For the most part, most women lean slightly austere and the opposite of free.

Happy women is an oxymoron when applied generally to large female collectives.

I tend to view this date as less of a 'decline' and more indicative of a sense of openness that, perhaps, did not exist originally in the feminine expression.

This data might, in fact, indicate that women are becoming more expressive which could be quite positive.

When you get down to the brass tacks and remove all the p.c. frills many women largely tend to be unhappy no matter what- kids, money, shoes, cars, moderation, good man, and so on.

Freely expressing these feelings might indicate the first step in analyzing just exactly why this mindset exists.

I don't think enough women take time for themselves. The pack orientation of their thinking leads them AWAY from introspection and into modeling socially-approved roles provided by a slew of outlets.

How many women lean on the group? How many of them will call girlfriends and a circle of female 'advisers' when they struggle with life issues? How many run to priests, pastors, and advice books? How many of them actually QUESTION their female counterparts OR the information supplied?

I view this as reliance on external forces rather than looking inward to utilize intellectual resources. When one becomes confident in the ability to internally analyze and determine solutions this leads to self-assurance which increases personal satisfaction and a sense of happiness.

Oddly, I know many men who aren't what I would call happy if they live a mentally/emotionally constricted lifestyle. When moral prerogatives outlined in social codes rule the roost personal satisfaction is restricted and minimized.

I've told many male friends over the years who've struggled in their ability to connect with ladies to be attractive, clean, fun-loving, a bit mysterious, and disinterested in the chase.

As soon as most of these guys would quit fretting, organize their looks, and just enjoy THEMSELVES the ladies would invariably initiate contact or simply be free to express attraction in a variety of subtle or not-so-subtle forms.

This was again just proven with a guy friend in the last several weeks. After my advice he spent a month just being himself. Enjoying life WITHOUT pushing the female envelope and in doing so he's had several girls express attraction to him which has led to an expansion of his passion tree.

When humans perceive goals we tend to value that which requires effort. Relating tends to follow this pattern.

and you wonder why women are treated like whores.

-- Püpenschauer

Yes, women tend to do this to their more alluring counterparts.

Nice way to drape'em, Betty.

C'mon, Trac, dope the sexay.

He will prove to be as ineffective and baffoonish as Carter

-- HandgunFun

You mean as buffoonish as Carter and Bush? Carter ravages my pupils every time I see him. Bush gave us a destroyed economy. Obama is a circus act in some sense but he's inherited a serious pile of shit from your righteous commander.

Open your fucking eyes. The Republicans legislated American liberty into the toilet. Obama is no worse.

American citizens are under no duty whatever to sit in reverent silence to be fed propaganda and half-truths.

--CP

Unless you protest a G summit, that is.

In which case, the fine and authoritarian Fraternal Order of Thugs will done their militarized spectacle and proceed to jackboot their superiority into the neck of the irreverent American citizen who DARE express any form of outrage over the rampant mismanagement of world finance and governance. Who needs communism when we have Pittsburgh, an organized army against protest, and unrestrained policing?

The conservative pricks who exploded their righteous anger over the Healthcare debacle are the same anal slime that sit back and scoff at citizen outrage over G-based political protest.

The protest police are anti-American terrorists. This enforcement disease of modern times threatens American freedom and conservative pricks are so deeply embedded in this type of authoritarianism at so many angles they are being cooked like a goddamn frog along with the rest of us.

Maybe I'm not reading those statements as intended, but I see that as judging a fellow human being to be "naturally precluded" from a relationship with a "good man," taking it a step further by describing a man who might understand or have compassion for a former sex slave as a "therapist."

-- septembergirl

Her emotional/mental injury is so unique that I would recommend anyone be exceedingly cautious of entering into a marital relationship with her until she is deeply comfortable with such an arrangement, if she ever is.

A child exposed to this depraved level of harm by so many men will require tremendous effort to trust them even when mature. To deny this requires substantial therapy coupled with a particularly unique sensitivity in a potential mate is not facing reality.

Every factor is significant and as such she is, in a way, bound to these variables, sadly, by no choice of her own. I have tremendous and boundless empathy for this. But reality ultimately rules.

Tossing these factors into the wind in favor of emotional appeal insults my intelligence.

And, to assume her life would be not nearly as rich without some form of romantic love seems shallow to me.

She is remarkable. But her future doesn't have to include romance. And, if she does find a gentleman with a strong intuition her problems will not go away. ALL relationships involve adjustment AND a certain amount of conflict occasionally.

I fail to grasp your indignation over my comment.