Why men are losing interest in women

[AverageFC]

I posted this on another forum and was called a woman demeaning fascist.

 

[Alpha Male]

Originally posted by AverageFC
I posted this on another forum and was called a woman demeaning fascist.

Which forum?

 

[AverageFC]

Originally posted by Alpha Male
Which forum?

Really don't want to say. somewhat different identify you know.

Here's some quotes:

(from a woman)

Seriously, what the ****? Possession, power? So this guy thinks that when I have sex with my husband, it's his way of peeing on me to mark his territory? And he doesn't love me, he's just in it for the power trip? Riiiiiggggghhhhtttt...The need to exert power over another person comes from insecurity, it's not a necessary ingredient, nor healthy, ingredient to throw into the relationship mix.

(from a dude)

Some interesting and cogent points are utterly subsumed when I reach a line like this:

well documented explanation, I urge you to read William T Still, New World Order: The Ancient Plan of Secret Societies, 1990. It is will change the way you view the world.

Men and women are not the same. Feminism has perverted itself so that it can no longer distinguish between "equality" and "homogenity." There is enough in that article to stimulate valid and relevant discussion (along with plenty of ****e) but when I read about the dreaded Illuminati and the ancient plans of secret societies then I roll my eyes and move along.

(from an english dude)

You are linking to an article which connects feminism to the Nazis, the new world order and commies. Elsewhere in the site it claims the CIA are behind feminism and that Bush is behind the NWO. If you are going to buy into all this you must buy into the total NWO theory and accept that Bush, Hitler and Stalin were all in cahoots and that we sheep are pretty much screwed which ever way we look at it.

Lets deal with the more important issue here, your dislike for feminism and women in general who wish to be anything but the possession of the male in their life (father or husband)
Where did this come from? Why are you so against feminism?

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Re: Re:

Originally posted by A-Unit
Refuted much of what I stated and said...

"i don't want to be thrown back into the kitchen. i don't want to be enslaved."

Feminism, like any form of extremisim, relies on binary arguments. If not black, then white. Notice how internalizing traditional feminine gender roles equals 'enslavement'? Ergo the opposite must be true and traditional masculine gender roles must equal freedom. See how the binary works?

As far as the issue of homosexuality is concerned, it basically comes down to one unanswered question: Is homosexuality a conditioned behavior or is it a behavioral expression of biological imperatives? In other words, nature vs. nurture. If it is in fact a biological issue and there is a 'gay gene' or a combination of genetic circumstances that cause a person to behave homosexualy then any argument of a homosexual person's ability to behave differently is theoretically out of their control, they were made that way. This of course begs the question that if it is a genetic 'flaw' (for lack of a better term) can it be corrected medically? Should it be corrected medically? According to strictly scientific thought, any mutation that is not beneficial to the survival of a species is a harmful mutation.

However, if homosexuality is a learned/conditioned behavior, then we run into a whole mess of other problems. Essentially, it becomes an issue of choice rather than a civil rights argument. Blacks in the 50's & 60's couldn't help but be black and the discrimination they experienced was not only ignorant, but un just. If a homosexual is discriminated against, it's equally unjust, but the behavioral element is a confounding variable. It would stand to reason that if it is a conditioned behavior then it could be unconditioned. I doubt that under the societal strictures of today and the climate of political correctness that is prevalent that any such experiment would either never be funded or vigorously protested against in the first place. And this is just evidence of a firmly held societal conditioning about homosexuality. "They can't help it" is the mantra, but it's based on anecdotal studies and popular repetions.

More evidence exists that gender (and sexual preference) is a learned condition than that which supports the biological theory. Heterosexual prison inmates that return to society gay after their incarceration is a common one. In an all male population the only recourse for sexual release is either masturbation or homosexuality. It would follow that this behavior was conditioned due to it being the only form of positive reinforcement with regards to sexual needs.

Then you have to consider bi-sexual individuals. Did they recieve only part of the genetic material necessary to make them homosexual or heterosexual? Or did they progress through puberty and stages of defining their sexuality by recieving reinforcement for sexual behaviors that included both sexes? What about people born into transgender? Do they define their sexuality through their behavior by choice or their conditioning?

This question confounds feminism in the extreme and so you'll always see support for the genetic answer, but a staunch denial in the regards to how genetics define gender. One of the base tenent of feminism is that gender is a conditioned status and that traditional gender roles are the result of upbrining and societal expectations. Androgyny is an idealized state and the method to achieving it is behavioral control. Yet this contradicts everything feminists believe with regards to homosexuality (i.e the genetic argument). If gender is learned, then homosexuals can modify their behaviors and become heterosexuals, but if gender is a genetic determinate then they and women can't help but be homosexuals and women in their sexual roles.

 

[Alpha Male]

Re: Re: Re:

Originally posted by Rollo Tomassi
Feminism, like any form of extremisim, relies on binary arguments. If not black, then white. Notice how internalizing traditional feminine gender roles equals 'enslavement'? Ergo the opposite must be true and traditional masculine gender roles must equal freedom. See how the binary works?

As far as the issue of homosexuality is concerned, it basically comes down to one unanswered question: Is homosexuality a conditioned behavior or is it a behavioral expression of biological imperatives? In other words, nature vs. nurture. If it is in fact a biological issue and there is a 'gay gene' or a combination of genetic circumstances that cause a person to behave homosexualy then any argument of a homosexual person's ability to behave differently is theoretically out of their control, they were made that way. This of course begs the question that if it is a genetic 'flaw' (for lack of a better term) can it be corrected medically? Should it be corrected medically? According to strictly scientific thought, any mutation that is not beneficial to the survival of a species is a harmful mutation.

However, if homosexuality is a learned/conditioned behavior, then we run into a whole mess of other problems. Essentially, it becomes an issue of choice rather than a civil rights argument. Blacks in the 50's & 60's couldn't help but be black and the discrimination they experienced was not only ignorant, but un just. If a homosexual is discriminated against, it's equally unjust, but the behavioral element is a confounding variable. It would stand to reason that if it is a conditioned behavior then it could be unconditioned. I doubt that under the societal strictures of today and the climate of political correctness that is prevalent that any such experiment would either never be funded or vigorously protested against in the first place. And this is just evidence of a firmly held societal conditioning about homosexuality. "They can't help it" is the mantra, but it's based on anecdotal studies and popular repetions.

More evidence exists that gender (and sexual preference) is a learned condition than that which supports the biological theory. Heterosexual prison inmates that return to society gay after their incarceration is a common one. In an all male population the only recourse for sexual release is either masturbation or homosexuality. It would follow that this behavior was conditioned due to it being the only form of positive reinforcement with regards to sexual needs.

Then you have to consider bi-sexual individuals. Did they recieve only part of the genetic material necessary to make them homosexual or heterosexual? Or did they progress through puberty and stages of defining their sexuality by recieving reinforcement for sexual behaviors that included both sexes? What about people born into transgender? Do they define their sexuality through their behavior by choice or their conditioning?

This question confounds feminism in the extreme and so you'll always see support for the genetic answer, but a staunch denial in the regards to how genetics define gender. One of the base tenent of feminism is that gender is a conditioned status and that traditional gender roles are the result of upbrining and societal expectations. Androgyny is an idealized state and the method to achieving it is behavioral control. Yet this contradicts everything feminists believe with regards to homosexuality (i.e the genetic argument). If gender is learned, then homosexuals can modify their behaviors and become heterosexuals, but if gender is a genetic determinate then they and women can't help but be homosexuals and women in their sexual roles.

Don't forget homosexuality observed in the animal kingdom in just about every species.

 

[TillTheEndOfTime]

Re: I still love women!

Originally posted by Don Ronny

BTW, most people who are afraid of homosexuals have a little homo inside of them.

Not true. This is simply propaganda spread by homosexuals and/or the "modern" feminist ideaology.

Want to know the real reason some people hate/fear gays?

Nature.
In terms of the population of some species, don't you think that homosexuality would be seen as a weakness since it does not lead to procreation of the species? Of course. So would this not lead you to believe that those members of the species who are homosexual would be seen as weak?

In many species in the animal kingdom, the "weak" males are driven away by stronger males. Is this not true? So, we are animals too. We still maintain some primitive instincts from thousands of years ago.

Homophobia is nothing other than a primitive instinct coming into play to aid in the survival of the species. Of course we do not need any help. We are over population in some places as it is. However, this IS a primitive instinct and is subconscious. No homophobe rationalizes their fear/hate of homosexuals. They JUST DO. It's a subconscious response.

Notice the difference between homophobia and racism, a
learned CONSCIOUS response. You have to be taught to hate other races in some way from people you know and trust/respect.

From what I've seen my entire life, no "homophobe" was taught. They just were. If anything society is trying to program you to love and accept homosexuality as just a different way of life. Just like the feminist ideas go against nature, so does this type of social programming. Society can promote homosexuality as much as it wants, but the primitive instinct will not be denied and there will be homophobia. No homophobe I've know had any gay tendencies. They were all straight as an arrow.

 

[TillTheEndOfTime]

Originally posted by AverageFC
Really don't want to say. somewhat different identify you know.

Here's some quotes:

(from a woman)


(from a dude)


(from an english dude)

AverageFC. It looks like you referred to a very radical article. You probably would have received more positive responses if you just rationalized it yourself without all those radical ideas about Bush, Nazis, CIA etc.

It's a legitimate idea that I completely believe in and feel is accurate. However, when you use extreme/bad examples and parallels it loses much of its validity in the eye of the reader. I believe in the CORE of the idea, but not about Bush, the Nazis, the CIA, etc.

Anyways, ignore those negative responses. They're either feminists or AFCs in their prime hoping that being a trained show dog for women will get them some.

 

[TillTheEndOfTime]

Re: Re: Re:

Originally posted by Rollo Tomassi
This of course begs the question that if it is a genetic 'flaw' (for lack of a better term) can it be corrected medically? Should it be corrected medically?

"Flaw" is a perfect term. There is no better term. That's just what homosexuality is a flaw. We would have died out thousands of years ago if homosexuality was dominant.

Survival of the fittest. Those animals which have flaws to the current environmental conditions and cannot adapt will die. homosexual cannot adapt to any conditions. There is no procreation. Whether they live with ample food or shelter it does not matter. If you can't procreate, you only live one generation, then you're wiped off the face of the earth.

People with genes that makes them susceptible to disease tend to get sick and die relatively quickly before much procreation. This is nature's way of weeding out the flaw from the species.
Homosexuals cannot reproduce. This is nature's way of weeding out this flaw from the species.


You do not have to worry about being "politcally correct" here with homosexuals.

 

[TillTheEndOfTime]

Re: Re: Re:

Originally posted by Rollo Tomassi
Heterosexual prison inmates that return to society gay after their incarceration is a common one.

This is not true. Heterosexuals going into prison and practising homosexual activites there come out into society as regular heterosexuals again. I don't know what you read, but it's either homosexual/feminist propaganda disguising itself as a scientific study, or a misinterpretation (by you or the person writing the study).

Again, the true study was that regular heterosexual convicts that go into prison pactise what would be considered homosexual activities while in there and become regular heterosexuals in society upon their release. I saw a video documentary of this with commentary from the crimials themselves. I believe this more than a person from the outside writing.

Anyways, using a handful of convicts/criminials is NOT a good model for society and is not very representative.

 

[TillTheEndOfTime]

[QUOTEThen you have to consider bi-sexual individuals. Did they recieve only part of the genetic material necessary to make them homosexual or heterosexual? Or did they progress through puberty and stages of defining their sexuality by recieving reinforcement for sexual behaviors that included both sexes? What about people born into transgender? Do they define their sexuality through their behavior by choice or their conditioning?[/QUOTE]

There is a reason why homosexuality and bi-sexuality is a GLARING MINORITY in society. This is a fact that no scientific study can deny. They are not normal. If all memebers of society were one of those, society would eventually die out. Even though bi-sexuals could technically procreate with their condition, their drive to be mothers (for the female) is much lower than that of a heterosexual female. Their ability to serve as nuturing mother is compromised. I think this will easily be seen if you compare the average heterosexual woman to the average bi-sexual women. Tell me who would make a better mother?

With that said, the needs of procreation and the survival of the species is best realized with the "traditional" roles of male and female. If this weren't true, then 90-95% of society would not be so strongly heterosexual.

So they're saying these "traditional" roles were only traditional roles because they were taught that way? Well who taught US when we did not have the intellectual capacity to teach other.

Nature. All these arguments against male and female as predominantly genetic roles are arguing with nature. They cannot win.

 

[Alpha Male]

Homosexuals cannot reproduce. This is nature's way of weeding out this flaw from the species.

And yet homosexuals seem to appear spontaeneously in society without a "gene" being passed along.
I've read a couple of times that it has to do with the dose of chemicals male embryos receive shortly after conception which causes them to gain a Y chromosome. SInce all embryos start out as female (XX) it takes a certain amount of Y hormone to make them male. (someone more versed in reproductive biology could be more accurate I'm sure )
Those with slightly too little hormone may become homosexual.
At least that was the theory. This would make not as much a genetic abnormality as an accident of conception....

Can anyone explain it better than me?

 

[DJDamage]

And yet homosexuals seem to appear spontaeneously in society without a "gene" being passed along.
I've read a couple of times that it has to do with the dose of chemicals male embryos receive shortly after conception which causes them to gain a Y chromosome. SInce all embryos start out as female (XX) it takes a certain amount of Y hormone to make them male. (someone more versed in reproductive biology could be more accurate I'm sure )
Those with slightly too little hormone may become homosexual.
At least that was the theory. This would make not as much a genetic abnormality as an accident of conception....

Can anyone explain it better than me?

Actually Males have both X and Y chromosomes while the females have two X chromosomes. The female always give out an X chromosomes while for the male its a 50-50 chance he is either going to give an X chromosme or a Y chromosome. If he gives out the X its going to be a girl, if he gives out the Y its going to be a boy.

I took a science coarse in University once that aimed to look at different theories and debunk others which were not scientific studies. We have learned that who ever claimed that Homosexuality was as result of genes, never actually tested that theory and therefore the media just picked up that story and everyone accepted it as the truth.

If you look at psycological studies, there is more evidence that there is something in the brain of the indvidual that creates homosexuality. Our brain and bodies were design to produce and mate with the opposite sex, therefore there has to be something WRONG with the person's brain function if he chooses otherwise.

There are many brain diseases out there that causes handicapped in individuals upon birth. I do not understand why homosexuality is not one of them. I could accept someone being a homosexual but for them to claim that is normal and encourage that behaviour is a bit puzzling to me.

 

[Alpha Male]

Originally posted by DJDamage
Actually Males have both X and Y chromosomes while the females have two X chromosomes. The female always give out an X chromosomes while for the male its a 50-50 chance he is either going to give an X chromosme or a Y chromosome. If he gives out the X its going to be a girl, if he gives out the Y its going to be a boy.

I took a science coarse in University once that aimed to look at different theories and debunk others which were not scientific studies. We have learned that who ever claimed that Homosexuality was as result of genes, never actually tested that theory and therefore the media just picked up that story and everyone accepted it as the truth.

If you look at psycological studies, there is more evidence that there is something in the brain of the indvidual that creates homosexuality. Our brain and bodies were design to produce and mate with the opposite sex, therefore there has to be something WRONG with the person's brain function if he chooses otherwise.

There are many brain diseases out there that causes handicapped in individuals upon birth. I do not understand why homosexuality is not one of them. I could accept someone being a homosexual but for them to claim that is normal and encourage that behaviour is a bit puzzling to me.

Hmm that sounds about right. Thanks pal.

Thing is, if they're happy, then it's not a problem is it? Only if it's debilitating for the individual should treatment be offered.

Personally I don't mind there beng homosexuals so much as long as they respect my rights too.

It's when males are expected to start acting like whipped puppies for women that I get annoyed.

 

[SageOFAllenAge]

Re: I still love women!

Originally posted by Don Ronny
Leave it to a guy who calls himself a "homophobe" to start a thread like this.

BTW, most people who are afraid of homosexuals have a little homo inside of them.

Thats insecurity, the idea of being the thing that you despise keeps building up in the sub-conscious & messes you up.

I used to be a homophobe & I guess the insecurity stemmed from an incident from my childhood, where I received sexual abuse as a kid from an older guy who is prob gay.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

END OF TIME: It really comes down to the behavior defining the identity of the person. It's like the old joke goes; build a thousand bridges and they'll call you a bridge maker, but suck one c0ck and you're a c0cksukker. Heterosexuals in prison resorting to homosexual behavior while incarcerated do so because of their environment and circumstances, not a genetic predisposition to do so. This flies in the face of the genetic root homosexuals would have us all believe is the root of the behavior and reinforces the behavioristic theory.

I hesitated to use the word 'flaw' not because of any PC fears, but that certain mutations we may consider 'flaws' or detriments to promoting the survival of a species may be benefits under different circumstances. I don't think that's the case in regards to homosexuality, but it's always good to hedge a bet. Obviously this borders on social Darwinism, but it's easy to forget that it's not survival of the fittests that makes natural selection occur, but the survival of the best able to adapt to a given environment.

 

[TillTheEndOfTime]

Originally posted by Alpha Male
And yet homosexuals seem to appear spontaeneously in society without a "gene" being passed along.
I've read a couple of times that it has to do with the dose of chemicals male embryos receive shortly after conception which causes them to gain a Y chromosome. SInce all embryos start out as female (XX) it takes a certain amount of Y hormone to make them male. (someone more versed in reproductive biology could be more accurate I'm sure )
Those with slightly too little hormone may become homosexual.
At least that was the theory. This would make not as much a genetic abnormality as an accident of conception....

Can anyone explain it better than me?

You cannot completely annhiliate an abnormality. It keeps the population low so that it does not become a problem.

Look at the wild rabbits in Australia. They were not native there. They came on ships. They spawn like crazy. Every one in a while a disease strikes them and wipes out a huge part of the population. If this didn't happen, the rabbits would over populate and starve themselves ALL to death.

To rephrase, nature puts a CHECK on homosexuals since they cannot reporduce. It does not completely annhiliate them. This is why gays are a minority, not completely non-existant.

 

[TillTheEndOfTime]

Originally posted by Rollo Tomassi
This flies in the face of the genetic root homosexuals would have us all believe is the root of the behavior and reinforces the behavioristic theory.

Are you saying homosexuals use it as proof that they are "normal" by that statement?

I believe it is mostly genetic, but I don't see this as favouring homosexuality. There are many things that are genetic but are not normal conditions to be in.

There is a point in time in the mother's womb when we are sexless. It is during some period when we become male or female. What I believe is that something goes wrong during this transition to the sexes which leads to an "incomplete" man or women.

We know that the way men and women think is very different (wired differently). It is often said men are rational and logic, whereas woman are emotion, illogical and irrational. Maybe during this transition the "wiring" is reversed for some reason. So you have a man who for some reason maintains the wiring of a women and a woman who maintains the wiring of a man. This is why you'll hear some people say they feel like a "man trapped in a woman's body" or a "women trapped in a man's body". Anyways that's just my theory to explain that.

But as always, nature puts a check on abnormality. The beautfiul thing about this abnormality is that it fixes itself. Homosexuals cannot reproduce so their population is put in check. Some people say that having kids as a homosexual does not increase the chances that the child will be homosexual. However this doesn't not make sense genetically and there is no proof to back up this claim. There are not enough cases to study....well because most homosexuals actually do not choose to reproduce as having sex with the person they must in order to reproduce is not appealing to them. This only supports the idea of nature putting a check on them to stop the genes from spreading.

 

[AMF]

Originally posted by Rollo Tomassi
They want special privileges from the traditional system (men paying, being "gentlemen" by using special deferential manners and language to women, being the main breadwinner, etc) but not the old-fashioned obligations (being modest and ladylike, being a housewife, etc).

As ever on this site, generalisations are used as the fundamental basis for any argument.

MANY women INSIST on paying.

MANY women are patronised and even insulted by the use of "deferential manners" towards them, and those that arent often view such gestures as anachronistic, or at best, "charming".

For MANY women, the status as main breadwinner is of vital importance to ther self-esteem and general identity.

MANY women - indeed, the vast majority - retain "ladylike modesty", although such terms are as outmoded and - in a real, day-to-day sense - as irrelevant as the concept of male chivalry.

Your use of these terms, and indeed your argument in general, typifies the human mind. Lazy in generalisation, susceptibility to incomplete or inaccurate information, susceptibility to conformity, coercion and chauvinism, and above all, resistance to change. A mind refusing, kicking and screaming, to be dragged into the 21st Century, despite the evidence - as can be seen with erosion of traditional gender-role obligations (i.e., concepts of honour for men) - that anachronisms can survive only for eccentric or curiosity value.

As a general point, too, just consider that gender is infact a continuous dimension and not categorical. There is NO practicable way to define it (in any complete or holistic sense.)

 

[00Kevin]

Originally posted by AMF
As ever on this site, generalisations are used as the fundamental basis for any argument.

MANY women INSIST on paying.

MANY women are patronised and even insulted by the use of "deferential manners" towards them, and those that arent often view such gestures as anachronistic, or at best, "charming".

For MANY women, the status as main breadwinner is of vital importance to ther self-esteem and general identity.

MANY women - indeed, the vast majority - retain "ladylike modesty", although such terms are as outmoded and - in a real, day-to-day sense - as irrelevant as the concept of male chivalry.

Your use of these terms, and indeed your argument in general, typifies the human mind. Lazy in generalisation, susceptibility to incomplete or inaccurate information, susceptibility to conformity, coercion and chauvinism, and above all, resistance to change. A mind refusing, kicking and screaming, to be dragged into the 21st Century, despite the evidence - as can be seen with erosion of traditional gender-role obligations (i.e., concepts of honour for men) - that anachronisms can survive only for eccentric or curiosity value.

As a general point, too, just consider that gender is infact a continuous dimension and not categorical. There is NO practicable way to define it (in any complete or holistic sense.)

Do you belive that men an women are the same? Please explain.

I would argue that your concept of gender is in fact a minority option that is only shared by small percentage of the worlds population. There is no evidence that the modern concept (or rather perversion) of gender will stand the test of time. Human nature and the differences of men and women are always prevailent and always will be. That won't ever change unless you start to genetically modify the sexes. And if you do that, you no longer have a man or a woman.


The focus of this thread is to identify why men are losing interest in women. I think that the more women try to strive to the status of Bread winner the less attractive they become to a man.

I can honestly say that I don't want a woman who wants to be a provider. I just don't find that attractive. I'm not looking for a powerstruggle for a relationship. I get enough of that from work. I am far more attracted to a woman who is a nurturer. A woman who follows her man is the type that I admire.

One of the other reasons why men are losing interest in "Modern women" is that they are getting fat. You can't argue with that. American women are the fatest in the world.

I think that once you lose interest in Modern women you simply focus on women who are more interesting.

Women from other cultures actually have respect for men. They admire men who are providers and they let them act naturally. They don't expect a man to give up his natural instincts for love.

When a woman stives to be the bread winner she prices herself out of the market. This is why men like me are looking towards higher quality and less expensive import models.

Guys if women are bothering you and feminism is getting to you. Just stop and look at the world on a global scale. When you do you will see that it is jsut your culture (americanized) that is ****ed up. You will realize tha tyou can have everything you want in life. You just have to switch brands.

This is a good link.
http://www.singleabroad.com/


I think this link explains why men are losing interest in modern women.

http://www.singleabroad.com/women.html



1.Western women want men to serve THEM most of the time but are unwilling to put in the effort or TIME to make it an intelligent partnership.
2. Western women are coarse, vulgar, rude, or distinctly lack femininity.
3. Western women are argumentative, critical, and demanding (i.e. *****y).
4. Western women are money-hungry and superficial.
5. Western women are generally mentally unstable.
6.Western women use sex as a weapon and reward to get things.
7. Western women are just bitter and show contempt for men.

 

[PuertoRican_Lover]

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Originally posted by Alpha Male
Don't forget homosexuality observed in the animal kingdom in just about every species.

You lying bastard!!

You are officially on my Homo list!!! You are not a "Alpha Male" you are a "Alpha Homo"!!!