Women's Dress and Men's Thoughts

[bluebell]

25 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

LOL! 

This is hilarious! You two are quite a tag team.

Unoriginal? No, true enough 

It is supported by millions of years of evolution of men protecting women and their families.

One could not possibly get less original than that. But no problem. I can reverse Evolution. Give me till next Thursday.

And you want ME to prove that YOU need protection from "men like me" to support MY case?

Think about that a little bit.  

Now I understand why thought is not permitted.

But it IS great comedy, keep it coming!

J's turn

 

 

Almost 100% of violence that women have suffered historically, has been at the hands of men. 
 

Likewise, statistically women are at more risked from male significant others than anyone else. 

How does that equate to millions of years of evolution men protecting women?  

Edited October 26, 2019 by bluebell

[Bernard Gui]

13 hours ago, CA Steve said:

I don't know about other men but I think viewing one's spouse as a "reward" is very demeaning. 

While I don’t see it as a reward per se, apart from the Atonement, Sister Gui has been my greatest blessing from God. 

[mfbukowski]

Oh yeah.

Sociology. Sorry I didn't realize you're talking about a hard science like physics which is never influenced by political opinion.

I mean sociology is not like one of those political things like biology. No siree you got hard stuff there.

TRUTH

Edited October 26, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I hope it is not until after you pass on that you fully understand why women are so far more blessed than men in the temple.

It is both perplexing and profound. One must listen very carefully. And then think about it a whole bunch. 

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh I doubt that.

An accepted definition? Are you serious? This world is run by Merriam-Webster?

In a world of human trafficking and prostitution, pornography, the bondage industry, S&M, shades of grey, all run by men, sex crimes serial murders and rapes all committed by men, against women, what many women have to do in order to Simply get their families across the border, you can speak of "benevolent sexism" as if it is something wrong?  

That's a little bit like what people know as a "First World" problem.

And yes at its core there is a spiritual solution.

Time to call your mod buddies, I guess because that's the only way the debate will be over.

 

29 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

LOL! 

This is hilarious! You two are quite a tag team.

Unoriginal? No, true enough 

It is supported by millions of years of evolution of men protecting women and their families.

One could not possibly get less original than that. But no problem. I can reverse Evolution. Give me till next Thursday.

And you want ME to prove that YOU need protection from "men like me" to support MY case?

Think about that a little bit.  

Now I understand why thought is not permitted.

But it IS great comedy, keep it coming!

J's turn

 

 

 

24 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Nice. Scientific. Quite impressive.

Now where's the part about the temple?

Or is this no longer an LDS board? Is political correctness the only topic we now discuss?

 

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh yeah.

Sociology. Sorry I didn't realize you're talking about a hard science like physics which is never influenced by political opinion.

Being simultaneously condescending and tone-deaf is an utterly toxic combination.

[MustardSeed]

10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

While I don’t see it as a reward per se, apart from the Atonement, Sister Gui has been my greatest blessing from God. 

My smoking hot husband is my greatest gift. Reward? No.  I had to work for this one. I wouldn’t call it a reward.  Just, life.  

He had many women in his life much hotter than I before he met me.  I suppose I was the b00bie prize. 

 

[Bernard Gui]

13 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

My smoking hot husband is my greatest gift. Reward? No.  I had to work for this one. I wouldn’t call it a reward.  Just, life.  

He had many women in his life much hotter than I before he met me.  I suppose I was the b00bie prize. 

 

There are great rewards for work. That’s why most of us work.

I don’t see my wife as “hot.” I don’t even know what that means in the context of our relationship.

Edited October 26, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[juliann]

47 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Nice. Scientific. Quite impressive.

Now where's the part about the temple?

Or is this no longer an LDS board? Is political correctness the only topic we now discuss?

Nice dodge. 

[Bernard Gui]

45 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Almost 100% of violence that women have suffered historically, has been at the hands of men. 

Likewise, statistically women are at more risked from male significant others than anyone else. 

How does that equate to millions of years of evolution men protecting women?  

IMO, good men (and women) oppose in word and deed the kind of men (or women) who do those awful things. Men wanting to protect women, I suppose, is a hold-over from the ancient notions of chivalry. Or maybe it’s part of our nature. But as you note, it has been a predominantly male weakness, which also may be part of our nature.

Edited October 26, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Rain]

32 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

It is both perplexing and profound. One must listen very carefully. And then think about it a whole bunch. 

This is demeaning. The idea that those of us who don't see or agree with him in this matter must not have listened carefully enough or have been thoughtful over the matter.

He has talked about it enough on this board that I am pretty sure I know what he is talking about.  One time he was pretty clear and I specifically went through the words for what he was talking about because I had never noticed anything like that. I heard it - I just don't agree that it means what he feels it means.

 

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

IMO, good men (and women) oppose in word and deed the kind of men (or women) who do those awful things. Men wanting to protect women, I suppose, is a hold-over from the ancient notions of chivalry. Or maybe it’s part of our nature. But as you note, it has been a predominantly male weakness, which also may be part of our nature.

I think men in general have always been strong about wanting to protect women from what they see as harmful (not always what the women see as harmful though) who they see as part of their community from the men who are not and often this gets translated to women in general.  Unfortunately this doesn't always mean they see a need to protect 'their' women from themselves and in fact, at times there are men who see their 'protection' of women giving them the right to do whatever they want to them.

I think many men and women are highly protective of those who they see as weaker.  

I also see women as protective, often extremely in my experience, of men; but they are more likely to use other behaviour than physical force since that is not usually their strength.

The trope of the woman throwing herself in front of her man to catch the bullet/sword/nasty object meant to kill while the man is at the same time attempting to carve up/beat the crap out of the men trying to hurt her and willingly sacrificing himself in the process drives me insane, but illustrates nicely the deep drive each has to protect the other.

Edited October 26, 2019 by Calm

[CA Steve]

53 minutes ago, bluebell said:

How does that equate to millions of years of evolution men protecting women?

If we are considering time frames in millions of year here, I think a better term would be guarding women, similar to how dominant male lions in the animal kingdom guard their pride from other males. So I guess if you think women still belong in harems, one could justify "protecting" them based on evolution.

[bluebell]

32 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

IMO, good men (and women) oppose in word and deed the kind of men (or women) who do those awful things. Men wanting to protect women, I suppose, is a hold-over from the ancient notions of chivalry. Or maybe it’s part of our nature. But as you note, it has been a predominantly male weakness, which also may be part of our nature.

I have a degree in history and so have studied this topic a bit, and chivalry was not what the movies and books pretend it was.  Chivalrous males were often just as likely to rape a woman as protect her, and knightly love was a scary thing.  

I think that protecting those we love, and often protecting those we perceive as weaker than us, is in most of our natures.  I think that both good men and good women have equal natures when it comes to protecting, though men often have/had a biological advantage through size and strength, and societal power and rights.

Edited October 26, 2019 by bluebell

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Almost 100% of violence that women have suffered historically, has been at the hands of men. 
 

Likewise, statistically women are at more risked from make significant others than anyone else. 

How does that equate to millions of years of evolution men protecting women?  

Think about that, please?

In those millions of years of male abuse, if you are so great at defending yourself, why was there a problem? 

Why didn't you just punch the guy back?

Pull out your brass knuckles or switchblade?

You want to hear about male on male violence?

There was a bit of that too but we're not complaining about it.

[bluebell]

25 minutes ago, Rain said:

This is demeaning. The idea that those of us who don't see or agree with him in this matter must not have listened carefully enough or have been thoughtful over the matter.

He has talked about it enough on this board that I am pretty sure I know what he is talking about.  One time he was pretty clear and I specifically went through the words for what he was talking about because I had never noticed anything like that. I heard it - I just don't agree that it means what he feels it means.

 

Thank you for speaking up.  It is demeaning, and so is what mfb said about hoping that we die before we get the understanding about women that he has, as if we should be protected from the information.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

 

 

 

Being simultaneously condescending and tone-deaf is an utterly toxic combination.

Thanks for defending these poor sisters.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

Think about that, please?

In those millions of years of male abuse, if you are so great at defending yourself, why was there a problem? 

Why didn't you just punch the guy back?

Pull out your brass knuckles or switchblade?

You want to hear about male on male violence?

There was a bit of that too but we're not complaining about it.

We haven't been good about defending ourselves, and physical size has only been a small reason for that.  Women's lack of political and cultural power, and their lack of education and societal rights, also made them easy prey to men, and men, in general, have been quick to take advantage of that.  

But none of that changes the fact that the number of women abused and killed by men is throughout history shows that men's biological nature is not to protect women.  

 

(And ps. your statement about male on male violence also has nothing to do with the topic.)  

[mfbukowski]

59 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

There are great rewards for work. That’s why most of us work.

I don’t see my wife as “hot.” I don’t even know what that means in the context of our relationship.

Bravissimo, maestro!

[Bernard Gui]

39 minutes ago, Rain said:

This is demeaning. The idea that those of us who don't see or agree with him in this matter must not have listened carefully enough or have been thoughtful over the matter.

He has talked about it enough on this board that I am pretty sure I know what he is talking about.  One time he was pretty clear and I specifically went through the words for what he was talking about because I had never noticed anything like that. I heard it - I just don't agree that it means what he feels it means.

 

It is not demeaning. I would love to talk it over amongst ourselves some time in the appropriate place.

[mfbukowski]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Thank you for speaking up.  It is demeaning, and so is what mfb said about hoping that we die before we get the understanding about women that he has, as if we should be protected from the information.

Be my guest.

Go for it.  I take it all back. If that's what you really want it's all there for you.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I think men in general have always been strong about wanting to protect women from what they see as harmful (not always what the women see as harmful though) who they see as part of their community from the men who are not and often this gets translated to women in general.  Unfortunately this doesn't always mean they see a need to protect 'their' women from themselves and in fact, at times there are men who see their 'protection' of women giving them the right to do whatever they want to them.

The context to which I spoke was violence towards women. We would agree that most men and women would see that as harmful. The stats that were provided indicate that many men don't see that as harmful.

Quote

I think many men and women are highly protective of those who they see as weaker.  

I also see women as protective, often extremely in my experience, of men; but they are more likely to use other behaviour than physical force since that is not usually their strength.

True. It is baked into our beings. I think it is called the Light of Christ. However, it is possible to extinguish that light, and the stats provided seem to indicate that men do that more than women.

Quote

The trope of the woman throwing herself in front of her man to catch the bullet/sword/nasty object meant to kill while the man is at the same time attempting to carve up/beat the crap out of the men trying to hurt her and willingly sacrificing himself in the process drives me insane, but illustrates nicely the deep drive each has to protect the other.

In my experience, that theatrical cliche is hardly limited to women throwing themselves in front of men. It doesn't make me crazy, though. One that does is that an averaged sized lady (do I dare say, scantily clad lady in this thread? Probably not, but there it is) can put some martial arts moves on a dozen large, armored, and highly trained  men and take them out. That's reality, not a sexist remark, IMO, but some may disagree.

Edited October 26, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

31 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

However, it is possible to extinguish that light, and the stats provided seem to indicate that men to that more than women.

Actually women are more likely to instigate domestic violence than men according to some stats (from higher income western countries, I believe).  I will try to dig up the stats.    The reason why we assume women aren't violent is because men's violence is more likely to result in physical injury and even death, though I don't know if this is because women don't intend to cause significant physical harm or just that the level of our strength and cultural teachings put a limit on how much damage we do.

Can't cut and paste, but this reports almost equal rates of initiating violence against intimate partners (pg 3), but where violence was only perpetrated by one partner (non-reciprocal), 70% was by women (pg 10).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/

Edited October 26, 2019 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

53 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Thank you for speaking up.  It is demeaning, and so is what mfb said about hoping that we die before we get the understanding about women that he has, as if we should be protected from the information.

I disagree that it is demeaning. That we don't understand it the same way after hearing and thinking about it does not make my understanding demeaning. 

Edited October 26, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

It is both perplexing and profound. One must listen very carefully. And then think about it a whole bunch. 

Agreed.

This situation we see here is so sad.

It has inverted all that is Holy. They know not what they do.

Philosophy mingled with scripture? Not even that far.

Sociology, and no scripture 

I wish I could be as nice as you.

It's That Old Black Magic that still gunks stuff up.

As always I need to repent.

[Rain]

45 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

It is not demeaning. I would love to talk it over amongst ourselves some time in the appropriate place.

 

32 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I disagree that it is demeaning. That we don't understand it the same way after hearing and thinking about it does not make it demeaning. 

By demeaning, I wasn't talking at all about how we understand it differently.

"One must listen very carefully. And then think about it a whole bunch. "

It is the implication that one who doesn't feel the same hasn't listened carefully enough or thought through it enough that is demeaning.

And honestly, I don't have enough trust in you that I would want to talk with you about it in the temple especially with you in the roll as teacher showing me where I was wrong.

I have discussed it with my husband as equals.

Edited October 26, 2019 by Rain