It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

ECON: Working women almost certainly caused the credit crunch

page: 17
58
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   
an interesting read here. this is a critique by Willis E. McNelly on Chaucer's book entitled, THE WIFE OF BATH

www.thestargates.com...




posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   
that's gross, how about continuous deception destroying civilisation in order to gain control?

this is a CT board...

the number of scams is increasing exponentially, taxes, robber syndicates running rampant (what did the oil shock of last year feel like?) and shadow economy are enough to do that. by far.

i've long since suspected that fundamentalist Islam, having a history of being a fabrication of western secret services and organisations (who supported HAMAS aginst PLO? who grromed the mujaheddin, later turned Taleban..?) actually mirrors the mindset of the Western Elites.

these same people will apparently float a test balloon now and then to gauage reactions. iow, if you're female, you ought to start looking into the NWO or you might as well be reduced to breeding sows.

that would be after depopulation, though....just saying.

[edit on 2009.3.5 by Long Lance]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Undo,
I have no problems with emotions unless they are used in threads or arguments/debates to pass as excellence or the moral high ground.
I don't agree with this technique verses taking a point one disagrees or agrees with and remarking on such.

In other words..used to default through unquestioned and unchallenged.

I want to take a moment in making a point about emotions ..male and female.

Most of the men I know work in jobs at which they are reasonably competant ..and bring home reasonably good paychecks. These are not jobs in which they are emotionally content or find emotional satisfaction/rewards. If anything to keep from getting fired...maimed or killed...these men must discipline their emotions...ie..deny them.
This becomes a lifestyle for many men. It is part of their survival.
And I believe many women take this for granted...a given. It need not even be considered...factored it to any equation concerning men. The men are invisible as to their emotional concerns or needs. To voice them is to be less than a man. This appears to be true both among men who cannot reason this out and also women who are not interested in reasoning it out.

Or as I am often wont to say...women don't want a sensitive emotional man..they want a man who is sensitive and emotional about and for them.

Translate this as women do not want the competition for emotions from men at the expense of monetary support...lifestyle support...ie..security.

Now women as a whole tend to gravitate to occupations which offer more emotional satisfaction...conditions of work..etc etc. Not as much risk as well. Women do not tend to look at work with hard/harsh conditions and risks as emotionally satisfying. In other words their job selections tend towards offering more such emotional options to them.
The scourge for women is to be trapped in a job which does not offer the correct/entitled social beliefs...emotional satisfaction. This fingerprint mostly does not apply to men. The market caters more to women in emotional occupational satisfaction than it does to men.
How many women do you know who would approve of a man takng a job which would pay him less but be more emotionally satisfying and have better enviornmental conditions while she makes up the difference??
But when men try to express this concept..it brings out the rebuke as evidenced by the results of this thread.
This belief and thinking is often covered up by emotions and drama whenever it is challanged or brought to question.

I can see this clearly in many of the posts on this and similar threads. I do not see the men by and large noticing this fingerprint. They should. They need to learn to spot this fingerprint for what it is...not only physical expendability and disposability of the male..but also emotional expendabilty and disposability of the male. No one wants to hear it. This is what many of the men cannot vocalize. The inequality of it.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Orangetom,

I much prefer husband is happy at his job. He already has problems with depression and is suffering from post trauma, so seeing him happy at his job is a welcome treat. You're stereotyping again.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   
I think the core of this is pretty physical: that biologically and spiritually we are designed for sex as a tantric, metaphysical and spiritual thing, not just for procreation. I think that our sexual knowledge as a culture is ridiculously shallow to the degree that it is unhealthy on every level. There is not a woman around who will not box a man for suggesting that she'd be less unhappy if she'd just get laid properly, and yet, I'm here to tell you that really good sex can make the world alright for at least 24 hours or more--including a whole lot of things that were Serious Issues right up until then. I think every human ought to be taken somewhere around age 16 and taught in detail about the G spots on both genders and how to make love in a way that rocks your world not just your genitals. I honestly think that the issues with sex are profoundly important to the larger question of man-woman relationships, because I see how differently they relate when this is worked out--and how much healthier people are across the board when this is a good part of their lives.

Historically, right along with the "original sin" concept -- which I consider the greatest genuine Evil ever perpetuated on the human species -- came the "sex is bad and nasty" concept. If you were to discover that expanded consciousness, better health on every level, better relationship between genders, and more were available as a result of having let go of that psychology, it might make you wonder what forces and what intents set that up in the first place. If I wanted to destroy one of the most fundamental qualities of humans, forever muck up the most primal relationships between them, and set off an endless cascade-failure sequence of side effects in their cultures, I couldn't think of a better way to do it.

If you start from a point of worship or at least respect, and understanding that we all contain both genders, it humanizes the people on the other side. The arguments tend to be about important things and not just name calling.

Women have progressed immensely in our culture and through much hard work. It isn't done. I don't disrespect that, and I'm grateful.

But I must say that forever bashing men over the head about where women have come from and the fact that it isn't Star Trekkian yet wears old on me, the same way people going on about how their ancestors were slaves does. I have compassion for that, and I see problems in our culture I do my part to help resolve in that area, but I didn't personally enslave them any more than they personally killed off my ancestors on the Trail of Tears or whatever, and dragging that stuff into our relationship, them and me, is just problematic as a result; we don't owe each other anything.

IMO no fair or just balance can be found in the present when one side is holding onto massive baggage from the past.

Men are pigs. So are women. I never saw a horrible quality in one I haven't seen in the other too. Most of life is learning to find the people of quality that you resonate with. Most of what I see in others around me is a completely shallow, undiscriminating, immature psychology about men and women which brings them into unfulfilling if not dangerous relationships with people a lot like themselves, ending in them both being more miserable after and hating the other gender en-masse even more as a result.

Responsibility, maturity, and fairness -- like charity -- starts at home.

PJ



[edit on 5-3-2009 by RedCairo]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by RedCairo
 


alot of stereotypes in your post too. i remember when i got married, people were just sure i'd be frigid just because i wanted to wait till i had a serious relationship and a commitment before i shared what i considered to be a very precious moment. i recall reading that any woman who claimed she had never faked an orgasm was a liar. these people had no idea what they were talking about. the stereotypes are so deep. it's almost entirely due to the idea that only "hip" people have good sex. that's so ridiculous, it's almost as stupid as burkhas.

[edit on 5-3-2009 by undo]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999

The scourge for women is to be trapped in a job which does not offer the correct/entitled social beliefs...emotional satisfaction. This fingerprint mostly does not apply to men. The market caters more to women in emotional occupational satisfaction than it does to men.
How many women do you know who would approve of a man takng a job which would pay him less but be more emotionally satisfying and have better enviornmental conditions while she makes up the difference??



You are right. Housekeeping, prostitution, working as clerks in stores, or secretarial work, nursing, waiting tables (all traditionally female occupations) are much more emotionally satisfying than, say, being the boss, building things, etc. Subservient positions where you have no power is incredibly rewarding.

cat.inist.fr...


he hypothesis that social subordination is stressful, and results in a depressive response in some individuals, was examined in socially housed female cynomolgus monkeys. Social status was manipulated such that half of the previously subordinate females became dominant and half of the previously dominant females became subordinate. Current subordinates hypersecreted cortisol, were insensitive to negative feedback, and had suppressed reproductive function. Current subordinates received more aggression, engaged in less affiliation, and spent more time alone than dominants. Furthermore, they spent more time fearfully scanning the social environment and displayed more behavioral depression than dominants. Current subordinates with a history of social subordination were preferentially susceptible to a behavioral depression response. The results of this experiment suggest that the stress of social subordination causes hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal and ovarian dysfunction, and support the hypothesis that chronic, low-intensity social stress may result in depression in susceptible individuals.



There are similar studies with male primates showing the effects of social dominance on behavior and physiology. Different hormones and chemicals tend to be involved so the studies are generally done separately.


Go ahead and forget that while women "seek less risky jobs" is in part probably true, (women on average do avoid risk more than males) but is also in part because women have been traditionally locked out of those jobs. They were willing to do them during World War II. And now that these jobs are open to women more women are entering these fields despite harassment, isolation on the job, and social pressure not to. Hard to determine what is a "female" characteristic imposed by nature, and one imposed by cultural and familial expectations.

Women where I grew up, (in rural Hawaii,) are not as simpering and limp wristed as some of the women in the mainland. Regardless of their size, too, it isnt only the big Samoan girls who are more aggressive and "game" for adventure. It is also Asian and Caucasian females as well. Because the cultural expectations are different. Women are not prized there for simpering. It isnt imposed upon them and rewarded. It is discouraged among girls much the same as it is with males. No one likes a crybaby where I grew up.

OrangeTom, you believe the way you do about females not because you have good solid evidence for it. (logic, reason and evidence) You believe what you do about women because of emotional reasons. It suits you to think that. You need to feel superior to someone, for some reason. It doesnt suit your emotional makeup to look at people as individuals. You need to feel your birth alone, (not your own individual merit) has given you a birthright, a natural superiority.

It has. You can write your name in the snow when you pee outdoors and women cannot. Feel better?



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


my supervisor is the wicked witch of the west....my boss will sit there and know right out that she is lying, and still take her side...
there's a thing on line called real age, or something like that, you answer a bunch of questions about you livestyle and gives out what your real age woud be...one of the questions had to do about arobic exercise....and I sat and thought about it for quite some time....for at least six of the eight hours I am working there I am pushing ink through a screen, my heartbeat is raised, my breathing elevated, yes....I think it fits the description of arobic exercise!! so I answered that I got 6 hours of arobic exercise a day....it came back with a warning, at my age, that much exercise just might be a tad bit dangerous to my health....guess what, I still go to work everyday (at least as long as they have work, lately that ain't been no five days a week), I earn a paycheck, although it is far less than my husband's...what the heck, my boy's first jobs paid more!! AND I WILL STILL POST ON THESE STUPID BOARDS AND DEFEND MY RIGHT TO HAVE THAT CRAPPY ARSED JOB WITH THE WICKED WITCH OF THE WEST MAKING MY LIFE MISERABLE AND THE BOSS THAT WILL THREATEN TO FIRE ME EVERY TIME I TRY TO DEFEND MYSELF!!

oh, yes, I do this because it's just oh so emotionally enjoyable!!!

you are too simplistic, stereotyping everything and everyone....when life is just too chaotic!



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by RedCairo
 


alot of stereotypes in your post too. i remember when i got married, people were just sure i'd be frigid just because i wanted to wait till i had a serious relationship and a commitment before i shared what i considered to be a very precious moment. i recall reading that any woman who claimed she had never faked an orgasm was a liar. these people had no idea what they were talking about. the stereotypes are so deep. it's almost entirely due to the idea that only "hip" people have good sex. that's so ridiculous, it's almost as stupid as burkhas.

[edit on 5-3-2009 by undo]


I'm lost on the stereotype. I took a 10 year vow of celibacy I broke 3 months early when I married at age 29 -- I'm the last person would assume anybody'd be frigid just because they weren't sexually active. I understand stereotypes exist in the world, but if you are on a discussion forum and you tell someone they are guilty of it, you should give a specific example (like a quote) or they (or onlookers) don't learn much from the effort.

Best,
PJ



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Go ahead and forget that while women "seek less risky jobs" is in part probably true, (women on average do avoid risk more than males) but is also in part because women have been traditionally locked out of those jobs.


I do have to say this is true. For example, I've been in business management, from line to executive, since I was 19 (24 years now), though sometimes I've worked independently. One thing I've seen repeatedly in business (and the larger the company the truer this is), that has driven me crazy to observer:

1. Generally incompetent (or ok, decent) minor executive or director (a man) leaves position.

2. Insanely competent executive secretary (a woman) who already does the work of at least 2 people if not more, is forced to take over for his role. She excels at it. She does better than he did at it. AND she manages to do this WHILE still accomplishing the work of two OTHER people. If ever shining effort and glowing performance are demonstrated, this is it.

Management observes this, tells her thank you (sometimes) and then

3. Hires some dude lucky to get his shoes tied right to be the new person 'in charge' and she stays a secretary. Key criteria being, apparently, that man can go play golf with them. The women, of course, aren't allowed, and most the best conversation happens on the golf course. The man may have almost no experience in a variety of skills the job requires, but it isn't really relevant that she is many times more qualified for his job than he is. What matters is that he's a guy, he was on the sales team and he golfs.

I didn't believe this at first. I read 'Games Mother Never Taught You' when I was 20 and thought the author was paranoid. I read it again at 35 and thought she was brilliant.


Women where I grew up, (in rural Hawaii,) are not as simpering and limp wristed as some of the women in the mainland.


LOL! My boyfriend (who lives on Maui. Too damned far away.) seems to respect women there in that way as well. Culturally it is nice when women grow up surrounded by people who expect them to be competent and intelligent and creative and don't reward them for being pathetic so the boys feel better.

PJ



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by RedCairo
 


i think it was the part about religion making sex "dirty." it isn't that at all. some people may translate it that way, but if solomon had a thousand wives (ever read the song of solomon?) and God told us to be fruitful and multiply (mwahaha)... the whole point of celibacy is the same as with ascetism -- you give it up to rechannel the energy normally used in that way, into something spiritual or physical exercise or marathon exams, or some goal you want to achieve that will make you a better person. it isn't religion that's the problem. it's the way people translate the wise men and their related texts.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Long Lance
 


Exactly my views on the fundamentalist Islam which came out of Saudi Arabia, and terrorist organizations which I believe are cartel generated ideas to traumatize and divide the world. But, the good news is, their entire nwo agenda is never going to succeed. Personally if all the bloodline/renegades were shipped out of this solar system, they would still be too close for comfort.

I completely agree that all of this in its entirety is a twisted ugly neocon agenda.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
it isn't religion that's the problem. it's the way people translate the wise men and their related texts.

Um, well, you could say that christianity teaches us to love so how did the Crusades and the Inquisition happen -- those were merely the way people translated the wise men and their related texts -- but I think as a generality suggesting that religion is the apparent source of some problems isn't too far off the mark. Though I do agree that the true spirit of it wouldn't do that. Then again that argument could probably be made for almost anything in the world that offers negative paradigms and more: that at heart, it was all quite good, but some people merely mistranslated it. That IS true. Alas that doesn't much change the perceived end result!


PJ



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by RedCairo
 


yet it is a stereotype to assume that people who believe in christianity think sex is dirty.
they just have rules about how to go about having it. this is how it goes... sex is fine in marriage "(meaning that you've agreed to be with one person.. this has several benefits). sex is not fine with someone else's spouse. duh.
sex is not fine outside marriage (unwanted pregnancies, increased chance of STDs, etc). sex, if at all possible, should just be avoided so that you can focus on your spiritual self, which is your eternal body.

it's not very complicated, and it doesn't mean it's dirty. it means it's got some social, mental, physical and spiritual implications and complications.

[edit on 5-3-2009 by undo]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 02:25 AM
link   
I wouldn't call myself 'emotional' in terms of how i interact with others ( friend nerves allready) but what would be so fundamentally wrong with a world where everyone had a thus far better idea of where they stood with each other? How is the current 'survivalist' system of suppressing emotions and thoughts making the world moore cooperative and 'safe' for us all?

Why should being 'emotional' get a bad connotations attached because it doesn't work at all well in the capitalist business system?

Stellar



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Stellar,

Good to see your post again. Hope all is well where you are located.


Good to see you posting too.


I don't necessarily buy into this concept like many on this thread.


Well he goes far too fast too far but as can be seen from the earlier stats double household incomes have not made the majority of American households economically better off for it.


Really? Why did women sometimes work longer a century before 'women' lib' could be called a official movement? Why did they need to take women out of the household to dumb it down when it was pretty dumb as it was? I mean what can women teach their children when they are not allowed access to anything outside of the home?



Men as well often worked longer hours in centuries past.


Again that depends on whether you define house work as work. As you say women often had to work the fields or in factories while raising children and keeping the house.


This time warp technique is one sided to me. Also men working long hours and in dangerous environments did not lend itself to learning as well...much less teaching.


But learning wasn't always frowned upon as was almost always the case for women? I do not for a moment think that the history of the world were a kinder place to women than the modern world is. In fact until very recently ( and still only in some places) women were little other than property , in the community sense, that had to make the best arrangements they could with the male they were mostly saddled ( i accurate pun if ever) with by their parents or community?


This concept is often overlooked while promoting the popular victim defaults of today.


I think your overplaying the victim ideology when the capitalist system the world currently suffers under is doing it's absolute best to perpetuate the myth that there are no victims and that people fail or suffer due to their own actions, or for those who really suffer, their supposed inaction.

Perpetuating a victim ideology would be VERY bad for business as people would come to , somehow, not explained, 'rely' on government which would then have to be responsive to their needs thus failing to reroute ever more of their taxes to the rich minority who practically owns the government and its propaganda tools.

I just don't see it.


As I have been trying to explain..the crime is not against the men..it is only against the women.


Strange that even with your perspective women ends up the longest suffering victims of our current system.


THe men tend towards expendability and disposability .


And in my mind they are and when women eventually figures this out and gains the power to do something about it 'we' might really be in trouble.
There is a particularly good Anime series that comes to mind.



.the crime is doing this to women.


But historically women were even more expendable&disposable as the high death's from multiple births ( to say nothing of war&famine) should in my opinion indicate? Sure men protected their families but seemingly as their possessions.

I think that while , mostly western, women are facing new risks ( as well as plenty of the old ones ) these days their potential gains are astronomically higher hence the fact that you find them struggling for similar opportunities all over the world.

In closing i don't see that women have much, if anything, to lose even if society itself is changed in perhaps less obviously progressive ways.

Cheers

Stellar



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 

Undo,

I was speaking of men as a whole group..not just your husband. IF this is so for your husband ...well done.

Most of the women I have ever met ...their concerns for their men are under the proviso that the men are emotionally satisfied under their value system and beliefs...in ...religion.. ..even if it means the men must give up or modify their beliefs/knowledges and take the lead in everything from the women in their lives. I don't actually believe the men are often aware of this transpiring. The men often know something is wrong, doesn't add up, unequal...but don't seem to have the acumen to think it through.
Their sports conditioning to run touchdowns for their women and kids, no matter how ridiculous or high maintenance it is, is at variance with good thinking or values.

You know Undo...on this same line of thought.. I have a friend who god divorced shortly after marriage. One of the points his now ex made constantly..was one of the problems with him is that like me ..he does not watch sports. She had made the connection with male sports conditioning in worshiping the ability to run touchdowns ..with being able to come in an overtake/hijack this paradigm in making a man malleable to her performance conditioning..to try out for her approval even at great expense/risk to himself...and not her. In other words to run touchdowns for her and at her discretion. She actually thought this was normal..and the way things were supposed to be. What was also so obvious to me is that he was so dumb he did not catch it until it was almost to late. He should have seen the telltales of this before saying I do.

In spite of his non sports conditioning..he did not know enough to spot such a paradigm at work until I clued him in to it for what it was. He had adopted the willingness to try out for approval without even thinking about the nature of it. But when he began to back out of performing ..it was she who showed him what it actually was...and how it is often used on a male.
All I did was to awaken him to how it works. Then he was able to see her when she tried to apply it to him...unequally.

For you see Undo....sports conditioning to perform...is a often a mans emotional outlet. His expression of drama. His view of what is right and correct..his value system. I don't happen to agree with this philosophy or religion...hence don't worship at the altar of the sports gods. I don't particularly believe in in men trying out for approval and acknowledgement by such sacrifice. I also don't believe in women using this male willingness to perform for approval at great risk to the male verses the women becoming more self sufficient in lieu of being heavily marketed.
Now ..are all women like this ..no I think not. But this is a trait and characteristic of which more women would be aware in subtilty than most men even have a clue. And almost no woman I have ever known are wont to make a man aware of this knowledge ..ever.

This knowledge of women concerning mens willingness to perform..to try out for approval ..and also marketers/producers/merchandisers/.advertisers using and misusing it ..is so obviously at play constantly and with subtilty across the economic spectrum. It is so obvious yet subtle...and the men so stupid about it...it is astonishing. A whole economy/nation is dependent on a mans willingness to be expendable and disposable in every avenue while turning over whole sections of production to women and children.

This is not a definition of a downtrodden victimized group of people Undo.
Only a man can afford such natural stupidity ...women cannot and survive.
Neither can a politician afford such natural stupidity and survive. They must dumb down the rest of us ...male and female. Keep us in constant conflict to keep in power. Politicians must keep the merchandiser flowing for their handlers.
However..both groups ..politicians and women use this subtilty and the mans willingness to perform for approval to get and achieve power and control. All the feminists have done is institutionalized this technique and the politicians have overtaken/hijacked the feminists for votes.

In essence..these groups..politicians ..and the feminists are working to put the males second place in a system they are expected to maintain and work for while taking first place RISKS to keep and maintain it.
All this time they are insinuating that this is a patriarchal society. It is not..it is highly matriarchal while concealing the true nature of this social structure.
It is backfiring on many of the women as well. They are not finding satisfaction out in the world growing old alone or under many of the concepts they were told were valuable and to be sought after.

I am waiting to see if and when the draft comes back that women will be required socially and politically to take first place risks as well in being drafted and making themselves expendable and disposable in like manner to the men. Somehow I don't think so. It would not do for politicians to alienate their prime economic and voting block. Economics is power is votes.

YOu know..now that I think about it...this cannot happen. It will not be allowed. It will not pass through. Politicians cannot be that naturally stupid...can they??
Imagine women being drafted and sent to some "adventure " for years and years across the world in some remote land. Rotated in and out by the thousands and thousands. They would not be home to direct and consume the goods in the economy. They would not be here to use credit in the manner expected or predicted. This would be economic chaos. A disaster in the making.

Hmmm...something think about.
Thanks,
Orange



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
yet it is a stereotype to assume that people who believe in christianity think sex is dirty.

I said that religion in general historically has instilled much of this in culture. I did not say 'most christians think it's dirty'. It does vaguely correspond but not enough to be taken as the same statement. It really only takes growing up in this culture (let alone in a religion, which I like most people did) to know the basis of the comment.

If the only issue were STD's (which was not an issue 1500 years ago) or pregnancy, then masturbation wouldn't have the sinful attribution it has been given by the Church and human influence based on that.

There may be modern sects of protestantism less conservative about these things, or individuals, but on the whole that's definitely been the message historically.


sex, if at all possible, should just be avoided so that you can focus on your spiritual self, which is your eternal body.


Kinda defeats the concept that sex is an avenue to spirit, which it is, which is one of the points I made in the first place.

Best,
PJ



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by RedCairo
 



Red Cairo,

Wow!!! Interesting post about sex/sexuality.


I think that our sexual knowledge as a culture is ridiculously shallow to the degree that it is unhealthy on every level.


I tend to agree with your quote above but not for the reasons you are wont to demonstrate.

I think it is very unhealthy to bombard people ..especially our children with constant sex and sexuality before they even have much knowledge or experiences in sustaining themselves outside of the home. They know or think they know all about sex and sexuality but cannot earn a living or maintain themselves. I think this is unhealthy to define ones self by sex and sexuality as to who or what one is. I see this fingerprint so much both male and female. All I have to do is step out on Friday and Saturday nights. All I have to do is turn on a radio or television set..go to a movie. It is non stop 24/7.

I happen to have a very archiac belief and thinknig that people are so much more than sex and sexuality.

Dont get me wrong here ..I am not against sex or sexuality..I just happen to believe that people are so much more than sex and sexuality.

Illusionsaregrander,

LOL LOL LOL.


You are right. Housekeeping, prostitution, working as clerks in stores, or secretarial work, nursing, waiting tables (all traditionally female occupations) are much more emotionally satisfying than, say, being the boss, building things, etc. Subservient positions where you have no power is incredibly rewarding.


You of all people on this thread..I would have expected and thought capable of better than this type of outburst/drama...sarcasm or not.

What a one dimenstional post. You do realize that what you are demonstrating in your quote above makes women very equal to men?? Working in jobs which are not rewarding or emotionally satisfying. Subserviant positoins. Are you making the point for something more than what men get?? Are you thinking that you can do this type of sarcasm/drama and no men will catch it as does Mistiq??
If you are..you would be mostly correct. Most of the men on this type of thread would not get it and run with thier tails between their legs..while urinating along the way.

I do think you much more capable than this Illusionsaregrander.


It has. You can write your name in the snow when you pee outdoors and women cannot. Feel better?


This too is not worthy of your talents and gifts. It is however as in Mistiq's pattern and tradition..getting in the last word.
I think you much better and more gifted than this.

Dawnstar,
Same thing I post to Illusionsaregrander. This makes you just like men...equal. So what is the problem???

Thanks to all for their posts,
Orangetom



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by RedCairo
 


the masturbation being a sin thing is more a concoction of the society within the church rather than the writings. imagine in a time when oral sex was not even a blip on the radar, trying to please your spouse with only intercourse! even the non religious can appreciate the difficultly that would present. no warm ups, just wham bam, done. it'd be a chore. how to keep your spouse interested in only those moments, however brief, would require other stimuli to be absent from the equation. like our society, people are becoming increasingly more dependent on porn, which has the effect of dulling the normal avenues of sexual experience. so my thoughts are that the idea developed as an answer to healthy (albeit satisfyingly limited) sexual experience with your spouse.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by undo]



new topics

top topics



 
58
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join