Sex God
Women WITH children first... then an orderly queue.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Women and children first ...
Sex God
While they were discussing it I'd already be in the life-boat. LOL
Seriously - it would be 'everyone grab a child' and get them safe. Then an orderly queue.
Seriously - it would be 'everyone grab a child' and get them safe. Then an orderly queue.
Sex God
Quote by foxylady2209
While they were discussing it I'd already be in the life-boat. LOL
Seriously - it would be 'everyone grab a child' and get them safe. Then an orderly queue.
Yeah that's what I meant!
Sex God
Quote by flower411
There`s been some stuff said on here about equality and shit
So .... I just want to ask ...
If you were in a situation where it was VERY important to be first ....and some guy says
"Women and children first"
Would you ....as a woman say ..."No... it`s ok ..that guy was in front of me"
Or ...as a man ...would you say ...
"Fuck that ! I`m a new man ...it`s everybody for themselves !! "
I`d probably act like a perfect gentleman and let the women go first !! :roll: Fuckin schmuck !! :roll:
Do you want the serious answer, as in you're on a plane that has crashed/gone up in flames?
Sex God
It's not about feminism... well not for me. It's just about being decent. The children would go first with whichever parent they were with. I don't think it needs any more analysing than that. It's just about doing what's right.
Sex God
Quote by flower411
It's not about feminism... well not for me. It's just about being decent. The children would go first with whichever parent they were with. I don't think it needs any more analysing than that. It's just about doing what's right.
Ok ... the original post was intended to find perceptions and you made VERY clear that you expect children to be with women ....nothing to be ashamed of !!!
So the only analysing involved is why you assumed that children were automatically with women !!
No... the WITH was to make it clear that the children should go first. I hadn't really thought about who would take them. I was just repeating your "women and children" statement, only replacing the "and" with "with"!
Sorry for the misunderstanding. :wink:
Again... the lickle people should go first with whichever responsible adult is with them. Tis the right thing to do REGARDLESS of gender. :mrgreen:
That goes for the kids too. They're minors. Save them first.
Sex God
Quote by flower411
There`s been some stuff said on here about equality and shit
So .... I just want to ask ...
If you were in a situation where it was VERY important to be first ....and some guy says
"Women and children first"
Would you ....as a woman say ..."No... it`s ok ..that guy was in front of me"
Or ...as a man ...would you say ...
"Fuck that ! I`m a new man ...it`s everybody for themselves !! "
I`d probably act like a perfect gentleman and let the women go first !! :roll: Fuckin schmuck !! :roll:
Do you want the serious answer, as in you're on a plane that has crashed/gone up in flames?
Exactly !!! I`m hearing a lot of feminist talk in this forum and I want to know !!!
OK, i'm a bit of a documentary geek and i have a special liking for things like the 911 attack and plane crashes/survivals. I watched a rather fascinating one on survival instinct studies and the relationship to animal instincts etc. One particular study looked at people who had survived and not survived plane crashes and their actions and reactions to the plane crash. It found that there were individuals who survived when others around them didn't which was discovered to be a combination of paying attention to where the exits were, how many seats away they were from it etc. The study also found that numerous people perished as they almost queued in an orderly fashion to get out or tried to retrieve their personal items, others just froze up completely. The survivors who'd paid attention had also ignored the 'waiting patiently to get off the burning plane' behaviour and had simply climbed over the seats.
While it's all lovely to say you stop and help X,Y & Z it's an action that could probably get you killed and may even result in the death of others by impeading their escape. without being in a particular situation it's impossible to say what you will/won't or should/shouldn't do, but one of the first things i learnt many years ago when i trained as a lifegurad is the first life you guard is your own as putting yourself in danger then leads to the situation of yourself needing to be rescued at the risk of someone elses wellbeing.
I guess i haven't really answered the question and i don't think it can be answered easily, people do all sorts of brave, selfish, stupid and heroicly viewed things in dangerous situations, until it's you there you can't say for sure
Sex God
You're quite smart for a geek!
Sex God
Quote by Dirtygirly
You're quite smart for a geek!
Errrr, most geeks are quite clever-it sort of helps really
I'm a little at sixes & sevens with the whole issue.
I'm a woman.
I'm capable of looking after myself physically.
I'm not easily intimidated- if I want to walk down that street at 1am, I bloody well will.
However, I still appreciate gentlemen. I can see that men in the age group I mostly spend time with were bought up to treat a woman as something to be protected- and whilst I don't need that protection, I know that it's something they offer for the right reasons, not out of wanting to patronise.
EG, I joined the ship I was crewing at a town local to me. The day in question was my birthday, so I'd arranged to go home for the night. I went with other-significant-other for a drink in town after we'd docked. After a while, we were joined by some more deckies. Time came for me to make a move. It was , in a town that held no threat for me at all and that I knew much better than he did. We'd just been joined by his mates. Naturally, I was about to take the 10minute walk back to the ship for my kit by myself. He insisted he walked me back. I said "You really know you don't have to do this" to which he replied "I wouldn't be me if I didn't"- and I responded that "I wouldn't be me if I didn't tell you you didn't need to."
He was bought up to be a gentleman- it's in his nature to protect.
Usually, if theres anything really heavy to be lifted at home, it's done by me & the OH. When the OSO is here, I'll let them get on with it. They're both bigger & stronger than me, and better equipped- so why would I struggle my ass off to make a point?
Back on tangent...
I got stuck in a lift once in Germany with the OH, three small kids, and lots of tourists. There was no sense of order to who got out first. I've always been petrified of being stuck in lifts, and given this when the OH got me & the kids to the front of the "queue" I gratefully accepted. The kids needed to be got out, and in that situation so did I. It wasn't a woman thing, it was a freaks-out-in-lifts thing.
However, if we were in a situation where we were in peril on the water, and just for example there was only one lifejacket left between me and the OH- I would bloody insist he took it. While he can swim, he panicks in the water if he's out of his depth. I'm much better in the water than he is- he might protest but he would bloody well take the jacket.
Somewhere in there, you may find my point. Happy hunting.
I'm a woman.
I'm capable of looking after myself physically.
I'm not easily intimidated- if I want to walk down that street at 1am, I bloody well will.
However, I still appreciate gentlemen. I can see that men in the age group I mostly spend time with were bought up to treat a woman as something to be protected- and whilst I don't need that protection, I know that it's something they offer for the right reasons, not out of wanting to patronise.
EG, I joined the ship I was crewing at a town local to me. The day in question was my birthday, so I'd arranged to go home for the night. I went with other-significant-other for a drink in town after we'd docked. After a while, we were joined by some more deckies. Time came for me to make a move. It was , in a town that held no threat for me at all and that I knew much better than he did. We'd just been joined by his mates. Naturally, I was about to take the 10minute walk back to the ship for my kit by myself. He insisted he walked me back. I said "You really know you don't have to do this" to which he replied "I wouldn't be me if I didn't"- and I responded that "I wouldn't be me if I didn't tell you you didn't need to."
He was bought up to be a gentleman- it's in his nature to protect.
Usually, if theres anything really heavy to be lifted at home, it's done by me & the OH. When the OSO is here, I'll let them get on with it. They're both bigger & stronger than me, and better equipped- so why would I struggle my ass off to make a point?
Back on tangent...
I got stuck in a lift once in Germany with the OH, three small kids, and lots of tourists. There was no sense of order to who got out first. I've always been petrified of being stuck in lifts, and given this when the OH got me & the kids to the front of the "queue" I gratefully accepted. The kids needed to be got out, and in that situation so did I. It wasn't a woman thing, it was a freaks-out-in-lifts thing.
However, if we were in a situation where we were in peril on the water, and just for example there was only one lifejacket left between me and the OH- I would bloody insist he took it. While he can swim, he panicks in the water if he's out of his depth. I'm much better in the water than he is- he might protest but he would bloody well take the jacket.
Somewhere in there, you may find my point. Happy hunting.
I think I'd rather die than know that I condemned someone else to death through my own selfishness and actions.
I'd probably be the the fool who tried to help people get out and snuffed it. I would of course prioritise my family and friends first, but I couldn't then stop and see others needing help and not give it.
As for women and children first. I don't see this as a sexist issue. An "average" man is stronger and quicker than an "average" woman who is stronger and quicker than an "average" child. I see it as giving help to those who are more likely to need it initially. But that works only on likelihood and averages and that is entirely dependent on the situation.
So lets turn this around. A 68 year old chap in a wheelchair, A female Olympic 1500m runner and a newborn baby boy... In this instance I'd help the newborn baby boy and the chap in the wheelchair first. Why? Well surely it's screamingly obvious isn't it? (Incidentally, I'd expect the Olympian to lift a finger too, otherwise she'd get a flea in her ear).
In situations like that I'd have to make a snap judgement based on need. As such it is more likely the youngest would need our help, then perhaps the oldest, then perhaps those who aren't quite as strong or able as others. While sex and age do not define those boundaries completely, they do in a very general way.
And when the ships sinking, it's probably quicker to say "women and children first" than "Those under the age of 5 in catagory Subgroup C, fully bipedal with no inherent physical problems, can form a line begind those in subgroup B who have some form of latent, intermittent problem with gait. Ingrowing toenail sufferers behind them while those with gout should move their clothes onto the lower peg before lunch, after prep, once they've written their letter home, before getting their haircut after the ship sinks..."
Sorry I got confused there...Where were we? Ah Yes! Sex...sex...sex...sex.
I need a lie down. The heat's getting to me. Save me Witchy!
I'd probably be the the fool who tried to help people get out and snuffed it. I would of course prioritise my family and friends first, but I couldn't then stop and see others needing help and not give it.
As for women and children first. I don't see this as a sexist issue. An "average" man is stronger and quicker than an "average" woman who is stronger and quicker than an "average" child. I see it as giving help to those who are more likely to need it initially. But that works only on likelihood and averages and that is entirely dependent on the situation.
So lets turn this around. A 68 year old chap in a wheelchair, A female Olympic 1500m runner and a newborn baby boy... In this instance I'd help the newborn baby boy and the chap in the wheelchair first. Why? Well surely it's screamingly obvious isn't it? (Incidentally, I'd expect the Olympian to lift a finger too, otherwise she'd get a flea in her ear).
In situations like that I'd have to make a snap judgement based on need. As such it is more likely the youngest would need our help, then perhaps the oldest, then perhaps those who aren't quite as strong or able as others. While sex and age do not define those boundaries completely, they do in a very general way.
And when the ships sinking, it's probably quicker to say "women and children first" than "Those under the age of 5 in catagory Subgroup C, fully bipedal with no inherent physical problems, can form a line begind those in subgroup B who have some form of latent, intermittent problem with gait. Ingrowing toenail sufferers behind them while those with gout should move their clothes onto the lower peg before lunch, after prep, once they've written their letter home, before getting their haircut after the ship sinks..."
Sorry I got confused there...Where were we? Ah Yes! Sex...sex...sex...sex.
I need a lie down. The heat's getting to me. Save me Witchy!
