The entertainment value alone is worth it.

reads like a bunch of radical feminism gobbleygook...

Hopefully somebody will post the inevitable jury results

they've told us so over and over again.

Don't let them find out you've been burlesque dancing or anything. Then the s- shaming begins.

They'll claim unwavering solidarity with those other feminists (just don't mind the little barbs about fauxminists, etc... )

And, believe it or not, we talk to each other and have debates and agree on more things than not. Although it sometimes gets a bit hairy. Then again, what impassioned debate doesn't?

And I am one of them.

They see as not conforming to what they see as the ultimate truth. So its okay to be a radical anything as long as the hatred gets ditched.

I guess

my preferred frequency of sex was more than my wife. Now that we're about 50 the reverse is slightly true.

"Excessive and aggressive"? Certainly a baggage-laden collection of words used to describe a friction as old as humanity.

It's all in the eye of the beholder.

but a big portion of that is our career trajectories. I have much less job stress right now than 25 years ago, so I am less tired and less distracted on the whole. Meanwhile Mrs. Dr_J is very busy. So it goes...

Yes, that excerpted quote was quite the mini-rant.

Bigotry is bigotry.

The finger waggers come in all stripes and use the flawed idea that sex is dirty to evoke a response and play into the base emotions of their audience. Those who try to tell consenting adults what they should or should not be doing behind closed doors have more to worry about in their own bedrooms. Straight men are labeled as womanizers or perverts and straight women are labeled as sluts. The LGBT community gets the worst of it.

Frinstance i have a phenomenal sex life that some would find abnormal, and i myself find the furry thing abnormal as i dont get it. Really does not matter though as it is someone elses normal.

I often have to be held down and knocked out.

Women run off in pain after hours of exhausting lovemaking.

It's gotten so bad I have to keep a ready stable of women at the ready at all times lest I go insane if not immediately satisfied.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Or, maybe that's just what some people, who have never met me and know nothing about me, seem to think-- I'm a guy, so it must be true.

Go ahead and vote "3". that will at least lend a little credence to the quoted post.

Something about me should be normal and healthy.

I love sex and everything about it, would definitely be up for it anytime. So what is normal?

Sex is a basic biological urge, there is nothing sick or wrong with it unless it crosses the line, which can be gray and ill defined, into territory where someone is hurt or used.

Most of the women who have confided sexual frustrations to me were complaining they aren't getting enough or they had to make too much of an effort to get it when the guy should have been taking more initiative.

It is a "bubble" existence. They've made it clear they want no truck with anyone not immediately supportive of their view. I would assume that extends to family, friends, et. al.

And erased the most important descriptor:

"Demeaning"

Actually, by taking out "demeaning", I think that the OP was sparing you a more critical review of your comment.

What would be a legitimate critique in your mind, precisely? What would you have to say to justify the derision? Where would you have to go? I mean, you've broad-stroked half the human race with less than a handful of words. Just what nuance do you think we are missing here?

You made a laughable comment. We are laughing. Mission accomplished?

And thus male sexuality becomes a conduit for such predation and exploitation. It is in this sort of male machismo that sexuality becomes excessive, aggressive and demeaning. Most often against women but not exclusively.

This is not universal to every male but it is ubiquitous in society.

You laugh because you don't understand, not because it is funny in any way.

...something that is dogmatically presumed by you and yours to exist, and exist everywhere, hiding behind every door, and crouched under every rock even though, well, it doesn't do any of those things.

Of course that's laughable. And you're right, it isn't funny. It's tragic.

You seem to want to portray it as some sort of religious belief. That couldn't be further from the truth.

We do agree on one thing, however. It is truly tragic. I'm glad you're at least able to recognize that much.

Observation and critical analysis by whom exactly? Others within the bubble? That conversation has been had many times. Always the same result. The evidence of this non thing is some blogger of dubious standing, some "study" which fails the smell test, whatever.

I don't portray it as anything. Among some people on DU, these easily conjecturable ideas ARE dogma, but you'll be happy to know that here in this forum they are not.

What's tragic is some members' obsession with the "goings on" in this forum. There are those who truly believe that men talking about things from their perspective is anathema to feminism; a fact I find odd since most who post here regularly also count themselves as feminists... just not a kind of feminist which meets with their approval, I guess. But since many feminists on DU also fall into this 'undesirable' category, I can't say we're in bad company there. These same people also fall under the erroneous corollary belief that DU is no place for such "goings on", I suppose because in their minds DU supports only their views on feminism and keeping such a group around is clearly in violation of their sensibilities. Just a guess on my part, but one which seems to fit the facts.

Which makes the existence of a literal "Men's Group" somewhat comical. Not simply because it doesn't need to exist but because there is a a body of individuals who think just the opposite.

There is no such thing as systemic oppression of the male sex. I can say that with a certainty not existent under any other circumstance. It is dogma to you because you haven't studied it. Which, if that is the only real definition of dogma to you, makes a lot of perfectly demonstrable truths dogma. Stellar precession must be mind blowing dogma to someone who doesn't understand the physical processes that make it so.

The fact that you don't understand them doesn't make the existence of these processes any more questionable. It just means you don't know what you're talking about. The answer to all of this then becomes "you should stop saying things until you understand."

Just no. Don't know how else to say it.

1. Your contention that every group on DU is a men's group is so patently false that it seriously strains what little credibility you might have otherwise had. The demographics of DU, considered alone, without any of the obvious other evidence to suggest it considered (done some years ago, but I doubt it's changed much since) are heavily majority female. What ratio of female to male would be enough to convince you that this is not the case, that female points of view are more than well represented? 70%? 80%? Shall we go for the gold and say 100%?

2. There is no such thing as systemic oppression of the male sex, unless you count such things as shorter life spans due to a preponderance of men in hazardous work, bias by implication in family courts, over-representation of males in prison, under-representation of males in education (both as successful K-12 students, as college students, and graduates and as faculty), and a big pile of other things that I won't bother with, as the list is too extensive, has been discussed, and has typically fallen on the deaf ears of paleofeminists to which those discussions apply. It's likely you don't count them because it would imply that there is more to this equality thing than just what you consider important. Can't have that, now can we?

3. You seem to be confused as to what dogma is so here's a definition for you. Dogma is an unassailable view or framework of views prejudged to be correct by its adherents, even when evidence to the contrary is provided (and it has been, at length, and from many quarters, not just here), usually, but not explicity, as a part of a larger a philosophical or religious framework. And you are possessed of a dogmatic view. Sorry to say, but projecting your own dogmatism on to me, while rhetorically expected, doesn't change the fact that my view is not the dogmatic one.

I mean, really, a certain forum which shall remain nameless bans anyone who dares suggest even slightly that some of what they say is off-base, even in the most earnest interest of debating it, so how is that not dogmatic again?

Liberal men are only feminists out of their own interests. For example, supporting a woman's right to choose is really just out of the desire to make sex more free of responsibility.

Yup, learned that right here on the All Men Board known as DU.

And I qoute, "being an asshole is a prerequisite to being an effective feminist..."

poking holes in general statements with specific examples is fun, profitable AND easy!!

instead of all three I was being kind. Do you think the poll results would be different if I'd included "demeaning" as another option?


Also there was no context. the subject line of your post was quoted in toto, except for the 3rd perjorative.

That must have been really stressful. The third "pejorative" was the most important.

Demeaning.

... the OP did you a kindness by not putting it forth.

There are many sexual practices that are demeaning but completely consensual.

I'm one of those guys that starts climbing the walls if I go three days without some love. Is that excessive? It feels normal to me to be horny most of the time. I've been like that for thirty years. Aggressive? I don't know. Does hinting around all the time or whining/wheedling count? Haha!

No, seriously. Aggressive as in forcing myself on my wife? Never.

A monk indeed.