# Belly Full, Empty Balls Rule



## Lila

@BigbadBootyDaddy posted on another thread that 90 % of men only need their partners to keep their belly's full and their balls to be empty to be content in the relationship. The 10% outliers are insignificant. 

What say you men of TAM? Are you within the 90% who only care about sec and food, or the 10% who need "more" to be happy in a relationship?


----------



## Marduk

Lila said:


> @BigbadBootyDaddy posted on another thread that 90 % of men only need their partners to keep their belly's full and their balls to be empty to be content in the relationship. The 10% outliers are insignificant.
> 
> What say you men of TAM? Are you within the 90% who only care about sec and food, or the 10% who need "more" to be happy in a relationship?


I think it's as stupid a rule as "happy wife, happy life" and smacks of passive-aggressiveness, transactional thinking, boxing people into roles and especially emotional terrorism.


----------



## ConanHub

Not even close. I need emotional connection, mental stimulation, fun, activities together. I need to be cuddled often, hugged and flirted with as well.

I'm the cook and having a full belly is good for both our moods.

Sex is good for both of us as well.

If all I ever had was food and sex,.....?

This might sound bad but I can't even see getting married or even dating someone just for those two things.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

Lila said:


> @BigbadBootyDaddy posted on another thread that 90 % of men only need their partners to keep their belly's full and their balls to be empty to be content in the relationship. The 10% outliers are insignificant.
> 
> What say you men of TAM? Are you within the 90% who only care about sec and food, or the 10% who need "more" to be happy in a relationship?


Ha!

I was waiting for this topic to be more "thoroughly investigated".

Well done. 

I have to think a bit on this. Because there are few absolutes in rule setting, if you will.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Sounds about right. Might be 80/20 depending on other factors like she could still be bat**** crazy and meet the two above qualifications. Add in minimal drama and you have a winner.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Sounds about right. Might be 80/20 depending on other factors like she could still be bat**** crazy and meet the two above qualifications. Add in minimal drama and you have a winner.



And this is a good answer. For a rich, mature relationship it can't be just those two items.

Without the other ingredients in an enjoyable well rounded relationship it wouldn't last and not be fulfilling.


----------



## Tilted 1

It just not enough for me either, l still have to like her and want to be desired by her. But she would still expect the same in return. But as time changes for me because of my emotions, if she's not interested much then as all things considered comes to the fact that she just not that into me. And given some time l will make a decision for my part of the relationship. 

The full belly and empty balls, just is meaningless if their is no love and attraction. The relationship is dead, and would rather live by myself than be tormented by the thought of a desire to be desired. That is meaningless to my wife and not return in the same manner. 

I also need my wife to be individual, in the ways she will let herself be. To add value to my life and appreciate the compromise's l have gave for the family, but l must also value her for all the compromise's she gave.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> UpsideDownWorld11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds about right. Might be 80/20 depending on other factors like she could still be bat**** crazy and meet the two above qualifications. Add in minimal drama and you have a winner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this is a good answer. For a rich, mature relationship it can't be just those two items.
> 
> Without the other ingredients in an enjoyable well rounded relationship it wouldn't last and not be fulfilling.
Click to expand...

Yea, ruling out obvious things like affairs, alcoholism/drug abuse and spending problems. Ruling those out, I'd be content in those three. Maybe not blown out of the water, but content yes.


----------



## TBT

There is just as much credence,and probably more,to me saying that the 'belly's full/balls empty' men are the real outliers.


----------



## Numb26

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Sounds about right. Might be 80/20 depending on other factors like she could still be bat**** crazy and meet the two above qualifications. Add in minimal drama and you have a winner.


I'm thinking 80/20 might be closer to the mark right now. But with the way society is headed it might even get lower.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

I'm hungry, and looking forward to an evening's encounter tonight.

There will be holidays and planning discussions I'm sure, and etc, but to round out the evening I'll be full, and we'll both be content in multiple ways.

I'll just roll with that tonight. 😎😎👍👍👍❤❤


----------



## Married but Happy

Well, it's a good starting point, but like Conan, I want and need a lot more. However, if these are missing (esp. the sex, as I AM capable of feeding myself!), then "everything else" won't be sufficient.


----------



## Marduk

Married but Happy said:


> Well, it's a good starting point, but like Conan, I want and need a lot more. However, if these are missing (esp. the sex, as I AM capable of feeding myself!), then "everything else" won't be sufficient.


How is it a good starting point?

I want a partner, not an indentured servant who's job it is to cook and service me. It's literally no different than "if momma ain't happy, aint nobody happy."

Keeping myself fed and happy is my job, not my wife's. It's my job to meet my own needs, not hers.

I usually _want_ to help her be happy, and she usually wants to help me be happy. But those things are on me as an adult, not on her. And if I'm not doing my own work in the relationship, I sure as hell can't come home demanding sex and a hot meal.


----------



## BluesPower

While the thought in the post was simplistic... it is kind of true... 

I am not that simplistic, I do want more. 

Mostly, I want to feel loved, I want to be loved. 

Now, since I need sex to feel loved, it includes sex. But that is only one part. 

The thing that is also, true, is that some Men are pathetic about sex and the women they are with is the only one and all that crap. 

Women that are with me should understand... I am a better cook that almost everyone of you. 

And if I don't feel loved, and I am not getting laid, I will find a way to have the need for love and sex fulfilled. If it goes on long enough, the first step will be to lose whoever I am with.


----------



## uhtred

I think of it as a chain of things needed to be happy. Food and sex are links but there are others as well. The weakest link always seems to be the most important


----------



## ReformedHubby

I am a simple man....thats all I need. Conversation is obvious to me, but those two things are 1 and 1a


----------



## SadSamIAm

Those two things are most important to me as well.

When it comes to sex though, I also expect there to be desire and fun and caring and love. Not just the act itself, but the feelings of love that go with it.


----------



## Numb26

SadSamIAm said:


> Those two things are most important to me as well.
> 
> When it comes to sex though, I also expect there to be desire and fun and caring and love. Not just the act itself, but the feelings of love that go with it.


I agree. To me, those two are pretty much the foundation of any healthy relationship. Everything else in the relationship is up to you to build and as we all know a building can't stand without a good foundation


----------



## Married but Happy

Marduk said:


> How is it a good starting point?
> 
> I want a partner, not an indentured servant who's job it is to cook and service me. It's literally no different than "if momma ain't happy, aint nobody happy."
> 
> Keeping myself fed and happy is my job, not my wife's. It's my job to meet my own needs, not hers.
> 
> I usually _want_ to help her be happy, and she usually wants to help me be happy. But those things are on me as an adult, not on her. And if I'm not doing my own work in the relationship, I sure as hell can't come home demanding sex and a hot meal.



When you're alone it's all on you. When you have a *partner*, then it's on both of you to nurture the relationship and contribute to each other's happiness, otherwise why not be alone? I think you're deliberately being contrary - you've read enough of my posts here to know what I mean.


----------



## Marduk

Married but Happy said:


> When you're alone it's all on you. When you have a *partner*, then it's on both of you to nurture the relationship and contribute to each other's happiness, otherwise why not be alone? I think you're deliberately being contrary - you've read enough of my posts here to know what I mean.


I guess what I’m reacting to is that some guys don’t see this kind of thing that way at all - that it’s literally their wife’s job to do this.


----------



## Laurentium

Let's face it, they are both things I can take care of for myself.


----------



## Red Sonja

Lila said:


> @BigbadBootyDaddy posted on another thread that 90 % of *men only need their partners to keep their belly's full and their balls to be empty to be content in the relationship*. The 10% outliers are insignificant.
> 
> What say you men of TAM? Are you within the 90% who only care about sec and food, or the 10% who need "more" to be happy in a relationship?


I am not a man, however women would do well to _avoid_ any man who believes the above bolded statement. Men who have this philosophy are highly likely to be lazy/selfish in relationships, expecting their women to carry full responsibility for the state of the relationship. They are not partner-material, more like the very definition of a man-child.


----------



## BluesPower

Red Sonja said:


> I am not a man, however women would do well to _avoid_ any man who believes the above bolded statement. Men who have this philosophy are highly likely to be lazy/selfish in relationships, expecting their women to carry full responsibility for the state of the relationship. They are not partner-material, more like the very definition of a man-child.


While I may not agree with the original point completely, your suppositions here are just as simplistic as the original point. 

That does not help anything or anyone understand. 

And like I said, while the original sentiment may be simplistic and I myself need more in a relationship... If sex is not happening then the relationship is not happening... That part is simple...


----------



## Numb26

BluesPower said:


> Red Sonja said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a man, however women would do well to _avoid_ any man who believes the above bolded statement. Men who have this philosophy are highly likely to be lazy/selfish in relationships, expecting their women to carry full responsibility for the state of the relationship. They are not partner-material, more like the very definition of a man-child.
> 
> 
> 
> While I may not agree with the original point completely, your suppositions here are just as simplistic as the original point.
> 
> That does not help anything or anyone understand.
> 
> And like I said, while the original sentiment may be simplistic and I myself need more in a relationship... If sex is not happening then the relationship is not happening... That part is simple...
Click to expand...

Agreed. When discussions devolve to bashing men or bashing women (which seems to happen alot) nothing get communicated


----------



## Mr.Married

I’m going to go with.......I don’t even care if she cooks !!!

Obviously I’m joking?


----------



## ConanHub

Numb26 said:


> Agreed. When discussions devolve to bashing men or bashing women (which seems to happen alot) nothing get communicated


She wasn't bashing men. She was making an observation about men who only need sex and food from their partner.


----------



## Hiner112

In my teens and early twenties I could not wrap my head around not being in the mood for sex. There were times in the last year of my marriage where it got to the end of the day and my thought process was along the lines of "I've not gotten any help or positive feedback from my SO for a month and you know what? I'd rather read a book or get caught up on sleep." and I understood. A willing and enthusiastic sexual partner can excuse a multitude of sins but not everything.

I've done celibacy in a relationship and having negative interactions was worse than the lack of sex. If I had a partner that was emotionally invested but physically incapable, I think I would be OK with it as long as they were OK with me handling it myself.


----------



## AandM

Lila said:


> @BigbadBootyDaddy posted on another thread that 90 % of men only need their partners to keep their belly's full and their balls to be empty to be content in the relationship. The 10% outliers are insignificant.
> 
> What say you men of TAM? Are you within the 90% who only care about sec and food, or the 10% who need "more" to be happy in a relationship?


Cool story, bro.

I'll just buy a crate of "Hungry Man" meals and a Fleshlight.

Easier; and cheaper, too.


----------



## 2ntnuf

10%

However, that is an old saying that was never meant to be completely true. It was meant as a smart ass remark to someone who was clueless. Sadly, too many of those resurface without context and folks think they are like gospel.


----------



## In Absentia

Have we gone back to the Middle Ages?


----------



## Zing

TBT said:


> There is just as much credence,and probably more,to me saying that the 'belly's full/balls empty' men are the real outliers.


Thank you for this.

My husband conforms to this mindset too.

I've asked him several times (in several different ways) what gives him his greatest sense of pride/achievement... what the best aspects of his life are - "Coming back from work to hear you laughing with the kids." Always. Unanimously. 

His answer has never been "having a beautiful wife who's happy to have sex with me, and who cooks a tasty variety of food."


----------



## Diana7

I think that this statement demeans men frankly.


----------



## Blondilocks

ReformedHubby said:


> I am a simple man....thats all I need. Conversation is obvious to me, but those two things are 1 and 1a


Are you a good cook? A lot of women (ok, most) go absolutely nuts over a guy who can put a meal on the table. Then, it's 'belly full, ***** galore'.


----------



## In Absentia

Blondilocks said:


> Are you a good cook? A lot of women (ok, most) go absolutely nuts over a guy who can put a meal on the table. Then, it's 'belly full, ***** galore'.


I'm a very good cook... didn't work for me... :laugh: ok, you said "most" women... :smile2:


----------



## JustTheWife

2ntnuf said:


> 10%
> 
> However, that is an old saying that was never meant to be completely true. It was meant as a smart ass remark to someone who was clueless. Sadly, too many of those resurface without context and folks think they are like gospel.


I agree that many people here are taking it far too literally.

Call me old fashioned but I like to take care of my man!


----------



## samyeagar

The statement is just comparing men to dog and how all they care about is food and sex. Not really some life philosophy. Same with happy wife, happy life. That is nothing more than telling men to just shut up and do what ever their wife tells them to do. Hardly flattering for either men or women. Both are recipes for terribly dysfunctional and likely miserable relationships.

Granted, food, sex, and a happy partner are crucial to a happy marriage, and may actually be the most important things to most people, they are hardly the only things, and without those other things, the relationship is likely to be a miserable failure for both people.


----------



## 2ntnuf

JustTheWife said:


> I agree that many people here are taking it far too literally.
> 
> *Call me old fashioned but I like to take care of my man!*


My knees buckled and I'm sitting! How does that happen? lol Seriously, that's how it should be from both sides. He's got to take care of you, as well.


----------



## BluesPower

ConanHub said:


> She wasn't bashing men. She was making an observation about men who only need sex and food from their partner.


You know what, please give us all a break. 

That is exactly what she was saying.


----------



## JustTheWife

2ntnuf said:


> My knees buckled and I'm sitting! How does that happen? lol Seriously, that's how it should be from both sides. He's got to take care of you, as well.


What do you mean that your knees buckled? Was it something I said?

I certainly didn't mean that I didn't want to be taken care of too. Taking care of someone does not imply that you don't want to be taken care of.


----------



## 2ntnuf

JustTheWife said:


> What do you mean that your knees buckled? Was it something I said?
> 
> I certainly didn't mean that I didn't want to be taken care of too. Taking care of someone does not imply that you don't want to be taken care of.


haha

No, I knew that. 

I'll ask you. Was it something I said?


----------



## Marduk

Diana7 said:


> I think that this statement demeans men frankly.


And women. Everyone, really.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Red Sonja said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> 
> @BigbadBootyDaddy posted on another thread that 90 % of *men only need their partners to keep their belly's full and their balls to be empty to be content in the relationship*. The 10% outliers are insignificant.
> 
> What say you men of TAM? Are you within the 90% who only care about sec and food, or the 10% who need "more" to be happy in a relationship?
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a man, however women would do well to _avoid_ any man who believes the above bolded statement. Men who have this philosophy are highly likely to be lazy/selfish in relationships, expecting their women to carry full responsibility for the state of the relationship. They are not partner-material, more like the very definition of a man-child.
Click to expand...

Oh, please. Some people prefer old fashion gender roles. If a man goes out and kills dinner, its only fair the other person prepares it. If roles are reversed then maybe that no longer makes sense.

When my woman takes care of me with a homecooked meal and takes care of me in the bedroom (even if she isn't much in the mood) then I appreciate and want to return the favor in ways she appreciates. If she doesn't, I likely will resent her and lose interest in doing much of anything for her. We can all take care of those needs ourselves but thats not why I married. I have things I do in marriage for her/us and things she does for me/us too and yes I expect sex to have a fulfilling marriage.


----------



## ConanHub

Red Sonja said:


> I am not a man, however women would do well to _avoid_ any man who believes the above bolded statement. Men who have this philosophy are highly likely to be lazy/selfish in relationships, expecting their women to carry full responsibility for the state of the relationship. They are not partner-material, more like the very definition of a man-child.





Numb26 said:


> Agreed. When discussions devolve to bashing men or bashing women (which seems to happen alot) nothing get communicated





BluesPower said:


> You know what, please give us all a break.
> 
> That is exactly what she was saying.


Just to clarify Blues, Red specifically talked about men who were so simplistic that as long as they had sex and food all the time they didn't care about anything else and how they probably would best be avoided as mates.

Numb said she was bashing men (generalized statement) which was extremely inaccurate and I aimed my statement at his inaccurate representation of Red's post.

What are you saying?


----------



## uhtred

Agree. It like saying that all women want is a man with a steady paycheck who can unclog a toilet. 


People are complicated and different people want different things.





Diana7 said:


> I think that this statement demeans men frankly.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Have we all lost our sense of humor?

Are we so much like putty that anyone can cause us to have a fit over anything?

Do we believe others are so ignorant and weak that they will be unable to realize statements like that are intended as humor and not the law? 

This thread scares me. It's frightening to realize how fragile our culture is.


----------



## Holdingontoit

Lila said:


> What say you men of TAM? Are you within the 90% who only care about sec and food, or the 10% who need "more" to be happy in a relationship?


Yes, absolutely. Well, technically "no", because if she kept my balls empty, I would be more than happy to cook dinner.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

uhtred said:


> Agree. It like saying that all women want is a man with a steady paycheck who can unclog a toilet.
> 
> 
> People are complicated and different people want different things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Diana7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that this statement demeans men frankly.
Click to expand...

OTOH, you have been vocal in the past about how you would be much happier in your marriage if your wife could be bothered enough to give you sex every once in a while.


----------



## BluesPower

ConanHub said:


> What are you saying?


I am saying that I don't read her statement that granular. To me, it feels/reads almost like a "most men post". 

That is the tone that I read it with. And I have seen some women take posts from men with the same tone as an "most women post". 

So I believe in equal rights and responsibilities. 

If you don't read it that way, it is your right, but that is how I see it, as is my right. 

I am cool with disagreeing. I have never actually met a man that is that simplistic IRL though. And even though I am slightly more evolved, a piece of my mind does actually feel that way a little. 

I will say that, if I am "being drained" so to speak, I am more tolerant of what I would call BS, so maybe I am that simplistic...


----------



## Mr. Nail

Zing said:


> Thank you for this.
> 
> My husband conforms to this mindset too.
> 
> I've asked him several times (in several different ways) *what gives him his greatest sense of pride/achievement*... what the best aspects of his life are - "Coming back from work to hear you laughing with the kids." Always. Unanimously.
> 
> His answer has never been "having a beautiful wife who's happy to have sex with me, and who cooks a tasty variety of food."


That is a considerably better question, but not to thread jack, I'll wait for lila to make a new thread out of it.


the original premise of this thread Belly full balls empty, completely ignores fishing and golf, so it can't even be a good stereotype. 
I've sadly found that I _need_ more than sex and food.
But, it has be mentioned quite a bit, by folks of both genders, that good and plenty sex covers a lot of other failings. I believe that that can often be true.


----------



## Marduk

2ntnuf said:


> Have we all lost our sense of humor?
> 
> Are we so much like putty that anyone can cause us to have a fit over anything?
> 
> Do we believe others are so ignorant and weak that they will be unable to realize statements like that are intended as humor and not the law?
> 
> This thread scares me. It's frightening to realize how fragile our culture is.


I would urge you to check your own fragility. 

I’m not crying in a corner by being offended. I’m pointing out the flaws in the thinking that I find offensive. 

I’ve been called many things. Fragile is not one of them. 

You can of course, test this at your convenience.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Marduk said:


> I would urge you to check your own fragility.
> 
> I’m not crying in a corner by being offended. I’m pointing out the flaws in the thinking that I find offensive.
> 
> I’ve been called many things. Fragile is not one of them.
> 
> You can of course, test this at your convenience.


Cool your jets. I was agreeing with you. The post you quoted and replied to was just a comment on the culture today. 

I'm sure your convictions will be tested. I won't have to do it myself.


----------



## Marduk

2ntnuf said:


> Cool your jets. I was agreeing with you. The post you quoted and replied to was just a comment on the culture today.
> 
> I'm sure your convictions will be tested. I won't have to do it myself.


Here’s the thing. 

“I was just joking” and “you’re so fragile” are commonly used by those that aren’t joking, and are the ones who’s fragility is actually being tested.


----------



## 2&out

I am going to go with a yes answer. Without these there is little point in all the effort that goes into the bunch of other "meaningful" stuff. And no - I'm not going to do a bunch of that to "earn" these 2 basic ones. I'm pretty simple - I really just desire one of them - I can feed myself. Meet that one want/need and I'll make a lot of effort for you.

I know it's unpopular but sex is my only "need" and desire from a woman. Emotional support and all that is nice but it is not a need for me. I am fine and like myself - I don't need verification I'm Ok/nice/special/have my back/whatever. That doesn't mean I'll put up with a bunch of **** just for the sex. Yes I'm old and tainted.


----------



## Blondilocks

Red Sonja said:


> I am not a man, however women would do well to _avoid_ any man who believes the above bolded statement. Men who have this philosophy are highly likely to be lazy/selfish in relationships, expecting their women to carry full responsibility for the state of the relationship. They are not partner-material, more like the very definition of a man-child.


Ah, the Archie Bunkers of the world. Or, as women of my generation would say - the knuckle-draggers.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

2&out said:


> I am going to go with a yes answer. Without these there is little point in all the effort that goes into the bunch of other "meaningful" stuff. And no - I'm not going to do a bunch of that to "earn" these 2 basic ones. I'm pretty simple - I really just desire one of them - I can feed myself. Meet that one want/need and I'll make a lot of effort for you.
> 
> I know it's unpopular but sex is my only "need" and desire from a woman. Emotional support and all that is nice but it is not a need for me. I am fine and like myself - I don't need verification I'm Ok/nice/special/have my back/whatever. That doesn't mean I'll put up with a bunch of **** just for the sex. Yes I'm old and tainted. <a href="http://talkaboutmarriage.com/images/smilies/wink.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Wink" ></a>


Put it like this. Really, I don't need either from women. Porn is plentiful or on the other side of the spectrum, abstinence is rewarding in other aspects. I've been single, then a divorced dad and I managed fine. So on a needs basis, I have no need for women.

But it is nice to have a warm body at night and someone who cares enough to make my wants important to them. If it wasn't for those ingredients, it simply wouldn't be worth the effort.


----------



## Diana7

2ntnuf said:


> Have we all lost our sense of humor?
> 
> Are we so much like putty that anyone can cause us to have a fit over anything?
> 
> Do we believe others are so ignorant and weak that they will be unable to realize statements like that are intended as humor and not the law?
> 
> This thread scares me. It's frightening to realize how fragile our culture is.


Was this supposed to be funny?


----------



## Casual Observer

Lila said:


> @BigbadBootyDaddy posted on another thread that 90 % of men only need their partners to keep their belly's full and their balls to be empty to be content in the relationship. The 10% outliers are insignificant.
> 
> What say you men of TAM? Are you within the 90% who only care about sec and food, or the 10% who need "more" to be happy in a relationship?


I'll bet the answer for many of us is that we want from our wives what we give them. In my case, what I would die for would be for my wife to come up to me and kiss my forehead, say something nice, stroke my arm, rub my shoulders and most of all, never act like she's bothered by my attempts to connect.

This kind of illustrates the point of the 5 Love Languages, because what I value isn't necessarily what she values. What the 5 Love Languages does a poor job at is explaining how to deal with the rejection that comes from your wife not responding the way the book says she should. What then?


----------



## emcsquared

Lila said:


> @BigbadBootyDaddy posted on another thread that 90 % of men only need their partners to keep their belly's full and their balls to be empty to be content in the relationship. The 10% outliers are insignificant.
> 
> What say you men of TAM? Are you within the 90% who only care about sec and food, or the 10% who need "more" to be happy in a relationship?


Heh, that was from my thread lol. For me, the whole point of my thread is that I am NOT sexually content merely to have my balls emptied. I NEED a strong emotional connection from her thru sex and I WANT passion & enthusiasm. 

So maybe the above is necessary, but not sufficient.


----------



## Red Sonja

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Oh, please. Some people prefer old fashion gender roles. If a man goes out and kills dinner, its only fair the other person prepares it. If roles are reversed then maybe that no longer makes sense.
> 
> When my woman takes care of me with a homecooked meal and takes care of me in the bedroom (even if she isn't much in the mood) *then I appreciate and want to return the favor in ways she appreciates.* If she doesn't, I likely will resent her and lose interest in doing much of anything for her. We can all take care of those needs ourselves but thats not why I married. I have things I do in marriage for her/us and things she does for me/us too and yes I expect sex to have a fulfilling marriage.


The bolded part is left out of the original quote in the OP and, is not implied in any fashion. Do do you expect your partner to read your mind? Say what you mean and don't chastise when you fail to do so.


----------



## Red Sonja

ConanHub said:


> Just to clarify Blues, Red specifically talked about men who were so simplistic that as long as they had sex and food all the time they didn't care about anything else and how they probably would best be avoided as mates.
> 
> Numb said she was bashing men (generalized statement) which was extremely inaccurate and I aimed my statement at his inaccurate representation of Red's post.
> 
> What are you saying?


Blue and Numb are too busy practicing their mind-reading skills to comprehend what I was saying. Or, perhaps they are not used to people who say _exactly_ what they mean, no more and no less. Or, perhaps they are not familiar with the word "likely" as used in my original post.


----------



## Casual Observer

emcsquared said:


> Heh, that was from my thread lol. For me, the whole point of my thread is that I am NOT sexually content merely to have my balls emptied. I NEED a strong emotional connection from her thru sex and I WANT passion & enthusiasm.
> 
> So maybe the above is necessary, but not sufficient.


I don't think passion & even enthusiasm have to manifest themselves as "adventurous" sex. Some of us may want soft, kind, touching, emotional sex. I think where that runs into trouble is when one or the other partner is susceptible to boredom. The funny thing is that those susceptible to "boredom" are not always those you would think. My wife would come across to most as being very unadventurous and conservative, and yet she is frequently reminding me of her boredom, and she seeks pleasure through on-line card games. Which, I'm beginning to see, very closely parallels addiction to porn in its potentially dangerous effect on the brain and relationships. 

So... bring this back on-topic... I want from my partner, my wife, the woman I love... I want an elegant simplicity and intimacy in sex. I'm OK with the adventurous, I'd really like it in fact, *if* it didn't have to become something rated as a "ok, that worked" but 95% of the time doesn't hit the mark. Sex doesn't alway have to hit the mark, but at least 90% of the time I'd like it to be something where she feels closer to me, and I feel closer to her, and that alone makes it worthwhile.


----------



## NJ2

Its always so nice to see that there are more to the TAM guys than belly full.....balls empty. However, I think that TAM guys are not representative of the wider population of men, I think if they are on here and posting and reading they tend to be more emotionally mature and have a good deal of self awareness. They tend to be "thinkers and feelers" rather than just "doers". They also seem to be generally quite intelligent.

Unfortunately I am married to a "doer" who actually rated our marriage a 5/10 at counselling one week with no real explanation except to compare it to the 2nd week where the marriage was a 9/10 because "i cooked a good meal most nights and helped with the yard work......" (there had also been a fair bit of sex)

Pretty sure he is of the sex and food = happy neanderthal 

Ugh I am having a cranky month /


----------



## In Absentia

Empty belly, full balls... this is the reality for some of the men here, including myself... :laugh:


----------



## arbitrator

*Both of my XW's miserably failed to subscribe to this idiomatic expression, in that the draining operation of the male's pelvic region, as well as the filling-up of his gastronomic area, was largely left up to the owner ~ unless, of course, they found it prohibitively in their best interest to covertly cheat!*


----------



## Blondilocks

arbitrator said:


> *Both of my XW's miserably failed to subscribe to this idiomatic expression, in that the draining operation of the male's pelvic region, as well as the filling-up of his gastronomic area, was largely left up to the owner ~ unless, of course, they found it prohibitively in their best interest to covertly cheat!*


That is some sentence. No more word for the day calendars for you, my friend.:grin2:


----------



## Blondilocks

NJ2 said:


> Its always so nice to see that there are more to the TAM guys than belly full.....balls empty. However, I think that TAM guys are not representative of the wider population of men, I think if they are on here and posting and reading they tend to be more emotionally mature and have a good deal of self awareness. They tend to be "thinkers and feelers" rather than just "doers". They also seem to be generally quite intelligent.
> 
> Unfortunately I am married to a "doer" who actually rated our marriage a 5/10 at counselling one week with no real explanation except to compare it to the 2nd week where the marriage was a 9/10 because "i cooked a good meal most nights and helped with the yard work......" (there had also been a fair bit of sex)
> 
> Pretty sure he is of the sex and food = happy neanderthal
> 
> Ugh I am having a cranky month /


Your husband is a good example of the knuckle-dragger.:laugh:


----------



## arbitrator

Blondilocks said:


> That is some sentence. No more word for the day calendars for you, my friend.:grin2:


*While immensely enjoying having that calendar, I'll have to be forthright in saying that I haven't yet had to refer to it once!

But I absolutely love having it there on my country desk as a cherished gift!*


----------



## wilson

The kernel of truth in that statement is that, for men in general, an unsatisfying sex life means the relationship will be unsatisfying. Everything else in the relationship can be great, but if sex/intimacy is not good, then the man typically will not be happy. I might say lack of sex is like having a constant headache. Sometimes it hurts a lot, sometimes it hurts a little, but it always hurts. Just like when you have a real headache, it makes it hard to enjoy life. Even if you have a great job, family, etc., the constant headache is oppressive and that other stuff doesn't always make up for it. 

I think it can be the same for some women, but women in general seem to have a much more flexible need for sex/intimacy. If it's not there, it might only have a negligible effect on their mood and happiness with the relationship.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

NJ2 said:


> Its always so nice to see that there are more to the TAM guys than belly full.....balls empty. However, I think that TAM guys are not representative of the wider population of men, I think if they are on here and posting and reading they tend to be more emotionally mature and have a good deal of self awareness. They tend to be "thinkers and feelers" rather than just "doers". They also seem to be generally quite intelligent.
> 
> Unfortunately I am married to a "doer" who actually rated our marriage a 5/10 at counselling one week with no real explanation except to compare it to the 2nd week where the marriage was a 9/10 because "i cooked a good meal most nights and helped with the yard work......" (there had also been a fair bit of sex)
> 
> Pretty sure he is of the sex and food = happy neanderthal
> 
> Ugh I am having a cranky month /<a href="http://talkaboutmarriage.com/images/smilies/frown.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Frown" ></a>


I thought about this, but I don't think this is indicative of a less enlightened individual. Some people just crave acts of love in manners that may seems foreign to you. 

For example, sex for men usually carries more meaning than simply draining the balls. I for one feel a greater emotional connection with my wife when we have sex that I can't get simply through cuddling or rubbing which apparently are her love languages.

As for cooking, its not so much about filling the stomach, but the act itself. It shows me she wants to take care of us. Its a nurturing quality that I find sexy in women.

I think men's brains are more geared towards acts of physical touch and acts of service (show me you love me). Whereas women are more geared toward words of affirmation (tell me you love me).


----------



## Mybabysgotit

I know for me, and probably for a lot of men, that I had a lot more sex when I was single and ate a whole lot better. Life was good back then, but it's a lot more rewarding now.


----------



## Spicy

I’ll admit, as a wife these are two of my main goals to provide for him, and I love doing both. But if that is all he needs from me, then he doesn’t need _me._ Nor would he ever be able to get me.


----------



## ConanHub

Mybabysgotit said:


> I know for me, and probably for a lot of men, that I had a lot more sex when I was single and ate a whole lot better. Life was good back then, but it's a lot more rewarding now.


Really? That's weird to me because I have had way more sex, not even close, with my wife than when I was on the prowl and I eat way better too.


----------



## Numb26

Mybabysgotit said:


> I know for me, and probably for a lot of men, that I had a lot more sex when I was single and ate a whole lot better. Life was good back then, but it's a lot more rewarding now.


I also had a lot more sex when I was single but definitely ate better when I was married


----------



## notmyjamie

ConanHub said:


> Really? That's weird to me because I have had way more sex, not even close, with my wife than when I was on the prowl and I eat way better too.


You’re a lucky man Conan!! 

I know my boyfriend would say the same, he’s way better fed and gets way more sex now than when he was single. It’s not all he needs from me but they do greatly contribute to his happiness.


----------



## RebuildingMe

I didn't get more sex when I was single between wives, but I did get better sex. Sex is only good when both partners want each other and are attracted to each other. Sadly, this dynamitic often disappears after you get married. I'd personally rather less "great" sex than more "bad" sex. When I met my current wife and we dated, it was truly the best sex I've ever had. As I am getting out of this marriage 12 years later, it is the worst sex I've ever had. Same people, different results. That's my experience.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

I got more sex being single than I did when I was with my ex wife. Now I get more sex married to my current wife than I did when I was single.

And I eat 10x better. Chinese and pizza nights are a rare occasion. Meat and veggies for me.


----------



## Mybabysgotit

ConanHub said:


> Really? That's weird to me because I have had way more sex, not even close, with my wife than when I was on the prowl and I eat way better too.


I am also married over 15 years so I was a lot younger back then, so yes, I had a lot more sex back then. I find as the years go by, sex becomes less and less important so 2-3x a week is plenty for me now. Back when I was younger and single, sex was pretty much a nightly thing, albeit a little more empty. 

My wife can't cook all that great and gives me the weird look if I bring home food when she just cooked a big dinner. Back when I was single, I more or less ordered anything I wanted because my money was spent on me. Three kids and four mortgages later, I don't even see my paycheck anymore. Heck, I don't even know what my take home pay is. 

With that said, I wouldn't trade a day of my old single life for the smiles and hugs I get from my boys when I get home from work.


----------



## Mr The Other

Marduk said:


> How is it a good starting point?
> 
> I want a partner, not an indentured servant who's job it is to cook and service me. It's literally no different than "if momma ain't happy, aint nobody happy."
> 
> Keeping myself fed and happy is my job, not my wife's. It's my job to meet my own needs, not hers.
> 
> I usually _want_ to help her be happy, and she usually wants to help me be happy. But those things are on me as an adult, not on her. And if I'm not doing my own work in the relationship, I sure as hell can't come home demanding sex and a hot meal.





BluesPower said:


> While the thought in the post was simplistic... it is kind of true...
> 
> I am not that simplistic, I do want more.
> 
> Mostly, I want to feel loved, I want to be loved.
> 
> Now, since I need sex to feel loved, it includes sex. But that is only one part.
> 
> The thing that is also, true, is that some Men are pathetic about sex and the women they are with is the only one and all that crap.
> 
> Women that are with me should understand... I am a better cook that almost everyone of you.
> 
> And if I don't feel loved, and I am not getting laid, I will find a way to have the need for love and sex fulfilled. If it goes on long enough, the first step will be to lose whoever I am with.


I tend to agree with this.

When a woman is willing to cook for you, it is an act of kindness and affection. Sex with this also includes intimacy. I am in a marriage where my wife often cooks (on an actual rather than emotional level) and we have regular sex, I consider myself very lucky. That she is caring, appreciative and loving is all wound up in that.


----------



## Benbutton

If that's the case I'd be better off eating at nice restaurants and jerking off.


----------



## fto0293

Male here. (Full disclosure I'm currently single and not in a relationship as of this writing, if you think that affects my answer in any way.)

This has been touched on by other responses but I think there is a subtle but very crucial difference between "X is important because it is the only thing I need in a relationship" and "X is important because it is one of many things I need in a relationship".

As a side note, I think it is very difficult for a lot of men (I am no exception in the least) to describe and couch their own needs in ways that the women providing those needs would be sympathetic to.

Regarding the first part about food: For people in my age/geographical group (20's, urban area) I think the belly thing is a bit less of a concern. Cooking has become both more of a universal and aspirational life skill what with the rise of foodie culture, food network, youtube cooking channels, and all that. Something I find darkly humorous is that if there is one thing that hardcore feminists, redpiller pickup sites, and normal people actually seemingly agree on, it's that 21st century men should know how to properly cook if they want to consider themselves a success in life.

Don't get me wrong, I certainly wouldn't complain if my potential girlfriend/wife/partner was a great cook and actually wanted to use those skills for me and our relationship, but it isn't something I would consider a must-have. I suspect that in an increasingly large number of places in 2019 there is too much sturm und drang and historical baggage around women's and gender roles in society to publicly say (regardless of whether or not you actually want it in your heart) whether you think it is your girlfriend/wife's responsibility to cook for you as a man.

Sex is a bit thornier though. I agree with the gist of many of the responses- I can get empty balls very easily (speaking as a single man). But intimacy in a relationship with another living, breathing, non-fantasy human being is a whole nother beast altogether. Another thing both the third-wave feminists and redpillers of the internet seem to agree on is that you can never compel or force someone to feel desire for you (though how their philosophies address this life fact wildly diverge). 

And I think this is a much more salient point because, by and large, in a relationship, you can get a lot of your physical and emotional needs fulfilled by other people. You can have close, fulfilling relationships with people who aren't your spouse (like your family or friends), with conversations, party invitations, outings, and things like that. You can have friends and family cook for you or go out to a nice restaurant. But if you are in a monogamous relationship and you try to get sexual intimacy from someone else who isn't your spouse, we have a word for that, and it's called cheating. 

I don't think it's my girlfriend's/wife's responsibility to "keep my balls empty", but it is undeniable that the sexual intimacy I receive should go solely through her, and trying to articulate this in a way that doesn't sound patriarchal or antagonistic is something that I frankly struggle with.


----------



## NJ2

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> I thought about this, but I don't think this is indicative of a less enlightened individual. Some people just crave acts of love in manners that may seems foreign to you.
> 
> For example, sex for men usually carries more meaning than simply draining the balls. I for one feel a greater emotional connection with my wife when we have sex that I can't get simply through cuddling or rubbing which apparently are her love languages.
> 
> As for cooking, its not so much about filling the stomach, but the act itself. It shows me she wants to take care of us. Its a nurturing quality that I find sexy in women.
> 
> I think men's brains are more geared towards acts of physical touch and acts of service (show me you love me). Whereas women are more geared toward words of affirmation (tell me you love me).


Thats a refreshing thought - I'd much rather think of it that way.


----------



## farsidejunky

Marduk said:


> Here’s the thing.
> 
> 
> 
> “I was just joking” and “you’re so fragile” are commonly used by those that aren’t joking, and are the ones who’s fragility is actually being tested.


The opposite end of the spectrum is that often those who are offended have an expectation for others to soften their language in order to accommodate their triggers.

There is responsibility to be had on both sides.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Marduk

farsidejunky said:


> The opposite end of the spectrum is that often those who are offended have an expectation for others to soften their language in order to accommodate their triggers.
> 
> There is responsibility to be had on both sides.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


Uh, I'd have to challenge that. 

When I tell someone I'm offended by something they did or said, I'm not expecting them to change to accommodate me. With one exception: if they're provably wrong. Then I do expect them to change.

Not to conform to me, but to conform to reality.

I suspect I do not value free speech to the extent that you do. Hate speech is a crime, and I agree with it being so. Delusion is not a crime, but you're going to harm others eventually if your delusions are tolerated.

I also do not think I - or anyone else - needs to learn to tolerate that which is purposefully offensive to basic human dignity. That path leads to normalization, bigotry, racism, misogyny, and many other things. That sometimes is considered criminal, but is always considered offensive. In such cases... I'm not going to stand for it.


----------



## farsidejunky

Marduk said:


> Uh, I'd have to challenge that.
> 
> When I tell someone I'm offended by something they did or said, I'm not expecting them to change to accommodate me. With one exception: if they're provably wrong. Then I do expect them to change.
> 
> Not to conform to me, but to conform to reality.
> 
> I suspect I do not value free speech to the extent that you do. Hate speech is a crime, and I agree with it being so. Delusion is not a crime, but you're going to harm others eventually if your delusions are tolerated.
> 
> I also do not think I - or anyone else - needs to learn to tolerate that which is purposefully offensive to basic human dignity. That path leads to normalization, bigotry, racism, misogyny, and many other things. That sometimes is considered criminal, but is always considered offensive. In such cases... I'm not going to stand for it.


You are absolutely right that we value free speech differently.



Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## ConanHub

Marduk said:


> Uh, I'd have to challenge that.
> 
> When I tell someone I'm offended by something they did or said, I'm not expecting them to change to accommodate me. With one exception: if they're provably wrong. Then I do expect them to change.
> 
> Not to conform to me, but to conform to reality.
> 
> I suspect I do not value free speech to the extent that you do. Hate speech is a crime, and I agree with it being so. Delusion is not a crime, but you're going to harm others eventually if your delusions are tolerated.
> 
> I also do not think I - or anyone else - needs to learn to tolerate that which is purposefully offensive to basic human dignity. That path leads to normalization, bigotry, racism, misogyny, and many other things. That sometimes is considered criminal, but is always considered offensive. In such cases... I'm not going to stand for it.


I'm very straight with my language and I am offensive often.

I'm also liked IRL by most I encounter across the spectrum of humanity I have encountered.

The people that have problems with me are pretty much exclusively on forums and social media.

Be careful with who you label with the crime of hate speach. I'm the farthest thing from a criminal and I refuse to let slanderers and those trying to make libelous statements about me off.

Falsely accusing someone of a crime is a crime. Be careful because your opinion or view point is not reality though you are welcome to it.

That's my contribution to the TJ.


----------



## Marduk

ConanHub said:


> I'm very straight with my language and I am offensive often.
> 
> I'm also liked IRL by most I encounter across the spectrum of humanity I have encountered.
> 
> The people that have problems with me are pretty much exclusively on forums and social media.
> 
> Be careful with who you label with the crime of hate speach. I'm the farthest thing from a criminal and I refuse to let slanderers and those trying to make libelous statements about me off.
> 
> Falsely accusing someone of a crime is a crime. Be careful because your opinion or view point is not reality though you are welcome to it.
> 
> That's my contribution to the TJ.


Maybe I’m not being clear. 

Not all offensive speech is hate speech. For example, calling me an ******* might be offensive even though it may be true, but it isn’t hate speech. 

Calling me an ******* because I won’t tolerate someone going around and saying, say, the Holocaust was justified may still make me an *******, but what that person said is hate speech to me, and I’m pretty sure would be criminal in some contexts up here in the great white north. 

Which is also different from saying, say, all homosexual people should be rounded up and imprisoned, which may or may not be hate speech technically (not a lawyer) but I do think is offensive to the point of being harmful if allowed. 

Same goes for homosexual conversion therapy, or offensive things about women being lesser than, or whatever. To varying degrees of harm. I won’t stand for much of it, but I can be sexist myself and will likely never get rid of it. But for me, once it becomes harmful, I’m going to stand up against it even if it’s not criminal. And you bet your biceps I’m going to expect that person to shut up about it, at least around me. Just like I expect a smoker not to smoke around me - because it’s harming me and harming those around me. 

And then there’s just stuff where they are wrong. For example, on the flat earth thread. If you spout off that the earth is flat, then that’s actually provably untrue, therefore you’re either lying and attempting to harm someone’s perception of reality, or you’re delusional, which also harms someone’s perception of reality. 

You may laugh, but **** like that gets a toehold, and then people start to believe it or question things that are probably true. Like, say, not teaching evolution in a science class or casting doubt on its truth - which again, is quite provable. 

The harm there is that if your beliefs don’t conform with reality, then you consign yourself and swaths of society back to the dark ages. If the truth sets you free, then lies put you in prison.

And I say all that knowing ele or whoever is probably going to nuke this as a massive thread jack, but I still offer it as a clearer explanation.


----------



## tech-novelist

Lila said:


> @BigbadBootyDaddy posted on another thread that 90 % of men only need their partners to keep their belly's full and their balls to be empty to be content in the relationship. The 10% outliers are insignificant.
> 
> What say you men of TAM? Are you within the 90% who only care about sec and food, or the 10% who need "more" to be happy in a relationship?


I'm not in the 90% (if that's the correct number). I need emotional intimacy and intellectual compatibility.


----------



## Mr The Other

fto0293 said:


> Male here. (Full disclosure I'm currently single and not in a relationship as of this writing, if you think that affects my answer in any way.)
> 
> This has been touched on by other responses but I think there is a subtle but very crucial difference between "X is important because it is the only thing I need in a relationship" and "X is important because it is one of many things I need in a relationship".
> 
> As a side note, I think it is very difficult for a lot of men (I am no exception in the least) to describe and couch their own needs in ways that the women providing those needs would be sympathetic to.
> 
> Regarding the first part about food: For people in my age/geographical group (20's, urban area) I think the belly thing is a bit less of a concern. Cooking has become both more of a universal and aspirational life skill what with the rise of foodie culture, food network, youtube cooking channels, and all that. Something I find darkly humorous is that if there is one thing that hardcore feminists, redpiller pickup sites, and normal people actually seemingly agree on, it's that 21st century men should know how to properly cook if they want to consider themselves a success in life.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I certainly wouldn't complain if my potential girlfriend/wife/partner was a great cook and actually wanted to use those skills for me and our relationship, but it isn't something I would consider a must-have. I suspect that in an increasingly large number of places in 2019 there is too much sturm und drang and historical baggage around women's and gender roles in society to publicly say (regardless of whether or not you actually want it in your heart) whether you think it is your girlfriend/wife's responsibility to cook for you as a man.
> 
> Sex is a bit thornier though. I agree with the gist of many of the responses- I can get empty balls very easily (speaking as a single man). But intimacy in a relationship with another living, breathing, non-fantasy human being is a whole nother beast altogether. Another thing both the third-wave feminists and redpillers of the internet seem to agree on is that you can never compel or force someone to feel desire for you (though how their philosophies address this life fact wildly diverge).
> 
> And I think this is a much more salient point because, by and large, in a relationship, you can get a lot of your physical and emotional needs fulfilled by other people. You can have close, fulfilling relationships with people who aren't your spouse (like your family or friends), with conversations, party invitations, outings, and things like that. You can have friends and family cook for you or go out to a nice restaurant. But if you are in a monogamous relationship and you try to get sexual intimacy from someone else who isn't your spouse, we have a word for that, and it's called cheating.
> 
> I don't think it's my girlfriend's/wife's responsibility to "keep my balls empty", but it is undeniable that the sexual intimacy I receive should go solely through her, and trying to articulate this in a way that doesn't sound patriarchal or antagonistic is something that I frankly struggle with.


I am in my 40's and even when I was young, men were more likely to know how to cook from scratch. There is a taboo, which is that women would are considered to have done the cooking on an emotional level. What surprises me about what you wrote is that I still ate like a teenager and spent much of my life hungry! A woman that could have cooked well and in large portions would have stolen my heart! 

Marriage is a sexual union and to neglect your partners needs is to be negligent. That said, you both have equal needs and a loving considerate partner will have needs to. Food and sex are a KPI rather than the only thing in themselves.


----------



## Blondilocks

Mr The Other said:


> *I am in my 40's and even when I was young, men were more likely to know how to cook from scratch.* There is a taboo, which is that women would are considered to have done the cooking on an emotional level.* What surprises me about what you wrote is that I still ate like a teenager and spent much of my life hungry!* A woman that could have cooked well and in large portions would have stolen my heart!
> 
> Marriage is a sexual union and to neglect your partners needs is to be negligent. That said, you both have equal needs and a loving considerate partner will have needs to. Food and sex are a KPI rather than the only thing in themselves.


Are you saying you were not one of those men who knew how to cook or are you saying you didn't know how to cook large enough quantities to satiate?


----------



## ConanHub

I guess it is worth mentioning that sex and food are really good and necessary in marriage.

I almost get the impression from some posts that this was an either or question posed here and that isn't the case.

Good sex and food are part of what I need in a relationship but hardly everything.

Until Mrs. C walked into my life, I had no shortage of applicants that would have screwed me into a coma while cooking everyday.

Mrs. C also made me laugh, carried on a conversation that I found fun and didn't seem desperate but fairly confident that she wanted me.

It helped that I went nuts for her too but there was definitely far more than sex and food promised in our first kiss.


----------



## Mr The Other

Blondilocks said:


> Are you saying you were not one of those men who knew how to cook or are you saying you didn't know how to cook large enough quantities to satiate?


I am saying that eating the quantity of food required for a young man's appitite can be a hugely time consuming and expensive task.


----------



## Numb26

Mr The Other said:


> Blondilocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying you were not one of those men who knew how to cook or are you saying you didn't know how to cook large enough quantities to satiate?
> 
> 
> 
> I am saying that eating the quantity of food required for a young man's appitite can be a hugely time consuming and expensive task.
Click to expand...

Why I always hit the chinese buffets! LOL


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Marduk said:


> ConanHub said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm very straight with my language and I am offensive often.
> 
> I'm also liked IRL by most I encounter across the spectrum of humanity I have encountered.
> 
> The people that have problems with me are pretty much exclusively on forums and social media.
> 
> Be careful with who you label with the crime of hate speach. I'm the farthest thing from a criminal and I refuse to let slanderers and those trying to make libelous statements about me off.
> 
> Falsely accusing someone of a crime is a crime. Be careful because your opinion or view point is not reality though you are welcome to it.
> 
> That's my contribution to the TJ.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I’m not being clear.
> 
> Not all offensive speech is hate speech. For example, calling me an ******* might be offensive even though it may be true, but it isn’t hate speech.
> 
> Calling me an ******* because I won’t tolerate someone going around and saying, say, the Holocaust was justified may still make me an *******, but what that person said is hate speech to me, and I’m pretty sure would be criminal in some contexts up here in the great white north.
> 
> Which is also different from saying, say, all homosexual people should be rounded up and imprisoned, which may or may not be hate speech technically (not a lawyer) but I do think is offensive to the point of being harmful if allowed.
> 
> Same goes for homosexual conversion therapy, or offensive things about women being lesser than, or whatever. To varying degrees of harm. I won’t stand for much of it, but I can be sexist myself and will likely never get rid of it. But for me, once it becomes harmful, I’m going to stand up against it even if it’s not criminal. And you bet your biceps I’m going to expect that person to shut up about it, at least around me. Just like I expect a smoker not to smoke around me - because it’s harming me and harming those around me.
> 
> And then there’s just stuff where they are wrong. For example, on the flat earth thread. If you spout off that the earth is flat, then that’s actually provably untrue, therefore you’re either lying and attempting to harm someone’s perception of reality, or you’re delusional, which also harms someone’s perception of reality.
> 
> You may laugh, but **** like that gets a toehold, and then people start to believe it or question things that are probably true. Like, say, not teaching evolution in a science class or casting doubt on its truth - which again, is quite provable.
> 
> The harm there is that if your beliefs don’t conform with reality, then you consign yourself and swaths of society back to the dark ages. If the truth sets you free, then lies put you in prison.
> 
> And I say all that knowing ele or whoever is probably going to nuke this as a massive thread jack, but I still offer it as a clearer explanation.
Click to expand...

Dude, you really need to lighten up. I make all sorts of jokes IRL at expense of black, white, red, green, female, male, gay, straight, tran, ?, ethnicities etc...doesn't mean I think that way. Its like throwing it in the face of these tightwad PC policers that roam the mind of men, women and children arresting them for secretly laughing at a joke. 

Ever think that maybe breaking down the barriers of bigotry can be done through laughter instead of intimidation? Like poking holes at old stereotypes.

And I'm not saying we should encourage people who spew hatred or do hateful things. Just acknowledge that not everyone that makes a joke isn't doing it out of malice but for fun that even their 'offended' friend can laugh at.


----------



## Marduk

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Dude, you really need to lighten up. I make all sorts of jokes IRL at expense of black, white, red, green, female, male, gay, straight, tran, ?, ethnicities etc...doesn't mean I think that way. Its like throwing it in the face of these tightwad PC policers that roam the mind of men, women and children arresting them for secretly laughing at a joke.


Then I think what you are doing is wrong, and I'm exercising the exact same freedom of speech you are using to say so.



> Ever think that maybe breaking down the barriers of bigotry can be done through laughter instead of intimidation? Like poking holes at old stereotypes.


If you're being self-effacing, maybe. I would ask if you think what you are doing is actually working. I would suggest that it isn't, unless you're attempting to be an ironic Archie Bunker or something.



> And I'm not saying we should encourage people who spew hatred or do hateful things. Just acknowledge that not everyone that makes a joke isn't doing it out of malice but for fun that even their 'offended' friend can laugh at.


Again, then I think what you doing is wrong. Sexist jokes used to be acceptable in the workplace for example. In the guise of 'being funny.' You know how much **** I watched my mother pretend to laugh at as she worked her ass off as a single mom in a male-dominated field just so she could feed, clothe, and house us? She never thought it was funny, but she was good at playing along with stuff like this... because she had to. Women like her don't have to anymore, and that's a good thing.

Guess what? They weren't actually funny, and they were the wrong thing to do. They cause harm. Not in the 'oh go look at the pc liberal go cry in the corner' harm, harm in the sense of denigration of an entire group of people from a position of institutionalized privilege. 

If you want to be funny, you're free to think you're funny when you're just being insulting. I don't think it's funny. I think I have every right to say so. 

And I think if you actually wanted to be funny, you'd put the effort into actually being funny. I grew up in a very small town rural fairly Northern Canadian town. I used to think all kinds of things were funny. I used to make racist jokes, or sexist jokes, or homophobic jokes. I used to think they were funny. We all used to laugh. And guess what? I used to actually be a racist, sexist, and homophobe at that time. I would have said I wasn't, but now that I see that I very much was. In fact, I still struggle with sexisim to this day. 

Now I think I was just being a racist, sexist, homophobic *******. That's me. That doesn't have to be you. But don't tell me to lighten up when I'm using the same freedoms you are, and you just don't like what I'm saying.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Marduk said:


> UpsideDownWorld11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you really need to lighten up. I make all sorts of jokes IRL at expense of black, white, red, green, female, male, gay, straight, tran, ?, ethnicities etc...doesn't mean I think that way. Its like throwing it in the face of these tightwad PC policers that roam the mind of men, women and children arresting them for secretly laughing at a joke.
> 
> 
> 
> Then I think what you are doing is wrong, and I'm exercising the exact same freedom of speech you are using to say so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever think that maybe breaking down the barriers of bigotry can be done through laughter instead of intimidation? Like poking holes at old stereotypes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're being self-effacing, maybe. I would ask if you think what you are doing is actually working. I would suggest that it isn't, unless you're attempting to be an ironic Archie Bunker or something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm not saying we should encourage people who spew hatred or do hateful things. Just acknowledge that not everyone that makes a joke isn't doing it out of malice but for fun that even their 'offended' friend can laugh at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, then I think what you doing is wrong. Sexist jokes used to be acceptable in the workplace for example. In the guise of 'being funny.' You know how much **** I watched my mother pretend to laugh at as she worked her ass off as a single mom in a male-dominated field just so she could feed, clothe, and house us? She never thought it was funny, but she was good at playing along with stuff like this... because she had to. Women like her don't have to anymore, and that's a good thing.
> 
> Guess what? They weren't, and they were the wrong thing to do. They cause harm. Not in the 'oh go look at the pc liberal go cry in the corner' harm, harm in the sense of denigration of an entire group of people from a position of institutionalized privilege.
> 
> If you want to be funny, you're free to think you're funny when you're just being insulting, sexist, racist, whatever. I don't think it's funny. I think I have every right to say so.
> 
> And I think if you actually wanted to be funny, you'd put the effort into actually being funny. I grew up in a very small town rural fairly Northern Canadian town. I used to think all kinds of things were funny. I used to make racist jokes, or sexist jokes, or homophobic jokes. I used to think they were funny. We all used to laugh.
> 
> Now I think I was just being a racist, sexist, homophobic *******. That's me. That doesn't have to be you. But don't tell me to lighten up when I'm using the same freedoms you are, and you just don't like what I'm saying.
Click to expand...

Well, of course, there is a time and place for everything. And I certainly wouldn't make any joke at work that a tightwad might take as offensive. Mainly, just around friends and family, because there are too many tightwads out there, so one needs to be careful what one says lest they incur monetary or bodily injury because a broom is shoved a bit too far inside a tightwad...

Though watching the uncomfortable reaction to someone you aren't sure is joking or serious (think Andy Kaufman) is priceless.


----------



## Marduk

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Well, of course, there is a time and place for everything. And I certainly wouldn't make any joke at work that a tightwad might take as offensive. Mainly, just around friends and family, because there are too many tightwads out there, so one needs to be careful what one says lest they incur monetary or bodily injury because a broom is shoved a bit too far inside a tightwad...


Given my tone above, you would of course think all I do is hang out with guys that think like I do. I actually don't. 

I hang out easily with guys that do this sort of thing. I just say my peace about it when they make their jokes about it.

And then we argue, often loudly. Pound our fists on the table and point our fingers at each other. And then order another whisky and talk about football or whatever. We understand each other. It doesn't mean that we don't like each other, or at least tolerate each other.


----------



## wilson

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Well, of course, there is a time and place for everything. And I certainly wouldn't make any joke at work that a tightwad might take as offensive. Mainly, just around friends and family, because there are too many tightwads out there, so one needs to be careful what one says lest they incur monetary or bodily injury because a broom is shoved a bit too far inside a tightwad...
> 
> Though watching the uncomfortable reaction to someone you aren't sure is joking or serious (think Andy Kaufman) is priceless.


I'm sure you don't mean anything by it, but this behavior is offensive and allows the underlying beliefs to propagate. Joking about gay people in itself propagates homophobia, because the audience accepts that it's okay to make fun of gay people. Even if that's not your intention, the audience are different people and may take the jokes as approval for homophobic behavior. The same goes for racism, misogyny, and the rest.

People within these groups often point out these stereotypes with comedy (e.g. Dave Chapelle with racism), but in that case it's very clear they are doing it to point out the problems. But if a white person is making a lot of jokes about black stereotypes, the implication is that the person is racist and the people hearing the jokes are likely to have their racist stereotypes confirmed.

There are infinite things in the world that you can make jokes about. Please, find other things to joke about other than harmful stereotypes which are deeply hurtful to some groups of people. You can make the world a better place through your actions.


----------



## farsidejunky

wilson said:


> I'm sure you don't mean anything by it, but this behavior is offensive and allows the underlying beliefs to propagate. Joking about gay people in itself propagates homophobia, because the audience accepts that it's okay to make fun of gay people. Even if that's not your intention, the audience are different people and may take the jokes as approval for homophobic behavior. The same goes for racism, misogyny, and the rest.
> 
> 
> 
> People within these groups often point out these stereotypes with comedy (e.g. Dave Chapelle with racism), but in that case it's very clear they are doing it to point out the problems. But if a white person is making a lot of jokes about black stereotypes, the implication is that the person is racist and the people hearing the jokes are likely to have their racist stereotypes confirmed.
> 
> 
> 
> There are infinite things in the world that you can make jokes about. Please, find other things to joke about other than harmful stereotypes which are deeply hurtful to some groups of people. You can make the world a better place through your actions.


Who gets to decide who is worthy of protection?

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

wilson said:


> UpsideDownWorld11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, of course, there is a time and place for everything. And I certainly wouldn't make any joke at work that a tightwad might take as offensive. Mainly, just around friends and family, because there are too many tightwads out there, so one needs to be careful what one says lest they incur monetary or bodily injury because a broom is shoved a bit too far inside a tightwad...
> 
> Though watching the uncomfortable reaction to someone you aren't sure is joking or serious (think Andy Kaufman) is priceless.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you don't mean anything by it, but this behavior is offensive and allows the underlying beliefs to propagate. Joking about gay people in itself propagates homophobia, because the audience accepts that it's okay to make fun of gay people. Even if that's not your intention, the audience are different people and may take the jokes as approval for homophobic behavior. The same goes for racism, misogyny, and the rest.
> 
> People within these groups often point out these stereotypes with comedy (e.g. Dave Chapelle with racism), but in that case it's very clear they are doing it to point out the problems. But if a white person is making a lot of jokes about black stereotypes, the implication is that the person is racist and the people hearing the jokes are likely to have their racist stereotypes confirmed.
> 
> There are infinite things in the world that you can make jokes about. Please, find other things to joke about other than harmful stereotypes which are deeply hurtful to some groups of people. You can make the world a better place through your actions.
Click to expand...

And that is why I would never joke about stereotypes around you. Only people I know that don't take themselves so seriously. If I tell my wife a misogynist joke, I expect that she will come back with an equal slam. If I tell my Indian friend an indian joke, I'm sure he will come back with an equally insulting joke. In the end we will both laugh because we both know thats not who we are in our heart.


----------



## wilson

farsidejunky said:


> Who gets to decide who is worthy of protection?
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


Hopefully people try to make the world a better place. If jokes are hurtful to some people, then I would hope good people would refrain from telling those jokes. Is the laugh worth the hurt feelings? Some people get bullied to the point of suicide over being gay, a minority, or different in some way. Making hurtful jokes for some of those topics seems like it would be making the world worse. And there are some topics which are so horrific that they shouldn't be joked about at all, like the Holocaust. 

When I was in high school, I told gay jokes and did the gay lisp because I thought that stuff was hilarious. It was only years later that I found out that some of my friends back then were actually gay. They kept it a secret because I'm sure they didn't feel comfortable revealing that when even their friends were making jokes about it. One friend I remember laughing uncomfortably, and I later found out he was gay. I'm sure he had a lot of negative feelings at that moment. I feel horrible I did that and it pains me that I made my friends feel ashamed about that part of them. Just telling the joke sends the message "I think gay people are weird.". 

If the only thing someone can joke about are stereotypes, then that's probably a sign that they are not really very funny. Someone who has a good sense of humor can find humor in a wide variety of areas. If not joking about stereotypes means you have nothing funny to say, then that's probably a good thing.


----------



## ConanHub

wilson said:


> I'm sure you don't mean anything by it, but this behavior is offensive and allows the underlying beliefs to propagate. Joking about gay people in itself propagates homophobia, because the audience accepts that it's okay to make fun of gay people. Even if that's not your intention, the audience are different people and may take the jokes as approval for homophobic behavior. The same goes for racism, misogyny, and the rest.
> 
> People within these groups often point out these stereotypes with comedy (e.g. Dave Chapelle with racism), but in that case it's very clear they are doing it to point out the problems. But if a white person is making a lot of jokes about black stereotypes, the implication is that the person is racist and the people hearing the jokes are likely to have their racist stereotypes confirmed.
> 
> There are infinite things in the world that you can make jokes about. Please, find other things to joke about other than harmful stereotypes which are deeply hurtful to some groups of people. You can make the world a better place through your actions.


My family is multi ethnic and has homosexual members as well.

I make jokes. Not going to change and we get along good. My friends as well who are multi ethnic and homosexual also.

You can make jokes about anything. It is up to everyone what they laugh at.

My actions do make as much of the world a better place as possible and, from personal experience, thought police hurt everyone while making sure everyone has the best economic chances help everyone.

In other words, I don't care what people think or joke about. I care what they do.


----------



## 2ntnuf

ConanHub said:


> My family is multi ethnic and has homosexual members as well.
> 
> I make jokes. Not going to change and we get along good. My friends as well who are multi ethnic and homosexual also.
> 
> You can make jokes about anything. It is up to everyone what they laugh at.
> 
> My actions do make as much of the world a better place as possible and, from personal experience, thought police hurt everyone while making sure everyone has the best economic chances help everyone.
> 
> In other words, I don't care what people think or joke about. I care what they do.


Ever notice jokes are funnier when there is some truth to them?

Edit: I agree with you, mostly. I try to be careful who the audience is, but generally have found that folks laugh at themselves because none of us is perfect and we can see the humor in our own lives. I think today's culture has forgotten how to laugh at themselves and not take everything so seriously.


----------



## wilson

ConanHub said:


> I make jokes. Not going to change and we get along good. My friends as well who are multi ethnic and homosexual also.


Would it matter to you if you find out that your jokes hurt those people? What if you overheard them later on the phone saying "Conan is making gay jokes again. I laugh because I don't want to make a scene, but they make me really uncomfortable". Would you keep telling the jokes? 

Often, people say they only do it if they know the other person isn't offended, but how do you really know that? I told gay jokes to my HS friends who were gay, yet I didn't realize they were gay. I can't imagine that they felt positive about that experience when they were having to keep their orientation secret.


----------



## ReformedHubby

wilson said:


> Hopefully people try to make the world a better place. If jokes are hurtful to some people, then I would hope good people would refrain from telling those jokes. Is the laugh worth the hurt feelings? Some people get bullied to the point of suicide over being gay, a minority, or different in some way. Making hurtful jokes for some of those topics seems like it would be making the world worse. And there are some topics which are so horrific that they shouldn't be joked about at all, like the Holocaust.
> 
> When I was in high school, I told gay jokes and did the gay lisp because I thought that stuff was hilarious. It was only years later that I found out that some of my friends back then were actually gay. They kept it a secret because I'm sure they didn't feel comfortable revealing that when even their friends were making jokes about it. One friend I remember laughing uncomfortably, and I later found out he was gay. I'm sure he had a lot of negative feelings at that moment. I feel horrible I did that and it pains me that I made my friends feel ashamed about that part of them. Just telling the joke sends the message "I think gay people are weird.".
> 
> If the only thing someone can joke about are stereotypes, then that's probably a sign that they are not really very funny. Someone who has a good sense of humor can find humor in a wide variety of areas. If not joking about stereotypes means you have nothing funny to say, then that's probably a good thing.


You seem very passionate about this. But I just can't take the world that seriously. I can't think of many stereotypes that don't have at least some truth to them, even some of the ugliest that make us feel ashamed. Those of us that are in respective groups often joke about those very same stereotypes that are applied to us when amongst each other. I guess my biggest gripe these days is that everyone wants to tell me when I should be offended. Then if I am not offended, they want to "educate" me. Its become a bizarre world in a lot of ways. I still find humor in it though. I guess its funny to me that so many white people think they know what offends black people these days. Don't get me wrong, you can ALWAYS find someone who is offended by anything. But what we should be asking ourselves is, at what point did we decide we wanted a society that no one would be offended by anything ever? Thats not realistic, and quite frankly it makes for a dull world IMO. We are becoming an overly PC country just to avoid offending a very very small minority of people.


----------



## 2ntnuf

wilson said:


> Would it matter to you if you find out that your jokes hurt those people? What if you overheard them later on the phone saying "Conan is making gay jokes again. I laugh because I don't want to make a scene, but they make me really uncomfortable". Would you keep telling the jokes?
> 
> Often, people say they only do it if they know the other person isn't offended, but how do you really know that? I told gay jokes to my HS friends who were gay, yet I didn't realize they were gay. I can't imagine that they felt positive about that experience when they were having to keep their orientation secret.


I realize you feel guilty for what you've done. Do you think projecting that guilt onto others helps your feelings about yourself?

Edit: On top of that, it just occurred to me that you didn't know. How can you blame yourself this long when you didn't know? You were a kid in high school. I actually feel bad for you because you seem like you can't forgive yourself.


----------



## Marduk

ReformedHubby said:


> You seem very passionate about this. But I just can't take the world that seriously. I can't think of many stereotypes that don't have at least some truth to them, even some of the ugliest that make us feel ashamed. Those of us that are in respective groups often joke about those very same stereotypes that are applied to us when amongst each other. I guess my biggest gripe these days is that everyone wants to tell me when I should be offended. Then if I am not offended, they want to "educate" me. Its become a bizarre world in a lot of ways. I still find humor in it though. I guess its funny to me that so many white people think they know what offends black people these days. Don't get me wrong, you can ALWAYS find someone who is offended by anything. But what we should be asking ourselves is, at what point did we decide we wanted a society that no one would be offended by anything ever? Thats not realistic, and quite frankly it makes for a dull world IMO. We are becoming an overly PC country just to avoid offending a very very small minority of people.


You completely and totally miss the point.

You think by making jokes like this, you're keeping people in good spirits and helping keep people strong. 

When in fact, I think you are doing the opposite. And I think that by insisting to do so, and getting butt-hurt at others asking you to stop, you do nothing but show your own fragility.

Ever see your child pretend to laugh along at a racist joke against her ancestry because people assumed she was white? I have. Do you think that made her stronger? No, I think it made her feel vulnerable, judged, and afraid. Do you think she thought that guy was strong and just laughing? No, she thought he was a racist ******* but she was afraid to speak up. So I spoke up for her. He said exactly what you are saying - "I was just joking" and "you shouldn't be so fragile." He kept making jokes, laughing at my daughter, now in tears.

So I invited him to take it outside. He looked at all of his friends and laughed at me. So I invited to them all to come outside with him.

You can leave it to your own imagination to decide who turned out to be fragile. I didn't have a hand laid on me, and I didn't hit any of them, but several of them did end up on the ground bleeding. The rest ran away like the fragile cowards they were. You know what I said as I walked away? "I hope you're not hurt, I was just joking." 

My daughter now is unafraid to speak her truth and unafraid to call out "I was just joking" for the bull**** it is. She is very much the opposite of fragile - that's why she speaks out.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Marduk said:


> You completely and totally miss the point.
> 
> You think by making jokes like this, you're keeping people in good spirits and helping keep people strong.
> 
> When in fact, I think you are doing the opposite. And I think that by insisting to do so, and getting butt-hurt at others asking you to stop, you do nothing but show your own fragility.
> 
> Ever see your child pretend to laugh along at a racist joke against her ancestry because people assumed she was white? I have. Do you think that made her stronger? No, I think it made her feel vulnerable, judged, and afraid. Do you think she thought that guy was strong and just laughing? No, she thought he was a racist ******* but she was afraid to speak up. So I spoke up for her. He said exactly what you are saying - "I was just joking" and "you shouldn't be so fragile." He kept making jokes, laughing at my daughter, now in tears.
> 
> So I invited him to take it outside. He looked at all of his friends and laughed at me. So I invited to them all to come outside with him.
> 
> You can leave it to your own imagination to decide who turned out to be fragile. I didn't have a hand laid on me, and I didn't hit any of them, but several of them did end up on the ground bleeding. The rest ran away like the fragile cowards they were. You know what I said as I walked away? "I hope you're not hurt, I was just joking."
> 
> My daughter now is unafraid to speak her truth and unafraid to call out "I was just joking" for the bull**** it is. She is very much the opposite of fragile - that's why she speaks out.


How did these children end up on the ground bleeding? Did this happen at high school or middle school? Can you expand on your story? Sorry that happened to your daughter. Any father would be angry. What message would it have sent, if it had turned out badly for you?


----------



## 2&out

Ef-em if they can't take a joke. Lets get back to food and sex !


----------



## Marduk

2ntnuf said:


> How did these children end up on the ground bleeding? Did this happen at high school or middle school? Can you expand on your story? Sorry that happened to your daughter. Any father would be angry. What message would it have sent, if it had turned out badly for you?


Not children, 20-something men. This happened, at all places, at a five star resort in the back country. I have practiced martial arts most of my adult life. I do not have to hit someone to hurt them. Sometimes you don't have to do anything at all to be in the right place in the right time and just let the earth hit someone for you.

Now, I do not think you or anyone else here would be the kind of guy to sit there and make an adolescent girl cry by telling racist jokes to their face. My point in telling that story is to say that they assumed it was harmless because they assumed she was white. When they realized she wasn't, they wanted her to be stronger so that they could remain weaker - they were actually shifting their accountability onto a young girl, while claiming to be helping her not be fragile! This is intellectual fragility and a lack of personal accountability on their part.

If it had turned out badly for her, it would have taught her the same message. The outcome was meaningless, except to demonstrate what fragility really is. Their own lack of adaptiveness and aggression is what hurt them. 

Society is changing. Adapt or die.


----------



## farsidejunky

wilson said:


> Hopefully people try to make the world a better place. If jokes are hurtful to some people, then I would hope good people would refrain from telling those jokes. Is the laugh worth the hurt feelings? Some people get bullied to the point of suicide over being gay, a minority, or different in some way. Making hurtful jokes for some of those topics seems like it would be making the world worse. And there are some topics which are so horrific that they shouldn't be joked about at all, like the Holocaust.
> 
> 
> 
> When I was in high school, I told gay jokes and did the gay lisp because I thought that stuff was hilarious. It was only years later that I found out that some of my friends back then were actually gay. They kept it a secret because I'm sure they didn't feel comfortable revealing that when even their friends were making jokes about it. One friend I remember laughing uncomfortably, and I later found out he was gay. I'm sure he had a lot of negative feelings at that moment. I feel horrible I did that and it pains me that I made my friends feel ashamed about that part of them. Just telling the joke sends the message "I think gay people are weird.".
> 
> 
> 
> If the only thing someone can joke about are stereotypes, then that's probably a sign that they are not really very funny. Someone who has a good sense of humor can find humor in a wide variety of areas. If not joking about stereotypes means you have nothing funny to say, then that's probably a good thing.


So back to my original question, which you took three lengthy paragraphs to discuss without actually providing an answer.

Who gets to decide who is worthy of protection?

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## farsidejunky

ReformedHubby said:


> You seem very passionate about this. But I just can't take the world that seriously. I can't think of many stereotypes that don't have at least some truth to them, even some of the ugliest that make us feel ashamed. Those of us that are in respective groups often joke about those very same stereotypes that are applied to us when amongst each other. I guess my biggest gripe these days is that everyone wants to tell me when I should be offended. Then if I am not offended, they want to "educate" me. Its become a bizarre world in a lot of ways. I still find humor in it though. I guess its funny to me that so many white people think they know what offends black people these days. Don't get me wrong, you can ALWAYS find someone who is offended by anything. But what we should be asking ourselves is, at what point did we decide we wanted a society that no one would be offended by anything ever? Thats not realistic, and quite frankly it makes for a dull world IMO. We are becoming an overly PC country just to avoid offending a very very small minority of people.


I wish I could like this twice.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## farsidejunky

Marduk said:


> Society is changing. Adapt or die.


You omitted choice number three.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Marduk said:


> 2ntnuf said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did these children end up on the ground bleeding? Did this happen at high school or middle school? Can you expand on your story? Sorry that happened to your daughter. Any father would be angry. What message would it have sent, if it had turned out badly for you?
> 
> 
> 
> Not children, 20-something men. This happened, at all places, at a five star resort in the back country. I have practiced martial arts most of my adult life. I do not have to hit someone to hurt them. Sometimes you don't have to do anything at all to be in the right place in the right time and just let the earth hit someone for you.
> 
> Now, I do not think you or anyone else here would be the kind of guy to sit there and make an adolescent girl cry by telling racist jokes to their face. My point in telling that story is to say that they assumed it was harmless because they assumed she was white. When they realized she wasn't, they wanted her to be stronger so that they could remain weaker - they were actually shifting their accountability onto a young girl, while claiming to be helping her not be fragile! This is intellectual fragility and a lack of personal accountability on their part.
> 
> If it had turned out badly for her, it would have taught her the same message. The outcome was meaningless, except to demonstrate what fragility really is. Their own lack of adaptiveness and aggression is what hurt them.
> 
> Society is changing. Adapt or die.
Click to expand...

Can I not adapt and not die? Anyways, you have to know your audience or you will just look like a jerk like that guy. Half of the comics in the world would be homeless if they weren't funny. But if anyone is offended, they can simply choose not to buy a ticket. I guess I could offend bald guys with ED just as easily. People with hair and virility would laugh but the offended party may feel ashamed, or they could get a sense of humor and stop taking themselves so seriously.


----------



## Girl_power

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Well, of course, there is a time and place for everything. And I certainly wouldn't make any joke at work that a tightwad might take as offensive. Mainly, just around friends and family, because there are too many tightwads out there, so one needs to be careful what one says lest they incur monetary or bodily injury because a broom is shoved a bit too far inside a tightwad...
> 
> Though watching the uncomfortable reaction to someone you aren't sure is joking or serious (think Andy Kaufman) is priceless.




You can call us tightwad... but I think that humor is low class, uneducated, and trashy.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Marduk said:


> Not children, 20-something men. This happened, at all places, at a five star resort in the back country. I have practiced martial arts most of my adult life. I do not have to hit someone to hurt them. Sometimes you don't have to do anything at all to be in the right place in the right time and just let the earth hit someone for you.
> 
> Now, I do not think you or anyone else here would be the kind of guy to sit there and make an adolescent girl cry by telling racist jokes to their face. My point in telling that story is to say that they assumed it was harmless because they assumed she was white. When they realized she wasn't, they wanted her to be stronger so that they could remain weaker - they were actually shifting their accountability onto a young girl, while claiming to be helping her not be fragile! This is intellectual fragility and a lack of personal accountability on their part.
> 
> If it had turned out badly for her, it would have taught her the same message. The outcome was meaningless, except to demonstrate what fragility really is. Their own lack of adaptiveness and aggression is what hurt them.
> 
> *Society is changing. Adapt or die.*


It's good that society is changing. It's never been okay to say things like that to children. Those twenty-somethings were overgrown adolescents without manners. 

You are not the average man, if you have practiced and studied martial arts all your life. Saying you did not hit them is technically true, but not really the truth. You did lay your hands on them, as was necessary. 

However, I disagree with adapt or _die_. Sounds too much like a threat of murder. In fact, it is. 

I hope your daughter does not learn that it is okay to physically harm others in the name of justice. Defending yourself from physical harm or attack is quite different. 

Like you, I doubt any here would say those things to a child. 

Sorry, man. I like you, but this disturbed me more than you realize. It really bothered me, much more than being called cracker or ******(past terminology I never understood the meaning of). 

Thank you for the explanation. I really didn't understand.


----------



## farsidejunky

Girl_power said:


> You can call us tightwad... but I think that humor is low class, uneducated, and trashy.


This is a perfectly acceptable opinion.

I would never have any problem with you holding that opinion.

Where I draw the line is when people want to try and apply that opinion to policy.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## ConanHub

wilson said:


> Would it matter to you if you find out that your jokes hurt those people? What if you overheard them later on the phone saying "Conan is making gay jokes again. I laugh because I don't want to make a scene, but they make me really uncomfortable". Would you keep telling the jokes?
> 
> Often, people say they only do it if they know the other person isn't offended, but how do you really know that? I told gay jokes to my HS friends who were gay, yet I didn't realize they were gay. I can't imagine that they felt positive about that experience when they were having to keep their orientation secret.


No secrets between my family and friends.

It never ceases to amaze me that internet sjw's and other well meaning, if misguided, folks assume to know better than me about my own family and friends.

Did you consider how arrogant, high handed and overbearing it would be to make the assumption your post implied before posting it?

I'm not asking for help or advice in relation to my homosexual family or friends or my differing ethnic members and friends.

I would advise you to exercise your own best judgement in regards to your homosexual friends and family.

In my wild youth, I was entrenched with gay culture and can probably educate most who were not about what goes on.


----------



## 2ntnuf

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Can I not adapt and not die? Anyways, you have to know your audience or you will just look like a jerk like that guy. Half of the comics in the world would be homeless if they weren't funny. But if anyone is offended, they can simply choose not to buy a ticket. *I guess I could offend bald guys with ED* just as easily. People with hair and virility would laugh but the offended party may feel ashamed, or they could get a sense of humor and stop taking themselves so seriously.


You jerk. :grin2: lmao


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

2ntnuf said:


> It's good that society is changing. It's never been okay to say things like that to children. Those twenty-somethings were overgrown adolescents without manners.
> 
> You are not the average man, if you have practiced and studied martial arts all your life. Saying you did not hit them is technically true, but not really the truth. You did lay your hands on them, as was necessary.
> 
> However, I disagree with adapt or _die_. Sounds too much like a threat of murder. In fact, it is.
> 
> I hope your daughter does not learn that it is okay to physically harm others in the name of justice. Defending yourself from physical harm or attack is quite different.
> 
> Like you, I doubt any here would say those things to a child.
> 
> Sorry, man. I like you, but this disturbed me more than you realize. It really bothered me, much more than being called cracker or ******(past terminology I never understood the meaning of).
> 
> Thank you for the explanation. I really didn't understand.


I agree. Not sure about ****** (maybe it sounds funny). But I think cracker was slang term that slaves use to call slavemasters in the deep south ( you can figure out why). Either that or you have the complexion of a cracker?


----------



## Marduk

farsidejunky said:


> You omitted choice number three.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


Which is?


----------



## ConanHub

Marduk said:


> Society is changing. Adapt or die.


I don't disagree about bullying or being stupid but this is where you keep crossing into very dangerous territory.

The militant attitude is unhealthy and unproductive for everyone.

There have been some people, who never met me of course, who espouse hostile and violent behavior towards people who disagree with them.

Society isn't changing naturally, quite as much as you might believe and, even if it was, making hostile and threatening statements towards people like me, who merely disagree, is extremely dangerous for them.


----------



## farsidejunky

Marduk said:


> Which is?


Fight. 

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Anyways as far as sex and food goes, I approve of both.


----------



## 2ntnuf

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> I agree. Not sure about ****** (maybe it sounds funny). But I think cracker was slang term that slaves use to call slavemasters in the deep south ( you can figure out why). Either that *or you have the complexion of a cracker*?


On my sun deprived hairy legs, yes. On my arms, face, neck and chest, I'm darker than quite a few African Americans. 

sarcasm I try to hide it with women's face paint and remodeling products because I'm so afraid those African Americans will call me that. I just can't handle it and go ballistic, but never hit them cause I am usually without the company of friends when it happens. sarcasm

:grin2:


----------



## Marduk

2ntnuf said:


> It's good that society is changing. It's never been okay to say things like that to children. Those twenty-somethings were overgrown adolescents without manners.
> 
> You are not the average man, if you have practiced and studied martial arts all your life. Saying you did not hit them is technically true, but not really the truth. You did lay your hands on them, as was necessary.


To go into details, we walked outside together. There were perhaps 4 or 5 of them. They were laughing, pretending to throw punches, and getting in my face. 

They asked what I was thinking would happen. I asked them to apologize to my daughter. One laughed and attempted to push me.

I simply turned, not resisting the push at all. He fell down, probably expecting me to push him back. It was also winter, and perhaps icy. The next guy grabbed my coat by the chest. I turned again, this time lifting his elbow up and forward, and he was forced to take a step forward... where his buddy was still getting off the ground. So he fell on top of him. They smashed heads.

The rest started to back away. So I walked back inside.



> However, I disagree with adapt or _die_. Sounds too much like a threat of murder. In fact, it is.


If it did, I apologize. It was unintended to be a threat. It's something my teacher used to say. My intention is to say that people need to deal with reality... and if society no longer finds something acceptable, then you need to accept it. If things change - be that technology, politics, or someone takes a swing at you... then that's what you need to adapt to.

The times are changing. Things like insensitive jokes used to be acceptable, and are increasingly not. 



> I hope your daughter does not learn that it is okay to physically harm others in the name of justice. Defending yourself from physical harm or attack is quite different.


I hope that she learned to be unafraid to speak her mind. 



> Like you, I doubt any here would say those things to a child.
> 
> Sorry, man. I like you, but this disturbed me more than you realize. It really bothered me, much more than being called cracker or ******(past terminology I never understood the meaning of).
> 
> Thank you for the explanation. I really didn't understand.


I like you too, and I am also disturbed that you perceived my words to be a threat. It was unintentional and ill-conceived to use them. I'll learn from this.


----------



## Marduk

farsidejunky said:


> Fight.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


For?


----------



## Mr The Other

Numb26 said:


> Why I always hit the chinese buffets! LOL


I had a girlfriend who thought I just did not have a proper lunch and she would pack me one. I ate it on the train to work, had one or two cooked breakfasts at a greasy spoon mid-morning, then a large lunch.

When I was still hungry for dinners, she questioned whether I really was eating all the packed lunch. 

It is a tough thing for many people to understand as they do not know that level of hunger.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Marduk said:


> For?


You covered those. The third choice would be to ignore them, leave and report it to the owner of the club or whatever it was, as well as the authorities and whatever civil liberties group that handles these things.

Some of that would be greatly effective and bring about real understanding and change. I fear those ill-mannered adult children will simply change tactics, but not their behavior.


----------



## farsidejunky

Marduk said:


> For?


Freedom.

Resistance to tyranny.

Whatever cliched phrase you want to use to describe the prevention of tyranny by government...even if under the guise of compassion.

That you don't see it as tyrannical is the scariest part of this entire discussion.

And now I see I have allowed myself to be drawn into another political discussion.

I will politely excuse myself from it at this point. 

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Marduk

2ntnuf said:


> You covered those. The third choice would be to ignore them, leave and report it to the owner of the club or whatever it was, as well as the authorities and whatever civil liberties group that handles these things.


Ignoring the problem allows it space to grow and flourish unchecked. It also ignores the real harm it causes.



> Some of that would be greatly effective and bring about real understanding and change. I fear those ill-mannered adult children will simply change tactics, but not their behavior.


Perhaps. Perhaps not. That's their accountability.


----------



## Marduk

farsidejunky said:


> Freedom.


Sartre would say that we are condemned to freedom. Because with freedom comes accountability for what you do with it.



> Resistance to tyranny.


Sure. Where is this tyranny? Did my daughter not perceive it tyrannical to feel forced to laugh along with someone mocking her?



> Whatever cliched phrase you want to use to describe the prevention of tyranny by government...even if under the guise of compassion.
> 
> That you don't see it as tyrannical is the scariest part of this entire discussion.


Are all exclusions on freedom tyrannical?



> And now I see I have allowed myself to be drawn into another political discussion.
> 
> I will politely excuse myself from it at this point.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


Perhaps I'll join you. It's friday after all, and I will soon have an old fashioned to celebrate it.

Thank you for challenging me.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Marduk said:


> Ignoring the problem allows it space to grow and flourish unchecked. It also ignores the real harm it causes.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps. Perhaps not. That's their accountability.


No one is ignoring the problem, if they follow through with my suggestions. Change occurs when folks are awakened, not when they are threatened. That only solidifies their erroneous assertions.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

2ntnuf said:


> Marduk said:
> 
> 
> 
> For?
> 
> 
> 
> You covered those. The third choice would be to ignore them, leave and report it to the owner of the club or whatever it was, as well as the authorities and whatever civil liberties group that handles these things.
> 
> Some of that would be greatly effective and bring about real understanding and change. I fear those ill-mannered adult children will simply change tactics, but not their behavior.
Click to expand...

Or the Christian way, pray for them...


----------



## Cynthia

Lila said:


> @BigbadBootyDaddy posted on another thread that 90 % of men only need their partners to keep their belly's full and their balls to be empty to be content in the relationship. The 10% outliers are insignificant.
> 
> What say you men of TAM? Are you within the 90% who only care about sec and food, or the 10% who need "more" to be happy in a relationship?


Satisfaction depends on attitude more than on what a person has or doesn't have. Some people would say that if they are getting enough sex and enough to eat they are fine, but once they have those things they realize that despite getting the amount of sex they want, they aren't getting it in exactly the way they want it. The same goes with food. Once they are no longer hungry they want more variety in their diet, so they want more steak and roasted rather than steamed vegetables or whatever. Once they get that, they become dissatisfied with the location and want to have sex on the beach and dinner overlooking Puget Sound. It goes on and on.


----------



## Marduk

2ntnuf said:


> No one is ignoring the problem, if they follow through with my suggestions. Change occurs when folks are awakened, not when they are threatened. That only solidifies their erroneous assertions.


Say more please.

My tolerance for this stuff is gone.


----------



## JustTheWife

9 pages and the OP hasn't returned. Shouldn't this thread be closed? Seems like that's what happens to other threads in this situation.

Anyway, I haven't followed this thread too closely - too crude (emptying balls...really). But I was bored and wanted to see if I could contribute a view on emptying balls. Now I see it's turned into a full on fight. Balls too full?


----------



## BluesPower

Cynthia said:


> Satisfaction depends on attitude more than on what a person has or doesn't have. Some people would say that if they are getting enough sex and enough to eat they are fine, but once they have those things they realize that despite getting the amount of sex they want, they aren't getting it in exactly the way they want it. The same goes with food. Once they are no longer hungry they want more variety in their diet, so they want more steak and roasted rather than steamed vegetables or whatever. Once they get that, they become dissatisfied with the location and want to have sex on the beach and dinner overlooking Puget Sound. It goes on and on.


I am not saying that this is wrong, and I am sure that it does happen. 

However, for me, if the sexual side of the relationship is off, then the relationship is off. It really is that simple. 

Maybe I am older, maybe more experienced, maybe less tolerant of BS, maybe all that and more.

However, if sex is not up to its usual greatness, then we are talking about it. We are going to figure out what is wrong, and we are going to do it pretty quick. 

I really cannot have a rewarding relationship, if the romantic/sexual/affectionate side is not working. 

Not that you could not have other aspects go wrong, and those be issues as well. But if this area is a problem then pretty much THERE IS A PROBLEM. 

And, it is not that it is the most important thing, but it is ONE of the most important things. 

Example, if Fiancé did not like to cuddle when we sleep, (we hold each other most of the night) that would be an issue for me. Frankly, I think I might be able to deal with it if there was a good reason... But something would have to replace that part of intimacy.

Really, I am not saying that I could get by without that but I might try. 

If sex was taking off of the table, and there was not a super good reason and super good accommodations made for that, the relationship is over. 

Frankly, if I am in a relationship, and sex stopped, I am not sure I could continue even if she agreed to an open relationship. Because if I am in a relationship, I want to have sex with you. Otherwise, I might as well be single...


----------



## Cynthia

BluesPower said:


> I am not saying that this is wrong, and I am sure that it does happen.
> 
> However, for me, if the sexual side of the relationship is off, then the relationship is off. It really is that simple.
> 
> Maybe I am older, maybe more experienced, maybe less tolerant of BS, maybe all that and more.
> 
> However, if sex is not up to its usual greatness, then we are talking about it. We are going to figure out what is wrong, and we are going to do it pretty quick.
> 
> I really cannot have a rewarding relationship, if the romantic/sexual/affectionate side is not working.
> 
> Not that you could not have other aspects go wrong, and those be issues as well. But if this area is a problem then pretty much THERE IS A PROBLEM.
> 
> And, it is not that it is the most important thing, but it is ONE of the most important things.
> 
> Example, if Fiancé did not like to cuddle when we sleep, (we hold each other most of the night) that would be an issue for me. Frankly, I think I might be able to deal with it if there was a good reason... But something would have to replace that part of intimacy.
> 
> Really, I am not saying that I could get by without that but I might try.
> 
> If sex was taking off of the table, and there was not a super good reason and super good accommodations made for that, the relationship is over.
> 
> Frankly, if I am in a relationship, and sex stopped, I am not sure I could continue even if she agreed to an open relationship. Because if I am in a relationship, I want to have sex with you. Otherwise, I might as well be single...


I'm not saying that people should be satisfied with whatever they get and not mention their desires. I'm saying that people tend to be difficult to satisfy. Once people have something, they tend to want more. I know I'm this way about certain things. I'm not asking for sex on the beach, but we do go eat with a view of Puget Sound from time to time and I appreciate my husband being attentive to my desires, even when they aren't stagnant.


----------



## Blondilocks

Mr The Other said:


> I had a girlfriend who thought I just did not have a proper lunch and she would pack me one. I ate it on the train to work, had one or two cooked breakfasts at a greasy spoon mid-morning, then a large lunch.
> 
> When I was still hungry for dinners, she questioned whether I really was eating all the packed lunch.
> 
> It is a tough thing for many people to understand as they do not know that level of hunger.


Holy cow! Did you have a tapeworm? I have never known any young man to eat that much and I had two 17 year old nephews living with us. How tall were you and how much did you weigh? Did you have an overactive thyroid?


----------



## Mr The Other

Blondilocks said:


> Holy cow! Did you have a tapeworm? I have never known any young man to eat that much and I had two 17 year old nephews living with us. How tall were you and how much did you weigh? Did you have an overactive thyroid?


Just over 5'10" and about 140lb. 

I finished an eating challenge once, which meant the food was free, but I had to pay for the three pots of tea I went through. I also got a free T-shirt that fitted. Apparently, the ones who finished the challenge were all skinnt.


----------



## Numb26

Mr The Other said:


> Blondilocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy cow! Did you have a tapeworm? I have never known any young man to eat that much and I had two 17 year old nephews living with us. How tall were you and how much did you weigh? Did you have an overactive thyroid?
> 
> 
> 
> Just over 5'10" and about 140lb.
> 
> I finished an eating challenge once, which meant the food was free, but I had to pay for the three pots of tea I went through. I also got a free T-shirt that fitted. Apparently, the ones who finished the challenge were all skinnt.
Click to expand...

I have done a couple of those. Always a good time!


----------



## 2ntnuf

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Or the Christian way, pray for them...


or send positive thoughts. lol


----------



## 2ntnuf

Marduk said:


> Say more please.
> 
> My tolerance for this stuff is gone.


When folks are attacked, they defend themselves with vigor. When they are approached by an authority have jurisdiction, they humble themselves, unless they really need to be in prison. 

Using an organization to bring the attention of the club owners to a real problem will likely change admittance qualifications and cause them to change how they do business. Otherwise, they may just say it was a scuffle between some drunkards, whether anyone was or not. 

I was going for the greatest possibility of real change at the club. When that attention happens, everyone who attends takes notice and does some introspection, unless they really have an issue they cannot change on their own.


----------



## ReformedHubby

Marduk said:


> You completely and totally miss the point.
> 
> _*Ever see your child pretend to laugh along at a racist joke against her ancestry because people assumed she was white? I have. Do you think that made her stronger? No, I think it made her feel vulnerable, judged, and afraid. Do you think she thought that guy was strong and just laughing? No, she thought he was a racist ******* but she was afraid to speak up. So I spoke up for her. He said exactly what you are saying - "I was just joking" and "you shouldn't be so fragile." He kept making jokes, laughing at my daughter, now in tears.*_


Good for you and her, sounds like you're raising your daughter right. Not sure why you think I would approve of anyone doing that or saying that to a child. Also thought the references to being beat bloody were weird...but I digress. There is a balance and a time and a place for everything. I won't expand on it anymore than that. We're in two different universes if you think I feel its appropriate to do that to a child. I don't. I also don't think its appropriate to poke fun when someone says they are offended or hurt by it. Who jokes that way with strangers??? That was never appropriate, even before all this PC nonsense started.


----------



## Blondilocks

i would ask for a cleanup of this thread, if it weren't so far gone. Don't want to put Ele through all of that 7 page hijack.

Will some of you guys please have a meal and get laid?


----------



## JustTheWife

Blondilocks said:


> i would ask for a cleanup of this thread, if it weren't so far gone. Don't want to put Ele through all of that 7 page hijack.
> 
> Will some of you guys please have a meal and get laid?


Even when there's productive discussion related to the OP's topic, if the OP doesn't return to the thread, it seems that it's normally closed for some reason. Not sure if that's some kind of rule??? It doesn't even have to be hijacked or go off the rails like this one has.


----------



## Blondilocks

JustTheWife said:


> Even when there's productive discussion related to the OP's topic, if the OP doesn't return to the thread, it seems that it's normally closed for some reason. Not sure if that's some kind of rule??? It doesn't even have to be hijacked or go off the rails like this one has.


It's a bit of a sticky wicket. The thread was started by a moderator and another moderator participated in the threadjack.


----------



## ConanHub

JustTheWife said:


> Even when there's productive discussion related to the OP's topic, if the OP doesn't return to the thread, it seems that it's normally closed for some reason. Not sure if that's some kind of rule??? It doesn't even have to be hijacked or go off the rails like this one has.


The OP started a thread asking the question "What say you?" about a statement.

As long as there are people taking part, it will remain open.

The thread jack was surprising to me and I got in on it because I'm appalled by fascism.


----------



## Lila

JustTheWife said:


> 9 pages and the OP hasn't returned. Shouldn't this thread be closed? Seems like that's what happens to other threads in this situation.
> 
> Anyway, I haven't followed this thread too closely - too crude (emptying balls...really). But I was bored and wanted to see if I could contribute a view on emptying balls. Now I see it's turned into a full on fight. Balls too full?


I started this post in the men's lounge. You are of course welcome to post but there is nothing you could contribute that would be pertinent to the original post as I asked for TAM Men's Opinions.

If you feel boredom, start a thread on a topic you would like to discuss.


----------



## 2ntnuf

@Lila,

Will you comment on this thread? I didn't read the last few pages. I left it for some time due to the club thing and the disgusting way @Marduk's daughter was treated. 

What do you think now that you've seen all the different ways folks are taking this "Belly Full, Balls Empty" saying?


----------



## southbound

To address the original post, I think it takes more than being fed and having sex to please a man, but I believe that idea comes from the thought that maybe our needs don't often seem as extensive and mysterious; I say mysterious because we often feel like we have to be mind-readers. There have even been comedians do routines about it. Sure, there have to be other things, but perhaps those things are common desires that people would want from any relationship such as kindness. Sure, no man is going to be happy with a wife that is rude, keeps them in a financial crisis all the time, and spends her days sitting on the sofa watching tv contributing nothing to the relationship; sex and meals aren't going to smooth that over for a lifetime; however, let's say we love our wife, she is a great mother, she pulls her weight, and she is a sweet, normal person. Beyond that, having sex goes a long way to please a man. From all the men I know, their wife doesn't have to jump through a lot of other hoops to please them.


----------



## CraigBesuden

Lila said:


> @BigbadBootyDaddy posted on another thread that 90 % of men only need their partners to keep their belly's full and their balls to be empty to be content in the relationship. The 10% outliers are insignificant.
> 
> What say you men of TAM? Are you within the 90% who only care about sec and food, or the 10% who need "more" to be happy in a relationship?


Although it's a cute phrase, I don't think that's literally true. But I believe that most men won't end a relationship as long as the woman is doing her duties and not doing anything terribly wrong. If they're not in love, though, he's probably a lot more likely to cheat which could end the relationship.

A guy on the radio used to say he had advice for women, that there are eight words that can save any relationship: long hair, stay thin, sex anytime, shut up. Of course, he was a shock jock, so....


----------



## ConanHub

Mrs. C isn't happy unless her belly is full in more than one way.

She needs more in a relationship as well but gets a little biatchy if she doesn't have regular helpings of my cooking and loving.

I've run across many women with the same needs.

I think men might have had things a little more out front with the boldness of statements like the OP.

Women have the same desires but maybe haven't felt as free, in the past, to be bold about it.

I'm off point a little from the OP but I think the statement "Belly full, ***** full" could be just as applicable to relationships as the OP.

I've at least seen a large amount of sexually frustrated women out there who could use a good feeding and ****ing.

Sorry for the crude expressions but the OP was crude to begin with.


----------



## 2ntnuf

ConanHub said:


> Mrs. C isn't happy unless her belly is full in more than one way.
> 
> She needs more in a relationship as well but gets a little biatchy if she doesn't have regular helpings of my cooking and loving.
> 
> I've run across many women with the same needs.
> 
> I think men might have had things a little more out front with the boldness of statements like the OP.
> 
> Women have the same desires but maybe haven't felt as free, in the past, to be bold about it.
> 
> I'm off point a little from the OP but I think the statement "Belly full, ***** full" could be just as applicable to relationships as the OP.
> 
> I've at least seen a large amount of sexually frustrated women out there who could use a good feeding and ****ing.
> 
> Sorry for the crude expressions but the OP was crude to begin with.


Agree.


----------



## Lila

2ntnuf said:


> @Lila,
> 
> Will you comment on this thread?
> 
> What do you think now that you've seen all the different ways folks are taking this "Belly Full, Balls Empty" saying?


I think it's interesting all of the responses. 

Personally, I think the saying correlates pretty well with emotional intelligence. On one end of the spectrum is the guy who thinks of his wife as a masturbatory tool who feeds him and the other extreme is the guy who needs to be completely connected in every way with his partner to be satisfied. One is very low on the emotional intelligence scale while the other is very high.


----------



## Casual Observer

Lila said:


> I think it's interesting all of the responses.
> 
> Personally, I think the saying correlates pretty well with emotional intelligence. *On one end of the spectrum is the guy who thinks of his wife as a masturbatory tool who feeds him* and the other extreme is the guy who needs to be completely connected in every way with his partner to be satisfied. One is very low on the emotional intelligence scale while the other is very high.


My wife will claim that guy (the bolded part) is me as a defensive mechanism. I think some woman don't want to see their husbands differently because it requires them (the wife) to have to take on more responsibility for the emotional side of a relationship than they want to.


----------



## Lila

Casual Observer said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's interesting all of the responses.
> 
> Personally, I think the saying correlates pretty well with emotional intelligence. *On one end of the spectrum is the guy who thinks of his wife as a masturbatory tool who feeds him* and the other extreme is the guy who needs to be completely connected in every way with his partner to be satisfied. One is very low on the emotional intelligence scale while the other is very high.
> 
> 
> 
> My wife will claim that guy (the bolded part) is me as a defensive mechanism. I think some woman don't want to see their husbands differently because it requires them (the wife) to have to take on more responsibility for the emotional side of a relationship than they want to.
Click to expand...

I think there has to be a balance. I, for one, could never feel safe or trust someone whose only needs are to be ****ed and fed. On the other hand I could not be with someone who needed to be connected to me in every way at all times. I need space. 

There's a balance between a knuckle dragging neanderthal and "Elliot" from Bedazzled.


----------



## Casual Observer

Lila said:


> I think there has to be a balance. I, for one, could never feel safe or trust someone whose only needs are to be ****ed and fed. On the other hand I could not be with someone who needed to be connected to me in every way at all times. I need space.
> 
> There's a balance between a knuckle dragging neanderthal and "Elliot" from Bedazzled.


My point is that it's dangerous to take, at face value, someone saying their husband only wants to be f'd and fed. My wife could possibly have a legit beef with differences in the prioritization each of us places on sex, but it's beyond question that her belief that the feeding aspect is not nearly as important in our relationship as she wants so desperately to believe. I think the topic of this thread is an example of taking something to an absurd extreme that obscures the truth. That truth being that may be a HUGE disconnect in what each thinks the value is, to the other party, of some of the things they offer their partner.


----------



## Lila

Casual Observer said:


> *My point is that it's dangerous to take, at face value, someone saying their husband only wants to be f'd and fed.* My wife could possibly have a legit beef with differences in the prioritization each of us places on sex, but it's beyond question that her belief that the feeding aspect is not nearly as important in our relationship as she wants so desperately to believe. I think the topic of this thread is an example of taking something to an absurd extreme that obscures the truth. That truth being that may be a HUGE disconnect in what each thinks the value is, to the other party, of some of the things they offer their partner.


The bolded is EXACTLY why I posted this in the Men's Lounge and asked for TAM Men's opinions. The original "belly full, balls empty" comment was mad by a MAN on another thread. I was interested in getting the opinion of other MEN.


----------



## Casual Observer

Lila said:


> The bolded is EXACTLY why I posted this in the Men's Lounge and asked for TAM Men's opinions. The original "belly full, balls empty" comment was mad by a MAN on another thread. I was interested in getting the opinion of other MEN.


Cleary, as has been described graphically in other threads, we both metaphorically and physically come in all flavors, shapes & sizes. I think people have taken the "Women are from Venus, Men are from Mars" thing way too far, using it as an excuse to not have to actually learn what makes their partner tick, on an individual basis. There isn't a separate "5 languages" for men & women. Yet we will persist in thinking we believe we know our partner, sometimes for many decades, through extrapolation of a "generic" understanding of them. Some of us anyway. It is shocking how, sometimes, a couple can be married for many decades and still each doesn't truly understand what the other values in the relationship, and, especially, why.

I'm not arguing with you. I think we're both in agreement on this. Just want to bring it more out in the open, this idea that we sometimes, either deliberately or without thinking about it, obscure the truth behind generalizations. Pretty sure that's the secret to selling self-help books. Make it easier for people to believe those generalizations.


----------



## CraigBesuden

Lila said:


> The bolded is EXACTLY why I posted this in the Men's Lounge and asked for TAM Men's opinions. The original "belly full, balls empty" comment was mad by a MAN on another thread. I was interested in getting the opinion of other MEN.


It's like a bumper sticker political slogan. It conveys an important point but it's way too simplistic to take literally.


----------



## Marduk

2ntnuf said:


> When folks are attacked, they defend themselves with vigor. When they are approached by an authority have jurisdiction, they humble themselves, unless they really need to be in prison.
> 
> Using an organization to bring the attention of the club owners to a real problem will likely change admittance qualifications and cause them to change how they do business. Otherwise, they may just say it was a scuffle between some drunkards, whether anyone was or not.
> 
> I was going for the greatest possibility of real change at the club. When that attention happens, everyone who attends takes notice and does some introspection, unless they really have an issue they cannot change on their own.


Let me give you another experience. This happened right after my wife was assaulted, but was before her friends turned their back on her.

We were with some of them at a concert. Of all things, a Tragically Hip concert. It was general seating, and I was standing there, and some guy kept trying to nudge me out of the way so he could see. I simply refused to move. He finally tried to grab me and move me out of the way. 

This annoyed me but didn't anger me like the guys I was talking about above. I simply allowed him to grab my arm by the wrist, and instead of moving, dropped my center while fixing my arm in place, securing it against his chest - where he had put it.

He fell to his knees.

His friends came by, apologized for him, and he apologized too. Apparently he was a die hard hip fan, and this was his last chance to see them. He had been standing in that spot but had to leave to go to the bathroom, and when he came back I was standing there. 

He bought me a drink, we shared the spot, and ended up drinking together for the remainder of the show. 

That stuff didn't anger me at all. It was just a natural result of his action, I just felt like I was the pivot point around which he revolved to resolve his frustration. But the other guys I had to actually restrain myself from going further, because I was angry. I walked away to protect them from my anger.


----------



## Marduk

Numb26 said:


> First, never received a warning.
> 
> Two, one of the reasons for the ban was TJing
> 
> "Nov 06, 2019 · #481
> Re: 2018/2019 Banned Members Thread (read thread rules in first post)
> 3Xnocharm said:
> Original Post
> Numb26?
> 
> 
> 2 weeks - Threadjack and disgusting post."
> 
> Three, you banned me for being offended by something I said. Sounds like a personal reason, hence different rules for different members


You are a guest here. Mods do their best, and to my knowledge, it is unpaid labour.


----------



## Marduk

CraigBesuden said:


> It's like a bumper sticker political slogan. It conveys an important point but it's way too simplistic to take literally.


The danger is, of course, that some people try to live by bumper sticker slogans, tweets, or other glib sentiments.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Marduk said:


> The danger is, of course, that some people try to live by bumper sticker slogans, tweets, or other glib sentiments.


lol 

Have folks raised a whole generation of naivety?


----------



## BigbadBootyDaddy

love this conversation


----------

