Quote:


Yes the entire robot is built around the "Off switch".

     ^
     ^
     ^
Do you see how beneficial an "Off switch"will be?

I've heard this phrase bandied around by men a bit lately: "I need a strong woman".

WTF???
Is this a joke? No, it's no joke, it's real and it's a disgrace. Muslim men must find western cattle quite humerous.

oceanz wrote on May 3^rd, 2009 at 8:50pm:


Then you must be a lesbian. because by the very nature of western culture, man is to be weak or alienated.

A strong man, is a "chavunistic" man. Men who are domineering and proud of themselves are seen as a pox of some backward age. As if any recollection of the past is a sign of defeat for rights, progress, and the general well being of the nation..

The obsession with equality leads ultimately to more supramacy then if people were just admittedly preadjudice. Women don't want strong men. They want men who do what they tell them, and simply pretend to have their own thought. Let's say for example you have a woman who likes to party hard and go out clubbing and rub up against other people. Especialy guys. This sortof behaivor might've been acceptable when she was "on the market". But now it's not. She's in a relationship, and she should be considerate of her man's feelings. All the same, you would not expect a taken man to be going around slutting about with other women just to prove they were still hot. Yes, they do it sometimes, but that doesn't make it right now does it?

So what do women expect? They want a man who won't stop them and will just circlejerk. "Well it's her life, I can't control her actions". Like hell you can't! The strong do not make excuses. If they want something, they take it. Regardless of what other people think. Love doesn't mean you let someone do whatever the bugger they want too. Love is jealous, coveting, greedy, suspicious, and sometimes downright mean. And do you know why?


Because if they weren't, that means they don't give a poo about you! If I'm not controlling and overly suspicious, you need to start worrying.... cause that means I'm detatched, unconcerned, and probably sleeping around with some other broad who's willing to hear my problems...

Ofcourse it's perfectly acceptable in our culture for the woman to boss around a man. "For their own good". Because ofcourse women are always right. As we've seen in every sitcom ever.

This is why the only real show I've liked is I Love Lucy. I think it takes the most realistic approach to gender roles, relationships, and genders as a whole. In the end, Ricky tries to be the alpha male, and is often just a loudmouth dumbass who has to cover his tracks. Lucy's a dumbass too and is just hoping Ricky won't findout some new mess she's gotten herself into. In the end they findout both are dumbasses, regardless of who submits and who dominates. And they realize, hey... Love just means being stupid together.

Jim Profit wrote on May 3^rd, 2009 at 9:23pm:





Love [i.e. to be loved] isn't 'freedom' to do as we wish.

Love [i.e. to be loved] isn't 'licence'.


Dictionary,
licence = =
1 a permit from an authority to own or use something, do a particular thing, or carry on a trade (especially in alcoholic liquor). Ø formal or official permission.
2 a writer’s or artist’s conventional freedom to deviate from facts or accepted rules.
3 freedom to behave without restraint.



And love, isn't 'jealous'.

'Jealous', that isn't love,
.....'jealous', is just pure selfishness.

Like a selfish parent, who won't allow, and will not encourage a child to grow, and to seek and choose their own dreams, and make mistakes.

'We're only human, we're supposed to make mistakes.'

YOU'RE ONLY HUMAN
Billy Joel







Quote:








Quote:


If You Love Someone Set Them Free
Sting
http://www.loglar.com/song.php?id=16187







Quote:

JP,

One day you will come to learn that love means letting go, not grasping on to 'it', for dear life.

'It' = = what you attribute as 'of value' to yourself.


The essence of love is acceptance [of others?].

Love has nothing to do with our ability to enforce or empower our 'passion' [desires].

"We are who we protect, i think.
What we stand up for."

Sophie Neveu - The Da Vinci Code [movie]

Just returning to the original question as to wether men might in the future be rendered redundant.

I dare say that such a thing is conveivable.

BUT.

If science/technology where to make one sex unecessary for reproductive purposes why would the other remain "essential"?

Aldous Huxly's celebrated novel, - "Brave New World," - provides one speculative glimpse of what such a society might look like.

George Orwell in his equally acclaimed dystopian classic, - "1984," - furnished an alternative view in which scientists in the world of Ingsoc are actively seeking to make it physically impossible for humans to produce children by natural means.

I find it difficult to see how any matter of major social import can ever honestly be described as a "womans issue" or a "male issue."

Surely if something impacts negatively on one sex it will impact negatively on the other.

If not directly, then indirectly.

What say you?