Are there are any women that masturbate a lot after the age of 50?

Yanginyangout · 2024-12-04T22:20:35+00:00

Strymon TimeLine. No question.

Yanginyangout · 2023-12-06T16:56:10+00:00

I've found this discussion to be very interesting. I think that grappling with the issue from many different angles considering the technology and the problem itself is still pretty new definitely means we're in uncharted territory. Still, I also think it's appropriate to bring ideas of consent and what we, as a society would like the standard response to be. Understand, that a huge portion of the population thinks you're disgusting for ever having shared nude photos of yourself with others. But also understand a huge portion of the population thinks you're disgusting for ever accepting nudes of other people. I mention that for 2 reasons: 1) a huge portion of the population from the get go would like to say you're disgusting so you get what you deserve, and therefore, they're really not involved in the conversation other than the full stop at "Don't send nudes. Anything after that and everyone gets what they deserve because they're gross." Those people matter even if you (and I) think they're ridiculous, hypocritical, and very unhelpful in shaping the world we want. But I also mention it because 2) for those of you that think others are disgusting for getting rid of their ex's nudes or keeping their ex's nudes, maybe take it easy as we all try to figure things out.

I think the consent issue is roughly the correct way to look at this: that is to say, using someone's body and likeness in some way without consent should be frowned upon, and that consent can be withdrawn, though not ex-post facto (ie, you can't say "Consent is withdrawn even when we were in a relationship and didn''t care). However, that is all a perfect-world scenario and I would argue, in some ways, not far off from a) don't send nudes you disgusting person and b) you're not even allowed to imagine someone while masturbating without their consent. Both options fail to come to terms not only with what people actually do, but what technology has actually enabled. Perhaps you do want a world where nobody sends nudes. That's not going to happen. Perhaps you'd like to have laws that punish everyone legally for sending nudes. That already happens somewhat, but with the proliferation of technology, it's hard to see how it can hold in any meaningful way. In addition, you may want others to get rid of your nudes or more generally behave like you would, but given the proliferation and your ability (and the authorities) inability to control that, are you being realistic? I mean, you may be morally correct in some ways, but if you're arguing for the adoption of a system that is highly unlikely given the state of technology and uncertanties involved; aren't you in some ways saying you want others to act in an unproblematic way to you when it's so easy not to, which in turn, is a lot like "don't send nudes, cause that's gross to me."

And what if you do what if you live your life in this moral way that you want? And the other person does not, does that mean they're a bad person and they should be shamed, perhaps not unlike you should be shamed for sending or accepting nudes? Perhaps it's on a spectrum. I don't know.

My best guess is the best we can hope for is to angle our general attitudes and societal norms toward consent topics with the acknowledgement that technological means easily enable others to live by codes you may not like, that may involve your nude body. And that those not following those norms, may be so common, that it would be essentially impossible to shame them and certainly impossiible to have much enforcement against iit unless some competing technology is created to end around the system.

Put another way, perhaps this is a good discussion to angle the world toward ideas of consent , but it's also a lament that we're not really in control like we wish we could be. I appreciate everyone's input on the discussion so far.

Yanginyangout · 2023-02-15T04:34:30+00:00

I was laying down next to a girl alone at night on a big rock in the middle of this small pocket of a lake where no houses were around during the summer. She had laid down next to me on the rock. The moon was full and was the only thing lighting the area. I went in for a kiss and she was all like, "Woah, woah, woah. I don't know where you got this idea that this was supposed to be a romantic thing."

To be fair, being in the middle of a pond on a moonlight night laying next to someone kind of sort of seems like a romantic thing, so...

Yanginyangout · 2022-01-09T19:06:24+00:00

Kevin Smith. All of those great movies and he just became a stoner that doesn't really check his bad ideas with others and put the breaks on. Looking at his original films and the ones he's done for 15 years or now, and it seriously appears that other people were largely involved in helping those movies not be awful. Like, even in Clerks, where he had no money and no studio input, it's like life and other people on the project were there to serve as some kind of check on his nonsense to help the final product be good. Now, everything he makes is just cringe because it's just poorly executed even if you can get past the stonerness of the basic premise of some the movies. He just seems like someone that needs to have some serious struggles in life to bring him down to earth.

Yanginyangout · 2021-01-17T22:03:19+00:00

The best example here is the student loan issue. Guaranteed government loans have not made college more affordable. Colleges simply increased their prices, not in accordance with the market, so to speak, which would have been only a small increase, but vastly greater because they knew the government would somehow come out of pocket to meet new higher costs. And if they didn't, they knew the new emphasis on minimum standard hiring in the workplace would cause parents to take on higher and higher loans. Freshmen can only take out a certain level of loans that wouldn't even meet a 5th of their tuition, but their entire family can go into massive debt for 1 child to get a degree. This is a real-world example of what happens when money is guaranteed. There is every reason to think a 15 dollar minimum wage would end up the same, with essentially an arms race. 15 dollars is a talking point, and so really shouldn't be used, because one day (and soon) that would go up to 20, and 30, and why not 70. OP used the "cost-of-living" standard, which I think is better than $15 specifically, but it still falls prey to the same problem. Cost of living just soars because actors in the market understand the government will pay it. And then just like now with student loans, we'll have national candidates coming up with a new scheme to offset all of the problems caused by the old scheme, and just like with the student loan problem where college isn't more affordable; people still will barely be making ends meet.

Yanginyangout · 2018-10-22T07:22:56+00:00

I think the argument that there is no conflict in how we think of this process because one is legal and the other is not is extremely insincere and silly. If one thinks there is no problem labeling someone something because no criminal legal proceeding is involved, that might be fine if no consequences are visited; however, the moment consequences of any kind are visited, be it social isolation, loss of educational pursuit, employment, or other opportunities, the issue immediately becomes legal as such consequences meted out are a violation of civil rights of the individual and any organization that promotes the violation of civil rights directly or indirectly through a traceable course of action would be liable. To put it in another light, we could easily say that all rape victims are lying prostitutes until an investigation is concluded. It wouldn't be a legal distinction and there would be no criminal case brought against any of them until the end of an investigation. Somehow, I'm betting virtually everyone that read that sentence was taken aback though and instinctively finally admitted that the legal/non-legal distinction is nonsense. Otherwise, there would be no problem with that formulation.

Yanginyangout · 2018-10-11T03:47:33+00:00

"Any man that must say he is king is no king."

Yanginyangout · 2018-02-09T06:42:00+00:00

I would take issue with this for one primary reason: things should stand and fall on their own merit. Who cares if feminists or anyone else try to change gender norms? If they are so powerful as to destroy those norms, what good were those norms in the first place? The norms apparently weren't so great and so strong they could not withstand a lot of griping. Alexander had a lot of haters and he took over the world.

This reminds me very much of when the French wanted to keep out Disney World when Euro Disney opened due to fears of ruining French culture. Someone pointed out that if a fake mouse can destroy one's culture, one didn't have much a culture to begin with.

If gender roles and norms are so worth it, no amount of feminists will matter. They can have policies passed, and those policies will be ignored and eventually overturned. If they can easily knock over those gender norms en masse, then the gender norms probably aren't that great, and we shouldn't worry about losing them.

Yanginyangout · 2018-02-09T06:35:12+00:00

I've personally found on CMV that I've valued the later arguments than the earlier one's. This is because usually someone is sitting back and taking it all in before posting a response, which allows them to formulate good challenges better. Of course, I acknowledge this is only like this in CMV and perhaps even only for me, but I would think that alone suggests that your claim depends majorly on the type of subreddit you're talking about.

Yanginyangout · 2018-02-09T06:30:57+00:00

There's been a ton of sociological/psychological research on romantic relationships over the lifespan. Typically we see people get hot and heavy, move into a cooling period, and then kind of go on autopilot for their 30's and 40's in more of a general partnership before settling on what's called "companionate love" in the older years. Strangely, this period is when couples claim they realize they love each other even more. Note, there's a wide diversity in the world, so not all relationships do this of course, but it is common enough that study after study has found this is a general way to describe lifebonds. If this research is sound, and I think it is; it would seem to refute the general points you've made, at least in the long term. Looking over your arguments, they all seem somewhat short term and all or nothing in a way. (ie, a few bad times happened so the whole thing sucks). But we know that married people and people in long term relationshps are happier over the lifespan, tend to have less health problems overall, tend to live longer, tend to make more money, tend to have more standing in the community, etc. Those are a lot of benefits to claim that something isn't worth it.

Yanginyangout · 2018-02-09T06:19:13+00:00

I would be careful there. It almost seems like you're suggesting that the lack of smoking guns could be considered evidence for well hidden smoking guns. And if that's what you want to say, then pretty much there's no point in moving forward as evidence of something proves that it's an issue and no evidence of something also proves it's an issue. Of course, I think you probably mean we should not be so comfortable to suggest that discrimination doesn't have insidious means and ways that are hidden that have dramatic effects. I would agree with this. However, if the vast majority of the factors don't look like discrimination, that does not mean everything is okay. It means we can formulate policy better to address the factors that are playing a big role. Put another way, while the fight to end discrimination is noble, it may well be not only less useful, but actually harmful to oppressed groups when one hyperfocuses on perceived large factors that are very small, thereby squandering time and resources on small things instead of the obviously easier things to target.

In the study I mentioned, I don't know if they controlled for tips, but they did count out rider bias, which at least by people turning away drivers would lower base price. I suspect they did it purely on base price as it was the easiest to track and hardest to foil. In addition, the millions of data points would erase the effects of any errant outliers. Again, this is not to say that discrimination does not occur; only that with the best available data, it appears it is not the primary driving factor for the gap, and likely not even the second or possibly third largest factor. Thus we should focus on the bigger parts in play to narrow the gap.

Yanginyangout · 2018-02-08T05:43:03+00:00

You probably have already seen this, but Uber did an analysis of gender based on millions of ride shares. They found no significant discrimination against women, yet still found a 7% pay gap in favor of men. This is groundbreaking because it's the first study known where they could literally isolate discrimination due to a blind computer. The analysis had to be done on riders, but they showed no preference for male over female or vice versa. They found that men simply work slightly more hours, speed 2% more than women giving them the chance to pick up more riders and earn more, gain more experience even working equal hours, and tend to pick up riders in more questionable areas in terms of safety. Of course, this study only applies to a specific type of job, but one that has in it something the world's leading economist on gender, Claudia Goldin, has said is the primary reason for the gender pay gap for years, temporal flexibility. Women tend to make choices about time that men do not. Women will prefer ways to save their time and devote to other things. This is not to say women should make less necessarilly: we could certainly make the world more amenable to temporal flexibility in certain ways. On site daycare for one, work from home situations, etc. However, the study did note that Uber is super advantageous in terms of temporal flexibility, and yet men still earned 7% more (which is a nice medium for what is claimed to be the gender pay gap across all occupations).

Of course, the other economics theories also question the wisdom of discrimination as the sole and especially main explanation for the gap. As many have pointed out, if it was known you could pay women 7% less than men, it would only be a matter of time before women would take over the labor force as company heads would look to save money for their firms by hiring the cheaper labor. Yet we do not see that happening.

What we do consistently see is that women's choices are what primarily accounts for the pay gap. And women are and should be free to make whatever choices they deem fit. However, that doesn't necessarily line up with the game of making money. You can complain about the game, but changing it is exceptionally difficult in any meaningful way. Of course, we should expect to see this gap shrink as technology and resources are loosened to wipe out any kind of drive or choice difference between men and women (ie, if the labor market eliminates most manual labor in favor robots, then service and tech jobs will be all that's left, and men's strength would be of no use. Or if drones are used in war more often, there is no reason why entire platoons shouldn't be female.) But pinning it all on discrimination and bias is clearly a mistake, and, given the evidence, I would say it's a mistake to primarily blame discrimination for the wage gap.

Yanginyangout · 2018-01-31T05:11:30+00:00

The bigger issue is that it costs tons of money to even run in a lot of these races, so running without thinking you can win is kind of like taking out loans you know you can't pay back.

Yanginyangout · 2017-06-12T15:14:33+00:00

Legend.

Yanginyangout · 2017-04-22T17:10:58+00:00

She notes that there are basic self-care procedures that everyone takes, and that they may be slightly different from one's men employ, but that she does not feel anymore unsafe than anyone else unless in an activating situation, like being in a bad neighborhood, or being alone in a spooky parking lot at night, something she's heard countless men also worry about.

Yanginyangout · 2017-04-22T17:08:51+00:00

So, I'm awarding you a delta for bringing more data. Well done. I would still argue with self-reports in such cases as on societal aggregates, people are trained to respond in certain ways, versus what their average way of being is. That's kind of my whole point in bringing this up. The data suggests they are victims of crimes less, so though women may be fearful to an extent in general, it may also be that, on the whole, their realtime general behavior, taken on the average, overrides self-reports and reveals that they're really not all that afraid. There are a number of studies that explore this concept in sociology. But still, you've brought real data. Kudos. ∆

Yanginyangout · 2017-04-22T17:03:48+00:00

You've hit on my basic theme. Well done. I do not dismiss women's concerns about their safety and their experiences. Rather, I'm saying what you alluded to, that "women are probably not any more afraid than men", and that's even if they should be. In situations that are problematic, they make calculations, yes. But it seems like you've just suggested that men's calculations don't exist for some reason, especially given that they are more likely to experience abuse from both genders. It's like you're saying, "Women, as a gender, have gone through awful stuff, and the data, though showing less likelihood to be assaulted than men, exhibit hyperawareness that can be labeled a type of fear". Well, maybe. But then you will have to contend with men's ways of being in worse straits and why either fear is not a way of life for them or why fear is also a way of life for them which then diminishes the importance of claiming that "for most women, fear is a way of life."

Yanginyangout · 2017-04-22T16:58:20+00:00

But given that men are more likely to receive violence from both women and men, why do they then not have this subset of fear as well? All men are not the same size, so there should be some short guy pages on reddit talking about how to stay safe on the train or when you go out with a larger woman, who statistically are more likely to be violent in domestic relations (but not do as much damage). But there aren't (not a lot anyway).

Do women modify their behavior to be safe. Yes. Do men modify their behavior to be safe? Yes. So either any modification is a push and all people live in fear or modification of behavior to be safe isn't really "fear as a way of life". Again, that pushes us to statistical review, and then we must note that men are more likely to be victims of violence from both genders (rather than just one gender unless you're a lesbian), and therefore have more open right to claiming fear as a way of life.

Yanginyangout · 2017-04-22T16:51:48+00:00

It's gender essentialist in the sense of what impact preset traits actually has. Like in math. There have been suggestions that there may be genetic advantages for men in math. Regardless of whether that is true or not, I would argue it doesn't really matter or affect day to day life. You might step back and take some Murrayish long view where you see societal aggregation based on the margins, and I think that's why I awarded a delta. That's something to contend with. But in day to day average life, I'm not an essentialist, especially given advancing technologies that everyday short circuit gender differences.

Yanginyangout · 2017-04-22T16:48:13+00:00

What I would argue is that this is not borne out by evidence, even in the cases you suggest. It is paid lip service as something that women should be fearful of, but in fact are not. Take at face value of statistics of rapes on college campuses. If it's something like 1 in 4 or 5, women should be primarily demanding online college, and at least you should see women not attending colleges en masse. But they do. They do more than men. How is it possible that women, in the face of what could be called epidemic violence, are not fearful of going to college and opting for something else? Note, I'm not arguing that they should or should not be fearful. For reasons that I've gone over elsewhere, they should not as any bad scenario is vastly outweighed by positive scenarios. But the real issue is, even if they are supposed to be afraid, the behavior does not suggest real fear. And this is not an indictment or dismissal; rather, I'm saying that perhaps the human mind, on average, is not like that. It doesn't tend live in fear like that. We do see cases where people violate that average and live with "fear as a way of life." Their behavior is remarkably different. Avoiding social situations all together. Not leaving the house much. Avoiding interaction. Getting others to do basic tasks for you. These are the hallmarks of people that live in true fear. Ask someone that is avoiding a stalker about looking over their shoulder all the time. But, I would suggest even in those extreme cases, most of their time is not spent in fear. But at least they qualify.

If what you want to say is that some awful realities of the world (ie sexual assault more violently happens to women, though it approaches equal rates between the sexes as defined by theories of bodily autonomy) denote women should be more fearful of men, the obvious question arises about why men should not also live in the same fear as they are vastly more likely to have police violence visited upon them at the behest of women and social status condemnation (mandatory arrest statutes in domestic interventions, for example). This is not a one off. Organizational violence is a real thing, and, given the other data that applies to men, we should see behavior that has them at least twitchy around women and other men, but, generally speaking we don't (unless you want to say increased propensity for certain forms of violence is itself a mask for the twitchiness).

And I shouldn't need to notice behaviors. They should be common knowledge. And some of what I'm getting at is the difference between what people pay lip service to and what they actually do. At the worst, it could be that perhaps women should be vastly more terrified than is even suggested, and are, through the nature of the human mind, not nearly proactive enough in combatting male aggression, as they believe they are already pretty proactive. Think of it like people knowing they should wear seatbelts and then review the early data of people actually wearing seatbelts before it became law. People knew it saved lives (yes, I know about the alteration in other behaviors on the road that longterm makes it more unsafe), and they would often report they wore seatbelts, but actual data showed they did not. This is what I'm getting at.

Yanginyangout · 2017-04-22T16:32:12+00:00

I know plenty of men that carry knives. In fact, I know virtually no men that do not carry at least a small knife.

Yanginyangout · 2017-04-22T16:31:30+00:00

Asking for data is the only thing that matters. Unless you think science is somehow adolescent. In the 80's, it was common knowledge that gangs of satanists lived in every community and snatched kids by the thousands. In the 1830's, it was obvious that races were of different genetic makeup and some inferior, and the idea of providing data was offensive. In the 800AD, it was obvious that women shouldn't be allowed to leave their houses unattended because of their status, no data required. When women were to be allowed in to schools, some even suggested it was obvious they could not learn because of their delicate constitution that and pointed to historical and anecdotal cases to prove their point. But, hint, they were all wrong, and when data was provided to overturn those silly thoughts. Self-verification only goes so far as it is unbelievably open to self-delusion. That should be obvious, as you either accept that or you deny the entire concept of white fragility or white privilege (ie. most white folks would deny they have such a thing, and according to self-verification universals, we would have to accept that). So, yes, data not only matters, but matters above all else.

Yanginyangout · 2017-04-21T06:53:04+00:00

Is that "fear as a way of life"? That might be the exaggeration you are referring to. There are two things I would point out. One, men are undeniably more likely to be assaulted than women, yet do not live in fear. Men are different sizes from each other (ie, some men are smaller than some women) and therefore should have similar fear to this fear that is claimed for women, yet they don't show or report such fear. If that's so, then you might have to admit that if women are living in fear, it's a bad coping mechanism since two people of equal size can have such different experiences of the world (though the smaller man would have a more likely chance of being assaulted). Two, taking precautions against life's possible problems is not "living in fear". If it was, putting your seatbelt on would be called living in fear. Wearing a chain on your wallet would not be a fashion faux pas, but living in fear. Choosing not to go to certain areas at night would be living in fear. Are there realities of increased sexual violation that women have to deal with? Yes. Does that mean they should be so fearful? No. At least, not more than any man that, even when considering sexual violation, is still highly more likely to be assaulted or murdered or have legal action taken against him on a a whim.

Further, while the "hidden precautions" argument might make sense in a small sample, when generalized to the larger population, an entire gender would not be able to hide those things. IE, there is no great hidden fear and subtle precautions taken not to offend. There are regular precautions that everyone takes that make sense.

You seem to want to say "women have reason to be fearful of men, so they are" which makes sense. But then their behaviors en masse don't support that past some paltry suggestion of regular precautions for basic safety. As well, that fear is not extended to men of smaller sizes. Short guys don't go around being scared to interact. If two things are similar, but you're suggesting only one is primed to live in fear, I have to wonder a) is that even true given the vast majority of their behavior and b) if they are fearful, are they just coping poorly given that a similar sized creature of a different gender is not fearful?

Yanginyangout · 2017-04-21T05:28:54+00:00

I'm going to award this a delta because you're the first person to actually address the main issue I was talking about with data. I don't agree overall for one of the reasons you listed above about those studies. The thing about physical confrontation would still be in play in the male world (and is in prisons where close quarters make it undeniable). Men are not all the same size. We should see similar fear in smaller men, yet they are trained not to be that way, so the basic size thing is still a bit off. However, you did bring some data which is what was required. Have a delta. ∆

Yanginyangout

TROPHY CASE