What's wrong with women?

FR that's bunkum. Your argument would assume that the average income is millions anyway, its not. Here its around 35-40,000 or even less. Basically your arguing that all women are just prostitutes selling there body to the highest bidder which is crap
I didn't say "all women." Nonetheless, legions of women are economically insecure, especially many of the millions who end up being single mothers due to the inequities in both biology and our economic-legal system. The number of single fathers in America is tiny in comparison, and the number of economically disadvantaged single fathers is statistically negligible.

We all have to make decisions in which we balance what's practical against what's fair, moral or desirable.

BTW, last time I checked a dictionary, reviewed a lawbook or consulted the ultimate authority, Mrs. Fraggle, they all assured me that marriage is considerably different from prostitution.

Oh yeah, and she asked me to identify the [expletive deleted] who said otherwise, so she could "give him a quick lesson in manners." I did not rat you out.
 
Anti-flag:
And having more time for *ahem* marital relations creates a far more happy household, and it makes logical sense not to clean each room until we're finished in there....

A really sturdy solid-wood dining-room table and reinforced countertops in the kitchen are money well-spent.:p
 
Pfft! yourself, that is a complete and utter cope out. I'm the one home in our relationship more often so I'm the one who does the shopping and the cooking and a) PB STILL whinges about cleaning constantly to the point I think she is OCD some of the time and b) umm we STILL don't spend enough time in bed.

oh and BTW chronic fatigue syndrome isn't about being tired, its a medical condition believed to be caused by a previous episode of Glandular Fever which damages the brain so that its almost impossible to do anything without taking stimulants

I never care about how different english speakers spell stuff differently (I.E Honor and Honour).

But I must say it really pisses me off how you Aussies\brits throw a fukin G in "Whine". "Tyre" nearly gets me pissed...not quite, I can take that one...but a motherfucking G in Whine I cannot stand. Y'all need to stop that shit lol
 
I never care about how different english speakers spell stuff differently (I.E Honor and Honour).

But I must say it really pisses me off how you Aussies\brits throw a fukin G in "Whine". "Tyre" nearly gets me pissed...not quite, I can take that one...but a motherfucking G in Whine I cannot stand. Y'all need to stop that shit lol

that would be because its not Whine, its WHINGE, as in

whinge/(h)winj/
Verb:
Complain persistently and in a peevish or irritating way.
Noun:
An act of complaining in such a way.
Synonyms:
whine

Oh and BTW, we speak PROPER English, not that bastardised form that the yanks invented because they can't speak properly
 
I am Canadian, you downunder criminal...we took most every brit spelling except for this retarded whinGGGGE b.s

Whine is a synonym in your own cut and paste... you dyslexic, dizzy, dazed and confused patron of stupid, useless, archaic, rule-breaking English spellings.
 
Damn right. Depending on how fat the chick is.

What would a persons weight have to do with buying well built furniture or not? Unless you are making the assumption that said furniture is going to be used for activities other than there intended uses.:D
 
I didn't say "all women." Nonetheless, legions of women are economically insecure, especially many of the millions who end up being single mothers due to the inequities in both biology and our economic-legal system. The number of single fathers in America is tiny in comparison, and the number of economically disadvantaged single fathers is statistically negligible.

We all have to make decisions in which we balance what's practical against what's fair, moral or desirable.

BTW, last time I checked a dictionary, reviewed a lawbook or consulted the ultimate authority, Mrs. Fraggle, they all assured me that marriage is considerably different from prostitution.

Oh yeah, and she asked me to identify the [expletive deleted] who said otherwise, so she could "give him a quick lesson in manners." I did not rat you out.

Inequality in the legal system? You mean like the fact that if you are only married for 1 min in California then your still liable for half your assets even though there are no joint assets yet unless you have a prenup preventing it?

You mean like the fact that if a women chooses to they can get rid of a child from conception to 3 years old (safe haven laws, what exactly DOES happen if one partner dumps the child at a police station without the consent of the other partner?) where as (as tiassa puts it) "if a man doesn't want to have a child he just shouldn't have sex"

You mean like the fact that the courts automatically award custody to the mother and if she chooses to move to the other side of the country your STILL liable to pay for the child even if you cant afford to ever see said child because of HER choices (as someone here said "men are only there to pay for it")

Oh and your right not to tell her because it was YOU who implied it, I just stated what you were stating, that you believe women just sell themselves to the highest bidder
 
Inequality in the legal system?
Most of what you say is correct but by presenting it in an unbalanced form it is disingenuous argument.
You mean like the fact that if you are only married for 1 min in California then your still liable for half your assets even though there are no joint assets yet unless you have a prenup preventing it?
This applies equally to both new wives and new husbands. Regardless of your gender, if your assets have considerable value, you should have a prenup. This will probably be a law some day.
You mean like the fact that if a women chooses to they can get rid of a child from conception to 3 years old (safe haven laws, what exactly DOES happen if one partner dumps the child at a police station without the consent of the other partner?) where as (as tiassa puts it) "if a man doesn't want to have a child he just shouldn't have sex"
All of the laws about child care and custody take into account the reality that far more men abandon their children than women. Women abandon their children so infrequently that almost every time it happens it's headline news. Men do it so often that it seems almost as common as divorce. So more laws have been written to protect women than men.
You mean like the fact that the courts automatically award custody to the mother and if she chooses to move to the other side of the country your STILL liable to pay for the child even if you cant afford to ever see said child because of HER choices (as someone here said "men are only there to pay for it")
Not only do more men abandon their children than women, but in cases of divorce more men are willing to give up custody of their children than women. I agree that it should be made easier for a man to pursue a custody claim, but the laws were written this way in the past and are difficult to change. We still regard women as having statistically stronger nurturing instincts than men--not to mention simply more conditioning and training for it since childhood. I have seen no proof that this assumption is untrue. After all, considering the incredible number of men who abandon the pregnant mothers of their own children and have to be tracked down and forced to simply pay support money, we're not making a very strong case in our defense, are we? How many women run away from their husbands and children every year, about twelve? If a man wants to sue for custody it makes sense that the burden is on him to prove that he would be a satisfactory caregiver.

It may unfortunately be unfair to the man, but the law tries to be fair to the child first.
 
This applies equally to both new wives and new husbands. Regardless of your gender, if your assets have considerable value, you should have a prenup.
Your right, the reason i know about that law was because they were discussing it in regard to Kim Kardasian's assets and my PB happened to be watching it *shrug* cant win the TV argument every time. However the relivence to gender is your assumption that women are selling themselves to the highest bidder


This will probably be a law some day.All of the laws about child care and custody take into account the reality that far more men abandon their children than women. Women abandon their children so infrequently that almost every time it happens it's headline news.
Your joking right? every single abortion, every single use of the safe haven laws is reported on the news? Your arguments aren't even credible. Sure its rare for a women to run off and leave dad with the kids, it happens like that but its rare, SHE has other options.

Men do it so often that it seems almost as common as divorce.

You do realise divorce laws THEMSELVES were seen as a womens rights issue don't you?

So more laws have been written to protect women than men.

So you admit that your statement that women are treated unequally (negitivily) by the law was out and out bullshit?

Not only do more men abandon their children than women, but in cases of divorce more men are willing to give up custody of their children than women.

Evidence please, the courts by DEFAULT award custody to the female so how can you claim that more men are willing to give it up? In fact there is a VERY large fight from men's AND children's groups for more recognition of the importance of the father in a child's life

I agree that it should be made easier for a man to pursue a custody claim, but the laws were written this way in the past and are difficult to change.

So once again you admit your previous statement was full of it

We still regard women as having statistically stronger nurturing instincts than men--not to mention simply more conditioning and training for it since childhood.

BULLSHIT, also more women suffer PTSD and actually kill there children than men do, if its a baby which is killed the cops ALWAYS look at the mother first, not the father. So who is really the safer caregiver?

I have seen no proof that this assumption is untrue.

As above and irrelivent

After all, considering the incredible number of men who abandon the pregnant mothers of their own children and have to be tracked down and forced to simply pay support money, we're not making a very strong case in our defense, are we?

Bunkum, how many women "Abandon the father of there child"? Most divorces are instigated by women not men.

How many women run away from their husbands and children every year, about twelve?
How many divorces were registed last year? how many were started by women?

If a man wants to sue for custody it makes sense that the burden is on him to prove that he would be a satisfactory caregiver.

Again you prove that not only are you a bigot, but that your own statement previously was a complete and utter load of crap

It may unfortunately be unfair to the man, but the law tries to be fair to the child first.

To bad it cant keep up with the science in this area then, because its clear if you read any social resurch that having the mum move away from the dad and move in with a new BF cutting the father off from his child is NOT in the best interests of the child. I'm assuming you read bell's comments about her best friend, who was the better parent in THAT case? the mother who refused to believe her daughter when she told him her partner was abusing her and her sister, or the biological father who tried to save her?
 
What would a persons weight have to do with buying well built furniture or not? Unless you are making the assumption that said furniture is going to be used for activities other than there intended uses.:D
Good point, does furniture carry those kind of warnings? "please use as directed, and not as directed by the karma sutra".
Most furniture would be reasonable enough to support an amount of human weight, though if you are planning activities with a larger lady I would recommend a studier kind. Maybe I can sue after the last one broke......
Well, regardless of load...enough back-and-forth motion, over the years...can really wear a cheaper piece out...
Not to mention your hips! But a lighter load definitely reduces such effects...
 
You mean like the fact that the courts automatically award custody to the mother and if she chooses to move to the other side of the country your STILL liable to pay for the child even if you cant afford to ever see said child because of HER choices (as someone here said "men are only there to pay for it")

Oh and your right not to tell her because it was YOU who implied it, I just stated what you were stating, that you believe women just sell themselves to the highest bidder

It's odd isn't it, it's one of those areas where the feminist campaign for equality goes rather sheepishly quiet. I wonder why.
Men should have equal rights and responsibilities, and taking the child away from the man should not be possible. But welcome to the broken society we have created.
 
Good point, does furniture carry those kind of warnings? "please use as directed, and not as directed by the karma sutra".
Most furniture would be reasonable enough to support an amount of human weight, though if you are planning activities with a larger lady I would recommend a studier kind. Maybe I can sue after the last one broke......

Sex in a bed is so much better. Why would anyone want to consider other pieces of house hold furniture for that activity?
 
Back
Top