# FA Reality Check



## Steve O (Apr 4, 2015)

I'm sure that many other FA's can relate to the struggle between our preferences and reality. I've always been attracted to larger women from an early age. I've dated women anywhere from BBW (200ish). all the way up to supersize, (470). Eventually I fell in love and married a woman that was a BBW (225). Unfortunately she lost her long time battle with cancer a few months ago. I've always had a preference for SSBBW's. The concern I have is that I have two young children, 9 and 12, and my oldest is on the severe end of he autism spectrum, and at times, I find myself struggling to keep up with him. If I was with someone in the SSBBW range, (400+), someday, would her mobility be a concern. Interesting and difficult issue.


----------



## landshark (Apr 5, 2015)

Man, before I can even comment on your "current" problem I have to say, my sincere condolences for the loss of your wife. I can't imagine what life would be like for me if I were to lose my wife.

Regarding the "FA" problem, you do raise a good issue. A lot of FAs don't fully consider some of the changes they have to make if they are going to date BBWs or SSBBWs. It takes subtle but real changes in everyday life, like not getting a booth at a restaurant, or accepting potential health related issues in her future, or just adjusting to a lower level of mobility. My wife and I bought season passes to an amusement park near our home. One thing we didn't think of was her butt being too big to fit on many of the rides! That was two summers ago, and through a lot of hard work, discipline, and determination she has slimmed down to the point where last summer she had no problem fitting. It does seem a lot of FAs want the BBW/SSBBW but aren't willing to accept some of the challenges that come with her.


----------



## Dr. Feelgood (Apr 5, 2015)

Also, consider that size is not necessarily an indicator of stamina. I've known some very large women who would wear down the Energizer Bunny!


----------



## musicman (Apr 5, 2015)

Steve O said:


> I'm sure that many other FA's can relate to the struggle between our preferences and reality. I've always been attracted to larger women from an early age. I've dated women anywhere from BBW (200ish). all the way up to supersize, (470). Eventually I fell in love and married a woman that was a BBW (225). Unfortunately she lost her long time battle with cancer a few months ago. I've always had a preference for SSBBW's. The concern I have is that I have two young children, 9 and 12, and my oldest is on the severe end of he autism spectrum, and at times, I find myself struggling to keep up with him. If I was with someone in the SSBBW range, (400+), someday, would her mobility be a concern. Interesting and difficult issue.



My condolences on the loss of your wife. To answer your question, yes, of course mobility is a concern for anyone. You could get hit by a bus tomorrow and be paralyzed, as could any average-sized woman you fell in love with. But you have to follow your heart. Some FAs are exclusively attracted to very large SSBBWs, and don't have the choice you have. When their relationships succeed, it's because, in their view, the positive qualities of their partner far exceed any limitations she might have. We all have limitations, not all of which are physical. The best relationships are those where both partners make an effort to understand and work with the limitations and strengths of each other. When it comes to this subject, mobility is only one piece of a very very big picture.


----------



## bigmac (Apr 5, 2015)

Dr. Feelgood said:


> Also, consider that size is not necessarily an indicator of stamina. I've known some very large women who would wear down the Energizer Bunny!



This is true only until it isn't. I too have known some very energetic SSBWs. However, without fail, all lost their energy -- and the accompanying ability to fully participate in life with friends and family -- as they aged.


----------



## Blockierer (Apr 12, 2015)

Steve O said:


> ... I've always had a preference for SSBBW's. The concern I have is that I have two young children, 9 and 12, and my oldest is on the severe end of he autism spectrum, and at times, I find myself struggling to keep up with him. If I was with someone in the SSBBW range, (400+), someday, would her mobility be a concern. Interesting and difficult issue.


My advice is, if you are into 400+ ladies, be proud of your preference and date the lady of your dreams. Otherwise you will regret it one day.


----------



## Gordi (Apr 13, 2015)

Blockierer said:


> My advice is, if you are into 400+ ladies, be proud of your preference and date the lady of your dreams. Otherwise you will regret it one day.



Was looking for a "LIKE" - totally agree with the above statement.


----------



## bigmac (Apr 13, 2015)

Blockierer said:


> My advice is, if you are into 400+ ladies, be proud of your preference and date the lady of your dreams. Otherwise you will regret it one day.



The problem is that the lady of one's sexual dreams may not be the best fit for the rest of your day. Everyone settles -- we all make compromises -- the thing is to make compromises we can live with. Its unlikely that a 400 plus pound woman is going to be able to go bike riding with the kids, frolic on the beach, go hiking, or even walk around a local street fair. If these types of things don't matter to you -- or if a supersize significant other is more important by all means seek out a SSBBW. However, if you would resent the limitations supersize imposes its best to stick with midsize or smaller BBWs.


Also, its been my experience that the more serious a relationship gets the more important it is to be able to experience life together. In a casual relationship it may not be a big deal that your SSBBW partner cannot accompany you to your favorite place or engage in a favorite activity. However, I've found that as a relationship gets more serious being able to participate in activities together becomes more important.


----------



## tonynyc (Apr 14, 2015)

bigmac said:


> The problem is that the lady of one's sexual dreams may not be the best fit for the rest of your day. Everyone settles -- we all make compromises -- the thing is to make compromises we can live with. Its unlikely that a 400 plus pound woman is going to be able to go bike riding with the kids, frolic on the beach, go hiking, or even walk around a local street fair. If these types of things don't matter to you -- or if a supersize significant other is more important by all means seek out a SSBBW. However, if you would resent the limitations supersize imposes its best to stick with midsize or smaller BBWs.
> 
> 
> Also, its been my experience that the more serious a relationship gets the more important it is to be able to experience life together. In a casual relationship it may not be a big deal that your SSBBW partner cannot accompany you to your favorite place or engage in a favorite activity. However, I've found that as a relationship gets more serious being able to participate in activities together becomes more important.



While this can certainly be true to a point, it is also important to note that in life (and especially in relationships) is about compromise. If one is not willing to make the compromise then it is best not to get into that relationship.


----------



## bigmac (Apr 14, 2015)

tonynyc said:


> While this can certainly be true to a point, it is also important to note that in life (and especially in relationships) is about compromise. If one is not willing to make the compromise then it is best not to get into that relationship.




Yes, maybe I didn't state it so well but my point was basically _are these compromises you're willing to make_. For some people the answer is obviously going to be yes. However, other people are sure to be frustrated by the physical limitations of a SSBBW. Guys need to be honest with themselves regarding which group they belong to.


----------



## mp7251 (Apr 14, 2015)

I am going to address the elephant (no pun intended) in this poster's predicament. That is, the never ending, and may become more demanding care and time devoted to the autistic child. A SSBBW may not make demands on your time now but as she gets older and more arthritic it may strain your ability to care for all concerned. You may need to pare down your preference in size to ensure a better quality of life for all.


----------



## Tad (Apr 14, 2015)

Or to put it another way, given the amount of work on your plate, you may need a work mate, no matter how much you want a play mate. (and of course, someone that you make an intellectual and emotional connection with is key, given that relationships are tough enough anyway, and you will be dealing with an extra stress)


----------



## Gordi (Apr 14, 2015)

We don't know how long we will live. Life is full of up and downs and curve balls. Steve O stated that is wife had passed away, please accept my condolences. Sorry, but I rather share an incredible time and love with my soul mate no matter how short that time will be rather than be considered as somebody's compromise.


----------



## bigmac (Apr 15, 2015)

Tad said:


> ... you may need a work mate, no matter how much you want a play mate. ...



Yes! This applies to most relationships. In today's world if a couple wants a decent life both partners are going to have to contribute. Your mate needs to be functional not just decorative.


----------



## Blockierer (Apr 30, 2015)

bigmac said:


> Yes, maybe I didn't state it so well but my point was basically _are these compromises you're willing to make_. For some people the answer is obviously going to be yes. However, other people are sure to be frustrated by the physical limitations of a SSBBW. Guys need to be honest with themselves regarding which group they belong to.


I belong to the group of guys that watch SSBBW in porn and live with a SSBBW in reality. I want that my wife knows that she has the perfect form for me. I think physical limitation are not important, especially in FA/SSBBW relationships.


----------



## Surlysomething (Apr 30, 2015)

I hope you all fit "personality" in there too.


----------



## Tad (Apr 30, 2015)

bigmac said:


> Yes! This applies to most relationships. In today's world if a couple wants a decent life both partners are going to have to contribute. Your mate needs to be functional not just decorative.



As said so often in this thread--it is a trade-off and a compromise. Obviously there are people who do make things work when one part of the couple doesn't (by choice or capability) contribute very much compared to the other. But for sure that will have costs in terms of where and how you live, what you do, etc. Some people will handle it if it happens, fewer would choose that situation, but some probably would..... humans, and the way we find ways to fit together, are SO varied that it is pretty hard to come up with a universal prescription.



Surlysomething said:


> I hope you all fit "personality" in there too.



Sure-- "compliant and eager to please" is a personality, right?  *ducks and runs*


----------



## Surlysomething (Apr 30, 2015)

I'm sure you know how that would fly with me. 

Your shit is on.the lawn, get out.





Tad said:


> As said so often in this thread--it is a trade-off and a compromise. Obviously there are people who do make things work when one part of the couple doesn't (by choice or capability) contribute very much compared to the other. But for sure that will have costs in terms of where and how you live, what you do, etc. Some people will handle it if it happens, fewer would choose that situation, but some probably would..... humans, and the way we find ways to fit together, are SO varied that it is pretty hard to come up with a universal prescription.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure-- "compliant and eager to please" is a personality, right?  *ducks and runs*


----------



## bigmac (May 1, 2015)

Tad said:


> ... Obviously there are people who do make things work when one part of the couple doesn't (by choice or capability) contribute very much compared to the other. *But for sure that will have costs* in terms of where and how you live, what you do, etc. Some people will handle it if it happens, fewer would choose that situation, but some probably would.....



It would be nice to think that love can conquer all. However, twenty years in the dog eat dog culture of the United States has beaten that idea out of me. In a winner take all culture with a minimal safety net few people are going to be willing to enter long-term relationships with partners who don't bring significant resources to the table. 

Conservatives are always saying that they're for traditional marriage. Their policies have indeed forced marriage back toward its traditional form -- an economic relationship.


----------



## Blockierer (May 2, 2015)

bigmac said:


> It would be nice to think that love can conquer all. However, twenty years in the dog eat dog culture of the United States has beaten that idea out of me. In a winner take all culture with a minimal safety net few people are going to be willing to enter long-term relationships with partners who don't bring significant resources to the table.
> 
> Conservatives are always saying that they're for traditional marriage. Their policies have indeed forced marriage back toward its traditional form -- an economic relationship.


I understand your statement very well. Maybe this is the reason why some guys play with fat people only. Maybe these guys cannot afford fat partners on economic reasons. What a pity. I will pray (give them money) for all these destitute FAs.


----------



## Tad (May 2, 2015)

bigmac said:


> It would be nice to think that love can conquer all. However, twenty years in the dog eat dog culture of the United States has beaten that idea out of me. In a winner take all culture with a minimal safety net few people are going to be willing to enter long-term relationships with partners who don't bring significant resources to the table.
> 
> Conservatives are always saying that they're for traditional marriage. Their policies have indeed forced marriage back toward its traditional form -- an economic relationship.



That you experience this with your local culture does not make it a universal truth, however true it may be in your universe.


----------



## bigmac (May 2, 2015)

Tad said:


> That you experience this with your local culture does not make it a universal truth, however true it may be in your universe.



You're probably right. When I lived in Canada economic issues didn't intrude the way they do in the good old USA.


----------



## bigmac (May 2, 2015)

Blockierer said:


> I understand your statement very well. *Maybe this is the reason why some guys play with fat people only*. Maybe these guys cannot afford fat partners on economic reasons. What a pity. I will pray (give them money) for all these destitute FAs.



Yes. Its also one of the reasons why many guys who date 400+ pound girls end up marrying 200 pound girls.


----------



## liz (di-va) (May 11, 2015)

bigmac said:


> This is true only until it isn't. I too have known some very energetic SSBWs. However, without fail, all lost their energy -- and the accompanying ability to fully participate in life with friends and family -- as they aged.





bigmac said:


> Also, its been my experience that the more serious a relationship gets the more important it is to be able to experience life together. In a casual relationship it may not be a big deal that your SSBBW partner cannot accompany you to your favorite place or engage in a favorite activity. However, I've found that as a relationship gets more serious being able to participate in activities together becomes more important.



There is a fine line between a measured estimation of the issues that arise from being an FA and trying to talk fellow FAs out of being in a relationship with a SSBBW based on your own experiences. Your (repeated) comments quite often fall into the latter category, which sucks. I know you think you're being all savvy about Life's Real Issues here, but you just come across as sour and unsupportive.

Way to go for doing your bit to make the world out there harder for super-fatties. Keep up the good work.


----------



## bigmac (May 11, 2015)

liz (di-va) said:


> There is a fine line between a measured estimation of the issues that arise from being an FA and trying to talk fellow FAs out of being in a relationship with a SSBBW based on your own experiences. Your (repeated) comments quite often fall into the latter category, which sucks. I know you think you're being all savvy about Life's Real Issues here, but you just come across as sour and unsupportive.
> 
> Way to go for doing your bit to make the world out there harder for super-fatties. Keep up the good work.



The sad fact is that life is often hard for extra large folks. Before anyone can be supportive in a meaningful way they must first understand the situation. Both the FA and the SSBBW need to understand that biology, physics, and society will put constraints on their relationship. For the relationship to succeed these constraints must be accepted or mitigated.


----------



## FatAndProud (May 14, 2015)

Blockie is the only decent human responding in this thread. Thank you. [rep could not be given]


----------



## Surlysomething (May 15, 2015)

Way to lump as all together because we don't share your view. 

I'm sure everyone here is decent.



FatAndProud said:


> Blockie is the only decent human responding in this thread. Thank you. [rep could not be given]


----------



## bigmac (May 16, 2015)

FatAndProud said:


> Blockie is the only decent human responding in this thread. Thank you. [rep could not be given]



I'm curious. What exactly is it that's pissing you off?

I'm often accused of being less than warm and fuzzy. I'm a very practical -- as opposed to romantic person -- but I don't think that bringing up issues others would rather ignore makes me a loathsome human being.


----------



## FatAndProud (May 19, 2015)

I'm glad the thin ones acquire the "less than warm and fuzzy" and/or "practical" gents. I'd much rather pass. Lol


----------



## LillyBBBW (May 19, 2015)

FatAndProud said:


> I'm glad the thin ones acquire the "less than warm and fuzzy" and/or "practical" gents. I'd much rather pass. Lol


 
I think he should marry a dude. That is legal now, and so much more practical.


----------



## bigmac (May 20, 2015)

LillyBBBW said:


> I think he should marry a dude. That is legal now, and so much more practical.



Too late already married a woman.

Also, all the warm and fuzzy romance stuff doesn't mean much if the plumbing needs to be fixed.


----------



## cinnamitch (May 20, 2015)

bigmac said:


> Too late already married a woman.
> 
> Also, all the warm and fuzzy romance stuff doesn't mean much if the plumbing needs to be fixed.



A woman can hire a plumber, and if she has a guy with your attitude towards romance, she can also outsource for the "warm and fuzzy romance stuff"


----------



## lucca23v2 (May 20, 2015)

not picking a side, but: All women want romance. Thing is.. romance is different to all women. Not all women go for the "warm and fuzzy".


----------



## LillyBBBW (May 20, 2015)

bigmac said:


> Too late already married a woman.
> 
> Also, all the warm and fuzzy romance stuff doesn't mean much if the plumbing needs to be fixed.


 
Speaking only for myself, a guy's plumbing would be low on my list of things to stress over. As long as he's functional. These days my fears run along the lines of Is He Going To Beat My Brains Out, Is he smart, does he smoke crack, does he make me feel like a piece of shit - stuff like that. There are so many idiots out there. These days hardly anybody is in factory condition. I prefer someone I want to be around who feels the same way about me.


----------



## bigmac (May 20, 2015)

cinnamitch said:


> A woman can hire a plumber, and if she has a guy with your attitude towards romance, she can also outsource for the "warm and fuzzy romance stuff"



My ex did just that. Indeed I can pin point the exact moment the last vestige of affection died. I was dropping our daughter off at the house we had shared. A tree I had planted had been damaged in a storm so I got out my pruning saw and trimmed it up. As I was finishing my ex came out and told me that _*although I was much better around the house her new guy was more fun to be with*_. That may well have been true but he was also a useless drug addict. Within a year my ex had lost her professional job and shortly thereafter her house. And who do you think she turned to for help then (the one way ticket back to her mom's place was some of the best money I've ever spent). Our kids were in 8th and 9th grade at the time. I took custody of them. I'm the one who got them through high school and made sure they went to college (my daughter has a MSW from Berkeley and my son just got his MBA last Saturday). 

I'm now married to a woman who understands there are more important things than warm and fuzzy.


----------



## bigmac (May 20, 2015)

LillyBBBW said:


> ... These days my fears run along the lines of *Is He Going To Beat My Brains* *Out*, Is he smart, *does he smoke crack*, does he make me feel like a piece of shit - *stuff like that*. There are so many idiots out there. These days hardly anybody is in factory condition. I prefer someone I want to be around who feels the same way about me.




Lets get real -- its pretty easy to tell a decent human being from a drug using POS. As I type this one of my clients is passed out in the hall of the courthouse (right in front of the DA's office) -- stuff like that is a tip off. Its a rare wife beater and/or drug user who presents well. 

Whether he or she is compatible is another question.


----------



## StrugglingWriter (May 21, 2015)

Surlysomething said:


> I hope you all fit "personality" in there too.



Hm. That's kind of limiting. Not everyone's a breast man.


----------



## LillyBBBW (May 21, 2015)

bigmac said:


> Lets get real -- its pretty easy to tell a decent human being from a drug using POS. As I type this one of my clients is passed out in the hall of the courthouse (right in front of the DA's office) -- stuff like that is a tip off. Its a rare wife beater and/or drug user who presents well.
> 
> Whether he or she is compatible is another question.


 
That's not entirely true. If it were no one would ever get involved with someone whom they know will beat or hurt them. This is a kind of blase attitude that likes to blame people for being beaten or taken advantage of and how violent people continue to ease on through with very little record of wrong doing. Only in extreme cases are you going to see a guy lying in the hallway reeking of piss and cigarettes. Those are the ones most likely to wind up in front of your desk.


----------



## bigmac (May 21, 2015)

LillyBBBW said:


> That's not entirely true. If it were no one would ever get involved with someone whom they know will beat or hurt them. This is a kind of blase attitude that likes to blame people for being beaten or taken advantage of and how violent people continue to ease on through with very little record of wrong doing. Only in extreme cases are you going to see a guy lying in the hallway reeking of piss and cigarettes. Those are the ones most likely to wind up in front of your desk.




The person passed out in the courthouse was actually a female.

It might be that I have more experience dealing with lowlifes but I really don't have much problem spotting people with issues (even if they're wearing a nice suit, have a decent job, and drive a nice car). While their vocabulary may be better, and their mannerisms more refined, abusers from the better classes share attitudes of entitlement, denial, minimization, and justification with less well healed abusers.

Of course criminal abusers need to be punished. But that doesn't mean that women don't need to make smart decisions. Indeed much grief can arise from non-criminal bad behavior. I'm a father of four daughters I do my best to make sure they have the knowledge and skills to navigate an often harsh world (a boyfriend of daughter number 2 hit her -- she kicked him in the head and knocked him out cold -- that black belt came in handy).


----------



## lucca23v2 (May 21, 2015)

LillyBBBW said:


> That's not entirely true. If it were no one would ever get involved with someone whom they know will beat or hurt them. This is a kind of blase attitude that likes to blame people for being beaten or taken advantage of and how violent people continue to ease on through with very little record of wrong doing. Only in extreme cases are you going to see a guy lying in the hallway reeking of piss and cigarettes. Those are the ones most likely to wind up in front of your desk.


 
Lilly, I agree with you that for the most part, people don't chose to go into relationships that are abusive. (Some people are hit during the dating phase and still chose to marry the person.)

That being said, I don't understand why they would stay. Maybe it is because I have never been in that kind of situation. A man might hit me once, but it will be the last time he ever hits me. My instinct is very heavy toward the fight/protect myself than the flight instinct. I would be in shock, but I know myself as well. I would wait until he is asleep, pack up my shit up, get the broom or the heaviest stick I can find, beat him and then leave. I would much rather live in the street than live with someone who is going to abuse me. 

Where is the person sense of self preservation? Where is there fight or flight instinct? If it means that I have to go into hiding, to get away from a person like that, then I will be the best at hide and seek. I would drop a family member a letter explaining the situation.. mail it from the city I live in before I leave, but I would not stay.


----------



## LillyBBBW (May 21, 2015)

lucca23v2 said:


> Lilly, I agree with you that for the most part, people don't chose to go into relationships that are abusive. (Some people are hit during the dating phase and still chose to marry the person.)
> 
> That being said, I don't understand why they would stay. Maybe it is because I have never been in that kind of situation. A man might hit me once, but it will be the last time he ever hits me. My instinct is very heavy toward the fight/protect myself than the flight instinct. I would be in shock, but I know myself as well. I would wait until he is asleep, pack up my shit up, get the broom or the heaviest stick I can find, beat him and then leave. I would much rather live in the street than live with someone who is going to abuse me.
> 
> Where is the person sense of self preservation? Where is there fight or flight instinct? If it means that I have to go into hiding, to get away from a person like that, then I will be the best at hide and seek. I would drop a family member a letter explaining the situation.. mail it from the city I live in before I leave, but I would not stay.


 

I feel the same way, but there are a couple of things that will make a person stay with an abusive guy that may surprise you. Self preservation is high on that list. Many people stay because the chances of them being hurt or killed increase significantly once the person leaves the abuser. 90% of all people killed by an abusive partner were killed after they broke things off. They might not have a safe place to go, no money, etc. A friend of mine left her boyfriend to live with her sister. On her way home from work the guy met up with her on her path, said he just wanted to talk. Now she could have said, "no, go fuck a socket you ape," but a) she was alone on the street and b) she wasn't sure what this guy would do to her. Will he hurt her, kill her? She agreed to talk to him because she was afraid to take a risk that he might get angry and do something to her. It's a big step to say I don't care if you cut up my face or break my jaw. Self preservation means different things to different people. It's fine to say you will do this and that if you are ever in that situation but once in that situation your assessment of how to protect yourself could change dramatically. All the people you think you can turn to will have different ideas about their own safety as well and will prove not as helpful as you would imagine. My advice to you would be to learn self defense. Even in the best self defense classes they start off telling you to be passive with the threat of violence until you absolutely can't do that anymore. Your life could be in danger.


----------



## LillyBBBW (May 21, 2015)

bigmac said:


> The person passed out in the courthouse was actually a female.
> 
> It might be that I have more experience dealing with lowlifes but I really don't have much problem spotting people with issues (even if they're wearing a nice suit, have a decent job, and drive a nice car). While their vocabulary may be better, and their mannerisms more refined, abusers from the better classes share attitudes of entitlement, denial, minimization, and justification with less well healed abusers.
> 
> Of course criminal abusers need to be punished. But that doesn't mean that women don't need to make smart decisions. Indeed much grief can arise from non-criminal bad behavior. I'm a father of four daughters I do my best to make sure they have the knowledge and skills to navigate an often harsh world (a boyfriend of daughter number 2 hit her -- she kicked him in the head and knocked him out cold -- that black belt came in handy).


 
I wasn't making an argument that abusers can't be spotted. We do have to spot them however and the things that are on display for you to see when you meet them they are not going to show to someone they mean to impress to work in to their good graces. That's why the best way for women to judge a man is not in the way that he treats you but in the way that he treats everyone else. But we do have to watch. It will not be plainly evident like it is for you.


----------



## lucca23v2 (May 22, 2015)

Lilly, you have a point. I guess it might be safer to stay in some instances.


----------



## LillyBBBW (May 22, 2015)

lucca23v2 said:


> Lilly, you have a point. I guess it might be safer to stay in some instances.


 
My friend said that after her ex confronted her and she went along, people became less inclined to want to help her because in their mind it would do no good if she was just going to go back to him eventually. And she could not guarantee that it wouldn't happen because if he were to happen up upon her again in some other circumstance she would once again do whatever she had to do to survive the encounter. Though pacifying him was the only tool available to her at that time, people in her circle didn't see it that way and blamed her for letting him back in. Law enforcement is more interested in making sure his civil liberties aren't disturbed than they are in protecting her. She had to be willing to let herself be physically hurt by him before action would be taken and it was something she wasn't willing to do. It's not as cut and dried as it appears. 

Self defense classes. She learned some moves and mopped him up one time. That was the last she heard or saw of him.


----------



## bigmac (May 25, 2015)

lucca23v2 said:


> Lilly, you have a point. I guess it might be safer to stay in some instances.




Please don't. The world is safer now than at any other time. In the developed word women (and indeed pretty much everyone) are safer than they've ever been. For some reason Americans have taken to being timid and afraid. We need to reclaim our moniker as the _home of the brave_.


----------



## lucca23v2 (May 25, 2015)

bigmac said:


> Please don't. The world is safer now than at any other time. In the developed word women (and indeed pretty much everyone) are safer than they've ever been. For some reason Americans have taken to being timid and afraid. We need to reclaim our moniker as the _home of the brave_.



I am not saying stay forever, but I can see how in certain instances it might be best to stay and wait the person out.


----------

