I read a really interesting article today, which hit home on a lot of different levels. "Love in the Time of Darwinism" talks at great length (far too much for me to blockquote) about the subject of the modern male and how he's reticent to engage in relationships (let alone marriage or child-bearing) with the modern female. How many of you have heard me talk before about this very notion
Their argument, in effect, was that the [single young male] is putting off traditional markers of adulthood - one wife, two kids, three bathrooms - not because he's immature but because he's angry. He's angry because he thinks that young women are dishonest, self-involved, slutty, manipulative, shallow, controlling, and gold-digging. He's angry because he thinks that the culture disses all things male. He's angry because he thinks that marriage these days is a raw deal for men.
However, for a guy like me (as some of you may have seen in my comments) the issue isn't so much, "How do I find a nice girl" as it is "Why should I bother anyway?" My overabundance of cynicism has led to many journal debates in which I'm making the point that women are "all the same" or "a dime a dozen" as a result of them having sacrificed their chastity for feminism. My glib response being, "Why should any man buy the cow? The cow gives away the milk for free. And if she doesn't, the cow next to her does." Many people focus on the sex-aspect of that comment, but consider another aspect: when sex is the ONLY thing a woman brings to the table (and let's face it, in this day and age, that IS all she brings to the table,) what does it matter who the woman is? And why should the man commit to her, given the enormous costs of doing so, when he can just trade her out like a used car?
This was also an interesting point in the article:
The cultural muddle is at its greatest when the dinner check arrives. The question of who grabs it is a subject of endless discussion on the hundreds of Internet datingsites.
And this isn't an issue that only pertains to dating. This confusion that feminism has introduced into the world carries over into basic interactions in the social world. Have any of you heard me talk about the number of times I've been yelled at by a feminist for having the audacity to hold a door open, or offer my seat to her on the bus? Many women (and men) cavalierly dismiss this as "rare occurrences." "She was just a bitch," they say, "most women wouldn't mind." But you know what? It only takes one to get you doubting. The first time it ever happened to me was in college, in 1999. For almost a decade since, I've been wary of extending simple courtesies to women for mainly because I don't want to risk the headache of her going off on a tirade about how she's an "independent, empowered woman that can open her own doors." Nowadays, I rarely even bother with courtesies of that nature unless it's for a woman of 50 years or older. And if you've got a problem with that, take it up with Ms. "Rare Occurrence." Because she's poisoning the well for the rest of you.
"I am woman, hear me roar," they say? Well I am man, and I'm sick of being roared at. Ladies, get a leash on your gender.
I mean, let's face it. "Rare occurrence" or not, it forces a generalization on you ladies. And, as the article said, "Adding to the bitterness of many SYMs is the feeling that the entire culture is a you-go-girl cheering section."
A question I've asked many times to women and never really gotten a straight, objective answer on is, "Why the hell should men want ANYTHING to do with you?" At best, the answer is sex. And I've already explained how women gave that card up. That's kind of sad, don't you think?
Perhaps I'm a minority in this view (though, the article makes me think otherwise), but when I consider a relationship, I consider it in terms of a cost-benefit analysis. What am I giving up, and what am I getting in return? The reason I'm single is because I have yet to meet (or even come in CONTACT with) the woman in which the latter outweighs the former. Women have heard me callously remark, "You're just not worth it." Sorry, but that's the truth. You really
aren't.
Jillian Straus describes a 34-year-old sales manager from Dallas who says that his current girlfriend meets just six out of his ten requirements for the perfect girlfriend. When they go out together, he's constantly looking for an "upgrade."
And why shouldn't he? What value are women expecting him to submit to in this day and age? As I once asked, doesn't it seem to anyone else like women WANT to be treated like dehumanized sex objects? Why should he treat her as anything but?
This point struck with particular resonance:
Twenty-two percent of the men in the National Marriage Project's survey were "relatively hardcore marriage avoiders," mistrustful of women, and highly skeptical of lifelong commitment. The years they've spent prowling the dating savanna only reinforce their cynicism.
Yea, I guess I'm in that 22%.
Can anyone give me a non-subjective (ie. something more substantive than "I'm not like that!") reason why I shouldn't be?
I heard a very wise piece of advice from a college pastor who said "Even more important than finding the right person is BEING the right person." I can't find much wiser advice than that for those who ARE in the hunt for a lifelong mate. (I know you're not at the moment, but if you get to that point where that becomes important to you his advice is priceless).
Posted by: Michele on November 25, 2008 04:03 PMI can say without reservation that he'd rather opt out than be bothered with any woman at the moment. At 28 he's intelligent enough not to be interested in either fathering or exposing himself to risk. We have had repeated conversation about why he should bother to spend his hard earned money on anyone who cares more about feminism or making some statement than HIM.
He related a story about one woman he dated who EXPECTED him to either cook or take her out every night, who EXPECTED that if he wasn't with her for the evening, he would be on the phone with her... all evening. And if he wanted a weekend alone, she had to phone every hour to ask what was wrong. He claims they go from independent to bitchy to needy within a blink of the eye. "Why do I need that hassle?" is what he responds when asked.
Selfish? Maybe.
Smart? At this time, yes.
As his Mom, I think his most pointed comment in the article is "Well I am man, and I'm sick of being roared at. Ladies, get a leash on your gender.""
Both the older boys want their mental match. They want someone to go toe to toe with them intellectually and be secure enough not to cling; they want women who respect themselves so they in turn can respect them. They are both tired of games.
I don't blame them one bit.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 25, 2008 07:27 PMI love that my older sons both say that if a wo,an can't get along with either his friends or his mom, then she's not the right one for them.
One of my greatest sources of pride are that all 3 are vehemently pro-life.
It sounds like we both have much to be proud of.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 25, 2008 11:14 PMI'd simply comment that becoming disgusted with the "contemptible whores" (as you call them) out there and responding by banging everything that comes your way for fun (since 'getting serious' doesn't look like an option) doesn't necessarily make you any better than the 'contemptible whores' of which you speak.
You misread me. It's a false dichotomy to suggest that, because I'm in no way interested in long-term relationships with the poor excuse for humanity that is the modern 20-30yr old female, that I am instead using them solely for casual sexual encounters. I don't quite think it was your intent to suggest that, but allow me to clarify my stance on the subject:
I really don't want anything to do with your gender at all. The simple fact is, it's just not worth it. I spoke earlier of the analytical, non-emotional cost/benefit analysis that I do with relationships. And I look around at my dating pool and I don't see ANYONE that's worth the sacrifices you have to make. That's not to say I'm unwilling to sacrifice - but for pete's sake, I should at least be getting something in return on the deal. As the original article I cited mentioned, "many men see marriage as a raw deal." Because it is. Heck, unmarried long (or short!) -term marriages are a raw deal on the man. I asked my audience in the article, "What exactly does she bring to the table nowadays?" I'd be curious to your answer to that, on what the average, run-of-the-mill, general 20s-30s female (ie. not your own kids, who you're undoubtedly biased for) brings. It's shocking to see how many people on my own blog can't provide an answer to that. Instead, they blather on about emotionality and touchy-feely notions of, "When it's right, you just know."
Please. Spare me the Hallmark crap. Outside of sexual opportunity and the ability to breed (though god forbid you do, because the man gets NO say in that aspect - and often times a large bill for it all when the relationship inevitably fails), what is the modern woman even good for in this day and age? If you've come to the same conclusion I have - sex, an ability that, incidentally, all women can perform to a relatively equal degree - then what does it matter WHICH woman you choose? For all intents and purposes, they're all exactly the same.
In case you're curious - my mother hinted at it by commenting that ""Banging everything that comes your way" is not the only alterrnative to getting serious" - when it comes to my own life, I just roll solo. It's like I tell people, the best part of MY day is coming home to that empty apartment where I have all the freedom and autonomy in the world. Unlike, apparently, most people in modern society, I don't feel compelled to have a partner in my life just for the sake of having a partner or complying with social expectations. So, I go it alone. I date every now and then, but I usually find the whole ordeal of it a waste of time (usually right about the time she starts going on about how proud she is to be a single mother; telling me how much she enjoys going to Whole Foods for organic sushi; or misprounoucing the word "chablis.") Again, perhaps it's my cynicism talking, but I sit there across the table from her and I forecast the entire possible relationship within the span of a couple minutes - and what do I see? Her inevitable wannabe-independence and autonomy ultimately conflicting with her emotional neediness and emotional (and often times financial) codependency at which point she becomes that whiny, nagging bitch wondering why I seem distant as she's blathering to me on the phone about the most mindless, trivial banalities of her day at work.
Yea, if torture was the goal, I'd just set myself on fire and spare myself the middleman (er, woman.)
And rather than wait for this inevitable future to occur, I finish my meal and tell her "I'll call you" (I won't), and then go home to play Guitar Hero in my underwear. And let me tell you... it's infinitely preferable.
I'm not judging you, just putting some food for thought out there for you.
Well, yes you are - but that's OK, because where would we be without character judgment and discrimination? The ability to judge is one of the single-most important aspects of human existence. Don't be ashamed of it when you're doing it. :)
I don't know anyone who would want that, guy or girl.
I know plenty of them. Dozens, in fact. Because that girl has become the social norm. It's EXPECTED that women conform to that new gender role (that we're not calling a "gender role" because that's not a PC term). You say you don't know anyone because the sheer thought of it is so abhorrent, but I have little doubt that, in fact, you DO know people who want that. Not because they have some insatiable desire to be treated as a slave and a whipping boy, but because that's what men are being socially conditioned into accepting in a relationship.
As society keeps telling them such utter lies as "relationships require sacrifice and compromise," they keep getting more and more comfortable with the insufferable bitch that is the modern female. And hey, who says they have to stay with him? Ask yourself how many couples you know or have heard of that were married at 21, parents at 22, divorced at 23, and on welfare at 24? Why? Because divorce is trendy. Divorce is acceptable, and even expected. You think my ex-girlfriend is bad, you should meet the girls I know that routinely say things like, "I can't wait to get married, but I'm not really in love with the guy."
They're not getting married because they love their fiancee (they say they do, but they are often times lying to themselves), they're getting married because they want to be married. And since they know that terminating the marriage is just a simple no-fault court proceeding (which, I might add, completely screws the poor guy who married her over) away, they have no problem just entering into it la-ti-da.
And that's become their mindset. That "relationships are meaningless and interchangeable (as are sex partners) and the guy has to accept us in order to conform to social expectations."
So, yea, I know folks like that. And so do you. Because they are abundant in our "progressive" society. Because most people fear the idea of being alone, if only for the social backlash of being called a "loner" or a "miser," or having parents continually wondering aloud when they're going to get grandchildren. *AHEM*
But there are decent women out there.
Of course there are. But let's not kid ourselves - they're the minority. If not the extreme minority. And guys are no better. The modern male is either a pathetic, metrosexualized, vegan sissy who cries at movies and can't change a flat tire; or he's a boorish, braindead thug driving either a beat-up truck with a confederate flag in the back, or a shiny H3 with spinners on the wheels.
The question isn't, "are there decent women out there?" It's, "why should I bother looking for the needle in the haystack when I don't really need (or even really want) the needle?"
Both the older boys want their mental match. They want someone to go toe to toe with them intellectually and be secure enough not to cling; they want women who respect themselves so they in turn can respect them.
I'd be nice if they were physically attractive too.
What's the deal with women my age these days getting all fat and haggard and calling it such euphamisms as, "average" and "healthy?" It's like, since our hyper-sensitive PC culture has removed the shame from being a fatty, women are all "Oh I can be fat now and people have to accept/respect it? Awesome!" And what's this crap they spew about it "being all about personality?" Newsflash ladies, we humans are visual creatures. Maybe beauty is subjective (though I'd argue to the contrary), but you wouldn't hang a painting you found ugly on your wall, would you? So why do women these days think that men are going to accept them with their flabby tummy and little-boy haircuts?
Seriously, that's not cool.
1) Love
2) Trust
3) Communication
4) Money
If a person decides that having a partner in life is worth "the bother" then they should want to define what these cornerstones mean to them.
Well, I'd like to think I have those cornerstones defined. I mean, if you'd like I can go ahead and break down all four of them. The problem is, honestly, I feel like I'm the only one that does. I mean, forget someone actually MATCHING those cornerstones - most folks these days can't even start to DEFINE them without ultimately deferring to some vague, wishy-washy, emotional sentiment that "can't be explained, only felt." And if you ask me, that's pretty pathetic. A lot of my... contempt for humanity, often mistaken for narcissism and elitism, is for the fact that people - on the whole - are just so goddamned stupid. They're stupid, bigoted, dogmatic, irrational, emotionally reactionary weaklings that operate under a general notion that "if it feels right to me, it must BE right."
Some days, it's everything in me not to just start punching them in the face out of sheer principle.
Posted by: Howard Roark on November 27, 2008 04:14 PMPosted by: Howard Roark on November 27, 2008 04:22 PM
"21st Century Sex"
I was sitting surfing another site where I hang out, I came across an article about sex. It wasn't particularly inspired - just another editorial about how the proliferation of birth control and abortion have led to an highly sexualized culture where it is not uncommon for people to engage in greater levels of casual sex. But it got me thinking about myself, and my sex life in a world where sex is "just another recreational activity."Anybody that's ever talked to me outside of my blog probably knows that I'm not a particularly... sexual creature. I don't really care for talking about the subject (particularly when it's a lewd discussion), I've never felt a particularly high drive to have sex, I rarely consider it a priority in a relationship, I'm always remiss to cross that line when I'm dating someone, I don't consider the idea of a person marrying someone he/she's never slept with to as absurd as most people do, etc etc. I mean, I like sex as much as the next guy, and I don't really care who is having it with who - but I tend not to have a lot of it. Usually not for lack of opportunity, but rather... well, there's a couple reasons.
Folks who know me better than others know that I am (almost absurdly) paranoid about disease and pregnancy. I'm not a health nut by any means, and I don't even really pay much attention to my physical well-being. But I'm paranoid about sexual disease. Even despite all the so-called "protection" one could use, I am still paranoid about it. I think most of it is just the sheer yuck-factor. Knowing you've got some kind of crotchrot... that's probably very unpleasant both physically and psychologically. But there's also the personal shame of it. I mean, I know these drug commercials come on TV and say, "Herpes doesn't have to keep you down" - but I think it does, and I think it should. Frankly, I wish the symptoms of STDs wore like a scarlet letter. Not just so that potential partners can see what they're getting themselves into - but so that it acts as a reminder to others what the consequences of sex (particularly promiscuous sex) can be. And even though it doesn't, I imagine that it would with me. Maybe that's just because of who and how I am. Can you really imagine waking up every morning for the rest of your life thinking, "I gave myself AIDS." I imagine that would wear on a person quickly.
And pregnancy is really the same story, different chapter. I've been thinking about pregnancy a lot lately in the context of my friend who knocked his girlfriend up. Now, they've been together for a long time so the situation is clearly different for them than it would be for me if I did the same thing. But he's admitted to me that he's not exactly excited about the idea. I mean, yea, he loves his girl - but he's 28, he's still young in his career, and he wasn't even thinking about having kids (in fact, he's kind of like me - never really wanted them. Ever.) And when he first found out, I asked him what he was going to do (and his answer is one of the big reasons why this guy is one of my best friends). He put it very simply: "What do you think I'm going to do? I'm going to marry her and raise the kid right." Didn't even hesitate - it was a foregone conclusion. Because that's what people SHOULD do. A good man doesn't let that kid be born out of wedlock, he doesn't bail out on the mother, and he doesn't suggest that they kill it. A good man takes care of his business - whether he wanted it or not. Anyway, I've had the unpleasant experience of a pregnancy scare, and anytime I think about the subject all I can think of is, "My life would be OVER ." And it's true. My life WOULD be over. I don't want a kid, I don't want to take care of a kid, and I don't want to be roped into a relationship with someone just because she got pregnant. I'd spend the next 18 years of my life in perpetual resentment. That's no life. It's no way to live. Not according to my definition of the term. And I suppose that's what makes me so paranoid, and what makes me so hesitant about sex. Sure, I could easily just go get a vasectomy - but you know, that's a pretty extreme move. It's easier just not to do the baby-making tango, you know?
And that's a big reason. Sex is great - but if it means taking those kinds of risks, I'd just as soon skip it. I won't really mind or miss it.
But as I sat here thinking, I realized there's a bigger reason - and it has to do with our highly sexualized culture. And I think it has to do with how the modern female has evolved (or devolved, as the case may be.) How many of you have heard me say that "I refuse to date white chicks anymore." Well, there's a bit of truth to that. More and more, I find myself less attracted to them, because American culture has turned women (white girls especially, it seems) into... well, for a lack of a better term: sluts. You can call it a disrespect for women in general, a general prejudice, an unfair stereotype, whatever you want - but the truth of the matter is, I don't feel like I can't take them at face value anymore. American culture has made it so that they come with a PRESUMPTION of already having had a significant number of sexual partners. Why? Because it's "cool" to be a slut these days (and worse, there's "something wrong with you" if you're not.) Why? Because it's "expected" as a part of modern dating. Because sex doesn't really have any meaning anymore - it's just a recreational activity.
I don't like that. I don't like looking at a girl I might be interested in and automatically thinking, "I wonder how many guys this chick has been with." But, I automatically think it. I can't help it, because the prevailing attitude in American culture has become "sex is fun and great and has absolutely no consequences" and the reality is, she very well may have slept with a dozen different guys. I mean, the odds definitely lean that way. And I don't know why that irks me so much, but it does. Some guys, a lot of guys are OK with it. They don't really care if she's slept with a dozen different guys before him - but man, I don't like it. I don't even like imagining it. It just makes me not even want to talk to them.
Contrary to most people who share a similar sentiment, I don't really blame it on pop culture. It's more ideological than just bad role models on TV. You can see it in all kinds of facets of people's beliefs and lifestyle. The extreme popularity of the birth control pill and prophylactic contraception, the anathema at the thought of illegalizing abortion, the belief that the compatibility of a couple can't be determined until they've had sex, the eagerness to cohabitate before (or all together without) the "finality" of a marriage, the staggering divorce rate (particularly amongst young couples), it just goes on and on - all of it resulting in an atmosphere of sex without consequence, as often and with as many different people as possible. And as a result, I find myself seeing women in general as debauched, and my (perhaps overactive) imagination makes the assumption that they've had a bunch of different sexual partners - which is an automatic turn off for me.
I mean, look at this site. I doubt that it's an entirely representative cross section of American women, but I see lots of journal entries by single females - straight, "bisexual" (whatever that is), and gay - and their attitude about it is so... cavalier. So casual. There's no reverence towards the activity. And it comes in all shapes and sizes. From the girls that talk about how "they love to fuck," or the ones that go into obscene detail about their past/recent or desired sexual encounters, or all these "poly-pansexuals" or whatever the hell the PC-term is they're using to make the fact that they just want to sleep around seem like a "legitimate alternative lifestyle choice," the folks that insist that "it's not sex" without penetration, even the single mom's that like to whore their kids on their journal as a reminder to everyone that they spread their legs for some guy and didn't bother trying to maintain or save the relationship with him (does it ever make anyone else laugh at how any and all single mom's defend their single motherhood on some variation of "he was abusive.") It's all the same. It's all just glaring reminders about the nature of the modern woman in our society, and what they've become. I've got no respect for that, and I've certainly got no desire for it in a woman. Maybe they're doing it on purpose - trying to appear "easy" since they know that sex is all most guys want. Maybe they just think it makes for hilarious conversation. I don't know. But whatever the reason, whatever the purpose, I just find it vulgar. And repulsive.
Now, do I expect every chick that comes my way to be (or do I think they should be) virginal? No. Do I think you have to be married to have a good and healthy relationship? No. But women of virtually any age bracket, any family, any social class - it's like they're trying to be the exact opposite of chaste. They act like there's nothing redeeming about chastity. Some even go as far to suggest that it's a negative thing. Even putting aside the disease and pregnancy issues, I just find that to be distasteful. I mean, is it really so wrong to expect SOME degree of chastity and modesty from women? Is that really so much to ask? These days, the answer seems to be yes. And as a result, I find that I have little or no desire to enter into relationships, knowing the modern woman's... "excessively liberal" view toward sex, and what it probably means for their sexual history.
You asked what a woman brings to the table. I will tell you from my own experience. I married at 22 and I am currently 32.
I bring companionship (some one to call when he has a bad day, we go to movies and activities together, etc.), emotional support (I stoke his ego a bit, give advice, etc.), I stay at home to raise our children (something we both believe in, as we do not want them in daycare), I run the household (make sure he has clean shirts, food in the fridge, and get the bills paid on time, etc), have dinner for him every night and, of course, I can't forget the sex.
We both worked full time before we had kids. It was our dual income that helped us save for a home, much more efficiently than if we were single. When our kids are older, I may return to work allowing us to afford more things.
I have many more comments to make about your post, but I don't have the time right now. Frankly you came off as a 'woman hater'.
"Anyway, I've had the unpleasant experience of a pregnancy scare, and anytime I think about the subject all I can think of is, "My life would be OVER ." And it's true. My life WOULD be over. I don't want a kid, I don't want to take care of a kid, and I don't want to be roped into a relationship with someone just because she got pregnant."
*******************************************
You seem very judgmental of other people (particularly woman), but with your quote above, you admit to having sex with women that you do want to have children with. Birth control is not 100%. If you can't handle having a child, then having sex is simply irresponsible!
If you were to impregnate a woman, it is obvious by the language that you use, that you feel it would be all her fault.
Meh, that's an emotional reaction that will have the likely effect of clouding your ability to rationally respond to what I've said. You need to get past that. It's a sub-human trait.
It helps if you can put aside your visceral reaction, and just candidly look at what I've said. Most people can't do it. Me, I can look a knocked up teenager raped by her father square in the eye and tell her she shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion. Why? Because my emotional response to her horrific situation is irrelevant. How I feel, how I "find" the girl, is irrelevant. And letting those feelings, letting that visceral, emotional reaction into your analysis will only screw it up.
You can't hope to be honest and objective when you're letting your emotions get the better of you. Find me as arrogant and insulting as you want. Just don't let it guide your response.
I would be more agreeable if you indicated that many women are shallow and unworthy as you described, but you used language that indicates that you find ALL women in their 20's and 30's to be this way.
Re-read my reply to Michele regarding "decent women out there."
I bring companionship (some one to call when he has a bad day, we go to movies and activities together, etc.), emotional support (I stoke his ego a bit, give advice, etc.), I stay at home to raise our children (something we both believe in, as we do not want them in daycare), I run the household (make sure he has clean shirts, food in the fridge, and get the bills paid on time, etc), have dinner for him every night and, of course, I can't forget the sex.
Companionship and emotional support, huh? I've got good loyal friends that do that - all of whom are bounds more loyal (and far less fickle) than any woman in my age bracket that I've ever met.
Raising children? They're like dogs. I like them, sure. But I don't got 'em, and I don't want 'em.
Running the household? Ha! You know, I think back to the last couple women that I seriously dated. One was a decent cook, but she was so economically irresponsible that I'd NEVER trust her with a JCA. Another one couldn't do a load of laundry to save her life (oh yes, mixing those bright red beach towels in with the socks and undershirts is a great idea! On hot? Even better!) Another kept dogs and bunnies. Dogs AND bunnies. So, in addition to her place stinking to all hell, you couldn't find a place to sit without it resulting in a thick layer of pet hair all over your clothes. Another who couldn't even UNFOLD an ironing board. Don't kid yourself lady. 10 years ago they taught Home Ec in schools. Nowadays it's not PC to do so. Couple that with the eagerness to "order out" or "have a service" to do all the household chores - and you've got a culture of women who are completely useless when it comes to "the household."
But hey, they feel really "empowered" and "liberated" - so I guess we're better off.
See what I'm getting at here? You're listing things that I either don't need, can do for myself, or can get elsewhere. You don't need to make someone your spouse to find someone that provides the things you're describing. You don't even need to engage in romantic relationships for it. So, given the fact that these things can be gained elsewhere - and thus are not qualities exclusive to the opposite sex, we're still stuck with the question: what's the chick bring to the table, that can't be had elsewhere (and likely, at far less expense?)
Frankly you came off as a 'woman hater'.
It's easy to sling names and not substantiate points. For the record, I love women. Many of them are pretty and smell nice. I don't hate them - I just don't see ONE thing that they're good for in this day and age. Not one thing that makes them outweigh the burdens of being with them.
What I hate is what society has decided that women should be. You can blame Margarent Sanger and Company for that.
You seem very judgmental of other people (particularly woman), but with your quote above, you admit to having sex with women that you do want to have children with. Birth control is not 100%.
Neither is a seatbelt, but I bet that doesn't keep you from getting into a car. Oh your god, if you can't handle being dead, then driving a car is simply irresponsible!
Please. Save me the puritanical Chastity Ring Club nonsense. My mother may not like it, but I don't exactly sign on with these "abstinence only" bozos. And since you decided to take a cheap shot at me by going that avenue, let me tell you - the chick wasn't just some floozy I was seeing. We'd been together for a very long time and had been talking marriage and so forth. Unlike you, apparently, I don't feel compelled to get a pat on the head from the State (or God) legitimizing my relationship before feeling like I can express a physical and emotional intimacy with the one I'm with.
If you were to impregnate a woman, it is obvious by the language that you use, that you feel it would be all her fault.
Well, this is neither here nor there - but I'd like you to take a good, long, close look at society when it comes to pregnant women and childbearing. And I want you to ask yourself, what role does the MAN even have in it anymore? Sure, there's some of us that still hold onto the notions of personal responsibility and accountability for the consequences of your actions - but, lady, we're the minority. And furthermore, we're tired of being slapped in the face when we have the audacity to think we ought to have a say in the matter.
Women wanted abortion. Women wanted no-fault divorce. Women wanted parenting plans. Women wanted child support. In this day and age, pregnancy/children is a "woman's issue." Well guess what. As the Law of Unintended Consequences states, if it's a woman's issue, then she's the one that gets left holding the bag (or the bun, if you prefer.) Man doesn't get a say in abortion. Man is treated unfairly by the courts in a custody battle. Man (EVEN WITH A PRENUP) is on the hook for child support. You know what pregnancy is to a man in this day and age? A future invoice.
"My body, my choice?" they say? "Your body, your problem," we reply.
When men get a stake in pregnancy again, THEN we can re-evaluate our positions on "who's at fault" in the matter.
Posted by: Howard Roark on November 30, 2008 11:42 AMYou are wrong about all assumptions you have made about me. My emotions are not getting in the way of anything. The strongest emotion I get from reading your posts is humor because you don't get the irony of your own behavior and what you despise.
You now come across as ignorant and disrespectful as well as arrogant and insulting. I assume you are this way intentionally, maybe hoping to get a rise out of people. All you really do is make it difficult for people to have an intelligent conversation with you. Once I take out your insults cynicism and condescending attitude; I really don't know why you took the time to post this. I get that you don't find anything attractive about women and can live happily without them. So be it, you are free to do as you please. Why tell us about it?
Your analogy about seatbelts/fatal accidents and birth control/unwanted pregnancy does not make any sense. The amount of risk is nowhere near equal. I have been riding in automobiles for 32 years and have not been in a fatal accident. Yet I have had two unplanned pregnancies. Most people will go their whole lives without being in a fatal accident, but you can only go a short time being sexually active without getting pregnant.
No where in my post did I mention anything about waiting until marriage. My husband and I both had other sexual partners prior to marriage. It is my personal opinion that people should know what they like and know that they are sexually compatible before they get married. That being said, there is always the risk of pregnancy, so if you don't want a child with your partner, you should not be having sex with them.
I think the girl you dated in reference to your 'pregnancy scare' is dam lucky you did not get her pregnant. You dated her for some time, and still refer to her as 'the chick'? and it would be 'her problem'? but ironically you would have felt the moral decency to marry her? (What makes you think she would say yes, afterall, the life you describe if you were roped in to marriage does not sound all that appealing)
I stand by my original statement. If you do not want a child with the person you are having sex with, then you shouldn't be having sex with them. It doesn't matter if you are married to them or if it is a one-night stand. It is called sexual responsibility!
I hope you make an appointment for a vasectomy, as it does not seam that you want kids.
Please don't get a vasectomy.
Posted by: Mary on November 30, 2008 10:21 PMClearly they are. And you're actually getting worse about it. Look at how many more names you called me, and arguments you tried to side-step. Your contempt for me is getting in the way of your ability to rationally reply.
The reason for this is because you're putting up psychological barriers to protect your worldview. You fear that I'm right, which runs so afoul of your way of viewing the world, that you're LOOKING for reasons to dismiss it out of hand by looking for reasons to dismiss ME out of hand. I wish I could say that it made you an interesting character study, but really, it's little more than plain 'ol argumentum ad hominem.
People don't like to have their snowglobes shaken.
Your analogy about seatbelts/fatal accidents and birth control/unwanted pregnancy does not make any sense.
Sure it does. You made the argument that if the risk of consequence of an action cannot be 100% prevented, that the action shouldn't be done (unless, of course, you WANT the consequence to occur.) I gave you a simple example of why that's absurd.
This leaves you in the position of either NOT ever riding in a car; or WANTING to die every time you do.
That being said, there is always the risk of pregnancy, so if you don't want a child with your partner, you should not be having sex with them.
Wow, you were married at 22 - 22 - and had sexual partners prior to that? And you really wanted to have children with those partners? Yea, I call BS.
And I see what you're doing too. You're carving an interesting position in which you're attempting to say that it's "OK for me, but not OK for you." Yea, that's your emotions getting the better of you. And I'm going to blow that argument out of the water when you finally get around to making it.
You dated her for some time, and still refer to her as 'the chick'?
Yes. I refer to your entire gender that way. Quit crying about form instead of substance.
and it would be 'her problem'?
You have to stop trying to personalize things as a point of attack on my character. I clearly said to take a look at SOCIETY, at the way it's developed as a result of these absurd stances we've taken on the subject.
Yea, it'd be her problem. That's man's response to the whole "My body, my choice" mentality. Not mine personally. Society's - according to man. (And, personally, I can't really blame them. Your gender definitely has it coming.)
I stand by my original statement. If you do not want a child with the person you are having sex with, then you shouldn't be having sex with them.
And I stand by mine. If you don't want to die in a horrific car accident, then you shouldn't be riding in cars.
Absurd, or no?
Posted by: Howard Roark on November 30, 2008 11:25 PMI read your original post above, that ends in a question about why you shouldn't be cynical toward woman and what they bring to the table; and I have read the comments that follow that post. Any links you provided to other articles, did not work for me, so I have not read them.
You are correct that I have not answered the question in your original post. I am merely commenting on some of your comments.
The way I see it, here is what we agree on so far:
1.You don't feel a woman brings anything to the table that you value or can't find somewhere else. (You have proven your point-that you don't need a woman)
2. You believe that society has put woman in a degrading role that permits them to over-emphasizes sex, and that women have accepted this role (I am sure you would put this in different words-but you catch my drift). I am a little confused about wether you feel this is 'all' woman, 'most' women or 'some' women. You do have a point- I have not disagreed with you (even though you indicated that I have). We might disagree on the amount of woman and how strongly they have been pushed.
3. You feel that women falsely feel 'liberated' because they have access to birth control and abortions, making it possible for them to have sex without consequences. (agreed).
So far I have called you arrogant, insulting, cynical, ignorant and disrespectful. In my opinion, you are these things. I am entitled to an opinion, just as you are.
You accuse me of 'side-stepping' arguments (I did not know we were arguing, after all we, did not clearly disagree on anything). Taking 'cheap shots' (Whenever I have a point, are you always going to refer to it as a 'cheap shot'?)
After every comment I make you go on about my emotions effecting my ability to reason, and you even tell me how I feel! (this is why I call you ignorant). Do you want people to share their opinions and make comments or not? Are you going to listen and be respectful, or is your only goal to attack them?
You analogy about seat belts and sex and pregnancy still does not make any sense to me.
I stand by my statement that you should not have sex with a partner unless you are both ready to face the consequences of pregnancy.
Now, not that it is anybody's business but I admit I have not made the best sexual choices when I was younger. I think most of us, if we are honest, did not make the same choices as a young person, that we would make today. That doesn't make our opinions today any less valuable.
I have never had sex outside of a committed relationship. My one other sexual partner would have made a good father (we did discuss what we would do in the event of an unplanned pregnancy) But I was young and dumb, and it would have been a disaster if I ever got pregnant. I can see that in hindsight.
My other irresponsible sexual choice came when I was married and had just given birth to my first child (I had an emergency C-section). The doctor told me not to have intercourse for 10 weeks. I couldn't wait and began having intercourse with my husband as soon as I felt like it. I did not think there would be any consequences. At a regular check up just 4 months after the birth of my first child, I found out I was pregnant again!
This was very dangerous for both me and my unborn child. My uterus was not healed from the first C-section and there was a possibility of the fetus breaking out of the uterus. There was talk about 'terminating' the pregnancy since my life was in danger (being pro-life, I agonized over this decision). Also the possibility of taking the baby early to relieve pressure on my uterus, but then dealing with the complications and possible birth defects of a preemie). It was really an emotional time for me and an important lesson learned. Whether you are married or not, you still need to practice sexual responsibility. I would have felt tremendous guilt if my child would have had birth defect due to my choices.
Thank goodness my baby made it to term and all is well. But I learned my lesson.
Anyway Mr. Roak, you are entitled to your opinions. I am done with any discussion. As I said before, you are free to live without any female companionship in your life. You have proven that you do not need it.
We didn't marry young. We met amoung friends while in Bible college. (that should help...)
We dated nearly a year. Our church had months and months of required premarital counseling.
We had lots of problems. We decided to stick it out. Our children had lots of problems. They decided to shape up. They are all doing well.
It's been rough. But we did it together.
Today I am priviledged to say "I miss him".
That's why we marry.
Your questions and arguments have alot of sting and shock value, but are really pointless; and if anyone attempts to answer your questions, you just belittle them. Very childish of you and not the best use of your above-average writing skills. That is why I say that you are intelligent yet dumb at the same time.
Your discussion is similar to my 14 year old nephew that recently took up using the f-word around the house because he says it is now "socially acceptable". He knows that I am a big believer in freedom of speech, so he thought I would be his ally. I told him he could use whatever language he wants, but it wont get him very far in life. No matter what you have to say, people will quit listening to you.
I think this is what has occurred with HR. He has taken a simple question and has wrapped it up with so much intended shock and insults that people have lost interest in what he said in the first place. HR will most likely get the last word because the discussion is not worth all the energy he puts into it and people will get tired of his insults.
Posted by: Jeff T on December 2, 2008 08:10 AM