The Eternal Bachelor is back!

Yes indeedy, Duncan Idaho is back to blogging, and Eternal Bachelor is up and running again after a few months where we all thought he was kidnapped or forced to give up blogging like Ilkka.

Not tonight dear... in fact, not ever.

Here is an excellent article by a woman who wants to do the politically incorrect thing and hold women accountable for their actions. Read it, its good.

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/relationships/article2786172.ece
Feminism gave women control of their sex lives, but has it gone too far? Author and sex expert Dr Pam Spurr argues that many women are risking their relationships by saying ‘no’
Emily, 37, is a successful solicitor with a husband and a two-year-old son. To her friends, she doubtless lives a charmed existence. But recently she sat across from me in a life coaching session. She was very distressed. Having just discovered that her husband of five years had had an affair, she felt that her world had disintegrated. She’d been a good partner, hadn’t she? She was caring and hardworking, wasn’t she?
Closer examination of their relationship revealed that Emily hadn’t had sex with her husband for many months. When I pushed Emily gently on this she was incredibly defensive. It was her view that she was too busy with her career and raising their son to give any thought or time to sex.
Over the past two decades I have worked as a psychologist, life coach and sex expert, and I have found that Emily’s attitude is all too common. And such views don’t bode well for the success of relationships. With increasing frequency, women in their twenties, thirties and forties take a pragmatic, postfeminist view that sex is something over which they have no need to negotiate. In the bedroom, there is no compromise. If a man has a higher sex drive than a woman, then he can sort himself out. If he wants to try something new and she can’t be bothered, tough luck to him.
Eventually, Emily and her husband repaired their relationship – which meant learning how to confront their differences, including sexual ones.Recapture the honeymoon spirit
Olivia, a 39-year-old investment consultant, was less fortunate. She had wanted to make certain financial investments that her husband was against. Issues about their finances spread bad feeling into all other areas of their life and, like a stone dropped in water, the ripples from their acrimonious “discussions” reached far and wide.
When Olivia found that the stress of their differences diminished her sex drive, she felt completely justified in suggesting separate bedrooms. As she recounted to me – with bitter regret, after their divorce – sex had been the last thing on her mind. Her biggest mistake was not considering what was on his mind.
Having researched my new book, as well as talked to thousands of men and women over the years, I now firmly believe that too many women see the sexual side of their lives as something to be claimed completely and utterly as their own. That’s fine for single women flexing their sexual muscles.
But once they settle into a relationship, many will continue to do so. This doesn’t make sense to me at all – and unfortunately I’m privy to the heartbreak and distress that goes along with this view.
Like it or not, a sexless life is at the root of much heartache and many affairs and/or relationship break-ups. And although lack of sex can often be a symptom of other problems that lead a relationship to break down, it can also be the cause.
At the risk of being called old-fashioned (though I don’t think that old-fashioned should always have negative connotations) and antifeminist, I’d go so far as to say that for both partners sex could be considered a duty, if it is something that one partner knows would make the other happy.
Does he really want to go up on the roof to repair a leak on a Sunday afternoon?
Does she really want to take out the rubbish in the pouring rain? No, but partners in relationships do such things because they know that it makes the other happy. Sex should be seen in the same light.
I am not advocating submission. I oppose the idea that anyone should feel pressured into sex; I understand that the “sexualisation” of society often puts unnatural expectations on both women and men. I am merely pointing out that sex, as with other parts of a relationship, needs constant care and compromise. Why should the sexual area of a relationship be ringed by an emotional fence that makes it a no-go zone for discussion, while other areas are discussed openly, argued over and resolved?
Sometimes where sex has waned, both parties initially had different physical needs that were not discussed openly at the time. I have spoken to a fair few thirty-something women who settle down with a “decent chap” knowing that he’ll make a good father. On producing babies, though, many such men find themselves left out in the cold when they still desire the sexual warmth that they initially enjoyed. Such complete sexual pragmatism seems fair to these women, but what about the men? To them, sexually, men don’t seem to matter much once they have served their purpose.
Sometimes both partners feel that sex does not rank highly on their list of priorities. That’s fine. There’s no negotiation necessary when you’re both in agreement. But many women simply feel that their lives are too stressful, or that they are dealing with other relationship issues, and they don’t want to raise sex as yet another issue with which to contend.
That is a very dangerous place to be if the man doesn’t feel the same way. You may find, as Emily did, that he will seek sexual satisfaction without you. I certainly don’t justify infidelity but I can often understand why it happens. In contrast, when a woman’s sexual needs are denied, Heaven help the man responsible.
Jessica, 36, a political lobbyist, told me that she felt strongly that she and her husband were too young to give up enjoying sexual pleasure. It caused her much pain that he put long hours at work above consideration for their sex life. Tellingly, the reaction from many of her friends was “How dare he?”
That goes to the heart of this issue. As women, we have come to expect that we can control our sex lives completely – but we get angry when a man wants to do so.
Some may argue that sex is such an intimate and personal set of behaviours and beliefs that lack of compromise is justified. I would argue quite the opposite. It is because of its personal nature that sex should be explored between a couple. And by exploring their differences, and reconciling them, a couple’s attachment to, and love for, each other is often heightened.
In other cases I have found an even more disturbing attitude: that it’s fine to use occasional sex in a cold-hearted and calculated way as a favour or bartering tool for jobs well done by the man.
Amanda, a 38-year-old photographer, bartered sexual favours with her live-in partner when he did a particularly difficult piece of DIY or nasty bit of graft, such as unplugging drains. Using sex as a bargaining chip demeans both partners.
The solution is to take a holistic approach to a relationship and understand that every part of it – careers, finances, family issues, sex – needs nurturing and understanding. It’s the “only I count” sexual attitudes that are killing off much sexual intimacy.
Never be bullied into sexual activity that turns you off or be pressured into sex that doesn’t satisfy you. But always be prepared to discuss your feelings and desires and listen to his. Hopefully, that will improve your sex life and help to strengthen your relationship in other ways, too.

San Diego PD puts ho's online

Prostitutes' photos, case details put online

EL CAJON – Mug shots of convicted prostitutes are appearing on the El Cajon Police Department's Web site. Police hope to discourage them from plying their trade in town using a 21st-century version of public flogging.

Naturally, they couldn't leave the men alone, could they...

Pictures of 11 women, details of their crimes and areas where they are banned from loitering were posted as of yesterday. Police said they plan to add pictures of convicted “johns” – the clients – within weeks. They are urging viewers to report when the offenders violate probation.

The goal of putting the faces of convicted prostitutes on the Web “is to move them and the crimes that come with them out of our city,” said El Cajon police Special Investigations Sgt. Mike Hook.

And naturally, some stupid academic with his head up his ass has a comment...

The tactic has drawn mixed reactions.

Marjorie Cohn, a professor at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego, said the Web site violates the women's right to privacy.

“It's an incredible invasion of the privacy of the women, with no real benefit to law enforcement,” Cohn said.

Like I've said, women have a right to privacy enshrined in law - Roe vs Wade. Men? Men don't have shit.

I'm betting that there will be a furor, an outcry, feminists will bitch and moan, and eventually they will remove the prostitutes from the website. But the men will remain. Oh yes siree, they will remain.

Here's my favorite.

Salinas, Elisa

Hispanic female 125 lbs 5’05” Brown eyes Brown hair
Arrested 647(b) PC found guilty in Superior Court
Geographic probation until 05-31-2010

Geographic probation conditions: Defendant shall not:

(1). Contact or attempt to contact passing motorists. (2). Engage or attempt to engage motorists in conversation, (3) Solicit or accept rides from motorists or, (4). Loiter, congregate or remain on a public street, sidewalk or alleyway without apparent lawful reason or business at the following geographical areas of the city of El Cajon:

(a) The 500 Block of West Main Street to the 1600 Block of East Main.
(b) El Cajon Blvd between 100 and 1300 Blk
( c) The 500 Block of West Douglas Ave to the 300 Block of Douglas Ave.

The following conditions were deleted in this case
Additionally not to be in possession of a cell phone, pager, beeper, or other communication device while in the geographical areas described above, except in the course of lawful employment.

A poignant observation

I was going through the threads linked by NO MA'AM on his post the other day, and one observation of his stuck out at me.

Another thing that you can notice almost instantly, that all married women do when they join the MRM, is right off assure everyone that they are not like that. In fact, they go out of their way to tell every male in the MRM, many of whom have been royally screwed by Western Women, that they are the epitome of the perfect woman & wife, which has been eluding all of us men our whole lives. Our lives would be perfect if we had just been lucky enough be one of these women's husbands.
So, it again becomes not all women are like that.
And they go out of their way to let us know that they are the perfect woman that we should all strive to find.
Oddly, these women's husbands are never posters on MRM boards, so we don't really know what their perfect marriage is really like, do we?

I think this man speaks the truth. The first thing any "anti-feminist" woman says is that "she's not like those other women" - the same way a girl trying to wheedle you into signing your balls over says "I'm not like those other women who will divorce you and take your money and children."

It has been said in the past, that dissimulation is the order of the day with women - it is what it is, you just have to guard yourself against it. You can't get mad at the rattlesnake for striking, and you can't get mad at the woman for her dissimulation and manipulation. That's why feminists call you a misogynist when you complain that women lie about rape or abuse or about basically anything, because it is in their nature. And to some extent people know it but don't want to say it.

I quite agree that things will be much worse for women than men. In fact, feminism's largest damage to women will be if men begin to see the natural manipulations that all women do, and men actually do make them equal and don't stick up for them anymore.
I don't really care what the women on the board think, and I am hardly talking to them, except to tell them to shut up. It irritates me though, to see women show up and start the mangina factory over and over again, and to see so many men that just love to come to heel for a "good woman." Of course, this is all just on these women's word. Every woman who's ever cheated on me told me she would never cheat on me at the beginning of the relationship too. Of course they are going to make us think that "they are not like that."
Notice that expat married men living abroad (of which I believe you are one) rarely talk about how good their marriages are compared to how the women in the MRM do. Basically, it seems that expat married men realize fully the nature of females, but have chosen to engage with one in a place where the law affords him the right to be in more control over her - expat married men are not preaching that "women are not all like that."
What we have going on in the MRM, in fact, what I view as the biggest problem overall, is that we are like a person trying to start a fire but there is someone right next to us who keeps blowing out the match before we can get it to the kindling. That's the effect that letting women into the MRM at the MRM's youthful stage has been having - they keep blowing out our matches before we can get the wildfire going.
Certainly, when the MRM reaches critical mass and takes off like a wildfire, there will be women involved. It is inevitable. Also, certainly when the MRM's message becomes more mainstream, it will tone down it's radicalness and become more docile and acceptable to the public in general.
Until it gets to that point, however, allowing women into the MRM and not pushing them away so we can get the damn match to the kindling, is going to be our eternal pitfall, as has been proven over and over by the MRM's history itself. Why are we still so small after being around for decades already?
I wish more in the MRM could see this, but they rarely do because they are just continually desperate to believe that all women are not like that.

Another good post.

I've noticed the "all women are not like that" crap a lot, but I never put it together the way Rob did here.

Why are all-girl schools ok while all-boy schools are not?

I've always been curious as to why, exactly, men's colleges are subject to legal challenges while women's colleges are not. Why the YMCA is open to both sexes while the YWCA isn't, and why the same fate has befallen the Boy Scouts and various fraternities but not Girl Guides/Girl Scouts and sororities.

Why Single-Sex Classes Are Generally Unavailable

When the US Supreme Court ruled in 1996 that the Virginia Military Institute was violating the 14th Amendment by excluding women, it dealt an almost-fatal blow to same-sex education for boys. In the majority opinion, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court retained full protection for any female-only programs that could be said to compensate for the disabilities women suffer: "Sex classifications may be used to compensate women 'for particular economic disabilities [they have] suffered,' to 'promote equal employment opportunity,' to advance the full development of the talent and capabilities of our Nation's people. But such classifications may not be used, as they once were, to create or perpetuate the legal, social and economic inferiority of women."

In light of this ruling, all-girls programs could still be seen as compensatory; all-boys programs, on the other hand, are regarded as discriminatory. The ruling puts a chill on all special initiatives for boys. However, while it discourages them, it does not strictly prohibit them. Programs that separate the sexes while offering each the same resources and opportunities remain permissible. In practice, however, single-sex education is an allowable option for girls, but rarely for boys.

This is straight from "The War Against Boys" by Christina Hoff Sommers.

Society is abusing boys by treating them differently from women, and not in a good way. Boys are treated as trash and scum, and they grow up internalizing that message. Its a pity that so many parents love their boys less than they love their girls.

Men are responsible for their wife's behavior

Russell Yates was dragged over the coals over Andrea's multiple murders, just as the husband of that woman who drove the family car into the lake was questioned, even though she kicked him out and drove the car into the lake with the kids screaming, strapped in their car seats.

The man is expected to be fully responsible for his wife in America. Let me remind you that this is by definition domestic violence, but I guess men are expected to walk the tightrope over the Grand Canyon every day and be happy about it. How else would you explain the number of women who wait for men to approach them and cry sexual harassment when they do?

The man is expected to be responsible for his wife's murders, his wife's abuse, his wife's spending them into credit card debt, hell, he is held responsible for "driving her" to kill him.

Is there anything that society is willing to hold women responsible for?

Now we have a mom who has already saddled the family (husband) with $135,000 in debt, goes out shopping every day, spends $400 at Starbucks in a month, and doesn't see anything with it. She goes on Oprah, goes "Hell yeah!" and basically says "Fuck you all, I'm not changing."

She holds all the cards and she knows it. A simple divorce motion, and all that debt that she was the sole contributor to, her husband will be responsible for, all those clothes she buys, those are the "manner to which she has become accustomed" and the children will naturally go with her to maximize the wealth transfer through the inevitable child support.

Consumers Gone Wild

I love new clothes. However, I like getting rid of the clothes just as quickly to go buy new ones."

This lady who appeared on Oprah lives the life of a big house in the burbs, new cars, six beautiful kids, and spending way beyond her husband's $5,000/month salary. Felice drops $400 a month on Starbucks, $240 on tans and manicures, and her children have no health insurance.

"I have six kids and I sell their toys sometimes just because I don't like them."

When money runs dry, as it often does, she takes out cash advances. She handles the family finances and hides receipts from her husband underneath a baby blanket in a drawer.

When I do shop, I do kind of get a rush. It makes me feel good... but afterwards, though, I get depressed. I'll buy something even if I really don't like it because I have to come out with something.

On page 5 you learn they're on the brink of being totally financially destroyed with $135,000 in credit card debt, $1,700 a month for three cars, two mortgages at $685,000, and are two weeks behind on their mortgage payment. Before you make Felice out to be the totally baddie, the husband is just as culpable for not asking more questions and making sure the numbers add up. He even says that he would get credit card bills and not know where $10,000 of it came from.

Lady? That fucking cow is no lady, let me tell you that. Why do idiots like this collaborationist Ben Popken insist on calling cunts and whores ladies?

Anyway, take a look at that last sentence and let it sink in. "The husband is just as culpable for .... .... .... not asking questions and making sure the numbers add up." All while the wife claims that she can’t go get a job because she has to be “home for the kids.”

This is what you're in for.

Look down. Have a penis? Congratulations, society considers you scum no matter what you do.

Unrelated link: Susan Smith - Child murderer or victim?

Wife strikes gold with husband's death

Another dead man, another rich wife. Another "wrongful death" lawsuit. What's new here? Well, she and her lawyer and naturally the accomplice judge, raided another dead man's estate to pay the fiend.

$4.5 million awarded in Carrera GT case

Over two years ago a crash involving a Porsche Carrera GT during a Ferrari Owner's Club track day killed two event participants when they hit the wall at over 100 mph while trying to avoid a Ferrari merging onto the front straightaway. The driver and Carrera GT owner was Ben Keaton, an avid automotive enthusiast who regularly shared his wisdom on the website 6SpeedOnline.com. The car's passenger was Corey Rudl, a prospective Carrera GT buyer who wanted to take a ride. The tragic loss of these two lives brought out a great debate in the safety of California Speedway's tight infield road course, the responsibility of the event organizers, and the design of the Porsche Carrera GT itself.

Tracy Rudl, the wife of passenger Corey Rudl, filed a lawsuit claiming gross negligence by many parties associated with the track event. She recently received a settlement of approximately $4.5 million. The contributing parties to the settlement fund were 2% from the merging Ferrari driver, 8% from Porsche, 41% from California Speedway and Ferrari Owner's Club and finally 49% from the Carrera GT driver's estate.

The Ferrari driver was not found very responsible since he was waved on by a track worker, Porsche was found liable because (believe it or not) they didn't put Traction Control in the vehicle. Maybe I should sue Chevrolet if I get in an accident because my car doesn't have traction control and runflat tires and all the other assorted safety features it never had and I know it never had them?

The track is paying because the track worker waved the Ferrari into the track, and the GT driver is responsible because?? Oh, that's right, he had the money. Forgot that justice is always about getting the biggest payoff in the US.

Sickening. Why is it that judges and juries just can't help forcing other people's purse strings open whenever a woman comes along with a few crocodile tears?

Noted female chefs say that bias smolders inside the kitchen

Accomplished female chefs still face deep-seated bias in the restaurant business, seven prominent female chefs tell New York magazine.

Seven prominent and presumably accomplished female chefs claim to struggle against Teh Patriarchy when they skated in on their Pussy Pass? Will wonders never cease?

In the fine-dining atmosphere where restaurants are identified with their chefs, these female cooks contend with regular reminders that the industry isn't comfortable with the idea of women in charge.

Here, naturally, the industry is wrong and the little princesses are right...

The chefs, all of whom have run well-known kitchens, describe situations in kitchens in New York or Paris where male colleagues insult or ignore their female counterparts.

And of course, male colleagues never insult or ignore their male counterparts, female colleagues never insult or ignore their male counterparts, and female colleagues never insult or ignore their female counterparts. Nope, no way. Or maybe they do, but its only notable when men do it to women. Its funny how the chefs find the time to be such good cooks when they're patriarchally oppressing these poor widdle women all the time.

Chef and restaurant owner Anita Lo says that her mail is frequently addressed to "Mr. Anito Lo."

Now that's just hilarious.

Wary of the machismo found in the main kitchen, women are more likely to gravitate toward pastry, a relatively calmer and more traditionally female area.

Ah yes, can't stand the heat, so they get out of the kitchen and whine about it. That is these women's motto. The pastry area. Relatively calmer, more female dominated, pays less but the work is easier? Sounds like all the pink collar jobs women flock to in droves. And when women run HR, guess who they hire. And bonus, they then whine about "the pay gap" and want to be paid more for less work.