Misogyny unchallenged on LPSG?
- Thread starter D_Tim McGnaw
- Start date
Look, I already said that was fine, OK? There is no need to push the issue.
Last edited:
B_subgirrl
Sexy Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Posts
- 5,547
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 34
- Points
- 73
- Location
- NSW, Australia
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Female
Not me! I'm only truly happy when I'm getting sex and it's much better from a man than a vibrator :biggrin1:. Without sex I feel rather unfulfilled. The other women are likely to kick my arse now :smile: so I'd best add 'but I can't speak for all women'.
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2010
- Posts
- 598
- Media
- 6
- Likes
- 128
- Points
- 213
- Location
- United States
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 100% Straight, 0% Gay
- Gender
- Male
Must not make sexist and funny joke....must not.....(but it dazzled across his mind a split second)
*takes a deep breath*
Given the general population of males on this site? Being filled is not a problem.
*exhales sharply*
Just needed to redirect some energy productively and in a playfully poignant manner. See what can happen if the guys can just pause to think?
((braces for impact that will more than likely rain down from Dolfette))
Why am I a troll?
Oh wait, I almost forgot. You don't know how to answer a question. You only know how to make personal jabs at people who don't share the same viewpoint as you.
I'll preface this by recognising that MR has asked that we drop this and I'm aware she and Hud01 have discussed and dropped the substance of the dispute. I apologise to MR for seeming to be continuing this discussion but I feel I should have the leeway to discuss the issues Gillette has raised with my opinions.
Essentially this is now purely a discussion of the points Gillette has made to me and everyone else can ignore them if they wish by all means.
Your actually missing my point Gillette, since I'm presuming that the reason is my lack of clear expression I'll try to be as clear as possible.
It's not the fact that Hud01 has a preference for skinny women with big tits which I contend is misogynistic.
The point is he never even had to discuss his preference, in response to MR's question he could just have simply said "My preferences in physical attributes are not relevant to a discussion about misogyny, and a discussion of what I think of your body is even less so" He could then have gone on to discuss the actual points of argument MR was making about prevalence of misogyny etc.
No body was forcing him to answer that question there was neither a literal nor figurative gun to his head. Not answering it would have had no bearing on his credibility in the discussion because the question was actually not relevant and nor did it actually have any bearing on his credibility.
The fact that he did not refuse to discuss MR's question on the basis that it simply wasn't relevant to the discussion and in fact chose pointedly to answer it while actually avoiding discussing the other points MR was making is what is I find misogynistic.
If he answered that question even though he had no reason to and dealt with none of the substance of the rest of the points made to him you might be making a perfectly fair assumption.
He would of course be perfectly in his rights and would incur no fault by pointing out that the question was not relevant and his personal attraction to the questioner had no bearing on the discussion. In fact it would lend somewhat more weight to his point.
Lets be clear, MR's question about her own attractiveness to him wasn't even strictly relevant to a discussion about the bias she was presuming of him based on his expressed physical preferences.
Oh come now I posted hours after the discussion between him and MR had died down and frankly on the evidences MR was putting I had little or no reason to question his objectivity, it was his response to her question and some subsequent responses which gave me actual cause to question his attitudes.
I don't know that I've made any point about thinking he was obnoxious, but I take your point anyway.
So you don't think it's misogynistic to suggest that women in the USA don't experience misogyny, when they manifestly do, and to contemptuously suggest that discussion of women facing misogyny should be done in another thread discussing oppression of women in other countries?
Well no, Gillette it was a genuine question about whether or not I was missing a wider context which might make it possible for me to understand more clearly the nature of your objection to my characterisation of someone elses' posts as misogynistic. If I was suddenly involved in a conversation which was being picked up and continued from some previous point in time or some other context it would be fair to want to know that wouldn't it?
I wasn't suggesting a war, that's your suggestion, but thank you for the clarification in any case.
That's a little strong no? The only repetition of my explanations for believing what I do about his posts comes from our discussion on the matter and some clarification to another poster. Certainly no one else was repeating it and nor was I using this criteria over and over in numerous other posts in response to other members in unrelated discussions.
That he chooses to do so, to the exclusion of other discussion, when there was no actual requirement or pressure for him to do so is what is in question.
He absolutely did not have to answer MR about whether or not he found her attractive, it was totally off topic and completely irrelevant to his credibility, choosing to answer does bring in to question his credibility.
Of course that's false and you know full well that's not what I said. No where did I say that. These are your words not mine. It would have been absurd for anyone to make that point.
I pointed out, perfectly legitimately that insults and comments about appearance are used more frequently about women because it's believed they have a special potency in belittling women because of misogynistic presumptions that women value themselves and should be expected to value themselves more highly for their appearance than their other attributes.
I've said that so many times now (and at no point said what you claim I said) that I'm a little surprised you would characterise my reasoning in this way.
The manner is so questionable that to be honest we may as well not discuss it.
He chose to answer the question when no one was forcing him to and he refused to deal with the substance of her arguments about misogyny, am I missing something?
Before you shout "oh your changing your argument now" it seems we have been slightly a cross purposes for which I apologise, since clearly I did not make myself clear enough, but in fact the first premise has nothing to do with me and is patently absurd besides, and since the second two follow in an argument I've never actually made though they are in fact debatable despite your assertion to the contrary, I don't see that I can answer much of this part.
And lets be clear he has twice now erroneously and egregiously accused me of being a troll on absolutely no basis whatsoever, without any contradiction on by anyone. Is there a reason why my apparent unfair characterisation of Hud01 is so much more egregious than his of me? Because I'm finding it hard to understand your zeal to exculpate him while dismissing the accusations he has leveled unfairly at me without question.
That's not what he did, he chose, in my view pointedly and intentionally, to answer a question he had no reason to answer to the exclusion of others, under the presumption, in my view, that this answer would be a useful way of undermining MR, because she was clearly annoying him at the time.
That's debatable, if I say to you, "Do you think I'm unintelligent?" and you choose to answer "yes" depending on the context it might be a jovial response, it might be perfectly justified from your perspective, it might be just a pointed insult, it might even be a kindly encouragement to improve myself, it might be a straight answer to a straight question as you put it. The point being that in choosing to answer that question in a specific context, in this case to the exclusion of other questions, you are choosing to make a point of some kind.
So let's say in the context of a wider discussion in which I've made a variety of other points and then ask you "do you think I'm unintelligent" even though the question itself and the answer you might give have no specific relationship to the discussion we're having, and you answer "Yes" and ignore the rest of my points then, yes that is an insult.
Now let's say there's an entrenched unfair cultural bias which presumes people like me are unintelligent or which presumes that people like me are extra-sensitive about being called unintelligent because people like me are unfairly stereotyped as being uncommonly and irrationally concerned about how intelligent people think we are. So you chose to answer that question about my intelligence, even though it wasn't relevant and there was no actual reason why you should answer it, you chose not to answer my other points, and you chose to answer that question in full knowledge that issues surrounding whether or not you think I'm intelligent have extra-cultural baggage which might leave you open to charges of prejudice. If you still said "yes" tout court in this context you were doing so pointedly and with the intention of undermining me because you presumed (even to some extent unconsciously) that I would find that answer all the more insulting because of the cultural sensitivities surrounding other people's perceptions of the intelligence of people like me.
Essentially this is now purely a discussion of the points Gillette has made to me and everyone else can ignore them if they wish by all means.
Your actually missing my point Gillette, since I'm presuming that the reason is my lack of clear expression I'll try to be as clear as possible.
It's not the fact that Hud01 has a preference for skinny women with big tits which I contend is misogynistic.
The point is he never even had to discuss his preference, in response to MR's question he could just have simply said "My preferences in physical attributes are not relevant to a discussion about misogyny, and a discussion of what I think of your body is even less so" He could then have gone on to discuss the actual points of argument MR was making about prevalence of misogyny etc.
No body was forcing him to answer that question there was neither a literal nor figurative gun to his head. Not answering it would have had no bearing on his credibility in the discussion because the question was actually not relevant and nor did it actually have any bearing on his credibility.
The fact that he did not refuse to discuss MR's question on the basis that it simply wasn't relevant to the discussion and in fact chose pointedly to answer it while actually avoiding discussing the other points MR was making is what is I find misogynistic.
If he answered that question even though he had no reason to and dealt with none of the substance of the rest of the points made to him you might be making a perfectly fair assumption.
He would of course be perfectly in his rights and would incur no fault by pointing out that the question was not relevant and his personal attraction to the questioner had no bearing on the discussion. In fact it would lend somewhat more weight to his point.
Lets be clear, MR's question about her own attractiveness to him wasn't even strictly relevant to a discussion about the bias she was presuming of him based on his expressed physical preferences.
Oh come now I posted hours after the discussion between him and MR had died down and frankly on the evidences MR was putting I had little or no reason to question his objectivity, it was his response to her question and some subsequent responses which gave me actual cause to question his attitudes.
I don't know that I've made any point about thinking he was obnoxious, but I take your point anyway.
So you don't think it's misogynistic to suggest that women in the USA don't experience misogyny, when they manifestly do, and to contemptuously suggest that discussion of women facing misogyny should be done in another thread discussing oppression of women in other countries?
Well no, Gillette it was a genuine question about whether or not I was missing a wider context which might make it possible for me to understand more clearly the nature of your objection to my characterisation of someone elses' posts as misogynistic. If I was suddenly involved in a conversation which was being picked up and continued from some previous point in time or some other context it would be fair to want to know that wouldn't it?
I wasn't suggesting a war, that's your suggestion, but thank you for the clarification in any case.
That's a little strong no? The only repetition of my explanations for believing what I do about his posts comes from our discussion on the matter and some clarification to another poster. Certainly no one else was repeating it and nor was I using this criteria over and over in numerous other posts in response to other members in unrelated discussions.
That he chooses to do so, to the exclusion of other discussion, when there was no actual requirement or pressure for him to do so is what is in question.
He absolutely did not have to answer MR about whether or not he found her attractive, it was totally off topic and completely irrelevant to his credibility, choosing to answer does bring in to question his credibility.
Of course that's false and you know full well that's not what I said. No where did I say that. These are your words not mine. It would have been absurd for anyone to make that point.
I pointed out, perfectly legitimately that insults and comments about appearance are used more frequently about women because it's believed they have a special potency in belittling women because of misogynistic presumptions that women value themselves and should be expected to value themselves more highly for their appearance than their other attributes.
I've said that so many times now (and at no point said what you claim I said) that I'm a little surprised you would characterise my reasoning in this way.
The manner is so questionable that to be honest we may as well not discuss it.
He chose to answer the question when no one was forcing him to and he refused to deal with the substance of her arguments about misogyny, am I missing something?
Before you shout "oh your changing your argument now" it seems we have been slightly a cross purposes for which I apologise, since clearly I did not make myself clear enough, but in fact the first premise has nothing to do with me and is patently absurd besides, and since the second two follow in an argument I've never actually made though they are in fact debatable despite your assertion to the contrary, I don't see that I can answer much of this part.
And lets be clear he has twice now erroneously and egregiously accused me of being a troll on absolutely no basis whatsoever, without any contradiction on by anyone. Is there a reason why my apparent unfair characterisation of Hud01 is so much more egregious than his of me? Because I'm finding it hard to understand your zeal to exculpate him while dismissing the accusations he has leveled unfairly at me without question.
That's not what he did, he chose, in my view pointedly and intentionally, to answer a question he had no reason to answer to the exclusion of others, under the presumption, in my view, that this answer would be a useful way of undermining MR, because she was clearly annoying him at the time.
That's debatable, if I say to you, "Do you think I'm unintelligent?" and you choose to answer "yes" depending on the context it might be a jovial response, it might be perfectly justified from your perspective, it might be just a pointed insult, it might even be a kindly encouragement to improve myself, it might be a straight answer to a straight question as you put it. The point being that in choosing to answer that question in a specific context, in this case to the exclusion of other questions, you are choosing to make a point of some kind.
So let's say in the context of a wider discussion in which I've made a variety of other points and then ask you "do you think I'm unintelligent" even though the question itself and the answer you might give have no specific relationship to the discussion we're having, and you answer "Yes" and ignore the rest of my points then, yes that is an insult.
Now let's say there's an entrenched unfair cultural bias which presumes people like me are unintelligent or which presumes that people like me are extra-sensitive about being called unintelligent because people like me are unfairly stereotyped as being uncommonly and irrationally concerned about how intelligent people think we are. So you chose to answer that question about my intelligence, even though it wasn't relevant and there was no actual reason why you should answer it, you chose not to answer my other points, and you chose to answer that question in full knowledge that issues surrounding whether or not you think I'm intelligent have extra-cultural baggage which might leave you open to charges of prejudice. If you still said "yes" tout court in this context you were doing so pointedly and with the intention of undermining me because you presumed (even to some extent unconsciously) that I would find that answer all the more insulting because of the cultural sensitivities surrounding other people's perceptions of the intelligence of people like me.
Ah, well that's what I've sort of presumed though I did address the reasons why I asked that question anyway.
That wasn't my point, that I didn't explain that is my fault since I presumed you were capable of seeing that, and I presumed that since at no point did I say "being primarily attracted to women who are skinny with big tits is misogynistic" that you would see that I was making the point that something else about your responses to MR and others was misogynistic. Clearly my presumptions were way off, for that I apologise.
My view of you remains only slightly modified.
As to this troll business, lets hash that out shall we?
How is opening up an honest discussion about people's attitudes towards women on LPSG trolling? How is taking on board what a wide variety of members have posted to this thread and discussing their opinions and ideas with them trolling? How is taking the time even to try to do the same with you trolling?
Who have I flamed? You say my posts plural, do you mean to say that my entire contribution to this site is trolling and flaming? Or are you purely referring to this thread?
If to my entire contribution to this site then that's manifestly a joke. If to this thread then I would tend to say that if you find something about the open discussion of misogyny insulting then it's not me who's insulting you it's you who has a problem with the discussion of misogyny. If you think that because I disagree with you and think some of the things you have posted in this discussion are misogynistic in nature that I am trolling or flaming you then I suggest you take a look at the definitions of trolling and flaming your may be using because they're way off. If you just don't like the fact that I disagree with you and think you have posted misogynistically in this thread then tough shit, come up with an intelligent and reasoned refutation and quit whining. Calling me a troll as though just saying it made it true, does not constitute a rebuttal of my opinions of you. Now if you want detailed reasons for why I think your posts were misogynistic there's literally reams of explanation in this thread go take a look. If you can't be bothered to read all that, fine, but don't feel like you have any justification in calling me a troll in that case.
Lets also not forget that calling someone a troll for no good reason, and purely in this case because you disagree with someone's opinions is in and of itself trolling and flaming.
B_subgirrl
Sexy Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Posts
- 5,547
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 34
- Points
- 73
- Location
- NSW, Australia
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Female
Must not make sexist and funny joke....must not.....(but it dazzled across his mind a split second)
*takes a deep breath*
Given the general population of males on this site? Being filled is not a problem.
*exhales sharply*
Just needed to redirect some energy productively and in a playfully poignant manner. See what can happen if the guys can just pause to think?
((braces for impact that will more than likely rain down from Dolfette))
I nearly made that joke myself when I typed the damn thing :biggrin1:. What can I say? I might not need a man to support me, to help me take care of a baby, or even to have a baby these days (just sperm), but I most certainly need a man for sex. Toys just don't do the job as well. I can't believe I just said that in a thread about misogyny, but there it is :smile:.
Sex with a human being??! What is this the 1950's????
Doc! We need to go back to the future!
B_subgirrl
Sexy Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Posts
- 5,547
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 34
- Points
- 73
- Location
- NSW, Australia
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Female
AG and Petite, I know I shouldn't stick my nose in where it's not wanted, but it may be a good idea if you both walk away from this thread for a day or two and come back when you've calmed down. I like you both and it's a little upsetting to see you arguing this much. I also wouldn't like it if either of you got banned because I would miss you. I will now take that nose of mine out of your business and put it back in my own. But please don't argue anymore.
B_subgirrl
Sexy Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Posts
- 5,547
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 34
- Points
- 73
- Location
- NSW, Australia
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Female
Lol. If sex with a human being is 1950s I think I'll stay in the 50s forever thanks :smile:
I really appreciate your warmth and concern. :smile:
But why would either of us get banned?
Also, I assure you that I am quite calm, and have been all along. And my opinion of petite will likely remain constant no matter how much time passes.
Last edited:
helgaleena
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2006
- Posts
- 5,475
- Media
- 7
- Likes
- 43
- Points
- 193
- Location
- Wisconsin USA
- Sexuality
- 50% Straight, 50% Gay
- Gender
- Female
That's what this means.
Not that I would trust a woman to keep her word
THAT is misogynist, Friend....
B_subgirrl
Sexy Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Posts
- 5,547
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 34
- Points
- 73
- Location
- NSW, Australia
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Female
I'm imagining terrible losses of temper and bad things said, leading to banning. Only imagining so far. Don't much like arguing. Makes me feel sad :frown1:.
helgaleena
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2006
- Posts
- 5,475
- Media
- 7
- Likes
- 43
- Points
- 193
- Location
- Wisconsin USA
- Sexuality
- 50% Straight, 50% Gay
- Gender
- Female
If only you had noticed that you are calling the originator of the thread a troll, we might take you more seriously. That is what threads are FOR.
