For the Dearly Departed

I will not sleep tonight
too many thoughts, muscles too tight
here in the dark I'll replay
all that has passed, my youth, the glory of broken
days

cold winter sun, rises, decays
I'll just get up to stay drunk all day
too many doubts, thoughts that delay
it is now gone, it's gone, the glory of broken days

"Broken Days" ---Lycia


There's so much I could write in this post. So much. Perhaps, like other posts I haven't expanded on---just yet---some other time I shall.

Several people in my life close to me have passed on, and left an impact on me that will always be remembered. It wasn't just me, far from it---even at his funeral, my friend Marshall was honored with a sign near a highway that displayed WE MISS YOU from his co-workers. As I drifted off last night, although he wasn't in the forefront of my mind, I dreamt of him and his older brother---also a good friend of mine, were eating ethnic cuisine, drinking, and chuckling at stories from both past and present. When I woke up, the pang of of loss flooded back with an intensity only surpassed at his abrupt death, one that occurred in his early thirties as he laid down to rest from a lengthy work day.

It bothered me that a few wondered if he was "slow," and perhaps, if they had any clinical background, may have misdiagnosed him with Asperger's Syndrome. Marshall may have been plunged headfirst into video games for hours on end by himself nary little interruption, or become engrossed in a fantasy tale from a tome that sparked his interest, but he was sensitive to his environment and in his social interactions with others, and possessing alexithymia? It was certainly not in his personal makeup---he was a creature of habit, a comfortable semi-stoicism at times, and self-absorption, but no one who knew well enough could accuse him of out of touch with himself or the others close to him. He was quite the generous individual, even if not materialistic on his own front.

I dedicated a post on another forum to a semi-public figure I dubbed as "Byron," one I knew off and on for almost fourteen years. Strangely enough, Byron and Marshall would meet only on a few occasions, but those events were both intertwined with humorous good times and mystery. I remember Byron laughing heartily at Marshall's antics of playing an oddball superhero for a moment, and in another more sombre session after midnight, contemplating in a serious depth questions about life and if the divine even exists---almost to the point teetering on the edge of recreating those eerie spectral invitations into the astral that William James himself would have raised on eyebrow on. We had also, as a motley group, sauntered out into the backyard and the mist of a rather ethereal and chilly October night, gathered to get away from the den of iniquity filled with beer bottles, brandy, vodka, cigarette and incense smoke, to stop and meditate for a time about both the jovial and the profound.

The magical circle of friends would eventually end. It is depressing, and not surprising, either. And in as much as I maintained contact with Marshall for those years before he had left this earth, I can still recall the nights we stayed up until the nocturnal hours crept near the dawn, "talking shop" about work, our growing cynicism and foibles with young women, or otherworldly tales of ghosts and shades from a documentary or text we had watched or read, I do wonder if own his spirit has made a visit or two on us, if only to remind us of those times with him again. Perhaps it is a selfish gesture on my part or wistful thinking, but to relive that period would be welcome. However, there is no going back, only the good that knowing his life enriched ours.

Roe Versus Wade for Men Revisited

Like the Duke LaCrosse case, many MRAs are aware of Dubay's struggle, although the latter did not receive the same spotlight and media treatment. His main thrust was to prove fraud with his partner, Lauren Wells, and promote, perhaps, what could be considered a groundbreaking precedent with men; that men should have the same equivalent rights as women do in reproductive choice. It stems from a couple of things.

When Matt Dubay got sexually involved with Lauren Wells, he was open about the fact he didn't desire to be a father at the time. Wells made it clear that she was incapable of getting pregnant, although she claimed she was used contraceptives to reassure him. Neither, apparently, was true and she got knocked up. When discovered, they had both considered adoption, but later Wells changed her mind; Dubay didn't want to raise children---eventually however, she was adamant about him providing child support.

While critics believe Dubay wanted to bail from paying CS, but Dubay's attorney, Jeffrey Cojocar, was of a different mind; the contention is that Michigan's Paternity Act gave exceptions to women eschewing supporting children and abandoning them if they didn't want to fulfill motherhood, and fathers did not have the same option---which violates the Equal Protection Clause. The judge could have cared less in this case. Supposedly, Dubay did not provide evidence to prove fraud on Well's behalf, until he maintains his stance from then up to the present. The case is being appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit as of this writing, so keep that in mind.

Now, I realize that some women, in particular, may believe Dubay is lying. I still find this difficult to entertain, simply because this has gone beyond the same court in which he protested this situation, and he has always maintained he did not want to be a father. Wells targeted Dubay for the inverse of why women go for bad boys---he was potentially a good provider, and a good catch. Not to mention, in a "he said, she said" situation, the court is honoring her by default, not him, because he's the dad biologically. So the ruling from the first court didn't allow Dubay to bow out of unplanned conception, and because of the interests of the child and the fact she filed for CS, it was mandated.

It's clear from all of the following what's going on. Women, at least in this State, have the choice of sexual congress, whether or not they are using contraceptives, can resort to giving up on motherhood at any time, through abortion, adoption, dropping the child off at a hospital. The Paternity Act gives reproductive license to women---and when men are subject to a woman's desire for CS, men cannot make the same choices to refuse to be involved. Hence, the inequality That Roe Versus Wade for Men addresses.

But it gets worse---there is a mounting amount of evidence that women are using deceptive means to get pregnant. One story had a thirty-something woman, convicted of statutory rape of a 15 year old boy, had been required to pay CS from their illegal coupling. Talk about outrageous. Another had a young male roughly the same age---not at adulthood, to start paying CS even though she was also older. There's been more than one insistence of women having oral sex with a partner and inserting the semen into her vagina to promote impregnation. And so on, and so forth.

The feminist party line is always to support a woman' s choice regardless of outcome. So much for equality. What I find troubling is that more women are getting caught red-handed lying to their partners about conception, or sabotaging it. Of course, when in doubt, if a men trusts a women to ensure usage of conception and it fails or she's lying, it's may be his fault for being naive. If he doesn't trust her and uses it, he's a wary asshole.

Is this "blame the men" game still prevalent, or what? Granted, I realize some men engage in risky sex, but an enormous amount of women do exactly the same in hasty drunken nights of debauchery and stoned-drenched clubbing, and although you'll hear from that men will state condoms are unromantic, there are women who will openly risk pregnancy and STDs before being sexually responsible.

Hopefully, male contraceptives such as reversible inhibition of sperm under guidance (RISUG), which in phrase III of human testing, and vas-occlusive contraception, which involves temporary plugs in the vas deferens, will hit the marketplace as affordable products with easy access. Obviously, the condoms and vasectomies are the norm, but it isn't helping things with the former isn't flawless, and the latter has troubles with vasovasostom if a patient ever wants it reversed, which can be costly. We have to educate and stress to men, young men in particular, if our culture is still going to promulgate inequalities towards men when it comes to reproductive choices; if the push is to force men to be more responsible, we'll respond in kind, but if we are to have that responsibility, we have to have choices, too.

And a final thought for now, but isn't it funny how feminists get pissed when men don't take responsibility for contraception and risk taking in sex (and some online have stated how much of drudgery it is on their own account), but when men do use them responsibly, they are blasted for having more personal and sexual power? Maybe we should, as some women have suggested, "keep it in our pants," put when we do that, suddenly we're trolls and losers opting out of the game that "can't get laid" even if women are attracted to us, and upset that we don't jump into the fire automatically. If anything, it's another cautionary tale for men to be cautious about dating, marriage, and raising children, and the more it's told, the more men are questioning the very foundation of women the were ingrained by society to trust, with that trust shattering into fractures and fissures that might not mend again.

UPDATE: A recent press release states as follows:

A federal appeals court has upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit nicknamed "Roe v. Wade for Men" filed by a men's rights group on behalf of a man who said he shouldn't have to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter.

It's not surprising to the jaded ones, I suppose. That includes yours truly.

Who's Objectifying Who?

This is another response to a woman I'll call UB from another forum. Since it's in the spirit of the blog, here's more fuel for the fire.

UB: Objectifying men is the new trend.


LL:
Well, it's not like that hasn't been going on for ages. The actual new trend is men are increasing becoming the gatekeepers, the cautious sex. Hence the need for women to develop a "seduction plan", as you put it.


Unfortunately, it seems that there's a lot of women that want men to work at "romance" and seduction, and put less effort into it. It's been a while since I had a woman earnestly enter the stages of seduction, whether its to finalize intercourse or not. It's not that there are an absence of women in my life; usually those going after me are single moms (which is a BIG no-no) or drunken party girls that go from A to Z without much fanfare. No one seems creative anymore, or employ alcohol for the purpose of letting go.

It seems to be a lost art on them, or they just don't care about it as much as fulfilling their own needs, perhaps? So many women have complained about being objectified sexually, and yet there are several that have no problems with utilizing their sexual powers in order to use men to obtain their wants. Men, in our current state of existence, cannot do the same thing, unless they are fawned over by hordes of women. Most men basically do not have this power to an Nth degree, and more and more men not only realize that women have this gatekeeper advantage and the possible hypocrisies it might entail. If women were, as UB suggested, objectifying men in this fashion in the inverse---men could use more primal sexual power to their own personal gain. It doesn't work as easily as women's. And when pointing this out, I hear, "oh, that's the way it is, just deal with it."

As far as objectifying men, it's been going on for ages, indeed, LL, but it's of more impact. How many men here have expressed their desire that they don't care about their partner's career as much as they are employed, make concessions about looks as long as they are fit and healthy, and don't mind quirks and foibles as long as these women aren't mentally unstable? A hell of a lot of them. But when women state their standards, it appears as a strict laundry list. True, some men are picky, but then again picky men that hold out for the women of their dreams usually wait a long time, or are damned with the label as being "judgmental" if they refuse to date low income single moms or corrupt female wolves-in-sheeps clothing. Perhaps, there is a truth in how women date men to approve their situation, and men are supposed to date women to, well, approve women's situations again. How men fair in that dynamic is a matter of risk, and often serious.

Personally, I know women that would pick apart the fact men wear generic shoes or drive a used compact auto to work. He has the wrong hair cut or appearance, even if not outrageous, he's just not as hip or attractive. I've pretty much got the physique part down (and I'm not kidding when I say this, but I'm fairly along the lines of what UB is looking for in that department), but as much as she usually is more progressive, it's surprising how many women fall back on traditionalist or sociobiological modes of being when it suits them, and feminist basics when it comes to next aspect (hence the phrase equality when the paychecks are distributed, but chivalry when the bills roll in).

This is where her argument isn't complete and only applies to women with her particular brands of viewpoint---a more of tat for it relationship holds more merit to myself (like her), but in the process of objectifying men, women will often resort to hypergamy and cognitive dissonance to rationalize and iron out any personal inequalities men face. If women were objectifying men directly, there would be far less confusion and everyone would know where they stand, even if stranded by the wayside. For example, if I was garnering attention from women, superficially speaking, equivalent to myself, she would be in great shape, have a interest in many subjects, frugal with money, no children, roughly my age, above-average in being proactive in her life, with no serous mental or physical ailments. This isn't happening, and more than myself are experiencing this.

Generally speaking, in a UB world where the sexes played fair and sex would not be used in deceptive matters or as a bargaining chip (and withdrawal of affection) a true exchange would not be perfect. But far better than the sins of omission or hollow promises that people commit in order to gain the upper hand.



A "wallet" is not a man, nor are we walking ATM machines. Curious how women view men as men, before human beings.

A Different Take on Sensitve Men and "Fragile" Men Egos

Recently, I wrote this in response on another forum to some gal who dubbed herself as 'funnygirl.' It pretty much explains itself.


What funnygirl probably won't admit, is that women's egos are easily just as disrupted. I work in a profession that has a slightly more amount of women than men, and there has been a plethora of women who are hypersensitive to issues they often take men to take for, and we're supposed to accept it. It could be anything from diet and weight, to career options/roles, to sexual choices and religion. Politics, too.

There are women that constantly place men on the defense, in catch-22 situations, and openly use personal attracts in order to gain a reaction, prove something that may not be normally factual 24/7 about a man, or obtain and upper hand in an argument based on "emotional truths" rather than seeing the global picture.

If a man did the same, he'd be accused of emotional abuse.

Eventually, the more you send barbs and personal jabs against a man, eventually, he'll probably give you a negative response one way or another. But you gained his attention, didn't you? I suspect funnygirl28 fell for the idea that she can treat men as emotional and sexual inferiors, and when men protest or become defensive, they are either assholes or exhibiting a "fraile male ego" of sorts.

You kick someone around long enough, no matter how seemingly passive, they will kick back. Hard.

It's curious that some women just refuse to understand this basic truth concerning most men. Most men put up with so much stress and bullshit, if they opened their eyes to even the daily effrontery that goes along with their workloads and responsibility they carried on their shoulders, I'm honestly not sure if they could handle it. And on top of that notion, men still must prove themselves and gain respect from women, some (more than you think) of whom play games, give off mixed cues, and favor one type of men that's not good for them while shitting on another they believe can "take it." Female players may not always sleep with a legion of men, but they are still players even if they don't see it in themselves.

This is the secret behind the desire to find a "sensitive man;" what that particular woman really means is she wants someone who is strong and traditional for her when she breaks down, but also listening to her wants and desires when using him for a counselor figure. When his insecurities or weaknesses crop up, they are generally meet with apprehension or scorn, and I've even seen women outright blast them to the point of violence; it probably goes without saying that funnygirl doesn't want to deal with emotionally deep men. That would mean she would have to treat a man as true equal, a human being in totality, and it's something she positively doesn't want.

Truly sensitive men who protest their treatment in a relationship, who don't put up with being an emotional punching bag are attractive to women for the same way they are eventually replaced or shunned; they are complicated and don't fall in the idiotic matrix of the nice guy-bad boy continuum. They are "fragile" because they can only accept so much abuse. There are women that enjoy the passion and drama it might bring, but eventually settle with a semi-stoic man that they can complain about to their friends and peers about how their emotional needs aren't met, all the while still "stuck" in a dull relationship that they seem to have created, anyway.