Female Hobosexuals

[Reg]

In the women’s thread where guys can’t comment is a thread about certain men who are Hobosexuals. Sort of move in live with a woman in a relationship then move on as the financials improve or better opportunities present themselves. Have you ever had a female Hobosexual stay with you. I know of at least one in my case.

 

[1225108]

Could you give us the link to the thread in the 'Ask a Woman''s Section?
No experience with anything like it myself. Perhaps I've just been lucky or I did recognise a freeloader (male/female) in time.

But I'm curious what the fairer sex has got to say, as always, about men in general.

 

[Reg]

Could you give us the link to the thread in the 'Ask a Woman''s Section?
No experience with anything like it myself. Perhaps I've just been lucky or I did recognise a freeloader (male/female) in time.

But I'm curious what the fairer sex has got to say, as always, about men in general.

Experiences With Hobosexuals

This is not actually in Womens Only it is under relationships heading. But the OP refers to male hobosexuals..

 

[spaj8987]

Experiences With Hobosexuals

This is not actually in Womens Only it is under relationships heading. But the OP refers to male hobosexuals..

So you were mistaken then?

 

[Sagittarius84]

I haven't had experience with a "hobosexual" personally, but anecdotally through friends, family, or acquaintance ive seen it play out quite well, quite different than the experiences our lady counterparts face with men hobosexuals.
First off in most cases, the guy knew what was up before the woman moved in, he had no qualms about how the arrangement works out. He wasnt looking for a permanent or serious thing, just a readily available and willing sexual outlet provided shes not a hinderance or detriment to other aspects of his life.
I think the difference here is that for men, the act of protecting and providing for a woman exists as a function of our sexuality..Assuming we don't come home to a mess, or are out exorbitant amounts of money as a result, the construct of being the sole provider of food and shelter for an adult woman makes us no less sexually attracted to her, while it seems in women the same construct may inspire familial or platonic love, but it definitely suppresses any lust response.

 

[Reg]

So you were mistaken then?

guess so. If you have ever answered in the women's only section and been chastised you would be careful to.

 

[1225108]

Experiences With Hobosexuals

This is not actually in Womens Only it is under relationships heading. But the OP refers to male hobosexuals..

The next line is above this group-discussion; I'll let it speak for itself.

This group is open to women or transgendered women, no men! :smile:

We realize that although this may sound excessively stringent, we value our friendships and the ability to have an outlet for questions, concerns or private discussions outside of the general site. We take ourselves seriously but not too seriously :smile:

 

[1225108]

What's actually very interesting is that for women there's a 'Women's Issues' Forum.

The only thing that comes close to a comparable Forum for men is called: "The Healthy Penis".

I'm a conscious objector to participating in the warfare myself (being gay and all) but this might sum up the Battle of the Sexes in a nutshell.

 

[spaj8987]

guess so. If you have ever answered in the women's only section and been chastised you would be careful to.

Right but you were still mistaken in your implication that that specific place didn't allow for men to answer.

What's actually very interesting is that for women there's a 'Women's Issues' Forum.

The only thing that comes close to a comparable Forum for men is called: "The Healthy Penis".

I'm a conscious objector to participating in the warfare myself (being gay and all) but this might sum up the Battle of the Sexes in a nutshell.

The whole site is for men. And men in general make sure women know that. By way of trying to impose their opinions over the women of the site. I not only understand the restrictions i agree with them. There is without doubt many more places here for men to express themselves than women. There is no battle of the sexes here. Men won from the start, are still winning with it's layout and will continue to.

There's ask a man, ask a straight man, ask a bisexual man, ask a gay man, ask a transgender person AND THEN there's only one ask a woman. All other casual threads are insanely dominated by men. And theres women's issues which not only allows men to comment but regularly gets bombarded with men.

If we were to say it was some sort of battle going on it would have long since been won. And men would just be currently trying to pick at the corpses of women on the site.

 

[1225108]

The whole site is for men. And men in general make sure women know that. By way of trying to impose their opinions over the women of the site. I not only understand the restrictions i agree with them. There is without doubt many more places here for men to express themselves than women. There is no battle of the sexes here. Men won from the start, are still winning with it's layout and will continue to.

There's ask a man, ask a straight man, ask a bisexual man, ask a gay man, ask a transgender person AND THEN there's only one ask a woman. All other casual threads are insanely dominated by men. And theres women's issues which not only allows men to comment but regularly gets bombarded with men.

If we were to say it was some sort of battle going on it would have long since been won. And men would just be currently trying to pick at the corpses of women on the site.

Yes, but that might have something to do with the fact that men are basically nerds so we are more online and this site is sort of centred around the male penis.
What's also interesting is, that there isn't a Vulva Support Group online (as far as I know but I'd be happy to learn I stand corrected).

And writing seriously for a moment I don't think that generalising men, women (or transgender's for that matter) is ever helpful. People are basically more the samen than different. The point I apparently failed to bring across that it's ok to 'bitch' about others but talking to the other is much more helpful.


And you're right that men are allowed to reply in said thread.
But that's not the impression I got from the text that's pinned at the top of entries in the Forum it was in:

This group is open to women or transgendered women, no men! :smile:

 

[halcyondays]

Yes a female "hobosexual" used to stay with me on a seasonal basis. I was one of four men (I knew of) she rotated between each year. She was as an ex-hippie free spirit who suffered terribly from wanderlust. A friend of hers used to visit but her stays were shorter.

I've also had coeds stay the summer rent free in between housing situations.

 

[spaj8987]

Yes, but that might have something to do with the fact that men are basically nerds so we are more online and this site is sort of centred around the male penis.
What's also interesting is, that there isn't a Vulva Support Group online (as far as I know but I'd be happy to learn I stand corrected).

And writing seriously for a moment I don't think that generalising men, women (or transgender's for that matter) is ever helpful. People are basically more the samen than different. The point I apparently failed to bring across that it's ok to 'bitch' about others but talking to the other is much more helpful.


And you're right that men are allowed to reply in said thread.
But that's not the impression I got from the text that's pinned at the top of entries in the Forum it was in:

You'd think that were the case and it is part of it but generally speaking it's because of stereotypes. Women are nerds too. Always have been always will be. The amount who freely and who can freely express their nerdiness is a different conversation.

Got curious about gender totals in general and technically you're right about their being more men online than women but i would imagine that's because there's 50.4% men and 49.6% women. So generally speaking women are outnumbered period. And also because girls are raised differently than boys. Which of course dictates to a certain degree the actions of everyone. And then there's very active sexism. Where women are shown not to be welcomed in industries dominated by men. Like the tech industry. Like CEO positions and so on.

Which i'm pretty sure is much more of an issue than they just don't wanna. Kind of difficult to go in the same direction men do when you have an over whelming amount of people advising against it, shaming you for it, implying that something is wrong with you inherently for it and implying without evidence that you flat out don't exist.

It's not interesting to me at all. Vulvas don't get anywhere near the focus penis size does. They should but we aren't talking positive focus. Men in general are, get and always have been obsessed with, concerned with or allowed to be curious about their genitals. None of that is as acceptable when it comes to women. Dildos and what not recently sure but generally speaking men's genitals have always been the first thing people go to when it comes to health or sex play as a topic.

The part that interests me is why there isn't a equivalent site like lpsg. And that's because even with the current insane lack of information we human beings have on the vulvas compared to the dicks women still aren't anywhere near as insecure about their vulvas as men are about their dicks.

When it comes to vulvas women don't need a site like this. One based on health, wellness and body positivity sure but not one where they share pictures of their vagina at the drop of a hat. Even more interesting is why thats needed. And that's because generally speaking vulvas/vaginas aren't seen as being the same as dicks. Although much better looking, tougher and having a more intricate technical design people treat them as less than dicks.

And here is where you contradiction comes into play. You say (I don't think that generalising men, women (or transgender's for that matter) is ever helpful.) which i disagree with based on the context in which we're discussing these topics. Seeing as how you can't talk about these topics without generalizing to some degree.

I think what you were attempting to imply is that i was stereotyping men, women and somehow trangender people. Which confuses me because....aren't trans-people also men? Aren't there men who've transitioned into women and women who've transitioned into men? At the very least the trans area of the site is technically for all genders and both. Meaning i was accurate. When it comes to the site as a whole you've literally agreed with me. Saying (Yes, but that might have something to do with the fact that men are basically nerds so we are more online) so if i'm somehow wrong for saying that aren't you also wrong for agreeing?

People are more similar than different. That is not reflected in this site though. Not in the way it's formatted. Not in how people comment. And for sure not in who gets to dictate what on this site.

As far as the text goes. Why exactly would that matter? As far as i can tell that was either a cheeky joke or maybe something was changed later on because of men criticizing it. Oh and the language you used is also pretty telling. There are different implications between saying someone s criticizing others and saying someone is bitching about others. Which also signifies how different things are between men and women. Don't think i need to go into the origins of that word that you used.

 

[1225108]

I actually fully agree with you where you stand on the issue of gender equality. Equality doesn't mean being the same and that's great because there are lots of differences within the same gender. It is important that everyone although different is regarded as having the same worth. Everybody is free or should be free to explore their own unique nature.

The question of gender equality hasn't been resolved, yet.

However here in the Western Hemisphere (US and Europe, including the UK) at least legally the situation has improved. It wasn't a generation ago in my country when women who became a mother were forbidden to work, and before that women who married were forbidden by law to work from that point in time already.

The barriers faced by women now are those erected by society, and society is made up of everyone.
Those barriers are also faced by minorities by the way. Women are not minorities but actually outnumber men.
So I deeply feel that levelling those barriers is now a task for men and women equally. Without bias and without prejudice.
Empowering women should not be that hard anymore. But it is because a large part of the problem is subconscious.

Going back on topic:
That's why I feel that framing 'hobosexuals' as exclusively male and their hosts as exclusively female as in the thread, that our thread is a response to - isn't helpful. Leeches come in every shape and form, and when someone is being taken advantage off it has nothing to do with their respective gender. I'm sorry they fell for it and I do hope they won't let it happen again.

You questioning my actual thoughts is only fair, as it was I who questioned others.

I myself pointed out that the thread "Real ladies group - a group for verified women" is the only one pinned as staying the first thread in the 'Women's Issue's' Forum and to it's 'rules'.

That triggered me as it's my firm conviction that in order to achieve a change we (all of us) do need to change the narrative. That includes women not accepting their assigned gender-roles just because society dictates it. One is free to do so of course if they wish it.
And the same goes for men of course.


Some points in your text I would like to comment on directly are:

And here is where you contradiction comes into play.

It's called irony. Or at least my failed attempt to use irony.

I think what you were attempting to imply is that i was stereotyping men, women and somehow trangender people.

No, you think wrong.
I was referring to earlier texts, posts and fora and not to your words.

Oh and the language you used is also pretty telling. There are different implications between saying someone s criticizing others and saying someone is bitching about others.

(Bold lettering added).

I am aware of the gender biased and negative connotations of the word "bitching".
That's why I put It between quotation marks.

it's ok to 'bitch' about others

In an earlier response I also used the words "fairer sex" for the same reason.

But I'm curious what the fairer sex has got to say, as always, about men in general.

I'm glad to have drawn your attention to the fact that how we think is a big part of our societies' way of disempowering others, whether they are still disadvantaged because of their gender or by being a member of a minority.

It's a shame though that my motives weren't clear to you.
If I've failed to have corrected that by now I am sorry.

 

[spaj8987]

I actually fully agree with you where you stand on the issue of gender equality. Equality doesn't mean being the same and that's great because there are lots of differences within the same gender. It is important that everyone although different is regarded as having the same worth. Everybody is free or should be free to explore their own unique nature.

The question of gender equality hasn't been resolved, yet.

However here in the Western Hemisphere (US and Europe, including the UK) at least legally the situation has improved. It wasn't a generation ago in my country when women who became a mother were forbidden to work, and before that women who married were forbidden by law to work from that point in time already.

The barriers faced by women now are those erected by society, and society is made up of everyone.
Those barriers are also faced by minorities by the way. Women are not minorities but actually outnumber men.
So I deeply feel that levelling those barriers is now a task for men and women equally. Without bias and without prejudice.
Empowering women should not be that hard anymore. But it is because a large part of the problem is subconscious.

Going back on topic:
That's why I feel that framing 'hobosexuals' as exclusively male and their hosts as exclusively female as in the thread, that our thread is a response to - isn't helpful. Leeches come in every shape and form, and when someone is being taken advantage off it has nothing to do with their respective gender. I'm sorry they fell for it and I do hope they won't let it happen again.

You questioning my actual thoughts is only fair, as it was I who questioned others.

I myself pointed out that the thread "Real ladies group - a group for verified women" is the only one pinned as staying the first thread in the 'Women's Issue's' Forum and to it's 'rules'.

That triggered me as it's my firm conviction that in order to achieve a change we (all of us) do need to change the narrative. That includes women not accepting their assigned gender-roles just because society dictates it. One is free to do so of course if they wish it.
And the same goes for men of course.


Some points in your text I would like to comment on directly are:



It's called irony. Or at least my failed attempt to use irony.



No, you think wrong.
I was referring to earlier texts, posts and fora and not to your words.

(Bold lettering added).

I am aware of the gender biased and negative connotations of the word "bitching".
That's why I put It between quotation marks.


In an earlier response I also used the words "fairer sex" for the same reason.



I'm glad to have drawn your attention to the fact that how we think is a big part of our societies' way of disempowering others, whether they are still disadvantaged because of their gender or by being a member of a minority.

It's a shame though that my motives weren't clear to you.
If I've failed to have corrected that by now I am sorry.

No, your motives were and are clear. Instead of first commenting on why there might be hesitation from women when it comes to men commenting in threads dealing with women's issues you decided to impart about why men comment more on this site. Ignoring all other easily accessible information about sexism through history along with how it effects things like this website.

So it's pretty clear that you were either ignorant of those things and how they relate to website usage and why websites such as this exist in the first place while no website like it exists for women or you refused to acknowledge it until you had to.

By the way massive amounts of ignorance can't be a motive but it can largely inform your motives.

Ah so you were aware and still used it? Good to know.

How exactly does one think wrong? I can understand someone being wrong about a topic they've thought about but how exactly can someone's entire thought process be wrong? Aren't we at that point talking about every last subject they have, do and will think about? Are you sure you aren't mistaken there?

So you think someone saying (This group is open to women or transgendered women, no men! :smile is generalizing people in a negative way? Enough to cause serious enough concern as to mention it? And yet, you were aware of the connotations of the word bitch and used it anyway? Would you call that equal treatment?

Again, if they said this about an area of the site in which men can comment then isn't it wrong on a practical basis? Also, shouldn't it also be taken on basis of possible ignorance of the rules of the sites. Again, seeing as how men could and still can comment in that area? Further, does one comment mean ALL women of the site feel the same way? Were there any other comments on men from that person that would contradict what you've implied by posting that comment in isolation?

There's no shame in that. Irony is difficult to spot and even more difficult to point out.

(I myself pointed out that the thread "Real ladies group - a group for verified women" is the only one pinned as staying the first thread in the 'Women's Issue's' Forum and to it's 'rules'.

That triggered me as it's my firm conviction that in order to achieve a change we (all of us) do need to change the narrative.)

And again. How many groups are there for men on this site? Not just male centric but male dominated? How many? This change through actions you speak of. In the lopsided manner in which this site was built, run and will continue to lean which gender do you expect this change of action to achieve change should come from?

The men who have a good i'd say 85 to 90% or the women who have must less?

What is your conviction based on? It is a fact that men far outnumber women on this site. Also a fact that men far outnumber women in the places they can express themselves on this site. You knew this. You know this. This was information you had before even commenting in this thread. Information you had before you've made your very eloquent comment about changing the narrative.

And yet, you still expect change to come from women. Women. Who are in the minority. Women. Who don't have nearly as many places on this site to express themselves as men do. Again, your motives are clearer than you think.

(That includes women not accepting their assigned gender-roles just because society dictates it.)

And again. When things are clearly and by your own admission not yet fair for women i think it's very logical to question why your expectations for change start squarely on the minority. When it would be logical to question the actions and to expect change from the majority. To hold the majority accountable first since they obviously can and do cause much more damage across the board.

Yet.

(And the same goes for men of course.)

The majority is secondary to your expectations. Wouldn't that be similar to expecting black people to adopt different behaviors around cops that go above and beyond in a rash of recent events in which cops have shot black people in the back for running away? Then as an after thought saying that cops...should be more careful? Completely ignoring the fact that the majority has more of a responsibility than the minority considering unfairness and the lopsided way issues between the two are viewed from the start?

(That's why I feel that framing 'hobosexuals' as exclusively male and their hosts as exclusively female as in the thread,)

Is that what happened? Or is there more going on here regarding your motives? Lets ask some questions to find out. Who started that thread? Was it a man or a woman? Who said hobosexual were exclusively men? Was it a man or a woman? Which gender usually comes up with urban definitions for things very little people know or generally care about? Which gender regularly comes up with insulting terms to belittle others? When someone creates a thread with a very specific title isn't it normal to for others to talk about that express topic in the specific way it was detailed by the original poster? Are replies to a thread specifically detailing a person's experience regarding the original post symbolism for them agreeing with language in the original post completely?

Or are we again commenting on your personal motives?

So, now that we know without shadow of doubt that the specific thread you've pointed to was created by a man. What now? What happens to your attempts to attach said thread to women of this site? And what happens to the automatic benefit of doubt given to your motives?

(Leeches come in every shape and form, and when someone is being taken advantage off it has nothing to do with their respective gender.)

I very much agree. Where i disagree is that this is some sort of conspiracy pushed forward by women. Which you've implied multiple times now. What i see in that thread is women casually replying to information they might not have had before. Expressing their opinions and past experiences within context of questions asked and hypothetical events pushed for consideration. Something every last human being on a forum does.

(But it is because a large part of the problem is subconscious.)

The irony.

 

[1225108]

No, your motives were and are clear. Instead of first commenting on why there might be hesitation from women when it comes to men commenting in threads dealing with women's issues you decided to impart about why men comment more on this site. Ignoring all other easily accessible information about sexism through history along with how it effects things like this website.

So it's pretty clear that you were either ignorant of those things and how they relate to website usage and why websites such as this exist in the first place while no website like it exists for women or you refused to acknowledge it until you had to.

By the way massive amounts of ignorance can't be a motive but it can largely inform your motives.

Ah so you were aware and still used it? Good to know.

How exactly does one think wrong? I can understand someone being wrong about a topic they've thought about but how exactly can someone's entire thought process be wrong? Aren't we at that point talking about every last subject they have, do and will think about? Are you sure you aren't mistaken there?

Yes, I don't feel I am mistaken. We agree on the politics. We do differ in our style and how to reach our common goal.

By the way massive amounts of ignorance can't be a motive but it can largely inform your motives.

Ah so you were aware and still used it? Good to know.

How exactly does one think wrong? I can understand someone being wrong about a topic they've thought about but how exactly can someone's entire thought process be wrong? Aren't we at that point talking about every last subject they have, do and will think about? Are you sure you aren't mistaken there?

So you think someone saying (This group is open to women or transgendered women, no men! :smile is generalizing people in a negative way? Enough to cause serious enough concern as to mention it? And yet, you were aware of the connotations of the word bitch and used it anyway? Would you call that equal treatment?

Yes, it comes across as negative because it combines with a group called Real ladies group - a group for verified women; which implies that to the people (m/f) in that group that there are also un-real women...?
When striving for inclusive we all (of every gender) need to set a good example and broaden our horizon.

Again, if they said this about an area of the site in which men can comment then isn't it wrong on a practical basis? Also, shouldn't it also be taken on basis of possible ignorance of the rules of the sites. Again, seeing as how men could and still can comment in that area? Further, does one comment mean ALL women of the site feel the same way? Were there any other comments on men from that person that would contradict what you've implied by posting that comment in isolation?

There's no shame in that. Irony is difficult to spot and even more difficult to point out.

Apparently so. Irony is obviously not for the dim-witted.

(I myself pointed out that the thread "Real ladies group - a group for verified women" is the only one pinned as staying the first thread in the 'Women's Issue's' Forum and to it's 'rules'.

That triggered me as it's my firm conviction that in order to achieve a change we (all of us) do need to change the narrative.)

And again. How many groups are there for men on this site? Not just male centric but male dominated? How many? This change through actions you speak of. In the lopsided manner in which this site was built, run and will continue to lean which gender do you expect this change of action to achieve change should come from?

The men who have a good i'd say 85 to 90% or the women who have must less?

What is your conviction based on? It is a fact that men far outnumber women on this site. Also a fact that men far outnumber women in the places they can express themselves on this site. You knew this. You know this. This was information you had before even commenting in this thread. Information you had before you've made your very eloquent comment about changing the narrative.

And yet, you still expect change to come from women. Women. Who are in the minority. Women. Who don't have nearly as many places on this site to express themselves as men do. Again, your motives are clearer than you think.

I was mistaken and I apologise for this. The number of men and the number of women in the world are about the same, with a slightly larger number of man. You are correct. I's about 50/50 globally.

"The value for the entire world population is 1.02 males/female,[98] with 1.07 at birth, 1.06 for those under 15, 1.02 for those between 15 and 64, and 0.78 for those over 65." (So 1,02 man to every 1 woman).
Demographics of the world - Wikipedia

But what's stopping this site or the women who join this site to start new groups for women?
I'm all for it. Exactly because the only two fora I know of are "Ask a woman" and "Women's Issues".
It would be awesome when there would be more upbeat women groups and fora here on LPSG.

It's just that it might be a bit weird If a man started such a group, wouldn't it?

(That includes women not accepting their assigned gender-roles just because society dictates it.)

And again. When things are clearly and by your own admission not yet fair for women i think it's very logical to question why your expectations for change start squarely on the minority. When it would be logical to question the actions and to expect change from the majority. To hold the majority accountable first since they obviously can and do cause much more damage across the board.

Yet.

(And the same goes for men of course.)

Yes, you were technically correct that women constitute a minority when the global sex ratio is 1.02 man to every 1 female.
It is however a very LARGE minority and women are strong.
So improving the situation is something men and women of all creeds can do together.

(And the same goes for men of course.)

The majority is secondary to your expectations. Wouldn't that be similar to expecting black people to adopt different behaviors around cops that go above and beyond in a rash of recent events in which cops have shot black people in the back for running away? Then as an after thought saying that cops...should be more careful? Completely ignoring the fact that the majority has more of a responsibility than the minority considering unfairness and the lopsided way issues between the two are viewed from the start?

Yes, that's exactly the same principle and hate-crimes whether it's against people of African decent is just as awful as when women are the targets.

(That's why I feel that framing 'hobosexuals' as exclusively male and their hosts as exclusively female as in the thread,)

Is that what happened? Or is there more going on here regarding your motives? Lets ask some questions to find out. Who started that thread? Was it a man or a woman? Who said hobosexual were exclusively men? Was it a man or a woman? Which gender usually comes up with urban definitions for things very little people know or generally care about? Which gender regularly comes up with insulting terms to belittle others? When someone creates a thread with a very specific title isn't it normal to for others to talk about that express topic in the specific way it was detailed by the original poster? Are replies to a thread specifically detailing a person's experience regarding the original post symbolism for them agreeing with language in the original post completely?

I'll check if it was started by a man of a woman.

Or are we again commenting on your personal motives?

So, now that we know without shadow of doubt that the specific thread you've pointed to was created by a man. What now? What happens to your attempts to attach said thread to women of this site? And what happens to the automatic benefit of doubt given to your motives?

This part of your text I feel doesn't waren't a response.

I very much agree. Where i disagree is that this is some sort of conspiracy pushed forward by women. Which you've implied multiple times now. What i see in that thread is women casually replying to information they might not have had before. Expressing their opinions and past experiences within context of questions asked and hypothetical events pushed for consideration. Something every last human being on a forum does.

(But it is because a large part of the problem is subconscious.)

The irony.

Yes, I'm glad you recognise we actually are in agreement so I don't exactly know why it seems you are so offended and seem mad at me. If I have offended anyone I offer you my apologies.

• I will be happy to talk to you further in PM if you want, but we seem to be hoarding this thread which is going very off topic.
• I'm also willing to join you in a new thread and continue our discussion in public.

But this thread was about hobosexuals being experienced by men.
And I'm sorry my side comments contributed to the derailing of the topic.

 

[1225108]

I said I'd check the gender:

Who started that thread? Was it a man or a woman?

I think it was a man, although the person hasn't revealed his/her/it's sex but it features a picture of Thing from the Fantastic Four. This to me emphasises my belief that the discussion about hobosexuals and other subjects reflect the Battle of the Sexes.

Which to an outsider who bats for another team - like me - is very funny and hard to take seriously.

 

[spaj8987]

I said I'd check the gender:



I think it was a man, although the person hasn't revealed his/her/it's sex but it features a picture of Thing from the Fantastic Four. This to me emphasises my belief that the discussion about hobosexuals and other subjects reflect the Battle of the Sexes.

Which to an outsider who bats for another team - like me - is very funny and hard to take seriously.

(Yes, I don't feel I am mistaken. We agree on the politics. We do differ in our style and how to reach our common goal.)

But we don't agree on the politics. Our styles and how to reach goals are different though.

(Yes, it comes across as negative because it combines with a group called Real ladies group - a group for verified women; which implies that to the people (m/f) in that group that there are also un-real women...?)

And what exactly is wrong with that implication? Has there never once been a case on the internet of a man acting as a woman for the purposes of tricking other men into interacting with them? What about cases of men creating accounts as women for the express purpose of lying about important topics involving women?

My guess here is that you're assuming that real women is somehow meant to discriminate against other women? When the internet in general has massive issues with people not being accurate to who they really are for all sorts of excuses.

(When striving for inclusive we all (of every gender) need to set a good example and broaden our horizon.)

And again, instead of holding those most responsible and who offend the most accountable you still first held women to a much higher standard.

(But what's stopping this site or the women who join this site to start new groups for women?)

I would imagine men like you. Aren't you currently attempting to argue that there is some sort of conspiracy here? That women on the site are doing something wrong? And shouldn't be. When so far all the women of the site have done is the exact same things men have done for as long as the internet has been around.

So my guess as to why there aren't more places on this site for women to express themselves in as many different ways as men do is because men don't think they should. And seeing as how men far out match women in influence not only on this site but the world it because very very difficult to change the minds of people who don't even know their own bias is negatively effecting them and everyone else.

So, you. Guys like you.

(It's just that it might be a bit weird If a man started such a group, wouldn't it?)

I don't think it would be weird. But odds are good it wouldn't be appropriate. Not because a guy can't start a group in that way but because the odds of a guy starting a group in that and leaving out their bias would be very very difficult. As we've already seen by your comments.

(It is however a very LARGE minority and women are strong.)

Minorities by definition are minorities. I'm guessing this is you trying to say that the earth is both round and flat at the same time?

(So improving the situation is something men and women of all creeds can do together.)

There's a difference between something being possible and something being probable. Yes, it's possible for men and women to improve situations. It is not probable though. Not when it comes to the majority of men. Given how much more influence men have than women expecting women to do equal parts of the work toward improvement automatically lets men off the hook while putting even more weight on women to fix things.

Which is my overall point about the bias you either aren't noticing or refuse to acknowledge.

If your kid is being bullied in school by multiple other teenagers what you do not do is hold them all accountable as if your kid did something wrong by just existing. All doing so does it help the teens who have bullied them. Since inherently they will get off lightly because you've created an offense for the kid that generally didn't actually do anything wrong. And again, women commenting like men do normally is not some sort of conspiracy. Speaking about their experiences regarding a specific topic asked is not women being against anyone else.

(This part of your text I feel doesn't waren't a response.)

Of course not. Again, your motives are clear.

(Yes, I'm glad you recognise we actually are in agreement so I don't exactly know why it seems you are so offended and seem mad at me.)

Offended? Yes. Mad? No. As a guy i see guys doing what you're doing all the time. And i see the negative effects from it all the time. I also see who it negatively effects all the time. I am most certainly offended by your motives. But again, they are par for the course. There is absolutely positively nothing special about how you did it or why. When it comes to guys and the topic of women there are entire groups with the same very fragile motives. Most are just ignorant to their own bias and ignorance but some...some know exactly what they're attempting to do and why.

Why do i mention them? Well because it's our duty as human beings to correct those people as much as we can for all our sake. You may not think so but the more logical we human beings are the better off we'll all be. Morality, intelligence and the self preservation of our species go hand in hand. The more intelligent we are, the more moral we'll become. The more moral we become the longer our species will last. And the better our quality of life will become.

I am offended. I am not mad. I'm doing what i'm currently doing because it's the best way i can think of to help as many people as i can.


(But this thread was about hobosexuals being experienced by men.
And I'm sorry my side comments contributed to the derailing of the topic.)

No apologize needed. This thread was created both with that in mind and a hint of what you had in mind. So you didn't derail anything. OP meant for the thread to go in this direction. Which is yet another testament to bias.

(This to me emphasises my belief that the discussion about hobosexuals and other subjects reflect the Battle of the Sexes.)

You mean the person who talked about having a small penis and incels? That's who you think reflects the battles of the sexes? You do realize a battle takes at least two separate distinct groups right? Or have you not been understanding a word of what i've been saying?

(Which to an outsider who bats for another team - like me - is very funny and hard to take seriously.)

And again, do you really think the lgbtq community is free of sexism? Free of gender bias?

 

[1225108]

"But we don't agree on the politics. Our styles and how to reach goals are different though."​

• What you're saying is that you don't want to agree on politics and refuse to acknowledge we have a common goal.
• To me the goal is achieving equal rights and equal opportunities for everyone.
• I just challenge stupid ideas by using irony, a lighter touch and humour. Apparently you don't want to see my intentions the way that I've been trying to explain to you.

"And what exactly is wrong with that implication? Has there never once been a case on the internet of a man acting as a woman for the purposes of tricking other men into interacting with them? What about cases of men creating accounts as women for the express purpose of lying about important topics involving women?
My guess here is that you're assuming that real women is somehow meant to discriminate against other women? When the internet in general has massive issues with people not being accurate to who they really are for all sorts of excuses."​

• I'm not talking about 'just' this site or other social media.
• The words 'Real Women' discriminate against people who don't conform to gender roles that are by definition arbitrary.
• At the very least it discriminates against pre-op MtF transgenders; Unless you would have them reveal private medical information to 'prove' their inherent gender.

"And again, instead of holding those most responsible and who offend the most accountable you still first held women to a much higher standard."​

• Yes and No.
• I'm holding everyone to the same standards, regardless of gender or other characteristics that have nothing to do with their abilities.
• It is a fact that those fighting for a just cause are often scrutinised more than let's say a business-person who works for financial gain. That's not fair, but it's I believe how things work.

"I would imagine men like you. Aren't you currently attempting to argue that there is some sort of conspiracy here? That women on the site are doing something wrong? And shouldn't be. When so far all the women of the site have done is the exact same things men have done for as long as the internet has been around.
So my guess as to why there aren't more places on this site for women to express themselves in as many different ways as men do is because men don't think they should. And seeing as how men far out match women in influence not only on this site but the world it because very very difficult to change the minds of people who don't even know their own bias is negatively effecting them and everyone else.
So, you. Guys like you."​

• No I don't argue there is a kind of conspiracy here. Do you believe men (on and off this site) conspire against women?
• My point was and is that the only two Fora on LPSG are "Ask a Woman" and "Woman's Issues" (the latter having a problematic overtone due to the wording "Issues").
• So here I think we actually DO agree that women are underrepresented and put in a negative light.
• But how do you feel we could resolve that here in our little corner of the internet? I'm curious about your thoughts and ideas about solutions as you're obviously passionate about this subject.

"I don't think it would be weird. But odds are good it wouldn't be appropriate. Not because a guy can't start a group in that way but because the odds of a guy starting a group in that and leaving out their bias would be very very difficult. As we've already seen by your comments."​

• If you can stomach what to you feels like my bias I invite you to brainstorm with me about positive woman-related subjects that are related to Large Penises (as this is the LPSG) and I offer to start new groups and/or fora around those together with you.

"Minorities by definition are minorities. I'm guessing this is you trying to say that the earth is both round and flat at the same time?"​

• Putting geology aside I'm making the point that when being outnumbered there's a difference between being outnumbered 12 to 10 (as with women), 100 to 10 (as with gay men for instance, if you believe the initial results of the Kinsey research) or 1.000 to 10.
• I don't think your point of view is helpful in empowering women (or other groups that are being discriminated against).

"There's a difference between something being possible and something being probable. Yes, it's possible for men and women to improve situations. It is not probable though. Not when it comes to the majority of men. Given how much more influence men have than women expecting women to do equal parts of the work toward improvement automatically lets men off the hook while putting even more weight on women to fix things.
Which is my overall point about the bias you either aren't noticing or refuse to acknowledge.
If your kid is being bullied in school by multiple other teenagers what you do not do is hold them all accountable as if your kid did something wrong by just existing. All doing so does it help the teens who have bullied them. Since inherently they will get off lightly because you've created an offense for the kid that generally didn't actually do anything wrong. And again, women commenting like men do normally is not some sort of conspiracy. Speaking about their experiences regarding a specific topic asked is not women being against anyone else."​

• My point - and perhaps I'm naive and too idealistic - is that "Improving the situation (of women and other groups) is something that men and women of all creeds can do together".
• I'm trying to break a cycle of bias here by stepping out of this circle.
• You're reply is mostly gibberish.
• You have been using the word 'conspiracy' quite a lot.

"Of course not. Again, your motives are clear."​

• What do you think my motives are, pray tell?

"Offended? Yes. Mad? No. As a guy i see guys doing what you're doing all the time. And i see the negative effects from it all the time. I also see who it negatively effects all the time. I am most certainly offended by your motives. But again, they are par for the course. There is absolutely positively nothing special about how you did it or why. When it comes to guys and the topic of women there are entire groups with the same very fragile motives. Most are just ignorant to their own bias and ignorance but some...some know exactly what they're attempting to do and why.
Why do i mention them? Well because it's our duty as human beings to correct those people as much as we can for all our sake. You may not think so but the more logical we human beings are the better off we'll all be. Morality, intelligence and the self preservation of our species go hand in hand. The more intelligent we are, the more moral we'll become. The more moral we become the longer our species will last. And the better our quality of life will become.
I am offended. I am not mad. I'm doing what i'm currently doing because it's the best way i can think of to help as many people as i can."​

• I deeply believe you've misinterpreted my motives.
• You reasoning about logic and intelligence is something I like quite a lot. But your 'logic is flawed' when we only challenge the way a lot of men think. And no.... I'm not saying there's a higher standard for women but I am saying ideas about gender-roles and (in-)equality are present in society as a whole.
• This will be the last time as I've already used the word 'sorry' quite a lot already - but I apologie again for inadvertently offending you and any other woman that feels the same way.

"No apologize needed. This thread was created both with that in mind and a hint of what you had in mind. So you didn't derail anything. OP meant for the thread to go in this direction. Which is yet another testament to bias."​

• Thank you.

"And again, do you really think the lgbtq community is free of sexism? Free of gender bias?"​

• No I don't. It's sad but a fact that prejudices and biases are present in all people. The best of us try to recognise it within ourselves and correct this.

 

[spaj8987]

• Thank you.

"And again, do you really think the lgbtq community is free of sexism? Free of gender bias?"​

• No I don't. It's sad but a fact that prejudices and biases are present in all people. The best of us try to recognise it within ourselves and correct this.

Before i say anything else i'm going to post your private messages to me because it once more speaks directly to your motives more than i could ever explain myself.

Your very first private message to me goes as follows.

(Would you care to......continue our discussion, my dear lady?) To which i replied....(My dear lady? And what exactly is that supposed to mean? Something about your ego being bruised?) and then your next private message....

(It's considered rude to answer a question with another question, m'lady.)

Clearly, you've move into the attempt to insult me portion of your ego imploding in on itself. Which was very and i do mean very unnecessary. It's very clear that not only am i a male but a straight male. And yet because of your very bruised ego you've taken to trying to annoy me. Knowingly.

And then you go on to say...(I don't think that's very nice to the other users of our site, so that's why I decided to PM you for a parley.) As if we are somehow negatively effecting the meaning behind this thread.

Lets let that sit for a moment. In a discussion in which you've tried multiple times to imply there's some conspiracy on this site where women are doing something negative to men you've then called the man who disagrees with you and proved their point a multitude of times....my lady.

For what seems to be the millionth time. Your motives are clear. Now on to your reply.

 

[1225108]

Before i say anything else i'm going to post your private messages to me because it once more speaks directly to your motives more than i could ever explain myself.

Your very first private message to me goes as follows.

(Would you care to......continue our discussion, my dear lady?) To which i replied....(My dear lady? And what exactly is that supposed to mean? Something about your ego being bruised?) and then your next private message....

(It's considered rude to answer a question with another question, m'lady.)

Clearly, you've move into the attempt to insult me portion of your ego imploding in on itself. Which was very and i do mean very unnecessary. It's very clear that not only am i a male but a straight male. And yet because of your very bruised ego you've taken to trying to annoy me. Knowingly.

And then you go on to say...(I don't think that's very nice to the other users of our site, so that's why I decided to PM you for a parley.) As if we are somehow negatively effecting the meaning behind this thread.

Lets let that sit for a moment. In a discussion in which you've tried multiple times to imply there's some conspiracy on this site where women are doing something negative to men you've then called the man who disagrees with you and proved their point a multitude of times....my lady.

For what seems to be the millionth time. Your motives are clear. Now on to your reply.

I wasn't aware there were any negative associations to the word Lady.

You clearly feel insulted by it, and unlike you not showing me that curtesy, I'll quote you bitterly:

Clearly, you've move into the attempt to insult me

I do not feel offended about anything you've said about me, my motives or about anything I've said and you feel you want to react on.

And we ARE getting way off track here, as our discussion is no longer about men how are used by either male of female hobosexuals. I've joined the original discussion in 'Women's Issues' because now I've learned that men are allowed to post in that thread.

Experiences With Hobosexuals

And we can keep exchanging our positions, but I am much more interested in a constructive dialogue, M'Lady.
So I hope you'll take up the glove I've trown at your feet and act like a gentleman.
Until then I'll keep calling you M'lady in jest.

If you can stomach what to you feels like my bias I invite you to brainstorm with me about positive woman-related subjects that are related to Large Penises (as this is the LPSG) and I offer to start new groups and/or fora around those together with you.