|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Several men on this board have written that they no longer date. The risks are too severe for dating to be worth it to them. Another recently wrote that a man should know a woman very well for a long time before taking the risk of having sex with her. If something happened, and I found myself single, I don't know that I would ever date again. The risks are so great. (For the fembots, who are thinking that women run the risk of rape, when they date men, there's a critical difference. Rape is illegal and seriously punished. False accusations that ruin men's lives are in almost all cases de facto legal. In fact they are often rewarded.)
All a women needs to do, if she doesn't want the consequences of casual sex, is not have any casual sex. What a bunch of whining.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another recently wrote that a man should know a woman very well for a long time before taking the risk of having sex with her.
Sure. Women have considerably more control over reproduction and its consequences than men have. They can decide to abort or not if they become pregnant. They don't have to tell the man, but years later they could sue him to pay back child support. They can give away their children. A woman can falsely name a father whom she believes might be better able to provide for her children than the man (or child) with whom she conceived. A married man might suddenly find himself kicked out of his house and forced to pay for children he isn't permited to see.
Anyway, men are reduced to having to trust that a woman will act in both of their interests where reproduction is concerned. Women's reproductive choices mean that the element of trust for them is considerably reduced--they have rights where men have responsibilities. They don't have to trust that a man will support their child, because the child suppport enforcement apparatus is there to enforce it.
A man, on the other hand, has to trust that his opinions will be taken into consideration where reproduction is concerned. The level of trust that a man might have to rely on takes a long time to develop. It could take years, decades, or even centuries; the scale of time over which a man ought to develop the kind of trust that a woman will make the reproductive choices that they both agreed to is measured in years, not days or months. It may even be measured in decades. These days I'm leaning toward centuries...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"All a women needs to do, if she doesn't want the consequences of casual sex, is not have any casual sex."
She's probably just mad that when she goes out and has men pay for everything they expect something in return. She would perfer the man paying for everything for months or years before she gives it out. She yearns for the days of yore when men would have to pay before and during marriage for the privlige of sex.
Her idea of avoiding sex on the first date by wearing your worst panties gave me a good laugh. Yep that'll work! How about just not hanging out in bars and getting pissed drunk every weekend, it's much more effective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow. Even I knew the feminists were THIS clueless; how can anyone have sex with someone who lives in an unknown part of the world and neither one expresses an interest in relocating, and expect it to be can be anything BUT a one-night stand-- and then blame the guy for treating it as such? Did they expect to find a long-term steady relationship in this situation?
Consider the following:
I only know one girl who happily has sex with every guy she fancies straight away. (And she does it religiously.)
She insists it's the greatest, cheapest time a girl can have. She's never humiliated by it because she doesn't care if she's being used.
But here's what interests me: Why it is it so hard to have that mentality, even when you know it's perfectly rational?
Whenever I see this friend, I am reminded of all the hot guys I've met on random nights whom I could have gone home with if I'd acted willing enough.
And when I look back, I wonder why I didn't. I can't even remember their names now, so why would I have cared if they didn't want to do brunch next day?
But annoyingly - especially when it comes to my present predicament - I care.
"Do brunch." Can she possibly be more glaringly shallow and insecure, except to say "gee, why can't I be a shameless bimbo-slut? Why must I be CURSED with self-respect?"
Maybe because it's a contradiction to be intimate with strangers, i.e. it's impossible to stand for something while on your back with your feet in the air, just like it's impossible to be intimate with the right person when you did the same with everyone else?
However, our Bridgette seems to feel that personal morality and self-respect are "irrational," and says so literally; I wonder if she ever bothered to ask herself what man would want to marry a woman who was a self-professed one-night stand for everyone else, and that he was just another set of male genitals which happened to get stuck with the booby prize?
However, feminists, like most liberals, being egocentric paranoid "victims" as well as self-absored, short-term thinkers, see rational long-term perspective as nothing more than "the Man" simply obsessed with denying them a good time and to exploit them, when the truth is that she's just so afraid of failure in an intimate relationship that she'd rather "keep it casual."
I just don't understand why she has so much difficulty separating fantasy from reality, and what it would REALLY be like to go all the way with everyone like a bonobo chimp; the only problem is that she wants a relationship with men, not chimps, and while it's natural for a man to want to have sex, it's only with a woman who considers him special enough to lower her modesty-- not with one who HAS none and considers him just another wild oat. Desperate or frivelous men will want to sew these as well, but the problem with WILD oats is that, by definition, no one stays around to tend them but just moves on.
Bridgette sounds like she missed this phase in her development around age 12- maybe mother was a liberated woman who didn't believe in it, while she never even had a father-figure?
No wonder she's re-inventing the wheel-- the problem is that such people inevatibly hold up their stone-ovals and point them out in triumph to those of us driving by in cars.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
... is that it is too much fun for her and him to have without him paying much for it. She 'cares' because in her opinion he has not taken enough $hit from her and/or paid enough $$ to get some sex from her.
That's why she 'cares'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday May 13, @02:11PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Right on.
Casual non-committal sex would be a free and even exchange. How un-appealing to women. It just "doesn't feel right" because she doesn't experience the imbalance of power that she has grown accustomed to.
I'm actually a little glad this dingbat is so screwed up.
Mark
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
