[LadySpock]

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Men will work very hard to get a woman.

This is a part of what makes these statements true:

Women civilize men.
Women seem to guide society.

Thanks for confirming, Poly
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


---------- Post added 01-16-2012 at 01:22 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by OwnyTony To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	But looking in between the lines, its as if it is accepted that women set the tone and men follow. You agree or disagree?

It's a simple description of reality. What's the problem here? Are we all horrified by the statement?

I don't get it.

[RandomLurker]

	Originally Posted by Seriously To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Oh look it's Jesus on the Cross.

Another man who had to die because of women. If Eve hadn't eaten that apple things would be fine. Adam probably wasn't living up to her expectations of him though...

[Polymath20]

	This is a part of what makes these statements true: Women civilize men. Women seem to guide society. Thanks for confirming, Poly

Nope. Not at all. I really wish you would stop taking what others say and running with it, cherry picking what you want out of it. It's really just aggravating and childish.

You obviously don't understand the point I was trying to make.

[LadySpock]

What I find fascinating is that none of the male respondents who were worried about women taking their shit seem to be saying they really want a woman for companionship over the long term.

No one vilifies the sugar daddy. They vilify the gold digger

It's OK to use someone for their beauty & a wet love hole but it isn't OK to use someone for their money.

*smirk*

Again, the bitterness and antagonism is astonishing.

[IotaNull]

Originally Posted by Seriously To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The thread had the usual "women just take your shit and use you" posts. to which I responded "Then just don't get in a relationship with women if you are that worried about it" If your focus is more on yourself and you are more worried about your stuff than actually investing in a real relationship then you don't need to be in one. With anyone. It has nothing to do with who is better or worse it has to do with an individual who spends most of their time obesssing about how the other person might take advantage of them. But the posters on this thread who have that entrenched viewpoint aren't going to get this because it's easier for them to blame their failure on someone else rather than take a look at themselves and see where there might be improvement.

For the most part I agree, but not completely, for the same reason it's not fair to say that someone is "more concerned about material wealth than others' well being" when they ignore an email from DR. PETER OKOYE, SON OF THE LATE PRESIDENT OF NIGERIA M. B. OKOYE, WHO REQUESTS YOUR URGENT ASSISTANCE IN HELPING TO TRANSFER $150,000,000 (THE SUM OF ONE HUNDRED FIFTY MILLION USD) INTO YOUR U.S. BANK ACCOUNT SO THAT IT MAY BE DISTRIBUTED TO NEEDY CHILDREN, IN GOD'S CHARITY.

If you do find yourself with a woman looking to exploit you, it's not just a valuation of one against the other, because that exploitation also entirely negates the value of the relationship.

LadySpock: Sugar daddies are honest and upfront about what they want; gold diggers generally aren't. IMO, honesty and deception are the pertinent themes when discussing that sort of arrangement. If a woman openly says she wants a sugar daddy, the worst I'd personally say about it is that I find it a little distasteful, just as I would with a sugar daddy.

(For the record, I'm personally mostly looking for companionship when I talk about women.)

[Distance]

	Originally Posted by LadySpock To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This is a part of what makes these statements true: Women civilize men. Women seem to guide society. Thanks for confirming, Poly To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Disagree with the...leap. As if men need women to civilise and guide them. Not all men are cavemen who knuckle drag and not all women are nagging banshees or codependents who NEED to invade every aspect of a man's mind. These are definitively traditional societal constructs.

	It's a simple description of reality. What's the problem here? Are we all horrified by the statement? I don't get it.

Who's reality? Not mine and so many other individuals. Hence this must be YOUR personal perception of reality which doesn't make it reality.

[Imperator]

	Originally Posted by Seriously To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So you missed the whole "women are just gold diggers" part of the thread then?

Not at all.

I also noted in your response is that the woman's role is to "take care of the man 24/7".

Which even my totally ignorant and inexperienced common sensibilities can pick out is pure bullshit.

Minus the time he's playing provider, helping with domestics, playing father, playing handyman, playing all-purpose-fixer-person, killing spiders, playing listener, and taking the wife out to nice dinners, movies, buying shiny expensive stones and fabrics and telling her how much he appreciates her, and sleeping before doing it all again tomorrow, I estimate the role of "taking care of him" is significantly easier than a 24/7 job, mostly because he isn't around 75% of that time trying to fulfill all his roles.

But maybe I'm going around this the wrong way, and should just ask straight from the source:

What is the role of women in marriage? What should the man expect the woman to contribute?

[Polymath20]

Originally Posted by LadySpock To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

What I find fascinating is that none of the male respondents who were worried about women taking their shit seem to be saying they really want a woman for companionship over the long term. No one vilifies the sugar daddy. They vilify the gold digger It's OK to use someone for their beauty & a wet love hole but it isn't OK to use someone for their money. *smirk* Again, the bitterness and antagonism is astonishing.

That's because the "sugar daddy" is a provider while the "gold digger" is a usurper.

[LadySpock]

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Nope. Not at all. I really wish you would stop taking what others say and running with it, cherry picking what you want out of it. It's really just aggravating and childish. You obviously don't understand the point I was trying to make.

Sadly, you didn't understand your own point basically confirmed my point.

You started out with "men will work hard to get a woman." & then elaborated on how the "work" depends on the region & circumstance.

The basic issue is men will always seek women out. That is part and parcel of how & why women seem to guide society.

You (& many others seem truly disturbed by this fact) and you need to comfort yourself however you can.

---------- Post added 01-16-2012 at 01:31 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Disagree with the...leap. As if men need women to civilise and guide them. Not all men are cavemen who knuckle drag and not all women are nagging banshees or codependents who NEED to invade every aspect of a man's mind. These are definitively traditional societal constructs. Who's reality? Not mine and so many other individuals. Hence this must be YOUR personal perception of reality which doesn't make it reality.

I really didn't think the statement was so controversial or that it could be translated into all men are knuckle draggers and all women are nagging banshees.

Some very angry & frightened people here...

[OwnyTony]

Originally Posted by LadySpock To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This is a part of what makes these statements true: Women civilize men. Women seem to guide society. Thanks for confirming, Poly To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ---------- Post added 01-16-2012 at 01:22 PM ---------- It's a simple description of reality. What's the problem here? Are we all horrified by the statement? I don't get it.

I do realize and acknowledge what you said to an extent. Yes, it seems like women set the tone. What I am safeguarding for is that just because that is the "trend/fad" now, you cant use it as a proof.

Women do not civilize men. Men civilize women. What we have today is unnatural. What i notice here is that just because the women here have a partner, they have this "high and mighty, cant happen to me/atleast i dodged a bullet so everyone else go fuck themselves with our arrogant false superiority"

[Polymath20]

	You started out with "men will work hard to get a woman." & then elaborated on how the "work" depends on the region & circumstance.

And not the women in that region.

In the land of farming potatoes, guess what kind of man a woman will marry?

[LadySpock]

	Originally Posted by OwnyTony To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I do realize and acknowlege what you said to an extent. Yes, it seems like women set the tone. What I am safegaurding for is that just because that is the "trend/fad" now, you cant use it as a proof.

Exactly OwnyTony - women seem to set the tone.

Using "it" as "proof" of what? Explain.

[Imperator]

	Originally Posted by LadySpock To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No one vilifies the sugar daddy. They vilify the gold digger It's OK to use someone for their beauty & a wet love hole but it isn't OK to use someone for their money. *smirk* Again, the bitterness and antagonism is astonishing.

I vilify the sugar daddy. It's another ostentatious display of money buying power and services. I dislike the fact he does it, and I dislike that he does it to buy something as superfluous as arm candy. I also dislike the fact that he can do it, because there are plenty of women perfectly willing to be arm candy for shiny pebbles.


Sorry, that was too civilized for someone who has never had a GF.

What I meant to say was Imperator no like male war chief. Imperator want smash money giver man. Make pretty lady want Imperator instead.

[Distance]

	Originally Posted by LadySpock To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I really didn't think the statement was so controversial or that it could be translated into all men are knuckle draggers and all women are nagging banshees. Some very angry & frightened people here...

Defend your statements with citations that:

1. Women civilise men.
2. Women seem to guide society.

Your argument appears to be based on as little substance as stating:

1. Women are jellyfish.
2. Men are pots.

[LadySpock]

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	And not the women in that region. In the land of farming potatoes, guess what kind of man a woman will marry?

Poly,

Women set the social tone in most societies & definitely in the one you exist in.

I realize that you find this statement to be horrific, because you may have thought you were in control. That is part of manhood right?

The thing is - I am not going to go back and forth with you on this. You accidentally confirmed the point without even realizing it. That alone should be a big hint for you. It is what it is.

---------- Post added 01-16-2012 at 01:38 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Imperator To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I vilify the sugar daddy. It's another ostentatious display of money buying power and services. I dislike the fact he does it, and I dislike that he does it to buy something as superfluous as arm candy. I also dislike the fact that he can do it, because there are plenty of women perfectly willing to be arm candy for shiny pebbles.

Interesting...

	What I meant to say was Imperator no like male war chief. Imperator want smash money giver man. Make pretty lady want Imperator instead.

SO...

you want the Chief's arm candy? Would you settle for a loving companion who is a lot more plain looking...perhaps a bit frumpy?

[Imperator]

	Originally Posted by LadySpock To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Some very angry & frightened people here...

I'm not sure how you detect fear over the internet.....

I'm reading a lot of "women can make it on their own so men can take it or leave it" posts, and I would have bet the fear is on the other end, with those making the bluff, than those calling it.....

[Polymath20]

	Poly, Women set the social tone in most societies & definitely int he one you exist in.

This statement requires expansion, evidence, and examples. At it's present level of articulation, it makes very little sense. Also, spelling.

	I realize that you find this statement to be horrific, because you may have thought you were in control. That is part of manhood right?

Personal, emotional attack. Stop. Unconstructive, pedantic.

	The thing is - I am not going to go back and forth with you on this.

But you already are.

	You accidentally confirmed the point without even realizing it. That alone should be a big hint for you. It is what it is.

Self proclaimed correctness. Like you're reading from some women's bible. Evidence required.

[RandomLurker]

	Originally Posted by LadySpock To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Poly, Women set the social tone in most societies & definitely int he one you exist in.

Then why are women "fighting" for "equal rights?" You already set the social tone that you wanted. There's nothing left to fight for.

[Distance]

	Originally Posted by RandomLurker To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Then why are women "fighting" for "equal rights?" You already set the social tone that you wanted. There's nothing left to fight for.

Exactly! If women guide society, why are women being objectified and minimalised?

[DrCiao]

interestingly enough when women are absent from society, men kill, rape each other, form gangs and turn to violence, taking the example of American prisons. However when women are integrated into coed prisons, such as the example in costa rica or one in Mexico, men start acting on their best behavior and their protective instincts become heightened towards the females they are attracted to, so the observation women guide society might be accurate

Originally Posted by LadySpock To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Sadly, you didn't understand your own point basically confirmed my point. You started out with "men will work hard to get a woman." & then elaborated on how the "work" depends on the region & circumstance. The basic issue is men will always seek women out. That is part and parcel of how & why women seem to guide society. You (& many others seem truly disturbed by this fact) and you need to comfort yourself however you can. ---------- Post added 01-16-2012 at 01:31 PM ---------- I really didn't think the statement was so controversial or that it could be translated into all men are knuckle draggers and all women are nagging banshees. Some very angry & frightened people here...

[LadySpock]

Originally Posted by DrCiao To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

interestingly enough when women are absent from society, men kill, rape each other, form gangs and turn to violence, taking the example of American prisons. However when women are integrated into coed prisons, such as the example in costa rica or one in Mexico, men start acting on their best behavior and their protective instincts become heightened towards the females they are attracted to, so the observation women guide society might be accurate

The UN will also try to give food to women during a disaster because more of the food will make it into hungry mouths than when men are given the food.

I wonder why...


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


---------- Post added 01-16-2012 at 01:44 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Imperator To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm not sure how you detect fear over the internet.....

Hysterical male commentary?

[Polymath20]

Originally Posted by DrCiao To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

interestingly enough when women are absent from society, men kill, rape each other, form gangs and turn to violence, taking the example of American prisons. However when women are integrated into coed prisons, such as the example in costa rica or one in Mexico, men start acting on their best behavior and their protective instincts become heightened towards the females they are attracted to, so the observation women guide society might be accurate

Fascinating. But what about the women in such prisons? What if they fail to attract the protection of a male (or group of males)?

It does remind me of the difference between chimps and bonobos though.

[LadySpock]

Desiring an attentive & caring + fully engaged partner = Control & posses?

Alllrightythen
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Polymath20]

	Originally Posted by LadySpock To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Desiring an attentive & caring + fully engaged partner = Control & posses?

first I've heard of this paradigm. Not sure how civilizing men and guiding society equate to attentive and caring.

[Arcanist]

Originally Posted by Seriously To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The thread had the usual "women just take your shit and use you" posts. to which I responded "Then just don't get in a relationship with women if you are that worried about it" If your focus is more on yourself and you are more worried about your stuff than actually investing in a real relationship then you don't need to be in one. With anyone. It has nothing to do with who is better or worse it has to do with an individual who spends most of their time obesssing about how the other person might take advantage of them. But the posters on this thread who have that entrenched viewpoint aren't going to get this because it's easier for them to blame their failure on someone else rather than take a look at themselves and see where there might be improvement.

I don't have a dog in this fight since I am an asexual male. I don't want a traditional relationship or marriage, AT ALL. That said,

I think prenups provide peace of mind and a protocol for a civilized, tranquil end to a relationship. I believe that "love forever" is unrealistic and traps people in relationships that become unworkable. These contracts are great for both the man and the woman. Wouldn't it be amazing to have the freedom to walk away without worrying over being financially devastated.