CDZ Feminism promotes prostitution?

[Vastator]

masculine women;

What is that?

Women who behave, and conduct themselves as men have since the dawn of humanity's existence...

 

[ricechickie]

If a man marries a woman who works, he should be prepared for her to come home tired just like he does. So home life should be negotiated, so neither partner is overburdened. A husband who isn't willing to cook should be at least willing to make reservations, or not eat. A man who isn't willing to care for his own children shouldn't have any.

And this is why American culture is in decline. This is why other cultures are growing.

Am I wrong? You realize that if we didn't have any immigration, the population of this country would be falling. If no one came here from other countries... the US would be declining right now. And by the way, they are not coming here from cultures like what you describe. They are coming from cultures like I'm talking about. What you advocate here.... doesn't work.

The man is going to eat. If the women doesn't cook for him, then he'll eat by himself. Hope women like take-out Chinese for the rest of their life.

You can say "he should, he ought, he could...." until you turn blue in the face and die. And again I'm not trying to be insulting. I'm not, really honestly. I'm just telling you how it is.

If you don't want a husband unless he cooks and cleans, you are going to be a very miserable women. Just stay single. Your chances of finding a guy like that, is extremely low.

Now honestly, I don't know many guys that specifically look for women with jobs. My sister doesn't work, and her husband was perfectly fine with that. She decided she wanted a degree from a 2-year college, and he was fine with that. Now that she has it, she's decided to stay at home. He's fine with that.

Now if she ran off and got a big career, and was too tired to be close with him, I can promise you he wouldn't be fine with that.

Men marry for that physical and relational intimacy. I haven't met a single one yet that married because she had a career. And those types of guys, I don't think you want to marry.

What I advocate worked for me. I'm not too terribly interested in how others negotiate their marriages.

But to blame it on "feminism"'is, in my humble opinion, wrong. Or should I say, incomplete. You could easily enough blame it on the failure of some men to evolve.

The idea that any creature evolves within its lifetime is nonsensical. Evolution is a process that takes place across a number of breedings.
It sounds more like you suggest men put up with masculine women; so that you don't have to change what you're doing. It's called "selfishness". A trait that is at the heart of the problem.

If women are working, contributing to the finances of the household, cooking, cleaning, raising the children, without help from her partner, then she's not selfish.

Please don't misunderstand the word, "evolve." It just means to change, and people definitely can change over their lifetimes.

How does having a job, and doing domestic duties justify ignoring the man's physical "needs"?

If a woman's exhausted, she's not going to put out.

It's not like you have a right to sex. Try earning it. Make an effort.

I haven't seen anything in this thread to indicate that men should seduce a woman. Or help a woman. Or be a partner to her in any way.

 

[Vastator]

Having a wife, but not getting the sex; is like hosting a formal banquet, without the eating.
A complete, and total waste of time, effort, and money...

If all you want out of marriage is sex then why get married?

Who ever said that I did. That would be retarded. It'd be cheaper to pay for a hooker.
However a marriage without the sex, isn't a marriage. It's a needy ungrateful roomate, and another mouth to feed. Not to mention a serious impediment to the pursuits in life that make you happy.

 

[yiostheoy]

masculine women;

What is that?

Women who behave, and conduct themselves as men have since the dawn of humanity's existence...

Not exactly !! That's funny though, that you have let yourself get brainwash to think they have.

For most of history women did not leave the home.

One of the notable exceptions was ancient Sparta since their men were usually gone doing warfare.

So the Spartan women were different, whereas everybody else in Greece and Rome and Persia and Egypt stayed at home.

There were one or two exceptions here and there -- Artemesia of Greece, Cleopatra of Rome, Esther of Persia -- but this was rare.

You Vastator need to read MORE and talk/type less.

 

[Disir]

masculine women;

What is that?

Women who behave, and conduct themselves as men have since the dawn of humanity's existence...

Could you be clearer?

 

[yiostheoy]

Having a wife, but not getting the sex; is like hosting a formal banquet, without the eating.
A complete, and total waste of time, effort, and money...

If all you want out of marriage is sex then why get married?

Who ever said that I did. That would be retarded. It'd be cheaper to pay for a hooker.
However a marriage without the sex, isn't a marriage. It's a needy ungrateful roomate, and another mouth to feed. Not to mention a serious impediment to the pursuits in life that make you happy.

It is always cheaper to pay for hookers than alimony.

But they don't teach you that in high school.

 

[ricechickie]

Having a wife, but not getting the sex; is like hosting a formal banquet, without the eating.
A complete, and total waste of time, effort, and money...

If all you want out of marriage is sex then why get married?

Who ever said that I did. That would be retarded. It'd be cheaper to pay for a hooker.
However a marriage without the sex, isn't a marriage. It's a needy ungrateful roomate, and another mouth to feed. Not to mention a serious impediment to the pursuits in life that make you happy.

You should keep paying for hookers.

If you think a wife is a "burden" who should pay you back with sex, I don't think feminists are the problem.

 

[Vastator]

masculine women;

What is that?

Women who behave, and conduct themselves as men have since the dawn of humanity's existence...

Could you be clearer?

No...

 

[SeaGal]

So I've said this before. My observation in the US is that women treat their husbands like crap. I can't count the number of jobs I've had were women co-works routinely vomit how terrible of awful their husbands are.

...But what do we see in western 1st world countries? Women that don't do any of that. They don't want to give their husbands sex. Or time. Or affection. Sometimes not intimacy of any kind.

...My conclusion to this, I think this is caused by Feminism. I think women today are more interested in their careers, and their own pursuits, and have gotten into their head that they should be able to have it all, and they should not have to do anything to keep their husbands.

This bothers you why?

Actually, I blame Disney, not feminism.

What does disturb me, and might be contributed to 'feminism' (pedagogy of the oppressed beyond Freire's theory)...when men are portrayed as buffoons in ads and entertainment. I usually defend men against such characterizations, and then one goes and proves me wrong...such as asserting that women need to do things to 'keep their husbands'.

Forty-eight years ago, I took a vow - so did he. It hasn't always been easy - sometimes I said no in the bedroom, sometimes he said no to after dinner coffee and conversation on the porch...most women probably know what I'm talking about.

For most of human history the male and female roles were clearly defined. Women needed men to survive, men needed women for the human race to survive. In many less industrialized, poorer countries that is still true.

In the US, the roles aren't so clearly defined any longer...young American husbands and fathers appear to be far more involved with household chores and child care than they were a generation ago - and young American wives and mothers appear to be far more involved in bringing home the bacon than they were a generation ago.

If a man marries a women with expectations that she will fulfill all his physical and psychological needs without his commitment to fulfill hers - then he probably should marry a woman who was culturally raised to believe that that is her duty 'keep him' in exchange for being 'kept'.

I see this particularly in some wives from SE Asia, and actually admire it because most of them are in charge, their husband just don't know it - they instinctively know the ancient wisdom of the oldest profession - fake the orgasm, make the man feel like the king of lovers, and her gives her diamonds.

As to why you are exposed to the conversation of women in the workplace - why are you?...and can you accurately make sweeping judgments about western marriages with such bits and pieces of conversation?

Commitment is difficult and we live in a throw-away society - it won't take the rest of the world long to catch up.

 

[Vastator]

Having a wife, but not getting the sex; is like hosting a formal banquet, without the eating.
A complete, and total waste of time, effort, and money...

If all you want out of marriage is sex then why get married?

Who ever said that I did. That would be retarded. It'd be cheaper to pay for a hooker.
However a marriage without the sex, isn't a marriage. It's a needy ungrateful roomate, and another mouth to feed. Not to mention a serious impediment to the pursuits in life that make you happy.

You should keep paying for hookers.

If you think a wife is a "burden" who should pay you back with sex, I don't think feminists are the problem.

And thus... The crux of the problem presents itself. Shall we do laps?

 

[Vastator]

Having a wife, but not getting the sex; is like hosting a formal banquet, without the eating.
A complete, and total waste of time, effort, and money...

If all you want out of marriage is sex then why get married?

Who ever said that I did. That would be retarded. It'd be cheaper to pay for a hooker.
However a marriage without the sex, isn't a marriage. It's a needy ungrateful roomate, and another mouth to feed. Not to mention a serious impediment to the pursuits in life that make you happy.

You should keep paying for hookers.

If you think a wife is a "burden" who should pay you back with sex, I don't think feminists are the problem.

No need to raise your hackles. I see I've struck a nerve... Lemme guess... I sound like an ex husband? FWIW... I don't patronize hookers. Though I can understand the appeal. However if half my assets are on the line... That is mine. Simple as that.

 

[yiostheoy]

If a woman's exhausted, she's not going to put out.

It's not like you have a right to sex. Try earning it. Make an effort.

I haven't seen anything in this thread to indicate that men should seduce a woman. Or help a woman. Or be a partner to her in any way.

Young married people usually have sex on Wednesdays (hump day) and Fridays (date nite).

Single people usually have sex on Saturdays and/or Sundays.

It just sort of works out that way -- the dating scene vs the married scene.

Putting out -- I guess this is an invitation to love ?!

A neighbor lady of mine living 2 doors down the hall once showed up at my door with 2 glasses of white wine in her hot hands. Her hubby was out of town and she was "in the mood".

I took the wine and set it down, invited her in, and we talked.

She ended up drinking both glasses since I was not "in the mood".

Nor would I have cheated with her -- since her boyfriend was a neighbor and friend of mine.

I never told him about it. But needless to say their relationship did not last.

(Glenn Miller Band -- In The Mood. My parents used to dance to this in the 1940's and 1950's. Dad has long since died and mom is in a home now with Alzheimer's.)

 

[Vastator]

masculine women;

What is that?

Women who behave, and conduct themselves as men have since the dawn of humanity's existence...

Not exactly !! That's funny though, that you have let yourself get brainwash to think they have.

For most of history women did not leave the home.

One of the notable exceptions was ancient Sparta since their men were usually gone doing warfare.

So the Spartan women were different, whereas everybody else in Greece and Rome and Persia and Egypt stayed at home.

There were one or two exceptions here and there -- Artemesia of Greece, Cleopatra of Rome, Esther of Persia -- but this was rare.

You Vastator need to read MORE and talk/type less.

I would give you the same advice. Those select anamolous cultures you referenced...? Are they still with us? Yeah... I didn't think so.

 

[ricechickie]

Having a wife, but not getting the sex; is like hosting a formal banquet, without the eating.
A complete, and total waste of time, effort, and money...

If all you want out of marriage is sex then why get married?

Who ever said that I did. That would be retarded. It'd be cheaper to pay for a hooker.
However a marriage without the sex, isn't a marriage. It's a needy ungrateful roomate, and another mouth to feed. Not to mention a serious impediment to the pursuits in life that make you happy.

You should keep paying for hookers.

If you think a wife is a "burden" who should pay you back with sex, I don't think feminists are the problem.

No need to raise your hackles. I see I've struck a nerve... Lemme guess... I sound like an ex husband? FWIW... I don't patronize hookers. Though I can understand the appeal. However if half my assets are on the line... That ass is mine. Simple as that.

I don't have an ex-husband.

My hackles are raised (not really) because you seem to see a wife as a piece of property, rather than a partner.

Which is why I think the smart thing for you to do is to keep paying for hookers.

Me, I was glad to have my best friend for the time I had him.

 

[Vastator]

Having a wife, but not getting the sex; is like hosting a formal banquet, without the eating.
A complete, and total waste of time, effort, and money...

If all you want out of marriage is sex then why get married?

Who ever said that I did. That would be retarded. It'd be cheaper to pay for a hooker.
However a marriage without the sex, isn't a marriage. It's a needy ungrateful roomate, and another mouth to feed. Not to mention a serious impediment to the pursuits in life that make you happy.

You should keep paying for hookers.

If you think a wife is a "burden" who should pay you back with sex, I don't think feminists are the problem.

No need to raise your hackles. I see I've struck a nerve... Lemme guess... I sound like an ex husband? FWIW... I don't patronize hookers. Though I can understand the appeal. However if half my assets are on the line... That ass is mine. Simple as that.

STFU Vastator you blithering moron.

No... I don't agree with your opinion
Deal with it....

 

[Vastator]

Having a wife, but not getting the sex; is like hosting a formal banquet, without the eating.
A complete, and total waste of time, effort, and money...

If all you want out of marriage is sex then why get married?

Who ever said that I did. That would be retarded. It'd be cheaper to pay for a hooker.
However a marriage without the sex, isn't a marriage. It's a needy ungrateful roomate, and another mouth to feed. Not to mention a serious impediment to the pursuits in life that make you happy.

You should keep paying for hookers.

If you think a wife is a "burden" who should pay you back with sex, I don't think feminists are the problem.

No need to raise your hackles. I see I've struck a nerve... Lemme guess... I sound like an ex husband? FWIW... I don't patronize hookers. Though I can understand the appeal. However if half my assets are on the line... That ass is mine. Simple as that.

I don't have an ex-husband.

My hackles are raised (not really) because you seem to see a wife as a piece of property, rather than a partner.

Which is why I think the smart thing for you to do is to keep paying for hookers.

Me, I was glad to have my best friend for the time I had him.

Your illiteracy isn't my problem. I don't see a wife as property. I see one as a partner. And that includes sex. Sex is the only aspect that differentiates, wife from "friend". No sex? No wife. Deal with it...

 

[ricechickie]

If all you want out of marriage is sex then why get married?

Who ever said that I did. That would be retarded. It'd be cheaper to pay for a hooker.
However a marriage without the sex, isn't a marriage. It's a needy ungrateful roomate, and another mouth to feed. Not to mention a serious impediment to the pursuits in life that make you happy.

You should keep paying for hookers.

If you think a wife is a "burden" who should pay you back with sex, I don't think feminists are the problem.

No need to raise your hackles. I see I've struck a nerve... Lemme guess... I sound like an ex husband? FWIW... I don't patronize hookers. Though I can understand the appeal. However if half my assets are on the line... That ass is mine. Simple as that.

I don't have an ex-husband.

My hackles are raised (not really) because you seem to see a wife as a piece of property, rather than a partner.

Which is why I think the smart thing for you to do is to keep paying for hookers.

Me, I was glad to have my best friend for the time I had him.

Your illiteracy isn't my problem. I don't see a wife as property. I one as a partner. And that includes sex. Sex is the only aspect that differentiates, wife from "friend". No sex? No wife. Deal with it...

Hey, don't get your hackles up. You're the one who wrote, "that ass is mine."

I can deal with your views on relationships, since they don't affect me. I'm trying to have a discussion.

 

[ricechickie]

masculine women;

What is that?

Women who behave, and conduct themselves as men have since the dawn of humanity's existence...

Not exactly !! That's funny though, that you have let yourself get brainwash to think they have.

For most of history women did not leave the home.

One of the notable exceptions was ancient Sparta since their men were usually gone doing warfare.

So the Spartan women were different, whereas everybody else in Greece and Rome and Persia and Egypt stayed at home.

There were one or two exceptions here and there -- Artemesia of Greece, Cleopatra of Rome, Esther of Persia -- but this was rare.

You Vastator need to read MORE and talk/type less.

I would give you the same advise. Those select anamolous cultures you referenced...? Are they still with us? Yeah... I didn't think so.

What a truly stupid sh!t you are Vastator -- with fallacies out the wazoo.

It's the CDZ, yios.

 

[Vastator]

Who ever said that I did. That would be retarded. It'd be cheaper to pay for a hooker.
However a marriage without the sex, isn't a marriage. It's a needy ungrateful roomate, and another mouth to feed. Not to mention a serious impediment to the pursuits in life that make you happy.

You should keep paying for hookers.

If you think a wife is a "burden" who should pay you back with sex, I don't think feminists are the problem.

No need to raise your hackles. I see I've struck a nerve... Lemme guess... I sound like an ex husband? FWIW... I don't patronize hookers. Though I can understand the appeal. However if half my assets are on the line... That ass is mine. Simple as that.

I don't have an ex-husband.

My hackles are raised (not really) because you seem to see a wife as a piece of property, rather than a partner.

Which is why I think the smart thing for you to do is to keep paying for hookers.

Me, I was glad to have my best friend for the time I had him.

Your illiteracy isn't my problem. I don't see a wife as property. I one as a partner. And that includes sex. Sex is the only aspect that differentiates, wife from "friend". No sex? No wife. Deal with it...

Hey, don't get your hackles up. You're the one who wrote, "that ass is mine."

I can deal with your views on relationships, since they don't affect me. I'm trying to have a discussion.

As am I. As for "That ass is mine". It goes both ways. To be a spouse you need to be willing to be another person's "everything".

 

[ricechickie]

You should keep paying for hookers.

If you think a wife is a "burden" who should pay you back with sex, I don't think feminists are the problem.

No need to raise your hackles. I see I've struck a nerve... Lemme guess... I sound like an ex husband? FWIW... I don't patronize hookers. Though I can understand the appeal. However if half my assets are on the line... That ass is mine. Simple as that.

I don't have an ex-husband.

My hackles are raised (not really) because you seem to see a wife as a piece of property, rather than a partner.

Which is why I think the smart thing for you to do is to keep paying for hookers.

Me, I was glad to have my best friend for the time I had him.

Your illiteracy isn't my problem. I don't see a wife as property. I one as a partner. And that includes sex. Sex is the only aspect that differentiates, wife from "friend". No sex? No wife. Deal with it...

Hey, don't get your hackles up. You're the one who wrote, "that ass is mine."

I can deal with your views on relationships, since they don't affect me. I'm trying to have a discussion.

As am I. As for "That ass is mine". It goes both ways. To be a spouse you need to be willing to be another person's "everything".

Didn't you say you've never been married?