The Curse On Women

[Calm]

Even in a coma an orgasm may be involved. Drugs can trigger erections. An orgasm isn't needed to release sperm.

If a woman has an orgasm during forced sex, it is still rape. and it does happen. Why would it be different for a man?

Arousal and orgasm does not always indicate willingness.

Edited March 16, 2015 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Huh?

 

So being smaller and weaker is not "biology"?

Biology is not the only thing involved, emotions, social behaviour, mental habits...all aspects of a woman's life are impacted by being smaller and weaker than most men.

[bluebell]

Huh?

So being smaller and weaker is not "biology"?

I'm not sure how you got "is not biology" from "is more than biology" but Cal's answer is what I was saying.

[Senator]

Men don't have to initiate physical intimacy.  They just have to be physically able to go along with it if the woman initiates first.  I know plenty of women who are almost always the one to initiate sex in their marriage.

Yeah i didn't buy that either.

Edited March 16, 2015 by Senator

[Nofear]

For the record, a male can be raped in the same way a woman can. Don't want to derail the thread, just an FYI post.
 

Male victims/survivors are often ashamed and confused when their body responds during an assault. Frequently, men who are sexually assaulted or raped have an involuntary or forced erection or ejaculation. Also, muscles in the anus often relax when a man is raped. This does not mean that the survivor wanted to be raped or sexually assaulted. Involuntary erections and ejaculations are normal reactions to physical stimulation even when sex is non-consensual.
 
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/12/04/male-rape-victims-and-the-penetration-problem/

[JLHPROF]

Don't want to derail the thread, just an FYI post.

 

 

This thread has already been derailed from doctrine into really unpleasant topic territory...

[Calm]

Yeah i didn't buy that either.

You should.

I suspect they get in the habit of not wanting to put pressure on their wife due to her being tired with the kids or whatever.

And not all men have stronger sex drives than their wives.

[Buckeye]

This thread has already been derailed from doctrine into really unpleasant topic territory...

 

Let's see. The title is "the curse on women." And 4 pages in we're talking about men being raped. Somehow I don't see this thread producing a fruitful discussion.

[JLHPROF]

Let's see. The title is "the curse on women." And 4 pages in we're talking about men being raped. Somehow I don't see this thread producing a fruitful discussion.

 

Agreed.

[mfbukowski]

Biology is not the only thing involved, emotions, social behaviour, mental habits...all aspects of a woman's life are impacted by being smaller and weaker than most men.

Oh gosh I don't know how this could get so convoluted.

 

My point was a simple one.

 

Women are smaller and weaker than most men.  There is an evolutionary purpose in that fact of life.  We get to figure that out I guess since no one likes the way I put it.  I don't want to draw any pictures here verbal or otherwise.

 

This thread is about "the curse on women"

 

"Being smaller and weaker" is the evolutionary description of what is sometimes interpreted as being the "curse on women".   The fact that "women are smaller and weaker than most men" is not going away soon.  This is what I mean as "biology"

 

It is of course a cultural imperative that the biological facts are not to be interpreted as a "curse".  We all want equality between men and women and all people.

 

My sole point is that because the culture has changed in the last hundred years, the biological realities are not going to change.

 

That means they need to be acknowledged and not ignored and pretending that they are non-existent is just putting one's head in the sand.

 

Is that more clear?   Women are different than men and that is not going away no matter how much some want it to go away

Edited March 16, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Let's see. The title is "the curse on women." And 4 pages in we're talking about men being raped. Somehow I don't see this thread producing a fruitful discussion.

Totally agreed.  This is just nuts.

[Calm]

Not really, sorry.

"This is the evolutionary description of what is sometimes interpreted as being the "curse on women"."

Not sure where you are going with this...,women are dependent historically on men for protection and providing of needs? Men tend to be more polygynous and women monogamous?

[mfbukowski]

Not really, sorry.

"This is the evolutionary description of what is sometimes interpreted as being the "curse on women"."

Not sure where you are going with this...,women are dependent historically on men for protection and providing of needs? Men tend to be more polygynous and women monogamous?

In fairness I edited that post before I saw this one to make it more clear.

 

That's ok I'm out.

 

The biology is not going away.  That's all I have to say.  If that gets twisted, there is not much I can do about it, just like biology. 

[bluebell]

In fairness I edited that post before I saw this one to make it more clear.

 

That's ok I'm out.

 

The biology is not going away.  That's all I have to say.  If that gets twisted, there is not much I can do about it, just like biology. 

 

I guess what has confused me is that i've never made the connection between 'the curse of eve' and women's biology.  I can't think of any part of being physically weaker than men that makes the idea of eve's curse relevant.  

 

Women work just as physically hard as men all the time, so i don't believe that adam was told to till the ground because his body is more suited to it than Eve's, for example.

 

And women's smaller size and weaker musculature (in general) don't make it any easier or more possible for a woman to have a baby than if we were bigger and stronger.

 

Perhaps if you could explain how women being smaller and weaker has a connection to the curse of Eve (as some people interpret it)?

 

No one is talking about making the biology go away, that i've seen anyways.  Maybe i missed something.  Again, i don't see how biology and the curse of eve are related.

[bluebell]

You should.

I suspect they get in the habit of not wanting to put pressure on their wife due to her being tired with the kids or whatever.

And not all men have stronger sex drives than their wives.

 

I read senator's post as saying he didn't agree with mfb on the idea that men have to be the initiator either.  But maybe i'm misunderstanding him.

[juliann]

 

 

This thread is about "the curse on women"

 

"Being smaller and weaker" is the evolutionary description of what is sometimes interpreted as being the "curse on women".   The fact that "women are smaller and weaker than most men" is not going away soon.  This is what I mean as "biology"

 

 

Men being stronger and thus gaining control of law making that protected their interests let them get away with codifying the curse but it isn't the curse. 

[Calm]

I read senator's post as saying he didn't agree with mfb on the idea that men have to be the initiator either.  But maybe i'm misunderstanding him.

Of course...my mistake, thanks.

[mfbukowski]

Men being stronger and thus gaining control of law making that protected their interests let them get away with codifying the curse but it isn't the curse. 

Well for you I will come back in. 

 

Now my response:

Huh?

Yes men codified the law and protected their interests- honestly out of ignorance, believing the cultural lie that women were actually inferior.  It's not like a hundred guys got together and plotted female inferiority- it was what the whole culture believed BECAUSE indeed women were physically smaller and weaker.

 

When the measure of "work" is plowing a field and lifting bales of hay, women are inferior to men.   When the measure of "work" includes social interaction and making peace and working out social problems, women are superior.  Maybe you would want to make women "equal" but I honestly believe that they are superior at these things- women are the civilizing elements of society- no question.

 

But I don't understand what you mean by "it isn't the curse"

 

What are you saying IS "the curse"?

 

My point in getting into the thread in the first place was that there was no "curse"- it was the interpretation that women, being smaller and weaker WAS "the curse".

 

I don't think God said those words, I think it was a cultural interpretation created by patriarchy.   So that is proposition number 1.

 

On the other hand, I think what we CALL "patriarchy" evolved due to the fact that women's biology- (gotta watch that word apparently- ie smaller, weaker, having breasts therefore feeding babies, better at keeping the tribe civilized, not built for making war and killing predators)- goes beyond culture because it is so basic to the construction of our bodies, and so is not going away.

 

Yes we must affirm equal rights, yes women can do any (non-physical) job men can do (yes, of course if they can physically do the job they should be able to ) but we can also affirm that women can do things men can't do well.

 

It's the way we are designed. 

 

It is so dang hard to plow through all the rhetoric and not get women ticked off at something they find offensive perhaps there is no point in even trying to discuss it.

 

But indeed that is kind of the point- isn't it?   It is what men and women do.   This thread is a microcosm of the whole REAL problem.   No communication because when it is attempted, offense is instantly given by simply raising the issue.

 

So men will remain silent and nod their heads and say "Yes dear" as they have for thousands of years.

 

(Ducking for cover....)

[Calm]

I am not getting ticked off…just want to understand what is being said and add to that understanding.

[bluebell]

No communication because when it is attempted, offense is instantly given by simply raising the issue.

So men will remain silent and nod their heads and say "Yes dear" as they have for thousands of years.

 

(Ducking for cover....)

I would suggest that your interaction here, especially with this last couple of lines, shows that it's not only women that getting instantly offended when communication is attempted by simply raising an issue.

 

Men can have very very thin skins as well.  

[juliann]

 

 

It is so dang hard to plow through all the rhetoric and not get women ticked off at something they find offensive perhaps there is no point in even trying to discuss it.

 

But indeed that is kind of the point- isn't it?   It is what men and women do.   This thread is a microcosm of the whole REAL problem.   No communication because when it is attempted, offense is instantly given by simply raising the issue.

 

So men will remain silent and nod their heads and say "Yes dear" as they have for thousands of years.

 

(Ducking for cover....)

 

I haven't seen offense. I have seen women trying to explain their own situation. That actually is something men can't do for them. Part of having a conversation is having a willingness to use respectful terminology even when you see no reason to.  When women are trying to have a serious conversation about a serious topic, there is always joking. Like the "yes dear" or duck and cover.  It has been a long slow process to get demeaning expressions out of our discourse on any number of topics. When a class of people object to how they are talked about it is time to stop it. It's not funny anymore. We seem able to do that with minority groups to some extent but not women. I know you mean no offense, you are a great guy and very open minded. So I'm not trying to make this about you...just a habit men have gotten into.

[juliann]

 

 

Women work just as physically hard as men all the time, so i don't believe that adam was told to till the ground because his body is more suited to it than Eve's, for example.

 

 

They are often the ones put out to do the physical labor in very patriarchal societies. Labeling them as the "weaker sex" is an excuse to maintain male domination....probably a western one. It would be more accurate to call them powerless than physically weak. This should be a common knowledge kind of thing by now. Women's history is no longer a hobby, it is a serious field of study.

[williamsmith]

They are often the ones put out to do the physical labor in very patriarchal societies. Labeling them as the "weaker sex" is an excuse to maintain male domination....probably a western one. It would be more accurate to call them powerless than physically weak. This should be a common knowledge kind of thing by now. Women's history is no longer a hobby, it is a serious field of study.

 

Or it could simply be a factual observation of women in general, nothing at all to do with "domination" by men or the "inferiority" of women.

Such a femanist misrepresentation and victimhood, and men being the perpetrator's is not reality.

 

Frankly, I find it offensive to call women "powerless".  And no one is saying they are "weak" either.  But "weaker" is a fact.

Even the strongest woman is only as strong as the better than average man.  The strongest men are still much stronger.  It's in the DNA, the design of our bodies.

This is not "putting women down" any more than not having the Priesthood is "putting women down".  It's simple biology and body design.

 

I should also point out, that the more women try to be men, take Body Builders for example, the more they lose their ability to be actually women, to bear children, breast feed, etc.

Men and women are supposed to be different, but equal.  It's in the eternity's also.

Edited March 17, 2015 by williamsmith

[Nofear]

I personally would be advise caution with associating physiological differences between men and women with women's lack of priesthood offices in mortality. The analogy leaves much to be desired.

 

While physiological differences do play a role in this fallen world (and may result in some degree of justification in gender roles), I rather suspect how much one can bench press will have 0 influence on post mortal activities. Similarly, why women generally have a lower pain threshold then men except at childbirth (reference), I'm also quite confident physical pain tolerance will have 0 influence on post mortal activities.

[JLHPROF]

I personally would be advise caution with associating physiological differences between men and women with women's lack of priesthood offices in mortality. The analogy leaves much to be desired.

 

While physiological differences do play a role in this fallen world (and may result in some degree of justification in gender roles), I rather suspect how much one can bench press will have 0 influence on post mortal activities. Similarly, why women generally have a lower pain threshold then men except at childbirth (reference), I'm also quite confident physical pain tolerance will have 0 influence on post mortal activities.

 

But physiological difference WILL continue into post-mortal activities.  We will still be male and female, and therefore have inherent differences.  Maybe strength will not be a factor nor pain tolerance.  But there will always be physical differences and they will effect our post-mortal lives as well as our mortal ones.