Summary

“For Real” Said:

This blog is deceptive.

Answer:

You are essentially contradicting your original précis that this article is one of the stupidest things you have encountered.  At this point, any argument you have is already moot as contradiction in something critical to a position weakens your case to the point of immediate dismissal.  However, being a particularly generous individual your notions will be entertained…

“For Real” Said:

BUT the bad stuff in this blog is more difficult to see. A perfect example is this line: “Turn her into YOUR own personal porn star.”

 Answer:

The curious thing here is that while people should see a reverence in any title of “star”, one sees a moniker depicting servitude.

Certainly some will now argue that it’s the particular celebrity of “porn star” that suggests a subservient role.  This isn’t the case in that the acts depicted in the typical porn production are ones where the male and the female take turns at giving and taking

That this article promotes the respect for oneself and for others; it shouldn’t bother anyone that it exists.

“For Real” Said:

And lastly, you say the fact that most comments from women are negative is ‘telling.’ But maybe what it’s ‘telling’ is that women don’t like to be talked about this way.

Answer:

No.  Unfortunately, the more some try to excuse the personal attacks and generally abusive dismissals as reasonable reaction to an affront, the more telling it is of the denial.

Firstly, it wasn’t suggested that the comments were merely negative.  It was that the comments from women are nearly all just personal attacks and insulting dismissal.  Let’s not misrepresent the notion one attempts to forgive.

Secondly, the blog itself is not an affront.

Think about it.  Everyone, man or woman, has the choice to address the topic alone, or come out with pointed editorial, or purely pejorative assault in lieu of a proper response.  The fact that most women here choose the third option gives pause to how they would handle themselves in a real world situation should they perceive they had the power to attack without immediate penalty.

If most can’t even handle being civilized in a discussion, what makes you think that they could handle the advantages that men have in the real world?

Details:

The Science of Deception

For Real Said:

This blog is deceptive. It’s deceptive because it isn’t wrong to look for certain qualities in a person and choose not to be with people who don’t have those qualities. And the qualities listed in this blog aren’t all bad either. I want to marry someone who has a good relationship with their family and isn’t overly materialistic.

Answer:

First, an important observation…

You are essentially contradicting your original précis that this article is one of the stupidest things you have encountered.  By stupid it is understood that it is nonsense, poorly supported, or a mixture of both.  Being a frontrunner for stupidity in your literary encounters, and that it is implied that you have a normal experience in such encounters, it is reasonable that this article would be, in your opinion, a particularly vapid essay.

However, you now take the 180 degree tack that this blog is deceptive.  As it is quite intricately constructed, it stands to reason that it is not accidentally deceptive either.  To be that deceptive, the object is unlikely (well, essentially “not”) to be stupid at all.  It would be, by this ability to be deceptive, actually rather crafty.

At this point, any argument you have is already moot as contradiction in something critical to a position weakens your case to the point of immediate dismissal.  However, being a particularly generous individual your notions will be entertained…

Fifty shades of Black and White

For Real Said:

BUT the bad stuff in this blog is more difficult to see. A perfect example is this line: “Turn her into YOUR own personal porn star.” In this sentence, the woman is an object, not someone who has any input in her sexual life. I’m sure that everyone who reads this blog understands that sex, especially good sex, is something that both people contribute to. But by reading and endorsing these kinds of statements, you endorse a mindset that women do not deserve to be on equal footing with men, in sex and in the relationship as a whole. This might not bother you, but I think it should.

Answer:

The curious thing here is that while people should see a reverence in any title of “star”, one sees a moniker depicting servitude.

Certainly some will now argue that it’s the particular celebrity of “porn star” that suggests a subservient role.  This isn’t the case in that the acts depicted in the typical porn production are ones where the male and the female take turns at giving and taking (niche market subjects not included as they will focus on particular fantasies that really do not reflect mainstream attitudes).  Hence the portrayals are of encounters were both people contributed a good deal to the other.

Some would say that even then, the acts are common where the woman is doing far more of the giving than receiving, or that the roles are geared more towards the man being dominant.  However, the evidence shows that the general populace at large, when given free reign of choice, are happy with the ratio of give and take depicted in the typical porn scene.

Don’t think so?

Let’s draw our attention to the franchise of “Fifty Shades of Grey”.  This literary fantasy clearly portrays a desire for a male dominant role in the bedroom.  Who reads this book?  Who has, as a purchasing group made this book a best seller?  It certainly isn’t men.  Women as a whole have spoken loudly about what role they really want to play.  The numbers do not lie.  No one was forced to make those purchases (or are you going to argue that men forced women to do so?)

So by choosing what they want to read, women are choosing the way they wan their sexual relationships to play out, and in effect endorsing it.  That is the footing they want in sex (as equal or unequal as some may wish to see it).  It is agnostic to whether people deserve the role or not, it is about what is desired (apparently by both sexes).

As far as equal footing in other aspects of a relationship, one cannot forget the different roles men and women play with respects to the environment (that includes society).  One also cannot immediately assume that the relationship between two people is automatically a merger of equals.  As is mentioned in various places in this blog, the union is ideally one of complimentary parts.  Those parts need not be symmetric or even equal.  They only have to complete the whole.

One “deserves” the respect they earn.  It is not given as a default for merely being one gender or the other.  Perhaps this is the misconception that a lot of those who only see red, when others see a red blooded heart.

That this article promotes the respect for oneself and for others; it shouldn’t bother anyone that it exists.

The cloud in every silver lining

For Real Said:

And lastly, you say the fact that most comments from women are negative is ‘telling.’ But maybe what it’s ‘telling’ is that women don’t like to be talked about this way.

Answer:

No.  Unfortunately, the more some try to excuse the personal attacks and generally abusive dismissals as reasonable reaction to an affront, the more telling it is of the denial.

Firstly, it wasn’t suggested that the comments were merely negative.  It was that the comments from women are nearly all just personal attacks and insulting dismissal.  Let’s not misrepresent the notion one attempts to forgive.

Secondly, the blog itself is not an affront.

The guideline speaks to the behaviours that point towards irreverent or immature behaviour.  It does not ascribe these actions to all, most or even a greater share of women at large.  Only looking at the good and ignoring the bad cannot solve most problems in life.  However, there seems to be an increase in this belief that all women are essentially well meaning to others, and if they are seen as not, woe to those that point it out.

Thirdly, there are lots ways to limit your options.  Most of them are within your control.

A parallel would be to have people act in pure hostility to a guideline on the hallmarks of career criminals under the guise that people don’t like to be spoken to that way.  Can you not see that it is a cop-out?  One can certainly choose to disagree with the details of what constitutes a bad candidate for a role, but to suggest that all persons, on either side of the criteria “don’t like to be talked to that way” is quite the stretch.

The real reason is that a notably vocal and self-absorbed group of individuals believe they are owed all the advantages of being a man while retaining all the advantages of being a woman.

Think about it.  Everyone, man or woman, has the choice to address the topic alone, or come out with pointed editorial, or purely pejorative assault in lieu of a proper response.  The fact that most women here choose the third option gives pause to how they would handle themselves in a real world situation should they perceive they had the power to attack without immediate penalty.  In real life, you’d be hard pressed to do this without the protection afforded to you by a society that acknowledges the protection of the weaker party regardless of who initiates the physical altercation.

If most can’t even handle being civilized in a discussion, what makes you think that they could handle the advantages that men have in the real world?