-
14 years, unbelievable.
Regarding the fellow in Astor's recent post:
"I had plenty of BJ's in the year and a half we dated. Not one since the wedding band went on." Dude, if you're getting that kind of satisfaction why spoil things by getting married?
"We also had sex 2-3 times per week while dating." Again, keep on dating!
"On our wedding night, my wife told me she was too tired for sex." UH-OH!!!
Red flags going up all over the place. At this point, you should have come to this full realization that something is terribly wrong.
"We had sex only once. After I begged for it." Married less than a week and already we can see who's in charge.
"14 years ago, and also the last time we had sex." You should have started getting some on the side..... a good time to start would have been about 14 years ago :) .
That was my policy even back in the days when I was dating. There's always going to be these girls who don't put out right away. Most of them are good to go after a few weeks. However, some of them test a guy by making him wait for it for months. This is also a strategy they use to get the upper hand in a relationship..... they are showing the guy that they don't need him as much as he needs her.
When I found myself dating a girl like that, I'd see her maybe 2 or 3 times a week. On the other nights, I'd spend some quality time with women who were a bit more "easy going". Of course women don't like it when a guy does that. They call it cheating. The real reason they don't like it is because there's no way they'll maintain the upper hand if the guy has his other options available.
Last quote:
"About a year ago, my wife told me she suspected I was cheating on her, and that if she ever found out for sure, she would leave me. I had never cheated (paid or unpaid). But the whole threat thing pissed me off, especially being falsely accused. That's when I decided to start hobbying. Haven't regretted it since."
Amen brother, amen.
Rock
-
[QUOTE=Ezinho]Oh yeah, I have a message for Jane McGuire of Maine, the woman that suggested "all American men looking for a date, should have their background info and a search through sex offender registry results in hand before asking any woman out."
FUCK YOU, C**T!!![/QUOTE]I don't see Jane McGuire on page one, so Good Lord, man! You actually read past the first page of this drivel? I can't even get past the first page of a sensationalist political tabloid, oops I mean newspaper, without laughing my ass off about intentional omissions and biased reporting.
Well, anyway, at least Jane here has all but admitted her seething distrust of men who talk to foreign women, and isn't wrapping her statment in a gold-fringed flag like damn near every TV talk show host, oops I mean "cable news reporter."
-
Giggity,
It looks like you are new to this forum. Welcome! Here you will hear the TRUE opinions from those who aren't afraid to speak their minds.
The truth is, there are women who absolutely hate what we do. They hate us for buying sex, instead of begging for it.
They hate us for daring to look for a wife outside the national border. They hate us even more when they see how young, beautiful and easy-going she is...... especially compared to them. They even hate women.... any woman who breaks ranks and makes a man happy without first negotiating the ultimate price.
What's more, they don't just hate us and leave it at that. Many of them actively seek to punish us for doing these things. They agitate, mobilize and try dreaming up new regulations and passing laws that are purposely designed to keep us on our knees.
Think I'm paranoid? Look at what happens to the average guy in divorce court. Look at the laws here regarding prostitution..... then compare how things are in other countries. Look at IMBRA...... designed to make it far more difficult for men to meet and marry foreign (ie. better) women. Imbra was cooked up and introduced by 2 middle-aged FEMALE politicians.
Jane McGuire, and others like her, have an agenda. We should keep an eye on them and oppose them whenever and however we can.
Rock
-
[quote=bart9000]part of all of that is puritanical bullshit too. i'm under the understanding that some parts of the world don't consider the work...to be any different than any other type of work.[/quote]
not entirely true - even in other parts of the world, such as mine, where sex work is considered 'legitimate' (if not entirely 'legal') in most parts of the country and sex workers are taxed, unionised and (in theory) covered by industrial and oh&s law, sex work is still not considered to be 'normal' work and sex workers themselves are still subject to all the same stigma, discrimination and outright hatred from society, that they are in any other part of the world. (but you're right in blaming a lot of that on "puritanical bullshit").
[quote] "but it is dangerous"...men do all kinds of dangerous work, why isn't this an issue with them?[/quote]
ah...because in the other types of work that you're talking about, other men are not the danger! this is not about whether or not men are the victims. this is about men being the perpetrators. i know most people see sex work as a 'women's issue' - and with 90something percent of sex workers being female, it largely is - but if you have a closer look at the other 10ish percent, you'll notice something very interesting. male and transsexual sex workers, who see male clients, are treated exactly the same way by society as female sex workers. they are seen as abused, victimised, at risk and in danger, just like the girls are. just as female sex workers are painted as being drug dependent, uneducated and sexually dysfunctional (generally assumed to have been abused as children or treated badly by men in adulthood), men and transsexuals who have sex with men for money are also assumed to be drug addicted, uneducated, abuse victims with sexual identity issues - unlike men who have sex with women for money.
compare the images associated with the words 'rent-boy' or 'male prostitute', to the word gigolo. a rent-boy is a junkie standing on a street corner looking for a man to give him a bed for the night in exchange for a blow job - a gigolo is a suave, intelligent handsome man who is an expert in sex (female sex workers are rarely ever considered 'experts' in their field!!), who does the job for the glamour and excitement it provides. compare the movies working girl and pretty woman - where the hooker with a heart of gold is 'rescued' by her night in shining armour - to the comedy deuce bigolo. the fact that it is a comedy says something about how society perceives men who charge women for sex. compare the gigolo's sprawling home to the cheap, nasty flat that julia roberts' pretty woman lives in. compare the romantic dinner dates that deuce goes on, to the violence and abuse that julia experiences. compare the gigolo's jetsetting lifestyle (why he needed a housesitter in the first place) to julia hocking her arse on a street corner.
to me that says that when it comes to sex, men are powerful and in control of their own bodies - women are submissive and not in control and therefore at risk of exploitation and abuse at the hands of men. men and transsexuals, for some reason, suddenly fall into the 'female' category as soon as they charge for sex. (oh, hang on, we don't charge men for sex - that would suggest some element of control. men buy us and use us for sex!)
as to your other points...
yes, some women are enslaved and 'forced' to pay off debts, contracts, etc. that is because in most countries - even where prostitution is legal - sex workers cannot enter the country legitimately as a sex worker (that is, they cannot apply for a working visa to work in the sex industry). if they could do this legally, there would be no need for traffickers or middle men to falsify documents and smuggle them in. the women could enter the country (and leave) of their own accord. why can't they do this? because moralists/feminazis/religious zealots refuse to allow sex work to be seen as, and treated as, a legitimate occupation. (this very topic is the current discussion in the morality section).
yes, the job is dangerous. even in the safest of sex working environments (like australia), sex workers are robbed, beaten, stalked and raped, all the time. we are ripped off by clients and brothel owners and (believe it or not) the tax dept. we are harassed by police. isn't this, in itself, a good argument to criminalise the sex industry? no! this happens because the industry is criminalised! by forcing us to operate illegally (or at best, in a legal 'grey area') we have no support from police and no legal recourse when we are mistreated. so why is sex work not decriminalised for sex workers' safety? because moralists/feminazis/religious zealots refuse to allow sex work to be seen as, and treated as, a legitimate occupation.
and as for 'emotional scarring' - there have been surveys carried out all over the world that ask sex workers what is responsible for any emotional scars they may have from their time in the industry. their answer is always, overwhelmingly, the stigma associated with being a wh*re. its the opinions and attitudes of society that hurt us the most. its the way they portray us on the tv and in the newspapers. its the way judges let off serial killers and [url=http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord127][CodeWord127][/url] who 'only' targeted prostitutes. its the fear that you live with, every day of your life (even once you stop working) that someone may find out about your past and you could lose everything. its the myths and lies about sex workers and the sex industry that are accepted as fact by most of society. and who perpetrates those myths? the moralists/feminazis/religious zealots who refuse to allow sex work to be seen as, and treated as, a legitimate occupation! (are you starting to see a pattern here? :) )
apologies for continuing this discussion in the aw section, when i really should have moved it to the morality section, but i figured that this topic does go some way to describing some women's prejudices and attitudes towards other women and the sexual power dynamic between women and men.
ps. bart: i don't think it's that hookers aren't charging enough - i think its that we are doing it too blatantly. that is, too honestly. the 'average' woman might be thinking "if he wants my pussy, i'm gonna slowly manipulate him into buying me dinner, then jewellery, then the house and car". a hooker says "if you want my pussy - give me 200 bucks!" :)
-
Good points Nursey....
I see that you have adopted one of my favorite tools, exposing hypocrasy through reversing the genders in a given situation:
A couple of observations:
1. It's been said here before-Prostitution....it's the only honest way to get laid.
2. This board is pretty flexible as you know....we go all the way from Bush Bashing to expatriation issues (two closely related isssues in fact).....the only time I have ever seen anyone call "off topic" is when we are beating our troll.
3. In addition to the paternalism (more on that in a moment) as have pointed out before, the prohibition (it's well established that they don't work by the way, leading back into you crim/decrim points) is about POWER...the more that men want sex and can't get it, the more power women have, which manifests all over the place.....just the other day, I met a hot little 22 year old piece of ass who has a SEXY finance job (one that I would give up a testicle to get-I have an MS in that field)....her qualification..a BS in psychology.....plus somewhere, a hiring authority who wants to fuck her. I can't help but think that if the market price for hot young pussy were established, and supply was available, the hiring authority in that case would have been less motivated by his dick, and more prone to say hire someone who can tell him what a correlation coeficient is.
(Going to watch Deadwood....more later......Calamity Jane rules all!!!)
OK I'm back....Damn no Calamity Jane this week.
4. The paternalistic bulllshit (major perpetratorrs being white middle class biddies, along with religious fucks) goes far beyond sex workers.....I find it quite patronizing (the same way that you do) that some of these people feel a need to determine what literature, film and radio broadcasts I should be consuming as I am most certainly incapable of making these determinations on my own........I REALLY need some simple minded, ignorant, dumb as fuck housefrau to decide that I can't handle watching "The Shield", reading "Catcher in the Rye", or listening to "Howard Stern", without suffering personal harm or engaging in socially destructive behavior.
5. On a completely different subject.......there is a girl at my job....17 years old (18 in a few months), she is smoking fucking hot....she literally looks like a petite little pornstar, but is just a hair geeky, which makes her even hotter, because it makes her seem "gettable".......she is smart, funny, and cool as hell. And I am so proud of her. Her long standing boyfriiend is NICE, very smart, responsible studious, hardworkinig, somewhat geeky and insecure, and treats her like a princess, is crazy about her and faithful,..........basically about the furthest fucking thinig that one could be from some the "bad boy loser"/jerks/smooth talkers/"alpha males" (quotations because from high school, those are the guys who often end up wth a glamorous career working for the local oil change place) that most of her hot little contemporaries pine over. This is the way that the fuckinig world shoulld be.
B9k
-
To those of you incensed by the pro-IMBRA petition that Chocha posted the other day - I found a (much more rational, level-headed) anti-IMBRA petition you might be interested in.
[url]http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/174725004?ltl=1151287024[/url]
-
We love you Nursey!!!
B9k
-
[QUOTE=Bart9000]We love you Nursey!!![/QUOTE]
Awww shucks, babe. Much appreciated. Although you might regret saying that in a minute - I'm about to go all feminist on your ass... :)
[QUOTE]POWER...the more that men want sex and can't get it, the more power women have, which manifests all over the place.....[/QUOTE]
This is a statement that's been made in this section, over and over, since Adam was a boy - I had a problem with it then and I still do now. I don't get it! Are you honestly suggesting that the whole power dynamic between women and men is shifting because men don't have ready access to pussy? Do you really believe that the unfulfilled sexual desires of men, as individuals or collectively as a gender, are a force of such significance in the grand scheme of things, that men will eventually crumble under the pressure and be forced to submit to the whims of a matriarchal New World Order, just to get a root? Isn't a wee bit insulting to to men? I mean...you're basically accusing mankind of thinking with their dicks. ;)
I too have a theory about the power dynamic in today's political climate. Many years ago, the Church stomped all over the world's matriarchal societies and installed a man at the head of every family dinner table. Over the centuries that followed, a man was free to drink, gamble, vote, travel, be educated and indulge in pleasures of the flesh. His wife existed solely to serve him, as maid, cook, nanny and wh*re. Every man was a king and the whole world was their kingdom. Their power was absolute.
Then, a few decades ago, the Women's Movement arrived on the scene and to cut a very long story short, men were eventually forced to concede that women were actually human after all and, as such, we probably deserved a few more rights than the right to pop out your babies, cook your eggs and wash your dirty underpants. By the 60s and 70s we had discovered a new right that you guys had been hiding from us for centuries - the right to have indiscriminate casual sex with strangers, without having to marry them first. We also discovered employment and then we could have financial security, as well as sex, without needing to get married. And so the sexual revolution began.
Over the next few years, women gained more and more independence, power and political clout. Women voted for things that would improve women's health and social status, such as making abortion and the contraceptive pill accessible and changing divorce laws so that a) women could leave domestic violence situations and b) when they did leave, they didn't walk away with nothing but the clothes on their back. (I know this eventually went overboard, but their original intentions were good). More childcare centres were opened so that mothers could return to the workforce and affirmative action plans gave women more diverse occupations to choose from. And in many countries, prostitution was decriminalised and/or legalised, with feminists supporting sex worker activists' claims that it was a woman's right to use her own body as she sees fit.
Ok, that brings us to today. Today, I DO see the power dynamic beginning to shift, but not towards women. What I see is men trying to claw that power BACK. In the last couple of years (and this is why I just summarised the entire history of womankind - not to be a pain in the ass, but so I can demonstrate the rise and fall :) ) our Governments have been slowly stripping away many of the rights that feminists fought so hard to secure.
There are moves all over the world at the moment to REcriminalise abortion. Many countries are reviewing their prostitution laws, with some who used to have a liberal approach now turning towards outright abolition. A few years ago, teenage girls were being told that condoms were not only the boys responsibility and that they should be carrying them as well - now total abstinence is being preached at schools. Here, there are currently attempts to raise the age that girls can access the Pill without their parents consent and teenagers are being denied access to the morning-after pill. Actually, the morning-after pill was only made available over the counter a couple of years ago, but now there is talk of withdrawing it again and returning it to prescription-only. The Federal Government is in the process of slowly changing the divorce laws with the aim of make them harder to obtain. They are also offering financial incentives to married women to encourage them to stay in the home and pop out more children. Childcare has become inaccessible to many and unaffordable to most, but despite Govt promises to fix it, nothing has been done. Welfare payments to single parents are being cut (are they trying to make us single parents get married, or are they trying to discourage single childless women from making the decision to have a baby alone?)
What I see is a push towards 'traditional' families and 'traditional' gender roles (read: putting the man back at the head of the dinner table) and a really big blow to women's sexual and reproductive freedom. HOWEVER, if the Government takes away all our freedoms and forces us back into subservience - but unlike in the old days, we'll know what we're missing out on this time - women are REALLY gonna be wanting some sort of reward in exchange for the only bargaining tool that we'll have left. Pussy is gonna be worth more than gold and I can see you guys having an even harder time than you're having now.
-
power shift...?
unless the entire planet converts to fundamentalist islamic ways of thought, i don't see this reversal of power actually occuring. i'm all for women having the rights that men have, but for them to complain about being oppressed for the last five millenia and to try to "balance the scales" by augmenting those rights (in other words penalizing men and putting us at a higher/tighter standard than women) is the same bullshit that they accuse us of having done since before the dawn of recorded history. some crude examples would be: when a woman accuses a man of [url=http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123][CodeWord123][/url], the public instantly assumes she is right and he is wrong. sexual harassment: same thing. employment: i'm not certain that affirmative action would be the best course of action if you are going to hire the best applicant for the job instead of fulfilling a quota set by a government that is slowly being worn down by the relentless feminazi agenda that will not end at equality for the sexes, but our (men's) eventual subjugation. remember, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and as long as they are around to vociferously promote their argument to an unwitting (and/or uncaring) audience, they will gain ground, like kudzu. for a specific argument, divorce: if a woman stays at home and takes care of the "king's" kids and upholds the maintenance of the house, i have no prob with her getting a sizeable settlement from the divorce, since she invested a sizeable chunk of her life and effort toward the union. however, if said woman tries to drain the last drop of financial blood from a guy simply to satisfy a craving for revenge, then i have a huge prob with that. women have it better now than in the past and i don't see the sentries of feminism ever letting it go backward.
-
Nursey,
I can speak only for myself that despite musings to the contrary, am not looking for the day that women are returned only to having the rights of children....or the rights of the family pet. Those days were an imbalance of fairness and equity.
The "pussy power" that you do not believe in is making an affect much more on a micro level than the macro, which you seem to be asserting.....you don't think that women have power in this country? I have to point to consumer spending....near my home on the commercial strip, there is on average, every half mile, a 10,000-20,000 square foot furniture superstore......and I really don't think that it is men as a whole who are driving the demand for $10,000 new living room sets......then we have SUV's also.....often 30-50K to run back and forth to the corner grocery store, tanning studio, and kid's soccer practice.
Women don't have power? You along with us were maligning paternalistic "biddies"....who are politically powerful due to having copious free time and financial resources.....Why do they have these resources? Is it because they work endless hours under dangerous conditons? No. Is it because they have developed high level skills in medicine, law, or business? Not so much, they are generally ignorant and isolated from reality....the money and comfortable lifestyle comes primarily from the work of men, who's primary motivation in getting married is to "buy the cow"
Divorce is now, again, an imbalance...... I agree with you that a MOTHER and her children should not be cast into the streets for failing to please her husband......this is unconsciounable. However, on the other hand, it is also unconsciounable that a man now who can easily be divorced at the whim of his wife, has to then support her and the kids in the big luxurious suburban house and keep up her SUV payments ("the style to which she is accostomed").....while trying to stil support himself, and toss together a few dollars for his retirement after he has been cleaned out by the divorce.....yes, he has a responsibility to his children....would it be so terrible to have to move to a safe clean, but plain 3 bedroom apartment (partially underwritten by the ex-husband), and ride the bus to your little job......not "the style to which you are acustomed" but still hardly being tossed into the streets.....and under that scenario, the husband has a fighting chance of making a new life for himself.
And yes, women are over powered in other ways, such as what Sin mentioned in the ability to have a man guilty until proven in sex related allegations. A woman can literally end a man's career with an allegation of sexual harassment, and the burden of proof is on the man to prove himself innocent. I have seen it(in actual response to something having nothing to do with sex) happen.
And yes, as Sin asserted, the trend is towards not equalization, but instead towards subjugation. Western society is becoming increasingly feminized, and males and male behavior are being progressively made into the underclass....a recent trend has been to push males out of the education system (controlled by women hmmmmm), for basically not acting like girls........male enrollment in college is I believe on a percentage basis at an all time low, and in a few years, there should be an interesting collision of trends as a lack of educated skilled males to be strong providers collides with women's propensity to drop out of the "real" workforce and be homemakers.........women may find themselves in a position of being forced to be the "breadwinner" as their lesser producing husbands keep little nothing jobs, attend to the children, and maintain the household.........and threaten to take away the wealth that they have accumulated in a divorce.
B9k
Oh, and regarding the bible thumping morons who are against contraception, abortion, and REALISTIC sex education plans et, all, I will laugh my ass off when that one comes home to roost....hopefully while safely ensconsed in a pimp daddy condo in Eastern Europe, or a private island in the Carribean.
-
[quote=bart9000]women don't have power? you along with us were maligning paternalistic "biddies"....who are politically powerful due to having copious free time and financial resources...[/quote]
and i will continue to malign feminazis and religious zealots and anyone else who aims to create one rule for one part of society and another rule for the other. i don't care whether its about black and white, rich and poor, male and female or wh*res and saints - i believe in equality. i believe that everyone should have equal access to employment, health services and the legal system. i certainly don't believe that women deserve more rights than men, just as i don't want to see a return to men having more rights than women. i am absolutely on your side when it comes to alimony payments (not usually a factor in aussie divorces, unless you're a hugely rich megastar), 70/30 property splits and automatic placement of children with mothers. i, personally, don't believe in 'affirmative action' of any kind (whether it's about gender or colour) if it means that some moron will get the job over someone more qualified, just because their skin is black or they have a vagina. i also don't believe anyone has the right - male or female - to tell us what we can and can't do in our own bedrooms (sex workers and the gay and lesbian community) or to our own bodies (abortion, contraception and casual sex) or censor what books we can read or what movies we can watch, blah, blah, blah. the list of civil liberties violations, mostly made in the name of radical feminism and/or religious zealotry, is endless.
and i am definitely not saying that women don't have power. women are very much the target demographic for most advertising and it's not just for the fridge and washing machine any more. i used to work in real estate and as much as you had to impress the husband (because he was the one signing the cheque, so he had to at least trust you with his money) ultimately, the decision on which home to buy was usually made by the woman. same goes for the family car. to me, that makes a degree of sense, because she will be the one spending the most time there and she is more able to assess whether it's 'child-friendly', etc - but i can't see men ever having allowed women to make such huge financial decisions in the past. and women still have a fair degree of clout in the political arena, with more and more women becoming strong political figures - however, i actually see that being to the detriment of women. as i have said many times before...women are our own worst enemies. between the tendency to 'behave like men' to prove themselves in politics and the jealous/judgemental way that some women treat other women, things like sexual and reproductive freedom seem to suffer when placed in the hands of female politicians. women can be very cruel to each other. but i digress... :)
the point you made about less men entering college was a very interesting one. if that is indeed the case and there will eventually be less skilled/qualified men entering the workforce than there are women, it has the potential to really alter the power dynamic in middle to upperclass families. even without the (somewhat dated) notion that men should be the breadwinner just because he's the man of the house, men are generally the ones who keep their jobs after the kids are born because they have always had a much better capacity to earn than women do. wouldn't it be an interesting 'social experiment' to see what happens when women are the leering, sleazy ceos pinching the mail boy's arse and the men are at home with the kids and dr phil. how would workplace sexual harassment laws change? how would divorce courts deal with the property settlements and custody issues? would women eventually spend their free time in bars and brothels looking for younger men, complaining loudly that their fat house-husband has 'let himself go' and is too tired for sex any more? hmmm very interesting indeed!
i do have a comment to make about the [url=http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123][CodeWord123][/url]/sexual harassment issues that both of you mentioned, but i'll have to come back to that later. it's my son's birthday today and i've gotta go make him a birthday cake. :)
-
[quote=rubber nursey]i do have a comment to make about the [url=http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123][CodeWord123][/url]/sexual harassment issues that both of you mentioned, but i'll have to come back to that later. it's my son's birthday today and i've gotta go make him a birthday cake. :)[/quote]
wish your son a happy 16th b-day for me, doll!
-
It's the other one...my 'baby' turns 10 today. Oh my God! When did I get so OLD??!!! LOL
But thank you, babe! :)
-
baby's B-day
Doll, the day I don't wanna do naughty things to you (I never mentioned I have a thing for redheads) is the day you can call yourself OLD, not a DAY before!
-
different perspectives
M5, the fact that RN is a woman, she's gonna ALWAYS present a view that is central to a woman (a woman who actually sees both sides, mind you), but I gotta hand it to her that she DOES present some facts that ARE irrefutable. I'll never begrudge her the desire to try to make the plight of women BETTER than it is. I don't think she wants to make a world where subjugation of men is the norm, but merely to make it more equitable. I have more dealings with her than most of you here, dating back several years, so, my endorsement of her is not something I do lightly.