Russian Women Discussion
RWD Discussion Groups => Starting Out => Topic started by: Turboguy on July 13, 2005, 04:35:57 AM
-
Something I happened to think about and I will throw it out for discussion. After all we have fought 2 jihad's here and gotten nowhere and it is quiet now.
Scenario One. I hear all these guys who are making their power trips to points unknown saying you must be a type A personallity or someone else is going to be bopping your gal and the gals of any other wimps. You must take charge and let them know who is in control. You must not put up with any kind of $hit. If they don't kiss you quick and hop into your bed in a proper time, dump them. If they look at you the wrong way, keep you waiting, don't bend over backwards to make you feel like a man, they are loosers. If they are not sufficeintly eductated, obedient, stunning, built well, gracefull, talented and don't arrange their schedule to suit your needs you are a looser if you put up with them.
Scenario Two. I hear the guys who are married saying things like. OH, when they come, make sure you have your car waxed and vacumed. Make sure there is not a speck of dust anywhere. Don't expect them to cook or clean. They will be ordering new houses in 6 months and if you don't give in you will be in deep $hit. They will want thousands of dollars in clothes immediately on arrival. They can't sleep in a used bed you may have had another woman in it. They will need all new furniture almost right away. Be prepaired to paint, paper, work in the yard, and to follow all her orders. Yes, you are the head, but they are the neck and you can't do a damn thing unless they let you. Don't think you are going to be able to golf or bowl or watch sports on TV. They will need every second of your time for at least the first 722 days or whatever time it is till get get perminant status. Oh, yes, have candy and flowers waiting for them, and of course when they bend over to pick it up you might want to kiss their a$$.
Ok, so it seems to me that some people might look at those in the heat of the hunt as egotistical, male chavinist jerks that think of women as being one stage above dirt and purely sexual objects who will do thier bidding. It seems to me that some people might look at the guys who have made their "conquest" are pussy whipped wimps that are almost slaves to thier wives.
Personally I don't think either. I do have to ask. What is going on here?
-
Turbo,
I think that you are taking the extreme version in both of your examples. "Reality" of a successful relationship is somewhere in between (IMO). A man can be strong and confident without treating women like dirt as well as he can be caring and thoughtful without being a weenie (PW). RW seem to "test" their man's manlihood a bit more than AW. If they push you and you refuse to give up your balls, they respect you more for it. But if you constantly give in, you will soon be their beetch. LOL.
KenC
-
I prefer Scenario Two!!! LoL
Honestly, RW appreciate if you give in … especially when they come back to visit their families and see how their fathers, brothers, friends' husbands treat their women… they realize how lucky they are!
On the territory FSU even a weak worthless looser pretends that he is in control and tries to gain self-respect at the woman's expense - humiliating her and even physically abusing. I consider any man who raises his hand on a woman weak and worthless!
Confident strong men don't afraid to give in … they don't need to be reassured that they are not a weenie … and they always make sure that their women are happy and love kissing their asses when they bend over… these asses are damn pretty, after all!
-
I agree I am using extreame examples in asking this Ken. However all the comments that I reference are basically what people here have said at this site. I just got thnking about the differences in attitude and sitting around bored and trying to create a little controversy thought I would throw it out. I personally think all our people are great and have outstanding motivations.
-
TG, you make an interesting observation. Although a bit extreme in your example, both scenarios are true, and not opposites of each other. But it shows the change that takes place in a relationship.
Your first scenario is when people are in the courtship stage. The second, is once you have truly moved into the commitment stage of the relationship.
In much of Russian literature, romance is depicted with a very strong man with an intense love building between them. Remember, the opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. There is little of the cat and mouse games that people play in the West, the flirtatious "does he love me?" and acting hard to get. People tend to let each other know what they feel.
In courting someone 4K+ miles away, it's even more difficult to play the hard to get game. Things are so time compressed, you will be dead of old age before playing out that hand. So if effectively counting on 'love at first sight', you need to stay along the lines of that scenario, Russian style.
In your second scenario, you are behaving as a committed couple. You are acting as someone who wishes to show their love. It's not that you worry you will be sent to the guest room without sex for leaving a dirty dish in the sink. You are showing your passion for her by demonstrating your love to her, by thinking of her and making her life a good one. In our situation, when a woman is leaving everything behind and trusting in the unknown, it is not one thing that you do that confirms to her she made the right decision. It's the accumulation of many, many acts of consideration.
If your feelings towards her are true, you will do these things not because you are pussy whipped, but because of your feelings toward her. In turn, you will never be nagged the way many AW will haunt you. Most times, your woman wont say anything. Or worse, will make what you will take as an off hand comment about her wishes, then you will find out later it's importance to her! It is much better to be pro-active, and demonstrate your love. Words are cheap, action speaks.
As I wrote above, indifference is the opposite of love. For certain, a good relationship with a RW will never show indifference.
-
TG, the opening post of this thread cracked me up. LOL.
Here's another contradiction: RW appear to actually be different than AW, but some say they are not different. I get this impression from reading RWD:
In a relationship with a RW, you do things for your wife because you love and respect her. 'I want her to be happy so I do this'. And it also goes both ways. She loves and respects you too and wants you to be happy. You kiss her derriere and you both like it.
On the other hand, with an AW, there are often aggressive power trips. 'Vacuum the car because I asked (told) you to and I am the one in control here' -she may be thinking. The guy follows her instructions because there could be negative repercussions.
I guess I'm trying to say that in a relationship with an AW, there are more elements of power and control, than there is with a RW, where it is more about love and respect. It's an interesting subject.
To answer your question- Yes AM are, and maybe RW do have some magical power. Some cultures are superior to other cultures, not in general ways, but in specific ways. A European bed is more comfortable than sleeping on a dirt floor in a Navajo's hogan. Maybe RW are more 'magical' than AW. :D
-
Are American Men Pu$$y whipped? Yes, most are.
However, you have asked this question of atypical AM, IMHO there's a huge difference between rolling over and playing dead just on the off chance you might get laid by an AW and attempting to overcome the culture shock the RW is going to go through when she arrives in the west.
There are some things a RW will not feel culturally comfortable with arriving in her new home, you had better get used to the idea that YOU bought the ticket for this ride. Either you are prepared to get with the program or your going to have an unhappy lady on your hands.
It isn't a question of needing to kiss her ass, it's a matter of you uprooting someone and moving her, sans all her worldly possessions, into the unknown. I think a little ass kissing is completely justified.
-
As an owner/operator of a AM/RW marriage for nine years I've seen all kinds of marriages float through our circle of friends. I can say that there is a wierd dynamic among RWs that starts once they get networked into their own community in the United States.
The American Men in town use the term "Big Russian Girl on Campus" to describe it. These girls spend hours on the phone with each other and what they are really doing is setting a "pecking" order. The one with the most (beauty and financial resources) sets the bar. If she is beautiful and has a "generous" husband she get points. The girl at the top of the pecking order almost always has a new baby, a nice car, a new house and doesn't have to work. If she has a "greedy" husband and has to work she loses points. If you are "poor" as in "poor Natalie" (I can't count the number of times I've heard this expression) it means that you are married to a less successful or "greedy" American and you don't have a fancy house or car and the husband makes you work. It also means you don't have status in their community, you don't get asked to their parties, and they don't call on the telephone as often. At some point the "pecking" (the poor natalie talk) gets so bad that the girl may leave a good marriage just to improve her status in their community. We've found that most AM/RW divorces are about moving up in the pecking order as the girls look for that elusive "rich wimp" that will let them drive a BMW or Mercades and sit at home while supervising the maid.
'Just my 2 cents
-
It isn't a question of needing to kiss her ass, it's a matter of you uprooting someone and moving her, sans all her worldly possessions, into the unknown. I think a little ass kissing is completely justified.
+1
Besides she might have a very kissable @ss
-
I remember reading on this site or previous ones, that someone wrote:
Russian women want a strong leader and will let the man be in charge, whereas Ukrainian women want to be in charge of the marriage. And if you aren't a strong leader, the UW will take over.
I don't know about RW . . . but I can see that my UW wants to be in charge.
I have been in charge from day 1, but she is always pushing in low key ways to be the leader.
So far she always backs off when I speak forcefully about an issue, but it gets tiring to have to assert myself.
Note 1: I am not a control freak and let her have complete control over many issues. However, she would like to make decisions and assert control over issues that she has zero knowledge about or experience with.
Note 2: Neither my UW nor my previous AW ever tried to use sex for control purposes.
-
However, she would like to make decisions and assert control over issues that
she has zero knowledge about or experience with.
I laughed when I read this, that is not unique to UW. It must be great to
be an FSUW and to be experts at things they know nothing about.
-
What readers should always remember when reading these types of thread is, each post is solely reliant in each person's perspective and their respective experiences. It is by no means representative of a whole. Especially if one considers that participants in this endeavor represent a very minor segment of each region/s.
The one thing I observed in this however is the AM's (involved in the MOB) ready submission to 'marrying' a woman with child/ren that the general male bachelor would never consider with local women. The general consensus being such as 'excess baggage', or fathering someone else's responsibility.
As for if men are PWs generally...that is directly relative to how much socially experience/exposure the men are or have had, IMO.
-
The women you are marrying chose to emigrate, so I don't get the need to worship her because of it. In most cases, she will have a better standard of living than she could ever have in the FSU, although her inner world may not be as rich.
As for how RW vs UW view the head of the family, I disagree. I think you can find all sorts of women in the FSU, just as you can in the West.
-
As for how RW vs UW view the head of the family, I disagree. I think you can
find all sorts of women in the FSU, just as you can in the West.
To quote another member, "the biggest difference between Russian
and Ukrainian women is that Russian women will say Gamburger and
Ukrainian women will say hamburger"
Guys who make broad sweeping generalizations are generally wrong.
-
What readers should always remember when reading these types of thread is, each post is solely reliant in each person's perspective and their respective experiences. It is by no means representative of a whole. Especially if one considers that participants in this endeavor represent a very minor segment of each region/s.
The one thing I observed in this however is the AM's (involved in the MOB) ready submission to 'marrying' a woman with child/ren that the general male bachelor would never consider with local women. The general consensus being such as 'excess baggage', or fathering someone else's responsibility.
As for if men are PWs generally...that is directly relative to how much socially experience/exposure the men are or have had, IMO.
Don’t think this is necessarily true.
A bloke with children may think that a woman with children would be a better fit because she would understand better the burdens and responsibilities of raising children, than a woman with no children.
-
Don’t think this is necessarily true.
A bloke with children may think that a woman with children would be a better fit because she would understand better the burdens and responsibilities of raising children, than a woman with no children.
I fall into this category.... I have both young adult children and teenagers. If you’re a single father dating in your home country, then it’s very likely you’ll be dating single mothers too. Certainly in my experience and in some single fathers groups with US members that’s true.... At home I dated women with 1-3 children and even broke off a relationship with a younger woman with one child who wanted more and I didn’t. I had a vasectomy for a reason .... Most childless FSU women I’ve talked to online want children and I couldn’t think of anything worse than a new born baby at my age.
I can see GQ’s point.... I’m sure there are childless men who “settle” for women with children because for various reasons and it’s obvious to see some don’t compare with men who are obvious better catches, when trying to court FSU women in the more competitive young, single childless demographic..... For all men, searching for a single FSU mother, there’s some advantages during the online dating stage.... You double of even triple the women available to you. For a man with some obvious shortcomings (looks, age, social skills), he’ll probably get a lot better reply rate and for a guy who’s confident and a good catch it’s like shooting fish in a barrel. For him there’s less competition and more choice.... Obviously these advantages are offset by possible issues with the children’s father and other issues once it’s moved past the online stage and you’re in a real relationship.
Johns reply rings true with me. I’ve only spent time with single FSU mothers and being a single father myself there’s a connection that’s not there with childless women... I enjoy children’s company and as I write this I’m sitting in a big quiet house, as my youngest children are with their mother this weekend.... It feels like I’m not whole, so It would be awesome to have another child permanently living here. For my children, I think it would be a wonderful experience having a step brother or sister from another culture and my youngest has already started to experience this when he online games with one of K’s children. Honestly at this stage of my life, I wouldn’t even consider dating a childless woman, either at home or abroad.
-
Don’t think this is necessarily true.
A bloke with children may think that a woman with children would be a better fit because she would understand better the burdens and responsibilities of raising children, than a woman with no children.
Most FSUW over a certain age have
1. A child or children
2. 6 abortions
3. A medical condition making them infertile or nearly so
4. Doesn't like or want sex
5. Lesbian
Which is best one to have? In most cases it would be number one
-
As for if men are PWs generally...that is directly relative to how much socially experience/exposure the men are or have had, IMO.
I think you are totally correct on this point. Self confidence/self worth is directly
related to how much or how little a man is PW. You can only be PW to the extent
that you allow it.
-
Most FSUW over a certain age have
1. A child or children
2. 6 abortions
3. A medical condition making them infertile or nearly so
4. Doesn't like or want sex
5. Lesbian
Which is best one to have? In most cases it would be number one
I don’t think that all of them are necessarily true but certainly I would concur on number 1.
-
Abortion rates are still relatively high in Russia, but they are low in Ukraine (14.8/1,000, which is lower than in many Western countries). Abortion rates dropped dramatically after the collapse of the USSR, when birth control pills became widely available. Initially, there was a hesitancy to use birth control pills, but that's changed over time.
I am uncertain why a man would care how many abortions a woman has had, unless he wants children, and is concerned she may be infertile.
-
Most FSUW over a certain age have
5. Lesbian
I suppose this is a joke; but I don't think Lesbianism is age dependent.
-
Most FSUW over a certain age have
4. Doesn't like or want sex
I didn't find this to be true, at least with the women I went on 3rd or more dates with. Could have been many that didn't make it to that many dates that had little or no interest in sex.
There was one though that was a disappointment. We had a lot of fun together on first 3-4 meetings with no sex. Then on my last day in her city she came over to spend the night. Sex was OK and she was proud of her 45 year old body saying it was because she had never had a baby. She said she had only loved one man, and he was married, so she never got married herself.
But then she ruined everything when she said:
I am not really interested in sex and am more spiritual !!
OMG
So obviously, I never met with her again.
-
Don’t think this is necessarily true.
A bloke with children may think that a woman with children would be a better fit because she would understand better the burdens and responsibilities of raising children, than a woman with no children.
I was speaking rather more anecdotally/specifically about my own observations, and those from the many bachelors' general attitude about dating/marrying local women with child/ren here in the US.
It appears rather the opposite to the general 'attitude' of the American men searching in the FSU/MOB region and their *more* readily acceptance to women with child/ren.
-
I don’t think that all of them are necessarily true but certainly I would concur on number 1.
I didn't find this to be true, at least with the women I went on 3rd or more dates with. Could have been many that didn't make it to that many dates that had little or no interest in sex.
There was one though that was a disappointment. We had a lot of fun together on first 3-4 meetings with no sex. Then on my last day in her city she came over to spend the night. Sex was OK and she was proud of her 45 year old body saying it was because she had never had a baby. She said she had only loved one man, and he was married, so she never got married herself.
But then she ruined everything when she said:
I am not really interested in sex and am more spiritual !!
OMG
So obviously, I never met with her again.
Guys, I wrote that wrong and I didn't proofread here is what I meant to say.
Most FSUW over a certain age have a child or children.
OR THEY HAVE/HAD/ARE
1. 6 abortions
2. A medical condition making them infertile or nearly so
3. Doesn't like or want sex
4. Lesbian
Which is best one to have? In most cases it would be having a child.
-
I am uncertain why a man would care how many abortions a woman has had,
unless he wants children, and is concerned she may be infertile.
Most religions consider abortion as murdering a baby. Can you imagine anyone you
know marrying a man they know killed a 2 day old baby? Now, imagine if he did it
more than once.
A high-ranking Orthodox priest recently said that Russians were killing more of their
own through abortions than died during WWII. He also said that abortion in Russia is
“worse than the Holocaust.1”
The Russian Orthodox Patriarch said
"Action should be taken against "cynical principle" of sacrificing children's lives for
personal wellbeing"
"I've appealed to deputies several times to consider restricting abortion, and I've
seen some progress made in highlighting this evil" Unquote
1. http://europeanacademyofreligionandsociety.com/news/is-the-russian-orthodox-churchs-anti-abortion-stance-politically-helpful-for-putin/
2. http://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/6668/head-of-russian-orthodox-church-backs-abortion-ban-
-
Not all religions view abortion as murder.
Would such a man denounce premarital sex? That, after all, is a sin in most Christian denominations.
Would such a man reject a woman who had engaged in sinful activity, such as premarital sex?
Would such a man reject a woman who is divorced? After all, Jesus said that other than divorce on the grounds of adultery, all divorcees are committing adultery, and that divorce is contrary to God's law.
-
Abortion rates are still relatively high in Russia, but they are low in Ukraine (14.8/1,000, which is lower than in many Western countries). Abortion rates dropped dramatically after the collapse of the USSR, when birth control pills became widely available. Initially, there was a hesitancy to use birth control pills, but that's changed over time.
I am uncertain why a man would care how many abortions a woman has had, unless he wants children, and is concerned she may be infertile.
I don’t agree with abortion as a routine form of contraception.
I think there are many men who would view with caution, a woman who routinely aborted as a means of contraception.
It displays a recklessness that would sit uncomfortably with a lot of men, I think. This may not sit well with a feminist viewpoint but probably a majority of men would reject a women who, using this example, is obviously sexually pretty active and that’s without taking into account the fact that the woman is not taking any precautions against disease or pregnancy.
-
I think you have to look at this culturally.
In Soviet times, abortion could be dangerous, but other forms of birth control were practically non existent. After the collapse, there was a hesitancy to use birth control pills because there was a belief they were unsafe/would cause infertility/was unhealthy, etc. (not so different from the COVID vaccine deniers). So abortion, which for 7 decades, was sold to women as socially acceptable, was viewed as perfectly acceptable.
What if the woman had six abortions with the same partner?
How many partners is acceptable for a woman of say, 32? After all, the "standard" here is sex after the third date.
I actually doubt there are many women who have had six abortions, unless you count miscarriages in that statistic (which Russia does).
-
For every abortion, there was a man in the calculus, unless one believes women get pregnant from toilet seats.
In any case, who's counting, and for what purpose? I doubt most men will ever know until a relationship is further along.
Is such listed in dating profiles?
-
Not all religions view abortion as murder.
In which religion is abortion allowed? I believe the answer is ZERO. Therefore
you can see why some men might worry about a woman who had many
abortions not being a good candidate for marriage.
-
How many partners is acceptable for a woman of say, 32? After all, the "standard" here is sex after the third date.
The sex on 3rd date applies only to men.
Women should not have sex until marriage.
-
For every abortion, there was a man in the calculus, unless one believes women
get pregnant from toilet seats.
In any case, who's counting, and for what purpose? I doubt most men will ever
know until a relationship is further along.
Is such listed in dating profiles?
Do you have a relevant question or comment?
I was making a point about older women in the FSU. They either have
kids or many abortions, or are sterile, etc. Then Boe had a question/
comment so I answered.
Boe's comment/question
"I am uncertain why a man would care how many abortions a
woman has had, unless he wants children, and is concerned
she may be infertile."
-
In which religion is abortion allowed?
Atheism qualifies as a religion for the purpose of First Amendment protection.
-
Atheism qualifies as a religion for the purpose of First Amendment protection.
Atheism has no church or governing rules or doctrines which can be looked
up and verified. Therefore it would rely on the individual atheist to decide
the moral implications of abortion(s) and other ethical questions.
-
For every abortion, there was a man in the calculus, unless one believes women get pregnant from toilet seats.
Could be, because you can get STDs there also.
- - - - - - -
Woman took her son to doctor.
He diagnosed STD.
Mother indignantly proclaimed he got it in a public toilet.
Dr replied: He shouldn't be taking his girlfriend into a public toilet.
-
Do you have a relevant question or comment?
I take it you don't like contrast in your picture.
-
I take it you don't like contrast in your picture.
Should I take your divergence into unrelated comments as an example that
you don't have any related comments? The unlikeliness of getting preggers
from toilet seats or the fact that women get pregnant from having unprotected
sex with men has nothing to do with considering the character of a woman for
marriage. Please tie it together your unrelated comments to the question at
hand if your comments were intended as contrast.
Did you know that there is no air on the moon and that blini is a tasty Russian
dish? Nice facts to know but totally unrelated to decisions about a woman's
character or lack thereof, or one can see as I do that your comments were
unrelated to the topic being discussed and were distractions rather than
contrast.
Your comments were not unwelcome, they were simply irrelevant.
-
In which religion is abortion allowed? I believe the answer is ZERO. Therefore you can see why some men might worry about a woman who had many abortions not being a good candidate for marriage.
Judaism.
http://forward.com/opinion/393168/why-are-jews-so-pro-choice/
If a man is religious, going to the FSU to find a wife is probably a mistake.
-
Judaism.
Wrong, it is a crime and it's written in many places throughout history.
In Exodus, in the Talmud, in the Septuagint and in many other writings.
"If men strive, and wound a pregnant woman so that her fruit be
expelled, but no harm befell [her], then shall he be fined as her husband
shall assess, and the matter placed before the judges. But if harm befell
[her], then shall you give life for life."
Here is a link to a rather complete historical and philisophical look the subject
including different variations on the severity of the crime. Intentionally killing
an unborn child who is "formed" meaning resembles a baby rather than a tadpole
is a crime punishable ONLY by death.
http://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/sites/default/files/public/halakhah/teshuvot/19861990/feldman_abortion.pdf
If a man is religious, going to the FSU to find a wife is probably a mistake.
I somewhat agree. You can find all types in the FSU. If you are looking for a religious
girl the best place to look is your church. Your church probably has a version of
itself in the FSU.
-
No, I am not wrong. Both of the organizations you cite support abortion laws when it puts the life of the mother at risk.
"The sages ruled that when complications arise and a pregnant woman cannot give birth, it is permitted to abort the fetus in her womb, whether with a knife or drugs, for the fetus is considered a rodef (a murderer in pursut) of its mother. If the head of the fetus emerges, it should not be touched, because one life should not be sacrificed for another." - Maimonides, Mishneh Torah. (FTR, Maimonides, a medieval philosopher and physician, is considered one of the greatest scholars of Judaism).
"It is clear that in Jewish law, an Israelite is not liable to capital punishment for feticide . . . An Israelite woman was permitted to undergo a therapeutic abortion, even though her life was not at stake . . . This permissive ruling applies even when there is no direct threat to the life of the mother." - Rabbi Elizer Waldenberg (Rabbi Waldenberg was an important ultra Orthodox arbiter of Jewish law in Israel).
Bottom line - There is no religious prohibition against abortion in Judaism, because it does not consider a fetus a person. Jewish law does not consider a fetus to be a living soul until the head is crowning during birth.
Your church probably has a version of itself in the FSU.
Depends on where. If Russia, probably not. Furthermore, the number of people who are truly religious in the Slavic parts of the FSU is miniscule.
-
No, I am not wrong. Both of the organizations you cite support abortion
laws when it puts the life of the mother at risk.
My Question
"In which religion is abortion allowed? I believe the answer is ZERO."
To which you replied "Judaism." You didn't add the stipulation. My Roman
Catholic church allows abortions to save the life of the mother. All religions
allow abortions to save the life of the Mother. No major religion allows abortion
as a method of birth control.
-
You are twisting on the head of a pin.
Judaism makes no stipulation that abortion can only occur to save a mother's life. There are rabbis who have stated mental health is sufficient. In any event, my first response was to your statement that all religions consider abortion murder. Judaism definitely does not.
Claiming abortion is a "method of birth control" is over the top. No woman, even in the FSU, chooses abortion as a method of birth control. Having an abortion has physical effects on the body.
BTW, the type of woman who has six abortions isn't the type to tell a man about it. So, BC was correct about this - the man won't know.
-
Should I take your divergence into unrelated comments as an example that
you don't have any related comments? The unlikeliness of getting preggers
from toilet seats or the fact that women get pregnant from having unprotected
sex with men has nothing to do with considering the character of a woman for
marriage. Please tie it together your unrelated comments to the question at
hand if your comments were intended as contrast.
Did you know that there is no air on the moon and that blini is a tasty Russian
dish? Nice facts to know but totally unrelated to decisions about a woman's
character or lack thereof, or one can see as I do that your comments were
unrelated to the topic being discussed and were distractions rather than
contrast.
Your comments were not unwelcome, they were simply irrelevant.
Certainly more relevant than yours, injecting religion, abortion and views thereof into discourse.
What was the point of your post anyway, and how does it relate to the topic of 'whipped' American men?
I can't recall ever having a date with American women, Canadian, German, Spanish, French, Italian, Turkish, Greek and maybe a couple others where the topic of how many abortions she had was discussed. Why in the world should it be any different with a FSUW unless she wants to bring it up for whatever reason?
Did you state in any of your profiles or agency info (if you used such) that you did not want contact with women that had prior abortions? Did you ask for medical records to verify her 'character'? Maybe a polygraph? What's your number that divides 'good girls' from 'bad'? 6?
Did any of the women you dated ask how many times you frequented a brothel? How many times you had sex outside of marriage, and/or without a condom? Any women you 'knocked up'?
So you see, IMO the topic you injected is irrelevant as to a woman's 'character'. Either couples will get along, or they don't. Either she will tell you or not, or maybe even lie to you if you do ask, so why even bother to know.
-
To be fair to Bill, I don't think he intended this to veer off to abortion. I responded to that post. I think the "6 abortions" in the list was just a contrast to a woman with a child as opposed to all the other (supposedly) undesirable traits.
There are men who aren't up to the task of raising another man's child. I suspect much of this does have to do with whether the man has children, or has raised children, and whether or not he wants more children.
-
You are twisting on the head of a pin.
Judaism makes no stipulation that abortion can only occur to save a mother's life.
What it says is that killing a baby is a crime. It is also a crime if the baby
hasn't been born yet. The crime is more serious if the baby is "formed"
It's a crime to do this on accident.
-
To be fair to Bill, I don't think he intended this to veer off to abortion. I responded to that post. I think the "6 abortions" in the list was just a contrast to a woman with a child as opposed to all the other (supposedly) undesirable traits.
There are men who aren't up to the task of raising another man's child. I suspect much of this does have to do with whether the man has children, or has raised children, and whether or not he wants more children.
I don't think it was intended to veer off to abortion either. I don't have a
desire to debate the subject of abortion, it's unrelated to the thread topic.
My point was that FSUW over a certain age have children OR
there is a reason behind it (I listed the reasons).
-
What it says is that killing a baby is a crime. It is also a crime if the baby hasn't been born yet. The crime is more serious if the baby is "formed" It's a crime to do this on accident.
Nope. It's not a crime.
My point was that FSUW over a certain age have children OR there is a reason behind it (I listed the reasons).
I am not certain I agree with that. Some women (who the better half would call "blue stockings") would never have a child out of wedlock. There are plenty of mothers who are not really what I would call "marriage material". I think you have to look at individual cases.
-
Wrong, it is a crime and it's written in many places throughout history.
You sure our right about everything, and everybody else is 'wrong'.
After reviving a long dead topic after 16 years, it seems you are attempting to now steer and stifle conversation that doesn't fit without what you deem the parameters of discussion. Why not let the topic breath and people contribute the way they see fit. I thought BC's point was on topic.
Fathertime!
-
Certainly more relevant than yours, injecting religion, abortion and views
thereof into discourse.
Is that your opinion? I had no intention of injecting religion or abortion
or views. Your comment of catching preggers from toilet seats is price
of tea in China unrelated. Your comments were not germane and you
know it. The obfuscation below is an example of it.
What was the point of your post anyway, and how does it relate to the topic of
'whipped' American men?
FSUW above a certain age have children OR something happened. That was the point
stop asking questions you know the answer to. Go back and read the thread and you
should be able to follow along. If you can't let me know and I will connect the dots
for you.
Did any of the women you dated ask how many times you frequented a brothel?
How many times you had sex outside of marriage, and/or without a condom?
Any women you 'knocked up'?
So you see, IMO the topic you injected is irrelevant as to a woman's 'character'.
Either couples will get along, or they don't. Either she will tell you or not, or
maybe even lie to you if you do ask, so why even bother to know.
The point I injected was really, really, really, really simple. Even a lefty snowflake
can understand it. I said that FSUW over a certain age have children, OR something
happened.
Lefty's like yourself AND Boe are unable to allow certain words to be uttered or
posted on a board without making an inane comment. Abortion is a lefty trigger
word.
Here is a link to some coping strategies that might help you next time that
you feel triggered.
http://www.verywellmind.com/what-does-it-mean-to-be-triggered-4175432
-
FSUW above a certain age have children OR something happened.
That is untrue.
Lefty's like yourself AND Boe are unable to allow certain words to be uttered or posted on a board without making an inane comment. Abortion is a lefty trigger word.
I am not a "lefty", although by your extreme rightwing standards, I probably am. FTR, I am not a "supporter" of abortion. However, I also don't think it's my place to judge what women (or men) choose to do with their bodies, from covering themselves in tattoos to abortion. In the latter case, judgment belongs to God, not me. But, if you are a big proponent of banning abortion, then you should also be a big proponent of lots and lots of government funding for poor women to raise those unwanted babies. Anything else is hypocritical.
PS - I just noted that attitudes toward abortion are different in the FSU than they are in the West, and I didn't understand why a man would be concerned with how many abortions a woman has had, beyond a concern of infertility if he wants to have children. You are the one who interjected with the "murder" rationale.
-
Is that your opinion? I had no intention of injecting religion or abortion
or views. Your comment of catching preggers from toilet seats is price
of tea in China unrelated. Your comments were not germane and you
know it. The obfuscation below is an example of it.
Yet you did exactly that. My comment directly questioned your linking of a number of abortions to a perceived 'worth' of a woman, or that something would be wrong with her values, mores, character, or desirability.
FSUW above a certain age have children OR something happened. That was the point
stop asking questions you know the answer to. Go back and read the thread and you
should be able to follow along. If you can't let me know and I will connect the dots
for you.
You neither stated what that 'certain' age was, nor what 'something happened' really means or why they would be otherwise undesirable or of questionable character.
The point I injected was really, really, really, really simple. Even a lefty snowflake
can understand it. I said that FSUW over a certain age have children, OR something
happened.
Plenty of things could happen, the same as women in many countries. So what is it that 'happens' specifically to FSUW over a certain age that does not have children that is so unique to be a worthwhile topic?
Lefty's like yourself AND Boe are unable to allow certain words to be uttered or
posted on a board without making an inane comment. Abortion is a lefty trigger
word.
You do seem to like putting folks in boxes if you can't relate.
Here is a link to some coping strategies that might help you next time that
you feel triggered.
The only trigger is the fallacy you seem to be proposing - that most women over an unspecified age, without children, go in your box labeled 'undesirable' due to some unspecified 'happening', listing a number of conditions that would normally not be known, unless a relationship progresses.
1. 6 abortions - not a typical dating topic in my experience and hardly verifiable
2. A medical condition making them infertile or nearly so - which a woman may not even know, or was she with an infertile partner before?
3. Doesn't like or want sex - which does not mean she won't like it with a partner that turns her on or can help her overcome any sexual issues or inhibitions.
4. Lesbian - I doubt would be seeking a relationship with foreign men
And you don't even list one of the most obvious reasons, that a woman may simply not desire children - which may well fit in perfectly with a partner who also does not desire children.
Just curious, does your wife share your views with this topic?
-
You sure our right about everything, and everybody else is 'wrong'.
I provided a link backing up what I said. Go back and check it out
you might actually learn something.
-
But, if you are a big proponent of banning abortion, then you should also be a big
proponent of lots and lots of government funding for poor women to raise those
unwanted babies. Anything else is hypocritical.
PS - I just noted that attitudes toward abortion are different in the FSU than they are in the West, and I didn't understand why a man would be concerned with how many abortions a woman has had, beyond a concern of infertility if he wants to have children. You are the one who interjected with the "murder" rationale.
I never stated my opinion. Abortion is against my religion but I've never been
preggers. I believe in having a safety net to help poor people. I don't believe
in a European cradle to grave system.
There are many churches that consider it murder therefore it's not unreasonable
to assume that there are people who agree with the teachings of their church.
-
Yet you did exactly that.
No I didn't Boe brought it up. I had multiple abortions as a potential reason that
woman never had a child.
Just curious, does your wife share your views with this topic?
I don't bring up your wife or her potential theoretical views during these debates.
-
No I didn't Boe brought it up. I had multiple abortions as a potential reason that
woman never had a child.
Sure? http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=658.msg559218#msg559218
I don't bring up your wife or her potential theoretical views during these debates.
Just asking if, in your experience, your views were shared or supported by FSUW you are close to. IIRC you dated a few FSUW over the years prior to marriage, certainly more than I. Any consensus you noted? I assume the subject came up in your conversations while dating?
I would like to hear your definitions regarding 'certain age' and what 'something happened' really means in terms of character.
Interesting article:
http://www.rbth.com/history/332381-soviet-condoms-history
-
http://www.rbth.com/history/332381-soviet-condoms-history (http://www.rbth.com/history/332381-soviet-condoms-history)
Condoms were not readily available, at least not in Moscow or Ukraine, in the late 1970's and all of the 1980's.
-
When I was in Germany in 89 and the wall fell, folks from the East were amazed with some of the simplest western products, like paper towels and even plastic wrap (which might have been a good substitute for condoms).
-
When I was in Germany in 89 and the wall fell, folks from the East were amazed with some of the simplest western products, like paper towels and even plastic wrap (which might have been a good substitute for condoms).
Last time wifey's sister and her hubby spent the holidays with us, wifey had to stop by Target to pick up ziploc freezer bags because we were out of it. Her sister was elated that such actually exist as apparently they weren't available in Germany. True or not, I don't know. It may actually exist but just that she wasn't aware of it, although I would find that hard to believe because she's the one that does their shopping.
-
Indeed, GQ, Ziploc bags are rare in Europe. I take quite a few back as suitcase stuffing after visits to the US, the Hefty freezer bags I find are the best.
-
When I was in Germany in 89 and the wall fell, folks from the East were amazed with some of the simplest western products, like paper towels and even plastic wrap (which might have been a good substitute for condoms).
When the good folks distribute thousands of condoms in African outback; those folks have been known to use them to transport water for the day.
Let's hope they were the unlubricated type.
-
IIRC you dated a few FSUW over the years prior to marriage, certainly more than I. Any consensus you noted? I assume the subject came up in your conversations while dating?
I would like to hear your definitions regarding 'certain age' and what 'something happened' really means in terms of character.
Most Russia women over the age of 30 have a child. I didn't bring up abortions
as a topic of conversation. One FSUW brought up that she had 4 abortions. I have
been told by men on the forums that FSUW have used abortions as a method of
birth control, I've also been told by those same men that FSU men rarely use
condoms. I have no study or reference to point to.
My point about character is that many Western men would consider it a character
issue for a woman to have multiple abortions. Here is an article by a pro abortion
group about attitudes
"One abortion may be viewed as a reasonable “get out of jail free” card; having more
than one abortion is often presented as beyond the pale. A woman might be able to
decide she cannot continue with a pregnancy once, but to do so more than once
speaks of her irresponsibility, fecklessness and failure to use contraception. "
http://theconversation.com/attitudes-to-women-who-have-more-than-one-abortion-need-to-change-85707
I didn't intend to start a debate about abortion(s).
-
Sure? http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=658.msg559218#msg559218
Yes I am sure, did you not read this post?
Most FSUW over a certain age have a child or children.
OR THEY HAVE/HAD/ARE
1. 6 abortions
2. A medical condition making them infertile or nearly so
3. Doesn't like or want sex
4. Lesbian
Why don't you figure out what it is that you want to argue about and let
me know. It would be helpful if you read all my posts before questioning
whether I said something or not.
-
Most Russia women over the age of 30 have a child. I didn't bring up abortions
as a topic of conversation. One FSUW brought up that she had 4 abortions. I have
been told by men on the forums that FSUW have used abortions as a method of
birth control, I've also been told by those same men that FSU men rarely use
condoms. I have no study or reference to point to.
My point about character is that many Western men would consider it a character
issue for a woman to have multiple abortions. Here is an article by a pro abortion
group about attitudes
"One abortion may be viewed as a reasonable “get out of jail free” card; having more
than one abortion is often presented as beyond the pale. A woman might be able to
decide she cannot continue with a pregnancy once, but to do so more than once
speaks of her irresponsibility, fecklessness and failure to use contraception. "
http://theconversation.com/attitudes-to-women-who-have-more-than-one-abortion-need-to-change-85707
I didn't intend to start a debate about abortion(s).
Ok, then a POV mostly based on hearsay. It is quite obvious that the number of abortions were higher than elsewhere, and some possible, even unavoidable causes, and as Boethius indicated different counting methodology. My objection was the correlation being drawn, intentionally or not, between a number and character - not only of FSUW, but the men desiring relationships with them.
-
Yes I am sure, did you not read this post?
Of course I did, as this was the first post mentioning religion.
-
Ok, then a POV mostly based on hearsay. It is quite obvious that the number of abortions were higher than elsewhere, and some possible, even unavoidable causes, and as Boethius indicated different counting methodology.
Russia's abortion rate is 53.7 per 1,000 women.
Austria's abortion rate is 1.3 per 1,000 women.
USA is 20.8
Russia has the highest abortion rate in the world
My objection was the correlation being drawn, intentionally or not, between a
number and character - not only of FSUW, but the men desiring relationships
with them.
I pointed out that some men would see that as a character flaw. Perception
according to the link above said as much. My point had little or nothing to
do with abortion, my point is that FSUW above a certain age have kids. If
a FSUW is 38 and has zero kids I can tell you that is as rare as Mensa
candidates filmed for the Sports illustrated swimsuit issue.
-
One FSUW brought up that she had 4 abortions. I have
been told by men on the forums that FSUW have used abortions as a method of
birth control,
I once dated a Russian doctor who had a patient that had 12 abortions. She too implied abortions were used as a birth control method.
When dating women, most men tend to go with the politically correct theme on that it's a woman's choice when it comes to abortion. I always tell my dates "Nobody in my family gets aborted". They will respect a man more, not less, for saying that.
-
my point is that FSUW above a certain age have kids. If
a FSUW is 38 and has zero kids I can tell you that is as rare as Mensa
candidates filmed for the Sports illustrated swimsuit issue.
I doubt that is a very accurate statement. The birth rate isn't that high in that part of the world, probably less than the US. I have several lady friends here in the states that never had kids, very good looking attractive women, and our birthrate is probably greater than over there.
Fathertime!
-
Russia's abortion rate is 53.7 per 1,000 women.
Austria's abortion rate is 1.3 per 1,000 women.
USA is 20.8
Russia has the highest abortion rate in the world
I pointed out that some men would see that as a character flaw. Perception
according to the link above said as much. My point had little or nothing to
do with abortion, my point is that FSUW above a certain age have kids. If
a FSUW is 38 and has zero kids I can tell you that is as rare as Mensa
candidates filmed for the Sports illustrated swimsuit issue.
Russia’s rate is high, but not as high as you quote. This is because miscarriages are included in abortion statistics.
In a comprehensive study, women who had abortions tended to have two children and were living with a man. The group with the least number of abortions were single women. Very different than in the US.
-
I doubt that is a very accurate statement. The birth rate isn't that high in that part of the world, probably less than the US. I have several lady friends here in the states that never had kids, very good looking attractive women, and our birthrate is probably greater than over there.
Fathertime!
FT, you can doubt but this subject is not in your wheelhouse.
-
In a comprehensive study, women who had abortions tended to have two children and were living with a man. The group with the least number of abortions were single women. Very different than in the US.
Do you have a link?
I didn't know that miscarriages were part of the rate. Were these only miscarriages
where they required a D&C? Because otherwise why would they put the two together?
Here is my link for the previous post
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/People/Abortion/Abortion-rate
-
Any miscarriage which requires medical attention is in the Russian statistics. That is, because it is an abortion of a fetus.
I don't have a link, read it in Russian a number of years ago. Those facts stuck out to me, because it's so different in North America. Here's one that contains some of the same information-
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20164260 (http://www.jstor.org/stable/20164260)
-
Back to the Whipped vs Non Whipped
I think it mostly has to do with confidence and social skills.
Men that have either don't allow it to happen and those
without could be in for whipping(s).
-
I would say that I am (or have been) pussy whipped.
I have made many decisions my entire life since puberty based on some consideration of pussy.
Without that distraction . . . "I couda bin a contender."
-
Judaism.
http://forward.com/opinion/393168/why-are-jews-so-pro-choice/
Judiasm has 613 commandments. Among the first 10 is "Thou shalt not kill".
Killing a defenseless baby in the womb is murder whether it is a crime or not. It would be no different than beheading or sticking a knife into the chest of a handcuffed man IMO
-
http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/abortion
-
I would say that I am (or have been) pussy whipped.
I have made many decisions my entire life since puberty based on some consideration of pussy.
Without that distraction . . . "I couda bin a contender."
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
-
Judiasm has 613 commandments. Among the first 10 is "Thou shalt not kill".
Killing a defenseless baby in the womb is murder whether it is a crime or not. It would be no different than beheading or sticking a knife into the chest of a handcuffed man IMO
Judaism has 613 mitvot. Feticide is not among them.
As BC noted, in Judaism, a fetus is not a person. Murdering a fetus is not a sin. It's not a mitzvah. A child must be born, or have its head crowning, to be considered a person in Judaism.
In Islam, abortion is permitted until 120 days. That is because their belief is that a soul is introduced into an unborn child at 120 days. Before that, abortion is acceptable.
Even Christianity's view on when life begins has been a moving target -
http://rewirenewsgroup.com/religion-dispatches/2019/09/27/when-the-biblical-view-for-evangelicals-was-that-life-begins-at-birth/ (http://rewirenewsgroup.com/religion-dispatches/2019/09/27/when-the-biblical-view-for-evangelicals-was-that-life-begins-at-birth/)
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/time-for-a-rational-debate-on-when-human-life-begins-1.997586 (http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/time-for-a-rational-debate-on-when-human-life-begins-1.997586)
-
Judaism has 613 mitvot. Feticide is not among them.
As BC noted, in Judaism, a fetus is not a person. Murdering a fetus is not a sin. It's not a mitzvah. A child must be born, or have its head crowning, to be considered a person in Judaism.
In Islam, abortion is permitted until 120 days. That is because their belief is that a soul is introduced into an unborn child at 120 days. Before that, abortion is acceptable.
Even Christianity's view on when life begins has been a moving target -
http://rewirenewsgroup.com/religion-dispatches/2019/09/27/when-the-biblical-view-for-evangelicals-was-that-life-begins-at-birth/ (http://rewirenewsgroup.com/religion-dispatches/2019/09/27/when-the-biblical-view-for-evangelicals-was-that-life-begins-at-birth/)
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/time-for-a-rational-debate-on-when-human-life-begins-1.997586 (http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/time-for-a-rational-debate-on-when-human-life-begins-1.997586)
When various rabbis, imans or preachers proclaim when life has begun means literally "dick". The Lord thy God has stated "Thou shalt not kill". I didn't make that up. Now if you believe killing a defenseless baby in the womb is acceptable perhaps you should take it up with him?
-
Now if you believe killing a defenseless baby in the womb is acceptable perhaps you should take it up with him?
Isn't that exactly part of which Roe v Wade provides? The Constitutional protection of a right to privacy for a woman to make a choice? If so, how can one argue otherwise or even call it killing, or murder and such with any authority?
If one chooses to believe in God, or Allah, or other deity, the very first rule that applies is that we mortals are not God, and yes, that applies to rabbis, imams and preachers as well.
-
Roe v Wade still astounds me how a 'domestic' issue became such a grand Constitutional, highly politically-charged ruling that is still being debated today.
Americans are just simply nutcases. This issue is 'almost' as hotly contested as when will Tom Brady retire?
Anyway, the SCOTUS had set a date for oral arguments for a Mississippi abortion case, in which the case directly asked the court to overturn RvW.
I will remind everyone, the current court consists of 6-3 on conservative leaning. Stay tuned.
-
Indeed, GQ.
Battle of the righteous, on both sides attempting to enforce a deeply personal issue they are not directly involved in.
I do trust SCOTUS will be able to leave partisanship and personal views behind and provide answers that are according to laws, precedent, and our Constitution. I also hope they will provide a decision with closure that puts the issue behind us and not simply punt the issue forward. They have a lot to grapple with.
IMO when it comes to our Constitutional rights and freedoms, can't have each state dickering with them, trying to make end runs around the Constitution. Nor can SCOTUS allow such.
I am also amazed how the United States, the first explicitly secular nation, remains so religiously polarized and encumbered with such political fervor, attempting to impose thy will on mine.
-
When various rabbis, imans or preachers proclaim when life has begun means literally "dick". The Lord thy God has stated "Thou shalt not kill". I didn't make that up. Now if you believe killing a defenseless baby in the womb is acceptable perhaps you should take it up with him?
We aren't discussing what the Lord stated, and in any event, I don't think any of us has a direct line to God. What we are discussing is how various religions view abortion. It is not cut and dried, as Bill suggested.
Don't assume you know my position (though I stated it above if you bothered to read). It's obvious you don't.
-
I do trust SCOTUS will be able to leave partisanship and personal views behind and provide answers that are according to laws, precedent, and our Constitution. I also hope they will provide a decision with closure that puts the issue behind us and not simply punt the issue forward. They have a lot to grapple with.
Likely easier said than done. Justices are humans, too. Remember RBG's loud sentiment towards Donnie?
Anyway Justice Thomas commented about partisanship just yesterday, AAMOF. Saying the court could be the most dangerous branch of the government if politics corrupt its core (if it isn't already).
Methinks the fact judges are pick according to the ruling political POTUS, how can we really 'pretend' there isn't a shed of political influence within the court's decisions/ruling?
-
GQ,
Of course there will be leanings, whether personal, political or ideological within SCOTUS. After reading quite a few decisions over the years, I've learned some of the legal logic behind decisions I don't like is quite correct. SCOTUS works in ways that can be sometimes surprising to us all, but conforms with the law, precedent and our Constitution. Nothing is perfect, but pretty darn close.
-
Your Supreme Court is very politicized.
Listen to a few podcasts. This one is "lefty", but it's the way lawyers would talk to each other -
http://www.fivefourpod.com/ (http://www.fivefourpod.com/)
This one is more balanced. -
http://strict-scrutiny.simplecast.com/ (http://strict-scrutiny.simplecast.com/)
-
Isn't that exactly part of which Roe v Wade provides? The Constitutional protection of a right to privacy for a woman to make a choice? If so, how can one argue otherwise or even call it killing, or murder and such with any authority?
You are trying to equate legality with morality. They are not the same, you can
not equate the two. Here is a link to an introduction to ethics class. Lesson one
is that you can't do that.
http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/ethics_text/chapter_1_introduction/Ethics_and_Law.htm
If one chooses to believe in God, or Allah, or other deity, the very first rule that applies is that we mortals are not God, and yes, that applies to rabbis, imams and preachers as well.
You think that members of a relgion can't have rules, leaders or advisors unless
they are GOD? Or in direct consultation with GOD?
You and Boe want to have an abortion argument, I don't.
-
It is not cut and dried, as Bill suggested.
It is exactly cut and dried as I suggested. You read someplace that it isn't.
They twisted the words to mean something else. I posted a link to the exact
same thing and it was describing the punishment for accidentally killing a baby
before or after "it was formed" as being two different crimes but they were both
crimes nonetheless.
Judaism doesn't allow intentionally killing a baby except to save the life of the
mother. There is no exception for if the mother didn't want to get preggers
or if she wanted to look really good in her prom dress.
Having said that I am not desiring a debate on Abortion. I have a religious view
that it is forbidden and others don't share my view. They are entitled to their view
as am I.
-
Nope. At least two monotheistic religions don’t automatically view abortion as murder. Read my links. Christian denominations didn’t at different times either.
-
Nope. At least two monotheistic religions don’t automatically view abortion as murder. Read my links. Christian denominations didn’t at different times either.
I read the Jewish one and they had it wrong. I explained that they mis-translated
or intentionally twisted what was said. It's a crime if the baby is not yet "formed"
it's a far greater crime if the baby is "formed". Your link tried to imply that unformed
means not a human yet and therefore allowed to be killed.
-
Read BC’s link as well.
-
Read BC’s link as well.
http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/abortion
Thank you for the quote. They listed their source as Exodus 21.22-25
Lets actually read what was actually written in Exodus Exodus
21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or
two, since the slave is their property.
22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth
prematurely[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined
whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows.
23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye,
tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for
wound, bruise for bruise.
Source
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2021&version=NIV
Most religions agree is that an abortion can take place to save the life of the
mother, and likewise most religions agree that a mother can't sacrifice her life
to save an unborn child.
Oholot 7:6 states that if a woman is having difficulty giving birth, the midwife
may dismember the fetus in utero in order to extract it to save the mother’s life.
NOWHERE Does it say that if the Mother would prefer not to have a baby can
she or somebody else hurt the baby.
If you actually want to learn the truth read this. If you want to read twisted
words and logic skip the link below.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23256106
-
You are trying to equate legality with morality. They are not the same, you can
not equate the two. Here is a link to an introduction to ethics class. Lesson one
is that you can't do that.
http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/ethics_text/chapter_1_introduction/Ethics_and_Law.htm
Yet, your link lists the following as an example:
Things that are immoral (for many) but are not illegal.
Using abortion as a birth control measure.
In the case of abortion, the law has addressed it. This forms the equivalence in the context being discussed here.
You think that members of a relgion can't have rules, leaders or advisors unless
they are GOD? Or in direct consultation with GOD?
This is the perfect example of what I stated above regarding injecting religion. What I think? I believe what many call God, among other names, is the mysterious order in universal chaos, and that many men, women, and everything in-between have taken it upon themselves to define this yet undefinable God, for their own benefit, goals, and power within society. IOW, God is whatever you enjoy believing, were taught to believe; or not.
You and Boe want to have an abortion argument, I don't.
And you seem to want a religious one, subsequently linking it with abortion.
-
And you seem to want a religious one, subsequently linking it with abortion.
NO, I don't. Yet I will not stand by while the two of you mischaracterize
various religion's rules, philosophies and dogma. I am not going to debate
whether one religion is right or wrong but I will argue what you say is their
historical writings and teachings, when you are wrong.
This is the perfect example of what I stated above regarding injecting religion.
No, I didn't. I said that most religions are against abortion and that it would
not be unreasonable that many of their followers are against it too.
Then you and Boe go out and argue falsely that these various religions are not
against it.
I am not arguing for a religion or against it. I am not arguing for abortion or against
it. I am arguing that All religions are against it and I am arguing that it would stand
to reason that many of the members of these religions would be against it also.
I have noted that Abortion is against my religion but I did not argue with you or
anyone else about the pro's or con's of abortion or whether you are right or wrong
for having an opinion or philosophy different than mine.
I will argue if you want to say that Judaism is for abortion or that it is not a crime
in their laws and teachings. That is arguing historical record not religion.
-
I have mischaracterized nothing. In Judaism, a fetus is not a soul, and therefore, its destruction is not murder. Period. End of story. No more argument.
In Islam, a fetus does not have a soul for 120 days. Period. End of story. No more argument.
In Christianity, the characertization of a fetus has differed. In the 19th century, Catholicism declared that life begins at conception. Before that time, it had no position on when life began. Evangelicals came late to this, declaring a fetus is a "person" in the 1980's or so.
My point has always been that your declaration that all religions view abortion as murder is not true. In some, it may be viewed as immoral, but it is not murder.
ETA - But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life
The point is that a fetus is not a life. It's not a life until the child is born, or is in the process of being born. Until then, if it's a choice between the mother's life or the child's life, the former takes precedence.
-
I am arguing that All religions are against it and I am arguing that it would stand
to reason that many of the members of these religions would be against it also.
And your absolute statement is where the problem lies, and discourse ends. This is why many discussion forums do not encourage such debate, even RWD.
I suggest ending it here in this thread as well.
-
And your absolute statement is where the problem lies, and discourse ends. This is why many discussion forums do not encourage such debate, even RWD.
I suggest ending it here in this thread as well.
I was happy to be done many moons ago.
Udachi!
Bill
-
I have mischaracterized nothing. In Judaism, a fetus is not a soul, and therefore, its destruction is not murder. Period. End of story. No more argument.
It is a crime regardless of age/formation/development. If the baby is formed it's
punishable by death. You are refuting a position not argued.
Never once did I claim that Judaism considers the fetus a soul. I said if you
accidentally kill it then it's a crime. The seriousness of the punishment for that
crime is determined by whether they consider it formed or not. I said it's also
a crime to intentionally kill it regardless of age/formation/development.
That's the facts Jack
-
It is a crime regardless of age/formation/development. If the baby is formed it's punishable by death. You are refuting a position not argued.
Nope.
Never once did I claim that Judaism considers the fetus a soul. I said if you accidentally kill it then it's a crime. The seriousness of the punishment for that
crime is determined by whether they consider it formed or not. I said it's also a crime to intentionally kill it regardless of age/formation/development.
That's the facts Jack
No, those aren't the facts.
You stated that all religions view abortion as murder. That is untrue in Judaism, and, to a degree, Islam. It's not viewed as murder in Judaism unless the fetus is already a baby (already born), or its head is crowing (on the verge of being born).
That was my only point. The morality of abortion is a separate issue.
-
You stated that all religions view abortion as murder.
Most religions consider abortion as murdering a baby.
Do you want to go over every word? We can.
Do you want to go over the original source documents that I provided links for
rather than your links of liberals twisting the original words?
-
Let's get off the abortion in this thread and back to the original heading.
Below is some evidence that AM are getting pussy whipped by MeToo.
Imagine what the FSU gal would think about this guy and his lack of action?
I read this to my FSU wife; she just laughed and shook her head in disbelief.
DEAR ABBY: I’m having trouble with feelings I probably shouldn’t be having about someone. She’s always walking around in her underwear when I come over. I like it, of course, but I’m not sure if it is meant to tease me or if I should act on it. I’d really appreciate your help.—CONFUSED IN THE EAST
DEAR CONFUSED: A positive message of the #MeToo movement has been that when there is a shadow of a doubt, a person should communicate to avoid any unfortunate misunderstandings. It would be appropriate to ask this woman why she walks around in a state of undress when you are there, because you are not sure how to interpret the message it sends. Do not act on anything unless her response is that it would be welcomed.
-
Let's get off the abortion in this thread and back to the original heading.
Let's get off the abortion in this thread and back to the original heading.
Abortion is not even tangentially important to my point. HOWEVER, once the
word Abortion is spoken or written that is all that matters to the lefty brigade.
-
Abortion is not even tangentially important to my point. HOWEVER, once the
word Abortion is spoken or written that is all that matters to the lefty brigade.
Wrong. I noted that abortion is not viewed as murder by every religion. That is accurate, no matter how often you claim otherwise.
I never got into the morality of abortion, or whether it should be available.
http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=658.msg559223#msg559223
-
Wrong. I noted that abortion is not viewed as murder by every religion.
That is accurate, no matter how often you claim otherwise.
I said that Abortion is murder by most religions. I've never said ALL religions
regardless of what you say.
-
I am arguing that All religions are against it and I am arguing that it would stand
to reason that many of the members of these religions would be against it also.
-
Let's get off the abortion in this thread and back to the original heading.
Below is some evidence that AM are getting pussy whipped by MeToo.
Imagine what the FSU gal would think about this guy and his lack of action?
I read this to my FSU wife; she just laughed and shook her head in disbelief.
DEAR ABBY: I’m having trouble with feelings I probably shouldn’t be having about someone. She’s always walking around in her underwear when I come over. I like it, of course, but I’m not sure if it is meant to tease me or if I should act on it. I’d really appreciate your help.—CONFUSED IN THE EAST
DEAR CONFUSED: A positive message of the #MeToo movement has been that when there is a shadow of a doubt, a person should communicate to avoid any unfortunate misunderstandings. It would be appropriate to ask this woman why she walks around in a state of undress when you are there, because you are not sure how to interpret the message it sends. Do not act on anything unless her response is that it would be welcomed.
-
Sure these days every lad is a sally. My wife works with the pronoun crew. Poor honey but it’s a paycheck. Are men whipped here. Nah…they are slowly catching on.
-
Sure these days every lad is a sally. My wife works with the pronoun crew. Poor honey but it’s a paycheck. Are men whipped here. Nah…they are slowly catching on.
For every man bun wearing, snowflake metrosexual there is a young man who
is clear headed and going places. I saw this when I went to my son's graduation
from the University of San Diego in Navy ROTC. I met a large group of young
men who had there sh!t together.
When I went to his graduation from flight school, I met another group of equally
promising young men.
Udachi!
Bill
-
Most young men, no matter how they wear their hair, have promise. People should be free to be themselves. How a person wears their hair, or dresses is really irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
-
One of the biggest problems is the destruction of the nuclear family and boys being raised by single moms without much of a quality stable male presence.
Batshit toxic feminism is another problem (and probably responsible for the above). Equal rights and opportunity? sure... this, however, is something else entirely.
-
One of the biggest problems is the destruction of the nuclear family and boys being raised by single moms without much of a quality stable male presence.
Batshit toxic feminism is another problem (and probably responsible for the above). Equal rights and opportunity? sure... this, however, is something else entirely.
I agree Dave, problem is until the grossly unfair practice of family courts placing children nearly all the time with the woman merely on the basis of her female gender status then giving her the house I can't see anything changing. Why on earth we still have that carry on in western society I don't know, not only is it grossly unfair on the man but it's wholey destructive in terms of the male female relationship dynamic. It leaves men in fear of the woman taking all without having to put any work in and the woman becoming over-entitled and superior feeling. That can't be a good societal environment in which relationships can flourish. The seeds of fear and mistrust are planted there by the courts from the get go in relationships throughout society as a result.
-
I agree Dave, problem is until the grossly unfair practice of family courts placing children nearly all the time with the woman merely on the basis of her female gender status then giving her the house I can't see anything changing.
I fought hard and got 50/50 custody way back when...I also paid out, and got the house. It can be done if the man feels justified and is willing to do battle.
Fathertime!
-
I agree Dave, problem is until the grossly unfair practice of family courts placing children nearly all the time with the woman merely on the basis of her female gender status then giving her the house I can't see anything changing. Why on earth we still have that carry on in western society I don't know, not only is it grossly unfair on the man but it's wholey destructive in terms of the male female relationship dynamic. It leaves men in fear of the woman taking all without having to put any work in and the woman becoming over-entitled and superior feeling. That can't be a good societal environment in which relationships can flourish. The seeds of fear and mistrust are planted there by the courts from the get go in relationships throughout society as a result.
This is just so much Incel nonsense from someone who has no idea whatsoever how the family courts work.
-
It can be done if the man feels justified and is willing to do battle.
Take a given guy and a given judge and if that judge doesn't like something about that guy [attitude or something he says]...the case starts going south for him fast and that is a given.
-
Take a given guy and a given judge and if that judge doesn't like something about that guy [attitude or something he says]...the case starts going south for him fast and that is a given.
Here in my area Family Court Judges are elected.
Those judges know that:
1) if they don't favor the females, the females will protest in mass, march in front of the courthouse and vote them out in next election.
2) males will not protest in mass or march, etc.
-
Regarding the topic heading . . . I didn't think I was whipped, but
in preparing Thanksgiving meals, wife forced me to stir and whip some of the toppings.
-
Joint custody is agreed to overwhelmingly in divorce. The reality is that single parents need time alone, so having a relationship with each parent is not only in the best interests of both children, it's also beneficial for parents. Anyone who has raised children knows this.
In the US, only 4% of custody cases are challenged. While mothers usually get physical custody, fathers also have, in the vast majority of cases, custodial rights.
Most single parents are not single parents by choice. It's also not feminism that is to blame for this. I think increasing secularity, and the rise of consumerism, are far more important factors.
-
Joint custody is agreed to overwhelmingly in divorce. The reality is that single parents need time alone, so having a relationship with each parent is not only in the best interests of both children, it's also beneficial for parents. Anyone who has raised children knows this.
In the US, only 4% of custody cases are challenged. While mothers usually get physical custody, fathers also have, in the vast majority of cases, custodial rights.
Most single parents are not single parents by choice. It's also not feminism that is to blame for this. I think increasing secularity, and the rise of consumerism, are far more important factors.
And the reason for women getting physical custody while the man just gets custodial rights? Not exactly gender equality is it? The woman gets to live with the child as a part of her life while the man may get access part time to take them off her hands whenever she needs time out. While this may be the perfect arrangement for sone it is more likely a perfect arrangement just for the woman. Let's not forget also that this is the default arrangement that is often abused by the woman, she can deny access to the father at any time and while the father may go back to the courts ultimately the final court action is to tell the father that they have threatened to throw her in jail but ultimately they won't because it would take the Mother away from the child. Plus the woman gets the house and the guy has to stump up maintenance payments and possibly still Mortgage repayments etc. So it's no different to how it's been in the past few decades, the guy gets done over while the women gets placed in a commanding position. The guy just has to the woman may see a need to have him take the children off her hands here & there or may even have a streak of compassion, neither are something a guy would ideally like to take a gamble on. Otherwise he is there either on the streets or in a bedsit unless real wealthy having to pay any money he can and potentially living a miserable isolated life.
If you look up 'Fathers for Justice' website online they exist for a reason, lots of guys been screwed over by the system like that in this country.
-
I fought hard and got 50/50 custody way back when...I also paid out, and got the house. It can be done if the man feels justified and is willing to do battle.
Fathertime!
You did very well for yourself FT, a few rare cases the guy gets this but most don't. In the UK 50/50 child share is the default position before it goes to a family court. If the guy has any common sense he will try to get as good a deal as he can worked out to try to avoid going to a family court. If it goes to a family court he is really going to have to work hard and hope any judge is not going to be too harsh. Father's for Justice support group for Father's here suggest not using a solicitor as the guy can come off better representing himself. If a guy gets a solicitor here they often don't care about the guy and will happily screw him over not caring about the desk he gets while also charging lots of money and dragging the case on to achieve that. It's generally the natural thing to do to try and get good legal representation but in family court cases here it is apparently very punishing on the guy, both the court judge and even your own solicitor can want to punish the guy as much as possible. They really don't care about the outcome for the guy whatsoever.
-
And the reason for women getting physical custody while the man just gets custodial rights? Not exactly gender equality is it?
This is because women do the overwhelming amount of childcare, even when both partners have full time jobs of equal income and equal responsibilty/time. Men aren't signing their children up for soccer games, hockey games, arranging playdates, buying clothing, etc.
The woman gets to live with the child as a part of her life while the man may get access part time to take them off her hands whenever she needs time out.
Wrong. 50/50 is the default. How that 50/50 is arranged is up to the parents.
While this may be the perfect arrangement for sone it is more likely a perfect arrangement just for the woman.
This is obviously posted by someone who has never raised a child.
Let's not forget also that this is the default arrangement that is often abused by the woman, she can deny access to the father at any time and while the father may go back to the courts ultimately the final court action is to tell the father that they have threatened to throw her in jail but ultimately they won't because it would take the Mother away from the child.
Wrong. As I posted, only 4% of cases in the US go before the courts. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the parties agree to the custody arrangements they have. Parental alienation is rare, but a mother in my province was jailed for breaching a court order on custody, and this is not unusual. So another of your myths debunked.
Plus the woman gets the house and the guy has to stump up maintenance payments and possibly still Mortgage repayments etc. So it's no different to how it's been in the past few decades, the guy gets done over while the women gets placed in a commanding position. The guy just has to the woman may see a need to have him take the children off her hands here & there or may even have a streak of compassion, neither are something a guy would ideally like to take a gamble on. Otherwise he is there either on the streets or in a bedsit unless real wealthy having to pay any money he can and potentially living a miserable isolated life.
In most jurisdictions, if there is 50/50 custody, maintenance is paid to even out child support. They will both have maintenance obligations. The equity in matrimonial homes is divided equally. So if a woman retains the home, it's because the ex has agreed she should stay there for the sake of the children, and he'll get his equity out when it is sold, or she has bought out his equity. Most of the time, the house is sold, as without both parents there, one can't afford to keep it.
If you look up 'Fathers for Justice' website online they exist for a reason, lots of guys been screwed over by the system like that in this country.
There are corresponding sites for women.
-
Take a given guy and a given judge and if that judge doesn't like something about that guy [attitude or something he says]...the case starts going south for him fast and that is a given.
Sure. But I think the 'bias' perceived that men always get the shaft in these divorces are 'mostly' because it is the 'men' who usually are the higher earners in a divorcing marriages. Or even the sole bread winner...
These anecdotes I'll share are certainly more the exception/s than the rule. Both here in LA:
1. Wifey's old boss (she) is an equity-partner from her old employer. She was earning $450K annually. Her hubby were earning about $110K. She filed for a divorce because 'she wanted to retire early and believed since her hubby hadn't been as ambitious as she had been during their 24 years of marriage, that he'll just be a burden on her retirement plans. Their 3 kids (2 in their 20s, one 18 years and in college). Anyway, long story short, they divorced, sold and split the equity of their 3 million dollar home. Both moved unto their own respective apartments. She had to pay him a hefty alimony. She had to pay for their son's university expense and boarding. So not sure how she got ahead on her retirement doing it this way.
She got in a no-fault auto accident not too long ago totaling her car. When the insurance payment amount was agreed to, her attorney told her she'll likely need to split that settlement with her ex. LMAO.
2. The other case was one of wifey's Russian girlfriend. This was the coupe were the hubby had millions wiped out heavily trading when the financial collapse happened. Broke them. She never worked prior to that, and decided to follow in my wife's footsteps and went into accounting. She became an auditor, while her hubby spent the last amounts of money feeling sorry for himself and not even tried to seek other means of income. He started drinking, she started to work and support the family (they have one kid). He became abusive (emotionally/verbally). They divorce, she was instructed by the court to pay him alimony because he had 'zero' source of income.
Crazy, but these things do happen.
-
This is because women do the overwhelming amount of childcare, even when both partners have full time jobs of equal income and equal responsibilty/time. Men aren't signing their children up for soccer games, hockey games, arranging playdates, buying clothing, etc.
Wrong. 50/50 is the default. How that 50/50 is arranged is up to the parents.
This is obviously posted by someone who has never raised a child.
Wrong. As I posted, only 4% of cases in the US go before the courts. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the parties agree to the custody arrangements they have. Parental alienation is rare, but a mother in my province was jailed for breaching a court order on custody, and this is not unusual. So another of your myths debunked.
In most jurisdictions, if there is 50/50 custody, maintenance is paid to even out child support. They will both have maintenance obligations. The equity in matrimonial homes is divided equally. So if a woman retains the home, it's because the ex has agreed she should stay there for the sake of the children, and he'll get his equity out when it is sold, or she has bought out his equity. Most of the time, the house is sold, as without both parents there, one can't afford to keep it.
There are corresponding sites for women.
Boe you're trying to take snippets of the system and paint a picture that all is fair with it. The whole picture is a lot different. I can only speak for the UK as I know the country I grew up in well, other guys in the US, Aus, etc, tell me it is the same. As said in the UK the 50/50 shared custody is assumed at the outset but if it goes to a family court the woman gets the majority share or total custody of the children on the basis of gender. There is no saying that the woman does do the majority of the childcare or that the man would not be able to do it. I know many cases where the man does the majority of the childcare, increasingly common these days as a lot of women are increasingly not up to it, why? They are more interested in materialistic things, clothes, eating out, entertainment, socialising, etc and/or just aren't up to it mentally. Personally I would say it's more of a genetic issue on whether a man or woman has better childcare/nuturing nature.
Now rarely here does the guy agree the ex can have the house and he walks. If you Google the situation here it makes it very clear that the primary carer gets the house, the primary carer almost always being awarded to the woman if she takes it to the family court. A guy has to be careful that he doesn't give parental rights to any new woman if he has kids as a single father as if he does so again she can take the house. The whole system here is set up to deprive the father at every given opportunity if possible.
I don't know of any female equivalent of Father's for Justice here in the UK perhaps you could name one.
A lot of the time the guy is going to be screwed over if not straight away then eventually. For example a guy may come to an accommodation with his ex. She stays in the house they agree on who pays what and he gets to see the kids at times mutually beneficial to both. The guy is relieved not to have to do the childcare so much but spend recreation time with the child while the mother enjoys doing the childcare. All great, or so is thought until another guy pops up on the scene, turns out the ex has taken up with a new guy. All of a sudden the father becomes a nuisance as he is now an unwelcome interruption. The ex has a new guy so he is no longer needed as they can handle the kids between them. The new guy is also able to throw his money in so again the Father is pushed out of a necessary role. So the new guy ends up lodging in another man's family and the ex may even start trying to get the kids to call him their father. Their real father is cast out and his role has in effect ended up as just that if a sperm donor, a very unhappy and unpleasant place for him to be. That is a scenario that happens many times in the UK and likely elsewhere in the west. The guy unfortunately really does often have an inferior hand.
-
you're trying to take snippets of the system and paint a picture
Funny, that’s exactly what you’re doing.
The whole picture is a lot different. I can only speak for the UK as I know the country I grew up in well,
No, you can’t and you don’t. All you know is what you read in the gutter press and on your Incel sites. You take isolated cases and extrapolate a generalised women hating perspective which has no basis in fact or law but panders to your own bias.
other guys in the US, Aus, etc, tell me it is the same.
You’re beginning to take after Moby now, with his entourage of friends.
As said in the UK the 50/50 shared custody is assumed....................Trench blah blah blahI would say it's more of a genetic issue on whether a man.....
Trench, don’t engage with women or even think of getting hitched. There’s no point.
Being forever suspicious of women’s motives does not and will not a happy marriage make.
You’ll always be thinking that she only married you for the visa, or looking out for the better option to dump you for or she’s out to take your house, your kids, your collection of porn stashed under your mattress, your Pot of pennies hidden in the basement, and so on.
Just buy one of those life size dolls. You’ll never have any trouble there. It’ll always do what what you want, never talk back or have an opinion or cost you anything.
-
Just buy one of those life size dolls. You’ll never have any trouble there. It’ll always do what what you want, never talk back or have an opinion or cost you anything.
My Dream Girl...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2W9aISYBJXY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2W9aISYBJXY)
yep yep and a Hot Dream Girl
-
My Dream Girl...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2W9aISYBJXY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2W9aISYBJXY)
yep yep and a Hot Dream Girl
Funny that doll looks like a lot of the girls on Tinder here in the UK, I would barely be able to tell them apart lol :D