>
> The states evolved from a puritannical heritage that had it's
> good and bad points.  The good point was that it had a strong
> work ethic and sense of individual responsibility that prevented the
> country from following the route of socialist statist Europe.
>
> Western Europe seems to have a "strong work ethic" as well as
> "individual responsibility".  AND, like us, all of western democracy
> has some social programs.
>
> > The bad point is that prostitution and sexuality remained
> > hang-ups in the state long after more liberal Europe had
> > discarded them.

That's nonsense and only applied to certain areas of the US.



>
> Well, Europeans are not as hung up about sex as we are here.

hahaha


>
> Saint Thomas Aquinas said that prostitution was necessary
> to prevent all womem from becoming whores.
>
> Well, perhaps he meant to prevent all women from being victims of rape.
>  In those days men liked to spread their seed the old fashioned way,
> often by force.  Some men still like that but a lot of those men are in
> prison. :-)

Almost all Afros


>
> 100 years ago,normal women were treated similar to Muslim countries
> where women outside of family situations were treated as slutty.
>
> That is so.  Even in England there was a time when only men were
> permitted to be actors and women who wanted a life on the stage were
> considered hookers.

Actresses still are whores nothing has changed.


  But even women who wanted to be doctors, and
> nurses were, at times, considered unsuitable as marriage partners, or
> sluts.  Times have changed.

Only in your own little world  haha



>
> > As the industrial revolution kicked in, pseudo forms
> > of prostitution evolved with men taking women out to
> > fancy dinners and trying to get into their pants.
>
> So, you mean the men became WHOREMONGERS whether or not the women
> consented or acquisced.  Good to know.
>
> > Men and women developed a distrust for each other.
>
> Yes, they did and still do.

You mean YOU do. You're 1 freak out of a million.


 But whenever rights are excluded to one
> group in favor of another, distrust will follow.  A slave will never
> love her master.

Females need guidance. They get into a tizzy without men.



>
> The sexual revolution, as many post-anti-feminists are screaming, was a
> tool by men to get into women's pants with men tolerating feminism
> because it meant more casual nookie.
>
> Well, by the time the sexual revolution came about, women were seeking
> equal rights, so what men thought or did not think became much less
> relevant.  And don't forget, women also wanted unattached sex WHEN they
> wanted it, and with WHOM.

They're called whores.



>
> I remember> the days when Playboy was a big deal and getting oral sex
> from normal women was considered unthinkable.  Today, American women
> are slutty.  Many men like it that way.
>
> There cannot be whores without whoremongers.

Hey STUPID a whoremonger is a pimp not a man who fucks many females.


  Some nations are going
> after the whoremongers. :-)

They've always gone after pimps.



 However, thre's no reason to name call
> unless you have an axe to grind.  The only persons one really has
> effect over is oneself and ones children. and wife It is at that point one
can
> effect change.
>
> > Anyways, it's no wonder that these women today are at a loss
> > on how to please men and treat them in a manner to get what
> > they want beyond short-term casual relationships since our
> > society has become focused upon that lifestyle and even
> > worshipping it.
>
> Women aren't "at a loss" regarding the pleasing of men; they simply
> don't have the same reasons to do so.  A woman who loves and is pleased
> by a man will generally choose to love and please that man as well.
> Women who don't find loving pleasing men have no reason to be pleasing
> to men.

They're called dykes.


  And whether a woman chooses a single life, or marriage, or
> some other family plan, it is her choice today.

We'll tell you girls what to do. We don't want you to get confused by too
much thinking.



>
>   This makes the issue of gay marriage interesting
> > because until recently, marriage was considered a "square"
> > institution for wierdos who would want to only have sex
> > with one other person.  Ick!
>
> You are sterotyping gay people, Mark.  I have two friends who happen to
> be gay

You're only  female friends not counting the cats.


 who have been together longer than most married hets I know.
> You are simply shortsighted or blindsighted.
>
> > Since women are a emotional creatures, it's no surprise
> > that they are confused by all of this.
>
> Hahahahaha....it is wispy little fellows like you who are "confused",
> Mark.  Most women seem to accept that gays want

Yeah just like females, I want, I want I want and I'm going to stamp my foot
till I get it  haha



 the same rights as
> hets.  It is bitter boys who have problems with equality.
>
>  They are doing what society and even men teach them to do, from youth,
> and moving forward and getting better at it seems to> be logical to
> them.  At some point, young women need
> to do a paradigm shift and understand that the rules that
>  applied to them when they were younger need to be changed
>  in their 30's.  Feminism and young men certainly are not
> > helping them.
>
> To use the same patterns in ones thirties that one uses in ones teens
> and twenties seems pathetic for anyone, Mark.  Most of us grow and
> learn and change with time and education.  Women in their 30s divorce
> more often than women in their 20s, perhaps because other things change
> as well. :-)

Yeah their tits and arse sag after 25 and hubby wants a new model  lol


>
> > > > The problem is that American women aren't trained on how
> > > > to make men think of doing these things for them other
> > > > than emotional blackmail.  Be a good doggie, and you'll
> > > > get sex.  The problem is that this treat doesn't work
when> > >
> the doggie now has a bowl of it overflowing everyday.
> > >
> Mark, you seem to be suggesting that women and girls tie themselves up
> in ribbons, presenting themselves to their husbands alone.  But you
> don't seem to be advising the same to the prospective husbands.  I
> suggest you have double standards based on sexism, and that women
> aren't buying.  :-)

Females get pregnant men don't that's the double standard.
>
> > > Indeed, and thats the catalyst of the marriage strike.
> > > See M. Dowd, NYTimes.
>
> Dowd never once claimed a "marriage strike"; she merely alluded to the
> arrested development of men.  In fact, I find it quite interesting that
> so many men won't get to pass on their seed.

We're passing it on, just not getting trapped with 1 female.



  You see, women don't need
> to marry in order to have a family.

Well I guess they can look in the gutter for used condoms and use those
haha



>
> > A survey cited by The Week shows that most young men who are
> avoiding> marriage do so because they get the nookie without it.
>
> Men who marry for sex are short-sheeting themselves.  Of course many
> men do, in fact, marry for REGULAR sex,

And they regret it almost immediately because they ain't getting much.lol I
can always tell a married man from the disgusted look on his face and from
the fact that's he's always looking at females. I hardly even notice females
in public but then I'm like a man who has just eaten a 10 course meal and
the sight of food only makes him ill  haha


 and that is up to them.  Men
> also marry when they sense they are in a pattern of arrested
> development, and feel the NEED to have a family of their own.  In the
> meantime, what's wrong with letting boys BE boys when it isn't at the
> expense of anyone else?
>
> (edit)
>
> > I nearly barfed when my wife shared the obsession
> > that Carrie has with shoes in "Sex and the City".
>
> Well, I doubt that.  You can't afford to buy her $500.00  Manolo
> Blahniks.  :-)  Carries "obsession" was certainly and Imelda moment.
> :-)  And let's not forget that Carrie ended up with her career, her
> Manolo Blahnicks, her friends and BIG.

That's why they call it fiction:o) Why would a wealthy man like BIG go with
an ugly Ho like Carrie?


> :-)
> >
> > My wife also drooled at the $1000 Gucci crap bags at
> > Heathrow.
>
> My condolences.  :-)
> > (edit)
> > > >> > > >
> > Who would have EVER thought 20 years ago that someone
> > such as Martha Stewart could make billions of dollars
> > from selling housewife skills?
>
> Actually, Martha is selling wealth.

She's actually selling middle class to working class girls. The sort that
have to be taught how to dress and socialise.



  You just missed the forest ...for
> the trees.  :-)
> >
> > > > Back to the clock tickers: I imagine that a career
> > > > woman who suddenly finds that a man has taken power
> > > > in her life as I specified above, and at the same time,
> > > > gives her the "freedom" to put more attention into
> > > > feminine things that she long wanted to look into would
> > > > become amazingly happy.
>
> Feminist women are never "taken" by a man's
"power", but rather share
> in it from time to time as more men have economic/political  power than
> women, at this point in time.

Erm, all points in time from the beginning of time, and from what I've seen,
nothing will change. The female sex wasn't intended by nature to be dominant
or even equal.


  I'm thinking of that old joke about
> Hillary Clinton and gas station attendant she used to date in HS.  Bill
> asks her to consider what she would have become if she had married him,
> and her response was "first lady".

The gas pumpers "first lady"?


 :-)  However, if a woman chooses to
> raise kids in the home,

That's a DUTY, there is no choice.



 there's no reason to consider that a release of
> power.
>
> (edit)
>
> >
>




--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/7/05 8:04:55 AM ---