"Virgin shaming": I know we have a lot of "but what about men's problems?" people out there.

[ablac]

OK OP I want to ask about your first paragraph. Feminists don't recognise men's problems because "they realize that society is a patriarchy". It isnt. Your just a fucking moron who thinks that because they possess a pair of tits they are consistently discriminated against for totally impractical reasons. I want to have a long ass discussion and I can bet many of your dumbass feminist beliefs can be dismissed on account of practicality and, while there is certainly discrimination, it is not as widespread as you believe. Men arent a minority but nor are women. Just because you think half the fucking species(big generalisation there kind of, I dunno, sexist?) runs the country (it doesn't)that you are obliged to not recognise that men face problems as well especially in child care laws. Please explain to me how the hell men dont deserve the same rights as women in that regard as you infer this is correct or that it doesn't matter. I sympathise with reasonable feminists who can actually see where they are persecuted and where they are not and actually give a flying fuck about the fact that women, wrongfully, have superior rights to men in certain areas. If oyu overlook that then dont you dare complain about exclusivity and discrimination because you exercise it just as much.

 

[imperialwar]

Snipped for posterity

With the perspective of 12 years of adulthood, I can look back and say that most of the inconsistency and double standard is really because of people being really really stupid. I, myself, was a complete moron, throughout much of my teen years, though I now find it surprising that my peers could manage to tie their shoes or master the art of the flush toilet (look mommy! i made the poopie!).

The social norms that develop in groups of young people are generally unfair, hypocritical, unrealistic, and pretty much mean all around-- it is more about shaming someone than shaming someone for something. If it wasn't for being a virgin, it would probably be about something else, for instance. Humans, especially young stupid ones-- tend to fixate on things.

If adulthood is reflected by age 18, then I offer 16 years of experience
And I agree with what I have quoted.
Young people continually play "one up" often exaggerating and out right lying to attempt to better position themselves in the fabric of their social groups.
Slut shamming is the female defense in attempt to remove popularity from more "active" girls.
And male virgin shaming a way of "one up"ing over each other.
Male "slut" behavior is seen as desirable to men as the "slut" male is obviously successful and his acts should emulated to be as successful as him. Mimicry being the best form of flattery as the saying goes.
Female "virgin" encouragement is a reflection of obedience and purity. She cant get an STD if shes a virgin ( yes im aware there are other ways to catch them, but this is societies thought.) And the virgin girl then becomes less of a threat to the groups dynamic.

As a side note, a little off topic, but I would like to discus male roles in society. Mostly with the OP.
So if I(being a man) see a woman being attacked, or in danger and I dont rescue her why does society look at me and say " you monster, why didnt you help her." Especially the foul looks when I reply, "I believe in equality of the sexes, she can look after herself."

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

We like to think ourselves to be advanced and civilized, yet this simple thought study shows we aren't that far removed as a group from our caveman ancestors. ( dont get me stated on the "riot" mentality )

Heh, often see things like this being said and always have to wonder if the people saying them realize that there's never been any psychological research on cavemen.

We have no certainties about how our cavemen ancestors really behaved. Archaeological evidence of that time period is hard to find. All we have are a few tools, some bones and some paintings. You can't really base any serious psychological research on that.

Most people seem to base cavemen behaviour on whatever they personally deem to be crude, primal and unsophisticated. Some people base if off the few people still living in tribal societies, often not realizing there are absolutely no guarantees that that's how cavemen lived.

In the end it's a quite meaningless comparison as everyone has their own subjective opinion of what constitutes cavemen behaviour and there simply isn't enough actual evidence to come to what can remotely be considered an objective opinion.

We simply don't know how our ancestors behaved. We can only guess.

Fair enough. Yes I realize there couldnt have been formal studies of our caveman ancestors.
So maybe fast forward a few thousand years to the beginning of recorded history with the ancient greeks, romans and egyptians. What kind of sexual institutions were in place then ? Possessing woman as prizes and spoils of war, a reflection of dominance by men. As women weren't allowed to fight. If a woman was caught cheating she was typically executed. If she slept around she was usually seen as a Harbinger and impure and sent to her death.
Im mostly trying to reflect the current sexual institutions in place arent far removed today as they probably should be. The thing we should ask is why.

See, this is what I was talking about earlier with the bad history. Ever hear of Lysistrata? It's a Greek play about how a war was stopped because the women refused to have sex with their husbands until they stopped fighting. I mean, yes, women were occasionally seen as spoils of war... but then so were men. Slavery was a thing, sex slavery was something both genders had to face (at least for the Greeks and, especially, the Romans), and in general, while things may have been sexist by modern standards, they weren't anywhere near as bad as we like to believe. They may have even been better in some respects.

 

[Biosophilogical]

you have no idea. I am VERY confident in this position.

I feel that you are very, very sad. And I'm sad that people are out there who think like you. It makes me all the more proud to be a feminist. Because the fact that there are so many people out there who think like you, shows there is a major social problem, and is among many reasons feminism still needs to exist.

And I am very confident in my position.

I have never met a man that doesn't want sex (aside from Asexuals).

I want nothing to do with your feud with Lilith, I just wanted to have a little fun with that sentence right there. You've basically said "I've never met a man that doesn't want sex, except for men that don't want sex" ... I giggled, in a very unmanly way, and I'm man enough to admit it

OT: Virgin shaming is ... more like an unspoken pressure really, in my experience. I'm sure that many people make it a very spoken pressure, but in my own life, I've never really been made fun of for being a virgin, though that may be because I choose my friends carefully, and I don't actually care about being a virgin, so there is no loose-thread with which to hang me.

 

[Damien Black]

*Vomits*

Oh. One of THESE threads. Joy.

I know that people on both sides love the gender specific nouns and adjectives, but it makes you look like uncompromising nutcases when you go tossing around such loaded and isolating language. I appreciate what you are trying to say, Lillith, but it comes across in an incredibly grating way to those who don't already share your views (at least on the gender divide).

Can we all agree on something? Every human being on earth has it bad in some way, is discriminated and hated in some way. Men have it bad. Women have it bad. Children, old people, Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, Asians, the rich, the poor, the ugly, the beautiful, the smart, and the dumb... everyone.

Do women have it harder than men in some fields? Hell yes! That does not, however, mean that a majority of men is not also harmed by the very same perceived "advantage". Using language such as "Patriarchy" is an inherently male-linked word. It has a male history and a male origin. You cannot say something is "patriarchal" without implying patriarchy, which conjures images of a shadowy male conspiracy. This, in turn, means that you cannot say "oh, but some women also encourage patriarchy" without playing them off as unwitting pawns of their societal upbringing... the poor servants of an exclusively male conspiracy. No matter how you look at it, that is going to raise hackles on all sides. Unless you wish to give a definition of terms at the beginning of your post with extensive explanations of each, it is more diplomatic and engendering of a proper discussion to simply use "society" in place of "patriarchal society".

Particularly, when the majority of men I know feel more oppressed and injured by the assumptions of the so-called "patriarchal society", it is no longer an apt term. You cannot honestly say an aspect of culture is geared towards male-advantage, "patriarchal", when that advantage is viewed as damaging by those who receive it. To use a poor analogy, it would be like saying that a law was patriarchal because all men were decreed to be buried under a mountain of gold. Yes, we are all suddenly rich beyond our wildest dreams (until the gold market crashes anyway), but we are also crushed to death.

- Women usually get served first at restaurants, get into many clubs for free, get free drinks, while men rarely get such special treatment.

Just going to point this out: women are rarely asked first what they wish to order in restaurants, assuming that you look like a guy who is financially capable. The implicit assumption is that the male will offer both orders and handle any complications or additions. Even when the food is served, according to etiquette, neither party should start eating before all food is on the table and the server has left... meaning that this itself is a moot point. It is, in fact, another way in which men are treated preferentially. Free drinks are another thing like this; it's assumed that the man has more income to toss about and thus, in an objectifying way, should be paying for what he wants.

As for clubs? That tends to be bouncers trying to score points and keep competition out... it's just men being dicks to each other.

To sum that little bit up, while perhaps fiscally disadvantageous, it is by no means negatively discriminatory against men; unless you are in the camp that believe everyone should pay the same taxes regardless of income. This is, unfortunately, yet another (though minor) example of the inherent cultural assumption that men are, at least financially, superior to women. Assumptions of superiority are the exact opposite of discrimination in fact.

 

[chocolatekake]

It's the 'lock and key' situation: a 'lock' that can be opened by any 'key' is a shitty lock, but a 'key' that can open lots of 'locks' is a great key.

Before anyone yells at me, I'm not saying it's right, in fact it's pretty bad. Women should be able to be as forward about enjoying sex just as much as men are, and virgin males shouldn't be shamed for their lack of sex. But thousands of years of society and millions of years of evolution have led to this, it's not something that's going to change overnight.

Everyone has pants (locks) and hands (keys). That's how people should be viewing that metaphor. And even then it's not a good metaphor. I've always hated that "argument".

 

[Nydestroyer]

Sucky thing about injustices of the world due to past generations ignorance and "how it use to be is better attitude" is hard to weed out in one generation or even several. Its the same case with casual racism or traditional gender roles that seem kind of irrelevant in a world where people can be more open to who they are and who they want to be. These kind of things will go away gradually (hopefully) then some other thing will be the big "this is the terrible thing about humans" will pop up and then that will be something that will be weeded out as the old things cycle back in. I even think one day if humans cycle enough everything will end up the opposite of the male dominated life that is slowly going away (unless we learn from history and don't repeat...wait nvm humans are dumb as a whole)

Sorry went off topic there I always end up projecting these things into more then just this is my stance and end up depressing myself XD

On topic (hopefully) I think peer pressure ,the root cause of all of this in my opinion (that and the whole past generations of human rights violations), is a terrible thing and honestly there not much that can be done about it besides ignore it all and go with what you want to do with yourself no matter what others say. Sad thing is this is more easier said then done like everyone here probably knows as this is a "nerd/geek/person of the internet persuasion" gathering place. Having less friends because you fight the peer pressure seems not worth it to most "normal people"(in quotation because normal in my opinion is a word that has little to no meaning.) because social creatures like being social(always see that as the sims social meter needing to be filled)

Also another variable in this is differences in the person which makes this whole thing an impossible equation (or rather a EXTREMELY hard one) Myself I don't like people or socialization but I see why some need it but I don't see the reason for gender roles or typical assignment of who someone should be. It's all pointless humans are just humans genders don't matter for anything besides biological things that are all just considered to be opposite because of humans need to make a coin have completely reverse sides for no other reason besides that is how are minds try and make sense of the world. Ya I did not stay on topic sorry about that hope any of you that made it this far got some kind of idea of what I was saying. Looks like dribble to me but meh maybe you guys understand where I am coming from lol

p.s I know that () don't go in normal wrighting but I always ocdly add them with extra info that I think needs to go in the middle of a sentence for no reason.

 

[Hagi]

Fair enough. Yes I realize there couldnt have been formal studies of our caveman ancestors.
So maybe fast forward a few thousand years to the beginning of recorded history with the ancient greeks, romans and egyptians. What kind of sexual institutions were in place then ? Possessing woman as prizes and spoils of war, a reflection of dominance by men. As women weren't allowed to fight. If a woman was caught cheating she was typically executed. If she slept around she was usually seen as a Harbinger and impure and sent to her death.
Im mostly trying to reflect the current sexual institutions in place arent far removed today as they probably should be. The thing we should ask is why.

That's definitely true. There have certainly been serious trends in recorded history when it comes to the roles of men and women. And those roles can still be identified today although not as extreme of course.

Even here I have to place a side-note though in that recorded history can be quite selective. Not saying these trends weren't present but what gets remembered is often the most extreme situations.

Most average people of those times aren't going to be remembered and I do wonder if amongst the vast majority of people in those times, the peasants so to speak, things were as unequal as the better recorded ruling castes.

It does seem rather impractical for your average farmer to go around executing cheating wives, locking up daughters and conquering women. And whilst this is entirely speculation I personally wouldn't be all too surprised if, amongst those people, things were somewhat more equal out of necessity.

Food had to be put on the table, survival was hard. Everyone was responsible for that, men and women both. Whilst there likely would still have been male dominance and such the extremities you mention could possibly have been luxuries that only the most powerful (and thus likeliest to be remembered) were able to afford.

This might even be a possible explanation of why these things persist to such an extent in modern society. We can easily afford them, no matter how sexist we are there'll still be food on the table.

Of course, all just speculation on my part. I could very easily be wrong.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

OK OP I want to ask about your first paragraph. Feminists don't recognise men's problems because "they realize that society is a patriarchy". It isnt. Your just a fucking moron who thinks that because they possess a pair of tits they are consistently discriminated against for totally impractical reasons. I want to have a long ass discussion and I can bet many of your dumbass feminist beliefs can be dismissed on account of practicality and, while there is certainly discrimination, it is not as widespread as you believe. Men arent a minority but nor are women. Just because you think half the fucking species(big generalisation there kind of, I dunno, sexist?) runs the country (it doesn't)that you are obliged to not recognise that men face problems as well especially in child care laws. Please explain to me how the hell men dont deserve the same rights as women in that regard as you infer this is correct or that it doesn't matter. I sympathise with reasonable feminists who can actually see where they are persecuted and where they are not and actually give a flying fuck about the fact that women, wrongfully, have superior rights to men in certain areas. If oyu overlook that then dont you dare complain about exclusivity and discrimination because you exercise it just as much.

1. Edit- made a mistake here. Ignore it. I don't understand profiles. Damn.
2. Gender roles and patriarchy are the reason for those problems that men face too. I really don't get how people always miss that.
3. When the fuck did child care come into this? Right now you're getting pissed off at someone for things they never said, never even addressed.
4. Society is still very patriarchal and men still are in charge. Not you certainly, but men. There are better examples I could come up with, but fuck it.

FUCK YOU RAV4!!!!

 

[Loonyyy]

Women- make less money on average, are underrepresented in virtually all non-pornographic media, are objectified in a large portion of media, are obscenely underrepresented in positions of wealth and power, and the the most terribly impoverished type of family is the single female headed household, with women being vastly more likely to be impoverished. Yeah, that sounds like a minority to me. Sure they aren't being killed in the streets, but I sure as fuck am happy to be a man and not have to deal with all of that shit, and I certainly am willing to look at it as the problem that it is and try to deal with it.

I agree with most of what you said, and I think they're legitimate issues in need of fixing. But to call women a minority is to underestimate women, which could be called sexist if you wanted to get pedantic. They're not a minority, voting wise, or ability wise. That fundamentally dismisses their ability to act. If they are a minority, then the only way they can achieve equality is through the aid of some of the majority, ie men. That doesn't seema at all empowering.

They are unfairly discriminated against, there are unfortunate prejudices, and social customs, that need to be stopped. My point is, presenting an invalid comparison just makes people dismiss your claims. If you want to compare women to black people in South Africa, then you're going to be cut to shreds by anyone with a trace of reason. If you've got a logically sound, which is both a moral and ethical imperative, you don't need to damage it with hyperbole.

 

[Rawne1980]

I've never gone for the whole "virgin" thing.

I've always had a thing for older women and those with a bit more "experience" just because they know what they are doing and it's damn good. And they have things to teach and i'm nothing if not a student of that particular art.

However, I would never abuse someone based on their sex life.

Mainly because I have kids and, as i've said around here before, they are staying virgins until they turn 40 or i'm dead whichever comes latest.

The only talk I ever gave my kids about sex is ... they are not getting any ... EVER.

I'm far too young and pretty to be a grandad.

 

[Seanfall]

Yeah I never understood that....Our society is so ass backwards and fucked up it's ridiculous. If a woman has sex a lot she's a slut, but if a guy does it he's a stud? Why can't she just be in command of her sex life or why can't he be a slut? Their's really no difference besides one's an innie and one's and outie. Read Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and it's Sequels besides being a good read the main character is a great and complex female character. I think it's the first book that has in front of each chapter little tidbits about how women are abused in sweden and most people turn a blind eye. It really makes you think.

I'm tired so if anything I post seems odd or rambling it's just cause my brain is trying to sleep and my hands won't shut up.

I never got Slut Shaming as I never thought it was my business what a woman was doing on her own time. And I think the point I figured out that it was pointless was when a boy in my school got a girl pregnant and he bragged about how much sex he got on the side to his friends and they...fucking cheered him on. Course that guy was the scum of the earth and if theirs any justice in the world he's now in jail with a large black man named Bubba. I know that's an example of a guy but it shows the horrid double standard. As when i saw that girl walk threw the halls she had her head cast down. I don't know if it was slut shaming or that she was just upset she got pregnant with that fuckheads kid. I know if I where in that situation I'd be grabbing a coat hanger.

And Virgin shaming just makes no bloody sense to me. "Ha ha you didn't fuck at first sight ha ha." Again none of mine and none of their business. The media is kinda to blame for this too look at just a few shows on TV and you'll see how Male Promiscuity is almost defied. Granted 'sex and the city' was just as guilty as doing that for women. (I object to the show as a whole not just that bit though.)

Bottom line fuck the haters. (not literally of course.)

 

[Bertylicious]

Isn't sexual liberation meant to be an essential element of women's rights? Aren't "slut slammers" just parroting pre-lib patriarchal sobriquets?

Personally I think an experienced woman is extra sexy. A woman who enjoys sex, who enjoys my body and wants me to enjoy hers, is far more appealing than a woman who doesn't.

Sex is awesome, healthy and should be encouraged.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Women- make less money on average, are underrepresented in virtually all non-pornographic media, are objectified in a large portion of media, are obscenely underrepresented in positions of wealth and power, and the the most terribly impoverished type of family is the single female headed household, with women being vastly more likely to be impoverished. Yeah, that sounds like a minority to me. Sure they aren't being killed in the streets, but I sure as fuck am happy to be a man and not have to deal with all of that shit, and I certainly am willing to look at it as the problem that it is and try to deal with it.

I agree with most of what you said, and I think they're legitimate issues in need of fixing. But to call women a minority is to underestimate women, which could be called sexist if you wanted to get pedantic. They're not a minority, voting wise, or ability wise. That fundamentally dismisses their ability to act. If they are a minority, then the only way they can achieve equality is through the aid of some of the majority, ie men. That doesn't seema at all empowering.

They are unfairly discriminated against, there are unfortunate prejudices, and social customs, that need to be stopped. My point is, presenting an invalid comparison just makes people dismiss your claims. If you want to compare women to black people in South Africa, then you're going to be cut to shreds by anyone with a trace of reason. If you've got a logically sound, which is both a moral and ethical imperative, you don't need to damage it with hyperbole.

Minority should and must apply to any people who are, as part of a group, oppressed. Limiting that definition robs it of it's value as a term for promoting social change and understanding inequality. It is not insulting, it is fact.

 

[Damien Black]

2. Gender roles and patriarchy are the reason for those problems that men face too. I really don't get how people always miss that.

...because you and the OP have been using language which is incredibly charged and villainizes an entire 50% of the population. No matter what you reasons, your terminology is aggressive and will be perceived as such. Especially by those of us males who detest the notion of being clumped into a specific societal conception of gender, masculinity, or patriarchy.

 

[imperialwar]

[/quote]

See, this is what I was talking about earlier with the bad history. Ever hear of Lysistrata? It's a Greek play about how a war was stopped because the women refused to have sex with their husbands until they stopped fighting. I mean, yes, women were occasionally seen as spoils of war... but then so were men. Slavery was a thing, sex slavery was something both genders had to face (at least for the Greeks and, especially, the Romans), and in general, while things may have been sexist by modern standards, they weren't anywhere near as bad as we like to believe. They may have even been better in some respects.[/quote]

Actually no, i cant say ive heard of that play.
It's quite a novel way to fix a war
Yes I'm aware of male POWs as slaves, and particular strong male specimens used as breeding stock by female aristocracy.

Do you feel the Victorian era, being relatively recent, still has its hooks in today's outlook on sex ? I think religious connotations also have a significant influence. Christianities purity of sin, and aspects of Muslim women only being second class.

 

[LilithSlave]

But men do have larger sex drive, there are studies that proves it.

Well then! You'd be well to cite them!

Not to mention some studies have cultural biases that slip in. Or that come to faulty conclusions(the ever common "correlation does not equal causation" issue, for starters). There are plenty of cases like that. What I'm saying, is that just because there is a study out there, doesn't mean it's proven.

But either way, you haven't cited them. And I'm not inclined to believe you.

 

[MetalMagpie]

*shrug* I can't say I've witnessed either problem since leaving school. Teenagers are obnoxious to each other in all sorts of ways. I got far more abuse at school for not wearing makeup than I ever got for being a virgin (which was just as much a stigma for girls as it was for guys).

Even at university (hardly a bastion of adult behaviour!) most people were mature enough to realise that other people's sex lives (or lack of) are none of their god-damn business.

*blissful sigh* The adult world is nice.

 

[JochemHippie]

As much as we'd all like to women and men are not the same. Especially not in the social standard department.

I'd love us all to be equals I really would, but in today's society, especially the one dominated by commercial stereotypes it just isn't viable on large scale, though it starts with yourself, so I do what I can.


Another thing holding it back is the extremely assertive standpoints of feminists, it's actually working against you. On the same levels as for say, PETA.