View Full Version : American Women
Originally posted by CBGBConnisur
IDickhead, i got news for you, Quebec women know how to give blowjobs, often they do it without the rubber, they know how to suck dick like no one in our hemisphere. Note the word hemisphere. hee hee!!! Niagra Falls? Toronto has some stuff but I think its too overpriced. Its also a lot further away than Montreal from NY, almost a 3 hour difference.
I have no reason to go to Niagara Falls per se but I have the opportunity to hitch a ride on a private plane. Toronto been there done that. Escorts are too expensive and you can't see the merchandise before it shows up. Streetwalkers are too dangerous. I like brothels or w h o r e houses or whatever you want to call them, or hookers that hang out in hotel bars.
Now by "our hemisphere" do you mean northern or western? Some women I have met in "our hemisphere" could suck a bowling ball through a Dixie straw.
CBGBConnisur
07-13-02, 02:07
I mean the Northern Hemisphere, the women down in Rio though take the cake for the Southern Hemisphere. Still, sex with the Montreal hookers is a world above what I find in the States with regular women and hoes. In Europe its almost 2 worlds above.
Stranger99
07-13-02, 03:06
Guys,
This one I have heard but never tried personally.
Basically before starting a BJ she fills her mouth with water. Then she starts taking the dick in her mouth being careful that the lips make a perfect seal around it (no drops left out).
She starts the job and once you come she drinks everything all together;
I heard it's great if instead of water you actually use sparkling water, or rum and coke, etc.
Disclaimer: if your partener drowns or throws up I had nothing to do with this idea.
Fedup: this could be a way to dilute the nut, maybe that would be more acceptable.
Originally posted by stranger99
Guys,
This one I have heard but never tried personally.
Basically before starting a BJ she fills her mouth with water. Then she starts taking the dick in her mouth being careful that the lips make a perfect seal around it (no drops left out).
She starts the job and once you come she drinks everything all together;
I heard it's great if instead of water you actually use sparkling water, or rum and coke, etc.
Disclaimer: if your partener drowns or throws up I had nothing to do with this idea.
Fedup: this could be a way to dilute the nut, maybe that would be more acceptable.
ROTFLMFAO right now but ... blow job with a mouth full of ice cubes good. Hot tea blow job good but let it cool off some (really nice gal I met in NZ did this last year). Sparkling water good for blow jobs. Blow job while your nuts are soaking in warm water good. Blow job while your nuts are soaking in ice water .... I didn't like it but YEMV. However, blow job involving sugared carbonated soda BAD cuz very sticky and that kinda makes your pubic hairs get stuck in her mouth and that tugs in a bad way. Also alcohol burns. Even a red wine blow job I found uncomfortable. White wine better cuz less acidic. And any gal who can maintain a perfect seal the whole time is way too controlling for me. Nothing wrong with a bit of dribbling.
Your loyal servant Dickhead has tried blow jobs with fine brandy, blow jobs with diluted cocaine (this does slow down the process but who wants to turn a blow job into a felony), Kahlua blow jobs (VERY sticky), champagne blow jobs (sticky but nice and bubbly), hot fudge blow jobs, strawberry jam blow jobs, whipped cream blow jobs and most of the above in the reverse direction. Do NOT use high proof alcohol (151 rum very bad idea) and be careful if you use sticky stuff and then fuck afterwards as this can lead to skin tears. Also be careful if you apply ice directly to the clitoris; maybe put the ice cube in a condom or a latex glove or something.
A good old fashioned hot water bottle is handy for hot liquid games and ice cube games. Also if you take a battery operated dildo and put it inside a condom or a latex glove, you can then put THAT inside a hot water bottle full of either ice or warm liquid and that's pretty good too. The wrapping has to cover the entire surface of the dildo. Otherwise it shorts right out! Do NOT do that with a plug in vibrator = very bad. Another trick is for her to hold a vibrator on the outside of her cheek while she blows you = GOOD. Also works on the front of the throat but this makes a lot of gals gag = BAD. Bottom side of the chin usually good.
A natural reflex for most gals is to relax their lips when you start to come so expecting "no drops left out" is unrealistic if she has a large volume of liquid in her mouth to begin with, so "less is more" in this situation.
Next week's class: Fun With Curling Irons
CBGBConnisur
07-13-02, 04:38
Stranger99, that is some fucken sick ass shit. No wonder they kicked your ass out of Europe.
Rubber Nursey
07-13-02, 07:00
phillipe,
thank you honey :) what a lovely thing to say! welcome to the board.
dickhead,
re: your last post...i think you should send me your number. *grin*just kidding...but it's nice to see a man who's willing to experiment and have some fun with sex.
fedup,
sorry to hear about you and your girlie, honey. i completely agree that a man who really likes to daty is a rare find indeed. she's a fool to let you go in my opinion! (don't forget i'm still waiting on my couch...only one year and 51 weeks to go. hehe)
re: periods...working girls over here use a sea sponge (or purpose made sterile sponges from the chemist/drug store) to stop the flow. you dampen them slightly, put some water based lube on them (to stop things drying out inside) and insert them just like a tampon. when you have sex, especially with a condom, you don't even know it's there. did y'all really think hookers didn't get periods?? lol otherwise, dickhead is right. some girls use diaphragms for the same purpose, but they can be tricky (and messy) to retrieve after the fact. sponges are fantastic. also, there is a lot to be said for sex in the shower during that time of the month *grin*
and for building up stamina during sex, i recommend dickhead's idea of pinching the penis, or alternatively, some good old-fashioned coitus interruptus (sp?). go at it until you are just about there, then go down on her or play with her breasts or something...anything to stop you thinking about your dick! then when the feeling subsides a little, do it again. if you have a really understanding partner, you could even stop altogether every now and then, and maybe get up and get a drink or give her a massage or play with her hair...
but i do have to mention one thing though...women do not always want a man who will pound her for an hour straight. a large number of women cannot experience a vaginal orgasm at all, and in fact, there are hardly any nerve endings inside her. it's all at "the doorway". most women seem to prefer a lot of foreplay, and intercourse as "dessert"...a way to finish it off. (that's why viagra is most women's nightmare!!)
as for stranger99's liquid blowjob idea...i've always found a mouthful of coke or champagne gets a pretty good response (although i will not be drinking it down afterwards!!! *shudder*) also, alternating between drinking hot coffee and cold drinks or ice (just warming/cooling the inside of my mouth...swallowing the liquid before i actually put the penis in there) seems to be popular too. this also works well on nipples for those girls or boys who are "nipple stimulation" inclined.
dickhead,
i always found a vibrator on low speed held against that wonderfully sensitive area between the balls and the anus during a blowjob, sent men wild. also, holding a vibe against my clitoris during missionary sex was a good one too.
CBGB, by US way of life, I meant the reshaping of mentalities through advertising and marketing.
You always end up wanting what's on the screen, no matter what it is.
As for free enterprise and capitalism, it can hardly be called an US invention as it's way older than the good old US of A.
I can't say I ever really had fun in Germany, I always found the mentality too repressed compared to neighbour countries like Belgium or Austria. Sometimes, even having sex there had a by-the-book feel.
Dickhead : Here in France, I don't see that many sideways soixante neuf because most 69's I've enjoyed had started as BJs where I could no longer stand being inactive.
So the sideways starting point was more used to entice a novice girl to try a taste of me. Never seen that approach fail yet, or maybe I was very lucky.
RN : Obviously, there are more charms to the land down under than just amber nectar and shrimps on the barbie. I should try digging a tunnel in my back yard ! :)
CBGBConnisur
07-13-02, 17:35
Phillipe, there's saying that things appear to be one thing but they are really another. Germany doesn't advertise itself to the rest of the world about its 'scene' but Germany is full of FKK sex clubs(in one region of Germany there are over 300 of them) which are unbelievable and as uninhibited as they come. For me I find German women are among the most beautiful in the world and their relaxed attitude towards sex proves that. I think the most beautiful women I have ever seen in my life was in Germany, she was part Turkish too, and all I have to say was 'wow', all those plastic American female celebrities I have been brainwashed into admiring through advertising and marketing as you pointed out, could not compare to this beautiful woman. Still I think with regards to sex Europe will always be above the US. I also believe the repressed sex scene in America is really a product of the US's AngloSaxon heritage as well as its Christian fundamentalist leanings.
Originally posted by CBGBConnisur
I also believe the repressed sex scene in America is really a product of the US's AngloSaxon heritage as well as its Christian fundamentalist leanings.
It's always useful to remember that the early settlers of the US -- the Puritans -- were perhaps the only group ever to flee their countries because they felt it was too tolerant. Few in Europe were sad to see them go, and many wished that the earth truly were flat so these folks would get a swifter trip to the great beyond. It's ironic to think that so many followed later for exactly the opposite reasons.
And Philippe, I agree with you wholeheartedly about the Americanization of the world, as well as its unfortunate nature, though at this point I'd also blame it on the nature of cultural leveling performed by multinational corporations, many of which are American-based, originated, or modeled. I can find a McDonalds (or Pizza Hut, or whatever) pretty much anywhere I go in the world, as well as see CNN or ESPN, let alone Baywatch or whatever. I remember talking to a translator who worked with me in Columbia -- he said because he was an American who spoke fluent Spanish (as well as good looking) he was in constant demand for TV commercials, as advertisers felt people would pay attention to what he had to say because he was American. Now, this was a smart and charming guy, and people should pay attention to him for that, but I've got a number of neighbors I pray no one ever pays attention to at all :)
Stranger99
07-13-02, 18:32
I suggest to use age brackets when defining the beauty of the women of one country.
It is true that German women are nice (although boring, all blondes , big tits) but they deteriorate preety quickly into redfaced, fattish, knodel eating ladies. Their expiration age I guess is around 35.
French and Italian women are classy all along their lives. Down side: a lot of showing off, too flashy sometimes.
Spanish women and Latin American: also nice (in reverse, boring as the German, all dark hair and eyes). Some of them have the defects that once into marriage they will let themselves go, meaning their ass is going to increase size in direct proportion with the elapsing of time (more or less like trees that add a circle of new wood to their logs every year).
Of American women we already said, they are born sequoias.
As I'm witnessing the transformation of our younger girls into brainless lardballs, I'm getting pretty desperate. France will soon be an awful place to get laid in.
It seems the prime cause for that is a steady diet of Coke, pizzas, hamburgers and all kinds of snacks, along with many hours sitting on one's ass in front of the TV.
So unless someone pulls the plug, we're doomed !
I don't think I could get used to that, I love a good tit-fuck just as every other guy, but there it would feel like surfing on cellulite.
CBGB : Maybe Paris will still hold its own for a while because it's the capital, so girls with better brains or looks flock there because that's where the money is, but we're bound to run out of babes any time soon.
Jackson : as the disaster is going global, I suggest a topic's name change to Occidental women :(
CBGBConnisur
07-14-02, 02:12
Phillipe, if France falls we can always go East to Poland, Hungary, Russia, Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria and such. I think eventually India will the next big place for single men. Miss Universe last year was from India and they are constantly making the semifinals. I still have a hard time believing you Phillipe that younger women in France are becoming fat as you so say. I was living in France for quite some time and it seems as the majority of women in their 20's are quite slim. I only saw a few occasional younger fat women, and I realized she wasn't French when I heard her accent, she was Scottish. This observation became more apparent as I visited Britain, I told a relative of mine how come so many Englishwomen are so fat and women in the rest of Europe are overall thin and attractive, I pointed out to the fact that I saw literally thousands of beautiful young women in France, Holland, Germany, Belgium, and Spain but when I dropped into Britain all the lovely ladies dissapeared. He replied that British and Irish women simply are ugly to begin with, always was ugly and always will be and that a lot of his mates go to the continent for pussy. Most of my friends who have been to both Britain and France also say the same thing, that the British women are fat and ugly and the French ladies are overall extremely attractive. Some of my British colleagues also find that there is a difference between the British and French female, and that is that the French female is much sexier. Any of the more overweight women I saw in France appeared to be older such as those on the Rue St. Denis or middle aged housewives, but hey thats nature and a woman's physical beauty is a transient thing.
CBGB, don't mistake the situation in a capital city with the general state of the nation.
There might be plenty of gorgeous girls in some selected spots in Paris, but it's still only a few miles drive from the real world of cheap tarts.
Girls go wherever the opportunities are, when they have the brains or the looks to succeed. The rest sticks where it is, and that's what a majority of guys have to put up with.
CBGBConnisur
07-15-02, 12:43
Phillipe you're not fooling anyone I KNOW who you really are, you are USBabe masquerading as Phillipe, a Frenchmen, I have caught you!!!!!! Now I will remove you from the list of reliable posters.
Stranger99
07-15-02, 14:27
I always knew USBabe was a tranny.
I think that girls from the US, England and Canada can all be grouped together as there is no common language barrier. All end up fat once they hit the 35 year expiry date. I've found that the English girls have a healthier attitude to sex... which is the only difference between them.
I have a unique viewing position here at my desk... I can look out two opposite windows and watch people come and go. In the past 10 minutes I've seen 4 fat chicks and one thin. This seems to be the common ratio here in Florida (except for the trendier areas such as South Beach or Boca Raton), and is certainly the ratio for my neighbourhood.
Anyway... enough fat bashing... it's certainly not the only factor. Although in our lazy culture it is certainly easier to be fat and unambitious than to be thin and energetic. This is why we will soon be taken over by brown and yellow people.
Regarding the Montreal escort scene... if you're American watch out. They love your cash... but they make the rest of Canada look like amateurs when it comes to America bashing... as well as bashing the rest of Canada. Quebecois blame everyone else for their problems... as a Canadian I'm tired of hearing them whine about the same problems the rest of the country endures.
Something that most seem to forget about Canada is that natural Canadians are in the minority. There's 180 (or so) languages spoken in Toronto alone. Many of the girls that you see walking the street, and that you say are so good looking, are probably not even from Canada. The strip clubs are full of girls from eastern bloc countries... Canadian girls are rare.
Once again... The police can charge/arrest patrons of massage parlors (aka rub n tugs) as "found in's"... this still carries a misdemeanor charge and shows on your record. There are plenty of clubs in the Niagara Falls area Dickhead. If you're only there for 2 or three days it's not hard to stay amused... particularly if you're into the Casino scene.
I'm no stranger to ointments, oils, jellies, lubes, or syrups. The liquid in the mouth during a hummer is a new one though. I can't see however, how I could convince any girl that a "cum and coke" is an acceptable drink. Which raises the question of why American girls will down tons of liquor shots with such elegant names as "Sex on the Beach, Orgasm, or Blowjob"... but refuse to have the same in real life. I think that "tease" is an appropriate term that has so far been left off the list of descriptions for the American Woman.
Regarding my current GF: It seems that I am yet again (as with other GF's) having to repair damage caused by previous boyfriends. It's come to light this weekend that part of her hangup with BJ's is that some fuckwad decided it would be fun to get a forced deepthroat from her. A previous GF was once choked (against her will) by a guy while he was fucking her... as a result I was not able to touch her above her boobs without her tensing up. Another was subjected to a "oops wrong hole!" approach to anal sex and as a result refused to let me try it. Given my GF's current revelation I will give her another chance rather than just showing her the door... I can't blame her for being a bit reluctant.
American women can be a pain in the ass for sure... but American men are by no means innocent in our current problems.
Perhaps, Fedup, you can start by suggesting licking and nibbling rather than sucking. If you're so inclined, a bit of bondage (meaning you being restrained) might also go a long way to easing what's clearly a control anxiety.
And been there, done that, in terms of emotional repair work. Good luck -- it can be a long process, but a rewarding one, as it's all about repairing her sense of trust.
Thanks, FU, but to me Niagara Falls = East bumfuck as I like to have some cultural pursuits once I am suitably drained. If I do make the trip, I'll go to Montreal and use me wee Irish brogue. Any Thai girls up there?
Rubber Nursey
07-16-02, 10:52
Brilliant suggestion, Joe. I'm starting to think you and Dickhead should start your own "Sex Tips" website! LOL And no, I'm not taking the [CodeWord140] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord140)...I mean it. Fedup, try Joe's idea. Let her feel in control, and come to realise that you are not a threat. Our bodies respond in the strangest ways to deep-seated fears, even when our brains are trying to tell us otherwise. It just takes persistence.
Good on you though for deciding to see her through this. It is a lot easier to just say "Too hard" and walk away. You are truly a good man. :)
PS...You don't need to actually answer this (too personal, I know) but I was wondering if you and your GF are using condoms for oral? If not, I would suggest that maybe you try it. The plastic coating can make the penis seem a little "less real" in your mouth. Flavoured condoms are even better, masking all the natural tastes and smells associated with oral.
Also, lay on your back while she's doing it and keep your hands where she can see them (on your stomach or something). If you need to move your hands, to scratch your nose or whatever, do it very slowly...no sudden moves.
We could call the site "The Idealist and The Pragmatist," similar to El Gordo y La Flaca.
It is my opinion that if condoms were to be used for oral sex between boyfriends and girlfriends, that would remove the final remaining reason to have a girlfriend.
Did you hear about the Irish guy who was told to use a condom each and every time he had sex? After three days, he had to [CodeWord140] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord140) so bad he cut a hole in the end of it.
Yes Dickhead... Niagara Falls is not exactly the cultural centre of Canada by any means. I don't really see any part of North America that has much culture anyway... we're too busy selling it for SUV's and Big Mac's. As far as sightseeing goes the east and west coasts have the most scenery anyway. Check out Vancouver if you like the mountains... but expect rain.
I'll also agree with you in that the day I need to use a rubber for GF sex is the day I'll change my alias to Fuckthishit, and start scoping out tall bridges.
Thanks RN :)
BoneMachine
07-16-02, 23:08
>>Did you hear about the Irish guy who was told to use a condom each and every time he had sex? After three days, he had to [CodeWord140] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord140) so bad he cut a hole in the end of it.<<
No, Dickhead (love writing that), didn't hear that one but did you hear about the the two Canadian junkies sharing needles in a heroin shooting gallery? One of them asks the other if he was scared of getting AIDS. The other goes, "No fucking way, you hoser! I'm wearing a condom!"
Hmm, RN, I dunno if I could take being in charge of another website. Although, generating the proper amount of good content for that one might not be as unpleasant a research process as some of the others...
El Gordo y La Flaca, eh? Guess that's better than Click and Clack :)
Hi Guys & RN,
Had an interesting experience in a bar over the weekend which I thought really depicted the "American Woman" at her worst.
Was in a bar after playing tennis with some friends and 4 large women sat down at the table next to us. They were not only huge, but loud, on stage, smoked like fiends and had Coke bottles for glasses. How may of you have seen this syndrome before???
In walk two nice looking blond girls who were well dressed, slender, etc. Really nice girls who proceeded to sit at the bar.
Well, the 275 pounders at the next table started laughing out loud and were calling them "Snow White," "Barbie Doll," etc. They were really rude and were loud enough so that the girls at the bar could hear them. It was a pretty distgusting display of American womanhood at its worst.
I thought that this really depicted what many American women are like and woe to those few women who still look and act like women. Anyone ever catch this "act" before??? It was appalling.
Rubber Nursey
07-17-02, 07:00
Paddy,
Other women are every woman's worst enemy. Fat women criticise thin women, pretty women criticise unattractive women. I (with a slim/athletic body type) have been told I am fat by little skinny rakes and told I am too thin by heavier women. If I wear a short skirt I am called a tramp, in jeans I am a slob. Women are judgemental cows who are never happy with what they have and are always jealous of someone who has what they want. I have to say, I pretty much squarely blame the media for this. Also, men who constantly point out our failings or compare us to other women (right in front of us) have a lot to answer for too. We are always being told we are not "good enough"...not slim enough, not busty enough, not blonde enough, etc. I think we tend to blame the women who DO fit these profiles (even if only in our minds) for making us look bad. (Kind of a "If SHE wasn't here then maybe men would look at ME" type attitude).
As for the girls you mentioned, I bet I know what sort of reaction the blonde girls' entry into the bar received. I have a busty blonde friend that attracts the same attention. All heads swivel, conversation quiets briefly, and all other women in the bar are momentarily ignored. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but it can cause a bit of bitterness in the ignorees! LOL What the heavy girls said was cruel, but it is just a reflection of their insecurities. My bet is, they were trying to discredit the girls in front of the other patrons, make them look a bit silly and ultimately DENT THEIR SELF CONFIDENCE. That is a nasty trick, but it works. Most of a woman's sex appeal (in my opinion) has to do with their air of confidence...take that away and make them look uncomfortable or self conscious, and they don't "shine" as much as they did when they walked in.
Like I said, a woman is a woman's worst enemy...
I've witnessed that sort of stuff before too Paddy.
In my observation women (if they can be called that) who have reached that stage have already realised how fat and unattractive they are, and have resigned themselves to that fact. They have lost their sense of jealousy and replaced it with a sense of self loathing and have the whole "fuck everybody else... I am who I am and if you don't like me you can kiss my ass" attitude. They're herd animals at that point... living off the strength of the others. If one of them was separated from the other three they would be meek and unaggressive, their attitudes of the pack (helped with a bit of alcohol I'm sure) will have evaporated and they are left only with their own insecurities. The most disagreeable part of their behaviour is that any one of them would give up their fat asses in a heartbeat to look like one of the two attractive girls they were insulting.
I've never been able to figure out where a person's attitudes in life stem from. Those twats should have been ashamed to leave the house in their flower patterned bed sheets; Yet they did, and were even so bold as to insult others. Perhaps they need to be shown a video of themselves before they can rein themselves in off the farm.
It's cunts like that that make me...
Fedup
Hi RN & Fedup,
Your analyses of the situation which transpired were both correct and compelling to say the least. Thanks.
I guess that I was startled by the ferocity of their attacks on these two girls who were complete strangers. I had thought that this type of behavior was indigenous to American women alone. According to RN, however, it's a universal phenomenon.
I spend a lot of time abroad and have never seen an attack like this before. I've only seen these "herds" of fat girls pullling this stuff in the good old US of A. Believe me, these girls took no prisoners. One of the other guys suggested that we move to another table to get away from these loud and abrasive louts. When me moved they started smiling at us and chuckling (i.e. what a bunch of wimps). I began to stare menacingly at the ringleader and they finally backed off.
I agree Fedup, it's women like this that make me want to ....
Paddy...
Assholes come in all shapes, sizes, sexes, etc. It's so odd to me how one group that experiences discrimination will often choose to act just as horribly to another group.
This is NOT representative of American Women. This is representative of the fact that people who are dumped on will almost always look to dump on someone else. Just look at all of the people in this section of the board who try to put everyone else down just because they themselves feel inferior deep down inside.
However, I wonder if all the people who reacted so negatively to these "ladies' " antics would react as strongly if the shoe were on the other foot and the overweight women were being insulted by a group of "beautiful" women.
Well said Miller...
A **** is a ****... whether they be thin or fat, black or white, tall or short... makes no difference to me. I hold attractive women who bash unattractive women in the same contempt as the ladies Paddy had to put up with.
I could reverse the argument and point out the many attractive women who feel the need to insult and embarrass unattractive ladies in order to make themselves feel better about their bodies. The next morning those same attractive women will be standing in front of the mirror and wondering "augh!!! why are my feet so big?... did that mole have to grow RIGHT THERE!!!... Has my ass grown while I was sleeping???" etc.
Both of these examples seem to be exacerbated by being an AW. The old adage "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all" seems to have been lost in our culture. I wonder if anyone in this country is immune to insults from others. Even Tom Cruise (he's sooooo short!) and Britney Spears (could she B any blonder?) are targets. Some of America's more exotic exports to the rest of the world? How about bulimia and anorexia.
Stranger99
07-19-02, 02:51
CBGBConnisur
07-19-02, 03:17
We have to open up a new discussion on European Women and other regions as well such as Asia and South America. Anyone who thinks American women are the only game in town is a sucker severely limiting his options. It's ironic my open mind to meeting people from various different countries has created a close mindedness to American women. I guess the grass truly is greener on the other side. It sure is. Oh well we live in a contradictory planet.
CBGB, I don't mean any disrespect, nor do I want to argue with you, but I must say that you've made your point over, and over, and over, and over again. We all understand perfectly well that you've found women in Europe to be more receptive to intimacy than US women. OK OK OK OK OK. We've heard you. We respect your opinion. But do you think that by stating it over and over again that you're going to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you? C'mon now.
Again, I truly mean no disrespect, but please stop saying the same thing over and over again. I for one am getting tired of it, and I can't imagine that I'm the only one.
Peace
50% of all US women are fat? Overweight by some margin, perhaps. But fat? As in obese? Maybe so, but it never struck me that way. Then again I don't count fat people and thin people. Don't know why anyone would either. What's with the hatred of fat people that seems to be present on this board? Are y'all slender as can be then? Strikes me as odd that a group of folks who have to pay for sex wouln't contain any fat bastards. What's so bad about fat people anyway. OK, so if they're unattractive to you, then don't fuck one. Jeez.
By the way, from my "folks that have to pay for sex" comment, don't gather that I'm some anti-prostitution zealot, or a moralizer of some kind. I myself have to pay for sex when I want it on an emergency basis, that's how I discovered this board. But I just have to say that the degree of "fat bashing" that goes on here is disturbing. It's a reflection of our National obsession (I live in the US) with being slender, which is not so healthy. Refer to Fedup's post about the US's "more exotic" exports, anorexia and bulemia (well put Fedup).
MacoutsBunnyman
07-19-02, 03:51
jwny72 ,
I disagree with you. I enjoy hearing the same shit over and over again. CBGB, please, get on your soapbox again and enlighten us with your many (and I do mean MANY) insightful insights (was that redundant enough for you my fearless swami?) into American, European and Martian women. Have you and FEDup pricked your fingers, tasted each other's blood and repeated the secret oath yet? Also, can you please send me an audio tape of your posts concerning the American female. They are classics... almost as good as DEAR ABBY.
.
. . . . And if Tylan05 would only return, we could be "truely enlightened". Maybe it's only me, but in my book, you can't criticize American women until you have mastered the English language. How can you score if you can't talk to them? And before you talk about fat, I need to see what YOU are offering. I know too many losers, fat themselves, who criticize women's looks despite their own sad appearances. Those who score with American women (50 million guys?) are busy doing it while the rest can only bbitch about it. Please! Give us some insight or give us a break . . . -P
Yes Macoutssomethingorother?... this forum does appear to have hit a flat spot as of the moment... do share your monumental, earth-shattering thoughts of the day, and we will be sure to show the proper reverence for them. Oh, and yes... Dear Abby has some issues.
I would say that there is too much "bashing" that goes on in the US, period... not just on this board. Both men and women, fat and thin, are guilty of it. It seems to be an integral part of being human, although in the US it seems to have gained more of an accepted genre to it. I'm sure all of us have been subjected to some sort of discrimination in our lives... I, for being on the thin average looking side... RN for being an attractive SW... Dickhead for being a... well... Dickhead.
So... rather than sound like a pretentious, self absorbed prick I will pass the soapbox over to Macout... and, as Fraiser says... "I'm listening"...
Yes Proko... what ever happened to Tylan? He was a prick... but at least he had an opinion and didn't just criticise.
MacoutsBunnyman
07-19-02, 06:04
Hello FedUp,
I accept your invitation to say something but I don't have anything new or insightful to say right now so you may have to wait a bit. It is not my nature to spout off a continuous stream of babbling prattle just because I enjoy what I have to say. I've leave that up to geniuses like you and CBGB. Don't get me wrong... I really am impressed by guys like you who really are impressed with themselves.
Thanks for your support.
Rubber Nursey
07-19-02, 06:37
Guys,
This section started as a space to bash American women (after a pissed off American woman spouted lots of nasty things about American men in the Thailand section of the old forum). Once things cooled off and the Thailand posters forgot about it, this section turned into an intelligent discussion on the difficulties of dating (or more specifically, getting laid). There was lots of interesting information being shared and I think it was probably to the benefit of everyone here.
This latest discussion...how fat women are and how stupid each individual poster is in the mind of other posters...is certainly not benefiting anyone. Maybe we need two separate sections? One about dating/getting laid and one called "101 reasons why I hate chicks...period"? I know saying this will just start a constant stream of flameage in my direction, but honestly...the bitterness and anger that all of you have been directing at each other lately is beneath you all. Do we really want this section to go back to a place to bash American women AND each other??
Sorry...just my two cents...
CBGBConnisur
07-19-02, 11:53
We need to create another section dedicated totally to foriegn women. Especially those in Europe, South America, and East Asia, which seem to be the most open places in the world for a traveler to find love. The evolution of the American women is occurring so rapid that most of the women I see aren't much differrent from men. Every time I go abroad I get reminded of this when I see and meet some real women. I think George Lucas knows something, living in America its like the real life version of Attack of the Clones, or in this case Attack of the Fat Overweight American Feminazis. Speaking of Lucas he was seen in Cannes, France with a gorgeous unnamed French beauty. She must have showed him the true ways of the force. The force is with him!!
Well, the sections about which women are best for short and long-term relationships have at times had exactly that kind of discussion about foreign women (other times it's people making lists.) This thread does tend to have a lot more mindless bashing going on -- very little discussion about, for example, why American women behave the ways they do as opposed to other women, or what differences there are by locale and so on. At least a part of this is because any time someone starts something like that, they get shouted down by cries of "they're all fat! ugly! mean! self-asbsorbed! materialistic! b*tches!" and a personal anecdote as opposed to actual discussion of the point.
RN, I pretty much agree with you, but I think this thread is probably just going to ebb and flow based on a) someone bringing up a specific issue or question and b) who tends to post. Tylan is a good example -- when he was posting, the only discussion at all that went on here were long diatribes about fat people and his opinions about how horrible they were, and people's responses to him. When USbabe was posting here there was some small back and forth until she was driven out. Now, because CBGB wishes he were in Europe with the woman he misses, that tends to be the song that gets played over and over and over. This thread started out as a place to b*tch and moan, as opposed to one where information would be exchanged, and that's pretty much what it's remained.
CBGBConnisur
07-19-02, 15:32
Ok I guess its getting boring but all hope is not lost for those stuck in North America, there's some great fun to be had at our two friendly neighbors, Mexico and Canada. I've read a lot about Montreal, Quebec's scene. In addition I've heard some incredible tales about trips accross the border to Mexico in Matamaros or Tijuana. Ok you want to know why I really don't care about American women?? Ok I could probably write volumes about it but let me give you one example. In Paris last summer I was riding the Metro(the European term for subway), I was sitting on a bench waiting for the next train. Then I see an attractive French women sit next to me in the station. I noticed that she was looking at me. I'm from New York and I never make eye contact with others, but this French lady suddenly looked directly at me, I winced away shyly and then she looked at me again and smiled. She asked if she could smoke next to me, I didn't mind, I was actually surprised that she would ask for my permission. Then a conversation ensued. She initially thought I was a Spaniard,(BTW I am part Mexican). She was in her 20's and spoke fairly good English. The train arrived and we spoke some more, she gave me her number to call her and later on we got together. This from a total stranger, she wasn't at all afraid of me and it was actually quite the opposite. This didn't happen to me all the time in Europe that a friendly glance led to something more but for some reason I got so many friendly and warm glances from women, and heck not just women but men too(I'm not implying anything about that) I guess the woman on the Paris subway found me intriguiging and wasn't shy about it. Now lets take this to New York City, my lovely home(that's sarcasm). Nobody talks to a total stranger in a public in this town. Enlightened by the friendly attitudes I encountered in Europe I decided to show that attitude back home. One day in late August 2001, I was waiting for the train to midtown(this was when I returned from Europe) and I noticed a woman looking directly at me. I tried to use the technique the brunette in Paris used, I just smiled in response and then she replied coldly, "Yes, do I know you???". I said "No." and shrugged my shoulders. Then she replied hotly "Then why are you looking at me?? Don't fucken look at me." *****. I don't know what this woman on the Manhattan subway's problem was but she initiated the eye contact I was just simply minding my own business. Reality hit me that this is not Europe and that people are a lot colder here. This is what USBabe refered to as 'guarded behavior'. Its this 'guarded behavior' that I just can't stand in American ladies.
CBGB -- good story, but NYC is also a special case unto itself, and not completely representative of the rest of the country. New Yorkers in general try to take hostility to a new art form. Where I grew up eye contact isn't all that unusual, but at times I've walked around NYC with folks I know and they have asked me if I was trying to get into a fight or to intimidate people. When I ask why I'm told that no one just walks down the street actually looking at other people; you're supposed to avoid eye contact, keep your head down, and make clear you're minding your own business.
Don't get me wrong -- I actually really like NYC, and have had at least fifty or sixty trips there in the past half-dozen years, and have a whole bunch of friends there. But it's definitely got its own rules and attitudes, and in general they're not geared toward being socially friendly. And that's true regardless of the sex of the person involved.
Yes... I would agree RN... there's no sense bashing each other... unless one of us truly deserves it
Proko said... "Those who score with American women (50 million guys?) are busy doing it while the rest can only bbitch about it."
You're probably right on in that estimation. So, to rein things back onto AW... what are the other 100 million doing wrong? Miller was a great expounder of the view (and I agree) that you can't find undamaged goods if you're damaged goods yourself. But then, we're all damaged in some way... so where's the problem? Jerry Springer's folks always seem to find each other (which is rather funny as I'm currently in the search for a, cough, "manufactured" home of my own). Maybe our/my problem is that we always seek to attain something better than what we can afford.
Or maybe I'm just repeating shit that's been said before.
A new topic: How to pick up AW... here's a couple of my observations:
Bullshit:
Bullshit should be a required subject in school. Those who are best at making shit up and "embellishing" seem to do the best in life. This is as true for business/politics as it is in dating. AW do it; look at the wonderbra. If she can overstate her "assets" then I think I should be able to overstate my profession. For example: I'm not a Janitor... "I'm a Sanitary Engineer baby, I oversee a crew of five"... purposely leaving out that my crew of five are actually mop buckets.
Money:
Pick a bar and only go there once every two weeks. Throw money around like you've got two more stacks waiting at home. Find two other dudes who look like fun and buy them rounds of drinks. Once you all start howling like dogs the girls will want to see what's going on and will come over... lavish them with drinks too. Chances are high that once she's drunk enough she's yours for the night. Bonus: If you're good with your bullshitting skills then you should be able to keep her around for a few more nights of fun... or until she's sober enough to realise you're driving a Hyundai.
Who else has some ideas?
Fed-Up,
Your post tells be a lot about you and how you perceive women. You clearly are confused and bewildered by these creatures and your sole approach is to lie about who you are and what you do in order to trick them into liking you - if only for one night.
.
First question: Do you want a GF or only get laid? This forum explains how to get laid anywhere in the world. It costs between $10 and $300 depending where you live and what you want. It is cheaper, more reliable and will take less time and energy than searching for a GF. Some men are wired in such a way that this is REALLY the best route. Most want more. Don't confuse a PRO with a GF or a GF with a PRO. Two completely different ideas. You can have BOTH - but life without a GF or wife is not very satisfying for the vast majority of men.
.
Once you have decided you want a GF, give-up the idea of getting laid upon meeting or on the first date or two. You are making an investment in time and energy to find a suitable life partner. View it as if you are interviewing for jobs. You have to convince her and she has to convince you. There will be MORE than enough time to screw her later. Don't assume she is dumber (or smarter) than you. Assume she wants more or less the same things as you - Love, great sex, companionship, adventure, entertainment and some sense of security. Women younger than 21 or 22 are often quite silly and unrealistic - true in ALL cultures. I would recommend meeting women 24 and up, even if you are only 21 or 22. In fact for young guys, I think the best prospects are divorced women 25-35. They no longer have that "princess" syndrome or the dreaded "White Dress Fever" More experienced and realistic after their break-up, they will appreciate you more and will exhibit less irrational behavior. Their expectations are lower and they're better in bed.
.
Once you have identified such a woman - in a bar, nightclub, disco, church, gym - you must separate her from her pack or herd and pursue her individually. None of this 3 guys at a bar hustling a group of 4 or 5 chicks - that's a mess. Listen carefully to the cackle of female voices and choose your prey. Then get her alone, someplace quiet where you can chat 1 on 1 for 15-20 minutes. Once removed from her companion herd, she will be more docile and not feel the need to impress her girlfriends. Attitude will disappear. Be confident. Show you are happy with who you are and find out if you share any interests with her. If not or if she exhibits any of the bad attitudes discussed by others, leave her IMMEDIATELY. Be polite, but never waste your time with losers. Others will observe you and know what type of man you are by your actions. Don't get drunk or loud. Please don't "howl" or act like an extrovert asshole. Be professional. Would you apply for a job drunk or stoned? Rise above the crowd. Finding the right prospect is hard, serious work. Approach it that way. My BEST advice-listen to the women and choose with your ears/brain and NOT your eyes. Tough I know. . .
If you feel you have to lie about your money, education or job - then clearly, YOU NEED TO ADDRESS your education, job and resources! Few women will be attracted to a broke loser without a job who can barely converse. But neither do they expect a PhD CEO with a few million bucks. If you are happy with who you are - then sell that and nothing else. If you are unhappy, then get busy and fix it! . . . P
CBGBConnisur
07-19-02, 22:51
Joe I didn't even get started, New York was only one example. And I got more bad news, other big cities I have lived in were not much friendlier. I have been all over the country, LA, Miami, San Francisco, Seattle, DC, Chicago, New Orleans you name it I have been there and its the same shit coast to coast. In the old days things were much different, I probably would not have the feelings I have today back in the 70's when things were much simpler. To be fair I think Seattle and San Francisco women are probably pretty good they seem to approach European women in terms of friendliness and warmth. The latter has a huge gay male population which makes it difficult for women to find a good mate. But as far as the rest, DC is even worse than NY, Chicago forget it, New Orleans - too conservative, Miami - a little too much for the rich. I think the only real place in North America that could compete with Europe might be Montreal, its very European, with a very French accent. Vancouver's also quite nice. Even I read an article about pro baseball players what they thought were the best cities to find beautiful women, Montreal and Vancouver were constantly ranked in the top 3. I think the fact that we live in a society with high crime, especially in our large cities, makes people afraid of one another and therefore women aren't just going to approach you. Its also the due to our economic stratification, there are a lot of rich people in this country but for every millionaire I would estimate there are 10 people who don't have money for a meal or a place to stay, I am in total shock that this is what America is like in the 21st Century. This income gap seperates people. And 95 percent of the population who aren't rich or in power are just as powerless as the masses under Stalin. I need to be redundant because the mass media seems to give a false impression that American women are the only game on the planet, constantly I see images of sexy women on papers, posters, TV, movies but I rarely see anyone in real life that matches up to anything seen in print or film. Abroad, in some of the most ordinary places I have seen some absolutely stunning women doing pretty normal everyday jobs. Some of these women could give those big celebrities, whose photos and pictographs men accross America worship, a run for the money. Men, we got to wake up, we're just getting pussy whipped all over the place.
Oh for fuck's sake Proko... I was attempting to bring some levity to a stagnant board. Had you been paying attention for the past few months you would realise that I have an American GF and that I'm not a janitor. Your post has merit, but as someone who has been notably absent for weeks you have no right step in and cast judgements on anyone.
Anyway... I'm off travelling until early August. I'll look back again in a few weeks... hopefully the board will have progressed during my absence.
Sorry Pal,
But I don't think many of us are following your love life. I don't know what you do or who you date. But I do remember some pathetic posts of yours a while back, so I see no reason to expect things to be totally different now. I was only responding directly to your post below. I certainly didn't see it as an attempt at humor. I doubt you're a janitor, but I also sense a deep-seated insecurity in who you are or might like to be. If you are happy with yourself, cool - no more whining. If not , fix it. Its as simple as that. . . . Peace -P
Rubber Nursey
07-20-02, 12:02
In fact for young guys, I think the best prospects are divorced women 25-35. They no longer have that "princess" syndrome or the dreaded "White Dress Fever" More experienced and realistic after their break-up, they will appreciate you more and will exhibit less irrational behavior. Their expectations are lower and they're better in bed.
Woohoo!!! Seems there is still hope for me yet!! LOL
So all you young guys TAKE NOTE (and ummm...call me. heh heh) :)
RN,
I see you're still shamelessly soliciting! Some things never change . . . And although I said "young guys", it would apply to "older guys" as well. And especially to divorced women with a kid or two . . . Peace - P
Rubber Nursey
07-20-02, 20:47
Hmmmm Proko,
I wasn't sure if that was sarcasm there or a blatant insult, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Either way, I'm not "blonde" enough to try and solicit on a board full of Americans!! LOL What am I gonna do? Send them naughty letters and they can pay me by money order??? *G*
And by the way, I tend to like older men...for the exact same reasons that you stated in your post below. Less mind games, lower "clingy" factor and a refined sexual technique. I will always choose intelligence and experience over a boyish smile and staying power.
No insult intended . . . only an observation. But now I DO have a serious question. This may not be the right area -Amer Women? - but it would seem to me that you know a lot about what interests us. After all, this forum is for sharing useful info. As a former(?) profesional could you answer these somewhat personal questions??
How many clients would you see in a typical day? Week?
What % of men - if any- only wanted to talk, no sex?
What % wanted anal sex? Or something kinkier?
How was the money split? Tips?
What % of the men seemed nice or at least acceptable?
How often(%) did you truely enjoy the sex? And why?
Would you ever reject a client?
Were your experiences typical? What did the other girls say?
Inquiring minds need to know. You may well have answered some of these questions before. I don't remember that you did. Give us some more insight into the inner workings of a brothel. The mechanics, the schedule, infighting. We need useful tips to use in these situations. Believe me, this is not meant to embarass but to enlighten. Help us make things better - for the women as well as the men. . . -P
Stranger99
07-21-02, 00:17
Don't mean to defend RN since she is more than capable of doing it by herself but Prokofiev I think your email is out of line and offensive (nice job the question mark in brackets after you wrote "former"...)
Even supposing that she is going to answer what are you going to do with those numbers?
Jerk off thinking about the 12% of people who were asking her for anal?
In my book who cannot spell PROFESSIONAL shouldn't be asking these questions.
Rubber Nursey
07-21-02, 07:28
Thank you stranger :)
I have to admit Proko, I am getting seriously bad vibes from your last couple of posts. I will answer your questions, just in case they are legitimate. First though I will say two things.
a) Yes I am a "former" worker. I have worked one day (for Christmas present money) in the last 14 months.
b) As pretty much the only woman in this entire forum, I flirt...because I can. I don't do it to solicit, which would be completely pointless anyway. I do it to try and lighten the mood when things get too serious. I am not trying to upset anyone with it...I just get uncomfortable when people are fighting.
Ok...
How many clients would you see in a typical day? Week?
The most I ever saw on one shift was 11. Often there was none. My average for the week would probably be 10, or in busy periods, 15-20. I only worked short hours, and mainly did the day shift.
What % of men - if any- only wanted to talk, no sex?
Not a very high percentage, but it certainly did happen here and there. Most times it was unintentional...if they had erectile problems or serious nerves. I would estimate though, that at least 50% of all clients wanted conversation and affection and touch primarily...the sex act was just a bonus to finish things off.
What % wanted anal sex? Or something kinkier?
At a guess, maybe 30% asked for anal (which I didn't provide). However, I often told men on intro that I didn't offer it, so men who DID like it may not have bothered mentioning it. Interesting fact...probably at LEAST 60% wanted some form of anal stimulation done to THEM.
I have done X-dressing bookings, extreme fantasy stuff (with swordfights and bondage and all sorts of strange things!) and other relatively minor stuff, like massaging balls with my feet or squeezing them with my long fingernails. These types of bookings would be well less than 5% of clients. However, there are people who offer those particular services exclusively, so clients are more likely to visit those girls than go to a brothel.
How was the money split? Tips?
I always worked for 60/40 in the girls' favour. That is the most common split in my state, but it differs from brothel to brothel, state to state and country to country. Tips are not part of the Oz culture, but they do happen. Anything from "keep the change" to $200. I know a girl who got a $500 tip from a guy who had just won big at the casino...and he only paid $180 for the original service! We sometimes got bottles of wine, perfume or jewellery instead of cash tips. (And no, tips were not split with the house).
What % of the men seemed nice or at least acceptable?
At least 98%! I hardly ever had a problem with attitude, and violent tendencies were extremely rare. Almost every client I saw was a perfect gentleman, and even the ones who were not so friendly were at least respectful to a certain degree. That said, I am a tall, experienced woman who refuses to take any shit...those "vibes" probably eminated from me, and the troublemakers would have been less likely to pick me.
How often(%) did you truely enjoy the sex? And why?
Most times (I don't know...maybe 80%?). Why? Because I am a very sensual person, I like to be touched, I got an ego boost from men telling me all day that I was hot, dressing up in sexy work gear put me in the mood...lots of reasons. I don't have any hangups about "meaningless" sex, and enjoyed it for what it was. I also didn't have a r/l boyfriend, which made work my only sexual outlet.
Would you ever reject a client?
Very rarely. I did a couple of times, when they were really drunk or on drugs, or if my instinct told me they were dangerous. I never actually told them outright that I couldn't see them...I usually made up some diplomatic excuse (I'm just about to knock off work, you look too much like my uncle..whatever came to my mind on the spur of the moment!)
Were your experiences typical? What did the other girls say?
My experiences were common among the other girls, but things differ greatly depending on things like your workplace, your age, your experience and your looks (height helps), amongst others. There is no ONE common sex industry experience, just like in any other job. Some, like me, came away with a very positive view and really happy memories...others are devastated by sex work.
Anyway, this has gone on too long, and I can't really see any benefit to talking brothel politics...especially as I live in a different country to pretty much all of you! Hope that was what you were looking for.
Those questions were very much "legitimate" and I am thankful for your honest (and rather complete!) answers. They were NOT meant to be offensive in the slightest. Nor Mr Stranger, do I think they were "out of line". This is a forum dedicated to sex with call girls, SW's and prostitutes. The who, where, how, how much, and how often is discussed in minute detail. If this type of discussion offends YOU then you shouldn't be here, since that is the ENTIRE POINT of the WSG site. What I find offensive is the continual attack on American Women as fat, greedy, unattractive and unsuitable for a relationship - repeated over and over again without adding any insight. All my WSG posts have been pro-woman, pro-safe sex, and repectful to sex workers. Although I have offered advice and information, I am more interested in learning from others and addressing questionable facts and behaviors (i.e AIDS and safe sex). If I can't ask RN these type of questions, who would I ask? Why would any of us post here if we weren't interested in these topics? Why would a woman put 100's of posts on this site about prostitution and find questions about it unsuitable?
.
As to your answers, 60% wanted anal stimulation? That is a big surprise to me. 80% was enjoyable? I'm happy for you - although I can't believe that is true for most women. But it would be nice.
.
Since this whole topic of Australian brothels has little to do with American Women, I will contemplate the rest elsewhere before I get flamed yet again. We can now return to complaining about the USA and whining about not getting laid. Enjoy . . .
Rubber Nursey
07-21-02, 11:54
Prokofiev,
I am sorry if I misread your intentions. The soliciting jibe and then the question mark after the word "former", kinda made me a bit defensive. And remember when we had that little problem way back, regarding my ad in the Oz section? And the...ummm...300lb American trucker accusation?? lol
I could be wrong, but I think I first posted on this site in October 2001. (Getting very close to my anniversary! lol) In that time I have always made it clear that ANY questions, so long as they aren't cruel or an insult to my intelligence, are appropriate to ask. That's the main reason why I'm here. If you don't ask, you don't know. I'm more than happy to give a female and/or sex worker perspective when it's asked for. And considering I'm practically the only woman who hangs out here...who else would you ask! I am rarely offended by anything that isn't outright flaming.
If you honestly want to know about brothel politics Proko, we have often discussed that sort of thing in the Morality section. Maybe we could take that discussion there? We've also been discussing mandatory testing lately.
Man, oh Man...I sure hope we don't run off another female poster on this board. For the guys having problems with American women--Isn't this pattern so familiar for you? Meet a woman, don't listen to what she's saying, insult her, get quasi-violent, and then whine about how women are so terrible. RN, don't ever leave...you demonstrate why men need women...
Fed up...Maybe your little change of topic was tongue in cheek, but you did raise a good point. Instead of the usual pity party in here ("Girls are bad, Men are good"), maybe a more constructive topic would be "How to meet American Women." Most men work under the assumption that potential relationship material can be "picked up". This is not the case. Basing your social life on the "pick up" is like planning your monthly budget by playing the lottery. Luck will shine on you every so often, but don't count on it. My suggestion for everyone is to just forget about women for a while and do something that you're passionate about. (Art, finance, sports, whatever) When women get a gander at your passion, they will approach you. Once again, I'm not bragging, but every women that I've ever had a relationship with has approached me. I immersed myself in my writing and often did readings of my poetry and prose. Regardless of my lack of conventional good-looks and wealth, women began to talk to me. Most men here think that women are attracted to monetary wealth primarily, but this is a mis-conception. Women are attracted to passion in all forms (Of course, as with anything, there are always exceptions). The thinking is "If he's passionate about working out (or whatever) then he must be passionate about other things (sex, romance, whatever). It just so happens that passionate people often happen to be successful financially, but I know many women who are head over heels in love with poor, but exciting men.
Proko has the right idea, if something is broken, fix it. If you don't choose to fix it, then you must like where you're at.
CBGB...for the life of me I just can't figure out why you are still in the USA if you want to be in Europe so bad. I travelled around a bit and fell in love with Mexico, so I decided to stay. Everything else just worked itself out. If you feel so strongly about something, then do it. Anything worthwhile is worth taking a risk for. And with regards to your comparison between the woman on the Metro in France and the woman on the subway in New York: Maybe the men in France are generally more respectful of women, so the French lady didn't feel the need to be so defensive. And maybe the New Yorker needs that defensive attitude to fend off the weirdos and perverts who come on to her constantly in very inapropriate ways. Ask any attractive, American woman and she will read off a whole laundry list of dangerous and/or weird situations that she's encountered in her daily life. Are American women more defensive/cold toward strangers? Maybe. But this is the case because they need to be this way in order to stay safe.
Miller2k,
I agree with you on virtually everything you've said in that last post.
Yesterday I went to a club with a friend (trying out the "pick-up" model). It failed miserably. I'm not particularly hot stuff, but I'm also not not particularly hot stuff (and the guy to girl ratio was pretty favorable that night). *Shrugs*.
It really does seem that the way to mate and relate is bound up in meeting women in your everyday life. *Sighs*. I could definitely use some help in that area (although I am improving).
However, I wonder about having "passion" as a women-drawer. I would say I'm passionate about Argentine Tango (the dance) ... stereotypically you would think this would be a great way to meet women, but in reality, it is a horrible way (because of my location). So my "passion" just doesn't help. Likewise, I would say I'm passionate about some of the music I listen to, but ... well, that just doesn't do it. *Shrugs*.
David
P.S. The women at the aforementioned club were (on average) nice looking.
CBGBConnisur
07-22-02, 16:46
I just came back for the weekend from Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Now I am really starting to wonder why I have more luck abroad, is it me? Or is it the women? I met a nice French Canadian hottie that looked like Christie Turlington, real real sweet. Better than the he-females I keep running into in Manhattan.
David,
Say it isn't so! The Tango is NOT a great way to meet women? How is that possible? I had been planning to make tango my next "new project"! Explain please before I make a terrible mistake . . .
Miller
"Basing your social life on the "pick up" is like planning your monthly budget by playing the lottery."
Very good line! And very true . . You are turning into the "Shakespeare" of WSG posts.
CBGBConnisur
07-23-02, 04:24
I read some interesting statistics, there are about 46 McDonalds in the US for every 1 million people, in most European countries its about a fraction of that, for example in Britain there are about 18.3 McDonald's for every 1 million people, In France there are 14.4. So we eat a lot more fast food and its making us very unhealthy it's no wonder when I walk out of the house why I see so many fat people.
Hi guys (and ladies) I have not posted on this american women board, but I have been reading it for a few weeks now and I have enjoyed the intelligent (and the less than intelligent) points of view here.
I am from Boston so I get up to Montreal a couple of times a year. I can confirm that Montreal should be considered one of the worlds great places to go for a sex vacation. Outcall sex is legal there and they don't play the con games that are common in the USA, also because of the exchange rates the prices are low. Its also a great city to enjoy and your costs for most things will be much lower than in the United States. (ciggarettes, liquor and gas are not cheaper because of taxes)
On the McDonalds statistics; I have been to Paris and I have also noticed that the women in Paris as a group are fairly thin. I have also noticed though that the food served around Paris is very high in fat. The reason everything there tastes so damn good is that everything is loaded with butter. Also if you have ever eaten traditional British food you will agree that most of it is also loaded with fat.
This is just my observation, but has anybody else noticed that if you walk into a discount store like say,,K Mart or Wall Mart,,,most of the customers are overweight. In more upscale stores or in places that attract a more educated crowd most people are much more trim.
Adding my two cents on meeting women,,,,clubs are a waste of time if your going there just to meet women. Women will want to know you a bit before they get involved with you, and they can't do that in twenty minutes of shouting over loud music. I have mostly met women through friends, but any social or volunteer activity that allows you to spend time with other people is a good bet. You can't think of it as a one day thing, it takes a little time for her to get to know you and you her. Also resist the urge to tell all about your acomplishments, you don't have to impress her.
Originally posted by Prokofiev
David,
Say it isn't so! The Tango is NOT a great way to meet women? How is that possible? I had been planning to make tango my next "new project"! Explain please before I make a terrible mistake . . .
Well, in NYC City there are at least a couple places every night that have Tango dances (Milongas, Practicas) as well as tango Classes. There are lots of available ladies at these dances. More women than men.
CBGBConnisur
07-23-02, 22:19
Brett, you should check out the NBC Dateline website, there's an interesting article about fat in the American diet, where NBC reporter Josh Mankiewicz talks about his experience with weight loss. You wouldn't believe what he said, but he lost weight eating steak everday!! He mentioned he didn't even excercise that much while he was on this diet and lost almost 47 pounds in a year! I'm not kidding. He was referring to the Atkins Diet, where you can eat high fat foods but have to avoid sugars and starches. We Americans have been duped into thinking that a high carbohydrate low fat diet is healthier for our weight, we've been fooled. I just picked up a copy of the New York Post today, this reporter didn't blink about saying that America has become a fat country, and its not because we're inactive in fact everyone I know goes the the gym and we excercise more than Europeans. He pointed out to Hungary where the food is notorious for its high fat content and noticed that he didn't see a single fat person.
When I met a German woman here in New York, she was almost 42 and didn't have an ounce of fat on her yet she ate a of fatty foods, when we went out I used to order all the 'healthy' things and she used to order a lot of things that you would consider fat, yet she was thin and I was just ok, I work out, but I still have trouble staying thin. Then it all clicked she avoided sugar completely and didn't drink fruit juices or ate starchy foods. I remember she would have a steak and salad. And I would often have pasta and a little bit of bread. So I guess I figured out her secret. PS she didn't work out at all.
Prokofiev
"Say it isn't so! The Tango is NOT a great way to meet women? How is that possible? I had been planning to make tango my next "new project"! Explain please before I make a terrible mistake . . ."
*For Me* it isn't a great way ... namely, because I live in Arizona. The "Tango Community" here is *very* small. I suspect there are around a dozen women I see in the one small weekly Milonga they have in Phoenix. Most of the women are 20 years my senior. That leaves a *very* small pool. Moreover, in the past month the guy/girl ratio has been something like 3/2.
While the (Argentine) Tango might be a great way to *romance* women, whether it is a great way to meet women (seems) to depend on your location. As Lotsafun meantioned, in NYC there is a large Argentine Tango community.
However, let me caution you ... don't learn Argentine Tango *just* to meet women. If that is your goal, then you would have to invest a lot of time that could (probably) be better spent in other ways.
Still, if you want to learn to dance, it isn't (at all) a bad dance to choose as a "first dance". As far as meeting women goes, it seems like Salsa and Swing are a bit more poplular. (Even in NYC, dancing Tango, you can probably get a passing acquaintance with all of your potential mates in a year or two ... the same thing couldn't be said of Salsa or Swing).
Smiles,
David
P.S. Don't let me scare you away from Argentine Tango, even with all I've said, it probably is (or at least, can be) one of the most intimate of dances, and it teaches you things that will help you in an almost any other type of dancing. There is a wonderful focus on connection to music, and connection with partner.
David & LotsA,
Sounds like some guys from Phoenix ought to go to NYC to even things out . . .
And no, I realize that ANY dancing is hard work and it's not JUST to meet women. But having seen several tango films + the "Tango Argentino" and "Forever Tango" shows, I can't help but think how "right" this dance looks. The "macho" attitude makes everything else seem kinda "fruity" including Salsa. Plus all these shows will feature several older couples (50's or 60's) - and it still works. Ever see guys in their 50's or 60's disco dancing? Pretty damn sad. So I'm planning for the next 25 years instead of looking back to my 20's. Plus I hope to be in Buenos Aires next year. Thanks for the info. - P
Rubber Nursey
08-11-02, 06:15
Seems to be a hell of a lot of this section missing all of a sudden...
Good call I think, Jackson :)
I think CBGB got too violent with Johan that is why Jackson cut out a huge number of postings. There is no point in picking fights in this forum but this forum should be about discusing our problems with most American women and their over moral and snobbish issues with men. CBGB, stop threatening people on this forum because it will get you nowhere. It is okay to express your disagreement but don't talk about punching people out.
And then the other thing we don't need is racism such as was displayed in many of the deleted posts. I may be a Dickhead but I am an equal opportunity Dickhead. I report any and all racist posting I see to Jackson and urge others to do the same. If I say I'm going to kick your ass over the internet, that's just a great big joke in my opinion as it is not possible using the current technology. But the racism destroys the spirit of the board and will drive people away. A main purpose of the board is to help guys meet women of all races (or ethnicities to be more accurate) and colors and screw the hell out of them.
What if we had compulsory intermarriage and no one was allowed to procreate with anyone of the same ethnicity? In two or three generations everyone would be sort of brown or beige and racism would disappear. Plus it'd improve the gene pool. Just a thought.
BootyLover
08-13-02, 00:09
I'm still hook on black girls cause of the body. But why most of them have stinky pussy although they are well dressed, combed and smell good otherwise. I use too finger them and sniff it to check for cleanliness. Most of them failed at this test. Why to they pay attention to their body and neglect their intimate part? It seems that you guys don't tell me them that you don't want to bang a garbage can. Black are better in my view but most of them here are negligent and encourage to stay so by too accomoding men
CBGBConnisur
08-13-02, 02:47
Boy they really have some fucked up people on this board, bootylover you are one sick fuck.
I agree with Dickhead. We should ALL marry outside of our race so that racism would vanish and there would be no more "Black, White, Asian, or Latino" race or preferences. I suffer the most being an Asian man in America because people hate us and are jealous of us for no reason. Most Asian people work lower than miminum wage in America and make less than even the welfare cases and yet some racists from these poor areas blame the Asian population and pick fights with us. It is only a very few handful that includes myself that went to college, studied hard and got a job in corporate America. My job requires that I dres sharp but this gets me into a lot of trouble with the handful of racist Black people that hate us and blame us for their family's poverty. I was once accused on the train for "coming to America to take away their parent's jobs". They also say that they were fed cat from a Chinese restaurant. I tried to ignore them but then suddenly, five guys and three women stood up and started throwing punches at me. I got hit a few times but I coordinated the fight using grappling techniques and evasive manuevers I learned from kung-fu and capoeira to get out of the surrounding situation. I then threw some kicks and punches at some of them then I gouged the eye and struck the groin other another. The wounded group of 8 picked up and ran then the cops showed up too late. I looked down and my nose was bleeding because I took a punch while I was surrounded. I filed a police report but none of them were caught because they avoided this route after i beat them.
This is the type of persecution Asians face in America. Asian women also think we have small dicks. If we all mixed and got rid of these races, then no one would be white, black, latino or Asian and we would all be human beings. If I was a human being instead of an Asian among the whites, blacks, and latinos, I would have a much higher batting average. Instead we have this shit called racism. We would also treat each other like human beings. America may be a melting pot but we do not get along. That is why there are segregated neighborhoods for each race. As soon as I date a black girl from let's say East New York, I get stares from the locals of that area. The black guys there gave me dirty looks when I dated a black girl who lived in that area. This relationship didn't last too long because she got threats from her parents and neighbors. Trust me, racism for Asians is this bad in New York.
Wouldn't Asian women be in a pretty good position to know whether Asian men did, or didn't, have small dicks? Anyway, you only need a big organ if you're playing in a cathedral.
Originally posted by Dickhead
What if we had compulsory intermarriage and no one was allowed to procreate with anyone of the same ethnicity? In two or three generations everyone would be sort of brown or beige and racism would disappear. Plus it'd improve the gene pool. Just a thought.
Iggy Pop wrote a tune about this called "Mixing the Colors" on his "American Ceasar" album. Part of the refrain is "It's what Hitler didn't want..."
I think it's a totally fabulous idea. But an extension of the idea should be made to encompass people of different religions within the same ethnic group intermarrying as well. For instance, Israelis and Palestineans are both of the Semitic ethnicity and it's their religious preferences that have them blowing each other up and whatnot. If they were raising children together though...
OK JW, I will check Iggy out. Although, I saw a television special on him a while back and he knocked up some white groupie for his go at procreation. Not exactly practicing what he preached. But, maybe that was before he wrote that song ...
Great point about religion vs ethnicity. As a disbelieving heathen atheist apostate nihilist, I hadn't thought of that. However, I think if we mix up the colors we'd do a fairly good job of mixing up the religions as well. Oh, wait a minute, religions are all mixed up anyway.
The god in whom I do not believe is an equal opportunity deity despite his or her non-existence and all racists will have their time of reckoning. One time I wrote in a philosophy paper, "Although I do not believe in God, I do believe in karma." The prof wrote in the margin, "Maybe God is karma." Maybe at some point my karma ran over my dogma, but I do believe that what goes around, comes around.
An additional benefit of our proposal is that some fantastic new cuisines should emerge, and maybe some new music as well.
RN
I read a message of yours on 7-21.
I just wanted to thank you for sharing your information and experiences.
Many of us probably had the same questions. (But were afraid to ask) I know I did :)
Again thanks for your input
CBGBConnisur
08-13-02, 12:30
Even if there were mixed marriages, there would be other forms of discrimination. I would suggest people here to visit Brazil, its one of the most mixed societies on the planet. You see mixed couples everywhere, yet there is another form of discrimination, class. The rich literally run the country of Brazil, the government is a puppet of the wealthy. The gap between rich and poor is increasing, even in wealthy countries like America you see it. When this happens the rich have too much power and they often abuse it and the lower classes to entrench their positions. There are still many other forms of discrimination out there, class, sexuality, gender, education, religion, and others. Racism and discrimination is a very complicated matter.
The mixed ethnicity in brazil is the reason no one there tried to jump me (or ambush) me in Brazil. In Brazil, they all get along because there is no concept of racial discrimination. And dickhead, yes I do have an above average organ (about 7" measured with a tape ruler on the top from tip of head to before the pubic hair starts.) This horrible assumption even spreads to Asian women (or maybe the men THEY dated have small dicks and they assume the rest of us Asian men have small dicks too.) As a matter of fact, some of the blacks or caucasians in some of the amateur or low budget porno movies have smaller dicks than I have. Some even only have 5 inch dicks (2 inches smaller than mine). All women who assume I have a small dick never even pulled down my pants to find out. I did something stupid in the Exit club in New York. Some caucasian girl I talked to who rejected me and said "you know what they say about Asian men, small dicks". I immediately got angry because this is obviously a big hangup for me. I grabbed her, pulled her to the men's room and pulled down my pants in front of her. Then she said, "Oh, guess I was wrong". Two bouncers came into the bathroom after she saw me in my glory, grabbed me and literally tossed me out of the club. I had to tuck and roll out of the throw. When I went to Brazil, these people never heard of the stereotype. Even women in China never heard of this stereotype. This small dick thing is an AMERICAN stereotype created to persecute the Asian man. This is shit I put up with in this country and I was born here too.
The truth, of course, is that there are stereotypes about just about every race and nationality there are, and all one has to do is read through this thread to find a lot of it. Because people don't universally have what they want out of life, there is an innate tendency to turn someone into the "other" no matter where and what -- whether it's tribal differences in Africa, nationality differences in Thailand, religion in South Asia, or any of a large laundry list of ethnic strife issues in Europe or the states. Class has a huge amount to do with it, and as Darkseid points out, in those latter places, a lot of this has to do with who happens to be the recent immigrant group, which brings various strains of xenophobia to the fore. Immigrant populations have a natural tendency to be somewhat insular, as they need the opportunity to adjust to their new society's functions and rules, need to have a support system for this process since the majority end up doing menial work until they acclimate and melt in, not to mention the comfort of the familiar. This tends also to strengthen the otherness, unfortunately.
Though I agree that massive intermarriage would help ease this foolishness, I'm not at all convinced that it would end it. There are still ridiculous striations within groups, as evidenced by, for example, issues of lightness and darkness of color in black culture (though of course some of that is also about acclimating in a white-dominated society) and I hear remarks all the time within Asian communities where one nationality disparages the other. Everyone seems to look for a leg up in the social climb, and if racial, religious, and class tensions became less prevalent (which would clearly be astonishingly wonderful) I suspect that nationalism would then again run rampant, as we'd still need someone to blame for not all being rich or movie stars or getting laid every moment of the day. We're never short on isms. There's a marvelous piece by the poet Thomas Lux that sums it up at http://www.diacenter.org/prg/poetry/97_98/lux.html.
Where does this all leave us? Well, one thing the races all truly have in common is fear and frustration. Let's face it, even though there's still huge societal pressure about intermarriage across race in the US (as there was about marrying across religion earlier) it's more common now than is was thirty years ago. At the very least, it's no longer unthinkable. I think the only real solution is found in widespread individual attempts to create new stereotypes of kindness and openness by going out of our ways to interact positively across lines and, most important of all, to listen and learn. IMHO, and to genuflect at least in the general direction of the topic, that's also still overall the best way to get laid. We break down stereotypes by confronting them -- though it's generally not a good idea to drag screaming women into bathrooms to do so, so let's say confronting them gently and defusing them, so the other person has an opportunity to save face. After all, this isn't so much as issue of who's right or wrong in any given opinion as it is about how we can get along, and be given an equal opportunity to prove (or not) that we're idiots personally as opposed to part of some larger predefined group of idiots.
I agree that listening and learning about each other is the only way to learn. It worked in Brazil after all, the other party was willing to listen. In the case where I dragged the screaming girl into the bathroom to expose myself, she stubbornly didn't listen to me and stuck firmly to the belief that Asian men have small dicks. I then had to take the extreme measure. Stupid, yes, but I felt she had to see a hung Asian guy to diffuse her prejudice.
As for intermarriage, it is a great beginning to ending racial prejudice. At least there would be no hate at first sight, (unless we wear uniforms or dress codes identifying our class). There will always be class discrimination though but at least the motive for murder won't be because "he is black, white, Asian, etc..." People would still kill but they would kill for money or they would just pick your pockets. Yes, Brazil is like this utopia of non-race because Brazilians are a blend of black, white, latinos, and some even have Asian blood, like the ones in Sao Paulo. And there is also the pickpockets caused by the class system. Let's face it, there will always be a class system because someone wants to rule and bring order. But what Brazil has not is the hatred for people of other skin colors or religion. That is why I want to move there.
The Trashman Commenteth.....
There's great debate here online
Of which girls are the best
Which girls are claimed The Finest?
Well, let’s take the Trashman's test!
Now northern girls are friendly
Brunette and bundled tight
There's southern girls, all giggly
Mostly blonde and not-so-bright
Now, Mexicans are hotties
With fire in their eyes
They look nice until forty
Then they expand in size
There's Cali girls, all sunwashed
But shallow in the brain
Northwest girls can look sexy
While they’re dripping from the rain
Now Euro girls are tricky
There's lots of styles to pick
There's Greasers and there's Froggies
As for me? I like em Spic
Norwegian girls talk funny
And Russian's have big thighs
Most British girls are ugly
Lousy teeth, it's no surprise
There's ghetto girls-a-plenty
(My favorite most of all)
With fifty shades of mocha
I've probably had them all
From Africa to Mozambique
And everyplace between
The Trashman likes his booty
When it wears an Afro-sheen
And finally there's Asians
Some may call the finest race
A Filipino pussy
Is where some rest their face
The Japanese so passive
Chinese slit hard to find
Vietnamese is awesome
I've seen men lose their mind
We've come unto the end now
I've meant nobody ill
So please don't get upset friends
If so, then take a pill
It's poontang we're discussing
Like buddies on a bus
If booty's what you're craving
Then you're just one of us!
Rubber Nursey
08-13-02, 16:51
Haha! I'm laughing my ass off here LynnTrash. :) Very cool....
Originally posted by darkseid
That is why I want to move there.
darkseid
drop me an email if you are still interested to immigrate to Holland.
dutchman5999@hotmail.com
dutchman
Nice little ditty there Trash... I'll post it on my wall until I get tired of it.
Joe... Your last posting was right on the money. There will always be someone jealous/envious/hateful etc... of other people. Even if we were all the same colour we would still find some petty or ridiculous reason to not like another person (even other than religion). Besides... I like the different appearances created by race... variety is the spice of life.
On a personal note: My American GF (who I've been dating for 5 months) has started to pack on the pounds. Poor diet and too much work are part of the issue. She's already reached the stage of comfort with me where she's not too concerned with her appearance and conduct (including belching). She's also begun to go against her original expressed opinion that we should have a casual relationship and stated that she thinks we could be "long term". She's also still very reluctant to honk on my cock and I have to put in a special request before she will do so.
Every woman I've ever dated falls into the above pattern. I don't hate AW as some here do... but AW really aren't giving me any reason to date them. I'm honestly not that picky: I'm not looking for a doctor/porn star/master chef in Penelope Cruz's body. I'm looking for the girl-next-door with a decent job, everyday body (everyday for Europe - not the land of the BigMac), functioning mind, sexually free, and with a pleasant attitude. Am I really asking that much???
Perhaps it's time to change my name from Fedup to IGiveUp...
PS: Hey RN.... how many weeks are left until you turn 30? :)
FU, I think at this point it is imperative that you make it very clear to her that ANY possibility of "long term" is dependent on both fellatio and maintaining the weight she was at when you met. I too have had the weight gain problem with all three of the gals with whom I've lived, anywhere from 15 to a whopping 40lbs in the first year (none was skinny in the first place). #1 told me to bugger off when I mentioned it, #2 yo-yoed up and down for years which gave her nasty stretch marks, and #3 had also developed lockjaw so I just gave her the boot without even mentioning the weight. None of them went through any job, medical, or personal change that would explain the weight, and I never gained any weight myself.
I conclude that there is a subset of women who stay slim/in shape until they hook a boyfriend, and then let themselves go. Seems like false advertising or bait and switch to me.
Maybe I should change my name from Dickhead to I Gave Up A Long Time Ago So Where's The God Damn Hookers.
I think you're correct about some women and weight, Dickhead, though I'd not necessarily make the distinction by gender, as I've seen the same thing happen with guys I know. (Not to mention radical shifts in style of dress once hooked up, usually not for the better.)
And though I scream to the heavens that I don't want to make this thread devolve back into the "fat" forum again, I was intrigued, FedUp, by your mention of working too much tied into work. Americans work more hours than any other country in the industrial world, and that number has tended to continue to rise despite an opposite trend elsewhere. I don't think there's much doubt that translates to, among other things, fatigue, lack of physical activity, and weight gain. Oh, yes, and irritability :)
Well, my #1 was wealthy and was going to school and not working at all. #2 worked less than full-time during most of our relationship and never worked any overtime. #3 had the same job I had and I worked overtime but she NEVER did. I do agree I've seen plenty of guys deteriorate in a similar fashion but I don't date guys so I don't care.
Complacency is a very bad thing when one is in a relationship.
Rubber Nursey
08-14-02, 02:52
Don't make me think about 30, Fedup...I only just hit 28!!! LOL (As if 28 isn't bad enough.....)
It's funny you should mention your girlfriend feeling comfortable enough to belch in front of you. Not trying to be critical here...but isn't that what a good relationship is all about? I mean, I'm not saying belching is a particularly attractive thing for a woman to do, (and I can't say that *I* would do it in front of anyone either), but it is a natural bodily function. Obviously belching in public would be a different matter, but I am assuming you are talking about her doing it in the privacy of your own home. Don't you think it's just a little bit nice that she has come to the point where she is so settled with you, that she feels you will accept her "warts and all"? I have to admit, I get pretty turned off by men walking around my house passing gas (from either end of the body!) but I do think it's infinitely better than being with someone who I know is hiding their "real" self from me. If they feel comfortable enough to share their bodily functions with me, I am assuming that they probably feel comfortable enough to share other "private" aspects of their life with me. Of course, that doesn't make your girlfriend's belching any more attractive...but it does mean she probably loves you, and feels confident that you have similar feelings for her. If she thought you didn't care about her, she would probably feel compelled to keep trying to impress you.
That said, I am on Dickhead's side regarding her aversion to BJs. I'm not sure how long a monogamous relationship can really last if your sexual desires are too mismatched. If you feel it's something you can work on (I remember you saying she had some bad past experiences she needed to deal with), then more power to you. But if it's going to be a lifetime of you begging and her begrudgingly going down there...it's not gonna take long for one or both of you to get pretty pissed off with it all. Our sex lives often involve compromise, but in my opinion, they shouldn't involve sacrifice.
And Joe, I completely agree that men can be just as guilty of "letting go" when they get into a comfortable relationship. And the comment about the "radical shifts in style of dress" really made me giggle...I've seen that many times! LOL Also your work = weight gain thing makes sense to me too...often when you work long hours you tend to get fast food and eat out, rather than attempt to fit in grocery shopping and food preparation time. Also in a new relationship where you don't live together, your partner may skip meals (lowering metabolism) or grab take-away food after work, in order to get over to your place faster and spend more time with you.
So now this is the fart forum instead of the fat forum (those from Boston may not be able to tell the difference, ha ha!). All this provides a good reason to use the Dickhead method of trolling for women at health clubs and in grocery stores. If they have all junk food and e-coli burger in their carts, expect both fat and farts. If there is a lot of soda pop in the cart, expect both fat and belches. Unless, of course, it's diet soda pop; then you'll just get belches.
So all you American men out there, learn to cook for your American woman. Feed her healthy stuff and you'll get less fat and fewer burps and farts. Plus, eating healthy costs less and will increase your penis size. Then suggest a vigorous walk or a bike ride after dinner. Then you'll be all sweaty. Then you'll need to shower. Then you'll be naked. The rest is up to you.
Yes, we should all eat healthy and skip the Big Macs and Cokes. Even fat-free stuff (high in sugar and startch) is bad or even worse. I myself keep in shape and eat healthy so I would expect the same from my partner. Unfortunately, my ex-fiancee, Nury, devastated me and turned me off from Amercian women so much that I found love in other countries. I broke up with her 5 years ago and haven't dated another American woman since. She became a female superiorist after meeting a fat friend, Martha who told her it is okay to be fat and not to listen to me. She also told her that the woman has the complete control of the relationship and she controls the sex life as well. After following this advice, she stopped going to the gym with me and started heading to fast food places with her neo-feminist friend Martha. She packed on 15 lbs a month until she reached 180 from 120. She started being abusive and throwing things at me when she got mad. She gained all this weight because she felt bigger and more empowered by her size. I tolerated this (big mistake) and then she tries to walk all over me. She even asked if I liked her with a cauliflower hairdo and I said I didn't like it. She said tough, I will do it anyway. I hated that hairstyle (yuck). It looked like something from a horror movie with brain people or the elephant man (or lady). I couldn't stand this ugliness (inside and out) any longer so I left her and even let her keep the ring because I didn't want to get anywhere near her. This girl was the complete opposite of the girl I dated before being engaged. All because she met a neo-feminist ***** named Martha.
I don't hate fat just because of the ugliness of it, but I hate when women get fat because they feel empowered by being big and fat and they like to throw their weight around (no-pun intended). They think they can push their man around by it.
I also work out hard and train in the martial arts to be more pleasing looking to any girl I meet. I expect the same because I work my butt off to give her quality so she should give me quality.
The other American girlfriends I dated before her also let themselves go but to a lesser extent. However, I didn't break up with them because they put on 15 lbs when they finished with me, I broke up with them because they either spent too much of my money or they thought sex was a sacrifice for them. My high school sweetheart even made me wait a year before I even got a blowjob from her. She gave me sex with condom (I didn't mind safe sex because I didn't want kids) at graduation, the third year. My first girlfriend after college made me wait seven months before giving up sex to me. (I mean give up sex because sex is a sacrifice to them.) Women here in America are NOT passionate lovers either. They worry about the negative namecallings that American people call them here in America. I always sense a feeling of guilt in these women after having sex. When I have sex in a foreign country, they really get into it and they don't radiate guilt or a feeling of "cheapness". They in fact ENJOY sex. In other countries, there is no such word as **** or *****. Sex is more respected in other countries other than America.
My ex-fiancee turned me off to the fat aspect of American women. I don't mind if she farts or burps, even thin people do that, but they should not come to me with such bad abusive attitudes that comes with being fat.
WHAT MARRIAGE REALLY IS
1. Marriage is a legal form of prostitution.
2. How women got their power
3. Sex is Business.
4. What Can Be Done ?
5. Woman's Arguments
6. What's About Child Support ?
7. Deep to the roots
1. Marriage is a legal form of prostitution.
If we look into Marriage Law books we'll find something like "during the marriage it is normally the husband obligations to provide for his wife and children" ( "The Law And You" McGrow-Hill Company Of Canada Limited, 1970 ) or " each spouse is liable to the support of the other" ( Ontario Family Law Act ). This came to us from 19th century, when such law was justified, because women were not economically independent. Women then were mostly housekeepers, while their husbands earned the money. There were no such professions as woman-doctor, woman-lawyer, real estate agent, business consultant, secretary, teacher - whatever else. Not now. Now women have reached economic equality, they have equal opportunities to earn money, as men. So why is there law declaring financial responsibilities based on sexual relationship ? We don't have a law, claiming that "two people, that play tennis together are liable to support each other". But if they live together and have sex together, why they are ?
And then, when we say "each spouse is liable to the support of the other" let's not blind ourselves - it's virtually never happens that a woman support her husband. It's always men pay for women, not other way around. Women never want to marry a man that earn less, then they do ! They never want to marry an unemployed guy with unclear financial future. The whole system is a great mechanism to transfer money from men's bank accounts to women's bank accounts - nothing else.
The difference between marriage and prostitution is the same as between wholesale and retail trading. But while prostitution is considered to be a negative thing, and there is no law, supporting prostitution, why do we have Marriage Law ?
That's because we live in time of 'common level matriarchy'. Woman in 20th century have won power over man, and the law is made for their ultimate convenience, like in Middle Ages law helped barons to keep their privileges, but didn't care about peasants. But in a society of justice such law must not exist. It contradicts, for example, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states :
"Every individual is EQUAL before and under the law and has the RIGHT to the EQUAL PROTECTION and EQUAL BENEFIT of the law WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, SEX, age or mental or physical disability".
But Marriage Law DOES CREATE DISCRIMINATIVE PRACTICE ! It provides NOT EQUAL PROTECTION and BENEFITS with DISCRIMINATION of men, based on SEX. Such law must not be tolerated in our time and we should struggle for its cancellation.
2. How women got their power
Historically for many thousands of years men had advantage on women, based on very simple factor - bigger physical strength. Physical strength played crucial role at that time, and women were discriminated everywhere - in politics, economy, family. But now this advantage has disappeared, physical power doesn't give you much on today's job market. And also, unlike 200 years ago, you cannot abuse a woman physically, which is, certainly, good. But now, in this developed society it is women, who got infare advantage over man, based on another simple factor - biological demands for sex from men and women are not equal! There are simply less sexual willing women, then men. The difference is, may be, not so great - 15 or 20% . But lets imagine what would happen if there is 15% shortage of apartments to compare to all people, who want to rent. Nobody want to sleep on the street. So the price for an apartment will go up to possible maximum. That's what is called 'speculative, infare profits'.
That's exactly what happens now on 'sexual market'. I wouldn't discuss now biological causes of this inequality, what is important is the result. And the result is quite clear - the simplest proof is such thing as a price for a prostitute. It's something from 100 to 200 $ for 1/2 - 1 hour of sex. Many men must work hard from 1 to 3 days to earn this money. Why do they agree to pay this ? The answer is - market... And how much does it cost for a woman who want sex with man ? - Zero. The sexual price for a man in our society - zero.
This situation creates inequality between men and women, similar to relationship between business owner and his employee at a time of 20% unemployment. The owner can fire the worker, and there is a long line of others, who want to replace him. The worker also have his right to quit, but he will have a lot of trouble to find another job. And in sexual relationships we have exactly the same picture - women have their choice, men stay in the line. As a result women turned men into their servants. This situation humiliate men and corrupt women. And of course, women learned very well how to use it, to convert it into money. And to help them better - there is a special social institution for their service, supported by law - named Marriage.
3. Sex is Business.
Yes, we live in an epoch of matriarchy. It doesn't matter that women statistically earn less, then men, it's still matriarchy - women earn less because they don't need to earn money as desperate, as men. They don't need to pay money for sex, they receive it for sex. And it doesn't matter that there are less women, then men among presidents, premiers and CEO, - women simply don't need so much trouble to get what they want.
Sexual inequality is the cause of most of the troubles in our society. It creates the same barriers between men and women, as between rich and poor. It destroys normal relationship between a man and a woman, destroys normal sexual relationship, converts love into business and kills it. There are millions men suffering from solitude, from lack of normal sexual life, and nobody care how to help them.
This is the biggest problem in so called developed countries, more serious then even poverty and crime, because there are more people suffering from it, then from anything else. Crime, especially sex crime, depression, suicides probably by 80% directly and indirectly are results of this unfortunate conditions. In our time, when nobody dies from hunger, this - not anything else - is a MAIN SOCIAL PROBLEM, because NORMAL SEXUAL LIFE IS NOT LESS IMPORTANT, THEN NORMAL FOOD. And all democratic governments must care about this. But they don't. They care only about well being of one part of the population - women.
Yes, instead of helping weak part of contemporary society - men, the law helps those who have already advantage by their birth - women. We can not easily change demographic situation, but we can at least not to create laws, that make the situation worse ! How many millions men were caught in this trap - marriage ? How many millions dollars, earned by hard work were taken from them ? Men are not slaves, they are people. The need love, sex and understanding, but instead they get marriage law with all its consequences. How can our society treat them this way ?
If you were so unhappy to be robbed on the street, the robber will take your cash and probably will use your credit card, before you could report the robbery, but your total damage will be less then 1000$. If your marry a woman, she may born you a child, then divorce you, take your child and sue out your money, typically 200,000 or more. A woman, that want to get married is 200 more dangerous, then a street robber.
4. What Can Be Done ?
I don't believe it will be easy to change status quo by some kind of democratic procedure. No political party will take such position, because 50% of voters - women, and they will never vote for this party. And there are also some men - family law lawyers, for example, that make their fortunes on this shit, so they have already 51%. They have won. And the fact that suffering minority is nearly all the male population - doesn't bother them, no more that it bother prostitutes about their business.
We cannot easily destroy this despicable system, but what we can do is to start nationwide campaign against it. The first important thing is information - every men must know WHAT MARRIAGE REALLY IS. So if we can't change the law, we can change the public opinion. Every boy of 10 years old must know what he is going to meet, when he grow. So when his girlfriend will say "I want to get married", his proper answer will be : "Sorry, my love, I can't do it, until they will cancel present Marriage Law, because it does not defend me against financial abuse." Every boy, every man must know the real meaning of marriage, with its statistics and costs, this is no less important then information about danger of sexual transmitted diseases or unwanted pregnancy.
I ENCOURAGE EVERYONE, WHO CARE, TO DISTRIBUTE THIS DOCUMENT OVER INTERNET, TO SEND IT TO YOUR FRIENDS. Many people will agree with it and this will be the first step to change current situation. I would like to see movement "Men Against Marriage", that would struggle for men rights against oppression, like women struggled ( and won ) for their rights 100 years ago. The mere word "marriage" should be labeled as shameful, the same as prostitution, i.e. getting money for sex.
5. Woman's Arguments
Women say : "Yes, in marriage we receive money from our husbands, but this is compensation for our homework, which we do more, then men. And also we sacrifice our career, because we must stay at home and raise children. So men must pay for this." But let's ask a question : Why men don't sacrifice their career and stay at home to raise children ? And who makes women to do more homework ? Is it her husband, that makes his wife to work at home ? Does he shout on her : "Go to the kitchen immediately, make me dinner !" ? No. You can't force North American woman to do anything she doesn't want to do herself. She would rather divorce you, take your money and find her another husband, but she will never do what she doesn't like.
So if women statistically spend more time on homework, then men, that's because they need it more, then men. They like it more, then men, or, maybe, men dislike it more, the women. But why should men pay for it ? They don't hire their wives for cleaning or cooking. And when a woman doesn't work and stay at home to raise children - it's her own choice. Every husband would like to have second salary in the family rather then housewife, the family can hire a babysitter, but nobody can force a woman to quit her work. Today women do it only because they know that THEY HAVE LEGAL SUPPORT FROM LAW, that will help them to sue out men money. That must not be. Staying at home instead of work is women own choice and in case of divorce it must be their own responsibility.
6. What's About Child Support ?
Let's first ask a question - why courts in more then 90% of divorces give a child to his mother, and not to his father ? That's because there is a convention in our society : child is more close to his mother, then to his father. This is biologically true. But if so, if the child belongs to his mother more, then to his father, why would father and mother pay equally ? Father can not see his child much after divorce, their relationship are not as close, as when they live together. Why must he pay same amount of money, or more, then mother, who lives with her child ?
What if they, while married, buy a car together, then they separate, court gives the car to the husband, but also rules, that for 20 years both husband and wife must pay all car expenses equally - gas, repair, insurance... For compensation the wife have her right to come once a week to her former husband home and to drive this car for 2 hours, at a time when it is convenient for the husband. Absurd ? Sure. You got the car - you pay for it. The other side doesn't have this car any more - it should not pay.
I can imagine the women's howl when they read this. How dare I say this ?! The child's interests are sacred ! Do you know how difficult it is to be a single mother, to raise children ? Cool down. It's not only child's interests are sacred, interests of all people are sacred. It's difficult to be a single mother, sure, but it is also difficult to be a single man. A man after divorce looses his family, and his children, a woman keep her children with her. What is more difficult ? - who know... Would you like, dear ladies, to leave your children with their fathers, and also to pay child support for 20 - 25 years ? There are some single fathers around, but I've never heard about a woman, paying child support...
In a free, democratic society, with EQUAL RIGHTS FOR MEN AND WOMEN child support can be voluntary only. It doesn't mean that there will be not child support at all. There are many fathers, that love their kids and have connections with them even after divorce, so they will support their children without any enforcement from law. There are happy families, that wouldn't divorce at all, but such families doesn't need Family Law ! But we know other examples. It's not a big secret : there are many women who choose not to work, but to born children and use them as a guaranteed source of income on the expense of their unfortunate husbands. That's who need Family Law. That's who benefit from it. Do we need their children ? How can we create unequal, discriminating laws, that help such women to rob men ?
7. Deep to the roots
So how this odious laws can still exist? One answer is voting majority of women plus some man, that also gain from it. But that is only part of the answer. The fact is, that would marriage be forfeited, women simply will stop to bore children.
This is true - raising children costs a lot of money and women want guarantees, so governments didn't find anything else then to put this burden to men, even in cases of clear fraud.
To make things worth, they introduced so called Family Law Act, where among other things it is declared, that a man have full obligation for a child, born from him even if he has not been married with the child's mother and never wanted children with her at all ! That makes man a hostage of every woman, he slept with. She always can cheat him and get pregnant, if she wants, as for the man - the only way to him to stay out of trouble for sure, is to live without sex ... Nice solution, ye ? Note, that all decisions - to have or not to have a child, are up to the woman only. According to this law the man is responsible for something, about what he has absolutely no power. Nobody ask him, but he must pay, because he wanted sex. In what crazy country do we live ?
The next step should be to state something like : "Every man, who slept with a woman, must give her full access to his bank account and credit cards". Why not ? You don't want this ? - don't sleep with women.
Decline of population sure will be a problem, it will lead to economic depression first, then values of businesses and real estate will go down... But isn't the current price too high ? Should we turn all male population into slaves in desperate attempts to raise birthrate ?
Governments should look for other solutions, but not for what is going on now. And there are other solutions, first of them - immigration. It can not only solve the population problem, it can solve problem of disproportion of sexual demand and supply for men and women, by simply inviting more women, then men, until situation is balanced. Also prostitution can be eliminated... But women don't want this solution. They like it the way it is. I think now it's time for men to fight for their rights, for sexual equality.
Let's declare this - SEXUAL LIFE IS OUR PRIVATE LIFE, AND THERE MUST NOT BE LAW, THAT IN ANY WAY CONNECT OUR PRIVATE LIFE WITH MONEY. No lawyer must be able to put his nose into my bank account in connection with my sexual life. Any law, that do not comply with this requirements must be cancelled.
Let's delete Family Law Act. There will be less divorces in this world.
Let's delete all Family Law completely. There will be less lawyers, less children, but more love and happiness in our life.
So although I am now back to work and busy and earning some money to spend (later) on weed and hookers, I did miss the forum. American women are OK but a lot of them look like shit in those low riding pants that are currently in fashion. It gives an entire new meaning to the phrase "crack problem."
Jackson da man and I hope no funky stuff happens tomorrow.
Alex,
For your 1st post couldn't you have written a little more? Are you the guy who wrote War and Peace???
If you don't like it - don't read.
So, is this something you actually wrote, or is it something from somewhere else? I ask because of the "distribute this document over the internet" rejoinder. If it's not original, would you cite the source, please? I'm interested because this has an intriguing dynamic of fairly well-reasoned and well-structured argument combined with either a translation or an English as a second language set of obvious errors. I want to be able to understand its context, this being a thread about American women...
Alex, I know a couple--the husband is an artist, a sculptor. He does generate some income by selling his work, but the wife is in fact the "bread-winner" supporting the two of them. Examples like this may be relatively uncommon, but they do exist. I would suggest that they may not even be as uncommon as we think. They're just not as highly visible as the traditional model. I can't think of a movie that depicted such characters, and one certainly won't be seeing a sit-com about a high profile woman attorney and her loveable house-husband. But these situations do exist. Marriage is many things to many people. I'll agree that the model of marriage that you're condeming exists, but it's not all that's going on out there, as you seem to imply.
Furthermore, Western Culture is NOT a matriarchy. It's not as hard-core a patriarchy as it's been historically (women have a lot more pull than they did even 30 years ago), but a matriarchy it isn't. You sound like someone with an ax to grind, not like the logical, informed person you think you sound like.
for : joe_zop
"is this something I actually wrote ?" - yes. It's not a translation.
English is my second language - it's true. You, probably, see some mistakes - please feel free to correct them and distribute, if you agree with the thesis. That's the idea. I don't claim any copyright for this text.
for : jwny72
I am not against marriage itself, but against marriage law as it is today. Take off all financial liabilities from this law and then it's fine.
Of course there are different marriages, but happy couples don't need this law and lawers !
Look, if you have a problem with marriage laws there is an easy solution. Think first and don't get married. . . -P
BootyLover
09-12-02, 14:32
Why so much words against marriage? Just stay away from it.
A- For those who are already into it:
1- use ur assets to get loans (in a case of a divorce, just withdraw your cash & you'll only have liabilities to share)
2- convert ur assets into intangible ones as much as possible (knowledge,etc.)
B- For those considering the marriage:
1- make sure to discuss the idea with a lawyer since you're about to get into a contract
2- financially assess the woman situation as she does for you (be as strict a a mortgage company)
C- For all of you, get a passport and travel to view the woman/man from a different perspective
Alex:
An intriguing post, and here are a few comments on it. First, let me note that people who don't like the situation don't need to get married, so it's not as though someone's being born into poverty and needs to overcome things to have a fair shot.
First, I'd have preferred a couple of US law citations in a thread about American women, as FedUp is quite fond of reminding us that they are two different countries, with different perspectives on things.
While I find much of what you have to say well-stated and reasoned, there are a few places where I also find flaws. As your missive is long, I'll just start with a couple.
First and foremost, I have a problem with the way you just dismiss economic realities when economics are at the core of your argument. You can't have it both ways -- either economics count or they don't. The assertion that the situations are basically equal between the sexes is simply not true -- the truth is that the average woman in the workplace does earn substantially less than a man does. And this is true pretty much everywhere (one can look at the European Union and it ranges from 68% in Greece to 89.9% in Eastern Germany, with the UK at 73.7%.) The US falls in these general ranges as well, though women here have had more success at closing the gap. While the above are figures strictly about income, and there's also still a gap in pay for equal work as well. There are many reasons for this, and we can debate them ad nauseum, but the bottom line in your argument is an equal ability (not opportunity) to support oneself, and that's still not true. You tend to dismiss this by saying that men need more money because men need to pay for sex and women don't, but that's a rather ingenious approach that's unsupported by facts. If you're seriously contending that men take that extra 25% or so they make and spend it on sex, I'd like to know where your information comes from. At $40k a year, that would come out to close to $200 a week.
Also, the simple truth is that divorce is tougher on women -- according to the latest census, 21% of recently divorced women are below the poverty line, as opposed to 9% of men. And that's even in the environment you say economically favors women. Pretty much every report and study I've seen says that divorce still tends to make men richer and women poorer, with the gap widening when there are children involved. Part of this is simply that men tend to have been working longer, and in better jobs, and length of work experience tends to impact compensation.
The last time I checked, all fifty states in the US had a no-fault divorce option, so it's at least possible to cut the strings cleanly and say goodbye. (Whether one can actually make use of these laws, depends, of course, on the two people involved.)
Women spend more time on housework because they "need it more"? Does that explain why men spend more on sex as well? Whether it's money or marriage or dentistry or food, someone who wants their needs met needs to give something up in order to get it. If men want sex, they'll give up pretty much anything, including a house (little head thinking) and if women want a house to work on they'll give sex. Given this, why should the man complain when he has to give the house up at the end of the equation? Wasn't that part of the bargain? If we use your math, and men need that extra 25% to get sex, then that pretty much covers the cost of the house, doesn't it? (Let's see twenty years of $40k at 25%a year = that's a $200k house.)
As far as your argument on kids, sorry, you completely lost me on that one. Ok, you feel that it would be a good thing if there were fewer kids and lower property values. Goody -- that's you; I know plenty of my friends who live and die for their kids. Sure, there are some men who feel "trapped" into marriage by pregnancy, but that doesn't mean that their perspective is somehow trump. I also don't see how your argument can have it both ways -- that the interests of the adult are paramount, and the interests of the child are not, and that the man somehow suffers when his family is gone, but he shouldn't be responsible for paying to raising these kids because he doesn't get much time with them (or want it -- the majority of those two-hour a week visitation scenarios you decry are ones where the father shows no interest.) And, for what it's worth, I *do* know a couple of women who pay child support, which obviously means I also know women who have not been awarded custody.
The woman has total control of pregnancy because she can choose to get pregnant no matter what the man does? And the only alternative is not to get sex? Huh? Ever hear of condoms?
"NORMAL SEXUAL LIFE IS NOT LESS IMPORTANT, THEN NORMAL FOOD" and "SEXUAL LIFE IS OUR PRIVATE LIFE, AND THERE MUST NOT BE LAW, THAT IN ANY WAY CONNECT OUR PRIVATE LIFE WITH MONEY" -- are you telling me that you've somehow found a way to get free food all the time? Please, share your secret -- that way I can have more money for sex...
Don't misinterpret this -- I'm not at all slamming you for your opinion and perspective. I believe in healthy discussion, and part of that is pointing out areas where clarity is needed or where disagreement exists.
Rubber Nursey
09-13-02, 09:39
hiya boys :) missed you all. ok, on with the feminist diatribe....
family law has nothing to do with sex. do they ask you how many times you had sex during your marriage as part of the court process? does the judge say "i hereby award you with the house and half of your husband's worldly goods, for being so damn good in bed all these years?" i personally agree with you that marriage is a state/church sanctioned form of prostitution...strictly by the definition of goods received for sexual services...but is sex really all there is to marriage? what on earth possessed you to suggest that a man's (supposed) extra desire for sex should have any bearing on a family court ruling?
there are soooo many things about that chauvenist and totally misinformed "thesis" that i want to pick apart, but i'll try and limit myself to child support and women ending up "better off" than men after a divorce.
firstly, a little sex ed lesson....women can not have babies on their own. no, seriously, it's true! men do not stand idly by while their significant other gets pregnant. there are consequences for having sex for both parties...if you are not mature enough to realise that, then you have no business having sex in the first place. even when all precautions are taken, there is still a risk of pregnancy. and if you're scared that she may be lying to you about the pill and trying to "trap" you into having a family...take some responsibility for yourself and use a condom!
ummm i was going to write rep001hing abuse here for his suggestions in child support section, but have decided i couldn't do it rationally. this man obviously has no children, therefore he will never understand how very different a child is to a family car. (and if he does have children, then i hope for their sake he has no further contact with them). he will not understand the expense involved with raising a child, nor the continuous maintenence they require, like housework...you know alex, i could think of much better ways to spend my time than cooking dinner and cleaning up mud off the floor, but as the primary caregiver of children, that is my responsibility. to suggest that i do it because it is "more important to me than it is to a man", is truly ludicrous. any "househusband" or single father will be more than happy to confirm that for me.
i am truly fed up with hearing men claim that children are a woman's problem, and that men are the poor innocent victims of the court system that end up paying for "someone else's property" in child support. if you don't want kids, keep your dick in your pants. if you insist on dipping your wick, then you should have to take some damn responsibility for your own actions. regardless of who they live with, kids have two biological parents. it may be easy enough for men to walk away from their physical responsibilities as a father (which so many of them do), but they are still his children. child support goes towards making sure the children are fed, clothed and educated...and any good father would be more than happy to do that.
Geez, RN, and here I was picturing you in that nice maid's outfit, getting all how and bothered not because of the outfit or the company, but because you were actually getting the opportunity to dust and do dishes. And now you're saying I gotta pay for that too? :D
Rubber Nursey
09-13-02, 15:12
I'm happy to wear the maid's outfit for you free of charge honey...but if you want me to actually clean anything, it's gonna cost you fantasy rates!!
(Oh my god.. did I actually say "dip your wick" in my post??)
hi, everybody ! i expected a lot of shit on my head, but instead i got some reasonable arguments. let's discuss them :
to joe_zop :
thank you for your post.
your arguments :
1. in real life women earn less, then men ( althoug in theory they are equal ), so marriage in a way compensates this gap.
it's not only men and women that don't earn equally, whites and blacks also earn not equally, tall and beautiful people statistically earn more, that short and ugly. we don't have laws to compensate this. we don't have a law "if a white man and a black man play tennis together they have mutual financial obligations". why if a man and a woman have sex together, they do have them ?
what if we have this absurd law about tennis ? people will be afraid to play tennis. before playing with somebody they will learn his financial background first and then decide, to play or not. would it be good for tennis game ? - no. are marriage laws good for sex ? - ... same thing.
2. i know plenty of my friends who live and die for their kids.
i also know a friend that keep tie connection with his daugther after separation and helps a lot. more, then mother. he does not need any law for this !
so who need this law ? the law is a tool to forse to pay men, that have no connection with their former wifes or children. they don't love them - it happens, it's life. why should they pay for something they don't like ? - because it's difficult for single mother to raise a child. but this is another problem ! let's recognize, that raising a child is in fact full time job, that is nessessary for benefit not only of his parents, but to whole society, so society should pay for this job. and then kill marriage law completely. doesn't matter - single, married, even for normal family with both parents working, they in fact do second job raising their children. let's redistribute taxes, but not charge cheated fathers. men will be less afraid to have children. i, personaly, would prefer to pay more taxes, but to be sure, that no lawer will ever put his nose into my private sexual life.
the current price for marriage law is too high, it mixes love with money and so kills love. and love is more important then money ! - this is the point. no single mother has died with the child from hunger yet ( god save ! ), but how many happy lives are raped by by mixing love and business. financial situation of single mothers is not the only important problem in this world !
there are many complaints about american women - they are selfish, treat men like shit - that's partially result of marriage law, that introduce business relationship into family. cancel the law, and women will eventually learn, that sex is for love, and business is on their working place, not at home.
3. - ( my conception is ) - that the interests of the adult are paramount, and the interests of the child are not
not quite this way. but let's not forget - every child is child until 17, then he lives 3-4 times longer as adult. and half of children are also boys. did anybody ask them, boys, do they want this law ? maybe they'll prefer less toys in childhood, but more normal sexual life as adults ?
when they say : family law is maid to keep interests of children - it's lie. this law is made not for children. it's for their mothers.
4. - i *do* know a couple of women who pay child support.
so what ? that's exception, but the rule is that men pay.
5. - i've seen says that divorce still tends to make men richer and women poorer
it's, probably, true. it's another proof that marriage tends to make women richer and men poorer.
still i read that 90% of divorces in usa are initiated by women now. i don't know how credible is this data ( also it seems to be true ), i just read it somewhere in internet. it's interesting to find official data, if you know a good web-site, please, let me know. i'd also like to find credible statistics about :
- how many marriages happen a year
- how many divorces happen a year
how much money annualy are sued out by divorces :
- by women from men
- by men from women
how often courts give children :
- to mothers
- to fathers
i guess this statistics could be quite elogent.
to bootylover, prokofiev :
- why so much words against marriage? just stay away from it.
- think first and don't get married.
i try to stay away. the problem is that women press on men - go get married or go to hell, i'l find another, more agreeble guy. just like prostitutes - no money, no funny. i'd like to take this tool ( marriage ) off their hands.
to rn :
- family law has nothing to do with sex. ... i personally agree with you that marriage is a state/church sanctioned form of prostitution...strictly by the definition of goods received for sexual services
good. you agree.
- if you don't want kids, keep your dick in your pants. if you insist on dipping your wick, ( yes, you said this ! alex. ) then you should have to take some damn responsibility for your own actions.
this conception is totally wrong ! to have children and to make a mistake about this - is not a crime, that men shold pay for. this idea kills normal sexual relationship between men and women - and normal relationships are more important, then money !
please, see also my answers to joe_zop.
Everybody has there own views about family finance, but the most common view is that somebody else should pay. I know lots of people that have kids, but I can't think of any parents who wish they did not have their children. They sure complain about the costs and the many forms of effort involved with raising kids, but none would give up their kids.
I will tell everybody reading this that I do not want to pay my electric bill. I do not have a good excuse, I just do not want to pay. I will pay it though because I really don't like sitting in the dark. Lots of guys try to get out of paying child support. They offer every excuse imaginable but the bottom line is ,,,they just don't want to pay.
I hear people complain about taxes thinking that they are paying somebody elses way through life without ever considering that most of the things they take for granted would not happen without the system as it is. A simple fact of life is that if we want to play the game, we all have to pay our share of the bills.
I have never been told I look like Brad Pitt but I have been able to maintain a relationship even at points in my life when I was barely making enough money to get to my next paycheck. I don't claim any special ability in bed, but most of the women I have been with seemed more than willing to be intimate. I honestly think that we blame American women for our troubles because otherwise we would have to look in the mirror for the real problems.
I am far from perfect, so if I can do it, anybody can......Life is what you make it.
random : I do not want to pay my electric bill.
You pay electric bill for house where you live only. If you leave the house, you don't pay the bill any more.
Alex I pay the electric bills in places that I will never visit. I pay taxes to fund programs for people that I will never meet. I might complain about that sometimes but the fact is those people cash the checks they got from the goverment and buy things from people I do business with. We are all connected and I understand that its not a free ride. Your going to have a tough time convincing many people that you deserve money for prostitutes more than mothers deserve money to care for their kids. Good luck selling that idea my freind.
Rubber Nursey
09-13-02, 16:42
Alex,
"To have children and to make a mistake about this - is not a crime, that men shold pay for. "
That was exactly my point....paying child support is not a "punishment". It is a responsibility! Parents support their children financially, emotionally and materially...that is part of the job description. It's quite obvious by your constant references to the financial position of single mothers, that you believe this money is paid to keep the WOMAN happy. That is not what it's for. I believe Americans have alimony payments that cover that sort of thing (a concept that I find bizarre mind you). Child support is paid to provide for the children....children that BOTH the parents brought into this world.
re: the father losing custody.
A child is not property that can be divided up equally between the parents. It is unfortunate that one parent has to miss out, but that's the way it goes. "Shared custody" is really the only situation that keeps both parties happy, but living in two different houses usually does kids heads in. It's also not possible if the separated couple live too far away from each other (with school, etc).
Women are not always automatically granted custody of children just because they are mothers. As someone involved in the sex industry, I know MANY women who have lost custody of their children after being classified as "unfit mothers" due to their occupation. In the overwhelming majority of cases, (and yes, I have studied stats and numbers while doing a research project on sex workers and residency), women are granted custody because they are unemployed. When there is a choice between a man who works fulltime (who would have to put the kids in daycare) and a woman who is a housewife (who can give all the attention necessary to the children)...the courts will choose the mother. The other fact is...the majority of men do not WANT custody! They run off and start a new, dependent-free life and the woman is left literally holding the baby. Most of these "fathers" (and I use the term lightly) are showing friends the baby photos and bragging about how well their son is doing on the school soccer team, while at the same time flatly refusing to pay child support. When the kid grows up and gets married, the "father" will expect an invitation. He will want to be called Grandpa when the time comes too. If he wants all that, he can damn well help with the child's upbringing. You can't just be a father when it suits you...it's a fulltime, lifelong job.
"No single mother has died with the child from hunger yet"
Of course they haven't. Any mother worth her salt would sacrifice EVERYTHING to ensure her children have food on the table. That may be why "providing for my children" is (worldwide) the most common reason given when you ask a woman why she became a prostitute...
Rubber Nursey
09-13-02, 16:47
Random,
Beautifully said honey! :)
Alex --
First, sex is not tennis. Just because there are balls involved and love matches, doesn't mean it's the same. Sex may be sport, but that's not all it is. And in any event, tennis also has its rules -- you don't get to simply decide that "I want to hit the ball and win, so any place I hit the ball must be in." You wanna play, it's got to be something where the opponent has an equal chance to come out ahead.
We do in fact have laws that prohibit discrimination by race, though they don't always work. We've had a long stretch of affirmative action programs (whatever one might think of them) to try to compensate for inequities in opportunity in that regard. Even the most vocal proponents of such programs acknowledge that they give preferential treatment to those who fit into the definitions. So it's far from an unknown scenario.
I don't agree with you that "making a mistake about children is not a crime that men should pay for." First of all, children are one of the basic potential byproducts of sex -- if you're not willing to deal with this then you shouldn't be engaging in the act. You don't want kids, get a vasectomy and then you've got nothing to worry about. As long as you're shooting something other than blanks, pregnancy can happen, and it's part of the deal that you're co-responsible. Frankly, it's childish to expect that you don't have to accept the consequences of your actions -- if you're part of bringing a kid into the world, you're responsible for making sure that kid is supported and nurtured to adulthood.
I'm sorry, but your concept that maybe we should ask the boys about this situation and maybe they'll prefer lots of no-string sex as an adult to lots of toys right now is simply beyond silly.
You say, these laws penalize men who want nothing to do with their ex-wives and children, and that society should pay for the raising of children, so men can basically abdicate their responsbilities if they so choose. In other words, I have to help pay for the fact that you choose to go out and make a slew of women pregnant, right? So what you really want to do is shift the burden for your behavior to my wallet as opposed to yours. Why should I think that's a good idea, exactly?
Interesting questions on your stats issues -- here's a few answers:
Simple numbers I found from the Census Bureau, slightly dated by probably still in the ballpark -- in 1995 there were 2.3 million marriages and 1.2 million divorces.
Yes, everything I've read says that women are more commonly the ones who file for divorce. The best stats I've seen put the number at far less than your 90% citation around or slightly higher than 2/3rds -- the highest historical rate cited in general was in 1931, when it was 72.8% female filings (American Law and Economics Review 2000) The National Center for Health Statistics says the same -- in marriages with children, women file two-thirds of the time. Isn't it worth asking, given that women end up worse off after divorce, why this is the case? Custody might be part of it, but the stats aren't clear in that regard.
The legal truth is that maternal preference laws regarding custody were found to violate the 14th Amendment (Roth, 1976), so things have been changing and joint custody is much more common than it used to be. The NCHS did the first studies looking at custody rates, and, using their definition of joint physical custody as a minimum of 30% time share, while women still get custody from about half (Montana and Kansas) to 80% (several states) of the time, both women's and men's percentage of sole custody tend to be higher in those states where there's little joint custody, and women's rates are the ones that are substantially reduced in places where there's a substantial rate of joint awards.
The bottom line is that marriages tend to fail because of sex and money problems, so why would it be surprising that those are the two things there are most complaints about here?
RN
"That was exactly my point....paying child support is not a "punishment". It is a responsibility! "
You can call it anyway, it's just words, but the result is more severe, then if you'd steal something.
"Parents support their children financially, emotionally and materially...that is part of the job description. It's quite obvious by your constant references to the financial position of single mothers, that you believe this money is paid to keep the WOMAN happy. "
"A child is not property that can be divided up equally between the parents. "
"The other fact is...the majority of men do not WANT custody"
I agree with this. I do not idealize men and don't despise women. It's all difficult problem that has no easy solution. What I say is that current solution is VER bad. It sacrifice normal relationship between men and women for business matters.
"As someone involved in the sex industry" - I am not sure what do you mean, but some women " involved in the sex industry" have reason to worry. If marriage will be canceled, prices for sex industry will go down.
I am asking all men - Do you want to get sex-for-sex, free, or do you want to live in a country of "sex industry". If you prefere second choice - go continue support for marriage laws.
random753
"I pay taxes to fund programs for people that I will never meet." - good, let's pay taxes for raising children. Not marriage law alimonies.
"Your going to have a tough time convincing many people that you deserve money for prostitutes more than mothers deserve money to care for their kids. Good luck selling that idea my freind." -
I am not trying to sell it for your friends, but to people, who will understand it correctly.
for joe :
"As long as you're shooting something other than blanks, pregnancy can happen, and it's part of the deal that you're co-responsible. Frankly, it's childish to expect that you don't have to accept the consequences of your actions" -
In current situation women have whole control on this matter - she can have a baby, or make an abortion, man has no control. Is this correct, that he has equal responsibilities, on something, he can not really control ?
The only solution for the man who don't want children - abstinence from sex. Is it going to be happy society ?
"I have to help pay for the fact that you choose to go out and make a slew of women pregnant, right?" - no, not right. You will pay for the fact, that you will never pay more, even if a prostitute lured you into sex and bore a child. ( It's not my case, don't think that I am just hurt and speaking for myself. )
"I'm sorry, but your concept that maybe we should ask the boys about this situation and maybe they'll prefer lots of no-string sex as an adult to lots of toys right now is simply beyond silly. " - why ? did you ask them ?
They will answer what they, children, whom we do care about, want.
Rubber Nursey
09-13-02, 18:35
"If marriage will be canceled, prices for sex industry will go down."
Let's see...if the Family Laws were gone and marriage didn't exist, and women knew they could no longer get financial assistance for their children after a relationship breakdown, then women would be terrified of becoming pregnant. Women would then stop having sex. When women stop having sex, sex industry demand increases. And when demand is high...so are the prices!
Or...when women are no longer being screwed over by joint loans that their husbands manage to slither out of paying after the divorce, and the state is supporting all the single mothers with taxpayer funded welfare payments, many women will no longer be forced to work in the sex industry. That will mean fewer prostitutes, and when demand is high but supply is low...up go the prices again! :) LOL
Seriously though, apparently about half of all sex workers clients are married...which by my calculations means that half are not. Single men see hookers too. I can't see how the abolition of marriage would effect the sex industry at all.
Also, apparently around half of all marriages end in divorce. That means the other half don't. So all those men who are in happy marriages are currently getting all the free sex they need. Anyway, marriage has nothing much to do with sex. Marriage is a partnership...a friendship...if you happen to have great sex in that relationship then you are lucky. But if you are getting married just because you want lots of sex...then you are getting married for totally the wrong reasons, and it will fail. And if you then find yourself in the predicament you're describing, I reckon it's your own fault.
for RN :
Let's see...if the Family Laws were gone ... then women would be terrified of becoming pregnant. Women would then stop having sex... -
no, they would have sex. they would stop having babies when they are not sure.
"Anyway, marriage has nothing much to do with sex. Marriage is a partnership...a friendship..." -
Wrong ! The main reason why man marry is that they want normal regular sex and can't get it other way. For friendship you can meet in a cafe, even to have business in partnership, but not live in the same house.
Men, if not gays, don't live together for mutual cooking, cleaning...
"But if you are getting married just because you want lots of sex...then you are getting married for totally the wrong reasons, and it will fail." -
Thats what is, unfotunately, happen TOO often. Or why there is 50% divorces ?
"in current situation women have whole control on this matter
- she can have a baby, or make an abortion, man has no control."
i'm sorry, did i miss some kind of biological breakthrough where women can now get pregnant without sperm? i've been screwing for a lot of years, and no one's ever gotten pregnant with my child without my active participation in the process. and if i'm worried that someone is going to have a baby and hold me hostage either emotionally or fiscally, i've got other options than to stop having sex.
"the only solution for the man who don't want children - abstinence from sex. is it going to be happy society ?"
hello, let's try again -- condoms, birth control, etc. that's not abstinence (heck, that's only good sense, with stds running around.) you're saying that a society full of neglected children and self-centered irresponsible males is going to be a happy one?
" 'i have to help pay for the fact that you choose to go out and make a slew of women pregnant, right?' - no, not right. you will pay for the fact, that you will never pay more, even if a prostitute lured you into sex and bore a child. ( it's not my case, don't think that i am just hurt and speaking for myself. )"
sorry, but if you're asking "society" to raise kids, you're asking me to help pay for that, as opposed to you taking full responsibility for your actions. that means that you (and it's the rhetorical "you" not you personally) just pawn off your actions on the rest of us. and i'm sorry -- a "prostitute luring you into sex and bearing a child"? c'mon! what planet are you from?
"they will answer what they, children, whom we do care about, want. "
so you seriously expect to go to a seven-year old boy and say. "honey, if we stop giving you as many toys and clothes, when you grow up you'll be able to have all the sex you want without those nasty girls taking money from your wallet or worse, your house, after she emotionally screws you over. doesn't that sound great?" and actually put some stock in the answer? i suggest you do a little reading on child development before you put forward such absurb suggestions, because it really undermines the rest of your argument.
alex, there are some areas where you say some really good things, but c'mon, on some of this stuff you're just waaay out there.
and i'm with rn -- your concept of marriage explains a lot, and it's clear you've never been in one, or at least one that works. marriage definitely is a partnership, one in which sex is included in the mix but is not the only thing happening. let's keep in mind that part of the so-called "traditional" marriage was very much one of the man working outside the home, the women providing meals, support, a home, etc., and the man gratefully coming back for relief, comfort, something of his own, etc. things may have changed and roles may have changed, but food, shelter, safety, and family are still pretty important in the big scheme of things. if you seriously think that the only reason men marry is for "normal" sex, and that friendship and partnership and family have nothing to do with it, then please, please, please never marry, even if all the laws change to what you'd like. that would be like diving off a skyscraper and expecting to hit water.
joe_zop
"Hello, let's try again -- CONDOMS, birth control, etc." -
What if a condom breaks ? Or, more often, a women say - I take precautions, but then she says "sorry, I am pregnant and I want a baby and you will be the father." How many people were cheated this way ? Do you have statistics ?
"Sorry, but if you're asking "society" to raise kids, you're asking me to help pay for that, as opposed to you taking full responsibility for your actions." -
And what is the alternative ? This way, that we have it now ?
Even the existence of this topic "American women" proves, that it's something wrong in this situation.
"So you seriously expect to go to a seven-year old boy and say. " -
Not 7 years, but at 14 years old they will understand it well. I'm wondering, what'd be results of such experiment ?
Anyway, this is not my main point.
"If you seriously think that the only reason men marry is for "normal" sex, and that friendship and partnership and family have nothing to do with it" -
yes, that what I think. 2 good friends, not gays, that share appartment, may even cook together, understand one another, be lifetime friends and so on - are not married. They are not financialy responsible before the law. ( Why not to look this way at all relationships, regardless off sex ? ) Marriage happens only when sex is involved. If sex woldn't exist - nobody would ever marry.
>What if a condom breaks ? Or, more often, a women say - I take precautions, but then she says "sorry, I am pregnant and I want a baby and you will be the father." How many people were cheated this way ? Do you have statistics ?
Do you have statistics? You throw this out as though it's the major problem here. The percentage of condom breakage is pretty low overall, which means so is the rate of pregnancy in that regard. Your approach is that everything needs to be defined by the worst-case scenario.
>Even the existence of this topic "American women" proves, that it's something wrong in this situation.
No, it proves that there is a dysfunction of relationship between men and American women. It doesn't prove a darn thing about the marriage situation, as this is a board about prostitution.
>Anyway, this is not my main point.
Thank heavens, because as I said it's a weak one. And setting up a scenario where you ask 14-year-olds about sex both ignores the majority of childhood and basically chooses the precise spot where raging hormones and social discomfit coincide. It's picking only the spot where your scenario might work.
>yes, that what I think. 2 good friends, not gays, that share appartment, may even cook together, understand one another, be lifetime friends and so on - are not married. They are not financialy responsible before the law. ( Why not to look this way at all relationships, regardless off sex ? ) Marriage happens only when sex is involved. If sex woldn't exist - nobody would ever marry."
I'm sure that's what you think, but how long/often have you actually been married? What examples and personal knowledge are you speaking from? C'mon, fess up -- RN and I have at least walked the walk.
Tell you what -- you spend your life living with guys, then, and having sex whenever you can manage. I've lived with guys, and I'll take marriage any day, even with its various perils, and I'm sorry to really disagree with you on this, but it absolutely is different. And for far, far more than the sex. As you mentioned oh-so-briefly in one of your other posts, there's also love, and I'm not talking about fraternal love. And love is about more than sex, though it obviously can involve that. You thesis compared marriage to legal prostitution -- normal, healthy love (which I use because you keep referring to normal sex) doesn't fit into that equation.
BTW, your two guys are financially responsible before the law if they have entered into any kind of contractual obligation, such as buying a house or leasing. (A better example would probably be a two-person business, as there is a more clear co-mingling of interests.) And marriage is a legal contract, a statement of financial and emotional committment. If you don't like that, don't sign up for it -- same as moving in with a guy.
Since we're pondering statistics, suppose you give me one about the number of non-gay guys who live together for, say, twenty, thirty, or fifty years, since this seems to be such an attractive example to you to use. There is a different level of committment being made in marriage, even keeping kids out of the equation, which is difficult to do, and the statistical truth is that frequency of sex tends to decrease the longer the relationship lasts, regardless of whether marriage is involved or not. Tell me, if you would, since sex is all there is that's important in marriage, why so many older guys (and this was still true pre-viagra) get married again to women their age, even in nursing homes? Surely it's not for the sex!
I'll tell you what, if sex is what it's all and only about then here's what you want to be -- a never married/ divorced/separated/widowed person living with someone of the opposite sex. Statistically speaking, that's the single group of who most often get laid more than twice a week. More than married guys or women. More than single folks. So I suggest you just skip the whole angst about the marriage thing and move in with someone. You'll have more sex and less existential crisis, and your partner will be clearer on your level of committment. (And again, I'm using the univeral "you" as opposed to talking about you specifically.
- Even the existence of this topic "American women" proves, that it's something wrong in this situation.
- No, it proves that there is a dysfunction of relationship between men and American women.
You say the same thing in other words.
What do you think is the cause of this dysfunction of relationship ?
I think - marriage law is one of main causes.
joe_zop :
"your two guys are financially responsible before the law if they have entered into any kind of contractual obligation" -
The difference is that 2 guys make the contract voluntary. but marriage is often happens under sexual blackmail/pressure - marry me or go away. Just like prostitutes - no money - no sex for you. There are happy exceptions, sure, but the rule is this - men do not need marriage law, women do need it to get money. I am not against love and living with women, not againt happy marriages, I am against the law, that corrupt sexual relationships. And your advise just to keep out of marriage does't work well, it's women that wouldn't let you to keep out of it.
Yes, I present extremist position here, while you argue for women also. But I don't see any other solution - it simply does't work for both men and women. So we have to make choice - either for men or for women. Now the choice is made for women - are you happy ? Look at this site - how many people go even to Philippines to get cheap sex - is it normal ? Their life must be really unhappy for them to do it. Who can state that this is a smaller problem, compare to better financial well being of women. I feel that women have unfare advantage in today's society, and the first step to decrease this gap will be - cancellation of financial shit in marriage, which will decrease self esteem of american women, make them more dependable of men to compensate men's dependency of sex.
You also have mentioned, that marriage law practice violates amendment 14 - yes, it violates it even with all cosmetic attempts to repair it. How can it still exist ? It's clearly sexually discriminating law.
>What do you think is the cause of this dysfunction of relationship ? I think - marriage law is one of main causes.
I don't think that's the case -- marriage happens in all countries, and the laws in many are pretty similar. The situation's with women's different there, as many here will testify.
Causes? A post-feminism boredom that has translated into a wide pendular swing toward male-bashing, basically unhealthy competition between men and women over whose rights and interests are paramount, a culturally materialistic and and callous societal undercurrent that promotes unrealistic expectations about beauty and possessions, obsession with winning as opposed to cooperation, fast food and unhealthy lifestyles, too much time spent on work by both sexes, heck, there are lots of culprits. I put marriage laws down the list -- IMHO, dissatisfactions with them are symptoms of the disease, not the cause.
Please, see my post 12, if you want to answer it now, do it. I'll return tomorrw.
Thanks.
PS. In what you say in your last post - do you see any solution ?
"And your advise just to keep out of marriage does't work well, it's women that wouldn't let you to keep out of it."
Just like they trap you into pregnancy, right? Geez, can't you arm and protect yourself against the wiles of these jezebels? No one can force you to get married. No one can force you to get them pregnant. So let's be clear about what you're saying -- it's ok for you to want to sleep with women with no committment, but it's unfair of women to want a committment from you in case they get pregnant and stuck raising a kid? Are you that wonderful in the sack that they should be getting wet thinking you might bestow yourself on them? C'mon! Given that you basically seem to be approaching everything as though women are out to get you, and want to flee when you don't like something, why would they enter into a voluntary contract with you where they had no benefit? You're getting what you want -- sex -- what is she getting? Contracts generally specify gains for both sides, an exchange of benefits.
Marriage is a voluntary act, no matter how you want to paint it. You don't have to sign a loan for a car or a lease unless you want to, and you sure as hell don't have to take a blood test and sign a marriage license unless you want to. If those are a woman's conditions and you don't like them, then look to sleep with someone else!
My quote on the 14th amendment was on preferential custody laws, not marriage laws. Most states in this country use a community property approach, which divides assets equally -- your position is that this favors women, because men bring more dollars into the equation. If you want to enter into the process of marriage and are worried about getting screwed when it falls apart, then get her to sign a prenup.
I argue for me and what I know and see -- not for men and not for women. Mostly I'm more concerned for the kids, as they will affect society and messing them up will have direct consequences on my quality of life. I don't feel like getting robbed or killed by a kid who's angry because he has nothing and was neglected by a father who said, hey, you're not my responsibility. Unlike you, I don't see it as an either/or equation where either one or the other gender has to win, and I don't agree with you that the existing laws only work for women and not for men. Personally, I wish the laws around child support were more strongly and radically enforced, as I've seen too many kids who have nothing because their parents marriages broke up and daddy won't hold up his end, while he's busy using your argument and perspective.
You don't like it -- don't procreate. You feel a woman's going to trap you into marriage by getting pregnant -- get neutered. You don't like that she wants you to marry her in order to keep sleeping with her -- find someone else. But whining about how unfair it is that you might have to clean up the mess you make, because it's all the bad laws and crafty women is nothing but wallowing in being a victim. Let's go back to one of the old roles, where men are men, and do what they need to do instead of complaining about how tough it is.
This site is not indicative of the oppression of marriage laws. This site is first and foremost about exchange of information about where you can find available women to have sex with, both in the US and elsewhere. This site is indicative of the fact that men like to get laid, period. Men, in general, like to get laid anywhere, any time, as often as is possible, and with as close to anyone and everyone as they can manage. Men will travel to the ends of the earth to get laid, and have done so throughout history. That has nothing to do with marriage laws -- that has to do with human nature and biological imperatives. And single men, who get laid less often than married men, also have to work harder to find an available woman.
And your example of the Philippines is rather ironic, in that one of the reasons men go there, among other places, is for the so- called "girlfriend experience" where it's the illusion of a relationship that goes beyond one that's strictly sexual. The girlfriend experience -- that's the one that's different from just sharing a place with a guy.
As far as seeing a solution -- personally, I believe where we are in the relationship between the sexes in the US is in a developmental gully. I believe it will straighten itself out somewhat given time, given a further development and stabilization of roles within society, and given an overall state of dissatisfaction with how things are. We're still in the blame arena, and the current generation is also still reacting to the fact that the promised climb up the economic ladder which has been at the core of the American ideal may not take place. It's not until we get out of that place that there's the possibility of moving forward.
Rubber Nursey
09-14-02, 05:00
"I feel that women have unfare advantage in today's society, and the first step to decrease this gap will be - cancellation of financial shit in marriage, which will decrease self esteem of american women, make them more dependable of men to compensate men's dependency of sex.'
I think that sentence explains his entire position on the matter. What's going on? Do Misogynists Anonymous hand out this link at their meetings or something???
Alex...even some of the hardcore woman-haters in this section will probably not accept most of what you say. Especially if they are fathers, because your attitude to the welfare of children is really disturbing. I'm not sure that you will find many Americans who will support your law reform ideas...but I hear the Taliban are looking for policy writers....
for Joe : continuing answers for previous posts :
>You're getting what you want -- sex -- what is she getting?
Joe, you are so used to this system, that you don't see how wrong it is. I get sex, she also gets sex ! Both sides enjoy it. I am not looking for any money in it, she must do the same ! Then the world will be a good place.
Sex for sex, not sex for sex+money for women !
>Marriage is a voluntary act...
Sorry, you don't hear me. Let's imagine a country with lack of food, so in order to get meat in such a country you must marry a woman - owner of the meat shop or restarant. It's voluntary - you don't have to marry her and you will eat shit all your life. Would you like to live in this kind of world ? Would you try to change it ?
That's the situation with sex in USA now. And marriage laws decreases availability of 'sexual meat'. I, personally, try to avoid marriage, but I don't want to discuss myself, because it's not about me. Millions of people meet same problem.
>Mostly I'm more concerned for the kids, as they will affect society and messing them up will have direct consequences on my quality of life. I don't feel like getting robbed or killed by a kid who's angry because he has nothing and was neglected by a father
I am pretty sure, that lack of sex, not lack of money or father is the main cause of juvenal aggressivness. Would sex, girlfriends be more available for them - free, without money at all ! - crime will go down, not up.
>Let's go back to one of the old roles, where men are men, ...
You cannot just go to the old roles in a situation when women control men more, then men control women. It's not my whinning - it's reality.
>This site is indicative of the fact that men like to get laid, period.
Woman also want to get laid ! The difference is may be 10-15% of frigid women. What makes this difference overwhelming is the law, that create for women opportunity to suck money through it. So they not to give it free, but to sell it for more.
>And single men, who get laid less often than married men, also have to work harder to find an available woman.
This is double standard - men must work hard to find a woman, women don't have to work hard. We must eliminate such standards.
>As far as seeing a solution ... We're still in the blame arena,
- Sure.
> and the current generation is also still reacting to the fact that the promised climb up the economic ladder ... may not take place. It's not until we get out of that place that there's the possibility of moving forward.
We can not rely on this. Economic ladder can be up and down for tens of years. What's about generations of men that live now ? Are their lifes doing to continue to be screwd up with 'hard work for women' ?
Then US economy is among best in the world. There is a trend - the more country is reach - there are more sexual problems for men. That's because women feel more money around. That's why there is more sex in Africa or Brazil, then USA. Better economy doesn't help in this way.
Your list of causes of problems with American women in one of your posts - just a set of general words, there is no hint how to solve this problem. What I propose is a solution, do implement it and the situation will change, women will become more sexy and less bossy in US. You don't want it ? So nothing will ever change.
Don't hope for happy marriage, in present situation your chances are very low.
>RN : I hear the Taliban are looking for policy writers....
Now I realize how moslems got their ideas - it is an attempt to solve 'american women' problem. I do not preach moslem's way, in no way ! - because what they do is discrimination of women. What I want is not discrimination, but true EQUALITY of sexes, to stop with discrimination of men. Of course, women don't like it, so they will label me 'Taliban' and so on.
Of course child care is difficult problem - it has no easy solution. The one solution we have now - is very bad for 1/2 of all people - man. May be let's try something else ?
>This is double standard - men must work hard to find a woman, women don't have to work hard. We must eliminate such standards.
The truth is that single women get laid less as well. (Right RN? :) )A person living with or married to someone of the opposite gender simply gets more sex, period. C'mon -- this has little to do with marriage law or gender; this has to do with who is or isn't in a relationship with someone of the opposite sex! If you're single, you have to work harder, male or female.
I'd like to see you give me one statistic that says that juveniles' lack of sex is the cause of their aggressiveness. That's just something pulled out of the air to fit into your general thesis. From everything I've read, in fact, the kid who sticks the gun in my face is more, not less, likely to be sexually active. If you think all societal anger and unrest is related to a) not getting enough sex and b) men's distress over getting screwed over by marriage laws, then you're living in fantasy land. Here's the truth -- fatherless homes account for 63% of youth suicides, 90% of homeless/runaway children, 85% of children with behavior problems, 71% of high school dropouts, 85% of youths in prison, well over 50% of teen mothers. Sorry, that's not all from sexual frustration.
Your example of a country without food isn't make-believe -- those countries exist everywhere, and that's exactly how it works. Marrying the boss's daughter, or marriage for strategic reasons or marrying for land are all long-standing approaches, and if you think people don't still do that in the US you've very naive. And men, not women, tend to be the ones who benefit most from that approach. Let's not forget, either, the tradition of the dowry, which was basically a marriage bribe to take the "worthless" woman off the hands of the family, and ensure she can enter into the equation with some degree of material goods. Approaching things strictly from the perspective of what happens in the US in terms of economy and marriage laws ignores the reality of the majority of the world.
Speaking generally and acknowledging exceptions, men's and women's conceptions of sex are, by and large, simply different -- men tend to view it as a physical act which may or may not have emotional overtones, and women view it as an expression of emotional closeness that occurs physically. While it may be true that both need it, your concept that they need it for the same reasons is wrong, and that's one of the ongoing problems between the sexes. One of the strong threads you can find by reading back through this thread is not the issue of marriage, but the inequity of men needing to "woo" women in order to get sex. I say this is related directly not to marriage law but to longstanding societal mores that arose around fear of pregnancy. Truly effective birth control (meaning the pill) has only been around for forty years or so, and equal opportunity laws for less, and that's a very short time for longstanding societal patterns to change.
The basic truth is also that you are at lower risk of contracting STDs in the process. You are not at risk of getting pregnant and having your life radically changed by having sex, and she is. Or ending -- since a woman's risk of dying during childbirth, though they are far, far lower in North America than anywhere else, are still one in 3700. You're at risk only of having to help raise the offspring you helped spawn.
You see your solution as some sort of panacea -- I see it as yet another way of driving a wedge between the sexes that will make things worse, not better. "Let's throw things into turmoil without evidence it will actually help anything" is not my idea of a good approach. You've offered nothing but opinion, conjecture, and philosophy to back up your contentions -- give me some real facts, or actual statistics, or some models that work elsewhere (and not tennis or guys living together, but something on topic) as opposed to simple assertion of truth.
And I'm sorry, but your idea that there are only a few happy marriages is just baloney. I know tons of people in them. I know lots who are not, as well, but a blanket assertion like that is ludicrous. We don't have a 100% divorce rate -- about sixty million people are married in this country, and the reason isn't simply economics. Men and women have had strife and disharmony in marriage thoughout history, as well as great relationships, and to look at the US without considering the broad context of human behavior is foolish.
The bottom line in your argument, taking all the rest out is this -- American women are uppity, wanting men's money even though they don't really need it since they have their own, and they need a come-uppance to put them in their place so they'll act right. That's not equality, that's misogny.
...As to married couples having more sex, there is a Chinese proverb...
During the 1st year of marriage a couple should put a coin in a jar everytime they have sex.
.
After the the 1st year, they can remove a coin from the jar everytime they have sex.
.
The proverb says that such a jar will never be empty . . .
Peace, -P
> I'd like to see you give me one statistic that says that juveniles' lack of sex is the cause of their aggressiveness.
Freud's theory.
You give some statistics - where did you get it from ? web-sites ? Can I check it myself ?
>One of the strong threads you can find by reading back through this thread is not the issue of marriage, but the inequity of men needing to "woo" women in order to get sex. -
True. But what I say - marriage concept make things even worse.
>I say this is related directly not to marriage law but to longstanding societal mores that arose around fear of pregnancy. -
I am not agree. Unwanted pregnancies are rare. It's related to simple greed. (imho )
> You see your solution as some sort of panacea -
No. That's the first step. Real panacea would be to change demographic situation in such way, that demand/supply for sex from both sexes will be equal. The good mark here would be - when price for women prostitutes will go to zero, or will equalize with price and number of men-for-women prostitutes ( currently virtually non-existing ). It's more difficult, then to change law, but also possible - by immigration policy or sexual planning of births with help of sience ( in the future ).
Would I have a child now, I don't want him to be a boy. He will grow up - for what ? - for being all his life a 2nd class human, 'wooing' for sex and getting in reply - pay for this !
> give me some real facts, or actual statistics, or some models that work elsewhere -
The only real fact I can give you - now in US it does't work. The situation is so bad for many people, that an attempt to make changes is reasonable. It can't be worse, then it is already.
>And I'm sorry, but your idea that there are only a few happy marriages is just baloney.
I don't say few - probably 15-20% of marriages are happy. ( rude estimation ) Others - not. ( i.e 80-85% )
for Prokofiev :
Chinese girls are not sexually willing ( with rare exceptions ) I know. That's girls from 'mainland' - in Hongkong - it's different. This is result of anti-sexual brought up in communist, overpopulated China. It's good exfmple that sexuality is dependable of environment - not only genetic stuff.
Change the environment - kill f.cking marriage - and women will grow more sexy.
Sorry Alex, but you're wrong again.
.
My current girlfriend IS from mainland China and spent her 1st 33 years there. Has been in the US only 2 years and is an absolute firecracker in bed. Doesn't get any better than this. Your problems with women have more to do with the guy in the mirror and less to do about them or any laws . . .
There are exceptions.
So, how is your chinese girlfriend ? She doesn't say to you - I don't want to go on like this any more, I want to get married ?
If not - you are really lucky.
RN? Are you still with us? Or did you quit during the shut down. Let me now.
This is StarDotStar, under a new name. You can contact me at WhisperedStar@hushmail.com
Hope all is well with you.
Stay in touch, and let's hear more from you!
Hugs.
> Freud's theory.
Hardly what anyone would consider authoritative these days, even those in the field. Certainly nothing at all factual.
> You give some statistics - where did you get it from ? web-sites ? Can I check it myself ?
Sure -- http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsUS.shtml
>>I say this is related directly not to marriage law but to longstanding societal mores that arose around fear of pregnancy. -
> I am not agree. Unwanted pregnancies are rare. It's related to simple greed. (imho )
That may be true now, but it was certainly not so in the past. Societal behavior develops over time, and it's only recently that good contraception has been generally available. My parents used the rhythm method, the only one sanctioned by the church at the time, and the result was six kids. And if unwanted pregnancies are now rare, then you're saying that most pregnancies outside of marriage are direct and blatant attempts by women to gain economic advantage or trap men into marriage. If you truly believe this, then you've truly got a very warped and paranoid perspective about women.
>The only real fact I can give you - now in US it does't work. The situation is so bad for many people, that an attempt to make changes is reasonable. It can't be worse, then it is already.
And, again, that's not fact, that's opinion. As is your estimate of happy marriages. The facts that your theory is based on are akin to the ones people used to come up with to divine witches.
Rubber Nursey
09-15-02, 07:28
Hiya WindStar! Yep, I'm still here annoying everyone. *grin*
Alex...I can't believe you honestly think that the only reason women (on their own of course, without the help of men) get pregnant solely for financial reasons. Accidents aside, did you ever think that maybe people CHOOSE to have children...as COUPLES?? Children are something that come out of love...out of a desire to share something of each other, and to keep your family name and your genetics alive. (Like I said, accidents aside).
Children are an incredible burden on a couple...both financially and emotionally. From the moment you have kids, you may as well start smoking hundred dollar bills, 'coz almost every cent you earn goes to their care. Every couple knows their finances are going to suffer when they have children...why do you think so many people save up and get settled before starting a family? There is a popular myth here...where we have welfare payments to support single mothers...that women pop out children just to get extra benefits. Well, I was on a single parents pension for a while when I had my first child. 6 years later, after having another child, I went back on the pension after my divorce. You want to know how much extra that second child was worth to me in welfare payments?? 65 dollars a fortnight!! Yep...that extra $32.50 a week goes a loooong way to paying a kid through school.
Actually, while we are on my story, lets see how it measures up against your theory. I fell pregnant with my first child by accident. It was totally our own fault ...BOTH of us that is...because neither of us took the necessary precautions. HE wanted to do the right thing and get married. I didn't think I loved him enough to make that committment and said no. 18 months later, I left him. He was broke when I was with him, and is still broke to this day...in 10 years I have had basically NO child support payments from him, although he still plays a VERY important part in my son's life. Incidentally, there was no court involvement in our access agreement...I encouraged him to spend as much time with his son as possible, because I felt it was important to my son, even though there are no financial benefits for me.
The second time, I was married. I had told my then-husband I did not want to have any more children, because I had almost died giving birth to the first one (post-partum haemorrhage). He was fine with that at the time, but after the first year he started to put pressure on me to change my mind. His parents, who didn't have any grandchildren yet, joined in too. After 6 months or so of CONSTANT pushing, I agreed to go off the pill. I got pregnant before my next period even came...and I cried for days about it. (And I ended up in intensive care after this one, with a more severe PPH...just as the doctors had warned me would happen). 18 months later, after the drunken violence became too much to handle, I fled from the marriage with NOTHING. His family fought me for seven months in court, and WON...giving them ridiculous amounts of access to my son. 6 years later, even with court intervention, I have still NEVER received child support payments from my ex husband.
I support my children financially, with no help from anyone else. I work fulltime, not because I need to...because I could get by on welfare if I wanted to...but to teach my children the value of a dollar, and the self-esteem that comes with being employed. After the divorce, I built our life from the ground up by working in the sex industry. A very large amount of the money I earned (just under $20, 000 to be exact) went to paying off "joint" debts that my husband managed to somehow escape from. I paid off HIS car, HIS tax bill, and a personal loan that HE used mainly to buy drugs and alcohol. We have been evicted from houses for non-payment of rent, lived without gas or electricity for days...even a week at one time...because I couldn't pay the bills, and I have gone without food MANY times so that I had enough food for my children.
Please explain to me exactly how I benefited in ANY way from marriage or childbirth...
Rubber Nursey
09-15-02, 07:40
Oops, sorry. Two more things...
1. Joe is certainly right about single women having just as much trouble getting sex as men do! (For those of you following my saga...I went out last night and, 'lo and behold, came home alone again). Single women with kids have to be even lower on the "easy pick-up" scale, and for those of us who have kids, have no immediate family within a 200 mile radius, and do not have enough money to pay for childcare outside of work hours....well, we may as well kiss our sexlives goodbye completely. I just can't get out enough to meet people.
2. "Unwanted pregnancies are rare. It's related to simple greed. (imho )'
Can you tell me why the abortion rates are so high then? If getting pregnant is done "on purpose" and is simply an act of greed...why are they terminating pregnancies at such alarming rates? For that matter, why would ANYONE terminate if there are such huge financial benefits in keeping the baby???
Hi RN,
Your statement that, "...children are an incredible burden on a couple both financially and emotionally" is soooo true. They take over your life from the day that they're born and continue right on into adulthood.
I have two grown children who live in different states but they're still the number one priority in my life. In regard to the money issue, I had both of them in college at the same time for a few years and my fixed costs for both of them in school at the same time ran about $45,000 per year for two years. Nevertheless, it's still the BEST money I've ever spent and they now have excellent paying jobs and are completely indepedent financially although emotionally we're still a family. Also, daughters are forever I've found.
Where am I going with this? I'm not sure. I guess that I want to assure you and the guys that the best is yet to come. Sorry, I'm rambling. Thanks for indulging me.
there are many paths of happiness and happinese does not necessarily mean getting married (or maintaining an exclusive relationship with one single woman), having children and raising a family. for many, a single lifestyle with abundant disposable income, foreign vacation a few times a year, young playfriends, new german sports cars and fine fashion is happinese. personally i do not understand why my married friends live such a frugal lifestyle and never had the wonderment of my lifestyle since all their income goes to support the family .... but they do seem to be happy and proud.... from time to time, they did compliment my lifestyle with envy..... but then, they made the choice that having a family is the route to happiness.
BootyLover
09-16-02, 04:45
Alex, why don't u stop this useless discussion? Why do u care that much about others happiness?
Why do you want to set free those who aren't looking for freedom?
Just let everyone do the way they feel good, Just protect urself from these women. Anyhow with about 60% of the population with weight problems why bother? Just leave em alone and go international that's where the truth is. No more women trying to command you to extort you!
Please leave others alone don't awake them cause they are comfortable. Make your own case!
PS As time goes by more & more of these women will stay alone.
Some interesing points of view. On a sidenote however, I just have to ask, is it just me or does it feel like the frequency of sex dramatically decreases after a few years in a longer term relationship? It's getting harder to get her in the mood these days as often as before .... it's nothing like in the beginning.... damn...
I mean, the emotional aspect of a relationship and the connection has its pros like some of you have mentioned, but is it gonna get any better in the sex department? Any others feeling this way or experience this?
BTW I'm in good physical shape, so no need to tell me I should lose some flab or look in the mirror at sagging male breasts =)
Oh yeah, and this site as a whole is really interesting and detailed. Didn't realize that prostitution was this prevalent and the prices in some places are alot cheaper than I had thought before. You learn new things every day I guess...
still reading through some of the other sections on WSG, there's just so much.
RN >Please explain to me exactly how I benefited in ANY way from marriage or childbirth...
- No, you didn't.
RN > Alex...I can't believe you honestly think that the only reason women (on their own of course, without the help of men) get pregnant solely for financial reasons.
No, I don't.
I also don't think :
- all women are bad
- all men are good
- all marriagies are unhappy
- there is nothing in marriages except financial calculations
and so on.
What I say is :
1. In current situation life of men statistically is even worse, then life of women.( including all difficult financial problems of single mothers ( sorry, RN ! ) )
2. Marriage law make this situation even worse, so canselation of it will improve life. ( note, not marriage - as an aliance of two loving people - just MARRIAGE LAW with its prostitutional-financial implications )
That's all I say. See my initial post for details.
Bootylover > Alex, why don't u stop this useless discussion? Why do u care that much about others happiness?
...
PS As time goes by more & more of these women will stay alone.
I want to intensify this process. Not just for the women stay alone, but to return sexuality to sex, away from business.
Do you enjoy travel abroad for sex ? Why not to have normal sex here, in US, Canada ?
"normal" sex. define normal?
>"normal" sex. define normal?
One that you are not charged 100$ or marriage sertificate for it.
well, my friend. not charge $100- is possible since there are lots of meat bar in any cities. but then the problem is, most women in these meat bar are fat and ugly. so, at the end of the day, i would rather pay to play. life is too short to dig fat and ugly chicks.
second, marriage certificate. life is too short to dig the same woman every night and day, got to diversify.
conclusion, "normal sex" per your definition is boring.
> 1. In current situation life of men statistically is even worse, then life of women.( including all difficult financial problems of single mothers ( sorry, RN ! ) )
Good clarification of your position, Alex, but I just don't know where you come up with the above. What statistics are you talking about? Life is worse in what way -- not getting free pussy? That's worse than what a financially struggling single mother has to go through?
joe_zop > ...Alex, but I just don't know where you come up with the above. What statistics are you talking about? Life is worse in what way -- not getting free pussy? That's worse than what a financially struggling single mother has to go through?
Yes. 1.I've never heard about single mother, sufffering from depression because she is tight with money, but I knew personaly at leat 2 men, suffering from depression because of lack of female love and sex.
2. Suicide rate is 2-3 higer for men, then for women, especially in developed countries. Why do you think ?
I've never heard of single mother, commiting suiside, because she has not enough money.
>Yes. 1.I've never heard about single mother, sufffering from depression because she is tight with money, but I knew personaly at leat 2 men, suffering from depression because of lack of female love and sex.
In point of fact, the statistics show that single females are more likely to suffer from depression than single males, twice as much by the age of 18, 3 to 1 from ages 30 to 50, then leveling out to equal levels after that. (http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-244X/2/3)
And I apologize if I'm badly wrong, but the impression I've gotten from reading all of your posts is frankly that you know nothing much at all about single mothers, so it's kind of hard to put much stock in your anecdotal information. I know and have dealt with a number of single mothers, and they sure as hell suffer from depression. Money's part of it, though in my interactions it's more about being alone and lacking emotional support.
>2. Suicide rate is 2-3 higer for men, then for women, especially in developed countries. Why do you think ?
I've never heard of single mother, commiting suiside, because she has not enough money.
"Why do you think?" Where do you come up with this stuff? You mean I should summon up a picture of horny males too depressed because they only get sexual relief if they whack off so they whack themselves? I think it's a lot of things -- should I think that the fact that the suicide rate for males under 18 (going down to age 5) is also at about the same rate indicates that there's a bunch of adolescents and pubescents offing themselves because they don't get enough sex? Or the same for those over 75, whose rates are significantly higher? (Now, if you want to tell me the latter are killing themselves because they can't get it up anymore I'll have an easier time believing you.)
The male suicide rate is higher all around the world. The basic difference in the suicide rate can be explained in a large way by the fact that men tend to use guns, and thus are more often successful, even though women attempt suicide twice as often. The stats also say this -- suicide is more common among women who are single, recently separated, divorced, or widowed, and women who attempt suicide tend to do so because of interpersonal losses or crises in significant social or family relationships. Overall, risk factors that have been identified for suicide are age, unemployment, chronic illness, social isolation (higher rates among farmers, for example) and being in certain occupations (police, for example.) The most important one is presence of mental illness.
I don't know your background, but I worked two years as a volunteer in a crisis intervention center, and spent a lot of time talking with depressed and suicidal people on the phone. Men who called and threatened suicide tended to do so because they were unemployed, or because they felt they'd screwed up their lives, or because they generally felt worthless, and very infrequently because they didn't have a girlfriend or support structure. Women almost always focused on relationship problems.
C'mon now, every problem out there doesn't automatically relate to your thesis -- all male problems don't simply come down to bad marriage laws or women wanting something for sex. And you weaken your argument by simply throwing things out in a conspiracy-theory kind of way, where it's like everything's the fault of the CIA or a covered-up alien invasion only in this case it's marriage law or women not wanting to lie down in the road in front of you with open legs for nothing.
Skinless -- interestingly, most of the decent info and studies I've found on male suicide are from outside the US. The one I cited below was the best of the ones that actually looked closely at differences by age, though there are some others that look at general demographic differences. A couple of good sites with links on this subject are at http://www.psycom.net/depression.central.suicide.html and http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/suicide.html#statistics.
I think you're right that at least part of the cause of the rise in male suicide rates is probably related to rising power and success of women, since that translates into further stress in the workplace and men's sense of power and self-worth. And, yes, that clearly gets reflected in this thread. But, as I said below in my reply to Alex, I don't see where that translates into marriage laws (married men, in fact, have very low suicide rates, lower still than married women) or women wanting things in order to have sex. If we want to say that the bottom line is that a high and rising suicide rate for men is an indication that men are not coping well with changes in society which give women more power, you'll get no disagreement from me -- but, again, that doesn't translate into saying those changes are bad or need to be stopped, etc. To me it says that there are very poor support structures for men, that society isn't dealing well with the effects of its changes on men, and that men lack education on how to deal with such emotional turmoil. And I say this as someone who is by nature a depressive :-) as it runs strongly in my family.
Rubber Nursey
09-17-02, 13:25
Personally, I think the "role/gender confusion" that has come with the emancipation of women causes a lot of problems for both the sexes (with regard to depression). Traditionally, roles were very clearly defined and everyone knew what was expected of someone of their gender. Those clear lines are very blurry now, and it's been tough for all of us. Men are unsure where they stand now that they are having to view women as "equals". They have lost their power and dominance, and with that, their self-esteem and self-assurance has taken a bit of a beating. They are getting mixed messages about who they are supposed to be...strong and in charge on the one hand and sensitive and caring on the other. Women are portrayed as sex objects in the media, but you can't speak to one in the real world for fear of a sexual harassment accusation. Men are encouraged to "feel" more, but are still told that real men don't cry.
Women are just as confused. We are told that "we can do anything" and given opportunities in the workplace that we never had before, while at the same time being criticised for not getting married and bearing children. Those of us that DO bear children are seen as worthless if we don't have a career. If we are successful and single, we are ball-breaking b*tches. If we are housewives content with raising children and treating our men like gods, we are pathetic. I certainly don't think that gender equality is a bad thing...I just think it's gonna take some getting used to. We need to adjust to our new roles.
And yes, I have avoided the "single mothers don't get depressed by lack of money" statement. Certain people here have obviously never been afraid (and I mean to the point of throwing up) of going to the mailbox or answering the phone, in case there are bills or debt collectors. They have obviously never been evicted. They have obviously never gone without food for days on end, or missed out on Easter with their parents because they couldn't afford to put fuel in the car. If they HAD been through these things, they would know just how much depression it causes. This is my life, right now as we speak. Luckily for us depressed single Mums...we can't see our tear-stained faces in the mirror once the electricity has been disconnected. No, I'm not looking for pity...I'm telling those certain people what it's like, seeing as they obviously have NO idea what they're talking about.
Your lack of compassion or respect for single mothers, and women in general for that matter, is blatantly obvious Alex. Just out of interest.....what sort of family do you come from? Divorced? Happily married couple? Or were you conceived by a selfish single mother purely out of financial greed???
>single mothers, and they sure as hell suffer from depression. Money's part of it, though in my interactions it's more about being alone and lacking emotional support.
So, Joe, money is NOT main cause !
OK, I am not a professional in this area, and I'm not ready to discuss depression/suicide statistics ( also I feel that's a lot of truth in my understanding ). I was not right to go into this area now. May be I'll find time, make some research in Internet and return to this. But, anyway, my main thesis is not this. It is :
1. Men and women must be equal.
2. Sex for sex for both man and woman, not sex for money for women.
Isn't that right ?
3. If you don't agree with 1, 2 - why then 'real' prostitution is considered to bo outlaw ? Can you explain ?
We should have both marriage and prostitution either legal or illegal.
------------
More specification. There is double standard for men and women in our siciety. A woman may not earn much - and still be respectful and attractive in personal/sexual areas. Men may not. If they are unsucsessful - they are in deep shit. This is natural - it comes from times when men were hunting and bringing food to thier women, family.
BUT ! - now we in all aspects don't live by the law of nature ! In business women have equal opportunities with men ( don't tell me about 20% - it's not so important ). So men have lost their role of 'giver' of food. Then let's women loose their privilege to 'take' it ! Otherwise women get unfair advantage.
That's what is going on now in North America. This is very bad for men, turning them into shit. As for women - the situation corrupts them, because they know, they can use men now as their servants, controlling them through sex. Let's at least stop to support this situation legally !
All financial problems of men, women children should be solved in any other way, but not through sex ! Otherwise it turns love into business, killing a lot of love. That's where from comes depressions, suicides for both men and women - my feeling, I can't right now confirm it with statistics, professional researchs, -but is it not true ? People do not commit suicide because of state of their bank account, but because of lovelessness, solitude... - will you argue that it is not true ?
Regards.
RN -- thanks for the testimony. I think, to paraphrase a discussion that took place a while back in the Thai women section, that there is a great deal of the heroic in those who simply do what's needed, despite the personal cost, whether they're men or women. And hero/heroine is usually a rather lonely role. One of the interesting statistics found is that one of the "protections" against female suicide appears to be having a child under two years old. So that mothering instinct is strong even in the face of despair (though it does lessen as a deterrent as the kids get older.)
The bottom line is it's tough going it alone -- male or female. But, far mroe for women more than men, going it alone can be healthier than being with someone with whom you don't fit.
Alex:
>But, anyway, my main thesis is not this. It is :
1. Men and women must be equal.
2. Sex for sex for both man and woman, not sex for money for women.
Isn't that right ?
No problem with #1. As far as #2, I say sex for sex and sex for money for whomever decides they want it that way. It's your body, you should be able to give it away or sell it as you please, whether you're male or female. No one is forcing anyone to pay anything -- if it's a deal you don't like, walk away. If there's not a market for you (better be a truly buff male or have a six-inch long tongue) then you'd better look for another source of income. The gigolo may not be as common as the female prostitute, but they definitely exist, and you can look at tons of online sites to confirm it.
>3. If you don't agree with 1, 2 - why then 'real' prostitution is considered to bo outlaw ? Can you explain ?
>We should have both marriage and prostitution either legal or illegal.
No disagreement from me here -- I see no reason why prostitution should be illegal, and I'm pretty sure the majority of folks on this forum agree. If you want to discuss this issue, and the historical basis for outlawing of prostitution, I suggest you take a look at this forum's "Morality of Prostitution" thread. And if you're truly and seriously going to advocate for making marriage illegal, then a) you're going to have to put forward a vastly better case and b) we've descended so far into the realm of "ain't never gonna happen" that it's time to talk about something else.
>There is double standard for men and women in our siciety. A woman may not earn much - and still be respectful and attractive in personal/sexual areas. Men may not. If they are unsucsessful - they are in deep shit. This is natural - it comes from times when men were hunting and bringing food to thier women, family.
BUT ! - now we in all aspects don't live by the law of nature ! In business women have equal opportunities with men ( don't tell me about 20% - it's not so important ).
Sorry, but I don't agree here on some aspects. Yes, women can be attractive if they don't earn much, as the expectiations aren't the same. The opposite can also be true -- women can be penalized for being successful by seeming less attractive.
Men who are not successful are not as attractive, and women are attracted by wealth and power. Ok, I'll concede that can be the case in some regard -- let's have a "get all losers laid" compaign if you like. And I'm being a bit facetious; I agree that things shouldn't be completely based on that, but come on! If you're going to complain about that, then why not bemoan the fact that women pay a price if they're not beautiful, if they don't measure up to society's standards of attractiveness? If women prefer to hook up with the rich and powerful, men do the same with models or actresses or women who meet societal standards of youth and beauty. Isn't that unfair? Shouldn't that be outlawed?
And your dismissal of the 20% (actually more like 25%) gap in gender earnings is beyond ironic when you're moaning that men who don't make enough dollars don't get the girl. How can you just ignore this and then complain women have unfair advantage?
> All financial problems of men, women children should be solved in any other way, but not through sex ! Otherwise it turns love into business, killing a lot of love. That's where from comes depressions, suicides for both men and women - my feeling, I can't right now confirm it with statistics, professional researchs, -but is it not true ? People do not commit suicide because of state of their bank account, but because of lovelessness, solitude... - will you argue that it is not true ?
Actually, people do commit suicide because of financial problems, but it's most often bundled with other issues. Here's the core of where we disagree -- I don't see that earning inequities in marriage kill love or sex, and that somehow men are paying a disproportionate penalty here. Married men get more sex, live longer, tend to have lower blood pressure, give more to charity than single men. (And this is true in both good and bad marriages -- unlike women, whose health tends to suffer in a bad marriage.) Men also benefit professionally -- married men tend to have better jobs, make more money, and are overall more successful. (http://www.msnbc.com/news/599521.asp) Now, it may well be that, as discussed, men who are either more successful or better prospects for success are the ones who marry, but given that this is a study that drew on yearly interviews of the same men over 20 years, and they clearly experienced success during that period, it's not illogical to conclude that being married has something to do with it.
All of this would indicate to me that, frankly, marriage is a good investment for men rather than a sapping of their earnings, as your thesis purports. If things fall apart they do so after a number of years of health and financial positives. Seems to me both parties benefit financially and personally -- take it outside of your marriage law argument, and most men would have very little problem with the idea that they'd invest some money to be healthier and more successful. Getting laid on a regular basis is the icing on the cake.
> Regards.
And regards back at you, Alex. Truly -- I appreciate your willingness to engage in discussion in a civilized manner with folks who disagree with you. (And that's aimed at the personal as well as the general "you.")
BootyLover
09-17-02, 15:12
Equality my foot!
How can we be equal, while women still expect men favors in day to day life (physical assistance, manners, financial help, etc).
1- How often do they want to pay for your bills? share the expenses of a dinner?
2- Do they ever offer precedence to men? offer assistance to carry heavy bags?
3- How willing are they to be in relationship with a lower income men?
4- How willing are they to take care of you financially? (you only see that in Canada)
5- Will they help an Ex in financial difficulties?
6- Will they try to defend an attacked man?
Women still expect care and attention while contending for equality. The only real justice is to give them their true equality: treat them as you would do for a man. Always remember that she is a "man". The only difference will be them in term of sexual relations where she can hardly pretend to be a man.
The response to this equality should be polarization
1- Assistance or help proportional to what she did for you
2- Financially focued mind to prevent her attempts to draw money from you
3- No assistance whatsoever to one if you no longer have any interest
Basically treat them as "men"
Be as tough and insentive to them as they are to men
Make sure you avoid sex with those over 35 years old, since men are naturally more attracted to young women that should be pretty easy. Do them what they fear most loneliness as they grow older (hence less attractive). You can then easily shorten thei scope of impact (between 18 & 35) Even though you may be spending more for younger girls at least you can evaluate what you are paying for. Young women don't care to date older men, in fact it's a bargain. However, young men may bang an older woman but he's less likely to date her.
Since even those who use Child support as an easy source of money (they are 25 yeard old with 5 children from five dads) are still afraid to stay lonely. It's justice to send them to retirement at 35.
Pay your child support since it's a legal requirement but in the social life you can still win. Almost every women expect a baby or a stable relationship, while men are more tempted to sample women. Biologically you can still prevail since you keep you strenght longer than her, you'll be able to make more money as you grow older & afford young women
joe>...It's your body, you should be able to give it away or sell it as you please, whether you're male or female. No one is forcing anyone to pay anything -- if it's a deal you don't like, walk away. If there's not a market for you ... then you'd better look for another source of income.
So, why not to say to women - you are on free market, so your problems and children are your problems. You are free to do what you want - go and earn your child support with prostitution ( they do it often anyway ). No estranged husband must pay to you support for free. 'No one is forcing anyone to pay anything' - law of free market. Women have some advantage on this market - let them have disadvantages too. It's just fair. Looks fine ?
Joe, if this is law of free market - it must be this way. If society cares about weak side on the market - it should care not only about women.
for Bootylover : In your 6 points you are absolutely right. But then you seem to advocate sex war, hatred, revenge for women. That is, in fact, what we have now. But I believe there is better way - friendship between sexes, but for this prostitution must be destroyed, not supported.
RN>And yes, I have avoided the "single mothers don't get depressed by lack of money" statement.
1. Let's make a psycological experiment. Could you answer truly : let's say, by some magic you could choose to be not a women single mother, but a single man - will you choose it in your 'another life' ?
2. I don't really want to discuss myself, because it's not about me, but about millions of people. But to satisfy your curiosity - I am from 'happy married' family. I am also not a victim of blatant pregnancy- for- money sceme. Women, I lived with, usually even loved me ( I hope ). And that's enough about me.
>So, why not to say to women - you are on free market, so your problems and children are your problems. You are free to do what you want - go and earn your child support with prostitution ( they do it often anyway ). No estranged husband must pay to you support for free. 'No one is forcing anyone to pay anything' - law of free market. Women have some advantage on this market - let them have disadvantages too. It's just fair. Looks fine ?
I don't see where you've at all established that they don't already have disadvantages, frankly, and those disadvantages, according to everything I see, outweigh those of men. And I'm sorry, but we're never going to agree on this -- a man who's signed up for a marriage has signed up for the possiblity of kids, and the responsibilities they entail. Free market also means living up to your end of a contract. Ex-husbands should simply pay their damn child support! They helped make the kid; they're responsible for making sure the kid is ok.
The law of the free market is not without its rules, either. To follow your thought a little further, if you, as someone who is a customer on the free market, damage something beyond expected wear and tear, then you're responsible for damages. You can't just drive rental cars into walls and not expect to be held responsible, or trash apartments and not pay for repairs or forfeit your security deposit. Same thing with pregnancy -- it's not the usually desired outcome for non-married sex, so those who contribute to the extraordinary equation have to contribute for dealing with the outcome. A woman who gets pregnant most decidedly does, as her life changes radically and irrevocably. If you want equal treatment, then the same should be true for men.
And I'll say it again -- this is not simply about the women, it's about the kids involved. I simply don't agree with your perspective that somehow kids are only an asset (and a financial one at that) to women and not to men. "Someone to carry on the family name" is not a female perspective, for example, given that it's usually not her name in the first place...
Rubber Nursey
09-18-02, 12:31
"1. Let's make a psycological experiment. Could you answer truly : let's say, by some magic you could choose to be not a women single mother, but a single man - will you choose it in your 'another life' ?"
As much as I adore my children and would never wish them away...if I had my time completely over again, I would be a single woman, with NO children. I don't think I would want to be a man...not because I think it would be bad, but just 'coz I enjoy being a girl. :) But if I had my time again I would NEVER get married. I have no desire to ever be dependent on anybody.
Bootylover,
In my opinion, you are totally right. That's exactly what I meant about our gender roles getting confused.
For the record, I can answer yes to 5 of the 6 points that you listed in your post. I have done all of them, including financially supporting a partner for two years, and backing up male mates in violent altercations (Yes, I'm tougher than I look! LOL). I can't say I would financially support an Ex, because I can't see any reason to do so. I'm not sure if I agree with the whole concept of alimony. However, if my Ex had custody of my children, I would definitely pay child support.
BootyLover
09-18-02, 20:19
RN, you are one a rare type. Great! I still some of these types of women with whom i deal on an unrestricted basis since I 've learned to expect the same from them in every aspect. I won't let them down for any relationship.
Unfortunately, I can tell u that you on at one extreme of a normal statistical distribution (bell curve). I'm not foolish enough to expect that the women facing is of that type.
By the way, what are the odds to meet a women in yout type, frankly?
PS. As you may see, I'm not mysoginist at all, just rule my life rationally
joe_zop >I don't see where you've at all established that they don't already have disadvantages, frankly, and those disadvantages, according to everything I see, outweigh those of men.
That is your opinion, also not supported by facts and statistics. Here is an example : RN for the question 'would you prefer to be born a man' said NO. And, believe me - all women would say the same. They understand who have the upper hand, while you deny it.
I think it's time to stop our discussion. It's all the matter of opinion, you think women's problems are more difficult, I say men's. It's difficult to prove this or that by facts or statistics. You say it's OK for women to use their biological advantage in sex area, while their disadvantages must be compensated by Law, I feel it's not OK. I cannot convince you, that free sex is more important, then financial matters, you cannot convince me that well being of children is more important, then of adults.
I will continue to post my initial message from time to time here, and in other place in hope, then many people will read it and not argue with it, but quietly agree, and maybe post it further. I don't really hope that marriage can be cancelled easily ( I've written about it in the message itself ), but it may shift the balance of opinions and make men to boycott it de-facto, if not in Law. For those people, like you, who believe, that it's basically OK I can't do anything, go continue, get married and feel it on your own skin.
Sorry for disagreement.
Fair enough, let's end the discussion. (We can now return to the normal discussion on fat.) But I simply can't agree with you at all that the idea that women don't have disadvantages is simply an opinion (please note that I did not at any point say they don't have advantages, too) as I think I've been very forthcoming in that regard with facts and statistics from specific sources, which you've not done. It's looking at the overall balance of things that becomes a matter of opinion.
Since you use RN's response as though it proves something other than the fact that RN is basically happy with who she is, I think it's only fair to turn the question back to you -- are you saying that if you had it to do again, you'd prefer to be born a woman?
I'll state it very solidly: that would definitely not be my choice. I like the advantages of being a man -- I like not having to worry about getting pregnant; I like the fact that women don't tend to base everything completely on looks, so I can still have a shot even if I'm older and not Brad Pitt; I like the fact that I'm going to be better paid and that I generally get to be considered better looking as I get older (as I acquire more "character" I guess) as opposed to being labeled "an old cow" when the first wrinkle shows up; I like the fact that I am almost automatically invested with more authority in a meeting because I'm male, I like the fact that it's presumed that I'll do something with my life other than produce and care for children, etc., etc.
And for what it's worth, I do have some experience in the marriage game, so I'm not simply talking theory.
Finally, Alex, please don't apologize for disagreeing -- I'm not going to apologize for my opinions (though I'll happily apologize if I've been at all offensive in stating them) and you shouldn't either. We're both adults -- it's ok not to look at the world the same way, and I, personally, know that I'm not going to grow or learn if I'm only involved in discussions on things about which I agree. As part of the process of this discussion I've been forced to think about why I think about things the way I do, to look back at things I read in the past, check out hunches, do a bit of research to justify my statements, etc., all of which is completely to my benefit, as I have learned some things and am better able to state others. And that doesn't even take into account your opinions and my consideration of them.
You've been consistently civil and good-natured in this process, and I'd welcome a discussion with you any time.
with the illegalization of prostitution and some other adult trades in america, single mothers here do not have the option of supporting their kids with prostitution. in fact america is not a free market because of censorship or banning. some single mothers are high school dropouts and have no skills to find a job so what do they do? they sue for alimony to leech off of the husbands they marry with jobs or their high school sweethearts with grunt jobs. they also sue for the child support as well. many strip clubs in new york have closed down as well. a lot of these strippers were single mothers. the illegalization of prostitution and even strip clubs have caused more trend toward suing for alimony and child support because they know no other option.
in other countries where prostitution is legal, at least single mothers have an option in making money to feed their children. single mothers usually get a lump sum amount (not a continuous withdrawal from a paycheck from ex-husbands like here in america), then they are on their own. they usually turn to prostitution for their money. some prostitutes scrape by just feeding their kids and others actually make a lot of money. some fortunate prostitutes who are lucky not to have been married just make the money for themselves and become wealthy. some even get paid in american currency. and that is a lot of money in their country.
it is rare in america to find a woman who doesn't rely on alimony to support themselves. even if prostitution is legal here, it is ingrained in them that it is taboo or immoral. rather than being a prostitute, they rather sue for alimony and child support. they want to keep the child for financial gains or else they get nothing if the husband gets custody. some like to sue for alimony because of the man-hating attitude that they sacrifice their younger years on the marriage like they did the ex-husband a favor for being their wives for many years. they feel they need compensation for these years so they also abuse the alimony laws. as always, the laws do favor the women and the judges buy this crap. about 98% of american women are like this and only 2% of american women are not like this and are good women like rn who would actually go out and earn the money to support their kids. i respect women like rn or women that go to college to earn their own pay to support their own kids rather than sue an estranged husband for alimony. unfortunately, most american women are like the 98% who are leeches.
american women also refuse to take care of their man when the going gets rough. most of them leave their man when they get laid off. two of my friends in college who were married got divorced when they were laid off because of 9/11. these women then try to find a man with a job and to add insult to injury, my friends had to sell their houses that they mortgaged and give half the money to their ex-wives because the house was bought during their marriage. the men in america are disadvantaged by the law and thus people liek myself are discouraged from being married. i always think that women who want to marry me have an alterior motive (financially and physically, because i do grunt work). i also rarely see guys in wheelchairs married in america because these wheelchair cases can't take care of these leeches called american women (except the 2%, like rn). i see more cripples married in other countries than here in america. most of them are single. in fact my brother is a paraplegic and he gets no dates. are these women so heartless as to care for only financial gain and not want to take care of a helpless cripple? also the law does not take seriously male victims of female partners. they thought i was a joke when my ex-fiance physically abused me and i refused to strike back at her for fear of being arrested myself.
joe_zop > Since you use RN's response ... I think it's only fair to turn the question back to you -- are you saying that if you had it to do again, you'd prefer to be born a woman?
Yes. It's not that I gay or something, I like it to be myself, but I realize advantages of being a worman at our times. They often don't have to work as hard , as men, and they don't have to pay hard earned money for sex. Yes, it's difficult to born and raise children, but it's their ultimate choice, to have them or not. And if they decide to have them, they really have children, no father can take them away from them.
Would I have a child, I'd like her to be a girl, not a boy in our times .
I understand your position, think it over. It's traditional position, but it doesn't mean that it's right one. I have my vision, based on what I see in life. My position, especially "child support must be voluntary only" seems to be harsh, unhuman but it is not. 1. Many men DO support children voluntary. 2. What if some guy is single father, his wife, unfortunately, died ? Will he not survive with children ? He will and probably will be quite OK. It's not an ultimate disaster to be a single parent. Even more, this guy doesn't meet same compassion in our concience, as single women - it's natural, we are programmed to have more compassion to girls. It's emotions and girls use it well, mother is something honorable in our mindes, single men is something despisable. It's all make quality of life for women in our time much better, then for men. So let's not increase this by feminist-oriented marriage laws.
darkseid>American women also refuse to take care of their man when the going gets rough. Most of them leave their man when they get laid off. Two of my friends in college who were married got divorced when they were laid off because of 9/11. These women then try to find a man with a job and to add insult to injury, my friends had to sell their houses that they mortgaged and give half the money to their ex-wives because the house was bought during their marriage. The men in America ARE disadvantaged by the law ...
Joe_zop - this is good examples for you. Without any statistics we now - it's true, it's style of life. We, men, don't like this. Cancellation of marriage law will improve the situation.
Rubber Nursey
09-19-02, 14:21
Ohhh puh-leeze. So now women don't have to work as hard as men either, Alex?? Let me ask you this...what do you do after a hard day's work, huh? I'll tell you what my ex-husband used to do...relax, watch a bit of TV, eat dinner, have a beer, maybe go out with friends or sometimes just go to bed early. When his 8 hour working day was over, it was over.
You talk about "tradition"....well, traditionally, women run the household and look after the children. (Even if there are no children, women still traditionally run the household). Let me tell you about MY working day. I get up early, dress myself for work and the kids for school, make breakfast and pack school lunches. I drop the kids off at school and then head to work for eight hours. Then I pick the kids up from childcare around 6pm, cook dinner, bathe the kids, help with homework, do the dishes, tidy up the house, put the kids to bed, then put a load of laundry into the machine. I then sit down at the computer to do two or three solid hours of paperwork that I certainly don't get paid overtime for, hang out the washing in the dark, lay out the kids clothes for the morning, have a shower and then finally get to bed well after midnight. But of course, "women's work" isn't work I suppose...
As for me choosing not to be a man in another lifetime, I had a feeling you would use my comment in exactly the context you did. You wanna know why I wouldn't want to be a man? Because it sounds BORING to me. You have it EASY. Biologically you have all the advantages, and you get to blame all your mistakes on your hormones, genetics, inherited caveman instincts or your dick...which you apparently have absolutely no control over. And yes, I will be very unpopular for saying that, but in my opinion that's the way it is. Being a woman sucks for all the reasons that Joe (brilliantly as usual) mentioned, and more. But I like a challenge.
Anyway....men's "acceptable" hair colours are very limited and shopping sprees for men's clothing are mind numbingly dull. You all wear the same thing to a black tie party, you don't meet any new people because you won't dare approach a stranger for directions or to ask for help (no I don't need to borrow a lighter, I can just use this stick as a flint against the bar...), and in all seriousness.....men look downright stupid in a halterneck and high heels. And that's not something I'm willing to give up...
There's no question that there are money-hungry b*tches out there who are only out to take someone for all they're worth. Also no question that marriages fall apart when someone goes out of work, no matter what the cause -- the stress is immense on all involved, and if the bond was based mainly on material things then goodbye. Absolutely every authority agrees -- problems with sex and money are the two forces most likely to break up marriages. I know the laws at times are very strange -- my brother was legally forced to pay legal fees for the wife who tried to kill him, and ended up bankrupt (and with the kid, I might add.) There's also no question that there are men who beat their wives, treat them like property, decide to dump them for younger models simply because the aging process happens, etc. While Darkseid's most definitely got a legitimate complaint about the unenlightened police he dealt with, part of that is because his is a decidedly rarer type of domestic abuse.
Alex, the guys who support their children voluntarily aren't the problem, any more than the women who aren't in it for the money. Laws are for those who don't do the right thing, not for those who do, and an argument where you cite best-case scenario to support your position and worst-case to attack the other is not productive. I frankly don't see how you can justify things based on "what I see in life" -- a completely personal take on things -- and then say it has nothing to do with you personally, you speak for millions. Either you're using a personal look at things or you're not; either you use actual facts as opposed to anecdote or not. It's disingenuous to lean on personal perspective as though it proves something and then shy away from giving any information about how that perspective has been formed. It means that the perspective is then unassailable by definition.
You say your position regarding child support is not harsh -- I say that if you believe that you are at best naive and ignorant of the situation of countless kids in society right now who have been abandoned by their fathers. And make no mistake -- that's the far more likely scenario than the mother leaving the child. I posted a series of stats earlier about the problems these children have, and those are problems that society as a whole ends up having to deal with. Your approach is to either ignore this issue or assert that the happiness problems of adults are more important than the survival problems of children. Tell me again how that's not harsh, ok?
One thing that's not been mentioned at all here is this -- the so-called no-fault divorce laws, mostly implemented from 1965-74, are considered to be one of the main reasons for the climb in the divorce rate -- with most estimates saying it increased the rate by twenty to twenty-five percent. Your "no obligation" approach would probably do the same, or worse, rather than act as some means for happier, more "equal" marriages.
While a basically traditional position on marriage laws may not be the right one (presuming, amusingly, that as you put it "feminist-oriented marriage laws" and no-fault divorce are traditional), a radical reworking of things based on sexual frustration, a few pieces of anecdote and some gut feelings isn't necessarily the right one either. Your approach is "well, it can't get any worse." Like hell it can't. :)
Ouch, RN -- you really need to work off some of that frustration in a good healthy non-work-involved sweat. :D I don't think being any stripe of human is easy, male or female, and both sides have their advantages and disadvantages. The pressures and values are different (you're a failure because you don't make enough money, you're identified with the job you do which is crap, haven't had any kids/too many kid/ugly disobedient brats, married an ugly/stupid/goodfornothing/whatever spouse, etc.) but they're still there and they're still difficult. It's like arguing over whose operation was more painful! As I listed in my earlier response, I do think there are advantages to being male, but by the same token, my odds of being "kept" do go down in this gender, regardless of your experience with your ex, for example.
Careful or we may get into a stereotype war -- there are other ways to meet people besides asking for directions on a trip, such as doing research on directions before you leave :) and some of us have been through large progressions of socially unacceptable hair and clothes styles and colors. Not the haltertop or heels, though, thank the gods...
Rubber Nursey
09-19-02, 16:03
Awwww c'mon Joe...you should know me well enough by now to know that my post was totally tongue in cheek! :) I thought at least the reference to men in halternecks would have given that away!! LOL Of course I understand that there are problems for both sexes (but I DO think that being a man would be boring...the joy of hair-colouring alone is worth being female for!!!)
Mind you, the work bit was true. I certainly didn't mean that EVERY man behaved in that manner...far from it...but if Alex wants to talk "tradition", than "traditionally" a man's working day ends when he gets home and the woman runs around satisfying his every need until the wee hours of the night. And the chauvenist perception that what a woman does around the house doesn't count as WORK, is still all too common in our society.
Well, I knew that tongue was stuck firmly someplace... :)
Rubber Nursey
09-19-02, 17:11
You did? Hmmm...it seems you might know me TOO well!!! LOL :) (Oh dear...you don't have a webcam, do you???? *gasp*)
Rubber Nursey
09-19-02, 17:54
Ok, I have a question...partly to get off this ridiculous child support and single mothers discussion, but mainly out of genuine curiosity.
Do you guys prefer a "girlie girl" or a tomboy? Those of you who know me already, will know that I am a "beer and pizza" kinda gal. Sure, I love to get dressed up in makeup and heels and shake my thang every now and then, and I really do enjoy being treated like a lady on occasion, but ultimately I would prefer to play pool, drive fast cars and hang out with the boys.
This attitude earns me heaps of respect, heaps of good mates and plenty of good times....but absolutely no sex!!! LOL So tell me....do you find the tomboy type sexy, or are they fun to be around but not attractive to you? Or do you avoid that sort of woman completely? I'm not talking about looks...I certainly don't look like a boy! But personality-wise...what's your preference?
Actually, I prefer a little of both. I wouldn't want a boring girl that just reads and not do what i like to do like play pool, drive fast cars, drink beer, party, and have a good time. I dated a few of these girls that are too girlie and don't like to party or have fun. Girlie girls are way too conservative and some are afraid to do new things. It is socially acceptable for women to wear men's clothing anyway so I wouldn't even mind being seen with a sexy girl in jeans. The adventurous aspect of the tomboy is what I like. But at the same time, I wouldn't want to be with a butch type lesbian because obviously I wouldn't get any.
As for the advantages/ disadvantages of both sexes, these are created by the laws of society- on what is laughed at as abnormal and what is acceptable in both genders. As you mentioned earlier, RN, women have a more flexible dress code. They can wear men's clothing to a great extent without being mocked at whereas if men dress in women's clothing they are looked at as gay or weird. Women can be more colorful in their dress even in a conservative enviroment of work. Men are forced to wear suits, ties, shirts, slacks and shoes, like myself. We have less flexibility in dress.
Men also have the difficult task of having to ask the woman out and facing rejection. Women take this for granted so much that they don't feel our pain of rejection. Some guys don't brush rejection off so easily and it damages them for life. The type of rejection women face on the hother hand is not being asked out at all. Sometimes the guy that gets rejected too much is afraid to ask out the girl that never gets asked out and this can be damaging to both parties. I think this aspect can be solved if both men and women asked each other out instead of just guys asking the girl out. This society created this one-sided aspect of courtship which both parties get hurt.
Traditionally, if you were married to a lazy bum who doesn't share the work, and married to a chauvinist pig, you do a lot of work that no one gives you credit for and that your chauvinist pig takes for granted. He would be so spoiled with food always being on the table that once you get injured or are away, he would have to cook for himself or buy a pizza. My mother also not only cooked but made sure the house was tidy. I respect all mothers for doing these chores and that is why I love my mother for doing things I used to take for granted. Now that I am on my own I have to do these chores myself. These chores take time out of my schedule and if I don't keep up with them, my apartment would be a mess and I would starve.
Not all men are chauvinist pigs that you mentioned previously. My father did the laundry and shared some of the chores that my mother did. Sometimes my father cooked when my mother had to get home late from work. My family was a duel income family and that is why my first six years of my life was spent being raised by my grandmother. This practice is done by most Asian families especially in Japan or Hong Kong where they also have 2 income families. Now my father is not the beer drinker after getting home from work and relax type, he is very diligent. My father even worked ALL the household chores while my mother was severly injured in a car accident. If he was a lazy chauvinist, he probably wouldn't do any chores and would force mom to work even when she was sick.
Now to be fair to the women even though men are heavily disadvantaged by social and legal aspects, women are biologically disadvantaged because they have to worry about pregnancy when having sex which makes it less enjoyable for them. Prudes in America shame women for having sex and call them sluts (I, on the other hand, don't have that opinion of women who have lots of sex but I would want to date women that love sex and not date a prude). Women have periods which make them nauseous. Women also have lower metabolism and have to work harder at staying in shape than men. Also women have to worry about beauty so they have to pluck all their body hairs and or shave. They spend hours making themsleves up also. Some men nowadays groom themselves the same way also. I spend hours in the gym and martial arts to stay slim, I pluck my hairs to make my washboard abs visible and not covered by sasqatch hairs, I shave, comb my hair and wear skin creams. I don't however, need to paint my nails or wear lipstick, although that would be weird. Women go thought htose extra steps which takes more time and work. I wouldn't want to go through the physical pains like pregnancy or periods, but then again, I hate the legal and social aspects of being a man like the aspects I mentioned previously. I also decided to remain single because marriage is a woman's turf. I could lose my shirt and pants to marriage.
I'd rather have a tomboy who cleans up real nice once in a while than a girlie girl who might break a nail at an inopportune time.
Dickhead
I hate long nails also. I'd rather women cut their nails especially if they insist on cooking dinner for me. Nails collect dirt and bacteria so I wouldn't want that in my food. In fact that is a minor criticsm of my mom when she cooks for me because she digs her nails into the food after she scratches her itches and then I have to eat it. All chefs in high class restaurants cut their nails for sanitary purposes. Also the buzzard nails look repulsive to me. They also break easily and I hate when they use that as an excuse to avoid work even non-physical labor.
joe_zop> I frankly don't see how you can justify things based on "what I see in life" -- a completely personal take on things -- and then say it has nothing to do with you personally,
C'mon, what I see in life is not nessessary in my own life, but of many people around.
> I posted a series of stats earlier about the problems these children have,
When I have time I'll take a look. But again, to balance things would you like to post stats about problems that adult men have ?
>While a basically traditional position on marriage laws may not be the right one ... a radical reworking of things based on sexual frustration, a few pieces of anecdote and some gut feelings isn't necessarily the right one either. Your approach is "well, it can't get any worse." Like hell it can't.
Let's try :)
RN >Ohhh puh-leeze. So now women don't have to work as hard as men either, Alex?? Let me ask you this...what do you do after a hard day's work,
I don't want to calculate who do what more. The moment of truth is that you, and others women WOULDN'T like to be a man. This accumulate all - homework, raising children, sex, money ... you weight it all in your mind and you DON'T want it. Your answer includes all what we can call quality of life, which consists of many components - not only money - and which you feel well inside your conscience and subconscience. So we have a clear result which sex has advantage. Why - is secondary question, it's because men lost their monopoly to earn and did get nothing in exchange, or it may be because men are just boring and stupid - does not matter. We have clear picture : which sex feel better. Who is strong and who is weak. Society should not help strong side to control weak side better by law. Law must help those with disadvantages, not with advantages.
Down with Marriage Law !
Joe, it would be interesting statistics about transsexuals that make surgical operations to change sex - how many of them move in each direction. Judging by movies, literature its nearly always men want to be a woman, not other way around.
Why do you think ? Would both sexes be equal, this statistics must be balanced too.
I agree. There are more men that change sex to being a woman than women turning to men. Most of these cases the man feels it is too hard to be a man so they opt for a sex change. A lot of these men are divorced and owe alimony. Sex change is one way of having a totally new identity and to disappear off the face of the earth to avoid alimony. The only way the law can find out is through hospital records of the sex change. Some of these ex-men move to Europe or Rio with their new identity. Some men do this sex change because they like women's fashion better and they want to wear these clothing and not get scoffed at by society so they also get the sex change. It may or may not have anything to do with homosexuality as most of us think. Sex change is usually done for several other reasons- identity change to avoid legal obligations or looser dress codes. It is rare to find a woman wanting to be a man these days because these days women have the upper hand. Back fifty years ago, it would have been the other way around if we had the technology. But with the rise of the feminist movement that started in the late 60s and early 70s, woman's power is becoming more than man's in America.
darkseid> There are more men that change sex to being a woman than women turning to men. Most of these cases the man feels it is too hard to be a man ... But with the rise of the feminist movement that started in the late 60s and early 70s, woman's power is becoming more than man's in America.
Sure. My words.
>Sex change is one way of having a totally new identity and to disappear off the face of the earth to avoid alimony.
:) That's f..cking funny idea !
>It may or may not have anything to do with homosexuality as most of us think.
I would say, it may. There must be at least some bi-sexuality to do this. But anyway, the trend is clear.
Stranger99
09-20-02, 18:00
many times i thought to myself: "thanks god, i am not a chick".
i happen to think that whenever i have to [CodeWord134] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord134) in a public place (a train station or rest area, for example) and i can do it standing.
rn: as far as your question (girlie girl vs tomboy).
i am attracted to women because they are sensual, elegant and feminine. this is something that goes beyond what they are wearing but it's more of an inner quality.
beer and pizza nowaday are a cross-gender thing, so i would not be judgemental on that.
ahh, that peeing point is something i missed for the biological disadvantages of being a woman. women have to sit down and pull their pants down to [CodeWord134] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord134). we can just unzip and point. i like being a man for the biological advantages of it.
stranger99> many times i thought to myself: "thanks god, i am not a chick". i happen to think that whenever i have to [CodeWord134] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord134) in a public place ...
o yes ! let's go on, work, pay girls for sex and then [CodeWord140] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord140) off on the wall !
Originally posted by alex
Joe, it would be interesting statistics about transsexuals that make surgical operations to change sex - how many of them move in each direction. Judging by movies, literature its nearly always men want to be a woman, not other way around.
Why do you think ? Would both sexes be equal, this statistics must be balanced too.
Well, let's see -- despite what folks might have heard, there's actually a fairly large contingent of the female-to-male oriented out there, and it's simple enough to track down sites which support them. From what I've read, the rate of those wishing for the surgery is about 3-1 male to female, though I don't know the actual percentage of those who actually go through with it. Why more men that women? Perhaps it's because the need to be penetrated as a woman is requires a vagina, whereas the need to penetrate as a man would simply requires a strap-on. And in my experience in dealing with the gay and transgendered community (and transsexuals are usually but not always gay -- the definition is someone who feels an aversion to their own sex and sexual parts) women who want to assume the male role feel able to do that without necessarily heading deeply into the literalness of the sexual parts, whereas men who want to assume the female role do tend to focus on issues of the body. To me, that's not all that surprising, given that men tend to be more visual and body-oriented about their sexual processes.
But perhaps the percentage difference can simply be explained by the fact that by and large most studies (and the numbers vary by study) are consistent in saying that there are generally half as many gay women as men.
As to why movies and literature tend to be more fascinated with men who get the big snip, I'd say it's because we're basically still a male-oriented society, most men have been kicked in the groin at one time or another and know how much it hurts, and we basically imagine castration as kind of the ultimate kick where it hurts. Most of the people on this board, at least to some extent, live and die by their dicks, so the concept of having them taken away is akin to the most terrifying creature coming out of the darkness in a horror film. So it simply fascinates, which makes for good literature and movies. With women, the equation is generally an addition, not a subtraction, so it's not as compelling.
But Alex, are you really saying that gender identity issues are somehow are related to marriage laws? That's really throwing out the kitchen sink here...
I repost my initial message, because it's deep down in the stack already.
Who can say, where else to put it - a place where it will find understanding ?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT MARRIAGE REALLY IS
1. Marriage is a legal form of prostitution.
2. How women got their power
3. Sex is Business.
4. What Can Be Done ?
5. Woman's Arguments
6. What's About Child Support ?
7. Deep to the roots
1. Marriage is a legal form of prostitution.
If we look into Marriage Law books we'll find something like "during the marriage it is normally the husband obligations to provide for his wife and children" ( "The Law And You" McGrow-Hill Company Of Canada Limited, 1970 ) or " each spouse is liable to the support of the other" ( Ontario Family Law Act ). This came to us from 19th century, when such law was justified, because women were not economically independent. Women then were mostly housekeepers, while their husbands earned the money. There were no such professions as woman-doctor, woman-lawyer, real estate agent, business consultant, secretary, teacher - whatever else. Not now. Now women have reached economic equality, they have equal opportunities to earn money, as men. So why is there law declaring financial responsibilities based on sexual relationship ? We don't have a law, claiming that "two people, that play tennis together are liable to support each other". But if they live together and have sex together, why they are ?
And then, when we say "each spouse is liable to the support of the other" let's not blind ourselves - it's virtually never happens that a woman support her husband. It's always men pay for women, not other way around. Women never want to marry a man that earn less, then they do ! They never want to marry an unemployed guy with unclear financial future. The whole system is a great mechanism to transfer money from men's bank accounts to women's bank accounts - nothing else.
The difference between marriage and prostitution is the same as between wholesale and retail trading. But while prostitution is considered to be a negative thing, and there is no law, supporting prostitution, why do we have Marriage Law ?
That's because we live in time of 'common level matriarchy'. Woman in 20th century have won power over man, and the law is made for their ultimate convenience, like in Middle Ages law helped barons to keep their privileges, but didn't care about peasants. But in a society of justice such law must not exist. It contradicts, for example, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states :
"Every individual is EQUAL before and under the law and has the RIGHT to the EQUAL PROTECTION and EQUAL BENEFIT of the law WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, SEX, age or mental or physical disability".
But Marriage Law DOES CREATE DISCRIMINATIVE PRACTICE ! It provides NOT EQUAL PROTECTION and BENEFITS with DISCRIMINATION of men, based on SEX. Such law must not be tolerated in our time and we should struggle for its cancellation.
2. How women got their power
Historically for many thousands of years men had advantage on women, based on very simple factor - bigger physical strength. Physical strength played crucial role at that time, and women were discriminated everywhere - in politics, economy, family. But now this advantage has disappeared, physical power doesn't give you much on today's job market. And also, unlike 200 years ago, you cannot abuse a woman physically, which is, certainly, good. But now, in this developed society it is women, who got infare advantage over man, based on another simple factor - biological demands for sex from men and women are not equal! There are simply less sexual willing women, then men. The difference is, may be, not so great - 15 or 20% . But lets imagine what would happen if there is 15% shortage of apartments to compare to all people, who want to rent. Nobody want to sleep on the street. So the price for an apartment will go up to possible maximum. That's what is called 'speculative, infare profits'.
That's exactly what happens now on 'sexual market'. I wouldn't discuss now biological causes of this inequality, what is important is the result. And the result is quite clear - the simplest proof is such thing as a price for a prostitute. It's something from 100 to 200 $ for 1/2 - 1 hour of sex. Many men must work hard from 1 to 3 days to earn this money. Why do they agree to pay this ? The answer is - market... And how much does it cost for a woman who want sex with man ? - Zero. The sexual price for a man in our society - zero.
This situation creates inequality between men and women, similar to relationship between business owner and his employee at a time of 20% unemployment. The owner can fire the worker, and there is a long line of others, who want to replace him. The worker also have his right to quit, but he will have a lot of trouble to find another job. And in sexual relationships we have exactly the same picture - women have their choice, men stay in the line. As a result women turned men into their servants. This situation humiliate men and corrupt women. And of course, women learned very well how to use it, to convert it into money. And to help them better - there is a special social institution for their service, supported by law - named Marriage.
3. Sex is Business.
Yes, we live in an epoch of matriarchy. It doesn't matter that women statistically earn less, then men, it's still matriarchy - women earn less because they don't need to earn money as desperate, as men. They don't need to pay money for sex, they receive it for sex. And it doesn't matter that there are less women, then men among presidents, premiers and CEO, - women simply don't need so much trouble to get what they want.
Sexual inequality is the cause of most of the troubles in our society. It creates the same barriers between men and women, as between rich and poor. It destroys normal relationship between a man and a woman, destroys normal sexual relationship, converts love into business and kills it. There are millions men suffering from solitude, from lack of normal sexual life, and nobody care how to help them.
This is the biggest problem in so called developed countries, more serious then even poverty and crime, because there are more people suffering from it, then from anything else. Crime, especially sex crime, depression, suicides probably by 80% directly and indirectly are results of this unfortunate conditions. In our time, when nobody dies from hunger, this - not anything else - is a MAIN SOCIAL PROBLEM, because NORMAL SEXUAL LIFE IS NOT LESS IMPORTANT, THEN NORMAL FOOD. And all democratic governments must care about this. But they don't. They care only about well being of one part of the population - women.
Yes, instead of helping weak part of contemporary society - men, the law helps those who have already advantage by their birth - women. We can not easily change demographic situation, but we can at least not to create laws, that make the situation worse ! How many millions men were caught in this trap - marriage ? How many millions dollars, earned by hard work were taken from them ? Men are not slaves, they are people. The need love, sex and understanding, but instead they get marriage law with all its consequences. How can our society treat them this way ?
If you were so unhappy to be robbed on the street, the robber will take your cash and probably will use your credit card, before you could report the robbery, but your total damage will be less then 1000$. If your marry a woman, she may born you a child, then divorce you, take your child and sue out your money, typically 200,000 or more. A woman, that want to get married is 200 more dangerous, then a street robber.
4. What Can Be Done ?
I don't believe it will be easy to change status quo by some kind of democratic procedure. No political party will take such position, because 50% of voters - women, and they will never vote for this party. And there are also some men - family law lawyers, for example, that make their fortunes on this shit, so they have already 51%. They have won. And the fact that suffering minority is nearly all the male population - doesn't bother them, no more that it bother prostitutes about their business.
We cannot easily destroy this despicable system, but what we can do is to start nationwide campaign against it. The first important thing is information - every men must know WHAT MARRIAGE REALLY IS. So if we can't change the law, we can change the public opinion. Every boy of 10 years old must know what he is going to meet, when he grow. So when his girlfriend will say "I want to get married", his proper answer will be : "Sorry, my love, I can't do it, until they will cancel present Marriage Law, because it does not defend me against financial abuse." Every boy, every man must know the real meaning of marriage, with its statistics and costs, this is no less important then information about danger of sexual transmitted diseases or unwanted pregnancy.
I ENCOURAGE EVERYONE, WHO CARE, TO DISTRIBUTE THIS DOCUMENT OVER INTERNET, TO SEND IT TO YOUR FRIENDS. Many people will agree with it and this will be the first step to change current situation. I would like to see movement "Men Against Marriage", that would struggle for men rights against oppression, like women struggled ( and won ) for their rights 100 years ago. The mere word "marriage" should be labeled as shameful, the same as prostitution, i.e. getting money for sex.
5. Woman's Arguments
Women say : "Yes, in marriage we receive money from our husbands, but this is compensation for our homework, which we do more, then men. And also we sacrifice our career, because we must stay at home and raise children. So men must pay for this." But let's ask a question : Why men don't sacrifice their career and stay at home to raise children ? And who makes women to do more homework ? Is it her husband, that makes his wife to work at home ? Does he shout on her : "Go to the kitchen immediately, make me dinner !" ? No. You can't force North American woman to do anything she doesn't want to do herself. She would rather divorce you, take your money and find her another husband, but she will never do what she doesn't like.
So if women statistically spend more time on homework, then men, that's because they need it more, then men. They like it more, then men, or, maybe, men dislike it more, the women. But why should men pay for it ? They don't hire their wives for cleaning or cooking. And when a woman doesn't work and stay at home to raise children - it's her own choice. Every husband would like to have second salary in the family rather then housewife, the family can hire a babysitter, but nobody can force a woman to quit her work. Today women do it only because they know that THEY HAVE LEGAL SUPPORT FROM LAW, that will help them to sue out men money. That must not be. Staying at home instead of work is women own choice and in case of divorce it must be their own responsibility.
6. What's About Child Support ?
Let's first ask a question - why courts in more then 90% of divorces give a child to his mother, and not to his father ? That's because there is a convention in our society : child is more close to his mother, then to his father. This is biologically true. But if so, if the child belongs to his mother more, then to his father, why would father and mother pay equally ? Father can not see his child much after divorce, their relationship are not as close, as when they live together. Why must he pay same amount of money, or more, then mother, who lives with her child ?
What if they, while married, buy a car together, then they separate, court gives the car to the husband, but also rules, that for 20 years both husband and wife must pay all car expenses equally - gas, repair, insurance... For compensation the wife have her right to come once a week to her former husband home and to drive this car for 2 hours, at a time when it is convenient for the husband. Absurd ? Sure. You got the car - you pay for it. The other side doesn't have this car any more - it should not pay.
I can imagine the women's howl when they read this. How dare I say this ?! The child's interests are sacred ! Do you know how difficult it is to be a single mother, to raise children ? Cool down. It's not only child's interests are sacred, interests of all people are sacred. It's difficult to be a single mother, sure, but it is also difficult to be a single man. A man after divorce looses his family, and his children, a woman keep her children with her. What is more difficult ? - who know... Would you like, dear ladies, to leave your children with their fathers, and also to pay child support for 20 - 25 years ? There are some single fathers around, but I've never heard about a woman, paying child support...
In a free, democratic society, with EQUAL RIGHTS FOR MEN AND WOMEN child support can be voluntary only. It doesn't mean that there will be not child support at all. There are many fathers, that love their kids and have connections with them even after divorce, so they will support their children without any enforcement from law. There are happy families, that wouldn't divorce at all, but such families doesn't need Family Law ! But we know other examples. It's not a big secret : there are many women who choose not to work, but to born children and use them as a guaranteed source of income on the expense of their unfortunate husbands. That's who need Family Law. That's who benefit from it. Do we need their children ? How can we create unequal, discriminating laws, that help such women to rob men ?
7. Deep to the roots
So how this odious laws can still exist? One answer is voting majority of women plus some man, that also gain from it. But that is only part of the answer. The fact is, that would marriage be forfeited, women simply will stop to bore children.
This is true - raising children costs a lot of money and women want guarantees, so governments didn't find anything else then to put this burden to men, even in cases of clear fraud.
To make things worth, they introduced so called Family Law Act, where among other things it is declared, that a man have full obligation for a child, born from him even if he has not been married with the child's mother and never wanted children with her at all ! That makes man a hostage of every woman, he slept with. She always can cheat him and get pregnant, if she wants, as for the man - the only way to him to stay out of trouble for sure, is to live without sex ... Nice solution, ye ? Note, that all decisions - to have or not to have a child, are up to the woman only. According to this law the man is responsible for something, about what he has absolutely no power. Nobody ask him, but he must pay, because he wanted sex. In what crazy country do we live ?
The next step should be to state something like : "Every man, who slept with a woman, must give her full access to his bank account and credit cards". Why not ? You don't want this ? - don't sleep with women.
Decline of population sure will be a problem, it will lead to economic depression first, then values of businesses and real estate will go down... But isn't the current price too high ? Should we turn all male population into slaves in desperate attempts to raise birthrate ?
Governments should look for other solutions, but not for what is going on now. And there are other solutions, first of them - immigration. It can not only solve the population problem, it can solve problem of disproportion of sexual demand and supply for men and women, by simply inviting more women, then men, until situation is balanced. Also prostitution can be eliminated... But women don't want this solution. They like it the way it is. I think now it's time for men to fight for their rights, for sexual equality.
Let's declare this - SEXUAL LIFE IS OUR PRIVATE LIFE, AND THERE MUST NOT BE LAW, THAT IN ANY WAY CONNECT OUR PRIVATE LIFE WITH MONEY. No lawyer must be able to put his nose into my bank account in connection with my sexual life. Any law, that do not comply with this requirements must be cancelled.
Let's delete Family Law Act. There will be less divorces in this world.
Let's delete all Family Law completely. There will be less lawyers, less children, but more love and happiness in our life.
CBGBConnisur
09-21-02, 16:25
They call me Slim Shady!! I'm back. I'm back. So what's cookin here in the American Women message board?? Can you smell what the Rock is cookin??!! I got ripped off a couple of days ago by a sleazy New York incall service and I have to say that is the last straw, why deal with shit service in the US when you get high quality elsewhere in the world, Europe, Australia, even Canada to a degree??
takemototim
09-22-02, 04:30
Hello
This is a little off topic but I would like to ask about the existance and use of "short stay hotels" in the US. I have also post this to the General board here
http://www.wsgforum.com/vforum/showthread.php?threadid=970
but I really need to ask people who are in the US.
What I want to ask is, are "Short stay hotels" in the US and Canada only used with professionals or do people sometimes take their girl friend in for a quickie? How strange would this be?
As some of you may know, there are places called "love hotels" in Japan which are rented by the hour (or 3, sometimes all night) where people go for sex (and occasionally just for a rest or to stay the night because they are cheaper). Sometimes people will take prostitutes to love hotels, but often they will take their girlfriend, including especially the person that they are having an affair with, or even their wife.
The reasons for this are perhaps
1) Japanese young people live with their families for longer, often until they marry, so they often do not have a place of their own.
2) Japanese houses are smaller and are often partitioned with paper walls.
3) The architectural problem is exacerbated since many Japanese ladies sometimes make those moaning noises.
4) There is a more permissive culture of sex (perhaps).
5) And hence they are provided to give a more interesting sexual experience with them rooms, toys, videos and mirrors that would be difficult to provide in such variety at home.
6) Japanese morality depends on *where* you are - i.e. they have a strong sense of propriety, and a sense of inappropriate behaviour depending upon where they are. Having wild sex in ones parent's house might be felt to be shameful (even if they are away on holiday) but doing it in a love hotel -- well that is the place to do it.
Tim
Warpig2000
09-22-02, 04:43
Tomboy or 'Girly Girl' ?
Depends when and where. Alone in the budoir I certainly like the look and feel of nice lacy lingierie on her body, I appreciate the time she spends to get 'dolled up and pretty' for me. Vive le difference, dammit! And there are times out in public too when I like a nice doll in my arms...
but the ladies in my life who aren't pros tend to be casual, I see them in jeans and flannel or t-shirts more often then dressed-to-kill. Which is fine with me, I like my mountain biking, going to movies, nice time snuggling on the couch. I appreciate time spent when things are natural and she's letting her hair down.
Casual wins overall, it is just more of my lifestyle. Not really a suit myself, just a merchant sailor on the great lakes who thinks all women are goddesses, that god created women so that he can pamper them (when I'm not selling myself the bill of goods that the only thing a lady would want from me is Master Card, Visa, American Express, or cold hard cash). What wins is a woman who can be appealing and make both sides come off well: I may be a simple man, but I like my women to be multi-faceted.
Rubber Nursey
09-22-02, 05:20
Warpig,
"...just a merchant sailor on the great lakes who thinks all women are goddesses, that god created women so that he can pamper them"
Who needs Visa cards and BMWs?? What we need are more men like you!!! ;)
takemototim
09-22-02, 06:52
Dear Alex,
I agree with a lot of what you say and have thought similar things myself. Some comments,
I am not sure that women have the upper hand. It is true that they have a lot of power due to the sexual appetite imbalance that you point out, but at the same time, as you also note, they are dependent upon men if they want to use their sexual organs to the full and have children. It is clear that someone needs to look after children. In the end we all labour to have our sexual desires fulfilled and women probably work about as hard as men, appeasing men, and raising children or working. Surveys of how much work men and women do in Japan at least show that women do about as much work as men, even though men work long hours. In general it seems to me that men and women need each other, are dependent upon each other, so inequality is difficult to maintain.
But having said that, you are probably right. Men give women money for sex and having sex, even (or especially) for a woman, is a lot less unpleasant than having to earn money. Hmm... at the same time I think that we give them a psychologically hard time a lot of the time.
Anyway
The problem is though that your alternatives to marriage are not all that good. Immigration would only work for the richer countries and would result in considerable cultural decline. Soon American (or whereever you are) would be populated by those from other nations and would cease to be America. When that happened it is quite possible that the economic advantage that it has now would dissappear, meaning that women would not want to come.
One might attempt to run communes such as the Israeli Kibbutz or the attempts in the Soviet Union were women raise children as a group and men work as a group, each according to their ability, each according to their needs. In Russia it was found that it was very difficult to break the bond between biological parents and their offspring, especially the mothers, but also the fathers as well I believe. You predict that some fathers would want to rear their children. It seems to me that there will be a tendency for marriage to rise from the ashes, as it were, so long as there are some men that are prepared to do it. As soon as their are some men that do it, then women will choose those men, and the rest of us will have to do likewise is the competative sexual market.
One might pay women to have children, via general taxation. Would this be preferable?
Anothe point is that this problem is very deep and even spiritual. Many myths start with a divine couple (adam and eve etc) suggesting that forming couples is something that lies at the foundation of our religions and cultures. Overthrowing marriage would be a massive revolution indeed. Marx (or in particular his friend Engels, who was rich enough to live with two women) believed that patriachy and by that he meant men buying women, was the origin of capitalism. (check for books by Engels at Amazon).
As a bit of a buddhist, it seems to me that perhaps one of the reasons why we believe ourselves to have a stable identity (which buddhism denies) is that we are born to a system where we are to have stable relationships. Hence the others that we internalise are stable, and so are our percieved identities. Perhaps the end of marriage would signal enlightenment for mankind!
But the problem is people have not (recently) come up with a better system than marriage - a better system of transferring wealth to child rearers from non-child rearers.
And perhaps, while I can see the objections, it is good for society that we are in a situation where we are required to work in order to satisfy our desires. If sex were free then perhaps we would be very lazy.
I have toyed with the ideal of a utopia in which all women are prostitutes and that everyone simply realises that marriage is just one form of prostitution. Perhpas if the market would just get deregulated a little (meaning that there is no moral or legal divide between those that want to form lifetime and one hour partnerships) then that would improve human society? It could also make it a lot worse.
People find that men are a nicer to their biological children are are more inclined, for example, to form sexual relationships with the offspring of other males. This tends to mean that "liberated" familes are fraght places for young females. I know one family that is a case in point.
Tim
takemototim>
Tim !
I remember I read about ancient Polinesia ( Hawayi ... ) - it was absolutely sexual free society. As young people hawayians had a lot of sexual connections, but by 30-40s they usually found a stable parthner and lived voluntarily in couples. They were quite happy in sexual life ( before europeans came and brought syphilis ).
This example showing that cancellation of marriage law will not cancel marriage itself. It will just make to women more difficult to pull out money - that's all ! As a result it will switch women's sexual attutude from money to sex itself, make them less tough and more sexual, like in Hawayi. The negative result will be that some single mothers will lose money - but not to unbearable point. Taxation system can soften it even more.
>And perhaps, while I can see the objections, it is good for society that we are in a situation where we are required to work in order to satisfy our desires. If sex were free then perhaps we would be very lazy.
You are right. that's another undercurrent reason for marriage law - a whip to make men work harder.
takemototim
09-23-02, 02:42
Alex,
Hawayi?
Sounds like utopia. It also sounds rather like the American dream - people hand out when they are young and find a soul mate or really good friend for when they are older. I hope that the future turns out that way, but I am not sure that the removal of the marriage laws is enough to ensure a desirable outcome.
Here in Japan (I am not Japanese, but I have lived here for a while), young Japanese tend to be somewhat less hung up about sex and they tend to find a partner later in life (the average of marriage is about 29, I think).
However it is not only reduced taboos on sex that facilitates this sort of society - they also have very strong taboos related to child birth and female desire.
I would have to know more about your utopia to be able to comment.
And anyway, is it enough to simple remove marriage law? If people get married later in life then younger women may want to grab the man sooner before the good ones get taken, and not so attractive men may want to offerthemselves as life long partners sooner before the good ones get taken. If you remove the law will the promise makers disappear?
Removing the child maintenance law would make quite a lot of difference though. New slogan - "Let the woman beware"?
Tim -- for what it's worth, the current average age of first marriage for men in the US is pretty close to 29. About three years younger for women.
Originally posted by joe_zop
Tim -- for what it's worth, the current average age of first marriage for men in the US is pretty close to 29. About three years younger for women.
Can you source that, JZ? It seems high to me. Is the "average" the arithmetic mean or the median (or something else), and how do they treat never-marrieds? Seems to me the calculation is impossible since the never-marrieds cannot be assumed to never marry subsequently, or must be retrospective and thus stale. Or perhaps they are probabilistic regarding the never- (or maybe better said, the not-yet-) marrieds?
The number I would want would be the lowest age at which 50% of the population reported never having married, which would be the median except for survivorship issues (some people had married but died before reaching that age, while others who had died may have married before that age, after that age, or not at all).
Just curious.
Dickhead
PS: 2000 US census data give the median age at first marriage as 25.1 for women and 26.8 for men, if you choose to believe them.
DH
Dickhead, it's from the same place I mentioned below, http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsUS.shtml, which boils down stats from various sources, including the census. However, on looking at it again (I did the previous post from memory) I see that I've mixed up average age of marriage with that of average age of first marriage, and that their quote for the latter is for 1997. No idea the specifics of their methodology -- I just found their list an easy short compilation -- but my suspicion would be that never-marrieds are not counted, and that this is simply an average age from a source such as licenses or something similar. They have the same number as the one you quote for median for first marriage, which no doubt means that's where they're drawing it from.
For what it's worth, they report the percentage of those who had never married in 1999 as being about 28% with some slight geographical differences, with the percentage over the age of 15 who have never married, by gender, as 31.3% of men and 25.1% of women. Given that there are more women than men, that would seem to indicate that those men who do marry tend to remarry more often than women, right?
OK, Joe, that makes more sense. Thanks. I haven't read all the posts since the board opened up again since I am pretty busy right now, so I didn't see your source.
Fuckin' statisticians. What use is the percentage of people over 15 who've never married? Now over 30 or 35 might tell me something.
I have always heard and felt it to be true that divorced men are more likely to remarry than divorced women, and I think I've heard that about widowers as well. I worked with a guy at the post office who was 25 and had been divorced 3 times. He told me that he liked being married but just hadn't liked any of his wives. What an idiot. I also have two friends who have each TWICE married women they have known for only a few weeks (a few days in one case). These two are both college graduates. One is still married to the second gal but he hates her and just works all the time to avoid her (they had a kid).
Personally, I think marriage is a quaint anachronism, at least in the developed world. I think Bolivia has a good system. You can get married and if you are not satisfied with your wife after a year, you just drag her ass back to her parents' house and drop her off. Of course, that choice exists only for the man and not for the woman. Being a man in Bolivia is quite good as there is a huge disparity of women to men due to centuries of war. However, the women are butt ugly.
>I haven't read all the posts since the board opened up again
For which you should probably be eternally gratefull :D
I have to agree that it never ceases to amaze me how people can get married on a regular basis after only a couple of weeks. People I would otherwise consider bright, as well, but sometimes people are mysteries even to themselves...
Alex,
I must admit I found the post about sexual inequality quite funny. Contrary to popular belief, there are plenty of sexually willing women. Sex has been called the world's most expensive commodity. Women are just a sexual as men, if not more so, they just don't wear it on their sleeves the way we do. What I often find amusing is this belief that people have that if there are 1000 women and 1000 men then there's one for everybody, everything's equal and balanced. Life doesn't work that way. General, all of the men will be attracted to the top 100 women and all of the women pining away for the top 100 men. So, you have 10% of the population getting more than they can handle, and the other 90% feeling lonely and confused as to why. There are PLENTY of women chasing after handsome, sexy, intelligent, successful guys, just as there are plenty of guys trying to get a date with a supermodel. TRUST ME: THERE ARE GUYS WHO GET TO PICK AND CHOOSE.
It works the same way in business. Certain people have the knowledge and skills the enable them to earn tremendous sums of money, while everyone else sort of bumbles along crying about the inequality. And, not to sound crass, but if some poor guy has to work 3 DAYS to pay for a prostitute, then he probably should be looking for someone closer to his socio-economic level. BMW doesn't market their cars to guys making minimum wage. Their TARGET MARKET is people in a much higher income bracket. For some people on this board, $200 is less than an hours work in their profession. This particular market is driven by those who can pay without batting an eye, NOT by some attempt to make it affordable for EVERYONE.
And for all your comments about marriage, you seem to forget that marriage is a CHOICE. No one is FORCED to get married. Yes, in the U.S. it cost more to get divorced than it does to get married which creates whole other set of problems. This is why I choose NOT to get married. Are all of my sexual needs being met? More than you could probably imagine. How in the world can you suggest that biggest problem facing developed countries is some poor schmuck not getting the sex he desires? Is this a joke!?
If you haven't noticed, there are millions of women looking for husbands, partners, soul mates, friends, etc. If you are an idiot, a troll, complete and utter loser, then I can understand you feeling a little lonely. But, even losers get lucky from time to time. If you choose to marry a woman just to have your sexual needs met, then you deserve to get slammed because you know NOTHING about women, or relationships.
Next, your child support argument is complete drivel. If some ass chooses to have a child, you feel he's not financially responsible for the raising of that child? So, if he's not responsible, who is? Me, as a taxpayer? Guess again, pal. Oh, and yes, women DO pay child support in this country. It's rare, but it does happen. Jesus, drivel, complete drivel… Somehow, during your extensive research, you failed ask why child support laws were created. It's because too many women were being left to care for children alone, without financial support. Well, they did get it…from me…and the rest of the taxpayers that make over minimum wage. Why the hell would I want to be burdened with your financial responsibility? BTW, the cost of raising a child in this country from birth through four years of college is estimated at over $200,000.
Again, not to sound rude, but do you REALLY believe this crap? (And you wonder why your cup doesn't runneth over with p---y….
Dear Mr. drgn !
You say :
>Contrary to popular belief, there are plenty of sexually willing women.
and then :
>if some poor guy has to work 3 DAYS to pay for a prostitute, then he probably should be looking for someone closer to his socio-economic level.
But did you ever seen a woman , that has to work 3 DAYS to pay for a male prostitute ?
You didn't. That proves, that there are NOT PLENTY of sexually willing women. So women get it free, while men must pay.
Or maybe you think that an average woman is on some upper level, then average guy ?
While we have such striking inequality, why not to compensate it with another natural inequality - let's women pay for their children ! Because they are really THEIR children, they don't belong to men, or they belong to fathers only conditionally, because a women can take them out anytime, while a man can not.
>Sex has been called the world's most expensive commodity.
Exactly. So while women make money on this commodity, let's make them pay it other way. It's only fair. I am quite serious.
Drgn, You do make some good points about child support and marriage. I would pay child support if I had an ex-wife that had MY child because the child is my flesh and blood and I would love my creation with all my heart. But what about those poor souls that pay child support to wives for kids from her previous marriages. That is not the child supporter's flesh and blood and someone else's. I believe that child support should be paid for the husband's own creation not someone else's. Yet it never happens that way. Sometimes the current divorced husband gets the shaft and has to pay it all. Not to mention, the judge might tack on alimony. There is no incentive for men to get married especially with single mothers. This is why most men choose to stay single.
I agree that men who get married for sexual gratification should get slammed. They are asking for it. They fall for the trap of the woman saving themselves for marriage and then the buffoon marries her just to get her in bed. That is the stupidest reason to get married! It only reinforces the male stereotype of being people that think with their small heads. These people give us men bad names.
As far as hooking up, it really depends where you live. For example, the Tri State area of the United States is more racist than other parts of the US. I have a hard time hooking up here in New York than any other parts of the US. In fact the girl I am currently dating is from Michigan and just moved to New York about 2 weeks ago. Usually when I ask a girl born here in this state out, they give me the "I only date guys of my own race" crap. But when this girl said yes, I suspected she wasn't from around here. I asked where she was from and she was from Lansing, Michigan. There is almost no race mixing in New York or most parts of the Northeastern United States, especially Boston. They were taught that they could be friends with people of other races but can't date or marry them or else they get disowned. Also, women in New York wouldn't date shorter men who are balding. But these guys have a shot in foreign countries where the men abuse them and they are taught to be submissive. The caring but short and bald geek would have a great shot in Europe or South America because they are more attracted to sensitive men than American women could ever be. The sensitive geek is a prize compared to the abusive men in those countries.
Darkseid
Originally posted by alex
Because they are really THEIR children, they don't belong to men, or they belong to fathers only conditionally, because a women can take them out anytime, while a man can not.
This is the complete crux of the area where we disagree, Alex. I can simply never agree with you that kids don't belong to their fathers. Not only physically but emotionally. I can look at my own family and see how much the identities of myself and my siblings are oriented around who my father was, his values, his temperment. Yes, the mother is clearly also a strong and singular influence, but to state that children don't belong to their fathers -- just because you're afraid you may have to pay for sticking your dick in their mother -- is just utter immature bullshit.
joe_zop>I can simply never agree with you that kids don't belong to their fathers.
>to state that children don't belong to their fathers -- just because you're afraid you may have to pay for sticking your dick in their mother -- is just utter immature bullshit.
It's happening too often, that we can't ignore it. It's reality of life. Sad one. It's not immature bullshit.
Gee, let's see -- trapped into marriage, forced to pay for kids who don't belong to you just because you helped bring them about, plus anyway you can't get fair custody of these children who you don't really want in the first place and who aren't really your problem, they're society's so taxpayers ought to pay for them, damn women don''t have to pay for sex so if a man were to hang out his gigolo shingle he wouldn't be able to support himself -- sorry, but I hear a baby rattle keeping the beat in the background. Oh, yeah, that's right -- it's not yours anyway, all you did was have sex like a "man" needs to do. Why, indeed, don't people care about men's needs, sob, sob?
Joe, you see problems of men in contemporary life as something not important, while problems of women as something important. I see it other way around.
Darkseid,
As someone who lived in Manhattan for several years, and is a confessed "rainbow dater" I'm going to emphatically DISAGREE with that statement about inter racial/interfaith/inter-whatever dating in the Northeast. In my experience, and the experiences of friends, coworkers, etc. you see biracial couples ALL the time. Granted, you can go into certain neighborhoods and those numbers drop. But by and large, the number of mixed couples in major metropolitan areas far surpasses both the suburbs and rural areas of this country.
Here's a little secret for you about the girl from Lansing. Women's behavior is contextual. Women will often do things away from "home" that they'd be less inclined to do in their own backyard. Which is why it's so much easier to get laid on vacation (or when away in college). When a woman goes to a new "place", there is also a new set of behaviors that emerges. Also, the kind of woman that is willing to move away to a "Big City" is also going to be more adventurous in general, which opens up a whole new set of opportunities and possibilities when it comes to dating. In short, look for adventurous women. Look for women that want to step outside of the ordinary and experience something truly...different. By the way, Danny DeVito is short and balding, yet seems to have no trouble finding willing women. Just a thought.
Alex, you missed the point. ANY GUY THAT HAS TO WORK 3 F---ING DAYS TO PAY FOR A PROSTITUTE IS OUT OF HIS LEAGUE. PERIOD. If you're life is such that you have to work 3 days to make $200, then maybe should be looking at the $40 street walker instead of the $200 escort. Don't complain about wanting a Mercedes when you can only afford a Hyundai. And, trust me on this, spend a week following a true "player", and you'll see the meaning of sexually willing women. Has it ever occurred to you that you're simply...inept? Yes, most women get it free. And the guys I know who have their "shit together" have to turn women down ALL THE TIME. When was the last time you had a woman take you out for the evening and pay for everything? When was the last time you had a woman pay for your vacation? When was the last time you had a woman bring one of her girlfriends to bed with you because she knows you love threesomes? When was the last time you had a woman call you at midnight because she wants, get this...more sex? And these are well-educated women with professional careers. Another buddy of mine always has a "harem" of 3-5 women he can call at almost anytime for sex, dinner, movies, etc.
Here's an interesting fact. Over 51% of all books sold in North America are romance novels, women's romantic fantasies. That is what we call a CLUE boys and girls. When you learn how to get a woman "clicked on" and help her access that part of her mind where she ponders those fantasies, then it's like shooting fish in a barrel.
Alex, I applaud you. It's guy like you that make it sooooo easy for the rest of us. :-) To me, sex is a lot like money. Those that know how get all they want, while everyone else, bitches and complains about the injustices of the world.
drgn>Has it ever occurred to you that you're simply...inept?
You may not believe it, but I'm not inept.
>And the guys I know who have their "shit together" have to turn women down ALL THE TIME.
could be, but this is not typical.
>When was the last time you had a woman take you out for the evening and pay for everything?
Never. I pay.
O, yes, once she paid in a restaurant.
>When was the last time you had a woman pay for your vacation?
Never. Not only for MY vacation, they never pay for any man's vacation.
>When was the last time you had a woman bring one of her girlfriends to bed with you because she knows you love threesomes?
C'mon...
>When was the last time you had a woman call you at midnight because she wants, get this...more sex?
3 month ago. It was 11.30pm. I was sleeping already. She wanted me to pick her up at some intersection.
I told her to take a taxi and get here. She felt insulted and didn't come.
It sounds like a funny story, but I simply got tired of this style of relationship. Can you imagine a man calling a girl at 11.30pm, when she is sleeping and telling her - i want to see you now, can you drive at some place and pick me up now, because I am fucking don't care to have my own car, because I used for women to drive me anytime where i want it ?
I am tired of this double standard in sexual life. I don't want it any more.
Originally posted by alex
Joe, you see problems of men in contemporary life as something not important, while problems of women as something important. I see it other way around.
No, I get annoyed listening to guys complain about women while whining in the same way women are generally put down for whining: "What about my needs?"
Men's problems, women's problems -- sorry, I live in a world of color, not just black and white, and I don't have to choose one side or another. Being human can suck. Being in a relationship can suck. So can not being in one, so can having been in one. Not getting what you want can suck. That's true for both men and women.
What about talking about taking some personal responsibility for problems as opposed to complaining about the "system"? Your approach is the welfare approach -- "I've got it tough, so I should be pitied and given a break, and no one else's problems are as bad or as important as mine." Poor baby.
CBGBConnisur
09-26-02, 23:00
That's why I go to Europe where prostitution is reasonably priced and you don't have to deal with the bullshit that you do in the US. In Europe 50 dollars can go a heck of a lot farther than it can in the US or Canada. In London, in Shepherd's Market for that much money I can get a nice session with a 7-8 rating Eastern European beauty. In the outer provinces of the Netherlands that gets me a solid half hour with a 9-10. In Eastern Europe, particularly Prague I could get first rate service for that amount of cash. Even some decent clubs in Copenhagen never charge more than 50-60 US dollars for fun. Speaking the language also helps, for instance in Paris, most Frenchmen I know never pay more than 140 US Dollars for a full hour sex that is the absolute most, that most men I know will pay over there, and often they usually pay 60-75 US Dollars.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by alex
[i]drgn>Has it ever occurred to you that you're simply...inept?
>You may not believe it, but I'm not inept.
You're right, I don't believe it. No one with their "shit together" would whine as much as you do. Your "somebody save me" attitude shines a giant spotlight on your lack of skill.
>And the guys I know who have their "shit together" have to turn women down ALL THE TIME.
>could be, but this is not typical.
It's quite typical for guys that understand and can attract women.
>When was the last time you had a woman take you out for the evening and pay for everything?
>Never. I pay.
>O, yes, once she paid in a restaurant.
Sucks for you. Women take me out all the time.
>When was the last time you had a woman pay for your vacation?
>Never. Not only for MY vacation, they never pay for any man's vacation.
You'd be surprised what a woman will do if they want you badly enough. And, yes, a woman paid for my trip to Miami last month.
>When was the last time you had a woman bring one of her girlfriends to bed with you because she knows you love threesomes?
>C'mon...
Again, sucks for you. If you make a habit of dating bisexual women, as I do, threesomes are a normal occurrence. Bi-women are quite easy to spot if you know what to look for. :-)
Alex, your responses to my questions just illustrate you are...inept. Again, you feel society should "cure" your lack of skill with women. Quite sad, really.
Mr Drgn,
I generally agree with most everything you have said. Those that can, do it. Those that can't, b*tch about it.
That said, I must also tell you that you seem to be a real asshole and your "shit" - real or imagined - comes off pretty weak. Real players and guys with money don't spend their time bragging and trying to impress others. If you're getting a lot of tail, my advice is enjoy it while you can. With your nasty attitude, it won't last for long . . .
joe_zop>No, I get annoyed listening to guys complain about women while whining in the same way women are generally put down for whining.
Now you are showing again double standard approach. You'd never say "I get annoyed about women having same political rights, as men" or "I get annoyed about women having same education opportunities, as men" - why "guys whining in the same way women" make you annoyed ?
Men should comlain for their rights, the same way women do it. Joe, do analyze your postings - you simply have pro-feminist attitude. You support women-oriented point of view, but you don't care for men's problems.
Hi, Mr. Prokofiev !
I am really wondering - how is your chinese girlfriend doing ? Didn't she tell you yet "I want to get married, or go to hell" ( rudely speaking ). Chinese girls are especially smart for this.
And then, how long are you dating her ? Please, it's not an intrusion into your private life, but just kind of social observation.
Rubber Nursey
09-27-02, 04:33
Alex...what is all this "women get it for free, men have to pay" shit? You need to remember where you are. You are on a prostitution board. Thus, the men who frequent this site pay for sex. But on a whole, men who pay sex workers are a comparatively small group. Which means that the greater majority of men in the community ARE GETTING SEX FOR FREE!
There are many men who are "forced" by circumstance to pay a sex worker for sex, and there are many others who do it simply for fun. But ultimately, it is usually a CHOICE. And in most cases, it's because you have CHOSEN not to settle for second best. If you really wanted to get sex for free, you could. Anyone can. There's that woman in her 50's next door who hasn't had a root in 30 years. There's that overweight woman from your office who's always eyeing you off. There's that women in the supermarket who has no boobs and her bum is a bit wobbly. And there are "average" women all over the place, just dying for a no-strings shag. But no. You have to have an 18 year old blonde with implants, she has to know what she's doing in bed, you have to be sure that she won't track you down later and cry that you haven't called her...she has to be PERFECT. You would prefer to pay for sex, than go out and sleep with someone who's "not worthy". So if YOU have to go out and spend a weeks wage in order to get f*cked, that's entirely YOUR faullt.
Drgn,
I LOVED your first post. Keep 'em coming! :)
Originally posted by alex
You'd never say "I get annoyed about women having same political rights, as men" or "I get annoyed about women having same education opportunities, as men" - why "guys whining in the same way women" make you annoyed ?
Alex, no double standard here at all -- "What about my needs" is whiny regardless of the gender that says it. I don't think it plays any better for men than for women. I'm not annoyed about people having or not having opportunities -- I'm annoyed about childish complaint as opposed to personal responsibility.
I'm not caring enough about men's problems? Spare me -- I care plenty about men's real problems, but I find your litany of them less than compelling. You're doing plenty of caring for men's problems, as you imagine them -- every single one of your posts on this site have been on this particular subject, using only a single one-note point of view and never varying one iota. And you're going to criticize my attitude? I provide background, statistics and links to my viewpoints, you provide opinion and anecdote and ignore any fact that doesn't suit your perspective. You make ridiculous and unsupportable blanket statements ("Not only for MY vacation, they never pay for any man's vacation") as if they actually prove something. If I'm providing, as you say, a "pro-feminist point of view" (which is incorrect -- I'd say instead that my perspective is less concerned with men's or women's rights and more about the welface of the kids involved) then you are providing an anti-family, mysogynist, and extremely selfish and self-centered perspective that masquerades as concern for men at large. Here's the difference -- you see this whole equation as being about men versus women. I don't. I don't believe that having one side or the other "win" is of general benefit to society.
And tell you what -- since one of men's core problems, even in your terms, is the lack of available and willing sex partners, suppose you help us all out with this most basic of men's problems by telling us where we should be going to find women to have sex with, as that is the core purpose of this board. I've done that in other areas on this board -- how about you?
Hi RN,
Just wanted to tweak your statment about the "...the majority of men are gettting sex for free."
Well, here in the US of A the majority of men are not getting any sex at all from what I hear. (Wink) Just had to throw in my unsolicited two cents worth. Keep up the good work as always.
Rubber Nursey
09-27-02, 05:22
Ok Paddy..."The majority of men are either getting it for free, OR NOT GETTING AT ALL!" LOL :) Either way, I still don't believe that "men HAVE to pay for sex and women get it for free".
Drgn, I did mention that a majority of Northeastern people are racist in the dating sense but as you mentioned and to avoid generalization, there are a few exceptions. They are hard to find though because most parents teach their kids in the segregated neighborhoods in New York not to date outside their race. There are people that go against this rule like myself but not without stares or dirty looks. People in the office date interracially because like you said about girls from Michigan, they are not in their backyard. They are away from parents and their home neighborhoods but they still get stares and the nudgiing question of what are you doing with him/her? When I was with my ex-fiancee, People in her neighborhhood asked her what she was doing with this "chink" and she responded that I was her boyfriend. She got a lot of this in her neighborhood but our relationship was so strong that this racism didn't break the bond. What did break the bond was that she became abusive after meeting a neo-feminist ***** named Martha but that's a different story that I explained in a previous post.
As for Alex, the solution for getting women to pay is to meet a desperate rich woman who hasn't gotten any in years. Not all of them are ugly, but don't expect a wet behind the ears 18 year old either. The 18 year old WILL DEFINITELY make you pay because she doesn't even have a college degree so how can you expect her to have a job to pay for even your meals? If you want a woman that does pay, you have to meet one that makes more money than you AND one that finds you a better person than all her ex-boyfriends. You also have to be physically attractive as well. I do martial arts so I am in top shape and a lot of wealthy older women paid for my meals even when I refused. The key is you must be physically attractive AND the woman must make money. The woman I dated who paid for my meals and even a trip to Vegas was in her forties but back then I was 25 years old but you can be any age as long as you work out to get the muscular body unless you are a cripple. It is the same way with prostitution. We would NEEVER pay for a fat, wrinkled body but we pay for the young ones who are in shape and have shapely tits and asses. So if you are fat, Get in shape and you'll see how many women will pay for you. Also if you are balding, take rogaine or get a hair weave. Women would pay just as much for an ideal man as we would pay for an ideal woman that is why there a few male escort services for these women.
As for threesomes, you MUST date a bisexual. You'll NEVER get a threesome with straight women. Straight women are just as homophobic as straight guys and hate it when you force them to do lesbian acts. That is how I get a threesome once. They are hard to find but you can find them on adult friendfinder sites which will clearly mention they are straight or bisexual. One site I recommend is Alt.com. But say on your ad that you don't want responses leading to paysites because of some of them are fake and do lead to paysites so make it clear that you don't want responses like this. You'll get real responses this way. I met a bisexual girl through this site and had a threesome with her bi-sexual lover.
Darkseid
Interesting, Prokofiev. Asshole? Nasty attitude?
Alex posts this pathetic diatribe about how unfair the world is for men. Then when I ask several questions about a different realm of possibility, his response is Never, Never, C'mon (making blanket statements about "reality). (If you read the initial post, I never made any reference to MY personal experiences.) Then when I give examples from my own life, your response is that I'm an asshole. Why? Because I made a statement about my experiences that doesn't match your reality? Or because it's your belief that guys who aren't whining about a lack of female attention are assholes? Typical response. It's funny how angry other guys get when you don't support their whining. BTW, I usually don't discuss my personal life with anyone, but I really get annoyed when people speak of their pathetic reality as if it's the ONLY reality.
P.S. I could give you dozens of examples from friends that make me look like a "piker". Does that make them assholes too? Is Darkseid an asshole for having similar experiences? Yawn...
P.P.S Thanks, RN. And, Darkseid, thanks for the additional examples of what's possible. (I can smell the smoke as neurons are frying...)
Darkseid,
The woman doesn't have to rich, old, or desperate. She does, however, have to be several years into her career so that her paying is not a struggle…just a choice. Usually 25 is the cutoff. She also has to fully understand on an emotional level that being with you is at the top of her priority list because you can give her the kind of experiences that no other man (at least no one she's met up to this point) can give.
You guys seem to have missed the romance novel stat I gave earlier. Women DREAM about meeting some handsome, sexy, mysterious stranger that gives them unbelievable emotional and physical experiences. If you've ever read a romance novel, they all follow basically the same format. When women go on vacation, they imagine meeting some incredible guy. When they are with their girlfriends, they talk about finding some "alpha" male who's able to reach the woman deep inside, and access all her most private fantasies, dreams and images.
It's quite basic, guys. As men, our sexuality is visually based. We see a hot woman and we want to jump her. Women, by and large, work a little differently. Their sexuality is more emotionally based. Why do you think artists, poets, and musicians are the "master seducers" of our time?!! Because they help women access that part of their mind, where those fantasies, and sexual thoughts are kept. And since HE's the one that opened that doorway, HE's the one she chooses to share it with. This is why women buy so many f---ing romance novels. They're getting their sexual fix, the way guys do when they view Playboy. Most men DON'T HAVE A CLUE when it comes to women, which is why most men are in a condition of scarcity when it comes to sex.
"If you want to be a bull fighter, you must first learn how to be a bull."
darkseid>As for threesomes, you MUST date a bisexual...
Thanks for your advice. But in fact, I don't need it. Personally I am quite OK with my life.
joe_zop>Alex, no double standard here at all -- "What about my needs" is whiny regardless of the gender that says it.
No, what you said exactly is :
"No, I get annoyed listening to GUYS complain about women while whining in the same way women are generally put down for whining."
You are not annoyed about women whinning, but about GUYS, WHINNING like women.
Then :
"I provide background, statistics and links to my viewpoints, you provide opinion and anecdote and ignore any fact that doesn't suit your perspective. You make ridiculous and unsupportable blanket statements ("Not only for MY vacation, they never pay for any man's vacation") "
Do you really believe men and women pay equally for vacations, restorants... ?? Do you need special statistics research for this ?
There are certain realities of life, that we all know, without statistical reports. It's not only restaurants, women don't pay equally for houses, cars, anything. There are exceptions, of course... But don't try to convince me that it is not true.
And men and women don't pay equally for sex, just look into a newspaper and compare men's and womens prostitutes ads. Also RN is trying to say, that most men get sex free - RN, darling, it's not free ! They pay with marriage certificate for this - look at my initial post.
Then you say, my position is balanced, I care about children first. Joe, 1/2 of this children are also boys. They don't ask you about this care ! They will grow up and come under press of marriage law - they will not thank you.
Joe, you ignore well known fact, that normal sexual life is of utmost importance for people well-being. It's not less important, that normal food. Everything that screw up sex, screw up lifes of millions. But you prefer to believe, that financial well-being of women is of first importance, and sexual life is second. This is feminists position, clear.
>suppose you help us ... by telling us where we should be going to find women to have sex with
No, I don't want to discuss this. there is a lot of such information already. Yes, I used to go somewhere for adventures, but now I don't do it much.
But what is interesting here, Joe, do you realize, that if situation will be everywhere like in US, you'll simply have nowhere to go ? So why don't you care for Thailand women and children ? No, you are quite OK with the situation, you show interest about how to exploit the opportunities. So why not to make american women work the same way ? Are they of better kind, then in Thailand ?
:) Don't think, I see happy american society with all women go out of hunger to the streets, whoring for everyday meal. They are very far from it.
Dragon,
"there are plenty of guys who make over $200/hr" I assume you're one of them. . . that's $400,000 to $500,000 year. I doubt it.
"Women take me out all the time" Great . . .
"I have a habit of dating bi-sexual women . . if you know what to look for . . ." Like we are all dying for a bi-sexual woman or a 3-some. Thanks, but no-thanks. Been there . . .
I'm not attacking the message so much as the messenger. No need to break this guys (Alex) balls. I would rather hear you give advice on HOW to "get your shit together" than to brag about your sex life. Something constructive. I don't hear anything about the quality of your relationships or how you utilize "romance", only who pays and how many fit into your bed. But good luck . . .
And Alex . . . don't whine . . . my Chinese girlfriend is fine and she sends her regards . . . in Chinese. Peace - P
>You are not annoyed about women whinning, but about GUYS, WHINNING like women.
I'm annoyed about whining -- period. How much clearer can I be? Look, this is my native language, I am someone with a highly sophisticated sense of syntax and meaning and also someone who gets paid for using that sense, and I was perfectly clear about what I said and meant. Don't blame me because you misunderstood it, and don't attempt to lecture me on what I meant until you're capable of reading nuance better. If you like, I'll be happy break it down for you bit by bit. (I don't normally react like this, but to have you lecture me on what I said and meant is really too much when I've studiously avoided any comment on your unending stream of grammatical and syntactic errors, because I made the specific point of establishing at the very beginning that this was not your native language.)
> Do you really believe men and women pay equally for vacations, restorants... ?? Do you need special statistics research for this ?
Do you really believe that, as you very specifically stated, women "never pay for any man's vacation"? You've had two people in this thread who have contradicted you from direct experience. No, you don't believe it, but you still keep saying it and things like it. That's precisely what I mean about a ridiculous and unsupportable blanket statement. That was exactly what I took you to task on, and once again you are avoiding the issue by fleeing away from your statement.
>But don't try to convince me that it is not true.
Alex, it has become very clear that it is absolutely impossible to convince you of anything, which means that you're basically interested not in thought, dialogue and interaction, but in diatribe. That's boring, and this will be my last engagement of you, as this has turned into an endless repetition of the same whiny complaints without development of any interesting nuances in those whines. There's more to discuss in this thread than your theories.
>Then you say, my position is balanced, I care about children first. Joe, 1/2 of this children are also boys. They don't ask you about this care ! They will grow up and come under press of marriage law - they will not thank you.
No, instead you propose a) asking 14-year old boys if they wouldn't like to not pay for things, and getting sex for free, expecting that the answer you get might actually prove something, and b) setting up a system where children are going to struggle financially because you don't think you should have to pay for helping create them. Wow, that's really caring a lot about those boys, isn't it? Let's just increase their inclusion in some of the negative statistical categories I cited. You're the one who's still dismissing half of the kids because they're not boys, while I'm basically interested in discussing all of their situations as children, not potential adults who may or may not agree with your position. The game is to first get them to adulthood, so they can make their own choices about how they think and live. You consistently just want to skip the realities of that process.
>Joe, you ignore well known fact, that normal sexual life is of utmost importance for people well-being. It's not less important, that normal food. Everything that screw up sex, screw up lifes of millions. But you prefer to believe, that financial well-being of women is of first importance, and sexual life is second. This is feminists position, clear.
You know, that's just complete and utter crap, and you don't know what you're talking about. Psychologists and sociologists of all stripes agree that the baseline issues for humans are food, shelter, and safety, which, in this society, are connected to money. That's not just feminists, that's everyone. Nowhere have I at all disagreed that sex is critically important, and my presence on this board clearly indicates I think so on a personal level, but to say it's more important that food is just hyperbolic baloney -- which isn't surprising, since that's your basic form of argument.
>>suppose you help us ... by telling us where we should be going to find women to have sex with
>No, I don't want to discuss this. there is a lot of such information already.
So, in other words, you're just a troll.
>But what is interesting here, Joe, do you realize, that if situation will be everywhere like in US, you'll simply have nowhere to go ? So why don't you care for Thailand women and children ? No, you are quite OK with the situation, you show interest about how to exploit the opportunities. So why not to make american women work the same way ? Are they of better kind, then in Thailand ?
First of all, I share information about things in the US as well, unlike you. See, that's the purpose of this board -- "sharing information" -- and I do. That's something you've stated you're not interested in doing, and instead you're now going to be judgemental about those who do, by defining it as "exploiting the opportunities." Well, screw you, pal -- opportunist must be your middle name.
Next, you pompous *******, don't dare presume to know how I do or do not care about people in various countries -- I spend a fair amount of my time working with people in third world countries on improving their situations, a large portion of the rest working on community and social issues, and my postings hardly embody pro-exploitation and abuse or lack of caring perspectives. You don't know me, asshole, so don't put attitudes into my mouth. I've quite obviously got no problem expressing them myself.
One thing I decidedly don't presume to do is impose my values on someone else's culture -- that's your game, and it's clear you'd have utterly no problem doing so in the event you were to get laid more and cheaper. In addition, I'm not the one proposing a radical shift in an existing situation without any clear understanding of what would happen. That's you, remember?
>Don't think, I see happy american society with all women go out of hunger to the streets, whoring for everyday meal. They are very far from it.
No, but you're perfectly happy to dismiss the fact that men make 25% more money than women, and still complain that you might have to pay for dinner in a scenario where you're hoping to get laid. Tell you what, since you're into ridiculous and unrealistic scenarios that haven't been thought through -- how about we simply legislate that everyone gets exactly the same amount of money, period, and then we won't have to worry at all about who pays for what? How about you simply talk about sharing the financial load at dinner or wherever -- no, wait, that would involve interaction with a woman other than for sex, and she might somehow trick or force you into marriage, so that won't work.
In the city where I grew up there most certainly were women who were basically out on the streets to make money for food. It ain't always been the good-money 90's, and there's certainly no guarantee that we won't be back in an economic mess at any point. And you've made it crystal clear that your position doesn't really give a damn about whether or not women end up whoring for food in any event, as long as you don't have to pay.
I basically agree with Drgn on his assessment of you, Alex, (and I also think his assessment of the psyche and the reasons men have trouble getting and understanding women are also pretty well dead on.) I've had women pay for things for me my entire life, and I'm far from some god's gift in terms of being handsome or a physical specimen. I've also done the same in return. It just depends on what the situation happens to be, and who the two people involved are. But unlike you, for me it's not all about money, for everything, at all times. Some people walk through life wearing their hearts on their sleeves -- you obviously wear your wallet.
joe_zop> don't attempt to lecture me on what I meant until you're capable of reading nuance better
Not to such level as not to understand what "guys whinning like girls" mean. I catched you with this and now you got annoyed.
>Do you really believe that, as you very specifically stated, women "never pay for any man's vacation"? You've had two people in this thread ...
My God ! STATISTICALLY !
Sometimes they do.
>Alex, it has become very clear that it is absolutely impossible to convince you of anything
Same about you. In fact we exchanged our thoughts already, and no one side could convince the other. We can stop it.
>Psychologists and sociologists of all stripes agree that the baseline issues for humans are food, shelter, and safety, which, in this society, are connected to money.
I read other things. Food and sex are of equal importance. And then - look at all world literature. It's about 1. food and material well-being 2. sex. - And it pays appr. equal attention to 1 and 2.
>So, in other words, you're just a troll. See, that's the purpose of this board -- "sharing information" -- and I do. That's something you've stated you're not interested in doing
I put my postings only into American Women part, the purpose of it to discuss american women attitude for sex. Your accusations are foundless.
>I spend a fair amount of my time working with people in third world countries on improving their situations, a large portion of the rest working on community and social issues, and my postings hardly embody pro-exploitation and abuse or lack of caring perspectives.
>You don't know me, asshole,
Now I know you already.
See, Joe, I believe that you worked as social worker and did your best to help people. But in the same time your presence on this site, dedicated to question "Where to find cheap prostitutes ?" shows, that you are OK with it. You even scorned me that I am not active in this discussion. Would I answer : oh, yes, I know a country with such good and cheap prostitutes ! - you'll be interested. When I pointed this out to you you got mad. It's funny.
Do you look at going to prostitutes in poor countries as a part of social help to people of 3rd world ? Or exploitation of their conditions, so you can pay less for a good service ?
C'mon.
>it's clear you'd have utterly no problem doing so in the event you were to get laid more and cheaper.
But it's the purpose of this site - to discuss, how to get laid cheaper ! You just scorned me for refusing to discuss, in what country to go for this.
>No, but you're perfectly happy to dismiss the fact that men make 25% more money than women,
Yes, I do dismiss it ! America is very rich country, even 25% less is a lot of money. There are really poor countries in the world, and you'll not convince me that 25% of US salary is an important thing.
I am against mariage law NOT just because men must pay MONEY after divorce, but because IT CHANGES WOMEN PSYCHOLOGY, their attitude for relationship with men, focusing it on money.
>how about we simply legislate that everyone gets exactly the same amount of money, period, and then we won't have to worry at all about who pays for what
What ? Communism ? Doesn't work. Proved already.
>In the city where I grew up there most certainly were women who were basically out on the streets to make money for food... And you've made it crystal clear that your position doesn't really give a damn about whether or not women end up whoring for food in any event, as long as you don't have to pay.
So what men did in this unfortunate city ? Being not able to prostitute, they probably, all died out of hunger...
How did you survive ?
Again, US is a very rich country, and also there are some bad examples - it's not the main problem of this country to compare with many others.
>I've had women pay for things for me my entire life
You are a great guy ! And I am poor, unfortunate thing, they don't want to pay for me ... whinn... whin... whinn...
>But unlike you, for me it's not all about money, for everything
Just other way around. You calculate 25% and care so much about it - I don't.
Prokofiev,
Do me one small favor? Go back and READ ALL OF THE POSTS before you open your mouth. You're WAY off base here. By the way, there are guys in my office who make 10 to 20 times that figure. You don't have a clue as to my background, or what I do for a living...let it go. But, that wasn't my point.
Alex, feels society is responsible for fixing his problems with women to the point where the government should step in and solve the problem. Please, try to keep up. And, as I stated previously, if you would bother to read and then process, I'm not bragging. I'm simply giving examples of what Alex stated was IMPOSSIBLE. Jesus, pal, I have no further use for you...
P.S. Joe_Zop, slam dunk!
alex continued to blather:
>not to such level as not to understand what "guys whinning like girls" mean. i catched you with this and now you got annoyed.
and earlier:
>you are not annoyed about women whinning, but about guys, whinning like women.
look, i'll go slow so you might have one last chance chance to catch this. at no point did i say that i was not annoyed about women whining. i find that also extremely annoying, and the fact that i did not specifically state so means nothing -- bud selig, martha stewart and people who drive too close to the rear of my car also annoy me, and i didn't mention them either. my comment was simply that i find it both annoying and ironic to hear men whining in the same way women do, when men constantly complain about women doing it. i find all whining about how you're a victim and so the world should change for you annoying. in what way is that difficult to comprehend?
>now i know you already.
>see, joe, i believe that you worked as social worker and did your best to help people. but in the same time your presence on this site, dedicated to question "where to find cheap prostitutes ?" shows, that you are ok with it. you even scorned me that i am not active in this discussion. would i answer : oh, yes, i know a country with such good and cheap prostitutes ! - you'll be interested. when i pointed this out to you you got mad. it's funny.
see, there you go again with a complete inability to read, and an even more absolute inability to read between the lines. no, you don't know me, and you're not even close in your assumptions. i am not a social worker and i never said i was one. and the purpose of this site is not finding cheap prostitutes -- to quote from the site itself, it's "finding women and getting laid." you're the one who's obsessed with cheapness -- strange for a guy who says he's not concerned with money -- i've never said a word about that in terms of my own actions.
and my point was very simple -- that's the mission of the board; you've said you're not interested in being part of that, and you're judgmental to boot about those who are. therefore, you're a troll.
>do you look at going to prostitutes in poor countries as a part of social help to people of 3rd world ? or exploitation of their conditions, so you can pay less for a good service ?
c'mon.
first, what exactly does this have to do with anything? (besides your ability to try to make a snide remark.) as far as frequenting sex workers in third world countries (or in the us, or anywhere else) i have absolutely no problem with people deciding what's best for them, what they want to do, and how they want to make money. that includes women who decide to make money by becoming sex workers. i do have a problem with people who are coerced, ****, etc. but somebody's body is their own, and they can choose to do with it whatever they want. i frankly don't see a huge difference between sex workers and day laborers or other independent contractors, as long as it's an option entered by choice. again, you're the one with money on the brain.
if i go to a sex worker, i go to a sex worker. generally, that happens in whatever place i happen to be, as opposed to me magically screwing someone a continent away from where my body is located. (if that were possible, it'd be, hello rn! lol) if i go to sex workers at home, i go to north american sex workers. if i go to sex workers while i'm travelling, i go to sex workers wherever i happen to be located. if i'm elsewhere in the us, they're american. if i'm in europe, i go to european sex workers. thailand, thai. australia, australian. again, what part of that is difficult for you to understand?
most of my experiences with sex workers and with women in general have happened in the us. is that clear enough?
no, probably not.
>you'll not convince me that 25% of us salary is an important thing.
no, but you'll certainly whine about having to give up part of it to a women in whatever way that might happen. if it's not important, why whine about it? why cite third world countries, where 25% of a us salary is often more than a family makes in a year, if it's not important?
>so what men did in this unfortunate city ? being not able to prostitute, they probably, all died out of hunger...
how did you survive ?
many moved away. many turned to crime, as the crime rate went through the roof. others went on welfare, unemployment, tried starting businesses, doing odd jobs, etc. me, i worked my ass off to survive, usually with more than one job, lots of them crappy. that's what anyone does who doesn't have simple options and doesn't just sit around and whine.
>just other way around. you calculate 25% and care so much about it - i don't.
you say you don't care, but absolutely everything you write about and have written about is all about women being after your money. child support, paying for dinner, men having to give half the property, etc. women needing the money equation changed so they'll act right. the unfairness of men needing to pay for sex when women don't. money, money, money, money. to say that you don't care about money says that everything you've posted here is bullshit. either you stand by what you've written, or you don't.
joe>At NO POINT did I say that I was not annoyed about women whining. I find that also extremely annoying,
That's what you are saying now. But initially you did'nt say "I am annoyed about women whinning", you specified exactly men's whinnings. That's what feminist attitude is.
>I find ALL whining about how you're a victim and so the world should change for you annoying. In what way is that difficult to comprehend?
OK, here we agree. So women's whinning - "it's so difficult to raise a child, we are victims of husbands, who leave us" - are annoying. Why to support them ?
>And the purpose of this site is not finding cheap prostitutes -- to quote from the site itself, it's "Finding women and getting laid." You're the one who's obsessed with cheapness --
Are you serious ? So why women don't discuss where to go to "Find men and to get laid." ?
To find a women you don't have to go to Brazil, you can lay brazilian prostitute in your own city. the only problem is PRICE and QUALITY of service. That's what this site is discussing - nothing else. All guys that come here are interested in cheap prostitutes, including dgrn, who must be so busy meeting women, chasing for him, that I don't know how he can find time for internet.
So it's nothing wrong to try to find cheap prostitutes - I don't argue. The difference is that while other guys try to go to Philliphines for this, spending thousands for fly tickets and sitting 20 hours inside an airplain, I want to bring Philliphines directly to their doors. Is that bad idea ? You should just destroy marriage law, make women less independent, and prices will go down. Is it bad ?
Men, answer !
>you'll not convince me that 25% of US salary is an important thing. - No, but you'll certainly whine about having to give up part of it to a women in whatever way that might happen. If it's not important, why whine about it?
Because basically I don't want prostitution at all. I am for FREE sex for sex. I repeate, marriage law corrupt women, it shift their sexuality from sex to money. This is the biggest problem in US society, because poverty is exception, but anti-sexuality is rule.
Deep Sea Diver
09-28-02, 10:54
alex:
as a first-time, and hopefully last-time, poster on this topic, just my two cents .....
there are those men that generally "have a clue", with joe_zop and drgn being the most recent of few examples on this board, and those that don't (yes, alex, you quickly spring to mind here).
quote: "so why women don't discuss where to go to "find men and to get laid.""
i am not sure what brought you to the above conclusion--i can confidently argue, much as i can on many of your other concepts, that you are squarely wrong. women often do, in fact, go out trying to find sex. (note: i assure you that statement was written, as hard as it may be to believe, in absolute sobriety and with presence of mind.) how do i know this? well, fortunately, or unfortunately depending on how you look at it, most of my closest friends are female (fairly attractive ones at that). as such, i am privy to the types of conversations they have with their other female friends (or i simply listen carefully when i am with a group of them and they are doing their "smack talk"). women do, much like men, but perhaps less frequently, go out looking to satisfy their sexual needs—one-night-stands are certainly an option. in fact, i often joke with them that they are worse than some of my male friends in this regard. and, if they fail that evening, which does happen more often than not, they return home dejected and disappointed (right rn?).
to me, the only real difference between men and women with respect to sex is that men are more willing to have sex without any romantic elements, whereas women tend to require them—they seek warmth, kindness, humor, and emotional security, among other things, rather than just sufficiently good looks and a heartbeat. furthermore, when they seek that one-night-stand, i assure you that the male’s financial position does not really enter the equation—simple logic would dictate as much (unless we're talking about exceptions like "doing" a celebrity where the financial benefits typically do not extend beyond an evening of debauchery). for longer-term relationships, which by definition are altogether different from one-night-stands, financial security may, in some cases, be part of the equation. however, let’s be honest here—don’t men also evaluate women on a variety of criteria (i.e. potential to be a good and/or nurturing long-term partner/wife, potential to be a good mother, intellect, personality, quality/compatibility of sex, family background, economic status, etc. etc.)? the specific criteria may differ, but the purpose is similar. in fact, i know women that do quite well financially and apply solely non-financial criteria to picking their long-term partners.
alex, i really think if you removed those blinders and buried them permanently in your all-too-vast skeleton closet, you would start to see the world as it really is. we do not live in a world, contrary to you wild imagination, where men are the only ones seeking sex and women, being the asexual creatures you deem them, leverage their bodies solely for financial benefit. of course, there are exceptions to this, as there are with everything, but in my experiences they are certainly far from the rule.
alex, you very much appear to be harboring inordinate amounts of anger toward women in general and, consequently, irrationally conclude that the "system" is out to screw you (generalizing the problem as being universally true is a rationalization on your part to make you feel better--imho). my best advice would be to seek the help of a good therapist--and do it quickly.
joe_zop and drgn:
boy, you guys have significantly more patience with people like alex than i could ever muster—i applaud you efforts.
rn:
your thoughts/comments, which i tend to find most insightful and genuine, are often very much in line with my female friends (aside from the 4,000 shags of course--lol)—if only more of the men on this board gave them the attention they deserve.
happy hunting!
fred
fred flintstone>
fred, i'm pretty sure that although you are "fred" - you are a woman.
it's your style of writing...
and then:
>well, fortunately, or unfortunately depending on how you look at it, most of my closest friends are female (fairly attractive ones at that). as such, i am privy to the types of conversations they have with their other female friends
> my best advice would be to seek the help of a good therapist--and do it quickly.
yes, women do discuss sex between themselves, in fact more, then men. but in a different way. what i am talking about : look at this site. it's open for everyone, do you see many women, discussing how to go to let's say thailand for sex, and how much male prostitutes will cost them there ? is that my 'crazy hallucination' that i see only men here ?
sorry, miss.
Ok, I'm done with Alex, as there's really been nothing new added in quite some time, and I'm bored with reading comprehension games. (Umm, there aren't many women here because the site's mission is clearly stated as being about men finding women, not the other way around... and if Fred's a woman, he's either gay or a good story teller in his other posts, as one of them describes travelling with a long-term girlfriend.)
Fred, I think you make some excellent points, particularly about the romantic elements, echoing the comment by drgn about romance novels, which I'd like to explore a bit more (and drgn I invite comments from you on this. You, too, RN -- feel free to take me to task on my massive generalizing, and I know these novels aren't exactly always bastions of feminist thought, though they do focus strongly on the concept of strong women who make their own choices in the face of difficulty.)
I've rarely been in a woman's home who doesn't have one of these novels, and I think one could also point to soap operas as being part of that same side of the coin. Part of my perspective is that this makes perfect sense -- men are raised (or wired, if that's your take on things) to be competitive, hence our general obsession with sports and things involving fighting, loud machinery and explosions, :) and women are raised to manage interpersonal relationships, so soap operas and romance novels are to women what sports and car chases are to men.
Given that lots of those romantic novels involve recurring themes (the mysterious stranger, the handsome man of means and quite possibly title, the trials of the rather difficult love through a series of trials -- and yes, I've actually looked at these things and even read a couple god help me) what should we non-literary characters make of all this?
My sense is:
1) Attention, attention, attention. That seems to be one of the recurring themes. Lots of attention paid to the woman, not usually manifested in "stuff" but mostly in experiences. And that means unbridled and genuine interest, not obsession. It often manifests itself in an ability to listen.
2) Gestures, gestures, gestures. Preferably unexpected and, at times, unexpectedly public. Not necessarily huge, but irregularly regular.
3) A light or gentle approach. Not too many of these novels involve the male protagonist directly and aggressively pressuring the woman, though he may well be involved in persistant pursuit. Note that consistent low-key pursuit is different from pressure. In those novels where the male is not someone of high social stature, and where he's aggressively macho, he still doesn't turn that on the female protagonist, but only uses it to her benefit.
4) The secret revealed. Less is more is fine as long as she gets inside to some degree and at some point, and giving too much away eliminates the interest. All these guys have some degree of mystery about them, which the women are driven and obsessed with solving and discovering. (Now that sounds like real life!) Being taciturn about this is ok for the male character only if he give's it up later, so the woman can somehow help.
5) The mind reader or detective. The male protagonist never comes up with a gesture that isn't the right one. He comes up with it because he "knows" what she wants because he "knows" her. Or he's listened to her and takes something she mentioned and was clearly attached to and extrapolated from that. See #1.
6) Amazingly, consistency doesn't seem to be that important, as long as there's a good reason for the inconsistency. A fair amount of the time the female protagonist has to "forgive" the male in order for the relationship to move forward (her test) and he has to then reveal that there was a good reason for his transgression (see #4) and dramatically make it up to her.
The royalty and classic movie star looks side of the equation you've either got or not, but most of these books focus on behavior-based scenarios wherein the guy proves his fidelity, overcomes some great difficulty for her, swoops in and saves/changes her life, etc. Lots of it is about creating the aura, but, of equal importance, managing to sustain it. One aspect you don't see much of in these novels is the movement into the humdrum -- even in those where the protagonists get married, have a kid, and slip into a routine, the routine ends up being the defining critical barrier that must be overcome. Conclusion -- guys may like watching car chases and sports, but women want men to create some degree of that excitement for them in everyday life, in the relationship, specifically, and, better still, to let them help but not have to come up with the idea. This is, I think, one of the cruxes of the matter -- how to deal with routine, which most guys I know tend to absolutely gravitate toward. This tends to undermine #1 and #2.)
Yes, I acknowledge the gross generalizations involved here, and that this is kind of a silly game, but I don't want to go back to the fat discussion again and I don't see where having a bunch of guys telling Alex he's clueless -- freely acknowledging that I've been the worst offender in that -- is going to get anywhere.
Comments and thoughts?
Deep Sea Diver
09-28-02, 20:23
Alex:
I find it hilarious that your sole conclusion to my post is that "you are a woman". Firstly, I can assure you this is not the case (nor am I gay by any stretch). Secondly, that conclusion further supports the idea that you are delusional and will rationalize anything which conflicts with your perspective in a way that is easier to digest for you. My advice remains--remove those blinders and "get a clue" (therapy could be very helpful in this regard). Once you abandon those delusional biases, you will be amazed at how differently the world really looks.
Fred
Fred -- I trust you know I was being ironic, as I was simply saying that if you were a woman travelling with a long-term girlfriend and on a monger board... :)
Deep Sea Diver
09-29-02, 03:06
joe_zop:
Irony understood and no offense was taken, which is precisely why my comments were solely directed toward Alex.
Fred
Rubber Nursey
09-30-02, 09:43
I'm back...Relaxed and revitalised (and tanned!) after a gorgeous four day weekend at a tiny beach town in the middle of nowhere. Ahhhhh...
I'm going to ignore that petulant little Alex boy from now on, because that particular debate (or lack thereof) is becoming verrrrry tedious. I will say only one more thing on the matter before I leave it for good, and that is .....DAMN you're sexy when you're angry, Joe!! LOL
Welcome Fred, and thank you. :) I agree with your post completely. There is a lot of stereotyping being done in this forum (and I admit I've done it as well). It is quite ridiculous to say that ALL MEN this and ALL WOMEN that, because we can all respond with examples of people we know who do not fit the stereotypes. What we need to be doing instead, is accepting that some of us are having trouble getting laid (regardless of our gender) and trying to work out why that is. As you've pointed out, there are many women, like myself and your female friends, who CAN'T GET LAID!! Now if certain men in this section had bothered to HEAR that, rather than refusing to budge from their "Women can always get it and men can't" mantra, they would know that they only have to FIND that group of women and they're home free!! But they will never find this group of women, because no matter how much evidence points to the contrary, they REFUSE to acknowledge that those women even exist!
And I do hope you weren't serious about being a "hopefully last-time poster" in this topic...
Rubber Nursey
09-30-02, 10:43
Joe,
I have to admit that I am NOT a Mills and Boons fan...actually, I can't stand soppy romance stories! But I do think you summed up the "essence" of the romance novel brilliantly. I think, as you recognised, the most important thing on the list has to be "Attention, attention, attention". Women verbalise. We all know that. Women don't like to keep ANYTHING bottled up, and if there is something on our mind, we are gonna make sure that EVERYONE within a ten mile radius knows about it. Now there are plenty of men who find that intensely annoying...but what they need to realise is it's really a GODSEND. There is no guesswork involved for men!! Women tell you EXACTLY what they want, in no uncertain terms! Ok, so some of the things we say can be confusing and changing our minds the very moment you think you finally understand us, is something we are famous for. But that only happens with the big stuff...and the big stuff is not important. We just like to know that you are listening. For example, if I mention to you on Tuesday that I HATE Adam Sandler and then you turn up on Friday night with champagne, chocolates and the Water Boy DVD...I will not be impressed!!!
One of the best ways to get a woman interested (in my opinion) is to remember something that she said/did at the start of the night, and quote it back to her during conversation at the end of the night. It works especially well if what she said was funny...so it becomes a kind of "in-joke" just between the two of you. It not only shows you were listening to her at the time, but it shows you're still thinking about it. Even better, bring up something she said at a PREVIOUS meeting. There's nothing worse than when you talk all night to a guy on Thursday, and then he asks you all the same questions again on Saturday night.
Other hints that were on Joe's list...
* PDAs (Public Displays of Affection). Most guys seem to be completely against PDAs. (Probably because other women around him will see that he already has a girlfriend, and as such, isn't available). Women love it. (For exactly the same reasons!! LOL) PDAs serve two purposes...they show us that you are not afraid to let other women know you're "taken" AND it makes us think that we are so sexually desirable that you can't keep your hands off us, even in public. Most women are very insecure about their bodies and their attractiveness. You need to make her feel desired.
* The mind reader. Yes, yes, YES. Like I mentioned above, we like to know that you are listening to us. You do NOT have to be a mind-reader to know what a woman wants...she will TELL you! Probably repeatedly!! LOL If she hasn't already mentioned something, you will be forgiven a blunder or two. But if she has already said three times how she feels about a certain thing...God help you if you go ahead and do it anyway!
Two things I would like to add...
* Men don't necessarily fall for the heroine because of what she looks like or her social status. They fall for her because of who she is or what she has achieved. (For example, the soldier who falls in love with the scullery maid, after she devises a plan to poison the enemy king and helps them win the war). The majority of women in romance novels (not all, of course) tend to be intelligent and strong, AND they are respected for those qualities.
* Men in romance novels have both masculine and feminine qualities. The rugged pirate who fights for her honour in a bar brawl, but then holds her gently and strokes her hair as she sobs about how scared she was. The rich, handsome prince who is ruthless in battle and reigns with an iron fist, but would give it all up to spend every night cuddled up to her in front of the fireplace while their children run in circles around them. Women don't like total brutes, and they don't like wimps. They want something in-between.
Alex,
some women go to other countries to pay for sex. I've seen blond German women walking into her hotel room with a dominican man to get laid in Boca Chica. The German woman has you be the payer because how could a dominican man afford the German woman? This same German lady was at the beach the following night with a different guy as I was looking for another Dominican girl. There was also a group of women who went around looking for Dominican male prostitutes. The same way I was on the strip looking for women to have cheap sex with, these German women were looking for Dominican men.
Women pay for sex also. Women are just more secretive than men. They only discuss their conqests with their small group of female friends. They would never put up a Finding men post because of the prudish double standards of this society. Women are still shamed by sex if they are known to have had many sexual past partners. They are called "sluts". Men are glorified for having had many past partners and called "studs". I totally disagree with this hypocrisy that scares women from bringing their interest in sex in public. Women would rather be seen doing a PDA because it seems more romantic than out in Dominican Republic looking for men for sex. If American society was more lax with their sexual attitudes, there might be a "Finding men site" for women. There are male strip clubs, male escort services not just for bachelorette parties but also for rich women not to seem lonely at an event. See, Alex, women do pay for sex also. I have listed many examples of this. And women go to vacations as well to do the same things most people do on the board which is looking for paid sex. They just don't bring it out in the open like us men.
Food for thought..
Darkseid
As a follow-up on the "mind reader" theme -- I will share something that's served me in good stead for many years in buying presents for women -- when you go shopping with a woman, watch what she looks at first, not what she buys. What she looks at first is what attracts her attention or interest, before the rest of the package (price, practicality, etc.) kicks in. Figuring out the qualities that attracted her to those things and pulling them into the presents you buy is like shooting fish in the proverbial barrel -- you're bringing her something in tune with how she secretly imagines herself, as opposed to what she thinks she really should buy. I can't tell you the response I've gotten simply by going back and buying that slightly-too-pricey blouse or scarf that's completely different from what she has or whatever she looked at for quite a while before moving on.
One caveat -- this generally doesn't work with perfumes, as advertising or discusio with friends is what seems to drive the initial interest there.
The other is directly related to RN's note about repeating back something in conversation. Doing that with a present a week or month later always works -- not only were you paying attention, you had to put yourself out to get it, therefore you think she's worth both the attention and the effort and you place clear value on what she wants. And really, how tough is that stuff, especially since this kind of thing tends to resonate?
RN, I agree that women almost always tell you what they want -- even if it's not always clear even to them what that is at times :D I think if you're hitting the romance novel high notes then, as you so aptly stated, the big stuff is not important. I tend to think the big stuff is often put out on the table more to gauge the response and reaction than to actually state a position, and that the real idea is to get a discussion of the big stuff so there is a process conversation about needs, desires, and values. I find that half of the time agreeing to the big stuff is not really what's wanted, but what's wanted is the process of talking about it, sometimes even talking her out of it. (Of course, this is far from a prescription -- sometimes the big things truly are the big things.)
Of course, this is the process that drives men nuts -- women say everything that's on their minds, and men are supposed to manage to sort out the important things and not give undue weight to the rest. Conversely, anything a man says is treated as either a promise or epithet, and "you said..." can easily get thrown back in your face. (Woe to the man who does that with a woman!) And then women wonder why men are taciturn -- we love to play games, but we generally don't understand the rules for this one.
American_Pharao
09-30-02, 23:32
New to the American culture and have a question.
my question not on "how to win an american woman heart" but, how to end a relationship. how to make her let you go in peace.
fred flintstone>therapy could be very helpful in this regard
fred, thank you for your advice. i just returned from my therapist, and ... yes, now i see it !! - you are a man.
:)
darkseid>
yes, there are examples of women paying for sex. but not as many as men, far from this. and there is double standard for sex in society that lead to so many troubles, that i think it's problem no 1 in our world. some other guys here say - no, it's not so important - their opinion. so, if they like it - let them go on...
Originally posted by American_Pharao
New to the American culture and have a question.
my question not on "how to win an american woman heart" but, how to end a relationship. how to make her let you go in peace.
Belching and farting a lot is a good start. DH
Rubber Nursey
10-05-02, 06:18
"Belching and farting a lot is a good start. DH"
LOL! And they work even better when done in public. As does spitting on the sidewalk, going the grope on her best friend (or even worse, her sister) and wearing your jeans low enough to see the crack of your arse.
Originally posted by RN
"Belching and farting a lot is a good start. DH"
LOL! And they work even better when done in public. As does spitting on the sidewalk, going the grope on her best friend (or even worse, her sister) and wearing your jeans low enough to see the crack of your arse.
And if none of THAT works, try cussing a lot more. I've gotten rid of a few that way.
Hello again folks.
I'm not as busy/travelled these days so I thought I'd stop back in.
I didn't go back and read all the past posts... there's a few too many. Glad to see the fat discussion is over.
Sorry to hear you still have no luck RN. Interesting to note that a hot chick with a brain still can't get a date (but sad for you). I wonder if it's because you live in the sticks (less potential "mates") or if you're trapped in the dateless neverland that seems common in the well to do countries. I'm curious: Do more women than men hit on you? (no reflection on yourself) I wonder if you're affected by the "She looks like too much work" syndrome. Personally, I won't hit on girls that look too good. Why? Because I know I'll constantly be on my toes fighting off other guys and trying to find ways to keep her happy. This may sound like a lack of confidence in myself, but really I don't need the aggravation. After all... love is only a lightswitch away.
Joe... your post a few back was right on the money. I have enjoyed great success when using the ideas you stated. My problem has always been in the consistency. If those are your words then you are indeed a wise man. If not... you should step away from the Cosmo mag.
On a personal note: I'm still dating the American girl from before. She's still in training when it comes to oral sex (I can't believe it's 2002 and this is still an issue), but she's become receptive to butt love... yay me!. I've been ridiculously lucky when it comes to BL... 50/50 at this point... don't know why. Lastly... it's off to Cuba in January. I fear that the embargo will end within 3 years. We all know that once the doors are opened, American missionaries will be all over the place like the plague on a rat. I want to experience Cuba before The Lord teaches them shame.
Rubber Nursey
10-08-02, 17:28
Fedup! Welcome back babe!! *kisses*
So glad to hear all is well with the girlfriend...nice to know that at least one of this sorry lot here (and sadly, I'm included in that bunch!) can still pick up! LOL
As much as I am grinning at the thought of being called a "hot chick with a brain" (thank you, THANK YOU!!!), it's not entirely true. I am your average jeans wearing, no makeup, girl-next-door. Other than my height, which I guess is a little offputting to shorter men, I am not the slightest bit intimidating. My problem seems to be that I'm TOO approachable, rather than being UNapproachable. I'm every man's best mate *groan*
Mind you...it is SOOOOO weird that you asked whether more chicks crack onto me! I had that exact conversation today at work!!! (I was propositioned by a woman this afternoon). YES, I get waaaay more chicks cracking onto me than men. And there has been a marked increase in the last 6 months or so. I have no idea why...any thoughts?
To the guy trying to dump his girl.
Do the exact opposite of what Joe said in his long post. Be inconsiderate, be late for appointments with her, scratch your crotch alot, pick your nose, scowl at children, complain about your rash "down there", etc...
Don't do the above if you're trying to put the move on a friend of hers. Then you need to be forthright and honest. Tell her that you feel there's no chemistry or magic in the relationship and you want to move on. American women are always planning for the future... it's a fatal flaw that forgives them for being constantly miserable in the present. Tell her you don't see a future with her and she will most likely back off.
Be warned that AW love to keep in touch with past boyfriends (soon to be you). The more understanding and pleasant you are during the breakup, the more likely she is to want to "keep in touch". If you never want to see/hear from her again then she needs to be disgusted with you.
Good luck...
Thanks for the welcome RN... *kisses* right back... long, hot, sloppy ones that slip ever lower... mmmmmm... that's the spot...
I can make some generalizations about you but please note that I don't have the best info about you (only what you write... not how you act) or the men of WA. My view is somewhat skewed for those reasons. However, men are men, and you don't seem to hold back your opinions, so here goes.
Guys want to hang out and drink beer with the gal who can slug back a six pack and still quote football stats. When it comes to dates, guys want a girl who is not a strong challenge to their masculinity. They want to be the ones who open doors, help you out when you need it, and provide a shoulder to cry on when you're down. Guys want to be the protector and the provider. Some sort of latent caveman yearnings I suppose. From what I gather, Aussie men are particularly masculine, making those yearnings even more pronounced. Enter you... beaten and battered (mentally and physically) by your ex you got up, brushed off the shite, and proved that you didn't need a man. Yes, yes, you say... "but a guy I'm hitting on can't tell that in 5 minutes"... No, but it's all in the attitude. Guys can see the tomboys just as fast as girls can see the desperate.
You're a counsellor, do you ask too many pointed or loaded questions? Guys hate being analysed. We all know women analyse everything, but we ignore that as part of dating. If it's obvious that you're making an analysis then we get squeamish.
Don't underestimate height. Short men are as obsessed with their height as they are with the size of their cocks. And let's face it... Tom Cruise looked ridiculous next to Nicole Kidman.
So why do the girls hit on you? They probably pick up on your strength and your free attitude toward sex. They probably also see that you're not likely to go all goo goo over them after the two of you spend some time between the sheets. I think lesbianism is a forbidden treat that many straight women are exploring (with strong pushing from modern media... to what end I still don't understand... men are so stupid sometimes) and they don't want to get caught up with a girl who's going to hang around when a boyfriend shows up.
Those are just my opinions... I had trepidations in writing this as I could be way off base... but I think I'm right.
One last thing:
The women I go for are brunette, slim (with not so curvy bodies), intelligent, small breasted (B cups are my favourite... a C is pushing it), confident, and who don't slap on gobs of face paint to go out. This sounds a lot like you. However, I can say without a doubt that I am in the minority. ALL my friends want a blond with big tits, not so keen mind, and a slightly vulnerable attitude.
Maybe you don't fit the mold.
A lot of men have the fear of rejection these days. American women are much more shallow these days than back in the fifties. American women are more independent and are more likely to reject men today than their past counterparts. Since more men are being rejected today than in the past, they fear the humiliation of being rejected by another girl. Some of these men never ask another girl again and end up withdrawing (Or even turning to homosexuality). This would have happened to me in college if I didn't take my first trip to Brazil. Back in college, I was fat and didn't exercise. EVERY American woman I asked out rejected me for those 4 years. It was outright miserable and I feel I wasted 4 years of my life being overweight. I stopped exercising for 4 years in college and concentrated too much on my school work and American women being as shallow as they are (with the exception of RN and a few others that love fat men), saw only the short fat Asian guy I was in college. When I went to Brazil in the summer of my junior year, I got my first "yes" since my breakup with my high school sweetheart (who joined a cult in college). It was in Rio when I spent that summer in Brazil. Not only was she more friendly than AW, but she was also better in bed. She also didn't mind that I was a bit obese. The point is that obese men and average men are a majority of men and they too are scared of approaching women. Also some physically fit guys who used to be fat are scared of approaching women. Then you have guys with one major flaw like being short like myself (I corrected the overweight problem but still suffer being only 5'5". A lot of guys in my situation are scared to death about approaching women because they still get their share of rejections from AW. A lot of these men never travelled out of the United States so there is no outlet to build their confidence. I was fortunate to have a friend take me to my first trip to Brazil (and out of the United States for that matter) to meet a NON-shallow woman so my confidence in asking even American women out is not shot like the men who had never had an acceptance in the US. (Yes, there are more men like this than you think! And they ask women that are not supermodels or even flabby women and get turned down.) I am not saying that ALL American women are mechanical machines that always turn down a guy or date them with alterior motives. Also you may have men of different races afraid to approach women because of society's pressure against dating outside the race. Now you only have a small handful of men remaining that are willing to approach you after sorting out men of the types I just described.
Women on the other hand are more comfortable than men in asking another woman out because they have the option of being a normal friend first then breaking through that "NO" barrier that they put up with men. Even if they get rejected at first, they are still "cool" with the woman they ask out and they can ask again later. Men on the other hand are labelled as "creeps" by the failed attempt or labelled as just a "friend" for life which leads to NO possibility of being accepted as a date. Only rarely can a guy labelled as a friend can be a date. A woman who is a "friend" can still have a chance at being a potential lesbain partner. This is unfortunate in American society. Maybe this is sparked by America's acceptance of lesbianism. In fact America places more shame in man-woman sex than on lesbianism on a woman. This alone repulses women from accepting too many men in their lives and that makes them much more choosy. Foreign women have less "shame" and would accept anyone they like because there is no societal pressure of being called a "****".
good stuff, fedup, and no, i've not looked at cosmo for at least a decade, so all that stuff comes either from listening to women in my family or who i know, or, in the case of the romance novels, from the fact that i'm someone who's taught writing at various points, so i can do textual analysis. as far as consistency -- i think the trick is to be consistently inconsistent, as long as some part of the aspects i mentioned are going on, since a healthy portion of mystery always seems good in the equation. you want her to figure out, figure out that she's not figured you out, and figure you out over and over again. hell, that approach works for her :d
only problem with the prescription on how to get rid of a girl is you're presuming the behavior you describe isn't there already lol -- women sometimes do have an amazing ability to put up with the most obnoxious behavior imaginable and be completely revulsed by it as well, depending on their emotional orientation toward a guy.
i think your comments toward rn about men and dominance/protection are right on. women "need to be needed" and so do men, just in somewhat different ways. and rn, i'm sorry, but as adept as you may be with a mug and a pool cue, i seriously doubt you're able to completely camouflage your brain, especially as i believe you've said in the past (and one would have to suspect lol) that you also at times "have a mouth on you." let's see: tall confident chick with a lip and the ability to more than hold her own with her brain = high potential to be handed one's danglies either figuratively or literally. tack on a couple of kids for good measure, and a job that says you probably know more about sex that he does, too. you're just gonna have to keep a sharp eye out for someone who dearly wants both an equal and a challenge, and who's confident enough in his ability to handle those things that he doesn't feel he needs control. that's as tough to find as the natural blonde with big tor****es who fits the rest of fedup's description...
as far as women being attacted to you, hmm, do you think the tomboy thing is also translating as butch? :) :o :d
I thought Rubbie said she was 5 foot 7 and blond. 5 foot 7 is not that tall. I am 5 foot 7 or maybe just a bit more and I like tall women (and short women and medium sized women). I have no problem approaching them. I just say I want to go up on them.
And I don't want a woman with big tits, and I know a lot of people who feel the same way. But FU is in his twenties and so are probably most of his friends/mates. His friends may not have learned the lesson that those of us in our 40s like me and JZ know: Gravity takes its toll! But even when I was younger I wasn't that into big tits (not that they are necessarily a minus if young and firm).
Now it is true that a lot of men prefer blonds, but I don't. I prefer brunettes. I had my Spanish class again last night and I think the Brazilian gal likes me because she has moved from the other side of the room to sit next to me. On the other hand it could be because I am the best student in the class and she is eager to learn. She has long jet black hair, blue eyes, fairly dark skin but a few freckles, perfect teeth (a big turn on for me) and is very slender. Height wise maybe 5 foot 4, a dazzling smile, and sticks her tongue out when she makes jokes.
But the point is that she is rapidly making herself unpopular with the other women (I am the only single guy in the class and it's about 5 to 1 women) because she is forthright, obviously sexual, and not at all shy. It sounds like that would make DS (Darkseid) run for the hills. Why is that? Is this the Rubber Nursey syndrome too? Could FU be correct in his Can-Am perspective?
So while not liking the JZ theory of being predictably unpredictable (I am a pragmatist and not much of fan of mystery, plus this smacks to me of old-fashioned coquettery), my inescapable conclusion is ...
RN needs to get the fuck out of the bumfuck section of Australia and go someplace more liberal, enlightened, tolerant, etc. Light a candle, don't curse the darkness. Your kids will adjust. Why does someone with a socially liberal perspective want to live and raise kids around a bunch of tight asses?
Did I say predictably unpredictable? I meant unpredictably predictable :) And it's not about coquetry, it's about springing irregular pleasant surprises -- which, in a relationship, is a completely pragmatic approach. But I agree completely with your perspectives on gravity and blondes, and most especially the last statement -- why stay somewhere that's not working for you when you know of others that might be a better fit?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.4 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.