American Women

They call me Slim Shady!! I'm back. I'm back. So what's cookin here in the American Women message board?? Can you smell what the Rock is cookin??!! I got ripped off a couple of days ago by a sleazy New York incall service and I have to say that is the last straw, why deal with shit service in the US when you get high quality elsewhere in the world, Europe, Australia, even Canada to a degree??

Hello

This is a little off topic but I would like to ask about the existance and use of "short stay hotels" in the US. I have also post this to the General board here
http://www.wsgforum.com/vforum/showthread.php?threadid=970
but I really need to ask people who are in the US.

What I want to ask is, are "Short stay hotels" in the US and Canada only used with professionals or do people sometimes take their girl friend in for a quickie? How strange would this be?

As some of you may know, there are places called "love hotels" in Japan which are rented by the hour (or 3, sometimes all night) where people go for sex (and occasionally just for a rest or to stay the night because they are cheaper). Sometimes people will take prostitutes to love hotels, but often they will take their girlfriend, including especially the person that they are having an affair with, or even their wife.

The reasons for this are perhaps

1) Japanese young people live with their families for longer, often until they marry, so they often do not have a place of their own.

2) Japanese houses are smaller and are often partitioned with paper walls.

3) The architectural problem is exacerbated since many Japanese ladies sometimes make those moaning noises.

4) There is a more permissive culture of sex (perhaps).

5) And hence they are provided to give a more interesting sexual experience with them rooms, toys, videos and mirrors that would be difficult to provide in such variety at home.

6) Japanese morality depends on *where* you are - i.e. they have a strong sense of propriety, and a sense of inappropriate behaviour depending upon where they are. Having wild sex in ones parent's house might be felt to be shameful (even if they are away on holiday) but doing it in a love hotel -- well that is the place to do it.



Tim

Tomboy or 'Girly Girl' ?

Depends when and where. Alone in the budoir I certainly like the look and feel of nice lacy lingierie on her body, I appreciate the time she spends to get 'dolled up and pretty' for me. Vive le difference, dammit! And there are times out in public too when I like a nice doll in my arms...

but the ladies in my life who aren't pros tend to be casual, I see them in jeans and flannel or t-shirts more often then dressed-to-kill. Which is fine with me, I like my mountain biking, going to movies, nice time snuggling on the couch. I appreciate time spent when things are natural and she's letting her hair down.
Casual wins overall, it is just more of my lifestyle. Not really a suit myself, just a merchant sailor on the great lakes who thinks all women are goddesses, that god created women so that he can pamper them (when I'm not selling myself the bill of goods that the only thing a lady would want from me is Master Card, Visa, American Express, or cold hard cash). What wins is a woman who can be appealing and make both sides come off well: I may be a simple man, but I like my women to be multi-faceted.

Warpig,

[i]"...just a merchant sailor on the great lakes who thinks all women are goddesses, that god created women so that he can pamper them"[/i]

Who needs Visa cards and BMWs?? What we need are more men like you!!! ;)

Dear Alex,

I agree with a lot of what you say and have thought similar things myself. Some comments,

I am not sure that women have the upper hand. It is true that they have a lot of power due to the sexual appetite imbalance that you point out, but at the same time, as you also note, they are dependent upon men if they want to use their sexual organs to the full and have children. It is clear that someone needs to look after children. In the end we all labour to have our sexual desires fulfilled and women probably work about as hard as men, appeasing men, and raising children or working. Surveys of how much work men and women do in Japan at least show that women do about as much work as men, even though men work long hours. In general it seems to me that men and women need each other, are dependent upon each other, so inequality is difficult to maintain.

But having said that, you are probably right. Men give women money for sex and having sex, even (or especially) for a woman, is a lot less unpleasant than having to earn money. Hmm... at the same time I think that we give them a psychologically hard time a lot of the time.

Anyway

The problem is though that your alternatives to marriage are not all that good. Immigration would only work for the richer countries and would result in considerable cultural decline. Soon American (or whereever you are) would be populated by those from other nations and would cease to be America. When that happened it is quite possible that the economic advantage that it has now would dissappear, meaning that women would not want to come.

One might attempt to run communes such as the Israeli Kibbutz or the attempts in the Soviet Union were women raise children as a group and men work as a group, each according to their ability, each according to their needs. In Russia it was found that it was very difficult to break the bond between biological parents and their offspring, especially the mothers, but also the fathers as well I believe. You predict that some fathers would want to rear their children. It seems to me that there will be a tendency for marriage to rise from the ashes, as it were, so long as there are some men that are prepared to do it. As soon as their are some men that do it, then women will choose those men, and the rest of us will have to do likewise is the competative sexual market.

One might pay women to have children, via general taxation. Would this be preferable?

Anothe point is that this problem is very deep and even spiritual. Many myths start with a divine couple (adam and eve etc) suggesting that forming couples is something that lies at the foundation of our religions and cultures. Overthrowing marriage would be a massive revolution indeed. Marx (or in particular his friend Engels, who was rich enough to live with two women) believed that patriachy and by that he meant men buying women, was the origin of capitalism. (check for books by Engels at Amazon).

As a bit of a buddhist, it seems to me that perhaps one of the reasons why we believe ourselves to have a stable identity (which buddhism denies) is that we are born to a system where we are to have stable relationships. Hence the others that we internalise are stable, and so are our percieved identities. Perhaps the end of marriage would signal enlightenment for mankind!

But the problem is people have not (recently) come up with a better system than marriage - a better system of transferring wealth to child rearers from non-child rearers.

And perhaps, while I can see the objections, it is good for society that we are in a situation where we are required to work in order to satisfy our desires. If sex were free then perhaps we would be very lazy.

I have toyed with the ideal of a utopia in which all women are prostitutes and that everyone simply realises that marriage is just one form of prostitution. Perhpas if the market would just get deregulated a little (meaning that there is no moral or legal divide between those that want to form lifetime and one hour partnerships) then that would improve human society? It could also make it a lot worse.

People find that men are a nicer to their biological children are are more inclined, for example, to form sexual relationships with the offspring of other males. This tends to mean that "liberated" familes are fraght places for young females. I know one family that is a case in point.

Tim

takemototim>

Tim !
I remember I read about ancient Polinesia ( Hawayi ... ) - it was absolutely sexual free society. As young people hawayians had a lot of sexual connections, but by 30-40s they usually found a stable parthner and lived voluntarily in couples. They were quite happy in sexual life ( before europeans came and brought syphilis ).

This example showing that cancellation of marriage law will not cancel marriage itself. It will just make to women more difficult to pull out money - that's all ! As a result it will switch women's sexual attutude from money to sex itself, make them less tough and more sexual, like in Hawayi. The negative result will be that some single mothers will lose money - but not to unbearable point. Taxation system can soften it even more.

>And perhaps, while I can see the objections, it is good for society that we are in a situation where we are required to work in order to satisfy our desires. If sex were free then perhaps we would be very lazy.

You are right. that's another undercurrent reason for marriage law - a whip to make men work harder.

Alex,

Hawayi?

Sounds like utopia. It also sounds rather like the American dream - people hand out when they are young and find a soul mate or really good friend for when they are older. I hope that the future turns out that way, but I am not sure that the removal of the marriage laws is enough to ensure a desirable outcome.

Here in Japan (I am not Japanese, but I have lived here for a while), young Japanese tend to be somewhat less hung up about sex and they tend to find a partner later in life (the average of marriage is about 29, I think).

However it is not only reduced taboos on sex that facilitates this sort of society - they also have very strong taboos related to child birth and female desire.

I would have to know more about your utopia to be able to comment.

And anyway, is it enough to simple remove marriage law? If people get married later in life then younger women may want to grab the man sooner before the good ones get taken, and not so attractive men may want to offerthemselves as life long partners sooner before the good ones get taken. If you remove the law will the promise makers disappear?

Removing the child maintenance law would make quite a lot of difference though. New slogan - "Let the woman beware"?

Tim -- for what it's worth, the current average age of first marriage for men in the US is pretty close to 29. About three years younger for women.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by joe_zop
[i]Tim -- for what it's worth, the current average age of first marriage for men in the US is pretty close to 29. About three years younger for women. [/i][/QUOTE]

Can you source that, JZ? It seems high to me. Is the "average" the arithmetic mean or the median (or something else), and how do they treat never-marrieds? Seems to me the calculation is impossible since the never-marrieds cannot be assumed to never marry subsequently, or must be retrospective and thus stale. Or perhaps they are probabilistic regarding the never- (or maybe better said, the not-yet-) marrieds?

The number I would want would be the lowest age at which 50% of the population reported never having married, which would be the median except for survivorship issues (some people had married but died before reaching that age, while others who had died may have married before that age, after that age, or not at all).

Just curious.

Dickhead

PS: 2000 US census data give the median age at first marriage as 25.1 for women and 26.8 for men, if you choose to believe them.

DH

Dickhead, it's from the same place I mentioned below, [url]http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsUS.shtml,[/url] which boils down stats from various sources, including the census. However, on looking at it again (I did the previous post from memory) I see that I've mixed up average age of marriage with that of average age of first marriage, and that their quote for the latter is for 1997. No idea the specifics of their methodology -- I just found their list an easy short compilation -- but my suspicion would be that never-marrieds are not counted, and that this is simply an average age from a source such as licenses or something similar. They have the same number as the one you quote for median for first marriage, which no doubt means that's where they're drawing it from.

For what it's worth, they report the percentage of those who had never married in 1999 as being about 28% with some slight geographical differences, with the percentage over the age of 15 who have never married, by gender, as 31.3% of men and 25.1% of women. Given that there are more women than men, that would seem to indicate that those men who do marry tend to remarry more often than women, right?

OK, Joe, that makes more sense. Thanks. I haven't read all the posts since the board opened up again since I am pretty busy right now, so I didn't see your source.

Fuckin' statisticians. What use is the percentage of people over 15 who've never married? Now over 30 or 35 might tell me something.

I have always heard and felt it to be true that divorced men are more likely to remarry than divorced women, and I think I've heard that about widowers as well. I worked with a guy at the post office who was 25 and had been divorced 3 times. He told me that he liked being married but just hadn't liked any of his wives. What an idiot. I also have two friends who have each TWICE married women they have known for only a few weeks (a few days in one case). These two are both college graduates. One is still married to the second gal but he hates her and just works all the time to avoid her (they had a kid).

Personally, I think marriage is a quaint anachronism, at least in the developed world. I think Bolivia has a good system. You can get married and if you are not satisfied with your wife after a year, you just drag her ass back to her parents' house and drop her off. Of course, that choice exists only for the man and not for the woman. Being a man in Bolivia is quite good as there is a huge disparity of women to men due to centuries of war. However, the women are butt ugly.

>I haven't read all the posts since the board opened up again

For which you should probably be eternally gratefull :D

I have to agree that it never ceases to amaze me how people can get married on a regular basis after only a couple of weeks. People I would otherwise consider bright, as well, but sometimes people are mysteries even to themselves...

Alex,

I must admit I found the post about sexual inequality quite funny. Contrary to popular belief, there are plenty of sexually willing women. Sex has been called the world's most expensive commodity. Women are just a sexual as men, if not more so, they just don't wear it on their sleeves the way we do. What I often find amusing is this belief that people have that if there are 1000 women and 1000 men then there's one for everybody, everything's equal and balanced. Life doesn't work that way. General, all of the men will be attracted to the top 100 women and all of the women pining away for the top 100 men. So, you have 10% of the population getting more than they can handle, and the other 90% feeling lonely and confused as to why. There are PLENTY of women chasing after handsome, sexy, intelligent, successful guys, just as there are plenty of guys trying to get a date with a supermodel. TRUST ME: THERE ARE GUYS WHO GET TO PICK AND CHOOSE.

It works the same way in business. Certain people have the knowledge and skills the enable them to earn tremendous sums of money, while everyone else sort of bumbles along crying about the inequality. And, not to sound crass, but if some poor guy has to work 3 DAYS to pay for a prostitute, then he probably should be looking for someone closer to his socio-economic level. BMW doesn't market their cars to guys making minimum wage. Their TARGET MARKET is people in a much higher income bracket. For some people on this board, $200 is less than an hours work in their profession. This particular market is driven by those who can pay without batting an eye, NOT by some attempt to make it affordable for EVERYONE.

And for all your comments about marriage, you seem to forget that marriage is a CHOICE. No one is FORCED to get married. Yes, in the U.S. it cost more to get divorced than it does to get married which creates whole other set of problems. This is why I choose NOT to get married. Are all of my sexual needs being met? More than you could probably imagine. How in the world can you suggest that biggest problem facing developed countries is some poor schmuck not getting the sex he desires? Is this a joke!?

If you haven't noticed, there are millions of women looking for husbands, partners, soul mates, friends, etc. If you are an idiot, a troll, complete and utter loser, then I can understand you feeling a little lonely. But, even losers get lucky from time to time. If you choose to marry a woman just to have your sexual needs met, then you deserve to get slammed because you know NOTHING about women, or relationships.

Next, your child support argument is complete drivel. If some ass chooses to have a child, you feel he's not financially responsible for the raising of that child? So, if he's not responsible, who is? Me, as a taxpayer? Guess again, pal. Oh, and yes, women DO pay child support in this country. It's rare, but it does happen. Jesus, drivel, complete drivel… Somehow, during your extensive research, you failed ask why child support laws were created. It's because too many women were being left to care for children alone, without financial support. Well, they did get it…from me…and the rest of the taxpayers that make over minimum wage. Why the hell would I want to be burdened with your financial responsibility? BTW, the cost of raising a child in this country from birth through four years of college is estimated at over $200,000.

Again, not to sound rude, but do you REALLY believe this crap? (And you wonder why your cup doesn't runneth over with p---y….

Dear Mr. drgn !

You say :
>Contrary to popular belief, there are plenty of sexually willing women.

and then :
>if some poor guy has to work 3 DAYS to pay for a prostitute, then he probably should be looking for someone closer to his socio-economic level.

But did you ever seen a woman , that has to work 3 DAYS to pay for a male prostitute ?

You didn't. That proves, that there are NOT PLENTY of sexually willing women. So women get it free, while men must pay.

Or maybe you think that an average woman is on some upper level, then average guy ?

While we have such striking inequality, why not to compensate it with another natural inequality - let's women pay for their children ! Because they are really THEIR children, they don't belong to men, or they belong to fathers only conditionally, because a women can take them out anytime, while a man can not.

>Sex has been called the world's most expensive commodity.

Exactly. So while women make money on this commodity, let's make them pay it other way. It's only fair. I am quite serious.