# Why do girls think a relationship with them is better than casual?



## Sylarz (Sep 4, 2014)

The more I think about being in a relationship the more it seems like a huge drag.

If I really think back, I don't think I ever wanted a relationship. I didn't realize girls were giving it away for free, no strings attached. 

Now I know they do.

*Casual:*
Sex
No strings
Chilled
Non-exclusivity
*
Relationship:*
Sex
Strings
Seriousness
Exclusivity

If girls are giving it away for free, then what's the point of a relationship?

I asked a friend who has a lot of experience with women and he said he never understood it either.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Can you honestly not imagine any reason besides recreational sex why a man would want a wife?


----------



## Stawker (Nov 30, 2016)

BlackDog said:


> Can you honestly not imagine any reason besides recreational sex why a man would want a wife?


Sandwiches?


I'm a simple man...


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

What's the point of this thread? 

If you don't see the point in a relationship other than sex, and women are having sex without relationships, then it's win win for everyone, right?

Or do you need to imagine it's a loss for women? Why?


----------



## Cast (Dec 20, 2016)

"for free".
So having a relationship is the man's payment for the woman's sexual service?
...


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

Cast said:


> "for free".
> So having a relationship is the man's payment for the woman's sexual service?
> ...


As I read it, OP is saying that he used to think women would exchange only sex in return for some kind of exclusive commitment. Now he realises that this isn't the case. Fair enough, I used to be under the illusion that women were innocent, fragile, sweet angels as well. But hey, the real world is a nasty place.

Still, it's a shame to see him scorning the women who, despite being surrounded by the sin of gluttony, refuse to give up on true love and have thus maintained at least some of their dignity. 

Good luck finding a reliable, balanced woman among the feminist crowd. Those girls all have at least one STD already, and I bet a few would whore themselves out to half of Little Mogadishu given the chance.


----------



## Blue Ribbon (Sep 4, 2016)

You're joking right? All you've listed are your _preferences_. Not everyone is okay jumping into bed with someone they don't love or have a strong meaningful connection with. There are even animals that mate for life. They seem to have figured out the importance of monogamy. Not to forget, the fact that all of civilization was built on the concept of families. There are also scientific studies showing couples live longer, healthier lives. I get that you don't want to but I don't understand why you conclude that people in general want nothing more than sex.


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

If you genuinely never want a relationship, have no emotional needs answered by relationships and have no aspirations for ever having a family, that's fine, but if you are just saying that out of emotional burnout from past relationships, which I am going to largely suspect on the count of the age in your profile (27), and in the process of justifying that to yourself you are unable to relate to ever having had a different perspective and thus just assume it was always what you've really wanted despite acting otherwise, then... Feel better man, It will heal (Well, in the same awkward sense that learning how to live without a leg is healing for an amputee).


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Relationships provide deeper and more meaningful emotional connection that is essential for our well being as a species and it also enhances the sexual experience in a way impossible without the emotional connection.
Some people realize this at a young age, even during teen years (I did), others realize it in their 20s, others in their 30s etc. In my experience, people who realize it later also have the most problem developing such relationships and adapting to their newfound emotional needs. People who don't feel it early on may have intimacy issues, usually stemming from their childhood or maybe had horrible experiences that need time and effort to heal, learn and grow from them.


----------



## Sylarz (Sep 4, 2014)

Veggie said:


> What's the point of this thread?
> 
> If you don't see the point in a relationship other than sex, and women are having sex without relationships, then it's win win for everyone, right?
> 
> Or do you need to imagine it's a loss for women? Why?


I'm confused why a woman would have casual sex with men until they find one they really like and then want a relationship with that one. It seems like they are punishing the guy they really like, if that makes sense. Like the random men they don't feel much for they are happy to let be free, but they want to lock down a man who they _really _like. It seems they are giving the better deal to the men they feel nothing for. Why would they think a relationship is the prize? lol


----------



## Sylarz (Sep 4, 2014)

Rock Of Ages said:


> As I read it, OP is saying that he used to think women would exchange only sex in return for some kind of exclusive commitment. Now he realises that this isn't the case. Fair enough, I used to be under the illusion that women were innocent, fragile, sweet angels as well. But hey, the real world is a nasty place.
> 
> Still, it's a shame to see him scorning the women who, despite being surrounded by the sin of gluttony, refuse to give up on true love and have thus maintained at least some of their dignity.
> 
> Good luck finding a reliable, balanced woman among the feminist crowd. Those girls all have at least one STD already, and I bet a few would whore themselves out to half of Little Mogadishu given the chance.


I'm not scorning casual sex! I think it's fucking awesome that women are doing that! But if they are, then why would you get in a relationship? And I'm wondering why they would have casual sex and then think that a relationship is the better deal. I discussed it with a friend and he has noticed this too.

He's had women pull that on him in casual relationships. One of his casuals even blocked him when he said he wasn't interested in anything serious.

Also it's not that I'm saying they are not worthy of a relationship, I'm saying, why have a relationship with any woman haha.


----------



## Alles_Paletti (May 15, 2013)

@Sylarz

If you found a girl that you really like, love even, would you be ok if she continues to sleep around with other men?


----------



## piano (May 21, 2015)

well, believe it or not, there are men out there who will seek out female companionship for more than just sex. i think it's because they view women as autonomous beings and not self-lubricating sex toys. it's weird, i know, i don't get it either, but i don't think (most) straight men enter a monogamous relationship with a woman because they're enthralled by the idea of limiting themselves to one sexual partner for any length of time, but it does provide them with a _consistent_ source of sex. if the man in question has an emotional attachment to the woman, then he may do it to cut off her sexual options, rather than his own, to silence his protective instincts + to preserve his ego. there's the added bonuses of emotional support and the potential to create a family in the near or faraway future. when's the last time you got laid?


----------



## Sylarz (Sep 4, 2014)

water rooster said:


> well, believe it or not, there are men out there who will seek out female companionship for more than just sex. i think it's because they view women as autonomous beings and not self-lubricating sex toys. it's weird, i know, i don't get it either, but i don't think (most) straight men enter a monogamous relationship with a woman because they're enthralled by the idea of limiting themselves to one sexual partner for any length of time, but it does provide them with a _consistent_ source of sex. if the man in question has an emotional attachment to the woman, then he may do it to cut off her sexual options, rather than his own, to silence his protective instincts + to preserve his ego. there's the added bonuses of emotional support and the potential to create a family in the near or faraway future. when's the last time you got laid?


Just in case you were implying it about me. I don't view women as self lubricating sex toys, and I know they are autonomous beings. Hence why it's so cool when a woman decides to have casual sex with you. Everyone wins.


----------



## piano (May 21, 2015)

Sylarz said:


> Just in case you were implying it about me. I don't view women as self lubricating sex toys, and I know they are autonomous beings. Hence why I think it's just dandy if a woman wants to have casual sex, or if she doesn't. Totally up to her either way.


lol.



> Also it's not that I'm saying they are not worthy of a relationship, I'm saying, *why have a relationship with any woman haha.*


the foot-in-mouth statement you made above suggests that you don't understand why a man would enter a relationship with a woman, as it inhibits his ability to stick his dick in women that aren't her, and from that, as well as your OP, i was able to deduce that you don't believe there's anything valuable to be had from a relationship with a woman, which would imply that you don't believe women have anything valuable to offer. besides sex, that is. am i understanding you correctly or did you just express your view poorly?



Sylarz said:


> I'm confused why a woman would have casual sex with men until they find one they really like and then want a relationship with that one. It seems like they are punishing the guy they really like, if that makes sense. Like the random men they don't feel much for they are happy to let be free, but they want to lock down a man who they _really _like. It seems they are giving the better deal to the men they feel nothing for. Why would they think a relationship is the prize? lol


TIL wanting a monogamous relationship with someone you really like is considered a form of punishment. how long before strict laws are enacted against this reprehensible moral offense? i need to know so i can lower my expectations of men accordingly. thanks in advance!



Sylarz said:


> I'm not scorning casual sex! I think it's fucking awesome that women are doing that! But if they are, then why would you get in a relationship? And I'm wondering why they would have casual sex and then think that a relationship is the better deal. I discussed it with a friend and he has noticed this too.
> 
> He's had women pull that on him in casual relationships. One of his casuals even blocked him when he said he wasn't interested in anything serious.


it's probably because the women you speak of have desires which are incompatible with your own?

which means that the world doesn't revolve around you and the people existing within it don't exist solely to serve you. this thread is obviously a sad attempt at unleashing your personal frustrations in regards to the topic at hand because it shouldn't be difficult to wrap one's head around why a woman might want to settle down with a man she likes, and vice versa. if it's true that you don't view women as self-lubricating sex toys then it should only take you a minute or two to unravel the mystery that is monogamy.


----------



## Sylarz (Sep 4, 2014)

water rooster said:


> lol.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wait a minute. If a woman knowingly and willingly has casual sex with a man for her own enjoyment, and the man prefers that arrangement to a relationship, then the man is somehow a bad guy who thinks women are just sex toys? 

Huh?!

I'm not frustrated at all. Women are giving it away casually. It's straight up amazing. I love it. I'm having a blast.

My question is a confusion, not a frustration. And a question outloud as well, what the point of a relationship is. It seems to me that the logic is that you want to not be _too good_, or she'll try to lock you down. And that is very confusing. The better deal seems to go to the man she doesn't connect with on a personal level.

Women may not have anything else to offer me besides sex, or maybe they do, but the question is whatever they have to offer, what does a serious relationship offer?



> you don't believe there's anything valuable to be had from a relationship with a woman


That is my question indeed. I don't see any benefits, personally.

I'm thinking that life would probably be way cooler if I abstained from relationships altogether. If a woman wants a relationship, I should just say no, under any circumstances, even if it means she'll cut off a casual thing.

And if a particular woman had nothing else to offer besides sex, or if she did but I didn't want anything else but sex, I don't see a problem there, if she knows I just want to have sex, and she just wants sex, what's wrong with that? That doesn't mean I view her as a sex toy. You'd have to shame her too as viewing ME as a sex toy. She's using me as much as I'm using her ;P

I think you're demonizing me in your mind as something I'm not. You know some women enjoy sex for the sake of sex too? It's not just men.


----------



## piano (May 21, 2015)

Sylarz said:


> Wait a minute. If a woman knowingly and willingly has casual sex with a man for her own enjoyment, and the man prefers that arrangement to a relationship, then the man is somehow a bad guy who thinks women are just sex toys?
> 
> Huh?!


*attention mods!!!* i'm concerned that OP may be blind. we should temporarily close the thread until we get confirmation that he's not. if he isn't blind, then he's trolling and/or he's severely lacking in areas that don't pertain to his vision (or lack thereof) but to his mentality capacity (or lack thereof) to effectively process new incoming information, which renders further discussion on this thread futile. if closing the thread isn't an option then i propose that we replace OP with a brick wall because what's the difference?

until then:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_comprehension


----------



## Sylarz (Sep 4, 2014)

water rooster said:


> *attention mods!!!* i'm concerned that OP may be blind. we should temporarily close the thread until we get confirmation that he's not. if he isn't blind, then he's trolling and/or he's severely lacking in areas that don't pertain to his vision (or lack thereof) but to his mentality capacity (or lack thereof) to effectively process new incoming information, which renders further discussion on this thread futile. if closing the thread isn't an option then i propose that we replace OP with a brick wall because what's the difference?
> 
> until then:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_comprehension


Oh I see. You just want to make yourself feel smart by putting others down. I see.

I'd rather just have friendly conversations.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Sylarz said:


> Oh I see. You just want to make yourself feel smart by putting others down. I see.
> 
> I'd rather just have friendly conversations.


While I don't agree with her condescending style, she does have a point that you seemed to have not understood the argument. 
The only value you see in a relationship with a woman is sex, so it's not exactly a stretch that you see women as little more than a sex toy. Casual sex is fine if both parties want it, no argument there. However if you are unable to see any other benefit, you have to investigate why you feel that way.


----------



## Librarylady (Mar 11, 2017)

Not every woman has casual sex or even likes it. Not every woman likes sex in a relationship either. They might just prefer casual encounters. Some women do both. And you know, men can have varied preferences too. I've known a few men who got attached after casual sex and wished it was something more. Many may not admit this to other men since they're afraid of judgment. 

If you don't see any value in a relationship aside from sex, then only seek casual minded women. I don't understand why this is so hard.


----------



## piano (May 21, 2015)

Sylarz said:


> Wait a minute. If a woman knowingly and willingly has casual sex with a man for her own enjoyment, and the man prefers that arrangement to a relationship, then the man is somehow a bad guy who thinks women are just sex toys?
> 
> Huh?!
> 
> ...


oh, would ya look at that? you have semi-legitimate thoughts to share after all ;P

several people have listed the benefits of relationships and you've responded to a grand total of zero of them, so maybe you should respond to those posts instead of defending yourself against perceived personal attacks? i never said nor implied that women can't seek out nor enjoy casual sex with the opposite gender, but please quote me if so, and, while you're searching for something that doesn't exist, you should respond to the people who have given you several perspectives to the original question you posed.

in case you already forgot, your thread isn't about women who like casual sexual arrangements. it's about why some women prefer exclusive sexual arrangements to casual sexual arrangements, so why you're making an exercise out of missing the point of your own thread is beyond me.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Sylarz said:


> The more I think about being in a relationship the more it seems like a huge drag.
> 
> If I really think back, I don't think I ever wanted a relationship. I didn't realize girls were giving it away for free, no strings attached.
> 
> ...


To understand this all that has to happen once to you is to fall in love. When you´re in love with someone, the idea that she is having sex with someone else is an horrible idea. And when the "in love" fase has passed and you´re just loving eachother, like normal couples do, then still for most people, exclusivity is an important thing. Also for most men. When everything is fine in a relationship, people tend to be just happy with having 1 sexual partner. (sure, some couples have very open ideas about sex, but we´re talking about average normal relationships here.)

You've never been really in love or you grew up in a culture that is very traditional which often results in simplistic ideas like yours that the only reason you mary is to get to fuck someone and because you need someone to breed with and take care of children.

I sincerely hope it's simply because you never been in love before.


----------



## Sylarz (Sep 4, 2014)

Red Panda said:


> While I don't agree with her condescending style, she does have a point that you seemed to have not understood the argument.
> The only value you see in a relationship with a woman is sex, so it's not exactly a stretch that you see women as little more than a sex toy. Casual sex is fine if both parties want it, no argument there. However if you are unable to see any other benefit, you have to investigate why you feel that way.


It makes no sense whatsoever. It's like come the fuck on with these accusations.

Of course I see women as human beings with autonomy.

I'm not going to pretend like the main allure of women is not sex. And to be honest, I've bee told if I didn't have the arms, or if I wasn't so tall, they wouldn't be interested in me either, so let's just _get real about what some women want too_. Doesn't mean I see them as sex toys.

You get almost all the ancillary benefits with casual. You get to hang out, chill, watch netflix, chat, laugh, mess around, kiss, talk about the universe after sex, cuddle, bacon and eggs in the morning. There's almost no difference, except you are not under any obligations or responsibilities. You get to go home and you're still a free man. And so I ask why would a woman then want a relatinoship and think that is the better deal for you as a man? And why would a man get into a relationship if he could be free to do basically all the fun parts of a relationship, with as many women as he wants, with no strings? Now we leap to, you must see women as sex toys. It just makes no sense.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Sylarz said:


> It makes no sense whatsoever. It's like come the fuck on with these accusations.
> 
> Of course I see women as human beings with autonomy.
> 
> ...


If you have started the topic with what you say here I think the responses would have been different. I think you gave a completely different idea to everyone here. 

What you are describing is part of being in a relationship, but without attachment. Well, people get attached and it feels wonderful. And then they want to share their lives in other areas as well, like making common decisions about things, and perhaps even create a family. You probably have never been attached to someone or you wouldn't wonder about this, I believe. Relationships isn't something women impose on men, both parties want it because they are attached, or want/hope to become attached because they otherwise like the other person. And this ties to my 1st post in this thread.


----------



## Toru Okada (May 10, 2011)

Red Panda said:


> Relationships provide deeper and more meaningful emotional connection that is essential for our well being as a species and it also enhances the sexual experience in a way impossible without the emotional connection.


That's accurate female perspective. 

Most guys don't think that way, though. Repeated sex with the same woman loses appeal as the months and years roll on. It's like hunting an animal that's already been killed. The love becomes more platonic over time.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Toru Okada said:


> That's accurate female perspective.
> 
> Most guys don't think that way, though. Repeated sex with the same woman loses appeal as the months and years roll on. It's like hunting an animal that's already been killed. The love becomes more platonic over time.


I'm in an 8.5 year relationship and sex is better than ever. I think there are other factors in play for this rather than just a gender thing. Sex is an important part of the relationship and the couple has to work on that if they are to maintain it. Of course people fail at it because many times they don't understand or expect or want the work that it takes. I don't think wanting emotional connection is a female thing primarily, but a personality thing. Also, getting sexual attention from other people is something that both men and women like, because it means you are (still) desirable. It feels great to be wanted, it's just as thrilling for women as it is for men, hence why both genders cheat almost at the same rate (at least as studied in my country).


----------



## Flying Triangle (Feb 10, 2017)

Can't turn a ho into a housewife. 

Don't even try.


----------



## Toru Okada (May 10, 2011)

Red Panda said:


> I'm in an 8.5 year relationship and sex is better than ever. I think there are other factors in play for this rather than just a gender thing. Sex is an important part of the relationship and the couple has to work on that if they are to maintain it. Of course people fail at it because many times they don't understand or expect or want the work that it takes. I don't think wanting emotional connection is a female thing primarily, but a personality thing. Also, getting sexual attention from other people is something that both men and women like, because it means you are (still) desirable. It feels great to be wanted, it's just as thrilling for women as it is for men, hence why both genders cheat almost at the same rate (at least as studied in my country).


I'd really have to hear your bf's side of things because again that your perspective. You're probably pretty attractive if it's still as exciting after almost 9 years.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Toru Okada said:


> I'd really have to hear your bf's side of things because again that your perspective. You're probably pretty attractive if it's still as exciting after almost 9 years.


I understand. I guess it's worth mentioning that we generally agree with a polyamorous lifestyle. He is free to pursue anyone else he might like. But there are several reasons this hasn't happened, like his small social life and general personality. He has no pressure from me to be monogamous so I think if our sex life wasn't adequate to him he would have put more effort in pursuing more experiences. We generally talk very much and communicate our desires. It's not perfect of course, but generally works pretty good.


----------



## Cast (Dec 20, 2016)

Toru Okada said:


> I'd really have to hear your bf's side of things because again that your perspective. You're probably pretty attractive if it's still as exciting after almost 9 years.


I couldn't help noticing... her recount of her relationship isn't accurate because it's her perspective. Yet you can apply your perspective on sex to the majority of men and think it's accurate.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Sylarz said:


> I'm confused why a woman would have casual sex with men until they find one they really like and then want a relationship with that one. It seems like they are punishing the guy they really like, if that makes sense. Like the random men they don't feel much for they are happy to let be free, but they want to lock down a man who they _really _like. It seems they are giving the better deal to the men they feel nothing for. Why would they think a relationship is the prize? lol


_You are correct_. *Untrained *mistresses make _this mistake_; with poor female-guidance /_ without high-functioning _professional mistresses. They are not supposed to serve the slave. [In the most respect(s)] she is .. well was supposed to_ screen you_ more extensively over a series of weeks with many tests; and enforce stronger degrees of manipulation. But it appear(s) she hasn't. When no such "tests" are given; you then get an easy (A) -- without studying, which leaves the taker confused.

Only_ very, very, very _few female-specimen(s) can retrieve a male in this way. A female that has is likely a skilled (PUA) whom has subconsciously coaxed the male over a period of time through degrees of psychological manipulation -- any other, is a high-functioning female with top 10/10 score(s) on aesthetics, and mental dexterity.

However, most female(s) know instinctively to never attempt to_ tie-down _a "loose" male, but I reckon the new cultural-twists are disrupting, if not clouding this. I can only facepalm in the loss. She needs sufficient training or her situation will remain repetitively unfortunate. Unskilled; or indifferent mother figures are also a culprit.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Cast said:


> I couldn't help noticing... her recount of her relationship isn't accurate because it's her perspective. Yet you can apply your perspective on sex to the majority of men and think it's accurate.


His disbelief is understandable if he holds that perspective. But yea, I agree with you.
And his perspective is not unfounded, it's a common one to have and not without reason.


----------



## Belzy (Aug 12, 2013)

Love
Connection
Loyalty
Commitment
Trust
Faith
Hope
Future
Company
Compassion
Care
Understanding
Shared happiness
Security
And *LOVE*

You insensitive...


----------



## Cast (Dec 20, 2016)

Red Panda said:


> His disbelief is understandable if he holds that perspective. But yea, I agree with you.
> And his perspective is not unfounded, it's a common one to have and not without reason.


I'm more inclined to trust your claim on the nature of your relationship and the opinion of your partner, rather then a stranger on the net who claims to know half of humanity's opinion on sex and LTR


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Cast said:


> I'm more inclined to trust your claim on the nature of your relationship and the opinion of your partner, rather then a stranger on the net who claims to know half of humanity's opinion on sex and LTR


Of course. 
It's just that his perspective is common because it's something very popular as a belief, though probably outdated that is only recently beginning to change. Now that women are more sexually free, not having children is less of a stigma, marriage is becoming unnecessary as a requirement for relationships and divorce more commonplace. When all these were not true yet, it was common to be in an unfulfilling relationship and do nothing about it than endure it. Men would half-joke about how their women oppress them, in a way that seems an acceptable tradeoff for filling all social roles designated to them, while women are always portrayed as having a chain on their men so that he doesn't stray far. That kind of worldview isn't too old for my country, people 40+ may even still hold these beliefs, perhaps to a lessened degree, but not entirely free of them. And many younger people do too.


----------



## GoodOldDreamer (Sep 8, 2011)

What's the point of a relationship? Companionship. Someone to share your joys with. Someone to help you get through the sorrows. (And vice versa.) If life were a road trip, it'd be more fun with someone else than alone.

If you've only ever gotten yourself into a relationship for the sex, it's honestly no wonder you don't like/want them. Sex is the capstone, not the foundation. And if you try to make it the foundation, of course it will fall to pieces.


----------



## Sultanim (Feb 4, 2014)

Catwalk said:


> Only_ very, very, very _few female-specimen(s) can retrieve a male in this way.* A female that has is likely a skilled (PUA) whom has subconsciously coaxed the male over a period of time through degrees of psychological manipulation -- any other, is a high-functioning female with top 10/10 score(s) on aesthetics, and mental dexterity.*
> 
> However, most female(s) know instinctively to never attempt to_ tie-down _a "loose" male, but I reckon the new cultural-twists are disrupting, if not clouding this. I can only facepalm in the loss. She needs sufficient training or her situation will remain repetitively unfortunate. Unskilled; or indifferent mother figures are also a culprit.


You've just described my best friend. When I see her I see the devil lol.


----------



## Sultanim (Feb 4, 2014)

Peter said:


> To understand this all that has to happen once to you is to fall in love. When you´re in love with someone, the idea that she is having sex with someone else is an horrible idea. And when the "in love" fase has passed and you´re just loving eachother, like normal couples do, then still for most people, exclusivity is an important thing. Also for most men. When everything is fine in a relationship, people tend to be just happy with having 1 sexual partner. (sure, some couples have very open ideas about sex, but we´re talking about average normal relationships here.)
> 
> You've never been really in love or you grew up in a culture that is very traditional which often results in simplistic ideas like yours that the only reason you mary is to get to fuck someone and because you need someone to breed with and take care of children.
> 
> I sincerely hope it's simply because you never been in love before.


 @Sylarz I think it has to do greatly with female's inability to separate sex from love. Female is indeed a separate world/universe. I'd argue there's nothing to understand but to put up with (and viceversa, in a sense).


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Sultanim said:


> I think it has to do greatly with female's inability to separate sex from love. Female is indeed a separate world/universe. I'd argue there's nothing to understand but to put up with (and viceversa, in a sense).


Otto Weininger has said some incredibly stupid things about women and men, he was from a completely different period of time who died very young and unwise.


----------



## Sultanim (Feb 4, 2014)

I believe that it is a general female behavior to want a relationship. They even say it, it's about "love". For them, sex IS tied to love. You can take the gays as an example: they can be very promiscuous (I'm gay btw lol) and never think about love/relationship (at the same time subjugating ourselves to issues like diseases, social stigma, psychological illness, etc). For gay men Love is written with capital L because love is more than sex, given the great incidence of casual sex and the very few, long-lasting companionship between men; but these special gems are so strong and touching they are revered and taken as models, throughout history (Zeus & Ganymede, Rumi & Shams Tabrizi, Malik Ayaz & Mahmud of Ghazni, Alexander The Great & Hephaestion, Achilles & Patroclus, etc). I think, for men in general, Love is a deeper thing and I think that men wanting casual sex is erroneously tagged as shallow.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Cheveyo said:


> First off, don't convince yourself the person you're with is something they're not. Don't try to change them just because you don't like what they are. It's not your place to change a person. If you do not like who they are WHY are you with them in the first place?


Okay. But just because there is something your partner is doing that you don't like doesn't mean you don't like who they are and the relationship is just doomed. A lot of self improvement I've achieved over the years has been the result of people telling me that I am exhibiting behaviours that are taxing our relationship in some way. I have a natural tendency to assume I'm right about everything, but that isn't a positive trait and it's something I have had to work on. People have told me that this can be uspetting, and I reflected on it and over time tried to be mindful of my hurtful behaviour. Is this not what rational adults do? How does telling somebody that they ignore me too much and are insensitive to my needs translate to unreasonably demanding that somebody "change who they are"? It sounds to me like communicating what I need out of the relationship so that he has a chance to reflect on his behaviour. If he can't or won't change, and the matter is that important, then yeah the relationship has to end. 



> Nor is it your job to be that person's parent. If they're not taking care of themselves, not cooking or cleaning for themselves, it isn't your job to do it for them. If you're going to do those things for them, don't then start bitching about it. It was YOUR CHOICE to do it.


What a terrible attitude. Just because I enjoy cooking meals for people doesn't mean I don't like my efforts to be acknowledged once in a while, and it doesn't mean the other person has no responsibility to do so. If someone cleans more than I do I don't think "well that's their choice so I don't need to acknowledge or show even a shred of appreciation for their efforts, if they don't want to do it then they can stop." 

I *completely *agree that women need to be careful not to become a man's mother, but I also don't think there's anything wrong with showing a base level of appreciation for your partner. I have literally never sat down for a meal at my parent's house and seen my father _not_ thank my mother for dinner, even though we all know she loves to cook and would do it anyway even if we didn't want her to. Same with my grandparents, and pretty much every other healthy relationship I have observed. I have never seen my mother _not _thank my dad for carrying out the garbage, even though it's his chore to do. It just seems like basic decency to me. We aren't room mates trying to get away with doing the least work possible and take advantage of each other, we're a family. 



> Relationships are about reciprocation. There are so many women that'll demand their husbands/boyfriends go hang out with their(the woman's) friends or partake in their hobbies. But when it comes time to spend time doing what their husband/boyfriend likes doing, it's non-stop talking and complaining about how boring it is.
> 
> A man can do a million things for their woman, but the moment he fucks up ONCE, that's all he's going to hear about. A relationship where one side spends the whole time doing nothing but demean and berate the other is not a healthy relationship. But this is such a common thing for men to experience we simply just accept it as part of the package.
> 
> Woman Realizes She’s Been Accidentally Abusing Her Husband | The Federalist Papers


Well, it goes both ways. Lots of men will drag their girlfriend to a beer league softball game and then flat out refuse to do anything the woman wants to do. We probably aren't going to get anywhere playing who's worse, men versus women edition.

And do you really think I'm advocating that women berate their partners? Obviously I'm not. I am saying that there is a lot of basic maintenance that goes into serious relationships and in my experience it seems to be the woman who is more likely to put in the leg work there than the man, but it's something that usually goes unnoticed or unacknowledged. It may be because this is something we are trained to do basically from birth. I didn't understand the importance of it when I was younger, but I understand it now. The same way I didn't understand why my mother made us eat dinner together at the table as a family but now I wouldn't have it any other way if I have kids. 

Women shouldn't be too hard on their men, yelling at them for getting the wrong beef or whatever the shit that was in the article, but they should be able to expect men to turn the TV off at dinner time when someone has prepared a meal for them. I just don't understand why that is asking too much of somebody. Women should watch and be sure that they aren't getting too demanding, but men should also watch that they don't ignore their wives or take them needlessly for granted.


----------



## Sultanim (Feb 4, 2014)

Chesire Tower said:


> i really don't get your point at all; my post was a response to a poster asking what the point of making a thread like this was. Iow, what was the *op*'s - no one else's - *motivation*. *So, in this context, your response to me makes zero sense.*


Ohh...


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

BlackDog said:


> Okay. But just because there is something your partner is doing that you don't like doesn't mean you don't like who they are and the relationship is just doomed. A lot of self improvement I've achieved over the years has been the result of people telling me that I am exhibiting behaviours that are taxing our relationship in some way. I have a natural tendency to assume I'm right about everything, but that isn't a positive trait and it's something I have had to work on. People have told me that this can be uspetting, and I reflected on it and over time tried to be mindful of my hurtful behaviour. Is this not what rational adults do? How does telling somebody that they ignore me too much and are insensitive to my needs translate to unreasonably demanding that somebody "change who they are"? It sounds to me like communicating what I need out of the relationship so that he has a chance to reflect on his behaviour. If he can't or won't change, and the matter is that important, then yeah the relationship has to end.




Were they always like that or was it something that developed as the relationship grew?
You mentioned video games, a lot of people use them as stress relief. If something is driving a person to spend too much time in games, then that's something that needs to be looked at. Whether it's the result of the person's actions or something from outside their control.

However, if this is the kind of person they've always been, why demand they change themselves?






> What a terrible attitude. Just because I enjoy cooking meals for people doesn't mean I don't like my efforts to be acknowledged once in a while, and it doesn't mean the other person has no responsibility to do so. If someone cleans more than I do I don't think "well that's their choice so I don't need to acknowledge or show even a shred of appreciation for their efforts, if they don't want to do it then they can stop."
> 
> I *completely *agree that women need to be careful not to become a man's mother, but I also don't think there's anything wrong with showing a base level of appreciation for your partner. I have literally never sat down for a meal at my parent's house and seen my father _not_ thank my mother for dinner, even though we all know she loves to cook and would do it anyway even if we didn't want her to. Same with my grandparents, and pretty much every other healthy relationship I have observed. I have never seen my mother _not _thank my dad for carrying out the garbage, even though it's his chore to do. It just seems like basic decency to me. We aren't room mates trying to get away with doing the least work possible and take advantage of each other, we're a family.




You're going to spend the rest of your life being upset at people for not thanking you. I knew a woman that was like that, she was twice my age and always complained about nobody helping out with clean up or thanking her for meals, yet she would always cook for others. Honestly, I got tired of the complaints.


Never assume people will show kindness or appreciation, it'll only lead to disappointment.








> Well, it goes both ways. Lots of men will drag their girlfriend to a beer league softball game and then flat out refuse to do anything the woman wants to do. We probably aren't going to get anywhere playing who's worse, men versus women edition.
> 
> And do you really think I'm advocating that women berate their partners? Obviously I'm not. I am saying that there is a lot of basic maintenance that goes into serious relationships and in my experience it seems to be the woman who is more likely to put in the leg work there than the man, but it's something that usually goes unnoticed or unacknowledged. It may be because this is something we are trained to do basically from birth. I didn't understand the importance of it when I was younger, but I understand it now. The same way I didn't understand why my mother made us eat dinner together at the table as a family but now I wouldn't have it any other way if I have kids.
> 
> Women shouldn't be too hard on their men, yelling at them for getting the wrong beef or whatever the shit that was in the article, but they should be able to expect men to turn the TV off at dinner time when someone has prepared a meal for them. I just don't understand why that is asking too much of somebody. Women should watch and be sure that they aren't getting too demanding, but men should also watch that they don't ignore their wives or take them needlessly for granted.




I agree with the basic premise of what you said, but you should also remember that not everyone shows their appreciation the same way.

Taking that article as an example, the woman explains the kinds of things her husband would do. We can take those as examples.


----------



## Sylarz (Sep 4, 2014)

Chesire Tower said:


> It's the exact same purpose for *all* threads of this kind: to go back to the dark ages and delude themselves into falsely believing, that women aren't actually sexual beings.


That must be the exact opposite of my view and meaning. I really must have worded my question really wrong if anyone thinks _that _is implied in what I said.

The fact that women are sexual beings is exactly why I question the point of relationship.

And I absolutely support and condone this behaviour of women having casual sex for the fun of it. It's awesome. In case anyone misinterprets me again.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Cheveyo said:


> Were they always like that or was it something that developed as the relationship grew?
> You mentioned video games, a lot of people use them as stress relief. If something is driving a person to spend too much time in games, then that's something that needs to be looked at. Whether it's the result of the person's actions or something from outside their control.
> 
> However, if this is the kind of person they've always been, why demand they change themselves?


I was always the kind of person who thought I was right all the time. That didn't mean I didn't have to change or that it wasn't something about myself I needed to work on. Or keep working on, actually. Among other character and behaviour flaws. 

I already said that depression _may_ have been a factor but that doesn't mean the person has no responsibility to try to deal with the situation or make positive changes or think about how their behaviour might be affecting others. I have been depressed before, I get it. But I am also not the centre of the universe and I can't treat my partner with disrespect just because I'm having a rough time of it. 

I would be heartbroken if my boyfriend of four years broke up with me out of the blue one day because I read too much and you can't change a person. I would think our relationship meant nothing to him, because I feel like the normal rational thing to do when there is a problem is address it and try to come to a solution. Come to a compromise or give the person a chance to change if they want to make the relationship work. That is perfectly reasonable. 

There is also the fact that people are supposed to mature with age and most people have a reasonable expectation of this kind of change. It might be cute when a twenty year old guy plays video games all day but a thirty year old man trying to start a family is just going to have to stop spending the bulk of his free time focusing on himself like that. I mean, that's life. There are other people besides yourself. There are plenty of youthful pleasures that I have had to cut down or set aside as I've gotten older, and if I was married with kids there would be even more. That's how it goes. 



> You're going to spend the rest of your life being upset at people for not thanking you. I knew a woman that was like that, she was twice my age and always complained about nobody helping out with clean up or thanking her for meals, yet she would always cook for others. Honestly, I got tired of the complaints.
> 
> 
> Never assume people will show kindness or appreciation, it'll only lead to disappointment.
> ...


My expectation of gratitude has already been taken outside and thoroughly beaten with a stick. I have to actively resist the temptation to succumb to that attitude though, because the fact of the matter is that people deserve a certain level of appreciation and respect. People who have too many expectations of their partner are likely going to strain the relationship or wind up disappointed. People who have too few are wont to end up in abusive or otherwise unhealthy relationships. There is nothing wrong with having emotional or physical needs. That's what your partner is there for. If they aren't meeting them, then there's something lacking in the relationship and it should be addressed.


----------



## Sylarz (Sep 4, 2014)

GoodOldDreamer said:


> What's the point of a relationship? Companionship. Someone to share your joys with. Someone to help you get through the sorrows. (And vice versa.) If life were a road trip, it'd be more fun with someone else than alone.
> 
> If you've only ever gotten yourself into a relationship for the sex, it's honestly no wonder you don't like/want them. Sex is the capstone, not the foundation. And if you try to make it the foundation, of course it will fall to pieces.


I can have friends for companionship and cut out the bullshit.

Don't need anyone to help me through sorrows. I have myself. No one can make you happy but yourself, I think. You are always fundamentally alone in the universe, I think. Relationships can disintegrate. And you realize, you were never not alone.

When you are truely chill and secure in yourself, then you can enjoy the company of a woman authentically, without any metaphysical or emotional neediness.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Sylarz said:


> That must be the exact opposite of my view and meaning. I really must have worded my question really wrong if anyone thinks _that _is implied in what I said.
> 
> The fact that women are sexual beings is exactly why I question the point of relationship.
> 
> And I absolutely support and condone this behaviour of women having casual sex for the fun of it. It's awesome. In case anyone misinterprets me again.


Very sorry I confused you with the "Let's make burkas and chastity belts great again" club.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Sylarz said:


> I'm confused why a woman would have casual sex with men until they find one they really like and then want a relationship with that one. It seems like they are punishing the guy they really like, if that makes sense. Like the random men they don't feel much for they are happy to let be free, but they want to lock down a man who they _really _like. It seems they are giving the better deal to the men they feel nothing for. Why would they think a relationship is the prize? lol


Because to a woman, commitment and an LTR/marriage "is" the prize, but not so much to a man -- except perhaps for the exclusivity...which according to your comment is not so much on offer anymore.

I mean, you don't walk into an auto parts store and find rack after rack of 200-page-thick, four-color-glossy magazines called "Groom", do you?


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Librarylady said:


> Not every woman has casual sex or even likes it. Not every woman likes sex in a relationship either. They might just prefer casual encounters. Some women do both. And you know, men can have varied preferences too. I've known a few men who got attached after casual sex and wished it was something more. Many may not admit this to other men since they're afraid of judgment.
> 
> If you don't see any value in a relationship aside from sex, then only seek casual minded women. *I don't understand why this is so hard.*


That's what *she* said! :tongue:


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Flying Triangle said:


> Can't turn a ho into a housewife.
> 
> Don't even try.


https://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2012/03/promiscuity-data-guest-post.html

tl;dr == "No hymen, no diamond."


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Red Panda said:


> Of course.
> It's just that his perspective is common because it's something very popular as a belief, though probably outdated that is only recently beginning to change. Now that women are more sexually free, not having children is less of a stigma, marriage is becoming unnecessary as a requirement for relationships and divorce more commonplace. When all these were not true yet, it was common to be in an unfulfilling relationship and do nothing about it than endure it. Men would half-joke about how their women oppress them, in a way that seems an acceptable tradeoff for filling all social roles designated to them, while women are always portrayed as having a chain on their men so that he doesn't stray far. That kind of worldview isn't too old for my country, people 40+ may even still hold these beliefs, perhaps to a lessened degree, but not entirely free of them. And many younger people do too.


Demographics is destiny. A country undergoing population implosion will be invaded / supplanted over time.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

BlackDog said:


> I agree actually, women's clothing does not have nearly enough pockets. The greatest scourge in fashion are those bullshit fake pockets sewn onto women's trousers. Pockets are utilitarian. Why would you go to the trouble of sewing on fabric to give the appearance of utility but not offer any of the utility that normally comes with it? I just don't understand. More pockets, please.


...because the moment the pockets are _used_ in any utilitarian fashion, then the aesthetics and pleasing sleek lines of the outfit go to hell.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Kyn said:


> Because one day all their fwb are married, all their friends are married, 20 year old single women call them a dirty old bastard, their dick goes limp and they die alone.


...but only the men. Periomenopausal carousel-riding women become cougars and amplify their empowerment, eh?


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

BlackDog said:


> So what do you think men and women should do in relationships in order to keep things together?


For women: keep his stomach full, keep his balls empty, stay reasonably thin, don't nag.
For men: tease the fuck out of her, then fuck the tease out of her. Occasionally surprise her with large unforseen gifts (e.g. high end outfit, surprise vacation without telling her). Keep lifting weights, keep your confidence up -- don't rely mainly on the Alan Alda touchy-fweely stuff.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Chesire Tower said:


> <snip> even read a post - 'though not in *this* thread - by a male poster - demonizing women who were "*proud* of masturbation". </snip>:rolling:


I can top that, I saw a comment about a University class teaching women how to masturbate and have orgasms...the respondent pointed out that far from proving that men and women are inherently equal, it shows how far ahead men are, who become proficient in masturbation and orgasm long before leaving junior high, let alone needing University-level instruction.

BTW -- why is it that a man who masturbates or uses a sex toy is a creepy loser, but a women who uses a sex toy is "empowered" ...?
(and *not* just the batteries).


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

g_w said:


> I can top that, I saw a comment about a University class teaching women how to masturbate and have orgasms...the respondent pointed out that far from proving that men and women are inherently equal, it shows how far ahead men are, who become proficient in masturbation and orgasm long before leaving junior high, let alone needing University-level instruction.
> 
> BTW -- why is it that a man who masturbates or uses a sex toy is a creepy loser, but a women who uses a sex toy is "empowered" ...?
> (and *not* just the batteries).


Well, I think it's partially due to societal shaming of women for having normal healthy desires; as well as some dangerous outdated mantra, brainwashing women into believing that a man - the *right *man, no less; is totally responsible for her sexuality but never the other way around.

Well, I think what i just posted may account for some of it, because; our society does't make it easy for women to own their sexuality. As for the double standard, I guess it has everything to do with these cultural stereotypes and since women have not been traditionally regarded as sexual beings but men OTOH, have the equally unfair stereotype of pretty much being mindless sexual beasts; they get made fun of and women don't. It may also have to do with the biblical story of Onan spilling his seed. Since women have eggs not sperm; masturbation has zero effect on their egg supply. A woman cannot literally, "rub one out"; so to speak.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Cheveyo said:


> If it were only my own experiences I was drawing from, I'd accept this. Personally, I know for a fact that I'm attracted to crazy girls. It's one of the reasons I gave up on dating.
> 
> However, in this particular thread I'm drawing from the experiences of my friends and family. Both male and female.


If you have so much problem with women that you stopped trying, finding other experiences that confirm your worldview seems expected.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

yentipeee said:


> You are amazing and you Engrish is very good:tongue:


aww thank you! :blushed::kitteh:


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

Red Panda said:


> I agree with this... so many girls I've seen when growing up doing their best emotionally and otherwise to create a relationship and maintain it, and the guys were just immaturely using them. How many times do we hear that men don't want to talk about their feelings in a relationship and just dragging things and being emotionally exhausting to the women.


On the other side of things is that men do open up in some ways and women care for and support them them emotionally but some perhaps don't reciprocate the care provided. It's a subject in it's own right is the dynamics of emotional labour, though have the impression its more often applied to the job market than the 'private' sphere.
There historically have been many things that women do in the relationship that are largely unacknowledged as being to the benefit of the man or they're seen as such but because they're simply expected, they're sort of invisible because the same expectations weren't placed on men. For example, was a health concern for widowed men because women often acted as social networkers for them that maintained social relationships that they both participated in. Once she passed on, he was left without his wife but also the many contacts she maintained. Fortunately this was for oldies and hopefully has decreased the more recent one's generation. 

I think in it overall, there's a lot of logistics in caring for your partner at times that requires anticipation and awareness of them rather than simply existing in their proximity. I'm still trying to work through a sort of habitual egotism because I've not really have to be that well versed in considering others to the degree that I think the women in my lives have been expected to perform. 
I think as a general rule one should view any relationship as something that requires investment and maintenance. One can't expect for a relationship to hold up without putting in effort towards the other. At least that was something that I took to be true when considering what was necessary to remain friends with people important to me, that I would make more of an effort to see them more often than not on the belief that too much time apart or lack of interaction weakened our bond.


----------



## Flying Triangle (Feb 10, 2017)

g_w said:


> https://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2012/03/promiscuity-data-guest-post.html
> 
> tl;dr == "No hymen, no diamond."


Lol. I love it when common sense is proven with science.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

g_w said:


> ...but only the men. Periomenopausal carousel-riding women become cougars and amplify their empowerment, eh?


Only men get limp dicks, yes. Old women carry lube in their purses.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

g_w said:


> For women: keep his stomach full, keep his balls empty, stay reasonably thin, don't nag.
> For men: tease the fuck out of her, then fuck the tease out of her. Occasionally surprise her with large unforseen gifts (e.g. high end outfit, surprise vacation without telling her). Keep lifting weights, keep your confidence up -- don't rely mainly on the Alan Alda touchy-fweely stuff.


Keeping his stomach full is bs. Men will fill their own stomachs and still be happy with good sex. 

Your ideas for keeping women happy are terrible.


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

Red Panda said:


> If you have so much problem with women that you stopped trying, finding other experiences that confirm your worldview seems expected.



It isn't that I have a problem with women. It's that the ones I find attractive are mentally unstable.


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

Chesire Tower said:


> Very sorry I confused you with the "Let's make burkas and chastity belts great again" club.


I wasn't aware there was a club like this; it sounds rich in sexual energy. Give me their address.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Chesire Tower said:


> Well, I think it's partially due to societal shaming of women for having normal healthy desires; as well as some dangerous outdated mantra, brainwashing women into believing that a man - the *right *man, no less; is totally responsible for her sexuality but never the other way around.
> 
> Well, I think what i just posted may account for some of it, because; our society does't make it easy for women to own their sexuality. As for the double standard, I guess it has everything to do with these cultural stereotypes and since women have not been traditionally regarded as sexual beings but men OTOH, have the equally unfair stereotype of pretty much being mindless sexual beasts; they get made fun of and women don't. It may also have to do with the biblical story of Onan spilling his seed. Since women have eggs not sperm; masturbation has zero effect on their egg supply. A woman cannot literally, "rub one out"; so to speak.


I think you've been listening to the wrong intersectionality grievance studies instructor, or something. Onan was killed by God for refusing to comply with the Mosaic Law command, that if a married man died without children, his brother was supposed to marry the widow and impregnate her, in order that the deceased man's family line not die out. Onan used the "pullout method". In other words, his masturbation was NOT held up as exemplary as you imply.
Secondly, it is not shaming women for having normal healthy desires; but rather, for acting on those desires in an indiscriminate fashion. Part of the issue, I think, is that our society has extended adolescence until approximately age 30, it is declared verboten among "right-thinking people" that a woman get married until she has become firmly ensconced in her career, and a man, until he earns more than said ensconced woman: the extension of easy credit, and the rise of hedonism (look at the size of typical family houses now, compared to the 1940s - 1960s; only the rich had central air conditioning, now it is a 'necessity') has inflated the prices of "necessities" to the point that a single blue collar earner can no longer support a family...so people have 15 years or so past the onset of puberty before they can "think of marriage".


----------



## Sultanim (Feb 4, 2014)

g_w said:


> I think you've been listening to the wrong intersectionality grievance studies instructor, or something. Onan was killed by God for refusing to comply with the Mosaic Law command, that if a married man died without children, his brother was supposed to marry the widow and impregnate her, in order that the deceased man's family line not die out. Onan used the "pullout method". In other words, his masturbation was NOT held up as exemplary as you imply.
> Secondly, it is not shaming women for having normal healthy desires; but rather, for acting on those desires in an indiscriminate fashion. *Part of the issue, I think, is that our society has extended adolescence until approximately age 30, it is declared verboten among "right-thinking people" that a woman get married until she has become firmly ensconced in her career, and a man, until he earns more than said ensconced woman: the extension of easy credit, and the rise of hedonism (look at the size of typical family houses now, compared to the 1940s - 1960s; only the rich had central air conditioning, now it is a 'necessity') has inflated the prices of "necessities" to the point that a single blue collar earner can no longer support a family...so people have 15 years or so past the onset of puberty before they can "think of marriage".*


My best friend shared with me a picture describing a phenomenon called "DINKS" (double income, no kids) in which one of the tenets is spending all your money in luxuries at the expense of not having children. I think there IS a reason my mother gave birth at 22 and didn't wait until her 30's. She graduated along with me, but while I'm working she has decided to stay home (her boyfriend is a computing technician) and funnily enough, she wants him to marry (they're about 3.5 years together) but he doesn't want to; he is a teenage dad and his ex-girlfriend is as crazy as Eris the Goddess from Billy & Mandy.

When I see heterosexual couples, I see them repeating the same, old, tired dynamics. There CAN'T be new dynamics between men and women until they learn to leave their gender in bed, but this is a tough one for women.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Sultanim said:


> @*Sylarz* I think it has to do greatly with female's inability to separate sex from love. Female is indeed a separate world/universe. I'd argue there's nothing to understand but to put up with (and viceversa, in a sense).


Using my post to claim that women can't separate sex from love? You're in the same boat as the OP.


----------



## Toru Okada (May 10, 2011)

Cast said:


> I couldn't help noticing... her recount of her relationship isn't accurate because it's her perspective. Yet you can apply your perspective on sex to the majority of men and think it's accurate.


I explicitly told her she has an accurate female perspective. Men and women are aroused differently and have different sexual experiences. I want to hear his side because he is male.


----------



## Sultanim (Feb 4, 2014)

Peter said:


> Using my post to claim that women can't separate sex from love? You're in the same boat as the OP.


Ok let's break down a very close-minded "point" you made in the post I quoted from you:



> You've never been really in love or you grew up in a culture that is very traditional which often results in simplistic ideas like yours that the only reason you mary is to get to fuck someone and because you need someone to breed with and take care of children.


Marriages IS an institution to protect family. Of course, nowadays there are all kinds of families (dysfunctional families, adoptive families, etc) but still the socio-cultural and religious aspect of marriage still includes a family. Which drives me to your ignorant point: why are you implying, because of the statement aforementioned, that OP has never been in love or that believing that marriage and family are tied is a simplistic (as in outdated) idea?

Also, if most women can't separate sex from love (which is why OP questions why a women would do otherwise), what is wrong with that?


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Cheveyo said:


> It isn't that I have a problem with women. It's that the ones I find attractive are mentally unstable.


You post so much against women saying how they are all this way and other things, that I just can't believe you don't have a problem with women.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

g_w said:


> Demographics is destiny. A country undergoing population implosion will be invaded / supplanted over time.


that is kinda irrelevant


----------



## Flying Triangle (Feb 10, 2017)

Red Panda said:


> that is kinda irrelevant


Only because you don't have the capacity for honor.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Flying Triangle said:


> Only because you don't have the capacity for honor.


----------



## Cast (Dec 20, 2016)

Toru Okada said:


> I explicitly told her she has an accurate female perspective. Men and women are aroused differently and have different sexual experiences. I want to hear his side because he is male.


No. She said sex is still satisfying for both of them after almost nine years, and you said that you would have to hear her boyfriend's side to know that. So you can't trust her on _what she and her boyfriend think of the sex they're having together_ - because it clashes with your opinion of what most guys think of sex. I'd say she knows quite a lot about her relationship, so she has an accurate perspective (regardless of her gender). It's a bit harder to know quite a lot about _what half of humanity thinks of sex_.
I wouldn't say that monogamous sex


> It's like hunting an animal that's already been killed.


is an accurate male perspective. I'd just say that it's your personal perspective applied to every person with your same genitals.
So yeah, I find it funny.


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

Red Panda said:


> You post so much against women saying how they are all this way and other things, that I just can't believe you don't have a problem with women.




I post a lot against feminism. Not against women.
And I don't like the way society babies women. I wouldn't mind it so much if everyone wasn't constantly claiming they want equality. Equality doesn't mean one group gets special treatment. Either they're for equality and must come to terms with the idea that they hold one group to a different set of standards, thus aren't treating everyone equally... or people admit they don't actually want equality.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Sultanim said:


> Ok let's break down a very close-minded "point" you made in the post I quoted from you:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The ignorance you are trying to show doesn't exist. You just try to defend yourself by trying to focus on something else. You should become a politician.

So do yourself a favor and don't try to defend yourself in this way. It's sad. Even an average politician will be like: Waaay too obvious!"


----------



## Toru Okada (May 10, 2011)

Cast said:


> No. She said sex is still satisfying for both of them after almost nine years, and you said that you would have to hear her boyfriend's side to know that. So you can't trust her on _what she and her boyfriend think of the sex they're having together_ - because it clashes with your opinion of what most guys think of sex. I'd say she knows quite a lot about her relationship, so she has an accurate perspective (regardless of her gender). It's a bit harder to know quite a lot about _what half of humanity thinks of sex_.
> I wouldn't say that monogamous sex
> 
> is an accurate male perspective. I'd just say that it's your personal perspective applied to every person with your same genitals.
> So yeah, I find it funny.


Fair enough, he could be one of those guys that is happy eating the same dish every day. I'd still wager he'd still like a little variety deep down (impersonal regarding his actual feelings for RedPanda), but there are other benefits of monogamy that are often not worth losing because you want to fuck everything with a pulse. You can indeed generalize male sexuality as I do. Male sex drive is innately driven by sensational novelty because we must spread our genes broadly. Men are not wired to think of a sexual relationship as such a commitment because we aren't necessarily stuck with the consequences of mating like women are, in that case a 9 month incubation period and then giving birth to dependants. Two different sexual paradigms entirely.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Cheveyo said:


> I post a lot against feminism. Not against women.
> And I don't like the way society babies women. I wouldn't mind it so much if everyone wasn't constantly claiming they want equality. Equality doesn't mean one group gets special treatment. Either they're for equality and must come to terms with the idea that they hold one group to a different set of standards, thus aren't treating everyone equally... or people admit they don't actually want equality.


Your posts here weren't about feminism since that's not the topic. Unless you believe all women hold the same beliefs as those crazy 3rd wavers... 
Look, I don't care what you do and what you believe in, it's your life. Just that harboring all these negative feelings, to the point that you abstain from relationships doesn't seem like a good thing. Everyone needs companionship. If you know you attract horrible people then work on your issues that cause that and move on with your life.


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

Red Panda said:


> Your posts here weren't about feminism since that's not the topic. Unless you believe all women hold the same beliefs as those crazy 3rd wavers...
> Look, I don't care what you do and what you believe in, it's your life. Just that harboring all these negative feelings, to the point that you abstain from relationships doesn't seem like a good thing. Everyone needs companionship. If you know you attract horrible people then work on your issues that cause that and move on with your life.



If you support feminism, then I will assume you support what feminism does. I don't care if you're going to make those "not all feminists" excuses.

I have not met a woman that I thought would be worth investing in a relationship for. I'm not the only guy experiencing this. It seems like every day I see more men coming to this same realization. There's even teenagers these days seeing the same thing.

MGTOW: Teen boys now joining â€˜Men Going Their Own Wayâ€™ movement

It's funny how it always gets turned around to be men's fault, too.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Cheveyo said:


> If you support feminism, then I will assume you support what feminism does. I don't care if you're going to make those "not all feminists" excuses.
> 
> I have not met a woman that I thought would be worth investing in a relationship for. I'm not the only guy experiencing this. It seems like every day I see more men coming to this same realization. There's even teenagers these days seeing the same thing.
> 
> ...


I don't support feminism, at least not now that it turned into what it has. 

Yea, newsflash it's not always easy to find people who are worth your time and effort. I know all about MGTOW, I've watched videos and forum posts and such, they are true misogynists. "Marriage isn't good for men (don't marry, duh???!), women are crazy, only worth for pump and dump etc." I dislike feminists who scream misogyny, but these guys are the real deal. Most of them there are horribly bitter and don't want to reflect on their own behavior and the type of people they attract and how to change this. If you don't think marriage is beneficial to men, don't marry. Doesn't mean you have to abstain from relationships, that's just an excuse to point the finger to someone else and not improve yourself. Victim mentality just as much as feminism promotes.


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

Women are not a hive mind who all think and behave the same.... so the women who are promiscuous and the ones seeking exclusivity are not necessarily the same women. Also, people's desires and needs change in time, or their awareness of them can change. Some may buy into social messages which encourage them to experiment with casual sex, and then after doing so, they may find that is not what they want. 

What the OP describes & what I just described - many men do this too, and arguably, they set the pattern. This is probably because many _people_ ultimately desire intimacy and emotional connection and a life partner and perhaps a family of their own; but in the meantime, until they meet "the one", they don't want to be celibate. 

So why do people (men included) want exclusive relationships? I just noted some reasons above. Some other INTJ made a post about this recently, and so I am just going to copy and paste my response from it.... Apparently, young INTJs need a course on the value of intimacy in the human experience. 




> Well, if we are talking a romantic relationship with sex...
> 1. Minimize risks. Risks of disease. Risks of heartbreak. Risk of having children with other people and having a complicated family structure where resources and attentions and affections get stretched thin to care for children of different parental combinations. Etc.
> 2. Deepen intimacy. Exclusivity breeds intimacy. Exclusivity adds a feeling of specialness. That person was chosen above all others. They chose you above all others. You focus on each other and get to know each other more deeply instead of spreading your time and affections around on many shallow interactions. Intimacy is a pretty basic human need. It's like asking for reasons why someone needs food or water...
> 3. Strengthen loyalty and trust. You become a team with that person. Their concerns and interests become yours and yours theirs. If you are also involved with someone else, there can be a conflict of interests, and it's unlikely there will be much loyalty or trust. Again, this is about basic human emotional needs. It gives a sense of security and safety, etc.
> ...


----------



## Aarya (Mar 29, 2016)

This is why there is a difference between physical needs and emotional needs. A relationship typically satisfies emotional, more abstract needs as well, and also gives a sense of security and commitment (she's/he's your partner and only yours, you don't worry about STDS, lack of time when it comes to fulfilling your sexual needs because he/she's with someone else etc). You need to learn to recognize and make a difference between them, and to state your wishes, so as not to get involved into stuff you don't like and the partner doesn't either, and you both end up getting hurt. Well, sometimes you cannot know until you try. 

I'd have a strong emotional reaction if my partner started giving that kind of attention to another female. That's how it goes and no one really taught me that, it's just my internal reaction xD. I understand some people agree with open relationships and such (I find that a bit bullshit, and I call it growing bored of your partner/surroundings/situation), I also agree with freedom in a relationship, I know I need that and I'll respect it if the other needs as well (or if they don't like too much, however it is), but not when it comes to the act of sex in itself or to emotional confessions and these things ^^. If they happen with another person that has been a lover in the past or worse, came into their lives after the 2 of you came together, if on top of everything the other doesn't tell about them, i don't see how this could ever be a good thing.

Relationships also involve more respect, but they're also a more serious matter imo. 

I totally understand why someone would prefer having a casual thing with someone as opposed to a relationship, it's pretty normal actually. It's about the individual.. some want to find their other halves faster, some just to have more fun, some simply cannot have actual relationships due to the circumstances they are in. I just think it's important to state what you want and find someone on the same wavelength.

I've heard of enough girls preferring casual over long relationships. Thing is stuff can feel/become better in a relationship, when both get to know each other.


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

Red Panda said:


> I don't support feminism, at least not now that it turned into what it has.
> 
> Yea, newsflash it's not always easy to find people who are worth your time and effort. I know all about MGTOW, I've watched videos and forum posts and such, they are true misogynists. "Marriage isn't good for men (don't marry, duh???!), women are crazy, only worth for pump and dump etc." I dislike feminists who scream misogyny, but these guys are the real deal. Most of them there are horribly bitter and don't want to reflect on their own behavior and the type of people they attract and how to change this. If you don't think marriage is beneficial to men, don't marry. Doesn't mean you have to abstain from relationships, that's just an excuse to point the finger to someone else and not improve yourself. Victim mentality just as much as feminism promotes.




If there was a chance you could spend the rest of your life in prison simply on the word of another person, would you want to do anything with that person ever?


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

Not a girl a woman 

But I think a relationship with me is only good in the sense of if it's a mutually felt thing based on affection. If either of us are just casually into each other why would I want to instigate more.

Generally any of my serious relationships have started from casual circumstances more so and evolved. Mostly. Anyways nothing was ever forced or implied. Affection just grew and desire to be with the person more and more. 

I cannot stand staged premises where it's very intent forced within the first few months anyways. It's just dating. If it goes further it is because it evolved casually on its own. 

Why would I tie myself down immediately with anyone when I can also get the milk for free. 

I tend to not casually see anyone when I identify I am not that into them or they me or mutual.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

g_w said:


> I think you've been listening to the wrong intersectionality grievance studies instructor, or something. Onan was killed by God for refusing to comply with the Mosaic Law command, that if a married man died without children, his brother was supposed to marry the widow and impregnate her, in order that the deceased man's family line not die out. Onan used the "pullout method". In other words, his masturbation was NOT held up as exemplary as you imply.
> Secondly, it is not shaming women for having normal healthy desires; but rather, for acting on those desires in an indiscriminate fashion. Part of the issue, I think, is that our society has extended adolescence until approximately age 30, it is declared verboten among "right-thinking people" that a woman get married until she has become firmly ensconced in her career, and a man, until he earns more than said ensconced woman: the extension of easy credit, and the rise of hedonism (look at the size of typical family houses now, compared to the 1940s - 1960s; only the rich had central air conditioning, now it is a 'necessity') has inflated the prices of "necessities" to the point that a single blue collar earner can no longer support a family...so people have 15 years or so past the onset of puberty before they can "think of marriage".


I never claimed to be a biblical scholar. Anyway, I do agree with the part involving the econonomy.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

Chesire Tower said:


> I never claimed to be a biblical scholar. Anyway, I do agree with the part involving the econonomy.


Think should note though, that many social changes aren't reducible to Conspicuous consumption.





And the shift of capitalism to overlapping with meeting human needs towards having to create new needs are a result of monopoly capitalism where companies are too big to rely on people's desires but need to manufacture their desire to purchase things that they don't really need.
I'd also like to refer to some interesting texts for onlookers.
Edward Bernay's Propaganda is a great text to emphasize that this is the case and how want of certain products is created, which is a hell of a lot more elaborate than advertisements on billboards, in papers, on the radio or tv.
A great account of monopoly capitalism was theorized by economist Paul Sweezy, explains the economic side of things a bit more than Bernay.
Just feel like putting it out there for those who might have the leisure to peruse such works to see how one might make sense of some changes that have created the new trends of a sort of delayed adulthood. 
The link timed out but an excerpt of it an paper examining the nuclear family touches comes to a point that the nuclear family in a sense didn't radically depart, but rather things normative to such a familial ideal had shifted around due to changes in society (see bolded)

* *






> *Conclusion*
> _The brief historical review in the previous chapter situated the changes in the Australian family within the broader transformations in the social order. In line with the historiography of the Australian family which underlay that synthesis, the profound changes in the Australian family were highlighted. However, not only changes need to be accounted for. Continuities are no less important. In fact, much of the history of the family is a story of remarkable continuity and immutability of the family structure in the face of profound historical transformations._
> 
> _As a preliminary step towards assessing both transformations and continuities in kinship practices, the nuclear family was re-conceptualized as a life trajectory. As it turns out, the nuclear family remains very much the dominant practice. The main changes seem to be in the distribution of agents in the different stages of this life trajectory (e.g. an increase in single-person households as a result of the increase in life expectancy). Nevertheless, there have been changes in the way people relate to the family (expressed, among others, by increased __divorce__ rates and average age at marriage) but the extent of the change is often overstated. Some of the magnitude of change is artificial (e.g. many marital breakdowns which now end in __divorce__ would before 1975 have ended in mere separation); so too the influence these changes have on experience is often exaggerated (most children of divorced parents, for instance, do live out most of their childhood in nuclear families); and much of the change seems to reflect a retreat to normalcy from post-WWII idiosyncrasies, rather than a novel trend. Alternatives to the nuclear-family household trajectory remain remarkably rare._
> ...








g_w said:


> BTW -- why is it that a man who masturbates or uses a sex toy is a creepy loser, but a women who uses a sex toy is "empowered" ...?
> (and *not* just the batteries).


As you've asked this question before in another context, I'd like to post a link to my musing on the subject for peoples' consideration.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Cheveyo said:


> If there was a chance you could spend the rest of your life in prison simply on the word of another person, would you want to do anything with that person ever?


These things don't just happen in relationships. This is just MGTOW fearmongering. Would you not go outside ever, because a car might hit you? It's ridiculous. If you are afraid of these things happening so much that you abstain then perhaps you need help. 
Such things are easily ameliorated by working on yourself, so you learn not to choose crazy people and also how to behave in a relationship in such a way that won't have room for such things happening (i.e. not pushing), though most of the times it's not that easy for such shit to happen, like if you know the person enough and you have built a foundation of friendship.


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

Red Panda said:


> These things don't just happen in relationships. This is just MGTOW fearmongering. Would you not go outside ever, because a car might hit you? It's ridiculous. If you are afraid of these things happening so much that you abstain then perhaps you need help.
> Such things are easily ameliorated by working on yourself, so you learn not to choose crazy people and also how to behave in a relationship in such a way that won't have room for such things happening (i.e. not pushing), though most of the times it's not that easy for such shit to happen, like if you know the person enough and you have built a foundation of friendship.




These aren't just fearmongering tactics. These things happen. If it hasn't happened to them, every guy at least knows someone who has either been destroyed in a divorce, or has been falsely accused of something. Often it's both at the same time.

The only way to protect yourself against divorce rape is to not get married. No pre-nup can save you. And with the growing number of false rape allegations these days, it's dangerous to even bang women. There are women who will falsely accuse a man of something just to destroy their social life or career.

This is why the more intelligent male teachers these days always make sure to protect themselves in some way, from their female students. They either record every meeting they have with their students, or they make sure never to be alone in a room with a student.


And the number of men waking up to these things, is growing. You're not going to stem the tide by refusing to accept that these things happen. You're just going to find yourself wonder, 10-20 years from now, why nobody you know is married and why so many women are single.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Cheveyo said:


> These aren't just fearmongering tactics. These things happen. If it hasn't happened to them, every guy at least knows someone who has either been destroyed in a divorce, or has been falsely accused of something. Often it's both at the same time.
> 
> The only way to protect yourself against divorce rape is to not get married. No pre-nup can save you. And with the growing number of false rape allegations these days, it's dangerous to even bang women. There are women who will falsely accuse a man of something just to destroy their social life or career.
> 
> ...


They won't be single. They'll form lesbian relationships, or have sex with the millions of non-pussified Third Worlders so thoughtfully imported by the millions by our superiors in politics.
Some of the sex might even be consensual, and some of the women (and children) will survive the encounter. Physically, that is, not emotionally.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Cheveyo said:


> These aren't just fearmongering tactics. These things happen. If it hasn't happened to them, every guy at least knows someone who has either been destroyed in a divorce, or has been falsely accused of something. Often it's both at the same time.
> 
> The only way to protect yourself against divorce rape is to not get married. No pre-nup can save you. And with the growing number of false rape allegations these days, it's dangerous to even bang women. There are women who will falsely accuse a man of something just to destroy their social life or career.
> 
> ...


Of course these things happen, but not to the degree that they will have you believe. They are anecdotes compared to the millions of people who are in relationships just fine and even get married and have families. This is why it's fearmongering. Same thing with not going out because a car may hit you. 

The way to protect yourself against "divorce rape" is to build a relationship with a person you trust and even not get married at all. I know people in their 60s who are not married and have families. If you don't want to make a contract then find a person who's okay with that and have a relationship with them. Like honestly these people who say these things it's like they were never in a quality relationship, which is ON THEM too, not just the woman's fault. 

Seriously? Teachers record meetings because they are afraid they will get falsely accused? What kind of world do you live in? Or at least, give citations for these things, otherwise you are really baited into believing nonsense and being afraid of your shadow or something.

I already know people who are married and I'm in my mid-late 20s. I also know people who are happily in relationships without being married and they also have kids and I'm also in a ~9 year relationship. YOU are responsible for your relationship. You gain nothing of quality by seeing yourself as the victim of society + women's "cruelty". 
Inexperience + mgtow fearmongering is a new special kind of social cancer.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Sylarz said:


> I'm confused why a woman would have casual sex with men until they find one they really like and then want a relationship with that one. It seems like they are punishing the guy they really like, if that makes sense. Like the random men they don't feel much for they are happy to let be free, but they want to lock down a man who they _really _like. It seems they are giving the better deal to the men they feel nothing for. Why would they think a relationship is the prize? lol


Well, first of all not all women play those games. Plenty are open to just see what happens with a guy they like. I, for one, can't think of anything worse than a relationship with someone who doesn't really want one with me, no matter how into them I am, so I wouldn't see that as a prize by any means. I need to feel a certain level of reciprocation somewhat upfront for a relationship to even be a consideration. 

If you really like someone and you're starting to fall for them though, our brain is kinda programmed to wanna keep them around. You can override that, but some people would rather give into and go with it.

I haven't read through this thread, so maybe some of this has been said... but it seems you're complaining that you get lumped into the long term category by women when you want to be a short term category guy?

Maybe just be more upfront and honest about what you want and are looking for (if not in words, in presentation and actions)? Keep in mind if that's sex without a foundation, that you're gonna have to make that somehow attractive and enticing though. Seductive and "right now" and fun. Otherwise, as a chick, why bother? You could read the less skeevy PUA stuff (or go all out with it, whatever you want, lol). Do the shirtless dating profile pictures move. If you don't have the body for that, I'd get it. Or get really damn charming and flirtatious and stimulating or something instead, lol.

It's not worth tying strings or growing emotional attachment to something you have no commitment to, and a smart chick is probably going to be throwing up walls in terms of really getting to know you as a person. So you should have an attractive persona, and more surface level things to contribute to make it worth her while coming back to you. At least if you want to have sex regularly. Hook-up culture tends to be more sporadic. It's about the fun and the novelty, so no need to invest in someone particular unless they offer what others can't - which can be difficult to assess if someone isn't getting to know you on a deeper level. So a hot body and having cool things to do and being fun and stuff helps. Lol. Of course, these women might fall in love with "you" too. If you're a cut above the rest on some level. Tell them to blame the game and not the player and stay strong. (xD).

Tbh, I kinda feel you. I feel like dudes have placed me into the long term category before when I've wanted to be short term (at least, for the time being). They'd come back around later and it just felt so presumptuous to me. Sorta really pissed me off, honestly, and I instantly wrote them off permanently. Very incompatible with my views that a relationship only happens when you've fallen and fuq, I can't stop thinking about this person!! ...and then it's almost like a reluctant submission. Obviously I didn't succeed in instilling that kind of desire, so whatever they think they're interested in isn't about being in love with me. At least that's how I see it. 

But yea, coming on hard seductively means the person might fall or get obsessive and crazy (which has happened to me before), and that is absolutely not something I feel like dealing with if I want a "casual" romantic existence. lol. Then you're essentially getting the relationship stuff (and the break-up) anyway, but without the perks (trust, intimacy, stability, etc). So I've been straddling some kind of limbo and having mostly mediocre hook-ups somewhat rarely. Good luck. Haha.


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

Insurance purposes.


----------



## ShatteredHeart (Jul 11, 2014)

Stawker said:


> Sandwiches?
> 
> 
> I'm a simple man...


That's sexist...:tongue:


----------



## Sultanim (Feb 4, 2014)

Peter said:


> The ignorance you are trying to show doesn't exist. You just try to defend yourself by trying to focus on something else. You should become a politician.
> 
> So do yourself a favor and don't try to defend yourself in this way. It's sad. Even an average politician will be like: Waaay too obvious!"


It doesn't exist or is it your belief that it doesn't exist? Let's get real here.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Sylarz said:


> You get almost all the ancillary benefits with casual. You get to hang out, chill, watch netflix, chat, laugh, mess around, kiss, talk about the universe after sex, cuddle, bacon and eggs in the morning. There's almost no difference, except you are not under any obligations or responsibilities.


Lol, are you kidding? All the "perks"? I'm not going to speak for all women, but I do think there are differences in what men and women are attracted to maybe overall. This to me sounds absolutely awful without a relationship in place. You get to: be lazy with someone you don't have a more intimate affection (I liked that word in a previous post) for - so them in casual (sweatpants?) mode is likely just a sexual turn off... and if the whole _point_ is sex, then? Plus, it feels awkward and unnatural to let down your hair like that with someone you don't trust and aren't attempting to build trust with.

Watch Netflix - so are you sharing a show? If there's no commitment to each other - do you catch up on the show when they're not around, or do you have an agreement to wait to watch together? That's a string apart from sex. Being single is fun because you can do whatever you want - like watch Netflix by yourself whenever you feel like it. Lol.

Chat, laugh, mess around - so are you sharing more personal stories? Because I don't wanna have to worry about how someone's nana is doing or something when I'm out having fun with someone else (good sex, imo, is about undivided attention). I also find it depressing to abruptly shut off those communications, especially when they've reached a certain level of intimacy. It kinda cheapens those (friendly, caring) bonds just generally, in life.

Bacon and eggs in the morning - so I'm spending the night rather than in my own bed? And if there's no relationship - I likely don't have any of my own stuff there (maybe not even a toothbrush?), my own food there, it's totally messing up my routine and creating a weird vibe for me (I'm at some strange person's place? Did I sleep well?) to start my day? What if I hate his bacon and eggs? Do I have to eat them anyway? If I don't will he find me rude and not call me back for sex? But bacon and eggs have nothing to do with sex. If he's at my place does he expect me to make bacon and eggs? I don't even eat breakfast ...so I try to avoid this all, honestly, because it can create weird, uncomfortable feelings towards the person that then ruin and replace the positive associations you make with them, and, again - turn off.



Sylarz said:


> You get to go home and you're still a free man. And so I ask why would a woman then want a relationship and think that is the better deal for you as a man?


I don't try to tell dudes what the better deal is for them. I care what the better deal is for me. Unless a man wines and dines and/or seduces the hell out of you, I really don't see the point in casual. Exciting fling, maybe - but is that really "casual"? 

I was open to it for a while, but I gotta say - being open to being disappointed by or flaked on by a guy you only sort of like in the first place and having no liberty to even get annoyed at them (which _is _allowed in even basic, normal friendships - where a certain level of obligation and responsibility does reside) without somehow breaking the rules of an agreement is like the most soul insulting thing. It's Definitely not an aphrodisiac. And, again, if the whole point is sex?



Sylarz said:


> And why would a man get into a relationship if he could be free to do basically all the fun parts of a relationship, with as many women as he wants, with no strings?


Not all women who will sleep with you will do "fun" relationship-y things with you too. If you can find ones who do though, then don't have a relationship. No one's forcing you. 



Chesire Tower said:


> It's the exact same purpose for *all* threads of this kind: to go back to the dark ages and delude themselves into falsely believing, that women aren't actually sexual beings.


My initial impression was that he's been scorned as a "nice guy" and so he's trying to get his power back by telling us - we ain't want you for nothing but sex anywayz hoes... sorry, guess it's because we can compartmentalize and you can't. Haha. Sucks for you. We win.

Could be wrong. lol.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Sylarz said:


> My question is a confusion, not a frustration. And a question outloud as well, what the point of a relationship is. It seems to me that the logic is that you want to not be _too good_, or she'll try to lock you down. And that is very confusing. The better deal seems to go to the man she doesn't connect with on a personal level.


If someone falls for you, the arrangement is no longer "casual" - if you know it isn't going anywhere, and your feelings are only going to build while your bond doesn't, you're essentially just knowingly putting off the pain of a break-up (which it will feel like, regardless of what it was labeled as) and allowing for it to be worse when it (inevitably) happens. Which can feel like suffering - rather than simply pain - and putting your life on hold. You could argue that since relationships always eventually end somehow (death?) that we're all doing this - but we stress more about the constant and immediate threat of something. 

Plus, there's no point in putting a focus on a "relationship" of any kind (including casual) if it's not going to work in tandem with the rest of your life (imo). If the brain starts working against you and doing it for you (thinking about the person all the time) - you might try to get it back on track by creating distance from the person.

So yea... I think the key is to create something exciting and distracting and surface enough for "now" and maintaining certain boundaries to keep your brain from sabotaging it all - either by going deeper or getting turned off to what it's supposed to be at it's core (sexual attraction <which is much more delicate in a shallow relationship). It's a really tricky balance.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Its when women lie that annoys me. Some women say they want short term/casual or FWB, then next minute they want Long Term.

Why the lies and deceit. Why not just say Long Term from the get go.


----------



## Sylarz (Sep 4, 2014)

Veggie said:


> My initial impression was that he's been scorned as a "nice guy" and so he's trying to get his power back by telling us - we ain't want you for nothing but sex anywayz hoes... sorry, guess it's because we can compartmentalize and you can't. Haha. Sucks for you. We win.
> 
> Could be wrong. lol.


My intentions were not slyly malicious. It's a question I had on my mind for a while and I figured why not see what others think about it.

I have no ill will towards women at all. But that doesn't mean I want a relationship with one. The question in my mind has only ever been on the merits of relationships. I guess I assumed that most men found relationships to be the worse deal and that women knew that. I suppose that was a mistaken assumption.

It is a surprise the reactions it has gotten. I may have worded or not given enough context to my question but it's still amazing how touchy people have been about it, and then maligning my character and reading into it.

I've actually found that being nice is fine if you look good enough. I have gotten good reactions and appreciation while being friendly and nice. It mainly comes down to your appearance I have found.


----------



## Stawker (Nov 30, 2016)

ShatteredHeart said:


> That's sexist...:tongue:


Sexiest*

Imagine walking on your totally naked wife who's wearing only an apron and is making sandwiches for you.

Ok, I don't limit this to my wife. I can also be found, on some days, wearing nothing but an apron and welcoming my wife on the door, after a long day at work, with a plate of sandwiches in my hand.

''Babe, what's in the sandwiches?''
''My love and a little bit of cyanide''


----------



## baitedcrow (Dec 22, 2015)

Veggie said:


> I was open to it for a while, but I gotta say - being open to being disappointed by or flaked on by a guy you only sort of like in the first place and having no liberty to even get annoyed at them (which _is _allowed in even basic, normal friendships - where a certain level of obligation and responsibility does reside) without somehow breaking the rules of an agreement is like the most soul insulting thing. It's Definitely not an aphrodisiac.


You know, I actually think the idea that casual sexual interactions _negate_ one's liberty to get annoyed when the other person involved is not meeting a respectable minimum standard of behavioral courtesy is both part of why many women end up getting turned off to casual relationships, and why many men gripe about not being able to maintain them for long. It's really an impractical and misguided ideal and I don't put any stock in it even when it comes to casual sex. I hold people I have sex with casually to about the same standard that I hold friends or friendly acquaintances, which means that if I think I'm being treated without enough regard I will get annoyed, give them the boot, and if I think they may learn something from it will even make it harder for them than it needs to be (in the sense that I will point out why what I think they did was lame, which they usually find socially uncomfortable). 

It's just realism: people have emotional needs, even outside of committed relationships. They are there, they need dealt with. We live in a world where people get upset with total strangers for behaving less than politely toward them; there is nothing untoward about getting upset about someone you've been bumping uglies with doing the same. Putting too many of your needs on others who haven't volunteered to field them is a breach of contract, but fucking someone without sexual commitment doesn't magically exempt that relationship from the more general social contract that requires you to not behave dismissively or disrespectfully to people in general, especially people you interact with with some regularity and may continue to see in the future.

The dichotomy people imagine, wanting a relationship _or_ being totally chill about a person flaking on you, etc. (no exceptions), is a false one.


----------



## deviants (Dec 16, 2016)

Rock Of Ages said:


> As I read it, OP is saying that he used to think women would exchange only sex in return for some kind of exclusive commitment. Now he realises that this isn't the case. Fair enough, I used to be under the illusion that women were innocent, fragile, sweet angels as well. But hey, the real world is a nasty place.
> 
> Still, it's a shame to see him scorning the women who, despite being surrounded by the sin of gluttony, refuse to give up on true love and have thus maintained at least some of their dignity.
> 
> Good luck finding a reliable, balanced woman among the feminist crowd. Those girls all have at least one STD already, and I bet a few would whore themselves out to half of Little Mogadishu given the chance.


You never fail to make misogynist comments on literally every thread pertaining to sex or women.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Wellsy said:


> Think should note though, that many social changes aren't reducible to Conspicuous consumption.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I was half asleep when I responded to his post - like most right-wing posts; I mostly just skim through them; especially when they are pedantic.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

deviants said:


> You never fail to make misogynist comments on literally every thread pertaining to sex or women.


I'm certain, he will sincerely appreciate your flattery. XD


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

BlackDog said:


> I'm sorry, that is such bullshit. In what universe is it asking too much of somebody to turn off Call of Duty for an hour so that we can have dinner? Or to show up to your grandparents fortieth anniversary dinner when he expects you to go to his bi-monthly family events? Or to prepare a meal _once _in four years. People need to grow up. It is not normal or healthy to be stuck in a perpetual adolescence where you take care of nobody but yourself. When you're twenty or something, fine, whatever. But when you're a thirty year old man you need to get your shit together. Especially when you're telling the woman you want to have kids. And if the problem is depression then you need to talk about it and deal with it, not allow everybody else to take care of you forever.
> 
> Relationships aren't things that just happen, they require effort. Such a small part of that effort is buying each other gifts or shit like that. Most of it is just small day to day things that you could easily take for granted, and that people do. Eating a meal together, going for a hike, putting some effort into your sex life, putting away anti-social entertainment for an hour a night - be that books, video games, whatever - and just generally being aware and attentive to one another's emotional and physical needs. It's not rocket science, and this stuff is almost always going on beneath the surface in successful relationships, but it can't be one sided either.
> 
> All I'm saying is, in my experience it's the women who perform this kind of relationship maintenance more often than not. I think a lot of men don't realize what the women are even doing until they're gone. Then they want it back and promise to contribute more, but it's usually years too late by this point. The woman has nothing more to give.


Why stay so long with someone like that?

Was he like this when you got with him before? Do you even pay attention to how a person acts and behaves and their lifestyle? Or do you just go by emotions and think because you feel an emotion they will change overnight for you.

For all the shit guys get about aviding single mums, avoiding this, avoiding that. Its to avoid things like this happening.

I'm glad you are no longer with him. But have you learned anything from this or would you jump into another relationship with an avid gamer. Personally I avoid gamer types, playing games isn't something I do anymore (I stopped about 5 years ago), and I wouldn't want to be in your situation. SO gamers are on my "avoid" list. Hence I take responsibility for my future and don't get into that sort of situation.

Again, I do hope you find (or have found) someone more appreciative.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Reality Check said:


> Why stay so long with someone like that?
> 
> Was he like this when you got with him before? Do you even pay attention to how a person acts and behaves and their lifestyle? Or do you just go by emotions and think because you feel an emotion they will change overnight for you.
> 
> ...


Where are these guy's who avoid single mums in the UK? I've never known of it.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Reality Check said:


> Why stay so long with someone like that?
> 
> Was he like this when you got with him before? Do you even pay attention to how a person acts and behaves and their lifestyle? Or do you just go by emotions and think because you feel an emotion they will change overnight for you.
> 
> ...


No, I don't think or pay attention. I allow myself to be carried along by the capricious winds of my emotional states like the proverbial candy wrapper caught in an updraft. 

The relationship ended a long time ago, obviously I've reflected on it. I also don't know why people always bring up single mothers in these discussions. People can date who they please, I can't imagine why I should care. There is no shortage of men in the world.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Red Panda said:


> I don't support feminism, at least not now that it turned into what it has.
> 
> Yea, newsflash it's not always easy to find people who are worth your time and effort. I know all about MGTOW, I've watched videos and forum posts and such, they are true misogynists. "Marriage isn't good for men (don't marry, duh???!), women are crazy, only worth for pump and dump etc." I dislike feminists who scream misogyny, but these guys are the real deal. Most of them there are horribly bitter and don't want to reflect on their own behavior and the type of people they attract and how to change this. If you don't think marriage is beneficial to men, don't marry. Doesn't mean you have to abstain from relationships, that's just an excuse to point the finger to someone else and not improve yourself. Victim mentality just as much as feminism promotes.


Yes how dare a man have money and a life and not have women involved.

I don't get your view point... seriously. These men are bitter and negative. Ive seen MGTOW and MRA's videos and read some of there stuff and I disagree with it. But the fact that they are not getting in relationships. Isnt that a good thing? Why do you want some woman to experience this negativity.

And if a man dosnt want a relationship, then he isn't obligated to have one.
My issue with feminists is that they say men oppress them, men are sexist pigs, I'm OK with that. But then they start whining when men choose to not get involved with them. If a woman claims that men are nothing but misogynistic ass holes, then why is it a bad thing that men don't get involved with them. It seems they want one thing, but the minute they get it (or don't in this case) they flip their whining on to smething else. The only constant is the whining. Shouldn't they be celebrating that they are single and so not being oppressed by the evil men?


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Kyn said:


> Where are these guy's who avoid single mums in the UK? I've never known of it.


Well there is me and I can name quite a lot of other guys.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

BlackDog said:


> No, I don't think or pay attention. I allow myself to be carried along by the capricious winds of my emotional states like the proverbial candy wrapper caught in an updraft.
> 
> The relationship ended a long time ago, obviously I've reflected on it. I also don't know why people always bring up single mothers in these discussions. People can date who they please, I can't imagine why I should care. There is no shortage of men in the world.


I was just giving an example.

Good to see someone self reflecting, instead of making the same choice over and over again.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Reality Check said:


> Yes how dare a man have money and a life and not have women involved.
> 
> I don't get your view point... seriously. These men are bitter and negative. Ive seen MGTOW and MRA's videos and read some of there stuff and I disagree with it. But the fact that they are not getting in relationships. Isnt that a good thing? Why do you want some woman to experience this negativity.
> 
> ...


I said they should work on their issues and not blame all of women and the rest of society for their faulty way of viewing relationships and romantic interactions. Instead they choose to "pump and dump", which may be hurtful to the women, depending on how they get to do that (honesty vs manipulation). 
They DO spread their negativity, mainly to other young men who are inexperienced and are brainwashed into this thinking, possibly stripping them of their chance to improve and have fulfilling relationships, something which quite likely most want or will want at some point in their lives.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Red Panda said:


> I said they should work on their issues and not blame all of women and the rest of society for their faulty way of viewing relationships and romantic interactions. Instead they choose to "pump and dump", which may be hurtful to the women, depending on how they get to do that (honesty vs manipulation).
> They DO spread their negativity, mainly to other young men who are inexperienced and are brainwashed into this thinking, possibly stripping them of their chance to improve and have fulfilling relationships, something which quite likely most want or will want at some point in their lives.


So do you think women should be allowed to choose to remain single? Or is it only men that should be forced into relationships?

I not actually against relationships myself, but I think people should be free choose if they get into them or not (men and women).


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Reality Check said:


> So do you think women should be allowed to choose to remain single? Or is it only men that should be forced into relationships?
> 
> I not actually against relationships myself, but I think people should be free choose if they get into them or not (men and women).


No one should be forced in relationships, don't strawman me.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Red Panda said:


> No one should be forced in relationships, don't strawman me.


Just going by your strong reaction to the concept of men not wanting to be in relationships.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Reality Check said:


> Just going by your strong reaction to the concept of men not wanting to be in relationships.


If you paid attention you'd see that wasn't the main focus.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Red Panda said:


> If you paid attention you'd see that wasn't the main focus.





> Doesn't mean you have to abstain from relationships, that's just an excuse to point the finger to someone else and not improve yourself


They have no motivation to improve.

I ws there once, I was only attracting women I didn't particularly like. And yeah I could of just abstained. But deep down, I did want a relationship, hence I realised I had to improve myself.

Now if deep down I didn't want a relationship. I probably would of carried on how I was and written off women completely. And then put my resources (time and effort) into something else like finance.

A lot of the MGTOW guys I have come across are highly successful business men. Whats funny is when they wernt so successful, women ignored them. But once they had some dollar, they were suddenly obliged to be dating women, funny how money changes everything.

But if relationships are not their motivation, well then they are not gonna be bothered by that.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Reality Check said:


> They have no motivation to improve.
> 
> *I ws there once, I was only attracting women I didn't particularly like. And yeah I could of just abstained. But deep down, I did want a relationship, hence I realised I had to improve myself.*
> 
> ...


So you are basically agreeing with me.

As for the MGTOW guys who have no motivation to improve, brainwashing themselves that all women are this way and society that way is only going to make them believe it is not their fault will bring them misery when they feel the need for a relationship and not realize it soon enough. And they spread their hateful ideology to young teenagers who've had next to no experience with women yet. A recipe for disaster for society.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Red Panda said:


> So you are basically agreeing with me.
> 
> As for the MGTOW guys who have no motivation to improve, brainwashing themselves that all women are this way and society that way is only going to make them believe it is not their fault will bring them misery when they feel the need for a relationship and not realize it soon enough. And they spread their hateful ideology to young teenagers who've had next to no experience with women yet. A recipe for disaster for society.


Its no different to feminism claiming all men are rapists and monsters and should be killed (which I find a lot more dangerous to "humping and dumping", but again I guess men dying means nothing to women, as long as it isn't a woman who dies). But all that said, people are free to make their own choices in life, its just up to us, whether we put up with this stuff in our personal bubbles.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Red Panda said:


> So you are basically agreeing with me.
> 
> As for the MGTOW guys who have no motivation to improve, brainwashing themselves that all women are this way and society that way is only going to make them believe it is not their fault will bring them misery when they feel the need for a relationship and not realize it soon enough. And they spread their hateful ideology to young teenagers who've had next to no experience with women yet. A recipe for disaster for society.


Its no different to feminism claiming all men are rapists and monsters and should be killed (which I find a lot more dangerous to "humping and dumping", but again I guess men dying means nothing to women, as long as it isn't a woman who dies). But all that said, people are free to make their own choices in life, its just up to us, whether we put up with this stuff in our personal bubbles.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Reality Check said:


> Its no different to feminism claiming all men are rapists and monsters and should be killed (which I find a lot more dangerous to "humping and dumping", but again I guess men dying means nothing to women, as long as it isn't a woman who dies). But all that said, people are free to make their own choices in life, its just up to us, whether we put up with this stuff in our personal bubbles.


It's like you didn't even read my first post you quoted.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Red Panda said:


> It's like you didn't even read my first post you quoted.


Yes you made it clear that you think humping and dumping is the real deal. As opposed to say wanting the male population reduced to 10% or national castration day. The very fact you think a man enjoying a bit of sex is worst then all men being castrated says it all. Welcome to the world of being blocked.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

We are different. The following is not an specific 100% answer to the thread, but it's an specific answer to a big part of it

* We man usually:*


I'm after her
We are onto something
We have something
Yes we are having sex (usually: yes I'm fucking her / having sex with her, etc)
She's my girl
And the common "we are not together we are just friends, we fuck sometimes, etc"

But... are you both on a relationship? eh, what? mmmm wtf? So, that's a fucking boring question, WHY THE FUCK do you need me to define every single month or year if we are here, there or over there??? that's like being an astronaut and asking "are were there yet?" or in sports: "did we won? are we the champions?" fuck it. 










*Women usually: *I need to tell my friends and family we are on a relationship, and I'm not some [insert made-up term born from fear of being judged by your own unhealthy friends that put value on you depending on what kind of relationship stage you say you are on]

*On another angle: *when men usually enter a relationship their life changes, we will go out more and spend more time with the woman, women?? when they enter a relationship they feel the need to tell the world, to post pictures of both together, to post texts and change "status" as "in relationship" and might pressure their man to do the same, to tell the world, in fact usually, when entering a relationship the man will be required to go everywhere to most of the woman-friends get to know him, as a proof of "hey I got my own man". That's so common in my region and sounds to me as a weak person depending so much on what others think of her.




marybluesky said:


> I think the picture women develop of themselves while growing up plays an important role here. Women still consider being married and having children as being successful for their own sake, not for what they offer.


That's so true in many ways in my region.



BearRun said:


> I'm not a prize to be earned to start with. For a relationship or for sex.


In relationships, many people consider others a prize, an object or a possession. Very few times all of them at the same time. Please don't think Im saying this because of you, it's just your words that reminded me something that happens a lot in my country: my memory and my personal experiences tell me we men are more drawn to say

"Fuck it I'm not a fucking possession or slave", and women more drawn to say "I'm not a prize". The funny thing is I think it's quite egocentric to auto nominate as a prize, that's ego talking. Take in count those words/sayings change over time, having women in the long term complaining more than men about being a slave or servant.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Veggie said:


> I won't date single dads, and I think this must be at least partly common too, because I recently got a kinda frustrated (but friendly-polite) message from a dude on a dating site that was along the lines of - what can I do to improve my profile? Why didn't you respond? He was, honestly, really good looking, successful (at least, it appeared so)... but he had kids. So I told him I wasn't looking to get involved with that, and he replied with - and this could be my imagination - a sort of resigned thank you like he'd gotten that before.
> 
> You already have to change your lifestyle enough for one other person in a relationship. And then, this is someone who you're assumedly compatible with. When there's an ex present (who you don't get to pick), you're also resigning yourself to however they and your new guy (or girl) have decided to raise their child together as an aspect of "your" (no) lifestyle together. That's too much compromise for me. I'm only finally growing up to that a partner, alone, isn't some sort of inhibiting authority figure to resent on a level as infringing on personal freedom. (Instant motherhood doesn't really appeal to me either. I've also had to "break-up" with children I nannied for (it might not work out) - and that's hard to do).
> 
> So anyway. I guess I just wanted to point out that I don't really see this as having anything to do with social classifications specific to men or women either. There's more to consider than that.


In all honesty Ive rarely seen the same reaction in women towards single dads as I have vice versa. But that said, I don't know any single dads so don't hear anything from that POV.


----------



## Eren Jaegerbomb (Nov 13, 2015)

Veggie said:


> Unless you think women, as a whole, (who aren't, like, saving themselves), are so desperate and pathetic that they have loads of non-discriminating casual sex, and then will want to commit to anything, just hoping against hope on feeling "something emotional."


No I don't think women on a whole are like this, I just know some that are.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

It's women, women about women.

In my country you will rarely (almost never) hear a man asking another man "but are you on a relationship? or not?" it's more like "and how is it? is it good? does she gives you a hard time?". But women... in my region they dress more to impress/compete against other women than dress for men, and it's more common to hear women trying to diminish other women because "so that means you are not on a relationship...". I believe it's a cultural thing related to a gazillion factors, but let's not forget women can be very cruel to other women. 

Here, it is very common to hear women talking about other women "oh there she goes, she is my friend, they have been together for 20 years... but they never got married" wtf!!!!! why the need to make that clear? to me as a man it's good they have been together 20 years regardless off whatever, that's the important stuff. I've come across women separated saying "but I got married, it was not just any thing". Fuck it, doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

ArminMuffinArlert said:


> No I don't think women on a whole are like this, I just know some that are.


Ime, the sex at least has to be something special, or... honestly, I don't know any like this, more personally.


----------



## Eren Jaegerbomb (Nov 13, 2015)

Veggie said:


> Ime, the sex at least has to be something special, or... honestly, I don't know any like this, more personally.


Apparently this guy does:

https://www.henrymakow.com/the_effect_of_sexual_deprivati.html


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

changos said:


> In my country you will rarely (almost never) hear a man asking another man "but are you on a relationship? or not?"* it's more like "and how is it? is it good? does she gives you a hard time?". *


That's how it should be, for everyone.

But if you go around heralding such things dudes call you a feminazi (since you aren't assuming complete responsibility for the dynamic), and women further undermine you by acting as if you probably just aren't date-able (yea). 

So it's not just women... though I assume many women probably do it because it's all roundabout - there's more pressure for women to enter relationships (mostly for outdated reasons that no longer so much apply to society, but are kinda a part of the fabric now, regardless), so there's more women in unhappy relationships, and if they had to do it for respect, so should you, and misery loves company, and etc.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Veggie said:


> That's how it should be, for everyone.
> 
> But if you go around heralding such things dudes call you a feminazi (since you aren't assuming complete responsibility for the dynamic), and women further undermine you by acting as if you probably just aren't date-able (yea).
> 
> So it's not just women... though I assume many women probably do it because it's all roundabout - there's more pressure for women to enter relationships (mostly for outdated reasons that no longer so much apply to society, but are kinda a part of the fabric now, regardless), so there's more women in unhappy relationships, and if they had to do it for respect, so should you, and misery loves company, and etc.


Thanks, I've been trying to explain this in other threads too, how people put so much importance to the "title" of their relationship, more than the interaction between the two (that's actually the relationship). 

A friend of mine (older than me) he is about 60 years old, found out way old that he was adopted. I know I know... sure makes you wonder "what about my parents", but he was very honest and I agree with his words "my father is my father, I never felt he loved me less or more, just -loved me-, I don't need titles, or blood samples, I'm in peace", the same with relationships, you have what you have every time you look to each other eyes. I've been more a mountain man, so whenever someone insist on the other things to me, looks weak, insecure, lacking confidence to me.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

ArminMuffinArlert said:


> Apparently this guy does:
> 
> https://www.henrymakow.com/the_effect_of_sexual_deprivati.html


So that's one guy's opinion on the internet?

I agree that effeminate men and anonymous hook-ups don't probably make for fantastic sex though. I do think, however, that there is a middle ground somewhere between that and "making love" - but call me crazy.

There was a good discussion earlier, imo, about why that middle ground is often hard to get to, or hard to stay at.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Reality Check said:


> In all honesty Ive rarely seen the same reaction in women towards single dads as I have vice versa. But that said, I don't know any single dads so don't hear anything from that POV.


I don't know why. I think women, overall, probably get the worse deal with single dads. The mother often tends to be more hands on when it comes to how she wants the children raised, so she's likely more a presence in a new girlfriend's life than vice versa.

Plus, I feel like women are more likely to stick something out if they have kids, so if she's gone-zo, I figure he probably really f-ed up, and I don't wanna put in the time to figure out how or why.

Though... tbh, that's not my top concern. People make mistakes and they change. It really is more so the ex-child situation and how that would effect our "partner"(s)-ship.


----------



## BearRun (Mar 3, 2017)

Veggie said:


> So that's one guy's opinion on the internet?
> 
> I agree that effeminate men and anonymous hook-ups don't probably make for fantastic sex though. I do think, however, that there is a middle ground somewhere between that and "making love" - but call me crazy.
> 
> There was a good discussion earlier, imo, about why that middle ground is often hard to get to, or hard to stay at.


I hate that term. 'Making love' sounds so fucking sappy it makes me wanna gag. I can't picture myself having sex with someone I didn't feel love for, but it's just too flowery.


----------



## BearRun (Mar 3, 2017)

changos said:


> We are different. The following is not an specific 100% answer to the thread, but it's an specific answer to a big part of it
> 
> * We man usually:*
> 
> ...


I don't understand what you're trying to say. You go in so many different directions.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

BearRun said:


> I hate that term. 'Making love' sounds so fucking sappy it makes me wanna gag. I can't picture myself having sex with someone I didn't feel love for, but it's just too flowery.


I hate it too, lol.

I don't need love, but there's a spectrum of emotion apart from love.

There's a range to romantic relationships beyond "what's your name again?" sex and "I'm in love" sex.


----------



## BearRun (Mar 3, 2017)

Veggie said:


> I hate it too, lol.
> 
> I don't need love, but there's a spectrum of emotion apart from love.
> 
> There's a range to romantic relationships beyond "what's your name again?" sex and "I'm in love" sex.


I guess that's an issue too. I love my boyfriend and he's the only guy I've had sex with. But I just don't like that term whether it applies to us having sex or not. It's sounds blech.


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

Kyn said:


> Dating single parents is very common here.


That's surprising. The circumstances seem rigged against it:


If someone isn't open to the psychological adoption of a non-biological child (Regardless of the reason), then they'd be rather limited on how serious can a relationship with a single parent get, unless the kids are old enough to be on their own there's no real practical way to build a family and a household together without including the single parent's children.
If someone is open to the psychological adoption of a non-biological child, then they are entering at least two relationships - one with the parent and one with the child - that is entirely reliant on the whims of one, they can raise and even love the child as their own and yet will have no claim for visitation rights or shared custody if the relationship with the parent goes astray.
And that's for the cases where the single parent you are dating is also the prime caregiver. In situations where you have mutual custody and cooperative parenting post-divorce (Which is probably best for the children in most cases), things get even more complicated, the initial dating stage might be easier because the parent has time to date without the kids, and you aren't entering as a role replacment for the children, but now any hopes of building a family together require entering a somewhat indirect but life-dominating relationship with your partner's ex.
All of the above scenarios do assume a desire to start a family, but if someone doesn't want one, chances are they don't want children, which leaves a rather slim chance that they would want a support or take care or have any sort of relationship with a child, and a rather decent chance that they aren't particularly fond of children. The exception to this would be the case of already having children (A single parent dating another single parent).

So what would make UK men the exception?


----------



## BearRun (Mar 3, 2017)

Tropes said:


> That's surprising. The circumstances seem rigged against it:
> 
> 
> If someone isn't open to the psychological adoption of a non-biological child (Regardless of the reason), then they'd be rather limited on how serious can a relationship with a single parent get, unless the kids are old enough to be on their own there's no real practical way to build a family and a household together without including the single parent's children.
> ...


Not just the UK, but Canada. A lot of people date single parent's here too. I think they might be a little crazy, but they do it.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

changos said:


> Thanks, I've been trying to explain this in other threads too, how people put so much importance to the "title" of their relationship, more than the interaction between the two (that's actually the relationship).


Hmm... well, that's not necessarily what I'm saying. I do think titles are important to an extent.

I would like to be monogamous atm (if I do it) for the sake of maybe having babies and getting married, so without that agreement in place (that comes with a certain set of expectations-security), I don't really know if I believe in having some undefined relationship indefinitely. At least not if it's significantly affecting my lifestyle. I'd rather the direction and freedom of being single.

So, that being said - though I think women often get swept into having or wanting relationships for the wrong reasons... I don't think that this means that there aren't reasons to have them.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Veggie said:


> I don't know why. I think women, overall, probably get the worse deal with single dads. The mother often tends to be more hands on when it comes to how she wants the children raised, so she's likely more a presence in a new girlfriend's life than vice versa.
> 
> Plus, I feel like women are more likely to stick something out if they have kids, so if she's gone-zo, I figure he probably really f-ed up, and I don't wanna put in the time to figure out how or why.
> 
> Though... tbh, that's not my top concern. People make mistakes and they change. It really is more so the ex-child situation and how that would effect our "partner"(s)-ship.


The ex is one of the main reasons I don't want to get involved. As there are reports of and I have known people personally where it happens. The ex gets drunk or pissd off and decides he wants to be dad or get the GF back, so he beats the crap outta the new fella. No matter how attractive a woman is, I'm not gonna risk getting beaten the hell up because of some kids that are not my own.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Reality Check said:


> The ex is one of the main reasons I don't want to get involved. As there are reports of and I have known people personally where it happens. The ex gets drunk or pissd off and decides he wants to be dad or get the GF back, so he beats the crap outta the new fella. No matter how attractive a woman is, I'm not gonna risk getting beaten the hell up because of some kids that are not my own.


I just don't feel like having to alter my lifestyle for someone's ex (whom I didn't choose) at all. lol.

I want the intimacy of me and them, or I want my freedom.

The only way I could see it working would be if it were truly a casual arrangement - though I don't think the thread is agreeing on what this means. So far my definition of casual seems even more casual than some of the dude's definitions, ironically... who seem to still more or less want a relationship, without the label or any responsibility (no thank you).

In that case, I don't see it being appropriate that I'd maybe even meet the kid, since the person is kind of a place holder until something truly monogamous comes along. (Or we otherwise go our separate single ways since there's no commitment).


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Veggie said:


> I just don't feel like having to alter my lifestyle for someone's ex (whom I didn't choose) at all. lol.
> 
> I want the intimacy of me and them, or I want my freedom.
> 
> ...


Tbh there are too many reasons to list in regards to dating single parents. And I'm not saying that people who do not have a kid are automatically better or there are not going to be any issues but there are less issues immediately. And at the start of a relationship, personally I would prefer to have fewer issues than have a ton of them from the get go.

We are on the same frequency here.

As far as casual goes, I know my own definition of casual is very casual. But when it comes to female friends (ie there is a connection but for what ever reason there isn't enough of a connection or not enough attraction) I would rather keep them as a friend than risk losing it over casual sex. As for women where its sexual from the get go, I have no issue as there is nothing to lose, if it grows into something else, then cool if not then cool. But there has been no emotional investment on my part so I'm not fussed which way it goes.


----------



## platorepublic (Dec 27, 2012)

Natural conditioning. There is no benefit-cost analysis involved. Just pure, raw, reaction to the external.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Tropes said:


> That's surprising. The circumstances seem rigged against it:
> 
> 
> If someone isn't open to the psychological adoption of a non-biological child (Regardless of the reason), then they'd be rather limited on how serious can a relationship with a single parent get, unless the kids are old enough to be on their own there's no real practical way to build a family and a household together without including the single parent's children.
> ...


There's no stigma about men raising other men's kids for a start. I've never heard it, except online. That must be a factor. 
I don't know why it's different, it just doesn't seem to be a big deal. My partner has a son from a previous relationship. It was never an issue, it never really occurred to me that it should be. My biological father has a step daughter and a son with my step mother. I was raised by a stepfather, my stepfather's kid's were raised by a stepfather. Some biological father's/mother's are involved, some aren't. It's just how it is.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Reality Check said:


> As far as casual goes, I know my own definition of casual is very casual. But when it comes to female friends (ie there is a connection but for what ever reason there isn't enough of a connection or not enough attraction) I would rather keep them as a friend than risk losing it over casual sex. As for women where its sexual from the get go, I have no issue as there is nothing to lose, if it grows into something else, then cool if not then cool. But there has been no emotional investment on my part so I'm not fussed which way it goes.


If there's not enough connection or (mutual) attraction, the sex will probably be horrible anyway, so why bother. Just because you don't need love to sleep with someone, doesn't mean that you don't need a degree of an ego stroke or at least the feeling that you're... there. lol. If you'd rather your flesh-light, I my vibrator - I'd imagine that feels insulting all around, and like we're cheapening-ruining something for ourselves with the potential to have much more powerful, erotic associations tied to it. I probably think too much, but the idea of _too_ casual sex also kinda throws me into existential crisis. Why not just sleep with literally anyone? Go get knocked up by that dying addict hobo? Who cares? Everything's meaningless!

I'm not sure how exactly the second part is supposed to work. I've kinda come to the conclusion that the only way I can see a relationship happening at this point in my life (I'm 32) is if it forms from something first physical, but if I sensed the guy were too meh about whether it does (grow into something) or if he were to lose me or not... I wouldn't want it to, or allow it (to become something serious). 

Not sure how you reconcile all that...


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Veggie said:


> If there's not enough connection or (mutual) attraction, the sex will probably be horrible anyway, so why bother. Just because you don't need love to sleep with someone, doesn't mean that you don't need a degree of an ego stroke or at least the feeling that you're... there. lol. If you'd rather your flesh-light, I my vibrator - I'd imagine that feels insulting all around, and like we're cheapening-ruining something for ourselves with the potential to have much more powerful, erotic associations tied to it. I probably think too much, but the idea of _too_ casual sex also kinda throws me into existential crisis. Why not just sleep with literally anyone? Go get knocked up by that dying addict hobo? Who cares? Everything's meaningless!


OK I don't mean literally walk around with my dick out and go fishing. That's taking it a bit too far extreme. 



> I'm not sure how exactly the second part is supposed to work. I've kinda come to the conclusion that the only way I can see a relationship happening at this point in my life (I'm 32) is if it forms from something first physical, but if the guy were too meh about whether it does (grow into something) or if he were to lose me or not... I wouldn't want it to, or allow it (to become something serious).
> 
> Not sure how you reconcile all that...


I'm not sure why that's confusing. People still do dates (whether from online, an instant date with a person you just met in the bookstore or a date with someone you met at a social gathering). Its possible to tell if the person is into you or not, and you should know if your into them. There doesn't need to be sex on first date for their to be attraction and tension. As long as its man-woman, and not me become your emotional shit repticle, then for me I would see that as going somewhere.

But if its friends, as in there was never anything physical (cant exactly describe the difference between a "Date" and jst meeting for friendly drinks, but there is a difference), then if I was initially interested and it wasn't reciprocated then cool, I would get over it and move on. But for me once that friend barrier is set, then it stays friends. I'm not doing any of this friendzone BS, where I hang around being aa friend hoping you change your mind. Its purely just friends, on my part as well and that is all it will be as far as I'm concerned. As far as relationships and sex goes, I was available, my advances were rejected so I will be over it.

Hope that makes sense.

EDIT: Its not so much being "meh", its more I'm not gonna put you on a pedestal and act as though your the only woman in the world. I'm gonna enjoy it for what it is but that's it, I'm not gonna start mentally masterbating over shit that aint there.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Reality Check said:


> OK I don't mean literally walk around with my dick out and go fishing. That's taking it a bit too far extreme.


I'd kinda want to strangle a dude (okay, not really) out of pride even if it weren't to that extreme, though. If you don't really want to f*ck me... then don't (or try to) - yea. Doesn't seem like there's a mystery as to why that would ruin a friendship. lol. Especially if it's not even worth it. Bad feelings > Good feelings... not the healthiest "friendship" - so, anyway. Agreed, I guess (stupid risk).



Reality Check said:


> I'm not sure why that's confusing. People still do dates (whether from online, an instant date with a person you just met in the bookstore or a date with someone you met at a social gathering). Its possible to tell if the person is into you or not, and you should know if your into them. There doesn't need to be sex on first date for their to be attraction and tension. As long as its man-woman, and not me become your emotional shit repticle, then for me I would see that as going somewhere.


I've dated a lot over the past year. Whether someone is into you or not is maybe more confusing if you're a woman, lol. Dudes don't tend to be as discriminating for sex, and they're typically the ones who make more "advances" that can be spurned in the first place. There doesn't have to be sex on the first date, but I'm assuming it gets physical quickly if we aren't just using each other as emotional tampons... which I'm not interested in, either (especially since we aren't likely actually friends - or we're risking entering that zone where we aren't actually dating).



Reality Check said:


> But if its friends, as in there was never anything physical (cant exactly describe the difference between a "Date" and jst meeting for friendly drinks, but there is a difference), then if I was initially interested and it wasn't reciprocated then cool, I would get over it and move on. But for me once that friend barrier is set, then it stays friends. I'm not doing any of this friendzone BS, where I hang around being aa friend hoping you change your mind. Its purely just friends, on my part as well and that is all it will be as far as I'm concerned. As far as relationships and sex goes, I was available, my advances were rejected so I will be over it.
> 
> Hope that makes sense.


I'm the same way. I wouldn't change my mind if they changed theirs, either. It's ruined romantically at that point - it would forever feel like someone settled (imo). And if you wait too long for something to get physical, you're risking entering that zone.



Reality Check said:


> EDIT: Its not so much being "meh", its more I'm not gonna put you on a pedestal and act as though your the only woman in the world. I'm gonna enjoy it for what it is but that's it, I'm not gonna start mentally masterbating over shit that aint there.


In my mind it shouldn't take long to decide that something's special or... it isn't. But things need time to grow if they are going to move forward, I guess. Not sure what a realistic timeframe looks like in finding that balance.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Veggie said:


> Hmm... well, that's not necessarily what I'm saying. I do think titles are important to an extent.
> 
> I would like to be monogamous atm (if I do it) for the sake of maybe having babies and getting married, so without that agreement in place (that comes with a certain set of expectations-security), I don't really know if I believe in having some undefined relationship indefinitely. At least not if it's significantly affecting my lifestyle. I'd rather the direction and freedom of being single.
> 
> So, that being said - though I think women often get swept into having or wanting relationships for the wrong reasons... I don't think that this means that there aren't reasons to have them.


I think it's gone away again. I agree with your words, but that doesn't mean we are talking the same thing.

I can say "I like sunny places" and I understand people saying "I do like sunny places too", or even "I don't like sunny places", I think we are on topic. The problem I see when we talk about relationships is what I've been trying to explain, I talk about human interaction (and sure I understand the other angles) but usually women push it to marriage, exclusivity, having children, etc.

To some extent I agree because we are discussing several parts of the same thing, but in some extent I disagree because it seems the moment we talk about something solid, women introduce another aspect and try to slip it there in the same concept "that we have agreed". Perhaps my words don't make sense to you in this post, but it's the chain of events and the pattern of repetitive jumping on every thread pushing concepts to extremes that caught my attention.

I still don't see why women want to tell the whole world they are on a relationship (And I don't mean married, I don't mean children, etc) the problem discussing this things with women is having the need to explain what one means and what one doesn't mean. At some point seems like chaos.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

changos said:


> usually women push it to marriage, exclusivity, having children, etc.


What I've found interesting in this thread, is that men assume that women want to hang around at all without these things. (I mean... maybe. How sweet is the deal? And not on a more personal level. Because that's out, right? And is there proper momentum to back it? ...doesn't mean I can't still bounce at any minute though).

So it's a difficult conundrum... where I don't want to _push_ any of this. If the guy isn't having it. That's fine. If I'm still single at forty, I'm planning to get my tubes tied and stay that way. Try to cougar it up until menopause, all fears about coming on to strong out the window at that point (for various reasons) and probably having a blast. 

But even little things guys do - like, ok, this guy I went on a singular awkward af date (I didn't know him beforehand) with half a year ago and never talked to again just texted me. (This kind of thing happens to me all the time, but this was officially the most ridiculous, I think). Can you imagine if I had done that to him? Thinking nothing of it, being so confident (arrogant?) that the person would be happy or willing to hear from me? (I woke up to it and I was downright confused for like a minute because he has my dad's name and I was still half asleep... and had totally forgotten that he even existed. lol. I didn't respond).










In my mind it simply makes sense that if there isn't commitment and a window isn't properly acted within - you go your separate ways. You aren't "friends", there's no obligation to ever even talk to each other again. Especially in today's day and age of endless options.



changos said:


> women introduce another aspect and try to slip it there in the same concept "that we have agreed". Perhaps my words don't make sense to you in this post, but it's the chain of events and the pattern of repetitive jumping on every thread pushing concepts to extremes that caught my attention.


I added a number of people to an ignore list recently (for the first time since I joined this site, actually) and almost added you as well. I don't care if we agree. I was agreeing with a secular point, and I'd skimmed the rest as tl;dr. Not because I can't understand you or that you don't make sense, but because I don't particularly value what you say usually. It doesn't seem especially poignant or insightful to me. lol. Sorry. 

Actually, I remember one of my first interactions with you - I was criticizing your mentality, and I included a picture of a cake topper where a bride is dragging her groom to the altar. It was representative of how you think, imo. You just posted a very similar picture xD I guess not much has changed.

What I find funny is your insistence on how many women _want_ to do this. I find it so incredibly insulting. (Though hey, maybe that is your experience... OR, maybe you're also one of those who convinces himself that if something goes wrong in a relationship, you couldn't possibly be to blame since women all just want it bad?)



changos said:


> I still don't see why women want to tell the whole world they are on a relationship (And I don't mean married, I don't mean children, etc) the problem discussing this things with women is having the need to explain what one means and what one doesn't mean. At some point seems like chaos.


Well, that's what I was agreeing with you on. The woman wanting to acquire the relationship just to yell - "I'm in a relationship!" ....as being silly. 

Though I also think it's silly to make it some kind of secret if you're committing this time and energy towards each other and limiting your options otherwise.


----------



## BearRun (Mar 3, 2017)

changos said:


> I think it's gone away again. I agree with your words, but that doesn't mean we are talking the same thing.
> 
> I can say "I like sunny places" and I understand people saying "I do like sunny places too", or even "I don't like sunny places", I think we are on topic. The problem I see when we talk about relationships is what I've been trying to explain, I talk about human interaction (and sure I understand the other angles) but usually women push it to marriage, exclusivity, having children, etc.
> 
> ...


I don't think women are pushing guys to do anything. Either they want to be in a relationship or they do not. Who would want to push for a relationship with someone who does not want to be in a relationship with you? It's really quite simple. Yes, you do want a relationship with this person or no, you do not want to be in a relationship with this person. If someone does not announce it, it implies embarrassment. They don't want to be seen with this person. If my boyfriend hadn't wanted to declare a relationship, I would have understood the message: He does not want a relationship with me. 

The marriage rates are very low and it doesn't seem so common around where I live for women to want to get married. That must be cultural.


----------



## Sour Roses (Dec 30, 2015)

Because men naturally suck in bed, too selfish. The only possible way for them to consistently act unselfishly is if they actually want to keep the woman around. 
Otherwise, in this easy sex era, it's way too easy for them to just go find another body to utilize. 

I didn't read any of the thread... I'm just gonna assume everyone has mentioned that women often need an emotional connection. For many women it's a prerequisite to even feeling enough physical sensation, because it's hard to get in the mood and sensitized otherwise. 

Men and Women's brains are different, nerves are different, hormones are different... this is all verified facts. For most women, it's not any fun to just jump into bed. A lot of women who do that are just pretending to be into the sex as a barter item for the relationship they want.


----------



## atamagasuita (May 15, 2016)

Well, it's a girl's preference. 
Mine, i don't give sex for free. Because it's useless. You're right, why would you give it fot free? I cannot understand it as well.

Oh, i know.

Low Self-Esteem i guess. XD


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

atamagasuita said:


> Well, it's a girl's preference.
> Mine, i don't give sex for free. Because it's useless. You're right, why would you give it fot free? I cannot understand it as well.
> 
> Oh, i know.
> ...


I disagree there. Sex with a real person is more fun than say masturbation (assuming both parties are up for it).

So is masturbation also low self esteem?


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Rebecca.M said:


> Because men naturally suck in bed, too selfish. The only possible way for them to consistently act unselfishly is if they actually want to keep the woman around.
> Otherwise, in this easy sex era, it's way too easy for them to just go find another body to utilize.
> 
> I didn't read any of the thread... I'm just gonna assume everyone has mentioned that women often need an emotional connection. For many women it's a prerequisite to even feeling enough physical sensation, because it's hard to get in the mood and sensitized otherwise.
> ...


Sorta, but it was also brought up that feeling emotion doesn't have to mean feeling love or being in a relationship.

Foreplay helps to get you going too, regardless. Lol. If the guy won't properly do that, then don't sleep with him. He'll live with blue balls, and you delete his number. I'll let that be weird if need be. I don't care  (I told someone a story about this once that they were cracking up about and called "shocking" but it was like... it's not like at some point you Have to, or you aren't free to leave). 

I'm realizing I gave OP bad advice earlier too. Maybe don't do the shirtless selfie thing dude. Someone brought to my attention the realization that I've never actually slept with any of these guys, though I went out with them with that intent (maybe... when I was still looking for "casual" I think the way the OP means it).

I don't think most men do suck in bed either, for the record. I guess it depends on who you're doing it with.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Reality Check said:


> I disagree there. Sex with a real person is more fun than say masturbation (assuming both parties are up for it).
> 
> So is masturbation also low self esteem?


According to half of her posts she wouldn't know. She totally trolls this forum. Given the day she's either a virgin or she's telling tales of her escapades. Kinda annoying if you take these threads at all seriously. Lol.


----------



## atamagasuita (May 15, 2016)

Reality Check said:


> I disagree there. Sex with a real person is more fun than say masturbation (assuming both parties are up for it).
> 
> So is masturbation also low self esteem?


I'm not talking about masturbation. 
I am talking about how low Self-Esteem girls can easily give their body to someone without commitments. - To have casual sex.

But, I'm not saying all girls who commit casual sex have low Self-Esteem. 

It's just low Self-Esteem girls can easily give their bodies.

That's why other guys target low Self-Esteem girls. Because they can easily get them.


----------



## Westy365 (Jun 21, 2012)

I understand what you're saying, but there is a richness in having one person to trust and confide in that is just beautiful. Marriage/Relationships aren't easy, but they can be far more rewarding if you stick it out (imho). 
@Red Panda said it very well. We are emotional creatures, and we need to have emotional intimacy. That just isn't truly possible unless there is exclusivity (which is part of a relationship).


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

atamagasuita said:


> That's why other guys target low Self-Esteem girls. Because they can easily get them.


Ive never actually seen guys seem that bothered about a girls self esteem, its normally looks they go by initially. Is this your interpretation of why guys are not attracted to butch masculine power women who are independent and don't need no man?


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Veggie said:


> What I've found interesting in this thread, is that *men assume *that women want to hang around at all without these things. (I mean... maybe. How sweet is the deal? And not on a more personal level. Because that's out, right? And is there proper momentum to back it? ...doesn't mean I can't still bounce at any minute though).


I can't address our interactions on angles of agreement or disagreement. And I can't discuss what others men assume, I'm not assuming or addressing that part of the discussion or agreeing with you, I'm pointing out how almost any discussion is pushed into marriage. I call this jumping rocks (and some women do it a lot) as soon as one point is addressed many jump to another, when a relationship point is made, it can be quickly disregarded because "it doesn't apply to marriage" and so the jumping begins. I see no point on this as any thread becomes a chain and quickly an already seen pattern, that's it for me. If you want to add me to your IL that's fine, I won't tell you I agree or disagree or that this or that upsets me, it's just that many times I can't understand what you mean because I feel you are going off topic and can't see the direct relation to the discussion. 



BearRun said:


> I don't think women are pushing guys to do anything. Either they want to be in a relationship or they do not. Who would want to push for a relationship with someone who does not want to be in a relationship with you? It's really quite simple. Yes, you do want a relationship with this person or no, you do not want to be in a relationship with this person.


In general terms I do believe many women and men want to push others to do things, but in this context I see the point, what you mean and I agree, it all comes to the simple terms if both want to be in the relationship or not, one problem might be conditions or rules are added along the way (not at the right time, beginning), meaning (in this context and what I mean) that a man can enter a relationship and suddenly having to do things he didn't agree on first time, or things he already said "I don't like that". One phenomenon I have discussed with friends and friends-psychologists, is how people often think they are better options than the one before, and disregard many important aspects that are being discussed only to repeat the same mistakes. (perhaps they were thinking about something else while things were being discussed, I wouldn't call this a problem in communication (the source) because we humans are very clear stating what we don't want anymore in our life)



BearRun said:


> If someone does not announce it, it implies embarrassment. They don't want to be seen with this person. If my boyfriend hadn't wanted to declare a relationship, I would have understood the message: He does not want a relationship with me.


This might a cultural thing. Women kinda approach relationships as in "be seen with", acceptance, telling people "we are together" and showing it, not just words, men approach relationships mostly as "I take you home, you meet my family". I've seen how many men (me included) take women home only to regret this in time and then it becomes a barrier: usually, if we take her home and meet our family, she is important, but that doesn't mean first time is everything, many go home and mess up, it's an embarrassment. 

*This is an important factor to me*: what I find funny is women start presenting the guy everywhere, and I kinda see it as weakness, as needing people approval or knowledge (that doesn't seem like someone dealing with a relationship on a personal basis, it involves many people). While men USUALLY decide themselves and then take the woman home/family (when it's already been decided we want to stay with here) and disapproval will mean very little because we already made our decision, in fact the woman could be rejected by friends and family but we already made up our mind. USUALLY (depends on culture) we men isolate socially in those stages. I look at it as diff things, one looks to me as taking people opinion or knowledge as something way too important (almost as above the person choice and opinion), and the other as the opposite. We approach relationships in diff ways, and as I mentioned it, depends on culture and region (here women push men to visit their families because regionally, they know it's a sign of acceptance and moving to a higher stage).



BearRun said:


> The marriage rates are very low and it doesn't seem so common around where I live for women to want to get married. That must be cultural.


I have nothing against your comment, and I can't say agree or disagree, just saying what I said to Veggie, most discussions on relationships end up (on women) talking about marriage. I see the point and I think it's healthy to project things into the future, but at the end of the day it seems many people are mostly focused in that word. I do believe it's ok but I approach every stage individually, many times I don't waste time thinking or projecting into the future considering "marriage" where I know the next stage (friend phase 2) is already a failure and I don't consider this person in my future like this anymore.

It's a cultural thing perhaps, it's small, it's not good or bad, just peculiar.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Westy365 said:


> I understand what you're saying, but there is a richness in having one person to trust and confide in that is just beautiful. Marriage/Relationships aren't easy, but they can be far more rewarding if you stick it out (imho).
> @Red Panda said it very well. We are emotional creatures, and we need to have emotional intimacy. That just isn't truly possible unless there is exclusivity (which is part of a relationship).



I don't necessarily believe exclusivity is the important part, at least not in the way of monogamous relationships the way they are. Most of monogamous relationships fail anyway, so I don't think the most important component is them being exclusive. I believe people can form deep connections by letting go of their insecurities and ego and enjoying meaningful interactions with a few special people. The need for exclusivity is born out of insecurity and distrust and people are shackled into forced exclusivity that can wear down relationships eventually. 
I do understand though that it is difficult for most people to change how they behave in that regard, especially since it's the norm in our society to expect exclusivity as the ultimate form of love, without it being necessarily true.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Rebecca.M said:


> Because men naturally suck in bed, too selfish. The only possible way for them to consistently act unselfishly is if they actually want to keep the woman around.


*In general: *I've seen this in both men and women. Both lowering their behavior as the relationship advances. Sadly, I've got this complain more from women than men, but never about me so I can't tell if it's just efficiency in bed, lack of interest or getting tired of it. Read somewhere about sexual *manifestations* (not intentions): "men exhibit wanting more intimacy as they get more deeply in love, while women exhibit more sex interest", and it was explained to me, women are more romantic and less sexual when the loving is not so deep, while men are less romantic and want more sex, but when both go deeply in love usually women become sex bombs while men might want more connections. After such comment I thought: damn, sounds true in many scenarios.

There is an expert in sexuality (don't have the name now). Made some study around the world on the most important things for people in relationships, but he included all the cultures, regions and countries he could. I fear the conclusions of such thing because many regions = diff cultures = diff results. His top #1 result was "_sexual availability_". He mentioned his theory about how much we have to work for sex, and how most people don't want to work for it (or see the point) when they are already on a relationship. I also think it depends a lot how we were educated (what to expect). Example: many men think things are going down the drain when oral sex is gone, and many women think the same when lots of kissing are gone (while there are just stages), I'm talking about some opinions around me, not saying this is a fact.

*My opinion:*
So far I've talked mostly about what I've seen and not my opinion. Being practical I think love (and long term relationships) *demand constant effort*. That's what I've been saying all around focus on the interaction not on the title of things, men have it easier on sex, it's easier to have sex with just about anyone and still get an orgasm, women are different. That doesn't mean we men are "so easy and women too difficult", because in terms of interest, women don't need certain aspects to be ready sexually, while in the same terms of interest, a man can end up unable to have an erection, or to sustain it as long as needed. My conclusion and opinion is we both need work to keep each other engaged regardless of the title, married or not, it's about human interaction and how you approach your partner. 

This involve training and maturity, many people think things are over the moment sex or kissing doesn't feel the same, we should be able to look above this. I agree on being unselfish a key to long term relationships in both ways.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Red Panda said:


> I don't necessarily believe exclusivity is the important part, at least not in the way of monogamous relationships the way they are. Most of monogamous relationships fail anyway, so I don't think the most important component is them being exclusive. I believe people can form deep connections by letting go of their insecurities and ego and enjoying meaningful interactions with a few special people. The need for exclusivity is born out of insecurity and distrust and people are shackled into forced exclusivity that can wear down relationships eventually.
> I do understand though that it is difficult for most people to *change how they behave* in that regard, especially since it's the norm in our society to expect exclusivity as the ultimate form of love, without it being necessarily true.


Nice. I believe "changing" is a galaxy far away, I've seen how people can't even listen or understand the concept. I mean, if it was a screw on a motor it would be easier to say "take this away or move it and will still work" but in terms of relationships just mentioning exclusivity makes people vision cloudy, very difficult to see the roads and landscape, they mostly turn into seeing one lane on the highway. I have compared this to religion, hell, even sports fanatics can discuss topics in better ways regarding their teams, but in this regard religion and exclusivity turns into a blind spot (not saying people should agree, it's just about being able to consider the panorama).


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Red Panda said:


> I believe people can form deep connections by letting go of their insecurities and ego and enjoying meaningful interactions with a few special people.* The need for exclusivity is born out of insecurity and distrust and people are shackled into forced exclusivity that can wear down relationships eventually*.


That's why I opened a thread about exclusivity, as an exercise, to see if people were able to explain why exclusivity in practical terms, useful concepts, things of mutual benefit and not selfish, weak, scared concepts. Many are unable to do so and many are even unable to understand the angle of putting things into words. It is very different to teach a kid the mutual benefits of something when only guilt is pushed in or translated, is the same as talking about God with kids, most people only push guilt and fear in.

In terms of recovery (after trouble) it's easier to find the problem and solution where we were educated on concepts, when we can think freely and put things into words, and if you wish you can blame someone for making you believe this or that at young stages. It's really difficult (in contrast) when you weren't educated on concepts or challenged to THINK, where only guilt was used, then yu try to look back and analyze but usually find nothing. It is very interesting, and dangerous. This is actually critical thinking in many ways: being able to wonder and analyze the reasons on why we believe what we believe.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

changos said:


> I'm not assuming or addressing that part of the discussion or agreeing with you, I'm pointing out how almost any discussion is pushed into marriage... it's just that many times I can't understand what you mean because I feel you are going off topic and can't see the direct relation to the discussion.


I told you that I agreed that I think it's silly if the focus for women is on simply obtaining the (a) relationship, while the focus for men is on whether they even have something worthy of a relationship worth pursuing or investing in in the first place. 

You then, actually, made some leap to that I was agreeing with you that labels aren't important in a relationship, when I hadn't said that. You seem to have this notion that as long as two people are fond of each other, then labels and commitments and what not shouldn't matter, but that they should stick together anyway for as long as their whims allow. So my response was - I disagree, and it's funny how dudes assume that this is ultimately what we're after... that they still assume that it's monogamy in some (any) form, companionship, and that we have forever to get there.

Some women probably push marriage because they don't see the person as being worth making sacrifices for otherwise. I have conflicted views about that, because while I kind of agree (commit to me in a reasonable time frame, or don't expect me to particularly prioritize this relationship, or you), I don't agree with pushing it. If the guy doesn't want it, then I don't want it. But then we likely break up or go our separate ways.

That's not a punishment, or anything done out of fear. It's a pretty natural next step, really. You invest in areas of your life where you're getting an equal return on the work you're putting in. If you don't feel your "relationship" is one of those things, you put your focus elsewhere, and the two of you may very well grow apart, meet other people, make separate life(style) decisions, etc. Monogamy in itself isn't the end goal for all women.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Red Panda said:


> The need for exclusivity is born out of insecurity and distrust and people are shackled into forced exclusivity that can wear down relationships eventually.


1. It's a form of loyalty, and further, prioritization within that for time and energy allowances
2. That prioritization allows for realistic expectations to be set as it limits hypothetical factors
3. It can be seen as a maximization of investment/return, and of intimacy
4. It creates a space for a shared life(style) which in turn furthers the likelihood that the individuals remain in each other's lives
5. In marriage, it's legal protection, given the many (valuable) things couples often share (real estate, children, etc)


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

changos said:


> That's why I opened a thread about exclusivity, as an exercise, to see if people were able to explain why exclusivity in practical terms, useful concepts, things of mutual benefit and not selfish, weak, scared concepts. Many are unable to do so and many are even unable to understand the angle of putting things into words. It is very different to teach a kid the mutual benefits of something when only guilt is pushed in or translated, is the same as talking about God with kids, most people only push guilt and fear in.
> 
> In terms of recovery (after trouble) it's easier to find the problem and solution where we were educated on concepts, when we can think freely and put things into words, and if you wish you can blame someone for making you believe this or that at young stages. It's really difficult (in contrast) when you weren't educated on concepts or challenged to THINK, where only guilt was used, then yu try to look back and analyze but usually find nothing. It is very interesting, and dangerous. This is actually critical thinking in many ways: being able to wonder and analyze the reasons on why we believe what we believe.


Are you able to describe why you don't (necessarily) believe in exclusivity, but do believe that people should make efforts to stay (romantically) in each other's lives? (Can you list concrete(ish) benefits? Or only subjective ideals?) Without pointing at everyone else and calling them insecure? (That doesn't really count as critical thought, btw, especially when they can go, eh - and then tick off a list pretty quickly). (Can you?)


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

Sylarz said:


> I'm confused why a woman would have casual sex with men until they find one they really like and then want a relationship with that one. It seems like they are punishing the guy they really like, if that makes sense. Like the random men they don't feel much for they are happy to let be free, but they want to lock down a man who they _really _like. It seems they are giving the better deal to the men they feel nothing for. Why would they think a relationship is the prize? lol


Sex isn't the defining element of showing love. When women withhold sex from a man, it doesn't mean she's trying to punish him. I don't know how widespread these loose women are and it's really none of my business the sexual promiscuity (or lack) of others, but I think the women you're describing - the ones who have casual sex "for free" as you say - are in the minority.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Veggie said:


> 1. It's a form of loyalty, and further, prioritization within that for time and energy allowances
> 2. That prioritization allows for realistic expectations to be set as it limits hypothetical factors
> 3. It can be seen as a maximization of investment/return, and of intimacy
> 4. It creates a space for a shared life(style) which in turn furthers the likelihood that the individuals remain in each other's lives
> 5. In marriage, it's legal protection, given the many (valuable) things couples often share (real estate, children, etc)



1) Right, but lack of exclusivity doesn't mean disloyalty. Having more than one friend, is feasible and expected and depending on one's lifestyle same can happen with more than one lover. 
2) But people put on each other unrealistic expectations all the time. And then one day they realize that the person they are with is not who they think they love and everything breaks. I don't think exclusivity is the important factor for that. It's more about character and general behavior when it comes to relationships.
3) Sure, and when you put all the eggs on one basket and don't consider things differently, there will come a day that your security is reliant on one person and combined with all the other factors it may crumble down painfully. 
4) That's hard to quantify, since most relationships fail anyway regardless of whether people spend most of their time together. Does it increase the chances? yea likely, besides what's in a relationship if not sharing your lives. 
5) Yea, marriage is a contract that includes such things but that doesn't mean the couple has to be exclusive so I'm a little confused why you mention this.

Overall, I think the way it can best work is to start a relationship with enough closeness and exclusivity that can create a strong bond and intimacy and then open up if you both want. I'm not talking just about casual sex, everyone needs at least one person to be close and intimate with, in a way that surpasses all other bonds. But at the same time, especially after many years, people will develop the need to feel excitement and limerence with someone new. I think it's part of being human, since all those feelings make us feel very alive. 

If we have a better attitude towards more open relationships, as a society, then I think people will be able to engage in such arrangements with less problem and find more fulfillment in areas of their lives that their exclusive relationship doesn't work well. 

I think it's unfair to expect EVERYTHING from one person and have them expect the same of you. I think it's unrealistic and psychologists generally agree with this. It's detrimental because it creates unrealistic expectations that end up ruining many relationships.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

changos said:


> Nice. I believe "changing" is a galaxy far away, I've seen how people can't even listen or understand the concept. I mean, if it was a screw on a motor it would be easier to say "take this away or move it and will still work" but in terms of relationships just mentioning exclusivity makes people vision cloudy, very difficult to see the roads and landscape, they mostly turn into seeing one lane on the highway. I have compared this to religion, hell, even sports fanatics can discuss topics in better ways regarding their teams, but in this regard religion and exclusivity turns into a blind spot (not saying people should agree, it's just about being able to consider the panorama).


I agree, though I've been lucky to had people be very interested in the concept, and very understanding of the rationale behind it. Though unfortunately for all of them it ended in being "I couldn't do it, I'm too insecure/jealous/possessive/scared/can't handle the idea of my SO being with someone else" etc. Some agreed that things could have been different if society didn't teach us when young that being loved comes only in the form of monogamy. They all commendend me on my ability to accept that different mindset. All of these people were 22-25 years old.


----------



## yentipeee (Jun 19, 2013)

Veggie said:


> I told you that I agreed that I think it's silly if the focus for women is on simply obtaining the (a) relationship, while the focus for men is on whether they even have something worthy of a relationship worth pursuing or investing in in the first place.
> 
> You then, actually, made some leap to that I was agreeing with you that labels aren't important in a relationship, when I hadn't said that. You seem to have this notion that as long as two people are fond of each other, then labels and commitments and what not shouldn't matter, but that they should stick together anyway for as long as their whims allow. So my response was - I disagree, and it's funny how dudes assume that this is ultimately what we're after... that they still assume that it's monogamy in some (any) form, companionship, and that we have forever to get there.
> 
> ...



In Europe it's very common for couples to raise families without marriage. The US is ultra conservative so I can see why you say that, though I find it alienating. Marriage contract is easy to get, but very expensive to get out. So for females seeking to secure a long term relationship it's a brute force strategy of financial deterrence. You find that this enhances the spiritual union between 2 people?


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Red Panda said:


> 1) Right, but lack of exclusivity doesn't mean disloyalty. Having more than one friend, is feasible and expected and depending on one's lifestyle same can happen with more than one lover.


The main point that you're leaving out of that is _prioritization_. Multiple lovers, okay. But I'm not even remotely interested in any kind of long term polyamorous set up. If other people are - that's fine. It's not about insecurity though. (I'm secure enough to be completely single ;p). 

But yea, I have enough difficulty trying to allocate my time and energy between friends, family, and my own free time (which I like having lots of). If I'm not being prioritized (number one, romantically-sexually) by someone, I'm not prioritizing them - and since with romantic and sexual relationships, _attraction_ is an important component separate and unique from friendship... if we grow apart-become distant enough within that and it suffers, then we simply go our separate ways, imo. 

I don't need to cling to some casual romantic relationship. As I wouldn't be making (sharing) major life decisions or sacrifices for (with) someone if we aren't prioritizing each other (I personally think that's stupid and like trying to build a life foundation with sand given how I'd like to live at this stage in my journey), that's all it would ever be to me. I don't feel like racking up a ton of awkward "friendships" here I have to keep up with either, as this spot (romantic partner) tends to... rotate more? (If there's no commitment). Then other (more permanent) relationships do (friends and family). (So I'd also maybe limit the level of intimacy between us without commitment, in an attempt not to generally devalue that sort of bond for myself, seeing it as a potentially transitory thing... so, bonded to it even less - even less reason to stick around). 

That's not to say we'd have to write each other off as a rule, but no guarantees we don't fall into a mild acquaintance-ship or something, either.



Red Panda said:


> 2) But people put on each other unrealistic expectations all the time. And then one day they realize that the person they are with is not who they think they love and everything breaks. I don't think exclusivity is the important factor for that. It's more about character and general behavior when it comes to relationships.


If you have twenty five friends requiring an hour of your day, one will have to be left out, and it doesn't matter what the person's character is. There's only twenty four hours in a day.

Prioritization at least helps you to form expectations at all.



Red Panda said:


> 3) Sure, and when you put all the eggs on one basket and don't consider things differently, there will come a day that your security is reliant on one person and combined with all the other factors it may crumble down painfully.


Paperwork helps.

Also, I could nest by myself and it could all burn down. That happens  But you can try to limit risk. 

I believe in taking risks sometimes, but I also think they have to be _worth_ it. I don't think many casual relationships are worth much, honestly. Guess it would depend.



Red Panda said:


> 4) That's hard to quantify, since most relationships fail anyway regardless of whether people spend most of their time together. Does it increase the chances? yea likely, besides what's in a relationship if not sharing your lives.


It's easier to stay bonded to someone when say, you both live together, then when you're... living separately with other people in your beds.



Red Panda said:


> 5) Yea, marriage is a contract that includes such things but that doesn't mean the couple has to be exclusive so I'm a little confused why you mention this.


True. I guess you could have an open marriage. Still - you're only exclusively actually married to one other person, and it's legally recognized as such. (You're also usually only sharing property with one partner, and (specific) kids with them (biologically and/or custody wise) too). 



Red Panda said:


> Overall, I think the way it can best work is to start a relationship with enough closeness and exclusivity that can create a strong bond and intimacy and then open up if you both want.


I actually don't disagree with that. Though I think it could make for a huge mess too. I've kinda put that in the realm of crossing bridges when I get to them. lol. I have no clue how middle aged me will view sex and relationships yet. That's a separate bag of mystery concerns for later.

Though my parents have been together thirty five years, and they're still in love. In some ways, I think they seem more so than they even were before.



Red Panda said:


> I'm not talking just about casual sex, everyone needs at least one person to be close and intimate with, in a way that surpasses all other bonds.


Well, I don't agree with that. Which is funny, because "surpassing all other bonds" is... exclusive 

I don't think you "need" anything in that regard. But I think if I'm going to bother to do a relationship, that's the way I'd like to do it. 

(I also think you can obtain this connection through spirituality). 



Red Panda said:


> But at the same time, especially after many years, people will develop the need to feel excitement and limerence with someone new.


One nice thing about a stable relationship-lifestyle, having that met, is that it frees you up to feel this more fully for other experiences. Trips, careers, children, projects, etc.



Red Panda said:


> I think it's part of being human, since all those feelings make us feel very alive. If we have a better attitude towards more open relationships, as a society, then I think people will be able to engage in such arrangements with less problem and find more fulfillment in areas of their lives that their exclusive relationship doesn't work well.


For the sake of feeling alive, I'd rather just be single.



Red Panda said:


> I think it's unfair to expect EVERYTHING from one person and have them expect the same of you.


I don't think romantic partnerships have to mean that. It's important to keep up with other relationships in your life. They don't have to be romantic or sexual.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

yentipeee said:


> In Europe it's very common for couples to raise families without marriage. The US is ultra conservative so I can see why you say that, though I find it alienating. Marriage contract is easy to get, but very expensive to get out. So for females seeking to secure a long term relationship it's a brute force strategy of financial deterrence. You find that this enhances the spiritual union between 2 people?


I just wouldn't be interested in having a family at all otherwise. Not sure how conservatism plays into that. lol.

I have a spiritual union with myself and my "God" first and foremost


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Red Panda said:


> I agree, though I've been lucky to had people be very interested in the concept, and very understanding of the rationale behind it. Though unfortunately for all of them it ended in being "I couldn't do it, I'm too insecure/jealous/possessive/scared/can't handle the idea of my SO being with someone else" etc. Some agreed that things could have been different if society didn't teach us when young that being loved comes only in the form of monogamy. They all commendend me on my ability to accept that different mindset. All of these people were 22-25 years old.


Eh. I don't think it's just "society" - we can only create one biological human a piece with one other person, for example. Society is split into male-female. 1-1.

That said, I don't understand how the concept of an "SO" is necessary at all in polyamory, when you expand that out to the rainbow. You can spread it as thin as you please.

I'd have an easier time getting behind it if it didn't present itself as like - more enlightened - and as the people not for it as scared or something. I've been able to find a ton of reasons for not wanting to get behind it, personally, over the years.

It just feels like it's about having a superiority complex then - which, granted, I guess can be fun - but I don't see how it's much different than if I were to journey to the land of changos to try to find me a beau who'd put the biggest diamond ring on my hand so that I could wave it around and feel the same.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Veggie said:


> Society is split into male-female.


^*Biology


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Veggie said:


> The main point that you're leaving out of that is _prioritization_. Multiple lovers, okay. But I'm not even remotely interested in any kind of long term polyamorous set up. If other people are - that's fine. It's not about insecurity though. (I'm secure enough to be completely single ;p).
> 
> But yea, I have enough difficulty trying to allocate my time and energy between friends, family, and my own free time (which I like having lots of). If I'm not being prioritized (number one, romantically-sexually) by someone, I'm not prioritizing them - and since with romantic and sexual relationships, _attraction_ is an important component separate and unique from friendship... if we grow apart-become distant enough within that and it suffers, then we simply go our separate ways, imo.
> 
> ...


I agree; I value and enjoy my own company so much; that it's hard to share that with anyone and yeah, stability makes it all much easier. Who needs a relationship to make your life more difficult? If it's not going to make you're life better; than what's the point?


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Chesire Tower said:


> I agree; I value and enjoy my own company so much; that it's hard to share that with anyone and yeah, stability makes it all much easier. Who needs a relationship to make your life more difficult? If it's not going to make you're life better; than what's the point?


Yea! I mean, I can see sharing it, but the premise of these polyamory arguments I've been noticing, still have a significant other at their center.

So my arguments for prioritization would still apply to an extent... probably especially, ironically - if "SO" isn't just a title you throw around.

I don't know if I'm naturally monogamous. I think I'd _like_ the relationship (apparently sx 7's idealize this sort of "ultimate" transcendent romantic experience) but I'm honestly having a confused time trying to understand how this is so obviously in place with one specific person without something objective like a piece of paper, a promise, a ring, a shared home, an (exclusive) chemical bond (<you're only doing each other), etc.

I can love someone today and then love someone tomorrow and then wish them both well and move on with the company of my imagination or something, lol... especially without stability.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Veggie said:


> Yea! I mean, I can see sharing it, but the premise of these polyamory arguments I've been noticing, still have a significant other at their center.
> 
> So my arguments for prioritization would still apply to an extent... probably especially, ironically - if "SO" isn't just a title you throw around.
> 
> ...


I get your point; that you inevitably have to alter your life to some extent to accommodate an SO and without any measure of stability, what's possibly in it for you to do this?

I obviously like you don't think that anyone ought to be forced into anything they don't want but I have my own life and I can't progress in it; if I include someone who won't try to fit in it to some extent - at least to meet me half way.


----------



## atamagasuita (May 15, 2016)

Reality Check said:


> Ive never actually seen guys seem that bothered about a girls self esteem, its normally looks they go by initially. Is this your interpretation of why guys are not attracted to butch masculine power women who are independent and don't need no man?


Probably. Or they are just intimidated by them. 

Well, i know some guys who manipulate girls u know. He targets low self esteem girls. I'm not referring to all guys.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Red Panda said:


> I agree, though I've been lucky to had people be very interested in the concept, and very understanding of the rationale behind it. Though unfortunately for all of them it ended in being "I couldn't do it, I'm too insecure/jealous/possessive/scared/can't handle the idea of my SO being with someone else" etc. Some agreed that things could have been different if society didn't teach us when young that being loved comes only in the form of monogamy. They all commendend me on my ability to accept that different mindset. All of these people were 22-25 years old.


I've had a great deal of luck (success?) discussing all of this in person: direct, relaxed conversation. Why? I think it's the emotional aspect, it's easier to deal with this face to face as it shows no intention to convince nobody, I mean, most people reactions are defensive or offensive (almost the same as discussing religion beliefs). 

Some things are white, some things are black, but in life (specially relationships) not because somethings are NOT black it means they are white (non exclusive and I don't mean shades of gray. *This makes sense in this context this way*: a lot of people of old age, married, with kids and grand kids who believe in monogamy and marriage can tell you (after many years together and many experiences) the fact that "you don't own your partner, each person is free" the moment we understand this we are on track. It's funny (and sometimes frustrating) how simple discussions quickly turn into monogamy and exclusivity when that's not the topic or nobody is even threatening such concepts.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

...


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Veggie said:


> The main point that you're leaving out of that is _prioritization_. Multiple lovers, okay. But I'm not even remotely interested in any kind of long term polyamorous set up. If other people are - that's fine. It's not about insecurity though. (I'm secure enough to be completely single ;p).
> 
> But yea, I have enough difficulty trying to allocate my time and energy between friends, family, and my own free time (which I like having lots of). If I'm not being prioritized (number one, romantically-sexually) by someone, I'm not prioritizing them - and since with romantic and sexual relationships, _attraction_ is an important component separate and unique from friendship... if we grow apart-become distant enough within that and it suffers, then we simply go our separate ways, imo.
> 
> ...


That's why I think it best works out when you have one main partner and whoever else for less commited, but fulfilling interactions. Of course it depends on each person and how they can allocate their time, these are practical matters that are managed on a case by case basis. 





> If you have twenty five friends requiring an hour of your day, one will have to be left out, and it doesn't matter what the person's character is. There's only twenty four hours in a day.
> 
> Prioritization at least helps you to form expectations at all.


Having twenty five friends is questionable in the first place. I don't know why you picked such an impossible number to make your point, maybe on purpose? Again, it depends on each person's lifestyle in general. I am not trying to force everyone to be polyamorous, I am concerned with the ideas of monogamy vs polyamory and the basis of it. Whether someone can manage their time and practical matters to be in a polyamorous relationship or not is their own problem.





> Paperwork helps.
> 
> Also, I could nest by myself and it could all burn down. That happens  But you can try to limit risk.
> 
> I believe in taking risks sometimes, but I also think they have to be _worth_ it. I don't think many casual relationships are worth much, honestly. Guess it would depend.


Helps in what way?



> It's easier to stay bonded to someone when say, you both live together, then when you're... living separately with other people in your beds.


Yes, in which case I refer you to what I said above in the first sentence




> True. I guess you could have an open marriage. Still - you're only exclusively actually married to one other person, and it's legally recognized as such. (You're also usually only sharing property with one partner, and (specific) kids with them (biologically and/or custody wise) too).


Yes, but whatever contract you have with the state and what you choose to do with your partner are different things. I don't particularly care for marriage, it's a practical thing and if necessary I'd do it, but I don't think it should dictate exclusivity.




> Well, I don't agree with that. Which is funny, because "surpassing all other bonds" is... exclusive
> 
> I don't think you "need" anything in that regard. But I think if I'm going to bother to do a relationship, that's the way I'd like to do it.
> 
> (I also think you can obtain this connection through spirituality).


By surpassing all other bonds I was mostly referring to intimacy, which is a characteristic of romantic relationships. You can have that with multiple people. Maybe it was wrong to call it that way as it created confusion, but oh well. 




> One nice thing about a stable relationship-lifestyle, having that met, is that it frees you up to feel this more fully for other experiences. Trips, careers, children, projects, etc.


I don't think that's necessarily true. Relationships require constant work, which if you stop the relationship will gradually deteriorate. A stable relationship isn't something that you reach one day and then you have it guaranteed, so you can now devote your time to other things. 




> I don't think romantic partnerships have to mean that. It's important to keep up with other relationships in your life. They don't have to be romantic or sexual.


People assign that value to it more often than not. People expect their partner to be everything to them and if for some reason they don't meet part of that expectation, their ideal of them crumbles and their self-worth too.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Veggie said:


> Eh. I don't think it's just "society" - we can only create one biological human a piece with one other person, for example. Society is split into male-female. 1-1.
> 
> That said, I don't understand how the concept of an "SO" is necessary at all in polyamory, when you expand that out to the rainbow. You can spread it as thin as you please.
> 
> ...


I don't think this is correct. I refer you to the other topic about female promiscuity, but in short, human societies have been either monogamous, polygynous or polyandrous depending on people and resources. Prehistoric people formed multiple partnerships to breed and sustain their small community based on circumstance. 

It is necessary depending on how each person views it. For me, I have and need a partner that is closer to me than everyone else, but I also do feel the need to expand to a few more if chance allows it. I do want to love more people because love is important to me and I want to experience as much of it as I can. I do not feel the need to go out and actively search for new people, but when I meet someone out of luck and I feel that we can have a strong enough bond, I will pursue it. It also matters depending on sexual preferences. I am a kinky person in a relationship with another kinky person but we can't fullfill all of each other's needs. I do not want to restrain him and I do not want to be restrained because sexual freedom is very important in long term happiness. 

I don't think being polyamorous is an enlightened state, but some of it's ideologic basis may be, compared to monogamy. It may not apply to you if your reasons for wanting monogamy are more practical, but you can't deny that most people want exclusivity out of insecurity and basing their self-worth on one person in such a way. I have talked with enough people (see my post to changos) about it to see that is true and also read, watched and talked (with psychologists about such issues. With that being said, I don't see people who are monogamous as inferior, it is the normal state of society right now and while ideologically it bothers me, I don't have a beef with each person for wanting it.

Esther Perel, who is pro-exclusivity has some great insight on the matter of the insecurities that form the basis of exclusive relationships and why people eventually cheat when their relationship fails because of that. 
Helen Fisher, an anthropologist has also studied how people love a lot and has interesting things to say on that as well.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Veggie said:


> I've been realizing how many (stupid?) people I've let into my head over the years who, "irl", I'd probably skim over on a dating app without a second glance, ironically. wtf am I doing?


I actually disagree with that statement. How would you know these sorts of views from a Dating App or in IRL unless you have known them for a long long long time. Stuff ppl talk about in Internet Forums, well Ive never really been around and had it come up IRL. Unless specifically talking to someone regarding Internet Forums.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

*Men: *usually more personal approach over relationships.
*Women: *mostly a more public/need, make everyone notice the relationship.

*Men: *In my region you don't hear men celebrating "a friend is on a relationship" less if that friend is getting married. That doesn't mean is only grief or a negative approach, is just not something to sustain a conversation, it is mentioned but that's it, it won't feed a 10 minutes conversation or a discussion. UNLESS this guy has a negative past or the woman is questionable, otherwise is just a comment or "I don't know her" and perhaps a question "is she hot???" and mostly a joke "fuck you, even ugly-John is on a relationship, you don't!" etc.

*Women: *In my region they have to talk about this, they show a need to and might do it out loud, X friend having a relationship means a conversation, getting married? hell, it just became the topic of the month. Relationships seem to be taken on a public arena, they discuss not only the pros and cons, they start discussing the possible future. *Worst*: they expect your reaction, if you are told this friend is on a relationship or getting married, you are happy or jealous about it. They seem to present only two sides, if you don't care and show indifference they will mostly say you are afraid, don't believe in marriage, you are in pro to promiscuity etc, in short they will instantly disqualify you. Women relationships affect them all, their group, some even show depression if some, most or everyone is on a relationship but them.
Well, I've shared what's the usual trend (dominant) approach in my region. My grandmother used to say "*silly, imprudent women*", they celebrate too soon they make too much noise, their relationship might end in one month, they might not reach marriage due to a break up, they might not last married and about children the same: they celebrate way too much and who knows, they might loose the baby.
​
Well I've seen that happening. Too much noise and then kicked out, left for someone else, or just left "because", not married, separated, divorced, 1 month, 1 year!!! (that's was amazing, went to Russia for honeymoon and came back hating each other) not to mention the cases where the baby died. I agree on celebrating, *but I disagree on making PERSONAL MATTERS PUBLIC*, it shows you care just too much about people opinions, seeking approval, acceptance, etc. For some people it's like religion: they expect others to enter a public ritual, public acceptance, announces, etc.

My take:

1. I didn't get it at first
2. I didn't get it, I thought it was just a personal preference
3. Starting getting it
4. Oh shit I got it

My take is not just about relationships, it's about many things, why? when relationships go bad, you go diff ways or you loose a baby, etc, grief is difficult. Having so many things planned in advance (in this stage I would call it daydreaming) will only make grief and recovery more difficult, and this might include your partner/BF/husband/family. I've seen this happening to men too, but the numbers are minimal.


*So, (while important, yes) let's stop insisting on exclusivity, or pushing every argument into "marriage", let's consider if you/me approach relationships on a two person basis, or if you feel the need to make personal matters public. *That's what I would wonder (that's what I ask myself) and that's what I would propose to any children of mine. Relationships have multiple angles, are complex things, not just the usual "mine mine mine me me me".


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

changos said:


> *Men: *usually more personal approach over relationships.
> *Women: *mostly a more public/need, make everyone notice the relationship.
> 
> *Men: *In my region you don't hear men celebrating "a friend is on a relationship" less if that friend is getting married. That doesn't mean is only grief or a negative approach, is just not something to sustain a conversation, it is mentioned but that's it, it won't feed a 10 minutes conversation or a discussion. UNLESS this guy has a negative past or the woman is questionable, otherwise is just a comment or "I don't know her" and perhaps a question "is she hot???" and mostly a joke "fuck you, even ugly-John is on a relationship, you don't!" etc.
> ...


I agree with your grandma, that's how I approach these as well. I do not make a display of my relationship, it is personal and I don't want people involved in it in such ways. It's another reason of why I don't want to marry and if I do it will not be with guests or putting on a show. I've reached an age that people I know are starting to get married and I can't say I enjoy it, though at least so far they were not such cases of people marrying quickly and things like that so it wasn't that bad. But yea, advertising your relationship status is something I just can't get behind. Maybe because my family and especially my mother always criticises my relationships so I've learned to keep to myself.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

I don't want anyone to be all up in my business; unless things have actually reached a point where you no longer have a choice.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Red Panda said:


> I agree with your grandma, that's how I approach these as well. I do not make a display of my relationship, it is personal and I don't want people involved in it in such ways.


I feel and think as your words, relationships are personal. Over different discussions I've had women telling me the benefits and logic behind telling everyone... (and ceremonies, parties, giving big dinners etc) yet when problems come nobody will be there except for the couple (nor that everyone should be there, they don't suppose to), so in many ways such social chain is just for pictures and noise (or trying to get free gifts, ok that's kind of a joke). There is no practicality there.




Red Panda said:


> It's another reason of why I don't want to marry and if I do it will not be with guests or putting on a show.


*I never wanted to get married, *the concept was introduced to me. My parents were together, period, my grandparents were together, period. Yes they were all married. The dog and cat in the house were "ours", period. Later I was told "I should get married" because this and that. We could say marriage doesn't come naturally as a concept, of that it does (both angles are fine with me) but there is another angle: when people tell you what is marriage, that you should do it and why is good for you (this MIGHT not be education or information, might me influence depending on the case.

So later I kinda wanted to get married, then I did wanted to get married. A bit later I stopped thinking about it. The concept of sharing life to me is above anything, marriage is something a lot of people talk about even if they have a shitty one or if it just failed. So marriage (and relationships) usually comes as a concept that people use to invade other people ideas and lifestyles trying to tell you what to do, I'm not up for that.



Red Panda said:


> But yea, advertising your relationship status is something I just can't get behind. Maybe because my family and especially my mother always criticises my relationships so I've learned to keep to myself.


I don't understand this, I stopped going to weddings and ceremonies because while they preach them, they criticize a lot, so I don't get it, it's like feeding the trolls.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Missed this response...



Red Panda said:


> That's why I think it best works out when you have one main partner and whoever else for less commited, but fulfilling interactions. Of course it depends on each person and how they can allocate their time, these are practical matters that are managed on a case by case basis.


You have _still_ yet to define what makes someone a "main" partner, how you're so sure that you're their main, that you're each other's main at the same time(s), or that you even are this to one another at all upon further breaking it down beyond title.

You've also not defined commitment or fulfillment (likely subjective, though, in fairness. Still any definition would make your posts more relevant).



Red Panda said:


> Having twenty five friends is questionable in the first place. I don't know why you picked such an impossible number to make your point, maybe on purpose?


Are you serious? And are you so sure you should be making swipes at other people's intelligence? ;p Because I was making the point that there's only twenty four hours in a day, obviously.

Someone can be a moral person and they can still run into practical limitations when it comes to prioritization of time and energy.



Red Panda said:


> Helps in what way?


_
"3) Sure, and when you put all the eggs on one basket and don't consider things differently, there will come a day that your security is reliant on one person and combined with all the other factors it may crumble down painfully."​_
Paperwork helps to provide some protection for the crumbling process. Ironically, it first requires a basket being recognized as actually existing in some objective way at all.



Red Panda said:


> People assign that value to it more often than not. People expect their partner to be everything to them and if for some reason they don't meet part of that expectation, their ideal of them crumbles and their self-worth too.


Pretty sure you can't state that as fact, especially since real love, the goal of many committed relationships, is supposed to be about loving the person and not an ideal. I'd also say tying your self worth to a relationship(s) is something to be overcome regardless of what you practice (or don't), and I don't think any arrangement has an edge on this over the others.



Red Panda said:


> I don't think this is correct. I refer you to the other topic about female promiscuity, but in short, human societies have been either monogamous, polygynous or polyandrous depending on people and resources. Prehistoric people formed multiple partnerships to breed and sustain their small community based on circumstance.


You don't think it's correct that a child can only have two biological parents and that our biology is split into male-female?

Because that's the point you were responding to.

I was saying due to the dualistic nature of sex on a more primal level, I can see monogamy being programmed on a level beyond the cultural.



Red Panda said:


> love is important to me and I want to experience as much of it as I can.


Me too. Ideally consistently funneled to one person sexually-romantically. (If what I'm trying to do specifically is maximize loving feelings. I may not do monogamy again. Time will see).



Red Panda said:


> but you can't deny that most people want exclusivity out of insecurity and basing their self-worth on one person in such a way.


Well I don't speak for "most" people, but yes, I can deny those motivations as being so obviously the prime motivations for monogamy, as I have now been able to list many reasons. 

I honestly don't even really understand those motivations at all in this point in my life. If I wanted true security and a more fixed sense of self I'd be single. (Which. I am. Five years now).


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Veggie said:


> Missed this response...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I did these in the other thread, so I won't repeat here again.




> Are you serious? And are you so sure you should be making swipes at other people's intelligence? ;p Because I was making the point that there's only twenty four hours in a day, obviously.
> 
> Someone can be a moral person and they can still run into practical limitations when it comes to prioritization of time and energy.


I already agreed that time limitations is an acceptable factor in how many relationships someone has. This was an unrealistic and unnecessary example. I don't make swipes at people's intelligence.



> _
> "3) Sure, and when you put all the eggs on one basket and don't consider things differently, there will come a day that your security is reliant on one person and combined with all the other factors it may crumble down painfully."​_
> Paperwork helps to provide some protection for the crumbling process. Ironically, it first requires a basket being recognized as actually existing in some objective way at all.


If someone sees it that way perhaps, otherwise no. Besides, many times paperwork gets in the way of rightfully ending a relationship and prolonging and worsening the pain. I don't see how it's ironic. All eggs = self worth, security, self esteem etc, and basket = 1 person. 



> Pretty sure you can't state that as fact, especially since real love, the goal of many committed relationships, is supposed to be about loving the person and not an ideal. I'd also say tying your self worth to a relationship(s) is something to be overcome regardless of what you practice (or don't), and I don't think any arrangement has an edge on this over the others.


I refer to you again in psychologists such as Esther Perel and how prevalent this mindset is in people. They want to feel they are everything and want their partners to be everything and that crumbles when their ideal doesn't meet reality. Hence why many relationships end up failing in much shorter times. That doesn't mean that EVERY relationship fails becuase of that, just that it's very very common.
Of course people should overcome this regardless of their arrangement, it's just that monogamous relationships perpetuate such thinking and make it harder to overcome.



> You don't think it's correct that a child can only have two biological parents and that our biology is split into male-female?
> 
> Because that's the point you were responding to.
> 
> I was saying due to the dualistic nature of sex on a more primal level, I can see monogamy being programmed on a level beyond the cultural.



I was responding to how regardless of people having one of each parents as per biology dictates, children can be socialised and grow in different types of social settings that don't always have nuclear family at the core, as done in prehistoric societies and even some remaining tribes today. I mentioned that pair bonding is important and never said it's not part of our being, but that doesn't necessarily translate in monogamy as we experience it today.






> .Well I don't speak for "most" people, but yes, I can deny those motivations as being so obviously the prime motivations for monogamy, as I have now been able to list many reasons.
> 
> I honestly don't even really understand those motivations at all in this point in my life. If I wanted true security and a more fixed sense of self I'd be single. (Which. I am. Five years now).


You listed reasons of how you experience it, but multiple people experience it differently and place different priority between practical matters and matters of insecurities.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Red Panda said:


> I already agreed that time limitations is an acceptable factor in how many relationships someone has. This was an unrealistic and unnecessary example. I don't make swipes at people's intelligence.


Okay, let's pretend a day has two hours in it then. Only a day doesn't have two hours. It has twenty four.

The point wasn't the number of friends. It was that there was one more than the hours of the day. 

It's also probably unrealistic that all of your friends would choose the same day to each require exactly an hour of your time. Again, that wasn't the point.

You do make swipes at intelligence, also, if you're alluding to that people only make their decisions due to emotional states that they likely don't have much control over, and that aren't seen as desirable, rather than informed and intelligent choice.



Red Panda said:


> If someone sees it that way perhaps, otherwise no.


The legal system currently sees it this way.



Red Panda said:


> All eggs = self worth, security, self esteem etc, and basket = 1 person.


Again, not sure why you have to tie these things to anyone. 



Red Panda said:


> I was responding to how regardless of people having one of each parents as per biology dictates, children can be socialised and grow in different types of social settings that don't always have nuclear family at the core, as done in prehistoric societies and even some remaining tribes today. I mentioned that pair bonding is important and never said it's not part of our being, but that doesn't necessarily translate in monogamy as we experience it today.


Right. I didn't necessarily say that it _had_ to translate to monogamy either. Just that wiping cultural influence and history from the slate altogether, duality is embedded in our biology.


----------



## seira0807 (Mar 30, 2017)

*My opinion*

I used to antagonize guys I was interested in for not wanting a relationship. 

But now, I think that it is fair to be cautious going into a relationship instead of jumping into one without much thought - even if that caution comes across as "not caring enough". 

I don't think that there is a cookie-cutter way to navigate romantic relationships, and that the line between casual and serious shouldn't be black and white but more fluid, especially when starting. That way, both parties have enough space to make better decisions regarding a possible relationship.

Maybe it isn't a poor reflection of someone's character if they are "unwilling to commit". That being said, I think that both parties involved ought to be respectful of each others' boundaries by exhibiting patience, and acknowledge the other's wants even if you do not agree with them (e.g. not pressuring for sexual consent, not pressuring for arbitrary relationship milestone - but letting it happen organically, with mutual agreement/enthusiasm). I learned that respecting someone often means letting them go when we don't see eye to eye.

Casual relationships can be helpful if it helps you to learn more about yourself and others, and serious relationships can be very rewarding because they are a safe place to be vulnerable.


----------



## EndsOfTheEarth (Mar 14, 2015)

Sylarz said:


> The more I think about being in a relationship the more it seems like a huge drag.
> 
> If girls are giving it away for free, then what's the point of a relationship?
> 
> I asked a friend who has a lot of experience with women and he said he never understood it either.


I can't be arsed reading the entire 25 pages of the shit-fight this thread probably is in order to give my 2 cents. So I'm cheating and only responding to the OP since I haven't participated in this thread. 

Relationships seem a drag - why yes, in your 20's of course they do. They also seem a drag to many young women as well. It's called being in your 20's. Quite normal, nothing to see here. Your mate with a lot of experience with women is I'm guessing a similar age to you and so not big surprise he's as befuddled as you are. 

Why do women want relationships? - Because for the most part, sex is that not that big a deal to many women. We don't have loads of testosterone roaming around our bodies looking for an outlet. So we tend to seek other things when it comes to the opposite sex, things like companionship, giving and receiving empathy, finding someone with common interests. 

If none of those things apply to you, then by all means do not enter relationships with women as I'm sure you'll find the experience not to your liking. If you think you can just get no-string attached sex then by all means go and get it. No-ones stopping you. 

Hope that cleared things up.


----------



## Fumetsu (Oct 7, 2015)

I'd honestly like to have a wedding party-nothing spectacular-but honestly just because I want one fucking day in my life where people have to pay attention to me for something positive.

I graduated a year late-same as my sister- so I got no attention for that. As much as I wanted to I wasn't able to play sports or do other extra-curricular activities as a kid ( was sick all the time) I'm white so no Bot-cinera. I didn't go to prom and my birthday is the same as Grandmother so I don't even get that to myself. 


Plus my family are a bunch of miserable martyrs who LOVE to dwell on the negative: the only time they made me the center of attention was when I was in the hospital. So I just want ONE fucking day where everyone has to talk about how wonderful I am and put with my demanding bullshit.


----------



## Short Cake Cake (Jan 13, 2017)

Fuck I got to like page 9 and some of the male responses were absolutely trash.
First of all a woman keeps sex at bay with a man she truly likes probably because: She knows that the perception of the man may change if she 'gives it up' too easily, some little boys like the chasing game, or perhaps she just fuckin feels like it.

And gender roles are why there's no 'Groom' magazine. Men's fashion is far less popular and women are supposed to love flowers, dresses, cake, beautiful decor and destinations, etc.
You raise all the women of the world like men and have all the same stereotypes and do the same for men. Let's see which gender is the one who 'wants' the relationship then.

I also hate the concept of a relationship as a string. An actual relationship is a goldmine not a stupid piece of string, unless you're a cat and you actually love string....:-3

Like women who have sex casually with men and then 'withhold' from the one they truly want, OP is really asking why a man would want that women, not really why women like this would think a man would want to be with them. Because they're awesome and they like this person and they hope they will like them too. What a silly question...


----------



## Queen of Cups (Feb 26, 2010)

Some of these responses got me like:











Because not everyone wants casual sex no matter how easy some of us could get it I we wanted it. And we don't see relationships as strings holding us prisoner.

I wanted the connection and the intimacy. I wanted to build a life and have a family with someone with like goals. I was lucky enough to find that person and I stand by him. I will fight for him and with him, and I know he'd do the same for me. We laugh, we love, and we raise our family. Been together 18 years and he can't keep his hands off me. What we share is better to me than a million casual hook ups.


----------



## theflame (Apr 12, 2014)

I actually like a monogamous relationship, I'd even wait until marriage...unfortunately, couldn't find a person to wait until marriage also. I gave it up thinking oh maybe if I gave it up in the past they'll commit...since they still don't commit even when I do give it up to them a long time ago, I don't need to hook up with anyone I don't want to.

Not looking to get pregnant by just any man over casual sex or contracting STDs. Monogamy is better for a number of reasons. I'd rather talk to one person I give a shit about than have ten different pointless conversations with temporary people who won't even be in my life in a few months.

I'm not gonna bother reading this whole thread.


----------



## Librarylady (Mar 11, 2017)

Some men really do think women are a complete monolith. If one woman is willing to sleep with you casually on first meeting and another wants you to wait until a relationship, then you probably just met two individuals with different preferences and values. Not every woman thinks the same way. Some only like casual sex, some only like relationship sex, and some do both depending on circumstances.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

Bit of a ramble ^_^ I need to do more work and exhaust myself on my uni assignment really XD


Librarylady said:


> Some men really do think women are a complete monolith. If one woman is willing to sleep with you casually on first meeting and another wants you to wait until a relationship, then you probably just met two individuals with different preferences and values. Not every woman thinks the same way. Some only like casual sex, some only like relationship sex, and some do both depending on circumstances.


I put it down to people not yet having developed a self awareness of how they abstract and thus being able to see that in the process of putting people into a category. They seem to be bracketing out more and more differences in order to include them within the category but not realizing the way in which their universalized category doesn't actually fit well to the particulars. Which is something if they perhaps did research methods, where one can't predict with certainty things about an individual based on normative sample, though they might heuristically figure out that one is most likely to be within the mean of some characteristic based on sex. But even then, one should reserve those notions whilst given attention to the particulars, in this case, the unique individual from whom is the best source of learning about how they are as a particular person and not the concept of a woman one has developed in their head. But such inadequate thinking seems prevalent as they haven't been fostered to think all that much and can maintain their ignorance and function of approximations even if reality keeps slapping them in the face. Because contradictions of the category become exceptions rather than real challenges to the category, so upon meeting a woman who defies expectations, they become an outlier rather than something which puts into crisis their view of say women in general. Though even then, it seems that they may even ignore the fact that they're an outlier and simply subscribe to their preconceived notion, refusing to believe that women are otherwise. And thus we get a fool who constantly frustrates all because they keep grinding up against reality with this inadequate grasp of it. 

Something to help elaborate on the point of how we think about things.

* *




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_(metaphysics)


> Paradigmatically, universals are abstract (e.g. humanity), whereas particulars are concrete (e.g. the personhood of Socrates). However, universals are not necessarily abstract and particulars are not necessarily concrete.[3]


https://kapitalism101.wordpress.com/2014/07/21/abstraction-abstract-labor-and-ilyenkov/


> Often, in common language, when we talk about abstraction we are identifying the general properties that all objects of a certain class have, setting aside (abstracting from) differences. For instance, when I say ‘piano’ I refer to the general features that all pianos have (strings hit by hammers activated by keys, etc.) but I abstract away from all differences between particular pianos (size, model, age, etc.). In this everyday, non-dialectical sense of abstraction (Ilyenkov calls it ‘Old Logic’) an abstraction is based on the general features of a class of objects. The abstraction itself, the abstract piano, does not exist in reality. Only particular pianos exist. Therefore the abstract piano only exists in the mind. For old logic abstractions are only in the mind while the opposite of abstract, concrete, refers to the objects of the real world, the particular pianos. For old logic an abstract idea is correct if it adequately captures the general features of a class of objects. It is wrong if there are concrete objects within this class that do not have the general features of the abstraction. Thus, if there is a piano with no hammers (like the Yamaha Avante-Grand) this would challenge our abstraction that a piano is something with strings hit by hammers activated by keys.





Even more complicating is the ways in which there is a validating social norms that help to position women in terms of sexuality to the neglect of other attributes. You're either the pure virgin or you're the whore, both are being valued according some sexual standard where one isn't being conceived of as someone who can be sexual but whose overall nature isn't defined primarily by their sexuality. From this perspective, one's objective behaviour is somewhat irrelevant, it holds some significance but it's the case that no matter what you do, you may be viewed according to some within this sentiment. Because if this is their framework of perceiving, there is no way to be outside of that perspective and its clear that such a view leaves little room for moderation. Of being a multifaceted being who happens to be sexual, where sexuality is but one attribute among many. Which requires being able to appreciate women beyond sexual utility, which is again another case of the abstract bracketing, where if you can't see them in any other way than their sexual use then one can't see anything else because that's all that one is being appraised for. Which is how one might end up rejecting those that do emphasize the other elements of attraction that extend beyond a immediate sexual association. A sort of reductionist view, where those things are simply disregarded significant or comparable existence, one boils everything else down to the sexual. In the same way one is being reductionist when they seek to explain the subjective experience of consciousness by only explaining biological processes thinking that a description of processes = experience/state.


----------



## LilacSnowflake (Dec 2, 2016)

Omg are you crazy? How can you be like that? There are probably other man who wants a home, a family and a wife - it's same with women, that's why they want a relationship with someone they love. Relationships are not all about sex, don't you ever feel the need to have a life partner by your side, she'll support you, help you, love you and care for you. Don't you ever feel like you need it?


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Sylarz said:


> If girls are giving it away for free, then what's the point of a relationship?


Well, if you're not happy with girls "giving it away for free" and you don't want a relationship, either, you can always pay a prostitute.

Why do you speak of carefree girls in a derogatory tone? Shouldn't you be getting on great with them?


----------



## TallGreen (May 6, 2017)

Sylarz said:


> I'm confused why a woman would have casual sex with men until they find one they really like and then want a relationship with that one. It seems like they are punishing the guy they really like, if that makes sense. Like the random men they don't feel much for they are happy to let be free, but they want to lock down a man who they _really _like. It seems they are giving the better deal to the men they feel nothing for. Why would they think a relationship is the prize? lol


I think there may be a few reasons why a woman would have casual sex and then settle down. 
1. She may not know she wants to be in a relationship. 
2. There is this idea floating around that guys are attracted to promiscuous women, or if not promiscuous then forward women. What
you describe as punishment, they may be thinking that turns him on. 
3. Sex feels good to most ppl. Women included. So they may be with one partner for the sex, and another for the relationship. 

?are men punishing a longterm exclusive partner because they were promiscuous in their youth?


----------



## star tripper (Sep 1, 2013)

This thread is full of so much bullshit. I actually know way more men who prefer relationships than women. Most of my female friends subscribe to the idea of, "Why eat one flavor of ice cream for the rest of your life?"

The stereotypes are so irritating. I have a friend who COULD NOT GET LAID even though she was handing her vagina to men on a silver platter because the men found out she was a virgin and assumed she would get attached if they had a one night stand. My friend literally makes out with a different man every weekend. She doesn't believe in marriage and she has no desire to invest in a committed relationship, yet it was assumed by every guy she threw herself at that she would get attached. Finally she just didn't tell this guy and when they had sex, he figured it out and texted her friend saying, "She was hot but clearly it was her first time. I don't want her to get ideas so tell her not to text me."

Seriously, the presumption that women always want a relationship or can't separate sex from love is so self-entitled. Your dick is not some kind of magic wand. It does not bewitch women when it slides into their vaginas.

I told the story to my SO and he said, "Some guys wanna hit it and quit it. I never got that. How do you quit a hot woman? I just wanna be with her again and again. Sex with different women is a habit. Sex with one woman is an addiction." I really don't think his perspective is a minority perspective. I've heard men say that sort of thing before, though not as enthusiastically.

Personally, sex with my SO doesn't make me like him more or less. It's more like a bonding activity (unless he's going out of his way to make it romantic). What made me fall for him was the other stuff.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

EndsOfTheEarth said:


> Also the 'you' utilised in my reply was made in the general sense not specific to you the individual.


Ahhh ok, you were asking me about a quote I made. I actually thought you were talking to me as me.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

> “A healthy relationship is when two individuated adults decide to have a relationship and that becomes a third entity. They nurture the relationship and the relationship nurtures them. But they’re not overly dependent or independent: They are interdependent, which means that they take care of the majority of their needs and wants on their own, but when they can’t, they’re not afraid to ask their partner for help.” She pauses to let it all sink in, then concludes, “Only when our love for someone exceeds our need for them do we have a shot at a genuine relationship together.”


― Neil Strauss, The Truth: An Uncomfortable Book about Relationships


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

@Sylarz

Are you seriously needing a this chat about flowers and bees?
It is pretty obvious how the human bonding mechanism is there 
to ensure the man sticks around for changing dipers.


----------



## EndsOfTheEarth (Mar 14, 2015)

Caveman Dreams said:


> Ahhh ok, you were asking me about a quote I made. I actually thought you were talking to me as me.


Yeah no. Have that problem all the time, it's the way I couch the terms but people always think I'm pointing the finger directly at them. I just default to 'you' 'I' when talking generally. I find it too difficult and beating about the bush to put it in abstract terms. Feels awkward. :frustrating: I know I come off mega aggressive too, but I'm never half as riled up as my posts appear. Just lack the talent for putting things in a nice little diplomacy package.


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

Caveman Dreams said:


> Sorry, I was typing my own response.
> 
> I really didnt want to mention feminism, but you mentioned it. Serious question, when does feminism even acknowledge that women can be in the wrong or do anything wrong and that women are nothing but perfect. Im not glued up on all feminist literature, so I openly admit I may be missing something.
> 
> ...




Which statement? "Men are far from perfect"? Of course they're imperfect, men are human.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Cheveyo said:


> Which statement? "Men are far from perfect"? Of course they're imperfect, men are human.


Post #261


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

Caveman Dreams said:


> Post #261


Isn't that basically common knowledge? That men think about sex a lot.
I think the opposite is true these days. People assume we think about sex more than we actually do.


----------



## Sylarz (Sep 4, 2014)

Typology Jesus said:


> @Sylarz
> 
> Are you seriously needing a this chat about flowers and bees?
> It is pretty obvious how the human bonding mechanism is there
> to ensure the man sticks around for changing dipers.


No. The question is why would the woman think that the man would stick around for the bad part, the changing dipers, when he's already received the good part. Why would she think that the man would consider the chains the better deal? This is the sentiment that blows my mind.

She has fuck buddies. Then she meets a guy she really likes and expresses the sentiment that being in a relationship with her is a greater thing than being one of her fuck buddies.

Dunno how much clearer I can make it.

This has happened to me specifically.

A girl says that she doesn't really like her fuck buddies romantically. But she likes me for more than sex. Romantically. She wants to be in a relatinoship with me, but not with her fuck buddies. Why? Because they aren't worth it, but I am. She has many options, but they are all 'shit options'. Her words. I turn down the relationship, after some time she breaks off our casual fling because I won't get into a relationship. So rather than having me as a fuck buddy, a guy she likes on a deeper level, she goes back to having sex with the fuck buddy guys she _doesn't really like_ as people, self admittedly doesn't like that much.

Isn't that sort of mind blowing? Being a quality man she wants more with is essentially punished. You'd be better off being a low quality fuckboy so she doesn't develop any romantic feelings for you. lol

And women wonder why there are so many fuckboy douchebags out there. Because it works.

For her, me not wanting a relationship is confusing. To her, the way she is with her fuck buddies is the lesser quality situation. Yet they are the ones who are still having sex with her regularly. lol. Makes no sense.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Sylarz said:


> No. The question is why would the woman think that the man would stick around for the bad part, the changing dipers, when he's already received the good part. Why would she think that the man would consider the chains the better deal? This is the sentiment that blows my mind.
> 
> She has fuck buddies. Then she meets a guy she really likes and expresses the sentiment that being in a relationship with her is a greater thing than being one of her fuck buddies.
> 
> Dunno how much clearer I can make it.


OK...

Why would a woman sleep with YOU if she can sleep with someone else?

The simple answer to your question is she has an attachment to the guy, or there is something about him that her fuck buddies dont have, so she wants to get serious with the guy.

As for why she thinks a relationship with her is great, well self esteem and thinking positively of herself.

Not sure if this post should actually be in the S&R section or the Psychology section.

Why do people for relationships at all??? Is that what you are asking?


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Cheveyo said:


> Isn't that basically common knowledge? That men think about sex a lot.
> I think the opposite is true these days. People assume we think about sex more than we actually do.


I thought it was common knowledge but going by some of the responses, Im wondering if women just think men are asexuals.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Sylarz said:


> No. The question is why would the woman think that the man would stick around for the bad part, the changing dipers, when he's already received the good part. Why would she think that the man would consider the chains the better deal? This is the sentiment that blows my mind.
> 
> She has fuck buddies. Then she meets a guy she really likes and expresses the sentiment that being in a relationship with her is a greater thing than being one of her fuck buddies.
> 
> ...


To cut a long story short, you rejected her but expected her to carry on fucking you?

I can see what you are saying here. But if she is just fuck buddies with someone, that is one thing. By rejecting her, you will have made her feel worthless as a guess. The feeling of worthlessness wont be there, with just a fuck budddy.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Sylarz said:


> No. The question is why would the woman think that the man would stick around for the bad part, the changing dipers, when he's already received the good part. Why would she think that the man would consider the chains the better deal? This is the sentiment that blows my mind.


I think it is time you met a fellow named Sigmund.



> "...the sense of self in lovelife gets lessened, when one don't get loved,
> and strengthened when one is loved. We have come to, that to be loved
> is the endgoal and satisfaction with the narcissitic objectchoice.
> It is further easy to observe, that the libido attachment to objects don't
> ...


----------



## Sylarz (Sep 4, 2014)

Typology Jesus said:


> I think it is time you met a fellow named Sigmund.


I read it twice. I have no idea what it is saying.


----------



## Sylarz (Sep 4, 2014)

Caveman Dreams said:


> To cut a long story short, you rejected her but expected her to carry on fucking you?
> 
> I can see what you are saying here. But if she is just fuck buddies with someone, that is one thing. By rejecting her, you will have made her feel worthless as a guess. The feeling of worthlessness wont be there, with just a fuck budddy.


I see. I didn't see it as rejection. I told her I'd make a terrible boyfriend and couldn't take on that responsibility. I just know I shouldn't be in a relationship with anyone. No matter how great the woman is, I shouldn't be in a relationship with her. But perhaps she still felt rejected.

Edit: In fact she was really great. Very mentally and physically compatible with me. I thoroughly enjoyed hanging out with her. I miss that as much as the sex.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Sylarz said:


> I see. I didn't see it as rejection. I told her I'd make a terrible boyfriend and couldn't take on that responsibility. I just know I shouldn't be in a relationship with anyone. No matter how great the woman is, I shouldn't be in a relationship with her. But perhaps she still felt rejected.


She possibly took it as an attack on her, not you being honest. Or even if she believed you, was turned off by you being unwilling to take a chance.

Why do you believe you would make a terrible boyfriend? Maybe you can learn something from her here.


----------



## Sylarz (Sep 4, 2014)

Caveman Dreams said:


> She possibly took it as an attack on her, not you being honest. Or even if she believed you, was turned off by you being unwilling to take a chance.
> 
> Why do you believe you would make a terrible boyfriend? Maybe you can learn something from her here.


Taking a chance on what?

Because I cannot provide love - I'm perhaps incapable neurologically - and I know I will not want to fulfil the responsibilities that are expected of a partner. Being in a relationship is a huge burden that I'm neither willing nor capable of taking on.

It would be unfair to make a deal with someone when you know you cannot fulfil your part of the deal.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Sylarz said:


> I read it twice. I have no idea what it is saying.


Fine...

Females are _*genetically hardwired*_ to try to get men that sleep with them, to go into a relationship.
This can be overridden, but only if the person manages to unravel the riddle you just failed at.

Riddle is summed up to this, *if one attach oneself emotionally to something, one feel less,
unless that person/object makes a gesture of love.*
*Like accepting a realtionship etc etc*


----------



## Sylarz (Sep 4, 2014)

Typology Jesus said:


> Fine...
> 
> Females are _*genetically hardwired*_ to try to get men that sleep with them, to go into a relationship.
> This can be overridden, but only if the person manages to unravel the riddle you just failed at.
> ...


But they have sex with their fuck buddies without wanting a relationship from them.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Sylarz said:


> Taking a chance on what?
> 
> Because I cannot provide love - I'm perhaps incapable neurologically - and I know I will not want to fulfil the responsibilities that are expected of a partner. Being in a relationship is a huge burden that I'm neither willing nor capable of taking on.
> 
> It would be unfair to make a deal with someone when you know you cannot fulfil your part of the deal.


Im not arguing that. I actually respect your honesty in the matter, you could of "developed feelings" just to keep her around.

However, cause and effect. All you can do is respect her choice and move on. 

We can rationalise her reasoning all day, but it dosnt change things. 

The fact that you are making this post does make me think you had some feelings for her though.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Sylarz said:


> But they have sex with their fuck buddies without wanting a relationship from them.


And she thought more of you than she did her fuck buddies.


----------



## Sylarz (Sep 4, 2014)

Typology Jesus said:


> Yes, I'm a worse person than you.
> Luckily God is dead, so no one is really keeping scores.
> Except for a few mods that might get peeved if we start a big fight over this.
> I guess deep down I came in with an unconscious ambition to help you on some level.
> ...


Better or not, more importantly, it's an ineffective method of communicating. Being mean-spirited achieves nothing.

How do you suppose I'd react to being called dense and to your expressed desire to bash my head in with a hammer?


----------



## Sylarz (Sep 4, 2014)

EndsOfTheEarth said:


> Just because someone does not make the same decisions as you in a given set of circumstances doesn't make it upside down and wrong and illogical. Your particular logic does not equal all logic. It's been explained to you perfectly why she would choose to discontinue having sex with you. It's really very simple and makes perfect sense.
> 
> She wants more than you do. You've told her that. It's easier for her to now put you aside and not bother with you again. If you and her were the only people involved in this situation and she said...I like you lets become a couple and you said no and then she said, okay then I'm happier if I don't see you again. You wouldn't be calling this upside down and illogical.
> 
> ...


If I get accused of being entitled to sex one more time I'm gonna split my differential and tip the fuck over.

I was confused about it and of course felt shitty about it, but clarity has been shun on the situation by the one and only Hellena Handbasket.


----------



## EndsOfTheEarth (Mar 14, 2015)

Sylarz said:


> If I get accused of being entitled to sex one more time I'm gonna split my differential and tip the fuck over.


What would you call it then? Serious question. This thread is months long and it's a testament to your sincere dislike of women in general. We're all wrong for wanting relationships, we're a burden to men who just want sex, our decision making is somehow wrong, you don't benefit from that decision making so it's unfair. Have I missed anything here? 

At the end of the day, we all end up disappointed in love/sex multiple times. The majority of people rack it up to disappointment. They don't create a narrative about how the opposite sex are terrible or illogical or wrong over it. This thing called sex doesn't follow a bunch of rules, it can't. It's based on chemical interactions between an diverse group of people. So why individuals think the organic process of sex is unfair or incomprehensible or should work anyway other than it does is beyond me. It's like arguing that the way your pancreas works is immoral. It just is, it just does. 

She doesn't want you anymore. That's just what is. Why is there a thread 33 pages long about it? If you want to believe a particular narrative about your life go right ahead. But why do you need to try and convince everyone else of your beliefs on the subject when there are obviously millions of conflicting views about it. It's quite insanity inducing to read. If you want to believe that being a decent person is a disadvantage in the world of sex go right ahead, see how that serves you. I know the end to that story and so does everyone else but you seem to be the type that needs to learn by experience.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Sylarz said:


> I am not one because I was better than the others. I'm not cross, I'm dumbfounded. This behaviour makes no sense to me, and I find it interesting that in life being a douchebag is rewarded, not being a good guy.


Er.... you're not being a "good guy". You're expressing some sense of entitlement that makes you think she owes you a fuck-buddy relationship although she has made it clear that she would want a relationship with you.

The reason she goes back to the other fuck-buddies is that you rejected her emotionally and that hurt her. Why should she have any obligation to make her own emotional suffering worse by staying around you when she knows that she'll never have the relationship that she wants with you? With the "douchebags", she's on a more equal level. She might not like them enough to want a relationship, but the thing is that they both want the same. She doesn't care that they are not emotionally invested, because she isn't either. They don't have any power over her and she doesn't have any power over them, so they can have fun. It's superficial and unattached fun, but it is fun. She can't/ doesn't want to have fun with you any more because she knows that you two have different expectations and you can control her whereas she can't control you.
If you are genuinely _dumbfounded_ about this, you might want to read up on those creatures called humans. 

You don't even need to turn this into a men vs. women thing, because there _are_ men in the world who want a relationship and they would feel exactly the same as your semi-girlfriend if the girl rejected them.


----------



## Sylarz (Sep 4, 2014)

EndsOfTheEarth said:


> What would you call it then? Serious question. This thread is months long and it's a testament to your sincere dislike of women in general. We're all wrong for wanting relationships, we're a burden to men who just want sex, our decision making is somehow wrong, you don't benefit from that decision making so it's unfair. Have I missed anything here?
> 
> At the end of the day, we all end up disappointed in love/sex multiple times. The majority of people rack it up to disappointment. They don't create a narrative about how the opposite sex are terrible or illogical or wrong over it. This thing called sex doesn't follow a bunch of rules, it can't. It's based on chemical interactions between an diverse group of people. So why individuals think the organic process of sex is unfair or incomprehensible or should work anyway other than it does is beyond me. It's like arguing that the way your pancreas works is immoral. It just is, it just does.
> 
> She doesn't want you anymore. That's just what is. Why is there a thread 33 pages long about it? If you want to believe a particular narrative about your life go right ahead. But why do you need to try and convince everyone else of your beliefs on the subject when there are obviously millions of conflicting views about it. It's quite insanity inducing to read. If you want to believe that being a decent person is a disadvantage in the world of sex go right ahead, see how that serves you. I know the end to that story and so does everyone else but you seem to be the type that needs to learn by experience.





> it's a testament to your sincere dislike of women in general.


Confusion, bafflement, yes, dislike, absolutely not. That's your own interpretation of my statements. I like women. I liked and still like the girl I was seeing. We are still on good terms. Hell, I envy them. I'm jealous I'm not one.



> We're all wrong for wanting relationships, we're a burden to men who just want sex, our decision making is somehow wrong, you don't benefit from that decision making so it's unfair.


Nope.



> Have I missed anything here?


The point and meaning of my statements, I think.



> She doesn't want you anymore. That's just what is.


Not the situation. Not the confusion. Not the problem.


----------



## Sylarz (Sep 4, 2014)

FlaviaGemina said:


> Er.... you're not being a "good guy". You're expressing some sense of entitlement that makes you think she owes you a fuck-buddy relationship although she has made it clear that she would want a relationship with you.
> 
> The reason she goes back to the other fuck-buddies is that you rejected her emotionally and that hurt her. Why should she have any obligation to make her own emotional suffering worse by staying around you when she knows that she'll never have the relationship that she wants with you? With the "douchebags", she's on a more equal level. She might not like them enough to want a relationship, but the thing is that they both want the same. She doesn't care that they are not emotionally invested, because she isn't either. They don't have any power over her and she doesn't have any power over them, so they can have fun. It's superficial and unattached fun, but it is fun. She can't/ doesn't want to have fun with you any more because she knows that you two have different expectations and you can control her whereas she can't control you.
> If you are genuinely _dumbfounded_ about this, you might want to read up on those creatures called humans.
> ...


Have any of you even read anything I have written...

There might be some confusion, since there are two separate questions now in this thread. The original question, and the question about my situation.



> You're expressing some sense of entitlement that makes you think she owes you a fuck-buddy relationship although she has made it clear that she would want a relationship with you.


Nope.



> She might not like them enough to want a relationship, but the thing is that they both want the same. She doesn't care that they are not emotionally invested, because she isn't either.


I didn't get that before. Now I see. I still find it sad and sort of malevolent of life to work that way, but I can see it now.

Yeah, I didn't get it before, perhaps because I am not particularly good at understanding people in general, let alone the complex emotional lives of women.

No need for everyone to get so pissed off at me. I was just seeking to understand something that seems on the face of it, TO ME, utterly backwards.

The sad conclusion is still the same though. Don't be too good.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Sylarz said:


> The more I think about being in a relationship the more it seems like a huge drag.
> 
> If I really think back, I don't think I ever wanted a relationship. I didn't realize girls were giving it away for free, no strings attached.
> 
> ...


Your question as an OP has a troll OP quality to it. Presumably you ...

Really think that RESTRAINT, a word that literally encompasses all wisdom, ... is not ... what? Wise? This is ridiculous on the surface.
a) Restraint means that you want strings attached because you know wisely that there are strings even if you foolishly ignore them.
b) Restraint means that chilled is fine, but serious is equally as fine. In fact being serious about being chilled and serious is VASTLY wise, and being chilled about being chilled and serious is immoral.
c) A relationship can succeed even without sex because it is BETTER than casual. Some people cannot have traditionally defined sex. 
d) 'Giving it away free' is a great point. Women should not do that as it is immoral. There is another thread on this about hypergamy right now. Even if we think sex is 'free' it isn't. Even delusion is not free. 

If you cannot summon the concern, seriousness, moral strength, patience, etc to maintain a relationship, you SHOULD NOT have sex.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Sylarz said:


> Have any of you even read anything I have written...
> 
> There might be some confusion, since there are two separate questions now in this thread. The original question, and the question about my situation.
> 
> ...


Women's emotional lives aren't more complex than men's. A lot of men are just brought up to ignore their own feelings, so they can't articulate what bothers them and express themselves through other means, e.g. ranting, drinking....

By the way: You want her to be exclusive with you (give up the fuck buddies), but you don't want a relationship? How does that work? Or do you mean she can have a one-sided relationship with you where she is dependent on you and you remain aloof?

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## Sylarz (Sep 4, 2014)

FlaviaGemina said:


> Women's emotional lives aren't more complex than men's. A lot of men are just brought up to ignore their own feelings, so they can't articulate what bothers them and express themselves through other means, e.g. ranting, drinking....
> 
> By the way: You want her to be exclusive with you (give up the fuck buddies), but you don't want a relationship? How does that work? Or do you mean she can have a one-sided relationship with you where she is dependent on you and you remain aloof?
> 
> Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk


There must have been a miscommunication here. I did not want her to be exclusive with me. It would be perfectly fine if she had other fuck buddies. I'd be cool with that. She knew that.


----------



## Sylarz (Sep 4, 2014)

series0 said:


> Your question as an OP has a troll OP quality to it. Presumably you ...
> 
> Really think that RESTRAINT, a word that literally encompasses all wisdom, ... is not ... what? Wise? This is ridiculous on the surface.
> a) Restraint means that you want strings attached because you know wisely that there are strings even if you foolishly ignore them.
> ...


Well, I certainly don't see restraint as self evidently worthwhile. Restraint as such has no inherent value. It can have instrumental value in certain cases, given certain goals.



> d) 'Giving it away free' is a great point. Women should not do that as it is immoral. There is another thread on this about hypergamy right now. Even if we think sex is 'free' it isn't. Even delusion is not free.


I certainly disagree that it is immoral. How people have sex is not immoral or moral. It is in my mind totally amoral. I think they should have sex with whomever they want, for whatever reason they feel like. And morality has nothing to do with it. What consenting adults do with their own bodies to me is entirely beyond moral appraisal.



> If you cannot summon the concern, seriousness, moral strength, patience, etc to maintain a relationship, you SHOULD NOT have sex.


Well that's a very interesting moral statement but do you care to back it up in any way? Why not? By what standard of morality and with what proof do you draw this conclusion?


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Sylarz said:


> Well, I certainly don't see restraint as self evidently worthwhile. Restraint as such has no inherent value. It can have instrumental value in certain cases, given certain goals.


Restraint is the foundation of wisdom. It can take two main forms, restraining your weakness in a sort of reverse effort at motivating it; and the more common usage of restraining your strength. Often immorality is morality taken too far.

You clearly are mostly immoral or you would sense the truth in these statements but I will continue to try to convince you regardless as I am nominally morally bound to do so.

One example of immorality being morality taken too far is achievement (for reward). Achievement is morally for reward, but, that reward is intrinsic to the act, eg internal, not external. External rewards, or fallout, are not required nor should they be desired for moral action. This means if you seek achievement for its external rewards, to that degree, you are immoral. This truth is not at all understood by most because it is a mainstream immoral tenet of almost all cultures to accept and even promote greed, eg immoral achievement for reward. 

That is only 1 example and there are many many more.



Sylarz said:


> I certainly disagree that it is immoral. How people have sex is not immoral or moral. It is in my mind totally amoral. I think they should have sex with whomever they want, for whatever reason they feel like. And morality has nothing to do with it. What consenting adults do with their own bodies to me is entirely beyond moral appraisal.


This whole notion is completely immoral. Why you do something answers to its morality. The various motivations all come into play. A sacred act, one done in love, is moral. I use the pseudo-religious word sacred to give the meaning of morality its best semantic load. Love IS morality. Love is anger, fear, and desire in harmony and at their highest level of expression. The perfection of love may be unattainable except in tiny fleeting moments, but that is only because humanity cannot hear and therefore agree with the entire signal all at once yet. Life is a morality antennae. As such evolution is the focal verbal mechanism of life and its push is in the moral direction, eg diversify to ramify in complexity and follow the moral chain upwards. More and more beings with more and more ability to sense the signal and act on it wisely. 



Sylarz said:


> Well that's a very interesting moral statement but do you care to back it up in any way? Why not? By what standard of morality and with what proof do you draw this conclusion?


It is in the nature of reality that nothing is ultimately provable. All fact is belief. There is no fact that can be concluded outside of a framework where foundation assumptions are made. These assumptions NEGATE any so called proof you are asking for. It is not possible. 

Nonetheless we exist and must puzzle out the consensual matrix of reality we seem to be in together. Third party consensus is actually a very meaningful constituent of the probability of the objective nature of reality, a reality we emerge truth from as our limited subjective perspectives cannot ever get anything correct, even though this certainly DOES NOT mean that all foolishness is equal. Some ideas are wiser and more probable as part of wisdom/morality than others. 

People who understand the importance of restraint, of things like mere kindness, of things like the statement, 'It's impossible for you to win if I lose', are on the path to more moral understanding and wisdom. If you want to get a great foundational understanding of morality try Lawrence Kohlberg and his theory of stages of moral development.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

@Sylarz these things can be moral from a perspective of authenticity and connectedness.
Lots of people kid themselves that they are not in a relationship when they really are, e.g. monogamous friends with benefits. If they are really friends, they will have a psychological effect on each other. Saying that they aren't in a relationship is denying the existence or importance of that effect. So they can't benefit consciously from the transformative effect the relationship could have. Plus, they can't enjoy the positive emotions it could generate, either, because they are avoiding their own feelings out of fear.


Conversely, a lot of people think they are in a relationship when they aren't, e.g. people who stay married out of politeness/ conventions/ fear of the unknown or for the children after they have drifted apart. These people have no effect on each other (except trapping and annoying each other), which leads to stagnation and can stunt the soul. They misuse the word relationship, going only by outward formal criteria, when the real thing just isn't there.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

I have to laugh about all the guys in this thread who complain about women who want to be treated like princesses (=TRADITIONAL WOMEN IN N THE PATRIARCHY/ MATRIARCHY) and then go on to blame this on feminism.
Lol, guys, these are "your own" women you're complaining about, not feminists.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Cheveyo said:


> It isn't that I have a problem with women. It's that the ones I find attractive are mentally unstable.


There's only one person who can change that.

You might also want to think about what that says about you (I don't mean that in a bad way. You might have a helping people thing or white knight complex, which isn't bad in itself but likely to make you repeat the same patterns all over again.)

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

FlaviaGemina said:


> There's only one person who can change that.




I'm aware.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

The real question is is, why wouldn't you? The thought of having sex without any romantic connection is weird and disgusting. One night stands are beyond me. Everyone's different with their sexuality, that's my point. 
I don't believe it is exclusively men who want casual sex.


----------



## tryingtodobetter (Apr 19, 2016)

Sylarz said:


> The more I think about being in a relationship the more it seems like a huge drag.
> 
> If I really think back, I don't think I ever wanted a relationship. I didn't realize girls were giving it away for free, no strings attached.
> 
> ...


"If girls are giving it away for free" to me this implies that you only want a girl for sex basically...

Its nice to have someone who is there for you. That's as simple as i can put it..


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

tryingtodobetter said:


> "If girls are giving it away for free" to me this implies that you only want a girl for sex basically...
> 
> Its nice to have someone who is there for you. That's as simple as i can put it..


Noooo, what are you saying? A strong manly man doesn't need anyone who is there for him. Wuaaaararargrrrrr




Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## tryingtodobetter (Apr 19, 2016)

FlaviaGemina said:


> Noooo, what are you saying? A strong manly man doesn't need anyone who is there for him. Wuaaaararargrrrrr
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sarcasm that's cool.


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

If you want to have a happy, healthy family (as I personally do and many other people do), then a stable long-term relationship is an important first step to making that happen.


----------

