Originally posted by sir_chancealot
*sigh*. Your feminism has affected you in ways that you do not even realize, and it's sad in a way. You truly think that males are all one and the same. There are inherent differences in good men, and bad men. You need to learn this, before it gets you killed in a sit-x environment.

..."if they think they can have you"? Honey, in a sit-x situation, unless you've got the firepower, IT WON'T BE UP TO YOU *IF* THEY HAVE YOU OR NOT.

Men don't like to share their partners. No, honey. GOOD MEN don't like to share their partners. To a bad man, you are just something that is owned, like a car or a motorcycle. Motorcycle gangs are notorious for this. A woman rates WAY below their motorcycles. They often will not give a crap about someone screwing their "old ladies", but they sure as heck will kill you if you touch their chopper. The only thing that "buddying up" with the biggest, meanest guy will ensure, is that he does you first. And by "first", I mean just that. There will be a big, long line of them behind him, usually based on status of the group. If you think otherwise, you've never been around (or talked to someone who has been around) truly anti-social men. This is where the phrase "pulling a train" comes from, because the guys in line look like a long train behind the first guy.

Your strategy would be successful in a group of guys where MOST of the men are good, and a few are bad. It would be entirely unsuccessful in any other make up. This is even compounded by the fact that younger men are AWARE of women using their sexuality as a means of control over men. They even have a phrase for it: "Bros before Hos".

You REALLY think your "sistahs" are gonna give a crap if you get raped in Sit-x? Know what they are going to say? "Better her than me!".

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
The women on here don't even SEE, let alone understand, the laughable dichotomy they espouse here. Let me see if I get this right.... You are too scared to go into the "woods" with a group of survivalist men, when the CHECKS, CONTROLS, AND PUNISHMENTS OF MODERN CIVILIZATION ARE IN PLACE; WHEN MEN ARE STILL HELD ACCOUNTABLE AND PUNISHED BY OTHER MEN; WHEN MOST MEN'S BEHAVIOR IS STILL BEING RESTRAINED BY INTERNAL OR EXTERNAL CONTROLS, yet you are going to be a "survivalist", an amazonian she-ra when men are no longer held accountable to anyone but themselves? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!

If you are smart and have prepared, or are very lucky, you will end up in a group of men willing to fight, kill, and die to protect you. If you are unlucky (even if you are smart), you will end up in a group of men whom you will service (both in and out of bed), willingly or no.

As a man who has the psychological mindset to fight, defend, and even kill for those under my protection, whom do you think I am going to fight and defend: Those women who claim "grrl power!" and "equality", or those who behave in what a manner that has always been defined as "feminine"? I know who my biological nature screams out to protect, and it ain't the "women can do anything a man can do" crowd.

There is a HUGE liability in today's woman that goes unacknowledged. A liability that was not possessed in such large quantities by the women of yore. That liability is the fact that today's women let their emotions control them, rather than them controlling their emotions. Granted, women have always been the more emotional of the sexes. In it's proper place, this emotional nature was GOOD for society, and exherted a pacifying influence on the male populace.

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
Given that the women today, who ACTUALLY HAVE A CHOICE, choose to mate with bad men (and this is now born out by scientific studies, not just anectdotal evidence), how much more in sit x? Here, I am speaking as a group, not any individual woman. How many times do you think a group of survivalists will allow women to choose their own mates, if they continually choose men who are detrimental to the group? How long do you think they will be allowed "equality" if their choices (taken as a whole) harm that group?
Look to past history for the answer to that question. "Equality" in today's meaning won't last long. "Equality" today to women (again, as a group) means "I get to do the same things as men, but I shouldn't have to suffer the same consequences as men". In a sit-x situation, women are going to find that they don't want true equality any more.

Originally posted by Chewlip
I think it might be time to close this thread.

It keeps getting hijacked by machismo, and has gone completely off-topic.

Originally posted by DuneKnight
...even though you arent totally right as history also shown that women can be dominant members of a group surprising as it may seem. and we shouldn't underestimate their sexual powers over men, actually there are accounts of women leading pirates and tribes, so i can pull a veto on that one. ...

Originally posted by Chewlip
To be honest, having read the last few posts, I think it's even wiser for more than one woman to be in a group, if we are faced with some of the attitudes of a few of the male posters on this thread.

Originally posted by sir_chancealot

Originally posted by DuneKnight
...even though you arent totally right as history also shown that women can be dominant members of a group surprising as it may seem. and we shouldn't underestimate their sexual powers over men, actually there are accounts of women leading pirates and tribes, so i can pull a veto on that one. ...

Think about what you have said now......

Of the, literally, TENS OR HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of gangs, groups, tribes, and societies throughout human history, you can only name a handful of women leaders? What does this tell you about their viability as leaders in general?

Can A FEW women lead? Sure. But only a handful in the entire known history of the human race. This alone should put an end to the fantasy that a woman is going to be another "Xena, Warrior Princess".