American Women

"And your advise just to keep out of marriage does't work well, it's women that wouldn't let you to keep out of it."

Just like they trap you into pregnancy, right? Geez, can't you arm and protect yourself against the wiles of these jezebels? No one can force you to get married. No one can force you to get them pregnant. So let's be clear about what you're saying -- it's ok for you to want to sleep with women with no committment, but it's unfair of women to want a committment from you in case they get pregnant and stuck raising a kid? Are you that wonderful in the sack that they should be getting wet thinking you might bestow yourself on them? C'mon! Given that you basically seem to be approaching everything as though women are out to get you, and want to flee when you don't like something, why would they enter into a voluntary contract with you where they had no benefit? You're getting what you want -- sex -- what is she getting? Contracts generally specify gains for both sides, an exchange of benefits.

Marriage is a voluntary act, no matter how you want to paint it. You don't have to sign a loan for a car or a lease unless you want to, and you sure as hell don't have to take a blood test and sign a marriage license unless you want to. If those are a woman's conditions and you don't like them, then look to sleep with someone else!

My quote on the 14th amendment was on preferential custody laws, not marriage laws. Most states in this country use a community property approach, which divides assets equally -- your position is that this favors women, because men bring more dollars into the equation. If you want to enter into the process of marriage and are worried about getting screwed when it falls apart, then get her to sign a prenup.

I argue for me and what I know and see -- not for men and not for women. Mostly I'm more concerned for the kids, as they will affect society and messing them up will have direct consequences on my quality of life. I don't feel like getting robbed or killed by a kid who's angry because he has nothing and was neglected by a father who said, hey, you're not my responsibility. Unlike you, I don't see it as an either/or equation where either one or the other gender has to win, and I don't agree with you that the existing laws only work for women and not for men. Personally, I wish the laws around child support were more strongly and radically enforced, as I've seen too many kids who have nothing because their parents marriages broke up and daddy won't hold up his end, while he's busy using your argument and perspective.

You don't like it -- don't procreate. You feel a woman's going to trap you into marriage by getting pregnant -- get neutered. You don't like that she wants you to marry her in order to keep sleeping with her -- find someone else. But whining about how unfair it is that you might have to clean up the mess you make, because it's all the bad laws and crafty women is nothing but wallowing in being a victim. Let's go back to one of the old roles, where men are men, and do what they need to do instead of complaining about how tough it is.

This site is not indicative of the oppression of marriage laws. This site is first and foremost about exchange of information about where you can find available women to have sex with, both in the US and elsewhere. This site is indicative of the fact that men like to get laid, period. Men, in general, like to get laid anywhere, any time, as often as is possible, and with as close to anyone and everyone as they can manage. Men will travel to the ends of the earth to get laid, and have done so throughout history. That has nothing to do with marriage laws -- that has to do with human nature and biological imperatives. And single men, who get laid less often than married men, also have to work harder to find an available woman.

And your example of the Philippines is rather ironic, in that one of the reasons men go there, among other places, is for the so- called "girlfriend experience" where it's the illusion of a relationship that goes beyond one that's strictly sexual. The girlfriend experience -- that's the one that's different from just sharing a place with a guy.

As far as seeing a solution -- personally, I believe where we are in the relationship between the sexes in the US is in a developmental gully. I believe it will straighten itself out somewhat given time, given a further development and stabilization of roles within society, and given an overall state of dissatisfaction with how things are. We're still in the blame arena, and the current generation is also still reacting to the fact that the promised climb up the economic ladder which has been at the core of the American ideal may not take place. It's not until we get out of that place that there's the possibility of moving forward.

[i]"I feel that women have unfare advantage in today's society, and the first step to decrease this gap will be - cancellation of financial shit in marriage, which will decrease self esteem of american women, make them more dependable of men to compensate men's dependency of sex.'[/i]

I think that sentence explains his entire position on the matter. What's going on? Do Misogynists Anonymous hand out this link at their meetings or something???

Alex...even some of the hardcore woman-haters in this section will probably not accept most of what you say. Especially if they are fathers, because your attitude to the welfare of children is really disturbing. I'm not sure that you will find many Americans who will support your law reform ideas...but I hear the Taliban are looking for policy writers....

for Joe : continuing answers for previous posts :

>You're getting what you want -- sex -- what is she getting?

Joe, you are so used to this system, that you don't see how wrong it is. I get sex, she also gets sex ! Both sides enjoy it. I am not looking for any money in it, she must do the same ! Then the world will be a good place.

Sex for sex, not sex for sex+money for women !

>Marriage is a voluntary act...

Sorry, you don't hear me. Let's imagine a country with lack of food, so in order to get meat in such a country you must marry a woman - owner of the meat shop or restarant. It's voluntary - you don't have to marry her and you will eat shit all your life. Would you like to live in this kind of world ? Would you try to change it ?
That's the situation with sex in USA now. And marriage laws decreases availability of 'sexual meat'. I, personally, try to avoid marriage, but I don't want to discuss myself, because it's not about me. Millions of people meet same problem.

>Mostly I'm more concerned for the kids, as they will affect society and messing them up will have direct consequences on my quality of life. I don't feel like getting robbed or killed by a kid who's angry because he has nothing and was neglected by a father

I am pretty sure, that lack of sex, not lack of money or father is the main cause of juvenal aggressivness. Would sex, girlfriends be more available for them - free, without money at all ! - crime will go down, not up.

>Let's go back to one of the old roles, where men are men, ...

You cannot just go to the old roles in a situation when women control men more, then men control women. It's not my whinning - it's reality.

>This site is indicative of the fact that men like to get laid, period.

Woman also want to get laid ! The difference is may be 10-15% of frigid women. What makes this difference overwhelming is the law, that create for women opportunity to suck money through it. So they not to give it free, but to sell it for more.

>And single men, who get laid less often than married men, also have to work harder to find an available woman.

This is double standard - men must work hard to find a woman, women don't have to work hard. We must eliminate such standards.

>As far as seeing a solution ... We're still in the blame arena,
- Sure.
> and the current generation is also still reacting to the fact that the promised climb up the economic ladder ... may not take place. It's not until we get out of that place that there's the possibility of moving forward.

We can not rely on this. Economic ladder can be up and down for tens of years. What's about generations of men that live now ? Are their lifes doing to continue to be screwd up with 'hard work for women' ?
Then US economy is among best in the world. There is a trend - the more country is reach - there are more sexual problems for men. That's because women feel more money around. That's why there is more sex in Africa or Brazil, then USA. Better economy doesn't help in this way.

Your list of causes of problems with American women in one of your posts - just a set of general words, there is no hint how to solve this problem. What I propose is a solution, do implement it and the situation will change, women will become more sexy and less bossy in US. You don't want it ? So nothing will ever change.
Don't hope for happy marriage, in present situation your chances are very low.

>RN : I hear the Taliban are looking for policy writers....

Now I realize how moslems got their ideas - it is an attempt to solve 'american women' problem. I do not preach moslem's way, in no way ! - because what they do is discrimination of women. What I want is not discrimination, but true EQUALITY of sexes, to stop with discrimination of men. Of course, women don't like it, so they will label me 'Taliban' and so on.

Of course child care is difficult problem - it has no easy solution. The one solution we have now - is very bad for 1/2 of all people - man. May be let's try something else ?

>This is double standard - men must work hard to find a woman, women don't have to work hard. We must eliminate such standards.

The truth is that single women get laid less as well. (Right RN? :) )A person living with or married to someone of the opposite gender simply gets more sex, period. C'mon -- this has little to do with marriage law or gender; this has to do with who is or isn't in a relationship with someone of the opposite sex! If you're single, you have to work harder, male or female.

I'd like to see you give me one statistic that says that juveniles' lack of sex is the cause of their aggressiveness. That's just something pulled out of the air to fit into your general thesis. From everything I've read, in fact, the kid who sticks the gun in my face is more, not less, likely to be sexually active. If you think all societal anger and unrest is related to a) not getting enough sex and b) men's distress over getting screwed over by marriage laws, then you're living in fantasy land. Here's the truth -- fatherless homes account for 63% of youth suicides, 90% of homeless/runaway children, 85% of children with behavior problems, 71% of high school dropouts, 85% of youths in prison, well over 50% of teen mothers. Sorry, that's not all from sexual frustration.

Your example of a country without food isn't make-believe -- those countries exist everywhere, and that's exactly how it works. Marrying the boss's daughter, or marriage for strategic reasons or marrying for land are all long-standing approaches, and if you think people don't still do that in the US you've very naive. And men, not women, tend to be the ones who benefit most from that approach. Let's not forget, either, the tradition of the dowry, which was basically a marriage bribe to take the "worthless" woman off the hands of the family, and ensure she can enter into the equation with some degree of material goods. Approaching things strictly from the perspective of what happens in the US in terms of economy and marriage laws ignores the reality of the majority of the world.

Speaking generally and acknowledging exceptions, men's and women's conceptions of sex are, by and large, simply different -- men tend to view it as a physical act which may or may not have emotional overtones, and women view it as an expression of emotional closeness that occurs physically. While it may be true that both need it, your concept that they need it for the same reasons is wrong, and that's one of the ongoing problems between the sexes. One of the strong threads you can find by reading back through this thread is not the issue of marriage, but the inequity of men needing to "woo" women in order to get sex. I say this is related directly not to marriage law but to longstanding societal mores that arose around fear of pregnancy. Truly effective birth control (meaning the pill) has only been around for forty years or so, and equal opportunity laws for less, and that's a very short time for longstanding societal patterns to change.

The basic truth is also that you are at lower risk of contracting STDs in the process. You are not at risk of getting pregnant and having your life radically changed by having sex, and she is. Or ending -- since a woman's risk of dying during childbirth, though they are far, far lower in North America than anywhere else, are still one in 3700. You're at risk only of having to help raise the offspring you helped spawn.

You see your solution as some sort of panacea -- I see it as yet another way of driving a wedge between the sexes that will make things worse, not better. "Let's throw things into turmoil without evidence it will actually help anything" is not my idea of a good approach. You've offered nothing but opinion, conjecture, and philosophy to back up your contentions -- give me some real facts, or actual statistics, or some models that work elsewhere (and not tennis or guys living together, but something on topic) as opposed to simple assertion of truth.

And I'm sorry, but your idea that there are only a few happy marriages is just baloney. I know tons of people in them. I know lots who are not, as well, but a blanket assertion like that is ludicrous. We don't have a 100% divorce rate -- about sixty million people are married in this country, and the reason isn't simply economics. Men and women have had strife and disharmony in marriage thoughout history, as well as great relationships, and to look at the US without considering the broad context of human behavior is foolish.

The bottom line in your argument, taking all the rest out is this -- American women are uppity, wanting men's money even though they don't really need it since they have their own, and they need a come-uppance to put them in their place so they'll act right. That's not equality, that's misogny.

...As to married couples having more sex, there is a Chinese proverb...

During the 1st year of marriage a couple should put a coin in a jar everytime they have sex.
.
After the the 1st year, they can remove a coin from the jar everytime they have sex.
.
The proverb says that such a jar will never be empty . . .


Peace, -P

> I'd like to see you give me one statistic that says that juveniles' lack of sex is the cause of their aggressiveness.

Freud's theory.

You give some statistics - where did you get it from ? web-sites ? Can I check it myself ?

>One of the strong threads you can find by reading back through this thread is not the issue of marriage, but the inequity of men needing to "woo" women in order to get sex. -

True. But what I say - marriage concept make things even worse.

>I say this is related directly not to marriage law but to longstanding societal mores that arose around fear of pregnancy. -

I am not agree. Unwanted pregnancies are rare. It's related to simple greed. (imho )

> You see your solution as some sort of panacea -

No. That's the first step. Real panacea would be to change demographic situation in such way, that demand/supply for sex from both sexes will be equal. The good mark here would be - when price for women prostitutes will go to zero, or will equalize with price and number of men-for-women prostitutes ( currently virtually non-existing ). It's more difficult, then to change law, but also possible - by immigration policy or sexual planning of births with help of sience ( in the future ).

Would I have a child now, I don't want him to be a boy. He will grow up - for what ? - for being all his life a 2nd class human, 'wooing' for sex and getting in reply - pay for this !

> give me some real facts, or actual statistics, or some models that work elsewhere -

The only real fact I can give you - now in US it does't work. The situation is so bad for many people, that an attempt to make changes is reasonable. It can't be worse, then it is already.

>And I'm sorry, but your idea that there are only a few happy marriages is just baloney.

I don't say few - probably 15-20% of marriages are happy. ( rude estimation ) Others - not. ( i.e 80-85% )

for Prokofiev :

Chinese girls are not sexually willing ( with rare exceptions ) I know. That's girls from 'mainland' - in Hongkong - it's different. This is result of anti-sexual brought up in communist, overpopulated China. It's good exfmple that sexuality is dependable of environment - not only genetic stuff.

Change the environment - kill f.cking marriage - and women will grow more sexy.

Sorry Alex, but you're wrong again.
.
My current girlfriend IS from mainland China and spent her 1st 33 years there. Has been in the US only 2 years and is an absolute firecracker in bed. Doesn't get any better than this. Your problems with women have more to do with the guy in the mirror and less to do about them or any laws . . .

There are exceptions.

So, how is your chinese girlfriend ? She doesn't say to you - I don't want to go on like this any more, I want to get married ?

If not - you are really lucky.

RN? Are you still with us? Or did you quit during the shut down. Let me now.

This is StarDotStar, under a new name. You can contact me at WhisperedStar@hushmail.com

Hope all is well with you.

Stay in touch, and let's hear more from you!

Hugs.

> Freud's theory.

Hardly what anyone would consider authoritative these days, even those in the field. Certainly nothing at all factual.

> You give some statistics - where did you get it from ? web-sites ? Can I check it myself ?

Sure -- [url]http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsUS.shtml[/url]

>>I say this is related directly not to marriage law but to longstanding societal mores that arose around fear of pregnancy. -
> I am not agree. Unwanted pregnancies are rare. It's related to simple greed. (imho )

That may be true now, but it was certainly not so in the past. Societal behavior develops over time, and it's only recently that good contraception has been generally available. My parents used the rhythm method, the only one sanctioned by the church at the time, and the result was six kids. And if unwanted pregnancies are now rare, then you're saying that most pregnancies outside of marriage are direct and blatant attempts by women to gain economic advantage or trap men into marriage. If you truly believe this, then you've truly got a very warped and paranoid perspective about women.

>The only real fact I can give you - now in US it does't work. The situation is so bad for many people, that an attempt to make changes is reasonable. It can't be worse, then it is already.

And, again, that's not fact, that's opinion. As is your estimate of happy marriages. The facts that your theory is based on are akin to the ones people used to come up with to divine witches.

Hiya WindStar! Yep, I'm still here annoying everyone. *grin*

Alex...I can't believe you honestly think that the only reason women (on their own of course, without the help of men) get pregnant solely for financial reasons. Accidents aside, did you ever think that maybe people CHOOSE to have children...as COUPLES?? Children are something that come out of love...out of a desire to share something of each other, and to keep your family name and your genetics alive. (Like I said, accidents aside).

Children are an incredible burden on a couple...both financially and emotionally. From the moment you have kids, you may as well start smoking hundred dollar bills, 'coz almost every cent you earn goes to their care. Every couple knows their finances are going to suffer when they have children...why do you think so many people save up and get settled before starting a family? There is a popular myth here...where we have welfare payments to support single mothers...that women pop out children just to get extra benefits. Well, I was on a single parents pension for a while when I had my first child. 6 years later, after having another child, I went back on the pension after my divorce. You want to know how much extra that second child was worth to me in welfare payments?? 65 dollars a fortnight!! Yep...that extra $32.50 a week goes a loooong way to paying a kid through school.

Actually, while we are on my story, lets see how it measures up against your theory. I fell pregnant with my first child by accident. It was totally our own fault ...BOTH of us that is...because neither of us took the necessary precautions. HE wanted to do the right thing and get married. I didn't think I loved him enough to make that committment and said no. 18 months later, I left him. He was broke when I was with him, and is still broke to this day...in 10 years I have had basically NO child support payments from him, although he still plays a VERY important part in my son's life. Incidentally, there was no court involvement in our access agreement...I encouraged him to spend as much time with his son as possible, because I felt it was important to my son, even though there are no financial benefits for me.

The second time, I was married. I had told my then-husband I did not want to have any more children, because I had almost died giving birth to the first one (post-partum haemorrhage). He was fine with that at the time, but after the first year he started to put pressure on me to change my mind. His parents, who didn't have any grandchildren yet, joined in too. After 6 months or so of CONSTANT pushing, I agreed to go off the pill. I got pregnant before my next period even came...and I cried for days about it. (And I ended up in intensive care after this one, with a more severe PPH...just as the doctors had warned me would happen). 18 months later, after the drunken violence became too much to handle, I fled from the marriage with NOTHING. His family fought me for seven months in court, and WON...giving them ridiculous amounts of access to my son. 6 years later, even with court intervention, I have still NEVER received child support payments from my ex husband.

I support my children financially, with no help from anyone else. I work fulltime, not because I need to...because I could get by on welfare if I wanted to...but to teach my children the value of a dollar, and the self-esteem that comes with being employed. After the divorce, I built our life from the ground up by working in the sex industry. A very large amount of the money I earned (just under $20, 000 to be exact) went to paying off "joint" debts that my husband managed to somehow escape from. I paid off HIS car, HIS tax bill, and a personal loan that HE used mainly to buy drugs and alcohol. We have been evicted from houses for non-payment of rent, lived without gas or electricity for days...even a week at one time...because I couldn't pay the bills, and I have gone without food MANY times so that I had enough food for my children.

Please explain to me exactly how I benefited in ANY way from marriage or childbirth...

Oops, sorry. Two more things...

1. Joe is certainly right about single women having just as much trouble getting sex as men do! (For those of you following my saga...I went out last night and, 'lo and behold, came home alone again). Single women with kids have to be even lower on the "easy pick-up" scale, and for those of us who have kids, have no immediate family within a 200 mile radius, and do not have enough money to pay for childcare outside of work hours....well, we may as well kiss our sexlives goodbye completely. I just can't get out enough to meet people.

2. [i]"Unwanted pregnancies are rare. It's related to simple greed. (imho )'[/i]

Can you tell me why the abortion rates are so high then? If getting pregnant is done "on purpose" and is simply an act of greed...why are they terminating pregnancies at such alarming rates? For that matter, why would ANYONE terminate if there are such huge financial benefits in keeping the baby???

Hi RN,

Your statement that, "...children are an incredible burden on a couple both financially and emotionally" is soooo true. They take over your life from the day that they're born and continue right on into adulthood.

I have two grown children who live in different states but they're still the number one priority in my life. In regard to the money issue, I had both of them in college at the same time for a few years and my fixed costs for both of them in school at the same time ran about $45,000 per year for two years. Nevertheless, it's still the BEST money I've ever spent and they now have excellent paying jobs and are completely indepedent financially although emotionally we're still a family. Also, daughters are forever I've found.

Where am I going with this? I'm not sure. I guess that I want to assure you and the guys that the best is yet to come. Sorry, I'm rambling. Thanks for indulging me.