Standards

:lol: Conversate. I hate that. It's converse! Good one! :wink:

 

*laughing* How about "romantical?"

 

Jaisee rocks.

 

Actually, no it's not. It's just unfair to me that if I am dating a bi woman, she can go outside our relationship even if it is another woman, but I can't. If I am expected to be monogamous at all costs, then it's only fair that she respects our relationship enough to do the same. Besides ladies, how would you feel if you came home to your man with another man's johnson in his mouth or up his butt, and then tried to justify it with some condescending bullshit like "well only a man can please another man". Sorry, but just like a lot of women will not deal with a bi man, I just won't deal with a bi woman.

 

I hate that term with every fiber of my being!!!!!

 

Nothing like common sense.

 

Who says that it's ok? It's not ok to go outside a monogamous relationship with someone of either gender regardless of sexual orientation unless it is expressly ok with both parties. Just because a girl is bisexual doesn't mean she expects to get as much pussy on the side as she wants while having a dick at home. It doesn't always work that way.

When I'm with someone, I'm with them.

It's only unfair if that's how the girl behaves. What's really unfair is assuming all bisexual women will behave that way when in actuality we all do not.

 

Seems like most folks here aren't open to their potential partner having kid(s).

I am screwed Oh well, everyone is entitled to their own standards Some people just aren't ready to deal with a child. I'm cool with that

That's the only real dealbreaker for me, that the guy accepts I'm a mother and that he will never be number 1, that sounds harsh but no matter what my son HAS to be number 1. I would have hated if my mother put a guy before me so I'd never do that to him. The guy needs to like kids to some degree if it's going to be something serious. Generally I don't think I'd introduce a man to Jake unless the relationship was serious, so surely by then I'd have some idea of what he was like. I guess ideally I should find a guy who has a child/kids himself when the time's right

 

Sorry I didn't mean to offend you!

I never meant to offend you and for that I ask your forgiveness.
Let's see if we can understand each other without anyone getting upset. OK? I too have some strong opinions. A lot of people on this site don't agree with everything I say. But I still say it. That's what makes freedom of speech such an amazing thing.

I had never been on a date either, until my new bf took me out to a movie in January of this year, and I had been married for 26 years. That may be hard to believe, but it's true, I had known my ex since I was 7 yrs old and our families did a lot together but we never really dated.

Many of us agree to disagree, there's nothing wrong with that. I would never say you were queer, that word here in the US is not very politically correct, nor does it sound nice. If you are a feminist, you have a right to be. I have a right not to be.

I have known many men who enjoy spoiling their wives, and paying for things, but those same women do a lot of giving of them selves also, they find special things their men love, and do it for them when it isn't expected. The men love it too. It's not a game it's a real give and take for some of us. Allowing a man to do things for me does not make me feel less capable, it makes me feel cared for, and treasured. It makes me love him more!:smt057

It sounded more like you dislike anyone with an opinion different than yours!

You sound confused about what you like and don't like, maybe it's because you "toned it down."? But I think you need to find out more about what makes you really happy before you have kids. They are hard enough to raise without that kind of unhappiness.

WOW! that one says it all, (sexist society? traditionalistic view of moral standards? implies she is better? strengthening the patriarchal hierarchy within a monogamous culture paradigm? strengthening the power structure of a traditionalist society? most humans? knowing what we know??)

Being a virgin is now sexist? since when is a traditionalistic view of moral standards a bad thing? a virgin things she is better? I know a lot of men who may think so. What is a patriarchal hierarchy within a monoagmous culture paradigm - is that "the man is the head of the house" that you are against, or the "I want my man to be mine and only mine" that you don't like? Personally I don't share, and I appreciate a man who can decided with love, what is best for his family, it eliminates selfishness, as long as he takes the ladies opinion seriously and then weighs it, someone has to make the final decision. How do you speak for "most humans"? You come from a very small country, and may not be the most qualified to make such a statement. What is it you think we know?

See, we have a solid point to agree on here!!

Looser is a man who doesn't know how to treat a woman, and only wants one thing, is willing to abuse and neglect her, and doesn't have an opinion on anything because his mind is so wide open anything rules.

Don't be so hard on yourself, it doesn't mean you are a looser, it means you may want to figure out what you like in a man, and not try so hard to figure out what you don't like. But that isn't really your fault, that's what this thread was about.

So I hope we can be friends, and agree to disagree! OK?

It's a crazy world out there, and we all come from different places. I am personally fascinated by some of the European viewpoints on here, but I'm still here. I've met some nice people here and I've been getting an education.

 

She lost me with "queer feminist."

 

That's cuz you're a guy, red blooded AMERICAN! Right?

 

This forum's going down in flames.

 

I guess it depends on how you define feminism. Condoleeza Rice was arguably the most influential member of the Bush Cabinet for 8 years as National Security adviser and Secretary of State, but liberal feminists don't like her because she is conservative.

 

Well said! I'll try that rep tapping again!

I don't think it's working!
I still have a lot to learn...

 

queer feminism turned out to be impossible to find in english wiki, it is however called that in swedish. Queer theory how ever, explains it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_theory

I don't want a huge flaming discussion either so I'm just stickin to shortly explain myself as good as I can and say thxbuhbye to this discussion before it gets completely out of hand (because of myself or anyone else).

I am a hard ass gender bending sexradical feminist.. most people I discuss this things with are the same or have taken classes in gender studies in Uni. I'm not in any way used to explaining theories, since most of my friends know them. Also, swedish media writes alot about gender issues and all of them are more or less feministic. I respect that the climate I'm used to is not the climate in general.
Therefor I can't explain in detail why a girl saving herself up is supporting patriarchal structures. It's gonna take ages, and nobody, trust me, nobody will talk to me ever again, in fear of dying of boredom.

So i'm just bailing out instead. thanx for listening.

 

I'm sure you're not 'screwed'. You're young and beautiful. I'm sure you have guys crawling over you. You just have to weed through them to find the one who's willing and mature enough to accept that you have a son.

 

I wouldn't mind dating a woman who has a child/children. I don't see it as a problem at all. I like kids

 

Commonly referred to in US conservative circles as feminazis, because they not only believe in a radical, leftist form of feminism, they denounce women who choose another path, even if they are successful.

To wit: the (attempted) character assasination of Sarah Palin by the liberal left.

The irony of this is that in an attempt to protect women's rights, they in fact set them back by their own actions.

 

Sarah Palin wasn't a victim of character assassination attempts, she was a victim of saying dumb things on camera. *L*

 

You've got be fucking kidding me. The backlash against Sarah Palin was engendered largely by the fact that she was grossly unqualified to be selected as McCain's running mate. She turned off many women because her selection was perceived (rightly so) as a totally cynical move on the part of the McCain campaign in order to attract female voters who were upset by Obama's victory over Clinton in the primary. This was incredibly insulting to many because the Republicans were banking on the assumption that the majority of women would vote for any woman regardless of her qualifications, intellect or policy positions. Let's not forget that Palin's radical positions on social issues (e.g. being opposed to abortion even in cases of rape and incest, and countenancing the decision of her Chief of Police to charge rape victims for exams when she was Mayor of Wasila) are completely antithetical to everything that the women's movement has sought to accomplish for the past century.

There was no "attempted" character assassination of Sarah Palin. She simply opened her mouth, and intelligent people made the correct assessment about her capacity to be the leader of the free world.

[youtube]YxAO7cH-xrE[/youtube]

[youtube]ubsUQKd9c7c[/youtube]


I don't want to want to turn this thread into a political discussion, but do you honestly believe that the reaction to this woman's ignorance was somehow unjustified, or that she was treated unfairly by Couric and Gibson (who are both glorified teleprompter readers) when they asked her rudimentary questions about current events and U.S. domestic and foreign policy? It's mind boggling to me that anyone is not profoundly disturbed by the fact that the woman was in the position to be the leader of this country.