Unbelievable!!!!

[ziero0]

Namely the spectacle of women attacking heterosexual males.

Just an observation. Males are divided into two categories: heterosexual and homosexual. Each preference is associated with an action, the one with it's relationship to women (woman) and the other it's relationship to other males. Every single complaint of METOO is directed at the heterosexual tacitly giving the homosexual a free ride.

It's going to get rough out there.

You will never find me associating with women. I prefer them in singularities rather than pluralities.

In all of the instances complained of there is not a single instance of a heterosexual male attempting to cut out more than one from the herd at a time. Heterosexuals tend to deal with singularities. There are always exceptions to this in which case the subcategory deviant is applicable.

[madfranks]

Males are divided into two categories: heterosexual and homosexual.

...

You will never find me associating with women.

Is this your way of telling us you’re coming out of the closet?

[ziero0]

Is this your way of telling us you’re coming out of the closet?
Perhaps a course in remedial READING COMPREHENSION is in order?

Women refers to two or more ... or a plurality. I prefer one on one rather than one on many. I don't know how the Mormons do it. Adam gave up one rib rather than half a dozen. He doesn't need any more than one back. That would be usury by definition.

[crimethink]

Perhaps a course in remedial READING COMPREHENSION is in order?

Women refers to two or more ... or a plurality. I prefer one on one rather than one on many.

Since your modus operandi is NASA - Never A Straight Answer - madfranks' uncertainty is understandable.

[ziero0]

your modus operandi is NASA - Never A Straight Answer

I have a modus vivendi rather than a modus operandi.

I would suggest that woman would do better trying to understand man rather than men.

All they are currently exhibiting is their inability to deal with certain (albeit) uncomfortable incidents. At the risk of jumping to judgment I would suggest that this is why the institution of coverture comes with a disability to engage in contracts. The new institution of marriage permits the female to obligate the pair. This could be disastrous if both partners don't know how to negotiate.

[madfranks]

Perhaps a course in remedial READING COMPREHENSION is in order?

Women refers to two or more ... or a plurality. I prefer one on one rather than one on many. I don't know how the Mormons do it. Adam gave up one rib rather than half a dozen. He doesn't need any more than one back. That would be usury by definition.

I was joking, but you have to admit that you set yourself up for that one.

[ziero0]

I was joking, but you have to admit that you set yourself up for that one.
When grammar is chosen as the weapon of choice a nick or two should be expected occasionally.

[Camp Bassfish]

When grammar is chosen as the weapon of choice a dick or two should be expected occasionally.

Fixed it :) JK

[osoab]

Fixed it :) JK



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7K1JsRSp8IA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7K1JsRSp8IA

[Hitch]

You will never find me associating with women. I prefer them in singularities rather than pluralities.



This is your problem. If you attract 1 woman, you will attract 100 women.

You can't prefer singularities, when your world is pluralities. You either adapt, or sit on the sidelines observing. The best advise, a man told me, years ago. Women would rather share a successful man, then be stuck alone with a faithful loser.

He also said, 80% of women have sex with only 20% of men.

Basically, you can be singular, but your women must be pluralities with you. If not, you'll end up singular by yourself.

[crimethink]

This is your problem. If you attract 1 woman, you will attract 100 women.

You can't prefer singularities, when your world is pluralities. You either adapt, or sit on the sidelines observing. The best advise, a man told me, years ago. Women would rather share a successful man, then be stuck alone with a faithful loser.

He also said, 80% of women have sex with only 20% of men.

Basically, you can be singular, but your women must be pluralities with you. If not, you'll end up singular by yourself.

The above is thinking that aims to justify and normalize fornication (loose sex).

God's design has always been one man, one woman, for life. Even before Christianity, our Germanic ancestors held to this standard of one man, one woman, for life.

Many of our current problems with civilization stem directly and indirectly from the destruction of the most basic form of government, the family, due to this normalization of loose sex.

If a man is righteous and upstanding, the right woman will be his. All he needs is one.

[Hitch]

The above is thinking that aims to justify and normalize fornication (loose sex).

God's design has always been one man, one woman, for life. Even before Christianity, our Germanic ancestors held to this standard of one man, one woman, for life.

Many of our current problems with civilization stem directly and indirectly from the destruction of the most basic form of government, the family, due to this normalization of loose sex.

If a man is righteous and upstanding, the right woman will be his. All he needs is one.

CT, I agree with you 100% with my morality and religious background.

You are far off from reality though, in our times now.

The fact of the matter today. If a man is righteous and upstanding, the right woman will be with him until she finds someone better. The term is called branch swinging. Always looking for something better.

CT, God Bless you, for your morals and your "fight". But, being a single Christian today, is not easy.

[Cebu_4_2]

CT, I agree with you 100% with my morality and religious background.

You are far off from reality though, in our times now.

The fact of the matter today. If a man is righteous and upstanding, the right woman will be with him until she finds someone better. The term is called branch swinging. Always looking for something better.

CT, God Bless you, for your morals and your "fight". But, being a single Christian today, is not easy.

Dead nuts Pete. If I ever find myself in that position I will choose dozens and micro manage to just one or two, then choose just one. Times have changed a bit.

[crimethink]

CT, I agree with you 100% with my morality and religious background.

You are far off from reality though, in our times now.

The fact of the matter today. If a man is righteous and upstanding, the right woman will be with him until she finds someone better. The term is called branch swinging. Always looking for something better.

CT, God Bless you, for your morals and your "fight". But, being a single Christian today, is not easy.

The righteous man must never accept the world and its worldly ways. And if a woman is a gold-digger and/or thrill-seeker who "finds someone better" she was never the right woman.

I do recognize, for the vast majority who have no moral grounding, since their upbringing was by Talmudvision and lewd & lascivious peers, these "mating trends" are the reality. Thank God Almighty I steered clear of that. Anyone who likewise finds current "dating" to be repugnant, stand fast and seek that gem, leaving the STD-laden dunghill to the beasts in human form.

[Hitch]

The righteous man must never accept the world and its worldly ways. And if a woman is a gold-digger and/or thrill-seeker who "finds someone better" she was never the right woman.

Very true, but a man can go through life deceived, wrongfully, thinking he's found the right woman...when that woman only "finds someone better" and turns out to be not the right woman.

How do you know if she's the right woman? You can't know, because guys find out after 20 years of marriage she wasn't the right woman. Plus, how many women do you go through in the process, and how much time lost, or energy wasted finding out?

This is why I avoid marriage altogether. I'm done with .gov, and the media, encouraging crimes against men, and encouraging women to be selfish and corrupt. There is an attack on marriage and families in this country, and I don't think there's anything we can do about it, other than just not participate. I figure it's in God's plan for some of us, myself included, to just take the high ground.

[crimethink]

Very true, but a man can go through life deceived, wrongfully, thinking he's found the right woman...when that woman only "finds someone better" and turns out to be not the right woman.

How do you know if she's the right woman? You can't know, because guys find out after 20 years of marriage she wasn't the right woman. Plus, how many women do you go through in the process, and how much time lost, or energy wasted finding out?

This is why I avoid marriage altogether. I'm done with .gov, and the media, encouraging crimes against men, and encouraging women to be selfish and corrupt. There is an attack on marriage and families in this country, and I don't think there's anything we can do about it, other than just not participate. I figure it's in God's plan for some of us, myself included, to just take the high ground.

Marriage is God's design. LICENSED "marriage" is not God's design. Do not reject His Plan because His enemies have used government to co-opt it.

Men fail in finding a mate because they seek the wrong things. "A good lay" is not marriage material. "She can hold her liquor" is not the prerequisite for a soulmate. For both men and women, the Talmudvision and Holowood have given them the "ideal" of "Mr. or Ms. Right," whereas those are almost always very wrong...boy-toys who leave you in the lurch, or, mesmerizing Sirens leading you to crash your life on the rocks. Do not seek a vain, empty image, or your relationship will end a vain, empty image.