so where's the girl stuff?

Sorry to say that's kind of what irritates me. That lots of girls aren't comfortable with me just because I'm a man. Under similar circumstances were I a woman they might be but for many the fact that I'm a man is what makes them uncomfortable. I kind of find that, well if not offensive then upsetting. It's quite small minded in my view to make that kind of judgement about some one based on they gender. Just as much as if they make that assessment of race or age. Sadly at the end of the day if people do chose to think that way there's not much you can do but challenge their preconceptions.

Personally I recall the recent kurfufel they had over introducing a bill to make it illegal to with hold services on the grounds of sexual orientation. Just think if they passed such a bill for gender. It would be the end of all women car insurance agencies. The end of ladies night at the pub. A young man could walk in to a beauty salon or women's health farm and demand service. It would be the end of all women events such as ann summers parties and largely I don't think any of that would be so bad. I'm not saying that peoples, and particularly women's, personal comfort is unimportant or that the would needs a bunch of equality nazis going around closing all single sex establishments but really this is the 21st centenary. I think it would be good for society to encourage women to open up their 'girly worlds' to men the same way men have opened up traditionally masculine worlds such as industry, academia and military service.

It is quite amazing how women have managed to push into the previously male dominated sectors while giving little or no ground themselves (though whether is through lack of asking or offering I'm not sure). However the fact remains that sexism has become acceptable so long as it is aimed at men (in much the same way that a black person can dislike white people on principle without being a racist). The "equality nazi's" as CD called them have long been doing an overzealous job, they have attempted to bring equality by helping out the "oppressed minorities2 (not that women are a minority) but after all the previous "oppressors" are left tiptoeing through a PC minefield while those who have been given equality can say pretty much what they want.

It would be an interesting idea to have a world without gender specific services, however I find it unlikely that such a bill would ever be passed (not that I think you expect it either), and even if it were many of the things would not stop, they would find loop-holes to get through etc. I'm sure for ladies night etc they would have some loop-hole allowing it as long as it was not a permanent fixture. It's ironic that writing this i see very little that men would be set to lose if there were no gender specific services.

but much as i'd like to continue this little essay i have a lecture i should be in.

"So Schrodinger's Cat is not only neither dead nor alive, but might also be sexually aroused by elbows and peanut butter?"

Western culture looks up to the underdog as the suffering innocent (christ?). What's annoying about all this sensitivity is that it keeps those boundaries between people of different color, sex, sexual orientation that they're trying to break down in the first place.

Last year, an interesting event happened at my college. The women's studies department had a colored-women only session where they could talk about their concerns as colored women. The university threw a fit because two white girls who even considered coming were barred from entering. No one ever asked why men can't be there.

The debate is over whether or not we should separate ourselves for specific purposes (such as understanding the concerns of or simply socializing with a certain subgroup). I think that, one way or another, we will form subgroups. I will naturally lean towards those who are my height, skin color, ethnic background etc. But is it right to bar someone out if they're not part of your group?

Note to Cynic-Al: Women are classified as minorities.

"How can we be just in a world without mercy and merciful in a world without justice?"

quote:

---

however I find it unlikely that such a bill would ever be passed (not that I think you expect it either), and even if it were many of the things would not stop, they would find loop-holes to get through etc.

---

quote:

---

The debate is over whether or not we should separate ourselves for specific purposes (such as understanding the concerns of or simply socialising with a certain subgroup). I think that, one way or another, we will form subgroups. I will naturally lean towards those who are my height, skin colour, ethnic background etc. But is it right to bar someone out if they're not part of your group?

---

I personally see nothing wrong with single sex activities, whether rightly or wrongly there is less tension in single sex groups (mainly because there is no need to attempt to attract members of the group, unless as previously mentioned some of the group are homosexual). I know CD will shoot me down on this being terrible and that we shouldn't feel threatened by members of the opposite sex in our group, and i agree but sometimes it is good to have some time when it is just guys or just girls, because we do have differences and its good to have some respect for them.

I think the heart of the problem of why we can't open up to the other gender lies in the way we are raised. as young children we don't differentiate between the genders, but as we get a bit older we start to and (possibly socially defined) differences in interests mean that the two sexes have interest in each other. later on the interest is kindled by the onset of puberty, but differences in interests mean that this interest in each other is rarely about platonic friendship. Parents also make platonic friendship harder, as things like girly sleepovers bar boys because of the parents (quite sensible) fear that things might not stay good clean fun. all these things add up in the end to a not insurmountable gap, but one that takes work to bridge. And at no point in this process is it ever lack of education that ever prevents us learning it is the social organisation, often in quite necessary ways, the only really changeable thing is trying to change society to gives younger children more common interests so that there is social interaction between them before puberty, though parental worry will still put blockades in after the beginning of adolescence.

@ attolia, i know women are counted as a minority, but i was saying purely numerically that they shouldn't be.

apologies if this reads badly, i wrote a lot and then voted on a poll without thinking and realised i had just deleted the entire contents of what i was about to post, so i rewrote it quickly before i had to go out.

"So Schrodinger's Cat is not only neither dead nor alive, but might also be sexually aroused by elbows and peanut butter?"

The thing is, for me at least, it's counter productive. If you fear acting like your self and totally letting your hair down around me as a women for fear of putting me off as a potential mate then you are putting me off because you can't just unwind about me.

It's quite odd for me. You see I was one of these child prodergys and so around the time I was 12-13 I spent a good deal of time hanging around older girls 15+ and of course at that ages they don't really perceive you as a threat or a potential mate. I remember having some quite deep and frank conversations with them.

You see back then I found them mostly very attractive, something only a few cottoned on to latter, but I also thought of them as my friends and naturally as happened with friends I found the odd one now and again I found more than attractive. That I developed deeper feelings for. The problem being that being 12-13 etc girls don't see you as BF material.

Nowadays all the girls seem to play this bizarre game. They may play defensively, holding back around me either because they fear putting me off or leading me on. Very occasionally they play offensively so as to try and encourage your affections. The point is that by playing the game they have all ready lost. I'm not interested in girls who play the game.

The bizarre irony is that in this position the very thing that was a prerequisite to that deep romantic attraction to women was contingent on the thing that made them uninterested in me. In some respects the former is still better than the latter state as you have more opportunities for meaning full friendships and many opportunities to be in love (romantically) are preferable to many opportunities to consummate physical attraction (relationships or sex).

meh. I have a lecture. will type more latter

I don't think that single sex groups are counter productive, I think that some time spent with just your own sex is a good thing (no guy is really going to be particularly interested in make-up and what you do with your hair etc, so female friends are better there because they are interested in it and its more fun to talk to someone who's interested than someone it bores the life out of, the same holds true for men talking about computers, we talk to each other cos the majority of our female friends just look blank and/or bored). I do agree though that both genders should be able to talk to each other, I'm generally happier talking to girls than guys, most are generally better listeners, and in general they are easier to listen to (don't ask me why).

btw not sure if ur comment was aimed directly

quote:

---

If you fear acting like your self and totally letting your hair down around me as a women for fear of putting me off as a potential mate then you are putting me off because you can't just unwind about me.

---

"So Schrodinger's Cat is not only neither dead nor alive, but might also be sexually aroused by elbows and peanut butter?"

quote:

---

(no guy is really going to be particularly interested in make-up and what you do with your hair etc., so female friends are better there because they are interested in it and its more fun to talk to someone who's interested than someone it bores the life out of, the same holds true for men talking about computers, we talk to each other cos the majority of our female friends just look blank and/or bored)

---

The idea over same-sex sleepovers is odd. If we don't let 8-year olds have coed sleepovers, are we acknowledging that they're sexually curious and uncontrollable?

Imagine, learning about the birds and the bees for the first time, then turning to your neighbor's son and realizing you two could have a completely different interaction based on the body parts you can't see, show others, and are forbidden to mention out loud. Separate classes for sex-ed makes sense. I was uncomfortable enough with just girls as it was in my first formal class. Plus, I'd be more likely to ask a question if I was surrounded by girls only vs a mixed environment.

CW, thousands of years of conditioning is in place and will be difficult to remove or change all at once. The definitions of masculine and feminine are set and do not change quickly. It sounds so ridiculous to make fun of a boy who plays with his sisters dolls or a girl who loves toy cars, but how do you undo all that conditioning? You may be able to do it on a individual level and affect those nearest to you, but how do you affect perceptions of the masses?

"How can we be just in a world without mercy and merciful in a world without justice?"

I think mixed sex sleep overs are fine at that age, it's just i can understand why parents wouldn't want to have children of 13-14 upwards together in that situation. CW parenting will have very little effect if the other children aren't raised the same, and anyway I was raised being told that sex before marriage was wrong, yet I don't hold the same morality as my parents, so after two years with a girl it was a rule that I disregarded.

going back to CW yes i suppose it is a sexist statement about make-up and hair, i do know some guys have hair straighteners, but very few do such intricate things with their hair and make-up and the majority do get bored watching female friends get ready, because they don't understand why it takes so long, and (unless they do some drama) will never be likely to put make-up on or do their hair in fancy plaits. i know that some women like engineering, there are a good few of them on my course, that's why i said the majority just look blank or bored. eg. My gf point blank refuses to have the working of her computer explained in a bit more detail.

I think uni-sex sports teams are a great idea, (though that doesn't hold for rugby, as the girls aren't allowed to play mixed games because there is quite a high risk of injury to their reproductive organs.) for other sports however it would be a very good idea.

Your idea with changing rooms suprises me, for someone who seems to be trying to get everyone to be more libertarian the idea that single cubicles are needed in changing rooms seems strange. it never bothered me having to get changed, after all you do it in the majority of public swimming pool in front of complete strangers, and professional sports teams do it. The problem with cubicles in school would be that you would get bf&gf slipping into one instead of getting their own and mucking about during changing time.

with sex-ed, i did have a mixed sex-ed class. there was never any separation, we all sat and blew up condoms together , and laughed at the guy who had to go and throw up when they started talking about the menstrual cycle. My last secondary school was all girls up to sixth form, but in the sixth form, the guys were required to sit through the "tampon talks" as they were nicknamed.

"So Schrodinger's Cat is not only neither dead nor alive, but might also be sexually aroused by elbows and peanut butter?"
[  Edited by Cynic-Al at   ]

Surly the natural response to such curiosity is to satiate it early on rather than risking kids getting into trouble. You know the old saying. a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Well since keeping children completely ignorant of sex is neither possible nor desirable isn't it best to go for the 2nd option. To make sure they know a lot about sex and that all their questions are answered.

To be honest I learnt about sex way before puberty. I think that's the case with most children. In my case it would have been pretty difficult for my parents to keep me ignorant of sex had they wanted to as I was very keen on my academic studies. I read up about reproduction in text books.

To be honest because I knew about sex long before I really started to think of my self having sex with others this whole looking at the opposite sex thing in a different way is just something I can't relate to. Yes I'm a man and you're a women. We could have sex. That doesn't mean we should or will or even that you or I would desire it. Even if I do find you physically attractive or vica versa it doesn't necessarily have to change the way I feel about you as a person unless for some reason I were to fall in love with you (or vica versa). Do you believe 2 people can not find each other physically attractive (even intensely so) but not still have a very close platonic friendship based on trust, respect and mutual interests just as they might if they were the same sex? You see I don't understand why you'd be more uncomfortable with boys. I really don't.

As for reconditioning society I was thinking of the mass culture shock effect. Culture shock is an effect among those who go to live in a foreign culture. They are suddenly surrounded by a mass of people who see things differently. However when they go return home they often experience a revers culture shock. Going home to their native culture some of the things they used to do may now seem as foreign and odd as they would to an actual foreigner. In order to change some ones culture you simply have to immerse them as totally as possible in a different culture.

That might be a problem years ago when we lived in a culture centred around the family and had strong local social networks but now culture is this wider more amorphous thing. It is every thing you pick up from TV and the cinema. It's the craze that sweeps the play ground. The notion of culture is now largely depersonalised. People tend to believe all sorts of things just because that's they way our culture portrays them. Our culture has built up an archetype of the hoody wearing yob and so people believe it.

If the media, if your jobs working protocols and your schools system are constantly piping out the message 24 7, 'this is the way things are and this is what other people believe, it is the norm' people tend to believe it. Then every one things the world has changed and they are out of step and then the would actually does change.

[insert responce to cynic latter]

I would agree that answering kids questions and not withholding information from is the way to go with these things, but I think the only thing that it would actually do is make sure that if curiosity got physical then they would be safe about it. I think it's Denmark or Belgium that publishes a monthly magazine aimed at teenagers which is halfway between sex-ed and Cosmo, it means that they have the lowest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe. What it doesn't change however is that many parents don't want their kids having sex aged 14-15.

I think the thing with attractive platonic friends, is that it takes time to get to that state. most people of either gender will, at first meeting of someone they find attractive and pleasant company, flirt with that person, which automatically throws the friendship of balance a little because there is that slight tension. I do have some platonic female friends who I find attractive, but most of them I started out flirting with, then ended up in platonic friendship through just knowing each other for years and moving towards friendship instead. If you find someone attractive and just drop straight into platonic friendship with them (especially if you are both single) then you are quite unusual. I think most people tend to still flirt even if they are happily in a relationship, just because it's such an in-built thing.

We knew how you intended to got about changing the whole worlds mind, but it was more how you intended to actually put your plan into action (not necessarily you doing it but how it would be brought about by someone). Attempting to get every television and film producer to change their outlook on life and therefore portray it in their work would talk a hell of a lot. even just to get the most popular programs to show that idea.

Let's give it a try though, when we all have kids, we will be as open as possible with them, and raise them to believe that there is no necessary difference in how to treat guys and girls, encourage them to have interests in any area they feel like etc. If it works then maybe in a few generations the world will run the way you're thinking of CW, but only if we can overcome help our kids overcome peer pressure.

"So Schrodinger's Cat is not only neither dead nor alive, but might also be sexually aroused by elbows and peanut butter?"

visa ve your last post but one.

I still point out that's terribly sexiest. Sure most men don't do elaborate things with their hair, most girls don't to engineering. Taking most and treating it as if it is all is horrendous prejudice.

2ndly girls not being allowed to play mixed rugby is ludicrous. Do they suppose that female rugby players are less likely to misplace their foot in to another players abdomen or crotch? This is as stupid as the all female self defence class that my uni runs that are supposedly to help women fend off muggers and rapists. If they are not able to spar with men in a controlled environment why on earth do the suppose they'll be able to on the street with an opponent who wants to seriously hurt them. If there is a serious risk of injury there should be protective gear regardless of sex. Bluntly sex shouldn't come in to it.

As with changing rooms I feel modesty, dignity, the right to retain the rights over who does and doesn't get to see and or handle your body, is a fundamental right of every human being. I've no objection to people disrobing in front of members of either sex in principal, if they are comfortable with it, but it's not fair or safe to assume people will be comfortable disrobing just because it's a single sex room. I personally refuse to use changing rooms that do not have cubicles. I avoid establishments that lack them. If I don't have that option I will use the cubical in a toilet instead. For this reason I think most changing rooms are fitted with some sort of cubicles nowadays.

I do in-fact know a girl who played about in cubicles. This however would only really be possible in the times when the changing rooms were not in use (and so unsupervised) and so one wonders what their reason for being there is. In any case GFs / BFs can and do sneak off in to toilet cubicles or cupboards for the same.

Like wise by the age of 13 / 14 if you haven't raised your children well enough there is noting to stop them having sex anyway. It isn't exactly hard to find the odd quiet spot for the purpose.

Moving on gradually. I also don't think much of sex out of marriage. But by the same token biology is turning children in to adults at a younger and younger ages. Society can only fight biology for so long and sooner or latter society is going to have to accept it.

I'm not entirely sure how you'd go about defining flirting. If you mean making sexual references or jokes with women then I do that with friends who assure you I am on purely platonic terms with. I think platonic friendship offers us a platform from which we can be comfortable with jumping in to a relationship but a lot of what people call flirting I think I would just call fun. I don't think it has to mean anything especially not if it takes a friendly playful form.

I supposed I'd thought this out in the context of some powerful efficient state machinery. Something that could project a message that swapped out others. That could sponsor films and tv shows. That could offer subsidies for businesses in industries where there is a lot of discrimination who are prepared to sign equal opportunities employment and services agreements. That could issue edicts to have schools set up as they wish.

I never actually said all, if you read the second post it says the majority don't have the same interests and therefore each gender goes of in single sex groups to talk about certain things. Frankly I don't see what problem you have with them doing so, if you don't want to talk to the opposite sex, don't. I agree people should feel able to, but you can't (and shouldn't) force them to. I have no prejudice against those whose interests lie in fields that are dominated by the opposite sex.

I think that problem with rugby is only true through puberty, and as such you find almost no girls rugby teams at that age, generally the play touch rugby instead. Once that problem no longer exists then then I personally see no problem with it, in fact I seem to remember my mum actually mentioning having gone to see a mixed rugby match when she worked at Cambridge uni (with general hilarity when one of the professors said "the hooker's very pretty isn't she" {for all those who don't know who is a position in rugby}). In a lot of sports however it is a difference in strength or speed that limits women's ability to compete, watching the commonwealth games a few years ago, the men's 400 was ridiculously fast, whereas at the time I would have my personal best was faster than some of the back runners times. In that scenario there is no point having a mixed race as the men will always win. In rugby the consideration would be much the same, women are generally smaller and even the largest would have a quite considerable difference in power between them and most of the male players, this isn't to say that mixed rugby is a bad thing, it's just to say that the teams would have to always have the same number of men and women on each team to keep the balance. Some sports like football and (to an extent) racquet sports (and I'm sure others) where skills is more important than power could be more easily played by both sexes in the same game (though with racquet sports the differences in smash speeds etc would mean that again men had some advantage at a similar skill level). I agree that splitting the sports by gender does seem on the outset ridiculous, but often it is necessitated by the fact that a mixed sport is not a level playing field.

I would agree that an all female anti-mugger self defence class does seem faintly ridiculous.

I can see where you are coming from with the cubicles thing, personally it doesn't bother me, we all look more or less the same, and as most people tend to cover their modesty with a towel while changing there is no real difference between seeing them as they are there and seeing them in their swimming trunks.

teenagers can wander off and have sex in some random corner if they want, regardless of how you raised them, the difference is that you don't have control of them outside of the walls of your home. Allowing them to share a room would mean that they could consider themselves more at liberty to take advantage of the opportunity. I would consider myself to have been raised well, but that doesn't mean that external factors haven't influenced certain aspects of my morality compared to that of my parents. For the same reason as you said with the sleepovers, I saw no reason why my gf shouldn't be allowed to stay in my room, considering the fact that we regularly had the house to ourselves during the day (when we had free periods on our school timetable and could leave early) so if they trusted us not to have taken the chance then, why would they feel that we were more likely to while sharing a room, with everyone else actually in the house.

This difference in morality doesn't have anything to with lack of respect for my parents or their values, but is simply because they are relatively strong Christians, while I on the other hand am agnostic at best.

Having just re-read that paragraph I'm now wondering why I'm arguing with you on it, there should be no problem with it, if parents moral values differ from those of their children then they have to accept that if it's going to happen, it's going to happen. I can however see that many parents don't want it to happen in their house, "out of sight, out of mind" as they say.

By

quote:

---

I don't think much of sex out of marriage

---

"So Schrodinger's Cat is not only neither dead nor alive, but might also be sexually aroused by elbows and peanut butter?"
[  Edited by Cynic-Al at   ]

Would appear that my tutorial has been cancelled, thus leaving me open to continue my response.

What I meant by flirting was acting towards the a member of whatever sex you are attracted to in a way that would lead them to believe that you had some (however slight) interest in a (non-platonic) relationship with them. Generally most of these signs would be given and noticed subconsciously (if you were only actually interested in platonic friendship) but would still leave both parties with a lingering feeling that friendship was not the only thing being sought.

So when we see on the news reports of a powerful dictator instigating sexual reform in {insert country of residence here} (I'd guees UK due to references to gretna green and rugby, but you could have moved), we will all be able to sit back and think, "so thats what CW actually looks like" . (please note this last paragraph is entirely in jest)

"So Schrodinger's Cat is not only neither dead nor alive, but might also be sexually aroused by elbows and peanut butter?"
[  Edited by Cynic-Al at   ]