howldog wrote:
> On 15 Mar 2005 08:30:32 -0800, "bluesmama"

> wrote:
>
> >
> >howldog wrote:
> >> On 15 Mar 2005 06:45:31 -0800, "bluesmama"

> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Pussy whipped men think they are happy. Poor creatures.
> >> >
> >> >Poor happy, fulfilled, loved, evolved men.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> thats how you actually describe a pussy whipped man?
> >>
> >> happy, fulfilled, loved and evolved?
> >>
> >> what planet did you find these men on?
> >
> >That's not how I'm defining them, but then again, I don't know any
> >pussy-whipped men.
>
>
> heh. yeah sure, baby  ;-)

See, that's exactly what I mean.

Isn't all human interaction about exchange and compromise? I suppose if
you want to live all by yourself and not depend on anyone or have
anyone to depend on, it's not.

But surely a man can give enough of himself so that his partner can
depend on him, and yet keep his masculinity intact by having strong
boundaries...I don't control my husband's behavior and he doesn't
control mine. He provides for me financially, and I provide for him
emotionally. It seems to work out fine for us, and he certainly doesn't
consider himself pussywhipped - we just support each other in the ways
that we do best.

And for some women that might be providing income, and for some men
that might be providing emotional support - why does everything have to
be so combative, so either-or, so right-wrong? Why can't everyone just
do what they do best, irrespective of gender or race or any other
classifier, and just be allowed to contribute as they can, and if
they're happy and fulfilled, who are any of us to call them oppressed
or pussywhipped or dickwhipped, for that matter?



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/15/05 4:57:08 PM ---