Double Standards in Relationships?

[Lace Neil Singer]

In some countries, women can go shirtless and no-one blinks an eye. However, in the Western world, breasts are sexual. I know that a lot of women will cry, "But they're meant for feeding babies!" but it's silly to deny that they are sexual, especially when the evidence is all around you on top shelf magazines and lad's mags. That is why women are not going to be able to go shirtless round here, at least at the moment in this culture.

I personally think some men shouldn't, but that's just me. XD

[Nyoibo]

I personally think some men shouldn't, but that's just me. XD

Oh it's not just you, there are deffinately some people out there who should take the lesson "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should" to heart.

[BroomJockey]

I personally think some men shouldn't, but that's just me. XD

I shouldn't. I shouldn't even wear shorts. About the only place I can get away with no shirt and legs not fully covered is at the swimming pool, which I've not been to for ages, since no one will go with me

[Rapscallion]

Even in areas that men can go shirtless, women can not go shirtless. Although I think all double standards should go, this one I would be first in line to vote for getting the axe.

It got challenged in Toronto. They have law that women can go topless in public if they so choose. The naked news network use this legislation in the warmer months.

Rapscallion

[blas87]

Back on topic, I do fully agree that we sometimes go way overboard on the "Dump him!" or "Get away!" bandwagons at times.

And yes, I'm sure I was guilty of it before, and I'll admit it. But the more topics we get like that, and you'll see just how quick the thread turns into redundant "Get away!" "Leave him!".....

[Racket_Man]

If you really want to experience some of the pain that a period and/or PMS can cause, get someone to punch you in the gut several times, followed by a few kicks to the nuts. Then you can truly emphasise.

Cuz I do get snappy during that times, I want to be alone in my free time so that I don't snap at my nearest and dearest.

I will see that and raise you a 4mm Kidney stone that took 2 weeks to travel from the kidney to the bladder and then out (with me having to literally pull it out with a tweesers in the end with lots of bleeding and horrific amounts of pain)

No, it was to you. I'd have explained more, but I had to dash, so here we go.

Situation A) Controlling Significant Other: Done for purposes of, well, controlling, dominating, and prolonging the relationship. A way of restricting rights, movements, and life of the other person. They don't care what the person is up to, beyond it being something they're not controlling, and that's not allowed.

Situation B) Significant Other suspects cheating behaviour: Done for purposes of either salvaging (discovering not cheating) or ending (discovering IS cheating) the relationship. The searching in this case would be to uncover a potentially harmful lie (potential for STDs rises, potential for the cheater's other partner to decide to start an incident, etc.). As long as it's not a permanent suspicion, and not continually checking over the SO's effects, it's pretty much a self-preservation thing.

So, to summarize, situation A is wrong because it's an on-going activity geared towards "injuring" the other person, situation B is, while not right, acceptable as it is a short-term activity geared towards escaping a potentially damaging situation.

I think a more valid example would be one like the girl goes out for a "girl's night," gets trashed, and crashes at a friend's place, everyone thinks that's fine, but if the guy goes for a "guy's night" and gets trashed, and crashes at a friend's place, he's a jackass for not going back to his girlfriend that night (and that's a real example I've seen).

and if I may, most of the time it is the MALE doing the SItuation A. now a variant of A is this:

the MALE (and a LOT of times it is the male doing this, not always but most of the time) is jealous, insecure, paranoid, not comfortable with relationships with an INDIVIDUAL who is semi-indepentant autonomious, mostly intelligent has brains and some smarts. HE thinks HE owns the other person body mind and soul. but will invariably not think HIS actions are wrong when HE goes out and has relations outisde of the one he is supposed to be in.

there is NOT a fine line between being paranoid that your SO is cheating and just trying to "find some dirt" where none exists esp if you know your SO well enough.

the slut/stud thing is just a holdover from the pre-1950's view of the good girl/bad girl thing. every one seemed to ahve the "Leave It To Beaver" veiw of those times. society wanted men who were MEN ( read experienced for example fathers taking their sons to the local whorehouse and getting them laid) and women to be virgins (read like the Virgin Mary of the Bible) . I hate to burst your bubble on that one but that world never existed but we like to think it did. back then there were still teen pregancies, rape, incest, physical and sexual child abuse ( and not just by strangers or parents or relatives ie priests), physical and sexual spouse abuse, etc. it was just not pout out there as it is today. most of the time it did not make the evening news, was surpressed or just not talked about (ya know the wierd uncle that no noe wanted to be aroung esp if you were female).

[Lace Neil Singer]

I will see that and raise you a 4mm Kidney stone that took 2 weeks to travel from the kidney to the bladder and then out (with me having to literally pull it out with a tweesers in the end with lots of bleeding and horrific amounts of pain)

That's childbirth equivilent, silly boy! Ask any of the mothers here.

[Shangri-laschild]

I never got the whole "go through their things" idea. Either you trust them and don't need to, or you don't trust them, and shouldn't be with them. I know that's fairly cut and dry, but the middle ground would be to talk to them if something was worrying you. I just have trouble seeing the idea of going through someone else's stuff ok just because you were feeling suspisious.

[Kalli]

Just a nitpick about the PMS stuff:

Those of you who are using pain/illness/injury analogies to PMS are missing the point - it is not the pain or discomfort that causes us to become irate, it's the hormones. I realise this is a cliche, but most cliches exist because they are 100% true. Cliche =/= bullshit.

It's not as though we're like "oh, I'm in pain, so I have a right to be nasty", it's simply that you don't realise you're being nasty, or you feel your attitude is justified ("WHAT THE FUCK, I ASKED YOU TO PUT THE BIN OUT YESTERDAY! HOW FUCKING HARD IS IT!@??!@" Seems at the time like a perfectly appropriate reaction, because your chemistry is different to normal).

Please don't slam me with "oh, so hormones give you the right to be a bitch to people?", because I never said it did. This is a reason, not an excuse. I'm merely pointing out that the analogies are bad. Having the flu or kidney stones are much more uncomfortable than PMS, but the discomfort isn't what causes the irrationality.

[blas87]

I have always been certain that men have a period as well....no blood, no bloat or anything like that, but there has to be some kind of equivalent where at certain times, hormone levels are out of whack. I have seen some pretty moody men in my day at certain different times of the week or month.

I don't think PMS or having a period or even being pregnant gives a woman an excuse to be a bitch or a free card to treat people like crap, but I really wish some men would stop with their blanket judgements of "Women are nuts because of the way they are wired"....

It really irritates me. It is one of the most disgusting and unpleasant things to deal with, bleeding for several days and for some women who have it bad enough, having to always be near the bathroom in case they leak. A lot of younger women who don't have the most predictable of periods also have a tough time because they just never know when it's coming.

I got put on the Depo shot originally because when I was about 17, my period would NOT stop. From about fall of 2003 until early spring 2004, I had an on and off period that went on for several months with only a few days break/relief......can you imagine how tough it was, to enjoy social situations, or go to school or work, to have to be depended on even though I couldn't even depend on myself because I ALWAYS needed a bathroom and a good supply of tampons?

I don't think I was a raving lunatic bitch, but I'm sure I wasn't a pleasant girl to deal with back then.

[BroomJockey]

I really wish some men would stop with their blanket judgements of "Women are nuts because of the way they are wired"....

This:

This is a reason, not an excuse. I'm merely pointing out that the analogies are bad. Having the flu or kidney stones are much more uncomfortable than PMS, but the discomfort isn't what causes the irrationality.

doesn't help. "Women have a reason they act that way" is not so far a jump from "women are wired that way." A sexist ass will take Kalli's statement and run with it forever.

[Kalli]

This: <snip> ...doesn't help. "Women have a reason they act that way" is not so far a jump from "women are wired that way." A sexist ass will take Kalli's statement and run with it forever.

What are you saying exactly, that I shouldn't point out the biological facts just because some asshole might take what I've said and twist it to fit their point? Sorry, that doesn't fly. Especially when I pointed out that it's still unacceptable behavior. That's quoting out of context.

[Fryk]

If I had discovered my wife conducting surveillance on me to see if I were cheating, we would have some SERIOUS problems. If it had happened before we were married, I doubt that we'd still be together today.Then again, I don't see where she would ever have reason to suspect me, seeing as how we hang out together 100% of the time neither of us is working.

Really, how much of a piece of shit would you feel like if you went through all that to discover your SO is faithful? And yes, that goes for both genders.

[Lace Neil Singer]

What are you saying exactly, that I shouldn't point out the biological facts just because some asshole might take what I've said and twist it to fit their point? Sorry, that doesn't fly. Especially when I pointed out that it's still unacceptable behavior. That's quoting out of context.

I will point out that I was making comparisons, and I'm a woman. Then again, I also tell blonde jokes.

I can also honestly say that I would never go thru my boyf's private things; there is a limit. -.- I wouldn't want him to return the favour.

[crashhelmet]

Let's get back to the OP again. There's a big difference between being untrusting or suspicious and being controlling and abusive. Kibbles isn't saying anything about the man being domineering, just untrusting, but yet replies here from some people are that he's automatically an abusive asshole. That sounds like a double-standard to me. Why is it that women can be untrusting but not men?

The double-standard from the OP is something that really hits home with me and I take quite personally. I think trust is the most important aspect of a relationship and without it, I won't be in it.

CH