NationStates

Posted: **Sat Oct 03, 2015 1:08 pm**

Kisinger wrote:
Chessmistress wrote:
What a mess.
There's nothing bad in heterosexuality and PIV.
I'm not against PIV, not at all.
But heteronormativity and PIV-centric narrative are harmful to women.
Because PIV is the preferred way to have sex for just only 25% women.

Source for 25% of women who prefer to have PIV?

That's not a Feminist blog:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/al ... -statistic

Posted: **Sat Oct 03, 2015 1:10 pm**

Renewed Imperial Germany wrote:
Radfems Inc wrote:
I mean, this is somewhat true, but there wasn't a de-facto "men are the boss" type of setup in the village.

But, considering your insistence that PIV sex is rape, and gender roles in any form are oppression, it's not "egalitarian as you have claimed.

PIV sex is rape now, because womyn can't meaningfully consent under the overwhelming pressure of our patriarchal institutions. Do keep up. In a hypothetical egalitarian society, where womyn could meaningfully choose whether or not they wanted to have sex with men, it would not be.

I still contest that this is considered reverse oppression.

Barring people from office is literal oppression: you cannot contest the definition of a word.

Wiki defines oppression thusly:

"Oppression is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner."

There's no reason to assume that womyn would rule in a burden, cruel, or unjust manner.

Why is banning men from government reverse oppression?

Is refusing to give a gun to a violent ex-con oppression?

Banning men from government is nothing like giving a violent ex-con a gun. Your generalizing men. Not all men are sexist monsters. I'd argue that now a days most of them are well-intentioned, good people. But you'll never get that, because your locked in a world where retaliatory oppression is a good idea.

I still contest that it's oppression. It would have to be cruel, burdensome, or unjust first, and we can't know if it will be or not until we've tried it.

Posted: **Sat Oct 03, 2015 1:11 pm**

Kisinger wrote:
Radfems Inc wrote:I wasn't planning on taking the away the right to vote, just run for high office.

Do keep up.

Yeah that's still oppression... Because they can't vote for someone who doesn't properly represents their views...

Only men can properly represent your views?

That's pretty sexist.

Posted: **Sat Oct 03, 2015 1:11 pm**

Chessmistress wrote:
Kisinger wrote:Source for 25% of women who prefer to have PIV?

That's not a Feminist blog:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/al ... -statistic

Only 25% Orgasm from it not that they prefer it...

Posted: **Sat Oct 03, 2015 1:11 pm**

Chessmistress wrote:
Kisinger wrote:Source for 25% of women who prefer to have PIV?

That's not a Feminist blog:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/al ... -statistic

33? are you kidding me? that sample size is miniscule

find one with a non-laughable sample and then we can talk about about what the preference of the majority is

Posted: **Sat Oct 03, 2015 1:12 pm**

Kisinger wrote:
Chessmistress wrote:
That's not a Feminist blog:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/al ... -statistic

Only 25% Orgasm from it not that they prefer it...

Don't you dare take my other 75% orgasm. I'm a greedy womyn, influenced by the cold hard erection of the patriarchy.

Posted: **Sat Oct 03, 2015 1:12 pm**

Radfems Inc wrote:
Kisinger wrote:Yeah that's still oppression... Because they can't vote for someone who doesn't properly represents their views...

Only men can properly represent your views?

That's pretty sexist.

No I never said that, I said they, because a people who are oppressed are more than likely going to vote for a man than a women because they would represent the views of male equality.

No more sexist than your views.

Posted: **Sat Oct 03, 2015 1:13 pm**

Radfems Inc wrote:
Kisinger wrote:Yeah that's still oppression... Because they can't vote for someone who doesn't properly represents their views...

Only men can properly represent your views?

That's pretty sexist.

A: oh god the buzzwords
B: prove (not fudge, PROVE, as in facts and figures) that men should be banned. And don't twist this on me, you're making the positive claim. evidence pl0x.

Posted: **Sat Oct 03, 2015 1:13 pm**

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
Kisinger wrote:Only 25% Orgasm from it not that they prefer it...

Don't you dare take my other 75% orgasm. I'm a greedy womyn, influenced by the cold hard erection of the patriarchy.

I'm putting this in my sig....

Posted: **Sat Oct 03, 2015 1:13 pm**

Radfems Inc wrote:
Renewed Imperial Germany wrote:
But, considering your insistence that PIV sex is rape, and gender roles in any form are oppression, it's not "egalitarian as you have claimed.

PIV sex is rape now, because womyn can't meaningfully consent under the overwhelming pressure of our patriarchal institutions. Do keep up. In a hypothetical egalitarian society, where womyn could meaningfully choose whether or not they wanted to have sex with men, it would not be.

Barring people from office is literal oppression: you cannot contest the definition of a word.

Wiki defines oppression thusly:

"Oppression is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner."

There's no reason to assume that womyn would rule in a burden, cruel, or unjust manner.

Banning men from government is nothing like giving a violent ex-con a gun. Your generalizing men. Not all men are sexist monsters. I'd argue that now a days most of them are well-intentioned, good people. But you'll never get that, because your locked in a world where retaliatory oppression is a good idea.

I still contest that it's oppression. It would have to be cruel, burdensome, or unjust first, and we can't know if it will be or not until we've tried it.

You know what? Your not worth arguing with. You are so trapped in your psychosis that you cannot see the illogic behind your own insane babbling. Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall: you will never understand anything. Just keep believing your own paranoid, illogical, and reverse-sexist nonsense. Thank God the people in charge are more sane and reasonable than you.

Posted: **Sat Oct 03, 2015 1:14 pm**

Chessmistress wrote:
Kisinger wrote:Source for 25% of women who prefer to have PIV?

That's not a Feminist blog:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/al ... -statistic

That's saying that only 25% of women consistently orgasm from intercourse alone. An additional 55% orgasm sometimes during intercourse, leaving only 20% who orgasm from other things but never from intercourse (5% claim to never orgasm at all).

The link even notes that many women enjoy "extended intercourse" even without orgasm: Lack of orgasm isn't a lack of pleasure, it's a lack of a specific type of pleasure overload.

Posted: **Sat Oct 03, 2015 1:14 pm**

Crysuko wrote:
Radfems Inc wrote:Only men can properly represent your views?

That's pretty sexist.

A: oh god the buzzwords
B: prove (not fudge, PROVE, as in facts and figures) that men should be banned. And don't twist this on me, you're making the positive claim. evidence pl0x.

Well, how would I go about proving what should be done in the future? Do you have a particular methodology you like?

Oh, please choose a methodology not created to serve the patriarchy.

Posted: **Sat Oct 03, 2015 1:15 pm**

Radfems Inc wrote:
Crysuko wrote:A: oh god the buzzwords
B: prove (not fudge, PROVE, as in facts and figures) that men should be banned. And don't twist this on me, you're making the positive claim. evidence pl0x.

Well, how would I go about proving what should be done in the future? Do you have a particular methodology you like?

Oh, please choose a methodology not created to serve the patriarchy.

Well, shit. That leaves the metric system out.

Posted: **Sat Oct 03, 2015 1:15 pm**

Radfems Inc wrote:
Crysuko wrote:A: oh god the buzzwords
B: prove (not fudge, PROVE, as in facts and figures) that men should be banned. And don't twist this on me, you're making the positive claim. evidence pl0x.

Well, how would I go about proving what should be done in the future? Do you have a particular methodology you like?

Oh, please choose a methodology not created to serve the patriarchy.

I don't much care how you do it, only that it's done.

Posted: **Sat Oct 03, 2015 1:18 pm**

Kisinger wrote:
Chessmistress wrote:
That's not a Feminist blog:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/al ... -statistic

Only 25% Orgasm from it not that they prefer it...

If you read all the article you'll understand what they are saying: 25% are consistently orgasmic during vaginal intercourse, other 75% get more pleasure from clitoral stimulation.
People, not just only us but even males, usually prefer the kind of sex that give more pleasure, not less. Sometimes you can have sex in a way that isn't your preferred one, just to please your partner, that's human, and fair, but it's sometimes and that doesn't change the fact that most times 75% prefer clitoral stimulation to PIV.
That doesn't mean being against PIV, it does mean that with 75% women males should have more oral sex and less PIV (less doesn't mean ZERO). But just only if these males wants to keep healthy their relationship.

Posted: **Sat Oct 03, 2015 1:18 pm**

Crysuko wrote:
Radfems Inc wrote:Well, how would I go about proving what should be done in the future? Do you have a particular methodology you like?

Oh, please choose a methodology not created to serve the patriarchy.

I don't much care how you do it, only that it's done.

Well, we can start with the 87 million people killed by wars just in the 20th century that were instigated almost entirely by men.

http://necrometrics.com/all20c.htm

Posted: **Sat Oct 03, 2015 1:19 pm**

Radfems Inc wrote:
Crysuko wrote:I don't much care how you do it, only that it's done.

Well, we can start with the 87 million people killed by wars just in the 20th century that were instigated almost entirely by men.

http://necrometrics.com/all20c.htm

you fail to quantify the actual people behind said conflicts and babble about gender. try again.

Posted: **Sat Oct 03, 2015 1:21 pm**

Chessmistress wrote:
Kisinger wrote:Only 25% Orgasm from it not that they prefer it...

-snip-

IT never says prefer, that's the point we can assume they do, but it never states that, you are assuming it does and it doesn't. Plain and simple.

All it states is if women orgasm during normal intercourse.

Posted: **Sat Oct 03, 2015 1:21 pm**

Tahar Joblis wrote:
Chessmistress wrote:
That's not a Feminist blog:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/al ... -statistic

That's saying that only 25% of women consistently orgasm from intercourse alone. An additional 55% orgasm sometimes during intercourse, leaving only 20% who orgasm from other things but never from intercourse (5% claim to never orgasm at all).

The link even notes that many women enjoy "extended intercourse" even without orgasm: Lack of orgasm isn't a lack of pleasure, it's a lack of a specific type of pleasure overload.

I agree that lack of orgasm isn't a total lack of pleasure.
I hope you agree that having an orgasm is better than having some pleasure without reaching orgasm.

Posted: **Sat Oct 03, 2015 1:21 pm**

Renewed Imperial Germany wrote:
Radfems Inc wrote:
PIV sex is rape now, because womyn can't meaningfully consent under the overwhelming pressure of our patriarchal institutions. Do keep up. In a hypothetical egalitarian society, where womyn could meaningfully choose whether or not they wanted to have sex with men, it would not be.

Wiki defines oppression thusly:

"Oppression is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner."

There's no reason to assume that womyn would rule in a burden, cruel, or unjust manner.

I still contest that it's oppression. It would have to be cruel, burdensome, or unjust first, and we can't know if it will be or not until we've tried it.

You know what? Your not worth arguing with. You are so trapped in your psychosis that you cannot see the illogic behind your own insane babbling. Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall: you will never understand anything. Just keep believing your own paranoid, illogical, and reverse-sexist nonsense. Thank God the people in charge are more sane and reasonable than you.

That's ok - my views are being consistently worked towards. The convention of istanbul specifically protects womyn from male oppression, female only train cars in India and Japan are specifically placed to protect women from the harmful effects of aggressive men.

Quotes have been instituted in Germany, Norway, and Sweden in the parties ensuring that a number of seats are reserved for womyn. There's an even better system in Jordan, Rwanda, and Uganda, reserving a certain number of legislative seats that have to be female.

It's spreading to more and more countries. This is just the beginning.

http://www.quotaproject.org/aboutQuotas.cfm

Posted: **Sat Oct 03, 2015 1:23 pm**

Crysuko wrote:
Radfems Inc wrote:Well, we can start with the 87 million people killed by wars just in the 20th century that were instigated almost entirely by men.

http://necrometrics.com/all20c.htm

you fail to quantify the actual people behind said conflicts and babble about gender. try again.

What do you mean?

Posted: **Sat Oct 03, 2015 1:24 pm**

Chessmistress wrote:
Tahar Joblis wrote:That's saying that only 25% of women consistently orgasm from intercourse alone. An additional 55% orgasm sometimes during intercourse, leaving only 20% who orgasm from other things but never from intercourse (5% claim to never orgasm at all).

The link even notes that many women enjoy "extended intercourse" even without orgasm: Lack of orgasm isn't a lack of pleasure, it's a lack of a specific type of pleasure overload.

I agree that lack of orgasm isn't a total lack of pleasure.
I hope you agree that having an orgasm is better than having some pleasure without reaching orgasm.

Kinda depends really. Sometimes I'm too tired to orgasm, so my girlfriends and I just pleasure each other a little bit and go to sleep wrapped in each others arms. That can be more comforting than an orgasm.

Posted: **Sat Oct 03, 2015 1:24 pm**

I'll just have a quick look at the feminist threa-

Radfems Inc wrote:Well, we can start with the 87 million people killed by wars just in the 20th century that were instigated almost entirely by men.

Posted: **Sat Oct 03, 2015 1:26 pm**

Radfems Inc wrote:
Crysuko wrote:you fail to quantify the actual people behind said conflicts and babble about gender. try again.

What do you mean?

figure it out

Posted: **Sat Oct 03, 2015 1:29 pm**

Dumb Ideologies wrote:I'll just have a quick look at the feminist threa-

Radfems Inc wrote:Well, we can start with the 87 million people killed by wars just in the 20th century that were instigated almost entirely by men.

Go! Quick! They've trapped me here but you can warn the others off! Tell the newcomers.......don't.....go.....on the.......feminist......THREEAAAAAAAD!!

NationStates

The NationStates Feminist Thread