guy uses the toilet,
guy leaves the seat up,
girl goes to use toilet,
girl complains that guy needs to put seat down,
guy asks why,
girl says she shouldn’t have to lower the seat cuz its gross and she shouldn’t have to touch it,
guy says he shouldn’t have to lift the seat cuz its gross and he shouldn’t have to touch it either,
girl says she could have fallen in,
guy laughs at girl for being so retarded that she wouldn’t think to check if the seat was down,
girl gets mad,
guy gets no sex that night.
a ) take turns. democracy. yes, people, it extends from politics to toilets ( perhaps an expected, natural correlation? )
b ) sorry, there was no b ) I lied, so you will have to elect a ).
Look, traditionally you have etiquette like allowing women to go through doors first ( although here in Africa men go in first apparently to “look for danger” wwwwhatever ). So your girlfriend is probably connecting the argument to her idea of societal etiquette ( that the guy should do the grosse stuff, etc. ). Life is about compromises. What I am trying to say is Just put down the seat so you can have more sex. You know I had a conversation with a man the other day ( he asked me out, by the way, I was like No Thanx ) who blatantly stated that men only want women for sex. He was like “At least I don’t lie about it” So if that is the way life is we will have to be realistic. Anyway, if women are just used for sex I would say that they can at least be treated really well. That would be ethical. So these days i am like “You want sex? I want money and good treatment” Not that I sleep with people anyway, but, you get the idea. Opinions are welcome…I exist in hyperreality and am no longer sure of what men want from women. I am just drawing arb conclusions
I always put both the seat and lid down. I just find it more aesthetically pleasing that way. In turn, I’ve consistently found it peculiar that this is even an issue among non-me males.
The toilet seat in my new house must be actively held up, or it will drop.
I think women cannot expect men to be knightly in an age where “all men and women are equal”. The knightly-aristocratic order of rank was thus:
Ladies (the fewest)
Men (real men)
Women.
This is a pyramid. Men would only have to be knighly towards their betters (though they should be honourable toward their peers, of course); they could treat the many as their whims dictated.
Only insofar as the guy is addicted (enslaved) to sex.
What man can threaten his woman with getting no sex tonight?
By the way, I thought of something. Consider this:
guy uses the toilet,
guy leaves the seat up,
girl goes to use toilet,
girl complains that guy needs to put seat down,
guy asks why,
girl says she shouldn’t have to lower the seat cuz its gross and she shouldn’t have to touch it,
guy says he, for one, washes his hands after using the toilet.
What man can threaten his woman with getting no sex tonight?
I actually heard about such a guy the other day, who was mad at his girlfriend and said no at bedtime. I was thoroughly shocked.
I don’t know, I always argued with my brother about the toilet seat thing, too, and I was just like “I didn’t put the stupid seat up, so why must I put it down?” Usually if one adjusts things to suit you you adjust it again for others to suit them. Imagine I throw paint all over our sitting room and then I’m like “If you want it gone, clean it yourself”. The Family will Butcher me.
More likely it’s part of a general war between genders, most of which is really petty and trivial and is just wasting everyone’s time. Except for the shysters making money off it, like authors, journos, talk show hosts, relationship counsellors, etc. etc.
Or, don’t give a shit about either the toilet seat or the claims of some stubborn whore who is willing to trade sex for a man-shaped handbag…
Heard it a million times.
Just because a million people say it doesn’t mean its true for all 3 billion men. Your ‘realism’ is a ludicrous fantasy.
It would be more ethical to treat them as whores, since that’s what they are being. If a woman is willing to trade sex for money (or a house/flat, access to man’s wallet most of the time, and the promise of some sort of legally binding ceremony in a couple of years) then she deserves whatever fucked-up selfish bastard for a boyfriend that she gets. And he deserves here.
[size=17]i.e. a whore with a superiority complex.[/size] I would reply ‘you want good treatment, try offering it in the first fucking place rather than making everything a brutal, pathetic, alienated negotiation centred on money and sex’.
And it’s a pretty shoddy, unproductive one if you ask me.
Yet you’re prepared to pick out the most common stereotype of them all and wave it about like a stripper’s phallus…
Abritrary my ass. You’ve learned this nonsense and you can unlearn it too.
I notice rage there. Sorry, I sounded like a materialistic ho, I was afraid people might see me that way, so let me state this clearly: I am a socialist and love people dearly, poor, rich, ugly, beautiful…I don’t care. However, I am treated basically just like a whore by a lot of men. Many attempted rapes…I escaped…anyway…Men who treat me that way, will get harsh treatment in return. People judge me every day “Why the hell are you wearing that?” “Dress better, be cooler”…“Come drink, come sleep around”…
Underlying the relationship with the female is the will to sex? No? Must my personality be discarded because I have a body? Underlying the relationship with men is largely a need for security, respect and safety from the female side…What man can have children and then bloody watch them grow up poor, unsafe, uncertain…a bit of financial security and hard work in a relationship is obviously needed. Often couples can overcome this, it depends on the man and woman involved, though. I was that kid who was born into a poor family who didn’t give a shit about my welfare…I won’t take a man unless he is prepared to let my kids grow up safe, protected, with opportunities to live out their talents. I don’t want Gucci handbags, although i may only get a decent boyfriend around here if I start dressing like a bloody doll. I need money for culture. Music, piano, opera, writing, painting…that’s our bloodline…that’s what I wanted to do but couldn’t afford to. My kids will have those opportunities, or they will not exist. They will die of cultural starvation, like I am…I don’t like to see people suffering.
PS: Man-shaped handbag sounds artistic, I will try to make one at home. Last time I made a handbad that looks like an eye. The eye lid is the flap of the bag that you open.
Supposing what men want from women is sex, then we should immediately ask: what is sex? Is sex an end, or merely a means? If the latter, a means to what? I contend that it is - consciously or subconsciously - a means to procreation. That’s why men want beautiful women (otherwise, they could just as well pick up ugly ones: a cunt is a cunt, right, and you can always turn out the light or close your eyes (though turning off the smell or closing your nostrils is harder, I admit)).
Then again, there are children and “children”: real children and brainchildren. Some men, at least, seek inspiration.
All I am saying is that life is a compromise. Sure, women are “guilty”, too, cooking up the perfect versions of romantic behaviour that they would like to see in men. Both parties approach the situation with stereotypical notions to some degree, with expectations. None here is guilty and none innocent. You get some strange, wonderful relationships out there: Men who love woman who have no legs…The “Lobster Claw woman” who is a TV celebrity and happily married with two Lobster Claw children…Wasn’t Immanuel Kant the guy who had a thing for skew women?..Thus there are exceptions, people who do not bow to the “rules” of society that are laid down by Loreal Companies, primal forces and Viagra distributors. I must admit I don’t really know what sex is about I am too wrapped up in tragedies, nightmares and metaphysics to really notice. All I am saying is that men who only want girls for sex have to be man enough to face up to the fact that those girls have desires and expectations of their own, ones that probably should be respected. If you are lucky enough to love and satisfy a Lobster Claw woman, a ho or a godess even though you don’t respect their natures…then you are lucky and talented.
Ahhh, Mr Barr…Shall you save our wretched souls from decay by introducing and solving numerous original posts speedily and accurately? I eagerly await to be spellbound by genius that flies to the brightest stars known to mankind to toss down its radiating essence into hungry minds.
“And do remember, Zarathustra, that he who denies a blonde access to intelligence cruelly allows the last desperate flickerings of hope for her mental development to pass through a greedy, monstrously tiny and busy hourglass into minutes of nothingness. Be kind to an aching heart, here, for the brain asks its own name”
The quotation marks are there so that you can quote me on that one. It’s called humor by the way. Wait…here is another one…Courtesy of Blondes International…Yes, that doesn’t exist, which is why I am claiming it does.
“Sorry… I forgot the Smiley… Friendliness is the spice of life, I believe, but I am blonde so I can not claim certainty. They say I should see a psychologist, but, kind hearts, I believe the psychologist should see me”
wow this topic got way deeper than i expected. Originaly when i mentioned sex, it wasnt to bring it up as a significant part of the topic. I sense frustration on the home front in the young padawans on ILP.
My problem with the toilet seat dilemma is the fact that its an issue at all. Why does one gender feel the need to expect the other gender to “do as the romans do”? Its a freakin toilet seat. Who cares? Put it up, put it down, do your thing, wash your hands and get out. I don’t mean to sound so dramatic, but i mean come one… its so petty. As long as the thing is flushed and clean then whats the difference. If you are afraid of falling in, open your damn eyes before you sit down. If you think its gross, stop and think that the female sits on it more than the guy does. If you are the female in the dilemma think about that and realize that its YOUR grossness that you want him to touch more than his.
I think people got the impression that my scenario was a personal anecdote. It wasn’t, for the record. I just think its funny that everything the female says about the issue can be shot down with equal and opposite comebackery.
I think that final line about no sex did change the focus of the example from hypothetical equity discussion to self-interested negotiation.
And yes, is she has bottom line veto of something he wants, and that’s what it comes down to, then it’s a contest/negotiation and not an exercise in morality.
Musi, I appreciate you input and never assumed you meant you were any kind of whore - though I’m personally glad that you don’t need to have the implications of your exemplary negotiation extrapolated out for you.
Truthfully, most of this stuff is negotiation and most people are more interested in trading off things they care less about for things they care more about with people - a social contract - than any kind of “absolute” moral principle (most of which only exist in vacuums).