Comments by "Rose S" (@roses6564) on "You get what you pay for: the higher the prices, the better the service" video.

@IfSemper A woman always treats the man they love better than their boss. Hey, they treat him better than their own children. The problem is women rarely end up with the man they love.
12
@RealHomeRecording No. Bedroom fun is in actual love. You are delusional if you think those religious "vows" always go hand in hand with love.
6
@GillesSimonify That's exactly bc you're single. A household of several people can get disorganized very fast.
3
I think you mean hands out. Mouth open would still be something, no?
3
If they are intelligent, they don't. By the time you face off an intelligent man and an intelligent woman, any remaining issues stem from sex differences or simply incompatibilities o nature. It is not logical for a woman to be in a relationship without bonding and emotional connection. A man is fine with that as long as there's sex and no drama.
3
@CaliforniatoWestAfrica What do you plan to do when you can't keep up anymore? Set one fish back in the lake and say "Be free!!"?
2
"Does it fit with your experience?" Mostly, except experience comes with "points of view" and this one is female.
2
Creepy.
2
@zenonvandeventer5229 They are not easy to just "find." People of value are increasingly scarce due to dysgenics.
1
The root of the word Relationship is RELATING. Orion delivered the Dirty Little Secret of relationships elsewhere: Men don't actually want one. In Orion's own words: "Men want to be alone, just not by themselves." They enter relationships/marriages with an anti-relationship mindset: a "contract" that should guarantee them a few basics such as sex and sexual exclusivity, children for those who desire them, the social status of family, and the big ND/No Drama (read no requests from the woman to relate, spend time with her, pay any attention to her needs, etc. In his ideal world, he must be left alone to do as he pleases, not be "joint at the hip with her." Only at the genitals when he feels like it). In this arrangement, most men agree to share some of their resources with the woman, as well as NOT hit her and NOT cheat on her. If they provide these basics, they consider themselves great Relationshippers. They are not. In a relationship, women need the RELATING part: interaction, bonding, connection, romance, being "Besties for the Resties," you name it. Hm. What could go wrong? Nietzsche: "It is not a lack of love that makes for unhappy marriages but a lack of friendship." Brutal reality: The average woman and the average man find each other BO-RING outside of sex. This automatically makes most marriages unhappy for the long term, by default. At best, they become routine and minimally fulfilling. Only the cerebral, intellectual types can have truly happy marriages. (Can/possibility, not guaranteed). All others will bite the dust in terms of marital satisfaction, sooner or later. Some will divorce, others will resort to Marital Endurism. Joy is reserved for the Chosen Ones lucky enough to find their soulmate in an available state. Most will not.
1
Dr. Taraban's male audience is not exactly Chad-ish. I am not even sure what he is trying to achieve with these escort videos.
1
Indeed, wives don't owe their husbands sex. Women and men who love each other simply want to have sex with each other. If those lovers also happen to be spouses, nice! Replace the Institution of Marriage with the "Institution" of Love. Can't get that? Too bad. Bargaining for "marital rights" in a loveless marriage is rape and slavery. Get someone who actually loves you or pay for professional services.
1
@singas2854 If you plan to get sex by appealing strictly to a woman's "duty," you are calling for the institutionalization of rape. Drop all that neurotic religious BS about "marital duties" and be with someone who actually loves you. She will want to be all over you. Can't get that? Too bad. Same for the woman: she should have no legal right to your wallet just because she managed to trick you into singing a paper. No love - no sharing of resources. Any human knows when the love is there or not. Get rid of legal marriage, let relationships prove themselves without manipulative crutches.
1
Every day it is surreal how many things/items in the household I return to proper place just to keep the house from falling apart into complete entropy. Lots of time spent on that. That's not even getting to cooking, cleaning, child rearing, household management etc. Just random crap left all over because fam just doesn't seem to have the need for an orderly place as I do. They do benefit from my need, however. It is constant, constant work without ANYTHING to show for other than a house that somehow doesn't succumb to entropy. Nothing tangible - until it's left to fall apart. THEN and ONLY THEN would they know the abyss. This whole "woman D-rapes me 'cause she takes muh material stuff" - no matter what she did in the house is pathetic. The problem is some divorcing women actually did the work and others did not - they just scrolled social media. Very hard to track what the woman actually did, which is why women should either have money of their own (from daddy, employment, or lottery win - Praise the Lord) or a marriage made in 1000 Heavens where the chance of marital dissatisfaction is lower than the Second Coming.
1
@CaliforniatoWestAfrica Well, I am sorry this came across as snide. It was more of an attempt at a bit of humor. On the Internet, in a public discussion forum there's no such thing as "mind your business." There's only exchange of ideas or simply the "ignore" choice. The genuine question remains the same as above: what do you plan to do when you can't keep up anymore? Let one go, pay her a severance package, etc? Note that the tone is not snide at all. I am genuinely fascinated with this type of situation and I have some actual personal and professional interest in such cases. Best.
1
There is a problem with the "polite/respectful" relationship under any and all circumstances. Anyone who has seen a few of those, understands how creepy they can be. Designing the most primary of all relationships in the same way formal/public sphere/professional relationships are designed (cold boundaries, if not call Security) is that it leaves no space for wholeness. A real relationship cannot be based exclusively on "politeness" and "respect" regardless of what is going on between the two. If the two truly admire and respect each other, there's no need for formal "politeness" anyway. That's called love and joy. Tolstoy nailed it: "Respect has been invented to cover the empty place where love should be." Humans have both a dark and a light side and if there is no space at all for frustrations to be vented, they become neurotic. If one partner has serious unmet needs, and the other consistently ignores all polite/kind/reasonable hints and calls from the other to pay attention, voices / tone will inevitably go up at some point. As they should. Beyond a point, there's no way around facing the music. There's a place for less-than-polite tone, otherwise the relationship turns creepy. The couple may continue to behave in civil, "respectful" ways but underneath the facade they feel anything BUT respect for each other. The relationship fails anyway. The most horrifying relationships I have seen are those where the two never fought, never raised their voice, but ended up in complete silence in separate bedrooms for decades on end, until death finally did them part and the other all but jumped for joy (the old model, divorce out of the question). Sane, good-willed, flesh-and-blood people (as opposed to lizards) go: delicate hint --> kind & polite --> firm --> emphatic --> voice raised --> ultimatum --> try again --> and again --> back to kind and polite --> repeat --> one more time...--> many more times --> decades later with no change --> ... End the friggin' charade if it becomes a realistic possibility. Sometimes things need shaking up, and sometimes even hurricanes have their place. Go Beryl, go.
1
@marktapley7571 With all due respect, I never understood these "gynocentric court system" gripes. I think this male perception of the "unfairness" of divorce courts is rooted in two aspects: 1) Women's contribution to the family is more difficult to document (it can range anywhere from minimal to colossal but who keeps track?) 2) women's relational needs are naturally more complex than men's, but men insist that their way must be the default (sex, "no drama" - meaning no requests from the woman, minimal communication and emotional connection. That should be enough for her too). What pat of "IT'S NOT!" do men not understand? When women feel disconnected and lonely in a marriage it impacts them a lot worse than it impacts men. If the man gets sex and "no nagging" it's all good for him. The woman is not OK with just being fed, NOT cheated on, and NOT beaten. Never mind if she faces the latter two as well. Connection needs are very real for the female of the species (it's not a whim) but it isn't imperative for men. There's a reason the Kareninas and Madame Bovaries of this world risk EVERYTHING just to escape the mind-numbing torture of their loveless, emotionally disconnected marriages. Question: why is it that male biology must take precedence in the marriage model over female biology? Noticed how sex is considered imperative in marriage but emotional connection is not? Interesting. I get it in times of Maslow 1. But in a high-tech time when women can be providers too? Not so fast. When she no longer starves without a husband, she naturally expects higher -order Maslow needs to be met too, especially those that are crucial for the female nature (love, belonging, emotional fulfillment etc). If she has a choice for more than just a hand to feed her, why would she not take it? Think you have two job offers: one that barely pays the bills and you hate but have no other options; vs an occupation/vocation that you have a lot of fun doing and you would not have it any other way since you have other sources of income anyway. Please tell me why a man should stick with version 1 when he doesn't have to? In this vein, the woman has two options: 1) Wait for THE ONE who can meet those emotional needs, don't need to accept the first marriage offer for a few crumbs (she has a source of income, even if not the greatest). 2) If the match turns out poor over time (which they often do), she will want to divorce for ANOTHER who can meet those emotional needs. Pay her the fair share for her transactional contributions and let her go. If the marriage is downright unbearable, she might want to leave even at the risk of cats through old age and nothing else. Alone is often > bad marriage. Who wants to coerce another to stay with them?
1
They were supposed to offer you an all-around satisfying mind-body-soul connection, not just "purity." What would be the point of being married to a completely idiotic virgin other than "pure" sex?
1
@sammyb1651 Clean Little Secret: True Romanticism is for the spiritual and cognitive elites. For most people, men or women, "in love" means "hot butterflies" or social optics (she may fantasize about how awesome she would look next to an alpha winner, lifestyle etc). That's not "in love" and yes, that'll go away, per hedonic adaptation theory. She'll be back to baseline "Unimpressed" once she adjusts to her new material realities. In love is a spiritual phenomenon and that doesn't go away. It only transforms into low-simmering, unwavering love over time. Those who experience it feel it will extend beyond this material dimension, into afterlife. No, that has noting to do with the "DDUP" vows. That's parroting. If the man has had a major emotional and intellectual impact on her and they pair-bond, it is absolutely NOT TRUE that she will quit on him at some point. The secret is most women marry without having ever been in love. They were either "in lust" or in "social optics" at best (excited about the promises society makes in regards with domesticity, etc). Many are openly pragmatic.
1
@martinh8784 No, they don't. Depending on the level at which you think they "work." Pragmatically and Socially? Absolutely. They work on face-value for "face-saving"-type people. But if you want an emotionally and spiritually-fulfilling relationship, there's no way around the Romantic model, which is for the high-caliber, intelligent, spiritual types. Everyone else will mess it up bc they think Romanticism means that "hot a**." The transcendental, Western-Romantic model is for those who have what it takes. This is why the West was able to create an abundance of beauty, art, cathedrals and such while the rest of the world built mostly mud huts. Drooling over the primitive way of life of a foreign civilizations is homosexual.
1
@TheeThee22 That’s not much of an argument. Realism, mate. Realism.
1
@TheeThee22 For many westerners, it's still mostly the same - pragmatic marriages just like in the East, except they are "self-arranged." Abd they also have the dumb marriage base on physical attraction only. BOTH are inferior, basal forms. Most Westerners look to "nail" material and socio-economic advantages that look good in the eyes of the world, just like in the East. HOWEVER: What made the West unusual is that it revealed the transcendental EXCEPTION - the Romantic union. This HARDLY means most Westerners marry their romantic soulmates. Absolutely not. Few have have what it takes takes for a true romantic experience, which is transcendental. It is a pure, aesthetic model of love to aspire to and it's the most beautiful thing any human can experience, especially if they have the chance to turn it to marriage. 100 perfectly functional pragmatic forever intact marriages are not worth one truly Romantic union. And no, Romanticism is not eroticism. It is EVERYTHING.
1