What Women Can't Do
 

Let's reinforce stereotypes.

Then bust stereotypes up!

What do you think women can't do?
What have you heard women can't do?
Feel free to be sexist.
Or not, as you desire.
Women, feel free to offer a rebuttal.
Share your experiences, or those of the women in your lives.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
My husband and I have this debate (comically) frequently. According to him, women can't fart, and their poops are invariably dainty.


I was raised to believe that women couldn't think scientifically, that they couldn't process complex thought. That they had an affinity for nurturing rather than reason, and therefore they were incapable of any complex sin. You can imagine my frustration and confusion when I didn't fit into any of the molds such a society offered for a female, and no matter how I tried to fit in, I simply didn't. I began to hate femininity and desire to be something that I simply was not. I dreamed of having the freedom offered any man, and frequently cross-dressed with little success. I soon realized that I could shed the religion and walk into an entirely different life, one free from the shackles that held me into submission.

Women can't get why the film Braveheart is an undisputed masterpiece.

women cannot be rapists.

Women can't write their names in the snow.

Strange simply wins this thread out of mere participation.

Women can't make steak!

Kill it. Dress it. Butcher it. Season it. Grill it, RARE. Done with diamond marks.... I can do that.

I can even inseminate it, birth it, feed it, and make it grow before I do the above. (Prey-animals that is, so as not to be accidentally confused with a "cannibal"). :)

---------- Post added at 06:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:47 PM ----------

Maybe I should add artificially inseminate, so as not to be confused as a mistress or masteress of "bestiality."

Women will never appreciate the need to quote Arnold Schwarzenegger's lines from his various action epics.

"If it bleeds, we can kill it." and I can grill it

"Hasta la vista, baby!"

but remember,

"I'll be back."

Maybe I should have been born a man, or maybe just with a dick. :)

Women cannot have any reaction besides "oh my God!".

Women cannot argue effectively and admit when they're wrong.

"oh my CROM", I was way wrong, with one of these (my cunt) I can have as many dicks as I want, the only problem is, now I think I want a pussy cat, they scratch my itch better. :thumbsup:

---------- Post added at 07:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:01 PM ----------

o.k. so you've got me on the snow thing, but I'm o.k. with that, I hate snow..... I do love Braveheart though, and who the hell wants to be a rapist, only a rapist would know, I do like power and chains and leather and submissiveness and did I say power.

Women can not travel to approx. 1/3 of the world and be treated any where near equal to a man.

:orly: you owned me, :bowdown: Tully Mars.

From experience, they're good with directions...and being on time.

Women will never understand Chuck Norris

Women can't hold their liquor....obviously.

No wait, that's not a stereotype, it's true.

Untrue. My current partner drinks me under the table w/ straight Jack.

I love Chuck and Arnold.
I kick ass at steak.
I'm wrong all the time.
I have written my name in the snow.
I think Braveheart is freaking AWESOME, I've seen it 5 times.
I've met a woman charged with raping another woman and one with raping a man. (hint: she used a cock ring to get him hard. She came, he didn't. It was ruled rape)

Women can't escape sexism. Neither can men, but that was not the OP.
Women can't bench press as much as the strongest man.
They can't ejaculate semen.
They have zero control over the sex of their child. Xs only.
Women can't do a Wild Bill impersonation as effectively as a man. I've tried.
It's just not cool...

Niner,your woman drinks you? While under the table with a straight guy named Jack?

Women metabolize alcohol slower than men do, and they suffer the ill effects
of hard drinking sooner.

Yeah, but you drink like a woman ;).

I've had a lot of girls I've been with out drink me, it's awesome.

During my College Days I was known to be a somewhat Hefty Drinker. On several occasions, over the course of an evening (about 6-7 hours), I have been known to drink an entire bottle of Captain Morgan. A particular rugger from the women's team and I raced on one occasion, and she beat my pants off. Not only did she finish her bottle nearly an hour before I did, but she did it without while maintaining her ability to walk straight and speak in complete sentences.

hehehehehehe

Based on the long, long history of posts on TFP, I'm going to have to agree.

Rape by gender - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Women can't be reasonable. Or rational.

But they do have an arguably higher pain tolerance. Child birth anyone?

The problem with this is that it's been found that women are more reasonable than men in certain situations, and that it can be said that men can't be rational either.

^

Don't argue with a United States Marine. It has been proven that their mind is impregnable.

...

Women can't look sexy in military fatigues. Google ninjas... GO.

^ what's wrong with you?

Women in uniform = hawt!

Maybe on TeeVee. In real life? Covered in mud and squat-pissing on the side of the road? They're just men who (often) can't ruck as much.

...

Women are better at parking vehicles with trailers. They don't overanalyze the situation.

So men can't look sexy in fatigues either. Gotcha.

Nah. You're missing the point of this thread.

Guys are allowed to, no, supposed to wear manly stuff (warrior garb) and do manly things (like get dirty, perform physical labor, and kill one another).

Let us remember our traditional 1950s sex/gender roles here.

Yo, dude; I'm just tryin' to bust up a stereotype.

Baraka, you defy all manly conventions.

I hope that after that sort of warmup, your pants literally came off.

Amen brother.

Women are too emotional and easily offended. This inevitably leads to them becoming irrational in any sort of prolonged debate or argument.

Women can't poke a campfire with a stick properly.

women actually have a lower pain threshold than men on average (ie of course Im not saying every man has a higher threshold than every women)

Women also cannot be:

executioners
slaughtermen

If someone finds a rare example, it will almost certainly be the case that that woman was pyschologically male.

The act of killing (while of course a woman can physically enact it) is a male action.

_

We have had quite a long discussion about women committing sex crimes before - I believe a conversation around some girls in an old people's homes where some highjinks and horseplay got a bit out of hand but the state claimed an actual sexual assault had taken place. I am more than happy to discuss it again but maybe it would take over this thread if it was done here.

With the greatest respect - these case noodle mentions is not rape. I have looked up "cock ring" on the internet. The fact that this woman "fitted" on on the male and he didnt climax is a rather different thing from being a rape victim. The only way in which a female could conceivably carry out an act which might be consider rape on a man would be with a dildo. In real life, if this has happened 10 times in the history of humanity I would be shocked.

By definition, the act of a man's penis penetrating a woman cannot in any circumstance whatsoever be called rape by the female. I do not care if someone can quote an article that says it is. It is logically, humanly, factually, impossible. The man is the active participant in such an action and the woman is the passive one.

Well, they did, but not because of her....

Does this hold even if the man is unconscious, and the woman is not?

I'd argue that this pertains to the entire human race, really. I've met about 3 people who could admit they were wrong, and 2 of them are women.

---------- Post added at 08:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:35 AM ----------

In my house I'm the fire-builder/keeper. And traditionally it was women who kept the hearth fire going.

Such a thing is hardly possible, but if it happened it still would not be rape. At worth it would be molestation, but it is such an unlikely occurence I think it is pointless to think about it.

I respectfully disagree with you, SF, especially since this thread is partially about busting up stereotypes. I have had my man be a completely passive partner where I put his penis inside me and rode him silly. This not being rape, he was completely passive on purpose. In most states, according to research, the gender of the victim and perpetrator has been removed from the legal definition of "rape" because of these very issues and disagreements. This being the last thing I'm going to say about this topic since it has derailed the OP...

Women can't be guaranteed the same salary for the same job :lol:

Women cannot create concentration camps

Why couldn't they?

Because the level of aggression, hatrid and lust for destruction necessary for such things only exists in males.

The female human is the most creative force on the plannet

The male human is the most destructive.

_

Some people might think I am sexist, but I stand by these things which are observably true.

It is the case that, for example in the German extermination and concentration camps, there were some female guards - but only a male controlled society could have created such an atrocity.

In all human history, all wars have been caused and in the most part fought by men.

---------- Post added at 03:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:43 PM ----------

And you might as well ask "why cant a dog play the piano?" His paws are capable of hitting the notes just as a humans are... but in fact we know dogs do not play the piano. And women do not make wars.

As with the rape issue I disagree. I think your perception of the human female is off, far off from reality.

Let's just agree to disagree.

But take a look at this

Or this

I am happy to debate my view fully - but I think it should be in another thread if you want to. Otherwise this thread will be full of discussion about only one aspect.

I'll pass, it's a pointless debate. You believe one thing and I another. I fail to see either of us changing our views.

Dude, Strange: you're British. Boadica? Warrior-queen of the Britons who gave the Romans quite a few ruined night's sleep?

Joan Of Arc? Roxane the Scythian? Mary Bonny? Fa Mulan? Golde Meir? Margaret Thatcher? Do any of these names ring a bell, or did y'all hang onto the Malv...sorry, Falklands, with the kind help of Mr. Churchill's ghost?

As for women being incapable in regards to concentration camps, I give you Ilsa Koch, The Bitch Of Buchenwald. You might also investigate the curious case of Countezza Erzabet Bathory.

And that stuff about women not being able to slaughter animals? C'mon out to the farm. Mom leaves the beheading of chickens to me, but she shoots 2-5 deer every year: cleans 'em and butchers 'em too. You have no business making pronouncements about what women can do until you've seen a 65-year-old grandmother elbow-deep in deer guts and flirting with her husband the whole time.

And, as ever and always, do you have any sources for your pronouncements? Sorry, no; "Common sense," or "observation" or "everyone knows" do not count as sources.

Come on, Dunedan, those women were all clearly psychologically male. :rolleyes:

And Leonardo da Vinci was probably psychologically female, like most artists and inventors.

I should know, because I'm psychologically female.

Would you like to come to my tea party?

Boudica was a freedom fighter, not a warlord.

Joan of Arc was a general, and was probably pyschologically male (I believe she dressed as a man for example)

Maggie Thatcher and Golde Meir did not make war on their own, they were leaders of countries involved in conflicts. And in the case of the English attack on the Argentinian Maldives island, this was hardly a major conflict, more like gunboat dimplomacy from a fading empire unwilling to accept its diminishing world power.

I havent heard of the others

As for Countess Bathory - it is widely held that the accusation of bathing in blood etc are nonesence that the crimes she was alleged of committing were cooked up. There is no real evidence that she was anything more than a victim.

Ilsa Koch - as I said, yes there were examples of females guards. But a female society would not have created the the concentration camp.

The American female soldier (named England?) who was involved in the pictures of torture of Iraqi prisoners is probably the most widely known and blamed person in the whole sorry incident. Yes, she was guilty of course. But more guilty than the commanding officers that allowed or encouraged the abuse? I think not.

_

Society accepts the cases of transvestites and transsexuals who are born as male but feel themselves to be emotionally female. It can go the other way, and some women are doubtles born as emotionally male. These are the kind of women (rare as it is) who are involved in cases like this.

Women can't be understood by Strange Famous. ;)

I don't think this is derailing a thread, because there are multiple stereotypes relating to women and sex that could use some busting up. This is one of those issues. The idea that the woman is always a passive party and the man always an active party in sexual intercourse is completely indefensible, sexist nonsense. It also provides an interesting segway into the use of language in the discussion and the way it shapes stereotypes.

We define sex by the masculine role of penetrating, so of course folks see the man as the active party when the idea of sex comes up. It's built into the language. Let us change the terminology. Let us define sex as the act of enveloping. No longer will the man penetrate the woman, the woman will envelop the man. The vagina envelops the penis. The woman is the active party and the man passive. The woman is the actor, doing the enveloping, and the man is passive, the object being used in the act of sexual intercourse.

To speak of sex in terms of active parties and passive parties is a matter of the language you choose to frame the debate. Because men have been framing the debate for years it seems that framing it from the masculine perspective is the most natural way (to me at least) it is still however arbitrary. There are no passive parties in act of sexual intercourse. This is the crux of the issue of female rape as well. Determining the active and/or passive party is irrelevant to whether or not a rape has taken place, the issue is one of being able to freely consent to being an active party.

Great, I can't stop thinking about Pacman with a clitoris on his forehead.

Speaking of something in the terms which are opposite to reality doesnt change reality

If A fire burns in the woods we would say that the fire consumes the tree's. If someone says the tree's catch fire on purpose, it doesnt change reality. It is merely a false statement.

The sexual act - between a man and a woman, is one where the man is active and the female is passive. This doesnt mean that the woman has to lie still and think of England. The woman can in every case be as or more energetic.

But the actual biology determines that the man enters the woman. Biologically a woman cannot rape a man. I think even in the case where a woman uses a dildo on a man against his will, this would probably be defined as a type of sexual assault.

A woman cannot rape a man in any situation where the penis penetrates the woman in any case, this is certain. This is true if he is given a "cock ring", if he is drugged, if he has a gun to his head.

Pointing a gun at the man's head and demanding he performs sexually certainly is criminal in almost any society - but it isnt rape.

Just think of it as a cockhug.

---------- Post added at 12:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:07 PM ----------

You're thinking that rape is purely: being sexually penetrated without consent, unless you are male.

Rape, however, is more like engaging in sexual intercourse without consent.

But it's difficult to reason with you because you ascribe to binary opposition in these matters. (I'm referring specifically about your comments regarding male/female creative/destructive, etc.)

I think we can go a little further, although it is a harder case to argue, because we live in a male (ie capitalist) society, it is hard to be certain about what life would be like in a female (ie communist/utopian) society WITHOUT relying on making judgments about the essential human nature of people

Violence is alien to the female pyschology entirely.

Yes, it is true that woman can and do commit acts of violence (although of course far less and far less brutal than men) - but insofar as this does happen it is a characteristic of being forced to live in a male capitalist society and under the influance of the dominant male capitalist dogma and conditioning of society (which preaches competition, conquest, violence, power as socially good and necessary)

It is against the true nature of the female to engage in any act of physical or emotional violence.

Good grief! :surprised:

It could be argued that capitalism is female because it is the female that demands from the male resources to be supplied for their offspring.

And that communism is male, because males would rather have resources shared to increase their chances to have sexual access to females, and possibly multiple females.

It's quite logical when you think of it that way.

But practically speaking all of this is nonsense.

And if you want to see how absent violence is in the female psyche, try doing something nasty to her child.

Rape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Males can not control whether they get an erection or not. case in point Three women abduct, rape man in Karachi - Pakistan - World - The Times of India

So yes strange, men can be and are raped.

I can control whether I have an erection or not to a degree (think about something sexy, think about something unsexy), and I suspect most men are the same.

well biology disagrees with you

See page two http://www.wsu.edu/~biol251/topic8.pdf

So, no you can't control your erection

Yep, I COMPLETELY agree, there is NO way you got false information. The internet is always accurate!

**goes off to google search for a pregnancy test**

Erm...Quite so. Speaking about something in opposite terms which are just as much an accurate reflection of reality also doesn't change the reality, it just reflects the arbitrary nature in in the choice of our terms, which was the point.

The sexual act - between a man and a woman, is one where the man woman is active and the female male is passive. This doesn't mean that the woman man has to lie still and think of England. The woman man can in every case be as or more energetic.

But the actual biology determines that the man enters the woman woman surrounds the man.

Women can't look good bald.

Unless she's Shanaid O'Connor..................nothing compares,,,,,,nothing compares....to you......

or Demi Moore U-RAH!

If you haven't seen The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo believe me when I tell you that a woman can indeed rape a man.

read the book (and hated it, was almost embarassed for the writer)

I assume you are talking about Lisbeth and the parole officer?

This would be a case of aggivated sexual assault in my opinion. She doesnt rape him, because she doesnt have a penis. She assaults him sexually, and the tattoo would probably count as wounding.

She certainly could be looking at 3 to 5 years for her crimes (although there is somewhat significant provocation)... but she isnt a rapist.

However, the parole office was, if you recall?

A conversation between Strange Famous & Naturalmanhood would be.....

I gotta go. Somewhere. I need air.

Women are thriftier than men.;)
Example: I never wasted any meat when I hunted deer. I shot most all of them, in the head.
I was wearing Victoria Secret underwear beneath my blaze orange.
(I must be one of those cross-dressing psychologically male...critters.)

What if she has a psychological penis?

You cannot commit imaginery rape. It is actually one of the most revolting crimes in existence.

Well, perhaps you can imagine my confusion, then, as to why you would undermine the seriousness of it.

Imagine, if you will, a female schoolteacher taking advantage of a minor male student.


Oh, wait, that's just "some kind of sexual assault," or, perhaps, an extremely rare case where a psychologically male female did a male thing. I guess it depends on whether the teacher penetrated the boy? It's such a difficult concept because the teacher doesn't have a cock, and women are clearly nothing but a creative force in the world. But does it even matter? The boy being such a violent destructive force, no matter how dormant and with potential yet to be fulfilled?

Uh, yeah. I'd like to see YOU and the other men here go through some of the more painful experiences women endure in their life.
http://www.droliverlynn.com/read_write/mirena.gif

You see that thing? I had it WILLINGLY inserted into my uterus. Do you know how much it fucking hurt to have my uterus measured for it, to have my cervix dilated, and then to have it put in? How much it's hurt since then just in the process of my uterus getting used to having a foreign object inside? Yeah. And the pain endured for that process is NOTHING compared to natural childbirth. It's also nothing compared to kidney stones, which if you haven't experienced those--well, then you have no concept of what real pain feels like.

And yeah, a woman can rape a man. I know of an instance within my own circle of friends where a guy I know was raped. Essentially, he would have never chosen to let this girl have sex with him had he been sober; she got him really fucking drunk to the point of near-incapacitation, stimulated him, and climbed on top. He doesn't even remember it.

A female teacher taking advantage of a male student is just that, taking advantage, maybe an abuse of authority

But the male student likely does not even see himself as a victim, and nor does most of society. If the average 15 year old male reported to his parents or peer group that he had been seduced by a 28 year old female teacher - they would likely congratulate him, and the teacher thought of as a sad case who couldnt find a real man so had to settle for a 15 year old. If a 15 year old female reported the same thing the teacher would be treated, rightly, as a predator and a sexual pervert who should most likely be imprisoned.

You might think thats unfair, but the reality is thats the way most people see the world. Thats the way human beings are.

Biologically and physically, men always want to have sex at every possible opportunity - even if emotionally or for social reasons they dont

Every time a man penetrates a woman he is BIOLOGIALLY CONSENTING to the act - whether he wants to tell his mates afterwards "oh I was so drunk, she took advantage of me" or she used a cock ring on him or whatever else.

Thats why there's a difference.

Biologically consenting? WTF does that mean? He had a physiological response that enabled sex?

Without being overly crude, what do you think it means?

If his body didnt consent, he would not have a hard on. If he physically did not want sex, he would be unable to have it.

The idea that the uncontrollable physiological response of obtaining an erection could demonstrate the conscious act of consenting is laughable. There are plenty of ways to induce an erection in a man against his will, the simplest of which is likely asphyxiation. A man who cannot properly be considered to consent to anything, such as someone unconscious, is also perfectly capable of obtaining and maintaining and erection.

Strange, I know you hate science and all, but your statement is simply not true. As I quoted earlier, erection is an involuntary response.

Well, I must be some kind of medical freak then. Because I find my erection is not involuntary at all. It is a result of sexual arousal.

I suppose you would have me believe for most men it just has a mind of its own? And it is some kind of coincidence that it just happens to get hard when men want to have sex?

Come on, be realistic. I am not saying that a man can summon or dismiss an erection at the snap of his fingers, but it happens when someone is sexually excited. If they are not sexually excited (ie - if they are not biologically consenting) then it wont get hard

_

I 100% guarantee that if I was to have a knock on my door now, and a sexy woman was there and she grabbed me and started french kissing me etc, my cock would get hard. I wouldnt have consented to do anything, but my body would consent. I might not want to do anything with her (because for example I dont want to cheat on my girlfiend - ie an emotional reason) - but my physical reaction would be as I described.

If the same thing happened but a man grabbed me and kissed me, I would not have any erection, my body would not be consenting to this assault (and of course I would immediately take steps to remove the pervert from the house with justified violence)

Women cannot understand the concept of male bonding.

Strange Famous is the king of creating a kick-ass debate. Hands down.

Damn right. I'll back up what snowy says.
I've passed a couple kidney stones in the last few years. And I now have no intention of giving birth to a child. Fuck. that. shit.

That's all I'll contribute to this thread though. I'm feeling anti-men these days, so making my blood boil is not a good idea...:no:

So by this statement you claim that you've never woken up with an erection?

I was thinking of, say, an 8-year-old male. Would his parents congratulate him?

So you don't think a 28-year-old female who takes advantage of an 8-year-old boy is a "predator" or "sexual pervert" who should most likely be imprisoned?

You've already demonstrated that you don't quite understand how most people view the world or the way human beings are.

Is this Kinsey or Freud? This applies to men and their mothers too, right?

If a woman is sexually aroused but decides not to have sex, has she already consented because she's already lubed up and ready to go? Should she pay up?

There is a difference between the body being aroused and the decision to not have sex. You even said so yourself above.

You describe below a scenario about a sexy woman barging in and forcibly arousing you. That's not voluntary arousal. That's automatic. Otherwise, you'd be able to "turn if off" or you'd have been able to "leave it off" in the first place despite her tongue.

The reason why men want to have sex is because of the sexual response, i.e. arousal. In most cases, erections are part and parcel of the sexual response. Try being aroused without an erection next time. Try resist being aroused around something you find sexy, touching in particular...if it's so voluntary.

Couldn't you just have said no to the erection?

People, don't you guys realize the pain threshold argument is really psychological? A woman from the burbs can last as long as a man from the same place in a torture chamber. It all depends on their life experiences. A woman conditioned to withstand torture can last longer than a man not conditioned and to argue how long a man and a woman from the same place can stand what amounts of pain is futile because not all men are the same and most certainly not all women.

If men had some sort of menstrual cycles and had to deal with cramps I believe just as many men as women would opt for an IUD.

Why couldn't we stick to normal regular stereotypes like steak and arnold schwarzenegger movies?

And I suppose it exists only in human animals, whereas other female animals and their inherent protection of young would not be considered true nature when they attack and kill anything they view as a threat to their offspring, that is the true nature of violence in women, but violence still exists in women outside of the nurture/protect realm also.

Though it is true that men are, biologically, more aggressive in general than women, this does not negate violence in women. I teach my boys to turn the other cheek and then if they are hit in that cheek also, to defend themselves, period. I tell them that a woman will kill them just as easily as a man and they have a responsibility to defend themselves, regardless of gender. They are taught that violence in any form is unnecessary and that self-defense should only go so far as it is necessary to remove the threat. Women can be very, very violent, it is not against our nature to be violent, it is merely against our wish in evolving humanity, most women like life as that is our gift to men, to present them with the life they create inside of us, but don’t think for one moment that it is against my nature to protect that life, wherein I possess my violent nature, the nature to protect life, and I will protect children and the weak and innocent to my own death, violently. :thumbsup:

I don’t agree with all in the site listed (especially the anti-feminism bs, though I am not pro nor anti feminism, I do not see feminism as anti-male), but it shows a lot of female violence. And physical child abuse does fall in the hands of women, in general, more so than men.

Bull Busters. Violent Women : Underground Productions : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

What exactly does that mean?

An 8 year old male would not be capable of penetrative sex in most cases.

In an 8 year old male was molested by a 28 year old woman this would be assault, peadophilia, and a crime we would rightly want to see the woman locked up for a long time for. But it wouldnt be rape.

I dont know how much more simply I can make the statement. Whatever scenario, however badly the woman behaves and however innocent the male is, it isnt possible. Rape is defined as penetrative assault. A man can be raped by another man, but not by a woman.

_

In terms of the scenario with the sexy woman grabbing me... there are different levels of consent. I would be biologically consenting but not verbally consenting. As a society we require verbal consent to be in place or implied - and this is quite right.

But in that scenario, I could either tell the woman to get off or push her off.

I'd say women can't shoot, but then there's that Glock Sponsored Kick-ass competitive shooter.

I'd say women can't rape, but I've had studly friends complain of women 'forcing themselves' on them (hah, like men really need much prodding).

Shrugs. There'll be something I'm sure of eventually =P

:bowdown:May I bask in your glory sir?:bowdown:

OHHH!!!! That's where all the confusion is coming from. Had I known you didn't know what rape was from the start, we could have cut this conversation much shorter. Rape has got nothing to do with penetration, other than it's part of the definition of the act of sexual intercourse. Rape is when sexual intercourse takes place with at least one party being non-consenting. Either they were unable to consent (physically incapacitated or ineligible to consent such as the case of small children) or their withholding of consent was ignored.

PS: Anyone who can get an erection can have penetrative sex (I suppose this is in opposition to unpenetrative sex? whatever that is). Males are capable of erections from birth.

Because of the element of consent, rape can even take place within the context of marriage. According to Hines and Malley-Morrison (2005), 10-14% of wives have been raped by their husbands; the figures are inexact because it's so difficult to get a precise measurement of something as complicated as marital rape. The text also states that there is reason to believe this could go the other way, as violence is perpetrated by women against men (7% of men have been physically assaulted by an intimate partner), but that no studies have been done on it.

The Hines/Malley-Morrison text also includes a case study of a young man who had been raped since childhood by his grandmother; she had done the same to his father and uncles as they were growing up.

And what Idyllic had to say about women being the predominant physical abusers of children is also true, unfortunately (Sedlak and Broadhurst, 1996; among others).

I happen to have all of these statistics on hand because I'm actually studying for a final right now in a class called Child Abuse and Neglect; it also includes interpartner violence.

Epic fail, luv.
Females will kill anything threatening their child.
And then there is Lorena Bobbit and the chick that drowned her children, Susan Something.
Belle Gunness, Mary Ann Cotton, Rosemary West, Aileen Wuronos...
Women can be extremely violent.
Otherwise, there would be no need for the max security female prisons. One of which I visited and let me tell you, there are plenty of sane women that are there. Perfectly sane. And extremely dangerous when they have a reason to be.
Human beings have violence in their "psychology". Sorry, luv.
It's what keeps us alive.

Women can't.... oh crap. I'm TRYING to get back to the OP. But, I'm having so much fun busting up stereotypes.
Oooooh.
Women can't fly (unassisted).
Women can't turn people into stone.
Women can't turn invisible.

HA! Beat that.

Until you're short-drop hanged (the appearance of erections and ejaculation in the condemned is well-known) or have your prostate electro-stimulated, or your blood-pressure suddenly rises due to an increased heart-rate (like panic), etc...

Bullshit. I seriously doubt all those hanged men were sexually excited.

Boudicca. Carla Faye Tucker. Lizzie Borden. Joan of Arc. Shall I go on?

I wouldn't call Carla Faye Tucker "less brutal" than anybody short of Andre Chicatillo. The woman murdered two people with a pickaxe, bashed them both to a pulp, and reported experiencing orgasm with each blow.

Hmm. So how do you explain violent women? Oh, right, they're "Psychologically male" because of immersion in a cruel Capitalist society that is dominated by men. Odd, then, that so much child-abuse, murder, sexual assault, etc....commited by women exists in the historical record from before Capitalism came into being.

Please present evidence, then, that Contezza Bathory was a victim of anything. If it is, as you say, "widely held," some evidence shouldn't be hard to find. The primary-source records are very clear. The trial transcripts are very clear. Only one accredited historian, Lazslo Nagy, has disputed these findings, and his view of the incident is not borne out or supported by any other historian of whom I'm aware.

Hair-splitting. Both were in charge and could have stopped the bloodshed at any time. Neither one did.

You are aware, aren't you, that Argentina invaded the Falklands? You know, flag at the whaling station and all that?

It was a "major" enough conflict to require two carriers, several boatloads of troops, and the borrowing of advanced AIM-9 missiles from the United States. And even with all that, the only thing which saved the British forces was the fact that fewer than 50% of Argentine anti-ship weapons exploded and the Argentines had to keep large percentages of their land forces on the Chilean border.

1: Define "psychologically male" and provide sources.

2: You're in no position to diagnose anyone from the distance of history.

3: She "dressed as a man" because nobody made armor with built-in brassieres. For formal events, such as the crowning of King Charles at Rouen and her numerous appearances before French and English courts, St. Joan dressed as a woman. In fact, attempting to -force- her to wear men's clothing (by confiscating her own, feminine attire) was one of the final humiliations heaped upon her at trial.

The distinction you attempt to draw is immaterial, irrelevant, and intellectually dishonest. You never said anything about "warlords." You said:
Which is a definitive statement: "this fact is 100% true all of the time." My examples, Boadicca being the closest to your own home, show that your definitive statement is not true. Boudicaa "made" very effective war against the Romans for quite some time. Joan Of Arc made -very- effective war against the English; she -won- her war! Anne Bonney made "little wars" against Spanish, as did her friend and shipmate Mary Reed. Both women were known as "hellcats" and ferocious killers. Fa Mulan made such a little badass of herself that she got written into "Romance Of Three Kingdoms" as a Wei general "who frightened all men but Zhang Fei, so great was her prowess with the throwing sword," and the de-gored Disneyfied version of her story pissed off the Chinese so badly that a major-studio live-action biography of her is due for release this year. And I have personally known any number of female wrestlers, boxers, MMA fighters, fencers, Kung-Fu artists, shooters and hunters who would -love- to go 5rds with you after reading some of your crap about women and their capabilities. Got one little redheaded Sabreur in mind right now who'd cut you to pieces before you even saw her coming. Trust me: -that- little hellcat is a borne killer. Her technique actually isn't very good, but killer instinct? -THAT- she has in spades, and I've got the scars to prove it.

Women apparently can't get this thread back on track.


Can we take the rape stuff somewhere else?
I somehow don't think this is what GG had in mind, correct me if I'm wrong...

Hey noodle, you beat me to it, I was going to say the exact thing .

Now, back to the stereotypes.

Women can't drive.
Women can't have platonic friendships with men.

Bust away, folks.

My SO drives just as well as or better than most men I know. She prefers to drive manual transmission; can parallel park, usually on the first try or two (even downtown in tight quarters); and is generally confident, skilled, courteous, and safe. And as far as I know, she has a clean driving record.

I have never fallen in love with, nor have I slept with, any women with whom I've had a platonic friendship.

1)http://blogs.suntimes.com/sportsprose/patrick.jpg

2)I though the stereotype was that men cannot have platonic friendships with women, not the other way around.

oops, you are right, I goofed on that. That's what I was thinking but it came out backwards.

And yeah, I know women can drive. I was just offering up some stuff to bust.

This is the last rape post I'll make.

Strange, it's obvious from the majority of your posts that you have absolutely no idea what the hell your talking about in virtually all aspects of your debating.

You have been proven legally and biologically wrong in this thread. Regardless of how you feel about your own erection, or the law in general, you have been proven %100 wrong. Please just accept it and move on. It is also obvious that this is just another troll attempt.

Maybe he's just a bigot? Either way, it ain't good.

Women cannot take less than 3 hours in the bathroom.
Women cannot tell a story without sidetracking to the point of no return.

I think it'd be good if therape thing went somewhee else. I came here to be sexist, damnit!

Where's telekinetic? He (and some other folks) can vouch for the fact that I take about 2 minutes to get dressed. I was on cam in chat in a bikini, went upstairs to put on real clothes to go to the store, and came back downstairs in so short of a time that everyone in chat commented on it. I also take less time in the shower than my SO, and less time on the toilet.

Yeah, yeah, yeah... I always hear women say this like its a great mystery or something.

C'mon, girls... YOU try to get brownie batter out of a Wookie with some wadded tissue.

Women can't keep their head clean for shit.

I still have nightmares wherein I'm cleaning the female heads on the island...the horror, the horror.

I've got a wet one for ya.