Feminism for men

[binocular]

women aren't oppressed in western society

They are: by other women.

[DooDoot]

They are: by other women.

Touche!

There's another part in that chapter where he complains about women being portrayed as eye candy and sex objects in magazines. Mannnnn, I wouldn't be caught dead saying something like that to a girl. It's fake, not authentic, and it's going to make the girl shut off her sexuality to you, because she feels like you're going to judge her. She likes to look at men as eye candy, and we like to look at them as eye candy. When you are open about it, she will be open about it too.

I personally am not a fan of feminism because, to me, feminism has views similar to yours (Tumeric). While some feminists later objected against sexual objectification of women, my impression is the 2nd wave feminism of the 1960s was an intrinsic part of the 1960s sexual revolution, where the sexual tendencies of women & men were largely portrayed as being the same or equal and where prostitution & pornography were considered as empowering & liberating for women (rather than harmful). While I am not a fan of the feminist complainers who seek to exploit left-wing govt handouts & favoritism for personal advantages, my greatest objection to feminism is its sexual attitudes that are similar to yours. The angry bitter & twisted feminists you seem to despise are probably much of those who realised the 2nd-wave-feminist-lead-sexual-revolution provided more to men than to women.

Which gender is more pleased by those circumstances? Whose evolved psychological needs are being catered to? From an evolutionary perspective, the so-called sexual liberation of women looks more like sexual liberation for men. i.e., men get more sex and more sexual variety without making an emotional commitment.

Because they are over supplied, and less in demand, women enter into the spirit of men's penchant for recreational sex. This psychology is at an extreme on U.S. college campuses where there are only about 75 men per hundred women and hooking up (some level of physical intimacy that lasts for just one night) has largely replaced dating. As women's bargaining power declines, they must behave more like men if they wish to remain active in the romantic sphere. Women certainly gain in sexual freedom compared to their grandmothers but they lose out in emotional commitment.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/th ... -or-womens

[Turmeric]

They are: by other women.

Touche!

There's another part in that chapter where he complains about women being portrayed as eye candy and sex objects in magazines. Mannnnn, I wouldn't be caught dead saying something like that to a girl. It's fake, not authentic, and it's going to make the girl shut off her sexuality to you, because she feels like you're going to judge her. She likes to look at men as eye candy, and we like to look at them as eye candy. When you are open about it, she will be open about it too.

I personally am not a fan of feminism because, to me, feminism has views similar to yours (Tumeric). While some feminists later objected against sexual objectification of women, my impression is the 2nd wave feminism of the 1960s was an intrinsic part of the 1960s sexual revolution, where the sexual tendencies of women & men were largely portrayed as being the same or equal and where prostitution & pornography were considered as empowering & liberating for women (rather than harmful). While I am not a fan of the feminist complainers who seek to exploit left-wing govt handouts & favoritism for personal advantages, my greatest objection to feminism is its sexual attitudes that are similar to yours. The angry bitter & twisted feminists you seem to despise are probably much of those who realised the 2nd-wave-feminist-lead-sexual-revolution provided more to men than to women.

Which gender is more pleased by those circumstances? Whose evolved psychological needs are being catered to? From an evolutionary perspective, the so-called sexual liberation of women looks more like sexual liberation for men. i.e., men get more sex and more sexual variety without making an emotional commitment.

Because they are over supplied, and less in demand, women enter into the spirit of men's penchant for recreational sex. This psychology is at an extreme on U.S. college campuses where there are only about 75 men per hundred women and hooking up (some level of physical intimacy that lasts for just one night) has largely replaced dating. As women's bargaining power declines, they must behave more like men if they wish to remain active in the romantic sphere. Women certainly gain in sexual freedom compared to their grandmothers but they lose out in emotional commitment.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/th ... -or-womens

If you don't think women like sex as much as men, you need to sleep with more girls. Don't crap when the little virtuous girl you pick up from the temple asks you to practice sadism.

[binocular]

If you don't think women like sex as much as men

I think they do. But having the same sex standards as men puts women into situations that are more dangerous than what men face, especially in terms of health risks and unwanted pregnancy.

[DooDoot]

If you don't think women like sex as much as men, you need to sleep with more girls. Don't crap when the little virtuous girl you pick up from the temple asks you to practice sadism.

I think women & men often have sex for different reasons; the former often for voyeuristic sensual pleasure reasons & the later often for very dangerous self-affirmation reasons.

As for your post above, it makes me wonder why you have an interest in Buddhism. So you incorporate Buddhism into your pick up routine for women???

. But having the same sex standards as men puts women into situations that are more dangerous than what men face, especially in terms of health risks and unwanted pregnancy.

Psychological risks. Dukkha risks.

One in four women is on psych meds

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... psych-meds

[Turmeric]

If you don't think women like sex as much as men, you need to sleep with more girls. Don't crap when the little virtuous girl you pick up from the temple asks you to practice sadism.

I think women & men often have sex for different reasons; the former often for voyeuristic sensual pleasure reasons & the later often for very dangerous self-affirmation reasons.

As for your post above, it makes me wonder why you have an interest in Buddhism. So you incorporate Buddhism into your pick up routine for women???

. But having the same sex standards as men puts women into situations that are more dangerous than what men face, especially in terms of health risks and unwanted pregnancy.

Psychological risks. Dukkha risks.

One in four women is on psych meds

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... psych-meds

I'm interested in Buddhism because it's my religion, lol. And women have sex with guys because it feels good.

As for me incorporating Buddhism into pick-up, of course. Everyone that macks on girls should use the rules layed down by the Lord Buddha to keep their pick-up in line. Not to lie, not to drink alcohol, not to play around with girls that have boyfriends, etc.

[DooDoot]

I'm interested in Buddhism because it's my religion, lol.

To me, Buddhism is 'dhamma' about suffering & the end of suffering, as in the suttas (rather than is a "religion").

Bhikkhus, both formerly and now what I teach is suffering and the cessation of suffering.

MN 22

And women have sex with guys because it feels good.

The suttas say sensual pleasures have both attraction (assāda) & danger (ādīnava). Are you saying here that suffering cannot occur because of sex? Can you describe or explain to me what is the danger (ādīnava) in the case of sensual pleasures?

Bhikkhus, wanderers of other sects who speak... should be questioned thus: ‘But, friends, what is the gratification, what is the danger, and what is the escape in the case of sensual pleasures?

MN 13 https://suttacentral.net/en/mn13

As for me incorporating Buddhism into pick-up, of course. Everyone that macks on girls should use the rules layed down by the Lord Buddha to keep their pick-up in line. Not to lie, not to drink alcohol, not to play around with girls that have boyfriends, etc.

Where do the sutta says "not to play around with girls that have boyfriends".

[Turmeric]

I'm interested in Buddhism because it's my religion, lol.

To me, Buddhism is 'dhamma' about suffering & the end of suffering, as in the suttas (rather than is a "religion").

Bhikkhus, both formerly and now what I teach is suffering and the cessation of suffering.

MN 22

And women have sex with guys because it feels good.

The suttas say sensual pleasures have both attraction (assāda) & danger (ādīnava). Are you saying here that suffering cannot occur because of sex? Can you describe or explain to me what is the danger in the case of sensual pleasures?

Bhikkhus, wanderers of other sects who speak... should be questioned thus: ‘But, friends, what is the gratification, what is the danger, and what is the escape in the case of sensual pleasures?

MN 13 https://suttacentral.net/en/mn13

As for me incorporating Buddhism into pick-up, of course. Everyone that macks on girls should use the rules layed down by the Lord Buddha to keep their pick-up in line. Not to lie, not to drink alcohol, not to play around with girls that have boyfriends, etc.

Where do the sutta says "not to play around with girls that have boyfriends".

Lay people not being able to engage in sensual pleasure isn't Buddhism. Luang Por Ruesi Lingdam taught that even Sotapannas still want girls, money, and tasty food. And not sleeping with people in a relationship is a part of the third precept, sexual misconduct.

[DooDoot]

Lay people not being able to engage in sensual pleasure isn't Buddhism.

Sure. I never said or inferred it was.

Luang Por Ruesi Lingdam taught that even Sotapannas still want girls, money, and tasty food.

I disagree here. A Sotapanna has virtues dear to the Noble Ones, which would not including womanising, i.e., "macking" & "playing around" with girls, including "sadism". DN 31 clearly denounces a layperson who is a "womanizer" or "libertine".

And not sleeping with people in a relationship is a part of the third precept, sexual misconduct.

Where do the suttas say this & what exactly do is meant by the word "relationship"?

[Turmeric]

Lay people not being able to engage in sensual pleasure isn't Buddhism.

Sure. I never said or inferred it was.

Luang Por Ruesi Lingdam taught that even Sotapannas still want girls, money, and tasty food.

I disagree here. A Sotapanna has virtues dear to the Noble Ones, which would not including womanising, i.e., "macking" & "playing around" with girls, including "sadism". DN 31 clearly denounces a layperson who is a "womanizer" or "libertine".

And not sleeping with people in a relationship is a part of the third precept, sexual misconduct.

Where do the suttas say this & what exactly do is meant by the word "relationship"?

Opps, looks like I'm going to hell bro. Hopefully the demon girls will be sexy.

[DooDoot]

Opps, looks like I'm going to hell bro. Hopefully the demon girls will be sexy.

Whatever. I was just trying to reconcile your views with my readings of the suttas. I found your views to be very (old school 1960s) Feminist.

[chownah]

Lay people not being able to engage in sensual pleasure isn't Buddhism.

Sure. I never said or inferred it was.

Luang Por Ruesi Lingdam taught that even Sotapannas still want girls, money, and tasty food.

I disagree here. A Sotapanna has virtues dear to the Noble Ones, which would not including womanising, i.e., "macking" & "playing around" with girls, including "sadism". DN 31 clearly denounces a layperson who is a "womanizer" or "libertine".

And not sleeping with people in a relationship is a part of the third precept, sexual misconduct.

Where do the suttas say this & what exactly do is meant by the word "relationship"?

Opps, looks like I'm going to hell bro. Hopefully the demon girls will be sexy.

You really like sex, don't you.
chownah

[Turmeric]

Sure. I never said or inferred it was.


I disagree here. A Sotapanna has virtues dear to the Noble Ones, which would not including womanising, i.e., "macking" & "playing around" with girls, including "sadism". DN 31 clearly denounces a layperson who is a "womanizer" or "libertine".


Where do the suttas say this & what exactly do is meant by the word "relationship"?

Opps, looks like I'm going to hell bro. Hopefully the demon girls will be sexy.

You really like sex, don't you.
chownah

Only on days that end with y.

[chownah]

You really like sex, don't you.
chownah

Only on days that end with y.

What is it you like most about it?
chownah

[Turmeric]

You really like sex, don't you.
chownah

Only on days that end with y.

What is it you like most about it?
chownah

When I pull a university girl back to my place from tinder. In bed, alone...staring into her eyes, her white shirt halfway unbuttoned, her black skirt draped on my bed. I feel her breath against my lips, smell the som tum, and the fire starts to ignite. I run my farang fingers through her hair, gently pull her head back, and whisper......"say it"...... She opens her mouth....and shouts..... MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! That's definitely what I like the most. After that I just have to stop because the ecstasy is too much.