Hyerdahl wrote:
> Ben wrote:
>
> > Hyerdahl wrote:
> > > Ben wrote:
> > > > Hyerdahl wrote:
> > > > > Bernd Jendrissek wrote:
> > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > > > > Hash: SHA1
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > (edit)
> >
> > > > Most men marry because society tells them to.  Being single
> doesn't
> > > > mean you don't get regular sex.
> > >
> > > Well, society doesn't FORCE men to marry,
> >
> > "Force" as in giving them no other choice?  Nope. 
"Force" as in
> > sending constant subliminal and not-so-subliminal messages as to
what
> > kind of undesirable person an unmarried man is?  Yep.
>
> What other kind of society would you prefer, Ben, one where men were
> given the message to be Peter Pan?  I mean isn't that kind of life
> symbolic of arrested development?

This is exactly what I'm talking about.  You simply wouldn't use those
words on a woman who opted to remain single and pursue a career--in
fact, I do believe you've used the phrase "boys on the side" more than
once (probably more than several hundred times, but who's counting?)

>  Most folks want to find a deep
> abiding love within a life shared by two.  Most folks want to
procreate
> within that framework.

Probably most do.  I would be one of them, and I did.

>  I'm not trying to promote marriage here (as you
> know), but certainly being ABLE to commit to another human being is a
> rite of passage, a hallway to a more mature relationship.

Except that when a man doesn't *want* a committed relationship, he's
viewed as childish and selfish, as even you indicate above.  When a
woman doesn't, she's exercising her independence.

>  That being
> the case, I don't view unmarried women or men as a negative, per se.

Whether you yourself do or not, society does, at least with men.

>
> >
> > > but men tend to view marriage> > as something they eventually
want
> in order to have children and continue a family line.
> >
> > Not so much anymore, especially with the numbers of women who don't
> > view childbirth within a marriage as the only proper way to do
that.
> > Men can stay single and do that.
> >
> Sure, and again, I have no objection to ending marriage, as we know
it.
>  However, I also don't see most people wanting to go thru life
without
> having some sort of domestic partner with whom to share a lifetime.
>
> > > > >
> Men can negotiate for more sex when they haven't yet given away>
their
> > power (by committing to one women to the exclusion of
>  others).
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually, that's women.
> > > >
> > No, it's men.  It's amazing how much more frequent sex is before
> > the > wedding.
> > >
> > > I'm quite sure that is your experience talking.
> >
> > Sorry, I don't gossip about myself.  :)
>
> With that kind of record, I don't blame you.  :-)
>
>
> >  HOwever, it is women> who decide to have as much sex as THEY want,
> with as many men as they > choose.
> >
> > lol  So you think men don't decide any of that with women?  lol
> >
> > >I think men don't turn down women as often as women turn down men.

Oh, I'm sure they don't.  But you're talking about hooking up at
random, which I'm not necessarily referring to.

>
> > > >
> > > > >  Women can have as many dicks as they want.
> > > > > Men are the ones begging.  :-)
> > > >
> > > > You're consulting the wrong manual.  Most eligible bachelors
> don't
> > > want> > for female attention.
> > >
> > > Are you _really_ trying to argue that there are male prostitutes
> for
> > > women?  :-)  Women make money having sex with men who can't find
> it.
> >
> > Are you_really_ thinking male prostitution has anything to do with
> what
> > I wrote?
>
> Yes.  I do.  Women don't seek sex with male hookers because they can
> get sex without having to pay for it.

There are other reasons men might pay for sex besides an inability to
get it.  How would you explain married men getting ample sex at home
and yet still frequenting hookers?

>
> >> >
> > >  Hell, most maried men could easily have sex with
> > > > numerous women.
> > >
> > > You're just into denial.
> >
> > How so?  Do married men have affairs or do they not?
> >
> Sure, as do married women, but that's not the issue at hand.

Nope...getting regular sex without being married was what started this.

>
> > >  Women have many, many more sexual choices
> > > than men have.
> >
> > Which has what to do with regular sex outside marriage?
> >
> I didn't know we were limited to marriage here. :-)  The fact remains
> that women can get as many sex partners as they want.

What are we talking?  Regular sex, or a multitude of partners?  I don't
necessarily equate one with the other.

>
>
> (edit)
>
> > > Women are involved in all branches of education, just like men,
AND
> > > most colleges today have "gender studies" along
with or instead
of
> > > women's studies.
> >
> > So they've renamed "women's studies".  Big deal.
>
>
> Actually, it is a big deal.  Men are included.

Only until they challenge the instructor--then it's bye-bye.

> >
> > >
> > > > > fewer women are marrying.  More women who do marry are
marrying
> > > > > later and having fewer children, later as well.
> > > >
> > > > No problem with that, but don't blame men when the demographics
> > shift and they're not in your favor.
>
> I'm not worried about some sci-fi-pie-in-the-sky scenerio.

Apparently you're not watching what's going on in your beloved Europe,
eh?

>
> > >
> > > Blame men?  I relish the notion that bitter boys won't be
spreading
> > > their seed.
> >
> > Given your definition of "bitter boys", my cautionary note still
> > applies.
>
> Again, you can keep your pie in the sky.

Again, look to Europe.

>
> >
> >The men who DO find a willing mate are either not sexist or they
hide
> their sexism just long enough for marraige, and then women > file for
> divorce.
> >
> > Men don't appear to be giving women as much opportunity to take
> > advantage of divorce laws as they have in the past.
>
> There are just as many women filing for divorce now as yesterday, no?

I don't know.  What I *do* know is that fewer men are getting married,
and more of them are waiting longer.

>
>  After all, a man> with considerable assets might find it easier and
> cheaper to simply pay child support than risk his entire fortune with
a
> wife...you know, because of her considerable sacrifice of a career as
a
> secretary and whatnot.
>
> Always an option for the uneducated or those who have no need to
worry
> about the social contract.  Of course, laws are changing and when
> marriage becomes less and less of an issue the laws may simply
include
> the kind of relationship you suggest.

Or they may not.  Or, if they do, men may adopt other strategies.  We
can both play 'what if' here.

>
> >
> > > Single women are> > having children and continuing to work
outside
> > the> home.
> > > >
> > > > Which is harming those children.
> > >
> > > So you say, and yet there is NO PROOF at all that it is the
single
> > > nature of the woman that results in harm to children.
> >
> > It's all around you, like air.  Whether or not you cover your eyes
> and
> > ears and scream loudly doesn't alter the truth.
>
> Nope; it's paternal abandonment, deadbeats, and poverty that screw up
> the children of single parents.

It's the lack of a decent father figure in the home.

> >
> >
> > Well, there are the studies conducted by feminists (the ones you
> cite),
> > and then there are the true studies.   And then, trumping all that,
> > there's real life.  As a group, children from broken families fare
> > worse.
>
> Poverty sucks.  :-)

So does being without a father.  And how do you explain poor children
from intact homes doing better than poor children from broken homes?

> >
>
> > > > More and more > women are also open about lesbian
relationships.
> > > AND, let's not> forget > the huge divorce rate when
married women
> > > discover their mates aren't > into doing their fair share of the
> > unpaid
> > > work.
> > > >
> > > > Gee, this huge divorce rate?  Didn't it come along at about the
> > same> > > time no-fault divorce came into play?
> > >
> > > Could be.  After all, men who want to keep Maggie down on the
farm
> > have> a need to make things very difficult for her to leave.
> >
> > Or gender feminists who view marriage disfavorably could be urging
> its
> > dissolution as a form of "empowerment".
> >
> Certainly free and equal women who are not tied to the bedpost or the
> stove have a sense of empowerment when they have the SAME right to
> divorce as their male partners.

When they have more of a financial incentive to divorce, I guess
they'll do it more.

>
>
> > > When women discovered they could> walk away with everything in
> their
> > > favor?
> > >
> > > A marriage is like a partnership, dear;  when one partner splits,
> the
> > > partnership ends and they split the remains of the business.
> >
> > The terms of any split are negotiable.
>
> Not with a GENERAL partnership, which is how the court looks at
> marriage, unless the partners have a limited partnership where other
> terms are made thru a pre-nup.

Pre-nups are fine things.  I recommend them for all men.  Hell, I'd
recommend making them mandatory, like DNA testing.  Think of how much
bullshit from family court we'll all be spared later on.

> >
> > It must be, because your> little fantasy about why women divorce
> > just> doesn't hold up to even> mild scrutiny.
> > >
> > > Well, let's look at that:
> > > 1.  Women have the same right to divorce that men have
> >
> > They receive preferential treatment in divorce courts.
>
>  Prove it!  They are treated the same.

Sure, as the child custody rates and the instances of false accusations
demonstrate.

>
> >
> > > 2.  When the partnership ends they divide the spoils even steven
> >
> > Even if they had nothing to do with creating the "spoils" in the
> first
> > place.  And it would appear that you're hitting on why many women
> file
> > for divorce in he first place.
>
>          Women provide their share in terms of home and hearth and
> children.  That's how a general partnership works.

Which addresses the issue of them having nothing to do with creating
the spoils in the first place how?

> >
> > > 3.  Either spouse has the right to sacrifice by staying home
> >
> > If it's a choice, it's not a sacrifice, AND, society looks upon
> > stay-at-home mothers far more favorably than men who do the same.
>
> So, when your son enlists, should he be killed in war, are you
> suggesting that if he dies it is NOT a sacrifice since it was his
> CHOICE to go?

Apples and oranges.  But for what it's worth, I don't think a man is
making a sarifice if he chooses to stay home, either.

>
> >
> > > 4.  The partners decide how their lives work out best regarding
> which
> > >     spouse stays home.
> >
> > Not if one partner simply makes a unilateral decision.
>
>       Then don't acquiesce to it.  Divorce is your right.

Some people don't believe in cutting and running if you don't get your
own way--you know, that whole "for better or worse" thing.

> >
> > > 5.  Either spouse can choose to be a primary caregiver.
> >
> > Your definition of "primary caregiver" is biased towards women.
> >
> > >No, it's very clear that the primary caregiver does the actual
care
> of the child or arranges for that care to be done, i.e. feeding,
> dressing, bathing, doctors appt., playgroups, etc.

A valid definition of primary caregiver would include the efforts of
the person making all this financially possible.



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/20/05 4:59:14 PM ---