View Full Version : American Women
Wanderer1000
03-11-03, 18:18
Lenin -
As a native Russian man with ten years experience in the American culture, you are in a unique position to focus on the limited topic of American women in relation to the "better" women in a foreign culture.
Specifically, what do you observe in the American system and culture that is lacking or existing that makes women from your native country of Russia better to deal with in the personal relations area? In this question, I am asking you to focus on specifics that you have learned of in your experience.
Examples and stories are helpful to make a point sometimes (and I have enjoyed several of yours), but specific statements regarding observations on our cultures relating to the personal relations of men and women would be most appreciated.
Put another way, and addressing many of the concerns of other posters, what is the problem specifically with American women and what would have to be changed to make them better?
Hi Guys,
I am back from Brazil and I had a blast and got some ass!! The hardest part about my vacation was leaving Rio and my non-pro girlfriend in Rio. The women there are as warm and friendly as the weather. It was 95 to 100 degrees but rained hard for 20 minutes at a time. In fact, I didn't really get to go to many termas because I met a non-pro the at a Samba party after the parade days. I did get a chance to go to 4X4 before going to the Sambadrome. I also tried Solarium and Villa Mimosa. I will post my experiences with those places in the Rio de Janeiro section.
Other than that, I spent most of my time with my lovely non-pro girlfriend.
Originally posted by joe_zop
Lenin, I agree that, on the whole, American women are far bigger pains than their counterparts in other countries. I don't agree with a blanket statement that all American women suck, because I know many who do not.
joe_zop, it was my first attempt to find consensus.
If you want to make it more generic, I don’t mind.
I am bad in English please feel free to correct me:
Average American woman one of the worst in personal interactions with man
In comparison with average woman from most of the others countries
Some parts of American System and American Culture responsible for this situation.
So while consensus is needed on the overall problem, and general agreement on the major aspects of the problem, agreement is not needed on every specific piece in order to go forward.
I agree with that. We need general agreement on the major aspects of the problem.
If somebody have more or less generic statements he can go ahead and we can
discuss it.
If we're talking about problem-solving, one useful next step of the process can be to define clearly where there is consensus and where there is disagreement. That is a way of establishing priority of desired changes.
Good idea.
So I rather think identifying the problem in really, really broad strokes is not something where a lot of time is needed.
[/i]
Well, this could be more difficult than it seems. Often the simple problem
Could lead to more difficult hidden problems.
For Example we practically did not touch the painful topic of relation
Among the men in North America, which at first glance, have nothing
To do with American women but in fact it is.
Hey Darkseid,
Welcome back! Sounds like you had a truly great time. You also ducked some really bad weather up here.
Am contemplating a trip to Rio myself. What can you tell me about the language barrier there? Could one get by with a few key phrases and nonverbal hand cues? Also, did you notice any crime problems or related hassles down there? I "read" that the president of Brazil called out the military to protect Mardi Gras.
One last thing. How did you get money down there? Did you use ATM machines, currency exchanges, etc.?
we practically did not touch the painful topic of relation
Among the men in North America, which at first glance, have nothing To do with American women but in fact it is
Well, this seems as though you want to tackle the greater issue of interpersonal issues in general on the continent, which may be a valid and appropriate topic but is also such a huge issue that an entire board could be dedicated to it! The same thing could be said about the system and culture. I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that there may be overall poor interpersonal communication in North America, but one of the challenges in looking at something like this is not to spin too far off-topic, even if the topics may be related to some degree. I can easily make a list of a dozen semi-related issues which might be contributing factors, a lot of which have been brought up here in the past, but if we're going to discuss absolutely everything we may well end up discussing nothing.
Average American woman one of the worst in personal interactions with man
In comparison with average woman from most of the others countries
Some parts of American System and American Culture responsible for this situation.
Most people in this section would agree with this statement. I would extend it further to very specifically say that the problem, from the perspective of most guys here, is specifically how those poor personal interactions manifest themselves in American women's attitudes toward sex, since that is the aspect that relates to the mission of this board, and in their general demeanor toward men as a gender.
I think it would be useful to further quantify some of these complaints, since we're making a generalized statement about American women in comparison to non-American women. Lenin, I agree with Jak that you, as someone whose cultural background and experience is different, are well positioned to make comments on the difference between American women and, say, Russian women. How would you compare and contrast the differences about attitude, behavior, and demeanor between the two? What are the strengths and what are the weaknesses?
I encourage other folks to do the same regarding women of other countries with whom they've had relationships, but how about, if you're going to make a comparison, also discussing what might be problematic about non-American women? I suggest this so it doesn't just become another complete trash American women orgy (which we've had lots of, and will no doubt have again) as opposed to actual discussion of the differences. It would also help us be clear about where this is a problem with American women specifically and where this is a general man/woman issue.
Hi Paddy,
There are few people in Rio that speak English but a lot of them speak Spanish so you can get away with Spanish and hand gestures for the words you don't know. I, fortunately could speak portugese in the present tense but if I want to mean future tense I add the word "later" at the end of the sentence or "before" to mean past tense.
Currency rates are excellent if you go to the ATMs. The rate is 3.5 to 1. However some ATMs won't take american cards but the ones that do are the citbanks and you must go to them from 10AM to 10PM. The currency exchange shops only give you 3.3 to 1 for american dollars so they can make money off of you.
The President put out security to ensure the safety of the tourists in Rio during Carnival. There was a military presence to assure that Rio is clear of gangs or violence. Overall, I felt safe in Rio because of these military police. No one even tried to pickpocket me either but still, it is wise not to carry more than you need.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by joe_zop
I can easily make a list of a dozen semi-related issues which might be contributing factors, a lot of which have been brought up here in the past, but if we're going to discuss absolutely everything we may well end up discussing nothing.
I think, you could go ahead with list of semi-related issues. Actually it would be helpful because in this case we are not going to miss something important. We should just
put different priority for each one of them and discuss only the most important.
I also encourage everyone who not agrees with below statement to tell why:
Average American woman one of the worst in personal interactions with man
In comparison with average woman from most of the others countries
Some parts of American System and American Culture responsible for this situation.
[QUOTE]
I think it would be useful to further quantify some of these complaints, since we're making a generalized statement about American women in comparison to non-American women
Good idea. If we manage to do it properly, this would be powerful tool.
I will think about comparison between the American and Russian women and post it later.
Originally posted by joe_zop
America high tech revolution was created by hundred of thousand negative-minded immigrants programmers.
As far as the "woman beat husband and then call to police" thing, well, there's no doubt that it happens at times. There's also no doubt that the far, far, more frequent occurence is the opposite side of things -- there's a huge amount of domestic violence, and the vast majority of it is men hitting women. Twenty years ago that wasn't something that could draw a cop at all unless someone went to a hospital, now it is. Ten years ago the concept that men could be hit or abused by women was a joke, now people see it happens, with the general percentage considered to be about 15% of cases (haven't been able to track down whether that includes same-sex partners, which it may) and even some feminists are starting to acknowledge unbalance of the issue (see http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2002/1104a.html for example).
I think the stats actually show that women initiate physical violence as often as men (as the article you cite acknowledges). The disparity comes in the severity of the violence - men hit harder.
That women are as violence prone as men is explained away by feminists because it doesn't fit their theory of the patriarchical society, such as by saying that women's violence is self-defense against repeated male abuse. They completely deny human nature that some people are bad, men and women.
Since feminists have insisted on zero-tolerance of abuse (some counties require automatic arrest at the slightest whiff of domestic violence) you should see women being arrested at the same rate as men - however it is obvious men have significantly less due process in this regard than women.
http://www.menweb.org/batnytim.htm
This link has a nice example of how the zero-tolerance dragnet is scooping more women than the feminazis anticipated to their dismay - to the extent the feminazis are saying maybe "we set the bar too low", ie the goal of any domestic violence is to arrest men, but violence can be excused if it is committed by women.
Which maybe it should be. Their is alot of hysteria and propaganda around the issue.
Originally posted by joe_zop
[i]....frankly, guys who are going for mail-order brides are hardly prime examples of how American men deal with women, and, in fact, are usually basically the opposite- people with little or no relationship experience or confidence, who are therefore ripe for abuse.
Isn't this the same canard said of hobbyists - losers who can't make it with *real* women (real always left undefined).
There's alot of reason to go abroad and alot of different guys go looking - just as there are different types here - no better or worse than your average joe (:-) ).
Anybody can check out the forums at www.planet-love.com
eg the Latina forum is at http://www.planet-love.com/wwwboard/latin/
This has 4+ years of multi-threaded archives describing the scams, green-card hustle, thinking with the wrong head etc, but with the good stuff mixed in of guys finding what alot of them had embarked on: real love.
A fair chunk of the archive is a mirror image of this one, problems regular guys have with AW's. But reading the archive shows how absurd the imputation is that they're just a bunch of people with "no confidence".
PurpleNGold
03-12-03, 05:40
RE: JZ's suggestion
I was very very seriously involved with a girl from mainland china. And, one thing that made her stand out from American girls was her attitude about my money. She was very interested in protecting it and making sure that I always saved for that proverbial rainy day.
An example, I bought her one of those Aibo dogs from Sony as a Christmas present. Now, she was completely thrilled by it, but insisted that I take it back because it was not a wise way to spend money. I know she liked it, because we kept it for two weeks (max time to return it) and she played with it non-stop. In the end, even though I made sure she knew it was well within our affordability level, she repacked it and sent me to get my refund.
There were many other instances of this type of behavior. I'm big on impulse buying, and, when I've been hooked up with American girlfriends, I've had financial problems. This girl really helped me manage my finances.
I don't think it was just her either. I've been around a lot of chinese people in my professional and social life. And, based on experience, I think, chinese women are more fiscally responsible than american (and certainly other asian) women.
American women story.
I was wondering if there are any men in the world
who actually care about their children?
I am a home-schooling mom and I spend a
considerable amount of time researching
and educating myself to serve my children
and my husband. I keep the house clean,
I cook, I garden, I have accepted complete
responsibility for their education.
Our home is a wonderful place and
I'm wondering if there are any men who
really care about this. Every day when
my husband comes home from work all I hear
is BLA BLA BLA about his stupid job and his
stupid co-workers.
When he's not working he's hanging out
with his friends. We never go out as a
family anymore and I'm sick of it.
I think I'd like to run away to another state,
buy a house on a mountaintop and tell
the kids he's dead. I'm sure that if we continue
like this they'll end up marrying men who
are equally selfish and pig headed.
He thinks there is nothing wrong with
our marriage and often comments on how
happy we are.
I always tell him how I am NOT happy and he ignores it.
I am very lonely and I'm seriously checking
into leaving the state.
I heard houses are really cheap in Iowa.
It is shocking for me.
I think Russian women would try much harder
to save this family life.
American women don’t see nothing except divorce.
PurpleNGold
03-12-03, 09:19
Lenin,
First, is this a hypothetical? The story of a personal friend? Something you culled from another board?
Second, it sounds like the American Woman put up with a lot of shit, for a long time before she seriously considered leaving. You imply the Russian woman would have left long ago?
This seems to point to a '+' for American Woman. Are you saying that, in this case, American women are more loyal? Or did I miss the point?
PurpleNGold
03-12-03, 09:35
Disclaimer: This isn't exactly 'American Women,' but considering the amount of discussion about the 'American System' I figure it's fair game.
A monger, in the Thai section, recently posted a question concerning emotions he thought he developed for a pro while on a visit to LOS. Now, whether those feelings are immature or not, is not what I'm trying to discuss. What I'd like to point out is that the 'System' is certainly letting down the citizens of the country. Here's how:
The monger, lets call him IrishLager, thinks he's fallen in love with this girl. He doesn't know what her true feelings are for him. But, now he wants to pursue the relationship. Due to the system, he's left with two choices.
Move to Thailand (if possible)
Bring her to live with him in the U.S.
Option 1 may or may not be feasible. If he's got a telecommuting job or enough money, he might be able to afford moving there. Of course, he has to deal with immigration issues in becoming a permanent resident there.
Option 2 is the one that causes the real trouble though. In order to bring her to the U.S. he would have to marry her. No way in hell is she going to get an H-1B (working visa). Not much better odds of getting a travel visa. In fact, the only realistic way she comes over here is via marriage.
Now, assuming he decides to go against everything he's warned about, marry her and bring her over here, he's got to take this huge risk. If this girl turns out to be a scam artist, she can really take him to the cleaners now. And, even if she is sincere, the odds are against them.
This is a flaw in the 'system.' Why not have dating visas? A person (with enough financial means) could sponsor another person to come over here for a 6 month to 1 year stay. During that time, the person, would have to take some form of semi-permanent birth control (those shots they can give that last up to 1 year). And, the import would be allowed to work here, but would not be entitled to any government benefits. Now, they could spend some time dating, and if it didn't work out, no harm, no foul. Foreigner goes back home and the sponsor can go looking for someone else. No financial or other obligations.
purplengold,
Russian women would be much more loyal in Russia.
Here probably still more loyal than American women.
PurpleNGold
03-12-03, 09:58
Funny. You changed your last comment on the post. You originally had that the Russian woman would be 'happy to leave'. Was this just an English mistake that you corrected?
you were fast to read it, it was correction.
PurpleNGold
03-12-03, 10:18
Okay. Makes your post make more sense to me now. I thought it was odd that you had posted something positive about AW.
I'm curious though about the russian women thing. The russian friends I know, some of them women, have told me in the past not to get involved with russian women because they are unstable in relationships. I've even been told that a large number of russian girls get married at 18 and divorced before their 19'th birthday.
Well, It’s all depends.
First of all, where?
Legally, marriage in Russia is not such a big deal like here.
18 years old could get married just for fun.
And in Russia much easier make divorce than here.
It is true that Russian women are unstable here.
They come here to find better deal.
Once they find husband, which satisfy them
I think they are going to be more loyal
than American women.
But again, they should be treated specially
In generally I would not recommend Russian women to
American Man for marriage.
Only If he knows well Russian Culture
And Russian language then it could work.
Lenin, as requested, here's a quick few other complaints that have shown up here regarding American women:
1. Mercenary -- money hungry and/or focused on material possessions, status, etc.
2. Fat (oh, lord, can we please not have that discussion/diatribe again!)
3. Aggressive/not passive
4. Quick to want marriage/divorce (often stated in connection with #1)
5. Too children-oriented
6. Boring, but expecting entertainment from man.
7. Paranoid and/or suspicious of men in general, and of men's intentions.
There are tons of other things, but those are all things that have sparked discussion here in the past. Some I'd say fall into the general man/woman category, but the question is whether or not there's a particularly American manifestation of those. Others are things that are uniquely related to American women.
I don't necessarily agree or disagree with all of these, but they're what I've culled at general themes here.
Another thing I might add on JZ's list against AWs is UNAPPRECIATIVE. I witnessed a breakup of an American couple sitting behind me on the plane where the boyfriend made the mistake of trying to salvage the relationship by taking her to Rio for Carnaval and although she loved the trip, she still wanted to move out of his apartment because she told him that he still didn't do enough to save the relationship. Geez, this trip costs thousands of dollars, what more does she want? I think he is better off hanging with us mongers and having a blast without her and hooking up with a nice Brazilian chick than keeping that headache of a girlfriend. Meanwhile, the chick I met on my trip in a party after the parades, Elienne, was very appreciative when I took her to eat at the churriscos and Marius's seafood buffet and on the touristy sugar loaf and corcovado.
PurpleNGold
03-12-03, 21:22
Originally posted by darkseid
Another thing I might add on JZ's list against AWs is UNAPPRECIATIVE.
Got that right!! Janet Jackson summed up the AW attitude when she sang "What have you done for me lately?"
BTW, AW = American Women, AWs = American Womens.
joe_zop, interesting list.
Problems 6. Boring and 7. Paranoid I notice right away when I came here.
Same complained I heard from my Russian friends.
Number 7. Paranoid, especially frustrated. I never experienced something like that in others countries.
You feel like something wrong with you.
I think that one of the reason why American men have such a low self-esteem.
I am not sure that you mean in 5. Too children-oriented?
If AW wants have children more than woman in other countries why such a low birth rate in US? Or you mean they care more about children than about husband?
PurpleNGold
03-13-03, 00:26
I don't think AW are any more paranoid than women from other cultures. In fact, I think AW are more secure due to their heightened self-confidence.
Of course the heightened self-confidence is often not deserved :)
Hmm, strange. You mean not paranoid during LTR?
At least in the beginning of the relations or at the first dates my friends and me noticed that they are much more paranoid.
Again, these are not my complaints per se, simply my distillation and interpretation of what I've been reading here for the past many months. I'm very much open to correction. Darkseid's addition is a good one, and it's one I overlooked, despite there being many complaints here about it. Thanks!
PNG, self-confidence and security does not cancel out being suspicious of men's intentions. I agree with you that in general American women have a different degree of self-confidence, as it manifests itself in knowing their place in the social order is secure, than many women in other countries. On the other hand, while they're more confident as people, they're often less confident and secure as women, torturing themselves over their personal choices, their balancing of career versus family, how the media tells them they should be, etc. But the general climate of society here is essentially that women have a degree of purity and selflessness about their intentions and men are basically animals who need to be watched out for -- and that very much suffuses American women's outlooks.
And Lenin, the complaint exactly is that the children are important, the husband is not.
Wanderer1000
03-13-03, 01:34
Lenin -
You and your Russian friends noticed right away that American women were boring and paranoid.
What are some specific examples of how you and your friends quickly felt this in your experiences after coming here? How are American women boring? What are they paranoid about?
PurpleNGold
03-13-03, 01:45
JZ and Lenin,
I didn't say they weren't paranoid. I said they weren't any more paranoid than women in other cultures. And, I augmented that with the idea that I thought they might be less paranoid. But, certainly, the paranoia is there.
Regardless, I should probably have just said "suspicious" as opposed to "paranoid" as that's probably more to the point, since it wasn't really a general statement about their mental health, just about their attitude toward men. And I personally do find that American women are more suspicious of men's intentions than their counterparts abroad. (And, as I've argued here before, given that the stats say that one woman in three in this country will be assaulted at some point during her life, I'm not at all saying that it's not a deserved perspective.)
Darkseid’s UNAPPRECIATIVE is good one.
For better clarity term paranoid could be split in tree: suspicious, trust, emotional contact.
AW boring because you don’t feel emotional contact with them as
you feel with Russian or Latin girls, not just because their knowledge are limited.
When you starting with AW you get feeling you are treated like criminal
Not much trust. Faked and weak emotional contact. Faked smile.
Suddenly her mood could be dropped and I have no idea what is going on
in her head. Sometimes I have feeling that I am talking to computer
not to real women. More you trying to be sincere, less you get trust.
I is funny, when I go to Russia after long time living here
I am surprised that the girls are not afraid to go with you in anyplace
alone even if they know you just one hour.
I am surprised girl tell you lot of private secrets about herself.
I am surprised she let you go in her apartment at first evening.
I feel a lot of trust and emotional contact
After couple days I have feeling that I know this girl already one month.
Same feeling I had in Cuba with Cuban girls.
Hey guys listen to Lenin, Brazilian girls are the same way!
Hey Darkseid,
Thanks for the information. It was exactly what I needed. By the way, where did you stay and would you recommend it?
Am looking forward to the comprehensive posting on your trip and experiences that you had mentioned. "Blame it on Rio" as they say!
PurpleNGold
03-13-03, 07:37
lenin,
i'm just wondering how much of your experience with aw is tainted because of cultural barriers? i mean, you are not completely fluent in english. you obviously dislike america and americans. so, maybe it's no surprise that aw treat you with suspicion and dislike.
also, given the implications of how you would treat a woman to 'keep her in line,' and assuming your attitude is prevalent among russian men (which russian women have told me that it is), it is truly scary to think russian women would be so incredibly stupid to be so trusting.
truth is, aw are paranoid with good reason. [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) is not so uncommon as to be disregarded. and, this is definitely a case where 'better safe than sorry' applies.
PurpleNGold
03-13-03, 07:39
jz, i agree with your rephrasing from paranoid to suspicious. in this context, i'll use paranoid to refer to fear of being victimized by [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) or brutality. and, i'll use suspicious to refer to feelings of insecurity concerning the boyfriend's possible extra-curriculurs.
PurpleNGold
03-13-03, 07:46
I still think that AW are no more suspicious than their foreign counterparts. I've had a total of 6 serious relationships. 3 Were with Asians, 1 with a latina and 2 with AW. The most suspicious were the Asians, by far. The chica and 2 AW's were both suspicious, but healthily so.
Of my friends, there are mixed couples and couples of like ethnicity (not necessarily American). Again, I gotta say, with one exception, the American women never come off as hyper-suspicious. The asian women on the other hand keep their hubbies/significant others on very tight leashes.
An aside that sort of goes against my argument: the TG that got me all giddy was the least suspicious of all. I talked with her about how she would feel about me continuing to go pick up girls, and she said that she understood that I was a man and needed that kind of thing.
Three x, I know that too :)
purplengold, I have even more cultural barrier with Cubans or Brazilians but it has never been the problem. I did not talk to North American girls about liking or disliking America. When I go out with Canadian guys I also see that there is
not much emotional interaction between them and AW.
I also have women friends: Brazilian, Iranian, Hungarian, Rumanian, Poland and Czech women. This pattern is consistent also with women friends. I feel them like normal people; I feel something wrong with AW. I don’t feel that they normal. I also have similar complains from Brazilian, and Rumanian friends about AW. I even have similar complains From Russian, Brazilian and Czech women friends about AW. There is really something emotionally wrong with AW. I would like to know, but probably I never will because I don’t want to have anything with them.
About 'keep women in line’ I am afraid you didn’t understand me right.
There are no reasons why Russian woman cannot trust Russians man.
It is very intuitive relationship. She know limits what she can do and what cannot.
Paddy,
I rented an apartment for $763 for 10 days (you must stay for 10 days with this rental). This apartment was small but was in a great location 2 blocks from Copacabana beach. You don't get catered like you do in the hotels where the cleaning lady makes your bed, cleans your mess, replaces your towels, soap, etc, though. The apartment also doesn't have a backup generator and water supply when there are blackouts unlike most hotels. However, you are free to bring chicks into the apartment but you have to be sure your room is clean every morning and that you are not a slob. A hotel would ask for their ID and charge you an extra R30 guest fee.
If you like the catering and don't mind paying for the guests, then hotel is the way (except during Carnival when they multiply the price 5 times).
If you like the freedom, but don't mind the responsibility of the apartment, then you can rent an apartment.
The apartment I rented I didn't like only because it was very small but it was what I could afford during Carnival season. It did have a kitchen though and I could store food and heat it up if I couldn't finish what I ordered in the Casa de Feijoda. It would normally be $300 for 10 days. The website for my apartment is www.telefonema.net.
The Brazilian chick I hooked up with made me forget the problems associated with American women. I wish I could stay down there for the rest of my life. Oh well, there is always retirement and vacations to Brazil and I highly doubt that there is a non-racist American woman that would hook up with me and tie me down to America anyway.
Wanderer1000
03-14-03, 02:15
Lenin -
Two of the recent focus points seem to be on the "boring" and "suspicious" nature of AW. The boring aspect I would have thought had something to do with the suspicious nature of AW, since it was mainly an emotional distance that was felt. But you then give examples of all the different women from different countries that have the same feelings about AW.
Are AW just emotionally distant in general compared to other women from many different countries? They are not just "boring" to men, but also to other women?
I do see the "suspicious" nature of AW women to be a separate quality from their emotional distance, since, as you stated with your trips back to Russia, Russian women do not seem to have a fear of going with men anywhere, even after knowing them for one hour.
Thanks Jak, you as usually helped me with vocabulary.
“emotional distance” - very well describe AW.
Major complains from both foreign women and men about AW: emotionally distance, falseness and that they are boring.
(Also a lot of complains that they are ignorant about over cultures)
Jack, I think that suspicious is result of weak emotional intelligence of AW
For example, interaction with RW is very emotional right from beginning.
They are joking, trying to make fun of you or even insult you.
They so kick you out from your internal balance that you
just cannot hide your real feeling.
They are watching your reaction and how you handle their verbal attacks.
After one hour they pretty well know your character,
what expect from you and then they decide can they trust you or not.
Don’t think that they just stupid to go with any stranger.
They are very confident what they are doing.
It seems AW doesn’t have this emotional mechanism to check the stranger.
As result, they are just polite, scared or suspicious all the time.
PurpleNGold
03-14-03, 06:21
Originally posted by Lenin
Three x, I know that too :)
purplengold, I have even more cultural barrier with Cubans or Brazilians but it has never been the problem. I did not talk to North American girls about liking or disliking America. When I go out with Canadian guys I also see that there is
not much emotional interaction between them and AW.
I also have women friends: Brazilian, Iranian, Hungarian, Rumanian, Poland and Czech women. This pattern is consistent also with women friends. I feel them like normal people; I feel something wrong with AW. I don’t feel that they normal. I also have similar complains from Brazilian, and Rumanian friends about AW. I even have similar complains From Russian, Brazilian and Czech women friends about AW.
In all your examples, it's foreignors trying to relate to AW.
There is really something emotionally wrong with AW. I would like to know, but probably I never will because I don’t want to have anything with them.
And, maybe your not wanting to have anything with them is something they sense?
About 'keep women in line’ I am afraid you didn’t understand me right.
There are no reasons why Russian woman cannot trust Russians man.
It is very intuitive relationship. She know limits what she can do and what cannot.
Not true. You have said that you would be able to put her in line. That implies that she would want to step out of line. Also, you said, back a few days ago, that AW would get put in line if they went to Russia. Now, they certainly wouldn't have the intuition. Hence, you are implying some kind of forced training.
PurpleNGold
03-14-03, 06:23
Originally posted by darkseid
Paddy,
I rented an apartment for $763 for 10 days (you must stay for 10 days with this rental). This apartment was small but was in a great location 2 blocks from Copacabana beach. You don't get catered like you do in the hotels where the cleaning lady makes your bed, cleans your mess, replaces your towels, soap, etc, though. The apartment also doesn't have a backup generator and water supply when there are blackouts unlike most hotels. However, you are free to bring chicks into the apartment but you have to be sure your room is clean every morning and that you are not a slob. A hotel would ask for their ID and charge you an extra R30 guest fee.
If you like the catering and don't mind paying for the guests, then hotel is the way (except during Carnival when they multiply the price 5 times).
If you like the freedom, but don't mind the responsibility of the apartment, then you can rent an apartment.
The apartment I rented I didn't like only because it was very small but it was what I could afford during Carnival season. It did have a kitchen though and I could store food and heat it up if I couldn't finish what I ordered in the Casa de Feijoda. It would normally be $300 for 10 days. The website for my apartment is www.telefonema.net.
The Brazilian chick I hooked up with made me forget the problems associated with American women. I wish I could stay down there for the rest of my life. Oh well, there is always retirement and vacations to Brazil and I highly doubt that there is a non-racist American woman that would hook up with me and tie me down to America anyway.
Doesn't this belong in the Brazil forum?
PurpleNGold
03-14-03, 06:26
Originally posted by jak
I do see the "suspicious" nature of AW women to be a separate quality from their emotional distance, since, as you stated with your trips back to Russia, Russian women do not seem to have a fear of going with men anywhere, even after knowing them for one hour.
There are two kinds of 'suspicion' that have been receiving attention. There's the healthy suspicion that going with a stranger to his apartment might be dangerous. And there's the standard, 'I think my boyfriend is cheating on me' suspicion.
And there's also the basic suspicion of men in general and men's motives in general. That's the most common, imho, and occurs in varying degrees and intensities.
Came across this earlier today:
"When a woman behaves like a man why doesn't she behave like a nice man." Dame Edith Evans
PurpleNGold
03-14-03, 06:32
Lenin, from your last post, I gather that what really bothers you about AW is that they are more of a challenge. They don't come right out and give you their emotional all right away, so they are emotionally handicapped?
Personally, I find the complexities more appealing. A relationship is about discovering one another. It can't all be put on the table at the start (though it's fun to put a woman on the table :)). And, I'd bet that a lot of the 'secrets' and emotions that your RW share are not all that secret, nor all that genuine as you are led to believe.
My opinion is that RM (or at least you) are handicapped and have a hard time dealing with complex relationships.
PurpleNGold
03-14-03, 06:40
JZ, yeah. That certainly comes into play as well. If you take some of the proclamations of poster's like Lenin and Virgin_Terr as truths then that suspicion is justified. I mean, if women are only with us because of our money or position then we must constantly be suspicious that she has found someone with more money or a better position.
Likewise, women tend to believe that we're only with them because they look good or are good in bed. Hence they are always suspicious of us finding someone better looking or more of a sexual dynamo.
Darkseid,
Thanks for the additional information on the ins and outs of hotels in Rio. This is starting to crystalize for me. It also sounds like Rio has much to offer in addition to hot women.
Caught your detailed report on the South America/Rio forum. Looks like 4X4 is for me too. Well done.
The whole Rio scene seems soo foreign and alien to an American guy. I have to get down there. It sounds even better than Prague which is my little corner of the world. Am headed there in four weeks. Wish you or some of our brethren could join me for a week of drunkeness and womanizing.
Originally posted by purplengold
Lenin, from your last post, I gather that what really bothers you about AW is that they are more of a challenge. They don't come right out and give you their emotional all right away, so they are emotionally handicapped?
Really bothers me about AW that they have small emotional experience and capabilities. It is even dangerous. It could bring big troubles later in relationship. I don’t mine challenge but only if women deserved it. They are not.
Personally, I find the complexities more appealing.
Then I understand why you like Asian.
I prefer Latin. I like openness. Life is complex enough even without women.
A relationship is about discovering one another.
It can't all be put on the table at the start
No, all not, but some yes.
I'd bet that a lot of the 'secrets' and emotions that your RW share are not all that secret, nor all that genuine as you are led to believe.
I know that. I did not say what I totally bellied in all her stories.
But lots of them were deep and genuine to feel strong connection.
My opinion is that RM (or at least you)
are handicapped and have a hard time dealing with complex relationships.
Purplengold are you trying to insult me or this is revenge because I don’t like AW? Well, I did wanted be rude but you Purplengold seems
have some mental problems, I hope temporary.
But I am OK, I am taking your challenge:
RM helped create RW which most of the men in the world like
AM (including you) helped create AW which nobody like
Therefore I don’t think RM or me more handicapped than AM or you
Anyway, most of the AM in this forum made great posts and I am sure
If All American men were like most of you guys,
we would change situation with AW very quickly.
AW = American Women
AM = American Men
RW = Russian Women
RM = Russian Men
What's wrong with American women is in many cases not the woman herself but this Puritanical feminist loving society. Analyzing Lenin's experiences with RW, Lenin said that when RW are in Russia, they are more open and are equipped to scope you out and would see if they can trust you. When they come to America, Lenin said that because women hold the upper hand, RW feel they can pick on AM and get away with it. They actually BECOME the AW after living here a few years. It is the way AMERICA educates women to behave that causes problems with the women here. Also my Cuban ex-fiancee is another example but you know the story by now.
While I was at Carnaval, even the American women were open and open to discussing sex. When they return to America, AW are expected to act a certain way which shows "class". They cannot discuss sex in front of men or men cannot discuss sex in front of women in American society. In fact when I got back to my office, a dirty joke slipped from my mouth because I got into the habit of speaking with sexually open people of Brazil and my co-workers reminded me that there are women around the office and about sexual harrassment laws. I responded, "Shit! I forgot that I am no longer around sexually open people." In Brazil, everyone even some of the American women talked about butts, titties, partying and screwing around. There are a few exceptions of course like the breakup I witnessed with an American couple but that was because she didn't leave her American attitude at home and didn't get into the SPIRIT of Carnaval and that spirit could have healed their relationship. America has so many laws forbidding partying and sexuality and that leads to unopenness and a lack of emotions. Sexuality opens us up because part of sexuality is love and love is blocked when we become mechanical from the strict anti-sex laws like what is happening in the US and Japan where we have the highest divorce rates and the least amount of sex. Also marriages forged from greed is from the lack of sexuality and love. Some states like Florida even want to abolish nudity or even toplessness even in INDOOR EVENTS. Bye bye Spring Break!! I hate to knock the American motto "Land of the Free", but America has become a Nazi Gestapo when it comes to sex.
darkseid, great post!
Originally posted by darkseid
While I was at Carnaval, even the American women were open and open to discussing sex. When they return to America, AW are expected to act a certain way which shows "class". They cannot discuss sex in front of men or men cannot discuss sex in front of women in American society. In fact when I got back to my office, a dirty joke slipped from my mouth because I got into the habit of speaking with sexually open people of Brazil and my co-workers reminded me that there are women around the office and about sexual harrassment laws.
Exactly,
I’ve seen how easily AW can change their behavior in Cuba and Jamaica. After couple minutes primitive conversation with the local man (I like you baby, do you like me?) AW allow him to put his arm
on her leg.
This is what I am talking about. AW could be re-educated quite easily if man behaves like a man not like a slave. God made man to lead woman not opposite.
Wanderer1000
03-15-03, 01:22
Lenin and Darkseid -
One of the other common complaints about AW has been their mercenary attitudes --- men = money. One of the annoying aspects of many of my dealings with women in foreign countries is that I often get the "rich" American attitude from women in various ways. I suspect the women are different in their behavior or attitude with the native men in many of these countries, but it seems that the attitude she has with an American man often has a "spend money" edge to her.
Granted, my experiences with foreign women have been a combination of pro and non-pro, whereas my experience with AW have been non-pro. Due to my being an AM and the image of being rich, along with my skewed experience of pro women in the foreign mix, I find it difficult to determine to what degree foreign women really differ from AW in this regard.
What are your thoughts?
Jak,
To find the true love in other countries being American is tough thing to do.
In Russia, for example, once they know you from US, girls who want green card and your money will surround you. And they are going to play such a game what you
will not notice their real intention. I myself, when I came to Russia, am trying not to tell that I am living in North America as long as possible. Just because of all above, because I want to see real feeling. There exists one way around however. You should invest the time to find good Russian friends. There is traditionally strong man support in Russia like not in any country in the world. They’ll guide you and help you to make right decisions.
And in Russia is much more fun and safer to hunting for the girls with the Russian friends than alone.
I used same tactic in Cuba too. It helped a lot.
In Brazil, I scope them out fist before answering the where are you from question. I ask them their occupation immediately after asking their name and what part of the city they live in. If their answer suggests they are wealthy, I tell them I live in New York. If they are poor, I am prejudiced against it because they may want to meet me for a greencard to the US so I tell them I live in China, being that I am Chinese. I always leave my pasport in the hotel room so they can't expect me to show them.
Even if they are poor, I scope them out further on a date the following day and I won't turn down some non-pro action.
Wanderer1000
03-16-03, 00:09
Lenin and Darkseid -
Since I am very Northern European looking in my features, and I do not have fluency in any language other than American English, it is difficult to feign a "non-rich" country origin. I envy both of you in this regard.
Since both of you generally agree with my experiences as a first -world travelling man in non- first - world countries with women, how do you respond to the issue that AW are often thought of as more materialistic than many women in other countries?
I begin to doubt this claim as being a particularly strong one with AW as I continue to have experiences in foreign countries. It is not difficult for me to imagine that if I was a native Russian man living in Russia, for example, and I was the equivalent of a "middle-class" working guy, I would have the same experiences with Russian women in their interest of my "financial situation" as an average AM has with AW.
I know Lenin has remarked that it is not the same, but I have difficulty discerning the differences based on my experiences.
Jak,
I never heard that RW leave their husbands in Russia when they losing their jobs like AW do. In general RW are famous for their loyalty.
If you are hunting in tourist places in Russia, where biggest concentration of greedy women, of course, you can get result even worst then here.
You still can make good result if you planning your trip carefully.
Also depend what do you want. You want to bring RW here or keep her there and how long you want your relationship lasts?
Wanderer1000
03-16-03, 10:19
Lenin -
Without moving too much off of the AW theme, I would answer your question regarding what I would want from a RW as being answered partially by you already. I wouldn't want to get involved in the risk of bringing one over here even if I really fell for one - as I recently did. When I finally become financially independent, I might be interested in living in Russia for an extended period. I have the Pimsleur Russian CD's and am slowly working toward the goal of spending some time in the less travelled cities. I've already mentioned in a previous post that I find the Slavic women to be the most beautiful on whole, but I will be going to Buenos Aires in a few weeks for a week and then for several months this summer (with a side trip to Brazil). Despite all the great reports on the women of B.A. and Brazil, I still don't think they will top my preference for the Slavic woman look. But hey, I like to keep an open mind.
You have mentioned on numerous occasions that RM have a stronger emotional bond with each other than AM (you claim nothing else like it in other cultures). It almost sounds like they talk and offer support to each other the same way I view women doing in general no matter what culture they are in. If AM were willing and able to adopt this RM cultural quality, do you think it would have a drastic difference in turning the "balance" back to American male/female relationships?
Also, one of the concerns that I think many posters have had regarding your advocacy of the male/female balance in the Russian world is the perceived necessity or threat of the use of violence to maintain it. What are your thoughts on this?
Iagree with Lenin in that if you go to a touristy part of the country, you will more likely meet a woman who went to the US and became exposed to the AW way. These women would know a thing or two about the dirty trick of the AW and would use it against you. I you go to a non-touristy area like Vitoria in Brazil you will meet very few women that has been to America but if you go to Rio, some of them visited America because the women in the toursty regions have the money to travel and they will to some degree act like an AW.
Jak,
Yes, man’s support could change a lot, but it is impossible to promote it here because US have completely different history and culture.
Russians went thorough hundreds of wars and used to looking
for help and get help from his friends. American opposite. They competed for money and now they compete even for AW among themselves.
in Russia word "looser" never had such dramatic meaning like here. Everybody was integrated into community.
I am beginning to realize that the best that can do AM is to make enough money, move out of US and integrate himself with less sex repressive culture.
Otherwise his future is prostitutes, loneliness and suicide.
About your last question, if you want to live in Russia I just can tell you that this is integral part of Russian culture. I am not big fun of this too, this one of the reasons why I prefer Latin to RW. If you cannot handle it, you should choose RW for LTR even more carefully because she eventually can take advantage over you
ones she sense you soft. I am curious, why you like RW, because how they look or because their personal characteristics?
Otherwise his future is prostitutes, loneliness and suicide.
See, here you go again. This is just baloney, a gross generalization, just like me saying that the future of a RM is as an alcoholic, disease-infested beggar. I could come up with far more dramatic statistics to support this than you could your statement.
C'mon, you were doing so well with a real discussion! :)
Wanderer1000
03-17-03, 05:09
Lenin -
I'll briefly answer your question first. It is mainly the Slavic look that I like, and I realized this only when I was in my twenties and had a Czech-American girlfriend. I love the skin! My other two LTR were with Polish-American women. I like sweet-natured, feminine women, and two of the three had those personalities. I just got hooked after discovering my reactions to being with those kind of women.
I love the feminine look and behavior/charm that many RW give off in their native country, and combined with the silky white skin -- ooh-la-la! But, as you have so many times confirmed, there is a wild animal waiting behind the facade. Thanks for confirming my hunches so well!
Maybe this is an appropriate time to discuss the issue that many AM have mentioned about AW being more aggressive than many foreign women. Your area of expertise being RW, I think you have again made the case that RW are not necessarily any less aggressive or manipulative than AW, but it's the Russian system that keeps them "in-line" (with a little bit of fear of the man if they get to far out-of-line).
You have on many occasions made the claim that many Latin women would behave differently/better than the average RW would if she was brought into this American system. This is maybe a good time to explore the idea of how many Latin women are somehow inherently different than RW in their propensity to be aggresive and abusive of a system that seems to give them a little more power over men.
Any thoughts on why this seems to be?
Wanderer1000
03-17-03, 06:11
Darkseid -
I agree with your opinion. I want to begin trying to spend more time in the non-touristy areas of the countries I visit. The big drawback to this type of travel is usually the language barrier. You seem well on your way to giving it a go in Brazil with your present-tense knowledge of Portuguese, and I am in the process of working toward this with Spanish and Russian. I think you can generally crack into a whole new realm when you can converse in the native language of the country.
joe_zop,
may be you going to be surprised but I am not
is going to argue with you about RM alcoholic habits because
it is real problem in lot of cases. Same as it is real problem about loneliness of AM.
But we are here not to discuss alcoholism.
If you so perfectionist in statements, then I can change from:
Otherwise his future is prostitutes, loneliness and suicide.
To:
Otherwise future of many AM is prostitutes, loneliness and suicide.
Is it helps?
Jak, you got it absolutely right.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Jak
I love the feminine look and behavior/charm that many RW give off in their native country, and combined with the silky white skin -- ooh-la-la! But, as you have so many times confirmed, there is a wild animal waiting behind the façade
…
RW are not necessarily any less aggressive or manipulative than AW, but it's the Russian system that keeps them "in-line" (with a little bit of fear of the man if they get to far out-of-line).
USbabe is only one AW who participated in this section:
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by USbabe
I forgot who said it but someone mentioned that women are like little children and if you put up with their rotten behavior, they will keep giving it. That's it! I don't really think women are out to test guys, but if a guy doesn't put a stop to that kind of manipulative behavior, it continues. Then, the woman doesn't respect the man, and vice versa. I get the impression that some guys are afraid of losing her, so they'll put up with anything, and that's where the problem starts.
Her statement confirms that the somthing different is waiting behind the façade of any women, not only behind the façade of RW. RM usually know about it. I think, AM sometimes forgetting this and dream about perfect women. This dream brought them into real troubles.
Lenin, it's still hyperbole. "Some" is more accurate, as it doesn't imply that it's the majority of cases, which your other statements do. It's not about being perfect in statements, it's about having the overall thrust be accurate. It's simply not close to accurate to say that most AM will end up suicidal, using prostitutes or alone, and there's no need to say it to still have your point be valid. Beyond that, it's just bashing -- and my point regarding alcoholism and RM was not at all to say that my statement was true but that it was the same kind of unnecessary exaggeration.
PurpleNGold
03-17-03, 09:05
Originally posted by Lenin
I am beginning to realize that the best that can do AM is to make enough money, move out of US and integrate himself with less sex repressive culture.
Otherwise his future is prostitutes, loneliness and suicide.
LOL! Let's see, since that is the stereotypical vision of RM, with vodka substituted for suicide, I guess you're speaking out your ass again.
You know, you keep trying to paint a Renoir of Russia and a Dali of America. I still wonder why it is you prefer to live here.
joe_zop,
I am not specialist in English at all but I am not thinking that MANY is wrong.
Let's assume for sake of the arguments that during Vietnam War 10% American soldier was killed. (I don’t know exact number)
It is a lot. It is many thousands.
Statement – “MANY men killed in this war” is not exaggeration at all.
Although it is only 10%. it's not the majority of all man. It is not MOST OF.
Statement - “SOME men killed in this war” is really gives you wrong idea like It was small war.
And also SOME - removes any emotions from the statement.
PurpleNGold
03-17-03, 09:08
Originally posted by jak
Lenin -
(SNIP)
Your area of expertise being RW, I think you have again made the case that RW are not necessarily any less aggressive or manipulative than AW, but it's the Russian system that keeps them "in-line" (with a little bit of fear of the man if they get to far out-of-line).
(SNIP)
Jak,
I'd be careful with that assumption about Lenin having any expertise about women, Russian or otherwise. It's pretty apparent from his posts that he has delusions of what RW are like. And, he absolutely can't relate to AW. It seems that he may have had some relationships with Cuban pros, but those were most likely pay for play, so they don't count.
PurpleNGold
03-17-03, 09:10
Originally posted by Lenin
If you so perfectionist in statements, then I can change from:
Otherwise his future is prostitutes, loneliness and suicide.
To:
Otherwise future of many AM is prostitutes, loneliness and suicide.
Is it helps?
Is it me, or is your 'change' not a change at all?
purplengold,
what is nonsense you talking.
try to live in russia so many yeas like me
and don’t have experience with rw!
they just [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) you if you are going to ignore them.
PurpleNGold
03-17-03, 09:38
originally posted by lenin
try to live in russia so many yeas like me
and don’t have experience with rw!
they just [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) you if you are going to ignore them.
what the hell does this mean? are you saying that you are soooo hot that rw just attack you? yeah, right.
and, whether you have had experience with rw, i doubt you had solid relationships with them. you are too naive in thinking that they opened up to you so quickly. this is not human nature, american, russian, whatever. people keep secrets, that's life. and, so the girls that had you wrapped around their fingers because you thought they were so open were really just using you.
i've heard too many stories from russian friends. since joining this discussion here, i've been talking to them even more. i showed this forum to one rw friend and her husband, an rm. they both said you're full of shit. their opinion of you was that you are a lonely malcontent. they said they knew plenty of people like you back in russia--always complaining, always talking about getting out, then sending letters home about how you wish to come back once you finally do get out.
PurpleNGold
03-17-03, 09:40
For the record, I'm not pro AW. I prefer asian women. I can't realy put my finger on the reason, but I've always been more attracted to them.
I've had relationships with AW, and do find them to be pushy, expensive and less sexually dynamic. But, they are not completely horrible.
purplengold,
First, If you are living in Russia for long time in the same neighborhood
you just can not avoid girls who going to be all time behind for you, Except if you are really looks ugly.
Seems you still not understand that it is real situation there.
You found Russian couple. Great! I know dozens of them.
Do you think husband is going to tell you true in front of his wife?
Do you think his wife not upset with my statements because she
want to hide her real nature? Do you think they telling you one
thing and after that make fun if they notice that you are naive?
I know many people who complained about everything.
Do not worry. I complains only when I am a really see bad things.
And such bad thing is American rotten sexual life.
About secret, If you know how to speak with Russians
you will be amazed their openness. Totally opposite to Asian.
And you even not bothered asking me what secrets I am talking about.
Why you so upset and rude about anything what I am saying.
Some Russian programmer kicked you in your ass or what?
Now I think you are naïve and not learning from your experience.
Or most probably you have mentality problems.
I’ve learned Psychiatry and I sense that something wrong with you.
Lenin, while you may be strictly correct that "many" doesn't say a majority, considering the way you used it -- to follow up an absolute statement like the one you first posted saying "the future is" it's certainly a viable conclusion that you intend to make a far grander statement than is warranted. This is especially true when you're in the habit of making massively condemning statements about American society.
For what it's worth, despite there being a large number of men killed in Vietnam -- my friends among them -- the truth is that only about one-half percent of those who served in the military during the war were killed, with less than ten percent of all men actually serving there. So while 47,000 is a large number (the approximate number killed) to imply it is anything near something that, say, stripped the country of males, would be misleading.
Similarly, earlier in this discussion we went though suicide statistics, and it's a relatively low percentage, overall, about 1% of US deaths, which, again, is a low number when you're talking about the total number of the population. Yes, everyone knows someone who's offed themselves, in the same way everyone used to know someone who was killed in Vietnam, but that's simply not the same as saying that American women condemn men (in general) to prostitutes, suicide, and loneliness.
The bottom line is that the majority of men in the United States at any given time are married. The majority do not use prostitutes. The majority do not commit suicide. I don't know of a good measurement for loneliness, but to imply it's a majority is surely to overstate the case.
Again, I think the points are very viable, and the complaints here are absolutely important and well worth looking at, but when we start descending into the land of massive overstatement all that happens is that the discussion becomes absurdly cartoonish and pointless. Being accurate in no way diminishes the validity of the concerns or deflates the discussion. I'm simply asking that we place things in the proper context.
As far as removing emotions from the equation -- I hardly think that's going to happen :) as there are far too many folks here who are highly emotional about this issue. The problem is that if it's just going to become an emoting orgy then it's not really a discussion that can move forward. It's seemed to me that the discussion in this thread has been very good of late -- and you deserve a fair portion of the credit for that -- and I think most of us would love to see that continue. So I'm simply calling for a balanced approach instead of getting unnecessarily histrionic.
What Lenin says about loneliness and suicide is more apparent in big cities than in smaller townships where people are close and know each other. However, most of the US is made up of the smaller townships rather than the big cities that is why the statistics for America as a whole is low on loneliness, suicide and prostitution. In the smaller towns, married couples tend to stay married whereas in the big cities there are more unmarried people and a much higher divorce rate. Most people in smaller towns are happily married, do not commit suicide, and do not use prostitutes, unlike their big city counterparts. I also noticed that in big cities such as New York, laws are more strict and more enforced. Stricter laws as I explained in my past posts IS a cause of the lack of passion in marriages and relationships. In smaller cities, people get away with skinny dipping whereas if you try that in Central Park with your wife, you will be sitting in a cell next to Bubba and your wife would be sitting in a separate cell next to Butch. Marriages in big cities are more money related than love related. Women expect the city guy to make more money than their small town counterparts so the ones who are after money go for the city guy. The marriages that happen in the small towns are usually high school or college sweethearts.
Suicide is more stress related rather than loneliness related. The stress can come from losing a job, divorce settlements, and many other factors other than loneliness. There are many more problems living in a big city than living in a small town.
Again, more city guys use prostitutes than country guys because of unsatified marriages, loneliness, divorce, or because they stay single. Meeting a true love in the city can be overwhelming especially if you are in a big crowd where nobody knows each other. In a small township, you meet the same people day to day and they know your business and therefore it is easier to know the girl you are dating. Sometimes a city guy might need a companion in such short notice like a date for an event so prostitutes are used for this. Remember, AW want to take their time knowing you and are not as open as foreign counterparts so because no one knows each other in a big city, it is impossible to find a short notice date if a single guy doesn't know any women. On the other hand, in a small town, just by living in the small town a few years, you already know something about the girl neighbors and they know something about you so it is easier to find a short notice date in a smaller community.
Man, have you ever LIVED in a small town in the US? Guys there don't use prostitutes because there AREN'T any. And, small towns are more conservative and life in rural America can be very lonely. Maybe you can get away with skinny dipping in a small town but if so it is because there are no other people around, unlike Central Park.
Do you really think there are more problems living in a big city and fewer living in a "small township"? I think it is just a different set of problems.
Actually, the suicide rate is higher in rural than urban areas, both for men and women, which can possibly be related to poor health care (leading to undiagnosed clinical depression) and lack of social support structures. Prostitution is simply more prevalent and available in cities than the countryside, so the opportunity to partake is greater. The truth is that more American men die from pneumonia than suicide, which might argue that if AW took better care of their men they'd know to dress warmly :D but we're not here railing about that. In the most recent comprehensive stats I found (2000) suicides represented 2% of all US male deaths, compared, to, say, 5.4% by accidents or 24.3% by cancer. And a major portion of those suicides come from either teenagers or those over 60, plus I don't think it's really possible to lay all the rest of them at the feet of the behavior of American Women.
I don't disagree at all with the rest of your post about the difficulties of life in cities, though I agree with DH that it's not necessarily a picnic in the sticks, either. And, again, I'm not at all disagreeing with the tenets of the discussion here, just trying to keep things within shouting distance of reality.
Thanks, JZ. I thought I had read that suicide was higher in rural areas but was too lazy to research it. I know that after two years of living in rural Nebraska I sure wanted to kill myself.
Here's an idea. Instead of sentencing prostitutes to 90 days in jail, sentence them to 90 days in a rural community. It would have a greater deterrent effect and would also provide valuable services to these isolated areas. A win-win situation in my book.
I used to travel a lot with my Brazilian girlfriend in
Ontario and we’ve seen a lot of small cities.
They all sooo dead.
In some cities you are lucky if after sunset you see just the dog.
But American Big Cities seems sucks too.
I was in NYC with my friend last year. We spend 3 days
going to different places at evening in Manhattan.
I just wanted get feeling of the night city.
In some places we took one or two drinks in
others just look around for few minutes.
In total we went may be in 40 bars and discos.
What I notice the girls make absolutely no eyes contacts.
Just like dead models in windows.
You are getting such unpleasant feeling especially
if you traveled before In Latin America or Russia.
I remember, in one bar men were mostly staying in one part
of the bar and women in another.
It was no any interaction between them.
Why is hell everybody came here then?
NYC looks absurd city to me.
On the one side a lot of good dressed girls clearly
to attract attention of the men,
on another no contact with the men.
In one place near from Times square I talk with
nice looking prostitute in the small café.
I still remember how two men, who
works there, stop their job, open their mouths and stare at us
like we are aliens from other planet.
Darkseid, is my first impression about NYC correct
or I missed something?
Only in Mexican Bar I felt some warm.
Eventually in Russian bar I got warmest welcome.
Wanderer1000
03-19-03, 05:56
Lenin -
You have mentioned the issue of "emotional distance or detachment", or something resembling that effect, in several of your last posts. Women that look like "dead models in windows", a lot of well-dressed women (presumably to attract the men) without contact with the men, and " American rotten sexual life".
Do you associate these impressions you had and have with the previous issue of "AW are suspicious of men in general"? Do you think a lot of the people that you observed in the nightclub that were dressed-up but not interacting - "why is hell everybody came here then?" - were frustrated with the situation? Were the women mostly suspicious and the men knew it?
What is at the heart of these situations that apparently would be rather different if they existed in Russia?
Lenin, I totally agree with you with your description of the big cities, especially in NYC. Everyone here lives in their own little space and they don't want anything to do with other people. Every NYC person I meet in clubs are paranoid and think that you approach them because you want something from them. Even if you throw the biggest party wit hundreds of supermodels and superstars New Yorkers would still find a way to dull the party with their "personal space" attitudes. I do agree with everyone that life in the rural communities is dull and boring but at least the people in the rural communities are a bit more willing to chat with you (unless the community happens to be racist). My grandparents lived in a small community and I use to visit them every summer. My grandparents on my mother's side lived in Calgary, Alberta in Canada and everyone was friendly and knew each other. I was bored as heck though but at least I could chat with the neighbors and play ball with them. My grandparents on my father's side lived in a small town in Buffalo New York and it was a similar situation. Although there is nothing to do in these towns, I still made friends with my neighbors. My grandparents before moving into the community did meet the neighbors as part of their search for their home to make sure they are not bad or racist people. In my NYC neighborhood, people don't want anything to do with each other. Even if I try to invite them to a party they think I am some salesperson trying to push his product on them. I tried to throw a party in my NYC apartment and only my olf friends came and only 2 of my neighbors I invited came. When I threw barbecues at my grandmother's house, it was an excellent turnout because the community was more close. Perhaps I did these people a favor in giving them something to do in the boring small town (Yes, Buffalo IS a really boring town. No one can argue with that.)
JZ and DH, I also agree with you guys that prostitution not being available is a good reason country guys CAN'T use them. Most country folks also don't travel either and the ONLY woman they know are their high school sweethearts which is why there is a lower divorce rate than in urban communities. Also more country folks are alcoholics or drug users because no one is stopping them from doing it.
Jak
Your questions help me to analyzed the problem
I don’t want somebody be upset with my statements. I want just to find the root of the problem. To be completely honest we should look at ourselves too.
I notice that most of Americans not only AW hide their feeling and emotions.
Why implicit rules of society forced Americans to smile even when they want to kill each other?
I do not understand exactly why Americans doing this. Is it better for business, or religion told them to do this. May be because American was told from childhood that real gentlemen should hide feeling. I would like if somebody could explain this.
I think this is the big problem.
Hiding feeling and emotions it is just different form of lying about your internal state. How AW can trust AM and AM can trust AW if they playing this game all the time?
It is breaking normal communication between AW and AM.
Relations between men and women are based on feeling. Seems American culture
is destroying trust and emotional communication between AM and AW right from the beginning.
Wanderer1000
03-21-03, 01:49
Lenin -
Since I have often asked many questions and put you on the "firing line", which you have courageously accepted, it's only fair I make my share of generalizations to be attacked. I've appreciated your heart-felt responses, which oftentimes put you in the position of making statements that sound attacking or simplistic.
I have noticed that Americans "openness" is often related to regionalism. I live in the largest Midwestern city in the U.S. It has often been remarked that it is an incredibly friendly city for its size. I never gave it serious thought until I moved to a city in the Northwestern U.S. for many years. People in this new city and region had an etiquette, but it sure took a long or longer time to get a feeling of closeness with most people. I actually found the people I was befriending to be transplants from other areas of the country. There was a very provincial air about the region.
In the Southern U.S., most people have experienced "Southern hospitality" when they've travelled this region. Since I feel you really have to live and breathe in an area for at least a few years before you can have a genuine sense of it, I still oftentimes have believed that this friendliness is also more of an etiquette than genuineness of interaction.
I think one of the common stereotypes that many Europeans (West and East) have of Americans is the "phoniness" which we often present upon meeting for the first time. I have heard this repeatedly from Germans, Danes and Polish people - and they were often speaking for the impressions of other Europeans. Russians seem to never smile at strangers. If you do, it should only be for flirtatious reasons with the opposite sex.
Hi!!
I'm a guy from Barcelona (Spain), so, my level of english isnt the best...excuse me for that.
Well, I write here because Im very surprised with most of the mails that you have sended, about the shitty AW!
I explain you why I have this impression.
When I studied at the University, every year existed a colaboration between Universities of all Europe, and USA also. So, every new course you found a lot of people from diverent countries. We (well, I and a lot of men) waited with emotion how many american women were there! Why? For the simple reason that american girls were the easiest to convince to fuck!! Sure! Every girl maybe fucked 5 o more boys during the year (2 of them were my rates). They loved sex, well....maybe to stay with the most number of cool latinos, I dont know, and when they returned to USA, explain it to their friends!
So, thats the reason for my surprise! Maybe AW when they are out of their ultraconservativ country changed their mind, and want to be happy and feel free!!
AW even they were more sexual opened than nordic girls (Sweden, Danmark, for ex.).
Every year whe are fooled looking for american pussy!!!
Wanderer1000
03-21-03, 02:20
It seems that Americans in general fear each other more than many people from European countries fear each other. I notice this in my travels to many countries, and perhaps I am naive in my assumptions since "they" obviously know I am American and perhaps "trust" me more for some unknown reason to me.
When I was travelling by train from Budapest to Romania, I met a woman who was coming back from two months in Italy. She invited me to visit her home several days later to stay with her husband and two small children. I ended up staying with them for a week. Nobody did background checks on each other, etc. It was a nice visit with them driving me around the countryside and stopping to have meals at their parents' places, etc. I have had other experiences like this in Europe and have known many others who have similar stories. Of course, upon telling these stories upon my arrival back in America, I am frequently told I was crazy for doing this. What if... questions of a dangerous nature abound. This stuff just doesn't go on in America like that. I'm sure Europe has its' horror stories, but the fear level of strangers seems so much lower.
You can even see this in something like calling an escort in many places of Europe. The girl arrives and comes into your place, and that's it. There's no - give me your credit card #, Guido will be at the girl's side, etc.
This isn't getting at the core discussion of why America seems so much more aloof, but I'm just trying to make sense of some of my impressions first.
Wanderer1000
03-21-03, 02:47
incaroca -
I think you gave many of the reasons these AW were so sexually free and open.
A part of choosing to study in your country was to have free sexual experiences with "cool Latin males"(many AW like the image of the Latin European male), they were in college (one of the best sex environments I experienced in my life), they were away from their puritanical homeland and fear of the "****" label (similar to the freer behavior I have experienced with AW at vacation resorts - when they know their behavior will be secret and not affect their social or business world back home).
(As always, my opinions are understood to be generalities, and hopefully will not be used as a launching pad for a diatribe of my simplistic or idiotic thinking. Hopefully, they will be used to move in the direction of exploration of the topic on this string of the forum.)
AW as I explained in a previous post about them in Brazil, do act more freely because they are away from this puritanical environment. American culture ENCOURAGES unopenness by labelling such sexual conversations as "shameful". "Shame" is the curse that infests American culture and unfortunately, our media and some evangelist groups born in America want to spread the disease of "Shame". The Carnival trip opened my eyes to this problem in that now I don't blame the AW themselves but I blame our system of etiquette influenced by the concept of "Shame". This is definitely apparent in big cities and small towns in different scenarios. In big cities in America, no one knows each other so no one talks to one another because ALL Americans were taught not to talk to strangers. In fact it is "shameful" for AW to go home with a stranger the first night they meet and she would be labelled a "****". In a smaller town, although an AW is more willing to meet a new face, she still wouldn't have sex until she gets to know him for several weeks or until marriage because news travels swift in a small ton and she is afraid of being labeled a "*****". In both scenarios, the concept of "shame" is apparent. Also the parents of the AW look at meeting a guy from a nightclub as "shameful".
Place these same AWs in a sexually liberal environment like Brazil or Europe and they will be fucking like rabbits because they figure that no one will know what happened on that trip.
Jak,
Your impressions that Americans in general fear each other more than many people from European countries fear each other are similar to my impressions.
One of my first jobs was not in the city and I didn’t have car in that time.
Almost every day I used to hitchhike on my back from the job.
Mostly immigrants from Europe gave me ride.
I still remember short but warm conversations with Greece, Italy, Spain, and Polish drivers. Very rare when Canadians gave me ride and communication mostly was tense with them.
Your comments that Russians seem to never smile at strangers
right at some extend. If they not smile at you, it’s mean that you not convinced them they can trust you. Fake smile and politeness never were part of Russian culture. Don’t expect it in return.
Best way to communicate with Russians is to show them your true feeling ignoring
any etiquette. If you are too polite they think you are hiding something and they not going to trust you. Probably for Americans it can take time to accustom to this. But once you get it you are going to be like fish in the water and make genuine friends very fast.
I am still convinced that root of problems with AW is that Americans traditionally hide their feeling and as result lose the ability emotionally communicate properly among themselves, become afraid everybody and confused with stranger.
They lost emotional mechanism to evaluate the stranger.
To make things worth, in order to substitute normal emotional communication Americans had to accept sexually repressive models of behavior, which government and religious and other groups happy to promote.
Many nationalities do not need to accept such models because people there are happy with their emotional behavior and trust themselves.
Closest example is Montreal. As result you can find women there with best attitude in North America.
Jak, If your impression about genuine Southern U.S hospitality is correct, then according to my theory it should be no big difference in attitude of AW there in comparison with others states.
I do agree American men are taught to hide their feelings. I do not agree that Europeans are more open than Americans. In fact I think the opposite based on my experience in mostly northern and western European countries. Spain is an exception in my experience. In countries such as Belgium, The Netherlands, France, Germany, and Austria, I found the locals somewhat suspicious and unwilling to strike up conversations with strangers. This goes for women as well as men. Exceptions have occurred when alcohol was involved.
Tonight I had a conversation with an American female friend and she said she preferred the company of her men friends (such as me). I said I also preferred the company of my women friends (such as her). This is all sex aside. We hypothesized that it was competition among women and their women friends, and competition among men and their men friends, that might be leading to this result. I know I am a very competitive person and over the years this has resulted in some bad blood between me and my male friends, whereas this is not an issue between me and my female friends.
Also I am aggressive and so my approach to women is somewhat aggressive so maybe it works better in countries where the man is supposed to be the aggressor, such as Latin America and Asia. As posters such as Darkseid have remarked, we Americans get such mixed messages about sex that it is hard to know when to push the envelope and when to back off.
I always say, I have a low batting average and I strike out a lot but I take my cuts and I hit my share of home runs. I think maybe American women feel like they need to take fewer swings and make better contact, cuz of that whole ridiculous s l u t thing. Also I don't think American women know how to flirt very well, which might be part of the whole "don't talk to strangers" thing. I didn't get that growing up.
Dickhead ,
Could be that they (North West European) are more open to each other but less open to foreigners since Europeans had a lot of internationality problems before?
While I agree the American tendency to be "nice" as a default social veneer also can lead to a kind of fake and insular distance, I think it's a mistake to blame it entirely for lack of communication. The bottom line is that it's part of a social dance like any other, and if one knows how to dance the dance, one does reasonably well. It's simple enough to figure out when someone's giving a nice polite fake response and when there's some genuine warmth involved. That's the way the game is played -- and the mistake non-natives make is going overboard, from the "everyone is friendly" perspective to the "everyone is fake and distant" one. The truth is, as usual, in between.
Let's face it -- this is still basically a country filled with people displaced from somewhere else, where a lot of them have tried to recreate the social structure they lost, and part of what's been recreated is suspicion of people outside your ethnic arena. Here, that has translated not only the neighborhoods where people of similar ethic groups tend to live together in an attempt not only to retain their ethnic identity but to be socially comfortable, and also into direct racism that shifts and becomes more complex depending on who the latest large immigrant group happens to be. It has also created a strange kind of dual sense of nationality, where you're American but you also consider yourself German or Irish or African or whatever in spite of the fact that your ancestors haven't lived in said home country for, say, a hundred and fifty years, and you and your parents were not only born here but really know squat about the father/motherland.
But I also think there are other aspects that need to be considered. Beneath that so-called openness in Europe, Russia, and elsewhere is also a simmering hostility toward other ethnic groups and a litany of centuries of grievances, and this manifests itself not only in war but in astonishing brutality toward people who yesterday were your "neighbors." Or have we forgotten that the ethnic cleansing activities and conflicts in Bosnia, Serbia, Chechnya, the Middle East, Ireland, Rwanda and Burundi, Sri Lanka, etc. (all of which are recent or ongoing -- I could cite another massive list just by going back a couple of years) are all grounded in very long historical discord between groups, some stretching back a thousand years? Great -- strong personal warmth and then a pitchfork stuck in you as soon as it seems there is an opportunity.
Perhaps, picking up on Lenin's comment about NW Europeans being open to each other but not to foreigners, the problem is that Americans have no idea who is and who is not an outsider, and the cultural truth is that we're all natives and outsiders at the exact same time.
part of the reason why there is the segregated neighborhoods and racism is the don't talk to strangers concept and "shame". most marriages in a big city like new york with segregated areas only happen within their own little neighborhoods. for example, if i go into spanish harlem, i get stares from the people living in that neighborhood as though i was an alien from another planet. if i hook up with one, news gets around and they would disapprove of it. it seems that inter-racial marriages is a big deal in america and in some cases it is "shameful" because the person involved in it is bringing in an "outsider". we still have this problem in america today and i don't see many interracial couples in public. in fact, this happened with my ex-fiancee in which her friends didn't like me because i was asian so they tried to teach her ways to ditch me.
this form of racism is as jz pointed out apparent in countries with a history of factions and war. the middle eastern countries don't have an mixed marriages with isrealites. such acts are also "shameful" to them. also a women's naked body is "shameful" so they cover them up with from head to toes in burques. whereever "shame" is taught there is intolerance and prudity. no shame is taught in brazil so there is no prejudice nor prudity. some european countries have much less shame than america and i see much more interracial marriages there and a lot less prudity than here in america.
as for the lack of communication within races, "shame" also plays a part because women are looked down upon for being too easy and breaking the rule, "don't talk to strangers". her friends and co-workers immediately spread the word that she would do ayone on 2 legs. it is american nature to gossip and that is why we have such tabloid papers and shows as the upn's i-team or the inquirer which tries to throw dirt on everything they see including amsterdam's rld and thailand's "****d" prostitutes.
Here is just one fact from Canadian history for discussion.
French men immigrants mixed with native women when they came
in North America hundreds years ago. English men didn’t mix.
Spanish and Portuguese in South America mixed too.
Seems "don't talk to strangers" attitude was not developed here
but originally was brought here from England.
Somebody have any thoughts about it?
well, given that a portion of the history of the united states (and a lot of prevailing attitude) came from the puritans, who were english, and who left england seeking religious freedom because they wanted to be more repressive, that shouldn't be all that surprising. (very nice, albeit strange, book on this by william carlos williams called "in the american grain.") to respond to lenin's point, a great deal of that intermingling depended a lot on geography -- there tended to be fewer cities and people in canada, and thus fewer options. in similar situations in the states, such as frontierland out west, you saw a lot more intermarriage with native americans. but i'd agree that the english immigrants, in general, were less likely to mix. perhaps that's because england was the dominant empire of the times, so going outside the nationality was considered a social step down. given the puritans' general intolerance of differences in general i don't think it's very strange that they didn't move outside of their own circles.
my first girlfriend back in junior high in the late 60s was african american, and you'd have thought i was signing up to burn cities (which was going on at the time, so i guess it was in some ways a bit understandable) from the reaction of not only friends but school administration. my family was actually fairly cool about it, probably because i wasn't talking about marrying anyone. the girl got the same reaction, probably more virulently, from her peers and family. (all of which probably kept us together longer, of course.) at that point in time, marrying someone from another race was actually illegal in mroe than a dozen states. (the last such law was removed in alabama three years ago...)
in truth, there's far more intermarriage between ethnicities in the states than there were only thirty years ago, and while it can still brings the responses darkseid describes, it's also socially more acceptable than in the past. in 1960 there were about 149,000 mixed-race marriages with one white or black partner, and in 1990 close to ten times that amount, and it's continued to rise. overall, the numbers are far higher, as blacks and whites are least likely to move outside of their races. the stats i've seen on mixed interracial or ethnic marriages and relationships in the us say it's been very much on the rise -- going from about 0.4% in 1960 to about 7% now, with unmarried couples up in the 15% range. (the latest census was the first to really analyze unmarried couple makeup.) most likely to marry outside of their race, to come full circle to lenin's question, are native americans, with some estimates saying only about 25% will marry another.
whether this has anything to do with americans' tendency toward lack of social openness is anyone's guess. interestingly, one study i saw said that the most likely place for mixed-race couples to hook up is at work, which given the workplace situation these days says a lot...
it's ironic the way america turned out and more repressive we have become. americans tried to fight taxation with the boston tea party by throwing over tea because it is taxed, yet our federal government sets up the irs and is now collecting taxes from us. we were supposed to be able to bear arms to protect ourselves, yet in most states guns are illegal. what ever happened to free speech and press? apparently, it is free for prudes only and us commonfolks cannot show pornography or curse on the air. instead prudes are free to sensor us, that's the kind of freedom america gives us, freedom for all prudes and religious groups. we also get thrown in jail for public nudity, brothel ownership, and our legal age to drink, smoke or see porn is higher than some countries. (the age is 16 in brazil but here it is 21).
i would disagree that we are the leaders of freedom but i would agree we are not the most repressive. the middle east or china is more repressive than this. i would place the usa in the middle ranking when it comes to the most free country in the world. it certainly has less freedom than some third world oreuropean countries. heck, even england or canada can show a nude scene or two without being edited. i saw a few nude senes on public televisoion even on primetime in both these countries. we have got to be the most sexually repressed country second to the middle east on this planet.
Actually, I don't know of any other countries other than some provinces of Canada that have drinking ages as high as 21. Of course, alcohol is more or less totally illegal in some Islamic countries so it could be worse, I guess.
However, there are no states in which guns are "illegal." There are many states where the ways and places in which you can carry them are restricted.
Yesterday in my state, a 12 year old kid was killed playing with a rifle. He was at his friend's house, the parents were not home, and they apparently left a loaded gun accessible. Bummer.
Darkseid, DH, etc.,
Do you guys know if anyone in academia has ever actually studied the origin and development of sexual ethics and values in American? I agree that it's a very strange phenomenon.
I read once that many of our backward attitudes towards human sexuality originated in England during the reign of Queen Victoria. Hence, the term "Victorian Ethics." These attitudes then "emigrated" over here in the late 1800's. However, having been to the UK many times I've found women there to be far more mature and liberated than their American cousins in terms of sexual attitudes and acceptance. I don't know. What are your thoughts???
Wanderer1000
03-23-03, 06:57
I enjoyed reading all the great posts that came out of the exploration of the "Americans hide their feelings and emotions" or "AW are suspicious of men in general" or something to this effect discussion.
It seems that most posters agree that America's provincial history probably has a lot to do with the lack of "openness" that Americans seem to present. The puritanical tradition would seem to support a "Christian etiquette" in dealing with others, while at the same time would support restraint in the expression of feelings - especially sexual ones. The history of sex as being only for procreation, as being "dirty" and sinful, would seem to play a part in an AW's mind today. This would seem consistent with the "culture of shame" that Darkseid expressed. It would seem to explain why AW have often been experienced to be open sexually when they are removed from this culture and feel fairly certain that their "sinful behavior" will not be revealed.
It was also an interesting perspective of our American society by JZ when he stated that "Americans have no idea who is and who is not an outsider, and the truth is that we're all natives and outsiders at the same time". I think to the degree that this is a true operating mindset for many Americans, it would have a lot to do with the "suspicious" or "non-open" impressions that many experience in our culture.
Wanderer1000
03-23-03, 07:20
One of the interesting things that I have noticed regarding the "s l u t" label in America - it seems that many/most women are more fearful of this label being thrown at them by other women. I began to wonder about this after I first heard the expression "Women dress for other women, but they undress for men". Women live in a rather "catty" world much of the time, and I have had many women agree with or easily understand the quote above when I have mentioned it to them.
I also do not understand the "fear" factor that AW seem to display more than women in other cultures. I'm talking about that fear that AW have of a man they do not know - "is he a serial-killer" kind of thinking. I do not think this fear is as prevalent in many other cultures - but it may be partially explained by Lenin's remarks that AW are so "emotionally detached" that they have lost the ability to "test" a man in a relatively short period of time like the RW that he used for an example.
Perhaps in addition to the concept of shame, our government has become ass-kissers to those prudes that complain that there is "too much sex" on TVs or American society in general. Our politicians feel that they have to please everyone including those old haggy prudes, and with advanced medicine, there is unfortunately a growing number of them and therefore more votes against porn. I don't mean to place the blame on old ladies but a majority of the prudes are old ladies and advanced medicine keeps these old haggards alive to complain about sex. Our politicians therefore make laws forbidding sex because they want to get the votes of these increasing numbers of old hags. In England, there is a monarchy which in my opinion works in favor of porn and sex, if the monarch themselves are sexually liberal. The monarchy doesn't have to worry about votes or doesn't have to answer to old complaining prude hags and goats that are against sex. I think Queen Elizabeth II is very mature about sex, much more mature than these old crows we have here in America that vote against sex and have an increasing amount of power with their growing numbers. This is why England is more sexually mature than Americans. Guys, don't think this threat is not real, IT IS! And these old crows that hate sex are non-working old ladies who are retired and have nothing better to do than to pick on the sex industry and instill "shame" on us. They also have the time to vote because they don't go to work. Also we don't talk about sex in front of our mothers because we fear that mother think that that type of discussion is inappropriate and taboo. When it comes to sex, no one is open with each other. Even our fathers aren't open with their sons about it either. We had to learn it from the streets which is no good way to learn and yes, it does lead to consequences such as experimentation and teen pregnancy.
I really rather doubt you can low the credit/blame for sexual attitudes in England at the feet of the monarchy, which is at this point basically a parasitic figurehead. If you're going to do that, you should probably be arguing about the liberalizing effect of Hollywood, which generally doesn't seem to have done all that much. And I think the "old lady" argument is a smokescreen -- how did all those old ladies get the way they are? (Not to mention that there are some pretty bawdy old broads out there -- for many age has meant a liberalization of attitude, as they simply don't care about conforming any more.) Most of the attitudes and laws we're talking about are long-standing in American society, and are deeply ingrained in the psyche.
Let's face it, there is and always has been a very strong "anti-pleasure" strain in the US, which says that anything that simply feels good must be bad for you, or at the very least a waste of time and money. Perhaps some of this comes from the frontier history, where the failure to get the necessary firewood, food, or protection could literally mean death. The frontier spirit is generally not exactly one which glorifies having a good time -- it's about carving out ownership of land as a way of generating wealth, with wealth equalling freedom. The American animal defines success by accumulation, and is driven by the religion of capitalism which preaches the same thing. (Not to mention the various actual religious with similar preachings.) This manifests itself not only in materialistic women, but in materialistic men who worry about being taken advantage of by materialistic women, as past postings in this thread have evidenced.
I think the suspicious nature of Americans comes from a variety of places. Every parent in this culture teaches their children not to talk to strangers, and has done so for countless years. They're considered to be bad parents if they don't do this. Why, when we become adults, should this training suddenly wear off? We are also in an environment absolutely saturated with media that plays up violence of all kinds (because it sells) and makes folk heroes of serial killers. (Is there another country that has a "Mass Murderer Hall of Fame" or sells T-shirts with serial killers on them?) And, of course, heroes such as Ted Bundy are charming seeimingly normal people, which drives home the point that anyone could be a psychopath, including the person right next to you who you think you've known for years. Again, why would this not have an effect on personal relationships?
Excitement in the US is defined in terms of fear and the forbidden, not pleasure. The natural reaction to fear is withdrawal, as opposed to pleasure, which is about seeking closeness. We play up and glorify violence, and everyone wants to see it but no one obviously wants to be a victim of it. So the reaction to that is to gawk but not get involved. Thus we are a nation of voyeurs -- we watch but are suspicious of participation. There's a quote by someone, I forget who, that says, "Television is more interesting than people. If it weren't we'd have people standing in the corners of our rooms." Amen.
jz, you make great points in your arguments. we are a nation of workaholics and materialists. i notice that my peers that don't travel spend all their money on material pleasures such as food, televisions, houses, and some spend a lot on their cars as though it's more important than a wife. we spend nothing on bodily pleasures like sex because bodily pleasures are illegal in this country. and the more material we have, the more we have to worry about like car thefts, divorce, burglary, etc. we spend more time worrying about making money to buy more things and protecting the things we already have that we neglect ourselves. some of us become overweight because we don't exercise because all of our energy goes to materials. they also figure that they don't have to look good because they aren't trying to meet the sexiest sex partner but they just want to accumulate and buy more stuff and make more money to buy stuff. there's nothing wrong with making money and owning things but being obsessed with it is what's wrong with american society and what makes us neglect our sex lives. this is what i also notice about sci-fi geeks. they spend all their time and money collecting and paying for very expensive star trek or star wars memorabilia that they have no time or money to move out of their parent's basement nor do hey have money to travel. and one of them is my co-worker who makes the same $70k a year a i do yet he cannot travel, why, because he spends thousands of dollars on star trek stuff which brings us back to american materialism. those that spend all their money on their cars or other material things have the same bug but to a lesser degee than the sci-fi geek.
i also agree that we are a nation of voyeurs. this explains why more than half of all americans are overweight and out of shape. most of us spend a third of our day watching tv and watching others do what we would like to do. instead of doing skateboarding, basketball, baseball, martial arts, gymnastics, skiiing, etc, we rather sit in front of the tv and watch others do it. it is a more comfortable lifestyle that way instead of spending hours praticing and being good at what we would have liked to do. well this is a curse casted upon american society. they end up being nobodies. i for one hated being like the average american and since i loved martial arts, i didn't just sit back and watch it on tv. i enrolled in the usa shaolin temple kung-fu school and practiced for 3 days a week to actually do what i loved. this same situation describes our sex lives. the porn industry is a multi-billion dollar industry and since sex is illegal in the usa, people watch others do sex. for some of us, we are thrusted upon just watching porn and not getting laid. having sex with aws is very difficult so we have nothing better to do than to fantasized about it with porn. most of us cannot afford to travel and fuck foreign women so those of us in this situation are also forced into this. and as i mentioned, some of us spend all of time and money on material things and run out of money to travel. but some of us travel and for the rest of the time between trips, we don't get much action in the usa so we end up just watching porn. i respect people on this board who take the time and money to travel if they can't get any action in america even if they are married to a prude. they are more like the athletes that actually want to participate in the sport and do so.
Thanks JZ for good overview of history.
You showed clearly that Puritanism added one of the biggest negative parts to the
problem and Darkseid’s "culture of shame" is logical results of this problem.
Jak, you made excellent summary and yesterday I myself became victim
of that you are talking about.
My new RW girlfriend told me that she feel shame every Sunday when she go to Canadian Baptist church because now she think it is sin that we are having sex.
She never had such kind of problems before.
F*ck, this North American system can beat you unexpectedly from any angle.
Sometimes I think why are women so stupid?
Why they easily accept all this puritanism, feminism and other crap?
If you look in Stone Age - Hunter-man could survive even if his society rejects him, woman couldn’t survive.
Man could afford to go against society opinion, woman not.
Therefore women more willing to follow the rules of society does not matter how stupid this rules could be.
Jak, It also can explain why many/most women are more fearful of this label(s l u t) being thrown at them by other women. They afraid others women more than men because others women more loyal to the system than men. (They more were afraid to be thrown out from the Stone Age cave than the men)
About "fear" factor of AW.
A also think AW need to compensate theirs emotional communication shortage with man by watching TV which is in many cases shows men like criminals. Seems American TV dangerous not only for children but for AW as well.
Wanderer1000
03-25-03, 06:39
JZ - I have to complement you on your last post - I found it to be thoughtful and eloquent. I actually printed it out to reflect on a little later.
I do feel inclined to emphasize the role that the puritan thinking has on our culture. Lenin's recent and timely example with a current RW really hit home. It seems that shame is a very strong cultural trait in our society and is quite insidious (seemingly more powerful of an influence on women). Lenin, I'll have to think a little more about the Stone Age argument you present. Whatever the merits of your argument going back this far in history, I would have to agree that women in general seem to be a little more concerned with staying within the norms of society.
I have also wondered about the "child-centered" argument many men make about AW. This was first made clear to me when a girlfriend of mine in my mid-twenties talked about the pictures on the desks of the ladies in her office (she worked in a larger office with mostly females). She laughed when she talked about how a woman with a boyfriend or new husband would have a big picture on her desk or under the clear plastic in the middle of her desk. When the first child arrived, the husband's picture would get moved off to the side or a smaller picture would replace it. When a second child arrived, the husband would almost always disappear. The implication of this is symbolic of the place the man has in the eyes of his wife.
Is this phenomenon, or what it seems to represent, typical of most women around the world in relation to the husband in their life? Or is this more of a particular to our American culture?
I think that women of all ethnic and cultural backgrounds will put the children in front of the husband if and when it comes to that. Perhaps women from different cultures will do this to different degrees, but I think it is pretty universal. I think it is probably natural as well; the children came FROM them whereas the husband only came IN them.
Well put, DH, I completely agree.
Seems our discussion most advanced in whole internet.
I made searches and could find anything similar.
I mean comparison women
from different cultures based on different criteria.
We are made a lot of analyses. May be based on our previous discussions it is time
to start think how and in which areas is possible to improve situation with AW?
JZ, is anybody before had some ideas about it on this forum?
I'd say that discussion on making things improve have been pretty thin here, actually. They've generally fallen into a couple of main categories:
1. Change the legal situation surrounding marriage so that it doesn't "favor" women. (This was pretty much a firestorm discussion, I'd say, with little positive outcome.)
2. Have men change their own attitudes and behavior toward AW. (Again, rather a firestorm discussion that tended to devolve into a blame game.)
3. Forget it, it's not going to improve, time to look elsewhere.
Looking at change here tends to lead to more personal testimony or complaint and gets off track, and there are also few people here who actually offer a positive model. Those who do are often either a) condescending about it or b) are handed their lunch. Either way, this kind of discussion in the past has pretty invariably ended up devolving into personal attack. But the recent discussion here has had a pretty minimal amount of that, so maybe we'd have better luck tackling it again.
Wanderer1000
03-29-03, 20:49
It is very logical to move in the direction of discussing "how and in which areas is it possible to improve our situation with AW." The easy way, and the way which many men seem to feel here, is to give up on them and forget them - accept looking elsewhere. While I generally feel the same way, I do have an interest (for whatever reason) in exploring the issues relating to AW (and how they are similar and/or different from other women) or I wouldn't be here.
If JZ's "main categories" are rather accurate, it would seem that a focus on #2 would be the more interesting. While a small number of guys like us can talk about a "cultural and legal revolution" (#1)in this country, I just don't think that I have that much desire or energy to realistically move a country in that direction. That would leave #3, in which case we could probably ask Jackson to remove this thread from the forum.
With #2 in mind, one of the interesting weekly articles I enjoy checking in on is "Doc Love" on the site www.askmen.com. All of his past articles that respond to "questions?" written in are archived. He's a politically incorrect Dear Abby that focuses on guys. It has the general focus of the #2 (men change their own behavior and attitudes toward AW).
I have enjoyed exploring the recent compare/contrast of AW with other women from other cultures. It's always good to have someone from another culture to give their firsthand impressions. Narratives and personal stories can be helpful to support arguments, since research only shows correlations by definition and never proves anything. I think the idea is to have some balance.
Well, with all this said, I'm ready to forget AW for the next week. I'm leaving for Buenos Aires in an hour and am looking forward to experiencing the women of that particular culture for the first time.
Ah, hey, that's just my impression and summation of things in this thread -- by all means, if someone else sees it differently, please correct me!
In order to change the problem of laws favoring AW, we have to be the majority vote to send a bill to Congress to amend the divorce laws. However, we are only a drop in the bucket (so many men in America are complacent about it and are blind to this problem including the happily married men and don't see the problem like we do.) We cannot outvote the feminists and prudes that favor these divorce laws because they outnumber us. That is the problem with democracry. Politicians have to be people pleasers so since there are so many feminists in America, they rule America. If you want to avoid spoiled women, I would take Jak's advice and go elsewhere. Forget America, and it's spoiled women. It's a no-win battle. Some foregin men like Lenin and even my foreign co-workers from the Phillipines see this problem and don't get involved with American women. They decided to spend 5 to 10 years here in America and take their earnings back home with them. In fact one of my former co-workers from the Phillipines quit after he worked in my office for 10 years and kept complaining that American women are snotty and decided to go back to the Phillipines with the money he saved to get married. He is now back in the Phillipines happily married with 3 kids. He also found the same type of job BUT makes only 1/3 the amount he made in Verizon. However, the standard of living is a lot cheaper which compensates for the lost income. He also saved a lot of US dollars to live like a king in the Phillipines. I wish I met this guy earlier because I knew him for just 3 years. If I saved all my money I would have been able to make a run from America by now.
darkseid, I am agree.
I wonder however how gays in US managed to get right legislation and respect in spite they are minority?
Darkseid, I am curious about Brazilians in NYC.
Did you try to find Brazilian women in NYC.? They have big Brazilian community there.
One more cultural phenomena I found here which
does not exist in Russia or in Brazil for example as I know.
A lot of songs in which man humiliates himself in front
of his woman or crying. Seem such songs are quite popular here.
It is so embarrassing and shocking to hear.
Holly shit! If it is already cultural then you can do nothing about it.
Unfortunately I am not very well in listening English
songs. If somebody remember can he, please, print
such text with names of the songs and authors.
A majority of people voting in favor of gay rights are NOT gay and they feel sorry for gays because they are persecuted, beaten, or killed for WHO they are. I for one support their rights to live as people in America because I hate bigotry of any kind. Being persecuted for the way you are is not a pleasant thing and I face that as an Asian guy. It is the NON-gay people that fight for their rights as equals in America.
On the other hand, NO one sympathizes with the divorced man in America. People are taught that the divorced man deserves to be screwed and that he brought it upon himself to be taken to the cleaners. That is why there is such a high suicide rate among divorced men in America. People don't vote in favor of these poor men like they would vote in favor of gay rights. Divorced men have no one to back them up and that is why divorce laws are fucked up the way they are. Women tend to get more sympathy than men in the sad situation of divorce. They play the victim and the courts favor them. They also get sympathy in general. All they have to do is cry and people give into their demands to make her happy. If divorced men cry, they are looked upon as crybabies and people tell them to grow up and accept their losses. This aspect repels me to the prospect of marriage.
Actually, Lenin, I involve myself with the Brazillian community in New York City by taking capoeira which is a brazillian dance martial arts. Unfortunately, the ones that were born here have learned the ways of shame. They also make you wait for sex. The ones that come from Brazil are less into shame and are more willing to have sex. However, my relationship with one was cut short because she wanted to sleep with as many different guys as she could and yes there is more guys than women in NYC so she was like a kid in a candy store.
Let's keep in mind that gays are still far from equal here -- there's still plenty of hate and discrimination. (Think of "don't ask/don't tell" and the brouhaha over gay athletes.) It's also worth noting that the changes in laws and general acceptance are fairly recent.
DS, again I think the suicide stats are a bit misleading. While divorced men have higher suicide rates, so do divorced women (though there is also one major study disputing this), and so do widowed men. Never-married men also have higher suicide rates than married men (higher even than married men in Australia), and are twice as likely to die at a younger age than married men. There are plenty of studies that show that there are many other health problems for those who live alone -- higher rates of heart disease and strokes, higher rates of death among smokers, pneumonia, being under psychiatric care, etc. Cripes, even your odds of being in a fatal auto accident are substantially higher if you're single! Same thing is true with alcoholism and drug abuse (though widowed women, paradoxically, have very low rates on these compared to everyone else.) By and large, all these things hold for both sexes, though rates tend to be higher for men (heck -- what death statistic isn't?)
This stuff is true not only in the US but elsewhere, and would indicate that being alone is what is hard on people, not exclusively how they get to be that way. If anything, these things would seem to be an argument that, for our own health, we should all just put up with a higher level of female bullshit! :D
Obviously, the reason single men have higher probablilities of dying in car wrecks is because married men's wives won't let them go anywhere. And obviously married men have lower suicide rates because if you don't divorce the ***** before you blow your brains out, she gets half your money. Wouldn't want that.
darkseid you have good point here.
I think It is also were more easy for gays because
their rights don’t challenge directly somebody else rights.
gays did compete directly with women’s rights.
That is why probably gays got more support.
Man's rights are direct challenge to woman
Therefore women are not going to give them away without the fight.
I think it is going to be even worst.
I think if the American man are not going to change his attitude toward the woman, we are going to get even into bigger troubles.
For example, just few years ago Canada introduced the new low promoted by feminists which even more increasing alimony after divorce.
PurpleNGold
04-09-03, 02:29
Originally posted by darkseid
In order to change the problem of laws favoring AW, we have to be the majority vote to send a bill to Congress to amend the divorce laws.
Actually, the divorce laws haven't changed much over the years to favor women. It's the interpretation of those laws by judges that really sways things. Over time, interpretation swings pro-male to pro-female. Right now it's pretty much pro-female. But, believe it or not, it's more pro-male than it was 10-15 years ago.
Purplengold,
If it is interpretation that changes, then it must be the judges that vary from state to state. In NYC, a majority of the ex-wives get MORE than half of the husband's income in alimony and child support. In california, it is a clear cut HALF of the salary and wealth. I am not sure of some other states but I guess they might be less pro-female than NYC and California which sucks for divorced males.
Laws themselves have by and large been gender-neutral for a long time, mostly since the Supreme Court ruled in the late 70s that alimony laws that only awarded to wives violated equal protection of the law. I've read that in terms of child support, men are actually less likely than women, if they have custody, to receive what they're supposed to get (though of course that may very well be because they don't pursue it for a variety of reasons.)
This is an interesting issue, but so far it seems mostly anecdotal -- does anyone know a source for good stats on distribution of resources in divorce? It would be nice to get a good overview of where things truly stand; better still if it takes a look at things over time.
The terms "alimony" and "child support" are very different from each other and any statistics and/or research cited should attempt to distinguish them. If a man has a few kids, why SHOULDN'T child support be more than half his income?
I agree wholeheartedly, and I should have been clearer -- that Supreme Court decision resulted in almost all of the laws relating to marriage having gender specificity removed -- it was just an alimony case that happened to be before the court. Any useful stats are going to make distinctions between childless hourseholds and those with kids, look at age, duration of marriage, etc. I just haven't been able to find any decent information -- though there's plenty of info out there on divorce rates, and on incomes for men and women before and after, I've found precious little on the details of actually divvying things up.
Well, there are as many answers to that question as there are states (plus the VI, PR, etc). In my state the child support is based strictly on a formula similar to student financial aid in that it considers both income and assets but weights them differently. The result is that if you get screwed in the asset division, you will owe less child support. It also ends up being quite common under this formula that women pay child support to men, although I'm sure the reverse is still more common.
Can you point to anything that lays out how things actually do occur, not just the formula, but how many cases in year X broke down in this or that way? Darkseid claims below that in NYC a majority of women get more than half, PNG says that judges' don't favor women as much as they used to -- I'd just like to find some stats somewhere that quantify things.
Nope. I just pointed it out because the consequence of the asset distribution affecting the income distribution was an interesting and probably unintended consequence. It would tend to make the overall settlement less extreme and more middle-of-the-road, which is probably good in my opinion. Note that Darkseid is from NY and PNG is from CA so those states may tend to the extreme one way or another.
For several years I have mongered exclusively in other countries. I was pretty sure there was a reason for that, but just in case I wandered into the forum section for my home state.
I now think that the many, perhaps most, of the previously mentioned problems with American Women can be attributed to the presence of so unbelievably many dumb fucks among the American Male population. What a bunch of morons. Guys are saying things like, "I paid $300 and got a hand job. Is that a good deal?" and "I heard some guys go to other countries for sex. Any of you guys ever do that?" To this, some AM responded, "Dude that is not smart because you can't drink the water and there's a lot of diseases there."
There? Where??? Are there only two types of countries, America and Not America???
Sorry, just venting. Even Eric Rudolph would have coat hangered some of these dumb asses. I'll try not to go in that section again.
This is the kind of shit I am talking about:
"Has anyone seen Ann, white, around 21, 5'4", 140lb ? Usually hangs around Aurora and Chinatown. She is a druggie and a thief, but sometimes provide good service in a pinch."
My goodness. I like my druggie thieves a little slimmer (isn't that the whole point of drugs???) and more consistent.
So is this a commentary on the stupidity of American men or a commentary on restrictive prostitution laws? Either way it is a sad state of affairs.
It's not just the stupidity of American men overpaying for low quality prostitutes but it is their ignorance as well. Most American men don't have passports or visas and some never will get it. They don't know that there is a whole different world to explore outside of America. Some even think other countries are not worth exploring and that America is "it". They even think that NYC is "THE Mecca of Meccas". They couldn't be more wrong than that. I live in NYC and I find Rio de Janeiro or Amsterdam much more exciting because of the less restrictive laws in those other cities. In NYC, there are so many laws that it feels like all you can do is eat, sleep, and overwork. The cities or towns aother than NYC are much more boring because there is nothing to do and it is dead. In countries where we monger, at least prostitution is legal and in Amsterdam pot and public drunkenness is legal as well. My friends that don't have passports don't know that firsthand because they are too lazy or too stupid to go out and get one to explore these countries. Some of them even make the excuse that they are tied down to their American wives. I even asked them why they can't bring their wives with them and they admitted that they are not as adventurous as I am. All they have to go on is the tales that I bring back to them after my trip.
I agree with you, Darkseid. For these reasons it has been my practice for many years now not to tell my non-traveling friends anything about my trips. They ask, "How was your trip?" and I say "Great!" and change the subject.
A few years back a buddy expressed some interest in going to Amsterdam with me. I told him to get a passport ASAP. He procrastinated. Finally I asked him why and he said he didn't want to get all the shots (inoculations). I didn't bother telling him you don't need any shots and I have no idea what kind of shots he thought you did need.
Another friend who somehow actually has a college degree heard I was going to Buenos Aires. She said, "Oh, I went to the tropics one time and I got a skin rash." I didn't bother telling her that Buenos Aires is the same latitude as Albuquerque, about 1000 miles from the Tropic of Capricorn, and that only a tiny portion of that large country is in the tropics.
Another friend asked a person who was visiting from Spain if there were any "white people" there. And after I got back from Spain one guy (also a college graduate????) asked me why I didn't just go to Méjico instead; "it's the same thing and a lot closer."
I like to torture these people by using kilometers and centigrade. When they say "How many miles is that?" I say I don't know.
Given how little many Americans know about the geography of their own country, it's not surprising to hear these kinds of comments. I've had numerous conversations where it's really appalling the lack of geographic (not to mention cultural, historical, or political) knowledge that people have. I had one guy swear to me up and down that China and Russia were not on the same continent or anywhere near each other, because China was in Asia, as any fool knew, and another guy try to convince me that India was in Africa. Small wonder we get the reputation we sometimes do as good-hearted know-nothings -- we often deserve it! (The latter guy also, of course, tried to tell me that Texas and Nebraska were right next to each other, something he knew to be true because they both had good football teams there.)
The most recent info I've seen says that in a given year about 7% of Americans visit any country other than Mexico or Canada, with about the same percentage visiting Mexico and less heading to Canada. About 45% of the respondents in a CBS News poll at the end of February said they had traveled overseas at some point, with about 57% of those still willing to travel. (This poll was, of course, taken while the war was looming.) Of those who say they would not travel overseas, their main reason was fear. 51% mention fear of some kind behind their decision, either of war, terrorism, just fear in general, or they express concern about the safety of Americans. 26% say they simply have no desire to go overseas, and another 6% say they want to see America first. 7% say they just don’t like to fly. Most people cite Europe as where they'd like to go, if they do.
Interesting to contrast this with a November study where the majority of Americans report they see themselves as more respectful of cultures with different values than they were a year ago (even though in the same study they also note less interest in going abroad.) Not sure the rest of the world would agree all that much with that perception after we've spent the past couple of years bombing the heck out of people, but so it goes.
PurpleNGold
04-10-03, 22:22
Originally posted by darkseid
Purplengold,
If it is interpretation that changes, then it must be the judges that vary from state to state. In NYC, a majority of the ex-wives get MORE than half of the husband's income in alimony and child support. In california, it is a clear cut HALF of the salary and wealth. I am not sure of some other states but I guess they might be less pro-female than NYC and California which sucks for divorced males.
Let me give an example. I sat in divorce court during two hearings. During the first, a lady who had been married for 1.5 years, the judge practically shit on the ***** because she was asking for 'half'. I thought he was gonna have the bailiff throw her ass out. Right after that, the same judge practically pleads with a woman who's been married 3 years to take as much as she can get. Apparently, the guy was moved by this second lady who didn't ask for alimony and just wanted the lesser of two automobiles. When the lady said, no to alimony the second time, the judge refused and granted her $1/month so that "when [she comes] to [her] senses" she could go back to court and sue for more.
PurpleNGold
04-10-03, 22:33
While we're on the subject of geo-clueless Americans...
I grew up about 2 hours drive from Mexico, and threw a bullshit flag on a professor when he told the class that less than 4 out of 5 Americans didn't know what country bordered us to the south. How could tha be?
Well, I had to eat that flag. I spent the day asking everyone what countries bordered us to the north and south. This is a Southern California University mind you. Out of, probably 150 students (many of whom had been to Tijuana), about 10 knew the answer and only myself and my best friend new where in hell Canada was. Oh, and a couple people told me LA bordered us to the north but there was only ocean to the south!
And then there was the guy who refused to believe me when I told him Méjico has states just like we do (32) and that all of them have their own capitals.
But then there was the time when I was in Malta and met some guys in the Canadian Navy. They were complaining that they had to learn the capitals of all 50 US states but no Americans knew the capitals of all the Canadian provinces. I said I did and rattled them off. They tried to bust me for not knowing the capital of Nunavut, but I said that is a territory and not a province so they let me slide. They proceeded to buy me innumerable drinks and even more so when I told them I knew who the top two all-time Canadian home run hitters were and that hockey is not the national sport of Canada. We ended up singing the Canadian national anthem at high volume (there were eight sailors) in the Hard Rock Cafe and we got a standing ovation. Then we sang "When Irish Eyes Are Smiling."
But I digress. Sorry.
Oh, PNG, maybe you ought not to throw that bullshit flag so often.
Originally posted by joe_zop
The most recent info I've seen says that in a given year about 7% of Americans visit any country other than Mexico or Canada, with about the same percentage visiting Mexico and less heading to Canada. About 45% of the respondents in a CBS News poll at the end of February said they had traveled overseas at some point, with about 57% of those still willing to travel. (This poll was, of course, taken while the war was looming.) Of those who say they would not travel overseas, their main reason was fear. 51% mention fear of some kind behind their decision, either of war, terrorism, just fear in general, or they express concern about the safety of Americans. 26% say they simply have no desire to go overseas, and another 6% say they want to see America first. 7% say they just don’t like to fly. Most people cite Europe as where they'd like to go, if they do.
Interesting to contrast this with a November study where the majority of Americans report they see themselves as more respectful of cultures with different values than they were a year ago (even though in the same study they also note less interest in going abroad.) Not sure the rest of the world would agree all that much with that perception after we've spent the past couple of years bombing the heck out of people, but so it goes. [/i]
That poll is right on the money when they interviewed how many people make these excuses. One of the main excuses they are missing though is the fear of the language barriers which is another excuse among the majority that don't travel. One of my friends said he wanted to see America first but he didn't even see more than the tri-state area. He still makes this excuse to procrastinate on getting a passport to this day. He also never even been to Canada or Mexico because he feared that French is spoken in Canada and Spanish is spoken in Mexico. He is half right in that they do speak those languages but these people are bilingual and can also speak english. I understand the language barrier fear as far as going to other continents but one could always go with a foreign friend who knows the language so that is still not a legitimate excuse not to travel.
My parents try to convince me to stay home in the US during this time because of terrorism. But I ignore their pleas because I go to neutral countries like Brazil or Germany. Also you get great deals on airfare because of the failing airtravel businesses. I paid half as much now as I would have paid before the September 11th attack. My parents are one of those 51% with the irrational fears of terrorism.
When the polls say there is only 7% who fears flying, I think there is actually more than that. I think they ALL have the fear of flying because they fear adventure and fear what's new and different. I embrace new things and different cultures because I LOVE variety. The people that fear travelling are the same people that would eat McDonald's every single day of their lives and never try anything new. Even if McDonald's presents a new sandwich, they still order the Big Mac. This neophobe is the same reason they stay in America and think it is the only way of living and never travel outside the USA.
darkseid
I've read many of your posts here and shared many of your views about american women and being an asian in the U.S. I'm also a well educated asian around your age and living in the tri-state area. I enjoy travelling just like you. I've read your posts on the Brazil board and find it very interesting on how you said about how asian are rare in Brazil. I've never been to South America and would love to visit. The thing is that I don't know any one there and don't have any friend who has ever been to South America or has interest in going there. So I was wondering if you can email me (traveling_buddy@yahoo.com) so that I can ask you more and perhaps to join you on your next Brazil trip. Thank you in advance.
Oh, this board has been pretty useful in a sense that I was able to get to know someone on this board and end up going to Bangkok together. He was a nice guy and showed me around Thailand and the DOs and DONTs since he's been there so many time mongering, and that was my first time and the only time so far. I've never felt comfortable going to a strange place by myself the first time.
American or non-american. Women all over the world have changed. I'm from Asia, and the views posted here on American women are much the same here too, only difference is on economic power, its not the stone age story any more, and partly I feel we have to share the blame, for "ladies first" and pulling the chair thing.
In stone age women wanted men for everything for security food sheltor, not any more, the law is on there side, they work, they live alone, they have everything now to equal men, their demands just like men are manifold, there must be some different approach to get women now.
PurpleNGold
04-17-03, 20:09
Loser,
Same approach still works: flash money at them.
Darkseid,
Just returned from Prague and had a great, great time.
One of the clubs I went to in Prague is called K5. It's about the best club in Prague and is frequented by many Asian guys. Spoke with a group of them before I settled on a girl and learned that they were from Korea. Great bunch of guys and we had a blast. One of them even jumped up on stage with one of the girls who was stripping. They charged many rounds of drinks and one guy mentioned that they like K5 and Prague in particular because of a complete lack of prejudice towards Asians. In fact, the girls in the club seemed to be quite interested in them. When a guy would motion for a girl to come over, she walked over immediately. After awhile, they all had a girl sitting with them and everyone was having a great and drunken time. I thought of you and have no doubt that you would have hade a blast at K5.
So, next time you pan a trip, you might want to consider Prague.
PurpleNGold
04-20-03, 06:43
Paddy,
What did your post have to do with the topic of this thread?
P&G,
Darkseid often laments about prejudicial issues on this thread in regard to Asians and I saw the exact opposite when I was there. Thought he might be interested.
Sorry if I ruined your day. Didn't know that you were such a "purist" in regard to content on this thread.
Percent of Male population used prostitutes.
I was having this discussion with my buddy. He maintains that the total male population used prostitutes (in their life time) is very small, may be about 5% or less. I totally disagree, my contention is at least 50% if not more. He contended that most males do not use prostitutes because of legal, disease or financial reasons. I disagree. Are there any unbiased study out there on this topic? Thanks
Rubber Nursey
04-20-03, 20:18
There was a study done here that said that one in six men had paid for sex. Obviously that's in Australia, but I can't see us being too different to America. Another study I read said that a third of all men have paid for sex - I think that was from Amsterdam or Germany, so the rates would be a bit higher because of it's legality. Just type something like "percentage, men, visit prostitutes" into a search engine and see what comes up. (You may want to try sex worker instead of prostitute as well).
Personally I think one in six sounds a little low - I daresay there would probably be men in the study groups who would lie about it!
PurpleNGold
04-20-03, 20:21
Originally posted by Paddy
P&G,
Darkseid often laments about prejudicial issues on this thread in regard to Asians and I saw the exact opposite when I was there. Thought he might be interested.
Sorry if I ruined your day. Didn't know that you were such a "purist" in regard to content on this thread.
Sorry to tell you that you can't ruin my day. I'm not a purist, but your post really belongs in the Prague section.
Kinsey's stats (from the 40s/50s, which might well be different, since it's before the days of the pill) were as follows: 69% of white males had had at least one experience with a prostitute; among unmarried males, sex with a prostitute was about 10% of the total premarital intercourse (this seems unlikely in terms of things today); among married males, sex with a prostitute was never more than 1.7% of the total sexual "outlet" reported. Now, there's a tremendous amount out there arguing that Kinsey's stats are generally high on just about everything except for the physiological stuff, but I've been unable to find anything else that really quantifies things. (Probably time for me to make a good statistics research day at one of the uni libraries -- sure seems like someone must have done this, somewhere.) There's a bit out there talking about estimated composition of clients from a prostitute perspective -- a lot of which conflicts with Kinsey in that most estimate a pretty high percentage of married men as customers -- but little about participation of the population at large.
Originally posted by RN
There was a study done here that said that one in six men had paid for sex. Obviously that's in Australia, but I can't see us being too different to America.
Ummmm ....
It's legal in many (most?) parts of Australia and only legal in a few isolated and silly little places in the US so I rather suspect it is quite different.
A quick check shows that just under 50% of Australia's population (19 million) lives in either Sydney (4.1 million), Melbourne (3.5 million) or Perth (1.4 million). Prostitution is legal, at least partially, in all three cities. To compare, the population of the only state in the US (Nevada) where prostitution is legal is well under 1% of the US's total population, and prostitution is only legal in a few remote and sparsely populated counties within that state. 70% of Nevada's population is in Clark County, where prostitution is not legal. Another 20% is in Washoe County; prostitution's not legal there either.
Those Kinsey figures sound way too high to me. I do think a lot of guys would lie about it. My guess for the US, based on discussion and experience, is 20-30%. This is higher than Rubbie's 1 in 6 figure because the US is more screwed up than Oz?? Maybe??? Look at how quiet the Australia section of the board is. Is that because fewer Ozzie men go to prostitutes or because they don't need this board to be able to find them?
Let's do this scientifically. How many of you guys reading this have ever visited a prostitute? :)
Rubber Nursey
04-20-03, 21:43
it's decriminalised in sydney, legal in melbourne (although the actual number of legal brothels/workers is greatly outnumbered by the illegal ones) and it's illegal in perth. it's tolerated here though to a certain degree. but a look at the us section of this forum tells me that prostitution is alive and well in most of the united states as well - regardless of it's illegality (like my state). i would think that an american wouldn't have too much trouble finding a hooker if he really wanted one.
as for your last question - if you have a peek at the morality section, you'll see my hand is raised. *grin*
Rubber Nursey
04-20-03, 21:47
Joe - my 'statistics' would conflict with the Kinsey stuff too. I don't believe the reports that say that married men make up a high percentage of sex workers' clients.
Dickhead - By the way, Aussies don't come here because they have their own boards.
PurpleNGold
04-20-03, 22:18
RN,
This may cost me the 'smart' compliment you gave me, but what's the difference between decriminalized and legal? Also, if it's legal, why are there illegal brothels? Are there certain services that they offer that are still considered illegal? Or do they have girls that are not tested or are illegal aliens?
Rubber Nursey
04-20-03, 22:34
generally, legalisation means the introduction of (usually extremely oppressive) laws to regulate the sex industry, and the creation of criminal laws to deal with people who work outside the legal framework. decriminalisation means the removal of all criminal sanctions against prostitution.
the answer to your second question lies in the first...the legal frameworks that are created - by people who do not understand the sex industry and thus subject it to unnecessarily extreme controls - exclude many people from the legal industry. people who use drugs, have criminal convictions, are ****, are illegal immigrants, have certain diseases, etc, can not work legally...but they still want to work, so they do it illegally. the laws also make it too expensive for legal brothels to operate, which leads to people operating illegally so that they don't have the overheads. for example, in melbourne the brothels are subjected to so many licence fees and working restrictions, that they had to up their prices and lower the girls cut of the takings. girls of course moved on to the illegal brothels, who could afford to pay them a higher cut. there are 4 times more illegal brothels than legal ones in melbourne.
i am totally opposed to legalisation. check out www.iinet.net.au/~ashkara for more info.
Originally posted by RN
It's decriminalised in Sydney, legal in Melbourne (although the actual number of legal brothels/workers is greatly outnumbered by the illegal ones) and it's illegal in Perth. It's tolerated here though to a certain degree.
But on 11/16/02 you posted this, RN:
"Another example...it is LEGAL to do sex work in your own home in my state."
As we know, I haven't been to Perth, only Sydney and Melbourne. Is it now illegal in Perth as a result of that proposed legislation you were trying to defeat a while back? I thought that was defeated or withdrawn or something. Please explain.
Rubber Nursey
04-20-03, 22:56
You're right. I was talking brothels...sorry. Brothels are illegal here. Street work is illegal here. I shouldn't really have said that it was "legal" in your own home, because technically that's probably not the right term for it. Private work and escort work are really only legal by default...in that they aren't officially illegal.
And unfortunately, that Bill disappeared only to reappear slightly changed (and probably worse than it was) and get thrown straight into Parliament. We are still fighting it with tooth and nail. Under the proposed laws we will have exactly the same problems as Melbourne - where only specific things are legal, and the rest is outlawed.
So then are you really "against legalization" or are you actually against regulation ? As I have mentioned before, I prefer the Costa Rica model where anything two consenting adults agree to do is legal regardless of whether money changes hands or not. Although, notably, homosexual acts were only very recently decriminalized in Costa Rica.
Rubber Nursey
04-20-03, 23:43
I am completely opposed to legalisation, because to do that, they need to impose ridiculous restrictions on the industry. Regulation (depending on how it's done I guess) is a bit different. If they were to regulate the sex industry in the same way that other like businesses are regulated, I would have no problems with it. But unfortunately, they just can't seem to do that.
I support the model that they call "decriminalisation with controls", which is what happens in Sydney. For example, street work is decriminalised, BUT you are not allowed to do it within view of a dwelling, church, school, etc - to protect the rights of the general community. The controls also work the other way (to protect the rights of the industry), like in South Sydney where the councils are not allowed to refuse a brothel business application on "moral" grounds - they can only be refused if they do not comply to normal business requirements.
Everywhere that legalisation has occurred, sex workers are treated like criminals. Look at the lockdown NV brothels! Those women are treated like caged animals! Legalisation, rather than making the industry legitimate and protecting workers, always does the exact opposite. It also brands sex workers for life, because it invariably includes a licensing system, which is necessary in order to enforce the tough regulations and restrictions.
Out of interest, is it actually "legal" in Costa Rica - or is there just an absence of laws telling you NOT to do it. That's the difference that I am trying to point out. What I want is an absence of law. Sex for money between two consenting adults has no place in the Criminal Code.
Rubber Nursey
04-20-03, 23:46
This is so very far off-topic. Maybe we should move it somewhere else.
P&G,
I've got an idea. Let's make you the de facto "sheriff" and executor of what's relevant on this thread and what is not. I, for one, could certainly profit from your insightful albeit arbitrary decisions and wisdom.
Most assuredly, we could use a scholar and linguist of your caliber to impose the righteous discipline you deem proper and necessary. I look forward to your benevolent and righteous guidance. Thank you!
Rubber Nursey
04-21-03, 10:47
Ok boys - no fighting. As the reigning Queen of off-topic posts (probably the worst offender in the whole of the WSG), I have to say that, well...shit happens. Sometimes the conversation strays, sometimes you make posts to certain people in certain sections because you know they always read that section.
You all know what happens to me when testosterone starts flying around here - I get horny. And you CAN'T make me horny now, because I've just spent the last of my money on that gorgeous brunette. So stop it, ok? For my sake? ;)
Americans may not know the history geograhphy of the country, however, one has to get the complete picture before concluding on anything. Americans are the richest people on earth, Americans are the most charitable people on earth, America is one of the least corrupt nations, America is most technically advanced than any other nation, they have a superior army, and their ideals are freedon and equality for all.
The position America is now, is definately unique in world hostory, no nations before had so many things working together, say former Russia, they had stronger army, but weak economy, that was their downfall. I'm from asia and I have been in america for two yrs for software development. The first thing I notcied was there is none what so ever corruption in lower leval of administration. People mind there own business, I mean more professional, least jealeasy, and they are hardworking, more open, to new ideas. I can tell this as a fact, I think I have seen the two worlds, may be for a shorter period of time, but I can certainly differentiate.
Here in Asia, its just opposite, If wsg server was ever in china or india or any other asian country, it wouldn't have run for more than six months, here you can more openly say about American women, try saying this about Asian women in there country, all the save womenhood organisation will knock you down and you will be
behind bars for a year.
Nothing will work here, democracy and freedom is for name sake, here every educated person knows the geography of the country well enough, but when they graduate and get some higher job, they will do what ever in their means to make extra money.
Corruption is a way of life for educated, geographically correct person, everyone from the highest politician to meanest businessman, is up to rob his own countrymen, chronic corruption is the way of life. no freedom, no job, chronic underfunding in every project. They cheat you day in and day out, and you may not even know it.
The contrast in comparision of Asia and America, is enough for a 1000
page article. An american may not know the geography of his country, but in his field of study, he will be master. They are much more practical, professional, they are least jealous, least corrupt than most countries, they control
their emotions, thats much positive points.
All this talk of America lookin for Iraqs oil reserves is stupid, America was richest country in the world before the begining of 19th century, even before we had automobiles. Even if Iraq does not give oil to America still they will be the richest.
Anyways, all these oil rich nations are ruled by dictators, and the common people hardly get the money, the perfect case is Saudi Arabia, there is high
unemployment there, and the youth with no jobs become religious fanatics, thats the reason why 15 hijackers of sep 11 were from Saudi Arabia.
Saddam or no Saddam, not even one inch iraq is going to change, the money generated from oil will go to the select top leaders. It does not matter to get knowledge on one hand, and exploit ones own country on the other, thats wht is happening in Asian countries, or for that most of other countires. its better we judge taking this into account.
RN,
In lieu of my unlimted respect for you and your opinions, I will desist. I was only trying to communicate with Darkseid.
With the topic of the statistics on who uses prostitutes, the percentage is higher in Brazil, Germany and Holland where it is legal and accepted even among married couples. They more openly admit that they visit brothels, RLD or escorts. In fact in these liberal countries, the wives even participate in threesomes. In America, guys want to HIDE the fact that they've used prostitutes because it is illegal and "shameful". Again, the concept of "shame" is to blame for such cover ups in American statistics. If I were maried, I would even cover up the fact that I travel for prostitutes because if I get caught, I could end a marriage because wives in America are much more conservative than they are in Europe or South America or Asia (except Japan). I could lose half of my wealth and income (depreciated from my weekly paycheck) or if she is pissed off enough, my penis.
Paddy, I'm glad to hear that you had a great time in Prague. I am going to Germany at the end of May. How far is the Pragues from Germany and how did you get past the language barrier?
Darkseid, do you have any specific references for your info on these differences? I've been looking for quite some time for stats on overall percentages and variations by country.
Dick Johnson
04-21-03, 15:53
Paddy, I don't think your post on Prague is out of line.
Actually, I was making a comment on RN's statistics and supporting why it is true. I did come across some statistics on yahoo but did not take down the URLs for those sites. The stas for each of those pages vary to a little degree except for the US statistics which vary depending on various factors such as if the person travels, is married or single, etc.
Thanks, it's just tough to track down truly reliable information. For example, I found two studies from the mid-90s that said that 85% of Thai men regularly visited prostitutes, and another that claimed that in the face of AIDS education, the percentage of Thai men visiting prostitutes annually had fallen from 25% to 10%. (My guess, based on similar studies in Cambodia, is that the former are probably more accurate than the latter.) Similar contradictory stuff floats around for various countries, with it being perhaps the most useless for the US. So it's difficult to get a real handle on things -- as is typical in prostitution studies, there's a heavy focus on the women involved, but very little looking at the men.
Dick Johnson,
Thanks Dick. My message was addressed to Darkseid - not P&G. I thought that Darkseid might be interested in the apparent absence of racial attitudes that Czech women display toward Asian guys. He has often lamented about discrimination towards Asians by American women and I thought that I found a great and far superior alternative for him. That's all.
Again, thanks for your support. In deference to RN, this is the last I'm going to say about this issue.
Still Paddy, I think there should be a Section for discussing the hobby from a "minority" view. For example how would an Asain or Black guy do in this or that country. The script is often flipped.
i appreciate your position, but in my opinion, such a section would become a constant flame war.
Jackson
This forum is all about great info and I get a lot of it here, including where the clubs are, when to go, the prices, and the quality of women. It is also important to see how they treat certain types of people, after all women treat each client differently from another based on their preferences. I get much better treatment in Brazil than the black guy for example because Brazilians love asians whereas in America, they give better sex to the black person and try to rush a session with an Asian guy like myself or a middle eastern guy. Experiences also ary based on such factors as age, hygiene, and body type, etc. A country can be a paradise for one type of person but the ladies will try to burn another type of guy.
Agreed Darksied. This is a great site, and IMO guys from all ethinicities are telling it like it is. But instead of having to needle through various posts looking for "minority" veiwpoint it might be better to keep it organized. There are a lot of "minorities" here.
Jackson, thanks for your response, I could see how a flame war might be a concern.... Still the topic would not be about who is the superior race, but instead which markets best appeal to certain ethnicities/races. Those who are overly sensitive or defensive don't need to be posting here anyway...
This site is all about providing truthful info, if we don't look at the hobby from all angles we may be sacrificing some of that validity.
First of all I must say to Jackson. Thank you. I know I read that you didn't create this site but you kept it going. I forget which. But I must say thank you because this site has really changed my life. And then I see that postings take longer now because of spammers. If that's what it takes to keep them out I'm all for it. Now to quit brown nosing and discuss the topic and hand. Ha ha.
I'm young, black and travel a lot. Have been to various places like Jamaica, Brazil and Argentina. And my take on the whole race issue is that in certain countries the women do have preferences, but it's nothing wrong with that. I have preferences. I think it must be remembered that America stated out segregated by the people that came here. The motto was kill off the Indians and enslave the blacks. In a way that was their way of self preservation. Down the years that mentality stayed. It's in books all documented. That's why America is the way it is. But to Darkseid I do feel you. I work in a customer service industry and do see that Asians are kind of talked down to by our customers and even I don't understand it. I've had customers clown on me too but I notice that it happens more to Asians.
I still think that Afro-Americans still get treated like shit in some ways but the point now is that black people are more American than African now. I've met black people who are more Uncle Tom than white people, now figure that one out.
My motto though is F*ck America for sex, period!!! You can have all the women here. I don't want them. I'm here for the money, education, and jobs and that's it. That's all the country is good for now. If you want good sex and just to have a good time in general you've got to leave the U.S. I know it sounds weird but it's the unfortunate truth. Peace.
Guys,
I guess that I agree with and see both sides of this issue.
On the one hand, a thread dealing with racial issues that would consolidate these topics seems reasonable. Such issues are a fact of life and are certainly relevant to many of the guys on this forum.
On the other hand, I guess that I'm also compelled to agree with Jackson in that such a thread could result in a flame war and some real nasty and mean spirited point-counterpoint discussion. I think that any minimally perceptive guy who is working in American society has to agree that racism is alive and well in America. As one of the older guys on this forum, I thought that stuff like that would dissipate over the decades but it's still here and maybe always will be. The only difference now is that people tend to be more discreet and less overt about their racial remarks and comments. There is also the possibility that some wacko outsider could register and start all kinds of problems
I think that Jackson has done a great, great job and that we should ultimately trust in his wisdom. Just some random thoughts.
I agree, Phil, the US is a horrible place for sex. Having a good time here is illegal and because of that this is not a free environment to me. It is free to all prudes to take away the fun that adults seek by closing down strip joints and other sex places they complain about to their neighborhood police. In fact I have a single immigrant friend from Haiti who was busted on marijuana use and busted a different time for going to an underground sex club. In Haiti, if you get caught, you can bribe the cop who caught you and he'll go away, but he tried this in New York and served a 3 month community service sentence and lost his job because of it. He was busted almost a year later going to a strip club where the VIP room offers BBBJ and sex when a nosy person called the police because they were playing loud music and scantily dressed women were entering the club. I bet the nosy neighbor was "worried about the kids". My immigrant friend cursed the day he came to America but he stayed because he was broke in Haiti so he decided to make money in America and then leave the country when he saves enough to be rich in Haiti. He and I both agreed that the US is a very restrictive country but it is a great place to become rich. He compares it to a gold mine in which you must work hard and suffer so that you can get gold and become rich once you get out of the mine. You can enjoy your wealth after all the hard work and time you put into mining, but the mine itself is not a fun place to be. In fact it is dangerous because the US has the highest crime rate on the planet, much higher than Brazil. In fact when my friends ask me if Brazil is dangerous, I tell them that Brazil is like a child's playground compared to NYC.
In fact it is dangerous because the US has the highest crime rate on the planet
This is something that gets thrown around a lot, but it's not actually true. According to the United Nations Survey on Crime Trends, there are a number of countries -- Chile, Denmark, England, Finland, New Zealand -- with higher rates of reported crime, and Canada, Germany and the Netherlands, among others, are within shouting distance of US rates. These are also for the most part, like the US, places where there are viable police structures, so it's very probable that the rate of reporting crimes is higher than in other countries with less reliable police, so rates there are probably under-estimated, especially in those countries where, as you describe, the police can be bribed out of doing anything about it.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by joe_zop
[i]In fact it is dangerous because the US has the highest crime rate on the planet
What it does have is the highest incarceration rate on the planet.
Agreed -- despite the fact that Australia, for example, brings people into court at almost twice the rate per 100,000 people as the US, it incarcerates at less than one-sixth the rate. In general, though, both US prosecution and conviction rates are higher than most places, and people are more likely to be sentenced to jail.
The fact that it is easier to be persecuted and sentenced in the US shows how strict our laws are. Also since prison makes one bitter especially if they are put there for such victimless crimes as prostitution or drug use. People who once had respectable jobs but go for one night to a prostitution club and get caught in the bust become worse criminals when they get out of jail because they are unable to get employment. They become burglars, muggers, and thieves then end up killing for a bite to eat. It becomes a vicious cycle in America.
Well, I did time for one of those victimless crimes (less than a gram of hash = a year upstate and another on probation; I got paroled after ten months) and I haven't turned into a burglar or a mugger or killer. I did turn into a Dickhead (well, I was already well on my way), but what I decided was the system wasn't going to fuck me again so I kept right on doing what I had been doing (once I got off parole) BUT I got an education and a better job so everyone would THINK I had changed ...
Darkseid, you post a lot of unsubstantiated crap as if it were fact. You need to learn from JZ and cite some decent sources for some of the allegations you make. But, I doubt you will be able to because most of it is totally false.
But, yeah, I'm still a little bitter about it after almost thirty years. It was totally unnecessary and it wiped me out financially. Plus years later I paid a lawyer to have my record expunged. More years later when I got a job in a halfway house I found out it hadn't been expunged and the fucking lawyer was dead so there went another grand down the toilet. I could have gotten laid 50 times for that in Buenos Aires, not even thinking about twenty years' worth of interest ...
Well fuck it. I probably got laid 50 times in Buenos Aires anyway so [CodeWord140] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord140) on all the lawyers and all the district attorneys and all the cops and all the religious right wingers (just had some Mormons knock on my door today; boy, did I rip into those fuckers) and and and
Heh, I didn't know this thread existed. Yep, The Guess Who (and for all you younger folks, Lenny Kravitz) had it PEGGED: "American Woman, stay away from me!"
It seems to me that American women demand absolute equality (dare I say it ... superiority?), yet they'll never complain if a man does something in deference to them.
In short, they want it all.
American women are the reason I've always been single. It pains me to consider finding a foreign woman and bringing her here, as she'd no doubt "be assimilated."
America's litigous, politically-correct culture has done much to temper the American female agenda. And for that, it was easy for me to turn to hobbying ... why not? I mean, for roughly the cost of a nice dinner and a movie, I can go straight to dessert! :) It's the ultimate convenient package, with absolutely no strings attached. Provided, of course, I slather enough antiseptic down there afterwards!
Anyway, there's my several two-cents' worth. Have a good one and VIVA SEXY FOREIGN FEMALES! :D
Rubber Nursey
04-25-03, 05:47
Joe - does your source state what sort of offences people are being taken to court for in OZ? It's just that we have sooo many petty crimes on our books that people are charged with all the time, but they do not carry jail sentences. One of the biggest, I would think, is Social Security Fraud. The conviction rates on that are in the hundreds of thousands every year, but unless you do something extremely fraudulent (like using false ID to get welfare, etc) you are only fined or given community service.
We do have a "three strikes" policy for imprisonment - but it seems to be rarely used.
Okay Dickhead, I'm sorry I struck a nerve on the criminal thing. You served a jail sentence for drugs but didn't turn out a career criminal, unlike what I said on my previous post so I was wrong on that note. The other half is still true that it is much easier to be convicted to jail in the US and for stupid petty shit like drug possession and being a john. These victimless crimes are crimes based on morality and the other crap that the prudes vote for in America. We are also educated to hate and not tolerate these victimless crimes by the media. Drugs and prostitution are always linked to gangs and violence and runned down neighborhoods but Holland paints a different picture because Holland's RLD and sex clubs are none of that.
rn, they don't break down prosecution by type, other than to say that these are all criminal rather than civil cases. oz interestingly, while it has far lower rates in many categories than the us, is higher in rates of general theft, auto theft, and probably most surprising to me, given the us reputation, [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) -- well over twice the rate in that. the un stats don't report fraud rates for oz, though they do for the us.
and as per dickhead's story -- the rate of recorded drug offenses in the us is far higher than any given violent crime -- and higher than murder, [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123), major assaults, and robbery combined.
i do disagree with you, darskeid, on the john thing. the prosecution and conviction levels there, especially as far as jail time, are very low compared to other crimes. the un doesn't track that, but it's what i've read elsewhere (generally in things that contrast the arrest/conviction rates of prostitutes -- high -- to johns.)
Rubber Nursey
04-25-03, 17:14
it's sad to have to admit, but i'm not the slightest bit surprised by the australian [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) rates. but i should say (in our defence) that those rates probably actually reflect how seriously our courts take sexual assault. as more [CodeWord127] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord127) get penalised and imprisoned (finally!) - more women become willing to report. i think our incidence of [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) is actually pretty similar to the us (about 1 in 4 women being raped in her lifetime), which should mean that our prosecution rates - compared to the us - look pretty good, really.
understood, and i'd also pick up on the whole prosecution thing to say again that good reporting and prosecution can make things look like they're getting worse when the opposite is true. better reporting and prosecution of [CodeWord124] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord124) or anything else doesn't necessarily mean the rate is actually rising -- only that it's being taken more seriously. this is always one of the things you see in crime stats -- effective police departments often look as though they're doing a bad job because they take reports and pursue things, where ineffective forces not only don't make the crime reports and the effort, they don't get called by people, because they figure it's not worth the effort. and having police who can be bribed out of reporting things means that it's tough to get a true picture of the problem -- if they can be bribed for one thing we might not object to, they can be bribed for others.
but to get this back in the direction of the topic, i have to wonder just how much the focus on victimless crimes does or does not affect the climate of sexuality in the us. we talk about it a lot, but i'm not conviced which is chicken and which is egg -- whether the laws are the result of an up-tight society, or whether the uptight society is the result of the laws, or both. as marlene dietrich once said, "in america sex is an obsession, in other parts of the world it is a fact."
there is no way that one in four women are raped in their lifetime. that is just absurd and if there are statistics that support that, they must have a very interesting definition of [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123), like the check bounced so it was [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123). sorry, i'll never believe that no matter what. but, i'd be willing to look at some statistics if and only if they include the definition they used, how they selected the sample, and so forth. i'd be willing to bet that any study that showed rates anywhere near that have a biased sample.
Rubber Nursey
04-25-03, 18:35
in nearly everything i've read, from every country around the world, the rates are between 1 in 3, and 1 in 6. granted, i haven't looked at the actual definitions, etc - but they do use the word "[CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123)", not sexual assault. type "women will be raped in their lifetime" into google. i just did, and some pretty scary looking numbers popped up.
actually, the national institute for justice (part of the u.s. department of justice) has broken down violence in general and violence against women pretty specifically. it pegs the number who have suffered either [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) or attempted [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) during their lifetime at 1 in 6, using a very strict definition of [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) as forced oral, vaginal or anal sex. this is considered by many experts to be a very conservative estimate. this same study pegs the percentage of women who will be either raped or physically assaulted during their lifetime at 55%. (men stand at 66.8%, but [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) and attempted [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) here is at 3%, and 53% of men will be "slapped or hit" during their lifetime versus 43% of women.) the breakdown of women raped during their lifetime looks like this: completed [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) -- 14.8%, attempted only, 2.8%.
the study is at http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/172837.pdf if anyone wants to look at it. one of the disturbing things the study also found was that female [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) victims from the previous twelve months suffered an average of almost three [CodeWord124] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord124). it also goes into considerable detail about the differences in statistical measuring approaches and why differences might exist in various statistics.
these findings are in line with the national health and social life survey, which found that 22% of surveyed women and 2% of surveyed men said they had "been forced to do something sexual" in their lifetime.
whether it's one in three, one in four, or one in six, i still find these numbers appalling. and let me say that i'm someone who was really pissed off by the first big date [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) study that got all kinds of noise and press, as its definition of sexual assault included "unwanted looking" and popped that into the aggregated statistics. i hate studies with an ax to grind, as they tend to obscure the real issue and do more harm than good, but i don't think there's much question that there's real harm going on here.
1 in 6 is more believable to me, especially if it includes attempted. Again, I am more concerned with the sampling technique. There is usually some type of response bias. I will check out JZ's source and comment on it later. I am at a public computer right now.
47% of all men have never been in a single fight in their lifetimes? Quite frankly I don't believe that either.
Rubber Nursey
04-25-03, 19:22
all i can say is that myself, a couple of my relatives and many, many of my friends, have been either raped or sexually assaulted. (and i'm most certainly not including "unwanted looking!!") it's so very common, it's scary. that doesn't include sex workers who are raped at work either - although, of course it should - but i'm talking only about 'ordinary' women who were raped by strangers, or by dates and/or family friends.
i think this is something that men in this section should think a little about - ask any of your female friends if she knows anyone who has been raped (or even if she, herself, has). i will almost guarantee that most women know at least one woman who has, if not many. i'm not saying it's an excuse for being a frigid ***** - only that it stands to reason that we would err on the side of caution.
maybe those men are just brilliant defenders so they're never hit :) seriously, though, if you take out fights before adulthood that might well be an accurate number. i know tons of guys who i can't imagine ever being in a physical confrontation.
i'd agree with you, rn -- i've had exactly that conversation with many women i know, and i've rarely come across a woman who doesn't personally know someone who's been raped. and i'd say at least half have said they've been at least physically attacked around sexual issues, with a high number confessing they personally were raped, even if lots of them also "took the blame" for it because it was someone they knew and they "should have been able to stop it."
i didn't realize those fight stats were adults only. then it sounds about right. my sister was raped at knifepoint when she was 15. now that's [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123). some other shit i heard about, including my ex-girlfriend's account of being raped, doesn't qualify imo. i am not trying to say it isn't a frequent and serious problem, only that the studies i looked at in school did not survey a sample of all women, and that there is a lot of junk science out there as far as studies are concerned.
i wonder what portion of those male [CodeWord124] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord124) occurred in prison. i wonder if prison inmates ever get into these survey samples. i wonder if different generations respond to surveys with the same honesty and frequency.
i bet the incidence of [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) in third world countries is very high. i wonder if [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) is actually increasing or decreasing in frequency in developed countries.
but really, i will never be either a victim or a perpetrator so maybe i don't have much perspective on the issue. so, i'll shut up until i get a chance to review jz's link.
i actually don't know whether or not the stats are all adult-based -- i didn't read the study all that recently, to be honest, and just popped back there for some numbers for this discussion because i recalled feeling it was fairly authoritative. my thought was that if you asked someone if they'd ever been raped, that's always a yes, whereas if you asked an adult if they've ever been in a fight they're likely to discount youthful activities. i'm not sure on the prison side of things -- my guess is that if they're represented, it's probably based on a sampling of those who have been released. i've never tracked down stats on the prison rates, but they're certainly epidemic.
no disagreement whatsoever on the junk study issue -- it's one of my pet peeves. i agree with you on [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) incidence in the third world -- that was part of my point about reliability of police stats.
PurpleNGold
04-25-03, 23:17
Originally posted by Dickhead
47% of all men have never been in a single fight in their lifetimes? Quite frankly I don't believe that either.
The 1 in 6 figure sounds right to me. But, I worked a crisis line while in college, so I may be biased in view as well. :(
I gotta agree with the 47% of men being in a fight in their entire life sounding completely ridiculous. That has to have some odd restriction because kids on playgrounds are an unruly bunch, and I'd figure that number has to be in the 90% unless you exclude certain types of fights or certain age groups.
Just to be perfectly clear on this -- the study said that 53% of men reported being hit or slapped -- it didn't say anything about a fight. Other categories included being shoved, hit with objects, having weapons pointed or used against them, etc., all of which could obviously happen in the context of a tussle. So extrapolating from that number to a figure of how many men have been in a fight is in all likelihood not accurate.
okay, i looked at joe's link. i read the whole thing. it was a telephone survey, which is bad. but, they did not just interview whomever answered the phone, which is good. they identified residents at the phone number randomly dialed and if there was more than one over 18 years old, they selected the one with the most recent birthday. that is good. they did not adjust for the possibility (probability in my opinion) that women were more likely to be home than men and why that might be. that is bad, but i don't know what you could really do about it. the survey considered equal numbers of male and female respondents (800 of each). that is good. but, it doesn't completely offset the possibility that women are more likely to be home than men, because i think you get different characteristics if you interview someone who was not the person who answered the phone (in your pursuit of an equal number of male and female respondents).
however and inexplicably, women were always interviewed by women while men were interviewed by an equal proportion of men and women. wtf??? is all i can say about that. ridiculous and indicative of inherent bias by the surveyors imo. both of the authors of the survey were women and they conducted the analysis and designed the survey. possible bias there.
the conclusion that women were more likely to be injured in an assault is certainly intuitive, but since women are physically weaker, a given amount of force is more likely to injure a woman than a man. sorry about that. perhaps men and women have inherently different internal definitions of assault. i mean, my wife pushed me a few times but i didn't consider it assault. i wonder why. i'm quite sure she would have considered it assault if i had ever pushed her!
the authors say they used "state of the art techniques to protect confidentiality." yet, they don't say what these techniques were. i deem that to be suspect. they ask people if they were ever "beat up." that should be "beaten up," of course, but it is vague and subjective.
but the main thing is, and this is unavoidable with a telephone survey, is that the whole thing is biased by the differing probabilities of people (or more precisely, due to the methodology, entire households) with differing socioeconomic traits to be home to answer the phone. this is the major element of bias in the survey; i contend that lower socioeconomic groups travel less, go out less, and are thus more likely to have participated in the survey. and, i also submit that these groups are, unfortunately, more likely to have experienced [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) and violence. so, i think all the results are overstated as compared to a true random sample of the entire population, which i admit is hard to come by; other methods such as mail surveys or street polls have other biases.
this is my analysis. take it for whatever you think it is worth. again, i stress that i am in no way minimizing the seriousness of this problem but only questioning the proportion of people who have experienced it. i think the study has some fairly obvious and identifiable weaknesses.
castrate all [CodeWord127] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord127). beat up all pimps. support your right to have sex with the consenting adult of your choice, including situations where both parties agree that money should change hands. [CodeWord140] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord140) on all politicians and religious zealots who think that your sex life is their concern.
your humble servant,
dickhead
well, there are ways to increase the reliability of telephone surveys, depending on whether they're quota-based or random, and to minimize the problems of getting representative samples. most of the surveys i've been part of that are not work-related have been conducted in the evenings to try to minimize the "who's at home" aspects. in point of fact, the economically lower classes and younger, single-parent families are more likely to be among that percentage of people who do not have phones and are thereby not included, so i'd argue with your premise on that end of things to some extent.
this sounds more like a quota-based survey, (or a randomized survey using a quota-based approach) and as such faces the same issues of reliability as ftf field surveys. there are studies suggesting both that people are more and less truthful over the phone than they are face to face, especially when responding on sensitive issues, so the jury's out on that. i'd agree that the issue of men being interviewed by women and men is problematic, but i'd argue that would be more likely to affect the reliability of the men's results than the women's. i think it's a reasonable assumption that women would be more comfortable responding affirmatively to a woman on questions about [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123), given that that is the same presumption used by law enforcement and counseling centers, though i'm not sure at all what men would find more comfortable in that case.
i'm hardly holding this up as the be-all and end-all of surveys, as i've not done an exhaustive reading of the field, but its conclusions and numbers do track with other information on the subject, and the numbers are, in many cases, lower. it was clearly better than several others i saw whose questions i found more clearly biased and leading. i'm much more comfortable with the crime numbers from the un that i cited elsewhere, since those come from police reports and court documents, but they didn't break things down in terms of rate the same way. still, i've gotta believe that something with the department of justice imprimatur is at least more likely to be scrutinized for reliability than something some social scientist at random university cooks up, though i am generally not terribly impressed with social science research overall in any event. if anyone can point to something better i'd love to look at it.
i thought about pointing out the bias aspect of the fact that some people don't have phones at all, but i thought i might be splitting hairs since i recently read somewhere i think it was 98% of all (us) households have phones. but now that i think about it more, it raises two issues. number one, unlisted phones obviously weren't contacted, and those might (probably would, imo) tend to be people in higher socioeconomic brackets. number two, the study said it excluded businesses, which would presumably included hotels and motels. that might (probably would, imo) tend to be lower socioeconomic brackets. that makes me wonder if the 98% figure for people with phones includes those living in "monthly type" hotels/motels. i bet it does.
as a researcher, i think i would characterize this survey as both random and quota based. did you read the part about how they randomized the phone numbers and tried to get population proportions consistent with the geographic census distribution? i thought that was good. but the 800 men and 800 women seemed low given the duration of the survey. either they had very few surveyers (callers) or they threw out a lot of responses. they talked about how they threw out five male responses due to "excessive ambiguity" but then they also had these "screening questions." that bothers me, especially in light of the deal about women only being interviewed by women and men being interviewed by both men and women (suspicious of "selective screening").
now to this:
"but i'd argue that would be more likely to affect the reliability of the men's results than the women's. i think it's a reasonable assumption that women would be more comfortable responding affirmatively to a woman on questions about [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123), given that that is the same presumption used by law enforcement and counseling centers, though i'm not sure at all what men would find more comfortable in that case"
sure, maybe they would be "more comfortable responding affirmatively," but does that make it more accurate? or might they be telling the interviewers what they perceived the interviewer wanted to hear? i mean, the surveyers (callers) work for the researchers and i have been in academia long enought to know how that works!
really, i'd be less interested in being "right," and less interested in whether it is 1 in 2 women or 1 in 6 or 1 in 10 or 1 in 100 than i would be interested in how to get it to 1 in 1,000,000,000. i like a good fight like any mick but i never have and never will understand [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) or wife beating, and i have studied it quite a bit.
but 1 in 4 is still too high. gives guys a bad name.
Hah, ok, now we really risk devolving into research weenies (like saying the actual US phone percentage is closer to 95%), so I'm just gonna hold my fingers away from the keys, even though I want to go further on methodology other than to say that...
I'll simply agree with your final sentiments, which I think are the most important side of the equation in any event -- my definition of a man has nothing whatsoever to do with getting your way by laying a hand on a woman or posing enough of a threat that she simply desists out of fear. That's not being a man -- that's being an asshole who deserves a good stomping.
PurpleNGold
04-27-03, 23:20
http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/
Pretty sad. The content of this site would probably be best discussed under the 'Morality' thread, but I think that the people behind the site, San Francisco Women's Centers, are a good example of the negativity and myopic attitude of American women. Though, by name, the site should be an open minded forum for discussion and theorizing, it is actually just an all out attack on sex work. Pretty sad.
Yeah, while some of the things they have on the site might have some validity, it's completely impossible to give credence to any of it because their agenda so heavily invades everything. Trumpeting articles by Andrea Dworkin and having half of the research on the side coming from the organization's director (not to mention one look at their factsheet) says it all.
PurpleNGold
04-28-03, 03:27
Okay. I guess I have too much time on my hands today, but the Dallas/Portland game has become boring and I can't pay much attention to it. So, here's an interesting stat from http://www.bayswan.org/stats.html
The National Task Force on Prostitution suggests that over one million people in the US have worked as prostitutes in the United States, or about 1% of American women
Remember Fast Times At Ridgemont High when one of the characters says something like "If you put the vibe out to a hundred women something's bound to happen." Now we know that's a truism :)
Okay, here is a good article I showed a couple of foreigners who laughed at how American women can act and never endlessly, surprise us.
Now the question, is the American woman involved a poor, love sick and confused girl who misses her boyfriend or just some neurotic, self-centered b!tch?!?
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/04/29/crime.cruise.reut/index.html
HONOLULU, Hawaii (Reuters) -- A young woman who wanted to leave a cruise ship to return to her boyfriend in California spent Monday night in a federal detention center here, charged with threatening to kill everyone aboard the ship to cut the cruise short, authorities said
Originally posted by incaroca
Hi!!
I'm a guy from Barcelona (Spain), so, my level of english isnt the best...excuse me for that.
Well, I write here because Im very surprised with most of the mails that you have sended, about the shitty AW!
I explain you why I have this impression.
When I studied at the University, every year existed a colaboration between Universities of all Europe, and USA also. So, every new course you found a lot of people from diverent countries. We (well, I and a lot of men) waited with emotion how many american women were there! Why? For the simple reason that american girls were the easiest to convince to fuck!! Sure! Every girl maybe fucked 5 o more boys during the year (2 of them were my rates). They loved sex, well....maybe to stay with the most number of cool latinos, I dont know, and when they returned to USA, explain it to their friends!
So, thats the reason for my surprise! Maybe AW when they are out of their ultraconservativ country changed their mind, and want to be happy and feel free!!
AW even they were more sexual opened than nordic girls (Sweden, Danmark, for ex.).
Every year whe are fooled looking for american pussy!!!
There’s a nice Onion article which has some interesting commentary on this phenomenon in their Point-Counterpoint series:
European men are so much more romantic than American Men vs American women studying in Europe are unbelievably easy (http://www.theonion.com/onion3510/european_romantic.html/)
It’s archived so it should be accessible.
Angus, Incaroca, this is good observation.
At some extend these articles are correct.
Once I was in night club where were about 20 Philippines girls
They had birthday party.
I came to their table introduced myself and spend the whole evening with them.
They were shy but very friendly and clearly they had interests to men.
The biggest my surprise was that NO ONE Canadian man who were in nightclub didn’t come to their table during whole evening! And this nightclub was considered
one of the best places to pick up women in the city.
All these nice Philippines girls went home alone!
Can somebody tell me does such nonsense could happened in Europe?
Russian and Brazilian women who are living here tell me also that they had to make first step because AM too shy.
It is understandable, DH and others posters shows that it is not very pleasant experience to do first move here in North America. Everybody can become chronically shy if he faced so lot of hate from AW.
On another hand, The American women themselves is changing a lot then they go to other countries. I had seen how two AW became more and more exiting when the airplane
came closer to Cuba. After few days I had seen them with bunch of local guys kissing and hugging.
Seems AW know very well what they are doing. They know that they cannot full Foreign men playing stupid games. They come back here and play another games.
And average American Man accept it silently and help them to destroy himself.
Well, I certainly haven't become "chronically shy" by any means!
Lenin:
Good points. It's fascinating that both American men & women behave so differently when they travel beyond American borders.
While I surely don't speak for everyone in America, it's been my observation that the camps are divided thus:
AMERICAN MAN: "American women have too much mental baggage from womens' liberation & a politically-correct, litigous society. Might as well kiss a cobra."
AMERICAN WOMAN: "All American men are abusive pigs or passionless wimps. They don't listen, they're not honest, blah blah blah..."
This is a fantastic recipe for sexual repression. And this is one of the primary reasons I'm looking to go live in another country for a while. I need to catch up on lost youth and give my sexual self-esteem a real workout, haha! :D
Lookr, actually average AM don’t behave very different in other countries too.
They are much less confident than men from others countries.
I notice they have problem pick up girls in public places.
They mostly go to tourist places where prices already high.
In Cuba AM is favorite among Cuban prostitutes.
They know they cannot full so easily Russian or Italian men, for example.
It seems to me, the average AM have lowest self-esteem in the world.
HD, I am not argue with you, some exceptions exist of course.
Actually it is interesting to know how you managed to survive in such climate.
Some guys here in this forum suggested learning how to be even nicer to AW in order to improve situation. This is seems such absurd to me. It is mean to humiliate ourselves and destroy our own self-esteem even more!
I think we should do quite opposite. We should lower self-esteem of AW.
We should not miss the any opportunities to compare them with girls from others countries and tell them that average AW nothing but handicapped and garbage.
This is going to be good lessons for them.
Wanderer1000
05-02-03, 22:46
Lenin -
About a month or so ago, we had a discussion moving with others on topics such as these regarding an American woman in comparison to an "average" non-North American woman (in a general sense, of course):
1) American women are more money-hungry or focused on materials (more mercenary)
2) Generally more fat and less feminine
3) More aggressive
4) Not as loyal
5) Boring, but expect entertainment from men
6) Suspicious of men in general - of men's intentions
7) Unappreciative (demanding, whining, manipulative and snobby)
8) Not that interested in sex - or use it mainly for manipulation
What would be some other common impressions to add to the list? Or, what are some of your current thoughts on the above issues?
Wanderer1000
05-02-03, 23:02
Lenin-
Also, one of the things you talked about a lot was the difference in how men relate and bond with each other in Russia. They have much more of an alliance and openess in sharing their feelings and thoughts with each other than American men. They give each other much more emotional support and advice - almost like the bond that women seem to have in their expressiveness with each other. This allows Russian men to have more power in their interactions with women.
There is also a perspective of American men in Russia (I presume from both sexes) that American men are "fags", or something to this effect. It's for the essentially same reason Cuban women view American men as easy marks. To what extent is this view of American men in Russia? Is it common? Does the average Russian know the slang term for an American man - that basically means he's a wimp?
Jak, I cannot say about view of American men in Russia too much
I know that Russian women who live here like American men
because they think AM can be easily manipulated.
I want to add that problems 2) 3) 4) 5) 7) from the list
could happened in any country when women have low level interest to the men.
Just in reality, average women interest to men in other countries is relatively high and here in US very low as result of unbalance.
If something increase level of interest of AW to AM
all this problem would disappeared.
Problems 1) 6) and 8) is more looks like typically American problem.
I think they exist because something wrong with American culture.
There have been a few articles floating around in the major dailies & weeklies that discuss the trend towards American women being the major money-earners (the phrase kicked around is "Alpha-earner") while the men become house husbands.
I know a couple of guys caught in this trend, and their lives are a miserable hell. In fact, one of the guy's wives keeps threatening to divorce him because [insert inane reason here]. The other wife berates her husband constantly, telling him he's a no-good money-grubbing loser who can't keep a job (in his last job, which he kept for somewhere in the neighborhood of a decade, he rose to Senior VP).
Seems American women are only too eager to abuse the power of "alpha-earner." No guy I know acts that way to his wife (certainly not the two aforementioned guys). The only advice I've been giving them is for them to get jobs as soon as possible to get rid of the tension, and it's my secret hope that they get the hell out of those crappy relationships.
lookr,
I know one Brazilian man in Brazil who is not working
but his second wife is making a lot of money.
He is happy and most important he is in control of his wife.
He also lived quite happily with his first wife who
made much more money than him and they had five children
He never paid alimony to his first wife or to children.
Seems US is really rotten place for the men.
Guys, does anybody have positive stories about men in US?
Otherwise I am going to run away from North America soon.
Oh, please, I know tons of guys who are very happy with American women, from guys who've been happily married for 40 years to those who've been together only a couple of years. And those relationships range from "he's in charge" to "she's in charge" to "nobody's in charge." I could easily fill this board with stories about this, same as we can all have done with stories of breakups and being screwed over.
Given that the census says that between 45-50 of the total adult population is currently married to their first spouse (with variations by sex and race) and that the rate of the population those still on their first marriage tends to be over 50% once you look at those over 30, that means that a fair number of people are staying together. Even if you presume that half of those are unhappy marriages -- probably a high estimate, given that at least one study has shown that people with pro-divorce attitudes are more likely to be unhappy in their marriage, and that others have indicated the personal happiness of both men and women is higher when they're married -- then there are still a large number of people who consider themselves happily married.
Understanding that there's still a depressing failure rate, let's simply not paint with too ridiculously broad a brush here. Here's a little bit of context by country -- divorces as percent of all marriages: Russia 65%, Sweden 64%, Finland 56%, Britain 53%, U.S. 49%, Canada 45%, France 43%, Germany 41%. (Source: Divorce Center, 2000 statistics.) And when you consider places like Brazil, you've also got to consider how heavily traditionally Catholic the region is, and the Church's strictures against divorce.
So it's not simply all about the U.S. and our crappy system, or our crappy women.
joe:
Good points. But I figure that if my odds of staying married are worse than my odds of winning big in a casino, then those are odds I simply won't play.
Now hobbying ... that's another story completely. :)
-- lookr
Fair enough, though since the odds of big casino wins are relatively low that's a pretty radical take on things, perhaps well grounded philosophically, but still kind of extreme. Me, I'm happy enough if the house edge on the game is reasonable, and it seems a game of skill rather than completely one of chance. I don't need to win everything, just not lose big. :)
I must agree with Joe_Zap in that there are some success stories in the American model of marriage. It would be unrealistic to say that all American relationships are bad and destructive. I think that what has happened here in America though is that our culture has domesticated the human male to the point that the women are the assholes now, if you understand what I'm trying to say. Also a lot of the American women I meet who are bad to men are bad to women too. Overall they are just bad people. Lately I've had more American women complain about American women than men have. I'm one that feels this country is only good for material and educational pursuits. I never have fun here anymore because I've tasted the "forbidden fruit." When I take a girl out in the U.S. and the meal must average $50 a plate to be acceptable and then I go to a country where for $50 (or less) women are licking out my asshole it's obvious that my outlook on America is going to be completely different. Sometimes I observe things in this country that I just laugh at now. Like I'm in on the joke on the American men because I've tasted this "fruit" and I know what the truth is.
Still, phil, with just about one in two American marriages ending in divorce, I'm unconvinced to run out & find a bride, especially in this country.
And I completely agree with you that American women have evolved into assholes. Just last night I went out to have some drinks with some buddies, and the women there (typical silicone-brained Silicon Valley types) simply could not stop talking about how much they could kick men's asses, from the boardroom to the bedroom.
The irony of this is that (a) these women were at least ten years older than me, and (b) they were trying to look ten years younger than me.
I laughed, too. :D
I feel there is a new division of labor in the sphere of male-female human relations here in the US.
If you want “legitimate” children get a wife.
If you want sex get a prostitute.
If you want affection get a dog.
These services used to be rendered by the same person, the wife. For various reasons these tasks have become specialized to different providers. This may or may not be a lamentable state of affairs – my guess is nobody here minds too much.
There may be anecdotal evidence that some AW fulfill all roles – however recent commentary (cited below) suggests that US marriages are increasingly becoming sexless, usually driven by the woman. Marriage is now primarily about the rearing of children.
“For many couples child-rearing has become not merely one aspect of marriage but its entire purpose and function. Spouses regard each other not as principally lovers and companions but as sharers of the great, unending burden of taking care of the children. “
The principle cause of this appears to be feminism:
“Given the curious alchemy of feminism, which transforms absolutely anything women choose to do into a crucial element of liberation doctrine, confessing that one has given up sex has become a very right-on and empowering act. “
As someone from the island of Lesbians has said: Lesbians have sex 4 times a month, married heterosexuals 2 or 3 times a weeks, and homo’s 4 times a day. The point being that there is a yin and yang – woman’s tendency is to want less sex, men’s to have tons more and the union of the two strikes something of a balance. Or it used to at any rate.
The balance struck was the quid pro quo of sex provided by the woman, for food and shelter provided by the man – though the actual compromise was not this crude, since the institution of marriage dignified it. The old balance no longer works as women can support themselves.
“Under these conditions, pity the poor married man hoping to get a bit of comfort from the wife at day's end. He must somehow seduce a woman who is economically independent of him, bone tired, philosophically disinclined to have sex unless she is jolly well in the mood, numbingly familiar with his every sexual maneuver, and still doing a slow burn over his failure to wipe down the countertops and fold the dish towel after cooking the kids' dinner. “
I guess this post doesn’t have a whole helluva a point but I aver that most any man contemplating marriage in the US faces the above mentioned providers for children, sex and affection, he is unlikely to get all three from an American Woman. Getting married isn't necessarily going to get an AM a whole lot of sex - which is fine if you don't go into it with that aim - which argues for the specialization.
For the 'poor married man' hoping for a bit of comfort I would recommend a long haired Collie.
Quotes from the Atlantic Monthly January 2003 article “The Wifely Duty” written by a relatively decent woman.
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/01/flanagan.htm
The evolution of the American woman is like a dominoe effect. In America, women are driven by greed because of commercials. Commercials say you must buy this and that to be "in" or to "fit in". They also manipulate minds with humiliation like making fun of stupid minor shit like blackheads. In fact in American television they air 4 to 5 commercials on a shorter break and the break in the middle of the show airs 8 commercials. In Brazil, they air 2 to 3 on a short break and 4 on a longer break. Europe airs 4 on a short break, 6 on a longer break. This society is totally consumption driven. This causes the American woman to want the $50 dinner, the pair of shoes or clothings every week, and the diamond rings. This greed also causes them to marry a husband just to use him to buy her everything even if she goes to work and make more for her. I have seen a wife making more money than a husband here and she still makes him save up his money just to buy her a gift on their "3 month anniversary". (Hello, anniversary is ONCE PER YEAR, not every 3 months). This was probably an excuse to make him buy her something she saw in a commercial.
Greed takes the focus off the sex in the marriage. Greed is the cause of women wanting ridiculous divorce settlements. It is the cause of passionless marriages as women marry just to divorce the husband to take half his wealth. She also gives up the relationship with one she is attracted to to go after the wealthy guy she doesn't like physically at all. Greed is the main premise of feminism. It causes their thirst for power and money. Also it is the reason why marriage has gone to the purpose of child rearing instead of completing the husband. Hey, the greedy woman needs an heir to her throne, right? The heir becomes the focus and she pays less attention to the husband.
About the divorce rate statistic argument, the reason the US has lower rate than Europe is because we are much less liberated. Men are afraid to divorce because of the fact that they lose everything in the process so they are stuck with their overweight wives. Europe is more liberated and the husband loses much less. Also the US is based on more Puritanical standards so the concept of "shame" comes to play. Europe knows much less "shame" so they think nothing of divorces. Divorces are lower in Brazil even though they also don't know "shame" perhaps because there are much happier marriages there and their wives fullfills the needs of the husbands. Rather than look at the statistics posted which could be flawed, I look at intentions. If American men are asked how many WANT to get a divorce rather than how many actually do divorce that are willing to lose half their stuff, the stats would probably be much higher in America than in Europe and South America combined.
gee -- greed, shame, and intentions. all so easy to posit and so hard to prove. so "intentions" are more important than behavior, huh? your argument falls into the "if you don't like a fact, ignore it" approach -- using fuzzy unquantifiable terms. if you want to argue "intentions" you might look at the percentage of both men and women who say they "want" to be married -- it's very high, and it's actually higher for men than women in many age groups. there are also numerous studies that say that men are generally happier being married than women, have less marital frustration and dissatisfaction, and are less likely to consider divorce. given that lots of sources claim more than three-quarters of both divorced men and women remarry, usually within three years after divorce, i find your "intentions" argument rather hollow.
i must say, darkseid, that i find your new take on divorce statistics highly disingenuous, considering that you've argued in the past that the us having the highest divorce rates is proof of the feminist and puritanical anti-sex strains running through society. now, since the real statistics don't support your contention, you've completely flipped, and we're too repressed and full of shame to divorce. c'mon! and divorces are lower throughout south america because it's heavily and conservatively roman catholic -- 70% in brazil, 90% in argentina and chile, 95% in bolivia and columbia, etc. -- and the catholic church doesn't recognize divorce. (though more american catholics get divorced than elsewhere, since the us strain of catholicism is more liberal.)
look, i also prefer a $50 meal over a $20 meal because it's often a more unique and memorable meal in a better atmosphere. i prefer a $20 bottle of wine over a $5 bottle of wine because it's generally better wine. that hardly makes me greedy -- that makes me someone who understands the difference between mcdonalds and real food. that $50 spent on a meal with her is less about the money and more about romance and attention, and not understanding that equation explains both why she won't give it up and why things don't work in the relationship.
i happen to agree that there is greed in divorce settlements, but i disagree that it's simply about women wanting materials -- in many, many cases, it's about revenge for a marriage gone bad, it's about fear of a future where a primary wage-earner is gone (women do tend to be worse off financially than men in the years immediately following a divorce, primarily because men still tend to make more money) and it might also be about getting the focus of the man who's been seen not to be paying attention. two-thirds of divorces are initiated by women, who do so because they are unhappy with the state of the marriage, and let's face it -- they can therefore go into the divorce proceedings feeling aggrieved, which means they can be out for revenge and satisfaction. that said, let's also keep in mind that half of men and women describe their relationships with their ex-spouse as friendly or cooperative, so everyone's not walking around feeling abused by the process.
the whole greed thing doesn't completely make sense to me here -- it's simply less about that and more about attention. face it, a woman who's married generally has far more access to and control of her husband's income than an unmarried woman does the income of some man she's dating. women generally file for divorce because they feel neglected or emotionally abandoned, and this is why men end up being so baffled in the process, since someone leaving because of abuse or infidelity is easier to understand. but the complaint of many married women is that they are mostly ignored unless their husbands want food or sex. they want a soul mate, not a roomate, and that takes ongoing work and attention. men these days, on the other hand, are trying to juggle being a wage-earner -- which used to be enough -- with being a "partner" where you don't simply make all the decisions and lay down the law, and being a partner is a lot more work, especially for guys, who aren't in the habit of discussing everything until the paint peels off the walls, as women do.
btw, angus, nice post, and one i think contains a lot of truth. i'd merely point out that whether or not men are satisfied with their sex lives when married to aw, stats show that they still get sex more often than their unmarried counterparts.
Don't like marriage? Don't get married. Don't believe in divorce? Don't get divorced. Think homosexuality is wrong? Don't be one. Don't like American women? Move!
Or, you could bit@h about it.
Joe, you can't really rely 100 percent on the studies. Sometimes different environment or objectiveness can taint these statistics. There may be another study that proves the opposite that is what opinion is about. Most of these posts are definitely not fact but opinions the way various individuals see things. I agree with Angus on that women tend to want sex less than men and lesbians have much less sex than married couples and homosexual men. Another study might prove this statistic wrong and give good evidence of it. Single men might have more sex than married men in a more liberal country like Europe whereas sinlge men are sex starved in the small cities or suburban areas. Married couples definitely have more sex than single people in these areas because they just do each other while single people have no place to go for sex or meet people. In Europe or South America in a big city, they have FKK clubs or PartyTreff clubs where they just pay to get in and have sex every day or week whereas a married couple there might be sick of each other and not have sex often. They too might also use these clubs to find people other than themselves to have sex with.
The US has lots of suburban areas and more couples are happy with their marriages in those areas or just put up with each other because they can't find another partner. Europe has more big cities and in big cities there is more variety and therefore more divorce or infidelity. Other factors may come to play like wealth, health, children, religion, etc that may skew these statistics. Statistics should be taken in the same environment and same conditions for them to be true. For example, they should have statistics comparing divorce rates in big cities in Europe, South America, and US and separate them from divorce rates for the suburban areas. Perhaps this would tell a different story.
No, you can't rely on these studies absolutely, but they're a better guide than random opinions about marriage based entirely on personal anecdotal experience -- from someone who's never been married. (poke, poke :D) When there are several studies indicating the same thing, as there are in most of the instances I cited, then things can be said with somewhat more degree of assurance. And noting that a study doesn't break things down into the specific categories you prefer is a valid complaint, but it's not one that invalidates the information or somehow lends credence to your opinion.
Yes, posts here are opinion, mine most definitely included, but same as in any discussion there's informed opinion and uninformed opinion, and part of the measure of the persuasiveness of an opinion is how it can be backed up. I don't feel the need to defer to someone saying that the moon is made of cheese just because it's his opinion.
The United Nations has broken down divorce rates by country into rural and urban factors, but I've not been able to put my hands on that. I agree that generally the rate is somewhat higher in urban areas, but I don't agree with you that Europe has necessarily more people in urban areas or large cities -- some of that is a matter of definition by each country (Sweden and Denmark, for example, consider any place with more than 200 people to be urban, and the US says it's 2500. France, which uses 2000, still has about the same overall percentage of people in urban areas using that number as the US does using its higher number) and some of it is comparing apples and oranges, as "Europe" is a lot of very different countries, with different cultures, rates, and makeups, and twice the overall population of the US. Depending on what countries you're including, there are the same general number of cities over 750k in the US and Europe, for example. Higher population density overall in Europe, though, I believe.
Obviously, many factors affect divorce rate, from religion to availability of divorce (in much of southern Europe, for example, divorce hasn't been available as long as in the nordic region) to age to education and economic status. The same thing is true of how often people have sex, but it just seems to me that if someone is going to throw out general statements and expect them to be taken at all seriously, they ought to either be able to back them up, be very specific in those comments, or note that they're just "feelings" based on personal experience and how they look at the world as opposed to something necessarily having weight or relevance to other folks.
That's only my opinion, of course.
Divorce has only one cause, and that cause is marriage. B follows A, therefore A caused B. But seriously folks, isn't marriage an anachronism? Why risk it when out-of-wedlock births are becoming so acceptable? Here in the good old US (20 days and counting), you have the same legal obligation to support your kids whether they are out of wedlock or of wedlock.
Now that I write this, I am noticing the possible significance of the word "wedLOCK." As in "throw away the key"? As in "imprisoned"?
Marriage is an institution. Do you really want to spend the rest of your life in an institutuion?
Marriage is a tool of the ruling class.
But seriously folks, isn't marriage an anachronism? Why risk it when out-of-wedlock births are becoming so acceptable?
Marriage is an institution. Do you really want to spend the rest of your life in an institutuion?
Marriage is a tool of the ruling class.
[/i]
Gotta hand it to the ruling class, they have a great sense of humor – now the state of non-marital bliss, aka domestic partnership is being treated as marriage when it comes to shafting the guy (‘she got the goldmine, I got the shaft’) when the thing breaks up. These are the new rules being pushed by the American Law Institute in their ‘Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution’ proposal [not a lawyer, but I understand these guys set forth guidelines for judges which because of the ALI’s influence gets treated as law].
The upshot is that not being married is no safety against being stuck with a whopping alimony payment (the main risk assuming you don’t have children) for one’s 3.75 years or however long of free sex (even though you weren’t married to her, and you cohabited precisely to avoid the cost of marriage).
The funny thing is you **can** opt out ie make it clear you were cohabiting for the free milk and not living in a state of quasi-marriage by doing a prenup type agreement. In a normal world that fact that you weren’t married would be sufficient and would be the default interpretation of one’s living together. However lawyers have worked it that the default condition is cohabiting is intent to establish a domestic partnership – and possibly resulting in a clean 50% split of your incremental earnings during the relationship.
It’s like you thought you had given the ‘social structure’ the slip instead they caught you at the pass ahead – the fact that marriage is dissolving as an institution has empowered feminists and lawyers to treat everything as marriage – including your male or female roommate.
Nowadays you could unwittingly be in a domestic partnership with a **male** roommate if you pass the 20 or so tests (even if your ‘partner’ is already married). But the law is really aimed at the transfer of wealth from men to women.
Deconstructing Family: A Critique of the American Law Institute's "Domestic Partners" Proposal
(http://www.law2.byu.edu/lawreview/archives/2001/3/War5-13.pdf)
has some interesting info about this – it’s a pdf in readable legal mumbo jumbo style]
Darkseid & DH,
Had a real life experience this weekend which supports many of your views of American women.
I was at a family party and I have about 4 nieces around 23-24 years of age. I overheard one of their conversations which dealt with one of my nieces who was going to break off her engagement and was asking one of her female cousins (who is in law school) how to break it off but still KEEP the ring. I had heard that the ring cost the guy over $5,000 and he had to take out a serious loan to purchase it. I hardly know how to respond to vile stuff like that. Geez!!!
You know, in the long run, I think that this poor guy losing $5,000 is money well spent in order to avoid getting married to a treacherous individual like my niece. If he married her, he'd end up losing a lot more than $5,000.
paddy:
wow, that's evil stuff, and what's even more astonishing is that it's fairly common practice. this is why i can't find the strength in me to even get engaged.
one guy i know who got engaged & eventually married was chastised by his wife that her engagement ring didn't have a big enough diamond on it and how it was going to ruin her reputation with her married friends. he had to go sink another $10,000 in the ring before she begrudgingly accepted it. :(
this is the same shite that keeps me from diving in to anything even remotely approaching marriage ... and i'm almost 36!
but, that said, i've always felt a kind of sadistic glee in knowing there are plenty of women i've pissed off by not doing anything like proposing and all that [CodeWord134] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord134)-[CodeWord134] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord134) ka-ka. call it laser intuition, but these same women have turned out to be seething assholes in their eventual marriages.
and paddy, if there's any way you can tell your niece exactly what you think of her treachery, i think that'd really teach her a lesson. stuff like that needs to be pointed out ... at least in my humble opinion.
-- l
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not a marriage apologist, and I've got plenty of friends who've been badly burned by their experiences "inside." (One of my best friend's settlement from his marriage included getting the entire debt load from the bankruptcy his ex-had driven them into, while she got all the material possessions -- and she made as much money as he did. Took him eight years to pay it all off.) I just think such discussions are more powerful and convincing when they're not pumped full of wild assertions and false statistics. Clearly, the perspective of almost everyone here is that AW aren't worth the effort, and that marriage is a bad idea -- but a discussion where everyone agrees gets pretty boring and repetitive, which has happened here in the past.
I'm curious, Paddy -- what advice did the law school cousin give your neice?
Dick Johnson
05-14-03, 15:36
Usually the girl will have to return the ring. Most but not all courts believe if there's no wedding the ring should be returned-doesn't matter who changed their mind.
Although things sometimes gets complicated.
Well, duhhh. I know what the general situation is, and that wasn't what I asked.
Dick Johnson
05-14-03, 15:57
Oh really? I suppose you expect people here to know whether or not you knew the general situation.
joe_zop, when you ask someone what advice did a lawyer give so and so it can often be taken two ways : what is the law or what is the gossip between the two people. Looks like you were asking for the gossip.
Rubber Nursey
05-14-03, 16:25
I'm not quite sure which side I back on the engagement ring dilemma. (Yes, I've been married, but no, I didn't have an engagement ring - I even paid for my own wedding ring!)
One side of me says that if it cost heaps of money and she accepted it as kind of a 'promise' of marriage, and if SHE was the one that called it off through no fault of his...then perhaps she should give it back.
But the other side says, what if he screwed around on her, or he was the one doing the abandoning? Should she still have to give back her prized possession? Wouldn't it hurt a hell of a lot to know that he is just going to pawn it, or even worse, give it to his new girlfriend? And why should an engagement ring be any different to any other gift? Nobody would expect her to give back the stereo he bought her for Christmas or the bracelet he gave her for Valentines Day.
I'm really not sure what I would do in that situation.
Dick Johnson
05-14-03, 17:51
It is difficult for the courts to decide as things can get nasty.
For example she might have broken it off but it was because he was screwing around. And so on.. It is hard to determine who's fault or who really broke it off or force the other person to say "I've had it" and break it off.
So pretty much it is no wedding no ring. Gifts like stereos etc. a girl gets to keep.
I don't give rings. I have to be got darn positive this is the girl I will marry otherwise it is just trouble.
The legal issue is whether or not a ring is a "conditional" gift -- with the condition meaning that marriage is to follow. That makes it different than a stereo or bracelet or anything else, which don't have the same promissory implications. When someone says "she returned his ring" it means something vastly different than "she gave him back the bracelet." It's a material symbol of an intimate bond, and has social implications, which a stereo doesn't.
Most courts have used this definition, and the issue comes down to who breaks an engagement. Traditionally, if a man unjustifiably breaks the engagement then he isn't entitled to a ring's return but if a woman breaks it she must return the ring. The more modern trend says things are "no fault" (since it's often impossible to properly assign blame for a breakup) and it's not a conditional gift but a contract. If the contract isn't fulfilled, then both parties should be restored to their previous positions -- meaning the ring should be returned, unless the "donor" is in unjustifiable breach of contract, in which case fault might be considered. The whole idea of an engagement is a period of preparation, where each party has the ability to re-examine their promise before things become legally binding.
RN, your perspective is the older, traditional approach -- that a woman done wrong is entitled to compensation for being unfairly seduced, and thus suffering damage -- the "breach of promise" approach. There used to be lots of lawsuits based on this, so-called "heartbalm" suits, as the woman was now "unsuitable" for marriage to someone else. The rise of sexual freedom, feminism, and a trend to use such suits as blackmail helped shift the law toward the no-fault perpective that dominates today. It's really kind of a revenge approach, and if it's one to be used, then the question might justifiably be asked -- what should a guy get as compensation from a woman who breaks an engagement? Just getting back something you went in hock for hardly seems like a good deal -- you're still stuck with an expensive bauble and no marriage. If a guy has to cough up an $8000 ring because he abandoned her, should she have to give the ring back and buy him a car if she does the same? It's a very slippery slope.
(For what it's worth, I spent time years back researching this for a friend whose engagement went kaput, who was having trouble getting his ring returned. His ex was the one who ended things, not because he did anything but because she decided they weren't compatible enough. I ended up convincing her that she needed to return it -- one of my less pleasant duties as a friend.)
And DJ, I very specifically asked Paddy what advice a female cousin who was studying law said to another -- I didn't ask for a legal opinion, but a sense of how one woman gave advice to another who was clearly being greedy. If you're not sure what I know, and can't properly figure out the context, then why don't you just stay out of it? I've very studiously followed my promise to Skinless to ignore you to this point, despite your various pokes and gibes aimed in my direction, and I have zero interest in having any discussions with you.
I never gave my ex-wife (who is now in a mental institution) an engagement ring. I did give her a plain gold band at our (private) wedding ceremony. She lost it down the sink drain while she was kneading bread. I noticed she wasn't wearing it any more but I waited to see what she would say. Finally on our first anniversary she confessed that she had lost it. I told her I would buy her another one for our fifth anniversary. We never made it that far so I saved some money there, plus I never wore a ring (don't like to wear jewelry of any kind) so even further savings there.
The fact that a partially reasonable woman such as RN would even think of justifying not returning an engagement ring really scares me.
I remember seeing my mother flush her wedding ring down the toilet when I was a wee lad; the engagement ring she pawned. And my parents never even got divorced.
What a fucking crock marriage is. Please shoot me if I ever even consider doing it again.
Guys & RN,
As offended as I was by the actions of my niece, I thought that Lookr's recollection of a guy having to drop an extra $10,000 dollars into a ring before the girl would accept it is, well, a virtual obscenity.
I fully understand that this is a generalization but I guess we have a pretty firm idea of what really matters to American women. I think that I can also safely report that there is yet a whole new generation of young girls here who see dollar signs and status before love and genuine affection. They seem to be intrepidly carrying on the traditions of their mothers.
As far as her rationale for wanting to break it off with her boyfriend/fiance I don't know too much other than he is a beginning dental student and will be faced with many years of studying and debt. I met him and he seems like a real nice guy. Way too nice for a "viper" like my niece IMHO.
Joe, I wasn't privy to what legal or quasi-legal advice her cousin gave her. I've heard that the courts where I live don't want to get involved in something so domestic and trivial. So, my guess is that she can keep the ring. It would probably cost him thousands in legal fees to try and recoup his loss.
So, all is well here in the good old US of A and a whole new generation of young girls are intrepidly carrying on the traditions of their mothers.
I agree with darkseid that the reason the US has lower divorce rate than some other countries because Americans are much less liberated. Also because in America difficult to live for
man if he alone. You don’t need bitchy wife to have sex if you live in Europe or Latin America.
Here the man in many cases is just slave of his wife.
Joe_zop, what definition of the happiness for man in this studies? If American men have to cut of his friends
and his interest and to do that his wife telling him to do what kind of happiness is it?
This is just happiness of the slave.
And if men are generally happier being married in this studies than women it is just could mean that AM afraid to lose his marriage because he know that he is going to go through hell after divorce and he appreciate his marriage just like a slave, and AW know what she can get the better deal if she will be divorced or remarried that why she is not satisfied. She is not satisfied just because the bitches are never satisfied.
I am absolutely agree with darkseid that this statistic could be flawed.
Also it is difficult to find correlation between divorced rate and unhappy marriages.
What is better: to have two marriages and to live 75% time happy during
both marriages in Russia or to have bitchy American wife 100% time and afraid to divorce her because there are not much better options for men here in North America?
To clarify all these problems more sophisticated statistic is needed if such statistic could be done at all.
Exactly that why "feelings" based on personal experience could be more useful than unrelated statistics.
Personaly I got from darkseid much more useful and more correct information about situation in US than from whole bunch of useless statistics.
Lenin, in most of the studies I read happiness was self-defined ("rate how happy you are on a scale of x to y") so it's a general measure. Sure, it could be the happiness of the slave, but since most of these studies measure married and unmarried men and women, I think putting that particular spin only on the married man is a bit of a stretch -- one could just as easily say that unmarried men define themselves as less happy because they troubles getting fed as often as they like, or whatever. I've noted before the correlation between health problems for unmarried versus married guys -- with one researcher going so far as to say that life expectancy is more adversely affected by being unmarried than by being poor, overweight, or having heart disease -- so it might simply be that they're happier because they're healthier (or vice versa.)
There's a very new study (March issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology) that looked at 24,000 people in Germany before and during relationships asked them about their happiness levels, and while people who were couples reported that they were happier, in general those same people reported before the study that they were happier. People got a bounce in happiness levels leading up to being married and in the early stages of marriage, and then dropped back to their normal levels, which were still generally higher that that of others. (Most people, btw, rate themselves between 5.5 and 8 on the scale of 0 to 10.) When those who define themselves as generally not very happy do marry, they report more of a rise in their happiness level, the study found. This might be because they stand to gain more from the union than a happy person who has always had many social contacts. (This was a longitudinal study covering 15 years, with participants contacted yearly.)
From this we can conclude three things -- one, that perhaps marriage itself isn't the issue even though you get a bounce from it; two, that it's not simply an American issue; (and there are other studies that say the same thing is true in other countries) and three, that happy people tend to end up in relationships, where they continue to be happy.
So if you're a miserable fuck, you're probably going to be a miserable fuck in or out of a marriage, though your odds appear to improve on the inside. If you're happy, you're going to be happy, married or not. C'est la vie.
Studies are what they are, and they only measure what they measure -- if people want to denigrate them for not speaking directly to this or that point they're obviously free to do so. I seriously doubt this collection of bitchy guys is likely to influence research design all that much, since if the conclusions of the study don't support their point of view, they'll just come up with another flaw.
And I'd have no problem with Darkseid's perspectives on marriage had he ever actually been in one, as testimony of the damned is eminently legit and eloquent, as Dickhead ably demonstrates. But otherwise it's like someone talking knowingly about prostitutes when he's never visited one.
Thanks, Paddy, it would have been interesting to hear just how the case might be made and the perspective of the cousin, especially since any social group, men or women, has a tendency to be supportive by default. As far as Lookr's story, well, such behavior is obviously grounds for walking away, and anyone who doesn't walk ought to know full well what they're signing up for. I'd have gotten the ring back and told her to explain to her married friends why I dumped her, though that's the easy perspective of one who's not infaturated -- we all know what kind of trouble we can get into when we're not thinking with the big head.
Originally posted by Dickhead
The fact that a partially reasonable woman such as RN would even think of justifying not returning an engagement ring really scares me.
good point DH, this is just one more prove that woman is woman's natural ally
Rubber Nursey
05-19-03, 07:55
I'm only "partially reasonable", Dickhead??? LOL
Please don't get the wrong idea, though...I did say that I don't know which side I'd really stand on if it came to the crunch. I have never received an engagement ring, so I can't say for sure. All I was thinking of, in my "justification" for keeping the ring, was some of the women I've spoken to who have just been given one. You know the type...their lifelong dream of meeting Mr Right and walking down the aisle has just come true, they sit at their desks writing their 'married name' over and over (or even picking baby names!!), and they run around showing complete strangers their new engagement ring, grinning from ear to ear. I was just thinking how soul-destroying it would be if, through no fault of her own, she was suddenly dumped and not only had all those dreams of married bliss dashed, but also had to give her ring back. It wasn't so much a matter of "compensation", as Joe suggested - I just feel sorry for women in that position.
In all honesty though (and maybe this shows I'm a little too "reasonable" for my own good!!), if roles were reversed and *I* was the one giving the engagement ring, and *I* was the one doing the dumping - then I would let the guy keep the ring. In fact, it would never have crossed my mind to ask for it back in the first place. Call me a softie, but that's how I feel.
Oh and for the record - I, personally, have no need for an engagement ring. Why should a man have to buy me an expensive trinket as "proof of his love"? Isn't the fact that he asked me to spend THE REST OF HIS LIFE with him, proof enough???
And Lenin - Of course, as a woman, I am going to always speak from a feminine point of view, but I would never back up a woman JUST because she was a woman. I would have to firmly believe that she's right. I hate bitchy, catty, materialistic cows as much as you do.
Many years ago . . . more than I like to think about, I broke up with my 1st girlfriend due to her sleeping with some other guy after requiring me to be faithful. Yet she did keep the ring. It didn´t really bother me at the time. What was I going to do with it? Sell it? Give it to someone else? But what bothered me much more was her seemingly irrational need for the ring in the first place. The ring had more importance than I did. Very common with young love . . . the White Dress syndrome. But we were both a lot less jaded then. I wonder what the hell SHE did with the ring? She´s married now with 2 kids. Maybe I´ll ask her . . .
Joe, I admit I haven't actually been in a marriage but I have been engaged and it is like a preview of marriage. If my experience with being engaged with a bitchy fiancee was bad, marriage would probably have been worse. I agree that I have not experienced marriage personally but I have enough divorced friends and relatives who tell me horror stories of it. It is like seeing someone get third degree burns all over his body and just by seeing that victim, you know that what he went through is the worst thing to happen to him in the world. The burn victim experiences pain from the burns, and even worse, disfigurement. He is like an outcast whose identity has been erased. He also loses his abilities. You wouldn't want to experience it yourself by jumping into a fire or lighting yourself up. I've seen more guys get screwed by marriage than guys going through happy marriages. Everyone who is married or divorced tells me not to do it. This feeds my fear of even considering marriage and yes, I AM scared of getting married because the consequences seem greater than the rewards.
Dick Johnson
05-19-03, 14:27
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Dickhead
"The fact that a partially reasonable woman such as RN would even think of justifying not returning an engagement ring really scares me. "
Originally posted by Lenin
good point DH, this is just one more prove that woman is woman's natural ally
Dickhead and Lenin, I don't think RN's viewpoint is due to the fact that she is a woman, and would support other woman in such cases. She herself said she sees both sides of the issue.
There are many instances where I think it is highly debatable whether a woman should give the ring back. As mentioned, what if the guy fools around and found someone else while the girl's family are preparing for the wedding? The family have to suffer the embarassment of having their daughter dumped and still have to give back the ring? Maybe. Or say the guy moves into the woman's apartment and because he spent money on the ring, she said she'll pay rent for now. There are many other senarios but it's kinda ugly and I'd rather not get into it.
For one thing, though the court normally says that she have to give the ring back, imagine the complexities of enforcing that. First of all, do you want to take your ex fiancee to court over a ring? Wasting your time and hers? And she may call her sister, mom etc to testify against you?
Secondly even IF you win the case, the court awards you the ring but does not help you collect it. What are you gonna do? Call her everyday to ask for it back?
But if the woman finds a better guy, perhaps she should give the ring back-if the guy really want it back.
If it were me and I gave a ring. I doubt I'd ask for it back if it means something to the girl.
joe_zop, when someone asks a question on this forum, it is not unusual for people to step in and answer. Other people want to know the answers too. If you don't like it, tough luck.
I don't blame skinless for telling you to not engage in me, I TOLD you to not engage in me. Then you came back at me like a mad dog on another thread DJ you $%^&. And I said :haven't you had enough? And you went on. Later even when no one was argueing with you you were talking to yourself "I'm going to ignore DJ". BTW, skinless also agreed with me some stuff you were writing is bourgeois crap.
I'm pulling my punches. Now let's all get along:). It's better to be my ally than my enemy.
-DJ
Hey Darkseid,
I agree totally. I recently read a major study from the University of Michigan (my fair alma mater) which indicated that approximately 50% of marriages in the US end in divorce in 2-5 years. Furthermore, and I thought that this was very significant, they found in their samples that another 22% were profoundly unhappy and dysfunctional and that these people SHOULD be divorced. So, you have about a 28% chance of having a good or acceptable marriage. That's about a 1 in 5 chance of experiencing marital bliss (however you want to define marital bliss). 1 in 5 are pretty lousy odds.
On a personal level, none of my guy friends are happy being married. A famous Irish writer once referred to a bachelor as "... a lad who never made the same mistake ONCE."
RN,
Yes, an engagement should be a type of "trial" period. However, once the rings are purchased, deposits are put down on halls, dresses are ordered, etc., SOO much money has been spent that there is almost no way to back out. That was the primary reason why I hung in during the so called "engagement. "
BTW, I loved your description of the girl with the new engagement ring showing it to everyone including complete strangers, etc. Your descrption of the whole scene was both witty and highly accurate.
OK, RN, your last post seems fair so I will upgrade you from partially reasonable to generally reasonable. Paddy, maybe time for some other college, at least for math. 28% is greater than one in four and is closer to one in three than one in five. But then I was a history major so WTF do I know. Go Spartans.
Here's a good one on rings. I have a friend who has twice married women he's only known a short time. The second one he only knew for a few days. He spent I think it was $8,000 on her ring, on credit with "easy monthly payments" that were killing him. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the marriage didn't last. It was partly because I elected to take him to a strip bar. He'd never been to one in his life, or so he said, and he hooked up with one of the strippers and didn't come home for a few days. His wife, whom I'd never actually met, was calling me constantly until I finally had to tell her to fuck off.
Anyway, while they were going through the divorce process, he showed up at her apartment and gave her a big bullshit story about wanting to get back together, give me another chance, you are the love of my life, blah blah blah. He fucks the hell out of her and then she goes to take a shower. He goes in there while she is naked and soapy, physically yanks the ring off her hand and runs out the door, leaving her naked and screaming. He returned the ring and made a settlement with the jeweler. Later in court, it turned out she hadn't listed the ring on the property declaration so there wasn't jack shit she could do about it.
I think my friend still ended up out about $2,000 with the payments and the settlement. Now he is living with some doctor who makes a lot of money and he hasn't worked in years. What a douche bag. His first wife, whom he knew for I think six weeks before he married her, left him for another woman.
Dickhead, thanks for the laugh -- that's a hilarious story. Can't imagine why women don't think highly of us...
Just as an aside -- is there any other industry that can manage, as the diamond monopolists have done, to define what percentage of your income you ought to be spending on a luxury? Two month's salary? Try having a conversation with many women about the silliness of such a "rule" and you get absolutely nowhere. Weddings are to women what watching sports are to men -- something the other sex simply can't get into, tries to negotiate into some degree of reasonable, and ultimately just has to put up with.
Paddy, can you point me to some information on that study? It runs counter to all the others I've read, and it's certainly doesn't agree statistically with the census bureau in terms of the number of marriages ending that quickly. Sorry to hear about your friends -- my experience is the opposite; my friends are a mix of the happy and unhappy that pretty well matches up with the basic statistics. And when I ask some of the unhappy ones if the'd rather get out of the marriage, many will also say, no, they're just bitching. 'Course, that's often typical of guys, too, given how at times secreting and hard to read we can be about emotions -- they could just be bitching, or they could end up divorced in a week. I'd also note that I've got a fair number of friends who are miserable with being single, as well as those who are happy with it.
Darkseid, perhaps your experience with a fiance was a preview of a bad marriage, but that's still not the same as actually living with someone over time, and seeing a burn victim still isn't the same as being one. And if we want to follow that metaphor down, (and I agree that it's a dramatic and sometimes apt one, and that many guys do walk around disfigured) the basic problem is that you tend to say that anyone who lives in a house where there's a gas stove ends up a burn victim. That's just an exaggeration -- yes, those who get burned have it bad, but not everyone ends up with third degree burns. And don't get me wrong -- I've got no problem with your making comments on marriage, as that's clearly your right; it's just that they're almost always knowing and blanket statements, and if you're going to turn things into black and white as opposed to many shades it seems fair to question qualifications. Again, maybe it's a New York City or big-city thing, but I just don't see the same level of vitriol and crispiness out here in the heartland.
RN, I have to say that a fair number of the brides-to-be that engage in the behavior you've eloquently described seem to me to end up being disasterous wives, as they're often more in love with the idea of being brides than they are with the guy they're hooking up with. Once they get hitched, reality tends to creep into the equation for the first time, and it doesn't always look like the magazines they've been reading. The problem for some of these brides is that there tends to be a real marriage that follows the dream wedding. I've got several nieces who were exactly this way, and it didn't matter how much anyone talked to them, they couldn't be dissuaded into actually looking at reality. All but a couple of them ended up divorced pretty quickly.
And screw you, DJ -- Skinless tried to make peace because he felt we were counterproductive, not because you're something fearsome. A very typical misreading of the situation by you. You're nothing dangerous, you're just a bonehead who can't read very well and thinks he's about ten times smarter than he is, whose chief talent seems to be chasing people out of sections via repeated attacks. Your "warning" meant nothing to me at the time, and means nothing now, nor does your conveniently twisted version of events or your monumental ego. (Not to mention your even more obnoxious claim that you'd somehow "changed" my behavior, as though I'd ever make a change in reaction to something a fool like you did. I change my behavior or my opinion based on reason or persuasion, not grade-school idiocy.) You started things out of the blue in the first place with a personal attack, and complain because it didn't end just because you royally proclaimed you'd put in the last word. Whoop-de-do. I don't have to end something just because you say so -- you want it ended, then post an apology in the appropriate section for attacking me in the first place. Otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, it ends whenever I feel like it, fuck you, and I'm going to react anytime you get in my business.
I'm sure as hell not going to be your "ally" as that implies you can trust someone if you turn their back on them. A snake is a snake, even if it's a snake that hisses constantly that it's really a big scary lion.
ERROR MESSAGE:
When I re-read my earlier posting, I made a small but perhaps significant typing error. When I stated that the University of Michigan study concluded that you had about a 28% chance of a good or satisfying marriage, I typed those odds as being 1 in 5. Of course, mathematically, 28% is close to about 1 in 4. Sorry. I hit the 5 key when I meant to hit the 4.
Having taught statistics for many years I felt compelled to correct my error. I used to burn students for mistakes like that and now I engage in them. Must be a senior moment or something. Endless apologies.
Paddy
DH,
Just read your last posting. That has to be one of the funniest stories I've read in a long time.
If my niece's fiance ever tried that she would not only whip his ass in the shower but she'd then have him arrested and jailed for assault and battery.
More on rings. Yesterday I went to a baseball game with my two best women friends. I noticed the non-married one (a Gopher) was not wearing her "engagement" ring. She has been "engaged" for about six years now, having called off the scheduled wedding due to seeing her BF groping her drunk and virtually passed out bridesmaid (to be) and good friend while the bridesmaid was up for a weekend to pick out dresses and etc. She told me that she wasn't wearing her ring because she was having the stone replaced with one she liked better. Then the married one (a Spartan) chimed in with her story of having the stone in her ring that hubby had given her replaced with a stone from a ring she inherited.
I asked them how their BF or husband felt about them doing this and they both responded that they hadn't asked them! This would [CodeWord140] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord140) me right off if I were the guy in question. Another strange thing is that this made me realize that the married one never wore her wedding ring, only her engagement ring. Now I don't know about the rest of you but I never knowingly screw married women, or even bother to flirt with them, but am willing to hit on ones who are merely engaged for practice if nothing else. I voiced this philosophy to my friend, who knows me very, very well, and she said she thought she did get hit on more because she just wore the engagement ring, and that she rather liked this.
I don't think the married one would ever cheat on her husband (a very good friend of mine), but the other one cheats all the time, including with me sometimes (I don't like her boyfriend much at all). I make her take her ring off every time I screw her just to remind her what a tramp she really is. Women are pretty strange.
Hey Paddy, you know you can edit your postings. I wouldn't even have pointed out the mistake if I weren't such a Dickhead. Go Wolverines.
I agree that rings are an important indicator, though it's surprising at times for what -- a couple of my single friends wear rings because they say they get hit on more by women when wearing them. When I've worn a ring I've had the same experience. I'm absolutely with you, DH -- I'd be pissed if someone changed stones in an engagement ring I gave them, unless there was already a marriage ring exchanged. Once the marriage has happened, it's truly her ring to do with as she pleases, but before that it's more like a deposit or collateral. (I'd probably still be pissed if it was done without talking to me, though.)
Again, Paddy, I'd love to track down that UM study, especially since I just read another from Rutgers directly contradicting the conclusions you report. This includes a chart over time of married people over 18, broken into male and female, who indicate that their marriages are "very happy." While it shows a decline of about 5% since the 1970s, it pegs the rate at over 60% for both sexes, with men consistently scoring higher than women. (http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SOOU/TEXTSOOU2002.htm) Seems high to me, especially for a "very" response, but so it goes, and the methods and measures are probably different between studies. Even though Americans are now less likely to marry than they were thirty years ago, around 55% of all those in the US over 15 are married at any given time (a couple of percentage points higher for men), with the number between 35 and 44 hanging around 70% for both men and women. If close to two-thirds of them say their marriages are "very happy" then those who are truly unhappy are in a clear minority. My math says using these numbers that around 45% of all men between those ages describe themselves as being in a "very happy" marriage. If that is actually true, the odds aren't nearly as bleak as one in four. I'd presume this number has to include those who get it right the second time.
My understanding of the 50% divorce rate is that it means that half of all marriages are expected to end in divorce before the marriages break up through death. I can't find anything anywhere that says half of all marriages fail before five years are up.
My married friend had been married for years before she changed the stone but it would still [CodeWord140] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord140) me off. I think??? Ahh, how the hell would I know. I just think it's strange to change your ring that your lover gave you, and it might hurt his feelings. Good thing I'm a Dickhead and don't have any feelings.
Hi Joe,
The information came from the highly respected and often quoted University of Michigan Institute for Social Research. I read the summary results in USA Today I think. I, too, was a bit startled and taken aback by their findings.
The summary statistics you mention are what I usually hear and personally believe. Maybe the differences are in the demographics or the stratified random samples in their studies. Who knows?
One last thing. A good friend of mine is a divorce lawyer and he has to refer many new clients to other divorce and family law lawyers because he's overwhelmed with work.
Rubber Nursey
05-20-03, 05:07
I think it's really sad that so many of you would avoid marriage based on statistics or other people's experiences. It wouldn't matter if the facts stated that only one out of 10 marriages were happy - there is nothing to say that YOUR marrige won't be that one out of ten!
I had a godawful marriage, a horrendous drawn-out divorce and then almost 2 years of stalking and harassment followed - not to mention being left with thousands of dollars worth of HIS debts. What does that prove about marriage in general? Absolutely nothing. It only says that for myself and that particular man, at that particular time in my life, getting married was a very bad decision. I could go down to the shop this afternoon and meet the man of my dreams, and live happily ever after! I did not enjoy being married, and I do not feel the need to be married at the moment - but that may change one day, when the time (and the man) is right. My parents have been VERY happily married for over 30 years, as have the overwhelming majority of my other relatives. Even if half of all marriages end in divorce - it still means that half of them don't. Don't be so cynical!!
And I've said it before and I'll say it again...if having to spend 10 grand on a ring, thousands on a wedding and then losing everything you own in a divorce settlement is what is keeping you away from marriage- STOP DATING SUCH MATERIALISTIC WOMEN!!! LOL
Thanks, Paddy -- I earlier spent a couple of hours on UM's ISR site the past several days without finding such a study, which would seem like something they'd highlight, so I've got to suspect part of this might be USA Today's usual less than accurate summations (something I say with regret, having taken money from Gannett Co in the past.) I may give ISR a call, since they're local to me and I know a couple of folks there. I've no doubt that divorce is still all-too-prevalent and far higher than it was when I was a wee lad; I simply think in the same way that we tend to see the horrible and spectacular on the evening news that sometimes the things that are most usual and normal get short shrift in the reporting. Bravo for your friend -- having dealt with lawyers of many stripes, I'd bet his state of being overwhelmed is due to him being good at what he does more than anything; I know tons of lawyers who can't buy clients (and that's what they should probably do, in reality :))
RN, thanks for your take on things, as someone who's been through the opposite side of the wringer. All the people who go to casinos know that they're gettting less than 50% odds, but that doesn't really stop anyone because the possibilities are just so alluring. My take on things is this -- while any of us can certainly screw up just about anything, and for most of us what we want has little correlation to what we truly need, the bottom line is that if you do it right you've only got to be correct once. If not, you can do it over and over and over and still end up fucked. I wish you good luck on your afternoon trip to the shop, and if not that trip, then tomorrow's.
That's not an argument about marriage, but about attitude, and in that it's the same argument I've made since I first came on this board -- good situations (or bad) are as much about perception and attitude as anything else. This goes back to the study I quoted a while back that says that people tend toward their native levels of happiness/unhappiness.
RN, almost all women in the New York City are materialistic and I guess all the greediest bitches flock to this city. I can't avoid these women unless I travel out of the city and perhaps into the heartland. Joe, I agree that perhaps I am having these problems and fears BECAUSE of the types of women I meet in NYC. I could try bringing a woman from the heartland with me to the city but I still have to question her motives. Does she like me and want to be with me or is she really one of those materialistic women that are drawn to the city and would take half your stuff after they marry you and divorce you. It would be different if I LIVED outside the city and met and married a woman outside the city because her motive is pure in that she is staying outside the city because she wants to be with you.
BTW, Joe, what part of the USA do you live in?
Dick Johnson
05-20-03, 15:40
joe_zop, you've been sending me email virus and worms. You think I don't know it? Shame on you!
You started doing that 2 and a half months ago during our last altercation and continued for a few weeks. Sometimes 2 or 3 emails a day. Then you started again a few days ago. Very few people ever email me at that account, I only get 1 or two emails a day. None of my 4 other email accounts got such email virus. You're trying to crash my computer? I have firewalls and anti-virus. You are pathetic, self-righteous, self-important and you're a joke.
We all know you have no life. You're on the internet 24 hours a day. You carry around your English language like a security blanket. Just like you always have to mention your "laptop", just to make sure we know, gasp, you have one(the guys in Thailand section are laughing). In this day of computers and electronics, you're English may cut it in Chiang Mai but not in New York or even Los Angeles.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.4 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.