# Primer on how to attract women



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Look at 1:30 onward. This is basically how you stand the test. Notice his constant eye contact and total non-reaction to words like "creepy" and "psycho." It's clearly cliche and too textbook but she calls him "confident" at the end. This is how women emotionally process interactions. It almost doesn't matter how you look or what you say because most guys don't have it together. And look at 1:51 - the posh (enneagram three lol) friend is looking if he'll react to the insult.


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

Bricolage said:


> Look at 1:30 onward. This is basically how you stand the test. Notice his constant eye contact and total non-reaction to words like "creepy" and "psycho." It's clearly cliche and too textbook but she calls him "confident" at the end. *This is how women emotionally process interactions.* It almost doesn't matter how you look or what you say because most guys don't have it together. And look at 1:51 - the posh (enneagram three lol) friend is looking if he'll react to the insult.


Idk, I must not be a woman coz if it was me, I'd be very creeped out of the idea of someone having filmed me without my permission yet acted totally fine with it, and looked at me that intensely without turning away (*psycho alert! psycho alert!*). Wait, I wouldn't even have started the conversation to begin with.

If anyone really thinks that is how women emotionally process interactions... they either are interacting with totally clueless people (derp people??), or are clueless of the opposite sex's perception.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

AriesLilith said:


> Idk, I must not be a woman coz if it was me, I'd be very creeped out of the idea of someone having filmed me without my permission yet acted totally fine with it, and looked at me that intensely without turning away (*psycho alert! psycho alert!*). Wait, I wouldn't even have started the conversation to begin with.
> 
> If anyone really thinks that is how women emotionally process interactions... they either are interacting with totally clueless people (derp people??), or are clueless of the opposite sex's perception.


You would think so but there's nothing rational about human interaction. Women notice small non-verbal cues and emotional insecurities that a man is sending off. Eye contact, inner confidence and alignment of thoughts, words and actions draws in _most _women. It's a numbers game.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

AriesLilith said:


> Idk, I must not be a woman coz if it was me, I'd be very creeped out of the idea of someone having filmed me without my permission yet acted totally fine with it, and looked at me that intensely without turning away (*psycho alert! psycho alert!*). Wait, I wouldn't even have started the conversation to begin with.
> 
> If anyone really thinks that is how women emotionally process interactions... they either are interacting with totally clueless people (derp people??), or are clueless of the opposite sex's perception.


That's kinda the point. She wanted to dislike him for filming her - creepy, psycho, etc. - and look "cool" in front of her friend yet he won her over with the behaviors I talked about.


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

Bricolage said:


> That's kinda the point. She wanted to dislike him for filming her - creepy, psycho, etc. - and look "cool" in front of her friend yet he won her over with the behaviors I talked about.


First, that is a movie, it was not a real reaction.

Second, true there are girls/women that probably would react like that... But those are probably clueless, derp women, and no women in her normal mind and maturity would think "oh he just filmed me or did <insert some red alert for psycho potential serial killer action>, but he was sooo confident and cool! <3".


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

AriesLilith said:


> those are probably clueless, derp women, and no women in her normal mind and maturity


The majority of women are intrigued by that kind of confidence.


----------



## FallingSlowly (Jul 1, 2013)

What's the majority of intrigued women for you? Teenage girls?


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

FallingSlowly said:


> What's the majority of intrigued women for you? Teenage girls?


Women don't want to believe the game can be formulaic. Ask any player what he does to get girls. He'll mention eye contact and alignment of thoughts, actions and words, or something very similar. The end result is confidence. You also want a pull-push dynamic that stimulates her emotions. I could go into this later. You don't want to only pull because then you're easy and needy; you don't want to only push because then you're uninterested and unavailable and probably just rude. Women love the chase. So, hey, players should allow themselves to get played occasionally.


----------



## Emerald Legend (Jul 13, 2010)

How to attract men:

When he says you're a slut- just don't flinch. 

Works both ways, right??


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Emerald Legend said:


> How to attract men:
> 
> When he says you're a slut- just don't flinch.
> 
> Works both ways, right??


I don't think women who enjoy sex are necessarily sluts. That word should connote some girl who has really low self-esteem and fucks guys to artificially boost it. A true slut is actually really emotionally damaged and pathetic.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Emerald Legend said:


> How to attract men:
> 
> When he says you're a slut- just don't flinch.
> 
> Works both ways, right??


You shouldn't call women sluts, except to infuse levity into the situation. I wouldn't even do that unless you're experienced lest you seem creepy.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

People aren't seeing the obvious here - I'm simply expounding the opposite of what doesn't work. What I mean is the newb has zero eye contact, reedy voice, totally dependent on her approval and nothing interesting to talk about. I'm saying flip that and create attraction.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Bricolage said:


> Look at 1:30 onward. This is basically how you stand the test. Notice his constant eye contact and total non-reaction to words like "creepy" and "psycho." It's clearly cliche and too textbook but she calls him "confident" at the end. This is how women emotionally process interactions. It almost doesn't matter how you look or what you say because most guys don't have it together. And look at 1:51 - the posh (enneagram three lol) friend is looking if he'll react to the insult.


omg. hahaha... okay, I'll give you this. there's this book I read eons ago when I went through some dorky phase of reading to understand men. I read so many god forsaken books from evolutionary psychology to more spiritual ones. books written for women and ones written for men. I always do that. I have to read everything from left to right to choose what I want to think. haha.

anyways. low and behold ... at the end of the day, the thing that brought me the MOST understanding, was to actually have relationships with them. weird, right?  What I mean by that is that I think every person has (which they do suggest in some books) an "epiphany relationship", and in some cases, epiphany moments within relationships that work through this period of self realization. we ALL have egos but it's hard to see them unless you're looking for them and often times even then, you can't see them till they break. 

anyways. This is all in good humor so take it with a grain of salt but I do recall one in particular book called, "the way of a superior man" or something to that effect. I might be off on the title a little bit. but there's a chapter in there that talks about how women test men. and that she uses words to hurt and that when you don't let it get to you, she knows she can trust you. something to this effect. there are little mind fuck games too that men play like the emotional distance game so he feels like he's in control of the attention he gives you and to make sure you aren't needy and bullshit like that. of course all this is fine and dandy but then when you add little details like, the poor guy just lost his job, or the poor girl is a single mom, then it gets nasty and so the story rolls on ... the battle between the sexes. 


honestly. if you want to know a primer on women. it's simple. remember that what respect is to you, love is to women. women need to mind mens egos more, and respect them more. men need to give women a break and stop expecting them to be less feminine in nature so they're more convenient. women can not be feminine (and turn you on) one moment, and then you need your time and get irritated when she acts feminine. it's like, wtf bro. you want her to grow a penis when it's convenient for you? and for women, same deal. you can't expect a man to be a girlfriend. I'm guilty of it too. It's so easy to forget. and this is why relationship is something that will be work forever so to speak. because time and time again people forget. the minute we grow and overcome our ego's ... we go around, hell yeah! and BOOM! a new ego is now formed. It is what it is ...

so here's what I got so far! 

my theory. 



Words are for women. Action is for men. So. ... I am now forever more going to communicate in pantomime and smiles and blinks. If a guy begins to be immature ... I'll just be silent and wait till he grows up. If a guy gets angry, I'll just wait till he stops and bake him cookies. If I get a boyfriend and I'm in the mood. I won't try to be frisky with words. I'll just take my pants off, haha! 

so no more words. this is of course under the presumption that it would induce the other party into communicating in MY language. using his words.  ... so. I think I should get a notebook out and write down my hypotheses using the scientific method and track my next relationship to see if it works. If it does, I shall write a book about my success. ... you think I'm joking don't you?


hahahahaha!!!!! :tongue:


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

NK said:


> omg. hahaha... okay, I'll give you this. there's this book I read eons ago when I went through some dorky phase of reading to understand men. I read so many god forsaken books from evolutionary psychology to more spiritual ones. books written for women and ones written for men. I always do that. I have to read everything from left to right to choose what I want to think. haha.
> 
> anyways. low and behold ... at the end of the day, the thing that brought me the MOST understanding, was to actually have relationships with them. weird, right?  What I mean by that is that I think every person has (which they do suggest in some books) an "epiphany relationship", and in some cases, epiphany moments within relationships that work through this period of self realization. we ALL have egos but it's hard to see them unless you're looking for them and often times even then, you can't see them till they break. anyways. This is all in good humor so take it with a grain of salt but I do recall one in particular book called, "the way of a superior man" or something to that effect. I might be off on the title a little bit. but there's a chapter in there that talks about how women test men. and that she uses words to hurt and that when you don't let it get to you, she knows she can trust you. something to this effect. there are little mind fuck games too that men play like the emotional distance game so he feels like he's in control of the attention he gives you and to make sure you aren't needy and bullshit like that. of course all this is great but then when you add little details like, the poor guy just lost his job, or the poor girl is a single mom, then it gets nasty and the so the story rolls on ... the battle of the sexes.
> 
> ...


For the record I'm talking about pickup and attracting women and one-time fucks; not sustaining a relationship. Although, understanding women and attraction will help with relationships.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Bricolage said:


> For the record I'm talking about pickup and attracting women and one-time fucks; not sustaining a relationship. Although, understanding women and attraction will help with relationships.


same deal dumb ass ... attraction to fuck you is the same god damn deal. 

men are so slow. no wonder you can't get laid.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

NK said:


> no wonder you can't get laid.


Is that why I have girls queuing up?


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

NK said:


> same deal dumb ass ... attraction to fuck you is the same god damn deal.


It's a different ballgame - looking for pickup and looking for a relationship. You could do the eye contact and tonality stuff and suck the next morning because you're super dull as a person; this is how it differs from forging a relationship.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Bricolage said:


> It's a different ballgame - looking for pickup and looking for a relationship. You could do the eye contact and tonality stuff and suck the next morning because you're super dull as a person; this is how it differs from forging a relationship.



NO you dork! A woman isn't gonna let you lead her into a relationship if she hasn't thought about sleeping with you. you're an idiot. I'm done. I'm crabby. I'm not arguing with you anymore. I'm just amusing myself here to make myself happy. Go away BOY!

you haven't a CLUE about ANYTHING regarding women! 
which is to say, one night stands are fleeting but genital warts are forever. 

there. now I'm done. enjoy your hunt for STD's. !


----------



## dvnj22 (Apr 24, 2013)

@Bricolage you should start your own pick-up artist show. It could be called "how to screw dat bitch".


----------



## dvnj22 (Apr 24, 2013)

NK said:


> NO you dork! A woman isn't gonna let you lead her into a relationship if she hasn't thought about sleeping with you. you're an idiot. I'm done. I'm crabby. I'm not arguing with you anymore. I'm just amusing myself here to make myself happy. Go away BOY!
> 
> you haven't a CLUE about ANYTHING regarding women!
> which is to say, one night stands are fleeting but genital warts are forever.
> ...


Kevin tells it like it is.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

dvnj22 said:


> @_Bricolage_ you should start your own pick-up artist show. It could be called "how to screw dat bitch".


Your words not mine. :tongue:


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

NK said:


> NO you dork! A woman isn't gonna let you lead her into a relationship if she hasn't thought about sleeping with you.


Pickup isn't about a relationship. The goal is to get laid, not get a girlfriend.


----------



## dvnj22 (Apr 24, 2013)

Bricolage said:


> Your words not mine. :tongue:


Just wait until the feminists get here.....


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

dvnj22 said:


> Just wait until the feminists get here.....


What's wrong with guys getting good with girls? This isn't about dominating women. That's a misconception. This is about guys getting laid and letting a woman into a guy's world.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

That video teaches a very valuable lesson. "Never, ever, ever listen to women. If she says you're being creepy, don't respect that. Instead, show her how much you aren't fazed by what she thinks of you, or what she thinks in general."

That's one option anyway.
The other involves respect and honesty, but that sounds hard.

Our society is perfectly fine with women saying one thing and wanting something totally different. If you call them out on it, they'll say "You're such a man. You just don't get women." What many ladies don't understand is that when they say one thing and mean another, and when they test in such ways, they are asking guys to not listen to them or respect them.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

You're really, really attached to this PUA persona, huh?


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

dvnj22 said:


> Just wait until the feminists get here.....


To be fair even Camille Paglia said women needed to put out more haha.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

monemi said:


> You're really, really attached to this PUA persona, huh?


Contemporary theories on dating are directly opposed to my primary aims. This includes both the traditional mainstream theories and the edgier PUA theories.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

marked174 said:


> That video teaches a very valuable lesson. "Never, ever, ever listen to women. If she says you're being creepy, don't respect that. Instead, show her how much you aren't fazed by what she thinks of you, or what she thinks in general."
> 
> That's one option anyway.
> *The other involves respect and honesty, but that sounds hard. *:laughing:
> Our society is perfectly fine with women saying one thing and wanting something totally different. If you call them out on it, they'll say "You're such a man. You just don't get women." What many ladies don't understand is that when they say one thing and mean another, and when they test in such ways, they are asking guys to not listen to them or respect them.


women are not saying one thing and wanting something different. women (many at least) say what they feel. and feelings change. it's not that complicated.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Bricolage said:


> Pickup isn't about a relationship. The goal is to get laid, not get a girlfriend.


1) this isn't about you.

2) your op wasn't specific. 

3) I'm here for me. 

4) it feels good to spazz out on some pathetic kid right out of high school who reads pua to get laid. 

not gonna lie .. 

I laughed for about 10 minutes straight after that picture I put up. It's so funny! 


p.s. get a clue. my post right there should tell you all the insight on women you need to know in order to manipulate your way into their pants. if you had good intuition that is ....


----------



## Takadox (Apr 5, 2013)

I don't really understand the whole one night stand thing even. Why do you let yourself be controlled by such base and primal urges, why not look for something more lasting. Not that any of it matters in the end, but at least you're not just following instinct.

On the original subject. People are not that impressed by confidence. You staying is more likely showing them more of you. People bond over getting to know other people, and seem to cave easy to people forcing themselves on others.


----------



## Slider (Nov 17, 2009)

Yeah.

Confidence.

Self respect.

Don't take any shit from them.

Sometimes if you ignore them or their little games, it might make them frustrated and want you more.

I don't know.

I seem to attract the wrong sort, anyway.

These women at work kept asking me out. It was irritating. Can't we just be co-workers?


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Slider said:


> Yeah.
> 
> Confidence.
> 
> ...


oh please. like men don't play games. honestly, I don't think they know they're doing it. but of course I've been told many times I've too much faith in people as a whole, so not so sure what to think about that. I choose partial ignorant bliss to keep me happier.  but yeah. PEOPLE play games. not just one side or the other ... I have my theories on this 


okay ONE tip:

NEVER. .. please dear god just do *NOT*, send the one word text. I haaaaaate that! SUCH a TURN OFF.


"hi"
"hi"
......... gross.


----------



## Slider (Nov 17, 2009)

NK said:


> oh please. like men don't play games. honestly, I don't think they know they're doing it. but of course I've been told many times I've too much faith in people as a whole, so not so sure what to think about that. I choose partial ignorant bliss to keep me happier.  but yeah. PEOPLE play games. not just one side or the other ... I have my theories on this
> 
> 
> okay ONE tip:
> ...



Whatever.

I went out to dinner with these two married women I run with.

I'm fading out, but pick up "hit that" from their conversation.

So, I say, "Huh? Hit that?"

...and they start giggling like high school girls.

Ugh.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

NK said:


> okay ONE tip:
> 
> NEVER. .. please dear god just do *NOT*, send the one word text. I haaaaaate that! SUCH a TURN OFF.
> 
> ...


I agree with this in any form of digital text as a form of communication. Hellos and heys, in my mind are only practical in real life as it makes transition into a conversation smoother because its the moment of acknowledging one another. Every where else it is an annoying word that should be hanged drawn and quartered.
I've had a few rants at friends when they've messaged me on facebook, "what are you doing?" if I have the time to respond on facebook i'm not doing much at all am I hahahaha

I needn't respond to this but god it makes me so frustrated.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

NK said:


> women are not saying one thing and wanting something different. women (many at least) say what they feel. and feelings change. it's not that complicated.


Actually, many times girls "test" by saying things that are directly contrary to what they want, in order to evoke a response from a guy. Izanogood!

The "changey daisy syndrome" is another phenomenon altogether. lol


----------



## GinningPuma4011 (Aug 22, 2013)

Girls are assholes, so all you need to do is be confident and good looking. Otherwise, you're shit out of luck. 

Where's the eye rolling emoticon?


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

This is an amazing thread.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

Diphenhydramine said:


> This is an amazing thread.


Do you expect any less from the S&R subforum, it's always striking gold hahaha


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Wellsy said:


> Do you expect any less from the S&R subforum, it's always striking gold hahaha


 I am going to make a new currency. It will be called the Personalitycafe Dollar. It will be backed by a value of one dollar to every word of a shit post made in this subforum. The money supply will increase exponentially and provide a favourable balance for the main export of S&R, Nonsense Goods. I believe that firms based in Singapore will seek to import Nonsense Goods to make everyone who lives in that country feel better about themselves. The huge quantity of Personalitycafe Dollars in circulation will reduce the value of the currency against the Singapore Dollar and make it easy for that country to import Nonsense Goods from PerC, which I believe we have a surplus of.


----------



## The Proof (Aug 5, 2009)

so sick of this pick-up bullshit; confidence, sense of humour, these are meaningless notions

to attract women you need to be a real man, that contains everything, just aim for that

if you need help try artofmanliness.com

nuff said


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

The internet is delicious at times. I mean that it can be so fatteningly delicious that I feel guilty reading the opinions and advice of others.

Oh, you've got a problem? People on the internet have it all figured out in quick fixes to make all your problems go away, because, you know, random guy on the internet is an expert on what works on billions of people so you can manipulate them to doing what you want, because, science. Whether it's women calling other women sluts for fucking who they want or guys bitching at other guys, telling them they know how to fix what ails them, it never loses it's humor.

I'll leave this bit of wisdom here for those smart enough to realize that this bullshit is vacuous and pointless for a reason:
“If you end up with a boring miserable life because you listened to your mom, your dad, your teacher, your priest, or some guy on television telling you how to do your shit, then you deserve it.” ~Frank Zappa


----------



## purposive (Jun 4, 2013)

It's a movie.


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

Oh joy, this "women don't know what they want, they say one thing and get another, so we know what they want" never gets old. 

Somehow it feels like some people are clueless of the opposite sex, gets frustrated, then finds some justification that can make sense to them, so that they can deposit their hope and cling onto that.

Meh, these creatures seems so confusing, I think that they must be so clueless themselves so let's just conclude this, and that I know what they really want!


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

marked174 said:


> Actually, many times girls "test" by saying things that are directly contrary to what they want, in order to evoke a response from a guy. Izanogood!
> 
> The "changey daisy syndrome" is another phenomenon altogether. lol


wtf is the changey daisy syndrome?

Well girls 'test'. What do women do? Lol! Honestly I'll admit I'm crazy. But not in the fuck with your head key your car passive aggressive crazy. Just doing the best in my situation with what tools I have, and the way I process things bla bla bla ... 

But, I have a sincere question for you. If anything out of pure curiosity. If you were that 'ideal' woman you wanted to be with .. Would you want to date you ? 

I've actually read some pua, not much but some, and I've always thought it (while presenting like it's meant to have her view you with value etc) manipulative and a waste of time because would you really want someone valuing you by you putting up a facade or for the actual you?. That's why in the other thread I said, good grief Charlie Brown! Because the whole thing just sounds like something Charlie Brown would do. LOLOL! 

Why not become the person that if you were 'that' girl, you'd want to be with you, for whatever reasons. Which is to say, would you be capable of even seeing it from the persons perspective. ? You don't have to answer that. This is probably just another "shit" post ... I'm fine with that. Doesn't feel good that people think my perspective is shit post material but to be honest, I like it. So don't care.

You may all carry on w/ tips on how to play hide the weanie like gross horn balls. Yuck. Blech. 
No wonder it doesn't matter if she truly values you or not. I just figured it out. Lol! WOW! I'm dumb ... 

Seriously wow. That took one hell of a long time for that 'why' to register  okay! Carry on!

The modern man has once again educated me on what is as opposed to what would lovely ...


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

marked174 said:


> What many ladies don't understand is that when they say one thing and mean another, and when they test in such ways, they are asking guys to not listen to them or respect them.


depending on the context and intention, i can definitely agree with this. 

if the person is just feeling insecure, and would rather get a semblance of an answer without laying them-self completely bare... that i can understand. 

but if it's done as a "normal method" of interaction, it's slightly sick (not to mention manipulative). it's not any different than offering a person dying of thirst some water, and then pulling back at the last second, just to gauge the reaction and further see what kind of "man" he is--"did he act heroically? strong even? if so, he'll do"--meanwhile, every guy everywhere should be like, "is she being a sociopathic bitch? hateful even? if so, i'm done". 

there are grey lines to every situation--but the majority of the time i hear about someone being "tested", it always relates back to some odd power dynamic, or the attempt for one party to feel as if they're owning some of the "power" in a relationship. whether it comes from insecurities and a person just trying to protect themselves--or from an insecurity that becomes something a little darker--it really is just a waste of time for both people involved, regardless of who's attempting it.

edit: kind of forgot the reason for this thread to begin with... and am just adding that the 'testing b.s.' is no different than trying to circle another person's emotions to the point of confusion, and putting on a fake face, all with the intention of "tearing it up" + never speaking to the person again (maybe there is some validity in the fucked-up games men & women/people & people play with each other--like a circle of fucked up, childish mentalities paired with the "intellect" of an adult...)


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

AriesLilith said:


> Oh joy, this "women don't know what they want, they say one thing and get another, so we know what they want" never gets old.
> 
> Somehow it feels like some people are clueless of the opposite sex, gets frustrated, then finds some justification that can make sense to them, so that they can deposit their hope and cling onto that.
> 
> Meh, these creatures seems so confusing, I think that they must be so clueless themselves so let's just conclude this, and that I know what they really want!


It's kinda cute. Because by the time they master one type of 'game' the whole things shifts and it's a different game. In other words, I think the game to catch them, isn't necessarily the same game to keep them, lol! No wonder there is so much divorce in this country!!! Yikes! People scare me. 

haha  jk but they are fucking nuts!


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Donovan said:


> depending on the context and intention, i can definitely agree with this.
> 
> if the person is just feeling insecure, and would rather get a semblance of an answer without laying them-self completely bare... that i can understand.
> 
> ...



Ok ok that's it ... Please describe these tests. I want to know!

I seriously want to know. Can anyone here make a list of common 'tests' ???


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

@_android654_ it's all intellectual masturbation whether you are playing with your comprehension of EQ or IQ, it's just a game to play instead of TV. And it's ridiculous fun 

it's not that serious

p.s. Love that quote <3


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

NK said:


> Ok ok that's it ... Please describe these tests. I want to know!
> 
> I seriously want to know. Can anyone here make a list of common 'tests' ???


you have the foundation for it listed in what i wrote. you can fill in the rest, or i can go into personal detail about my own private life for you... 

also, there's an edit you may want to read, .


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Donovan said:


> you have the foundation for it listed in what i wrote. you can fill in the rest, or i can go into personal detail about my own private life for you...
> 
> also, there's an edit you may want to read, .


Men do the same. People either choose to manipulate their future by creating and living their life constructing that creation. Or they waste time playing games. People are important to me. I spend time on relationship because of that fact. I spend my time enjoying the experience, by NOT playing games. And just living my life. If relationship is a means of getting ego strokes, having a make shift therapist, or getting laid ... Then I think playing games would logically ensue. 


I'm not even judging to be honest. Was just trolling in my self entertainment way.  connecting with people is not important for some people because they don't need it. And at the end of the day, I am quite confident every man knows what's good for them.


----------



## lifefullofwords (Oct 25, 2013)

Bricolage said:


> Is that why I have girls queuing up?


LOL yeah right. Guys that have girls queuing up don't need cheap tricks to get them in bed.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

NK said:


> @_android654_ it's all intellectual masturbation whether you are playing with your comprehension of EQ or IQ, it's just a game to play instead of TV. And it's ridiculous fun
> 
> it's not that serious
> 
> p.s. Love that quote <3


Im not serious about it, the exact opposite. This idea that someone's got it all figured out and your one mistake is not being them is laughable. I suppose I find it sad that so many people are directionless that they think who they are is so fundamentally wrong that they need a fix, and rather than approach their search for solutions with the same weight they apply to their problems, hey resort to believing tabloid drivel to be that magic bullet to kill their problems with one kill. It's pretty goddamn sad and funny in equal doses.


----------



## Cheez (Nov 24, 2013)

NK said:


> omg. hahaha... okay, I'll give you this. there's this book I read eons ago when I went through some dorky phase of reading to understand men. I read so many god forsaken books from evolutionary psychology to more spiritual ones. books written for women and ones written for men. I always do that. I have to read everything from left to right to choose what I want to think. haha.
> 
> anyways. low and behold ... at the end of the day, the thing that brought me the MOST understanding, was to actually have relationships with them. weird, right?  What I mean by that is that I think every person has (which they do suggest in some books) an "epiphany relationship", and in some cases, epiphany moments within relationships that work through this period of self realization. we ALL have egos but it's hard to see them unless you're looking for them and often times even then, you can't see them till they break.
> 
> ...


I too went on that reading books to understand men phase. Well,:dry: I'm still on that phase and your theory shed a lot of light for me. Thxroud:


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

Donovan said:


> depending on the context and intention, i can definitely agree with this.
> 
> if the person is just feeling insecure, and would rather get a semblance of an answer without laying them-self completely bare... that i can understand.
> 
> ...


Not too long ago, I was on a road trip with one of my girlfriends. She was talking about this guy she's been talking to, and how she would purposely push him away in order to see if he would "fight for her". I told her that was really stupid, and just begging for trouble.

Another time one of my guyfriends told me that his girlfriend repeatedly told him that she didn't care about getting an engagement ring. Turns out, an engagement ring was REALLY important to her.

Another time, I drove my sister to get minor oral surgery. She repeatedly told me that it was no big deal, nothing to worry about. By the time we got there, she was furious that I wasn't being sensitive to how scared she was. "You said it was no big deal!"

In all three cases, the girl just rolled her eyes and said "You just don't get women." In all three cases, I rolled my eyes back and said "You just don't get honesty."


----------



## Jwing24 (Aug 2, 2010)

I hate games

I'm tired of expectations I put on myself and others

I should aim to expect nothing of myself and of others and simply try to enjoy the moment that I am in

To get to know someone in a moment honestly, to enjoy it for what it is, two people talking in that moment, sharing themselves in someway, that has true value to me

I am not talking about getting with anyone, I am not talking about sex

I should seek to have genuine experiences from my end, life would be much more fulfilling

We're always chasing something, but what does that really lead to? 

In the past week I've had two great conversations with people. Each lasted less than a minute. Both involved me highlighting something I thought they did well and something I thought was great about them. Last week was a good week. Additionally, someone really bombed a presentation and they did not want to talk to anyone. I placed my hand on their shoulder and smiled as they looked at me. They smiled back. 

I shall strive to live this sort of way more often. If I never stop to smell the roses, I certainly won't be able to pick one up to give to someone else.

Call me crazy.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

marked174 said:


> Not too long ago, I was on a road trip with one of my girlfriends. She was talking about this guy she's been talking to, and how she would purposely push him away in order to see if he would "fight for her". I told her that was really stupid, and just begging for trouble.
> 
> Another time one of my guyfriends told me that his girlfriend repeatedly told him that she didn't care about getting an engagement ring. Turns out, an engagement ring was REALLY important to her.
> 
> ...


Blech! That sounds like my half sister. I remember hearing her argue with a boyfriend on the phone. She told him she was done and she didn't want to hear from him again and hung up. I was shocked she'd just dumped him over the phone like that over a small argument. But then she said he'd better call her back or he'd have hell to pay. I was soooo confused. 

Some people are crazy.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

monemi said:


> Blech! That sounds like my half sister. I remember hearing her argue with a boyfriend on the phone. She told him she was done and she didn't want to hear from him again and hung up. I was shocked she'd just dumped him over the phone like that over a small argument. But then she said he'd better call her back or he'd have hell to pay. I was soooo confused.
> 
> Some people are crazy.


For the record, not all crazy people do that. I should know as has been established, I'm crazy.  at least I'm the harmless crazy, as opposed to the people who aren't even aware they're crazy. Know what I mean ?


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Emerald Legend said:


> How to attract men:
> 
> When he says you're a slut- just don't flinch.
> 
> Works both ways, right??


No.

What kind of men do you want to attract; and what kind of relationship do you want with them;
and how successful do you want the relationship to be?


----------



## Playful Proxy (Feb 6, 2012)

May I suggest putting a suit of armor on em and cranking up an electromagnet?


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

marked174 said:


> I would argue that women who say they never want to see a man again when they really want him are worthless contenders themselves.


That's ridiculous. If I tell a man I never want to see him again chances are I said, 'fuck off. I never want to see you again!' And I'll have meant it ... If I go quiet it's for no other reason than respecting the reality they created and want. A person can only attempt to get communication going for so long before reality says, hello! Are you dumb! So yeah. I'll go cold but it's not for no reason. I am warm if they make contact if I'm genuinely happy to hear from them but if not, I'll just ignore ... 

This is just communication - actions speak louder than words. It's not games necessarily. If people purposefully do these to elicit false feelings to get to sleep with someone, that's just appallingly weak. Maybe work on being a better man and people will naturally want to sleep with you. Duh! Lol! Sorry.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

fourtines said:


> That's because you only want to rack up numerous sex partners.


Not true at all.


fourtines said:


> If a guy actually wants to be my boyfriend, he won't be easily daunted.


If a girl actually wanted to be my girlfriend, she wouldn't try to manipulate me or tell me things that aren't true.


fourtines said:


> Furthermore, it works, I assure you.


Just because something is effective doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do. The ends do not justify the means. As someone who despises PUAs, I would expect you to understand this.


fourtines said:


> And as a final note, I would never use this tactic on a man who didn't deserve it. If a man had been genuine, loving and open himself, I would not feel the need for veiled ultimatums.


 There is no need for it. If you feel like you have to resort to those tactics, then he probably doesn't deserve you. If you choose to act on those feelings and employ those tactics, then you certainly don't deserve him.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

@_marked174_ No. Chances are if she wanted to be your girlfriend ... She'd be herself and do her best to communicate and respect your nature expecting the same in return. I think most problems are from communication. And acceptance. People struggle accepting where people are in their life. They have trouble accepting someone's nature if it isn't convenient for them. And when people do accept one another, they roll with the punches and enjoy life and just - be. And do what intrigues them. 

Really. I've never used a tactic manipulatively. If anything, I've reached out to communicate when I knew I should have probably just played games - but. I just can't do it. Too much energy to be ridiculous(the common type of ridiculous )


p.s you might not want to never mention your pua interests in her company too, lol!! 


men are way too complicated for me. Seriously. I give up.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

NK said:


> @_marked174_ No. Chances are if she wanted to be your girlfriend ... She'd be herself and do her best to communicate and respect your nature expecting the same in return. I think most problems are from communication. And acceptance. People struggle accepting where people are in their life. They have trouble accepting someone's nature if it isn't convenient for them. And when people do accept one another, they roll with the punches and enjoy life and just - be. And do what intrigues them.
> 
> Really. I've never used a tactic manipulatively. If anything, I've reached out to communicate when I knew I should have probably just played games - but. I just can't do it. Too much energy to be ridiculous(the common type of ridiculous )
> 
> ...


There are some on here that claim that they would never manipulate men, but IRL its the exact opposite. Nearly all of them have absolutely no problem behaving in ways similar to my previous references. It's as absurd to me as it is prevalent.
Regarding my pua interests: I'm not ashamed of my criticism of pua culture, and am not sure why you think I should be. Perhaps you think that I follow PUA teachings? I don't.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

NK said:


> I guess it's because I have no interest in those options that maybe this is just a 'me' thing. Aside from the option to go to school or work to make me happy ... I think I was born in the wrong generation


I enjoy hunting and I like to wear dresses. I hate baby showers, bridal showers and weddings. I love kids. I enjoy femininity without the sentimental stuff. I know how to knit and sew and make clothes. But I don't enjoy doing crafts and I don't want to make or fix clothes. I know how to cook from scratch, but it's not fun. It sucks so much for me when friends start discussing recipes. I enjoy traveling. I like to play sports. If things went back to wanting people to stick to gender roles, it would suck to the nth degree.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

marked174 said:


> Not true at all.
> 
> If a girl actually wanted to be my girlfriend, she wouldn't try to manipulate me or tell me things that aren't true.
> 
> ...


Hey guy, I have relationships that last years, not weeks or months. There is completely need for it in some cases. I am never going to date you, or someone who thinks like you. I attract men who desire me, me not a random vagina, but I also attract men who are sometimes emotionally reserved or afraid of intimacy. My twenty year old even knows "when a girl says she hates you, she definitely loves you." Shakespeare knew back five hundred years ago that the lady doth protest too much. If you are too stupid, lazy, weak or easily lead to something new to understand that, and don't want to win me over, that's fine. There are plenty of women who are easier to get to...problem is, being easy frequently gets you used if a man isn't clearly looking for a relationship.

I just said I wouldn't do it to a man who didn't deserve it. Manipulative men or emotionally guarded men will bring manipulative or emotionally guarded women on to themselves...if the women will even engage with you for even one conversation in the first place without running away screaming.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

NK said:


> @_marked174_ No. Chances are if she wanted to be your girlfriend ... She'd be herself and do her best to communicate and respect your nature expecting the same in return. I think most problems are from communication. And acceptance. People struggle accepting where people are in their life. They have trouble accepting someone's nature if it isn't convenient for them. And when people do accept one another, they roll with the punches and enjoy life and just - be. And do what intrigues them.
> 
> Really. I've never used a tactic manipulatively. If anything, I've reached out to communicate when I knew I should have probably just played games - but. I just can't do it. Too much energy to be ridiculous(the common type of ridiculous )
> 
> ...


There have been times where I reached out to communicate and was ignored or dumped. That's a great thing to do once a relationship is established. In the early stages it can make people absolutely terrified.

I have used tactics manipulatively and consciously. Would I rather not have to? Yes. Do I admit I have issues? Yes. Am I working on it? Yes. But it's a jungle out there, which poses problems for those of us who don't want to celibate until our ideal descends from heaven, which may never happen. My life is right now.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

monemi said:


> I enjoy hunting and I like to wear dresses. I hate baby showers, bridal showers and weddings. I love kids. I enjoy femininity without the sentimental stuff. I know how to knit and sew and make clothes. But I don't enjoy doing crafts and I don't want to make or fix clothes. I know how to cook from scratch, but it's not fun. It sucks so much for me when friends start discussing recipes. I enjoy traveling. I like to play sports. If things went back to wanting people to stick to gender roles, it would suck to the nth degree.


My point is I feel as though I support other women who are themselves , I respect that. I guess I just don't find as much respect thrown the other way. Women who are overly feminine and enjoy arts and crafts and baking and bullshit. I just feel as though those qualities aren't respected, appreciated much less wanted. It's like I'm the minority of this 'type' that society is trying to weed out. Like I said, it's probably just my perception ...


----------



## dvnj22 (Apr 24, 2013)

NK said:


> My point is I feel as though I support other women who are themselves , I respect that. I guess I just find as much respect thrown the other way. Women who are overly feminine and enjoy arts and crafts and baking and bullshit. I just feel as though those qualities aren't respected, appreciated much less wanted. It's like I'm the minority of this 'type' that society is trying to weed out. Like I said, it's probably just my perception ...


It's not your perception at all, the idea of being a woman now is being an annoying bitch that gets laid more then a hooker on a Friday night. The image of masculinity today is a subservient, unintelligent, sex toy. That's not to say other societies (past or present) idea of man/woman are any better.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

P.s.

Nothing that I describe is anything like PUA because I am not doing it to use multiple people for sex or money (which people believe the woman version is).


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

dvnj22 said:


> It's not your perception at all, the idea of being a woman now is being an annoying bitch that gets laid more then a hooker on a Friday night. The image of masculinity today is a subservient, unintelligent, sex toy. That's not to say other societies idea of man/woman are any better.


Wut


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

marked174 said:


> That video teaches a very valuable lesson. "Never, ever, ever listen to women. *If she says you're being creepy, don't respect that. *Instead, show her how much you aren't fazed by what she thinks of you, or what she thinks in general."


Oh yeah, I wholeheartedly agree! Even when she gets you a restraining order; just close your eyes and think of England while you're being hauled off in the police van.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

NK said:


> My point is I feel as though I support other women who are themselves , I respect that. I guess I just don't find as much respect thrown the other way. Women who are overly feminine and enjoy arts and crafts and baking and bullshit. I just feel as though those qualities aren't respected, appreciated much less wanted. It's like I'm the minority of this 'type' that society is trying to weed out. Like I said, it's probably just my perception ...


Nah, I think you're gravely mistaken about that. Society still rewards feminine women and masculine men very well. Things that step out of that are still looked down upon. I think what you might be reading into is the sudden shift of women being more... _aggressive_ in things like pursuing their career or being proactive in seeking partners. But even with those roles being given consideration to women, society still expects them to keep their femininity tuned high at all times.


----------



## dvnj22 (Apr 24, 2013)

TreasureTower said:


> Oh yeah, I wholeheartedly agree! Even when she gets you a restraining order; just close your eyes and think of England while you're being hauled off in the police van.


It works for me.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

fourtines said:


> Wut



hahaha!!! Omg I needed that comic 

gender roles shouldn't be mandatory but, there's nothing wrong with enjoying being your gender even if it fits the role. It makes me happy. Lol! I know it's ridiculous. But I like being me ... Wut ... Hahahaha. This thread is so absurd! I think I started it too! Hahahaha!!!  


I'm a trouble maker today. 

not one post about how to get in her pants. Haha. I'm so amused. I totally cock blocked this thread. Irony.


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

haha yeah, "shit tests"

then again, it would be nice to have someone it wasnt so hard to convince of things


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

NK said:


> hahaha!!! Omg I needed that comic
> 
> gender roles shouldn't be mandatory but, there's nothing wrong with enjoying being your gender even if it fits the role. It makes me happy. Lol! I know it's ridiculous. But I like being me ... Wut ... Hahahaha. This thread is so absurd! I think I started it too! Hahahaha!!!
> 
> ...


I'm fine with gender roles, as long as I get a choice. I'm a stay at home Mum. I'm not anti-gender roles here. I just think men and women alike should have option outside of gender roles.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

NK said:


> hahaha!!! Omg I needed that comic
> 
> gender roles shouldn't be mandatory but, there's nothing wrong with enjoying being your gender even if it fits the role. It makes me happy. Lol! I know it's ridiculous. But I like being me ... Wut ... Hahahaha. This thread is so absurd! I think I started it too! Hahahaha!!!
> 
> ...


Is that your special talent? Hahahah!


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

monemi said:


> Yeah, I'm not interested in that. I don't see a need for everyone to conform to either male or female roles. I don't measure societies happiness by divorce rates. Everyone stays married whether they're miserable or not is not a good thing in my opinion. My parents have been married for about 35 years (not sure) and had one child. They only wanted one child. I don't see how getting rid of birth control would have made their lives better.


I wasn't talking about your parents in particular.

Stable marriages benefit society, divorce is not the panacea which it is sold as.

But just 'forcing people' to get married is not what I am recommending either: rather, people need to be trained in attitudes which help them decide well on *whom* to marry.

A culture of promiscuity does not do this: and the chief enabler of promiscuity is birth control.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

android654 said:


> Through what wormhole did a laptop fall through so you could type this up in 1921?


Our society is screwed up in ways it didn't used to be before the "sexual revolution".

And just because something is old, does not mean it is outmoded: how old is the practice of cooking one's food, 
or the wheel, or calculus?

And just because something is new does not mean it is an improvement: Thalidomide was once the newest drug;
eugenics and racial superiority used to be the latest and greatest craze; the same company that gave us Excel also
gave us the blue screen of death and that sodding paper clip ("I see you're trying to write a letter.")


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

All in Twilight said:


> So boring that I feel the urge to smash their faces in to wake them up.


you're so aggressive .. Yikes.


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

NK said:


> you're so aggressive .. Yikes.


Don't worry, I am harmless. I guess I wanted to make a point. We easily condemn so many things in this world but you know, most people aren't really as bad as we think they are. We just don't want to hear them out or listen to them for a while.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

All in Twilight said:


> No matter what trick he uses, the bottom line is that he just want to be loved (feel free what kind of interpretation you want to attach to this word "love" for now) just like anybody else. If he is not harming anyone, why condemn it? I am kinda getting sick of all these man vs women bullshit. It's easy to spout this or that here on the internet being all save behind your pc screen but it doesn't work like that in the real world. I am not a pua, but men have told me that I am the perfect pua while I am just being spontaneous and entertaining→it's called wit and being socially adequate and I still have to meet the first man or woman that is able to entertain me a bit. Fucking hell, I live in London and I have lived in many other big metropoles and most people are just very fucking very boring. So boring that I feel the urge to smash their faces in to wake them up. Blah blah this here and more than 80% is single and lonely on this site.


Right he wants love but not have to give it back. That's called narcissistic supply. A man who wants a stable of hoes or to play the game wants narcissistic supply, which is a form of love, but it's not love in the mature, mutual sense of give and take, no. 

Especially when getting said narcissistic supply involves KNOWINGLY hurting and tricking or lying to others.


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

fourtines said:


> Right he wants love but not have to give it back. That's called narcissistic supply. A man who wants a stable of hoes or to play the game wants narcissistic supply, which is a form of love, but it's not love in the mature, mutual sense of give and take, no.
> 
> Especially when getting said narcissistic supply involves KNOWINGLY hurting and tricking or lying to others.


This ^ is a bit black and white. So partially you are right but there are many guys here who get rejected over and over by women so they get confused. And out of that confusion, they act and you get this. But are they really bad people? I don't think so....

Women apply the same kind of tricks btw but in different forms or in different ways. But they all want to feel love and affection. Giving love without any form of conditions or requirements to be met is just very hard for a lot of people anyway. Pua behavior or not.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

android654 said:


> There's so much straw here I can only assume you're readying for a fucking hootenanny. The idea that freedom is on par with chemical attacks or that sexual shame is as essential as being able to feed, move, and understand our surroundings--basics of survival for any animal--is the weakest of arguments a person can make.
> 
> Ignoring the ills of the past and claim that this particular one wasn't there so it clearly is wrong is sophomoirc at best. Have respect for people when you're making these claims; make your arguments compelling to some degree if you expect people to take you seriously.
> 
> And lastly, there's nothing magnanimous or philanthropic in dictating the behavior or assuming to know the proper behavior for people to have in order to benefit everyone. The world always has been and forever will be in a fluctuating state of entropy. There is no "fix" for divorce because divorce isn't a problem in need of a solution. Most relationships--from observation--are the result of desperation and role fulfillment. As a man who doesn't "hunt" women or hop from relationship to relationship, I've got no shortage sexual opportunities and I don't contribute to the list of misled women. This isn't the case because I'm some pussyhound with no control because there are condoms and plan-b, but because I'm responsible enough to know that a relationship with me is expensive and takes a particular partner. I reached that conclusion on my own, not by looking at the past to find out what other people did so I could "learn" how to be a person.


Let's start the thread where you first responded to me: somehow your initial retort got left out of the post of yours which I'm quoting.

You had said:
_Through what wormhole did a laptop fall through so you could type this up in 1921?_ (source:http://personalitycafe.com/sex-relationships/169665-primer-how-attract-women-8.html#post4350760)

You were committing the serious fallacy of "chronological snobbery" aka "newer, therefore truer."

Now there are two ways in which "newer, therefore truer" can be falsified as a universal.
1) If there is something "quite old" (old enough for multiple generations of technological change to happen) which is nonetheless still in use by merit (as opposed to political chicanery)
2) If there is something "brand new" which is later seen to have been MUCH WORSE than the alternatives it replace.

I gave several examples of each type. I chose fire because the practice of cooking food (in general) is generally accepted, if not preferred (current controversies over raw vs. pasteurized milk excepted) and it is one of the OLDEST inventions of mankind; the wheel, because it is central to trade; and calculus, because is used and taught today in modern technology, and yet was invented hundreds of years ago.

I chose Thalidomide as an example of how even "modern medicine" can screw up, Eugenics to show how even the most faddish intellectual trends can be hijacked, and Microsoft because Bill Gates sucks.

With *that* error corrected, I could move on to your current post -- but I'm going to a movie.

If I feel like it, I'll wrap up when I get back.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

NK said:


> absolutely I agreed. socioeconomic shift brought lots of good, lots of bad, and maybe even some ugly. but I can't budge on the birth control. I think being pro-life tyrannical. haha. I'm serious. but as I said, too convoluted. :tongue:


Birth control screws up the sexual marketplace both "in the moment" and "downstream" in the lives of those taking it and their sexual partners for long afterwards.

By removing the risk of unexpected / unwanted pregnancy, it decouples copulation from reproduction.

This has several effects:

1) the amount of promiscuity increases
2) in tandem with this, there are several simultaneous (or at least rapidly following-in-turn) changes in the *nature* of relationships
a) since getting a girl pregnant *used to be* associated with "having to marry the girl" (the old, "you break it -- you bought it" rule), both men and women were much more selective about those whom they had intimate relations with, meaning that much more of relations between men and women were geared towards *getting to know one another* as well as *seeking stable lifelong partners*.
This second part was more true, since, without birth control, most men *had* to get married in order to experience sex.
b) Women discovered that they could more readily attract men by offering sex, than by being ladylike, well-read, stable, and respectful of men and themselves.
c) This helped create a "race to the bottom" where women who did not particularly want to engage in sex, found themselves facing the prospect of a sexual arms race in order to attract the attention of men.
d) Men, on their part, found that not only did they not have to get married in order to have sex, but, that as a result of the female arms race, they did not even have to offer an LTR or commitment: they merely had to say, "No sex, no attention!"
This devalued women.
e) Men, on the other hand, suffered a different kind of devaluation: as sex became the main currency in relations between the sexes, women discovered that they could offer (and obtain) sex from much more attractive men, than they could realistically have hoped to *marry* in days past. 
As a result of this, more and more of the women, say, those in the 6-7.5 range on a 1-10 scale of looks, decided to chase only men 8-10 on the hotness scale ....the 6 and 7 level men had to look to women in the 4-6 range, not getting as much attention (or action) from their sexual-attractiveness *peers*.
With the overall result, the top (say) 15%-20% on the hottie scale got a disproportionate share of attention and sex, those in the middle either had to lower their standards or go celibate, and those at the bottom were pretty much hosed.

But there is another effect of the promiscuity: the phenomenon of the "alpha widow". A the saying goes, "A woman who sleeps around is a slut, but a woman who has slept with [_superstar X_] is a woman who has slept with _X_."
And after a woman has slept with the hottest man, why does she want to settle for marriage to boring old average peer when she's older?

A similar thing happens when a woman has sampled the sexual smorgasbord of male attention by sleeping around.

Finally, birth control pills actually affect the woman's body -- I have read that women on birth control are hormonally attracted (via their sense of smell detecting the man's immune system component, the major histocompatibility complex) to the exact OPPOSITE of the men she would find attractive not on the pill.

This too has implications for the woman's marriage partners downstream.

Off to the movie now.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

dvnj22 said:


> It's not your perception at all, the idea of being a woman now is being an annoying bitch that gets laid more then a hooker on a Friday night. The image of masculinity today is a subservient, unintelligent, sex toy. That's not to say other societies (past or present) idea of man/woman are any better.


Here's a really revolutionary concept for you. How's about we just allow people to be *themselves*?

:shocked:


----------



## dvnj22 (Apr 24, 2013)

TreasureTower said:


> Here's a really revolutionary concept for you. How's about we just allow people to be *themselves*?
> 
> :shocked:


I agree, however society is never going to be that way. Those who are themselves and happen to met societies standard will be outcasted. If you ask my personal opinion then I would say be yourself.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

dvnj22 said:


> I agree, however society is never going to be that way. Those who are themselves and happen to met societies standard will be outcasted. If you ask my personal opinion then I would say be yourself.


Well, I've always been myself and will continue to be myself and I've found that the more accept myself for who I am; the more and the greater number of people who like me. Nothing turns off other people more than phoniness and I always know whether or not someone is being *real* with me.

I think that you and a lot of other people in this thread are way too wrapped up with _wha_t the mythical: AIRQUOTES: "society" cares about. It's a meaningless concept but I am thoroughly amused that such an abstract meaningless concept is being debated with such intensity. This forum never fails to disappoint.


----------



## dvnj22 (Apr 24, 2013)

TreasureTower said:


> Well, I've always been myself and will continue to be myself and I've found that the more accept myself for who I am; the more and the greater number of people who like me. Nothing turns off other people more than phoniness and I always know whether or not someone is being *real* with me.
> 
> I think that you and a lot of other people in this thread are way too wrapped up with _wha_t the mythical: AIRQUOTES: "society" cares about. It's a meaningless concept but I am thoroughly amused that such an abstract meaningless concept is being debated with such intensity. This forum never fails to disappoint.


I don't have much to do today. I do care about people think because I want to be phony. I only allow people see what I want them to see, control, manipulate them if I can. But I always keep myself, to myself. Also if you want to be accepted by people you have to be a phony.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

TreasureTower said:


> Oh yeah, I wholeheartedly agree! Even when she gets you a restraining order; just close your eyes and think of England while you're being hauled off in the police van.


My sarcasm went over your head so you returned with sarcasm. Amusing.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

dvnj22 said:


> I don't have much to do today. I do care about people think because I want to be phony. I only allow people see what I want them to see, control, manipulate them if I can. But I always keep myself, to myself. Also if you want to be accepted by people you have to be a phony.


Well, I think that's where you and I differ. Yes, like you; I don't share everything unreservedly and I am very careful with whom I communicate what with but unlike you; I have 0 interest in being liked or accepted _if I have to be fake_. I won't and frankly wouldn't even have the slightest clue how to do that - IF I wanted to, which I never do. I really enjoy my own company and anyone else's who likes me for being me. As far as anyone else is concerned, I see no reason whatsoever to want anything to do with them



marked174 said:


> My sarcasm went over your head so you returned with sarcasm. Amusing.


I'm glad that you are so easily amused.


----------



## KINGoftheAMAZONS (Jun 21, 2011)

Bricolage said:


> I don't think women who enjoy sex are necessarily sluts. That word should connote some girl who has really low self-esteem and fucks guys to artificially boost it. A true slut is actually really emotionally damaged and pathetic.


Why should the word slut only connote *girls*, when the "stereotypical" man would fit your definition of slut just as well?


----------



## dvnj22 (Apr 24, 2013)

TreasureTower said:


> Well, I think that's where you and I differ. Yes, like you; I don't share everything unreservedly and I am very careful with whom I communicate what with but unlike you; I have 0 interest in being liked or accepted _if I have to be fake_. I won't and frankly wouldn't even have the slightest clue how to do that - IF I wanted to, which I never do. I really enjoy my own company and anyone else's who likes me for being me. As far as anyone else is concerned, I see no reason whatsoever to want anything to do with them
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad that you are so easily amused.


It's sometimes needed for me to be accepted by people because of forced interaction. However thankfully I'm not around people very often.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

All in Twilight said:


> This ^ is a bit black and white. So partially you are right but there are many guys here who get rejected over and over by women so they get confused. And out of that confusion, they act and you get this. But are they really bad people? I don't think so....
> 
> Women apply the same kind of tricks btw but in different forms or in different ways. But they all want to feel love and affection. Giving love without any form of conditions or requirements to be met is just very hard for a lot of people anyway. Pua behavior or not.


I honestly feel you are an optimist who is utterly unaware that the core of PUA is game. I take it you also don't listen to much rap music. The urge to pimp is strong. It speaks to a fragile male psyche who would rather control women than love them.

I think the minority are the poor saps who can't get a gf at all. Yes, I have compassionately considered their pain, but they are NOT the majority.

In fact, consider this: PUA works to systematically hurt women and girls based on the pretexts that men exhibiting sociopathic or narcissistic behavior just want "love"- how else would the shit work???

In my advocacy of sex work I have never once advocated pimping. It's the most basic form of capitalist exploitation.

Jesus.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

dvnj22 said:


> It's sometimes needed for me to be accepted by people because of forced interaction. However thankfully I'm not around people very often.


Oh sure, I can't totally avoid people I don't like; no one can but if you are truly comfortable in your own skin, you could then choose to not care whether or not you are accepted or not but *tolerated*. I dislike conflict, so I obviously would prefer that anyone's whose opinion I value, accept me and anyone who doesn't, tolerate me but _as long as I like myself_; I really don't lose a lot of sleep over it.


----------



## dvnj22 (Apr 24, 2013)

TreasureTower said:


> Oh sure, I can't totally avoid people I don't like; no one can but if you are truly comfortable in your own skin, you could then choose to not care whether or not you are accepted or not but *tolerated*. I dislike conflict, so I obviously would prefer that anyone's whose opinion I value, accept me and anyone who doesn't, tolerate me but _as long as I like myself_; I really don't lose a lot of sleep over it.


Comfortable in my own skin, accepting myself, etc I don't really think much of these terms (although my therapist is trying to get me to) I don't really care what I am, who I am, or about self improvement. I just want to be left alone and do things that will kill time, don't think too much, relaxes me and kills my brain cells.

Being liked by others is easier, and I can do it. So I do it


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

dvnj22 said:


> Comfortable in my own skin, accepting myself, etc I don't really think much of these terms (although my therapist is trying to get me to.) I just want to be left alone and do things that will kill time and my brain cells.


Until one truly accepts themselves; they can't help but live or die based on other people's opinions of them. There was a time when being accepted meant the world to me - when I was a kid and didn't get it; now, I really just don't care all that much. Not that I want the converse; far from it but if everyone were to adore me and I despised myself; what would be the point? We can avoid other people but we can never escape ourselves.


----------



## dvnj22 (Apr 24, 2013)

TreasureTower said:


> Until one truly accepts themselves; they can't help but live or die based on other people's opinions of them. There was a time when being accepted meant the world to me - when I was a kid and didn't get it; now, I really just don't care all that much. Not that I want the converse; far from it but if everyone were to adore me and I despised myself; what would be the point? We can avoid other people but we can never escape ourselves.


We are just on different wave lengths, I'm not really interested in living. I'm mostly doing things to distract myself until I die. 

I admire you position though.


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

dvnj22 said:


> I don't have much to do today. I do care about people think because I want to be phony. I only allow people see what I want them to see, control, manipulate them if I can. But I always keep myself, to myself. Also if you want to be accepted by people you have to be a phony.


I think you have more accepting yourself than other people.


----------



## dvnj22 (Apr 24, 2013)

All in Twilight said:


> I think you have more accepting yourself than other people.


What do you mean?


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

fourtines said:


> I honestly feel you are an optimist who is utterly unaware that the core of PUA is game. I take it you also don't listen to much rap music. The urge to pimp is strong. It speaks to a fragile male psyche who would rather control women than love them.
> 
> I think the minority are the poor saps who can't get a gf at all. Yes, I have compassionately considered their pain, but they are NOT the majority.


Now that raised some chuckle. 

Did you know that PUA was invented by dorks who couldn't get laid or couldn't find a suitable partner to put it more eloquently? (I am sure you do but some here don't hence the comment) I think there is a big difference between men genuinely seeking a women and tries to sell himself as good as he can, and a pimp that uses women for his own sick desires and all that jazz. I am not sure which part is the minority or majority because I honestly can't tell. I think you are underestimating the figures though but maybe I am wrong. Now I rarely see PUA behavior when I go out and mostly girls aren't really interested in these guys anyway when I do encounter them.

Now I am not a fan of PUA behavior though because I find these people fucking depressing and a bunch of losers. But I think that there are a few things that can be quite useful to a lot of guys who simply can't pick up signs or who are simply socially inadequate; people who don't want to use PUA for game (I was aware). I wholeheartedly agree with you that it takes a fragile mind to start these games but some people weren't born that way. Maybe they were just normal people like you and me and something went wrong in their life. I don't know what goes on in these minds so I am a bit cautious when it comes to judging these people. And I am kinda getting sick and tired of people here who immediately bash other people (I am not talking about you right now) while I fucking know (I insta-sniff these people out) that they don't have a life themselves. Like I said before, it is easy to say x or y when you can hide behind a screen. A few days ago there was a guy here who called me an idiot while I know he doesn't have the guts to tell me this in a bar or in the office. But here he can be anonymous and it takes him one mouse click to spout his frustration.


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

dvnj22 said:


> What do you mean?


Sorry, I meant you have more *difficulties* accepting yourself than other people. 

If you can't live with yourself, then who can? Can you live with yourself? And who is you and who is your self? Someone/some "thing" needs to be in control of what you think after all....


----------



## dvnj22 (Apr 24, 2013)

All in Twilight said:


> Sorry, I meant you have more *difficulties* accepting yourself than other people.
> 
> If you can't live with yourself, then who can? Can you live with yourself? And who is you and who is your self? Someone/some "thing" needs to be in control of what you think after all....


Oh, well like I explained to the other poster I'm not interested in doing it. Not interested in living with myself, or living at all. However for the average person I agree self acceptance is good.


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

dvnj22 said:


> Oh, well like I explained to the other poster I'm not interested in doing it. Not interested in living with myself, or living at all. However for the average person I agree self acceptance is good.


I am truly sorry to hear that...I hope things will get better for you.


----------



## dvnj22 (Apr 24, 2013)

All in Twilight said:


> I am truly sorry to hear that...I hope things will get better for you.


Thanks, I don't think anyone should be worried, I've been this way since I was a toddler. What happens when I get a job and have 200$, then people can get worried what I'll do.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

All in Twilight said:


> Now that raised some chuckle.
> 
> Did you know that PUA was invented by dorks who couldn't get laid or couldn't find a suitable partner to put it more eloquently? (I am sure you do but some here don't hence the comment) I think there is a big difference between men genuinely seeking a women and tries to sell himself as good as he can, and a pimp that uses women for his own sick desires and all that jazz. I am not sure which part is the minority or majority because I honestly can't tell. I think you are underestimating the figures though but maybe I am wrong. Now I rarely see PUA behavior when I go out and mostly girls aren't really interested in these guys anyway when I do encounter them.
> 
> Now I am not a fan of PUA behavior though because I find these people fucking depressing and a bunch of losers. But I think that there are a few things that can be quite useful to a lot of guys who simply can't pick up signs or who are simply socially inadequate; people who don't want to use PUA for game (I was aware). I wholeheartedly agree with you that it takes a fragile mind to start these games but some people weren't born that way. Maybe they were just normal people like you and me and something went wrong in their life. I don't know what goes on in these minds so I am a bit cautious when it comes to judging these people. And I am kinda getting sick and tired of people here who immediately bash other people (I am not talking about you right now) while I fucking know (I insta-sniff these people out) that they don't have a life themselves. Like I said before, it is easy to say x or y when you can hide behind a screen. A few days ago there was a guy here who called me an idiot while I know he doesn't have the guts to tell me this in a bar or in the office. But here he can be anonymous and it takes him one mouse click to spout his frustration.


Um I am glad it raises a chuckle in you that by defending these people as "wanting love" you are enabling their sick behavior? It works because the women they target believe they want love.

You are chuckling over nerds on the Internet or something, not the people who actually use PUA successfully.

I don't care if you think they are normal people who something just went wrong in their lives. You could say the same thing about Charles Manson. You could say pimps who exploit street hookers are victims of urban poverty and fatherless upbringing. That doesn't render their behavior amusing.

One more time: PUA when it actually works systematically hurts women and girls who believe the men using them just want love.

Some people don't want love. They may NEED love, but what they want is power, control, or narcissistic supply.

Do you know what it means to be an enabler?


----------



## dvnj22 (Apr 24, 2013)

fourtines said:


> Um I am glad it raises a chuckle in you that by defending these people as "wanting.love" you are enabling their sick behavior? It works because the women they target believe they want love.
> 
> You are chuckling over nerds on the Internet or something, not the people who actually use PUA successfully.
> 
> ...


your overthinking the whole thing.


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

fourtines said:


> Um I am glad it raises a chuckle in you that by defending these people as "wanting.love" you are enabling their sick behavior? It works because the women they target believe they want love.
> 
> You are chuckling over nerds on the Internet or something, not the people who actually use PUA successfully.
> 
> ...


No, I chuckled because you didn't think I would ever listen to rap music....My my, you're quite the hothead sometimes xD I thought I made it quite clear that I am on your side when it comes to these power plays. But instead of immediately condemning and judging the whole thing, I wanted to find out why they became like that. If I only condemn it, judge it and send them to jail, it will just manifest somewhere else.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Thread needed more fedora.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

dvnj22 said:


> your overthinking the whole thing.


No I just have more life experience.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

All in Twilight said:


> No, I chuckled because you didn't think I would ever listen to rap music....My my, you're quite the hothead sometimes xD I thought I made it quite clear that I am on your side when it comes to these power plays. But instead of immediately condemning and judging the whole thing, I wanted to find out why they became like that. If I only condemn it, judge it and send them to jail, it will just manifest somewhere else.


By not condemning it, we head pat them and tell them their behavior is okey dokey because they just want love. Theives also want money. Dude, no. You are giving them a way out. You are excusing their behavior. "Why do you make me hit you!"

Less experienced or more naive women may even read what you wrote and run right out to be played!

All players have mommy issues and want ego validation and "love"...so fucking what. Teach them a better way instead of telling lonely nerds to take tips from them.


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

fourtines said:


> By not condemning it, we head pat them and tell them their behavior is okey dokey because they just want love. Theives also want money. Dude, no. You are giving them a way out. You are excusing their behavior. "Why do you make me hit you!"
> 
> Less experienced or more naive women may even read what you wrote and run right out to be played!
> 
> All players have mommy issues and want ego validation and "love"...so fucking what. Teach them a better way instead of telling lonely nerds to take tips from them.


Well, I certainly don't think their behavior is ok, don't get me wrong here. But what you're saying is the same as these stupid slogans you see everywhere:

"SAY NO TO RACISM!". Like that is going to fucking work. If people have no idea what it is and why it is and how it came into being, then following this means simply nothing more than obeying some bs slogan without having the slightest understanding of what is going on and this is not how you root out violence. It will just pop up some years later again or in some other place.


----------



## L (Aug 12, 2011)

Promethea said:


> Thread needed more fedora.


Hey now! WHOA! 

I have a fedora hat and have been complimented on it...


----------



## L (Aug 12, 2011)

All in Twilight said:


> Well, I certainly don't think their behavior is ok, don't get me wrong here. But what you're saying is the same as these stupid slogans you see everywhere:
> 
> "SAY NO TO RACISM!". Like that is going to fucking work. If people have no idea what it is and why it is and how it came into being, then following this means simply nothing more than obeying some bs slogan without having the slightest understanding of what is going on and this is not how you root out violence. It will just pop up some years later again or in some other place.


Actually for a more concrete example you could use the example of abstinence, because abstinence only education works so well... 
@fourtines
Trying to understand something is not the same as condoning it. It's exactly like looking at a serial killers life. To learn and improve is not the same as giving them a way out or a head pat.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

All in Twilight said:


> Well, I certainly don't think their behavior is ok, don't get me wrong here. But what you're saying is the same as these stupid slogans you see everywhere:
> 
> "SAY NO TO RACISM!". Like that is going to fucking work. If people have no idea what it is and why it is and how it came into being, then following this means simply nothing more than obeying some bs slogan without having the slightest understanding of what is going on and this is not how you root out violence. It will just pop up some years later again or in some other place.


You are ignoring something very fundamental about PUA ...IT ALREADY WORKS BEST ON WOMEN WHO WANT TO SAVE OR FIX OR CHANGE A "broken" man.

Like we need more of that. 

"Oh poor boy he just needs love." Yes, he does. But his issues are thus that he would rather objectify you to boost his ego, so by loving him, even pitying him, you are throwing your own love in a deep black vortex of endless need....meanwhile, you on the other hand will be promptly cast aside, because your kindness is weakness, lady, and I need another conquest before I remember how.much I hate myself.

The woman who is most susceptible to PUA also is a weak broken person who doesn't need one more do gooder to misguidedly encourage her to feel sorry for him, even after he has treated her like a piece of trash.

And the nerds who emulate them are usually so obvious and apparent that I frankly don't care too much about it cropping up again, they don't even do enough to harm anyone.

Or do they? Do they perpetuate a culture of narcissistic entitlement to women and their vaginas?


----------



## Slider (Nov 17, 2009)

Talk about poop.

Women love that.


----------



## dvnj22 (Apr 24, 2013)

Slider said:


> Talk about poop.
> 
> Women love that.


Or throwing poop in them.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

KINGoftheAMAZONS said:


> Why should the word slut only connote *girls*, when the "stereotypical" man would fit your definition of slut just as well?


Several reasons, once you think about it.

1) Men value sexual loyalty. Women are often willing to put up with "sharing" a man if he tingles them highly enough.
Men can have a fling merely for sexual release without their heart being involved, but generally, once a woman starts sleeping
with someone other than her husband, she's already completely forsaken him in her heart.
(Think of the stereotypical scenes upon discovery infidelity: the man finds about the other guy and goes apesh!t, and 
NOTHING the woman says makes any difference; but when the woman finds about another girl, the cheated-on wife wants
to know "did she mean anything to you" and the guy often attempts to explain, "No, it was only lust.")

2) A man does not always pine sexually for past lovers the way a woman does.

3) Men don't get pregnant and so a man cheating on a woman does not saddle her with possibly paying for and raising 
another man's child.

4) *Most* men have a difficult enough time getting sex, so they never have the opportunity to sleep around--just watch, I'll bet 
some of the female posters here squawk about that...but really, most average men are *invisible* to women as sexual beings.
Whereas, even an average woman can get laid if she *really* wants to...therefore, the bar is much lower for women to gain repeated sexual relations, so in their case, self-control is more necessary in order to remain celibate.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

L said:


> Actually for a more concrete example you could use the example of abstinence, *because abstinence only education works so well... *
> @_fourtines_
> Trying to understand something is not the same as condoning it. It's exactly like looking at a serial killers life. To learn and improve is not the same as giving them a way out or a head pat.


The strength to remain abstinent comes not from the mind but from the heart and conscience. Education is the wrong nourishment.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Donovan said:


> that's just it. the last bit made sense, but i can tell it wasn't meant to, which is what i don't understand (sarcasm?).
> 
> (and i wouldn't say "emotionally [un]evolved" either, just that baggage is present... but it's present in everyone, so don't take that as an insult).
> 
> that's about all i'll say on the matter, as i don't want to give out advice (especially when i don't feel equipped to do so, and when my life--and just about everyone else's--isn't much different).


I dunno. Like I said, I am not some dummy who takes some crazy back after two fucking years, leaving my life behind to run to him, but I rewarded persistence with my ESFJ, the ISTJ, and even with ESFP, though I have decided he has to step it up about ten thousand or he and I really are through. When I was younger that one guy came back after three months, and I heard from mutual friends I supposedly "broke his heart" but he did me dirty and I feel he didn't put forth enough effort to compensate, like I should just be over joyed he chose me. I wanted to pitch a baseball at his head.

Obviously I have issues if I mostly have bfs who go and come at first, or who require rejection to appreciate me.

I actually like Beyonce. The sarcasm was that if I was emotionally healthy myself, would I be playing this role, would I be ultimatum repeat business lady, I don't know.

It's effing weird, sort of like those women who accidentally always date married men.

But I get some kind of satisfaction from it, clearly.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

fourtines said:


> I dunno. Like I said, I am not some dummy who takes some crazy back after two fucking years, leaving my life behind to run to him, but I rewarded persistence with my ESFJ, the ISTJ, and even with ESFP, though I have decided he has to step it up about ten thousand or he and I really are through. When I was younger that one guy came back after three months, and I heard from mutual friends I supposedly "broke his heart" but he did me dirty and I feel he didn't put forth enough effort to compensate, like I should just be over joyed he chose me. I wanted to pitch a baseball at his head.
> 
> Obviously I have issues if I mostly have bfs who go and come at first, or who require rejection to appreciate me.
> 
> ...


yeah... you sound self-aware (more than most people who get into these sort of topics). and *shrug* you sound like you know what you're doing (not that you need to hear that _here_)--so keep on standing your ground, . 

for myself, i think breaking a cycle can be in doing what's usually not done. getting everything out, talking about what is expected/etc., and then seeing if the other person agrees or not. this has stopped a lot of dead-ends for myself--allowed me to escape a lot of wasted time.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Donovan said:


> yeah... you sound self-aware (more than most people who get into these sort of topics). and *shrug* you sound like you know what you're doing (not that you need to hear that _here_)--so keep on standing your ground, .
> 
> for myself, i think breaking a cycle can be in doing what's usually not done. getting everything out, talking about what is expected/etc., and then seeing if the other person agrees or not. this has stopped a lot of dead-ends for myself--allowed me to escape a lot of wasted time.


I don't feel I wasted time with any of.these men. There was clearly a pay off. I move on pretty easily in the real world, even if I still have lingering feelings, I give other people a chance, I date. I have dated several others in the time I have been on and offsies with ESFP. Whatever power he has over me never stopped me from meeting other men at reasonable intervals. I am very proactive about dating, unless in a deeply secure relationship. While in love with ESFJ and ISTJ I had no time for other people, but with ESFP I have had a kind of balancing act because we were initially FWB. I DON'T SELL MYSELF SHORT WITHOUT COMMITMENT OR CONSTANT COMPANIONSHIP.

Am I the female version of a player, no. I just don't act stupid, not at my age. I didn't even when I was younger really. I don't relationship hop, but I know how to date and be alone.

I have deep feelings for ESFP though. Deep inconvenient feelings. It will not stop me from doing what I have to do though. 

I have watched ESFPs pattern of behavior. I actually know he is a fighter. The question is does he really consider me worth fighting for if all bets are off and he really has to show me. Maybe not. And I have to be ok with that when I tell guys I can't do this. I have to be like oh well my emotions are not going to control me, I can have another you in a minute. 

I met some one who seems like a really good guy recently and I find him attractive. He might be a more emotionally mature individual. Or, he could be the same old shit with a yoga mat.

ESFP has been a great catalyst for change in my life. He has influenced me indirectly to be able to make major life decisions, more than once. Maybe that's who he is. A catalyst.

My ISTJ was comfort and support when I needed it.

All relationships are meaningful, even if they don't end in marriage.


----------



## Paradox1987 (Oct 9, 2010)

The weirdest thing about all this talk around how "men" ought to attract "women", and what "women" like is how everyone perks up and takes note. What I never understand is why. The arguments are always the same. From the scientific studies which show that "women" want masculine faces and bodies for fertility, and feminine faces for child-rearing (what Dr Dunbar called "cads and dads"), through to the 'women don't know how to be feminine anymore' arguments. It just makes me wonder if people have ever tried interacting with someone safe in the knowledge that the experience and person are unique.

Men and women are all different. The reason we're different is not the demise of Judeo-Christian morality, nor is the cause of this some gender based plot. It's simply the nature of life, and the most important factor for evolution of species. When I was a child, my dog loved bananas and chicken, but would not eat chicken liver. Just wouldn't eat it. Yet I've seen other dogs eat the stuff with relish. So having a sense of uniqueness isn't even a human specific trait. 

People have been attracting other people for years, and one of the best people magnets in history was Giacoma Casanova. Read his memoirs. You will find he loved all his lovers as individuals. He revelled in the things that made them, them. Not in whether she was an "8" or whatever your arbitrary attraction rating number is. Nor was he influenced by beards, wealth, niceness or assholery. He simply met people, got to know them, and conveyed to them why they (as individuals) enriched his life such that he couldn't imagine his life without them in it.

There is a fictional character who does something rather similar in his declaration of love. This character is a cult hero, much loved throughout the English speaking world, and beyond. Read "Pride and Prejudice", and you will see that Darcy was kept enraptured by Lizzie's character, which lent his courting that grave earnestness and urgency. 

I have always found authenticity to be a better approach than abstract desires aimed at boosting my social ego.


----------



## FallingSlowly (Jul 1, 2013)

g_w said:


> Several reasons, once you think about it.
> 
> 1) Men value sexual loyalty. Women are often willing to put up with "sharing" a man if he tingles them highly enough.
> Men can have a fling merely for sexual release without their heart being involved, but generally, once a woman starts sleeping
> ...


I think this is a gross oversimplification. There are enough men who get emotionally involved when they sleep with someone, as much as women are capable of not being emotionally involved.* It depends on the individual, not their gender*. By pushing these/your stereotype, we really don't do anyone any favours. 
What "stereotypical scenes" are you referring to? The ones in movies? That'd be a reliable source...



> 2) A man does not always pine sexually for past lovers the way a woman does.


Oh yes, some men do, and oh no, some women don't. Same thing as above: Stereotype. 
Where do you get this info from? Own experience? Tabloids? 



> 3) Men don't get pregnant and so a man cheating on a woman does not saddle her with possibly paying for and raising
> another man's child.


... but he can get his fling pregnant and might need to pay for and raise that child. And saddle his partner (if she forgives him) with that financial and personal (if he's man enough) commitment. Or a multitude of other possible scenarios.
Slightly sexist, aren't we? I noticed in a few of your posts that you have a tendency to put more responsibility, shame and blame on the woman - this is not much different...



> 4) *Most* men have a difficult enough time getting sex, so they never have the opportunity to sleep around--just watch, I'll bet
> some of the female posters here squawk about that...but really, most average men are *invisible* to women as sexual beings.
> Whereas, even an average woman can get laid if she *really* wants to...therefore, the bar is much lower for women to gain repeated sexual relations, so in their case, self-control is more necessary in order to remain celibate.


Sure, sure...


----------



## FallingSlowly (Jul 1, 2013)

Paradox1987 said:


> Men and women are all different. The reason we're different is not the demise of Judeo-Christian morality, nor is the cause of this some gender based plot. It's simply the nature of life, and the most important factor for evolution of species.
> <snip>
> I have always found authenticity to be a better approach than abstract desires aimed at boosting my social ego.


Amen...


----------



## Das Brechen (Nov 26, 2011)

So...the moral of the story once again is that everyone is a special snowflake? Too many records on repeat.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Das Brechen said:


> So...the moral of the story once again is that everyone is a special snowflake? Too many records on repeat.


Because having the rosetta stone for human interaction makes more sense, much more.


----------



## JoetheBull (Apr 29, 2010)

Bricolage said:


> Pickup isn't about a relationship. The goal is to get laid, not get a girlfriend.


You could have included in title "for pick ups" so people like me won't get their hopes up when they click into the thread. still shifting threw most of the thread in hopes of finding something useful. But I am doubting it at this point.


----------



## FallingSlowly (Jul 1, 2013)

Das Brechen said:


> So...the moral of the story once again is that everyone is a special snowflake? Too many records on repeat.


I guess there's somewhat of a difference between acknowledging that individuals have different attitudes and outlooks, and suffering from Special Snowflake Syndrome. The latter involves a sense of entitlement and/or a need for preferential treatment just on the grounds of being different, and therein lies the problem. In fact the very problem that seems to entice some (!) people to perpetually start "woe is me, it's all them other jerks"-threads...


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

g_w said:


> The PUA artists themselves, on their own websites, disagree with you.
> 
> I agree that what you said is ONE class of "playa" but not the only one.
> 
> ...


I'll never quite understand how PUA works. I've had a couple of guys suddenly cut off after a good start. I found it odd but let it go and moved on. Then they were back, which was just... really weird after ditching me. It made them look damaged.

This might be personality type related. ESTP have zero interest in fixing people. I'll try to cheer up someone who is sad, but I'm not a therapist. I don't waste my time on obviously damaged people.


----------



## Murnando (Dec 10, 2011)

g_w said:


> Our society is screwed up in ways it didn't used to be before the "sexual revolution".
> 
> And just because something is old, does not mean it is outmoded: how old is the practice of cooking one's food,
> or the wheel, or calculus?


... and right there is the flaw in your argument. We still use the wheel. We still use calculus. We still cook food. Why? Because these things are useful, they do not need to be justified, so they stick around even as society changes and progresses. That's why gender roles are on the way out, and that's why they aren't sticking around the same way the wheel has. They aren't useful. Putting people into boxes and encouraging people to conform to some bullshit ideal doesn't make anybody happy and has never really worked. Even when this behaviour was at it's strongest, societal ills were common and culture wasn't as "pure" as the upper classes pretended it was. If you need any proof of that, you need only read about Victorian England.

If gender roles were truly as brilliant as you claim, they wouldn't need defending. They would be kept because they are natural and beneficial and make people happy. They are being phased out because people now realise that they are happier and healthier when they get to live their lives without The Man telling them what to do and who they should be.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

fourtines said:


> You completely misunderstood my post, maybe? I don't meet nice interesting men who are open and honest and tell them I don't like them. I don't act like I am grossed out by men I find attractive.
> 
> I am talking some guy I already went out with who is being flaky or acting like a complete bag of douche. Yeah, if someone acts badly, I'll tell them to fuck off and see if they feel regret and boomerang. If they don't, clearly they weren't terribly interested.
> 
> I like being pursued. A lot.


If a guy flaked on me, I was done with him. It was over. There are lots more available who aren't flakey. Why waste time on a moron? Why wait to find out how he reacts? He just told you he's a loser when he flaked out.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

monemi said:


> I'll never quite understand how PUA works. I've had a couple of guys suddenly cut off after a good start. I found it odd but let it go and moved on. Then they were back, which was just... really weird after ditching me. It made them look damaged.
> 
> This might be personality type related. ESTP have zero interest in fixing people. I'll try to cheer up someone who is sad, but I'm not a therapist. I don't waste my time on obviously damaged people.


Don't know about the guys who cut off, as I am not privy to your interactions with them; it's none of my business, so I'm not asking for details, either.
IF you go with the assumption they were PUAs, then they could have been beginners who developed "oneitis" (in PUA lingo; in actuality, "feelings") for you.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

fourtines said:


> Apparently I like men who will fight for what they want. I don't know what else to say. My life is littered with baby come back, you know you want to talk to me, I can't stop thinking about you, im sorry baby, yes I swear, you made an impact on me, it's been three months but now I am ready for a relationship and chose you (ditched that guy), it's been two years and I have a house now and want a real family will you consider moving back to West Virginia (no), and so forth. It's happened with no less than five men, I think it's because my own intensity and questionable boundaries,that when I cut them out or tell them no, they suddenly (or not so suddenly) realize what they had.
> 
> And yes, some of them are rewarded for their persistence, I don't just tell them all wtf, but the guy who came back after two years, I thought he was a bit unwell.
> 
> If you don't understand that last bit, listen to the song, lol.


That is such a turn off for me. Reading it is like nails on a chalkboard. I don't want to be pursued like that. Ex's haven't tried to restart something with me. They know me well enough that they would be better banging their head against a brick wall. I say what I mean and I mean what I say. My husband knows, this, my children know this, my friends know this. Everyone knows that my no means no. I give one warning and then there is a consequence for ignoring my wishes. Begging and whining never provokes a positive response from me. I wouldn't put up with whining from a 3 year old, let alone a grown man.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Murnando said:


> ... and right there is the flaw in your argument. We still use the wheel. We still use calculus. We still cook food. Why? Because these things are useful, they do not need to be justified, so they stick around even as society changes and progresses. That's why gender roles are on the way out, and that's why they aren't sticking around the same way the wheel has. They aren't useful. Putting people into boxes and encouraging people to conform to some bullshit ideal doesn't make anybody happy and has never really worked. Even when this behaviour was at it's strongest, societal ills were common and culture wasn't as "pure" as the upper classes pretended it was. If you need any proof of that, you need only read about Victorian England.
> 
> If gender roles were truly as brilliant as you claim, they wouldn't need defending. They would be kept because they are natural and beneficial and make people happy. They are being phased out because people now realise that they are happier and healthier when they get to live their lives without The Man telling them what to do and who they should be.


You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

This is not an invitation to invoke Godwin's Law, as you'll see, but historical precedent.
You *do* know that Hitler was *elected* before becoming dictator, right?

Note also the number of people shouting "long live Stalin and the Revolution" as they were literally being led out to the post to be executed by firing squad.

In other words, you underestimate the power of social conditioning.

Gender roles (including sex limited to marriage, or at worst, sex only with your fiancee, and only after engagement) have remained relatively constant for millenia because they *work*. At both the individual level and the societal level.

What has happened since the 60s has not just been loosening of sexual restraints; it has been an "all fronts assault" on the gender relations, the institution of marriage, and the relative roles of the sexes as well.

This has included contraceptives/abortion on demand; double standards on sexual responsibility for men and women (e.g. if a woman gets drunk, and has sex, it is DEEMED that she was taken advantage of, even if the man has also been drinking, and even if 
the act took place in public, or if there exists videotape of the encounter showing her encouraging the man), no-fault divorce with penalties including loss of professional licensure, impoundment/seizure of assets, up to jail time, if the man fails to follow through on payments; persistent propaganda about how all men are probably predators ("take back the night" walks); shaming of virginity; 
encouragement of women to be "strong and empowered" and of men to be "sensitive and in touch with their Fweelings"
and on and On and ON. Even the Evangelical organization "Focus on the Family" (founded by Dr. James Dobson, PhD psychologist from USC and one-time Hustler magazine "asshole of the month") has had a recent article guiding Christian women on how to gear up for, execute, and recover from a divorce. I am old enough to *remember* when a mere divorce was enough to get someone
shunned at work.

These things did not happen "naturally" because monogamy is outmoded. They have been orchestrated: and since the sexual instinct is so strong, once the societal supports in favor of self-control have been removed, and the possible life-changing risk of pregancy putatively removed (if birth control is so effective, why are there approximately 1 million abortions per year in the United States? either people don't listen to birth control education, or the birth control fails...by definition those who *are* abstinent do not get pregnant barring a miracle)...

then hedonism reigns.

But looking at a number of objective, _post facto_ markers -- durability of marriages vs. the woman's pre-marital sexual partner count; rate of anti-depressant prescription rate for women; prevalence of sexually-transmitted diseases; the sheer happiness exuding from the faces of feminists (that's h-a-p-p-i, not h-a-R-p-i :kitteh; and self-reported cultural markers of blogging sites such as Jezebel or Hooking Up Smart (or any number of others, try reading occasional articles from Slate or Salon or Huffington Post)
show that many women are very unhappy with the current hook-up culture -- one article had a woman at a prestigious university lamenting that she'd be happy if a man would just take her out to TCBY for a $3 cup of yogurt, instead of squalid sex.

Yeah, these things sure are an improvement. /sarc>

What has really happened is that the economic and cultural elites have always had a degree of sexual hypocrisy compared to their public face...remember the old joke about Ted Kennedy:

Q. "Senator, what is your position on the abortion bill?"
A. "I guess I'll just have to go ahead and pay it."

but since the 60s, they have given up all pretense of morality, and have promulgated the idea that the middle and lower classes emulate their immorality. The upper classes have the money to buy their way out of many (not all !) of the serious consequences, but the lower classes do not. This can be seen in the relative fates of Elliot Spitzer (Emperor's Club, love client #9) and Monica Lewinsky. Which one of them handled libertinism better?

Oh, and speaking of Monica. How empowered was she by her experience?
What kind of guy thinks he can compete in a woman's mind, once she has blown THE PRESIDENT?

And that is one of the problems, incidentally, with the sexual revolution. Once women have had sex with enough men, or sex with a sufficiently "alpha male" type-guy, ordinary, day-to-day, marriage and children and commitment and sacrifice look pretty [email protected] unsatisfying by comparison.

And there will be (and continues to be!) fallout, in the center of the bell curve.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

g_w said:


> Don't know about the guys who cut off, as I am not privy to your interactions with them; it's none of my business, so I'm not asking for details, either.
> IF you go with the assumption they were PUAs, then they could have been beginners who developed "oneitis" (in PUA lingo; in actuality, "feelings") for you.


I don't know if they were PUA. But I just found it really weird to act like that and then expect me to want them still. I shoot straight. I demand the same from others and if they don't, I have no patience for them.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

monemi said:


> I don't know if they were PUA. But I just found it really weird to act like that and then expect me to want them still. *I shoot straight.* *I demand the same from others and if they don't, I have no patience for them.*


Careful: you're beginning to sound like noted macho sexist John Wayne.

"I won't be wronged; I won't be insulted; I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to others, and I expect the same from them."

:kitteh:


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

g_w said:


> You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
> 
> 
> * *
> ...


Whole lot of verbal vomit here. Generations of my family haven't been following the traditional gender roles. We've thrived without them. You're seriously going to blame every problem in society on us leaving traditional gender roles? People weren't happy with the traditional roles in society. Conformity was demanded and the penalties were harsher when people strayed from them. I don't see that as a good thing.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

g_w said:


> Careful: you're beginning to sound like noted macho sexist John Wayne.
> 
> "I won't be wronged; I won't be insulted; I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to others, and I expect the same from them."
> 
> :kitteh:


Nah, I sound like my mother.


----------



## Murnando (Dec 10, 2011)

g_w said:


> You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
> 
> This is not an invitation to invoke Godwin's Law, as you'll see, but historical precedent.
> You *do* know that Hitler was *elected* before becoming dictator, right?
> ...



Fascism was popular for a brief while after Germany's socio-economic landscape was devastated by the war. After their election, which wasn't even a majority and hit a high of only about 42% in 1932, they quickly lost much of their popularity and by 1942 they were resented more and more by their populace. Furthermore, Hitler himself wasn't democratically elected. The Nazi party was, but not Hitler specifically. Hitler himself worked his way into the role of Chancellor via political maneuvering and due to the failings of Papen and Hindenburg, thinking they could control him as a kind of puppet. I think you'll also find that hedonism has always reigned. Even back when sex before marriage was reviled in "civilised" cultures, middle class men were having forever having affairs on the side. You'd have to be very naive indeed to think the past was a place without sexual misdemeanor. The enormous amount of brothels that used to exist in my country alone are themselves evidence of that, especially when we consider that prostitution is far less common than it once was. Maybe you should study history before trying to use it in your alarmingly misinformed arguments.

Back to the point, you're correct in saying that social conditioning is very effective, but don't you see how exactly the same could be said of your pro-gender role position? It's all an evolution of culture, and you know what evolution does? It refines. That's why fascism and communism died in Europe just as quickly as they rose. That's why we still use the wheel. The bad things eventually die out and the world goes on. Of course, you could argue that sexual liberation is just a fad that will die out just as Nazism once did. You're not necessarily wrong, but we're really in no position to speculate at the moment. Besides, for all of your insistence that we have abandoned "morality", you fail to provide actual examples of why this "promiscuity" is a bad thing or why your view of morality is superior to mine.

If you could provide some actual examples as to why current sexuality is so wrong then I'd love to hear them. So far you've only referenced flawed misinterpretations of history and highly specific anecdotal arguments that don't prove a wider trend.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

monemi said:


> Whole lot of verbal vomit here. Generations of my family haven't been following the traditional gender roles. We've thrived without them. You're seriously going to blame every problem in society on us leaving traditional gender roles? People weren't happy with the traditional roles in society. Conformity was demanded and the penalties were harsher when people strayed from them. I don't see that as a good thing.


Heh heh heh.

It is a common theme in some areas of the PUA-community that women are solipsistic.
I didn't mention you: I was talking of the societal effects of birth control and promiscuity, and not on whether women
or men do the laundry or the checkbook.

But you dragged your family into it uninvited.

OK, I'll bite, despite your insult about verbal vomit -- note that I have been treating YOU with respect throughout.

What areas did your family defy traditional gender roles in?

(I've done ALL the grocery shopping and cooking almost since day 1 of our marriage, since I have a chemistry degree...so cooking interests me; but my wife never learned how because her mom was a "kitchen Nazi" who never let her help.)

But remember three things.

1) "The plural of anecdotes is not data." (TM)

2) I'm talking mass effects, center of the bell-curve, societal-level.

3) I am concerned primarily with promiscuity, marriage, and the effects of the dissolution of marriage an institution, on
society going FORWARD.

Occasional individuals may have circumstances in their lives, or their own personalities, which allow them to escape some of the temporal consequences of promiscuity.
But society on a whole, does not.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

g_w said:


> You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
> 
> This is not an invitation to invoke Godwin's Law, as you'll see, but historical precedent.
> You *do* know that Hitler was *elected* before becoming dictator, right?
> ...


Wow... I'm almost in awe that someone who thinks this way is actually young enough to see the keys on a keyboard. Being promiscuous causes neural chemical imbalance to the point of needing prescriptions to address? In an age of hyper communication, a tabliod piece on Jezebel is indicative of the world at large? Lack of proper sexual education in America isn't to blame for people not being educated on the ramifications of unprotected sex? Abortion isn't the result of lack of resources for proper family planning? Where the fuck do you pick up this information, 'cause you could make a fortune subletting that pit of despair to The Onion.

@_The_ bold portion, that's is where all of this bullshit stems form and ultimately boils down to. "That fucking slut! She's fucking dudes with big dicks, going to parties, making her own successes and failures on her own. How am I supposed to compete with that?" In the end, all of this is nothing more than another dick-measuring contest to see how you stack up against another person, which is so fucking pointless when you consider most people will have about eight or so sexual partners during their whole life. It isn't worth the effort when the number of people you interact with will almost never bleed into unwanted waters anyway. Seriously, get off your high horse and interact with the real world and real people for a change. You sound like political and religious fundies talking about the old days, how everything was so fucking awesome when they were on top and everyone else was eating shit. Truth is that the world today is so much more equal than it has ever been and the only way we achieve true equilibrium is by giving people the ability to choose for themselves and find their own way, not let aging concepts dictate their behavior.

The Kinsey Institute - Sexuality Information Links - FAQ [Related Resources]


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Murnando said:


> Fascism was popular for a brief while after Germany's socio-economic landscape was devastated by the war. After their election, which wasn't even a majority and hit a high of only about 42% in 1932, they quickly lost much of their popularity and by 1942 they were resented more and more by their populace. Furthermore, Hitler himself wasn't democratically elected. The Nazi party was, but not Hitler specifically. Hitler himself worked his way into the role of Chancellor via political maneuvering and due to the failings of Papen and Hindenburg, thinking they could control him as a kind of puppet. I think you'll also find that hedonism has always reigned. Even back when sex before marriage was reviled in "civilised" cultures, middle class men were having forever having affairs on the side. You'd have to be very naive indeed to think the past was a place without sexual misdemeanor. The enormous amount of brothels that used to exist in my country alone are themselves evidence of that, especially when we consider that prostitution is far less common than it once was. Maybe you should study history before trying to use it in your alarmingly misinformed arguments.
> 
> Back to the point, you're correct in saying that social conditioning is very effective, but don't you see how exactly the same could be said of your pro-gender role position? It's all an evolution of culture, and you know what evolution does? It refines. That's why fascism and communism died in Europe just as quickly as they rose. That's why we still use the wheel. The bad things eventually die out and the world goes on. Of course, you could argue that sexual liberation is just a fad that will die out just as Nazism once did. You're not necessarily wrong, but we're really in no position to speculate at the moment. Besides, for all of your insistence that we have abandoned "morality", you fail to provide actual examples of why this "promiscuity" is a bad thing or why your view of morality is superior to mine.
> 
> If you could provide some actual examples as to why current sexuality is so wrong then I'd love to hear them. So far you've only referenced flawed misinterpretations of history and highly specific anecdotal arguments that don't prove a wider trend.


Nice try. The point about Hitler is that he didn't march in by brute force, but first gained power via election. Hindenberg was the figurehead to pull in the old-school vote, so to speak. But Hitler *was* the party. 

"Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Fuhrer."

Try reading (for example) the book

The Nazi seizure of power : the experience of a single German town [Thalburg], 1930-1935. (Book, 1966) [WorldCat.org]

in order to see the extent which propaganda and mind control had in getting people to go along with the Nazi program.
It wasn't all fear of the concentration camps -- on the one hand. 

Which is why I then referred to Stalin -- to show how social conditioning can come from a number of fronts.

But you were so intent on pedantry that you missed the whole point.

Yes, hedonism has always reigned: when not restrained by public pressure, usually under the influence of religion.
Try reading The Satyricon; think of Messalina; and then realize that many of the Romans preferred Christian wives as they were chaste and self-controlled (...faithful!) sexually.

You had written: 

_Even back when sex before marriage was reviled in "civilised" cultures, middle class men were having forever having affairs on the side._

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You have presented NO evidence except your own wishful thinking.
There are two kinds of prevalence: absolute numbers vs. prevalence ("per-capita"). You seem to be conflating the two:
I never made the claim that the past was sexually pure, but that the sexual revolution greatly extended sexual relations to
open acceptance, if not EXPECTATION, of sex even by the third "date" -- and in hookup culture, sex has replaced dating, to the
point that the participants often don't even know each other's last name.

So why are you attributing a (non-backed-up) claim of a (fictitious) sexually-pure past to me?
Could only be desperation.

Seriously. Even Judah in the Bible had sex with his own daughter in law after she disguised herself as a prostitute; she did it
in order to entrap him, not into marriage, but not to Judah, but to his youngest son, who was obligated by law to marry her
in order to continue the family line after the deaths of her two prior husbands.

Or, try reading Proverbs 5 on the "loose woman".

Or, from the Middle Ages, read anything from Chaucer's Miller's Tale, Reeve's Tale, or the Wife of Bath...;
or Boccacio's Decameron, Seventh Day Fifth Story, Seventh Day Ninth Story, or especially Ninth Day Second Story :laughing:


_So far you've only referenced flawed misinterpretations of history and highly specific anecdotal arguments that don't prove a wider trend._

You're lying. I cited the examples of divorce rate vs. partner count, antidepressant usage rate, and articles from "pro-feminist" sources ("admission against interest") where women themselves complained about not getting what they wanted from promiscuity.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

g_w said:


> Heh heh heh.
> 
> It is a common theme in some areas of the PUA-community that women are solipsistic.
> I didn't mention you: I was talking of the societal effects of birth control and promiscuity, and not on whether women
> ...


I wasn't intending disrespect. That's what your post read like to me. 

Well, lets take my father's family for example. My Grandmother was a dancer living with a boyfriend before she met my Grandfather. My grandparents were together and had kids together for over a decade before they got married. She was never a stay at home mother. One of her sons, my uncle came out as gay years before I was born; he's been with his partner for nearly as long as I've been alive. One of her closest friends (passed away from cancer in the 90's) was a cross dresser. She (the cross dresser) taught me to sew and make and repair clothes with my Grandmother. 

There's more, but in general I wouldn't say my family follows societal traditions and haven't going back to my Great-Grandparents.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

monemi said:


> I wasn't intending disrespect. That's what your post read like to me.
> 
> Well, lets take my father's family for example. My Grandmother was a dancer living with a boyfriend before she met my Grandfather. My grandparents were together and had kids together for over a decade before they got married. She was never a stay at home mother. One of her sons, my uncle came out as gay years before I was born; he's been with his partner for nearly as long as I've been alive. One of her closest friends (passed away from cancer in the 90's) was a cross dresser. She (the cross dresser) taught me to sew and make and repair clothes with my Grandmother.
> 
> There's more, but in general I wouldn't say my family follows societal traditions and haven't going back to my Great-Grandparents.


OK, great.

But one could point out that homosexuality itself is not itself heteronormative traditional marriage...
meaning that the nontraditional sexual arrangements of the grandparents, *might* have affected him rather 
than being strictly "private" and "neutral" in its effects (remaining cognizant of the whole "nature vs. nurture" debate).

...and, not to put too fine a point on it, homosexuals tend not to pass on their genes in order to continue 
the family line. 

(cf. the old-time popular song, "I want a girl, just like the girl, that married dear old Dad.")

Which was kind of my point: promiscuity is not "sociologically neutral" : there are effects which last
longer than 5 minutes past the orgasm.

As far as the not-a-stay-at-home-mother, I think that was an affectation from England during the 1800s:
many women had to work outside the home, or perform paid labor for others inside the home
(nanny, taking in laundry, and the like) in order to supplement the family income. It was an "affectation"
or status symbol that a man was successful enough that his wife didn't have to work.

Also interesting in this regard is the book Are Women Human? by Dorothy Sayers, in which she points out
that "housework" was traditionally not demeaning, since women had to act as project managers / supply-chain
managers / etc. to supply goods for their family; everything from meat to milk to clothes, since technology hadn't 
until VERY recently developed to the point that many consumer goods or foods could be purchased ready-made
off the shelf rather than prepared from scratch by the consumer themselves.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

android654 said:


> Wow... I'm almost in awe that someone who thinks this way is actually young enough to see the keys on a keyboard. Being promiscuous causes neural chemical imbalance to the point of needing prescriptions to address? In an age of hyper communication, a tabliod piece on Jezebel is indicative of the world at large? Lack of proper sexual education in America isn't to blame for people not being educated on the ramifications of unprotected sex? Abortion isn't the result of lack of resources for proper family planning? Where the fuck do you pick up this information, 'cause you could make a fortune subletting that pit of despair to The Onion.
> 
> @_The_ bold portion, that's is where all of this bullshit stems form and ultimately boils down to. "That fucking slut! She's fucking dudes with big dicks, going to parties, making her own successes and failures on her own. How am I supposed to compete with that?" In the end, all of this is nothing more than another dick-measuring contest to see how you stack up against another person, which is so fucking pointless when you consider most people will have about eight or so sexual partners during their whole life. It isn't worth the effort when the number of people you interact with will almost never bleed into unwanted waters anyway. Seriously, get off your high horse and interact with the real world and real people for a change. You sound like political and religious fundies talking about the old days, how everything was so fucking awesome when they were on top and everyone else was eating shit. Truth is that the world today is so much more equal than it has ever been and the only way we achieve true equilibrium is by giving people the ability to choose for themselves and find their own way, not let aging concepts dictate their behavior.
> 
> The Kinsey Institute - Sexuality Information Links - FAQ [Related Resources]


Sarcasm and personal invective (_ad hominem_) are an indication that you have no substantive points to make.

Strawmen and mis-statements indicate that I'm going over your head; or else that I've "hit a nerve".

Being promiscuous doesn't cause neural chemical imbalance? What then do you call "baggage" or "issues"
or "a chip on the shoulder"? If you are a materialist, and there are no spiritual causes, then these these
ARE all neurochemically-mediated, just as you say.

Jezebel is not indicative of the world at large, but it *does* purport to be indicative of the women who post and
read there: and judging by their invective, the people who post there are not the naive, virginal chuch
goers, but those considerably more...experienced.

Lack of proper sexual education has nothing to do with the sexual revolution, in fact the whole issue is a complex
case of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy...since if people get STDs or pregnant after attending sex education,
then "by definition" the sex education wasn't good enough, and it needs to be more widespread and more explicit.
Education does not give a young woman the wherewithal to resist the combined force of sexual and emotional
arousal...nor to resist the peer pressure "not to be a prude or fundie, what's wrong with you?"

Abortion is the result of intercourse. Intercourse is the result of ... 
oh, that's right. The sexual revolution.


You might want to read up the seminal study by the late Sen. Daniel Patrich Moynihan, (D-NY) [note how I appealed to your "open minded" nature by successfully avoiding quoting a source you would reject in your "tolerance" such as a religious-based source]
talking about the effects of promiscuity and the breakdown of the African-American family (out-of-wedlock births) in the 1960s.

The thing is, nowadays, despite all of the promised nostrums (sex education + birth control + the pill + the morning after pill + abortions), the out-of-wedlock birth rate in OVERALL, is even worse than the rate among the African American community which
so alarmed the good Senator, around 50 years ago.

He was concerned about social pathologies associated with children from fatherless homes or broken homes; subsequent real life has borne out his fears; and the only solution forthcoming from "right thinking people" is to pour gasoline on the fire.

Because patriarchy. Because fundies.

Kinsey has long been discredited as a legitimate source: he had serious methodological flaws in his approach, and in 
fact was one of the ringleaders of those attempting to overthrow traditional morality.


----------



## Das Brechen (Nov 26, 2011)

FallingSlowly said:


> I guess there's somewhat of a difference between acknowledging that individuals have different attitudes and outlooks, and suffering from Special Snowflake Syndrome. The latter involves a sense of entitlement and/or a need for preferential treatment just on the grounds of being different, and therein lies the problem. In fact the very problem that seems to entice some (!) people to perpetually start "woe is me, it's all them other jerks"-threads...


I understand and I hate those threads whether they come from narcissists, idealists, or cynics like myself. My point was instead 20 pages of nonsense, let's just get to the _de facto _answer of "Everyone Is Different". When the usual suspects come around, that's where the point comes to land.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

g_w said:


> OK, great.
> 
> But one could point out that homosexuality itself is not itself heteronormative traditional marriage...
> meaning that the nontraditional sexual arrangements of the grandparents, *might* have affected him rather
> ...


The sky didn't fall. He felt safe to come out as a homosexual. He knew his family would still love him. I'm not seeing a negative impact here at all. 



> As far as the not-a-stay-at-home-mother, I think that was an affectation from England during the 1800s:
> many women had to work outside the home, or perform paid labor for others inside the home
> (nanny, taking in laundry, and the like) in order to supplement the family income. It was an "affectation"
> or status symbol that a man was successful enough that his wife didn't have to work.


She didn't have to work. She chose to work. 



> Also interesting in this regard is the book Are Women Human? by Dorothy Sayers, in which she points out
> that "housework" was traditionally not demeaning, since women had to act as project managers / supply-chain
> managers / etc. to supply goods for their family; everything from meat to milk to clothes, since technology hadn't
> until VERY recently developed to the point that many consumer goods or foods could be purchased ready-made
> off the shelf rather than prepared from scratch by the consumer themselves.


I've never found housework demeaning. Whether working inside or outside the home, it's still got to get done. My mother was a housewife. She has a degree in biology, but she preferred to travel and my father's work provided lots of travel. Still, when he was home, they both did housework.


----------



## Bat (Jul 21, 2012)

g_w said:


> Being promiscuous doesn't cause neural chemical imbalance? What then do you call "baggage" or "issues"
> or "a chip on the shoulder"?


Exactly! Just as it's true that global warming is directly related to the decline in pirate numbers! I really don't understand why people have such a hard time understanding these connections.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

monemi said:


> The sky didn't fall. He felt safe to come out as a homosexual. He knew his family would still love him. I'm not seeing a negative impact here at all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We're talking past one another here, but without rancor. Of which I heartily approve.

I'm going to wrap up a couple of loose ends then I have to go do some housework, as there are house guests coming.
Cooking, vacuuming.

The irony is just *sickening* :laughing:


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Bat said:


> Exactly! Just as it's true that global warming is directly related to the decline in pirate numbers! I really don't understand why people have such a hard time understanding these connections.


Nice strawman with attempt at imputed ignorance to me.

For global warming, it's a myth. We've cooled off considerably since the Jurassic; when (for the nonce) atmospheric
CO2 was far higher than today: which (according to the models) should have been irrevocable. Yet the planet
managed to cool off without Al Gore.

For correlation vs. causation -- it's been a near-universal observation that the fallout from a breakup is worse
when the couple had been sexually involved. Therefore, yes, sexual involvement does affect neurochemistry.
The precise mechanisms by which this occurs, and the correlation with each type of sexual act, and the circumstances,
are not only too cluttered to model with confidence; but such research would fall afoul of ANY IRB's guidelines
on human subjects. 

So we are left with semi-empirical heuristics, pop-psych, and sociology.

Or plain horse sense and the accumulated wisdom of the ages, as opposed to an hysterically enforced 
insistence reminiscent of _The Rocking-Horse Winner_.

Nice try, though.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

i don't think Gw is completely off base here, or, that the other side is either (the direction each is going with the argument is sound--while how they're getting there is a little... 0_o... but each side _does_ have a point)...

there are hierarchies that segment populations, and cause a differing of experiences among populations. as one side moves up in the social circle, they bring their one-sided view into the equation to combat the yin-to-their-yang--which is an equally one-sided view; this other side then gets to experience, in a way, the detriments of their elevation over another group--invariably, the other group, who is just as fucking stupid as the ones they've gained power over--cause their own misdeeds, which in themselves are beneficial in the long run, as they allow for each "segment" to share experience; they become more similar, the divides that existed previously are smaller, the taboos aren't as taboo, one "social problem" as been "eradicated"... and then they move onto another, and they split into segments once again. 

there is nothing good about the detriment of marriage because it is what has tied families together in the past (and a familial unit is absolutely necessary for a healthy society; i don't have a link for this, just common sense--exercise your own). but, if the unit itself is based upon ideals that don't expect the same mind-set from each party (because they are ideals birthed from a "ruling power" during a time of "segmentation"), then do have to--and will--be dissolved. so, in this sense, the dissolution of marriage is potentially beneficial as it allows for the place-holder that it's always been, to be shaken up--to lose not it's conceptual foundation or inherent symbolism--but to redefine what makes that symbolism significant, and through this, what makes our familial units significant (is there really a definition of what a family is? should there be--other than a group taking care of one another due to the love they have for each other?), and through this, a more stable society in general. 

these things aren't happening because of "the man" (uggg god, do people realize how fucking stupid they sound when they say things like that? really...), or because of some moral-less hippy (again, really...), but because we as a race/specie/what-have-you of human beings are constantly moving and changing, redefining ourselves/the world around us and how we fit into it. we're constantly growing as an entity on this planet--even when things seem terrible, that in itself is a catalyst and sign of growth (i mean it has to be; barring the possibility that we all die out due to our stupidity, we will constantly keep moving--sometimes backwards down the spectrum, in order to finalize and cement something within the consciousness of man, which could be argued that is in itself necessary as it may allow for a direction with more longevity/potential to arise--but it is impossible to stay at any certain point, even if we tried). 

... there's too much here for me to make a coherent post without the added direction of someone's argument... i have to get an actual paper now--but, if anyone would like some clarification (), quote me.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

g_w said:


> Sarcasm and personal invective (_ad hominem_) are an indication that you have no substantive points to make.
> 
> Strawmen and mis-statements indicate that I'm going over your head; or else that I've "hit a nerve".


My snark is really all you've warranted so far with these verbose and convoluted ideas that tie in anythign and everything in sight to fall under your ever expanding definition of "problems" caused by sex.



> Being promiscuous doesn't cause neural chemical imbalance? What then do you call "baggage" or "issues"
> or "a chip on the shoulder"? If you are a materialist, and there are no spiritual causes, then these these
> ARE all neurochemically-mediated, just as you say.


The severe degree and constant exposure warranted for sexual exposure to be causative of neural degradation to the point where prescribed medication would be necessary would reach such absurd levels that the most career pornographers would be chagrined to witness. One night stands do not lead to Zoloft. 



> Jezebel is not indicative of the world at large, but it *does* purport to be indicative of the women who post and read there: and judging by their invective, the people who post there are not the naive, virginal chuch
> goers, but those considerably more...experienced.


So? A comment by a passerby is nothing more than a comment of a passerby. It's true for her but means nothing in the grand scheme of things, most likely not representative of what ever demos she'd fall into.



> Lack of proper sexual education has nothing to do with the sexual revolution, in fact the whole issue is a complex case of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy...since if people get STDs or pregnant after attending sex education, then "by definition" the sex education wasn't good enough, and it needs to be more widespread and more explicit. Education does not give a young woman the wherewithal to resist the combined force of sexual and emotional arousal...nor to resist the peer pressure "not to be a prude or fundie, what's wrong with you?"
> 
> Abortion is the result of intercourse. Intercourse is the result of ...
> oh, that's right. The sexual revolution.


Until we have expansive sexual education as an essential part of education, your point amounts to nothing, since contraceptives, abortion, and promiscuity are as old as fire and have only been improved upon. They stood the test of time because, unlike rigid predetermined roles, people rather enjoy the ability to enjoy themselves. 



> You might want to read up the seminal study by the late Sen. Daniel Patrich Moynihan, (D-NY) [note how I appealed to your "open minded" nature by successfully avoiding quoting a source you would reject in your "tolerance" such as a religious-based source]
> talking about the effects of promiscuity and the breakdown of the African-American family (out-of-wedlock births) in the 1960s.
> 
> The thing is, nowadays, despite all of the promised nostrums (sex education + birth control + the pill + the morning after pill + abortions), the out-of-wedlock birth rate in OVERALL, is even worse than the rate among the African American community which so alarmed the good Senator, around 50 years ago.
> ...


Because a politician has never taken a position to make a point on his own behalf. But rather than focus on "promiscuity" why not address more prominent issues that disproportionately affect Black Americans, such as poor education, perpetual poverty, disproportionate police harassment, and the state of civil rights during his tenure as senator? Those are all much more influential to a society's well being than condoms and sex. And I haven't said a thing about patriarchy, so I'm not sure where that came from.



> Kinsey has long been discredited as a legitimate source: he had serious methodological flaws in his approach, and in fact was one of the ringleaders of those attempting to overthrow *traditional morality.*


This is why no one has taken a single thing you have said seriously. This false nostalgia with which you view the past, this insipidity you apply to this imagined utopia of yesteryear is so fallacious that it is insulting. In America alone, fifty years ago, if you weren't white with a set of balls you weren't worth shit. That's the reality of the past, that anyone who wasn't fortunate enough to be born a WASP in the West was always considered less than. It has only been in recent times that people have had the ability, the means, and the desire to break out of molds at record pace, and the abolishing of "traditional morality" has given the way for something that more fairly resembles equality than it has at any point in history. The idea that ethics and politics should remain stagnant while society progresses is asinine and insulting to the people you attempt to lecture. You're so blinded by your own ideas of superiority that the concept that what is good for the goose is only good for the goose has never occurred to you. You think you've got things so firmly figured that the idea that people are different has never been entertained in you. But fret not, because as time goes by, people who hold your opinions get bred out. And in time people will have the opportunity to be more like themselves without fear of social exclusion.


----------



## KINGoftheAMAZONS (Jun 21, 2011)

g_w said:


> Gender roles (including sex limited to marriage, or at worst, sex only with your fiancee, and only after engagement) have remained relatively constant for millenia because they *work*. At both the individual level and the societal level.


You're completely disregarding the reality that 1. Prostitution is one of the world's oldest professions, and 2. That prostitution could not have existed as long as it has (since the beginning of civilization), unless there were people who were willing to have sex with individuals that were neither their betrothed, nor their spouse. These traditional sex roles that you're spouting have always led to an influx of extra-martial affairs and prostitution, _*precisely*_ because of how unnatural and repressive gender roles really are.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

android654 said:


> My snark is really all you've warranted so far with these verbose and convoluted ideas that tie in anythign and everything in sight to fall under your ever expanding definition of "problems" caused by sex.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Pornographers do it for money. Sasha Grey appeared before the age of 20 on some women's daytime show explaining that she started performing in porn the day after she turned 18 and had cleared $250,000 in the first 9 months doing so. They don't necessarily have the emotional attachments going in; but I'd like you to provide evidence of the lack of either prescription tranquilizer / neuromed use, or concomitant lack of drug/alcohol abuse, among porn stars. I'm not going to take your word for it.

But we do know that promiscuity hardens and embitters people (on the whole) over time.

_
So? A comment by a passerby is nothing more than a comment of a passerby. It's true for her but means nothing in the grand scheme of things, most likely not representative of what ever demos she'd fall into. _

Moral relativism at its finest, combined with a double standard: anecdotes by certain promiscuous people that "I did it and I'm OK!" are sufficient refutation, but anecdotes by people lamenting the effects of their behaviour are "not representative".
The difference -- I'm erring on the side of caution. You can't un-break a heart.
_

Until we have expansive sexual education as an essential part of education, your point amounts to nothing, since contraceptives, abortion, and promiscuity are as old as fire and have only been improved upon. They stood the test of time because, unlike rigid predetermined roles, people rather enjoy the ability to enjoy themselves. _

Contraceptives, abortion, and promiscuity are as old as fire and have only been improved upon?
No, they haven't. They still leave a trail of devastated people and dysfunctional communities in their wake, once practiced beyond a certain relatively low level.
And yes --- people enjoy the ability to enjoy themselves.
But there are anti-smoking, anti-drunk-driving, anti-drug, and anti-texting campaigns and laws.
These all affect both the individual and society: but I don't see a single T-shirt about "keep your rosaries off my lungs" ... for some reason, only sexual vices are allowed to be celebrated ; with the possible recent exception of "fat-acceptance".

And you completely missed my point about "No True Scotsman" -- as well as failing to note the contradiction between your assertion regarding "expansive sex education" vs. "people want to enjoy themselves".
If the lure of sex, and the social pressure to engage, combine with the hormones, NO amount of education will work:
and further, if you can't legislate morality (imperative backed by force) then you can't "educate" morality either (verbal persuasion).
And this leaves unchecked the power of denial or of inflamed desire ("raw-dogging feels so much BETTER, I'm telling her unless she lets me leave the condom OFF, then we're through!")

Further, rigid predetermined roles (in this regard) help keep SOCIETY stable. 
_
Because a politician has never taken a position to make a point on his own behalf. But rather than focus on "promiscuity" why not address more prominent issues that disproportionately affect Black Americans, such as poor education, perpetual poverty, disproportionate police harassment, and the state of civil rights during his tenure as senator? Those are all much more influential to a society's well being than condoms and sex. And I haven't said a thing about patriarchy, so I'm not sure where that came from._

Riddle me this, Batman. You earlier suggested that a laptop fell through a wormhole or something so that I could type my post from 1921. In 1927, IIRC, according to a high-school history book I read, the KKK staged a 20,000 man march through the streets of DC in full white robes and hoods, as a statement of POLITICAL power.
This was before the civil rights era; before affirmative action; before lots of things.
There were still lynchings.
Blacks were segregated by force, often without even the fiction of "separate but equal" accomodations in education;

Blacks couldn't make millions as rappers or NFL or NBA stars either.
Pre Jackie Robinson: even Satchel Page never made it to the major leagues;
and without role models from Jackie Robinson to Clarence Thomas to Barack Hussein Obama.
Police brutality, you bet.

And yet -- and yet -- 
where were all the dysfunctions within the black community?
No rampant drug use.
No drive-by shootings.
They comported themselves as SELF-RESPECTING citizens.

What else was different?
In-wedlock birth rate comparable to White America.
Largely intact families.

All of the other issues you have brought up, have improved CONSIDERABLY and IMMEASUREABLY since the "bad old days" of racism; and according to the very prescriptions the left enjoined as solutions.
But at the same time, promiscuity and the destruction of intact families was just starting up.

The late Sen. Moynihan was sounding a warning bell, which nobody listened to.

Let's try to repair the damage, instead of doubling down on the mistake.
And now the sexual libertinism


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

KINGoftheAMAZONS said:


> You're completely disregarding the reality that 1. Prostitution is one of the world's oldest professions, and 2. That prostitution could not have existed as long as it has (since the beginning of civilization), unless there were people who were willing to have sex with individuals that were neither their betrothed, nor their spouse. These traditional sex roles that you're spouting have always led to an influx of extra-martial affairs and prostitution, _*precisely*_ because of how unnatural and repressive gender roles really are.


You're lying. I even quoted instances of prostitution in the Bible; which means I'm aware of the issue; and you are again missing the point that I made, that the explosion of promiscuity in the last (say) 50 years includes more people, under many more circumstances, and is in fact *supplanting* conventional marriage altogether.

And that while the affluent can escape the short-term life consequences and emotional sequelae to some extent, the middle and lower classes *cannot* (and have not!)

Why do you keep returning to a straw man which I never brought up?


----------



## Das Brechen (Nov 26, 2011)

KINGoftheAMAZONS said:


> These traditional sex roles that you're spouting have always led to an influx of extra-martial affairs and prostitution, _*precisely*_ because of how unnatural and repressive gender roles really are.


I don't think switching the roles makes the situation less unnatural and repressive. I don't think an egalitarian approach will remedy extra-marital affairs either. People are going to cheat. It's convenient to use tradtional gender roles as a vehicle for your disagreement because that was the old system. I do think your whole point relates to why *monogamy* doesn't work.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

I don't think people 'need' antiquated beliefs and systems to have morality nor do I think that that psychological crutch is necessary to withstand the challenges of commitment and self control. If anything, it impedes a persons capacity to grow towards that effect. I do however find it reasonable to recognize the negative side effects of the all too recent (if you really think about it, recent) socioeconomic shifts that ensued from some very important movements in society ... I think in the current, many people are still trying to figure out their 'place' whilst staying true to their natural disposition. It's an incredibly convoluted topic for a thread I was just trolling on, lol. That and I'm afraid it takes me a long time to formulate my thoughts to be any good at debating :/

but I want to point out to @_g_w_ that in my opinion - being against pro choice is unreasonable, ineffective, and socially harmful. If let's say a young couple found they have an unexpected pregnancy on their hands, they have (w/out the abortion option) one of two choices. They can either choose (A) and keep the child. Or (B) give the child up for adoption. If the couple chooses (A) it negates the more likely to be evident, Fact, that they're not emotionally and/or financially ready for such a commitment such as parenthood. Not to mention the actual desire to be one might not be there. So now you've in effect (as that person) chosen to sentence yourself to a role for your entire life you're not ready for, nor wanted. The likelihood of that couple staying together is slim as well, or they may try only for the marriage to dismantle later. So now, as that person, (and as a pro lifer) you've now sentenced that child to be reared in an environment with parent(s) that didn't necessarily want that child, or role as a parent. As opposed to someone who wanted that opportunity and would be grateful. In addition, the lack of financial support to provide for opportunities to be had. Let us assume however that the couple had the means, this doesn't disregard the previous psychological dynamic made mention. Or let us assume they're people psychologically ready, maybe even wanting, with financial means, what do you think the statistic likelihood would be? Society as a whole is now responsible for these people's psychological support and/or financial struggles ? Or we deny then the option of abortion and turn a blinds eye to all the negative ramifications of that struggle. This all in all does NOT have the unborn child's best interest in mind. 

Now personally, I think it would be unloving and selfish if those people chose option (A) because a child deserves two parents who wanted them, parents who love them enough to give them a life with opportunities they deserve. So then hypothetically, the person who has the child's best interest in mind does not have the abortion option. They're now left to choose option (B). While the child will have the opportunity to grow in an environment of hypothetically more opportunities (family has financial means to support child and parents who are wanting and waiting for child), you now have to consider the aftermath ramifications of that child's parent both psychologically and physically. That person chose what was in the child's best interest and now for life must address what's in their best interest so as to recover from such an experience. While that can most definitely be done and the adoption option could serve to be an ideal scenario considering the unfortunate circumstances of an unexpected pregnancy. I do NOT think it at ALL reasonable, rational, humane .. To FORCE someone to make that choice. It's tyrannical. To force someone to either subject a child to a broken home, a family to unreasonable financial struggles or psychologically unhealthy relationships for the sake of the child(slightly delusional considering the irony) or for the person to be strong enough to face a life of recovery, possibly being ostracized/outcasted etc. Not to mention not everyone is wired the same and might succumb to other addictions and problems which again, falls on society to deal with whatever negative output that person chooses to submit. 

People are way more simple than we presume. A person will always be more complicated than we assume. The more you know yourself, the more you know people. People are not inherently good nor bad. It's a choice. And those choices are made between the externalities of life generated and tossed any said such persons way ... I do not think it's wise to assume that any one person needs any forced belief or structure to provide them the morality necessary to make a good choice. 

It's like at the beach. You scoop sand in your hand. If you grip the sand in a tight fist, it slips through your fingers. If society is too loose all the sand spills from the palm of the whole .. I think what life has created in the now, is the challenge of gauging balance in the behaviors constructed to encourage a healthy and reasonable pace for society to grow in a direction that promoted positive creation collectively - down to the details of each unit of sand ... 


Im sorry. I'm no good at debating. I'm not sure how to communicate my thoughts in my head most times. But I did want to respond to that point .. And spinning back to my original reasoning for trolling, aside from being bored and wanting to buzz kill the pua peeps.  I sincerely do struggle with my 'place' so to speak. I like being myself and I do fit my gender role. It makes me happy. However this absolutely does not negate my passion to defend people's individual choices(so long as it's not imposing or harmful to those around them). My only complaint is that it can be disheartening at times when I feel a lack of respect for my natural disposition whenever it suits people. People can't pick and choose the aspects of a person to have a relationship with. Instead we learn to work 'with' the aspects of friction in a way that spurs growth not disintegration .. Anyways. I'm rambling. I'll stop now.


----------



## FallingSlowly (Jul 1, 2013)

Donovan said:


> i don't think Gw is completely off base here, or, that the other side is either (the direction each is going with the argument is sound--while how they're getting there is a little... 0_o... but each side _does_ have a point)...


No, he's not (provided one has the same core values), and some things I'm even inclined to agree with.

The problem however is not just how he gets there, it's also the repeated one-sidedness of his arguments. It's not the first time he lectures us about _*women's*_ sexual partner count/_*women's*_ promiscuity (whilst the men's are hardly mentioned) as a reason for failed relationships and marriages. It's "loose women's stories" he seems to be obsessed with for some reason. And of course it's mainly the men who are hard done by. 

He tries to be "equally caring" about the women's concerns ("poor woman who has to take anti-depressants because of her promiscuity"), but there's a very archaic, sexist worldview underneath all of this. 
I'm really quite far from being a feminazi (they actually very often rub me up the wrong way), but I do believe in freedom of choice and not being forced into gender roles and stereotypes. If you _want_ to be the chaste woman who wishes to take on a very traditional role, that's absolutely fine - that's what freedom of choice is about. It's not a guarantee however that your relationship/marriage will work out, neither is Jezebel (this time the archetype) responsible for the decline of western civilisation. 

The worldview of the dark ages is really nothing to aspire to, or we'll soon be burning witches again. Bad enough that this attitude still exists in some parts of the world...


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

android654 said:


> Wow... I'm almost in awe that someone who thinks this way is actually young enough to see the keys on a keyboard. Being promiscuous causes neural chemical imbalance to the point of needing prescriptions to address? In an age of hyper communication, a tabliod piece on Jezebel is indicative of the world at large? Lack of proper sexual education in America isn't to blame for people not being educated on the ramifications of unprotected sex? Abortion isn't the result of lack of resources for proper family planning? Where the fuck do you pick up this information, 'cause you could make a fortune subletting that pit of despair to The Onion.
> 
> @_The_ bold portion, that's is where all of this bullshit stems form and ultimately boils down to. "That fucking slut! She's fucking dudes with big dicks, going to parties, making her own successes and failures on her own. How am I supposed to compete with that?" In the end, all of this is nothing more than another dick-measuring contest to see how you stack up against another person, which is so fucking pointless when you consider most people will have about eight or so sexual partners during their whole life. It isn't worth the effort when the number of people you interact with will almost never bleed into unwanted waters anyway. Seriously, get off your high horse and interact with the real world and real people for a change. You sound like political and religious fundies talking about the old days, how everything was so fucking awesome when they were on top and everyone else was eating shit. Truth is that the world today is so much more equal than it has ever been and the only way we achieve true equilibrium is by giving people the ability to choose for themselves and find their own way, not let aging concepts dictate their behavior.
> 
> The Kinsey Institute - Sexuality Information Links - FAQ [Related Resources]


Yes I am more than a bit baffled by his suggestion that women having sex with alpha male or man with big dick makes marriage look unsatisfying.

It's apparently more natural for people to marry. Women should never be allowed to experience big dicks or alpha males. What might happen then?


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

g_w said:


> Another poster accused me of being unaware of the prevalence of the use of prostitutes by married men in days past
> (even though my point was about general promiscuity, PRIOR TO MARRIAGE, by both men AND women).


well of course you were speaking about promiscuity generally as your voice was addressing it's presence prior to marriage, not it's creation of existence. And of course you're aware of it's historical prevalence. An assumption otherwise is just, absurd. And surely their point was neither here nor there, because even IF you were hypothetically living in a shell ignorant to this fact, it's of no baring on the issue at hand, as to whether previous discarded traditions are responsible for the dissonance between the reasonable advent of 'equality & freedom of choice', and it's possible disparage of necessary social constructs & attitudes supporting the former - which includes social questioning and scrutiny towards the health and benefits of, promiscuity, and it's negative consequences. By going on a quote rampage, justifying your position, loses your credibility in your emotional reaction to 'save face'. I think your perspective as valuable as any other persons, and it has a right to be heard. But often times people can't hear the whispers of your mind because your loudness of your words drown out your message ... This is most definitely applicable towards other posters - and has been observed time and again including in retrospect of my own attempts to communicate. 

I live for intense conversations but shy when the playground gets so rough that the actual game isn't being played anymore. That's when it's time for a time out. ^.^ hahahaha 

If you had to be proactive might it be like woodworking ? You have a job to do. You have to build something. Some time ago the collective whole decided that these steel joint pieces were no longer of value ... They kept scratching up the wood in each corner. Now that sucks. You might even be upset. How can this thing you are trying to create be, stable, without these reinforcements ? .. So we argue. We bicker and belittle each other ... All for the sake of our own individual comforts. But what if for a moment we considered every detailed 'complaint' while maintaining the bigger picture. Things change. This is the only tangible truth we can cling to. So how is it we can construct something flexible enough for change, with the appropriate frame for stability to last ... 

I just don't see the value in white knuckling life's view. Nor do I see value in promoting it's detanglement for the sake of what's convenient, easy or 'doable'. It takes great effort and is the ultimate challenge in life to train our thinking to never disregard our pasts or to give up our ideals but to build and create, a third alternative. So we are suffering backlash from the burgeoning of new freedom. What now? Should we bitch, moan or cry? Or carry on tackling the art of 'proactive' .. Promoting the value from our previous traditions can be done without delivering it on frail dishes vulnerable to break. Compassion is the ultimate adhesive and it's not just for the 'feminine'. Patience isn't a virtue but a skill to be practiced and perfected every day ... 

Every generation is smarter than the last, and wiser than the next. It's best to maintain an inbetween. ^.^

I would very much be interested in what you think about ideas, ideas that might be implemented to promote less promiscuity while maintaining the boundaries of individual choice if you're up for it. You can always recycle what structures no longer work. Besides. If recycling and renewing is good for the earth. Surely it's good for our mind too. ^.^

Here. *hands you Rolo cookie* That's for taking it like a man and having the patience to listen to my mommy-ish lecture. 

hahaha!! Omg I make myself sick sometimes.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Bat said:


> Exactly! Just as it's true that global warming is directly related to the decline in pirate numbers! I really don't understand why people have such a hard time understanding these connections.


There should be more pirates dammit.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

fourtines said:


> There should be more pirates dammit.


How did *you* celebrate last Sept. 19 ("International Talk Like a Pirate Day") ?

I went to work in full pirate regalia.

Of course, my email suffered somewhat in...vocabulary:


----------



## KINGoftheAMAZONS (Jun 21, 2011)

g_w said:


> You're lying.


Lying about what?



> I even quoted instances of prostitution in the Bible; which means I'm aware of the issue; and you are again missing the point that I made, that the explosion of promiscuity in the last (say) 50 years includes more people, under many more circumstances, and is in fact *supplanting* conventional marriage altogether.


Conventional marriage never superseded the existence of "promiscuity". But then again, how are you defining promiscuity? What makes a person promiscuous? How can promiscuity be objectively measured? Has their really been an explosion of "promiscuity" in the adult population? Or do people just feel more comfortable being open about their sexuality today than they did 50 years ago? 

I will say this though. Children, adolescents, and teenagers are being over-sexualized in the modern world. But this isn't because of the sexual revolution, birth control, or the lack of enforced gender roles, but rather because of the lack of adequate sex education, and "active" parenting that involves having open and honest discussions about sex with one's children (that doesn't involve relegating sex to an activity that only married people should engage in). 



> And that while the affluent can escape the short-term life consequences and emotional sequelae to some extent, the middle and lower classes *cannot* (and have not!)


I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here?



> Why do you keep returning to a straw man which I never brought up?


What straw man are you referring to?


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Promethea said:


> These days, people don't just marry the first single person they see who isn't their first-cousin, then stay with them out of necessity to keep the farm going so that everyone can stay fed.
> 
> A few things have happened since the last time you mingled with folks from the outside world:
> - We have discovered that women also have intelligence that can be used for more than keeping a man's balls empty and fattening up his gut.
> ...


Let's address these one at a time.
_
These days, people don't just marry the first single person they see who isn't their first-cousin, then stay with them out of necessity to keep the farm going so that everyone can stay fed._

That isn't what I did, either. Did some of your friends do this?

_A few things have happened since the last time you mingled with folks from the outside world: _
I never *stopped* mingling with people from the outside world.

_- We have discovered that women also have intelligence that can be used for more than keeping a man's balls empty and fattening up his gut._
Yeah, got the T-shirt. My wife has an IQ of 150. It's one of the reasons I chose her.

_- Women can figure out what kind of lifestyle actually makes them happy._
LOL !!! Not to hear empowered women on the internet whining.
But the post to which I responded, wasn't a woman asking how to make a woman happy -- it was a woman asking how to
make a man happy and keep him. I obliged.

_- And they can have a connection with a man based on........ personality!_
Oh, right. This is *PERSONALITY* CAFE. Witty of you.
But you're missing the corollary: a woman can LOSE a man based on ... _her_ personality.
Men aren't the only ones who can be jerks: but if a woman is a jerk, society typically doesn't allow the man to
make note of it, or he's a misogynist /knee-jerk>
But being a fly on the wall at work, I see women jockeying for social position with each other using the equivalent
of the way professional soccer players try to injure each other without the referee noticing.
And in such a case, a WOMAN can label another woman a jerk, to anybody within hearing distance.
Sometimes it's good to be a fly on the wall and just...observe.

_- Some men are in fact fucking -stupid- and a dick doesn't automatically mean they're superior to all women._
So don't date them just because as a woman, you are allured to dick, and because you mistake his douchebaggery
for a challenge or for a damaged man whom only *your* special love can heel.
I applaud you for seeking out quality men. Some women never learn, do they?
And in fact, some women are in fact fucking -stupid- and a pussy doesn't mean they're the equal of ANY man,
let alone superior; and it sure doesn't mean she should be kowtowed and supplicated to.

_(This is not a jab at men, my point is that sex/gender doesn't = intelligence, so theres no logic in forcing women into the silent, subservient role by default.)_
Oh, I understand this. But you're acting like being feminine means being a robot or having no will; but it doesn't.
Some websites use a nifty Star Trek analogy: the husband is like Captain Kirk, the wife is like Spock.
Kirk has the final say, the authority: the responsibility lies with him. But Spock doesn't blindly obey: instead he uses
his keen intellect (substitute feminine intuition if you wish) to analyze the situation and give Kirk his best advice; to
warn Kirk when he's about to screw up. But it is not his job to undermine Kirk's authority with the rest of the crew, 
nor to complain to Starfleet Command and seek to have him removed every time they disagree.
But there has to be a single "go-to" voice with the final say -- if Spock could countermand Kirk every time they disagreed,
then the Enterprise would never GO anywhere.

_People of the older generations didn't stay together because they were "happier" with each other than we are; they just had no choice in the matter. It was a sentence to serve out for life, not a fun adventure. Some of them genuinely loved/love each other, sure - but that isn't the mainstay of the traditional marriage. (And its not like women were allowed to even speak up about their grievances, anyway.) You think that women are more unhappy now than when they existed merely to serve men? No, they just have a voice now._

You *do* realize you've just inadvertently put your head into a noose here, don't you?
I'll only *virtually* hang you, OK.
Since you are comparing "older generations" to today -- please understand that women are no longer forced into arranged marriages against their will ("and so the king promised that if anyone killed the dragon, he would *give* him his daughter in marriage").
That means -- if a woman is unhappy enough to divorce: guess what, she chose the guy, dated him, hooked up, blew him silly,
screwed his brains out, moved in, and cajoled him into marriage. I don't see a single site devoted to women complaining that men
are always pressing for TOO MUCH commitment, and if you're honest, neither do you.
And in turn, that means -- if the woman wants to divorce the man, she either didn't screen him well enough, let her ovaries or her
vagina tingles think for her, or she simply CHOSE POORLY.

...which implies that even though the women are demanding the right to choose the man, with the full intent (as you pointed out)
of "happiness" -- they just ain't doing such a good job of it: as you said, the older generation "had no choice in the matter."

_It was a sentence to serve out for life, not a fun adventure. Some of them genuinely loved/love each other, sure - but that isn't the mainstay of the traditional marriage.
_


You're wrong about the "not being in love" part. Because love is never going to *be* enough, when times get tough.
That's a fairy tale "they lived happily ever after." Life itself isn't like that, even if you're single: and just adding someone next
to you, whom you have the right to hold and fuck and suck, doesn't magically make real life go away.

Marriage is there so that you have someone whom you *know* has your back: "in sickness and in health, for richer, for poorer" and all that. They weren't just words designed to add artificial solemnity to a formal occasion.

_
I agree that there are a lot of problems in modern culture, but there were problems in "the good ol' days" too. Some people tend to just reminisce on the good, ignore the bad, but the experience had both positive and negative just like the modern era._

Yep. One set of problems have been traded for another. And the new set of problems has had a large number of unintended
consequences, which the cheerleaders and architects of the societal change are in severe denial about.

To make an analogy to traffic flow, where an accident or two lanes merging can cause a traffic backup far upstream --  since past generations had no choice, and they *knew* it -- they chose much more carefully.

It also meant that they suffered if necessary.
That used to be considered noble, not foolish.
And it led to MUCH more stability in society long-term, as the detritus and human wreckage from broken homes and nuclear divorces simply wasn't prevalent.
And women took pride in raising their OWN children, rather than farming them out to an underpaid bureaucrat.
I work with several women on the up-and-coming track at work who deliberately stepped off the career ladder in order
to spend several days a week at home with their own children. I applaud this--after all, "it's for the children" (TM).

_(And its not like women were allowed to even speak up about their grievances, anyway.) You think that women are more unhappy now than when they existed merely to serve men? No, they just have a voice now._

I know women are more unhappy. I read the women-only sites; I work with several dozen women and a handful of men, so I am taken as a piece of furniture while they gossip among themselves; I've been married 27 years and listen to my wife recounting the conversations of the women *she* works with. Uniformly, the happiest women I see, are the ones who try the most to be feminine
and nurturing and supportive of their husbands, rather than having a chip on their shoulder that their intelligence is JUST AS GOOD
and that they are being shortchanged.

Women *are* unhappy. As you said, they just have a voice now. But they are too proud to admit their unhappiness
has anything to do with either their individual choices, or the large-scale societal changes.

BTW, you've got a really funny idea there about "women existing merely to serve men" -- for in reality, it is currently the other way around. For example, women shame men for staying at home playing on their X-box. But why does that bother them?

"He's not growing up."
Oh--and what is growing up?
"He should get a job and marry and start a family and not be a teenager all his life."

Right. It's women who have always made the big deal about marriage, about weddings:
ever notice there are never any 600-page thick, 4-color-glossy magazines at the supermarkets
entitled "Groom" ; with pictures of the latest tuxedos and advice to men about their VERY *SPECIAL* DAY?
Men can take it or leave it.

But for some reason, a man is only considered a "real man" when he marries a woman and provides for her:
ever notice how women usually don't want to marry a man, unless he has a good job? But why is that,
if men and women are really equal, except for socially constructed gender roles?

But if a woman wants to wait until age 30 or 35, to get her advanced degrees, and travel the world "finding herself"
(note: usually underneath several exotic foreign men), and then look for a husband, then Mr. Right had better. show.
up. right. NOW! [email protected] Because men just want to be selfish and remain children all their lives.
(Irony meter spikes *here*.)

_And @ 3) - not all men prefer skinny women. Your preferences =/= all men's preferences. And before you start (because I get that vibe), no I'm not overweight personally, just pointing out the extent to which your post here makes laughable generalizations. (And frankly the sexism is disgusting.)_

One of my wife's hometown friends was a guy, a scrawny librarian. His wife was considerably overweight -- the joke in town was "he liked a lot to love."

But such is NOT the norm, for men OR women. And it is really dishonest to pretend otherwise.

A picture is worth a thousand words. You'll have to click on the link, the .jpg is too large for the "insert picture" function on
this site's chat software.

http://www.funnymemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Funny-memes-real-men-have-curves.jpg


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

g_w said:


> Let's address these one at a time.
> _
> These days, people don't just marry the first single person they see who isn't their first-cousin, then stay with them out of necessity to keep the farm going so that everyone can stay fed._
> 
> ...


I don't usually comment on the typing style of the person responding to me, but this is a mess. You have managed to make it so I can't even pick through line by line to wrap it in quotes in order to respond, so I will give an overall response. 

I see snide remarks, fuzzy logic that hinges on the like, three interactions you have irl every day. Let's see.. contradictions, all somehow with a sexist undertone. Very strange examples, which make me wonder why you ever thought they were relevant enough to even commit them to memory: Traffic flow, tuxedos, etc etc.. I have a very hard time following the comparisons you make. 

I mean get real, its not "all women" saying these things. I have no idea whos voice is in your head but its not the spokesperson for all women.

I'm going to be blunt here: I see you as someone who could benefit from listening to those who have a more lucid grasp on reality. I do appreciate the effort put into your response, but I don't find value in the actual ideas expressed here.

Wtf was this, for example:



> But you're acting like being feminine means being a robot or having no will; but it doesn't.
> Some websites use a nifty Star Trek analogy: the husband is like Captain Kirk, the wife is like Spock.
> Kirk has the final say, the authority: the responsibility lies with him. But Spock doesn't blindly obey: instead he uses
> his keen intellect (substitute feminine intuition if you wish) to analyze the situation and give Kirk his best advice; to
> ...


(I'm not actually asking for an answer.) 

Somehow in this warped mentality you're the only person who gets to decide how femininity "should" be, and it even makes sense to you that the very odd connections you make are some like, ultimate truth about how gender should work.

If its any consolation, its not the worst case of insulated thinking I've seen, on the topic of gender. One guy swore to me (and had his whole bs rationalizations too) that all men are secretly bisexual. 

Anyway, you are a unique character. That is a good thing. I disagree with everything you say though.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Promethea said:


> I don't usually comment on the typing style of the person responding to me, but this is a mess. You have managed to make it so I can't even pick through line by line to wrap it in quotes in order to respond, so I will give an overall response.


That's odd, since I tried to intersperse your remarks in italics with my response to each remark. The layout looked OK when I was 
composing it.



Promethea said:


> I see snide remarks, fuzzy logic that hinges on the like, three interactions you have irl every day. Let's see.. contradictions, all somehow with a sexist undertone. Very strange examples, which make me wonder why you ever thought they were relevant enough to even commit them to memory: Traffic flow, tuxedos, etc etc.. I have a very hard time following the comparisons you make.


Most people do, I'm an INTJ. But I have many more than three interactions in irl every day, and am very popular with women at my office. I guess they've been around me long enough to get used to it; or else I use much more humor in the office than in my reply to you.



Promethea said:


> I mean get real, its not "all women" saying these things. I have no idea whos voice is in your head but its not the spokesperson for all women.


No, it's not all women at all -- I tried to make that clear in so many words, by *listing* and *enumerating* the specific groups of women from whom I heard or read these sentiments.



Promethea said:


> I'm going to be blunt here: I see you as someone who could benefit from listening to those who have a more lucid grasp on reality. I do appreciate the effort put into your response, but I don't find value in the actual ideas expressed here.


I'm going to be blunt. I have a lucid grasp on reality. My views are just out of fashion and have been popularly inveighed against and considered as "thought crimes" in many circles for decades. But I'm old enough to actually *remember* when these views
WERE the mainstream of thought: which explains why several posters suggested I posted from the year 1921, and your first post to me talked of "older generations" and made fun of people marrying the first person they met who was not their cousin.



Promethea said:


> Wtf was this, for example:
> 
> (quote about Star Trek removed for brevity)
> 
> (I'm not actually asking for an answer.)


Don't worry about that specific example if you didn't get it. Most INTJs would.
The point is that submission to authority does not equal "slavery" or "losing all freedom" as most modern feminist-influenced young women tell anyone who will listen -- it means having your own sphere of authority subject to obeying a higher authority.

_
_


Promethea said:


> Somehow in this warped mentality you're the only person who gets to decide how femininity "should" be, and it even makes sense to you that the very odd connections you make are some like, ultimate truth about how gender should work.


Heh. A bit of projection there? I'm just noticing that a lot of the so-called "modern" prescriptions for inter-sexual relations simply lead to a ton of unintended consequences, and don't deliver even half of the promised benefits.

The modern sexual / dating / relationship / marriage "marketplace" is seriously. screwed. up.
It's time for people to admit this to themselves, even *if* the cost is true sexual monogamy -- the suffering I see and hear from all quarters have convinced me that the sexual revolution is the biggest instance of "The Emperor's New Clothes" the world has ever seen: but everyone is so afraid to admit that THEY'RE not having fun ("c'mon, what's wrong with YOU? It's SEX!!!") that everyone participating is having to pretend to be happy, even in cases when they are miserable.

My examples were ways to frame the concepts in ways that the readers didn't immediately squeal "CRIMETHINK! HERETIC!...*HATER!*" as so often occurs when the 'open-minded' run into something outside of their own echo chamber.
_
If its any consolation, its not the worst case of insulated thinking I've seen, on the topic of gender. One guy swore to me (and had his whole bs rationalizations too) that all men are secretly bisexual. _[/QUOTE]

I'm not insulated at all. 
How many people borrow from sources as diverse as _Star Trek _and _Boccaccio _and _Jezebel_ in the same post?
Rather, I think for myself after reading a wide variety of sources.



Promethea said:


> Anyway, you are a unique character. That is a good thing. I disagree with everything you say though.


Go ahead and disagree. That's what freedom of conscience is all about.

But if you ever *do* end up deciding that you've suffered heartache due to your choices,
and you want to try another approach, I won't gloat.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

g_w said:


> That's odd, since I tried to intersperse your remarks in italics with my response to each remark. The layout looked OK when I was
> composing it.


Sorry. I'm just used to seeing a certain format. Thanks for formatting it this way, this time.



> Most people do, I'm an INTJ. But I have many more than three interactions in irl every day, and am very popular with women at my office. I guess they've been around me long enough to get used to it; or else I use much more humor in the office than in my reply to you.


I was just tossing out a number there; I mean each of us only have a limited view from our pool of interaction, and people influence each other for the most part (there are outliers who are less affected). I have worked in several different large office buildings, too - and I have seen how little cultures develop. They shape each others world-views, but reality is something far more complicated. 



> No, it's not all women at all -- I tried to make that clear in so many words, by *listing* and *enumerating* the specific groups of women from whom I heard or read these sentiments.


Ok.



> I'm going to be blunt. I have a lucid grasp on reality. My views are just out of fashion and have been popularly inveighed against and considered as "thought crimes" in many circles for decades. But I'm old enough to actually *remember* when these views
> WERE the mainstream of thought: which explains why several posters suggested I posted from the year 1921, and your first post to me talked of "older generations" and made fun of people marrying the first person they met who was not their cousin.


There are different realities, sub-sets, and then reality as a whole. Some of the younger people here have a better grasp of it than even I have (as a whole). I am not involved in mainstream media or popular culture anymore. I learn a lot from them because they are.

I too have some views which people deem as outdated, but my approach is to just share information and if they accept it, fine; if not, whatever. The world probably shouldn't operate solely by my set of standards; or anyone elses.

As far as some of the things said "making fun" - they didn't hit anything that personally pressed your buttons, and I saw it all as humor, an attempt to add levity to the situation.. and tbh that comment about 1921, a portal, and a laptop, had me laughing all down the hallway. : P




> Don't worry about that specific example if you didn't get it. Most INTJs would.


Star trek - at least deep space 9 - is one of my favorite shows, and I have ample evidence of that currently in the spam forum, but the example did not resonate, and to be quite honest, I don't think you're an intj/its an intj thing. But its a rule to not press that, and I won't. 



> The point is that submission to authority does not equal "slavery" or "losing all freedom" as most modern feminist-influenced young women tell anyone who will listen -- it means having your own sphere of authority subject to obeying a higher authority.


Are you suggesting that a man should be a woman's authority? To clarify.



> _
> Heh. A bit of projection there? I'm just noticing that a lot of the so-called "modern" prescriptions for inter-sexual relations simply lead to a ton of unintended consequences, and don't deliver even half of the promised benefits._


_

I don't think you know what projection actually -is- in clinical psychology. (Or what a "straw man" actually is - in reference to a few other posts.)




The modern sexual / dating / relationship / marriage "marketplace" is seriously. screwed. up.
It's time for people to admit this to themselves, even *if* the cost is true sexual monogamy -- the suffering I see and hear from all quarters have convinced me that the sexual revolution is the biggest instance of "The Emperor's New Clothes" the world has ever seen: but everyone is so afraid to admit that THEY'RE not having fun ("c'mon, what's wrong with YOU? It's SEX!!!") that everyone participating is having to pretend to be happy, even in cases when they are miserable.

Click to expand...

There are a lot of things screwed up about it, and I am one of the few who will agree with that much what is wrong with it though, is another story.. and I am running out of time, and delaying my plans. I hope I remember to get back to this, but admittedly I have ADD and I talk to too many people. 




My examples were ways to frame the concepts in ways that the readers didn't immediately squeal "CRIMETHINK! HERETIC!...*HATER!*" as so often occurs when the 'open-minded' run into something outside of their own echo chamber.

If its any consolation, its not the worst case of insulated thinking I've seen, on the topic of gender. One guy swore to me (and had his whole bs rationalizations too) that all men are secretly bisexual. 

I'm not insulated at all. 
How many people borrow from sources as diverse as Star Trek and Boccaccio and Jezebel in the same post?
Rather, I think for myself after reading a wide variety of sources.



Go ahead and disagree. That's what freedom of conscience is all about.

But if you ever *do* end up deciding that you've suffered heartache due to your choices,
and you want to try another approach, I won't gloat.

Click to expand...



Jezebel is a fucking stupid magazine._


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Promethea said:


> Sorry. I'm just used to seeing a certain format. Thanks for formatting it this way, this time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Have a good night.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

MNiS said:


> I thought g_w was just being cheeky but lets make an analog for the ladies:
> 
> Guys, you need to:
> 
> ...


1) Be good-looking.
2) Be athletic--some women prefer bulging muscles, some six-packs, and some lithe greyhounds. 
But all women want a man who's in shape.
3) Money. With enough of this, even a loser in all other categories can land *some* hottie or another.
4) Be the kind of man who she can brag about to other women, the kind of man other men want to be.
5) Be powerful -- have "presence".


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Promethea said:


> Thread needed more fedora.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

dvnj22 said:


> or throwing poop in them.


what?


----------



## Orion (Jan 25, 2011)

TreasureTower said:


> what?


coprophilia. fecal freaks. 

I think what he was saying is that in order to circumvent the strenuous courting rituals required in these modern times, the only solution is to revert to the mating rituals of several million years ago, before human speciation. At least that is how I took it...


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Orion said:


> coprophilia. fecal freaks.
> 
> I think what he was saying is that in order to circumvent the strenuous courting rituals required in these modern times, the only solution is to revert to the mating rituals of several million years ago, before human speciation. At least that is how I took it...


I thought that chimps did that as a sign of aggression? That's what Paula Abdul said about Bubbles (MJ's kid), anyhow.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

g_w said:


> For correlation vs. causation -- it's been a near-universal observation that the fallout from a breakup is worse
> when the couple had been sexually involved. Therefore, yes, sexual involvement does affect neurochemistry.
> The precise mechanisms by which this occurs, and the correlation with each type of sexual act, and the circumstances,
> are not only too cluttered to model with confidence; but such research would fall afoul of ANY IRB's guidelines
> on human subjects.


You know, I have been hearing that argument for years and it has never rang true for me. Whenever I was sad after the end of a relationship; someone would usually comfort me by saying: "Well, at least you didn't have sex with him". In my head, I'd be thinking: well if I had; at least I would have gotten something out of it and it wouldn't have been a complete waste of time then. Not even getting sex out of a relationship is akin to that whole T-shirt analogy: You know, I was in a relationship with X and all I got from him, was a bunch of emotionally stunted neurosis.




fourtines said:


> There should be more pirates dammit.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

TreasureTower said:


> You know, I have been hearing that argument for years and it has never rang true for me. Whenever I was sad after the end of a relationship; someone would usually comfort me by saying: "Well, at least you didn't have sex with him". In my head, I'd be thinking: well if I had; at least I would have gotten something out of it and it wouldn't have been a complete waste of time then. Not even getting sex out of a relationship is akin to that whole T-shirt analogy: You know, I was in a relationship with X and all I got from him, was a bunch of emotionally stunted neurosis.


Yeah I see sex as a payoff or end into itself. The only reason not to is to maintain power. And by that I don't mean power over a man, but not allowing him to steal yours.

Women who see sex as an end into itself terrify a certain kind of man. They will insist you really just wanted children or his wallet.

I was just thinking about that tonight.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

TreasureTower said:


> You know, I have been hearing that argument for years and it has never rang true for me. Whenever I was sad after the end of a relationship; someone would usually comfort me by saying: "Well, at least you didn't have sex with him". In my head, I'd be thinking: well if I had; at least I would have gotten something out of it and it wouldn't have been a complete waste of time then. Not even getting sex out of a relationship is akin to that whole T-shirt analogy: You know, I was in a relationship with X and all I got from him, was a bunch of emotionally stunted neurosis.


Two points.
One, if *you* haven't had sex with them, then you have no way of gauging what lingering baggage
you "would" have had -- so you don't have any basis for commenting via your own experience.
Two, many people who *have* had sex and then broken up, do lament how much more complex
sex made things : i.e. there are couples who are clearly mutually toxic but had a harder time
separating or letting go because the sex was so powerful.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

g_w said:


> Two points.
> One, if *you* haven't had sex with them, then you have no way of gauging what lingering baggage
> you "would" have had -- *so you don't have any basis for commenting via your own experience*.
> Two, many people who *have* had sex and then broken up, do lament how much more complex
> ...


No, I am basing this on the fact that I always suffered emotionally _more_ when there was no sex; as opposed to when there was. Puhleese, no one - you included - can't be a more accurate judge of someone's experience than the person who experienced it.

Not that I'm saying that I, in the long term actually have any regrets but if I at least got sex out of a relationship; then at least, I didn't feel cheated. Sex was one the major reasons I bothered entering into romantic relationships since I am not into casual sex. The other, was having a regular companion to go places with. Without sex, why even bother having a romantic relationship - especially when you take into account the uncontrollable invariably messy emotions that you need to navigate through? Without sex, the emotional cost is way too expensive and I would much rather clean lint out of my couch.

I think that you just don't believe that women exist, who can actually have sex without any underlying agenda. The only reason that I have ever, do and will ever have sex; is because I _want_ to - as an end in itself - and never for any other reason.


ETA: I had far more trouble "letting go" when there wasn't any sex, because having sex in a relationship served to significantly water down my emotional intensity and fears of vulnerability. I find intense emotional vulnerability to be extremely threatening but the reverse is the case for sex.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

TreasureTower said:


> No, I am basing this on the fact that I always suffered emotionally _more_ when there was no sex; as opposed to when there was. Puhleese, no one - you included - can't be a more accurate judge of someone's experience than the person who experienced it.
> 
> Not that I'm saying that I, in the long term actually have any regrets but if I at least got sex out of a relationship; then at least, I didn't feel cheated. Sex was one the major reasons I bothered entering into romantic relationships since I am not into casual sex. The other, was having a regular companion to go places with. Without sex, why even bother having a romantic relationship - especially when you take into account the uncontrollable invariably messy emotions that you need to navigate through? Without sex, the emotional cost is way too expensive and I would much rather clean lint out of my couch.
> 
> I think that you just don't believe that women exist, who can actually have sex without any underlying agenda. The only reason that I have ever, do and will ever have sex; is because I _want_ to - as an end in itself - and never for any other reason.


Ah, your earlier post was phrased poorly: apologies for *MY* misunderstanding you.
_
Not that I'm saying that I, in the long term actually have any regrets but if I at least got sex out of a relationship; then at least, I didn't feel cheated. Sex was one the major reasons I bothered entering into romantic relationships since I am not into casual sex. The other, was having a regular companion to go places with. Without sex, why even bother having a romantic relationship - especially when you take into account the uncontrollable invariably messy emotions that you need to navigate through? Without sex, the emotional cost is way too expensive and I would much rather clean lint out of my couch._

My view is just the same as yours, but taken to the logical conclusion. Choose well enough that you can make the relationship lifelong: commit to the relationship at all costs, in advance, and remain faithful.

Funny how much that resembles traditional marriage for some reason.

But nowadays, people aren't trained in either developing, or recognizing, character traits which would make someone a good lifelong bet.

Nor are they told that the end goal of marriage is not *primarily* personal happiness, but GIVING: with the end goal of a stable society and better-adjusted offspring.

And then when they choose poorly, they blame the *institution*.

But there are MANY factors which go into this; and as I said earlier somewhere, it's hard to un-scramble an omelet.
_

I think that you just don't believe that women exist, who can actually have sex without any underlying agenda. The only reason that I have ever, do and will ever have sex; is because I want to - as an end in itself - and never for any other reason._

Actually, I dated a girl where several other people, who knew me and not her, came up to me in private to tell me more or less
"she's only there because she wants to jump your bones." I'm familiar with this.


----------



## Orion (Jan 25, 2011)

monemi said:


> Do you have an example? Because I don't know what you mean by "sensitive new age guys."


 Euphemism for nice guy me thinks. Based upon previous comments, perhaps a male who has bought into the feminists movement.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Orion said:


> Euphemism for nice guy me thinks. Based upon previous comments, perhaps a male who has bought into the feminists movement.


I don't think they've bought into the feminist movement in that case. Feminism is about equality. Not to eliminate gender.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

monemi said:


> I don't know where you got this sensitive thing. He should just be himself. If she doesn't like it, then move on. I'm not seeing how this is an issue with society here. Some women prefer sensitive men, some don't. I think you're generalizing too much.


If you are a sensitive guy but don't whine about how that makes you live your life, in other words, you accept yourself confidently, then women pick up on that and it becomes the best of both worlds. Sensitive and confident. It doesn't mean you cannot be crass, just that when you are crass, it's probably something that more or less really deserves crassness. Sensitive being defined as the application of varied and quality emotional content to ones thoughts and actions.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

series0 said:


> If you are a sensitive guy but don't whine about how that makes you live your life, in other words, you accept yourself confidently, then women pick up on that and it becomes the best of both worlds. Sensitive and confident. It doesn't mean you cannot be crass, just that when you are crass, it's probably something that more or less really deserves crassness. Sensitive being defined as the application of varied and quality emotional content to ones thoughts and actions.


So, doesn't that support that women aren't lying? A lot of women do like sensitivity in men. Strength and sensitivity aren't mutually exclusive.


----------



## Orion (Jan 25, 2011)

monemi said:


> I don't think they've bought into the feminist movement in that case....


I know this, you know this...


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

monemi said:


> So, doesn't that support that women aren't lying? A lot of women do like sensitivity in men. Strength and sensitivity aren't mutually exclusive.


I completely agree. It's when the man HIMSELF views that sensitivity as a weakness and lets it affect his confidence in dealing with other men and women that it SEEMS like a bad thing to be sensitive. And so many men do believe it themselves. Self-hatred manifests in many ways.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Torai said:


> Oh, GOD NO. This is really bad, but not for the reason you think.
> 
> "In a world where women are selectively castrating men for copulative purposes, there's only one type of man who can stop them. A small-dicked ******* white trash conservative anti-feminist gun owner."
> 
> Please, don't unleash the gun nuts on us.


Gee, and I thought all cultures were equal or something.
Or "don't judge."


The reason, btw, that people think that conservatives have small penises, is simply that the conservatives have big brass balls.
It requires that to swim upstream against the cultural current; and against the constant stream of stereotyping, vituperation, and hatred from people who pride themselves on never judging anyone. :kitteh:


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

series0 said:


> I completely agree. It's when the man HIMSELF views that sensitivity as a weakness and lets it affect his confidence in dealing with other men and women that it SEEMS like a bad thing to be sensitive. And so many men do believe it themselves. Self-hatred manifests in many ways.


In general a man should not LEAD with his softer side: he needs to be a rock for the woman, when she cannot trust herself.
There's a difference between dominant (good) and domineering (bad).


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

monemi said:


> So, doesn't that support that women aren't lying? A lot of women do like sensitivity in men. Strength and sensitivity aren't mutually exclusive.


Women like sensitivity in men, but when woman are asked what they like in a man, they tend to go into reverie mode and instinctively answer with character traits they want a man to show, *AFTER* the woman is already in a relationship with him: whereas the men asking this question are talking about "how do I get on a woman's radar so she will talk to me and give me her phone number (and not flake on me?)"

Women like to rationalize a LOT of things after the fact: so if she sends indicators of interest to a guy (unless she's TOTALLY besotted), she'll make them somewhat ambiguous, so that if the guy doesn't notice, or if the guy turns out to be a goober, she can backpedal and say, "Whoa there you creeper, I wasn't flirting" and preserve her social capital/self-esteem as much as possible. Or if they guy turns out to have been HOT, but doesn't respond, she can blame it on his being oblivious rather than passing her over on purpose.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

g_w said:


> Women like sensitivity in men, but when woman are asked what they like in a man, they tend to go into reverie mode and instinctively answer with character traits they want a man to show, *AFTER* the woman is already in a relationship with him: whereas the men asking this question are talking about "how do I get on a woman's radar so she will talk to me and give me her phone number (and not flake on me?)"
> 
> Women like to rationalize a LOT of things after the fact: so if she sends indicators of interest to a guy (unless she's TOTALLY besotted), she'll make them somewhat ambiguous, so that if the guy doesn't notice, or if the guy turns out to be a goober, she can backpedal and say, "Whoa there you creeper, I wasn't flirting" and preserve her social capital/self-esteem as much as possible. Or if they guy turns out to have been HOT, but doesn't respond, she can blame it on his being oblivious rather than passing her over on purpose.


One of the things that stood out to me about my husband was that he is sensitive to other peoples feelings (without being a doormat.) What I see of women I've been friends with and myself dating, isn't in line with your position on the topic.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

g_w said:


> Gee, and I thought all cultures were equal or something.
> Or "don't judge."
> 
> 
> ...


Nah. I'm just a sardonic asshole to whoever I feel like being a sardonic asshole to.

I've said similar crap about liberals who think they're "awake" and know everything because their philosophy/political science professor told them so.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

monemi said:


> One of the things that stood out to me about my husband was that he is sensitive to other peoples feelings (without being a doormat.) What I see of women I've been friends with and myself dating, isn't in line with your position on the topic.


You're proving my point. :laughing: :tongue: 

Women don't always rationalize; but they are more prone to it than men; men commit other sins, which have been extensively catalogued.

"Misogynist" = "going against women's perceived wishes, or perceived self-interest, or tending to usurp women's overall social dominance." :shocked:


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Torai said:


> Nah. I'm just a sardonic asshole to whoever I feel like being a sardonic asshole to.
> 
> I've said similar crap about liberals who think they're "awake" and know everything because their philosophy/political science professor told them so.


Gee, and your avatar looks like such an innocent little, umm...predator. :happy:


----------



## MisterD (Feb 24, 2010)

I hate people like OP. If anything, I bet this is how the whole women like good/guys argument started. One guy meets one girl & has one experience & thinks it's the norm.

The mentality you have is that women are a prize & something to be won. No, that's not how it is. It's an equal playing field. I love clashing heads with women (not literally), it's the thrill of it all... At times I enjoy it even more than sex. 

From personal experience, it's not what you do/say it's the subtleties & meaning behind doing them. I've experimented all different types of things & got different reactions, one size does not fit all. 

Obviously, in your example.... The male is showing her what he wants. It should be a natural action, shouldn't it? You like something so you stare at it.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

g_w said:


> Gee, and your avatar looks like such an innocent little, umm...predator. :happy:


Yeah, pretty much sounds like me. Type Nines look nice on the outside, but when we strike... KA-POW!

I still completely disagree with you, though. Even if women want men to be something, it doesn't mean men should automatically adhere to it just to get vagina.

I'm not gonna hide my soft side because I actually want to be in a relationship with someone who likes me for me and not simply some image I project. And there is a sort of strength in vulnerability. It lets you empathize with others and help make them stronger, more than simply being some stone-cold leader who doesn't waver in his position.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Torai said:


> I still completely disagree with you, though. Even if women want men to be something, it doesn't mean men should automatically adhere to it just to get vagina.


I hold that view: please help me understand where I suggested the opposite.
No sucker-punch, no trick question; I'm genuinely confused as to where you got the idea I said that.

I think that if men happen to act in certain ways congruent with biology (masculinity, testosterone, brash and cocky but NOT overbearing, funny) that at some primal level most women will be innately attracted.

I think men have been deliberately feminized and the women masculinized since the 1960s in the US; and as a result, many people (kind of like _The Matrix_ or something) *believe* that all male dominance is bad-wrong, or bdong (a quote from the movie _Kung-Pow: Enter the Fist_).



Torai said:


> I'm not gonna hide my soft side because I actually want to be in a relationship with someone who likes me for me and not simply some image I project. And there is a sort of strength in vulnerability. It lets you empathize with others and help make them stronger, more than simply being some stone-cold leader who doesn't waver in his position.


Nothing wrong with that whatsoever. It is an "enduring" and "supporting" and "passive" strength -- think of the pillars holding up a railway bridge, rather than an aggressive, "doing" kind of strength of masculinity -- think of the diesel locomotive crossing that bridge.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

g_w said:


> I hold that view: please help me understand where I suggested the opposite.
> No sucker-punch, no trick question; I'm genuinely confused as to where you got the idea I said that.
> 
> I think that if men happen to act in certain ways congruent with biology (masculinity, testosterone, brash and cocky but NOT overbearing, funny) that at some primal level most women will be innately attracted.
> ...


I apologize if I did accuse you of anything. I tend to get touchy when someone suggests that I should be masculine because I was born with a penis. Nothing against you, but I am effeminate and I'm not gonna change that for anyone.

I'm not going to write off the feminist movement. It did a lot of good things to this country and extended the message of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to women.

As for biology, there's still the issue of finding the nature vs. nurture side of the argument. How much of our view of masculinity was inspired by Western ideals? For instance, pink was considered a masculine color, and blue was considered a feminine color not too long ago. In many Eastern cultures, it is socially acceptable for men to cry. We've found many cultures where the expectations for men were vastly different than the ones in ours.

As for the last point, there was also a lot of pressure on men to perform masculinity in a way that was harmful to themselves. There still is. Men are supposed to take the deadly, high-earning, and stressful jobs, risk themselves life and limb for their partners, fight for their country without question, never be around children other than their own, show no affection towards anyone other than their partners and even that's limited, and never supposed to show themselves as victims in any manner, especially when their aggressor is a woman. And I could tell you many men are frustrated by these norms.

As for male dominance... I'm a strong believer in an equal relationship. If a woman somehow can't handle that, then I don't need her. If she likes being dominated, then that's something we can discuss maturely. I have no qualms taking control for someone, but since I'm a strong believer in agency and free will, that has to be something that she expresses.

In fact, one of the great things about BDSM and sex-positive culture is that it does exactly this kind of thing. Communication is key, safe words are a necessity, and nothing is more important than agency and safety on the ends of both partners.



> Nothing wrong with that whatsoever. It is an "enduring" and "supporting" and "passive" strength -- think of the pillars holding up a railway bridge, rather than an aggressive, "doing" kind of strength of masculinity -- think of the diesel locomotive crossing that bridge.


Well, to be honest, I don't see strength as exclusively masculine. These were all traits my mother had, and to be honest, I want to be like her more than I want to be like my dad.

What I mean to say is that I'm not afraid to be weak or imperfect. Sometimes things can be too hard to bear on my own, and that's when I need to rely on the support of others to keep me going.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Torai said:


> I apologize if I did accuse you of anything. I tend to get touchy when someone suggests that I should be masculine because I was born with a penis. Nothing against you, but I am effeminate and I'm not gonna change that for anyone.


*IF* that is who you really are, you haven't been browbeaten or berated or shamed into it, OK.
In making these points, I have repeatedly stressed I am aiming for the center of the bell curve: one recurring theme is 
that (say) INFP guys are magnetically attracted to INTJ girls, which is good, cause they'd both get rather lonely otherwise. :wink:



Torai said:


> I'm not going to write off the feminist movement. It did a lot of good things to this country and extended the message of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to women.


They've moved far past that, though that is the PR schtick; there are very unpopular truths about women which have been carefully suppressed, and other lies told in their place, which are beginning to show up as feminism is losing any meaningful opposition in the laws and in greater culture. But that's a whole 'nuther flame war.



Torai said:


> As for biology, there's still the issue of finding the nature vs. nurture side of the argument. How much of our view of masculinity was inspired by Western ideals? For instance, pink was considered a masculine color, and blue was considered a feminine color not too long ago. In many Eastern cultures, it is socially acceptable for men to cry. We've found many cultures where the expectations for men were vastly different than the ones in ours.


We also find cultures where widows were supposed to immolate themselves on their husband's funeral pyre; cultures where women wear burkas and are forbidden from consorting with males other than immediate blood relatives or their husbands; cultures where pre-pubescent girls get married; and cultures where men are jailed and stripped of all employment licensures for falling behind on mandatory alimony/child-support payments after losing their job; cultures where the man had the power of life and death over his family, including forced death of newborns he did not want, with the woman having no choice in the matter (compare the abortion culture in the US today, btw); and cultures where a mere phone call from a women to the authorities will get a man removed from his house and children at gunpoint, with the presumption of guilt being baked in.

It's funny that when those on the left compare Western culture to ANY other culture, then the West is almost uniformly felt to be at fault. Self-hatred; or betrayal, I call it.



Torai said:


> As for the last point, there was also a lot of pressure on men to perform masculinity in a way that was harmful to themselves. There still is. Men are supposed to take the deadly, high-earning, and stressful jobs, risk themselves life and limb for their partners, fight for their country without question, never be around children other than their own, show no affection towards anyone other than their partners and even that's limited, and never supposed to show themselves as victims in any manner, especially when their aggressor is a woman. And I could tell you many men are frustrated by these norms.


PART of that is not merely cultural -- the dangerous jobs; it is due to testosterone and upper-body strength, and the presumed risks to unborn children, as one never knows when a woman will become pregnant.
As far as the never being around children other than their own -- *that* is an interesting point, for the highest rates of child fatalities by murder/assualt are by MOTHERS and/or new boyfriends of the mother, FAR more than the father.
But men as a whole are assigned the role of killers.
Also agreed about men not showing themselves as victims: and yet, men are laughed off ; even to the point that on national TV, a man being sexually violated in a horrible way not done to women -- having his penis CHOPPED OFF and thrown away with the intent that he is emasculated for life -- is literally laughed at BY WOMEN.
Don't EVER tell me that women are the fairer sex while that is going on.



Torai said:


> As for male dominance... I'm a strong believer in an equal relationship. If a woman somehow can't handle that, then I don't need her. If she likes being dominated, then that's something we can discuss maturely. I have no qualms taking control for someone, but since I'm a strong believer in agency and free will, that has to be something that she expresses.


Most women find male dominance sexually arousing. But it's a dangerous topic simply because so true: women (as a group) can EASILY be manipulated into giving up sex, *if* the man knows how to escalate properly.



Torai said:


> In fact, one of the great things about BDSM and sex-positive culture is that it does exactly this kind of thing. Communication is key, safe words are a necessity, and nothing is more important than agency and safety on the ends of both partners.


Brings to mind the old joke about the sadist and the masochist:

Masochist (on their knees, hands clasped together, pleading to sadist): Beat me! Beat me! PLEEEEASE Beat me!
Sadist (turns head askance, looks away and folds arms): No....I don't think I will.

:laughing:





Torai said:


> Well, to be honest, I don't see strength as exclusively masculine. These were all traits my mother had, and to be honest, I want to be like her more than I want to be like my dad.
> 
> What I mean to say is that I'm not afraid to be weak or imperfect. Sometimes things can be too hard to bear on my own, and that's when I need to rely on the support of others to keep me going.


Owning up to your imperfections -- to be able to acknowledge your failures -- is the mark of the best leader. But I have found that for some kinds of support, it is preferable to turn to other men: but as you pointed out earlier, different cultures have different ways of doing this. E.g. the Japanese will sometimes go out after work, get ROARING drunk, and tell each other off, in very direct language -- shocking for such a shame-based, self-effacing culture. But that's the rule : you can tell the truth during one of these drinking events, it lets off steam. Then when the next day comes, everyone goes back to pretending.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

g_w said:


> You're proving my point. :laughing: :tongue:
> 
> Women don't always rationalize; but they are more prone to it than men; men commit other sins, which have been extensively catalogued.
> 
> "Misogynist" = "going against women's perceived wishes, or perceived self-interest, or tending to usurp women's overall social dominance." :shocked:


You've already tried, convicted and sentenced the female gender while you show a lack of understanding for a couple of generations of women.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

monemi said:


> You've already tried, convicted and sentenced the female gender while you show a lack of understanding for a couple of generations of women.


No, I won't even say I'm sorry: you're just wrong.

The Western world has gone to hell in a handbasket for a couple of generations because of trying feminist prescriptions, which are based on women's ancient need to rebel, yet still insisting on hiding behind their own skirts when things blow up on them.

Behind every successful feminist stands a silent army of weak men enabling her, picking up after her, changing standards in her favor, and intimidating through numbers, any men attempting to call her on her lies.

Noticing the truth that neither men nor women are monotonic, monolithic, but have attributes which are distributed along a bell curve; great. Allowing individuals to work within their personal differences in their own relationships (INFP guy / INTJ girl for example); great.
Making the exceptions the basis of public policy, and overthrowing millennia of experience with what makes successful societies, just so a few outliers can assuage their inferiority and resentment, and then forcing "The Empresses's New Clothes" on everyone else...
FAIL.


----------

