Yes, and the overwhelming social trend is that it has come to be expected, not appreciated.

---

Added on April 28, 2009, 6:46 pmMy dear Ezralimm. Face the Truth™: Putting your hand on your hip, cocking your head from side to side while snapping your fingers and saying "Ouch!!! Now that has to hurt!" is NOT a masculine way of making a point, and IS INDEED a mannerism heavily used by African American women hailing from poorer, inner city slums.

When a man displays an uncanny sense of female mimicry like this, it IS INDEED a faggot mannerism.

Face the Truth™

This post has been edited by Dickson Poon: Apr 28 2009, 06:57 PM

i dont think even i could have put it in a more eloquent manner. i would love to elaborate further but its time for lunch. when i return i will comment more.

Nope. I understood your points full well, of which implied a flawed personality based on the perception that you gave from your points.
You were the one who frequently uses Ad Hominem. Besides, your points does show your character, as what you wanted me to perceive, so it isn't Ad Hominem anymore.

Write it then. Why use Ad Hominem on him by calling him a confused person yet provide no justification without due prejudice.
Your imputation amounts to defamation.


Why not you give a reason why the wife MUST offer you sex and give birth to your babies.


Since when there is ever a thing called FAIR?
You want fairness? Try becoming a hermaphrodite.
After 35 pages and you still harp on the same old flawed argument of woman being money minded. It isn;t about money. It is about the ABILITY and CAPABILITY to earn/make money and support the family.

I cannot afford a wife and children but can I have many girlfriends instead? How would you label me then?

I have ideas to what I can do to start a business but it require about 10 years to materialize by then my d*** probably won't work anymore, I can build a career at any age but cannot live like 10 years younger.

Sounds like you have been through bad relationships but tell me what is the difference between a job & a career, you have my respect though you are harsh, care to address my questions??

Care to explain in your opinion:
Why does the law does not allow a man to switch role bearing the wife's surname?
Why must we get marry to have sex?
If I choose a pretty girlfriend over the fat and less appealing, can I say be proud of my choice just like "Man only love the pretty girls and be proud."?

Why are you putting words in my mouth? If you are in a situation where you feel obliged to 'give' sex, then i advise you to leave that relationship immediately. I wonder why men are always labeled as the only ones who enjoy sex. IMO this situation usually arises in an unfulfilling relationship (to gold diggers, this means no money), and thus feel bitter about 'offering my body' to the man. Is the man not offering you sex as well? Sex doesn't just benefit one party you know...

About the pregnancy thing, you're not pregnant now are you? So I'm supposed to give you special treatment for something that may or may not occur in a few year's time? Using your logic, since men are going to become sick and die at an earlier age (on average) than their female partners, they should be given special treatment as well.


Let me put it this way, say, 200 years ago, all jobs are held by men, women usually stay at home and manage the home and have no opportunity to earn their own money. THEREFORE it is fair for the man to be expected to shoulder the burden of supporting the family as women have an inherent disadvantage in the society. Is this the same situation now? Maybe work opportunities are still not exactly equal, but you can't deny that women now are a lot more independant financially. Yet, men are still expected (ideally) to be the ONLY one to bear the financial burden.

If you see someone on the bus with a broken leg, then it is expected for you to give him special treatment and give him your seat. A few months later, if the same person is on the bus but his leg is healed, you are no longer obliged to do anything. Agree?

Yes, and all I'm saying is that women HAVE the ABILITY and CAPABILITY to earn/make their own money and be expected to support the family as well. I'm not saying that men should shirk from their responsibilities, but that women should also expected to contribute towards the financial stability of the family. Which, by the way many women do and I admire them.

*I* use ad hominems, happyforever? Oh please. You know that you use it a lot too. Admit it.

The gist of my entire argument has been that evaluating the reliability of a man based entirely on the amount of money he already makes is a flawed and indeed idiotic method.

I gave an example of how without the pair bonding process the woman in question would still be nowhere near her dream of happy ever after.

I gave an example of how little it means to men to have women like yourself bandy platitudes like "responsibility" around even as you take us staying with you FOREVER for granted.

So by all means, continue to imply things about my character if you must. That is really the only angle that you can exploit.

That, and debating matters with the other men here still clinging to past values that have already been fully demonstrated to have become expected, but not appreciated.

(By the way honey, the men in your life don't stick around, do they? )

This post has been edited by Dickson Poon: Apr 28 2009, 07:57 PM

NOBODY is saying that men are evaluated SOLELY by how much money they have.
in the same way NOBODY is saying that women are evaluated SOLELY by how pretty/attractive/fertile they are.

That said, it is a stereotype because it's true. Men do leave women they are with if there is a hotter girl coming on to them. Women do leave men who are weak and pathethic in the game of life (in the modern sense, money plays a big part in this).


EVERYONE uses ad hominems.... But not all are hypocritical condescending SOBs.

---

Added on April 28, 2009, 7:51 pmIn practice, just about every man in his right mind would do that...and be proud of it whether they like to admit it or not. But not every man is awesome and can woo the attractive girls. MOST will have to settle for less than their dream princesses... Because Face The Truth™, they arent exactly dream prince's either.

EVERYONE settles for the best that is AVAILABLE to them.


...and what is available to a girl depends LARGELY (not solely) on how beautiful/attractive/fertile she is.

...and what is available to a guy depends LARGELY (not solely) on how socially dominant he is.


In the modern world social dominance is difficult, but not impossible, to achieve without money.

This post has been edited by ezralimm: Apr 28 2009, 07:51 PM

No Ezra, that is exactly what is in the first post. The amount of money as the measure of reliability. NOTHING ELSE was included as a measure apart from money and the 'security' it supposedly brings.



You're exactly right, because nobody in this thread (except you maybe? Hmm?) said that women are evaluated solely based on how good looking they are.

Oh come on now, don't be sulking now just because I called you out on a faggot mannerism.

Face the Truth™: "Everybody" is hypocritical to an extend or another... but not all hypocrites use faggotry to prove their point.

Try practising what you preach, brother.

This post has been edited by Dickson Poon: Apr 28 2009, 07:56 PM

NOTHING... gets a girl off faster than rubbing large denomination bills all over her body... fresh bills of course

but really ezra, your views narrow minded and simplistic to say the least. what you are doing is essentially equating mankind to the animal kingdom. we are not mere animals whereby our needs for a mate is determined by the strongest or the most fertile.

unlike the animal kingdom where the strongest male takes over a pride and kills of all the offsprings of the predecessor, humans do not do this. neither do women leave their husbands when they see a richer man down the street. perhaps in your world or even mould women do that, but i for one feel that men generally do not do that. yes there are exceptions but these are mere exceptions rather than the norm.

this thread full with homo n les .... congratzzz

I COMPLETELY AGREE.

which part of "LARGELY (not solely)" do you not understand?

Now look at all the women in the world... In the same way a guy cant just simply leave his wife for another woman, a girl cannot just simply leave her husband for another man.

Picture this:
1) Guy and Girl, highschool sweethearts marry when they are 28yo.
2) hav kids etc.. make a family when they are 30.
3) Next 10 odd years raising small kids.

Now both the guy and girl are in their 40s/...
Do you think the woman will have much opportunity to be with a younger (like madonna ), successful, socially dominant, good looking guy? NO..
Do you think the man will have much opportunity to be in a loving relationship with a young girl? NO..

It's not simplistic.. It's just human nature. By the time people settle down (40s), most people are content with monogamy - and for all practical reasons IT IS THEIR ONLY CHOICE. Men who DO have a choice, ... socially dominant men like Chua Soi Lek, can play around and get away with it... Most men will just have to stick with what they have.

LOOK AROUND YOU at the marraiges that do break up: It is usually because:
1) The girl thinks she can do better and is discontent
OR
2) The guy think he can do better and is discontent

Normally the one desperate to hold on to the marraige is the one that stands to lose out... eg the 40 yr old woman who KNOWS that it is unlikely she will be able to find someone reasonably attractive as all the eligable bachelors have more attractive women available to them.

...Chua Soi Lek's wife stood by him even after the videotape emerged.

Edit:

Now using your POV:

Imagine that woman looking at a more successful man than her husband... she likely wouldnt stand a chance: that successful man is likely attached/taken to a more attractive woman.

Imagine that man looking at a hot young lady by the pool... he likely wouldnt stand a chance: that hot young lady mixes with hot young guys her age... and yes there are plently of acceptably wealthy hot young guys around (looks do matter to ladies too)

---

Added on April 28, 2009, 9:39 pm ... What an idiot. mannerisms do not exist in text laa.

This post has been edited by ezralimm: Apr 28 2009, 09:40 PM

girlfriends or wives, its up to you to shoulder the responsibility as best to your ability.

Business dont need 10 years. EVen in 1 day can be done too. I'm running my own biz SOHO style, low cost, low capital and overhead. I figured that to increase my income, I cannot depend on my job. I need to step up to create a job for myself. If I can spend 8 hours a day making my bosses richer and bringing in customers for them, why not spend it to do my own business and bring in profit for myself?

And no, my relationship is fine, into its 7th year now.

Responsibility, Commitment, and Conviction. Anything else will fall into place in due time.


You do realize that the question you posted can be used back on you, don't you?
Besides, this thread isn't about gold diggers. So your assertions are moot.

A gentleman should know how to behave, else he won't be called one. You do know what it takes to be one, don't you?

If the men are that capable, working will only be an option for women, not a necessity.
And yes. the Man is still the leader of the household. A relationship between the man and the woman has roles for each one to follow. It is only because either one is incapable, that the other has to cover up for his/her partner. Nothing wrong with that, but inherently women still look up to man for their leadership qualities due to their nature in being logical and level headed thinking.
Sure they can contribute, but it is better if its only an option for them not a necessity. Because when they are pregnant for that 9 months, she can't contribute as much as she could even if she wanted. Women also have periods every month, which can hinder their ability to work and cause them to be emotionally unstable. Sometimes they will have body pains too. Women are fragile creatures, physically and mentally. Man are born tough. It is a gentlemanly obligation to take care of her in times of her need.

So looking at the first post, if you see a rich (possible capable) man, and a poor (possible incapable) man, based on such simplistic scenario, one tends to choose the former than the latter. Of course, this is question is too general as lots of variables aren't present to give a complete justification of anyone's answer


So? I don't beach about it like you do

Your argument is moot as well, because the assertion wasn't about the reliability on man based on the "amount" of money he already makes. No monetary figure was mentioned. It was an open ended assertion with a general and simplistic statement. Further into the posts you'll see that it would mean the capability of shouldering responsibilities and not just the *amount* that matters. If one is irresponsible and spendthrift, no amount of money is ever enough

For men then shirks at responsibilities, surely it meant little to them.

They stick around for as long as my legs remained split asunder, emanating my feminine excretions all around in such awesome splendour.


If it is about the amount of money, then please state at which point the post mentioned about the amount of money?

dear ezra, please retrace your own steps and what you have said. at one turn you say that men and women can and will leave their partners for someone else because the man found somenone more attractive or the woman found someone more socially dominant. then at the next, you say that ppl who are settled down by 40 dont do it. what are you trying to say here? that when you have been married for some time the only thing that is keeping you together is the fact that you cannot get out of it? come on. you surely dont believe that do you?

anyway, i do not care to repeat myself as i have already stated my opinion on the matter of the roles of man and woman especially financially and the fact is that i believe in this strongly.

what miffs me is simply the following statement in bold in the first post.

the same quote in bold is applicable to your last question happy4ever. before you start shooting from the hip, please take note that TS clearly says rich guy against poor guy instead of say.. guy who can provide enough against guy who can provide luxuries and security.


are all of you women essentially agreeing to the above post that love is not more important than money??? how can it be that you can possibly believe that an abstract thing of value only on paper is much more important than lying in the arms of the man you love with your life and to whom you have just made love with and with whom you have borne children with? how can it be more important than the emotions you feel when he rushes to your aid when you accidentally cut your finger? how can it be more important than the all-engulfing emotion that you feel deep down in your heart when you see the love in his eyes?

can money possibly do any of this? can it make you feel this way? and if it does, is it human?

This post has been edited by cyrixMII300: Apr 28 2009, 11:22 PM

"can and will leave their partners" ???? Where did that come from??
There is nothing that needs to be retracted.
Dont put words in my mouth. You have possibly just made the most pessimistic assumptions from what I said.


What I am talking about is reality. Ok, consider this:

1) Generally, everyone settles for the most attractive (soc dominant for women, fertile body for men) partner they are culturally compatible with
2) By the time a couple settles down, there will be emotional baggage. LOVE... yeah L-O-V-E...plus children and social connections common between them.
3) People stay monogamous because of LOVE....


BUT IF

1) The guy finds out that there are more attractive girls going after him...
OR
2) The girl finds out there are more eligable guys going after her...

Then there is a chance that the marriage will hit the rocks and that's when divorce comes to mind.


HOWEVER
By the time most people have raised two or three kids.. ie. they are in their late 30s:

1) Most men will never have more attractive girls going after them
2) Most women will never have more eligable guys going after them


EXCEPTIONS
1) Rich, socially dominant men can actually find more attractive girls - sleep around.
2) Pretty, attractive women who marry young (eg. early 20s) to a guy who turns out to be a loser (ie. non-socially dominant)... and knows that she should be with someone more worthy can actually find more worthy guys - sleep around.

^Im not saying everyone is like that... In fact.. most people will never be put in that situation and will never have the opportunity to do so. Not all guys are rich and socially dominant. Not all girls are hot. In the same way a poor hapless peasant who never had the opportunity to be corrupt cannot REALLY claim to be clean. Most monogamous people who never really had the opportunity to sleep around with more attractive people cannot REALLY claim to be moraly righteous.


EVEN IF
1) A guy knows he can do better, he may choose to stay monogamous due to personal convictions (eg. religion and spirituality), practical reasons (scared of STDs/ JAIS raids) and LOVE!!!
2) A girl knows she can do better, she may choose to stay monogamous due to personal convictions (eg. religion and spirituality), practical reasons (scared of STDs/ JAIS raids) and LOVE!!!

This post has been edited by ezralimm: Apr 28 2009, 11:45 PM

Nope. It implies that rich can provide. Not the "amount" of money one needs to be called rich.
"Rich" is also very subjective and relative. The statement shown was of a very simplistic and general purview that being rich is better than poor.
The general perception here is that rich can provide and poor can't.

Ideally, while love is more important than money, but many times the lack of money and the pursuit of money can wither the love down over time. This happens even among the rich too. And the most number of arguments in marital issues are caused by financial means.

Also, some woman tends to be very idealistic and doesn't think much about the sustainability of the family despite lacking in financial means, other would be more of a realist and would choose their mate more carefully, putting logic ahead of emotions. There is no right or wrong.

At the end of the day, whatever floats your boat, take it.

Moorish is voicing out her perception based on her experience. Perceptions are subjective and relative. There is no absolute answer here.
And her perception also imply that life can be better if your mate is resourceful in financial means. And the general assertion is, if you can choose, most logical answer would be to choose the one with the most capability and resources.

if else then what if yes no.... i thought you wrote programming language. are you purely a scholar, an observer... or do you have any life experience to back up teh FACE THE TRUTH?

Wait wait guys...

I've never says girls should keep hopping from one rich husband to another, I'm only saying she chooses to marry a rich husband over the poorer man, IF she is given the choice. Afterall courting time is the time we choose our life time mate right? And unfortunately in modern times we have to put financial capability as part of the evaluation.

And after that war starts...because some will insist the rich will have flings like as if the poor wont...what happen after that is beyond us, nobody knows.

That's why I've married the rich guy and have affair with the poor guy.

why not marry the rich guy and have affair with another rich guy...at least you can have sex in 6 stars hotels ,fine food and luxury presents ok the guys will say I'm money minded even when comes to affairs