Double Standards

rivrrat · 09-11-07, 10:02 PM

So, my BF and I were watching a movie. One scene consisted of a mother and father coming home from a night out. Father opens the door, sees son on the couch making out with a girl. (making out, not having sex - just to clarify) Before the mother can see, the father shuts the door and suggests that they sit outside to enjoy the moonlight on the porch for a bit. This gives the son some time to get rid of said girl.

My BF comments to me, "If that'd been my son, that's what I would have done. Oh yeah... you go boy!"

I declined to comment since I neither agreed nor disagreed with him. (It would depend on my son's maturity, etc)

Then he says, "But if it were my daughter, I'd be kicking some boy's ***."

This caused me to raise an eyebrow. I questioned him as to why the double standard. He stated something along the lines of, "Because I'm a guy and I know what guys that age are thinking." I questioned him further as to why he thought a girl wasn't thinking the same thing. He just gave me a blank stare. "Guys are manipulative at that age," he said. "And girls aren't?" I queried. "She could get hurt," he replies. "And he couldn't?", I countered. He gave me a look like... "Duh, of course not."

I asked him if he seriously thought that women were so weak they needed protection from the almighty, manipulative men. He gave me a look like... "No matter how I answer this, I'm not getting laid tonight am I?"

You can see where this is going. We never were able to see eye to eye on it. But from what I could gather, this was the general thinking...

Women need to be protected from men, never the other way around.
Women are the only ones who can get hurt.
Men are praised for manipulating women. (hence the.. "yeah, you go boy!")
Women don't manipulate men, and even if they do... at least the guy got laid! So it's a "good" thing.
It's not a "good" thing if a girl gets laid. She just got "used".

I don't get this. Is this seriously how men think? That their daughters need "protection" from guys, but their sons are just getting laid? Even IF that were true, isn't teaching your sons that teaching them to do the very things that you DONT want done to your daughter?

Summerwind · 09-11-07, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivrrat

So, my BF and I were watching a movie. One scene consisted of a mother and father coming home from a night out. Father opens the door, sees son on the couch making out with a girl. (making out, not having sex - just to clarify) Before the mother can see, the father shuts the door and suggests that they sit outside to enjoy the moonlight on the porch for a bit. This gives the son some time to get rid of said girl.

My BF comments to me, "If that'd been my son, that's what I would have done. Oh yeah... you go boy!"

I declined to comment since I neither agreed nor disagreed with him. (It would depend on my son's maturity, etc)

Then he says, "But if it were my daughter, I'd be kicking some boy's ***."

This caused me to raise an eyebrow. I questioned him as to why the double standard. He stated something along the lines of, "Because I'm a guy and I know what guys that age are thinking." I questioned him further as to why he thought a girl wasn't thinking the same thing. He just gave me a blank stare. "Guys are manipulative at that age," he said. "And girls aren't?" I queried. "She could get hurt," he replies. "And he couldn't?", I countered. He gave me a look like... "Duh, of course not."

I asked him if he seriously thought that women were so weak they needed protection from the almighty, manipulative men. He gave me a look like... "No matter how I answer this, I'm not getting laid tonight am I?"

You can see where this is going. We never were able to see eye to eye on it. But from what I could gather, this was the general thinking...

Women need to be protected from men, never the other way around.
Women are the only ones who can get hurt.
Men are praised for manipulating women. (hence the.. "yeah, you go boy!")
Women don't manipulate men, and even if they do... at least the guy got laid! So it's a "good" thing.
It's not a "good" thing if a girl gets laid. She just got "used".

I don't get this. Is this seriously how men think? That their daughters need "protection" from guys, but their sons are just getting laid? Even IF that were true, isn't teaching your sons that teaching them to do the very things that you DONT want done to your daughter?

Unfortunate but yes I think that is the way most people think; not just men. I agree that women should be given more credit for their strength. On the other hand, kids at that age are very hormonal. Girls hormones tend to lead to "falling in love," weepiness, and crankiness (estrogen overload). Boys however are experiencing testoterone overload which may bring about the exact thoughts and behaviors your bf was referring to. With that in mind; I think he is scientifically accurate that the girl is at higher risk unless she is somehow dramatically larger and stronger than the boy and past the stage of hormonal overload due to earlier maturity.

rivrrat · 09-11-07, 10:27 PM

Well, I don't think his opinion had to do with physical strength. It was more along the lines of "no girl that age WANTS to have sex", but ALL boys that age DO. Therefore, if sex is happening, it's because the guy somehow manipulated the girl into it. She could never actually be presumed to have desired it and/or made up her own mind.

That's the impression I got from him. Even if he felt that was the truth, he had no problem encouraging that behavior in his son. Which I found even more bothersome.

Summerwind · 09-11-07, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivrrat

Well, I don't think his opinion had to do with physical strength. It was more along the lines of "no girl that age WANTS to have sex", but ALL boys that age DO. Therefore, if sex is happening, it's because the guy somehow manipulated the girl into it. She could never actually be presumed to have desired it and/or made up her own mind.

That's the impression I got from him. Even if he felt that was the truth, he had no problem encouraging that behavior in his son. Which I found even more bothersome.

Then I think he is totally wrong. The only difference I see in that regard is that girls call it "love" and boys seem to consider it "sex."

FallingPianos · 09-12-07, 01:32 AM

I've never dated any guy that was just looking to get laid. they've always been looking for a relationship. and in that relationship, i've typically been the one with the higher sex drive.

I have seen guys get hurt by sex, and I've seen plenty of guys with end up with broken hearts when relationships ended.

gender stereotypes and double standards never do anyone any good.

FallingPianos · 09-12-07, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Summerwind

Then I think he is totally wrong. The only difference I see in that regard is that girls call it "love" and boys seem to consider it "sex."

people say that, but I've never observed it to be true. if anything my observations have been the opposite.

rivrrat · 09-12-07, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FallingPianos

people say that, but I've never observed it to be true. if anything my observations have been the opposite.

Indeed. I know I've "hurt" more men than have ever hurt me. Men are also just as easily manipulated.

I even mentioned to my BF that either his son OR his daughter could get an STD. And, that while his son couldn't GET pregnant, he could surely get someone else pregnant, and even more easily be manipulated to do just that. Some women lie about birth control in the hopes they will get pregnant and forever tie themselves to the man they "love". That's even more likely to happen with young teenage women who are "hormonal".

WI Crippler · 09-12-07, 10:06 AM

I think its more of a hunter/caveman gene still stuck inside of us. If our boy is out there, then we feel proud that he is establishing his place as a "hunter". If its our baby girl, then we are protective because it is another male encroaching on what we consider to be ours. It just is what it is.

I realize that young women are ever becoming the hunter themselves, which will work out great for my son by the time he is old enough. He won't have to put in nearly as much effort as I did........

niftydrifty · 09-12-07, 11:07 AM

oh yeah, I'd do her! wait ... sorry, you got my inner guy thinking about something else.

I think your BF has a point, but I think he (according to your portrayal) explained it poorly. if you/he had a son, you'd know him, right? if you had a daughter, you wouldn't know the guy.

it's not a double standard. studies suggest that guys are going for it more than girls.

http://www.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/child...alth.sex.reut/

and the girl has to carry the child, not the boy.

rivrrat · 09-12-07, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by niftydrifty

oh yeah, I'd do her! wait ... sorry, you got my inner guy thinking about something else.

I think your BF has a point, but I think he (according to your portrayal) explained it poorly. if you/he had a son, you'd know him, right? if you had a daughter, you wouldn't know the guy.

it's not a double standard. studies suggest that guys are going for it more than girls.

CNN.com - Health - U.S. teenage boys having more sex, study finds - December 20, 2000

and the girl has to carry the child, not the boy.

Uhh... if I had a son, yes I'd know him. But I wouldn't know the girl he was making out with. If I had a daughter, I'd know her... but I wouldn't know the guy she was making out with. I don't understand the difference.

It IS a double standard. If the girl is sitting there on the couch, willingly making out with the boy... she's "going for it". The double standard assumes that girls are unable to make decisions about sex themselves, and require some man (dad) to make them for them. But yet guys are able to make those decisions themselves, and require only encouragement.