Hyerdahl wrote:
> Mark Sobolewski wrote:
> > In article ,
> >  "Hyerdahl"  wrote:
> >
> > > Mark Sobolewski wrote:
> > > > In article
> ,
> > > >  "Hyerdahl"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > mark_sobolewski{at}yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Steve Chaney, still taunting the happy fun ball wrote:
> > > > > > > In
, "Society"
> > > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > >(edit)
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hello Steve,
> > > > > >
> > > >I think your dislike of me began when I fanned a flame war with
> Jet>
> > > over my racial dating preferences.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, Mark...we all know you don't want to date out of your
> race.
> > > That is your RIGHT.  It also shows some of the self-limitations
you
> > > have placed on yourself based on race, and some folks may find
that
> > > smacking of racism.
> > > >
> > > > Yep.  So what?
> > >
> > > So nothing, just an observation.
> >
> > So my choices offend some people.  We all know that too.
> > Heck, it's the main reason I said so to get Jet riled. :-)
> >
> > >  If I were on the dating market I'd not date a sexist.  That
> > > > is my right.  :-)
> > > >
> > > > And all the sexists of the world, I imagine, are just
> > > > crying in their beer over this fact. :-)
> > > >
> > > Hahahahaha....right.
> > > > > >
> > >  I don't think "rape is cool" but merely that
marital rape, by
> > >  definition, doesn't really exist.
> > > > >
> > > >> Well, apparently it does exist since there have been cases
> brought
> > > on > that very issue.
> > > >
> > > > Very well, I could clarify and say the terms marriage
> > > > and rape are contradictory.  We live in interesting times
> > > > when gays want to join an insitution that was considered
> > > > only useful for Patriarchs to oppress women. :-)
> > >
> > > What?  I never once said or thought that marriage was ONLY useful
> for
> > > patriarchs.  That is was established because men wanted CONTROL
is
> a
> > > historical fact, but surely there were other reasons for marriage
> as
> > > well.  AND today, the reason gays want marriage rights is so they
> will
> > > have the legal rights associated with marriage.
> >
> > So apparently it wasn't such a bad deal for women after all. :-)
>
> Are you suggesting that it is good for women to be controlled in
> marriage so they won't starve to death?

I went through all the above text and couldn't find anything
that "suggests" such a claim.  Can you please show
specifically where such a thing is suggested?

> Marriage is ONLY good for
> women when they are not married to sexist pigs, Mark.  Otherwise it
is
> either not good for them or a sacrifice.  :-)

I think most women who decline marriage generally can avoid
starving to death even without welfare.  They won't
live high on the hog and it certainly is difficult
to gestate and raise children (which is a "sacrifice" that
society shouldn't ask them to make :-) but overall,
most women even with limited skills rarely had to marry
to avoid starving to death in western society.

Overall, women all along have had the choice to be "liberated"
from men if they didn't mind paying all the bills.
Such a pity that the US isn't more like Germany, eh? :-)
Until then, "sexist pigs" generally are the best way
for the vast majority of women to live a lifestyle
they prefer.

regards,
Mark Sobolewski



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/18/05 4:59:53 PM ---