That's probably her best anti-cupid comic yet. World'll be a lot better once the genders shatter their roles a bit more. Nice to see Rachel's doin' her part towards that by telling the wee 'uns that love isn't everything.

...Now what can we do about the males?

"And just like that, it was over... The last flames flickered and died amidst the rubble of an empire[.] As the smoke rose into the blackened sky, we realized that the world we had known was gone forever." - Eric "Doc" Griffin on the fall

Joey has lightning fast reflexes ;)

****
I live under a bridge.

What about the males, Sinn? From a boy's perspective, what do you want to see happen with them?

****
I live under a bridge.

I whole-heartedly agree. :D

I try.

And yes, I would like Sinn to enlighten us as well. :)

hmmm... I want them to loosen the f*ck up! There's this terrific backlash that is still going on because the "male single-provider" role is becoming an increasingly dated notion. As women are found to be more "apt" employees (re: more submissive to authority, better abilities to relate on an interpersonal level, don't have to be paid as much), men are finding increasing pressure put on their self-perceptions as the sole-breadwinner. Furthermore, women now outnumber men in colleges and universities for undergraduate work. These and other social forces create a feeling of pressure, or rather insecurity, in males to live up to their socially assigned role as "the dominant gender." What do we see? Raging Machismo. Action films and pro-wrestling, sports heroes on steroids (as well as a renewed emphasis on sports) and backlash against those seen as "gender traitors" - sensitive men, homosexuals, the transgendered, and feminists. Here at Hamilton, among the future elite, we see it in everything from date-rape and sport-f*cking to the occasional case of mindless nationalism.

What do I want? I just want it all to stop. I want people to stop feeling like they have to get drunk and sleep around to fufill their gender roles. I want people to stop idolizing sports, bullying, and war as "manly" concepts. I want men to feel free to express more emotions than anger and horniness or that fake, self-assured swagger that is constantly thrown in my face. I want compassion and empathy to become respectable, admired, hell even sought after traits. I want an end to the advertising and social forces that indoctrinate men into thinking with their d*cks all the time. It's not simply that I think men should be able to cry - though that's important too - It's that they shouldn't feel like they have to bottle up everything inside themselves, to only be released as anger and violence.

Oh, and I want them to relinquish control, 'cause the only way our species will ever get anywhere is if were all equals in this, not livin' under each others' boots.

"And just like that, it was over... The last flames flickered and died amidst the rubble of an empire[.] As the smoke rose into the blackened sky, we realized that the world we had known was gone forever." - Eric "Doc" Griffin on the fall

*applause*

I love you, man!

A lot of relationships fail because someone feels that they must be in charge of the other. However, if one asks people who are in relationships that they are very satisfied with, the majority of them will say that there is nobody in charge, and that they share responsibilities as equally as possible.
Attitudes don't change overnight. There are still places in the USA where being an ethnic minority is unacceptable to white people. For example, when I went to Small Press Expo back in September, I decided to cut out early (Because that con sucked.) I decided to drive around Maryland, as I had never seen the area. One small town I was in openly had KKK symbols everywhere. I felt ashamed of my race.
I personally see nothing wrong with the woman being the primary breadwinner, or even the sole breadwinner.
However, I do see a problem with a lot of women. They have the attitude of "all men are pigs, all men are scum, all men are just trying to hold us down." Talking to these women is near-impossible for a man.
I have been without a girlfriend for 15 years now. I don't see anything wrong with that, nor do I see anything wrong with a woman wanting to make it on her own.

Now here's where I'm going to make some of you angry. The main thrust of Rachel's argument is that Valentine's day has become too commericalized. While I admit it seems more commerical than in years past, I feel that argument can really apply to just about any holiday. St. Patrick's day (the next big one on the callendar) was originally celebrated by those of Irish ancestry in the USA. Lately, however, it's become an excuse to get people stinking drunk. The problem is not the holiday itself; it's people who believe they can get a quick buck off of anything. That's the main reason why grunge failed in the early 1990's; it was too easy to mass-market, and the audience it primarily targeted hated mass marketing.

St. Valentin was a Catholic priest during the Roman empire. He went around marrying people and giving advice on love when the Empire strictly forbade it. They caught him and executed him. For that, he has been cannonized.

Just be glad you didn't grow up back in ye ancient times when I did. Women were indoctrinated that there were only two paths you could take: becoming the June Cleaver-style homemaker, dutifully obeying her husband's every whim, or the radical feminist, the one that advocates killing all men and starting over.

Quamp's discount manga/anime fan fiction
The Texas Conventions a Collection of artwork I've collected over various conventions.

True, Quamp. I've encountered women who give a man dirty looks for opening a door for them. I've also opened doors for guys who would stop cold at the doorway and stare at me. "Go on," I'd say. Their faces would screw up with uncertainty and a tinge of indignity. "No way," they'd say almost timidly, "Ladies first."

A fun response to give: "Look, I'm trying to immasculate you! So would you hurry it up? Class starts in 2 minutes."

I want to see bad male role models removed from television. In my day, children looked up to wholesome, strong, compassionate males like MacGyver. Now we have idiots like Ray Romano who perpetuate the flattering stereotype that women are these elite, superior beings humoring a drooling undercast of males. Puh-leez. When polled about how these male characters came off, little kids said they seemed angry all the time. Are we training our children to expect so little from our strongest (physically) gender? Males have so much capacity for love, so much strength, that portraying them as lazy, emotionally retarded, promiscuous or angry people can only lower the expectations of the next generation.

Where are the cowboys of Gunsmoke? The MacGyvers? The Sean Leuc Piccards? (sp) Although pseudo-feminists may enjoy the feeling of superiority granted by portraying all men as stumble bums or animals, it is as false as the sense of superiority white people used to get from watching black face comedies. Nothing is gained from stereotypes. Men need their heroes. And you CAN make comedies with people who aren't psychologically damaged or caricatured. We've done it before.

****
I live under a bridge.

Well put, man. Any holiday that gets dragged under the waters of commercialism to long is bound to stop sending bubbles up to the surface sooner or later.

That being said, I don't have a problem with women going out there and being sole providers, I just think that a lot of men are handling it like children. But that too is part of the indoctrination of gender roles - when you're told you must lose your feelings and banish your vulnerability all for the sake of some promised power, only to have that power denied to you, well, that's gonna upset some folk. Now, being one to hoist the black flag, as it were, I don't think they should've gone for that promise of power in the first place, but cultural indoctrination is a powerful thing. Makes us do things that aren't necessarily wise or kind. I know it's done a number on me.

But yeah your analysis of holidays and music and other various cultural phenomena is dead on.

"And just like that, it was over... The last flames flickered and died amidst the rubble of an empire[.] As the smoke rose into the blackened sky, we realized that the world we had known was gone forever." - Eric "Doc" Griffin on the fall

Or worse--lower their standards.

I don't really think any parent should be a "sole provider" unless that parent happens to be single. Or rather we should redefine the notion of provisions as "money." Both people in a relationship should pull their weight in some way. If not, and if the woman is the employed partner, that man had better learn how to cook, clean, and launder.

Not just learn, but to actually DO it, too. I know guys in my family who could cook, clean, and launder...they just don't do it.

What we need is for people to put down gender roles and such. It's part of what's bringing us down.

---
Brilliant.
---
Shameless plugging, hurray!

This is one of the only places I can join in conversations like this. Bring this subject up and you pretty much get stoned by everyone.

I know allot of people who make the situation worse by -pretending its getting better, well yeah its getting better, but its not where it needs to be. We should be at a point where men and women are equal,not fighting for a comfortable foothold.

Many of the people who pretend the situation is pretty good right now loose it when this topic is brought up, they react as if you'll undo what "years of hared work has done" , well if it could be undone just by mentioning it, it wasn't actually "done" in the first place.

We may have made allot of progress with gender equality, but we still have a ways to go.

Sorry, I always get on this track around Valentine's Day because one of the best ways to see how far gender equality has to go is to look around at the stereotypical relationship, the fact that the males always seem dominate in a more modern age says we haven't changed at all in some ways from way back when.

I hope I'm making sense.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I've never has a heart, Never know love.

Yet you expect me to care, to care about you.

Now you're staring at me, You stare at me as your love fades to grey.

What did you expect, Did you expectg me to love, love you with a heart I've never had?

Heh. Seriously. A lot of the stuff we discuss here would get us exiled in real life. x3

welcome to my world kids.

I remember distinctly this one cro-magnon libertarian f*ck who began laughing uproariously in class when I suggested that women could be equal warriors in the military. He never did answer me when I asked how it was any harder for a woman to "point and shoot." Appearantly, you need a penis to work a gun. 'Course this was the same kid who led the class in laughing at me for not being a capitalist.

"And just like that, it was over... The last flames flickered and died amidst the rubble of an empire[.] As the smoke rose into the blackened sky, we realized that the world we had known was gone forever." - Eric "Doc" Griffin on the fall

Don't worry. You'll have the last laugh. ;)

One week before my period, I think it's a helluva lot easier for me to point and shoot than any non-homicidal man, haha! I'm not ashamed of PMS. And I'm not joking either.

Joey's on the nose. A relationship should be like two horses strapped to a plow, each pulling their own weight in time. Sometimes I think all the so-called sexual liberation front did was make promiscuity acceptable (not a good thing on many levels, but at least we don't get exiled for having premarital sex while the guys get off scott free anymore). And women's lib only made it acceptable for guys to ride on the labors of their female companions (yes, I know not all guys do this and some women ride on their males' labors, which also is not acceptable). There was a time where if you were a guy and you wanted sex, either you had to get a job to buy a whore, or get a job so you could afford to marry a woman and start a family. (If you couldn't afford anything, if you were a nonproductive, lazy person, it was harder for you to get laid and have children. Natural selection at work, my friends!) And woe to you if you were a woman and wanted sex! It was shameful! You should marry a man for his wealth, not his physique! Pretty disgusting, isn't it? Marriage can almost sound like legal whoredom, and for many a century, it has been. We're at a great point in time here. We can meet the person of our dreams and both of us can work and support one another, which is how it should be.

****
I live under a bridge.

That's also why I'm pretty frustrated with a certain female associate of mine who has fallen head over heels for some guy because he got a certain piercing that happens to be her fetish. And I'm not using the term loosly either--the chick is seriously afffected by this piercing. I've been trying to point out to her that not only is that a disgustingly superficial reason to take interest in this guy all of a sudden (he didn't just appear on the scene: he's hung out with us for quite a while), but she also happens to be a highly gifted young woman who is familiar with several languages, self-taught in basic linguistics, and mere months a way from embarking on the collegiate era of her journey to become a cultural anthropologist, as she dreams and stands a great chance of becoming.

What of this guy? He's a delinquent. A druggy. A father.

"Love" or whatever interchangeable emotion my associate is feeling threatens the course of her entire life at the moment; and that just makes me angry.

Alright, here's where I'ma get thrashed - I have no problem with free love or casual sex. Love and lust are emotions, everyone has them, and there's nothing wrong to handling them in a mature and safe way. If your friend is turned on by a guy, seriously turned on, then maybe she should go with him for a while - if she doesn't take it seriously (except in terms of protection - where you always take it seriously) then what is the harm in a lay before she goes off to school? I mean if it's not all out of the blue and she already has a pre-existing friendship with the guy. It's another thing entirely if she hates his guts only to find herself weak-kneed at his approach because of a certain piercing. After all it is her body, and who are we to tell her what to do with it. 'Course friends worry about each others' choices - it's what friends do: we look out for one another, but the ultimate decision lies in the individuals hands.

My problem with casual sex of the hook up variety is its complete lack of honesty. "Hook-ups" do not qualify so much as acts of lust as they do acts of conquest. It's about finding and "having" that other person more than it is about meeting your body's needs. That's why, after hooking-up people don't even speak to each other. They awkawardly bow their heads as they pass along the streets pretending that the other person doesn't even exist. Unlike casual sex, which, at least to me, implies the pre-existing state of friendship and a mutual environment of support, hook-ups ravage the grounds upon which all lasting social interactions stand, then they salt that earth with shame and humiliation and insecurity.

As for Free-love, first we must not understand the 1960's as a once-in-a-lifetime phenomenon. It wasn't. Periods of radicalism and free-love (the two tend to go hand in hand as one challenges the material foundations of society, while the other attacks its social order) come and go about once every 40-50 years. In the 1840's Amerika was awash in utopian experiments (which often failed due in part to their isolation from the rest of society as well as the means of production) which were themselves ripe with poly-amorous unions. Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman began their hailed "lives of sin" as unwed partners (who weren't afraid to experience other lovers occasionally) in the next big surge of radicalism in the mid 1880's. This continued for as long as they lived into the next wave in the 'teens and '20's and '30's.

more to come...

"And just like that, it was over... The last flames flickered and died amidst the rubble of an empire[.] As the smoke rose into the blackened sky, we realized that the world we had known was gone forever." - Eric "Doc" Griffin on the fall

Now my argument for poly-amority - the idea that one can fall deeply in love with more than one other person - is a fairly simple one. A brief, if all-too-glib analysis of love is that it is part intense emotion, part physiological reaction, and part deep social connection. Now, as these tend to take root over time it is common for only one love at a time to be readily visible. That being said, there is no reason that one can not establish the deep social connections with two people that they can establish with one. If this is the case, and the physiological reactions and emotional attractions are already present or have, over time, become present, then love can clearly exit between three or more people.

This all assumes honesty, of course. Only when we are able to trust a person with our most intimate desires, wants, needs, and thoughts can we truly be said to love them. So, it follows that, should someone be truly in love with someone, only to find that they also love someone else simultaneously should be open and honest with their first partner about this.

One of the problems with developing poly-amority is the scarcity of self that causes us to selfishly cling to single individual as "our own" - as if that person's sole responsibility was to validate our existence with the exclusivity of their wants and affections! A person is far too complex to be bound in such manners, whether they want to or not. Who and what we are is a constantly shifting matter, and it only follows that what and who we want and need is equally as amorphous. This doesn't necessarily mean that we abandon our past - rather we can embrace as we move forward because it is a part of us. Anyway, I guess my point is that Humans aren't often content to be bound to one person their entire lives - one look at the divorce rate will tell you that much - and that tells us that their is a need to reinvent the social structures that result in so much human disatisfaction. I really believe that pushing the boundaries of what we consider love is one way to accomplish that.

"And just like that, it was over... The last flames flickered and died amidst the rubble of an empire[.] As the smoke rose into the blackened sky, we realized that the world we had known was gone forever." - Eric "Doc" Griffin on the fall

Johnny says Great strip Rachael

boys are dumb

Johnny

That's all well and good, and I realize that everyone is entitled to make decisions for themselves. I'm still allowed to be angry. I'm still allowed to be concerned. And I do believe I am justified in believing that risking unwanted outcomes (condoms do break) at such a crucial point in one's life is a rather--no, very--unintelligent course of action.

He isn't the last male to whom she will ever feel an attraction. To quote the Anti-Cupid, she has "her whole life" for free-love and casual sex or whatever you wish to call it. I will be fair and admit that part of my adamance stems from my own beliefs and preferences. Perhaps you are right in your analysis of the current state of "love" in terms of our society, but my upbringing simply prevents me from agreeing. No matter how much sense it makes in my head, the mere notion of applying such principles to my own life makes me feel pure, unadulterated disgust. I hope that does not offend for I am simply relating my emotions.

Furthermore, I truly think there is a difference between "being in love" with and "loving" someone. The former is an emotion, and the latter is a choice. I can "be in love" with more than one person, yes, but I can also make the choice to "love" one more than the other. The latter form of love I am referring to involves the conscious decision to dedicate a part of your time, and your self, to making another individual content. Love is not about receiving, as you seem to be implying (that is dependency); it's about giving. This goes beyond the connections you have associated with love in the above posts. I'm not saying anyone who doesn't decide to dedicate his or her whole life to one person (or at least start out with the initial intention to do so) is a bad human being--I am saying that they've never truly loved.

But hey. Those are just my two cents.

You're right, condoms do break. Thankfully there are multiple layers of birth control that can be employed - the pill, the morning after pill (for emergencies only, I here you feel absolutely miserable after downing one of those), hell even having the guy spend 1/2 hour in a hot-tub at I think about 115 degrees farenheit will do it.

But yeah the situation could easily be a big emotional mistake for her, depending on how it goes. And your worry is pretty damn reaonable. I didn't mean to offend, but I've seen too many groups of friends where the group decides who dates who. That sort of attempt at control makes me feel a bit enraged. Just a bit.

No offense taken. Your feelings are yours, and we don't control those, though our choices in the long term seem to shape them a bit. But what I'm getting out of the last paragraph, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that it's okay to "be in love" with one more person but somehow impossible to "love" them because there's just not enough hours in the day. But that again falls into the trap of believing that at least all of our efforts must be directed towards a single object of our love. What, then, about children from a previous marriage - that's a redirection of effort away from the object of your love that doesn't actually deal with them at all. Another question I ask you is the about the past societies that embraced polyandry and polygymy - the idea of having multiple wives and husbands. There it served to create cohesiveness within the population, but it allowed people to "love" more than one other person. Was their love somehow inferior to our glorified "western" love? I mean, from the viewpoint that anything is possible, all it means is that there's an infinite varieties of love out there from which to choose from - not just the one we've been indoctrinated with. Maybe, indoctrination aside, some kinds of love just aren't for you - cool. Vanilla, chocolate, raspberry - they're all equally good choices. Maybe some are easier to grasp at, while others are more complex or difficult. Doesn't mean one is better than another, just different. No reason to look down on those who practice a different model of love than you.

"And just like that, it was over... The last flames flickered and died amidst the rubble of an empire[.] As the smoke rose into the blackened sky, we realized that the world we had known was gone forever." - Eric "Doc" Griffin on the fall

To quote a friend of mine..."Love is love is love is love."

I know that wasn't what you were pointing out, but I find it really sad that my aunt is running around dating guys on account of his money. Now, she rejected pretty much all of them (Plus the ones who rejected her) and she's marrying a guy who's has 4 wives so far (She's his 5th, but actually, I think the first passed away.), a grandfather, and is kinda after her money.

---
Brilliant.
---
Shameless plugging, hurray!

Ah, but there's the rub, Rachel. What is "pulling their own weight equally?" In all my experience with life, and studies of relationships and psychology, I feel that no two people can completely agree upon this. It's but a small part of the major psychological concept I call the dirty window of perception. That is, everything that goes on around one goes through a filter based on past experiences, beliefs, attitudes, etc. before becoming a memory. The Dr. Wayne Dyer book Your Erroneous Zones (Which I highly recommend) delves into this somewhat. Which goes back to a tenet about love that I had left on another thread: you have to agree to disagree on some things.

Quamp's discount manga/anime fan fiction
The Texas Conventions a Collection of artwork I've collected over various conventions.

Like I said, Sinn: my two cents. That's all. I don't look down on you for believing in poly-amority. I totally don't agree with it, but it doesn't make you a lesser person.

I happen to be very protective of my friends. That's all.

As for thinking "western" love superior to anything, no one can prove that it is one way or the other. That's sujective; but I obviously wouldn't subscribe to it if I didn't like it better. And I'm not saying there aren't enough hours in the day to love (as in care for and share with) more than one person--I'm saying, that according to my (perhaps naive) ideal of what love is/should be, someone who loves me wouldn't want to give love (of that magnitude) to anyone else. Keep in mind that the love between a man and a woman (gays too, but that's besides the point) is the kind of love I'm discussing. Not the love of a parent for his or her children. That type of love has to be passed around no matter who the mother/father is and who your husband/wife/lover is now.

You stated your view on love. I stated mine. That's all that just happened. Now, if that means I run a greater risk of dying alone because no one meets my ideal while you and your comrades partake in the pleasures of life on a whim, then so be it. I'm a stubborn woman. :p

On a seperate note, I wanted to play Devil's Advocate a bit with the whole gender roles issue:

We've already got out theory on why men act like "men" in terms of social factors, but what about science? There are anatomical and chemical differences between men and women which make us inherently different. Us being different does not in anyway warrant one side's supression of the other, to be sure, but how much of what woman dislike in men (anger, violence, "conquest," etc.) is the fault of our good buddy, Testosterone?

Hee, lots of people like to call it that. ;p What fascinates me more than everybody's dirty windows, though, is wondering what the clean window actually looks like beneath all of that dirt: ultimate truth. We all have opinions, we all have perceptions, but the mistake that many people make is presuming that all opinions are valid. All opinions are not valid; they are only so when based on indisputable premises. Some opnions have no premises behind them; even worse, sometimes the premises with which to disprove such opinions aren't clear either. It's possible that there is only one true answer to even the most subjective questions and debates, one which we cannot prove with accessible or conceivable premises--or perhaps truths that are right under our noses which we refuse to see.

Whoah. Sorry for the semi-related rant. ~.~

Heh, so far I have not yet met a pro-polyamory guy who was okay with sharing his girlfriend with another guy. I know they exist, I just haven't met one ;) You know, where it's not a kinky fetish he has but something he would actually be okay with. It looks great on paper, but in practice, look ye no farther than Morrison's stormy love life.

****
I live under a bridge.

Funny thing is - I've never been in love before, so I don't know which model applies to me, personnally. Could be poly-amory, could be monogamy, could be neither. Basically, all my arguments at this point are from a purely intellectual level. I just want to see different kinds of love out there than the one type currently shoved down everyone's throat as "the only real love."

"And just like that, it was over... The last flames flickered and died amidst the rubble of an empire[.] As the smoke rose into the blackened sky, we realized that the world we had known was gone forever." - Eric "Doc" Griffin on the fall

I think I've been in love before. Still not too sure on how to confirm such a thing.

I can see your point on that, homosexuality being the Big Case Study of that at the moment. I think it's a bit ironic that as different types of love arise, fewer and fewer people will be compatible with one another--at least on that level. This is going to sound totally cliche, but Will and Grace illustrates what I mean: a man and a woman are practically soul mates, but they can never be one another's "one and only" because the male realizes he is gay.

Edit: I was laughing so hard when I re-read what I wrote and it said, "...because the male discovers he is male." xD

I read in Wired that eventually even conventional straight people will be unable to find enough in common with each other to warrant staying together, what with the plethora of things available to the human mind now.

****
I live under a bridge.

Those things were always available. We just now all have access to it now. Either way, some of the people I care for and trust the most in this world have very little in common with me anyway. I guess it takes different things for different people to love someone else. Some need a psychological twin while others can't stand people that just like the same things they do.

I loved that comic! Good message, and great art!

GO GO RACHI-ART!

.:suzu-chan/killijoy/Joeys Cupcake:.
.:"No time for goodbyes," he said, as he faded away. "It's hard to imagine, but one day you'll end up like me." Then he said, "If you want to stay alive, hold on for your life.":.

EVIL DOUBLEPOST! *hiss*

.:suzu-chan/killijoy/Joeys Cupcake:.
.:"No time for goodbyes," he said, as he faded away. "It's hard to imagine, but one day you'll end up like me." Then he said, "If you want to stay alive, hold on for your life.":.