PDA

View Full Version : Do the military housewives hold all (or most of) the cards in the relationship?



USN - Retired
10-28-2014, 05:53 PM
These posts were moved in from another thread...


That is why women hold all the cards. I'm good to go whenever. A woman, in general, needs a little more for it not to just be submitting in order to appease.

When I say a "woman holds all the cards" in a marriage, I am talking about much more than sex, especially when the man is the sole financial provider for his family. Your wife can withhold sex anytime she chooses (and I am okay with that) and she can even refuse to cook and clean for you (and I am okay with that too), but if you withhold your paycheck from her for any reason no matter how valid, then you have committed an act of domestic violence. You may not be arrested for that act of domestic violence, but the family courts and the military would DEFINITELY consider it to be an act of domestic violence.

You are just a figurehead in your family. Your wife holds all the real power in your family, i.e., she holds ALL the cards. She just lets you pretend that you have some say in what happens in your family.

I have gone off topic, so I'll stop here. If you are interested in continuing this conversation, then let me know and I'll start a new thread. But I suspect that you don't want to continue this conversation. Reality is just too icky for you.


Sure, start a new thread, and you can use this post.

First of all, I'd never withhold my paycheck from my wife for any reason. We has a joint account and, as long as the bills are paid, we buy what we want. We don't ask permission of each other. It's not "her money" or "my money". It's ours. And I sure don't expect her to feel obligated to have sex with me whenever I want because I bring home the paycheck.

As far as my wife holding all the cards in the relationship, I'm not sure where you got that. We were talking specifically about having sex when that statement was made. And what that statement meant was that since I'm always in the mood, it's up to her as to whether she's in the mood or not. If not, so be it.

Neither of us hold all the cards as far as the relationship goes and it's a shame it seems that people can't determine the difference between a relationship and having sex within a relationship. We joke between us about her having the final say but, in reality, when it comes down to big decisions, she's pretty ok going with whatever I decide. She gave up far more than I did when we got married. She gave up a job, moved her and her son away from her family, over to England because that's where I was heading. I didn't make any sacrifices. She knew that if she wanted to be with me then she was going to have to give up most of her normal life.

The other thing that makes it easy for us is that neither of us really get too worked up over anything. We don't fight. We very rarely even have disagreements. We NEVER argue about money. Once in awhile if there is something I really want to do or something she really wants to do then the other one will give in. Other than that it's pretty much "whatever".

And I'm curious to know who's "reality" you are talking about because my reality is not too "icky" to talk about. My reality is as pretty close to perfect as far as living a happy life as I can imagine. I can't speak to your reality, but I'd guess it hasn't been very enjoyable.

USN - Retired
10-28-2014, 06:06 PM
And I'm curious to know who's "reality" you are talking about because my reality is not too "icky" to talk about. My reality is as pretty close to perfect as far as living a happy life as I can imagine. I can't speak to your reality, but I'd guess it hasn't been very enjoyable.

Nothing that you have written has changed the reality of the situation. Let's review the reality...

1. A military housewife is not obligated to have sex with her hubby (and I am okay with that)

2. A military housewife is not obligated to cook and clean for her hubby (and I am okay with that)

3. A military housewife is not legally obligated to do anything for her hubby (and I am okay with that)

4. A military service member has a legal obligation to financial support his wife. If a military service member withholds his paycheck from his wife, then he has committed an act of domestic violence. The military housewife has a legal right to her hubby's paycheck (that's the problem).

----------------------

If you have a happy life, then I am very happy for you. You do however seem to be totally oblivious to the many domestic problems that so many military service members face. Many years ago, a co-worker of mine, a sharp first class, was ordered by the CO to pay his wife financial support. The fact that his wife walked out of the marriage and abandoned not only her hubby but also their child was considered totally and completely irrelevant by the CO. Heck, even you probably consider that fact to be irrelevant. I could go on and on with examples all day long. I also saw many military service members financially crushed by the family courts. Perhaps you don't really care about their problems and sufferings. If so, then that makes you a pretty lame Christian.

-----------------------

Here's an example why I think that the family laws don't make sense...

1. Military service member with a 19 year old daughter. That military service member has NO legal obligation to do anything for his daughter. He can kick her out of his house anytime he chooses.

2. Military service member with a 19 year old wife. That military service member is legally obligated financially support her. If that military service member does not financially support his wife, then he has committed an act of domestic violence.

What makes the 19 year old wife so much more deserving of legal protections than the 19 year old daughter?

-------------------

If a military service member chooses to financially support his wife, then that is fine with me. I just don't believe the military service member should be legally obligated to financially support his wife, especially in this day and age.

--------------------



She gave up far more than I did when we got married. She gave up a job, moved her and her son away from her family, over to England because that's where I was heading. I didn't make any sacrifices. She knew that if she wanted to be with me then she was going to have to give up most of her normal life.

So you married a single mom, you financially support her (and her son too?) and yet you think that she is the one who is making the sacrifice? Your perspective is very interesting.

Question for all the men here: How many of you would consider it a "sacrifice" on your part if you gave up your job and moved to England because some person there was willing and happy to financially support you?

sandsjames
10-28-2014, 06:19 PM
Nothing that you have written has changed the reality of the situation. Let's review the reality...

1. A military housewife is not obligated to have sex with her hubby (and I am okay with that)

2. A military housewife is not obligated to cook and clean for her hubby (and I am okay with that)

3. A military housewife is not legally obligated to do anything for her hubby (and I am okay with that)

4. A military service member has a legal obligation to financial support his wife. If a military service member withholds his paycheck from his wife, then he has committed an act of domestic violence. The military housewife has a legal right to her hubby's paycheck (that's the problem). And a military service member who is female also has the same obligation to her husband.

----------------------

If you have a happy life, then I am very happy for you. You do however seem to be totally oblivious to the many domestic problems that so many military service members face. Many years ago, a co-worker of mine, a sharp first class, was ordered by the CO to pay his wife financial support. The fact that his wife walked out of the marriage and abandoned not only her hubby but also their child was considered totally and completely irrelevant by the CO. Heck, even you probably consider that fact to be irrelevant. I could go on and on with examples all day long. I also saw many military service members financially crushed by the family courts. Perhaps you don't really care about their problems and sufferings. If so, then that makes you a pretty lame Christian.

-----------------------

Here's an example why I think that the family laws don't make sense...

1. Military service member with a 19 year old daughter. That military service member has NO legal obligation to do anything for his daughter. He can kick her out of his house anytime he chooses.

2. Military service member with a 19 year old wife. That military service member is legally obligated financially support her. If that military service member does not financially support his wife, then he has committed an act of domestic violence.

What makes the 19 year old wife so much more deserving of legal protections than the 19 year old daughter?

-------------------

If a military service member chooses to financially support his wife, then that is fine with me. I just don't believe the military service member should be legally obligated to financially support his wife, especially in this day and age.

--------------------



So you married a single mom, you financially support her (and her son too?) and yet you think that she is the one who is making the sacrifice? Your perspective is very interesting.

Question for all the men here: How many of you would consider it a "sacrifice" on your part if you gave up your job and moved to England because some person there was willing and happy to financially support you?[/QUOTE]Yep. She gave up a lot. I gave up absolutely nothing. In fact, I gained a family.

As far as family laws, I'm not sure how we got to that topic. I don't disagree at all that men get screwed when it comes to divorces and child support. I'm just not sure how that relates to the roles of a man and a woman in a marriage.

Oh, and great try at trying to attack my Christianity by assuming that I think the woman should get everything during a divorce. Again, it's not relavent to our conversation.

SomeRandomGuy
10-28-2014, 06:40 PM
I feel like I need to add something to clear up a misconception in this thread. USN-Retired implied above that a CO forced a military member to provide support to his wife. It is true that the military will force a person to provide support for their dependant but only up to the difference between single rate BAH and with dependant rate. This question came up at my last base and JAG got involved. There really isn't any specific amount in the regulation. JAG took the opinion that if you are being paid with dependant rate BAH on behalf of your dependant then you at least need to provide that much in support. For example if the single rate BAH for your area is $700 and with dependant is $1000 then you need to provide $300 worth of support in some form. The chain of command cannot force you to pay anything more than the additional $300 you recieve on behalf of the dependant.

EDIT: Adding link to actual regulation. It is http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/AFI36-2906.pdf It states:


Advise members of the Air Force policy that they are expected to provide adequate financial support to family members and the procedures which the family member may implement to obtain involuntary collection of support through garnishment or statutory allotments.” (Paragraph 3.2.1) It also states that military members “Will provide adequate financial support of a spouse or child or any other relative for which the member receives additional allowances for support. Members will also comply with the financial support provisions of a court order or written support agreement.” (Paragraph 7.2)

The Air Force does not specify suggested amounts of support. If a commanding officer receives a complaint of non-support, they are supposed to require the service member to prove that they are supporting their family. The commanding officer is not permitted to define what level of support is considered adequate.


Read more: http://paycheck-chronicles.military.com/2011/03/31/required-family-support/#ixzz3HT11drxa
The Paycheck Chronicles

USN - Retired
10-28-2014, 06:44 PM
And a military service member who is female also has the same obligation to her husband.

That doesn't make it right. I don't think a female military service member should be obligated to financially support her hubby.

Question: What would most people in our society think of a male military spouse who is complaining because his wife won't financially support him?


I don't disagree at all that men get screwed when it comes to divorces and child support.

I'm glad that we can find something to agree on.


I'm just not sure how that relates to the roles of a man and a woman in a marriage.

I would say that marriage and divorce are related subjects.


As far as family laws, I'm not sure how we got to that topic.

Again, it's not relavent to our conversation.

It is now. That's why I started this new thread. I knew that you couldn't handle this conversation.

USN - Retired
10-28-2014, 06:58 PM
I feel like I need to add something to clear up a misconception in this thread. USN-Retired implied above that a CO forced a military member to provide support to his wife. It is true that the military will force a person to provide support for their dependant but only up to the difference between single rate BAH and with dependant rate. This question came up at my last base and JAG got involved. There really isn't any specific amount in the regulation. JAG took the opinion that if you are being paid with dependant rate BAH on behalf of your dependant then you at least need to provide that much in support. For example if the single rate BAH for your area is $700 and with dependant is $1000 then you need to provide $300 worth of support in some form. The chain of command cannot force you to pay anything more than the additional $300 you recieve on behalf of the dependant.

EDIT: Adding link to actual regulation. It is http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/AFI36-2906.pdf It states:


You are not correct. Here is the correct info (at least for the Navy)...

Chapter 15 of Naval Military Personnel Manual 1754-030, "Support of Family Members," provides a guide for family support in the absence of an agreement or court order. The financial obligation is expressed as a fraction of the sailor's "gross pay" (defined as base pay plus BAH, if entitled, but excludes all other allowances):
• Spouse only: one-third of gross pay
• Spouse and one minor child: one-half of gross pay
• Spouse and two or more children: three-fifths of gross pay

http://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-npc/reference/milpersman/1000/1700Morale/Documents/1754-030.pdf

---------------------------------

Of course, the family courts can (and usually do) order the military service member to pay far more.

sandsjames
10-28-2014, 07:28 PM
It is now. That's why I started this new thread. I knew that you couldn't handle this conversation.Why the attitude? I'm handling the conversation just fine. I guess you were just hoping that I'd disagree with you about guys getting screwed with family law. I don't. I'm with you on that. You win!!

USN - Retired
10-28-2014, 07:37 PM
Why the attitude?

Me? Attitude? What attitude?



I guess you were just hoping that I'd disagree with you about guys getting screwed with family law.

I wasn't "hoping" that you would disagree with me on that point, but I certainly thought that you would disagree with me on that point.

sandsjames
10-28-2014, 07:43 PM
Me? Attitude? What attitude?




I wasn't "hoping" that you would disagree with me on that point, but I certainly thought that you would disagree with me on that point.

Nope...I've seen several guys I've worked with get screwed when it comes to the money and custody. I've worked with a guy who's wife listed the names of 17 guys she slept with while he was deployed and still got custody and child support. There is no doubt that family law is on the side of the woman.

However, that does nothing to prove that prostitution being legalized would make women "behave" better, nor is it about women, within a relationship, having the "upper hand", as they should, when it comes to deciding when it's time to have sex or not.

Rainmaker
10-28-2014, 08:11 PM
Question for all the men here: How many of you would consider it a "sacrifice" on your part if you gave up your job and moved to England because some person there was willing and happy to financially support you?

That'd be the dog's bollocks.... were do Rainmaker sign up Mate?

USN - Retired
10-28-2014, 08:18 PM
However, that does nothing to prove that prostitution being legalized would make women "behave" better, nor is it about women, within a relationship, having the "upper hand", as they should, when it comes to deciding when it's time to have sex or not.

In order for me to prove it to you, we would have to get into a time machine and go to a US military base in the Philippines back in the late 1980's. Unlimited numbers of prostitutes were available there at that time and the prices were rock bottom.

All that prostitution did affect the behavior of the female US military personnel. Some were very bitter about the sexual competition from the prostitutes. Others realized that they would simply have to be VERY nice in order to get any attention from men. I was amazed at the number of female US military personnel who flirted with me when I was in the Philippines back in the
1980's. The good ole days.


Nope...I've seen several guys I've worked with get screwed when it comes to the money and custody. I've worked with a guy who's wife listed the names of 17 guys she slept with while he was deployed and still got custody and child support. There is no doubt that family law is on the side of the woman.

So are you saying that women enjoy the "upper hand" in the family courts?

sandsjames
10-28-2014, 08:23 PM
In order for me to prove it to you, we would have to get into a time machine and go to a US military base in the Philippines back in the late 1980's. Unlimited numbers of prostitutes were available there at that time and the prices were rock bottom.

All that prostitution did affect the behavior of the female US military personnel. Some were very bitter about the sexual competition from the prostitutes. Others realized that they would simply have to be VERY nice in order to get any attention from men. I was amazed at the number of female US military personnel who flirted with me when I was in the Philippines back in the
1980's. The good ole days. As I said before, you cannot possibly relate a military base in the PI with normal every day society. You can't even equate a military base within the U.S. to normal society.

I've been deployed enough to know that guys are also "extremely nice" to the desert queens. It simply does not happen the same way in the civilian society.




So are you saying that women enjoy the "upper hand" in the family courts?Holy shit, dude. Are you really that daft? That's exactly what I'm saying. How many time do I need to say it? Does your quote of "upper hand" somehow trick me into admitting that my opinion in the other conversation is the same because the same words were used?

USN - Retired
10-28-2014, 08:31 PM
As I said before, you cannot possibly relate a military base in the PI with normal every day society. You can't even equate a military base within the U.S. to normal society.

why not?


I've been deployed enough to know that guys are also "extremely nice" to the desert queens. It simply does not happen the same way in the civilian society.

Why not?

sandsjames
10-28-2014, 08:47 PM
why not?
Because



Why not?Because

garhkal
10-28-2014, 09:02 PM
So are you saying that women enjoy the "upper hand" in the family courts?
Holy shit, dude. Are you really that daft? That's exactly what I'm saying. How many time do I need to say it? Does your quote of "upper hand" somehow trick me into admitting that my opinion in the other conversation is the same because the same words were used?

If someone doesn't think women enjoy the upper hand in divorce and family courts, i would like to know who they feel DOES?

Rusty Jones
10-29-2014, 10:45 AM
As I said before, you cannot possibly relate a military base in the PI with normal every day society.

Yeah, because of all the cheap prostitutes everywhere. THAT'S what makes the difference!

sandsjames
10-29-2014, 11:17 AM
Yeah, because of all the cheap prostitutes everywhere. THAT'S what makes the difference!

Here's my issue. Any woman worth being with isn't going to change who she is for some guy who's going to go pay for sex with some used up hooker. Now, if you want to convince women with no self respect to treat you better then it might work. But a woman who's worth being in a relationship with? Not a chance.

Rusty Jones
10-29-2014, 12:21 PM
Here's my issue. Any woman worth being with isn't going to change who she is for some guy who's going to go pay for sex with some used up hooker. Now, if you want to convince women with no self respect to treat you better then it might work. But a woman who's worth being in a relationship with? Not a chance.

I'm going to respond to this in a thread that I just created specifically for prostition, so I don't take away from what USN-Retired is talking about here.

Stalwart
11-12-2014, 01:40 AM
I am slightly necro-ing this


1. A military housewife is not obligated to have sex with her hubby (and I am okay with that)

Neither is a non-military affiliated housewife.


2. A military housewife is not obligated to cook and clean for her hubby (and I am okay with that)

Neither is a non-military affiliated housewife.


3. A military housewife is not legally obligated to do anything for her hubby (and I am okay with that)

Neither is a non-military affiliated housewife.


4. A military service member has a legal obligation to financial support his wife. If a military service member withholds his paycheck from his wife, then he has committed an act of domestic violence. The military housewife has a legal right to her hubby's paycheck (that's the problem).

True, and a non-military spouse also has a legal obligation to support his or her spouse. It may take longer to get enforced in court than via the military, but the obligation is there -- it happened to my brother with his first wife. Specific to the military, BAH is to provide housing for the dependant and more than once I have seen a military member drawing BAH for an estranged spouse relocate to the barracks.



If you have a happy life, then I am very happy for you. You do however seem to be totally oblivious to the many domestic problems that so many military service members face.

I know you weren't asking me, but I would say: Oblivious, no ... definitely not overly sympathetic. True fact: military and civilians get the shaft from family courts. At the same time, a lot of people (military and civilian) get themselves into a bad marriage / situation (get married too early, marry someone that maybe isn't as committed as they are etc.) and the system is what it is. I almost married a gal who it turns out had no intention of moving from her hometown & I had no intention of living there indefinitely. I am glad we got that figured out before we got hitched.

Some of those who exit that bad situation have legitimate gripes about their situation, many come across as having a case of sour grapes.

Overall, dependent on the situation the male or female, active duty or spouse could be 'holding the cards.' Personally I could not tell you who in my marriage 'holds the cards' ... we have never competed for dominance in the relationship.

Stalwart
11-12-2014, 02:05 AM
Here's my issue. Any woman worth being with isn't going to change who she is for some guy who's going to go pay for sex with some used up hooker. Now, if you want to convince women with no self respect to treat you better then it might work. But a woman who's worth being in a relationship with? Not a chance.

Yeah, I am positive that if I was willing to pay for sex from a prostitute, my wife would not be interested in me.

Rusty Jones
11-12-2014, 01:03 PM
Yeah, I am positive that if I was willing to pay for sex from a prostitute, my wife would not be interested in me.

Because prostitution is illegal in this country, I think it's safe to say that most American men have never paid for sex; thus giving your wife (well, American women in general) the ability to be selective in that area.

USN - Retired
11-13-2014, 12:17 AM
Yeah, I am positive that if I was willing to pay for sex from a prostitute, my wife would not be interested in me.

Would your wife still be interested in you if you had sex with a woman who is not a hooker?

sandsjames
11-13-2014, 12:22 AM
Would your wife still be interested in you if you had sex with a woman who is not a hooker?

And this is exactly the point. Of course she wouldn't. And this is why prostitution being legal or illegal isn't going to make any difference in how women treat men.

Stalwart
11-13-2014, 12:33 AM
Would your wife still be interested in you if you had sex with a woman who is not a hooker?

Nope, she would not be interested in me if I had sex with anyone other than her.

What I said was "if I was willing to pay for sex from a prostitute". This is going to sound judgemental as hell, but if I was the 'type of guy' (a broad generalization) willing to pay a prostitute (regardless of if I did it while we married, before we were married, or just considered it okay for me to do in general), Mrs. Stalwart would not have picked me to be her partner.

USN - Retired
11-13-2014, 01:05 AM
And this is exactly the point. Of course she wouldn't. And this is why prostitution being legal or illegal isn't going to make any difference in how women treat men.

Let's compare "A" to "B"...

"A" is a place where the ratio of men to women is one to one...

and

"B" is a place where the ratio of women to men is ten to one, i.e. there are ten women for every one man in "B"...

For purposes of the discussion, assume that the women in "B" can not move to "A" and the men in "A" can not move to "B"...

Will the women in place "A" treat men the same as women in place "B"??


Prostitution was not legal in the Philippines, but it was available in large numbers and the prostitution laws were never really enforced. The American military women were in direct competition with the Filipino bar girls for the attention of the American military men, especially those men with some money. The behavior of those American military women changed because of that extensive competition. Whether the Filipino bar girls were charging for sex or giving it away for free was actually irrelevant.

I know that you find my observations to be inconvenient and irritating, but that doesn't change reality.

USN - Retired
11-13-2014, 01:22 AM
Nope, she would not be interested in me if I had sex with anyone other than her.

What I said was "if I was willing to pay for sex from a prostitute". This is going to sound judgemental as hell, but if I was the 'type of guy' (a broad generalization) willing to pay a prostitute (regardless of if I did it while we married, before we were married, or just considered it okay for me to do in general), Mrs. Stalwart would not have picked me to be her partner.

What's wrong with sex with a prostitute (assuming she is a consenting adult)? For those who think that a woman would never consent to be a prostitute, then google: Brooke Taylor prostitute . WARNING: do not google those three words on a computer at work.

So would it be okay with your wife if you had sex with many women before you met her as long as you never paid for the sex?

Stalwart
11-13-2014, 02:04 AM
What's wrong with sex with a prostitute (assuming she is a consenting adult)? For those who think that a woman would never consent to be a prostitute, then google: Brooke Taylor prostitute . WARNING: do not google those three words on a computer at work.

What's right or wrong is subjective. I will tell you that sex with a prostitute isn't my thing, neither are strippers etc. If you rest your head on your pillow at night comfortably, I am not going to say that you are morally inept ... that is up to you.

Is every prostitute unwilling or a victim of human trafficking? No. Many are ... I have no ideas or thoughts on percentages. Some are 'consenting' but I think would rather be doing something else with their lives too.


So would it be okay with your wife if you had sex with many women before you met her as long as you never paid for the sex?

My wife knew I had a life before her, sure. At the same time, I think if I had a reputation of being a man-whore she likely would have never dated me. I may be able to "get the milk without buying the cow" and it may be fun for a while, but a girl who is 'morally casual' may not be a girl whose values lineup with mine in the long run ... and I think some women feel the same way ... my wife is one of those women and hence we are a good fit, this probably explains the (IMHO) good marriage (then again, if I am wrong about her one day you can tell me I am all wrong.)

A couple of anecdotes:

-Don't be surprised when you meet a girl who cheats on her husband or boyfriend with you and then down the road cheats on you.

-Don't be surprised when you marry a player that he is ... a player.

-You don't hang out at an Evangelical Christian Church hoping to pick up a one night stand.

-You don't meet too many virgins at a Planned Parenthood clinic.



[EDIT]: Thanks for the NSFW warning too ... I am working nights from 1800 - 0600 for a while and sit here really bored at times and may have googled that.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-13-2014, 02:53 AM
These posts were moved in from another thread...



When I say a "woman holds all the cards" in a marriage, I am talking about much more than sex, especially when the man is the sole financial provider for his family. Your wife can withhold sex anytime she chooses (and I am okay with that) and she can even refuse to cook and clean for you (and I am okay with that too), but if you withhold your paycheck from her for any reason no matter how valid, then you have committed an act of domestic violence. You may not be arrested for that act of domestic violence, but the family courts and the military would DEFINITELY consider it to be an act of domestic violence.

You are just a figurehead in your family. Your wife holds all the real power in your family, i.e., she holds ALL the cards. She just lets you pretend that you have some say in what happens in your family.

I have gone off topic, so I'll stop here. If you are interested in continuing this conversation, then let me know and I'll start a new thread. But I suspect that you don't want to continue this conversation. Reality is just too icky for you.

If that is the way you feel, then don't get married.

Marriage isn't for me, I tried it once and it didn't work out.

I don't think that means females hold all the cards though. That's just silly.

Be a man and protect yourself, stop crying about how the government and women are fucking you over.

USN - Retired
11-13-2014, 07:25 AM
Is every prostitute unwilling or a victim of human trafficking? No. Many are ... I have no ideas or thoughts on percentages. Some are 'consenting' but I think would rather be doing something else with their lives too.

I also suspect that many women who are maids, housekeepers, and waitresses would rather be doing something else with their lives. Perhaps many women who work in an office would rather be doing something else with their lives. Is it possible that many housewives and stay-at-home moms would rather be doing something else with their lives?

I recently received an e-spanking from Mjölnir because I compared prostitutes and housewives, so I probably shouldn't take this line of thought much farther.


My wife knew I had a life before her, sure. At the same time, I think if I had a reputation of being a man-whore she likely would have never dated me. I may be able to "get the milk without buying the cow" and it may be fun for a while, but a girl who is 'morally casual' may not be a girl whose values lineup with mine in the long run ... and I think some women feel the same way ... my wife is one of those women and hence we are a good fit, this probably explains the (IMHO) good marriage (then again, if I am wrong about her one day you can tell me I am all wrong.)

You and SJ can brag about your marriages all you want but it won't change reality. You and SJ sound like a propaganda machine for the DOD. The DOD also wants us to believe all is well in the domestic life of our military personnel. The reality that I saw is not the pretty picture that you, SJ and the DOD paint for us. Most military marriages quickly become dysfunctional. The average military couple is like the nut cases on the Dr Phil show.

All men think that they have the perfect marriage up until the wife files for divorce Most men never see it coming. Anecdotal evidence suggests that career military personnel have a divorce rate around 75%. Don't those numbers suggest that the institution of marriage in the military is in big trouble? Only our brainwashed military personnel could look at an institution with a 75% failure rate and see it as a success.

USN - Retired
11-13-2014, 07:31 AM
I don't think that means females hold all the cards though. That's just silly.

You obviously took the blue pill.


Be a man...

Oh please.... That shaming language is so very cliche. Can't you do better than that?


...and protect yourself.

Actually, that's not bad advice.


, stop crying about how the government and women are fucking you over.

What? Me? Crying? (*giggle*) I'm just making some observations. I'm not crying. I'm laughing at how upset you get at my observations of our society, but I have to admit that I don't really understand why observations upset you so much. Why do my observations upset you so much? Please enlighten/entertain me.

I do hope that you are having as much fun as I am...

Stalwart
11-13-2014, 08:47 AM
Is it possible that many housewives and stay-at-home moms would rather be doing something else with their lives?.
I would think that some/many do want to be doing something else.


You and SJ can brag about your marriages all you want but it won't change reality. You and SJ sound like a propaganda machine for the DOD. The DOD also wants us to believe all is well in the domestic life of our military personnel. The reality that I saw is not the pretty picture that you, SJ and the DOD paint for us. Most military marriages quickly become dysfunctional. The average military couple is like the nut cases on the Dr Phil show.

I am far from a propaganda machine, nor do I think DoD thinks all is roses and buttercups and smells like chocolate. My reality is that my situation is pretty good and the vast majority of the people I hang around with are not divorced. Your reality it seems is different. I will say that 'most' military marriages don't quickly become dysfunctional ... but that may depend on how you classify dysfunctional. In 13+ years I have been gone (deployed) over 7 years of it, in some circles that would be considered dysfunctional.


… Anecdotal evidence suggests that career military personnel have a divorce rate around 75%. Don't those numbers suggest that the institution of marriage in the military is in big trouble? Only our brainwashed military personnel could look at an institution with a 75% failure rate and see it as a success.

You need not rely on anecdotal evidence, again, I don't think military marriages are doing way better than civilian ones but I think your 75% estimate is way off-base though:

edivorcestatistics/family law: http://www.edivorcestatistics.com/military.html



Breakup Rates Across All Wings of the Military

The rates have been on the steady increase across all the wings of the military. Here is a perspective with solid percentages:

Rate Among Army Personnel- 3.7%, the highest rate for the service since the year 2004.
Rate Among Navy Personnel- 3.6%, the highest rate for the service since the year 2004.
Rate Among Marine Corp Personnel- 3.8%, the same as for the year 2010.
Rate Among Air Force Personnel- 3.9%, the highest rate for the service for more than two decades.
From the above numbers, it is clear that the Air Force had the highest number of marriage break ups last year. In fact, it was noted that a whooping 5% of all Air Force marriages ended in the legal termination of marital relation in the year of 2011. A real tragedy!



Divorce rates in the military are higher than rates for civilians; but based on the OP I would think that you attribute that to the women in the marriage. I think the causes are more based in things like:

- Military members on average marry younger than civilian counterparts, many are immature and don't know how to have an adult relationship -- I don't mean sex but a relationship that is based on more than sex. Take an immature person, who now has a steady paycheck and are not living at home anymore and they start a sexual relationship and they don't/can't separate sex from love. Getting married young, they are less also educated … which is a factor in divorce rates.

- Military members tend to get married early in their careers, when their income is lower (most marriages that have trouble, have money trouble.) Also, being junior they are in little to no control of their schedules or lives etc.

- At times the military will take precedence over what your spouse wants; some don't handle this well.

Big thing is that if a marriage is based on a faulty foundation, it won't work. I am not saying I did it 'right' but I think my marriage was built on a good foundation:

- I got married at 28, late compared to my peers.

- I was already a SNCO, made a bit more money & had a bit more control over my hours and schedule.

- I met my wife at church, not a bar or club etc. We were not looking to high tail it to the Motel 6 on our first date.

- We dated a long time before we got married, got to know each other really well before we got married.

As a result of things like that, I think I missed a lot of the pitfalls I have seen doom military marriages, and I consider myself fortunate for that. I don't know, but the impression you give is that your experience with marriage is different than mine, so our perspectives are not going to be the same. Some folks end up in bad marriages, sometimes it isn't their fault and sometimes they really could have / should have seen the train-wreck coming.

Rusty Jones
11-13-2014, 11:51 AM
Is every prostitute unwilling or a victim of human trafficking? No. Many are ... I have no ideas or thoughts on percentages. Some are 'consenting' but I think would rather be doing something else with their lives too.

Here in America, a first world country where women are heavily protected by the law, I'll go out on a limb and say that victims of human trafficking are a pretty damned small percentage of prostitutes here.

I lived in the projects in New London, CT up until the age of nine; and lived in Norfolk through my pre-teens - that said, I knew some prostitues personally... some of whom, were actually my friends' mothers.

Granted, the ones I knew before the age of 7 or 8; I didn't realize what they were doing until later in retrospect... but I can tell you this: most prostitutes aren't being pimped. They're in business for themselves.

And would these women REALLY rather be doing something else? Sure, they'd rather be doing NOTHING. The reason why they're in their current profession is because they'd rather make money laying on their backs, instead of getting a real job.

sandsjames
11-13-2014, 12:21 PM
And would these women REALLY rather be doing something else? Sure, they'd rather be doing NOTHING. The reason why they're in their current profession is because they'd rather make money laying on their backs, instead of getting a real job.That's a pretty bold statement...akin to saying that those on social assistance would rather do nothing than get a job.

Rusty Jones
11-13-2014, 12:34 PM
That's a pretty bold statement...akin to saying that those on social assistance would rather do nothing than get a job.

Like I said, I'm only speaking from what I know personally. Anyone else here who knows any prostitutes personally, please feel free to chime in. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one.

sandsjames
11-13-2014, 12:49 PM
Like I said, I'm only speaking from what I know personally. Anyone else here who knows any prostitutes personally, please feel free to chime in. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one.I'm happy to say that you are correct. I do not know anyone who is a prostitute.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-13-2014, 01:10 PM
I also suspect that many women who are maids, housekeepers, and waitresses would rather be doing something else with their lives. Perhaps many women who work in an office would rather be doing something else with their lives. Is it possible that many housewives and stay-at-home moms would rather be doing something else with their lives?

I recently received an e-spanking from Mjölnir because I compared prostitutes and housewives, so I probably shouldn't take this line of thought much farther.



You and SJ can brag about your marriages all you want but it won't change reality. You and SJ sound like a propaganda machine for the DOD. The DOD also wants us to believe all is well in the domestic life of our military personnel. The reality that I saw is not the pretty picture that you, SJ and the DOD paint for us. Most military marriages quickly become dysfunctional. The average military couple is like the nut cases on the Dr Phil show.

All men think that they have the perfect marriage up until the wife files for divorce Most men never see it coming. Anecdotal evidence suggests that career military personnel have a divorce rate around 75%. Don't those numbers suggest that the institution of marriage in the military is in big trouble? Only our brainwashed military personnel could look at an institution with a 75% failure rate and see it as a success.

I might agree with you about most military marriages being fucked up.

I used to have a thing for fucking married women and it is so damn easy to do on military bases, especially overseas.

The NCO clubs are great hunting grounds, but so are the base banks, PXs and sometimes the commissaries. Go for the women who work at these places, not the customers.

All you have to do is be charming and witty; you'll have plenty of action.

Don't worry about getting in trouble if you are caught either. You'll be given a no-contact order initially, as long as you stay away after that, you'll be ok.

That is why I think your and Rusty's views on prostitution are so dumb. There is plenty of free sex out there.

The vast majority of people fuck around. If you keep yourself in shape, and don't become a lazy fat ass, you can get all the action you can handle.

That is another reason, I'd always support bake sales. Fatten up the competition to make them less competitive for promotion, and to give me an edge with the females on base.

What I don't understand is why you want the government to help you straighten out your sex life.

That's just being lazy in my opinion. Take charge of your own life, stop crying for the government to moderate your marriages.

Better yet, don't get married, especially if you think it is unfair.

Rusty Jones
11-13-2014, 01:19 PM
That is why I think your and Rusty's views on prostitution are so dumb. There is plenty of free sex out there.

There's no such thing as "free sex." Even if you don't give her money... even if you don't pay for the date, you STILL have to be on your best behavior and win her approval. And if she has your phone number, you'll still have to deal with her long after... even when you don't want to.

When you're single, the best kind of sex is the kind where you get the vagina without having to put with the woman that it's attached to. Outside of prostitution, that's like finding a needle in a haystack.

SomeRandomGuy
11-13-2014, 02:00 PM
Like I said, I'm only speaking from what I know personally. Anyone else here who knows any prostitutes personally, please feel free to chime in. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one.

I don't know any prostitutes personally but for a short time I used to go to a lot of strip clubs. Here in Dayton there is a strip of about 6 of them (not the classiest places) and they are free for military. When I used to go to the strip clubs quite often a lot of people were judgemental but I honestly wasn't buying a ton of dances mostly just drinking and talking to women. Strip clubs are sort of the opposite of a normal club. The girls come up to you and initiate a conversation. This is sort of like the utopia Rusty and USNRetired envision if prostitution were legal.

Anyways, I tell that story to get to this point. Since I was at the strip club quite often I actually got to know several of the strippers. A few times one or more of them came home with me. I would venture to say that about 50-60% of the strippers at these clubs ended up going home with someone at the end of the night. It wasn't always for sex, sometimes they were just looking for a place to party at 3 in the morning and odds are one of the rich guys at your club is likely to have a house, some alcohol, and maybe some drugs.

Getting to know several of these strippers I noticed a common theme among them. While none of them grew up wanting to be a stripper many didn't seem to mind it when compared to other jobs avaliable to them. Nearly all of them were addicted to drugs. This already limits the type of jobs they can get. Most were bringing in about $200 on a weeknight and $500-$600 on a weekend night. The fact is that a drug addict isn't likely to find another job that pays well. Also, at the strip clubs I went to most of the girls weren't on staff per se. Only a few girls are actually scheduled for ceratin shifts. Other than that, if you want to work you show up, pay the house, pay the DJ, and get to work.

I would venture to say that many prostitutes fit into the same lifestyle as these women. Addicted to drugs. Making a lot more money than they could anywhere else. And not really reliable to hold down a steady job. As far as how much these girls actually enjoyed their job it's hard to say. Most of them were strictly in it for the money. A lot of them end up finding some rich old sucker to be their sugar daddy and they quit stripping. In the meantime though they didn't seem to mind the profession and I wouldn't say any were forced into it.

On a completely unrelated note: A large perentage of them actually had a kid with a military member. In fact so many of them did that when changes were made to Tricare because of the Affordable care Act Tricare actually sent a rep to one of the clubs employee meetings to talk to the women about the changes in their insurance.

Rusty Jones
11-13-2014, 02:22 PM
Out here in Norfolk, especially in the Ocean View area, it's pretty obvious that most of the street walkers are meth addicts. Sure, you have some crack addicted street walkers on Church Street as well.

I, personally, would never mess with a street walker. Above that, the only "drug" that these prostitutes are likely to be "addicted" to is pot.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-13-2014, 02:35 PM
There's no such thing as "free sex." Even if you don't give her money... even if you don't pay for the date, you STILL have to be on your best behavior and win her approval. And if she has your phone number, you'll still have to deal with her long after... even when you don't want to.

When you're single, the best kind of sex is the kind where you get the vagina without having to put with the woman that it's attached to..

If you are so lazy that you don't even want to be bothered to be attractive to females, then perhaps you are right.


Outside of prostitution, that's like finding a needle in a haystack.

Trust me, it is as easy as going to an NCO club and finding a bored and unfulfilled housewife.

Rusty Jones
11-13-2014, 03:06 PM
If you are so lazy that you don't even want to be bothered to be attractive to females, then perhaps you are right.

You know what I do in the morning when I wake up? Shower, wash my hair, brush my teeth, apply deodorant, and put my clothes on - those clothes coming nowhere close to resembling anything on the cover of GQ magazine. I don't do the metro "manscaping" bullshit; or anything designed to catch a woman's attention... and it's worked fine for me.

Fuck, if anything, I think metros probably have worse luck; since women generally don't want to be with men who are more attractive than they are (most of the exceptions being the ones who are so ugly, that they have little choice).

My real issue, I suppose, are dudes who go out of their way to seek validation from women; and ruin their lives in the process. Or, go on shooting sprees when it does work (Elliot Rodgers, anyone)?


Trust me, it is as easy as going to an NCO club and finding a bored and unfulfilled housewife.

One that you're going to run into again the next time you go back to the NCO club. One whos friends at the NCO club are going to know all about it. In other words, your business is going to be out there.

With a prostitute, she'll forget you even existed less then ten seconds after you walk out the door. Tell me where you can get THAT for free.

sandsjames
11-13-2014, 04:51 PM
This message has been deleted by Mjölnir.
Reason
Personally insulting other member

How can this not warrant a ban? Personal attacks, talk of "banging" another posters wife. Really?

Mjölnir
11-13-2014, 05:25 PM
Gents, let's throttle back a bit.

Many posters say they don't want to have mod's getting involved in conversations; then multiple conversations devolve into a personal back and forth insult-fest. I would prefer you police & moderate yourselves without warnings & the ban hammer having to get tossed around like this is a movie or something

http://images.bidnessetc.com/content/uploads/images/source3/thor_gif_by_bookmaniac2013-d3ghexl-e16e74a63567ecb44ade5c87002bb1d9.gif

Rusty Jones
11-13-2014, 05:38 PM
Gents, let's throttle back a bit.

Many posters say they don't want to have mod's getting involved in conversations; then multiple conversations devolve into a personal back and forth insult-fest. I would prefer you police & moderate yourselves without warnings & the ban hammer having to get tossed around like this is a movie or something

http://images.bidnessetc.com/content/uploads/images/source3/thor_gif_by_bookmaniac2013-d3ghexl-e16e74a63567ecb44ade5c87002bb1d9.gif

Are you going to delete AA's post too? Because if not, I'm going to repost what I said that you deleted.

USN - Retired
11-13-2014, 05:48 PM
nor do I think DoD thinks all is roses and buttercups and smells like chocolate.

The DOD leadership knows that all is not roses and buttercups and smells like chocolate, but they want everyone to think that all is roses and buttercups and smells like chocolate.


You need not rely on anecdotal evidence, again, I don't think military marriages are doing way better than civilian ones but I think your 75% estimate is way off-base though:

edivorcestatistics/family law: http://www.edivorcestatistics.com/military.html



Your statistics are misleading (and those misleading statistics are commonly used by the DOD leadership). You are looking at the annual divorce rate (percentage of military members who get divorced in a year). That number shows an annual trend, but it does not give the overall picture. You need to look at the overall divorce rate, i.e. what percentage of marriages of career military personnel will eventually end in divorce. And that number is probably close to 75%.

The "3.X% annual divorce rate" numbers provided by the DOD are suspect. The military doesn't tell us specifically how they calculated those numbers, i.e. they don't provide source data for their calculations. I suspect that the DOD is fudging the numbers to make things look better than they are.

sandsjames
11-13-2014, 05:50 PM
The DOD leadership knows that all is not roses and buttercups and smells like chocolate, but they want everyone to think that all is roses and buttercups and smells like chocolate.



Your statistics are misleading (and those misleading statistics are commonly used by the DOD leadership). You are looking at the annual divorce rate (percentage of military members who get divorced in a year). That number shows an annual trend, but it does not give the overall picture. You need to look at the overall divorce rate, i.e. what percentage of marriages of career military personnel will eventually end in divorce. And that number is probably close to 75%.

The "3.X% annual divorce rate" numbers provided by the DOD are suspect. The military doesn't tell us specifically how they calculated those numbers, i.e. they don't provide source data for their calculations. I suspect that the DOD is fudging the numbers to make things look better than they are.

Still not sure how any of this changes if prostitution is legal.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-13-2014, 05:57 PM
Are you going to delete AA's post too? Because if not, I'm going to repost what I said that you deleted.

Yeah, I didn't see it... At least PM it to me...

USN - Retired
11-13-2014, 06:01 PM
How can this not warrant a ban? Personal attacks, talk of "banging" another posters wife. Really?

I can't believe that I am actually going to defend AA, but I don't think that AA's post deserves a ban (or even a warning). He is simply describing the world as he sees it.

Rusty Jones
11-13-2014, 06:03 PM
Still not sure how any of this changes if prostitution is legal.

No, there ARE things that will change this. Not legal prostitution, but BAH/dorms/barracks policies...

Mjölnir
11-13-2014, 06:07 PM
I can't believe that I am actually going to defend AA, but I don't think that AA's post deserves a ban (or even a warning). He is simply describing the world as he sees it.


And had he made it a general statement and not targeted a user it would have stayed.

USN - Retired
11-13-2014, 06:39 PM
What I don't understand is why you want the government to help you straighten out your sex life.

When did I say that the government should straighten out my sex life? I would like the government to get out of our sex lives.


Take charge of your own life, stop crying for the government to moderate your marriages.

When did I say that the government should moderate our marriages? I would like the government to get out of the marriage moderation business altogether.

I think that you have me confused with another poster.

Rusty Jones
11-13-2014, 07:02 PM
When did I say that the government should straighten out my sex life? I would like the government to get out of our sex lives.

When did I say that the government should moderate our marriages? I would like the government to get out of the marriage moderation business altogether.

I think that you have me confused with another poster.

And that's what it's all about. The government regulates what two consenting adults are allowed to do by outlawing prostitution.

I can understand outlawing street walking. But when a financial transaction for sex occurs, does that stop anyone from sleeping safe at night?

Americans make up 4% of the world's population; but our inmates make up 25% of the world's incarcerated problems. Want to fix that? Then first place to start is removing all these victimless crimes from the books.

I was in Bexar County Jail for 18 hours (WORST 18 hours of my life), and over half the people in the holding cell with me were there for marijuana charges.

In Hampton Roads, you see each of the Seven Cities posting the results of prostitution stings to the paper and news channels on facebook; where've nabbed 25 prositutes and johns.

The government needs to get out of that.

sandsjames
11-13-2014, 09:49 PM
I can't believe that I am actually going to defend AA, but I don't think that AA's post deserves a ban (or even a warning). He is simply describing the world as he sees it.So talk that he is going to bang Rusty's wife long and hard isn't a problem?

sandsjames
11-13-2014, 09:51 PM
And that's what it's all about. The government regulates what two consenting adults are allowed to do by outlawing prostitution.

I can understand outlawing street walking. But when a financial transaction for sex occurs, does that stop anyone from sleeping safe at night?

Americans make up 4% of the world's population; but our inmates make up 25% of the world's incarcerated problems. Want to fix that? Then first place to start is removing all these victimless crimes from the books.

I was in Bexar County Jail for 18 hours (WORST 18 hours of my life), and over half the people in the holding cell with me were there for marijuana charges.

In Hampton Roads, you see each of the Seven Cities posting the results of prostitution stings to the paper and news channels on facebook; where've nabbed 25 prositutes and johns.

The government needs to get out of that.

I'm all for legal prostitution. No problem with it at all. Keeping it illegal is no different than the "war on drugs". It doesn't help anything. Legalize it...no issues. Just still don't think that's going to change how any self respecting woman would change how she acts.

meatbringer
11-14-2014, 01:46 PM
This is actually a pretty interesting subject, which is why I'll throw my opinion out there. Having been exposed to prostitution in my life, I would have to agree that legalizing prostitution would have a significant impact on how MANY women behave in regards to interacting with men. Now, with that being said, I do understand that everyone who is against this concept says "My wife is not like that", or "No woman good enough for me would be like that." That's fine. There are always exceptions to the rules, but having somewhat attractive women available to all men for sex with no strings attached would in fact change the game entirely, at least for a while.

Think about it as if you conducted a social experiment in a controlled environment. Even better yet, try to think back to a party that you may have attended in your youth that played out the same way. Your typical groups of guys are at a party with some attractive women, who they outnumber noticeably. Each will try to win the attention or approval of a chick in order to possible hook up. Now, take that party and introduce a large group of very attractive women who are all morally loose and openly willing to have sex. You all know the kind I'm talking about, real flirters. What will happen is MOST of the women from the original group will now become more flirtatious now that they have some stiff competition and the efforts of the men have turned away from them. Not only that, but instead of the men having to compete for the original women's affections, you will now have those original group of girls going out of their way to interact with the men. The tables will turn due to the introduction of the openly sexual, no strings attached girls. It's all very scientific...So, I understand why many of you would disagree with what the point of this thread is, but you have to admit that introducing legal prostitution into our society would change the game significantly. I'm sorry, but if you can't see that then you obviously don't know very much about women who aren't your wives.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-14-2014, 02:39 PM
This is actually a pretty interesting subject, which is why I'll throw my opinion out there. Having been exposed to prostitution in my life, I would have to agree that legalizing prostitution would have a significant impact on how MANY women behave in regards to interacting with men. Now, with that being said, I do understand that everyone who is against this concept says "My wife is not like that", or "No woman good enough for me would be like that." That's fine. There are always exceptions to the rules, but having somewhat attractive women available to all men for sex with no strings attached would in fact change the game entirely, at least for a while.

Think about it as if you conducted a social experiment in a controlled environment. Even better yet, try to think back to a party that you may have attended in your youth that played out the same way. Your typical groups of guys are at a party with some attractive women, who they outnumber noticeably. Each will try to win the attention or approval of a chick in order to possible hook up. Now, take that party and introduce a large group of very attractive women who are all morally loose and openly willing to have sex. You all know the kind I'm talking about, real flirters. What will happen is MOST of the women from the original group will now become more flirtatious now that they have some stiff competition and the efforts of the men have turned away from them. Not only that, but instead of the men having to compete for the original women's affections, you will now have those original group of girls going out of their way to interact with the men. The tables will turn due to the introduction of the openly sexual, no strings attached girls. It's all very scientific...So, I understand why many of you would disagree with what the point of this thread is, but you have to admit that introducing legal prostitution into our society would change the game significantly. I'm sorry, but if you can't see that then you obviously don't know very much about women who aren't your wives.

The flaw in your line of thinking is that there is already prostitution right now and it doesn't change the way women act.

You can go out and find a prostitute right now. If you are thinking that if prostitution where suddenly legalized that brothels would suddenly become as plentiful as 7-11s, then you aren't being realistic.

I'm sure that if you want to find a woman to bang, long and hard, you probably could.

It is easy because so many men are unmotivated crybabies who spend their entire lives blaming leadership for their shortcomings, that their wives would jump at the chance to be with a meat-bringer.

I don't care one way or the other about prostitution. I think it should be legal. It is dumb to have the government involved in so many things.

The real problem is that our society has too many crybabies. People who run around complaining that if only leadership/government would do this or that, then they'd be happy.

That is bullshit.

Each individual is responsible for their own happiness. I can't believe these guys are actually asking the government to help them find someone to bang. The are crying for help from the government in controlling their women. What a fucking joke.

That is a personal responsibility. Keeping your wife happy and away from the meat-bringers isn't the job of the government.

Besides, even if there where suddenly numerous brothels in towns like gas stations, do you think that the hot prostitutes would charge as much as the skanks?

Nope, the hot ones would cost more.

So I ask you, what the next complaint of these unmotivated crybabies would be?

They'd soon enough be crying for brothel subsidies because they aren't competitive enough to make enough money to afford a hottie.

meatbringer
11-14-2014, 02:58 PM
The flaw in your line of thinking is that there is already prostitution right now and it doesn't change the way women act.

You can go out and find a prostitute right now. If you are thinking that if prostitution where suddenly legalized that brothels would suddenly become as plentiful as 7-11s, then you aren't being realistic.

I'm sure that if you want to find a woman to bang, long and hard, you probably could.

It is easy because so many men are unmotivated crybabies who spend their entire lives blaming leadership for their shortcomings, that their wives would jump at the chance to be with a meat-bringer.

I don't care one way or the other about prostitution. I think it should be legal. It is dumb to have the government involved in so many things.

The real problem is that our society has too many crybabies. People who run around complaining that if only leadership/government would do this or that, then they'd be happy.

That is bullshit.

Each individual is responsible for their own happiness. I can't believe these guys are actually asking the government to help them find someone to bang. The are crying for help from the government in controlling their women. What a fucking joke.

That is a personal responsibility. Keeping your wife happy and away from the meat-bringers isn't the job of the government.

Besides, even if there where suddenly numerous brothels in towns like gas stations, do you think that the hot prostitutes would charge as much as the skanks?

Nope, the hot ones would cost more.

So I ask you, what the next complaint of these unmotivated crybabies would be?

They'd soon enough be crying for brothel subsidies because they aren't competitive enough to make enough money to afford a hottie.

The legalization of it would change it, though. Right now with prostitution being illegal it is not as abundant or "mainstream" as if it would be if it were legal. Using a prostitute isn't really a viable solution to getting laid out of fear of disease or being arrested, so your average chick really doesn't have much to fear (like in the mentioned scenario). But legalizing it would make it not only more socially acceptable, but it would also make it controlled, meaning disease free and the possibility for hotter chicks to be prostitutes.

I realize that legalizing it would not make brothels sprout up like 7-11's, that wasn't what I was getting at. I'm sure, as a military member, that you have frequented countries where prostitution was legal. Go to Amsterdam or any place like it, where sexuality is socially acceptable, and interact with the people people there.

It's not asking the government for something to bang. It's asking the government for personal freedom without causing harm to anyone else. It's not about being able to find a woman to bang or not, it's about the freedom to just up and pay for a quick shag to get off without the runaround.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-14-2014, 03:11 PM
The legalization of it would change it, though. Right now with prostitution being illegal it is not as abundant or "mainstream" as if it would be if it were legal. Using a prostitute isn't really a viable solution to getting laid out of fear of disease or being arrested, so your average chick really doesn't have much to fear (like in the mentioned scenario). But legalizing it would make it not only more socially acceptable, but it would also make it controlled, meaning disease free and the possibility for hotter chicks to be prostitutes.

I realize that legalizing it would not make brothels sprout up like 7-11's, that wasn't what I was getting at. I'm sure, as a military member, that you have frequented countries where prostitution was legal. Go to Amsterdam or any place like it, where sexuality is socially acceptable, and interact with the people people there.

It's not asking the government for something to bang. It's asking the government for personal freedom without causing harm to anyone else. It's not about being able to find a woman to bang or not, it's about the freedom to just up and pay for a quick shag to get off without the runaround.

I get what you are saying, but the two guys who started this narrative where complaining about their women treating them like shit.

They wanted legal prostitution because they think they would be able to hold that over the heads of the shrews they married to keep them in line.

That is just silly, weak thinking in my book.

It is just like those guys who are afraid of a little completion when it comes to the PT test.
So they start crying about how the system is flawed.

Rusty Jones
11-14-2014, 03:23 PM
I don't know why people are getting hostile and pissed off in this thread, engaging in personal insults and character assaults. This wasn't meant to be that. It was simply meant to be a discussion on the possible effects of legal and socially acceptable prostitution.

Key words here: legal and socially acceptable. In other words, prositution simply existing in this country doesn't mean that everyone who would do it, will. Many will avoid it, simply because they fear getting in trouble with the law.

For example, I've never done an illegal drug. I've never even tried pot. Why? Because I fear the possible legal and job consequences. However, if they announced that it would legal first thing tomorrow morning - AND it was allowed by my civilian employer and the USAFR - I'd be in line with my tent, sleeping bag, and my stereo blasting with reggae tonight at the nearest smoke shop.

I'm sure that I'm not the only one, and I'm sure that this would easily apply to prostitution as well. What prostitution has that marijuana lacks, however, is social inhibitors - the belief among many that purchasing the services of a prostitute is indicative of social ineptitude, when that's pure bullshit.

The example I use here frequently is Charlie Sheen - who has had more "free" sex than all of us combined, yet even HE still enjoys a prositute every now and then.

Even Mr. Playa From the Himalaya, AA himself, admits to having procured the services of prostitutes on more than one occasion. Personally, I think that the social taboo against prositutition comes from women who wish to maintain their oligopoly on pussy.

Thus maintaining the current status quo of men ruining their lives for the sake of getting laid. The most recent incident of this I saw on my last ship before I left the Navy - someone emptied his savings account to get a woman an apartment with four months rent paid in advance, and furnishing her apartment with furniture from USA Discounters, and the next day she "dumped" him (they never had sex). He checked himself into Portsmouth NH, and ended up getting the boot two months later.

Imagine all the trouble that could have been avoided had he shelled out a hundred bucks to get laid instead. Granted, this is a worst case scenario situation, but you get the picture of the shit guys do to get laid.

I mean, shit, how many guys driving a BMW would be content with a Camaro if they didn't believe that the BMW would get them more action? I'll go out of a limb and say "most," and someone wants to go out further on that limb and say "all," I won't even challenge it.

Rusty Jones
11-14-2014, 03:25 PM
I get what you are saying, but the two guys who started this narrative where complaining about their women treating them like shit.

They wanted legal prostitution because they think they would be able to hold that over the heads of the shrews they married to keep them in line.

That is just silly, weak thinking in my book.

Please, show me where I've complained about my wife or my marriage. Hell, show me where I've even complaind about my LAST marriage. This actually has less to do with me, and more to do with the shit that I see men doing - both in person, and in the news - in order to get laid, or in response to not getting laid.

USN - Retired
11-14-2014, 03:37 PM
I can't believe these guys are actually asking the government to help them find someone to bang. The are crying for help from the government in controlling their women. What a fucking joke.


I get what you are saying, but the two guys who started this narrative where complaining about their women treating them like shit..

Who are those two guys? I have no idea what you are talking about. I suspect that you don't even know what you are talking about.

You appear to be having trouble keeping up with this converstaion. If you can't keep up with the conversation, best not try to join in.

Measure Man
11-14-2014, 04:03 PM
I don't know why people are getting hostile and pissed off in this thread, engaging in personal insults and character assaults. This wasn't meant to be that. It was simply meant to be a discussion on the possible effects of legal and socially acceptable prostitution.

Key words here: legal and socially acceptable. In other words, prositution simply existing in this country doesn't mean that everyone who would do it, will. Many will avoid it, simply because they fear getting in trouble with the law.

For example, I've never done an illegal drug. I've never even tried pot. Why? Because I fear the possible legal and job consequences. However, if they announced that it would legal first thing tomorrow morning - AND it was allowed by my civilian employer and the USAFR - I'd be in line with my tent, sleeping bag, and my stereo blasting with reggae tonight at the nearest smoke shop.

I'm sure that I'm not the only one, and I'm sure that this would easily apply to prostitution as well. What prostitution has that marijuana lacks, however, is social inhibitors - the belief among many that purchasing the services of a prostitute is indicative of social ineptitude, when that's pure bullshit.

The example I use here frequently is Charlie Sheen - who has had more "free" sex than all of us combined, yet even HE still enjoys a prositute every now and then.

Even Mr. Playa From the Himalaya, AA himself, admits to having procured the services of prostitutes on more than one occasion. Personally, I think that the social taboo against prositutition comes from women who wish to maintain their oligopoly on pussy.

Thus maintaining the current status quo of men ruining their lives for the sake of getting laid. The most recent incident of this I saw on my last ship before I left the Navy - someone emptied his savings account to get a woman an apartment with four months rent paid in advance, and furnishing her apartment with furniture from USA Discounters, and the next day she "dumped" him (they never had sex). He checked himself into Portsmouth NH, and ended up getting the boot two months later.

Imagine all the trouble that could have been avoided had he shelled out a hundred bucks to get laid instead. Granted, this is a worst case scenario situation, but you get the picture of the shit guys do to get laid.

I mean, shit, how many guys driving a BMW would be content with a Camaro if they didn't believe that the BMW would get them more action? I'll go out of a limb and say "most," and someone wants to go out further on that limb and say "all," I won't even challenge it.

IN some ways, the "...and socially acceptable" qualifier changes this question to sort of like asking "would society be different if society were different"...it's a hypothetical that can only answer itself. We can propose that legalizing prostitution would or would not fundamentally change relationships in the socity we live in...but, when you throw in "...and socially acceptable"...it changes the society we are discussing, so it becomes sort of a circular logic...

I've lived in several places where prostitution was legal...more or less socially acceptable...but, I don't think it changed the fundamental dynamic of relationships.

I think the bottom line is your point seems to be that most everything a man does, or does for a woman is in exchange for sex or so that he will get sex....I don't think most of the rest of us believe that.

Rainmaker
11-14-2014, 04:29 PM
The flaw in your line of thinking is that there is already prostitution right now and it doesn't change the way women act.

You can go out and find a prostitute right now. If you are thinking that if prostitution where suddenly legalized that brothels would suddenly become as plentiful as 7-11s, then you aren't being realistic.

I'm sure that if you want to find a woman to bang, long and hard, you probably could.

It is easy because so many men are unmotivated crybabies who spend their entire lives blaming leadership for their shortcomings, that their wives would jump at the chance to be with a meat-bringer.

I don't care one way or the other about prostitution. I think it should be legal. It is dumb to have the government involved in so many things.

The real problem is that our society has too many crybabies. People who run around complaining that if only leadership/government would do this or that, then they'd be happy.

That is bullshit.

Each individual is responsible for their own happiness. I can't believe these guys are actually asking the government to help them find someone to bang. The are crying for help from the government in controlling their women. What a fucking joke.

That is a personal responsibility. Keeping your wife happy and away from the meat-bringers isn't the job of the government.

Besides, even if there where suddenly numerous brothels in towns like gas stations, do you think that the hot prostitutes would charge as much as the skanks?

Nope, the hot ones would cost more.

So I ask you, what the next complaint of these unmotivated crybabies would be?

They'd soon enough be crying for brothel subsidies because they aren't competitive enough to make enough money to afford a hottie.

The last thing we need is Big Brother and the Gibberment Social Engineers gettin involved in the black market Pussy transaction Business. after they get through it'll end up costing you twice as much in taxes, and subsidies to the free shit army to be able to put big booty on an EBT card.

Anyhow, Rainmaker don't understand all this talk about how it's too hard go get laid. Hell, 1/2 these hussy's today give it out for free. Between the court system with "no fault" divorce laws ready to separate men from their wallets and children and "liberated" skanks ready to drop panties at the drop of hat (so they can be equal), It's no wonder most of these Millennial dudes don't get married or move out the basement till their 35. Why would they risk it?

All this Mult- cultural, garbage from feminism, to promoting the homo agenda, to pinking of the NFL, to Racism hysteria, to Bullying hysteria, to snitching on your neighbors, to gun control hysteria is all part of Marxist agenda. It's Designed to destroy the basic building block of society. That being the traditional 2 parent family, where only one had to work to make ends meat. They want the state raising the kids that way they can indoctrinate them into the Luciferian agenda (which is fleecing us from our cash)

Absinthe Anecdote
11-14-2014, 04:46 PM
Who are those two guys? I have no idea what you are talking about. I suspect that you don't even know what you are talking about.

You appear to be having trouble keeping up with this converstaion. If you can't keep up with the conversation, best not try to join in.


You and Rusty.

Both of you guys were claiming that legalized prostitution would make women more docile, easier to control, less uppity, take away the female oligarchy on pussy, and bla bla bla.

I can keep up with the conversation, but I do have trouble following your twisted logic.

USN - Retired
11-14-2014, 05:39 PM
IN some ways, the "...and socially acceptable" qualifier changes this question to sort of like asking "would society be different if society were different"...it's a hypothetical that can only answer itself. We can propose that legalizing prostitution would or would not fundamentally change relationships in the socity we live in...but, when you throw in "...and socially acceptable"...it changes the society we are discussing, so it becomes sort of a circular logic...

I've lived in several places where prostitution was legal...more or less socially acceptable...but, I don't think it changed the fundamental dynamic of relationships.

Legalizing prostitution by itself will have little change on the behavior of people. Prostitution is legal in certain parts of Nevada, but it is not widely available, it is not cheap, and it is not socially acceptable. That's why we see little or no change in human sexual behavior in Nevada.

In the Philippines back before 1992, prostitution was not "legal" there but it was widely available, very cheap and (unofficially) socially acceptable. Consequently, the behavior of US military men, especially single men and geo-bachelors, was significantly different back then and there than it is here and now. There was practically no stigma for a single military man to be seen with a prostitute at a bar outside the main gate of a US military base in the Philippines back before 1992. In the US back then and especially in the US today, if a US military man, even a single man, were seen associating with prostitutes, he would face considerable stigma.

I also noticed a difference in the behavior of those US military women who were stationed in the Philippines back before 1992. Those military women who desired to have a boyfriend were much nicer than the average woman in the US. They had to be much nicer because of the significant sexual competition that they faced from the filipino bar girls. Those US military women who refused to be nice were simply ignored by the US military men.

The "social environment" at a US military base back in the Philippines before 1992 was significantly different than the "social environment" here in the US today. My observation is that human behavior, including sexual behavior, will change when the "social environment" changes. You seem to be implying that human behavior, including sexual behavior, will not change even if there is a change in the "social environment". Did I misunderstand your point?


I think the bottom line is your point seems to be that most everything a man does, or does for a woman is in exchange for sex or so that he will get sex....I don't think most of the rest of us believe that.

Perhaps we just don't want to believe it. I certainly don't want to believe it, but that doesn't mean that it is not true.

USN - Retired
11-14-2014, 05:48 PM
You and Rusty.

Both of you guys were claiming that legalized prostitution would make women more docile, easier to control, less uppity, take away the female oligarchy on pussy, and bla bla bla.

I can keep up with the conversation, but I do have trouble following your twisted logic.

What is "twisted" about the logic?

Rusty Jones
11-14-2014, 06:12 PM
IN some ways, the "...and socially acceptable" qualifier changes this question to sort of like asking "would society be different if society were different"...it's a hypothetical that can only answer itself. We can propose that legalizing prostitution would or would not fundamentally change relationships in the socity we live in...but, when you throw in "...and socially acceptable"...it changes the society we are discussing, so it becomes sort of a circular logic...

I'm merely talking about our attitudes toward prostitution, nothing more. Don't read too far into this.


I've lived in several places where prostitution was legal...more or less socially acceptable...but, I don't think it changed the fundamental dynamic of relationships.

But what FORMS of prostitution are legal? For example, if all states adopted the Nevada model, nothing would change. The only form of prostitution that's legal in Nevada are licensed brothels that face no legal competition from street walkers or women who advertise themselves on the internet. As a result, you're looking to pay at least $500 for a quickie - which, in effect, causes legal prostitution in Nevada to not be truly available to the majority of the men in that state.


I think the bottom line is your point seems to be that most everything a man does, or does for a woman is in exchange for sex or so that he will get sex....I don't think most of the rest of us believe that.

Not all men, but most. For example, I don't think that the guy with the new F-150 is trying to impress the ladies. The guy with the BMW? Yeah, he likely is.


You and Rusty.

Both of you guys were claiming that legalized prostitution would make women more docile, easier to control, less uppity,

Straw man. I never said any of these things. What I DID say is that it would level the playing ground. As men, we have to play ball in order to get laid. Women don't. Again, leveling the playing field.


take away the female oligarchy on pussy, and bla bla bla.

I said oligopoly. In other words, as I've stated before; women hold the cards. Sex is on the woman's terms. If you don't bend, you don't get laid. Are you really denying that legal and socially acceptable prostitution does not pose a threat to that?


I can keep up with the conversation, but I do have trouble following your twisted logic.

I doubt this. To be honest, it seems to me that you measure yourself by your sexual conquests as compared to other men. Granted, you never said any words to that effect, but it's the general vibe I'm getting from you. I think that socially acceptable prostitution would mean that no one would give two shits anymore, and you might take issue with that.

Measure Man
11-14-2014, 06:19 PM
Legalizing prostitution by itself will have little change on the behavior of people. Prostitution is legal in certain parts of Nevada, but it is not widely available, it is not cheap, and it is not socially acceptable. That's why we see little or no change in human sexual behavior in Nevada.

In the Philippines back before 1992, prostitution was not "legal" there but it was widely available, very cheap and (unofficially) socially acceptable. Consequently, the behavior of US military men, especially single men and geo-bachelors, was significantly different back then and there than it is here and now. There was practically no stigma for a single military man to be seen with a prostitute at a bar outside the main gate of a US military base in the Philippines back before 1992. In the US back then and especially in the US today, if a US military man, even a single man, were seen associating with prostitutes, he would face considerable stigma.

It is true there was no stigma for a man to be seen with a prostitute back then...it was pretty much expected.


I also noticed a difference in the behavior of those US military women who were stationed in the Philippines back before 1992. Those military women who desired to have a boyfriend were much nicer than the average woman in the US. They had to be much nicer because of the significant sexual competition that they faced from the filipino bar girls. Those US military women who refused to be nice were simply ignored by the US military men.

I was stationed at Clark from 1986-1990. I'll say some of what you say is true, in some cases...but it was not as widespread as you seem to imply, as I recall it. As I remember it, there were quite a few guys who did not and would not go to the bars and hook-up with bar girls, but would rather chase American GI girls...maybe they just like white girls, I don't know. A few of there girls I worked with had a large followings of guy yearning for them...and these girls could go to the base club without a dollar in their pocket and get a free dinner and free drinks all night long, guaranteed. I think this was more prevalent when I was in Korea, but I don't think the GI girls in PI had any trouble either.

Of those already married when they got there...I don't think the fundamentals of married couples changed...perhaps the divorce rate was pretty high...but, I don't think the wives let their husbands do whatever they wanted because she knew he could go get sex outside the gate, that's an almost laughable suggestion...American men who were married to American women and wanted to stay that way...their marriages didn't change much, I don't think.

Although sex anytime anywhere was widely available...many, many, many GIs got married while there, supported their wives, dressed up nice, got nice cars, whatever...heck, even those that married girls from the bar didn't "hold the cards" in the relationship any more than anyone else.


The "social environment" at a US military base back in the Philippines before 1992 was significantly different than the "social environment" here in the US today. My observation is that human behavior, including sexual behavior, will change when the "social environment" changes. You seem to be implying that human behavior, including sexual behavior, will not change even if there is a change in the "social environment". Did I misunderstand your point?

Yes, you missed my point.

You are repeating the original premise that if society were different, then society would be different...I think that is self-evident and proves nothing.



Perhaps we just don't want to believe it. I certainly don't want to believe it, but that doesn't mean that it is not true.

I don't believe it...if it were all about sex. Why did so many GIs get married in the Phillipines prior to 1992? I mean you could go out any day and have sex with as many women...beautiful, sweet women as you wanted...why would so many of them get married? It wasn't for the sex.

I just don't buy the premise that every guy who buys a BMW does so because he thinks it'll get him laid. I'm sure some do...but, I don't think it's that many.

SomeRandomGuy
11-14-2014, 06:38 PM
I'm trying to imagine a world where prostitution is legal as WJ5 and Rusty would like. In this world men are entirely driven by sex. Everything they do is in order to gain sex. An alternative is made avaliable to men where they can simply pay for the sex instead of emotionally investing in the women. In effect women would become something like a commodity that can be bought and then simply discarded. Rusty and WJ5 seem to think this would cause other women who desire to be valued and supported emotionally to suddenly change.

Like most of the other posters here I have a hard time seeing that being the case. I actually think we would see a different effect. Men generally look to women for sex and women look to men for emotional support. If men simply paid for sex I think women would look elsewhere to meet their needs. The obvious place would be other women. I think we might actually see more lesbians in the world Rusty and WJ5 envision.

Measure Man
11-14-2014, 06:39 PM
I'm merely talking about our attitudes toward prostitution, nothing more. Don't read too far into this.

Well, I mean...that's a pretty big thing when we're discussing the issue of prostitution.

Your premise is that if it were legal and "socially acceptable" for a married man to go to a prostitute...and by socially acceptable his wife somewhat approves of it, even if she doesn't endorse it's not condemned as cheating...that it would be more akin to him whacking off in the bathroom because he doesn't want to deal with her bullshit one night...then this would fundamentally change their relationshiop...I still don't buy it.

I don't think my desire for and/or pursuit of sex is that foundational to my marriage. Heck, my wife is just as likely to want it as I am...and just as likely to say something if we haven't done it in a week.

So...all the rest is just more stuff I'm not convinced of. It really comes down to that...to believe that all these dynamics could fundamentally change, you have to believe that the pursuit of sex is foundational to much more than I think it is.

Sex is like oxygen...it only seems important when you're not getting any...and I've had a lot of different experiences with it and without it.

Rusty Jones
11-14-2014, 06:41 PM
I'm trying to imagine a world where prostitution is legal as WJ5 and Rusty would like. In this world men are entirely driven by sex. Everything they do is in order to gain sex. An alternative is made avaliable to men where they can simply pay for the sex instead of emotionally investing in the women. In effect women would become something like a commodity that can be bought and then simply discarded. Rusty and WJ5 seem to think this would cause other women who desire to be valued and supported emotionally to suddenly change.

Like most of the other posters here I have a hard time seeing that being the case. I actually think we would see a different effect. Men generally look to women for sex and women look to men for emotional support. If men simply paid for sex I think women would look elsewhere to meet their needs. The obvious place would be other women. I think we might actually see more lesbians in the world Rusty and WJ5 envision.

WJ5 isn't here. You mean USN-Retired.

Anyway - MM, USN - since you've both been stationed in PI; do either of you want to confirm or deny this?

Measure Man
11-14-2014, 06:48 PM
WJ5 isn't here. You mean USN-Retired.

Anyway - MM, USN - since you've both been stationed in PI; do either of you want to confirm or deny this?

The lesbianism?

I don't recall a lot of that...of course, in those days it was still illegal in the military so it would have been on the down-low...it's nice to think about though.

Most overseas military environments have a large male to female ratio...giving the "Queen" syndrome we all know about. IME, at Clark, there were still plenty of guys who did not want to partake in downtown to keep the American single girls well entertained. I don't remember them being exceptionally nice. That's my story, and I'm sticking with it.

Rusty Jones
11-14-2014, 06:49 PM
Your premise is that if it were legal and "socially acceptable" for a married man to go to a prostitute...and by socially acceptable his wife somewhat approves of it, even if she doesn't endorse it's not condemned as cheating...that it would be more akin to him whacking off in the bathroom because he doesn't want to deal with her bullshit one night...then this would fundamentally change their relationshiop...I still don't buy it.

Okay, so there's a misunderstanding of what I mean by "socially acceptable." I don't mean that a married man gets to cheat on his wife with one, while his wife is expected to shrug her shoulders and go on with her day.

No, what I mean is a scenario where people don't generally thing lesser of anyone for buying or selling sex. So a Johnny - a single man - can buy sex from Roxy, and no one looks down on either of them for it.

Measure Man
11-14-2014, 07:02 PM
Okay, so there's a misunderstanding of what I mean by "socially acceptable." I don't mean that a married man gets to cheat on his wife with one, while his wife is expected to shrug her shoulders and go on with her day.

No, what I mean is a scenario where people don't generally think lesser of anyone for buying or selling sex. So a Johnny - a single man - can buy sex from Roxy, and no one looks down on either of them for it.

Okay...as depicted in the PI of the 80s. As mentioned, fairly acceptable and expected...yet, lots of GIs got married over there, and they still did the same things as any other married couple. A lot of them spent their money on some particular honey...and maybe she worked him over.

Single GIs still took showers and bought nice cars.

Did single GIs have maybe more relationship power that single guys in the US? That's a good one...and I'd say probably, yes, but I think that had more to do with economics than sex. A filipina dating a GI was like an American working class girl dating a multi-millionaire. Yeah, she doesn't want to piss him off too much...but again, not because he can get sex, he's just her economic opportunity. I mean that spawned a lot of the other crazy stories you hear...like the one of the guy who had a live-in girlfriend...so she convinces him to let her cousin stay in their "maid quarters" in exchange for doing work around the house an stuff...turns out the cousin is actually her Filipino husband who is staying in that room listening to his wife get banged every night, but it's better than living in a cardboard box wondering if they are gonna eat.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-14-2014, 07:20 PM
The lesbianism?

I don't recall a lot of that...of course, in those days it was still illegal in the military so it would have been on the down-low...it's nice to think about though.

Most overseas military environments have a large male to female ratio...giving the "Queen" syndrome we all know about. IME, at Clark, there were still plenty of guys who did not want to partake in downtown to keep the American single girls well entertained. I don't remember them being exceptionally nice. That's my story, and I'm sticking with it.

I've got to agree with this. I was TDY to Clark prior to 92 and they were plenty of military queens running around base.

Same thing in Korea, before the Korean economy took off prostitution and Korean gals looking for GI husbands was far more common than it is today. Now that the Korean economy is good, Korea imports prostitutes from the PI.

This is more economics than anything else.

Rainmaker
11-14-2014, 07:45 PM
Great thread. Rainmaker love the term oligopoly of poontang.

IRMO The problem is not with women having the oligopoly on the poontang They should. Women are Intelligently Designed to be the caretakers of the family. They're supposed to do the choosing. Men are supposed to do the supporting. It's a mutually beneficial arrangement.

The problem we have in the west is that we have a corrupted court system. Our Government has been subverted and Centralized by a Kabalistic cult to the detriment of the will/good of the society. Masculinity is under attack.

No fault Divorce laws enable women to destroy their family while the Ex Husband gets stuck picking up the tab. In the old days a chick would be sentencing herself to poverty and Ostracized for whoring around. Men would be shamed for abandoning their kids. Parents that intentionally destroy their families are guilty of child abuse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GBW9rdGeEI

Absinthe Anecdote
11-14-2014, 07:50 PM
I doubt this. To be honest, it seems to me that you measure yourself by your sexual conquests as compared to other men. Granted, you never said any words to that effect, but it's the general vibe I'm getting from you. I think that socially acceptable prostitution would mean that no one would give two shits anymore, and you might take issue with that.

You are half right, I do measure myself in comparison to other men. I suspect you do too.

I take great pride in my ability to seduce women. For me, the seduction and just the act of getting them in the bedroom is far more exciting than the actual sex act, most of the time.

Unless, you get a sexually adventurous one, or one who hasn't been banged long and hard for a while.

I don't care if they legalize prostitution or not. Sure, go a head and make it legal.

I party with a hookers in asian countries sometimes. Most are really cute, and as long as they are fun to be with, I don't mind if they are on the clock.

And if they legalize prostitution here at home?

I'll still get more women in the US than the fat crybabies who are too lazy to work out. You know, the kind of guys who go around blaming the rest of the world for their own mediocrity. The kind that moan about leadership constantly, and piss and moan about the government all day long. Women don't want to be with losers like that.

They want fit and trim athletic guys, who are fun to be with, like me.

They don't want fat crybabies that complain all the time.

Legalizing prostitution isn't going to change that.

Rusty Jones
11-14-2014, 07:52 PM
Great thread. Rainmaker love the term oligopoly of poontang.

IRMO The problem is not with women having the oligopoly on the poontang They should. Women are Intelligently Designed to be the caretakers of the family. Their designed to do the choosing. Men are designed to do the supporting. It's a mutually beneficial arrangement.

Okay, but how can you say that that's way it's supposed to be, when the only reason non-prostitutes have the oligopoly is because of a man made law?

Rainmaker
11-14-2014, 07:55 PM
Because the man-made laws in this country are no longer in accordance with the natural law.

Rusty Jones
11-14-2014, 08:03 PM
You are half right, I do measure myself in comparison to other men. I suspect you do too.

I take great pride in my ability to seduce women. For me, the seduction and just the act of getting them in the bedroom is far more exciting than the actual sex act, most of the time.

Unless, you get a sexually adventurous one, or one who hasn't been banged long and hard for a while.

I don't care if they legalize prostitution or not. Sure, go a head and make it legal.

I party with a hookers in asian countries sometimes. Most are really cute, and as long as they are fun to be with, I don't mind if they are on the clock.

And if they legalize prostitution here at home?

I'll still get more women in the US than the fat crybabies who are too lazy to work out. You know, the kind of guys who go around blaming the rest of the world for their own mediocrity. The kind that moan about leadership constantly, and piss and moan about the government all day long. Women don't want to be with losers like that.

They want fit and trim athletic guys, who are fun to be with, like me.

They don't want fat crybabies that complain all the time.

Legalizing prostitution isn't going to change that.

Funny, because when I walk around downtown or at the mall; you know who I see THE hottest women holding hands with? The fattest, most out of shape, bummiest looking men they could find. And no, they don't necessarily have money, either... because some of the couples I know personally that fit this description, the man's employment situation is just as bad as his physical appearance.

The hottest women prefer ugly men. If that's what they like; great. But I'm just pointing that out. Oh, and I've seen plenty of metrosexuals bitch about this, and how unfair it is when the effort they put into their appearance doesn't pay off.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-14-2014, 08:14 PM
Because the man-made laws in this country are no longer in accordance with the natural law.

Ahh! This must be part of the Luciferian agenda you were talking about a couple of pages ago, right?

Where is Lucifer? I tried challenging that punk to a duel once and he never showed up.

As far as natural law, don't Bower Birds tempt females into their nests with shiny trinkets?

Sounds like nature might be cool with the idea of prostitution to me.

Unless, that mythical character Lucifer is behind that too.

You know what? You produce this Lucifer guy at a designated place and time, and I'll kick his ass for you. I'll make sure that he never bothers any of us again.

How's that? Since god won't rid us of him until the end of time, I'll change up the plan.

Go find him and let me know where he hangs, I'll kick his ass and send him packing.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-14-2014, 08:43 PM
Funny, because when I walk around downtown or at the mall; you know who I see THE hottest women holding hands with? The fattest, most out of shape, bummiest looking men they could find. And no, they don't necessarily have money, either... because some of the couples I know personally that fit this description, the man's employment situation is just as bad as his physical appearance.

The hottest women prefer ugly men. If that's what they like; great. But I'm just pointing that out. Oh, and I've seen plenty of metrosexuals bitch about this, and how unfair it is when the effort they put into their appearance doesn't pay off.

Maybe so.

Guys like me won't marry them. I can get them for a few hours when they go for a "girls night out." You know, when they need a break from their fatass husband.

I'll bang them long and hard; then send them back to their duffelbag husband with a smile on their face.

A few days later, they usually send me a gift as a thank you. Expensive shirts, or a bottle of cologne, sometimes they get clingy and try to jump from the fat boy boat into mine.

That's when I hit them with a bullshit line about not wanting to breakup their family.

I'll usually give them one more banging and send them back to fatty fat ass.

Hey, I used to get a big kick from banging officer's wives.

My highest rank was the wife of an O-6, the deputy of Ops at Misawa AB.

At Fort Meade, I fucked a shitload of Navy wives. I steered clear of Marine wives though, never thought it was worth the risk. Although, I think I could kick the average Marine's ass in an unfair fight. Most of those crazy bastards will come back at you a second time if you don't put them down for good.

No pussy if worth that much trouble.

USN - Retired
11-14-2014, 09:08 PM
I was stationed at Clark from 1986-1990. I'll say some of what you say is true, in some cases...but it was not as widespread as you seem to imply, as I recall it.

It sounds like things were quite tame outside the main gate of Clark AB. I have heard that the USAF brass has always worked hard to keep their troops sexually repressed. It is possible the USAF brass worked with the local Philippine government to make sure that things remained sexually tame around Clark. I never heard of any significant sexual action around Clark. I used to hear some sailors say that the bars outside of the main gate of Clark had very few bar girls and those bar girls were very old and ugly. Additionally, I heard that those bars only sold near beer. I thought those sailors were just joking, but now I'm not so sure.

It was a different story outside the main gate of Subic and Cubi Point. You had to see it to believe it. There was an endless supply of beautiful young Filipina women who worked in the countless bars, and they were willing to be your hooker for the night, your girl friend for a few years, or your wife for the rest of your life. It was totally up to you. Interestingly, most of those Filipina bar girls had a very sweet personality. Unlike the average hooker in the US, the average Filipina bar girl usually wasn't an alcoholic or a drug addict.

Of course, things in the Navy are quite a bit different now. If a sailor has consensual sex with an adult hooker, then he is guilty of a crime; however, it is now legal for a bunch of male sailors to get together and have a male homosexual orgy. Times have changed.


Why did so many GIs get married in the Phillipines prior to 1992? .

Those GI's were thinking with their little head. Most men do.

Rainmaker
11-14-2014, 09:12 PM
Ahh! This must be part of the Luciferian agenda you were talking about a couple of pages ago, right?

Where is Lucifer? I tried challenging that punk to a duel once and he never showed up.

As far as natural law, don't Bower Birds tempt females into their nests with shiny trinkets?

Sounds like nature might be cool with the idea of prostitution to me.

Unless, that mythical character Lucifer is behind that too.

You know what? You produce this Lucifer guy at a designated place and time, and I'll kick his ass for you. I'll make sure that he never bothers any of us again.

How's that? Since god won't rid us of him until the end of time, I'll change up the plan.

Go find him and let me know where he hangs, I'll kick his ass and send him packing.


Lucifer represents a state of being (condition of man) not an actual being.

Rainmaker is talking about the other definition of natural law, they used to teach it in public schools before they became Marxist indoctrination camps.

Natural law:
"a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct."

this understanding being, the basis for the social contract on which our country was founded. see John Locke

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

Not the evolutionary law of nature (survival of the fittest), that is the other definition, in which the Globalist Babylonian cult (that you think doesn't exist) believes in. In this worldview, you are not as evolved as them and therefore you need them to rule over you for your own good.

Prostitution is the world's oldest profession. Regardless of what we think. It's not going anywhere, It's a fact of life. so, Rainmaker has no issue with it one way or the other.

USN - Retired
11-14-2014, 09:21 PM
A few of there girls I worked with had a large followings of guy yearning for them...and these girls could go to the base club without a dollar in their pocket and get a free dinner and free drinks all night long, guaranteed. I think this was more prevalent when I was in Korea, but I don't think the GI girls in PI had any trouble either..

When men start behaving that way, that is an obvious sign that they are sexually repressed/frustrated.


I've got to agree with this. I was TDY to Clark prior to 92 and they were plenty of military queens running around base..

When women start to develop the Queen and/or Princess mentality, the men around them are usually sexually repressed/frustrated.

Just sayin'.

Measure Man
11-14-2014, 09:22 PM
It sounds like things were quite tame outside the main gate of Clark AB. I have heard that the USAF brass has always worked hard to keep their troops sexually repressed. It is possible the USAF brass worked with the local Philippine government to make sure that things remained sexually tame around Clark. I never heard of any significant sexual action around Clark. I used to hear some sailors say that the bars outside of the main gate of Clark had very few bar girls and those bar girls were very old and ugly. Additionally, I heard that those bars only sold near beer. I thought those sailors were just joking, but now I'm not so sure.

Not sure how you got that from what I said...the atmosphere outside Clark was not tame by any standards. The prostitution and debauchery was far and wide...

...what I was saying was that American girls having to be all nice and work hard to get a boyfriend was not that widespread. Most of them got plenty of attention.


It was a different story outside the main gate of Subic and Cubi Point. You had to see it to believe it. There was an endless supply of beautiful young Filipina women who worked in the countless bars, and they were willing to be your hooker for the night, your girl friend for a few years, or your wife for the rest of your life. It was totally up to you. Interestingly, most of those Filipina bar girls had a very sweet personality. Unlike the average hooker in the US, the average Filipina bar girl usually wasn't an alcoholic or a drug addict.

Again...same at Clark. IME, this did not make the American girls any nicer...as there were still some American guys who did not partake in off-base debauchery. It also did not change the dynamics of married couples who wanted to stay that way.


Of course, things in the Navy are quite a bit different now. If a sailor has consensual sex with an adult hooker, then he is guilty of a crime; however, it is now legal for a bunch of male sailors to get together and have a male homosexual orgy. Times have changed.


Those GI's were thinking with their little head. Most men do.

Doesn't make sense...their little head could get all they wanted anytime they wanted. The little head says, "let's go to the bar and bang 3 or 5 different chicks every night." The little head doesn't say let's get married to one girl, unless she is the only girl.

Measure Man
11-14-2014, 09:27 PM
When men start behaving that way, that is an obvious sign that they are sexually repressed/frustrated.

..so, socially acceptable prostitution didn't solve that, huh

Rainmaker
11-14-2014, 09:41 PM
Maybe so.

Guys like me won't marry them. I can get them for a few hours when they go for a "girls night out." You know, when they need a break from their fatass husband.

I'll bang them long and hard; then send them back to their duffelbag husband with a smile on their face.

A few days later, they usually send me a gift as a thank you. Expensive shirts, or a bottle of cologne, sometimes they get clingy and try to jump from the fat boy boat into mine.

That's when I hit them with a bullshit line about not wanting to breakup their family.

I'll usually give them one more banging and send them back to fatty fat ass.

Hey, I used to get a big kick from banging officer's wives.

My highest rank was the wife of an O-6, the deputy of Ops at Misawa AB.

At Fort Meade, I fucked a shitload of Navy wives. I steered clear of Marine wives though, never thought it was worth the risk. Although, I think I could kick the average Marine's ass in an unfair fight. Most of those crazy bastards will come back at you a second time if you don't put them down for good.

No pussy if worth that much trouble.

Service members that commit adultery with another service member's spouse should be charged with treason.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-14-2014, 09:57 PM
Lucifer represents a state of being (condition of man) not an actual being.

Rainmaker is talking about the other definition of natural law, they used to teach it in public schools before they became Marxist indoctrination camps.

Natural law:
"a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct."

this being, the social contract on which our country was founded. see John Locke

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

Not the evolutionary law of nature, that is the other definition, in which the Globalist Babylonian cult (that you think doesn't exist) believes in.

Prostitution is the world's oldest profession. It's not going anywhere, Even if Rainmaker has no issue with it one way or the other.

Ok, got it! Lucifer isn't a real entity. Too bad, I was pretty confident about being able to kick his ass.

Instead, he is some type of "new-agey" state of being.

Check!

Hey, how would you like a job as production manager for the cult I have just outside Billings, Montana?

I could use a guy who really believes that crap, but is also interested in making some money.

I've got 38 new age cultists cutting and polishing cheap gemstones and geodes on a ranch about two hours northwest of Billings.

My current manager can't seem to increase production, and sometimes falls short of my quotas.

I've been looking for a prior service dude to run things for me at the ranch.

You can PM me for details, but that little operation currently nets about 60K from gemstones every six months and another 30K per annum from leather craft.

Not that much money, because my cut of the profits is 60%.

However, if you want to buy me out, I'll entertain serious offers.

I've got some talented PIs on retainer, so my vetting process is rigorous. Don't even think about fucking me.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-14-2014, 10:00 PM
Service members that commit adultery with another service member's spouse should be charged with treason.

Forget about the job offer as you are obviously unqualified.

USN - Retired
11-14-2014, 10:01 PM
IME, this did not make the American girls any nicer...as there were still some American guys who did not partake in off-base debauchery. .

Some guys enjoy being panty whipped and emasculated by women. I don't understand why. I suspect it has something to do with how they were raised.


...as there were still some American guys who did not partake in off-base debauchery. .

Some? or many? or most? I get the impression that very few Airmen participated in the off-base debauchery. 99% of the Airmen in the USAF are probably just like SJ.


..so, socially acceptable prostitution didn't solve that, huh

It won't help those men who have a need to be panty whipped and emasculated by women.

Measure Man
11-14-2014, 10:06 PM
Some guys enjoy being panty whipped and emasculated by women. I don't understand why. I suspect it has something to do with how they were raised.

Some? or many? or most? I get the impression that very few Airmen participated in the off-base debauchery. 99% of the Airmen in the USAF are probably just like SJ.

I'm gonna stick with "some"...at least at that time. I would say most participated to some extent.

There is definitely a lot less debauchery nowadays than there was at that time...

Absinthe Anecdote
11-14-2014, 10:24 PM
Some guys enjoy being panty whipped and emasculated by women. I don't understand why. I suspect it has something to do with how they were raised.


LOL!

I'll agree with you here, but why complain about it?

Why not exploit that situation?



Some? or many? or most? I get the impression that very few Airmen participated in the off-base debauchery. 99% of the Airmen in the USAF are probably just like SJ.



I think "some" is a fair enough assessment. Why does it matter in the end anyway?

That is what I don't get about you. You remind me of Don Quixote on some pointless crusade.

If you think that you have uncovered a fundamental weakness, then exploit it.

Otherwise, you are just spouting bullshit from a soapbox. People won't take you seriously until you find a way to profit from it.

sandsjames
11-15-2014, 12:59 AM
Some? or many? or most? I get the impression that very few Airmen participated in the off-base debauchery. 99% of the Airmen in the USAF are probably just like SJ. You mean you think 99% of Airmen have respect for women and think of them as more than a piece of ass who are out to take advantage of men? We can only hope that the percentage is anywhere close to that. But thanks for the compliment.

Rainmaker
11-15-2014, 03:52 PM
Forget about the job offer as you are obviously unqualified.

Damn. Oh well. You either worship God or you worship Mammon. It's that simple.

Rusty Jones
11-15-2014, 06:58 PM
Maybe so.

Guys like me won't marry them. I can get them for a few hours when they go for a "girls night out." You know, when they need a break from their fatass husband.

I'll bang them long and hard; then send them back to their duffelbag husband with a smile on their face.

A few days later, they usually send me a gift as a thank you. Expensive shirts, or a bottle of cologne, sometimes they get clingy and try to jump from the fat boy boat into mine.

That's when I hit them with a bullshit line about not wanting to breakup their family.

I'll usually give them one more banging and send them back to fatty fat ass.

Hey, I used to get a big kick from banging officer's wives.

My highest rank was the wife of an O-6, the deputy of Ops at Misawa AB.

At Fort Meade, I fucked a shitload of Navy wives. I steered clear of Marine wives though, never thought it was worth the risk. Although, I think I could kick the average Marine's ass in an unfair fight. Most of those crazy bastards will come back at you a second time if you don't put them down for good.

No pussy if worth that much trouble.

Actually, you were wrong about your suspicion. I don't measure myself by sexual conquests, nor do I see it as a status symbol.

I don't seek validation from women. My source of validation cannot be found between the next woman's legs; no matter how much money her husband makes. If that's what makes you whole, good for you. I'd rather liv e my life doing what I want; not giving two shits whether or not it gets me laid. Red pill.

garhkal
11-15-2014, 11:14 PM
Nope, she would not be interested in me if I had sex with anyone other than her.

What I said was "if I was willing to pay for sex from a prostitute". This is going to sound judgemental as hell, but if I was the 'type of guy' (a broad generalization) willing to pay a prostitute (regardless of if I did it while we married, before we were married, or just considered it okay for me to do in general), Mrs. Stalwart would not have picked me to be her partner.

Would she expect you to still want her, if SHE was with another man at some point in time? What about if She paid a prostitute?


Anecdotal evidence suggests that career military personnel have a divorce rate around 75%. Don't those numbers suggest that the institution of marriage in the military is in big trouble? Only our brainwashed military personnel could look at an institution with a 75% failure rate and see it as a success.

I always thought it was lower, closer to 50%..
But even at 50%, it shows something is wrong.


- Military members on average marry younger than civilian counterparts, many are immature and don't know how to have an adult relationship -- I don't mean sex but a relationship that is based on more than sex. Take an immature person, who now has a steady paycheck and are not living at home anymore and they start a sexual relationship and they don't/can't separate sex from love. Getting married young, they are less also educated … which is a factor in divorce rates.

Good point. I know one of my comrades who was doing a social science degree, mentioned that according to a study (supposedly done in the mid 90s) the average age in the civilian world when people married was 26, while in the military it was 20.


- At times the military will take precedence over what your spouse wants; some don't handle this well.

Very true. One of the worst phrases i have heard a spouse say to a military hubby (never ever heard of a military wife getting told this) when it comes time for getting out or reenlisting, is
"Its got to be me OR the military. You re-up, i am gone!"


- We dated a long time before we got married, got to know each other really well before we got married.

Cudos to you. I wish more would do that.

How long did you stay BF/GF before you got engaged? How long did you stay engaged before getting married if you don't mind me asking?



Americans make up 4% of the world's population; but our inmates make up 25% of the world's incarcerated problems. Want to fix that? Then first place to start is removing all these victimless crimes from the books.


Rusty. What do you feel counts as a victimless crime?


I'm all for legal prostitution. No problem with it at all. Keeping it illegal is no different than the "war on drugs". It doesn't help anything. Legalize it...no issues. Just still don't think that's going to change how any self respecting woman would change how she acts.

I support legalizing it for several reasons..
A) having providers needing to get medically checked say quarterly (iirc which is how Nevada is) to be licensed, protects the clients (guy or gals).
B) having them licensed means they can 'group up for protection (like the brothels), which protests THEM
C) being they need to go through checks for those licenses, it should help weed out the druggies, the underage and those being trafficed. Though admittedly there can still be corrupt individuals who let those groups slide for kick backs, not all who would be issuing them would be corrupt.
D) IT CAN GET TAXED!

One of the big things i can't really stand about a lot of people's opinions on keeping Prostitution illegal and socially unacceptable, is a good chunk of them (from my perception) ARE all for gays and lesbians to be more socially acceptable.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-16-2014, 06:22 AM
Actually, you were wrong about your suspicion. I don't measure myself by sexual conquests, nor do I see it as a status symbol.

I don't seek validation from women. My source of validation cannot be found between the next woman's legs; no matter how much money her husband makes. If that's what makes you whole, good for you. I'd rather liv e my life doing what I want; not giving two shits whether or not it gets me laid. Red pill.

How virtuous!

Sounds like the kind of thing SJ would say.

Did he dupe you into saying that?

Perhaps he duped you into doing something else.

I'll bet it was the latter.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-16-2014, 06:43 AM
Damn. Oh well. You either worship God or you worship Mammon. It's that simple.

I am god.

I created this account to test you and a few others. I'm watching your every move and you'll have to answer for it all on judgement day.

Don't believe me? How many times have you been told that I work in mysterious ways. What's more mysterious than me posting on this forum.

You'd better be nicer to me.

Don't worry about my posts seeming to not make sense, or being inaccurate either. My posts are perfect, and so advanced that you can't understand them.

Also, if I made it easy for you to understand, it would take away your need for faith.

Now on your knees! Pray to me!

Stalwart
11-16-2014, 09:42 AM
Would she expect you to still want her, if SHE was with another man at some point in time?

If you mean ever in her life, maybe ... maybe not.


What about if She paid a prostitute?

I think she would understand (based on our shared values) why I would not be interested in her in that case.

garhkal
11-16-2014, 09:36 PM
I think she would understand (based on our shared values) why I would not be interested in her in that case.

Fare enough. I know a few other "Couples" where the hubby said as you initially did (that she would not want to be with him again if he paid for it elsewhere), but they also mentioned that their spouse would be real irked if they treated them that way after being unfaithful.

Rusty Jones
11-17-2014, 11:42 AM
How virtuous!

Sounds like the kind of thing SJ would say.

Did he dupe you into saying that?

Perhaps he duped you into doing something else.

I'll bet it was the latter.

If you would've paid closer attention to the PFC Pemberton thread, you would've remembered this little gem:



No. The reason we aren't going anywhere on this is our different levels of respect for women and are different thoughts on men not being able to control sexual urges, laying the responsibility on the women to ensure that guys treat them well.
No, not that at all... because I don't think we disagree on either of these. I just haven't touched the "men controlling their urges" side of the discussion yet, because I'm too busy disagreeing with you on the prostitution thing.


It's post #148 on page 15.

In an ideal world, it'd be great if men could control their urges enough, so that dick has equal leverage as pussy, or the two cancel each other out. But that's not going to happen. Sure, an individual man can try... but then the woman will just find someone else who'll put up with her shit just to get laid (or, in some cases, the unfulfilled hope of getting laid).

The majority of men aren't going to stand in solidarity on this. Why? Because most have taken the blue pill. That's where legal and socially acceptable prostitution gives the much needed boost.