slim

You guys are nuts. Adam and Eve were the first people and these scientists are just trying to undermine religion.

They do, but they don't admit to doing it to increase productivity. They do it "for themselves because that's just how they like to dress" and not so everyone else can share in what they offer to the team.

Obviously not an American poll as women here would think dressing provocatively is demeaning and couldn't possibly contribute to increased production.

Obviously not an American poll as women here would think dressing provocatively is demeaning and couldn't possibly contribute to increased production.

Obviously not an American poll as women here would think dressing provocatively is demeaning and couldn't possibly contribute to increased production.

I watched that video in it's entirety. Nobody was arrested. If you listen carefully, the guy says they were taken to the security booth.
That means they were detained by event security, not arrested by the cops and charged with "disorderly conduct" as the OP posted. They weren't "taken downtown to the cop station" - they were taken to the security booth and then released. They didn't mention being charged with anything at all.
The "cops" came in a pick-up truck with a yellow lightbar on top. Do cops in Michigan have yellow lights? Did they do anything that event security anywhere else in the world wouldn't have done?
It looks to me like this was an intentionally staged video to conjure up exactly the responses that've been posted here in this forum. Flip it for a moment. What would be the response if, say, four "obviously Middle Eastern" young men showed up at a festival in Podunk, Iowa and started handing out information while videotaping? I'm pretty sure we'd see a similar video - sans the "outrage."

I would prefer if the ability to procreate was suspended for anyone on the dole.
I'd also prefer if procreation was not taken into account for two people doing the same exact job. A salary should be based on responsibility and performance at work, not how many rugrats you can pop out at home.

How does showing kids what sex is and how to prevent diseases akin to "giving them permission" to engage in it?
I would argue that IS your job. And I didn't see anything in the Iowa law (or any other law) that says kids have permission to have sex only after completing sex ed class.
Just to calm you down, there's nothing to suggest kids become sexually active because they had sex ed. Nothing. Not a single source.

I would say folks taking a handout from the governement should not have MORE kids. I would do that by temporarily sterilizing any woman and man who wanted money. You sign up, you roll up your sleeve for a shot. It's that simple.
If they have kids already, that's great. However, I don't think they deserve more money just because they have kids. If they lost a job and became unemployed they should get a rate based on their previous employment wages, not their previous employment wages PLUS whatever the allowance is for kids.
Why do single people not get that same "free money?" The person with kids doesn't pay extra because they have kids... yet they get extra. Why is that?
What if we started assessing MORE tax on people with kids?
It's a right... not a necessity.
I don't understand why we, as a soceity, reward people for making dumb financial decisions that're labeled as "children."
I have to live with the responsibilities of caring for other peoples' children. Why is that?
And how do I indirectly benefit from remaining childless? I'd argue that I most definitely directly benefit from that. Unless, of course, I'm on the government's payroll. Then I lose out because I don't get "extra" money.

How does showing kids what sex is and how to prevent diseases akin to "giving them permission" to engage in it?
I would argue that IS your job. And I didn't see anything in the Iowa law (or any other law) that says kids have permission to have sex only after completing sex ed class.
Just to calm you down, there's nothing to suggest kids become sexually active because they had sex ed. Nothing. Not a single source.

I would say folks taking a handout from the governement should not have MORE kids. I would do that by temporarily sterilizing any woman and man who wanted money. You sign up, you roll up your sleeve for a shot. It's that simple.
If they have kids already, that's great. However, I don't think they deserve more money just because they have kids. If they lost a job and became unemployed they should get a rate based on their previous employment wages, not their previous employment wages PLUS whatever the allowance is for kids.
Why do single people not get that same "free money?" The person with kids doesn't pay extra because they have kids... yet they get extra. Why is that?
What if we started assessing MORE tax on people with kids?
It's a right... not a necessity.
I don't understand why we, as a soceity, reward people for making dumb financial decisions that're labeled as "children."
I have to live with the responsibilities of caring for other peoples' children. Why is that?
And how do I indirectly benefit from remaining childless? I'd argue that I most definitely directly benefit from that. Unless, of course, I'm on the government's payroll. Then I lose out because I don't get "extra" money.

For the life of me I just can't believe someone when they say they don't check out other women because their woman is "good enough for them." While I admire them for trying (and even buying their own BS) I just can't accept it.
And here's why. You said you prefer Shooting Times. OK. Got it. Now, you have a gorgeous wife who gets VS catalogs yet you can't look through them and admire the contents because you have a "gorgeous" model at home. Well, you have a whole bunch of guns too yet you keep looking at gun magazines. Aren't your guns "gorgeous" too?
While I realize a man can't own just one gun, I simply do not buy that he doesn't look at other women because his is already "good enough." Like the insatiable need to still "see what's out there" when it comes to firearms - be that for simply admiring their beauty or learning of new and cutting edge techniques, etc. - how can there be no need to "see what's out there" with women?
I realize this is personal and it's your business, but as someone who just a few days ago was talking about Danica Patrick and Salma Hayek, it seems odd to me that what you have at home is so great you "don't" even look at anything else. To me, it sounds more like you "can't" look at anything else.
I'm not trying to take a shot at you here, like I said, it's your business. I just don't buy it.

For the life of me I just can't believe someone when they say they don't check out other women because their woman is "good enough for them." While I admire them for trying (and even buying their own BS) I just can't accept it.
And here's why. You said you prefer Shooting Times. OK. Got it. Now, you have a gorgeous wife who gets VS catalogs yet you can't look through them and admire the contents because you have a "gorgeous" model at home. Well, you have a whole bunch of guns too yet you keep looking at gun magazines. Aren't your guns "gorgeous" too?
While I realize a man can't own just one gun, I simply do not buy that he doesn't look at other women because his is already "good enough." Like the insatiable need to still "see what's out there" when it comes to firearms - be that for simply admiring their beauty or learning of new and cutting edge techniques, etc. - how can there be no need to "see what's out there" with women?
I realize this is personal and it's your business, but as someone who just a few days ago was talking about Danica Patrick and Salma Hayek, it seems odd to me that what you have at home is so great you "don't" even look at anything else. To me, it sounds more like you "can't" look at anything else.
I'm not trying to take a shot at you here, like I said, it's your business. I just don't buy it.

For the life of me I just can't believe someone when they say they don't check out other women because their woman is "good enough for them." While I admire them for trying (and even buying their own BS) I just can't accept it.
And here's why. You said you prefer Shooting Times. OK. Got it. Now, you have a gorgeous wife who gets VS catalogs yet you can't look through them and admire the contents because you have a "gorgeous" model at home. Well, you have a whole bunch of guns too yet you keep looking at gun magazines. Aren't your guns "gorgeous" too?
While I realize a man can't own just one gun, I simply do not buy that he doesn't look at other women because his is already "good enough." Like the insatiable need to still "see what's out there" when it comes to firearms - be that for simply admiring their beauty or learning of new and cutting edge techniques, etc. - how can there be no need to "see what's out there" with women?
I realize this is personal and it's your business, but as someone who just a few days ago was talking about Danica Patrick and Salma Hayek, it seems odd to me that what you have at home is so great you "don't" even look at anything else. To me, it sounds more like you "can't" look at anything else.
I'm not trying to take a shot at you here, like I said, it's your business. I just don't buy it.

For the life of me I just can't believe someone when they say they don't check out other women because their woman is "good enough for them." While I admire them for trying (and even buying their own BS) I just can't accept it.
And here's why. You said you prefer Shooting Times. OK. Got it. Now, you have a gorgeous wife who gets VS catalogs yet you can't look through them and admire the contents because you have a "gorgeous" model at home. Well, you have a whole bunch of guns too yet you keep looking at gun magazines. Aren't your guns "gorgeous" too?
While I realize a man can't own just one gun, I simply do not buy that he doesn't look at other women because his is already "good enough." Like the insatiable need to still "see what's out there" when it comes to firearms - be that for simply admiring their beauty or learning of new and cutting edge techniques, etc. - how can there be no need to "see what's out there" with women?
I realize this is personal and it's your business, but as someone who just a few days ago was talking about Danica Patrick and Salma Hayek, it seems odd to me that what you have at home is so great you "don't" even look at anything else. To me, it sounds more like you "can't" look at anything else.
I'm not trying to take a shot at you here, like I said, it's your business. I just don't buy it.

Welcome back, Brad. I find it hard to believe you spent a whole weekend without your laptop! I bet you were sneaking the web on your phone "I'll be right out" or dropping by the lobby to check e-mail on those late night "ice runs." (I remember your story about Vika being ticked because you were answering e-mails at the beach while on vacation.) You were missed.
So why do people disappear from VJ? I'd say it has a lot to do with their functionality running it's course. While going through the process they have to come here to find answers, waste time, etc., and in doing so they actually feel closer to their SO because they're doing something related to the VJ process. Once their SO arrives and they get through AOS and the real business of life is a daily occurance, VJ kind of loses it's necessity. While they're apart, VJ is another form of "doing something" for the process. After the daily grind of life takes shape, VJ is more of a "waste" of time, even to the point where some SOs don't like the fact that we're on VJ all the time. ("You never take me out to dinner, only waste time on your stupid Visa Journey, blat.")
As for "arguing about the same old thing over and over" well, that's cyclical. When we get groups of folks on here about the same point in their VJ process, they have remarkably similar postings. Those who are "waiting" are still in that whimsical "sunshine and puppy dogs" stage where they can't wait to be with their SO again and everything is rainbows and unicorns and love is grand and they make a lot of posts about it. The theme seems to carry on about romantic topics and what to do in the early stages. After a while, and once we're down to the "old guys" here on the forum, we end up with "I wish my wife would go home so I could have a break" posts and those tend to dominate the scene for a while.
I think folks leave depending on where they are in that cycle and also how much they want to participate in it. We'll see folks who leave come back when their AOS lifting conditions is due or they begin naturalization. Or, they'll stop back by when life starts to come at them in some unexpected way. "Why is she crazy? Is anyone else's wife crazy too?"
We all fall into one, some, or all of those categories and not necessarily at the same time. Since we're all at different positions in that cycle, that's why we have problems sometimes.
Mox will be back. We crossed swords but it wasn't that big of a deal. He floats from one forum to another depending on what suits him. He'll be back and he won't even be mad. He'll come back once he's had enough of the other stuff and he'll fall right back into the RUB forum cycle. Then, once he tires of us again, he'll disappear for while. He's like the RUB forum phoenix.
For everyone else, it all depends on where they are in the cycle. What should we do about it? Honestly, I don't think we should do anything. This is the internet and if you don't like it, take a break or go somewhere else.
For the record, I love everyone on here! I even like our "visitors" who stop by to tell us how mean we are. I'd like them more if they'd stay in their own forums, but that's just me.
Happy VJ'ing!

This will probably make me sound like a ####, but I personally believe you should be putting some of the burden on your SO in the early stages. Either make her travel a long way or pay for some of the trip herself. Almost nobody will turn down a free vacation to paradise, but when you make her bear some of the burden, it will show her commitment level.