New Years Eve is one of the worst! Most overrated night of the year!

Maybe if you don't drink and blow things up...

I do both.

Where's International Man day?

March 14th is international Steak and Blow Job day.

What do you want from life!?

A fit wife and a job I don't hate.

How...PC.

Hmm, interesting things were said here, good and bad.

Simple Fact for you guys to know.

When you go to your car late at night, even a college campus, an empty desolate parking lot, you do not feel the same fear/worry if you were to be a girl/woman.

Simple Life Experiences.

I had a girlfriend once, she went out on a date, then foolishly decided to go to the guys apartment. He began to touch her and she felt, she was afraid to say to No to him, and ultimately she got [censored]. Yes, you can say she had the choice to not go to his home after the date, but is it her fault that she felt she was so afraid to say No, that she felt letting him do what he wanted would be better for her then to stand up and say No out of fear for it to maybe get worse, maybe he would beat her? etc etc etc etc These are some of the thoughts that do happen in a girls'/woman's mind, when she is engaging in six, while your thinking "yeah she wants it, giggy giggy gig(family guy reference)" etc etc etc

I had another girlfriend once, she was [censored] when she was 7 years old by man in his 40s. I do not want to say anything more about that.

My father used to get drunk and beat my mother, was that her fault? She could of started to work out right? She could of started taking steroids, to beef up her muscle, could of taken some martial arts classes, or boxing.
----------
By Law, we are fortunate we are living in an a morally progressive society(US), if you have six with someone who is "drunk", that person, can put you in jail because "No Consent" was given, it is ultimately [censored]. It is case by case, and you never know.

Getting drunk and saying it is "your fault" for trying to go out and have fun, to wake up and realize you have been [censored], is not the person's fault, the victim in this case, but the aggressor, the person who engaged in that acivity.

I would love someone from the Law Enforcement Community to affirm my statement with that, as it is a legal fact. It is a case by case, like all [censored] cases, but taking advantage of a drunk person, guy or gal, is [censored].
---------
Most people who go out and drink, and party, whatever, are not Scholars/Professors to have such profound insights into the future, they are young people, just trying to have fun the way that they know how to (subject to debate but it is reality). Taking advantage of that, is not just simply against the law, but against humanity.
------
So, everyday every moment, is international man's day, yesterday, March 8th 2012, was the International Woman's Day.
------
At this moment, I would like my point to be.

"[censored] happens, it is life, the ultimate point of me sharing this with you, there is only so much that you can find out about the world sitting in front of your computer. Get out there!"
My origional writing, was transformed into a speech that I gave to myself and a few others, as a tribute to a special moment on one day(March 8th International Women's Day) of my life.

P.S.
I do not want to scare anyone by any of this, but this is what I think at least separates, good guys from bad guys, good men from bad men.

This is not to detract from the rest of your post, which is great, but not every day is "man's day". When a man can be a stay-at-home dad without being looked down upon; or complain without being told to "man up"; or not be laughed at because he isn't physically powerful; or not be ridiculed for erectile dysfunction; or not be expected to be the sole person responsible for the cheque at the end of a first date; etc. On that day, you can say that every day is "man's day". The idea that women eternally suffer while everything is just hunky-dory in "man's land" is assinine.

Both sixes deal with [censored], pretty much equally. In first world countries, anyway. Your idea that it is "man's day" every day, is appropriate to third world countries, though.

International men's day is November 19th.

Yes/No, it is an overstatement, it is not meant in a literaly sense.

You spend your time with the wrong people if they think that being a stay at home dad is a bad idea. I personally envision, two people stay at home to raise a child, I need to figure that out though, kind of hard to make that idea work with how expensive it is to simply even live a modest life by myself.
Again, wrong types of people, wrong types of things you read/watch that send out that message, about not being "physically powerful" or "erectile dysfunction"

Arg, you know, the human body, we are all born different, erecticle dysfunction is a medical condition...Baldness, etc etc, wrinkles, heart attack, it all happens, do not be afraid to be judged by it.

The paying of the check, is more a tradition, a gentleman Like, holding the door, there is nothing wrong that, big deal, I pay for the first date, maybe she will pay for the second date? But it seems that most girls, at least, American, want to do 50/50 more so. Yeah, that might not fly with the "barbies" or the more traditional girls that have been raised by a more traditional family, with values and standards, but still, big deal, $40 bucks or $60 to have dinner with someone who YOU might share love with, is priceless. That is just money too, pff, money It is important, but letting it control you...well...greed... :/

And most of the time, women don't have the same fear/worry that men do when they walk into a court room during divorce proceedings. What's your point?


I am so tired of the "she was afraid to say no" argument. It is such a cop-out for women everywhere who don't just have enough intestinal fortitude to go: "What a minute, I don't want this guy touching me, I need to tell him to stop." It's time for those women to grow up. And if you're so afraid that a man will beat you for rejecting him, maybe you should try switching teams then eh? A little warning though: Women don't always take rejection a million times better than men do.


Obviously that guy needs to get his skin peeled off very slowly.


She could've called the police and had him locked up. You know how many men get arrested for domestic violence calls that didn't even do anything to a woman? The women who stick with the men who beat them are just as sick as they are.


I don't consider that progress.


How many times do I have to state the tremendous difference between drunken six and [censored]? You don't need to be drunk for someone to force themselves upon you, and when you are drunk, someone who has six with you isn't necessarily forcing themselves upon you.


You don't need to be very intelligent to be aware of the potential consequences of drinking. And it is the responsibility of all who drink to be doing so with the understanding that they are taking a risk. That is a fundamental aspect of being an advlt.


Just because it's tradition doesn't mean it isn't sixist and unfair. No woman is entitled to me covering the check just because I have a [censored] between my legs and want to use it. They have a [censored], and I'm sure there are moments where they want to use it. That's what most men tell me anyway. If that's not true, then it's still sixist, because then those women should just be turning dates down. It's not as if women are totally ignorant as to the horniness of the average man.

Is it fair for me to say that from your point of view.

If a woman is pretty and wears a mini skirt, goes out, gets [censored], you would say "She brought that upon herself by being pretty and wearing a mini skirt"? "She should have known better"?

A woman in a violent relationship brought that upon herself? kind of like, "She deserved that"?

Basically, if a person wakes up one day, and decides to go on a random [censored] spree, all the people he would encounter, his victims, it would be their fault for being there at the wrong place at the wrong time, wearing the wrong things, being the wrong people?

Yeah I'll agree on that one, at least going by statistics I'd be more nervous in modern society as a woman than as a man but also going by statistics I'd not be all that worried, only a bit more by comparison of the two genders.

Absolutely without a doubt her fault. Going by your story she didn't even let him know it was not consensual. Are men supposed to have to ask every single time "um, is this consensual ?" before engaging in intercourse ? Have you ever asked a girl that you have been with that before having six ? How can you be certain you yourself haven't traumatized some poor gal who you thought wanted you ? Maybe some of them have been too afraid to ask you, but would that make you a criminal ? If there is anything more to your story then my opinion may sway but as it is if she did not even have the decency to give him a chance to say "okay, very well then, let's not have six" by letting him know she was not okay with it then it was her own fault.
Absolutely sick, people that do that don't deserve to even be called men, they're sub-human. Obviously this was not her fault and such things should be sought to be ended, but it's very hard to put laws that will stop a person from doing something like that, if the punishment is not already a lifetime in jail then it should be.

With all due respect and even without knowing him I will say that he was not a good man. Why women start with such men in the first place and then stay with them long enough to have children with them I will never know. Some people called me 'unromantic' in this thread here http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1356698-my-secret-admirer/ because I protested the idea of getting together with someone rashly but the fact is far too many people rush in to be with just anyone no matter how bad they are and then won't leave until they have too many reasons (a kid) to leave.

Obviously he acted differently to start with, they all do that. But I will still say that they are both at fault here. You are never at fault for getting beat the first time around, not even the second time around, you should always give people another chance, but if you stay around someone that frequently beats you up without reporting it or without leaving the person then I can't understand that. If you know the person is bad then why do you keep coming back for seconds ? Also saying it was just the alcohol is not valid, what people do is what they do intoxicated or not, do an evil deed intoxicated and you are a evil person, no matter how good you are when you are sober.

Women need to have good rights but you never mentioned her reporting it and you never mentioned her report getting turned down because of sixism. Are you certain the kind of rights you would wish to be founded for women in such situations are not already there where you live ?

Again doesn't it go by the case and really booze should be left out of the discussion because people act differently while under influence. If you go out and get drunk, and you meet another girl who is drunk and she asks if the two of you should have six, that is she is the one to initiate it, then when the two of you wake up is it fair if she can suddenly decide "I didn't want this, I'm reporting this." ? Also what if you as a man agreed to have six while drunk where you would not have when sober ? Is it fair if you can report the woman for abusing you while you were intoxicated ? No, and neither is it for her to be able to report you. When people are drunk they will agree to things they would not have while sober, that is they will give consent to things they would normally not but only they know that, the other person can't know that and you really can't ask drunk people to act rationally.

Going to a bar is a bad idea over all, male or female, in my opinion that is. I don't see why most people are so emotionally stunted in modern society that they can't go out and mingle without getting drunk (I say most but not all only because I know of plenty of places to go and mingle with others where you don't do it while drunk) and is it really impossible to enjoy being drunk on your lonesome ? I ask that second question only because I myself have never been drunk (and don't intend to as it is generally a bad idea, as I see it there are other ways to have fun. Really I'd really hate to be incapable of experiencing joy without getting drunk yet some people act like that's the case for them). And if it is impossible then is it really worth it ?

Ah indeed, I would say even if I am making a double standard from what I said before that sober people who abuse the fact that someone is drunk to their advantage is sick since at least they have their mental capacity to know what they are doing but then all people do have the choice to either get drunk or not to start with and I think after two people have gotten drunk around each other they have already decided they do not care what happens between them. Only if drunk people do something that goes against the law it is more random than carefully thought out.

But as I said booze should be left out of the discussion of gender equality, it is a totally different discussion all on its own.


Not really sure what to make of those last lines but I will say that some women need to temper their resolves a little bit more and speak out when they feel life is being unfair to them. And I don't mean the women who already have strong wills need to make theirs even stronger and make big days and protests for the rest, but the rest needs to find the courage to at least tell men if they find them intimidating or to report on it when a man has treated them unfairly. And I do not think some women can't have the willpower to do that because women are stronger than society tends to paint them as being. All they need is a nudge to tell them that they too can stand up for themselves. Not for themselves and other women but only for themselves because they can never help other women by standing up for them. If they want to help other women they need to empower them to stand up for themselves.

To clarify on that, there are laws to help them, but they must seek them out. A man can also be forced and can also be beat, and nothing will be done. Not unless he goes and reports it.

On one hand I'd like to agree with you, but on the other I'm afraid I'd get into my second devastating flame-war of the day. So just know that I partially agree.

What's next? International Day of Internationality?

The odds of a woman getting [censored] have more to do with her location than what she's wearing. A woman in a heavy overcoat and boots fit for a coal miner walking around the streets of Egypt in the middle of the night is more likely to get [censored] than the chicks who strut around Huntington Beach, California dressed like strippers in the sunny afternoon.

Good luck getting the ladies of [censored] Walk to comprehend that one though. God what a bunch of children...


I said what I meant and I meant what I said. If your partner is physically assaulting you on a regular basis, it's because you didn't have the cojones or the good sense to leave them the first time it happens. The abuser is messed in the head, sure, but so is the person who puts up with it for weeks, months, even years. I don't accept excuses, especially not in modern America, where men are constantly ending up in the back of a squad car for not even doing anything violent or abusive.


At no point in this topic have I ever been referring to the actions of violent, sadistic people as acceptable in any way, and I've had about enough of being accused of doing so.

The difference between drunk six and [censored] is not blurry or thin. I don't care what legislation says in your country or state. If they label drunk six as [censored], they are idiots. Pure and simple. I'm going to give two examples that I hope will spell everything out for you. Ready? Here we go:

Rick is a decent man who desires six just like most people, and, like most people, sees talking to his preferred partners (women) as the best way to go about fulfilling those desires. He also knows that single people looking to hook up (have six) often meet each other at bars or parties, and so he visits a bar, where he meets Rachel, a lovely young woman who's not unlike Rick, in that she too has sixual needs and knows the best way to fulfill them. The difference between the two is that Rachel lacks Rick's courage, and, for whatever reason, decides to make up for this by consuming alcohol. Rick is not aware of this... we'll call it a "character flaw", as he just met Rachel, and she's not displaying any outward signs of being drunk just yet. The night progresses, Rick and Rachel are getting along well (mainly due to Rachel no longer being safe to drive, and therefore more bold in her actions), and, through a very mutual decision, they end up back at Rick's apartment, where they have six. Also a very mutual decision.

Silas, on the other hand, is a sick jerk. He has no concern for the emotions or well-being of others, all he cares about is fulfilling his need for six. Consequences and boundaries mean nothing to him. Silas goes to a bar, and immediately scopes out the drunkest woman he can find, zeroing in on Sarah, who's about to pass out. Silas pretends to be helping her to the bathroom, and instead takes her out to his car, drives off to wherever he can acquire enough privacy, and proceeds to violently force himself upon Sarah. He then dumps her in a ditch and disappears into the night.

I hope I don't need to point out which one of these dudes committed a horrible, unethical, and unlawful act.

They have something like that I believe. It's called "multicultural day" or something.

International Table Day? International Eat Brie and Read Catcher in the Rye Day?

You can always make one . They'll probably accept it (there's more ridiculous holidays, for example Groundhog Day).

Exactly right. If there's still anyone who doesn't get it, they really need to get their head out of their [censored].

But actually I'm just dropping in to say that you have an awesome avatar and signature. But... For Russ and the Allfather!!

This. It goes for both gender and "racial" equality. True equality in my eyes is when the people most suited for a job get it, regardless of race or gender. Punishment or favoritism of the people of today to make up for unrelated (unrelated to the afore mentioned people, that is) incidents in the past won't solve anything, at times it will only make things worse. I don't get the "there should be more X-people in Y-profession" either. Why? What if there are a less women in the IT business, for instance, because a lesser part of the female populace has an interest in said line of work? What should we do then? Try to indoctrinate a certain amount of women into being interested in IT? Forcing them at gunpoint?

The only time we should get involved is if they didn't get into a certain business thanks to widespread sixual harassment or thanks to other threats of violence and the likes, otherwise we shouldn't get involved. If there are more whites than blacks with the appropiate merits for a company then the company should have more white than black employees. If there are more blacks with the appropiate merits then there should be more blacks than whites. If you have more Arabs suited for a certain line of work compared to Frenchmen, then there should be more Arabs than French at that workplace. If you have more competend women than men then there should be more female employees and vice versa. As simple as that. There are times when it's acceptable to discriminate though, but it's rare. For instance, if you're going to hire a salesman walking from door to door in a neighbourhood with a large portion of violent KKK members, then it's acceptable to choose a white man over a black one, since a black man's well-being would be put at risk. The same would be acceptable if the salesman was to operate in a Black Panther neighbourhood and whites were not chosen either, due to the risks involved.

I don't mind if private enterprises engage in "equal" activities as long as they cover the expenses themselves though, and as long as it's not forced upon anyone involuntarily, but there are times when it goes too far. I've heard rumours about lowering the requirements to become a female firefighter in Sweden or whatever country it was, to get more women into firefighting. I don't know if it actually came to be, but a thing like that is pure folly imo. For instance, what happens when the firefighter has to get a beam out of the way to save someone from a burning house and the firefighter in question is incompetent due to too low requirements in the name of equality? Will gravity feel partial to feminist ideas and reduce the effect it has on the beam? Nope. Chances are somewhat slim of such a scenario coming true, but if it does then someone may die just so that someone might feel good about him/herself.

And I'm agreeing with Tonal Architect in most ways when it comes to the other topics brought up in this thread. There's a big difference between drunken six and [censored]. A case where a chick gets drunk and sleeps with someone she normally wouldn't and regretting it afterwards is as much [censored] as a drunken guy donating money to charity and regretting it the next day is robbery. And how are guys supposed to know if women don't show any reluctance? AGuyNamedOleg said that not everyone out drinking is a scholar or a professor, which is true. They are not masters at reading body language or telepaths either. Some girls are shy and introvert and let the guy make all the moves, are men supposed to make them sign a written agreement of consent before getting between the sheets?

And for the record, I'm tired and hardly half awake, so if I'm unclear in any way then let me know and I'll try to do a better job at expressing myself. May review my post later on when I'm more present mentally too.

What you're saying is that, even if there is inequality, it's got nothing to do with you. I guess black people should be happy that you weren't around when they were still slaves, and women that you weren't around when they wanted the vote and property rights.

If you're proceeding on the assumption that there isn't significant prejudice, go back two pages and read my responses to modus_operandi. It's a false assumption.


Do women spend their time with the wrong people if they complain about sixism? What if they can't not spend time in sixist environments? Should they just pack their bags and leave their job if that is the sixist environment? "Sorry, boy/girl, I just can't afford food right now. It turns out mommy's been spending her time in the wrong workplace environment. I know you're hungry, but hang in there, 'kay? It's just another six months or so until I find a new job."

Right. If you wouldn't ask that of a woman, why do you ask it of a man?




So women that demand that men pay for dates have "values and standards"? What does that make the women that go Dutch?

If a man must be a gentleman, must a woman be a lady? And what does that involve, exactly? Must she act demure and coy, walk around with a parasol and squeeze herself into a corset so that she isn't considered trash?

If you wouldn't ask it of a woman, why do you ask it of a man?

I never said that prejudice and inequality doesn't exist anymore, however, trying to make up for things in the past by creating more inequality now doesn't help anyone. Not everyone does, but a considerable amount of people seem to be in favor of racial quotas at workplaces and similar ideas thanks to white guilt or similar viewpoints, from what I've seen. I don't see why I, who has never kept a slave or made any profit from black slavery, should owe a black man anything, who has never been a slave, solely based on the color of our skin. Nor do I see why I should owe a woman something because another person with the same private parts was treated unfairly by someone with the same private parts as me.

Not to mention that things like affirmative action are racist in themselves. You have to get people to think in a collectivist manner all the time, putting people in different groups based on their ethnicity, skin color, etc, and make them assign certain duties or privileges to said groups, based on which skin color they have. I don't see how people will stop thinking along racist lines as long as they constantly have to ask themselves "Which race does that man/woman belong to? What groups owe him/her something?". And also, should it go all the way and encompass all groups in the world? Should a Muslim, for instance, be forced to employ a number of Christians thanks to extensive slavery and opression by Islamic nations? Should an American with a lot of Swedish heritage be forced to employ a certain amount of Sami thanks to offenses carried out by the Swedish nation? Would you also divide black people into different groups, based on whether or not they came there as a result of slavery back in time, or if they recently emigrated to the US?

I personally think that getting people to think along individualistic lines is a much better way of getting rid of racism than to focus on different "races" all the time. Not to mention that a free market favours companies that choose merit/skill over "race". If a company doesn't hire competent personell while another does, based on prejudice, it has less of a chance competing with the non-racist company, thus the companies that go beyond "race" end up making a bigger profit which is the best motivation around for companies. If the group which is looked down upon offers less due to lesser skills, however, then it shouldn't have the jobs anyway, discriminated group or not. If they lack skill for other reasons, like poor education, then it's up to the people in charge of the education to fix that and not the employers.