MatureDJ
Master Don Juan
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2006
- Messages
- 11,296
- Reaction score
- 4,663
Moreover, women have made it clear they don’t need a man to support them, to be happy, or even to become a mother.
If women don't need a man, why should they care if they can't find a man to marry them?And that’s just the women who were fortunate enough to find husbands in the first place. Others put off marriage indefinitely — until they decide they want a baby. Trouble is, they can’t find men who are willing to marry them.
Because the Bible says, to avoid fornication, people should marry. (1 Cor 7:2)zekko said:And why should men marry?
Relax man we all already are married....to the State. I'm doing my bit bringing home the bacon to LaFawnda's 3 alpha sprog thuglets. God can rest easy.corrector said:Because the Bible says, to avoid fornication, people should marry. (1 Cor 7:2)
Rollo says that and then he claims he's not anti-marriage.zekko said:A few quotes from the article:
If women don't need a man, why should they care if they can't find a man to marry them?
And why should men marry? As Rollo often says, there is simply no advantage to marriage for a man. Not in today's world.
True enough. Anyway, marriage in the traditional sense no longer exists. Women will not respect the vows. They will file for divorce as soon as they become bored, or feel inconvenienced, have a bad day, become attracted to someone else, or decide you are not providing them with the Prince Charming existence they feel they have been promised, and are entitled to.( . )( . ) said:Relax man we all already are married....to the State. I'm doing my bit bringing home the bacon to LaFawnda's 3 alpha sprog thuglets.
Heh, funny. But I always figured Rollo came to his conclusion after he was already married. Marriage is good for the child though, or rather it can be. Although that is still not necessarily the same thing as being an advantage for the man.Boilermaker said:My point is, if you are smart enough, all your arguments (even the ridiculous ones) become tenable.
I'm pretty sure she didn't advocate that or allude to that in the article. She just merely pointed that while the main stream is lauding the rise of the single female, in reality is is that they are:Wilko said:Fairly accurate observations by Miss Venker. It's her analysis of those observations that irks me a bit. Like many traditionalists who decry the decline of marriage, she is very keen to hitch men to the yoke once again. No thanks.
And as a consequence, men are responding by shunning marriage and commitment.feminists are inherently insecure women who demand validation for their unusual choices.
Taiyuu, you're right, I re-read the article and I have misattributed some of the positions discussed to Venker herself. Good pick up.taiyuu_otoko said:I'm pretty sure she didn't advocate that or allude to that in the article.
Don't forget you're helping out fat ass Susie May and her 4 little redneck daughters Anna Lynn, Sissy Lynn, Mary Lynn and Honey Boo Boo as well.( . )( . ) said:Relax man we all already are married....to the State. I'm doing my bit bringing home the bacon to LaFawnda's 3 alpha sprog thuglets. God can rest easy.
this may be true in theory but a fantasy in reality.Boilermaker said:Maybe we're mad at the feminists because they figured out their inherent advantages? Like if every women in the world would withhold sex for a month the world would go insane?...
All men deserve at least common courtesy. It's for your own good. Disrespect the wrong stranger, and your pleasant morning will suddenly turn into a life-and-death struggle for survival. Wouldn't you rather live in a society where all men are pleasant to one another? Of course you would.Boilermaker said:I think we should somehow learn to -at least- think about the nature-based idea that
men can indeed be disposable to some extent.
The female may indeed inherently be more important from a biological standpoint. Maybe we're mad at the feminists because they figured out their inherent advantages? Like if every women in the world would withhold sex for a month the world would go insane?...
I am obviously not coming from the "feminine imperative", but I sometimes wonder what OUR position in this is ...
Why is a male to be respected, worshipped or followed UNLESS he's an ALPHA?
Just because you have a swinging dìck doesn't entitle to you to shìt in real life anyway, why would it be any different from a feminine perspective?
I don't like the socialistic idea of "defending all men's rights" really. I don't want to be defending enablers, white knights, manginas, pvssies, drug addicts
and deadbeats.
Why am I fighting with women for the sake of these basterds? They are increasing my value, after all !