Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!


Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
Joined: 11/14/2005
Msg: 254 (view)
Posted: 11/30/2009 7:20:23 AM
I am definitely a firm believer in that women should pursue men as much as men pursue women(which mostly stems from my personal beliefs about gender equality). Both men and women should both share the exact same advantages and responsibilities, which also includes having to put yourself out there to make the first step.

On average, most women don't really have to face that kind of pressure or make the effort to meet other people as men kind of just always come to them; this, in turn, just creates another gap between genders where both fail to understand what the each side goes through. (Most guys don't know what it's like to get 20 messages a day, most girls don't know what it's like to have to work for one reply a month, this ends up creating indifference/narcissism on one side and contempt/despair on the other)

Personally, I actually would very much love women to return in favor and level of enthusiasm/effort into meeting me as I try to put into meeting her. I mean, not only does it make me feel like dirt/unimportant when she doesn't but it makes me feel like I am some sort of burden to her life instead of a positive influence.

I really don't like this whole male "hunter" philosophy (which so many people seem to think is innate but it's really not) and I don't like to see women as my "pray"; I can't stand being vilified in such a way, nor do I like to feel as though I am simply imposing my will on another human being instead of it being a complete and assertive mutual exchange. Women aren't possessions that men should compete over and who must simply settle for whichever man wins but individuals who are fully capable of making their own decisions, acting out on those choices and making definite efforts to make those choices a reality.
Joined: 11/14/2005
Msg: 43 (view)
What are guys thinking?
Posted: 11/27/2009 7:48:17 AM
it's not likely that most women would pull their panties down and show a guy on a first date
Never heard of girls gone wild? mardi gras? sexting? and I'm sure many others. Whether it's taking off their bras or panties, it does happen. Don't pretend like it doesn't because of this pristine and innocent misrepresentation you have of women.

Second, women DO find it replusive to have such an advance on the first date.

Women can be a lot more forward about their sexuality, even on first dates, and no one finds it disgusting. It's sad that you could would actually consider something which is part of nature, something which 50% of the human population is born with and have no control over, to be repulsive. It's one thing not the be physically attracted the male body, it's another entirely to insult it and belittle it in contempt.

women who put out on the first date, ususally don't see the guy a second time.
Absolute and utter nonsense, this is a very poor and false misconception. Most men wouldn't have a problem with sex on a first date, only the most pretentious of misogynists would actually still adhere to this kind of double standard.

I just think it's sad how under-appreciated and vilified mens appreciation for the female sexuality is; all while we continue to tolerate the aversion society has for ours.
Joined: 11/14/2005
Msg: 38 (view)
Why is Wife Superiority (Superior Wife Syndrome) so bad for a marriage?
Posted: 11/27/2009 6:25:20 AM
I do know someone who is in marriage is like that, every time he cleans, cuts the grass, cooks or does laundry it's never good enough because it's not done her way. It's kind of sad to watch but the guy must be a saint for putting up with this kind of narcissist and OCD behavior. He's not really the type to call it quits though, especially not with 2 kids involved, so he kind of just takes the abuse.

Anyway, makeba, it's nice to see woman who tries to be understanding and benevolent about it, obviously it's quite contrary to most common responses from women.

point in case: that the latest excuse they're using to be lazy asses?
Joined: 11/14/2005
Msg: 135 (view)
how come ladies don't like men who play videogames??
Posted: 11/26/2009 7:55:55 AM
Well, I just want to point out that there are a lot of women who do, in fact, play video games(sure, not nearly as much as men but they are still out there) and more women are coming to terms with and accepting video games every day. However, the problem here, in my opinion, is just plain ignorance and social dynamics. For one thing, most women were never really encouraged to play video games growing up(this is something that is changing with the younger generations) and, as a result, women were never really taught to give video games a chance as a legitimate medium of expression.

If anything, older generations of women grew up in a time where video games really weren't considered mainstream and even often diminished or discredited by other competing forums, such as MTV/MUCH Music(or any other popular alternative at that time), out of self-preservation. Another thing to remember is that video games also offer a very broad variety in terms of concept, purpose, presentation and delivery(more so than any other medium), yet generalizations and misconceptions(most of which are actually not even true) often fall back to the most negative and narrow portions of what they actually entail.

Truth is, most women will read books, watch movies, listen to music and appreciate drawn or sculpted art; yet a lot of them still do not recognize that video games actually contain, and combine, all of these forms of expression and present them in a way that is more immersible and interactive than any other. Now there are also a lot of games out there who do center on competition, which is also an aspect of human interaction that is most commonly encouraged in men and discouraged in women, which makes it harder for women(generally speaking) to relate to(these competitive titles are also usually the ones that get the most media attention, which perpetuates a lot of its misrepresentations).

Some may argue that video games require too much investment, both in concentration, skill and time; yet the same people will often be completely dismissive or oblivious to the time in which they invest in other mediums such as reading or watching television. It takes a certain level of patience and mental acuity/flexibility to learn the mechanics of each individual game and overcome its learning curve, this can be a pretty big deterrent for those who never really believe in it's rewards/merits in the first place.
Joined: 11/14/2005
Msg: 41 (view)
What are guys thinking?
Posted: 11/25/2009 2:54:00 PM
acuddler, assault and false rape allegations... seriously? You would actually consider destroying a man's life over something that is, in all actuality, completely harmless? wow... just... wow. I sincerely hope that the rest of the population has a little bit more common sense, maturity and human decency than you do. It's one thing to be offended by male sexuality or to be crass with it, but what you are suggesting is absolutely appalling(and illegal).
Joined: 11/14/2005
Msg: 39 (view)
What are guys thinking?
Posted: 11/25/2009 8:12:24 AM
Alright, not that I agree with this guy's behavior but, first of all, women can be just as much guilty of this kind of behavior as men are, sometimes even more so; second of all, why are so many women here seeing the male sexuality in such a negative way, like it's something repulsive that is to be sneered at and demonized? It seems this guy just wanted to have sex, not a big shocker there, so why act so offended? Sure, he probably wasn't very tactful but if you didn't want to have sex with him because of your "lady" values than you could have just taken the empathetic approach and told him so instead of making such a big deal about it.

Honestly, seeing women complaining about men wanting to have sex with them is like seeing rich people complain about having too much money; I have absolutely no sympathy for it. Just take it as a compliment, I'm sure if the roles had been reversed he would have been a lot more understanding, sympathetic and welcoming to a brute or tactless approach.
Joined: 11/14/2005
Msg: 69 (view)
Would you message someone if you knew they weren't going to respond?
Posted: 11/25/2009 7:35:37 AM
If I like their profiles than I will message them even if I think they probably won't respond. They can find their own reasons not to like me, why make that decision for them?
Joined: 11/14/2005
Msg: 13 (view)
Do ANY Men Read Profiles (First or at all?)
Posted: 11/20/2009 8:16:55 AM
I do read profiles in their entirety and I know that there are a lot of other men that do as well(And I also know that a lot of women that don't, as very few of the women who have responded to my messages or initiated with me had not really read my profile).

However, I really can't sympathize with anyone that complains about others not being able to meet their own pompous and entitled expectations, at all. Nature forbids that you actually spend some of your own time and invest yourself into the conversations you take part of. Seriously, if you don't like how the conversation is going, than for Christ sakes just take control of it instead of pouting and sneering.

If you all crave substance, why not just let it happen naturally? Talk back, respond to even the most basic of greetings and see where it leads, that's how it starts. People aren't going to spend a lot of effort on substance without some sort of mutual rapport, especially not when the person they are talking to isn't even willing to meet them half way for it(or even come close to it).
Joined: 11/14/2005
Msg: 195 (view)
Love,Quality of life and who pays
Posted: 11/19/2009 8:31:57 AM
Sorry, I just wanted to make a quick correction here since, well, not only is the is the term "alpha" being completely misinterpreted* but I also find it absolutely abhorrent to see people actually try to use the term to justify their own narcissistic and misanthropic behavior. The personality traits associated with the "alpha/beta" misconceptions do not, in any way, represent that one human being can be, or is, better or superior to another human being.


Anyway, I just wanted to point that out. Carry on.
Joined: 11/14/2005
Msg: 700 (view)
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/18/2009 11:14:08 AM
Obviously accidents never happen, no woman could ever not want to be a mother and every single abortion procedure throughout the entire human history was, in fact, a myth. They never happened! /sarcasm sigh...

I don't really see a point in arguing this any longer, obviously the majority of women posting on this thread have absolutely no interest in recognizing the rights of the opposite gender; neither logic nor fairness can be applied when their arguments derive entirely from contempt, indifference and antipathy for the male gender.

If these people actually truly believed in the spiteful nonsense they spewing, without any double standard whatsoever, than they would also believe that abortions should also be illegal, with a charge of first degree murder for any offense(even in the cases of pregnancies resulting from rape), and any woman who didn't want to face such life altering conundrums should therefor just have to get her tubes tied or remain celibate for the rest of her life.
Joined: 11/14/2005
Msg: 582 (view)
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/17/2009 7:20:34 AM
Babies use us to grow inside US for nine months - not you.
You know what, I am really getting tired of women pulling out this excuse. First of all, no men or women gets to chose the gender they were born into; women were given a womb and men weren't, that is nature. However, that doesn't just mean that all men are incapable of empathizing with the process of pregnancy, that they would somehow be too psychologically and emotionally weak to endure the process or that women are somehow superior for it(hell, there are probably even a lot of men who would have loved to be able to carry children should they had been given that biological choice). Don't try to make men feel guilty for being born and make women out to be victims again, women have babies because they willingly want to, by their own conscious will, not because someone is making them do it. They can stop it at any time if they don't want to go through with it. It's a choice that they are making for themselves.

You don't deserve all the choices we have because you can't earn the right. You don't get pregnant. Just be grateful and stop asking for more when you clearly already have the much easier route.

Yes, women carry babies for nine months, and it's a hard nine months, but considering the magnitude of the burden and the life long commitment that is to raise a child, those nine months are a very small investment to make in the grand scheme of things. Parenting is a life long endeavor that shouldn't be taken lightly for either parent and, as such, the commitment that some women are willing for childbirth does not entitle them to gain complete supremacy over the life of the child's father. How can you even ask for others to respect your rights and your choices as a human being, a women or a mother when you cannot even respect the rights or the choices of a man?
Joined: 11/14/2005
Msg: 515 (view)
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/16/2009 1:30:53 PM
Maybe "fair" dictates that the one willing to raise the child has the right to "force" the other to pay, whether the payment is physical (for the woman) or financial (both).
No, fair would be to give equal right to both parents and to respect both of their decisions whatever that decision may be. Right now the way things are, are not fair(It is one of the many unequal remnants of a social system which still implies that women, by default, are not capable of supporting themselves on their own. This is gender discrimination). These maternal-supremacist laws that we have now has women being legally protected to force their own will(whether of selfish or altruistic) and its outcome onto a man; the equal opposing scenario, that which would by all means be considered as paternal-supremacy, would be that of a man forcing his will onto a woman and making it illegal for her to seek abortion or carry a baby to term without his direct and absolute consent.

What the majority of men here are proposing is a middle ground which is fair for men(gets proper legal choice in the outcome of his own life) and fair for women(Still gets to make a conscious decision as to whether or not she will have an abortion or carry the baby to term while also respecting the legal rights of the father).

I think for anyone to propose that the men who are here arguing for this middle ground are doing so in a means to support irresponsible behavior is as hateful, biased, detrimental and ignorant as to suggest that women who seek child support payments actually are actually using such payments and legal protection as an incentive to support their own irresponsible behavior.

For both men and women, parenthood does not end at conception(or birth) and both have equal investment in their decision towards the outcome of that offspring and, as such, both parents should equally have their choice into this engagement respected by the law.
Joined: 11/14/2005
Msg: 492 (view)
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/16/2009 11:50:03 AM
Like big pacific has demonstrated, we do understand the opposing view; however, there is so much more involved into this situation than what he, and other women arguing this topic, are presenting.

Consider this situation, what if, even after meticulous means were taken to avoid pregnancy, a women becomes pregnant. This women does not want to keep this child or the life time commitment that it entails, so she opts for an abortion. The man, however, does not wish to see the child terminated so instead he proposes that the child be moved to a surrogate mother or an artificial womb at his expense(The procedure which would not be any more intrusive than the procedure of abortion itself). Now, does anyone here arguing that men shouldn't have any post conception legal right believe that this man should have a legally protected right to sue this women for child support and/or any other expenses and assets(financial or otherwise)?
Joined: 11/14/2005
Msg: 472 (view)
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/16/2009 9:24:06 AM
It's entirely mutual. Every thread that men become passionately involved with revolves areound money. If I went by the examples on these fora, men would simply look like empty, egotistical, greedy, selfish, shallow, inconsiderate azzholes, whose sole purpose in life is to amass wealth, fvck women, and let someone else raise any resultant kids.
Actually, the position of most men on these forums is of keeping affairs of love and money separate(which in this world of equality, is a good thing for both men and women), not the other way around. Of course, you don't see it that way because you are a misandrist, which is also fully supported by your following quote:

Oddly, when the welfare of the kid is mentioned, the men here think this is irrelevant and either ignore it or sneeringly dismiss it, as if the kids are the least important part of the equation. Which further supports the impression that men aren't the least concerned about "fairness" or "rights" or other human beings, but only about their money.
That is misandry to it's very definition and don't try to pretend like it isn't. Also, please, don't pretend like you tried to be understanding, you have absolutely not given an ounce of effort towards empathy; you are trying way to hard to make yourself out to be a victim.

I'm actually the only woman I've noticed who keeps mentioning that some women are against abortion, and then what choice does she have? No man here has bothered to address that, because of course - it doesn't suit their agenda of "blaming" the woman and leaving her responsible.
In most cases she would have the same legal recourse as any another women who lives in an area which isn't so heavily influenced by religion (although, I do find it funny how these anti-abortionists really try to make their case about how much they care for the unborn but then, once the child is born, could not seem to care less about the offspring; especially if its at the cost of their precious tax dollar). This whole thread is not about men trying to escape responsibility or about putting the blame on women(actually, most women who argued against this point seemed to want to entirely put the blame on men, while the men simply try to convey that the responsibility is to be equally shared and that both should have legal rights in the matter)
Joined: 11/14/2005
Msg: 464 (view)
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/16/2009 6:53:05 AM
The issue here is that men who do not want to be fathers should accept personal responsibility for NOT getting a woman pregnant.
If that was the issue than why isn't anyone here arguing that abortions be made illegal(is that not a woman not taking responsibility?), adoption be made illegal(is that not a man and/or woman not taking responsibility?)and for sperm banks to be made illegal(is that not men also not taking responsibility?).

To suggest that men are simply looking for a means to avoid responsibility in order to practice as much safe sex as they can is completely appalling and definitely not any more true than saying that abortion is a means for women to promote and practice unsafe sex.

Personally, I know for a fact that I would take full responsibility for any child of mine brought into this world but that doesn't mean that I believe men shouldn't have rights when it comes to the outcome of own life or that he should not be trusted to make the best decision for himself and/or his unborn offspring. Just like a soldier may want to go fight for his country in a time of war, doesn't mean he supports conscription(another biased system which discriminatingly only affects men).

Men and women are both responsible for their actions, and if a man and a woman have consensual sex, both are responsible for the well-being of a child born of that union.
If both share equal responsibility than why should only one be given the legal recourse to choose her own fate? Why force a decision on a man while giving the right to a women to make that same choice on her own?

No one should have the ability to force a woman to have an abortion, but every woman should have the right to get an abortion. (I could go on here about how male dominated religions are the moving force behind anti-abortion laws and have been for centuries, but I won't.)
Your right and no one here is suggesting anything of the sort; yet, a lot of women here seem more than willing to force the same "religious anti-abortion" mentality on men without showing a single ounce of doubt, empathy or regret.

I think you mean "misanthropic," and I already said you would level that accusation against women who logically present historical evidence
No, I definitely meant misandric as you are completely misrepresenting both genders to suit your own misinformed views of human nature and of history.

It seems ironic that some men would keep their "women" from having an abortion whle other men bemoan that after the woman gets pregnant, they have no say in whether she should go full term--it goes to show that one rule cannot be a panacea for everyone.
Why would it be ironic? the issue here is about the legal choices given to men, not trying to avoid responsibility. In any case, again, no one here is arguing that a women be forced to term or be forced into abortion, just arguing that men have equal rights in the matters which involve him specifically.

As for saying that women should rely on toys to satisfy themselves and asking why should women even have sex with men, that is ludicrous: the same thing can be posed about men in their sexual habits.
umm... hello!? what do you think women are continuously trying to throw at the men here? "Keep it in your pants", "just don't have sex", etc.. it is just as ludicrous to suggest that men be celibate and deprived a basic human need as it is to suggest that women be deprived of the same.(also completely naive to believe that accidents do not happen eventually or that abstinence methods actually work)
Joined: 11/14/2005
Msg: 422 (view)
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/15/2009 9:08:15 AM
Until the last 90 0dd years we didn't even have the vote so no we did not have just as much to do with anything actually.
Not that women(or men) ever needed to vote to have influence over their environments(or be influenced by it) but what makes you think the ability to vote would have caused them to vote any differently? (didn't Hillary vote for war multiple times?) I also doubt very much that "witch hunting" was ever passed on to a vote, they were the result of ignorant and irrational mobs(which included men and women)

Stop trying to make women the age old innocent victim with your completely skewed view of history. This is ridiculous and repulsively misandric(as well as being off topic). You are doing nothing to address the argument except for proving that your perspective comes from one of ignorance and contempt for all things male.
Joined: 11/14/2005
Msg: 413 (view)
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/15/2009 7:19:15 AM
Gwendolyn... I hope you do realize that women were just as much involved in condoning witch huntings, death penalties, slavery and wars. These things were all done as a society, not as men. Your entire post seems to completely contradict your final statement.
Joined: 11/14/2005
Msg: 179 (view)
Love,Quality of life and who pays
Posted: 11/14/2009 4:22:51 PM
I agree with you and have met many men from here who are cheap and resentful. They resent even the cost of a coffee. Part of the reason I date next to nobody on here anymore. There are many angry men- including the one who responded to my post. He illustrates exactly my point
Why wouldn't a man resent a woman who expects him to pay just because he's a man and she's a woman; that's gender discrimination. It's sexism, pure and simple. You are also directly telling him that his presence is worth less than your own and that he has to compensate you for your time, which is absolutely revolting. It would be like going out with someone who has dark skin and expecting him to pay because he's got dark skin.

They are not, in any way, being cheap for not giving you their own money, you are not a charity case. Your gender does entitle you to any part of his income; not for a dollar, not for a penny. Period.
Joined: 11/14/2005
Msg: 203 (view)
Why some men never want marry?
Posted: 11/13/2009 2:04:47 PM
Hey, now, gold is pretty darned useful. It's one of the most malleable, ductile, and least likely to oxidize metal there is
Well, sure and a diamond can also used for medical cutting tools for its above par resilience . There are practical uses for these minerals, just like copper, silver or any other minerals. However, as a form of symbolism, they have no real value other than the value we give to them. A penny could just as well serve as a substitute symbol for love and commitment.
Joined: 11/14/2005
Msg: 281 (view)
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/13/2009 9:29:20 AM
I do realize that protection does fail but if you really don't want children do have sex!!
That same argument could be applied women who decide to keep their babies and seek legal recourse of a man's financial assets: "If she didn't want to take on the responsibility and if she didn't want to have an abortion, she should not have had sex!"

In the same principle, to suggest that man should deprive themselves all together of a basic human need over the chance of pregnancy is fallacious. Should women lock themselves up permanently in order to avoid contact with men? Should women spend their whole lives behind hijabs in order to avoid interactions that could lead to sexual intercourse with men? Should women purposely seek unhealthy lifestyles in an effort to remain unattractive to the opposite sex? Should women refrain from having sex altogether, with or without protection, to eliminate the risk of pregnancy? Should everyone just stop drinking water and eating food altogether because they might run the risk of consuming harmful substances in the process? Should everyone just stop breathing if they don't want to run the risk of smelling toxic fumes?

The answer to all of these is no. Absolutely not. People should take reasonable precautions to protect themselves from harm but accidents will still always happen; and to suggest that men should simply deprive themselves of a basic human need(something every single living creature on earth is subconsciously programmed to seek) as a precaution is, at the very least, absurd and apathetic and, at worst, hateful and oppressive. (Not to mention naive and unrealistic, abstinence programs have and will continue to fail time and time again throughout the entire globe)

If he wants 50% of the decision, is he willing to take on 50% of the effects & risks? If they decide on abortion, is he willing to arrive at the facility and undergo a similar a procedure as hers? Is he willing to endure the possible side effects of abortion, including the possiblity of permanent sterilization?
The decision to undergo abortion is still her decision alone to make since, again, no one is suggesting that abortions be forced or refused on women by men. Should they both agree that abortion is the route to take than do believe that the average man would offer his support throughout the ordeal as well. Still, this is also off-topic since we are referring to cases where the father and mother do now agree.

Is he willing to pay 50% of any counselling she may need to deal with abortion, as well as attend counselling with her. Yeah, lots of women have no problem with abortions - 1/2 day or whatever out of their life, and they go on, but some do - so these risks are a possibility.
Would a woman be responsible to pay 50% of his counseling bills should he deem them necessary? Why would you make the assumption that the concepts of abortion and fatherhood not be just as equally psychologically arduous to a man? Why would anyone be responsible for the mental vulnerabilities of another.

If they decide to take the pregnancy to term, is he willing to accept morning sickness, gaining 25 lbs, stretch marks and other physical changes, gestational diabetes, etc. Is he willing to take the risk that a delivery will need to be done via ceaserian, and - in order to keep things "fair" have his abdomen cut into? Is he willing to help her through the months after, including post-partum depression if she is subject to that? Again, many (if not most) women have trouble-free pregnancies - but it's not guaranteed.
Should they both make that choice to commit to the baby than, yes, I assume the average man would do his best to remain supportive throughout the entire ordeal; however, this is not what we're talking about. You are going completely off-topic.
Joined: 11/14/2005
Msg: 273 (view)
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/13/2009 8:01:13 AM
Do you think that just because you respond, your response is valid. I think you do.
do you even understand the words that come out of your keyboard? Do you even read the things you write down on here?

As for calling men on the way they behave, that's not misandric, that's reality.

It's not reality, it's your own skewed perspective of reality(which is riddled with your own blind hatred for men)

It is incredibly mysoginistic to **** a woman without using protection then flip her and your kid the bird and walk away.

No, just like a woman giving up her child for adoption is not misogynistic, neither is a man who wants to give that same child up for adoption to its mother. You are oversimplifying a behavior to suit your own twisted perspective, men don't just "flip her and her kid the bird and walk away as a means to go about having as much unprotected sex as they can". If a man believes that this child should not be born because he either is unable to provide for it or unwilling to condemn his own life for it, he should legally have the same rights as a woman to both the future of the offspring or to end all ties with that embryo(since, again, no one is arguing that men should have the legal right to force surgeries on women, that would be misogynistic).

Millions of men do this and it's a FACT. It's not misandric to call a spade a spade.

Falsely representing or negatively stereotyping all men is misandry. A woman who completely dismisses or belittles the conscious decision that the man has made for himself and that embryo is undeniably misandric. A woman which ignores the stakes the man is burdened with as an equal collaborator to the process is also completely misandric.

It is you who is using weak arguments to try to force your will unfairly
The fact that you consider legitimate legal rights issues to be "weak" just goes to show how completely apathetic and spiteful you are to the situation and a man's perspective. My argument is not to force a man's will onto a woman but to protect him from being completely and legally powerless to her potentially unfair will.

whereas you play the victim to try to use guilt and sympathy to get your way which is horribly manipulative considering the gravity of what we are talking about. You are making a total ass of yourself.

The victims are legitimate and the "guilt and sympathy" are normal responses to what is a loathsome and immoral legal injustice. For you to recognize it as anything less does nothing more than expose your own narcissistic personal sense of hatred towards men and the social aggregate that it affects.
Joined: 11/14/2005
Msg: 261 (view)
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/12/2009 5:06:46 PM
ok, seriously... I am not arguing that that abortion should be forced on women, I have said this already many times before. These types of red hearings are absurd.

n my opinion, both adults are responsible for birth control, but too many men leave it entirely to the woman and then cry foul if she becomes pregnant. Every time a woman fvcks, she has no choice regarding the possible consequences of her actions - pregnancy, deciding between abortion/adoption/single-parenting. Why shouldn't men have to consider the same outcomes when they fvck?

Men should have those same options, except that instead of "aborting" the child(since, again, no one is suggesting that abortion be forced on women), they should simply have the right to abort all ties and responsibilities to that child(or to put it simply, giving it up for adoption to the single mother). He should be able to let this be known in advance, before the end of the first trimester, in order to give the woman who will decide on whether or not to abort the baby all the information up from.

Why should they be able to simply say .. "oh gee, sorry - but not my problem"?

Honestly, do you really think that's how most men just "react"? This is a heavy decision with real consequences for men just as much as it is for women. No one would just take that kind of decision as lightly as you would imply it to be. This is ridiculous and incredibility misandric.

Maybe if men took the possibility of pregnancy a little more seriously, they'd take male contraceptive a little more seriously as well.

So, by extension, so you also believe that all the men who have ever donated their seed to sperm banks should also be pursued for child support? If not, why not? "All men should be responsible for their own seed", right? If they didn't want to bare the responsibility of raising a child or get sued for child support than they should have never have given their seed up! liability forms be damn!

And I would not have a problem doing that.
Did you just quote and reply against yourself? laws in effect for deadbeat fathers to help pay for their responsibility in their child's upbringing.

So does that mean that every single woman who's also put up her child up for adoption is a deadbeat mother and should be sued for child support as well?
Joined: 11/14/2005
Msg: 247 (view)
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/12/2009 3:01:58 PM
Oh, please! ANYONE can walk into a health department or a Planned Parenthood and get free condoms. So, I don't see any excuses for not wearing one.
Really? Out of all the points you could have picked to argue you pick the one which is least relevant. This is about the rights that men should have post conception, it doesn't matter whether or not they used a condom as the act could result a pregnancy either way.

am I the only one here who's still talking about the O.P.'s point?
Ya. I didn't read the OP, I just got into this discussion mid point. In any case, yes, I also believe it is asinine that a woman could potentially give out the baby to adoption without the fathers consent or potentially alienate the father from the child should she choose to keep him out of the child's life.

I think the main point is that women(in general. not all women do this) should not take for granted the stakes that men also have invested in a child. Both should have rights in terms of keeping the child or ending the pregnancy(or the ties to the pregnancy for men). This is what pro-choice means, it's not about just being for the women-only choices.
Joined: 11/14/2005
Msg: 154 (view)
Love,Quality of life and who pays
Posted: 11/12/2009 1:16:48 PM
Women who went after successful men in the 40s weren't called gold diggers back then so why call them that now unless they actually act the title? These women were looking for stability.
Just because they weren't called gold diggers back then doesn't mean that they weren't actually gold diggers, the situation in the 40's was quite different. This is back in an era where social roles dictated that women weren't supposed to be working, this is not true any more(and that's a good thing). Since then women movements have made a lot of progress for equality and the "glass ceiling" has been shattered for over at least 20 years now.

There is NOTHING wrong with choosing your future spouse based on his success and what he can bring to the table. Remember, you have to bring this guy/woman to present them in front of your families. They want to see a man who can provide for you emotionally, physically, and YES financially. Anyone with brothers or Uncles can tell you that they WILL check the guy out completely.
You are making a choice based on material greed, that is absolutely wrong (It's even one of the 7 deadly sins if you're religious).

You also should be choosing the life you want for yourself, not the life your family chooses for you. I will bring a woman I like home to meet my family and whether or not they approve of her is completely irrelevant; If they respect me and care about me they will accept and live with whatever decision I end up making.

Women always have chosen a spouse based on certain qualities anyway and will continue to do so because those qualities will predict her future when it comes to procreating.
Why shouldn't both men and women create their own financial stability and choose who they love, and procreate with, based on feelings, attraction and compatibility. Keep business and love separate.

The question is- can they PROVIDE for your future together.
No, that's gender discrimination. It isn't a man's sole responsibility to provide for a woman and it isn't a woman's sole responsibility to be provided for by a man. Love a man because of who he is, not because of how much money he's making at that moment.
Joined: 11/14/2005
Msg: 237 (view)
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/12/2009 11:53:41 AM
It is disgusting to see how completely apathetic some women can be about equal rights when it comes to men.

Are men playing god when they don't wear condoms. Definitely russian roulette at least.
Both men and women are playing Russian roulette when having sex with or without condoms, no method of birth control is one hundred percent foolproof and women are not absolved from this responsibility either.

Do men have a god complex when they insist they should be able to force a women to have an abortion.
No one is saying men should for an abortion on unwilling, that's barbaric; yet, not a lot of women here seem to have any problems forcing a life-time financial and emotional commitment on an unwilling men. (Actually, not a lot of women seem to have a problem proposing that men get a vasectomy either, which I can't help but find incredibly ludicrous considering the implications involved. Forcing an surgical procedure on women? Inconceivable atrocity! Forcing a surgical procedure on men? sure, why not!

Do men feel they should be absolved of all responsibility for their actions.

Do women? What's an abortion then? isn't that absolving herself from her responsibilities? What's adoption? isn't that also absolving herself from responsibility?

Wear a condom or keep it in yer pants and quit the whining while you are at it.
Celibacy is not a realistic method of birth control. People will have sex, it's in everyone's nature. We are all compelled to want sex and it's appalling that some women could actually be ready to suggest that men be denied a basic human need. Why not lock up women in dungeons and make them all wear jihads? After all, it's their fault for going outside and being attractive. If they don't want to risk having babies they should all just stay locked up! Common, this type of mentality is incredibility chauvinistic, hateful and beyond ridiculous.

Also, condoms will not always be available for everyone every time and are not full-proof.

It's pretty sad that irresponsible, self indulgent god complex users are even having sex let alone fathering children. It's downright creepy.

Right, because all women are perfect, right? Because women bare absolutely no responsibility in their own impregnation and aren't being self-indulgent or irresponsible for bringing into this earth a life that they know they cannot care for? Stop making this about how horrible us "evil" men are and don't try to pretend like this is about the well-being of a child either, if this is what this was about abortion, adoption and sperm banks would all be illegal.
Joined: 11/14/2005
Msg: 220 (view)
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/12/2009 7:16:24 AM
I will bring the government in because if the father doesn't pay for his part of DNAing that baby and mama is needing extra funds or mama isn't working

Why would a woman who's unable to support a child even have children in the first place, now that's irresponsible. Don't you think if those women who are unable to support a child by themselves be more likely to chose not to keep it if they from the start that they wouldn't be getting from the father?

Just wanted to correct my spelling on this one. What I meant to say was:
"Why would a woman who's unable to support a child even have children in the first place, now that's irresponsible. Don't you think that a woman, who's unable to support a child by herself, would be more likely to chose not to keep a child if she knew from the start that she wasn't going to be getting any support from the father?"

Is this another part of the "entitlements and expectations" package that we must all be aware of before we have sex with a person?
umm... hello? what do you think happens when a woman who accidentally gets pregnant does when she expects that man to support that child for the rest of his life, whether he wants to or not(and that's the important part). That is entitlement. If he doesn't want to be a father and since no one can force an abortion on a woman, he should have the legal right to say No(at any point in the first trimester).

Now the men are whining and expecting things, too?
Imagine that, men wanting equal rights too. I'm curious, do you still see anti-slavery movements, women liberation movements and homosexual liberation movements as people "whining and expecting things" too?
Joined: 11/14/2005
Msg: 217 (view)
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/11/2009 7:25:18 PM

Nowhere did I say that you have to practice celibacy.

keep him in your pants

Quit twisting words


I will bring the government in because if the father doesn't pay for his part of DNAing that baby and mama is needing extra funds or mama isn't working
Why would a woman who's unable to support a child even have children in the first place, now that's irresponsible. Don't you think if those women who are unable to support a child by themselves be more likely to chose not to keep it if they from the start that they wouldn't be getting from the father?

I will NOT support ANYTHING that insures that a man can go around and have unprotected sex and make babies to be raised by welfare
This argument is really not about supporting irresponsible men going around having as much unprotected sex as possible in the hopes of impregnating women, it's really just a legal rights issue.

Quick question though, how many tax payer dollars do you think would have to go into in courts chasing those men for their income, police hours to enforce unpaid child support put on men who do not want to pay them or even for the jail time some men might have to face should they continue not to pay these legal bills?

Also, should roads not be repaired because of irresponsible drivers? Should hospitals not offer their services for irresponsible individual who accidentally hurt themselves? Should firefighter not put out fires that may have started out of negligence? Should police officers not arrest a mugger because a victim was out in a rough neighbourhood late at night? come on, your taxes are already paying for "irresponsibility". Accidents are inevitable.

i believe she meant that a man should use condoms. she didn't say anything about celibacy.
Well, considering celibacy is the only 100% safe method of contraception(well...99.99% if you believe the bible), it's the only one that's applicable to her argument. Regardless of the fact that condoms aren't full proof, you also have to remember that there will always be people having sex without them. If everyone was still using condoms all across north America, there wouldn't be any STD's. How's that one working out?
Joined: 11/14/2005
Msg: 141 (view)
Love,Quality of life and who pays
Posted: 11/11/2009 5:29:00 PM
What if she becomes a liability when you are already in a committed relationship? Disease, accident, loss of job, bad money management…. What ever it is… How would you handle this situation? Let’s say you share a nice house, and she can’t pay her share of common expenses any more. In order to be afloat she needs to downsize. Would you go to live with her in a tiny apartment in a so-so neighbourhood? Or what would you do?
Sure, downsize, liquidate, get another job, etc... As long as she has a legitimate excuse to not be able to support herself than I would still have to do my best to burden the difference(Assuming we are both in a long term monogamous committed relationship with each other, which by extension also makes the assumption that should would do the same for me).

Let’s say you are married together and maybe have children. You are happy in this relationship. You and your spouse both have incomes you are satisfied with. Then you are offered a promotion… no, THE PROMOTION you dreamed about. With a huge salary increase….. But that also means that you have to move in the area where your spouse will not be able to make as much money as she is making now. Your combined household income will be higher then it is now, but that’s because you are getting a huge increase while your wife’s income goes down. What would you do in that situation?
I think discussion would be key, find an acceptable compromise that both will be happy with. Although, to be honest, I would also probably never take a promotion just for a monetary gain without considering the overall happiness this promotion will bring. Is the new job something I would prefer doing for a living over what I am doing right now? Will it distance us from the rest of our families and friends? Will this job cost me more hours away from my family? Is the area somewhere myself or my partner would enjoy living? These are questions that matter a lot more to me than how much more are we going to be making at the end of the year.
Joined: 11/14/2005
Msg: 209 (view)
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/11/2009 4:19:32 PM
If I don't want to subject myself to an abortion
I have never said that women should be forced into an abortion, that would just be asinine. I just pointed that women have the ability to exonerate themselves from that life time responsibility through abortion(or adoption if she so chooses) and that men should have that same legal right(or at least some sort of male pro-choice equivalent).

I have quite a few friends that got pregnant, usually in relationships, and the man bailed because he didn't want to take responsibility for his actions.
As deplorable as I believe their choice to be, I also believe that it should be within their legal rights to make that choice. If they do not wish to be fathers, they should have just as much the choice to relinquish that title as any other women would should she chose to abort or put the child up for adoption. If you want to condemn these men for not wanting to be a parent, you also have to condemn every single women who has ever made that same conscious decision. Women shouldn't have the right to pursue an unwilling father for support, just like they shouldn't have the right to pursue a legal sperm donors.

Governments cannot handle raising children themselves while the current sexual climate of musical beds is happening. Too expensive and I will be one of many who will yell my head off if they decide to make men not responsible for fathering babies again. My tax dollars are not going to ensure that YOU have unprotected sex.
Than women should take the consideration of the father and weight into her decision to abort/put for abortion. If a single parent or two parents together cannot support a child, they should not be having children. If the father does not want the child and the mother still wants it than she should have to support it, just like if the father wanted the child and the mother didn't, he should have to support it on his own. Whether or not the government should or should not intervene in a child's welfare is a completely different topic.

It is also a man's choice to not make babies by keeping his sperm protected from conception
Celibacy is not a realistic choice, this is absurd. It's also completely unhealthy, people should be having sex(responsibly). Accidents are bound to happen but, when they do, both should have options. You cannot justify and allow abortion, adoption and sperm banks to be remain legal if you are to deny men their due rights.
Joined: 11/14/2005
Msg: 137 (view)
Love,Quality of life and who pays
Posted: 11/11/2009 2:07:16 PM
I also pretty much agree with what verityone said in these last few posts.

To me, it's pretty simple. If she makes more money than I do, I don't look for handouts or freebies; If she wants to go somewhere that I can't afford than I will not feel bad about her going by herself or, by extension, try to make her feel bad about it. If I make more money than her, than I have no problems with just doing things that aren't costly as to not limit her out of it. If we both really want to do something together but one of us can't afford it than we can just come to a mutual agreement.

It's not about the money, it's about the person. You work around money issues for the relationship, you don't go out of your way to make money the issue and you certainly don't make the relationship about the money.
Joined: 11/14/2005
Msg: 200 (view)
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/11/2009 1:32:16 PM
These are the consequences of our actions. If you weren't ready for the possibility of kid you had no place having sex without a condom or having sex at all.
It doesn't matter if she stopped taking the pill. You still could've worn a condom. You weren't trapped... you did this to yourself.
This is completely and utterly disgusting, you obviously have a blind hatred of all things male. This is pathetic. If someone was to lie to you about not having an STD and you had consensual sex with him, would this also be your fault for catching an STD?

I believe a woman has the right to keep her child if she becomes pregnant. If certain men do not wish to risk having children, then it's pretty simple to me...take more precautions to ensure safe sex (even though accidents can still happen) OR DON'T HAVE SEX! You don't want to be a daddy? Keep it in your pants.
So you believe that a woman should have the right to choose but a man should not? You believe that women should the right to absolve themselves from responsibility by physically aborting the child(possibly even without ever having to consult the father) but you don't believe men should have that same right to absolve themselves from responsibility through financial and emotional abortion? Obviously forcing an abortion on a willing mother would be pretty much out of the question but a man should still have the right to cut all ties with that child(a male abortion so to speak) before the child is born.

It really annoys me when certain men use excuses for why they don't want to support children they helped create.
So should all women cease to have sex altogether as well, since they share just as much responsibility in the act? Do you really think it's fair to say to men that they should remain celibate for their entire lives if they do not wish to have children? Common, really? "Don't have sex(if your a man)"... This is your answer? No, accidents happen. Both men and women share an equal responsibility in the act and both men and women should have options post-conception.

Joined: 11/14/2005
Msg: 83 (view)
Men, tell me whats the attraction
Posted: 11/11/2009 7:42:32 AM
"You don't NEED anything from me, do you?" It seems to make them feel insecure and unwanted. Many on this thread have made the point that men like to feel needed...that must be why they choose the ones who seem unhealthy and needy. Makes sense to me!
Right, that's a good point too, that sense of "belonging" could be important to a lot of men, I think most people do want to feel that their love is fully reciprocated and that the person they are with is also with them because they want to be and not because they were bored one evening.

This is a good example of the subjectivity in the use of "damaged", a woman who's unable to feel some vulnerability and attachment, or that is emotionally unavailable could be considered damaged by some and considered well-adjusted by others.
Joined: 11/14/2005
Msg: 80 (view)
Men, tell me whats the attraction
Posted: 11/11/2009 7:15:52 AM
I'm just taking random swings at this but, could it be empathy? Could these men be damaged themselves as well but unable to express it; therefor, finding someone who is also damage and with whom they would find it easier to relate with and communicate. Someone he feels he could confess his woes to without being judged for it?

It could just be because some "damaged ones" might not set their expectations as high and that the men who approach them don't feel unsuitable or inadequate around them. Who knows... "damaged" is such a subjective term; everyone is technically damaged in some way or another, it really just comes down to what people can relate to with each other.

Then again, it could also just be a physical attraction issue. If someone(men or women) finds someone else physically attractive, they would be willing to ignore what they conceive as a few personality quirks; if they find them physically unattractive, they'll probably be a lot more critical.
Joined: 11/14/2005
Msg: 89 (view)
People With Freckles
Posted: 11/11/2009 6:55:06 AM
I have no problems with freckles on women. I've found some women with freckles to be very attractive before.
Joined: 11/14/2005
Msg: 183 (view)
Why some men never want marry?
Posted: 11/10/2009 12:44:59 PM
eah guys, you do fare better financially despite what you may rant and rave about on these forums.
and despite men constituting 97% of all alimony payments? (Hey, this time i have a source!)

Also, you guys totally missed my point about the whole not building houses with their hands thing... I didn't say that is what I want. What I'm saying is that modern man is in a weird transition phase... he has stopped doing those things but hasn't taken up doing enough of traditionally women's work. Instead to satisfy their urge for the hunt...
Yes, because all men today and throughout history have all had this unquenchable urge to hunt and kill. What savage beasts we evil men are.

they sit around and play video games and basically take up space. They need to redirect that energy to something more productive.
Yes, because video games are evil and have absolutely no redeeming qualities... well, besides being a great way to communicate, interact and bond with friends and loved ones, also making distance a complete non-issue; besides being the most immersive medium to date and just as valid, if not more so, in its narrative, artistic and creative value as reading books(hey, isn't that one of your interests?!), watching movies, following tv shows(hey, isn't this one of your interests too) or listening to music; besides developing motor functions, coordination, quick thinking and team work skills; and besides being a form of stress and anger release(just look up the stats). Anyway... off-topic, I know, but I didn't feel like letting that one slide.

Wow, don't even know where to begin with this garbage. Division of work.
Right, because those are true and accurate representations of the daily life off all men and women living in North America. All men watch sports, retreat to their "man caves"(And by man cave, I assume you don't mean the office where they might be working over time?) while never dealing with any children emergencies or doing any errands, dishes, groceries, bills, cooking or laundry(although, by the way, unless you are living in a very hectic household, laundry and groceries are 1-2 hours a week, max. ) and then, nature forbids, might actually feel a physical attraction for the woman they live with and want to have sex with them(Those poor women, how can they possibly keep on living knowing that there are evil men out there willing to pleasure them at any moments notice! Still, it would be nice if a reciprocation of love and physical intimacy could not be considered as a "choir", a guy can hope right?); all while women are all out working full time jobs(Because of course, none of them ever stop working after getting pregnant or seek lower hours and pay for flexible employment should they ever return to work).
Joined: 11/14/2005
Msg: 178 (view)
Why some men never want marry?
Posted: 11/10/2009 10:01:59 AM
that's never seen the point in it,to be honest......
Just having a lovely man in my life is enough.........

You are pretty cute, btw.

There is still such a thing as love and commitment.
While I can definitely empathize with this story, I do believe that the decision you made to stick by him through everything could have been made regardless of a marriage agreement or not(I also assume that you would stick by any other close relative, or other individual you deeply care about, through sickness and in health without any form of legal binding. I know I would).

I also think the individuals who have in them the will to break such vows could and would do so with or with out the vows being taken through marriage.
Joined: 11/14/2005
Msg: 174 (view)
Why some men never want marry?
Posted: 11/10/2009 8:15:18 AM

Men didn't create marriage to benefit women and children... no, they did it for themselves... they created it because the old polygynous routine from Babylonian times left them with no wives... hence eunuchs and such. Because the early woman would have fared better having 1/14 of a rich man than 100% of a dirt poor man. So the Judeo-Christian traditions made things more evened out so every man could be guaranteed there was an chance at getting a wife.

Obviously the men back then were as deadbeat, lazy, sex craved and selfish as the men of today...sigh (is there not any man in the history of mankind you can't pain in a negative way tufluv?) Anyway, have you ever considered that marriage might have started off as a means for men to insure legitimate paternity for their offsprings? Or could it actually have been conceived as a way for men to insure fidelity from the women themselves, who may have been just as promiscuous and polygamous? (I'm not saying that responsible promiscuity today is a bad thing but, with no contraceptives, no protection against STD's, religious dogma, false medicinal ideologies and gender misconceptions, I can suspect that promiscuity would have been considered a very bad thing back then)
Joined: 11/14/2005
Msg: 173 (view)
Why some men never want marry?
Posted: 11/10/2009 7:14:58 AM
you want to meet the special someone, what does that mean exactly
Are you really going to make me explain this again? I am looking for that special someone, someone whom I could share my life with and grow old, possibly even have children with, but those things have nothing to do with marriage. Love and children were around a hell of a lot longer than marriage ever was, they are a basic human need, it's part of our biology(and the biology of many other species in the animal kingdom, I'm sure there are many other species who are perfectly capable of love and want to create offsprings, yet you don't see them complain about not being able to marry.)

Get past the little thing of the ring, get over the small stuff that doesn't matter.
I have always been passed the ring thing, I could care less about rings. It's only a small part of the meaningless institute that is marriage, it's only important to the ones who brought it up(My post was about a lot more than just rings, yet others got stuck on that one subject, still that burden fell on to me somehow) The only important point I want to convey is that marriage is fake, it's a lie, and it's been fed to you in every which way by diamond companies, catering companies, magazines, religions, social pressures of conformity, and I'm sure many others.

I see a LOT of men on this thread thinking with the glass half empty, good thing to know for ladies, because that is where a pessimistic tell sign comes in... This is by the repeated statement that 50% of marriages end in divorce... OK, and 50% don't, so you have a 50/50 chance of making it work... better than the odds of say 80% divorce, and 20% not, then we'd have a problem..
I will not speak for other men, but I will say that it is my optimism about love that allows me to speak objectively about marriage. I think it is very pessimistic to assume that, without marriage, a relationship is doomed to fail. Like I have stated many times before already: love and marriage are two completely separate entities, they have absolutely nothing to do with each other; you have just been led to believe that they are one and the same. I think it is very insecure to believe that someone will eventually leave you if they don't have a legal contract to bind them to you and I feel it is incredibility opportunistic for corporations and religions to take advantage of those insecurities.
Joined: 11/14/2005
Msg: 171 (view)
Why some men never want marry?
Posted: 11/10/2009 6:42:46 AM
Ron, you seem to have taken offense at my post. Too bad.
Splendere. No, I didn't take offense; nor am I bitter, angry or pontificated(your misconceptions, not mine); and, in that statement, I was merely trying to make you realize how idiotic it is to imply that anyone should do anything because everyone else does it.

In any case, you have not answered any of the questions posted in my rebuttal either, you are obviously either unwilling or incapable of giving the subject of marriage any type of critical thought. Debeers would be proud. Still, I can't say I'm not a little bit disappointed with your lack of conceptualization, it's quite unfortunate that you are completely unable to picture life; which includes(please don't make me explain the definition of "includes" to you) love, commitment and parenthood; without the shallow concept marriage.

mtnwldflower's response didn't really do that much to contradict my own point of view (except maybe for her misunderstanding of a basic concept of inclusive/exclusive), but I'm glad you were able to use it as an excuse to personally attack me again without ever addressing my arguments yourself (except for calling them naive and misinformed without any counter arguments none-the-less).

xtthyme, you make a good point... men these days are FOOKIN' lazy as hell... in sheer hours worked, they work a LOT less than their fathers and grandfathers did. Men also partake in much more leisure activities than women.... both in time and monetarily.
Wow, more men hating from tufluv... suprise!

They don't build houses with their bare hands anymore... can't remember the last time I heard of them hunting dinner...
Wtf?! so, who's building all of the houses in North America? Gremlins? What's with these gender stereotypes anyhow? You would think a self-titled feminist would be a bit more sensitive to her use of gender stereotypes. By the way, those links are far from being anything of "and men admit it's a problem too", just a couple of men making false, ignorant and sexist statements(which you are also completely misrepresenting)

That is why the grocery store is a great pick up spot for single gals... 'cus guys who are taken are NEVER there. Same with laundrymats
Seriously? This is kind of funny, when a marriage obsessed woman makes straight out misandric comments she's not bitter or angry but when a man opposed to marriage gives out actual valid observations he's a bitter misogynist. Sigh,

And now they wanna be lazy in relationships too... wow. I'm glad this forum is not representative of all men.
I'm glad your perspective isn't representative of all men... or all women for that matter.
Joined: 11/14/2005
Msg: 154 (view)
Why some men never want marry?
Posted: 11/9/2009 10:29:43 AM
If you want to say that some women fall under this category, but not all, start adding those disqualifying adjectives.
I have...

Again, start adding those disqualifying adjectives. The first part is a broad-sweeping generalization, that is essentially an insult, and the second part is a denial of the fact.
I did...

Look up the statistics.
Again, circumstantial evidence... look. it. up. Good parents would have been good parents regardless of them being married or not. The fact that they believe marriage to be necessary for them to be good parents is completely irrelevant to them actually being good parents. If a statistic was released that yellow houses provided better homes for children, would you paint your house yellow or accept that as pure coincidence? if statistics were to be released which showed that Chinese(random ethnic stereotype) students are better at math and come to the conclusion that that Chinese descendants are born with a genetic superiority to process mathematics, would you say that the two are completely unrelated or simply accept this conclusion as fact?

Inclusive and exclusive are adjective antonyms, therefore subjective, so your refutation is not only fallacious, but is based in blatant ignorance. If you don't believe me, look it up, and at least try to do the reasoning. Oh...yeah...I really shouldn't have to argue this with you. It is basic syntax structure, as applied to a debate.
At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. I'm done arguing with you, it's like trying to convince someone that a square and a circle aren't the same just because their both shapes; there is no reasoning to this. This is not subjective; hell, it's logic in its most basic mathematical form. inclusive? and. exclusive? or. Simple, right?

This ideal was created by men, and was made to benefit man, just as the chastity belt, which was in most cases a horrible piece of metal with this lock on it...
Yes, and consider my position, looking at individuals(both men and women) whom have grown to blindly cherish this chastity belt and consider it a fundamental part of their existence. Both examples are both detrimental and antiquated, yet one still continues to strive even today.
Joined: 11/14/2005
Msg: 147 (view)
Why some men never want marry?
Posted: 11/9/2009 7:39:51 AM
The second part of your statement contradicts the first. Mutual exclusiveness, cannot exist without the possibility of mutual inclusiveness. By definition, the two are dependent on each other, thus the relevance factor...
okay, seriously, look it up in a dictionary... mutually exclusive does not in any way, shape or form, imply the possibility mutual inclusiveness. sigh, I really shouldn't have to argue this with you...

To quote you:

Is it the ring? something a woman can compare with her other girlfriends like some sort of shallow metaphor for who's husbands loves his wife the most?
I am in no way implying that all women do this(that would be misogynistic) but are you seriously telling me that you have never encountered a single woman, anywhere in your lifetime, who hasn't compared diamonds? It was a question whos answer I suggested from my own point of view and real life experiences (and somehow Nexthyme's examples are valid yet mine are not?) and anyone is welcomed to answer it themselves if they so feel inclined. Like I said, I would love to hear their reasoning.


(I have personally witnessed this narcissistic sense of entitlement in a lot of women, somehow believing that their contribution to the relationship is worth more than the man's, similarly to how many women believe that their contribution to sex is also somehow worth more than the man's).
How is proposing equality and equal worth misogynistic? Again, have you never encountered any women any where in your life time who didn't exert this type of characteristic? You wouldn't even need to look very far, these forums are filled with them.

It comes from a confirmation bias. You have already predetermined a refutation based upon non-supporting evidence, and I dislike revealing this, since sometimes, I do the same. When our emotions are tied in, it weakens our stance. Your experience colors your statements.
The conclusions I came to had absolutely no predetermined refute against it(hell, I was just as much duped into the idea marriage during most of my childhood and adolescence as any other here). You are projecting your own misconceptions on my statements and conclusions.

also... a tanzanite is still just another sparkly rock, uncolored or blue makes no difference; it is still just a useless piece of mineral(Just like gold, silver, platinum, zirconium or any other piece of jewelry)


my point still stands...
Than you are missing my point. You could find millions of other examples of products and behaviors marketed to women and who came up with it in the first place is absolutely irrelevant.

The most stable way to raise kids is in a marriage. Just about every source on this topic confirms this.
Completely circumstantial evidence, just because the vast majority of the people who have children in your environment are in a marriage does not mean that the act of marriage is, in any way, responsible for their well being. I'm sure you could find cultures where marriage is not predominant and where children from committed, yet unmarried, couples are just as well adjusted.

Abused the position? Wow disrespectful. Where is your data? No, just a bunch of sexist bullshittin'. Right.
"Some" not "All", that isn't sexism. Sexism is gender based discrimination, not ideological disagreements.

You're just cherry picking what gender roles you wanna fill, just the ones that benefit you. Not the ones that mean you give up something. Spineless wuss.
Honestly, I just don't believe in gender roles but if you want to call me spineless regardless? I really could care less.(Considering your man bashing history, it's not really that surprising. Somehow doubt that you would ever call a woman who wants to be a housewife without the housework to be spineless either).
Joined: 11/14/2005
Msg: 144 (view)
Why some men never want marry?
Posted: 11/8/2009 10:46:29 PM

Disagree. The two are neither mutually inclusive, nor mutually exclusive. It is entirely up to the two people involved, and whether or not they can come to an agreement of terms.
Whether someone is convinced that these two are mutually inclusive or not is irrelevant: they are still completely mutually exclusive. Love has been around a lot longer than marriage or even monogamy for that matter.

Since you are offering this up as a statistical fact, I assume that you can provide the cites to support your claim. So cite them.

You sources???? Cite them.
Poorly documented(didn't really check their references but should of in hindsight) sites and general observations of social trends(also matching with personal experiences, sure, I'll give you that). So, yes, the exact numbers could very well be off.

Let us switch it around..."How many men have also entered into a marriage with immense credit card debts or student loans(which they might never see as a returned investment should they then decide to stop working) which then falls onto the woman's shoulders to pay off"

Plausible yet, based on noticeable social pressures of hypergamy, not nearly as likely.

This scenario, in our given time (which you keep alluding to), is non-gender specific.
Perhaps more so today than ever before but, again, considering the preexisting social trends, still not in men's favour.

Ironic. You keep inferring that "misogyny" is a bad thing, yet you show no hesitation in making misogynistic claims.
Such as?! You are seeing misogyny where there is none, I have absolutely no ill-will towards either gender; I am arguing against marriage, not femininity. Recognizing and pointing out existing social bias is also not misogyny.

Your post paints gentlemen like victims of an institution, and is devoid of an unbiased refute. If you want to strengthen your argument against marriage, then lose some of the irrational emotionalism.
What specifically is "irrational" about what I wrote and how exactly I am being overtly emotional about this subject?
Joined: 11/14/2005
Msg: 137 (view)
Why some men never want marry?
Posted: 11/8/2009 8:03:34 PM
Look at movie stars, famous athletes and almost all professionals, heads of state - kings, presidents, prime ministers;
Right and just look at how well all of those turn out right? maybe not the best example... plus, I don't think it's ever wise to say "do something because all the celebrities are doing it!", we would all be doing coke, steroids and making false promises if that was the case.

I think you meant to say, “but not in love”.
Again, this is just some delirious thinking, men can love or "be IN love" with a women without ever having it defined by a church or government.

The men that say it is just a piece of meaningless paper do not really believe that or they would just do it to keep you happy.
Actually, a lot of men do get married just to keep a woman content(mostly due to this ultimatum of "if you don't marry, you don't love me and I'm leaving"); the ones that don't are simply sticking to their own moral values with more conviction.

Some men look forward to marriage and parenthood; if this is what you sincerely want you will attract this.
Yes, just like there are people who fall into the antiquated rituals of religions, so are there men who fall into the antiquated rituals of marriage. There are millions, if not billions, of dollars in the marriage industry, so you can pretty much guaranty that there is also a lot of money being spent into trying to convince as many people as possible into falsely believing that marriage is a mandatory stepping stone of life, it isn't.

Is it not funny that some men that have so much to offer (right in this thread) do not want marriage or children. Yet, the loser guys, some whom cannot even support their offspring, are marrying and reproducing.
Again, marriage has nothing to do with love, commitment or children. If I ever was to find the right woman, my intentions would be of love, commitment and possibly even children but that does not necessitate a marriage in any way as far as I'm concerned

Anyway, I would really like to know, in detail, what makes marriage so important. (well, except for that lifetime of corporate/religious brainwashing and pressures of conformity of course)

Is it the ring? something a woman can compare with her other girlfriends like some sort of shallow metaphor for who's husbands loves his wife the most? If two partners are equals, both of whom want to be with each other and appreciate each other equality, why should one ring be any more extravagant and costly than the other(I have personally witnessed this narcissistic sense of entitlement in a lot of women, somehow believing that their contribution to the relationship is worth more than the man's, similarly to how many women believe that their contribution to sex is also somehow worth more than the man's). What is the importance of a diamond, a stone who's only property is to "sparkle" and which has absolutely no real value(other than the one set by greedy jewelry corporations whom control and limit its available supplies to increase the street value of their products). A ring who's cost, more often then not, will fall on the shoulders of the men(yay, equality!). What symbolism could anyone derive from their partner wearing a ring besides possibly showing an insecure lack of trust for their partner to remain faithful without having a warning sign of his or her ineligibility for others to see?

Is it the ceremony? a five hour party which is completely over-priced but yet still, more often than not, is also entirely shouldered by the man(equality, yay!). A bunch of silly traditions which, truthfully, bare absolutely no consequence to the actual relationship whatsoever. I'm I the only person who considers the metaphor of a father walking down his daughter down the isle to be handed over to a man, like an item to be exchanged for goods(which is where this tradition originates from if I am not mistaken) incredibly misogynistic?

is it the legal contract to combine all financial assets? Considering that 90% of women marry up and do not consider a man who earns less than herself to be "marriage worthy"(yay equality!), I can empathize with a lot of men who might be wary of a woman's intentions in marriage. How many young women have also entered into a marriage with immense credit card debts or student loans(which they might never see as a returned investment should they then decide to stop working) which then falls onto the man's shoulders to pay off? Add this to the fact that the justice system will give an immense preferential treatment to women, even as they are completely unwilling to support themselves, in cases of separation(which can be awfully easy easy to fill out and go through with, which just goes to under mind the significance of the union in the first place); rendering it increasingly more difficult for men to be self-sufficient and financially support a new relationship(Not that love should ever cost a dime, but women, according to the statistics, still do tend to want to marry up)

Is it the labels? husband and wife? Mr and Mrs? Why would anyone within the age of consent still put any value into such shallow "labels" yet still completely ignore the obvious misogynistic symbolism of having the woman's name change to the man's? Why should anyone mature enough to have children allow these labels to dictate whether or not it is moral to have children in the first place? Love, commitment, faithfulness, reliability, parenthood; these things from a persons heart, from his or her own will and personal intent, not from a label. Why would any two individuals who truly love each other feel the need to have that love labelled and recognized by outside parties who have no real business being involved in the personal affairs of these two individuals(well, besides the financial gains that these parties might earn from handing out such labels)?

Please, you will have to come up with better BS(and quite misandrist) arguments than "Men are afraid of commitment", "All men just want sex" or "Men don't love you if they don't marry you" if you want to justify these unhealthy obsessions for an obsolete, commercialized and inegalitarian institute.
Joined: 11/14/2005
Msg: 132 (view)
Why some men never want marry?
Posted: 11/8/2009 4:19:32 PM
Men invented and popularized monogamy and marriage. History shows that. You guys are acting like its something the modern women invented... Nope. Sorry. Bollocks on 'natural polygyny"... men created monogamy and marriage so that one hot/rich guy like Brad Pitt mixed with a little Ghengis Khan wouldn't make off with 100 wives thereby leaving 100 men with no one. Monogamy is the best thing to ever happen to man. Its even more important in an industrialized society where the wealth is more evenly distributed than it has ever been.
So were high heels, skirts, purses and I'm sure many others(just did a quick wikipedia search, wasn't hard to find a few). Just because something was invented/started by a man, doesn't mean that they can't evolved to be heavily marketed towards women and marriage is pretty much marketed to women 24/7 from the moment they are born.

Just now that women are more involved in it as equals rather than chattel... the thought of making commitment to an equal is more frightening than buying some chattel. The thought that there are CONSEQUENCES for our actions is frightening.
This statement is so incredibly misandric. No one can speak for all men but, for me, it is definitely not about a fear of commitment, especially not to woman who considers herself a financial or political equal(at least I hope you are referring to financial or political equals, I would like to think that women are and have always been our equals as human beings, and there have been numerous threads on this forum filled with men looking for women who are their "equals", so I'm sure I'm not the only one.)

No one wants responsibilities... they just want 'rights.' If a woman quit her job to raise your kids, you do owe her the money. It's not yours. But for the fact she was raising your kids, she would've had the chance to advance her career. Vice versa if you were the stay at home dad.
Last time I checked, the female body didn't have some sort of contraceptive mechanism in place that deactivates upon the ceremony. Children don't need to have anything to do with marriage, this is all in your head(can't really blame you, life time of marketing at work, I just wish you could look at it objectively for a minute).

As much as I embrace the concept of a stay at home dad, very few women I have encountered anywhere have been willing to make that kind of compromise. I also respect the role of a homemaker but you have to realize that there are a lot of women who have, historically, abused this position and used it as an excuse to stop working and never return to work again after the kids start going to school.
Joined: 11/14/2005
Msg: 126 (view)
Why some men never want marry?
Posted: 11/8/2009 8:07:30 AM
I just came across this site today, it's written from one males perspective but still worth the read in my opinion. I think the reasons go beyond what's written there for a lot of men, myself included (There is a definite anti-misogyny motivation behind my opposition to marriage as well), but it does a decent job in representing a lot of the main anti-marriage points anti-misandric men do consider and try to convey(which, all to often just seems to fall on deaf ears).
Joined: 11/14/2005
Msg: 37 (view)
Nice guys finish last, are you one?
Posted: 11/6/2009 10:07:15 AM
Being a nice guy in a dating context is to be willing to let her make her own choice and simply hope that she chooses you back of her own will. (Like the previous example) It's the "if you truly love something just let it go free and if it loves you it will come back" principle, instead of trapping that metaphorical bird in a cage, he simply left it to fly away and hoped it would come back to him willingly.

Basically, the "nice guy", instead of saying "I want you, I'm taking you", will say "I want you, this is who I am, can you want me too?". The problem is that more often than not women will not even see or appreciate the sacrifice and risk these "nice guys" are willing to make for her and, as a result, just settle for the most aggressive or popular candidate while considering the nice guys to be cowards. Combined with some negative false preconceptions of the male gender, some will even see the entire attitude of "nice guys" as appalling and deceitful; which is also where a lot of the contempt and frustration from "nice guys" tends to originate from.
Joined: 11/14/2005
Msg: 84 (view)
Why some men never want marry?
Posted: 11/6/2009 8:12:09 AM
tuff... wow. just... wow. Please forgive me in advance if this rant is in anyway offensive or negative to you(or anyone else) but I just had to reply.

1) If I was to meet the girl of my dream, it wouldn't change by views on the absurdity of marriage. The only way I would consider getting married is if this girl was to give me an ultimatum between marriage and a life long commitment without marriage. Personally, I find the thought of a woman forcing such an ultimatum about such a completely absurd and needless concept to be a major turn off, repulsive even. If I was ever to go give in to such hostile negotiations, because I cared for this woman(enough to overlook her shallow, conforming, possessive and manipulative natures) and wouldn't want to lose her(Because she most likely has to have other redeeming qualities, otherwise I wouldn't be with her in the first place), I think I would lose a lot of respect for myself.

2)Not being married does not equate for one for in, one foot out. If the commitment is already made in that mans heart, he definitely has both feet in; with or without marriage. If you believe that marriage is a true representation of love or that marriage is an actual prerequisite of true love, you do not know what love is.

3) I agree, there are definitely good marriages and bad ones but that doesn't mean that men shouldn't want to protect themselves in the case that it does turn out to be one of the bad ones, virtually all marriages start out as a good marriage. (Note that I am also not trying to say anything in the likes of "women are all evil!", if all attempts of cross gender interaction ended in failure none of us would even be here. I think a lot of us here still have plenty of faith in commitment, companionship and love)

4) Right, so instead of actually trying to get to know this person, questioning his and her own beliefs together, understanding each other, growing as a couple and earning each others trust; she should just cut and run!? So much for having both feet in!

5) If he or she is unhappy with someone(and I mean real despair unhappy, not the "oh we had a fight today" unhappy), I can understand him or her moving on to someone else but to equate marriage to a persons happiness is completely absurd, childish and overtly superstitious. It would be like equating the entire life of a relationship over dancing the chicken dance in front of a silver spoon while wearing space helmets (All of which is actually much less metaphorically sexist than traditional marriage ceremonies).

6) unhappiness, unfulfillment and considering yourself a place holder, waiting to be picked out; all over a piece of paper!? Are you kidding me! Could you be any more superficial or think any less of yourself!? Love and marriage are two completely separate entities, you can have marriages without love and love without marriage.

7) There are plenty of men who are ready to sacrifice freedom, money, independence and status over a life time commitment but the two should also never be mutually exclusive. Just because a man is in love, doesn't mean he'll lose all sense of self preservation and rationality either. If a woman's objective in her union with a man is to make him lose his freedom, money, independence and status; he deserves better.

8) Men do want a healthy and loving relationship but it doesn't need to involve marriage. You are making this into a battle by blindingly enforcing the mentality that marriage is an absolute prerequisite to love. And, a battle over what? a label? husband and wife? Having a loving and committed partner is something special, it's what most people want, but most men really don't need labels for it either.

I think most of the men here have already asked themselves about the pro's and con's of marriage, what it implies and signifies. I think what you should be asking yourself is: Why do I feel marriage to be so important? Is it because your parents before you were married and you just want to simulate that same experience out of conformity? Is it because of all those Disney fairy tales you watched as a child, with a dashing young prince coming in to take possession of a beautiful princess, marrying her and living happily ever after? Is it because you have an irrational fear and contempt of men and do not trust them to be committed and faithful without that false sense of security? Is it because you feel as though everyone will think you're selfish if you don't want to have children or think you're a slut for wanting children without being married? Is it because you have absolutely no desire to be self reliant and would rather live on someone else's back, all while being legally protected to do so?

There is no shame in a woman who doesn't believe, need or care for marriage and for wanting to be with someone out of love alone. There is no shame a woman not to want to lose her name to a man or be handed over by her father like sold goods. There is no shame for a woman to start thinking about marriage in a critical manner and seeing it for the superficial and superstitious farce that it is. There is no shame for a woman to not materialistically care about how much her ring cost and how big her diamond is. There is no shame in respecting another human beings income, and the sacrifice he may have had to make to acquire this income, and not feel entitled to it in any way, shape or form. There is no shame for a woman to be independent enough to be assertive and pursue the man she wants to be with instead of waiting for a man to come to her, settling for the first one whom proposes to her. There is no shame in living your life in a loving and caring relationship with a man, without having legally defined by a court or religious organization.


yep, in MY experiences and what i have witnessed around me, men will live with a woman quite happilly without ever loving her, as a supply of sex, money, labour.. until the one he really wants comes along... then.. he asks her to marry him!!
And you think women don't do that either, often taking quite a chunk out of that man as she moves along to her next beau? Do you really think if a man was not in love with a woman and only wanted her for sex, money and labour until the prettier girl comes along that a marriage would really make a difference?

Men just want what they want but if she's really really hot, he'll stretch to a ring and a slice of his Kingdom. In the meantime he is happy enough with Miss Right Now.. who sadly will be out on her arse when Miss Hotstuff sways into view.
You obviously have some very false and demeaning preconceptions of what a man is(I think you are also very much oversimplifying and misconstruing their intentions and ignoring completely that women can and will also change partners if they are unhappy).
There might be some men who keep women around as "disposable placeholders" but they are in very small minority and, if anything, they are probably a lot more likely to be for marriage in order to give these women piece of mind over this false promise of commitment.
Joined: 11/14/2005
Msg: 70 (view)
Why some men never want marry?
Posted: 11/5/2009 4:33:35 PM
A piece of paper, a gold piece of jewelry and a silly ceremony cannot in any way stop someone from going to someone else or cheating if they really wanted to in the first place. They may give that false illusion of absolute exclusivity but at the end of the day, people will falter if they want to regardless.

It's really not about having an easy way out just in case you find someone else; although, to be honest, if I loved someone and she thought she needed to be with someone else to be happy, than I would rather see her go with that person than unhappily stay with me. Sure, I would probably be hurt if that person left but I think it would be better in the long run and, at the end of the day, she is still her own individual with her own aspirations and dreams; it's her life and she can make, and live with, any decision she wants to make.

An "easy way out" could also be a good thing in the case of abuse; whether physical, psychological or emotional; and women are just much susceptible to become pathological control freaks as men can be, especially if the marriage leads someone to take their partner for granted. A lot of the laws today offer very little protection for men and they are a lot more likely to lose out big in case of separation. Not to mention that most support groups in these situations mostly just cater to women and that men would, in general, face a far greater level a ridicule for using such services. Truth be told, most men are actually expected to simply put up with a lot but there are a lot of men who would prefer not to. I understand that the rewards that a loving and caring relationship can bring but for some, sometimes the risks involved are far to great to wager on.

Now that's not to say that there are probably a lot of men(and women) out there who are also very polygamous in nature, sexually liberated in a sense, and would simply prefer to stay unattached to have as many partners as they can. Personally, I don't really have any problems with that, life is short and people should be free to pursue the type of life they want if it makes them happy as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process. I think those kinds of lifestyles get a lot of bad publicity, mostly due to religions, blind intolerance and irrationality(although some might blame it on women being more monogamous based on "female nature" but I consider it to be just another effect of gender social conditioning/conformity) but it's really harmless and quite natural.
Joined: 11/14/2005
Msg: 79 (view)
First Contact: Generic emails vs. Creative Writing
Posted: 11/5/2009 12:31:09 PM
Here's my issue with that response... I do take the time to read their whole profiles, sometimes even twice to make sure I didn't miss anything, and I make the effort to write personalized emails and come up with attention grabbers but I will still get very little responses, if any at all, even with women who's criteria I match to the letter(well, at least the ones they have written down).

What I think bugs me even more is that I do not believe men, as a gender, should be the only ones to make these kind of efforts; especially not when vast majority of women are not even willing to recognize or appreciate these efforts and return them in turn. (of the few women who have ever responded to me, none of them actually ever read my profile). You may say "well, it's because women get a lot more emails" but then they only get all those emails because they aren't putting any effort into sending out their own emails.

It's also a lot harder to take these rejections if the emails aren't generic. Having a message which is personal and heartfelt get rejected is a lot harder to swallow than a generic email that you might not have invested yourself in.

We should be here looking to make human connections and interacting with each other, from one human being to another, and that has nothing to do with how creative or original a message is. Creative writing is a very shallow expectation to put on others and that expectation is definitely self-limiting. How could anyone on this site want to pass up on what could be very good opportunities to meet great, or at the very least compatible, individuals over something so trivial!? I can understand not being attracted to someone but if there is any kind of physical attraction or if you want something platonic, at least get to know the person a little before turning them down.
Joined: 11/14/2005
Msg: 60 (view)
Why some men never want marry?
Posted: 11/5/2009 9:07:42 AM
I think for most men, it isn't necessarily about a fear of commitment, they just don't want to get stuck into a bad marriage with no way out(and I think women would feel the same); there is a difference.

I think a lot of men have also been witness to other males, either loved ones, relatives or anecdotally, get screwed by the court systems(I myself have bared witness to a few close relatives lose a lot and even forced to pay alimony to their ex-wives even as they found new permanent boyfriends and making a lot more money than their ex-husbands). I'm sure there are a lot of other reasons; over-controlling wives, being forced to compromise over too many things, condescending or unsupportive behaviors, etc... things that men have come to witness from their individual environments over time and do not want to repeat in their own lives. (you might find what you're looking for here:, I didn't read through the whole thing but it might give some insight to some women as to why some men don't want to commit)

Personally, I believe in commitment and life long monogamy but I also want to be careful not make that commitment for the wrong person. I'm also very much non religious and find the whole concept of "traditional marriage" to be a complete farce. The theatrical ceremony, the shallow symbolism, the drama, etc.. it's all so ridiculous(And definitely costly, I would much rather spend that money on something beneficial to the relationship). I have never been one to do things because of tradition or simply because everyone else does it. I need to have my own reasoning behind it to support it. I would rather ask the OP(not trying to be a jerk or anything, just for conversation sake), why are some women so obsessed with marriage? (if you are aware of the effects of social conditioning and laws of conformity, why not think about marriage critically?)

On a side note, I also feel that marriage makes two partners take each other for granted. If two people can be together because they want to, even when they have the freedom to leave at any time, it makes that conscious decision that much more powerful. If two people are in a committed relationship and yet have nothing to hold each other together except for their own collective will, I think that is something truly special.
Show ALL Forums