The Love Connection

[JOSEPH X]

I only make a pass at women who look at me and smile. A great icebreaker these days is to pull out your phone and take a picture of her.

 

Never ask questions that have a yes/no answer. Say something like "what do you think of guys in skinny jeans?" Girls like to talk not be quizzed.

 

I'm going out Saturday - on the pull.

[Typhus]

You know I am starting to suspect that I'm asexual or something. I feel an attraction to women but the thought of a relationship or even a dinner-date makes me feel just, meh. And the thought of seeing someone just for intercourse just feels immature to me.

 

Ah to hell with it. To make things easy I'll just get married to my job instead.

I am asexual myself. And if you're starting to develop these feelings, don't be afraid and don't do what I did and try to kid yourself that you're 'just like everyone else'. Because, trust me, that only leads to misery.

I told myself I was a 'late bloomer' or some sh*t and had to pretend to the other kids that I had a crush on various girls because I didn't really understand the concept of not being motivated by sex or love.

If you seriously believe you could be asexual, you might want to visit this forum. They all think I'm a bloody psychotic, but they are nice people and very supportive:

 

http://www.asexuality.org/en/

 

Hope I was some help mate

[sivispacem]

 

I only make a pass at women who look at me and smile. A great icebreaker these days is to pull out your phone and take a picture of her.

For someone old enough to drink alcohol in 2001 (see other thread) your not very savvy on mating rituals. Most girls I know, if photographed by a stranger, would clock them one in the face.

[cas-97]

This girl i love hated me for a long time then she started talking to me and she is always sad when she won't see me and happy when i'm there for her and sends xx in every message and i'm always helping her out i know those might be stupid reasons to think... But do you think she probably loves me aswell?

[MadClownBadDub]

Man, it sucks that some of you guys are grounded and can't go out with your girlfriends tonight...Maybe I can be your girlfriend tonight? Mum and Dad won't be home for hours, they'll never know.

 

Haha, in all seriousness, as cheesy as it sounds, you should never get hung up on one girl. There's always another one out there. And if you do get hung up on one, and can't seem to shake her no matter what? Well, then she just might be worth it.

[okei]

every hole's a goal, and there are plenty more fish in the chip shop

[cas-97]

Forget my comment i'm just kidding myself

[T.Rez]

I don't have a problem talking with women at parties/bars when I'm slightly tipsy but I don't know how to get women to sleep with me. How do I steer the conversation from small talk to sex talk? Surely it can't be as simple as saying "wanna f*ck?".

[Ronmar The Only]

 

Raisin sounds like a pretty name. And yeah, I'm around 16, says right on my profile info. Don't worry I ain't offended 

 

Yeah thanks for the advice. I really wouldn't mind just staying as her good friend, as long she's around me is what counts right? Just few days ago she told me that she felt like kissing me when we were taking the train together.

 

Feels good getting this out, even on the Internet.

 

 

Raisin isn't her actual name; it is a nickname from way back that someone gave her that turned out to be semi-related to me through various marriages. Always interesting how the world turns out.

 

If she is saying stuff like that and still with the guy, she is really confused, or planning on breaking up with him.

 

I would confront her with this and tell her that she keeps saying these things and that you need specificity. If you want to. You could always let things stay as they are.

 

 

To T. Rez,

 

You don't move it to sex talk. You talk around the sex. Talk about sharing a private drink or coming back to listen to music or watch a movie or hang out after the bar closes or whatever.

 

Be careful out there. Wrap the tool and remember, STDs can be transferred numerous ways.

[cas-97]

I feel married but I'm not.

 

Although I love my girlfriend, I am getting sick of her ways, her constant requirements for me to remind her how pretty she is, and not to appreciate any other girl is damn annoying, her control over me is damn annoying too, gaming to her is like the worst thing I could ever do, and my ps3 is lucky to still be working, after being thrown at a wall, kicked and had soup chucked all over it. These stem from an irrational temper, and there was once a time I had to lie about how I got scratches on my face and bruises over my arms.

 

Now I'm still her with despite all this, I think its down to my very low self esteem (sucks to be an awkward shy ugly guy), she is incredibly pretty and at times the perfect girlfriend,, seriously I've been to parties, and overheard people saying how is he, with her?

 

So anyways over a year ago, we kind of broke up, I decided to get back in touch with a really nice girl I had met and felt a connection with during a trip, did this through facebook, for which my girlfriend had known my password, so i changed it. Then her insecurities kicked in, demanded she know my password again and what was I up to? I reassured her, nothing was going on and that she take my word for it, truthfully nothing was going on, I simple messaged a girl as a friend to ask how she was and if she still remembered me! GF hacks my account, she appeared calmed down, and innocently asked what was my first pets name? Which must have been a security question for my email, by this stage I had completely forgot about this whole scenario, the girl had messaged me back, but the conversation didnt persist (she was just someone I met, and added nothing more). She logged in, saw these messages, obsessed over this girl and basically accused me of having an affair, I swear every time we had a dispute after that, it was always why dont you message “Maria” over facebook?

 

So to an extent, this girl on facebook I had just met the once, becomes someone I am supposedly in love with (according to my girlfriend), the more my girlfriend argued with me about it, the more I thought about this other girl. Let me talk a little more about this other girl, she was kind, she came to me and spoke to me, girls dont normally do this, especially not very pretty girls, but she did. Secondly speaking to her was easy, I found we had so much in common it was weird. Now time passes, and I reassure my girlfriend I love her, but deep in the back of my mind is this other girl, I cannot explain it and I feel ashamed to admit it, but I just kept thinking of her. Months and weeks pass, I dont get in touch with this girl, I think about it but I don't

 

So last week, out of the blue I message this girl on facebook again (I finally thought what the heck, why not!), my girlfriend knows my password and can easily check to see what I've sent and what I've received, I've reached a stage were I don't care what she says about it, Im sure she won't be happy, but I'm not asking this girl out on a date or anything just asking how she is? She replies "i'm good thanks and you?" Now we havent spoken to each other for a long time, and I'm not sure what to say next (what do I say except I'm good thanks, but I've got a thing for you, but right now I'm stuck in an unhappy relationship"?), do I explain why I / my girlfriend deleted her as a friend? By the way I kind of did explain to a friend of this girl, I did this when drunk, so I have no idea if the whole drunk message I told her got through or not, it wasn't the wisest move I know.

 

Before you guys say I need to man up, and lay the pimp hand down on the bitch, or some other sh*t, apart from these irrational mood swings, my girlfriend is faultless, seemingly perfect girl, my family who have got to known her, think's she is a darling and love her, but even they are wary of her temper and sometimes tell me I should let go.

Any advice is appreciated....please don't reply just to make fun of my situation, I don't normally lay out my feelings like this, but I thought its been bothering me for so long, maybe someone might help.

That sounds kinda crazy Well you have to decide which one you love? But do you really wanna break the other girls heart.

[vertical limit]

I don't have a problem talking with women at parties/bars when I'm slightly tipsy but I don't know how to get women to sleep with me. How do I steer the conversation from small talk to sex talk? Surely it can't be as simple as saying "wanna f*ck?".

They may look clean on the outside, but you never know what is inside.

[blitz]

@Stonehead if she treats you like that, you shouldn't be with her at all. Don't let her control you like that.

 

@Typhus You do have interesting posts, you are an odd fella but I like it that you know that yourself. Stay strong, buddy.

[Swarz]

Reading this topic makes me realise two things:

 

1) I'm really not surprised that societies are in the state they're in - the lack of basic social skills and etiquette in the younger generation is frightening. I partly blame porn - it's made guys think that girls just wanna f*ck, f*ck and f*ck some more.

 

2) I'm so glad to be in a stable relationship.

 

[fireguy109]

If one girl says you're "cute" but another says you're "hot" which is a bigger compliment?

 

Not pretending to be a player here or anything.

[blitz]

 

If one girl says you're "cute" but another says you're "hot" which is a bigger compliment?

 

Not pretending to be a player here or anything.

Depends on how they say it, it could turn out to be equal. When you're called cute we're probably referring to your personality, hot to your body, and gorgeous probably to both.

 

@cas-97 aren't you like 12?

[JoeyLeone25]

I don't have a problem talking with women at parties/bars when I'm slightly tipsy but I don't know how to get women to sleep with me. How do I steer the conversation from small talk to sex talk? Surely it can't be as simple as saying "wanna f*ck?".

Find somebody and build a relationship with them. I don't know why everybody is so fond of 'one night stands' nowadays, especially since my experience of them in the past has been primarily centred around having intercourse which has been borderline consensual (small joke, seriously, I haven't committed any forms of sexual assault) due to alcohol consumption and, the television shows and movies glamorize it, but waking up in a morning and finding a naked, hung-over woman who you don’t recognise in bed with you may sound magical, but it certainly isn’t especially when the awkward conversation starts as you or her begin to leave.

[Punk-in-Drublic]

I love coming into threads like this just to have a good laugh, some of these members make me feel like less of a loser. To me, not having sex in 3 months is a bit of a dilema.

 

To be honest though, there is this one girl who has started talking to me who has seemed to be going a little too fast. I want to f*ck her, but Jesus Christ, she's acting like we're going to be getting married in 6 months, i've barely even thought of being in a relationship with this girl. But yeah, she's eager, so i'll keep you posted haha.

[TEoS]

Seems to me like a lot of the issues in this topic would be really simple decisions if the people posting their issues just reread what they've said from an outside perspective. Particularly the ones that start with "I love my GF, but..." Most of them sound like absolutely awful relationships.

 

And lay off Typhus, he's a pretty cool guy. eh speaks his mind and doesnt afraid of anything.

[Iminicus]

I think marriage is overrated and I never plan on getting married. It is really a personal choice.

Seeing as you are a full grown man who has only had sex maybe 3 times in his life and can't manage to hold down a decent relationship for more than a few days, if that, I completely understand.

Haha, ass!

[Jay]

every hole's a goal

That's the sentiment for one of my friends. He was ploughing girls left, right and centre when I first met him. Thing is, he was consistently going for the low hanging fruit. My numbers pale in comparison to his, but the collective scores of my laydeez would double his.

 

I met this girl the other week who has easily the prettiest face I've ever seen. Thing is she's one of those girls that has a tumblr, posts all those sh*t images with incongruous/wanky quotes, etc, etc. But I think I can put up with that.

[Iminicus]

 

The Misandry Bubble

Why does it seem that American society is in decline, that fairness and decorum are receding, that socialism and tyranny are becoming malignant despite the majority of the public being averse to such philosophies, yet the true root cause seems elusive?  What if everything from unsustainable health care and social security costs, to stagnant wages and rising crime, to crumbling infrastructure and metastasizing socialism, to the economic decline of major US cities like Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Baltimore, could all be traced to a common origin that is extremely pervasive yet is all but absent from the national dialog, indeed from the dialog of the entire Western world?

 

Today, on the first day of the new decade of '201x' years, I am going to tell you why that is.  I am hereby triggering the national dialog on what the foremost challenge for the United States will be in this decade, which is the ultimate root cause of most of the other problems we appear to be struggling with.  What you are about to read is the equivalent of someone in 1997 describing the expected forces governing the War on Terror from 2001-2009 in profound detail.

 

This is a very long article, the longest ever written on The Futurist.  As it is a guide to the next decade of social, political, and sexual strife, it is not meant to be read in one shot but rather digested slowly over an extended period, with all supporting links read as well.  As the months and years of this decade progress, this article will seem all the more prophetic. 

 

Executive Summary : The Western World has quietly become a civilization that undervalues men and overvalues women, where the state forcibly transfers resources from men to women creating various perverse incentives for otherwise good women to conduct great evil against men and children, and where male nature is vilified but female nature is celebrated.  This is unfair to both genders, and is a recipe for a rapid civilizational decline and displacement, the costs of which will ultimately be borne by a subsequent generation of innocent women, rather than men, as soon as 2020.

 

Symbol

 

The Cultural Thesis

 

The Masculinity Vacuum in Entertainment : Take a look at the collage of entertainers below (click to enlarge), which will be relevant if you are older than 30.  All of them were prominent in the 1980s, some spilling over on either side of that decade.  They are all certainly very different from one another.  But they have one thing in common - that there are far fewer comparable personas produced by Hollywood today.

 

Misandry As diverse and imperfect as these characters were, they were all examples of masculinity.  They represented different archetypes, from the father to the leader to the ladies man to the rugged outdoorsman to the protector.  They were all more similar than dissimilar, as they all were role-models for young boys of the time, often the same young boys.  Celebrities as disparate as Bill Cosby and Mr. T had majority overlap in their fan bases, as did characters as contrasting as Jean-Luc Picard and The Macho Man Randy Savage.

 

At this point, you might be feeling a deep inner emptiness lamenting a bygone age, as the paucity of proudly, inspiringly masculine characters in modern entertainment becomes clear.  Before the 1980s, there were different masculine characters, but today, they are conspicuously absent.  Men are shown either as thuggish degenerates, or as effete androgynes.  Sure, there were remakes of Star Trek and The A-Team, and series finales of Rocky and Indiana Jones.  But where are the new characters?  Why is the vacuum being filled solely with nostalgia?  A single example like Jack Bauer is not sufficient to dispute the much larger trend of masculinity purging.

 

Modern entertainment typically shows businessmen as villains, and husbands as bumbling dimwits that are always under the command of the all-powerful wife, who is never wrong.  Oprah Winfrey's platform always grants a sympathetic portrayal to a wronged woman, but never to men who have suffered great injustices.  Absurdly false feminist myths such as a belief that women are underpaid relative to men for the same output of work, or that adultery and domestic violence are actions committed exclusively by men, are embedded even within the dialog of sitcoms and legal dramas.

 

This trains women to disrespect men, wives to think poorly of their husbands, and girls to devalue the importance of their fathers, which leads to the normalization of single motherhood (obviously with taxpayer subsidies), despite the reality that most single mothers are not victims, but merely women who rode a carousel of men with reckless abandon.  This, in turn, leads to fatherless young men growing up being told that natural male behavior is wrong, and feminization is normal.  It also leads to women being deceived outright about the realities of the sexual market, where media attempts to normalize single motherhood and attempted 'cougarhood' are glorified, rather than portrayed as the undesirable conditions that they are.

 

The Primal Nature of Men and Women : Genetic research has shown that before the modern era, 80% of women managed to reproduce, but only 40% of men did.  The obvious conclusion from this is that a few top men had multiple wives, while the bottom 60% had no mating prospects at all.  Women clearly did not mind sharing the top man with multiple other women, ultimately deciding that being one of four women sharing an 'alpha' was still more preferable than having the undivided attention of a 'beta'.  Let us define the top 20% of men as measured by their attractiveness to women, as 'alpha' males while the middle 60% of men will be called 'beta' males.  The bottom 20% are not meaningful in this context.

 

Research across gorillas, chimpanzees, and primitive human tribes shows that men are promiscuous and polygamous.  This is no surprise to a modern reader, but the research further shows that women are not monogamous, as is popularly assumed, but hypergamous.  In other words, a woman may be attracted to only one man at any given time, but as the status and fortune of various men fluctuates, a woman's attention may shift from a declining man to an ascendant man.  There is significant turnover in the ranks of alpha males, which women are acutely aware of.

 

As a result, women are the first to want into a monogamous relationship, and the first to want out.  This is neither right nor wrong, merely natural.  What is wrong, however, is the cultural and societal pressure to shame men into committing to marriage under the pretense that they are 'afraid of commitment' due to some 'Peter Pan complex', while there is no longer the corresponding traditional shame that was reserved for women who destroyed the marriage, despite the fact that 90% of divorces are initiated by women.  Furthermore, when women destroy the commitment, there is great harm to children, and the woman demands present and future payments from the man she is abandoning.  A man who refuses to marry is neither harming innocent minors nor expecting years of payments from the woman.  This absurd double standard has invisible but major costs to society.

 

To provide 'beta' men an incentive to produce far more economic output than needed just to support themselves while simultaneously controlling the hypergamy of women that would deprive children of interaction with their biological fathers, all major religions constructed an institution to force constructive conduct out of both genders while penalizing the natural primate tendencies of each.  This institution was known as 'marriage'.  Societies that enforced monogamous marriage made sure all beta men had wives, thus unlocking productive output out of these men who in pre-modern times would have had no incentive to be productive.  Women, in turn, received a provider, a protector, and higher social status than unmarried women, who often were trapped in poverty.  When applied over an entire population of humans, this system was known as 'civilization'.

 

All societies that achieved great advances and lasted for multiple centuries followed this formula with very little deviation, and it is quite remarkable how similar the nature of monogamous marriage was across seemingly diverse cultures.  Societies that deviated from this were quickly replaced.  This 'contract' between the sexes was advantageous to beta men, women over the age of 35, and children, but greatly curbed the activities of alpha men and women under 35 (together, a much smaller group than the former one).  Conversely, the pre-civilized norm of alpha men monopolizing 3 or more young women each, replacing aging ones with new ones, while the masses of beta men fight over a tiny supply of surplus/aging women, was chaotic and unstable, leaving beta men violent and unproductive, and aging mothers discarded by their alpha mates now vulnerable to poverty.  So what happens when the traditional controls of civilization are lifted from both men and women?

 

The Four Sirens : Four unrelated forces simultaneously combined to entirely distort the balance of civilization built on the biological realities of men and women.  Others have presented versions of the Four Sirens concept in the past, but I am choosing a slightly different definition of the Four Sirens :

 

    1) Easy contraception (condoms, pills, and abortions): In the past, extremely few women ever had more than one or two sexual partners in their lives, as being an unwed mother led to poverty and social ostracization.  Contraception made it possible for females to conduct campaigns to act on their urges of hypergamy.

 

    2) 'No fault' divorce, asset division, and alimony : In the past, a woman who wanted to leave her husband needed to prove misconduct on his part.  Now, the law has changed to such a degree that a woman can leave her husband for no stated reason, yet is still entitled to payments from him for years to come.  This incentivizes destruction because it enables women to transfer the costs of irresponsible behavior onto men and children.

 

    3) Female economic freedom : Despite 'feminists' claiming that this is the fruit of their hard work, inventions like the vacuum cleaner, washing machine, and oven were the primary drivers behind liberating women from household chores and freeing them up to enter the workforce.  These inventions compressed the chores that took a full day into just an hour or less.  There was never any male opposition to women entering the workforce, as more labor lowered labor costs while also creating new consumers.  However, one of the main reasons that women married - financial support - was no longer a necessity.

 

    Female entry into the workforce is generally a positive development for society, and I would be the first to praise this, if it were solely on the basis of merit (as old-school feminists had genuinely intended).  Unfortunately, too much of this is now due to corrupt political lobbying to forcibly transfer resources from men to women.

 

    4) Female-Centric social engineering : Above and beyond the pro-woman divorce laws, further state interventions include the subsidization of single motherhood, laws that criminalize violence against women (but offer no protection to men who are the victims of violence by women, which happens just as often), and 'sexual harassment' laws with definitions so nebulous that women have the power to accuse men of anything without the man having any rights of his own.

 

These four forces in tandem handed an unprecedented level of power to women.  The technology gave them freedom to pursue careers and the freedom to be promiscuous.  Feminist laws have done a remarkable job of shielding women from the consequences of their own actions.  Women now have as close to a hypergamous utopia as has ever existed, where they can pursue alpha males while extracting subsidization from beta males without any reciprocal obligations to them.  Despite all the new freedoms available to women that freed them from their traditional responsibilities, men were still expected to adhere to their traditional responsibilities.

 

Marriage 2.0 : From the West to the Middle East to Asia, marriage is considered a mandatory bedrock of any functioning society.  If marriage is such a crucial ingredient of societal health, then the West is barreling ahead on a suicidal path.

 

We earlier discussed why marriage was created, but equally important were the factors that sustained the institution and kept it true to its objectives.  The reasons that marriage 'worked' not too long ago were :

 

    1) People married at the age of 20, and usually died by the age of 50.  People were virgins at marriage, and women spent their 20s tending to 3 or more children.  The wife retained her beauty 15 years into the marriage, and the lack of processed junk food kept her slim even after that.  This is an entirely different psychological foundation than the present urban feminist norm of a woman marrying at the age of 34 after having had 10 or more prior sexual relationships, who then promptly emerges from her svelte chrysalis in an event that can best be described as a fatocalypse.

 

    2) It was entirely normal for 10-20% of young men to die or be crippled on the battlefield, or in occupational accidents.  Hence, there were always significantly more women than able-bodied men in the 20-40 age group, ensuring that not all women could marry.  Widows were common and visible, and vulnerable to poverty and crime.  For these reasons, women who were married to able-bodied men knew how fortunate they were relative to other women who had to resort to tedious jobs just to survive, and treated their marriage with corresponding respect.

 

    3) Prior to the invention of contraception, female promiscuity carried the huge risk of pregnancy, and the resultant poverty and low social status.  It was virtually impossible for any women to have more than 2-3 sexual partners in her lifetime without being a prostitute, itself an occupation of the lowest social status.

 

    4) Divorce carried both social stigma and financial losses for a woman.  Her prospects for remarriage were slim.  Religious institutions, extended clans, and broader societal forces were pressures to keep a woman committed to her marriage, and the notion of leaving simply out of boredom was out of the question.

 

Today, however, all of these factors have been removed.  This is partly the result of good forces (economic progress and technology invented by beta men), but partly due to artificial schemes that are extremely damaging to society.

 

For one thing, the wedding itself has gone from a solemn event attended only by close family and friends, to an extravaganza of conspicuous consumption for the enjoyment of women but financed by the hapless man.  The wedding ring itself used to be a family heirloom passed down over generations, but now, the bride thumbs through a catalog that shows her rings that the man is expected to spend two months of his salary to buy.  This presumption that somehow the woman is to be indulged for entering marriage is a complete reversal of centuries-old traditions grounded in biological realities (and evidence of how American men have become weak pushovers).  In India, for example, it is normal even today for either the bride's father to pay for the wedding, or for the bride's family to give custody of all wedding jewelry to the groom's family.  The reason for this was so that the groom's family effectively had a 'security bond' against irresponsible behavior on the part of the bride, such as her leaving the man at the (Indian equivalent of the) altar, or fleeing the marital home at the first sign of distress (also a common female psychological response).  For those wondering why Indian culture has such restrictions on women and not men, restrictions on men were tried in some communities, and those communities quickly vanished and were forgotten.  There is no avoiding the reality that marriage has to be made attractive to men for the surrounding civilization to survive.  Abuse and blackmail of women certainly occurred in some instances, but on balance, these customs existed through centuries of observing the realities of human behavior.  Indian civilization has survived for over 5000 years and every challenge imaginable through enforcement of these customs, and, until recently, the Christian world also had comparable mechanisms to steer individual behavior away from destructive manifestations.  However, if the wedding has mutated into a carnival of bridezilla narcissism, the mechanics of divorce are far more disastrous.

 

In an 'at will' employment arrangement between a corporation and an employee, either party can terminate the contract at any time.  However, instead of a few weeks of severance, imagine what would happen if the employer was legally required to pay the employee half of his or her paycheck for 20 additional years, irrespective of anything the employee did or did not do, under penalty of imprisonment for the CEO.  Suppose, additionally, that it is culturally encouraged for an employee to do this whenever even minor dissatisfaction arises.  Would businesses be able to operate?  Would anyone want to be a CEO?  Would businesses even form, and thus would any wealth be created, given the risks associated with hiring an employee?  Keep these questions in mind as you read further.

 

So why are 90% of divorces initiated by women (she files 70% of the time, and the other 20% of the time, she forces the man to file, due to abuse or adultery on the part of the woman)?  Women have always been hypergamous, and most were married to beta men that they felt no attraction towards, so what has changed to cause an increase in divorce rates?

 

Divorce lawyers, like any other professional group, will seek conditions that are good for business.  What makes attorneys different from, say, engineers or salespeople, is that a) they know precisely how to lobby for changes to the legal system, bypassing voters and the US constitution, that guarantees more revenue for them, and b) what benefits them is directly harmful to the fabric of society in general, and to children in particular.  When they collude with rage-filled 'feminists' who would gladly send innocent men to concentration camps if they could, the outcome is catastrophic.

 

The concept of 'no fault' divorce by itself may not be unfair.  The concepts of asset division and alimony may also be fair in the event of serious wrongdoing by the husband.  However, the combination of no-fault divorce plus asset division/alimony is incredibly unfair and prone to extortionary abuse.  The notion that she can choose to leave the marriage, yet he is nonetheless required to pay her for years after that even if he did not want to destroy the union, is an injustice that should not occur in any advanced democracy.  Indeed, the man has to pay even if the woman has an extramarital affair, possibly even being ordered to pay her psychiatric fees.  Bogus claims by 'feminists' that women suffer under divorce are designed to obscure the fact that she is the one who filed for divorce.  Defenders of alimony insist that a woman seeking a divorce should not see a drop in living standards, but it is somehow acceptable for the husband to see a drop even if he did not want a divorce.  I would go further and declare that any belief that women deserve alimony on a no-fault basis in this day age is utterly contradictory to the belief that women are equals of men.  How can women both deserve alimony while also claiming equality?  In rare cases, high-earning women have had to pay alimony to ex-husbands, but that is only 4% of the time, vs. the man paying 96% of the time.  But it gets worse; much worse, in fact.

 

Even if the woman chooses to leave on account of 'boredom', she is still given default custody of the children, which exposes the total hypocrisy of feminist claims that men and women should be treated equally.  Furthermore, the man is required to pay 'child support' which is assessed at levels much higher than the direct costs of child care, with the woman facing no burden to prove the funds were spent on the child, and cannot be specified by any pre-nuptial agreement.  The rationale is that 'the child should not see a drop in living standards due to divorce', but since the mother has custody of the child, this is a stealthy way in which feminists have ensured financial maintenence of the mother as well.  So the man loses his children and most of his income even if he did not want divorce.  But even that is not the worst-case scenario.

 

The Bradley Amendment, devised by Senator Bill Bradley in 1986, ruthlessly pursues men for the already high 'child support' percentages, and seizes their passports and imprisons them without due process for falling behind in payments, even if on account of job loss during a recession.  Under a bogus 'deadbeat dads' media campaign, 'feminists' were able to obscure the fact that women were the ones ending their marriages and with them the benefit that children receive from a two-parent upbringing, and further demanding unusually high spousal maintenence, much of which does not even go to the child, from a dutiful ex-husband who did not want a divorce, under penalty of imprisonment.  So the legal process uses children as pawns through which to extract an expanded alimony stream for the mother.  Talk about a multi-layer compounding of evil.  The phony tactic of insisting that 'it is for the children' is used to shut down all questions about the use of children as pawns in the extortion process, while avoiding scrutiny of the fact that the parent who is choosing divorce is clearly placing the long-term well-being of the children at a very low priority.

 

So as it stands today, there are large numbers of middle-class men who were upstanding citizens, who were subjected to divorce against their will, had their children taken from them, pay alimony masked as child support that is so high that many of them have to live out of their cars or with their relatives, and after job loss from economic conditions, are imprisoned simply for running out of money.  If 10-30% of American men are under conditions where 70% or more of their income is taken from them under threat of prison, these men have no incentive to start new businesses or invent new technologies or processes.  Having 10-30% of men disincentivized this way cannot be good for the economy, and is definitely a contributor to current economic malaise, not to mention a 21st-century version of slavery.  Sometimes, the children are not even biologically his.

 

This one-page site has more links about the brutal tyranny that a man can be subjected to once he enters the legal contract of marriage, and even more so after he has children.  What was once the bedrock of society, and a solemn tradition that benefited both men and women equally, has quietly mutated under the evil tinkering of feminists, divorce lawyers, and leftists, into a shockingly unequal arrangement, where the man is officially a second-class citizen who is subjected to a myriad of sadistic risks.  As a result, the word 'marriage' should not even be used, given the totality of changes that have made the arrangement all but unrecognizable compared to its intended ideals.  Suicide rates of men undergoing divorce run as high as 20%, and all of us know a man who either committed suicide, or admits seriously considering it during the dehumanization he faced even though he wanted to preserve the union.  Needless to say, this is a violation of the US Constitution on many levels, and is incompatible with the values of any supposedly advanced democracy that prides itself on freedom and liberty.  There is effectively a tyrannical leftist shadow state operating within US borders but entirely outside the US constitution, which can subject a man to horrors more worthy of North Korea than the US, even if he did not want out of the marriage, did not want to be separated from his children, and did not want to lose his job.  Any unsuspecting man can be sucked into this shadow state.

 

Anyone who believes that two-parent families are important to the continuance of an advanced civilization, should focus on the explosive growth in revenue earned by divorce lawyers, court supervisors, and 'feminist' organizations over the past quarter-century.  If Western society is to survive, these revenues should be chopped down to a tenth of what they presently are, which is what they would be if the elements that violate the US Constitution were repealed.

 

The Misandry Bubble

 

That is just a small portion of what is written. Very interesting read.

[T.Rez]

I don't have a problem talking with women at parties/bars when I'm slightly tipsy but I don't know how to get women to sleep with me. How do I steer the conversation from small talk to sex talk? Surely it can't be as simple as saying "wanna f*ck?".

Find somebody and build a relationship with them. I don't know why everybody is so fond of 'one night stands' nowadays, especially since my experience of them in the past has been primarily centred around having intercourse which has been borderline consensual (small joke, seriously, I haven't committed any forms of sexual assault) due to alcohol consumption and, the television shows and movies glamorize it, but waking up in a morning and finding a naked, hung-over woman who you don’t recognise in bed with you may sound magical, but it certainly isn’t especially when the awkward conversation starts as you or her begin to leave.

Now that imagine waking up next to some hungover women, the thought of a one night stand has become less appealing.

[A J]

But why is it that my honesty is always, always doubted by people like him?

I don't think its that we doubt your honesty. I think it has to do with the majority of us thinking you are mentally unstable, socially retarded or inept, or think you are just generally mentally retarded. When you say "people like him" I think you fail to realize that it turns out "people like him" generally means "everyone but you".

 

Thats completely untrue, although I don't always understand Typhus, I do like the guy, and its clear other users do too, and I think he states his mind a lot better than some people on here do.

 

My current plan is to maintain and give my current girlfriend every chance to prove that her moodswings are something that she will try to do something about, meanwhile and without her knowing, I've further messaged this other girl saying, I'd like to get to know her better, and would like to have dinner sometime together as friends.

 

I also noticed something ridiculously sneaky my girlfriend did to my email after hacking it, she put her email address as a reset password address, I can't seem to find anyway of removing this option, without being able to access her email, anyways I've changed my passwords for email and facebook, told her what they were to not make her suspect anything, and deleted all trace of these sent messages, all I can do now is try to access my facebook first, when this other girl writes back. I hope this other girl gives me a straight answer though, to be honest I'd prefer a no, I'm not interested in someways, I'm not happy about doing this kind of thing behind a girls back but fk it, she met and kissed another guy whilst we were supposedly together not that long ago, and I was hopelessly dumb enough to accept this , but I've had it now, she's on her last chance.

[Law0070]

I don't have a problem talking with women at parties/bars when I'm slightly tipsy but I don't know how to get women to sleep with me. How do I steer the conversation from small talk to sex talk? Surely it can't be as simple as saying "wanna f*ck?".

*sigh*

 

are you the kind of guy who only wants a relationship (if you can call it a relationship) just for the sexual intercourse?

 

"how do I get a girl into my bed fast 'nd easy?", well, with such a mentality, NOT (oh well, you probably will...but those are considered sluts)

 

you must be able to offer something...a nice body...or even better, a nice personality, or the best, a combination of both...not just the "I want to get laid let's grab sum bitchaz" mentality

 

and if you're that shy...there's the internet, you can meet people, it's not hard...social network sites (which aren't exactly social) can offer you access to lots of girls to contact, and it might be easier for you to talk online than IRL...and if you trust her on chat and you want to see eachother, go to a public space (you never know) and stay in touch

[T.Rez]

I don't have a problem talking with women at parties/bars when I'm slightly tipsy but I don't know how to get women to sleep with me. How do I steer the conversation from small talk to sex talk? Surely it can't be as simple as saying "wanna f*ck?".

*sigh*

 

are you the kind of guy who only wants a relationship (if you can call it a relationship) just for the sexual intercourse?

 

"how do I get a girl into my bed fast 'nd easy?", well, with such a mentality, NOT (oh well, you probably will...but those are considered sluts)

 

you must be able to offer something...a nice body...or even better, a nice personality, or the best, a combination of both...not just the "I want to get laid let's grab sum bitchaz" mentality

 

and if you're that shy...there's the internet, you can meet people, it's not hard...social network sites (which aren't exactly social) can offer you access to lots of girls to contact, and it might be easier for you to talk online than IRL...and if you trust her on chat and you want to see eachother, go to a public space (you never know) and stay in touch

I don't know if I want a relationship right now. Maybe if the right girl comes along, but what's wrong with wanting just sex? Also I'd prefer to meet women in RL if think its just better to do things that way.

[WF the Hobgoblin]

I don't have a problem talking with women at parties/bars when I'm slightly tipsy but I don't know how to get women to sleep with me. How do I steer the conversation from small talk to sex talk? Surely it can't be as simple as saying "wanna f*ck?".

*sigh*

 

are you the kind of guy who only wants a relationship (if you can call it a relationship) just for the sexual intercourse?

I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

Not everyone wants to get tied down into a relationship but that doesn't mean they don't still have sexual desires.

[cas-97]

@cas-97 aren't you like 12?

14 Years Old

[Law0070]

I don't have a problem talking with women at parties/bars when I'm slightly tipsy but I don't know how to get women to sleep with me. How do I steer the conversation from small talk to sex talk? Surely it can't be as simple as saying "wanna f*ck?".

*sigh*

 

are you the kind of guy who only wants a relationship (if you can call it a relationship) just for the sexual intercourse?

I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

Not everyone wants to get tied down into a relationship but that doesn't mean they don't still have sexual desires.

there's indeed nothing wrong with a sex-relationship but the way he putted it i thought he was looking for a "real relationship" but then just doing it for the sex which is something friends of mine sometimes got tricked in...they believe he really loves them but after all...ah well

 

sorry

 

mehhh...then, if you want that kind of relation, ugghh, i don't know, i got into some but those were usually my exes that still wanted sex after the relationship was over...and once a close friend of mine

 

idk mate, it's indeed pretty strange to ask a girl just for sex, lol...you should get pretty close with one and be trusted by her to do so...as I said, make sure you can offer them something

[Gundog]

 

Well, last year, I got hooked up with this girl from school that I really like. We started talking, chatting, and even went out a few times. I kinda felt those "butterflies", but thought nothing of it.

 

As time went on, we got closer and closer to each other. One day, every clique in the school started planning parties and what not, because school was nearly out. A classmate of mine, who's in her social circle (I'm not), overheard her talking about me. She apparently said that I'm a "stoner idiot" and that I "simply couldn't make a move", and I "got on her nerves".

 

I got pretty pissed upon hearing this, and simply cut the problem at it's roots. I stopped talking to her. She still hung around me for a few days, trying to start a conversation, and I simply didn't respond and nodded to whatever she said.

 

I forgot about it during the summer, and now, a new school year has started. I saw her looking at me, and I looked back, but again, simply walked away.

 

Two days ago, she pops up in a chatbox and asks me how did it get from being really close to not communicating at all. I told her why, and she simply said it was all lies. First off, she's popular, and in my head, out of my league. Second off, I have a completely different company at school, and the two social circles aren't really fond of each other (God, this is starting to sound like Bully or something).

 

What do I make of this? Why did she ask me about our lack of communication? Does she want my cock?

Edited September 10, 2011 by Gundog

[trip]

Gundog, don't forget opposites attract. It sounds like she may actually like something about you.

 

Not to bring up my relationship again, but when I started dating my now wife, we were in completely different circles. Aside from being from two different counter cultures, we had pretty much nothing in common.