I'm sorry to break it to you, but it's fact that for the traditional "real" marriage, the woman was to be a virgin, it is what the white dress is all about. You don't think it was white for just some random shade for the occasion, do you?
Well that was the thing, society was not as sexually active as we are now.
I don't agree with marriage either, not only because it betrays the whole original concept of it, which makes it pointless. Why go through a ceremony that you have not thought a big enough deal of to stay by the concept of it?
Not only that, a piece of paper doesn't change the relationship at all, so why bother get married? It changes nothing, you get nothing from the original concept because nobody goes by in nowadays, so there is no benefit at all.
I didn't say it was better at all, nor will I ever. I am simply stating "that" was the idea of it, the real concept of it. Going by that concept in today's world isn't beneficial, but going by only half of that concept, as a man, and not getting the part the husband would get from it, it just makes it pointless for men more so.
What does marital rape have to do with the concept of marriage...? Even if we did keep to that concept, the things that did happen from time to time, be it marital rape, etc, would not happen today due to gender stereotypes not being in place, so a woman would be able to get out of that situation if someone does it. So again, I see no point in trying to make a big emotional response by including something like rape.
That is like me saying "Are you a vegetarian? No!? Well how would you feel if people slaughtered your family and sold it as food for others! Wouldn't like it, would you!?"
That's basically what you have done.
Yes, because being educated enough to know what the original concept of marriage was means I "can't get a woman". What is it with this gender narcissism? Seriously, I keep hearing this. If someone says something a woman doesn't like to hear, even when they have said a "fact" that is not an opinion, but a fact, then the reason is that they cannot get a woman or a woman has hurt them.
It is not "anti-woman" to talk about women, even when I wasn't talking about women as the primary topic, you think I am anti-woman because you read something you dislike.
But for the record, no, I do not have a female partner, in my time I have had two. One was when I was pretty young, a tester, and the second was for a skateboard.
However "getting" a woman and "having" a woman are two different things. I have had people interested more times than I am sure you have had people "interested" in you.
I have been complimented many times on my appearance and figure. So much so that I have even been sexually harassed by multiple people by females in different areas (I move around more than a gypsy).
I even got a brand new phone off of a girl just because she had a crush on me.
One that even you will probably not believe, is that I have had a prostitute have a crush on me and ask to pay "me" for sex. Of course, I declined, but we are some-what friends now.
There are many situations that if I got project to you this second, you would find the irony in it.
A woman must of hurt me? Not really. Sure there has been one or two, but not in any sense of romance or other reasons that deviate from what men have also done. If anything, I have been a victim of men more than the average Joe. So by your reasoning, I should hate men, but I don't, because unlike what you assume of people, a few bad situations do not give me the right to paint everyone with the same brush.
(I have a picture on my profile)
As for the stronger thing, if that was a joke, ignore what I am going to say, as there really is not reason to read it, but then again the curiousity of people knows no bounds, so this whole paragraph is pretty pointless. Anyway, onwards.
You are the weaker sense in every physical sense, that will never change, it is biology. Women are not getting any stronger than their body limits have always been.
On to the part where you say you could probably kick my ass, that is very unlikely based on you being a woman and myself being a man. Biology dictates I would win, as most men would against a woman in hand to hand combat.
As for me as an individual, I am not the grand champion or anything, but people tend to underestimate me in the physical aspect. I don't give off aggression in the physical sense, so some assume (mainly online, only happened once in reality, which I am getting to) that I am weak, however I have not lost a fight so far, maybe one day I will, but I don't go out looking for fights, so I don't know if I will even have another.
I have had two people put their hand on my friend's throat, and after I tried to civilly defuse the situation, the person started on me. One thing led to another, and he hit me. This was someone known as "the tough guy on the block", the bullying type. I ended up breaking his jaw, all while his friend was also helping him. I got charged with assault regardless of being attacked by two people due to doing far more damage than I should of.
Again, when I was sixteen/seventeen, I beat my mother's boyfriend who was/is (don't know if he still is) a guard for the crazy house.
It ended with my hands around his throat and his face blue and crying. He was mid thirties, I was not even an adult.
I don't usually explain such things unless the topic comes up or someone implies physical threat.
The key word being traditional! I never disputed anything about the white dress being a sign of purity. My issue is that traditional does not mean correct!
My point about marital rape was not to get an emotional response but to show that traditionally, women in marriages were property of their husbands who can do whatever they like to their wives! Because that was the tradition is it right?
On a different note I seriously doubt you've had more people interested in you than I've had pursue me. Though your a relatively pretty little boy :) but you do go on a bit!
Actually, yes it does, because the tradition of it was the "original" and "correct" way of it.
The tradition of the whole ceremony is the same of what we have today, except without meaning due to nobody going by the traditional sense. They have a traditional ceremony, but not the respect for the tradition.
No, don't get in to this whole feminist mind set. Feeding in to such feminist garbage makes you close-minded, so you would do your best not to buy in to it.
No, marital rape was not the norm. Yes, it happened, but not nearly as much as feminism has tried to make it seem.
You also know that husbands were responsible for their wives once upon a time? If the wife done something wrong/criminal, the husband would be given some, or even most of the responsibility for not ensuring she doesn't do such things.
Then there is the whole thing where a man being abused by his wife would be laughed at and shamed.
That was not the tradition at all, that was what "some" done inside the tradition that the tradition does not support, that doesn't make it part of the "tradition" at all.
You may not think so, it is your right to believe what you wish, however that doesn't make you correct.
I do go on a bit? As in I talk the point a lot? This place is an area of debate and description. I talk the point adressed, which is the point of the site. Assuming that such topics come up in reality just as much is a bit off.
No you read my words but then make sweeping statements. I never said abuse was or is the norm I said that it was the norm for a women to become property of her husband.
You do speak some sense but in a quite long winded way!
You really believe that the actual ceremony is exactly the same? Tradition and stories change and develop as they are passed on. Even written traditions change through translation.
Very few people would be as closed minded as to laugh at a man who's been abused by a women but the victimised man may believe that would be the result.
I am in no way a feminist! I'm a realist.
That said, I do enjoy reading the opinions and replying to a person of intelligence :)
You implied it. You said, and I quote:
" traditionally, women in marriages were property of their husbands who can do whatever they like to their wives! Because that was the tradition is it right?"
That mixed with the point for that it was typed for, marital rape, shows that you were implying something.
Something about implied statements is that a lot of them are not always intentional.
Yes, the ceremony is the same, the default one, but most still have the iconic symbols of a wedding, the white dress, father giving daughter away (or any other male figure in the family), the walk down the isle, etc.
You would be surprised. A man was laughed and mocked on television by a group of women and the crowd of the show that were all women.
Not only this, but males make half of the victims in domestic violence and not even 5% of the domestic violence shelter are for men or allow men entry.
Do you think that everyone should get married?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
I'm sorry to break it to you, but it's fact that for the traditional "real" marriage, the woman was to be a virgin, it is what the white dress is all about. You don't think it was white for just some random shade for the occasion, do you?
Well that was the thing, society was not as sexually active as we are now.
I don't agree with marriage either, not only because it betrays the whole original concept of it, which makes it pointless. Why go through a ceremony that you have not thought a big enough deal of to stay by the concept of it?
Not only that, a piece of paper doesn't change the relationship at all, so why bother get married? It changes nothing, you get nothing from the original concept because nobody goes by in nowadays, so there is no benefit at all.
I didn't say it was better at all, nor will I ever. I am simply stating "that" was the idea of it, the real concept of it. Going by that concept in today's world isn't beneficial, but going by only half of that concept, as a man, and not getting the part the husband would get from it, it just makes it pointless for men more so.
What does marital rape have to do with the concept of marriage...? Even if we did keep to that concept, the things that did happen from time to time, be it marital rape, etc, would not happen today due to gender stereotypes not being in place, so a woman would be able to get out of that situation if someone does it. So again, I see no point in trying to make a big emotional response by including something like rape.
That is like me saying "Are you a vegetarian? No!? Well how would you feel if people slaughtered your family and sold it as food for others! Wouldn't like it, would you!?"
That's basically what you have done.
Yes, because being educated enough to know what the original concept of marriage was means I "can't get a woman". What is it with this gender narcissism? Seriously, I keep hearing this. If someone says something a woman doesn't like to hear, even when they have said a "fact" that is not an opinion, but a fact, then the reason is that they cannot get a woman or a woman has hurt them.
It is not "anti-woman" to talk about women, even when I wasn't talking about women as the primary topic, you think I am anti-woman because you read something you dislike.
But for the record, no, I do not have a female partner, in my time I have had two. One was when I was pretty young, a tester, and the second was for a skateboard.
However "getting" a woman and "having" a woman are two different things. I have had people interested more times than I am sure you have had people "interested" in you.
I have been complimented many times on my appearance and figure. So much so that I have even been sexually harassed by multiple people by females in different areas (I move around more than a gypsy).
I even got a brand new phone off of a girl just because she had a crush on me.
One that even you will probably not believe, is that I have had a prostitute have a crush on me and ask to pay "me" for sex. Of course, I declined, but we are some-what friends now.
There are many situations that if I got project to you this second, you would find the irony in it.
A woman must of hurt me? Not really. Sure there has been one or two, but not in any sense of romance or other reasons that deviate from what men have also done. If anything, I have been a victim of men more than the average Joe. So by your reasoning, I should hate men, but I don't, because unlike what you assume of people, a few bad situations do not give me the right to paint everyone with the same brush.
(I have a picture on my profile)
As for the stronger thing, if that was a joke, ignore what I am going to say, as there really is not reason to read it, but then again the curiousity of people knows no bounds, so this whole paragraph is pretty pointless. Anyway, onwards.
You are the weaker sense in every physical sense, that will never change, it is biology. Women are not getting any stronger than their body limits have always been.
On to the part where you say you could probably kick my ass, that is very unlikely based on you being a woman and myself being a man. Biology dictates I would win, as most men would against a woman in hand to hand combat.
As for me as an individual, I am not the grand champion or anything, but people tend to underestimate me in the physical aspect. I don't give off aggression in the physical sense, so some assume (mainly online, only happened once in reality, which I am getting to) that I am weak, however I have not lost a fight so far, maybe one day I will, but I don't go out looking for fights, so I don't know if I will even have another.
I have had two people put their hand on my friend's throat, and after I tried to civilly defuse the situation, the person started on me. One thing led to another, and he hit me. This was someone known as "the tough guy on the block", the bullying type. I ended up breaking his jaw, all while his friend was also helping him. I got charged with assault regardless of being attacked by two people due to doing far more damage than I should of.
Again, when I was sixteen/seventeen, I beat my mother's boyfriend who was/is (don't know if he still is) a guard for the crazy house.
It ended with my hands around his throat and his face blue and crying. He was mid thirties, I was not even an adult.
I don't usually explain such things unless the topic comes up or someone implies physical threat.
Long rant over.
--
Elliemental
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-2
-2
The key word being traditional! I never disputed anything about the white dress being a sign of purity. My issue is that traditional does not mean correct!
My point about marital rape was not to get an emotional response but to show that traditionally, women in marriages were property of their husbands who can do whatever they like to their wives! Because that was the tradition is it right?
On a different note I seriously doubt you've had more people interested in you than I've had pursue me. Though your a relatively pretty little boy :) but you do go on a bit!
--
[Old Memory]
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Actually, yes it does, because the tradition of it was the "original" and "correct" way of it.
The tradition of the whole ceremony is the same of what we have today, except without meaning due to nobody going by the traditional sense. They have a traditional ceremony, but not the respect for the tradition.
No, don't get in to this whole feminist mind set. Feeding in to such feminist garbage makes you close-minded, so you would do your best not to buy in to it.
No, marital rape was not the norm. Yes, it happened, but not nearly as much as feminism has tried to make it seem.
You also know that husbands were responsible for their wives once upon a time? If the wife done something wrong/criminal, the husband would be given some, or even most of the responsibility for not ensuring she doesn't do such things.
Then there is the whole thing where a man being abused by his wife would be laughed at and shamed.
That was not the tradition at all, that was what "some" done inside the tradition that the tradition does not support, that doesn't make it part of the "tradition" at all.
You may not think so, it is your right to believe what you wish, however that doesn't make you correct.
I do go on a bit? As in I talk the point a lot? This place is an area of debate and description. I talk the point adressed, which is the point of the site. Assuming that such topics come up in reality just as much is a bit off.
--
Elliemental
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
No you read my words but then make sweeping statements. I never said abuse was or is the norm I said that it was the norm for a women to become property of her husband.
You do speak some sense but in a quite long winded way!
You really believe that the actual ceremony is exactly the same? Tradition and stories change and develop as they are passed on. Even written traditions change through translation.
Very few people would be as closed minded as to laugh at a man who's been abused by a women but the victimised man may believe that would be the result.
I am in no way a feminist! I'm a realist.
That said, I do enjoy reading the opinions and replying to a person of intelligence :)
--
[Old Memory]
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You implied it. You said, and I quote:
" traditionally, women in marriages were property of their husbands who can do whatever they like to their wives! Because that was the tradition is it right?"
That mixed with the point for that it was typed for, marital rape, shows that you were implying something.
Something about implied statements is that a lot of them are not always intentional.
Yes, the ceremony is the same, the default one, but most still have the iconic symbols of a wedding, the white dress, father giving daughter away (or any other male figure in the family), the walk down the isle, etc.
You would be surprised. A man was laughed and mocked on television by a group of women and the crowd of the show that were all women.
Not only this, but males make half of the victims in domestic violence and not even 5% of the domestic violence shelter are for men or allow men entry.