And there you have it. Men and women will never experience issues around birth control the same way. That is not ignorance or prejudice or bigotry. What we see here in some comments is ignorance about women, misogyny and sexism.

Women do not have to have been pregnant to worry about birth control. In fact, perhaps birth control was what kept some of us from becoming pregnant. Or perhaps side effects from birth control kept some women from being fertile. Men don't have to weigh the risks of pregnancy vs. risks of birth control pills. Men don't have any risk of pregnancy by rape.

None of your "points" have been substantiated, but those made by the many women calling you out have been. And are reinforced with every post you make about this. And stop playing the victim card. As if.

Poisoned and bigoted attitudes on display attract attention among, they don't point a finger at others. Much as you'd like to think you can victimize me with YOUR personally poisoned attitudes and problems, the reality is very different. I do feel sorry for your burden but I will not accept being an outlet for it.

Elmer, you are a cantankerous, argumentative, rude, opinionated, spoiled hack who won’t go away. YOU changed the entire theme of the OP. Not going to follow any further dialogue or comment of yours ever. Disconnecting from this post.

Sherry, you've lost it. You apparently are so much in your bubble, you have no idea what the Golden Age is. WOW! WOW! WOW! The Golden Age has nothing to do with what you stated. Do some research and get back to me-I'll let you know when you have it down. I could tell you-it's commons sense really-but, you need to actually go look for yourself-it also may help with our TDS. You may learn something while you are at it.

Besides, women aren't in the same place as they were-and that's a good thing. BUT, now they have turned into man haters. The AWFL's are always taking it too far.

Ollie I lived it. you are stupid.

" when unmarried people were not allowed to purchase condoms-that didn't become legal until 1972 "

I had no idea! I would have figured condoms were an easy, if embarrassing, purchase back then.

" Nor have several of the more vehement bigots in this thread given birth to a child and raised it from infancy to adulthood. "

But, unlike you, we don't insult other people by denying their experiences.

" you have no idea what the Golden Age is. "

Neither, apparently, do you. You seem to think "the Golden Age" is a commonly accepted term for a particular time in US history, but it's not. Different people may call different time periods as their Golden Age, but there's no "Golden Age" that we can refer to. Do you mean The Gilded Age? Because that actually is a time in US history with a well accepted definition.

Elmer, you aren't the victim here.

Maybe he is...He sure got beat to a pulp!

@LoneJack Zn 6a, KC Lol!

@Toronto Veterinarian you quoted ef: "" Nor have several of the more vehement bigots in this thread given birth to a child and raised it from infancy to adulthood. "

Quite ironic, no? He is another who has not given birth to a child!

Head high and smiling all along, lonejack, at the sad people with poisoned attitudes needing targets to shoot. This comes out periodically, unhappy people looking to spread their feelings.

TV: " when unmarried people were not allowed to purchase condoms-that didn't become legal until 1972 "

I had no idea! I would have figured condoms were an easy, if embarrassing, purchase back then.

--------

I remember the old packs of condoms used to be labeled: "For Disease Prevention Only". Must've been a way of skirting the laws at the time against contraception.

"Head high and smiling all along, lonejack, at the sad people with poisoned attitudes needing targets to shoot. This comes out periodically, unhappy people looking to spread their feelings."

Women talking about their experiences and realities are not people (nor sad people) with poisoned attitudes.

We all can see who is the sad one here, who targets women at every opportunity (on most threads). So, stop with the poor me as victim schtick. No one but you believes it.

I am going to point out here that a certain unnamed person has succeeded in making this thread, like many others, about that person. This fun thread has been diverted. Just saying

So I am going back to the past. As in Where were you in 62 or actually 73. Was it a simpler more innocent time? I would believe that highschoolers on the cusp of graduation could be very vapid. Kids still protected from reality by their parents. 62 predates any serious concern amongst high school graduates males about being conscripted. But 62 was only 7 years after

WWII. It was a growth period more or less but not for women. I know where I was and I can read stats that say the most women did not work outside of the home but in my world of Montgomery Alabama I was one of the few whose mother did not have a job of some sort. For the stats to work those women would have had to lie. AG didn't in my memory include parents and their input. Car culture which this movie makes a point of must have been fairly new as kids bought used cars. I was too young. When I was in high school in Florida there were vestiges of it with kids driving around the Shakey's Restuarant. I did not get it at all. No more cruising the streets though.

patriciae

" I would have figured condoms were an easy, if embarrassing, purchase back then. "

That was my experience some years before the stated date.

But 62 was only 7 years after WWII.

Wait. What??? You meant 1952, right?

@sushipup I keep getting distracted from thanking you for posting this. I loved this movie when it came out and would never have thought to look for it on Netflix. I'm going to try to watch it this weekend.

You are right Dlm. My math was at fault but the concept is still valid. That war was so close and it affected the parents and almost parents in ways we dont understand. I moved to the UK in 1965 and the war was so present for them 20 years on and I was indelibly impressed by that. It really had not been that long. In my old age I can really see that.

patriciae

Patricia, I remember becoming aware of WWII sometime as a child in the early 1950's - I was born in 1948 and it was already ancient history to me. Might as well have been the Civil War in my mind, because they were both history to me. Of course, the effects on my parents and grandparents and the country were very fresh, but I don't think my generation really understood that until we were older and learned more about the war and holocaust, etc. When I realized how few years it had been from the end of the war until I was born, it was shocking to me, as it had seemed so long ago. The only real memory I have of awareness was growing up in Seattle and going down near the Pike Place Market (on Skid Road) with my mom and seeing men with no legs scooting along the sidewalk on dollies like big skateboards and asking her about them. She told me they probably lost them in the war, but it still didn't click with me how recent it had been.

We are not 'the same'. Girls/Women can fail to accept basic facts about sexual differences. American Puritanism wants to edit out this basic reality: Like other mammals, human males have bodies made to procreate... today, tomorrow, now! Females are not so urgently directed *by nature*. (I think it must be a true torment to have to learn to control.)

I didn't grow up with close male relatives. Maybe other females 'get' this. It doesn't seem so when a provocatively dressed female complains about attracting male sexual attention.

I don't agree with the concept of 'provocative' but I think men can find a woman attractive, interesting, whatever, and keep it to himself. I believe the objections of women are to men who feel entitled to comment on how she looks or how she is dressed or to make assumptions about her based on those things. Assuming advances are welcome, that women want to talk to random men, etc. that we want to hear what they think of how we look are what I think women can find objectionable. If it's hot out and a woman wants to wear shorts and a halter top, she should be entitled to be comfortable without assumptions being made that she is dressing provocatively.

Of course Patricia - a totally different experience in the UK and surely felt much more recent.

How dare I say there's something women can do that men can’t like have a baby. Shame on me for being so biased!!

Just because you know women who like you doesn’t mean you are unbiased toward them or understand their life experiences and choices. Just because you went on the attack and lost does NOT make you the victim. Just because you can't ever admit to being *wrong* and you *always* have to have the last word, doesn't make you right.

For awhile, you were kinder, less arrogant, more participatory, and making an effort to be less confrontational. I noticed the difference…maybe others did too. But alas, here we are again. I’m truly sorry, Elmer.

" Like other mammals, human males have bodies made to procreate... today, tomorrow, now! Females are not so urgently directed *by nature*. "

Not really true. Female animals also are urgently directed to procreate, but less frequently and on schedule. I can't think of many, if any, cases where female animals routinely avoid or choose not to mate when they are in season.

" I believe the objections of women are to men who feel entitled to comment on how she looks or how she is dressed or to make assumptions about her based on those things..... when a provocatively dressed female complains about attracting male sexual attention. "

Or, worse, touch her because of her looks. There's a difference between what someone feels (emotions, wants), and what someone does, and that's the key here.

The problem isn't that men are attracted to "provocative" and/or attractive women and feel sexual desire, the problem is that they unilaterally act on that attraction. One can't control how one feels, but one can control how one acts (and if you can't, you need to learn how). The problem is their idea that because they are attracted to something and want something, they they're entitled to act on that attraction/desire. People have to take agency for their own actions (and choice to act), and stop blaming other people for being (or looking) provocative.

Well, there is the female dragonfly: Female dragonflies use an extreme tactic to get rid of unwanted suitors: they drop out the sky and then pretend to be dead. From NewScientist.com If only that worked for humans too. Though there are women who will vomit to avoid rape, also say they have an STD, fake a convulsion, urinate...not clear how successful these are.

" Well, there is the female dragonfly: "

Cool! From that article: " Few animals have been caught feigning death to trick suitors. The behaviour has been seen in a species of spider (the males use it to improve their chances of mating), two species of robber fly and a type of mantis. "

Interesting take on the desire to procreate. Historically it was women who were considered the sexually rapacious insatiable half of the equation. In the 1800's that flipped with a rising middle class with strictly kept rules of conduct or at least that is the most common conceit from people who study this sort of thing. The need was to prove you are a moral, stable, credible person vs the squalid libidinous lower class. Women had to keep pure. It was only the very upper class who could get away with amoral behavior. Purity meant you must pretend to endure the process of being impregnated.

patriciae

I'm trying to prevent bad outcomes. I think it would help if more girls/women realized that there is a natural male drive to impregnate -- that only social mores cause the male to inhibit this drive -- that inhibitions are weakened in some circumstances. (Alcohol comes to mind.)

Recognize what's beneath the thin veneer that makes us different from animals.

Don't tease the lion.

"Don't tease the lion."

Better not to live around lions, then. Who knows what a lion will consider teasing, and I don't want to guess. I'd hate to live in fear that way; even lions will kick out unruly young males from the pack when they are old enough to try and mate with their younger "sisters".

I refuse to accept responsibility for someone else's behaviour, and I reject any belief (personal or religious) that says I should.

@chisue we all want women to remain safe, but the onus on that has to be on the males to control or change their behavior, not on women to restrict ours. Look at places where women must cover every inch if their bodies, or even just cover their hair so that men aren’t led into temptation. Suggesting that women here avoid dressing ”provocatively” is no different. We need a social order where men harming women are severely punished and are ostracized when they behave badly. So far, most cultures have failed women and girls in that regard.

I'm only asking that females remember that male psysiology exists toward procreation. Don't believe it isn't powerful and can't/won't override social norms. Take that as a 'given'.

I don't personally care but some may wonder who or what was responsible for the toxic attitudes some people can't seem to shake. It must be a daily burden. Most people strive for happiness instead of being always miserable and agitated.

"We need a social order where men harming women are severely punished..."

How about, we need a social order where *anyone* harming *anyone* is severely punished.

“I'm only asking that females remember that male psysiology exists toward procreation. Don't believe it isn't powerful and can't/won't override social norms. Take that as a 'given'.”

@chisue what you are saying is that men are not responsible for the choices they make and cannot control their behavior. That is patemtly untrue because the vast majority of men DO behave as they should and do not harm women or girls. If urges or actions following thoughts were uncontrollable, then wouldn’t most men misbehave? They do not, so men who misbehave should mot be given a pass - because it’s assumed they can’t control their biological urges.

Yes, of course, I agree, Annie but was specifically addressing her assertion that men can’t control themselves regarding harm to women.

" I'm only asking that females remember that male psysiology exists toward procreation. Don't believe it isn't powerful and can't/won't override social norms. Take that as a 'given'. "

So, you're saying men aren't responsible for their sexual behaviour, even violent sexual behaviour. Nope. They are responsible for themselves, and those that can't control their actions should get the hell out of civil society.

I absolutely do not agree that males are driven by unmanageable urges. We have seen cultures built on that belief and how women have to walk about in tents, never leave home without male attendance and so on and still get assaulted and yet our culture does not require tents and veils and coverings and somehow we seem to manage to move around without being beaten by sticks by men objecting to women some how failing to cover adequately to keep them from beating women with sticks. If it was a natural thing for men to do this then why dont we do it.

There are to this day many cultures where no one wears much in the way of clothing. It is not seen by them as provocative. So why do we see scantitly clad women as provocative? Culture.

patriciae

My point is only that the drive exists -- strongly. Don't discount it or believe that it will never break through cultural inhibitions. Don't *test* for inhibitions if you don't want to be more surprised than pleased.

Related Early Lesson: Boys don't hit girls. That's 'the rule'. When I was six, I called a neighbor boy names . He socked me in the stomach.

@chisue so what is the solution if one accepts your premiss that men’s urges are uncontrollable? The solution in some places is women never seeing the light of day. Your premiss also suggests that crimes against women are caused by women’s provocative appearance. Violence against women isn’t from women’s appearance, it it’s about power and control.

If what you claim is true, then you are also saying that sexual crimes against children can be blamed on how children dress or look. See how your argument is faulty? It has nothing to do with the victims, but only about the choices to harm that someone makes.

“Related Early Lesson: Boys don't hit girls. That's 'the rule'. When I was six, I called a neighbor boy names . He socked me in the stomach.”

So what was the lesson? Girls need to keep their mouths shut or they deserve to be hit?

"My point is only that the drive exists -- strongly"

OK. So what?

" Don't *test* for inhibitions if you don't want to be more surprised than pleased. "

This is where your theory falls apart......Knowing it exists should not require anyone else to change their behaviour. Not if you believe that everyone is equal. If you believe that one group should change their behaviour to improve or ease the life of the other group, then you believe that one group is inherently better and dominant over the other.

If you believe that men, who have an insatiable drive to procreate - are dominant over everyone else, then I think your theory is not just wrong-headed, but dangerous and cruel.

Ever heard of testosterone? Men NATURALLY have much more than women-that is a biological reality. Of course (!) religious and societal norms teach men to "behave"- it doesn't work on all men-but most. "Behaving" comes more NATURALLY for women-it seems hard for some women to understand this, instead they have this blanket resentment toward all men. Women can be just as evil as some men, just in different ways. Women are very cunning-ever heard of "mean girls"? VERY prevalent in girls and with women now! So much hate! There is a lot of it on here.

Recently, the Me Too movement swept through society, demanding that we stupidly believe every woman's accusation against a man, regardless of her character or motives. This was ridiculous! Common sense should tell everyone that women can be very deceitful, and women's manipulation should not be underestimated. Not by a long shot! Blind allegience to any one gender's claims is just totally ridiculous! The White Female Liberals are doing their very best to transform men-physically and psychologically-into women, and most men are not having it now! Yep, another area where it was taken too far left!

Someone commented above and mentioned the "Orange Man." Care to guess which gender predominantly supported him? Men! Yet, standing shoulder to shoulder with them were countless strong, independent women! We’re talking about women who reject the absurd notion that men dictate our votes. Remember that Harris campaign ad? We roared with laughter at its sheer ridiculousness!

Real men don't harm women and children and they have the same testosterone that men who do harm women and children. The difference? Men who harm women and children are making a choice to do so. They are not driven by biology/hormones to do so.

Ummm...of course, real men control their actions and channel their energy positively. But hormones can amplify certain impulses, like aggression, which a very small amount of men fail to do. It’s not an excuse-choice is key-but biology can definitely influence how intense those impulses are. But those men, are very few in comparison to what most of the women on here, erroneously-seem to believe about most men.

Just like women have come a long way-so have men. But, the way women behave on here-actually want men to "think" and "act" and even "look" like women now! It's just too far, as usual!

" are very few in comparison to what most of the women on here, erroneously-seem to believe about most men. "

Where did you get that idea?

"Recently, the Me Too movement swept through society, demanding that we stupidly believe every woman's accusation against a man, regardless of her character or motives. This was ridiculous!"

Well, yes that's ridiculous because that's not what that movement was about. Rather the whole point of Me Too was to show how ubiquitous sexual harassment and assault is. And that women shouldn't bear the blame for what men have done to them. I don't believe there's a woman I've ever met who has not suffered some form of harassment or assault, myself included. Granted some are more serious than others, but all of us have been seen by men as an object for their use and gratification, from whistles on the street to domestic violence and rape. So as far as men controlling themselves, most don't do it well enough or often enough. And much of those societal norms that are imposed on them, as with other crimes, work best when there are potential witnesses, and not so well when there are not.... thus the man/bear scenario.

"We’re talking about women who reject the absurd notion that men dictate our votes. "

So tell me, what's your take on the gop disallowing for married names to differ from maiden names upon registering to vote, which will potentially disenfranchise millions of married women.

"Someone commented above and mentioned the "Orange Man." Care to guess which gender predominantly supported him? Men! Yet, standing shoulder to shoulder with them were countless strong, independent women! We’re talking about women who reject the absurd notion that men dictate our votes."

That's a self-own if I ever heard one. And, I'm not sure what the gender divide over politics has to do with anything that's being discussed here. Does it matter than men mostly voted for a geriatric, obese, and immature man with the vocabulary of an 8 year old?

" Recently, the Me Too movement swept through society, demanding that we stupidly believe every woman's accusation against a man, regardless of her character or motives. "

Nope. That's not what the MeToo movement was about, let alone what it demanded. It was a movement to highlight the breadth and depth of sexual abuse, a crime historically wildly under-reported to police, and to help survivors feel less alone and hopefully be less ostracized. It started almost 20 years ago, and went viral about 7 or 8 years ago when some investigative journalists got some interesting leads about some famous people.

I am a crime aficionado and watch many Dateline , 20/20 ,and 48 Hours shows on the networks. I mentioned to my husband recently how surprised I was that so many killings and sexual assaults were done by "good Christian men". The ratio was astounding to me. I don't know the statistics, but religion plays no part in men sexually assaulting and even killing victims. When the shows begins, if the victim or her family says they met at church, a red flag goes up for me.

If abuse and rage were testosterone driven then where does the desire to abuse and torture children come from in women?

patriciae