Sex, Equality, And Kidding Ourselves (Should Men put their foot down and say enough is enough??)

FredonEverything.com ^ | 4/17/02 | Fred Reed

[RLK]

That six year period was like different centuries.

[CyberCowboy777]

Last time I checked more Women cheat as well as "bat" for both teams.

My point is that while men have a part in this crap-bucket, it is not all the men's fault. Women and Gays are the ones who demand sexual freedoms, not Heterosexual men. If you look to the past you will find the many "flamboyant" Women of the Thirties, Forties and Fifties that ushered in the Sexual revolution of the Sixties. Women who took the Women's Lib movement to the extreme in it's earliest stages and negated or removed the role of men. Women who "needed" no man and preferred Females. Some of the most astounding (and crack pot) sexual research and theories of these times were "found" and/or promoted by Women (including Women\Girl, Boy\Man). Remember, most of this happened in the Universities of the day first and much while the "real" men were at war (WWII, Korea and Vietnam).

[Valpal1]

One man keeping his pants zipped has little effect when the only thing it means is that the modern liberated woman is going to screw somebody else.

What's your point here, that she's going to screw somebody so it might as well be you?

Keeping your pants zipped will have a great effect in NOT repulsing the kind of woman you want while actively discouraging the liberated women you don't want.

Not to mention preventing yourself from being used as a sperm donor by a modern liberated Jane who wants to satisfy her biological clock.

[Valpal1]

No it's not all their fault, but it is their responsibility to lead, not whine about it. As the posted article does.

And still, I believe that the playboy philosphy was developed by men and marketed to women. Those glamour stars of the 20's-40's were marketed to women, by men and male dominated corporations. They just didn't look far enough ahead to what "liberating" women for their sexual utilitarianism would do.

Now the culture rot and gender war is.......spiraling out of control.

[Valpal1]

The philosophy preceded the magazine by some more years still. And abortion followed the pill by another decade as preventing pregnancy was no longer enough, follwed by the homosexual liberation of the eighties and partial birth abortion of the nineties (not enough to kill the as pre-borns, gotta kill while being born) and now the normalization of sex with children in the 21st century.

The slippery slope of moral rot is clear. But where did it start and with whom? And which gender is at the forefront of demanding more sexual libertinism.

[ex-snook]

"2. Low sperm count means a man is sterile, not gay. "

Well there are a lot more gays today and a lot fewer children so have it your way. Talking won't be able to fool nature.

[Mortimer Snavely]

A lot of women are like leopards: I like to look at them, but I don't want one in the house.

[RLK]

One man keeping his pants zipped has little effect when the only thing it means is that the modern liberated woman is going to screw somebody else. What's your point here, that she's going to screw somebody so it might as well be you?

----------------------------

That wasn't the point and you damned well know it.

[Don Myers]

Males and females are very separated now. The sexual revolution has done it's job well.

[joathome]

"When women came into a degree of power, it turned out that they were as immoral, or amoral, as men, probably more self-centered, and out for what they could get"

yeah, yeah, yeah. Men could live by a double standard for thousands of years, but women could not. Now, that a bunch of feminazis want a chance to catch up, women are "probably more selfish"? The author's bias is a bit too apparent.

[RLK]

A lot of women are like leopards: I like to look at them, but I don't want one in the house.

------------------------

That's a good one and true.

I have a maxim. My body may like her body, but if my mind doesn't like her mind and my soul doesn't liker her soul interacting with her body becomes prohibited by the emptyness.

[joathome]

"Now I know the problen was really caused by guys looking at racy pictures, reading dirty jokes, and learning how to tell the difference between a Lamborghini and a Ferrari."

While the little wife is barefoot and pregnant, heh?

Sorry, buddy, but only godly men can hold onto godly women. The playboy philosphy and sexual revolution is largely responsible for where we are today.

[RLK]

I can remember, many years ago before most people here were born, having enjoyable relaxed conversations with women I really liked. In recent decades women have become progressively shallow, progressively dishonest, progressively coarse, and progressively angry. There are few of them stable or honest enough to think about being the mother of your child. Ninety percent of them are disasters waiting to happen to somebody. That's as kind as I can be.

We have spawned generations of both sexs who lack capacity for any kind of reasonable interpersonal relationships. They are trying to make sex do everything. As far as sex, you dial their navel for the disease you want.

[Don Myers]

"...progressively shallow, progressively dishonest, progressively coarse, and progressively angry."

In other words, just plain screwed up. All of the adjectives do apply. But you did leave out rude and pathetic.

[Lizavetta]

In recent decades women have become progressively shallow, progressively dishonest, progressively coarse, and progressively angry.

How true, especially the shallow part......their primary concerns in life seem to revolve around celebrities, diets, shopping, and "choice".

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

Should Men put their foot down and say enough is enough?

I don't know about you guys, but I wear the pants in my house!Whatever pair she tells me to.

[joathome]

I think I could make equally vile generalizations about this generation of men.

[CyberCowboy777]

I do not condone the whining, nor do I condone un-fettered blame.

The Women I speak of were not "glamour" gals, they were the Female Intellectuals of the time. Psychologist, anthropologist, behavioral Scientist and the such. Many people (mostly men) came against these women and their crack-pot ideas and "research" and in turn were scathed by the majority of Women and Intellectual men. They were labeled sexist and troglodytes. Look back and you will find that most men (before the sixties, the ones not trained by these freaks) were adamantly against such Sudo-science (sic) and even published work contradicting them. All to no avail. The men you seem to lay a portion blame (deservedly so) on were instructed and shaped by these crack pots. They were not the cause but the continuing effect. This social, sexual revolution truly began in the twenties and thirties by Women, Homosexuals and so called Intellectuals. The movement was furthered by the absents of True Men. Men called to duty in a war torn era and fuel by the desire for equal rights. Then, as now worthy social causes were hijacked by "progressive" intellectuals (see Environmentalism, Minority Rights, Social Welfare (during the depression) and Animal rights for example).

See Her for example

OR See Her for example

OR See Her for example

And there are many more. So lets lay the blame at the feet of Socialist, Morally deviant scientist and Intellectuals and then at our self's for letting it happen.

[boris]

Some years ago, while Patsy Schroeder was happily shoving crescent wrenches in our military, the L.A. Times ran a whiny opinion piece by an anguished mother of boys. No toy guns, yet they would still play shoot-em-up--and use branches as "guns".

I sent a letter to the paper, which they actually printed:

"Ms. So-and-so is frustrated because she is unable to convert little boys into little girls. Meanwhile, Patsy Schroeder is trying to turn women into men."

==============================

The feminization of the military had a goal, which was to weaken the U.S. military and America in general. The thinking was:

- Women would get pregnant...reduces readiness.
- There would be conflicts over who dates who...reduces unit cohesiveness.
- In a battle, a wounded woman will 'naturally' cause all of the men to focus on her--and neglect the pressing task of keeping their unit alive.
- Eventually you will see technicolor film of a 21-year-old farm girl bleeding her guts out on the sand. The leftists calculate that this will destroy morale--and more importantly, it will destroy public support for the projection of U.S. military strength.
- If they get film of a female P.O.W. being tortured and raped, they will be ecstatic.

No matter what--they win and America loses.

--Boris

[RLK]

I think I could make equally vile generalizations about this generation of men.

-------------------------------

You probably could. Many people have. The criticism has been directed exclusively at men for several decades. Continue doing it that way if you think it will result in an improvement. The fact is, for the last 40 years women have come to me spouting Margarete Meade, Gloria Steinem, Doctor Ruth, Helen Gurly Brown and her Cosmopolitan Magazine which has been a field manual for mindless sluts, Susan Foreward, and so forth. I haven't been able to get a word edgewise about anything for 40 years and yet women say the problem is me. Right now Britney Spears has more influence over the values in this country that all the religions and whatever. That's what men will face.