|Can you pinpoint.......Page 1 of 9 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9)|
|Well, everything was still somewhat OK when I went abroad in '88. When I cam back in '92, everything was different.|
Seems to be a generational thing.
Men 50+ seem to have no problem.
Men 30 and below seem to have no problems either.
Seems to be men 30-50 who have the problem.
I reckon it's because men over 50 didn't grow up with feminism, cause they were born in 1957 or before.
Men 30 and below were born in 1977 or after, and 99% of them have never been hit or disciplined by a parent, so they pretty much get away with whatever they want.
It's the generation in-between: the guinea-pigs of feminism: being disciplined by our parents to not take advantage of women and being told that we do take advantage of women and to stop that gave us a double whammy. Overkill.
|Can you pinpoint.......|
Posted: 7/20/2007 3:44:31 PM
|Why should i get neutered? I am not getting any now. But as far as dating goes, i just go with the flow. Due to ethics at my work, i just go there and do my job. I never ask women out there, nor do i even bother to enquire about them. That would leve me to the internet and or a chance meeting. But so far neither are working for me. Just another day in my life.|
|Can you pinpoint.......|
Posted: 7/20/2007 4:57:40 PM
|ubkobalt, you make good points!|
Lucy is also doing what many women do to nice guys on dates. They challenge them in a bad way. They hate weak men. They dispise weak men. They will insult weak men. Society HATES weak men, yet at the same time DEMANDS it. Wishy washy. She's going to tell Charlie Brown to kick the football. Don't be weak! Hahah! You don't deserve to kick it.There is another side to this story. Lucy DOES treat Charlie Brown like a "nice guy".
The correct answer for Charlie is, "Here's how it's going to work. You hold the football there. I kick it. If you pull it away, I'm not playing with you anymore." And it takes a lot of courage to abandon someone and to make good on your word.
But look how she behaves with Schroeder. She fawn over him, all the time, all because he plays a musical instrument. And because he ignores her. What does he do? Does he turn to her, and say "Lucy, would you like to be my girlfriend?" Nope. He just goes back to his music. Why? Because Schroeder knows, as all men do, that the MINUTE he gives Lucy any attention, she is going to treat him JUST THE SAME WAY as she treats Charlie Brown.
So Schroeder is the real man, who knows that Lucy is just playing games. He just doesn't want to play.
What happens? Lucy keeps talking and isn't even aware that Schroeder leaves. Then along comes Snoopy, Lucy reaches over and tries to kiss Schroeder with her eyes closed, and who does she kiss? Snoopy! Now she's upset and in a huff for kissing Snoopy. But Snoopy doesn't care. He's happy because a girl kissed him. It doesn't matter who it is. A kiss is a kiss.
So who is Snoopy? Snoopy is the "player". He doesn't care if Lucy is playing games. He's just waiting to take advantage of Lucy, because "a kiss is still a kiss, from any girl".
On the subject of confidence: What is a REAL MAN? Rudyard Kipling summed it up quite well, in his poem "If". Here is an excerpt:
If you can make one heap of all your winnings,
And risk it on one turn of pitch and toss,
And lost and start again at your beginnings,
And never breathe a word about your loss.
Kipling said one part of being a man is NOT about being confident, but the ability to "suck it up". To take your licks and try again, but NOT to feel a need to moan about it. Just accept your losses and move on.
Now, not everybody is going to like this, but: The Alpha Male is NOT the most confident male in the pack. The reason is that most males who ARE Alpha Males spent many years in the shadow of an Alpha Male, biding their time until they could attack him and kill him, or scare him off. Being an Alpha Male is not a right, or a privilege. It is no way the measure of a man. It is a time in his life when he is on top, and for most men, it is an extremely short period in his life, which happens again and again.
Men call this a "purple patch", a period in life when you cannot fail to get dates.
Then men have "bald patches", when men cannot get a date.
The funny thing is, that if you talk to men, nearly every man gets a few purple patches and a few bald patches, in his life.
That is why THERE IS NO ALPHA MALE.
AN ALPHA MALE IS ANY MALE IN A PURPLE PATCH!
A lot of people got the idea that since we are supposed to be evolved from Apes, it means we are just like animals, and we act like animals. But there are 2 differences:
1) Different species act differently. As we are descended from ALL of them, it follows that we act like ALL of them, and that's just impossible. If we try to look for common ground and assume that humans have the same common grounds, we run into a problem: There are NO common grounds for species. Heck, fish are cannibals. We are descended from fish. So does that make us cannibals?
2) We have something they don't. Voluntary creativity. Animals do learn, but not by choice. They don't make civilisations. We do. Fact. So that means that we alter and change with that creativity.
So, what does work? Modern Psychology? Doubtful. That doesn't seem to work.
What does work?
Transactional analysis, sometimes known as "game playing". It involves looking at statistically repeated behaviour, which provides a valid consistency. So, let's look at the transactions:
1) Man treats woman nicely, and gets into the "friend zone". No relationship.
2) Man treats woman nicely, and gets used for money. Abusive relationship.
3) Man treats woman badly, and gets treated well. Abusive relationship.
4) Woman treats man badly, and man walks away. No relationship.
5) Woman treats man with respect, does not accept bad behaviour or simpering, and gets respect in return. Possible good relationship, or both parties move on.
Notice that only once the woman takes charge does the power-play change into a situation where a positive relationship occurs.
Ladies, you have sex and men want it. So you have all the power.
If you give it away, you'll get no respect. From anyone.
If you wield it like a sword, you'll just be called a ****. You'll have few friends, but only people who want something from you. When they're done with you, they're gone. A few boyfriends, but only the ones who are using you as a stepping stone.
But if you handle men with respect, not taking abuse, and not taking wimpiness, we'll take our cues from you, and you'll get what you want from us.
Most men adjust to the women of our times. That's how we've survived. It's how we survive today. But women are constantly changing what they want. So we don't know. So we keep changing. One woman wants this, one woman wants that, it's hard to keep track. We have to figure it out as we go along.
What is the problem with this? Nothing.
But women are listening to the Media, and peer pressure, which has been influenced by the media. So, what messages are women listening to? Well, messages that are true. Unfortunately, all messages have inherent assumptions, and to believe a message, is to accept those assumptions unknowingly. If those assumptions are false and harmful to women, those assumptions will become part of a woman's thinking. She won't even KNOW she's screwing her own life up.
So what are these messages and what are the inherently false assumptions, and how are they screwing up women's lives?
1) All men are b*stards. The inherent implication is that if a male is not a b*stard, then he is NOT a man. So only b*stards are men. Anyone else is NOT datable. Kind of makes it impossible to have a good relationship, if you believe that the only men who you can have a relationship with, are all abusive.
From a man's side: He is doomed from the start. Might as well be a b*stard, anyway.
2) You can't change a man. The inherent implication is that a man CANNOT CHANGE ON HIS OWN. So if a man DOES want to change, you will never tell him what he needs to do. If he's going to do it, he'll KNOW what to do and do it anyway.
From a man's side: When he is willing to change, he never gets told what to do, SO HE CAN'T CHANGE. Then, when he doesn't change, she gets angry, and blames him for not changing. Might as well not bother, then.
3) All men cheat. The inherent implication is that a man who does not cheat, cannot be a man or cannot be in a position to cheat. So, as long as you haven't caught him cheating, he's not worth dating, or he's just in it for the sex. So you keep testing him, to see if he is cheating.
From a man's side: She won't stop acting like I am cheating. I either leave, or cheat. Being nice is NOT GETTING ANYWHERE.
4) All men only want sex. The inherent implication is that a man who does not want sex, is getting it somewhere else, or has a sexual problem. Either he is cheating and you'll keep treating him like he is, or he has a sexual problem, so he cannot satisfy your needs, and you need another man, who can.
From a man's side: If I don't keep pushing for it, she'll think I'm getting it somewhere else, or I have a sexual problem. So I have to keep pushing for it, just to stop her going crazy, or running off with someone else.
Now, let's review those messages in a clearer light:
1) All men can be b*stards sometimes to some women, and can be nice sometimes to the same women, and nice to other women, but if you let them get away with it, they'll keep doing it. Then, all you have to watch out for is if he is being a b*stard to YOU, and put a STOP to it right away.
2) You can't expect a man to change, unless he know what to do, understands why, wants to change in that way, and gets the help and support to do so. Now, it's easy. Just tell him EXACTLY what you expect from him, and why it is SO important to do so, then see if he is makes efforts to change, and provide help & support if he does. If he does not, and what you ask is fair, then he is just being a b*stard, and you have to put a stop to it, PRONTO. If what you ask is unfair, or he doesn't understand what to do, or why, or you don't help, he'll most probably fail. Puts some of the onus of responsibility on you, doesn't it? But it is much more likely to succeed.
3) All men CAN cheat. All you have to do is make sure he doesn't have a REASON to cheat, and keep an eye on if he is being a b*stard. Keep your eyes for him, exercise, eat well, dress well, and keep him happy in bed. If he gets out of line, STOP HIM, PRONTO! Then he'll never want to leave.
4) All men only want sex from SOME women, in SOME situations. Sometimes men don't want sex at all. Sometimes men only want sex from some women. Sometimes men only want sex at some points in their lives. Sometimes men only want sex in some situations.
All you have to do is find out if they want more. But they are unlikely to tell you.
So all you really have to do is NOT have sex and see if the things that they are doing with you are things that would reasonably encourage you to have sex with them. If they are, it's the end goal. If not, they want the extra.
What are examples of things men do if they are trying to get you to have sex with them? Anything that appeals to your emotions, such as humour, flirtation, spending money on you, taking exciting places, telling you that you're the only one and that they want a relationship.
Also, the old rule of "Keep Them Mean, to Keep Them Keen." Doing absolutely nothing for you, and being deliberately annoying.
Also, sending mixed messages, which is continually switching between making you excited and making you annoyed. Keeps you off-balance.
What are examples of things men do if they are NOT trying to get you to have sex with them? Anything that appeals to your intellect, such as disagreements, stating opinions that they KNOW you don't like, doing things they like to do when you're not there, telling you what THEY want out of a relationship, going 50/50 on things. Being honest.
See, we want the same as you. Just feminism ingrained into women's consciousness to be automatic pessimists, and like The Law of Attraction, if you keep thinking the worst of men, you will make it happen.
So, be optimistic, and realistic, and you'll come out trumps.
|Can you pinpoint.......|
Posted: 7/21/2007 12:08:32 PM
|Well ... I have to admit most of my self-confidence got drained out of my body - from being with a gal for 20 years that - I was simply not very important to.|
Before her I was normal - made big bucks in a tuff business full of rejection.
Since her - I have done a big azz overhaul on myself (self-improvement/self-development) and my confidence is back to normal levels. Losing my self-confidence/esteem (over that 20 years) also caused havoc in my business (self employed same business 33 years now).
NOW ................. to answer “what happened”
The BULLCHIT of the sign carrying - the “I don’t need a man” spewing - the argumentative crappola of the - yelling it at everyone - starting threads about it - all the “are men intimidated by us ..........” yadda yadda yadda.
I for one am convinced about a few things.
- a man is now an “option” (good for you girl - just stay the hell away from me)
- yes (some) females ARE indeed a guy with bOObs nowdays (at least in their own mind - I am not interested in being around some wanna be guy)
Ladies (some of you) - you ask for it and you got it. Some of us feel it is not worth the bullchit that comes with it.
I would love to have a real girlfriend. Being married most of my life - I prefer to have a special gal in my life but .............
That gal would need to be a woman. Being self-sufficient is a given. Wearing that “independent woman” like some kind of badge is sickening.
I am STILL a man - I want a real female - a real woman - a good person that has never found the need to be some kind of self proclaimed “now woman / independent woman”.
|Can you pinpoint.......|
Posted: 7/21/2007 3:16:22 PM
We live in an era where men just want women for sex, and don't want to take any responsibility for the relationship
This is complete b.s. True, most guys want sex and maybe even with multiple women. However, if they found someone of worth they would want a relationship. In fact the whole argument that men are getting wussy gets to another point of needy guys just wanting a woman at whatever cost, this is beyondthe desire of sex.
You can not reasonably expect that women to be a focused career woman at work, and a full time, loving, supportive wife and mother the second she walks in the door at home.
Who has asked you to? As far as me and my friend we all know howto cook and really enjoy cook a good dinner (yes even more than hamburgers and fries). Most people iknow put a effort to do chorse and keep the house nice.
It's no longer specifically "a man's world."
well great, but does not mean it should be awoman's world either. I think a lot of women feel a debt bcs of certianthings in history. No payment are going to be paid. but women if you remember are a protected class in society.
I think alot of the problemsof womens abuse were addressed by womens lib, but got to a degree like many other organizations just seeing 'what all can i get' mentality...just livinginhouston many of the people from lousiana kept asking everyone in my city 'what ugoing to do for me?'
After all that came with womens lib they were 'empowered'. power corrupts :P
Realy there is so much in society thatisempowering women. The view, most of adverstisement is driven to gay or womenaudience, tv shows, and magazines (can u count how many are directed at women?).
Men and women are confused as what roles they play in society....dont really need to go into detail on that one you just think that one out.
As we might not 'need' a man or woman, we are both 'empowered' by the qualities of and opposite sex.
|Can you pinpoint.......|
Posted: 7/21/2007 7:53:32 PM
It all went wrong because men and women are settling for cheeseburgers but they are screaming loudly at everyone within hearing distance that they want STEAK and the cheeseburgers SUCK !!!Very close, kaagwaantaan. It's closer to this: Everyone is telling young men & women to go try every cheeseburger they can, and THEN only eat ONE steak when they're older. But if you've eaten a lot of cheeseburgers, you get used to them. You get sick of them for a while, but when you decide that enough is enough and it's time for a steak, you find that cheeseburgers are all that make you hungry. Now, you want steak, but you find yourself salivating over every foul-smelling cheeseburger that walks past your way. If you order steak, you just sit there, looking at it, and push it around with your fork, like you're playing with it.
This example actually happens with food. People who grew up on meat and no vegetables, actually won't eat vegetables. They always turn up their nose to them, even if they're offered as a side dish, with meat as the main course.
The ONLY way that people in the past found a solution was to START with steak. Everyone who's eaten steak will be tempted to have a cheeseburger if there is nothing else. Everyone who's used to eating nothing but cheeseburgers, however, gets used to the ease of it, and never bothers to cook a steak, even if they want to. It's just too damn easy to buy another cheeseburger.
That's why I agree with engineeringemo.
That's not a man, that's a gambler.DonkeyPimp, the example in the poem is NOT talking about money. Part of the poem includes:
If you can dream, and not make dreams your master,
That is what gamblers do. They know the odds are in the casino's favour, yet still they believe they can beat the odds, and let their dreams of winning it big master their common sense to save their money for their bills.
If you can make one heap of all your winnings,
And risk it on one turn of pitch and toss,
And lost and start again at your beginnings,
And never breathe a word about your loss.
The essence of this part of the poem is about finding a real gamble, a genuine risk, like finding someone you want to stay with, and being able to take the risk of having an exclusive relationship with that person, having the relationship not work out, and being able to move on, without constant navel-gazing, like "Why did this happen to me?".
<div class="quote">Since a big part of the reason I don't feel so bitter is that I focus more on my own personal problems and what I can do , personally, to solve them than I do on society's problems and why everyone but me is to blame.I quite agree. However, the OP is NOT asking why she isn't meeting the "right men". She is asking if there is something deeper in society. If something has changed in society and if so, what it is. I am sure that if all the posters said that she just isn't meeting the right men, then she would assume that is the case. As most of the posters have responded that there are very few of the men that she would like to meet, and that society has changed to reduce those men in society.
So I am sure that there will soon be lots of new threads from women, asking how do they deal with these less confident men. Then, you can pipe up and say that all they need to do is to date you. I'm sure you can handle dating over 100,000 women. No challenge for a man hung like a donkey.
|Can you pinpoint.......|
Posted: 7/22/2007 8:26:15 AM
|Good articles, people. I noticed 2 things that came out:|
1) Lots of gender-bashing about gender-bashing.
2) Lots of calls of taking responsibility on both sides.
I propose that we take a different tack: not competition, but co-operation. Rather than focussing on our differences, I would like us to focus on our similarities, and how we can help each other to overcome our respective problems.
To rune (msg #55):
I appreciate that Kipling comes across as a racist. He is not a racist, but he is not PC either. He believed that you cannot deny hate w/out denying love. So, although he embraced the idea of Empire, he also denounces the evils that came with it. That is why Tennyson said that he was the only one of his students with the "divine fire". Take a look at his poem of the Indian servant, Gunga Din. It describes terrible things that are done to Gunga Din by his master. Yet, the end of the poem reads:
Though I've belted you and flayed you,
By the livin' Gawd that made you,
You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!
The feeling that you are left with in the end of this poem, is that for all the bad treatment heaped on him, you're a better man than I am, Gunga Din! And that Gunga Din is the man to aspire to be, not his brutal and savage master.
Similarly, when Kipling talks about foes and loving friends not being able to hurt you, he does NOT describe these people as others have, as not being foes or friends at all. He merely espouses the ability of self-control, to love others as "loving friends", but never let them hurt you that bad that you feel that great intensity called "hurt", and cease to be able to love again.
A friend once told me:
If my friend loves tuna, and I hate tuna, I can do one of 3 things:
a) Learn to love tuna.
b) Learn to hate your friend.
c) Learn to accept the 2. It's much harder to do, but well worth it.
That is why I like Kiplings' poems so much. They all seem to have this concurrent them of learning how to live with dichotomy, to everyone's benefit.
To Mominatrix (msg #57):
Yes, a lot of men just do want sex and no commitment. Some don't. The ones who do have essentially ruined it for the decent men, because most of the women I know are so tired if this, they are giving up. All men are not jerks, the few that I know, give me hope to continue dating. But every time some guy pretending to be nice, suddenly disappears after having sex with a woman, it gets a little bit harder not to be suspicious of the next man that comes along.That is the challenge, Mominatrix.
Every time we become suspicious of our future because of our past experiences that are negative, we give power to our past, and re-create it in our future. Take a look at the posts who all say that players actually target women who puy "No Players" in their profiles.
The other way is to not to become suspicious of our future, but to learn from our past and to apply those things that we have learned in our futures. To find the common thread in our similar bad experiences, and to figure out what we forgot to do. Usually I find this to be something so obvious that I take it for granted that I do it, and nothing can be taken for granted, lest we do not do it, and suffer as a result.
So, I say, don't tar all people with the same brush. Figure out where the tar is, and step out of its way. Such an attitude requires more thinking, to be sure, but far more beneficial in the long run.
Some men cheat for no apparent reason, other than a lack of self control. You cannot blame this all on women. Where exactly is the man's role in this equation? Does he share no responsibility in this? Why exactly must we just do whatever a man wants us to do and expect less in return?Mominatrix, the man is a jerk. No-one doubts this. However, if the women concerned wish to have a happy life, they will assuredly be much better off for finding ways to tell if a man is likely to cheat, to stop it as soon as they find out, to seek out men who are less likely to cheat and to encourage men to never start cheating in the first place.
That's why I keep saying: Date & kiss for a few times w/out sex. Sure, it's very difficult for the men, to kiss & not have sex. But that is precisely the point. Any man who cannot even kiss and get turned on and NOT have sex, is very unlikely to resist his all-too-human desires to chase another woman that he finds desirable when he is in a relationship with yourself. If, however, he has that self-control, then he can see the long term goal, and is therefore more likely to be ruled by his common sense rather than his libido. As a man in a long-term relationship is far more likely to get regular sex than a single man, it makes more sense for him to pursue that. But that is a matter of logic. The libido says "get it now".
Patience is an essential quality in a relationship. Cultivate patience, and seek out men who have patience. Then you will find it easier to find a man who wants a relationship.
Players are impatient. That is what makes them players.
I am always reminded of a friend of mine, who had a perennial problem: He would go to work all day, and she ran the house and looked after 5 kids. Whenever he came home from work, the kids would be screaming, things needed doing, and his wife needed help. It was a bit much. However, he came up with a rather ingenious solution. He would drive home, but when he got quite near, but still out of sight, he would pull over, and catch some much needed rest. Maybe 15-30 minutes. Then, feeling refreshed, he would drive the extra 5 minutes home, walk through the door, and immediately help her with the house & the kids.
She got what she wanted: help as soon as he got home. It didn't matter if he was another half-hour late.
He got what he wanted: a rest after work, before getting back to family issues.
Perhaps if we can look to find these compromises and share them with each other, then we could find many solutions and reduce the problems that we have.
Let's just share, and not compete. That way, we all get what we want.
|Can you pinpoint.......|
Posted: 7/22/2007 3:00:19 PM
However, there IS a secret weapon we has guys have, that isn't used nearly enough.Thank you for that, ubkobalt. I usually use the abandonment as a last resort. Now that I know that I can use the threat of it, I will.
That is, women's fear of abandonment. It's the strongest weapon we have, and we should start using it more often. It solves many things, rather than create problems. Sure, it can create problems. But stand your ground and say "No. If you don't play by my rules, I'm talking my balls and going home."
To Rune. It was actually a male voice that was shocked that women hadn't tried to step in and justify their side of the story (paraphrased because I'm too lazy to go back and cut and paste). It may have been scorpio.Nope. It wasn't me, kaagwaantaan. You almost had me respecting you. Now, you've blown it. So, you've got me where you want me.
Men want to be loved and nurtured and a lot of them are getting castrated in the process of trying to make today's "Woman" happy.This is a complete misunderstanding of men. Men don't need to be nurtured. Nor do we need to be loved as a woman needs to be loved.
Men need respect. Men need to be loved as a confident, capable man, because that is what we are.
After all that came with womens lib they were 'empowered'. power corrupts :PThis is the point.
Realy there is so much in society thatisempowering women.
YOU WOMEN WANT TO HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT!
You cannot have ANY man to be all of the following:
(a) More confident than you
(b) Ear-bashed by you at every opportunity
(c) Not return the ear-bashing
(d) Not leave
You're never going to get a relationship, until you learn the fundamentals of a relationship. A relationship is built on a firm respect for the other person.
If you cannot have any respect for men in general, you cannot find a man, because:
No man is good enough for you.
Learn to respect others. Then, you will have a LOT of confident men to choose from.
|Can you pinpoint.......|
Posted: 7/22/2007 8:12:38 PM
When women started ____in' lawyers of course. Sensitivity is the scourge of our time.
Posted: 7/23/2007 3:02:12 PM
|A lot of women have used the word "entitlement", but let's look at it again, from a feminist's POV:|
IMHO, feminism was intended to allow women to have the freedoms that they were denied. Now, from history it turned out that a LOT of women had freedom to work, to select sexual partners and to leave them if necessary, and a LOT of women were very happy.
However, a LOT of women were oppressed, sometimes by family, sometimes by their husband. I believe that feminism was intended to address the needs of these women.
However, rather than address the issue of domestic abuse by family or by a husband, or rape, feminism chose to go after everyone else:
1) Freedom of employment: All women were given the opportunity to work, rather than women who sought to get away from abusive situations.
2) NO means NO: All women were given the sexual freedom to go to a bar, and reject who they wanted. But this idea was actually not intended for that. It was intended for when a woman was in an abusive situation, like when a man was pushing for sex, that she could tell HIM no, and he would have to respect her rights.
In order to address these issues, the women's movement began raising women's expectations higher and higher, never dealing with the original problems of oppression and abuse. Hence, women are expecting more from men than ever before, and never getting what they want.
The only way that I can see of women getting these issues addressed is when 2 things are addressed:
1) Domestic oppression and abuse
2) Rape, whether date rape, gang rape, or any other form.
Once these 2 issues can be addressed, then women can sleep safe at night, knowing NO MAN will ever oppress them, or abuse them, or rape them.
Then, they will relax with men, and stop making unreasonable demands. They will be relaxed and therefore calm, so they will be clear-headed enough to see they players for what they are, and will be level-headed enough to tell a weak-minded guy from a man with morals and principles.
Just my $0.02
Posted: 7/23/2007 11:02:00 PM
|Hmm, I think the OP is focusing on one aspect of a BIGGER problem. I don't think men lack balls. I don't think feminism is the downfall of society. I do think that the problem is more of a widespread socio-economic problem that has led to many social problems. |
First, we have the breakdown of the family. No longer are grandpa and grandma living in the home or living next door and helping out with the kids. Now, grandpa and grandma are RAISING the kids, if the kids are that lucky. The ease of divorce and a me-first culture has contributed to the break down of the family such that most children do not have two-parent households or even one-parent households. Now do not read this as blasting single mothers because it is both parents fault. Marriage is no longer even considered necessary to have kids and relationships are seen as a "for the moment" or "until something better comes along" type of deal. The focus again, is on the individual needs and not on the ramifications of having a bunch of kids with baby mama drama and all of that.
Second, people no longer think about their position within the community. There is no community. There was a time when social pressure kept people in line. Now was this always a good thing? Hell no. But in terms of getting people to do the right thing, I can't say it is necessarily a bad thing for there to be a social stigma for having 8 kids out of wedlock and not paying any support for them. When people work within a community, there is a sense of pride and support there. But that sense has been lost, again to the me-first culture.
Third, and most importantly, is the breakdown of the American middle class. The middle class is shrinking at an alarming rate. It isn't just in the big cities either. It is happening everywhere. We went from a production/manufacturing economy to a service economy. Where once a man could have a blue collar job that would support his family, he now has to work a service job. Women? In most cases, we have to be in the workforce. The days of housewives are pretty much over. It's a luxury for either the very wealthy or the very poor who cannot afford childcare. For those who wish to maintain a middle class income/status, mom has to work outside the home. Now, I do not see women working outside the home as a bad thing. I do, however, see the necessity of having two incomes in order to afford a home, kids, a car and a middle of the road lifestyle as a problem.
I think when the economy shifted (late-70s) is when we started seeing a lot of the dog eat dog mentality pop-up and the breakdown of middle class began. Because people were forced out of good paying (in many cases unionized) jobs and forced into lower paying, non-unionized service jobs where the employers right to terminate employees at anytime people started adopting the "me first" attitude as a means of survival. Look at the shift in media content between say, the late 60s and the 80s. It's a huge difference between the two.
Ok, it is late and I am having a hard time being coherent here. I have a bunch of things in my head and am trying to hit on them but the bottom line is that I do not think that men have lost their balls. I think that the social changes are not due to evil feminists, women working, single moms, or the birth control pill. I think the social changes are primarily due to the economic shift that happened to occur at roughly the same time as civil rights, feminism, and the sexual revolution. I don't think those movements/shifts are at fault so much as they coincided (sp?) with an economic shift that exacerbated the problems.
Posted: 7/23/2007 11:08:25 PM
|Mominatrix does have some valid points. Saying you women are never satisfied is the exact thing women are thinking about men. |
You could have an amazing (connection or chemistry) and not really be a feminanzi till after the man ABANDONS you before even giving things a chance. Seems alot of men don't know what they want and change their minds every 2 seconds.
Some say they are not all about sex but then go on to say they eat cheesburger while they are waiting for steak. That just implies right there you don't mind who you string along the way till you find the perfect steak.
Maybe it's gender bashing or the war of the sexes but I think it is all about people being too much of an individual and not working together as a team and communicating.
But meanwhile using who ever, till ya find that perfect person who will except your flaws but of course doesn't have any flaws themselves.
So far the it seems to me (more then some) men who just want sex and won't actually continue a relationship are just using alot of woman's issues/rights as an excuse to get away with bad behaviour. But of course if a woman tries to explain that she is a crazy, feminazi, stalker biatch. If a woman phones her lover she is a stalker.
You say you want a Traditional woman but then one is right in front of you you still keep looking. Maybe for that supermodel? Some say they want a woman to be a homemaker but if she can't work full-time out in the real world you dismiss her thinking she has nothing to offer yet without even getting to know her.
It's flawed on both sides. There are so many threads of women complaining about men using them for sex. And the men are sick of reading them. Well look at how little threads there are of men complaining about woman using them for sex? You don't want the complaints don't eat the cheesburger while your bored and waiting for steak. And for the people playing games: Don't use a dating site as a free brothel then.
|Can you pinpoint.......|
Posted: 7/24/2007 4:10:21 PM
|Laddettes... thats when it all went wrong. girls stopped being girly and became emancipated and then we had no one to look after... sad but true.|
not that i want a slave - i want to make that absolutely clear for all the dykes out there.. i genuinely like looking after my GF's... is that wrong?
|Can you pinpoint.......|
Posted: 7/25/2007 2:14:54 PM
|Lol what about the people who fall into the CHOPPED LIVER aka Back-up Plan Category?|
|Can you pinpoint.......|
Posted: 7/25/2007 8:29:42 PM
|Years ago, when I was a deckhand on a salmon fishing boat, the skipper invited one of his old friends to join us for the day. He was a cool guy, a genuine "Old Salt" of a sea captain who had piloted huge vessels, including supertankers, all over the world. Must have been about 80 years old at the time, he was, and he had seen a lot of changes in a lot of places. Well we got to talking about the good old days in San Fransisco. He told me about how when he was young sailor he'd pull into port there and party like mad, drink 10 cent shots of whiskey, and buy a few tokens for a 2 bucks a each to purchase, as he put it, "a fine piece of ass". It was all perfectly legal, above board, and operated in a businesslike fashion. The girls made a respectable living and he had, literally, the time of his life. But over the years things changed and all the great times he'd had were regulated, taxed, or outright criminalized out of existence. |
I remember standing at the bow of our boat as we headed back into port, the modern city itself in plain view, listening to his wistful tale of this wonderland of freedom and fun from a bygone era until finally he fell silent. We just stood there listening to the deep rumble of the twin diesel engines shoving us ever forward and gazing, glassy eyed, at the near endless ocean before us, thinking. Finally he broke the silence and uttered something profound, words that have shaped my life ever since. "It was the politicians", he said, "they f-u-c-k-e-d it all up!" And that, my dear, is the answer to y0ur question and, as I have found throughout life, so many others as well.
Thanks Captain O'Brien, wherever you are...
|Can you pinpoint.......|
Posted: 7/25/2007 10:14:03 PM
Yes, I have Jimmy Choo shoes and a Gucci handbag. Yes, I saved forever to get them. Now for the important concept... Why I did it! Because often something that is quality will last a very, very long time. And if you are careful, and don't go with anything too trendy, you will be using them until you die. I often look for vintage Dofan handbags when I can find them, because the one my mother had I am still using and it looks perfect today, though she carried it at her wedding in 1957. I would rather save as long as I need to for one item of quality, than I would having a bunch of crap that falls apart after a few months. I watch the sales and I get them on clearance, and I have something that is lasting.
As a fan of luxury goods myself, I have to wholeheartedly agree here. Let's take, for example, my Louis Vuitton bag. Now, some people would say, "my goodness, you paid an awful lot for a bag that you can buy at the garment district downtown!" To which I must reply: there are significant differences between the quality of my bag and that knock-off downtown.
1) The devil is in the details. The easiest way to tell between a knock-off and the real thing is the details that are not readily seen but have to be looked for. The hand stitching. The fact that the print lines up on all sides of the bag. The patina the leather develops as it ages. The detailing on the hardware. The overall feel of the bag.
2) It is quality that lasts forever. My bag will not fall apart in two months, left for me to toss it in the trash. My bag will last forever so long as I take good care of it and have it maintanenced. Yes, people, you can take the bags into the stores for repairs. And out they come, nice as new.
3) My bag is the original. It is not a pale imitation. It is not a rip-off of someone else's creativity.
4) It is a classic. 20 years from now women will be wearing the same bag as they did 20 years before me. It isn't going out of style. It is here for the long run.
Like mominitrix, I would rather have quality than quantity. I would rather save my pennies for the best, most pefect bag than have a hundred chinese knock-offs sitting in my closet collecting dust. To me having something that lasts a lifetime is money well spent because in the time that my bag will last, I will have far exceeded its purchase price in the long run.
Since we are using this as a metaphor: I would rather steak or the louis vuitton bag than the cheeseburger or the knock-off. I want the details, the finishing touches in a man. I want a man who is his own man, who thinks for himself and acts on his own and doesn't follow the grain of what everyone else does or thinks--an original. I want a man who is quality, who will last forever, who has a legacy to pass on to his children, or if no children, to his community. I want quality that will last and not the trendiest, best looking for now man. Trends and looks fade and then you are left with the person. I want to be left with a person I can respect.
You all might think it is crazy to spend that much on a bag. But I think the investment is worth it. Likewise, I would rather wait and make a big investment in one man who is worth it and returns the favor to me than a dozen mr. right nows. Singlehood is a blessing, not a curse as some people would have it. Those are the people who cannot stand to be alone. Those are the people who will settle for all the cheesburgers and knock-offs they can get their hands on until their guts and closets are so full they couldn't not attempt to fill either with a steak nor a Louis Vuitton bag.
|Can you pinpoint.......|
Posted: 7/26/2007 7:31:19 AM
Hmm. I'm still trying to nail down this either/or thing.
Burgers and bags aside, I'm not familiar with this concept of "full" when it comes to choosing one over the other.
Because you do get full to the point of being sick after awhile. You get sick of the games, you get sick of the hurt when someone turns out to be the total opposite of what they presented to you, and you get sick of hurting others. To a certain extent, I do think people get so used to cheeseburgers and knock-off aka substandard relationships, that they fail to recognize when a potentially good one has come along because they still fixated on arbitrary focal points such as type, wealth, etc. People get used to what is normal for them to the point they cannot fathom that something else, something better, exists.
Secondly, I do not think men exist for my personal pleasure. I know this is perhaps the opposite of how most men feel about women (I still have hope that it isn't) but it is not how I feel. I am not going into a relationship without the full intention of making it work. People bail too quickly because they don't take the time to get to know someone, or they want the instant gratification of a relationship or sexual partner without doing the work of finding someone who is ultimately going to be compatible. Or they are looking for something better while leading their current partner on. All are practices that I want no part in. I want no part with a person who will "settle" for the cheeseburger for "now" or attempt to change the cheeseburger into a steak. Either way, it is ultimately unkind to the cheeseburger because while you are aware they are a cheeseburger to you, they might think they are the steak. Why go through with it when you know ultimately it isn't what you want? That is a callous inconsideration for the other person's feelings.
The singleness that comes after a break up, seems particularly blessed to me. It gives you time to think, to feel, to sort out what happened, what you could have done better, or seen up front that you missed.
Exactly. After my last breakup, I realized that despite all the wonderful and good things that we had together, ultimately I was overlooking a lot of behavioral issues and warning signs. That is not to place all of the blame on him. I realized a few of these things before going into it (his age and inexperience) but decided to do so as well. I also missed a few places where I could have been a better person. But in the end I cannot hold myself responsible for his actions, neither can I allow myself to become jaded against all men for the actions of one. I am thankful that I had the experience of a "cheeseburger" because it fine tunes what I desire in my "steak."
I often wonder if the cheeseburger mentality, is more a reflection of the sort of instant gratification society we live in, the TV, the activity, the computer, the obsession, everything now. All an affective way to avoid the opportunity for self assessment. To look inward and avoid our own pain and work on it.
I agree. It is a instant gratification of wanting something right now, which is why the cheeseburger works. We live in a fast food society where getting something right now and getting it in huge quantities is better than waiting for something of quality (ie a homecooked meal.) You can entirely avoid any self-assessment and, even more importantly, taking responsibility for your part in the relationships demise if you jump right into the next making the same mistakes and blaming your partner for them.
It's the same way with the whole "type" phenomenon. I am by no means saying you should date someone entirely unattractive to you, but I always men and women who have their "type" and it continually never work out because they are fixated on a mould that obviously doesn't work for them.
Posted: 7/26/2007 7:37:36 AM
think you make a good point with the connections you made but that it goes much further. I believe that the obstacle to love, the cause of most suffering, is fear.
My whole point, rune.
The sources of fear and the threats of physical violence, indirect forms such as financial threats, and emotional abuse, and loneliness.
The reasons are twofold:
1) Abusive men will push things to violence where genuine men will not, ergo they will always have the edge.
2) Abusive men band together, in little groups, and help each other out, but genuine men are isolated and alone, and the abusive men gang up on the genuine men, many-on-one. It's unfair odds.
The solutions are twofold:
1) Accepting that physical violence is praiseworthy in any form of self-defence.
2) Unity and unified support.
However, in our society, "nice guys" have been criticised for their use of violence, and have been isolated.
This is what makes them weak.
Remember the rules of combat: United we stand, divided we fall.
Ghandi himself organised a massive change in India. How? By peaceful protest? No, because not all men in his protests were peaceful.
By massive protest, with thousands acting as one, with the certain knowledge that no soldier would break the ranks of the Indian people, and that the Indian people would stand up for each other.
I suspect the problem herein is that all nice guys need to stick together and help each other. After all, that is what players do.
I believe that unity of purpose is our intentional solution.
So, I think that "nice guys" ought to start promoting ourselves, and the right to defend ourselves using physical violence.
I was going to explain that one way of achieving reduction in crime is to organise vigilante groups that are sanctioned by the police, and patrol the streets, such as the Angels in Manchester.
However, in stead, I propose that all the guys who are genuine and looking for a relationship, or even sex but in an honest consensual fashion that is quite good for all concerned, band together and support and help each other. That all men who are happily in an LTR help those who are not, and all who are single help others as well. That way, all of us will work together to make the better society we all so honestly crave.
I just saw a website on this idea:
This page, although not the home page, shows how a man can be genuine but NOT a doormat.
Let all nice buys publicise ourselves. Let us hang around together and be pleased with who we are, as a community of brotherhood, both to protect women and to help and support each other.
Well, I'm starting. I am fairly sure that once I get on the bandwagon, others will surely join. Who's with me?
Posted: 7/26/2007 8:14:53 AM
|Blah, I always come in so late on these little debates.|
I read an article a few months back that sums up a lot of what's been said already, figured I'd share it, even this late in the conversation.
A famous television newswoman told this joke last month at a fund-raising dinner for a women's college: A woman needed a brain transplant. Her doctor said two brains were available--a woman's brain for $500 and a man's brain for $5,000. Why the big price difference? The woman's brain has been used.
Most in the audience laughed, but one man stood up and booed. "What's wrong?" asked a woman at his table. The man said, "Just substitute woman, black, or Jew for 'man' in that joke and tell me how it sounds."
At about the same time, American Greetings launched an ad campaign in Newsweek, Life, and other magazines. One ad featured a "Thelma and Louise" greeting card pasted into the magazines, which said: "Men are always whining about how we're suffocating them." The punch line was this: "Personally, I think if you can hear them whining, you're not pressing hard enough on the pillow."
The newswoman, who is a friend, seemed shocked when I phoned and raised questions about her joke. "The poor, sensitive white male," she said. A spokesman for the greeting card company saw nothing wrong with a humorous card about a woman killing a man.
He faxed a statement saying the card had been pretested successfully and, besides, "We've heard no protests from consumers who are buying and using this card." But would American Greetings print a card with the sexes reversed, so the humor came from a man joking about suffocating a woman? No, said the spokesman, because 85 to 90 percent of cards are bought by women. There is no market for a reverse card.
Double standard. In truth, no man could get up at a fancy banquet and tell a joke about how stupid women are. And a greeting card joking about a woman's murder would be very unlikely, even if surveys showed that millions of males were eager to exchange lighthearted gender-killing greetings. The obvious is true: A sturdy double standard has emerged in the gender wars. "There used to be a certain level of good-natured teasing between the sexes," says Christina Sommers, author of Who Stole Feminism? "Now, even the most innocent remark about women will get you in trouble but there's no limit at all to what you can say about men."
Men's rights groups phone me a lot, and I tell them my general position on these matters: The last thing we need in America is yet another victim group, this one made up of seriously aggrieved males. But these groups do have an unmissable point about double standards. On the Today Show last November, Katie Couric suddenly deviated from perkiness and asked a jilted bride, "Have you considered castration as an option?" Nobody seemed to object. Fred Hayward, a men's rights organizer, says: "Imagine the reaction if Matt Lauer had asked a jilted groom, 'Wouldn't you just like to rip her uterus out?' "
The double standard is rooted in identity politics and fashionable theories about victimization: Men as a group are oppressors; jokes that oppressors use to degrade the oppressed must be taken seriously and suppressed. Jokes by the oppressed against oppressors, however, are liberating and progressive. So while sexual harassment doctrine cracks down on the most harmless jokes about women, very hostile humor about men keeps expanding with almost no objections. Until recently, for example, the 3M company put out Post-it notes with the printed message: "Men have only two faults: Everything they say and everything they do." Antimale greeting cards are increasingly graphic, with some of the most hostile coming from Hallmark Cards' Shoebox Division. (Sample: "Men are scum . . . Excuse me. For a second there I was feeling generous.") Detroit News columnist Cathy Young sees a rising tide of male bashing, including "All Men Are **stards" and "Men We Love to Hate" calendars and a resentful "It's always his fault" attitude pervading women's magazines.
Commercial attempts to increase the amount of sexual antagonism in America are never a good idea. And if you keep attacking men as a group, they will eventually start acting as a group, something we should fervently avoid. But the worst impact of all the male bashing is on the young. Barbara Wilder-Smith, a teacher and researcher in the Boston area, was recently quoted in several newspapers on how deeply antimale attitudes have affected the schools. When she made "Boys Are Good" T-shirts for boys in her class, all 10 of the female student-teachers under her supervision objected to the message. (One, she said, was wearing a button saying, "So many men, so little intelligence.") "My son can't even wear the shirt out in his backyard," she said. "People see it and object strongly and shout things." On the other hand, she says, nobody objects when the girls wear shirts that say "Girls Rule" or when they taunt the boys with a chant that goes, "Boys go to Jupiter to get more stupider; girls go to college to get more knowledge." Worse, she says, many adolescent boys object to the "Boys Are Good" shirts, too, because they have come to accept the cultural messages that something is seriously wrong with being a male. "The time is ripe for people to think about the unspoken [antimale] 'ism' in our colleges and schools," she says. And in the rest of the popular culture as well.
Posted: 7/26/2007 9:17:55 AM
|The problem didn't start with womens lib, like most movements and organizations out there, there will always be a faction that builds up within, this faction is going to become the loud minority or in some case the loud majority.|
Take a look at religion for instance, while pretty much all religions point towards love of your fellow man, acceptance, tolerance and general good moral values. You never really hear about the religious folks who follow those principles or hear them talk in public. The ones that you do hear in public are the ones who say god is against homosexuals, against pre marital sex, against abortion.
In some places on Halloween there are religious horror houses, where people try to convert people to their version catholicism by showing them people acting out things that their group is against and then a little while later showing them the end results.
In some cases 9/11 has been used to show an end result of not being religious enough.
Like all other organizations, womens lib is doing some good, but at the same time as it was building up that repertoire of good, a faction built up inside and became a prevalent majority, this faction saw womens lib as a path to reversing gender roles, putting women in power and subjugating men. To do this they have to result to extremes, demonizing men, destroying their confidence, making them unable to fight back without being arrested or being punished/reviled.
By making it acceptable for men to be hated, to the point where men themselves are bred from a young age to think there might be something wrong with them. You make it easier for a shift in power in future generations.
in order to make sure the shift in power happens, you educate women with by implanting the same values as you currently hold, you show them the evils that men do, the abuse that they perpetrate and how they are trying to bring you, the current generation back in their control through various means.
People are impressionable, if you push enough bullshit in their head while they are young and learning they will start believing it.
I once overheard womens lib teacher talking to a few girls when I was in college, one of the girls had gone to the teacher for advice relations with a guy she was involved with. The teacher told them that all attempts at sex instigated by a man, should be considered an attempt at rape and treated as such. She even offered to contact the police for her should she feel uneasy about it. Needless to say the girls left more confused than before the conversation started.
History has show these tactics to work in the past, the main reason why women were in a subdued position to begin with is because for a long period of time women were portrayed as demons and evil creatures that should be tamed and controlled at all cost, or destroyed (Think of the witch burnings for a second.)
As the older generations die out, the newer ones grow up with the new beliefs that have been instilled and since the faction that wants control will always be present, as the generations changes the faction will grow from minority to majority, what was once propaganda will now be universal truth and the fighting will grow stronger and push forward more.
A friend of mine who happens to be a strongly involved in community organization and various movements posted a link a while back to an article she felt should be read by men who wanted to be more feminist friendly, and who wanted to be better men overall.
She's a nice girl, and I know she isn't part of the faction that I mentioned, she's also a very intelligent woman but despite my effort to explain all the things that were wrong in that article she just couldn't see it. To her it was all good advice that men should take stock of and implement in their own lives.
I actually went and found the link.
When I first read this article and the subsequent responses/rebuttals it was enough to make me want to vomit.
|Can you pinpoint.......|
Posted: 7/26/2007 11:05:51 AM
When some one can define 'masculine' or what 'masculine qualities are then i may be able to understand why some men are so upset about being emasculated. So much relying on anthropology and 'hunter gather ' prototypes here. change, adapt, is that also evolunionary? men may have to face the possibilty that change is the way to go. The only masculine 'qualities I have seen being defended on this thread, are violent, hunter gather type behaviors.
mas·cu·line (mās'kyə-lĭn) Pronunciation Key
adj. 1. Of or relating to men or boys; male.
2. Suggestive or characteristic of a man; mannish. See Synonyms at male.
3. Grammar Relating or belonging to the gender of words or forms that refer chiefly to males or to things grammatically classified as male.
4. Music Ending on an accented beat: a masculine cadence.
n. 1. Grammar
1. The masculine gender.
2. A word or word form of the masculine gender.
2. A male person.
Here you go
It's hard to evolve when society doesn't let you evolve without stigma being involved.
A boy shows that he has a soft side, emotions, that he doesn't want to be the hunter/gatherer, all of a sudden he's ostracized, point and laughed at for being gay. Being told by men and women alike to toughen up start acting like a Man.
A guy shows a woman that he has an emotional side and she is put off by it and loses interest or sees it as a chance to use him, or in worst case scenarios get revenge for the things other men have done to her.
A guy shows interest in being nurturing or a caregiver and it's almost impossible for him to do so because "He must have ulterior motives."
Want some examples, here goes.
Friend of mine had a child with a woman he loved deeply, 3 or 4 years after the child was born, she decided that she had missed out on life and started partying... hard. Alcohol, drugs, random sex, skipping work, coming in at all hours of the night/day and completely neglecting her daughter.
He took care of his daughter and filed for divorce, he asked for majority custody. She showed up in court, sometimes drunk, sometimes stoned, sometimes sober which was actually refreshing. She got custody, he got weekends and a very large alimony to pay.
Judges decision was that he asked for majority custody only to avoid paying alimony. Despite the large amount of proof that the mother was unfit to care for his child.
Massage Therapy is a domain populated largely by women, every Therapist I've spoken to before and even after taking non this profession told me the same thing.
"Expect to have at least 2/3's less clients than female massage therapists.;
Men will think you're gay
Women will think you want to molest/rape them.
If you're obviously gay you won't have problem #2 in fact you may get a lot more female clients."
Even at the Spa that I work at now, my boss was in need of someone to do reception because she can't be there all the time. I offered because I needed money and I knew I could learn the products/services fairly quickly. She told me bluntly, "If you were gay I wouldn't have a problem putting you at reception, but since I don't think you are, and most women won't think you are either, they are not going to trust you when you explain the products and services or make suggestions."
|Can you pinpoint.......|
Posted: 7/26/2007 11:19:32 AM
|can't believe I forgot to mention this one since it was the first example I thought of.|
My ex dumped me with some lame excuse about me being too much of a loner.
This was about 2 days after I showed emotions to her that I guess she wasn't expecting.
In short, I cried.
To be more specific, I was at wits end, I was unsure of where my life was headed;
Hated my job but was unsure if I could do anything else, since I had not been able to find another other than that job in my current choice of profession at the time (I used to be in computer science.)
Hated the constant bickering with my family but didn't know if I'd be able to live on my own in my current state or if I'd be able to escape it if even if I did move away. ( I was 20)
Hated some of the things that had happened in my past that I couldn't let go
I had years worth of emotions that I chose to let go because she was the only thing that seemed good about my life and I trusted her completely, I wasn't necessarily seeking comfort but it had to be let out and I chose to confide these things in her. Hoping that she would understand, offer advice and maybe help me put myself back together right and move on to better things.
Guess I was wrong.
|Can you pinpoint.......|
Posted: 7/26/2007 11:42:22 AM
but i can only hope that some men will want to, for themselves. I for one would be willing to voiciforously support any man trying to break the mould, I'd proudly walk beside any man courageous enough to do it. but, being caught up in a cycle of blame is getting us nowhere fast.
I agree, I've never been fond of pointing fingers, they tend to get bitten off, but sometimes you have to however. To expose some of the awful truths out there that are being "three headed monkey ed" by society.
I also know that it's "not all", but as long as it's just "not all" things are going to continue moving forward at a turtles pace. Until true equality is achieved in all things change is going to be hard all the time.
But hey If I wasn't willing to kick the ass of the stereotypes, and anyone who tries to tell me I can't be in this profession just because I'm a guy. My boss wouldn't have put me in charge of the Massage Therapy section at her spa. She knows my skill, and that despite what other people might believe about male massage therapists, I'm a professional and I act like one.
|Can you pinpoint.......|
Posted: 7/26/2007 6:57:13 PM
Look, if you want numerous FWB and one night stands, then that is your choice. I choose not to. It doesn't mean are you using anyone to engage in that bahavior so long as those involved are aware of each other's expectations.
When I made my statements, however, I was speaking of actual relationships which are entirely different than FWBs, one night stands, etc. Trying to mould the cheeseburger into a steak within the context of a relationship is morally wrong IMO. You cannot change people and if you reread my post within the context of a relationship, you will see that your response really doesn't apply because we are speaking of two different things. Unless I am missing something, in which case, I choose not to at this point have a relationship with a cheeseburger.
This is good! Because, with these comments, I get the feeling that you were overstepping boundries outside of the contract.
You would be wrong then. I was purposefully vague to avoid analysis of my last relationship. I'm not quite sure how you could come to such a conclusion based on so little.
At any rate, no burgers are distributed by me before I am sure where things are going. I don't share my meat with any other available diners. Those are my boundaries. You are free to conduct your relationships any way you choose to do so, but I have found that for me, a certain degree of personal trust and intimacy is necessary before I am ready to continue with any sexual intimacy. I find that very often sexual bliss, can obscure a multitude of issues.
Agreed. I am pretty much the same way.