# Dating and the Female Sex



## sweetraglansweater (Jul 31, 2015)

Macrosapien said:


> the most unrealistic thing on the list is having a big penis. That is one thing, a man can do nothing about, and having a big penis is rare, especially considering big penises only start at like 7 1/2 inches, is 7 even considered big?
> 
> Everything else on the list, can be improved with efforts. Attractiveness increases with money honestly, and one can always make over their look, dress differently, to increase their aesthetic to females. And being motivated, going back to school, learning a trade, working on the trade you already, work hard to get a much higher position in your company, all of this is doable. The only unrealistic thing is the penis size thing... although they supposedly have pills for that, but I doubt that will really help much and who knows how unhealthy it can be. The penis size thing should probably be the least important thing on the list, honestly.



Look, I can't believe the obsession over the penis thing. The amount of sensitivity about size is like...incredible. I might note that I never said a size in either direction...but alot of guys here are just automatically assuming that there is some kind of length involved. Personally I hate oversized dick. It hurts. If a guy is over a certain amount (won't say because that's personal but it's not what you'd think) I just won't put it in. Period. You guys are acting like penis length isn't important. IT IS. HAVE YOU EVER HAD A DICK FUCKING HURT YOUR CERVIX? Try being a small woman. Geezus. 

Penis size can be a synonymy for pleasure or eating a girl out or foreplay or fill-in-the-blank. The point is that there is sexual compatibility. It's important. Anyone who says that's not important is either lying or hasn't had decent sex (or conversely godawful sex that borders on painful...or perhaps they're just not a woman).


----------



## 95134hks (Dec 20, 2015)

sweetraglansweater said:


> Look, I can't believe the obsession over the penis thing. The amount of sensitivity about size is like...incredible. I might note that I never said a size in either direction...but alot of guys here are just automatically assuming that there is some kind of length involved. Personally I hate oversized dick. It hurts. If a guy is over a certain amount (won't say because that's personal but it's not what you'd think) I just won't put it in. Period. You guys are acting like penis length isn't important. IT IS. HAVE YOU EVER HAD A DICK FUCKING HURT YOUR CERVIX? Try being a small woman. Geezus.
> 
> Penis size can be a synonymy for pleasure or eating a girl out or foreplay or fill-in-the-blank. The point is that there is sexual compatibility. It's important. Anyone who says that's not important is either lying or hasn't had decent sex (or conversely godawful sex that borders on painful...or perhaps they're just not a woman).


It's just like buying new shoes.

The shoe has to fit.

Too small or too big will either hurt or not fit at all.

It is always best to try the shoe on before you tie the knot.



Noctis said:


> Women have been stereotyped negatively for wanting men who are rich, have a big dick, decent paying job. Yes, if men doesn't want a woman with kids, then isn't a woman not wanting a man because of the size of his paycheck pretty similar? Isn't both of them rejecting societal "norms"? It is because society not letting women off the hook as far as when it came to them having materialistic standards, that is a double standard in some people's eye, when, in actuality, while harsh, did have a bit of reason to it. Women of the past were regarded generally as homemakers and caregivers. Think about it. Women were esteemed as nurturers, caregivers, and homemakers. For them to forego such responsibility wasn't judged too kindly, as it was a very important duty at the time. Men who were materialistic were seen as blinded by money in many books, movies, and TV. As for physical materialism, men have been vied in the past for their bodies, as have women in Greek mythology to today. Many men who have high standards physically for women (adequate boobs), ample ass. Isn't your Christian friend also as guilty as being materialistic? Shouldn't both men and women be held to higher standards? Yet society has been poisoned by so much materialism that people can't distinguish right from left.


This really is just a phase that young adults (under 30) go through while they are still in their prime with lots of time on their hands.

This ALL changes when you hit 35, and again at 45, and again at 55, etc.




sweetraglansweater said:


> really? No mention of being good in the bedroom? What about eating me out?
> 
> But I have to stay in shape and be hot enough to stay his interest and get his boner up. Blah Blah Blah.
> 
> ...


"Performance" tends to improve with age also. By the time couples are in their mid 30's they are very good at it and can satisfy each other completely and numerous times.

Before you know it, the night is gone, the sun is coming up, and you are exhausted and you collapse into sleep and sleep deeply until noon.

Trust me.


----------



## sweetraglansweater (Jul 31, 2015)

95134hks said:


> Maybe SWEETRAG's musings on this topic are simply from the perspective of being in her prime for a female (20's) and very picky still ?! Or else it could be the polishing up of sour grapes and onto a new and different phase or lifestyle ?!


I haven't dated in a super long time and decided to re-try it. I a literally floundering around trying to figure out how to vet people because I am getting so many messages a day I literally can't fucking keep up with them. And it's paralyzing. How the fuck do you vet 20+ people a day on average??? There is no guide book on how to screen dudes. I have a life and a job...I can't just reply back to every Dick, Hank and Harry who opens with the line "hey beautiful how about a drink tonite..." I want to economize my time and make my selections efficiently. So I went back to square one and was like "I need a checklist." But literally I have no idea what's meaningful on that checklist in terms of a minimum threshold other than an initial "oh he's cute" or "that's interesting" or "OMG I LOVE ____ TOO!" <----Those things aren't good indicators for selection. I thought about relying on my Ne until I remembered all of my past boyfriends and admitted that my "intuition" about men is utter garbage. That literally gives me nothing --NOTHING-- to go on when screening 10-20 dudes a day.

I had a few women hit me up but anything has yet to materialize. At this point I'm tempted to just switch my account to "women only" just to cut down all the options. That being said I'd like to try dating men, too. Actually at this point screw it, I'd date a pre-established open couple just to avoid the drama of trying to figure this whole thing out. 

(I could date some guy friends but in so doing it would quickly escalate into relationshits and possibly proposals of marriage...which I am not ready for. I'm not trying to play the field but I know that if I offer to "date" a guy friend within a few hours they will talk about moving in or marriage. That's too much pressure. I don't want to loose a friend unless I'm for sure for sure it'll be for keeps)


----------



## 95134hks (Dec 20, 2015)

sweetraglansweater said:


> I haven't dated in a super long time and decided to re-try it. I a literally floundering around trying to figure out how to vet people because I am getting so many messages a day I literally can't fucking keep up with them. And it's paralyzing. How the fuck do you vet 20+ people a day on average??? There is no guide book on how to screen dudes. I have a life and a job...I can't just reply back to every Dick, Hank and Harry who opens with the line "hey beautiful how about a drink tonite..." I want to economize my time and make my selections efficiently. So I went back to square one and was like "I need a checklist." But literally I have no idea what's meaningful on that checklist in terms of a minimum threshold other than an initial "oh he's cute" or "that's interesting" or "OMG I LOVE ____ TOO!" <----Those things aren't good indicators for selection. I thought about relying on my Ne until I remembered all of my past boyfriends and admitted that my "intuition" about men is utter garbage. That literally gives me nothing --NOTHING-- to go on when screening 10-20 dudes a day.
> 
> I had a few women hit me up but anything has yet to materialize. At this point I'm tempted to just switch my account to "women only" just to cut down all the options. That being said I'd like to try dating men, too. Actually at this point screw it, I'd date a pre-established open couple just to avoid the drama of trying to figure this whole thing out.
> 
> (I could date some guy friends but in so doing it would quickly escalate into relationshits and possibly proposals of marriage...which I am not ready for. I'm not trying to play the field but I know that if I offer to "date" a guy friend within a few hours they will talk about moving in or marriage. That's too much pressure. I don't want to loose a friend unless I'm for sure for sure it'll be for keeps)


Well honestly if you are not ready for marriage of some kind, either hetero or same-sex, then you are wasting your time and someone else's by dating them.

This actually reminds me of Marsha and me back in Virginia at Norfolk. She was the woman (DWF = woman) with the joke about the boo-bee's (the bug that hides in a flower and goes "boo! bee!" when a bee flies up).

She was ready to get married to anyone. It did not matter whom. Her preference was anyone in a military uniform. She dearly wanted to be an officer's wife (similar to the theme in the movie Officer And A Gentleman). She was mid to late 20's dating young new officers in their early 20's. These young men were not ready or interested in marrying her. In that case the shoe was on the other foot but still a big waste of time.


----------



## sweetraglansweater (Jul 31, 2015)

95134hks said:


> Well honestly if you are not ready for marriage of some kind, either hetero or same-sex, then you are wasting your time and someone else's dating.


I don't think that's true, at least not for my age group. I'm willing to get into a long term relationshit that ends up in moving in and partnership. I just don't want to have to deal with that pressure right off the bat. 

I mean, who gets married anymore these days? What's the point of marriage besides a green card and monies?


----------



## Vanitas (Dec 13, 2009)

@sweetraglansweater In the context of online dating do remember that people/men can and do lie, especially in dating sites. You could have these requirements and not know how to look for markers (the kind of watch they wear? Their shoes? The car they drive? The way they spell? The bulge in their pants?). There is no shortcut for knowledge and experience, really.

So go on dates with the ones you consider cute/interesting, and don't get involved too quickly with any of them.


----------



## 95134hks (Dec 20, 2015)

sweetraglansweater said:


> I don't think that's true, at least not for my age group. I'm willing to get into a long term relationshit that ends up in moving in and partnership. I just don't want to have to deal with that pressure right off the bat.
> 
> I mean, who gets married anymore these days? What's the point of marriage besides a green card and monies?


That's taking a huge risk with someone else's time and a big risk of wasting your own time also.

The fastest proposal of marriage I ever saw was by a 40 year old female to me on our first date within 30 minutes of smooching on the couch. We had not even decided where to go for dinner yet. She boldly drove herself to my place, and waltzed herself up to my front door, at her own specific request.

She was driven to this state of desperation by having wasted a lot of time in long open ended relationships. Now she was 40 and she really really wanted a kid.

I obviously met her minimum requirements from her list, at the very least. She had thrown her strict laundry list out the window by then -- happens when you pass 35.

I was flattered by her offer and she was a beautiful woman but it was insane.

As to who gets married anymore, it solves a lot of legal issues if you want to have kids. If not, no worries. If no kids wanted then you are free to waste all your time. Jane a hiking friend of mine is in that boat -- she is over 40 now and lonely but she does NOT want kids just a live-in buddy.

I have a good chance of winning over Jane, however it will take several more years. That's ok though I have time. Jane has a hard time making up her mind and tying the knot. But she is isolated now by demographics. Everyone she knows is married except for me.



Vanitas said:


> @sweetraglansweater In the context of online dating do remember that people/men can and do lie, especially in dating sites. You could have these requirements and not know how to look for markers (the kind of watch they wear? Their shoes? The car they drive? The way they spell? The bulge in their pants?). There is no shortcut for knowledge and experience, really.
> 
> So go on dates with the ones you consider cute/interesting, and don't get involved too quickly with any of them.


Exactly. With this kind of volume what will be needed is some kind of essay contest.

The nice thing about emailing is that it forces people to write.

The nice thing about writing is that it discloses someone's content, organization, grammar, syntax, and education.

I would recommend going the email route. Texting is too short. Phone calls are too easy to lie during.

You can lie while writing too but you cannot lie about writing style.

I am guessing that as Internet dating gets really intense and standard then people are going to start exchanging tax returns as well, just like Presidential candidates must release theirs. Probably criminal background checks too just like employers.

I'm old school. I meet people the old fashioned way -- in activity clubs like bicycling, hiking, tennis, skiing, ballroom dancing etc. -- NOT on the Internet. The Internet is fast but it's just a meat market. And it's dangerous too.


----------



## Asharto (Jan 4, 2016)

Well I'm a guy so I'm sorry to intrude haha, but I think that you are an interesting girl. Personally I think you don't actually want to believe this way. Something like your heart wants to believe but you have been hurt quite a bit so you want to think with your head. I think the best is a balance. Material success can be seen as a measure sometimes. Like for example, being rich/attractive must come from somewhere. Being successful is an indicator of responsibility and hard work - this suggests that this guy will also be responsible and hard working for other parts of his life. Being attractive is a sign of personal grooming, suggesting that this guy knows the importance of presentation and impressions, etc. It would be the best to find a balance and discern between whether the material results come from true qualities or if it's just a fluke. That is where looking at the soul comes in. What do you think?


----------



## Macrosapien (Apr 4, 2010)

sweetraglansweater said:


> Look', I can't believe the obsession over the penis thing. The amount of sensitivity about size is like...incredible. I might note that I never said a size in either direction...but alot of guys here are just automatically assuming that there is some kind of length involved. Personally I hate oversized dick. It hurts. If a guy is over a certain amount (won't say because that's personal but it's not what you'd think) I just won't put it in. Period. You guys are acting like penis length isn't important. IT IS. HAVE YOU EVER HAD A DICK FUCKING HURT YOUR CERVIX? Try being a small woman. Geezus.
> 's
> Penis size can be a synonymy for pleasure or eating a girl out or foreplay or fill-in-the-blank. The point is that there is sexual compatibility. It's important. Anyone who says that's not important is either lying or hasn't had decent sex (or conversely godawful sex that borders on painful...or perhaps they're just not a woman).


ohhh you meant in the other direction, I gotcha. Well that will make all the guys happy, since most will have 5 to 6 inch penises here, on average. 

No I have never experienced a penis hitting my cervix, as I don't have one (lol?), but I have heard it hurts a lot. It makes sense, some vagina's are deeper than others, and I have definitely hit some cervix's and only know by way of facial expression -- and that you hit the bottom, and you're like, damn that's the cervix. I really don't understand why guys want bigger penises. 

Anyways, I get it, and I understand what you were saying.


----------



## Sygma (Dec 19, 2014)

BlackDog said:


> I wanted to add something slightly related, about a curious phenomenon I have noticed over the years. Hollywood has sort of lied to us (shocker, right?). The Hollywood idea (sometimes) is that the men you_ really_ want are slightly overweight, underpaid, and lacking in social skills. These were the guys who were picked on in highschool, and have never had a girlfriend or anything really even close. These men are supposed to appreciate us more than your average jock or stock broker type, who are usually portrayed as womanizing jerks. I don't think this is a good way to frame the issue. It hurts me to say this, but a lot of these "loser" types are dangerous. There are usually a few women who will date an unattractive guy, provided he has something else to offer. Someone who has had no experience with women _at all _runs the risk of a) not having been previously selected for a very good reason; or b) having grown bitter towards women over the years. This means that rather than being overly appreciative of you, he very well may badly mistreat you. Especially if he has developed an inferiority complex, or has decided to internalize the rejection and forge it into something ugly.
> 
> This is obviously not always true, but it is something to consider. Sometimes the view women have of themselves looking past the imperfections into somebody's Heart of Gold isn't shared by the other party. It's romantic, no doubt. But like reality is so often wont to do, it often fails to live up to this ideal. Sometimes the other party feels bitter, patronized, or is otherwise suspicious of intentions. So while I don't agree with having strict standards like income, height, looks, certain genital measurements, social skills, sexual history, etc... I do think it's a good idea to tread a little carefully around men who are severely lacking in all departments.


You know, I haven't dated a lot in all my life and it's mostly because I'm just not running behind kitties, so to speak. That and most of women get freaked out really easily when you do genuine compliments to them, so ... I've always had more friends than anything else. I mean it's really funny to hear people saying you're an alien because you're good hearted but that's completely offtopic

I've been in normal relationships where people break up for normal reasons, few of were long distance and that alone was enough to not continue. Some guys are a bit on their moon. Not that they're like unmatable, but its because they've been pointed out so much in their school days for being uncapable of proving that they could get a girlfriend that they kind of started to stop giving regards to other's expectations quite early ... and getting a girlfriend in the process.

I know I just don't bother anymore even if, admittedly, it's really nice to not be alone and having someone to love. It's just that people are too cynic, materialistic, condescending and so intolerant of others of their own specie than more often than not I'm simply not trying.

There are also the women always imaginating the worse.(like fucking seriously just get a spine already). The ones who have low self esteem or faking it so they could get a boy toy in order to get what they want. The ones affirming their loyalty but screwing other guys because "they don't know and it's complicated". I'm in a point of life where I don't have any kind of patience for these things. It was fun to go through tho and to learn humans as systems to decypher, sadly patterns are now clear if not very vivid and well ... let's say, the mating desire begin to fade away

I want and need wonderful people around me. If one of these could be my partner, I'd certainly be glad. Unfortunately most of people do not show these qualities


----------



## sweetraglansweater (Jul 31, 2015)

95134hks said:


> That's taking a huge risk with someone else's time and a big risk of wasting your own time also.
> 
> The fastest proposal of marriage I ever saw was by a 40 year old female to me on our first date within 30 minutes of smooching on the couch. We had not even decided where to go for dinner yet. She boldly drove herself to my place, and waltzed herself up to my front door, at her own specific request.
> 
> ...



If I get to 40 I'll be sure to lob my self at the first eligible man like a cannon. 

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. I know you've dated a slew of women but you're probably still unmarried though you got the goodies between their legs. Did you waste their time or are you still looking for Mrs Perfect?

Either way you're saying it's dangerous on one hand but to get married on the other? Isn't dating about screening the shit out of people to make sure you aren't going to end up in a body bag?

I do like the idea of emailing. I fall in love easily over email, especially if the person's a wordsmith. There are a few people from this site that are fucking wordsmiths who I would tumble into the rabbit hole of if I didn't have common sense. 

I think the advantage of local internet dating is being able to meet them after google stalking the fuck out of them. I'm from a smaller city so once I get their name it'd be easy to dig up the dirt, both socially and via background checks. 

I think internet dating is better than going to the bar and less stunted that being a member of the Introverts Geek Club....which ya, know. Like seriously? I could keep going to the board game shop but I do not want to date another geek/nerd. Just no. Just no. I could but NO. 

So like, I get the old fashioned thing but seriously a dude could lie in person and frankly men intimidate me so much that unless I've warmed up to them via conversation (email) I can't fathom talking to them if I never had met them before. I feel safer from the distance of my pc screen judging people.

Now meeting women...that's harder than I thought. You'd think the girls I wrote to would WRITE THE FUCK BACK. Nope. I am just going to have to keep attending weird New Age shit to find my batt shit crazy gfs.


----------



## sweetraglansweater (Jul 31, 2015)

Macrosapien said:


> ohhh you meant in the other direction, I gotcha. Well that will make all the guys happy, since most will have 5 to 6 inch penises here, on average.
> 
> No I have never experienced a penis hitting my cervix, as I don't have one (lol?), but I have heard it hurts a lot. It makes sense, some vagina's are deeper than others, and I have definitely hit some cervix's and only know by way of facial expression -- and that you hit the bottom, and you're like, damn that's the cervix. I really don't understand why guys want bigger penises.
> 
> Anyways, I get it, and I understand what you were saying.


5-6" is too much. They need to be circ'ed to satisfaction.


----------



## Vanitas (Dec 13, 2009)

I'm like @_95134hks_ that I don't date online. There's something quite mercenary about it, you're going there with the intention to look around and bet to 'buy' the attention/reciprocation of someone. There's a list, often a laundry list even, of how you (supposedly) are and what you're looking for. 

I prefer meeting/ finding people from meatspace. It's, from what I can tell, less pressure than online dating. Though, I am big on chemistry (genetic compatibility) and I'm not/way less expressive through text so if you think you can be 'more yourself' through computer screen, maybe it'd work better for you.

Basically I prefer offline because I discern bullshit faster face-to-face.


----------



## Macrosapien (Apr 4, 2010)

Vanitas said:


> I'm like @_95134hks_ that I don't date online. There's something quite mercenary about it, you're going there with the intention to look around and bet to 'buy' the attention/reciprocation of someone. There's a list, often a laundry list even, of how you (supposedly) are and what you're looking for.
> 
> I prefer meeting/ finding people from meatspace. It's, from what I can tell, less pressure than online dating. Though, I am big on chemistry (genetic compatibility) and I'm not/way less expressive through text so if you think you can be 'more yourself' through computer screen, maybe it'd work better for you.
> 
> Basically I prefer offline because I discern bullshit faster face-to-face.



Ive done it, only once was it powerful. But I was talking to her on the phone pretty quick, and then other things. 

I agree though, it's not a replacement to real physical contact meetings. I would be very hard for me to really do an online circumstance ever again, to be honest.


----------



## Sovereign (Aug 19, 2011)

I don't date online as a male, with my 5, max 10, timely responses to my posts. It's just too much to evaluate on too little accurate, reliable info.

I don't see how ladies are supposed to do that. If you can find a good way, more power to you. I mainly default to the old male way, which is seriously accessible to women as well. That way is: Watch people, see someone you like, strike up a conversation, vet them in person, date them, DON'T BECOME ATTACHED TO THEM.

Old school, but still better than online dating imo


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

my input on a part of this thread:


i don't understand why are people arguing against other people having preferences or deal-breakers. having discretion can be a good thing in a person's life... it keeps you safe, can make you emotionally/mentally happy, etc etc. 

and when it comes to the more "shallow" characteristics that people look for, those traits still serve the results above. plus, it's not like there aren't people out there who's search doesn't lead them to the type of individual who doesn't exactly "measure" up on paper--i wait on people every day who seem like odd match-ups, but who also seem more natural and at ease than the rich barbie-couples that come in, and they (the former) don't look anywhere as great 'on paper' than their dating-opposites. 


and there seems to be two types of people as well: those who go more for that serene connection to another person, and those who's mindset is more practical, seeking to mutually fulfill qualifications outside of their or the other person's _person_.


----------



## 95134hks (Dec 20, 2015)

Vanitas said:


> I'm like @_95134hks_ that I don't date online. There's something quite mercenary about it, you're going there with the intention to look around and bet to 'buy' the attention/reciprocation of someone. There's a list, often a laundry list even, of how you (supposedly) are and what you're looking for.
> 
> I prefer meeting/ finding people from meatspace. It's, from what I can tell, less pressure than online dating. Though, I am big on chemistry (genetic compatibility) and I'm not/way less expressive through text so if you think you can be 'more yourself' through computer screen, maybe it'd work better for you.
> 
> Basically I prefer offline because I discern bullshit faster face-to-face.





Macrosapien said:


> Ive done it, only once was it powerful. But I was talking to her on the phone pretty quick, and then other things.
> 
> I agree though, it's not a replacement to real physical contact meetings. I would be very hard for me to really do an online circumstance ever again, to be honest.





Sovereign said:


> I don't date online as a male, with my 5, max 10, timely responses to my posts. It's just too much to evaluate on too little accurate, reliable info.
> 
> I don't see how ladies are supposed to do that. If you can find a good way, more power to you. I mainly default to the old male way, which is seriously accessible to women as well. That way is: Watch people, see someone you like, strike up a conversation, vet them in person, date them, DON'T BECOME ATTACHED TO THEM.
> 
> Old school, but still better than online dating imo


For old school dating -- defined as going to some activity and meeting like minded singles -- you already have that activity in common and you can get a good look at the person which tells you a lot. Volume is lower but quality is infinitely higher.

Internet dating has opened new doors for stranded and isolated folks. But unless it is the only way to date for you, it is not recommended. And if you must go that route, then email letters and essays is critical.

Antoinette whom I knew in the biblical sense and dated for a year in the California sense was a texting geek. She texted me after a coastal seashore hike, and we met at a Greek restaurant the next weekend. She likes friendly humorous guys. Everything worked out well old school wise at the hiking club.

Heidi from that same club was more the face to face deep staring type. She would stand right in front of you eerily close and dive her blue eyes deep into yours. She was NOT a texting geek.

Michelle from that same club would work her way up to and next to you during the hike, and she liked to talk. Then she would hint at movies (mostly chick flicks of course -- testing your tolerance for tear jerking movies) that she would like to go see.

Women are such noble ingenious persons and they have many ways of getting your attention and locking onto it.

These procedures for the after-30 singles crowd are completely different from the meat market entrapments of the 20's group.

Everything changes at 30. Roles practically all change. Priorities are completely different.

I dated few if any females in their mid to late 20's -- these are each very predatory with long lists and lots of time on their hands.

All the women I dated were 22 or younger or else 30 or older. The 23 to 29 aged group is an unknown to me.

I tried Internet dating a couple of times and it was a complete lie.

Old school dating has always worked for me:

- tennis clubs

- swimming clubs

- dance clubs

- bicycle clubs

- hiking clubs

- archery clubs

- gyms

- wine clubs

- etc.


----------



## Sovereign (Aug 19, 2011)

95134hks said:


> For old school dating -- defined as going to some activity and meeting like minded singles -- you already have that activity in common and you can get a good look at the person which tells you a lot. Volume is lower but quality is infinitely higher.
> 
> Internet dating has opened new doors for stranded and isolated folks. But unless it is the only way to date for you, it is not recommended. And if you must go that route, then email letters and essays is critical.
> 
> ...


This. Like, all of it. I don't know anything past 30, but "meat market" is a very apt description of everything I've experienced about pre-30 dating. Thank God I'm mostly out of that cesspool...


----------



## Macrosapien (Apr 4, 2010)

sweetraglansweater said:


> 5-6" is too much. They need to be circ'ed to satisfaction.


Ah so you are referring to girth? I think I am understanding your thought on that more and more.


----------



## 95134hks (Dec 20, 2015)

Sovereign said:


> This. Like, all of it. I don't know anything past 30, but "meat market" is a very apt description of everything I've experienced about pre-30 dating. Thank God I'm mostly out of that cesspool...


Education takes up most people's time from age 18 (age 4 actually) to age 30 at least in terms of professional degrees and advanced degrees. There just isn't time for dating much then. Guys and gals become monks and nuns for a while. For the rest it is a meat market period -- hedonistic -- and from a long term perspective a complete waste of time if you are not getting an MS or MBA of JD or PhD out of it.

From about age 30 to 40 a lot of people are focusing on marriage and 1 or 2 kids. And a house. And college funds for the babies.


----------



## 95134hks (Dec 20, 2015)

sweetraglansweater said:


> Sister. Preach it.





Catwalk said:


> _Lmfaooo_... I dunno if this was *meant* to be humorous, however, I find this _highly_ tickling.
> 
> I am petite myself, so when a *giant* male pursues me - while it is ''nice'', I am skeptical whether his penis is Elephant™ size - as I do not see it working; there is just no room.


Claudia told me this joke on our first date:

A guy and a gal were on a date at the drive-in and they started kissing in the car during the movie and he put his hand in her pants.

She moaned and said "yes! yes!" so he put his finger inside her.

Then she said "yes! yes! now put your other fingers in it" so he did.

Then she said "yes! yes! now put your whole hand in it" so he did.

Then she said "yes! yes! now put both hands in it" so he did.

Then she said "yes! yes! yes! now clap."

Then he said "I can't clap."

And she said "tight huh !?"


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Gold diggers. People who have wealth should keep it to themselves until the end.


----------



## 95134hks (Dec 20, 2015)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> Gold diggers. People who have wealth should keep it to themselves until the end.


Marlee was adamant that she would not sign anything.

I had to laugh however because Marlee could not wait for anything anyway.

Met her ballroom dancing.

Proof there are land mines even at ballroom dances.


----------



## sweetraglansweater (Jul 31, 2015)

95134hks said:


> Marlee was adamant that she would not sign anything.
> 
> I had to laugh however because Marlee could not wait for anything anyway.
> 
> ...


*is tempted to date @95134hks just to hear the story in his autobiography*


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Noctis said:


> *In women*
> 
> I am generally attracted to women who are around my height, but I have been attracted to taller and shorter women
> 
> ...


This is _essentially_ *most* female lists ... except, in reverse. I do not understand why the female standard is criticized so heavily. (i.e., physically fit male - good figure - non-criminal - smart - 0 mental illnesses - assertive / trustworthy + hard working - good 'self esteem' / confidence).

Where is the ''money'' for these Children™ coming from - _medical bills - food bills_, familial stability - etc. I just do not think any of you live in reality sometimes. 

You have 0 materalistic requirement (via) female mating apparatus. You are escalating your ''struggle'' as a male. (i.e., female falls pregnant & needs to take work-leave); you are getting the ''brunt'' of materalistic standards. I am skeptical of these males, as they seem to have rather low-self value of themselves. Why would I _subject_ myself to this?

4 kids in 1 bedroom apartment, is not a ''good life'' - but *don't worry,* honey - at least he has a good enough ''humor'' to _laugh_ about it ..

Am I _missing_ something?


----------



## Noctis (Apr 4, 2012)

Catwalk said:


> This is _essentially_ *most* female lists ... except, in reverse. I do not understand why the female standard is criticized so heavily. (i.e., physically fit male - good figure - non-criminal - smart - 0 mental illnesses - assertive / trustworthy + hard working - good 'self esteem' / confidence).
> 
> Where is the ''money'' for these Children™ coming from - _medical bills - food bills_, familial stability - etc. I just do not think any of you live in reality sometimes.
> 
> ...


The money would be coming from career income, medical bills, food bills, car insurance, retirement funds, savings accounts, investments in stocks. It is not the female standard I am criticizing, it is the hegemonic masculine stereotypes that some women include on lists, such as having high income, big dick, super fit, tall, socially skilled and socially popular. It is that alpha male "requirement" in which irks me, as it seems like a really unfair and unrealistic standard to uphold men to. I believe that money is really important, but not excess amounts of money. I would prefer to earn enough money to provide for me and my future spouse or partner, children for education Kindergarten through grad school or college if they don't want to go to grad school, money to pay for bills and insurance for water, food, electric, medical, car, etc.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Catwalk said:


> This is _essentially_ *most* female lists ... except, in reverse. I do not understand why the female standard is criticized so heavily. (i.e., physically fit male - good figure - non-criminal - smart - 0 mental illnesses - assertive / trustworthy + hard working - good 'self esteem' / confidence).
> 
> Where is the ''money'' for these Children™ coming from - _medical bills - food bills_, familial stability - etc. I just do not think any of you live in reality sometimes.
> 
> ...


No one should have to rely on these amateurs to bring income to the household. I don't get the intelligence factor, intelligent people are some of the least exciting people to be around. All of my friends have rejected the educational system. That is a real crew.


----------



## sweetraglansweater (Jul 31, 2015)

Catwalk said:


> This is _essentially_ *most* female lists ... except, in reverse. I do not understand why the female standard is criticized so heavily. (i.e., physically fit male - good figure - non-criminal - smart - 0 mental illnesses - assertive / trustworthy + hard working - good 'self esteem' / confidence).
> 
> Where is the ''money'' for these Children™ coming from - _medical bills - food bills_, familial stability - etc. I just do not think any of you live in reality sometimes.
> 
> ...


Yes. Poverty blows. I feel like I'm living in a Jane Austen novel except without the fun dances and happy ending. You gotta get the best if you want to provide for a family
Or heck...If you want to survive into retirement!


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Noctis said:


> The money would be coming from career income, medical bills, food bills, car insurance, retirement funds, savings accounts, investments in stocks. It is not the female standard I am criticizing, it is the hegemonic masculine stereotypes that some women include on lists, such as having high income, big dick, super fit, tall, socially skilled and socially popular. It is that alpha male "requirement" in which irks me, as it seems like a really unfair and unrealistic standard to uphold men to. I believe that money is really important, but not excess amounts of money. I would prefer to earn enough money to provide for me and my future spouse or partner, children for education Kindergarten through grad school or college if they don't want to go to grad school, money to pay for bills and insurance for water, food, electric, medical, car, etc.


This is what a lot of socialists don't understand. People work harder and obtain more money not for just themselves, but for their future offspring. That's why it doesn't compute when people say we don't need a 100% inheritance tax. Everyone would waste their money on luxury if they knew it would all disappear after they died.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

sweetraglansweater said:


> Yes. Poverty blows. I feel like I'm living in a Jane Austen novel except without the fun dances and happy ending. You gotta get the best if you want to provide for a family
> Or heck...If you want to survive into retirement!


Who is taking that extreme Joe? No one is saying marry an impoverished person, they are saying there's no need to marry a billionaire because it is unfair to them being that they are of a lower economic bracket.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

95134hks said:


> Marlee was adamant that she would not sign anything.
> 
> I had to laugh however because Marlee could not wait for anything anyway.
> 
> ...


See this is what I having been saying for the longest time.
Beware of Traps!


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Noctis said:


> The money would be coming from career income, medical bills, food bills, car insurance, retirement funds, savings accounts, investments in stocks. It is not the female standard I am criticizing, it is the hegemonic masculine stereotypes that some women include on lists, such as having high income, big dick, super fit, tall, socially skilled and socially popular. It is that alpha male "requirement" in which irks me, as it seems like a really unfair and unrealistic standard to uphold men to. I believe that money is really important, but not excess amounts of money. I would prefer to earn enough money to provide for me and my future spouse or partner, children for education Kindergarten through grad school or college if they don't want to go to grad school, money to pay for bills and insurance for water, food, electric, medical, car, etc.



But you can prefer a ''shapely'' ass (i.e., hourglass) figure, but females cannot prefer a ''shapely'' torso, (i.e., broad / square) figure?

As this is ''shallow'' ... 

You can prefer a ''tight'' vagina or specific breast size, but females cannot prefer a ''larger'' dick .. (?)

Thus, educational levels for ''females'' are important to you, yet shouldn't be as important to women ... (?)

I agree, one needn't be ''rich'' - but a woman that is familial oriented, is not going to choose a guy ''looking for a job w/ a Ph.D'' vs ''one that already has one w/ a Ph.D'' ... Even if they fit the same persona characteristics. 

Is this ''logical'' .. ?

Most people are 'eligible' for being _good_ partners (via) personality traits, but that is simply not realistically enough to sustain anything *together*.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> No one should have to rely on these amateurs to bring income to the household. I don't get the intelligence factor, intelligent people are some of the least exciting people to be around. All of my friends have rejected the educational system. That is a real crew.


I think individuals mean ''not-stupid'' (i.e., utilizes intellect correctly) - but they needn't be _smart_. There are plenty ''un-smart'' _intelligent_ people. Your friends may be some, perhaps.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

sweetraglansweater said:


> Yes. Poverty blows. I feel like I'm living in a Jane Austen novel except without the fun dances and happy ending. You gotta get the best if you want to provide for a family
> Or heck...If you want to survive into retirement!


Yeah ... the women that ''marry'' - not ''date'', but ''marry'' for personality traits, (i.e., who makes them giggle the most) - without factoring future assessments + their own well-being, biological risks, and male mating apparatus, are the same ones ''giggling'' all the way to the Welfare™ facility. 

The ones that don't, are ''working themselves'' into the grave (i.e., to sustain the household) - like males do, without any ''time'' for Children™. Thus, an 'equal' income or higher, seems rational. There is no reason to ''downgrade'' at all.

''Poverty-*thinking*'' - doesn't even survive in ''Poverty™'' ... (I.e. India - SE, Asia).


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Catwalk said:


> I think individuals mean ''not-stupid'' (i.e., utilizes intellect correctly) - but they needn't be _smart_. There are plenty ''un-smart'' _intelligent_ people. Your friends may be some, perhaps.


Correct, no one really wants to be with a yokel. A guy who can't read nor write. A person who has their own interests is a good person. But I don't hang around the honor students who cry if they get an 80 on a test. They aren't bad people, it just isn't my culture. I used to be like that a lot but I never associated with those people in a strong way. You need to have fun in life, otherwise it is squandered.


----------



## Noctis (Apr 4, 2012)

Catwalk said:


> But you can prefer a ''shapely'' ass (i.e., hourglass) figure, but females cannot prefer a ''shapely'' torso, (i.e., broad / square) figure?
> 
> As this is ''shallow'' ...
> 
> ...


Did you see that I said I didn't care about breast size? I guess you didn't. Caring about a specific stereotype of a body is shallow. There is nothing wrong with women preferring that men have a defined torso or broad/square figure, though I would feel a bit jealous due to me having a less broad, less defined, angular body. I think educational levels are equally important to women as it is to men. I never knew what a tight vagina vs loose vagina is like, as I never had sex before, so how am I to know what that is like? However expecting men to have a big dick is shallow, just as some men, like me, admittedly preferring hourglass figures in women is shallow. However, I didn't say an hourglass is a "superior body" just because I prefer it.


----------



## 95134hks (Dec 20, 2015)

Catwalk said:


> Yeah ... the women that ''marry'' - not ''date'', but ''marry'' for personality traits, (i.e., who makes them giggle the most) - without factoring future assessments + their own well-being, biological risks, and male mating apparatus, are the same ones ''giggling'' all the way to the Welfare™ facility.
> 
> The ones that don't, are ''working themselves'' into the grave (i.e., to sustain the household) - like males do, without any ''time'' for Children™. Thus, an 'equal' income or higher, seems rational. There is no reason to ''downgrade'' at all.
> 
> ''Poverty-*thinking*'' - doesn't even survive in ''Poverty™'' ... (I.e. India - SE, Asia).


For you my dear friend CATWALK there is no rush -- you already have a daughter -- the love of your life.

You can wait until 50 if you want.

You'll still be a beauty even then !!!



Catwalk said:


> But you can prefer a ''shapely'' ass (i.e., hourglass) figure, but females cannot prefer a ''shapely'' torso, (i.e., broad / square) figure?
> 
> As this is ''shallow'' ...
> 
> ...


It all looks the same in the dark.

Feels the same too.

Lube ... lube is the important thing.

I like butter as a lube because it is edible.


----------



## sweetraglansweater (Jul 31, 2015)

Noctis said:


> Did you see that I said I didn't care about breast size? I guess you didn't. Caring about a specific stereotype of a body is shallow. There is nothing wrong with women preferring that men have a defined torso or broad/square figure, though I would feel a bit jealous due to me having a less broad, less defined, angular body. I think educational levels are equally important to women as it is to men. I never knew what a tight vagina vs loose vagina is like, as I never had sex before, so how am I to know what that is like? However expecting men to have a big dick is shallow, just as some men, like me, admittedly preferring hourglass figures in women is shallow.


STILL on the big dick issue? Jebuz! Men folk be sensitive...


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Noctis said:


> Did you see that I said I didn't care about breast size? I guess you didn't. Caring about a specific stereotype of a body is shallow. There is nothing wrong with women preferring that men have a defined torso or broad/square figure, though I would feel a bit jealous due to me having a less broad, less defined, angular body. I think educational levels are equally important to women as it is to men. I never knew what a tight vagina vs loose vagina is like, as I never had sex before, so how am I to know what that is like? However expecting men to have a big dick is shallow, just as some men, like me, admittedly preferring hourglass figures in women is shallow.


Thus, is it ''right'' to humiliate these women, when your standards, are ''shallow'' as well ... ? (re: Previous posts). Though, I did realize awhile that your standards are deriving from personal experience / preference.

I admire your ''honesty'' - that humiliation of 'female' covetousness standards derives from a venue of zealous envy; rather than anywhere rational. _Fair enough._ 

I also question these types of males that ''humiliate'' female standards, what exactly ''their'' standards for females are - they are usually the same. (i.e., self-defeating female repellent).


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

95134hks said:


> For you my dear friend CATWALK there is no rush -- you already have a daughter -- the love of your life.
> 
> You can wait until 50 if you want.
> 
> ...


Not _rushing_ for anything. I am content; my posts derive mostly in 2nd person, rather then ''direct'' impression of myself. I try to keep them 2nd person, however, I *slip-up*, like all humanoids.


----------



## Noctis (Apr 4, 2012)

sweetraglansweater said:


> nope. it isn't insulting to me.


I did a lot of self talk last night and accepted last night that I do have some deep issues in which cause me anger in which I am trying to work on. I am sorry that I went too far. When I recounted in my head what I said in my posts yesterday, I was frightened by the level of anger I displayed. No excuse, but I have a lot of issues from the past in which caused my anger, including being bullied as a kid by my brother for having a much smaller penis than him, which he boasted arrogantly due to him being taller, physically stronger and having better social and academic success than me. My brother can still bully me to this day. Seeing my mother favor my brother as a kid caused me at times to feel neglected and treated less fairly. It still hurts today thinking about it.


----------



## with water (Aug 13, 2014)

So what conclusion did wee come up with in this thread?


----------



## sweetraglansweater (Jul 31, 2015)

Noctis said:


> I did a lot of self talk last night and accepted last night that I do have some deep issues in which cause me anger in which I am trying to work on. I am sorry that I went too far. When I recounted in my head what I said in my posts yesterday, I was frightened by the level of anger I displayed. No excuse, but I have a lot of issues from the past in which caused my anger, including being bullied as a kid by my brother for having a much smaller penis than him, which he boasted arrogantly due to him being taller, physically stronger and having better social and academic success than me. My brother can still bully me to this day. Seeing my mother favor my brother as a kid caused me at times to feel neglected and treated less fairly. It still hurts today thinking about it.


Thanks for being transparent: that takes courage and I respect that deeply.

Personally I like men with smaller penis (for the reasons backlisted in this thread). I don't understand the obsession some women have with filling themselves until they hurt their cervix. It's bloody painful...and dangerous, especially if you are petite. So again, I never said size either way but I think it's important because some women are larger or smaller. That was my only point. I am sorry if I wasn't clear or offended anyone on this thread. IMO boob size is less important because boobs literally can't hurt you or damage your internal organs....that I know of anyway.

In ways I can relate to your struggles. I've been rejected on the "Jewish marriage market" for not having a functioning uterus and for having been raped by an uncircumcised goy. Call it racist, sexist or what you will but it's a fact that makes me ineligible for a traditional, Orthodox marriage to certain members of "the tribe." I've been in the middle of schidducim before and had a guy walk out when he point blank asked me how many kids I could have and I was like "um...zero?" Having physical hang ups which impair your marital or sexual candidacy suck but eh...you roll with it. Still hurts but hey, there is someone out there who doesn't mind that my womb is about as unfruitful as 40 years of wandering in a desert...

Screw your brother. You should send him a package of glitter. Because screw him. When INFPs get revenge we do it anonymously.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Noctis said:


> Thank you very much for your kind words  I attracted a genuinely mentally ill girl from my high school near the end of high school, .


I read your whole post, and found similarities for me. I'm older than most here, and I'm processing some issues from my childhood still. My mother is BPD (borderline personality disorder), and I have always been attracted to "normal"women. The problem is "normal" uses my mother as the measure. So, in essence, I'm attracted to batshit crazy. 

There are indeed batshit crazy women in this world, just like there are batshit crazy men. 

The common denominator in my life is me. I went to counseling, I've talked to friends, I've to consciously look at who I am dating. I have indeed figured out I am attracted to batshit crazy, but I cannot stand them long term or even medium term.

Like you I found a fascinating lady on an internet forum fairly recently, but unlike you she was one of the truly NICEST, most kind people I have ever run across. She is not crazy in any way, other than maybe her taste in me. Alas, LDR's didn't work for us. 

I guess my point to all this is to realize there are a LOT of really nice, kind, women in the world. I just don't "notice" them without some effort and work. When I do the work, I realize the vast majority of women are pretty nice. The vast majority of them are not for me, but I do need to not eliminate dating a lady just becuase she is not batshit crazy.


----------



## adamwilson (Jan 27, 2016)

With all due respect simply confessing you have some of these preferences over personality, romance, etc. automatically makes you unattractive to any rational man with self esteem. So nice job.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Noctis said:


> I did a lot of self talk last night and accepted last night that I do have some deep issues in which cause me anger in which I am trying to work on..



I very much respect your post. You have more courage than I, and you are more self aware than I am. It seems to me you are letting the poison out, and figuring out how you want to live your future. 

Play to your strengths. 

I'm glad I listened. I learned something about me. Thank you.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

adamwilson said:


> With all due respect simply confessing you have some of these preferences over personality, romance, etc. automatically makes you unattractive to any rational man with self esteem. So nice job.


I disagree, and no one doubts my self esteem. 

Self awareness is very attractive to me. People who lie, pretend, or put up fake walls are unattractive to me.


----------



## Vanitas (Dec 13, 2009)

Agni of Wands said:


> So what conclusion did wee come up with in this thread?


That everyone is free to have lists and standards (a 'price') as long they accept that there's a chance people are not going to buy?


----------



## adamwilson (Jan 27, 2016)

I think you would have to have low self esteem to stay with someone who values you primarily because of your material possessions and the size of your d!ck. Self awareness is important, but that isn't synonymous with being shallow or using people as a means to an end. I agree that lying and insincerity is unattractive, but I wouldn't date anyone who is like the OP or anyone who is insincere.


----------



## adamwilson (Jan 27, 2016)

drmiller100 said:


> I disagree, and no one doubts my self esteem.
> 
> Self awareness is very attractive to me. People who lie, pretend, or put up fake walls are unattractive to me.


 Sorry forgot to quote you

I think you would have to have low self esteem to stay with someone who values you primarily because of your material possessions and the size of your d!ck. Self awareness is important, but that isn't synonymous with being shallow or using people as a means to an end. I agree that lying and insincerity is unattractive, but I wouldn't date anyone who is like the OP or anyone who is insincere.


----------



## sweetraglansweater (Jul 31, 2015)

adamwilson said:


> Sorry forgot to quote you
> 
> I think you would have to have low self esteem to stay with someone who values you primarily because of your material possessions and the size of your d!ck. Self awareness is important, but that isn't synonymous with being shallow or using people as a means to an end. I agree that lying and insincerity is unattractive, but I wouldn't date anyone who is like the OP or anyone who is insincere.


Lolz.


----------



## adamwilson (Jan 27, 2016)

sweetraglansweater said:


> Lolz.


 Meh.. do what you want but I am just giving my preferences. I wouldn't date someone who is shallow or is a user


----------



## sweetraglansweater (Jul 31, 2015)

adamwilson said:


> Meh.. do what you want but I am just giving my preferences. I wouldn't date someone who is shallow or is a user


I support your quest for sincere purity. May your penis be with you.


----------



## Noctis (Apr 4, 2012)

drmiller100 said:


> I read your whole post, and found similarities for me. I'm older than most here, and I'm processing some issues from my childhood still. My mother is BPD (borderline personality disorder), and I have always been attracted to "normal"women. The problem is "normal" uses my mother as the measure. So, in essence, I'm attracted to batshit crazy.
> 
> There are indeed batshit crazy women in this world, just like there are batshit crazy men.
> 
> ...


True, I know a lot of nice women in my life, however, most of them were taken at the time in which I developed the courage to try to ask them out. I did ask out a really nice lady from college who I perceive as being an ExFP, however, she only liked me as a friend, so I left it like that. Some of the crazy women did mess a lot with my head, so I did get counselling in college about it, as well as kept away from them. I think keeping away from the bad crazy ones really helps. There are some good crazy people I know, but I am a bit frightened by their mentally ill periods.


----------



## Brian1 (May 7, 2011)

well, its something I'd like to do. Dating with the female sex.


----------



## Noctis (Apr 4, 2012)

sweetraglansweater said:


> Thanks for being transparent: that takes courage and I respect that deeply.
> 
> Personally I like men with smaller penis (for the reasons backlisted in this thread). I don't understand the obsession some women have with filling themselves until they hurt their cervix. It's bloody painful...and dangerous, especially if you are petite. So again, I never said size either way but I think it's important because some women are larger or smaller. That was my only point. I am sorry if I wasn't clear or offended anyone on this thread. IMO boob size is less important because boobs literally can't hurt you or damage your internal organs....that I know of anyway.
> 
> ...


I was raised Eastern Orthodox Christian (Similar to Catholic). It is a really strict denomination, which I found to be overly legalistic, religious in the sake of religion, and heavily based upon Works. I am currently an agnostic-atheist with humanistic philosophy leanings. I am sorry about being raped, being rejected by the "Jewish marriage market" and ignorant people. Some people at the church in the youth group treated me as an idiot because I was socially awkward. My brother's arrogance really left a huge mark on me, as I constantly felt inferior to him, as he pushed me around, called me a coward, called me "acting creepy and gay" for complementing women, and arrogantly strutted and showed off his "superior" height to me in a douche baggy way. When he bragged about his penis size, it hurt extra deeply. I had a bully in high school who was just as arrogant as my brother with the "height strut" and superiority complex due to smugness of having "superior genes". My brother gladly got a bit more humble after experiencing a lot of rude, snobby higher ups, as well as a former employer who didn't like my brother's lack of motivation and bad attitude, which he dismissed my brother, thankfully. For the arrogant douche bags, nothing is better than tough love, "tasting one's own medicine" and being disciplined by no nonsense people. I read a lot that women do get hurt by larger penises. Do large penises cause you pain like a knife metaphorically and literally speaking?


----------



## Noctis (Apr 4, 2012)

drmiller100 said:


> I very much respect your post. You have more courage than I, and you are more self aware than I am. It seems to me you are letting the poison out, and figuring out how you want to live your future.
> 
> Play to your strengths.
> 
> I'm glad I listened. I learned something about me. Thank you.


I wished I had a much nicer brother, so much, in childhood, I would befriend fictional characters in books and imagine them as a better brother than my real one. It isn't easy having been in the shadow of a toxic brother.


----------



## adamwilson (Jan 27, 2016)

sweetraglansweater said:


> I support your quest for sincere purity. May your penis be with you.


 Lol


----------



## SilverFalcon (Dec 18, 2014)

Vanitas said:


> That everyone is free to have lists and standards (a 'price') as long they accept that there's a chance people are not going to buy?


I thought that free to have standards (even stupid) is by default and the question is if and what standards are wise (= leading to happiness/satisfaction). 

-----------------------------

Standards are self-regulating business. Too low and you end up in wrong relationship, to high and you many not end in any, wrong standards - something in between. In the end the one making choice will carry outcomes of his/her decisions so standards should be considered highly sovereign self-tailored business.

Let me make metaphor:
When buying clothes do you people have standards? What is most important?
Fit?
Style?
Quality?
Luxury/Wow factor?

Can you afford to shop around to find the very best? Or can you rather lose money on something that you will later dump? 

I would say fit is the most important factor in which I do not want to compromise.
Style and quality quite important.
Luxury/Wow factor - happy to ignore unless it's bonus to the three above.

I think those categories can loosely be translated to relationship qualities (fit = compatibility for example). If only it was as easily translated to measurements.


----------



## with water (Aug 13, 2014)

Vanitas said:


> That everyone is free to have lists and standards (a 'price') as long they accept that there's a chance people are not going to buy?


No one mentioned that the standards listed would be more unfulfilling than having moral/emotional/spiritual standards?


----------



## SilverFalcon (Dec 18, 2014)

Vanitas said:


> I agree with the shopping around, also one of the hardest (the?) things is to know 'how much money you have to spend'. Self esteem and self worth, if you like, assessing whether your standards are within your means while not selling yourself short.


Might surprise you, I do not care about that part actually. In the end for me it's about aligning rational assessment of compatibility and gut feeling, 'price/value' is meaningless. It's as if trading to pieces of art - everyone has different appreciation of particular piece.
It might be specifically men's perspective, we are usually not "selling" ourselves out there but rather specifically offer ourselves to the one.


----------



## fr1cti0n (Dec 5, 2014)

sweetraglansweater said:


> Is it possible I've been doing this wrong and that the above woman was right and my sweet grandmother is wrong?


You might be looking at things in a black and white way, but I personally think that you have to find a good balance between "nice guy" and "superficial". So I think you could be on the right track.


----------



## fr1cti0n (Dec 5, 2014)

Macrosapien said:


> It's hard to find a good man - I know because I am a man, I wish I was a lesbian lol, things would be more simpler. Just going to have to go through life being a lesbian stuck in a mans body fo evah.


Same, sister.


----------



## angelfish (Feb 17, 2011)

I think I am late to this party, but I have a few thoughts and hope that's all right with everyone. 

I have never had a relationship checklist per se, but having always been both shy and picky, I guess I developed a certain concept of ideals/standards I find important for my partner to embody. I think these are less about the other person and more about myself, in terms of understanding what I need/desire versus what I can be flexible about. 

While most of those qualities are grounded in values, rather than external measures, I think external measures can be and often are a useful shortcut to values, particularly early on in relating. I don't know for sure that any single one of these would necessarily be a deal-breaker, but two or more of them in combination would easily be. 


*Instinctual sense of comfort* - _not only that they make me feel that warm little happy glow that I feel around anyone who I like spending time with, but also a sense that I can trust them. This is an immediate, physical sensation for me. _
*External shortcut:* They generally treat me warmly, respectfully, and conscientiously


*Overall respect of others* -_ that they treat other people in a way that makes me feel proud to be with them and around them._
*External shortcut:* They generally treat others respectfully and conscientiously


*Assertiveness* - _I'm a weird combination of being sort of a directionless people-pleaser but really stubborn at the same time. It's really important for me to have a partner with good boundaries. _
*External shortcut:* They stands up for themself and others and have a clear sense of personal direction


*Ability to prioritize both of our wellbeing* - _that they can both be self-sufficient and ambitious as well as supportive of me, who I am, without expecting any changes to my character. That they don't try to direct the bulk of my energy and resources primarily to pleasing them. That they can encourage me to improve myself in an altruistic way. _
*External shortcut:* They try to encourage me to make good decisions for myself even when it doesn't immediately benefit them


*Physical attraction* - _that I feel at least a little physically attracted to them and their appearance. _
*External shortcut:* They are hygienic, they physically present themselves in a way that seems respectful of their environments, they are tall enough to be within eye level of me, they try to take decent care of their body via nutrition/exercise


*Intelligence* - _that regardless of areas of interest or test scores, we can have satisfying discussion on serious topics and we can teach and learn from one another. That we trust each other's decision-making enough that each of us can confidently trust the other to make a good decision for us if need be. _
*External shortcut:* They are interested in humanity and culture, and actively pursue learning, whether trade school, higher education, etc.


*Interests and preferences* - _that we share enough in common that we can spend time together and not run out of interests, but that we each also have our own domains. That our interests and preferences do not clash so drastically that we struggle to embark on major endeavors._
*External shortcut:* We don't have to brainstorm what to do whenever we interact, and we also have separate lives; that we can agree on things like traveling, general daily life patterns, etc.


*Financial self-sufficiency* - _that they desire to be competent at paying their own way, and respect my desire to be the same, regardless of what financial arrangements we may create down the road._
*External shortcut:* They hold down a job, are already in or steadily working towards a career path, they don't always run out of money at the end of the month or depend on tax money, they pay loans responsibly, they consider my employment as important as theirs 


*Sexual satisfaction* - _that I leave bed happy!_ 
*External shortcut: *They put in whatever effort is required to ensure we both enjoy ourselves


*Religious tolerance* - _I don't really care what they believe or don't believe as long as they're respectful of others. _
*External shortcut:* They don't disparage or shun the non-believers


So I think one can use external measures as sort of guideposts and shortcuts to size up quickly whether someone has a high likelihood of making a good partner. I don't think there is any harm in deviating from one's preferences occasionally just out of fun or interest, of course, but I think it would be helpful in terms of narrowing down to sometimes sort out people who seem like they have a number of traits that would make longterm compatibility challenging. 

Ultimately I think a lot of partnering is not about finding a good person but finding a right person - there are so many people with wonderful and fun and great qualities but few of them are going to match well to each individual's life style and preferences in the long run. But of course you can't be a mind reader - so a few external judgments based on what they reveal about a person's inner qualities can be helpful in determination.


----------



## netfences (Feb 18, 2015)

@yldouright
Have a look *here* and let me know if you have any more questions.


----------



## sweetraglansweater (Jul 31, 2015)

I've decided on one trait for my checklist:

-must be able to outrun a starving panda....Unless that person is Hotwheels, the creator of 8Chan, in which case I gladly will be his concubine.


----------



## SilverFalcon (Dec 18, 2014)

sweetraglansweater said:


> I've decided on one trait for my checklist:
> 
> -must be able to *outrun a starving panda*....Unless that person is Hotwheels, the creator of 8Chan, in which case I gladly will be his concubine.


Do you plan to move to China to test this? :kitteh:


----------



## sweetraglansweater (Jul 31, 2015)

SilverFalcon said:


> Do you plan to move to China to test this? :kitteh:


yes. that man whose outrunning the panda is worthy of entering the shrine of my vagina.


----------



## SilverFalcon (Dec 18, 2014)

sweetraglansweater said:


> yes. that man whose outrunning the panda is worthy of entering the shrine of my vagina.


Go for a one that out flies a falcon.

























Or maybe out flies Fighting Falcon, if you want to have high standards :kitteh:.

Here Tomcat pilot failed it (the one in the crosshairs) :bored:





But beware, according to Porco Rosso all middle aged men are pigs. :tongue:


----------



## sweetraglansweater (Jul 31, 2015)

SilverFalcon said:


> Go for a one that out flies a falcon.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If I heighten my standards men will think I'm superficial and materalistic. I better keep the bar low enough that I won't stay nunned up forever.


----------



## SilverFalcon (Dec 18, 2014)

sweetraglansweater said:


> If I heighten my standards men will think I'm superficial and materalistic.


I thought they mean they'd hate to loose to:





The difference is in character. Fair competition is fair competition, no shame to lose.

But after all:





I would out fly a falcon for a worthy lady. 

Well kidding, I would out fly it for fun anyway. :kitteh:


----------



## sweetraglansweater (Jul 31, 2015)

SilverFalcon said:


> I thought they mean they'd hate to loose to:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Fly a falcon? Putin style? I'm yours.


----------



## SilverFalcon (Dec 18, 2014)

sweetraglansweater said:


> Fly a falcon? Putin style? I'm yours.


Fly a falcon? Putin style?  It would have to be quite a giant to carry me, those only live in myths.

It would have to be a composite one:









Anyway I plan to make a license this (or next) year.

What I initialy meant was OUT FLY (eg. fly higher, faster etc.) by a method of choice. :wink:


----------



## sweetraglansweater (Jul 31, 2015)

SilverFalcon said:


> Fly a falcon? Putin style?  It would have to be quite a giant to carry me, those only live in myths.
> 
> It would have to be a composite one:
> 
> ...


My Dreamz have been shattered. Back to my panda standards it is....


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

SilverFalcon said:


> Reminds me the joke about how women naively expect men to change and men naively expect women not to. :kitteh:
> On more serious note people may change even for the better, but it must be already in their nature.
> 
> 
> ...


Its still bad advice, as some losers do think they are fine the way they are after watching this feel good crap.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

sweetraglansweater said:


> Okay, well, you aren't giving me a checklist of things I SHOULD look for. I mean, I hear what you're saying morally and I agree. But I doesn't seem to work out either. I mean, there has to be a core threshold miminum that girl can go off of.
> 
> Like my bff guy friend told me his checklist for ladies:
> 
> ...


I would agree with that list except for number 7.

That said, I always thought women did have a checklist and just kept it to themselves. I still think they do. Your just like one of the first to admit it.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

sweetraglansweater said:


> It's interesting some of the guys here really resisting the notion that a girl can have a materialistic checklist for a guy (penis size, earning potential, social stats) but I know for a fucking FACT that 90% of men won't even consider a woman unless her looks can proffer him a boner.
> 
> So it's okay for men to have materialistic thresholds because they're physical but not OK for women??
> 
> ...


Erm men get judged quite harshly and get a lot of crao for having standards as well.

We don't get it easy.

I openly admit my standards and I generally get crap for it. Its the way it goes. 

Please don't think that because men have standards and checklists we get it easy. We just put up with the crap.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Macrosapien said:


> Sure who wants a guy or girl who doesn't work? Although a guy is more likely to accept a girl who doesnt have a job, due the social roles that were formed for men, ie provider.
> 
> I think it has more to do with the idea of success. For instance, what if a guy just have a decent job, lets say his job barely pays him like 15 per hour, for instance. Which of course is much above minimum wage but isnt anything to brag about. Or what if we make it even worst, lets say he only makes like 10 per hour? Better than minimum wage, but not too far from it, how would such a man fit into a list that only makes exception for someone who is financially successful? There is a difference between having a job and being successful.


Observation here not a rant.

I don't think in pre-feminism times, it did matter if a woman worked or not. As the man was the provider.

However since women have started working, the cost of living has increased and the wages jobs pay do not necessarily cover an entire family.

This is also due to consumerism.

So as much as I hate to be so shallow, I do put employment down on my list when it comes to women. 
It is more a necessity now than anything else.

As for people who complain that their partners are lazy and do nothing. Well again, it comes to standards. If someone gets with someone who dosnt have a job, what do they expect will happen?


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

95134hks said:


> That's taking a huge risk with someone else's time and a big risk of wasting your own time also.
> 
> The fastest proposal of marriage I ever saw was by a 40 year old female to me on our first date within 30 minutes of smooching on the couch. We had not even decided where to go for dinner yet. She boldly drove herself to my place, and waltzed herself up to my front door, at her own specific request.
> 
> ...


I used to do internet dating but don't touch it at all now.

I don't get anything from talking to someone online and looking at a photo.

Also I found out the hard way that people put up out of date photo's.

I just prefer the good old fashioned meeting someone in the real world. Most things can be seen up front in regards to if there is an actual attraction.

Online dating seems to add another step to the process. To battle through before actually meeting the person.

Plus I know from experience that I make a better impression in person, than online.

Online I just seem to have desperate women talk to me who want to settle straight the way. 

Just not my cup of tea.


----------



## ParetoCaretheStare (Jan 18, 2012)

I think we can all admit that there are much more women than there are men these days and this is the reason why women have more pressure set on them to act a particular way according to the current sport being played. It makes the average male more capable of assessing his dormant self and comparing himself to the women who are sizing themselves up against current trends. The more likely the female is to standardize herself in an acceptable manner, the more likely the troops are to go up to them, see them as their equals, and not feel a bit threatened. This is an aspect of human evolutionary adaptation and integration into communities (so. instinctual response by the way). I don't think everybody has this gene, which is one of the reasons for group fall-outs. Differences persist inconsistently and in various other-worldly striations, according to the holder of the eye and the perspective being zoned into.


----------

