FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Women and children first

Jump to newest
 

By *ara J OP   TV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

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?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ue care and attentionWoman
over a year ago

birmingham

Children and the infirm first then the rest fend for your self!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *els_BellsWoman
over a year ago

with the moon n stars somewhere in gtr manc


"Children and the infirm first then the rest fend for your self!"

I'd prefer any of my family members and close friends go before me.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Women and children first here

As for you depends on ya oral skills xx

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *landPeggyCouple
over a year ago

Holland !

Women and Captains first - Captain Sensible

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Women and Captains first - Captain Sensible"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *landPeggyCouple
over a year ago

Holland !


"however when the ship is sinking and there is a chance of you drowning the old survial instinct will kick in."

Surely the old survival instinct means "women and children first"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The old survival instinct is to preserve your own life, bugger everyone else.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The old survival instinct is to preserve your own life, bugger everyone else. "

Not literally

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Kids are different though under 16 i would give them the benefit of the doubt but if they had a hoodie on........

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The old survival instinct is to preserve your own life, bugger everyone else.

Not literally "

The imminent danger might just be death by buggery!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *obbytupperMan
over a year ago

Menston near Ilkley

A ship capsizing rather than sinking negates half of the lifeboats, There should be enough liferafts onboard to cope with that though. The Captain should never have left his post and should be the very last to leave as his direction is needed.

We have seen this before with the Achille Lauro where it was left to the Britsh entertainment crew to save lives whilst the Captain (Greek if my memory serves) was in the lifeboat with his Italian crew.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"A ship capsizing rather than sinking negates half of the lifeboats, There should be enough liferafts onboard to cope with that though. The Captain should never have left his post and should be the very last to leave as his direction is needed.

We have seen this before with the Achille Lauro where it was left to the Britsh entertainment crew to save lives whilst the Captain (Greek if my memory serves) was in the lifeboat with his Italian crew. "

Good job it wasn't a woman captain thats all!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *landPeggyCouple
over a year ago

Holland !


"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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *landPeggyCouple
over a year ago

Holland !

.... and to the OP ( missed the irony in the original post )

I'd say "Man the fuck up"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *emima_puddlefuckCouple
over a year ago

hexham

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *emima_puddlefuckCouple
over a year ago

hexham


"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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ara J OP   TV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East


"Women and children first here

As for you depends on ya oral skills xx"

Lol

I go down faster than Titanic

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 18/01/12 09:10:53]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *emima_puddlefuckCouple
over a year ago

hexham


"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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top