-and hey, she wasn't -then- awesome either.  Maybe if either of us were awesome we;'d still be together.....we were kind of a take no prisoners couple.  She was psyops, I was a groundpounder. If you saw us over the hill, everyone was in trouble from every angle. No one got any sleep.

(I dont even wanna know if she's awesome now, it would be terrible for my current relationship, I still love her more than I love any fiber of my own being- i hate her too...but..I love her, sooooo.)

(August 21, 2016 at 9:21 pm)paulpablo Wrote:

(August 21, 2016 at 8:48 pm)Nymphadora Wrote: I'd like to see your sources of information on this. I was a one parent household for years. I didn't fail. Millions of other single parents haven't failed either. If you want to blame young men for having no male role models, try looking to the men of this society and see why there aren't enough role models to begin with. Blaming single mothers, in particular (because that's just what you're doing here) is not only unfairly placing a label on women, but you seem to be forgetting that it takes TWO people to have a baby. Come out of the 50's man. We're playing in the 21st century and nowadays, you're still going to find even with two parent households, just because a man is present, that doesn't make him a father. Lack of a role model is still lack of a role model, regardless of the presence of an adult male in the house or not.  

Furthermore, where is/are your credible sources that "females tend to be more promiscuous without a father figure". That's a huge stretch and I'm going to call bullshit. 


So again, you blame single mothers. I sense a theme here and it's not a nice one.


Perhaps, and I'm just basing my thoughts off of what you wrote, you would still be with your child's mother if you didn't take the stance towards women that you have. Because I sense some resentment even as you tell your story about your child's mother and the fact that you give her money even though the relationship is over between the both of you.

And perhaps I'm wrong about that, but given what you just wrote about single mothers, I doubt it.

It depends what you mean by blame single mothers.

One only need to read your post to understand the meaning.

Quote:To begin with I was just talking about videos I have seen which made convincing arguments that this place which has a lot of single mothers raising boys willgive rise to a lot of bored, jobless, unmarried unstable men.  They're less likely to have a male role model and have an abundance of testosterone and energy not directed at a family life, a job or responsibilities.

You didn't mention that until your second paragraph. So, if the intent was to solely base your post off of videos you've seen, you should have indicated as such in your opening sentence and not insulted single mothers and women without a man in their lives as being promiscuous.

Quote:Also any single mother herself may not be entirely to blame, or to blame at all in the slightest.

There are real genuine situations where a woman just can't help being a single mother.

I don't have a singular view of all women that I can really say "This is my view on women."  

So now you backpeddle. Okay. Perhaps providing some sources to go along with what you wrote, would have been appropriate. Otherwise, it's just your opinion, which, yes, everyone is entitled to, however, the context of your post delivered nothing but blame towards single parents, mothers in particular.

Quote:What is it that you think my opinion on women is? I didn't say anywhere in my post the woman is to blame, which after reading your post in further detail seems to be what you have come to the conclusion of.

Yes you did. Right here:

Quote:A lot of communities with 1 parent single mother house holds fail, not as a rule just an overall tendency.

Oh and let's not forget this gem in the paragraph:

Quote:Females tend to be more promiscuous without a father figure and men have no male role model.
Plus there's usually some dependence on welfare.

So yes, now we can add insult to injury here and assume that a woman is promiscuous simply because there isn't a man in the house? You are blaming women singularly and not seeing that it takes two people (or more) to have sex. I hope you realize how stupid that sounds. And again, you've provided zero proof of anything other than your opinion. Especially with regards to the whole welfare thing.

One can only draw conclusions based off of what information the presenter hands out.

Quote:I don't feel the need to go into too much of my personal info, but feelings of resent towards her are minimal.  I pay her more money than she asks for, we haven't altogether cut out intimacy between each other when I have visited her at her home.  We both openly admit to finding each other attractive.  
I don't have a resentful attitude towards her, if she or a member of her family ask me for a favor it's likely to get done.  We're all pretty friendly.

I'm not asking you to go into more personal information, but, you did bring your relationship up, at the end of your post. Together with what you wrote about single mothers, the sense one gets from reading the post in its entirety, is that of resentment. However, I am glad you cleared that up.

If I'm wrong, I'll admit I'm wrong. But when you indicate that ".....the root cause of events like the Milwaukee riots has nothing to do with race but everything to do with culture and single mothers trying to unsuccessfully raise bored, young jobless men who are in turn also not getting married or settling down.", and you don't present sources, then it becomes opinion. Based off of that opinion and what you posted, it's easy to assume what you mean.

(August 21, 2016 at 10:15 pm)Nymphadora Wrote:

(August 21, 2016 at 9:21 pm)paulpablo Wrote: It depends what you mean by blame single mothers.

One only need to read your post to understand the meaning.

Quote:To begin with I was just talking about videos I have seen which made convincing arguments that this place which has a lot of single mothers raising boys willgive rise to a lot of bored, jobless, unmarried unstable men.  They're less likely to have a male role model and have an abundance of testosterone and energy not directed at a family life, a job or responsibilities.

You didn't mention that until your second paragraph. So, if the intent was to solely base your post off of videos you've seen, you should have indicated as such in your opening sentence and not insulted single mothers and women without a man in their lives as being promiscuous.

Quote:Also any single mother herself may not be entirely to blame, or to blame at all in the slightest.

There are real genuine situations where a woman just can't help being a single mother.

I don't have a singular view of all women that I can really say "This is my view on women."  

So now you backpeddle. Okay. Perhaps providing some sources to go along with what you wrote, would have been appropriate. Otherwise, it's just your opinion, which, yes, everyone is entitled to, however, the context of your post delivered nothing but blame towards single parents, mothers in particular.

Quote:What is it that you think my opinion on women is? I didn't say anywhere in my post the woman is to blame, which after reading your post in further detail seems to be what you have come to the conclusion of.

Yes you did. Right here:

Quote:A lot of communities with 1 parent single mother house holds fail, not as a rule just an overall tendency.

Oh and let's not forget this gem in the paragraph:

Quote:Females tend to be more promiscuous without a father figure and men have no male role model.
Plus there's usually some dependence on welfare.

So yes, now we can add insult to injury here and assume that a woman is promiscuous simply because there isn't a man in the house? You are blaming women singularly and not seeing that it takes two people (or more) to have sex. I hope you realize how stupid that sounds. And again, you've provided zero proof of anything other than your opinion. Especially with regards to the whole welfare thing.

One can only draw conclusions based off of what information the presenter hands out.

Quote:I don't feel the need to go into too much of my personal info, but feelings of resent towards her are minimal.  I pay her more money than she asks for, we haven't altogether cut out intimacy between each other when I have visited her at her home.  We both openly admit to finding each other attractive.  
I don't have a resentful attitude towards her, if she or a member of her family ask me for a favor it's likely to get done.  We're all pretty friendly.

I'm not asking you to go into more personal information, but, you did bring your relationship up, at the end of your post. Together with what you wrote about single mothers, the sense one gets from reading the post in its entirety, is that of resentment. However, I am glad you cleared that up.

If I'm wrong, I'll admit I'm wrong. But when you indicate that ".....the root cause of events like the Milwaukee riots has nothing to do with race but everything to do with culture and single mothers trying to unsuccessfully raise bored, young jobless men who are in turn also not getting married or settling down.", and you don't present sources, then it becomes opinion. Based off of that opinion and what you posted, it's easy to assume what you mean.

So where did I say that the woman was to blame?

Obviously you fail to read anything.

(August 21, 2016 at 10:26 pm)Nymphadora Wrote: Obviously you fail to read anything.

I said girls have a tenancy towards risky sexual behavior without a father in the house.

No where did I blame the woman, no where did I absolve the father from responsibility.  

I showed my sources of data which support the claim that girls with absent fathers have a tendency towards promiscuous sexual behavior.

But you still claim that this shows I'm blaming women and I'm not presenting any sources.

I have to say I'm confused.

IDK Pablo, but my moms raised me by herself....and I'm not a rioter, I'm a jack booted thug of the state.  More dangerous than any brick thrower (because I have the liscense of my society...if for no other reason), with a history of controlled and well measured violence that exceeds any rioter's.

(August 21, 2016 at 10:29 pm)paulpablo Wrote:

(August 21, 2016 at 10:26 pm)Nymphadora Wrote: Obviously you fail to read anything.

I said girls have a tenancy towards risky sexual behavior without a father in the house.

No where did I blame the woman, no where did I absolve the father from responsibility.  

I showed my sources of data which support the claim that girls with absent fathers have a tendency towards promiscuous sexual behavior.

But you still claim that this shows I'm blaming women and I'm not presenting any sources.

I have to say I'm confused.

Hmm. I know plenty of sluts with dads.

[emoji57]

(August 21, 2016 at 10:34 pm)Rhythm Wrote: IDK Pablo, but my moms raised me by herself....and I'm not a rioter, I'm a jack booted thug of the state.  More dangerous than any brick thrower, with a history of controlled violence.

Yeah, my aunt is a single mom and she's amazing. My cousins turned out much better than I did because of her.

(August 21, 2016 at 10:39 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Hmm.  I know plenty of sluts with dads.

You too....?  Shit, that's what they used to call me. "Ay papi".................

(August 21, 2016 at 12:01 pm)PETE_ROSE Wrote: God gave us love, lust, sexual desire and feelings.  He also lays out a responsible and acceptable outlet for those emotions.

I have heard sex compared to fire.  Fire in the oven or fireplace will keep you warm or bake your cheesecake. Let it out and it will burn down your house.  

Sexual promiscuity and the like have led to all manner of death and destruction and social collapse.  If people kept sex monogamous and within the institution of marriage, the world would be much better off.

Before everyone jumps in and starts saying casual sex between consenting adults is perfectly ok and no harm comes from it.  I will raise the BS flag now. I doubt those people have daughters (and mothers, but even Hitler had a mom) and want them to be sexually promiscuous town sluts, with a dozen children from a dozen men.  Which can and would happen regardless of precautions or such.   You don't need me to say this is wrong and immoral.  

Was going to post this on anther thread but decided to make it one.

You doubt we have mothers if we think casual sex is okay? And why just daughters? Why not sons?

And if my daughter's old enough, it's not my fuckin' business. And nor is it yours.

Why is it morally bad to have sex with multiple people. (Unless you've chosen one partner.)

Just be safe, have fun, and you don't have to had a relationship.

BE SAFEEE.

Abstinence only is proven to not work.

It's not wrong and immoral.

It's immoral to hold back your feelings and true desires. It hurts you and lowers your healthy levels of testostorne.