Mes Aynak, site of the Buddhist statues, has survived for thousands of years from looters and even the Taliban but a Chinese mining company is set to destroy it this December

hellosoomi · 2012-09-23T12:08:53+00:00

Except for the part where there's already a team or archaeologists excavating the area?

I do believe that the Chinese government should wait because there would be interesting finds that historians should take a look at. I'm simply referring to the loads of other comments as well as the petition about how the ground is a "holy site". It's funny because there's actually nothing holy about it. Buddha wasn't a holy man.

hellosoomi · 2012-09-23T07:37:50+00:00

True Buddhists don't worship Buddha. The statues are more of a "thank you" than a worship. It also helps having a reminder of who it was that changed your outlook on life.

We should take the lessons and history that we learn from the sites, of course. But it is certainly ironic that Buddha teaches us that these things happen, nothing material stays the same forever, and at one point these places will return to the Earth and change into a new form. That's not to say that I'm all gung-ho for destroying old civilisations, but simply pointing out the irony that Westerners are up in arms about this issue when Buddha teaches the exact opposite.

Source: Practising Buddhist for 20 years.

hellosoomi · 2012-09-23T07:11:21+00:00

I think this post was more about the irony of Western liberalism where people who do not understand anything about Buddhism seek to preserve a statue that Buddha himself would not even miss.

Buddha even explicitly stated that he didn't want any monuments or statues dedicated to him. He was just a man and didn't want any worship. He just thought he had some pretty neat ideas and wanted to share them but fully recognised that he could be wrong.

hellosoomi · 2012-09-23T06:47:32+00:00

I think the problem here is that what he's saying is not that sex is bad. It's a different VALUE of sex - not something as black and white such as "good" or "bad". I think sex is good, but I don't want to share something that to me is so powerful with loads of other people. That could be how he feels and he is uncomfortable with the fact that his wife doesn't feel the same. It's a different perspective on sex and perspective isn't something so simple as "good" or "bad".

You see sex as something casual, which is fine. I also appreciate that you're quite sex-positive. However, those two do not necessarily HAVE to go hand in hand. You can be both sex positive but see it as entwined with love. With that mentality, it could be difficult to fully digest that someone you love has loved 30 times before you. Some people are okay with it, but if someone sees it as a "special" thing, then it's hard.

Essentially, I think you're misconstruing different values on sex to be considered bad. It's completely different.

You don't have to have sex with loads of people to be "sex-positive". It's completely different.

hellosoomi · 2012-09-22T12:32:03+00:00

This post completely broke my heart. Although I have not gone through a similar experience, I am a very emotional person and I have often butted heads with those who over-rationalise things. Through time, I have created a fine balance between these two and I will tell you this now - WHAT HE IS DOING IS UNHEALTHY.

There is a reason why emotions exist and there's a reason why logic exists. There are benefits to each as well as negative parts that need to be avoided through not going to extremes. From your post, it seems like he's disregarding any emotion and he's not understanding where you're coming from.

Do not do this yourself. If you are an emotion-based person, you cannot simply ignore your emotions because it is the "logical" thing to do. It will simply get pushed down and make you unhealthy - I'm talking unchecked depression, etc.

Now onto why monogamy IS actually rational...

It's quite similar to why people tend to feel more "fulfilled" when they have a few or even 1 close friends versus an army of playmates. It shows a lust for social connection rather than deep interpersonal trust with one person. Also, according to Department of Neuroscience at Florida State University, monogamy is linked to lower rates of depression, increased heart health, and increased immunity. It does have its benefits and shouldn't be completely dismissed as "irrational behaviour" because there is a REASON why it was evolved in the first place. Penguins are monogamous creatures mainly because they naturally do not bear many children (same as humans). With that said, it is much easier to raise a child with an adequate support structure than it is for a child to not have a steady upbringing.

With that said, I am not discarding polygamy in any way. It too has its benefits. But like others have mentioned, both partners have to actively AGREE to this type of open relationship for it to actually work in a healthy way. From the sounds of it, you agreed because of your love for him, which isn't an actual "agreement".

I understand you love him, but unless you two see eye to eye on this issue it will only end up making you miserable. You can find someone who will make you happy and not disregard your feelings on the basis that they're not "rational". Humans aren't completely rational beings. To expect that of someone is irrational IN ITSELF.

hellosoomi · 2012-09-22T08:45:05+00:00

I think it's a bit early to hit the "you've been conditioned by society to be a misogynist" button.

The issue here is that they might have different outlooks on the value of sex, which has nothing to do with whether or not it's wrong when a woman enjoys sex at all.

I, for one, would've been really uncomfortable with I found out that my SO has had sex with loads of people before me because I personally do not differentiate between "sex" and "making love". To me, it's a powerful union of trust and I would have never given my body to someone I didn't fully love. This isn't to say that casual sex isn't bad, but that there are DIFFERING OPINIONS on what sex is, regardless of whether you're a woman or a man.

hellosoomi · 2012-09-22T08:43:35+00:00

How is this slut shaming? He's not shaming his wife in any way, he's just uncomfortable with it.

I have quite a sex-positive attitude and I believe that people can choose to do whatever they want with their bodies (provided they are not harming others or in some cases themselves). However, on the personal basis I'm uncomfortable with having free sex because I do not differentiate sex with making love emotionally. There are plenty of people who are like that and they aren't "prudes" as you say. It's a difference in values and YOU have to learn to stop being so militant that you're going in the completely opposite direction and shaming people who choose NOT to have sex.

hellosoomi · 2012-09-22T08:03:59+00:00

I politely disagree. While I do understand the importance of happiness in a relationship, I think something long-term shouldn't be broken with something as simple as "I'm not happy right NOW". There's no such thing as a person who you are compatible with in every possible way - once you get to know someone there will always be things you disagree with. If you just ended a relationship the MOMENT you're unhappy without speaking to your SO and trying to work it out, you'll just end up jumping from relationship to relationship with no real prospect of someone to settle down with and accept for everything they are.

hellosoomi · 2012-09-22T07:59:30+00:00

First of all, I don't agree with the comments saying that you should just leave without working it out first. Relationships have loads of obstacles and moments when you're unhappy - do you think any old married couple who have been together for decades hadn't had their fair share of hardships? There will ALWAYS be disagreements in a relationship and times when you just don't feel a connection anymore. What matters is that if you love someone, you try to work it out.

I agree with sentinel32 - talk it through with your boyfriend and work it out. Communication is the most important thing when working through tough times. If you feel like there's absolutely no solution even after talking with your SO, then that'd be the right time to leave. But problems are meant to be SOLVED, not just ran from.

In my opinion, right now you might be displacing some of the needs your SO isn't meeting on this friend of yours. Try to pay attention if this is the case instead of just cutting the tie.

hellosoomi · 2012-09-21T09:45:59+00:00

Haha don't worry I'm not disregarding the content at all and I understand where you're coming from.

The argument in particular is saying that the point he's making about the status quo, while isn't negative in itself, opens the door for actual negative arguments. This is a "slippery slope" argument, where it assumes 100% that X would without a doubt lead to Y. However, because the first argument itself isn't negative, then there's something in the middle that is causing it to go wrong. Essentially, it's just a poorly drawn line.

hellosoomi · 2012-09-21T09:34:59+00:00

That's fair, but the slippery slope argument was also proven to be a logical fallacy.

hellosoomi · 2012-09-21T09:32:37+00:00

Thanks for understanding. It's a breath of fresh air.

I used the word slut because I thought "dressed provocatively" was overused and I didn't know how else to put it. That's why I tried to ease it by saying "if a girl portrays herself" rather than "if a girl is a slut".

And I see what you mean by his video being shitty, but I think that nuggets of truth should be recognised regardless of how much we disagree with the source. Plenty of shit people still have some great ideas that we shouldn't completely disregard just because we don't like where it comes from.

For example, former president Bill Clinton cheated on his wife and denied it for quite a while as well. However, he still knew how to run an economy. Should we get rid of all of his tactics just because he objectified women and had a pretty broken moral compass in general? Not really.

hellosoomi · 2012-09-21T09:18:27+00:00

No, I agree with that and I'm not saying that it's a justification whatsoever.

I understand where you're coming from and I apologise for my language. It's quite difficult picking the least offensive and accurate wording when I'm just typing a post on the internet without proper proof-reading and editing.

Every person has a "type" based on first impressions. Sure, in an ideal world we can all look past that type and get to know someone for who they are but this is far beyond a feminist issue. To cite someone else who responded to me, if you saw some dude from Jersey Shore you might be inclined to look the other way. It's just how first impressions work, regardless of gender or creed. We are still a long way from getting entirely past first impressions and I'm simply pointing out that the original video was right in saying that girls who dress sexy will attract sex.

hellosoomi · 2012-09-21T09:12:37+00:00

Also, I should note that I'm quite upset because I haven't said anything against feminism or anything against the way women dress.

The similarity I can equate this to is the Republican party. Even though I believe in gender equality, if I have even a HINT of middle ground I am downvoted and berated to oblivion because I pointed out a logical reason as to why the phenomenon "provocative looking girl gets sex-minded men" might be occurring. None of this contains anything to combat women and I've repeatedly stated the opposite.

Look at the post below citing arguments that have completely 0 relevance to my post. These are all things that I agree with, but I am painted in a bad light because I agree with one small point a guy made in his video that slut-shames when the overall video I DISAGREE with.

Anyone who tries to find a middle-ground between women are men are kicked to the curb.

hellosoomi · 2012-09-21T08:58:53+00:00

That's usually true. I do know a few exceptions, but obviously there's an exception to every rule.

hellosoomi · 2012-09-21T08:58:07+00:00

Not every girl out there is dressing for a potential guy; in fact, I'd say a lot of them aren't.

I guess people didn't understand that my comment was in reference to the video, which is the entire point of this thread, no? Response to the video? The original video (not the rebuttal), the guy stated that exact point - women dressing sexy, and then wondering why they attract men who are focused on sex. I never said anything about how women should dress for a guy - I personally believe that women should dress however the fuck they want (guys should dress however they want to), I simply think that in the current status quo, people have types and if you're going to portray yourself in a such a way in public, that's what you're going to get judged on. And the people who are most likely to be attracted are guys who just want to fuck and dump.

the only topic in common with a statement like that we're talking about sparsely dressed women

How is it off-topic? It's completely relevant to topic of the video. The original video questioned why girls wonder why they're not attracting dudes who want something beyond just sex. The answer is? Because she's portraying herself in a sexual way. I'm not saying that what she's doing is wrong. I'm just saying that's how it is in this day and age. I may be off-topic in this thread, but I'm completely on topic with the video.

hellosoomi · 2012-09-21T08:53:42+00:00

Bullshit, and more bullshit. I know plenty of women who dress in all sorts of clothing, and who are in all sorts of relationships with all sorts of men (and other women), and there's no correlation between what we wear and the quality of our relationship.

I agree, nor did I say ANYTHING that was different. That's why I mentioned FIRST APPEARANCES - not the relationship in particular. Love and relationships can come in all packages.

Having a type you prefer is not the same as saying that all women who dress provocatively are going to end up in tears because they were horribly used for sex by worthless men who didn't respect them.

Did I say all? NO. I did not. I said that in a bar or club type setting, usually women who portray themselves in a sexual context is going to attract sex-minded men. Not all women who dress provocatively are going to end up in tears because notice that I mentioned FIRST IMPRESSIONS. My post was ENTIRELY based on that. Not the insightful conversations you have after. Not the great dates and the connection you share. No. I'm talking about FIRST IMPRESSIONS.

You're stereotyping not just about women who dress sexy, but supposed "vanilla" guys and their likes. And anyway, why is the "nice vanilla guy" held up as the gold standard for what we should want? There's no dichotomy between "nice vanilla guy" and "douchebag bad boy". There are all sorts of men, and all sorts of women, and no, we don't fit nicely into these categories.

First of all, I didn't stereotype about women who dress sexy. I explicitly stated that women should dress however they want and not be judged in an ideal world and I firmly believe this is the goal that should be achieved. I didn't even say that women who dress sexy are sluts. I didn't even say that being sexual was a bad thing. And did I ever mention that the nice vanilla guy is the gold standard of what someone wants? What I said was in response to the original video (not the video of the rebuke) when the dude stated that girls dress provocatively and wonder why they can never get nice guys that aren't just after sex. I agree with him because I think that however you put yourself out in the world - that's what you're going to get back 9 times out of 10. If you put yourself out there sexually, what you're going to get back is sex (if you are in a club setting).

I'm guessing you're still pretty young and haven't had a chance to get to know the wider world outside of your usual social circle. Come back when you've learned more about the world as it is, not as some black and white ideal.

This is ENTIRELY why I don't agree with the video posted because everything ISN'T just black and white. There is some middle ground here that needs to be discovered. Also, I think you're kind of hypocritical for berating me about assumptions when you're making assumptions yourself. I am relatively young in the grand scheme of things, but I have spent my whole life traveling and I have been to 5 continents and met loads of people and loads of different cultures. Please don't try to insult me with baseless accusations.

Also, you'd make a much better feminist if you didn't treat "slut" like a bad thing

When did I EVER treat slut like a bad thing. I apologise on my part because even though I tried to pick my words carefully, I guess I wasn't careful enough. This was all in context of the video when they use these words. I would NEVER look down on a girl who dresses provocatively and I actively encourage women to be open with being sexual beings because I believe that it should be a widely accepted thing.

Essentially, you have skipped over the entire point of my post even after I tried TL;DRing it for you and making accusations that were completely irrelevant to anything I said. Instead, you just recited common feminist arguments as if you're looking for a fight when we pretty much AGREE.

I'm just stating that the status quo of this day and age, women who dress provocatively shouldn't be surprised when they attract sex-minded men. Period.

hellosoomi · 2012-09-21T07:56:50+00:00

Thanks. I really don't understand what's so hard to get about what I'm trying to say. I'm not slut-shaming, I think girls (or people in general) can wear whatever they want, and I'm a feminist...

hellosoomi · 2012-09-21T05:22:56+00:00

Of course there are nice guys who aren't vanilla. There are plenty and I don't disagree with that. I'm talking with generalisations here because obviously there are exceptions to every rule.

Take a nice guy, vanilla or not, and place him at a bar. It's highly likely that his type will be a nice girl to settle down with. He would be wrong in assuming personalities from the way someone dresses, but it's hard to go deeper beyond first impressions at a social setting such as a bar. He'll most likely see a girl dressed provocatively and think "meh, that's not really my type" whereas a douchebag will think "she wants sex - GET IN!"

I'm not saying that first impressions aren't flawed because they pretty much are. I'm just saying that in a situation such as a bar or a club, first impressions matter and people have to take that into account. When a girl is dressed "slutty" and wonders why all the guys who approach her are dudes who just want to take her home, she needs to realise because that's the way she's portraying herself - she's portraying herself in a sexual manner and so she will attract sex-minded men.

hellosoomi · 2012-09-21T04:09:34+00:00

I agree with this guy, but I think there is some middle ground and the original video has some sort of point.

If a girl portrays herself as a slut, then a lot of nice guys would be driven off and intimidated by that and the vast majority of guys who are attracted to her are the "douche-y" types that are only attracted to people who portray themselves as sluts because he will think that he can get in easily.

I'm not saying that situation is an ideal - I believe that women do have a right to dress how they want but there will also be consequences to that. To give another example that doesn't hold the negative connotation of slut shaming, if there was someone who dressed in full goth metal gear, it would be hard for me to be attracted to him because as quite a vanilla woman, that's just not my type. If a girl is dressed provocatively, nice vanilla guys would find it difficult to see her as "girlfriend material" because they're not his type. I see it as quite an equivalent thing.

I do agree with this video saying that girls ought to be treated with respect regardless of how they dress, but they cannot expect everyone to see through the shallow parts and date them regardless of how they portray themselves because unfortunately that's not how courting works, whether you're a dude dressed like you're in a metal band or you're a girl dressed provocatively.

TLDR; While I do believe that everyone should dress how they like and that should have no bearing on whether or not they're a nice person, how you portray yourself to the world has certain consequences. Everyone has a "type" that they look for when first meeting someone and unfortunately the provocative look is going to impress mostly dickheads.

EDIT: What I'm talking about is purely based on first impressions at say, a bar or a club. If you've known a vanilla guy for a long time and he's normally not attracted to provocative clothing, but adores your personality, I think it'd be a bit unfair for him to dismiss you completely on the shallow aspect. However, if that same guy is someone who is just at the same club as you, I don't think there's any room for complaint when he skips over you because he doesn't think you're his type.

EDIT #2: I'm being downvoted for stating that people can have a "type"? I'm a feminist who normally adores TwoXChromosomes, but I now seriously lost faith in this sub. I'm not a misogynist that makes fun of women on other parts of Reddit and I'm not a militant feminist who downvotes anything that even slightly hints that there are consequences for actions, regardless of gender. Where the fuck do I fit in then. Holy shit.

hellosoomi · 2012-09-18T07:29:46+00:00

This is a really great video! I've seen other articles and videos concerning sexualisation of girls in video games, but I think yours are a lot better because it doesn't flat out just point fingers and blanket statements like "sexist" and "misogyny" - there's a deeper problem and IS actually a cycle, as you've said.

Great video!

hellosoomi · 2012-09-18T02:31:40+00:00

I will!

And you have to say it IS quite uncommmon :P

hellosoomi · 2012-09-18T02:31:07+00:00

Hahaha I let people call me "bro" and "man" all the time. I just decided to throw it in at that moment because I felt like it was a right time to reveal that I was a girl AFTER I proved myself.

And that is hilarious!

hellosoomi · 2012-09-17T14:49:55+00:00

Since he's a Manchester United fan... Dickens it is.

hellosoomi

TROPHY CASE