A revolution without a man to love
A revolution without a man to love
Post by khankrumthebulgar on Dec 8, 2005, 11:07am
A revolution without a man to love
By Suzanne Fields
Thursday, December 8, 2005
Heidi Fleiss thinks she’s onto something big. She wants to open a brothel for women. Anyone with a prurient memory for juicy facts remembers Heidi, the Los Angeles madam whose little black book, stuffed with the names of Hollywood celebrities, led to the evidence that sent her to prison.
Now she’s out of the slammer and wants to open a “stud farm” 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas, where, if she can get a license, she will establish the first legal brothel serving female customers. “The pleasure palace will be shaped like a castle,” reports Newsweek magazine, “with a marble-floored great room, a spa, a sex-toy shop and secluded bungalows where 20 Casanovas will spend quality time with the clientèle (at $250 an hour).”
Women have come a long way from merely challenging “The Feminine Mystique,” which Betty Friedan identified as a little voice within that cried: “I want something more than my husband and my children and my home.” More is a relative term, of course, and sometimes more is less, and a house is not a home.
The cruelest irony of the revolution that changed the relationships of the sexes is the shortage of eligible men. It’s not that there are fewer men statistically, but there are fewer desirable men statistically. A headline in The Washington Post complains: “Disappearing Act: Where Have the Men Gone? No Place Good.”
Colleges and universities across the country report diminishing numbers of male students. At Howard University in Washington, for example, women outnumber men 2 to 1, underlining the disparity particularly evident among blacks. When women surpass men in educational achievement, their desirable husband pool decreases. Men who drop out of high school, or who don’t go on to college, are likely to earn less than half of the income of educated men. Drop-outs are more likely to be unemployed, homeless and abusive toward women, and they’re more likely to engage in other violent crime.
The statistics of vanishing men focuses on those at the lowest economic levels, many of whom wind up in prison, but there’s more to the story, and it cuts across all economic and racial lines. The very ideal of manliness and male pride has taken a hit, causing what one female cynic describes as “premature emasculation.” No matter how you spin the globe, it’s no longer a man’s world. Men still dominate business, the professions and politics, but not like they once did, and in the give-and-take of domestic relations, they’re the losers. The consequences are sad for everybody.
One of the depressing consequences is that increasing numbers of women find their children at sperm banks. Some are women whose husbands are unable to procreate, but many (and they’re not all lesbians) simply don’t want to bother with a man in their lives. They think they can do it better alone. By some estimates, the number of single women seeking donor sperm has doubled in a decade. A customer with money confronts no social stigma. The celebrity magazines are awash with stories of women who are “single mothers by choice.”
But these designer children suffer just like children without fathers have always suffered. Daughters lack that first male to measure men by, and they are more likely to engage in destructive sexual relations at earlier ages than girls raised with fathers. Sons lack a man to model themselves after, and often never learn the discipline to control male aggressiveness. Such sons and daughters never see how problems can be worked out within a loving marriage, and they descend into the psychological spiral that leads to a succession of failed relationships.
Americans overwhelmingly agree that good fathers are important for children, but you don’t need the surveys conducted by the National Fatherhood Initiative to see that this is common sense. The first children of donor dads are young adults now, and many agonize over finding their fathers. It’s not exactly inspiring to know that Daddy was a no-name number from the deep freeze, and there’s another danger: Since such sperm is often contributed by anonymous young men, often working their way through college, the likelihood that a woman could fall in love and marry her half-brother without knowing their blood ties is hardly inconceivable (no pun intended).
Maybe, given the unhappy givens of the sexual revolution, Heidi Fleiss was inevitable. “I’ve heard from very wealthy, very beautiful women who say they’d be the first in line,” she says. No doubt.
——————————————————————————–
Re: A revolution without a man to love
Post by antiriad on Dec 8, 2005, 11:51am
Quote:
No matter how you spin the globe, it’s no longer a man’s world.
The crucial step that these people fail to apprehend is, when it is no longer a man’s world, it doesn’t therefore follow that it has become a woman’s world. Rather, it becomes a chaotic mess – anarchistic, violent, devoid of rules of civility and morality. In that kind of world, women are far bigger losers than they are in a man’s world. Women can only direct their standard of living relative to how much they let men govern the world. When they don’t, chaos ensues. It cannot ever become a woman’s world, because women are intrinsically chaotic and require man’s hard rule (as much as they struggle against it).
——————————————————————————–
Re: A revolution without a man to love
Post by rule on Dec 8, 2005, 12:02pm
Thanks for a good post. Unfortunately Suzanne Fields is socially conservative, and does not represent the overwhelming numbers of American vampires, I mean women.
What stuns me is that people were not talking about this 40 years ago. This was entirely predictable.
As antiriad has stated in earlier posts, pop a sud and watch the show. Since I have actually detached from US culture, it has been interesting. I feel very relaxed now that I no longer feel I have any stake in the outcome of our society.
I wish them what they deserve.
——————————————————————————–
Re: A revolution without a man to love
Post by BartSimpson on Dec 8, 2005, 2:46pm
Heidi is going to have a big problem.
Convicted felons cannot own or operate a brothel in the State of Nevada.
Sorry, Heidi.
——————————————————————————–
Re: A revolution without a man to love
Post by antiriad on Dec 8, 2005, 2:48pm
Dec 8, 2005, 2:46pm, BartSimpson wrote:
Heidi is going to have a big problem.
Convicted felons cannot own or operate a brothel in the State of Nevada.
Sorry, Heidi.
She’s going to be an employee, she won’t actually “own” it (at least not directly).
——————————————————————————–
Re: A revolution without a man to love
Post by chrisvet on Dec 8, 2005, 3:03pm
Dec 8, 2005, 11:51am, antiriad wrote:
Quote:
No matter how you spin the globe, it’s no longer a man’s world.The crucial step that these people fail to apprehend is, when it is no longer a man’s world, it doesn’t therefore follow that it has become a woman’s world. Rather, it becomes a chaotic mess – anarchistic, violent, devoid of rules of civility and morality. In that kind of world, women are far bigger losers than they are in a man’s world. Women can only direct their standard of living relative to how much they let men govern the world. When they don’t, chaos ensues. It cannot ever become a woman’s world, because women are intrinsically chaotic and require man’s hard rule (as much as they struggle against it).
Highway billboard material. 
——————————————————————————–
Re: A revolution without a man to love
Post by BartSimpson on Dec 8, 2005, 3:43pm
Dec 8, 2005, 2:48pm, antiriad wrote:
She’s going to be an employee, she won’t actually “own” it (at least not directly).
Not to be a stickler for details, but the article said:
Now she’s out of the slammer and wants to open a “stud farm” 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas, where, if she can get a license, she will establish the first legal brothel serving female customers.
——————————————————————————–
Re: A revolution without a man to love
Post by rule on Dec 8, 2005, 3:51pm
Yeah, that is a problem. She has said she can get around it, but Nevada takes gaming and all licenses extremely serious. Any hint of her involvement and the application to operate gets denied. I don’t see how it flys.
——————————————————————————–
Re: A revolution without a man to love
Post by antiriad on Dec 8, 2005, 3:53pm
Dec 8, 2005, 3:43pm, BartSimpson wrote:
Dec 8, 2005, 2:48pm, antiriad wrote:
She’s going to be an employee, she won’t actually “own” it (at least not directly).
Not to be a stickler for details, but the article said:
Now she’s out of the slammer and wants to open a “stud farm” 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas, where, if she can get a license, she will establish the first legal brothel serving female customers.
Right, I read a different article about this a while back which talked about how she would get around not being able to own the place.
——————————————————————————–
Re: A revolution without a man to love
Post by travis on Dec 8, 2005, 4:56pm
Her plan will flop. Why would women fly from all over the country to pay to have sex when they could just go to a frat house or nearby high school for a quick lay? If anything, there’ll be more men and old women than young women showing up.
——————————————————————————–
Re: A revolution without a man to love
Post by likeicare on Dec 8, 2005, 11:09pm
Assuming she is targeting this to women (I agree with travis that men would be the main clientèle), I think her plan will flop because of what women really want, which was alluded to in the article. Most women want relationships with good men and not just sex with random attractive guys. Few women would be interested in hiring gigolos to meet their sexual needs. Women can get sex for free and with little effort. Even ugly women can get a ONS with a stud under the right conditions, and much easier than a plain man can get an attractive woman. It doesn’t make sense to try to get women to pay for sex because they don’t think like men.
Now if Heidi were somehow able to pimp “relationships” she would make a killing. What about a male escort service where women can hire a steady “boyfriend” for a pre-arranged amount of time, e.g. 3-6 months?
——————————————————————————–
Re: A revolution without a man to love
Post by TyHigs on Dec 8, 2005, 11:32pm
Dec 8, 2005, 11:09pm, likeicare wrote:
Assuming she is targeting this to women (I agree with travis that men would be the main clientèle), I think her plan will flop because of what women really want, which was alluded to in the article. Most women want relationships with good men and not just sex with random attractive guys. Few women would be interested in hiring gigolos to meet their sexual needs. Women can get sex for free and with little effort. Even ugly women can get a ONS with a stud under the right conditions, and much easier than a plain man can get an attractive woman. It doesn’t make sense to try to get women to pay for sex because they don’t think like men.
Now if Heidi were somehow able to pimp “relationships” she would make a killing. What about a male escort service where women can hire a steady “boyfriend” for a pre-arranged amount of time, e.g. 3-6 months?
when it suits women, apparently they can admit they have the advantage when it comes to sex. Ha! You hear that Jamie? Women control sex, not vice versa, and I’d argue that power brings with it a greater responsibility (which it does).
——————————————————————————–
Re: A revolution without a man to love
Post by likeicare on Dec 8, 2005, 11:36pm
When it suits women? I thought it was common knowledge that women had the power when it came to sex and never thought otherwise.
——————————————————————————–
Re: A revolution without a man to love
Post by Simpson on Dec 8, 2005, 11:45pm
OK. I’m on board with this month-to-month thing. What a good deal that would be for men. Totally on-board – send me a list of available women and the price.
Better than an escort just for the night, how about a girlfriend for the month. Heaven.
Insured, bonded, contractual obligations. Time to hire a woman!
——————————————————————————–
Re: A revolution without a man to love
Post by chrisvet on Dec 8, 2005, 11:45pm
Dec 8, 2005, 11:09pm, likeicare wrote:
Assuming she is targeting this to women (I agree with travis that men would be the main clientèle), I think her plan will flop because of what women really want, which was alluded to in the article. Most women want relationships with good men and not just sex with random attractive guys. Few women would be interested in hiring gigolos to meet their sexual needs. Women can get sex for free and with little effort. Even ugly women can get a ONS with a stud under the right conditions, and much easier than a plain man can get an attractive woman. It doesn’t make sense to try to get women to pay for sex because they don’t think like men.
Now if Heidi were somehow able to pimp “relationships” she would make a killing. What about a male escort service where women can hire a steady “boyfriend” for a pre-arranged amount of time, e.g. 3-6 months?
Trust me when I tell you this: Women love fucking good looking guys / players / bad guys Period.
- They all fight over male strippers.
- They throw themselves @ grease balls like Gene Simmonds from Kiss. (and insert rock star here)
- 90% of the women fuck 10% of the men is beyond true.
And that goes for ATTACHED women too. Good looking guys / thugs “excite” women sexually, and in the right circumstances married or dating women have no hesitation fucking around.
I’m a former player / male whore and picked women at random, worked them (sometimes for 2 days) and got them in bed EVERY TIME.
That was over 10 years ago before I became “enlightened” with more “meaningful” endeavors.
Women are weak, and those Muslim men who cover their wives aren’t as insane as we’re all led to believe.
Thats also one of the reasons I don’t hold high respect for women.
They never change, I did.
——————————————————————————–
Re: A revolution without a man to love
Post by antiriad on Dec 9, 2005, 12:08am
Dec 8, 2005, 11:36pm, likeicare wrote:
When it suits women? I thought it was common knowledge that women had the power when it came to sex and never thought otherwise.
Actually, they don’t.
The order has always been:
players -> women -> decent men
Even in ancient Greece, who was the guy who stole Helena? It was the player type, Paris; he was a complete pussy in terms of being a man, but he knew how to play the ladies.
Today, you see intelligent and educated and beautiful women go out with guys who have nothing to say for themselves: no job, no character, no personality, no looks, money, or anything else. How can this be? Because they’re players and they know how to push the right buttons.
This is the world that feminism has created: men turning into players en masse. Look to the former soviet union to see how this has developed into the predominant culture. The most beautiful Russian women who are also engineers and physicians now wish they had decent men – and yet the feminists in their country (who preceded western feminism by half a century or more) helped to destroy a culture that raised decent, kind, loving men and instead nourished a group of players and womanizers. Simply put: nice guys were bred out of the gene pool over there. This will happen in the west as well, inevitably. Feminism is a social and evolutionary dead end for humanity. In centuries to come, history will see it as the greatest crime against all of humanity that was ever committed.
——————————————————————————–
