Obama's Government Mandated Birth Control

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

azstarnet.com/news/opinion/obama-has-hoodwinked-you-on-birth-control/article_a0726676-3e77-553d-a606-383cca054d7d.html

www.examiner.com/catholic-issues-in-detroit/the-catholic-crisis-and-government-mandated-birth-control



More socialism and a reason to not hire women. Obama wants to give women free birth control, and wants the companies to pay for it. Just wonderful. Of course men don't get this, and we'll have to pay for the higher insurance. Why is the government trying to force companies to give employees free stuff? Don't they learn it just hurts people in the long run.

[navycorpsman]

I think what will happen, is that certain religious institutions or religious affiliated, will stop offering health insurance at all. When this whole thing blew up, I saw a woman who is a graduate student at a major Catholic university, claiming she could not afford the $30 per month for her birth control pills. How interesting... wonder if it occurred to her to not attend a university funded by the Catholic church, if she does not follow the Catholic faith?

As for men and birth control, they're still working on the Male Pill, a simple once every three months and you become sterile. I've often thought it would be a good idea, under today's draconian laws about child support, for a man to have his sperm frozen and pay the fee to keep it frozen, then get a vasectomy. Even if he does then marry, he can choose to have a child, but it'll only be on his agreement, not possible for an 'accident'.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

This is what will happen, people will just find ways around it. The government shouldn't be dipping their noses into other people's business.

I hope the male pill turns out right and works great, it'll be the next step to freeing men and removing the absurd monopoly that women have with childbirth. Now we just have to do something about these other laws...

[navycorpsman]

Well, consider this:

The history of the marriage license dates back to the late 1860s, from what I understand, it was originated to disallow or stop miscegenation laws in the former Confederate states. This may be incorrect, but it was the result of a fast Google search. Think on this, however... what would happen if the states each got out of the marriage business, and only registered marriages, and did not enforce them as a legal contract? What would happen then? And what if each state required DNA testing of prospective father to newborn child, with the provision that the results were legally admissible in a court? Not a DNA profile, so the conspiracy theorists would not freak out, but a simple set of tests that could rule out a man as the father, regardless of marital status...

Lastly, alimony just ends, because the state is no longer enforcing a contract. Of course, we know that women would scream bloody murder, but since women are much more easily employed now, this should encourage women to remain in the workplace after marriage, thus enriching the total income of the union. Divorce becomes a simple affair where 50% of assets acquired during the marriage are split, including houses. Child support would also require the custodial parent to provide proof of adequate care, regardless of gender, and could be reduced OR INCREASED by court order, on the simple proof of income, tax statements, etc.

I'm not even going address the false rape allegations, or the women who commit crimes then get out of jail free because of a claimed mental problem. Those issues will probably never go away completely, they are a part of this screwed up society we live in. Similarly, I'm not going to touch the child custody laws and policies, those will probably always be biased towards the mother.

By the way, check out the wikipedia entry on surrogate motherhood. In India, it's now possible for you to pay between $10-20,000 US dollars and a woman will carry a child for you (or for you and your wife) and deliver, with all rights as parent(s) going to you. It's fast becoming a huge business, and the law in India has become very supportive of the practice.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Feb 18, 2012 23:03:47 GMT -5 navycorpsman said:

Well, consider this:

The history of the marriage license dates back to the late 1860s, from what I understand, it was originated to disallow or stop miscegenation laws in the former Confederate states. This may be incorrect, but it was the result of a fast Google search. Think on this, however... what would happen if the states each got out of the marriage business, and only registered marriages, and did not enforce them as a legal contract? What would happen then? And what if each state required DNA testing of prospective father to newborn child, with the provision that the results were legally admissible in a court? Not a DNA profile, so the conspiracy theorists would not freak out, but a simple set of tests that could rule out a man as the father, regardless of marital status...

Lastly, alimony just ends, because the state is no longer enforcing a contract. Of course, we know that women would scream bloody murder, but since women are much more easily employed now, this should encourage women to remain in the workplace after marriage, thus enriching the total income of the union. Divorce becomes a simple affair where 50% of assets acquired during the marriage are split, including houses. Child support would also require the custodial parent to provide proof of adequate care, regardless of gender, and could be reduced OR INCREASED by court order, on the simple proof of income, tax statements, etc.

I'm not even going address the false rape allegations, or the women who commit crimes then get out of jail free because of a claimed mental problem. Those issues will probably never go away completely, they are a part of this screwed up society we live in. Similarly, I'm not going to touch the child custody laws and policies, those will probably always be biased towards the mother.

By the way, check out the wikipedia entry on surrogate motherhood. In India, it's now possible for you to pay between $10-20,000 US dollars and a woman will carry a child for you (or for you and your wife) and deliver, with all rights as parent(s) going to you. It's fast becoming a huge business, and the law in India has become very supportive of the practice.

Hmmm, to stop mixed couples eh? I'll have to look into that, but it could have some truth.

I think the state needs to get out of marriage like most things, and it wouldn't be this business now that subjugates men. And DNA should be admissible, it's a shame it's banned. These things would remove the monopoly women have in childbirth and marriage, they'd be pissed because they'd lose the only cards they have, the state, and using children as a tool.

I believe if a person divorces they just take what they came in with, otherwise it just becomes stealing. I would argue differently if someone was in the wrong, but women cheat and steal everything anyways.

Unfortunately marriage isn't for men nowadays. Men marry now mainly because they think they'll get laid more often and have a built-in roommate, which is why you see lower income people having kids more often and marrying younger, they see it as an investment portfolio. People who become successful know to hold off on that for a while or do it much later, to keep the burden down. Men who think that moving in will save them money are mistaken. Only if they are working at some low end job and need to team up to pay the rent would it help, and even then a man can just get a roommate.

In the past the man kept the child after a divorce, and women were not encouraged to go around and do what they want. Now they can kill their husband and children and be rewarded for it. Even sleep with underage boys, while a man would be burned at the stake for doing so. It's gotten ridiculous.

[navycorpsman]

But, of course, you know that men going their own way are merely man-boys having a snit about the changing gender roles. Or they're too bitter and consumed by hatred because of a bad divorce.

God forbid that men have opinions about their rights being abrogated or their gender roles being reduced to that of money machine. Much of the reason for 'patriarchy' was to reinforce the weakest pair-bond in the nuclear family, that between a male and his child. Few man would ever argue that he could match the bond between a mother and her child. Now that we've managed to destroy that father-child bond at the arbitrary whim of the mother in 70-90% of divorces, we've managed to also destroy those children's chances at life success, if the statistics are to be believed.

In my life, I've always admired people who came from broken homes, who turned out to be 'good' people. I've seen too many times, the devastation that divorce causes, for children in the middle of it all. To deal with all that, and still turn out to be good decent human beings, is a sign of great character, at least to me.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Feb 19, 2012 15:51:06 GMT -5 navycorpsman said:

But, of course, you know that men going their own way are merely man-boys having a snit about the changing gender roles. Or they're too bitter and consumed by hatred because of a bad divorce.

God forbid that men have opinions about their rights being abrogated or their gender roles being reduced to that of money machine. Much of the reason for 'patriarchy' was to reinforce the weakest pair-bond in the nuclear family, that between a male and his child. Few man would ever argue that he could match the bond between a mother and her child. Now that we've managed to destroy that father-child bond at the arbitrary whim of the mother in 70-90% of divorces, we've managed to also destroy those children's chances at life success, if the statistics are to be believed.

In my life, I've always admired people who came from broken homes, who turned out to be 'good' people. I've seen too many times, the devastation that divorce causes, for children in the middle of it all. To deal with all that, and still turn out to be good decent human beings, is a sign of great character, at least to me.

Some people just use shaming language when they have nothing else. Whether a man is a virgin or has been divorced has nothing to do with the issue.

Family and monogamy was never natural, it was to build society by using the man's work with the woman's sex and reproduction. Women used their sex and children as a tool to extract money and resources from men.

The female bond thing is interesting to me since they kill and abuse their children more, not to mention abort.

I grew up dirt poor in Miss. which has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the nation. Nothing but poverty and nonsense. People in jail, dropping out of schools. Women don't do very well raising kids into society, especially boys. This is because men built the civilization so they are accustomed to knowing how the world really works. After all we don't get the shielding women do, even in poor countries.

[navycorpsman]

Well, I meant in a regular nuclear family, the kind of family society is attempting to destroy, so far successfully. The concept is that women carry the child in their womb for nine months, therefore there is a bond there that men cannot have. But you're right, there are women who have killed their kids. They also seem to be the murderers that society hates the most, so when they get light sentences (if actually found guilty) people get really upset.

They're usually the ones that plead insanity or diminished capacity, because people don't want to believe a sane woman would kill her kids to get her ex-husband back. [/sarcasm]

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Feb 20, 2012 0:12:33 GMT -5 navycorpsman said:

Well, I meant in a regular nuclear family, the kind of family society is attempting to destroy, so far successfully. The concept is that women carry the child in their womb for nine months, therefore there is a bond there that men cannot have. But you're right, there are women who have killed their kids. They also seem to be the murderers that society hates the most, so when they get light sentences (if actually found guilty) people get really upset.

They're usually the ones that plead insanity or diminished capacity, because people don't want to believe a sane woman would kill her kids to get her ex-husband back. [/sarcasm]

Oxytocin bonding? Humans get it during sex and when children are born. It's what people call "falling in love" it's there to ensure the survival of people in children. It bonds man to women and children so he'll be eager to support her. It's nature at work. Women can't really survive on their own without relying on the efforts of men, much less raise children. Men bond with them to ensure their survival. Thing is, women depended on men in the past, and also raised their children in a village type setup with nothing but women (now you know why women are herd creatures, they depend on it to survive). Civilization made it a full time job in exchange for sex and access to children. In the past it was hard to know if a kid was a man's, which took away his interest in supporting them.

Unless a man does it. You just don't hear about men killing their children often, it would be unthinkable. Not to mention abortions. Women in the US have had over 50 million in a short amount of time, hence why I think a "woman's love" is a myth. Some people bond, and some don't. Women killing their husbands get a light sentence too.

That's why I find it odd women get the kid based off of "woman's love" nowadays seeing as they do the most killing, abuse, and kidnapping. People are actually confused about these things. People see predators and abusers as men, and want to label us, when it is actually women.

[Coolest thing Alive]

A cheap and effective way prevent abortions and cut down on costs is all this is, so I don't really care. Rather have the pill be free than for chicks to have shoitys runnin around drainin the system.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Feb 26, 2012 23:17:23 GMT -5 Coolest thing Alive said:

This saves money by preventing abortions, so I don't really care.

It doesn't save anything, as the ones who weren't getting birth control were just too irresponsible to do it to begin with. Who knows if they'll even use it now? They've had planned parenthood with free birth control for ages. The ones who are just popping out kids recklessly are just trash and living off of the system.

It's not the job of the company and the government to provide women's birth control, it's their job. What about men? What about women who can't have kids? We're all being forced to pay for what is essentially more welfare, for women... as usual. This money comes from somewhere. As hiring women becomes more expensive, less will be hired. I don't have to work at a job, but if I did I'd just take my paycheck and spend it on what I want, vs the government mandate the company pay me with stuff I don't want and reducing my check.

Oh and the cost of birth control will skyrocket, just like anything else the government pays for. It doesn't make it cheaper, it makes it more costly. The birth control industry is going to make a killing off of this.

[Coolest thing Alive]

It saves alot, actually. Despite popular belief, the pill is already purdy damn cheap. I've phucked with quite a few bitches who're on it. It goes like this, would you rather pay for the pill or the abortion procedure? Don't leave it up to the chick who needs the gov to step in, in the 1st place. She can't afford either, which means she just got kids she can't afford, which is no good for us all.

So I urge the gov to keep givin those pills to these people who shouldn't be havin kids. Not every government hand out...is a hand out. Heh heh.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Feb 27, 2012 0:00:06 GMT -5 Coolest thing Alive said:

It saves alot, actually. Despite popular belief, the pill is already purdy damn cheap. I've phucked with quite a few bitches who're on it. It goes like this, would you rather pay for the pill or the abortion procedure? Don't leave it up to the chick who needs the gov to step in, in the 1st place. She can't afford either, which means she just got kids she can't afford, which is no good for us all.

So I urge the gov to keep givin those pills to these people who shouldn't be havin kids. Not every government hand out...is a hand out. Heh heh.

It doesn't for the same reason that food stamps doesn't save any costs it encourages more bad behavior. The women who are irresponsible are going to have kids to milk the system anyways. Giving them free birth control (which they can already get) won't make a difference.

The pill is cheaper when it is subsidized. Make it "free" and people are not going to be more responsible, but less. If you are paying for something, you'll find something you can afford that's best for you. You'll then use it. Make it free, and people aren't going to shop around, they are going to take the most expensive option, forcing the price up, this is the same thing that happened with the school system... again.

Women DO NOT have kids unless they want to. A woman who does not want to have kids will not have one. A woman who has a kid does it because she wants to, not other reason. It's in her own interest at the expense of a man or the government. Women rarely foot the bill entirely on themselves unless they are Halle Berry or something.

And no, I don't want to pay for ANYONE else's birth control, it's not my job. People need to be responsible for themselves. Voting the government in to control more stuff just makes them larger and more powerful anyways. This not only steals from men, but from women who can't have children, and from business owners.

The employer will just find a way to take it from a woman's payment in one form or another, because it will cost him more money. Don't believe for a second they won't. This will cost women money and jobs for their short sightedness. Why hire women who already don't work as long or as well as men, and then pay them more with things like maternity leave and free birth control? Companies are already struggling to hire more people, this also pushes businesses overseas.


Many side affects you are overlooking. Women who are that stupid and irresponsible are going to keep doing what they are doing.

I don't want to pay for either. The reason we have this fucking mess is because the government subsidizes it. It pisses me off. Cut off the government handouts and watch this problem end.

[Coolest thing Alive]

Feb 27, 2012 0:12:35 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

Feb 27, 2012 0:00:06 GMT -5 Coolest thing Alive said:

It saves alot, actually. Despite popular belief, the pill is already purdy damn cheap. I've phucked with quite a few bitches who're on it. It goes like this, would you rather pay for the pill or the abortion procedure? Don't leave it up to the chick who needs the gov to step in, in the 1st place. She can't afford either, which means she just got kids she can't afford, which is no good for us all.

So I urge the gov to keep givin those pills to these people who shouldn't be havin kids. Not every government hand out...is a hand out. Heh heh.

It doesn't for the same reason that food stamps doesn't save any costs it encourages more bad behavior. The women who are irresponsible are going to have kids to milk the system anyways. Giving them free birth control (which they can already get) won't make a difference.

The pill is cheaper when it is subsidized. Make it "free" and people are not going to be more responsible, but less. If you are paying for something, you'll find something you can afford that's best for you. You'll then use it. Make it free, and people aren't going to shop around, they are going to take the most expensive option, forcing the price up, this is the same thing that happened with the school system... again.

Women DO NOT have kids unless they want to. A woman who does not want to have kids will not have one. A woman who has a kid does it because she wants to, not other reason. It's in her own interest at the expense of a man or the government. Women rarely foot the bill entirely on themselves unless they are Halle Berry or something.

And no, I don't want to pay for ANYONE else's birth control, it's not my job. People need to be responsible for themselves. Voting the government in to control more stuff just makes them larger and more powerful anyways. This not only steals from men, but from women who can't have children, and from business owners.

The employer will just find a way to take it from a woman's payment in one form or another, because it will cost him more money. Don't believe for a second they won't. This will cost women money and jobs for their short sightedness. Why hire women who already don't work as long or as well as men, and then pay them more with things like maternity leave and free birth control? Companies are already struggling to hire more people, this also pushes businesses overseas.


Many side affects you are overlooking. Women who are that stupid and irresponsible are going to keep doing what they are doing.

I don't want to pay for either. The reason we have this fucking mess is because the government subsidizes it. It pisses me off. Cut off the government handouts and watch this problem end.

You're makin this out to be more than what it really is. You don't have to worry about the stuff you're worryin about. You can actually go to a GNC and create a make shift "pill". In this regard, trust me, they know what they're doin. Republicans would do the same thing if they were in power and the Democrats would complain about it just to play politics, as well.

The pill is already really cheap, like crack cocaine cheap, even poor people can afford the pill. Handin it out like this is just a really slick way of makin people more aware of it and makin it and "acceptable". It encourages bad behavior, I know. But lust is somethin society has already given up on tryin to control a long time ago.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Feb 27, 2012 0:26:07 GMT -5 Coolest thing Alive said:

Feb 27, 2012 0:12:35 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

It doesn't for the same reason that food stamps doesn't save any costs it encourages more bad behavior. The women who are irresponsible are going to have kids to milk the system anyways. Giving them free birth control (which they can already get) won't make a difference.

The pill is cheaper when it is subsidized. Make it "free" and people are not going to be more responsible, but less. If you are paying for something, you'll find something you can afford that's best for you. You'll then use it. Make it free, and people aren't going to shop around, they are going to take the most expensive option, forcing the price up, this is the same thing that happened with the school system... again.

Women DO NOT have kids unless they want to. A woman who does not want to have kids will not have one. A woman who has a kid does it because she wants to, not other reason. It's in her own interest at the expense of a man or the government. Women rarely foot the bill entirely on themselves unless they are Halle Berry or something.

And no, I don't want to pay for ANYONE else's birth control, it's not my job. People need to be responsible for themselves. Voting the government in to control more stuff just makes them larger and more powerful anyways. This not only steals from men, but from women who can't have children, and from business owners.

The employer will just find a way to take it from a woman's payment in one form or another, because it will cost him more money. Don't believe for a second they won't. This will cost women money and jobs for their short sightedness. Why hire women who already don't work as long or as well as men, and then pay them more with things like maternity leave and free birth control? Companies are already struggling to hire more people, this also pushes businesses overseas.


Many side affects you are overlooking. Women who are that stupid and irresponsible are going to keep doing what they are doing.

I don't want to pay for either. The reason we have this fucking mess is because the government subsidizes it. It pisses me off. Cut off the government handouts and watch this problem end.

You're makin this out to be more than what it really is. You don't have to worry about the stuff you're worryin about. You can actually go to a GNC and create a make shift "pill". In this regard, trust me, they know what they're doin. Republicans would do the same thing if they were in power and the Democrats would complain about it just to play politics, as well.

The pill is already really cheap, like crack cocaine cheap, even poor people can afford the pill. Handin it out like this is just a really slick way of makin people more aware of it and makin it and "acceptable". It encourages bad behavior, I know. But lust is somethin society has already given up on tryin to control a long time ago.

If poor people can afford it, then why make it free? I'm sorry, I don't like socialism. It's stupid. The government is broke and it continues to force things like this to business owners (like myself) throats. This why I don't like it, it makes business more expensive to run. Why is it my job to provide a woman with her birth control? They can get it at planned parenthood anyways, lol I'm concerned because it affects me.

And no, that isn't why it's done, the government wants to get their hands into business and keep passing money to losers in exchange for votes, amongst other things. Who doesn't know about birth control? I did as a kid. People in poor areas do too, kids brag about this stuff at 15. We did not have this issue about out of wedlock births and divorces before. 100 years ago, we didn't even have the powerful birth control we do now, and divorce rate was 1%, and out of wedlock births were rare because it was looked down upon. Now that the government funds this nonsense, which it shouldn't, we have more out of wedlock births than ever. In some areas single motherhood is 70%, it's bad for society and it's bad for us. Divorce rate is like 60%. So we did not always have this problem with people popping out children.


Lust has nothing to do with it. You can go out and have sex without popping out kids. How come this is only prevalent in poorer areas? Stupidity, laziness, and entitlement that's why. You're talking to a person who was born in Mississippi, which has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the nation, women are living off of welfare and have 4 kids at the age of 20. Why do you think that is? Because they get a free meal ticket at other people's expense.

This has so many problems with it, that you aren't seeing the whole scope. Republican and Democrat don't matter at this point, they are two sides of the same bad coin.

[Coolest thing Alive]

Jesus Christ man! You are a one fearful individual aint you?! Also Lmbao at the pill being the reason for more divorces and children being born out of wedlock. Maybe we should be like the fools in Europe and just let everyone have kids and allow the gov to raise'em for us. Their divorce and outta wedlock birth rates are far lower than ours, too.

Fact is, birth control is cheaper than babies. Way cheaper. Gov covers the pill so they don't have to cover hospital bills. In a perfect world, the gov wouldn't cover either and leave it up to the parents, but we don't live in a perfect world.

Also, I bring up parties cuz everything you just said is a republican talkin point. Old rich white folks say the same thing.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Feb 27, 2012 15:23:57 GMT -5 Coolest thing Alive said:

Jesus Christ man! You are a one fearful individual aint you?! Also Lmbao at the pill being the reason for more divorces and children being born out of wedlock. Maybe we should be like the fools in Europe and just let everyone have kids and allow the gov to raise'em for us. Their divorce and outta wedlock birth rates are far lower than ours, too.

Fact is, birth control is cheaper than babies. Way cheaper. Gov covers the pill so they don't have to cover hospital bills. In a perfect world, the gov wouldn't cover either and leave it up to the parents, but we don't live in a perfect world.

Also, I bring up parties cuz everything you just said is a republican talkin point. Old rich white folks say the same thing.

Fearful? I'm not the one on here talking about conspiracies. Not fearful, honest. The government is bigger and bigger and pushing more of their crap down our throats. Did you miss the many companies collapse and the ones that moved out the country? This is a reality.

No, you need to pay attention to what I'm saying, I said the government funding women and subsidizing single motherhood and giving them incentives to divorce are the reasons the rates are so high, that's a simple fact. Single motherhood skyrocketed once we had welfare for them. We are having the government raise and train and brainwash the kids, with no father there is no family, the government controls it, hence whey they want to break it up. We already have government schools, government funding, government jobs. Who is raising the kid? It damn sure isn't the single mother. Which by the way single mother children make up 80% of inmates. Look at the black community after welfare and the massive mess that caused. This same stuff happened before in Russia, it's the same feminist/socialist slant that people just don't see.

In Europe the percentage of single mothers skyrocketed with welfare, that's a fact. It's a fact worldwide. Welfare has never, ever shortened the rate of single mothers, ever.

The government doesn't need to cover anything, when was it their job to mandate birth control? The government didn't cover either in the past and we had a lower rate of out of wedlock births and divorces. Do you not understand what that means? Back generations ago the out of wedlock rate was in the single digits. If a woman doesn't have the government funding it, she's less likely to have a baby. It's like the college tuition thing. The government isn't there making college more affordable by giving out loans. They are making a bigger mess and making the problem worse. Don't mix the cause and the effect.

Making business/government give welfare to women (yet again) makes birth control cost more. It also costs men more, business owners more, and women who don't have any children more. The people who cash in are the birth control and insurance agencies.

Your entire point doesn't make sense. Women can already get free birth control and the ones who aren't are the ones who are simply too irresponsible to use it, these are women in the poorer economic scale.

I'm bringing up socialism because minorities and women feel the government is a big tit/sugar daddy that everyone can keep leeching off of. Anybody with sense would agree with me, and that includes productive people in the black community.

People who are poor love big government because it allows them to steal from others to get things they didn't work for. People who are successful/more accomplish hate it because it makes everything worse and steals from everyone. Race isn't an issue other than the fact that white people have more money on average.

This is why I said the majority of people backing Obama were poor/women/black, because those are the ones who expect a free ride, and this is coming from a black person. If you feel people don't abuse the system you are naive or just ignoring it. By the way it is easy for you to support this as it isn't coming out of your pocket. People who don't have much to lose love to share or spend other's money. Another problem with Democracy. As far as the political parties go, they're both garbage at this point. So I don't care about where they affiliate themselves.

By the way I'm not saying people need to be "married" to have sex, and be a bible thumper. I think marriage is bad for men and always has been (you must have not seen me say that). My point is just that single motherhood is bad for the kids, and society in general, and giving women money to make stupid decisions causes more of these problems. Your argument isn't taking into account personal responsibility. Women have over a dozen forms of birth control, from cheap to expensive, plus planned parenthood, clinics, etc. Abortions and morning after pill. If she doesn't take it it's because she CHOSE not to, and making it free at a job won't change anything. The government doesn't do things for the average person's benefit or the poor and stupid they exploit, they have their own agenda, hence why they keep encouraging women to pop out kids by handing them over a check.

[atdsutm]

thats why i cant take feminism seriously

i saw a vid of Ozzy Osbourne's wife sharon in her own talk show, and she was talking about a guy's penis getting cut off for being an ass and laughs about it, if it is a female's breasts get cut off for her being an as im sure the show would have already been cut off.

but i wouldn't agree with men marrying women to get laid more often, sometimes its just about business and future investments on children. and sometimes because of women pressuring marriage to men with a certain ransom.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Apr 18, 2012 8:26:36 GMT -5 atdsutm said:

thats why i cant take feminism seriously

i saw a vid of Ozzy Osbourne's wife sharon in her own talk show, and she was talking about a guy's penis getting cut off for being an ass and laughs about it, if it is a female's breasts get cut off for her being an as im sure the show would have already been cut off.

but i wouldn't agree with men marrying women to get laid more often, sometimes its just about business and future investments on children. and sometimes because of women pressuring marriage to men with a certain ransom.

Yea, feminism was about the hatred and subjugation of men the "oppressors" who live shorter lives and die in battle so women don't have to.


And no, *all* men don't marry to get laid more often, but a large percentage of men get married, move in with their girlfriends, or have a girlfriend in the first place for that reason. Most people aren't thinking about kids when they meet a woman, women are looking for a wallet.

The truth is, that men can get everything married by being un-married and single and not have to deal with a n evil system. There is no reason to have any commitment to a woman in this day and age, except for family, and the laws are skewed as hell.

People who are higher income simply aren't shacking up and moving in at a fast rate, at least until they're older. They don't need to as they don't need to split the rent. Women who are super poor aren't as worried about marriage, because there's no reason to marry a low income man when you can have the government fund you and sleep with who you want. Marriage has pretty much had a sex for money prostitution angle to it. The average man is monogamous because he has little choice on getting consistent sex otherwise. You have a small percentage of men (like 10%) who can have sex whenever they want low strings attached, it's just the way nature works.

[atdsutm]

can i quote your posts when im going to use them as arguments to other people

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Apr 19, 2012 2:58:20 GMT -5 atdsutm said:

can i quote your posts when im going to use them as arguments to other people

What do you mean? Like quote my posts when you argue with others?

[atdsutm]

yup lol

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Apr 19, 2012 21:57:02 GMT -5 atdsutm said:

yup lol

Sure, no problem at all.