Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

feeder wrote:
Is it sexist to observe that a picture of an attractive lady is attractive?

I posed this question because the OP was talking about Sexism on the Internet, Social Media and stuff.

I posit that observing a picture of an attractive person and calling that person attractive cannot be sexist, because that is all the picture is.

So wait, is it sexist to compliment a member of the opposite sex or not?

I assume "no" if done with tact and respect? If so I'll keep on keeping on.

 Goliath wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:
Is it okay to look down on people who sleep around while in a relationship? Yes or no?

I'm going to go with option c) "It depends".

This might be a shocker, but there's more than one type of relationship. If they were in an open relationship or similar then I'd only expect you to look down on them if you also looked down on them for using handcuffs in bed or doing it with the lights on. (which based on the rest of your posts, I'm getting the impression that you actually might. wow.)

Well lots of actions that we generally consider immoral can have mitigating circumstances, and yes there are such things as open relationships. So I'll be more specific - In general, do you think that cheating on your partner is morally acceptable?

 Medium of Death wrote:
So wait, is it sexist to compliment a member of the opposite sex or not?

I assume "no" if done with tact and respect? If so I'll keep on keeping on.

Pretty much.

KommissarKarl wrote:
So I'll be more specific - In general, do you think that cheating on your partner is morally acceptable?

If you're in an open relationship then sex with someone other than your partner/spouse isn't cheating. You seem to think that "sleeping around" and "cheating" are interchangeable when they really aren't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Medium of Death wrote:
So wait, is it sexist to compliment a member of the opposite sex or not?

I assume "no" if done with tact and respect? If so I'll keep on keeping on.

Depends on the context. If it's a context where the compliment is relevant then sure, as long as it's done respectfully then it's probably not sexist. But in a context where the compliment isn't relevant and you wouldn't make a similar comment about a person of the opposite gender it's probably sexism. For example, it's sexism when half the comments on a woman doing something entirely unrelated to her appearance are "wow she's hot".

 Crimson wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Just to mention it, adultery is a crime in 21 US states, including some 'liberal' states: http://www.freep.com/article/20140417/FEATURES01/304170139/adultery-illegal-21-states

Oh, I didn't know that. Rather absurd.

Agreed. But not surprised in the least that Utah, and by extension Idaho are on that list.

feeder wrote:

feeder wrote:
I
I posit that observing a picture of an attractive person and calling that person attractive cannot be sexist, because that is all the picture is.

Your statement seems to imply what we've all been railing against; that a picture of an attractive person doing something else is just a picture of an attractive person, and that the rest of the context is irrelevant. For example, if we had a picture of Derp, God of Dashin' Good Looks where he illustrates how the Pythagoran Theorem works, claiming that the only thing that picture is is a picture of an attractive person is patently false. If it were a case of Derp posing for a photographer in order to create aesthetically pleasing pictures then I'd agree with you.

 Peregrine wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:
So I'll be more specific - In general, do you think that cheating on your partner is morally acceptable?

If you're in an open relationship then sex with someone other than your partner/spouse isn't cheating. You seem to think that "sleeping around" and "cheating" are interchangeable when they really aren't.

That's why I used the qualifying phrase "in general".

KommissarKarl wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

It is confirmed, however, that she slept with someone else despite being married, so she's a s*** anyway.

Is she married to you? If not, then it's not your fething business who she sleeps with! (And it would probably be better, if you'd never call anyone by that word, stars or no stars. It is pretty misogynistic word.)

You don't think that promiscuous activity should be looked down on by society? I'm pretty sure it's generally still considered to be a "bad thing" by most people.

No.

My full answer, which I've edited many times, would get me banned.

There is a serious double standard when it comes to people that feth a lot, Re: slut versus stud.

 kronk wrote:
There is a serious double standard when it comes to people that feth a lot, Re: slut versus stud.

To me its more like "unwise hominid riddled with disease" vs. "unwise hominid riddled with disease", at least when the people involved become numerous and random.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
What i get from all this is sexism is subjective, some ladies would be offended, while others would take it as a compliment of being called attractive.

About sleeping around, it is a thing between the husband and wife to solve, still in this society when a women sleeps around it is ridiculed while a bro gets no flak for it, same with age difference between male and female partners. There is this strange opposition when a female is (much) older than her partner, but not when it is the other way around.

No, sexism is objective, but individual's reactions to being exposed to it are individual and thus could be said to be subjective on a case by case basis.

This explains why it is best to avoid the dangerous area altogether unless you are sure of the terrain.

You don't actually have to go on news websites to say you think Chancellor Merkel has a great body or not.

About saying that you find someone attractive: This is obviously not inherently sexist, but it often happens in larger context which is incredibly sexist. It is part of the idea that most important quality of women is their sexual attractiveness, and men are free to comment that attractiveness or lack of it any time, often quite rudely. Women who are perceived as attractive get sleazy comments, and if the woman do not live up to the beauty standards of the commenter, then that will be made known in impolite manner as well. And this does not only happen in contexts where the woman's appearance is somewhat relevant, it happens constantly. And of course this lovely behaviour is not only isolated to the internet, street harassment is part of this exact same issue.

 jasper76 wrote:

 kronk wrote:
There is a serious double standard when it comes to people that feth a lot, Re: slut versus stud.

To me its more like "unwise hominid riddled with disease" vs. "unwise hominid riddled with disease", at least when the people involved become numerous and random.

In other words people who are more sexually active then you are diseased?

You can pour all that sugar on there but that is where you are going with it. Fortunately you are wrong. Some people have more sex then others. Those people can be perfectly safe about it. An usually it isn't as random as you wish it to be.

 Crimson wrote:
About saying that you find someone attractive: This is obviously not inherently sexist, but it often happens in larger context which is incredibly sexist. It is part of the idea that most important quality of women is their sexual attractiveness, and men are free to comment that attractiveness or lack of it any time, often quite rudely. Women who are perceived as attractive get sleazy comments, and if the woman do not live up to the beauty standards of the commenter, then that will be made known in impolite manner as well. And this does not only happen in contexts where the woman's appearance is somewhat relevant, it happens constantly. And of course this lovely behaviour is not only isolated to the internet, street harassment is part of this exact same issue.

Funnily enough the first thing I see on a person is their attractiveness.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 kronk wrote:
There is a serious double standard when it comes to people that feth a lot, Re: slut versus stud.

To me its more like "unwise hominid riddled with disease" vs. "unwise hominid riddled with disease", at least when the people involved become numerous and random.

I other words people who are more sexually active then you are diseased?

You can pour all that sugar on there but that is where you are going with it. Fortunately you are wrong. Some people have more sex then others. Those people can be perfectly safe about it. An usually it isn't as random as you wish it to be.

Nope, I mean that a person (male or female) who engages in exchanges of bio-materials with numerous random people is at much greater risk of contracting one or more STDs than a person who engages in an exclusive exchange of bio-materials with one partner.

Its simple math. A matter of wisdom, not morality.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 kronk wrote:
There is a serious double standard when it comes to people that feth a lot, Re: slut versus stud.

To me its more like "unwise hominid riddled with disease" vs. "unwise hominid riddled with disease", at least when the people involved become numerous and random.

In other words people who are more sexually active then you are diseased?

You can pour all that sugar on there but that is where you are going with it. Fortunately you are wrong. Some people have more sex then others. Those people can be perfectly safe about it. An usually it isn't as random as you wish it to be.

This is Kronk. No one is more active then Kronk. He's single handedly reversed the population declines in Moldova, Serbia, and Macedonia (the now famous "Balkans Disco Party" of 2008).

 jasper76 wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 kronk wrote:
There is a serious double standard when it comes to people that feth a lot, Re: slut versus stud.

To me its more like "unwise hominid riddled with disease" vs. "unwise hominid riddled with disease", at least when the people involved become numerous and random.

I other words people who are more sexually active then you are diseased?

You can pour all that sugar on there but that is where you are going with it. Fortunately you are wrong. Some people have more sex then others. Those people can be perfectly safe about it. An usually it isn't as random as you wish it to be.

Nope, I mean that a person (male or female) who engages in exchanges of bio-materials with numerous random people is at much greater risk of contracting one or more STDs than a person who engages in an exclusive exchange of bio-materials with one partner.

Its simple math. A matter of wisdom, not morality.

Your statement is actually still wrong, I'll let you try to find the error.

It's almost like condoms don't exist.

 d-usa wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Nope, I mean that a person (male or female) who engages in exchanges of bio-materials with numerous random people is at much greater risk of contracting one or more STDs than a person who engages in an exclusive exchange of bio-materials with one partner.

Its simple math. A matter of wisdom, not morality.

Your statement is actually still wrong, I'll let you try to find the error.

I do like a good guessing game, but to me my statement is self-evident. Please illuminate. I am perfectly open to the idea that I a wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
It's almost like condoms don't exist.

If you think condoms are a 100% garuntee against contracting an STD, good luck with that.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You don't actually have to go on news websites to say you think Chancellor Merkel has a great body or not.

Truthfully, the real reason I quit 40k was so I could spend more time doing just that.

 jasper76 wrote:

 kronk wrote:
There is a serious double standard when it comes to people that feth a lot, Re: slut versus stud.

To me its more like "unwise hominid riddled with disease" vs. "unwise hominid riddled with disease", at least when the people involved become numerous and random.

You do realize that the odds of you, or anyone getting an STI is actually pretty low... I mean, when I first got to Fort Carson, CO, they told us the current stats of 2005, which was basically that up to 20% of the population in the Springs area had an STI.... 20%, odds were actually somewhat low that you'd catch something you didn't want. And that was the worst city in the entire state.

For real, if anyone out there, especially young people, think that condoms are a magic bullet against STDs, its worth your time to educate yourself on the matter.

Here is information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm

Cheers and be safe in with your recreational activities!

Sexism on the internet.

Zoe Quinn's pickle is a fine example.
Software developer, seems to be a true honest to goodness geek in many things and published a game that got onto Steam.
Supposedly some evidence that some form of sexual relations were had with some reviewers of her game and she is presently in a relationship.

Let huge media storm commence.

Probably one fifth of the media storm going on would have happened if it was a guy (plus the difficulty of a guy finding compatible reviewers could be problematic).
Also the reviewers that had said relations have not had quite as much public backlash.

I have to also comment: how much popularity prior to this would she have had if a guy? (I suspect less, I do admit she had done many interesting things and has good skills that have their own merit)

Sexism both giveth and taketh away.

I guess I have mixed feelings when someone has no problem using the advantages their condition/status can afford them and then complain fiercely when faced with disadvantages due to their condition/status seems just plain old whiny/angling for advantage.

I figure in the workplace, the gender of the person should mean nothing, but the public reaction in this case proves otherwise.

 jasper76 wrote:
For real, if anyone out there, especially young people, think that condoms are a magic bullet against STDs, its worth your time to educate yourself on the matter.

Here is information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm

Cheers and be safe in with your recreational activities!

Nobody here believes they're 100% effective, you just wished that statement of thin air. Condoms remain the most effective protection against STDs.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
It's almost like condoms don't exist.

I thought this was in response to my statement that its riskier to have multiple sexual partners than one exclusive partner. Apologies if that assumption was incorrect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Avatar 720 wrote:
Condoms remain the most effective protection against STDs.

So wrong it hurts. I am no Xian, but it is self-evident that sexual abstinence is the most effective way one can protect themselves from STDs.

 jasper76 wrote:

If you think condoms are a 100% garuntee against contracting an STD, good luck with that.

I never said that.

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

If you think condoms are a 100% garuntee against contracting an STD, good luck with that.

I never said that.

OK, I apologize.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Avatar 720 wrote:
Condoms remain the most effective protection against STDs.

So wrong it hurts. I am no Xian, but it is self-evident that sexual abstinence is the most effective way one can protect themselves from STDs.

OK... Condoms are the most effective protection against STIs, among people who engage in intercourse prior to a monogamous relationship.


happy??

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Avatar 720 wrote:
Condoms remain the most effective protection against STDs.

So wrong it hurts. I am no Xian, but it is self-evident that sexual abstinence is the most effective way one can protect themselves from STDs.

OK... Condoms are the most effective protection against STIs, among people who engage in intercourse prior to a monogamous relationship.


happy??

And that will do for the digression into 7th grade SexEd, thanks.