Sexism. It's not complicated

[PseuTonym]

If a bisexual woman wants to marry a man, then is it possible that she is turning the sexual category “male” into a sexual fetish? In other words, is it possible that she has a sexual fetish that is responsible for her desire to marry a man, and that she is a sexist?

Suppose that a man wants to ensure that he marries a woman who isn’t a bisexual. Is his precaution against marrying a sexist acceptable, or is it possible that he is deceiving himself, and that he has an orientationist fetish for straight women?

 

[Qoeleth]

If a bisexual woman wants to marry a man, then is it possible that she is turning the sexual category “male” into a sexual fetish? In other words, is it possible that she has a sexual fetish that is responsible for her desire to marry a man, and that she is a sexist?

Suppose that a man wants to ensure that he marries a woman who isn’t a bisexual. Is his precaution against marrying a sexist acceptable, or is it possible that he is deceiving himself, and that he has an orientationist fetish for straight women?

Here’s how it works-
A man falls in love with a woman. The woman falls in love with the man. Then they get married, circumstances permitting.

It’s perfectly simple. Simple morality- springing from simple biology.

 

[JurisPrudens]

Here’s how it works-
A man falls in love with a woman. The woman falls in love with the man. Then they get married, circumstances permitting.

It’s perfectly simple. Simple morality- springing from simple biology.

 

[DaveBj]

Here’s how it works-
A man falls in love with a woman. The woman falls in love with the man. Then they get married, circumstances permitting.

It’s perfectly simple. Simple morality- springing from simple biology.

Nailed it.

 

[Irishmom2]

If a bisexual woman wants to marry a man, then is it possible that she is turning the sexual category “male” into a sexual fetish? In other words, is it possible that she has a sexual fetish that is responsible for her desire to marry a man, and that she is a sexist?

Suppose that a man wants to ensure that he marries a woman who isn’t a bisexual. Is his precaution against marrying a sexist acceptable, or is it possible that he is deceiving himself, and that he has an orientationist fetish for straight women?

How would any of us here know what is in the heart and mind of another? It is not our place to assume to know what their thought process is. It makes me wonder what is the real purpose of your questions.

 

[PseuTonym]

How would any of us here know what is in the heart and mind of another? It is not our place to assume to know what their thought process is. It makes me wonder what is the real purpose of your questions.

To know the real purpose, would it be necessary for you to know what is in the heart and mind of somebody who is other than yourself? Is the real purpose therefore something that cannot be known by you?

Send me a private message and I will reveal all there is to know about this thread.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

If a bisexual woman wants to marry a man, then is it possible that she is turning the sexual category “male” into a sexual fetish? In other words, is it possible that she has a sexual fetish that is responsible for her desire to marry a man, and that she is a sexist?

No. Unless the sexual gratification comes from the act of marrying the man rather than the man himself, in which case yes.

If you’re trying to relate this to the fetishization of Asian women, the difference is that the Asian women thing is a cultural issue. There are a lot of men in western countries who have this idea that Asian women are perfectly submissive housewives and other weird things, and this notion of Asian women is quite commonly perpetuated. It isn’t so much related to simply preference based on appearance.

 

[Irishmom2]

To know the real purpose, would it be necessary for you to know what is in the heart and mind of somebody who is other than yourself? Is the real purpose therefore something that cannot be known by you?

Send me a private message and I will reveal all there is to know about this thread.

No thank you. My point is that the questions being asked cannot be answered by anyone except the person(s) involved. And it seemed to me that your questions were hypothetical, not personal, and being asked to stir controversy. I do not want or need to know any further details. Unsubscribing.

 

[GEddie]

Yet another example of mindrot that is transmitted through Facebook.

There are males, there are females, and the two are complementary in the order of procreation. Full stop.

It is not “sexist” for a woman to prefer a man, nor for someone to prefer a mate who is free of sexual confusion; it is just how we are made.

ICXC NIKA

 

[PseuTonym]

to stir controversy.

Controversy can be polite. Sometimes debates are conducted impolitely. However, it isn’t clear to me that a potential topic of discussion or debate predetermines impolite debate. After all, people have free will.

Perhaps there is something about the way that the Original Post was expressed that makes it more likely to elicit impolite responses than alternative formulations of the same ideas would have elicited. However, I will have to wait for somebody to draw attention to something specific about the formulation of the Original Post that makes it likely to elicit impolite responses.

 

[pianistclare]

Yet another example of mindrot that is transmitted through Facebook.

There are males, there are females, and the two are complementary in the order of procreation. Full stop.

It is not “sexist” for a woman to prefer a man, nor for someone to prefer a mate who is free of sexual confusion; it is just how we are made.

ICXC NIKA

Right. And what has this got to do with Social Justice?

 

[PseuTonym]

Right. And what has this got to do with Social Justice?

The scenarios in the Original Post of this thread do not, in my opinion, describe social problems in urgent need of solutions. In my opinion, they don’t even describe letters i that require dots or letters t that have not yet been crossed. However, some people cannot distinguish between matters of ideology and matters of principle.

Maybe the idea in the Original Post of this thread could be used to distract ideologists who would otherwise riot, causing injuries and damaging property. For example, it might be possible to organize peaceful protests against bisexual women who want to marry straight men, and peaceful protests against straight men who don’t want to marry bisexual women.

If large crowds of people could be persuaded to attend such protests, then the right to sell beverages, snack foods, T-shirts, etc. at the chosen locations could become valuable, providing a source of funding to pay writers and radio commentators who will recruit readers and listeners to attend the protests.

 

[pianistclare]

The scenarios in the Original Post of this thread do not, in my opinion, describe social problems in urgent need of solutions. In my opinion, they don’t even describe letters i that require dots or letters t that have not yet been crossed. However, some people cannot distinguish between matters of ideology and matters of principle.

Maybe the idea in the Original Post of this thread could be used to distract ideologists who would otherwise riot, causing injuries and damaging property. For example, it might be possible to organize peaceful protests against bisexual women who want to marry straight men, and peaceful protests against straight men who don’t want to marry bisexual women.

If large crowds of people could be persuaded to attend such protests, then the right to sell beverages, snack foods, T-shirts, etc. at the chosen locations could become valuable, providing a source of funding to pay writers and radio commentators who will recruit readers and listeners to attend the protests.

okay.whatever. Daft premise. I’m out.