RE: Double Standards

RE: Double Standards (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

dreamlady -> RE: Double Standards (2/5/2016 10:48:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ilovestarbucks healthy boundaries don't exist these days!!! if u assert urself they tell u to fuck off the more healthy boundaries u assert then no one wants to be around you. no one wants to be called on in their own shit That sounds like a communications problem. You (plural) can't very well establish and assert your boundaries without communicating effectively. Work on the effective communications angle, stay calm, be persuasive when the situation calls for a kid [leather] gloves approach and ask yourself how you can react more responsively or more appropriately to achieve the results you would want. This is never going to end. Not ever, throughout your lifetime. Then, of course, there are always going to be abrasive personalities who just aren't worth the time, energy & effort to try to deal with. You know, toxic people -- weed them out of your life as much as possible. Don't be one yourself, and don't turn into one either. The more you allow (and yes, you are allowing it) others to cross over the line and to impinge upon your personal space, to violate your boundaries, the more you encourage their unacceptable behavior. On the flipside, could anything you're doing (or not doing) be perceived by others as being rude or inconsiderate to them? May I ask who you are referring to by "they"? People in general, those people you have surrounded yourself with, your peers, people on the job, women in general, co-eds you want to date, or prospective female submissives you are vetting? I ask to see whether there is some kind of pattern to any of this with you or with other college-aged young men (from your part of the country there in LA) in particular. DreamLady Edit - typo {'prospective' NOT 'prospecting' Lol}

ilovestarbucks -> RE: Double Standards (2/6/2016 8:52:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dreamlady May I ask who you are referring to by "they"? People in general, those people you have surrounded yourself with, your peers, people on the job, women in general, co-eds you want to date, or prospective female submissives you are vetting? I ask to see whether there is some kind of pattern to any of this with you or with other college-aged young men (from your part of the country there in LA) in particular. DreamLady Edit - typo {'prospective' NOT 'prospecting' Lol} This is how it works. 1. You meet someone on match.com or POF. 2. She says, "I'm a quality woman and I want to meet someone who treats me as such." 3. So you have to take her to a nice restaurant. She doesn't want any cheap guys. 4. She orders most expensive meal, side dish and alcoholic beverage. 5. I listen to all her drama in life. Everyone has so much drama. 6. If I talk she doesn't really listen 1. You meet her for lunch and she continually texts saying she is running late. 2. She might be 40 minutes late but she doesn't consider herself being late because she texted you already. 3. You have to understand she has 3 kids and stuff always comes up. And she is late every single date. (But she is never late for work, dentist appt, hair cut appt, doctors visit, etc.) Everyone has excuses for their bad behaviors. And if you don't accept their excuses then fuck you!! I swear the only way you can get a woman interested in you is if you provide some sort of product or service for her. kkkkk i'm bitching and venting on someone elses post. Sorry

respectmen -> RE: Double Standards (2/6/2016 2:36:00 PM)
quote: I swear the only way you can get a woman interested in you is if you provide some sort of product or service for her. There is a lot of truth in that but most people don't want to admit it because "misogyny". Of course not all women are like this but that type of attitude from women is VERY common. A lot of women have a poisoned sense of entitlement. For a male to be good enough for them, he has to buy her shit and/or drive her around and be a taxi service. For what? Because she exist and allows him to spend time with her? What a chauvinist twat. Speaking of double standards, it's amazing how when a woman complains about a man not paying for her shit on a date, most people will think the male is the bad guy and she is the innocent victim. The male was a cheapskate yada yada... On the other hand, if a male was to complain about a woman not paying for his shit on a date, he would get laughed at and told he will never keep a woman with that attitude. The woman a cheapskate? Noooo never. Only men can be cheapskates apparently.

dreamlady -> RE: Double Standards (2/6/2016 5:21:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: respectmen Speaking of double standards, . . . he would get laughed at and told he will never keep a woman with that attitude. ROFLMMFAO[sm=rofl.gif] So, you're not so obtuse after all, grasshopper. You have to pass the qualifying rounds to get treated to home cooking and other gentleman caller privileges (which means acting like a gentleman in the first place), along with getting the girlfriend experience you seem to think YOU are automatically entitled to with little to no effort on your part. But yet again, you reveal your secret longings to be treated like a woman, to be on the supply side of the demand. You can have that, yanno, being on the supply side irrespective of gender. You just have to have the sought-after goods, whatever they may be. Your intransigence, however, keeps you from attaining that to which you aspire. Are you gigolo material? Hardly, because then you'd have to be adept at being an attentive boyfriend, a good companion, and pleasantly interesting company to be around, and I get the distinct impression that you wouldn't fit the bill. (I could be wrong. Anything is possible. [sm=whoa.gif]) Are you willing to bend your gender preference or become heteroflexible in order to appeal to a target demographic of males who might be willing to pamper you or treat you like their boytoy fantasy sex object? No? You want the world to bend to your whims. It doesn't work like that, not for anybody -- man or woman. There is always a price to pay, the only market variable is in what kind of social "currency" you have to exchange that others will accept in exchange for their own in striking up a successful bargain. DreamLady

respectmen -> RE: Double Standards (2/6/2016 6:05:58 PM)
http://cdn.meme.am/instances/11806081.jpg

dreamlady -> RE: Double Standards (2/6/2016 7:01:50 PM)
[sm=shame.gif] Tsk, tsk, equal does not mean the same. A mother and father can feel they love their children equally and try to treat them all equally according to their divergent personalities, but it would be a nearly impossible task to treat them all the same or to have the same exact parent/child relationship dynamic with each one. As a matter of fact, isn't it a common complaint among twins, for example, that at some point in their childhood development, that one or both of them will raise a protest at being treated the same? Yet who can claim that it wouldn't be unfair to deny them their individuality, their individual identities? Would they still not be expected to be treated equally, nonetheless? (Another example would be the pet-owner who has both a dog and a cat they are equally bonded with. It would be an absurd proposition to treat them exactly the same way or to interact with the cat as if it were a dog, or with the dog as if it were a cat! An intelligent, responsible pet-owner would interact with them individually, according to their varying temperaments.) Vive la différence! (It's what makes the world go round, world without end.) DreamLady Edit - inserted word

respectmen -> RE: Double Standards (2/6/2016 8:38:28 PM)
dreamlady, I really can't see how biological gender differences in any way on earth can relate to who is the one expected to be buying things and who is the one expected to pay. You seem to be trying to reason with this excuse out of thin air.

dreamlady -> RE: Double Standards (2/6/2016 9:34:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: respectmen dreamlady, I really can't see how biological gender differences in any way on earth can relate to who is the one expected to be buying things and who is the one expected to pay. You seem to be trying to reason with this excuse out of thin air. We're not talking about one person doing all the buying or all the giving in a relationship without the benefit of reciprocity. Perhaps I can put it to you in another way. Let's say you have certain mad problem-solving skills, talents and abilities in the business world. (Stay with me here.) You possess something that many other companies want, others who will "court" you or who might want to curry favor with you. Now, which headhunter are you going to go with? You may or may not be happy with your current situation. Are you seriously going to consider an offer from some fool who thinks that meeting you in a public setting means that you should pay for HIS lunch, when he's the one vetting YOU, but then acts as if he must not have any serious competition and that you must somehow be desperate for whatever breadcrumbs he decides to throw your way? Really? Is that how it works in your parallel but upside-down [ass-backwards] universe? Let's take it a step further. YOU are the headhunter scouting for fresh talent. What do you think would be your success rate if you went around complaining about how you're always expected to do all the buying, how freaking ungrateful and undeserving these bastards are who expect you to put your best foot forward, make a favorable impression on them, that they should consider themselves lucky that they aren't paying you a finder's fee upfront because you're such a fabulous headhunter. [8\|] Kinda shortsighted, doncha think? If and when you close the deal, you'll get your big fat commission from your pleased client (which in a dating scenario would be yourself as matchmaker). To the victor go the spoils (in love, or in the war of the corporate boardrooms -- nobody wins in the battle of the sexes, that's lose/lose). DreamLady

respectmen -> RE: Double Standards (2/6/2016 10:14:32 PM)
Dreamlady If I wasn't in a lazy mood, I could pinpoint more problems but lets just stick to the most obvious ones. Problem number 1: You are gender policing. Problem number 2: Speaking of reciprocation, why is it men are expected to give first? If the tables are turned, like...a man saying she has to fix me a sandwich to prove her worth and if she wants me to shout her out to dinner? Problem number 3: You seem to be making out that women are the winning prize and men are beneath them who have to win the said prize. If men had such an attitude, they would be considered chauvinist cavemen.

dreamlady -> RE: Double Standards (2/6/2016 10:52:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: respectmen Dreamlady If I wasn't in a lazy mood, I could pinpoint more problems but lets just stick to the most obvious ones. I actually like you better this way, not so hyper-vigilant. [8D] quote: ORIGINAL: respectmen Problem number 1: You are gender policing. We've hijacked this thread long enough as accessories. (I don't like you that much!) The topic of Double Standards has become unbalanced. There are other gender debates of sorts going on elsewhere. quote: ORIGINAL: respectmen Problem number 2: Speaking of reciprocation, why is it men are expected to give first? If the tables are turned, like...a man saying she has to fix me a sandwich to prove her worth and if she wants me to shout her out to dinner? At the risk of offending somebody somewhere, I've heard it summed up thusly. Men generally tend to place a higher value on immediate sexual gratification. They will trade intimacy and/or the implied "promise" of a relationship commitment as a bait-dangling tactic in order to reel in the meeting of their sexual needs. We dangle our own bait, naturally. But, women are generally more relationship-oriented and will trade sex in order to meet our intimacy needs. Somewhere in the middle, we both hope to get our primary needs met. This is why it should come as no surprise to you then that the onus then falls upon the man to show he has honorable intent and that he is trustworthy, if that is indeed what the woman in question values in a mate. quote: ORIGINAL: respectmen Problem number 3: You seem to be making out that women are the winning prize and men are beneath them who have to win the said prize. If men had such an attitude, they would be considered chauvinist cavemen. Refer to the above. Once you can apprehend and appreciate how instinctive mating rituals are designed, you can decide whether you want to harness the natural flow of yin/yang energies, or choose to continue to fight an uphill battle from down there in the wretchedly lonely trenches. DreamLady

respectmen -> RE: Double Standards (2/6/2016 11:05:43 PM)
quote: Men generally tend to place a higher value on immediate sexual gratification. They will trade intimacy and/or the implied "promise" of a relationship commitment as a bait-dangling tactic in order to reel in the meeting of their sexual needs. So treating men as people who are guilty until proven innocent of evil simply because of their gender is a healthy and reasonable way in forming relationships with men? Would an "guilty until proven innocent" attitude approve against women based on their gender? Or how about against blacks based on race or muslims based on religion? quote: Refer to the above. Once you can apprehend and appreciate how instinctive mating rituals are designed, you can decide whether you want to harness the natural flow of yin/yang energies, or choose to continue to fight an uphill battle from down there in the wretchedly lonely trenches. Which holds no logic at all in why women should be placed above men. If men are valued more than women in any area, OMG misogyny and chauvinism. Valuing one gender over the other isn't going to do any favours in gender relations.

dreamlady -> RE: Double Standards (2/7/2016 12:52:49 AM)
Delving into what gets construed as being right or wrong is not about good and evil. You're taking a mighty big leap there in value judgments and wrongfully internalizing them. That doesn't make you "evil," btw, for doing that. Just dead wrong. [sm=hewah.gif] As for relative "value" between males and females in every species. If you have a herd of 20 females, you theoretically only need 1 virile male to repopulate, not 20 males (not taking into account the desirability of genetic pool diversification, in which case it would be better to have 3, making 17 males of the species non-essential instead of 19 non-essential males). You do the math. There is no female conspiracy that set this domino effect into motion, and there certainly weren't any human females involved. [image]http://cdn.collarspace.com/attachments/020716/20551899-CFE0-4E86-892A-2C66EBA7EC221.jpg[/image] DreamLady

CodeOfSilence -> RE: Double Standards (2/7/2016 1:44:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes Huh! So this is you? http://img1.joyreactor.com/pics/post/auto-9gag-1688241.jpeg In 2011? http://joyreactor.com/post/1668277 More like tripple digits! AMRITE?! looking for a fistbump Oh common it wasn't horrible! ...

Greta75 -> RE: Double Standards (2/7/2016 9:33:52 PM)
quote: I swear the only way you can get a woman interested in you is if you provide some sort of product or service for her. It's hypocritical for men to ever say this, unless men, prove to me, you are willing to love and honour a woman for the rest of your life without receiving sex from her? All men won't be interested in a woman, unless he receives sexual services from her. So don't complain about what you practice as well. I know plenty of women who will volunteer to be with a man for life who will never ask sex of her! If you are a man who don't ever want sexual services from your wife for life, let me point you to some girls who hates sex, they really will be happy with you.

ilovestarbucks -> RE: Double Standards (2/8/2016 3:45:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 If you are a man who don't ever want sexual services from your wife for life, let me point you to some girls who hates sex, they really will be happy with you. I always was under the impression that men, or women, who hate sex, was sexually abused as a child. And that's why they hate sex.

Greta75 -> RE: Double Standards (2/8/2016 4:03:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ilovestarbucks I always was under the impression that men, or women, who hate sex, was sexually abused as a child. And that's why they hate sex. Some people are just asexual, but they still need love.

respectmen -> RE: Double Standards (2/9/2016 12:36:54 AM)
quote: It's hypocritical for men to ever say this No, it's not unless a woman is asexual. Last time I checked, when a woman isn't asexual and agrees to have sex with a man (unless she is a prostitute), she agreed to have sex because SHE LIKES THE IDEA TOO. You would actually have a point if all women didn't enjoy sex. The problem with the argument of "men owing women for sex" is that women enjoy sex too. So why should men owe women fucking anything simply because she gave him a root? What you are asking for is female privilege. A man has to impress the woman 2 ways. One way, with money, the other with sex. A woman only has to impress a man one way...with the sex that SHE ENJOYS TOO...yet a man owes her something for what she enjoyed too. If this isn't female chauvinism, what is?

Greta75 -> RE: Double Standards (2/9/2016 2:05:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: respectmen You would actually have a point if all women didn't enjoy sex. The problem with the argument of "men owing women for sex" is that women enjoy sex too. So why should men owe women fucking anything simply because she gave him a root? In Asia, many women don't like sex at all, and believe sex is only duty they got to give a man for his pleasure, because they don't like it, but will do it for the sake of making their man happy. Many will be happy to never ever have sex ever! Except for kids. But they could go through artificial insemination too, without having to go through sex. So definitely sex is a service they give to the man, for their pleasure, but not for their own pleasure because they don't get pleasure from it. Take myself for example. I cannot receive pleasure from penetration. So if a man wants to penetrate me, it's 100% of his pleasure only, and not mine. I am providing my vagina for him to penetrate for his pleasure only. I literally can't cum at all from penetration. Infact, I can't cum from penetration of all my 3 holes. It doesn't hurt me, but it also does not give me a single sensation. So...., I would say, for a man to do that, is just me providing him a service, since I receive absolutely zero pleasure from allowing him to fuck any of my holes. But I don't know any man who is okay to be with a woman without getting a BJ, anal sex, or vagina sex. Usually they need at least one. The fact that so many men are cheating in their marriages, due to lack of sex from their woman, tells me that, not many women actually genuinely enjoy sex at all, but they got to entertain their man for sex, because men wants it. I mean, to me, the only reason why women could literally avoid having sex, some for years, is because they seriously don't enjoy it. Trust me, if you love and enjoy and crave for something, you're gonna want to do it all the time. To be reluctant to do it, means you are dreading it. Am I saying there aren't women who loves sex exists? I'm saying it's a 50-50 thing this world, women who loves sex and women who don't. Alot of women don't love sex. And many men end up with them. So, it is hypocritical of men, yes. As many are married to women who do not like sex. And are not faithful because they can't get sex from their wives. They do expect their wife to give them sex, whether they like it or not. It's a service they expect and because their wife neglect to provide that service, they go elsewhere. Just like I will always let a man I marry penetrate me, or give him a blow job, because it's for his pleasure, nothing for me. IF a woman doesn't appreciate sex from you? Then what else? Would you still be willing to love and honour her for life? If she hates sex with you? Another fact is, more women than men are willing to give up good sex for just an emotionally close relationship. It also tells me how low sex ranks in woman's life in general.

AtUrCervix -> RE: Double Standards (2/10/2016 3:47:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MuscleBoundDom Both men and women are accused of double standards. I was texting with a woman and she wanted to know how tall I was. I told her 6'. She said that is acceptable. She is 5' 11" so she only wants to date men who are 6' or taller. I asked her how much does she weigh? She said, "What!?" I told her when she gets on the scale, what is the digital number that appears? She told me I'm rude and shallow - what does weight have anything to do with anything? I told her I'm fit so I want to only date fit women. She then cussed me out. I think you should hunt her down and slap the bitch out. (Pejoratively speaking.....of course).

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 6 [7]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125