Issues related to men, their problems and relationships

men problems, men relationships, men and relationships, men and women relationships, relationship advice for men, men relationship advice, men to men relationship

Archive for April, 2010

SOC.MEN DAMMIT

In article <25…@unix.SRI.COM>, Valerie writes:
>But many women, including me at times, don’t post because they’re tired of
>being hassled. "The guys" can and do gang up on women in soc.women as well as
>in soc.men. It gets old quickly. And when you’ve been around as long as I
>have….well, you remember  net.women.only and net.women…and "the
>experiment"…
>They don’t hear you. They don’t WANT to hear you.
>Got anything really new to contribute? I for one would welcome it.

There really is something new coming out of this discussion.  However, I
doubt that you can see it.  The something new is that men are finally
standing up for themselves against this crap when they are verbally assaulted.

MEN’S sexuality is being attacked, once again, by so-called feminists.
Janet’s article that started this discussion proposed that men coming to
a nude beach were getting hard-ons to oppress her.  She then made the usual
tie-in with rape and quoted a bogus statistic.  This is classic "net.womyn".

For look what she attacked:  Our erections!  What BULLSHIT!  Janet "knows"
what that erection means: RAPE!  The ultimate MEN’s crime against women.

We know what is really being done here.  This is just another article for
a feminist to vent her anger on men — and if we don’t stay silent and
"take it like a man" then we aren’t "real men".  After all, what is she
supposed to do with her anger?

        HEY, WHAT THE HELL AM I SUPPOSED TO DO WITH MINE?

We’ve been taking this kind of crap here on soc.men far too long.  Men are
now standing up and saying "BULLSHIT!" when a self proclaimed "feminist"
bashes us.  We are tired of the sexism of feminism, that tries to lay
every perceived evil upon us, simply because we are men.  And we are
doing something about it!

It’s a beginning, that’s true, but it’s very refreshing to see.  

It’s difficult to throw off the cultural conditioning that we’ve acquired,
but it’s necessary.

For if we don’t take a stand now, our rights will surely be trampled into
dust in the future.

But, Valerie, and you other tired, silent, "feminists", why don’t you all
remember "net.women.only" and the grand "EXPERIMENT" by listening to MEN’s
voices?  Yes, that’s right, actually listening to what WE are saying here.

Oh, I know you’ll counter with "the entire net is men-space, blah-blah-blah"
argument that you used to keep soc.men from being a reality for so long.
That’s what I mean. Actually listen to what so-called "feminists" say
about MEN.  Then maybe, just maybe, you’ll understand the anger.  The anger
that is costing you.

But I get the feeling that many so called "feminists" don’t care.  They’re
really hate-mongers in PC clothing.  They live to hate and can’t change.

Brian

.
posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (24)

How to get started -> Erections on the beach -> People as sex objects

Janet writes that she gets treated as a sex object — at work, in the
doughnought shop, etc.  She says that men talk to her breasts and near
strangers refer to her as "chick" and "babe" and such words.

Janet, I would like to here *YOUR* opinion on the following:

1) When I go to church, old ladies will take ahold of my upper arm (feeling
the bicepts and tricepts) and say things like "What a handsome man you
are!  You have such broad shoulders, were you ever a football player, sweetie/
honey/ sugar ?"  

2) And when I visit my friend’s mother’s house, she will occaisonally find
labor for me to do "You’re so strong; would you mind just lifting this
and putting it over there?"

3) [On a first date] she: So how much do you make?  I: Enough to live on.
she: No really, how much money do you make a year?

4) For the dramatic section of the Gospel Choir I belong to, we were
all assigned parts (story of Noah).  Some were the animals, and most of
the rest were the "sinners".  *ALL* the violent crime "sinners" were cast
as men.  

You see how I feel?  And now a woman is saying to hide my erection on a
nude beach.  I say enough is enough.

                              –Niels

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (4)

Re: More Forgachisms: Feminists (was A Letter to …)

I’ve removed talk.abortion and added soc.men

In article <1991Jun15.212906.18…@MDI.COM> jbrin…@MDI.COM (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
)forg…@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

)
)>The feminst movement started OUT fine!  "Equal pay for equal work" and
)>all that stuff.
)
)So you think that women get equal pay for equal work, huh?  Well, in the
)1960s (I forget the exact year) women made about 57 cents to the man’s dollar.
)Today (almost thirty years later) women make….<drum roll>… 62 cents to the
)man’s dollar.  BIG difference, right?  

Unfortunately, that widely quoted statistic has absolutely nothing to do
with equal pay for equal work.  If you look, you’ll see equal work doesn’t
figure into it at all.  Statistics for ‘equal work’ show in Electrical
Engineering (and many other fields) that women actually start out higher
than men, and slowly loose ground.  They  never, however, get as low as 60%
Maybe about 80% or so (don’t have the figures in front of me) and those women
are old enough where they didn’t have any AA or EO programs when they hired
in.  Not all fields are the same, some of the more sexist fields like
construction workers are worse than others, but most follow this pattern.

Other more reasonable statistics at least address the field of endeavor, but
some of them omit time in the current job.  It’s important to take both
field AND experience into account when talking about ‘equal pay for equal
work’.

Single women make about 90% of what single men make, according to Census
Bureau figures as quoted by Farrel in ‘Why Men Are the Way They Are’.
Married women make about 33%.  This also suggests a lot of the ’60% figure’
has more to do with choices (such as the women spending a significant time
raising the child and not devoting herself to her career rather than
discrimination (as do data from individual  professions).

On a more global perspective, if one wants to figure out how men do vs. women
as far as ‘quality of life’, it seems pretty fair to assume that couples
share the same lifestyle, as they will share the house, possesions, etc.
Given that single men and women have been addressed by Farrel’s statistics,
what’s missing is data on how separated / divorced women do vs separated /
divorced men.  Unfortunately, ‘transfer payments’ such as alimony and child
support are not included in the available data on income by the Census
Bureau, so this figure will be very difficult to get.

* Disclaimer *

This posting (probably) represents what the NNTP socket was told, but it
isn’t representative of Company Policy or Opinion.

b…@mot.com

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (24)

Re: US to have National Paternity? Screening (was employment)

I’m forwarding this from another newsgroup; thought it would be of interest

———————————————————————

A friends of mine is, asn was a jazz drummer.  He had a hot show, and
went to the after show party, and had a woman want to crawl into
his bed.  He liked the idea.  This being the era before aids, he asked
if she was on the pill — else he would get out his condom.

She said she was.  Fine.  Cool.  One good night in the sack.
What he did not know was that she badly, and extremely wanted
to bear his child.  So she set it up to be most likely, and
lo and  behold she got her wish.  he is understandably freaked,
and offered an abortion, but that was not what she wanted.  She
didn’t want to marry him either, thankfully. but she wanted that
kid.  9 months pass.  A daughter is born.  But her mom is unemployed
and wants to go on welfare.  And to get on welfare she is told that
she needs to name the father of her child and present him.  Now, my
friend is very decent and arrives and admits that he is the father
to the welfare office.

Bang.  He gets a court summons where he is ordered to pay child support.
The welfare office sets this up — it wasn’t her idea, but she had to
go along with it to get welfare.  The problem is that my friend then was
trying to make it as a successful musician, and at age 19, hadn’t gotten it down yet.
He made at best $150 a week doing music, and an additional 10 hours of minimum
wage as store clerk in a store which was mostly ofset by the right to sleep in the back room of the
store at nights.

The bottom line was that he could not pay child support at the level he
was charged.  The judge said “get a real job”.  Instead all of his freinds, of which
there were legion, paid $25 a month when we could afford it, or more or less
depending on our circumstances — until it was paid and he could still
go to music school  – and is now making a healthy wage so for more than 6 yearsso I no longer contribute.

There is something wrong here.  If men have to pay for the children they
engender then thjeyt should have some abotrion rights as well.  I suspect that
they shgould offer to pay for any abortion necessary, and then give that money to the woman —
and if she chooses to still have it, it is her own balliwick.

Clearly my friends is not the average case.  And men running out leaving their wives
with bills and kids bugs me as much as anyone.  But there is always
another side to every  issue — and this is one odd side which I know of.

Laura


No message here – due to lack of applicants…

Laura Creighton
t…@toad.com
hoptoad!laura

—————————————————————–

end forwarded post

kEvin
no comment

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments

Re: SOC.MEN DAMMIT!

>>But, Valerie, and you other tired, silent, "feminists", why don’t you all
>>remember "net.women.only" and the grand "EXPERIMENT" by listening to MEN’s
>>voices?  Yes, that’s right, actually listening to what WE are saying here.
>>Oh, I know you’ll counter with "the entire net is men-space, blah-blah-blah"
>>argument that you used to keep soc.men from being a reality for so long.
>>That’s what I mean. Actually listen to what so-called "feminists" say
>>about MEN.  Then maybe, just maybe, you’ll understand the anger.  The anger
>>that is costing you.
> Listen, twit, *I* was the one who proposed and collected the
>votes for soc.men, and one of my published reasons for doing so was
>precisely so that men had a space to voice feelings and needs and
>emotions. Sheesh.

Valerie, how could we ever forget who collected the votes for soc.men.
You’d never let us.  Your cronies have been sending me e-mail all day
reminding me.  But while it’s a "fact" that you counted the vote, your reason
for creating soc.men was not to make a forum for men so much as it was to get
men out of soc.women.  When this failed, the great "experiment" was born.  It
failed, too, to silence men who disagreed.

But who did/didn’t create soc.men was not and is not what my posting was
about.  You know this.  You’re not going to divert my attention and derail
this new start for the men of soc.men.  I don’t care if God HIMSELF created
soc.men.  That isn’t the point.

No, the point of my article was that the men of soc.men far too often have
taken men-bashing from radical feminists and tried to formulate a reasonable
reply.  The men in soc.men have, many, many times, bent over backwards to be
fair and admit sexism when they saw it.  I can’t think of a man on the net
today who is a real, live, MCP.  There are no Andrew Dice Clays posting.

But enough is enough.  We’ve seen the "All men are potential rapists" articles.
We’ve seen soc.men filled with all sorts of rape articles portraying us as
the ultimate threat to women.  We’ve done the self crucifixion routine long
enough.  We’re gonna point out BULLSHIT when we see it.  Janet’s article
attacking our sexuality has finally brought this to a head.

>As it happens, I don’t know what Janet’s problem is about erections,
>and I don’t agree with her.

This doesn’t surprise me given the rebuttal that been presented here so far.
You’ve been most happy to embrace men-bashers such as Cheryl Stewart, whom
you call "Our Cheryl", in the past however.  And that’s fine, for that’s
your business.  But don’t feed me any lines about you being a concerned
citizen of male-equality.  It doesn’t wash.

For if you are, answer me this:  When you championed the "Great Experiment"
I offered you a deal.  If you would stay out of soc.men, I’d stay out of
soc.women.  Funny, there was no reply to my offer.  I even e-mailed it to
you.  Why no reply?  It was fair enough of an offer don’t you think?

Or how about this?  When you were proclaiming the innocence of Elizabeth
Morgan and the guilt of her husband you claimed that the judge made a
number of legal errors.  People then invited you to elaborate.  Again
no response.  Why?

Hey, I could go on with this, but my point is: don’t try to snow me.

There ARE women who truly care about equality and realize that equality IS a
two way street.  I was really touched to see them rise up to set the record
straight for Janet.  It is with women like these that a new beginning is
possible.  These true feminists (if they can bear to use the term feminist)
are people I can work with.  They are the people I thought I would be working
with when I joined NOW and NARAL.  If there were more like them, I’d still be
fighting to stop the New Right from stripping women of their basic rights.

But we get tired of being bashed, simply because we’re men — "potential
rapists".

So, please, be my guest and call me a "twit".  It helps me to vent my
anger.  It feels good!

And I’ll not shut up and "take it like a man" when I hear BULLSHIT.

You’re free to post in soc.men.  We’re not going to propose an "experiment"
(that really means an organized boycott of postings based upon the sex
of the poster).  But we’re not going to sit by and be bashed either.

NEVER AGAIN!

Now do you understand the anger?

Brian

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (24)

Re: why do we do this to ourselves?

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

In article <1991Jun17.101259*ci…@solan.unit.no>, ci…@solan.unit.no (Cindy Kandolf) writes:
> this has been burning a hole in my brain ever since last tuesday night….

> that evening i went to a party, celebrating the end of the term for the
> norwegian course i was in.  all three levels were brought together, so there
> were a lot of people i didn’t know there.  for whatever reason, most of the
> people at the party were women.

> i decided jeans were a bit too casual, so i picked out a shirtdress, and since
> the evening was warm and very pleasant i put on plain white socks and a
> comfortable pair of flat shoes.  most of the people were dressed like that,
> but some of the women had really dressed up!  two women were wearing cocktail
> dressed, the strapless kind that always look so tight around the top.  despite
> the fact that the weather was warm (and the room we had the party in even
> warmer) some women were wearing stockings.  several were wearing VERY high
> heels.

> since i moved to norway i have stopped wearing a bra and stopped shaving my
> legs, and in general my dress has become much more casual.  but looking at
> these women reminded me of what i used to dress like, always trying to look
> like a fashion plate (which i never succeeded at) no matter how uncomfortable
> it was.  and that brings us to the question in the subject line, why do we
> do this to ourselves??  

THE FOLLOWING WAS EXTRACTED FROM NET.HUMOR

        Another example of Fashion Victimization is this trend toward
    paying good money for pre-scuzzed ratty-looking garments that earlier,
    less fashion-conscious generations such as your mother’s would have
    used to wipe the toilet tank.
        I was in a fashion store the other day, and they were selling
    blue jeans $55 a pair, which would not be unusual, except that these
    jeans had HOLES in them. On PURPOSE. They are imported from Italy,
    where a person is PAID to put holes in them. They are called
    "destroyed" jeans, and they are part of a raging international trend
    toward a leisure-wear "look" that was previously available only
    to the rural poor. (Or victims of industrial accidents! MFR)
        The question is: Why not take the next logical step? Why not
    prerub dirt into shirt collars? Why not hand-paste flakes of designer
    dandruff onto jackets? Why not SET FIRE to the jeans, right at the
    factory, and simply sell, for $55 each, wallet-sized certificates
    stating that a pair of jeans had been hand-destroyed in the bearer’s
    name?
       ridiculous, you say? You’re right. Your true Fashion Victim
    would pay a LOT more than $55 for such a certificate.

END EXCERPT

  How about nudity licenses! For $100.00 you get a famous designer to
certify that you are fit to walk around nude! Just think! No more dry cleaning
bills! Total honesty! You are what you aren’t wearing! (Where do we hang
the license tags?)

==========================================================================
\\\\    Michael Rivero      | "I drank WHAT!" |"When MARRIAGE is illegal,|
  (.    riv…@dev8a.mdcbbs | Socrates  ——————-  Only        |
   )>   DISCLAIMER:::       |———–| "How come I’m   | OUTLAWS will |
  ==    "Hey man, I wasn’t  |Looking4luv|taxed by the guy | have INLAWS! |
—/    even here then!"    |Settle4sex!|I voted AGAINST!"|              |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++——————-+++++++++++++++

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments

Observe the handwriting of American women

Maybe I am using the word "handwriting" inproperly here. I really mean "hand-
printing" but I don’t know the right word for that.

It suddenly hit me when I was looking at my dental bill. I notice that my name
was written in a way that is exactly the same as it appeared on my rent receipt.
Then I spent some time to compare the handwriting on my cable bill, my rental
car bill, my female office mate’s notes, … I notice that the handwriting of
most (if not all) females Americans, especially if she is a secretary, all look
the same.

I’ve seen the handwriting of Chinese women, both in English and Chinese
characters, and they look different. Even some of the handwriting looked very
"girlish" ( I mean you can tell it’s written by a female by just looking at it),
but they looked different.

Young girls ( under 10 ) write as scratchy as boys. But, as they grow up, they
tend to learn to write neatly, while boys don’t. So when a girl is old enough
to be a secretary, she write just like her office mate. Are they intentionally
or unintentionally being taught to write in such a way?

Or is it because boys are more imaginative, to find other writing styles, even
if that doesn’t look as neat ?

Or, is it because there are only 26 letters and 10 numbers in English so there
isn’t as much room for different writing styles as the Chinese characters?

Or, is it because I haven’t seen enough handwritings of American females so that
I can’t tell the differences?

I wonder if anyone else also notice this phenominam and have a clue of why
they all look the same.

Nelson Ge
nel…@b11.ingr.com

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (25)

Janet takes the bull by the horn

Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,soc.singles
Subject: Janet takes the bull by the horn
Summary:
Expires:
References: <1991Jun10.214827.9436@indetech.com> <1991Jun10.222839.10260@indetech.com> <1991Jun12.023326.13360@osc.edu> <1991Jun13.0171710.21343@indetech.com>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: University of Cincinnati, Cin’ti., OH
Keywords:

In article <1991Jun13.0171710.21…@indetech.com> ja…@indetech.com (Janet Christian x2054) writes:

>My problem is, and will continue to be, the attitude of men in this
>society toward women. Obviously, by the responses, I am one of the few,
>if not only, women on this newsgroup. That, alone, speaks volumes.

Since this article seems to have been X-posted between soc.women,
soc.men, and soc.singles, I am most puzzled. All three of these
groups have plenty of women posting, and presumably, reading.

Sashaying into soc.men and telling men to stop getting erections on a
nude beach is like strolling into the ladies’ restroom, ripping
the feminine napkin dispenser off the wall, and declaring, "I wish
you all would just *stop* this behavior."

With one small difference: almost all the men will respond to you
with amazing and thoroughly unjustified politeness. They will do that
as long as they believe you are a woman. Except Hillel, of course,
he is the only man here who seems to believe in equality of the sexes.

>Tell me, all you who respond so vehemently in defense of yourselves,

I will say, Janet, or whatever your real name may be, you certainly
have a knack for getting men excited. Just look at all those
responses. Men are climbing all over each other to apologize for their
hard-ons. Of course, men have been trained since earliest childhood
to apologize for their hard-ons, and women are smart enough to figure
out a man’s weaknesses in a hurry. Anyway, if you get any similar response
when you parade your voluptuous flesh around on the nude beach, I can
see where you wouldn’t be getting much rest! Maybe you should just
stay away from the nude beach for about the next 10 or 20 years, that
should fix most of the problem.

Then maybe you can come back to soc.men, and complain to us how men
don’t get hard-ons when you go to the nude beach anymore. After you
have lost your power over men you will regard it somewhat differently.

>have you told any good dirty jokes lately?

Yes, and would you like to hear some that women have told me? I met
one woman who said, "The best way to set a man at ease is to tell him
a dirty joke."

You could learn much from a woman like that, I think…

>Have you referred to women
>as "girls"?

When they act like girls, of course.

>Have you stared uncontrollably to some woman who is simply
>trying to walk down the street like everyone else?

I would not stare uncontrollably at some woman who was walking down
the street like everyone else, because I don’t stare uncontrollably
at everyone else. In fact, I don’t stare uncontrollably at anyone.
I maintain complete control over where my eyes point. However,
at some times I must, for my safety, continue to look in a particular
direction, such as where I am heading, lest I step in front of a bus.
If someone happens to be in my line of sight then, too bad.

Otherwise, I look at what I want to look at. If I see a woman who I
think is attractive, and she has obviously groomed and ornamented
herself with effort, then I may observe her art the way I would
observe any publically displayed art. (If, on the other hand, a woman
were to parade around with a sign saying "PLEASE DO NOT STARE AT ME",
then as soon as I assured myself that I could look somewhere else in
complete safety, I would do the courteous thing. And before you
laugh, I saw a punk strolling around with a jacket that read,
"What are you staring at, fucker?" I read that, and thought I should
go tell him, "Your purple, orange, and green mohawk.")

Women check me out all the time, especially in summer when I get
to show off my body, so where is the problem? You can bet that if
I bust my ass in the weight room for 8 years, and go walking around
in shorts and a tank top, I will not have a problem with anybody
noticing the results. Man, woman, gay, straight, black, white, old,
young: I can take a compliment from anybody. (Even compliments I
don’t really deserve, which would be most of them.) Because if I don’t
want someone to see my body, I don’t show it to them. It’s that simple.

>Have you "talked to
>a woman’s breasts" instead of her eyes?

The last time I checked, a woman’s breasts are as much a part of her
body as her eyes are. If a woman finds one part of her body more
threatening than another part, is that my fault? Tell you what,
though, I’m usually willing to kiss it and make it all better.

Actually, I can’t talk to any particular bodypart, I can only talk
to another mind through the agency of that mind’s bodyparts. If that
mind is hung up on its bodyparts, it must not be a very happy mind.

>Have you referred to anyone who
>is not a close, personal friend as "honey", "babe", "sweetheart"  
>or "chick"?

Lots of people have done this to me (although "chick" hasn’t been
exactly common), and guess what? If I just take a few deep breaths
and count slowly to ten, my precious little wounded ego bounces
right back. We live in a world where hardly anybody really respects
anybody else, and this is just something everyone has to cope with.
Women have the double burden, however, of feeling that there is some
big conspiracy against them, and that all men respect each other like
brothers. That would be funny if it weren’t so pitiful.

>Perhaps I’m just tired of feeling I exist on this planet as a subordinate,
>as an object, as something to provide men with pleasure.

Well, your troubles must be over, because I’m a man and you aren’t
providing me with any pleasure last I checked. Does that make you
feel better? You are not an object who is making me feel good. Isn’t
that nice? Gosh, maybe you’d like to inflict pain on me?

I mean, after all, if you don’t want to give pleasure to men you
always have the option of giving pleasure to women…or maybe pieces
of plastic with batteries in them.

And if you think that a man gets pleasure by being attracted to you
and then humiliated when you reject him, you are sadly mistaken. If
men could control their sex drives, they would at least make sure to
get turned on by somebody who *likes* them, for God’s sake. Do you
think we *like* to be made fools by some woman who happens to have
been born holding the keys to our pocket rockets? Believe me, I’ve
tried to sieze control of that thing. I’ve literally pounded the
juice out of it thousands of times…to no avail… :-)

Of course, a minority of people are sociopaths, who have a disorder
which makes them almost virtually immune to fear, shame, and
embarrassment. My guess is that you have run into more than your
share of those. That would be because: (1) sociopaths who are men are
notoriously aggressive and *successful* with women, and (2) because
you probably expect men to make all the first moves. A sociopath has
an incredibly easy time making all the first moves, so attracting men
passively guarantees you’ll get plenty of those guys.

Sociopaths have a great time in a society which assumes everybody
will cooperate, and women have been selectively breeding sociopaths
for millions of years.

>Yes, I enjoy nudity and sex.

Not as much as I do, I bet.

>No, I’m not a prude.

No, you are a woman. And everything you are saying here makes perfect
sense to anybody who knows a little sociobiology. The biological
differences between men and woman make the most successful reproductive
behaviors entirely different for us. It’s amazing we can get along at
all.

>I am, however, frustated beyond
>belief at the continued attitude that women should just take their
>lumps and learn to live with it. Why can’t we just all get along?

Don’t worry, in 20 years or so most men will be happily ignoring you,
and you will be able to enjoy your life without being bothered by them.

Men have been taking their lumps and living with them since the
Dawn of Time. Do you think the Average Man is any closer to getting
things exactly his way than you are to getting things exactly your
way? Do you have any idea what I might be talking about?

We’re talking conflict, hon—uh, oops, Janet. (Can I call you Janet?
When I address men, I often say things like "asshole", "dipshit",
"prick", and so on, and somehow those don’t sound much better than
"honey", "babe", or "sweetheart". So I doubt that you want equality
with men, insofar as I address them.) And whenever two people have
conflicting desires that they can’t both satisfy simultaneously,
there will be competition and problems.

>Why
>can’t men see women as partners, friends, companions, equals.

For two reasons:

1. Because men have sociobiological wiring that makes this
difficult, and

2. Because women don’t present themselves as such, or reward men for
seeing them as such.

When a sociopath like Ted Bundy no longer can expect to get 1000
letters from lonely women while he is waiting for the electric chair,
then after a few more generations men will start seeing women as
equals.

>Thank
>Goddess there are exceptions, but not many and not enough.

Well, at least you’ve got this much going for you—you sound
insatiable. How many sex partners do you require? Maybe you just
haven’t found a man who knows how to push your buttons. I’ll have
to warn you, though, most men who know how to do that often get
erections.

>Most of
>the exceptions tend to be Pagan – since Pagan religions stress duality,
>equality, balance.

I wouldn’t expect much more than pre-scientific mumbo-jumbo from a
woman is offended by erections. Ah well.

>Janet

>Am I the only woman who even bothers with this group?

You posted to three groups, which group would that be?

You are certainly one of the more *bothersome* women in this
group, but at least I can see your point. You like to have sex,
apparently with men (although you didn’t say that). If you like
to have sex with men, then you like to have sex with people who
almost certainly respond to objective cues that you can provide.
However, you wish you could control exactly when men would respond
sexually to you. Ergo, you want to control men.

It’s not immediately obvious why that is better than, for example,
giving me the power to control when women should get sexually
aroused. I can see why a person would want such power; it has a
potent, childish appeal. When I was an adolescent, and not yet
able to figure out how to get past women’s wall of hostility, I
had fantasies about having a "love potion" that would cause them
to bend to my every whim, much the way you would like men to bend
to your every whim even now. Fortunately, I outgrew that stage.
Besides, if women can’t reject me, then having sex with them would
just be a fancier form of masturbation. (Not that masturbation is
bad, but variety is the spice of life. And challenges can be fun.)

Oh well, I’ve rambled enough. Hopefully, I won’t be getting an
erection today, wouldn’t want to scare anybody.

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments

Re: Erections on a nude beach

ja…@indetech.com (Janet Christian x2054) writes:

>Well, while I am an open and relaxed person when it comes to nudity and
>sexuality, I have one thought on this. I enjoy being nude because it
>feels comfortable and natural to me. I would not like the feeling that I
>was providing visual stimulus to some strange man (i.e., not known to me).

>Perhaps it is my feminism – why couldn’t you just let me be there without
>having to get physically arroused. Perhaps it is my concern about rape –
>after all, a rape occurs every 6 seconds in this country.

    Why can’t you go for 8 hours without eating without getting hungry?
(Ok, you can?  Oh no, another one! :-)  Ok, bad example but you get my
point… I hope.  It’s hard to control what one feels.

    Perhaps it _is_ your feminism: The attitude that men are supposed to
suppress their feelings both internally and externally through their
actions is why so many men are "insensitive."  But I believe I can see that
the real insensitivity lies in people who put on public displays then
get mad when others appreciate them.  Why aren’t men entitled to their
opinion and to express it, (even if they don’t express it towards you)?

    I find that the worst way to lose control over my feelings is to
"not feel them" (deny they are there)  Of course, this results in
me lashing out sometimes.  (I try to control _that_)  Maybe when
men are allowed to feel aroused/vulnerable  without disapproval every
6 seconds, women will be able to feel safe for that time too.  Freedom
is perhaps a two way street.

    Just a thought.


Mark Sobolewski         soble…@cs.psu.edu *!psuvax1!sobleski

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (30)

Females always get warnings, males always get tickets

> Water retention, irritability, etc, and now speeding tickets. I never
> realized how bad a woman’s period could get…

You haven’t heard the half of it!!! Just last week, a news broadcast gave us
the intriguing story of a woman here in VA who had been stopped for drunk
driving. (She had had 4-5 glasses of wine, it turned out.)  When the cop
stopped her, she proceeded to ASSAULT him, and was hauled away to jail.  The
whole thing went to court, natch.  And guess what??  She was acquitted of the
charge of assaulting a police officer on the grounds that she was
suffering from PMS!!!!!

Jean

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (24)