i really didnt take enough advantage of easy college girls...

soulsinging · March 2007

angelica wrote:

You said you don't see any unhealthiness and lack of self-esteem in wanting to sleep with as many...."

You are entitled to see it how you want to.

To clarify my view, I think there is a difference between boosting one's ego and having health and self-esteem. And that is not to say I am challenging your point of view because I don't know enough about it to judge. What I was initially saying is that regarding your first statement I responded to, you would not be responsible for the women being messed up, but you would be responsible for contributing to it and fuelling it and for your own issues that would be the foundation for doing so. Just like you are responsible when you are being constructive given any situation.

this still doesn't explain why i should pass up free sex from an attractive woman on the off-chance she has self-esteem issues that will still be worsened by someone else who will step in to take my place if i say no. especially if i get some benefit from it and she loses regardless of what i do.

angelica · March 2007

soulsinging wrote:

this still doesn't explain why i should pass up free sex from an attractive woman on the off-chance she has self-esteem issues that will still be worsened by someone else who will step in to take my place if i say no. especially if i get some benefit from it and she loses regardless of what i do.

I'm confident that you will do what works for you and make amendments accordingly as you progress. I'm support you finding what works for you. I'm not trying to convince you of what to do for you, but rather I'm making observations about neutral dynamics I've observed.

For me personally, I find that I get negative feedback when I contribute to negativity. And I find I get positive feedback when I created constructively.

soulsinging · March 2007

angelica wrote:

I'm confident that you will do what works for you and make amendments accordingly as you progress. I'm support you finding what works for you. I'm not trying to convince you of what to do for you, but rather I'm making observations about neutral dynamics I've observed.

For me personally, I find that I get negative feedback when I contribute to negativity. And I find I get positive feedback when I created constructively.

fair enough. but according to victorygin it's a good thing that women sleep around with total strangers and they derive great benefit from it and im the one being used when i have a one night stand. which brings me back to my original point... why are men critical of feminists like victorygin when they seem to view cheap, casual sex as a huge victory for their movement?

angelica · March 2007

soulsinging wrote:

fair enough. but according to victorygin it's a good thing that women sleep around with total strangers and they derive great benefit from it and im the one being used when i have a one night stand. which brings me back to my original point... why are men critical of feminists like victorygin when it has made it so much easier to get some action?

Although I've heard you run the gamut of basically every position in this type of discussion, I usually tend to agree with you.

I can agree that there are functions and needs being met by women sleeping around, and I support their right to do so (although the costs can be and often are very high, imo). However, I'm not talking about sexual needs. I'm talking about complex life experience needs we are meeting unconsciously that imo generally have little to do with the sex itself. Needs that are not being met in more appropriate ways.

I'm thinking you are talking theoretically here for the most part. Technically, if you find yourself interacting and having sex with these girls, it's not that one person is the victim and one the victor, it's more about two variables coming together in time for some kind of reason. So if you are meeting this theoretical girl where she is at, I believe fair is fair, in the two sides of the same coin type of thing. I think it's an illusion to believe that you could do so, and that you could be healthy, while simultaneously believing she is letting herself be taken advantage of, or that she is slutty.

soulsinging · March 2007

angelica wrote:

Although I've heard you run the gamut of basically every position in this type of discussion, I usually tend to agree with you.

I can agree that there are functions and needs being met by women sleeping around, and I support their right to do so (although the costs can be and often are very high, imo). However, I'm not talking about sexual needs. I'm talking about complex life experience needs we are meeting unconsciously that imo generally have little to do with the sex itself. Needs that are not being met in more appropriate ways.

I'm thinking you are talking theoretically here for the most part. Technically, if you find yourself interacting and having sex with these girls, it's not that one person is the victim and one the victor, it's more about two variables coming together in time for some kind of reason. So if you are meeting this theoretical girl where she is at, I believe fair is fair, in the two sides of the same coin type of thing. I think it's an illusion to believe that you could do so, and that you could be healthy, while simultaneously believing she is letting herself be taken advantage of, or that she is slutty.

basically what im saying is it seems ridiculous to me that this is what feminists had in mind when they fought for equality. and im really curious to have victorygin explain to me how women getting dangerously intoxicated, stripping in front of large crowds of men (many of who are undoubtedly potential date rapists), having public oral sex with each other for the attention of men, and then going home with said men to have sex with complete strangers, is somehow some sort of feminist victory. it seems like a pretty bad idea to me in general, be it a guy doing it or a girl.

VictoryGin · March 2007

soulsinging wrote:

fair enough. but according to victorygin it's a good thing that women sleep around with total strangers and they derive great benefit from it and im the one being used when i have a one night stand. which brings me back to my original point... why are men critical of feminists like victorygin when they seem to view cheap, casual sex as a huge victory for their movement?

wow, you assume a lot, huh? i never said anything was a good or beneficial thing, or that you were being used. or that "cheap, casual sex" is a "huge victory" for [what?] "movement." i only originally asked why you assumed that you would be the one taking advantage of them. i was curious why it was framed that way and what was behind it--and to see if there was some sort of conquering mentality behind this. otherwise i see it as two equal participants in a consensual situation. you're just as easy as she is.

and angelica got there it seems:

angelica wrote:

So if you are meeting this theoretical girl where she is at, I believe fair is fair, in the two sides of the same coin type of thing. I think it's an illusion to believe that you could do so, and that you could be healthy, while simultaneously believing she is letting herself be taken advantage of, or that she is slutty.

soulsinging · March 2007

VictoryGin wrote:

wow, you assume a lot, huh? i never said anything was a good or beneficial thing, or that you were being used. or that "cheap, casual sex" is a "huge victory" for [what?] "movement." i only originally asked why you assumed that you would be the one taking advantage of them. i was curious why it was framed that way and what was behind it--and to see if there was some sort of conquering mentality behind this. otherwise i see it as two equal participants in a consensual situation. you're just as easy as she is.

becos when best buy offers a sale, would i say "best buy took advantage of me with its sale" even if they did by drumming up extra business. but from a grammatical or narrative standpoint, it makes no sense to say that. i say "i took advantage of the best buy sale." i also say "i took advantage of the drunk chick." i dont give a damn what her motives were, they werent an issue to me and have no bearing on me getting a hot piece of ass. you're always reaching to find sexism aren't you? it's people like you that have become such a pain in my ass by forcing me to write papers with sentences like "if he or she wants said product, then he or she has a right to have the product delivered to him or her for his or her own personal benefit" lest i use just the dreaded 'he' and reveal my latent sexist tendencies.

VictoryGin · March 2007

soulsinging wrote:

becos when best buy offers a sale, would i say "best buy took advantage of me with its sale"? cos they did by drumming up extra business. but from a grammatical or narrative standpoint, it makes no sense to say that. i say "i took advantage of the best buy sale." i also say "i took advantage of the drunk chick." i dont give a damn what her motives were, they werent an issue to me and have no bearing on me getting a hot piece of ass.

classy! and unbelievable.

VictoryGin · March 2007

soulsinging wrote:

you're always reaching to find sexism aren't you? it's people like you that have become such a pain in my ass by forcing me to write papers with sentences like "if he or she wants said product, then he or she has a right to have the product delivered to him or her for his or her own personal benefit" lest i use just the dreaded 'he' and reveal my latent sexist tendencies.

oh, why go for the latent when you can easily see the blatant here?

angelica · March 2007

soulsinging wrote:

basically what im saying is it seems ridiculous to me that this is what feminists had in mind when they fought for equality. and im really curious to have victorygin explain to me how women getting dangerously intoxicated, stripping in front of large crowds of men (many of who are undoubtedly potential date rapists), having public oral sex with each other for the attention of men, and then going home with said men to have sex with complete strangers, is somehow some sort of feminist victory. it seems like a pretty bad idea to me in general, be it a guy doing it or a girl.

Given that I've done similar things to what you've listed above ( :rolleyes:, I know... I did say similar, though, because I have not stripped in front of large crowds of men, for what it's worth) It's fair that I was allowed a forum for acting out my issues. And it's fair that I'm able to act out my issues without abuse. There were a lot of variables involved on my part. Behaviours such as things like exhibitionism, as used in your example, has far-reaching psychological functions, like any aberrant behaviour. Once we give acceptance to power imbalances, such as looking down on another and giving ourselves the illusion we are above another, then we get situations of power imbalance like date-rape. In my promiscuous past, I have had some very interesting experiences that I feel lucky to have had. I was blocked from my emotions, so I've been able to live out some people's idea of some fantasies. And like surferdude mentioned, the cost for me was that eventually, as I came to face my repressed emotions in terms of progressing, I had to deal with the emotional costs of my actions. There were many time this happened in a fair balanced, albeit cold, empty way. That is to be expected and yet the situations were balanced in their aberrance, with the parties involved. However, there were also times when the power imbalances came into play and abuse was the result. When feminism is seeking to clear up boundaries and fine lines, allowing people experience without abuse, I'm 100% there.

soulsinging · March 2007

VictoryGin wrote:

oh, why go for the latent when you can easily see the blatant here?

perhaps i just got tired of being in a no-win situation and decided if i was going to be labeled a sexist no matter what i did, i might as well go for the good parts of it. in addition, there's no sense of humor in your movement. my post was intended to be satirical, to show how easily it is to rationalize objectifying those who behave like objects. im a feminist in that i believe in equal rights an protections. i am not in the business of endorsing behaviors that are stupid and dangerous, be they women behaving like "girls gone wild" for attention or men behaving like date rapists for sexual conquest.

soulsinging · March 2007

angelica wrote:

When feminism is seeking to clear up boundaries and fine lines, allowing people experience without abuse, I'm 100% there.

isn't that what this book/article is attempting to do? show that maybe things have gotten out of hand and some boundaries have been crossed that ought to be? yet gin seems to disagree and say that there should be no boundaries on behavior. which is ridiculous. excess is unhealthy in all forms... sexual, alcoholic, drug-induced, gluttonous eating, etc. there is merit in moderation and always has been. it would seem to me the kind of behavior mentioned here isn't much on moderation.

VictoryGin · March 2007

soulsinging wrote:

yet gin seems to disagree and say that there should be no boundaries on behavior.

again, where did i say that?

soulsinging wrote:

in addition, there's no sense of humor in your movement.

that's so, like, 1982.

it 'seems' you like to talk out of both sides of your mouth.

soulsinging · March 2007

VictoryGin wrote:

again, where did i say that?

that's so, like, 1982.

it 'seems' you like to talk out of both sides of your mouth.

you didnt, it was implied. perhaps you'd like to expound upon your views of this kind of girls gone wild behavior so as to avoid this kind of confusion, rather than trying to imply im sexist becos my initially satirical post discussed me taking advantage of girls instead of girls taking advantage of me?

and i like to talk common sense, which these days seems to strike people as talking out of both sides of my mouth becos everyone around here is psychotically extreme. you're either with us or against us! no room for someone who recognizes that both sides have some merit and some error in their stances.

angelica · March 2007

soulsinging wrote:

isn't that what this book/article is attempting to do? show that maybe things have gotten out of hand and some boundaries have been crossed that ought to be? yet gin seems to disagree and say that there should be no boundaries on behavior. which is ridiculous. excess is unhealthy in all forms... sexual, alcoholic, drug-induced, gluttonous eating, etc. there is merit in moderation and always has been. it would seem to me the kind of behavior mentioned here isn't much on moderation.

This is where if we confuse moral issues with freedom issues, it gets a bit convoluted. I'm for freedom to make our choices, but I also know each choice we make has a consequence.

The problem with arguments and logic period is that while someone focusses on one aspect they are often not focussing on another conflicting and equally valid aspect they also hold. It can sound extreme and at least be lacking in the big picture.

soulsinging · March 2007

angelica wrote:

This is where if we confuse moral issues with freedom issues, it gets a bit convoluted. I'm for freedom to make our choices, but I also know each choice we make has a consequence.

The problem with arguments and logic period is that while someone focusses on one aspect they are often not focussing on another conflicting and equally valid aspect they also hold. It can sound extreme and at least be lacking in the big picture.

and i was discussing the potential consequences of promoting or tacitly supporting such behavior, never contesting anyone's freedom to engage in it. simply asking if this was what feminism had in mind when they wanted equality for women, or if it seems more like we're regressing and this sort of behavior is only going to reinforce the sexist notion that women are nothing more than sex objects.

VictoryGin · March 2007

soulsinging wrote:

you didnt, it was implied. perhaps you'd like to expound upon your views of this kind of girls gone wild behavior so as to avoid this kind of confusion, rather than trying to imply im sexist becos my initially satirical post discussed me taking advantage of girls instead of girls taking advantage of me?

and i like to talk common sense, which these days seems to strike people as talking out of both sides of my mouth becos everyone around here is psychotically extreme. you're either with us or against us! no room for someone who recognizes that both sides have some merit and some error in their stances.

honestly i fear if i were to expound upon my reaction to the article, i would have to spend hours of time i don't have doing so. it's clear with every post you have your own assumptions about me and what i say won't matter at all.

and it doesn't seem to be 'common sense' to say something like 'i'm a feminist but i didn't take enough advantage of easy college girls'. i see now you're saying your original post was satirical, but how about every single other post in the thread? 'i'm a feminist but i'm interested in a hot piece of ass' just doesn't go so well together. if you're interested in treating people like equals, then you wouldn't be thinking in terms of taking advantage and pieces of ass.

so i'm not afraid to say, if you're not interested in treating people as equal, then don't call yourself a feminist.

angelica · March 2007

soulsinging wrote:

and i was discussing the potential consequences of promoting or tacitly supporting such behavior, never contesting anyone's freedom to engage in it. simply asking if this was what feminism had in mind when they wanted equality for women, or if it seems more like we're regressing and this sort of behavior is only going to reinforce the sexist notion that women are nothing more than sex objects.

Okay.

soulsinging · March 2007

VictoryGin wrote:

honestly i fear if i were to expound upon my reaction to the article, i would have to spend hours of time i don't have doing so. it's clear with every post you have your own assumptions about me and what i say won't matter at all.

and it doesn't seem to be 'common sense' to say something like 'i'm a feminist but i didn't take enough advantage of easy college girls'. i see now you're saying your original post was satirical, but how about every single other post in the thread? 'i'm a feminist but i'm interested in a hot piece of ass' just doesn't go so well together. if you're interested in treating people like equals, then you wouldn't be thinking in terms of taking advantage and pieces of ass.

so i'm not afraid to say, if you're not interested in treating people as equal, then don't call yourself a feminist.

cos i got a brief kick out of playing the part... it's charicature not my character. truth be told, im a bit too respectful for that game. otherwise id be here saying i actually DID take advantage of plenty of such women in college. but i didnt. cos it's not my scene. and if i was speaking all this you'd be able to heard the sarcasm dripping off my voice. in either case, if, as you said, they would be the ones taking advantage of me... even if i were behaving in such a way, wouldnt i be the one treated unequally according to your theory? and if your theory is true and these girls are simply nobly bearing the standard of equal treatment of women, then why are you so offended by what im saying? im just treating sex the way they are and they are getting what they want, not taking being taken advantage of.

equal treatment means equal treatment, which means when you're acting like a fool, i will call you on it. if that is a fratboy preparing to date rape a girl or a sorority girl going down on her sister at the bar for free drinks... ill call them both. THAT is equal treatment. condemning the fratboy while lauding the girl as some heroic bearer of change is what is unequal. so what's it going to be?

angelica · March 2007

soulsinging wrote:

equal treatment means equal treatment, which means when you're acting like a fool, i will call you on it. if that is a fratboy preparing to date rape a girl or a sorority girl going down on her sister at the bar for free drinks... ill call them both. THAT is equal treatment. condemning the fratboy while lauding the girl as some heroic bearer of change is what is unequal. so what's it going to be?

I agree completely.

i really didnt take enough advantage of easy college girls...

Comments

Categories