|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
xingyiman
Joined: 12 Jan 2006
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 4:26 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| AmericanExile wrote: |
I'm sorry, but I'm not certain I understand the conversation. This thread would make sense if Germany had won that little war 60+ years ago. Since they didn't it is unclear to me why anyone thinks who others date is any of their concern.
If there was a law that required women to date men who were at least 20 years older than them then this reaction would make sense and be justified. There isn't. Who people date is voluntary. If two people wish to be together then what line of logic justifies anyone else having any say in the matter?
Life is hard. If any two people find happiness together then we should be happy for them. Why is that so hard?
I guess I forgot. You are only allowed to be happy with certain people. They must be within an acceptable age range of you. Men are only allowed to be happy with women. Women are only allowed to be happy with men except in college as an experiment. They have to be the same race you are and ideally have the same eye color. The parents for each person must have similar income levels assuring similar backgrounds. They must be members of the same church. Right handed people can't date left handed people, and left handed people shouldn't date at all.
I simply don't understand why anyone cares. If someone could explain that part of it to me it would be helpful because people clearly do care. So much so that this has devolved into a weird and ugly old men's sperm is bad thread. Old men's sperm. That's the conversation. Does that seem a little odd. No? Just me then?
We must keep that old man sperm away from the women. Go get the shot gun Ethel. |
Let me explain it. When western women come to Aisa all of a sudden they aren't the top of the food chain anymore. Guys largely ignore them and it makes them bitter. Then they get on dave's and post stuff like "you guys could never get a comparable gal back in our home country", and the guys respond in kind and there you have it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AmericanExile wrote: |
I'm sorry, but I'm not certain I understand the conversation. This thread would make sense if Germany had won that little war 60+ years ago. Since they didn't it is unclear to me why anyone thinks who others date is any of their concern.
If there was a law that required women to date men who were at least 20 years older than them then this reaction would make sense and be justified. There isn't. Who people date is voluntary. If two people wish to be together then what line of logic justifies anyone else having any say in the matter?
Life is hard. If any two people find happiness together then we should be happy for them. Why is that so hard?
I guess I forgot. You are only allowed to be happy with certain people. They must be within an acceptable age range of you. Men are only allowed to be happy with women. Women are only allowed to be happy with men except in college as an experiment. They have to be the same race you are and ideally have the same eye color. The parents for each person must have similar income levels assuring similar backgrounds. They must be members of the same church. Right handed people can't date left handed people, and left handed people shouldn't date at all.
I simply don't understand why anyone cares. If someone could explain that part of it to me it would be helpful because people clearly do care. So much so that this has devolved into a weird and ugly old men's sperm is bad thread. Old men's sperm. That's the conversation. Does that seem a little odd. No? Just me then?
We must keep that old man sperm away from the women. Go get the shot gun Ethel. |
Excellent, homorous post. Indeed, debating this matter with feminists is very similar to debating evolution with a Christian fundy.
Yes, it does seem odd to be discussing old men's sperm. Hardly my favorite topic. The only reason I did so at length above is that the poster whose evidence this was clearly had an extremely superficial understanding of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aboxofchocolates
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Location: on your mind
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AmericanExile wrote: |
I'm sorry, but I'm not certain I understand the conversation. This thread would make sense if Germany had won that little war 60+ years ago. Since they didn't it is unclear to me why anyone thinks who others date is any of their concern.
If there was a law that required women to date men who were at least 20 years older than them then this reaction would make sense and be justified. There isn't. Who people date is voluntary. If two people wish to be together then what line of logic justifies anyone else having any say in the matter?
Life is hard. If any two people find happiness together then we should be happy for them. Why is that so hard?
I guess I forgot. You are only allowed to be happy with certain people. They must be within an acceptable age range of you. Men are only allowed to be happy with women. Women are only allowed to be happy with men except in college as an experiment. They have to be the same race you are and ideally have the same eye color. The parents for each person must have similar income levels assuring similar backgrounds. They must be members of the same church. Right handed people can't date left handed people, and left handed people shouldn't date at all.
I simply don't understand why anyone cares. If someone could explain that part of it to me it would be helpful because people clearly do care. So much so that this has devolved into a weird and ugly old men's sperm is bad thread. Old men's sperm. That's the conversation. Does that seem a little odd. No? Just me then?
We must keep that old man sperm away from the women. Go get the shot gun Ethel. |
Science has been used to justify inequality in the past, and I think this could be one of those times. Do who you like- I just don't think young women sleeping with old men had a significant influence on our lifespan. I also don't think grandmothering had much to do with it either, and I think the writer hoped that strawman would detract from a feminist critique.
I hazily recolect hearing once upon a time that humans have pretty much the same lifespan across the board. Thanks to four delightful years spent in uni I know not all societies have old guys boinking younger women. Heck, not all societies live out their natural lifespans- harsh environments and the like. If all humans have pretty much the same lifespan but not all societies have a history of old men boinking young women, something is missing. Ergo, my opinion- article is bunk glorifying old dudes using power and influence to boink young girls. Scientists, it is what it is- people with power over others exploiting that power for their gain. Don't try to make a ritghteous we-evolved-better-because thing over it.
Having said that, do who you will and blessed be or whatever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aboxofchocolates
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Location: on your mind
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I find it interesting that anyone arguing against the article specifically is supposed to disagree with older men sleeping with younger women in general, and assumed to be a feminist. I personally do not disagree with older men sleeping with younger women, and I am a radical feminist. I think where two people are making a free, unpressured, un-coerced decision to be together and have whatever degree of fun together they like, a truly beautiful event has occurred, and the world is a better place for it.
On a side note, and unrelated to the article I do not believe that has characterized the majority of relationships where older men of power and influence reproduce with younger girls with less power and less influence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Epicurus
Joined: 18 Jun 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aboxofchocolates wrote: |
I find it interesting that anyone arguing against the article specifically is supposed to disagree with older men sleeping with younger women in general, and assumed to be a feminist. I personally do not disagree with older men sleeping with younger women, and I am a radical feminist. I think where two people are making a free, unpressured, un-coerced decision to be together and have whatever degree of fun together they like, a truly beautiful event has occurred, and the world is a better place for it.
On a side note, and unrelated to the article I do not believe that has characterized the majority of relationships where older men of power and influence reproduce with younger girls with less power and less influence. |
that's a topic for entirely another different thread.
and I'll stoke the fire so you can start one:
have you basically considered that nearly every Western male who is the hottest bachelor and the hottest catch, almost by definition is the one with the power and influence in the relationship
(until marriage that is, that's when he loses almost all of it because of Western divorce laws, though this varies by country)
hence the female stampede to marry them  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aboxofchocolates
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Location: on your mind
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Epicurus wrote: |
| aboxofchocolates wrote: |
I find it interesting that anyone arguing against the article specifically is supposed to disagree with older men sleeping with younger women in general, and assumed to be a feminist. I personally do not disagree with older men sleeping with younger women, and I am a radical feminist. I think where two people are making a free, unpressured, un-coerced decision to be together and have whatever degree of fun together they like, a truly beautiful event has occurred, and the world is a better place for it.
On a side note, and unrelated to the article I do not believe that has characterized the majority of relationships where older men of power and influence reproduce with younger girls with less power and less influence. |
that's a topic for entirely another different thread.
and I'll stoke the fire so you can start one:
have you basically considered that nearly every Western male who is the hottest bachelor and the hottest catch, almost by definition is the one with the power and influence in the relationship
(until marriage that is, that's when he loses almost all of it because of Western divorce laws, though this varies by country)
hence the female stampede to marry them |
Yeah, the media decides who we should like and we grow up learning to like them. I think we'd be shocked and horrified to learn johnny depp's saggy scrotum just doesn't have the appeal we were led to believe it did. Same as guys might learn they'd like a little more variety in the body types presented to them, though the collagen saturated semi-starved Meghan Fox will always be the crowning jewel (say, wasn't her name Jessica Alba five minutes ago?)
But haven’t you perused those creepy “mother’s who love twilight” websites, where forty to fifty somethings are gushing over hot boys that may have gone to school with their sons? Isn’t equality grand?
But what really concerns these mothers is whether Edward’s genes are good and they are delighted he is fertile! Good for the gene pool, those vampires. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Epicurus
Joined: 18 Jun 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 5:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I would grant your point about media influence, but only to a small degree.
also body preference types aren't really decided by the media.
Megan Fox became a star because she's hot, not because the media pre-packaged her and made us believe she's hot.
men also have differences over body shape. Some of us prefer the Jessica Biel or even J-Lo body to Megan's.
Mo-nique's, Roseanne Barr's or Rosie O Donnell's?
well not SO much sorry.
I don't think the media could package them to be attractive no matter how they tried.
the media also happens to be an outward manifestation of current tastes in society.
Depp's scrotum may not be that saggy just yet, though I'll never know.
isn't it wonderful that women supposedly aren't as "shallow" as men and overlook such physical handicaps?
I'm also all for quasi grandmas who gush over little fairy looking vampire types. You go girls!
but do start a thread about power and equality in relationships, please.
I can't wait to see how it unfolds when the truth is presented that most women like their men to be "rich-ee", a wish and desire that has predated any media or modern creation.
Yes, you bring the riches..
and I'll bring the ....... "vagina".
umm.. errr... I mean emotional support, and comfort, blah blah blah. etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aboxofchocolates
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Location: on your mind
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Epicurus wrote: |
I would grant your point about media influence, but only to a small degree.
also body preference types aren't really decided by the media.
Megan Fox became a star because she's hot, not because the media pre-packaged her and made us believe she's hot.
men also have differences over body shape. Some of us prefer the Jessica Biel or even J-Lo body to Megan's.
Mo-nique's, Roseanne Barr's or Rosie O Donnell's?
well not SO much sorry.
I don't think the media could package them to be attractive no matter how they tried.
the media also happens to be an outward manifestation of current tastes in society.
Depp's scrotum may not be that saggy just yet, though I'll never know.
isn't it wonderful that women supposedly aren't as "shallow" as men and overlook such physical handicaps?
I'm also all for quasi grandmas who gush over little fairy looking vampire types. You go girls!
but do start a thread about power and equality in relationships, please.
I can't wait to see how it unfolds when the truth is presented that most women like their men to be "rich-ee", a wish and desire that has predated any media or modern creation.
Yes, you bring the riches..
and I'll bring the ....... "vagina".
umm.. errr... I mean emotional support, and comfort, blah blah blah. etc. |
No fatties VS thinnies!! There is about as much variety between j-loe and Meghan fox (except for age, always a factor) and there is between Edward the vampire and the werewolf guy dating that twilight chick. So long as the muscle is well defined and present, it can come in the long lanky Edward classic look, or the more rustic, beefy werewolf look. Take that captain kirk and old james bond! Noon would pick you out of a lineup at a bar today!
I don’t know who mo-nique is, but I would no more recommend you try to be attracted to Rosanne bar than I her husband. Good thing noone is pressuring either of us to go in that direction. But people sure were pleased and thrilled by the unique appearance of plus sized actress miracle laurie as a sex symbol on dollhouse. Is the world becoming a better place, or is it an anomaly? Some guys may not be into her- hey, that’s what variety is all about!
http://thedemoiselles.com/archives/real-women-in-the-media-miracle-laurie
What’s easier, to manufacture one taste for everyone or to attempt to comply with any number of tastes and varieties? The media cannot do the latter (I’m talking about the media like it’s president of tv-town). A bunch of people in the media copy from working formulas to sell the people who have money stuff. There isn’t a whole lot of room for variety, better off telling the public what they like. Please tell me I am not going to have to argue the media manufactures desire- I just hope everyone takes that as a given in the year 2010.
Women aren’t shallow? In terms of desire (manufactured as well)? Do we know the same women? As women gain (spending) power, the media plays more and more on their spending potential, and is starting to sell out young, attractive men for them to fawn over. Culture is slow to catch up, and young men aren’t all comfortable with the objectification yet. A good little western society would put the breaks on it right now and maybe try and emphasise spiritual connections rather than make money off of prescribed desires.
And go old guys in Thailand. Usually good drinking buddies, too.
My point was the cited article in the op post was glorification for disparity in relationships- you hijacked, I hitchhiked..
I think women’s attraction to riches is directly related to their lack of them. Give them riches, and they look for hotness. Ergo- we love twilight boys mom fanclub and sugarmommas and those dating clubs women go to etc. But since there are plenty of poor hot women now I wouldn’t worry about it for this generation- make some money and someone will lend you her vagina. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Epicurus
Joined: 18 Jun 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
she's just ever slightly too big for me, but at that size she'll have little problems with finding suitors. The biggest issue a twenty something would have with that size is that any man with a single brain cell knows her size would double in her thirties and triple in her forties.
(she looks horrid in the flickr pic though, that 'dress' looks like a potato sack)
I would completely agree with your broader point however. If they want to market "larger" women as sex symbols, why not? besides the fact that there is at least a segment of the populace that is "into" that kinda thing, it'll be ultimately left for the "audience" to decide.. as in how large an audience will they pull in, who will either buy into or not buy into the story(line). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aboxofchocolates wrote: |
| I find it interesting that anyone arguing against the article specifically is supposed to disagree with older men sleeping with younger women in general, and assumed to be a feminist. I personally do not disagree with older men sleeping with younger women, and I am a radical feminist. |
Sergio/Spinoza is master of the strawman. You expressed one opinion in the past that could be feminist, therefore to him, you now believe in a litany of beliefs that he regards as feminist. Just ignore him, he feeds on attention. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aboxofchocolates
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Location: on your mind
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Epicurus wrote: |
she's just ever slightly too big for me, but at that size she'll have little problems with finding suitors. The biggest issue a twenty something would have with that size is that any man with a single brain cell knows her size would double in her thirties and triple in her forties.
(she looks horrid in the flickr pic though, that 'dress' looks like a potato sack)
I would completely agree with your broader point however. If they want to market "larger" women as sex symbols, why not? besides the fact that there is at least a segment of the populace that is "into" that kinda thing, it'll be ultimately left for the "audience" to decide.. as in how large an audience will they pull in, who will either buy into or not buy into the story(line). |
i am waaaay off topic, but she is just one cast member, eliza dukshwiuhjf is the main character and there is some hot asian chick on the show as well. It wouldn't work, Joss Whedon isn't going to put the breaks on a huge money making machine and re-organize the media message of sexual desirability. But what a champ for trying!
And that show is an excellent example of immoral stuff being done for longevity. but in this case it actually works. There, related to topic |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Epicurus
Joined: 18 Jun 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
sticking to miracle laurie for a minute longer though:
don't you find it amazing how different the fox promo shot is with her flickr pic/shot?
in the promo shot, I wouldn't throw her out of bed, her thighs are a weenie little thick but otherwise, she looks pretty hot. You've got the nice rack and the big dropoff to the waist area.
in the flickr shot, you'd be scared of taking that into your bed because what looks to be under that 'dress' doesn' look very appealing. She has the appearance of little boob and BIG stomach.
do you think they could market her as a 'sex symbol' in THAT photo, wearing that dress as a promo shot?
I think NOT.
don't know if it's merely the bad style/dress or whether she had put on some weight between the 2 shots, but the difference is VAST. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aboxofchocolates wrote: |
| I find it interesting that anyone arguing against the article specifically is supposed to disagree with older men sleeping with younger women in general, and assumed to be a feminist. I personally do not disagree with older men sleeping with younger women, and I am a radical feminist. |
Sorry, I wasn't referring to you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
calicoe
Joined: 23 Dec 2008
Location: South Korea
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| AmericanExile wrote: |
I'm sorry, but I'm not certain I understand the conversation. This thread would make sense if Germany had won that little war 60+ years ago. Since they didn't it is unclear to me why anyone thinks who others date is any of their concern.
If there was a law that required women to date men who were at least 20 years older than them then this reaction would make sense and be justified. There isn't. Who people date is voluntary. If two people wish to be together then what line of logic justifies anyone else having any say in the matter?
Life is hard. If any two people find happiness together then we should be happy for them. Why is that so hard?
I guess I forgot. You are only allowed to be happy with certain people. They must be within an acceptable age range of you. Men are only allowed to be happy with women. Women are only allowed to be happy with men except in college as an experiment. They have to be the same race you are and ideally have the same eye color. The parents for each person must have similar income levels assuring similar backgrounds. They must be members of the same church. Right handed people can't date left handed people, and left handed people shouldn't date at all.
I simply don't understand why anyone cares. If someone could explain that part of it to me it would be helpful because people clearly do care. So much so that this has devolved into a weird and ugly old men's sperm is bad thread. Old men's sperm. That's the conversation. Does that seem a little odd. No? Just me then?
We must keep that old man sperm away from the women. Go get the shot gun Ethel. |
The only reason I did so at length above is that the poster whose evidence this was clearly had an extremely superficial understanding of it. |
Hmmmm, a bit of pot-kettle-black there. Unless you are a medical researcher on the topic, your understanding of this issue is just as superficial; thanks for the arithmetic though. I am not trying to write a thesis or dissertation on the topic, but merely stating as the evidence does that males also experience an increased risk in paternity in direct proportion to advancing age. It was previously believed that only women had these concerns, but new emerging research is showing significant risks to older paternity as well.
Shizophrenia and autuism are but two examples of combined risk factors. There are increased miscarriages associated with older paternity, congenital diseases, higher infant mortality and a host of neurodevelopmental problems. Furthermore, the findings of this research field are still new, as confounding factors are elimnated to produce unambiguous conclusions, and diseases of off-spring that appear much later in life are tracked.
I have had a bad day with the internet at work and could not get on sooner. It is also crashing at the stroke of a keyboard. I will be back later to answer your posts on the articles more in depth from home, as I don't want it to crash in the middle of a post, further increasing the amount of time I've wasted on this thread.
See you later. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Epicurus
Joined: 18 Jun 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think any of this comes as rocket science revelations, do you?
I don't think anyone would hold that a 60 year old sperm is as good or safe or reliable as that of a 20 year old.
but the preponderance of the evidence in complications, as well as simple conception (aka ability to conceive) still points to the woman as being largely responsible for conception as well as delivering a healthy baby.
They are the primary factors, by far.
Until someone can show me that the risks stemming from a 60 year old man outweigh or equal the risks from a 45 year old woman, I'll take everything with a big block of salt.
did you catch that yahoo story about some men may also experience post partum depression?
Besides, wasn't the thrust of the original OP simply that male and female biological clocks are simply vastly different, even though the passage of time makes both more unreliable with time?
If there were widespread defects and complications with old male, young female offspring, then the world would have noticed this many many many centuries ago, when such offspring were far more prevalent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
