http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/22/nyreg ... .html?_r=0
Apparently, someone who hoisted a false or (at best) dubious rape charge has gone on a campus wide tirade, to make herself out to be a martyr for women-kind. Looks like she's also teamed up with a couple of other delusional b*tches.
Here were my comments ...
This is purely anecdotal but from what I'd gathered, among all the elite American co-ed schools out there, Columbia University is the most femi-nazi of them all.
There are actually two female student bodies, the first is from Columbia itself and the 2nd, from Barnard College, a seven sister college, co-located around Broadway. That sister school a red flag in itself. Since there's full cross registration of courses (as well as integrated residential options), together, they make the female to male ratio nearly 2:1 among undergrads. In reality, however, it's one of the worst schools for dating and has the phrase, *stuck up rotten feminist b*tches*, written all over it. In my brief life, I'd never seen a school with such an enviable female/male ratio produce so many miserable guys.
So far, of all my acquaintances, friends, and colleagues who'd been there, none were able to sustain a GF there for more than a few weeks (or mos) w/o giving up on her. Everyone of them had to get GFs from other places like City College, Hunter, NYU, SUNY, Yale, or UConn to be able to one, have a relationship and two, to stay sane. I remember one jubilant attendant from the Boston area, all excited about the female/male ratio until his sophomore year, when he was always going downtown to NYU's campus parties to meet women.
BTW, Mel had once dated a woman from Columbia and she ran for a hills within a few weeks. That b*tch had both narcissistic personality disorder as well as this idea that all women (and men) were hounding her for sex. She couldn't drop these stalking fantasies, as it gave her such a thrill. I mean pleaz, take some anti-psychotics lady.
As for me, I'd gone on one date with a Barnard gal. Fortunately, it was the last one , for I couldn't figure out what hallucinogens she was on, as she was going on and on, about the walls, grass, and how the daffodils would be talking to her Seriously, if this is the stock that Columbia guys have to deal with, I'd rather be a eunuch.
Fortunately, Columbia's got some distance learning courses and thus, I'd been able to get my experience w/o dealing with that f'ed up campus.
You have to try to understand something, Columbia is the worst campus in America. Unlike let's say a suburban or smaller city elite school, Columbia attracts women who both, have a sense of entitlement and the fact that they're living in the center of the universe, NYC. What happens is that massive ego gets torpedoed, when they discover that all the other gals on campus, think in exactly same manner and have done well in high school, prior to college. At best, many of these girls are simply going to attend law school, like the generations before them, on their parent's dime.EnSabahNur wrote:This is some really sick shit here. I don't want my son living on campus in America. I was NEVER for arranged marriage until I had a son and saw for myself how females are quick to toss around the word rape.
A lot of what this psychosis is, is a coping strategy of not being the most *happening* thing in earth. This is the subtle connection to the delusional nature of NYC, where big shots and movie stars garner all the attention. The problem is that unlike a lot of other schools, Columbia encourages women's neurosis by making these cadres, where being oppressed, is a type of achievement in itself. So this whack job b*tch, running around campus with a mattress, has now become *something*. She's a symbol for all college women, who're molested by a man. Given my solo date with that Barnard gal (and others' stories), I wouldn't be surprised if this wacko developed this idea while high on exstasy and possibly, having just been kissed by this guy or some other guy, during her first hit.
From Porn use thread
Perhaps we need two studies, one is the growing complete lameness of relationships in America today. That's a chart, starting in let's say 1965, ending at 2015, showing a polynomial ascending curve with an inflection point at 1989, where it almost takes off like a rocket.
Thus, the free content p@rn/internet thing is only from 2000 and onwards (as p@rn used to cost money and sites like redtube didn't exist, plus high speed streaming was costly), and thus, without a 2nd inflection point in the 2000s, there's no correlation between added p@rn viewing and diminishing marriages.
I think if relationships grow lame, interest in marriage wanes. If I were to do it again, would I have contemplated marriage with any of my former AW GFs (or even their catty acquaintances)? Nope.
As for the Columbia connection, I said ...
Ok, some guy's wife did a part-time degree at Columbia. He just texted me, All right, so I found a so-called reasonable test subject, but I'll say that she's a commuter, meaning that she's not a part of that f'ed up campus world, where women are psychotic and delusional, sitting around navel gazing at their collective oppression. She took the train into the school, living off campus with her hubby.
So Columbia's lame relationship threshold went critical, long before the rest of the nation. Thus, I'd say by 1989, it was the equivalent lameness of 2025 for the rest of the country. Yes, we're still a decade away from Armageddon. Thus, no guy, (yes, including sporty types, not just premeds) can't stand to be around a Columbia gal for too long. I only knew one female freshman [ worked at a photo store, next to my town during HS ] and she'd married her first BF there, upon graduation. She was the exception to the rule, as none of her friends had BFs by graduation. The guys who were dating, found women at other colleges.
Jester, I'd almost dated two P'ton gals, one was a FW, the other American, but both moved out of my region before things could happen.Jester wrote:Funny that SParc mentions Columbia
Princeton in the late seventies was also bizarre. Really similar to what young men report about society in general now. Entering freshman cuties got way too much attantion from a hugely male student body... then became stuck up rapidly... then by the time they were seniors, all the guys they had snubbed earlier no longer wanted them, and they went dateless... a minicosm of society.
But my guess is that Columbia was farther down the trail, since Princeton had more Southerners, more conservatives, and fewer Jews.
There's no comparison to that mental hospital on the Upper West Side. P'ton is almost a regular school, akin to a Vanderbilt, Duke, or Emory but with better students on the whole.
In contrast, a lot of guys don't even want to be friends with their Columbia female co-eds, over the passage of time. The worst parties I'd ever attended were at Morningside Heights. The guys were generally ok, no different than anywhere else, but the women were these depressed weirdos and some were just plain strange. One gal, pretending to be interested, told me that I looked like one of her professors and then wondered if her prof would ever take advantage of her. My response was a 'I hope not' and I quickly vacated that gathering. She was in an active fantasy, while talking to a stranger. Her eyes are glazed over and she was flighty, light headed. The others weren't all that different and were also spouting off, without actively engaging someone in a dialogue. That's a mental asylum, not a school. I don't think drugs are enough to create that effect w/o the patients being f'ked up, ahead of time.
In time, I'd asked my Columbia buddies to meet up, off campus. Believe me, it was a relief to share a Margarita pitcher with co-eds at Hunter, City, and NYU. Wow, talk about night and day. So while many of those gals were not GF material, at least they knew how to behave in public.
I believe that Columbia's & Barnard's joint undergrad env, since the graduate students are separated from that crowd, is our collective future. In ten years, we'll be talking to machines, not human beings. Columbia just beat America by a generation or two.
BTW, as for those graduate courses I'd taken at Columbia ... I'll be transferring them to another school to complete a masters.
I have no interest in becoming a disgruntled future alum, given the fact that I'd have to avoid half the alumni at the corporate shindigs for their outreach groups.
I disagree with the premise of these correlation studies (p@rn to lack of marriages) because I don't believe that sex is the primary purpose of marriage. I believe that marriage is for companionship and plausibly, starting a family, if the situation suits it.
During the rise and peak of the Roman Empire, patricians had proper wives and kids, but also, indulged their fantasies with mistresses and so-forth. This is not the reason why the Empire had collapsed, contrary to the opponents of the 'Roman Orgy'.
It collapsed gradually, because the govt outsourced the defense of the perimeters, to barbarian mercenaries, which divided the power structures between the central govt and the sort of "law of Viking types", in the countryside. Eventually, new nations would emerge outside of the Italian peninsula. For centuries before then, the Roman Republic and it burgeoning Empire were solid as a result of their consolidated power base.
So my "Columbia University" theory is about the notion that as time went by in America, accelerating after 1989, women became lame partners and thus, the primary reason for marriage went into degradation. I mean why would a guy want to have a lame roommate, for the rest of his life? The p@rn then, just filled in the gap of time. Eventually, guys got used to jerking off, without hearing a barrage of complaints all day from the Misses. I know of guys, in their 40s/50s, who lived with male roommates, after their respective divorces. Does anyone remember the old TV show in syndication, 'The Odd Couple'? It's basically about two guys, who moved in together, because their wives dumped 'em and they found it easier to deal with each other (despite one being a neat freak) than in having women in their lives. If 'The Odd Couple' was remade for the 21st century, both characters would have their own RealDoll in their respective bedrooms and would probably have a great life, just watching Monday Night football with each other. The *neat freak* thing was just a way for the writers to add drama. In reality, it would work out fine.