A woman's non physical attractive traits.

[Woggle]

True, but men with that attitude only have satisfactory relationships with women who are happy to be second best and cater to their men.

 

Being a man doesn't mean be the boss of me.

 

I have yet to see happy marriages between equals. The woman always loses attraction.

[SassyKitten]

Untouchable - I'm in therapy and it's not helpful! But I'll try to keep that in mind next time I'm having an argument with a SO.

 

Woggle - Yeah, because supposedly men get more distinguished with age, while women become old hags.

[Woggle]

Untouchable - I'm in therapy and it's not helpful! But I'll try to keep that in mind next time I'm having an argument with a SO.

 

Woggle - Yeah, because supposedly men get more distinguished with age, while women become old hags.

 

I didn't mean that women themselves lose attraction. What I mean is that if a man is an equal to a woman she has a hard time thinking of him in a sexual way and loses her attraction for him. Women just like men stay attractive by taking good care of their body.

[Untouchable_Fire]

Untouchable - I'm in therapy and it's not helpful! But I'll try to keep that in mind next time I'm having an argument with a SO.

Woggle - Yeah, because supposedly men get more distinguished with age, while women become old hags.

 

Woggle meant that the woman always stops being attracted to her husband. I think he pretty much has the same issues as you but he is a guy.

 

You need to switch therapists then. You have very self destructive tendencies, and you struggle to understand/relate to men.

 

Right now you view all men through this lens that is distorted by the relationship you have with your father. You absolutely cannot have a normal healthy relationship. It's just not possible at this point in your life. Do you not see that?

[MrNate]

Now I'm debating if we should start getting into the physical traits we admire..

[Untouchable_Fire]

Now I'm debating if we should start getting into the physical traits we admire..

 

I'm down!

 

Que "Baby Got Back"

[zengirl]

I love it!

 

 

 

I agree that there are many ways to act like a woman. I don't agree that simply because you are a woman any action you make will be acting like a woman. The term "acting like a woman" infers that there is some standard to which we can gauge that.

 

It's true that women come in all forms and act in all manner of ways and the same with men. I consider that diversity a good thing. It doesn't mean it's wrong to apply a standard to those actions so that we can describe it. It's only wrong if we try to enforce those standards via some type of governmental mechanism.

 

I think "acting like a woman" is a silly phrase. So is "be a man."

 

So, I think when someone says "a woman who is acting like a woman" is attractive, it belies some archaic core beliefs. You mean a woman who is acting like either (a) YOUR idea of a woman (in which case just state the traits) or (b) an archaic version of womanhood that women have spent the past few decades trying to break free of (not run away from, but allow themselves to be other things); for the record, I think there is an archaic version of manhood as well, that I think men should be well free of.

 

I never say "Be a man." I do say, "Get some balls, and go . . . " (as in assert yourself) but I say that to girls too, and it's mostly because not enough people know the word chutzpah, which is what I really want to say in my mind.

 

In my ideal world we would have gender equality and men and women would have relationships based on mutual love and respect. If it were up to me that is world we would have but that is not the world we live in and I feel that if I have to be a male sterotype to the point where I can't even show emotion after a friend is murdered then women should have to adhere to their roles as well. If I am stifled by gender roles then they should be as well. This is not the world I wish for but it is the one I live in.

 

I have seen it many times where women look down a man who tries to have an equal relationship with her. My mother shouted from the rooftops about how much of a feminist she is but during arguments she said that if he were any kind of real man he would hit her back but he doesn't have the balls. I heard the same thing from my ex as well. I hear my two coworkers who brag about how they cheat on their husbands bringing in love letters and laughing at how pathetic they are. It almost seems like a man has to be a sexist pig these days if he doesn't want to get chewed up and spit out by women. I hate being this way but I see no other way to avoid being a doormat.

 

Yes, there is. It's the same way a woman avoids being a doormat: Be assertive and caring, but not aggressive.

[Untouchable_Fire]

I think "acting like a woman" is a silly phrase. So is "be a man."

So, I think when someone says "a woman who is acting like a woman" is attractive, it belies some archaic core beliefs. You mean a woman who is acting like either (a) YOUR idea of a woman (in which case just state the traits) or (b) an archaic version of womanhood that women have spent the past few decades trying to break free of (not run away from, but allow themselves to be other things); for the record, I think there is an archaic version of manhood as well, that I think men should be well free of.

I never say "Be a man." I do say, "Get some balls, and go . . . " (as in assert yourself) but I say that to girls too, and it's mostly because not enough people know the word chutzpah, which is what I really want to say in my mind.

 

Archaic? Much of our attraction is driven by our genetic heritage. I just can't agree with the idea that DNA is archaic. Unless your trying to argue that attraction has no genetic components... at which point I would remind you that would apply to gays as well.

 

The bottom line is that I agree we should have the freedom to choose our actions without threat of reprisal. However, I do not agree that we should eliminate the idea of how men and women are on average. That would be doing a great disservice to everyone... because we do act and think differently on average. Ignoring that would be a huge mistake.

 

Additionally in times past we have relied on gender roles to create stable environments in which to rear offspring. Today those gender roles are in somewhat of disarray. Which is not particularly a bad thing. However... something needs to be done to fix the holes created by this shift.

 

You have to admit that as it stands today, the family unit within our culture is a complete shamble.

[Sphere]

 

You have to admit that as it stands today, the family unit within our culture is a complete shamble.

 

I agree, it is terrible in the Western World. The amount of children who are growing up in one parent households is at an all time. I come from a one parent household and I am fortunate that I raised by a fantastic woman, my mother, but not every child growing up in a one parent household is not as fortunate as I was when I was their age.

 

My Government has tried to keep the institute of marriage alive by offering couples more money for basically being married, but I don't think this will work.

 

We live in a disposable society, where if something doesn't work properly, we throw it away and go out and replace it. Such an attitude has found it's way into relationships between human beings such as friendship, relationship and marriage. People are unwilling to work on solving problems anymore. It takes too much time and effort. It is easier to get a divorce or to end the relationship. Human beings will always look for an easier way out, especially now with the declining influence on religion, the break down of taboos such as divorce etc.

 

Probably the saddest thing about this break down of the family unity is the lack of responsibility shown by a lot of parents. People say "It's my right to have children", yet with rights come responsibilities. People in the West are all to quick to bleat on about their rights, but not many will mention what their responsibilities are.

 

This is why we need structure and an order to ensure that society is dragged up from the gutter. My country has been described as a broken country and it is percisely these sorts of lax attitudes that have contributed to the decline of moral, decency and has seen the rise in decadence.

[SassyKitten]

Sure, there's holes where gender roles have shifted, but that doesn't mean the family is in shambles. And was it really so perfect in the era when 2 parent nucleur families with a stay-at-home mother and a taboo against divorce? With parents who got married for survival and not healthy reasons like love being forced to stay together, and commonly going through marriages with adultery and abuse, which the children had to witness?

 

Personally, I was relieved when my parents got divorced. For once I could go to sleep without having to hear them scream obscenities to each other.

 

When men get defensive about feminism (the cause for women to fight for our basic rights!!!!), it suggests to me that some men are defensive about having to now share control.

 

Change is not easy, but it's about time!!

[Sphere]

I think women have a warped sense of what marriage should be, as do a lot of men. They talk about this "love", but a marriage is only successful when love is accompanied by hard grafting and fighting tooth and nail to get things done. If two people are in love and are in a marriage, but are not pulling in the same direction then love will not be able to support the strain of marriage. I believe that in a relationship there will always be someone whether it be the woman or man who are more dominant and the other will be slightly more submissive. You'll never get a truly equal relationship, if you did things wouldn't get done and the relationship will fall apart regardless of both people want the samethings. There is a reason why on a ship there are multiple roles for the crew, some higher than others, notably the skipper of the vessel.

[SassyKitten]

I think women have a warped sense of what marriage should be, as do a lot of men. They talk about this "love", but a marriage is only successful when love is accompanied by hard grafting and fighting tooth and nail to get things done. If two people are in love and are in a marriage, but are not pulling in the same direction then love will not be able to support the strain of marriage. I believe that in a relationship there will always be someone whether it be the woman or man who are more dominant and the other will be slightly more submissive. You'll never get a truly equal relationship, if you did things wouldn't get done and the relationship will fall apart regardless of both people want the samethings. There is a reason why on a ship there are multiple roles for the crew, some higher than others, notably the skipper of the vessel.

 

I completely agree with the statement I bolded. 500%. One of the #1 things that has killed my previous relationships is when the man I'm with has a passive attitude of if it's perfect, things will work themselves out naturally. It's probably a by-product of the media and the film industry portraying idealized versions of romance. However, every old person who I have talked to who is still happily married to the same person they were with in their youth has told me that in order to survive, relationships have to be worked on. That said, there is no point in going into a relationship with someone who isn't going in the same direction as you are.

 

A pecking order, hierarchy, whatever, is not the way to accomplish this. It's the easy way, which society's status quo has allowed for ages, and often at the detriment of women. I saw firsthand how my mother became a bitter, twisted old woman from catering to her husbands' demands. And, one of the major things that killed my relationship with her, which I only had to cut off this year, was her catering to my stepfather's demands. He never liked me from the beginning, as I am an independent woman who doesn't follow orders, and is putting herself through university by herself to be an accountant, which he is persistant about being a man's world. He kept saying things to my mother like "get rid of her". And then it all came to a head when he assaulted me earlier this year and my mother took his side.

 

Their marriage probably will last untill they're dead, as they're both traditional, but it has also made this year so much more of a headache for me. But I won't compromise my values. I am not exempted from working hard to bring in money just because I'm a woman. Unlike my mother, I work for money, I don't marry men for it. And generally the only women you will have who obey their men are the kinds who marry for money, whether or not they'll admit it to themselves.

[Untouchable_Fire]

Sure, there's holes where gender roles have shifted, but that doesn't mean the family is in shambles. And was it really so perfect in the era when 2 parent nucleur families with a stay-at-home mother and a taboo against divorce? With parents who got married for survival and not healthy reasons like love being forced to stay together, and commonly going through marriages with adultery and abuse, which the children had to witness?

Personally, I was relieved when my parents got divorced. For once I could go to sleep without having to hear them scream obscenities to each other.

When men get defensive about feminism (the cause for women to fight for our basic rights!!!!), it suggests to me that some men are defensive about having to now share control.

Change is not easy, but it's about time!!

 

What basic rights are you referring to?

 

There is more adultery and abuse committed today than ever in the past. Now many say that before it was just underreported. However, just by looking at the increase in child sexual abuse from 1970 to today it's absolutely staggering, and I don't think that can be completely attributed to underreporting. In fact if I follow the graph by 2050 25% of female children in the U.S. will be the victim of sexual assault. The study show that the greatest increase is among acquaintances and daycares, while % represented by relatives remains steady per unit of population.

 

It's not about control, it's really about responsibility. It's our responsibility to see that our children are safe, well provided for, and taught how to have a stable loving relationship. I see that as a culture we are failing massively.

[BobSacamento]

What basic rights are you referring to?

 

 

Uh oh...if this is going to where I think it might go...this could get ugly.

[SassyKitten]

What basic rights are you referring to?

 

There is more adultery and abuse committed today than ever in the past. Now many say that before it was just underreported. However, just by looking at the increase in child sexual abuse from 1970 to today it's absolutely staggering, and I don't think that can be completely attributed to underreporting. In fact if I follow the graph by 2050 25% of female children in the U.S. will be the victim of sexual assault. The study show that the greatest increase is among acquaintances and daycares, while % represented by relatives remains steady per unit of population.

 

It's not about control, it's really about responsibility. It's our responsibility to see that our children are safe, well provided for, and taught how to have a stable loving relationship. I see that as a culture we are failing massively.

 

Actually, it's only in the 1970s that sexual abuse of children was something that started being reported and taken seriously. And I have known several people who grew up in the 1980s like myself who were abused but told to keep quiet, which fortunately today is much less rampant, but unfortunately still common. I don't know the statistic for the number of child molestation cases which are prosecuted, but as far as rapes of adults go, it's only 2%, which should say a lot right there. And actually 25% of female children in the US, and I believe about 1 in 6 male children have been victims of sexual assault. As of today. It's not something that can be attributed to daycare, besides, it's a bit harder for a daycare worker to get away with it than it is a child's parent if you really think hard about that one!

 

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=410&Itemid=336

[Untouchable_Fire]

Uh oh...if this is going to where I think it might go...this could get ugly.

 

C'mon I'm just asking for something more tangible than a catch-all word "rights"

 

Women have the right to enter the workplace, the right to run for political office, the right to vote.... ect.

[Sphere]

I doubt there will be too many men who will want to support a woman financially throughout the entirity of a relationship. I know I wouldn't tolerate a woman who wasn't making her own money.

 

The problem comes with things like a woman wanting to have a great career and children at the sametime. It's nigh on impossible to have both at the same time, it's either one or the other and in my country, women are putting their careers first (which is acceptable), but they are choosing to have children later in life, much later than in previous generations. An increasing number of women in my country are having children their late 30's and well into their forties and it is those women who are having children in their forties which are a cause for concern according to many doctors and health professionals.

 

As for equality, I believe in equality of opportunity, but I will never believe that we are all born equal. Every single person roaming this earth is different, is unique and has their own special traits that make them stand out from the person next to them.

 

As for equality in relationships, every relationship I see there is always a dominant person and a submissive person, whether it is the male who leads or the female it is irrelevant, the point is that one still leads the other one.

 

A friend of mine has been in a relationship with two years and he says the secret of his success is to allow the woman to think she has control in certain situations.

 

Sometimes she'll say "let's go out" and he'll deliberately make her wait an hour or two before going out. Other times he'll say okay and he'll fetch his coat and they'll leave to go out pretty much immediately. He says it works a treat and it still allows him to be the dominant one. I think that's a great thing to do and he is happy and so is his girlfriend.

[WalkInThePark]

IIt's about structure, it's about contribution, ultimately it is about love and those who truly love each other will work together for the common good, now if I am out working to feed my family then who is going to look after the home if my wife is also out working? I could hire a Nanny, but then the children suffer as a result. They aren't spending much needed time with their parents.

 

It's not me being discriminatory against women, nor is it me being old fashioned, but I believe a lot of divorces and failed marriages these days wouldn't happen if there was proper structures and roles given within the relationship, if two people were pulling in the same direction things would function a lot better.

 

Of course feminists want their cake and to eat it too, so what can you do?

 

Wow, you really are still a chimpansee, aren't you.

 

If your opinion would be reality, then women should be forbidden to enter university because after all, their "natural" role is to take care of the children.

 

Can I ask you if you have already found your "natural" woman?

[SassyKitten]

I doubt there will be too many men who will want to support a woman financially throughout the entirity of a relationship. I know I wouldn't tolerate a woman who wasn't making her own money.

 

The problem comes with things like a woman wanting to have a great career and children at the sametime. It's nigh on impossible to have both at the same time, it's either one or the other and in my country, women are putting their careers first (which is acceptable), but they are choosing to have children later in life, much later than in previous generations. An increasing number of women in my country are having children their late 30's and well into their forties and it is those women who are having children in their forties which are a cause for concern according to many doctors and health professionals.

 

As for equality, I believe in equality of opportunity, but I will never believe that we are all born equal. Every single person roaming this earth is different, is unique and has their own special traits that make them stand out from the person next to them.

 

As for equality in relationships, every relationship I see there is always a dominant person and a submissive person, whether it is the male who leads or the female it is irrelevant, the point is that one still leads the other one.

 

A friend of mine has been in a relationship with two years and he says the secret of his success is to allow the woman to think she has control in certain situations.

 

Sometimes she'll say "let's go out" and he'll deliberately make her wait an hour or two before going out. Other times he'll say okay and he'll fetch his coat and they'll leave to go out pretty much immediately. He says it works a treat and it still allows him to be the dominant one. I think that's a great thing to do and he is happy and so is his girlfriend.

 

Oh, but why can't you be the one to give up your great career when kids come along? Why does it have to be the woman? That's basically asking her to put herself on the line where she's completely vulnerable should you ever turn into a complete and total douchebag (not saying you will, but I have seen this happen to others way too many times!). As for myself, I'm happy to take maternity leave within 1 month of the birth, but after that, I'm working. And if myself or my husband can't telecommute or we can't find relatives or friends to help out, then hire a nanny. And I will probably be one of those mothers who waits untill her late 30s/early 40s. Actually, I was born when my mother was 42 and I came into the world fine, it was just my upbringing full of sadistic, archaic values that was the problem!

 

In relationships, sure, sometimes best case scenario people take turns leading, I've seen that myself. It's relationships where the woman has to obey the man where I have a problem.

[SassyKitten]

Actually, wasn't "natural role" also a term used to justify slavery?

[Untouchable_Fire]

Actually, it's only in the 1970s that sexual abuse of children was something that started being reported and taken seriously. And I have known several people who grew up in the 1980s like myself who were abused but told to keep quiet, which fortunately today is much less rampant, but unfortunately still common. I don't know the statistic for the number of child molestation cases which are prosecuted, but as far as rapes of adults go, it's only 2%, which should say a lot right there. And actually 25% of female children in the US, and I believe about 1 in 6 male children have been victims of sexual assault. As of today. It's not something that can be attributed to daycare, besides, it's a bit harder for a daycare worker to get away with it than it is a child's parent if you really think hard about that one!

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=410&Itemid=336

 

I have 2 close family members that were abused in daycare. I narrowly avoided it myself.

 

I did have a woman that locked me and the other children outside and would only feed us dogfood. She was shut down twice only to reopen later. The demand for daycare was so high she never struggled for customers.

 

In another daycare I had the owners husband light matches and throw them at me, I was burned several times. I was 8.

 

I'm sorry but anyone who thinks daycare is some wonderful fantastic safe place to put your kids is blissfully ignorant.

[SassyKitten]

I have 2 close family members that were abused in daycare. I narrowly avoided it myself.

 

I did have a woman that locked me and the other children outside and would only feed us dogfood. She was shut down twice only to reopen later. The demand for daycare was so high she never struggled for customers.

 

In another daycare I had the owners husband light matches and throw them at me, I was burned several times. I was 8.

 

I'm sorry but anyone who thinks daycare is some wonderful fantastic safe place to put your kids is blissfully ignorant.

 

I'm very sorry you experienced that, no child should ever have to experience abusive treatment like that.

 

Abuse can happen anywhere though. From my time at home, and not in daycare, I have a scar on my forehead, back problems that won't go away from being pushed down the stairs so many times, and I still have nightmares of being raped. So home isn't a safe haven for everyone either.

 

This is not to dismiss anything anyone reading this has been through. There are flaws with every system. Which is why at the end of the day we all need law enforcement that actually takes us seriously instead of laughing in our faces and/or telling us we're being spoiled brats.

Edited August 3, 2010 by SassyKitten

[Untouchable_Fire]

Oh, but why can't you be the one to give up your great career when kids come along? Why does it have to be the woman? That's basically asking her to put herself on the line where she's completely vulnerable should you ever turn into a complete and total douchebag (not saying you will, but I have seen this happen to others way too many times!).

 

In my opinion it doesn't matter who takes care of the kids. If I married a racehorse... I'm not going to ask her to pull a cart. Everyone is different, and you each need to play to your strengths.

 

I would also like to point out that the working parent is the one with the most to lose in the event of a divorce. You lose nearly all assets, if your a man you lose the ability to see your children on anything but the weekends, and you get to pay up to 60% of your income to the non working spouse.

 

So... what risk do you take by taking care of your own children? Be it man or woman... the system is stacked in your favor... and rightfully so.

[Sphere]

Oh, but why can't you be the one to give up your great career when kids come along? Why does it have to be the woman? That's basically asking her to put herself on the line where she's completely vulnerable should you ever turn into a complete and total douchebag (not saying you will, but I have seen this happen to others way too many times!). As for myself, I'm happy to take maternity leave within 1 month of the birth, but after that, I'm working. And if myself or my husband can't telecommute or we can't find relatives or friends to help out, then hire a nanny. And I will probably be one of those mothers who waits untill her late 30s/early 40s. Actually, I was born when my mother was 42 and I came into the world fine, it was just my upbringing full of sadistic, archaic values that was the problem!

 

In relationships, sure, sometimes best case scenario people take turns leading, I've seen that myself. It's relationships where the woman has to obey the man where I have a problem.

 

If all men in my profession were to step down and look after children, will those women then pick up what I use on a daily basis and travel across the world to use it?

 

It seems to me that women want their cake (their career) and to eat it too (the children) and then say it's the man who is stopping her from doing this. I'm not if a woman wants children and wants to work that's her prerogative, but I'm not giving up my job because I can't even if I wanted to do that.

 

You see what my friend is doing is creating an illusion. He knows most modern women will not put with a traditional relationship. He knows they're into this equality stuff, so he lets his girlfriend think she has a fairshare of control when in reality she has very little. It is him who has most, if not all of the control in the relationship. He is the dominant, anyone can see that from a mile off, except her and her stupid friends.

[zengirl]

Archaic? Much of our attraction is driven by our genetic heritage. I just can't agree with the idea that DNA is archaic. Unless your trying to argue that attraction has no genetic components... at which point I would remind you that would apply to gays as well.

 

I said the idea of labeling certainly behavior "womanly" or "manly" is archaic. What's that got to do with DNA or attraction? Also. . . the links between DNA and attraction, or even sexuality, are uncertain. I tend to believe there is some link, but I don't even understand your point here.

 

The bottom line is that I agree we should have the freedom to choose our actions without threat of reprisal. However, I do not agree that we should eliminate the idea of how men and women are on average. That would be doing a great disservice to everyone... because we do act and think differently on average. Ignoring that would be a huge mistake.

 

How are men or women "on average." What average? Whose average? Are we looking more at trends or overall averages? I tend to look more at trends, personally, being younger. I also tend to stick to "Western" societies. People in my generation, in Western societies, are more likely to openly approach a view of gender and sexuality that is more individualistic and open than people of any other generation. People younger than me. . . even more so. The trends are on my side, statistically, on this one.

 

I'm not ignoring statistics, but saying there is some "average" idea of womanhood or manhood is pretty silly. There are just too many women or men to make an average, and the outliers are too vast from each other. Averages work better with smaller subsets, because then they can at least tell us something. Averaging half the data in the world available and then trying to make some specific conclusions from it is generally futile. . . statistically speaking. So, I'm not sure how disregarding that is a mistake. A mistake would be to focus on the gigantic average, rather than more reliable trends and statistics that suit your goals, situation, and the hypothesis you're trying to consider. . . from a social science perspective, which is the only way averages and statistics matter.

 

Additionally in times past we have relied on gender roles to create stable environments in which to rear offspring. Today those gender roles are in somewhat of disarray. Which is not particularly a bad thing. However... something needs to be done to fix the holes created by this shift.

 

You have to admit that as it stands today, the family unit within our culture is a complete shamble.

 

I don't admit it is any more of a shamble than it ever ways----in fact, I think it is better for children and families today than ever before. That is where our ideas differ vastly. I think it could be better still. I think some problems are "louder" now than they were in the past, when they existed but were muted with archaic ideas. . . not unlike yours.

 

To me, a stable environment in which to rear children is much different than it was to you. I don't consider a lot of those 50s families (or 1800s families or 1200s families) healthy, and they had problems of their own. What we've become is much more able, open, and ready to talk about the problems, which some folks see as having more problems. Really, it's not. Seeing problems is the only way to ever address them.

 

I don't see feminism, or evolving gender roles, as something that created holes. I see it as something that exposed underlying issues we couldn't be honest about before.

 

I agree, it is terrible in the Western World. The amount of children who are growing up in one parent households is at an all time. I come from a one parent household and I am fortunate that I raised by a fantastic woman, my mother, but not every child growing up in a one parent household is not as fortunate as I was when I was their age.

 

My Government has tried to keep the institute of marriage alive by offering couples more money for basically being married, but I don't think this will work.

 

We live in a disposable society, where if something doesn't work properly, we throw it away and go out and replace it. Such an attitude has found it's way into relationships between human beings such as friendship, relationship and marriage. People are unwilling to work on solving problems anymore. It takes too much time and effort. It is easier to get a divorce or to end the relationship. Human beings will always look for an easier way out, especially now with the declining influence on religion, the break down of taboos such as divorce etc.

 

First: There are many parents from 2 parent households who are raised in a much less stable environment than 1 parent households. Also, plenty of divorced people provide situations that aren't simply 1 parent households but are another stable, solid way of raising a child.

 

Second: I think divorce can be the right thing, but I do also believe in working through things. The thing is, divorce was less common because of fear before, not because of a new kind of laziness or inability to work through things. People weren't working through things then either. . . they were living in miserable marriages, even abusive situations, out of fear. . . fear of not being able to support themselves financially, fear of religion, fear of society, fear of losing their children, etc. Fear-based drives like that never create anything positive.

 

Personally, I think part of the problem with marriage is that people get married because they think it's natural, when many people aren't fit for it, or at least not at the time they enter it. I think this idea is evolving as well.

 

I think women have a warped sense of what marriage should be, as do a lot of men. They talk about this "love", but a marriage is only successful when love is accompanied by hard grafting and fighting tooth and nail to get things done.

 

This part is true. I actually don't believe in some kind of side-sweeping love that solves everything. I believe in building a real partnership with a fellow who can be a friend, a lover, and a companion, which is why this. . .

 

I believe that in a relationship there will always be someone whether it be the woman or man who are more dominant and the other will be slightly more submissive. You'll never get a truly equal relationship, if you did things wouldn't get done and the relationship will fall apart regardless of both people want the samethings. There is a reason why on a ship there are multiple roles for the crew, some higher than others, notably the skipper of the vessel.

 

. . . doesn't seem healthy to me. True partners are willing to work on being equal (in whatever way that means to them) without being controlling, considering the other person's needs and wants along with their own, and working out the differences between them with honesty, trust, and without resentment or the need for control. In a real partnership, no one wants to lead or follow. Both parties actively WANT to work together. Sometimes, to outsiders, it can look like one person leads or follows (and sometimes it doesn't; this depends), but any real partnership has no follower.

 

What basic rights are you referring to?

 

There is more adultery and abuse committed today than ever in the past. Now many say that before it was just underreported. However, just by looking at the increase in child sexual abuse from 1970 to today it's absolutely staggering, and I don't think that can be completely attributed to underreporting. In fact if I follow the graph by 2050 25% of female children in the U.S. will be the victim of sexual assault. The study show that the greatest increase is among acquaintances and daycares, while % represented by relatives remains steady per unit of population.

 

It's not about control, it's really about responsibility. It's our responsibility to see that our children are safe, well provided for, and taught how to have a stable loving relationship. I see that as a culture we are failing massively.

 

It was just under reported. Abuse was not taken seriously until recently in any circumstances, and children were not educated the way they are. Many children did not recognize abuse in time to report it. We are only now actually educating young children in "Sexual Ed" (by which I don't mean having 5 year olds put condoms on bananas or anything but to warn them against predators). These programs were almost nonexistant just a decade ago. There are so many factors and trends you fail to consider in this analysis.

 

The "Good Old Days" just weren't that good. I've no idea what generation you're from, of course.