Even having the back ground of these conversations, it just hurt my head. I had to go back and read it a second time.
The way I read his argument is that he has an extremely low view of men. Except for himself.
Men have Overwhelming sexual urges towards women, RAWR!!! Except for him.
Men either can't or don't want to control these urges, RAWR! Except for him.
Women that don't take some measures, whether it be wearing clothes or lock
themselves (or the men) in cages, increase the likelihood that the women will be raped. RAWR!
[Many women in tribes, such as the Dogon, are topless, yet not much of a rape issue.]
In modern society, rape is shunned as much as racism. While these arguments may of held in pre-civilization (when clothing was still worn by the way) there has been a relatively consistent trend by society as a WHOLE to agree that rape is bad. While this by no means says that it never occurs, the act itself is deplorable to just about anybody.
Have respect for the men! Look at how far the human race has come from Socrates and Plato to Einstien and @team-leibniz. There is no way to argue that rape, assault, hate or other blatant forms of human disrespect are acceptable. From ANYONE!
While there is plenty of discussion to the general psychology and tendencies that grew from evolutionary biology, this argument just doesn't make sense. Nobody argues that we are the same as cave men. We hold ourselves as a the current human race to a higher standard. If you're trying to honestly equate men getting horny by looking at porn, clickbait or sexualized advertising to a justification for why ALL women need to do ANYTHING...I just don't buy it. There isn't a core argument that ties your beginning and ends together.
Next you'll be telling me that because the Easter bunny is covered in polka dots the sky is falling.
Let's all just agree to hold ourselves to a higher standard of respect and discourse.
*mic drop
I've chosen your post to respond, as I've detected genuine thought going on - an attempt to understand what you're facing. Thank you kindly, and it's my pleasure to now show that there was indeed a core argument, which you regrettably missed.
As you know, my post was itself a response to another discussion. That discussion was about how "women should do whatever they want with their sexuality". I pointed out that the restrictions that classical cultures place on women are not arbitrary, they arise from social necessity. Female sexuality is not the only player on the block, there is also male sexuality which must be considered & taken into account.
Women sexually flaunting themselves to men who cannot do anything about it - that is a recipe for disaster.
Veralynn may not know it, but her feminism is meant to lead to disaster. It is meant to destroy the fabric of society, like a nerve poison.
This type of feminism is all about maximally unrestricted female sexuality with maximally restricted male sexuality.
"I should be able to wave the scarlet cloth in front of the bull's face and be safe, this is my safe space!"
Good, good - but only as long as there are men with guns and gavels, who provide you with the physical and legal protection you need for your exercise in unrestricted female sexuality ("empowerment"). As soon as these artificial protections are whisked away, you either instantly become a decent woman who covers up and is careful about opening her mouth too much around strange men, or you careen into a complete trainwreck - becoming a serial victim to any lawless men around, who will treat you like human trash.
Being a decent woman and not provoking men sexually is in effect a kind of insurance policy, which makes it more likely that other men will protect you if bad situations happen, and other women view you more favorably (somebody worth defending).
One does get the distinct impression though, that I am talking to children. Children who think "I should be able to have all the candies I want!!", and are ill equipped to understand the concept of dental caries, or the loss of smiles and health it brings.
I'm voting "Sycochica for President 2016"
This isn't even the whole thing, if you can believe that!
I agree with you. Usually I am very open minded to this type of discussion, but as I said earlier, this one was very difficult for me to look at objectively. I don't think this mindset is healthy.
I've actually been lurking this topic for a couple weeks now. I really feel for you!
You've acted admirably! :)
As @team-leibniz would say, he's gone LIMBIC! Lol
may of held???