-
The truth, of course, is that there are stereotypes about just about every race and nationality there are, and all one has to do is read through this thread to find a lot of it. Because people don't universally have what they want out of life, there is an innate tendency to turn someone into the "other" no matter where and what -- whether it's tribal differences in Africa, nationality differences in Thailand, religion in South Asia, or any of a large laundry list of ethnic strife issues in Europe or the states. Class has a huge amount to do with it, and as Darkseid points out, in those latter places, a lot of this has to do with who happens to be the recent immigrant group, which brings various strains of xenophobia to the fore. Immigrant populations have a natural tendency to be somewhat insular, as they need the opportunity to adjust to their new society's functions and rules, need to have a support system for this process since the majority end up doing menial work until they acclimate and melt in, not to mention the comfort of the familiar. This tends also to strengthen the otherness, unfortunately.
Though I agree that massive intermarriage would help ease this foolishness, I'm not at all convinced that it would end it. There are still ridiculous striations within groups, as evidenced by, for example, issues of lightness and darkness of color in black culture (though of course some of that is also about acclimating in a white-dominated society) and I hear remarks all the time within Asian communities where one nationality disparages the other. Everyone seems to look for a leg up in the social climb, and if racial, religious, and class tensions became less prevalent (which would clearly be astonishingly wonderful) I suspect that nationalism would then again run rampant, as we'd still need someone to blame for not all being rich or movie stars or getting laid every moment of the day. We're never short on isms. There's a marvelous piece by the poet Thomas Lux that sums it up at [url]http://www.diacenter.org/prg/poetry/97_98/lux.html.[/url]
Where does this all leave us? Well, one thing the races all truly have in common is fear and frustration. Let's face it, even though there's still huge societal pressure about intermarriage across race in the US (as there was about marrying across religion earlier) it's more common now than is was thirty years ago. At the very least, it's no longer unthinkable. I think the only real solution is found in widespread individual attempts to create new stereotypes of kindness and openness by going out of our ways to interact positively across lines and, most important of all, to listen and learn. IMHO, and to genuflect at least in the general direction of the topic, that's also still overall the best way to get laid. We break down stereotypes by confronting them -- though it's generally not a good idea to drag screaming women into bathrooms to do so, so let's say confronting them gently and defusing them, so the other person has an opportunity to save face. After all, this isn't so much as issue of who's right or wrong in any given opinion as it is about how we can get along, and be given an equal opportunity to prove (or not) that we're idiots personally as opposed to part of some larger predefined group of idiots.
-
I agree that listening and learning about each other is the only way to learn. It worked in Brazil after all, the other party was willing to listen. In the case where I dragged the screaming girl into the bathroom to expose myself, she stubbornly didn't listen to me and stuck firmly to the belief that Asian men have small dicks. I then had to take the extreme measure. Stupid, yes, but I felt she had to see a hung Asian guy to diffuse her prejudice.
As for intermarriage, it is a great beginning to ending racial prejudice. At least there would be no hate at first sight, (unless we wear uniforms or dress codes identifying our class). There will always be class discrimination though but at least the motive for murder won't be because "he is black, white, Asian, etc..." People would still kill but they would kill for money or they would just pick your pockets. Yes, Brazil is like this utopia of non-race because Brazilians are a blend of black, white, latinos, and some even have Asian blood, like the ones in Sao Paulo. And there is also the pickpockets caused by the class system. Let's face it, there will always be a class system because someone wants to rule and bring order. But what Brazil has not is the hatred for people of other skin colors or religion. That is why I want to move there.
-
The Trashman Commenteth.....
There's great debate here online
Of which girls are the best
Which girls are claimed The Finest?
Well, let’s take the Trashman's test!
Now northern girls are friendly
Brunette and bundled tight
There's southern girls, all giggly
Mostly blonde and not-so-bright
Now, Mexicans are hotties
With fire in their eyes
They look nice until forty
Then they expand in size
There's Cali girls, all sunwashed
But shallow in the brain
Northwest girls can look sexy
While they’re dripping from the rain
Now Euro girls are tricky
There's lots of styles to pick
There's Greasers and there's Froggies
As for me? I like em Spic
Norwegian girls talk funny
And Russian's have big thighs
Most British girls are ugly
Lousy teeth, it's no surprise
There's ghetto girls-a-plenty
(My favorite most of all)
With fifty shades of mocha
I've probably had them all
From Africa to Mozambique
And everyplace between
The Trashman likes his booty
When it wears an Afro-sheen
And finally there's Asians
Some may call the finest race
A Filipino pussy
Is where some rest their face
The Japanese so passive
Chinese slit hard to find
Vietnamese is awesome
I've seen men lose their mind
We've come unto the end now
I've meant nobody ill
So please don't get upset friends
If so, then take a pill
It's poontang we're discussing
Like buddies on a bus
If booty's what you're craving
Then you're just one of us!
-
-
Haha! I'm laughing my ass off here LynnTrash. :) Very cool....
-
[QUOTE]Originally posted by darkseid
[i] That is why I want to move there. [/i][/QUOTE]
darkseid
drop me an email if you are still interested to immigrate to Holland.
dutchman5999@hotmail.com
dutchman
-
Nice little ditty there Trash... I'll post it on my wall until I get tired of it.
Joe... Your last posting was right on the money. There will always be someone jealous/envious/hateful etc... of other people. Even if we were all the same colour we would still find some petty or ridiculous reason to not like another person (even other than religion). Besides... I like the different appearances created by race... variety is the spice of life.
On a personal note: My American GF (who I've been dating for 5 months) has started to pack on the pounds. Poor diet and too much work are part of the issue. She's already reached the stage of comfort with me where she's not too concerned with her appearance and conduct (including belching). She's also begun to go against her original expressed opinion that we should have a casual relationship and stated that she thinks we could be "long term". She's also still very reluctant to honk on my cock and I have to put in a special request before she will do so.
Every woman I've ever dated falls into the above pattern. I don't hate AW as some here do... but AW really aren't giving me any reason to date them. I'm honestly not that picky: I'm not looking for a doctor/porn star/master chef in Penelope Cruz's body. I'm looking for the girl-next-door with a decent job, everyday body (everyday for Europe - not the land of the BigMac), functioning mind, sexually free, and with a pleasant attitude. Am I really asking that much???
Perhaps it's time to change my name from Fedup to IGiveUp...
PS: Hey RN.... how many weeks are left until you turn 30? :)
-
FU, I think at this point it is imperative that you make it very clear to her that ANY possibility of "long term" is dependent on both fellatio and maintaining the weight she was at when you met. I too have had the weight gain problem with all three of the gals with whom I've lived, anywhere from 15 to a whopping 40lbs in the first year (none was skinny in the first place). #1 told me to bugger off when I mentioned it, #2 yo-yoed up and down for years which gave her nasty stretch marks, and #3 had also developed lockjaw so I just gave her the boot without even mentioning the weight. None of them went through any job, medical, or personal change that would explain the weight, and I never gained any weight myself.
I conclude that there is a subset of women who stay slim/in shape until they hook a boyfriend, and then let themselves go. Seems like false advertising or bait and switch to me.
Maybe I should change my name from Dickhead to I Gave Up A Long Time Ago So Where's The God Damn Hookers.
-
I think you're correct about some women and weight, Dickhead, though I'd not necessarily make the distinction by gender, as I've seen the same thing happen with guys I know. (Not to mention radical shifts in style of dress once hooked up, usually not for the better.)
And though I scream to the heavens that I don't want to make this thread devolve back into the "fat" forum again, I was intrigued, FedUp, by your mention of working too much tied into work. Americans work more hours than any other country in the industrial world, and that number has tended to continue to rise despite an opposite trend elsewhere. I don't think there's much doubt that translates to, among other things, fatigue, lack of physical activity, and weight gain. Oh, yes, and irritability :)
-
Well, my #1 was wealthy and was going to school and not working at all. #2 worked less than full-time during most of our relationship and never worked any overtime. #3 had the same job I had and I worked overtime but she NEVER did. I do agree I've seen plenty of guys deteriorate in a similar fashion but I don't date guys so I don't care.
Complacency is a very bad thing when one is in a relationship.
-
Don't make me think about 30, Fedup...I only just hit 28!!! LOL (As if 28 isn't bad enough.....)
It's funny you should mention your girlfriend feeling comfortable enough to belch in front of you. Not trying to be critical here...but isn't that what a good relationship is all about? I mean, I'm not saying belching is a particularly attractive thing for a woman to do, (and I can't say that *I* would do it in front of anyone either), but it is a natural bodily function. Obviously belching in public would be a different matter, but I am assuming you are talking about her doing it in the privacy of your own home. Don't you think it's just a little bit nice that she has come to the point where she is so settled with you, that she feels you will accept her "warts and all"? I have to admit, I get pretty turned off by men walking around my house passing gas (from either end of the body!) but I do think it's infinitely better than being with someone who I know is hiding their "real" self from me. If they feel comfortable enough to share their bodily functions with me, I am assuming that they probably feel comfortable enough to share other "private" aspects of their life with me. Of course, that doesn't make your girlfriend's belching any more attractive...but it does mean she probably loves you, and feels confident that you have similar feelings for her. If she thought you didn't care about her, she would probably feel compelled to keep trying to impress you.
That said, I am on Dickhead's side regarding her aversion to BJs. I'm not sure how long a monogamous relationship can really last if your sexual desires are too mismatched. If you feel it's something you can work on (I remember you saying she had some bad past experiences she needed to deal with), then more power to you. But if it's going to be a lifetime of you begging and her begrudgingly going down there...it's not gonna take long for one or both of you to get pretty pissed off with it all. Our sex lives often involve compromise, but in my opinion, they shouldn't involve sacrifice.
And Joe, I completely agree that men can be just as guilty of "letting go" when they get into a comfortable relationship. And the comment about the "radical shifts in style of dress" really made me giggle...I've seen that many times! LOL Also your work = weight gain thing makes sense to me too...often when you work long hours you tend to get fast food and eat out, rather than attempt to fit in grocery shopping and food preparation time. Also in a new relationship where you don't live together, your partner may skip meals (lowering metabolism) or grab take-away food after work, in order to get over to your place faster and spend more time with you.
-
So now this is the fart forum instead of the fat forum (those from Boston may not be able to tell the difference, ha ha!). All this provides a good reason to use the Dickhead method of trolling for women at health clubs and in grocery stores. If they have all junk food and e-coli burger in their carts, expect both fat and farts. If there is a lot of soda pop in the cart, expect both fat and belches. Unless, of course, it's diet soda pop; then you'll just get belches.
So all you American men out there, learn to cook for your American woman. Feed her healthy stuff and you'll get less fat and fewer burps and farts. Plus, eating healthy costs less and will increase your penis size. Then suggest a vigorous walk or a bike ride after dinner. Then you'll be all sweaty. Then you'll need to shower. Then you'll be naked. The rest is up to you.
-
Yes, we should all eat healthy and skip the Big Macs and Cokes. Even fat-free stuff (high in sugar and startch) is bad or even worse. I myself keep in shape and eat healthy so I would expect the same from my partner. Unfortunately, my ex-fiancee, Nury, devastated me and turned me off from Amercian women so much that I found love in other countries. I broke up with her 5 years ago and haven't dated another American woman since. She became a female superiorist after meeting a fat friend, Martha who told her it is okay to be fat and not to listen to me. She also told her that the woman has the complete control of the relationship and she controls the sex life as well. After following this advice, she stopped going to the gym with me and started heading to fast food places with her neo-feminist friend Martha. She packed on 15 lbs a month until she reached 180 from 120. She started being abusive and throwing things at me when she got mad. She gained all this weight because she felt bigger and more empowered by her size. I tolerated this (big mistake) and then she tries to walk all over me. She even asked if I liked her with a cauliflower hairdo and I said I didn't like it. She said tough, I will do it anyway. I hated that hairstyle (yuck). It looked like something from a horror movie with brain people or the elephant man (or lady). I couldn't stand this ugliness (inside and out) any longer so I left her and even let her keep the ring because I didn't want to get anywhere near her. This girl was the complete opposite of the girl I dated before being engaged. All because she met a neo-feminist ***** named Martha.
I don't hate fat just because of the ugliness of it, but I hate when women get fat because they feel empowered by being big and fat and they like to throw their weight around (no-pun intended). They think they can push their man around by it.
I also work out hard and train in the martial arts to be more pleasing looking to any girl I meet. I expect the same because I work my butt off to give her quality so she should give me quality.
The other American girlfriends I dated before her also let themselves go but to a lesser extent. However, I didn't break up with them because they put on 15 lbs when they finished with me, I broke up with them because they either spent too much of my money or they thought sex was a sacrifice for them. My high school sweetheart even made me wait a year before I even got a blowjob from her. She gave me sex with condom (I didn't mind safe sex because I didn't want kids) at graduation, the third year. My first girlfriend after college made me wait seven months before giving up sex to me. (I mean give up sex because sex is a sacrifice to them.) Women here in America are NOT passionate lovers either. They worry about the negative namecallings that American people call them here in America. I always sense a feeling of guilt in these women after having sex. When I have sex in a foreign country, they really get into it and they don't radiate guilt or a feeling of "cheapness". They in fact ENJOY sex. In other countries, there is no such word as **** or *****. Sex is more respected in other countries other than America.
My ex-fiancee turned me off to the fat aspect of American women. I don't mind if she farts or burps, even thin people do that, but they should not come to me with such bad abusive attitudes that comes with being fat.
-
WHAT MARRIAGE REALLY IS
1. Marriage is a legal form of prostitution.
2. How women got their power
3. Sex is Business.
4. What Can Be Done ?
5. Woman's Arguments
6. What's About Child Support ?
7. Deep to the roots
1. Marriage is a legal form of prostitution.
If we look into Marriage Law books we'll find something like "during the marriage it is normally the husband obligations to provide for his wife and children" ( "The Law And You" McGrow-Hill Company Of Canada Limited, 1970 ) or " each spouse is liable to the support of the other" ( Ontario Family Law Act ). This came to us from 19th century, when such law was justified, because women were not economically independent. Women then were mostly housekeepers, while their husbands earned the money. There were no such professions as woman-doctor, woman-lawyer, real estate agent, business consultant, secretary, teacher - whatever else. Not now. Now women have reached economic equality, they have equal opportunities to earn money, as men. So why is there law declaring financial responsibilities based on sexual relationship ? We don't have a law, claiming that "two people, that play tennis together are liable to support each other". But if they live together and have sex together, why they are ?
And then, when we say "each spouse is liable to the support of the other" let's not blind ourselves - it's virtually never happens that a woman support her husband. It's always men pay for women, not other way around. Women never want to marry a man that earn less, then they do ! They never want to marry an unemployed guy with unclear financial future. The whole system is a great mechanism to transfer money from men's bank accounts to women's bank accounts - nothing else.
The difference between marriage and prostitution is the same as between wholesale and retail trading. But while prostitution is considered to be a negative thing, and there is no law, supporting prostitution, why do we have Marriage Law ?
That's because we live in time of 'common level matriarchy'. Woman in 20th century have won power over man, and the law is made for their ultimate convenience, like in Middle Ages law helped barons to keep their privileges, but didn't care about peasants. But in a society of justice such law must not exist. It contradicts, for example, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states :
"Every individual is EQUAL before and under the law and has the RIGHT to the EQUAL PROTECTION and EQUAL BENEFIT of the law WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, SEX, age or mental or physical disability".
But Marriage Law DOES CREATE DISCRIMINATIVE PRACTICE ! It provides NOT EQUAL PROTECTION and BENEFITS with DISCRIMINATION of men, based on SEX. Such law must not be tolerated in our time and we should struggle for its cancellation.
2. How women got their power
Historically for many thousands of years men had advantage on women, based on very simple factor - bigger physical strength. Physical strength played crucial role at that time, and women were discriminated everywhere - in politics, economy, family. But now this advantage has disappeared, physical power doesn't give you much on today's job market. And also, unlike 200 years ago, you cannot abuse a woman physically, which is, certainly, good. But now, in this developed society it is women, who got infare advantage over man, based on another simple factor - biological demands for sex from men and women are not equal! There are simply less sexual willing women, then men. The difference is, may be, not so great - 15 or 20% . But lets imagine what would happen if there is 15% shortage of apartments to compare to all people, who want to rent. Nobody want to sleep on the street. So the price for an apartment will go up to possible maximum. That's what is called 'speculative, infare profits'.
That's exactly what happens now on 'sexual market'. I wouldn't discuss now biological causes of this inequality, what is important is the result. And the result is quite clear - the simplest proof is such thing as a price for a prostitute. It's something from 100 to 200 $ for 1/2 - 1 hour of sex. Many men must work hard from 1 to 3 days to earn this money. Why do they agree to pay this ? The answer is - market... And how much does it cost for a woman who want sex with man ? - Zero. The sexual price for a man in our society - zero.
This situation creates inequality between men and women, similar to relationship between business owner and his employee at a time of 20% unemployment. The owner can fire the worker, and there is a long line of others, who want to replace him. The worker also have his right to quit, but he will have a lot of trouble to find another job. And in sexual relationships we have exactly the same picture - women have their choice, men stay in the line. As a result women turned men into their servants. This situation humiliate men and corrupt women. And of course, women learned very well how to use it, to convert it into money. And to help them better - there is a special social institution for their service, supported by law - named Marriage.
3. Sex is Business.
Yes, we live in an epoch of matriarchy. It doesn't matter that women statistically earn less, then men, it's still matriarchy - women earn less because they don't need to earn money as desperate, as men. They don't need to pay money for sex, they receive it for sex. And it doesn't matter that there are less women, then men among presidents, premiers and CEO, - women simply don't need so much trouble to get what they want.
Sexual inequality is the cause of most of the troubles in our society. It creates the same barriers between men and women, as between rich and poor. It destroys normal relationship between a man and a woman, destroys normal sexual relationship, converts love into business and kills it. There are millions men suffering from solitude, from lack of normal sexual life, and nobody care how to help them.
This is the biggest problem in so called developed countries, more serious then even poverty and crime, because there are more people suffering from it, then from anything else. Crime, especially sex crime, depression, suicides probably by 80% directly and indirectly are results of this unfortunate conditions. In our time, when nobody dies from hunger, this - not anything else - is a MAIN SOCIAL PROBLEM, because NORMAL SEXUAL LIFE IS NOT LESS IMPORTANT, THEN NORMAL FOOD. And all democratic governments must care about this. But they don't. They care only about well being of one part of the population - women.
Yes, instead of helping weak part of contemporary society - men, the law helps those who have already advantage by their birth - women. We can not easily change demographic situation, but we can at least not to create laws, that make the situation worse ! How many millions men were caught in this trap - marriage ? How many millions dollars, earned by hard work were taken from them ? Men are not slaves, they are people. The need love, sex and understanding, but instead they get marriage law with all its consequences. How can our society treat them this way ?
If you were so unhappy to be robbed on the street, the robber will take your cash and probably will use your credit card, before you could report the robbery, but your total damage will be less then 1000$. If your marry a woman, she may born you a child, then divorce you, take your child and sue out your money, typically 200,000 or more. A woman, that want to get married is 200 more dangerous, then a street robber.
4. What Can Be Done ?
I don't believe it will be easy to change status quo by some kind of democratic procedure. No political party will take such position, because 50% of voters - women, and they will never vote for this party. And there are also some men - family law lawyers, for example, that make their fortunes on this shit, so they have already 51%. They have won. And the fact that suffering minority is nearly all the male population - doesn't bother them, no more that it bother prostitutes about their business.
We cannot easily destroy this despicable system, but what we can do is to start nationwide campaign against it. The first important thing is information - every men must know WHAT MARRIAGE REALLY IS. So if we can't change the law, we can change the public opinion. Every boy of 10 years old must know what he is going to meet, when he grow. So when his girlfriend will say "I want to get married", his proper answer will be : "Sorry, my love, I can't do it, until they will cancel present Marriage Law, because it does not defend me against financial abuse." Every boy, every man must know the real meaning of marriage, with its statistics and costs, this is no less important then information about danger of sexual transmitted diseases or unwanted pregnancy.
I ENCOURAGE EVERYONE, WHO CARE, TO DISTRIBUTE THIS DOCUMENT OVER INTERNET, TO SEND IT TO YOUR FRIENDS. Many people will agree with it and this will be the first step to change current situation. I would like to see movement "Men Against Marriage", that would struggle for men rights against oppression, like women struggled ( and won ) for their rights 100 years ago. The mere word "marriage" should be labeled as shameful, the same as prostitution, i.e. getting money for sex.
5. Woman's Arguments
Women say : "Yes, in marriage we receive money from our husbands, but this is compensation for our homework, which we do more, then men. And also we sacrifice our career, because we must stay at home and raise children. So men must pay for this." But let's ask a question : Why men don't sacrifice their career and stay at home to raise children ? And who makes women to do more homework ? Is it her husband, that makes his wife to work at home ? Does he shout on her : "Go to the kitchen immediately, make me dinner !" ? No. You can't force North American woman to do anything she doesn't want to do herself. She would rather divorce you, take your money and find her another husband, but she will never do what she doesn't like.
So if women statistically spend more time on homework, then men, that's because they need it more, then men. They like it more, then men, or, maybe, men dislike it more, the women. But why should men pay for it ? They don't hire their wives for cleaning or cooking. And when a woman doesn't work and stay at home to raise children - it's her own choice. Every husband would like to have second salary in the family rather then housewife, the family can hire a babysitter, but nobody can force a woman to quit her work. Today women do it only because they know that THEY HAVE LEGAL SUPPORT FROM LAW, that will help them to sue out men money. That must not be. Staying at home instead of work is women own choice and in case of divorce it must be their own responsibility.
6. What's About Child Support ?
Let's first ask a question - why courts in more then 90% of divorces give a child to his mother, and not to his father ? That's because there is a convention in our society : child is more close to his mother, then to his father. This is biologically true. But if so, if the child belongs to his mother more, then to his father, why would father and mother pay equally ? Father can not see his child much after divorce, their relationship are not as close, as when they live together. Why must he pay same amount of money, or more, then mother, who lives with her child ?
What if they, while married, buy a car together, then they separate, court gives the car to the husband, but also rules, that for 20 years both husband and wife must pay all car expenses equally - gas, repair, insurance... For compensation the wife have her right to come once a week to her former husband home and to drive this car for 2 hours, at a time when it is convenient for the husband. Absurd ? Sure. You got the car - you pay for it. The other side doesn't have this car any more - it should not pay.
I can imagine the women's howl when they read this. How dare I say this ?! The child's interests are sacred ! Do you know how difficult it is to be a single mother, to raise children ? Cool down. It's not only child's interests are sacred, interests of all people are sacred. It's difficult to be a single mother, sure, but it is also difficult to be a single man. A man after divorce looses his family, and his children, a woman keep her children with her. What is more difficult ? - who know... Would you like, dear ladies, to leave your children with their fathers, and also to pay child support for 20 - 25 years ? There are some single fathers around, but I've never heard about a woman, paying child support...
In a free, democratic society, with EQUAL RIGHTS FOR MEN AND WOMEN child support can be voluntary only. It doesn't mean that there will be not child support at all. There are many fathers, that love their kids and have connections with them even after divorce, so they will support their children without any enforcement from law. There are happy families, that wouldn't divorce at all, but such families doesn't need Family Law ! But we know other examples. It's not a big secret : there are many women who choose not to work, but to born children and use them as a guaranteed source of income on the expense of their unfortunate husbands. That's who need Family Law. That's who benefit from it. Do we need their children ? How can we create unequal, discriminating laws, that help such women to rob men ?
7. Deep to the roots
So how this odious laws can still exist? One answer is voting majority of women plus some man, that also gain from it. But that is only part of the answer. The fact is, that would marriage be forfeited, women simply will stop to bore children.
This is true - raising children costs a lot of money and women want guarantees, so governments didn't find anything else then to put this burden to men, even in cases of clear fraud.
To make things worth, they introduced so called Family Law Act, where among other things it is declared, that a man have full obligation for a child, born from him even if he has not been married with the child's mother and never wanted children with her at all ! That makes man a hostage of every woman, he slept with. She always can cheat him and get pregnant, if she wants, as for the man - the only way to him to stay out of trouble for sure, is to live without sex ... Nice solution, ye ? Note, that all decisions - to have or not to have a child, are up to the woman only. According to this law the man is responsible for something, about what he has absolutely no power. Nobody ask him, but he must pay, because he wanted sex. In what crazy country do we live ?
The next step should be to state something like : "Every man, who slept with a woman, must give her full access to his bank account and credit cards". Why not ? You don't want this ? - don't sleep with women.
Decline of population sure will be a problem, it will lead to economic depression first, then values of businesses and real estate will go down... But isn't the current price too high ? Should we turn all male population into slaves in desperate attempts to raise birthrate ?
Governments should look for other solutions, but not for what is going on now. And there are other solutions, first of them - immigration. It can not only solve the population problem, it can solve problem of disproportion of sexual demand and supply for men and women, by simply inviting more women, then men, until situation is balanced. Also prostitution can be eliminated... But women don't want this solution. They like it the way it is. I think now it's time for men to fight for their rights, for sexual equality.
Let's declare this - SEXUAL LIFE IS OUR PRIVATE LIFE, AND THERE MUST NOT BE LAW, THAT IN ANY WAY CONNECT OUR PRIVATE LIFE WITH MONEY. No lawyer must be able to put his nose into my bank account in connection with my sexual life. Any law, that do not comply with this requirements must be cancelled.
Let's delete Family Law Act. There will be less divorces in this world.
Let's delete all Family Law completely. There will be less lawyers, less children, but more love and happiness in our life.
-
So although I am now back to work and busy and earning some money to spend (later) on weed and hookers, I did miss the forum. American women are OK but a lot of them look like shit in those low riding pants that are currently in fashion. It gives an entire new meaning to the phrase "crack problem."
Jackson da man and I hope no funky stuff happens tomorrow.