Sexuality; Double Standards

[artanis_neravar]

I don't want to sound like a dick, so read between the lines here.

I often feel that many feminists, along with other types of extremists, are causing a lot of problems in this world. Yes, I definitely think it's a double standard. Rather than having complete gender equality so we're all like the Eloi, we should have equality in some places and differences in others.

You actually didn't sound like a dick, and I agree. For example, I believe that Alimony is an archaic practice that needs to be stopped to help equalize the genders

Yeah, especially in cases where it's payed unfairly. Maybe a morality jury?

It's always unfair unless the spouse is physically incapable of working lol

 

[Stephen Wo]

Yeah, or raising a kid. But that's welfare.

 

[Sandernista]

OP is right.

Its funny tho. Also its funny how most people are pissed cause if women are called sluts and guys are called Heroes if they have alot of sex.
But actually its so easy to explain.

For a Woman its not hard to get lots of sex, even if shes ugly there will still be guys that want to do her, always without any exception. For a Dude its way harder. Therfore a dude that has sex ofthen is considered a hero, and a Woman is a whore.

"The one who has the pussy has the power"- Unknown

Aside from rape, a dude can only get sex when the woman says he can
I agree whole-heartedly with your post

No. You are wrong.

 

[Avistew]

I believe that Alimony is an archaic practice that needs to be stopped to help equalize the genders

I'm not sure what it has to do with gender. I mean I've known cases in which the ex-wives were paying the ex-husbands, because they had the higher paying jobs. It's only a sexist concept if you assume it always goes one way. Which it doesn't.
Now, it might go one way more often than the other. I'd say you have to look at it carefully. I can definitely believe that there is a bias (similar to how children are more often given to males) but on the other hand we all know that women tend to earn less and that could very well be playing a big part in that.

As for the person who mentioned welfare, it probably depends on the country, but here you have to produce paperwork explaingin why you're not getting an alimony if you're separated or divorced and applying for welfare. The state's responsibility goes after your spouse or ex-spouse due to the contract you signed when getting married, and the terms agreed to break that contract (so, the terms of the separation or divorce).

It also makes sense when there was a single income because one person was taking care of the home and the other had an outside job, because then the person whose job was to take care of the home won't get any unemployment or anything and will just be left with nothing. As the ex "employer", the ex has to pay a little something until the other person finds a job. I don't see anything wrong with that, if they hadn't been taking care of the house all day they might have a career or diploma by now but instead they're left with nothing.

 

[artanis_neravar]

I believe that Alimony is an archaic practice that needs to be stopped to help equalize the genders

I'm not sure what it has to do with gender. I mean I've known cases in which the ex-wives were paying the ex-husbands, because they had the higher paying jobs. It's only a sexist concept if you assume it always goes one way. Which it doesn't.
Now, it might go one way more often than the other. I'd say you have to look at it carefully. I can definitely believe that there is a bias (similar to how children are more often given to males) but on the other hand we all know that women tend to earn less and that could very well be playing a big part in that.

As for the person who mentioned welfare, it probably depends on the country, but here you have to produce paperwork explaingin why you're not getting an alimony if you're separated or divorced and applying for welfare. The state's responsibility goes after your spouse or ex-spouse due to the contract you signed when getting married, and the terms agreed to break that contract (so, the terms of the separation or divorce).

It also makes sense when there was a single income because one person was taking care of the home and the other had an outside job, because then the person whose job was to take care of the home won't get any unemployment or anything and will just be left with nothing. As the ex "employer", the ex has to pay a little something until the other person finds a job. I don't see anything wrong with that, if they hadn't been taking care of the house all day they might have a career or diploma by now but instead they're left with nothing.

I didn't say it was sexist, I said that it was archaic and needed to be eliminated. It's from a time where women didn't work and were supported by only their husbands income, so it made sense that the husband would still support her until she remarried. But now with women encouraged to work it is just out of date. And I do know that there are women who pay men alimony and I believe that should be stopped to. In the society we live in everyone has the same opportunities to find a good paying job, and while it is harder for some people, in the end it's the choices you make that depended on your success or not. I kind of forget where I was going with this but my point still stands

 

[artanis_neravar]

I believe that Alimony is an archaic practice that needs to be stopped to help equalize the genders

I'm not sure what it has to do with gender. I mean I've known cases in which the ex-wives were paying the ex-husbands, because they had the higher paying jobs. It's only a sexist concept if you assume it always goes one way. Which it doesn't.
Now, it might go one way more often than the other. I'd say you have to look at it carefully. I can definitely believe that there is a bias (similar to how children are more often given to males) but on the other hand we all know that women tend to earn less and that could very well be playing a big part in that.

As for the person who mentioned welfare, it probably depends on the country, but here you have to produce paperwork explaingin why you're not getting an alimony if you're separated or divorced and applying for welfare. The state's responsibility goes after your spouse or ex-spouse due to the contract you signed when getting married, and the terms agreed to break that contract (so, the terms of the separation or divorce).

It also makes sense when there was a single income because one person was taking care of the home and the other had an outside job, because then the person whose job was to take care of the home won't get any unemployment or anything and will just be left with nothing. As the ex "employer", the ex has to pay a little something until the other person finds a job. I don't see anything wrong with that, if they hadn't been taking care of the house all day they might have a career or diploma by now but instead they're left with nothing.

Sorry I missed your last paragraph. Unless I missed something (which is quiet possible) alimony only ends when the other person gets remarried. I could agree to alimony that is paid until the other person finds a job, as long as they can show that they are actually searching

 

[Avistew]

Sorry I missed your last paragraph. Unless I missed something (which is quiet possible) alimony only ends when the other person gets remarried. I could agree to alimony that is paid until the other person finds a job, as long as they can show that they are actually searching

It depends. When the judge decides the alimony, they decide the conditions too. You can have one that's a specific amount of time, or until a specific event happens (for instance during a separation until the divorce, or after a divorce until a remarriage) and you can state that it's only if the person make less than a certain amount. It's not always the exact same thing in every case. What if the person decided never to get married and then got a much better job and earned more than their spouse? It would make no sense for them to keep getting the money.

I think it's a family protection thing, that was probably put in place mainly for children (it's rarer to have alimonies with no kids involved) and then they're more about the responsibilities of the parents towards their kids, but I do think it makes sense to take the contract to heart (I mean marriage). It's something of significance and even after you stop being married, you can't just abandon each other, basically you're supposed to make sure each other can keep going with their life on their own, ideally. And I do think it makes more sense for the person who was in the relationship to still have some financial responsibility than for it to be the state's to pay (or in other words, the citizens').

 

[pspman45]

I think that the world is becoming reverse sexist
the phrase "Its only wrong when A man does it" has come up a lot recently
I will list a few mainstream things that females have done and gotten away with, while a man would've been punished severely

1. Forcefully undressed a member of the opposite sex and put the video on youtube
2. made fun of a member of the opposite sex for having their genitalia removed with a kitchen knife

both of these made 4chan very angry
I agree with OP, its time for a shift of perspective

 

[artanis_neravar]

Sorry I missed your last paragraph. Unless I missed something (which is quiet possible) alimony only ends when the other person gets remarried. I could agree to alimony that is paid until the other person finds a job, as long as they can show that they are actually searching

It depends. When the judge decides the alimony, they decide the conditions too. You can have one that's a specific amount of time, or until a specific event happens (for instance during a separation until the divorce, or after a divorce until a remarriage) and you can state that it's only if the person make less than a certain amount. It's not always the exact same thing in every case. What if the person decided never to get married and then got a much better job and earned more than their spouse? It would make no sense for them to keep getting the money.

I think it's a family protection thing, that was probably put in place mainly for children (it's rarer to have alimonies with no kids involved) and then they're more about the responsibilities of the parents towards their kids, but I do think it makes sense to take the contract to heart (I mean marriage). It's something of significance and even after you stop being married, you can't just abandon each other, basically you're supposed to make sure each other can keep going with their life on their own, ideally. And I do think it makes more sense for the person who was in the relationship to still have some financial responsibility than for it to be the state's to pay (or in other words, the citizens').

I concede to your greater knowledge and I change my opinion accordingly. Although isn't child support supposed to be about the parents responsibility to their kids?

 

[artanis_neravar]

I think that the world is becoming reverse sexist
the phrase "Its only wrong when A man does it" has come up a lot recently
I will list a few mainstream things that females have done and gotten away with, while a man would've been punished severely

1. Forcefully undressed a member of the opposite sex and put the video on youtube
2. made fun of a member of the opposite sex for having their genitalia removed with a kitchen knife

both of these made 4chan very angry
I agree with OP, its time for a shift of perspective

Sharon Osborne made an on air apology for laughing at the scenario, exactly what anyone would expect from a man.

 

[zehydra]

what does my post have to do with pathetic wankers that cant get women? I think bringing it up just shows things about you, moreso than about them. shut up.

Why so hostile? All I did was add to your point. You got something right, but I believe there's a deeper motivation to it, which I then posted.

which is irrelevant to any point one may make. It doesn't matter why one makes a point, what DOES matter is the validity of said point.

 

[pspman45]

I think that the world is becoming reverse sexist
the phrase "Its only wrong when A man does it" has come up a lot recently
I will list a few mainstream things that females have done and gotten away with, while a man would've been punished severely

1. Forcefully undressed a member of the opposite sex and put the video on youtube
2. made fun of a member of the opposite sex for having their genitalia removed with a kitchen knife

both of these made 4chan very angry
I agree with OP, its time for a shift of perspective

Sharon Osborne made an on air apology for laughing at the scenario, exactly what anyone would expect from a man.

I don't think a on air apology forgives her actions
that was just plain sick

 

[zehydra]

People, keep in mind that this is largely an international website. When somebody says "society" they're probably referring to their own, which in no way speaks for everyone on this website.

If you want to say "society" just say in ______ (country)'s society...

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

If men are being told not to have sex, and women are being told to have more sex...

Are they mostly lesbians?

I mean, leaving aside the basic biology that men are able to have sex far more readily than women; and that gay men tend to be more sexually promiscuous.

How about we treat people as individuals, not gender based lifeforms?

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Sharon Osborne made an on air apology for laughing at the scenario, exactly what anyone would expect from a man.

Really?

Let's say Jeremy Clarkson makes a joke about disagreeing with a woman, so he drugs her, handcuffs her, lops her genitals off and shreds them.

Do you REALLY think he'd get away with an apology?

Especially when Hammond, say, tells him that he's a little bit sick, and he goes on to make a crass remark about how it looked like the intake of a GTI?

An apology would let him off?

Seriously?

Sharon Osbourne deserves to be fired and blacklisted. If you honestly find genital mutilation funny, then you are sick in the head.

 

[Stu35]

Sharon Osborne made an on air apology for laughing at the scenario, exactly what anyone would expect from a man.

Andy Grey got sacked for saying women wouldn't be as good as men at refereeing football (soccer) games.

Off Air.

It was over the media in the United Kingdom for quite some time. On the other hand, I never heard about the Sharon Osborne thing until this thread, and from what I can gather, she wasn't sacked.

One bloke made a slightly sexist joke to a mate off-the-air, one woman openly mocked a horrific crime in which someone was severely mutilated.

C'est la vie.

 

[Avistew]

Although isn't child support supposed to be about the parents responsibility to their kids?

It's possible that they are different in English. I know them as two categories of the same thing, and I thought "alimony" referred to the bigger group that included both. If it doesn't then the part about children obviously doesn't apply.

 

[Princess Rose]

Wondering people's opinions on this, all views and comments (within reason) accepted, let the talking commence!

As has been mentioned, it's a correction of the currently established double standard.

Also, I personally support no pants for anyone. Remember:

 

[AlAaraaf74]

I always thought it was like this: A man who has sex with a lot of women is a hero, but a woman who has sex with a lot of men is a whore.

I don't agree with that at all. I think if you have sex with a lot of people, male or female, then you're a whore.