. The man being on top, in control, ect.

As for lesbians, I don't think the understanding tolerance applies to real lesbians most of the time. If you note porn categories, men like women kissing women or sometimes having sex, sure, its there. Thats also in a safe medium that the man can control. Your girlfriend kissing a girl is still your girlfriend and yours to 'have'. Girls making out on video is peformance 'art', not actual lesbians living a relationships. If its the kinky, 'wow, I'm cool' sort, its hardly threatening to a guy because it means nada. Any displays men are buying or watching are being done for men's pleasure.

There isn't a double standard because male sexuality and peforming for an audience aren't remotely the same thing. Men/society isn't always so nice to actual lesbians that don't prefer men and are blunt about it because thats not something the man is controlling or involved in. There's also a good share of men that don't take lesbians seriously enough to feel threatened. Their girlfriend have a girlfriend is seen as a somewhat sexy side amusement, not as a legit sexual and emotional relationship with an equal/competitor. They can only have that doublestandard as long as they believe that a girl being with a girl is less than her being with a man.



Animals don't promote rape or violence toward female animals in movies, tv or other mediums for a 'kick'. Animals don't blame the animal that got raped and say the victim 'asked for it'. Animals don't let rapists out out of jail repeatedly to do it again and again and again. And animals don't have serial rapists that rape women in the human fashion. Animals also appear less likely to rape underage offspring. Rape to some degree would likely exist. I believe its because we live in a fallen world, you'd likely argue its science, but it really doesn't matter.

Promoting abusive power and dominance for young men and treating rape as a lesser crime (sometimes) is conditioning. Women are conditioned to think they should be thin and pretty. (If you don't think this is happening, talk to women). Or just look at fashion magazines. Children are conditioned in school programs to think exercise is good and drugs are bad with varying degrees of success. Communist countries do loyalty training. If we acknowledge or believe in those things, why is it that less 'official' messages aren't conditioning to some degree? Rapper upon rapper, movie upon movies showing violence toward women as glamourous is sending a message. Its sending it quite clearly to the audience watching, some of which are eager to receive it. That level of promotion has no grounds in nature and is a uniquely human trait.

Gender roles.. are something thats fine until you over apply it. Generalities exist for a reason. A bulk of women to men do prefer raising children or doing 'women' things. When you start to make it official though, you leave out all the people that are in between or have more similarities to the other sex.

Dave, I've had four girlfriends who were much stronger than me physically. I have multiple female friends who are stronger than me. There are probably multiple females who are stronger than you. To say that women are physically weaker than males is a bit misleading.

As for being wired for quick, decisive action and it being a good thing, PM me sometime and I'll explain to you the wonderful things it's gotten me over the years. Stopping and being able to think about things is often a good thing.

And Daedalus, how do you see a subtle matriarchy? A friend of mine once told me that since women are conditioned to be used and males are conditioned to be used by women, she uses that fact against guys because she enjoys manipulating them. That's the closest I can think of to there being any semblence of matriarchal control.

Believe brought up a good point about girls being brought up to be thin and pretty and fit into a harsh, specific rubric, particularly regarding thin-ness (which drives a lot of women to almost kill themselves for beauty). Why is it assumed that men all like the same thing when it comes to women? I personally am a non-fan of particularly skinny women for fear that 1) during a hug, I may break her ribs or 2) during sex, I lose my balance and crush her to death (that was a joke, BTW). I'm sure there are guys out there who go for only thin, model-quality girls because they were conditioned to doso. God forbid they date "fat" or "ugly" chicks (who often aren't "fat" or "ugly" like they are portrayed to be).

I dig your rationale, Believe, on real female homosexuality versus apparent female homosexuality. Here's a question: Why is it that it's okay for a chick to be bisexual but not a male? I'm not even thinking of it in a I-might-possibly-date-this-chick-or-watch-her-go-at-my-girlfriend kind of way. I mean in a general, overall sense. The general population would be more comfortable with my friend Amber being bi than me.

Subtle does not mean invisible. By subtle, I simply mean it's not staring you in the face, unlike the very overt tendencies of the Patriarchs of society. My mother is very much the dominant figure in my family, for example. Now I realise that a family is a much smaller sphere of influence than the politics of a country, but that country consists of lots of families, many of which are Matriarchies as opposed to Patriarchies... do you see where I'm heading?

Also, consider the concept of chivalry, or whatever the modern day equivalent is. First, you might see it is women being seen as weak and requiring protection, but turn that on it's head. It can also be used as a method for women to wrap their male peers round their little finger. The amount of times I've seen males ostracised from a group simply because one of it's female members stomps her feet about something is considerable to say the least.

I'm not saying this is some vast feminist conspiracy to control men through manipulation, but women do have a lot of influence over men, but in completely different, and less noticable ways.

Well, a bi girl still likes men. And dude, she might make out with another girl where you can see!!!!1111 But more seriously, I think it taps neatly into the male fantasy/porns they've seen thing. Especially if they're cute and young, its glamourized. Ad's and occasionally tv hint at lipstick lesbianism, enough to make it chic as long as its not real. A drunk Paris Hilton kissing another girl at a party is supposedly glamourous, surreal and treated as eyecandy. I really do think its about women being perceived as sex objects and the fact that a majority of men seem to find two women kissing to be attractive. Women seem to be more tolerant, probably in part because it impresses men and sounds more daring. Though out of high school/college, hopefully people mature sometime after that. >.>

The whole thing is also something of a fad right now and some people are definitely treating it like a fad. There's a rather large difference in the number of girls that I personally knew that claimed to be bi and the ones that acted on it beyond making out at a party or two.

Are you saying that women are stronger than men, that the average woman is stronger than the average man? I understand that there will usually be exceptions to generalizations, but that does not mean that it is wrong to say that by and large, men are stronger than women.



Again, I was not talking about all situations, more in times of crises. My sister was choking once, I stopped and panicked, trying to think of the solution, my mother didn't think and at once performed the heimlich. That quick decision may have saved my sister's life. If the nations of the world had not debated so much over Hitler's rule, and whether or not to allow it, millions of lives may have been saved. While many issues need careful, thoughtful debate, there are times, most of them the most threatening, which require swift, decisive action. I believe that biology favors men in this area, due to their status early on in our evolution as hunters. The men who were able to quickly assess a situation, take control of it, and either kill their prey or escape their predators, were able to survive, and procreate. Women tended to not hunt as much, and as such, were less exposed to the dangers, and quick, decisive thinking necessary.

I don't think you can say we live in a patriarchal or matriarchal society, there are groups who want to puch discrimination either way. We had a talk at college from a company about it's "positive discrimination hiring policies", the talk was aimed solely at girls and when a boy asked why the males even had to be there he was told "it's good for you to hear things like this." It seems like part of the talk was aimed at humiliating and punishing the boys for being male and therefore "the oppressor", but these boys were born well after most of the discriminatory laws were abolished and replaced with ones that rather favour women.

Such gender division is stupid, the differences are merely physical and on a sliding scale. I would say that other than keeping my genitals on the inside and having enlarged mammary glands nothing sets me apart from males. I like "male" activities, have no dress sense and make up frightens me. I'm quite a lot stronger than several of the men I know but I am still a girl because I have the appropriate reproductive organs. Apparently this attitude makes me a psycho feminist and I "need to grow out of it." A friend said that women shouldn't be allowed to join the army because having evolved as the "nurturers" and women who can kill are "dangerous freaks who should be shot," why? They are merely behaving the way she expects males to behave.

I do not think we live in a rape culture and that this is why we find it OK to watch pornography and girls kissing. Women do get raped, but this is because the rapist has something wrong with his mind (or similar) rather than a cultural reason. Men also get raped. Society condemns rape. Some pop culture does glorify abusing women, but most condemns it. Porn, if the female is consenting does not degrade women anymore than it degrades men. Women can enjoy porn too, and women can also look at other women as lust objects. Does this mean we degrade ourselves? Women and men can look at men with lust, does this degrade men? I would say not. Women who enjoy flashing their breasts at concerts most probably enjoy it because they are comfortable with their bodies and enjoy the attention. This doesn't neccessarily suggest low self esteem or that they have been conditioned for abuse and subservience either, they may just like the attention and get the adrenaline thrill from doing something bad or outrageous. Self esteem does not necessarily equal modesty.

Personally I think that men are intimidated by bisexual or gay men because they subconsciously fear rape and men are capable of penetrating other men. Bisexual women are not capable of penetrating anyone and are still capable of being the vessel for perpetuating the males genes, so therefore they are not a threat.

Good point regarding the subconcious fear of rape. A lot of guys I run into who find out that I'm bi get all weird about it fro that reason. I enjoy saying, "Don't flatter yourself. I wouldn't f*ck you with a stolen d*ck."

Something tragically hilarious occured to me. Some of the guys make fun of me saying I like "fat" and "ugly" chicks. A few nights ago, my brother and three of his friends were over and I realized that all of them had petite, thin, teen-movie-looking girlfriends. I then realized I'm more into the this-is-how-women-in-the-real-world look. I wondered why this is. It's simple: They're conditioned to like petite, thin, teen-movie-looking girls by American culture and society.

Oh, and they went nuts when two of their girlfriends kissed. I still don't see what makes it a big deal. "Oh, my God! Our girlfriends are making out! Sweet!" God damn, are they stereotypical guys. Thank you societal conditioning.

It has evolved quite a bit in the last.. forty years? or so, definitely. The line isn't so pronounced. I think you can make the argument that vestiges of the patriachal mindset remain, stronger in some places than others. Of course, the reverse is true in other sections, like you said.



It does condemn rape, to a point. It is technically illegal and rapists are not generally smiled upon. The Kobe Bryant trial was enough to prove that some of the old mindsets still exist in some cases. People were eager to jump over her sexual history, whether she 'asked for it' and more. I don't remember the evidence be overwhelming as much as I remember the attitudes. People were quite willing to crush her, post her picture and name (even before the evidence started to come out), ect. Its certainly not all rape trials, but its an attitude that still exists in these cases.

Rape is about control. So lets look at what we glorify in our pop culture and ad's. Things that teenagers see at the movies, MTV, ect. There's such songs as Britney Spear's 'I'm a slave 4 U', there's the bevy of girls in the rap videos (sometimes faceless curvy bodies that flock around said rapper like harem slaves), there's submissively posed women in women's magazines (kneeling on at man's feet, before another female, posed sexually with not real expression), the typical babe in commericals to be drooled over and on and on. These things don't make a man rape. I know that. What they are selling though is traditional, 'patriarchial' expectations. A women that is submissive, here to serve the man sexually, to be there as a eye candy, a group for a one night stand, ect, ect. The ad's I mentioned do not show empowered females throwing the man down and being in control, they focus around the man and 'classic' men's desires. Countless studies have shown that people pay attention to the media, especially children and teenagers. Witness fads, fashion and the latest must have accesories.

If you portray women as submissive playthings over and over and over, I believe that has power and affects people. It can affect (to a much more minor degree) strong people. Most women I know, even strong ones think about their weight, appearance, ect to some degree. If you factor in men with control/mental or other issues, this plays right into a rapist' mindset. People with negative feelings toward women, control issues, trouble pasts and the rest. Again, it doesn't -make- anyone do anything, but it doesn't help.

It also doesn't help portray women as strong human beings that deserve to be admired for other things besides having nice breasts or being thin. The levels of anorexia and bulimia more than demonstrate that young girls are buying into it as well. My point (and belief) is that if you glorify all the things leading up to it, then condemn it.. the one condemnation doesn't take away image after image after image. It doesn't make people suddenly forget everything they've seen glorified in movies, magazines and music videos.



Women can enjoy porn too, certainly. Women like looking at pictures of attractive men and vice versa. I'll gladly concede all of that. I do think there is a difference between admiring a handsome man or beautiful women and setting them up purely as sex objects. There's surely some women friendly video's with empowered women. There's also many different kinds of porn that surely go to different degrees, ect. Some of them I might even think show sexuality in a mostly healthy way.

However, there are many, many more than aren't. Women are (again) often betrayed as submissive, objects of fantasy, completely willing and in some videos eager for humilation and pain. I realize its a personal choice whether to engage in these behaviors, especially in a relationship. Thats fine and not my business. I will argue that my sex being publically and repeatedly portrayed as sex object does degrade me. In most cases there is nothing close to equality in the number of films that portrays women even as empowered, in control and fulfulling their fantasies. (All the bikini/general porn vs the dominatrix bits) The female in the film is consenting and its her right, but I don't have to be happy about that or pretend that a girl in sometimes degrading positions empowers me by prompting men to think of me as an intelligent and worthwhile human being.

blunt-ish example warning.

Do you think that a man watching a women being ejaculated on is thinking of her mind? What her interests are and her value as a human being? Do you think that encourages and prompts a man to look at me and think of my mind?

A lot of porn is made by and for men. This is reflected in fantasies that some men prefer. Fantasies that as stated above, do not necessarily show her as anything but a willing (or unwilling) vessel. It doesn't turn a good man bad of course, but I'm missing the empowered bit.



I think a bit of both is true. I think some women think it impresses the men, are tipsy and so on, but some girls just feel, well, sexy. They enjoy showing off, are proud of their bodies and stuff. And you're right, some exhibitionists are very confident. I don't mean every women thats proud of her sexuality has subservience issues or does it for men. What I do think is that enough women are vulnerable to doing it for the wrong reasons for it to be troubling.



A good point and one I missed.

Alright, You may have qualified this somewhat, but I am going to go further because this is a point that really annoys me.

Being sexually submissive is not degrading if you enjoy it.

It's degrading if you aren't willing, but if you are then why not. Womens magazines and porn show men in those positions as well, not as many but that's because (I think) more men are dominanat than submissive and yeah most porn is aimed at men. Therefore by most porn having dominant males and submissive females they are catering to their market. There is nothing wrong with that. Some porn is degrading and that is usually against the womans will, therefore it ought to be stopped. Some women like being hurt and humiliated in a sexual content and there are men who enjoy giving that to a willing sub, therefore said porn caters to them.

Thinking about her mind is not appropriate in a purely sexual context. Do you think about Brad Pitt's mind while fantasising about him naked (this is a purely hypothetical example andnot aimed at you personally)?

Pictures of men being submissive are classed as empowering. This is stupid. A member of one gender being submissive is not empowering for the entirity of one gender, thinking that it does degrades both genders. Neither do pictures of women being submissive encourage rape if it is obvious, as in magazines and legal porn,that the woman is consenting and most likely a paid actress. Most real tops would be turned off at the thought of a sub who wasn't willing, rapists are not the same thing as a top. The sub is usually the truly dominanat ome as the dom is acting for the subs pleasure. The point of dominance and submission is that both parties enjoy themselves. I maintain that western society at least doesn't encourage rape through it's portayel of sex.

Also, as I would like to tell Germain Greer, altering yourself to become more attractive as you see it, is not degrading unless you make yourself miserable and don't really want but feel you have to.

When you hire a plumber, do you care about his interests, his mind, his value as a human being - or about how good a plumber he is? When you go to a restaurant, are you concerned with the personal life of the chef, or do you just want some nice food?

Your interactions with these people are purely transactional. You are exchanging some commodity of yours for some commodity of theirs. The fact that these interactions do not touch on these people's existence at a deep emotional level does not degrade or devalue them as people; it's simply not what you're interested in at that exact time. You are not degrading plumbers or chefs.

Now, apply the analogy. The fact that, currently, I have no real interest in a porn actress beyond her body and what she's doing with it says nothing about my attitudes towards women. It reflects only on the purely transactional and impersonal interaction I am having.

Sure. But porn is not a relationship or a situation where a woman is being submissive for the pure joy of it. Money is involved, she might not like it at all and its being made purely for public consumption. The same thing with Britney Spears commericals, if less sex. We're not talking about an individual women wants and can be proud of, but an industry and how it consistently displays women. Finding that industry degrading is not the same thing in finding some woman's submission degrading. I don't consider sex degrading, but I don't particular think prostitution does anything at all for women.



I'm not a good one to answer this as I have to at least respect them before I find them attractive. If I don't like his mind to some extend, I wouldn't get as far as to fantasize in any context. I know some people are made differently though, so..



Who do you know thats classified male submission as empowering? What have you read/seen or otherwise based this one? It hasn't been my experience in dealing with men (especially if they're somewhat homophobic), but I don't know where your coming from either.



Er.. so being obviously sexual wouldn't encourage sex because its obvious? Blantantcy stops things from being encouraged in most circumstances? This seems illogical and I'm not seeing how it could be applied in most cases or this one. And you think that in say, rape scenes, that all men stop and think 'wow, I'm glad she's a paid actress, otherwise this would be so unsexy'? I will easily concede that most mentally stable men are fine, likely keep that in mind to some extent and don't go and rape women becauses of it. Regardless, the men that keep the paid actress bit in mind are not the problem in the first place, though I'm not sure I think finding very realistic rape scenes as sexy is a healthy thing. That gets into degrees, art vs. reality and all sorts of messy things though.



Sure. A lot of people have interest in dominance/submission to some degree and a good number of people are respectful of consent, local laws and such. They enjoy and hey, good for them. Their enjoyment of it isn't the same thing as the cultural prominence and promotion of female submission. Female submission is glorified above and beyond any male submission and in a way that goes well with 'outdated' stereotypes. I'm missing how that doesn't play into sex, control and some of the things that can lead to rape, such as viewing women as sex objects to be controlled. The consensual BDSM scene doesn't have to sure and often doesn't, but thats not the same thing as societal views, portrayals and even porn in general. One does not equal the other by itself.



Sure. I like make up and girly things. Just not the way our current set up is heading. heh.



Sure. Its not going to make stable people something they aren't or everyone that watches porn bad. I'm sure there's types that could be argue as somewhat healthy, eye candy or a mostly harmless amusement. Thats also not my argument. What I believe is that is many cases and sorts that it has little redeeming value, sometimes very negative affects and can generally degrade women. Then again, I consider things like Britney Spears to be embarassing for my sex as well, so.. >_o

I meant from the point of view of women. Magasines and the attitudes of the majority of girls I know, I didn't mean from a male point of view.



Yeah because while being turned on is not controllable, actually embarking upon intercourse is. A man can't prevent an erection but he can prevent holding a woman down and shoving it in her, to be blunt. Some men are turned on by rape, but they are a very small majority and like pedophiles, have something wrong with them (I'm not classing date rape with this because they are usually unplanned and, while wrong, the boy usually hasn't premeditated or got off on the idea of the rape itself; rather he is turned on and "gets carried away". He still needs to be punished but it's not the same thing. Anyway wil stop digressing now...) Also when I defined submission I meant a woman willingly submitting (this includes bondage because it can be made clear that the woman is going along with it), I didn't mean rape because that's not actual submission, she's not agreed to submit.



I didn't say it was the same thing, but I do not think society does promote this. Some porn may give the impression of doing do but porn is frowned upon by mainstream society. How does society promote female submission to men? I agree it used to but I don't think it does anymore (My arguments will all be based off English cities as that is the only society I have enough expierience of to argue about, but I don't think the rest of the UK or Us are that different really, are they?)



I don't much like it either but I don't think it condones rape. As for Britany Spears, if anyone is degraded by her it's herself alone. No one individual can degrade an entire gender or race. Here's a quote from the Odyssey "And she has forever disgraced the whole race of women, even those innocent" (not an exact quote because I don't have a copy of it with me.) A totally unfair comment, her actions disgraced only herself (she murdered her husband), you wouldn't agree that therefore all women were to blame would you? Likewise Ms Spears actions can't degrade all women becuse we are not a collective mind. I can understand being embarrassed for her, but feeling she has embarrased your entire gender I can't.

The starred end quotes should be removed - you tend to have too many end quotes.
Fixed now -Commie