Estive em Floripa recentemente. Só deu tempo de ter uma visão geral, e não conheci a ilha toda e nem vi o centro.
Percebi que quem mora no morro tem dinheiro, enquanto em outras capitais casa no morro seria favela. A cidade é basicamente estradas entre o mar e as montanhas, tendo pousadas, casas de temporada e residências de luxo no lado do mar e casas de floripenses comuns no lado da montanha. É como se cada bairro fosse uma cidadezinha de interior, separados por longas estradas cercadas de mato.
Entrei em algumas dessas ruas estreitas que vão para a montanha onde cabe só um carro. A maioria delas tem o nome começado com "Servidão". Nelas vi muitas casas com muro baixo ou totalmente abertas, com o carro e crianças completamente expostos a potenciais ladrões. No final dessas ruazinhas, na encosta da montanha só vi casa luxuosa alta.
Então, é seguro deixar a casa toda aberta em Floripa? Existe favela em Floripa?

Looking for pro tips and recommendations on my upcoming plan.
In August 2026, I will retire from my career at the age of 38 and take an initial six month sabbatical to travel with my family (wife and two kids). In 2026 my kids will be 12 years old (7th grade) and 7 years old (2nd grade) and we plan on using Acellus Academy.
The following is my first draft of the six month itinerary. I must admit that I thinks it’s a bit too much at this point but would only refine it from here on out and most likely cut things and stay at places a bit longer. Remember first draft.
I would love any recommendations and or feedback. We are pretty set on the school and will try it as a summer school tool in order to get my kids used to Acellus Academy. I know that two years out may seem like a far out timeline but in my life, time flies by really fast.
Also pretty key to this would be a monthly budget of $5000 to $6000 USD.
Here is the full 6-month family vacation itinerary:

1. Costa Rica (August - September 2026):
   
   • San Jose (2 weeks)
     • Stay in Barrio Amón or Barrio Escalante ($400-$600/month Airbnb)
     • Visit Pre-Columbian Gold Museum, Mercado Central, National Theater
     • Day trip to Poás Volcano National Park
   • Arenal/La Fortuna (4 weeks)
     • Stay in El Castillo or El Forti ($500-$700/month Airbnb)
     • Hike Arenal Volcano National Park, go ziplining, hot springs
     • Visit La Fortuna Waterfall, whitewater rafting Balsa River
   • Manuel Antonio (4 weeks)
     • Stay in Manuel Antonio or Quepos ($500-$800/month Airbnb)
     • Explore Manuel Antonio National Park, surfing, beaches
     • Day trip to Rainmaker Conservation Park, sportfishing
2. Peru (October - November 2026):
   
   • Cusco (4 weeks)
     • Stay in San Blas or Santa Ana ($400-$600/month Airbnb)
     • Plaza de Armas, Qoricancha Temple, Sacsayhuaman ruins
     • Day trip to Sacred Valley, markets like Pisac
   • Aguas Calientes (2 weeks)
     • Stay in town center ($300-$500/month Airbnb)
     • Hike Inca Trail or train to Machu Picchu
     • Hot springs, tour of Machu Picchu ruins
   • Lima (2 weeks)
     • Stay in Miraflores or Barranco ($400-$700/month Airbnb)
     • Plaza de Armas, Larco Museum, Miraflores boardwalk
     • Pachacamac archaeological site
3. Ecuador (December 2026 - January 2027):
   
   • Quito (4 weeks)
     • Stay in La Mariscal or La Floresta ($500-$800/month Airbnb)
     • Old Town, Basilica, TelefériQo cable car
     • Cotopaxi National Park, Mindo Cloud Forest
   • Galapagos Islands (4 weeks)
     • Puerto Ayora, Santa Cruz ($600-$1000/month Airbnb)
     • Guided tours, giant tortoises, marine iguanas, wildlife
     • Snorkeling, diving, beaches like Tortuga Bay
   • Baños (2 weeks)
     • Stay in town center ($400-$600/month Airbnb)
     • Pailon del Diablo waterfall, hiking mountains
     • Ziplining, rafting, canyoning
4. Brazil (February - March 2027):
   
   • Rio de Janeiro (4 weeks)
     • Copacabana or Ipanema ($600-$900/month Airbnb)
     • Christ Redeemer, Sugarloaf, Copacabana Beach
     • Favela tour, samba show
   • Foz do Iguaçu (2 weeks)
     • Near Brazilian Falls ($400-$600/month Airbnb)
     • Iguazu Nat'l Park, boat under falls
     • Bird Park, Itaipu Dam
   • Manaus (4 weeks)
     • City center ($500-$800/month Airbnb)
     • Amazon Rainforest tour, piranha fishing
     • Meeting of Waters, Municipal Market
5. Argentina (April - May 2027):
   
   • Buenos Aires (4 weeks)
     • Palermo or San Telmo ($500-$800/month Airbnb)
     • Plaza de Mayo, La Boca, Recoleta Cemetery
     • Tango show, Tigre Delta day trip
   • El Calafate (2 weeks)
     • Near town center ($400-$600/month Airbnb)
     • Perito Moreno Glacier, Los Glaciares Nat'l Park
     • Boat tour of icebergs
   • El Chalten (2 weeks)
     • Town center ($400-$600/month Airbnb)
     • Hike Fitz Roy, Cerro Torre in Los Glaciares
     • Ice hiking, glacier tours
   • Mendoza (3 weeks)
     • Mendoza City ($400-$700/month Airbnb)
     • Winery/wine tours in Uco Valley, Lujan de Cuyo
     • Hiking, horseback riding in Andes foothills

Fiz um post aqui a três dias atrás e descobri a verdade sobre a N (menina que gosto)
Tópicos de o que descobri:
Onde ela vai quando ela some?
um dia eu fui seguir ela, ela caiu e foi para casa pq trincou a costela, um dia depois ela faltou e dois dias depois, ela veio, com minhas abilidades de me disfarçar em multidões, parkour (não foi necessário), stealth e sair correndo se der errado aprendidas no assassin's creed eu segui ela e descobri onde ela vai.... Eu tava certo.... ELA VAI NO PARQUINHO DAS CRIANCINHAS DO INFANTIL DE 3 A 5 ANOS pra mim foi o top 10 plot twists dos animes.
Ela tem 3 namorados?
Não, isso era antigamente, agora ela é da igreja (mesma que a minha) e não está namorando com ninguém.
Por que ela pega o celular das amigas?
Ela é um pouco(muito) viciada em celular e sempre está sem bateria para usar o dela
Ela tem bom caráter?
(Acho que)Sim, ela doa comida e roupas toda semana, acolhe animais e ajuda as amigas dela e os outros da igreja
As amigas dela são boas?
Uma delas é muito amiga minha, uma eu não conheço direito mas os professores falam bem dela, uma fala sobre fumar, usar drogas e ir para a favela(comparado com os meninos um assunto soft) e a última gosta de ajudar um coleguinhas que precisam de ajudinha especiais, então sim, são boas.
Mas o mais importante...
ELA É BOA?
Pelo que descobri da vida dela, sim, antes ela era meio duvidosa mas agora parece que ela quer largar a vida antiga para trás, então...
ELA É INCRIVEL
Obrigado por ler tudo isso e me desejem sorte com ela!

https://www.infobae.com/estados-unidos/2024/05/11/eeuu-destina-casi-usd-200-millones-a-combatir-el-brote-de-gripe-aviar-en-granjas-lecheras/
They put these in during event 201.
"In parallel, surveillance efforts will include monitoring the virus in wastewater, a strategy that has already revealed unusually high levels of influenza A in the Midwest and Northeast. Marlene Wolfe, assistant professor of environmental health at Emory University and director of the program WastewaterSCAN, has pointed out that this method allows an early and effective detection of outbreaks, although it cannot differentiate between viruses of human or animal origin."

[Encerrado] CSA 0 x 5 Athletic Club

Gols CSA: N/D Gols Athletic Club: Welinton Torrão (13/1T), Jonathas (18/1T, 40/1T), David Braga (32/1T, 43/1T)
Campeonato Brasileiro Série C - Primeira fase Estádio: Rei Pelé Data: 12 de Maio de 2024, 16:30 Transmissão: DAZN, Nosso Futebol, Paramount+ Link para Live Match Thread Post-Match Thread: https://www.reddit.com/futebol/comments/1cqig74/postmatch_thread_campeonato_brasileiro_série_c/
Escalações:

CSA (N/D)	Athletic Club (N/D)
N/D	N/D
Suplentes:	Suplentes:
N/D	N/D
Técnico: N/D	Técnico: N/D

Arbitragem: N/D

Lances

Começa o Primeiro Tempo! 00/1T AUTORIZA O ÁRBITRO. Toca na bola o Esquadrão de Aço, começa o jogo. 00/1T SUBIU A BANDEIRA. Thomazella dá um chutão pra frente, o assistente marca impedimento de Marquinhos. Bola é do Athletic. 09/1T FRAQUINHO... Raphinha desce em velocidade pela direita, levanta na segunda trave, Gustavo Xuxa aparece livre de marcação, mas cabeceia fraco pra defesa de Glauco. CSA cria a melhor chance do jogo até agora. 12/1T ⚽ Gol do Athletic Club! Após cruzamento de Paul Villero, pelo lado esquerdo, Welinton Torrão fecha bem no segundo pau, toca rasteiro, tira de Thomazella e abre o placar no Rei Pelé. 14/1T TÁ IMPEDIDO. Juninho Valoura arrisca do meio da rua, Iury Tanque domina dentro da área, mas o assistente Ivanildo Gonçalves marca impedimento. 16/1T É PÊNALTI!!! Paul Villero tabela com Yuri Silva, vai à linha de fundo e cruza pro meio da área. A bola toca no braço de Wellington Carvalho e o árbitro aponta a penalidade. 17/1T ⚽ Gol do Athletic Club! Jonathas bate bem, desloca Thomazella e amplia a vantagem do Esquadrão de Aço: 2 a 0. 24/1T 🟨 AMARELO. Ynaiã, por levantar demais a perna na disputa de bola e colocar em risco o jogador Dal Pian. 26/1T 🟨 AMARELO. Iury Tanque, por chegar forte demais na disputa de bola com Danilo. 28/1T CHUTE FORTE... Diego Fumaça recebe livre de marcação, dispara um torpedo e Thomazella cai no canto direito pra encaixar a bola. 31/1T ⚽ Gol do Athletic Club! Gol de David Braga! Num contra-ataque rápido, Paul Villero recebe e recua pra Yuri Silva. O lateral-esquerdo rola para David Braga acertar um lindo chute, no ângulo de Thomazella. Athletic faz o terceiro no jogo. 36/1T IMPEDIMENTO. Jonathas recebe na frente da área azulina, o assistente Elson Araújo marca impedimento do centroavante do Athletic. 36/1T UUUHHH!!! Yuri Silva avança com liberdade, vê o clarão e chuta forte, de canhota: a bola passa por cima do travessão de Thomazella. Tiro de meta pro CSA. 40/1T ⚽ Gol do Athletic Club! Jonathas recebe passe de Diego Fumaça dentro da área do CSA, dribla Wellington Carvalho e coloca no canto direito de Thomazella. É o quarto do Athletic no jogo. Goleada do Esquadrão! 42/1T ⚽ Gol do Athletic Club! Diego Fumaça lança para Welinton Torrão na linha de fundo, o camisa 7 cruza pra trás, David Braga aparece no meio da defesa e toca pra fazer o quinto no Rei Pelé. 45/1T +1. Vamos até os 46. 45/1T ACABOU. Fim do primeiro tempo no Rei Pelé. CSA 0 x 5 Athletic. 45/1T ⏱️ Termina o Primeiro Tempo!   Começa o Segundo Tempo! 00/2T BOLA ROLANDO. Começa a etapa final no Rei Pelé. 02/2T ISOLOU. Yuri Silva corta errado pra frente da área do Athletic, Dal Pian bate de primeira, de perna direita, e manda muito longe do gol de Glauco. 07/2T CAÍDO. Yuri Silva se choca com David Braga, próprio companheiro, e fica caído. Jogador do Athletic recebe atendimento no gramado. 08/2T QUE ISSO, CAPITÃO? Na cobrança do escanteio, Dal Pian rola para Juninho Valoura, o capitão do CSA tenta o recuo e protagoniza um lance bizarro no Rei Pelé. 13/2T PRA FORA. Juninho Valoura cobra o escanteio, Matheus Santos tenta o cabeceio, Pedro Favela gira, bate forte e acerta a rede do Esquadrão, mas pelo lado de fora. 19/2T 🟨 AMARELO. Para Vitor Leque, por falta dura em cima de Yuri Silva. 20/2T MUDANÇAS. Entram: Richard e Jean Cléber. Saem: Gustavo Xuxa e Dal Pian. 24/2T MUDANÇA TRIPLA. Entram: Geovane, Djalma e Paul Villero. Saem: Welinton Torrão, Robinho e Rafael Conceição. 28/2T EM CIMA DA LINHA. Valoura manda na segunda trave, Bruno Cardoso ajeita pro meio da área, Pedro Favela cabeceia pro gol e Edson salva em cima da linha. 31/2T UUUHHH!!! Rômulo bate direto pro gol, com veneno, a bola passa raspando o travessão de Thomazella. 35/2T ALTERAÇÃO NO CSA. Entra: Roger. Sai: Iury Tanque. 41/2T NA TRAVE!!! Raphinha aproveita cruzamento na área do Athletic, bate bem de perna direita e a bola carimba o poste esquerdo de Glauco. No rebote, o lateral do Azulão chuta em cima da defesa e ganha o escanteio. 44/2T 🟨 AMARELO. Richard, por segurar Douglas Pelé e impedir um avanço do lateral do Athletic. 44/2T +4. Segundo tempo vai até os 49'. 46/2T POR CIMA. Juninho Valoura bate direto pro gol e manda por cima do travessão de Glauco. Tiro de meta pro Athletic. 48/2T APITA O ÁRBITRO. José Henrique de Azevedo Júnior apita pela última vez no Rei Pelé. CSA 0 x 5 Athletic. 48/2T ⏱️ Termina o Segundo Tempo!   Fim de Jogo!

Seguinte, sou pobre. Sei q com esse salário de fome não vou morar em copacabana. Vivo atualmente em Itaborái, no interior em casa própria, levo quase 3 horas para sair daqui e chegar no centro onde trabalho.
Tenho perspectivas desse salário ir a 4k líquido no final do ano e tinha como esperança segurar até lá para me mudar, só que está muito difícil, e me prejudicando, não tenho hora pra estudar pra exercitar, pra nada, é uma rotina que já levo há três anos.
Pensei em comprar um carro ou moto, mas fico na dúvida se meu gasto com combustível e manutenção seria equivalente ao que gastaria com aluguel. Se compensaria no curto ou longo prazo
Devido a isso, fico na dúvida, consigo morar em um local ok sem muito luxo q fique ao menos a 30min do centro de transporte público? E em qual faixa eu deveria procurar?
Ps. não tenho interesse morar em quartos com outras pessoas na casa e não tenho problema com criminalidade, afinal eu já moro na favela

Pessoal, segue a indicação de algumas organizações e indivíduos que estão atuando na linha frente no atendimento à população atingida pelas chuvas e enchentes no RS. Todos estão precisando de doações para continuar atendendo a população:

Missão Sementes da Solidariedade

Fonte: https://caritas.org.bnoticias/missao-sementes-de-solidariedade
Missão da Caritas Brasileira, organismo da CNBB (igreja católica) que também é integrado por movimentos sociais como o Movimento dos Pequenos Agricultores e Pequenas Agricultoras (MPA), Comissão Pastoral da Terra, Instituto Conhecimento Liberta (ICL) entre outros.
Pix: Chave CNPJ 33654419/0010-07
Conta Banco do Brasil: C/C 55450-2, Agência 1258-3
Em nome de: Cáritas Brasileira

Cozinha Solidária do MAB/MTST

Fonte: https://mab.org.b2024/05/07/para-atender-regioes-atingidas-mab-estrutura-10-cozinhas-no-rio-grande-do-sul/#
O MAB (Movimento dos Atingidos por Barragens) em conjunto com o MTST (Movimento dos Trabalhadores Sem-Teto) estão montando 10 cozinhas populares em áreas atingidas pelas chuvas no RS.
Pix: Chave CNPJ 73.316.457/0001-83
Conta Banco do Brasil: C/C 118.806-2, Agência 1230-0
Em nome de: Associação Nacional dos Atingidos por Barragens (ANAB)

Campanha de Solidariedade do MST

Fonte: https://mst.org.b2024/05/08/o-principio-da-solidariedade-sem-terra-e-as-recentes-chuvas-no-rio-grande-do-sul/
A Campanha de Solidariedade do MST está distribuindo marmitas para a população desabrigada pelas chuvas e também auxílio para as famílias dos assentamentos que perderam suas casas e plantações
Link do Apoia-se: https://apoia.se/sos_mst
Pix: Chave CNPJ 09352141000148
Em nome de: Instituto Brasileiro de Solidariedade
Em São Paulo, o MST recebe doações nos locais:
ARMAZÉM DO CAMPO – Alameda Nothmann, 806, Campos Elíseos
GALPÃO CULTURAL ELZA SOARES – Alameda Eduardo Prado, 474, Campos Elíseos

Cozinha Solidária do MTD em Canoas/RS

Fonte: https://www.instagram.com/mtd.nacional/p/C6j8fH5PiNa/
A cozinha popular do MTD (Movimento das Trabalhadoras e dos Trabalhadores por Direitos) no bairro Guajuviras da cidade de Canoas está funcionando para atender as famílias desalojadas em função das chuvas.
Pix: Chave CNPJ 04.674.671/0001-99
Em nome de: Associação Carlos Dorneles

Cozinha Solidária do Levante da Juventude RS

Fonte: https://www.instagram.com/levantedajuventuders/p/C6kA73ZpHB4
O Levante Popular da Juventude instalou cozinhas comunitárias em diferentes espaços periféricos em Porto Alegre, locais onde também concentra e organiza doações de alimentos e materiais para famílias desabrigadas e em extrema vulnerabilidade.
Doações para o espaço que foi chamado de Cozinha Solidária da Juventude podem ser encaminhadas para duas diferentes chaves PIX 04.674.671/0001-99 (CNPJ) e 51999726020 (Celular)

Ajuda a comunidades indígenas pelo CIMI

Fonte: https://cimi.org.b2024/05/indigenascheiars/
O CIMI (Conselho Indigenista Missionário), organismo vinculado à CNBB (igreja católica) está arrecadando doações para mais de 80 comunidades indígenas afetadas pelas chuvas.
Pix: 566601e8-72b1-4258-a354-aa9a510445d1
Conta Banco do Brasil: C/C 128891-1, Agência 0321-2
Em nome de: Cimi Regional Sul
Também estão recolhendo doações na Paróquia Menino Jesus de Praga, Rua Dr. Pitrez, 61, bairro Aberta dos Morros, Porto Alegre/RS

Cozinhas comunitárias do Movimento Brasil Popular

Fonte: https://www.instagram.com/movimentobrasilpopulap/C6wZ8TkL6FA
O Movimento Brasil Popular, junto de outras organizações populares, tem se colocado na linha de frente das ações de solidariedade aos milhares de atingidos pela cheia.
Pix: Chave CPF 031.930.730-16
Em nome de: Alexandre Garcia (Agente Popular de Saúde)
Planilha com abrigos e locais de coleta no RS: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13PECLyJSgPNoiyt-CW5D7GJ6N44hZgcmKuKoggzBnLI/

Doações via CUFA - Central Única das Favelas

Fonte: https://www.instagram.com/p/C6hNWBzpbRK
A Central Única das Favelas (CUFA), está liderando uma mobilização solidária para auxiliar as vítimas da enchente, concentrando esforços na arrecadação de alimentos, produtos de limpeza e higiene pessoal, remédios água, roupas, calçados e cobertores.
Pix: [doacoes@cufa.org.br](mailto:doacoes@cufa.org.br)

Os que mais viveram (longevidade) eram pessoas que viviam a simplicidade. O que quero dizer com isso?
Acordamos todos os dias com problemas, que só nos fogem na hora em que dormimos, e olhe lá. Problemas que giram em torno do social, seja como as pessoas nos vem (se tornar bem apresentável, financeiro), ou no meio das relações (amigos, familia, namoro). Problemas que a 5 anos não importarão, mas gastamos tempo com isso, precioso tempo, gastamos nossa paz, nossa energia.
Tendo noção disso, eu digo, se não entretessemos com essas questões diarias a vida seria chata, sem histórias pra contar. A vida de empresários é corrida assim como a do chão-de-fábrica, e mesmo assim, vejo mais felicidade na favela do que em condomínios de casas milionárias. Como se todos fidalgos são o que são, para os outros. Ricos vivem de status, pobres vivem deles, entre eles, para os mesmos, algo genuino, uma verdade.
Em um bairro rico a aparência é a arte, e se expressa no gasto excessivo, na pobreza o que domina é a propria pessoa, basta conversar com pessoas de mesma idade, com classes sociais opostas, questionando seu ser, um jovem simples, vai olhar no seu olho de forma digna, o rico vai ser inseguro, pois coloca sua segurança no dinheiro, ele tem medo de perder o que ele é, já o pobre, novamente, em si próprio, na sua vida.
Creio eu, que, usar um "chinelo de pneu" é muito mais fácil que calçar um chinelo Gucci. Muito mais verdadeiro, porque o rico compra Gucci para os outros, ja o "chinelo de pneu" é para a própria pessoa, é genuíno.
Vejo muito mais verdade em uma simples vida, como a que vivo, do que ao me vender para os outros, como usar Gucci.
E proponho o tal, a vida "simples", é muito mais difícil de se viver, pois sempre estamos tentando alcançar nossa tentação, sendo ela, viver em um condomínio milionário calçando Gucci. A pessoa que consegue enxergar felicidade na sua simples realidade, é a pessoa que mais vive, pois se você tira o dinheiro do rico, ele se vê sem nada, o simples, como o nome, só precisa do necessário, o resto é Ele.
Mas estamos presos, vivemos pros outros, morreremos para os outros, tentando ao máximo ser o Outro.
Talvez o segredo da vida é a simplicidade.

VIII: The Flight from Feeling: Sociopsychology of the Sex War
The Trivialization of Personal Relations
Bertrand Russell once predicted that the socialization of reproduction - the supersession of the family by the state - would “make sex love itself more trivial,” encourage “a certain triviality in all personal relations,” and “make it far more difficult to take an interest in anything after one’s own death.” At first glance, recent developments appear to have refuted the first part of this prediction. Americans today invest personal relations, particularly the relations between men and women, with undiminished emotional importance. The decline of childrearing as a major preoccupation has freed sex from its bondage to procreation and made it possible for people to value erotic life for its own sake. As the family shrinks to the marital unit, it can be argued that men and women respond more readily to each other’s emotional needs, instead of living vicariously through their offspring. The marriage contract having lost its binding character, couples now find it possible, according to many observers, to ground sexual relations in something more solid than legal compulsion. In short, the growing determination to live for the moment, whatever it may have done to the relations between parents and children, appears to have established the preconditions of a new intimacy between men and women.
This appearance is an illusion. The cult of intimacy conceals a growing despair of finding it. Personal relations crumble under the emotional weight with which they are burdened. The inability “to take an interest in anything after one’s own death,” which gives such urgency to the pursuit of close personal encounters in the present, makes intimacy more elusive than ever. The same developments that have weakened the tie between parents and children have also undermined relations between men and women. Indeed the deterioration of marriage contributes in its own right to the deterioration of care for the young.
This last point is so obvious that only a strenuous propaganda on behalf of “open marriage” and “creative divorce” prevents us from grasping it. It is clear, for example, that the growing incidence of divorce, together with the ever present possibility that any given marriage will end in collapse, adds to the instability of family life and deprives the child of a measure of emotional security. Enlightened opinion diverts attention from this general fact by insisting that in specific cases, parents may do more harm to their children by holding a marriage together than by dissolving it. It is true that many couples preserve their marriage, in one form or another, at the expense of the child. Sometimes they embark on a life full of distractions that shield them against daily emotional involvements with their offspring. Sometimes one parent acquiesces in the neurosis of the other (as in the family configuration that produces so many schizophrenic patients) for fear of disturbing the precarious peace of the household. More often the husband abandons his children to the wife whose company he finds unbearable, and the wife smothers the children with incessant yet perfunctory attentions. This particular solution to the problem of marital strain has become so common that the absence of the father impresses many observers as the most striking fact about the contemporary family. Under these conditions, a divorce in which the mother retains custody of her children merely ratifies the existing state of affairs - the effective emotional desertion of his family by the father. But the reflection that divorce often does no more damage to children than marriage itself hardly inspires rejoicing.
Battle of the Sexes: Its Social History
While the escalating war between men and women have psychological roots in the disintegration of the marital relation, and more broadly in the changing patterns of socialization outlined in the preceding chapter, much of this tension can be explained without reference to psychology. The battle of the sexes also constitutes a social phenomena with a history of its own. The reasons for the recent intensification of sexual combat lie in the transformation of capitalism from its paternalistic and familial form to a managerial, corporate, bureaucratic system of almost total control: more specifically, in the collapse of “chivalry”; the liberation of sex from many of its former constraints; the pursuit of sexual pleasure as an end in itself; the emotional overloading of personal relations; and most important of all, the irrational male response to the emergence of the liberated woman.
It has been clear for some time that “chivalry is dead.” The tradition of gallantry formerly masked and to some degree mitigated the organized oppression of women. While males monopolized political and economic power, they made their domination of women more palatable by surrounding it with an elaborate ritual of deference and politesse. They set themselves up as protectors of the weaker sex, and this cloying but useful fiction set limits to their capacity to exploit women through sheer physical force. The counterconvention of droit de seigneur, which justified the predatory exploits of the privileged classes against women socially inferior to themselves, nevertheless showed that the male sex at no time ceased to regard most women as fair game. The long history of rape and seduction, moreover, served as a reminder that animal strength remained the basis of masculine ascendancy, manifested here in its most direct and brutal form. Yet polite conventions, even when they were no more than a façade, provided women with ideological leverage in their struggle to domesticate the wildness and savagery of men. They surrounded essentially exploitive relationships with a network of reciprocal obligations, which if nothing else made exploitation easier to bear.
The symbiotic interdependence of exploiters and exploited, so characteristic of paternalism in all ages, survived in male-female relations long after the collapse of patriarchal authority in other areas. Because the convention of deference to the fair sex was so closely bound up with paternalism, however, it lived on borrowed time once the democratic revolutions of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries had destroyed the last foundations of feudalism. The decline of paternalism, and of the rich public ceremonial formerly associated with it, spelled the end of gallantry. Women themselves began to perceive the connection between their debasement and their sentimental exaltation, rejected their confining position on the pedestal of masculine adoration, and demanded the demystification of female sexuality.
Democracy and feminism have now stripped the veil of courtly convention from the subordination of women, revealing the sexual antagonisms formerly concealed by the “feminine mystique.” Denied illusions of comity, men and women find it more difficult than before to confront each other as friends and lovers, let alone as equals. As male supremacy becomes ideologically untenable, incapable of justifying itself as protection, men assert their domination more directly, in fantasies and occasionally in acts of raw violence. Thus the treatment of women in movies, according to one study, has shifted “from reverence to rape.”
Women who abandon the security of well-defined though restrictive social roles have always exposed themselves to sexual exploitation, having surrendered the usual claims of respectability. Mary Wollstonecraft, attempting to live as a free woman, found herself brutally deserted by Gilbert Imlay. Later feminists forfeited the privileges of sex and middle-class origin when they campaigned for women’s rights. Men reviled them publicly as sexless “she-men” and approached them privately as loose women. A Cincinnati brewer, expecting to be admitted to Emma Goldman’s hotel room when he found her alone, became alarmed when she threatened to wake the whole establishment. He protested, “I thought you believed in free love.” Ingrid Bengis reports that when she hitchhiked across the country, men expected her to pay for rides with sexual favors. Her refusal elicited the predictable reply: “Well, girls shouldn’t hitchhike in the first place.”
What distinguishes the present time from the past is that defiance of sexual conventions less and less presents itself as a matter of individual choice, as it was for the pioneers of feminism. Since most of those conventions have already collapsed, even a woman who lays no claim to her rights nevertheless finds it difficult to claim the traditional privileges of her sex. All women find themselves identified with “women’s lib” merely by virtue of their sex, unless by strenuous disavowals they identify themselves with its enemies. All women share in the burdens as well as the benefits of “liberation,” both of which can be summarized by saying that men no longer treat women as ladies.
The Sexual “Revolution”
The demystification of womanhood goes hand in hand with the desublimation of sexuality. The “repeal of reticence” has dispelled the aura of mystery surrounding sex and removed most of the obstacles to its public display. Institutionalized sexual segregation has given way to arrangements that promote the intermingling of the sexes at every stage of life. Efficient contraceptives, legalized abortion, and a “realistic” and “healthy” acceptance of the body have weakened the links that once tied sex to love, marriage, and procreation. Men and women now pursue sexual pleasure as an end in itself, unmediated even by the conventional trappings of romance.
Sex valued purely for its own sake loses all reference to the future and brings no hope of permanent relationships. Sexual liaisons, including marriage, can be terminated at pleasure. This means, as Willard Waller demonstrated a long time ago, that lovers forfeit the right to be jealous or to insist on fidelity as a condition of erotic union. In his sociological satire of the recently divorced, Waller pointed out that the bohemians of the 1920s attempted to avoid emotional commitments while eliciting them from others.
Since the bohemian was “not ready to answer with his whole personality for the consequences of the affair, nor to give any assurance of its continuance,” he lost the right to demand such an assurance from others. “To show jealousy,” under these conditions, became “nothing short of a crime…. So if one falls in love in Bohemia, he conceals it from his friends as best he can.” In similar studies of the “rating and dating complex” on college campuses, Waller found that students who fell in love invited the ridicule of their peers. Exclusive attachments have way to an easygoing promiscuity as the normal pattern of sexual relations. Popularity replaced purity as the measure of a woman’s social value; the sentimental cult of virginity gave way to “playful woman-sharing,” which had “no negative effect,” as Wolfenstein and Leites pointed out in their study of movies, “on the friendly relations between the men.”(*) In the thirties and forties, the cinematic fantasy in which a beautiful girl dances with a chorus of men, favoring one no more than the others, expressed an ideal to which reality more and more closely conformed. In Elmtown’s Youth, August Hollingshead described a freshman girl who violated conventional taboos against drinking, smoking, and “fast” behavior and still retained her standing in the school’s most prominent clique, partly carefully calibrated promiscuity. “To be seen with her adds to a boy’s prestige in the elite peer group…. she pets with her dates discreetly never goes too far, just far enough to make them come back again.” In high school as in college, the peer group attempts through conventional ridicule and vituperation to prevent its members from falling in love with the wrong people, indeed from falling in love at all; for as Hollingshead noted, lovers “are lost to the adolescent world with its quixotic enthusiasms and varied group activities.”
These studies show that the main features of the contemporary sexual scene had already established themselves well before the celebrated “sexual revolution” of the sixties and seventies: casual promiscuity, a wary avoidance of emotional commitments, an attack on jealousy and possessiveness. Recent developments, however, have introduced a new source of tension: the modern woman’s increasingly insistent demand for sexual fulfillment. In the 1920s and 1930s, many women still approached sexual encounters with a hesitance that combined prudery and a realistic fear of consequences. Superficially seductive, they took little pleasure in sex even when they spoke the jargon of sexual liberation and professed to live for pleasure and thrills. Doctors worried about female frigidity, and psychiatrists had no trouble in recognizing among their female patients the classic patterns of hysteria described by Freud, in which a coquettish display of sexuality often coexists with powerful repression and a rigid, puritanical morality.
Today women have dropped much of their sexual reserve. In the eyes of men, this makes them more accessible as sexual partners but also more threatening. Formerly men complained about women’s lack of sexual response; now they find this response intimidating and agonize about their capacity to satisfy it. “I’m sorry they ever found out they could have orgasms too,” Heller’s Bob Slocum says. The famous Masters-Johnson report on female sexuality added to these anxieties by depicting women as sexually insatiable, inexhaustible in their capacity to experience orgasm after orgasm. Some feminists have used the Masters report to attack the “myth of vaginal orgasm,” to assert women’s independence of men, or to taunt men with their sexual inferiority. “Theoretically, a woman could go on having orgasms indefinitely if physical exhaustion did not intervene,” writes Mary Jane Sherfey. According to Kate Millett, “While the male’s sexual potential is limited, the female’s appears to be biologically nearly inexhaustible.” Sexual “performance” thus becomes another weapon in the war between men and women; social inhibitions no longer prevent women from exploiting the tactical advantage which the current obsession with sexual measurement has given them. Whereas the hysterical woman, even when she fell in love and longed to let herself go, seldom conquered her underlying aversion to sex, the pseudoliberated woman of Cosmopolitan exploits her sexuality in a more deliberate and calculating way, not only because she has fewer reservations about sex but because she manages more successfully to avoid emotional entanglements. “Women with narcissistic personalities,” writes Otto Kernberg, “may appear quite ‘hysterical’ on the surface, with their extreme coquettishness and exhibitionism but the cold, shrewdly calculating quality of their seductiveness is in marked contrast to the much warmer, emotionally involved quality of hysterical pseudo-hypersexuality.”
[*. The transition in American movies from the vamp to the “good-bad girl,” according to Wolfenstein and Leites, illustrates the decline of jealousy and the displacement of sexual passion by sexiness. “The dangerousness of the vamp was associated with the man’s intolerance for sharing her with other men. Her seductive appearance and readiness for love carried a strong suggestion that there has been and might be other men in her life…. The good-bad girl is associated with a greater tolerance for sharing the woman…. In effect, the woman’s attraction is enhanced by her association with other men. All that is needed to eliminate unpleasantness is the assurance that those relations were not serious.”]
Togetherness
Both men and women have come to approach personal relations with a heightened appreciation of their emotional risks. Determined to manipulate the emotions of others while protecting themselves against emotional injury, both sexes cultivate a protective shallowness, a cynical detachment they do not altogether feel but which soon becomes habitual and in any case embitters personal relations merely through its repeated profession. At the same time, people demand from personal relations the richness and intensity of a religious experience. Although in some ways men and women have had to modify their demands on each other, especially in their inability to exact commitments of lifelong sexual fidelity, in other ways they demand more than ever. In the American middle class, moreover, men and women see too much of each other and find it hard to put their relations in proper perspective. The degradation of work and the impoverishment of communal life force people to turn to sexual excitement to satisfy all their emotional needs. Formerly sexual antagonism was tempered not only by chivalric, paternalistic, conventions but by a more relaxed acceptance of the limitations of the other sex. Men and women acknowledged each other’s shortcomings without making them the basis of a comprehensive indictment. Partly because they found more satisfaction than is currently available in casual relations with their own sex, they did not have to raise friendship itself into a political program, an ideological alternative to love. An easygoing, everyday contempt for the weaknesses of the other sex, institutionalized as folk wisdom concerning the emotional incompetence of men or the brainlessness of women, kept sexual enmity within bounds and prevented it from becoming an obsession.
Feminism and the ideology of intimacy have discredited the sexual stereotypes which kept women in their place but which also made it possible to acknowledge sexual antagonism without raising it to the level of all-out warfare. Today the folklore of sexual differences and the acceptance of sexual friction survive only in the working class. Middle-class feminists envy the ability of working-class women to acknowledge that men get in their way without becoming man-haters. “These women are less angry at their men because they don’t spend that much time with them,” according to one observer. “Middle-class women are the ones who were told men had to be their companions.”
…
Strategies of Accommodation
Because the contradiction exposed (and exacerbated) by feminism are so painful, the feminist movement has always found it tempting to renounce its own insights and program and to retreat into some kind of accommodation with the existing order, often disguised as embattled militancy. In the nineteenth century, American feminists edged away from their original programs, which envisioned not only economic equality but a sweeping reform of marriage and sexual relations, into a protracted campaign for woman suffrage. Today many feminists argue, once again in the name of political realism, that women need to establish their influence within the two-party system, as a kind of loyal opposition, before they can raise broader issues. Such tactics merely serve to postpone the discussion of broader issues indefinitely. Just as the women’s rights movement of the nineteenth century drew back from discussions of love and marriage when they met with public hostility, so strong forces in the National Organization for Women today propose to improve woman’s image, to show that feminism in no way threatens men, and to blame “social conditions” or bad attitudes, not male supremacy, for the subordination of the female sex.
More subtle forms of accommodation pose as radical challenges to mainstream feminism and the status quo. Some militants have revived discredited theories of matriarchal origins or myths of the moral superiority of women, thereby consoling themselves for this lack of power. They appear to the illusory solidarity of sisterhood in order to avoid arguments about the proper goals of the feminist movement. By institutionalizing women’s activities as “alternatives to the male death-culture,” they avoid challenging that culture and protect women from the need to compete with men for jobs, political power, and public attention. What began as a tactical realization that women have to win their rights without waiting for men to grant them has degenerated into the fantasy of a world without men. As one critic has noted, the movement’s “apparent vigor turns out to be mere busyness with self-perpetuating make-work: much of it serving in the short run to provide its more worldly experts with prestige, book contracts, and grants, its dreamers with an illusory matriarchal utopia.”
“Radical lesbians” carry the logic of separation to its ultimate futility, withdrawing at every level from the struggle against male domination while directing a steady stream of abuse against men and against women who refuse to acknowledge their homosexual proclivities. Proclaiming their independence from men, militant lesbians in fact envision a protected enclave for themselves within a male-dominated society. Yet this form of surrender - the dream of an island secure against male intrusion - remains attractive to women who repeatedly fail to find a union of sexuality and tenderness in their relations with men. As such disappointments become more and more common, sexual separatism commends itself as the most plausible substitute for liberation.
All these strategies of accommodation derive their emotional energy from an impulse much more prevalent than feminism: the flight from feeling. For many reasons, personal relations have become increasingly risky - most obviously, because they no longer carry any assurance of permanence. Men and women make extravagant demands on each other and experience irrational rage and hatred when their demands are not met. Under these conditions, it is not surprising that more and more people long for emotional detachment or “enjoy sex,” as Hendin writes, “only in situations where they can define and limit the intensity of the relationship.” A lesbian confesses: “The only men I’ve ever been able to enjoy sex with were men I didn’t give a shit about. Then I could let go, because I didn’t feel vulnerable.”
Sexual separatism is only one of many strategies for controlling or escaping from strong feeling. Many prefer the escape of drugs, which dissolve anger and desire in a glow of good feeling and create the illusion of intense experience without emotion. Others simply undertake to live alone, repudiating connections with either sex. The reported increase in single-member households undoubtedly reflects a new taste for personal independence, but it also expresses a revulsion against close emotional attachments of any kind. The rising rate of suicide among young people can be attributed, in part, to the same flight from emotional entanglements. Suicide, in Hendin’s words, represents the “ultimate numbness.”
The most prevalent form of escape from emotional complexity is promiscuity: the attempt to achieve a strict separation between sex and feeling. Here again, escape masquerades as liberation, regression as progress. The progressive ideology of “nonbiding commitments” and “cool sex” makes a virtue of disengagement, while purporting to criticize the depersonalization of sex. Enlightened authorities like Alex Comfort, Nena and George O’Neill, Robert and Anna Francoeur insist on the need to humanize sex by making it into a “total experience” instead of a mechanical performance; yet in the same breath they condemn the human emotions of jealousy and possessiveness and decry “romantic illusions.” “Radical” therapeutic wisdom urges men and women to express their needs and wishes without reserve - since all needs and wishes have equal legitimacy - but warns them not to expect a single mate to satisfy them. This program seeks to allay emotional tensions, in effect, by reducing the demands men and women make on each other, instead of making men and women better able to meet them. The promotion of sex as a “healthy,” “normal” part of life masks a desire to divest it of the emotional intensity that unavoidably clings to it: the reminders of earlier entanglements with parents, the “unhealthy” inclination to re-create those relations in relation with lovers. The enlightened insistence that sex is not “dirty” expresses a wish to sanitize it by washing away its unconscious associations.
The humanistic critique of sexual “depersonalization” thus sticks to the surface of the problem. Even while preaching the need to combine sex with feeling, it gives ideological legitimacy to the protective withdrawal from strong emotions. It condemns the overemphasis on technique while extolling sexual relations that are hermetically free of affect. It exhorts men and women to “get in touch with their feelings” but encourages them to make “resolutions about freedom and ‘non-possessiveness,’” as Ingrid Bengis writes, which “tear the very heart out of intimacy.” It satirizes the crude pornographic fantasies sold by the mass media, which idealize hairless women with inflated mammaries, but it does so out of an aversion to fantasy itself, which so rarely conforms to social definition of what is healthy minded. The critics of dehumanized sex, like the critics of sport, hope to abolish spectatorship and to turn everyone into a participant, hoping that vigorous exercise will drive away unwholesome thoughts. They attack pornography, not because they wish to promote more complicated and satisfying fantasies about sex, but because, on the contrary, they wish to win acceptance for a realistic view of womanhood and of the reduced demands that men and women have a right to make of each other.
The Castrating Woman of Male Fantasy
The flight from feeling, whether or not it tries to justify itself under an ideology of nonbinding commitments, takes the form above all of a flight from fantasy. This shows that it represents more than defensive reaction to external disappointments. Today men and women seek escape from emotion not only because they have suffered too many wounds in the wars of love but because they experience their own inner impulses as intolerably urgent and menacing. The flight from feeling originates not only in the sociology of the sex war but in the psychology that accompanies it. If “many of us,” as Ingrid Bengis observes of women and as others have observed of men as well, “have had to anesthetize ourselves to [our] needs,” it is the very character of those needs (and of the defenses erected against them) which gives rise to the belief that they cannot be satisfied in heterosexual relations - perhaps should not be satisfied in any form - and which therefore prompts people to withdraw from intense emotional encounters.
Instinctual desires always threaten psychic equilibrium and for this reason can never be given direct expression. In our society, however, they present themselves as intolerably menacing, in part because the collapse of authority has removed so many of the external prohibitions against the expression of dangerous impulses. The superego can no longer ally itself, in its battle against impulse, with outside authorities. It has to rely almost entirely on its own resources, and these too have diminished in their effectiveness. Not only have the social agents of repression lost much of their force, but their internal representations in the superego have suffered a similar decline. The ego ideal, which cooperates in the work of repression by making socially acceptable behavior itself an object of libidinal cathexis, has become increasingly pallid and ineffective in the absence of compelling moral models outside the self. This means, as we have seen, that the superego has to rely more and more on harsh, punitive dictation, drawing on the aggressive impulses in the id and directing them against the ego.
The narcissist feels consumed by his own appetites. The intensity of his oral hunger leads him to make inordinate demands on his friends and sexual partners; yet in the same breath he repudiates those demands asks only a causal connection without promise of permanence on either side. He longs to free himself from his own hunger and rage, to achieve a calm detachment beyond emotion, and to outgrow his dependence on others. He longs for the indifference to human relationships and to life itself that would enable him to acknowledge its passing in Kurt Vonnegut’s laconic phrase, “So it goes,” which so aptly expresses the ultimate aspiration of the psychiatric seeker. <“Western” Buddhism>
But although the psychological man of our times frightens himself with the intensity of his inner needs, the needs of others appall him no less than his own. One reason the demands he inadvertently imposes on others make him uneasy is that they may justify other in making demands on himself. Men especially fear the demands of women, not only because women no longer hesitate to press them but because men find it so difficult to imagine an emotional need that does not wish to consume whatever it seizes on.
Women today ask for two things in their relations with men: sexual satisfaction and tenderness. Whether separately or in combination, both demands seem to convey to many males the same message - that women are voracious, insatiable. Why should men respond in this fashion to demands that reason tells them have obvious legitimacy? Rational arguments notoriously falter in the face of unconscious anxieties; women’s sexual demands terrify men because they reverberate at such deep layers of the masculine mind, calling up early fantasies of a possessive, suffocating, devouring, and castrating mother. The persistence of such fantasies in later life intensifies and brings into the open the secret terror that has always been an important part of the male image of womanhood. The strength of these pre-Oedipal fantasies, in the narcissistic type of personality, makes it likely that men will approach women with hopelessly divided feelings, dependent and demanding in their fixation on the breast but terrified of the vagina which threatens to eat them alive; of the legs with which popular imagination endows the American heroine, legs which can presumably strangle or scissor victims to death; of the dangerous, phallic breast itself, encased in unyielding armor, which in unconscious terror more nearly resembles an implement of destruction that a source of nourishment. The sexually voracious female, long a stock figure of masculine pornography, in the twentieth century has emerged into the daylight of literary respectability. Similarly the cruel, destructive, domineering woman, la belle dame sans merci, has moved from the periphery of literature and the other arts to a position close to the center. Formerly a source of delicious titillation, of sadomasochistic gratification tinged with horrified fascination, she now inspires unambiguous loathing and dread. Heartless, domineering, burning (as Leslie Fiedler has said) with “a lust of the nerves rather than of the flesh,” she unmans every man who falls under her spell. In American fiction, she assumes a variety of guides, all of them variations on the same theme: the bitchy heroine of Hemingway, Faulkner, and Fitzegerald; Nathanael West’s Faye Greener, whose “invitation wasn’t to pleasure but to struggle, hard and sharp, closer to murder than to love”; Tennessee Williams’s Maggie Tolliver, edgy as a cat on a hot tin roof; the domineering wife whose mastery of her husband, as in the joyless humor of James Thurber, recalls the mastery of the castrating mother over her son; the man-eating Mom denounced in the shrill falsetto of Philip Wylie’s Generation of Vipers, Wright Morris’s Man and Boy, Edward Albee’s The American Dream; the suffocating Jewish mother, Mrs. Portnoy; the Hollywood vampire (Theda Bara), scheming seductress (Marlene Dietrich), or bad blonde (Marilyn Monroe, Jayne Mansfield); the precocious female killer of William March’s The Bad Seed.
Child or woman, wife or mother, this female cuts men to ribbons or swallows them whole. She travels accompanied by eunuchs, by damaged men suffering from nameless wounds, or by a few strong men brought low by their misguided attempts to turn her into a real woman. Whether or not the actual incidence of impotence has increased in American males - and there is no reason to doubt reports that it has - the specter of impotence haunts the contemporary imagination, not least because it focuses the fear that a played-out Anglo-Saxon culture is about to fall before the advance of hardier races. The nature of impotence, moreover, has undergone an important historical shift. In the nineteenth century, respectable men sometimes experienced embarrassing sexual failures with women of their own class, or else suffered from what Freud called “psychic impotence” - the characteristic Victorian split between sensuality and affection. Although most of these men dutifully had intercourse with their wives, they derived sexual satisfaction only from intercourse with prostitutes or with women otherwise degraded. As Freud explained, this psychic syndrome - “the most prevalent form of degradation” in the erotic life of his time - originated in the Oedipus complex. After the painful renunciation of the mother, sensuality seeks only those objects that evoke no reminder of her, while the mother herself, together with other “pure” (socially respectable) women, is idealized beyond reach of the sensual.
Today, impotence typically seems to originate not in renunciation of the mother but in earlier experiences, often reactivated by the apparently aggressive overtures of sexually liberated women. Fear of the devouring mother of pre-Oedipal fantasy gives rise to a generalized fear of women that has little resemblance to the sentimental adoration men once granted to women who made them sexually uncomfortable. The fear of women, closely associated with a fear of the consuming desires within, reveals itself not only as impotence but as a boundless rage against the female sex. This blind and impotent rage, which seems so prevalent at the present time, only superficially represents a defensive male reaction against feminism. It is only because the recent revival of feminism stirs up such deeply rooted memories that it gives rise to such primitive emotions. Men’s fear of women, moreover, exceeds the actual threat to their sexual privileges. Whereas the resentment of women against men for the most part has solid roots in the discrimination and sexual danger to which women are constantly exposed, the resentment of men against women, when men still control most of the power and wealth in society yet feel themselves threatened on every hand - intimidated, emasculated - appears deeply irrational, and for that reason not likely to be appeased by changes in feminist tactics designed to reassure men that liberated women threaten no one. When even Mom is a menace, there is not much that feminists can say to soften the sex war or to assure their adversaries that men and women will live happily together when it is over.

Eua, Irlanda, Austrália,Reino Unido e Canadá?
Então Pessoal Tenho 18 Anos e tô pensando em fazer uma faculdade pegar um diploma e futuramente sair daqui, sinceramente não vejo mais salvação. Amo Esse país mas não dá mais Moro em São Paulo na zona sul cresci numa favela e simplesmente bateu a bad aqui, por que se quero ter uma família não posso criar meus filhos aqui depois de tudo que já passei meu inglês é intermediário aprendi jogando. Quem puder me dar umas dicas.