Men see the lost cause of dating (girls don't like men) will it actully cause society to fall apart? - Page 11 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15200498
late wrote:1820

So, all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. Who cares if over 51,000 sexually abused women were ignored in the UK last year; it's 2021.

Is that about right?


:lol:
#15200501
Pants-of-dog wrote:@late
Since the topic has now shifted to date rape, is there any evidence or logical reason to support the claim that date rape is less of a problem now than in 1820?


Since dating wasn't as big of deal back in 1820's, depends on where I guess, the standard social mating being that younger women were household servants for their family and later household servants for their husbands. As Industrialisation progressed women began entering the workforce and instead of carding wool, spinning and weaving in the home they instead began doing these things in a factory setting. Young women in effect became the first factory workers.

Education, wealth, independence, participation in social and political affairs. All the things taken for granted today were developing milestones 200 years ago.

As for rape in general I guess rape by men against women has changed settings and date rapes are more prominent today with men who still wish to dominate their women like before. But sexual exploitation was staggering in those days so pick your poison. :)
#15200511
@snapdragon

Yeah, I think for people on the dating scene these days, it's best to go for coffee for the first few dates because it's low investment and low pressure. It's easy for people to just bail if they decide they don't like the other person too. Nobody picking the other person up. They just get there on their own to a nice public coffee shop. it just saves a lot of hassle and keeps things simple. It's low risk for everybody too.
#15200514
ingliz wrote:
So, all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. Who cares if over 51,000 sexually abused women were ignored in the UK last year; it's 2021.

Is that about right?




This sort of thing is additive. Rule of Law is rule of precedence, with the occasional adjustment like giving women rights and voting.

So add something.
#15200518
Pants-of-dog wrote:
@late

Since the topic has now shifted to date rape, is there any evidence or logical reason to support the claim that date rape is less of a problem now than in 1820?



Funny, I thought it was doom and gloom..

I'm not going to narrow my discussion that much. Overall, women are better off. If you have something you want to do about date rape, I doubt I'll have a problem with that.

Date rape wasn't much of a problem in the early 1800s. It's funny, how much norms change. A few of the colonies had bundling. A young man would 'sleep' in the beds of various young women, in the their homes. When one got pregnant, marriage would quickly ensue. They kept the reproduction rate close to theoretical limits, but being gay must have really sucked.
#15200520
SpecialOlympian wrote:
The court isn't going to dismantle the country. They're simply going to punish women for having sex without the intent to procreate, just as God intended.

Those are two completely separate things.



It's a secular country, you cannot use an argument based in religion in a court of law.
#15200525
late wrote:Funny, I thought it was doom and gloom..

I'm not going to narrow my discussion that much. Overall, women are better off. If you have something you want to do about date rape, I doubt I'll have a problem with that.

Date rape wasn't much of a problem in the early 1800s. It's funny, how much norms change. A few of the colonies had bundling. A young man would 'sleep' in the beds of various young women, in the their homes. When one got pregnant, marriage would quickly ensue. They kept the reproduction rate close to theoretical limits, but being gay must have really sucked.


I think we can agree that, in terms of date rape, we have no idea if things are better now than in 1820.

It could easily be worse.

Since that is the case, it might be misleading to simply say that things are better.
#15200587
Pants-of-dog wrote:
I think we can agree that, in terms of date rape, we have no idea if things are better now than in 1820.

It could easily be worse.

Since that is the case, it might be misleading to simply say that things are better.



You miss the point. There wasn't dating, as we know it, back then.

But if you are at all familiar with the history, you would be barking mad to ignore the improvements.

Women were property.
#15200599
late wrote:All of them, I'm sure

No, not every man but not every woman was property then either.

After the revolution in every state, the legal status of free women depended upon marital status. Unmarried women, including widows, were called “femes soles,” or “women alone.” They had the legal right to live where they pleased and to support themselves in any occupation that did not require a license or a college degree restricted to males. Single women could enter into contracts, buy and sell real estate, or accumulate personal property, which was called personalty. It consisted of everything that could be moved - cash, stocks and bonds, livestock, and, in the South, slaves. So long as they remained unmarried, women could sue and be sued, write wills, serve as guardians, and act as executors of estates. These rights were a continuation of the colonial legal tradition. But the revolutionary emphasis on equality brought some important changes in women’s inheritance rights. State lawmakers everywhere abolished primogeniture and the tradition of double shares of a parent’s estate, inheritance customs that favoured the eldest son. Instead, equal inheritance for all children became the rule - a big gain for daughters.


:)
#15200603
late wrote:You miss the point. There wasn't dating, as we know it, back then.

But if you are at all familiar with the history, you would be barking mad to ignore the improvements.

Women were property.


Please let me know when you have evidence or strong logic supporting the claim that date rape is less of a problem now than in 1820.

Thank you.
#15200608
Re: Men see the lost cause of dating (girls don't like men) will it actully cause society to fall apart?


Well apparently it will. I sincerely believe that we are teaching young girls to intensely dislike men. We have declared war on romance. I totally get why some men are just giving up on the whole process. Porn offers a wonderful substitute for some cowering font of fear or camouflage-wearing propounder of misandry.

But these women, though loud, are not common. Thank god. Anna said:

What woman would want to marry a man who doesn't want to work unless his dating life is meeting his expectations, or the kind of man who doesn't realize the share women have always had in holding society together?


They have held society together. Like it or not women today = family. Oh sure there are some cute gay male families. Good for them. But the numbers speak for themselves. As @ingliz said, over 70% of people "have been" married. So it is still the dominant thing and it is usually very traditional.

As for the working issue, that has to do with the fact that the GINI index is in the ozone and one average worker cannot support himself/herself not to mention a family. The fact is that women work because they have to work. That horse has already left the barn and modern conservatism, which ironically touts the importance of "traditional values" does not care enough about this to do something about men who work hard but cannot even dream of supporting a family on his pay.


So add to this load of bricks on the heads of men, someone claiming that all women should be frightened of all men because she would not know if the man was going to rape them. Absurd.

Then we devolved, as these discussions do to the wide variety of things we refer to as sexual assault today. Which, by the way, in some states includes whistling at women. Plays old Harry with the statistics.

Now we are trying to decide whether women have "it" better than they did "before" and we are discussing colonial laws and customs.

So the answer to the initial question is "yes" many men do see diminishing returns when evaluating traditional dating AND marriage. And they are not wrong to make the calculation.

There is an old saying, "men of quality are not afraid of women of equality". This still holds true. Just. But if we keep going down the road of vilifying men this will continue to change. If we convince men that they are powerless in the face of 40 year old allegations, true or not, this will not get any better. Oh we might fix the issue of boorish behavior, outlaw whistling and convince women that they need to arm themselves to go to the grocery store but society will not be served by this.

Already we are seeing what happens when the pendulum swings too far. Just look at the Taliban. Is this impossible in the US? Could there ever be that much male push back here? There already is. We are just ignoring the right wing websites. Men ARE dangerous. Not in the say Snapdragon wants us to believe. They are dangerous because they are inclined to act when the perceive danger to their country, religion and way of life. One thing is sure. Feminism needs to be very careful that it does not continue into the realm of feminine supremacy. That will not go well. Or on for long.

@Pants-of-dog let me know when you have evidence or strong logic supporting the claim that date rape is less of a problem now than in 1820.


Who gives a shit? This is just one of your usual attempts at misdirection. I will ignore the stupid question.
#15200612
@Pants-of-dog
Please be less rude.


I am not being rude. Just direct. I know your crowd eschews that sort of thing.

If you want to believe that women have a magical ability to know who will rape them and when, feel free to believe that.


This is not about "belief". I know that the overwhelming majority of women do not harbor irrational fears nor are they let them be paralyzed by irrational fears.
#15200614
I don't know what would be @Pants-of-dog's reason to post that silly piece. Does he really believe feminists (and everyone else for that matter) trusts so-called male allies? Hope he isn't suggesting being a male ally is something that will turn anyone on, because no one (particularly feminists) buys that:

https://www.thecrimson.com/column/femme ... -feminist/
  • 1
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 15

(Translation: Why aren't you defaulting to your l[…]

I didn't vote for Dan Andrews. Two governments in[…]

Tribalism

One thing that is important to recognize is the tr[…]

Meth and the homeless

Fix many problems at once. https://i.im[…]