Hyerdahl wrote:
> Mark Sobolewski wrote:

> she is paying the price for her citizenship and freedom and it would
be
> very> difficult for me to believe that you, a man who bought her from
> the net, could be the "man of her dreams".
> >
> > One of the wonderful things about our relationship is we
> > both made compromises and still love each other.
> >
> I don't think lasting love comes from so brief a relationship OR,
> necessarily from making compromises, but rather, from each giving
100%
> to the relationship and to each other, and from growing together.

It's funny to hear such romantic, sentimental tripe coming
from you.

Most people don't care if the other person gives
100% of themselves provided most of their immediate personal
needs are met.  By the same token, a person giving
100% of themselves but failing to meet
the other person's needs will be jettisoned forthwith.

> > Do you think all men who meet their spouse through the
> > internet "buy" their wives?
>
> No.  I think that men who go to foreign countries for the purpose of
> finding poverty stricken submissive brides...as buying their wives.
> Women who sign up for Russian dating services are not secure in their
> own right, and thus, easily bought, but not so easily loving of a
> slavemaster.
>
>  Indeed, 20 years ago,> few women used the personal ads.  It's a sign
> of desperation for career women that nearly all of them MUST put
> themselves "up for sale" by going
> > online because men no longer "ask them out" in
> > the workplace.
>
> Nonsense!  Both women and men use dating services, and frequently
it's
> just because their too busy otherwise...with their careers, school,
> etc.  But then...you already knew that.

Yeah, they're real "busy".  Yet, if they were so "busy" with
all of these things, wouldn't they have been precisely
in the best position for a man of their dreams to notice
and ask them out?

Men use dating services for an obvious reason: It's easier than
hitting the pavement and looking for girls.  If a girl
has to use such a service, it's because she isn't getting
noticed (at least not noticed by the kind of men she wants.)

> For one thing, you've told us you're not rich, and by your posts,
it's
> obvious you're a self-avowed sexist.
> >
> > So what about the latter?
> >
> > What's wrong with a "sexist" holding open his wife's door
> > and coat and treating her as most women dream of being
> > treated?
> >
> I don't see opening a door for someone as being sexist; perhaps
that's
> why we don't usually see eye to eye;  we have different views of what
> comprises sexism.

Now you're just being silly and beyond mere dishonesty.
A man getting his own coat and door, unless he has
a package or is elderly, while getting it for a woman
is clearly sexist.

> And while your alleged "wife" may not be offended
> by the opened door,

Now you're not being dishonest but merely laughably clueless.

It's not just that she's not offended.  She's happy.
She gets a skip in her step when I pay attention to her
and hold her chair in a restaurant and when I get her
door and treat her like a princess.  (This is how
a slave is treated? :-)

Women getting all huffy about men holding open their doors
ended 20 years ago when most men REALLY stopped doing it. :-)
Then they got nasty and tried to engage in emotional blackmail
to make the man get the door.  That then changed when
many career women got so "busy" that they had to run
to the internet for dates.  Now they're happy if the
guy merely earns as much as she does and gets only his own door.

> I suppose that depends on what she finds...on the
> other side. :-)
> (edit)

That reminds me.  Today is International Woman's Day and
I need to pick up some cut flowers on the way home.

For the average "busy" career woman, every such holiday
is a reminder of how liberated they are and get to buy
their own flowers, diamonds, etc.  They can even
buy their own happy birthday cards too! :-)

It's a nice feeling to come home and find someone
waiting for me with a surprise and vice-versa.

> > > > She can say women can do as they see fit but REALITY says
> > > > otherwise.  I choose to disempower her.
> > >
> > > You can't really "disempower" the choices women have, tho.
> >
> > That's what's so neat: I am just making observations
> > about life.  I don't have to be all that powerful individually
> > to simply state obvious truths.
>
> So, are you saying that your observations are reality?  :-)

As far as reasonable. :-)  If someone wants to say
that men holding women's doors and chairs isn't
sexist, they can go on believing that.

> I don't
> think so.  I mean you can attempt to disempower your Irina but, in
the
> end, you can only make vain threats.

HAHAHAHAHA!

Yeah, I guess some people will just be too "busy" to be
threatened by me.  Hey!  The Bridget Jones' Diary DVD
collection is out.  That should burn time for some. :-)

> > > I mean even> > women who leave their abusive (but rich) husbands
> >
> > Define "abusive?"
> >
> How is that important?  I suppose each leaving woman would have to
> determine her own level of abuse, Mark.

Because if a woman finds playing tennis and living in a nice
home "abusive", she's going to be very "abused" if she
goes out into the reality occupied by everyone else.

This reminds me of the women yelping about men holding
their doors and now discover that many men no longer
are bothering them by doing so.  :-)

> Some women might find abuse in
> a man who simply attempts to control her

See below: How is a man who "neglects" a wife controlling her?

>, while others might leave an
> abusive man who tried to kill her.  Abuse is highly subjective and in
> the eye of the beholder.

You certainly don't have to worry about the "abuse" of men
holding open your door, paying for your dinner, or treating
you like a lady. :-)

> > Certainly, if the wealthy men are beating them up ala
> > "Sleeping with the enemy", you have a point.  But
> > in reality, if the guy is off playing golf at various
> > locations on his learjet, he's probably not going to
> > bother being all that abusive really.
>
> Again, abusiveness or neglect are both in the eye of the beholder.

Unless nobody is "eyeing" them. :-)

> to live a lifestyle that is clearly not a wealthy one shows us that
> women DO have power over their own lives.

"Germany has much better healthcare than the US" --
Women's reproductive rights marcher, DC 2004

> > Yeah, when that happens.  (sneer :-)
> >
> Well, wasn't there a stat out there that women who divorce are much
> more poverty stricken than if they had remained married?  Apparently
> there are such women.
> (edit)

So apparently being financially supported by someone isn't
so abusive after all.

regards,
Mark Sobolewski



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/8/05 4:08:33 PM ---