Declaration of war

[Cherry de Voured]

That, or the idea that men masturbating is somehow inherently shameful. Like the dichotomy of sex toys - women who use vibrators are empowered and fun, men who use fleshlights are dirty perverted loners. Which brings us round to how acceptable misandry is in society. Often perpertrated by 'alpha' men too

Oh, I do like these sort of discussions. We had an interesting one on the DS thread for a while, but I think some of the regulars didn't like the divergence away from the usual topics.

That's the point I was (trying) to make earlier - it's different when women wank. Is it misandry? Possibly. But I also think you have to consider some of the engrained attitudes towards sex (and I agree with you about it being perpetrated by 'alpha males' too - it is, often in behaviour) that somehow sex is intrinsic to men and not women: men can, and should, go out and get sex whenever and wherever they feel like it. Because that's what "men do" - they "sew their wild oats", knock up some notches on the bedpost and to do otherwise is a failure. But it's that same kind of attitude that perpetuated this nonsense idea that somehow husbands have a 'right to sex' from their wives, and that men could - and should - take mistresses if she failed to do so. But women shouldn't: women shouldn't go out looking for sex, because that would make a woman a slag, slapper, etc. No, it's far better that a woman stay at home and fuck themselves silly with a variety of sex toys.

There is of course some truth in the old stereotype that men think and search out sex more than women, at least according to various studies. But ingrained in there is still this idea of the woman being either the 'dutiful virgin' or the 'iniquitous whore'. And a 'whore' is a lot more virginal when she's at home battering her Bakewell with a vibrator. The stigma that exists for men wanking exists for women fucking casually - it's not as evident as it once was in the West - but it's still there, lingering.

[Frank39]

'But where have all the good men gone'. There's your answer.

Unwashed blonde hair,black eyebrows & tats are just horrid & hardly conducive to sexual attraction...ewwwww...

In the right light, she could be quite attractive facially, I could get past the hair, didn't notice the eyebrows, but that wouldn't have been a deal breaker, however ink, ANY ink would put any woman in the thanks, but no thanks box for me.
Don't all rush to your keyboards shouting how shallow, or she probably wouldn't touch you with a barge pole, she wouldn't get the opportunity.
Some guys don't like fat women, some don't like skinny ones, some don't like redheads, some don't like tall/short women, all of those types are O.K. by me, but tattoos are a supreme no-no.

[Cherry de Voured]

'But where have all the good men gone'. There's your answer.

Unwashed blonde hair,black eyebrows & tats are just horrid & hardly conducive to sexual attraction...ewwwww...

In the right light, she could be quite attractive facially, I could get past the hair, didn't notice the eyebrows, but that wouldn't have been a deal breaker, however ink, ANY ink would put any woman in the thanks, but no thanks box for me.
Don't all rush to your keyboards shouting how shallow, or she probably wouldn't touch you with a barge pole, she wouldn't get the opportunity.
Some guys don't like fat women, some don't like skinny ones, some don't like redheads, some don't like tall/short women, all of those types are O.K. by me, but tattoos are a supreme no-no.

What if you met a woman in a bar. Or a golf club. Or a West Ham Football Match, I don't know, wherever you like. You get chatting, she seems interested, and you can't believe it - but this woman is just great. Fabulous. I mean, you're talking close to 'ideal' material. That night, or the date after, or after that, or on your wedding night - whatever floats your boat - you're about to get down to the dirty, and - what's that? - there's a little tattoo on her thigh. What would you do then?

[Frank39]

'But where have all the good men gone'. There's your answer.

Unwashed blonde hair,black eyebrows & tats are just horrid & hardly conducive to sexual attraction...ewwwww...

In the right light, she could be quite attractive facially, I could get past the hair, didn't notice the eyebrows, but that wouldn't have been a deal breaker, however ink, ANY ink would put any woman in the thanks, but no thanks box for me.
Don't all rush to your keyboards shouting how shallow, or she probably wouldn't touch you with a barge pole, she wouldn't get the opportunity.
Some guys don't like fat women, some don't like skinny ones, some don't like redheads, some don't like tall/short women, all of those types are O.K. by me, but tattoos are a supreme no-no.

What if you met a woman in a bar. Or a golf club. Or a West Ham Football Match, I don't know, wherever you like. You get chatting, she seems interested, and you can't believe it - but this woman is just great. Fabulous. I mean, you're talking close to 'ideal' material. That night, or the date after, or after that, or on your wedding night - whatever floats your boat - you're about to get down to the dirty, and - what's that? - there's a little tattoo on her thigh. What would you do then?

It's no good spinning you a load of old bollocks, I'd do the same as any red blooded guy in the world would do, I'd be in like a rat up a drainpipe, but I hardly think that it would be our wedding night and I'd only just noticed the ink.
After that, I'd have diplomatically, and carefully as I could, gently wind it up in a matter of days, first of all trying the "it's not you, it's me" garbage, eventually, if there was no other way, just tell her that tattoos are anathema to me.
I imagine that if it had been the second or third date, enough time together would have elapsed for us to have shared things, and maybe we'd have been somewhere and a skank with tats on her arm(s), or leg(s), or back had walked in, and I'd shuddered at the sight, enough for her to notice, and get a little message.
In short, I'd be a raving hypocrite, but show me a straight guy with a boner who'd do anything different.
Sure, I'm shallow, and she had a lucky escape, as I'm not good enough for her or any woman, but you asked me a question, and I told you the truth.

[Hold The Door]

But ingrained in there is still this idea of the woman being either the 'dutiful virgin' or the 'iniquitous whore'. And a 'whore' is a lot more virginal when she's at home battering her Bakewell with a vibrator. The stigma that exists for men wanking exists for women fucking casually - it's not as evident as it once was in the West - but it's still there, lingering.

The vast vast majority of men I know categorically do not think like this, well not any decent minded types. This is such an outdated way of thinking. There will always be the odd exception to most things of course.

[Maddog]

'But where have all the good men gone'. There's your answer.

Don't the Welsh have another option?

[Frank39]

'But where have all the good men gone'. There's your answer.

Don't the Welsh have another option?

Allegedly, but according to the Aussies, Kiwis exercise the same option, allegedly again.

[VR6storm]

'But where have all the good men gone'. There's your answer.

And where are all the gods?

[Cherry de Voured]

'But where have all the good men gone'. There's your answer.

Unwashed blonde hair,black eyebrows & tats are just horrid & hardly conducive to sexual attraction...ewwwww...

In the right light, she could be quite attractive facially, I could get past the hair, didn't notice the eyebrows, but that wouldn't have been a deal breaker, however ink, ANY ink would put any woman in the thanks, but no thanks box for me.
Don't all rush to your keyboards shouting how shallow, or she probably wouldn't touch you with a barge pole, she wouldn't get the opportunity.
Some guys don't like fat women, some don't like skinny ones, some don't like redheads, some don't like tall/short women, all of those types are O.K. by me, but tattoos are a supreme no-no.

What if you met a woman in a bar. Or a golf club. Or a West Ham Football Match, I don't know, wherever you like. You get chatting, she seems interested, and you can't believe it - but this woman is just great. Fabulous. I mean, you're talking close to 'ideal' material. That night, or the date after, or after that, or on your wedding night - whatever floats your boat - you're about to get down to the dirty, and - what's that? - there's a little tattoo on her thigh. What would you do then?

It's no good spinning you a load of old bollocks, I'd do the same as any red blooded guy in the world would do, I'd be in like a rat up a drainpipe, but I hardly think that it would be our wedding night and I'd only just noticed the ink.
After that, I'd have diplomatically, and carefully as I could, gently wind it up in a matter of days, first of all trying the "it's not you, it's me" garbage, eventually, if there was no other way, just tell her that tattoos are anathema to me.
I imagine that if it had been the second or third date, enough time together would have elapsed for us to have shared things, and maybe we'd have been somewhere and a skank with tats on her arm(s), or leg(s), or back had walked in, and I'd shuddered at the sight, enough for her to notice, and get a little message.
In short, I'd be a raving hypocrite, but show me a straight guy with a boner who'd do anything different.
Sure, I'm shallow, and she had a lucky escape, as I'm not good enough for her or any woman, but you asked me a question, and I told you the truth.

Hahaha, I'm not judging you really. I can't imagine a tattoo being something you're so opposed to that you'd ditch an otherwise perfect suitor. Having said that, I had a partner who I quite adored, but their parents were deeply religious. I must admit, I used to dread going to their place every time and often thought of ending the relationship every time an invite for dinner came about.

The vast vast majority of men I know categorically do not think like this, well not any decent minded types. This is such an outdated way of thinking. There will always be the odd exception to most things of course.

Of course most decent men don't think like this - it's one of the things that probably make them decent. It's changed quite remarkably since the 'Sexual Revolution' of the decades past, but what I'm saying is that those attitudes linger like a stale fart - and that's why we have this double-standard in regard to masturbation and causal fucking.

[Vam]

'But where have all the good men gone'. There's your answer.

Don't the Welsh have another option?

....

[Robocop]

That, or the idea that men masturbating is somehow inherently shameful. Like the dichotomy of sex toys - women who use vibrators are empowered and fun, men who use fleshlights are dirty perverted loners. Which brings us round to how acceptable misandry is in society. Often perpertrated by 'alpha' men too

Oh, I do like these sort of discussions. We had an interesting one on the DS thread for a while, but I think some of the regulars didn't like the divergence away from the usual topics.

That's the point I was (trying) to make earlier - it's different when women wank. Is it misandry? Possibly. But I also think you have to consider some of the engrained attitudes towards sex (and I agree with you about it being perpetrated by 'alpha males' too - it is, often in behaviour) that somehow sex is intrinsic to men and not women: men can, and should, go out and get sex whenever and wherever they feel like it. Because that's what "men do" - they "sew their wild oats", knock up some notches on the bedpost and to do otherwise is a failure. But it's that same kind of attitude that perpetuated this nonsense idea that somehow husbands have a 'right to sex' from their wives, and that men could - and should - take mistresses if she failed to do so. But women shouldn't: women shouldn't go out looking for sex, because that would make a woman a slag, slapper, etc. No, it's far better that a woman stay at home and fuck themselves silly with a variety of sex toys.

There is of course some truth in the old stereotype that men think and search out sex more than women, at least according to various studies. But ingrained in there is still this idea of the woman being either the 'dutiful virgin' or the 'iniquitous whore'. And a 'whore' is a lot more virginal when she's at home battering her Bakewell with a vibrator. The stigma that exists for men wanking exists for women fucking casually - it's not as evident as it once was in the West - but it's still there, lingering.

A very interesting thread and topic indeed. I have said it before but might as well chuck it in again- given what I see in every single sexism/ gender type thread, I don't think it's possible to have a fair, objective and equal discussion on this. Maybe I'll be proved wrong.

This is not having a go at you, far from it, and I think you make some very interesting points, but I don't think the above is all that progressive or indeed accurate, especially not in 2016.
There are of course differences between the sexes but for me, and only from what I personally have seen in recent times- it's more the militant internet feminist types who seem to want to persuade everyone that we all still think men are fine to shag around and it be seen as a badge of honour, whilst women will be slappers or other derogatory words should they do the same. I think all these kind of comments do is perpetuate the myth that having these views is still considered normal or acceptable in the modern world.

I don't think like this. The vast majority of men and women I know, be they from work or my personal life, family etc do not think like this.

It's also a myth that those who DO hold those views towards women are always (or even usually) men. Well at least on the internet anyway.

For me the sooner people start to focus on the individuals (regardless of gender) who hold sexist redundant views and less on making it all about male vs female, the better we'll all be.

(as I say, none of the above is directed at you by the way, honest, more my own take on some of the things your post brought up)

[Guest]

Puzzler and his kind should stop seeking out such shit just to feed their own sexism and paranoia and start looking in a mirror to find the real issues in their lives.

It's easier to lash out and put the blame on others. Much harder to take an honest look at yourself and how you act and how you respond

[Si_Crewe]

That's the point I was (trying) to make earlier - it's different when women wank. Is it misandry? Possibly. But I also think...

A very thoughtful post and the only part I'd disagree with would be to even consider that any difference might be considered "misandy".

Historically, the myth has been that women desire admirable things like "companionship" and "affection" and that they have no need to indulge in "distasteful" acts purely for physical gratification.
And, of course, it has to be said that's a myth that's been perpetuated by women as often as men.
Hell, if you look in any women's magazine today there'll probably be a letter about "My husband wants sex far more often than I do" and the reply will be something along the lines of how "women and men have different needs in a relationship".

That being the situation, I could only ever see it as a good thing if women are "coming out" and admitting that they enjoy a good seeing-to when the mood takes them. Good on 'em.

It has to be said that things are moving fast in this regard.
It's not that long ago that men refused to admit that they jerk-off, seeing it as shameful and a bit pathetic.
I guess it's just taken women a decade or so longer than men to come out and admit what they really get up to.
Of course, there's the risk that women who admit to it will also be considered sad & pathetic too, in some cases, just as is the case with men but that's equality for ya'.

[James Herriot]

Puzzler and his kind should stop seeking out such shit just to feed their own sexism and paranoia and start looking in a mirror to find the real issues in their lives.

It's easier to lash out and put the blame on others. Much harder to take an honest look at yourself and how you act and how you respond

Aye...but,tbf,that opinion & outward cynicism could have a foot in reality & experience & may not be the paranoid sexism it appears...running with the pack isn't always the right way...just saying..

[Si_Crewe]

Face it - this because she's a fairly attractive woman. If she was some pig-faced, acne-ridden woman with more tyres than the Michelin Man, you'd laugh it off. Much like I do when I see the losers on the anti-women "men's rights" activist websites who still live at home with their Mum, having all their meals and laundry done for 'em.

Can't say I agree with this at all though, I'm afraid.

For me, at least, it's nothing to do with the way she looks.
It's simply the fact that it's a person who is advocating something aggressive and antagonistic which is likely to create hostility - and she's doing it in public and she's assuming that she's in a position to speak for "women" when she does it.

The thing that pisses me off about 3rd-wave feminism is that it often seems to comprise nasty women who get their jollies from hostility toward men (as is the case here).
What I'd really like to see is some (more) of the billions of reasonable, sensible, women on the planet to start telling these people that they're simply being nasty, shit-stirring bitches.

We need to hear less from people like Emma Watson (who, if I'm honest, probably has her heart in the right place) and Anita Sarkeesian (who has a cash register instead of a heart) and start hearing more from women like Susan Sarandon, Meryl Streep, Juliette Binoche and Christina Hoff Sommers to give moderate, reasonable women a voice they can actually properly endorse.