posted by Helen at 12:35 PM
Friday, January 29, 2010
Contributors
Previous Posts
- Kevin Pho in USA Today: Doctors ignore Internet...
- "On one occasion she told me if I went to sleep I ...
- PJTV: Young men and violence
- Would you buy this book?
- Mr. Right has left the building....
- Jules Crittenden on Scott Brown: Triumph of Dad.
- Will miracles never cease?
- Uh-oh....:Here's a new warning from health experts...
- Michael Barone, author of The Almanac of American ...
- It seems like everywhere you turn, you are suppose...
98 Comments:
What's surprising in this case is that they're talking about criminal charges for the false accusation. How often does that happen? I'd like to know how this turns out. What do you want to bet nothing will happen to the women?
I'm encouraged they filed charges for a false report. The case sound bizarre. The women exchanged sex for cigarettes and then claimed rape because they didn't enjoy the sex. Reading the vital statistics on the police report were hilarious or sad, I'm not sure which. Maybe both.
Crystal Gail Mangum got a degree from NCCU - maybe that is punishment enough.
Feminists cling to the "2%" number of Susan Brownmiller. She quoted some judge in the Northeast with that one.
What feminists usually do is say "the rate of false accusations is only 2% and that is on the FBI Web site".
When you say that it isn't, and they can show you where that is if they don't believe it, they say that it was a mistake, it's on the DOJ (Department of Justice) Web site.
Well, the Susan Brownmiller number is not there either. But once they get to that point, you see that they don't care at all about the truth. They are engaging in activism, and testing to see how stupid you are (I assume. Maybe it's a question of how stupid THEY are).
I won't quote the guy from Purdue or anyone else. But I think the rate of false rape accusations is higher than the rate of false accusations of other crimes, and I also believe some women use it as a weapon.
Finally, if you want to have a nightmare as a man, read the case of "Gary Dotson" in Chicago. And read it to the end, because some versions don't have the final DNA test.
In the 1970s, Gary Dotson was laying on his couch watching TV when he heard a knock on the door. The cops burst in and told him to put his hands behind his back. He asked why and was told to shut his fucking mouth.
At a lineup, sixteen-year-old Cathleen Crowell identified him as her rapist (although the guy in the phantom picture she had sketched had no mustache, and Gary had a full mustache 5 days later during his arrest).
This was before the age of DNA. Cathleen gave very plausible testimony, the four alibi witnesses of Gary were branded as liars by the prosecutor, and Gary was convicted and sentenced to 25 to 50 years for raping her in a parking lot.
-----
Ten years later (TEN YEARS LATER - all the time in jail for Gary), Cathleen Crowell was now married and named Cathleen Webb, and she asserted that she was a Born-Again Christian and had a bit of guilt.
She said that she had had consensual sex with a boyfriend, but was afraid she had gotten pregnant, so - in those pre-DNA days - she made up the story of a rape. No one had raped her. The phantom picture that was sketched was completely made up, and it just happened to look like Gary Dotson (if he had not had a mustache).
No one believed her at first.
But then came DNA testing in the very late '80s - they had kept the primitive "rape kit" in the 1970s. Gary Dotson was STILL in prison. The first test was inconclusive.
After a while the Governor reluctantly let him out of jail.
After DNA testing got better with the PCR method of replication, the sample absolutely, clearly concluded that Gary Dotson was NOT the person who had sex with her. The sample matched her boyfriend at the time, but she never gave any hint that he had raped her.
When asked later on how a 16-year-old girl fooled the jury, she said that she simply repeated a rape scene out of a novel she had read. They ate it up.
She also thought that the police would not take it that far, but once it started in motion, she thought there was no point at which she could say she had lied.
By the way, it ruined Gary's life. He was later arrested for a series of petty crimes and could never get his life back together again.
Yes, a woman CAN destroy your life by simply pointing her finger at you.
Oh - and nothing ever happened at all to Cathleen Crowell Webb for doing that. No punishment at all. She freely talked about how she did it.
I am awaiting the usual suspects to chime in that if accused, a real man would Man Up(tm) and take it.
Wow!
So now the implied deal is "You can have sex with me, but if it's not great sex, you'll be accused of rape"?
Talk about some serious performance anxiety!
The fellow who runs this website has written about a whole bunch of myths for a couple years now.
Was the guy blind? Yeah, I know how that sounds, but there's no way to sugarcoat it.
The girl ought not be smoking! Bad for her health.
This comment has been removed by the author.
The cigarette case and the Hofstra case are clear cases of rape accusations being used to evade sexual responsibility, or get back at guys who didn't perform. That totally bogus Emily Bazelon article in Slate said "rape shouldn't be used by women as a synonym for 'sex they're not proud of'," but then went on to poo-pooh false accusation as a non-problem.
If you look at the modern generation of sex laws - sexual harassment and slippery date-rape laws - you might come to think that "unwelcome advances" is really about punishing unattractive men who dare to be in the presence of God's own creation,
men whose one-night-stands got caught cheating on their boyfriends, alpha-males who are good at talking women into the sack, and guys who weren't very good at sex (buyer's remorse).
The situation will continue until there is real punishment for false rape accusers. It's called behavior modification. I laugh my butt off when I read about how "there are no Mr Rights left" - because feminists sought to reserve all sorts of special rights for themselves, like retroactive withdrawal of consent, and now they see the consequences (widespread distrust by men and lack of interest in unequal partnership).
Tether, you are spot on - talk to any man who's been in family court, there is some serious white-knighting ("let me protect you from the bad man") going on in family court and sex crime cases.
Hell, even the North Carolina attorney general made a bunch of excuses for Crystal Mangum in justifying not prosecuting her for repeated (and wildly changing) false claims. He said she was mentally unstable but offered no reason why she got to keep custody of her kids.
Has Tether been banned? His posts keep disappearing.
I've come to a sad conclusion.
I think most women believe that some of the ways men get abused and legally destroyed are wrong. Laughed at and dismissed as domestic violence victims at the hands of women, wrongly charged with rape, rampant paternity fraud, having their lives shattered in the family courts (even if it was the wife's abuse and/or adultery that ended the marriage), etc. Most women see that this is wrong.
How ever, two many women, IMHO, don't want anything done about it because the options the system affords them against their men, and they want their men legally obligated to them even if they fulfill no obligations in return.
Hopefully I'm wrong, but the reactions I get from women tells me otherwise.
Trust,
I just came across the following image that illustrates what you are saying:
http://rdanielle.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/feminism.jpg?w=320&h=400
To Trust:
I'm more cynical than you are, or maybe I'm just more explicit about it. In social psychology, there is the concept of "believing one's own lie", which is related to the belief that the truthfulness of intent is whether a statement of intent is a good predictor of future behavior, NOT whether the stater actually believes his/her own statement at the time that it's made.
By this definition of "truth", the women that SAY that they "believe that some of the ways men abused and legally destroyed are wrong" but who refuse who make themselves vulnerable to social sanctions, are lying. To state it another way: American women want to be trusted while they vote for politicians who make very sure that women are well paid when they lie. (The last time that I stated this, Dr. Helen seemed to take it personally. Sorry!)
So why do women lie like this? Because, as you implied, it is to their advantage to do so and they can more effectively attract potential victims, i.e., men.
BobH,
Aren't you just saying that it's easy to advocate for a position when there's no negative consequence to do so? Lots of people claim they agree with a position, but then when decisions have to be made about implementing it people get squeamish because they see what it really takes to do it.
It's kind of like in Congress when a bill is going to fail, a bunch of bandwagoners will vote for the failing bill so they can tell their constituents they voted for the issue - even though the bill was sure not to pass.
i`m quite sure there is a little place in hell set aside for those who play these sort of games...and the men who abet them...like the guy who offered the two specimens cigarettes for thier services.
you get what you pay for generally.
Cigarettes worked for me in a war zone some years ago.
Good for you, fred. Glad to see you have some human frailties.
i`m quite sure there is a little place in hell set aside for those who play these sort of games...and the men who abet them...like the guy who offered the two specimens cigarettes for thier services.
you get what you pay for generally.
Boy, stories like this might just make a man choose his sexual partners very carefully -- get to know her intimately before you get to know her body intimately, so to speak.
Who knows? Maybe we'll even advocate going back to the old days -- when committments were the norm, you courted your sexual partner, and then married her or him, and only then shared the gift of sexuality.
Somehow, you seemed to know the personal qualities of the person you were bedding better, and lots of these problems might be avoided.
"Who knows? Maybe we'll even advocate going back to the old days -- when committments were the norm, you courted your sexual partner, and then married her or him, and only then shared the gift of sexuality."
------
Somehow I think that even in the "good old days" things weren't as they seemed.
But it sounds like you want a system giving complete control over sexuality to women. The man signs on the dotted line, giving the loving wife a legal claim to his earnings and assets, and then - and only then - do they "share the gift of sexuality". That's if she doesn't have a headache. Or if he doesn't get sick of looking at her ever-widening butt.
How about just penalizing crimes: like the crime of making a false accusation.
And here's the kicker:
False accusations also occur in divorces (i.e. after people got to know each other and were married).
In fact, despite the media attention to more glamorous types of false accusations, I think that MOST of the false accusations occur in divorces (which means they may occur in 40-50% of marriages, because they will end in divorce).
Somehow I think that even in the "good old days" things weren't as they seemed.
...
False accusations also occur in divorces (i.e. after people got to know each other and were married).
I don't know. Maybe I'm just sheltered, or come from an ethnicity in the early generations here, where divorce was unknown.
You understand when you marry, you're in it for better or worse. Sickness and health. Honestly.
You wait, and make sure you choose well. Because there is no turning back via divorce.
The saddest thing I get from reading comments in this blog sometimes ... your norms are so jaded. Yes, there are happy marraiges. No cheating. Healthy unspoiled kids (who play outdoors.) Maybe it's not all that ... exciting, but it's a good life. Don't you guys see that out there? Loving, non jaded women and honest men who don't think they're being trapped/taken advantage of by a woman and children.
Is it a religious thing? That the permanence disappears when the spirituality and beliefs go? Is it an American thing -- when you're always looking for concealed motives and everything's disposable?
I don't know. But then, I never married because I do believe it's a final thing. You commit, and stick through it, and you both make each other better. Maybe by publicizing these "bad" women and "immature" men (not here, but in other stories) we all get jaded and give up.
And then, you give up and choose a lady on her bosom size ... and are surprised when she takes you for your money, or hollers "rape" after the bad sex you have the night you first meet.
I'm just so glad I know of a better class of married people, men and women, who do have their values right, and who put people before money and possessions.
The poor kids. Who bear the burdens of having no father (or mother) at home ... who become "replaced" with second and third families. No wonder they act out, and the country appears to be falling farther and farther away from the ideas of honesty, committment and love.
JG--
I meant going back in time to the days of complete commitment between two equally committed, complementary partners.
Not the days of the man as ruler, and the wife as a child, along with his other children, living off his money.
Well, Mary, yeah, maybe you do lead a sheltered life.
For those who don't have the leisure to wall themselves off with "Our Kind of People" there is a different story. One where you work in the public sector for years as a cop and a teacher, and get to see that, yes, indeed, there is scum of the earth who play and game the system. And get good at it, along with getting good at fooling and manipulating people.
Yes, those who go through life like that get away with it because they are good at it. It's not the obvious liar you have to worry about. It is the accomplished liar you have to worry about, because despite all your checking, and getting to know them, and so forth, you don't find out until after they have put the screws to you, when it is too late.
It must be nice to be able to label someone as gullible and dismiss them with a trite rubric when you haven't been the victim of such a person. Or maybe dishonest people glow purple for you. Others don't have that power.
I will dispute your assertion that you don't know any such people. The trut is that you don't associate with such people. Such is the same with me. The difference being, though, that I don't throw the fact that they exist down the memory hole.
In the casual sense that you use the term, it could also be said that I don't know any rapists or murderers.. And really, such crimes are a statistical blip. So-to extend the usual reason - why bother to have laws against it? Smart people can avoid getting murdered. Avoid bad areas. Get to know people and don't associate with the "wrong" crowd. Same with rape.
I mean, seriously... Just because you have known this guy for a few years, and he's always been nice and considerate, and helped you jump start your car, and put on his best face for you - you should have known better than to go out on date with him and let him walk you to your door. "Making sure you get in." That's the oldest trick in the book. You should have anticipated and read his mind that he was going to force his way in and date-rape you. You weren't careful enough. Your judgement was impaired by the clean shaven face, and the chiseled abs. Mybe if you had dated the dumpy nerdy guy... when you get down to it, it really is all your fault. We don't need laws against such things. YOU need to be more careful.
What's that? Silly? You say if things were like that, you'd never date, and just view all men through a lens of mistrust?
Do tell.
Mary sez: "I meant going back in time to the days of complete commitment between two equally committed, complementary partners."
----
What days were those?
Also: I wouldn't be proud of being sheltered from the world. It means that someone has had to shelter you (probably a man) and it also weakens your opinion if you admittedly don't have much of an idea of what the real world is like.
nice post...just wanna be a friend...
Back when I was active on a college football board for my alma mater, we had two distinct camps that about 40% of the posters fit in to - the Borg and the Stepford Wives. The former side, profoundly negative, claimed that the program had crossed the Mendoza line of performance and was never going to be successful again. The Stepford Wives engaged in incessant praise of the players and coaches and predicted success was right around the corner.
JG and Mary fill those roles here.
The trouble I see with comments like Mary's (I get similar comments on other boards) that "you've just gotta be selective and committed and this won't happen to you" is the idea that it's not gonna happen to you, just because you're you.
Officers see this with young soldiers when they first go into combat. They take risks no seasoned soldier would consider. They think they are invincible, or they can get out of trouble. A lot of them get killed. The ones who survive wise up quickly and realize it _can_ happen to them, which leads to a combination of conscientiousness and resignation.
Mary -- I, too, am richly blessed beyond words with the wife I found.
But if I were in the dating market today, I would definitely consider myself in "hostile territory." The fact that I found the love of my life doesn't change the fact that I beat the statistical odds. Our age (and engineering backgrounds) means that my wife's head wasn't poisoned with a generation's worth of feminist propaganda; her integrity of character means she would not turn on me the weapons the state places within such easy reach of her.
A man in today's culture simply can't ignore the fact that 50% of marriages end in divorce -- and 80% of those divorces are initiated by the wife, with absolutely no burden of proof of malfeasance nor penalty for false accusations. Which means that the odds of a man losing half his net worth, half or more of his income, and potentially his reputation (and even freedom) is not one in a thousand, or even one in a hundred -- in which case he has a pretty good chance of being right when you say "it'll never happen to me" -- it's FOUR IN TEN. It's playing Russian Roulette with not one, but three rounds in the chamber of a six-shot revolver.
This is a thing best done very, VERY carefully. Or, in this day and age, not at all -- hence the so-called "marriage strike."
So although the guys here can (and frequently do) get a little strident, I find it difficult to judge them too harshly or tell them to 'man up.' My only advice is that good women are out there -- but they're REALLY difficult to find.
For me, it goes beyond the likelihood that a marriage will fail. It's the marriage itself.
It always seemed like a one-sided commitment to me, and as I watched a few friends get divorced, that notion was strengthened.
Lots of men don't get divorced, but slowly start to resent their slave role. Lots of women do things like unilaterally quit their job and sit at home.
And I've also noticed that "richly blessed" people usually don't have a whole lot at home that I would want (on the rare occasions I have actually seen what the situation is). I was at a 50th birthday party for a guy who pulled the "I am so richly blessed" number. His wife is a pudgy, demanding, impatient, greedy sit-at-home.
It's just beyond my ability to understand.
Rather than being charged solely with filing a false accusation, I'm wondering why these women and this man aren't being charged with prostitution.
Trolling cell phone chats offering cigarettes in exchange for sex? That's about as pathetic as it gets.
I supose if this guy had offered them $5, which they could then use to buy cigarettes, for sex, that would be prostitution. But since cigarrettes are not money (except in prison), it's not.
But on the larger point of false rape accusations, that happens all the time, a lot more than most people want to admit. And very rarely is it prosecuted. The reason why is because we live in a culture and under a legal system that refuses to hold women accountable and presumes men are predators.
Scott,
+1 for engineering women!
But on the larger point of false rape accusations, that happens all the time, a lot more than most people want to admit. And very rarely is it prosecuted. The reason why is because we live in a culture and under a legal system that refuses to hold women accountable and presumes men are predators.
And society is that way because that is what women want. While they claim to have little or no power, they exercise their actual, enormous power to persecute men. (Then again, claiming victimhood is a manipulative strategy.)
Topher - at Georgia Tech (our alma mater), the joke among the coeds is that "the odds are good, but the goods are odd."
Fortunately, it takes a rather...unique sort of female to pursue an engineering degree at a place like Tech in the first place, so it all balances out. ;)
JG - Can't speak to what the other men who are "richly blessed" see in their wives, but I can tell you what I see in mine. Yeah, sure, being a woman "of a certain age" she's no longer a 25-year-old hardbodied bikini nymphet. But then, I ain't exactly Pierce Brosnan, so that too balances out.
What she is, OTOH, is someone whose judgment I've learned I can trust implicitly, and who is a hell of a lot smarter managing domestic finance than I am.
Sadly, there aren't many like her; too may women who scream the virtues of "choice" at the top of their lungs likely would equally-loudly express their disapproval of the ones she's made. She is refreshingly unconcerned by this.
Which makes her, in today's social climate, literally irreplaceable. Not that she would ever take advantage of this, of course. ;)
JG -- thanks for the inquiry. Nope, no man has sheltered me.
I guess I'm just blessed to surrounded by people whose marraiges work ... the first time around. That's a good place to be.
Well, Mary, yeah, maybe you do lead a sheltered life.
For those who don't have the leisure to wall themselves off with "Our Kind of People" there is a different story.
Guess I'll just stick with my own kind, then. Thanks for enlightening me about all the ugly and evil out there. Hope to continue avoiding such myself...
Good luck to you as well.
Mary -- I, too, am richly blessed beyond words with the wife I found.
And I'm gonna take a wild guess here... you didn't choose her for the size of her ta-ta's, buy her "love" with a carton of ciggies, or even bed her before you really knew her?
It's like buying a car. Know the merchandise before you commit, because that's a contract you can't break.
Congrats on making a wise choice, Scott. Maybe some of the more cynical fellas here could learn a bit from you?
"I am so richly blessed" number. His wife is a pudgy, demanding, impatient, greedy sit-at-home. It's just beyond my ability to understand.
Let me try to help here? Your buddy has found someone perhaps not with the perfect bod, but who is ambitious in caring for her husband and their home (children?) and it works for them. Your "impatient and demanding" probably just means he chose her attention over yours, his wife over his buddyboys. Yep, she's a b. for that. ;-)
I honestly think if gay marraige became the norm in all 50 states, some of those who are now marital shy and wish to hang with their buddies and just don't get the whole concept of marraige to a woman, might understand things just a bit better if their were other choices of partners open to them...
*Looking at you JG*
So now I'm a latent homosexual, Mary?
You don't like what I am saying, so you resort to name-calling.
I think Scott is a bit of a drama queen with his "richly blessed" thing, but he probably means well.
You have a mean core, and I find it difficult to believe that you can get along with a man over time with that kind of hostility and barely suppressed rage.
Men SHOULD watch out today with regard to relationships with women. It's baked into the societal structures. Anyone who actively works against that is not interested in fairness, but instead a one-sided "get all you can get for your group" attitude.
No, just thought that if you had more options to choose from, you might be able to find somebody you trust.
It sounds like you don't want to be stuck with a chubby, middle aged woman. And your comments to Scott, who obviously is happy with his wife, are kind of revealing. I don't think you are honestly looking for a woman to love, that's all.
Somehow, I don't think you have to worry about my "core", because you're obviously not my type, it sounds like.
I try to steer clear of the angry types who have been burned by women, who may just need women for short term hookups.
Mary,
Not everyone who doesn't want to get into a relationship these days is "angry" nor a "latent homosexual."
I'm not angry or gay, but I also feel that to get into a relationship these days is problematic at best. I'm not saying guys should sleep around either and substitute that for a long-term relationship, since I think that's also part of the problem. However, there is no way I'd even consider getting married in this day and age. Way too much risk for a guy now. Better to opt out of "the game" entirely.
Mary sez: "Somehow, I don't think you have to worry about my "core", because you're obviously not my type ..."
-----
Oh, no. I got rejected by Mary. And even before I asked her out.
You know you'd just try and rape me and I'd have to call the cops anyway.
Stay away from my core.
Guess I'll just stick with my own kind, then. Thanks for enlightening me about all the ugly and evil out there. Hope to continue avoiding such myself...
Good luck to you as well.
Yeah, you got yours. Just screw anyone else.
I predicted early on in this thread that there would be a defender of this crap pop up, and lo and behold, I was right.
Helen is a psychologist. I'd be curious as to what kind of psychology would cause such callousness and hatred of men in a woman.
I'm sure gla my wife -who by modern standards would be considered plain and overweight - isn't as hateful and bitter as you, Mary. But it's a measure of her character that she thinks women who do this should have the book thrown at them, with consecutive sentences where possible.
It's also a measure of yours, as well.
@Peter Dane said...I predicted early on in this thread that there would be a defender of this crap pop up, and lo and behold, I was right.
_______________
I predicted early on as well that many who see how obviously ridiculous this is want to keep it the same because they want the option available to them to be able to punish men and obligate them to women. And, just as predicted, the defense came that he should choose his sex partners more carefully.
isn't as hateful and bitter as you, Mary.
It's not about me. And I'm not defending women who cry rape, just trying to buck up the men who cry.
(Oh, you've got a loving wife now, Peter. That's wonderful.)
Yeah, you got yours. Just screw anyone else.
No thanks. I think you misinterpreted my comments.
I'm trying to steer clear of those -- men and women -- who are screwing each other, not loving a committed partner. Glad you don't fall into that category yourself, with the loving wife and all.)
the defense came that he should choose his sex partners more carefully.
Actually, that's good advice. For men, and women. Teach your sons -- and your daughters? -- well?
Oh, and fwiw?
In high school, I signed a petition circulated between classes by a Dotson family friend to have his case re-opened after the confession of his accuser. (It took some time even to do that.)
If it seems I'm not expressing enough shock and outrage at the injustices of the judicial system pre-DNA, then perhaps I've just had 20+ years of it myself. -- You should see what flimsy evidence they used to convict guys of murder, before Gov. Ryan wisely put a temporary end to the death penalty, to be sure Illinois is not executing innocent men.
Dotson seems more a CLASS and gender thing, more than just a gender thing, to me.
And fwiw? The accuser died young, if you believe in other forms of justice. From wiki:
By the time Dotson was cleared in 1989, Cathy Crowell Webb had four children and had permanently made her home in New Hampshire, where her husband then worked as a welder and ironworker.[7][6] She died of breast cancer on May 15, 2008, six years after diagnosis. She had been working part-time as a receptionist at a religious grammar school and as a helper at a local golf course.[12][13] After her death, her husband David told the press how she felt about recanting:
Once she got saved [in 1981][7] and came to terms with what she had done to Gary's life, she made the decision to come forward. She had two young children, and she had no idea of how intense an experience it was going to be, but she fully expected to pay more of a price than she actually did. There was a good chance that she might have had to go to jail. She couldn't give Gary back his years, but at that point she did everything she could to make it right...
No later than 2003, Dotson and his daughter moved back to Illinois. At the time of Crowell Webb's death in 2008, Dotson was reported to be "living quietly in the far south suburbs of Chicago" and "wanting to stay under the radar now, wanting to put this behind him."
If anyone is interested in learning more:
In 1985 Crowell co-wrote a book about the incident called "Forgive Me" and gave Dotson more than $17,000 in proceeds from its sale, keeping nothing for herself except the taxes due on that payment. In return, Dotson promised not to sue her over her false accusation.Dotson used the money to finance the start of his post-prison life, including a trip to Las Vegas to marry Camille. In 1985, Dotson had planned to write his own book with New York author Jeannie Ralston. If written, the book was not published.
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=6153718
"you didn't choose her for the size of her ta-ta's"
What is Mary's obsession with painting guys in bad marriages as unwise choosers of the most superficial lot?
Mary, surely you don't believe that every man with a lame wife just picked the first hot woman who came around the block?
surely you don't believe that every man with a lame wife just picked the first hot woman who came around the block?
Nope. As noted above, I don't know that many men who ended up with lame wifes.
I'm saying, if a fella chooses his wife on looks and sexx appeal, chances are, he's going to be more disappointed than the man who evaluated her other qualities and got to truly known her well before the sex ability/compatability came into play.
Talk to a happily married couple, and ask them what they did in courting, and then compare to those who ended up with "lame" wives and husbands. I suspect you might see some obvious difference, that's all.
Similar to those who are happily driving their cars 10 years later, because they had the sense to check under the hoods and do a little research before buying, compared to the ones who look at the body, are entranced, and are in. (Women do this too, you know, and probably are later disappointed with their choices and options. It's not just a guy thing to have second thoughts down the line.)
Mary,
I absolutely agree with you on one point: If a man marries a woman just because she has big breasts, he is an idiot and will most likely have problems (whether it is *fair* or not for society to so disproportionately take from him and give to her just because he is stupid is another issue).
But, on the other hand, if men didn't have a sex drive at all, hardly any marriages would take place. In fact, women would be in a really bad place, because all of a sudden they would simply be viewed as small, weak, whining men. No more favortism, no more worshiping them up on a pedestal, no more free rides and no more billions of dollars flowing to them from men (taxes, dates, family transfer of wealth and all the other ways women get money out of men).
So the women who rail against men having a sex drive should remember that.
Once you rule out the idiot men marrying women just because the women got breast implants, you are still left with a whole lot of unfairness in marriage. Men are going to produce for, and cater to, the spoiled entitlement princess.
And she can be the most wonderful thing when he marries her - or at least successfully represent herself that way - and if she gets a bug up her butt or changes in any way during the marriage, society is going to be completely behind her in hammering the man into submission - financially and otherwise.
No thanks.
Women DO change. I have seen it quite a bit.
Here is a common scenario:
Women meets doctor who earns a good income. She is thrilled with him. She can brag to her friends that her boyfriend is a doctor. He spends lots of money on her and gives her nice gifts - not like her stupid ex-boyfriend who didn't have as much money. The woman is now a really high-class dame, far better than others around her.
Since she wants to attract the Big Doctor and move things further, she unconsciously, instinctively or even consciously knows that she is going to be more attractive by appearing to be a somewhat submissive help-mate to him. Don't argue TOO much with him, have sex whenever he wants, do the things he likes (which isn't hard, because she is thrilled that she is now a high-class dame who occasionally goes to parties where people went to school for a long time and some are even doctors!).
So the man finally marries her, thinking he is getting a friendly help mate - that it will make him happy to be with her over decades.
Everything is fine in the beginning. She never much liked work anyway, so she quits 2 weeks after the wedding.
But after years of the husband paying all of the bills and shielding her from real life in many other ways and being the source of her vicarious feeling of achievement in life, she gets used to it.
She takes it for granted. She doesn't even see it anymore.
All of a sudden - and with some nudging by Oprah, other daytime television shows and her friends - she realizes that everything is totally unfair. Her husband gets to go somewhere every day and self-actualize and have people adore him. She picks up around the house sometimes (mostly supervising the cleaning lady who comes in twice a week), but otherwise is getting more and more resentful that she is not getting the respect that her husband gets, her day is unstructured and full of boredom in trying to find things to do during the day hour after hour, and her husband doesn't do much around the house when he comes home.
And, after years of not worrying about it at all, all of the "infrastructure" is just there. Just like a street is there when you walk outside. Her house is just there, all of the food and money and cars and vacations and all the rest are just there. She no longer makes a link between what stupid does all day and the infrastructure that exists. If she does think about it, she knows a lawyer will have it turned over to her anyway if stupid leaves.
So now, from the man's point of view, he has an ungrateful, entitled bitch who is full of herself. She is railing on him for things he can change and things he can't change about life. She is getting more and more demanding and simultaneously more and more lazy.
Some men stay married to that. They have seen what happens to their friends who divorce.
But why should society exact such a toll from men in a divorce? Women are treated like children.
These types of women turn into women who are perpetually angry at their husbands. He made her happy in the beginning - when she thought she was reeling in a Bigger, Better Deal - but she no longer feels that way because she now takes all that stuff for granted.
She also feels justified in her anger at him - he should make her happy. She doesn't stop to consider that sometimes she is angry at *him* for things happening in life that he has no control over (maybe that's why feminists always see an evil, conspiritorial "Patriarchy").
Maybe she thinks she will get the respect she deserves if she goes back to school. Husband says, "if it will make you happy," and pays for it all.
She might think that she will get more respect if she gets a job. The husband supports her in that idea - of course the money she makes will be "her" money.
But then she sees that work is pretty much just work, and she is not getting the kick she expected, so she quits work again.
And these women do all sorts of different things, trying to get the utter, radiant happiness that Oprah says is their right. And the man is just expected to always back them and support them. He, on the other hand, has to face life alone pretty much, in addition to supporting this woman who has become a millstone around his neck, and that is becoming more and more clear to him. What a childish, ungrateful dolt he married.
Men are going to produce for, and cater to, the spoiled entitlement princess.
And those men will no doubt be unhappy, I agree completely.
But the wise ones, who marry a woman not because of their sex drive (which tends to diminish with age) but because they want a partner, an equal, someone who is not looking for a Daddy... usually stay happily married.
I'm sorry that hasn't happened for you JG, and I'm sorry you don't see it around you happening to someone else. Did your parents have an intact marraige? Usually, these things are best modeled at home. (meaning families with no divorces generally raise children who don't get divorced)
Why don't you look for an educated woman (won't need for you to pay her back-to-school bills) with a nest egg of her own from working? Why don't you court her for some time, little dates -- free things like walks in parks, museums, outdoor activities, free cultural events. They're there, even in smaller rural areas. How about choosing a religious woman? Generally, you don't meet "weak whiny mini-men" type of women in those places.
Short of that, I think you are right. You are probably better off with what you've expressed here, not even trying to date a woman and concentrating on meeting your own needs first. If you can master that sex drive, it seems you have no need for a woman's love in your life, so that shouldn't be too hard to avoid them.
I am saddened by your cynicsm, and past experiences it sounds like. But painting all women as shrews, and all marraiges -- like Scott's above -- as unhappy, I think you really do make your own prophesies and predictions come true. I fear you are probably attracting the very woman you think you're trying to repel.
Have you tried asking happily married friends, or relatives who know you, to match you up with a compatible woman? People who wouldn't want to screw you over by matching you with a lady like the ones you've described above? Sometimes if our own picks go wrong, it might be worth letting someone else pick for you (a date, not a marraige) because you might be overlooking the good ones, with whatever initial standards you use to judge.
Again, good luck. Nobody said the dating game was easy, and I think the widowers in their late years who look for a marital companion are not driven by their sex drive, so don't give up on love in later life either. Your cynicism might abate in later life too. (?)
Mary,
Thank you very much for your kind advice.
You are guessing about my situation, though, in an attempt to drive a spike in. You are guessing wrong, so don't waste your time.
So the man finally marries her, thinking he is getting a friendly help mate - that it will make him happy to be with her over decades.
Sounds to me in the doctor situation you've described, he bought her love.
If she was bragging to her friends how much money he had, and dumped the old bf because he wasn't making enough, and rewarded her with gifts for being a special princess and giving him sex when he wanted... the signs are all there before marraige of who that lady is and how she valued him.
I think that's why, in the initial courtship, you don't talk family wealth, personal money, or gift big. Not if you're secure in your other attributes.
If the woman (or man) expresses interest in those things initially, you can be pretty sure you're dating someone just looking at you as a meal ticket.
Get past the looks, the family, the sex, and look at her ... values. Don't marry until you know clearly what they are.
And don't be seduced by the loving gestures that reward your lavish gifts. The signs ususally are there; it's just you have to take responsibility for your choices by opening your eyes and reading them.
Oh, and if you do have premarital sex, always protect yourself with birth control.
I've heard stories of too many men who abdicated that responsibility and were then shocked, just shocked, that they were expected to pay -- and not society -- for offspring they created, even under false pretenses.
It really does seem that those cultures who can control their sex drives enough to wait and evaluate their partners on merit seem to build the longest-lasting marraiges, healthiest families, and strongest societies.
So far:
- I'm a latent homosexual
- I don't have a girlfriend and am bitterly unhappy because I only look for girls with big tits
What is probably coming:
- I probably live in my parent's basement and don't have a job
- I can't get a date
- I have a small penis
- I am bitter at all women because a girl rightfully broke up with me
- I am an entitled, patriarchal man who thinks he deserves a super model just because he is a man and am bitter about not getting it
- I need professional help
... any more?
I just want to get all of that out of the way, because I find your name-calling and attempts at getting people's goat to be unproductive. And a bit childish.
Thank you very much for your kind advice.
You are guessing about my situation, though, in an attempt to drive a spike in. You are guessing wrong, so don't waste your time.
Oh dear.
Sounds like I've been trolled by a happily married man just trying to get someone to bite on his arguments that there are no good women out there, and life done done him wrong.
Silly me, and thanks for the lesson. I should put my good advice to where it could do some good, and stay away from anonymous forums.
Re. your 7:30 nasty comments about me: Fwiw, my advice was offered in good faith.
I see better now how you get your jollies -- twisting what was intended to be helpful, and painting me as a rape-supporting woman. I hope it was good for you, buddy.
Mary, why bother?
It's pretty simple, Mary.
Do a bad thing, get punished for it.
If someone were to say to me "I think we should put Pedophiles in jail for a minimum of 25 years" it makes no difference because I'm not a pedophile. I abhor the behavior, feel it may be too light, but it is better than what we have now.
Certain things are wrong. Period. End of discussion. Everyone punished the same, no special pleading on the basis of race, creed, sexual preference....
...or sex.
Assault your husband, expect to do time with the wife-beaters. Cuckold him, and expect you and your adulterine bastard to be kicked to the curb.
What you can't get your head around is that, like an apology, a condemnation ends with period. When it ends with "But" everything that comes before it is invalid. "Well, of course it's wrong to...BUT ..." You say shit like that, and it's clear you think there is some excuse by where one escapes consequences.
You want to talk about tagging each and every woman with a label for the actions of a few? Okay. Email Helen. She'll start one, I am sure, just as a favor to you, and to shut up the critics.
I'm there with you. No "buts." It's wrong, period, end of statement.
It's also wrong to imply that bad behavior is somehow excusable because the bad actor is a woman.
Try "False accusation of Rape? Ick. Bitch should fry. That's beyond the pale."
It might not get you the immediate attention you seem to crave, but it will illustrate good character.
Which, contrary to your obsessions, is much more important to men than a huge rack.
They're homely.
They're angry.
They found a man dumb enough to have sex with homely, angry women who will have sex with you in exchange for a pack of cigarettes.
This is just one more reason those hyper-intelligent space aliens don't actually land here.
machiavelli said; a population that fights amongst it`s self has no time for uprisings.
now, my copy of the prince is elsewhere at the moment, so the above quote isn`t verbatem...but you get the drift.
the media in all it`s forms has formed us into two camps. those with dicks, and those without...and for some reason, as much as we want to be together...we find ourselves at odds.
i am one of those who see the good in most things, and while using common sense and logic, occasionally i will fail in breathtakingly human ways.
the other morning i failed to breathe in with my usual grace and agility and aspirated a substantial amount of starbuck`s americano. the result was that i coughed my brains out for several minutes, much to my children`s amusement.
pain, humiliation, self-doubt, re-evaluatin of approach....and back to breathing.
oh yeah and, i`m getting married on may 5th to a girl i barely know and haven`t done a credit check or had a private investigator inquire about her past boyfriends or grill her sister and friends about whether she can go the distance after a divorce and so on.
but, at 49 a have some experience and some knowledge about human nature and i can tell when a person wants something to work, whether she ever did before, and i know she is a person of good morals and ethics and i trust her with everything i hold dear in this world.
so why wouldn`t i want to marry her?
it`s what we do when we want someone to get how committed we are to them.
to those who such sentiment is lost i understand, happy is happy, however you arrive there...but, i feel sometimes that the "only time will tell" types are risk adverse because thier own experience led them to that position, not some higher form of awareness that precludes vows of marriage.
and yes, undoubtably, many women are unmarriable, as are most men...because of the horrid state of our society regarding the institution and attitudes toward the opposite sex.
not because we don`t want to.
and yes, laws are biased. all of them, not just the ones regarding marital property.
so, my advice is; stay away from lawyers and judges, not women.
if your father thought that way we wouldn`t be having this discussion.
oh yeah, and finally; if you need a clue as to which type of woman to build a relationship with, stay away from the ones in the $1500 riding boots.
It's just an example of one of Freeberg's laws - Criticize a man, and it's just a thing. Criticize a single woman, and it's a vicious and hateful attack on every woman who has ever lived.
if you need a clue as to which type of woman to build a relationship with, stay away from the ones in the $1500 riding boots.
Lol! Thanks for your post, dr. a.
and ... CONGRATULATIONS !!!!
May you have a long and HAPPY married life together. And thx for sharing some good news w/the rest of us still out here working it (but not in $1500 boots ;-)
The longer I live the more I am convinced that 90% of success in life, the ‘perspiration’ as Edison called it, is simply showing up. The people who fail (aside from those unfortunates who really start out behind the 8-ball) are usually the ones who try to ‘mail it in’, shirking even mere participation in favor of attempts to play the system.
The corollary to this observation is that when assessing the reasons for success and failure we often give too much credit to individual effort. Like the drunk looking for his keys where the light is good, we’re apt to grab any explanation that appears in the light of our own brilliance.
Do you ever read our site, False Rape Society? http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/
We are exclusively devoted to giving voice to persons falsely accused of sexual assault and rape.
Mary writes: "If she was bragging to her friends how much money he had, and dumped the old bf because he wasn't making enough, and rewarded her with gifts for being a special princess and giving him sex when he wanted... the signs are all there before marraige of who that lady is and how she valued him."
----
Mary I can kind of see that you don't have a whole lot of experience in dating women.
LOL
1. "Normal" women are interested in who you are and are going to ask about you. Being evasive does not put you in the best light.
2. True, hard-core golddiggers will NOT ask a man about his money or anything relating to that. It is exactly opposite to what you wrote.
3. I had a buddy with money who got divorced (and paid a pretty penny ... and swore he wouldn't be that stupid again). After a few years, he started recovering and bought a house in a nice area.
I remember how he was joking on the phone with me about how women seemed to be coming out of the woodwork to flirt with him. He thought it was cool, but he couldn't figure out what was going on.
He later found out that there is a Web site that pinpoints single or divorced men who have nice houses and apparently a good income. I couldn't believe that women would go to that extreme - but they do.
And despite what Mary says, they do NOT ask about his money or anything else. They work hard at projecting an image of a friendly, non-greedy, girl-next-door, helpful person.
Mary is not operating from a position of teaching about reality - because she clearly has no inkling at all of what reality is with women - but is instead pushing her women-first position.
Sickening, basically. Men seem to be fair for the most part, women seem to be pushing their agenda for the most part. I always find it refreshing when I run into a fair woman.
Also:
Once the initial dating is done, and if it appears that you may have a future with a particular woman, you SHOULD talk about finances and what her ideas are.
My personal impression with that was women would sometimes get downright hostile about questions like that, but in any case they would not openly discuss it.
It's almost bizarre. And I can't be the only one with that experience, but most young men are into wooing and winning over their loved one. They don't think a whole lot about what happens after they catch her.
I DID want to talk about what was going to happen with finances. I guess that's why I never married.
What the Hell does Mary think women are attracted to?
Skinny poor guys?
She is characteristic of these women who just spout their crap and expect men to just nod Yes to anything they say - and for the most part, chivalrous men DO IT.
It still doesn't make her crap "the truth".
At this point, I would actually prefer it if Islam took over and we lived under Sharia law.
Men would be better off than they are now.
The problem isn't women, it's chivalrous men.
KMG, given what I have read about the Pashtuns lately, I think I will take my chances here.
Trey
firstly, thanks to mary for the congrats...
and secondly, chivalrous men...hmmm. damsel in distress.
young men play that game. some young women play helpless to attract the type of man who will "save the day" with time, effort and money.
young women who have a man save the day for her will put him on a shelf as a special considerate friend (aaaaagh!) who she thinks of when she needs things done.
meanwhile she will do the dirty with his smooth-talking friend, sometimes in what he thinks is right in his face.
and he will be crushed with agony, yet caught in his role as saviour (friend.)
his fault really, had he known. he needed to kiss her as soon as humanly possible...to find out her intentions...and accept the response.
then what would have happened?
he may have lost a "friend", but saved the crushing agony of what will eventally happen. she likes the bad boys occasionaly.
so...am i suggesting we all become bad boys?
no. you can still honour her and respect her and maybe even find love with her, the bad boy is a pretty angry type at the end of the day.
and she really does want to fall in love with a bad boy. she just doesn`t have much of a chance without your help.
there are four corners to a relationship with a woman. sex, money, conversation and security.
a real woman will do best to find a man with a fair amount of all of those things.
some whacko woman wrote a book for young girls advocating four men for each of them. one for each of the four corners. this type of advice gives women no chance at anything but compartmentalised relationships and bitterness and resentment along the road.
so. simple rule. if you have feelings for a girl, let her know as soon as reasonably possible. you will both be better off with what happens next, no matter what that will be.
People who blame this on chivalry do not know what chivalry is. But I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain the definition to the unlearned. What we have today is faux chivalry, or more accurately gullibility.
gawainsghost. precisely. chivalry is the code of knights, mythological though that code may be, and like the promise of what that code holds.
be true to those values and let the rest fall in line.
Here's one dictionary's definition of chivalry (other dictionaries have similar definitions):
============
chivalry [ˈʃɪvəlrɪ]
n pl -ries
1. (Historical Terms) the combination of qualities expected of an ideal knight, esp courage, honour, justice, and a readiness to help the weak
2. courteous behaviour, esp towards women
3. (Historical Terms) the medieval system and principles of knighthood
4. (Historical Terms) knights, noblemen, etc., collectively
[from Old French chevalerie, from chevalier]
chivalric adj
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged 6th Edition 2003. © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
=====================
Definition 2. is a legitimate way of interpreting the word.
And most people know what is meant when the word is used in that context.
I see GawainsGhost and "Dr." Alistair not only want to show their great learning, they want to get across the point that they live by a strict code of honor.
Cool.
If (ridiculously) chivalrous men in positions of power (like family court judge, legislator, police officer etc.) didn't engage in their sexist actions for women and against men (thereby treating women like children, but pumping up their own sense of self-esteem), there would be quite a bit more fairness in the world.
Feminists would be harmless nuts with no power at all.
Society would treat all of its citizens fairly.
The problem is not with women, it is with chivalrous men. And in the end, they (the chivalrous men) are going it for their own ends. When they use the power they have to slap down men with less power and give women an unfair edge, they get a great feeling.
Occasionally it has happened to them. I saw a male legislator (I think from Colorado) passed a particularly onerous bill that would really unfairly nail men in a divorce. He probably couldn't suppress a grin as he got to slap down men and maybe get laid by women. Or at least get their praise.
But then HE unexpectedly got a divorce. And the last I read, he was trying to have his own bill rescinded.
Only being fair after it happens to you is not a mark of maturity.
"But I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain the definition to the unlearned."
--------
What a pompous and ridiculous statement.
JG et al:
I have a question of which I don't know the answer so don't go assuming I'm trying to make a point here.
Let's say we were able to remove chivalry from our culture. This would mean that when men and women went on dates the bill would be divided evenly between them. Women and men would open their own doors. If robber robbed people at gunpoint it would be every man and woman for themselves. Women and men would change their own tires. In divorces joint custody would be mandatory and assets would be distributed based on monetary contributions to the expenses.
Do you think women would still want to be in relationships and have sex with men?
firstly, jg...why the pissiness? i have a personal code. so what? i hold a door open for a woman...a man, out of politeness. it makes me feel good at that moment and generally gets a positive response. to think i`m personally tipping the balance of some penis power away from everyman and handing it to mysandrists worldwide is actually laughable.
and my knowledge of chivalry comes from my grammar school days as a kid in england, which is when i first saw it as a good way of behaving socially.
just imagine, millions of middle-aged englishmen all knowing a little bit about all sorts of things that you probably would have to look up just to nit-pick.
and are you suggesting that my social responsibility should be to slam a door in a woman`s face...or let her open her own car door?
i would feel like a selfish dick.
and cham, i`m of the opinion that no matter what state men and women find ourselves in sociologically, sex will still be something we will enjoy together occasionally....although with the vibrator industry the way it is, you may have a point.
who knows, maybe heterosexual sex will become a quaint old-fashioned tradition soon and people will look back on us meatf**kers and say things like; "ew, did people actually do things like that?".
Cham queries: "Do you think women would still want to be in relationships and have sex with men?"
---------
Some women definitely would - because they like sex and like being with men for reasons other than using them to pay for dates and the other things you mentioned.
Some women would no longer be with men - because their sole reason for being around men is to use them for something.
Men would be better off without the latter women (whether the men know it or not ...) and things would be a lot nicer, and a lot fairer, being around the women in the first paragraph.
I make it a point not to have much to do with exploitive women, and I feel no loss in my life.
The premise that women only have sex with men in order to get financial benefit is in error. Sure, many women marry for financial benefit, and they have sex with men they aren't particularly attracted to when pursuing marriage (i.e., they bait the hook).
However, if women only had sex for the financial benefits of marriage, then assholes with no interest in marriage, and nothing to offer a marriage, wouldn't be getting laid like gang bangers.
Well, for the unlearned, chivalry descends from Arthurian legend. From the Winchester Manuscript:
"Then King Arthur established all the knights . . . and charged them never to do outrage nor murder, and always to flee treason, and to give mercy unto him that asketh mercy . . . and always to do [give] ladies, damosels, and gentlewomen and widows succour [ relief]; strengthen them in their rights, and never to enforce [rape] them, upon penalty of death. Also, that no man take no battle in a wrongful quarrel for no love, nor for no wordly goods. So unto this were all the knights sworn of the Table Round, both old and young."
That is chivalry. It is a code of ethics for knights. And there's nothing in there about opening doors or prostrating oneself at the altar of woman worship.
Courtesy refers specifically to courtly behavior, or how one is to conduct oneself in court in the presence of lords and ladies, and there were strict rules (see The Art of Courtly Love by Capellanus). There is no modern equivalent, since we no longer have courts, other than courts of law of course.
Chivalry as above was never codified into law, but rather was widely agreed upon as a matter of honor, especially after Edward III established the first real Round Table in the late 1300s. Much was made of it in medieval romances, but its application in the real world was somewhat less than satisfactory.
The reason why a code of ethics was adopted for knights was because in the Middle Ages only knights were allowed to carry weapons (armor, swords, shield, lances). Thus, a knight could very easily kill any unarmed man, or rape any woman, he so chose. Hence, chivalry was adopted as a means of deterring unlawful and immoral behavior. But it was more honored, as Hamlet says, in the breach than the observance.
The funny thing about medieval romances is that they are mostly adulterous, that is involving an errant knight and the lady of the castle, as Guinevere betrayed Arthur with Lancelot. But in actuality this almost never occured. The penalty for adultery was severe--castration for the knight and banishment for the lady.
Banishment means the adulterous lady was thrown out of the castle with nothing but her clothes on and was to be denied shelter, food, and help of any kind by everyone in the lands, including knights. It would hardly be considered chivalrous for a knight to defy the order of a lord or king, out of some misguided sense of "courtesy" for a banished woman.
Back in the medieval period, when much of our ideas of romance, courtship, and in particular the marriage contract were formed, things were much different than they are today, radically so in fact. Marriages were arranged, divorce was not allowed, and adultery severely punished.
Being polite to women, deferring to them, opening doors for them, laying a coat over a puddle for them, and the like, has nothing to do with chivalry. And really it has little to do with courtesy. It is a profound misunderstanding of both terms to suggest otherwise, and really is obsequiousness more than anything else.
The problem today is with feminism, which assumes an animosity between women and men. And with the marriage contract (particularly presumptive paternity), which has remained virtually unchanged for 600 years. And with no fault divorce (which incidentally was first signed into law by none other than Ronald Reagan). And with the legal system which penalizes men, even for offenses which they did not commit, and rewards women financially for abandonment and betrayal.
It is not chivalry which motivates certain men to encourage and enforce the current state of affairs. It is cowardice.
Anyone can type a word, or even quote a dictionary definition, without knowing what it really means or how to use it properly, in a pretense to intelligence. As to why they exhibit "pissyness," well, it's because they're dicks.
i guess i took the bits of behaviour i liked and jumbled them up and mis-understood the terms and attributes.
the images that most strongly appeal to me are the dickinsian gentleman image, top hat and great coat style, where a carriage and six strong horses await.
ah, romance....
christ, i still polish my shoes....and hold a door for a woman and have a smile for those i pass in the street.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Post a Comment
<< Home