Lord O' Bones Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 What's "giving me an Eiffel Tower?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 [quote][b]It's confusing to me why some seem to take my comments as a sweeping indictment of every man who's ever tried to start a conversation with a woman in a bar.[/b] It would be nice if we could agree that no sweeping judgment is being made unless the person says specifically that every person in ABC group does XYZ but perhaps that is asking too much. If I didn't address you but you see yourself in my criticism, that's you making the judgment not me.[/quote] Is it really?? [quote]I don't think innocent men should take offense because [b]I took care to qualify my language with '[u]many[/u]' '[u]most[/u]'[/b] or 'some'. I didn't make sweeping statements like "every man in the history of the world.." If my comments don't apply to you, don't take them personally.[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edda van Heefmstra Ruston Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Thus spake urbandictionary: "a sexual act that requires [s]3[/s] 4 people. 2 guys, one chick, and 1 other unfortunate soul. The chick bends over and one guy takes her from behind, while the other puts it in her mouth and then the two guys give a high ten, giving the illusion of the Eiffel Tower. The unfortunate soul is there to take the picture. No one will believe you if you don't have the proof." Correction mine, as 2 + 1 + 1 isn't 3. Unless photographing an Eiffel Tower strips one of humanity somehow... :unsure: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arbor Gold Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 [quote name='Lord O' Bones' post='1704407' date='Mar 1 2009, 21.56']What's "giving me an Eiffel Tower?"[/quote] [url="http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_an_eiffel_tower_sex_act"]This![/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLU-RAY Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 [quote name='Eefphrodite' post='1704419' date='Mar 1 2009, 22.14']Correction mine, as 2 + 1 + 1 isn't 3. Unless photographing an Eiffel Tower strips one of humanity somehow... :unsure:[/quote] I really have to think it would. That's how people become Reavers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myshkin Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 litechick, It was not your sweeping generalizations that offended (although they were offensive) so much as your willingness to interpret everything in the worst possible way, your eagerness to villainize men looking for casual sex, and your seeming assumption that women can't be held responsible for their own actions. You say in your post, "just try to find unkindness in yourself and eliminate it", and yet you have not tried to eliminate the unkindness you have shown in this thread, you have instead tried to explain it. You have decided that you have been misinterpreted, so I ask you, how does it feel? Do you like when people interpret your words in the most negative way? Because that's what you've been doing to all us evil men. Excuse me, us "mostly" evil men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
litechick Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 [quote name='Shryke' post='1704417' date='Mar 2 2009, 00.12']Is it really??[/quote] Shryke, you seem to be trying to say something but I am at a loss as to what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 You seem confused as to why people took your comments as sweeping generalities when, just a few sentences earlier, you admit to using sweeping generalities like "many" and "most" when making comments about men. I find it strange how these 2 points don't connect in your mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edda van Heefmstra Ruston Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Myshkin, while I can agree that the statements have been too sweeping, in a thread where we get the following on the first page, joking or not: 'She isn't necessarily hot, but it's been a long time and you're worried about the friction burns your right hand man has been compaining about for a couple of weeks now.' 'Just because you have a boyfriend or didn't find an interested party tonight is no reason to fuck up my day. I've probably invested some time into this, and now its wasted, a whole evening and god knows how many drinks... right down the toilet' 'Generally you can get around the guardian angel if you have a friend who has low standards. This is called "jumping on the grenade".' You don't think that's just maybe making generalisations about the women in these situations, too? Their motives, what they're *really* looking for, what use they have, etc? Is it really so surprising that some people found that distasteful? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kreb Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 No one needs to cockblock me. I'm already terrible at picking up girls in any bar/club situation, mostly because I just feel so ridiculous trying to do it. I'm almost always the girlfriend guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myshkin Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 There is a difference between generalizing and abstracting. I'm not saying that generalizations were not made, but to accuse the men in this thread of objectifying women because they have abstracted an archtype in a little much. To accuse them of rape is way over the line. I am not surprised that some people found some of the things said on the first page distasteful; I am surprised at how disgusting those people's responses were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kreb Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Oh shit, I didn't even look to see if this had sparked some arguments. Silly! Don't men and woment objectify each other? Isn't that how hookups are possible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
litechick Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 [quote name='Shryke' post='1704431' date='Mar 2 2009, 00.27']You seem confused as to why people took your comments as sweeping generalities when, just a few sentences earlier, you admit to using sweeping generalities like "many" and "most" when making comments about men. I find it strange how these 2 points don't connect in your mind.[/quote] Oh, now I get it. In my mind using "many" "most" and "some" indicates it's not everybody (ie: sweeping generalizations) and in your mind these words are the indicators of sweeping generalizations. Thanks for helping me resolve that confusion. Now I am at a loss as to how to indicate 'a trend' vs. 'everybody'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ldygrffn Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 "all x is y" is an absolute statement. "most x is y" is a broad generalization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kreb Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 litechick, most of the hookups I see happen at clubs and bars and stuff are way more mutual than predetory. Most women seem to know exactly what they're going to attract in those venues, just as the men do. Many times they're looking for easy sex as well. Do most women really go to clubs expecting not to be shamelessly hit-on? The ones I talk to are a little sharper than that. *GENERALIZATIONS COMPLETE* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
litechick Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 [quote name='The Kreb' post='1704440' date='Mar 2 2009, 00.39']No one needs to cockblock me. I'm already terrible at picking up girls in any bar/club situation, mostly because I just feel so ridiculous trying to do it. I'm almost always the girlfriend guy.[/quote] I feel you. You need to tap into the animal whereas others need to tame the animal. (We all have the animal inside us. [Yes! A certified sweeping generalization!]) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edda van Heefmstra Ruston Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Did anyone actually accuse the men here of rape? Or was the statement made that those who get their desired partner more and more drunk until a 'yes' is obtained are sliding close to that line? (See also t-shirts with the statments "'no' means 'ask me again later'" or "'no' means 'get me another drink'"?) I seem to recall that at least one other poster did outright agree that deliberately getting someone too drunk to consent and then "agreeing" to have sex is beyond the pale. Am I forgetting another incident? (Entirely possible; I have been reading this thread off and on but have not been taking part until this morning.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myshkin Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 [quote name='Eefphrodite' post='1704485' date='Mar 1 2009, 23.24']Did anyone actually accuse the men here of rape? Or was the statement made that [b]those who get their desired partner more and more drunk until a 'yes' is obtained are sliding close to that line[/b]? (See also t-shirts with the statments "'no' means 'ask me again later'" or "'no' means 'get me another drink'"?) I seem to recall that at least one other poster did outright agree that deliberately getting someone too drunk to consent and then "agreeing" to have sex is beyond the pale. Am I forgetting another incident? (Entirely possible; I have been reading this thread off and on but have not been taking part until this morning.)[/quote] This seems like an accusation of rape to me. Also: [quote name='litechick']All I'm asking is that the guys acknowledge their motives and that their object is not in the woman's best interest. Don't tell yourselves lies which make it possible for you to believe that you're not doing anything wrong.[/quote] Our objective (sex) is not in the woman's best interest and is also wrong, therefor having sex with her is not what she wanted. This is an accusation of rape. It is also a demeaning implication that women can't be trusted to make their own sexual decisions. Also: [quote name='Eloisa']getting laid with a woman requires more negotiation than with your own right (or left) hand - that the woman's wishes about the situation are, or should be, taken into account. How about getting laid with a woman who also definitively wants to get laid?[/quote] This is a clear accusation of rape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edda van Heefmstra Ruston Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 My apologies. I was trying to differentiate between merely getting a desired partner (more) drunk in order to facilitate the changing of a stated decision (e.g. "'no' means 'get me another drink'"), or to "loosen inhibitions", which I find distasteful but not illegal, and deliberately getting a desired partner so drunk that he or she is legally no longer capable of consent. Of course, depending on how much "more" the former takes, it does overlap with the latter eventually, whether or not the buyer is also drinking.* *I'm talking here about the type of requirements in [url="http://www.uslaw.com/library/Massachusetts/Rape_Intoxication_Consent.php?item=46814"]Comm v Blache[/url], where intoxication alone isn't enough for a lack of consent. On the other hand, if you need to keep plying someone with drinks to get sex that night, is it really worth it? Personally I'd rather move on to someone who definitely wants sex that night, or accept that my desired partner is worth more than one night of drinks-for-sex, depending on what I want out of the encounter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyanna Stark Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Why the moaning Myshkin? Are you feeling put upon by femininsts not wanting chavinism? Are you the sort of bloke who goes out and gets women so drunk they don't know who they are anymore? I've been the victim of that once, in my youth. It was done to me by a guy I trusted, whom I used to work with. I asked him to please give me water since I felt I was getting too drunk and wanted to correct it. He got me a double drink of something, clear liquid. How do I know this, you ask? Because I got told afterwards what happened by people who had seen it. Myself, after I asked this guy to please get me a glass of water, I have no memory of it. Is that rape? Is it sexual abuse? Is it just that I "should not have trusted him" and been cleverer? Please, let me know your views. As I have been on the other end of this, I believe I have some experience regarding this particular scenario. Especially this comment from you is very interestint to me: [quote]Our objective (sex) is not in the woman's best interest and is also wrong, therefor having sex with her is not what she wanted. This is an accusation of rape. It is also a demeaning implication that women can't be trusted to make their own sexual decisions.[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.