Quotes Part II

"My advice to you is get married: if you find a good wife you'll be happy; if not, you'll become a philosopher."
Socrates

"When I have one foot in the grave, I will tell the whole truth about women. I shall tell it, jump into my coffin, pull the lid over me and say, 'Do what you like now'."
Leo Tolstoy

"Behind every successful man is a woman, behind her is his wife."
Groucho Marx

"Women should be obscene and not heard."
Groucho Marx

"Women's intuition is the result of millions of years of not thinking."
Rupert Hughes

"Love is the delusion that one woman differs from another."
HL Mencken

"I don't think I'll get married again. I'll just find a woman I don't like and give her a house."
Lewis Grizzard

"I've had bad luck with both my wives. The first one left me and the second one didn't."
Patrick Murray

"I wouldn't be caught dead marrying a woman old enough to be my wife."
Tony Curtis

"Some people ask the secret of our long marriage. We take time to go to a restaurant two times a week. A little candlelight, dinner, soft music and dancing. She goes Tuesdays, I go Fridays."
Henry Youngman

"I never knew what real happiness was until I got married, and by then it was too late."
Max Kaufman

"Bigamy is having one wife too many. Monogamy is the same."
Oscar Wilde

"Dammit sir, it's your duty to get married. You can't be always living for pleasure."
Oscar Wilde

"My wife has a slight impediment in her speech. Every now and then she stops to breathe."
Jimmy Durante

Let Me Count the Ways...

I found an amusing survey on 5000 women that dissects the statistics on women's immoralities and lies. I share this article not to rant against women - everybody knows both women and men lie and cheat all the time - but because there were a couple of statistics that raise eyebrows:

Four out of ten (42%) would lie about contraception in order to get pregnant, in spite of the wishes of their partner.

Half (49%) would "kiss and tell" to the media for £25,000 if they had a one-night stand with a celebrity, and 38% say they would marry purely for money. 23% would allow their man to sleep with another woman for £50,000.

An alarming 31% of all women say they would not tell a future partner if they had a sexual disease. This rises for 65% for single women.

No comment.

The Persistence of Love

We previously established that love is an active and conscious act, that it is an act of connecting through the core of our being which is actually God (or soul if you will), and that there are ubiquitous mechanisms through which you both awaken and maintain this link. To close the trilogy of articles about love, I'd like to further discuss its maintenance and utopian characteristics.

Incidentally, my father proposed to define love as 'expanding one's being/consciousness to include another'. I think this definition has its advantages and describes the psychic and one-ness aspects of the link very well, but at the same time I have a problem with the physical nature of the word 'expand'. Either way, these definitions describe the exact same functionality and are complementary.

Also, since we defined love as an act that can only originate in free-will, it would make sense to claim, from an existentialist point of view, that you can create love every minute of the day by making free-willed choices. This is because the self, or God, is defined only by its ability to continually make non-deterministic choices. Without constant choice, there is no self, and therefore no persistent love. But let's leave these philosophical musings for now and speak of more down-to-earth matters:

A close friend of mine recently told me that in her experience, romantic love only lasts a year. After that, things either fall apart or become practical and enjoyable but dispassionate. My romantic side objected to this vehemently but at the same time felt a sad truth in it. I proposed that with hard work, it need not be so.

To my surprise, I re-discovered a Jewish law a day later that says that a man must remain at home with his wife as much as possible during the first year of marriage. To this important goal, he is even exempt from war.

Which asks the question: What is so special about this year and what are we meant to do with it?

In a previous article, I discussed the necessity of the irrational and magic side of love and how the only reason we would agree to submitting ourselves to the hardships of a relationship is due to this strong attraction and fondness that overrides everything else. I'd like to expand on this idea to include a solution for endless romance.

What if married couples had a year of natural bonding with which to develop a stronger, deeper bond? What if after this free ride that lasts a year, you either managed to build a base for the next 70 years of marriage or you lost your chance? What if after this year is wasted, the only way you could keep the passion alive is through constant and purely rational, increasingly difficult work? Would it surprise you then when Judaism says this year is more important than fighting a war?

Nature provides a year of magic glue which facilitates the task of working out difficulties and building a solid base for the rest of your life. You can lovingly find the compromises with which you can live together, and you have a year to get used to them before you come back to your senses. You work out mutual goals, domestic habits, communication methods, and solutions to important personality problems and obstacles. When the year is done, you have joined at a deeper level and are ready to progress and grow together. Perfect!

With this strong cornerstone and level of comfort, the love will grow deeper and thus allow for the passion to outlive its superficial beginnings. But what about the excitement? What about the lust? Can we keep that as well?

There are several couples I witnessed under certain circumstances that managed to keep the first-year passion and excitement alive for a long time. These circumstances always involve some kind of force that keeps them apart during long stretches of time. Perhaps this has a practical application?

Judaism has difficult laws which some people viciously object to regarding physical time apart during a woman's period. I won't go into the details here, but the powerful side effects of such a demand are as follows:

1. During this time, you must find ways to express love with something other than sex and physical contact, thus undermining all relationships based on lust and forcing you to work on the deeper bond we discussed.

2. The complainers are right that it's difficult and asks for ridiculous restraint. But the effect, as star-crossed lovers show, is one of persistent lust and longing, constantly re-awakened by periods of restraint.

Now why, do you think, aren't marriage counselors suggesting restraint?

To conclude: This is obviously a utopia and a strict and difficult one at that. But I believe it's a practical one as well. It's time to experiment...

This Blog Sucks

It's time once again to take a critical look at what I'm writing and trying to achieve here.

Looking back at many of the recent posts, it seems I am ranting against women a lot. I fully realize the impression this gives, especially considering the harsh tone I often employ in my writing.

The truth is, I often try to think of topics to write about that attack men, but always come to the conclusion that the problems with men nowadays are cliched and well-known. Most modern men are far from perfect and they embarrass me daily, but male-bashing is so prevalent nowadays that even men automatically agree whenever women rant against men. Try posting a rant about how your ex mistreated you and how all men suck and see what happens...

So I mention the problems with men, but usually within other contexts or while comparing the genders. This light treatment and the fact that women are not used to being attacked this way will make this blog seem one-sided at times.

My harsh comparisons and belligerent tone make people who don't know me think of me as something of a sad, angry misogynist, and I am aware of this. I am also aware that the same thoughts can be wrapped in a nicer bundle of comfortable words that will alienate fewer people. But I've had enough of harmless, politically-correct, fearful articles that try to please people who will merely read and move on, mostly unaffected. I'm not here to make you feel better, I'm here to provoke with ideas and thoughts.

Then again, I suppose I can tone it down somewhat and still deliver my point, and some recent articles attempted that approach.

I am not a misogynist or misanthrope. I am a calm, romantic individual who treats both genders gently in real life, but who also happens to enjoy heated debates and gender issues.

What bothers me is that I don't get comments. Not because I want attention and my ego mourns the fact that I'm not popular, but because I was hoping to be challenged and corrected so I can improve my viewpoints and arguments. Where are you people?

If you don't attack me I'm going to start thinking that I'm right, and we can't have that now can we...

In any case, barring feedback, I may attempt some different kinds of articles in the near future. Too much negativity is bad for everyone, even if it comes from a positive source.

One-Track Mind

Using a developmental taxonomy, women nowadays can perhaps be split into two general camps: The first, usually younger and modern girl, is looking for fun. She has often acquired the bad traits of men, has numerous flings, lacks depth, filters mates based on practicality, looks, and comfort levels, occasionally perhaps falls in love, is generally uncomplicated, and has some kind of career which she may or may not treat seriously.

But women always grow to a stage when they feel it's time to settle down, one way or another. Then the girl-talk shifts slowly to heavier relationship issues to the point of obsession. The same questions and concerns are overheard over and over again:

Is this a man with a future? Is this a man I want to sleep with for the rest of my life? Is this the father of my children? When can I bring up the subject of marriage without scaring him off? Why does he get all nervous when we talk about marriage? Is this a serious relationship? When will this relationship get somewhere solid? When will he take it to the next level? Why can't he commit? When will he pop the question? I can't stay with this immature man who doesn't take things seriously. I want absolute love and marriage. I want a family. I want a real man.

Damn do you women have one-track minds. You're as bad with relationships and marriage as men are with sex. Granted, this is a simplistic and generalized outlook, but the patterns are evident and point to an intriguing theory.

So you push hard, you work out techniques and tricks to try to speed up matters towards the goal you have set yourselves, and then when you finally do achieve your goal, you often change and become bitter or distant. I have heard so many complaints from men about their wives who suddenly let themselves go after marriage, who don't seem interested in their husbands' passions anymore, and who lose the fire that drove them so close together before and that prompted the man to propose. Women no longer go the extra mile and even lose interest.

Men often behave in exactly the same way when they finally get you in bed. So how are you any different?

In the vastly entertaining movie "Witches of Eastwick", the devil seduces women and convinces them that marriage suffocates the woman and is not good for her. He says that man kills the woman's fire, then complains that he married a corpse. But the devil uses this to argue that women should remain 'free' and explore their sexuality and fun-loving lifestyles.

Which poses the question: Why can't we have both?

A quick search in Amazon comes up with several books with outrageous titles like: "Why Men Marry Some Women and Not Others: The Fascinating Research That Can Land You the Husband of Your Dreams" and: "Stop Getting Dumped! All You Need to Know to Make Men Fall Madly in Love with You and Marry The One in 3 Years or Less".

Men don't have the equivalent popular books on how to score since most men don't have the patience or the lack of ego to read 200 pages of instructions on how to be the stud they wish they were. But tips are always welcomed and sought after. And indeed, there are sites, forums and chats speckled with such nuggets of information to help men achieve their goals.

Indeed the goals are different but the methods are basically the same.

I sometimes worry at night when I see women pushing their agendas. I discuss these matters with my male friends and decided I must ask you ladies a question before I go any further: If I marry you, will you still respect me in the morning?

Think Again

Rape. It would be inconceivable today that anyone with a modicum of sensitivity would actually challenge women on such a topic. Everyone seems to have been made aware by movies and angry women on how often women get raped, how many of them suffer from it, how many of them choose to avoid the humiliation of exposing the experience, how difficult it is to get justice, how rulings often favor the rapist due to lack of proof etc.

But then come studies and articles in the USA like this one. The important and shocking points are as follows:

Over 5 completely different surveys and reports show that the percentage of false rape accusations range from 25% to 60%. In most cases a false accusation means that the 'victim' actually recanted or that evidence proved contrary to claims, not that the 'rapists' were merely released.

To those who think women recant due to shame, one of the surveys includes the US Air Force who got 60% of women to recant due to lie detector tests, and many women freely admit it was due to spite or revenge. It's also perfectly logical to assume that even if some recant falsely, others are simply not recanting their false accusations.

The system has responded to feminists that want to shield victims who are ashamed to come forward by disallowing sensitive personal evidence (among other things). This is an admirably sensitive law but what do some women do with it? They use it to protect themselves and get away with repeatedly taking revenge on men who angered them. Previous records of false rape accusations and even cases of sexual abuse by the 'victim' are inadmissible in court, thus turning the defense impotent and helpless against female wrath.

All this makes me think twice about crime statistics that show the USA has over 200% rape cases of their nearest competitor (England).

Are you expecting me to say that rape is indeed a horrible crime and that there are too many real rape cases and that these statistics shouldn't distract us from these facts? Well I won't. When women stop lying and ruining men's lives and taking advantage of a system that is trying to protect them from rape, then I'll show more respect.

Until then, women can keep crying wolf until they're blue in the face and the best we can do now is approach the victims with a huge grain of salt before offering help. Now men have themselves to protect against angry women who feel guilty and embarrassed for agreeing to sex and who can't face their own choices. Instead of working for peace, women are merely escalating the war.

Yes, poor women are being raped all the time. But this shows that if you give a woman power, she proves just as amoral and nasty as men, if not worse.

Some say gun control would hurt women the most and deny them the one weapon that would give them a fighting chance. But it's not the guns, it's the society and education. Michael Moore is wrong by attacking K-Mart for selling bullets - he's terrorizing businesses and he won't get real results with gun control*. In my opinion, the cause is the American over-emphasis on selfish personal rights and a basic lack of respect for other people's lives. I say give US women guns and encourage them to shoot the men they hate instead of abusing their own protectors. At least then maybe we can have them arrested for murder... if we're lucky.


--

* In Bowling for Columbine, Moore blames it all on lack of gun control or a general history of fear in America. He himself showed that lack of gun control isn't the real issue however. My take on Moore's challenge is that it's due to several combined issues: glamorizing guns and violence, an empty society that is too weak to teach social values and respect in schools and that has almost no culture to be proud of, and a general attitude of selfishness, arrogance and anger. In other words, the USA is a spoiled, violent teenager.

By the way, statistics show that the USA is NOT the most violent country in the world by far, only that it has one of the highest amount of rape and murder cases and definitely the highest amount of murders with guns.

What Women Want

So we get complaints about the 'patriarchical society' and how men control everything, but then when things turn around and men step back, women complain that men are weak-willed and not acting like men anymore.

For example, first we get complaints that men attempt to dominate by paying for dates, then we get complaints when men don't even offer to pay anymore as a gesture.

Women complain that men-only educational institutions, clubs and the like are chauvinistic and reduce women's choices, but when everything turns co-ed they protest to keep their last female-only institutions, ceremonies and recreational centers segregated.

Or more significantly: I've witnessed quite a few women who go for careers or social celebrity status only to discover they really want something completely different when they get it.

Or is this familiar? The woman cajoles you for months or years to say something you don't want to say to the purpose of: 'honesty is best'. You know in your gut that she won't take it well and that it will cause some kind of damage, but she makes promises to react nicely, and that it wont affect certain things. When you do finally give in, you regret it for the rest of your life.

Was she lying or trying to pry a secret from you with manipulative assurances? No. She just doesn't know herself and therefore can't predict her psyche and its reactions.

I can go on and on with examples on contradictory female behaviour where actions are contrary to words. Why is this so?

If you're even thinking the phrase: 'that's because women are complex' and attempting a mysterious female smile then stop right there. That act doesn't work anymore.

Perhaps women say this because they think it brings them the power and allure of mystery, or because it makes them feel special, or because they think it'll stop dominating men from thinking that they know anything about women. But I'm more inclined to believe that women think they're complex simply because they are themselves surprised or even confused by their own whims which they follow religiously.

Not that I expect this statement to be accepted as anything but chauvinistic balderdash, but that's the way things go. If there's one phrase that can sum up a lot of what I learned about genders it's that women are not as complex as they wish they were and men are a lot more varied and complex than what society has pegged them.

It's a pity most men are just too stupid to understand alien-female behaviour and drives. What trips us up a lot of the time is that we assume women know how to articulate their needs and we take them at their literal word.

Here's some valuable advice for men: Don't listen to what women say; Instead, watch carefully what they do, and how they behave and react to situations.

Currently, I have a theory that women have been brainwashed over the centuries to express their needs in a male language, and this is why everyone gets confused. All women need is to come to terms with their own differences and find their own form of expression to define their behaviour.

But after all this time, men are the only people that still manage to surprise me when it comes to new types of characters and reactions, or acting out-of-character and bringing something new to the relationship. It's tempting to say that all men want the same thing and that your experience has proven that they have a one-track mind and have the same basic ego problems, but while this may be true in certain circles, the only exceptions that I find are in exceptional men.

As an example, the other day I found a book for sale entitled "He's Just Not That Into You" that informs women to stop wasting time on men who exhibit wishy-washy behaviour when it comes to dating them. Some reviews praised the book for empowering women and helping them to stop waste their time on wishful thinking. But browsing through some pages made the trick quite obvious. I could solve all your problems with your friends and make you feel powerful too. It's simple if you take my advice: Dump your friends - if they're causing trouble or show disinterest then they're not real friends.

Men have many more reasons than just 'not being into you' and they have subtle or complex turn-off buttons that you may have pressed and could unpress, or they may have doubts or slight personality problems that you could easily get around. But society has pegged men as simple and single-minded, men don't care how they are pegged, and women feel more comfortable with that.

But back to the topic at hand... it's obvious to me that women are masquerading their whims as complexity and I usually find that once I get to know a specific woman well, I know what she wants better than she does. This isn't arrogance or chauvinism, it's a fact women have taught me through years of training and I prefer that it weren't so.

Most women don't know what they want. And yes, men are capable of understanding what women want and women aren't that hard to figure out. I'm not saying that men in general know better, only that if men want to figure out women, there are other ways to learn to understand them and women are not the correct source of information for this unless you learn to read what they do, not what they say.

Do you want to know why there are hundreds of thousands of books on feminism? Because women are still trying to figure themselves out.

The Holy Nose

There are the numerous Pagan or Greek gods and goddesses, and then there is the monotheistic God.

The original bible in Hebrew used both genders when referring to God according to the anthropomorphic smilarity of God's perceived actions and effect. I.e. if the currently discussed force or action emanating from God is feminine in nature, a feminine name of God is used.

So if you want to worship a specific feminine entity out of the numerous powers in the universe then that's one thing. But as soon as you talk about The God and reduce its title to Goddess, you have reduced infinity and all potentialities to a specific gender all because of an idiotic feminist chip on your shoulder.

Forget religious sensibilities and blasphemy - I'm talking simple, cold logic. This has nothing to do with religion.

To me this is as ridiculous as saying that I love my girlfriend's nose because it looks like mine and I feel more at home with it, but I want nothing to do with the rest of her.

If you feel this argument is dumb, disrespectful or intolerant, then I have successfully communicated how I feel whenever you say the word 'Goddess'.