The Importance of nuance

[jack_ryan]

Hi,

I firmly believe n gender & straight as well as LGBTQ equality socially ,politically and economically but as a man who has grown up admiring and reading bout strong,intelligent,empathetic and progressive women
its sad to see that there are some feminists who spew vicious vitriol about men,calling men vicious names ,call for male genocide ,mock men's achievements and stereotype men based on the actions of a stupid group in life.


Its sometimes distressing to see some authors mock men when they write sexfight stories especially on literotica.
I do sometimes see glimpses of it on HB too.

I understand that this is 100% a girl on girl /woman on woman erotica forum and the male characters here are minor in importance but i hope that writers,especially female writers here belonging to the LGBTQ community will consider nuance,data and will not write mocking character portrayals of men because we ,respectful men love and value women and i just request that mass stereotyping not be made.

The sexfight stories i write will contain male characters who respect and admire women and it will speak about the chemistry between a respectful man and his woman
I think in the age of the woke culture ,its important to have nuance and data based context

I know this is not a political forum and my post too isnt political. Its social Its about nuance and mutual respect. and i know this forum is composed of members who will be objective

[WriteThisWay]

Do one the importance of spelling and punctuation, then finally post something with impeccable spelling and proper punctuation.

[jack_ryan]

I'm sorry ?
What does that have to do with a real contextual ,logical issue?
The issue i have written about is an issue more and more people are realizing and spreading awareness about.
Diverting a reasonable discussion by mocking me on a totally different and unrelated and factually incorrect topic reflects on your emotional quotient.
There is something called as civil discourse in a democracy.

Do one the importance of spelling and punctuation, then finally post something with impeccable spelling and proper punctuation.

[catfightlover40]

Hi,

First of all, the site itself has a political section, and second, your subject matter is heavily politicized, even if you claim an exemption by not calling it that. Your very first paragraph is a testament to misplaced anger, either because you jumped to this conclusion on your own, or you felt attracted to sites and/or videos that "analyze" female rights activists. You know, the very people trying to keep old men out of their uteruses, who get their science from remembering their own birth. That's not a hyperbole, but one very real, on the public record statement by a politician, on why reproductive rights should be restricted. That's still an issue today. The statement, by the way, was made as recently as a few months ago.



I'm not curious why you demand nuance and data, that's most likely both irrelevant to the task at hand, as well as it is not representative of a culture, where disparity exists between those who easily enjoy sex and those who need more attention. To put it in different terms, it's a possibility that they as writers are experienced with people, who are selfish lovers, whereas a sexfight, in theory, should be mutually beneficial.

You're right, there's a woke culture, yet they wield less societal power than those believing in a "Dark Enlightenment", as the latter group likes torches and to robotically vote for anyone who erases progressives out of existence. Now, the "data". There is no poll or peer-reviewed study on "I treat my woman like a queen" (a separate discussion to be had about positive sexism), nor there's one about "I satisfy her deeply". Out of the two reasons why that is, the first is obvious, because it's a very private matter. The second reason is no less cause for concern: even polls that were taken and ask around it, they exist based on self-reporting, making it soft science. You should be keenly aware, if you already aren't, that we humans like to present ourselves in the best light possible. Some questions are ambiguous if they're only asked of one person, like "Do you feel you satisfy your partner sexually?" because a person can easily think zero foreplay and a quick creampie qualifies as mutual satisfaction.

If I had your concerns, my approach would have been to actually reach out to female writers here, and ask them, why they write characters the way they do, and I'd definitely not victimize a group that holds the most economic power.

[jack_ryan]

1.I am pro choice.Have always been.i am a progressivewho supports affordable education,healthcare,higher wages,gender and LGBTQ equality

2. My only point here was to express that that above can be achieved by collaboration between genders and spreading awareness putting policies in place ,reviewing their effectiveness .Coming to your the rpoint I havent "watched" videos which analyse anyone
I noticed the extreme stereotyping in mainstream media by people on panels .That is why i felt that gender equality is not a zero sum game where equality for one gender is achieved by slamming another.The objective should be to achieve equality through colloboration,policies

I have enough quant ,qualititative ability to do my own research .I am a business analyst by profession and i read a lot on any topic before commenting either verbally or on social media


3.My other point is that context is important.By all means men who disrespect women or politicians who attempt to control reproductive rights should be called out,opposed
but the certain antics of this toxic group ,whatever their quantitative number may be in the voter base should be not be extrapolated to all men either in real life or in fiction whether mainstream or erotic.

4. Of course stories will have antagonists ,male and female .Tha's absolutely needed
my thing was,we can have strong,intelligent,confident,empathetic, well read ,progressive female characters in sexfight/erotic,lesbian,transgender themed stories without mocking or demonizing or stereotyping men who are not chauvinists in the same storyline because there are millions of men who love,respect and support women everyday.

I wrote the above just to put out a thought there,thats all.Of course female writers can create ,conceptualize characters and write what they want.This was just a request put out there to consider this side too which is every real and relevant

As for the nature of the post,It wasnt political.It was about a trend i noticed in writing.How is that political?

Hi,

First of all, the site itself has a political section, and second, your subject matter is heavily politicized, even if you claim an exemption by not calling it that. Your very first paragraph is a testament to misplaced anger, either because you jumped to this conclusion on your own, or you felt attracted to sites and/or videos that "analyze" female rights activists. You know, the very people trying to keep old men out of their uteruses, who get their science from remembering their own birth. That's not a hyperbole, but one very real, on the public record statement by a politician, on why reproductive rights should be restricted. That's still an issue today. The statement, by the way, was made as recently as a few months ago.



I'm not curious why you demand nuance and data, that's most likely both irrelevant to the task at hand, as well as it is not representative of a culture, where disparity exists between those who easily enjoy sex and those who need more attention. To put it in different terms, it's a possibility that they as writers are experienced with people, who are selfish lovers, whereas a sexfight, in theory, should be mutually beneficial.

You're right, there's a woke culture, yet they wield less societal power than those believing in a "Dark Enlightenment", as the latter group likes torches and to robotically vote for anyone who erases progressives out of existence. Now, the "data". There is no poll or peer-reviewed study on "I treat my woman like a queen" (a separate discussion to be had about positive sexism), nor there's one about "I satisfy her deeply". Out of the two reasons why that is, the first is obvious, because it's a very private matter. The second reason is no less cause for concern: even polls that were taken and ask around it, they exist based on self-reporting, making it soft science. You should be keenly aware, if you already aren't, that we humans like to present ourselves in the best light possible. Some questions are ambiguous if they're only asked of one person, like "Do you feel you satisfy your partner sexually?" because a person can easily think zero foreplay and a quick creampie qualifies as mutual satisfaction.

If I had your concerns, my approach would have been to actually reach out to female writers here, and ask them, why they write characters the way they do, and I'd definitely not victimize a group that holds the most economic power.

[catfightlover40]

Let's find some common ground. Perhaps you've seen the original Three Days of the Condor with Robert Redford and Faye Dunaway, in which case you may remember, he got on the hit list of the black ops arm of the government, since through analyzing data, he recognized a pattern, and predicted coups. As someone who likes to write political intrigue, I feel attracted to the prediction side of analytics.

So, to answer your question, why this whole thing is political... because influential old men, who perpetually go unchallenged, made it political by interfering in the lives of many for their own personal benefit and comfort. You see, while nominally you're right that there are millions of men who treat women right, their geographic and sociocultural distribution is far from even. So much so, that this level of personal comfort extends into the lack of research into illnesses and conditions mostly affecting women (PTSD was a "nothingburger" until 1987, when the number of Vietnam vets reached a critical threshold and could no longer be ignored), into designing pants without deep pockets, into designing bras, a thing a woman invented in '29, to be more sexy than practical, and not account for differing breast sizes, while at the same time producing shoes for us guys that differ half a size is a staple. These examples are just the top of the iceberg, where change has come from contribution from women, who fight a massive uphill battle, no matter when they live.

The men you speak of, who highly respect women are a minority. Were that not the case, people would be voted out who run on simple promises like a certain amendment and a certain faith. Men would demand more contribution for their tax money, and the infrastructure of bridges and highways wouldn't crumble in the US, because lobbyists pledge politicians to oppose a 25-cent gas price raise to cover the costs. It doesn't happen, because many economies were built around the ideal that only a single earner is needed, who's a man and his kept woman stays at home cooking and cleaning.

Fiction, ideally has a limit where writers have to put in some verisimilitude into their works so that people can relate to characters. A core reason behind homophobia is that the same guys, who appear neutral to most men only to mask their lecherous nature toward women, are also the same guys who live in a tangible fear that gay men think about sex as much as they do and make moves on people as much as they do, and right there, for a hot second they realize what being victimized feels like. Where progressive men never could get laws on the books to keep predators in rein, politicians wrote a lot of laws about gay men. In Russia, criminal law considers it a molestation to inform kids about the fact that gay people exist.

Overall, I don't like false equivalency. I feel that for some reason this is personal to you, and you dress people up with power that literally don't have. Democracies die when social activists are attacked instead of actual policymakers. Critical thinking dies with nonexistent terms like male genocide. Discussion dies when inaction isn't addressed. Because the greater issue of social activists isn't that assholes exist, they've known this since they were little girls, the bigger issue is when people stand by and do nothing. I agree with Jon Stewart, when he was talking about Louis CK, he didn't just feel horrified about what happened to those women, but also because the man he thought was his friend lied to him too, mainly by concealing his true nature.

It's horrible to say this, but the most positive outcome of the atomic bomb was that it has given us a few decades to reevaluate what was believed to be self-evident, that women die at childbirth, and men go to die in wars. The thousands of years preceding it has forced women globally to cooperate, be more mutual than transactional. As such, not many women had the luxury to be selfish lovers. As a consequence it's easier for women and men to write a sexfight, since both look for something to gain out of it. We could have spared this whole topic, if the suggestion had been a story about a passionate and attentive guy, over whom women fight sexually to prove being the best lover as far and wide he's the most able-bodied, non-egotistical lover. In reality, they'd share him (though it's based on temper, one woman was convicted of murder after she ended her love triangle by sabotaging her rival's parachute) but in fantasy it's possible. In fact, it serves both the female fantasy that more men like that exist, they just need to be awakened, and the male fantasy that it's them they fight over.

[jack_ryan]

My Response :-

You: The men you speak of, who highly respect women are a minority.

Me: Men make up what at least 49% of the global population, I don?t think it is right to stereotype all men in the way you are doing or to say that men who respect women are in a minority because you are not considering
a) Education level, upbringing of the men in question
b) There is no survey which has covered all the men in the world.to take a set and extrapolate it to the entire universal set is mathematically wrong
c) Data matters when anyone makes a sweeping statement about anything.
d) The people whom re you addressing are not always like me who will question logic.Most will not confirm your statement.They will digest your statement and that will feed into their bias.They will just propagate the rhetoric.

You: influential old men, who perpetually go unchallenged, made it political :by interfering in the lives of many for their own personal benefit and comfort.

Me: I absolutely don?t deny this.
I am a massive critic of politicians especially democrats because they pretend to be about good governance but they are not, if they were the US WOULD HAVE HAD good policies on education environment ,healthcare BUT there are exceptions.
Yes, there is a bunch of men in power who have to change their notions drastically. if you look closely, there are female senators too who don?t care. This is a mindset problem top. I think ageism has to stop
You are again indulging in massive stereotyping of all men above 6O who could be in business or politics. Even if i consider your statement, what about progressive and liberal men above 60 who are influential? Ratan Tata is a shining example of conducting ethical business and social responsibility. The man is a billionaire and is known for his simple lifestyle.
Radical Millennials are as rigid as anyone else. I am not going to stand for Ageism either. The talk should be about policy, not age.Dont you think so ?

Bernie sanders is fighting for affordable education, healthcare, higher wages, planet protection and he is 70+
As I said, I am completely prochoice when it comes to reproductive rights. Its a very emotional difficult decision for a woman to get an abortion and that must be left to her and she must have access to quality doctors. Banning Abortion makes it dangerous for the life of a woman

{ BTW, Please check out the smear job that a democratic women?s PAC is planning to carry out.
They say Bernie and Trump are the same. A happily married man who has never disrespected women, is fighting for affordable education, healthcare, higher wages, plant protection IS THE SAME AS TRUMP.
}
You : I feel that for some reason this is personal to you, and you dress people up with power that literally don't have. Democracies die when social activists are attacked instead of actual policymaker
Me: Yes, this is personal because subjectivity triggers me, hatred triggers me. I absolutely support data based, fact based, policy based, nonviolent activism around gender rights, planet protection, higher wages but activists calling for male genocide, saying men are trash are not practicing activism, they are spewing hatred towards probably half of the world?s population. I am sorry you can?t see that. You mentioned that male genocide is a nonexistent rhetoric but you have to realize that the activists have access to social media wherein they reach out to millions. That is very toxic rhetoric.

You: . We could have spared this whole topic, if the suggestion had been a story about a passionate and attentive guy, over whom women fight sexually to prove being the best lover as far and wide he's the most able-bodied, non-egotistical lover.

Me: The male protagonists in my stories are exactly what you are saying and the female protagonists are strong, intelligent, capable, kind and sexual. The antagonists are obviously the reverse.

Let's find some common ground. Perhaps you've seen the original Three Days of the Condor with Robert Redford and Faye Dunaway, in which case you may remember, he got on the hit list of the black ops arm of the government, since through analyzing data, he recognized a pattern, and predicted coups. As someone who likes to write political intrigue, I feel attracted to the prediction side of analytics.

So, to answer your question, why this whole thing is political... because influential old men, who perpetually go unchallenged, made it political by interfering in the lives of many for their own personal benefit and comfort. You see, while nominally you're right that there are millions of men who treat women right, their geographic and sociocultural distribution is far from even. So much so, that this level of personal comfort extends into the lack of research into illnesses and conditions mostly affecting women (PTSD was a "nothingburger" until 1987, when the number of Vietnam vets reached a critical threshold and could no longer be ignored), into designing pants without deep pockets, into designing bras, a thing a woman invented in '29, to be more sexy than practical, and not account for differing breast sizes, while at the same time producing shoes for us guys that differ half a size is a staple. These examples are just the top of the iceberg, where change has come from contribution from women, who fight a massive uphill battle, no matter when they live.

The men you speak of, who highly respect women are a minority. Were that not the case, people would be voted out who run on simple promises like a certain amendment and a certain faith. Men would demand more contribution for their tax money, and the infrastructure of bridges and highways wouldn't crumble in the US, because lobbyists pledge politicians to oppose a 25-cent gas price raise to cover the costs. It doesn't happen, because many economies were built around the ideal that only a single earner is needed, who's a man and his kept woman stays at home cooking and cleaning.

Fiction, ideally has a limit where writers have to put in some verisimilitude into their works so that people can relate to characters. A core reason behind homophobia is that the same guys, who appear neutral to most men only to mask their lecherous nature toward women, are also the same guys who live in a tangible fear that gay men think about sex as much as they do and make moves on people as much as they do, and right there, for a hot second they realize what being victimized feels like. Where progressive men never could get laws on the books to keep predators in rein, politicians wrote a lot of laws about gay men. In Russia, criminal law considers it a molestation to inform kids about the fact that gay people exist.

Overall, I don't like false equivalency. I feel that for some reason this is personal to you, and you dress people up with power that literally don't have. Democracies die when social activists are attacked instead of actual policymakers. Critical thinking dies with nonexistent terms like male genocide. Discussion dies when inaction isn't addressed. Because the greater issue of social activists isn't that assholes exist, they've known this since they were little girls, the bigger issue is when people stand by and do nothing. I agree with Jon Stewart, when he was talking about Louis CK, he didn't just feel horrified about what happened to those women, but also because the man he thought was his friend lied to him too, mainly by concealing his true nature.

It's horrible to say this, but the most positive outcome of the atomic bomb was that it has given us a few decades to reevaluate what was believed to be self-evident, that women die at childbirth, and men go to die in wars. The thousands of years preceding it has forced women globally to cooperate, be more mutual than transactional. As such, not many women had the luxury to be selfish lovers. As a consequence it's easier for women and men to write a sexfight, since both look for something to gain out of it. We could have spared this whole topic, if the suggestion had been a story about a passionate and attentive guy, over whom women fight sexually to prove being the best lover as far and wide he's the most able-bodied, non-egotistical lover. In reality, they'd share him (though it's based on temper, one woman was convicted of murder after she ended her love triangle by sabotaging her rival's parachute) but in fantasy it's possible. In fact, it serves both the female fantasy that more men like that exist, they just need to be awakened, and the male fantasy that it's them they fight over.

[catfightlover40]

Just a pro tip, don't bring up the level of education when it comes to bigotry, like racism or sexism, as the factor of self-preservation, that is present with a job, isn't present there. Many women are trained in household chores and child-rearing systemically because it is expected that they will be the only ones to take care of those things. I expect from you to know, that the disparity in worker compensation started out as men being paid more because their wives' job was to stay at home with kids. We're in the second decade of the new millennium, and it's still an everyday occurrence that parental leave isn't a thing, daycares barely exist, and women have to drop out from the workforce.

The data you seek supports that such policies are still in place either because of wanton action to keep a status quo or by inaction, as it doesn't affect them. Not only that, but they also make up the nonsense, that it's not systemic, rather a choice on the part of women, and gosh darn, they just can't help, if the people don't want help. It's wise to listen to Dorothy instead of the massive strawman that's right beside her. Don't underestimate the will of people not to compete for resources.

Being passive about reproductive rights is as personal as having a discussion with someone who cups your balls the entire time and doesn't ask you to cough. They feel entitled to it. Physical existence isn't evidence, that people are progressive, voting for progressive people is. Which they mostly don't do, as they fall for the ruse, that such ideals yield little results for too much money. Meanwhile, they vote a guy in, who lets lobbyists write a law for him to order a defense system, which they will never use, oh but that's not money down the drain.

You keep returning to the nonexistent male genocide, and you're not helping with that. Neither do you help with fostering false equivalency. If a rando on a San Antonio street says that anyone there should speak English, or be deported, I don't care for that, it's the police's job. When the acting director of immigration says something xenophobic and/or nativist, I do care for that, because he does wield power to carry it out. We can't demand that people won't point out if we're assholes to not act.

[jack_ryan]

When i mentioned education ,i did not mean an MBA degree from an IVY league.
I meant basic education where one can read books,civics based articles
I am an Asian and the level of ignorance about India which is the 6th largest economy of the world,Indians are CEO's of global brands and India is home to home grown conglomerates going global
The Indian civilization is one of the most ancient civilizations which has contributed to ancient math,medicine,statecraft,philosophy and despite this the level of stereotyping is massive which is a direct relation of negligible books available in US libraries
So yes,education ,sensitization,inclusive syllabus classes is a crucial factor to drive gender equality and fight bigotry





You will not believe the level of ignorance because Books on India arent available in public US libraries which just have books on Russia and China majorly.

So that is what i meant by education and that is why education should be made affordable
a well read man or woman is a better man and woman with better understanding of societal issues

You keep twisting my logic.

Just a pro tip, don't bring up the level of education when it comes to bigotry, like racism or sexism, as the factor of self-preservation, that is present with a job, isn't present there. Many women are trained in household chores and child-rearing systemically because it is expected that they will be the only ones to take care of those things. I expect from you to know, that the disparity in worker compensation started out as men being paid more because their wives' job was to stay at home with kids. We're in the second decade of the new millennium, and it's still an everyday occurrence that parental leave isn't a thing, daycares barely exist, and women have to drop out from the workforce.

The data you seek supports that such policies are still in place either because of wanton action to keep a status quo or by inaction, as it doesn't affect them. Not only that, but they also make up the nonsense, that it's not systemic, rather a choice on the part of women, and gosh darn, they just can't help, if the people don't want help. It's wise to listen to Dorothy instead of the massive strawman that's right beside her. Don't underestimate the will of people not to compete for resources.

Being passive about reproductive rights is as personal as having a discussion with someone who cups your balls the entire time and doesn't ask you to cough. They feel entitled to it. Physical existence isn't evidence, that people are progressive, voting for progressive people is. Which they mostly don't do, as they fall for the ruse, that such ideals yield little results for too much money. Meanwhile, they vote a guy in, who lets lobbyists write a law for him to order a defense system, which they will never use, oh but that's not money down the drain.

You keep returning to the nonexistent male genocide, and you're not helping with that. Neither do you help with fostering false equivalency. If a rando on a San Antonio street says that anyone there should speak English, or be deported, I don't care for that, it's the police's job. When the acting director of immigration says something xenophobic and/or nativist, I do care for that, because he does wield power to carry it out. We can't demand that people won't point out if we're assholes to not act.

[catfightlover40]

When i mentioned education ,i did not mean an MBA degree from an IVY league.
I meant basic education where one can read books,civics based articles
I am an Asian and the level of ignorance about India which is the 6th largest economy of the world,Indians are CEO's of global brands and India is home to home grown conglomerates going global
The Indian civilization is one of the most ancient civilizations which has contributed to ancient math,medicine,statecraft,philosophy and despite this the level of stereotyping is massive which is a direct relation of negligible books available in US libraries
So yes,education ,sensitization,inclusive syllabus classes is a crucial factor to drive gender equality and fight bigotry





You will not believe the level of ignorance because Books on India arent available in public US libraries which just have books on Russia and China majorly.

So that is what i meant by education and that is why education should be made affordable
a well read man or woman is a better man and woman with better understanding of societal issues

You keep twisting my logic.

I emphasize it clearer: just like with slavery and antisemitism, sexism thrives because it's not challenged within the majority by critical thought. From the college professor to the car mechanic, the belief is that women have one goal and that's becoming a kept woman. The major problem is, which you haven't addressed once, that people, mainly men, who do have wives and kids, vote for other men, who introduce and keep invasive laws. Where there as many progressives as you wish there are, we would not have this discussion. Action would have already been taken, but it hasn't.

The reaction to the self-determination of women was mainly one of "society will lose its morals if we allow this to happen". Way more people are liberal than progressive, an important distinction as the former can still be, and often is a nativist or a tribalist. Sanders' supporters got to my throat, when I pointed out how a portion of them ended up voting for the conservative guy. I'm surprised they find that surprising, considering many communities pose women as lesser, ideally homely and meek, and have strong opinions about ethnic and sexual minorities. The same person who supports universal healthcare still opposes LGBT marriage.

There are countries, which have massive problems with sexual violence, they usually tend to vote for a strongman, and they mainly blame the victims. It's possible to write a story about one guy, who respects women, but it's utter fiction to posit that most men do. Not taking action is being part of the problem.