Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
You'd like to hear the tenets of women's comeuppance?
Make it up out of whole cloth, like the rest of your arguments.
I have nothing to gain from enabling you.
Awesome analysis.
Can't say I disagree with any of it.
I see the US as one generation away from being like Russia, with women doing all the work, raising kids alone, and the men being piss ass drunk, carrying on, and basically being big useless growed up kids to the women.
Of course, then American women will seek out men elsewhere. But as they now have problems finding willing suitors anymore in this society, they will come across a similar or even worse situation when they look elsewhere.
The one exception being if they pull in a foreign guy. Of course he gets his green card and then scrams.
At least, this is where I see the triumph that is feminism heading. Goodie!
women want some sort of comeuppance.
at least give me a clue as to where all this rabid irrational female hatred of men comes from.
you've got your freedom. money, power, control, the kids, the house, men's balls on the shelf, all the sex you want and more, the Manolos.
Oh, right, you women want MEN'S SOULS.
for giving ME permission to be EQUALLY uncharitable towards all women...
I have nothing to gain from enabling you.
-- Greeneyedkzi
We men do a lot for you women, constantly. We men enable you women all of the damn time. Yet you women TWIST all we do around and use it against us men, without even thinking or blinking. Frankly, I will celebrate the day men begin to wake up and realize this perversion.
But for now, at least ONE MAN on this planet is aware of this complete and utter hatred and disrespect of men and complete lack of honesty about gender dynamics you women exhibit.
goodie!
"First, it's "you're", not "your" in this context. People who set themselves up as the arbiter of what should be set themselves up for grammar flames."
Great catch !
"You are not the one to decide who or what I am or any woman is."
I am in my eyes...much like your opinions are only relevant to you.
You are CERTAINLY not the one to say "well, you've got a doctorate so you're some sort of intermediate thing provided I like how you behave."
I don't recall saying that....
"Don't you realize what you're doing? How much Kool-Aid did they make you drink?"
This statement has no meaning.
"Certain facts are worth looking at. If a woman always makes less money than a man she dates/marries, is she always at risk of being viewed as having ulterior motives for the relationship?" -- Aka Smith
And you are right, I think, in that not all relationships can be judged from the yardstick of pure money (or abstracted power, as I discussed in on my recent posts). There are other factors that can (and likely often do) come into play. Its always challenging when having these sorts of discussions to keep in mind that the conversation tends to gravitate to the extremes while most ordinary people live in the middles. And thus the issues we discuss are distorted towards the extremes.
I know that I did not fall in love with my wife for monetary reasons, nor did she fall in love with me for my ability to bag woolly mammoths with my bare hands. There were definitely other considerations such as things we had in-common, the enjoyment we each receive from each other's company, and the like. In fact, my wife and I are about equally matched when it comes to personal "power", and each of us shoulders the load about equally, though the distribution sometimes varies. And now we have kids together which gives us a new (and very enjoyable) aspect of shared responsibility.
I have had other, previous relationships however which were far more based on the traditional equations, my "power" for her "beauty" (which I think is a social euphemism for sexual desirability and access).
And I have had other previous relationships which were far more "normal" in the general sense-- two people get together, like each other, and discover the other stuff about them as "gravy" (wavy or otherwise... :)
So you're very definitely right that there is certainly more to consider. And while its easy to point to the edges and say this and that, one (including myself) has to remember that most living is in the middle.
social access to society for 'social' access to body?
Tres amusing how this subject (like the Elliot Spitzer fiasco) bring the trolls out of the trees, in order to vent their intense anger and hatred at women (you know, all of us women who have no sexual feelings or desires, and only want SHOES...shoes we cannot buy ourselves because we are too dumb and lazy and cheap to work for a living...oh wait, even working at a job is prostitution!)
There are enough brilliantly insane quotes here to wallpaper a small living room, so I can't possible address them all.
I guess it is impossible for trolls to see the irony in shrieking and braying against marriage and women, while simultaneously idealizing it past the point any women (any human) could possibly live up to. A woman is presumably to service your needs, live with you, clean and cook for you, bear and raise your children -- but she deserves literally absolutely NOTHING ("not a dollar" sez Brightstar) when your marriage ends, you tire of her. If she has a weight problem, you go online and bash or humiliate her (dickdworkin).
You marry a woman half your age, post online about how miserable and constraining your THIRD marriage is (after only a few weeks) and announce that "sex with your wife is no different than sex with a woman you don't love". Amerigo, honey -- promise you will write that sentiment in your wife's Valentine this February? I know she will appreciate it!
Worst of all: we have to hear exactly how big Brightstar's penis is. It's truly a miracle that a man this wealthy, this handsome and fit, this "endowed", could possibly be a loser in the sweepstakes of love, isn't it? Could it be that women figure out that he is a CRAZY, SELF-IMPORTANT WOMAN-HATING LOSER? and that in light of that, no amount of looks or money will EVER buy him the gorgeous supermodel of his dreams?
Brighty, take a hint. You are staring down another 43 years (approx.) of bitter loneliness, no children, and it won't ever get better until you get sane. And it's not because "women are feminazis". It's because you are nuts. And BTW, if "wimmin" were not the target of your hatred and vile, it would be the Blacks or the Jews or the Liberrrrals or Islamofacism...trust me, you'd find something to be paranoid about.
****
As far as the almost lost SUBJECT MATTER: I agree that this is a fake PR stunt. Whenever I read..."so and so gave us his Tax Returns, to prove how rich he/she is"...I smell a rat. In the US, our tax returns are MORE private than our sex lives. It's easy to get blank returns at post office, fill in what you like.
Secondly, Melissa would technically be a mistress, not a prostitute. The difference is she is with one man, has an actual relationship with him and he is supporting her much as he would a wife -- simply without the legal protections of marriage. I am not particularly saying this is "better", only that it is different than a street prostitute (which the vast majority of prostitutes ARE, high end call girls being very rare) who will sleep with anyone, usually without condoms and is entirely indiscriminate.
There are few "mistresses" because it takes a very VERY rich man to support a woman in this sort of style, to make it worthwhile to a young attractive woman (who could presumably marry) to put her life on hold in exchange for shoes and jewelry and gifts. Furthermore, there is a built-in guarantee to mistresshood that you acknowledge you will be discarded in time for a younger model, with no compensation. In the olden days, before DNA testing, your children would have been illegitimate and not inherited anything from their father, so this was a big risk indeed.
But Melissa's story just stinks: the sugar daddy "dated" her for three months with no sex? Gimme a break. Nobody is stupid enough to pay thousands of dollars for sex they are not getting, not even Elliot Spitzer.
Do a handful of women do this? Very few. It can't be many because again A. there are not many men this rich, and even most rich men (see: Bill Gates) who could do it, do not (they get MARRIED to their PEERS). And the vast majority of women simply are not beautiful enough to command this kind of lavish support.
The weirdest thing though is the continued emphasis (by trolls) on how women "have" some sexual thing (our vaginas, I guess) that we "control" and keep from men....but of course, since women have no sexual desires, it is impossible to imagine a woman (older, plainer, heavier) who wants what MEN HAVE -- a penis -- and can't have that, anymore than a poor man can get the vagina of a supermodel.
And women do not have the secondary market of prostitution. Male prostitutes who service only lonely old wrinkly fat women simply do not exist. If a woman isn't beautiful, she's pretty much shit-out-of-luck in that department. As Gemma Kaye Brown intelligently observes, men may get richer over time but women lose their looks and youth, and get discarded. There are 80 year old millionaires, like Hugh Hefner, who can still pay gorgeous girls to service him -- but I'll bet my last nickel that Leona Helmsley had no such thing.
Trust me, women have just exactly as strong needs for sex as men do, but far less ability to command it -- unless they are beautiful. And most women statistically speaking are not beautiful or young. So the sorry truth is a world filled with lonely HUMAN BEINGS who cannot connect, because of all the bizarre belief systems pulling them in opposite directions.
So that's all. Except let's say a prayer for poor Mrs. Dworkin and Mrs. Amerigo; I feel sorrier for them than almost any other women I can think of.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
