Radical feminism and morality

[sw85]

This business of calling women sex objects,

i.e., the objects (i.e, recipients) of sexual desire, attraction, and affection.

and justifying it by saying that they are, they just aren’t “only” sex objects

i.e., pointing out that a person can be more than one thing at a time, i.e., desired sexually by her husband and also an accountant.

Seriously, what is objectionable about pointing this out? What do you mean by “sex object”? The above seems so obviously commonsensical I can’t even imagine why anyone would object to it, so clearly you must mean something else. But my efforts to get at what you people mean when you toss around this phrase have been frustratingly futile. I get a lot of leftist point-and-stutter and equalitarian mooing. I get no evidence that you all have actually thought about what you believe or why.

Back to the male privilege. Women should be more shamed when they give up their chastity because it’s easier for them. Men shouldn’t be held as accountable because it’s harder.

Yes, that’s the extremely reductive form of my logic here. Again, I don’t see what’s objectionable about it. Men should likewise be expected to act courageously when the situation calls for it because they are generally equipped to handle dangers and threats in a way women generally aren’t; what’s wrong with this? Is it wrong if, in the dead of a night, a man hears someone breaking into the house and goes to investigate (placing himself in great danger) while his wife stays in the bedroom and calls the police? Is this “female privilege” and, if so, are you prepared to do the honest thing and attack *that *on equalitarian grounds?

1. I strongly disagree that women have it easier. I think they may in the beginging of the relationship, but as the emotional bond grows it becomes more difficult for them to keep that distance.

Again, there is plenty of scientific evidence showing that, for women, sexual desire follows sexual arousal. In other words, they don’t come to desire sex the way men do until after they’ve started having it. There’s plenty of evolutionary rationale for this, too, relating to natural selection, optimal mate selection, etc.; naturally speaking, women are expected to keep their heads on straight when it comes to sex so that they can pick a good mate who will take care of them and their children. You can find some of this just by googling “women desire follows arousal” and then Google-scholaring the relevant research.

1. Everyone has a cross to bear, right? Everyone is held accountable for their own actions. At least, that’s what Catholics say when it comes to homosexuals. Its hard, but its their cross to stay single and chaste. I guess its different when its a straight man. Then he’s let off easy.

I’m not advocating men be let off the hook at all. I strongly object to the caddishness of my generation. I was briefly in a college frat and was horrified by the things I saw there, to the point that I quit over it. (It’s a caddishness women are doing nothing to combat, by the way).

What I’m saying is that if men and women are different with respect to sexuality (especially with respect to their innate capacity to regulate their own sexual desires), it follows that they ought to be held to different standards for doing so. That’s just common sense: you don’t evaluate a 12 year old on the middle school swim team at the same level at which you would evaluate Michael Phelps. Bear in mind, I’m talking about *social *standards here, not *ethical *standards, although there’s even a case to be made for differences in ethical standards, too, at least in some cases. A “mortal sin” requires full consent of the will, after all, and it is very much true that internal biological states can impede full consent, such that the severity of the sin may be mitigated.

If everyone is called to be pure, then everyone needs to be held to the same standards with the same punishments, social and otherwise when they fail. Even if men have it harder, it shouldn’t matter. You shouldn’t think less of the woman than you would of him.

With due respect, this is an assertion, not an argument; and I have already demonstrated multiple times how this logic, carried out consistently, would lead to rationalization for a number of perverse evils, including ones that would disproportionately and negatively impact women.

 

[Nate13]

My comment about male privilege was a response to someone else’s claims about standards of chastity. Someone else used that phrase with him earlier when he was saying that women are sex objects. I’m sorry, when you got sarcastic about my comment I assumed you disagreed with my rebuttal.

Think of it like this. Whichever person in the relationship has the greatest physical strength and could get their way with the other person if they wanted to (usually the man) has a greater responsibility in exercising self-control physically. If the weaker of the two (strength wise) loses control of themselves they will not be able to dominate the other, where as if the stronger of the two loses control they would. Thus you could say it is more important for the stronger of the two to display self-control because the consequences of them failing to do so are more worse. This is common sense 101.

Sw85 is merely applying this principle to chastity. Usually men struggle much more so than women in controlling their sexual desires. Thus while men in general are under more responsibility to exercise control in preventing themselves from forcing themselves on women, women have more ability in general to say no when tempted by sexual immorality and should exercise it.

Think of it like a team. Everyone in your team has different abilities and certain things they excel at. Of course you wish and strive to have a team of superstars in every capacity but a lot of the time that just isn’t the case. The smart team works to take advantage of where each individual excels at and in doing so allows the team as a whole to excel.

The stupid team engages in a power struggle where each tries to dominate or possess the other.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Think of it like this. Whichever person in the relationship has the greatest physical strength and could get their way with the other person if they wanted to (usually the man) has a greater responsibility in exercising self-control physically. If the weaker of the two (strength wise) loses control of themselves they will not be able to dominate the other, where as if the stronger of the two loses control they would. Thus you could say it is more important for the stronger of the two to display self-control because the consequences of them failing to do so are more worse. This is common sense 101.

Sw85 is merely applying this principle to chastity. Usually men struggle much more so than women in controlling their sexual desires. Thus while men in general are under more responsibility to exercise control in preventing themselves from forcing themselves on women, women have more ability in general to say no when tempted by sexual immorality and should exercise it.

Think of it like a team. Everyone in your team has different abilities and certain things they excel at. Of course you wish and strive to have a team of superstars in every capacity but a lot of the time that just isn’t the case. The smart team works to take advantage of where each individual excels at and in doing so allows the team as a whole to excel.

The stupid team engages in a power struggle where each tries to dominate or possess the other.

Within a relationship people should always take the lead in what they are best at. That’s common sense. And if a couple is determined to not engage in sexual activity then they need to be ready to keep each other in line. And if the woman is more commonly the stronger one, so be it.

But when talking about social attitudes and consequences the idea of punishing women more is wrong. That attitude is dehumanizing in many ways. It goes further than reducing women (and men) to their sexuality, it reduces them to sexual stereotypes. There are, believe it or not, many couples where the woman has a much higher sex drive than the man, and it would be much harder for her to abstain. But this system leaves no room for looking at personal circumstances. I just holds women to the “other girls can do it so you should be able to as well”. Every woman is different, just like every man is different, and of course, every couple is different.

Within the relationship if the woman has it easier let her take the lead. But when it comes to dishing out societal punishments it is wrong to hold every woman to a generalization, and expect every man to be ready to go at any time. (Which is also unfair to men. Because we expect them to be up for it constantly and one with a naturally lower sex drive marries a woman with a higher drive she ends up feeling unattractive and unwanted, and he feels like he’s not living up to the expectation of men.)

Besides, when a couple gets older the woman’s drive frequently surpasses the man’s. Her drive also changes depending on the time of the month, etc.

 

[Nate13]

Within a relationship people should always take the lead in what they are best at. That’s common sense. And if a couple is determined to not engage in sexual activity then they need to be ready to keep each other in line. And if the woman is more commonly the stronger one, so be it.

But when talking about social attitudes and consequences the idea of punishing women more is wrong. That attitude is dehumanizing in many ways. It goes further than reducing women (and men) to their sexuality, it reduces them to sexual stereotypes. There are, believe it or not, many couples where the woman has a much higher sex drive than the man, and it would be much harder for her to abstain. But this system leaves no room for looking at personal circumstances. I just holds women to the “other girls can do it so you should be able to as well”. Every woman is different, just like every man is different, and of course, every couple is different.

Within the relationship if the woman has it easier let her take the lead. But when it comes to dishing out societal punishments it is wrong to hold every woman to a generalization, and expect every man to be ready to go at any time. (Which is also unfair to men. Because we expect them to be up for it constantly and one with a naturally lower sex drive marries a woman with a higher drive she ends up feeling unattractive and unwanted, and he feels like he’s not living up to the expectation of men.)

Besides, when a couple gets older the woman’s drive frequently surpasses the man’s. Her drive also changes depending on the time of the month, etc.

I’d say the standard is the same. The standard is this from the Catechism:

To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.

Yes women can have sex drives at times that rival men’s and if so its applied similarly. In general though they do not. Sexual arousal is also much different for men and women. Men can can come online in half an instant. For women to become aroused it usually takes a little bit of time and is more gradual. For a man its like walking out into the street and a half second later seeing a truck about ready to run you over. Men in general have less time to get out of the way before they are sliding down the slope where reason does not always win out and they become partially blinded by the sexual urge lol.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Seriously, what is objectionable about pointing this out? What do you mean by “sex object”? The above seems so obviously commonsensical I can’t even imagine why anyone would object to it, so clearly you must mean something else. But my efforts to get at what you people mean when you toss around this phrase have been frustratingly futile. I get a lot of leftist point-and-stutter and equalitarian mooing. I get no evidence that you all have actually thought about what you believe or why.

Perhaps if you hadn’t taken the first few words of my entire post out of context you would get it. That goes back to the earlier discussion of placing value on a woman (or not) based on her sexuality. I don’t care if you see women as good objects, you are still seeing them as objects, not as people. This attitude is further demonstrated by you wanting to judge an unchaste woman more harshly than a man. While many women may have it easier, not all do. You aren’t looking at them as individuals, just by what you think they should be based on a generalization.

Yes, that’s the extremely reductive form of my logic here. Again, I don’t see what’s objectionable about it. Men should likewise be expected to act courageously when the situation calls for it because they are generally equipped to handle dangers and threats in a way women generally aren’t; what’s wrong with this? Is it wrong if, in the dead of a night, a man hears someone breaking into the house and goes to investigate (placing himself in great danger) while his wife stays in the bedroom and calls the police? Is this “female privilege” and, if so, are you prepared to do the honest thing and attack *that *on equalitarian grounds?

Funny you should ask that. I have fought off an intruder-while my then boyfriend (now fiance) was asleep. Fortunately he was not armed and was not counting on anyone being home. As soon as attacked him he fled. I also teach a self-defense class for women and I have a concealed carry permit. Why? Because I do fully expect women to be ready, willing, and able to run to their own defense. A big, tough man will not always be with you, and it comes down to fight for yourself or end up hurt, killed, or raped.

Like I teach in my class, yes, the man is bigger and stronger. That doesn’t mean that you are going to lose. It just means that you will have to fight differently, and use different tactics. I think that that concept applies here. A man is going to have to be just as chaste as the woman, but he may have to go about it differently than she does. Just because he’s at a physical disadvantage doesn’t mean he can’t ultimately come out just as well as his female counterpart.

 

[sw85]

Perhaps if you hadn’t taken the first few words of my entire post out of context you would get it. That goes back to the earlier discussion of placing value on a woman (or not) based on her sexuality. I don’t care if you see women as good objects, you are still seeing them as objects, not as people. This attitude is further demonstrated by you wanting to judge an unchaste woman more harshly than a man. While many women may have it easier, not all do. You aren’t looking at them as individuals, just by what you think they should be based on a generalization.

Everyone is the recipient of an action is an “object.” In grammar, the object is the word or phrase toward which the action of the verb is directed; e.g., in the sentence “I kissed Rosie,” “Rosie” is the object. But clearly this is not what is meant when people complain about treated as “sex objects,” hence why I’ve been insisting on clarification of what is meant by “sex object.”

I gather what you’re trying to say is that women shouldn’t be treated as semen receptacles (in which case it would be clearer to say “sex instruments.”) But who in the world believes this? Again, it’s not we traditionalists who want people treated this way, its sexual liberals who view people as instrumental, interchangeable, intrinsically meaningless (because of contraception) means to the end of sexual satisfaction. It’s not strongly Catholic societies that produce cads with hundreds of notches on their bedposts.

Of course it’s not true of all women. The statement “men have a harder time with chastity than women” is not saying the same thing as “each and every man has a harder time with chastity than each and every woman.” Nor does the statement “men are taller than women” mean “the shortest man is taller than the tallest woman.” It’s a normative statement, not a universal one.

Funny you should ask that. I have fought off an intruder-while my then boyfriend (now fiance) was asleep. Fortunately he was not armed and was not counting on anyone being home. As soon as attacked him he fled. I also teach a self-defense class for women and I have a concealed carry permit. Why? Because I do fully expect women to be ready, willing, and able to run to their own defense. A big, tough man will not always be with you, and it comes down to fight for yourself or end up hurt, killed, or raped.

That’s a good attitude to have (I have a concealed carry license also and strongly encourage all people to look into it). Unfortunately it’s irrelevant to the point I’m making.

Like I teach in my class, yes, the man is bigger and stronger. That doesn’t mean that you are going to lose. It just means that you will have to fight differently, and use different tactics.

Of course; but you must adapt to the demands of the situation precisely because you are, by nature, likely to be disadvantaged in any such confrontation.

Here’s a thought exercise. Pick two men who are completely average in every respect, with no prior training or experience in combat, and drop them in a battle cage. Who’ll win? The odds are relatively even. By contrast, pick a completely average man and a completely average women, also with no prior training or experience, and drop them in a battle cage. The man will probably win the majority of matches. Because he is advantaged in such a respect simply by nature.

Likewise, as you point out, men generally have to develop strategies (deliberate and volitional self-regulation, distraction, prayer, self-medication, etc.) in order to remain chaste. This doesn’t change the fact that he must do so precisely because he’s at a disadvantage in this respect.

I think that that concept applies here. A man is going to have to be just as chaste as the woman, but he may have to go about it differently than she does. Just because he’s at a physical disadvantage doesn’t mean he can’t ultimately come out just as well as his female counterpart.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I’m saying that if chastity is held to be a virtue, it’s perfectly logical for women to be held to higher standards for it than men, because chastity comes more easily to them by nature.

.

Or you could judge (as well as reward and/or punish) people as individuals, instead of just judging them as members of a group.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
I am glad that you admit that what you’re advocating is impractical and does not necessarily lead to anything good (if implemented).

By contrast, I appreciate the tacit admission that your beliefs are based on falsehood and that you don’t think lying is bad.

Personal insults already

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
No sw85 was the one who said that.
Although I am beginning to suspect he was just trolling.

I’ve been harboring the same suspicion of you, considering how utterly obstinate you are about not actually making an argument for anything.

Believe it or not it’s possible not to be a self-worshipping liberal about literally everything. Lots of people pull it off.

Denying you’re a troll in one sentence, and then in the *very next sentence *resorting to personal insults is not very convincing:shrug:

Frankly it undermines your argument.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Quote:
and justifying it by saying that they are, they just aren’t “only” sex objects

Seriously, what is objectionable about pointing this out? What do you mean by “sex object”? The above seems so obviously commonsensical I can’t even imagine why anyone would object to it, so clearly you must mean something else. But my efforts to get at what you people mean when you toss around this phrase have been frustratingly futile. I get a lot of leftist point-and-stutter and equalitarian mooing. I get no evidence that you all have actually thought about what you believe or why.

Then you apparently lack imagination.

Here’s the definition of Object from Dictionary.com for a bit of context:

1. anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form.
2. a thing, person, or matter to which thought or action is directed: an object of medical investigation.
3. the end toward which effort or action is directed; goal; purpose: Profit is the object of business.
4. a person or thing with reference to the impression made on the mind or the feeling or emotion elicited in an observer: an object of curiosity and pity.
5. anything that may be apprehended intellectually: objects of thought.
6. Optics . the thing of which a lens or mirror forms an image.
7. Grammar . (in many languages, as English) a noun, noun phrase, or noun substitute representing by its syntactical position either the goal of the action of a verb or the goal of a preposition in a prepositional phrase, as ball in John hit the ball, Venice in He came to Venice, coin and her in He gave her a coin. Compare direct object, indirect object.
8. Computers . any item that can be individually selected or manipulated, as a picture, data file, or piece of text.
9. Metaphysics . something toward which a cognitive act is directed.

As this definition makes plain, objects are usually considered things to own or act upon. Not people.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

i.e., the objects (i.e, recipients) of sexual desire, attraction, and affection.

i.e., pointing out that a person can be more than one thing at a time, i.e., desired sexually by her husband and also an accountant.

Seriously, what is objectionable about pointing this out? What do you mean by “sex object”? The above seems so obviously commonsensical I can’t even imagine why anyone would object to it, so clearly you must mean something else. But my efforts to get at what you people mean when you toss around this phrase have been frustratingly futile.** I get a lot of leftist point-and-stutter and equalitarian mooing. I get no evidence that you all have actually thought about what you believe or why.**

Yes, that’s the extremely reductive form of my logic here. Again, I don’t see what’s objectionable about it. Men should likewise be expected to act courageously when the situation calls for it because they are generally equipped to handle dangers and threats in a way women generally aren’t; what’s wrong with this? Is it wrong if, in the dead of a night, a man hears someone breaking into the house and goes to investigate (placing himself in great danger) while his wife stays in the bedroom and calls the police? Is this “female privilege” and, if so, are you prepared to do the honest thing and attack *that *on equalitarian grounds?

Again, there is plenty of scientific evidence showing that, for women, sexual desire follows sexual arousal. In other words, they don’t come to desire sex the way men do until after they’ve started having it. There’s plenty of evolutionary rationale for this, too, relating to natural selection, optimal mate selection, etc.; naturally speaking, women are expected to keep their heads on straight when it comes to sex so that they can pick a good mate who will take care of them and their children. You can find some of this just by googling “women desire follows arousal” and then Google-scholaring the relevant research.

I’m not advocating men be let off the hook at all. I strongly object to the caddishness of my generation. I was briefly in a college frat and was horrified by the things I saw there, to the point that I quit over it. (It’s a caddishness women are doing nothing to combat, by the way).

What I’m saying is that if men and women are different with respect to sexuality (especially with respect to their innate capacity to regulate their own sexual desires), it follows that they ought to be held to different standards for doing so. That’s just common sense: you don’t evaluate a 12 year old on the middle school swim team at the same level at which you would evaluate Michael Phelps. Bear in mind, I’m talking about *social *standards here, not *ethical *standards, although there’s even a case to be made for differences in ethical standards, too, at least in some cases. A “mortal sin” requires full consent of the will, after all, and it is very much true that internal biological states can impede full consent, such that the severity of the sin may be mitigated.

With due respect, this is an assertion, not an argument; and I have already demonstrated multiple times how this logic, carried out consistently, would lead to rationalization for a number of perverse evils, including ones that would disproportionately and negatively impact women.

More insults.
And you have not demonstrated anything.

Unlike me, you have provided no sources to support your claims, and have in fact ignored it when I pointed out that modern societies (such as Saudi Arabia’s) where women are held to much higher (and harsher) standards than men in the area of sexuality (which you have said is a good thing) treat women awfully.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

i.e., the objects (i.e, recipients) of sexual desire, attraction, and affection.

i.e., pointing out that a person can be more than one thing at a time, i.e., desired sexually by her husband and also an accountant.

Seriously, what is objectionable about pointing this out? What do you mean by “sex object”? The above seems so obviously commonsensical I can’t even imagine why anyone would object to it, so clearly you must mean something else. But my efforts to get at what you people mean when you toss around this phrase have been frustratingly futile. I get a lot of leftist point-and-stutter and equalitarian mooing. I get no evidence that you all have actually thought about what you believe or why.

Yes, that’s the extremely reductive form of my logic here. Again, I don’t see what’s objectionable about it. Men should likewise be expected to act courageously when the situation calls for it because they are generally equipped to handle dangers and threats in a way women generally aren’t; what’s wrong with this? Is it wrong if, in the dead of a night, a man hears someone breaking into the house and goes to investigate (placing himself in great danger) while his wife stays in the bedroom and calls the police? Is this “female privilege” and, if so, are you prepared to do the honest thing and attack *that *on equalitarian grounds?

Again, there is plenty of scientific evidence showing that, for women, sexual desire follows sexual arousal. In other words, they don’t come to desire sex the way men do until after they’ve started having it. There’s plenty of evolutionary rationale for this, too, relating to natural selection, optimal mate selection, etc.; naturally speaking, women are expected to keep their heads on straight when it comes to sex so that they can pick a good mate who will take care of them and their children. You can find some of this just by googling “women desire follows arousal” and then Google-scholaring the relevant research.

I’m not advocating men be let off the hook at all. I strongly object to the caddishness of my generation. I was briefly in a college frat and was horrified by the things I saw there, to the point that I quit over it. (It’s a caddishness women are doing nothing to combat, by the way).

**What I’m saying is that if men and women are different with respect to sexuality (especially with respect to their innate capacity to regulate their own sexual desires), it follows that they ought to be held to different standards for doing so. That’s just common sense: you don’t evaluate a 12 year old on the middle school swim team at the same level at which you would evaluate Michael Phelps. Bear in mind, I’m talking about *social ***standards here, not *ethical *standards, although there’s even a case to be made for differences in ethical standards, too, at least in some cases. A “mortal sin” requires full consent of the will, after all, and it is very much true that internal biological states can impede full consent, such that the severity of the sin may be mitigated.

With due respect, this is an assertion, not an argument; and I have already demonstrated multiple times how this logic, carried out consistently, would lead to rationalization for a number of perverse evils, including ones that would disproportionately and negatively impact women.

Punishing people for ‘crimes’ that others simply get a pass on because of their race, gender, class, etc. is almost the definition of unfairness.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

i.e., the objects (i.e, recipients) of sexual desire, attraction, and affection.

i.e., pointing out that a person can be more than one thing at a time, i.e., desired sexually by her husband and also an accountant.

Seriously, what is objectionable about pointing this out? What do you mean by “sex object”? The above seems so obviously commonsensical I can’t even imagine why anyone would object to it, so clearly you must mean something else. But my efforts to get at what you people mean when you toss around this phrase have been frustratingly futile. I get a lot of leftist point-and-stutter and equalitarian mooing. I get no evidence that you all have actually thought about what you believe or why.

**Yes, that’s the extremely reductive form of my logic here. Again, I don’t see what’s objectionable about it. Men should likewise be expected to act courageously when the situation calls for it because they are generally equipped to handle dangers and threats in a way women generally aren’t; what’s wrong with this? Is it wrong if, in the dead of a night, a man hears someone breaking into the house and goes to investigate (placing himself in great danger) while his wife stays in the bedroom and calls the police? Is this “female privilege” and, if so, are you prepared to do the honest thing and attack *that ***on equalitarian grounds?

Again, there is plenty of scientific evidence showing that, for women, sexual desire follows sexual arousal. In other words, they don’t come to desire sex the way men do until after they’ve started having it. There’s plenty of evolutionary rationale for this, too, relating to natural selection, optimal mate selection, etc.; naturally speaking, women are expected to keep their heads on straight when it comes to sex so that they can pick a good mate who will take care of them and their children. You can find some of this just by googling “women desire follows arousal” and then Google-scholaring the relevant research.

I’m not advocating men be let off the hook at all. I strongly object to the caddishness of my generation. I was briefly in a college frat and was horrified by the things I saw there, to the point that I quit over it. (It’s a caddishness women are doing nothing to combat, by the way).

What I’m saying is that if men and women are different with respect to sexuality (especially with respect to their innate capacity to regulate their own sexual desires), it follows that they ought to be held to different standards for doing so. That’s just common sense: you don’t evaluate a 12 year old on the middle school swim team at the same level at which you would evaluate Michael Phelps. Bear in mind, I’m talking about *social *standards here, not *ethical *standards, although there’s even a case to be made for differences in ethical standards, too, at least in some cases. A “mortal sin” requires full consent of the will, after all, and it is very much true that internal biological states can impede full consent, such that the severity of the sin may be mitigated.

With due respect, this is an assertion, not an argument; and I have already demonstrated multiple times how this logic, carried out consistently, would lead to rationalization for a number of perverse evils, including ones that would disproportionately and negatively impact women.

How can physical courage and sexual conduct even be considered the same issue?

Do you really believe that because men are braver (or at least expected to be more brave) than women, that men should be allowed to be more promiscuous?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Everyone is the recipient of an action is an “object.” In grammar, the object is the word or phrase toward which the action of the verb is directed; e.g., in the sentence “I kissed Rosie,” “Rosie” is the object. But clearly this is not what is meant when people complain about treated as “sex objects,” hence why I’ve been insisting on clarification of what is meant by “sex object.”

I gather what you’re trying to say is that women shouldn’t be treated as semen receptacles (in which case it would be clearer to say “sex instruments.”) But who in the world believes this? Again, it’s not we traditionalists who want people treated this way, its sexual liberals who view people as instrumental, interchangeable, intrinsically meaningless (because of contraception) means to the end of sexual satisfaction. It’s not strongly Catholic societies that produce cads with hundreds of notches on their bedposts.

Of course it’s not true of all women. The statement “men have a harder time with chastity than women” is not saying the same thing as “each and every man has a harder time with chastity than each and every woman.” Nor does the statement “men are taller than women” mean “the shortest man is taller than the tallest woman.” It’s a normative statement, not a universal one.

That’s a good attitude to have (I have a concealed carry license also and strongly encourage all people to look into it). Unfortunately it’s irrelevant to the point I’m making.

Of course; but you must adapt to the demands of the situation precisely because you are, by nature, likely to be disadvantaged in any such confrontation.

Here’s a thought exercise. Pick two men who are completely average in every respect, with no prior training or experience in combat, and drop them in a battle cage. Who’ll win? The odds are relatively even. By contrast, pick a completely average man and a completely average women, also with no prior training or experience, and drop them in a battle cage. The man will probably win the majority of matches. Because he is advantaged in such a respect simply by nature.

Likewise, as you point out, men generally have to develop strategies (deliberate and volitional self-regulation, distraction, prayer, self-medication, etc.) in order to remain chaste. This doesn’t change the fact that he must do so precisely because he’s at a disadvantage in this respect.

I think that that concept applies here. A man is going to have to be just as chaste as the woman, but he may have to go about it differently than she does. Just because he’s at a physical disadvantage doesn’t mean he can’t ultimately come out just as well as his female counterpart.

I will admit conservative Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. generally don’t use the term *semen receptables *
But so what?

Plenty of people think that women should be primarily defined by (if not limited to) their roles as wives and mothers. In other words, their sexual roles.

Whereas virtually no one disputes men’s right to be soldiers, scientists, doctors, lawyers, politicians, artists, or virtually any other role that isn’t considered immoral (such as pornographers).

 

[BellsMom]

SW has convinced me of his position.

Following the same logic, I think that all all social and civil penalties regarding acts of violence should be altered to take into account how much harder it is for man to keep himself in check. It’s a fact that men are more prone to aggression and violence (just look at history, spousal abuse, violent crime statistics, etc.) This must be a factor of their biology. Perhaps its the testosterone.

So if it harder for a man to resist being violent towards another person then it is for a woman, women should receive stiffer penalties then men for violent crimes.

Hmmmm. Or maybe this whole conversation is just bizarre.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

SW has convinced me of his position.

Following the same logic, I think that all all social and civil penalties regarding acts of violence should be altered to take into account how much harder it is for man to keep himself in check. It’s a fact that men are more prone to aggression and violence (just look at history, spousal abuse, violent crime statistics, etc.) This must be a factor of their biology. Perhaps its the testosterone.

So if it harder for a man to resist being violent towards another person then it is for a woman, women should receive stiffer penalties then men for violent crimes.

Hmmmm. Or maybe this whole conversation is just bizarre.

Like I said before, I think sw85 might just be acting deliberately provocative.

 

[Nate13]

SW has convinced me of his position.

Following the same logic, I think that all all social and civil penalties regarding acts of violence should be altered to take into account how much harder it is for man to keep himself in check. It’s a fact that men are more prone to aggression and violence (just look at history, spousal abuse, violent crime statistics, etc.) This must be a factor of their biology. Perhaps its the testosterone.

So if it harder for a man to resist being violent towards another person then it is for a woman, women should receive stiffer penalties then men for violent crimes.

Hmmmm. Or maybe this whole conversation is just bizarre.

Why are you talking about the law? We are talking about developing virtue and morality here no? If a man and woman commit the same crime they get the same punishment, no one disputes that.

The moral responsibility standard for a crime applies the same to all regardless of sex:

Catechism:
To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.

The more ability and knowledge you have to say no to sin, the more moral responsibility you have for said sin if you commit it. This idea is all that is being developed here, its that simple. Everybody just freaks out whenever people point out the differences between men and women and its ridiculous. Calm down and acknowledge the complementary and beautiful way God has created man and woman.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Why are you talking about the law? We are talking about developing virtue and morality here no? If a man and woman commit the same crime they get the same punishment, no one disputes that.

The moral responsibility standard for a crime applies the same to all regardless of sex:

The more ability and knowledge you have to say no to sin, the more moral responsibility you have for said sin if you commit it. This idea is all that is being developed here, its that simple. Everybody just freaks out whenever people point out the differences between men and women and its ridiculous. Calm down and acknowledge the complementary and beautiful way God has created man and woman.

No, unfortunately that is not all that’s being said.
sw85 specifically said:

What I’m saying is that if men and women are different with respect to sexuality (especially with respect to their innate capacity to regulate their own sexual desires), it follows that they ought to be held to different standards for doing so. That’s just common sense: you don’t evaluate a 12 year old on the middle school swim team at the same level at which you would evaluate Michael Phelps. Bear in mind, I’m talking about social standards here, not ethical standards, although there’s even a case to be made for differences in ethical standards, too,

Advocating different social and even ethical standards for men and women (at least when it comes to sex).

 

[Nate13]

No, unfortunately that is not all that’s being said.
sw85 specifically said:

What I’m saying is that if men and women are different with respect to sexuality (especially with respect to their innate capacity to regulate their own sexual desires), it follows that they ought to be held to different standards for doing so. That’s just common sense: you don’t evaluate a 12 year old on the middle school swim team at the same level at which you would evaluate Michael Phelps. Bear in mind, I’m talking about social standards here, not ethical standards, although there’s even a case to be made for differences in ethical standards, too,

Advocating different social and even ethical standards for men and women (at least when it comes to sex).

I would bet he means what I posted and his way of saying it threw you off, but I will let him speak for himself. It appears to me he is just trying to develop the idea from the quote from the Catechism I posted. On the surface what is being put forth would appear to be different standards, but the quote from the Catechism shows the over arching standard that is being applied to all equally.

Catechism:
To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.

To keep it gender neutral the argument would basically be that those with less ability to gain control of their inhibitions would be less morally culpable for their actions than those who had more ability.

If sw85 meant to imply a difference in how laws are applied when he said “social standards” I’d be curious to hear him defend that assertion. However I believe he was more referring to how we think of man and woman in a cultural sense. If the principle being discussed here were to be embraced, women who had more control over their sexual inhibitions would realize their advantage and see it as something to be embraced and employed for the good of their own soul and any men they came into contact with.

In other words those with more self-control (man or woman), would see their ability as a gift they have been given to employ to help both themselves and their spouse, boyfriend, girlfriend, etc… live as God has called them to live.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I would bet he means what I posted and his way of saying it threw you off, but I will let him speak for himself. It appears to me he is just trying to develop the idea from the quote from the Catechism I posted. On the surface what is being put forth would appear to be different standards, but the quote from the Catechism shows the over arching standard that is being applied to all equally.

To keep it gender neutral the argument would basically be that those with less ability to gain control of their inhibitions would be less morally culpable for their actions than those who had more ability.

If sw85 meant to imply a difference in how laws are applied when he said “social standards” I’d be curious to hear him defend that assertion. However I believe he was more referring to how we think of man and woman in a cultural sense. If the principle being discussed here were to be embraced, women who had more control over their sexual inhibitions would realize their advantage and see it as something to be embraced and employed for the good of their own soul and any men they came into contact with.

In other words those with more self-control (man or woman), would see their ability as a gift they have been given to employ to help both themselves and their spouse, boyfriend, girlfriend, etc… live as God has called them to live.

I doubt it.
sw85 pretty explicitly supported the idea of different standards for men and women.
I think the real question is how serious he was being.