Are women who use their sexuality for personal gain any better than street whores?

And women are finally becoming the very thing they have despised for millenia.

Is that progress or what?

 

Lol~I know you weren't.........

 

It is equality. Yes, it is progress for women. You are getting some of what you've been giving for centuries and you don't like it. Ding ding, most women have never liked it. It never appealed to women any more than it does to men now. They always felt the way Unifier feels now, that they don't want to do in the house jobs. Women want a life, in the same way Unifier does. Unfortunately as he is realising, if we all want a life it leaves us rather short on staff inside the home. This is not a women's problem, it's a couple's problem. Not many women are going to stay at home to allow a male to go out and live life the way he wants it, as women have equal rights to the same life outside the home. So if Unifier wants a family, unless he can find a woman who wants to stay home it is his problem as much as hers.

Unifier is describing what women have been subjected to (and I use "subject" advisedly) for centuries. Men are only beginning to experience what that feels like and understand how unreasonable and selfish it all is. They have taken subservient women for granted. Now the rug is pulled away, they don't know what hit them. (excuse me while I laugh out loud)

Men are equally responsible for all of the things they want women to take on while they are released to live their selfish little boy lives. If you want a family, it's no more the female's responsibility to sit in the house than it is yours. You can no longer dictate terms. Women are not servants/slaves, they are actually entitled to go outside the house and have a life in the same way men have always done.

Did you read Unifier's post? Women want to be parents but will not make the sacrifices etc etc...it's laughable. Men want to be parents and won't do any of those things. Men have never done the things he "accuses" women of avoiding now. What is it in men that thinks they are entitled to imprison a woman in a house for an entire lifetime dependent on some guy's whim, with entertainment only if he decides to appear whereupon she is to have kids clean and aesthetically acceptable, "serve" his dinner and listen to his banal talk about whatever he decides to talk about, while telling him how great he is...

Do you not realise that is his life? It's no life for the servant person waiting at the beck and call of some man who is not worth it. It's a non-life for the woman.

Whatever changes have been made in the name of equality, medieval men still think all responsibilities in the home relate to women. You are one who still doesn't get that all of that is your job now. It's not a female domain to raise children. It's a couple's job, not a woman's.

 

You are a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing grudge holding man hater seeking to punish us males for perceived wrongs that we never committed against you directly. Just like minorities who seek victim status, you are doing the same thing. Disgusting.

We men do not owe you (*)(*)(*)(*).

Who the (*)(*)(*)(*) do you think you are laughing at men being victimized by evil witches seeking to enact revenge for some multi-generational grudge against us?

You want to be a man and have a career? Don't have any (*)(*)(*)(*)ing kids, man hater. We men don't have time to worry about your needs and wants all the time when we're still expected to be the primary household provider and get called a piece of (*)(*)(*)(*) if we try to stay home with the kids by shrews like you.

You don't want to adhere to your naturally assigned gender role as nurturer and raiser of the children, then don't you dare (*)(*)(*)(*)ing have any.

Nature assigned the role of mother to you, not men. Do your duty as a mother otherwise you're just another piece of (*)(*)(*)(*) woman abandoning her kids to the elements.

 

Did I miss something, or are you referring to something I said in another thread? Because this all seems extremely off topic from anything I said in here.

I tried to rep you on this, but I'm still not eligible again yet. Nail on the head, though.

Western women have been poisoned by feminism to believe that there is something inherently shameful about motherhood and about femininity in general. It's about the most blatantly misogynist thing a person can possibly believe; that women must reject the way nature made them and instead behave like men in order to have any value in society.

 

Ahahaha...touched a nerve there? Well...this is going to be embarrassing for you, S&M.

I stayed at home to raise my family and have posted in many threads here that is my personal preference and experience is that is what children are happiest with and need and I do not like what the family set up has become (sorry feminists, it is your choice and I support you all the way but that is my own experience).

I personally think children need more than just care from anyone, they have a basic right and need to be protected by their own parent. People are often idiots and people are often bad. I don't trust anyone and would not leave the most precious and completely defenseless little being in my life in the care of someone who is not a family member. Even with family members I found it tough to do. When my son was born, I was forced to work full time for 6 months and cried myself to sleep every night with worry until I became the first person in my workplace to kick in the part-time working hours door and managed to work 2.5 days on and the rest off, with my husband working around that and grandparents helping out for a couple of hours to cover the gaps. I moved from that to working every day from 9:15 to 14:30, to be home when they left for school and back in time to tidy up and walk up and meet them at the school gates. I personally would prefer to be at home even now and would not choose to work, but life is what it is. I have to work.

However, the reality is that most women don't currently find that aspirational and your perspective that men have more right to work than women is no longer a cultural norm, so maybe you want to accept that it isn't your right to have it the way you think it should be as women now want the same things from life as you and you have no greater right to that life than women do.

As to the man-hater allegations, there is no hate toward men whatsoever in my soul ..

 

Good post Viv, thanks.

 

There you go. Maybe I did get a bit carried away

You've got that the wrong way round. Men have been poisoned by sexism to believe they have the right to go out and live and women have the right to go straight to house-arrest.

Look, things have changed. In days of old, men went out and hunted. Now, women can go out and hunt. It's equality and no male should be angry at women for only having the same opportunity they have had for centuries.

 

Thanks to my Delorean, yes it is the 80's.

Nobody but you was talking about success vs status. If I was talking about it, perhaps I forgot. Why don't you show me the post where I brought it up?

Actually, I've said nothing stupid (in this thread anyway). I think it's obvious to everyone but you (and yes, probably you too) that something in the thread offended you personally, but you are too embarrassed to say what it is, and decided to just lash out angrily.

It's OK. I forgive you.

 

It would not be so much poor people, but eliminating official poverty since we have been paying for a War on Poverty for over thirty years. It could be said the we have already established a basis in equity for actually solving it.

 

Then post some White Snake and ****.

Ugh.

This is the dumb (*)(*)(*)(*) you said:

This is you having a misfire of a synapse, using status and success interchangeably:

Get it? Got it? Good.

Pretty much everything you have said in this thread is idiotic. Nothing personally offended me and absolutely nothing I do embarrasses me. So wrong on that account. Just because I used a personal example (which should have killed your generalization from the start, but here we are knee-deep in you not getting it) does not mean I am offended.

I think it is pretty obvious what I called out. Not sure why I would be "embarrassed" to say it clear as day. Maybe embarrassed for you not getting it. Also, lash out angrily? You have been here long enough to know how I respond. If not, you are completely oblivious or have no business in the military forum. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say the latter because I am nice like that. No one here is angry. Stop being a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

I am not always down with these posts, but this is a (*)(*)(*)(*) good one.

 

Holy (*)(*)(*)(*)ing psycho. Hahahahaha.

 

once you figure this out, life is easy. men will do anything for (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) and women will give it to any man who will give them what they want. it can't get any more simple than that.
any questions?

 

Your marriage is in equilibrium when the woman wants sex as often as the man does.

 

QUID PRO QUO - can be addictive...like obsessive compulsive twisted geriatric baby boomer love.. none of it's pretty and celibacy has its perks.

 

http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/features/10-surprising-health-benefits-of-sex

Number one especially. Addictive? Meh.

 

Clearly you were not following your own conversation. Let’s start from the beginning. I posted this:

That offended you, and you responded with this:

Being the civil gentleman that I am, I tried to advance my argument while at the same time calming your crazed anger.

Now, since you had mentioned your fiancé for some reason, how is the audience to take this other than you were personally offended since you brought in your personal story to contradict the narrative. Now when I replied here, you really went off the rails.


So I think here is where you got the idea that I was comparing status vs success

I thought it funny that you tried to use your personal example as an exception to the rule rather than an example. Then you showed what confused you. I should have caught it earlier.

What confused you is that you felt that I was regarding your fiancé as higher status than you because he made more money. Even if you made the same amounts, as some doctors working for the government would (approximately) a doctor would still trump a pilot in status. I’m sure you are both successful in your chosen fields, but he is going to be high status than you, and I’m sure that played a part in your attraction to him.

Since you got so confused by what I said, you are not really the best judge of what is idiotic or not, since you still think your personal example is counter to what I said, rather than an example of it. Now, if you want to be a higher status than you future hubby, become an astronaut. Then you’ll trump him in status even though he will still make more money.

 

Actually, I was. You deviated from your course. Time to RTB and ****, kiddo.

It did not offend me. I could have worded that better, sure, but I was drunk and you got what you got...

You got confused about what "success" means and what "status" means. No one gives a (*)(*)(*)(*) about status. You should have dropped that 5 pages ago. Crazed anger? Is that some sort of argument tactic. No one is angry. Except maybe you.

I mentioned my situation because it is the easiest to reference.

That was not "going off the rails." Take a sensitivity pill for (*)(*)(*)(*)'s sake. And you did compare them, otherwise you would not have brought up status at all when you first mentioned success. Get that through your head.

Forget the rule, because the rule does not matter in this century. That was a point made from the start of the discussion.

No. Money is only part of what society thinks of when they draw people into "status" levels. Income was not a part of this argument until you started talking about status.

Also, it has nothing to do with what attracted him to me. Another stupid assumption. You are batting the Seattle Mariners offense right now.

Actually, I am the perfect judge of that because we can all be stupid. I am a pilot in Palmdale, so I already fit your mold of "status." Not that it really matters because your whole take on this issue was (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up on square one.

 

Well if you think my take was f'd up from the get go, let's take another crack at it.

Is your fiance the doctor a higher status than you the pilot?

 

No, he is not a higher "status." But honestly, what part of not caring about status do you not get? You cannot judge yourself or other people based on such subjective criteria. Hell, even success is subjective, but at least it is more concrete than whatever the hell you think status is, and whatever the hell I think it is.

 

No wonder you thought your example was an exception, rather than the rule, of what I was talking about. You think a pilot is higher status than a doctor.

Now granted, it is subjective, there isn't any doubt about that. But if you didn't care about it, you wouldn't have thrown yourself head first into this discussion.

OK I gotcha.

 

See, you think a doctor is a higher status than a pilot because you probably:

A. Are way more familiar with doctors and what it takes to be one versus what it takes to be a pilot

B. Lump all pilots in the same category (ie: airline and military are one in the same)

C. Have not thought too much about what goes into each.

I care about people making stupid assumptions. I would like to fix that about people. While this particular discussion pertains to women and men in relationships, your line of thinking is dangerous to everyone. Get over the status bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

Throw myself head-first into it? That is what I do, baby.

 

But women work today, many of them hold full time jobs too. This is not 18th,19th centuries that a man's sole income could support the entire family so the women can stay home and raise kids.

Many women work is not because we have to seek value in society to prove we are better than man, it is mostly because we live in the 21st century that everything is expensive and we have countless bills and burdens that need two incomes to live.

When both works, the men no longer solely can support the family, that brings the women equal to men, the men should share househole works and help raise kids.

I don't like it and I blame the century we live in, but that's how today's world developed.

 

Well that confirms what I suspected. You do think that pilots are higher status than doctors. If you had just come out and admitted that in the first place, this whole misunderstanding (and I see now that it was a misunderstanding) could have been avoided.

As a former backseater, I'm pretty familiar with pilots, at least of the military variety, and although I've had several former backseater buddies who went on to become pilots, none have went on to become doctors. The time and training is just too extensive.

But status wise, it's easy to measure. A flightsuit will get you laid, but a stethoscope will get you laid much quicker.