Most intelligent women reject the notion of living in a society where their only power comes from sex. Some women want commitment. So they can start marrying "down", just as men have done forever. I think the problem with the woman writing the article (and others who have difficulty finding a mate) is that they reject the blue collar guys because some women are still tied up in the old fashioned notion that their spouse has to our earn them. The solution isn't to drag everyone back, the solution is to move forward by tossing out stupid old fashioned ideas that just don't work.
The rise of Asian Economy and a high saving culture will add a lot of hard values for the guys in comparison with a bankrupt West. But I doubt what can a typical western girl confused and traumatised by feminism offers to a rich and quality Asian guy who have plenty of options within their own culture. The real deal would be for those middle income-quality Asian guys who get tired of the cut-throat mate competition in their own culture. Asia tend to have gender ratio scaled against males and literally guys are expected to be rejected by girls for unimpressive bank account savings or not having a private property. There is gold-digging stigma because it is the norm. The more financially egalitarian notion of Westen relationship might be very attractive to these group of Asian guys.
Um...women can get alimony. Your argument has some leaks. Let's face it. Strict religious women, nothing has changed. Women of enterprise, of course enjoying themselves. Those hurt, women who are not of enterprise, and weren't raised religious. The lives of these women are absolutely horrid, filled with indecision, zero satisfaction, and self destructive debauchery pretending they are equal with men. Most women want the other aspects of a relationship, and men want sex. That is the trade off. The fact that these women are told its archaic for them to learn home making skills means that in order to get the things they want out of a relationship they must use sex. Your beliefs have created their prostitution. They would have been loved as wives and home makers, cherished as mothers. Now they have to trade sex for a hug and a kiss, a meaningful conversation, and when their looks fade, so does their one and only commodity.
It is the dominant power in relationship. If you keep on giving sweets to kids without any demand in return they will not do their homework. So I wonder why women would not want to make use of it. Come on, if beauty alone can be a powerful demand for guys to do things, imagine what can sex ask for? I don't think women will change by marrying down. With more economic equality, there is a less demand for improving one's life through marriage, and more demand for the men to be more emotionally sensitive and understanding to the female brain. But no woman I know of wants to marry a "loser". He should at least be finically on par. Even if he does not earn as much, he should demonstrate some ambition of self-improvement or good qualities as humor, intelligence and dilligence. Woman wants someone who is "capable" and "amibitious". I saw this validated across cultures.
Do you know what alimony is? You (maybe) get it AFTER you leave. So it's kind of moot when we're discussing women who don't have the resources to leave. Boy, I'm glad we have some men around here to tell me what women want! Not all women want to stay home. If you're having this conversation I suggest you read (and try to comprehend) my other posts on the topic as to why it's bad for women to stay home. Women don't have to trade sex for a hug/kiss, but most of your posts show you have really odd ideas about gender relations that aren't at all applicable in reality. Well, the great thing about "today" is that women can work and make their own money. You're the one, it seems, who wants to go back to sex being a woman's one commodity. You're confused.
I've heard this rumor that women enjoy sex. Having sex is the reward. Not being financially "on par" doesn't make someone a loser, nor does it mean they lack ambition. If a plumber marries a lawyer, is he a loser with no ambition?
Bender was addressing the issue of the counter-culture that leads to women giving sex "free of charge" to any Tom, Dick and Harry that has shown no signs of commitement, which he/she felt was disadvantageous to women. If sex is the only thing left between a married couple I would say that is pathetic.
If the rumour is truw then we shall see women paying to get sex from men, not otherwise. True it does not. You cannot tell somone's ambition from the career. I was saying that for men, "hard values" matter. It can be tangible stuffs like money, or intangible stuffs like ambition and drive. If you found a woman "marrying down" there must be some intangible assets about this guy that keeps her attracted.
I pesonally think american men need to be the ones looking elsewhere for a meaningful relationship. There was a time when a relationshipwas a give and take concept. Now, women feel that the man has to bring a disproportionate amount to the table to win her hand. Tearms like dead beat, player, dog, or all of the other hundreds of colorfull adjectives women use to label men are reasons men need to look elsewhere for their mate. American women feel they should be put on a pedestal and pampered. If you do not have muchto offer, or enough to offer, dont even bother buying her a drink. Your better off at the bar watching football with your buddies. At least the worst abuse your going to sustain is the jeering from your buddy when your team looses to his. American men are being forced to accept women as equals without women accepting men as equals. Just ask how many men are affraid of their wives? We joke about it all the time. I will never marry an american woman for these and other reasons. I simply refuse to put up with the abuse. There are beautiful good women all over the world willing to accept an equal relationship. That will treat you as well as you treat them. Most of these women do not live in america.
I never said all women want to stay home. You should really read what someone says. Maybe it is just because I'm working poor that is the only women I know, but they aren't the college types, they aren't religious types, don't know how to boil water, and rely completely on their sexuality when it comes to men. What happens when their looks fade? No one is marrying them now, and they aren't going to marry them later on to pay the bills of a chick who doesn't make any money and sits on her ass all day at home. I know a couple people my age in good marriages. The majority of marriages, because the man got the woman pregnant and wants to be in their kids lives daily. Miserable, with both parties living under the imbalance of the woman being able to screw the guy financially if he leaves. The great majority of guys, wouldn't get married to save their soul. Pray they don't get a women pregnant. It's not like I study this (*)(*)(*)(*) for a living, just saying what I see. LOL
There is some sort of unrealist expectation from the women. Not many men expect supermodel girlfriends but many women expect their men to be some sorts of Hollywood type romantic guys. They need to switch off the TV because in real life people cannot just go to restaurants and coffee shops everyday. People have to go out and get a job.
LOL One woman I work with was disappointed with her friends because she says everytime one of them announces "I have a new boyfriend!" the first question the women ask is A)What does he look like? B)How much does he make? and then judge the man on those qualities alone.
No I do not think women "do not enjoy" sex. That's vague On a comparative level women has far less the urge to have sex. The satisfaction of sex depends on highly circumstantial issues such as the emotional engagement with the male partner. Research shows that the wealth of the male parnter plays a role as well.
That's a sad story. Our welfare mechanism does very little to offer sustainable help to people for them to grow in a postive way and escape from the cycle of poverty.
I don't know man. I know plenty of women who have that dude they live with and the dude they screw to get off. If what you say is true, just being with the guy who pays their bills would get them off. Not the case in a lot of situations.
American men need to simply turn the tables. We need tostop allowing women to objectify us as someone who will make her feel good about herself. That seems to be our role. And we fulfill it even as they continue to denigrate us and imprison us into their definition of merrige. We are the ones who are always wrong and need to change for the benifit of the relationship. Yeah right, I say! Hell if im buying in tothat kind of imprisonment! I wouldbe much happier being a single MAN than a married prisoner. Besides, there will be plenty ofsingle women to play around with at 40 anyway once they all divorce because their man was simply tired of conforming.
Citations needed. http://www.miller-mccune.com/culture/casual-sex-men-women-not-so-different-after-all-28451/ If your statements are true, I'm willing to be it's because of socialization/conditioning, rather than "how women are naturally".
Welcome. Of course it is hard to push for a prove for nature, especially for women who tend to repsonse subjectively to how the society influence them. For guys it is more standard. A hot chick is more or less a hot chick. He doesn't even need to know her name for the purpose of a good sex alone. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080625092023.htm http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...men-orgasms-wealthy-partners-study-finds.html
heh, probably true. that's why "before" feminism, occasional male infidelity was largely ignored. It wasn't encouraged, but it was looked at as '(*)(*)(*)(*) happens' and silenced, because as long as the system worked and families stayed strong, it was all good. 20th century is the 'me' century. Individualism doesn't tolerate repression of one's urges, and feminism was heavily influenced by individualism. Women demanded the right to fool around too, the process escalated and this is the end result. But like I said, I believe it will balance itself out. I don't think we should go back to complete patriarchy What needs to be balanced out is sexualization of society. Of course there are other factors playing into it as well but it's getting late for me...
One can say it isn't simply wealth. Women are attracted to confidence. Men are socially engineered to either have money or they are worthless, women just have to find a man with money. When wealth is so concentrated in a few hands, it is not easy to obtain, and therefore, men who are wealthy are going to feel like kings, walk like kings, talk like kings and screw like kings. Plus, a lot less pressure when you know the woman needs you more than you need her. Men in that position tend to hump like they're a star in a porno, and let's face it, a lot women liked to be proper screwed. Making love is for 16 year olds. LOL
I never suggested that we should go back to living in a society where our only power comes from sex. I suggested a historical analysis of the situation. Personally, I AM a feminist. But I don't buy into the 'empowered'='sexually permissive' nonsense. There is nothing empowering, emancipating or sexy about being turned into a perpetual sex object. Maybe. Or maybe people just like to marry people who are of similar educational and/or cultural background and/or income level to them. Contrary to popular myth, marrying 'down' never worked to well, for men OR women. Not in the long run anyway. It opens the door to too many insecurities, incompatibilities and conflicts. Sure, it can be successful too, but not often. I believe the main problem is not lack of suitable potential partners. It's the lack of *available* suitable partners, and commitment-willing suitable partners.
