OT/ ” I Have The Pu–y, I Make The Rules”

[CA renter]

[quote=Enorah]I feel really sad reading this thread[/quote]

Me too.

Do all the anti-marriage types here want to live in a matriarchal/matrilineal society, where men are increasingly irrelevant?

In a society without marriage, and without any payment for the work women do (essentially, creating and bringing up the next generation of people), why would any woman have a child for a man? And if a woman did choose to have a child, there would be no reason to name that child after the sperm donor or to establish a relationship between the donor and her child, as the man would only be a hindrance to her independence and ability to find new mates or move for a career, etc.

Not sure why a man would think that’s some kind of utopia.

[CA renter]

We’ve debated this before, but it bear repeating: a woman’s contribution to a relationship is front-loaded, while a man’s contribution is back-loaded.

A woman’s greatest assets are youth, beauty, and fertility. A man’s greatest assets are power and wealth. Women make their greatest contribution (youth, beauty, and fertility) in the beginning of a relationship with the implicit understanding that the man will contribute his share (assets and power/social standing) later in the relationship.

I can guarantee you that a young, beautiful woman would not commit to a man during her most precious years (when she’s young, and can have any man she wants) if she thought he was going to leave her when her assets (youth/beauty) were depleted, and she has very little chance of finding another mate. On top of this, she loses ability to support herself since it’s much harder to enter the workforce at 50 and work your way up then it is at 20. Women can NOT “have it all,” no matter how the feminists try to convince us otherwise.

If women knew that every man would leave them when they were older, these young women would play the field and take every man for every penny they could get while the getting was good — and many women do exactly that.

Men think they are being “ripped off” in a divorce because they are looking at things from a very male-centric perspective.

[CA renter]

We’ve debated this before, but it bear repeating: a woman’s contribution to a relationship is front-loaded, while a man’s contribution is back-loaded.

A woman’s greatest assets are youth, beauty, and fertility. A man’s greatest assets are power and wealth. Women make their greatest contribution (youth, beauty, and fertility) in the beginning of a relationship with the implicit understanding that the man will contribute his share (assets and power/social standing) later in the relationship.

I can guarantee you that a young, beautiful woman would not commit to a man during her most precious years (when she’s young, and can have any man she wants) if she thought he was going to leave her when her assets (youth/beauty) were depleted, and she has very little chance of finding another mate. On top of this, she loses ability to support herself since it’s much harder to enter the workforce at 50 and work your way up then it is at 20. Women can NOT “have it all,” no matter how the feminists try to convince us otherwise.

If women knew that every man would leave them when they were older, these young women would play the field and take every man for every penny they could get while the getting was good — and many women do exactly that.

Men think they are being “ripped off” in a divorce because they are looking at things from a very male-centric perspective.

[CA renter]

We’ve debated this before, but it bear repeating: a woman’s contribution to a relationship is front-loaded, while a man’s contribution is back-loaded.

A woman’s greatest assets are youth, beauty, and fertility. A man’s greatest assets are power and wealth. Women make their greatest contribution (youth, beauty, and fertility) in the beginning of a relationship with the implicit understanding that the man will contribute his share (assets and power/social standing) later in the relationship.

I can guarantee you that a young, beautiful woman would not commit to a man during her most precious years (when she’s young, and can have any man she wants) if she thought he was going to leave her when her assets (youth/beauty) were depleted, and she has very little chance of finding another mate. On top of this, she loses ability to support herself since it’s much harder to enter the workforce at 50 and work your way up then it is at 20. Women can NOT “have it all,” no matter how the feminists try to convince us otherwise.

If women knew that every man would leave them when they were older, these young women would play the field and take every man for every penny they could get while the getting was good — and many women do exactly that.

Men think they are being “ripped off” in a divorce because they are looking at things from a very male-centric perspective.

[CA renter]

We’ve debated this before, but it bear repeating: a woman’s contribution to a relationship is front-loaded, while a man’s contribution is back-loaded.

A woman’s greatest assets are youth, beauty, and fertility. A man’s greatest assets are power and wealth. Women make their greatest contribution (youth, beauty, and fertility) in the beginning of a relationship with the implicit understanding that the man will contribute his share (assets and power/social standing) later in the relationship.

I can guarantee you that a young, beautiful woman would not commit to a man during her most precious years (when she’s young, and can have any man she wants) if she thought he was going to leave her when her assets (youth/beauty) were depleted, and she has very little chance of finding another mate. On top of this, she loses ability to support herself since it’s much harder to enter the workforce at 50 and work your way up then it is at 20. Women can NOT “have it all,” no matter how the feminists try to convince us otherwise.

If women knew that every man would leave them when they were older, these young women would play the field and take every man for every penny they could get while the getting was good — and many women do exactly that.

Men think they are being “ripped off” in a divorce because they are looking at things from a very male-centric perspective.

[CA renter]

We’ve debated this before, but it bear repeating: a woman’s contribution to a relationship is front-loaded, while a man’s contribution is back-loaded.

A woman’s greatest assets are youth, beauty, and fertility. A man’s greatest assets are power and wealth. Women make their greatest contribution (youth, beauty, and fertility) in the beginning of a relationship with the implicit understanding that the man will contribute his share (assets and power/social standing) later in the relationship.

I can guarantee you that a young, beautiful woman would not commit to a man during her most precious years (when she’s young, and can have any man she wants) if she thought he was going to leave her when her assets (youth/beauty) were depleted, and she has very little chance of finding another mate. On top of this, she loses ability to support herself since it’s much harder to enter the workforce at 50 and work your way up then it is at 20. Women can NOT “have it all,” no matter how the feminists try to convince us otherwise.

If women knew that every man would leave them when they were older, these young women would play the field and take every man for every penny they could get while the getting was good — and many women do exactly that.

Men think they are being “ripped off” in a divorce because they are looking at things from a very male-centric perspective.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=CA renter][quote=Enorah]I feel really sad reading this thread[/quote]

Me too.

Do all the anti-marriage types here want to live in a matriarchal/matrilineal society, where men are increasingly irrelevant?

In a society without marriage, and without any payment for the work women do (essentially, creating and bringing up the next generation of people), why would any woman have a child for a man? And if a woman did choose to have a child, there would be no reason to name that child after the sperm donor or to establish a relationship between the donor and her child, as the man would only be a hindrance to her independence and ability to find new mates or move for a career, etc.

Not sure why a man would think that’s some kind of utopia.[/quote]

CAR: Aren’t there emerging statistics to support what you’re saying, in terms of the increasing number of single women choosing to have children not only outside of a marriage, but outside of a long-term committed relationship?

I can’t recall where I read the article, but there appears to be something of a groundswell regarding single women in their 20s and 30s that are opting out of the “nuclear family” option and choosing to intentionally go it alone.

Personally, I have my doubts about both marriage and monogamy and would opine that people should do whatever works best for them and not worry so much about societal conventions. I look at Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn, who, as I understand it, have been together for years and years and are not married.

Then I look at that nightmare involving Tom Cruise and his Cambodian Re-education Camp Parolee wife and their “happy marriage”.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=CA renter][quote=Enorah]I feel really sad reading this thread[/quote]

Me too.

Do all the anti-marriage types here want to live in a matriarchal/matrilineal society, where men are increasingly irrelevant?

In a society without marriage, and without any payment for the work women do (essentially, creating and bringing up the next generation of people), why would any woman have a child for a man? And if a woman did choose to have a child, there would be no reason to name that child after the sperm donor or to establish a relationship between the donor and her child, as the man would only be a hindrance to her independence and ability to find new mates or move for a career, etc.

Not sure why a man would think that’s some kind of utopia.[/quote]

CAR: Aren’t there emerging statistics to support what you’re saying, in terms of the increasing number of single women choosing to have children not only outside of a marriage, but outside of a long-term committed relationship?

I can’t recall where I read the article, but there appears to be something of a groundswell regarding single women in their 20s and 30s that are opting out of the “nuclear family” option and choosing to intentionally go it alone.

Personally, I have my doubts about both marriage and monogamy and would opine that people should do whatever works best for them and not worry so much about societal conventions. I look at Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn, who, as I understand it, have been together for years and years and are not married.

Then I look at that nightmare involving Tom Cruise and his Cambodian Re-education Camp Parolee wife and their “happy marriage”.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=CA renter][quote=Enorah]I feel really sad reading this thread[/quote]

Me too.

Do all the anti-marriage types here want to live in a matriarchal/matrilineal society, where men are increasingly irrelevant?

In a society without marriage, and without any payment for the work women do (essentially, creating and bringing up the next generation of people), why would any woman have a child for a man? And if a woman did choose to have a child, there would be no reason to name that child after the sperm donor or to establish a relationship between the donor and her child, as the man would only be a hindrance to her independence and ability to find new mates or move for a career, etc.

Not sure why a man would think that’s some kind of utopia.[/quote]

CAR: Aren’t there emerging statistics to support what you’re saying, in terms of the increasing number of single women choosing to have children not only outside of a marriage, but outside of a long-term committed relationship?

I can’t recall where I read the article, but there appears to be something of a groundswell regarding single women in their 20s and 30s that are opting out of the “nuclear family” option and choosing to intentionally go it alone.

Personally, I have my doubts about both marriage and monogamy and would opine that people should do whatever works best for them and not worry so much about societal conventions. I look at Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn, who, as I understand it, have been together for years and years and are not married.

Then I look at that nightmare involving Tom Cruise and his Cambodian Re-education Camp Parolee wife and their “happy marriage”.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=CA renter][quote=Enorah]I feel really sad reading this thread[/quote]

Me too.

Do all the anti-marriage types here want to live in a matriarchal/matrilineal society, where men are increasingly irrelevant?

In a society without marriage, and without any payment for the work women do (essentially, creating and bringing up the next generation of people), why would any woman have a child for a man? And if a woman did choose to have a child, there would be no reason to name that child after the sperm donor or to establish a relationship between the donor and her child, as the man would only be a hindrance to her independence and ability to find new mates or move for a career, etc.

Not sure why a man would think that’s some kind of utopia.[/quote]

CAR: Aren’t there emerging statistics to support what you’re saying, in terms of the increasing number of single women choosing to have children not only outside of a marriage, but outside of a long-term committed relationship?

I can’t recall where I read the article, but there appears to be something of a groundswell regarding single women in their 20s and 30s that are opting out of the “nuclear family” option and choosing to intentionally go it alone.

Personally, I have my doubts about both marriage and monogamy and would opine that people should do whatever works best for them and not worry so much about societal conventions. I look at Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn, who, as I understand it, have been together for years and years and are not married.

Then I look at that nightmare involving Tom Cruise and his Cambodian Re-education Camp Parolee wife and their “happy marriage”.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=CA renter][quote=Enorah]I feel really sad reading this thread[/quote]

Me too.

Do all the anti-marriage types here want to live in a matriarchal/matrilineal society, where men are increasingly irrelevant?

In a society without marriage, and without any payment for the work women do (essentially, creating and bringing up the next generation of people), why would any woman have a child for a man? And if a woman did choose to have a child, there would be no reason to name that child after the sperm donor or to establish a relationship between the donor and her child, as the man would only be a hindrance to her independence and ability to find new mates or move for a career, etc.

Not sure why a man would think that’s some kind of utopia.[/quote]

CAR: Aren’t there emerging statistics to support what you’re saying, in terms of the increasing number of single women choosing to have children not only outside of a marriage, but outside of a long-term committed relationship?

I can’t recall where I read the article, but there appears to be something of a groundswell regarding single women in their 20s and 30s that are opting out of the “nuclear family” option and choosing to intentionally go it alone.

Personally, I have my doubts about both marriage and monogamy and would opine that people should do whatever works best for them and not worry so much about societal conventions. I look at Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn, who, as I understand it, have been together for years and years and are not married.

Then I look at that nightmare involving Tom Cruise and his Cambodian Re-education Camp Parolee wife and their “happy marriage”.

[SD Realtor]

This is quite a thread. Honestly I am pretty shocked by it.

I can think of nothing more amazing on the planet then women.

Enorah, CAR, I think the post shows there are a ton of bitter insecure men out there.

Pretty easy to tell which ones are happy and which are not. It is one thing to say I enjoy being single but I am pretty surprised at some of the posters just going out of the way to show how strong manly men they are and how they will never be controlled by a woman.

I enjoy the brash posts of those who lay down the law and have lists of rules they adhere to regarding women. I am sure they will have happy marriages with great families.

[SD Realtor]

This is quite a thread. Honestly I am pretty shocked by it.

I can think of nothing more amazing on the planet then women.

Enorah, CAR, I think the post shows there are a ton of bitter insecure men out there.

Pretty easy to tell which ones are happy and which are not. It is one thing to say I enjoy being single but I am pretty surprised at some of the posters just going out of the way to show how strong manly men they are and how they will never be controlled by a woman.

I enjoy the brash posts of those who lay down the law and have lists of rules they adhere to regarding women. I am sure they will have happy marriages with great families.

[SD Realtor]

This is quite a thread. Honestly I am pretty shocked by it.

I can think of nothing more amazing on the planet then women.

Enorah, CAR, I think the post shows there are a ton of bitter insecure men out there.

Pretty easy to tell which ones are happy and which are not. It is one thing to say I enjoy being single but I am pretty surprised at some of the posters just going out of the way to show how strong manly men they are and how they will never be controlled by a woman.

I enjoy the brash posts of those who lay down the law and have lists of rules they adhere to regarding women. I am sure they will have happy marriages with great families.

[SD Realtor]

This is quite a thread. Honestly I am pretty shocked by it.

I can think of nothing more amazing on the planet then women.

Enorah, CAR, I think the post shows there are a ton of bitter insecure men out there.

Pretty easy to tell which ones are happy and which are not. It is one thing to say I enjoy being single but I am pretty surprised at some of the posters just going out of the way to show how strong manly men they are and how they will never be controlled by a woman.

I enjoy the brash posts of those who lay down the law and have lists of rules they adhere to regarding women. I am sure they will have happy marriages with great families.

[Author]

Posts