RE: Article on Power and Relationships (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message


merrymasochist -> RE: Article on Power and Relationships (1/8/2005 6:24:01 PM)

quote:

It occurred to me to make a statement that it was Harry's explanations that killed his arguments (sort of a case of "he would have made his point if he'd only shut up")


~laughter~
that was exactly my thought MizSuz!
~grin~
i probably replied to the article with a lot more seriousness than the original post intended... it was a fun and thoughtful process for me to weed through the angst and anger... such is the life of an incurable optimist [:)]!

have a delight-filled day/night...

sincerely,
merry




proudsub -> RE: Article on Power and Relationships (1/8/2005 7:21:00 PM)

quote:

Then please allow me to give you the reader's condensed version.

Harry has a little dick.


LOL, Thanks Suz, now i don't have to go back to it later.[:D]




mistoferin -> RE: Article on Power and Relationships (1/8/2005 8:07:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 1RottenJohnny

Dear Harry,
Please throw yourself from the top of the f***ing Sears Tower. Step in front of a train, a bus, a beer truck. Anything. Just please remove yourself from the genetic pool.



Thank you Sir,
I was going to come back and put my two cents in but I think you summed up my feelings exactly!




BlkTallFullfig -> RE: Article on Power and Relationships (1/8/2005 9:48:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: happypervert
I would like to thank MizSuz for subjecting herself to that article. After seeing that it came from such a "respected" source as angryharry.com, I figured it might be more efficient to just skip it and see what the reviewers had to say.

I can only assume that the original poster must agree with it;

Exactly, I did read as far as Angry Harry link, and clicked on it to see more obnoxiousness, but You can bet that if someone writes something tha I am virulently against, I'm not going to post it without prefacing it with "can you believe the idiocy?" M




BlkTallFullfig -> RE: Article on Power and Relationships (1/8/2005 10:00:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1RottenJohnny

Dear Harry,
Please throw yourself from the top of the f***ing Sears Tower. Step in front of a train, a bus, a beer truck. Anything. Just please remove yourself from the genetic pool. I'd put my boot in your ass but your head's in the way!
Sincerely,
Me

LOL, Very funny, and so well said.... M

P.S. Thanks Suz for the kind comments. M




1RottenJohnny -> RE: Article on Power and Relationships (1/8/2005 10:27:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 1RottenJohnny

Dear Harry,
Please throw yourself from the top of the f***ing Sears Tower. Step in front of a train, a bus, a beer truck. Anything. Just please remove yourself from the genetic pool. I'd put my boot in your ass but your head's in the way!

Sincerely,
Me


Harry got in his car
And turned the key
Started it up
And headed out on the L.I.E. (Long Island Expressway)

To cheap to own a real car
He had a Volkswagon Rabbit
And that put an end
To Harry's cheap habit

The trucker couldn't stop
So the driver took aim
And when he hit Harry
Harry burst into flames

You're dead now Harry
You can't come back
You'd still be alive
If you drove a Cadillac




Mercnbeth -> RE: Article on Power and Relationships (1/9/2005 10:01:37 AM)

quote:

Most ****successful**** relationships are pretty mundane and 'boring'.


Nope!

I never got past the first couple sentences to this post since it's been up. It was obviously not coming from any sense of knowledge on the subject of male/female relationships let alone Dom/sub, Master/slave. I've been solicited to reply to this post. My overall opinion is shared by many here - Bull-shit! But let's look closer shall we.....

The site is "Angry Harry", a rambling diatribe on woman hating. The profile is for a 42 year old 5'9" 230 pound male, without profile commentary; curiously enough seeking contact with the object of his disdain - a woman.

Where is the "Power" source from his post? Anger? Resentment? I would love to know the story. Divorce? Loss of money?

If an individual is evaluating his personal status subsequent to entering into a relationship, the relationship shouldn't start. Is he seeking an automaton? A programmed response? Power derives from confidence, knowing that WITHOUT direct order, your will dictates the relationship. Needing verification implies doubt, doubt saps power, and the perception of power within the relationship.

quote:

If you love your woman to death then she can easily become complacent and contemptuous.

And, of course, you become taken for granted.


Having that thought must be just as bad as experiencing it. How the hell could you stay in a relationship believing that? Would you become "complacent and contemptuous" if, through some miracle a woman loved you "to death"? Would you risk losing something so rare through daily testing and verification?

quote:

INTENSITY X FREQUENCY = BONDING


PLEASE explain how this formula is possible if your partner is "complacent and contemptuous"?

quote:

If my missus started watching Oprah, I'd sign up to the Playboy Channel.


This is dominant response? A tit for tat reaction. Is Oprah the opposite of Playboy and your love interest would by definition only be attracted to one to the exclusion of the other? Is the sensitivity of Oprah not relevant in your relationship? Then your partner definitely should always maintain and use a 'safe word'.

quote:

Never invest your everything in anyone.


What part would you leave behind? What part of you is too important (or not important enough?) to "invest"? Investment implies initial capital. Assuming that's yourself, would that be valueless at the end of a failed relationship? It should still have some intrinsic remedial value, perhaps to 'invest' again. I think that again stems from confidence. Without confidence to start, from either a submissive or dominant perspective, a relationship is doomed.




domtimothy46176 -> RE: Article on Power and Relationships (1/9/2005 11:33:05 AM)

As I was reading through the responses to the OP, I kept expecting someone to voice the opinion that it was obviously a tongue-in-cheek, over-the-top set of generalizations of the type one often finds in British humor. To be honest, I'm somewhat mystified that all of the responses thus far accepted it as an honest position rather than satirical humor. Those of you who appreciate Benny Hill and Monty Python or other British humorists might rethink it in that vein. As for myself, I thought it was well-written and very funny.
Timothy




BlkTallFullfig -> RE: Article on Power and Relationships (1/9/2005 1:56:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
Bull-shit! But let's look closer shall we.....

The site is "Angry Harry", a rambling diatribe on woman hating. The profile is for a 42 year old 5'9" 230 pound male, without profile commentary; curiously enough seeking contact with the object of his disdain - a woman.
quote:

Never invest your everything in anyone.


What part would you leave behind? What part of you is too important (or not important enough?) to "invest"? Investment implies initial capital. Assuming that's yourself, would that be valueless at the end of a failed relationship? It should still have some intrinsic remedial value, perhaps to 'invest' again. I think that again stems from confidence. Without confidence to start, from either a submissive or dominant perspective, a relationship is doomed.

Merc You didn't point out that his only listed fetish interest is "PLAY RAPE", and he's skilled at Medical exams, Objectification, and Verbal Humiliation; Those would be not potentially problematic clues for most other profiles on here, but for this guy, I hope it serves as a clue/warning to all, but especially submissive women. JMO M




SubmitAndBeLoved -> Over 25 responses to the article I posted... (1/12/2005 12:47:01 AM)

And about three with any content beyond the rhetorical equivalent of stamping a foot and spitting "Is NOT!!!!".. Even on a board like this, the idea that the man should go into a relationship with at least as much conscious focus on his interests as women appear to routinely do, that women can be manipulative (and that that should generally be resisted) appears to be highly threatening. No, I don't agree with every single idea in the article, but believed it thought-provoking enough to be worth sharing. For those of you who don't believe that there is serious content on www.angryharry.com, I invite you to read his "Too Good To Miss" section. It can be found at the bottom of Page Two on his site. Here is a direct link: http://www.harrysnews.com/toogoodtomiss.htm

Also, do read the articles at www.glennsacks.com and www.mensnewsdaily.com to get non-PC (and thus possibly accurate) writings on what is going on with the ongoing destruction of the possibility for men and women to have constructive, mutually satisfying relationships in America. On mensnewsdaily, do hit the Archives and read Chapin's and Baskerville's articles above all.

Note that I do NOT advocate giving up on American woman (as Fred does - below) or eschewing having children. Rather, I suggest being EXTREMELY careful about whom you match up with, and absolutely as much as possible live your life so that if you get hit with an unfair divorce or a pregnancy that is against your will, the rest of your life is not destroyed. That means DON'T ever buy a house (or at least get it out of your name long before marriage), do try to work in a field where working for cash is possible, do keep most of your most valuable stuff outside the marital home in a location there is no record of (and your mate is unaware of), have your savings outside banks or 401Ks (box of cash or gold in a nondescript fireproof box in trustworthy single male friend's basement comes to mind), emotionally accept in advance that at any moment your wife can causelessly eject you from your children's lives forever, etc. Too, whatever you do, DON'T marry a woman who already has any children under the age of say, 30, and DON'T marry your GF until she is pregnant (better she has given birth) -- with your consent, of course. Don't bother with premaritals as the courts ignore them.

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

"Adam was hanging around the garden of Eden feeling very lonely. So, God asked him, "What's wrong with you?" Adam said he didn't have anyone to talk to. God said that He was going to make Adam a companion and that it would be a woman. He said, "This pretty lady will gather food for you, she will cook for you, and when you discover clothing, she will wash it for you. She will always agree with every decision you make and she will not nag you, and will always be the first to admit she was wrong when you've had a disagreement. She will praise you! She will bear your children and never ask you to get up in the middle of the night to take care of them. "She will NEVER have a headache and will freely give you love and passion whenever you need it." Adam asked God, "What will a woman like this cost?" God replied, "An arm and a leg." Then Adam asked, "What can I get for a rib?""

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

From www.fredoneverything.net, columns #204, and #117.

Marriage, Horror, And Susan Reimer

Take Horror. It's A Better Bet.


July 14, 2003


Were I to offer thoughts on marriage to young American men today, in these the declining years of a once-great civilization, my advice would be as follows: Don't do it. Or, if you do, do it in another country. In America marriage is a grievous error.

And why so? Because of The Chip. The Attitude. The bandsaw whine of anger, anger, anger that makes American women an international horror. It's there. It's real.

You, a young man, may not recognize the Chip if you have never seen normal, warm, happy women. If you are twenty-something and haven't been out of the US, you haven't seen them. They exist by the billion--in Latin America, Singapore, Taiwan, Malaya, China and, last I looked, France and Holland. And of course not every woman in America carries the Chip. None of them think they do. Yet it is the default, the usual, what comes out of the box.

The following is a perfectly ordinary, everyday, bulk-lot example, suitable for poisoning a cistern:

"Other than a 29-inch waist and a full head of hair, there isn't much to recommend the twentysomething male…He is living an extended adolescence -- an adult-olescence -- and every immature, irresponsible, self-absorbed thing he does is reinforced by the latest issue of his favorite men's magazine." (Susan Reimer, a columnist for the Baltimore Sun. I bet she goes out a lot.)*

Hers is the Attitude--and what they think of you. It is the defining trait of American women. Exceptions exist, and they have my apologies, but they are few and no, sport, your Sally probably isn't one of them. They're coiled to bite. As soon as problems arise in the marriage, they turn into Susan.

Susan Reimer is what is out there, guys: bitter that no one wants her (as who in his right mind could?), sure that no one is good enough for her, never having grasped that those who would be loved must first be lovable. Understand this: Susan is America. Some hide it better, springing it on you after the ceremony, but Susan is the rule.

The Susans do not like men. Sometimes they actually take courses in disliking men ("Women's Studies"). Yet they want to marry one and have babies. For them, the contradiction actually makes a kind of sense, because (and they know this, believe me) they will get the house, the children, and the child support. For you, it makes no sense. You will get raped in the divorce courts. You don't know how bad it is. Don't do it.

A prime effect of marriage is backbreaking financial overhead: the excessive house in the prestigious suburb, the pricey but boring cars, all that. But if you don't fall into the trap, keeping your expenses down means you can live in Alaska or overseas and enjoy existence. There is more to life than debt service. Although these are bad times for marrying, they are extraordinarily good times for being single.

Now, children. This is sticky. You may want them, or think you want them, or think you may want them. She wants them. My advice is to move to almost any country where English isn't spoken and women don't want their husbands to be the mothers of their children. Any country inhabited by the Chinese would do nicely.

Incidentally, remember that it is never now or never. Your prospects improve with time. At thirty-five or fifty you will be perfectly able to find a good woman if you know where to look. See above list.

Remember also that these are not good times for having children in America. It is almost irresponsible. The schools are scholastically poor, drug-ridden, given chiefly to political indoctrination, and hostile to male children. The universities are little better. Divorce is hell on children and their fathers, and nearly universal. The country lunges to police-statedom and isn't, I suspect, as stable as it might be. Worse, worst, there is Susan Reimer. Her name is legion, and she seeps everywhere, like the effluvium of unwashed socks.

Further, there is no social duty to have children. Some argue that the white population is in decline. Tough. If the country chooses to make having kids undesirable, then let it decline. It is not your problem.

Now, you might well wonder, why are American women carrying the Chip? Practically, it doesn't matter: They do carry it, and will continue. Still, it is partly because from birth they are fed the notion that they have been oppressed, battered, cheated, deprived, harassed, used as sex objects, not used as sex objects, on and on. Being rational, you are perhaps inclined to point out that never has a female population been less any of these things, but don't bother. It will have no effect. The Chip is an emotional artifact to which they respond emotionally.

The bedrock of The Attitude is that everything is the man's fault.
Wonders Reimer, "What is the answer, especially if the 20- and 30-year-old male is such poor marriage material?" She does not wonder, "If I am such a grindingly awful termagant that men on three continents are crossing their legs and feeling queasy over my mere column, and won't come near me except in a Kevlar bathysphere with a disinfectant system, maybe I'm doing something wrong. Gosh. I wonder what?"

Yet something more is going on, though one does not easily see just what. Note that in recent decades we have seen the invention by women of bulimia and anorexia, which no one had heard of in 1965. Men made them do it. At roughly the same time women began getting breast implants, which men also made them do, and then suing about it. In the same period they began having induced memories of being raped or satanically abused by their fathers. Men again. The psychotherapy racket grew like kudzu, a sure sign of deep unhappiness over something.

All of this is recent. You have to be fifty to remember women who were resilient, sane, psychically strong and, within the limits of an often sorry existence, content. But whatever the answer, guys, the problem isn't yours.

Spend a year overseas, however you have to do it. For smart, classy, just plain glorious women who often speak English, try Singapore. Argentina is splendid. Many places are. You would be amazed. See what's out there before you marry a gringa with her Inner Susan, who will one day burst from her chest like one of those beaked space-aliens in the movies, dripping venom. They're death.

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

Why White Men Prefer Asian Women

The View From A Sushi Bar




"There is near me an Asian sushi-beer-and-dinner establishment that I’ll call the Asia Spot. The region is urban, so the clientele is a mix of some of just about everything, but the waitresses are all Asian, principally Japanese, Indonesian, Vietnamese, and Thai.

The Spot is a neighborhood bar. A large after-work crowd, many of them regulars, gather at happy hour. The social dynamics are curious. It would be an exaggeration to say, as someone did, that the black guys come to pick up white women, and the white men come to get away from them – but it would be an exaggeration of an underlying truth. The waitresses are a large part of the Spot’s appeal.

A common subject of conversation among male customers is how very attractive these women are when compared to American women. It is not a thought safe to utter in mixed company. It is a very common thought. American women know it.

Why are the Asians attractive? What, to huge numbers of men, makes almost any Asian more appealing than almost any American? The question is much discussed by men at the Spot. (I should say here that when I say “women,” I mean the majority of women, the mainstream, the center of gravity. Yes, there are exceptions and degrees.)

American women of my acquaintance offer several explanations, all of them wrong. For example, they say that Asian women are sexually easy. No. American women are sexually easy. The waitresses at the Spot are not available. They date, but they cannot be picked up.

Another explanation popular among American women is that men want submissive women, which Asians are believed to be. Again, no. For one thing, submissive people are bland and boring. In any event the waitresses aren’t submissive. Many compete successfully in tough professions. Among Asian waitresses I know I count an electrical engineer who does wide-area networks, and a woman with a masters in biochemistry who, upon finding that research required a Ph.D and didn’t pay, went back to school and became a dentist. Both of these wait tables to help out in the family restaurant.

At the Spot I know a woman waitressing her way through a degree in computer security, a bright Japansese college graduate making a career in the restaurant business, and the manager of the Spot – not a light-weight job. Submissiveness has nothing to do with their attractiveness.

Why, then, are they so very appealing?

To begin with, look at the American women in the Spot. Perhaps a third of them are stylishly dressed. The rest of the gringas run from undistinguished to dumpster-casual: baggy jeans, oversize shirts -- often male shirts -- with the tails out. They seem to affect a sort of homeless chic, actually to want to look bad, and do it with more than a touch of androgyny. A high proportion are at least somewhat overweight. (So are the men, but that’s another subject.) The Asians, without exception, are sleek, well-groomed, and dressed with an understated sexiness that never pushes trashy.

Further, the Asians are what were once called “ladies,” a thought repellant to feminists but very so refreshing to men. Listen to the American women at neighboring tables, and you will frequently hear phrases like, “He’s a fucking piece of shit.” In what appears to be a determined attempt to be men, they have adopted the mode of discourse of a male locker room and made it their normal language. The Asians, classier, better students of men, do not have foul mouths. They presumably know about body parts and bathroom functions, but do not believe that a woman raises her stature by referring to them constantly in mixed company.

Men at the Spot, I have noticed, instantly understand that cloacal commentqry is not wanted, and don’t engage in it: In the presence of the civilized, men adopt the standards of civilization. Men also tend to think of women as women think of themselves. The Asians, without displaying vanity, clearly think well of themselves. And ought to.

All in all, they give the impression that they do not want to be one of the guys. They want to be one of the girls. Here we come to the core of their appeal. Let me elaborate.

The default position of American women is what men refer to as “the chip,” a veiled truculence, mixed with a not-very-veiled hostility toward men and a shaky sense of sexual identity. The result is a touchiness reminiscent of hungover ferrets. There is a bandsaw edge to them, a watching for any slight so that they can show that they aren’t going to take it. They are poised to lash out in aggressive defense of their manhood.

As best as I can tell, they don’t like being women. Here is the entire problem in five words.

The Asians at the Spot show every indication that they do like being women. They do not seem to have anything to prove. Being happy with what they are allows them to be comfortable with what they are not – men. They are not competing to be what they can’t be with people who can’t be anything else. They don’t have to establish their masculinity because they don’t want it. They do not assume, as American women tend to, that femaleness is a diseased condition to be treated by male clothes, gutter language, and bad temper.

I’ve spent many dozens of hours chatting with the gals at the Spot, and never seen a sign of the chip. For a man, the experience is wonderful beyond description – smart, pretty, classy women, who are women, and are not the enemy. As long as American women carry the chip, the Asian gals will eat them alive in the dating market.

Note that the espousal of hostile obnoxiousness as a guiding philosophy appears to be an almost uniquely American horror. It certainly isn’t requisite to independence oe self-respect. I recently met a quite attractive blonde who, among other things, was smart, a long-haul motorcyclist, a student of the martial arts out of sheer athletic enjoyment of it, and an excellent marksman. She was also heterosexual, feminine, delightful company, and had no trace of “the chip.” I was astonished. How was this possible, I wondered?

She was Canadian."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




SherriA -> RE: Over 25 responses to the article I posted... (1/12/2005 3:11:26 AM)

I really hope you're into anal play, cuz it sure looks like someone shoved a big fat pointy stick up your ass. (Oh, and I"m one of those "nice" Canadian women).

Seriously, advocating that men basically live as illegal immigrants is the best you can offer? Don't own property (one of the safest investments out there), work under the table for cash (other than drug dealing likely to be minimum wage or less), put your money in a shoebox (where it's vulnerable to fire, etc and uninsured), all so that you don't have to share marital earnings if the relationship fails?

Hmmm...maybe it's a good thing about that stick up your butt. Consider it anal training for all those men who you'll be bending over for now that you've seen the light and realized that women only want your assetts. Feh.




darkinshadows -> RE: Over 25 responses to the article I posted... (1/12/2005 6:07:07 AM)

quote:

Note that I do NOT advocate giving up on American woman (as Fred does - below) or eschewing having children. Rather, I suggest being EXTREMELY careful about whom you match up with, and absolutely as much as possible live your life so that if you get hit with an unfair divorce or a pregnancy that is against your will, the rest of your life is not destroyed. That means DON'T ever buy a house (or at least get it out of your name long before marriage), do try to work in a field where working for cash is possible, do keep most of your most valuable stuff outside the marital home in a location there is no record of (and your mate is unaware of), have your savings outside banks or 401Ks (box of cash or gold in a nondescript fireproof box in trustworthy single male friend's basement comes to mind), emotionally accept in advance that at any moment your wife can causelessly eject you from your children's lives forever, etc. Too, whatever you do, DON'T marry a woman who already has any children under the age of say, 30, and DON'T marry your GF until she is pregnant (better she has given birth) -- with your consent, of course. Don't bother with premaritals as the courts ignore them.


Serious Questions here.

1. Are You/ Do You consider Yourself to be Dominant Male.

2. If the answer is yes, then do You consider Yourself as part of the BDSM 'Family'... in otherwords... do You follow the general 'ethos'

3. If the answer is yes, I would be very interested where Safe, Sane and Consensual comes into Your thoughts.

4. If the answer is yes, then I must ask- Where is Your trust?

Peace and good karma.




MizSuz -> RE: Over 25 responses to the article I posted... (1/12/2005 6:30:19 AM)

Ok...On priniciple I refused to read that (second) entire post by the OP. The first one was too much and I'm not going to expose myself to it again. I did read the opening commentary, however.

I suppose none of this takes into account the guys who make babies and walk away, acquiring child support debt in the tens and even hundreds of thousand and leaving the children to be raised by these "heinous" women.

I raised my child (who is now 25) myself. I am owed 52,000.00 in back child support - and that does NOT include the health insurance costs the man never bothered to get (although he was court ordered to) or the debt that I paid for the services that were not covered by the insurance I paid for (which would have been paid for had HE maintained the insurance he was REQUIRED BY LAW/ COURT ORDER to maintain). I have NEVER received court ordered alimony either. Ever.

I'd bet there are a lot of women on this board with similar stories.

Yeah...we women are real blood sucking, money seeking bitches. <eye roll>

I know of at least one man who would be happy if 'getting someone else's assets' was a motivator for me. He'd then have a carrot to dangle in front of my nose (which many men do, but then decry as evil when it works and someone takes the bait). But poor him, I take him at face value, care about him without benefit of the usual formalities, and don't take any of his shit by withdrawing my interaction when he's acting out rather than pissing and moaning and manipulating and conniving.

Ladies, misogyny is a reason to remain single (or become a lesbian). I thank the original poster for pointing out just how many out there are misogynistic, it makes those gentlemen who are not even more precious.

If these posts are supposed to be humor then I'll pass.




SubmitAndBeLoved -> Responding to the questions I've been asked here... (1/12/2005 7:36:06 AM)

Dark Angel asked:

1. Are You/ Do You consider Yourself to be Dominant Male.
Yes. This assessment is seconded by a friend of mine, someone I know well (and knows me well) who has been "in the life" for decades. She posted a profile (submissive) on collarme long before I had heard of the site.

2. If the answer is yes, then do You consider Yourself as part of the BDSM 'Family'... in otherwords... do You follow the general 'ethos'

I am still learning what that ethos is, but there is much of it that I can already say that I agree with. Certainly, treating honorably and considerately anyone with whom you are intimate (psychologically, emotionally, life entangled with, not just sexually) is mandated IMO.

3. If the answer is yes, I would be very interested where Safe, Sane and Consensual comes into Your thoughts.
To the extent that I so far understand what is meant by the terms, that sounds within how I deal with people I become close to.

4. If the answer is yes, then I must ask- Where is Your trust?
The possibility of my trust being offered blindly was destroyed by awareness of too many millions of good men being raped in the court system, where justice no longer exists for men when they conflict with women.

Peace and good karma.




darkinshadows -> RE: Responding to the questions I've been asked here... (1/12/2005 8:46:20 AM)

quote:

The possibility of my trust being offered blindly was destroyed by awareness of too many millions of good men being raped in the court system, where justice no longer exists for men when they conflict with women.


Above all else, Angel personally places trust above all other things. I am not talking about 'blind' trust... but trust, nonetheless that grows over time and with patience and knowledge. All that was written (again what was quoted from your previous reply), in Angels opinion is a grose and wide sweeping statement that has terrifying consequences for people that believe such. Its like saying... all dogs bite... all americans do no understand irony.... or all muslims are killers. Relationships are not about pitting females against males. Maybe, as sexes, we are different... but even as individuals we are unique. Thats why when two (or more in the case of poly) come together and are different.... its not about fighting the difference... but compromising and accepting, not labeling and blaming.

An essential embodiment of the power exchange is trust. Without 100% trust in your partner/s, You place yourself in danger... and you place the person under your control, (or the person in control, if you were submissive) in equal danger. You have to know and trust Yourself completely before you can know and trust a potential partner. Without 100% trust... how can a relationship even begin let alone survive... especially a BDSM one.

It is possible I believe in a impossible 'perfect' life. But to Angel... its truth. And truth leads to trust.

I do appriciate You replying to the questions, thank You.

Peace and karma.




topcat -> RE: Responding to the questions I've been asked here... (1/12/2005 9:07:04 AM)

M.S&BL-

I feel your pain.

Frankly, I have grinned at some of the things you have posted, or nodded and thought, "I think I dated her-". I tend to think of my self as burnt, as a bit cynical, a little bitter, but from your contributions to this board, I have come to realize that I am a pollyanna.

I have been lied to, cheated on, left at the altar, used, beaten, and mistreated. I have been served papers by a woman who frankly admitted that the case was without merit, but she was just looking for revenge. I have been dumped by women who openly admitted that it was a finaical issue- I just didn't make enough money- I was recently rejected for the same reason by a woman who was a clerk at a gas station! There were a those, too, that used some other word for poor, like 'not ambitious enough'- that made me grateful for the ones that were more upfront about it.

I have dealt with 'submissives' who worked to control the relationship while absolving themselves of any responsibility. Passive Agressive, outright agressive, borderline personalities playing the confused and needy card- I have been beaten to the knees of my heart more times than I can bear to count.

But I still believe. I still try, though it takes an effort to trust now.

I fear that I am so damaged that if I found 'her' I wouldn't be worthy of her regard.

I worry that if she were right before me I would be too blinded by my scars to see her.

I have known those women that you and your sources speak of- they are out there. But I have known far more women who are the finest humans I have know, and the great majority that were simply human- just as flawed and fearful and uncertain as I am.

Stay Warm,

Lawrence




SubmitAndBeLoved -> MizSuz, I really believe you need to read a post before you comment on it... (1/12/2005 9:17:19 AM)

Frankly, if you have incompletely read it, I would say that you are incompletely ready to discuss it. It was of one piece, and parts of it mutually supported each other. Also, I would say that you are mixing up misogyny for anti-misandry, and also mistake my advice on some ways to minimize the chances of being severely taken advantage of by a woman for advocating taking advantage of women first, which I do NOT favor. Before I respond to your post (I did read the whole thing, a courtesy you did not extend me), I want to post one article here to be read from beginning to end:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.glennsacks.com/shouldnt_men_have.htm

Shouldn't Men Have a Choice, Too?
By Glenn Sacks


"Jennifer was crushed when she was told that a baby was on the way. She wants to have children, but the right way--after she has found the right person and is married. But in Jennifer's country, she has no choice. "Jenn" cannot give the child up for adoption, and she cannot terminate the pregnancy. It is her burden to bear, for the next two decades, like it or not.

What country is it which compels a person to have a child they don't want? Afghanistan? Saudi Arabia?

No, it's the United States--not for Jenn, but for Ken.

Ken Johnson, a 10 year veteran of the Seattle Fire Department, wanted to be a father, but with the right woman, and at the right time. Three years ago he and his wife separated after six years of marriage, and each began to date. During this time, according to court documents filed in Snohomish County, Washington, Ken had a brief affair with "Cathy," which resulted in a pregnancy. Ken's legal complaint alleges that he begged Cathy to put the child up for adoption or to terminate the pregnancy, but Cathy refused. Now Ken and his wife, who reconciled two and a half years ago, can't start a family of their own because almost half of Ken's net income from the Seattle Fire Department goes to support the child he didn't want to have. He says:

"People tell me that Cathy should have the choice whether to keep the child or not because it's her body so it's her choice. I agree. But what about my body? I make my living rushing into burning buildings. I put my life and my safety on the line every time I go to work, and now I'm on the hook for 18 years. With the child support demands on me, there's no way I'll ever be able to quit. What about my choice?"

Johnson is part of a growing movement of men who bristle at being "coerced fathers," and who have enlisted in a "Choice for Men" movement whose goals are every bit as legitimate as the goals of the women's reproductive rights movement. They note that one million American women legally walk away from motherhood every year by either adoption, abortion, or abandonment, and demand that men, like women, be given reproductive options. They point out that, unlike women, men have no reliable contraception available to them, since the failure rate of condoms is substantial, and vasectomies are generally only worthwhile for older men who have already married and had children. And they emphasize that, with long backlogs of stable, two-parent families looking for babies to adopt, there is no reason for any child born out of wedlock to a "coerced father" to be without a good home.

The Choice for Men movement seeks to give "coerced fathers" the right to relinquish their parental rights and responsibilities within a month of learning of a pregnancy, just as mothers do when they choose to give their children up for adoption. These men would be obligated to provide legitimate financial compensation to cover natal medical expenses, the mother's loss of income during pregnancy, etc. The right would only apply to pregnancies which occurred outside of marriage.

Some of those who fought for women's reproductive choices agree with choice for men. Karen DeCrow, former president of the National Organization for Women, writes:

"If a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring a pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of support ... autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice."

To date, courts have refused to consider fathers' reproductive rights even in the most extreme cases, including: when child support is demanded from men who were as young as 12 when they were statutorily raped by older women; when women have taken the semen from a used condom and inserted it in themselves, including from condoms used only in oral sex; and when women concealed the pregnancy from the man (denying him the right to be a father) and then sued for back and current child support eight or ten years later.

"It doesn't make sense to me," Ken's wife Patti says. "The courts force my husband and I to support a child he never agreed to, but make it financially impossible for him to have a child with the woman he loves and married.""

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

The above article shows how authority and responsibility in reproduction (especially nonmarital) are completely mismatched for men and women in America today. A basic principle of all human relations (in and outside of law) is that authority and responsibility must always be as matched as can be figured out. Only two possibilities exist: either men's authority over reproduction must be raised (to having the equal right as women to mandate or prevent abortion or adoption), or men's responsibility in those situations must be dropped to the level of their control, which right now is about zero.

This set of studies showing how around 20-30% of men named as fathers (in and outside of marriage) of a child actually are not is interesting, too, kind of showing how much deceit women commonly engage in in this area:

http://www.nomarriage.com/paternity_test.shtml

You said:

quote:

Ok...On priniciple I refused to read that (second) entire post by the OP. The first one was too much and I'm not going to expose myself to it again. I did read the opening commentary, however.

I suppose none of this takes into account the guys who make babies and walk away, acquiring child support debt in the tens and even hundreds of thousand and leaving the children to be raised by these "heinous" women.

I raised my child (who is now 25) myself. I am owed 52,000.00 in back child support - and that does NOT include the health insurance costs the man never bothered to get (although he was court ordered to) or the debt that I paid for the services that were not covered by the insurance I paid for (which would have been paid for had HE maintained the insurance he was REQUIRED BY LAW/ COURT ORDER to maintain). I have NEVER received court ordered alimony either. Ever.

I'd bet there are a lot of women on this board with similar stories.

Yeah...we women are real blood sucking, money seeking bitches. <eye roll>



First off, a debt is not legitimate unless either for damage done, or is a voluntary obligation freely taken on. Neither applies to court-ordered child support.

A man who has children with a woman outside of marriage, in the absence of an explicit prior agreement (such as a handfasting ceremony or written contract) has NOT indicated willingness to have children, to undertake their support, etc. That is because in our society, marriage is how a man indicates this. Lack of commitment = lack of commitment; it's called the Law of Identity. A penis is not a pen, and may not be used to enter into contracts.

Divorce in marriages involving minor children are filed by the women 80%+ of the time, overwhelmingly without traditional legal grounds, or "cause" being shown; usually it's some variation of "I'm bored" or "He wasn't meeting my needs". A man with children in marriage agreed to be married; odds are, he did not agree to divorce. If divorce he did not file for or give traditional grounds for occurs, no obligation on his part can be created.

Also, a child growing up without its father in its home has its life prospects extremely crimped. From the chances of going to jail, not finishing high school or attending college, being physically or sexually abused as a child, being able to sustain a marriage, having gender identity problems, using illegal drugs, even committing suicide, you name it, the chances of worse outcome for these go up from about 40% higher to multiples of likelihood higher. Interestingly enough, past a very young age (pre-school at most), the same risks do not apply to children living with their fathers instead of their mothers. (I can exhaustively prove all this with impeccable references if needed, though I expect you would refuse to read them, and would pretend I had not proved my point.) I believe that a woman who has chosen to bear a child outside of marriage or other explicit commitment by the father and not adopted it out to a married heterosexual couple has shown such a culpable selfishness, a lack of love (regardless of any protestations to the contrary) for the child that she has thus proved unfitness for custody of it. The same could be said for women legally causelessly filing for divorce in marriages involving minor children.

Anyway, child support is something that legally has long been understood to be what a man provides his child in his own home. For intact marriages, this is still how it works legally. Only after or outside it, due to feminist memes wrecking the clear traditional intent of common law, has this been twisted into a legally blameless man having to finance the theft of his own children, for contract-breaking women to profit from their crime. For most of American history, when a husband and wife divorced, the children went with the father. This was based upon the sound concept that the children should be where there were means to support them. The current legal regime is an experiment of relatively recent origin, not the way long-standing wisdom has shown what most likely works.

Another thought, remembering first that over half of CS at all levels ends up de facto as alimony, benefitting the mother awarded custody as it does: if a man is supposed to still act as a husband to a his ex-wife after divorce (by giving her 1/3 of his pay, say), why shouldn't she have to still act as a wife to him after divorce to some degree, say by giving him 1/3 of her sexual favors, household maintenance efforts, etc.? The one would make as much sense as the other.

I believe the following:

1) In cases of divorce where paternal physical/sexual abuse or other crime is not legally proven to criminal court standards, children should either go with the father, or at least go with the parent who did not file for divorce (along with the family assets such as the marital home), showing their fitness for custody was the higher.

2) That in births outside of marriage, if there is not a legitimate marriage between the biological parents very quickly, that children be automatically put up for adoption. Ideally, the logic of contracts would be followed, which is that unless BOTH parties to it agree to its finalization, it (birth) does not occur, but I can see bending it to this degree if one parent-to-be wants the pregnancy to proceed. (As both parents-to-be should have equal say in the issue, it would not matter which one it was that wanted it to go to completion.)

3) That there should be no cross-household child support, excepting from a parent who both causelessly (in terms of evidence proved in court) filed for divorce and refused custody.


I know of at least one man who would be happy if 'getting someone else's assets' was a motivator for me. He'd then have a carrot to dangle in front of my nose (which many men do, but then decry as evil when it works and someone takes the bait). But poor him, I take him at face value, care about him without benefit of the usual formalities, and don't take any of his shit by withdrawing my interaction when he's acting out rather than pissing and moaning and manipulating and conniving.

Ladies, misogyny is a reason to remain single (or become a lesbian). I thank the original poster for pointing out just how many out there are misogynistic, it makes those gentlemen who are not even more precious.


Again, I am not a misogynist, not at all; I am an anti-misandrist. I value good women who honor their commitments and their femininity (not wanting to be men) more than most men probably value them, understanding how rare and desirable a prize such women are. Note that the measures I advised in my original post's preamble are purely defensive; on my honor as a man, I would NEVER do one thing to screw over or cheat in any way a woman I was involved with who behaved honorably with me. I just don't believe in avoidably making it easy for the dishonorable to profit by their moral crimes. You don't think that car thieves and armed robbers should get away with their crimes and make money from those chosen behaviors, do you? I just extend that to wrongful divorce and paternity blackmail.




SubmitAndBeLoved -> The above reposted with format fixed: (1/12/2005 9:40:37 AM)

Ok...On priniciple I refused to read that (second) entire post by the OP. The first one was too much and I'm not going to expose myself to it again. I did read the opening commentary, however.

I suppose none of this takes into account the guys who make babies and walk away, acquiring child support debt in the tens and even hundreds of thousand and leaving the children to be raised by these "heinous" women.

I raised my child (who is now 25) myself. I am owed 52,000.00 in back child support - and that does NOT include the health insurance costs the man never bothered to get (although he was court ordered to) or the debt that I paid for the services that were not covered by the insurance I paid for (which would have been paid for had HE maintained the insurance he was REQUIRED BY LAW/ COURT ORDER to maintain). I have NEVER received court ordered alimony either. Ever.

I'd bet there are a lot of women on this board with similar stories.

Yeah...we women are real blood sucking, money seeking bitches. <eye roll>


First off, a debt is not legitimate unless either for damage done, or is a voluntary obligation freely taken on. Neither applies to court-ordered child support.

A man who has children with a woman outside of marriage, in the absence of an explicit prior agreement (such as a handfasting ceremony or written contract) has NOT indicated willingness to have children, to undertake their support, etc. That is because in our society, marriage is how a man indicates this. Lack of commitment = lack of commitment; it's called the Law of Identity. A penis is not a pen, and may not be used to enter into contracts.

Divorce in marriages involving minor children are filed by the women 80%+ of the time, overwhelmingly without traditional legal grounds, or "cause" being shown; usually it's some variation of "I'm bored" or "He wasn't meeting my needs". A man with children in marriage agreed to be married; odds are, he did not agree to divorce. If divorce he did not file for or give traditional grounds for occurs, no obligation on his part can be created.

Also, a child growing up without its father in its home has its life prospects extremely crimped. From the chances of going to jail, not finishing high school or attending college, being physically or sexually abused as a child, being able to sustain a marriage, having gender identity problems, using illegal drugs, even committing suicide, you name it, the chances of worse outcome for these go up from about 40% higher to multiples of likelihood higher. Interestingly enough, past a very young age (pre-school at most), the same risks do not apply to children living with their fathers instead of their mothers. (I can exhaustively prove all this with impeccable references if needed, though I expect you would refuse to read them, and would pretend I had not proved my point.) I believe that a woman who has chosen to bear a child outside of marriage or other explicit commitment by the father and not adopted it out to a married heterosexual couple has shown such a culpable selfishness, a lack of love (regardless of any protestations to the contrary) for the child that she has thus proved unfitness for custody of it. The same could be said for women legally causelessly filing for divorce in marriages involving minor children.

Anyway, child support is something that legally has long been understood to be what a man provides his child in his own home. For intact marriages, this is still how it works legally. Only after or outside it, due to feminist memes wrecking the clear traditional intent of common law, has this been twisted into a legally blameless man having to finance the theft of his own children, for contract-breaking women to profit from their crime. For most of American history, when a husband and wife divorced, the children went with the father. This was based upon the sound concept that the children should be where there were means to support them. The current legal regime is an experiment of relatively recent origin, not the way long-standing wisdom has shown what most likely works.

Another thought, remembering first that over half of CS at all levels ends up de facto as alimony, benefitting the mother awarded custody as it does: if a man is supposed to still act as a husband to a his ex-wife after divorce (by giving her 1/3 of his pay, say), why shouldn't she have to still act as a wife to him after divorce to some degree, say by giving him 1/3 of her sexual favors, household maintenance efforts, etc.? The one would make as much sense as the other.

I believe the following:

1) In cases of divorce where paternal physical/sexual abuse or other crime is not legally proven to criminal court standards, children should either go with the father, or at least go with the parent who did not file for divorce (along with the family assets such as the marital home), showing their fitness for custody was the higher.

2) That in births outside of marriage, if there is not a legitimate marriage between the biological parents very quickly, that children be automatically put up for adoption. Ideally, the logic of contracts would be followed, which is that unless BOTH parties to it agree to its finalization, it (birth) does not occur, but I can see bending it to this degree if one parent-to-be wants the pregnancy to proceed. (As both parents-to-be should have equal say in the issue, it would not matter which one it was that wanted it to go to completion.)

3) That there should be no cross-household child support, excepting from a parent who both causelessly (in terms of evidence proved in court) filed for divorce and refused custody.


I know of at least one man who would be happy if 'getting someone else's assets' was a motivator for me. He'd then have a carrot to dangle in front of my nose (which many men do, but then decry as evil when it works and someone takes the bait). But poor him, I take him at face value, care about him without benefit of the usual formalities, and don't take any of his shit by withdrawing my interaction when he's acting out rather than pissing and moaning and manipulating and conniving.

Ladies, misogyny is a reason to remain single (or become a lesbian). I thank the original poster for pointing out just how many out there are misogynistic, it makes those gentlemen who are not even more precious.


Again, I am not a misogynist, not at all; I am an anti-misandrist. I value good women who honor their commitments and their femininity (not wanting to be men) more than most men probably value them, understanding how rare and desirable a prize such women are. Note that the measures I advised in my original post's preamble are purely defensive; on my honor as a man, I would NEVER do one thing to screw over or cheat in any way a woman I was involved with who behaved honorably with me. I just don't believe in avoidably making it easy for the dishonorable to profit by their moral crimes. You don't think that car thieves and armed robbers should get away with their crimes and make money from those chosen behaviors, do you? I just extend that to wrongful divorce and paternity blackmail.





darkinshadows -> RE: The above reposted with format fixed: (1/12/2005 9:59:13 AM)

quote:

A man who has children with a woman outside of marriage, in the absence of an explicit prior agreement (such as a handfasting ceremony or written contract) has NOT indicated willingness to have children, to undertake their support, etc. That is because in our society, marriage is how a man indicates this. Lack of commitment = lack of commitment; it's called the Law of Identity. A penis is not a pen, and may not be used to enter into contracts.


Whether a man has consented in a childs birth is irrlevant. If two people... male and female.... get together they are equally responsible for bringing a child into the world. If a woman decides not to abort a child and the its against the mans wishes then I make no apology for saying 'tough'... the man should have made provision, and understand that his action (along with the woman) has caused an outcome. Deal with it. Why must a woman lose when a man doesnt want?

On the same lines.... I do believe that if a woman becomes pregnant by a man and doesnt want it and the man does... then the same equality should given in legal terms. Deal with it. Why must a man lose when a woman doesnt want?

Actions cause a consequence. But the reality is that both the man and the woman are being selfish. What they should be thinking of is the child.




darkinshadows -> RE: The above reposted with format fixed: (1/12/2005 10:25:49 AM)

quote:

1) In cases of divorce where paternal physical/sexual abuse or other crime is not legally proven to criminal court standards, children should either go with the father, or at least go with the parent who did not file for divorce (along with the family assets such as the marital home), showing their fitness for custody was the higher.


What about the childs desires and what is best for the child?


quote:

2) That in births outside of marriage, if there is not a legitimate marriage between the biological parents very quickly, that children be automatically put up for adoption. Ideally, the logic of contracts would be followed, which is that unless BOTH parties to it agree to its finalization, it (birth) does not occur, but I can see bending it to this degree if one parent-to-be wants the pregnancy to proceed. (As both parents-to-be should have equal say in the issue, it would not matter which one it was that wanted it to go to completion.)


again... where are the childs rights?


quote:

3) That there should be no cross-household child support, excepting from a parent who both causelessly (in terms of evidence proved in court) filed for divorce and refused custody.


again... child?


All I truely see is selfishness on the thoughts of people who would argue that a child should just be given off with this parent or that parent. Women and men can argue and disagree over who does what/haswhat/haswhom/isresponsiblefor/blame/hate....

the truth is... both are responsible equally. Forget the selfishness... what is done is done. Think about the effect on the innocent children caught in the middle.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625