# How do you feel about women proposing to men?



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Cxunsxlxr said:


> Marriage is pretty new? It's been held since at least 600 and before. Humanity is now thriving and multiplying without it, present continuous. Although I like your humour.


**** sapiens have been around since 200 to 300,000 years and ancestors prior, 3.8 million years. A couple of millennia is a drop in the bucket.


----------



## Cxunsxlxr (Apr 15, 2021)

tanstaafl28 said:


> There are very few roles that are gender/sex specific anymore, why should we stand on tradition?
> Why must men do everything? What social mores make it impossible for a woman to have so little power in their lives?
> Why would you say that a man who "allows" his daughter to propose to a man doesn't care about them?
> What exactly are you saying about women in general, that they aren't good/smart/strong enough to choose who they love and want to spend their lives with?



Deviating from tradition isn't a necessity unless it's needed, but why need it from start when it used to work correctly in past and no one was crying about it? I don't find leaving origins (innovation) is always good, unlike some others, moderation and balance is what we all need, everyone should be able to do what they're capable of, no more nor any less.
Why must men do stay at home and let their women work? "Breastfeed" her baby using some silicon based bottle? Change the diapers? Sing him a song before bed kiss goodnight? It really depends on what role they're playing, either going along nature or not. It shall be deemed as righteous or not. For the other stuff, women working more and so, I don't really encourage that nor go against it under certain circumstances, since children may be left unattended for extended periods, rather not have any unless you both are stable, but some seem to be unable to pull out. I don't believe that men shall remain at home simply because their physical properties allow them to have more work done (speaking generally, sometimes job dependent), unlike women, they can go through menstrual periods, which doesn't make them any worse, but just adds weight to their shoulders more than what they are already having, which isn't very optimal. Simply a man in home and a woman outside of are basically futile to me, a man and a woman outside of home seeking financial stability by working as hard as possible for a stable life afterwards are totally fine to me, although the woman mustn't work harder because it's simply unmanly to let a woman do such thing when you're simply capable of doing more alongside not having issues such as menstrual periods and so (only if they don't have children, if that's the case, then the man shall work his ass off and double the amount of job done while the woman cares for the child, if the opposite then it's just really messed up because the woman will see man as useless when she sees herself doing more than him as in effort done, simply because it's against the norms), well, if the man works from home and or the woman, then it's basically the magnum opus of living without tiresome acts, computer science FTW.
I personally would see my daughter trying proposing to a man something highly discouraged, if she's gonna propose to him, then why is he a man? Imho, a man should always initiate first, then a woman agrees or not, ironically a gentleman. Otherwise he isn't a "man" to me, acts speak words, and not the opposite.
Women are by nature smart, and most can control men easily, either in a good or in a bad way, don't get me wrong, men also can, but women just do it better which js a +1 for them, women are strong? I can't agree, if you're speaking physically, by nature. Unless you meant that in a somehow mentally based way. Women are good? Haha, of course, both men and women are, both have the same value to me but that doesn't make them equal in abilities, and there, differences make each unique in their own ways, same sex marriages don't appeal at all to me because of that, thinking of it as adding two same magnetic poles together, positive and positive, gives negative, while on the other side, negative and positive work damn well.


----------



## aurora-rosa (Apr 11, 2021)

tanstaafl28 said:


> No I am not a father, but if I was, I would want my daughter to feel confident, intelligent, and strong, enough to decide for herself who she choses to be.
> There are very few roles that are gender/sex specific anymore, why should we stand on tradition?
> Why must men do everything? What social mores make it impossible for a woman to have so little power in their lives?
> Why would you say that a man who "allows" his daughter to propose to a man doesn't care about them?
> What exactly are you saying about women in general, that they aren't good/smart/strong enough to choose who they love and want to spend their lives with?


A woman propose doesn't mean she's strong or smart, it means that he's a coward or doesn't love her. Because if he loved her, he would initiate the marriage...

And if they marry, it will always be kept that she initiated the marriage. The father and family members will not respect him.


----------



## Cxunsxlxr (Apr 15, 2021)

mia-me said:


> **** sapiens have been around since 200 to 300,000 years and ancestors prior, 3.8 million years. A couple of millennia is a drop in the bucket.


Theory of evolution is farfetched and has many holes in it's narrative.

A little joyful fun fact just for you:
"Charles *Darwin*, the author of THE SPECIES BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION in 1859 and the champion of evolution, renounced his evolutionary theory and *became* a *Christian* on his *deathbed*. This was reported by noblewoman Lady Hope who said she visited *Darwin* at his home in England at the close of his life."


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Cxunsxlxr said:


> Theory of evolution is farfetched and has many holes in it's narrative.
> 
> A little joyful fun fact just for you:
> "Charles *Darwin*, the author of THE SPECIES BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION in 1859 and the champion of evolution, renounced his evolutionary theory and *became* a *Christian* on his *deathbed*. This was reported by noblewoman Lady Hope who said she visited *Darwin* at his home in England at the close of his life."


Okaayyyy. It's my understanding that this is an urban legend and even if he did because people sick in bed, dying of horrific diseases can hedge their bets, it doesn't mean that his theory was false. But yeah, whatever. It sounds like you're trapped in the dark ages so I doubt we'll agree on anything.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

I don't have a complex about other people's relationships or gender roles so I honestly do not care


----------



## Cxunsxlxr (Apr 15, 2021)

mia-me said:


> Okaayyyy. It's my understanding that this is an urban legend and even if he did because people sick in bed, dying of horrific diseases can hedge their bets, it doesn't mean that his theory was false. But yeah, whatever. It sounds like you're trapped in the dark ages so I doubt we'll agree on anything.


We don't need agreeing on anything simply because it's not a necessity, having less different views discussions aren't as entertaining as these. However, I agree with you regarding that a theory can be true, although it was debunked by lots of people, one simple question is: How can such compounds form from a singular atom? I guess we both are in the dark ages then. _shrugs._


----------



## SgtPepper (Nov 22, 2016)

Eh, I'm not really one for the whole marriage thing to begin with, so it's a complicated opinion.


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

I don't mind.
It is against the tradition, but I don't see why it should be.


----------



## X10E8 (Apr 28, 2021)

mia-me said:


> It's really old fashioned. Also, your comment to tan about not caring about daughters is whack since fathers lording over their daughters is a thing of the past. *Women are capable*.


*𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗣𝗘𝗖𝗧. 







*


----------



## eeo (Aug 25, 2020)

It doesn't matter to me either way. I'd say if you really know the person you're with, you'd also know how they'd feel about the act of proposing, whether it's something they'd want to definitely do in a traditional way or if they'd be open to being proposed to. I have taken up the issue of marriage myself (not exactly proposing, just talking about the possibility) because I wanted certainty about the direction the relationships was going to go. We went our separate ways after that (not because I, as a woman, took the first real step), but I'm still glad I did it.



Cxunsxlxr said:


> Anyway:


Wow. That is so bad for the both of them. I wonder what drew those two together in the first place, is it that they're both completely oblivious to the other's feelings? I get that it's a completely fight or flight situation for him, but still, really painful to watch.


----------



## Eu_citzen (Jan 18, 2018)

I don't like to go poking in other people's lives. Nor do I care about gender roles.
Completely uninterested; I don't care.


----------



## Cxunsxlxr (Apr 15, 2021)

Eu_citzen said:


> I don't like to go poking in other people's lives. Nor do I care about gender roles.
> Completely uninterested; I don't care.


I got a question to ask, if you are completely uninterested and don't really care, why bother writing from start?


----------



## Eu_citzen (Jan 18, 2018)

Cxunsxlxr said:


> I got a question to ask, if you are completely uninterested and don't really care, why bother writing from start?


Because you asked, I was bored, and figured I'd reply.


----------



## Fru2 (Aug 21, 2018)

I think it's a matter of personality. If a woman were to propose to me, it'd mean that she doesn't really know me since that'd be the most embarassing thing I could ever experience. Which is why I know I'm incompatible with a lot of women, especially those that prefer their own decision making capabilities over mine, who would rather do their own bidding than be flexible, attentive and caring of my own need to call the shots on important matters. I know there are some women out there who do want to take the shots themselves, and they have a lot of flexible, careless men out there who they can choose to marry. 


mia-me said:


> You must realize that marriage is pretty new, on the scale of human existence and that humanity thrived and multiplied without it.


How do you know? There are olenty of animals who naturally split into couples, it's a great survival strategy and has been proven to be very important to the development of the child. All the evidence I can see around me leads me to believe that marriage was a thing far before it was institutionalized. Look at your avatar, it leads exactly to that - the duality.


mia-me said:


> **** sapiens have been around since 200 to 300,000 years and ancestors prior, 3.8 million years. A couple of millennia is a drop in the bucket.


How do you know? Carbon dating is as reliant as playing darts. The assumptions on correct dates are constantly changing.


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

There is nothing wrong with it. If he's a good man and she's smart enough to see that he would be a great husband and father, she would be wise to seize the opportunity. People might talk and gossip about her, but these type of people never run out of shit to gossip about anyway. Even if you give them nothing, they will make something up. If you still have a social mirror, do yourself and everyone you love a favour and throw it out.

If my daughter wanted to marry a man, I would check him out, and if he's a good man, I would support her decision. I'd even talk to him on her behalf if she was too shy.

As for the man being seen as a coward. Remember what I said about the social mirror? Having one is a genuine sign of weakness.

Let's be honest though. Assuming they're not morons, why would they tell people who proposed to who if they live in a community that frowns up the woman making the first move? And let's not even talk about public proposals. That would throw the assumption that they're not morons right out the window lol.


----------



## Cxunsxlxr (Apr 15, 2021)

Fru2 said:


> How do you know? Carbon dating is as reliant as playing darts. The assumptions on correct dates are constantly changing.


Something funny, I wanted speaking of carbon dating, but if you think of it further, when & where the hell have they found a 300 millennium old human skin in an intact condition? 
* *

















* *





^^^ theories in a nutshell, yet they complain about theories against their irrational theories, humorous people.
_"I am a man of science, I follow scientists after researching, without any confirmation bias and not someone who declines it." _


----------



## Astrida88 (Jun 6, 2019)

What difference does it make?

I only see one problem - there won't be a proposal ring involved. Even if you gave your boyfriend a signet or something it won't have the same "feel".

Proposing is basically asking if the other one will marry you, and receiving an answer. 
There is nothing gender related. It's simply communication. If noone dares to ask they migth both want to get married but be too shy about that, and end up living as a simple boyfriend and girlfriend forever. It wouldn't be a problem either but being married has it's benefits. You pay less taxes, have access to medical information, can raise children together without all the issues related to not being officially married etc. 
Marriage is just a contract. It doesn't matter who initiates - both need to agree anyway.


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

If he didn't want to marry me because I proposed then he is not the kind of guy I'll- in any case- futuristic speaking, marry in the first place.


----------



## Fru2 (Aug 21, 2018)

Cxunsxlxr said:


> Something funny, I wanted speaking of carbon dating, but if you think of it further, when & where the hell have they found a 300 millennium old human skin in an intact condition?
> 
> * *
> 
> ...


Science is just a modern variable of a belief system based on dogma. "Damn the unbelievers! Spread the message far and wide, for all eyes to see and ears to hear! The priests have spoken!"

Human capabilities have far outreached human consciousness, a lot of us are still stuck in our old ways.


----------



## Who'sWho (Dec 22, 2020)

Contemporary culture is excitedly denying (in word) all social realities, while still the sane 99,9% (in practice) live those realities out, however supportive they are of the odd ones. Women proposing is a meme. Leave a man who is in a position to propose to you but lacks the initiative - he either doesn't care enough, or is too weak of a person to be ready for a common life. In the first case you will get rejected, and in the second case you will eventually regret proposing.

Even if you don't understand why does it work this way, still do it how it's been done. It will save you a lot of unnecessary tears.


----------



## Cxunsxlxr (Apr 15, 2021)

Astrida88 said:


> What difference does it make?
> 
> - I only see one problem - there won't be a proposal ring involved. Even if you gave your boyfriend a signet or something it won't have the same "feel".
> 
> ...



This is what we're talking about.
Thinking about such scenario makes it too dumb if 2 actually did that. Although cultures & traditions differ, so regarding your perspective of: Get to know each < Get to be a BF & a GF < Get married. In such case here (or at least my preference): Get to know each < At least 1 year testing period (getting engaged, and going in depth about discovering each, without having any physical interactions) < Then finally, get married and do whatever a couple can legally do. People just seem to decline marriage because they don't want holding a responsibility, which doesn't make sense not to get married from start rather than being a "GF & a BF" for _y e a r s__._


----------



## Cxunsxlxr (Apr 15, 2021)

Electra said:


> If he didn't want to marry me because I proposed then he is not the kind of guy I'll- in any case- futuristic speaking, marry in the first place.


Lol, that would be really funny to witness, completely nonsensical for a man to do such an act, ofc. it also depends on many factors, how long you knew him, how close you're, etc.


----------



## Cxunsxlxr (Apr 15, 2021)

Fru2 said:


> Science is just a modern variable of a belief system based on dogma. "Damn the unbelievers! Spread the message far and wide, for all eyes to see and ears to hear! The priests have spoken!"
> 
> Human capabilities have far outreached human consciousness, a lot of us are still stuck in our old ways.


They really do think of themselves as Gods or so, even though they're just mere humans. If that's how you meant it to be.


----------



## Fru2 (Aug 21, 2018)

Cxunsxlxr said:


> They really do think of themselves as Gods or so, even though they're just mere humans. If that's how you meant it to be.


Messengers of 'the gods'.


----------



## Cxunsxlxr (Apr 15, 2021)

Fru2 said:


> Messengers of 'the gods'.


Countless interpretations, only 1 exists, since and for an eternity.


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

Cxunsxlxr said:


> Lol, that would be really funny to witness, completely nonsensical for a man to do such an act, ofc. it also depends on many factors, how long you knew him, how close you're, etc.


Oh well


----------



## Fru2 (Aug 21, 2018)

Cxunsxlxr said:


> Countless interpretations, only 1 exists, since and for an eternity.


Creator, source, great mother, great father, god, allah, whatever you want to call it, we each have the ability(and imo the responsibility) to get in touch with it ourselves, personally. No one person has the same connection to it as the other, yet we're all related to it the same way.


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

Who'sWho said:


> Contemporary culture is excitedly denying (in word) all social realities, while still the sane 99,9% (in practice) live those realities out, however supportive they are of the odd ones. Women proposing is a meme. Leave a man who is in a position to propose to you but lacks the initiative - he either doesn't care enough, or is too weak of a person to be ready for a common life. In the first case you will get rejected, and in the second case you will eventually regret proposing.
> 
> Even if you don't understand why does it work this way, still do it how it's been done. It will save you a lot of unnecessary tears.


A lack of initiative is definitely an undesirable trait in a man, but there are many other important facets to consider. Responsibility, values, integrity, mannerisms, wealth, appearance, lineage, affiliations etc. Realism demands that a woman with initiative pursues a man who lacks initiative but ticks enough of the remaining boxes. It's only a problem if A the woman normally lacks initiative too, or B one or both of them defer to society for their values. Otherwise this is not uncommon. I know several happily married couples where the woman made the first move.


----------



## Celtsincloset (Feb 17, 2014)

I would love it. Sounds like true love to me...


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

Cxunsxlxr said:


> They really do think of themselves as Gods or so, even though they're just mere humans. If that's how you meant it to be.


That's a little unfair. Very rarely do actual scientists make these outlandish claims or attempt to appear as an authority over people or even as an alternative to religion. It's often opportunistic people simply using science as a tool to influence others. Unless you were referring to the these people and not the practitioners of science.


----------



## Who'sWho (Dec 22, 2020)

ENFPathetic said:


> A lack of initiative is definitely an undesirable trait in a man, but there are many other important facets to consider. Responsibility, values, integrity, mannerisms, wealth, appearance, lineage, affiliations etc. Realism demands that a woman with initiative pursues a man who lacks initiative but ticks enough of the remaining boxes. It's only a problem if A the woman normally lacks initiative too, or B one or both of them defer to society for their values. Otherwise this is not uncommon. I know several happily married couples where the woman made the first move.


I can imagine circumstance that makes it an option, but those rare exceptions are just exceptions to the rule. Maybe for one in a 1000 couples it would make sense for a woman to propose, but I am stretching it. "Making the first move" is something completely different than proposing, so your examples aren't really proper if they consist of a woman asking out and not proposing.

With so many people on the planet, you will find at least one positive example for probably anything, maybe even a "happy" incestuous story lol, this doesn't make it a smart choice in general.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Sounds fine. I don't really care for marriage so it personally doesn't affect me. I think it's good that women take the initiative if they want to.
Nowadays many people just discuss marriage anyways and come to an agreement together. If you can't discuss this openly with your would-be spouse it sounds to me like it would be wrong to get married in the first place.
Also I doubt many women don't actively lay the groundwork for it to happen anyways. Or at least in older generations when such passive aggressive tactics were common, since being direct was improper, but was a great way to circumvent that. In such cases it's the same as taking the initiative in principle, it's just that people can do it openly now.


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

Who'sWho said:


> I can imagine circumstance that makes it an option, but those rare exceptions are just exceptions to the rule. Maybe for one in a 1000 couples it would make sense for a woman to propose, but I am stretching it. "Making the first move" is something completely different than proposing, so your examples aren't really proper if they consist of a woman asking out and not proposing.
> 
> With so many people on the planet, you will find at least one positive example for probably anything, maybe even a "happy" incestuous story lol, this doesn't make it a smart choice in general.


You're right, that was more vague than I intended. I'm talking about women actually proposing marriage. In my culture it's not uncommon for a marriage proposal to be the first move. A lot of Muslim women won't entertain the idea of even holding hands with you let alone going out and sleeping with you before marriage.

Edit: It's not uncommon at all. It probably happens in your community. But you're not going to hear about it if the community disapproves and thinks of it as a woman throwing herself at the feet of a weak man. They're probably just going to keep the truth about who proposed to who to themselves.


----------



## Queen of Cups (Feb 26, 2010)

Red Panda said:


> Or at least in older generations when such passive aggressive tactics were common,


Reminds me of this 






“I had a feeling he was gonna propose because I had been pressuring him to do it.”


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Queen of Cups said:


> Reminds me of this
> 
> 
> 
> ...


😆 yea


----------



## islandlight (Aug 13, 2013)

aurora-rosa said:


> And if they marry, it will always be kept that she initiated the marriage. The father and family members will not respect him.


And the man will later throw it back in the woman's face: You pressured me; I wasn't ready; etc.

Maybe there are some exceptions, e.g., an honorable man who is shy.


----------



## WraithOfNightmare (Jun 20, 2019)

I don’t mind either way.


----------



## dulcinea (Aug 22, 2011)

I don't have a problem with it. It's a very personal choice.
With my husband, I didn't get a proper proposal. At some point, we started talking about marriage, and we discussed what kind of ring he'd get for me, so a few days before I went back to America from my visit with him, the ring came in and he presented it to me, and we had a nice walk on the beach and announced our engagement to our friends.
I thought it was really nice, personally.


----------



## goodvibe (Aug 23, 2013)

I think it would probably be a mutual thing, either way. I doubt many women would just out of the blue propose. And it could make the moment all the more special when it is the woman who takes the initiative. Now, aside from something as life-changing as marriage...I totally like it when the woman makes the first move on anything, but even better is when both come together without much formal talking...it just happens because both are on the same wavelength.


----------



## Whatexists (Jul 26, 2015)

aurora-rosa said:


> do you have a daughter? and even if you don't have a daughter.
> 
> Would you respect a man who did not take the initiative in the relationship and did not talk about his intentions with her?
> 
> I think that men like that don't care about their daughters..


I don't think that the woman proposing means the man did not talk about his intentions with her. Talking about your intentions is something that should happen considerably before a proposal no matter who is doing the proposing!? Like, if you're a guy and your proposing you should probably know how serious your partner is about the relationship before you propose, and that should be true the other way around as well.

Like, once upon a time asking someone to marry you was similar to like... asking them to "go steady" or asking them for a monogamous and sexual relationship. But like... that was the 19th century and before. 

This is a serious false equivalency rooted in some seriously outdated beliefs. 

Yeah, it's fine for a woman to do the asking out. I'd personally love it, as a man who would prefer for the woman to be in the driving seat of the relationship anyways. It doesn't mean I don't respect her, actually the opposite: I'm happy to adapt to her needs and time table (I'm not just an introverted P-type, I'm an introverted F-dominant P-type: why would I _want_ to be in charge!?) It also doesn't mean I won't communicate my desires or intentions, 'cause oh my god I will talk about my feelings endlessly given the chance. 



aurora-rosa said:


> This is not related to some era, this is timeless.
> 
> People don't worry about it anymore because there is contraception.


That's, like, assuming that people don't have pre-marital sex while in committed serious romantic relationships!?! Or even _have_ serious committed romantic relationships prior to marriage!? Or have pre-marital sex outside of serious committed romantic relationships!? Or that marriage is about pro-creation!?! What century do you come from!?!

Ok, wait, I shouldn't judge, if you actually ARE a time traveler from the distant past then welcome to the post-modern age. We do things a little differently, but it does have it's own internal logic that actually does work out for everyone involved as long as people play nice, and we've gotten to a point where people generally play nice more than not. It's a nice age, relative to the distant past anyways, I hope you enjoy it. If you need a tour guide I'm sure we can arrange for it.


----------



## Sily (Oct 24, 2008)

I think I did it, although it's been so long ago, I can't quite remember, how it went down. We had been living together for a year and I think I brought it up like "let's get married". We went to City Hall.

This was in '94. 

So my answer to the question is - - ->> Sure.


----------



## PersonalityAbnormality (Jun 9, 2021)

I don't fall for the black and white perspective of gender roles that are traditional. So, I am not against women proposing to men nor against men proposing to women. Because I don't care. What I do care about is women and men proposing to each other when they wholeheartedly commit to their relationships. People proposing to others just to gain a higher social status for society doesn't impress me. Especially since the politicians, celebrities, and people in general have married others to gain power, money, sex, sex appeal, social status, etc. rather than romantic love. Hollywood promoting public proposals won't work for everyone in the real world. There are a lot of people who want private proposals. Which private proposals allow a person to deny or accept a proposal without dealing with embarassment in front of a public audience. Private proposals are more tactful in real life than public proposals usually as a result. I think women and men should propose to each other with private proposals.


----------



## PersonalityAbnormality (Jun 9, 2021)

Cxunsxlxr said:


> I personally would see my daughter trying proposing to a man something highly discouraged, if she's gonna propose to him, then why is he a man? Imho, a man should always initiate first, then a woman agrees or not, ironically a gentleman. Otherwise he isn't a "man" to me, acts speak words, and not the opposite.


L.M.A.O.


----------



## PersonalityAbnormality (Jun 9, 2021)

Saying women proposing is a meme is considered a joke or an ad hominem fallacy by attacking women's integrity rather than presenting an actual argument. Saying a man is not a real man if he does not propose is another joke or fallacious statement. There might have been men who got proposed to by women and helped build civilisations greatly in history.


----------



## BenevolentBitterBleeding (Mar 16, 2015)

I feel that it's within any person's right to do as they please when it comes to expressions of their desperation I mean love. That being said, if anyone want to get married me, holler. 💩


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

Whatexists said:


> I don't think that the woman proposing means the man did not talk about his intentions with her. Talking about your intentions is something that should happen considerably before a proposal no matter who is doing the proposing!? Like, if you're a guy and your proposing you should probably know how serious your partner is about the relationship before you propose, and that should be true the other way around as well.
> 
> Like, once upon a time asking someone to marry you was similar to like... asking them to "go steady" or asking them for a monogamous and sexual relationship. But like... that was the 19th century and before.
> 
> ...


If you think promiscuity, feminine men and glorification of homosexuality is a new age thing, you don't know enough history. It's been tried and tested many times over the course of human history and the result is always the same. It eats away at the fabric of society until there is nothing left.

She's not old fashioned. You're just naive and gullible. Spoilt in the comforts of an environment built by men who valued the very things you mock.


----------



## Wax Diamond (Apr 9, 2020)

Before going further : what do they propose, which way, why, how and where ? 
Need some crispy details...


----------



## Whatexists (Jul 26, 2015)

ENFPathetic said:


> If you think promiscuity, feminine men and glorification of homosexuality is a new age thing, you don't know enough history. It's been tried and tested many times over the course of human history and the result is always the same. It eats away at the fabric of society until there is nothing left.
> 
> She's not old fashioned. You're just naive and gullible. Spoilt in the comforts of an environment built by men who valued the very things you mock.


I never said it was a new age thing. I said it was more tolerated in the modern age then in the 19th century. But if you think that homosexuality, promiscuity, or feminine men were the reason the Greek and Roman civilizations eroded then you sorely need better historical education. Those had literally nothing to do with it. It was the result of complex socio-political and socio-economic factors heavily influenced by climate changes. Same with literally every single civilization that came to a non-violent "end" (not that most of those civilizations actually ended.)


----------



## Lonewaer (Jul 14, 2014)

I wouldn't have a problem with it if I wanted to have children, but I would also have conditions. With marriage, men are held accountable before the law if they don't fulfill their marital duties. So one of the conditions is, if I'm gonna be held accountable before the law of making sure I'm far above what you think you want because you might change your mind when the slightest better opportunity arises, then I would expect you to be a fully traditional woman. You provide sex on demand to me, children, you quit your career to take care of them, you cook and clean, you stay pretty, and you don't give me a headache but peace instead.

Fortunately I don't want children, so if someone proposes to me, I don't have a good reason to accept.


----------



## Whatexists (Jul 26, 2015)

Lonewaer said:


> I wouldn't have a problem with it if I wanted to have children, but I would also have conditions. With marriage, men are held accountable before the law if they don't fulfill their marital duties. So one of the conditions is, if I'm gonna be held accountable before the law of making sure I'm far above what you think you want because you might change your mind when the slightest better opportunity arises, then I would expect you to be a fully traditional woman. You provide sex on demand to me, children, you quit your career to take care of them, you cook and clean, you stay pretty, and you don't give me a headache but peace instead.
> 
> Fortunately I don't want children, so if someone proposes to me, I don't have a good reason to accept.


There is literally no circumstance under which you would be entitled to ask for that... sex on demand? literally not a thing you can ask for. children? no. Like... people have rights? one of them is bodily autonomy?


----------



## Flabarac Brupip (May 9, 2020)

I've read parts of this thread with arguments for and against, and I'm honestly still kinda scratching my head wondering what logical reason there could even be that a woman can't propose to a man. I think I'm simply not gonna get it even if people try explaining it. Its like explaining to me that its wrong to spread the peanut butter before the jelly, and you must spread the jelly first. Like wha???


----------



## Who'sWho (Dec 22, 2020)

ENFPathetic said:


> You're right, that was more vague than I intended. I'm talking about women actually proposing marriage. In my culture it's not uncommon for a marriage proposal to be the first move. A lot of Muslim women won't entertain the idea of even holding hands with you let alone going out and sleeping with you before marriage.
> 
> Edit: It's not uncommon at all. It probably happens in your community. But you're not going to hear about it if the community disapproves and thinks of it as a woman throwing herself at the feet of a weak man. They're probably just going to keep the truth about who proposed to who to themselves.


This is very interesting. In a place where the first move also means proposal, it changes the dynamics. Everything I said is depended on a situation that a couple is already been dating.

And about your idea that maybe it is kept secret, no, I highly doubt this. But only a well respected unbiased study could prove who is right.


----------



## Astrida88 (Jun 6, 2019)

islandlight said:


> And the man will later throw it back in the woman's face: You pressured me; I wasn't ready; etc.
> 
> Maybe there are some exceptions, e.g., an honorable man who is shy.


"You pressured me; I wasn't ready" has nothing to do with proposal but the response to it. Asking to get married is not forcing anyone to get married. The partner is free to say yes, no or let's wait. And there is also the engagement period, that is supposed to make you ready for marriage so "I wasn't ready" is not valid, unless it was a shutgun wedding. Average engagement period is 12-18 months.

Also the "You pressured me; I wasn't ready" is not gender restricted.

My own grandma is constantly complaining her biggest life mistake was marrying my grandpa when he proposed to her. 60 years passed and they are still married and living together but she complains about it all the freaking time, while living a leisure life. She worked part time all her life while grandpa was working 1,5 jobs to build the house, buy the car etc., she barely cooks - grandpa just eats whatever, and she barely cleans - grandpa is a pedant so he deals with that. But yeah. Her being "yound and stupid" and him "forcing her to get married" destroyed her life and prevented her from becoming a scientist. Excuses.


----------



## jerica (Jun 11, 2021)

Who'sWho said:


> you will find at least one positive example for probably anything, maybe even a "happy" incestuous story lol, this doesn't make it a smart choice in general.


The "elite" seems happier than ever for starting to miss out on the cousins thing. Look at Harry.



Who'sWho said:


> But only a well respected unbiased study could prove who is right.


Well, well and well. I would truly enjoy reading a "respected, UNbiased research. Could you set one single example of those for us, please?

Proposing a man would not make a day for me. Ones shadow moving away from my sun when he is in a need for a proposal from me though is.


----------



## BenevolentBitterBleeding (Mar 16, 2015)

Astrida88 said:


> "You pressured me; I wasn't ready" has nothing to do with proposal but the response to it. Asking to get married is not forcing anyone to get married. The partner is free to say yes, no or let's wait.


To be fair though, usually at this point one or the other is ready for taking the next step of marriage, and if the other partner is not at the same point, it becomes a strain/breaking point in the relationship that the couple may not be able to recover from.

So yes, in a perfect world when one party is not ready, they can communicate with the other, and the other will accept that... BUT even in those cases, the one that proposed doesn't suddenly stop wanting to get married, _or _will not suddenly be so accepting without some kind of continuous 'background noise' in their mind about why things haven't 'gone as planned'. Meaning, everything after that point is on a timer, either to the end of the relationship, or to a marriage where one feels pressured/obligated into - especially if they still 'love' their partner and don't wish it to be the end.

In any case, it leads to a case of the beginnings of resentment from either or both sides. Well, unless they both love and live by hollywood standards.


----------



## Cxunsxlxr (Apr 15, 2021)

Fru2 said:


> Creator, source, great mother, great father, god, Allah, whatever you want to call it, we each have the ability(and imo the responsibility) to get in touch with it ourselves, personally. No one person has the same connection to it as the other, yet we're all related to it the same way.


I'm a practicing Muslim so I call him Allah, in the other Abrahamic religions in; Gospel, Aramaic (Elah/Elaha), Torah, Hebrew (Elohim, Eloh). I don't believe that religions I mentioned were initially false, but one completing the one before, just like how people went to Judaism, then to Christianity, then to Islam. Simply it's like, once a new update comes, it shall get installed in order to have the latest features, while others become outdated and vulnerable. I do agree with your statement though, but just pointing it out, it doesn't necessarily mean that people are following the truth just because they're satisfied with what they've, or vice versa, there are no more than a truth to one statement, grey free.


----------



## Cxunsxlxr (Apr 15, 2021)

ENFPathetic said:


> That's a little unfair. Very rarely do actual scientists make these outlandish claims or attempt to appear as an authority over people or even as an alternative to religion. It's often opportunistic people simply using science as a tool to influence others. Unless you were referring to the these people and not the practitioners of science.


My response was a little bit mysterious, so I'm deciphering, these scientists, think that everything they claim is true, as a way of "Science is superior and us humans are", until proven wrong with the excuse of "Science is improving and it's okay to be wrong", which everyone else who is labelled as "atheist" doesn't believe in God (who owns the same trait as scientists, but is a higher omniscient being). The problem is that relying on limited humans, validating whatever they cook, even though they aren't that knowledgeable or advanced in their fields, is just nonsensical to me. A religion with no science is as useless as fully relying on science while not believing in God, both are irrational. So I neither choose being an atheist nor a Christian. I prefer balance, which I believe is also the truth and what's most rational, Islam.


----------



## Six (Oct 14, 2019)

aurora-rosa said:


> do you have a daughter? and even if you don't have a daughter.
> 
> Would you respect a man who did not take the initiative in the relationship and did not talk about his intentions with her?
> 
> I think that men like that don't care about their daughters..


I think I'd be too busy feeling proud of my daughter for taking initiative.

Also - there are many things I might judge a guy who's with my daughter for but not being the one to propose to her isn't what I'd think of as the most accurate gauge.


----------



## Cxunsxlxr (Apr 15, 2021)

Whatexists said:


> That's, like, assuming that people don't have pre-marital sex while in committed serious romantic relationships!?! Or even _have_ serious committed romantic relationships prior to marriage!? Or have pre-marital sex outside of serious committed romantic relationships!? Or that marriage is about pro-creation!?! What century do you come from!?!
> 
> Ok, wait, I shouldn't judge, if you actually ARE a time traveler from the distant past then welcome to the post-modern age. We do things a little differently, but it does have it's own internal logic that actually does work out for everyone involved as long as people play nice, and we've gotten to a point where people generally play nice more than not. It's a nice age, relative to the distant past anyways, I hope you enjoy it. If you need a tour guide I'm sure we can arrange for it.


I don't aid your perspective, sounds more like:
_Since we are at the 21st century. Therefore we can decline religion/culture/traditions._
I don't see it any wrong when a couple doesn't engage in activities like pre-marital sex. It's actually appealing to me, when two know how to control their desires having willpower & consistency needed in order to do so. While on the other side a reckless one would've at the worst case an orphan, if not, abortion, which is something I despise and find completely inhumane, 0 conscience. Going further in time, Islam rates are increasing as the highest rate compared to other beliefs. In every 4 humans, there is a 1 Muslim, which means at least 25% of the population doesn't agree with pre-marital sex or such despised acts, alongside practicing Christians, and Jews, that's at least 40% of population still believing in such concepts not to do. "The new era" that you're talking about is no more than a mirage that you'll never get to reach, such baseless claims, sounds like liberalism.


----------



## Cxunsxlxr (Apr 15, 2021)

Sily said:


> I think I did it, although it's been so long ago, I can't quite remember, how it went down. We had been living together for a year and I think I brought it up like "let's get married". We went to City Hall.
> 
> This was in '94.
> 
> So my answer to the question is - - ->> Sure.


My only personal problem is with: If a woman buys the ring, it surely is pretty messed up, if he accepts it without paying her back. Then that's basically GAME OVER for her.


----------



## Cxunsxlxr (Apr 15, 2021)

PersonalityAbnormality said:


> Saying women proposing is a meme is considered a joke or an ad hominem fallacy by attacking women's integrity rather than presenting an actual argument. Saying a man is not a real man if he does not propose is another joke or fallacious statement. There might have been men who got proposed to by women and helped build civilisations greatly in history.


My statement wasn't detailed, but it's fine for being unable to understand, not completely your fault. In a nutshell: A woman buys the ring, proposes in public or in private, the man accepts without paying her back. <- is what an absolute meme.


----------



## Cxunsxlxr (Apr 15, 2021)

Lonewaer said:


> I wouldn't have a problem with it if I wanted to have children, but I would also have conditions. With marriage, men are held accountable before the law if they don't fulfill their marital duties. So one of the conditions is, if I'm gonna be held accountable before the law of making sure I'm far above what you think you want because you might change your mind when the slightest better opportunity arises, then I would expect you to be a fully traditional woman. You provide sex on demand to me, children, you quit your career to take care of them, you cook and clean, you stay pretty, and you don't give me a headache but peace instead.
> 
> Fortunately I don't want children, so if someone proposes to me, I don't have a good reason to accept.


You don't need to get married to have children, who said it's a must?


----------



## eeo (Aug 25, 2020)

Lonewaer said:


> With marriage, men are held accountable before the law if they don't fulfill their marital duties.


Doesn't this also apply to women?


----------



## CrazyAxewoman (Jun 3, 2021)

Cxunsxlxr said:


> Marriage is pretty new? It's been held since at least 600 and before. Humanity is now thriving and multiplying without it, present continuous. Although I like your humour.


Haven't humans walked the earth for about 300,000 years


----------



## WraithOfNightmare (Jun 20, 2019)

Congrats! Do you have kids?


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

Cxunsxlxr said:


> My response was a little bit mysterious, so I'm deciphering, these scientists, think that everything they claim is true, as a way of "Science is superior and us humans are", until proven wrong with the excuse of "Science is improving and it's okay to be wrong", which everyone else who is labelled as "atheist" doesn't believe in God (who owns the same trait as scientists, but is a higher omniscient being). The problem is that relying on limited humans, validating whatever they cook, even though they aren't that knowledgeable or advanced in their fields, is just nonsensical to me. A religion with no science is as useless as fully relying on science while not believing in God, both are irrational. So I neither choose being an atheist nor a Christian. I prefer balance, which I believe is also the truth and what's most rational, Islam.


I couldn't agree more.


----------



## Fru2 (Aug 21, 2018)

Cxunsxlxr said:


> My response was a little bit mysterious, so I'm deciphering, these scientists, think that everything they claim is true, as a way of "Science is superior and us humans are", until proven wrong with the excuse of "Science is improving and it's okay to be wrong", which everyone else who is labelled as "atheist" doesn't believe in God (who owns the same trait as scientists, but is a higher omniscient being). The problem is that relying on limited humans, validating whatever they cook, even though they aren't that knowledgeable or advanced in their fields, is just nonsensical to me. A religion with no science is as useless as fully relying on science while not believing in God, both are irrational. So I neither choose being an atheist nor a Christian. I prefer balance, which I believe is also the truth and what's most rational, Islam.


I agree with you on all points except for the last, but thta might be because I don't know the teachings of Islam fully well. I do notice however that the muslims on this site tend to be on average more grounded and aware than the rest of the users.


----------



## Whatexists (Jul 26, 2015)

Cxunsxlxr said:


> I don't aid your perspective, sounds more like:
> _Since we are at the 21st century. Therefore we can decline religion/culture/traditions._
> I don't see it any wrong when a couple doesn't engage in activities like pre-marital sex. It's actually appealing to me, when two know how to control their desires having willpower & consistency needed in order to do so. While on the other side a reckless one would've at the worst case an orphan, if not, abortion, which is something I despise and find completely inhumane, 0 conscience. Going further in time, Islam rates are increasing as the highest rate compared to other beliefs. In every 4 humans, there is a 1 Muslim, which means at least 25% of the population doesn't agree with pre-marital sex or such despised acts, alongside practicing Christians, and Jews, that's at least 40% of population still believing in such concepts not to do. "The new era" that you're talking about is no more than a mirage that you'll never get to reach, such baseless claims, sounds like liberalism.


Practicing Christians? I know a lot of practicing Christains and Jews that still engage in pre-marital sex. It sort of helps that the new testament doesn't actually condemn it in any way. 

Anyways, you start by saying that you prefer not to have pre-marital sex, which is entirely your prerogative. You make a few claims about the ramifications of pre-marital sex that sort of assume a lack of education or contraceptives. Islam's higher rate of growth isn't actually sustainable or going to sustain itself. And reproducing more doesn't make you competitive in a world that's increasingly reliant on expertise instead of manpower anyway.

But none of that matters because the matter at hand is actually about whether women should be oppressed. The answer is no. No other answer is acceptable no matter you arguments.


----------



## Cxunsxlxr (Apr 15, 2021)

CrazyAxewoman said:


> Haven't humans walked the earth for about 300,000 years


They may have or haven't we will never be exact, but the main point is that, people recently dropped the idea of marriage, since generation: millenial. Which is pretty recent. Which is pretty contradictory to what he said, means nothing to me.


----------



## Cxunsxlxr (Apr 15, 2021)

Fru2 said:


> I agree with you on all points except for the last, but that might be because I don't know the teachings of Islam fully well. I do notice however that the Muslims on this site tend to be on average more grounded and aware than the rest of the users.


Grant knowledge to all who seek, a YouTube playlist  discussing 1400 year old claims (reliable sources, YT) and scientific evidences behind a variety of topics (in Quran, excluding ones from the prophet's quotes), you may also find more interesting playlists on the channel, or channels that published those videos. Docunented information, in the form of articles, regarding science & the revelation.


----------



## Cxunsxlxr (Apr 15, 2021)

Whatexists said:


> Practicing Christians? I know a lot of practicing Christains and Jews that still engage in pre-marital sex. It sort of helps that the new testament doesn't actually condemn it in any way.
> 
> Anyways, you start by saying that you prefer not to have pre-marital sex, which is entirely your prerogative. You make a few claims about the ramifications of pre-marital sex that sort of assume a lack of education or contraceptives. Islam's higher rate of growth isn't actually sustainable or going to sustain itself. And reproducing more doesn't make you competitive in a world that's increasingly reliant on expertise instead of manpower anyway.
> 
> But none of that matters because the matter at hand is actually about whether women should be oppressed. The answer is no. No other answer is acceptable no matter you arguments.


Seems like you've forgotten adding conversion rates, I'm pretty sure that there are still much if not many Christians & Jews are around here who still follow their own books, can't tell how much, but doesn't change the fact, there are many sects in Christianity, as well as regions, it differs from a place to another, so you shall not judge it as a whole.

How is telling that women shall not propose with a ring any related to them being oppressed anyway? Elaborate.


----------



## Lonewaer (Jul 14, 2014)

Whatexists said:


> There is literally no circumstance under which you would be entitled to ask for that... sex on demand? literally not a thing you can ask for. children? no. Like... people have rights? one of them is bodily autonomy?


There's an intruder in the house, and I say : "Tonight I don't feel like getting them out, not in the mood. You do it." Should I do it or not ? Should she stay in the marriage or leave the marriage ?

Since we all know that the answer is that I should do it because it's part of my marital duties, and that she should not and will not stay in the marriage, let's make it fast. If I'm giving up in that marriage, my finances, my assets, and my life if the need arises, you feel however you want about it, me personally, that's my first "entitlement", since you want to call it that. That makes the deal equal, and quite frankly, not even equal, but still in my defavor. Nobody cares about my own bodily autonomy if there is the slightest need for protection in any way in the household. If I need to die to protect my family, pretty much everyone agrees that I should absolutely do it, people who don't are lying. Nobody cares about my wallet either. I need to die for the family if the need arises, and I need to provide for the family. If I don't do either, she leaves as she should, and she drags me to court, and the court will make sure she gets the kids, the house, the dog, half my shit, and my dignity. You want to call it entitlement, I would call that "just compensation".

If that's still too obscure for you, I could turn that around : there is literally no circumstance under which a woman would be entitled to ask for a man's provisioning, protection, and support.

I could also zero in on your "people have rights ?". No : no man has the right to decide which child gets born and which child doesn't. That decision is entirely the woman's, regardless of what the man wants. If the man wants a child but the woman doesn't, what happens ? She gets to decide to have an abortion, without consulting him, without having a say in it. If the woman wants a child but the man doesn't, what happens ? She gets to decide to keep it, regardless of what he thinks of it, and then she can force him to pay child support.

Do not talk about people having rights as if I considered that women didn't have rights (which I didn't), while there is a literal example of women having a right that men don't have, the right to decide who gets born. What I'm saying is that if a woman gets married to a man, one of her duties is sex on his demand, and/or provide children to him, because there is no other reason for him to get in that shitty contract than access to sex and reproduction, and if she doesn't provide that, this should absolutely be ground for divorce with her at fault.




Cxunsxlxr said:


> You don't need to get married to have children, who said it's a must?


I'm saying it, as much as I'm not religious, I'm pretty sure all monotheisms are saying it, and as much as I'm not a conservative/traditionalist either, those pretty much all say it too. Overall, that's a lot of people saying it, and it has worked very well for millenias. Being married as parents is the best environment for raising children, that's part of why the black community is in crisis : a lot of children out of wedlock, a lot of single mothers, not enough father figures, and a resulting high crime rate in children. Whose fault is that, I don't know, and that's not the topic here. Having children is for me the only good reason to get married for a man. Look at my answer to Whatexists : men need to fulfill their parental duties/responsibilities, women can be absolved of them because "progressism", because "bodily autonomy", because "rights", probably because "sexual liberation", too. So there's one reason to get married for a man, and that's if he wants children.

I find your reaction curious since earlier you mentioned choosing Islam. What does Islam have to say about having children out of wedlock, and what does Islam have to say about "fornication" ?




eeo said:


> Doesn't this also apply to women?


No. It should but it doesn't most of the time. Women are heavily backed up by the court system and the government. 50% of marriages end up in divorce, 70-80% of those divorces are initiated by women. The main ground for divorce (±50% of divorces) is financial issues (= "he doesn't make enough money"/"cannot or will not provide for us") (and that's his marital duty). How many married men do you hear about asking for divorce AND winning their plea on the grounds of "we're not having enough sex" ? Mostly, it doesn't happen. The few cases you might think of make up exceptions, and not rules, and are more likely to be "she said she was willing to have kids and fertile, but it turns out she's not fertile", so it's generally more along the lines of actually having kids than just having sex.

Yet, I'm pretty sure if you look up what marriage entails in the detail of your country/state's law, you would find some sort of sexual compensation on the wife's part, yet nobody divorces women who don't fulfill that duty. It's not because men in those marriages are happy, it's because if they file divorce, their woman will find a way to turn the blame on him (along the lines of "he wasn't good enough") and the court will side with her instead of him. Women overall are definitely not held to the same standards of responsibility and accountability as men, if that's your question, and they definitely know and abuse that fact. The fact that my previous comment has been questioned in the first place is proof enough.


----------



## Fru2 (Aug 21, 2018)

Cxunsxlxr said:


> Grant knowledge to all who seek, a YouTube playlist  discussing 1400 year old claims (reliable sources, YT) and scientific evidences behind a variety of topics (in Quran, excluding ones from the prophet's quotes), you may also find more interesting playlists on the channel, or channels that published those videos. Docunented information, in the form of articles, regarding science & the revelation.


Thank you!


----------



## aurora-rosa (Apr 11, 2021)

Cxunsxlxr said:


> I got a question to ask, if you are completely uninterested and don't really care, why bother writing from start?


I think this was passive-aggressive, she/he was implying that I meddle in other people's lives. 😂


----------



## eeo (Aug 25, 2020)

Lonewaer said:


> No. It should but it doesn't most of the time. Women are heavily backed up by the court system and the government. 50% of marriages end up in divorce, 70-80% of those divorces are initiated by women. The main ground for divorce (±50% of divorces) is financial issues (= "he doesn't make enough money"/"cannot or will not provide for us") (and that's his marital duty). How many married men do you hear about asking for divorce AND winning their plea on the grounds of "we're not having enough sex" ? Mostly, it doesn't happen. The few cases you might think of make up exceptions, and not rules, and are more likely to be "she said she was willing to have kids and fertile, but it turns out she's not fertile", so it's generally more along the lines of actually having kids than just having sex.
> 
> Yet, I'm pretty sure if you look up what marriage entails in the detail of your country/state's law, you would find some sort of sexual compensation on the wife's part, yet nobody divorces women who don't fulfill that duty. It's not because men in those marriages are happy, it's because if they file divorce, their woman will find a way to turn the blame on him (along the lines of "he wasn't good enough") and the court will side with her instead of him. Women overall are definitely not held to the same standards of responsibility and accountability as men, if that's your question, and they definitely know and abuse that fact. The fact that my previous comment has been questioned in the first place is proof enough.


Sounds more like serious issues within the legislature and judicial system. How much does history and culture play into this? When were these laws updated and why do men put up with them in the first place and end up marrying? Are people working to change all that?

What it really comes down to is incompatibility, unrealistic expectations and poor communication. That goes for both men and women. On the matter of not having enough sex. How much is enough and who decides that within the marriage? There have also been plenty of cases where women were forced to have sex within the marriage. Granted, women (and men as well) can use withholding sex as punishment, but shouldn't this be considered more like abuse? It can be difficult to prove, but not impossible. All of these fall under irreconcilable differences and that is grounds for divorce (depends on the legislature and practice, though). However, you would need solid evidence from both parties. A man's paycheck can be evidence of financial issues. A man's compaint about not having enough sex is a more dubious excuse to get a divorce. A woman's complaint along the lines of the man not being good enough sounds ludicrous. You'd need serious evidence of that. And if that can be used as grounds for divorce, then that is certainly not the woman's fault. What's really stopping men from using the same tactics if it's so easy to use in a court of law?

There are absolutely no details about sexual compensation mentioned in family law of my area. Equal rights, equal responsibilities. But there are issues, of course. The courts will side with women on the matter of children more often than not on the grounds that children supposedly need their mothers more than their fathers. Divorced men are working to raise more awareness about this issue. However, there are also more cases of men abandoning their children and failing to keep up with their responsibilities after divorce. It is true that women can use children against their exes because there is resentment, disillusionment and pettiness. But men can do the exact same, so being devious and manipulative is really not gender specific. There are issues with women losing their income and professional status, becoming dependent on their husbands during childrearing years and they can have problems with re-entering the workforce after that. All of these are issues men don't necessarily face during or after marriage. So there really are serious issues for both sides that need to be acknowledged and adjusted.


----------



## Lonewaer (Jul 14, 2014)

eeo said:


> How much does history and culture play into this?


The rise of feminism made things much worse for everyone. But generally the expectations of both men and women haven't really evolved much during history. We're all still looking for the same things.



eeo said:


> When were these laws updated and why do men put up with them in the first place and end up marrying?


When were the laws updated, I don't know ; why do men put up with them and marry, I would say it's a mix of social pressure, men actually wanting to do it, and men being stupid and naive about what it is and what it entails.



eeo said:


> Are people working to change all that?


Some men are, women aren't.



eeo said:


> On the matter of not having enough sex. How much is enough and who decides that within the marriage? There have also been plenty of cases where women were forced to have sex within the marriage.


The person with the biggest need for sex decides what is enough ; generally, but not all the time, that's the man. Regarding having been forced, I do think it's part of a wife's marital duty to put out. Their lifestyle is being mostly or entirely taken care of, so that's a minor sacrifice. In my view she agrees to that when she gets married.



eeo said:


> Granted, women (and men as well) can use withholding sex as punishment, but shouldn't this be considered more like abuse? It can be difficult to prove, but not impossible. All of these fall under irreconcilable differences and that is grounds for divorce (depends on the legislature and practice, though). However, you would need solid evidence from both parties. A man's paycheck can be evidence of financial issues. A man's compaint about not having enough sex is a more dubious excuse to get a divorce. A woman's complaint along the lines of the man not being good enough sounds ludicrous. You'd need serious evidence of that.


Yet that sort of claim (the man is not good enough) is common, _very_ common.

Yes withholding sex is abuse. Difficult to prove but not impossible, is exactly my stance on why sexual assault cases are handled the way they are, not well enough if we ask women, but that's not very welcome in general, apparently that's victim blaming (/s, just in case). So that's interesting. I agree with you, that proves my point when the topic is the handling of sexual assault by institutions.



eeo said:


> And if that can be used as grounds for divorce, then that is certainly not the woman's fault.


Wait. If _what_ can be used as grounds for divorce that's not the woman's fault ?

If the ground for divorce is the man not providing or protecting, that is the man failing at his duties, that's also the woman failing at selecting the right mate to marry (because at the end of the day, she's the one to say "yes" or "no").
If the ground for divorce is the woman not putting out, that is the woman failing at her duties, that's also the man's fault for marrying her without vetting her.

Legally, the duties count. But all in all, if you want provisioning and you're not getting enough, that can be examined ; if I want more sex, nobody can examine how much I want sex, and thus, nobody can judge if my wife is doing her part except me. The only reference for it is my internal world and my word.



eeo said:


> What's really stopping men from using the same tactics if it's so easy to use in a court of law?


What tactics ? It's not about tactics here, it's about the courts siding with women. Even at equal crime, women get sentenced 40-60% less harshly than men do. For the same crime. There's no tactic, there's no "it's easy". The only "tactic" to use for men is to not participate, and not involve the government into their love life.



eeo said:


> However, there are also more cases of men abandoning their children and failing to keep up with their responsibilities after divorce.


Yes, and when they really do fail after divorce, they can get sent to jail. They get sent to jail for not showing up to court in case of non-payment. Why do they not show up ? I think a small portion of them really are pieces of shit, yes ; but a lot are just terrified that they're going to retroactively pay more money than what they already didn't have, which… yes, they will if they don't show up. They get arrested, sent to jail, and while in jail, they don't get paid, and still stack up that specific debt. When they get out of jail, they still have to retroactively pay. Again, they are still held accountable for it, whether they pay or go in jail.



eeo said:


> It is true that women can use children against their exes because there is resentment, disillusionment and pettiness. But men can do the exact same, so being devious and manipulative is really not gender specific.


I wasn't talking about that, but you are right, that also happens. How often is the man the manipulative one though ? I really don't think that happens as frequently as the reverse.



eeo said:


> There are issues with women losing their income and professional status, becoming dependent on their husbands during childrearing years and they can have problems with re-entering the workforce after that. All of these are issues men don't necessarily face during or after marriage. So there really are serious issues for both sides that need to be acknowledged and adjusted.


This is true, but there are reasons for that.The first part here is mitigated —not nullified— by child support and alimony from the ex-husband. The why that is, is the second part. The second part is because men are expected by women to provision for them, so they have to not only keep their jobs, actually do more hours than they usually would, and, yes, don't have that same constraint of having to give birth. It is unfair on both sides, in different ways, because of biological constraints, that for some of them on the women's side, are also mitigated (I'm thinking about the different kinds of contraceptives women have access to in order to avoid unwanted pregnancy).

To acknowledge those, sure ; to adjust them, good luck. That will imply adjusting stuff like the deep rooted need for sex for men, and the deep rooted need for security for women. If you want to adjust that instinct of yours to look for that in a man, you can try, but I'm not going to try to repress mine, I know it's not going away, and I'd rather spend my time on other things. If there is a burden of performance on me to make a certain amount of money to be attractive, or to be visible at all, which I know for a fact there is, then when I meet that burden, the rules of commitment are mine to make, because my burden of performance has already been met in order for her to even look at me in that way.


----------



## aurora-rosa (Apr 11, 2021)

@Lonewaer

do you have alexithymia?


----------



## Flabarac Brupip (May 9, 2020)

Lonewaer said:


> Yes withholding sex is abuse.


I mean I guess _maybe_ this is abuse? But its really difficult for me to swallow that it is when I've gone my 43 years without _any_ sex, learned to deal with the real possibility of _never_ having sex, and really, I'm okay. Btw, its not like I've been void of sexual desires either.


----------



## eeo (Aug 25, 2020)

Lonewaer said:


> Yes withholding sex is abuse.


I meant that more in the context of using withholding sex as punishment to get something else they want. 

Not wanting to have sex because you're simply not in the mood - there can be different reasons for that and it's not always malicious. People don't have on/off buttons for sex and they really don't have to do anything their spouse orders them to do. That would be abuse on its own. Marriage is about cooperation and compromise, or at least it should be. I do recognize there are issues, but as I said before, it mostly comes down to incompatibility and poor communication.


----------



## Lonewaer (Jul 14, 2014)

aurora-rosa said:


> do you have alexithymia?


As far as I'm aware, yes. It has gotten better (link was dead, I retook it). But I don't see how that is relevant to this topic.



Ock said:


> I mean I guess _maybe_ this is abuse? But its really difficult for me to swallow that it is when I've gone my 43 years without _any_ sex, learned to deal with the real possibility of _never_ having sex, and really, I'm okay. Btw, its not like I've been void of sexual desires either.


Consider that you are in a long term relationship that includes sex with someone you're attracted to, but they don't want to have sex. That's the context. Would you want sex from them, yes. Will you stay in that unfulfilling relationship, probably not. Why ? Because you have sexual desires. Statistically, 100% of men do have those desires, regardless of sexual orientation. I understand the self control, I have myself gone 28 years without sex, and do not chase it either, because it is way too much investment for way too little return ; if I'm in a relationship, however, I don't see why I should settle for once-twice a day, or less.
I'm not trying to oversell it either because people do tend to do that, and I don't understand why so many people are slaves to it, will do anything and put up with anything because of it.



eeo said:


> I meant that more in the context of using withholding sex as punishment to get something else they want.


I know, which is something women do all the time for lots of petty reasons. What I mean is that it extends beyond just pettiness. Unless there is some crippling temporary medical condition, which neither a headache or being on your period are, sex should be had.



eeo said:


> Not wanting to have sex because you're simply not in the mood - there can be different reasons for that and it's not always malicious. People don't have on/off buttons for sex and they really don't have to do anything their spouse orders them to do. That would be abuse on its own. Marriage is about cooperation and compromise, or at least it should be. I do recognize there are issues, but as I said before, it mostly comes down to incompatibility and poor communication.


Replace "have sex" by "protect the household" or "pay the bills", "sex" by "industriousness", and this is my point. You can't order your husband to put his life on the line for you, but if he doesn't, you leave with half the assets. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. So this is cap. If you can do that, he can, and should, leave because you don't want to have sex, doesn't really matter the reason. I'm not saying it's malicious either. Most of the time it's not, it's just the woman losing attraction to the man in one way or another.

A man's duty in a marriage is non-negotiable. Once a man start negotiating his job, the woman is gone, let alone him not fulfilling it, there is no communication nor compromise to be had, she's gonna bounce and there will be no warning. You can take the sweetest woman, once her man fails to do his part, she's long gone before he even realizes it, and she doesn't even think about it. What you're trying to do is to negotiate her job so that she gets to decide whenever she does hers or not. No, if she doesn't do it, she should get dumped.

I do agree that it should be dealt with with communication and compromise, and that it ultimately comes down to compatibility, but I am realistic about how we differ in behavior. Realistically, men try way too much to keep incompatible partners, and women are unwilling to make things improve in their relationships, and generally unwilling to compromise, because they want it their way and it's easier for them to bounce. Now you say communicate and compromise, but the minute your bf/husband fails his part, you won't think twice about trading him for someone who won't. It's not something you control, it's one of those hardwired things. You will for a while, maybe, but it won't last, because you'll grow to resent that man and lose respect for him. What I'm saying is that men should be ruthless like women are, until women try harder.


----------



## islandlight (Aug 13, 2013)

Astrida88 said:


> "You pressured me; I wasn't ready" has nothing to do with proposal but the response to it. Asking to get married is not forcing anyone to get married. The partner is free to say yes, no or let's wait.
> 
> Also the "You pressured me; I wasn't ready" is not gender restricted.


Of course both of these statements are correct. But in my long experience with men, I've learned that if I suggest anything, I will be blamed if anything goes wrong, even though he said yes.

Recently I was talking online with a guy who was preparing to move a bit farther away -- a semi-inconvenient drive. He was busy with moving tasks, and didn't seem in a hurry to meet before he moved. I broke off contact because of this. A friend asked, "Did you suggest that you meet before he moved?" Nooooooo, I didn't want to go through that blame thing again, e.g., "I didn't have time to XXX because you INSISTED on meeting when you knew I was busy." (Accusing me of insisting and ruining his life, when I merely suggested.)


----------



## islandlight (Aug 13, 2013)

I'd like to chime in and support what @Lonewaer seems to be saying. I believe that certain things are expected of men, and rightly so. And if the man is doing his job, he has a right to expect certain things from the woman. I'm not talking about rape or bizarre practices. And of course if the woman just had an operation or whatever, any decent man would respect her condition.

Throughout my life I never withheld sex, until later on, when my then-husband didn't man up. For example, he didn't want to pay his share of anything, even though he had more money than me. I lost all respect for him and sure didn't want to have sex with him. 

But when I was with a man who was happy to do the guy things, I was happy to do the woman things, including providing sex on demand.


----------



## eeo (Aug 25, 2020)

Lonewaer said:


> What I'm saying is that men should be ruthless like women are, until women try harder.


The kind of marriages you describe seem more like horror stories. You do realize that they're not normal relationships between people, right? It's too convenient to put all the blame on women without trying to find out what's causing the rift in the marriage in the first place. It's never really about not bringing in enough money, or not putting out as much as wanted. They just end up being the final excuses that seem unresolvable. Resentment starts from somewhere, and most of the time it's something small that builds into this huge thing that pulls everything apart. It could come from the man's or the woman's side. If you started taking everything apart in individual marriages instead of generalizing men and women in marriages, you'd probably find a lot of stupid mistakes people have made that could have been solved quite easily but were never addressed properly.



islandlight said:


> Throughout my life I never withheld sex, until later on, when my then-husband didn't man up. For example, he didn't want to pay his share of anything, even though he had more money than me. I lost all respect for him and sure didn't want to have sex with him.


Would you say that was the final straw, but there were instances like that (maybe not with money, but other things that indicated a character flaw like that) before it got to that? What was his reasoning behind such a behavior?



> But when I was with a man who was happy to do the guy things, I was happy to do the woman things, including providing sex on demand.


It's a usual give and take that should be normal in a relationship. If everything is fine, then both parties are more than willing to do everything it takes to take care of the relationship and make each other happy. If something's wrong, then the resentment starts to build.


----------



## islandlight (Aug 13, 2013)

eeo said:


> Would you say that was the final straw, but there were instances like that (maybe not with money, but other things that indicated a character flaw like that) before it got to that? What was his reasoning behind such a behavior?


The money thing was just one example. It was mixed in with other things, like not looking out for me, not taking responsibility -- too much to get into here. He was nice enough (that's why I married him), but basically he was not a "man" in my eyes, so why should I be a woman for him?


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

Cxunsxlxr said:


> My only personal problem is with: If a woman buys the ring, it surely is pretty messed up, if he accepts it without paying her back. Then that's basically GAME OVER for her.


Why would it nesseserily be a problem if he accepts it without paying her back?


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

...


----------



## Lonewaer (Jul 14, 2014)

eeo said:


> The kind of marriages you describe seem more like horror stories. You do realize that they're not normal relationships between people, right?


Horror stories, yes, exactly. You know what they represent ? Half of marriages. One in two marriages. You go parachute jumping, the monitor tells you : "half of our parachutes don't open". Do you do the jump ? No you don't. And with that rate, I'm sorry, but that's just as normal as having a successful marriage, and more normal than having a successful AND happy marriage. A divorce that genuinely ends well for everyone is not normal. This, however, is the current "normal". If you still disagree, I invite you to look up the definition of "normal" before you answer. Your position is not reasonably defendable.



eeo said:


> It's too convenient to put all the blame on women without trying to find out what's causing the rift in the marriage in the first place. It's never really about not bringing in enough money, or not putting out as much as wanted. They just end up being the final excuses that seem unresolvable. Resentment starts from somewhere, and most of the time it's something small that builds into this huge thing that pulls everything apart. It could come from the man's or the woman's side. If you started taking everything apart in individual marriages instead of generalizing men and women in marriages, you'd probably find a lot of stupid mistakes people have made that could have been solved quite easily but were never addressed properly.


It's very convenient and politically correct to say that and appear as the reasonable one, when of those 50% marriages that end in divorce, 80% of them are initiated by women, not men. And I'm gonna go on a limb and extend that rate of breaking off serious relationships to non-marriages. Women end relationships about 80% of the time. You've got some ovaries of steel here, I can respect that, but no, sorry. The reality is that women don't have the courage to work through their marriages to make them better, and definitely don't have any incentive to keep it going. It's much more beneficial to end it, take half, and move on.

I am very aware that it's part of a whole, but look at just the side exchange you're having with Islandlight. She's telling you the same thing, just worded differently. "Money was just one part of it", but still money was _a_ problem, "not looking out for her", which I would attribute at least partially to security and partially to other things, and "not taking responsibility", meaning he was not being a leader, or at least lacking leadership skills. Result ? "He was not a man in her eyes", meaning she lost respect for him. Boom, end of the relationship. Remember the "not good enough" I was talking about earlier ? That's it right there. And it's not coming from a man, _she_'s saying that.
I don't want to involve Islandlight more than that, but this is a textbook illustration of the point I'm making.

It could come from either side, yes, but guess what ? No. 80% of the time, women are the ones not being happy. So why were those stupid mistakes never addressed ? The women could have addressed them, why didn't they ? Since they are the ones having a problem with something. So why don't they do it ? First, as I said, there's no legal incentive to keep it going for the woman. Now there's no fault divorce, you can just say "I don't want to anymore", and that's it, which to me is an awful mistake on the government's part. Second, why try to address something nearly insignificant and stupid and get into a confrontation, when you can just end it right there and not be held accountable, and actually benefiting from it ? Third, why try to keep it going and make it work, when a huge portion of the time, the woman has a backup plan, possibly already a better choice in her eyes than the current husband ? Fourth, cowardice. No incentive, accountability and confrontation can be avoided, a better option a phone call away, and cowardice. It's easier and more beneficial to leave for a woman than to address it. The unhappy one in the relationship is responsible for addressing what they're unhappy about, because people aren't mind readers. Since women initiate divorces more, women are responsible for that.

No, it's not equal fault and equal responsibility, because if it was, that 80% initiation rate of divorces by women would be much closer to 50%, and that rate of divorces overall would probably be much much lower, around 10 to 20% instead of 50%. Remember, men don't have much to benefit from marriage in the first place, and specifically have no paternal right. Are there mistakes being made ? Yes, everyday, by everyone. Are those mistakes being addressed ? No, women don't want to, yet pretend to want to, like you're doing now.

This is why I'm saying that men shouldn't get married, and seriously vet their dates before being in serious relationships. Because it's a general headache if we pick a bad one. Even here, you're trying to wiggle your way out of accepting that women can be and often are responsible and should be held accountable for their mistakes, it's insane. When it's the woman's fault, ACCEPT that it's the woman's fault, jeez. Marriage was a useful institution at some point, that was turned into a bad one, it provides nothing beneficial to men and gives everything to women. A good marriage that lasts, nowadays, is not the norm, it is not easy to find, it's rare. Let's stop promoting it as the opposite.


----------



## jerica (Jun 11, 2021)

A reminder from Lonewaers flag there. There was once this French woman. She was on a uni trip in Norway. I had a work assignment back then there. We met on this inter islands boat delivering goods and tourist from one spot to another. After sitting down next to me, she started chatting about various subjects and we ended up to finally discuss about past, present and future world affairs. She was pretty young back then, 19 if Im recalling correcly, first uni year, or so, so my experience mustve sound really impressive to her at her age.

So as those hours passed, we sort of befriended there and even exchanged email adresses and phone numbers. Well, at that arrival we naturally parted way and headed on each to their own.

Over the next months and years, we became closer and closer from afar. We became friends. Really good friends, too. But one NYE she made this videoclip with texts on A4s that were declaring more than just feelings of friendship.. That was the first time in my life I considered going for more than just a friendship with another woman. So, its not exactly a male to female proposal, as those have arrived and went more frequently than Ive ever asked for, but this Aude girl.. She was really just on a whole other level of the mating game.

So. I guess plenty is always possible.


----------



## eeo (Aug 25, 2020)

Lonewaer said:


> When it's the woman's fault, ACCEPT that it's the woman's fault, jeez.


Sounds more like you're assuming it is the woman's fault every single time and they do nothing about it but end the relationship. As I said, you'd need to look into what really went on in individual marriages, and not generalize.

Ok, 50% of marriages fail. It would be great to have some statistics about whether these people had successful relationships or even marriages after getting divorced. And if they did, was it because they were able to learn how to become better at relationships or they just happened to meet more compatible people. If not, is it because they're not relationship material or they refuse to change their thinking and behavior to get better results.


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

If my woman refused to have sex with me, I would refuse to share a bed with her and withhold affection. If it happened again, I would leave the house for a month and cut off all communications with her. If it happened a third time, we're done. It baffles me how many men joke about their wives refusing to have sex like it's normal. The closest thing I've had was an ex telling me she "wasn't in the mood". I told her to "get in the mood" and that was the end of that.


----------



## BenevolentBitterBleeding (Mar 16, 2015)

Sounds lovely, where do I sign up.


----------



## eeo (Aug 25, 2020)

ENFPathetic said:


> The closest thing I've had was an ex telling me she "wasn't in the mood". I told her to "get in the mood" and that was the end of that.


Did you want out of the relationship? Because that's a sure way to get out of one. Did you at least try to talk about and understand why she wasn't in the mood, or explain and make her understand why it was important for you to have sex at that specific moment?

How would you react if you were told to eat something when you weren't hungry? Even if you crammed things down your throat because you wanted to please the other person, would you feel good about it or would you maybe want to vomit just a teensy weensy bit and always associate that negative feeling with that person after that? That last part is how women might feel when they're being pressured to have sex.

But you're right, wives refusing to have sex with their husbands is not normal. But it also means that something else is seriously wrong and needs to be dealt with. And not by being told to "get in the mood".


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

eeo said:


> Did you want out of the relationship? Because that's a sure way to get out of one. Did you at least try to talk about and understand why she wasn't in the mood, or explain and make her understand why it was important for you to have sex at that specific moment?
> 
> How would you react if you were told to eat something when you weren't hungry? Even if you crammed things down your throat because you wanted to please the other person, would you feel good about it or would you maybe want to vomit just a teensy weensy bit and always associate that negative feeling with that person after that? That last part is how women feel when they're being pressured to have sex.
> 
> You're right, wives refusing to have sex with their husbands is not normal. But it also means that something else is seriously wrong and needs to be dealt with. And not by being told to "get in the mood".


No. I made it clear that I wasn't going to accept "not in the mood" as a valid reason for not having sex. I'm guessing she got the message clearly because she never pulled shit like that again. I'm not a mind reader. If she was dealing with something, I'd expect her to tell me, and I think she would have. We had great communication. She would tell me pretty much everything.

That's not a good comparison. A better comparison is when my woman wants sex and I'm not in the mood. I always get myself in the mood. If I'm tired, I let her know she's going to have to do most of the work. And you're completely off the mark on how it feels. It's nothing like forcing food down your stomach. At worst it's more akin to doing chores and at best it ends up feeling great anyway.

In a relationship, you get the energy you put in. If all you have to say to your partner wanting to make love is "I'm not in the mood", "get in the mood" is the appropriate and deserved response. If something needs to be dealt with, let's deal with it immediately. Don't let it fester, put on those sexy shorts you know I can't resist and then tell me you're not in the mood. That's fucked up. I'm all about communication, but timing is everything.


----------



## eeo (Aug 25, 2020)

ENFPathetic said:


> If all you have to say to your partner wanting to make love is "I'm not in the mood", "get in the mood" is the appropriate and deserved response.


I guess it depends on how it's delivered. It could work if it's through lighthearted teasing. But knowing what happens next if you don't comply because they will hold it and use it against you in some way (doesn't have to be anything physical; subtle psychological pressure over time is just as bad), being told that sounds like an order and it triggers a response that simply does not help get in the mood. So a lot of it really does come down to what people are like in relationships.


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

eeo said:


> I guess it depends on how it's delivered. It could work if it's through lighthearted teasing. But knowing what happens next if you don't comply because they will hold it and use it against you in some way (doesn't have to be anything physical; subtle psychological pressure over time is just as bad), being told that sounds like an order and it triggers a response that simply does not help get in the mood. So a lot of it really does come down to what people are like in relationships.


It's not an order, it's an instruction. And there's definitely pressure, although there is nothing subtle about it. I know it's not a nice or kind thing to say, but you can't always be nice and kind in a relationship. There may be times when you need to bluntly remind your significant other that your relationship is not a game they log in to when they feel like it.


----------



## eeo (Aug 25, 2020)

ENFPathetic said:


> It's not an order, it's an instruction. And there's definitely pressure, although there is nothing subtle about it. I know it's not a nice or kind thing to say, but you can't always be nice and kind in a relationship. There may be times when you need to bluntly remind your significant other that your relationship is not a game they log in to when they feel like it.


Ok, being afraid of your spouse is not healthy. But yeah, people and relationships are very complex. Thanks for the discussion.


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

eeo said:


> Ok, being afraid of your spouse is not healthy. But yeah, people and relationships are very complex. Thanks for the discussion.


Interesting that you thought of fear as the natural response. I've never physically intimidated or threatened any of my partners with violence. I guess I can see how you can get there though. You don't know me personally, and you're not hearing my tone or seeing my body language, so you have to fill those details in yourself. I'd still appreciate it if you gave me the benefit of the doubt in the future.

You're welcome.


----------



## eeo (Aug 25, 2020)

ENFPathetic said:


> You don't know me personally, and you're not hearing my tone or seeing my body language, so you have to fill those details in yourself. I'd still appreciate it if you gave me the benefit of the doubt in the future.


Oh, no, there are no conclusive personal judgements about your (or anybody else's) character exactly because I don't know you in person. I'm only going with the discussion for discussion's sake.


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

eeo said:


> Oh, no, there are no conclusive personal judgements about your (or anybody else's) character exactly because I don't know you in person. I'm only going with the discussion for discussion's sake.


Well, I appreciate that.

If you didn't assume that I intimidated her, what did you mean by "being afraid of your spouse is not healthy"? I agree with the statement. I'm just lost for how it's relevant to what we were discussing.


----------



## eeo (Aug 25, 2020)

ENFPathetic said:


> If you didn't assume that I intimidated her, what did you mean by "being afraid of your spouse is not healthy"? I agree with the statement. I'm just lost for how it's relevant to what we were discussing.


To me, saying "get in the mood" is an order. So in that way, it comes from above, from a person who thinks they have power over you to demand things regardless of how you feel. It doesn't feel like it's coming from an equal, and that's not what your partner in healthy relationships should be like. Even if it's not meant to be intimidating, the effect of it is sort of like "do it, end of discussion". Anybody who's ever had experiences like that will be reminded of them when that happens again. Getting yourself in the mood after that is nearly impossible. If it's a recurring pattern because frustration accumulates, then the fear of anticipation from it really starts to mess with the relationship. But as I said, it depends on the delivery and it works if it's a more lighthearted remark.


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

eeo said:


> To me, saying "get in the mood" is an order. So in that way, it comes from above, from a person who thinks they have power over you to demand things regardless of how you feel. It doesn't feel like it's coming from an equal, and that's not what your partner in healthy relationships should be like. Even if it's not meant to be intimidating, the effect of it is sort of like "do it, end of discussion". Anybody who's ever had experiences like that will be reminded of them when that happens again. Getting yourself in the mood after that is nearly impossible. If it's a recurring pattern because frustration accumulates, then the fear of anticipation from it really starts to mess with the relationship. But as I said, it depends on the delivery and it works if it's a more lighthearted remark.


That sounds like baggage to me. And if I knew my partner was carrying that kind of baggage around, I would take a gentler approach. I probably wouldn't even push for sex in the first place. My primary concern would be doing away with that baggage so we can live life free from the egg shells of yesteryear. I can only deal with the consequences of another man's actions for so long before I lose all love and respect for her anyway, so the sooner we can resolve this and close the distance in our relationship the better.

I don't know if you're referring to your own experience or hypothetically, but if you are talking about your own experiences, I hope you're seeing a therapist about this.


----------



## eeo (Aug 25, 2020)

ENFPathetic said:


> That sounds like baggage to me. And if I knew my partner was carrying that kind of baggage around, I would take a gentler approach. I probably wouldn't even push for sex in the first place. My primary concern would be doing away with that baggage so we can live life free from the egg shells of yesteryear. I can only deal with the consequences of another man's actions for so long before I lose all love and respect for her anyway, so the sooner we can resolve this and close the distance in our relationship the better.
> 
> I don't know if you're referring to your own experience or hypothetically, but if you are talking about your own experiences, I hope you're seeing a therapist about this.


No, not exactly my own experience. But the thing is, it doesn't even have to be this huge baggage of past trauma that interferes with the relationship from the start. It's something that could surface maybe even years down the line while everything was fine up until the relationship starts getting rocky or some other things are at play. People react differently under pressure (doesn't matter if it's outside or inside pressure), and one of the responses could be a small memory of a traumatic event (not necessarily even to do with past romantic relationships). And then that could escalate into other things already talked about in this thread in connection with marriage. Anyway, it's an interesting subject.


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

eeo said:


> No, not exactly my own experience. But the thing is, it doesn't even have to be this huge baggage of past trauma that interferes with the relationship from the start. It's something that could surface maybe even years down the line while everything was fine up until the relationship starts getting rocky or some other things are at play. People react differently under pressure (doesn't matter if it's outside or inside pressure), and one of the responses could be a small memory of a traumatic event (not necessarily even to do with past romantic relationships). And then that could escalate into other things already talked about in this thread in connection with marriage. Anyway, it's an interesting subject.


I wouldn't judge my partner on how she reacts under pressure, but I expect her to come find me when she calms down and explain what went wrong. I'm willing to be patient to a degree, but not without reason. She's going to have to level with me and let me know what's going on. How she plans to deal with it. If she wants my help, or wants me to stay out of it. If she doesn't want to fix the problem, I'm already thinking of the smoothest way I can end this relationship.

Relationships are a lot of hard work. I'd be a fool to invest so much of my time and energy into a broken woman who wants to stay broken.


----------



## islandlight (Aug 13, 2013)

@Lonewaer The apartment was full, wall to wall, of his stuff. By some strange logic, I was supposed to pay more than half the rent, but I couldn't even have enough space to conduct my home business and do my exercises. I was supposed to squeeze all that into a space about 4 ft × 4 ft. And I was supposed to dress nicely, while being allowed only 1 linear foot of hanger space.

He convinced me to give up my car so we could be a "one car family." Then he wouldn't let me drive _his_ car. He said he'd drive me anywhere I wanted to go, but it wasn't true; he wouldn't even drive me a few miles to visit a family member. He would only drive me to the grocery store or the bank, so I could pay for things.

He expected me to help him with his business. This involved walking about a mile and back in winter weather, because I wasn't allowed to drive his car.

Instead of having sex at a time that was good for both of us (during the 16 hours I was awake), he'd wait until I fell asleep and then wake me for sex, although he knew it would take me several hours to fall back asleep. I did discuss this with him, but he didn't care.

He'd "invite" me somewhere (restaurant or weekend trip), and when the bill came, he'd say I had to pay because he didn't have any money. He even did this with his daughter; invited her family out for dinner, then when the bill came, all he had was a $20 bill and a shocked, victimized look.

He lied about minor stupid stuff.

If he had been paying the bills, I would gladly have gone along with everything -- and I have done so in other relationships. But I had to work for a living, pay more than my share, and do more than my share, receiving no care or consideration in return. What could I have done to "work" on this relationship?


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

islandlight said:


> @Lonewaer The apartment was full, wall to wall, of his stuff. By some strange logic, I was supposed to pay more than half the rent, but I couldn't even have enough space to conduct my home business and do my exercises. I was supposed to squeeze all that into a space about 4 ft × 4 ft. And I was supposed to dress nicely, while being allowed only 1 linear foot of hanger space.
> 
> He convinced me to give up my car so we could be a "one car family." Then he wouldn't let me drive _his_ car. He said he'd drive me anywhere I wanted to go, but it wasn't true; he wouldn't even drive me a few miles to visit a family member. He would only drive me to the grocery store or the bank, so I could pay for things.
> 
> ...


Wow. Just wow. As absurd as this situation is, I've seen it far too many times to doubt it's legitimacy. Reminds me of a mentor I had for a while. He earned the bread, took care of the house except for the cooking because his wife enjoyed cooking but wouldn't lift a finger for anything else, including washing up after herself. She didn't take care of him or the kids. I used to see her in nightclubs at 2am dressed in skimpy outfits rubbing up on teenagers. I tried talking to her but her response was to threaten me.

I didn't care about her threats, but the thought of telling my mentor(one of the kindest and classiest people I've ever met) that his wife is twerking on greasy teenagers made my stomach turn. I eventually built up the courage and told him. He knew more than I did. She was cheating on him and he knew. He asked me to keep it quiet. He was waiting for her to decide to leave him on her own terms because he knew that if he filed for divorce she would make it a messy affair and he didn't want to put his kids through that ordeal.

I think that sometimes people with strong upright characters are tested with weak partners in life.

Sorry to but in btw. Are you still in the relationship?


----------



## islandlight (Aug 13, 2013)

Thanks, @ENFPathetic . No, I'm not still in the relationship. 

By the way, I didn't recognize the red flags when we were getting to know each other. At the time, a business had ripped a bunch of people off. This was in the news, and I knew he was one of the victims. So I didn't mind "helping him out" while he was "going through a rough time." I didn't find out until after we were married what a cheapskate he was -- and that he had more money than I did.


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

islandlight said:


> Thanks, @ENFPathetic . No, I'm not still in the relationship.
> 
> By the way, I didn't recognize the red flags when we were getting to know each other. At the time, a business had ripped a bunch of people off. This was in the news, and I knew he was one of the victims. So I didn't mind "helping him out" while he was "going through a rough time." I didn't find out until after we were married what a cheapskate he was -- and that he had more money than I did.


That's great news. Have you been in a relationship since?


----------



## islandlight (Aug 13, 2013)

Yes, it was years ago! But I think I'm done with relationships now.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

That's horrible. But yeah--some people are misers and stingy.

Economics can create a lot of stress on a relationship, but this goes into being exploitative imo.

edit: omg what a vent. It was nice to vent, but I don't need to leave it up.


----------



## Lonewaer (Jul 14, 2014)

eeo said:


> Sounds more like you're assuming it is the woman's fault every single time and they do nothing about it but end the relationship. As I said, you'd need to look into what really went on in individual marriages, and not generalize.


I don't assume that, but it's no surprise that you come to that conclusion because I focus on how the deal is bad for reasonable men, and so, yes, on how women screw their husband over. Regarding the details of each individual marriage, that would be interesting, because I could then derive generalities out of them. That won't make me consider that exceptions are the rule. I see you, I see what you're doing. I don't have the luxury to live in a fairytale where I can live by "exceptions". No, generalities are the rule. Exceptions are possible, generalities are probable. If we look at each individual case, I will derive generalities, because I need to.




eeo said:


> Ok, 50% of marriages fail. It would be great to have some statistics about whether these people had successful relationships or even marriages after getting divorced. And if they did, was it because they were able to learn how to become better at relationships or they just happened to meet more compatible people. If not, is it because they're not relationship material or they refuse to change their thinking and behavior to get better results.


I don't see how that would be relevant. Will that take them back to before the divorce ? It's already done, so that, however, doesn't catch my interest. You want to find silver linings to these failures so that you can nuance things, and maybe have an opportunity to talk about "growth".




eeo said:


> How would you react if you were told to eat something when you weren't hungry? Even if you crammed things down your throat because you wanted to please the other person, would you feel good about it or would you maybe want to vomit just a teensy weensy bit and always associate that negative feeling with that person after that? That last part is how women might feel when they're being pressured to have sex.


I know you're not answering me here, but I've already provided the equivalency. There's an intruder in the house, and the husband is "not in the mood to deal with it". Another one is "he's not in the mood to go to work today". That's the equivalency, and you've promptly avoided addressing that, because we both know what you would do : you would end up leaving. Is it right or wrong ? Doesn't matter, all that matters is that it goes both ways. If you can leave because he's not in the mood for going to work or dealing with an intruder, he can leave because you're not in the mood to have sex. Again, you want to negotiate when you do your part, but if he ever does that you leave.




islandlight said:


> If he had been paying the bills, I would gladly have gone along with everything -- and I have done so in other relationships. But I had to work for a living, pay more than my share, and do more than my share, receiving no care or consideration in return. What could I have done to "work" on this relationship?


That was a lot of details. What stands out to me here, is that you listed everything that was "wrong", but the one thing that made you break it off, was the money. Had he had enough money, you would have tolerated all of that, lying included. I know on paper that most women would, but is always surprising to me to have it confirmed every single time.

There was nothing else you could do, except maybe adopt a masculine frame. Put up boundaries, enforce those boundaries, and then make _your_ demands. But you don't really want to do that. The issue with that is that women who do that end up unhappy and leave anyway because they're not wired to do that. It's already kind of what happened in your case, to an extent. And when they actively try to do that, they take up A-type personality traits, which makes them masculine, which makes them in turn unattractive to men, and they end up single with no man wanting to take them seriously in relationships because they've become headaches to deal with.

He was in a mindset of having leadership as if he was in a traditional relationship, but he didn't do his part as the leader, which was making sure you had everything taken care of, so he had absolutely no leverage to have all those demands. I wasn't blaming you, I was making the point that a man in a similar position, in which the woman makes demands, but doesn't do her job, the man generally tries to make it work in one way or another, to a fault (he shouldn't), because he fears losing her, because as a man he has much less options than she does. Women have much less patience for that, and in that sense are much more ruthless. Now, it wasn't your case, apparently, but in a lot of cases, there are things that women can do to make it work, one thing I can think of is *direct* communication. We mentioned with eeo the "petty", "stupid" things, that end up piling up. Those can be dealt with direct communication, but more often than not are not dealt with because women often think the confrontation is not worth the result. And sometimes it is true, but some other times, it is worth. My take is that : someone can only have as much demands as they have leverage in a relationship. You could have had boundaries and demands, because you had the leverage, he couldn't. He dared, and you ended it, that's his loss.


----------



## islandlight (Aug 13, 2013)

I don't think I said it was the money that made me break it off. The money was just one example. In the end I just lost all respect for him, because of everything.

Thank you for responding. I am wired like a woman, and it's hard because in my country (Canada) most men don't believe in complementary male and female roles. American men do seem to have this concept. I don't know about other Western countries.


----------



## eeo (Aug 25, 2020)

Lonewaer said:


> I don't see how that would be relevant. Will that take them back to before the divorce ? It's already done, so that, however, doesn't catch my interest. You want to find silver linings to these failures so that you can nuance things, and maybe have an opportunity to talk about "growth".


It is relevant to understand what each party did wrong so that it led to a divorce. If you think you did nothing wrong, then why would you expect your next relationship to be anything different? Also, libidos fluctuate over time, so that's something that might need addressing in the relationship to make things work. After a divorce or break-up you'd kind of need to "grow", that is analyze yourself and the relationship to do better the next time if you want to enter another relationship. Or you can stay the same and either hope for a better result next time or become bitter and blame others.



Lonewaer said:


> There's an intruder in the house, and the husband is "not in the mood to deal with it". Another one is "he's not in the mood to go to work today". That's the equivalency, and you've promptly avoided addressing that, because we both know what you would do : you would end up leaving. Is it right or wrong ? Doesn't matter, all that matters is that it goes both ways. If you can leave because he's not in the mood for going to work or dealing with an intruder, he can leave because you're not in the mood to have sex. Again, you want to negotiate when you do your part, but if he ever does that you leave.


You and ENFPathetic are both missing the point in that analogy. And no, I've never talked about women having less responsibilites within marriages than men. I'm all for equality. All I'm saying is relationships are not as simple as you're trying to make them be.


----------



## MsMojiMoe (Apr 7, 2021)

This is from photo booth prank

i cue it up…about the right way to proposed….best lol


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

eeo said:


> You and ENFPathetic are both missing the point in that analogy. And no, I've never talked about women having less responsibilites within marriages than men. I'm all for equality. All I'm saying is relationships are not as simple as you're trying to make them be.


Our disagreement is not about equality. What I'm picking up is, you believe it's ok for a wife to blue ball her husband when she's not in the mood for sex and I assume you also think it's ok for him to do her the same way when he's not in the mood. And I think it's all out of order.

Nothing complicated about that though. It just means people with your values are not compatible with people with my values in the long run.

As for relationships being complicated. That's not necessarily true. You're just ignorant to how the other side operates. I love simplicity in everything. That's why I only acknowledge problems. I never give them more attention beyond that. I reserve the bulk of my focus towards finding and implementing solutions. And I stay the hell away from people who love focusing on problems. I don't judge them for their preference. I just know they exist and that we are highly incompatible. For instance, I think you're a pretty nice and kind individual, but based on our conversation, I can see a preference for a complicated life, and that immediately tells me we're not compatible as anything more than acquaintances.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

aurora-rosa said:


> do you have a daughter? and even if you don't have a daughter.
> 
> Would you respect a man who did not take the initiative in the relationship and did not talk about his intentions with her?
> 
> I think that men like that don't care about their daughters..


Alternative perspective: 

I wouldn't have married my husband if he asked my father to marry me, or permission to date me, or discussed my relationship with my father as if I were a goat....

My father is pretty traditional and I am not, and have never been. He'd been trying to pull me away from playing archeologist and giving me dolls instead and I rejected them and kept playing with the toys that I actually liked from as early as I can remember. Despite that, we are pretty close. We still talk on the phone several times a week. I genuinely love and appreciate him. He's a great dad.

My father was genuinely offended for a bit that my husband did not ask his permission to marry me. 
My husband didn't ask because he wasn't interested in marrying my father. 
He asked the person he wanted to marry. 

So maybe my dad respects my husband less for not asking. I doubt it. IF he does, that's his personal issue. 

I'd not respect my husband if he had, and he wouldn't have been my husband. 

I didn't purpose, but I don't see why it would be "bad" if I did.
It seems a lot more cringe to me to start asking other people if you can live with and have a life with the person you want to before asking them.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

goodvibe said:


> I think it would probably be a mutual thing, either way. I doubt many women would just out of the blue propose. And it could make the moment all the more special when it is the woman who takes the initiative. Now, aside from something as life-changing as marriage...I totally like it when the woman makes the first move on anything, but even better is when both come together without much formal talking...it just happens because both are on the same wavelength.


And this. IDK why people think it's a good idea to surprise purpose. 
That seems like a good way to be broken up with though.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

But ultimately marriage is just kind of hilarious the more I think about it.
"Hey babe, I like you so much, that I'd like to get the government involved."

I am married. I enjoy being married. I did want marriage, but it's reallllllllllllly not rational. I think maybe it's the bit of traditionalism that my dad was able to force into my brain. LMFO


We did marry under a common law thing. If we divorce he also could "take" part of my land in the middle of no where USA, and half of my board games, and half of my etc. I have a lot of weird shit, it turns out. I wanted to leave the future open for a really fun nemesis situation where he moves to the US to mess with me. Seems like a good sitcom. I'm an equal opportunity we're all getting fucked if this doesn't work out person.


----------



## NIHM (Mar 24, 2014)

I don't have a problem with a woman doing it if that's the way she likes it. Every relationship is different.

I'm just old school and prefer the man to take that step. If he wants me to propose or even date, he's going to be waiting for a very long time,... too many projects. However, I think I would say no if it wasn't thought out and planned (proposal). I wouldn't want someone doing it on the fly as a second thought. I don't mind a cheap proposal at home but I don't want it to come to him and be "like hey I just thought of this... let's get married." Nope. I mean I don't plan much but I'm thinking one of us in the relationship should be a slightly better planner.


----------



## Lonewaer (Jul 14, 2014)

eeo said:


> You and ENFPathetic are both missing the point in that analogy.


No we aren't, you, however, are deflecting. The point is marital duties : men's are not negotiable, women's are negotiable, it's backed up by the government and the law, and it's fucked up, so men should not get into such contracts. This is the original point, that I made in my initial post, that you questioned because you don't like the fact that I brought it up, then you deflected deflected deflected. You still want the exchange to go somewhere else. Feeling pressured is completely irrelevant. Men are under constant pressure in ways that women will never ever fathom. You asked me if I thought that women weren't also being held accountable before the law, the answer is "no", they factually aren't, end of the story. Stay on point, stay factual, leave feelings out of it.

But that's an advice for the next exchange you'll engage in, because I'm out of this one since I have wasted way more time than I should have trying to reason with you.


----------



## eeo (Aug 25, 2020)

ENFPathetic said:


> Our disagreement is not about equality. What I'm picking up is, you believe it's ok for a wife to blue ball her husband when she's not in the mood for sex and I assume you also think it's ok for him to do her the same way when he's not in the mood. And I think it's all out of order.
> 
> Nothing complicated about that though. It just means people with your values are not compatible with people with my values in the long run.
> 
> As for relationships being complicated. That's not necessarily true. You're just ignorant to how the other side operates. I love simplicity in everything. That's why I only acknowledge problems. I never give them more attention beyond that. I reserve the bulk of my focus towards finding and implementing solutions. And I stay the hell away from people who love focusing on problems. I don't judge them for their preference. I just know they exist and that we are highly incompatible. For instance, I think you're a pretty nice and kind individual, but based on our conversation, I can see a preference for a complicated life, and that immediately tells me we're not compatible as anything more than acquaintances.


"Blue ball her husband". Using that kind of expression already seems to shade the wife in a negative light. I wonder how much of it is actually not having sex for longer periods of time and how much does psychology play into this. Is it likely to bother men more if they think the woman is doing it on purpose? Because what I'm picking up from you and Lonewaer is that you seem to think not being in the mood is always intentional on the wife's part as some kind of a manipulative ploy. Is that correct or not?

I believe it's ok to not be in the mood and tell so to your husband without the fear of retaliation because the husband sees it as some kind of a personal agenda against him. If one party is not in the mood at the moment, they will talk with the other party and find a compromise to make up for it either later or in some other way. Both agree, both are happy. Miss some steps here and resentment starts to build. That is exactly what equality in relationships is all about, so it does have a part in this discussion as well. If there is, indeed, some manipulation going on, as I've already said about withholding sex, then that is not right in a healthy relationship.

If by "a preference for a complicated life" you mean the desire to get to the bottom of things and work things out as best as possible, then you're right. But the focus on problems is only there until the problems get solved. That's how you get to understand how the other operates.



Lonewaer said:


> Men are under constant pressure in ways that women will never ever fathom.


And women are under constant pressure in ways that men will never fathom. Thank you! That is exactly the point I was trying to make with the analogy. Feeling pressured in a relationship is the most important thing because if it gets negative then that's how relationships get sour. All marital duties are negotiable (preferably before getting married so there won't be any surprises), that's what healthy relationships are all about. What you've been describing are unhealthy relationships. But very well, thanks for the discussion.


----------



## Lonewaer (Jul 14, 2014)

islandlight said:


> I don't think I said it was the money that made me break it off. The money was just one example. In the end I just lost all respect for him, because of everything.


You said :


islandlight said:


> If he had been paying the bills, I would gladly have gone along with everything -- and I have done so in other relationships.


Which tells me that if it was just one example, then even if he had been paying the bills, you wouldn't have gone along with everything, because everything would have been a dealbreaker. Either he didn't have enough money, or he actively chose to not pay, in the end, your bills weren't paid for, so it was a financial issue. And maybe you wouldn't have tolerated anything even if your bills were paid, but since the last straw was the money, then the issue is the money.



islandlight said:


> Thank you for responding. I am wired like a woman, and it's hard because in my country (Canada) most men don't believe in complementary male and female roles. American men do seem to have this concept. I don't know about other Western countries.


I can't tell, I'm not American. My best guess is that's it's an issue that is proportional to how "progressive" (I don't like that term, I prefer "identitarian") a country is, so that would be generalized to the Western World, including Western and Northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand. What I can tell for sure, is that in such a context, as men, we have to learn all that the hard way, with most women trying to dissuade us from learning that, effectively dissuading us from being attractive to them (yeah, don't ask me, it's nonsense) and if we don't, we get shamed into oblivion for being the worst kind of people (that's happened before on this section).




eeo said:


> And women are under constant pressure in ways that men will never fathom. Thank you! That is exactly the point I was trying to make with the analogy.


No, this isn't the point you were trying to make. You did not mention "feeling pressured", you mentioned "women feeling pressured to have sex". At no point in your semblances of arguments did you mention, or even consider, that men maybe also feel pressured to do some things. It was all about women feeling pressured. The difference is when men negotiate/don't do what women want, women leave with no compromise. This is why I don't care and why it's irrelevant. Because you don't care, and so men shouldn't. You are wrong and extremely dishonest here. The goalposts are changing constantly. Anyway.


----------



## eeo (Aug 25, 2020)

Lonewaer said:


> No, this isn't the point you were trying to make. You did not mention "feeling pressured", you mentioned "women feeling pressured to have sex". At no point in your semblances of arguments did you mention, or even consider, that men maybe also feel pressured to do some things. It was all about women feeling pressured. The difference is when men negotiate/don't do what women want, women leave with no compromise. This is why I don't care and why it's irrelevant. Because you don't care, and so men shouldn't. You are wrong and extremely dishonest here. The goalposts are changing constantly. Anyway.


I was talking about my point with the analogy about food. Being told to "get in the mood" by a man is all about feeling pressured, specifically to have sex. 

I could only talk more about women feeling pressured because, as a woman, I think I have a better standing from that point of view than from a man's point of view. Men feeling pressured in relationships is another topic that I think I did recognize and touch upon briefly with all the mentions of both genders having issues. But talking from a man's point of view fell on you and ENFPathetic. I wanted to discuss this issue because I'd like to think that your views about and experiences with women and marriage are not all men have or experience and that there are also healthy relationships and marriages, even amicable divorces. My experiences and views are also not representative of all women.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

NIHM said:


> I don't mind a cheap proposal at home but I don't want it to come to him and be "like hey I just thought of this... let's get married." Nope. I mean I don't plan much but I'm thinking one of us in the relationship should be a slightly better planner.


I'm sorry--this made me laugh.

This would be so horrible! "Hey, btw--want to get Chinese food and married?"



Below is just something I thought of with this thread--general response about the topic of the thread:
===

The thing that bothered me about when my ex proposed to me was the ring. I feel so picky but it didn't feel like he really even bothered to think about it at all. 

I don't expect someone to know my aesthetic preferences inside and out, but gifts are a love language to me, and I have spent hours trying to pick the perfect gift for someone. Or sometimes make gifts. It doesn't matter how expensive they are, it's whether they are going to fit the person and be valued to them. It's a way of at least risking trying to know someone and what they'd like. What THEY'D like.

I mean, I have spent way more money on gifts for him and I haven't ever made even half of what he made.

But he was super cheap and when he proposed to me, he used a ring that literally cost less than 15$. And this is a mechanical engineer so it's not like he couldn't afford it. He would buy a mountain bike for 1000$, and he did. 

At his work, with his upper-middle-class coworkers, when they were donating money for another coworkers birthday present, he put in 50$ because that's what his coworkers were doing so he didn't want to look cheap...but when he proposes, it's 15$ max on the engagement ring. It's just little things like that that kind of dug in the back of my mind.

Even worse...the ring looked like a child's ring, with a little starfish thing. It was like made in China...like the kind you might buy out of a quarter machine as a kid.

At least that's how I saw it.

I am not super into status or wealth or anything, but the component of proposals--if you are a woman and you tell people you are getting married, they want to see the ring. 

And then you show them a ring from a cracker jack box...do you know how uncomfortable and awkward that is? The pained expression on their faces, when they try to think of something nice to say...something other than..really? wtf?

A plain band would have been better...because then at least I could be like...oh yeah, it's minimalism or something. But a fucking cracker jack children's ring?

And I know why he did it--"why bother spending money on an expensive ring if she might not say yes?" That's what he said.

You know...that's pretty fucking un-romantic. I mean, I've made less than him my entire life, and I've spent more money on presents for him. I get that gift giving isn't in his love languages, maybe, or he just has absolutely no taste whatsoever in jewelry besides "that's cheap...and its jewelry...seems like the best choice..."

But still...I cringe now when I think of it. Because I didn't want to believe the status-quo that says if he buys you a ten-dollar made-in-china starfish ring made for a child, that he doesn't value you, and to turn out that they were right and he didn't value me and just showed it in other ways down the road.

The best part of the ring? Well because it's a cheap ring made for a child, it wasn't made to be worn regularly--it left indentations on my finger...red marks where the cheap casting on the back pressed into the skin, different patterns. 

UGH I AM A FAILURE in relationships! But lol--I just thought of that since everyone's talking about how gold-digging women must be and such. 

Maybe I would rather propose because at least I can choose decent jewelry and take more than a fraction of a second to think of something that my partner might actually appreciate as a ring. But I don't know. I think I have to go into the Darwin's losers camp, because apparently, I can't play the dating game or the marriage game or anything. I will just hang out with the Tasmanian tigers over there. lol I am being emo today, but it is true that my relationships are just failures for the most part. One after the other. I buy myself jewelry now though, as a promise to myself. I think I just need to give up and be a nun.

Just don't do that to someone--don't purposefully get them a ring that's going to painfully press into their skin because it's so cheap they didn't even bother to ensure the back was smooth. And that when anyone asks her to see it, she has to see them uncomfortable because they feel sorry for her. That's just kind of a fucked up thing to do, no matter if you want to pretend you're not materialistic or not.


----------



## NIHM (Mar 24, 2014)

WickerDeer said:


> I'm sorry--this made me laugh.
> 
> This would be so horrible! "Hey, btw--want to get Chinese food and married?"
> 
> ...


No, you're not a failure, You just know what you want. It could have been a locket instead of a ring.

My husband did it on a trip with my family to Padre Island. He did it on the second to last day before we left. He had talked it over with my best friends and sister and she told him things he should never do with me. One I don't want everyone around, I want it to be with me. So he waits for all my family to head back to the condo we rent every summer for our holiday took me out to a pier that he knows was my favorite spot to fish with my dad. It was a pretty windy day and decided against proposing on the pier for fear of dropping it into the salty bay. There was a Gazebo nearby and he took me in there, shielded from the wind, got down on one knee, and started to recite this line, "You have bewitched me, body and soul, and I *love*, I *love*, I *love* you. I never wish to be parted from you from this day on." Everyone in his life has told him he reminds them of Mr. Darcy. He produced a locket of white gold for my neck before knelling, and then after speaking with my hands shaking a 5k London blue topaz set in white gold with diamonds in the band. I said yes.

But you see he asked my friends and family what I wanted or how I wanted it. He knew I didn't like large diamonds because I watched the Blood Diamond movie. He did it in a spot (suggested by my sister) to connect my very weak Si to it. It made it that more magical to me. It felt like my dad was there looking down on me and smiling.

Anyways, in case anyone wants to ask a girl or guy make sure you've asked the besty/sister/brother (person close to them) for pointers if you're not sure. Like I giggle at the scene below. In this case, this female liked the sudden proposal of being an afterthought, needing to tell her right then and right there but in reality, he had more planned. I loved this movie. I would have rolled my eyes, said maybe, and said ask me when I've had sleep and you're not waking me up on a sleeping pill (I have the hardest time getting to sleep and staying asleep), and then edited the statement even on the end like really? Of course, I would have felt foolish because then I would be wide awake, upset, pushing past him to go get a drink of water, (sleep in the nude) so I would have gone out like that into the living room with all my friends, family, and band for the big announcement.... surprize. Anyways know who you're proposing to. lol However I might have liked the crackerjack ring if it had some type of meaning btw the two of us but again that's me and not you. They have to know their audience and if they're dating you, want to spend the rest of their lives with you, they should know you.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

NIHM said:


> No, you're not a failure, You just know what you want. It could have been a locket instead of a ring.
> 
> My husband did it on a trip with my family to Padre Island. He did it on the second to last day before we left. He had talked it over with my best friends and sister and she told him things he should never do with me. One I don't want everyone around, I want it to be with me. So he waits for all my family to head back to the condo we rent every summer for our holiday took me out to a pier that he knows was my favorite spot to fish with my dad. It was a pretty windy day and decided against proposing on the pier for fear of dropping it into the salty bay. There was a Gazebo nearby and he took me in there, shielded from the wind, got down on one knee, and started to recite this line, "You have bewitched me, body and soul, and I *love*, I *love*, I *love* you. I never wish to be parted from you from this day on." Everyone in his life has told him he reminds them of Mr. Darcy. He produced a locket of white gold for my neck before knelling, and then after speaking with my hands shaking a 5k London blue topaz set in white gold with diamonds in the band. I said yes.
> 
> ...


What a lovely story! I love hearing stories like this.

And yeah--a locket would have been great--I had a locket as a child. I love the symbolism of it. I think that's sort of what the ring is for too--it's symbolic. But symbols have to be thought out.

And that is a good idea to ask your besties and loved ones. I also didn't want to get a diamond or even new gold (I was a stickler for sustainability--so second hand would be great as its upcycled, or else perhaps supporting a local artist if it is going to be new) but yeah...it's nice when the ring reflects an understanding of you or your values. 

Anyway--what a romantic story! That also looks like a good feel-good movie right now, so thanks for the suggestion!

Yeah...the crackerjack ring...I'm not sure why it had a starfish. And I'm pretty sure the biggest significance was that it was cheap? I think the price was 7-15$. He did ask help from a female friend of his--she has a completely different taste in jewelry than me though, and is a very different type of person, though she was sweet.

I remember I helped pick out her present for her birthday and buy it--it was a pair of topaz earrings, and I told her she had a sparkling, beautiful personality and so they reminded me of her. But I guess I didn't really understand her taste that well. Idk. I think her topaz earrings were more expensive than the engagement ring. LOL oh well, water under the bridge.

I keep talking about the cost, and it's not so much about that...except that I know that's what it was about for my ex. I don't care about the cost of things...like I wouldn't want some fancy purse that costs 200$--at least to me, that is silly. 

But I do tend to value quality when it comes to jewelry. I would rather have something old that lasts a long time...than some new thing that's just made to be some fast-fashion piece but isn't really even designed for comfort or to last. I guess maybe I also project that onto relationships.


----------



## islandlight (Aug 13, 2013)

Lonewaer said:


> You said :
> 
> Which tells me that if it was just one example, then even if he had been paying the bills, you wouldn't have gone along with everything, because everything would have been a dealbreaker. Either he didn't have enough money, or he actively chose to not pay, in the end, your bills weren't paid for, so it was a financial issue. And maybe you wouldn't have tolerated anything even if your bills were paid, but since the last straw was the money, then the issue is the money.
> 
> ...


It isn't about money. I was raised a long time ago, the old fashioned way. Being a wife was supposed to be my *life.* This means I don't have an outside job, and I do what my husband wants me to do. I don't say, "Not tonight honey, I have to go to work early in the morning," because my work is pleasing my husband. I don't see this as about money at all. It's about male-female roles.

But if a man is using me for money, sorry, that won't work for me.

I was also interested in what another poster said about being seen as a gold digger. (I think it was @WickerDeer .) When I lived overseas, I spent thousands of dollars flying all over the world to meet potential mates. But back in Canada, a man said he wanted to meet me and would come to my island with "fishing rods and berry pail." I said that seemed too ambitious for a first date, and I suggested going for a walk or having a coffee. He said he wasn't going to "waste" his money (about $30 for the ferry) just for that. I found it puzzling and asked about it on the discussion forum. All the men bashed me, saying I was one of those women who want men to spend all their money. ??? (By the way the man wanted ME to take the ferry to meet him on the other side.)

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I just find it very educational to read what other people really think.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

islandlight said:


> I was also interested in what another poster said about being seen as a gold digger. (I think it was @WickerDeer .) When I lived overseas, I spent thousands of dollars flying all over the world to meet potential mates. But back in Canada, a man said he wanted to meet me and would come to my island with "fishing rods and berry pail." I said that seemed too ambitious for a first date, and I suggested going for a walk or having a coffee. He said he wasn't going to "waste" his money (about $30 for the ferry) just for that. I found it puzzling and asked about it on the discussion forum. All the men bashed me, saying I was one of those women who want men to spend all their money. ??? (By the way the man wanted ME to take the ferry to meet him on the other side.)
> 
> I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I just find it very educational to read what other people really think.


I didn't get your mentions for some reason, but I did just see this.

I feel like the narrative about women being gold diggers is just so overblown now--it's annoying. 

This is a silly rant too--btw, so please don't take anything too seriously. I'm just in a complaining sort of mood lately.

I know there are old-fashioned gender roles (and those are probably mostly a middle-class thing too). And that is its own way.

But for me, my family has pretty much been working class (that is the nice way of saying "poor"). My grandma had to work full time and raise a bunch of kids on her own. My mom was a single mother and also worked the whole time and also raised me.

I have been paying rent and working since I was a teenager. And yet some men seem to think just because I am female they can just spew this nonsense about me.

And some other men just seem to accept it. 

I always made way less than most men, but I always paid my way equally (I mean tbh I've only been in two long-term relationships so it's a small sample size) and like I said--my first long term partner chronically drained my bank account because he couldn't save, despite never even having to pay rent since his family had owned their houses.

And he still likes to act like he supported me in the relationship--that's what he tells people. And they just believe it, it seems.

I'm not trying to fault women who were from the middle class and stuck to traditional gender roles, but I never even came from that background. And yeah--men expect me to be like that...like my hands aren't going to get rough from the work I do because I'm just magic I guess. Because women can do everything at once...with perfect hair and perfect skin. It's like they want the traditional domestic woman and now they also want the woman to make as much or more than them and split all the bills.

But the world is made of women who have to clean their houses and serve their food and care for their children and elderly.

I am just so irritated that so many men seem so smug when they point fingers and tell me how easy my life has been! They act so entitled and arrogant! 

_throws a pie on the ground_

_knocks over the rack of banana cream pies_ 

lol idk--I don't really knock things over or throw things, or throw pies around, but I just feel like adding a little drama here to my emotions. 

_throws a pie at the door and slams it_

But yeah--I am over dealing with men who are super stingy. 
I'm more generous than they are. 
And I'm usually more of a provider than they are. 
And many times I've also had to overcome and work harder than they have...and they still think they can lecture me because they are men and they think that fact makes them superior.

_throws a pie up in the air _

OH And don't even get me started on the men who solicited me for prostitution when I was just trying to work a decent wage. Like the rich old man who told me he wanted his boat cleaned and then asked me if I play for pay.

I'm sure he's out there on some message board whining about how women are so irresponsible, while he's not out trying to get poor teenagers to have sex with him while tricking them into thinking he's offering honest work! 

_smashes a pie in his face and throws him off the yacht_ 

But seriously, I think that narrative is so overblown it's ridiculous. And at the same time you've got them whining about how women aren't traditional enough...when they expect this.

Of course not all men, but many of them seem emboldened to spout this narrative and...treat me like I am entitled because I am feminist.

"Entitled"










The reality is that even women who don't work do domestic work, which is labor. Traditionally, middle class women support their husbands while their husbands go to work. 

You can see that this affects the productivity of the husband. It's unpaid labor, but the woman is still supported by the husband.

But the other reality is that poor women like me have always worked too...so we get double shafted by all these unreasonable expectations.

Also--the pies were for comedic effect and to let off steam. This is kind of a silly rant.

But yeah, it's annoying. I find it really annoying how entitled some men act and how ignorant some are about the responsibilities women have (including domestic sphere responsibilities, as traditional feminine gender roles dictate--I mean, many of them complain of wanting a trad wife anyway, and so they should accept what that means too.)


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Why are some of the biggest chauvinists, the ones who are incapable of repairing anything, don't want to do yard work, don't want to financially support their partners and hate chivalry? I swear that the newest version of chauvinism should be renamed 'My name is Peter Pan and I'm as useless as tits on a bull and oh, no one wants me either. Wonder why?'.


----------



## Fru2 (Aug 21, 2018)

mia-me said:


> Why are some of the biggest chauvinists, the ones who are incapable of repairing anything, don't want to do yard work, don't want to financially support their partners and hate chivalry? I swear that the newest version of chauvinism should be renamed 'My name is Peter Pan and I'm as useless as tits on a bull and oh, no one wants me either. Wonder why?'.


Because they've given up trying.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

mia-me said:


> Why are some of the biggest chauvinists, the ones who are incapable of repairing anything, don't want to do yard work, don't want to financially support their partners and hate chivalry? I swear that the newest version of chauvinism should be renamed 'My name is Peter Pan and I'm as useless as tits on a bull and oh, no one wants me either. Wonder why?'.


How could you be so hard-hearted!?! It's because of feminism of course!!! And women! It's ALWAYS because of that.

When women gained the right to vote, men suddenly all became victims of oppression.




Also: "peter pan/ tits on a bull" 😄 I needed to read that last night! haha Best description ever!


----------



## Cxunsxlxr (Apr 15, 2021)

Lonewaer said:


> I find your reaction curious since earlier you mentioned choosing Islam. What does Islam have to say about having children out of wedlock, and what does Islam have to say about "fornication" ?


A book about prohibitions of the 70 worst sins according to Islam, regarding adultery, head to #10, regarding fornication, head to #34.


----------



## Cxunsxlxr (Apr 15, 2021)

Electra said:


> Why would it necessarily be a problem if he accepts it without paying her back?


Because it's unmanly to me (most others would also agree), and wives shouldn't spend money on their husbands when they're capable, it's just against all norms of a man.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

Cxunsxlxr said:


> wives shouldn't spend money on their husbands when they're capable, it's just against all norms of a man.


Damn...guess I need to return Gloomhaven, @Pifanjr, I'd hate to insult your sensitive man norms.


----------



## Queen of Cups (Feb 26, 2010)

daleks_exterminate said:


> Damn...guess I need to return Gloomhaven, @Pifanjr, I'd hate to insult your sensitive man norms.


Yeah, I laughed so hard at that.


----------



## Flabarac Brupip (May 9, 2020)

Cxunsxlxr said:


> Because it's unmanly to me (most others would also agree), and wives shouldn't spend money on their husbands when they're capable, it's just against all norms of a man.


I'm glad Idgaf about man norms much. But its kinda irritating to be expected to gaf about them. I'm a human being and an individual before anything else. Everything else like being a man, being white, being straight, being American, being schizophrenic, etc. takes a back seat as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Pifanjr (Aug 19, 2014)

daleks_exterminate said:


> I'd hate to insult your sensitive man norms.


Lies! You love insulting sensitive man norms. It's probably why you bought it for me in the first place.

Really though, I feel sad for anyone who sees relationships as some power game.


----------



## Queen of Cups (Feb 26, 2010)

He was basically just out of college when we married and I was pregnant with our oldest and finishing my last year of school (had been engaged a year when my birth control failed). I used the money my parents would have spent on a huge ass wedding to buy a fixer upper house.
It really helped us save because we didn’t have rent or mortgage and I used the money he made to fix it up and did most of the work and he helped when he was off.
But if he hadn’t been okay with me being an equal contributor we never would be together.


----------



## Cxunsxlxr (Apr 15, 2021)

WickerDeer said:


> How could you be so hard-hearted!?! It's because of feminism of course!!! And women! It's ALWAYS because of that.
> 
> When women gained the right to vote, men suddenly all became victims of oppression.
> 
> ...











I still wonder why do useless feminists exist, can't they just colonize another planet for them and simply get away with their hypocritical nonsense?

edit: That's a suicide rate chart btw.


----------



## Cxunsxlxr (Apr 15, 2021)

Ock said:


> I'm glad Idgaf about man norms much. But its kinda irritating to be expected to gaf about them. I'm a human being and an individual before anything else. Everything else like being a man, being white, being straight, being American, being schizophrenic, etc. takes a back seat as far as I'm concerned.


If you say so, I see that as a reason of why most men aren't actually "men" nowadays, when they ditch their roles and replace it with womens'.


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

Cxunsxlxr said:


> Because it's unmanly to me (most others would also agree), and wives shouldn't spend money on their husbands when they're capable, it's just against all norms of a man.


Thats the old fashioned stereotype we feminists work so hard to extinguish.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Cxunsxlxr said:


> View attachment 880699
> 
> I still wonder why do useless feminists exist, can't they just colonize another planet for them and simply get away with their hypocritical nonsense?
> 
> edit: That's a suicide rate chart btw.


Ok--and so considering you are whining about men becoming women--why do you think that men have a higher death rate?

Because they are "not being men" and "becoming women"?

Is this also something you blame feminists for?

Edit: Oh--it's a suicide rate chart. Thanks for bothering to label it after you posted it. However, men still have a higher rate of violent death and tend to die younger than women.


----------



## Flabarac Brupip (May 9, 2020)

Cxunsxlxr said:


> If you say so, I see that as a reason of why most men aren't actually "men" nowadays, when they ditch their roles and replace it with womens'.


Nah, just "me" roles. A lot of times I just don't gaf what's expected of me as long as I'm true to myself, take care of my own needs, and am able to care and give compassion and understanding to important people in my life, and to a lesser extent care for society as a whole.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

Cxunsxlxr said:


> View attachment 880699
> 
> I still wonder why do useless feminists exist, can't they just colonize another planet for them and simply get away with their hypocritical nonsense?
> 
> edit: That's a suicide rate chart btw.


Hi, useless feminist here. We are currently working on space colonization via means of hypocritical nonsense, but it's taking too long due to periods making us crazy and those mood swings. Ideally, we'll find a desert planet like Aarakas, blend with sand trout and become a half, human half worm galaxy ruling tyrant forcing everyone else onto our golden plan to save humanity.


Also, real talk: suicide is a serious issue, and prevention is important regardless of gender of the person feeling suicidal, as are actual resources and help being made available. Mental health issues need to be destigmatized. With that being said: what point were you trying to make by posting this?


----------



## Cxunsxlxr (Apr 15, 2021)

Electra said:


> Thats the old fashioned stereotype we feminists work so hard to extinguish.


So you guys want spending money on men then later on they rely on that as the norm? Then later on not care about paying more then you end up taking care after all his expenses? As if it's your child?


----------



## Cxunsxlxr (Apr 15, 2021)

WickerDeer said:


> Ok--and so considering you are whining about men becoming women--why do you think that men have a higher death rate?
> 
> Because they are "not being men" and "becoming women"?
> 
> Is this also something you blame feminists for?


Simply because of how society's principles are changing overtime, which clearly shows that it was better in past, not like these ratios aren't inversely proportional, I don't blame anyone but those who ditch their main roles, and rights which they ask for before looking into the opposite sex's needs first, both sides should, and rather than leaning on sexism or feminism, unite and find a solution instead of assigning yourself to a group that when you do, you'll find opponents on the other side.


----------



## Cxunsxlxr (Apr 15, 2021)

Ock said:


> Nah, just "me" roles. A lot of times I just don't gaf what's expected of me as long as I'm true to myself, take care of my own needs, and am able to care and give compassion and understanding to important people in my life, and to a lesser extent care for society as a whole.


Well I have mine and I still follow a similar mindset regarding that aspect.


----------



## Cxunsxlxr (Apr 15, 2021)

daleks_exterminate said:


> Hi, useless feminist here. We are currently working on space colonization via means of hypocritical nonsense, but it's taking too long due to periods making us crazy and those mood swings. Ideally, we'll find a desert planet like Aarakas, blend with sand trout and become a half, human half worm galaxy ruling tyrant forcing everyone else onto our golden plan to save humanity.
> 
> 
> Also, real talk: suicide is a serious issue, and prevention is important regardless of gender of the person feeling suicidal, as are actual resources and help being made available. Mental health issues need to be destigmatized. With that being said: what point were you trying to make by posting this?


I might've generalized feminism a bit here, it's mostly seen by me in that sense, maybe because that's all what I have seen from them so far.


My point is, the further we advance in time, the worse our states get, where everyone's trying to blame others for their acts rather than working on themselves, and adapting "new freedom based lifestyles" whilst forgetting about their own roles. I don't see any benefits to society from some self proclaimed (insert anything newly made). There are simply higher suicide rates because of how incoherent people are becoming.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Cxunsxlxr said:


> Simply because of how society's principles are changing overtime, which clearly shows that it was better in past, not like these ratios aren't inversely proportional, I don't blame anyone but those who ditch their main roles, and rights which they ask for before looking into the opposite sex's needs first, both sides should, and rather than leaning on sexism or feminism, unite and find a solution instead of assigning yourself to a group that when you do, you'll find opponents on the other side.


The chart shows a higher suicide rate for men in the past as well.

I guess your point is that the increase in suicide must be because of feminism and not something that's known to cause (I guess maybe I should say correlate or something--I mean it's still all theory--though some theories are more informed than others) increases in violence, such as economic stress.


----------



## Cxunsxlxr (Apr 15, 2021)

WickerDeer said:


> The chart shows a higher suicide rate for men in the past as well.
> 
> I guess your point is that the increase in suicide must be because of feminism and not something that's known to cause increases in violence, such as economic stress.


There's no doubt it has been increasing, you can already observe.

I just say the 4th feminism wave been a factor compared to ones before, alongside all what you said and much more. Look at the spike from 2012 compared to other rates. There are just some who don't need only equality but asserting dominance and wanting to be a sort of attention over some cases that are rather overcomplicated compared to it's reality. I'd say feminism, started just like a beehive that got attacked by some hornets, then afterwards, bees couldn't handle such scenario, invited other bees to protest, they now have reached masses, and then out of consciousness, their target appeared to be not just the hornets they've been assualted from but all other hornet nests, which did backlash in return and caused sexists to exist, not going to mention how marriage can ruin a man's life if the woman just exploited him by divorcing, taking his possessions and children away (most countries apply such laws), and speaking of death sentences, women don't have any, regardless they do, in most western countries, but for men? They always get most of the blame, it's always whenever a woman cries, everyone gathers around her, but when a man does? I wouldn't really say that they've the same, but let's stay on our main topic, I personally count both feminism and sexism as futile, where hate towards the opposite sex emerges from, so I don't really see a reason to support it.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

Cxunsxlxr said:


> I might've generalized feminism a bit here, it's mostly seen by me in that sense, maybe because that's all what I have seen from them so far.


A bit.



> My point is, the further we advance in time, the worse our states get, where everyone's trying to blame others for their acts rather than working on themselves, and adapting "new freedom based lifestyles" whilst forgetting about their own roles. I don't see any benefits to society from some self proclaimed (insert anything newly made). There are simply higher suicide rates because of how incoherent people are becoming.


Sure, working on self problems is important, but it seems weird to ignore systematic/societal issues causing mass issues in populations. For a recent example: a lot of people have worked at home during covid. Many meetings that were deemed essential clearly could have been emails. A lot of people found working from home more productive and less stressful despite not being micromanaged as managers had thought was important. Now some businesses that weren't that great want people to return to the office and a lot of the employees don't want to go back to unnecessary meetings, being micromanaged, and long commutes so they're quitting and going to an employer who is adapting to these changes. Should employees just "stick to the roles they've always had" despite seeing that many of the things were entirely unnecessary and actually hindered productivity? Is it bad that companies that are adapting are getting more skilled employees flock to them?

Your argument is that losing gender roles is raising the suicide rate, but there are so many factors. For starters, just receiving mental health care is still stigmatized, and should not be. So why is it more likely to be someone ending their life due to societal change, and not likely to be failing/overly expensive/available health/ mental health care? Or hell, maybe it's because we've become more reliant on machines and computers and should start a war against them and create a law that humans should not be replaced. Correlation isn't causation.


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

Cxunsxlxr said:


> So you guys want spending money on men then later on they rely on that as the norm? Then later on not care about paying more then you end up taking care after all his expenses? As if it's your child?


No. We want both genders to take care of them selves, unless sick or in a serious emergency which leaves people uncapable.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Cxunsxlxr said:


> There's no doubt it has been increasing, you can already observe.
> 
> I just say the 4th feminism wave been a factor compared to ones before, alongside all what you said and much more. Look at the spike from 2012 compared to other rates. There are just some who don't need only equality but asserting dominance and wanting to be a sort of attention over some cases that are rather overcomplicated compared to it's reality. I'd say feminism, started just like a beehive that got attacked by some hornets, then afterwards, bees couldn't handle such scenario, invited other bees to protest, they now have reached masses, and then out of consciousness, their target appeared to be not just the hornets they've been assualted from but all other hornet nests, which did backlash in return and caused sexists to exist, not going to mention how marriage can ruin a man's life if the woman just exploited him by divorcing, taking his possessions and children away (most countries apply such laws), and speaking of death sentences, women don't have any, regardless they do, in most western countries, but for men? They always get most of the blame, it's always whenever a woman cries, everyone gathers around her, but when a man does? I wouldn't really say that they've the same, but let's stay on our main topic, I personally count both feminism and sexism as futile, where hate towards the opposite sex emerges from, so I don't really see a reason to support it.


I didn't write this--but I doubt you came up with all those parroted talking points either:

"When [some] men imagine a female uprising, they imagine a world in which women rule men as men have ruled women. Most men can't really imagine equality. All they can imagine is having the existing power structure inverted.
I cannot decide whether this shows how unimaginative they are, or shows how aware of they must be of what they do in order to so deeply fear having it turned on them."

(If you want a response that has more effort put into it then you'll have to use paragraph breaks. I write way too much but at least I use the enter key)


----------



## jerica (Jun 11, 2021)

WickerDeer said:


> I didn't write this--but I doubt you came up with all those parroted talking points either:
> 
> "When [some] men imagine a female uprising, they imagine a world in which women rule men as men have ruled women. Most men can't really imagine equality. All they can imagine is having the existing power structure inverted.
> I cannot decide whether this shows how unimaginative they are, or shows how aware of they must be of what they do in order to so deeply fear having it turned on them."


But what is it then, when females are then appreciated as equals? Im aware a plenty of couples or working environments, where sexism of the equivalent is entirely on a permanent vacation.

Ive had chats with both male and females here and both seem to equally respectful or disrespectful.
I think ones character means a lot more than sex, even if talking collectively.

But you WickerDeer have obviously your own experiences that have their say on the matter, too.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

WickerDeer said:


> How could you be so hard-hearted!?! It's because of feminism of course!!! And women! It's ALWAYS because of that.
> 
> When women gained the right to vote, men suddenly all became victims of oppression.
> 
> ...


Glad to provide a good laugh.😄

WTF are these misogynistic chauvinists thinking? If they want traditional women then be traditional men or traditional women won't want you and neither will non-traditional women. Myself, I don't care about traditionalism and prefer non-traditional grown up men who aren't misogynists or chauvinists.


----------



## Queen of Cups (Feb 26, 2010)

mia-me said:


> Glad to provide a good laugh.😄
> 
> WTF are these misogynistic chauvinists thinking? If they want a traditional woman then be traditional men or traditional women won't want you and neither will non-traditional women. Myself, I don't care about traditionalism and prefer non-traditional grown up men who aren't misogynists or chauvinists.


Remember the dude who wanted an old fashioned traditional virgin girl who put out on the first or second date?

😅


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

It's like it's not even the virgin/whore complex anymore.

It's the virgin/whore/maid/mother/supermodel/sugar-daddy complex now.


----------



## jerica (Jun 11, 2021)

Whats the other form of that, us hating men. Misandry!

But how can we ever want to propose men, if we hate them? Unless we propose a feminine man? You know, going against that TOXIC masculinity.

But what is masculinity, but without the toxic part? Metrosexuality?

And what is toxic? Something, anything that makes us feel discomfort?

And where does that lead to? To a society full of lost single women, or lost married women who are becoming bored by metrosexual boys?

I find those rather interesting thoughts.


----------



## Flabarac Brupip (May 9, 2020)

Cxunsxlxr said:


> Because it's unmanly to me (most others would also agree), and wives shouldn't spend money on their husbands when they're capable, it's just against all norms of a man.





Ock said:


> I'm glad Idgaf about man norms much. But its kinda irritating to be expected to gaf about them. I'm a human being and an individual before anything else. Everything else like being a man, being white, being straight, being American, being schizophrenic, etc. takes a back seat as far as I'm concerned.


Like how I've basically heard I'm not a "real man" because I can't change a tire. Wtf? Why _would_ I know how to change a tire when I've never had a vehicle or license, and don't plan on getting one, and I've _never_ had the "manly" fascination with cars that I'm "supposed to" have? I guess I have to give up my man card now. Wtf ever!


----------



## Queen of Cups (Feb 26, 2010)

The 


Ock said:


> Like how I've basically heard I'm not a "real man" because I can't change a tire. Wtf? Why _would_ I know how to change a tire when I've never had a vehicle or license, and don't plan on getting one, and I've _never_ had the "manly" fascination with cars that I'm "supposed to" have? I guess I have to give up my man card now. Wtf ever!



I can change a tire but if I get a flat, I’m still going to call someone because we get free roadside assistance and screw changing it in 100 degree weather with 82 percent humidity.

Am I an honorary half a man?


----------



## Flabarac Brupip (May 9, 2020)

Queen of Cups said:


> The
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Apparently you're more "man" than me then, since its based on stupid shit like if we can change tires.


----------



## Cxunsxlxr (Apr 15, 2021)

daleks_exterminate said:


> A bit.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You seem to have assumed much even though I clearly have said it acts as a factor, doesn't mean that I didn't specifically mention them = I'm unaware of it. Who said it was the causation? I'd rather drop this discussion because it doesn't seem any fruitful.


----------



## Cxunsxlxr (Apr 15, 2021)

Electra said:


> No. We want both genders to take care of them selves, unless sick or in a serious emergency which leaves people uncapable.


How's that relevant to what I said? Or you mean: We want each gender to fulfill their own self and no one relies on the other?


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

Cxunsxlxr said:


> How's that relevant to what I said? Or you mean: We want each gender to fulfill their own self and no one relies on the other?


How was my answer not relevant to your question?


----------



## Drecon (Jun 20, 2016)

I have never understood the controversy here. It should be just as normal as the other way around. In a truly equal society, there is no difference between a man proposing to a woman and a woman proposing to a man. 
In the same vein, I actually took my wife's last name when we married. I want that to be exactly as normal as the other way around, so I did my part to try and change the world for the better.

That said, my wife really valued me proposing to her, so I was actually the one that proposed. I don't think there should be any reason to do it one way or another. As long as both parties agree to what they want and value.


----------



## Cxunsxlxr (Apr 15, 2021)

Electra said:


> How was my answer not relevant to your question?


You were speaking of both genders, doesn't everyone want both genders to take care of themselves? My point was, how is a woman paying a man's expenses (while he's totally capable of) makes feminism appeals for gender equality? I don't see any sense in that.


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

Cxunsxlxr said:


> You were speaking of both genders, doesn't everyone want both genders to take care of themselves? My point was, how is a woman paying a man's expenses (while he's totally capable of) makes feminism appeals for gender equality? I don't see any sense in that.


Strawman allert🚧
You misrepresented my original quote


@3:00


----------



## Cxunsxlxr (Apr 15, 2021)

Electra said:


> Strawman allert🚧
> You misrepresented my original quote
> 
> 
> @3:00


Alert*


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

Cxunsxlxr said:


> Alert*


Grammar nazi


----------



## Six (Oct 14, 2019)

mia-me said:


> Why are some of the biggest chauvinists, the ones who are incapable of repairing anything, don't want to do yard work, don't want to financially support their partners and hate chivalry? I swear that the newest version of chauvinism should be renamed 'My name is Peter Pan and I'm as useless as tits on a bull and oh, no one wants me either. Wonder why?'.


I think I can unpack the logic there.

What you're talking about there is a traditional man.

Fix the leak in the power steering?
Fix the boiler?
Fix the bypass system on the generator?
Fix the strimmer? Do the strimming and the yard work?
Lathe the doors?
Install the wall units?
Go on up on the roof and clean the gutters?
Repaint the exterior of the house?

I'm currently refilling the gas in one of my industrial freezers - you know how much all the kit costs to do all these handyman style repairs? Recovery machine, R507, compressor, empty cannisters - plus the qualifications and mess I had to go through to pick these up whilst planning because I can't have handymen on hand as I need them as I am on an island.

PLUS.

There's the not insignificant aspect of pulling in enough cash to be able to support a family of at least four? The mortgage (unless he owns the house outright), the insurance, council tax, property tax, the phones, the internet, the water, the gas, the oil, the electricity, the groceries, the car, the white goods, the school equipment, the toys, the trips, the university fees, all of it.

Oh.

And lest we forget - if we're talking truly traditional - we're also talking about wasting somewhere between £5k-£20k on a wedding - oh and the ring. (And why not get something less predictable than a hunk of carbon worth $50 with an artificially inflated price - south sea gold pearl):










And every other piece of nonsense which comes under the bracket of "chivalry".

So, what am I getting in exchange?

Traditional woman.

Bearing in mind I can:

A. Cook.
B. Clean.

As I have done already for the last 15 fucking years or so - and which I do not consider a skill, cooking is a fucking hobby rendered obsolete otherwise, not to mention all of the automation of most household cleaning tasks - it must be a real bark loading up a dishwasher and a washer dryer - so what else?

The Road to Infidelity Passes Through Multiple Sexual Partners | Institute for Family Studies (ifstudies.org)

How about your virginity?

It's supposed to be a white wedding dress right? Symbolising you're a virigin?

No?

You fail as a traditional woman already.

Are you 22+?

You fail at probably another fundamental aspect of being a traditional woman: Being biologically equipped for child-bearing.

35 year old woman? Are you even going to be able to have kids? It's getting dicey at that point, and how many? 1? 2?

And those are just fundamental stats about your biology - I have asked so far for nothing other than that and a lot of women are even failing that as "traditional women".

Some women are so self-absorbed, so stuck in childhood, they don't even want to have kids - and that's the most basic aspect of life.

So what does the hypothetical "traditional man" want?

Have you any idea?

Take a moment to pull your head out of your own perspective for a second instead of being a consumer, imagine being a producer.

Edit: I'm not even necessarily insisting on a 22 year old virgin - I'm just saying if I am fitting the mold of a traditional male - what am I doing it for? A 35 year old feminist who hasn't grown up yet? I say nay.


----------



## impulsenine (Oct 18, 2020)

I feel awesome only if she offers me a platinum diamond ring.✨
At least.


----------



## X10E8 (Apr 28, 2021)

impulsenine said:


> I feel awesome only if she offers me a platinum diamond ring.✨
> At least.


LOL 😂😆


----------



## impulsenine (Oct 18, 2020)

X10E8 said:


> LOL 😂😆


What?
A symbolic gesture.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

Six said:


> I think I can unpack the logic there.
> 
> What you're talking about there is a traditional man.
> 
> ...


Fwiw as a 31 year old feminist who hasn't grown up yet, I'm rooting for you, buddy.


----------



## Sinuous (Jun 18, 2021)

Idk but it doesn’t matter the gender, 
You lose power once you put a statement and wait for the other to response... and I consider it a vulnerable situation for either gender, especially when one is too invested in the relationship.


----------



## Six (Oct 14, 2019)

daleks_exterminate said:


> Fwiw as a 31 year old feminist who hasn't grown up yet, I'm rooting for you, buddy.







Buddy?


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

Six said:


> Buddy?


yeah, buddy, pal, friend. 




I thought we were friends. Did I misread that? haha


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

Six said:


> Oh.
> 
> And lest we forget - if we're talking truly traditional - we're also talking about wasting somewhere between £5k-£20k on a wedding - oh and the ring. (And why not get something less predictable than a hunk of carbon worth $50 with an artificially inflated price - south sea gold pearl):


for what it's worth though, it doesn't need to be nearly that much. 

I bought my wedding dress on sale for $100. It was marked down from initially $7000 but it was a weird design and looked weird hanging up. It had been in the shop for over a year. Turns out, it looked really good ON just not hanging. 

My wedding ring was free, except for resizing. I used my grandmothers. I'm secretly a bit sentimental like that.

We had the wedding itself on a Thursday morning at 9 am with 4 other people present. It was free at that time. 

I ended up losing my ring, unfortunately, and decided to go with a viking iron ring with Huginn, Muninn, and Jǫrmungandr on it:









I think that puts us about $200 max. 

We went on our honeymoon before our wedding and that was probably a couple of thousand, but was a really fun trip together. 

I guess none of that is traditional, but also neither am I, nor would I want a traditional wedding.


----------



## Queen of Cups (Feb 26, 2010)

daleks_exterminate said:


> for what it's worth though, it doesn't need to be nearly that much.
> 
> I bought my wedding dress on sale for $100. It was marked down from initially $7000 but it was a weird design and looked weird hanging up. It had been in the shop for over a year. Turns out, it looked really good ON just not hanging.
> 
> ...


Yeah, our wedding was really low key as well.(wore my debutant dress got married in my parents backyard. Biggest expense was 300 for food).
I’ve seen an upswing in more laid back non traditional weddings in the last few years. Was talking about this with several other posters recently and we all agreed we weren’t the type who had a huge dream wedding in mind, so it’s probably more common than most realize.

And if we’re talking tradition, in the US it’s typically the brides family that pays for the wedding. I know my parents (ie my mom) went all out for my sister’s wedding.


----------



## Six (Oct 14, 2019)

daleks_exterminate said:


> yeah, buddy, pal, friend.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You don't think it sounds patronising...?


----------



## Six (Oct 14, 2019)

daleks_exterminate said:


> for what it's worth though, it doesn't need to be nearly that much.
> 
> I bought my wedding dress on sale for $100. It was marked down from initially $7000 but it was a weird design and looked weird hanging up. It had been in the shop for over a year. Turns out, it looked really good ON just not hanging.
> 
> ...


The thrust of my comment was highlighting something you'll see even in progressives in the acceptable appeal to the notion of a:

*REAL MAN








*

As a guy I don't exactly go around asserting what "real women" are supposed to do or are supposed to be - because it would seem as a guy I don't really know what that is - so why would I take pointers on what a "real man" is from someone who isn't one?










Who says you're strong?

And why is it I'm not allowed to be weak?

See how there are certain structures being appealed to implicit in these statements which - if unpacked, actually highlight some subconscious assumptions which it doesn't really fit with your stated position to set yourself on?


Repairing things.
Yard work.
Financially supporting you and your children.
"Chivalry"

If someone's going to invoke these tropes it seems obvious to me why the "chauvinist" is going to correlate with the opposite:

Because that person actually expects you to be a "traditional woman" - and there really isn't a great deal of "traditional woman" going around these days - so why wouldn't they resent the entitlement that they still be a "traditional man"?

And as I said:

I find the idea of a "traditional woman" laughable.

But just because I find that laughable doesn't mean that stating one is non-traditional automatically has any value either - it may be wonderful you are self-stimulated and enthusiastic about your hobbies (and I think it's cute - and presumably it also works the other way right) but consider the flipside as a guy:

*He's really into sci fi and table top gaming.*

...wow what a catch huh ladies? So non-traditional!

It doesn't have any inherent value beyond the self-indulgent charm of it - which is charming to be sure - but it's not selling many guys to many women is it?

*However look at this thread - instead of answering my question it's devolved into very knowing displays of how good you've all been for your spending-conscious approaches to being indulged in playing dress-up as princesses in your wedding gowns and jewellery.*

I'm not expecting the level of self-awareness I'd actually need in order for someone to satisfactorily answer this question - but you calling me "buddy" or "pal" in that slightly un-self-aware display of superiority which people who use those sorts of diminutising phrases tend to on top of it?






How did we get to a state where that was supposedly our relative positions?

Edit: And I'm not insulted by the way - more fascinated...


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

Six said:


> You don't think it sounds patronising...?


I genuinely didn't, but tone can be difficult online. 

Sorry, I'll try to be more careful with that.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

Don't care.


----------



## impulsenine (Oct 18, 2020)

Hexcoder said:


> Don't care.


When do you propose me?👀


----------



## Hexigoon (Mar 12, 2018)

The same way I feel about men proposing. It's none of my business. I just don't want to see anyone getting hurt or forced into it.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

impulsenine said:


> When do you propose me?👀


Bruh, I'm not into cats.


----------



## impulsenine (Oct 18, 2020)

Hexcoder said:


> Bruh, I'm not into cats.


What are you into?


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

impulsenine said:


> What are you into?


Pick just about anything that's impossible to be and you'll be accurate.


----------



## impulsenine (Oct 18, 2020)

Hexcoder said:


> Pick just about anything that's impossible to be and you'll be accurate.


Well we have the same tastes it means.
We are only good to marry!
How would you like to propose?


----------



## Six (Oct 14, 2019)

daleks_exterminate said:


> I genuinely didn't, but tone can be difficult online.
> 
> Sorry, I'll try to be more careful with that.







I'm sorry @daleks_exterminate, I used to get RAHs call me "buddy", they'd sidle up to you at a coffee machine:

_Heeeyyy buddy, how's it going?_
*Not to baaaad princess, how about you?*






I associate it with coiffured ponces who somehow condescend to you even though you're there on merit and they're there based on their dad.

So when you do it I'm like, "oh why are you doing that daleks I like you!"


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

Six said:


> I'm sorry @daleks_exterminate, I used to get RAHs call me "buddy", they'd sidle up to you at a coffee machine:
> 
> _Heeeyyy buddy, how's it going?_
> *Not to baaaad princess, how about you?*
> ...


the I'm not your buddy, guy video was great.

Who/what is/are an RHA?

When you put it like that, I can see why it would be bad/come off condescending. It may be all in the tone? Idk. I'd not like that interaction either. Gotta be careful with calling her princess though. Then she's gonna be like "aren't you a little short for a storm trooper?" and then you kiss and find out she's your sister. terribly awkward.

I guess I associate buddy as a term of endearment with a more monotone voice & also with my secret dream of being a woodworker/ becoming Ron Swanson:


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

Jumping back a bit into the thread: 

I don't think I've ever actually turned my husband down for sex? If so, like once? I also initiate sex. I like sex. 

HOWEVER: if my husband (and he'd never do this because he's not a complete, narsistic, abusive, asshole) suddenly said that I have to always fuck him, any time he wanted it, and that I couldn't say no, or in other words: be a sex slave and not retain any personal autonomy at all; I'd buy a strap-on & harness and get to it. Because apparently in this scenario rape is suddenly fine? What the actual fuck is that suggestion?


----------



## Fru2 (Aug 21, 2018)

daleks_exterminate said:


> Because apparently in this scenario rape is suddenly fine? What the actual fuck is that suggestion?


Has anybody here actually suggested this? Must've missed it.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

Fru2 said:


> Has anybody here actually suggested this? Must've missed it.


Yeah, I think more than one person. I don't remember who, but it's def in the past responses. Go back and look.


----------

