Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
My perception is that sex-starved males are seen as dangerous, and the fear of that easily translates into a stigma.
I recall my recently-divorced friend (with a young daughter) trying to describe this to me: how almost overnight the girly sleepovers and socials went from common & spread across the homes to "silently forbidden" and unspokenly "anywhere but his house". But he was the same guy as just days before, but (so the theory goes) the only change was that now people "knew" he was not being... pacified?
One thing about being a woman (which I am not for the record, I have a lovely wife who explains things) is that you can't just trust men. They can overpower you, and even though most won't, some will and there's no way to tell who it's going to be. That necessarily means women have to not trust men that they don't know intimately for their own safety.
That concept certainly extends to parents of girls. If there is not a female authority in the house, a sleepover with a man and bunch of girls is questionable at best and tragedy waiting to happen at worst, even if that man is one of their fathers.
It doesn't mean that they have to think that man is "unpacified" to call out that specific situation as inappropriate. It's just a boundary your friend now has to be aware of, and agree to let his daughter go to sleepovers in other girls' homes.
That being said, I wouldn't call this specific situation stigma from being a perceived incel, but more like parents being wary of a single man they might not know that well hosting a sleepover with a bunch of girls.
...
Edit: There have already been a couple of real salty men who take issue with the fact that women are wary of men just because they're men. I get it. I've been there.
But I'm not going to rehash the whole argument I just went through because you might think the line of reasoning that you aren't a rapist means it's wrong for women to take precautions.
It's not personal. It's not a reflection of you as a person. It's just something women have to be aware of.
I'm not going to engage this point with anyone else. I posted some resources. I'd urge anyone who comes away from this comment thread with anger or confusion to just get a woman's perspective first and try to be open minded.
An interesting thread. As a father of a young daughter I do share the same concerns and would be cautious with sending my kid to a sleepover like that. That is, if i don't know the guy well enough. And i do not care if anyone calls me a bigot for me being protective for the person I am legally required to protect.
That is, of course this would be not the only possible red flag for me, and until my girl is capable of looking after herself (that may happen earlier than legal age, judging by her strong spirit and success in various sports), I'll continue to be cautious. On the other hand, I'd do my best to not share this line of reasoning with the girl herself. This particular case does not seem like a good learning opportunity for a "stranger danger" lesson.
Thank you. This is the crux of it. I've rehashed this argument countless times with countless men over the years who take personal offense that men on the whole are not super trustworthy. If you aren't a rapist, we aren't talking about you. But, unless we know each other well, there's no way we can be sure. It's as simple as that.
Cudos on being unrelentingly protective of your daughter, while respecting that she may also be able to make those calls herself one day. You sound like a great dad.
I think it's not that sex starved men are dangerous as much as it's men are dangerous. It's not the presence of your buddy, it's the absence of his wife that has changed the other parents' safety rating of the house.
That really sucks to hear. Without any context, it just sounds like the kid has to suffer the consequences of her parents split.
Yea the girls sleepovers stopped because there isn’t a woman present. This isn’t an incel thing, this is an even more prolific lack of trust in men to care for young girls (often times just children in general). And it has nothing to do with him not getting laid by a wife at all. That’s a weird correlation to make.