Posted on 01/17/2018 5:41:55 AM PST by Kaslin
There's a word that has become popular in feminist circles these days: "mansplaining." The word is a mashup of "man" and "explaining" and refers to men who condescendingly explain the facts of life to women. So, for example, if a man believes a woman doesn't understand directions and slowly repeats those directions to a woman, he's mansplaining and, therefore, guilty of cruelty and stupidity.
Well, feminists, it's time to stop "feministsplaining" sex to men.
The #MeToo movement has been good for America. It's good that women who have been sexually assaulted and abused are coming forward; it's good that we're finally having conversations about the nature of consent and the problems with a casual hookup culture that obfuscates sexual responsibility. But the #MeToo movement hasn't stopped there. Men are now being pilloried for the sin of taking women too literally -- of not reading women's minds.
Take, for example, "Grace," an anonymous woman who went on a rotten date with comedian Aziz Ansari. According to Grace, Ansari treated her abominably: He took her to dinner, gave her white wine instead of red, pushed her to come to his apartment and then engaged in a vigorous round of sexual activities to which she apparently consented. She eventually said no -- and when she did, he stopped. Later, she suggested that Ansari hadn't obeyed her "non-verbal cues" -- nonverbal cues that reportedly included undressing and then voluntarily servicing Ansari.
In the aftermath, Grace felt used. So she texted Ansari, explaining to him that she felt terrible about the date. "I want to make sure you're aware so maybe the next girl doesn't have to cry on the ride home," she said.
This is feministsplaining sex. Here's the problem: The condescension isn't earned. From Grace's story, it seems she was less than clear in her nonverbal communications but she wanted Ansari to read her mind -- and that when he didn't, she therefore had leeway to lecture him about his sins and, more broadly, those of all men.
It's not just Grace. Rachel Thompson of Mashable explained: "The responses to the woman's story are peppered with the word 'should.' She should have said no ... For many women, uttering an explicit 'no' is not as easy or straightforward as you might think." Well, as it turns out, reading minds is not quite as easy or straightforward as feminists might think. It was feminists who boiled down sexual relations to the issue of consent. Traditionalists always argued that physical intimacy and emotional intimacy ought to be linked. But they were accused of removing female agency with such linkage and condemned for "mansplaining."
How about this: no feministsplaining and no mansplaining when it comes to sex? How about we instead focus on communication between men and women? How about sexual partners demand more from one another than physical release so they aren't disappointed that they're being treated as sex objects? A system prizing love and commitment doesn't require nearly the amount of explanation as a system that dispenses with both.
Don't know if it will be a sudden ground-swell or a more gradual thing. What do you think?
Then she should stop engaging in casual sex. She should stop dating men who are only interested in her for casual sex, and perhaps get married, while still young, to a man who is willing to love her and marry her.
Here's another piece of information that women don't want to hear: you are at your most desirable between the ages of 18 and 25. This is when you need to find a husband. Likely prospects will probably be five to ten years older than you. The longer you wait, the more meager your choices will be.
Lady I had known for a long time, 40 years or so, invited me to a pool party this summer. Got there and there were about 30 of her close friends there. Girlfriends and husbands mostly. Very loyal and protective of her.
Anyway. So it got later, everyone left. I kissed her goodnight. Very, very, very good kiss. We ended up having sex. Very, very, very good sex. If I do say so myself. And I promise. It was not just one sided.
So she tells one of her friends. And she tells one. And she tells one. Etc. Next thing I know they are mad at me. She gets mad at herself. And me. And now I got a lot of chicks in this small town mad at me for “taking advantage” of their friend. Heck. We are both in our mid-50’s. Just Damn.
3 times in the past month Mrs TalBlack started to explain something to me in the most idiotically condescending I’m-trying-to-be-patient-tone, to which I reacted viscerally with “Knock that OFF”!! as if I were talking to some kid. It’s so out of place that I wonder WTF? TV attitudes creeping into real life or what?
This is the essential difference between men and women. Women need a reason for sex. Men just need a place. Women just don't understand (or don't want to accept) that just because a guy enjoys having sex with you, does not necessarily men he loves you. It does not necessarily men he even particularly likes you.
One big difference: women are looking for "Mr Right", while men are more willing to settle for "Miss Good-Enough-For-Tonite". Women are more likely to stay home, than to go out with somebody who doesn't excite them. Men are more likely to go out with a women they aren't particularly excited by, then stay home.
You go to his place, undress and give oral sex. Unless you scream NO loud and clear, he assumes consent.
In biblical times, this was handled by marrying daughters off at a young age. Like 13.
In a time when people don't tend to marry until late 20's or early 30's, asking guys to stay celibate until marriage is not going to fly.
Personally, I would like to try to fix the problem, by encouraging girls to find their husband while young.
Feminism is cancer.
There are many different kinds of men and women. The real problem is that we’re far removed from considering realities, and many erroneous laws and policies based on unrealistic fantasies have been implemented.
Too many men and women are looking for a lifelong excitement that does not exist and wouldn’t even be healthy (manic-depressive dilemma). Too many people are expecting more from sex and mates than is realistically possible (occupies so little time in a life, people change, aging,...).
We have been educating our young people in neglectful, erroneous and wrongful ways for many generations. Romanticism must die again, and it eventually will, at least for a time. Very few people know what love truly is.
Word to wise young men and women: don’t befriend those of the opposite sex who are exciting. Befriend those who you feel comfortable and secure with. Befriend those who think of the future and plan for it. Remember that a few other acquaintances, neighbors and bosses might rather see you separated from your wife or husband and don’t want you to have a cohesive, prosperous and influential family.
Do not marry anyone who will not defend and protect you from libelous others with good diplomacy, strategy and self-discipline. If you own property, require that your prospective wife or husband sign a prenuptial agreement for your family’s sake. Romanticism is for perpetual losers who destroy themselves and their families with enemy propaganda.
Beware wolves in sheep’s clothing.
The point is, that we are all humans, though there are many that do not act like humans.
Thanks Kaslin.
"What's mansplaining?" Senator Mitch Fifield offended by Senator Katy Gallagher's allegation
I was tired of being the white male getting hammered in the workplace, hammered in sitcoms, hammered in commercials, then being hammered by my wife.
I finally started calling my wife out on the B.S. she would dish when she was personally frustrated and taking it out on me. It now takes her about 24 hours to process when I’m right and she’s wrong, but invariably she admits she was wrong and says sorry. I was tired of being blamed for things that weren’t my fault. Now we both apologize and say sorry when we’re wrong and our relationship is much better.
I do spend a lot of time “mansplaining” the plots/twists in a lot of movies and TV series we watch.
If you don't allow them to appropriate the right to define "reality," they won't.
It was amazing how far their leftist insanity has come. The answer is simple, no sex outside of marriage, Along with that there has to be manners and decorum among among the unmarried just as it is required in society as a whole.
10-14 year olds don't need to be having sexual relationships at all.
That’s what I would have said if they had invited me to their discussion. Instead of stopping digging the hole, they want to smooth the sides and make it pretty.
I’m sorry, but it’s against the rules for women to explicitly say what they want and don’t want. If you don’t know, she damned sure isn’t going to tell you!
Been that way since pre-history. Deal with it guys, that’s how it is.
BAloney!
Predictions are hard.
Especially about the future.
Nope. I ain’t dealing with it.
One of these days I’m gonna find a woman who will be rational and let me know what she wants! I’m not worth a damn at mindreading!!!
Or not....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
