56
Hi everyone. I remember a post was made some time ago where a person noticed a lack of women-focused content on Ovarit. I understood what she meant, so since then I've been trying to "do my part" in increasing woman-focused content. (Ovarit content fluctuates constantly based on who's active at any given time.)
I wanted to share some methods that I use to do so, in case others might find this useful.
Woman-focused news and articles. Go to Google, search "women" and click on the "News" tab. It'll provide 30 pages of aggregated news. (Note: search "women" not "woman" for better results, otherwise you'll get a lot of "woman stabbed/stabs/robbed/robs" type of news.) I usually set the timeline to be "past 24 hours" if I've been doing this daily. There is lots of women's sports news, generally. I go through the news articles and post the ones I find interesting. Be sure to read the articles before posting, this also helps make sure that there isn't a paywall when trying to access the article.
Browse other pro-woman social medias and share content from there. I like to do this with Tumblr, this is easy for me because I have a Tumblr account and I follow hundreds of pro-women/radical feminist/gender critical Tumblr accounts, so my feed is pretty good at this point. I like to just screenshot interesting posts, repost memes/screenshots that have been shared there, and sometimes I copy Tumblr posts directly into an Ovarit post if it's too long for a screenshot and I think it's valuable information (be sure to provide a source back to the original and credit the original author).
Share women's art. I use Tumblr for this too in general, but you can find women's art all over the internet. Share what resonates with you. :)
Share other interesting content. Since women aren't a hivemind, we have other interests, lol. Ovarit has several communities that are focused on special interests like STEM, books, arts crafts and yarns, television and movies, games, gardening, and vegan food. Check out all the Ovarit circles here: https://ovarit.com/subs
/o/Women is the catch-all. If you want to share something and you're feeling like none of the current circles fit the content you want to share, remember that /o/Women is the fallback to post in. (As a side note, I wish we had like an /o/Misc for this, I think it'd be a lot easier for people to know intuitively where they can post something that they don't know where it fits.)
So if you're ever feeling like you're not vibing with what's on Ovarit, be the change you wish to see! š After all, Ovarit is powered by the people.
I hope this is helpful!
āIn America, around 90% of men consume porn, and 70% are obese. When you do the math, this leaves a mere 6.3% of men who neither watch porn nor are obese.ā
Maths fail aside, realistically itās like 99% watching porn and 70% obese.
I have a hunch that the 10 percent of men who don't watch porn are very religious (and actually walk the talk compared to most religious men) or don't have much of a sex drive or both. The former are almost definitely not going to be good partners to women, and the latter might not be either.
I don't understand the math? Couldn't theoretically the 70% obese men all watch porn, and there be 10% men who are neither obese nor watch porn? š¤ How would you even do the math there?
Yes, you're right. Someone made the same error in a post about TIMs a couple days ago. Aside from that, the article says
In America, around 90% of men consume porn, and 70% are overweight. When you do the math, this leaves a mere 3% of men who neither watch porn nor are overweight.
So the author made an error in logic in assuming that 70% of men who don't watch porn are overweight (and that 90% of men who aren't overweight watch porn), then the person you're responding to misquoted the article or the article was edited since the comment was made.
Edit: I misquoted the article as well. š
The statistics changed a bit though, itās 0.10 * 0.30 for 3%, so itās 70% overweight, not obese, but still very high.
You don't multiply the percentages of two different attributes in a population to achieve the percentage that has both attributes. The proportion that has both attributes in this case could be anywhere between zero and ten percent assuming that the 90% and 70% uncited statements are true.
3% neither porn watchers nor overweight/obese, assuming that the two are not mutually exclusive
Theyāve multiplied the probabilities for both overweight/obese * porn watchers and then mucked up their calculation a bit more when they did the percentage calculation
Saving this to send to my friends in miserable relationships when they ask why Iām single. Whenever someone comments on how clean, comfortable and nicely decorated my place is, I always say āyeah, no men live hereā and then they laugh uncomfortably because they realize itās true. I love the peaceful serenity Iāve created here. I wouldnāt sacrifice it for anyone. Iād be willing to share it with someone who genuinely equally contributes to it but letās be real. Youād have to make me happier than I can make myself alone and thatās a tall order.
It makes them so incredibly uncomfortable. Especially married women seem to have issues with me not wanting a man in my house.
Its good to be reminded of the positives of being single, even though I dont think 4b is realistic for most women.
It is more realistic than trying to find a "Good" man. 75% of Gen-Z are single nowadays and they are going out and living life fine. Being in a relationship is not a must to be happy and have a successful futur.
Seriously? Three quarters? That is incredible.
My first thought was maybe alot of them are children, but still. That is wild. Im surprised churches and governments arent working harder to change it
Why do you say that?
Because heterosexuality and the desire for connection and intimacy overrides quite a lot. We all deserve happiness.
But if a man claims that he has a need to have sex with women, he is (rightly) labeled as an "incel". If one's happiness is dependent on others, then s/he can never be truly happy. Besides, before sexology pathologized non-heterosexual behavior (sexual or not), humans had been able to find connection and intimacy, usually with members of the same sex, for thousands of years.
Friendship and romance are not the same thing-- they fill different voids and are equally important and can't replace each other. I don't see how depending on same sex friendships is not also placing ones happiness on others either.
Clearly you are unfamiliar with the phenomenon of "romantic friendship", which was particularly widespread in the 18th and 19th centuries, then. It was considered normal for female romantic friends to share passionate embraces, kisses, or a bed with each other, and the intensity of passion evident in their correspondence (sometimes even published by their own family) makes modern lovers, whether homosexual or heterosexual, look like casual acquaintances. And of course men had their "Platonic love", which obviously had no chance of happening between the opposite sexes if you asked Plato. One of his interlocutors in the Symposium says men who are interested in women are also pedophiles, since they are more attracted to the body than to the soul, and the only thing they care about is the sex.
I know what a romantic friendship is. Either way romantic/sexual relationships are not the same as platonic love.
Most women want to be partnered with men.The existence of about 8 billion ppl on this planet testify to how strong the instinct to mate is.
In less clinical terms, I suspect most women are lover-girls who want loving relationships.
Not all of married women are happy being married. Childbirth isn't always voluntary either.
[Comment deleted]
The assumption in the comment I responded to was that the sole reason for all children being born is that women strongly want to be partnered with men.
The assumption in the comment wasnāt that women strongly want to be partnered with men. Itās that most humans, male and female, have a strong instinct to mate (i.e., copulate). Important distinction.
Nearly half of all pregnancies are unintended according to UN Population Fund:
Interesting, but I think that the act of voluntary mating (whether pregnancy is intended or not) indicates womens (general) desire to be with men.
And if we're going to be pedantic, then i suppose we need to count fertility treatments and unsuccessful attempts to become pregnant... but my overall point is simply that the human species is geared toward heterosexual contact.
The report also finds that "Nearly a quarter of all women are not able to say no to sex (where data is available)." But even for women who voluntarily have children, they might not be having children with partners of their choosing. There's still enormous pressure on women to marry and procreate, especially outside Western societies, and many a woman does cave in to that pressure and settle down with some man she's not attracted to. Marriage based on attraction or romantic love is not the norm everywhere. Besides, mating is not the same as being in a relationship. Animals mate, but the vast majority of mammals do not stay in pairs.
Ok so my whole point was that I think most women want to be in relationships with men.
You think that most women do not?
IMO without patriarchal conditioning, most women would not want to be in relationships with men.
Thats definitely something to consider. I think both are contributing factors. I do agree that social pressure plays a large role (and capitalism). But I also think that on a species level, hetero unions are what humans have evolved to achieve and hormones drive most ppl to seek out partners.
Granted, Iāve had more than one relationship with a man that I didnāt hate (one of whom was obese, and it was fine), but they all ended for good reasons. Porn and the Internet are making love ever harder to find. I see het women having good relationships as the emotional 1%: good for them, but most of us will never reach that and we have to stop building the world around it.
Was it really necessary to add the obesity statistic? Also, a quick Google search says ~34 to 40% of men in the US are obese. Where is she getting her 70% statistic from? There is a similar number of obese women too so...?
"Was it really necessary to add the obesity statistic?"
If men are going to demand unrealistic beauty standards of women, yes.
Also, I believe it is 23% of men who donāt watch porn.
I HIGHLY doubt that. I'm sure these porn statistics are self-reported. Perhaps 23% of men don't want to admit they watch porn.
what about older men who weren't brought up on porn or whose sex drives aren't as all-encompassing these days? Probably more than a third of men are going to be over 50, a quarter past 60... Not that that demographic would have no porn watchers in it, but averaging things out I don't think 23% for everyone would be a high number.
I don't think most men I know watch porn - of course they might, just in private, but it's not something they are open about or anything, and they talk enough about their other hobbies and interests that they wouldn't have a huge amount of time to fit the porn between other things... (so if they do it's not that often/ having that much of an impact?)
I'll be watching my kdramas and reading my romance novels while squealing into my pillow and I try not to think about how fictional men aren't real but whenever I'm reminded of this fact I get really sad. Like, why are they all so ...dirty?(on the outside and on the inside)
You mentioned you are in uni, so you must be on the young side. Here is another reason to give up that internet and doom scrolling such as this.
I am 60 and have had only great relationships with men and really fantastic sex. I have never dealt with a pornsick man once in my life. I have never been hurt or mistreated by a lover. I have an amazing husband now who does not play video games, does not watch porn, is super sexy (not obese; in fact, he is the same pant size he was when I met him, which is insane). he is smart, 6'4" and does all the cooking and dishes. And we don't even have kids (that is a key factor I truly believe). No one around here would accuse me of being a wallflower. I have been an opinionated bad ass feminist my entire life. I am not saying 'not my Nigel'; I am saying 'not my committedly feminist life'. Of course, I was reading feminist women when I was at uni, not romance novels or k-dramas. my life was dedicated to my education and political activism. Romance is clearly a lie. The truest romance story is The Way We Were; Katie Morosky is the model of a well-lived feminist life.
PS None of the men I dated were dirty.
I am 60 and have had only great relationships with men and really fantastic sex. I have never dealt with a pornsick man once in my life.
I think the fact you are 60 and the fact you had a great sex life are connected.
You were young way before internet porn. Unless you date men decades younger than you, you had no partners who watched porn in their formative years.
That is an accurate assessment, but I am also an unwavering feminist, so the men in my life would have to know that too.
[Comment deleted]
Thereās a big difference between men reading playboy and watching āsoft coreā porn videos vs. widely read teen magazines instructing girls on how to be choked during sex. Iām in my thirties and I do not know a SINGLE woman my age or younger who has not experienced pressure or outright sexual violence in relationships with āgoodā men. Men who have supported me through hardships and pushed me to achieve my dreams have also pressured me into anal, left bruises on my body, called me slurs while inside meā¦all because itās a āfantasy.ā
You are being willfully ignorant of how the game has changed for young women.
[Comment deleted]
I have noticed this type of sentiment on Ovarit, too. That straight women don't need men for anything, including intimacy or sex, and we should just be satisfied with masturbation and female friendship.
I guess these comments are either coming from lesbians or heterosexual women with extremely low sex drives, but I don't want to live my whole life celibate. Before I met my partner, I was miserable thinking that I would have to spend my entire life without physical closeness or intimacy. I don't desire that closeness with other women, I want it with men.
I don't want to do it, but I have been dying to make a thread about this. I don't think lesbians or bi women have a right to participate let alone participate in this discussions. There is a double standard where they can stick into our heterosexual issues but we can never comment or dictate anything about them. There is a lack of self awareness.
Masturbation and friendship are not substitutes for romance with a man. If a woman wants that , that is her preference.
Iām a single heterosexual woman with a high sex drive. I think the disconnect here is that while sex is important to me, feminism has taught me so much about it. How itās used by men and women, exploited, used for marketing, traded globally, used as currency in relationships, all sorts of things. I want a Good Manā¢ to be intimate with too, but I will hold out for one who wants an equal partner and isnāt just trying to turn me into his bangmaid. Which is few and far between these days and a lot of women unfortunately settle for less. I see the authorās points and yours as well, sheās not being fair to those of us with sex drives lol
Agreed on all those points. Heterosexual women just need to be careful. Sex isn't worth having if it's with a bad partner.
Hard agree and that was a painful lesson to learn by experience. Iād rather be horny than have casual sex, or relationship hop like I used to. Being single has opened my eyes to many things and I honestly relish waking up in my luxurious bed alone. No snoring, stinking, blanket stealing ogre poking my butt lol
Yes. We are attracted to our biggest predators and we have to act like it.
Good points. Nobody would be okay with telling gay men and women in countries that don't accept homosexuality to just be happily celibate and single, it's no big deal, just find a hobby. If the government jails you, it's your own fault for being so stupid...
I mean, she might be right about being single being safer. In fact, she almost certainly is. And with regard to finances, well, if you want financial security, being single and working hard might be a better bet (statistically) than getting with a man. He might earn more than you, but then again, he might gamble away your earnings.
But she is doing her own ideology a disservice by pretending that there's no sacrifice there and that being single is always better.
Some women get married to hard-working men who share their income equally and don't take their childcare work for granted.
Some women are happier after marrying than they were single.
It just isn't in human nature to optimize for safety, or else no one would drive a car. It all depends on the risk-benefit maths. If I lived in the Middle Ages, I would probably have tried my best to become a nun (depending on when in the Middle Ages. Apparently there were women business owners in some eras), but in the modern world, where there's a decent chance that if you get a shitty boyfriend, you can dump him? Yeah, no. Some risk is acceptable.
When people are aroused that's when their rational thinking is at the lowest, this means being horny is the least reason to get with a man because it can cause low standards and entering the wrong relations. Sex can also be uncomfortable or a woman with the wrong person and can cause traumatic experience. Many people live fine without physical intimacy, but men tend to not handle it very well. Solo adventures are quite enough to satisfy oneās needs.
I mean, that's your opinion. "Solo adventures" really aren't good enough for some women. That's just true.
Yeah, masturbation isn't enough for me. It can provide short term release, but that's it. Not to mention there's zero emotional connection with a vibrator.
Aaand cue.... (a) NAMALT, (b) Not my Nigel, I've got one of the good ones. Whatever.
Every woman wants to think her man is "one of the good ones". But every single woman I know - Every. Single. Woman. - has one or more men at work taking her less seriously because she is a woman, talking over her, dismissing womens' ideas, being less mentoring, allowing men more latitude to be mediocre or lazy, or even sexist in interacting. It's not necessarily overt sexual harassment (though it often is). It's things men don't notice and women have been conditioned to tolerate. Do the math. Most of it is from the men their wives/mothers/gfs say are the "good ones".
If women manage to get tolerable treatment from men, it comes with the price of providing sexual services (husband, boyfriend) and/or emotional labor (husbands, sons).
[Comment deleted]
Listen, perhaps this topic or concept just simply isnāt for you, doesnāt cater to you, and thatās ok. However many women and a growing number of activists are seeking to de-center men and male relationships.
Are you aware of the explosion of deep fake pornography being made and harassment being levied against female children and family members by women-hating men in South Korea? The publicly broadcasted decimation of womenās identities and existence in Afghanistan? Just a few examples. There is fresh hell being newly invented every day in the advent of technology and the face of continued misogyny worldwide.
Itās ok if this is not relatable to you. It is to me and others like me.
[Comment deleted]
Not all content is going to be directly related to your personal individual experience.
I'm pretty sure /u/mathlovers is in her seventies...