Most men don’t exercise, or dress well, and were brought up believing that it doesn’t matter what men look like or act like – as long as they have money they will get women. Many of the overweight guys I know who dress like boys, or old men – don’t read, don’t travel, and many seem to know little more about life than what’s on the news or what’s going on at work. Yet they are still horny and “driven” to mate which puts women, girl friends or wives in an awkard place.

For many wives such men become a bore and a chore. I am not saying that women are better, or worse, but more do dress well, stay slimmer, and read more – and on a few levels many women are more interesting. (I know, men know more about politics, are more fun in some ways, but from men to women it’s not always as interesting) Men discussing the war, or governments usually find that it’s not conversation that leads to romance.

I too get tired of many women writing as if women don’t like sex, the guy wants it, he asked her out so he should pay while they never plan on asking a woman out. I know several younger women who completely look at guys as horny people who can provide amusement, in many ways. Yesterday’s New York Times had a book review of Laura Sessions Stepp’s booy “unhooked” advising women to restrain themselves sexually, somewhat.

She is chided as old school and she has also shared the feelings that women are the “gate keepers” when it comes to sex. Generally speaking she is correct. I think her advice to woman should be extended to men, learn to control your lust, your body, … A man who can’t do that is vulnerable to being used.

As long as most men don’t have much pride when it comes to “getting laid” as long as most men don’t take care of their bodies while they want slim wives, as long as most men let women run the show sexually and dating too, you and I are going to hear women speaking as if when it comes to sex, it’s only up to women, and if men want the women and sex, they are not paying for the woman or sex, they are paying to have the “audition” for a woman and for sex.

There is a small group of men, what is it, two percent, that the sexually active women track down – Those men don’t understand how so many women can act as if all women control all the sex all the time, and there is a percentage of men who just don’t get it – The men who find sex easily don’t see women the way men do who have to get sex the old fashioned way (As a heading in Cosmo mag once suggested) they have to “earn it”

Most men don’t seem to get it, that if a woman doesn’t respect you, doesn’t find you attractive,the idea of having sex seems – bland at best. Those men must pay and pay… The woman and man won’t talk about it because he feels pathetic and she feels slightly whorish, but custom allows little guilt.

I enjoy your comments, articles and so on, Marc, but until boys are taught to take pride in their bodies, and in their lives, and with dating too, they are so often flying into the web thinking they are the pursuer, only to be eaten by a spider.

Hope that doesn’t sound to cynical. I agree with you, men need to stop putting up with it, and most won’t. And as long as they won’t, it’s mostly women who will call the shots about dating,sex, and sometimes marriage (although so many men see how men lose in marriage that on that end women are also starting to lose.)

I think you have balls for going on shows where you know many women are going to resent you. I remember Hookers in a foriegn country threatening women who had sex too easily or for free or low prices because it hurt their own bargaining power. It’s the same here. Convince men that they have little to offer in bed compared to a woman, keep the advertising going with a man’s hand handing a present from outside the frame to a sexy looking women, teach women to “exect” payment, and a guy refusing to do so is insulted and said to not be romantic. It’s a nice system for many women, but not a good system for couples.

I have found the women I have dated over the years, and married (more than once) to be fair, sexy, and willing to share whatever they have. But too many of my friends have not found that. Many of my female friends had to “settle” for less than they wanted too. Life isn’t easy for anyone. Life must be particularly hard for you, standing up to the women’s union and expecting more men to “wake up” … smile

Later, SD

Mr. Deluca,

You’ve made some thoughtful points, but to suggest that most women keep themselves slim — when clothing-industry statistics show that women are fatter than ever (average size is 14) — while men let themselves go is preposterous.

Finally, life is not particularly hard for me, as you hypothesize. I’m having fun writing about nonsense and being society’s alarm clock.

“You’ve made some thoughtful points, but to suggest that most women keep themselves slim — when clothing-industry statistics show that women are fatter than ever (average size is 14) — while men let themselves go is preposterous.”

Wow! No kidding! I’m in my mid-40′s and the number of women eligible for dating, just from a physical attractiveness vuewpoint, are very few. Yes, women do focus on their appearance very effectively when they are younger – and some maintain this as they age, but the majority want to blame the man when he is unattracted to the blob they have before them. We men are expected to just take a Viagra pill when presented with a woman no human could possibly have a sexual interest in! No thanks, I just focus on those who want me to be physically interested by taking care of themselves!

MR
I appreciate your inputs, finally some others get it, I’ve tired somewhat of doing this on my own, one person at a time. I’d like to offer the works of Mr. John Ross in his “Ross in Range” Website as well as the Ladder Theory Website. Useful information there for men of tender years or those just crawling out from under the oppressive rock of American Feminism.
RS: I concur with you observation about the current fattitudes, and have to smile in recollection of having to undergo blue chemical courage and turn the lights off to get er done, proving to me once and for all that it has to be more than just an engaging personality the fills the bill, so to speak(Somewhat similar to the old story about the differences between American and Jap motorcycles, but I digress).
Finally, with some degree of apology to Marc, I submit that everything costs something, it’s just that as one ages the costs become more obvious and more currency based. Youth has its own economy but us older types have to relegate ourselves to being able to spend it or go without.
Enjoy your youth while you may and do what you must to keep it Polyslip rather than Poligrip if you get my drift…

Red Pill,

If you believe you must “spend it or go without it,” you are correct. Attitude is everything.

MR
Attitude is everything? Just how old are you? Do you date age-appropriately or do you reap the fields of the naive and hopeful woman-child? As is always the case there is a point between extremes where the truth is usually represented but I don’t anymore linger in the middle of much, thereby not selling any implicit promise of bliss to some girl willing to be swept away for a shot at the big time and big money.
Time was intended to show on a body of both men and women, for more reasons than I’d care to explain at this time. As a favorite line from a song goes “love is always over in the morning” I’ve come to expect that in a world with too few genetically thin and relatively non-psychotic gals at my age bracket. It may well be that men are breaking out of the mold made for them by the gals, but unless you plan on hopping from flower to flower in an ever diminishing garden it’s gonna get at least somewhat commercial even among friends because the gals are staying put with their fantasies until the fatalism or menopause kicks in, whereby the hatred gels and dog and cat collecting takes over. It boils down to a matter of value with respect to finding a reasonably permanant partner. Find whatever works for you.
I’ll be in Negril, west end of the beach…

Marc:
I keep trying to make your philosophy, or just some of your expressed desires fit with the perceived needs (and wants…sometimes even misguided ones) so often expressed here. What I mean to say is that there is a palpable distrust of women here, and it is not unfounded paranoia. The women have earned the lack of trust by exerting themselves legally and in other ways into the destruction of families and some would say even of society.
Your comments can, for me, ring very true in the dating world, and if we are going to just date our whole life, fine, equality, her place, may place, she pays, I pay, fine, but it blurs in marriage and I don’t think many of the men here really do want this equality the way you describe it for fear of how it would be handled.
If I must trade equality, and my wife have her job and bank account, and we split the bills etc., and THEN she is attracted to me and we have tons of sex (Im over simplifying I know), it seems like a pretty bad relationship to me to be honest. Describe for me how it works in marriage Marc, not in dating…there is a bit more at stake then who buys the popcorn.
Im finding these pieces more and more a pop culture fluff diversion, not much more.

conservativation,

I keep a clock next to my desk. With this clock, I count the minutes until I will receive your predictable, illogical responses to my articles.

If you find my articles such fluff diversions, why do you stop here? Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Yet, you keep returning. The reason is clear: My articles hit uncomfortably close to your home, and you resent it.

What you sew in dating, you reap in marriage. If you think the rules for marriage are a lot different than those in dating, you are mistaken. Just because you subordinate yourself to women isn’t a reason to criticize those of us who don’t.

C-man:
My take:
Marc is outwardly upwardly mobile and chick dig it and are willing to try anything for a while to rope this dude.
Fast forward 15 yrs(without extensive cosmetic surgery or abnormally youthful appearance 2 SD from the norm): Bald, wrinkles, liver spots, bad eyesight, slight limp, tired at the end of a busy day. Got some health issues now, cant be kikkin it all night long anymore, not even that interested in it actually, too much hassle.
Then what?
Hot young babes still gonna want to do you anyway and then go home to their studio apartment?
Awww, why not?
Does that attitude still work with lactose intolerance and prostatic enlargment?
Will emotional love and pure financial equality without the bling keep us together?
Stay tuned …

MR:
Tick tock tick tock…
You plans do not serve as a to men guide for living, only as a guide to porking, which is ok only for a while.
You refuse to state the obvious, that relationships are a financial deal, always have been, always will be. The big and fairly only problem is that gals institutionally are allowed to bail without much consequence.
Kodos on your bedding hot babes for free, but I remain unimpressed…

Glad to provide a service Marc, that being keeping your clock set correctly. Marc, in case you missed it, people here constantly disagree and debate and refine opinions, and well, iron sharpens iron. You’ve taken exception to my disagreements numerous times by using the time worn tactic of telling me if I don’t like whats on your TV, just to change the channel. Since I’m male and not a counterparty to you in your gender dynamic, lets assume for the sake of argument then that I’m your “equal”. Stay with me here Marc. You long for the gals to be your equal, not putting up with you nor you them out of need, a mutual respect thing. So what the hell do you say to her if she disagrees with you on a relatively important topic? Do you just get up and leave the date? Do you send her away? Do you ask her why, if she knew you were of a certain mind on something, did she bother to go on the date in the first place? Do you tell her you can set a watch to her taking exception to your opinion on whatever it is you are discussing? Because you aren’t giving off a very fuzzy vibe here my man, and if that tact is taken w/ the gals they gonna not put up with your ass.
You (as usual) avoided specificity, even the most superficial kind, in addressing my question of extrapolating dating behavior into marital behaviors…you just state that there is a logical extrapolation, yep, yessir, Marc says so, thats it, now agree, offer alms, offer homage, praise, join the groupies, or figgin stop reading the stuff man. Can’t you see that you are ruled over by women and a loser sexually? Whereas I, Marc the omniscient (being on FM call in shows can tend to lubricate a shallow gal or two…but thats all in the name of equality)have permanent, er, grease under my nails I spend so much time under the hood…wink wink, nudge nudge, know what I mean eh wot, a wet hedgehog wot? Sticky wicket wot?

C-man:
Taking your thoughts into consideration but I a derivitive question:
Does irony sharpen irony?….

Projection…its what people do to rid themselves of an uncomfortable realization regarding personal shortcomings. You always tell me Im subordinated to women and how your comments hit home for me and make me squirm. It occured to me that your openly irritated, even angry reaction to my questioning of the MR doctrine reveals an insecurity in that on which you’ve built your house of (short term) cards.
I enjoy what you write, even vicariously take some enjoyment in the notions, but Red Pill is right, …I am right, and in the grown up settled down real world your practices get dashed against the rocks by the waves of reality.

Red Pill, you betcha! Daily I see the accumulation of “irony dust” from the sharpening that occurs when two keen sarcastic minds meet and do battle.
Case in point, the irony of Marcs lack of skin thickness when a minor disagreement manifests, yet his concurrent contention that he wants equal women. I guess he means exactly equal, like they agree with everything he says…hell I’d like those ones too…maybe Ive got him wrong, ya think?

I agree that Marc has a simplistic view of relationships. Mutual lust = perfect bliss, and equality.

The only problem is, when it’s 10, 20 years later. Now, you’ve seen the person not only buff, but sick, and in the loo. Your significant other never really valued family, misses the flirty nightlife. And those 2 incomes aren’t as great as they appeared. She loves Hillary, you’re Reagan reincarnate.

Lust dies easily. Love doesn’t. Emotional connectedness makes happiness. Although, for most men, sex is essential to happiness and a good relationship. And as has been stated elsewhere, men need to demand that thier needs be met. Not derided.

And much of what Marc prints reminds me of feminism: all equal, no leader. That, my friends, is not life. Feminism preaches that, while insidiuosly gathering power for women.

In real life, someone is more dominate than the other person in any relationship. Things are NEVER equal.

Marc seems to be giving advice more fit for a pick up king, not a husband and father.

He still never the less wants many of the same goals that others here want, true equality, but can’t distinguish between legal equality and “personal” equality, whatever that is.

So far as picking up women, attitude isn’t everything, but it’s the most necessary thing. Quasimoto could have been real smooth, but the girls weren’t falling all over him…

With all that said, the thing I do take from Marc is: don’t be pushed around. Don’t be a doormat. Demand respect. And don’t get taken to the cleaners trying to please a woman. Attitude matters.

Those are very good messages.

Everything one needs to know of romantic love is in the “Temple of Love” by the Sisters of Mercy.
“til stone is dust and only air remains….”

Gentlemen:

I have stated my case, clearly so. I have too many followers, from countries all over the world, to worry about your incessant whining. And, I have yet to see any media luminaries ask for your opinions or invite you onto their programs.

What I have learned from vitriolic responders to my articles is this: men who have no game with women attack me with great and unyielding frequency and intensity. They gather like seagulls on a rock to complain to each other.

Whine all you want. Life is short.

So it’s a “game”, then? Macho Man, most of your egotistical ramblings remind me of a 16 year old. I got plenty of “game”.

But is that all there is to you? Or do you want family?

Divorced? Kids? Deeper meaning?

The No-Nonsense Bottom Line: you have some good stuff there, but your emphasis is on sex. Not relationships. Do you disagree?

And remember, I think we could agree about most of the legal equality issues. And I agree with the “don’t be a doormat” attitude.

So really, as I’ve seen here all the time, once again, brothers squabble over the differences, instead of working toward commonality and real purpose.

There is no problem with Marc’s “all equal. no leader.” philosophy — so long as there is reciprocity.

Yes, reciprocity, that’s it. That is where both people get to treat each other the same. Sure, one person can still dominate on special occasion, especially if they are better than you at some task. However, if it is her way more than 4 days out of every 7 (or else your way more than 4 out of 7), it is maybe time to pack it up.

I don’t know what your experiences are, but mine have been waiting too long to get out. When you start out equal, and then discover things have shifted on an emotional basis (maybe even of course a perfectly valid short-term exception because she asks), and then you are now asking for things to “go back like they were” and she stays plays the card that works day after day, that plainly a scam. If it happens twice, do not ever look back, and do not ever think she was oblivious as to the consequences.

RestoringGuy,

You are on-target. There are three kinds — and only three kinds — of relationships:

1. Peer
2. Man superior/woman inferior
3. Man inferior/woman superior

You begin the dynamic of your entire relationship (including marriage) on the first telephone call and reinforce it ON THE FIRST DATE. If you go into the second date not liking the way it feels, but you go anyway, you lose.

Most men and women don’t talk to each other frankly and directly enough. Too many unspoken desires and objections.

I have written two books and 45 articles that cover every facet of a relationship with a woman. I hope you will explore them.

Methinks that some guys here can’t think wholistically very well, and want you, Marc, to be their counselor…

Hey man, I think he’s right. In the mid-50′s – age wise – it gets weirder dating the older crowd. Sorry ScottR, it gets worse, measurably worse if you get my drift. And I’m no expert on ANYTHING. I read the “bios” posted on the singles dating sites posted by women and it’s scary. They all think they’re relationship experts. Experts on virtually everything. The very same ones who, according to the real experts, couldn’t wait to dump their men. Laughable. Stopped dating these women because the sense of entitlement they have is, in a word, disturbing. Marc, another interesting piece of the puzzle arose a few weeks ago, seems a “Congressperson” has instituted a bill that will give women MORE social security because the poor souls had to raise children and blah, blah, blah. Now, from what I read the bill spoke about “women”, not custodial parent, which, by the by, I happen to be. So, ANOTHER attempt to pickpocket men in the name of PC. Stop the infighting, please,. We are not the enemy.

Keep up the good work man.

Peace

Marc, thank you for your response. My personal experience is that there are no true perr relationships. One is more dominate than the other in any relationship.

Consideration, however, is what makes any relationship work. Sometimes, that means the more dominate individual always considers the other person’s feelings, and lets the other person lead at times. In my case, I will let people “lead” a lot, but have my owmn requirements in reltionships that I won’t compromise on.

And your advice about the first date setting the tone and getting out if it doesn’t feel right is right on, with maybe a disclaimer that very ocassionally, there are exceptions to the rule. For instance, someone has had a bad day and it affects that first date.

Overall, solid advice. I get a feeling this is part of your books. I’ll probably buy one now, because this does make sense, and makes me curious.

Man, wish there was a way to edit that…. sorry for the mess…

conservativation, my friend, Marc bollocks me even when I agree with him! OK, its not too often that I agree wholeheartedly, totally, uncritically. The ‘yes, buts’ come over me and I ask a question or give a slightly different view and all the defences – and attacks – just pour out of him. And …… I’ve probably had more f*cks than he has had hot dinners. Make that a definite.

A question for Marc. Marc, have you ever been in a fidelity-bound realtionship with one women for 10 years? 20? And kept her sexually ecstatic? I’d be interested in your book written after that period, just to compare your more matured views with your current ones. You have many interesting things to say, useful and often apposite, but you do have a habit of rubbishing anyone who wants to discuss (rather than simply follow) your views. Many here do have a wealth of experience despite never having been on a talk show in Moose Creek where some 20 year old with the cradle-marcs still on her bum calls in to say you are wonderful. Listen and you might have the makings of a sequel.

PS. I wonder if Marc’s women find him a grumpy sod.

PPS. One day he’s going to turn into ME!! hahahahahahha

All relationships are commercial. Tit for tat, this for that. There is always something being sold and bought. If there’s not than its all for naught. Those that you have no relationship with have either left or not entered into negotions with you. If you got game, stuff, time and interest you’ll get some relationship. How it turns out depends on how you marshal your resources and what you have competing against you.THe price and the deal change with time and age. Really the problem is not what people want, because there is so much difference in appreciation of value, the real problem is and why most of us are here is that the parties involved want to change the rules after the contract is agreed upon. Men or women making no difference, a deal should be a deal, and if misrepresentations are made settlements should be equitable. Since the govt has taken sides in personal relationships, allowing them to have excess leverage must be prevented, and hormonal imperitive and idiocy must be controlled until an outcry is universal that a reasonable realignment is made. Sadly such is not likely without significant bloodshed as the power to extort funds and treasure is never given up easily, EG’s and similar blather, well meaning as it is, will not get one past the coalescing and closing circle of lances held by the officers of the court aimed at decent productive men constrained within….

“Why, then, does a man feel proud and virile when a woman just wants his money, not him? Because he’s unaware that money, ironically, doesn’t give him power. In fact, the more he flaunts his money, the more women will view him, disdainfully, as an unskilled and easily manipulated target

Exactly. There is no power in earning money. Their can be satisfaction, even exhilaration (e.g., the thrill of the hunt and conquest), but for most the satisfaction wears down as the monotony of work continues. The “power” in money is in the spending of it. Ask political action committees, or mobsters who bribe officials. And the greatest power in spending money lies in the right to spend money toiled for by others.

I typically don’t read Marc’s columns after commenting a while back and being pummelled by his egomania. Because I saw a lot of comments were attached to this column, I read it and was pleased that it contained some useful insights that I will discuss with my teenage boys.

As usual on MND, many of the best observations are contained in the comment section. Like Steveno, Marc seems to want to preach to his readership and is confident his opinions are beyond reproach. Of course this is ridiculous and I much prefer discussion to sermonizing, so it is disappointing to read his reactions to legitimate questions and disagreements.

As I said, I will have a back and forth discussion with my sons on the topic of dating expectations. Too bad Marc’s ego gets in the way of similar discourse here. I guess I’ll go back to ignoring His Highness once again.

Ego is not always a bad thing. It is all about give-and-take. As red pill says “All relationships are commercial”. That is spoken like a very wise economist. It is quite true, and they all are commercial, even among just regular discussion. Only when force and threats are brought forth does productive commerce grind to a stop. Marc is not forcing you to pay him money, it is a free market.

To refer to him as “His Highness” (as if he wields state power) is a demonstration of not-so-good understanding of corruption. Unless he forbids you to disagree and keep your money in your own pocket, his words are not coercion, but voluntary discussion. On the opposite side, feminism nowadays is rooted in holding a gun to the heads of innocent men as a tool of “discussion”. In the end, thanks to the courts and the IRS, you can withhold your support of feminists from a prison cell. It’s kind of important to know the difference between those two techniques of persuasion, and to respect them fully, or else one cannot go around expecting others to make that distinction.

“Ego is not always a bad thing.”

Sure…I have ego too, but in my opinion he has a super ego as evidenced by statements such as this:

“I have too many followers, from countries all over the world, to worry about your incessant whining. And, I have yet to see any media luminaries ask for your opinions or invite you onto their programs.”

Hey, I’ve been the subject of a front page article with a color picture of myself taking up an 1/8 of the front page…big deal. My thoughts and opinions stand on their own merit and have nothing to do with who pays attention to me and who does not. To think that he doesn’t need to respond to “incessant whining”, because some in the media find him controversial and interesting, is the height of arrogance. Of course he can choose to ignore discussion and refrain from explaining his positions, but to do so merely because he has a following is egomaniacal in my humble opinion.

“To refer to him as “His Highness” (as if he wields state power) is a demonstration of not-so-good understanding of corruption.”

I understand the corruption all too well. I actuall agree with a lot the kid writes. I don’t understand running from debate based on your ability to get heard by the media? “His Highness” is a title worth of anyone who looks down upon the lesser people. He clearly voices this attitude. He can do as he wishes. And I offer my opinion that he is an egotist and his ego inteferes with his ability to clarify his positions and consider other perspective that might help him in future articles and appearances at the feet of media luminaries.

Apologies are in order. I went and checked out Mr. Rudov’s website and he obviously is no “kid”.

Sometimes when I offer an opinion, stranger to stranger, and I am told my view is “proposterous” I tend to feel insulted – just like most people would.

My view that more women keep themselves slim was met by you with “proposterous” and how the average women is now a size 14. My twin sister weighs 325 …I have no clue what size that is at 5 feet 5 inches but I am pretty sure that if you take her size, and two women my wife’s size – same height 115 lbs, ( a distance runner) you would move way past the two size 4′s to set the “average” I KNOW there are a lot of fat women. I see them too with bare bellies, stretch marks. But I see more women who look good than men. I don’t care what the average size is, … I care about the size, and education of the woman I am dating just as she is likely focused on that too (If she is dating me she isn’t looking for a wealthy man)

I took the time to write a supportive reply, overall, to you … Mark – and got the preposterous remark. I then read your March2, 2007, “Gentlemen: I have stated my case, clearly so. I have too many followers from countries all over the world to worry about your incessent whining. And I have yet to see any media luminaries ask for your opinions or invite you onto their programs. What I have learned from vitrolic respondents to my articles is this: men who have no game with women attack me with great and unyielding frequency and instensity… whine all you want, life is short.”

randy f wrote “Sot it’s a game then” macho man, nost of your ramblings remind me of a 16 year-old. I got plenty of game. But is that all there is to you? Or do you want family. Divorced” Kids? Deeper meaning”… your emphasis is on sex. I am with randyf – got game? are you 14?

You can get invited onto radio shows for a variety of reasons. Anything odd, strange, PC or not PC can get invitations. Radio shows and TV shows need something hundreds of days a year. Being invited doesn’t make you great. I have done radio shows on gender issues, long ago, far away.

Back to slim women and fat men. You can check national health statistics. There are more obese men than women. Bloomberg.com suggests that 18% of American men can’t get it up. Men who watch five hours or more of TV were three times as likely to have trouble getting an erection than those who watch much less. “THE WEEK” Feb 16, 2007 That’s their health and science page 20 news. Same page “Boys with Breasts” Scientific America blames lavender oil. I see boys with breasts, and men with tits, and lavender oil isn’t the reason. It’s that big cheesy burger that they chomp on just like the guy in the sports add, all macho, dripping, so masculine. Go to the health clubs and the nude guys wandering around, many of them look like hell, you can only wonder what the guys who don’t go look like.

So, we have more obese men, and guys watching TV eating chips, getting fat, can’t get it up. And at least some of them are pissed off that women are not buying them dinner and trying to get into their pants. Shocking.

A woman 10% over body weight might, if lucky, find some weight in her breats, hips and butt, before her waist. She will still look sexy to many men. Men ten percent over … sorry, it’s a pot belly over skinny legs and man boobs, … for the attraction meter, a woman with a bit more fat, and a man with hairy tits, skinny legs, no ass, do the math. Men tend to be more driven sexually and women tend to look a bit sexier on average. That means the man must bring something else to the table if he wants to get laid. Even animals often find themselves, if male, bringoing food and fighting other males.

I started out in college as an art major, I worked in health clubs, one of many hobbies I have is photography, I have been noticing men and women’s bodies since years before you did… born with a twin sister I noticed many things about gender younger than most men would … your assumption is that if a man doesn’t see the world your way he is wrong, cool, … my fight is with feminists, not with women as a group and I don’t have time for men who think they know more than everyone else. Most women don’t have much time for that either.

In 1964 I didn’t go to the high school prom because I didn’t like any of the girls enough to cross that line where the guy paid for the corsage, dinner, provided gas, car, etc. A female teacher told me that boys paying was to get them ready for supporting women.

What you are teaching as if brand new isn’t brand new. Some of us men have always found women who paid their way. I am talking about age 16 on, – we found girls who were as well educated, or better, who made as much money, or more, who didn’t mind paying their way. At age 60 I have had three wives, all three had masters degrees or better, one modeled for Kodak, – my kids mom but her looks were not the quality I admired most. There was never an issues with any of these women if they had more money – spending it on me, as I would do for them, and that’s from the second date on. I have met many women I dated from nurses to doctors to teachers to clerks, who never made paying for dinner, or a trip to Europe an issus. They are out there. At age 18 I hitchhiked from Seattle, to LA to New Orleans, to New York. I met more women in that year or two, some much older, than most men spend time with in a life time. I learned not to stereotype them at that age and as I got older I learned to accept each women, and each man I met as an individual first. You sound as if you think most women come from a cookie cutter.

So, Mark, few of us really count those women who are obese as part of our dating pool. Much of the obesity is in the lower classes. We are talking about well-educated professionals, and in that group, there are more attractive women than men, period. There are more horny guys than horny women. There are no women like the Detroit man who was recently put into jail, convicted seven times in 13 year for stealing mannequins for his sexual fetish. You don’t find women being as compulsive about sex as men – as often. It is a stacked deck, too bad, deal with it.

AS long as many men are fat, sloppy, dorky, and many are (I don’t blame men for that – most boys are not brought up by men and the wimpy culture they are born into trashes them before they are ten – missing fathers, and too many men who to get love or sex sell out – in that I aggee with you on that part.) women will determine the rules for dating.

I think the courts screw men and that many men sell out and I am as angry about that as anyone… at the same time I am not in the mood to have some guy in his 40′s who thinks he is the first to call women on their bullshit… tell other men that his “followers” all over the world… blah blah, you are not Jesus… and then to get sarcastic with a man who is being supportive… or to rip into men who don’t just line up and salute you… you seem very arrogant and proud of it.

It wasn’t just because I took home economics in 64, while I was also one of the toughest boys in school, also voted best physique in the senior class, that women paid their way with me. Most of them just thought I was fun. I didn’t run around with an agenda because I was pissed off at women. I treated women a lot like I treated my men friends. Fairly. Women thought I had more to offer as a man than most men, and having lots of money wasn’t a requirement of these women. I know there are many women that look at men as wallets, just as some men look for tits and ass… they both lose and they deserve each other. But there are far too many who are not that way to sum women us as money grubbers and gold diggers.

I am angry with feminist women for screwing up schools, education, and lying about men, but “the pay your way bit” … Anyman who takes care of his body, reads a bit, is empathetic, a good listener, and has more than limited interests … will find women who will want to have sex with him and pay her way. If a man finds women are not willling to pay their way, then he might want to upgrade who he is.

The free market doesn’t go for equal work for equal pay… it’s the lowest wage that a person will accept that determines what is paid. Getting sex is the same… hanging out with women who use men, who are not sensual, is a mistake, … some people learn from mistakes others don’t and that’s the market place. Some women find that a vagina is usable – if she is turned on or not – her vagina still has value to many men. But without a personality, having a vagina doesn’t get you that far. Many women, if a bit overweight – are still very sexy, guys with body parts that don’t work, a gut hanging over their Armani belt, sorry, it’s those men who make it hard for the next guy in line to get laid. If a man finds three sexy women in a row, he is panting for the next. If a woman finds two or three guys with man boobs, a delicate dick, a man who spends more time on beer and chips than he does on things that are of interest to her, add bird legs and bellies, – well, why would the woman not expect something else, if he wants sex with her… those men must pay…

I went to a work shop with Warren Farrell when I was about your age. I came in second place in the “male beauty contest” where Warren wanted to teach men what it was like to be judged by your body. The women asked the two finalists, me, and a much younger and much more handsome tall, blond male questions. The women wanted to make the beauty contest a talent show. They asked if he had been engaged to a woman who ended up in a car wreck, brain damage, if he would take care of her. He had been helping a friend care for a woman who had an injury that was similar. They gushed about what a good guy he was.

Then they asked me “If you had a partner who wanted to get a higher degree than you would you support her” I said “I was already taking care of my son (Part of the reason was the I have a disability from the army, 60′s) while my wife worked full-time to support us and was working on her masters, – I had a little income – they were again impressed. They were judging us as stereotypes and then impressed to learn that we were not stereotypes. You seem to think that men who don’t have your agenda are all the same and you seem to think that women who pay their way are rare… they are not common, but they are not rare.

Sorry, some of us paired up with good women, we have love, a great sex life and are not being used. We are not “on the air” talking about that but that doesn’t mean we don’t know at least as much about these things as you do.

The women in the group for the “male beauty contest” had to decide between the two of us who should be number one. They wanted us to amuse them. I told a joke ” What three animals are a woman’s favority? Anwer: The first was a Jaguar to drive, then a mink to wear, and then a Turkey to pay for it all? They laughed but were offended too as I knew they would be. That joke was told to them at least 15 years ago. You are making a difference, your followers need you, evidently, but just because other men don’t see the world just as you do doesn’t mean we are cluelelss about how some women are after money and we shouldn’t play that game.

Warren then lined the women up by income and the men who won the beauty contest were told not to accept dates with lower income women. That was a powerful thing for women to get. They had to take us do lunch, make the first moves, for some it was a real shock to see that what they expected of men wasn’t easy.

Point is, …. You come across as if you think you are Jesus with all your followers. You think that you are the first guy on the planet to tell women who expect to be showered with gifts to get to first base… to kiss your ass. And you stereotype the guys who don’t bow down to your wisdom as if they are losers.

I have a wife who still looks like a gymast at age 56 … I have always known well-educated women who pay their way and never felt entitled. for you to be 100% sure that when I say there are more slim woman then men is ” preposterous” is just your opinon. And it’s wrong.

The main reason women lived only a year longer in 1920 and today it’s closer to 7 is because they are slimmer, eat better, and don’t drink and smoke as much as men do. Fewer chips, less beef. Women value other women more and themselves more. It’s part of the “innocent women and children” culture we live in. It’s not their fault when they live with a gender, men, who are so quick to trash each other over a minor difference of opinon and a generation of men who sell out their brothers and sons, afraid to stand up to women.

Men need to teach boys to be men. To take care of their bodies, to get good educations, because it’s at that point they are in the market for well-educated women who share … it is a free market, … it’s not just because many men cave in that the rest of us must pay. Some of us never did have to pay.

Too many men have less to offer than they think. Again, not their fault, feminist women, a wimpy culture, boys don’t have much of a chance. Change the lives of boys, let them learn to be men, and things work out, … but this chip eating, channel surfing, dork boy culture that is pissed off because they can’t get laid, and it’s women’s fault, because women are self-centered bitches with a sense of entitlement, – sorry, that sounds like the women at NOW ranting against guys for being “oppressors” and “rapists to me.

When I have gone to a restaurant with a male, the server has done one of two things with the check: 1) set it between the two of us or 2) taken it directly to the male. Oddly, one instance in which the server did the latter was when I was at a restaurant with a man young enough to be my son (I was 47 and he was 21). We were not racially different and people looking at us probably would have assumed it was a mom and son. It was certainly not a date. I let him pay for our meals since his financial circumstances happen to be better than mine. (When I was visiting a female friend in another town, I happily let her pick up the restaurant tab.)
There has only been one instance in which a server brought a check to me when I was with a male. I was at a restaurant with a man who is also disabled (he is blind) and had told him it would be “my treat.” When we ordered, I told the server to bring the check to me. That server did. Nevertheless, the man tried to pick it up although he handed it to me when I insisted since I had promised it as “my treat.”
More generally, the custom of the man paying for the date (and for other things) may reflect neither differing sexual enjoyment (women have a greater capacity for sexual enjoyment than men) nor even differing sexual desire (men have a slighter stronger sexual desire) but the differences in sexual risk as pregnancy and mental differences that may have evolved because of pregnancy mean women take much greater risk in partnered sex as opposed to masturbation. To some extent, women DO play for their pleasure. They buy sex toys and romance novels. But they don’t pay for PARTNERS.
Dating is not quite “paying for sex.” After all, people may date for years without physical intimacy. I think the question of who pays should not be inflexible. One factor that should be taken into consideration is the financial circumstances of the two parties. If Oprah Winfrey dates a sales clerk, it would be appropriate for her to pay for the dates.

“More generally, the custom of the man paying for the date (and for other things) may reflect neither differing sexual enjoyment (women have a greater capacity for sexual enjoyment than men) nor even differing sexual desire (men have a slighter stronger sexual desire) but the differences in sexual risk as pregnancy and mental differences that may have evolved because of pregnancy mean women take much greater risk in partnered sex as opposed to masturbation.”

LOL……… here in the U.S., the custom of the man paying for the date is carried forward through the desire of a trade with the woman, payments for sex, using the barter system. And quite a few of your sisters are willing to confirm that fact for you, Denise. Mind you, quite a few of those women don’t intend on HAVING sex with those men wining and dining them……. but VERY few women are honest and up-front enough to make their sexual intentions transparent (at least until the dinner check has already been paid).

“Dating is not quite “paying for sex.”

Yes, Denise…. actually it is. And those people who “may date for years without physical intimacy” are called “entitlement princesses” and “hopeful losers” depending on whethery they have a vagina or penis.

“One factor that should be taken into consideration is the financial circumstances of the two parties. ”

No…. better yet, simply let women pay for themselves. It would be a pity to “oppress” them, dontchaknow……;-)

Clarification:

Denise: “Dating is not quite “paying for sex.”

Fourthwire: Dating = porking (to quote Leykis). And if there’s no sex in it for the man, then it’s three strikes and the woman is OUT (unless the guy has lost his testicles, of course).

Men take women on dates with hopes or even expectations of having sex. And for those men who haven’t realized that paying for women is absurd when women have greater social, civil, legal, and reproductive rights than men, dating CAN mean bartering meals for sex (although women are not required to actually “pay up”)………

Those men and women who date for years without physical intimacy ARE called “entitlement princesses” and “hopeful losers” depending on whether they have a vagina or penis.

Denise says: pregnancy mean women take much greater risk in partnered sex.

But Denise, who has unprotected sex these days? Where is this ‘risk’ you talk of? The woman is completely in charge of her body and reproductive ability, even to the exclusion of a man having any say whatsoever. Its her choice to get pregnant or not. As an arguement in the context of dating and paying for dinner it is completely redundant. A non-arguement.

Anyway, you are in the fortunate position, whenever you take a 21 y/o out to dinner, of having your ex-husband paying you so that you can pay. You can line up 25 years of dinners without dipping into your own money. I suggest you hook up with Marc. Your ex can pay for the dinner and Marc the Hoodie can focus attention on your sexual satisfaction.

“To some extent, women DO play for their pleasure. They buy sex toys and romance novels. But they don’t pay for PARTNERS.” I suppose you will be using that rationale to support internet porn and nudie mags for the chaps? You can save even more if you take a mag along to dinner with Marc. He might need it.

amfortas: Denise says: pregnancy mean women take much greater risk in partnered sex.

But Denise, who has unprotected sex these days? Where is this ‘risk’ you talk of? The woman is completely in charge of her body and reproductive ability, even to the exclusion of a man having any say whatsoever. Its her choice to get pregnant or not. As an arguement in the context of dating and paying for dinner it is completely redundant. A non-arguement.

(Denise) Too many people have unprotected sex including people like Ralph Fiennes and the female flight attendant who had sex in an airplane lavatory. Pregnancy is an enormous (no pun intended) cost to partnered sex. This point shouldn’t be obscured by the always-contentious politics of abortion as pregnancy is an enormous cost regardless of whether the pregnancy ends in birth, abortion (legal or illegal), or miscarriage. It is a physical cost that is also a psychological cost and cannot be shared by men.

>

(Denise) I didn’t take that 21-year-old out to dinner. Also, he had no sexual interest in me. He paid for our meal. My alimony gives me a minimum on which to live. I’m far from affluent as my ex-husband is no multi-millionaire but a college professor. The alimony actually is my money as he doesn’t send it as a gift but it’s a legal obligation according to the divorce settlement that he demanded his attorney draw up.

>

(Denise) I have little sexual interest and plan to remain celibate.

>

(Denise) I’m not necessarily an opponent of men having access to pornography. I think the effects of it are quite unclear.

“It is a physical cost that is also a psychological cost and cannot be shared by men.”

Neither can the benefits. If it is cost, and cost alone, all women who could afford it would adopt. And she would not go on and on about how wonderful the baby is moving inside, and the breast-bonding and so forth. If it is OK to say what men don’t have, one cannot ignore the positives the woman has a monopoly on. Even if you disagree, a woman can today get the child without a shred of the kind of cost you mention, but she almost always chooses not to. A man does not have this option, and must endure the cost, physical and psychological, of gathering ALL the resources for everyone involved — and more importantly in the feminist sense of important — he lacks the option to opt-out at any time.

No women would ever take on this responsibility, as it would be like an infertile woman hiring a surrogate mom who wants a bunch of money — but she wants to keep the option to keep the child with no refunds possible (actually, more than that — she gets a forever paycheck taken out of the infertile woman’s pocket for her and the child for 18 years of free living). If the infertile woman disagrees with the surrogate mom, and resists the court payment order, she will be forced to comply, or risk getting shot. Now there’s the same cost as a man. A regular pregnant woman’s cost is not even close to that level, but a man’s is identical.

RG, HERE! HERE!

Thanks for nailing that one, restoringguy. I couldn’t have possibly explained that particular point about the ACTUAL nature of risks provided by women to men better to her.

For women to “get” men’s issues regarding the risks men face they must:

1. Actually understand the factual determined risks.
2. Actually care about those risks men face.

Between the brain-washing provided by their daytime divas, and their generally self-centered nature, not to mention their entitlement and victimization mantras, I have little faith that most American women will acknowledge, understand, and make any effort on men’s behalf to start to redress the imbalance between men’s and women’s reproductive rights and responsibilities.

And there’s damned little chance of seeing appreciable numbers of women even BEGIN to give a damn until their own little estrogen-soaked worlds are sufficiently adversely affected.

Denise: Too many people have unprotected sex including people like Ralph Fiennes and the female flight attendant who had sex in an airplane lavatory.

She CHOSE to have that, Denise, and so far has netted $55,000 from her Women’s Weekly article. Fiennes so far has had only grief.

In fact Denise, on her TV interview here she said, ” I couldn’t help myself.” Now what does that tell you, if you can believe such shite. Can women not be trusted with sex at all, perhaps.

She chose a famous actor not another steward, not another passenger, the carpenter or the clerk in row 35F and G, to ‘not help herself’ with. A wealthy man. A famous man. A man that would attract the attention of a woman’s magazine that would pay big dollars her for the story.

Unprotected sex as a weapon to rob with. Unprotected sex for gain.

Now, what was that ‘Risk’ again?

And, Denise, WHY was the sex unprotected? She could have been on the pill. She could have taken a morning after pill. She could have used a diaphram. She could have carried condoms. It was HER BODY.

RestoringGuy said,

“It is a physical cost that is also a psychological cost and cannot be shared by men.”

Neither can the benefits. If it is cost, and cost alone, all women who could afford it would adopt. And she would not go on and on about how wonderful the baby is moving inside, and the breast-bonding and so forth. If it is OK to say what men don’t have, one cannot ignore the positives the woman has a monopoly on. Even if you disagree, a woman can today get the child without a shred of the kind of cost you mention, but she almost always chooses not to.

(Denise) This does not contradict my original point about pregnancy being an enormous cost and explaining certain facts — such as that women do not in appreciable numbers pay for sexual partners. I have said elsewhere that pregnancy is the ultimate two-edged sword: both burden and blessing. IMO, pregnancy is the reason women do not — or are not allowed to — sink to the very bottom of society. Something like 80-85% of the homeless are men. In large part, this is because we put in protections for women — because of pregnancy.

Protections for Pregnancy = Men Getting Shafted

It’s 9 months and some risk. Millions of men work in coal mines and other dangerous jobs for YEARS.

Birth is important, but should NOT be used as a reason for the inequality under the law.

And it’s so DANGEROUS (pregnancy) that women outlive men by over 5 years on average.

Some danger.

Denise, I hope you don’t take this as a personal attack. I just disagree that pregnancy is such a special occurence that women should have special priviledge. I think the comparison that RG made was right on:

“No women would ever take on this responsibility, as it would be like an infertile woman hiring a surrogate mom who wants a bunch of money — but she wants to keep the option to keep the child with no refunds possible (actually, more than that — she gets a forever paycheck taken out of the infertile woman’s pocket for her and the child for 18 years of free living). If the infertile woman disagrees with the surrogate mom, and resists the court payment order, she will be forced to comply, or risk getting shot. Now there’s the same cost as a man. A regular pregnant woman’s cost is not even close to that level, but a man’s is identical.”

It’s a great comparison.

randyf said,

Denise, I hope you don’t take this as a personal attack. I just disagree that pregnancy is such a special occurence that women should have special priviledge.

(Denise) I don’t take it as a personal attack. However, I don’t think what I’ve said has been completely understood. I’m not saying women “should have special privileges” because we can get pregnant. Rather, I’m saying that certain real-life facts of differences between the sexes are explained by this fact. There are far more homeless men than homeless women. One of the reasons for that, IMO, is that women get pregnant. There are programs like WIC (Women, Infants, Children) in place to help pregnant women and nursing women. WIC is also supposed to help anyone who has the care of a small child but its name functions as a kind of “Men Stay Away” sign and I’ve been told by male friends that they got the cold shoulder from the organization. Aid To Families With Dependent Children sounds gender-neutral but the fact that women get pregnant means they are usually the ones with small children. Both of these programs help to keep women from falling into homelessness. If you look up my blog, you’ll see that I’ve written a column protesting against the title (and practices) of WIC and advocating doing more to help the male homeless.

I do this at work – “occurrence”, “privilege”…

Were it not for the connection of women to ‘their’ children,supported by some(any?) man or other institution created and enforced by men there would likely be no desire for women to hang with the daddy.
ADC is gender neutral, but the real problem is that the gals demand they keep ‘their’ babies from the daddies cause the money comes with them. Mommies having to keep the babies they cant support on their own is same justification for the dude keeping the house he built and paid for, don’t you think? After all not likly the mommy did or could do it out of choice or other predisposition now is there? Should the dude keep everything heavy automatically because he can lift it by himself and the mommy can’t? Get real if you’re gonna hand out entitlements…

“There are far more homeless men than homeless women. One of the reasons for that, IMO, is that women get pregnant.”

And as “one of the reasons”, your point has validity.

But make no mistake: the MAJOR reason that there are far more homeless men than homeless women is that men are devalued and expected to struggle for themselves, while women are expected to benefit from men (and provided through legal means of either extracting wealth from men, or if that’s not possible…… to extract wealth from society in general (meaning mostly men).

And to prove that point, consider how the percentage of homeless men to homeless (but without child) women compare.

American society doesn’t give a rat’s ass about men’s health, comfort, or well-being.

And among the last things in the world that most feminazis and misguided chivalrists want to occur is for the public to generally acknowledge that women are not any more victims than men are….. and pressure our legislators to provide identical levels of support for both.

Why should anyone have a problem with women wanting sovereignty of their bodies? The true problem with this notion is not the idea itself. But the problem is that some women do not want to tolerate men who fight for the same sovereignty women want delivered free to their doorstep. It is noble to fight the feminists, but useless to do so with lawyers. We cannot expect the courts or any government body to change the situation on the big scale, and I would say, knowing what we know and the resources taken up, it is quite possibly wrong to try to do so any longer.

It is very painful to admit, at least for any man embedded in woman-raised culture as boys raised to fend for themselves by wymyn-vultures. But men need emotional support families can no longer provide. What we need is not “state policy” solutions AT ALL, but a system of private checks-and-balances. We have no such protections right now, but what about insurance policies that protect men from women? And systems of male-peer approval, and access to referrals from the woman’s past bedmates? Sad, yes, but what is left? I think it is critical NOT to wage actions against the feminists as they have done in family courts against men. Moral principles and hypocrisy are incompatible. Men who want to be morally right ought to shed their senses of entitlement too with regard to violence, no matter how urgent the perceived importance, and no matter how much smaller in degree theirs might be compared to feminist violence. At least that is my perception, otherwise there is no consistent way to act, and you may as well skip the courtship and hand your paycheck and the deed to your house to the next woman you date. Her violence has been stamped “approved” by the man’s own philosophy.

In addition, a system of support for boys who are abused by their mothers is completely nonexistent. So matriarchy leaves fatherless boys “set up” for feminist entrapment. It is disgusting, but there is no choice but to make relationships a less-foggy marketplace transaction. It should still be “a mart” as it has always been, but with systematic exclusion of violent women. We can let those who enjoy entitlement burn in their own personal underworld.

RestoringGuy,

Last paragraph, no place to go for guys abused by mothers. The local feminists when I tell them that most abuse comes from mom’s and is directed at boys, including injuries and deaths, usually provakes a big YAWN or a quick look at a watch. They simply don’t believe that is possible for women to do significant harm. As Hideous as the sexual abuse I had as a boy was… or as bad as the child abuse was. … after working with boys and girls abused by parents, and often by women, to listen to women patting themselves on the back … in the Vagina Mono, or safehouse programs, for being the “better gender” … or worse, the complete denial that the problem of women abusng girls, boys or men has much merit, feels like another assualt by women… No, I am no longer a victim … I have mostly moved on, but to know that these women are lying, and pretendinig men only are beasts, does make me angry. If I were an artist I would do a poster of women standing on a stage, making claims about males as abuser, skirt to skirt, while behind them two women are holding down a child and beating it, while another is having sex, with a child, while another is committing a murder, after torture… all in the shadows of the same women who tell us not to turn the light on to reveal what harm has come from women…

Later

SD