Let's try and get 1,000,000 replies to this post

What is sexist is that you (or whoever else) thinks it's fine to judge a woman by the number of sexual partners she has had.
Even though that attitude does exist (with men not being judged by the same standard), I think it is unfair to assume that @Jer holds this attitude just from what he wrote. I read it as something he would think about a potential girlfriend, but he does not write that he (or any man), on the other hand, should be allowed to have as many sex partners as he'd like without being judged by the same standard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jer
Okay, screw the word marriage. I just thought it would be nice if people who had feelings for each other did it, not something for horny schoolboys to boast about.
I think you are trying to make a distinction between sex outside of a union formally blessed by church and/or state, and sex outside of any sort of relationship (genuinely "casual sex"). I don't want to formalise this into a principle and I certainly don't want to pass judgement on anyone for their own choices on the matter but I basically sympathise with the sentiment. I think that's what Bruce was driving at with the lyrics to "Wasting Love".
 
Sex is above all about chemistry and finding a good fit for a partner.
Yes, this. And it’s also all about what a person finds best for themselves. Some people like casual sex with no attachments and that’s great. I don’t think I can. I get very attached to people and would just feel bad afterwards if it was a one time fling and nothing more.

For my partner and I, it actually took a while to build up to, too. First we started out as friends, then we started to ‘like’ each other, then we started spending time together as a couple, and then slowly things increased over the months to actually ‘doing it’. And that made it more special for us.

To me, either approach is valid so long as it’s consensual. That is the #1 thing in any relationship, casual or otherwise.
 
It was sexist because he was talking about women only in his post. Nothing to refer to men at all. He could have said people in general if that's what he meant but he didn't.
Without you deciding in your own head that I must be applying a different standard to men than to women, when I said nothing of the sort, there’s nothing to indicate sexism of any kind. Others have already noted this. You are objectively wrong on this point whether you accept it or not.

Also hilarious that a comment mentioning training wheels and Spock’s eyebrow is taken as uber-serious rather than the half-joking response it clearly was. If you’re into awkward virgins, more power to you. If you like to fuck a new partner every night and two on Sunday, you do you (and apparently everyone else).

Having a few partners means you’ve had some experience and aren’t awkward about things anymore, but having several partners or more suggests that you may take those experiences less seriously and view hole plugging as a hobby or a vocation rather than something to be shared between meaningful romantic partners. All of which is fine if that’s your thing.

I look forward to hearing how I’m a racist pedophile for what I’ve just said here.
 
Here's the way I see it: judging people based on the amount of sexual partners they have had is wrong. But having sex is good for demystifying the process of it. It's not magical or miraculous - it's a perfectly normal bodily function that just so happens to be awesome when it's done well and right, and just so happens to be even more awesome when it's done with that chemistry connection.

Like, if someone wants to save themselves for marriage, sure, you do you, right? But if you are looking for purity in others, that's a highly problematic course of thought. Having sex doesn't make someone unclean or tainted. It doesn't change their DNA in any way.

That being said, someone who has had experiences is more likely to be good at the nuts and bolts of sex, and those matter, too. You can love someone very much, but if their sexual skill is limited to lights off, missionary only, firm handshake after, you might not find that chemistry. That's why safe experimentation and gaining sexual experience is good, because in the end, most emotional love needs a physical component to flourish.

Sex is good and healthy when done safely by emotionally mature people. And whether or not those people have flown by each other in the night, or choose to merge their courses together forever, is not as relevant as some people think; and whether people have flown by others or merged with others for a time before is totally and completely irrelevant.
 
@Jer I agree that taken by itself, your statement can be read as pertaining to either gender. However, the context of the conversation suggests that it was about women, and you did not clarify it was not a gender-specific statement, but you did talk about women. Why didn't you just clarify that after @Ariana made her post instead of leaving us to interpret your words? No need to be so belligerent if what's at the core of this is a misunderstanding.
 
I look forward to hearing how I’m a racist pedophile for what I’ve just said here.
Do you think this helps the discussion in any way?

There's no way for you to know it, but I really am not woke or a SJW or a raging feminist - I do not go around looking for sexist remarks, grabbing on to opportunities to bash a male for breakfast.
What you said back there at that moment in that thread was sexist. Maybe you didn't intend it that way, but this is how it came across. Not just because of the not quite well-hidden slut-shaming, but even because it didn't even occur to you that it could sound offensive. I can't get any clearer than that.
 
I think you should have asked what he meant, to begin with. I can see where you're coming from, because sexual shaming is problematic and very present even today. I do understand why Jer comes out swinging back as well, because you essentially attacked his character without making an effort to find out if he meant it the way it came across. This is an unnecessary development.
 
How exactly did I attack his character? My post was entirely about that statement I quoted.
They aren't mutually exclusive and you know it. I get why you reacted, I raised an eyebrow as well when I reread it, but you could have just given him the courtesy of giving him the benefit of doubt.
 
5a5ezk.jpg
 
@Jer I agree that taken by itself, your statement can be read as pertaining to either gender. However, the context of the conversation suggests that it was about women, and you did not clarify it was not a gender-specific statement, but you did talk about women. Why didn't you just clarify that after @Ariana made her post instead of leaving us to interpret your words?
I did, by pointing out that Loosey’s comment applying it to men as well had gotten it right. When the unfounded charges of sexism continued, I addressed it explicitly multiple times, with no effect.

No need to be so belligerent if what's at the core of this is a misunderstanding.
This sounds like advice that should be directed at the person making the accusations, not at me.

Do you think this helps the discussion in any way?
If illustrating that it’s no less absurd than the accusation you’re already making helps you to contextualize your mistake and correct it, then yes, it would help. Otherwise it’s just well-earned mockery.

What you said back there at that moment in that thread was sexist.
In your mind only, not in objective reality. Making an affirmative statement in response to one thing does not imply that you’re making a different statement about other things. That inference was a logical error on your part, which you still refuse to acknowledge.

Maybe you didn't intend it that way, but this is how it came across.
To you, because of your own biases. There was nothing in my actual words to support that interpretation.

Not just because of the not quite well-hidden slut-shaming, but even because it didn't even occur to you that it could sound offensive. I can't get any clearer than that.
Again, your misinterpretation, your problem. My view isn’t sexist and my words aren’t sexist, so the sexism only exists in your head.

Making false public accusations about a person based on a provably false premise is the sort of thing that most mature adults would consider shameful and worthy of an apology. Apparently your personal distaste for me outweighs those sorts of considerations.

I don’t particularly care one way or the other what your opinion on this is, but if you continue to publicly accuse me of false things, I will continue to point out why you’re wrong.

Agreed, let's just move on.
With the caveat about continued false accusations, I would be happy to.
 
I did, by pointing out that Loosey’s comment applying it to men as well had gotten it right. When the unfounded charges of sexism continued, I addressed it explicitly multiple times, with no effect.


This sounds like advice that should be directed at the person making the accusations, not at me.


If illustrating that it’s no less absurd than the accusation you’re already making helps you to contextualize your mistake and correct it, then yes, it would help. Otherwise it’s just well-earned mockery.


In your mind only, not in objective reality. Making an affirmative statement in response to one thing does not imply that you’re making a different statement about other things. That inference was a logical error on your part, which you still refuse to acknowledge.


To you, because of your own biases. There was nothing in my actual words to support that interpretation.


Again, your misinterpretation, your problem. My view isn’t sexist and my words aren’t sexist, so the sexism only exists in your head.

Making false public accusations about a person based on a provably false premise is the sort of thing that most mature adults would consider shameful and worthy of an apology. Apparently your personal distaste for me outweighs those sorts of considerations.

I don’t particularly care one way or the other what your opinion on this is, but if you continue to publicly accuse me of false things, I will continue to point out why you’re wrong.


With the caveat about continued false accusations, I would be happy to.
tldr you racist paedophile (of fucked-up American spelling school, shame on you!!!!)
 
  • Love
Reactions: Jer
I did, by pointing out that Loosey’s comment applying it to men as well had gotten it right. When the unfounded charges of sexism continued, I addressed it explicitly multiple times, with no effect.


This sounds like advice that should be directed at the person making the accusations, not at me.


If illustrating that it’s no less absurd than the accusation you’re already making helps you to contextualize your mistake and correct it, then yes, it would help. Otherwise it’s just well-earned mockery.


In your mind only, not in objective reality. Making an affirmative statement in response to one thing does not imply that you’re making a different statement about other things. That inference was a logical error on your part, which you still refuse to acknowledge.


To you, because of your own biases. There was nothing in my actual words to support that interpretation.


Again, your misinterpretation, your problem. My view isn’t sexist and my words aren’t sexist, so the sexism only exists in your head.

Making false public accusations about a person based on a provably false premise is the sort of thing that most mature adults would consider shameful and worthy of an apology. Apparently your personal distaste for me outweighs those sorts of considerations.

I don’t particularly care one way or the other what your opinion on this is, but if you continue to publicly accuse me of false things, I will continue to point out why you’re wrong.


With the caveat about continued false accusations, I would be happy to.
So should Ariana sugarcoat her opinion that your post is sexist and tone down her comment to avoid ruffling your feathers, or would you prefer to have an authentic, unfiltered discussion? I thought you found more value in honesty than in politeness. Would it be better if she was conciliatory by hiding her negative comment about your post's implied nature so that she doesn't damage your weaker constitution?
 
So should Ariana sugarcoat her opinion that your post is sexist and tone down her comment to avoid ruffling your feathers, or would you prefer to have an authentic, unfiltered discussion?
She can say it, of course. But when she’s proven to be objectively full of shit she should acknowledge it. There’s no inconsistency here, as much as you’d love to find one.
 
Jerry, this is the last thing I'm going to say because this must have become really annoying for everyone here. Maybe it's good to stop and think and see that you're the one who resorts to personal attacks. As much as you try to prove that my objective judgement is clouded by a personal dislike for you, I have only commented on some of your words, nothing else. Your hugely disproportionate reaction, however, proves that I've pressed your buttons. Might be worth thinking about that a bit.
 
Back
Top