« Are We There Yet? | Main | Obama: Changing the Tone in Washington »

December 01, 2008

Happy Monday

Not exactly coffee snorters, but a few items to get your week off to a good start:

A different kind of love story. Even the Oink Cadre will like this one. I promise.

No wonder Alec Baldwin keeps threatening to flee to France...:

One of Europe’s most famous nudist colonies has become the subject of an unusual investigation by French detectives after the destruction of three nightclubs in fires blamed on naturist “hardliners”.

The normally peaceful Cap d’Agde, a magnet for nudists in the south of France, has been plunged into anxiety. Investigators suspect “fundamentalist” naturists of harbouring a grudge against the échangistes, or swingers, who are drawn to the town by the promise of sex.

...Tensions have arisen between the naturists, who believe that nudity is a healthy choice of lifestyle and nothing to do with sex, and the échangistes, who are attracted to nudist camps by the prospect of multiple partners.

“What goes on in certain places is not naturism,” said Guy Delfour, former head of the French federation of naturism. “Nudity is just one element of naturism. There are other values to recognise, such as the protection of nature.”

Some in Cap d’Agde attribute the fires to fundamentalist “mullahs of chaste nudity”, as one magazine called them, who have often harangued holiday-makers venturing onto nudist beaches in bathing costumes. Others denied that naturists could have been involved.

“We don’t want to put the échangiste places out of business,” said Gilles Beaumont, a naturist and regular at Cap d’Agde. “It’s true that we don’t like being mixed up with the swingers. But we respect other people and their right to behave as they please.”

You just can't make this stuff up.

Meanwhile, elsewhere on Planet Gaia:

Japan's workers are being urged to switch off their laptops, go home early and use what little energy they have left on procreation, in the country's latest attempt to avert demographic disaster...

A recent survey of married couples under 50 found that more than a third had not had sex in the previous month.

Many couples said they didn't have the energy for sex, while others said they found it boring.

No big mystery there. They've probably been reading the New York Times:

I COULD chalk it up to getting older, the fact that sex interests me these days about as much as playing checkers. But the fact is I’ve never much liked sex, even though it has, on occasion, captivated me. Says my proverbial therapist: “Sex threatens you, Lauren. You feel overcome.”

Another distinctly less sexy possibility is that I have never much liked sex because, when all is said and done, there’s not much to like. I mean, really: What is the big deal? Especially when it’s with the same person, over and over again; from an evolutionary standpoint, that simply couldn’t be right. I, for one, have always become bored of sex within the first six months of meeting a man, the act paling for me just as the sun pales at the approach of winter, and as predictably, too.

I met and fell in love with my husband for his beautifully colored hair, his gentle ways, his humor. We were together many years, and so sex faded. Then we decided to marry.

And to think some folks would have considered this a Bad Sign... Go figure!

Predictably, almost as soon as the engagement ring slid onto my finger, I fell in love with someone else. I fell madly, insanely, obsessively in love with a conservative Christian man who believed that I, as a Jew, was going to hell. We fought long and hard about that, and then had sex. This is so stupid, it pains me to write about it.
.. .but I will anyway, notwithstanding the fact that doing so will hurt and humiliate my husband.
Suppose there was someone out there with whom I could have passionate sex the rest of my life? So I continued with my conservative Christian, and we had fantastic, obsessive sex while the whole time I waited to see when (or if) this affair would run out of fuel. I prayed that it would, so I could marry the man I loved.
Ummm...did I mention he was really great in the sack, even though I hate sex? *Much* better than my fiance, in fact... err... not that I have fidelity issues or anything.


Actually, I never had intercourse with this man, though we did just about everything else. He did not believe in sex before marriage. Therefore, when my fiancé asked me if I was “having sex” with someone (why was I coming home at 3 a.m.?), I could answer “no.”

...or honesty issues...

But then the inevitable happened. Sex with this man turned tepid, then revolting. While the revolting part was particular to this crazy relationship, the tepid part was wholly within my experience and proved, for me, that there is no God of monogamous passion. Thus freed from the tethers of this affair, I returned to the gentle arms of my pagan husband. We are going on our 10th anniversary. He wants hot sex. I turned tepid long, long ago.

...or intimacy issues...

A University of Chicago study published in 1999 found that 40 percent of women suffer from some form of sexual dysfunction, usually low libido. There are treatments for this sort of thing: Viagra or a prescription for testosterone. But the real issue for me is that I’m not sure I have a dysfunction. On the one hand, I am miserable about our lack of a sex life because it makes my husband miserable and cold and withdrawn, and it is so unhappy, living this way. “Have sex with someone else,” I tell him.

“The problem with that,” my husband says, “is falling in love. If you have sex with someone else, you just might fall in love with them.”

“I’d kill you,” I say.

Of course I wouldn’t. But I just might kill myself.

Or hostility issues. The stunner (though it's hardly a suprise after the foregoing) comes next:

I have no answers for how one exists with almost no sex drive. A gulf of loneliness enters the marriage; the rift it creates is terribly painful. My sincerest hope is that once we make it through these very stressful years, assuming we come out the other end, my husband and I will be able to reconnect.

Until then, I could get treatment, but I’ve had so much treatment — for cancer, for depression — that in this one small area of my life, can I claim, if not health, then at least the absence of pathology?

Let me get this straight:

You're miserable. He's miserable. You claim to "love" him. Your therapist has already told you that you're threatened by sex - a diagnosis that seems scarily accurate based on the stories you tell: apparently you can only get aroused when you don't care about someone - it's the intimacy that accompanies sex which scares and infuriates you. You think it's physical, but you reject something as simple as taking a pill because you'd rather be miserable and make your husband miserable so long as you can tell yourself that miserable is "normal".

Though I can feel a certain amount of compassion for someone in your circumstance (there is nothing funny about feeling no desire for your spouse) what you describe isn't love. You aren't even trying, and you aren't taking your husband's feelings into account at all. What kind of woman writes an article in a national newspaper to inform the country she feels zero desire for her husband, or that she has told him to go out and cheat on her? How is this guy supposed to face his friends, his co-workers, his neighbors? Precisely what effect did you expect this to have on your marriage?

What an awful, hurtful, unforgiveable thing to do. But then, it's all about you, isn't it?

People are becoming so self-absorbed; just like these young men:

... some people would wager that the Darwinian answer to dating chaos is our future normal. “I have lived in many places, countries, and cultures,” Douglas Gurney from Montgomery, Alabama, writes. “This is a worldwide phenomenon. The behavior of men is simply a response (which is actually a quite logical one) to the changing behavior of women. Simply put, men are a breeding experiment run by women. You reap what you sow—and when a man can sow all he wants and leave the reaping to others, well, why not?”

Why not? Because relationships are supposed to be a two-way street, that's why. You can't love someone else until you have a strong sense of yourself. That doesn't mean being selfish and self centered; it means being secure enough in who you are that you can give freely to another human being without suspicion and pettiness, because marriage isn't always a 50-50 or even a 60-40 proposition. In hard times, you may be called upon to give 90 percent. Marriage means doing things you don't "feel" like without begrudging the giving. It means taking as much pleasure in pleasing your partner as you do in pleasing yourself.

Obviously things ought to balance out roughly over the years, but it doesn't always start out that way and people who keep hidden scorecards rarely succeed. What keeps things on an even keel is choosing someone with whom you're well matched and maintaining interests of your own to preserve some balance and keep the relationship fresh.

It's hard work at times, but it's just not rocket science. Why is it that we seem to be losing a grip on the fundamentals?

I think it's just plain selfishness. We're losing the fundamental notion that anyone - anywhere - should ever submerge any part of his individual interests to anything larger than himself. Without that ability to cooperate, no society or institution can long survive.


Posted by Cassandra at December 1, 2008 07:10 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2565

Comments

I have absolutely no comment, other than we have lost track of what commitment means in terms of being with someone totally, for better or worse, even in the bedroom.

Good grief, I have the vapors before 10 am. That is some kind of record.

Posted by: Cricket at December 1, 2008 09:11 AM

Wow, busy morning for you Ms. Cass. Let's see...

The dog story did cause my keyboard to get a bit blurry. Dogs really are angels that get us through the tough times.

The nudists vs. swingers... meh, couldn't really care less.

As for that horrible harridan of a woman, she needs to have the taste slapped out of her mouth. And I don't say that a whole lot. At the very least, she needs to be kicked out of the house and served with divorce papers. What a piece of work she is.

And as you said, her little 'confessional' was an effort to reassure herself that she's normal, and all these "so-called professional" therapists didn't know what they're talking about. All the while, she's proving them right.

Posted by: MikeD at December 1, 2008 09:38 AM

Oh Dear Lord in Heaven With Choirs Singing.

Maybe this woman's problem (partly) is being surrounded by jaded people who seem to think this IS normal. It is so not normal. Not even close.

We all get tired, and sex lives have ups and downs. But this is ridiculous. And apparently no one has told her that. It is NOT normal, it is NOT cute, it IS horrifying. And her non-sexual behavior towards her husband seems to be sadistic.

Just reading her words makes me feel dirty.

Yes, I'm being judgmental. And we should judge not and all that. But on the other hand, if no one ever judges us, how do we know that we're screwing up?

Posted by: airforcewife at December 1, 2008 09:55 AM

What got me was:

1. "Hey: if it bugs you, why don't you just go out and use some other woman for sex???"

No recognition that this could potentially cause:

(a) Him discomfort/hurt/embarassment,
(b) Another human being to possibly fall in love with her husband. Because, you know, it's not as though people ever get emotionally attached to people they jump in bed with...

2. And the part at the end about, "I'd rather hammer away at a bunch of rock than have sex with my husband and oh-by-the-way... "I'M busy!"

Sheesh.

I can feel sorry for someone who suffers from a lack of desire. That happens, for a variety of reasons.

I have problems with someone who seems to be bragging about the fact that she doesn't give a rat's a** if she has sex with her husband ever again, it's making both of them (or at least him, but hey who cares what he thinks - he's just a man?) desperately unhappy, but she's just not willing to do a gosh-durned thing about it because darnitall... she'd like to be able to say this is all completely "normal".

Posted by: Cassandra at December 1, 2008 10:08 AM

Dogs are good.

Posted by: spd rdr at December 1, 2008 10:09 AM

I'd like to be able to say I look like Catherine Deneuve too :p

Think it'll work? Maybe I'll write an op-ed for the Times.

Posted by: If wishes were horses... at December 1, 2008 10:10 AM

I met and fell in love with my husband for his beautifully colored hair, his gentle ways, his humor.

She didn't want a husband -- she wanted a Shih-Tzu with a six-figure income.

Posted by: BillT at December 1, 2008 10:24 AM

I'd like to be able to say I look like Catherine Deneuve too :p

Think it'll work? Maybe I'll write an op-ed for the Times.

I don't know if she's a harridan or just very, very sick Mike. What I do wish is that she weren't so completely wrapped up in herself.

Posted by: If wishes were horses... at December 1, 2008 10:28 AM

I'd like to be able to say I look like Catherine Deneuve too

Want me to crank up PhotoShop?

Posted by: BillT at December 1, 2008 10:31 AM

Is she a 44FFF?

Posted by: If wishes were horses... at December 1, 2008 10:49 AM

airforcewife, you hit it right on the head.

I just couldn't believe (I guess I am still that stupid and naive) that this woman isn't just selfish, she is nasty.

She needs to get a divorce and put herself in cold storage.

What a stupid, selfish woman.

Posted by: Cricket at December 1, 2008 10:57 AM

Why not? Because relationships are supposed to be a two-way street, that's why. You can't love someone else until you have a strong sense of yourself.

True… to a point…

However, who defined that they are supposed to be a two way street? we HAD that… and feminists defined it as a one way street in which men are marginalized… (and which is not necessary for emancipation of people, so unnecessary to feminism, feminisms agenda is communist totalitarianism, not the best lives of man and women).

However, what we have is women suddenly changing their mating choices after millennia of reinforcements to a few different types. There are reasons why in the past, without political rags masquerading as feminine magazines, things converged on common ways of living (heterosexual pairings in a free society, harems in a caste/class society).

(the media is required/needed to maintain a big lie across people).

This is not about whether the point were right or wrong, only the simple outcomes of cause and effect.

Women are listening to lesbians tell them when to have babies. They are listening to a elite who want them NOT to have babies. They don’t have the common sense as men did to separate the realms of politics and life… which is why under women; everything is political, because for women, everything mentally manipulative is a weapon.

Men mature upon accepting the marriage program. Men give to women and children, women give to children… when women cap the system, and they don’t give to men! So men are left out. and certain problems then come to the fore.

So what happens when women decided to put off mating? Well some interesting things happen since they don’t decide to put off mating, they decide to put off pairing. They still mate a lot.

Women’s short term preference dominates as they are not looking for a mate, and so they tend to align with the bad seeds. What they are willing to tolerate for a short term ‘adventure’, they would never select for a long term one. they want the bad boy, the one that will awaken their primitive selves of feeling over their rational selves of logic.

The subject is way too complex for me to cover in any depth as any direction I go in… but in the sake of understanding I will try to cover a few fast.

We had a distributive mating system that was dominant for a long time (heterosexual family fossils recently discovered puts PROOF of heterosexual family norm going back more than 4600 years). we favor our family over local group, local group over larger group, etc…

Humans are very adaptable in that they can accept several different mating sytems and have the internal behavioral code to act accordingly… (as they have lived in variations of these systems off and on depending on circumstances for millennia).

Our ancestors discovered that (heterosexual) pairings led to the most productivity (for good reasons that are way beyond the scope of this reply). So their culture over time tended to favor such in various customs that normalized or helped these systems and discouraged the ones that were not productive or disruptive to others.

[there are also biological changes that happen too. but these are being attacked as they are stated. Prader willi and early onset menses are two genetic outcomes that vary by the presence of the blood male in a heterosexual relationship. That is that heterosexual relationships are such the norm that our bodies take in the conditions and make changes to genetic outcomes in adaptation of father presence or absence]

So if you teach the women to mate later, you are going to get certain biological outcomes that work along the lines of the mating system they are a part of.

Mating later

First of all, birth rates decline (it causes depopulation, which means that prior to the modern age, this would be horribly detrimental to any group that adopted it)…
Japan is an indication, so is Russia and most of the west. So feminism, is a form of soft eugenics (making their celebration of Sanger make sense, despite denials).

As the distribution of birth rate decline is not EQUAL across all levels it causes specific demographic changes.

For each woman that decided or ends up not having kids, another woman would have to have 5 children so that the population stays stable (baring disease or war and other such things).

It also causes adaptive behavior changes. The men, who previously would have been good choices of mate, are out of the picture till later.
In prior mating systems in which the men were put out of the picture, there never was a later!

What this does is extend the period of juvenile behavior. Since juvenile behavior in males is to win females through risk and reward (through early expression of ability that then allows the female to make better choices of mate), they stay in this mode.

If they believe they can win and compete, they will work really hard and try to acquire a mate. If they don’t believe so, their productivity drops. So the good looking guys get the confidence and move to high achievers, and the others end up in their parent’s basement playing video games.

In other words, this behavior puts the men into a holding state in which they are still doing their mating dance. So the women are now competing for a few males that are the worst picks for mates.

Now here is the kicker. Men are designed by life to have more capacity than they need. Life is VERY efficient, and if there wasn’t a good reason to have this capacity, then it wouldn’t exist. It has to pay off in REAL terms.

In other words, a good male in natural terms can achieve in excess of his own needs, and can achieve enough to support at minimum three people… and often as many as 5 or more… (grandparents).

Men outproduce women because of this… (so feminism punishing men who outproduce women has what effect? Stagnation, and stagnation favors dynasty and dark ages wich favors long term hegemony).

The men basically don’t produce. Their most productive years they now under produce. Which is why women seem to have been catching up. the men basically take too many risks, and they do not tighten up their behavior. they don’t save, as they need every little bit to get a mate (savings without a mate is worthless to males from a biological view point. its better if they waste it all and die early if they fail).

The men, who would be great mates, are turned into poor mates as they become more set in their ways over time… so “failure to launch” is not the guys fault… where or why do you launch, if you have no destination? Why would I launch a rocket to the moon if there is no moon?

On the other side of the coin… the women are not having babies, and so they are not replacing the population. In terms of the 1930s, depopulation is a great way to become weak and so become easy to take over. since all these new ways of living come from a group that desired the destructiuon of the west, they are very harmful.

The women end up putting off mate selection. The pool of good mates diminishes and their holding states create a poor pool later. while she is bedding lots of men (and creating charts and competitions with her girlfriends, so says a UK article), the few men who can have a lot, the other men are sitting around rotting… so when she decides to have her family (not his), who is around to create that?

She is older… she may wait to long and have no kid… the genetics of the children she does create is worse than if she had kids earlier. The job is harder… it collides now with parental care and their own retirements. Etc.

So this all causes a decline in human quality… now… to finish the eugenics deal, they give abortion on demand.. in that way, she can terminate kids that the rest of the bad choices don’t get!

And if you look at the distribution of abortion clinics, you will find that they are higher in quantity in ethnic neighborhoods. The Spanish and the black don’t read cosmo and the feminist rags. And so they over populate, and as sanger said, abortion is to skew demographics.

Left alone with only the MISS information from feminists, what would happen is that the wealthy will continue to populate (Pelosi has how many kids?), and the poor, will over run them. While the middle class can create competitors for their children.

The whole idea is to separate the genders of the common man in to two groups segregated. And those countries that adopted these political games as truth, they are dying…

If you read the political tomes of the past, you will find out that these were the arguments that were made that no one belived.

Anyway… mathematically things look even more interesting…

In a heterosexual normed system, each person marries another person. while not perfect this is the majority. The population has low quantity of males with nothing to do… their mating energies are focused on productive work making a family… women are protected… children are protected… crime is low… state size can be small,. Etc..

A harem system, the outcomes are similar to now… you have a few males who have many women… (though those women are only for that one male)… the rest of the males stay in that active risk taking juvenile stage… which makes for a large army or force for the harem keepers to use in conflicts.. (and the men are wiling as the fewer the men the more likely they get a mate).

However in a harem system, the man who has many has to support many. These systems happen in feudal societies (even communist feudal ones), where the men own no property, and have nothing to offer women. The women do better by all being aligned with the few men who have property. (so communism makes sure that all the women are available for the elite).

In the NEW feminist harem system… the women are not supported by one male… the women support themselves, and they are sexually available to many men of poor quality.

They get the worst of both systems… they get no support from either harem male, or singular mate male… they get high crime from lots of young men all wishing to outdo others to be the one the women want to have sex with (says something about inner city desires). they have sex with many men of low quality, and have children from many men of low quality… so their family lines are devolving….

I know I didn’t put this all right… I don’t have time… and this would fit a huge book!!!

I will end with the fact that the free love movement was started in the early soviet union… that it has destroyed them irregardless of anything else…it was a woman that said that sex should be as free as a glass of water… and Lenin said, who wants to drink from a dirty glass?

We now have a huge nymber of women with sexually transmitted deseases which can sterilize.
We have them seeking out the worst mates rather than good ones.
We have them seeking out and all sharing a few bad mates
They have fewer children, so we are in decline.
The children have no one teaching them, so we are in decline
Sex ed is earlier and earlier to rush this process along

And on and one… sigh.

Posted by: artfldgr at December 1, 2008 11:30 AM

Hey, art... you're preachin' to the choir!

I did my job. I got both my sons married off fairly young to very smart, very nice, very stable young women :p

I have always thought the current trend of having young people wait later and later to marry is just plain dumb. Makes no sense for any number of reasons, their health being only one. But the needs of society are right up there. I had that one figured when I was still a kid and reading science fiction.

But then as I think someone (Sly?) commented earlier, I thought about some weird stuff when I was a kid. Too much Hari Seldon, I guess.

Posted by: Cassandra at December 1, 2008 12:09 PM

This is the kind of post I tolerate your serious ones for, Cass.

Or in this case, it's both a laugh outright hilarious post and a serious commentary one.

I have always thought the current trend of having young people wait later and later to marry is just plain dumb. Makes no sense for any number of reasons, their health being only one.

I can certainly agree with that. I made the same point at Grim's blog.

Too much Hari Seldon, I guess.

Too much Cass, I would think.

And you still think about weird stuff.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at December 1, 2008 12:56 PM

I have always thought the current trend of having young people wait later and later to marry is just plain dumb. Makes no sense for any number of reasons, their health being only one. But the needs of society are right up there.
*clapping*

I've been saying this for YEARS.

Posted by: airforcewife at December 1, 2008 12:59 PM

I delayed marriage until I was 26. In Mormon culture, that is 'old maid' and if you dare to marry after 30, you are just weird.

However, in Germany, reproduction wasn't a matter of social opinion (see feminists of the straight and gay persuasion) as much as it was a side effect of the second world war.

Posted by: Cricket at December 1, 2008 01:06 PM

Hey :p

My sister in law didn't marry until she was in her mid-thirties and I know folks who haven't married until far later in life! I'm not into judging what people do on an individual level.

I just think that in the aggregate, it makes more sense not to wait too long to marry, especially if you're expecting kids to stay virgins. I see parents telling their kids they *have* to finish grad school now and have all these material possessions before they can marry and I think, "Manishevitz!"

Our parents managed. How did they do it? Those were some of the best years.

I think it should depend on whether you find the right person, not on waiting until every star is perfectly aligned in the sky. Sure, be intelligent about it. But for Pete's sake, I'm not sure you have to wait until you have matching BMWs.

Posted by: Cassandra at December 1, 2008 01:18 PM

Time. It makes fools of us all. My wife and I are childless because of it. When we were first married, the plan was to have a few years to ourselves. Not a problem, she was 27 and I was 24. Seeing as how we never planned to have more than one or two, this wasn't a problem. Heck, my mom was 31 when she had me, even though I was the last of four children. Then, I was out of the Army and back in school, and it made more sense for me to finish school and get a job before we had children. Still not a big deal, and eminently logical as she was the bread winner. Once I had my job (right out of college too) and was making good money, we started to plan for a child. She went off of her birth control (and you need a few months to leach it from your system before trying, so as to avoid complications and whatnot) and started taking pre-natal vitamins. Then her health took a dive.

Her vertigo kicked in full force, and she had trouble even walking. She had to start taking meds that cause horrible birth defects and was told flat out NOT to get pregnant until she was off them. That was over five years ago. At this point, it's not looking like we will have kids. Yes, we've considered adoption, and no, that doesn't look feasible either. We're pretty much in childless mode from here on out. I've made peace with that (sad though it is).

Had we chosen to have children right away, we'd probably (unforeseen circumstances not withstanding) have a 11 year old about now, and the child would have been 6 when her health crapped out, and we would have been ok to deal with a six year old and her health problems. Sure we would have struggled a bit financially, but my parent's did too, on far less with far more kids at my age. It's just how things work out.

Posted by: MikeD at December 1, 2008 01:43 PM

"(Sly?)"

You rang?

0>;~}

Posted by: DL Sly at December 1, 2008 02:02 PM

The column by the woman with "no sex drive," has got to be one of the saddest things I've read in awhile--both for her (her level of self-deception is staggering), and for her husband/family.

I did a little Googling and came up with some interesting things. This is one very messed up woman.

Posted by: FbL at December 1, 2008 03:01 PM

I had a fascinating discussion with a friend recently on the subject of intercourse and the accompanying physical vulnerability for women. She talked about a time her boyfriend didn't want to use a condom and as it came to the moment it all hung in the balance with him in a dominant position... and she realized that she was truly at his physical mercy. Whether or not their activity continued was entirely up to him; she could not protect herself at the moment if he chose not to allow her (after a long pause, he relented and got the condom).

It shook her up a bit, a reminder that in heterosexual intercourse there is no true shifting of roles--the woman submits to being "invaded" (as pleasurable as that all is), even when she is "dominating."

As we talked, I posited that perhaps this aspect of submission/invasion is very difficult for some women, and wondered if the angry wing of feminism is comprised of women who recognized this vulnerability and instantly hated the world for making them female.

That's a terrible generalization, but I have to wonder if there IS something to that. Men and women are different, and are able to dominate in different ways. But the truth is, if we want to have intercourse, one is physically dominating the other. And I can see why some women would have a very difficult time with that. If they do not completely love and trust their partner, I can imagine it causing some fear...

Posted by: FbL at December 1, 2008 03:15 PM

(Allow me to clarify... When I use the word "dominating," I am speaking strictly in a physical sense, biological facts of what gets inserted into what.)

Posted by: FbL at December 1, 2008 03:37 PM

I already heard you Bill, don't say it again.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at December 1, 2008 04:32 PM

My sister in law didn't marry until she was in her mid-thirties and I know folks who haven't married until far later in life! I'm not into judging what people do on an individual level.

Of course, it is all about efficiency and oftentimes people have to prioritize and do things their way. However, this has no impact on time. Time and fertility and health are things people cannot simply "prioritize". Such a power is not in their grasps.

People can wait longer and get married and have children and be fine, but that incurs a risk. If they wish to take that extra wish, it is their life. I won't say no, but I also won't stay quiet and allow people to go under the delusion that there are no costs. There are certainly costs and one should recognize these costs, instead of saying "It is our choice".

Yes, it is your choice, which means people have an interest in listening to the truth of the potential rewards and risks.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at December 1, 2008 04:35 PM

Well, now you are talking about tradeoffs and risks, which are distinct from my personal judgment (which they shouldn't care about anyway!) :p

Posted by: Cassandra at December 1, 2008 04:40 PM

and she realized that she was truly at his physical mercy.

Fbl, she doesn't wish to learn H2H training, like Target Focus Training?

Such skills would give many women the great equalizer in such situations.

In reality, even if your hands are tied behind your back, you aren't at the mercy of anyone. Most of it is mental and part of attitude. If you can think and move, you have power. Not as much as you may have in other situations, but not completely powerless.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at December 1, 2008 04:43 PM

Well, now you are talking about tradeoffs and risks, which are distinct from my personal judgment (which they shouldn't care about anyway!)

I'm just saying that you may get a reaction to that "that is dumb" comment of yours ; ) concerning how it is their choice and not yours.

That doesn't make the points you brought up, Cass, irrelevant, however. And it isn't solely just your personal judgment. Nobody can reverse time so they can't make the decision based upon this assumption that time and youth will still be there for them. Money can be made from birth to death. Youth only lasts so long, however.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at December 1, 2008 04:45 PM

Yes, but I didn't mean "dumb" down at the individual level, Ymar. I really couldn't care less how individuals make decisions. They have free will and can and should make these decisions freely according to their circumstances.

What I'm interested in is broader public policy and societal trends, such as when the average age of marriage goes *way* up. That's dumb. What the individual does, does not concern me.

When that gets multiplied by millions, indicating we're not talking a few people responding to circumstances in their lives, but to a broader pattern?

I start to pay attention.

Posted by: Cassandra at December 1, 2008 04:54 PM

Fundamentalist Nudists ... at least, you'll be able to see them coming a mile away.

From the very end of the Passionate Lauren Slater's essay:

"Sex cannot compete with the massive yet slender body of granite I excavated last week..."

To each, his (or her) own, I suppose. To a nunnery get thee.

Off on a connected tangent: China's One Child policy (enforced by the "One Child Police") is guaranteeing that the Chinese population will be almost exclusively male in a few generations. Their options will be monasteries or armies. Given China's martial history, probably both together.)

Posted by: ZZMike at December 1, 2008 06:04 PM

cass,
Dahlink, you i was not verried about... :)

however there are youngins that come through here as with other places that just dont see the big picture.

they dont see that by giving the state permission to control outcomes, they have given the state permission to control them...

your right... no one should care when we marry or when we dont... however because feminists have a specific agenda on this, and their agenda is listened to by a majority of women making those choices, we dont get that freedom to make a choice based on the real information.

too much of the real information would put science behind older cultural practices, and in a way validate them as being natural sinks to our biology. (or as an interface and coping mechanism between biology and reality)

sad thing is that the science stuff makes more sense than the ideological stuff. that is unless your ignorant pretending to know... (and so used to pulling that off around other ignorant pretenders).

what gets me is that people cant see the pattern... that by covering each point in a pretend assertion of some social good and spining it that way, they cant see that together the pattern denies the stated.


a whole lot of all this just amazes me...

like watching a car wreck in slow motion you cant take your eyes off it.


Posted by: Artfldgr at December 1, 2008 06:37 PM

When I was young, I never imagined I would still be single at this point in my life. When I was little, I always assumed I'd marry and have a family and not go to college. As I got older, while I was interested in boys, I didn't get asked out much, I was a quiet girl and a good student, and decided to go off to college. Went out with a guy a few times my freshman year, but he was NOT someone I wanted to continue seeing (for reasons I won't go into here). Dated a GI my last summer in Germany (summer between my sophomore & junior years of college). When I returned to the States, I never heard from him again, although I sent at least one letter, back in the day. Then, I tried a long distance relationship with someone I'd met that last summer in Germany who returned to the States not long after I did. That, too, didn't work out, but not for lack of me trying. Since then, I have been interested in particular men, but none of them were interested in me. I'm not as shy as I once was, but when it comes to men, I have absolute no confidence in being able to catch the attention of one. These days, if I am ever out some place where I might meet someone, I'm usually with my sisters - both significantly younger and thinner, and consequently, more attractive to men. Me still being single has nothing to do with feminism pushing me to delay marriage and family. I'm just supremely unlucky at love. Since marriage and family is something I long, but wonder if I will ever have (believe me - I know the odds of me being able to get pregnant and have a healthy baby aren't getting any better, especially considering I have absolutely no prospects of a date, never mind a proposal of marriage; I'm not one for casual sex - to me, I know that I cannot separate the physical intimacy from the emotional (likely is connected to that "trust" issue FbL mentioned), and I think it is something I've known since I was of an age to become attracted to the opposite sex. So, I call Bullsh*t on artfldgr's dissertation on how women use men. Yes, some women do that. But, some men are assh*les, too, and use women for their own needs. But, don't think that can explain the whole issue of why some of us end up pushing 40 and being still single. I fear I'm going to end up being that crazy cat lady or the spinster aunt that spends her entire life alone. So, when I read of some woman - who has a husband who ostensibly loves her, and she doesn't value that love, I get a little pi$$ed off. She has what I would give just about anything for, and she doesn't appreciate the treasure she has...

Posted by: Miss Ladybug at December 1, 2008 10:06 PM

and she realized that she was truly at his physical mercy.

Fbl, she doesn't wish to learn H2H training, like Target Focus Training?

Such skills would give many women the great equalizer in such situations.

In reality, even if your hands are tied behind your back, you aren't at the mercy of anyone. Most of it is mental and part of attitude. If you can think and move, you have power. Not as much as you may have in other situations, but not completely powerless.

Very true, in a purely practical sense. And I don't think she's any kind of shrinking violet. However, she didn't want to hurt her lover who was at the moment attempting to rein in the "lower brain" with what semblance of rational thought he still had.

This is why I was concerned that I hadn't expressed that very well. I wish I could remember the right way to say it... I don't think she was in fear that she was about to be raped. Rather, she was saying that she realized that in opening herself up to him both emotionally and phsyically, she had placed herself in a very vulnerable position. And that frankly, that position was on one level something they both wanted. It was just a revelatory moment where she realized that she had willingly submitted herself to him in ways she'd never really thought about before.

Posted by: FbL at December 1, 2008 10:19 PM

Ack! I messed up a tag somewhere.

Posted by: FbL at December 1, 2008 10:19 PM

The Germans are dying off. We saw the signs, 20 some-odd years ago with first, a zero growth, then a negative growth as the WWI, then WWII generation died off. No one wants children only to have to fight two world wars a generation apart. The frantic efforts of the kindergelt to encourage more births is almost like the Hitler era, where large families were encouraged, as each mother did her duty for the Fatherland. Very offputting.

I have a large family because I wanted one, and I have wondered, sometimes, about the struggles to raise them and give up so much in doing. However, I think sacrifice is giving up something good to get something better.

To quote Bush 41: "Stay the distance...a thousand points of life...wouldn't be prudent."

heh.

Posted by: Cricket at December 1, 2008 10:51 PM

LIGHT! LIGHT! LIGHT! Oh I am so torqued. Well, if anyone is dying of curiosity, I did get an A on my research paper.

Posted by: Cricket at December 1, 2008 10:52 PM

Ack! I messed up a tag somewhere.

Stop whining. You're "It" until you do it properly.

Posted by: BillT at December 2, 2008 12:50 AM

Yeah, Cricket!!
Not that anyone doubted the final grade.
0>;~}

Posted by: DL Sly at December 2, 2008 12:57 AM

"You're "It" until you do it properly."

*peeks out from under the pointy hat*
Man, I hope she doesn't find me here.....
0>;~}

Posted by: DL Sly at December 2, 2008 12:57 AM

Yay, Cricket!

You are now fully-vetted for a position in the Cabinet of the POTUS-Elect.

Posted by: BillT at December 2, 2008 02:12 AM

Cricket has seen the Light that Bill has refused to see by covering his eyes with NVG (Holy Trinity Be Upon Us). This is why Cricket is qualified and Bill is not on the cabinet of the POTUS to Be.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at December 2, 2008 02:59 PM

Fundamentalist Nudists ... at least, you'll be able to see them coming a mile away.

That's so racially profiling. FOr shame.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at December 2, 2008 03:00 PM

This is why Cricket is qualified and Bill is not on the cabinet of the POTUS to Be.

I don't perch on *any*body's furniture -- not since that unfortunate incident involving a topheavy breakfront, the incumbent mayor of Princeton and a sagging floor joist, anyway...

Posted by: BillT at December 2, 2008 03:28 PM

Didn't Princeton get nuked? Oh wait, that was different universe in Fallout 3, my bad.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at December 2, 2008 04:59 PM

Miss ladybug..

i feel for you... i really do... but while YOU didnt decide to put off OTHER girls who are more attractive and seem to get more from such DID do it.

what does that do?

that changes the game the males play... if those others were married, they would be off market...

but since they dont get married till later, having a good time, etc... they stay on market and interfere with that market in a way that slams decent women with a lot to offer other than sex. as i said, a race to the bottom...

one does not need to make the same decisions to be pulled along with the majority flow...

as long as very pretty young women are on market for 15 years, the men hold off thinking they can have one... the field ot them looks ripe with fruit and they dont settle down with a decent person since they get teased to keep kicking the football.

i to to the met from time to time... and i like sargents work... you look at the wealthy girls from the times past where self control and proper behavior had sway...

and if your not a feminist wishing to see women like you come to the fold when they get kicked to the side by the new system...

then you might notice that in those eras, where women were not 'free' to expose themselves to trump the next girl... or insinuate with tongue peircings that they like to give bj, when all they really like is not losing out to someone with a tongue piercing...

these women knew poetry, mathematics... music.. they knew how to run a large home (with servants, which is technically like a business), and so on... the kind of thing you can still learn from swedish finishing schools tha the wealthy still sned their kids to rather than the crap we get that keeps us "in our place".


bascially in this new game... those with morals, real attachments... love and such... they are on the out... they are the ones that the new sociopathic dog eat dog system will replace... and we go back to hobbes brutal and short lives.

I'm not one for casual sex - to me, I know that I cannot separate the physical intimacy from the emotional

well, your not alone... there are LOTS of people like that... and most of the women having casual sex and such do not like it... you can read the studies... casual sex for women tends to hurt them.. (yes there is a subset that find it fine, but they are not the majority).

for most of us.. who understand what culture was doing... sex was something special because it was something special... letting gays, deviants, lesbians, and others define normal sex as "free as a glass of water" while leaving us normal people feeling like "who wants to drink from a dirty glass"

its a horrible situation... but its not something that us gus can do anything about.. we cant even comment most of the time witout being attacked in some way (usually ad hominem)...

so it will have to come from sane women...

heck, they just figured out reporting today that male suicides are NOT linked to mental problems, but are linked to social circumstances (divorce, losing family, marginlization, vilification, etc).

but you wont hear much... the matriarchy is doing everything they imagined the patriarchy did or does...

I have set out at some length previously evidence that patriotism is not in general aggressive. There is however a related attitude known as nationalism. That is when the lovers of their own country want to dominate other countries. All the examples I can think of, however, from Napoleon to Hitler, have been Leftists. So my summary of the matter is that nationalism is a Leftist perversion of patriotism. No wonder Leftists are so suspicious of patriotism! They judge others by themselves. They know how vicious they would be with an entire nation behind them and assume that others think similarly.

this is how you know what they are doing.. because they analyse others through their behavior..

and so, when they say the patriarchy does this... they are really saying...we would do this if we were the patriarchy... and so when they get power, they do those things...

they believe that men mistreated, abused, and made slaves of women... so what do you think they will do to the men?

this is why those in the knoew think spetznaz and russia did the mumbai thing... because immediatley, russians commentariests said it was american special forces... (excpet that russia is the only country whose forces are like robots controlled by others in another location, and that these guys were told to walk upstairs, and pretty much when to piss... and they bought alcohol, and drank before they did their work. there is a lot more... )


i wish i could help you lady bug.

So, I call Bullsh*t on artfldgr's dissertation on how women use men. Yes, some women do that. But, some men are assh*les, too, and use women for their own needs.

go ahead... you can call bullshit...

i dont care... but you cant give me a better explanation as to why you have no one, when in the past, you would have been married.

guys CAN be assholes... but thats only if you dont pay attention to the nice ones, like all the guys not paying attention to you.

but ultimately, guys become what girls as a group want... take a look through time... in 30 years they have almost changed men into women... but havent changed the women to take care of men!!! (the way that men took care of women).

if you ever were in a bad place... chances are the person who will risk their lives to save you will be a man... next time you have to do laundry, or some work... remember the stuff your working on and working with more than likely was made for you by an asshole...

by the way, most poeple when they use that term its because the person wont do or be what they want...

don't think that can explain the whole issue of why some of us end up pushing 40 and being still single.

well lets see.. prior to feminism.. most got married before 25 and had families... the ladies like you didnt have to worry about that really sexy little tart baiting the men away from you... she would be married off FIRST...

and the market wouldnt be swimming in divorce the way it is if you werent allowed to divorce for no reason... (divorce was already ok for bad things in the past... and no fault meant that a cheating woman could still get her half of the property where in the old system if she or he did that, they lost)

your too busy trying to extrapolate your own anecdotal thing to the whole world... which doesnt work...

you cant see the systemic dynamics at play..

you want to BLAME men, which is what feminists want you to do... they want you to think that they are assholes, and so on... then why would you want them? there is a lot to this..

however i will say that when men were running the show... women had families... they had grandhildren they could enjoy... they didnt have to work unless they wanted to... there was a sensibile divison of labor based on our competencies... not ideology.. and tons of other things...

now that the feminists and left have taken, the kids are idiots... crime is high... fecundity is low...mating is poor... people no longer behave nicely (making men assholes). women are miserable... men are miserable.. children are abused by circumstances if not anything else... and hte list goes on..

I fear I'm going to end up being that crazy cat lady or the spinster aunt that spends her entire life alone. So, when I read of some woman - who has a husband who ostensibly loves her, and she doesn't value that love, I get a little pi$$ed off. She has what I would give just about anything for, and she doesn't appreciate the treasure she has...

yeah... well.. then dont get angry at us men... there are a LOT of those women out there...

and since YOU dont date them.. you have no idea other than your personal anecdotes...

the whole divorce industry is geared for women to claim property... heather mills marries paul mcartney for how long and got how many millions? ron perlmans wife of one or two years walked off with 50 million...

i will give you 20 examples of women LEGALLY taking men to the cleaners... you please give me 3 examples of wmen legally taking women to the cleaners.

want to know how i know this system? my ex faked her murder... just bofer i was to be endited, she showed up! grabbed the baby... and then too him... she manipulated the situation, cleaned out and ran up every credit card to over 40 thousand... and took the kid out of state...

and i had no say.. the judge in court said i had no rights... i did have joint custody... but i only got to see my son maybe 7 times before he turned 21...

but thats because i was LUCKY... you see. she took her two new kids...and my son... and she robbed a bank... she served 1.5 years in fed for it... and i still didnt get to see my son, or take custody... i had no rights.

if you do a search for my tag name... you will find more than 200 articles on this subject... many of them linking to science studies to make my points...


you should take a bit of time... and start looking and stop trusting people who shouldnt be trusted... women trust women more than men trust men or women... and thats their problem..

you want a man to commit? well it aint going to happen as long as a 40 year old man can be miled for his paychek while partying in a bar buying young chippies drinks.

they are running interference against you...

and if you want to know the truth... it was the WOMEN who made women cover up... NOT THE MEN...

women like you who were smart, and such made those moral things and promoted them... men just put force behind it...

just as today.. the men are trying to be what the women want... you have metrosexuals, and alan alda sensitive types.. and effeminite men...

the men will do what works... and what always works is money... and if the women are on short term game... then play for money and fun times is enough...

just remember that while she is having a very unserious fun time with him... she is taking his time away from you...

be pissed off at your sisters... not the men...

the men of this country gave you freedom, and a great life..

its the women of the US in the past 40 years that h ave been trying to sell us down a communist totalitarian river...(so the women themselves say).

i wish you luck...
i do feel for you...

but, long ago... i swore i would never bother with american women... they are toxic... the bad ones are so common and such its just not worth trying to find a good one (presumably like you)..

i met somone from a foreign land where the crap feminism doesnt exist this way... where they still want families.. and so forth...

its been real nice since i gave up on toxic western women... my wife is really nice... she cares... and by her caring for me, i care for her a whole lot... we work togeter... she does the laundry, i dont... but i am willing to pay for someone else to do it, but she wants to save money... if she wants to work, she canwork, if she wants to stay home, she can stay home... (she would do the same for me... something very different from western women today).

her family and my family get along... i love them... i now have new neices and cousins, and such...

and funny.. culturally and racially we dont match... but without the nasty western poison, we have a very easy time with each other, and other people dont get it... (we have old fashioned mutual respect)

the woman on the first floor is like you... she got her career... she tried to be with a younger male (she is much bolder than you describe), and now she has nothing... she is always selling herself the way a guy would as to her job... but she drinks too much...

my wife and i love her though... she is good people and sadly in the same lifeboat as you are...

she had a party and invited my wife... she knows i am an antifeminist.. (but NOT anti-woman)...

the next day she gave me a big compliment... she yelled up the stairs to me and siad... i "know that your anti feminism, but your wife has more freedom and everything than my feminist friends at the part (who by the way loved her)".

my answer to her was of course... she and i dont follow a divisive ideology of hate!!! we didnt get permission to control each other...

leftists are control freaks. and feminsts mostly are leftists..(or confused witout knowing it)... so its impossible to date one or live in such a culture witout everone telling you what you should ve and what you shoudl do.

my wife is from indonesia... i am from europe by decent, and i was raised old fashioned...

and old fashioned is actually more egalitarian than what we have now... (unless you listen to the false myths).


i truly hope the best for you...

its not easy... you have chipies running interference... you have the men confused as to who to go for... everyone is looking to their partner for what they should provide themselves.

and the women are livng the stuff they have een told... "what have you done for me lately" "gotta be bad, gotta be bold" even evanescance sings "save me from the nothing ive become"

your not paying attention to the dynamic...

and that is why you cant figure out how to make it work...

the dynamic in reality is what you have to work... working reality from a fantasy dynamic doesnt work... and thats what they teach you.


one thing you will find... the left is very angry, envious, jealous, and more... they are not happey peopoe... they have mutable morals... they are end justifies the means thinkers...

and for your purposes... they make horrible mates... and the country has many more of them than it did when i was young..

More: "A recent survey of teenagers found that a quarter could not identify Adolf Hitler, a third did not know that the Bill of Rights guaranteed freedom of speech and religion, and fewer than half knew that the Civil War took place between 1850 and 1900." And so on.

women outnumber men in graduate schools... men are dropping out... they no longer need to work to supply resources for three plus people...

they are the hunters, not the homesteaders...
they dont actually need much and can live at a level in which most women cant or dont want to.

they were made to provide... which means earn and give that to someone... without that, they dont need to do that much.

so your pool is also being shrunk from the other side too... the guys who are giving up..

read about the marraige strike and MGTOW.. men going their own way... you will find that the men are fed up...

they have realized that she cant take em for their money if they dont have any... they have learned to be poor and parasite the women to avoid being parasited by her and the system.

they know something you dont...

the woman you fall in love with, is not the same woman that divorces you... by then she is spiteful, wants restitution for failure to delive the fantasy, she feels she has all the worth and he doesnt have any... and the courts will side with her.

good luck finding a mate in the landscape they created... the men certainly didnt want rampant divorce, parners with 40+% rate of stds, and lots of other things...

in fact we are called assholes when we try to make it better. we are told we hate women, told we cant get sex, told we are abusive...

good luck... have a nice life...
and if you want advice that works...
then dont listen to people that state they have an ulterior motive and agenda...

and read what the heck these women who make policy think... you would be VERY surprised to learn that like communists they hate the lumpen proletariat... then again, they state that they are making a communist state, so yeah they ahve the same attitude about the masses they USE to their own ends.

witout your anger and us guys as scapgoats, couric, dworkin, greer, faludi, and tons of other i can list from my own reading...

would never be in a place ot make policy and change law and create the sitution that you live in.

here is an example

"No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." -- Interview with Simone de Beauvoir, "Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma," Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18

and so you now dont have that choice..

and you say that the women didnt do this...

they took away your choice to marry young and have a traditional family and a good life...
most are man hating lesbians... creating a world which hates heterosexuality... or havcent you noticed?

"Heterosexuality is a die-hard custom through which male-supremacist institutions insure their own perpetuity and control over us. Women are kept, maintained and contained through terror, violence, and the spray of semen...[Lesbianism is] an ideological, political and philosophical means of liberation of all women from heterosexual tyranny... " -- Cheryl Clarke, "Lesbianism, An Act of Resistance," in This Bridge Called My Back: Writing by Radical Women of Color


"The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness...can be trained to do most things." -- Jilly Cooper, SCUM (Society For Cutting Up Men, started by Valerie Solanas)

like valery isnt influencing things...

"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the Women's Movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage." -- Sheila Cronan, "Marriage," in Koedt, Levine, and Rapone, eds., Radical Feminism, p. 219.

and you blame men?

you want marraige... and you dont even know that a BASIC TENET of feminism is the destruction of the very thing you want..

and you blame us men?

funny...

"If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males." -- Mary Daly, former Professor at Boston College, 2001

"For one of the implicit, if unadmitted, tenets of feminism has been a fundamental disrespect for men." -- Wendy Dennis,.


and this pip...

"How will the family unit be destroyed? ... the demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare." -- From Female Liberation by Roxanne Dunbar

maybe 40 years of these women teaching might have had an effect on your chances at marraige.

THEY TOOK AWAY YOUR CHOICE, AND PUT THE BLAME ON MEN SO YOU DONT STOP THEM, BUT HELP THEM.

"One of the differences between marriage and prostitution is that in marriage you only have to make a deal with one man." -- Andrea Dworkin, Letters From a War Zone, (Dutton Publishing, 1989)

"Marriage . . . is a legal license to rape." -- Andrea Dworkin, Letters From a War Zone, (Dutton Publishing, 1989)

"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." -- Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone, (Dutton Publishing, 1989)

"As I see it, our revolutionary task is to destroy phallic identity in men and masochistic nonidentity in women--that is, to destroy the polar realities of men and women as we now know them so that this division of human flesh into two camps--one an armed camp and the other a concentration camp--is no longer possible. Phallic identity is real and it must be destroyed. Female masochism is real and it must be destroyed." -- Andrea Dworkin, Our Blood: Prophecies And Discourses On Sexual Politics - The Root Cause, (Harper & Row, 1976)

"Rape is the primary heterosexual model for sexual relating. Rape is the primary emblem of romantic love. Rape is the means by which a woman is initiated into her womanhood as it is defined by men." -- Andrea Dworkin, Letters From a War Zone, (Dutton Publishing, 1989)

"Under patriarchy, every woman is a victim, past, present and future. Under patriarchy, every woman's daughter is a victim, past, present and future. Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman." -- Andrea Dworkin, Liberty, p.58


"All men are rapists and that's all they are" -- Marilyn French, Authoress; (later, advisoress to Al Gore's Presidential Campaign.)


yeah... call us men assholes.. and give these ladies a pass to change your lives... but dont forget to blame the men...


by the way... there are literally volumes of this kind of venom from teachers, professors, journalists, pundits, congdressomen, presidential candidates, and more..

but they have no effect on your ability to mate

good luck..

Posted by: Artfldgr at December 2, 2008 08:48 PM

I don't think American women are toxic. I think any man who takes the time to learn manipulation, deception, psychology, or psychological warfare will eventually realize that ignorance in the mental and verbals realms is not substituted by having physical ability or wealth.

Humans are humans, whether they be male or female, American or not. If you get surprised and ambushed by one female, don't be surprised if the same happens with a foreign woman.

Even if you get a bride from overseas, she is still going to be coming here to the states and living here, and will eventually do what human self-interest demands.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at December 2, 2008 08:57 PM

artfldgr~

I think you are projecting your feelings about "toxic Western women" onto me and my views on men. NOWHERE did I say I blame men for my situation. I blame no one. It just is; there are many factors - going back a long time - that had an effect on the situation I find myself in, both internal and external. I said SOME men are assh*les. Never did I say "men" or "all men" like you go on and on about "women", throwing us all into the same "toxic" model.

I don't personally know the women you describe. That's not how I was raised and that is not how the females I call friends behave. I know men sometimes get screwed in divorces, but sometimes women do, too. I know of two different men who are divorced because their wives just decided they didn't love them anymore. I am also personally aware of a woman who gave a man three children, but he'd rather have a little something on the side, and he was an a$$ throughout the divorce proceedings, and even now tries to get out of his time with the kids. So, for every example that may be cited where a man got the shaft in a divorce, another, opposite antecdote can be cited where it's the man doing the shafting.

I don't believe in the world you describe. If that was truly the way of the world, I wouldn't be able to get out of bed every morning, I would be so depressed. You seem to focus too much on the negative. I know I can get into little pity-party moods from time to time (like now), but I think I generally recognize those times, and it's sometimes good to vent a little, even if it changes nothing. I just have to remind myself that even though my life isn't as I would wish it to be, my life could be so much worse.

If I had more time, I'm sure I could come up with more to say, but I think I've said enough to make my point...

Posted by: Miss Ladybug at December 2, 2008 11:03 PM

Re: artfldgr and Miss L, etc....

I had a fascinating--and very blunt--conversation recently with an elegant, brilliant, well-traveled and successful man in his late 40s (he's also a bit of a playboy and has sworn off marriage). We talked about modern dating dynamics between men and women, and I made some throwaway comment about not understanding why I didn't seem to find much activity in the dating field, while women even less attractive than I feel seem to have no trouble.

His instant response? They "put out" for every man that walks up. "It's as simple as that; they're sellouts." He went on to tell me with great intensity that I was worth more than that, and was insistent that I "never, never, never" settle.

As I read artfldgr's comment, I kept thinking of that man and wondering what his response to the comment would be. His theory and arfldgr's seem to have some congruence--that the lowest common denominator is being played to by a very large number of women, reducing the number of men willing to raise their heads to something better or even recognize it when they see it--they continue to hook up, but they'll never commit. Then again... what right-thinking woman would want a man who didn't try to resist that lowest common denominator...?

Heh. It's all terribly confusing. LOL! I keep vowing to give up analyzing men at large, but I fall into the trap over and over. My attitude these days is that there are probably a handful of decent men out there whose characteristics intersect with what I'm looking for (and vice-versa for my characteristics)... they're just about as easy to find as a needle in a haystack. :P In the meantime, other things demand too much of my energy and attention. Besides, aren't we supposed to independent and happy without men, 'cause they hate needy women? ;) Then again, if we're successful in that effort, how do they know we want them?

Games! I'm only good at ones that involve cards and playing pieces. :P

Posted by: FbL at December 3, 2008 01:24 AM

Games! I'm only good at ones that involve cards and playing pieces. :P

What she said...

Posted by: Miss Ladybug at December 3, 2008 09:25 AM

Let us not forget that the Fundamental Nudists not only put the fun back in being nude but mental as well.

*why yes, I am crabby. You would be too if you had to read what passes for Lit these days...*

Posted by: Cricket at December 3, 2008 09:59 AM

Oh, no -- do you have *another* paper to write?

Posted by: BillT at December 3, 2008 10:49 AM

I've been reading "A Dance Between Flames," which is about Berlin between WWI and WWII, and ran across a passages which seems relevant. This is by Stefan Zweig:

"But the most revolting thing about this pathetic eroticism was its spuriousness. At bottom, the orgiastic period which broke out in Germany simultaneously with the inflation was nothing more than feverish imitation. One could see that these girls of decent middle-class families would much rather have worn their hair in a simple arrangement than in a sleek man's haircut, that they would much rather have eaten apple pie with whipped cream than drink strong liquor."

Posted by: david foster at December 3, 2008 12:37 PM

I've been sitting on a post for a few days (damned uncomfortable, that) along those lines, David :p

Women undoubtably have a very sensual side but it doesn't work the way a lot of men think it does. For most of us, being slutty doesn't make us happy.

Rather, it tends to make us miserable inside. I always wondered why this was, when young men seem to think it's such a wonderful thing to sleep with as many women as they can that they actually *brag* about it, while for women (even nowadays) that same behavior is generally not considered reputation enhancing.

When I was younger I could never figure that out. Why was a guy who was 'experienced' admired, while a gal who had the same amount of 'experience' was talked about behind her back? I never understood (and still don't understand) the double standard. Now I get *why* people respond the way they do on a gut level.

But I still don't think it's right from a moral or ethical standpoint.

Posted by: Cassandra at December 3, 2008 01:10 PM

I ignored the double standard when I dated. If there was any fellow that I dated who had 'experience,' and I found out about it, with 100% confirmation, I would just lessen the time we spent together. I don't like caddish behavior, and while there were periods where the pickings were slim, I still kept my standards. I wouldn't judge the guy harshly, but to me, if he had a collection of notches, I wasn't going to be another notch or statistic for him to brag about.

So, call me a prude. It was more than just holding out for marriage; it was knowing if I could trust him or not. If he couldn't commit to staying chaste or abstain, then I knew that he would probably have fidelity issues later on.

It is what I would call a 'worldly' standard with regard to admiring men who are experienced. I think it is more envy than anything else on the part of men and women.

Men and women who are 'experienced' seldom marry their partners, and when that does happen, the chances of the relationship working out are pretty slim. It can happen, and has happened, but it is not common enough to change the double standard.

I think women need to keep their standards high. It is the only way the ones in the lowest common denominator are going to realize there is something better out there, and raise their sights accordingly.

Yes, I have another paper to write..and the lit anthology we have is just...*starts weeping copiously*

Posted by: Cricket at December 3, 2008 02:15 PM

That beautiful huh? Should they have sent a poet?

*ducks*

Posted by: MikeD at December 3, 2008 02:25 PM

"I always wondered why this was, when young men seem to think it's such a wonderful thing to sleep with as many women as they can that they actually *brag* about it, while for women (even nowadays) that same behavior is generally not considered reputation enhancing."

The average man has a slightly higher sex drive than the average woman---the difference isn't huge, but is enough so that usually the man is the pursuer and the woman is the pursued. Any reasonably attractive woman can have sex anytime she wants/ this isn't true of most men. So having sex isn't a WIN for women in the same way it is for men. Imagine if men had a MUCH lower sex drive and women often had to go without when they were in the mood / then women would probably brag about their sexual successes like men do now.

Or maybe not....maybe there's something about the condition of being penetrated that makes a person feel that she is giving more than getting / even if she has an extremely strong sex drive.

Posted by: jeff at December 3, 2008 04:56 PM

So having sex isn't a WIN for women in the same way it is for men. Imagine if men had a MUCH lower sex drive and women often had to go without when they were in the mood / then women would probably brag about their sexual successes like men do now.

I wonder?

Women are not competitive to the extent that men are. Jeff.

However, I am grateful to you for explaining that. you would think it would have been obvious to me with terms like 'conquests' and 'scoring', but I think the female tendency to equate love and sex gives us an enormous blind spot when it comes to certain things.

Even though I realize (duh!) that there are men who act this way, it's still hard for me to ascribe that behavior to men in general.

I tend to think that only jerks act like that.

I remember my Dad warning me that boys would try to do various things, and thinking to myself that he was so 'mean' - the boys I knew would never treat me so disrespectfully. It was just totally outside my frame of reference to even imagine a human being intentionally hurting someone else like that.

I guess that I still do not understand it, though obviously I realize it happens all the time. To me, I was always a person, worthy of love and respect.

Never something to be conquered or used, and certainly if I chose to give myself, I could never be lessened by a decision made of my own free will.

Posted by: Cassandra at December 3, 2008 06:11 PM

Besides, aren't we supposed to independent and happy without men, 'cause they hate needy women? ;)

It depends. It depends on the frequency to which they complain. As for pure vulnerability, that actually tends to attract men, in my view. It's just the constant harpy calls that, perhaps, tend to chase men away. So, no, men don't hate needy women. They hate needy and loud women ; )

*why yes, I am crabby. You would be too if you had to read what passes for Lit these days...*

You mean this kind of list. Link ?

But I still don't think it's right from a moral or ethical standpoint.

That's why you have to break the gender stereotypes! So long as women are seen as pedestal material, to be protected and hoarded, men will always have a societal status motivation to brag about how many they took down a peg while women will find it socially disadvantageous to let the world know how many men have pushed them off the pedestal without marrying them.

Still, contrary to the Left's position, I don't think breaking stereotypes, in itself, is a good thing. Unless you replace it with something just as good, if not better, then you, my dear, are nothing but a Destroyer. Course, that applies to certain women that you've blogged about, Cass, more than it applies to you.

you would think it would have been obvious to me with terms like 'conquests' and 'scoring'

It is a derivative of both patriarchal social systems as well as biological innate drives. In the case where you have a confluence of both, where you derive social status from being a person that can get women, and it satisfies basic biological urges (sowing oats), then you get what you get.

In a matriarchal society, that wouldn't be quite as important, though it wouldn't be unimportant I dare say. It just would remove the social status from the equation. It would change it, at the least, if women were chasing men and not the other way around.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at December 3, 2008 08:22 PM

Myke,
You are so insenystyve.

Ymar, not even close as far as lit goes.

In other news, Bratz dolls are now a hot collectable since the ruling. Since I detest them, I am not surprised.

Posted by: Cricket at December 4, 2008 11:45 AM

Brat dolls? You mean they're making toys out of *sausage*? That's a *choking* hazard! And if they're made in China, they're probably full of melamine, not to mention the lead that's in the

Oh. "Bratz"

Never mind.

Posted by: BillT at December 4, 2008 01:22 PM

Bwahahahaha...

You mean, *you* have heard of Bratz dolls?

That is oogie.

Posted by: Cricket at December 4, 2008 02:15 PM

Oh yeah? Well... um... YOU HAVE COOTIES!

Posted by: MikeD at December 4, 2008 02:53 PM

Mooooommmmmmm!!!!! Mike and Cricket are fighting!!!!

Posted by: Princess Angelina Contessa Louisa Francesca Banana Fanna Bo Besca the Third-but you can call me Dot at December 4, 2008 03:09 PM

You mean, *you* have heard of Bratz dolls?

Not until I googled 'em.

Tempest. Teapot.

Posted by: BillT at December 4, 2008 03:39 PM

Hey, Dot. Where's Wakko and Yakko? Are they hiding out in Mike and Cricket?

Btw, Dot, I'm onto your cute and sassy routine. You're not gonna be able to evar again use your apparent innocence to torment and manipulate people that get in your way: like Gail Collins and Thom Friedman.

"Gail Collins and Thom Friedman. These are not serious people. Let's walk through the logic of this situation:"

And so it begins.

And then they shoot their own feet off and hop around cussing and bitching and moaning "Why the hell didn't anyone TELL ME?"

Well, they did, bright eyes. You just were so insufferably full of yourself that you wouldn't listen. People like me just sort of sit and wait for your head to explode, because we've seen it all happen a million times before.

That sounds like Dot alright.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at December 4, 2008 03:56 PM

Well, I would rather have girl cooties instead of boy cooties, so there.

pftbpftbpftb!

Posted by: Cricket at December 5, 2008 08:45 AM

lady, i said you were being taken along for the ride... that i was not questioning you being exceptional nor the things you say... i was just saying that if you are that way, then your stuck along for the ride while the majority play out this bad idea that has bene promoted over and over and over.

many of the things that they are suggesting make us completely miserable... when free animals are misearable, they dont mate...

anyway... for quick good things in evoltionary psychology, go here.

blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist

you wont like it if your on the left, or have taken in the false beliefs of what we are like... like the noble savage, the blank slate, or even equality between the complimantary sexes...

the truth is always uncomfortable... but it doesnt inform how one should interpret it... and thats where the mistake was made... and it was made purposefully since socialists want women to work so that their labor is for the state... everything for the state, everyhthing to the state, everything from the state... and women work for their families...

the truth is that feminism never brought women anything... women would have had them witout it... they just took credit for what everyone was feeling anyway... there is no way to beat the public up to enlightment... we already knew what real freedom and choice meant and all the other things... read pizzey and learn how the communists took over the movement...


women dont need a small set of other women using them for their own purposes while making the ones supporting them completely miserable... not to mention the harm to the children... (including early menses and other genetic things from blood father absence).

our kids are damaged because the natural setting they should be raised in has been blown apart by the big lie...

our population is dying out, because the advice is wrong... as intended to be...

capitalists are not greedy.. they want to serve..

socialists and communists are the most greedy and have always been... what else do you call people whose stated goal is owning the world, while they pretend thats their opponents goal?

like russia... the top thugs own that country, all its resources, and its people. they can do whatever they want to them, and only america is the limiting factor...

but while the average salary is less than 400 dollars a month... the wife of putin is wearing a www.breguet.com watch...

(the top one is 6 figs, average is 30k... and i will bet most of you never even heard of the company)

the disparity between the top and the bottom in russia is so much larger than the US, yet we complain about here...

and i never claimed that all american women were toxic... jsut that it wasnt worth digging through all the waste to find the few...

as a young guy i no longer made extra money cause i was a man... so the money that i spent on women (that they never ever ever equally spend back), was a lot... 100 dollars a week to be on the prowl is 5k a year... it can easily be more if its more than 2 drinks in a manhatten club with door costs.

i got tired of being an "intellectual whore" (look it up) and hearing how the girls were going out three nights a week with absolutely no intention of being with the guys, they just thougth that that was how things were..

meanwhile, i would talk to others that were making composite boyfriends.. (Which should piss these girls looking for a decent man more than the gold digger ruining an inaccessable successful man)

one down the block had 6 guys... one was for that dirty boy sex.. another was for warm fuzzies (and she complained that she had to have sex with him for that). another was for shoping and oing out... and another (not me) was her intellectual whore... and the last had money so was always good for a date which saved her money on meals.

the neighbor to her across the street is a militant feminist that posed in playboy... she and i would have debates as to feminism and such... she respected me because i knew my stuff... but she also let it be known that she h ated men, and she dated them specifically to hurt them for the cause of women... which meant that she was an asshole factory...

got to go... but in truth... i wish things were better... but when you listen to people with ulterior motives (they state they have), then in a way, everyone gets what htey deserve. the ones listening to them get what they deserve, the ones that dont listen, but do nothing in a way get what they deserve too (for inaction).

you can read lots of books and a MAIN tenet of the top dogs in feminism and leftists want to destroy the institution of marriage... you may have a personal version that doestn include that, but that is irrelevent since siding with them, you side with their program and you give them power to be even a presidential candidate, an adviser, an official blogger, and a senator and congressperson themmselves...

they dont like capitalism either.... so if you add up the things that they like and dont like the utopia they are describing we left, and the place they are taking you to is kind of like china... we didnt notice that the women that worked for nike were living in barracks.. no men in their world at all, like feminists claim.. they work long hours, 5-7 days a week, and they have a barracks that they live at... a working community of women.. like the feminists promise.. sort of...

take care, good luck... sorry cant help... nothing i can do to turn back the clock and set those on another path.. though i wish i could.

Posted by: Artfldgr at December 5, 2008 07:49 PM

Post a comment

To reduce comment spam, comments on older posts are put into moderation 5 days after the last activity. Comments with more than one link also go into moderation. If you don't see your comment after posting it, try refreshing the screen. If you still don't see it, your comment is probably in the moderation queue.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)