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.

 Swastakowey wrote:
I thought so, so really this is just to "undermine" the idea of gender.

Depends on who you ask. Some people want to get rid of the concept entirely, some people just want to expand it to fill the needs of the people who don't fit existing gender roles.

I don't think everyone has the memo though... otherwise more people would claim to be gender-less rather than simply choosing one of the genders society has put in place. Seems like these people are very constraned by gender and firmly believe they can be X gender rather than trying to free themselves of gender all together.

But that's a legitimate belief, especially in a society where those gender roles do exist. It's much easier to say "I'm {gender}" than to have a big fight about the entire concept of gender identity in general. And many people genuinely do feel like their gender identity is close enough to the "standard" definition, even if it doesn't match their physical body yet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Thats sounds pretty confusing...

Only if you want it to be. If you can handle playing 40k you can understand gender vs. sex.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Thats sounds pretty confusing...

Only if you want it to be. If you can handle playing 40k you can understand gender vs. sex.

They aren't the same thing. Not comparing apples to apples. Abstract thinking is not my strong suit. I am incredibly black and white. To me, sex and gender are the same thing and to call them something else is well... Heresy.

That heresy has another name: 'reality'.

 Ashiraya wrote:
That heresy has another name: 'reality'.

No actually. Its still heresy. Do not tell me how to think

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
That heresy has another name: 'reality'.

No actually. Its still heresy. Do not tell me how to think

Why, does it offend you?

This thread really needs more pictures of Bailey Jay. I find that she can make the most intransigent person confused. And she's super hot.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
They aren't the same thing. Not comparing apples to apples. Abstract thinking is not my strong suit.

It's not abstract thinking, it's simple classification. Are you talking about a person's reproductive organs and hormone levels, or are you talking about how they think and feel and interact with society? I suspect that the issue here isn't really that it's abstract, it's that you want it to be complicated so you can just say "too complicated" and stop thinking about it.

I am incredibly black and white. To me, sex and gender are the same thing and to call them something else is well... Heresy.

Well, you're wrong. Indisputably wrong. And black and white thinking is not going to get you very far in a world that is rarely so simple.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Thats sounds pretty confusing...

Only if you want it to be. If you can handle playing 40k you can understand gender vs. sex.

They aren't the same thing. Not comparing apples to apples. Abstract thinking is not my strong suit. I am incredibly black and white. To me, sex and gender are the same thing and to call them something else is well... Heresy.

Same thing here in conclusion (abstract is not hard. This is easy to understand). Where I live most people are normal. Maybe it's because I live in a town, heaps of odd people live in cities, where I suspect many people having identity issues of any kind dwell, probably due to being around so many people daily that they feel the need to find their lot in life as a person. It all seems incredibly superficial and very much a young teen issue to me. Outside of the internet the only time I have seen anything close to gender issues is 2 transsexuals but technically that's sex identity not gender identity I suppose.

Really it seems like a fuss over nothing. Which begs the question, if it's a fuss over nothing does gender need to be there, or is it a fuss over nothing because it should be there and works fine? Personally I will wait to have children before I decide. Being the oldest of the nephews and nieces in my huge family I have yet to see any child related to me try break gender norms. But I also have not raised them so I have yet to see for myself fully. Right now I am definitely in the sex and gender are connected camp.

Open to change after my ginueia pig children.

 d-usa wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
That heresy has another name: 'reality'.

No actually. Its still heresy. Do not tell me how to think

Why, does it offend you?

No, I find the whole notion stupid. And why would it offend me? We all have free speech, so I can sit here, call everyone a heretic and in return they say how I'm wrong. It turns into an endless cluster of stupidity.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Thats sounds pretty confusing...

Only if you want it to be. If you can handle playing 40k you can understand gender vs. sex.

They aren't the same thing. Not comparing apples to apples. Abstract thinking is not my strong suit. I am incredibly black and white. To me, sex and gender are the same thing and to call them something else is well... Heresy.

Ok, sex = physical attributes, chromasomes.

Gender=made up bs.

In the context of this thread, saying that a woman should be at home raising children because that's "women's work" is gender constructs. Just like nursing is typically viewed as a "woman's occupation" or being a mechanic is a "man's job"


While we all know that men can be "stay at home moms" just as well as a woman can be a mechanic, society has built the idea, generally speaking, that certain jobs, career fields or even household chores are for one sex or another

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
No actually. Its still heresy. Do not tell me how to think

Sorry, I'm kind of confused here. Are you attempting to roleplay a space marine zealot like your avatar, or do you genuinely think this? Because I really hope it's the first option.

 Swastakowey wrote:

Really it seems like a fuss over nothing. Which begs the question, if it's a fuss over nothing does gender need to be there, or is it a fuss over nothing because it should be there and works fine? Personally I will wait to have children before I decide. Being the oldest of the nephews and nieces in my huge family I have yet to see any child related to me try break gender norms. But I also have not raised them so I have yet to see for myself fully. Right now I am definitely in the sex and gender are connected camp.

Personally, I have no issues with gender identity issues. As outlined in other posts, I do have some issues with some of the stereotypes, double standards and the like that are imposed on various groups of people because it isn't "normal" for that gender.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
No, I find the whole notion stupid.

Lucky you, having the privilege of being able to ignore the difference between sex and gender. Perhaps you should learn to understand that other people aren't so fortunate, and it isn't just a "stupid notion" to them?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
No actually. Its still heresy. Do not tell me how to think

Sorry, I'm kind of confused here. Are you attempting to roleplay a space marine zealot like your avatar, or do you genuinely think this? Because I really hope it's the first option.

I'll let you figure that one on your own


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
No, I find the whole notion stupid.

Lucky you, having the privilege of being able to ignore the difference between sex and gender. Perhaps you should learn to understand that other people aren't so fortunate, and it isn't just a "stupid notion" to them?

Because I haven't had some emotionally scarring backstory that would require me to insecure about who I am? Or not fit in to any category and thus leading me to become insecure and then to questionning then to becoming?

I wouldn't really consider myself to fortunate in the sex/gender department

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

Really it seems like a fuss over nothing. Which begs the question, if it's a fuss over nothing does gender need to be there, or is it a fuss over nothing because it should be there and works fine? Personally I will wait to have children before I decide. Being the oldest of the nephews and nieces in my huge family I have yet to see any child related to me try break gender norms. But I also have not raised them so I have yet to see for myself fully. Right now I am definitely in the sex and gender are connected camp.

Personally, I have no issues with gender identity issues. As outlined in other posts, I do have some issues with some of the stereotypes, double standards and the like that are imposed on various groups of people because it isn't "normal" for that gender.

Im pretty sure gender roles are based entirely on what people find attractive in the opposite sex.

Men don't want to spend their life with an ex prostitute if they have a choice, likewise women don't want to spend their life with a husband who does a little tiding at home then lives off her paycheck. Really if you don't like those double standards then complaining wont change it, you have to change what people want in a partner. Easiest way to do that is to get into the movie making business. Try to show that women who sleep with 40 men in 6 years are perfect wives to have and that jobless men who wear panties while moping the floors are perfect husbands etc (exaggeration). Then you will more likely see those gender standards go away if ti works.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Because I haven't had some emotionally scarring backstory that would require me to insecure about who I am? Or not fit in to any category and thus leading me to become insecure and then to questionning then to becoming?

Or having development problems before you're born that cause your body to develop the wrong physical attributes for your brain. Sex/gender disagreement is more than just "an emotionally scarring backstory".

 Peregrine wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Because I haven't had some emotionally scarring backstory that would require me to insecure about who I am? Or not fit in to any category and thus leading me to become insecure and then to questionning then to becoming?

Or having development problems before you're born that cause your body to develop the wrong physical attributes for your brain. Sex/gender disagreement is more than just "an emotionally scarring backstory".

Which is why I added the addition of "Or not fit into any category." You will question what the definition of being a man is if you don't seem to be one, per say. You then look down the path of "gender identification" because society stereotyped that you should be a certain build, have this job and do this thing, but none of that sounds like you.

 Swastakowey wrote:


Im pretty sure gender roles are based entirely on what people find attractive in the opposite sex.

Men don't want to spend their life with an ex prostitute if they have a choice, likewise women don't want to spend their life with a husband who does a little tiding at home then lives off her paycheck. Really if you don't like those double standards then complaining wont change it, you have to change what people want in a partner. Easiest way to do that is to get into the movie making business. Try to show that women who sleep with 40 men in 6 years are perfect wives to have and that jobless men who wear panties while moping the floors are perfect husbands etc (exaggeration). Then you will more likely see those gender standards go away if ti works.

Used to be, this was largely religiously based (not completely). In my time as an adult, I have noticed a shift in this thinking.... As more and more people my age abandon religion and religious institutions, we're seeing the results being that more and more people are marrying each other, regardless of the number of prior sexual partners each has had. More and more families are opting for the wife with a higher level of education to be working, while the husband stays home and raises kids. It's not an overnight shift, but it most definitely is a shift that I've noticed in 10+ years.


One of my best friends is married to an army doc. She makes so much money from various bonus pay and location pay, etc. that he is a stay-at-home dad. Each time I've been over to his place, it's been immaculate due to his OCD, lord forbid you put a dirty dish in the wrong place.... seriously, I rinsed my plate, asked where I should put it, and he took the plate from me and placed it where he wanted. Part of that was being a good host, but he explained that he "needed" things a certain way when it came time to actually do the dishes.

The problem with any kind of sex essentialism is that we know the differences between men and women are wayyyyy smaller than the differences between individuals. When you try and force people into gender templates, it hurts everyone who doesn't fit into them, and because the differences between sexes are way smaller than the differences between individuals that is a lot of people getting hurt.

But you can see how a lot of this stuff is self-perpetuating. We say men are more violent, and it's possible testosterone has a small effect there, but the majority of the effect is from how we socially construct gender and say violence is super masculine and non-violence is feminine. We can see it when people's hormone levels change and they don't become markedly different people. It's the same with empathy - empathy is something you build up through use, and we discourage it in men and encourage it in women. There's nothing hormonal making men unable to empathise.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:


Im pretty sure gender roles are based entirely on what people find attractive in the opposite sex.

Men don't want to spend their life with an ex prostitute if they have a choice, likewise women don't want to spend their life with a husband who does a little tiding at home then lives off her paycheck. Really if you don't like those double standards then complaining wont change it, you have to change what people want in a partner. Easiest way to do that is to get into the movie making business. Try to show that women who sleep with 40 men in 6 years are perfect wives to have and that jobless men who wear panties while moping the floors are perfect husbands etc (exaggeration). Then you will more likely see those gender standards go away if ti works.

Used to be, this was largely religiously based (not completely). In my time as an adult, I have noticed a shift in this thinking.... As more and more people my age abandon religion and religious institutions, we're seeing the results being that more and more people are marrying each other, regardless of the number of prior sexual partners each has had. More and more families are opting for the wife with a higher level of education to be working, while the husband stays home and raises kids. It's not an overnight shift, but it most definitely is a shift that I've noticed in 10+ years.


One of my best friends is married to an army doc. She makes so much money from various bonus pay and location pay, etc. that he is a stay-at-home dad. Each time I've been over to his place, it's been immaculate due to his OCD, lord forbid you put a dirty dish in the wrong place.... seriously, I rinsed my plate, asked where I should put it, and he took the plate from me and placed it where he wanted. Part of that was being a good host, but he explained that he "needed" things a certain way when it came time to actually do the dishes.

I could never do that. In my family we men work until we retire and wait to die, while our wives stay at home sometimes working part time. My dad built a salon downstairs so mum could work a bit and take care of the kids. I do the same in my household. Being 21 most girls have had many sex partners already. So im thankful I got with my GF 7 years ago so it's not a problem I have to deal with trying to sift through the promiscuous girls to find a life partner. It's certainly not a religious thing, I don't know any guy who is not desperate who would settle for someone who has been around too much.

Ultimately everyone is different to a degree. For example it would be unfair to look down on a wheelchair bound man to take care of his family in a traditional way.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
It is, however, a very good indicator of intolerance. Most people who continue to call them Y, after being corrected repeatedly, are doing so purposely. Usually because they are intolerant. Not always, they could just be an ass, but usually.

Exactly. If you make a pronoun mistake once out of ignorance and use the right label once you're corrected, that's fine. Nobody is expecting perfection. If you continue to use the wrong pronoun/name/whatever because you think you know more about someone's own identity than they do you're a .

And, sadly, there are numerous people on Dakka who do this despite knowing full well that it's a dick move.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:
What really makes me physically disgusted and angry is people seriously considering Bruce Jenner to be braver than soldiers who actually went to war.

Case in point.

 Swastakowey wrote:
I could never do that. In my family we men work until we retire and wait to die, while our wives stay at home sometimes working part time. My dad built a salon downstairs so mum could work a bit and take care of the kids. I do the same in my household.

And this, right here, is why people want to get rid of gender roles/stereotypes. Instead of making a practical decision based on things like who has the higher income potential or who is better with kids you're locked into a role because that's how your family does it.

Being 21 most girls have had many sex partners already. So im thankful I got with my GF 7 years ago so it's not a problem I have to deal with trying to sift through the promiscuous girls to find a life partner. It's certainly not a religious thing, I don't know any guy who is not desperate who would settle for someone who has been around too much.

I genuinely don't understand this attitude. I can understand caring a lot about who a person has had sex with in the past for religious reasons (even if I disagree with that religion), but if "because god said so" isn't a reason then why does it matter so much? What's the difference between someone with a single previous partner and someone with a dozen, assuming the disease tests are all clear?

 Swastakowey wrote:

I could never do that. In my family we men work until we retire and wait to die, while our wives stay at home sometimes working part time. My dad built a salon downstairs so mum could work a bit and take care of the kids. I do the same in my household. Being 21 most girls have had many sex partners already. So im thankful I got with my GF 7 years ago so it's not a problem I have to deal with trying to sift through the promiscuous girls to find a life partner. It's certainly not a religious thing, I don't know any guy who is not desperate who would settle for someone who has been around too much.

Ultimately everyone is different to a degree. For example it would be unfair to look down on a wheelchair bound man to take care of his family in a traditional way.

This is just IMHO, but I think that in order for our societies to truly work, we must learn to live in "respect" of each others beliefs, and as we settle down to whatever family we desire, that we find partners that are of a like mind. By this I mean that in your family tradition, you are looking for a partner who shares a view that women are "better" off staying home and raising kids while the men go out and work. I personally was raised in a household where, due to education levels and income, both of my parents worked 9-5s. I never went hungry, never had to worry about clothes, and I was always able to participate in the school sports that I wanted to; but at the same time, we often (basically, never) had cable TV, regularly maintained the most basic internet connections once that became a "necessity" to life (as in, I grew up with 56k while all my friends had cable/dsl connections) My own upbringing has led me to find a woman who wants to work in a professional setting (she's still in the army), and shares many of the same views as I do in regards to child-rearing and cooperative living.

I don't look down on your view, and I'd hope you don't look down on mine. Our social upbringings will produce some similar, yet different results.


Obviously, I've been vocal in this thread about the double standards, or the absurd societal pressures placed on various groups (promiscuity, "gendered" careers, sporting activities, etc)

 Peregrine wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
I could never do that. In my family we men work until we retire and wait to die, while our wives stay at home sometimes working part time. My dad built a salon downstairs so mum could work a bit and take care of the kids. I do the same in my household.

And this, right here, is why people want to get rid of gender roles/stereotypes. Instead of making a practical decision based on things like who has the higher income potential or who is better with kids you're locked into a role because that's how your family does it.

Being 21 most girls have had many sex partners already. So im thankful I got with my GF 7 years ago so it's not a problem I have to deal with trying to sift through the promiscuous girls to find a life partner. It's certainly not a religious thing, I don't know any guy who is not desperate who would settle for someone who has been around too much.

I genuinely don't understand this attitude. I can understand caring a lot about who a person has had sex with in the past for religious reasons (even if I disagree with that religion), but if "because god said so" isn't a reason then why does it matter so much? What's the difference between someone with a single previous partner and someone with a dozen, assuming the disease tests are all clear?

If you find someone to live to fit your lifestyle then it is practical yes? Everyone in my family found a wife suited to our lifestyle which makes our lives work and practical. Nobody is locked in a roll we aren't suited for if we are raised and shown how to do it a certain way. Is it because my family does it? Partly, but it works. Only 2 divorces out of 7 on my dads side and none on my mothers side has shown it to be a practical method of raising a stable family that works. Disagree then that is fine, if you have a method that works. It certainly works for my house hold.

It shows (for me) a careless attitude towards something that should be shared between two loving people. It really comes down to how you value sex. Is it something casual to throw around for a bit of fun? Or is it something to cherish with someone important? For my GF and I it's cherish. I value chastity in a partner and my partner values my commitment. Im willing to commit if my partner is willing to be chaste. Is there a right or wrong when it comes to preferences in someone? Probably not. But unless I lower my standards a women who has slept around outside of a committed relationship is not really on the table.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:


Im pretty sure gender roles are based entirely on what people find attractive in the opposite sex.

Men don't want to spend their life with an ex prostitute if they have a choice, likewise women don't want to spend their life with a husband who does a little tiding at home then lives off her paycheck. Really if you don't like those double standards then complaining wont change it, you have to change what people want in a partner. Easiest way to do that is to get into the movie making business. Try to show that women who sleep with 40 men in 6 years are perfect wives to have and that jobless men who wear panties while moping the floors are perfect husbands etc (exaggeration). Then you will more likely see those gender standards go away if ti works.

Used to be, this was largely religiously based (not completely). In my time as an adult, I have noticed a shift in this thinking.... As more and more people my age abandon religion and religious institutions, we're seeing the results being that more and more people are marrying each other, regardless of the number of prior sexual partners each has had. More and more families are opting for the wife with a higher level of education to be working, while the husband stays home and raises kids. It's not an overnight shift, but it most definitely is a shift that I've noticed in 10+ years.


One of my best friends is married to an army doc. She makes so much money from various bonus pay and location pay, etc. that he is a stay-at-home dad. Each time I've been over to his place, it's been immaculate due to his OCD, lord forbid you put a dirty dish in the wrong place.... seriously, I rinsed my plate, asked where I should put it, and he took the plate from me and placed it where he wanted. Part of that was being a good host, but he explained that he "needed" things a certain way when it came time to actually do the dishes.

What's her rank and specialty? Does that have anything to do with her pay?

Relapse wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:


Im pretty sure gender roles are based entirely on what people find attractive in the opposite sex.

Men don't want to spend their life with an ex prostitute if they have a choice, likewise women don't want to spend their life with a husband who does a little tiding at home then lives off her paycheck. Really if you don't like those double standards then complaining wont change it, you have to change what people want in a partner. Easiest way to do that is to get into the movie making business. Try to show that women who sleep with 40 men in 6 years are perfect wives to have and that jobless men who wear panties while moping the floors are perfect husbands etc (exaggeration). Then you will more likely see those gender standards go away if ti works.

Used to be, this was largely religiously based (not completely). In my time as an adult, I have noticed a shift in this thinking.... As more and more people my age abandon religion and religious institutions, we're seeing the results being that more and more people are marrying each other, regardless of the number of prior sexual partners each has had. More and more families are opting for the wife with a higher level of education to be working, while the husband stays home and raises kids. It's not an overnight shift, but it most definitely is a shift that I've noticed in 10+ years.


One of my best friends is married to an army doc. She makes so much money from various bonus pay and location pay, etc. that he is a stay-at-home dad. Each time I've been over to his place, it's been immaculate due to his OCD, lord forbid you put a dirty dish in the wrong place.... seriously, I rinsed my plate, asked where I should put it, and he took the plate from me and placed it where he wanted. Part of that was being a good host, but he explained that he "needed" things a certain way when it came time to actually do the dishes.

What's her rank and specialty? Does that have anything to do with her pay?

She's a rank 15 Silver Moon Guardian, specializing in divine combat! Wait sorry wrong place... Wrong time.

I can see the old generation here. Generation Y person here wondering about the goings on of the previous generation who seem to have very traditional compared to my more rebellious generation. (Am I alone in seeing that?)

My generation is very keen on breaking traditional gender roles, sexual freedom, sexuality diversity, political leanings, and many other constructs as well. Anyone know as to why we are seeing this shift? I mean this might be why we are talking about this issue of social constructs and the changes happening. As change seems to be quite random for us humans.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
This is just IMHO, but I think that in order for our societies to truly work, we must learn to live in "respect" of each others beliefs......

Here's the issue right here, imo. In order for our societies to truly work, we may "need" to respect each other, but we don't "have" to. So things become a gakfest and stay a gakfest because why not? People generally don't learn unless they want to, and the incentive for learning respect and acting with it isn't always there. Sometimes respect is an outright liability.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Anyone know as to why we are seeing this shift?

Probably because we live in an era where "because god said so" and "because I said so" aren't seen as compelling arguments anymore. For example, the entire argument against homosexuality is based on religion, so if religion starts to lose its power to control society then you inevitably have to start asking why exactly should it be wrong to be gay. Same thing with a lot of other arbitrary rules. We're looking around and seeing no good answers for why they should exist, and it's very hard to support the existence of a rule just because there's a rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Swastakowey wrote:
If you find someone to live to fit your lifestyle then it is practical yes? Everyone in my family found a wife suited to our lifestyle which makes our lives work and practical. Nobody is locked in a roll we aren't suited for if we are raised and shown how to do it a certain way. Is it because my family does it? Partly, but it works. Only 2 divorces out of 7 on my dads side and none on my mothers side has shown it to be a practical method of raising a stable family that works. Disagree then that is fine, if you have a method that works. It certainly works for my house hold.

Sure, it works, but is it the best answer? I'm certainly not arguing that women should replace men as the primary source of income, that's just reversing gender roles without accomplishing much. Having a man working while the woman takes care of the house and kids is obviously something that can succeed. But it really seems like you're treating it as a given that it will work this way, simply because that's the way it has always worked.

It shows (for me) a careless attitude towards something that should be shared between two loving people. It really comes down to how you value sex. Is it something casual to throw around for a bit of fun? Or is it something to cherish with someone important? For my GF and I it's cherish. I value chastity in a partner and my partner values my commitment. Im willing to commit if my partner is willing to be chaste. Is there a right or wrong when it comes to preferences in someone? Probably not. But unless I lower my standards a women who has slept around outside of a committed relationship is not really on the table.

Yeah, I know the explanations for why you (and other people) believe those things, I just don't get it. It's like you're telling me all about your beloved hobby of staring at a wall and watching the paint dry. I just don't see the appeal of that position, at all. Though I guess I am the weird person who thinks that monogamy itself is highly overrated...

Relapse wrote:

What's her rank and specialty? Does that have anything to do with her pay?

Ohh yeah... she's a flight surgeon of some type or other. According to my buddy, she's hit a bit of a ceiling because the the only step "up" in that officer track is basically becoming an "astronautical surgeon"

 Peregrine wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
If you find someone to live to fit your lifestyle then it is practical yes? Everyone in my family found a wife suited to our lifestyle which makes our lives work and practical. Nobody is locked in a roll we aren't suited for if we are raised and shown how to do it a certain way. Is it because my family does it? Partly, but it works. Only 2 divorces out of 7 on my dads side and none on my mothers side has shown it to be a practical method of raising a stable family that works. Disagree then that is fine, if you have a method that works. It certainly works for my house hold.

Sure, it works, but is it the best answer? I'm certainly not arguing that women should replace men as the primary source of income, that's just reversing gender roles without accomplishing much. Having a man working while the woman takes care of the house and kids is obviously something that can succeed. But it really seems like you're treating it as a given that it will work this way, simply because that's the way it has always worked.

It shows (for me) a careless attitude towards something that should be shared between two loving people. It really comes down to how you value sex. Is it something casual to throw around for a bit of fun? Or is it something to cherish with someone important? For my GF and I it's cherish. I value chastity in a partner and my partner values my commitment. Im willing to commit if my partner is willing to be chaste. Is there a right or wrong when it comes to preferences in someone? Probably not. But unless I lower my standards a women who has slept around outside of a committed relationship is not really on the table.

Yeah, I know the explanations for why you (and other people) believe those things, I just don't get it. It's like you're telling me all about your beloved hobby of staring at a wall and watching the paint dry. I just don't see the appeal of that position, at all. Though I guess I am the weird person who thinks that monogamy itself is highly overrated...

I don't know about the best answer, but it's how the people around me got their marriages to last for 40 years. One of the longer living couples have been married for 60 years. Without sounding rude, but in your "goodbye" post you mention the end of a 5 year relationship. In my experience the people with your opinion usually have torn homes (like illegitimate one parent families) or multiple divorces. Anecdotal I know, but from my perspective it is very easy to see the best way. It's the one with proven results. Maybe when im 60 and people my age have gone through their time the answer for me will be clear who is right or wrong, but by then it will be pretty late if I am wrong. Assuming my relationship will continue on almost a decade into it.

It may very well turn into watching paint dry in the future. But right now it's something to be proud in with my partner. We share something very few people do in our situation. In a generation that encourages promiscuity in women im well past the age (already) to find someone reaches my standards... which is likely why some people don't understand it. In the same vein I don't understand why some people find the elderly or obese sexually attractive in a sexual/romantic partner. But it's what some people like I suppose.