[[I feel I've had to remove this from the Global thread due the fact it may be a bit much for some.

ie: dislike of the feminist P.O.V on this forum..even tho I'm not a feminist as such...]]

BUT could men become redundant in a future world..if you as a man dont believe so..why not?


Do women need men.?



Quote:

Course women need men and vice versa.

Opposites attract

Quote:


It would be terrible to see either sex made redundant - how boring would life be with everyone being the same gender.

I didn't know that transferable uteruses had been developed, nor that it was possible for a male to have a baby.  One did recently, but "he" was a female to start off with.

Quote:


I don't think I've ever seen one where you can't tell.  There's always something that gives it away.  Big feet, hands, wrong voice etc.

I don't want a uterus thanks.
Or to give birth.

Just have a wimmin to make my dinner, clean the house, be the object of her sexual lusts is good.

A bit of hair might be worth it..but any more than say this is not on

Ive heard of men who love their women very hairy, one even said there was not a one woman in the world who was hairy enough for him  

Well it's fortunate that Japan wasn't completely wiped out during WW2. They're working hard on a solution to the "problem".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sjV_lxSVQo&feature=related

Amadd wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2009 at 12:16am:


My God. These "dummies" are getting more and more realistic.  Notice the noise in the background - the men weren't listening to a word she said, although that's nothing new.

Quote:


There's some truth in that unfortunately.

oceanz wrote on May 1^st, 2009 at 10:26am:


He only used the words man and woman singularly so there would have to be some humans on the planet who fit this description.

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?

Sometimes I think the goal is the destruction of mankind. It'd be a far easier and more fun goal then struggling to have it survive yet another fable only to be unremembered or forced to endure ungrateful swine who don't even realize what you just did...

Humans are stupid. They don't appreciate anything you do for them. And women are the most guilty of that. Evidently I don't think it's so much science would create genetic dead-ends, as we could control the genetics. So much as what would be the motivation?

Only to the most insanely altruistic person would we need to control the species as a whole to protect it. And anybody who is that compassionate will surely be crushed the moment he goes out into the world to try to implement his ideas. People don't want to be saved. So let them die. Let them die painfuly. And grab the heap for yourself and laugh in their fat faces as they die horribly and you die comfortably.


The streets are extended gutters, the gutters are full of blood, and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown.

The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout 'Save us!'

And I will look down, and whisper 'no.'

They had a choice, all of them. They could have followed in the footsteps of good men like my father, or President Truman. Decent men, who believed in a day's work for a day's pay. Instead they followed the droppings of lechers and communists and didn't realize that the trail led over a precipice until it was too late. Don't tell me they didn't have a choice. Now the whole world stands on the brink, staring down into bloody hell, all those liberals and intellectuals and smooth-talkers, and all of a sudden nobody can think of anything to say.

Atleast I'm not Jewish.

She has a nice new picture on Facebook too.


Who's the guy? 

muso wrote on May 26^th, 2009 at 11:04am:

It's her gay ass friend who wants her but can't have her. She's told me herself.

You know, it's not funny or acceptable the way you think targeting my girl for your little troll escapades. How would you like it if I called your girlfriend a cheating whore?

There are some things you don't joke about. Maybe I should pick on your dead mother. Or joke about how your mother should be dead.

I'm sure the devil has a good old time with your mother penetrating her with his lava cock.

tallowood wrote on May 26^th, 2009 at 8:04pm:


That's what I'd call a foregone conclusion.