FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Women and children first
Women and children first
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The tradition stems from women and children being seen as being weaker (not that I would agree with that) and that women are responsible for giving birth to propagate the species. Children of course were seen as the "next" generation. The idea of women and children first was intended to give them a greater chance of survival to continue mankind.
As a transvestite or transexual cannot (at this point) give birth and would not in theory be "weaker"then there would not be the reason to step aside! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Faced with the need to flee from imminent danger, should men delay and let women flee before them? And would a man step aside for someone like me?
 "
id have to burrow 1 of ur dresses  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
With all the press coverage that has gone on, quite a few have mentioned that the first time the women and children first bit was documented was in the the 1850's I think when a troop ship was sinking off South Africa, the Colonel of the troops which numbered about 400 told his men to let the women and children about 26 of them to go first. All the women and children survived and most of the men died. Prior to that it seemed to be everyone for themselves and very few women and children survived. The Titanic where women and children first was used about 80 percent of the women survived and only 20 percent of the men, life boats were three quarters empty because they would not let the men onboard. Going to nowadays, as everyone has an allocated space on a lifeboat, there should not be the need. Nowadays if anyone has a priority I would say it should be the disabled that need assistance in getting into a lifeboat. Obviously when everything is nice and orderly and no panic, life boat drills would run smoothly, however when the ship is sinking and there is a chance of you drowning the old survial instinct will kick in. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Faced with the need to flee from imminent danger, should men delay and let women flee before them? And would a man step aside for someone like me?
"
I would make the woman fill in a questionnaire based on past action. If she was a bleeding heart feminazi then.......like fuck would i let her go first. Equal rights too right under those circumstances.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The old survival instinct is to preserve your own life, bugger everyone else. "
Well, if I personally saw you pushing pregnant women out of the way and throwing children overboard to preserve a precious place in a lifeboat, I might quite possibly punch you in the snout.
I'm not a violent man, but it's the preservation of the species we are talking about here. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Women, children and the weak/frail first in front of able-bodied men.
What pisses men off is the screaching barn owl women who demand "MEN SHOULD STAY BEHIND AND FACE THEIR FATE!"
Now if I were to say "women wanted equal rights so they shouldn't really expect to be favoured" in these situations on here I would probably get jumped on by the annoying little gnome who tried to rant at me last week.
I really dont see a big danger to an able bodied man in that situation unless you were trapped below decks in water.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I'm afraid to say that for me it would be MY wife and children first and I'd expect every other man to do the same. That way we'd have all the women and children taken care of and then the men can look to themselves.
It's probably why nature ensured a child has two parents and not one, so that in the eventuality of having to select one to survive with the child the mother is better equipped to care for it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
anyone who doesnt put children first seriously needs to look long and hard at themselves,putting breeding females with their young is simply genetic good sense.
Of course if we were purely darwinsitic about it, then the old and disabled would be left to die, i prefer a morality based on compassion.
So if big strong men push smaller women out of the way to save themselves, they are twunts, if they do it to save their children, or another weaker person, thy are not.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm afraid to say that for me it would be MY wife and children first and I'd expect every other man to do the same. That way we'd have all the women and children taken care of and then the men can look to themselves.
It's probably why nature ensured a child has two parents and not one, so that in the eventuality of having to select one to survive with the child the mother is better equipped to care for it."
ohh we agree  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The old survival instinct is to preserve your own life, bugger everyone else.
Well, if I personally saw you pushing pregnant women out of the way and throwing children overboard to preserve a precious place in a lifeboat, I might quite possibly punch you in the snout.
I'm not a violent man, but it's the preservation of the species we are talking about here."
I quite agree, I would probably do the same, but until we are in that situation ourselves, we cannot say how we would react. From what several of the newspapers have been saying before about 1850, it was sod the the women and children, before then they would appear to have had different values. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *waymanMan
over a year ago
newcastle |
"anyone who doesnt put children first seriously needs to look long and hard at themselves,putting breeding females with their young is simply genetic good sense.
Of course if we were purely darwinsitic about it, then the old and disabled would be left to die, i prefer a morality based on compassion.
So if big strong men push smaller women out of the way to save themselves, they are twunts, if they do it to save their children, or another weaker person, thy are not.
"
Hate to say it but Darwin wouldn't give a toss about what happens in a small accident like a shipwreck - although, ironically, he only went on the Beagle as the captain's companion because there were fears the captain might be prone to suicide.
Darwin would have been interested in catastrophes, like the extinction of the dinosaurs, but that's a good example where survival went not to the strong or the swift, but to those whose traits best fitted the new circumstances. That's all survival of the fittest meant |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *waymanMan
over a year ago
newcastle |
"I'm afraid to say that for me it would be MY wife and children first and I'd expect every other man to do the same. That way we'd have all the women and children taken care of and then the men can look to themselves.
It's probably why nature ensured a child has two parents and not one, so that in the eventuality of having to select one to survive with the child the mother is better equipped to care for it."
Nope. Sexual reproduction confers an evolutionary advantage against asexual reproduction because it introduces variation into the gene pool and promotes mutations that enable the population to be more varied and therefore more adaptable.
Families work better than tribes or clans in environments where food is accessible but not plentiful - the greater the amount of available food the more likely you are to see tribes or clans. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'm afraid to say that for me it would be MY wife and children first and I'd expect every other man to do the same. That way we'd have all the women and children taken care of and then the men can look to themselves.
It's probably why nature ensured a child has two parents and not one, so that in the eventuality of having to select one to survive with the child the mother is better equipped to care for it.
Nope. Sexual reproduction confers an evolutionary advantage against asexual reproduction because it introduces variation into the gene pool and promotes mutations that enable the population to be more varied and therefore more adaptable.
"
I dare say in some circumstances you may be correct, if talking about a simple lifeform like an earthworm, but with humans it's slightly different. It only takes an influx of relatively few new genes to the overall gene pool to ensure that problems associated with in-breeding are lessened.
"
Families work better than tribes or clans in environments where food is accessible but not plentiful - the greater the amount of available food the more likely you are to see tribes or clans."
Yes, I'd agree with that, a mother is more inclined to feed her young before herself, but I'm not sure a father would make that same sacrifice where he'd see himself as needing the strength nourishment gives him to venture out to collect food for his family. The strong hunter cathes more etc.
These days we just go to Tesco's when we need new supplies. Who pushes the trolley though - the male or the female. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"anyone who doesnt put children first seriously needs to look long and hard at themselves,putting breeding females with their young is simply genetic good sense.
Of course if we were purely darwinsitic about it, then the old and disabled would be left to die, i prefer a morality based on compassion.
So if big strong men push smaller women out of the way to save themselves, they are twunts, if they do it to save their children, or another weaker person, thy are not.
Hate to say it but Darwin wouldn't give a toss about what happens in a small accident like a shipwreck - although, ironically, he only went on the Beagle as the captain's companion because there were fears the captain might be prone to suicide.
Darwin would have been interested in catastrophes, like the extinction of the dinosaurs, but that's a good example where survival went not to the strong or the swift, but to those whose traits best fitted the new circumstances. That's all survival of the fittest meant"
Whilst correct, i was referring more to the general usage of the term...nit picker |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
