"Men On Strike"

reply to post by racasan



Racasan, please dont tell me you're a member of MGTOW are you?

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc

Originally posted by hotel1
The type of man that pays for sex is not interested in being respected

So dont expect it then. He should be shunned for his actions.

and the type of woman that gets paid for sex has long gone beyond the point of being respectable.

Certainly cant respect a prostitute but i dobt any woman chooses to sell their bodies. They need help because they most likely have drug addictions etc.

Feminism has given men commitment free sex without the cost of a prostitute,

What planet are you living on? Men have ALWAYS had that! The lower classes, despite being dirt poor, still bred without getting married etc! Out of wedlock sex has always been present since religion began, a lot of it was well hidden.

Feminism just made it so women weren't getting locked away and outcast by society because they were having sex without commitment. Suddenly you didnt HAVE to marry the first man you slept with. Feminism broke the shackles. Men always managed to get sex without commitment, feminism didn't "aid" that

or the cost and commitment of marriage. Sex was never completely free of charge until the advent of feminism.

Um, it was. For example, solider's in WW2, were getting sex without marriage or commitment before they went to the battle fields.

Your version of human history is obviously looked at with rose-tinted glasses

In many of the cases you cited sex would have most likely been obtained through a promise of future commitment unless it was with a prostitute. It's true that there have always been easy women but if your suggesting that the pill, and the women's rights movement has not made commitment free sex more readily available than it ever was your version of the present is blinkered.

Wow, I knew If I kept reading I would find more comments that made me feel less like I needed to post some thoughts running through my head. I've had a different life experience as a single mother, and I am an extremely hard working independent and selfless person BUT...I think men (Good Men) have grown tired of being treated the way they are and there is no equal ground anymore. So, at the end of the day ... you end up with two very different types of men left, the ones that seem to be "not interested in relationships" like the author of the book the OP references, and men who most women wouldn't be interested in having a relationship with

Originally posted by hotel1
In many of the cases you cited sex would have most likely been obtained through a promise of future commitment unless it was with a prostitute. It's true that there have always been easy women but if your suggesting that the pill, and the women's rights movement has not made commitment free sex more readily available than it ever was your version of the present is blinkered.

Fair enough, to some extent men can now sleep with a better calibre of women without commitment. Whether they can hold onto that women is a different story.

Though i stand by my point that Feminism did more for women's sexual liberation than men's. Remember that only 50 year's ago the female orgasm was a myth. Apparently the thinking was that women didn't get much from sex, we only had it for breeding purposes

Can you imagine going your whole life never having an orgasm? Men think they've been screwed

reply to post by SearchLightsInc

If i go to a misogynist site i would see and get the same type of abuse

Yes if you go to a “misogynist site” you will see abuse – but I don’t think this is what you meant write, but did your parents ever tell you that one about how 2 wrongs don’t make a right?

downfall parody:
news.bbc.co.uk...

Originally posted by racasan
reply to post by SearchLightsInc

 

If i go to a misogynist site i would see and get the same type of abuse

Yes if you go to a “misogynist site” you will see abuse – but I don’t think this is what you meant write, but did your parents ever tell you that one about how 2 wrongs don’t make a right?

downfall parody:
news.bbc.co.uk...

Im not saying 2 wrongs make a right im saying that there are extremists in every group. A man will be abused on an extreme feminist website, a woman will be abused on an extremist "men's rights" website, take things with a grain of salt and laugh it off, not everyone thinks like an extremist.

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
reply to post by racasan

 

Racasan, please dont tell me you're a member of MGTOW are you?

edit on 1-8-2013 by SearchLightsInc because: (no reason given)

And how would that be a problem if I was?

Did you not write?

Maybe, JUST MAYBE, you guys should get together and say "No, im not going to let myself or my brothers be forced to go to another country and start killing other people"

Men going their own way (MGTOW) is guys getting together and saying stuff like "No, im not going to let myself or my brothers be forced to go to another country and start killing other people" – they just also include women in the list of stuff they have a problem with

Originally posted by racasan

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
reply to post by racasan

 

Racasan, please dont tell me you're a member of MGTOW are you?

edit on 1-8-2013 by SearchLightsInc because: (no reason given)

And how would that be a problem if I was?

Did you not write?

Well i cant take anyone seriously who's been brained washed by men who feel like they've had "Rights" taken away from them

Men going their own way (MGTOW) is guys getting together and saying stuff like "No, im not going to let myself or my brothers be forced to go to another country and start killing other people" – they just also include women in the list of stuff they have a problem with

Yeah but from what ive read of the boys on there, they have a problem with women who dont want to be told what to do. Im all for boy's having their own club though, not that you need my permission.

For what its worth, im not a member of any feminist sites/groups. I dont read feminist literature.

Yet all the time i get accused of being one

I'm sort of on an unintentional strike. I see both my brothers in unhappy marriages. Well to me they look unhappy but they are staying in them. My younger brother has a very controlling wife and he works all day at work and then is still working a lot after he gets home and then he never has any cash. He asks permission to buy something that only costs like $15 because his wife is controlling the spending. Not for me. I think that sounds crazy. He has 3 kids to support and I know he likes his kids. My older brother suggested maybe she is good in bed or something. He thought he had it better than him even though he is in debt due to uncontrolled spending by his wife. His wife just spends and spends and drove him to bankruptcy already and is lazy like I never heard about. I won't post online just how lazy.

Several years ago my older brother came to visit me, he said if he had my set up, that is a small house, tv, satelitte, computer to play software games on and pretty much do whatever I wanted to do, he would have never gotten married.
I still go out and meet girls but don't get involved in anything permanent. Nowadays I seem to have trouble finding a girl I am both attracted to and that doesn't have kids. Why would I want to get married and support someone else's kids? I would be stuck paying child support if I ever got divorced for someone else's kids. If I stayed married, I would be paying to support someone else's kids through college and whatever. In a divorce situation, she would likely be given at least half of everything even though we may not have been together but a few years. I'm not touching any of that or getting too close. I'm not necessarily on strike, but I see no attractive opportunities that would make me want to get married. Maybe I just don't know where to meet girls I am attracted to without kids. I just go to the clubs now which isn't really leading to anything but temporary relationships at most.

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc

Originally posted by hotel1
In many of the cases you cited sex would have most likely been obtained through a promise of future commitment unless it was with a prostitute. It's true that there have always been easy women but if your suggesting that the pill, and the women's rights movement has not made commitment free sex more readily available than it ever was your version of the present is blinkered.

Fair enough, to some extent men can now sleep with a better calibre of women without commitment. Whether they can hold onto that women is a different story.

Though i stand by my point that Feminism did more for women's sexual liberation than men's. Remember that only 50 year's ago the female orgasm was a myth. Apparently the thinking was that women didn't get much from sex, we only had it for breeding purposes

Can you imagine going your whole life never having an orgasm? Men think they've been screwed

Agreed, that is exactly the point I was making. Feminism has been good for any man seeking a high notch count. I refuse to imagine my life without an orgasm

Kind regards

Originally posted by hotel1

The type of man that pays for sex is not interested in being respected and the type of woman that gets paid for sex has long gone beyond the point of being respectable. Feminism has given men commitment free sex without the cost of a prostitute, or the cost and commitment of marriage. Sex was never completely free of charge until the advent of feminism.

Sex never has been nor ever will be "free of charge". Neither the "summer of love" nor the advent of feminism has or can change that. The ONLY differences are the media of exchange offered or accepted, but there will ALWAYS be a cost in one exchange media or another.

Just saying one media of exchange (cash) somehow leads to a less respectable transaction makes no sense to me. A transaction is a transaction, whether cash and carry or barter.

Ain't NOTHING free.

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc

Fair enough, to some extent men can now sleep with a better calibre of women without commitment. Whether they can hold onto that women is a different story.

I think you may be missing the entire point. In increasing numbers, men DO NOT WANT to "hold onto that woman". In many, if not most, cases, it's not an entirely sane thing to do. It's on the order of hugging a land mine - no real benefit, and hellacious risk.

So you measure the "calibre" of people on the medium of exchange they use rather than the honesty and openness of the transaction?

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc

For what its worth, im not a member of any feminist sites/groups. I dont read feminist literature.

Yet all the time i get accused of being one

I think a lot of outspoken women will get accused of being a feminist, just as an outspoken male will get accused of being a self-centered chauvinistic pig.

Our human ego's seem to be in over-drive these days, and when a person male/or female has a completely self-centered agenda then there is no room for anything else, hence the great divide we see now.

Males are protecting themselves, and females are protecting themselves.

It's almost like kids in a big playground that are sick of each other.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by hotel1

The type of man that pays for sex is not interested in being respected and the type of woman that gets paid for sex has long gone beyond the point of being respectable. Feminism has given men commitment free sex without the cost of a prostitute, or the cost and commitment of marriage. Sex was never completely free of charge until the advent of feminism.

Sex never has been nor ever will be "free of charge". Neither the "summer of love" nor the advent of feminism has or can change that. The ONLY differences are the media of exchange offered or accepted, but there will ALWAYS be a cost in one exchange media or another.

Just saying one media of exchange (cash) somehow leads to a less respectable transaction makes no sense to me. A transaction is a transaction, whether cash and carry or barter.

Ain't NOTHING free.

I have had one night stands and short term flings with women that were not prostitutes, that I never bought drinks/dinner/gifts for and obviously did not committ to. The only cost I can see in those situations is the time it took, is that how you would view it or is there something else?.

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc

Originally posted by hotel1
The type of man that pays for sex is not interested in being respected

So dont expect it then. He should be shunned for his actions.

and the type of woman that gets paid for sex has long gone beyond the point of being respectable.

Certainly cant respect a prostitute but i dobt any woman chooses to sell their bodies. They need help because they most likely have drug addictions etc.

What you're ultimately saying in the above statement is that men should be shunned, and women should be helped. Both can't form proper relationships, and your answer is to help the woman and shun the man.


And you say that you're an egalitarian?

Originally posted by Evil_Santa

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc

Originally posted by hotel1
The type of man that pays for sex is not interested in being respected

So dont expect it then. He should be shunned for his actions.

and the type of woman that gets paid for sex has long gone beyond the point of being respectable.

Certainly cant respect a prostitute but i dobt any woman chooses to sell their bodies. They need help because they most likely have drug addictions etc.

What you're ultimately saying in the above statement is that men should be shunned, and women should be helped. Both can't form proper relationships, and your answer is to help the woman and shun the man.


And you say that you're an egalitarian?

What you have highlighted is a clear demonstration that you cannot expect logic, rationality, and balance from the feminist imperative. Men are always the patriarchal oppressor and women are always victims, and yet with the next breath they will tell you how strong wimmin are.

Originally posted by hotel1

I have had one night stands and short term flings with women that were not prostitutes, that I never bought drinks/dinner/gifts for and obviously did not committ to. The only cost I can see in those situations is the time it took, is that how you would view it or is there something else?.

edit on 1-8-2013 by hotel1 because: (no reason given)

Never having been in that situation, nor being acquainted with anyone who has, I couldn't say for sure. What I CAN say for sure is that I've never run across a transaction of any nature where someone just gave something away for free. There have always been hidden costs in my experience.

I have never, ever run into a woman who handed out sex in a purely altruistic manner, without expectation of getting anything out of it herself. Now, what that trade involves is open to debate, but I'm confident that there is always some benefit accrued. Same goes for men, but we all know what we get out of it, eh?

Men have been lying to women for millennia to get into their pants and scoot, but the trade has always been predicated upon the expectation of a return, whether they were cheated out of the goods or not.

Maybe the women you speak of just set their "prices" lower for competition's sake, or maybe they were expecting a much bigger win when the market unexpectedly crashed on them.

Originally posted by djr33222
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

I think it has to do with media saturation mayself and not real practise with live people.

Who do you think are the largest media consumers? Which group are advertisers trying to target? Who are directors, television personalities, marketing executives, producers, journalists, authors, and educators all catering to...

No clue what you mean by "practice with live people". There have definitely been arguments that modern technology is affecting the social skills of youth because they are interacting with screens instead of actual people. This theory is bunk in my opinion for several reasons that I won't get into, and even if it were true there is nothing to suggest it affects males more than females. If anything, females have been shown to have an unhealthy obsession with sites like Twitter and Facebook. Facebook, the site whose creator made close to $4 billion this past week in stock price increase, would not exist if it wasn't rigorously supported by women. Also, on another thread (www.abovetopsecret.com...) addressing feminism a women actually told me sites like Twitter were making women more "aware". That she used the term "aware" is actually an ironic euphemism to describe the mindset of modern women. I digress...

"Practise with live people" means exactly what it says. Intereaction with other people without the intermediary of Computer, Cell phone, TV. It means actually "being with people" without distractions TV, Video Games, Computers, Cell phones.


Here's a link to an academic paper on the gender differences in the use of video games.

jcmc.indiana.edu...

make of it what you will.

The most sought after segment of the population by media is males between 15 and 30. That's why everything is action driven rather than character driven (which generally women like). Now I like a bit of action but only if there is a decent story.

As to "the theory is bunk but you won't go into it...." Well you said it all for me.

Women change with time and with children. Once a woman has an actual child their attention is directed to the child and not the man who fathered it. This is natural and right and mature men understand it.

What I see, in many cased, is that men need to be the center of attention, need to have their ego supported and if a women (or man if that's your thing) focuses on children or career or whatever then they feel abused.

But many men don't focus on much more then sex and someone to take care of them.

A healthy intimate relationship allows both parties to be whole and support each other in pursuing their own lives, individually as well as their life together a family if they so choose. The point being - it's not up to you to decide how another lives their life.

I've been married, single and many stages inbetween. And I guess in the context of this thread "I'm on strike" but it's because of me and what I want right now - not because men are "mean" or adroists (lol). I just don't want to put the energy into an intimate realtionship now.

Grow up - and take responsiblity for your own life.

Oops - sorry