Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

[jk]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

Don't get your hopes up, though. The reality is that people aren't equal. They never will be equal. And attitudes such as his are not only valid to have, they are not wrong. This universe is harsh, unforgiving, and utterly indifferent to our moral quandaries. I know you disagree with that, but assuming it is true, it means gwynedd's statements have merit. Even in spite of their lack of logic when taken to their dark conclusion in which mere worms like him are squished by greater things still.

Would I personally like shiny's version? Yeah, I would, but it isn't happening. There is no one coming to make the universe a better place to be except us and look around you: the only logical conclusion to make is that your fantasies are just that.

people aren't equal in their qualities, experiences, knowledge or abilities. they are all different, even "identical" twins. i think the equality that is being discussed here is a "presumed innocent" kind of assumption that we treat everyone with respect until they demonstrate that they are not worthy of it. the world isn't "fair," and shit happens, but that doesn't mean we HAVE TO treat each other badly. we create much of our world, especially in its social reality. i think of that as instant karma- the way you behave creates [some of] your world and determines [some of] who you are in it.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

Don't get your hopes up, though. The reality is that people aren't equal.

They never will be equal. And attitudes such as his are not only valid to have, they are not wrong. This universe is harsh, unforgiving, and utterly indifferent to our moral quandaries. I know you disagree with that, but assuming it is true, it means gwynedd's statements have merit. Even in spite of their lack of logic when taken to their dark conclusion in which mere worms like him are squished by greater things still.

Would I personally like shiny's version? Yeah, I would, but it isn't happening. There is no one coming to make the universe a better place to be except us and look around you: the only logical conclusion to make is that your fantasies are just that.

Well, now I do agree with you. I wish you the all the best in embarrassing me in my arguments in the future. When this occurred in discussions political economy it resulted in motivating me to read several large volumes and long periods of research and reflection. Now that happens less often because I see few comparatively well researched and vetted arguments in this area so I don't feel as motivated to read and dog ear the great books of the Western World as much anymore. I should be finished with Leviathan already. I napped on the train today. The fire was dying ....

[BadJuju]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

people aren't equal in their qualities, experiences, knowledge or abilities. they are all different, even "identical" twins. i think the equality that is being discussed here is a "presumed innocent" kind of assumption that we treat everyone with respect until they demonstrate that they are not worthy of it. the world isn't "fair," and shit happens, but that doesn't mean we HAVE TO treat each other badly. we create much of our world, especially in its social reality. i think of that as instant karma- the way you behave creates [some of] your world and determines [some of] who you are in it.

True enough and this did not elude me; however, gwynedd spoke to something deeper and more malign. And I just wished to say that taken to its logical extreme he would be one of its victims. It is a silly stance to take given that we are all frail, pitiful creatures who are only superficially better or worse than each other. In the end, we are all worms squirming on the ground for much greater things to stamp upon. And so some humility and respect for others should be a given for our predicament no matter how tall you feel within the social order.

[Forrest]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

"You don't have to hate someone to destroy them. You just have to not get it."

I'm not too sure I could ever be a genderist, but then misogynist and feminist leave me cold as well.

All three are learned conditions of viewpoint, just as being racist is.

My viewpoint points toward equality when it comes to how much someone is paid should be relevant to their contribution...thus equal pay for equal work if the work can be quantified in that way. The only way it can be tethered to production is to give everyone a living wage, plus an incentive for above average performance. It is amazing how well that works, for there is never someone quite as dedicated to their job as someone who owns part of the production value.

I am disturbed by any gathering, however, where men or women are deprecating themselves, or their sexual identity in order to be part of the group.

I also prefer that men and women remember that they are not equal at everything. Many women are more than equal at a lot of stuff, but I am sick of everyone having to say so. And frankly, most of what interests all of us about the sexes is that they are the opposite of one another, not copies of a unisex brand.

[jk]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

True enough and this did not elude me; however, gwynedd spoke to something deeper and more malign. And I just wished to say that taken to its logical extreme he would be one of its victims. It is a silly stance to take given that we are all frail, pitiful creatures who are only superficially better or worse than each other. In the end, we are all worms squirming on the ground for much greater things to stamp upon. And so some humility and respect for others should be a given for our predicament no matter how tall you feel within the social order.

again, well said. though i don't think of worms as just existing to be stomped upon. most of them go about their business and make the world a more fertile place. of course, some end up as bait, too.

[BadJuju]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

Then why are you opposing me, BadJuju? Should you not be more agreeable? Suppose we were in the same room if you said that to me? A spoken philosophy, not consistent with behavior is false. You are attempting to win the argument in quite Darwinian fashion.

And great if someone is bigger and badder than I am. Why is this a threat to you? One of the most disappointing things that have happened to me is when I win. When I was beaten in chess a few years ago I was woken up and began to play more and refine my game. When I faced my opponent again, I routinely won and we both lost interest because he wasn't winning and I wasn't losing. I love to lose because it makes me compete. I hate having no world to conquer. That is one reason why I have often been considered good at some of the things I do. Too bad it isn't something that fits well into a business or I'd be very wealthy. Though I am still good at what I do and well paid enough. I don't settle for equality , but I am happy and admire those that beat me. I welcome it. Yet for you this all means domination and violence. You don't get it at all.

And to be perfectly honest BadJuju, buddy, you have no fire , drive or pride or so it would seem to me.


And now that I am watching couples figure skating with my lovely wife, who absolutely embraces gender roles because she like to leave the hard dirty work to me, why don't I see a single lift for a woman picking up the man? What's going on here? Where is the equality? Gender equalism is stupid BadJuju, and I fear it will ruin your love life. But by all mean love women as I do.

I do get it. You want a world without equality when it suits you. What happens when you aren't able to conquer these things, especially when it is not a trifling matter like chess? Imagine being in shiny's situation and having to face the ordeal on a much greater scale because she is a female. Do you think she welcomes all the hurdles she must face because they are fun to conquer? It is one thing to struggle because of what you want to be. It is altogether a different matter to have to struggle because of who you are.

I don't have fire, drive, or pride. They are meaningless. That doesn't make my arguments any less valid.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

I do get it. You want a world without equality when it suits you.

Wrong again.

What happens when you aren't able to conquer these things, especially when it is not a trifling matter like chess?

I lose is what happens.

Imagine being in shiny's situation and having to face the ordeal on a much greater scale because she is a female.

Image all those poor females of upper paleolithic hunter gatherers in their third trimester on the tundra with men content to fail and cry when they lose .

Do you think she welcomes all the hurdles she must face because they are fun to conquer? It is one thing to struggle because of what you want to be. It is altogether a different matter to have to struggle because of who you are.

I will tell the 3 homeless men I saw today asking for a sandwich about the message that you have for them and to enjoy their birth right. I will also try to ignore the usually policy in the history books to kill all the men and leave the women and children alive in culture clashes.

You suffer from the same inability to work the polygamy equation. Yes there are those that own the pride, but then there are the losers that are invisible since the male gamble to win the top is at the price of being at the bottom.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/ut...n-9119017.html

Good for men?

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=851753

Or bad for men.: At least 400 teenage boys have fled or have been kicked out of their communities along the Utah-Arizona border, forbidden from returning home.


Typical novice chess play that moves a piece to control new squares without calculating the squares that have been weakened. Nature is certainly an equalizer, but not the way we would believe.

I don't have fire, drive, or pride. They are meaningless. That doesn't make my arguments any less valid.

Your arguments are all answers to your own assumptions. Tell me where I suggested or implied gladiatorial style combat and violence just because I know the PC equality concept to be a fiction. You propped up a straw man and you arguments are only valid against it.
The way it works:

The women put a few men at the top( Screaming for Paul McCartney and taking in Bill Clinton's cigars) . Then they become angry that men, who are put there by women, are on the top and beat up on the faceless men who pay who must pay for the sin of these harem societies. Women go to movies for the men they love and thus these men become the highest paid. And predictably this is the garbage man's fault. This isn't new. The same thing happened all the way back to Sparta. Its human nature. The only problem is I have one of those parasitic brains mentioned by Schopenhauer, not with the Will of nature's efficiency. I know what I ought not to know in rebellion to my species, but its good for me.

Shiny or her like will rarely rise to the top. That is the price for not running the risk of falling to the bottom, the fate of a great number of men. See if you can convince the girls not to like Jonny Depp more than Madonna. According to Michael Jackson she was not happy that he would get all the fainting and swooning. The reason is men want a good woman , but a woman wants Mr Right. The implications are not easy to avoid.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

That "Hmmmmm... " was the sound of me re-evaluating my opinion of your social intelligence and character, and not in a favorable way.



And the world is a sadder, more miserable place because of that.

As for the rest of your diatribe and anything else you might have to say on this subject, I'm not even going to waste my time in dignifying it with a response. Enjoy your freedom to be as stubborn, prideful, arrogant and rude as you please.

So you say that be kinder than necessary, but proceed to define my disbelief in equality as having no respect for women? Then you insult me? Then you tell me you will not dignify me with a response in your response only taking the time to express that you tend to hate me because I believe I essentially saw the color blue? A belief is not something one chooses. I believe I will die. I do not desire to die. I desire that people have equal opportunity to compete with me and likewise. So in reality you hate that I was destined to be born stupid and unequal so much so that I don't understand the value of equality due to this inferiority.

So you are not kinder than necessary, respond when you are not responding, believe in equality while declaring me socially inferior all seeded by your assumption of what I must means by equality. And lastly you tell me to enjoy my freedom when we all know its sarcastic.

Not to worry, I have fought many battles, and I am well used to hatred and prejudice, and is by now second nature.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

what "attitude"! clearly you enjoy it, at least in print, here, on the web, maybe even in real life. it's not clear to me whether it's meant to be impressive in some fashion, or just hostile. why bother to strut your stuff? who are you trying to impress? and why?

Its not usually so clear is it? It often becomes clear when people take any ambiguity and define it so that they can attack the statement at their leisure.

Since my statement lacked context on its own, then it must mean that it was in the context of the original article. My proceeding comments was in the love to freely compete to win or lose is it not? Or perhaps you would like to prop something up as is the more usual method and conclude serial killer because I said corn flakes?

[gwynedd1]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

I'm not too sure I could ever be a genderist, but then misogynist and feminist leave me cold as well.

Self described feminists are often the greatest misogynists. I am no fan of Sara Palin , but her sex spared her from nothing. I saw an article where in the comments Camille Paglia was ridiculed for not mentioning male aggression and violence while another poster suggested she is one person that she would see fit to slap. So we have violence against a woman from a woman for failing to mention that men are often violent. And thus the irony abounds that without men, violence would appear among women just as it does even now in the Olympics with women's hockey. That is because they are conforming to the environment rather than the other way around. They are naturally being selected for their tolerance and engagement in a contact sport, just as men have for being the expendable option for dangerous violent solutions. The human race is the result of both sexes reacting to the lot they were given, and there is no monopoly on a lack of principles.

All three are learned conditions of viewpoint, just as being racist is.

I do not really agree. All cultures have shown signs of racism which tend to mean racism is not a social construct. Racism contributes to cultural integrity. However most races seem to produce those not given to racism because this allows commerce, trade, and the exchange of ideas. The human body has it sterile blood but it also has its bacterial cultures in the digestive tract. We are unequal tolerant and intolerant cell by cell. Thus one often sees tolerant port towns and provincial racism in societies that balance their prejudice with a progressive cultural drift. Japan for example is both racist yet very open to cultural drift and innovation from foregn influence. Thus the culture retains its integrity, but does not stagnate. The Franks were more tolerant of Roman ideas and tended to outpace their German rivals that had no interest in Roman ways. Ironically I tend to like and embrace different cultures , but also realize that bigotry maintains it. Diversity can only be skimmed like the snow pack on the mountain and the recharge rate since draining the lake entirely will result in a mono culture, not diversity.

My viewpoint points toward equality when it comes to how much someone is paid should be relevant to their contribution...thus equal pay for equal work if the work can be quantified in that way. The only way it can be tethered to production is to give everyone a living wage, plus an incentive for above average performance. It is amazing how well that works, for there is never someone quite as dedicated to their job as someone who owns part of the production value.

One would think meritocracy would be more popular. However since it is quite clearly not I believe it works like sharing among children.The other child should share with them , but it never works the other way around.

I am disturbed by any gathering, however, where men or women are deprecating themselves, or their sexual identity in order to be part of the group.

I also prefer that men and women remember that they are not equal at everything. Many women are more than equal at a lot of stuff, but I am sick of everyone having to say so. And frankly, most of what interests all of us about the sexes is that they are the opposite of one another, not copies of a unisex brand.

No one , as is my belief by observation, is equal at anything. How ironic it is that the reason that there is sex in the first place is to create biodiversity in nature. The whole idea to be unequal. Otherwise:


http://io9.com/5818694/bananas-have-...ast-7000-years

If you want to see an evolutionary dead end, look no further than the supermarket produce aisle. Every banana you eat is an infertile clone, and its wild ancestors weren't much better when it came to finding new genes.
This isn't good news for the bananas or one of their primary consumers (that'd be us). Because bananas are quite literally all exactly the same, any disease that hits one banana is pretty much certain to wreak havoc on an entire population.

Sex between men and women is attempting to flee from the certain doom of perfect equality while its the human social constructs that are making the pretty lie that we all must be equal or could ever be without going extinct.

But then I have always had this problem of being rational and logical. And you would not believe the hatred that it engenders.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

A big man knows when to let a small man run his mouth or take a swing...

[shiny!]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

Don't get your hopes up, though. The reality is that people aren't equal. They never will be equal. And attitudes such as his are not only valid to have, they are not wrong. This universe is harsh, unforgiving, and utterly indifferent to our moral quandaries. I know you disagree with that, but assuming it is true, it means gwynedd's statements have merit. Even in spite of their lack of logic when taken to their dark conclusion in which mere worms like him are squished by greater things still.

people aren't equal in their qualities, experiences, knowledge or abilities. they are all different, even "identical" twins. i think the equality that is being discussed here is a "presumed innocent" kind of assumption that we treat everyone with respect until they demonstrate that they are not worthy of it. the world isn't "fair," and shit happens, but that doesn't mean we HAVE TO treat each other badly. we create much of our world, especially in its social reality. i think of that as instant karma- the way you behave creates [some of] your world and determines [some of] who you are in it.

What jk said.

When I say "equality" I don't mean that everybody is the same or equal in abilities. I mean that no one has the right to oppress or demean another human being just because they have the ability to do so. Female human beings don't deserve to be bought and sold and beaten to death merely because they are female, any more than blacks deserved to be bought and sold and beaten to death merely because they were black.

Would I personally like shiny's version? Yeah, I would, but it isn't happening. There is no one coming to make the universe a better place to be except us. Look around you at your fellow man: the only logical conclusion to make is that your fantasies are just that.

You're right, it is up to us. We either capitulate to darkness and make it worse, or we work to make things better. Either way, we're going to die so the only thing that matters is how we choose to live in the time we have. That's not fantasy, that's reality. For every example you give to show how nothing's getting better, I can give you an example of something that is getting better. It's not that one of us is right and the other is wrong. We're both right! It's a matter choosing what to focus on. Sometimes you have to make a lot of effing lemonade.

My husband worked to make the world a better place by teaching severely damaged children that everyone else had given up on. Cynics could say he wasted his life because there will always be too many damaged children to save them all, so what difference did it make? But for the ones he was able to reach, and there were many, his efforts made all the difference in the world!

He wasn't a sap or a soft male. He was the definition of a "man's man" who could hit a bullseye at a thousand yards, build a house from the ground up and fix just about anything that was broken.

He could kill you with one blow but few people knew how lethal he was. When he saw someone in need he offered help without being asked. He never gave money to panhandlers but he would buy them groceries or a sandwich. He also rescued cats, wrote haiku, made beautiful floral arrangements and cried at sentimental movies.

He treated millionaires, co-workers, menial laborers and beggars exactly the same way: with kindness, compassion, respect and corny jokes.

He didn't stop to think that making the world a better place was a hopeless task. He lived the way he did because it made him feel happy. To give up and live as a cynic would have made him feel unhappy. It really was as simple as that.

At my husband's memorial service one of his former students, a dyslexic, autistic young man stood up and said: "People will remember him as a great man, but to me he will always be the man who changed my life."

That's what a real man is, and that's how to live a good life.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

How to live a good life has been a question for philosophers since we learned how to write. I don't think I'm smart enough to hazard an answer. I do think that your husband came closer than most, Shiny, and I'm pretty sure that anyone who has really lived decently knows how to shrug off the transgressions of weaker people.

The universe may not owe you anything. But we owe each other something. The least of which is respect. You might get on demeaning people weaker than you for a while. But sooner or later someone or something scarier will catch up.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

What jk said.

When I say "equality" I don't mean that everybody is the same or equal in abilities. I mean that no one has the right to oppress or demean another human being just because they have the ability to do so.

So when I say I don't like the "equality" polemic in the context of the article, I must mean I have the right to oppress and demean other human beings? That must be what was meant by replacing parts on a washing machine and suggesting that my nature is more competitive than attaining equality, guilty as every Olympic athlete . You kindly gave yourself the opportunity to clarify because for you it could be misrepresented. Yet what I said was just so clear and you provided a helpful summation.



"The reality that women are human beings and therefor entitled to equal respect and opportunity is crap? Hmmmmm."


Be honest and tell me that you fought the darkness by accusing me of this; Logically it means I said I want to oppress women and deny them opportunity and not by any real merit. I mean to make them lose , not to attain any progress.

Just say yes, and we will both agree that it would be best to purify the environs of my presence since we are not fit company, especially given the admiration that followed. I would not be among friends indeed. My ennui for the flame wars that has flung me to this strand makes this a credible offer. I am truly tired of it ,having rent Facebook in two and put down several other saddled beasts of so called forums with nothing but flaming rants begun with a speck of ambiguous flint. I grant you the power to ban me. Simply say that you were pure of heart exercising the demon, gwynedd, and the demon will flee into the abyss. Just say you knew that was what I meant, and it was fit to say this to a perfect stranger upon introducing yourself.

But I warn you of the peril of it because I can see by the standard you have set that it will injure you more if you lie to yourself about a proper dispensation of justice, and that you issued no provocation. Be sure its true. You are sure your proclamations of fighting the darkness will not ring hallow, and the scratching at the door is not a just comment looking for refuge with the arrival winter wind? It will not disturb your sleep? Are you sure I am what I am? Now is your chance to fight the darkness as you see fit.

Just say yes and I will thank you and log out for the last time , mute at my sentencing. I think it will go well enough either way.

[BadJuju]

Re: Does A More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex

Haha