Posted on 03/24/2025 5:58:27 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican
So maybe - just maybe - you were stupid!
No, stupid would be continuing to play a game so rigged it punishes the players for playing by the rules. The only way to win such a game is to walk away from the table. As I saw it I had 3 options: 1) Celibacy 2) Finding another table/type of men that didn't play these types of games or 3) Abandon my conservative values and become a liberal slut. Obviously I chose option 2, but for women who don't have that option 1 and 3 are the only alternatives to the rigged game.
In my haste to abbreviate I also forgot to mention that college boyfriend #2 tried to get me drunk after we had broken up. He had no reasonable expectation of sex, but he chose that rather than moving on and finding someone else.
If someone truly holds all the cards, or even the majority of cards, in a relationship, you treat him/her with respect. You listen to what s/he wants, even if it conflicts with what you want. You don't stalk your boss or try to get her drunk, even if she's a smoking hot lady. Because unless you actually want to get fired she holds more cards than you do. The fact that they behaved this way shows I didn't actually have the cards in the relationship. I actually found it easier dating my now-husband when I met him in my mid-20's than I ever found dating in my late teens/early 20's because a) I had put in the work to become less socially awkward and b) he wasn't steeped in our dysfunctional culture.
This took place in the late 2000's/early 2010's, in answer to your question about time period. Not sure where you got 1970's from.
There are certainly scores of possible explanations for the recent increase in "female-to-male" transitions. For example: Girls overwhelmed with and/or fearing male attention or the prospect thereof can use it to escape such sexual attention - while still garnering more non-sexual attention. (Formerly apathetic or uninvolved parents suddenly sit up and express concern.)
That seems a far more-likely explanation than yours (i.e., that they wish to become males because males are more revered or enjoy greater privileges in society). How could even the most-deluded person believe for an instant that society at large is going to truly accept them, post-mutilation, and accord them all the alleged privileges and respect accorded to men?
When was the last time you saw “feminine” or “femininity” used in a positive context on FR? FR is not the totality of American culture, I’ll grant you that, but it does represent at least the conservative half of it.
No, sorry: FR is a forum for discussing controversial issues and esp. issues that are under fire by mainstream (usually: woke) culture.
"Femininity" is not under attack, and even femi-nazis won't criticize it directly (though they might try to redefine it out of recognition). Hence: No one here at FR feels the need to post articles defending femininity - or even saying positive things about it out of the blue.
Just take a look at this thread, alone: I, alone, have posted individual posts in this thread equivalent to a full-page New York Times essay or op-ed, but haven't said anything positive about femininity. Yet I have been happily married for 26 years to an extremely intelligent, competent, and feminine woman who has born me two strapping children.
We here at FR tend to focus on defending that which is under attack. "Femininity" per se is not under attack. "Traditional femininity" is under attack, and you'll find plenty of threads here at FR where we conservatives defend it.
When the feminine is equated with “chaos” (Jordan Peterson) and set opposite to civilization and order is it any wonder young girls are confused and don’t want to be female anymore?
Yes, I'm sure that plenty of American adolescent girls have been led astray by Dr. Jordan Peterson. I bet that most girls applying for F-to-M surgery have mentioned in passing JP's dark ideology being a major factor in their decision to have their organs mutilated.
/sarcasm
Regards,
I repeat: I acknowledge that women are not blind! I acknowledge that they are capable of distinguishing short, balding, pear-shaped blobs from Adonises. Rather, 1) I aver that the responsible neural pathways of women are not as deeply rooted, and 2) the response elicited in women is far weaker (resulting in practically zero action - or will you go chase those broad-shouldered Apollos, even when your 85!? - and possibly even resulting in a fear-based response).
We've strayed from the original reason we were discussing this phenomenon (men being visual creatures):
The visuality of men affords women untold power in our modern, civilized, and rel. safe society. It gives even callow young women a great measure of bargaining power / leverage (which used to be in the hands of the wise parents seeking a stable husband offering a high bride-price, or wishing to conjoin two parcels of real estate, or attempting to consolidate fiefdoms and form a dynasty).
(AGAIN: The visuality of women, in contrast, is an evolutionary after-thought, a superficial add-on: In virtually all mammalian species, the male need only be strong and aggressive enough to overpower the female in order to mate with her - he does NOT have to "appeal" to her. So, too, for humans until rel. recently in our evol. history.)
When, in our modern and largely sanitized and civilized society, silly young women are handed such power - and also provided with birth control pills, abortion on demand, and abs. no societal sanctions), they will inevitably misuse it.
(Just as men would if they were suddenly given free rein to live out their fantasies. But in actual fact, the bottom of 80% of all men are viewed as below average by women in the relevant age cohort, and so possess hardly any bargaining chips; they can, at most, hope to some day be "settled for" by a former "party girl" nearing the age of geriatric pregnancy, or with bastard children, who will then proceed to use him as a meal ticket. Thus: Only the top 20% - actually, only the top 4.5% - of all men profit from this unnatural situation - and the top 80% of all women, at least until their SMV fades.)
The tingles happen for women too. Women are just less likely to act on them because [...]
Then why even have them??? Just admit that these female reactions are magnitudes weaker than the corresponding male response - which freq. also results in concrete steps being immediately taken in the short term, and wars being waged in the long term - and so can be safely dismissed from further consideration.
You're like the fire marshal lecturing an errant home-owner about the fire hazard posed by the stacks of old newspapers he has stored in his basement - while a massive conflagration is sweeping through the city.
Regards,
Was just trying to highlight how I had not the faintest idea which era you meant. For all I knew, you were a contemporary of mine.
[...] didn't have sex until marriage. And what did I have to show for it? In fact, I was broken up with for playing by the rules.
"Breaking up" is a legitimate conclusion to a relationship in which one or both partners decides that it is unprofitable to continue pursuing said relationship.
I repeat: Your experiences do NOT buttress your assertion that you "didn't hold all the cards." On the contrary: Your experiences are prima facie evidence that you held all the cards. (Well, not the one with the ex-boyfriend trying to get you drunk: You have explained, now, that that occurred after the rel. was over - so it's actually irrelevant to the discussion at hand.)
Let me explain with an analogy:
Suppose I approach three car dealerships with cash in hand, and inspect three diff. vehicles, and offer what is genuinely a fair price, but encounter some "hiccups" like you did - in this analogy, they might be a) dealer #1 makes some offensive remarks about the filthy jalopy I first drove up in, that men like me are notoriously bad drivers, and so I march off the lot in a huff; b) I gradually get wise that dealer #2 operates a "fly-by-night" dealership, and won't actually be able to make good on his warranty, so in disgust I walk away; c) dealer #3 sees that I'm a bona fide buyer, knows that my money is good, knows that the price is right, but nonetheless hopes to persuade me to purchase a different, higher-priced vehicle that exceeds my budget and also wouldn't serve my actual needs. (Maybe he has a quota to meet or simply has incorrectly assessed my gullibility.)
In any event, none of these three scenarios indicates that the system is broken, or that "I played by the rules, but the game was rigged."
Rather, they indicate merely that every system includes some "bad actors" or simply participants with incomplete information who sometimes act on incorrect assumptions or under duress. Even in an eminently fair game, YOU ARE NOT GUARANTEED SMOOTH SAILING.
Thus - scenario #4 - if you buy a vehicle that is overpriced because it's the only one on the lot and you absolutely must have a vehicle that weekend or else, and it's the only dealership in town, and you have max. five minutes to complete the deal or you'll lose your job, etc. - that doesn't mean that the system is fixed. Rather, it means that life is sometimes unfair or that you foolishly let things slide too long.
I've already told you that I refuse to seriously consider your red-headed HS boyfriend. As for the other two, college bfs: Have you considered the possibility that you were simply benighted? That you lacked proper counseling from your parents, or that you refused to listen to the sage advice of your parents? Were maybe you, too, immature, impulsive, too easily offended, too greedy, suffering from the "sunk-cost fallacy," weak-willed, a poor judge of character, etc.?
I, personally, think that you probably should have summarily broken off each relationship far earlier. Six weeks should have sufficed to determine if you had a viable candidate before you. You should have thus made a clean break at a far earlier date and moved on. You could then hardly complain that the "system was rigged" - only that you had some bad luck (which even the fairest game can't prevent).
You had the "better cards" in each of those relationships - but you played them foolishly. Doesn't mean that the game was rigged!
AGAIN: Were there any more bfs after college friend #2, and hubby? ANY positive experiences?
Regards,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.