Government Officials and Family

I think that active government officials should not be allowed to have a family of their own since a family would make them vulnerable to exploitation, and that would constitute a threat to national welfare and security.


Getting married and having kids is just a tax scam anyway. Bastards don’t wanna pay their fair share.

Yes, I can believe in that.

[u]Syria’s first lady, Asma al-Assad, says she rejected offers of asylum [/u]

The video interview:

Okay, I don’t mean to be the ugly stick in the mud here and spoil the pity party, but I’m a rather skeptical in these matters. It just seems to me that everybody is just playing a duplicious political game here. How does politics and the concept of humility (which she seems to be repeatedly adressing) work together anyway? If you’re such a patriot and so proud of your own country, why send your family to live and study overseas, and even seek foreign citizenship? Based on her biography (she was born in London to a well-to-do family) can she really say: I’m no different to many other people in Syria…my family has been affected just as any other family in Syria. We are constantly moved and saddened by the tragedies that this country faces on a daily basis, and after 5 years of war, I think it goes without saying that in every home, in Syria, there is a sadness that pervades, and ours is no different.” [17:30-18:17]

If every Syrian family has a biography like hers then maybe it does have some validity; but if it’s just the sadness that unites everyone in that innocent people are killed then I am, too, no different than many other people in Syria because I’m, too, saddened by innocent Syrian children being blown to pieces.
I’m just saying - is she really in a good position to make this argument and how credible does that make her? And is her family also just like many other family in Syria in times of peace as well? Are people just choose to overlook this on purpose because it serves their own self-interests?

It’s just seems rather contradictory that patriotic heads of state send their families to live, study, and work overseas (where conditions are better) and then turn around and proclaim how great their own country is. Does anybody else see this contradiction?


Assad is a dunast, he didn’t found his Dynasty, he continues it. He needs a legal offspring. Can it be adopted? Yes, Caesar and Augustus both adopted when they had no choice. Most choose their own offspring. I think you would enjoy reading Ibn Khaldun’s “A History of the World” as he was a Machiavellian prior to Machiavelli, developing a dialectic theory of history and statecraft, built around the rise and falls of Dynasties. It is really a awesome book, I can’t recommend it enough.

British influenced militaries in colonial areas oftentimes ban officers from marrying for a number if years so they can condition themselves to learning a living a military lifestyle. This isnt appealing to all recruits, so many stopped informing that rule. Women get soldiers in trouble all the time, sometimes in jail for their actions, as well as kids. I lived on Beale Airforce Base as a kid, my neighbor’s son lit the woods onfire, his dad got into trouble. A wide passing bad checks landed a man on the chain gang, he had responsibility for her actions.

Spouses and military doesn’t always mix. I dont think it is wise to block them though. A company commander’s wife is precious to all soldiers. She sets a standard for womanhood and community, many go around fucking sluts, and get the crazy idea to get married for free housing together. Those nose ring, tattoed sluts from the strip club get turned into adult women over time by going to readiness meetings where the captain’s wife is explaining what’s happening in deployment training months in advance, special nonprofit parties or fundraisers they are doing, bake sales, holiday drives, such as Halloween for the kids. I assure you those sluts don’t know how to do that, but if they stick with it, they become adult women, respectable, presentable to a PTSA meeting someday, and not poison everyone with the cookies. I was from a all make, legally heterosexual unit (Infantry, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell) so we only had makes with females. I don’t know how it works now, or before in non combat units that always had mixed males and females in units. Did the captains husband run the bake sale? Fuck if I know. I just know that’s how the infantry was ran. I see nopressimg need to scrap this metamorphosis of being inducted from rebellious youth into a feminine community role if your a woman, if your up to it with your spare time. I tell you, some of those girls really needed such a role model.

A leaders wife sets a similar standard for the community he serves. Look at first ladies. Notice nobody is attacking Hillary or Michelle or either of the Bushes for their First Lady activities. Jackie Kennedy- notorious, I was always disgusted with the Jacko Tabloids as a kid. That isn’t how a first lady is treated. If she says something insane, yeah, but otherwise, smile and nod, watch her decorate, set up the Christmas tree, pick dining wear, meet with other leaders wives, etc. Support literacy, children, women’s health, dietary needs, etc. You may or may not have some knee jerk feminist reaction in saying a man can do that, why should she?

Because it us our tradition. We are hardly throwing her into a kitchen with a mop. She is a living representation of every woman who was first lady before her. She learns the lore, and understands there is a deeper dimension to being a wife when your a first lady to a president, you have to psychologically support him, he is in a very stressful position, a slip can kill people.

This is transferable to all households as example. Republics, the chief executive’s wife, in monarchies, the youngest or prettiest princess or new queen. They don’t merely set the standard for being fashionable, but the country compares their relations to the big honcho’s household.

Assad’s wife likely has held her country together longer than Assad can claim credit for himself. You can’t recruit or draft men from a household dependent on his labor, and expect him to fight. You can’t expect your soldiers not to breed, especially in a case of a massive demographics collapse, you need replacement population. Sun Tzu’s Art of War in chapter 13 discusses the stress women at home go through, always sticking their heads out windows at every sound, thinking it their drafted husband returning. Men think they are the head of the household, till they aren’t around, then it is obvious his every worry is his wife. He is powerless to help and reassure, she deeply wants him back. The standard women set in service and sacrifice sets the standards for all families. Women look to each other for support and friendship in ways men don’t. You loose this, you loose the stability of the family. Husbands will panic, morale will collapse, they will wait t to run home and save the marriage, or worst, divorce. Families will be split. A country’s defence shattered.

It is very important women continue being women, despite the obvious psychological deficits youth in love have, both male and female. I think it would be better if humans hit puberty at 30 instead of 20, give us more time to mature, a decade in adulthood preparing. We jump right in clueless.

AmI a chauvenist for seeing women in “support roles”? No,I try to imagine what Bill will do with the Christmastree,but we all k iwthat is a joke. The dionysian flip isnt going to do much other than crack a smile, but he does have to set a similar example,and be understanding of Hillary. Mist men arent in such a reverse pisition,and in war, men will akways be drafted and thrown into the frontines much more, by rude default. Just the way it is. If the sexual dimorphism ever shifts to women being equal or bigger, perhaps not then.

Women have a crucial role, one we have choosen to overlook given midetnattacks on marriage, in kerping a relationship together. It is much more than two souls shating equally, it is always inequal. Men are not yet well adapted to the invesre,and needto learn to support better when they find their wife or mate is in a more crucial community role. Eomen shoukdn’t loose the long traditions and insights either. It was built up over thosands of years, our species psychology is closely connected to it. Should men do more work in the household? Perhaps… you may disagree when you see what I call cleaning, but perhaps. Should women be mere slaves to men? No. Should women reject a fes thousand years of accumilated traditions and methods for holding their men abd children together,and holding the community likewise together in the light of women’s liberation? Absolutely not. It is something women do as crucial to society as men respinding to a panic, be it a byrgulary or rape or fire in the communuty,alost childnedding found, etc. Should guys reject a few thousand years of culturally honing impulses just because of secual equality? No. Alot of the stuff we do is good, snd when we fight, put our fires, find the lost child, get the cat out of the tree, etc… we need supported. We really need it, it isn’t something healthy for either to neglect.

Im not opposed to Assad’s wife claiming herself as a example. I blame her for many things, I have no respect for her shopping sprees asher nations crumbles, but that instinct to speak to women, relate, say I share your struggles (and the bitch really doesn’t) and look to me,as we loom to you. Thats golden. She is automatically the better leader between her and her husband. Nothing wrong with a man having a better and stronger wife. Just he should learn to msn up to things too. He cant reasonably say the same. His country is horrid because his dynasty is atrocious and evil, only surviving because what they are up against wants to kill them all. Had he been the better leader, they wouldnt be in this mess. Every household gets into messes,and it is ususlly the eoman who holds it togethet. We should never underestimate this leadship role in politics, and how it effects ethics. The men here treat women as laughing stocks- sometimes they are, just like men are for stereotypes, but Im not under and delusion regarding the importance of women. I dont know if marriage and the family can survive feminism, but I know humanity cant survive long eithoyt most accepting a man,awoman,and children as the basis of the household, and the need to hold that together. Nohuman society has abandobed that in full. If womrn find themselves in support, be the best support you can be, think of yourself as a reflection on how all women in such a role needs to be. When youra man in a similsr case,try to do similar, within reason. We don’t have that long history of foing so, but she needs you, and the community does too. Dont be a bitch,just man up and be the best supportive husband ever, we will iron out our wrinkles as more and more examples emerge in the pop culture.

For a unelrcted position, doing traditional “feminine work”, they do a lot. They have been averaging 20+ assistants last few presidencies. Their traditional focus, such as literacy, isn’t wrong at all. Michelle overstepped it on the food pyramid, but overall I’m not opposed, we would have to tackle it some other way, and she is a unpaid spokesperson for government programs of her choosing.

Some of the best money Obama’s administration ever spent was the smiling instructor for Michelle. She was seriously scaring the shit out of people, was causing serious perception problems in regards to the public. I don’t have a smiley face, I don’t blame her, people often think I’m sad or angry when I’m limp face, not even emotional, just being blah me.

How well will Bill pick this up? He is a excellent ambassador, but how well can he project bring a supporting male? I’m telling you, the White House Garden, it’s gonna die if you leave Bill to take care of it.

You had to bring this up, didn’t you? Oh well, here we go. This just seems to me like a lame effort to accommodate a woman’s role in the military area where she does not really belong. Have you checked the divorce rates? It’s incredible. And the reasons for marrying are even more incredible. Are these men doing women a favor by choosing to marry sluts (first mistake) and trying to reform them by molding them into their own concept of a traditional role? A commander’s wife is like a rate of its own, a specialized (public/political) role that has little to do with real family dynamic, she’s a public figure, not unlike what a politician’s wife does - being a molded cookie cutter herself, she molds the others into an ideal. And the others willing to be used because now they have a place to belong. Sounds like opportunistic exploitation where the adopted now says “I owe who I am now to…”

And what do you create, exactly? You’re just molding them into something you want, your ideal.

I don’t understand why a man, a president, even needs a woman by his side to psychologically support him. Unless, the goal is to use her as a tool to influence other women who would listen to her, she being just a mouthpiece of her husband, in a female form.

Right, just a tool.

This is a duplicitous standard and this is something that men are not willing to see or accept for some reason. A man is afforded a lot more freedoms at the expense of freedom (whole life, really) of his wife. So, you get these dull, brainwashed women thinking they are doing something noble (proud military wife status - give me a break), when they are just getting a rotten deal, getting played. I have seen it. There is nothing noble about it. And everything is set up, every thing is ready. All you have to do it accept it and abide by the iron rules. The holy, anointed word here is sacrifice. I don’t know how many times I’ve seen people get high on that word, as if being used and manipulated into an agenda is actually something to be proud of.

Obviously, we disagree on this.

Because women cannot do it, or should not be doing it?

You mean honing impulses at women’s expense.

Men just need to be needed, and when they are not, they want to preserve that need. It’s a power play.

Roger that.

What does this mean? No spouse, no children, no SO? All of the above? What about an official’s parents, siblings, and extended family?

Though family comes with vulnerability, family also creates strength, care, and insight - which is far more important. What’s your thinking on this?

The degree of vulnerability with families is greater than the degree of strength. The more you love your family (attached to them) the more vulnerable you become to exploitation, because you would do anything for family, right?

What kind of exploitation do you have in mind? Of course, VIP officials do have extra safeguards, contingencies, and plans for dealing with such possibilities. Sure, one might do anything to save family, many might even compromise national security in the process. I’m just not sure this happens on such a scale or that it can’t often be protected from/planned for in advance (depends on what you have in mind as far as exploitation).

Moreover, it’s not just love & attachment for one’s family that’s at stake with this proposal. Living without familial ties affects one’s psychological balance and stability. It affects personal development, perspective, values, etc. Plus it feels a lot like giving in to the people who would try to use such methods. It is an incredible concession, which is a psychologically weak position. I still think the immeasurable benefits of close relations outweigh any possible harm I can imagine.

And what about close friends, close ties with anybody? If we take the argument to its conclusion, we would probably have to prohibit any very significant/meaningful relationships. I doubt many people can live like that.

Ingratiating and influencing family members, up to kidnapping, or worse.

It’s interesting that you mention that we don’t know the scale of it. How would you know if it is something that actually happens, but just not released to the public for reputation’s sake?

Likewise, the pressures of office can have a very negative effect on family life. In a sense, you’re not a normal family. The treatment is different. I would compare it more of celebrity status, as the lifestyle is more public and so less authentic because of the pressure of keeping the public image (in my view).

But here, you’re comparing personal gains against public risks.

Yes, it would take a particular kind of person, a person who is wholly dedicated to his job. And there are people like that.

A few additional words on military and tradition:
To the claim that military helps to support traditional American values. This claim, when it’s made, is unfounded. Military is simply in supporting position, it does not make such decisions on behalf of society: whatever society says is the norm, it is obliged to support. So, when the society says gays should not be discriminated against, the commanders have to follow and pass it on to their officers and the rest of the recruits. And the policy (whatever it is) will be enforced within the military. This is why Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy was overturned. … directives

Not sure, but similarly, what makes you think the elimination of family might be so necessary?

Nor would it be normal to live without close ties. Not the perfect analogy, but it’s something like cutting off your arms so that you will never be at risk of some contagious and excruciating arm disease. Less vulnerable, sure, but limited and less capable as a public servant also.

Too many celebrities and politicians are concerned with “public image” over integrity. Maybe public servants could be trained or picked for their immunity against playing into the hands of exploiters. Maybe there needs to be sufficient government oversight and checks to prevent major unilateral actions - for damage control, to limit how much damage can be done. These are just a few alternate solutions.

I was trying to get you to consider that these personal gains translate into public gains. Likewise cutting off close ties to avoid public risks introduces new public risks.

Yes there are. One question is how many officials would need to take such a vow, and for how long?

I’m not following the import of this…

When I weigh to costs and benefits, the costs of having one outweigh the benefits, from the perspective of public security.

That depends on an individual. For some it is quite normal and increases the quality of their work.

Conversely, I would argue as more capable, not less, as it would be one less thing to worry about and allow more time to concentrate on work. What does family have to do with running a public office? Nothing.

Well, heads of state, namely royalty, have been known to execute their own family members when injustices have occurred, showing that their primary loyalty is to the public and the law, and not to their family. (and example would be the recent execution of Saudi family member: … -executed/ ). Indeed, it would be a very difficult position to be in in which you’d have to sacrifice your own family for the trust of the general public. That’s why I believe it would be better not to be placed in that position from the start. Otherwise, you could get a psychologically torn individual as a head of state.

Which public risks are you talking about?

I guess it would depend on the potential damage (through allotted power) that can be done to the state. Ideally, all government officials would be vulnerable, from municipal to national government spheres; it just depends on the potential compromises or damages that the public is willing to put under risk.

I meant that part for the Turd.

Without a well-defined and robust data set, it seems like we’re at an impasse here. I think the alternate solutions I mentioned before are probably sufficient.

What is the impact of living an imposed solitary life without close ties? Does this not perhaps introduce new vulnerabilities: loneliness, alienation, lack of personal/social development? One might be more susceptible to a number of seductions.

More for Turd

[u]DOD: Among services, Army had highest suicide rate in 2014[/u] … 4-1.393144

Based on what I’ve seen, failed or failing personal relationships (cheating/going through divorce/battling for custody) are one of the primary causes of mental distress (alcohol abuse) and suicide. And I have seen some really messed up people over that. The second big reason is a weak overall psychology, usually that is the guy who comes from troubled past/childhood. You can pick those out quite easily. They’re the stragglers, or loners who can’t seem to fit in. Granted, not all who come from troubled past are messed up, some do adjust, but some just don’t seem to have what it takes and require constant special attention, something that is not part of military lifestyle, meaning, nobody is going to baby sit you and give you special treatment. Yes, there is some leeway and desire to help, but there is also an even stronger stigma that comes with it. Back to family: in my view, a military family lifestyle is not a natural creation, and effectively, it is only a marriage on paper, a formality. With deployments, you can’t really be a part of a family as you should be, so what’s the point? Playing a pretend family because it makes you feel like a normal person? Because that’s what it comes down to - I mean, who are we kidding?

Only person your kidding is yourself. Systematically.

No, when I said a transition from slut into womanhood, you mistook it as a male dominated system, because your political orientation insists it must be. It isn’t. The military structures it so the civilian spouse has the advantage- she is largely immune from military court, the soldier isn’t, but he oftentimes is responsible for her actions. Does this mean he has power over her? Nope, he can get into deep shit if she claims he is domineering and abusing her.

Reason they have military spouses is less because the military wants spouses- in many militaries as I noted, it wasn’t lawful, rare in the Roman military for example (didn’t keep them from having mistresses), but because it has no choice but to deal with it. So we set up communities. They are atiny little Polis, strangely lacking in democracy and civilian government, but otherwise intact.

I can’t blame sluts on feminism, they’ve always been around, but a lot of poverty and recklessness is associated with them. My mother was one, she was told she couldn’t have kids, so didn’t think anything could go wrong. She wasn’t fit for motherhood at all. I can’t think of anything more hostile to feminism than motherhood, as it causes a largely involuntary push of the individual into the larger community. Motherhood is politics to a great extant, just isn’t structured like the idea of muninciple governments were in the late medieval era (10th century) or even fully feudalism- feudalism ultimately ended not because of capitalism or the Renaissance, but the German concept of equal marriages- modern monarchies in the west are descended from German Royal Houses as a accidental consequence of this. England has a German line, Russia did, Germany obviously did, France did (minutes s Napoleon’s dynasty). The princesses didn’t want to be domineered when they married, and wanted to be in the line if succession.

When your setting up any sort of community, people have to cooperate on a level beyond their immediate preference and needs. Only thing more useless than a early twenty year old man is a early twenty year old woman, if for no other reason that he is generally stronger, larger, and faster, and generally more capable of doing hard physical tasks. There are obviously exceptions, but in general, this holds true. A person just off the street can’t do much in the military setting other than work in a restaurant or store- they are completely lacking in skills and awareness.

A military spouse (male or female) largely falls into that category. But they are still a part if the larger community. They reside in houses, next to other houses, with streets, and rules. A unit or even most of a base can suddenly deploy in mass suddenly, causing a lot of social anxiety. Spouses, largely women (hopefully just the women, keep those sharks away) are consoling one another, keeping their kids going. Kids do the exact sane things in a military base as outside it, but everyone’s daddy is gone some of the time, doing scary stuff.

How is this different from the wives of police or volunteer firemen doing exactly what I explained? You don’t have to (though the husband is punished in ways for it, made to go to meetings alone) go to meetings to be briefed on the training schedule, or join in on a bake sale supporting Simese Twin Midgets in Uganda, or running together in the morning, or taking cooking classes, etc.

Young people in general are poor partners, but that is when our rutting instincts are the strongest. They will get together, insist on being together, nothing you or I can say will change that. Traditionally, society pressured them largely informally to stick together out of expectations, and formally through institutions, and we still do largely today.

It is true divorce has skyricied, but it isn’t evidence your right, but your wrong. Feminism collapsed marriage, and in return men and women increasingly emotionally scar one another while fleeing each other, saying they can’t tolerate the other anymore. This is pure antisocial behavior, and it feeds back directly on the upbringing and psychological well being of children. They grow up becoming drug users, dying in mass. I’m not exactly impressed with it.

I need to reiterate I was in a male heavy branch, Airborne Infantry, and have difficulty grasping what it would be like to live on a naval base, where it didn’t matter what sex you were, if your gay or retarded, as long as you could do your task on a ship. I haven’t seen many male military spouses, I lived on a air force base as a kid, only saw men, women lived their own lives, also actively in a community. You have private and public spheres.

Eventually, we do have to outgrow our childish or responsibilities. Not everyone can remain hardcore suicidal feminists wanting to abort everything, I know a woman I grew up around here who felt that way in her teenage years, always staying indoors, avoiding the sun, whipping shit that looked like mayonnaise on her face. I went to college for a year, her mother would drive me downstate, once she ran inside to buy something, and I was listening to the Jews, she kicked my hard from behind in the face, with these stupid platform shoes popular in the year 2000. She went on to college, slitting around, then moved to Chicago to become a abortion councilor for planned parenthood, was extremely emphatic about a woman’s right to kill a child up till birth, she had absolutely no live for them. She was in charge of councilng those confused about the morality of killing a kid.

She is now in her 30s, has a boyfriend occasionally, still no kid. She can very soon become menopausal, I’m 33 so she had to be 32ish. That strong, brutal individualist streak that grew out of her antisocial teenage years, counter to her sisters, fucked her bad. Of anybody, she was the one that could if benifited from taking a positive role model, instead she threw her life away on the alter of women’s rights, while most of her compatriots eventually compromised and settled down, starting a family.

I see the sane rate, higher actually, of dysfunctional families of twenty somethings in my neighborhood as in the military. Most comes from single patent families, if the old theory “I don’t need a man”, and the kids, now grown, have jail records as a result, because not only did they need a man, but also association with other women in their community, extended networks, etc.

This is where Chauvenism, both the male version seen on these forums, and feminism, stops. They are both highly selfish and idiotic ideologies, pretty much the same, two sides of the same coin. If your not in it for the other, you can’t be in it for the child, and children matter most. It is a abusive form of extreme selfishness to argue otherwise.

Mothers needs special skills, such as the ability to cook for kids (does should too), how to get along with and associate with other parents, how to resolve disputes between their kids and them. A community strongly benefits from friendly support when marital distress occurs, when friends can council friends, offer steam valves.

That slut straight off the street can’t do that. She us clueless, only thing she ever managed to do was get a tramp stamp on her back. That is pure, highly irresponsible feminism. In order to make quality children, a better way of living needs to arise. I don’t think she will ever turn into the mom from “Leave It To Beaver” but eventually she is going to have to put a bar on, pick up her clothes, and be presentable in public. Those are baby steps.

It is highly selfish to think if relationships as anything other than producing new offspring, and dedicated to their rearing, with the aim towards the best possible results. I’ve said it before in the past, I don’t care about geriatrics falling in love, or gay people, or sterile people- marriage isn’t about love, but life- making life. Making people from the loins, people that grow up, become adults. It is a brutal inequality where both are slaves to the kids. Ideas if individuality or freedom from this is a secondary concern, can never trespass in the arena of survival of the human race. Pure feminism is anti-human, hatred of husband and child.

That other stuff, marriage is love, of two elderly gay guts demanding legal and societal recognition of their unions, angry ideologous screaming incoherently- that is purely luxury, can only last as long as we manage to pump out kids. Once we start seeing big declines in the birthrates, it is a priority to stamp that out. Russians are doing it, they have no choice. It isn’t reasonable at that point to tolerate a path towards extinction. Excuses given in defence become intolerable, against reason, excuses for broken logic.

But in times of plenty, you can do whatever you want. Nobody cares if you cleverly argue yourself into childless living until your menopausal if you have a booming population, or it is over populated. It becomes a big issue in “Children of Men” scenarios though. I’m currently seeing a massive drop in the youth population, on par with war time casualties, we might as well be in WW1 somewhere fighting, the death tool is similar. That is a result of irresponsible feminism tearing apart the family unit. Kids grew up without structure, die in mass because they didn’t have extended families sacking them on the year saying “stay away from those people, don’t get involved in that shit, just find a good job, a good girl/man, and settle down.”

Your advocating turning politicians into bishops. 99% of the time, in classical Christianity (I’m still researching that 1%, only recently found evidence of it in Peter Abelard’s works, surprised me) priests becoming bishops had to either be single and thus celibate, or widowed. Mistresses happened later on, you likely know that history, but most were strictly held to be celibate, scandal not to be.

I don’t think this made them better administrators. I can’t point to a single Bishop who held political power and said “wow, thus guy stands out beyond the rest”. May me the grand masters of knighthoods, like the Knights of Rhodes- they were great planners, but can I pinpoint celebacy? They have nieces and nephews who could be exploited.

Your indirectly paralleling the Persian and later East Roman and later Ottoman practice of appointing eunuchs to administrative positions. Some like Narses worked well. Was he better than Belisarius? Not really. In Asia, people regularly rebelled against Eunuchs. They tend to be greedy, favor their extended families, want to control everything. We got rid of those systems for a reason.

Most women go into prostitution because of poverty.

Yes, sounds like a perfect family - every woman’s dream, in fact. Today you have a husband - tomorrow, maybe yes, maybe no. Try reversing these roles and see just what reaction you’ll get from men. Let the woman deploy and see if the man will wait for her with the kids.

Such men are too obsessed with playing heroes and want the woman and the kid to adjust because their hero work defines them. These men should really re-consider what is more important to them in their life. Usually these men reject the offers of another (less valiant) job with a more family time because they are just too personally invested in it. To them, the family comes second.

Feminism liberated women, so now they can look for marriage on their own terms, in which they can actually have a chance of being genuinely themselves and relatively happy. If a woman is happy in a marriage, her kids will come out alright. Forcing it on her will only make the family okay on surface, because the family itself was a pretend happy family. And not all divorces are nasty, there are amicable separations where kids adjust just fine - they understand the natural family dynamic and parent’s positions/feelings. Tyrannically holding the family together does not make it better, only more miserable for everyone involved.

Women today have plenty of options for birth control. A woman that waits this late (5 months was considered already a late termination) to have an abortion is very irresponsible, but I don’t think there are actually that many women who would wait that long. It most likely occurs when women either don’t have access to female reproductive care or are in an environment where it is looked down upon an she’s afraid to be stigmatized. Abortions where abortion or contraception is not accessible become increasingly more dangerous, even up to the act of infanticide, all of which could have been prevented with legal, unstigmatized access. Do you really think that women will stop having abortions just because it becomes illegal? And what of the unwanted child? Do you really want to have orphan kids, or mothers who only tolerate their kids because they are forced to?

You obviously speak from a man’s point of view. A woman that can choose her own life path does not really concern herself with how other men see her, and why should she if her self image is not dependent on what a man thinks of her. It is a typical man tactic, but so you know, it actually doesn’t work.

You make a family a very fragile things in your mind. If a family is done right and conscientiously,(not haphazardly pushed together because everyone has to be paired up by x age) it will survive and evolve on its own.

Like I mentioned before, you can’t just push random people together and force them to stay together because of the child. This is the way of many traditional (failed) marriages, the spouses can’t stand each other anymore but they stay together for the child and play the pretend game. The whole thing is now a sham - and you’d be mistaken to think that the kid won’t catch on to it. And is that what you are trying to preserve? And then we wonder why there is so much fakeness and hypocrisy in our society. We all take our places on stage and play the pretend game.

If you need an organized outside influence then it already says that you have a major discrepancy, trying to artificially hold together what obviously does not belong together. It’s just a high order brainwashing where the person is molded into a framework.

You shouldn’t try to mold her into what you want, if she is not ready for it, or doesn’t want it herself. That’s paternalism to try to claim to know what’s better for her. I don’t think you will accomplish it. You can claim to have reformed her, but all you did was to mold her into your own image of what you think she should be. So, she is never her own person, just an image of your ideal. Marrying a slut doesn’t work any way, because the man (being under a hero complex) can always use it as a leverage against her (her history). She will not be happy with such a man because she will see that he’s only really doing it to boost his own self esteem, so this whole affair is more about him than about her, anyway.

Well, life making life does not depend on rigid structure. Putting a particular structure on it will only help to perpetuate the structure itself, not life.

Feminism is not anti life, it’s pro individuality, and not just a woman, but the child as well. A woman will want her child to be happy, not to be used as a tool. It is rigidness that you propose that is anti-individuality - perpetuating a particular type of conformism. You’re not helping to perpetuate life, as you claim, because life will take care of it itself, you just want to justify using your rigid framework.

And your solution is to force people into traditional family structure so they can breed more of a particular kind of people? For nationalistic reasons, not unlike what they tried to do in Nazi Germany, for example? You seem to treat people as tools to advocate some political agenda.

You’re talking politics now. What do you think children were in times of scarcity? Children were treated as means, as tools, not as individuals. Even today, in poor countries, like India, children are birthed to be sold as sex slaves, to support the family. Does anybody care what the child himself wants? Does anybody even asks that? Even the child himself thinks of himself as owing to the family for being alive and sees it as his duty to sacrifice his life for them. Talk about a retirement plan. So the society says, we need more soldiers, so they breed more boys, and then they tell the boys you were born to help us fight the war (or whatever reason), and make them feel good about themselves for having been provided a meaning and a place to belong. Birthed as means, and not only that, but means dictated by someone else.

But it does leave them vulnerable to compromise, and it’s not like compromises have not happened. Just look at all the bloodsheds and mayhem that has been historically perpetrated by relatives of royal families, all for power.

…because of fear of poverty.

There are women who have no other ways of making money, because there are no jobs around.

Melania - from whorehouse to White House? Allegations of Melania Trump of working as a high end escort. … story.html

Tarpley did retract his statement, but made a formal statement about the lawsuit,

Tarpley is right in that a public figure (here, first family) should be above reproach, and that people have a right to scrutinize their past as well as their moral composition.

A glimpse at Paolo Zampolli’s parties: … Gz3TGC1RIi … Ii&index=7

I’m not an expert in high end escort clubs, but based on what I can see, I think it’s very likely that it could, because if it was, I recon it would be just like that. But maybe Smears can enlighten us on this topic, since he’s probably more experienced in the business of high end pimping.

Zampolli’s business model:

If rich men like supermodels that much, what’s stopping them from using sex as a negotiating point for the sale price of the real estate? I mean isn’t the sex appeal of the supermodel the default selling factor to begin with? Can’t you get away with selling at a higher price this way? Don’t know, just sounds like high end pimping psychology to me, a la high end business negotiation.