SD,

You're wrong. Women were beat by their husbands for not having dinner ready on time. Women have been oppressed by men for so long and any normal guy would figure that out. All the guys I know agree with me. Not to mention if a woman does not want to have sex, no man should force it. And prostitution would not be legal if REAL men were in control, because they would have morals. I know that this world is falling deeper and deeper into abomination, but that doesn't mean everyone is HELL BOUND and thinks that the world is just about sex! Sex is a very small part of life. Both sexes should be equal and to say any different would be arrogant and assinine. Women just have been oppressed as being "the weaker sex" by men. And I get from your post that you don't like the idea of women being able to vote and what not. Why is that?

I have no problem with women's equality, voting or whatever. All I am doing was challenging your assumption that men are in control of society. They are not.

Sure men beat women all the time. They also beat other men. Men in general enjoy beating on people -- that is why we invent sports like football, boxing, and WWF wrestling. But beating on people has nothing to do with whether or not they are in control of society.

I am quite sure that the men you've talked with are not expressing their true feelings. Most men are afraid to because they will be repressed by the female-dominated society. I guarantee you that every heterosexual man you've met (including your father, brothers, teachers, doctor, etc.) has considered you as a sexual object. They would never tell you though ...

Do you think any man really wants to live in a suburban house with a nicely mowed lawn? No! All those houses are filled with frustrated men whose lives are dominated by their wives and/or mothers. Do you think any man really wants to be monogamous and live with a woman until she gets old? No! He wants to trade in his wife every five years for a newer, younger model.

The only avenue men have to fight female oppression is our violence. Our violence is the proof that women are in control.

You said sex is a small part of life. Well that is because it has been repressed out of men until they have very little sexual outlets in life. Men get erections every single day! Most men masturbate every single day (including your father, brothers, teachers, doctor, etc.). Sex is NOT a small part of life for men -- it is just repressed by women like you.

Anyway, I think that men and women can get along well enough nowadays. Life is tough for everyone. I'm only writing all this because you were claiming that life was tougher for women. I guarantee you that while their life may be tough, men's life historically has been a lot tougher.

Cheers!

Again, SplitDik, you're wrong. If a guy really loves a woman he stays with her. Only the wannabe men trade in their women. Only the bastards of society do it. REAL MEN don't and that is a fact. I sure as hell don't control my mate's life and anyone who says otherwise is a friggin' liar. I am an equal opportunist and detest guys who think they can control me as my last mate thought he could. REAL men don't hide their feelings when it comes to love and I have been loved by many guys. NO guy would EVER trade ME in. Only reason they are out of the picture is because I sent them packing because I felt I was too young to settle down. When I get married my husband will be devoted to me and I to him. He will be a REAL man, not a cheating boy. Any guy who trades in their woman every five years for a new one is only BOY (no matter the age) and will never be a man. Men are loyal, boys are not. Plain and simple..you're a boy.

And another thing--

You think I should give sex when I am not in the mood or sick or on my damn period? I think not. Guys need to learn control and stop being such selfish bastards. Women cannot have sex 6 times a day and certainly not on their period. Any guy who uses this excuse to cheat deserves to have a stiff kick in the nuts. I think guys like you are scum.

For fear of sounding like a wus...

I reckon that we should all seek our own balance and understanding.

Men AND Women are both oppressed in different ways. Women still lack some equalities; such as rights in the workplace, etc.

But I'd like to also point out the *invisible oppression* that men suffer. It would not be seen as 'normal' for a man to be an unemployed housekeeper. WHY NOT? This is still seen as the womans job!

So I suggest to you, that one genders' oppression, also has an impact on the others'.

Quite frankly, I hope the woman I marry can accept *any* working arrangement SO LONG AS IT WORKS!

Play nice, kids, or I'll separate you.

If you want to rant at one another, do it in private.

Radar,

XNoCTuRNaLRoSeX (imported) wrote: Fri Aug 23, 2002 8:28 am With all due respect..it's obvious you never really read my post. I put if one does rape one gets cut..I put it for both sexes.

Ahhh, sorry, but I think it was you who missed the point, because that was precisely the issue to which I was responding. It's fine to say, "If one does rape", but the determination of whether or not a rape has occurred is often quite subjective -- and you simply can't be handing out such draconian punishments when accusations are so often bogus. Did you know, for instance, that a few years back when the FBI first began looking at DNA testing as a forensic tool, they used rapists as a sample population? They tested a fairly large sample of men who'd been convicted of rape, and for whom genetic evidence still existed, and do you know what they found? They found that fully ONE THIRD of them could not possibly have committed the crime for which they'd been convicted!

As I said, a terribly subjective process, made all the worse for the fact that rape shield laws often prevent an accused man from presenting the only evidence that could possibly save him. I might look on the idea more favorably if the playing field were at least level. Maybe you can figure out a way to make absolutely certain that it was rape, and not that he didn't call her the next day, or that she didn't wake up the next in the morning saying, "Ohmygawd! What did I DO?.....or, what did HE do?! I wouldn't have done that if he hadn't made me...."

XNoCTuRNaLRoSeX (imported) wrote: Fri Aug 23, 2002 8:28 am Plus also, it is about time women are dominant in society after being oppressed for so many years. I mean we just got the vote nearly a hundred years ago when men have had all freedoms for hundreds of years! About time we have the upper hand.

Let me give you a small piece of unsolicited advice here, from someone who's seen the entire cycle of development of the modern feminist movement from its beginnings in the 1960's: The feminist harpies who taught you in women's studies class that women are the oppressed victims of men are not doing you any favors. They do not have your best interest at heart -- they only have their own, and they have no compunction about using you to get what they want. Playing the victim may appear to be a useful way to draw sympathy and get men to bow to women's wants, but in the long run, all it does is keep them dependent -- with the feminist "leadership" runnning all the government-funded programs that are created to relieve women's alleged victimhood. And it all comes out of your taxpaying pocket. Think about it.

Secondly, let's dispel a couple of myths: First, men have NOT "had all freedoms for hundreds of years". To begin with, the average man had little to no freedom whatsoever up until the American Revolution. Before that, we were all subject to the king, the church, to the local nobility, or to whatever roving barbarian happened to be killing anyone who got in his way. Men were bullied and abused at whim, were subject to conscription into military service, and were expected to die in the service of their leaders -- leaders they had no voice in selecting. It's a common and convenient logical fallacy to argue from the position that because a very, very few men had freedom and power, ergo all men must have had it. Don't let yourself get suckered into that way of thinking. Remember the reality.

As for the vote, let's keep in mind that initially, only the landed gentry had the vote in the USA; the average man did not. It wasn't actually until the 1840's or so before voting rights were extended, after a good deal of civil unrest, more universally to non-landowners, and not until the late 1860's before black men could vote (and even that wasn't truly universal until the 1960's). So in reality, we had literally thousands of years of men fighting and dying to gain a measure of freedom and self-determination. Then, when they finally got it, within only 60 years they gave it to women, and all women had to do to get it was ask. Some oppression, eh? Seems to me women ought to be just a tiny bit more grateful.

XNoCTuRNaLRoSeX (imported) wrote: Fri Aug 23, 2002 8:28 am Plus women get raped more than "men" do. Usually it's a guy who rapes a guy and not a woman. I mean after all it's pretty hard to rape a guy if he's flaccid.

Yeah, so what? Of course men rape more often. Men have the physical equipment to make it easier to do so. Are you arguing that because men do it more often, we ought to be punishing men more harshly for the crime? Stop and think about that before you answer, because if you accept that idea, are you equally willing to suggest that blacks should receive harsher jail terms than whites for the same crimes?

Then too, we have to get more into the modern-day definitions of rape to truly determine the relative rates. It used to be that rape was defined simply as obtaining sex through force or coercion. In other words, it was strictly a violent crime. Nowadays, after the feminist revisionists have gotten hold of the issue, "rape" can be something as inane as not getting a clear and distinct "yes" from one's sexual partner, or for having sex with a woman who happened to be quite voluntarily drunk. Whether he was drunk too doesn't matter. (Yes Matilda, men have indeed gone to jail, been kicked out of college, lost their jobs, and even castrated by vengeful family members, over just such minor distinctions.) If we define rape in those ways, then it's quite possible --and easy -- for a man to have been "raped" by a woman without having to force him to get an erection.

Oh, and by the way, it is indeed possible for a male to be forced to have sex and still get an erection. One of the things rape counselors have to deal with in female victims is the extreme guilt some women feel when they realize that during the rape, they either lubricated, or actually orgasmed. The counselors have a great deal of trouble explaining to such women that fear can sometimes cause just such a reaction, and a great deal of effort is expended in counseling to help them to realize that it isn't their fault, that it's an autonomic response in some women. The same mechanism can affect a man, only in his case it's manifested by an involuntary erection. Of course, when it happens to a man, he isn't counseled on it -- it's simply assumed that his participation was totally voluntary.

By the way, so that there's no misunderstanding, I don't mention these things to engage in a who's-the-bigger-victim contest. That's the last thing I want to do. But it often helps put things into perspective when one sees that the injustices go both ways.

SplitDik, please be careful what kind of indictment you make of men. Carelessly bandied words can be terribly misleading. You're correct in pointing out that men - i.e., the average man - are most definitely not in control of society. If we were, I rather doubt that only men would have to register for the draft, for instance, while women are given the right to volunteer for service, or not, as they choose. More to the point, were we truly in control of society, we wouldn't have a 10% shorter life span.

But you indict us wrongly when you say, "

SplitDik (imported) wrote: Fri Aug 23, 2002 2:41 pm Sure men beat women all the time. They also beat other men. Men in general enjoy beating on people -- that is why we invent sports like football, boxing, and WWF wrestling.

" Like our detractors, you describe the actions of a small percentage of men who are overly aggressive and often criminal, and extend them to all men, and that's just wrong. I don't know about you, but I've never been a wife beater, nor do I enjoy beating on other men. I've enjoyed competition, even contact sports, but that enjoyment arises out of a competitive instinct, for which violence is only secondary, and nearly always extremely strictly controlled (Face mask!! 15 yards!!).

Males are more aggressive, and that aggression sometimes spills over into violence, especially among the less civilized. But that doesn't for a minute mean that "men" enjoy the violence, only that a criminal few find it useful.

Felings: While true that few men express their true feelings, it's far from true that all of us consider every woman we encounter as sex objects. Yes, we may find ourselves wanting to have sex with any particular woman, but wanting to have sex with someone and objectifying her are two different things. I think we wrongly assume that because men are more able to compartmentalize our emotional lives from the rest of our lives, that we are necessarily objectifying our partners, but that's not what's going on at all. I think the objectification accusation is mostly the invention of those women who get themselves into a sexual relationship thinking it's going to induce him to marry her, only to find out that marriage isn't in his plans, i.e., he won't commit, therefore he''s objectifying. BZZZZT! Wrong!

You're right, though, that we men rarely express our true feelings, though wrong about which feelings we hesitate to express. Men are far more willing to express sexual desires than they are to express fear or feelings of weakness or powerlessness. That's because they know women simply don't want to hear that, and will reject any man who expresses them. Women seek men for protection, and if he expresses feelings that give her any idea that he may not be willing and able to do that, he will be of less use to her, and she'll tend to look elsewhere.

Trade-ins: Sounds like the old Henny Youngman joke: "My wife just turned 40, so I traded her in for two 20's." But don't confuse men's fantasies with what they will do in real life. Most of us value a good relationship far more than fleeting youth and beauty, despite what the radical feminists charge. That doesn't mean that our natural sex drives don't make us wish we could bang that sweet young thing in the thong bikini, but relatively few of us are willing to endanger a going relationship, even a flawed one, just for the quick pleasure. Actually, in some demographics, women are actually more likely to stray sexually than men, and are more than twice as likely in all age groups to file for divorce. So much for men's alleged greater wanderlust....

Sexual repression: Women don't repress men sexually. They simply do not, despite their claims, experience anywhere near the urgency of sex drive that men do. As all of us here know, it's testosterone that creates that urgency, and women make only a very little of it. (Ask any female body builder on steroids what the T does to her sex drive!) It's that lack of urgency that allows women who are so inclined to use sex as a bargaining tool. I know this because as I've aged and my hormone production has dwindled, I find myself far less inclined to put up with manipulative B.S. just to get her in the sack, and far more likely to insist on my own emotional needs being met. Indeed, I'm more likely to turn and walk away immediately if I sense that she's trying to use me. But the bottom line is that it's biology, not bad intent.

One place where we are 100% in sync, though, was your final statement to the young lady: "

SplitDik (imported) wrote: Fri Aug 23, 2002 2:41 pm Life is tough for everyone. I'm only writing all this because you were claiming that life was tougher for women. I guarantee you that while their life may be tough, men's life historically has been a lot tougher.

" All I can add to that is "Amen!"

Radar,

I appreciate your comments.

Whenever we need to talk about laws and society, we HAVE to get into generalizations. For example we make laws against rape even though there is a small percentage of women who like being forced into sex acts.

My test for whether a generalization is true is to looks at where the money flows. Football, boxing and WWF are huge money-making industries, therefore I would say that it resonates with a significant portion of society (which is largely made up of men). So when I say men like violent sports, I agree that not all men like them (I don't). But I think saying men like violent sports is more accurate than saying men don't like violent sports ...

There is also a lot of money in porn, and the majority of porn is geared toward a male audience. So I think saying men like sex is more accurate than saying men don't like sex ...

Since porn and violence seem to appeal to a large segment of men, our laws need to reflect those forces and our society needs to provide outlet for them.

My worry is that our society tends to repress sexual outlet, and then our laws are very brutal on men who act out in frustration. I feel that both of these trends are initiated by women, and therefore I feel to compelled to warn women that further repression of sexual outlets and increasing punishment for sex crimes will not solve the problem -- it creates it.

XNoCTuRNaLRoSeX (imported) wrote: Sun Aug 25, 2002 1:34 pm Again, SplitDik, you're wrong. If a guy really loves a woman he stays with her. Only the wannabe men trade in their women. Only the bastards of society do it. REAL MEN don't and that is a fact. I sure as hell don't control my mate's life and anyone who says otherwise is a friggin' liar. I am an equal opportunist and detest guys who think they can control me as my last mate thought he could. REAL men don't hide their feelings when it comes to love and I have been loved by many guys. NO guy would EVER trade ME in. Only reason they are out of the picture is because I sent them packing because I felt I was too young to settle down. When I get married my husband will be devoted to me and I to him. He will be a REAL man, not a cheating boy. Any guy who trades in their woman every five years for a new one is only BOY (no matter the age) and will never be a man. Men are loyal, boys are not. Plain and simple..you're a boy.

So, if I understand you, your mate must tell you he loves you, must not be interested in other women, will get sent packing according to your whim, and must be devoted to you. Yep, sounds like an independent, equal opportunity man to me!

You are just defining what you would like men to be. Not what they are (in general). I am sure you can find a man who will play that role for you. However, I don't think your description explains the way the majority of men act in society. My objection to your comments is that you expect men to act according to your rules, which have little to do with what drives the average man.