Can a woman say "no" anytime?
Anonymous
:>She told the courroom how the accusing woman left the sorority
:>house for the party that evening...with the parting words,
:>
:>"I'm gonna fuck a Fiji if it's the last thing I do tonight!"
: May I remind you that a woman has the option and the right to say no
: at any time.......
This is where you are wrong.
Sex is a bilateral agreement: *TWO* people are present and involved in
equal measure. And each must respect the committment they made to the
other party. If a woman has said yes, she must stick to that yes. If
she later changes her mind...too bad. Next time, think twice. But for
now you're committed.
: .....The man should have the control to respect that no.
Wrong again.
The woman should have thought through her decision before she made it.
Once made, she must stick with it. Any regrets are a lesson for next
time.
In short, if a woman doesn't need to respect her own "Yes" then why
should a man need to respect her "No"?
Jet Silverman
>
>
> Sex is a bilateral agreement: *TWO* people are present and involved in
> equal measure. And each must respect the committment they made to the
> other party. If a woman has said yes, she must stick to that yes. If
> she later changes her mind...too bad. Next time, think twice. But for
> now you're committed.
Hell no! If I said yes, and then changed my mind, the guy had best back
off. Otherwise, he would end up very, very sorry.
> In short, if a woman doesn't need to respect her own "Yes" then why
> should a man need to respect her "No"?
Two words: Lorena Bobbit.
J
--
I used to say, "Don't trust anyone over 30.",
now it's "Life begins at 40."
email me at jetgal at earthlink dot net
kim vawryk
Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> felt compelled to state:
this *must* be a joke
>ki...@akamail.com (kim vawryk) wrote:
>:>She told the courroom how the accusing woman left the sorority
>:>house for the party that evening...with the parting words,
>:>
>:>"I'm gonna fuck a Fiji if it's the last thing I do tonight!"
>
>: May I remind you that a woman has the option and the right to say no
>: at any time.......
>
>This is where you are wrong.
>
>Sex is a bilateral agreement: *TWO* people are present and involved in
>equal measure. And each must respect the committment they made to the
>other party. If a woman has said yes, she must stick to that yes. If
>she later changes her mind...too bad. Next time, think twice. But for
>now you're committed.
What if he has lied and says that his tallywacker is bigger than it is
in reality? Are we allowed to sue for breach of contract? What
recourse do we have?
>: .....The man should have the control to respect that no.
>
>Wrong again.
>
>The woman should have thought through her decision before she made it.
>Once made, she must stick with it. Any regrets are a lesson for next
>time.
Ladies: Insist on references and a preview before agreement.
>In short, if a woman doesn't need to respect her own "Yes" then why
>should a man need to respect her "No"?
IIRC in the previous post (as you so kindly snipped hell out of) I
asked about consent. We do not know if a "yes" was even provided.
However that is moot.
Have you ever gone somewhere or began to do something and changed your
mind? Perhaps decided to go for hamburgers and on the way changed
your mind and decided that Mexican was preferable? Decided to take
another route to get somewhere rather than the one initially decided
upon?
Perhaps that is different because that is you and this is someone
else.
Kim
set your cd player on stun!
- ad for a cd of william shatner and
leonard nimoy singing
Julie Masson
Anonymous (nob...@replay.com) writes:
>
> Sex is a bilateral agreement: *TWO* people are present and involved in
> equal measure. And each must respect the committment they made to the
> other party. If a woman has said yes, she must stick to that yes. If
> she later changes her mind...too bad. Next time, think twice. But for
> now you're committed.
If *IF* that's right, then you better also agree that when you're getting
married, neither the male or female should ever get a divorce, and stay
together all their life...
After all, they both said "I do" when they went into it.
Idiot.
--
24 hours in a day... 24 beers in a case... Coincidence???
Email: j.ma...@infonet.ca ** Noct...@pagans.org
Nocturnia on NCF's Irc.
Richard Evans
> ki...@akamail.com (kim vawryk) wrote:
> :>She told the courroom how the accusing woman left the
> sorority
> :>house for the party that evening...with the parting
> words,
> :>
> :>"I'm gonna fuck a Fiji if it's the last thing I do
> tonight!"
>
> : May I remind you that a woman has the option and the
> right to say no
> : at any time.......
>
> This is where you are wrong.
>
> Sex is a bilateral agreement: *TWO* people are present and
> involved in
> equal measure. And each must respect the committment they
> made to the
> other party. If a woman has said yes, she must stick to
> that yes. If
> she later changes her mind...too bad. Next time, think
> twice. But for
> now you're committed.
>
> : .....The man should have the control to respect that no.
>
> Wrong again.
>
> The woman should have thought through her decision before
> she made it.
> Once made, she must stick with it. Any regrets are a
> lesson for next
> time.
>
> In short, if a woman doesn't need to respect her own "Yes"
> then why
> should a man need to respect her "No"?
Hummm... Well it would be nice if it worked that way, it
would help to
stop them from playing stupid games with us. Unfortunatly
the law
doesn't see it that way, and in those situation you've realy
got to
stick with the law, or else you could be in a lot of
trouble.
Richard.
--
I have altered my Email Address, to try to avoid Bulk Email
systems.
To Email me, remove the nospam. from my address.
Stop Unsolicited Commercial Email - Join CAUCE
(http://www.cauce.org)
Support HR 1748, the anti-spam bill.
Jet
> Hummm... Well it would be nice if it worked that way, it
> would help to
> stop them from playing stupid games with us.
Oh, poor baby.
Richard Evans
> Richard Evans wrote:
>
> > Hummm... Well it would be nice if it worked that way, it
>
> > would help to
> > stop them from playing stupid games with us.
>
> Oh, poor baby.
> J
No I'm no poor baby.
I realise that we are not living in a perfect world, and I'm
quite
happy to accept that.
I just like to point out the potential problems, and
usually
ways to deal with them.
Although in my previos post I didn't say much in the way
of sugestions. I just felt like making a comment about how
some women mess guys around. There isn't a lot a guys
can do about it. Except leave her of course.
明白
out your conviction.
Julie Masson wrote:
> Anonymous (nob...@replay.com) writes:
> >
> > Sex is a bilateral agreement: *TWO* people are present and involved in
> > equal measure. And each must respect the committment they made to the
> > other party. If a woman has said yes, she must stick to that yes. If
> > she later changes her mind...too bad. Next time, think twice. But for
> > now you're committed.
>
> If *IF* that's right, then you better also agree that when you're getting
> married, neither the male or female should ever get a divorce, and stay
> together all their life...
>
> After all, they both said "I do" when they went into it.
That is *ABSOLUTLEY* correct. Divorce is far too easily entered into in the
USA simply because folks forget that above all else it is a COMMTTMENT! These
days, its simply a "willy-nilly....gee I'm not being fulfilled so I'll just
walk out....." sort of an affair. When you stood up and said, "I do"....then
you have committed yourself -- for better or for worse so STICK TO IT!! But
alas that sort of thinking is "old fashioned". Instead of actually striving
for that sort of perfection, women just call people who think that way.....
> Idiot
>
--
"Mathematics is the foundation of all science and those who are profficent in
it become the builders of society."
The Honorable Ellijah Mohammed
"A mathematician is a machine for turning coffee into theorems."
Paul Erdos
Mathematician
"1) Mathematics is the language of nature.
2) Everything around us can be represented and understood through
numbers.
3) If you graph the numbers of any system, patterns emerge.
4) Therefore, there are pattterns everywhere in nature."
The Assumptions
from the movie "Pi"
"We need to protect ourselves, not with laws but with mathematics."
Bruce Schneier
Author of "Applied Cryptography"
明白
kim vawryk wrote:
> On 27 Jan 1999 08:03:38 +0100, when the moons aligned perfectly,
> Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> felt compelled to state:
>
> this *must* be a joke
>
> >ki...@akamail.com (kim vawryk) wrote:
> >:>She told the courroom how the accusing woman left the sorority
> >:>house for the party that evening...with the parting words,
> >:>
> >:>"I'm gonna fuck a Fiji if it's the last thing I do tonight!"
> >
> >: May I remind you that a woman has the option and the right to say no
> >: at any time.......
> >
> >This is where you are wrong.
> >
> >Sex is a bilateral agreement: *TWO* people are present and involved in
> >equal measure. And each must respect the committment they made to the
> >other party. If a woman has said yes, she must stick to that yes. If
> >she later changes her mind...too bad. Next time, think twice. But for
> >now you're committed.
>
> What if he has lied and says that his tallywacker is bigger than it is
> in reality? Are we allowed to sue for breach of contract? What
> recourse do we have?
Interesting that you should choose *this* as your objection to the premise.
Women are forever criticizing men because they are supposedly obsessed by
"size". Yet "size" is all you could think of to object to?
>
>
> >: .....The man should have the control to respect that no.
> >
> >Wrong again.
> >
> >The woman should have thought through her decision before she made it.
> >Once made, she must stick with it. Any regrets are a lesson for next
> >time.
>
> Ladies: Insist on references and a preview before agreement.
I think that is exactly the point being made.
What "references" does a guy get that says, "Hey, this woman is for real,
she's not just yanking your chain. When she says yes...she'll mean it." Or,
more to the point, "She not looking to make you 'victim of false rape claim
no. 23' for the year." (which is I believe the original post that started
this whole thing)
>
>
> >In short, if a woman doesn't need to respect her own "Yes" then why
> >should a man need to respect her "No"?
>
> IIRC in the previous post (as you so kindly snipped hell out of) I
> asked about consent. We do not know if a "yes" was even provided.
>
> However that is moot.
>
> Have you ever gone somewhere or began to do something and changed your
> mind? Perhaps decided to go for hamburgers and on the way changed
> your mind and decided that Mexican was preferable? Decided to take
> another route to get somewhere rather than the one initially decided
> upon?
In all the examples you provide, its you making and changing a decision
within yourself....no other parties involved. You did not "promise" anyone
that you were going to eat a hamburger...then back out. The point of the
post stressed the bilateral aspect of a sexual encounter. The desires needs
and expectations of BOTH parties should be considered.
Portia
>: May I remind you that a woman has the option and the right to say no
>: at any time.......
>This is where you are wrong.
>Sex is a bilateral agreement: *TWO* people are present and involved in
>equal measure. And each must respect the committment they made to the
>other party. If a woman has said yes, she must stick to that yes. If
>she later changes her mind...too bad. Next time, think twice. But for
>now you're committed.
No way. Either party has the right to change their mind at any point.
This is not a contract. This is not "business." If you want sex on your
terms find a prostitute.
>Wrong again.
>The woman should have thought through her decision before she made it.
>Once made, she must stick with it. Any regrets are a lesson for next
>time.
No way. If she changes from "yes" to "no" and you persist, legally it is
rape.
--
"The bond that links your true family is not one of blood, but of respect
and joy in each other's life. Rarely do members of one family grow up
under the same roof." Illusions, Richard Bach
Jet
> Interesting that you should choose *this* as your objection to the premise.
> Women are forever criticizing men because they are supposedly obsessed by
> "size". Yet "size" is all you could think of to object to?
Size was what she objected to, that doesn't mean that was all she could
think of to object to. Now deal with the issue she brought up.
> What "references" does a guy get that says, "Hey, this woman is for real,
> she's not just yanking your chain. When she says yes...she'll mean it." Or,
> more to the point, "She not looking to make you 'victim of false rape claim
> no. 23' for the year." (which is I believe the original post that started
> this whole thing)
If you are all that paranoid, keep your fly zipped.
> The desires needs
> and expectations of BOTH parties should be considered.
If a woman changes her mind, that is touch shit for the guy. If a guy
changes his mind, it's touch shit for the woman. Hope this helps.
Java666
>kim vawryk wrote:
>
>> On 27 Jan 1999 08:03:38 +0100, when the moons aligned perfectly,
>> Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> felt compelled to state:
>> >Sex is a bilateral agreement: *TWO* people are present and involved in
>> >equal measure. And each must respect the committment they made to the
>> >other party. If a woman has said yes, she must stick to that yes. If
>> >she later changes her mind...too bad. Next time, think twice. But for
>> >now you're committed.
>>
>> What if he has lied and says that his tallywacker is bigger than it is
>> in reality? Are we allowed to sue for breach of contract? What
>> recourse do we have?
>
>Interesting that you should choose *this* as your objection to the premise.
>Women are forever criticizing men because they are supposedly obsessed by
>"size". Yet "size" is all you could think of to object to?
It wasn't a very good analogy. A better question would have been this:
What if you go tosomeone's house for dinner, they cook you an enormous steak
dinner and then realize that you aren't hungry enough to eat it (or you have a
stomach ache or you no longer want steak or any other reason). Does that mean
it's okay for the waiter to shove the food down your throat against your will?
You did, after all, enter into a verbal agreement with him that you would eat
his food. Under the premise above, it would be within the waiter's right to
physically force it on you. " ...*TWO* people are present and involved in equal
measure. And each must respect the committment they made to the other party. If
a (diner) has said yes, s/he must stick to that yes. If s/he later changes her
mind...too bad. Next time, think twice. But for now you're committed."
<snip>
>> Have you ever gone somewhere or began to do something and changed your
>> mind? Perhaps decided to go for hamburgers and on the way changed
>> your mind and decided that Mexican was preferable? Decided to take
>> another route to get somewhere rather than the one initially decided
>> upon?
>
>In all the examples you provide, its you making and changing a decision
>within yourself....no other parties involved. You did not "promise" anyone
>that you were going to eat a hamburger...then back out.
Okay, so read my scenario above. What if you _did_ promise you were going to
eat the hamburger? Do you still contend that you have lost your right to say no
to eating it and deserve to have it forcefed to you against your will?
Dawn
the tree by the river
úĨÕ <min...@ms3.hinet.net> wrote:
>kim vawryk wrote:
>> Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Sex is a bilateral agreement: *TWO* people are present and involved in
>> >equal measure.
Usually, though I suppose it does depend on your technique. Maybe
if enough people were involved, it could be a radial agreement.
>> >And each must respect the committment they made to the
>> >other party. If a woman has said yes, she must stick to that yes. If
>> >she later changes her mind...too bad. Next time, think twice. But for
>> >now you're committed.
I think it's generally tacky to change one's mind in mid-stream, but
it would be far worse to require someone not to, and highly immoral
not to respect someone's wishes if he or she did reconsider and make
such a change of heart clearly known.
Why would you not want to respect such feelings, anyway? Why would
you want to be making love with someone who didn't want to be there?
If someone is in the habit of turning "yes"s into "no"s like that,
then maybe you might want to reconsider whether you should believe
the "yes"s in the future, but you still have to respect the "no"s.
>> What if he has lied and says that his tallywacker is bigger than it is
>> in reality? Are we allowed to sue for breach of contract? What
>> recourse do we have?
Could depend on whether the agreement included an inspection clause....
>Interesting that you should choose *this* as your objection to the premise.
>Women are forever criticizing men because they are supposedly obsessed by
>"size". Yet "size" is all you could think of to object to?
Careful there, now--maybe it was just the first thing that came to
mind and if you ask for all she could think of, you'd get a longer
list than you wanted to read....
>> >: .....The man should have the control to respect that no.
>> >
>> >Wrong again.
>> >
>> >The woman should have thought through her decision before she made it.
>> >Once made, she must stick with it. Any regrets are a lesson for next
>> >time.
Why must she stick with it? Even contracts to purchase an item often
include a "cooling off period" required by law in which the purchaser
can change his or her mind. From a pragmatic standpoint, if the
decision to engage in sex were irrevocable as you suggest, wouldn't
that be likely to make it less likely for someone to give consent in
the first place, especially in situations where it might be unplanned
or spontaneous?
What about other aspects of contract law? Warranties, explicit or
implied? (Fitness of purpose, merchantability, "satisfaction
guaranteed," etc.?)
>> Ladies: Insist on references and a preview before agreement.
>
>I think that is exactly the point being made.
A good point it is, too. Never agree to have sex with a guy who
doesn't have at least a few good dictionaries (the OED is a must),
a Britannica set, a CRC Handbook, Merck Index, and some reasonable
texts on physics, math, medicine, biology, chemistry, and knot-tying.
--
Soc.singles FAQ: < http://www.trygve.com/ssfaq.html > || "A minor setback..."
Personal webpage: < http://www.trygve.com > || -- Evil the Cat
Trygve Lode, president, Nyx Net, public access internet < http://www.nyx.net >
"I will walk into the fire until its heat doesn't burn me...." -- sm
Isaak Roll
>
> Okay, so read my scenario above. What if you _did_ promise you were going to
> eat the hamburger?
> Do you still contend that you have lost your right to say no
> to eating it and deserve to have it forcefed to you against your will?
>
> Dawn
>
I'd go farther;
I'd say: even if you enjoyed the hamburger but next day remembered it
makes you fat you should be able to complain to health authorities.
And proprietor should pay.
--
I. Roll, 481 Cumberland|" And now you'd think I had said all, but
Ottawa, ON, K1N-7K1 | ye shall hear yet greater things."
Canada,1(613)236-4666 |
Jet
>
> If someone is in the habit of turning "yes"s into "no"s like that,
> then maybe you might want to reconsider whether you should believe
> the "yes"s in the future, but you still have to respect the "no"s.
And move on to someone else.
> Careful there, now--maybe it was just the first thing that came to
> mind and if you ask for all she could think of, you'd get a longer
> list than you wanted to read....
He also seemed to take it kind of personally. I wonder why...
Daniel Mocsny
> > If a woman changes her mind, that is touch shit for the guy. If a guy
> > changes his mind, it's touch shit for the woman. Hope this helps.
As long as nobody harbors any illusions of monogamy it all works
out fine.
And yet there are people who actually *complain* when the same
partner whose sexual advances they callously rejected reacts by
finding an alternative source of supply.
That's sort of like refusing to feed the cat and then acting
surprised when the hungry animal rips into the garbage.
> When women have an unfair balance of power in their favor....
As a small consolation prize men get to run the world. So don't
expect a pity party.
Jet conveniently ignores the fact that a woman is probably
ten times more likely than a man to rebuff a sexual advance. The
sexually disadvantaged man needs to compensate by trying to put
numbers on his side. If a man hears "No" and doesn't like it, he
is almost morally obligated to go out and recruit some more options.
He cannot legally override a woman's last-minute veto. And
similarly the woman cannot legally prevent him from having sex
with someone else.
After all, what's the point in being sexually committed to someone
who rejects you sexually? In my opinion, a person who refuses to
take responsibility for your sex drive abandons any basis (s)he
may have had for demanding exclusive use of it.
--
--- Daniel J. Mocsny
Susan T Graul
>
> Anonymous wrote:
> >
> >
> > Sex is a bilateral agreement: *TWO* people are present and involved in
> > other party. If a woman has said yes, she must stick to that yes. If
> > she later changes her mind...too bad. Next time, think twice. But for
> > now you're committed.
>
> off. Otherwise, he would end up very, very sorry.
Maybe you should be a bit more thoughtful and self-aware about saying
yes or no.
> > In short, if a woman doesn't need to respect her own "Yes" then why
> > should a man need to respect her "No"?
>
> Two words: Lorena Bobbit.
Not someone to emulate.
As far as I'm concerned, communication about hetero sex ought to be as
much the woman's responsibility as it is the man's. Women shouldn't be
thinking they can encourage play up to the point of penetration, and
then say no. That is just plain *wrong*.
A lot of women would freak out if men started in with play and then
suddenly said, ah shit never mind.
Take some responsibility for your sexuality, I say. If you want it,
then fine, go for it. If you're ambivalent, then nip it in the bud.
It's not fair to men to encourage them and then shut them off at the
last minute. And if you regret having agreed to sex, then learn from it
and don't do it next time.
Sue
Jet
>
> The idea of female rage violence gets lots of nice media play (starting
> probably with the movie "Thelma and Louise") But, its a very dangerous thing
> indeed to advocate violence. Like biological warfare, it has a way of turning
> on you and you become a victim of the very thing you sought to inflict on
> others.
Lighten up, it was a joke.
>
> Here are two more words for you, Jet: Marc LePenn.
>
> I don't know who much media he got down there in the States. But in Canada,
> he sure got his 15 minutes of fame. To refresh your memory: Marc LePenn is
> the man who took several guns and went on a killing spree at the University
> of Montreal about 10 years ago. He went from lecture hall to lecture hall and
> shot every female student he saw, shouting all sorts of anti-feminist
> statements as he went along. As I recall, he was finally killed by a security
> guard, but not unitl he had killed something like 15 co-eds.
>
> So, as you idolize Loreena Bobbit, and use her name as an vieled threat of
> infliciting violence on men, there may well be another Marc LePenn out
> there loading his weapons. Result: more violence against both genders.
Jesus H Christ. I don't idolize Loreena Bobbit, I think the Bobbits were
a couple of total losers who deserved each other.
In any case, if Loreena is to be believed, she attacked John because he
abused her. Now, whether or not you would think her attack was justified
in that case, there is no way to compare it to the slaughter of people
who were minding their own business.
Jet
>
> Jet conveniently ignores the fact that a woman is probably
> ten times more likely than a man to rebuff a sexual advance.
It doesn't matter.
Jet
>
> > Two words: Lorena Bobbit.
>
> Not someone to emulate.
It was a joke.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, communication about hetero sex ought to be as
> much the woman's responsibility as it is the man's. Women shouldn't be
> thinking they can encourage play up to the point of penetration, and
> then say no. That is just plain *wrong*.
I don't think anyone is saying teasing a man just to get him hot just so
you can tell him "No" is a nice thing to do. However, a man doesn't have
a right to rape a woman just because she wasn't nice.
> A lot of women would freak out if men started in with play and then
> suddenly said, ah shit never mind.
True, but that would not give her the right to force herself on him.
Jet
> Legally, yes. But I think the issue here is a moral/ethical one.
And morally and ethically, a man is obligated to back off if he is told
no. And a woman is obligated to back off if she is told no. Get it now?
lin...@hotmail.com
Jet Silverman <jet_si...@prodigy.new> wrote:
>
> Hell no! If I said yes, and then changed my mind, the guy had best back
> off. Otherwise, he would end up very, very sorry.
>
> > In short, if a woman doesn't need to respect her own "Yes" then why
> > should a man need to respect her "No"?
>
> Two words: Lorena Bobbit.
>
>
The idea of female rage violence gets lots of nice media play (starting
probably with the movie "Thelma and Louise") But, its a very dangerous thing
indeed to advocate violence. Like biological warfare, it has a way of turning
on you and you become a victim of the very thing you sought to inflict on
others.
Here are two more words for you, Jet: Marc LePenn.
I don't know who much media he got down there in the States. But in Canada,
he sure got his 15 minutes of fame. To refresh your memory: Marc LePenn is
the man who took several guns and went on a killing spree at the University
of Montreal about 10 years ago. He went from lecture hall to lecture hall and
shot every female student he saw, shouting all sorts of anti-feminist
statements as he went along. As I recall, he was finally killed by a security
guard, but not unitl he had killed something like 15 co-eds.
So, as you idolize Loreena Bobbit, and use her name as an vieled threat of
infliciting violence on men, there may well be another Marc LePenn out
there loading his weapons. Result: more violence against both genders.
Is that what you want, "Gender Warfare"??
---
"The only one who knows these words are but a token
is he who has the tongue to tell
but must remain unspoken."
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
明白
to point out the crux of the mater....
Java666 wrote:
>
> > "明白" (The Artist Formerly Known As Prince) wrote"
>
> >kim vawryk wrote:
> >
> >> On 27 Jan 1999 08:03:38 +0100, when the moons aligned perfectly,
> >> Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> felt compelled to state:
>
> >> >Sex is a bilateral agreement: *TWO* people are present and involved in
> >> >equal measure. And each must respect the committment they made to the
> >> >other party. If a woman has said yes, she must stick to that yes. If
> >> >she later changes her mind...too bad. Next time, think twice. But for
> >> >now you're committed.
> >>
> >> What if he has lied and says that his tallywacker is bigger than it is
> >> in reality? Are we allowed to sue for breach of contract? What
> >> recourse do we have?
> >
> >Interesting that you should choose *this* as your objection to the premise.
> >Women are forever criticizing men because they are supposedly obsessed by
> >"size". Yet "size" is all you could think of to object to?
>
> It wasn't a very good analogy. A better question would have been this:
>
> What if you go tosomeone's house for dinner, they cook you an enormous steak
> dinner and then realize that you aren't hungry enough to eat it (or you have a
> stomach ache or you no longer want steak or any other reason). Does that mean
> it's okay for the waiter to shove the food down your throat against your will?
I think there's a slight mixing of analogies here...are we at someone's
house or a resturant (or are they very rich and have their own private
waiter in their house??)
But anyway, the answer is this:
1) If you are at a resturant, in many instances they WILL insist that
you pay for the food you ordered for the very reason youstated, you
entered into a verbal agreement. You can't just walk into aresturant and
order everything on the menu (as a prank) and then when it arrives say,
"Ops, ha ha, just kidding." And walk out. Nor should a woman be allowed
to intice and sexually arouse a guy and then, when then things are hot
and heavy say, "Ha sucker! I changed my mind. No means no...."
On the other hand, 2) if you are at someone's house and they have
prepared a beautiful spread for you but all of a sudden you come down
with a stomach infection. First, you SHOULD make every effort humanly
possible to uphold your agreement. They have gone to this great expense
(in time, effort and money) for you. You owe it to them to make every
effort to show appreciation. But, if just can't swalow a bit, then you
kindly and respectfully explain your situation (key word: respect). They
should kindly and respectfully have understanding. You enter into a
process of mutually respectful negoitiations (perhaps acknowledging
their efforts and offerring to treat them to a meal at a late date).
明白
>
> 明白 wrote:
> > Interesting that you should choose *this* as your objection to the premise.
> > Women are forever criticizing men because they are supposedly obsessed by
> > "size". Yet "size" is all you could think of to object to?
>
> think of to object to. Now deal with the issue she brought up.
>
I've watched your posts in many of these threads. When someone (like
Aaron) brings up a point which you feel is ridiculous, you say so and
then ignore it. Odd how you don't afford others that same freedom.
As you will note I *did* respond to a more cogent analogy.
> > What "references" does a guy get that says, "Hey, this woman is for real,
> > she's not just yanking your chain. When she says yes...she'll mean it." Or,
> > more to the point, "She not looking to make you 'victim of false rape claim
> > no. 23' for the year." (which is I believe the original post that started
> > this whole thing)
>
> If you are all that paranoid, keep your fly zipped.
Why should I need to. If I said, "If your afraid of getting raped, don't
wear a mini-skirt." it would be called "Blaming the victim" and a whole
rash of associated rhetoric.
>
> > The desires needs
> > and expectations of BOTH parties should be considered.
>
> If a woman changes her mind, that is touch shit for the guy. If a guy
> changes his mind, it's touch shit for the woman. Hope this helps.
When women have an unfair balance of power in their favor....they are
very quick to call it parity and say "Well, just tough shit for the
guys". When they feel they suffer from an imbalance against them then
its "We need federal legistalation and affirmative action to bring back
the balance due to past transgression."
明白
>
> Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> writes:
>
> >: May I remind you that a woman has the option and the right to say no
> >: at any time.......
>
> >This is where you are wrong.
>
> >equal measure. And each must respect the committment they made to the
> >other party. If a woman has said yes, she must stick to that yes. If
> >she later changes her mind...too bad. Next time, think twice. But for
> >now you're committed.
>
> This is not a contract. This is not "business."
It seems what your saying is that if theirs no signed contract, then
there is no need to have any moral or ethical respect for the wishes of
the other person. Giving your consent and then turning around and
yanking it back is just dishonest....contract or no.
> If you want sex on your
> terms find a prostitute.
Interesting. The implication is that a prostitute can't be raped once
she's been paid. She took the money...better deliever the goods! A lot
of women's groups would disagree with you there.
>
> >Wrong again.
>
> >The woman should have thought through her decision before she made it.
> >Once made, she must stick with it. Any regrets are a lesson for next
> >time.
>
> No way. If she changes from "yes" to "no" and you persist, legally it is
> rape.
Legally, yes. But I think the issue here is a moral/ethical one.
Charlotte L. Blackmer
>: May I remind you that a woman has the option and the right to say no
>: at any time.......
>
>This is where you are wrong.
>
>Sex is a bilateral agreement: *TWO* people are present and involved in
>equal measure. And each must respect the committment they made to the
>other party. If a woman has said yes, she must stick to that yes. If
>she later changes her mind...too bad. Next time, think twice. But for
>now you're committed.
Next time you might want to get that yes in writing, then.
>: .....The man should have the control to respect that no.
>
>Wrong again.
>The woman should have thought through her decision before she made it.
Oh, I'll agree with that. If she said "yes" when she meant "no" or
"maybe", she really needs to learn the correct words.
Negative reinforcement (iow, "teaching her a lesson") can be done without
force in a completely legal and ethical manner.
A friend of mine (who never lacked for female companionship) used to run
into this some.
What he did was simple, really: whenever the woman said "No", he took
her 100% seriously and STOPPED whatever it was he was doing. Because it's
the Right Thing To Do and he is a Man of Honor. If he got a "You weren't
supposed to stop", he said something like "You said no. I can't read your
mind here."
No repeats of that little game, I can assure you.
>Once made, she must stick with it.
Not unless it is in signed contract form, I think ;-) (Disclaimer.
IANAL.)
That being said, if she is sorta going with the flow to avoid
confrontation, she needs to find a backbone, fast.
>Any regrets are a lesson for next time.
>In short, if a woman doesn't need to respect her own "Yes"
My friend's method is a fairly surefire way to seperate the
sincere-changes-of-heart from the games-players, who are either trying to
mess with yer mind or got taught by their moms or whoever that it was
necessary to say "no" when you meant "maybe" or "yes" and then negotiate
from there so that the fella wouldn't think you were "easy" and lose
respect or sumpin'.
>then why should a man need to respect her "No"?
Check your local listings for "rape", "sexual battery", "forced sodomy",
and similar chargeable offenses and their associated penalties.
No Means No. If she's playing a boundary game with you, you can stop it
in its tracks by taking her at her word.
Toodlepip,
CLB
------------------------------------------------------
Charlotte L. Blackmer http://www.rahul.net/clb
Berkeley Farm and Pleasure Palace (under construction)
Junk (esp. commercial) email review rates: $250 US ea
明白
>
> > Jet wrote:
> > > If a woman changes her mind, that is touch shit for the guy. If a guy
> > > changes his mind, it's touch shit for the woman. Hope this helps.
>
> out fine.
>
> And yet there are people who actually *complain* when the same
> partner whose sexual advances they callously rejected reacts by
> finding an alternative source of supply.
>
> That's sort of like refusing to feed the cat and then acting
> surprised when the hungry animal rips into the garbage.
>
> > When women have an unfair balance of power in their favor....
>
> As a small consolation prize men get to run the world. So don't
> expect a pity party.
There ae a lot of problems with that "illusion" of running the
world....but that is a topic for another thread....probably in another
newsgroup as well!
>
> Jet conveniently ignores the fact that a woman is probably
> ten times more likely than a man to rebuff a sexual advance.
*THAT* is precisely the point I was referring to when I spoke of
unbalanced power.
> The
> sexually disadvantaged man needs to compensate by trying to put
> numbers on his side. If a man hears "No" and doesn't like it, he
> is almost morally obligated to go out and recruit some more options.
> He cannot legally override a woman's last-minute veto.
You mention "legally" but there is a problem in that this disucssion
keeps floating betwen "legal" and "moral" issues.
> And
> similarly the woman cannot legally prevent him from having sex
> with someone else.
While a woman certainly cannot legally *prevent* a man from seeking
alternate sources. If the man is her husband, she can legally *punish*
him for having done so. The same is not true for a wife sexually
rejecting her husband.
If he is not her husband, society in general still brings social weight
against such activities in the form of moral "shaming".
There is no 'shame' in a woman changing her mind at the last moment.
Quite the contrary, it is actively supported to the point of almost
being encouraged. On the other hand, a man who in the face of such
rejection seeks other alterntives is shamed as being "insensitive"
"impatient" "interested in only one thing...".
There was an ad in a teen magazine which was promoting the concept of
abstainence. The capation read, "If he really cared, he'd be willing to
wait." Yet, we (or at least *I*) have been taught since my wee youth
that only a cad would say to a girl, "If you really cared, you'd show me
and do 'it' with me."
>
> After all, what's the point in being sexually committed to someone
> who rejects you sexually? In my opinion, a person who refuses to
> take responsibility for your sex drive abandons any basis (s)he
> may have had for demanding exclusive use of it.
>
Well said.
Aaron R Kulkis
>
> In article <36AECD5B...@prodigy.new>,
> Jet Silverman <jet_si...@prodigy.new> wrote:
>
> >
> > Hell no! If I said yes, and then changed my mind, the guy had best back
> > off. Otherwise, he would end up very, very sorry.
> >
> > > should a man need to respect her "No"?
> >
> >
> >
>
> The idea of female rage violence gets lots of nice media play (starting
> probably with the movie "Thelma and Louise") But, its a very dangerous thing
> indeed to advocate violence. Like biological warfare, it has a way of turning
> on you and you become a victim of the very thing you sought to inflict on
> others.
>
> Here are two more words for you, Jet: Marc LePenn.
>
> I don't know who much media he got down there in the States. But in Canada,
> he sure got his 15 minutes of fame. To refresh your memory: Marc LePenn is
> the man who took several guns and went on a killing spree at the University
> of Montreal about 10 years ago. He went from lecture hall to lecture hall and
> shot every female student he saw, shouting all sorts of anti-feminist
> statements as he went along. As I recall, he was finally killed by a security
> guard, but not unitl he had killed something like 15 co-eds.
>
> So, as you idolize Loreena Bobbit, and use her name as an vieled threat of
> infliciting violence on men, there may well be another Marc LePenn out
> there loading his weapons. Result: more violence against both genders.
>
> Is that what you want, "Gender Warfare"??
This is exactly what the feminists have incited. It wasn't ENOUGH
to go on for years, calling ALL men PIGS and RAPISTS, ... now they
have to talk about EXACT methodologies of maiming men.
Absolutely SICKENING that any woman who pretends to be civilized
could invoke such "arguments"
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
明白
>
> 明白 wrote:
>
> > Legally, yes. But I think the issue here is a moral/ethical one.
>
> no. And a woman is obligated to back off if she is told no. Get it now?
I'm not sure how, but our posts seem to be getting "crossed". See the
above (at least "above" on my news reader screen) post in which Daniel
Mocsny <dmo...@mfm.com> address this issue when you brought it up
before.
It contains the following:
>>Jet conveniently ignores the fact that a woman is probably
>>ten times more likely than a man to rebuff a sexual advance.
...and then we go on to discuss the point(and thus answers your above
point).
dctest Anonymous Remailer
>What if you go tosomeone's house for dinner, they cook you an enormous steak
>dinner and then realize that you aren't hungry enough to eat it
When...
No, I shouldn't.
It's too easy.
Jackie the Tokeman
...hee hee!
tur...@hotmail.com
Daniel Mocsny <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote:
> > Jet wrote:
> > > If a woman changes her mind, that is touch shit for the guy. If a guy
> > > changes his mind, it's touch shit for the woman. Hope this helps.
>
> As long as nobody harbors any illusions of monogamy it all works
> out fine.
>
> And yet there are people who actually *complain* when the same
> partner whose sexual advances they callously rejected reacts by
> finding an alternative source of supply.
>
> That's sort of like refusing to feed the cat and then acting
> surprised when the hungry animal rips into the garbage.
But that has nothing to do with the orginal argument.
All it does is to demonstrate that you have been/are
starved of sex and lack any abilities in bed.
You may be able to just switch your dick on whenever
it suits you but most women don't like fucking robots.
turtoni
> --
> --- Daniel J. Mocsny
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
明白
>
> Daniel Mocsny wrote:
> >
> > Jet conveniently ignores the fact that a woman is probably
> > ten times more likely than a man to rebuff a sexual advance.
>
It matters very much.
1) In any discussion about..for example pay disparity based on
gender...while a woman may "theoretically" have equal chance at a given
job, the fact that she in *actuality* is ten-times more likely tobe
turned down is what is discussed. The same should be true here.
2) The reason that this is true (that men are ten times more likely to
be recieving the rejection) is again directly related to the behaviour
of women. So what you end up with is that women behave in a manner which
brings about the very reaction that they themselves are complaining
about.
This then feeds directly into the other points Daniel made.
Daniel Mocsny
> Susan T Graul wrote:
> > As far as I'm concerned, communication about hetero sex ought to be as
> > much the woman's responsibility as it is the man's. Women shouldn't be
> > thinking they can encourage play up to the point of penetration, and
> > then say no. That is just plain *wrong*.
>
> I don't think anyone is saying teasing a man just to get him hot just so
> you can tell him "No" is a nice thing to do. However, a man doesn't have
> a right to rape a woman just because she wasn't nice.
Right. The appropriate response for the man is to ask the woman to marry
him, and then fail to show up at the wedding.
Jet
> This is exactly what the feminists have incited.
So now you are justifing the slaughter of inocent people minding their
own business in school? Are you so threatened by a woman being able to
take care of herself, and competing with you, (the women were taking
engineering), that you think murder is justified?
Jet
> >>Jet conveniently ignores the fact that a woman is probably
> >>ten times more likely than a man to rebuff a sexual advance.
But that doesn't matter. If Joe Blow came onto me, and then backed out
when it got down to it, I would be obligate to back off. It doesn't
matter if that is the first time in history a man had done that to a
woman, or if it was the 5th time it had happened to me that night. Same
for if I came on to Joe Blow.
Right is right, and wrong is wrong. The type of gonads a person has
doesn't change that.
Daniel Mocsny
> Daniel Mocsny wrote:
> >
> > Jet conveniently ignores the fact that a woman is probably
> > ten times more likely than a man to rebuff a sexual advance.
>
Sure it matters. It means the man's symmetrical right to
veto isn't worth as much.
I don't have the stats, but the stereotype seems to be that
the guy skips out at the last minute at weddings more often
than the woman. If true, then perhaps now we understand why.
Would you appreciate having your fiance doing that to you?
Jet
>
> Jet wrote:
> > Daniel Mocsny wrote:
> > >
> > > Jet conveniently ignores the fact that a woman is probably
> > > ten times more likely than a man to rebuff a sexual advance.
> >
> > It doesn't matter.
>
> Sure it matters. It means the man's symmetrical right to
> veto isn't worth as much.
I doesn't matter in the least.
> I don't have the stats, but the stereotype seems to be that
> the guy skips out at the last minute at weddings more often
> than the woman. If true, then perhaps now we understand why.
>
> Would you appreciate having your fiance doing that to you?
No, of couse I wouldn't. But that would not give me the right to then
track him down and harm him.
dctest Anonymous Remailer
I love it.
Jackie the Tokeman
Jet
Well, turn about is fair play.
Cathy
Charlotte L. Blackmer wrote in message <78p1br$cqu$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
>What he did was simple, really: whenever the woman said "No", he took
>her 100% seriously and STOPPED whatever it was he was doing. Because it's
>the Right Thing To Do and he is a Man of Honor. If he got a "You weren't
>supposed to stop", he said something like "You said no. I can't read your
>mind here."
>
>No repeats of that little game, I can assure you.
>
>>Once made, she must stick with it.
>
>Not unless it is in signed contract form, I think ;-) (Disclaimer.
>IANAL.)
>
>That being said, if she is sorta going with the flow to avoid
>confrontation, she needs to find a backbone, fast.
>
>>Any regrets are a lesson for next time.
>
>
>in its tracks by taking her at her word.
Very well said Charlotte, everyone reservet eh right to say no at anytime,
Portia
>What he did was simple, really: whenever the woman said "No", he took
>her 100% seriously and STOPPED whatever it was he was doing. Because it's
>the Right Thing To Do and he is a Man of Honor. If he got a "You weren't
>supposed to stop", he said something like "You said no. I can't read your
>mind here."
A completely sensible thing to do.
--
"The bond that links your true family is not one of blood, but of respect
and joy in each other's life. Rarely do members of one family grow up
under the same roof." Illusions, Richard Bach
Java666
>Thank you for providing a more thought-through response. You have helped
>to point out the crux of the mater....
>
>Java666 wrote:
>> It wasn't a very good analogy. A better question would have been this:
>>
>> What if you go tosomeone's house for dinner, they cook you an enormous
>steak
>> dinner and then realize that you aren't hungry enough to eat it (or you
>have a
>> stomach ache or you no longer want steak or any other reason). Does that
>mean
>> it's okay for the waiter to shove the food down your throat against your
>will?
>
>I think there's a slight mixing of analogies here...are we at someone's
>house or a resturant (or are they very rich and have their own private
>waiter in their house??)
My fault. I started with a restaurant analogy, changed it to a meal at
someone's house (I wanted to remove the aspect of one party paying for service)
and forgot to take out the word "waiter".
Once again ... coffee first, then Usenet.
>But anyway, the answer is this:
>
>1) If you are at a resturant, in many instances they WILL insist that
>you pay for the food you ordered for the very reason youstated, you
>entered into a verbal agreement. You can't just walk into aresturant and
>order everything on the menu (as a prank) and then when it arrives say,
>"Ops, ha ha, just kidding." And walk out. Nor should a woman be allowed
>to intice and sexually arouse a guy and then, when then things are hot
>and heavy say, "Ha sucker! I changed my mind. No means no...."
>
>On the other hand, 2) if you are at someone's house and they have
>prepared a beautiful spread for you but all of a sudden you come down
>with a stomach infection. First, you SHOULD make every effort humanly
>possible to uphold your agreement. They have gone to this great expense
>(in time, effort and money) for you. You owe it to them to make every
>effort to show appreciation. But, if just can't swalow a bit, then you
>kindly and respectfully explain your situation (key word: respect). They
>should kindly and respectfully have understanding. You enter into a
>process of mutually respectful negoitiations (perhaps acknowledging
>their efforts and offerring to treat them to a meal at a late date).
You didn't answer the question though: does the party still deserve to have the
food forced down their throat no matter what their reason for saying no?
Dawn
Jennifer Anne Coulter
Anonymous (nob...@replay.com) writes:
>
> Sex is a bilateral agreement: *TWO* people are present and involved in
> equal measure. And each must respect the committment they made to the
> other party. If a woman has said yes, she must stick to that yes. If
> she later changes her mind...too bad. Next time, think twice. But for
> now you're committed.
No wonder you are posting as "anonymous" So... have you *always*
been a rapist or is this just a recent development? No one is ever
allowed to change their minds for fear of being forced to follow
through with their original thought by force? Guess you don't
date much...
Jen
--
* Jennifer-Anne "I Say The Purpose Of Life Is A Life Of Purpose" Coulter *
* E-MAIL me for more info about COMA social meetings : Everyone WELCOME! *
* COMA is an Ottawa-area social & singles group that meets several times *
* a month - come out and make new friends that will last you a lifetime! *
Stella Hackell
by the river) wrote:
> >> Ladies: Insist on references and a preview before agreement.
> >
> >I think that is exactly the point being made.
>
> A good point it is, too. Never agree to have sex with a guy who
> doesn't have at least a few good dictionaries (the OED is a must),
> a Britannica set, a CRC Handbook, Merck Index, and some reasonable
> texts on physics, math, medicine, biology, chemistry, and knot-tying.
Works for me.
Stella "A Chilton's Manual Is Handy, Too"
--
Stella Hackell ste...@wco.com
All men should strive to learn before they die what they are
running from, to, and why. -- James Thurber
Daniel Mocsny
>
> Daniel Mocsny wrote:
> >
> > Jet wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Jet conveniently ignores the fact that a woman is probably
> > > > ten times more likely than a man to rebuff a sexual advance.
> > >
> > > It doesn't matter.
> >
> > Sure it matters. It means the man's symmetrical right to
> > veto isn't worth as much.
>
> I doesn't matter in the least.
Obviously not to you.
Do you realize that the attitude you are expressing here is
a sign of extreme inner ugliness?
It is quite possible for you to protect your precious body
while *AT THE SAME TIME* showing a little sympathy for the
feelings of others.
But your real feelings for men are coming through loudly and
clearly. Here's a tip: study what Susan T Graul wrote in this
thread. Her consideration for the feelings of the man is a
sign of inner beauty.
> > I don't have the stats, but the stereotype seems to be that
> > the guy skips out at the last minute at weddings more often
> > than the woman. If true, then perhaps now we understand why.
> >
> > Would you appreciate having your fiance doing that to you?
>
> No, of couse I wouldn't. But that would not give me the right to then
> track him down and harm him.
That is why I suggested that men who are tired of being
jerked around by sex teasers should consider becoming marriage
teasers. *PRECISELY* because the jilted woman has absolutely
no legal recourse. All she can legally do is accept the pain
and humiliation and damage to her self-esteem and graciously
carry on as though nothing has happened.
I suspect most women would have about as much trouble dealing with
a last-minute "No" from a marriage teaser as men have trouble dealing
with a last-minute "No" from a sex teaser. While it is certainly
possible for any mentally healthy and resourceful person to accept
the "No" regardless of how inconvenient the timing, it often does
require a bit of effort to absorb the pain and humiliation and
accept it graciously.
I think it's important for men to do their part to educate
women in the realities of just how much jerking other people
around can hurt them. But only, of course, to women who need
such education. Women who are beautiful on the inside deserve to
see the same inner beauty in the men they love.
Daniel Mocsny
> 明白 wrote:
> > >>Jet conveniently ignores the fact that a woman is probably
> > >>ten times more likely than a man to rebuff a sexual advance.
>
> when it got down to it, I would be obligate to back off. It doesn't
> matter if that is the first time in history a man had done that to a
> woman, or if it was the 5th time it had happened to me that night. Same
> for if I came on to Joe Blow.
>
> Right is right, and wrong is wrong. The type of gonads a person has
> doesn't change that.
But it does determine who complains.
How many men have complained about being "raped" by the women
they date? Stories of such things are so rare as to be apocryphal.
Why? Men tend to be horny all the time. Men tend to do
most of the AskOut, and they generally ask out women they find
attractive---i.e. women they desire sex with. For reasons of
either genetics or culture, men do not tend to regard sex as
being quite the big cosmically portentious deal that women do.
If I was with a woman I cared about, and for some inexplicable
reason I didn't really want to have sex on one of those
occasions when she did, I'd certainly respect her feelings
in the matter enough to give her a hand job, or at the very
minimum a nice massage. I mean, that's hardly a difficult
thing for me to do. Because I know exactly what rejection feels
like, and that's not a feeling I want to give to anybody I care
about.
But just leaving people hanging, and not apologizing and trying
to make up for it by doing something nice for the person you
just jerked around---that is by far the quickest way to poison
any relationship.
It's one thing to rabidly espouse radfem principles when you're
marching in the streets and waving placards, but when you're
face to face with a person you care about, how you make that person
feel matters more than any political agenda.
--
--- Daniel J. Mocsny, so get with it
the tree by the river
>
>> > I don't have the stats, but the stereotype seems to be that
>> > the guy skips out at the last minute at weddings more often
>> > than the woman. If true, then perhaps now we understand why.
>> >
>> > Would you appreciate having your fiance doing that to you?
>>
>> No, of couse I wouldn't. But that would not give me the right to then
>> track him down and harm him.
>
>That is why I suggested that men who are tired of being
>jerked around by sex teasers should consider becoming marriage
>teasers. *PRECISELY* because the jilted woman has absolutely
>no legal recourse. All she can legally do is accept the pain
>and humiliation and damage to her self-esteem and graciously
>carry on as though nothing has happened.
Doesn't that strike you as being rather odd reasoning? It might
make at least a tiny bit of sense to suggest that you could
"marriage tease" someone who had "sex teased" you (though I think
the relative emotional significance of the two games makes that a
little like running someone down with a car because he happened
to step on your foot), but it sounds like you're suggesting that
men should respond to disappointment with one woman by deliberately
trying to hurt other women (who may very well never have engaged in
any "sex teasing" themselves or might even have experienced it from
the receiving end). That's a bit like running down random
pedestrians because somebody else stepped on your foot in the past.
>I suspect most women would have about as much trouble dealing with
>a last-minute "No" from a marriage teaser as men have trouble dealing
>with a last-minute "No" from a sex teaser. While it is certainly
>possible for any mentally healthy and resourceful person to accept
>the "No" regardless of how inconvenient the timing, it often does
>require a bit of effort to absorb the pain and humiliation and
>accept it graciously.
I don't think the two are quite so comparable; the emotional commitment
involved in planning a life together is a little different than looking
forward to a night of sexual activity.
>I think it's important for men to do their part to educate
>women in the realities of just how much jerking other people
>around can hurt them. But only, of course, to women who need
>such education. Women who are beautiful on the inside deserve to
>see the same inner beauty in the men they love.
So, how would you determine which women are in need of this
"education"? And how would you suggest that they should best
continue the escalation of hostilities? Presumably, the women
who have been so "educated" will need some tactic to use to harm
the men they meet later, just to be consistent with the
philosophy you're espousing here.
--
Soc.singles FAQ: < http://www.trygve.com/ssfaq.html > || "A minor setback..."
Personal webpage: < http://www.trygve.com > || -- Evil the Cat
Trygve Lode, president, Nyx Net, public access internet < http://www.nyx.net >
"I will walk into the fire until its heat doesn't burn me...." -- sm
Frans Buijsen
> The idea of female rage violence gets lots of nice media play (starting
> probably with the movie "Thelma and Louise") But, its a very dangerous thing
> indeed to advocate violence. Like biological warfare, it has a way of turning
> on you and you become a victim of the very thing you sought to inflict on
> others.
Wow. I watch "Thelma and Louise" and see a female version of "Easy
Rider", as well as a contemporary version of the ancient concept of the
rogue novel (ala "Til Eulenspiegel").
You just see glorification of violence by women and a feminist agenda.
Looks to me like you got some unresolved issues there, son.
--
Frans Buijsen
"I would just like to thank my agent, my personal trainer, my analyst
and chaos girl without whom none of this would have been possible."
-- liner notes for a Blue Note CD
Aaron R Kulkis
>
> Jet wrote:
> > >
> > > Jet conveniently ignores the fact that a woman is probably
> > > ten times more likely than a man to rebuff a sexual advance.
> >
>
> Sure it matters. It means the man's symmetrical right to
> veto isn't worth as much.
>
> the guy skips out at the last minute at weddings more often
> than the woman. If true, then perhaps now we understand why.
>
> Would you appreciate having your fiance doing that to you?
Dan...the scenario you proposed is beyond hypothetical..
Jet having a fiancee is a downright ludicrous idea....
>
> --
> --- Daniel J. Mocsny
--
Frans Buijsen
> Susan T Graul wrote:
> > As far as I'm concerned, communication about hetero sex ought to be as
> > much the woman's responsibility as it is the man's. Women shouldn't be
> > thinking they can encourage play up to the point of penetration, and
> > then say no. That is just plain *wrong*.
>
> I don't think anyone is saying teasing a man just to get him hot just so
> you can tell him "No" is a nice thing to do. However, a man doesn't have
> a right to rape a woman just because she wasn't nice.
Not doing it on purpose doesn't make it any better. To repeat the bit by
Susan you snipped:
(Susan Graul said:)
Take some responsibility for your sexuality, I say. If you want it,
then fine, go for it. If you're ambivalent, then nip it in the bud.
It's not fair to men to encourage them and then shut them off at the
last minute. And if you regret having agreed to sex, then learn from it
and don't do it next time.
(end of quote)
Responsibility is the key word here. Claiming that you can change your
mind at any time is irresponsible, unrealistic, and childish.
dctest Anonymous Remailer
>I suspect most women would have about as much trouble dealing with
>a last-minute "No" from a marriage teaser as men have trouble dealing
>with a last-minute "No" from a sex teaser.
The term of art is cockteaser not sex teaser.
And the proper response to cockteasers is to dump them immediately.
Though if a guy has time to kill or if the girl switched from cockpleaser
to cockteaser late in the game your marriage abortion tactic has merit.
Jackie the Tokeman
dctest Anonymous Remailer
>Dan...the scenario you proposed is beyond hypothetical..
>
>Jet having a fiancee is a downright ludicrous idea....
Jet is thin and fit and she likes sex.
If she wanted a fiancee I have no doubt she could find one.
Probably within one month.
Of course it would be with a similarly desirable man so that counts you out.
Jackie the Tokeman
dctest Anonymous Remailer
>There was an ad in a teen magazine which was promoting the concept of
>abstainence. The capation read, "If he really cared, he'd be willing to
>wait." Yet, we (or at least *I*) have been taught since my wee youth
>that only a cad would say to a girl, "If you really cared, you'd show me
>and do 'it' with me."
That phenomenon is why I believe Christianity is a feminist religion.
Jackie the Tokeman
Daniel Mocsny
> In article <36B0BCD8...@mfm.com>, Daniel Mocsny <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > I don't have the stats, but the stereotype seems to be that
> >> > the guy skips out at the last minute at weddings more often
> >> > than the woman. If true, then perhaps now we understand why.
> >> >
> >> > Would you appreciate having your fiance doing that to you?
> >>
> >> track him down and harm him.
> >
> >That is why I suggested that men who are tired of being
> >jerked around by sex teasers should consider becoming marriage
> >teasers. *PRECISELY* because the jilted woman has absolutely
> >no legal recourse. All she can legally do is accept the pain
> >and humiliation and damage to her self-esteem and graciously
> >carry on as though nothing has happened.
>
> Doesn't that strike you as being rather odd reasoning?
Do you mean odd in an absolute sense or odd relative to the
prevailing standard on soc.posturing.singles?
> It might
> make at least a tiny bit of sense to suggest that you could
> "marriage tease" someone who had "sex teased" you
Which is what I was suggesting.
A person who gets close enough to sex to be a sex tease is likely to
be either a relationship prospect or a relationship partner already,
after all. If the sex teaser is a woman she probably shares the
majority female interest in marriage. Therefore she is as vulnerable
to being teased about marriage as men are vulnerable to being teased
about sex.
Jackie the Tokeman understood this symmetry perfectly, because he
understands that (in general) women take commitment as seriously
as men take sex seriously.
> (though I think
> the relative emotional significance of the two games makes that a
> little like running someone down with a car because he happened
> to step on your foot),
You are free to suggest a response you consider proportionate.
But what else does a woman value that she depends on a man to provide,
and which he values so little himself?
> but it sounds like you're suggesting that
> men should respond to disappointment with one woman by deliberately
> trying to hurt other women
I don't recall suggesting that.
> (who may very well never have engaged in
> any "sex teasing" themselves or might even have experienced it from
> the receiving end). That's a bit like running down random
> pedestrians because somebody else stepped on your foot in the past.
It's also a bit like running down random suggestions because you don't
like my suggestion.
> >I suspect most women would have about as much trouble dealing with
> >a last-minute "No" from a marriage teaser as men have trouble dealing
> >with a last-minute "No" from a sex teaser. While it is certainly
> >possible for any mentally healthy and resourceful person to accept
> >the "No" regardless of how inconvenient the timing, it often does
> >require a bit of effort to absorb the pain and humiliation and
> >accept it graciously.
>
> I don't think the two are quite so comparable; the emotional commitment
> involved in planning a life together is a little different than looking
> forward to a night of sexual activity.
The sex teaser does not necessarily say "no" to sex for all time.
She might simply make her partner anguish a bit now and then. After
all, for a woman to willingly get far enough into foreplay
to put some real sting into her eventual course reversal, she has to
be basically attracted to her partner and quite possibly amenable to
finishing the job on subsequent attempts.
Similarly, the marriage teaser could eventually go through with
the wedding after humiliating his fiancee a few times.
If the wedding sounds too heavy, then how about some dinner teasing.
Ask the sex teaser out on a date to her favorite restaurant, and
then just when you've gone in and gotten seated, but before ordering,
tell her you've suddenly changed your mind and leave. For this to be
effective you'd want to have established the precedent of paying for
her dinner so she would have come without any money.
> >I think it's important for men to do their part to educate
> >women in the realities of just how much jerking other people
> >around can hurt them. But only, of course, to women who need
> >such education. Women who are beautiful on the inside deserve to
> >see the same inner beauty in the men they love.
>
> So, how would you determine which women are in need of this
> "education"?
You'd have to judge it on a case-by-case basis. For example, it is
quite clear that Susan T Graul does not need this type of instruction.
The jury is out on Jet. I don't know if she's merely mouthing
radfem shibboleths or whether she actually makes a point of
sex teasing men.
There are some women who freely dole out "No means no" without
really understanding what it can sometimes mean for the victim.
In my experience, such insensitivity is not too common. Usually
it indicates some other kind of emotional damage from past abuse.
But fortunately most women are mentally healthy enough to understand
that it is unkind to start something you don't plan to finish.
> And how would you suggest that they should best
> continue the escalation of hostilities?
What escalation? A proportional response is not escalation. It
simply means refusing to be a doormat.
Believe it or not, you can actually earn respect from a person
by showing her/him that you have boundaries and are willing to
defend them.
> Presumably, the women
> who have been so "educated" will need some tactic to use to harm
> the men they meet later, just to be consistent with the
> philosophy you're espousing here.
Which philosphy is that---my take on whether the Fed should cut
interest rates? Or whether it makes sense for NASA to favor unmanned
vs. manned missions? Or perhaps something about the sustainable
harvest of marine mammals?
Please do tell me what I think, because I certainly can't guess
what it is merely by reading what I wrote.
Daniel Mocsny
>
> Daniel Mocsny <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote:
> >I suspect most women would have about as much trouble dealing with
> >a last-minute "No" from a marriage teaser as men have trouble dealing
> >with a last-minute "No" from a sex teaser.
>
> And the proper response to cockteasers is to dump them immediately.
This appears to differ from your response to Usenet.
Here you seem to enjoy the process of sticking around long
enough to inflict pain on people.
Perhaps women in real life are different because wasting time
inflicting pain on one of them presents an opportunity cost: you
aren't spending that same time obtaining pleasure from a different
one. Whereas on Usenet there is no pleasure to be obtained anywhere.
Of course, you could dump Usenet immediately. But you don't. Why?
> Though if a guy has time to kill or if the girl switched from cockpleaser
> to cockteaser late in the game your marriage abortion tactic has merit.
To tell the truth, I've never been one to get too excited about
elaborate revenge schemes. So I offer this one primarily as a
free public service.
And possibly as a way to get callous women and their bootlicking
sycophants to think.
--
--- Daniel J. Mocsny, not holding my breath
Brock Hannibal
How do you know that Jet is thin and fit? If it's true, woohoo!
Brock
Used by parents to frighten children in Rome: "Hannibal is at the gates!"
Clarice
>
> How do you know that Jet is thin and fit? If it's true, woohoo!
I don't know how Jackie knows, but I've seen her pictures and she is
indeed a thin, fit, hot babe who looks gorgeous in a mini dress.
Take my word for it. Or not.
C.
Brock Hannibal
I have no trouble believing you Clarice. I may disagree sometimes with
your ideas, but I've never said you were a liar.
Jet Silverman
Daniel Mocsny <dmo...@mfm.com>
Subject:
Re: Can a woman say "no" anytime?
Date:
Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:44:29 -0500
> The jury is out on Jet. I don't know if she's merely mouthing radfem
shibboleths or whether she
>actually makes a point of
> sex teasing men.
I am obviously being misunderstood. If a woman deliberately teases a man
just to say "no", she is doing
an awful, heartless thing. However, the man does not have a right to then
rape her. I would never do that
to a man, it is pointless and nasty.
If a woman has an honest change of heart, that is another thing. It is sure
to be a disapointment to the
man, and maybe to her as well. IMHO, she should explain *why* she changed
her mind. Again, he
should respect her decision, and does not have the right to rape her.
J
email me at earthlink
*** Posted from RemarQ - http://www.remarq.com - Discussions Start Here (tm) ***
Cheezits
> Jet wrote:
> > you can tell him "No" is a nice thing to do. However, a man doesn't have
> > a right to rape a woman just because she wasn't nice.
> him, and then fail to show up at the wedding.
You've got to be kidding. Planning a wedding takes weeks of work, not to
mention emotional involvement. How does that compare with a guy getting
his hopes up for a night of sex? Hell of a lot of trouble to go to just
for revenge. Seems to me the appropriate response is to find someone who
doesn't play games and knows what they want to do.
While it is *techically* and *legally* true that a woman can "just say no"
at any time, I think it is a very bad message to be drumming into girls'
minds. And doing it on purpose (saying no at the last minute) is kind of
sick if you ask me. Some guys are horny enough without having someone
lead them on. It's rude and inconsiderate and, in hopefully rare cases,
potentially dangerous.
Sue
--
----- Before you send me spam, check out www.cauce.org -----
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
lin...@hotmail.com
Jet <jet_si...@prodigy.ne> wrote:
> lin...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> > The idea of female rage violence gets lots of nice media play (starting
> > probably with the movie "Thelma and Louise") But, its a very dangerous thing
> > indeed to advocate violence. Like biological warfare, it has a way of
turning
> > on you and you become a victim of the very thing you sought to inflict on
> > others.
>
If it was just a joke, then I apologize for not cathing your irony. I guess
that's what emoticons are for.
>
> Jesus H Christ. I don't idolize Loreena Bobbit, I think the Bobbits were
> a couple of total losers who deserved each other.
>
> In any case, if Loreena is to be believed, she attacked John because he
> abused her. Now, whether or not you would think her attack was justified
> in that case, there is no way to compare it to the slaughter of people
> who were minding their own business.
I see your point. My point however was not on a quid-pro-quo basis but rather
the idea that using violence as a reaction to a precived injustice is not a
course of action to be undertaken lightly. "We reap what we sew" etc etc.
---
"The only one who knows these words are but a token
is he who has the tongue to tell
but must remain unspoken."
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
lin...@hotmail.com
Susan T Graul <sgr...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Anonymous wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Sex is a bilateral agreement: *TWO* people are present and involved in
> > > equal measure. And each must respect the committment they made to the
> > > other party. If a woman has said yes, she must stick to that yes. If
> > > she later changes her mind...too bad. Next time, think twice. But for
> > > now you're committed.
> As far as I'm concerned, communication about hetero sex ought to be as
> much the woman's responsibility as it is the man's. Women shouldn't be
> thinking they can encourage play up to the point of penetration, and
> then say no. That is just plain *wrong*.
>
> A lot of women would freak out if men started in with play and then
> suddenly said, ah shit never mind.
>
> Take some responsibility for your sexuality, I say. If you want it,
> then fine, go for it. If you're ambivalent, then nip it in the bud.
> It's not fair to men to encourage them and then shut them off at the
> last minute. And if you regret having agreed to sex, then learn from it
> and don't do it next time.
>
> Sue
Very well said!!
That's a post that should restore confidence in woman-kind for more than a few
cynics in this newsgroup!!
hereti...@my-dejanews.com
lin...@hotmail.com wrote:
> In article <36AECD5B...@prodigy.new>,
> Jet Silverman <jet_si...@prodigy.new> wrote:
> The idea of female rage violence gets lots of nice media play (starting
> probably with the movie "Thelma and Louise") But, its a very dangerous thing
> indeed to advocate violence.
Oh, shove it up your ass with a pointed stick.
Women have been butchered for a long time by men, and sometimes
we do fight back, which scares the fuck out of you assholes.
Self-defense is not violence.
For years, cops told women not to fight back if they were raped.
Funny thing, they knew rapists don't respect quid pro quo,
and that submitting didn't save any women. Fighting back,
otoh, often does. If a rapist wants to kill a woman, her
submission ain't gonna stop him. Now cops tell women
to fight, don't get into the car, etc, becuase that
works a lot better.
> Like biological warfare, it has a way of turning
> on you and you become a victim of the very thing you sought to inflict on
> others.
Yeah, it just took us grrls a long time to turn the table
on you assholes. But reality is, violence IS effective,
as can be seen everywhere. It works, and that is why people use it.
Funny how it's only when women fight back that you get your
panties in a bunch.
> Here are two more words for you, Jet: Marc LePenn.
Your hero?
> I don't know who much media he got down there in the States. But in Canada,
> he sure got his 15 minutes of fame. To refresh your memory: Marc LePenn is
> the man who took several guns and went on a killing spree at the University
> of Montreal about 10 years ago. He went from lecture hall to lecture hall and
> shot every female student he saw, shouting all sorts of anti-feminist
> statements as he went along. As I recall, he was finally killed by a security
> guard, but not unitl he had killed something like 15 co-eds.
A man after your own heart. Not a single man there did anything to
save those women, eh? Nope, they all just sat like bunnies on prozac.
and mass killers of women is scarcely unique. Happens all the time.
More often they are serial killers, but LePen was a couple tacos
short of a combination plate, and being an effective serial killer
takes a bit of smarts.
> So, as you idolize Loreena Bobbit, and use her name as an vieled threat of
> infliciting violence on men, there may well be another Marc LePenn out
> there loading his weapons. Result: more violence against both genders.
So you veil your threats. Hope the RCMP take your guns away.
Maybe if they saw what you post on the net they might.
and deal with the fact that almost all of the violence is directed
against women. when a man is afraid to walk past of group of girls
at night, maybe we will be equal, but for me, I'd much rather you
assholes who think hurting women is OK either died horribly
or stopped hurting us.
Maybe if more of you died horribly you'd treat us the way
we have to treat you: with caution and respect.
This is apocryphal, but I remember the line about how
when men are asked what they fear most about women, the
number 1 answer was that women would laugh at them.
The number one fear of women is that men would kill them.
hereti...@my-dejanews.com
> > Here are two more words for you, Jet: Marc LePenn.
> > I don't know who much media he got down there in the States. But in Canada,
> > he sure got his 15 minutes of fame. To refresh your memory: Marc LePenn is
> > the man who took several guns and went on a killing spree at the University
> > of Montreal about 10 years ago. He went from lecture hall to lecture hall
and
> > shot every female student he saw, shouting all sorts of anti-feminist
> > statements as he went along. As I recall, he was finally killed by a
security
> > guard, but not unitl he had killed something like 15 co-eds.
> >
> > So, as you idolize Loreena Bobbit, and use her name as an vieled threat of
> > infliciting violence on men, there may well be another Marc LePenn out
> > there loading his weapons. Result: more violence against both genders.
that is a very poorly veiled threat.
Don't even mention Lorena, or another marc lepenn will come after you.
One asshole gets his dick sliced off (it was later attached) and
linguica here thinks it is comparable to murdering 15 people.
Kinda like how those jackoffs insist that women are abusing men,
because they equate a slap in the face with getting your face kicked in.
Hell, some of the psychoandrists say a woman's verbal taunts are
the equivalent of physical violence.
Fuck this shit.
I'm tired of these assholes.
MILLIONS OF WOMEN HAVE THE SAME GODDAMN THING DONE TO
THEM AS BOBBIT, AND NO ONE PUTS THEIR GENITALS BACK TOGETHER.
But one man gets his dick cut off, and hysteria at all those
feminists (Like Lorena was a feminist! Yeah, and Henry Hyde
is a Libertarian) but if you talk about female genital
mutilation, it's "Oh, that is a cultural value," or
"Well, circumcision of men is worse!" and such idiocy.
> Jesus H Christ. I don't idolize Loreena Bobbit, I think the Bobbits were
> a couple of total losers who deserved each other.
Big time.
> In any case, if Loreena is to be believed, she attacked John because he
> abused her. Now, whether or not you would think her attack was justified
> in that case, there is no way to compare it to the slaughter of people
> who were minding their own business.
Well, that is typical of the crybaby males. You mention being in pain
from being run over by a bus, and they whine about how they tripped
over their shoelaces . ..
hereti...@my-dejanews.com
Jet <jet...@earthling.net> wrote:
> Aaron R Kulkis wrote:
>
> > This is exactly what the feminists have incited.
>
> So now you are justifing the slaughter of inocent people minding their
> own business in school? Are you so threatened by a woman being able to
> take care of herself, and competing with you, (the women were taking
> engineering), that you think murder is justified?
Of course. Aaron is about as stable as a monarch butterfly
in a hurricane.
He is completely crazy, and has been spewing the same shit,
all validated by Proof-by-Blatant-Assertion, for many years.
Everything, in AaronWorld, evil is caused by feminists.
Luckily we don't have to live in the same world he is.
and of course, his voluminous posts could be used to show
a criminal mindset, a pathological hatred of women, if he
ever does anything, but somehow the image I get of him
is someone who would make Beaker look like a stud.
Probably couldn't jack off without both hands
(and a magnifying glass and tweezer)
the tree by the river
>the tree by the river wrote:
>> In article <36B0BCD8...@mfm.com>, Daniel Mocsny <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >That is why I suggested that men who are tired of being
>> >jerked around by sex teasers should consider becoming marriage
>> >teasers. *PRECISELY* because the jilted woman has absolutely
>> >no legal recourse. All she can legally do is accept the pain
>> >and humiliation and damage to her self-esteem and graciously
>> >carry on as though nothing has happened.
>>
>> Doesn't that strike you as being rather odd reasoning?
>
>Do you mean odd in an absolute sense or odd relative to the
>prevailing standard on soc.posturing.singles?
I meant odd in the sense of "not fitting with the level of logical
thought that I'd associate with you." Given that apparently I
misunderstood what you were saying, I retract that comment.
>> It might
>> make at least a tiny bit of sense to suggest that you could
>> "marriage tease" someone who had "sex teased" you
>
>Which is what I was suggesting.
I stand corrected. I had thought you meant something different.
>A person who gets close enough to sex to be a sex tease is likely to
>be either a relationship prospect or a relationship partner already,
>after all.
Why's that? Though I suppose you might consider anyone to be a
"relationship prospect," but I would have thought that these kinds
of things would not happen in a relationship or with someone who
is a strong prospect--I'd imagined you were talking more about
potential casual sex partners and women you'd been interacting with
in a sexual/romantic way for just a short time.
>If the sex teaser is a woman she probably shares the
>majority female interest in marriage. Therefore she is as vulnerable
>to being teased about marriage as men are vulnerable to being teased
>about sex.
Um...maybe; lots of people--men and women--have an interest in
getting married, at least eventually and to the right person, but
it seems like someone who would be having second thoughts about
being sexually involved with you would have somewhere between
little and no interest in contemplating getting married to you.
>Jackie the Tokeman understood this symmetry perfectly, because he
>understands that (in general) women take commitment as seriously
>as men take sex seriously.
That makes very nearly no sense at all; pretty much everybody takes
commitment seriously (otherwise it wouldn't exactly be "commitment")
and some men and women take sex seriously, some don't, but I think
very few would see getting married and having sex as comparably
serious.
>> (though I think
>> the relative emotional significance of the two games makes that a
>> little like running someone down with a car because he happened
>> to step on your foot),
>
>You are free to suggest a response you consider proportionate.
>But what else does a woman value that she depends on a man to provide,
>and which he values so little himself?
Eh? How does that last sentence relate to either sex or marriage?
>> I don't think the two are quite so comparable; the emotional commitment
>> involved in planning a life together is a little different than looking
>> forward to a night of sexual activity.
>
>The sex teaser does not necessarily say "no" to sex for all time.
>She might simply make her partner anguish a bit now and then. After
>all, for a woman to willingly get far enough into foreplay
>to put some real sting into her eventual course reversal, she has to
>be basically attracted to her partner and quite possibly amenable to
>finishing the job on subsequent attempts.
Okay. I hadn't imagined such a scenario, not having had any
experience remotely like that, but if you find it a source of
anguish, why continue to put up with it?
>Similarly, the marriage teaser could eventually go through with
>the wedding after humiliating his fiancee a few times.
Why would you want to marry someone whom you'd have even the
tiniest desire to humiliate? If you loved and cherished and
enjoyed the company of someone enough to want to spend your
lives together, wouldn't you want her to feel as good and
ennobled as possible?
>There are some women who freely dole out "No means no" without
>really understanding what it can sometimes mean for the victim.
>In my experience, such insensitivity is not too common. Usually
>it indicates some other kind of emotional damage from past abuse.
>But fortunately most women are mentally healthy enough to understand
>that it is unkind to start something you don't plan to finish.
I'm unconvinced that it's kinder to finish something when your
heart isn't in it. Sometimes there's no really good thing to do,
just the least awful of several unhappy steps.
明白
[Observations about Jet's personality snipped...accurate though they
were]
>
> That is why I suggested that men who are tired of being
> jerked around by sex teasers should consider becoming marriage
> teasers. *PRECISELY* because the jilted woman has absolutely
> no legal recourse. All she can legally do is accept the pain
> and humiliation and damage to her self-esteem and graciously
> carry on as though nothing has happened.
Unfortunately, that's not absolutely correct. Though I don't know the
precise number, many States in the USA still have laws on the books
which can make a man liable for damages if he "jilts" a fiancee. They
are mostly archaic left-overs and I don't know what would happen if a
woman tried to press the issue. But at least technically, a man still
leaves himself at legal "risk" for such an action. Again, the opposite
is not true of the sex tease.
Portia
>Responsibility is the key word here. Claiming that you can change your
>mind at any time is irresponsible, unrealistic, and childish.
Believing that you have a right to force someone to have sex when they
no longer want to is irresponsible, immoral, inconsiderate, unrealistic,
arrogant, selfish and childish.
--
"The bond that links your true family is not one of blood, but of respect
and joy in each other's life. Rarely do members of one family grow up
under the same roof." Illusions, Richard Bach
Aaron R Kulkis
>
> Jet wrote:
> >
> > Daniel Mocsny wrote:
> > >
> > > Jet wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Jet conveniently ignores the fact that a woman is probably
> > > > > ten times more likely than a man to rebuff a sexual advance.
> > > >
> > > > It doesn't matter.
> > >
> > > Sure it matters. It means the man's symmetrical right to
> > > veto isn't worth as much.
> >
>
> Obviously not to you.
>
> Do you realize that the attitude you are expressing here is
> a sign of extreme inner ugliness?
>
> It is quite possible for you to protect your precious body
> while *AT THE SAME TIME* showing a little sympathy for the
> feelings of others.
>
> But your real feelings for men are coming through loudly and
> clearly. Here's a tip: study what Susan T Graul wrote in this
> thread. Her consideration for the feelings of the man is a
> sign of inner beauty.
>
> > > the guy skips out at the last minute at weddings more often
> > > than the woman. If true, then perhaps now we understand why.
> > >
> > > Would you appreciate having your fiance doing that to you?
> >
> > No, of couse I wouldn't. But that would not give me the right to then
> > track him down and harm him.
>
> jerked around by sex teasers should consider becoming marriage
> teasers. *PRECISELY* because the jilted woman has absolutely
> no legal recourse. All she can legally do is accept the pain
> and humiliation and damage to her self-esteem and graciously
> carry on as though nothing has happened.
>
> a last-minute "No" from a marriage teaser as men have trouble dealing
> possible for any mentally healthy and resourceful person to accept
> the "No" regardless of how inconvenient the timing, it often does
> accept it graciously.
>
> I think it's important for men to do their part to educate
> women in the realities of just how much jerking other people
> around can hurt them. But only, of course, to women who need
> such education. Women who are beautiful on the inside deserve to
> see the same inner beauty in the men they love.
Play it again, Dan.
>
> --
> --- Daniel J. Mocsny
--
明白
> the relative emotional significance of the two games makes that a
> little like running someone down with a car because he happened
> to step on your foot)
That relative weighting tends to suggest the "high value" society places
on female desires. Sex for women is "trivial" because it is so easily
available. And as a result, the entire society (men included) tend to
accept this valuation and say, "Oh that's not important, its 'just sex'.
Marriage is what's really important." That thoroughly neglects the
emotional aspects of male sexuality.
Indeed, its one of those self-fulfilling prophecies: society tells men
that sex for them carries no emotional aspects....so men tend to
disregard their own emotional feelings towards sexuality....and thus
women say, "See! Men have no emotional attachment when it comes to
sex..."
But the issue is not one of "sex vs. marriage" Its an issue of
rejection. Its just that it takes marriage-rejection to get women "where
it hurts".
> .....but it sounds like you're suggesting that
> men should respond to disappointment with one woman by deliberately
> trying to hurt other women (who may very well never have engaged in
> any "sex teasing" themselves or might even have experienced it from
> the receiving end).
I didn't read that part. Seemed to me that the plan was to do this
specifically to the sex-tease in question.
> >I suspect most women would have about as much trouble dealing with
> >a last-minute "No" from a marriage teaser as men have trouble dealing
> >with a last-minute "No" from a sex teaser. While it is certainly
> >possible for any mentally healthy and resourceful person to accept
> >the "No" regardless of how inconvenient the timing, it often does
> >require a bit of effort to absorb the pain and humiliation and
> >accept it graciously.
>
> I don't think the two are quite so comparable; the emotional commitment
> involved in planning a life together is a little different than looking
> forward to a night of sexual activity.
Again, the devaluation based on "it's just sex..."
>
> >I think it's important for men to do their part to educate
> >women in the realities of just how much jerking other people
> >around can hurt them. But only, of course, to women who need
> >such education. Women who are beautiful on the inside deserve to
> >see the same inner beauty in the men they love.
>
> So, how would you determine which women are in need of this
> "education"?
Easy. The one who is doing the "teasing".
> .....And how would you suggest that they should best
> continue the escalation of hostilities? Presumably, the women
> who have been so "educated" will need some tactic to use to harm
> the men they meet later, just to be consistent with the
> philosophy you're espousing here.
Again, I don't see why you think that is confusing. The "game" started
with her teasing and ends when she gets her "come-up-ence". If he goes
on to tease another guy, she may well end up jilted a 2nd time.
明白
> You didn't answer the question though: does the party still deserve to have the
> food forced down their throat no matter what their reason for saying no?
>
I did answer the question:
> > 明白 <min...@ms3.hinet.net> wrote:
> >1) If you are at a resturant, in many instances they WILL insist that
> >you pay for the food you ordered for the very reason youstated, you
> >entered into a verbal agreement. You can't just walk into aresturant and
> >order everything on the menu (as a prank) and then when it arrives say,
> >"Ops, ha ha, just kidding." And walk out. Nor should a woman be allowed
> >to intice and sexually arouse a guy and then, when then things are hot
> >and heavy say, "Ha sucker! I changed my mind. No means no...."
dctest Anonymous Remailer
>dctest Anonymous Remailer wrote:
>>
>> Daniel Mocsny <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote:
>> >a last-minute "No" from a marriage teaser as men have trouble dealing
>> >with a last-minute "No" from a sex teaser.
>>
>> And the proper response to cockteasers is to dump them immediately.
>
>This appears to differ from your response to Usenet.
>enough to inflict pain on people.
That's because I don't find that I am frustrated in getting what I want on
usenet.
Cockteasers are frustrating by definition.
The solution is to eradicate them from your life.
>Perhaps women in real life are different because wasting time
>inflicting pain on one of them presents an opportunity cost: you
>aren't spending that same time obtaining pleasure from a different
>one.
Women are considerably trickier to deal with than usenet messages.
A truly nasty cockteaser will play all kinds of other mindgames as well.
Including efforts to poison the well with your other girls.
When I detect an enemy infiltrator I don't issue a residency permit.
>Whereas on Usenet there is no pleasure to be obtained anywhere.
What, you don't enjoy killing souls?
>Of course, you could dump Usenet immediately. But you don't. Why?
Because I have a genuine taste for it.
(anyone care to name the source?)
>> Though if a guy has time to kill or if the girl switched from cockpleaser
>> to cockteaser late in the game your marriage abortion tactic has merit.
>
>To tell the truth, I've never been one to get too excited about
>elaborate revenge schemes. So I offer this one primarily as a
>free public service.
In other words you probably agree with my recommendation above.
>And possibly as a way to get callous women and their bootlicking
>sycophants to think.
For some reason monkeys and butts come irresistably to mind...
>--- Daniel J. Mocsny, not holding my breath
That would be the smart play.
Jackie the Tokeman
Angela C. Lukach
Jet (jet...@earthling.net) writes:
the kook wrote-
>
>> This is exactly what the feminists have incited.
>
> So now you are justifing the slaughter of inocent people minding their
> own business in school? Are you so threatened by a woman being able to
> take care of herself, and competing with you, (the women were taking
> engineering), that you think murder is justified?
i'm glad to see i'm not alone in thinking that the kook reminds me of
Marc Lepine.
1) military-type
check
2) blames *feminists* for everything
check
3) a time bomb waiting to go off
check...
--
Breed of the Month - Alentejana!
The Cow Palace is moving soon!
Java666
>Date: 1/29/99 10:09 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Java666 wrote:
>
>> You didn't answer the question though: does the party still deserve to have
>the
>> food forced down their throat no matter what their reason for saying no?
>>
>
>I did answer the question:
No, you didn't.
>> > フ <min...@ms3.hinet.net> wrote:
>> >1) If you are at a resturant, in many instances they WILL insist that
>> >you pay for the food you ordered for the very reason youstated, you
>> >entered into a verbal agreement. You can't just walk into aresturant and
>> >order everything on the menu (as a prank) and then when it arrives say,
>> >"Ops, ha ha, just kidding." And walk out. Nor should a woman be allowed
>> >to intice and sexually arouse a guy and then, when then things are hot
>> >and heavy say, "Ha sucker! I changed my mind. No means no...."
...unless you really are saying that yes, a woman deserves to have sex forced
on her if she changes her mind and says no?
Are you?
Dawn
lin...@hotmail.com
hereti...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Oh, shove it up your ass with a pointed stick.
> Women have been butchered for a long time by men, and sometimes
> we do fight back, which scares the fuck out of you assholes.
I have had several discussions in this newsgroup concerning how a certain
individual is vilified for his posts. The reason most often stated for the
treatment given him is that he is "obviously just an angry woman-hater"
It will be interesting to see how the group responds to your diatribe.
> > Like biological warfare, it has a way of turning
> > on you and you become a victim of the very thing you sought to inflict on
> > others.
>
> Yeah, it just took us grrls a long time to turn the table
> on you assholes. But reality is, violence IS effective,
> as can be seen everywhere. It works, and that is why people use it.
> Funny how it's only when women fight back that you get your
> panties in a bunch.
Given that you are so impressed by how effective violence is, then you should
be all in favor of its use against women as an effective means for men to
accomplish their own goals. Correct?
It seems to me that women have had their "panties in a bunch" over male
violence towards women for a long time. But then, that is an issue for
another thread.
>
> > Here are two more words for you, Jet: Marc LePenn.
>
> > I don't know who much media he got down there in the States. But in Canada,
> > he sure got his 15 minutes of fame. To refresh your memory: Marc LePenn is
> > the man who took several guns and went on a killing spree at the University
> > of Montreal about 10 years ago. He went from lecture hall to lecture hall
and
> > shot every female student he saw, shouting all sorts of anti-feminist
> > statements as he went along. As I recall, he was finally killed by a
security
> > guard, but not unitl he had killed something like 15 co-eds.
>
> A man after your own heart. Not a single man there did anything to
> save those women, eh? Nope, they all just sat like bunnies on prozac.
Curious you should point this out.
1) It was a MALE security guard who shot him. 2)No women did anything to help
the other women.....so why is it expected (especially by a raging
independent-minded woman as yourself) that men somehow *should* have done
something? Could it be that female independence is only for those times when
it is safe and convient? When there's danger involved....all of a sudden
being on the pedestal seems mighty cumfy?
>
> > So, as you idolize Loreena Bobbit, and use her name as an vieled threat of
> > infliciting violence on men, there may well be another Marc LePenn out
> > there loading his weapons. Result: more violence against both genders.
> ....deal with the fact that almost all of the violence is directed
> against women.
Your facts are wrong. Most violence in society is directed against men.
> ......when a man is afraid to walk past of group of girls
I think you mispelled that. Don't you mean "grrls"?
> or stopped hurting us.
I agree. The inflicting of pain on another human being is unacceptable. This
is not an issue of gender; its an issue of humanity.
>
> Maybe if more of you died horribly you'd treat us the way
> we have to treat you: with caution and respect.
There is a great fallacy in your statement that women *have to* treat men with
respect. Many (including myself) question if they even DO....let alone "have
to".
The orgination of this thread was over the fact that women do not "have to"
follow through with their own intial agreements in terms of sexual activity.
As one woman put it(paraphrasing), "I can say no anytime I damn will feel
like it and they guy just better accept it. Hardly a "respectful" attitude.
---
"The only one who knows these words are but a token
is he who has the tongue to tell
but must remain unspoken."
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Daniel Mocsny
>
> On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, Daniel Mocsny wrote:
> > Jet wrote:
> > > you can tell him "No" is a nice thing to do. However, a man doesn't have
> > > a right to rape a woman just because she wasn't nice.
> > Right. The appropriate response for the man is to ask the woman to marry
> > him, and then fail to show up at the wedding.
>
> You've got to be kidding.
You write like a woman with no sex drive.
> Planning a wedding takes weeks of work, not to
> mention emotional involvement.
So does getting a woman into bed.
As far as which is worse, well...I don't know how to
compare the pain of one person to the pain of another person.
Of course you can compare how they react. For example, how
many women respond to marriage teasers in ways that put them
in jail?
> How does that compare with a guy getting
> his hopes up for a night of sex?
Ask all the guys who are willing to go to jail. Apparently
sexual rejection bothers them more than it bothered me.
> Hell of a lot of trouble to go to just
> for revenge.
It's not just revenge. It's also making an important point.
A woman who simply hands out the last-second "no's" and never has
to receive any is likely to get herself in trouble if she doesn't
understand what she's doing. Therefore teaching her what "no" feels
like might be the biggest favor a person could do for her. Of course
there's no guarantee she'll make the connection. But at least
someone tried.
> Seems to me the appropriate response is to find someone who
> doesn't play games and knows what they want to do.
On Usenet there aren't many people with the self-discipline to walk
away from a fight. Petty vengefulness finds its clearest expression
right here. Not even a person as happy-go-lucky as Tree can resist
getting his digs in now and then.
Therefore I knew my advice would find a few receptive minds here.
Heh heh heh.
> While it is *techically* and *legally* true that a woman can "just say no"
> at any time, I think it is a very bad message to be drumming into girls'
> minds. And doing it on purpose (saying no at the last minute) is kind of
> sick if you ask me.
It's an odd form of brinkswomanship.
About as odd as being a marriage tease.
Imagine that men formed a political pressure group and began
encouraging other men to exercise their right to veto weddings
at the last possible second. How would that make you as a woman
feel?
Uncomfortable, I hope.
dctest Anonymous Remailer
>While it is *techically* and *legally* true that a woman can "just say no"
>at any time, I think it is a very bad message to be drumming into girls'
>minds. And doing it on purpose (saying no at the last minute) is kind of
>lead them on.
I always said that you were sweet and feminine.
Jackie the Tokeman
...so shines a good deed in a weary world...
明白
> >> You didn't answer the question though:
> >>
> >I did answer the question:
> >> > 明白 <min...@ms3.hinet.net> wrote:
> >> >1) If you are at a resturant, in many instances they WILL insist that
> >> >you pay for the food you ordered for the very reason youstated, you
> >> >entered into a verbal agreement. You can't just walk into aresturant and
> >> >order everything on the menu (as a prank) and then when it arrives say,
> >> >"Ops, ha ha, just kidding." And walk out. Nor should a woman be allowed
> >> >to intice and sexually arouse a guy and then, when then things are hot
> >> >and heavy say, "Ha sucker! I changed my mind. No means no...."
>
> ...unless you really are saying that yes, a woman deserves to have sex forced
> on her if she changes her mind and says no?
>
> Are you?
The word "force" is an emotionally loaded term.
Does the resturant have the right to "force" a bill on a patron who has
ordered but has no intention of paying?
We don't consider it "forcing" because we see the partron as having a
responsibility.
dctest Anonymous Remailer
>Spock wrote:
>> And yet there are people who actually *complain* when the same
>> partner whose sexual advances they callously rejected reacts by
>> finding an alternative source of supply.
>>
>> That's sort of like refusing to feed the cat and then acting
>> surprised when the hungry animal rips into the garbage.
>
>But that has nothing to do with the orginal argument.
>
>All it does is to demonstrate that you have been/are
>starved of sex
Or has such a strong sex drive that going a few days without sex is
extremely unpleasant for him.
>and lack any abilities in bed.
Huh?
Jackie the Tokeman
dctest Anonymous Remailer
>On 28 Jan 1999, dctest Anonymous Remailer wrote:
>
>> Aaron R Kulkis <aku...@flash.net> wrote:
>> >Dan...the scenario you proposed is beyond hypothetical..
>> >
>> >Jet having a fiancee is a downright ludicrous idea....
>>
>> Jet is thin and fit and she likes sex.
>> If she wanted a fiancee I have no doubt she could find one.
>> Probably within one month.
>> Of course it would be with a similarly desirable man so that counts you out.
>> Jackie the Tokeman
>
Masculine intuition.
Jackie the Tokeman
Jet
>
> Dan...the scenario you proposed is beyond hypothetical..
>
> Jet having a fiancee is a downright ludicrous idea....
Well, if I get desperate, I am sure I can find some guy who wants a
green card.
J
--
I used to say, "Don't trust anyone over 30.",
now it's "Life begins at 40."
email me at jetgal at earthlink dot net
明白
hereti...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Oh, shove it up your ass with a pointed stick.
> Women have been butchered for a long time by men,
[endless ranting and cliched rhetoric snipped]
mjmo...@hotmail.com
min...@ms3.hinet.net wrote:
> Java666 wrote:
> >
> > > "フ" (The Artist Formerly Known As Prince) wrote"
> > >>
> > >> Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> felt compelled to state:
> >
> > >> >Sex is a bilateral agreement: *TWO* people are present and involved in
> > >> >equal measure. And each must respect the committment they made to the
> > >> >other party. If a woman has said yes, she must stick to that yes. If
> > >> >she later changes her mind...too bad. Next time, think twice. But for
> > >> >now you're committed.
> > >>
> > It wasn't a very good analogy. A better question would have been this:
> >
> > What if you go tosomeone's house for dinner, they cook you an enormous steak
> > dinner and then realize that you aren't hungry enough to eat it
> > (or you have a stomach ache or you no longer want steak or any other
> > reason). Does that mean it's okay for the waiter to shove the food
> > down your throat against your will?
>
> I think there's a slight mixing of analogies here...
OK here's another one for you... Let's say you and I are dating.
(This is a _very_ unlikely scenario cuz I'm a sweet, cute girl
and you're a rape advocating-doofus-weeny, but lets just
suppose..).
Let's say after we've dated for awhile you decide you really (and
I mean _really_) don't like me at all. This shouldn't be too
terribly hard for you to imagine... after all, I just called you
a doofus and a weeny (and I meant it ;).
What a miserable bitch I am....so much for sweet...
Since I'm such a bitch, you do the logical thing. You break it
off.
But me, psycho bitch that I am, I do not think this is fair and I
will not accept this. After all you *MADE* me think I was going
to get a boyfriend out of this deal (and I did NOT get one)!
I was wronged!
So I'm going to just march right on over to your house with
loaded gun in tow, drag your ass back to my place, and lock you
up in my basement (...after all, i think of you as my boyfriend,
and I like to spend *quality time* with "my boyfriend")
I really do think that's fair, don't you? After all, I expected
a boyfriend, and I didn't get one.
Don't *my* feelings count for anything here?
I won't keep you looked in my basement forever or anything...just
'till I decide it's time for us to break-up.
....and I won't shoot you unless you try to escape.
> are we at someone's house or a restaurant (or are they very rich
> and have their own private waiter in their house??)
>
>But anyway, the answer is this:
>
>1) If you are at a restaurant, in many instances they WILL insist
>that you pay for the food you ordered for the very reason
>youstated, you entered into a verbal agreement. You can't just
>walk into aresturant and order everything on the menu (as a
>prank) and then when it arrives say, "Ops, ha ha, just kidding."
Yeah....
And *you* can't just ask me out on a date and get my hopes up
like that, and then break it off!
Did, I mention that I have handcuffs?
Don't worry, I won't use 'em for anything kinky...
....and I won't keep you cuffed to that water pipe in my basement
for long periods of time. Only while I'm off at work.
>And walk out. Nor should a woman be allowed
>to intice and sexually arouse a guy and then, when then things
>are hot and heavy say, "Ha sucker! I changed my mind. No means
>no...."
Yep, date me, and you *have* to marry me if I want ya to. Yes
sireeee bob....
Did I mention that theoretically I could kill you (cuz I have a gun)?
I won't, though, cuz, yer my boyfriend and I love you.
Funny thing about this gun, I guess you could say that it gives
me the same kinda power advantage over you that.... hmmmmn....the
same sorta power advantage that the average size man has over
tiny little ol' not-much-more-than-100-lbs me.
So I do think it's fair for me to keep you looked in my basement
at gunpoint. After all, I wanted a boyfriend and you teased me
into thinking I was going to get one.
Did I mention that I just got new wallpaper in my basement?
It's really quite nice down there.
So dontya be telling people that you didn't like it down there
after I let you out (i.e. after we break up)
Some of my ex's had the *nerve* to say that they didn't like
being held captive at gunpoint while spending "quality time with
the girlfriend".
Liars!
I know they all *really* liked it
....when they screamed and cried and begged to be let out it was
just for show...
Monica
P.S. Mr. フ/Mingbai.... If you think this sounds reasonable, I won't think
your views regarding date-rape are hypocritical. I'll still think you're a
self centered asshole, but at least not a hypocrite...
Brock Hannibal
>
> Brock Hannibal <hami...@teleport.com> wrote:
> >On 28 Jan 1999, dctest Anonymous Remailer wrote:
> >
> >> >Dan...the scenario you proposed is beyond hypothetical..
> >> >
> >> >Jet having a fiancee is a downright ludicrous idea....
> >>
> >> If she wanted a fiancee I have no doubt she could find one.
> >> Probably within one month.
> >> Of course it would be with a similarly desirable man so that counts you out.
> >> Jackie the Tokeman
> >
> >How do you know that Jet is thin and fit?
>
> Masculine intuition.
> Jackie the Tokeman
Oh, then you don't know.
--
Brock, Wizard of Shining Silicon
Annette M. Stroud
>against women.
While I enjoy hyperbole as much as the next person, men are more likely to
be attacked than women.
Of course, most of those attacks would be perpetrated by men. So if
you're only talking intergender violence, I withdraw the objection.
Annette
Jennifer Anne Coulter
Clarice (Cla...@quanti.com) writes:
> Brock Hannibal wrote:
>>
>> How do you know that Jet is thin and fit? If it's true, woohoo!
>
> I don't know how Jackie knows, but I've seen her pictures and she is
> indeed a thin, fit, hot babe who looks gorgeous in a mini dress.
> Take my word for it. Or not.
Now I've figured it out. Clarice is a misogynist that hates straight
women because she's a big old dyke. A girl in plaid and sensible
shoes. Hope you get your tuppy licked, Clarice. It sounds as though
you desperately need it based on the negativity of your posts,
especially towards women with strong and independent thoughts that
have not been coloured by the bias of judgemental men that have been
brainwashed by the THIN IS IN media...
Jen
--
* Jennifer-Anne " Cogito Ergo Spud. I Think, Therefore I Yam. " Coulter *
* E-MAIL me for more info about COMA social meetings : Everyone WELCOME! *
* COMA is an Ottawa-area social & singles group that meets several times *
* a month - come out and make new friends that will last you a lifetime! *
dctest Anonymous Remailer
>Clarice (Cla...@quanti.com) writes:
>> Brock Hannibal wrote:
>>>
>>> How do you know that Jet is thin and fit? If it's true, woohoo!
>>
>> I don't know how Jackie knows, but I've seen her pictures and she is
>> indeed a thin, fit, hot babe who looks gorgeous in a mini dress.
>> Take my word for it. Or not.
>
>Now I've figured it out. Clarice is a misogynist that hates straight
>women because she's a big old dyke.
Isn't acceptance beautiful?
>A girl in plaid and sensible
>shoes. Hope you get your tuppy licked, Clarice. It sounds as though
>you desperately need it based on the negativity of your posts,
>especially towards women with strong and independent thoughts
Are you implying that Jet DOES NOT have strong and independent thoughts?
>that
>have not been coloured by the bias of judgemental men that have been
>brainwashed by the THIN IS IN media...
The media has been sending me all sorts of messages my entire life. I'll
admit I bought into enough of the ones about food to end up gaining weight
for a while.
But I was able to overcome that brainwashing to eat fatty and sugar-packed
food enough to lose the weight and keep it off.
But underlying the 'brainwashing' to eat fat and sugar was the reality that
ice cream and candy bars and snacky cakes and cheesy poofs are TASTY.
If I had seen dozens of commercials for some new snack food and taken a
bite and it had tasted bad to me I wouldn't have eaten it. Not if they had
spent $10 billion on a national advertising blitz and done promotional tie
ins with Return of the Jedi. (I might have bought it to win the special
emperor action figure but I would have then thrown away the lousy snack...
or given it to someone I didn't like)
Another media message I have heard my entire life is that formal education
is good. I never believed that one. And if there is one thing that kids are
bombarded with relentlessly it's that dropping out is bad. Bad bad bad. But
that didn't stop me from doing it. Nor did the media manage to prevent me
from doing the second most dissed thing for young people to do - drugs.
Without some underlying compelling reality that appeals to the internally
generated desires of the target audience advertising is worthless. It
cannot get people to eat things that taste bad to them. It cannot get them
to do things that seriously impede thier interests - such as obeying the 55
mph speed limit.
I did not decide I liked thin fit women because some ads tricked me into
doing so. It was not the result of sinister manipulations. What happened
was that up to a point I didn't give it all that much thought and then I
saw some naked pictures of slender women with thin waists and nice
hourglass figures and it was like a fucking hydrogen bomb of CRAZED DESIRE
detonating in my brain!
I had never had that reaction to ads for cheesy poofs or snacky cakes. I
had never had that reaction to the endless moralistic preaching about duty
and obedience. I had never even had that reaction to Star Wars! (and as a
leetle keed there were few things that so blasted my mind as Star Wars)
Once I had seen those images I never forgot them. Because what had happened
was I had entered puberty and the silicon chip inside my head had switched
to overload. Once that biological precondition was in place I saw women in
a whole new light. And suddenly there were certain women who were a whole
heck of a lot more INTERESTING than others.
But funny thing, when I would see fat girls at school my feelings hadn't
changed at all. I still thought they were big fat slobs. I felt no desire
whatsoever to fuck them or kiss them or even hug them. Completely
irrelevant and meaningless to me. I didn't want to get next to them. I
didn't want to chat them up. They were nothing. They remained completely
asexual just as ALL things had seemed completely asexual before my sexual
system had become fully operational.
Now how do I know that advertising cannot induce such desire in ANYTHING?
How do I know that I was not brainwashed carefully and now I am a tool of
the dark forces?
Well it's simple. If the media could INDUCE that sort of desire they
wouldn't stop with making me desire young slender babes with .7 waist hip
ratios. They would go on to make me have DIRECT sexual fetishes about thier
products! After all if I felt the same way about cheesy poofs that I do
about Nikki Dial I would be buying those cheesy poofs by the TRUCKLOAD! I
would be Jackie the BLOATMAN!
And the company that managed that feat would be able to make BILLIONS UPON
BILLIONS of dollars off of the 95% of people they had sold this new lust
to. It would make the Coca Cola corporation look like a lemonade stand!
But funny thing is NOTHING the media tries to sell makes me go ballistic
with lust the way those perfect elegant exquisite beautiful women do. Nor
does it do so with anyone else I know.
Why is that?
Jackie the Tokeman
dctest Anonymous Remailer
>dctest Anonymous Remailer wrote:
>>
>> Brock Hannibal <hami...@teleport.com> wrote:
>> >On 28 Jan 1999, dctest Anonymous Remailer wrote:
>> >
>> >> Aaron R Kulkis <aku...@flash.net> wrote:
>> >> >Dan...the scenario you proposed is beyond hypothetical..
>> >> >
>> >> >Jet having a fiancee is a downright ludicrous idea....
>> >>
>> >> Jet is thin and fit and she likes sex.
>> >> If she wanted a fiancee I have no doubt she could find one.
>> >> Probably within one month.
>> >> Of course it would be with a similarly desirable man so that counts
>>you out.
>> >> Jackie the Tokeman
>> >
>>
>> Jackie the Tokeman
>
>Oh, then you don't know.
Wanna bet?
Jackie the Tokeman
Java666
>Java666 wrote:
>
>> >> You didn't answer the question though:
>> >>
>> >I did answer the question:
>> ...unless you really are saying that yes, a woman deserves to have sex
>forced
>> on her if she changes her mind and says no?
>>
>> Are you?
>
>The word "force" is an emotionally loaded term.
Maybe to you. I think it's obvious that I mean it as "to press, drive, attain
to, or effect against resistance or inertia". Which makes it the most
appropriate word in this case.
>Does the resturant have the right to "force" a bill on a patron who has
>ordered but has no intention of paying?
That was not my question, which is why I keep saying you never answered.
My question was if someone has the right to shove food down someone's throat if
they change their mindabout eating during the course of a meal. So far you have
refused to address that. Three times now, in fact.
>We don't consider it "forcing" because we see the partron as having a
>responsibility.
So you are saying then that yes, you definitely believe it's okay to force a
woman to have sex against her will if it had previously been implied that sex
would take place.
You are advocating rape. You are justifying it.
You just refuse to actually _say_ it because you want to express that opinion
without committing to it.
Dawn
dctest Anonymous Remailer
>In article <78ocv5$1re$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> lin...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> In article <36AECD5B...@prodigy.new>,
>> Jet Silverman <jet_si...@prodigy.new> wrote:
>
>> The idea of female rage violence gets lots of nice media play (starting
>> probably with the movie "Thelma and Louise") But, its a very dangerous thing
>> indeed to advocate violence.
>
>Oh, shove it up your ass with a pointed stick.
>we do fight back, which scares the fuck out of you assholes.
When Thelma and Louise blew up the truck driver's tanker was it self defense?
Jackie the Tokeman
hereti...@my-dejanews.com
F.Bu...@cable.A2000.nl (Frans Buijsen) wrote:
> Wow. I watch "Thelma and Louise" and see a female version of "Easy
> Rider", as well as a contemporary version of the ancient concept of the
> rogue novel (ala "Til Eulenspiegel").
Yow. My. Aren't WE educated?
> You just see glorification of violence by women and a feminist agenda.
> Looks to me like you got some unresolved issues there, son.
No shit, Sigmund.
hereti...@my-dejanews.com
lin...@hotmail.com wrote:
> In article <78riui$omd$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> hereti...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > Oh, shove it up your ass with a pointed stick.
> > Women have been butchered for a long time by men, and sometimes
> > we do fight back, which scares the fuck out of you assholes.
Which ng? I am posting from soc.women
> concerning how a certain
> individual is vilified for his posts. The reason most often stated for the
> treatment given him is that he is "obviously just an angry woman-hater"
Quite a few are. they blame some imaginary cabal of "feminists"
for all the problems of the world. Paranoid fucks, perhaps.
But facts are facts. Look at the real world and see what men are
doing to women. Note that the Taliban is men controlling women.
No "feminist" group treats men that way.
Note that almost all serial killers are men.
Only know of 2 female serial killers in recent history.
> It will be interesting to see how the group responds to your diatribe.
Like I care what you and your pals think.
My skin's much thicker than yours.
> > > Like biological warfare, it has a way of turning
> > > on you and you become a victim of the very thing you sought to inflict on
> > > others.
> > Yeah, it just took us grrls a long time to turn the table
> > on you assholes. But reality is, violence IS effective,
> > as can be seen everywhere. It works, and that is why people use it.
> > Funny how it's only when women fight back that you get your
> > panties in a bunch.
> Given that you are so impressed by how effective violence is, then you should
> be all in favor of its use against women as an effective means for men to
> accomplish their own goals. Correct?
Wrong. I'm not in favor of that. Just noted that it WORKS.
> It seems to me that women have had their "panties in a bunch" over male
> violence towards women for a long time.
No, motherfucker. Women have been tortured and killed over male violence.
Now what part of eat shit and die don't you understand?
> > ....deal with the fact that almost all of the violence is directed
> > against women.
> Your facts are wrong. Most violence in society is directed against men.
Your selective snipping changed the meaning.
But ya know what?
Most of the violence directed towards men is from OTHER MEN.
snip
> I agree. The inflicting of pain on another human being is unacceptable. This
> is not an issue of gender; its an issue of humanity.
Nope. When violence is directed towards women, such as in genital
mutilation, what the Taliban is doing, etc, whiny white boys like
you squeal about how we should let other cultures be.
Funny. When men are treated the same way, Amnesty International
has hissy fits. But they say nothing about the abuse of women worldwide.
Human rights tend to be interpreted as being men's rights, and women's
rights are sort of the ladies' auxiliary, not very important.
Shit. What the Taliban is doing to women makes even the most
deprived South African aparteid look tame. "But that's DIFFERENT!"
> > Maybe if more of you died horribly you'd treat us the way
> > we have to treat you: with caution and respect.
> There is a great fallacy in your statement that women *have to* treat men with
> respect. Many (including myself) question if they even DO....let alone "have
> to".
It's called survival. Girls learn very young that men will not hestitate to
hurt them. From -Psychiatric Nursing Contemporary Practice- Mary Ann Boyd,
Mary Ann Nihart 1998 Lippincott page 1055 Acceptance of violence as normal
appears to be widespread among young people.
We have normalized violence, and as such, most people downplay,
deny, or disregard violence when it is right in front of our face.
I remember a few years back, when Ramon Salcido slaughtered his wife,
his m-i-l, another female relative of his wife, and slashed his 3 daughter's
throats, abandoning them in a dump. A neighbor described how shocked he was;
he insisted that Salcido really loved his wife and adored his kids.
In the next breath he mentioned seeing Salcido hold a loaded gun to his
wiofe's head. The asshole neighbor for some reason felt that this
was a sign of love, I guess. I've personally intervened when men are
attacking women; in all cases, the man has said first that "this is my
wife/girlfriend as if that excused criminal battery, and these men
are shocked when I don't accept that as a valid excuse.
> The orgination of this thread was over the fact that women do not "have to"
> follow through with their own intial agreements in terms of sexual activity.
Neither do men, asshole.
> As one woman put it(paraphrasing), "I can say no anytime I damn will feel
> like it and they guy just better accept it. Hardly a "respectful" attitude.
More respect than you deserve.
btw, treating some women as special pets is not showing respect.
hereti...@my-dejanews.com
ast...@nyx.nyx.net (Annette M. Stroud) wrote:
> In article <78riui$omd$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> <hereti...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> >against women.
> While I enjoy hyperbole as much as the next person, men are more likely to
> be attacked than women.
>
> Of course, most of those attacks would be perpetrated by men. So if
> you're only talking intergender violence, I withdraw the objection.
Since that was the topic being discussed, I figured the meaning
was implied. I guess not. Yes, this was about intergender violence.
You know, I just realized that I've never seen any research done on
female-female violence, but there is lots of research on male-male
and male-female . .. anybody know of some material on female-female
violence? I've read a bit about female gang members, but they
are anomolies. WE're beginning to get data on gay and lesbian
domestic violence, but there is not much out there.
Cheezits
> Cheezits wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, Daniel Mocsny wrote:
> > > Right. The appropriate response for the man is to ask the woman to marry
> > > him, and then fail to show up at the wedding.
> > mention emotional involvement.
> So does getting a woman into bed.
Weeks of work? I probably should have said months. Planning, calling
caterers, making up guest lists, etc., etc.? Most of the weddings i've
heard about have been such complicated affairs that I wonder why more
people don't elope.
> For example, how
> many women respond to marriage teasers in ways that put them
> in jail?
You tell me! It was your idea.
> > How does that compare with a guy getting
> > his hopes up for a night of sex?
> Ask all the guys who are willing to go to jail.
The guys who are willing to go to jail sound rather dangerous to me.
> > Hell of a lot of trouble to go to just
> > for revenge.
> It's not just revenge. It's also making an important point.
Lot of trouble to go to to make a point! Maybe you ought to do like that
episode of Cheers where Sam takes Diane out on a boat on a moonlit night,
with champagne and all that jazz, then when he proposes to her she says
"No". Only do it the other way round, and change your mind about
proposing just when she looks like she's all ready to say yes.
[etc.]
> > Seems to me the appropriate response is to find someone who
> > doesn't play games and knows what they want to do.
> On Usenet there aren't many people with the self-discipline to walk
> away from a fight.
What's it got to do with Usenet?
> > And doing it on purpose (saying no at the last minute) is kind of
> > sick if you ask me.
> It's an odd form of brinkswomanship.
Dunno if it's odd, but apparently it's not unusual.
> Imagine that men formed a political pressure group and began
> encouraging other men to exercise their right to veto weddings
> at the last possible second. How would that make you as a woman
> feel?
I would feel that they were nutcases. Especially since I am pretty sure
that they already have the right not to get married if they don't want to.
I have no idea how I am supposed to feel "as a woman". You think I'm in
favor of shotgun weddings?
Sue
--
----- Before you send me spam, check out www.cauce.org -----
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
Brock Hannibal
> You think I'm in
> favor of shotgun weddings?
Sue, please don't shoot, we've got so much to live for, I'll e-marry ya!
Brock
Used by parents to frighten children in Rome: "Hannibal is at the gates!"
Jet
>
>
> Now I've figured it out. Clarice is a misogynist that hates straight
> shoes. Hope you get your tuppy licked, Clarice. It sounds as though
> you desperately need it based on the negativity of your posts,
> have not been coloured by the bias of judgemental men that have been
> brainwashed by the THIN IS IN media...
What the? Paying me a comlement shows Clarice hates straight women!? I
don't have strong and independent thougths? Huh?
That meadia brainwashing stuff is a load of shit. Despite decades of
programming, most men still prefer a softly rounded hourglass figure
(Marilyn Monroe) to a stick one (Kate Moss). The media may play on men's
desires, and/or reinforce them, but it doesn't create them.
Jet
>
> > >How do you know that Jet is thin and fit?
> >
> > Masculine intuition.
> > Jackie the Tokeman
>
> Oh, then you don't know.
I am thin, and fit, and I do know.
Brock Hannibal
> Brock Hannibal wrote:
> >
>
> > > >How do you know that Jet is thin and fit?
> > >
> > > Masculine intuition.
> > > Jackie the Tokeman
> >
> > Oh, then you don't know.
>
> I am thin, and fit, and I do know.
>
Woohoo! I'm already fantasizing! :-)
Seriously, Clarice already told me that. I had no reason to doubt her. I
was only questioning whether Jackie was just guessing or actually knew
something from first hand knowledge. Hey, I'd have guessed that, too. I
now have three independent (well only two if you subscribe to the theory
that Jackie and Clarice are really two net persona manifistations of the
same actual human being) statements to that effect.
Steve Chaney
>: May I remind you that a woman has the option and the right to say no
>: at any time.......
>
>This is where you are wrong.
>
>Sex is a bilateral agreement: *TWO* people are present and involved in
>equal measure. And each must respect the committment they made to the
>other party. If a woman has said yes, she must stick to that yes. If
>she later changes her mind...too bad. Next time, think twice. But for
>now you're committed.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
I've GOT to see where this goes. Do they agree with him or does he get his
head handed to him?
-- Steve, even money
Steve Chaney
>
>Wow. I watch "Thelma and Louise" and see a female version of "Easy
>Rider", as well as a contemporary version of the ancient concept of the
>rogue novel (ala "Til Eulenspiegel").
I wasn't exactly endeavored to that, either. There was an article in the
now defunct Sacramento Union which dissed Thelma and Louise at the same
time saying something like, "As if 'Smokey and the Bandit' is a role model
for women's entertainment.."... they weren't complimenting the latter,
that's for sure.
>You just see glorification of violence by women and a feminist agenda.
"From Dusk Till Dawn" wasn't any less grating on my nerves just because it
was a male who was getting away with murder. In fact it put a major
dampener on the main plot I would have otherwise gotten a kick out of
(fighting vampires in a trucker bar, heh).
>Looks to me like you got some unresolved issues there, son.
Ya damned skippy. A problem with people who break the law, or abuse the
law, and get away with it. That's probably what he was talking about.
-- Steve