Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Return of Kings, men's opinions

24

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,305 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    These kind of suggestions should be taken with a pinch of salt.


    And a belt of scotch... and a fine cigar.

    While crafting a spear ...and simultaneously driving a red convertible.



    ...with an erection.

    Get out of my mind.

    I've no spear, just a rather long erection.
    Vodka is the new Scotch.
    Manly point of difference

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    Just wasted about an hour of my life scanning through some of the tripe over there


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,650 ✭✭✭✭minidazzler


    That site will be flocked to by men who hate women but won't admit it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 236 ✭✭The Dom


    I would agree with the opinion that masculinity has been demonized in society, but then so has femininity, but all that aside, that site is obviously a wind up, or made by some attention seekers who are deliberately trying to stir up some controversy about the site in an effort to make cash. For a start, they are homophobic from the get go. Then there's the '24 sign's she's a slut" thing and also there is an article entitled "5 reasons to date a girl with with an Eating Disorder".

    Everyone has a little crazy in them but almost every single article and opinion on on this site screams 'deliberate baiting' of the public at large and as I said, I would for sure say it is financially motivated. A quick Google and I found a dozen blogs and stuff complaining about and so only a matter of time before the producers of the Dr.Phil show have them on and then it's only a matter of time before they will be as famous as Dick Masterson.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    The site intends to be a safe space on the web for those men who don’t agree with the direction that Western culture is headed.
    I've seen this 'safe space' line before. What it amounts to is a vacuum chamber, where the bar is always being raised on being more and more radicalized. It's the in group, out group amplified. It's knowing that their ideas wouldn't be accepted on the public sphere.

    If ideas are to be brought in to the public, then they have to be good ideas. And a lot of time has to pass for the good ideas to pass on to person to person until there is a sea change. Course, nutty ideas would never pass the mustard, so they need their 'safe space'.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭jill_valentine


    Just read their about section, they sound like some kind of Republican outfit.

    A lot of the weird little circlejerk outfits of this nature have a fundamentalist Christian foundation, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if that's the case here, if they're related to the "Promise Keeper" bollockology.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12 Floraidh


    This site is very deceiving.It claims it has a counter revolutionary theory to the answer all mens ills.They claim that men should be men and excert their masculinity,they hate feminist,(most woman are sluts single mothers,wear earings,come from broken homes?)so therefore will grow up as sluts?Vile words from so called gentlemans blog.
    Reading further I could not laugh at one reply on another thread that some guy was leaving Ireland (he is from here by the way) to meet an Asian or Phillo girl to Marry because she will do as he says.Those summed up the words of Chauvisnist pig,no gentleman and certaily no respect for woman,and yes they really do hate woman.God help the poor women they do marry.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,871 ✭✭✭rolliepoley


    Its a fkn honey trap.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,967 ✭✭✭Hande hoche!


    That webmaster needs to get laid.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 372 ✭✭Spike Witwicky


    Fuck me that site's misogynistic


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12 Floraidh


    They are related,can tell by the language they use.Similar counter revolutionary quotes.I meet them years ago.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 269 ✭✭Me?


    This thread has made me wet.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    Only taken a brief skim now but what I don't get is that sites like Jezebel are fairly socially acceptable to like even though they tend to be dominated by absolute nonsense (I say tend to because I have read on or two interesting things).
    Whereas the male equivalent is completely outside the pale.

    Similar thing seems to apply to MRA and Feminism.

    Its fairly acceptable to consider that MRA is the domain of bitter men that have had bad experiences with woman.
    Its not acceptable to consider the equivalent of Feminism.

    PS I don't think either is true for the mainstream of them, but the minority is extremely significant in both cases

    PPS this is based on online stuff, I know one person that would make an issue of describing herself as a feminist and no MRA activists, real life interactions are waaaaay more balanced and less stupid :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    Only taken a brief skim now but what I don't get is that sites like Jezebel are fairly socially acceptable to like even though they tend to be dominated by absolute nonsense (I say tend to because I have read on or two interesting things).
    Whereas the male equivalent is completely outside the pale.
    I don't read Jezebel. Is it really fair to say they're the female equivalent of this?
    Its fairly acceptable to consider that MRA is the domain of bitter men that have had bad experiences with woman.
    Its not acceptable to consider the equivalent of Feminism.
    No, the counterpoint to the perception of MRA is that feminists are perceived/presumed to be man hating lesbians. There are certainly examples of that. I've encountered such people offline and (more typically) online. I wouldn't have time for such people. Nor would I have time for a MRA of similar cloth.

    It should be noted the frequency and form of critique from MRAs and feminists on the other gender are very different. I find MRAs to sink to non substantive insults more often, whereas feminists talk about privilege that men have in society.

    I'm sure there is some illustration of feminists being hypocritical in some respect, but I can think of a clear example in terms of the MRAs. The MRAs on YouTube make a big deal because there is a woman who agrees with them. They have a 'surely we are right if a woman agrees with us' but then they don't have the reflexive thought to say, hm, maybe feminists have something too to say men agree. No, men are white knighting. As soon as I see someone say that, I know they're a damn fool.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,269 ✭✭✭GalwayGuy2


    5 Things We can Learn From The Movie Gran Torino

    They are totally trolling.

    Meh, from going over the site it seems to be an MRA version of Jezebel.

    Not sure what else to say about it tbh. It's a silly site.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,499 ✭✭✭✭DEFTLEFTHAND


    Isn't the Lion their symbol? The Pride leader who leads the way, the alpha male who won't hunt or look after his children, that's the lioness's job. :rolleyes: Which is like the wild of course, they're a fascinating species to study. The dominant male will often have a multitude of partners who he'll kill at will if he feels like it. Any percieved threat he'll put down apart from his male cubs who he won't mess with, they in turn know to wait for his death before moving up the power ladder. Brother on Brother to decide the new Pride leader.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,292 ✭✭✭tdv123


    Sounds like Nazism with women replacing Jews.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,060 ✭✭✭✭biko


    Only an American can name a site something daft like that.

    Out of all the stupid stuff on the website, this may be the worst:
    "Women are sluts if they sleep around, but men are not.
    This fact is due to the biological differences between men and women."

    Then "A woman’s value is mainly determined by her fertility and beauty"

    And finally a go at everything else: "Socialism, feminism, and cultural Marxism cause societies to decline because they destroy the family unit, decrease the fertility rate, and require large entitlements that impoverish the state."


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12 Floraidh


    Sounds like the T.F.P.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,436 ✭✭✭c_man


    Ah the old opinion pieces. Why I'm going to go downstairs, sit by the beautiful Winter view, with a big cuppa tea and read "5 Ways To Bully Fat Sluts On A Date"...



    Seriously that site has gotta be a piss take.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 23,214 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Poorly thought out nonsense with a healthy dollop of misogyny.

    they/them/theirs


    The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all of the people.

    Noam Chomsky



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,331 ✭✭✭✭bronte


    From "no woman can-escape mother natures devastating reality check"
    Want to know the beauty part of a woman's expiration date? These older women are great for young, up and coming guys to bang. If you don't have a lot of money to date, or you don't have a great ride, or apartment, guess what? An older chick will come over to your crappy place and give it to you.

    These old broads like young meat like we do. They love to have sex, and they don't need to go out clubbing and drinking at bars because no guys look at them. They will just come on over. So boys, until you are loaded with cash, or get better banging club trash, these women will be a great way to relieve yourself.

    Fucking hell.
    "Men" like this should have to wear a sign.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,850 ✭✭✭FouxDaFaFa


    I do think this guy believes some of the stuff he's spouting but what he likes the most is the attention. I've come across him once or twice before when some of the bigger online publications wrote about him. He does a review of all the media attention he's gotten every now and again, literally listing the articles written about him. He really gets off on it.

    He puts up candid photos of fat women and makes fun of them. He's a real classy dude.

    As for Jezebel, I don't think it should be put in the same class as this nonsense. I skim it every now and again and yeah, some of the stories are a little over-the-top but looking at the homepage right now, the majority of stories wouldn't be out of place somewhere like Buzzfeed, which doesn't get the piss taken out of it nearly as much.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,388 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Reading through the site, by god there's some level of mad goin on alright. Thinking about the blokes on there and tying in with the recent PUA thread, I formed a half baked theory on them and why they might think along these lines.

    Guys getting into PUA are more likely to be or feel somewhat socially excluded. They have real trouble interacting with women. Now if they do end up with someone, maybe this personality is more likely to select for... well, bitches? Out of all the women on the planet they hone in on them. Some mutually unhealthy relationship vibe. Then it ends as things do. Then these guys, who would also tend to be the analytical types try to work out the mechanisms of why. This leads them to "systems" like PUA and the company and support of other men like them. And because IMH/mad theory these guys tend to preselect for bitches they all have a similar story to tell and this looks like a pattern that can be applied to all women. Throw in men from nasty divorces and to this mindset the world indeed is filled with neurotic bitches. Demonstrably so for this demographic of men.

    Did some digging and found the Roosh chap has his own site/blog. On it I found a piece he wrote which again IMH may back up the above mad theory. Entitled You did this to me. Where he explains why he was set on this path. I have observed that the first romantic relationship a guy has and the dynamic within it sets the scene for the following more often than not. Reading it it does sound very likely he went for and preselected a few right wagons in his pre PUA days. He now extrapolates this to all women. Basically I went out with a bitch and she was a woman, therefore it follows that all women must be bitches and with this worldview I'll find plenty of examples of this because of selection bias.

    Well not quite. He and others in the ROK camp reserve the greatest ire for American women(modern American woman, their grandmothers were all saints in the "good old days"). They're the absolute worst in the world. Fat feminist beasts by their account. However as is usually the case the grass is greener elsewhere*. These chaps write up guides on how to score with non US women in south America, Eastern Europe and the like. This Roosh dude seems to make a handy few quid from such travel guides.

    This plugs into my mad theory too. Because they had bad experiences with American women(tm) they blanket all of them with the same character, but "exotic" women don't suffer the same stereotyping in their worldview, so they're more likely to be open to and preselect non bitches in Moscow or wherever(even though there are wagons as well as sound women everywhere). Even then because they hold a fear of a woman getting too close as they've been badly hurt before, even if they meet a very sound woman in Brazil they'll never commit because of this fear. Check out the Roosh chaps writings on his site about a woman named "Anna" he met in Ukraine(IIRC). Long story cut short; she's gorgeous, funny, clever and kind and really likes him and he likes her. He leaves her to continue on the road he's decided to travel. You can tell he's conflicted but no matter, he's no longer the geeky hurt kid, he's now Roosh, a man loved and supported by other men like him.

    ASIDE I have noted over the years that if men get burned in love and suffer a broken heart, they are less likely to bounce back from it than the women I've known. I've seen women come out of the harshest relationships still holding a glimmer of hope for "true love" and all that and I've seen men have a failed relationship that wasn't too bad close up for life. Odd.

    They also hate many men. Mirror images of them before they had their "revelation". The so called "beta males". The fear of going back to that is scary to them. Understandably as that's when they got badly hurt.

    So I can see where these guys come from to some degree. Yes their stuff has a ring of truth to it, if we're talking about the thundering wagons "who did them wrong", but they make the adolescent error of assuming this goes for all women and from that anger and fear comes much of the content of their site.







    *you see this here in AH from time to time. Irish women are fat etc and the streets of Gdansk are paved with supermodels. Though if you ask a Polish lad about "his" women, you can bet you'll hear a string of complaints. As every culture moans about politicians and the weather, tis universal.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,388 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    biko wrote: »
    Only an American can name a site something daft like that.

    Out of all the stupid stuff on the website, this may be the worst:
    "Women are sluts if they sleep around, but men are not.
    This fact is due to the biological differences between men and women."
    Well... pre contraception, pre DNA testing and in patriarchal societies there was some truth to that. There existed a fear of female sexuality, because of inheritance issues, both biological and fiscal. A woman always knows she's the mother of her children, the father doesn't(or didn't). So for men in that kind of culture it made sense to select for "chaste" women over "sluts". In such societies women's power was often about access to their fertility, so it would make sense for them to also label sexual women as "sluts" too as they were giving up their "power" too easily. It seems that even with contraception and DNA testing and the like that fear is still there among some men.
    Then "A woman’s value is mainly determined by her fertility and beauty"
    Again in patriarchal societies this was/is the case. In societies where women didn't work, had no vote, had no real power outside the household their cultural value was mostly determined by fertility and culturally set ideas of beauty. Thank god for the modern world.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    Pushtrak wrote: »
    I don't read Jezebel. Is it really fair to say they're the female equivalent of this?

    Ok looked a bit more at the Kings site and I will have to retract my statement, Jezebel is pretty poor but it doesn't seem to be quiet the level of idiocy or winding up that Return of the Kings is. At least Jezebel has articles that have enough of a point and coherence to manage to annoy me unlike.
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    No, the counterpoint to the perception of MRA is that feminists are perceived/presumed to be man hating lesbians. There are certainly examples of that. I've encountered such people offline and (more typically) online. I wouldn't have time for such people. Nor would I have time for a MRA of similar cloth.

    I know there is both in both groups, but my point was that its pretty socially unacceptable to presume someone is a Feminist because they hate men (and rightly so), but it is acceptable to consider that some one involved in MRA is bitter about woman
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    It should be noted the frequency and form of critique from MRAs and feminists on the other gender are very different. I find MRAs to sink to non substantive insults more often, whereas feminists talk about privilege that men have in society.

    Hmmm but a reinterpretation of that statement is that feminists also view men as a homogeneous grouping in a negative light, for example in discussions the term patriarchy gets thrown around a lot, but this illustrates the focus on men being the problem since they are viewing the fact that it is only men holding power whereas a more egalitarian or socialist viewpoint would hold that the problem is the concentration of power into an exclusive grouping which the vast majority of both men and woman are excluded from.
    Anyway the idea of patriarchy in the 21st century western world is a bit like a socialist referencing textile mills in relation to industrial relations in the 1st world.
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    They have a 'surely we are right if a woman agrees with us' but then they don't have the reflexive thought to say, hm, maybe feminists have something too to say men agree. No, men are white knighting. As soon as I see someone say that, I know they're a damn fool.

    I agree with your main point, however there is a disjunct in that if a man accuses someone of white knighting they are considered to be sexist where as it is acceptable for a woman to say that some guys that express an interest in these things are doing it for an ulterior motive.

    Its pretty stupid if you accuse everybody you disagree with of white knighting but I don't get how its more acceptable for a member of the opposite sex to make these criticisms where a person of the same sex can't, if anything considering the concepts of privilege etc it should be the other way around.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,388 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Hmmm but a reinterpretation of that statement is that feminists also view men as a homogeneous grouping in a negative light, for example in discussions the term patriarchy gets thrown around a lot, but this illustrates the focus on men being the problem since they are viewing the fact that it is only men holding power whereas a more egalitarian or socialist viewpoint would hold that the problem is the concentration of power into an exclusive grouping which the vast majority of both men and woman are excluded from.
    Anyway the idea of patriarchy in the 21st century western world is a bit like a socialist referencing textile mills in relation to industrial relations in the 1st world.
    QFT.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    I know there is both in both groups, but my point was that its pretty socially unacceptable to presume someone is a Feminist because they hate men (and rightly so), but it is acceptable to consider that some one involved in MRA is bitter about woman
    See, I don't think this is the case at all. Firstly, I don't think MRA are as well known generally speaking. They're well known in certain corners of the net, for sure, but the average person on the street isn't going to know who/what they are. For this reason, there isn't a 'socially accepted' method for dealing with them but people who don't know who they are to ask who they are.

    Feminists are far more well known, and they are more often seen negatively, whether just disliked or despised. People see a certain type of radical feminism and think that is what feminism [is]. It isn''t, though, so it seems very much socially acceptable to say feminism is characterised by a vocal minority. And they are known by pretty much anyone. They're in the cultural consciousness.

    Do you really think if you were to go around asking people randomly if they knew of MRAs and feminists that a similar number of people would be aware of both? I certainly don't think the numbers of people who'd be aware would be in any way close, tbh.

    If I hear someone self identify as MRA or feminist, I want to get to the discussion that is beyond the label. What are their main areas of concern. What is it they are not happy with. That is where the discussion is, obviously, not the label.
    Hmmm but a reinterpretation of that statement is that feminists also view men as a homogeneous grouping in a negative light, for example in discussions the term patriarchy gets thrown around a lot
    I just mentioned that when hearing feminist or MRA, that isn't really the discussion. That is the starting point. You have to get to the actual topic/issue to get anywhere.

    I would say patriarchy is another one that you need to get in depth with to actually get anywhere. Patriarchy is understood differently by different feminists. Generally, though it isn't a slight on any given man. It isn't an accusation or something against someone for being men. It seems the reason a lot of guys get defensive is because they think it's some type of attack on them personally. It isn't.
    Anyway the idea of patriarchy in the 21st century western world is a bit like a socialist referencing textile mills in relation to industrial relations in the 1st world.
    My issue with patriarchy is there are so many different feminist understandings of it. What is patriarchy to some feminists is not so to others. I find it the case that if one group of feminists were to get everything their way, then the others would see it as the patriarchy. That's what I see as ridiculous. Feminism shouldn't be about telling women what they can or can not do which is something some feminists can be guilty of. There's a lot in feminism worthy of criticism, but it shouldn't be written off entirely. Nor should certain aspects of MRA concerns. As a for instance, the rights of fathers to get custody to children.
    I agree with your main point, however there is a disjunct in that if a man accuses someone of white knighting they are considered to be sexist where as it is acceptable for a woman to say that some guys that express an interest in these things are doing it for an ulterior motive.
    I wouldn't consider a person a sexist for using white knight. Just give such people enough rope to hang themselves with and they'll say something most people will readily accept is sexist. It isn't sexist itself, but you'll often find people who say that are sexist.

    Use that rationale for women, too. Don't see that as sexist unto itself, but just let them talk and see if you'll hear them coming from a man hating perspective. The men who hate women and the women who hate men are very eager to let it be known or find it very hard to keep hidden, so again, it's a case of giving them enough rope to hang themselves and show themselves for what they are.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    Pushtrak wrote: »
    See, I don't think this is the case at all. Firstly, I don't think MRA are as well known generally speaking. They're well known in certain corners of the net, for sure, but the average person on the street isn't going to know who/what they are. For this reason, there isn't a 'socially accepted' method for dealing with them but people who don't know who they are to ask who they are.

    True, for the attitudes to MRA I am mostly going of what I read online, but witness how a group like Fathers for Justice are portrayed in the media compared to radical Feminist actions. Personally I actually think its to do with a rather sexist viewpoint that woman are inherently less dangerous and threatening than men.
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    Feminists are far more well known, and they are more often seen negatively, whether just disliked or despised. People see a certain type of radical feminism and think that is what feminism [is]. It isn''t, though, so it seems very much socially acceptable to say feminism is characterised by a vocal minority. And they are known by pretty much anyone. They're in the cultural consciousness.

    People do dislike Feminism or at least what they consider Feminism to be, but I don't feel that there is generally the criticism is disliking the opposite gender so much as being overly sensitive, hypocritical, too supportive of the Nanny state rather than what I have seen of the online criticism of MRA where its about them disliking woman in general.

    I think the fact is that the world has moved on and too people many the idea of present day Feminist Activism is an irrelevance. A good example of this is that those criticisms I listed above were some of the ones I remember from a conversation I had with a woman I was working with, the work in this case involving mattocking out a hole in the rain while wearing hard hats, exactly the sort of activity that would be considered traditionally unsuitable for a woman but she saw the issues that they were advocating for as either irrelevant or able to be campaigned for under a "different banner" (she was pro-choice)
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    There's a lot in feminism worthy of criticism, but it shouldn't be written off entirely. Nor should certain aspects of MRA concerns. As a for instance, the rights of fathers to get custody to children

    I agree with your opinions on more discussion is always needed rather than making blanket assumptions about somebodies views of a one word description, but as you say the definitions of each term are now so nebulous that a discussion is difficult until you have teased out the meaning off every word which can be an exhausting process.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    True, for the attitudes to MRA I am mostly going of what I read online
    Trying to gauge the temperature of online discussions isn't something especially worthwhile. Worthwhile stuff does exist, but there's a whole lot of discussion that, in tone isn't really indicative of anything outside the context of where the discussion happens. For example, YouTube isn't indicative really of wider society.
    but witness how a group like Fathers for Justice are portrayed in the media compared to radical Feminist actions.
    Links?
    People do dislike Feminism or at least what they consider Feminism to be, but I don't feel that there is generally the criticism is disliking the opposite gender so much as being overly sensitive, hypocritical, too supportive of the Nanny state rather than what I have seen of the online criticism of MRA where its about them disliking woman in general.
    A person is overly sensitive when they care about something the accuser doesn't. It isn't really an informative label or descriptor.

    I've seen hypocrisy levelled as an accusation. An example being, 'feminists want equal rights, but don't hit me because I'm a girl'. I wouldn't advocate going out hitting anyone so was never too swayed by that one. Any better ones you can think of?

    Supportive of the nanny state? You'll need to expand on that one.
    A good example of this is that those criticisms I listed above were some of the ones I remember from a conversation I had with a woman I was working with, the work in this case involving mattocking out a hole in the rain while wearing hard hats, exactly the sort of activity that would be considered traditionally unsuitable for a woman but she saw the issues that they were advocating for as either irrelevant or able to be campaigned for under a "different banner" (she was pro-choice)
    I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are saying here. "Those criticisms I listed above..." "overly sensitive, hypocritical, supportive of nanny state".

    I can't plug in those criticisms into that paragraph and understand what it is you are trying to say. Could you rephrase it?

    What issues were irrelevant?
    I agree with your opinions on more discussion is always needed rather than making blanket assumptions about somebodies views of a one word description, but as you say the definitions of each term are now so nebulous that a discussion is difficult until you have teased out the meaning off every word which can be an exhausting process.
    It can, but the fact we engage in it shows we have an interest in doing so. If we didn't why bother?


Advertisement
Advertisement