Do Women Really Want To Kill Men?

"Social media and media have nothing to do with it, rapists committing rape does", please re-read that sentence and tell me you're not serious. A culture that today, glorifies sex like never before and desensitizes it and you think media plays absolutely no factor in the part of sexual crimes?

Furthermore, as you point out, a lack of understanding of how wrong it is is also a factor, you don't hold up the media and our (oh so lacking) educational programs to task for that flaw? Also, I'd say to re-read that entire paragraph. You state rape is not cultural, then you proceed to blame rape on culture :D

My logic isn't flawed, the logic that's flawed, is one that naievely and innocently believes that we've come "far" in this progressive age when in fact the only thing we've managed to accomplish is blur the lines further, and desensitize ourselves even further.

We've actually taken a step back, my friend.

Social media does not condone sexual assault.

If anything, it brings up sex as a subject we can discuss, rather than making it completely taboo and "sacred".

And you see absolutely nothing wrong with that. **Sighs** I give up, that's what sex education supposedly was for, it's what our parents are for but some of these measures somewhere down the line also dropped the ball.

Social Media doesn't have to condone anything, it just has to glorify it via actually showing it. When Social Media glorified the Columbine killings, it gave other kids the idea of actually trying it out.

We're not "progressing" anywhere, our media has done absolutely nothing for us. All we've done, is deteriorate, regress. Our discussing has only brought more harm, not good.

I give up, if you see the state of sexual affairs in developing countries as "progressed", and I do not, we will never concur. And as we will never concur, it's no longer a debate. It's endless repetition.

Nothing wrong with people openly discussing a relevant topic is now bad...if they disagree with you. It seems like you're going on a tangent on how the media = responsible for parents and sex education?



Also no, giving something coverage doesn't glorify it. I do agree that sometimes a few media outlets take things to the extreme to get every single possible angle of a news story. If anything, to actually commit crimes like the kids in Columbine, there was something wrong with them already.



Tell me what you think "media" is first, and how it's "regressing".
Also explain to me this point you brought up twice, on how it does harm. Give me some statistics proving your point too, or at least explain yourself in more details. Because even though there's still a lot of unreported sexual assaults, the likelihood of someone living in a western nation, female or male will confess to being sexually assaulted to the authorities.



Keep blabbering. I don't think think things are perfect in western nations, but you seem the one who isn't open for debate.

Cruz: Sex education, as well as the parenting responsibilities of a parent was in part responsible for the pupils of the Human Race if you will, for learning about sexual decency. In addition to this, the value we put on the feminine(or used to put on it anyway) was another guard against sexual perversion and ill-behavior. But now, it's "open" and as for the reprecussions? We can't do anything about it. Too bad.

The Media has evolved in recent years, it used to be TV Anchors and Radio, now it's Facebook, Twitter, etc. And whereas the media used to be neutral and bi-partsian, it's now political and objective. The personal opinions, thoughts and the 'open to interpretation' policy of "journalists" today, has set back American Media by several years.

Now, how am I not open to debate by participating in this conversation with you, despite the fact that we won't concur on anything? I believe the world we've "progressed" to is a major failure, a great set-back in human experience, you believe otherwise. There's no middle ground.

No I'm pretty sure it's suppose to be we can be open about something, while recognizing that by enforcing some gender roles, we're fucking up. Chivalry was not a noble concept. Neither is forcing women to wear a burka.



Yes how and from whom we get our information has changed. Are there political motivated sources or sensationalism, yeah. Is it all purely concentrated evil, no. My original statement was that most mainstream media doesn't condone sexual assault, you said it did by "glorifying" it. I never said it was flawless.



I won't concur to anything because you never gave me reason to. If anything you reinforce me hatred of whiteknight , that however does not mean I won't hear your opinions, or not challenge them.


I don't like feminism(NOW, feminist theory, etc.) much, but not for the same reasons you do. I don't think all progress has gone in the right direction either.
I just don't think instantly blaming media(which again, entails soooo many things) is just running away from the actual problem. Or lacking to examine the problem or talk about it openly.

'Chivalry', as you and the others called it, was believing that a female has special qualities, these qualities place the female superior to the male. Get it, Superior? Does it have to be spelled individually with letters?

S-U-P-E-R-I-O-R. A male with any actual values to him, would believe this to be true and treat his wife, GF, significant other with the utmost respect. These values not only placed value to the female, but by enforcing those values, we placed gentlemanly values on the male.

IE: Be courteous to women, see their inner value for it's true worth. But now that the feminine undermines itself through it's "open-ended expression", this also undermines the male's higher value. After all, there's nothing special about the feminine, so why should a male feel the need to act on a higher level?

We tend to treat things we hold sacred with more value, a world that holds nothing sacred, has no value.

That's a really great simplification for something that has both misandry and misogyny.


I guess a female can only be an object that can be abused or honored, men can only be valued on how they treat that object...Naw. I know that men are females are different, and both genders should be respected. But I'm not gonna congratulate a women for being a women. Nor am I gonna judge a man solely on how useful he is for women.
Also your opinions are not "superior".



I'll be courteous and respectful to everyone, until I feel they no longer "deserve" it. I don't think it's up to me to enforce "femininity" among females or to deny it from them.

What is the "inner value" of a person?



That's fine. Don't get mad when someone questions why...or *gasp* wants to have an open debate about it.

I don't get "mad", I find it stupid when people can't comprehend a concept or for that matter, seemingly takes my sentences out of context because their reading comprehension is not up to par. Where, in that sentence did I say my "opinions" were superior? Also, the idea of the Sacred Feminine is not to look at Women as an 'Object', the statement of the Sacred Feminine, is to put women in general on the level of a Goddess. Does that word also need spelling for you?

G-O-D-D-E-S-S. Look it up in the dictionary, and for that matter, look at depictions and images of a Goddess. I'm saying that in terms of a female's personality, a male should look at his lover in that way. Treating her as such.
You are not congratulating a woman for being a woman, As a respectful male, you are elevating her and yourself to your highest levels as a couple, expressing your best individual value as well.

Nor does anyone 'enforce' femininity, nor do we deny it. It's called encouragement. Feminism today, ironically is denying females their feminism. By believing in the Sacred Femininity, we allow for women to express their highest quality.

If you STILL have trouble comprehending this, then there's no helping you lol.

Your ignorance and refusal to examine the boons of feminism from an objective point of view makes me sad.
You say right there, a "woman's highest quality" (there is no objective highest quality for any human being, let alone females) is some sort of ideal feminine construction of antiquated culture.

Your logic is flawed, so until such time as you fix your erroneous thinking, all your arguments are invalid.

No, my friend, your ignorance is what's "sad" here. You stated that my logic is flawed, rendering my arguments invalid without reasoning as to why my logic is flawed. At that intellectual level, do you really think you can hold a candle to me?

You're quite incorrect that there's "no objective" highest quality, it's objective, we can observe it. Your incapability of observing it, doesn't make it not so. The difference between a female that can respect her body, herself and her lover. And a female that disregards it all, any real man would chose the former(the respecting female) over the latter.

Your intellectual acumen is far inferior to mine, so I'd like you to take your own advice about your arguments.

Perhaps logic was the wrong term to use. I believe the issue is that they find your premise to be false, and thus the conclusions you have drawn to be false. Thus they must refute your premise. This was attempted in the statement.



Along those lines we can even see that the highest qualities of female change over time. If we consider the woman's appearance, there have been many and continuous changes over the ideal look. Here is a more drastic comparison. circa 23,000 BCE we have the Venus of Willendorf


While you have to love hips that go on forever one can then look to Western Civilization's ideal woman in the 1960's Lesley "Twiggy" Lawson. Who completely changed what the ideal woman should look like for that period.


Should we look at other "qualities" of females we still see changing ideals. There was a time when it was not only not allowed for a woman to be taught but it was criminal; today it is strange to find a woman with no education at all. So the mind cannot be the ideal. What of her personality? How many cultures have stated woman as the subservient sex. Her personality was not a mute subject, but to be a mute subject. That the only thing of value she could offer a husband is her virginity. There are still some cultures where if a woman loses her virginity with or without her consent she will be killed by her own family as a point of honor. A Mercy Killing. A mercy to her. Because what else does she have to live for? I am personally glad that that women in the Western World are being defined less by what lies betwixt their legs. The point being that the ideals are based from subjective criteria, and therefore loses objectivity.



Even if a quality can objectively be observed, the meaning behind such an observation is not inherently objective as well. Anyone of sufficient latitude can observe Aurora Borealis, but whether it was the light shining off the armor of Valkyries, the renewal of the goddess Aurora, or even charged particles passing through the magnetosphere. Only one of these statements is objectively true, and it takes a great deal of testing to prove it is so.

Finally on the idea of a "Goddess" from someone who has made that tragic mistake in the past. You cannot make her into a Goddess. She is not. She is human. She has strength. She has weakness. To make her into a Goddess is a form of objectification, because you place her on a pedestal where no one can reach her. Not even the one that put her there. It may seem like it is a way to protect them, away to be a better person for them. But most sadly it is not. It is a matter of partnership. A give and take. An acceptance of flaws. Not because a code demands you to do so, but because it is someone you want to help in this manner.

I appreciate your comments, you actually provoked me to think about how I was to reply. You are indeed correct, that over the years and millenia that what society believed to be the 'ideal' for a woman has changed. This, I submit however isn't just an application to the feminine but rather to all of life as well. And no doubt, during the eons of the past there was a sense of submission and an inferiority complex from the male species, resulting in the maltreatment of the female.

And to your example of the Aurora, I would like to say this: Sometimes we place too much of an emphasis on the word 'objective'. In other words, without bias. Even as we look at scientific graphs or attempt to solve a problem, we want to do so with our original premise in mind. Or that is to say, a state of Bias always exists in the mind.

If we can concur to that, then we can make the statement that there's no such thing as objectivity, just as there's no such thing as morality. For a person's morals can differ from civilization, to civilization as you yourself pointed out in this post.

I will acknowledge, that there's a Bias in the way that I see women. I see them as the Sacred Feminine, and I'll acknowledge even further that I couldn't possibly see them as any less, to do so is an insult to womanhood itself in my opinion.

Finally, you state that believing the Feminine to be the same as the Goddess is a form of objectification. For I place the Feminine on a pedestal where no one can reach her, not even I myself.

Whenever we speak of an ideal human partner, we want certain qualities over others. This means that all people treat others in a form of objectification. Secondly, I don't believe I place the Feminine on a pedestal. When we call LeBron James the best basketball player in the N.B.A as a sports example, is that a pedestal? He's arguably proved it to be true, so it's not a form of pedestal.

Calling the Feminine Sacred isn't denying her weaknesses, it's saying that in spite of those weaknesses, she still shines as Venus, the morning star. The qualities of the feminine, at it's finest is unmatched. Whether it be a tomboy, a tsundere or even heck yes, a yandere, one thing is universal: A female who loves, gives the male or female companion, a feeling of undeniable strength and closeness.

The Feminine have demonstrated throughout the ages, that they are incredibly smart, witty and creative. And if our beliefs in beauty have changed over the eons, that means that women have also demonstrated that their beauty knows no bounds.

I'm not taking away her humanity, nor am I judging her. I'm seeing her for who she is, and I'm valuing that beauty that shines through no matter what the personality.
There's only one personality, that I cannot tolerate: The cult of self-sacrifice in the name of pleasure.

And not because, in the old ages of those flawed beliefs as it relates to virginity. But strictly because, a woman who sacrifices everything for a meager moment of self-pleasure, or a woman who feels economically forced to do so, is a woman that has been stripped bare of her pride and femininity. When she sacrifices herself in a sexual manner, she has truly become an object.

I want to create a world where she's not viewed as an object. She is a human, she's simply the highest form of humanity.

I understand where you're coming from, I just don't agree with you. Also no, this isn't about feminine, or prizing it, it's about that white knight ego you seem to have.




Stop doing that.



I'm sorry, I don't worship someone for simple having a vagina.



This isn't exclusive to chivalry, or men only.



...



Encouraging aspects solely based on how feminine we find them? Or even worse, simple for being "feminine"?



That's not what feminism it about though. Nor is femininity their highest quality(subjective).



Points proven = 0
You can continue to try and teach me how to spell things out, because it seems that's all you can do.
ps. You did a poor job at refuting rx7b9er last paragraph.

And you also proved no points, other than that you still do not somehow understand what I'm trying to tell you. There's nothing egotistic, or self-satisfying about elevating the feminine to her highest level. If anything, it's inflecting a wound to the Alpha Ego of a masucline male. I'm not stroking my own ego here, I merely wish to defend a concept we seem to have forgotten.

You point out that treating a significant other with the utmost respect isn't limited to men, and that's true that it isn't. But it is a responsibility that men have mostly dropped the ball on.

What do you have against encouraging a female's femininity? A woman's femininity is the base of her character, she who treats herself with dignity and respect is a woman who I would love and admire greatly. It is not the end all, be all.

Nor am I rejecting open sexuality, all I've ever said was: A woman should only be open sexually with a man she actually likes, loves. And not just as for the flavor of the moment.

Let's reverse the roles: If I said a man should only be sexual with a woman he likes and loves, and doesn't go about banging every woman out there, you'd be like "Yeah, duh.

That's hypocritical. Both genders should respect themselves, their partners and the idea of sex altogether.

That's Love in it's highest form, and it's respect for our fellow beings at it's highest form.

You have no idea what he would say. You are assuming he would take a hypocritical position, and relying on a strawman argument

And on the subject of revered roles, for me i think everyone should be true to themselves. Some people just aren't ok with casual sex, and i would never tell them to go against what they feel, whether they are male or female.

The assumption is pretty strongly leaning in my favor, he views valuing the feminine as 'objective', but at the same time the act of a man banging any woman he pleases is also treating the woman as an object, to remain consistent, he'd have to say in effect that a man should only be sexual with a woman he likes and loves.

Sure, people can go for what they feel and that includes casual sex. But I don't think casual sex should be so freely advertised, I find 3d porn more or less repulsive precisely because it treats both the women and the idea of sex as an object.

Feel free to have casual sex, it doesn't matter to me, I'm not bigoted against it. I'm against the idea of spreading it out so blatantly public as to ruin the meaning of sex.

I couldn't care less who or what you freaking did it with :D.

This thread is so off topic and so skewed that I think it's beyond help.

Sure doesn't look like you're not bigoted against it.



Meaning? Sex had a meaning? So all the things I hear about it just being another high form of pleasure is a lie?

If we're talking about the meaning LITERALLY, here you go.



Nowhere does the "sanctity of marriage" or "holy intimacy between lovers only" or any of that bullshit come into that definition, so something tells me you either have a different dictionary, or you're just deluding yourself.