Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Slut Shaming Worked

jimtimmy4
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 10:31:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Back before 1960, abortion was illegal and contraception was rare. Because of this, people had to do a weird thing in order to not have kids out of wedlock: not have sex. And, yes, unmarried folks, particularly women, who had a lot of sex were frowned upon.

After 1960, birth control became more available and, in 1973, abortion was legalized in all 50 states. And, the feminist movement made sure no woman ever felt bad about keeping her legs perpetually opened.

So, we have something of a natural experiment here. Prior to 1960, we had less contraception and abortion but more social pressure to not get pregnant out of wedlock. After 1960, we had more contraception and abortion but less social pressure. Which regime worked better to stop out of wedlock pregnancy?

Well, let's look at the % of pregnancies out of wedlock over time:

http://www.heritage.org......

WHAT!!?? Women actually were dramatically MORE likely to have kids out of wedlock with birth control and abortion readily available. But, feminists told us that slut shaming was such a horrible thing and all we needed to do to keep kids in stable families was to provide everyone with free abortions and birth control.

Is it possible that slut shaming worked?

Well, in reality, it did. But, let's not let reality get in the way of a good feminist narrative.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 10:43:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/6/2014 10:31:44 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
Back before 1960, abortion was illegal and contraception was rare. Because of this, people had to do a weird thing in order to not have kids out of wedlock: not have sex. And, yes, unmarried folks, particularly women, who had a lot of sex were frowned upon.

After 1960, birth control became more available and, in 1973, abortion was legalized in all 50 states. And, the feminist movement made sure no woman ever felt bad about keeping her legs perpetually opened.

So, we have something of a natural experiment here. Prior to 1960, we had less contraception and abortion but more social pressure to not get pregnant out of wedlock. After 1960, we had more contraception and abortion but less social pressure. Which regime worked better to stop out of wedlock pregnancy?

Well, let's look at the % of pregnancies out of wedlock over time:

http://www.heritage.org......

WHAT!!?? Women actually were dramatically MORE likely to have kids out of wedlock with birth control and abortion readily available. But, feminists told us that slut shaming was such a horrible thing and all we needed to do to keep kids in stable families was to provide everyone with free abortions and birth control.

Is it possible that slut shaming worked?

Well, in reality, it did. But, let's not let reality get in the way of a good feminist narrative.

Last I checked, a kid required 2 people. Why shame one gender?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
jimtimmy4
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 10:45:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/6/2014 10:43:58 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/6/2014 10:31:44 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
Back before 1960, abortion was illegal and contraception was rare. Because of this, people had to do a weird thing in order to not have kids out of wedlock: not have sex. And, yes, unmarried folks, particularly women, who had a lot of sex were frowned upon.

After 1960, birth control became more available and, in 1973, abortion was legalized in all 50 states. And, the feminist movement made sure no woman ever felt bad about keeping her legs perpetually opened.

So, we have something of a natural experiment here. Prior to 1960, we had less contraception and abortion but more social pressure to not get pregnant out of wedlock. After 1960, we had more contraception and abortion but less social pressure. Which regime worked better to stop out of wedlock pregnancy?

Well, let's look at the % of pregnancies out of wedlock over time:

http://www.heritage.org......

WHAT!!?? Women actually were dramatically MORE likely to have kids out of wedlock with birth control and abortion readily available. But, feminists told us that slut shaming was such a horrible thing and all we needed to do to keep kids in stable families was to provide everyone with free abortions and birth control.

Is it possible that slut shaming worked?

Well, in reality, it did. But, let's not let reality get in the way of a good feminist narrative.

Last I checked, a kid required 2 people. Why shame one gender?

Because the other gender gets shamed for not having enough sex. A lot of people seem to forget that.

And, as soon as men get the same reproductive freedom that women have, we can start giving both genders shame. Right now, men have far less repro freedom than women.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 10:48:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/6/2014 10:45:32 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 11/6/2014 10:43:58 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/6/2014 10:31:44 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
Back before 1960, abortion was illegal and contraception was rare. Because of this, people had to do a weird thing in order to not have kids out of wedlock: not have sex. And, yes, unmarried folks, particularly women, who had a lot of sex were frowned upon.

After 1960, birth control became more available and, in 1973, abortion was legalized in all 50 states. And, the feminist movement made sure no woman ever felt bad about keeping her legs perpetually opened.

So, we have something of a natural experiment here. Prior to 1960, we had less contraception and abortion but more social pressure to not get pregnant out of wedlock. After 1960, we had more contraception and abortion but less social pressure. Which regime worked better to stop out of wedlock pregnancy?

Well, let's look at the % of pregnancies out of wedlock over time:

http://www.heritage.org......

WHAT!!?? Women actually were dramatically MORE likely to have kids out of wedlock with birth control and abortion readily available. But, feminists told us that slut shaming was such a horrible thing and all we needed to do to keep kids in stable families was to provide everyone with free abortions and birth control.

Is it possible that slut shaming worked?

Well, in reality, it did. But, let's not let reality get in the way of a good feminist narrative.

Last I checked, a kid required 2 people. Why shame one gender?

Because the other gender gets shamed for not having enough sex. A lot of people seem to forget that.

And you don't think there might be a tad bit of gender privelege in this equation, then?

And, as soon as men get the same reproductive freedom that women have, we can start giving both genders shame. Right now, men have far less repro freedom than women.

Considering your previous argument alluded to -not- having enough sex, I don't think you can honestly say that men don't have far less reproductive freedom. The freedom, by your own admission, was the culture that it was desirous to go out and bang whom ever frequently, which was not the case with females.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
jimtimmy4
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 10:51:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/6/2014 10:48:39 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/6/2014 10:45:32 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 11/6/2014 10:43:58 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/6/2014 10:31:44 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
Back before 1960, abortion was illegal and contraception was rare. Because of this, people had to do a weird thing in order to not have kids out of wedlock: not have sex. And, yes, unmarried folks, particularly women, who had a lot of sex were frowned upon.

After 1960, birth control became more available and, in 1973, abortion was legalized in all 50 states. And, the feminist movement made sure no woman ever felt bad about keeping her legs perpetually opened.

So, we have something of a natural experiment here. Prior to 1960, we had less contraception and abortion but more social pressure to not get pregnant out of wedlock. After 1960, we had more contraception and abortion but less social pressure. Which regime worked better to stop out of wedlock pregnancy?

Well, let's look at the % of pregnancies out of wedlock over time:

http://www.heritage.org......

WHAT!!?? Women actually were dramatically MORE likely to have kids out of wedlock with birth control and abortion readily available. But, feminists told us that slut shaming was such a horrible thing and all we needed to do to keep kids in stable families was to provide everyone with free abortions and birth control.

Is it possible that slut shaming worked?

Well, in reality, it did. But, let's not let reality get in the way of a good feminist narrative.

Last I checked, a kid required 2 people. Why shame one gender?

Because the other gender gets shamed for not having enough sex. A lot of people seem to forget that.

And you don't think there might be a tad bit of gender privelege in this equation, then?

Ya. Because men feeling bad because they can't get laid is totally a privilege.

In all seriousness, there isn't gender privilege here. Just differences.


And, as soon as men get the same reproductive freedom that women have, we can start giving both genders shame. Right now, men have far less repro freedom than women.

Considering your previous argument alluded to -not- having enough sex, I don't think you can honestly say that men don't have far less reproductive freedom. The freedom, by your own admission, was the culture that it was desirous to go out and bang whom ever frequently, which was not the case with females.

Have you ever considered that some men aren't able to get laid all the time?

I guess not.

Also, men have literally no reproductive freedom. If a woman gets pregnant, she decides whether or not she becomes a mother AND if he becomes a father.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 11:01:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/6/2014 10:51:39 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 11/6/2014 10:48:39 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/6/2014 10:45:32 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 11/6/2014 10:43:58 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/6/2014 10:31:44 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
Back before 1960, abortion was illegal and contraception was rare. Because of this, people had to do a weird thing in order to not have kids out of wedlock: not have sex. And, yes, unmarried folks, particularly women, who had a lot of sex were frowned upon.

After 1960, birth control became more available and, in 1973, abortion was legalized in all 50 states. And, the feminist movement made sure no woman ever felt bad about keeping her legs perpetually opened.

So, we have something of a natural experiment here. Prior to 1960, we had less contraception and abortion but more social pressure to not get pregnant out of wedlock. After 1960, we had more contraception and abortion but less social pressure. Which regime worked better to stop out of wedlock pregnancy?

Well, let's look at the % of pregnancies out of wedlock over time:

http://www.heritage.org......

WHAT!!?? Women actually were dramatically MORE likely to have kids out of wedlock with birth control and abortion readily available. But, feminists told us that slut shaming was such a horrible thing and all we needed to do to keep kids in stable families was to provide everyone with free abortions and birth control.

Is it possible that slut shaming worked?

Well, in reality, it did. But, let's not let reality get in the way of a good feminist narrative.

Last I checked, a kid required 2 people. Why shame one gender?

Because the other gender gets shamed for not having enough sex. A lot of people seem to forget that.

And you don't think there might be a tad bit of gender privelege in this equation, then?


Ya. Because men feeling bad because they can't get laid is totally a privilege.

... what? No, seriously, what? No, sweetums, the privlege is in getting laid without social stigma.

In all seriousness, there isn't gender privilege here. Just differences.

I am not terribly certain you understand what the privilege is, here, then. A girl gets laid, she is a slut. A guy gets laid, he is a stud. A girl remains virtuous, she is a prude. A guy remains virtuous, he is a gentleman/noble, etc. Social stigma doesn't look down on the guy for not getting some strange.





And, as soon as men get the same reproductive freedom that women have, we can start giving both genders shame. Right now, men have far less repro freedom than women.

Considering your previous argument alluded to -not- having enough sex, I don't think you can honestly say that men don't have far less reproductive freedom. The freedom, by your own admission, was the culture that it was desirous to go out and bang whom ever frequently, which was not the case with females.

Have you ever considered that some men aren't able to get laid all the time?

And this is a refute, how? Nor are some women able to get laid all the time, what exactly is the point of bringing up some one's power of seduction when the relevant topic is social stigma in practicing it?


Also, men have literally no reproductive freedom. If a woman gets pregnant, she decides whether or not she becomes a mother AND if he becomes a father.

and....? Unless you are talking about running off with the child (which is something both parents can do), I assure you, filing in the father's name on the birth certificate is something mom is going to want to do. This particular example flirts with being absurd, or even in the most positive light, extremely uncommon.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
jimtimmy4
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 11:07:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/6/2014 11:01:40 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/6/2014 10:51:39 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 11/6/2014 10:48:39 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/6/2014 10:45:32 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 11/6/2014 10:43:58 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/6/2014 10:31:44 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
Back before 1960, abortion was illegal and contraception was rare. Because of this, people had to do a weird thing in order to not have kids out of wedlock: not have sex. And, yes, unmarried folks, particularly women, who had a lot of sex were frowned upon.

After 1960, birth control became more available and, in 1973, abortion was legalized in all 50 states. And, the feminist movement made sure no woman ever felt bad about keeping her legs perpetually opened.

So, we have something of a natural experiment here. Prior to 1960, we had less contraception and abortion but more social pressure to not get pregnant out of wedlock. After 1960, we had more contraception and abortion but less social pressure. Which regime worked better to stop out of wedlock pregnancy?

Well, let's look at the % of pregnancies out of wedlock over time:

http://www.heritage.org......

WHAT!!?? Women actually were dramatically MORE likely to have kids out of wedlock with birth control and abortion readily available. But, feminists told us that slut shaming was such a horrible thing and all we needed to do to keep kids in stable families was to provide everyone with free abortions and birth control.

Is it possible that slut shaming worked?

Well, in reality, it did. But, let's not let reality get in the way of a good feminist narrative.

Last I checked, a kid required 2 people. Why shame one gender?

Because the other gender gets shamed for not having enough sex. A lot of people seem to forget that.

And you don't think there might be a tad bit of gender privelege in this equation, then?


Ya. Because men feeling bad because they can't get laid is totally a privilege.

... what? No, seriously, what? No, sweetums, the privlege is in getting laid without social stigma.

In all seriousness, there isn't gender privilege here. Just differences.

I am not terribly certain you understand what the privilege is, here, then. A girl gets laid, she is a slut. A guy gets laid, he is a stud. A girl remains virtuous, she is a prude. A guy remains virtuous, he is a gentleman/noble, etc. Social stigma doesn't look down on the guy for not getting some strange.

This is so off it's not even funny. First off, it's much easier for girl who wants to get laid to get laid than a guy, even if the guy is more attractive. That's just a fact.

Second off. Yes, guys who get laid are seen better than girls who are sluts.

But, Girl virgins are seen as innocent and sweet. Guy virgins are seen as pathetic losers.

That's not male privilege. If you get a lot, there is male privilege. But, if you can't get laid, then there is a female privilege there.

If you seriously think that male virgins have less social stigma than female virgins, you are just WAY beyond lost.

That's human mate selection manifesting itself in social stigma.






And, as soon as men get the same reproductive freedom that women have, we can start giving both genders shame. Right now, men have far less repro freedom than women.

Considering your previous argument alluded to -not- having enough sex, I don't think you can honestly say that men don't have far less reproductive freedom. The freedom, by your own admission, was the culture that it was desirous to go out and bang whom ever frequently, which was not the case with females.

Have you ever considered that some men aren't able to get laid all the time?

And this is a refute, how? Nor are some women able to get laid all the time, what exactly is the point of bringing up some one's power of seduction when the relevant topic is social stigma in practicing it?


Also, men have literally no reproductive freedom. If a woman gets pregnant, she decides whether or not she becomes a mother AND if he becomes a father.

and....? Unless you are talking about running off with the child (which is something both parents can do), I assure you, filing in the father's name on the birth certificate is something mom is going to want to do. This particular example flirts with being absurd, or even in the most positive light, extremely uncommon.

How about this. If a woman wants an abortion and a father wants a child, there is abortion.

If it is vice versa, a father is forced to be a father, at least financially.

If the mother chooses birth an
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 11:28:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/6/2014 11:07:11 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 11/6/2014 11:01:40 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/6/2014 10:51:39 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 11/6/2014 10:48:39 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/6/2014 10:45:32 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 11/6/2014 10:43:58 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/6/2014 10:31:44 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
Back before 1960, abortion was illegal and contraception was rare. Because of this, people had to do a weird thing in order to not have kids out of wedlock: not have sex. And, yes, unmarried folks, particularly women, who had a lot of sex were frowned upon.

After 1960, birth control became more available and, in 1973, abortion was legalized in all 50 states. And, the feminist movement made sure no woman ever felt bad about keeping her legs perpetually opened.

So, we have something of a natural experiment here. Prior to 1960, we had less contraception and abortion but more social pressure to not get pregnant out of wedlock. After 1960, we had more contraception and abortion but less social pressure. Which regime worked better to stop out of wedlock pregnancy?

Well, let's look at the % of pregnancies out of wedlock over time:

http://www.heritage.org......

WHAT!!?? Women actually were dramatically MORE likely to have kids out of wedlock with birth control and abortion readily available. But, feminists told us that slut shaming was such a horrible thing and all we needed to do to keep kids in stable families was to provide everyone with free abortions and birth control.

Is it possible that slut shaming worked?

Well, in reality, it did. But, let's not let reality get in the way of a good feminist narrative.

Last I checked, a kid required 2 people. Why shame one gender?

Because the other gender gets shamed for not having enough sex. A lot of people seem to forget that.

And you don't think there might be a tad bit of gender privelege in this equation, then?


Ya. Because men feeling bad because they can't get laid is totally a privilege.

... what? No, seriously, what? No, sweetums, the privlege is in getting laid without social stigma.

In all seriousness, there isn't gender privilege here. Just differences.

I am not terribly certain you understand what the privilege is, here, then. A girl gets laid, she is a slut. A guy gets laid, he is a stud. A girl remains virtuous, she is a prude. A guy remains virtuous, he is a gentleman/noble, etc. Social stigma doesn't look down on the guy for not getting some strange.

This is so off it's not even funny. First off, it's much easier for girl who wants to get laid to get laid than a guy, even if the guy is more attractive. That's just a fact.

And is wholly irrelevant. I think your case is boiling down to shaming sluts because its easier than telling guys to keep it in their pants.

Second off. Yes, guys who get laid are seen better than girls who are sluts.

But, Girl virgins are seen as innocent and sweet. Guy virgins are seen as pathetic losers.

I am not confident this is anything beyond perception. I have seen both ends of the spectrum to equal effect enough to know that its not the rule by a long shot.

That's not male privilege. If you get a lot, there is male privilege. But, if you can't get laid, then there is a female privilege there.

How is not getting some FEMALE privilege? Males are the ones who get to try without consequence, remember?

If you seriously think that male virgins have less social stigma than female virgins, you are just WAY beyond lost.
I think 'male virgin' has its links to a little bit more in the way of social stigma than just having had sex one time. What image of guy springs to mind if he is a virgin, and how low does such a stigma last if he doesn't look like that image in your mind?


That's human mate selection manifesting itself in social stigma.
Think real hard about how in a social circle, anyone would ever know if anyone else is a virgin without asking directly before stating that its part of human mate selection. Secondly, think how much of a difference it would make, and whether or not it bolsters your case.



And, as soon as men get the same reproductive freedom that women have, we can start giving both genders shame. Right now, men have far less repro freedom than women.



Also, men have literally no reproductive freedom. If a woman gets pregnant, she decides whether or not she becomes a mother AND if he becomes a father.

and....? Unless you are talking about running off with the child (which is something both parents can do), I assure you, filing in the father's name on the birth certificate is something mom is going to want to do. This particular example flirts with being absurd, or even in the most positive light, extremely uncommon.


How about this. If a woman wants an abortion and a father wants a child, there is abortion.

Yup, that is the trade off for being shamed regarding sex in the first place. ;)

If it is vice versa, a father is forced to be a father, at least financially.

That opt out option came around coitus, if not interested, don't engage. Freedom of choice. Men do infact have a choice about being a father, it just comes 9 months before it happens. This simple truth is another one of those things ignored in favor of shaming the female into not having sex. Like I said, it takes 2.


Boiled down, its easier to shame the women. Long and short of it.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Bennett91
Posts: 4,236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 11:45:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/6/2014 10:31:44 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
Back before 1960, abortion was illegal and contraception was rare. Because of this, people had to do a weird thing in order to not have kids out of wedlock: not have sex. And, yes, unmarried folks, particularly women, who had a lot of sex were frowned upon.

Ummmmmm Bullsh!t.

"The practice of birth control was common throughout the U.S. prior to 1914, when the movement to legalize contraception began."

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Bennett91
Posts: 4,236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 11:50:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/6/2014 10:31:44 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:

http://www.heritage.org......

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Also this link doesn't lead to a chart or any info. It's the home page.
jimtimmy4
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 12:51:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/6/2014 11:45:56 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/6/2014 10:31:44 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
Back before 1960, abortion was illegal and contraception was rare. Because of this, people had to do a weird thing in order to not have kids out of wedlock: not have sex. And, yes, unmarried folks, particularly women, who had a lot of sex were frowned upon.

Ummmmmm Bullsh!t.

"The practice of birth control was common throughout the U.S. prior to 1914, when the movement to legalize contraception began."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

When I said contraception was rare, I meant relatively rare compared to today. That is largely because the birth control pill wasn't around. You should know that.
jimtimmy4
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 12:57:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/6/2014 11:28:50 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/6/2014 11:07:11 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 11/6/2014 11:01:40 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/6/2014 10:51:39 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 11/6/2014 10:48:39 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/6/2014 10:45:32 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 11/6/2014 10:43:58 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/6/2014 10:31:44 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
Back before 1960, abortion was illegal and contraception was rare. Because of this, people had to do a weird thing in order to not have kids out of wedlock: not have sex. And, yes, unmarried folks, particularly women, who had a lot of sex were frowned upon.

After 1960, birth control became more available and, in 1973, abortion was legalized in all 50 states. And, the feminist movement made sure no woman ever felt bad about keeping her legs perpetually opened.

So, we have something of a natural experiment here. Prior to 1960, we had less contraception and abortion but more social pressure to not get pregnant out of wedlock. After 1960, we had more contraception and abortion but less social pressure. Which regime worked better to stop out of wedlock pregnancy?

Well, let's look at the % of pregnancies out of wedlock over time:

http://www.heritage.org......

WHAT!!?? Women actually were dramatically MORE likely to have kids out of wedlock with birth control and abortion readily available. But, feminists told us that slut shaming was such a horrible thing and all we needed to do to keep kids in stable families was to provide everyone with free abortions and birth control.

Is it possible that slut shaming worked?

Well, in reality, it did. But, let's not let reality get in the way of a good feminist narrative.

Last I checked, a kid required 2 people. Why shame one gender?

Because the other gender gets shamed for not having enough sex. A lot of people seem to forget that.

And you don't think there might be a tad bit of gender privelege in this equation, then?


Ya. Because men feeling bad because they can't get laid is totally a privilege.

... what? No, seriously, what? No, sweetums, the privlege is in getting laid without social stigma.

In all seriousness, there isn't gender privilege here. Just differences.

I am not terribly certain you understand what the privilege is, here, then. A girl gets laid, she is a slut. A guy gets laid, he is a stud. A girl remains virtuous, she is a prude. A guy remains virtuous, he is a gentleman/noble, etc. Social stigma doesn't look down on the guy for not getting some strange.

This is so off it's not even funny. First off, it's much easier for girl who wants to get laid to get laid than a guy, even if the guy is more attractive. That's just a fact.

And is wholly irrelevant. I think your case is boiling down to shaming sluts because its easier than telling guys to keep it in their pants.

Second off. Yes, guys who get laid are seen better than girls who are sluts.

But, Girl virgins are seen as innocent and sweet. Guy virgins are seen as pathetic losers.

I am not confident this is anything beyond perception. I have seen both ends of the spectrum to equal effect enough to know that its not the rule by a long shot.

That's not male privilege. If you get a lot, there is male privilege. But, if you can't get laid, then there is a female privilege there.

How is not getting some FEMALE privilege? Males are the ones who get to try without consequence, remember?

If you seriously think that male virgins have less social stigma than female virgins, you are just WAY beyond lost.
I think 'male virgin' has its links to a little bit more in the way of social stigma than just having had sex one time. What image of guy springs to mind if he is a virgin, and how low does such a stigma last if he doesn't look like that image in your mind?


That's human mate selection manifesting itself in social stigma.
Think real hard about how in a social circle, anyone would ever know if anyone else is a virgin without asking directly before stating that its part of human mate selection. Secondly, think how much of a difference it would make, and whether or not it bolsters your case.



And, as soon as men get the same reproductive freedom that women have, we can start giving both genders shame. Right now, men have far less repro freedom than women.



Also, men have literally no reproductive freedom. If a woman gets pregnant, she decides whether or not she becomes a mother AND if he becomes a father.

and....? Unless you are talking about running off with the child (which is something both parents can do), I assure you, filing in the father's name on the birth certificate is something mom is going to want to do. This particular example flirts with being absurd, or even in the most positive light, extremely uncommon.


How about this. If a woman wants an abortion and a father wants a child, there is abortion.

Yup, that is the trade off for being shamed regarding sex in the first place. ;)

If it is vice versa, a father is forced to be a father, at least financially.

That opt out option came around coitus, if not interested, don't engage. Freedom of choice. Men do infact have a choice about being a father, it just comes 9 months before it happens. This simple truth is another one of those things ignored in favor of shaming the female into not having sex. Like I said, it takes 2.


Boiled down, its easier to shame the women. Long and short of it.

This is mostly incoherent ranting. I know it's hard to admit that male virgins have a worse rep than their female counterparts bcuz that contradicts feminist dogma. But, most of reality does. So, get used to it.

And, I get it. For women, it's slut shaming and a war on women to suggest women that don't want kids keep their legs closed.

For men, KEEP IT IN YOUR DAMN PANTS IF YOU DONT WANNA KID!

Definitely not a double standard...

Also. Please try to say something coherent next time (if you respond). That would probably start by admitting that male virgins are judged more harshly than female virgins. If you can't admit that, you've been too brainwashed by the myth of male privilege to even continue discussion. Plain and simple man
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 1:07:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago

Well, in reality, it did. But, let's not let reality get in the way of a good feminist narrative.

Last I checked, a kid required 2 people. Why shame one gender?

Because the other gender gets shamed for not having enough sex. A lot of people seem to forget that.

And you don't think there might be a tad bit of gender privelege in this equation, then?


Ya. Because men feeling bad because they can't get laid is totally a privilege.

... what? No, seriously, what? No, sweetums, the privlege is in getting laid without social stigma.

In all seriousness, there isn't gender privilege here. Just differences.

I am not terribly certain you understand what the privilege is, here, then. A girl gets laid, she is a slut. A guy gets laid, he is a stud. A girl remains virtuous, she is a prude. A guy remains virtuous, he is a gentleman/noble, etc. Social stigma doesn't look down on the guy for not getting some strange.

This is so off it's not even funny. First off, it's much easier for girl who wants to get laid to get laid than a guy, even if the guy is more attractive. That's just a fact.

And is wholly irrelevant. I think your case is boiling down to shaming sluts because its easier than telling guys to keep it in their pants.

Second off. Yes, guys who get laid are seen better than girls who are sluts.

But, Girl virgins are seen as innocent and sweet. Guy virgins are seen as pathetic losers.

I am not confident this is anything beyond perception. I have seen both ends of the spectrum to equal effect enough to know that its not the rule by a long shot.

That's not male privilege. If you get a lot, there is male privilege. But, if you can't get laid, then there is a female privilege there.

How is not getting some FEMALE privilege? Males are the ones who get to try without consequence, remember?

If you seriously think that male virgins have less social stigma than female virgins, you are just WAY beyond lost.
I think 'male virgin' has its links to a little bit more in the way of social stigma than just having had sex one time. What image of guy springs to mind if he is a virgin, and how low does such a stigma last if he doesn't look like that image in your mind?


That's human mate selection manifesting itself in social stigma.
Think real hard about how in a social circle, anyone would ever know if anyone else is a virgin without asking directly before stating that its part of human mate selection. Secondly, think how much of a difference it would make, and whether or not it bolsters your case.



And, as soon as men get the same reproductive freedom that women have, we can start giving both genders shame. Right now, men have far less repro freedom than women.



Also, men have literally no reproductive freedom. If a woman gets pregnant, she decides whether or not she becomes a mother AND if he becomes a father.

and....? Unless you are talking about running off with the child (which is something both parents can do), I assure you, filing in the father's name on the birth certificate is something mom is going to want to do. This particular example flirts with being absurd, or even in the most positive light, extremely uncommon.


How about this. If a woman wants an abortion and a father wants a child, there is abortion.

Yup, that is the trade off for being shamed regarding sex in the first place. ;)

If it is vice versa, a father is forced to be a father, at least financially.

That opt out option came around coitus, if not interested, don't engage. Freedom of choice. Men do infact have a choice about being a father, it just comes 9 months before it happens. This simple truth is another one of those things ignored in favor of shaming the female into not having sex. Like I said, it takes 2.


Boiled down, its easier to shame the women. Long and short of it.

This is mostly incoherent ranting. I know it's hard to admit that male virgins have a worse rep than their female counterparts bcuz that contradicts feminist dogma. But, most of reality does. So, get used to it.

And it also depends on the guy was my point. Living at home with a Poke-man collection, or body pillow Waifu, it makes sense. Average Joe that just doesn't get out much, its not nearly as stigmatized, if at all.


And, I get it. For women, it's slut shaming and a war on women to suggest women that don't want kids keep their legs closed.

For men, KEEP IT IN YOUR DAMN PANTS IF YOU DONT WANNA KID!

Definitely not a double standard...

You seem to be getting a handle on it now. IF you don't wanna kid, don't screw around, but that responsibility is heaped on the fairer sex (shaming, as you put it), and then you seem to wonder why (or at least why you feel) men have no reproductive rights. The person you want to blame/shame is the person that has the responsibility. Get used to it. ;)

Also. Please try to say something coherent next time (if you respond). That would probably start by admitting that male virgins are judged more harshly than female virgins. If you can't admit that, you've been too brainwashed by the myth of male privilege to even continue discussion. Plain and simple man

Or I choose not to live in such a binary concept? That perhaps the label and image you invent is not the sole one in existance? In the circles that I grew up around, a (male) virgin was a situation of his own creation, which typically meant being unappealing in general. Socially inept, in general. Prone to pontificate on authority in bi..nary.. situa... hey, are you a virgin?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 1:22:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
In the circles that I grew up around, a (male) virgin was a situation of his own creation, which typically meant being unappealing in general. Socially inept, in general. Prone to pontificate on authority in bi..nary.. situa... hey, are you a virgin?

Kind of proving his point for him...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 1:30:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 1:22:08 AM, Garbanza wrote:
In the circles that I grew up around, a (male) virgin was a situation of his own creation, which typically meant being unappealing in general. Socially inept, in general. Prone to pontificate on authority in bi..nary.. situa... hey, are you a virgin?

Kind of proving his point for him.

That collecting engaging in esoteric habits excusively degrade social skills?

I think that is MY point.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Bennett91
Posts: 4,236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 1:41:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 12:51:11 AM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 11/6/2014 11:45:56 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/6/2014 10:31:44 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
Back before 1960, abortion was illegal and contraception was rare. Because of this, people had to do a weird thing in order to not have kids out of wedlock: not have sex. And, yes, unmarried folks, particularly women, who had a lot of sex were frowned upon.

Ummmmmm Bullsh!t.

"The practice of birth control was common throughout the U.S. prior to 1914, when the movement to legalize contraception began."

http://en.wikipedia.org...


When I said contraception was rare, I meant relatively rare compared to today. That is largely because the birth control pill wasn't around. You should know that.

But contraception was common back then just as it is now. So relativity is irrelevant.

Also about your position on female virginity and sexuality. There's a double standard placed on women while there isn't on one men.

Men are only negatively judged if they don't have sex.

If a woman refuses to have sex she's labeled a prude or frigid, if she agrees to have sex then she's a slut. Female virginity is more culturally valuable because men want to "break the seal" as it were. If a woman has sex before marriage (even once) she could be labeled a whore. How ironic that men need to have sex with women in order to gain status while the same act lessens the woman's status.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 4:10:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 1:41:23 AM, Bennett91 wrote:

If a woman refuses to have sex she's labeled a prude or frigid, if she agrees to have sex then she's a slut. Female virginity is more culturally valuable because men want to "break the seal" as it were. If a woman has sex before marriage (even once) she could be labeled a whore. How ironic that men need to have sex with women in order to gain status while the same act lessens the woman's status.

Nice use of the passive. Who are these people labelling and valuing? I honestly don't know a single person who thinks like that. Or maybe people are thinking this stuff in secret. O.O

It's good that it's in secret at least. They SHOULD be ashamed of voicing sh1t like that in public whoever they are - and who are they?
Bennett91
Posts: 4,236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 4:17:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 4:10:10 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 11/7/2014 1:41:23 AM, Bennett91 wrote:

If a woman refuses to have sex she's labeled a prude or frigid, if she agrees to have sex then she's a slut. Female virginity is more culturally valuable because men want to "break the seal" as it were. If a woman has sex before marriage (even once) she could be labeled a whore. How ironic that men need to have sex with women in order to gain status while the same act lessens the woman's status.

Nice use of the passive. Who are these people labelling and valuing? I honestly don't know a single person who thinks like that. Or maybe people are thinking this stuff in secret. O.O

It's good that it's in secret at least. They SHOULD be ashamed of voicing sh1t like that in public whoever they are - and who are they?

No individual in particular. Just a cultural trend. That's how feminist arguments work, you make broad generalizations about culture that are vaguely accurate. Blaming things like Patriarchy and rape culture to why society is bad are good examples.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 4:24:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 4:17:04 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
No individual in particular. Just a cultural trend. That's how feminist arguments work, you make broad generalizations about culture that are vaguely accurate. Blaming things like Patriarchy and rape culture to why society is bad are good examples.

So you don't respect feminism but you adopt their methods to make a feminist/anti-feminist (I'm not sure which) argument? I don't get it.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 4:45:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 4:24:57 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 11/7/2014 4:17:04 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
No individual in particular. Just a cultural trend. That's how feminist arguments work, you make broad generalizations about culture that are vaguely accurate. Blaming things like Patriarchy and rape culture to why society is bad are good examples.

So you don't respect feminism but you adopt their methods to make a feminist/anti-feminist (I'm not sure which) argument? I don't get it.

Who said I didn't respect feminism? The core message (gender equality) is fine, it's the way feminists argue for this agenda that's the problem. The label feminist has many interpretations and many tactics, some more salient than others. I just used one of the more vague talking points to address the issue.

Because who asked me for "who" is doing this and my argument wasn't based on the individual I told you the truth, it was a generalization that is vaguely accurate half truth. Such as many arguments made by feminists are, like the pay gap, or sexism in video games (all products of the patriarchy of course).
thett3
Posts: 14,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 8:59:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Does this take into account shotgun weddings? I haven't looked into the statistics but just from what I gather anecdotally they're in decline..which is a major reason there are more out of wedlock births today compared with days gone by.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 5:16:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 8:59:46 AM, thett3 wrote:
Does this take into account shotgun weddings? I haven't looked into the statistics but just from what I gather anecdotally they're in decline..which is a major reason there are more out of wedlock births today compared with days gone by.

In a word, no. The argument above is coming from one of HALF of the sentiment of the era. You are absolutely correct in stating there was also a social stigma to marry the girl a guy might have impregnated. If you took the milk, you bought the cow sort of thing.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...