High profiles murders in the U.S: what is going on?

[Shonx]

how many have you had? step away from the computer, close your eyes, and place your index on your nose...

Guilty as charged

i don't understand why the fact that law makers don't give a shit about how their laws affect people's lives is "fascinating"? isn't that just normal?

I think the fact that it's normal in a supposed democracy is fascinating. Apart from reading papers and saying "isn't it dreadful", there doesn't seem to be any political alternative available, and just seems to be a case of observing and tolerating without any opportunity to do much to alter it. I mean it's the way society has developed, it just seems odd to me how apathy (and some sly social manipulation) seems to have just allowed it. It seems strange that it's considered naive to expect elected public servants to..you know...serve the public's best interests, and that cynically accepting how things are is somehow better than looking to overhaul that system so it works better for the majority.

I suppose people being able to afford a certain level of comfort and security ultimately created a new dependence which discouraged biting the hand that fed them, but ultimately has just led to an entire nation turning a blind eye to abuses if the bribes/threat of loss of priveliges keep rolling in. Much subtler control technique I think.

and how does "pointing out the inherent potential for abuse", in the system presumably, amount to a "demolishing of heirarchies"?

I'm a great believer that people that seek power are the ones that really shouldn't have it, so I think limiting the amount of influence certain people can have greatly reduces the scope of damage that can be done. The realisation that a lot of these positions are exactly those that anti-socially inclined people tend to aim for tends to emphasise that to me. That and that I think leaders are for the lost.

In itself though, thought isn't going to demolish anything, put it down to drunken bombast

 

[nomadthethird]

I think that's incorrect to be honest, paedophilia isn't usually a standby, it's mostly something that's done because the person has a paraphilia for sex with children.

Also child prostitution was prevalent in Victorian society and women were far from equality then. Thailand springs to mind as another example

Again, talk to a pedophile. Most of them primarily practice heterosexuality. I know men often find it hard to see past their own sexuality and understand sexual preferences as anything other than a fetish for certain body types, but as far as paraphilias are concerned, the story is much more complicated than "I like how children look naked." Pedophiles will often report that their interest in children grew slowly over time as they fed their at first marginal interest in child pornographic images. They talk about their "special kind of love", how they want to "teach children about sex", it's often a "mentor" role they want to take on. Pedophiles *always* get off on the idea that they are acting out *dirty* sexual impulses on supernally *innocent* beings.

Sex with children was in fact considered entirely *normal* in many societies, especially in the ancient past. What I'm talking about, however, is our own culture's norms and the reasons why people transgress them.

 

[nomadthethird]

how many have you had? step away from the computer, close your eyes, and place your index on your nose...

i don't understand why the fact that law makers don't give a shit about how their laws affect people's lives is "fascinating"? isn't that just normal? and how does "pointing out the inherent potential for abuse", in the system presumably, amount to a "demolishing of heirarchies"?

and Nomad, i'm not sure that Feminism or the Women's Movement can be so readily cited as a direct factor of what sets serial killers off, or a, main or even secondary, reason for hatred of women... besides Shonx' example of child porn being popular way before the 1960s, misogyny of course have existed for millenia... i do think it is a symptom of patriarchy and the oedipal universe it engenders, but the relationship is much deeper than you described...

Ummm.

I never said that the women's movement is a direct factor in "setting serial killers off." Obviously becoming a serial killer is a lifelong process. What I said was that the gains women have made (real, not ideological, and which have little to nothing to do with the "women's movement" ultimately) in terms of their access to positions of social power and influence, is a force that feels "disempowering" to men who already suffer from psychosexual pathologies and malignant misogyny.

Of course, the hatred of women has always existed. But what I'm saying is borne out by TALKING to serial killers, who in America in large numbers will openly admit that female bosses they've had, the fact that women can be doctors, lawyers, etc. the fact that female gender roles/norms are no longer as narrowly defined, was something that very deeply influenced their feelings of wounded male entitlement and further "emasculated" them to the point where their misogyny completely took over their fantasy life.

Many of them report that they fantasized about hurting women long before puberty, long before they'd be consciously aware of gender norms in such a way that they could attach their misogyny to a sense of wounded entitlement. But as adults they say that specific instances wherein women were given positions of power over them fed their pathology later in life.

 

[Shonx]

Again, talk to a pedophile. Most of them primarily practice heterosexuality. I know men often find it hard to see past their own sexuality and understand sexual preferences as anything other than a fetish for certain body types, but as far as paraphilias are concerned, the story is much more complicated than "I like how children look naked."

Sorry, wasn't trying to bracket it in the same ball park as shoe fetishism for instance, but it is specifically a sexual attraction to pre-pubescents - which gender is dependent on whether they're straight, gay or bi of course. It's not the easiest reading, but Peter Sotos' writing on the Jonbenet Ramsay case in Apocalypse Culture 2 was quite enlightening (endarkening?) - he said that from the child beauty pageant to the endless speculation as to her demise and (implied) sexual assault that all of this was as pornography to a sadisticly minded paedophile.

With regards to the misogyny level, I do agree that modern serial murder basically seemed to start around the turn of the 19th century with the Ripper which would tie in with the birth of the women's rights movements, and I think the Colin Wilson book I mentioned earlier in this thread came to a similar conclusion, although as one of many causes.

I do think there's rather more to it than that though, because how would this apply to the numerous gay serial killers throughout the years - I think it's more interesting to look at the death/violence fetishism involved - I'm not convinced it's all about trying to kill their projected feminine side or some unresolved parental issues - I think it has a lot more to do with the fact that it's what gets them off (as you mention with paedophiles, the fantasy starts off with low-level bondage and works its way up to the point of acting out).

 

[nomadthethird]

Sorry, wasn't trying to bracket it in the same ball park as shoe fetishism for instance, but it is specifically a sexual attraction to pre-pubescents - which gender is dependent on whether they're straight, gay or bi of course. It's not the easiest reading, but Peter Sotos' writing on the Jonbenet Ramsay case in Apocalypse Culture 2 was quite enlightening (endarkening?) - he said that from the child beauty pageant to the endless speculation as to her demise and (implied) sexual assault that all of this was as pornography to a sadisticly minded paedophile.

With regards to the misogyny level, I do agree that modern serial murder basically seemed to start around the turn of the 19th century with the Ripper which would tie in with the birth of the women's rights movements, and I think the Colin Wilson book I mentioned earlier in this thread came to a similar conclusion, although as one of many causes.

I do think there's rather more to it than that though, because how would this apply to the numerous gay serial killers throughout the years - I think it's more interesting to look at the death/violence fetishism involved - I'm not convinced it's all about trying to kill their projected feminine side or some unresolved parental issues - I think it has a lot more to do with the fact that it's what gets them off (as you mention with paedophiles, the fantasy starts off with low-level bondage and works its way up to the point of acting out).

Right, this all makes sense to me.

There was a deep dark core of scary misogyny in the Victorian Era. Makes for good reading and studying though.

There is always more to it than any unilateral psychoanalytical/theoretical explanation can account for, but I must say I disagree entirely with Nabokov and others who discount the Freudian pov when it comes to pedophilia, especially. Nabokov's Lolita is a great book, I loved it, but what's interesting is that it's supposed to be some sort of spoof of Freudian theories regarding the origin of psychosexual pathologies and paraphilias, but even in Nabokov's attempts to aestheticize the pathology out of HH's "love" for Lolita, he does a great job making Freud's point that it's never just about aesthetically preferring children. Especially the part in the beginning (and maybe later too can't remember) where the initial trauma-- where HH is spurned by a pre-pubescent love object--that eventually influences HH's aesthetic preferences seems to fit in well with a Freudian explanation.

 

[nomadthethird]

Also, what I meant was not that male serial killers kill their projected feminine side [although Baudrillard has some interesting ideas about femininity/masculinity and how men and women are always merely projecting their own femininity (men) and masculinity (women) onto the opposite sex], but that they kill literal women for their perceived participation/accomplice-status in the serial killer's emasculation and symbolic castration.

 

[Shonx]

Also, what I meant was not that male serial killers kill their projected feminine side [although Baudrillard has some interesting ideas about femininity/masculinity and how men and women are always merely projecting their own femininity (men) and masculinity (women) onto the opposite sex], but that they kill literal women for their perceived participation/accomplice-status in the serial killer's emasculation and symbolic castration.

There was an interesting article I was reading the other day which put the blame on macho culture generally and just said that those that didn't adhere to it's central values (emotional detachment, sexual potency, aggression), would be seen as weak, girly or "poofy". It was suggested that the less one actually adhered to those values, the more compensation would be required to affect this narrow view of "masculinity", and that also those who were, for want of a better word "mummy's boys", were likely to have more to prove, and thus adopted more exaggerated macho characteristics.

It does make me wonder whether the increase in absent fathers and thus boys being brought up in more female-centred environments might in some way have a lot to do with this - on one hand we have the aforementioned metrosexuals who side with the feminine influence and on the other, gang culture, aggression and misogynist attitudes which seem to be mostly reactionary to that situation. It's interesting to note flamboyant, garish clothing in hip hop tied to traditional thuggery, homophobia and female objectification (trying too hard maybe?)

I think that what a lot of women are attracted to (and thus what men try to be to get the women) are still things like strength, dominance (as opposed to domineering), a certain level of detachment to emotional concerns, etc, which does send out rather conflicting information regarding acceptable patterns of behaviour - it does seem like the sexual revolution appears to have been mostly one-sided. I think the original article pointed out that we often demonise sex killers as being something utterly seperate from "us" when in fact it's often just similar attitudes inherent in many men and our society continued to the nth degree.

 

[nomadthethird]

There was an interesting article I was reading the other day which put the blame on macho culture generally and just said that those that didn't adhere to it's central values (emotional detachment, sexual potency, aggression), would be seen as weak, girly or "poofy". It was suggested that the less one actually adhered to those values, the more compensation would be required to affect this narrow view of "masculinity", and that also those who were, for want of a better word "mummy's boys", were likely to have more to prove, and thus adopted more exaggerated macho characteristics.

It does make me wonder whether the increase in absent fathers and thus boys being brought up in more female-centred environments might in some way have a lot to do with this - on one hand we have the aforementioned metrosexuals who side with the feminine influence and on the other, gang culture, aggression and misogynist attitudes which seem to be mostly reactionary to that situation. It's interesting to note flamboyant, garish clothing in hip hop tied to traditional thuggery, homophobia and female objectification (trying too hard maybe?)

I think that what a lot of women are attracted to (and thus what men try to be to get the women) are still things like strength, dominance (as opposed to domineering), a certain level of detachment to emotional concerns, etc, which does send out rather conflicting information regarding acceptable patterns of behaviour - it does seem like the sexual revolution appears to have been mostly one-sided. I think the original article pointed out that we often demonise sex killers as being something utterly seperate from "us" when in fact it's often just similar attitudes inherent in many men and our society continued to the nth degree.

Hmmmm...see, I don't know. Where I live metrosexuals get all the girls, and they don't act at all macho. Also, I don't think women are attracted to "strength, dominance, and emotional detachment" for the most part, but in fact prefer men who are empathic, good listeners, interested in aesthetic pursuits, sexually generous, and who respect women and treat them like people rather than walking talking sex dolls. In fact, men who are comfortable expressing their feelings are quite attractive to women. I think it's usually men who assume that women want men to behave in traditionally macho ways. I'm sure women to a certain extent also assume men want them to act a certain way that may not be all that desirable to men in reality.

If the sexual revolution was one-sided, I'd say it favored men considerably. It's still women who radically alter their body chemistry/endocrinological health just so their boyfriends don't have to suffer the use of condoms or other not-optimally-pleasureable-for-men methods. There are several non-hormonal birth control drugs that would have little to no side effects for men (while estrogen and progesterone based female birth control is known to increase blood pressure, various cancer risks, blood clot incidence, heart attacks, and so on...not to mention the negative effects on sex drive and mood that these have on women) but these are not even manufactured for mass consumption because focus groups suggest there'd be no market for them. Men refuse to take responsibility for their own reproductive health.

This is just completely unfair. Abortion gets more restricted in the U.S all the time, while men are still allowed to walk away from unwanted pregnancies unscathed. This doesn't seem like much of a "revolution" to me at all, unless the aim was to further decrease male sexual responsibility and maturity.

I don't think the fatherless home has much to do with misogyny really, I think a dearth of positive male role models and income from a male head of household does have something to do (at least in areas where gangs rule) with creating an economic situation where "dog-eat-dog" drug dealing turf wars become the norm. The macho posturing anywhere you have gangs is actually a very necessary survival skill. Sounds silly from the outside, but I think white male posturing sounds just as silly personally. I don't think hip-hop listening innercity kids are any more misogynistic than anybody else, in the end, and I'd challenge anyone who thinks hip-hop is somehow more misogynistic than rock to actually listen to some rock lyrics (ugh this drives me nuts) and watch rock videos.

 

[Shonx]

If the sexual revolution was one-sided, I'd say it favored men considerably.

Well outside of contraception (and disadvantages to career if the woman decides to start a family and her partner decides to continue paid work), an awful lot of headway has been made - most women now are (or can be) financially independent, are not excluded from the majority of jobs, and behaviour wise seem to be able to exhibit "feminine" or "masculine" qualities without scorn. Indeed, this doesn't seem to be limited to good qualities either, as can be witnessed by women seeming to drink far more, and the increase in female violence (if I remember right, 1 in 4 domestic violence incidents in the UK is female on male).

In terms of divorce settlements and residence orders, this mostly favours the women, and often men may have little or no contact with their children at all, even where there is no history of violence. In my line of work I've read plenty of stories of women withholding contact unless additional money is paid, and quite often implied sexual abuse if they believe this will sever all ties with their ex.

In terms of culture, plenty of adverts now reduce men to lazy, beer-swilling, football obsessed idiots or other stereotypes of utter uselessness which would be unacceptable if reversed. I'm pretty certain that if Sex and the City was a group of men speaking about their experiences (minus the shoe chat) it would probably cause outrage (unless they were gay men in which case it would probably be seen as groundbreaking).

Also, I don't think women are attracted to "strength, dominance, and emotional detachment" for the most part, but in fact prefer men who are empathic, good listeners, interested in aesthetic pursuits, sexually generous, and who respect women and treat them like people rather than walking talking sex dolls. In fact, men who are comfortable expressing their feelings are quite attractive to women.

I didn't mean dominant in terms of neanderthal behaviour, more just being someone who is emotionally solid, protective and not prone to falling to pieces in times of turmoil. What I meant in terms of equality was that it's seen as ok for women to be assertive then needy at various points, but I think it's seen as unacceptable for a lot of men and still seen as bossy or wussy behaviour. I also believe that a man that can easily be bossed around or dependent on the woman in some way is also seen as unnattractive. It's also quite clear that women generally tend to want men that are smarter or of higher status than them (or at least equal) - this may of course also have quite a lot to do with male insecurity too. I think a lot of the openness with emotions really depends on which emotions we're talking about - I think anger, self-pity and depression aren't included. I think there's a biological basis to this too, not necessarily going to be protection or a provider if in an emotional malaise really.

It's interesting what you say about macho behaviour though - presumably the more comfortable society gets, masculinity operates in a more feminised way, thus the metrosexuals. I know an awful lot of women that find the extreme of this incredibly unattractive re:the over-preening and narcissism and still want men to be manly (if not macho).

You're right about rock music vs rap too, I don't really follow the music so I thought that the majority of guitar rock was mostly complaint music nowadays

 

[Mr. Tea]

It's interesting what you say about macho behaviour though - presumably the more comfortable society gets, masculinity operates in a more feminised way, thus the metrosexuals. I know an awful lot of women that find the extreme of this incredibly unattractive re:the over-preening and narcissism and still want men to be manly (if not macho).

Absolutely: my girlfriend often mentions how unattractive she finds excessively groomed men, and I think that's not an uncommon attitude.

You're right about rock music vs rap too, I don't really follow the music so I thought that the majority of guitar rock was mostly complaint music nowadays

Yeah, there's the whole genre of what you might call 'wimp rock' that deliberately plays up wetness and anti-masculinity.

 

[nomadthethird]

Well outside of contraception (and disadvantages to career if the woman decides to start a family and her partner decides to continue paid work), an awful lot of headway has been made - most women now are (or can be) financially independent, are not excluded from the majority of jobs, and behaviour wise seem to be able to exhibit "feminine" or "masculine" qualities without scorn. Indeed, this doesn't seem to be limited to good qualities either, as can be witnessed by women seeming to drink far more, and the increase in female violence (if I remember right, 1 in 4 domestic violence incidents in the UK is female on male).

In terms of divorce settlements and residence orders, this mostly favours the women, and often men may have little or no contact with their children at all, even where there is no history of violence. In my line of work I've read plenty of stories of women withholding contact unless additional money is paid, and quite often implied sexual abuse if they believe this will sever all ties with their ex.

In terms of culture, plenty of adverts now reduce men to lazy, beer-swilling, football obsessed idiots or other stereotypes of utter uselessness which would be unacceptable if reversed. I'm pretty certain that if Sex and the City was a group of men speaking about their experiences (minus the shoe chat) it would probably cause outrage (unless they were gay men in which case it would probably be seen as groundbreaking).



I didn't mean dominant in terms of neanderthal behaviour, more just being someone who is emotionally solid, protective and not prone to falling to pieces in times of turmoil. What I meant in terms of equality was that it's seen as ok for women to be assertive then needy at various points, but I think it's seen as unacceptable for a lot of men and still seen as bossy or wussy behaviour. I also believe that a man that can easily be bossed around or dependent on the woman in some way is also seen as unnattractive. It's also quite clear that women generally tend to want men that are smarter or of higher status than them (or at least equal) - this may of course also have quite a lot to do with male insecurity too. I think a lot of the openness with emotions really depends on which emotions we're talking about - I think anger, self-pity and depression aren't included. I think there's a biological basis to this too, not necessarily going to be protection or a provider if in an emotional malaise really.

It's interesting what you say about macho behaviour though - presumably the more comfortable society gets, masculinity operates in a more feminised way, thus the metrosexuals. I know an awful lot of women that find the extreme of this incredibly unattractive re:the over-preening and narcissism and still want men to be manly (if not macho).

You're right about rock music vs rap too, I don't really follow the music so I thought that the majority of guitar rock was mostly complaint music nowadays

First, many women are severely penalized socially and professionally for behaving in traditionally "unfeminine" ways. If a woman tries to have a career and a family, she is still expected to take on the full burden of domestic chores and child rearing with little expectation on her male partner to share this burden. This isn't to say gains haven't been made, but the work is far from done. Women are still subjected to sexual harrassment in the workplace and a woman's sex life (and clothing choice) held up to public scrutiny if she dares to take legal recourse. Women are still raped, and it is still difficult for a woman's rape allegations to be taken at face value by police and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Many women do not even bother pressing charges because they know they will be publicly dragged through the mud and accused of being some sort of "whore" for being unlucky enough to cross paths with a rapist. The vast majority of real medically dangerous domestic violence is against women, not by women. Women are far less likely to be sexual predators, but far more likely to be victimized by them.

Women have always drunk alcohol. Maybe there are more female alcoholics treated or diagnosed now, but that's because it's not as stigmatized and therefore it can be dealt with directly. Aside from the obvious medical perils of alcoholism, I really don't see why "drinking more" is a bad thing. So women are allowed to party, too! Great. More power to them. Who cares? Unless this is somehow not "ladylike" because women aren't playacting that they're delicate flowers who can't handle their drink, and is therefore offensive to the male ego ideal/fantasy regarding what "femininity" means.

In the U.S. most divorced couples get joint custody. Maybe men would get more custody time in general, however, if they seemed to take an active role in parenting in the first place. A lot of kids if they're asked would prefer to live with mom, it seems, because their mothers are more in tune with them psychologically. Who can blame them? Also, I tend to believe women deserve alimony, given that they are the ones who took on 100% of the physical/medical burden of bearing children, and given that men agreed to enter into a marriage arrangement (which I would never, ever do unless I was prepared for the reality of what could happen should the marriage dissolve. I don't believe in marriage anyway so I doubt I'd ever be this foolish.) I do agree, however, in a general sense that biological parenthood is too strongly privileged in legal matters.

As for this bit: "I'm pretty certain that if Sex and the City was a group of men speaking about their experiences (minus the shoe chat) it would probably cause outrage" you must be kidding. If you look at the highest grossing films and most watched television shows, a vast majority of them are filled with juvenile male heterosexual innuendo, jokes, sexual exploits, blatant sexism, etc. No one bats an eyelash. There are all kinds of male versions of "Sex and the City", the most famous of which at the moment is probably "Entourage."

Why is it unattractive for a man to take care of himself? If I'm going to do it for a man, he better be doing it for me, too. There's nothing at all sexy about a slob, or a schlub, or someone who dresses in unflattering clothes. It's not necessarily "narcissitic" to take care of yourself. Being vain and being conscientious are different things.

Sexuality is actually very specific to individuals. There is nothing that "all women want", but I do know that most women my age think Ashton Kutcher model types are more attractive than Russell Crowe or (gag) Colin Farrell gruff scruffy ugly mug "macho" types.

Heterosexuals bore me to death because all they talk about are stupid traditional gender roles and shit. Yawn.


It's always a laugh to hear men talk about what women like, though, so do go on...

 

[nomadthethird]

There's another good one, that it's a "biological" imperative for men to be "providers."

Men are sperm donors. In most pre-modern societies, nobody had an idea nor did they care who a child's father was. In many cultures this is still the norm (some Atlantic Island and aboriginal cultures). The village/tribe took care of children, the women of the village and the grandmothers looked after the children. Men hunted for food that was shared with everyone. These kills were few and far between. Women gathered the nuts and berries and fruits/vegetables that were eaten daily.

Even now I've heard OB/GYNs say that up to a third of the babies they deliver have a blood type that makes their presumed father a biological impossibility. You never know if the kid's yours unless you get a DNA test. Why would a man provide for some brat that he didn't even know was his (especially in polyamorous pre-modern societies)? Answer: he wouldn't. People originally lived in tribes, not families.

The contemporary "family unit" is an agrarian cultural phenomenon. Marriage as a binding legal contract came about as a direct result of the agrarian practice of "land ownership" for cultivation that brought about the patrilineal handing down of estates to sons. This is when women began being "protected" or basically sold from the father's possession to her husband's, where she was meant to take on the role of domestic manager while her husband worked the farm. Marriage was a social contract where women were passed on as a liability (women couldn't earn money to later take care of their parents). You still see the marked effects of this way of life/way of thinking in China, where female children are routinely aborted, abandoned, and euthanized for this reason.

So there's no biological imperative for men to "protect" women or children, unless you're talking about the protection of a broader tribal/social group rather than a monogamous single family situation. Agrarian life is a relatively new phenomenon, and it's likely that human evolution (in terms of sexual instincts and traits) has not yet changed to adapt to this.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Women have always drunk alcohol. Maybe there are more female alcoholics treated or diagnosed now, but that's because it's not as stigmatized and therefore it can be dealt with directly. Aside from the obvious medical perils of alcoholism, I really don't see why "drinking more" is a bad thing. So women are allowed to party, too! Great. More power to them. Who cares? Unless this is somehow not "ladylike" because women aren't playacting that they're delicate flowers who can't handle their drink, and is therefore offensive to the male ego ideal/fantasy regarding what "femininity" means.

Well in Britain at any rate, it's gone far beyond any coy ideas of 'ladylike' behaviour. It used to be almost solely a male prerogative to fill up hospitals with injuries sustained in pissed-up brawls and severely premature liver disease: now women are making up a large part of the numbers. Is that a good thing? Is that what progress and equality mean? Going out and enjoying a few drinks is one thing, and something that everyone can (and, nowadays, should) enjoy: destroying your physical and mental health with alcohol is quite another. We've been through this before; it's not that women have any less of a right to do it than men do, it's that it's a bad idea for both men and women. And again, I'm talking about the UK because it's the culture here that I'm familiar with, but it's often women who get more out of control because they match their male colleagues drink-for-drink when out after work and naturally end up more pissed because of their smaller body mass.

Why is it unattractive for a man to take care of himself? If I'm going to do it for a man, he better be doing it for me, too. There's nothing at all sexy about a slob, or a schlub, or someone who dresses in unflattering clothes. It's not necessarily "narcissitic" to take care of yourself. Being vain and being conscientious are different things.

Nothing, in and of itself: it's when it's taken to an excessive degree. There's an enormous middle ground between the sweaty, hairy neanderthal on the one hand and the preening, coiffured metro on the other.

It's always a laugh to hear men talk about what women like, though, so do go on...

Whereas women intuitively understand every nook and cranny of the male psyche? No no, do go on, I think I've read about this in a humorous birthday card...

 

[nomadthethird]

Well in Britain at any rate, it's gone far beyond any coy ideas of 'ladylike' behaviour. It used to be almost solely a male prerogative to fill up hospitals with injuries sustained in pissed-up brawls and severely premature liver disease: now women are making up a large part of the numbers. Is that a good thing? Is that what progress and equality mean? Going out and enjoying a few drinks is one thing, and something that everyone can (and, nowadays, should) enjoy: destroying your physical and mental health with alcohol is quite another. We've been through this before; it's not that women have any less of a right to do it than men do, it's that it's a bad idea for both men and women. And again, I'm talking about the UK because it's the culture here that I'm familiar with, but it's often women who get more out of control because they match their male colleagues drink-for-drink when out after work and naturally end up more pissed because of their smaller body mass.



Nothing, in and of itself: it's when it's taken to an excessive degree. There's an enormous middle ground between the sweaty, hairy neanderthal on the one hand and the preening, coiffured metro on the other.



Whereas women intuitively understand every nook and cranny of the male psyche? No no, do go on, I think I've read about this in a humorous birthday card...

Who gives a shit if a person wants to destroy their own body? I certainly don't. Unless they're my patient and I'm getting paid to help them, or I know them and care about them.

Yes, it is part of equality (in general and especially w/r/t equality under the law) that women are allowed to act however they like, regardless of whether YOU personally approve of their actions. Men are allowed to drink themselves into the hospital if they want to, and no one's ever had a hissy fit about that. If a woman injures someone while drunk, she should obviously be held legally accountable, just as a man should. Yes. This is what equality means. If a woman wants to die of cirrhosis, she should be able to do that.

Re metrosexuals: Personally, I think it's unattractive if *anyone* is too preoccupied with their own looks. Ick. Has not much to do with gender, really.

On a certain micro level, you could say that men are all the same or at least very similar, since there's very little variability on the Y chromosome. They do all seem to want similar things from a relationship--someone who props up their ego and sense of masculinity. Men sure go to great lengths to make it seem to women that all they care about is sex with someone who is the hottest person who will have anything to do with them. Aside from what they say they want, the guessing game seems uninteresting. I honestly don't care at all what men want. They bore me.

I didn't create the Y chromosome, so it's not my fault that male sexuality is so boring. Don't get upset with me.

 

[nomadthethird]

Also, the number of alcoholic drinks a person consumes isn't the whole story. It's not just the smaller body mass of women that makes them get "drunker" than men in certain cases, but female body chemistry also is such that women metabolize alcohol more slowly/less efficiently.

BUT, alcohol tolerance is a huge factor in how much anyone can drink. A female alcoholic of 10 years could easily out drink your average 18-year-old male. In fact, she could probably drink an amount of liquor that would kill the average person.

So by the time a woman is in the position to have alcohol induced hepatitis (which is what eventually causes cirrhosis), she would be able to throw down and probably wouldn't even appear drunk.

 

[Mr. Tea]

OK, so leaving aside all issues of sex here: if people have the legal right to drink themselves into a coma, does that mean the state has no business trying to dissuade people from doing so? In other words, to what extent is it up to the state to protect us from our own self-destructive tendencies? Huge moral minefield here, of course. But something you can't ignore about alcohol (which is not true of all recreational drugs, including some of the most popular illegal ones) is that a lot of people who suffer the consequences of actions fuelled by its use are not the ones actually drinking - there's everything from low-level antisocial behaviour like vandalism to serious street violence, domestic abuse and potentially lethal drink-driving. I mean, I agree with you on the basic right to self-harm, but a lot of social damage associated with alcohol involves victims other than the drinker him/herself.

 

[nomadthethird]

Exactly, which is why it's utterly ridiculous that opiates and stimulants are illegal, but alcohol is not.

Alcohol is far more likely to kill you than any other recreational substance (cigarettes excluded). The "fun" effects of alcohol basically amount to turning off the "good judgment/inhibition" part of the brain and lead to all sorts of secondary injury and death. At a certain point in alcohol intoxication, you're unable to coordinate your own movements well enough to drive. To someone with an "addict" brain, whose brain is highly susceptible to addiction to intoxicants, alcohol is just as addictive as heroin physically (though it may be slower progressing) and in fact withdrawal from alcohol is often lethal (whereas withdrawal from most other drugs is not.)

Even though an opiate (unless you're nodding, in which case you wouldn't even bother driving anywhere) or stimulant or amphetamine user is perfectly coordinated and can easily drive and perform basic activities, and their judgment faculties aren't completely impeded, these drugs are considered "worse" than alcohol.

I'll never understand. It's so annoying. I could go to jail for buying cocaine, but I can legally buy alcohol in any 7/11.

 

[Shonx]

First, many women are severely penalized socially and professionally for behaving in traditionally "unfeminine" ways. If a woman tries to have a career and a family, she is still expected to take on the full burden of domestic chores and child rearing with little expectation on her male partner to share this burden.

There's plenty of people that do split this well, but if it's "expected" then maybe it would have been better to figure the arrangements out before kids, rather than wondering why the lazy shit who did nothing before kids is the lazy shit who does nothing now they do.

Women have always drunk alcohol. Maybe there are more female alcoholics treated or diagnosed now, but that's because it's not as stigmatized and therefore it can be dealt with directly. Aside from the obvious medical perils of alcoholism, I really don't see why "drinking more" is a bad thing. So women are allowed to party, too! Great. More power to them. Who cares? Unless this is somehow not "ladylike" because women aren't playacting that they're delicate flowers who can't handle their drink, and is therefore offensive to the male ego ideal/fantasy regarding what "femininity" means.

I think incredibly drunk men are just as boorish and boring tbh. There is of course the issue of being able to look after yourself which if as shitfaced as some women get, and the subsequent level of opportunist sexual assaults and rapes implies, they're clearly not able to. Happened to a friend of mine the other week, and she said she wouldn't have gone with the guy if she hadn't been quite so intoxicated. She certainly didn't ask for it, but she's still blaming herself for it - it's that I'm worried about rather than the effect it's unladylike but do feel free to assume what I mean regardless.

As for this bit: "I'm pretty certain that if Sex and the City was a group of men speaking about their experiences (minus the shoe chat) it would probably cause outrage" you must be kidding. If you look at the highest grossing films and most watched television shows, a vast majority of them are filled with juvenile male heterosexual innuendo, jokes, sexual exploits, blatant sexism, etc. No one bats an eyelash. There are all kinds of male versions of "Sex and the City", the most famous of which at the moment is probably "Entourage."

I don't watch TV any more due to it's innate shitness. Was thinking the show that probably had most of that sort of humour that I last saw was Two and a Half Men, but the humour seemed to be based more on how shallow and pathetic the Charlie Sheen character was rather than a "wow, isn't it empowering" vibe.

Heterosexuals bore me to death because all they talk about are stupid traditional gender roles and shit. Yawn.

Yeah, that's all we ever talk about, or maybe that's the only bit you ever hear. Yawn...

 

[nomadthethird]

Yes, because men can only rape women if they're drunk. There's no possible way they can do it otherwise.

And drunk women are always so out of their minds that they go home with anyone. Please.

I've been drunk, on acid, injecting speedballs all at once and I still never thought "hey I think it'd be a good idea to go home alone with a total stranger." If I had decided to go home with someone, it would probably be because they seemed nice and harmless, regardless of whether I was intoxicated. Predators are good at this. Seeming nice. Or taking advantage of situations where a person can't move, or whatnot. Women shouldn't have to live in fear, cowering at home just in case a big bad rapist might be out; men who commit these crimes should be prosecuted with SEVERE penalties.

Most women are raped by people they know. Often people they know well. Men raped women just as often before women were allowed to drink if they wanted to.

I'd actually wonder, if I were your friend, if the guy hadn't put GHB or rohypnol or something in her drink. Especially if she felt especially out of sorts.

 

[nomadthethird]

Also, it's very common for a person to have no idea how their prospective spouse is going to behave after marriage until one is married. And many people don't get pregnant on purpose. Many people accidentally get pregnant in a bad marriage. You also may have a decently helpful husband who doesn't help at all when it comes to raising children. How would you know, until you have children?

You wouldn't.

Society's expectations for the investment women are called upon to make in a relationship and the one men are differs widely. I think it's evident even in how women are expected to be the ones who initiate any "communication" process. It's ridiculous.