Self-Destruction Theater

America has a penchant for needless, round-the-clock coverage of center-stage performances at the Self-Destruction Theater, whose currently departing castmembers are Paris Hilton and Rosie O’Donnell. Paris is a week away from serving a jail sentence for violating her DUI probation; ABC/Disney just canned Rosie from The View for once too often shooting off her loud, offensive, uninformed mouth.

Because all shows must go on, Self-Destruction Theater was seeking to replace Paris and Rosie when, miraculously, its prayers were answered over the Memorial Day weekend. In a tribute to fallen American soldiers, inebriated Lindsay Lohan clinched the audition by running her cocaine-carrying Mercedes SL-65 — worth $107,000 — over a Sunset Boulevard curb and crashing into a tree, then fleeing the scene. Forty-eight hours later, to secure her place on that center stage, Lohan partied a full day at the Roosevelt Hotel, later barfed into a bush outside the hotel, and then, in the wee hours of the next morning, passed out in her girlfriend’s car.

Most TV talking heads began this week, while still fixated on Rosie, by debating whether 20-year-old Lindsay Lohan should go to jail for breaking numerous laws — and whether she helped or hurt her career by engaging in the MissBehaving that America loves to forgive.

Coincidentally, on center court at Roland-Garros Stadium in Paris, 20-year-old Rafael Nadal began a two-week quest to defend his singles title at the French Open tennis tournament. What a juxtaposition of two … I hesitate to call them peers (Rafael was born one month before Lindsay in 1986). These two kids couldn’t be more different. You see, American parents have a tendency hold their youths — especially girls — to a very low standard of behavior.

Case in point: pictured on the May 28, 2007, cover of Fortune magazine are two products of American parenting — a disdainful male and his arrogant female sidekick. The issue’s title reads: “‘Manage’ Us? Puh-leeze … Today’s twentysomethings have their own rules. You just don’t understand them.” Actually, I do understand them but don’t care: kids haven’t earned the right to make their own rules.

Because most Generation Yers (those born between 1979 and 1994) had free reign as kids, they feel entitled to the same coddling as adults. Unfortunately, they’re getting it. One Fortune vignette portrayed a female engineering grad whose new employer actually invited her mother to be present on her first day of work, just as she was on the girl’s first day of kindergarten. And, these Gen-Yers, suspended in perpetual childhood, are going to be America’s future leaders? I’m sure Al Qaeda can’t wait.

Lindsay Lohan, who spent her early years in wealth and privilege, obviously never issued an unfulfilled demand to her parents. Today, those parents are divorced, and Lindsay is estranged from her father, Michael. But, give Dina, her 45-year-old mother, some credit for being in the picture. Every time Lindsay goes to a bar, she is likely to find Dina there, out-partying her.

Legacy of Bill Clinton

Rafael Nadal, on the other hand, is from the island of Mallorca, off the coast of Spain. He is close to his parents, traditional disciplinarians, and, as a result, respects authority and social protocol. Watch his on-court and off-court demeanor. He is unusually poised, mature, and humble, considering his youth and #2 ranking. In many ways, he resembles his #1 adversary, 25-year-old Roger Federer from Switzerland.

In an excellent piece written on ESPN.com’s Page 2, LZ Granderson finds in Nadal a kid with solid grounding, a young man with self-respect. Nadal, who went to a private, religious school taught by monks, said this to Granderson: “My teachers were always very tough. They didn’t accept poor work, especially if they knew you were capable of better. They always pushed you to work harder, be better. Be a better student, be a better person.”

Rafael Nadal must be treated like royalty back at home, right? Wrong. He told Granderson: “When I am in Mallorca, everyone treats me the same. No special treatment or anything. They know what I have done in tennis and they are proud of me, but they don’t treat me any different. It’s peaceful.”

Rafael’s uncle and coach, Toni Nadal, explained how Rafael grew up: “If he ever acted out on the court, I would be very upset with him and very embarrassed. ‘Sometimes things will go your way, and sometimes they won’t. But you cannot lose your dignity.’”

Embarrassment? Dignity? These are forgotten concepts in America, the legacy of Bill Clinton. And, these TV debates about how Lindsay Lohan’s Memorial Day Mêlée may actually boost her career — because we “expect” her to behave this way — are proof enough for me.

Rafael likes to build himself up. Lindsay likes to tear herself down. While Rafael Nadal displays great promise as one of the greatest tennis players in history, Lindsay Lohan enters the Promises Treatment Center in Malibu. Most Americans have never heard of Rafael Nadal, yet everyone has heard of Lindsay Lohan. How sad.

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

In our nonjudgmental culture, it’s common for people to confuse being a parent with being apparent. Americans who believe that the hands-off, discipline-free, entitlement style of “raising” children produces great results should look no further than the examples of Lindsay Lohan and Rafael Nadal.

Feminists have overwhelmingly convinced our state and federal governments to enact policies that redefine the family: a mother and her children living together, with the father living away from but supporting them. This is precisely why America is in a downward spiral, and why Lindsay Lohan is one of its many casualties.

If you dispute that, count the homes around you that have mothers and fathers living together. While you’re at it, count the homes that are producing Lindsay Lohans and then the ones producing Rafael Nadals. It’s no match.

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized author of 55+ articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables™ (ISBN 9780974501727), and The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth™ (ISBN 0974501719).

Rudov’s books, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.

Copyright © 2007 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.

On Friday, May 18, 2007, on FNC’s Your World with Neil Cavuto, I debated my regular “nemesis,” Lis Wiehl, about whether presidential candidate John Edwards (D-NC) patronizes and demeans women by offering them a bundle of entitlements in his “Women for John Edwards” campaign in Iowa. Watch the videoclip.

Marc Rudov Debates Lis Wiehl

on

FNC’s Your World with Neil Cavuto: 05.18.07

“Is John Edwards Patronizing Women?”

Windows Media Player | Everything Else

Join my mailing list

www.TheNoNonsenseMan.com

Hooked on Entitlements

Each week for the past two months, I have appeared with Lis Wiehl in a featured slugfest over women’s rights on Fox News Channel’s Your World with Neil Cavuto. As we’ve debated the topics of flex-time for working mothers, the purported gender wage gap, the economic value of stay-at-home moms, and the pandering to women of presidential candidate John Edwards, the essence of our battle has been the same: whether or not women, who supposedly want equality with men, deserve special privileges.

American women control almost 60% of national wealth and make 80% of the purchases. They comprise 54% of the electorate and graduate college 33% more frequently than men. Through the Roe v. Wade decision, they have the unilateral right to opt out of parenthood. Moreover, the American woman can, with impunity, engage in maternity fraud (lying about her fertility or use of birth control) and paternity fraud (lying about her child’s real father).

Wait, there’s more. American women bring 70% of divorce actions, have children out of wedlock at least 37% of the time, and are invariably “entitled” to child custody, child support, and alimony. When women falsely accuse men of rape and domestic violence, thereby committing felonies, they are never prosecuted. The list of female rights and privileges goes on and on and on. Yet, to Lis Wiehl and most feminists, women are, somehow, at a disadvantage to men.

There are three calamities every man dreads in his life: prostate problems, divorce, and seeing a female cry. Few little girls are old enough to see their fathers suffer from the first calamity, but they’re never too young to witness them getting hosed in female-biased divorce courts — at the hands of their manipulative mothers.

More basically, as toddlers, then continuing as adolescents and even adults, girls perfect the art of manipulating their fathers with tears, whining, foot-stomping, and screaming tantrums. Because these fathers are such pushovers and seemingly give their daughters everything, they actually fail to give them the most-important gift of all: the word NO! Compounding this problem is that, because so many mothers are either divorced or never married, so few fathers spend enough time with their daughters to impart any influence whatsoever.

Adding to her bag of tricks, the savvy postpubescent girl recognizes how to manipulate the other men in her life, too. She gets free meals, cars, tuition, vacations, homes, and jewelry — which she views as entitlements — by raising her hemline, lowering her neckline, shrinking her waistline, and leveling her spine.

So, when a woman enters the workforce, if her “negotiating experience” is largely comprised of emotional and sexual bartering and manipulation — without having had to employ any intellectual skill or ever expecting to hear NO! — she is ill-prepared to wrangle with employers over compensation.

What happens frequently is that a woman hears NO for the first time in her professional life, and she doesn’t know how to handle it. Her first thought: unfairness. Men, on the other hand, are accustomed to being rejected in their personal and professional lives. They expect it. So, for men, negotiation — the art of mutually arriving at a win/win point — is required for survival. Are all men good at negotiating? Of course not. Do all men in similar positions receive the same compensation? If you think so, you are naive.

Because women, as a rule, don’t negotiate, they have a deserved reputation for accepting whatever their employers offer them. In their 2002 book, A Woman’s Guide to Successful Negotiating, the father and daughter team of Lee E. Miller and Jessica Miller claim that women fear negotiating because they are obsessed with pleasing others. I think their point is somewhat valid, but, in general, I totally disagree with it. In childhood, adolescence, dating, marriage, and divorce, women are the ones being pleased — not the ones doing the pleasing. So, exactly when do they learn to negotiate — or, for that matter, that negotiation is ever required? Good question.

To master anything in life, whether playing golf or negotiating, one must incorporate a combination of skill, drive, practice, desire to improve, and results — both success and failure. Learning to take failure in stride as a learning experience is extremely important to achieving success. Unfortunately, because most women are raised to be takers, isolated from the pains of failure, they never learn this critical lesson.

Every sales or negotiating course includes some variation of this principle: success is like a ladder; every time you hear “no” — which you will hear most of the time — you ascend one more rung until, ultimately, you reach yes. Put another way: nobody, ever, will just hand you something worthwhile. Ask any college-age girl if she’s ever heard this axiom, and she will laugh in your face.

This is why John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and Barak Obama promise women more “equality” legislation and programs, and find receptive audiences: women are trained from birth to expect — and get — special privileges, just for being women. This pandering does not help women at all; it keeps them in expectation mode, instead of inspiring them to work harder and smarter — and learn negotiating skills. Demagoguery may get politicians elected (and reelected), but they will have to serve a whole population of women hooked on entitlements. How do women benefit from this?

When a woman is negotiating professional compensation, it is akin to acquiring a car or a house: she must enter the transaction with deep knowledge of the product (she is the product), the buyer, the seller (she is also the seller), and marketplace conditions — as well as her bottom line and the point at which she is willing to walk away from the deal. If she is deficient in such knowledge, she has no business being at the negotiating table.

Let’s say a woman is applying for a position, which, according to her research, pays a range of $80K to $100K (the hiring manager, like the car salesman, always knows when his counterpart is an informed, skilled negotiator — and when she’s not). This boss offers her $80K. She accepts the offer. I repeat: she accepts the offer. I repeat again: she accepts the offer. If she then discovers that a man (or another woman) has a similar position at $100K and concludes that the boss discriminated against her, she’s correct: bosses, car salesmen, and realtors discriminate against bad negotiators. Instead of going to her lawyer or her Congressman, she should go to Amazon.com to order a book on negotiating.

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

I never stated nor implied that women can’t negotiate. I opined that women, in general, don’t negotiate. They have been trained to believe they don’t have to, and both wining/dining men and demagogic politicians validate those beliefs. Yet, Oprah Winfrey and Katie Couric and Meg Whitman (CEO of eBay) and Anne Mulcahy (CEO of Xerox) and Patricia Russo (CEO of Alcatel-Lucent) have proven that women can negotiate very well.

Women will find themselves being treated like equals when they act like equals — when they negotiate instead of nag, when they win instead of whine. The examples of equal women, like those mentioned in the previous paragraph, abound. Women are responsible for their own successes and cannot blame men, employers, or politicians for their failures.

A woman seated at the negotiating table — for a car, a house, or a job — who, in the back of her mind, equates victimhood with sisterhood, will lose. Eventually, she will realize that capitalism trumps feminism. Negotiation is at the core of capitalism; feminism isn’t. Are you a capitalist or a feminist? You’ll find out at your next negotiation.

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized author of 55+ articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables (ISBN 9780974501727), and The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth (ISBN 0974501719).

Rudov’s books, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.

Copyright © 2007 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.

On Friday, May 11, 2007, on FNC’s Your World with Neil Cavuto, I debated my regular “nemesis,” Lis Wiehl, about whether working mothers are “entitled” to flex-time. Watch the videoclip, which ends with viewer mail from Thailand.

Marc Rudov Debates Lis Wiehl

on

FNC’s Your World with Neil Cavuto: 05.11.07

“Are Working Mothers Entitled to Flex-Time?”

Windows Media Player | Everything Else

The Well-Endowed World

Every girl-obsessed boy grows up dreaming about unhooking his first bra. Actually, that recurring dream never dies. But, because of the twin functions of modern bra design — support and deception — as well as the ubiquity of breast implants, he never knows exactly what he will find inside.

After a lifetime’s parade of women through his life, especially if at least one of them has roped him into a torturous visit to Victoria’s Secret, a man knows that the bra comes in endless permutations and combinations of colors, fabrics, coverage, padding, inserts, straps, and fastening techniques. Like its owner, each bra has multiple agendas, which she exploits to the best of her ability.

Unbeknownst to most Americans, there is a unique bra that only foreign women can wear, only when they come into contact with American men. It is called the immigration bra, or ImBra, and it is available free of charge from an exclusive source: the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) of the US Department of Homeland Security.

The ImBra is a pernicious, illegal support garment with a unique, dual-purpose design: it lifts the status of foreigners above that of Americans, and it creates deep cleavage between American men and their civil rights. When an American man examines the ImBra, he will question everything he ever believed about the greatness and legitimacy of the US Constitution, and the government that supposedly adheres to its precepts.

My bra metaphor is actually an introduction to the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act, or IMBRA. An unconstitutional federal law, which became effective on March 6, 2006, IMBRA makes it a felony to facilitate communications between an American man and a foreign woman, via a fee-based dating Website, without the man first submitting unilaterally to criminal-background and sex-offender checks, and certifying all previous convictions or arrests, marriages or divorces, children, and states of residence since the age of 18. The foreign woman, who owes the American man zero information about herself, must then consent to his contact.

On March 26, 2007, in European Connections v. Alberto Gonzales, 1:06-CV-0426-CC, Judge Clarence Cooper, of the US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, dismissed a lawsuit by European Connections claiming IMBRA violates the right to freedom of speech contained in the US Constitution’s First Amendment. The plaintiff, according to Judge Cooper, had failed to challenge IMBRA based on the First Amendment right to assemble.

When there is an IMBRA infraction, the American government will civilly and criminally punish the owner of the noncompliant Website — civil penalty: $5K-$25K per violation; criminal penalty: fine according to Title 18 USC, or imprisonment up to five years, or both — not the man pursuing the foreign woman. But, if the American man ever proposes to or marries his foreign girlfriend, at, say, the base of the Eiffel Tower, his fiancee/wife will not be granted a fiancee/spousal visa to enter the United States.

Here’s another wrinkle. Let’s say that an American man working in London goes onto a British dating Website. He finds a woman whom he later marries and lives with, in London, for some years. At some time, he desires to return to the US with his British wife. Because they met “illegally,” through a noncompliant Website, however, the USCIS will not grant her a visa to enter the US, ever.

The exception to IMBRA is a free foreign-introduction Website, like LatinLoveSearch.com, or a fee-based Website — like Yahoo Personals, JDate, eHarmony, or Match.com — that derives the majority of its revenues from Americans meeting Americans. Judge Cooper, in European Connections v. Alberto Gonzales, found that this exception poses no challenge to the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal-protection clause, because American women are supposedly not abused by American men they meet on the Internet and thus are not in need of protection. This, folks, is your taxdollars at work!

According to Tristan Laurent, president of OnlineDatingRights.com: “The whole idea that it is now a crime for American men to send emails to women in other countries is so preposterous, it is beyond belief. The judge’s ruling that there is no constitutional violation in forcing Americans to divulge all sorts of highly personal information to a complete stranger or scammer abroad, before the American can even say hello or know to whom he is writing, is only exceeded in foolishness by Congress in making the law.”

Well, Tom Friedman never mentioned this American barrier between nations in his bestselling book, The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century. The world must be pretty well-endowed if the United States can put a bra around it!

Frustrated Feminists

IMBRA originally was called the International Matchmaker Regulation Act but did not pass Congress as such. So, it was renamed the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act and passed on December 17th, 2005 — as a surreptitious attachment to the 2005 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which George W. Bush signed into law. VAWA, an unconstitutional law falsely stipulating that men are overwhelmingly the aggressors in domestic-violence cases, began its nefarious life in 1994, when Bill Clinton approved it.

IMBRA was sponsored by Sen. Sam Brownback, R-KS, and Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-WA, and was championed by key women’s groups, especially the Tahirih Justice Center, which made “claims” that foreign women who marry American men are subject to higher rates of abuse than American women. However, the only study addressing this issue was done in 1999 by the INS (now the USCIS), which found that the rate of abuse in international marriages was one-seventh that of domestic ones.

Why were radical feminists from Tahirih so bothered about American-foreign romances that they felt compelled to create and lobby for IMBRA? The scuttlebutt is that they resent American men bypassing them — and the shackles of American feminism — for foreign women, who don’t seem to possess that unique American-style hatred of men.

Plainly said: Men are becoming increasingly sick and tired of American women, and they are looking elsewhere for romance. I get a fair number of e-mails from men saying that they have given up altogether on American women. Tom Leykis frequently mentions on his daily radio show that, for the same reason, he also has forsaken American women.

Let’s look at the cauldron of left-wing thinking — the American gynoversity — and how it breeds the radical feminism that drives men away from American women. There is no better example than Antioch College, nestled in Yellow Springs, Ohio. In 1991, the “Womyn of Antioch” designed the Sexual Offense Prevention Policy (SOPP), which requires that a man and woman seek mutual consent at every stage of intimacy.

No spontaneity. No passion. No fun. No heat. No electricity. No sensual wrestling — the way she really wants it. Just a long, unimaginable protocol of requests and acknowledgements, checks and rechecks, akin to launching a nuclear missile. Maybe this is why feminists are so frustrated and angry all the time: they turn off so many men that they rarely, if ever, get to see a missile escalate to the launch or explosion stage.

The US Reconstitution

IMBRA literally violates the US Constitution on two counts: it presumes all American men guilty of committing potential crimes, and it protects foreigners on foreign soil. So, the American man in search of cross-border romance would not be alone in concluding that the foundation, the underpinning, of our government is crumbling. Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, in the conclusive chapter of his chilling book, The Constitution in Exile, writes:

“… if any lesson is clear from this history, it is that the federal government will never check its own power. On the contrary, it will continue to take liberty and thus property whenever and from whomever it wishes. … Do we still have a Constitution? Dear reader, you can make that call. I say it has been sent into exile, and we must reclaim it before it is too late.”

Judge Napolitano neglected to mention in his incredible book how the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of our fine government kowtow to the feminists. All feminists need do is utter “man bad/woman good” and the government eunuchs run — like women to a shoe sale — to pass more anti-male laws. Consequently, the US Constitution has been so thoroughly vaginized, reconstituted, and reframed for the feminists, I call it the “US Reconstitution.”

Government eunuchs, via the US Reconstitution, confer unilateral, unconstitutional rights to women, via Roe v. Wade and VAWA/IMBRA:

• To opt out of parenthood through abortion
• To falsely accuse a man of domestic violence (DV) or rape, with impunity
• To cross US border illegally (a felony), accuse a man of abuse or rape, and get legal protection
• To immigrate as a wife, then, in divorce, falsely accuse husband of DV or rape, become self-petitioner and remain here — no questions asked
• To receive, as a foreigner, an American man’s personal background information and post it on the Internet, with impunity.

Let’s examine the hypocrisy of IMBRA disclosure rules by comparing it to HIPAA and the Virginia Tech Massacre. HIPAA (the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996) assures, among other things, that an American’s health records are secret, except to those parties he grants permission to view them. This is a sacrosanct right.

When news organizations began questioning how the Virginia Tech Massacre killer was able to secure guns and ammunition, despite having a clear history of mental illness, we learned that Virginia protected his right to keep his medical records secret from gun vendors.

Yet, to talk to an unknown foreign woman, on foreign soil, all American men are presumed so dangerous that their government requires them to reveal everything about themselves — to protect her. Our Constitution is designed to protect American men, not foreign women. What will the Department of Homeland Security do if a “protected” foreign woman harms an American man?

If American men are so dangerous, why do so many foreign women want to be with them? And, following this logic, why do American women not need similar protection? I guess it’s because foreign women are less intelligent and more fragile than American women — so, America must abridge its own constitution to save them from themselves. Total lunacy.

Gateway Law

Many experts in the drug-rehab business consider marijuana a gateway drug to cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamines. I consider IMBRA a “gateway law” that provides an avenue for the government’s continued erosion and abridgement of men’s civil rights. The next feminist law will require American men to submit to background checks to meet American women. It’s only a matter of time. Why? Because American politicians fear feminists more than terrorists.

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

It is getting to the point where being an American male is a joke. Men work hard in a country that neither appreciates nor protects them. American men have the right to travel to all friendly countries and to mix and socialize with their inhabitants.

If a foreign woman wants to meet an American man, it is her responsibility to be an accountable, sensible adult in how she approaches him — not a fragile, helpless, little girl. The US government is telling the rest of the world that its men are dangerous to their women. Incredible!

I urge men to band together to overturn the virulent, destructive IMBRA. If it remains intact, it will lead to the further constriction of men’s rights. Women like their rights, and their cup sizes, to grow — not to shrink. And, male politicians are enabling them. Are you going to accept this?

Echoing Judge Napolitano’s exhortation, I say you must decide — right now — whether you want to live by the US Constitution or the pink “US Reconstitution,” whether Lady Justice should wear the blindfold or a feminist scarf. It’s up to you. Register immediately at OnlineDatingRights.com, and tell your senators and representatives to unhook that immigration bra.

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized author of 55+ articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables™ (ISBN 9780974501727), and The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth™ (ISBN 0974501719).

Rudov’s books, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.

Copyright © 2007 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.

Behavior Without Borders

The Christian Science Monitor recently ran an eye-popping article about the latest outrageous trend at America’s gynoversities: on-campus housing, child care, and counseling for unwed mothers and their children. This is Title IX run amok. Who is going to pay for this?

With all seriousness, the CSM article actually described the following scenario: Women now outnumber men in colleges and universities. But, for those with young children, the path to a degree — and self-sufficiency — is often blocked by two obstacles: housing and child care. Blocked? Self-sufficiency? Well, I am blocked from becoming a self-sufficient billionaire because nobody will hand me a billion dollars.

With the exception of Paris Hilton, who soon must serve a 45-day jail sentence for violating her license suspension, our society just cannot say no girls and women. Anything they want, they get. To the point: most glitterati predict that Hilton’s jail term will add to her allure. And, people wonder why the out-of-wedlock birthrate, which averages 37% across all demographics, is constantly rising.

Marilyn Gardner, a staff writer for the Christian Science Monitor, described the plight of Yissy Perez, who earned her civil-engineering degree on the campus of Tufts University in Medford, MA, while her daughter, now 22 months old, stayed miles away in Lawrence, MA, with her grandmother.

Perez’s beef (beef!!!) was that Tufts didn’t offer living accommodations for unwed mothers and illegitimate children. “I only get to see her on weekends,” Perez says. “It’s very hard for me.”

Very hard for you? Why is your self-made problem — your inability to control your reproductive system, your unwillingness to make wise choices — anybody else’s concern? It isn’t. But, the American Gynocracy, which has no problem wrongly accusing men of rape, cannot deny women any wish, allow them to feel any pressure, or permit them to be inconvenienced in any way.

As I wrote in “Playing Abortion Chess,” no American politician can get elected, and no US Supreme Court nominee can become a jurist, without first pledging support for Roe v. Wade, as if abortion is the number-one issue of women. It isn’t — otherwise, the out-of-wedlock birthrate would be zero.

Little girls grow up seeing men harshly treated or ignored, while women receive passes at every turn. They learn about out-of-wedlock pregnancy and child support, and witness relatives creating baby showers without ever attending weddings. This is the new America, folks, where secular progressives don’t want geographical or behavioral borders.

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

The reality is that nobody will say no to women. What used to bring shame now brings fame. The anything-goes mentality permeates society and wreaks anarchy, and there is no end in sight. American girls see a straight path of irresponsibility and entitlement from childhood to adulthood — from outlandish sweet-16 parties to automatic child support to special gynoversity housing.

Meanwhile, boys and men are being increasingly marginalized. I believe we are headed for a deeply divided society in which the only way for boys and men to survive — if they really want to — is to live apart from women, to attend all-male highschools and universities. Otherwise, they might as well go work for the City of San Francisco, which grants them the right to become women, free of charge.

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized author of 50+ articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables (ISBN 9780974501727), and The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth (ISBN 0974501719).

Rudov’s books, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.

Copyright © 2007 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.

Miss Demeanor

As I tuned into Fox News Channel’s business shows this beautiful Saturday morning, I expected the upward-spiraling Dow Jones Industrial Average to dominate their agendas. Too boring, I guess. Instead, the hubbub was about Deborah Jeane Palfrey, the “DC Madam,” and the never-ending debate about legalizing prostitution.

To me, this debate is moot: prostitution is already legal — it’s called dating and marriage.

Palfrey, who was indicted by a federal grand jury in February on racketeering charges, ran an escort service in the DC area for 13 years from her California home. She claims it was totally legal. Frankly, I don’t understand what makes prostitution illegal.

Last night, Brian Ross of ABC’s 20/20 interviewed Ms. Palfrey because, to finance her legal defense, she had sold to ABC News a list of 10,000 “escort” clients — two of whom have been outed, one of whom resigned his high position at the US Department of State.

Said Palfrey to ABC’s Ross: “I think I empowered a lot of women. I got a lot of women through graduate school.” She also said that her female employees had included a college professor, a medical researcher, a Navy officer, a legal secretary, and a suburban realtor — who just wanted to make extra money.

How does this scenario differ from the one I described in “How to Lure a Golddigger,” in which Cristine Gomez, 21, who “dated” an older man she had met on wealthymen.com, bragged that, during their three-month tryst, this feckless dude took care of her rent, car payments, and college tuition? Cristine sincerely viewed her meal-ticket’s outlays as a natural part of their “relationship.”

What exactly is prostitution? California uses three terms to describe and define it:

• Solicitation - a misdemeanor crime also known as solicitation for prostitution, it is the act of directing or asking someone to exchange money for sexual activity, defined under Section 647(b) of the California Penal Code
• Prostitution - a misdemeanor crime that falls under the category of disorderly conduct, it is the act of exchanging money for sexual activity, defined under Section 653.20(a) of the California Penal Code
• Pandering - a felony crime committed by a third party, such as a pimp, defined under Section 266(i) of the California Penal Code as:
  • Solicitation of customers for prostitution services
  • Recruitment of prostitutes for hire.

OK. So, how does the legal definition of prostitution differ from the all-too-common relationship in which Miss Demeanor supplies increasingly frequent sex to her date or boyfriend or husband or mistress-keeper in exhange for better restaurants, pricier jewelry, shinier cars, fancier homes, trendier clothes, bigger bank accounts, and more-exotic vacations? There is no difference.

In fact, let me ask the question in the opposite way: How does prostitution differ from the situation in which Miss Demeanor supplies decreasingly frequent or no sex to her boyfriend or husband in exhange for cheap restaurants, faux jewelry, old cars, tract houses, mundane clothes, and discount vacations? Again, there is no difference.

Either way, women are using sex to MANipulate their boyfriends and husbands. But, a woman cannot MANipulate her partner unless he consents to and abides the MANipulation.

To that point, I recently conducted a sexual-manipulation poll at TheNoNonsenseMan.com. I asked men whether they typically allow women to MANipulate them with sex; I asked women if they typically use sex to MANipulate men.

I’ve been a guest on enough call-in radio shows to know that the majority of men tolerate sexual MANipulation and that the majority of women engage in it. Look no further than Valentine’s Day. Most men dread this female-centric holiday of expected/demanded generosity. Yet, they still send flowers, give candy and jewelry, and make reservations at posh restaurants. Why, if they hate it so much? Simple: fear of not getting laid. What about this dysfunction, on both sides of the transaction, is not prostitution?

Ironically, in my unscientific sexual-manipulation poll, in which 2085 men and 255 women (2340 total) participated, they both lied: 27% of the men and 24% of the women admitted caving into and playing, respectively, the MANipulation game. Based on all the contact I’ve had with men and women, I know that these poll numbers should be reversed (to 73% of men and 76% of women).

At least they lied symmetrically. Let’s face it, men don’t want to admit to the poll, or to themselves, that they cannot stand up to women. Why? Because once a man admits this weakness, he then has to ask himself the next question: now what? He knows it’s nearly impossible to change the dynamic of an existing relationship.

Once an unattached man admits he is vaginally controlled, he must radically alter his modus operandi for future women — a challenge he likely is too chicken to undertake. Moreover, the female MANipulator doesn’t care to admit her gameplaying ways, either — between the weight fluctuations and the wrinkles, she doesn’t need another source of guilt.

The Real Reality

The Catholic Church held Galileo under house arrest for the last eight years of his life, for supporting Copernicus’s antitraditional but correct conclusion that our solar system’s planets revolve around the sun. The baseball establishment, through most of the 1990s and early 2000s, considered Billy Beane and his Oakland Athletics heretics for practicing a radically antitraditional but correct way to play the game and manage the business of baseball.

By publishing Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables, I’ve tasted a little of what Galileo and Billy Beane must have experienced. Because I’ve correctly asserted that women are more sexual than men and that, therefore, men needn’t buy sex — from any woman — a lot of people, mostly men, think I’m crazy. After all, this runs counter to what we all have been taught.

Interestingly, scores of women have contacted me to say, Thank G-d someone is finally telling the truth. Others wish I would keep it a secret, so they can continue to milk men for free meals. Some male talkshow hosts are embarrassed to state its title on the air — one even confused the clitoris with the G-spot. Many guys turn red when I tell them the title. The truth is, men are not as worldly and well-versed in female sexuality as legend has it.

Even though men from as far away as New Zealand are reading Under the Clitoral Hood, many are angry about it. Why? Because a reordering of a man’s ballgame is shocking to him, like telling a right-hander he has to start the next game as a left-hander: he literally doesn’t know what to do.

Paying for sex is an easy, safe, hassle-free way to receive pleasure, or so it seems. I always find it fascinating to observe men buying sex — whether from their girlfrends or wives, or from hookers. But, as the DC Madam proved, it usually results in an unhappy ending.

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

Prostitution is not only emasculating, it is totally unnecessary. Furthermore, debating about when a situation is or is not prostitution completely disappears if one never, ever pays for sex.

Women are more sexual than men, and they crave men who are savvy and confident enough not to try to purchase them. If the first thing a man whips out when he meets a woman is his credit card, he will lose. She will be turned off sexually — but still take his largesse. He never will see her truly sexual side and continue in his false belief that men are more sexual than women.

If this sounds radical to you, it should: you weren’t raised to believe it. Instead, you were taught a lie by a society that has problems dealing with female sexuality. But, my conclusions are correct: my male and female readers overwhelmingly will validate them.

Finally, when you look at that pretty face on the pillow next to you, ask yourself one question: Is she there because she wants you or because you purchased her? If you’re totally honest with yourself, you know the answer. Now, whether or not she’s legal is a question for your lawyer.

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized author of 50+ articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables (ISBN 9780974501727), and The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth (ISBN 0974501719).

Rudov’s books, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.

Copyright © 2007 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.

On Thursday, May 3, 2007, I debated my regular Fox News “nemesis,” Lis Wiehl, about the Salary.com proclamation that a stay-at-home mom’s work is worth an annual compensation of $138K. We debated on Your World with Neil Cavuto. Watch the video.

Marc Rudov Debates Lis Wiehl

on

FNC’s Your World with Neil Cavuto: 05.03.07

“Are Stay-at-Home Moms Worth $138K/Year?”

Windows Media Player | Everything Else