prostitution
Offline Ok, so what is your opinion about prostitution? As you might know, NY Gov. Spitzer is in trouble because of a 1910 law against crossing state lines for prostitution. I bet that law was passed by the same bible thumpers who eventually got prohibition passed. I honestly don't see what is wrong with prostitution as long as the prostitute (male or female) is doing it of their own free will. If two people want to do it, I don't care, it's not my business. I don't see it as "immoral" b/c the whole idea of it being "wrong" comes from the church.
- Login to post comments
Offline This is still the exception rather than the rule. Maybe women are like this more, but the reality is men have to have a lot going for them to get a girl to have sex with him, women just have to have their looks. But to keep a man you have to have more going for you than your looks.
I agree with pariahjane on this one, you don't have to have a lot going for you to get a woman to have sex with you, you just need to have a lot going for you to get a high status woman to have sex with you. The same is true for women and high status men. There is a dichotomy though. Men court and women chose, so the work of courtship falls on men. A man's level of lust tends to stay relatively constant while a woman's tends to fluctuate with her menstural cycle. This puts men in a different dillema for getting sex than women are.
Women definately have more options, but the competition for desirable mates is present in both sexes, even if it expressed differently.
- Login to post comments
Offline I think that the question that applies most is not whether prostitution is immoral or not (if you don't like it; don't do it) but whether it is moral for the government to prohibit.
I see the government's ban of prostition as a statement made by the government to the effect that I am too weak, and too stupid to protect myself and live healthily. I'm perfectly fine with the idea of enforcing contracts, and ensuring basic public safety as a kind of social contract; but the idea that the government should decide my life for me is sickening.
I'm married, my wife is the only person I've ever _kissed_ let alone slept with. But it's no damn business of anybody else to tell me who I can or can't hop in bed with--that's between me and whomever I'm screwing.
- Login to post comments
Offline I want you pariahjane, how much for the privlege ? 
((( help save crazy man ..... come on all you goddesess , HELP ! Tease more .... rub it in .... flaunt your stuff, and make them guys promise no more war ..... FUCK IT , give all the money to the girls ...... 
- Login to post comments
Offline I want you pariahjane, how much for the privlege ?
Have you been drinking again, IGAY? LOL.
Sorry, I'm taken.
Oh yeah, that reminds me I never commented on the whole prostitution thing in the first place.
I don't think prostitution is immoral or unethical. I do think that if prosititution were to become legal it would have to be monitored so the women and men who are performing the service are protected physically, emotionally and health-wise.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
- Login to post comments
Offline I would have to point out in my opinion, if a woman doesn't put out she has only herself to blame if her husband looks elsewhere. I would say it goes both ways too -if a man won't give his wife any - or can't get it up and won't do anything to fix it (he could get viagra or something, and even if that doesn't work he can go down on her) - she has every right to get some on the side.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
- Login to post comments
Offline You're giving men a freebie on marriage by stating that it's a woman's responsibility in maintaining it, therefore men are absolved of any blame. Sorry, that's bullshit. It takes two to have a relationship.
Again, I have no problems with you saying this is how things should be. But that is not how things work. This is some ideal you have of courtship being a 50-50 proposition and marriage being a 50-50 deal. In the beginning, women just need to bring their looks. Later on in the relationship things are different. If there is anyone to blame, it's Mother Nature(but then she's a woman).
Honestly, you sound as if you think women are dirt.
I think I've been just a hard on men. Men are dogs, that's why women have to step up their game to keep relationships going. Basically I'm not buying into the modern bullshit that humans are not like selfish animals. I'd rather deal with reality than this utopia you wish could exist. Humans have not evolved as man and women are the same. The modern propaganda tries to force us to be.
Bullshit. If some guy gets a girl knocked up he should have a responsibility for the children at the very least. If not then he's a douche.
I agree with the should part. And the government has a role to force men to do this. But the reality is it's not easy to take responsibility, so men will often try to get out of their responsibility. Women need to deal with this reality instead of being angry and saying how things should be.
So, you're saying once you're wife is done having you're children and loses her good looks are gone it's totally cool to split on her. After all, the man has done his responsibility during the courtship (average = 2-3 years). It's the wife's problem if the marriage fails in the next 40+ years.
No, I'm not saying it's OK. I'm saying that's what will often happen if the women doesn't step it up. I doesn't do any good to say how things should be. Say how things are.
Sometimes I think you think guys are just as dumb as girls (and it's apparent you aren't fond of women).
I am fond of women except when they are highly irrational. Sure guys are often more dumb since we let our testosterone do the thinking.
You sound as if you are living in the 1940's or earlier, where gender roles were strictly prescribed. It's not the case anymore.
How about 1 million BC? Human nature has not changed in 1 or 2 generation. Women have more options to make money and be independent. But we've evolved as creatures where prostitution was the norm. This attempt to demonize and criminalize prostitution is bullshit, it's who we are.
We are evolved animals, but we create alternate realities in our heads about how things should be. There should be a sugar daddy god that does whatever we ask in prayer. Men should take equal responsibility for marriage and children. Women should pursue men as equally as men pursue women. Humans are above being prostitutes and johns. Bullshit, just accept the cold hard facts of reality.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
- Login to post comments
Offline I want you pariahjane, how much for the privlege ?
So when's the wedding?
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
- Login to post comments
Offline I would have to point out in my opinion, if a woman doesn't put out she has only herself to blame if her husband looks elsewhere. I would say it goes both ways too -if a man won't give his wife any - or can't get it up and won't do anything to fix it (he could get viagra or something, and even if that doesn't work he can go down on her) - she has every right to get some on the side.
I would state this another way: A marraige is a social contract that includes monogomy. Celibacy is NOT monogomy. If a member of the couple is not attending to the sexual needs of the other member of the couple then they are in violation of the social contract. In your example, SHE is betraying the marriage by not attending to his sexual needs. That said, what constitutes a "sexual need" is a highly fungible concept, so lots and lots of communication is called for to determine things like what sexual acts, how often etc. Ideally this communication can take place in the context of foreplay and (as hamby put it) impressing your mate, but it doesn't always work that way. Not to mention that sexual responsiveness changes througout the marraige as menopause, health issues and just plain boordom occur. Negoatiating these issues takes skill commitment and sacrifice.
Incidentally, as I have aged, I have become more and more impressed with the wisdom of long courtships. It's just good to know a lot of this stuff BEFORE you start the emotional bonding process that goes along with sex, and WAY before you make the comittment of marriage.
- Login to post comments
Offline pariahjane wrote:You're giving men a freebie on marriage by stating that it's a woman's responsibility in maintaining it, therefore men are absolved of any blame. Sorry, that's bullshit. It takes two to have a relationship.
Again, I have no problems with you saying this is how things should be. But that is not how things work. This is some ideal you have of courtship being a 50-50 proposition and marriage being a 50-50 deal. In the beginning, women just need to bring their looks. Later on in the relationship things are different. If there is anyone to blame, it's Mother Nature(but then she's a woman).
I still disagree. Yes, I know people who are in relationships that are similar to the ones you are talking about but I know far more people who are in relationships that are on a more even keel. I think most people, men and women, work hard to maintain a relationship. I just think that you're reality is a bit off.
Honestly, you sound as if you think women are dirt.
I think I've been just a hard on men. Men are dogs, that's why women have to step up their game to keep relationships going. Basically I'm not buying into the modern bullshit that humans are not like selfish animals. I'd rather deal with reality than this utopia you wish could exist. Humans have not evolved as man and women are the same. The modern propaganda tries to force us to be.
You're still excusing men and putting all the pressure on the woman. By suggesting that men are dogs and that's just the way it is so the woman better work hard isn't how relationships work. Those relationships are destined to fail since only one person is attempting to keep it together.
I don't think that all men are dogs. There are a lot of men out there willing to work with their partner in order to maintain the comfortability of a relationship. It would benefit them to do so.
Bullshit. If some guy gets a girl knocked up he should have a responsibility for the children at the very least. If not then he's a douche.
I agree with the should part. And the government has a role to force men to do this. But the reality is it's not easy to take responsibility, so men will often try to get out of their responsibility. Women need to deal with this reality instead of being angry and saying how things should be.
Again, you're saying that men suck and women need to suck it up. How about men taking responsibility? I realize there is a huge problem with deadbeat dads and what not but you're giving them an excuse. There is no excuse.
Sometimes I think you think guys are just as dumb as girls (and it's apparent you aren't fond of women).
I am fond of women except when they are highly irrational. Sure guys are often more dumb since we let our testosterone do the thinking.
It's too black and white. Life isn't black and white. It's mostly grey.
You sound as if you are living in the 1940's or earlier, where gender roles were strictly prescribed. It's not the case anymore.
How about 1 million BC? Human nature has not changed in 1 or 2 generation. Women have more options to make money and be independent. But we've evolved as creatures where prostitution was the norm. This attempt to demonize and criminalize prostitution is bullshit, it's who we are.
We are evolved animals, but we create alternate realities in our heads about how things should be. There should be a sugar daddy god that does whatever we ask in prayer. Men should take equal responsibility for marriage and children. Women should pursue men as equally as men pursue women. Humans are above being prostitutes and johns. Bullshit, just accept the cold hard facts of reality.
First of all, I don't think that prostitution is a bad thing. I see no reason why it shouldn't be legalized but it would have to be controlled.
Secondly, I think that most men do take responsibility in a relationship. It's a contract. They're required to keep up their end of the bargain, as are women. I'm certainly not creating an alternate reality in my head. I'm living in a relationship that is mutually beneficial in which we do share 50-50. It's a pretty great relationship. I just think you have a very negative view on relationships in general.
Again, I rarely see the types of relationships that you are referring to. I'm not denying that they are out there but I doubt they are the norm. Your idea of reality is strictly gender oriented with very little wiggle room. Relationships are far more complex than you are suggesting.
up close ..... I adore girls ..... just something about them ..... geeezzz, .... lock us up now for what ???? 
I was agreeing with you. EXC is doing the black/white thing. I was showing that the thing is much more complex than he's making it seem.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
If that's how women want to go about making money, I don't care.
Ok, fair enough. If the ACT of prostiution is morally neutral, what do you think of the institution of prostitution or the lifestyle of prostitution?
I can't help but notice that your arguements FOR the morality of prostitution hinge on the notion that the person has little or no good options. "The least of all evils" is hardly a good case for arguing the morality of prostitution. What makes anything moral or imoral hamby?
I have already admitted that I don't know the answer to that question.
It seems to me that all your long-winded answers and research are dancing around this basic question. If you know the answer, please tell us. If you don't, then just admit that you have your opinion and I have mine. Otherwise all your intelectual posturing simply amounts to a bunch of long-winded showing off.
I posit that "morality" is simply a set of rules set down by a society as a part of how it tries to maximize its survival and in being so is subject to change, bad information and manipulation.
Never assume dichotomy when it doesn't necessarily exist.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
I am not blaming anyone. I'm only blaming irrational thinking which seems to be more prevalent in women. Here is how I see the problem.
The challenge men have is getting the girl. The challenge women have is in keeping a man. If you're a young and pretty woman with no kid, guys will be on you like flies on shit. With guys you got to be more than young and handsome to get an attractive women. We learn we got to make money, impress the girl with material things, talents, conversation, etc... In other words, we got to work our ass off to get any. We have the burden on us to get the girl. We get used to it being very competitive to get a good women.
Women have the opposite problem. They can get a guy, then they got to keep them. After they get older, have children, the sex get monotonous, then they have a big challenge to keep the man working hard to take care of her, children and keep him faithful. Many women get bitter about this change in the dynamics. They don't like the competition.
But the hard cold facts of nature and reality is that the burden shifts to the woman to make the relationship work. It's not a matter of blaming anyone, this is just how nature works. Some women learn to deal with this and work harder to make the marriage work. Some just get bitter and blame men for changing and breaking their promise.
But we've got religion and feminism telling us this is not the way things should be. Telling us that nature fucked up, these men are evil. So they need to tell men that cheat they are going to Hell or tell them they are complete scumbags and make sure they get screwed in divorce. Making prostitution illegal is part of the attempt to make this reality go away, to force men to stay in marriages they are unhappy with just to get laid.
So I'm not blaming anyone. I just want to make others aware of the reality and then deal with it. Women need to be taught to accept this reality. If they don't like this, don't get married. If they do get married and have children, educate them with the truth. Feminism is bullshit cause it tells us men and women are the same. Tells mothers not to educate their daughters with this truth.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
There's a story about George Bernard Shaw (I think) where he approached an attractive woman and offered her a very large sum of money to have sex with him. She agreed, and then he asked if she would do it for ten dollars. The woman replied, "Of course not! What do you think I am?"
"Madam," Shaw replied, "We've already established what you are. Now we're just haggling over the price."
Whether it's true or apocryphal, and whether I'm remembering correctly that it was Shaw, it illustrates an interesting aspect of this whole question. Does the price change the morality of it?
Just for shits and giggles, suppose someone offered you, oh, I don't know... a hundred thousand dollars to go on a weekend getaway and have sex with him all weekend. He showed you a negative HIV test, a box of condoms, and let you do a criminal background check on him, etc. Would you do it? What if your husband or boyfriend agreed? If a hundred thousand isn't enough, make up whatever number is enough.
If you did that, and your best friend asked how you got all that money, do you think she would think you immoral for doing it? I mean, damn... you're set for the rest of your life. Do you think it would be immoral for you to do it? If not, what makes it ok? The overwhelming payoff for such a small thing on your part? (Assume he's decent looking.)
If you can think of a situation that's acceptable enough for you to do it, cut that number in half. Would another woman be immoral for taking only half as much as you? What about a tenth as much? What about a thousand dollars? A hundred?
Is it possible that our moral outrage is based on the idea that the price paid for sex is not high enough? Then again, if pretty much every woman is capable of selling herself, competition's going to drive the price down, right?
Or, is it possible that our moral outrage stems from an instinctive aversion to granting women permission to control men so directly? They already get to turn us down in bars. How horrible would it be if they started giving us menus with prices? Want a blowjob? That's going to cost you a hundred dollar dinner. All nighter? Better save up, buddy!
This wouldn't happen, of course, because most people date for mutual benefits. But what kind of effect would it have on society if people who weren't particularly interested in a relationship could openly go to a brothel? Might it have some positive benefits? How many people do you know who are in a crappy relationship, but prefer that to being alone? Is it possible that some men would simply not have girlfriends when they weren't ready for them? Might the availability and social acceptability of prostitution actually encourage healthier relationships? Without feeling desperate because they haven't gotten laid in six months, might some young men pass up that girl they really don't like all that much, but would probably go out with just to get laid?
Here's another question. Studies have clearly demonstrated that abstinence only education is a failure. The best approach to sex ed is a comprehensive approach, including detailed information about contraceptives, STDs, abortion, and pregnancy. When we give people as many options as possible, they tend to make better decisions for themselves. Are we causing problems by taking away the possibility of trading sex for money? With sex ed, people have sex at about the same rates whether it's abstinence only or comprehensive. The thing is, with better options, they have safer sex. If prostitution was both legal and acceptable, wouldn't we see the same kind of thing? All the respectable places would have regular tests for the girls, and would insist on 100% condom use. They'd have bouncers in case any customers got out of hand, just like every bar you go to. There would be unions and healthcare and benefits.
Would this be worse than the way it is now?
I'm speculating about all this, not trying to make an argument. We can't begin to answer these questions effectively until we start with a clean slate, assuming that selling sex for money is open for investigation, and that our preconceived notions about it might be wrong.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Really, EXC, if a man feels the need to leave a relationship over sex alone - why did he get married in the first place? Sure, there was a time that getting sex without stigma meant needing to get married, but that time's long gone for the most part. The "power" of sex as a factor in marriage has eroded without legal prostitution anyway, as has the idea any woman "needs" a husband to provide.
I don't think this "reality" you want us to "deal with" actually exists.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
Well, it's actually not exactly like that. After a man is married, he is still a man, and still has to work to get laid. Women's instincts don't magically change when they get a ring. They still have the instinct to have sex with men who impress them, make money, have good conversations, and in general, work their ass off to get some.
To be completely accurate, marriage is something of an artificial boundary. In a completely uncivilized state, a woman with a slackass man who didn't work for it would simply run off with the next man that sufficiently impressed her. The thing is, human nature has already worked out an imperfect, but workable solution -- jealousy. Men know their women are impressed by men even after they have a ring, so they jealously guard their mates. They also know that sex every couple of days (as opposed to everyday) is still better than the zero sex they're going to get while they are out competing with all the other single guys for the affection of another woman. So most men, recognizing their average-ness, do enough to keep the woman they've got.
It works in reverse, of course. Women know that a lot of men are slackasses, or worse. If they've got one that's reasonable, they try to keep him. Part of keeping him includes sex. They also know that other women might recognize his reasonableness, so they jealously guard him.
Staying with one partner is a delicate balance between jealousy and mutual benefit for both partners. When either partner contributes less than what is perceived to be equitable, it causes problems in the relationship.
I hate to say it, but I would guess that your belief that the woman bears the brunt of responsibility for keeping a relationship going isn't winning you too many brownie points. It certainly doesn't impress women.
Cheating and prostitution are two separate issues. A single man having sex with a legal prostitute isn't doing anything wrong by another person. A married man is lying to his wife, which is definitely harmful to the relationship. In theory, a married man with permission to go to a prostitute (good luck with that) wouldn't be doing anything wrong. In practice, permission would have to be accompanied by really being ok with it. As some have mentioned, there are open relationships that work. They're just rare.
Hmm. Ok, old women with children are less desirable than young women without, but that doesn't mean they're not desirable. Many forms of feminism do teach a false equality, and I agree that's bad. However, you seem to be completely stuck on the adversarial part of relationships. I can't remember reading something positive that you've written about women. I think your view of relationships is a bit myopic.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Well are we here to impress women or discover what is true and think rationally? Women always say they want men to be honest. Well, sometimes the truth is not what you want to hear. If I wanted to impress women, I could go to church and tell Christian women how much I love Jesus and how faithful I am and how Jesus has cured me of all sexual lust for other women.
Isn't it more a man's responsibility to start a relationship. We have to get the nerve up to talk to a girl, come up with an opening line. Start an interesting conversation. Spend money on the date. Impress the girl. Is this fair. Whether I think so or not is not going to change this reality.
I may want the reality to be women have equal responsibility to start things, pay equally for dates. But this isn't the reality, men just have to deal with it. Women just have to deal with their reality as well, to deny this is irrational thinking.
In general lying is bad. But in some cases, it may save the marriage because men will stay married if they have something different than the monotony of monogamy once in a while.
Depends on if they mature with rational thinking, accepting reality for what it is. Or they become bitter with angry at men.
Have I written anything positive about men? Maybe I;m too much of a cynic, but I'm not misogynist. Maybe because women have more responsibility, they are more vulnerable. They have more things to fear and worry about than men. So I can see how they are victimized more by irrational propaganda from religion, feminism and politicians. I don't mean to be cruel or criticize them, I just want to see irrational thinking eradicated. I think this can only be done by facing the cold, hard facts of life.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
You missed my point entirely. Impressing women is how men get them interested in sex. This is the cold reality that men must face when they're married. Stop impressing your wife, and you're going to get laid less.
Technically, no. Women generally have at least a few men trying to impress them. They choose which one they want, and then there's a relationship. Yeah, men have to do some work so that they're making themselves attractive (I mean in all ways, not just physical), but to be precise, women decide when the relationship starts.
Yep. The reality is that women's libido is directly linked to how much they're impressed. Just as men are 'technically' under no obligation to continue trying to impress their wives, their wives are 'technically' under no obligation to want sex all the time. Women have a lot of things tougher than men. Birthing a baby hurts like hell, and it kind of sucks throwing up every morning for nine months, and then being a hormonal wreck on top of it. If nature has given them any kind of kickback for saddling them with all that nastiness, it's that there's pretty much always going to be an available supply of men who want to impress them. The cold reality for men is that in an egalitarian system, men have to work to keep their women. Especially if all the man is interested in is sex, he's going to get the short end of the stick in the relationship. If it's going to be a broader relationship, both sides are going to have to do more work.
This is a harsh reality, but it does happen a lot more than most people want to admit. I'm sure some would argue that it's better to ditch the relationship and try again, but sometimes there are other factors. It's not a perfect world.
Something I've observed: Most of the women I've known who were angry at men got angry after men did shitty things to them. On the flip side, most of the women I've known who were extremely happy with their men were happy because their men were honest and continued to work hard to impress them.
Harsh reality.
I don't want to derail the thread by talking about this. Maybe in a week or two, I can put together a well-researched presentation. I don't think you rate particularly high on the misogynist scale, but I do think you have a somewhat male-centered view of things.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Yes you are. You're blaming women for the any trouble once the relationship has begun. All the man had to do, according to you, was land the chick. Once he got her it is her responsibility to maintain the relationship. Therefore, if any thing goes wrong, it's the woman's fault.
If the woman has the burden to make the relationship work and it fails - it's the woman's fault.
Secondly, what is this crap about women being irrational/bitter/victimized/vulnerable etc? I understand that your opinion of women is obviously piss poor but sheesh. Yes, women tend to react more emotionally than men (that is an entirely different thread) but to paint all of us that way is just ignorant.
No, it isn't a man's responsibility to start a relationship anymore. Perhaps 50 years ago but times have changed. I've asked guys out on dates. I've paid for dates and have had dates pay for me. It's common for women nowadays to approach men.
And what if the woman was bored with the monotony? Is it just as acceptable for her to go to a prostitute if she's not getting what she wants at home?
JillSwift made some interesting comments as well. Any reason why you ignored her?
And for the record, I've never grown up with religious propaganda nor do I subscribe to feminist thinking. I don't think that men and women are equal, per se.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
You are confusing the way things should be with how they are. Yes, it would be wonderful if men put as much effort into maintaining relationships and fatherhood as they do into getting laid in the beginning. What you wish men's reponsibilty should be doesn't change reality. If you're a young and pretty girl, you don't have to do anything to maintain a relationship, you have to fight men off. If you're older in a long term relationship with kids, you have to work to keep a man faithful. This may not be fair, but this is reality. If there is anyone to blame, I guess it's Mother Nature.
OK, we get bombarded from the media and many woman about how life is more stressful for women. Woman have more responsibility to take care of children and elderly parents. Women have to work outside the home then do all the housework. Men are lazy deadbeats. Men are predators. Women make less money than men cause society is still sexist.
Is this true, or is life as equally stressful for men? The statistics show that in America, woman are much more religious than men. We always here about church ladies, but not much from church gentlemen. Why is this?
This is still the exception rather than the rule. Maybe women are like this more, but the reality is men have to have a lot going for them to get a girl to have sex with him, women just have to have their looks. But to keep a man you have to have more going for you than your looks.
I don't have a problem with it. I only have a problem with making it illegal for her to do this. It would be nice if she was honest and safe about it just like men should be. But society still has irrational hangups about sex from the time before birth control and condoms.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
(DISCLAIMER - I just spent 15 minutes writing something kick ass and my fucking computer blitzed on me and I lost it. Extra added crankiness might be exhibited below. FUCK, FUCK, FUCK!!!!)
Fucking A it took me 15 minutes to respond to this. Fine, the short version. Men do need to make an effort in maintaining relationships. That's how it works. It is not up to the female to ride the entire marriage. From what I gather you're saying the guy is required to carry the courtship and the woman is required to carry the marriage. Courtships usually run about 2-3 years average. What about marriage? A fuck longer than that.
You're giving men a freebie on marriage by stating that it's a woman's responsibility in maintaining it, therefore men are absolved of any blame. Sorry, that's bullshit. It takes two to have a relationship.
Frankly, I don't wish for anything. I know for a fact that relationships can work when the couple works together. I've seen it myself many times in other people's relationships. And THAT is reality. You have a him vs. her mentality of relationships. I have a him & her mentality. Mine works better and is more rational and realisitic. And healthy. Honestly, you sound as if you think women are dirt.
]quote=EXC] If you're older in a long term relationship with kids, you have to work to keep a man faithful.
Bullshit. If some guy gets a girl knocked up he should have a responsibility for the children at the very least. If not then he's a douche.
So, you're saying once you're wife is done having you're children and loses her good looks are gone it's totally cool to split on her. After all, the man has done his responsibility during the courtship (average = 2-3 years). It's the wife's problem if the marriage fails in the next 40+ years.
Sometimes I think you think guys are just as dumb as girls (and it's apparent you aren't fond of women).
You're too stuck in your gender box, dude. Things aren't even remotely the way you think they are. It's not just about looks or money anymore. I'm not saying I'm a looker but I've been turned down because I was too 'nerdy' or 'geeky'. Or not girly enough. Seriously, you're reality of life is a wee bit warped. You sound as if you are living in the 1940's or earlier, where gender roles were strictly prescribed. It's not the case anymore.
{edit - I argued a much better case before it got wiped. so pissed. Grrrr.
}
If god takes life he's an indian giver