Dancer Archive
Thread: Erotic Dance Guide Part One
ooBoBoo wrote:
If what you state is true, that brains over brawn is the great equalizer, then why have men dominated thisplanet for all mellinnium. WHY?
Sinda wrote:
In pre-history, women were not always the homemakers our modern culture likes to portray. We have uncovered archaeological evidence that women just as often also hunted, right alongside the men. The difference between then and now is evolved culture - today women have the mistaken image of the 'weaker' gender simply because it became our role to give birth and raise children. That cultural view doesn't take into account the number of civilizations in history that were ruled - both well and also brutally - by women.
So your "domination" is merely a misperception. Historically, it just doesn't hold much water.
No doubt such societies existed. But, no doubt, they are alsothe exception. On one hand you state that it is in pre-history such societies existed, and on the other you state that, historically, my perception doesn't hold much water. Your argumentis a bit confused.
For every society that was dominated by women, there was probably a thousand dominated by men.
Oh, please! You've got to be joking. I don't know why the so-called "enlightened" societies are the ones which allow women to join the military. If a conscription bill were ever passed, do you seriously think it would apply to both sexes equally?
Sinda wrote:
My husband is a Vietnam vet with a Purple Heart. The only thing women couldn't have done in that war - or any war - is to pee standing up.
Itren wrote:
. . . I've done sneaky underhanded things, such as sleep with an ex girlfriend's sister within hearing distance, just to make the ex cry, for she had hurt me. I've also went and slugged another guy that pissed me off. Does that mean I fought any dirtier or less dirtier than a woman? No. I am capable of contacting major creditors about a person and getting someone labelled as temporarily dead, or other such heinous acts. . . .
Considering your slimey deeds, I think that you are notentitled to label our behavior as pathetic.
Aleksander_Graveheart wrote:
Yes, my ego is extremely fragile. But really, as if your "military" friends would really tell you, a woman, that "Yes, women are not wanted in the military honey."
pssst...they lied to you to not hurt your feelings. I on the other hand don't have that problem. I love the truth, it's so refreshing. Breath in...breath out. Now go back to the kitchen.
Normally I don't reply to posts like this, but I feel it is necessary to quash some mistruths spread on the forums (not for the sake of arguement, but for knowledge). Here are some interesting facts some people might like or need to know:
1) Yes, men are built better physically, and tend to be stronger. However, according to a male biology professor (along with other scientists), women have the capacity to be smarter. Now is this a reflection of what we see in schools? Women tending to easily beat the competition so to speak, when it comes to academics? I'll agree that many factors figure in, such as work ethic, interest in academics, etc. But for the most part, it seems that women on average can exceed men intellectually. Another proven statistic is that men are less likely to finish high school or go to college than women. Also, while women lack muscles and size compared to men, they do have a higher pain threshold (most likely to aid them in the excruciating suffering they have to endure for childbirth).
2) And in regards to women in the military, there are reasons why they aren't allowed to fight in the U.S. military. The military has proven that men are more likely to take 'stupid' risks in order to save or protect a female. In addition, the military believes men are demoralized by thevery presence of women fighting beside them. Personally, I feel if our women want to fight for our country, they should have the same option as anyone else. One of my friends entered the Army because she wants to make a difference, and she wants the option to fight for her country. She has passed all tests put before her, so why shouldn't she be allowed to fight if the need arises?
3) One last point. There are other militaries in the world that view women as equals in the military. I am told by another friend in the Army that England is one of them.
Try this out instead. It probably isn't the definitive work on the subject, but I trust it more than anything else I've seen here. It even has references for you to trace.
http://www.epub.org.br/cm/n11/mente/eisntein/cerebro-homens.html
Regards,
Bener
Bulbous2 wrote:Oh, please! You've got to be joking. I don't know why the so-called "enlightened" societies are the ones which allow women to join the military. If a conscription bill were ever passed, do you seriously think it would apply to both sexes equally?
Sinda wrote:My husband is a Vietnam vet with a Purple Heart. The only thing women couldn't have done in that war - or any war - is to pee standing up.
Bulbous, for your information the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong had large contingents of women fighters. According to my husband, some of them were the most viscious fighters they encountered. The Israelis, the Chinese and a number of other modern military forces also include women. It seems the main cultural handicap we struggle under is this idea that women are sexual objects and would be raped if they were on the front lines. That objectification has nothing to do with whether they are capable fighters or not. We've proven that we are, indeed, capable in that regard.
And, yes, if they passed a conscription bill, I would expect it to apply equally. It's what women have been demanding.
It strikes me that cultural bias runs very strongly through some of you -- which is understandable, since all of us are products of our cultures. It's just a shame we can't see past that.
Itren wrote:
*rolls eyes* Now you seek to label me as well and bring me to one side or another. Please, no one's perfect, and I was merely listing examples. Don't jump down my throat for an issue I wasn't even talking about. I was speaking against those that wish to be gender bigots, not those that wish to judge on deeds. Take your proclomations of hate another place.
I don't hate you. I don't know you well enough to hate you or like you. It was a comment on your behavior in the instances you described.
I apologize for being rude.
ooBoBoo wrote:
ooBoBoo wrote:
If what you state is true, that brains over brawn is the great equalizer, then why have men dominated thisplanet for all mellinnium. WHY?
Sinda wrote:
In pre-history, women were not always the homemakers our modern culture likes to portray. We have uncovered archaeological evidence that women just as often also hunted, right alongside the men. The difference between then and now is evolved culture - today women have the mistaken image of the 'weaker' gender simply because it became our role to give birth and raise children. That cultural view doesn't take into account the number of civilizations in history that were ruled - both well and also brutally - by women.
So your "domination" is merely a misperception. Historically, it just doesn't hold much water.
No doubt such societies existed. But, no doubt, they are alsothe exception. On one hand you state that it is in pre-history such societies existed, and on the other you state that, historically, my perception doesn't hold much water. Your argumentis a bit confused.
For every society that was dominated by women, there was probably a thousand dominated by men.
So Sinda, you onlyrespond toarguments for which you have a counter point. Mine you just ignore. OK.
My opinion has nothing whatsoever to do with that objectification. In fact, it has to do with the fact that women are the givers of life, the nurturers and caretakers. They are not suited to a role where they may have to take a life. This role is not part of their background, and they are not capable in it. Men are the protectors and warriors. They have the biological and mental facilities to deal with this role. Thousands of years of history bear this out. I'm sure many civilizations dabbled with having females as part of the warrior class, but few made the history books.
Sinda wrote:
It seems the main cultural handicap we struggle under is this idea that women are sexual objects and would be raped if they were on the front lines. That objectification has nothing to do with whether they are capable fighters or not. We've proven that we are, indeed, capable in that regard.
ooBoBoo wroteSo Sinda, you onlyrespond toarguments for which you have a counter point. Mine you just ignore. OK.
I do tend to ignore people who don't know what they're talking about and create facile bases for their arguments.
Pre-history IS history. Get it?
BinaryT wrote:
FD, Is there any chance of a guide part two, or has the whole thing been sufficiently ruined at this point?
You may have missed the original posting of this thread. The problem was that it was absurd from the beginning. There is no need for a guide to Erotic Dancing. The key is to create a Human or Twilek with large breasts, purchase some revealing clothing as early as possible, grind your way up to Exotic, and then open a bank account large enough to hold all of your money.
Oh, and at this time, I should mention that the attention-seeking sociopath did post Part Two and Part Three synchronous with Part One. Just do a search for them, and they will turn up.