-
Hi RN,
Just wanted to tweak your statment about the "...the majority of men are gettting sex for free."
Well, here in the US of A the majority of men are not getting any sex at all from what I hear. (Wink) Just had to throw in my unsolicited two cents worth. Keep up the good work as always.
-
Ok Paddy..."The majority of men are either getting it for free, OR NOT GETTING AT ALL!" LOL :) Either way, I still don't believe that "men HAVE to pay for sex and women get it for free".
-
Drgn, I did mention that a majority of Northeastern people are racist in the dating sense but as you mentioned and to avoid generalization, there are a few exceptions. They are hard to find though because most parents teach their kids in the segregated neighborhoods in New York not to date outside their race. There are people that go against this rule like myself but not without stares or dirty looks. People in the office date interracially because like you said about girls from Michigan, they are not in their backyard. They are away from parents and their home neighborhoods but they still get stares and the nudgiing question of what are you doing with him/her? When I was with my ex-fiancee, People in her neighborhhood asked her what she was doing with this "chink" and she responded that I was her boyfriend. She got a lot of this in her neighborhood but our relationship was so strong that this racism didn't break the bond. What did break the bond was that she became abusive after meeting a neo-feminist ***** named Martha but that's a different story that I explained in a previous post.
As for Alex, the solution for getting women to pay is to meet a desperate rich woman who hasn't gotten any in years. Not all of them are ugly, but don't expect a wet behind the ears 18 year old either. The 18 year old WILL DEFINITELY make you pay because she doesn't even have a college degree so how can you expect her to have a job to pay for even your meals? If you want a woman that does pay, you have to meet one that makes more money than you AND one that finds you a better person than all her ex-boyfriends. You also have to be physically attractive as well. I do martial arts so I am in top shape and a lot of wealthy older women paid for my meals even when I refused. The key is you must be physically attractive AND the woman must make money. The woman I dated who paid for my meals and even a trip to Vegas was in her forties but back then I was 25 years old but you can be any age as long as you work out to get the muscular body unless you are a cripple. It is the same way with prostitution. We would NEEVER pay for a fat, wrinkled body but we pay for the young ones who are in shape and have shapely tits and asses. So if you are fat, Get in shape and you'll see how many women will pay for you. Also if you are balding, take rogaine or get a hair weave. Women would pay just as much for an ideal man as we would pay for an ideal woman that is why there a few male escort services for these women.
As for threesomes, you MUST date a bisexual. You'll NEVER get a threesome with straight women. Straight women are just as homophobic as straight guys and hate it when you force them to do lesbian acts. That is how I get a threesome once. They are hard to find but you can find them on adult friendfinder sites which will clearly mention they are straight or bisexual. One site I recommend is Alt.com. But say on your ad that you don't want responses leading to paysites because of some of them are fake and do lead to paysites so make it clear that you don't want responses like this. You'll get real responses this way. I met a bisexual girl through this site and had a threesome with her bi-sexual lover.
Darkseid
-
Interesting, Prokofiev. Asshole? Nasty attitude?
Alex posts this pathetic diatribe about how unfair the world is for men. Then when I ask several questions about a different realm of possibility, his response is Never, Never, C'mon (making blanket statements about "reality). (If you read the initial post, I never made any reference to MY personal experiences.) Then when I give examples from my own life, your response is that I'm an asshole. Why? Because I made a statement about my experiences that doesn't match your reality? Or because it's your belief that guys who aren't whining about a lack of female attention are assholes? Typical response. It's funny how angry other guys get when you don't support their whining. BTW, I usually don't discuss my personal life with anyone, but I really get annoyed when people speak of their pathetic reality as if it's the ONLY reality.
P.S. I could give you dozens of examples from friends that make me look like a "piker". Does that make them assholes too? Is Darkseid an asshole for having similar experiences? Yawn...
P.P.S Thanks, RN. And, Darkseid, thanks for the additional examples of what's possible. (I can smell the smoke as neurons are frying...)
-
Darkseid,
The woman doesn't have to rich, old, or desperate. She does, however, have to be several years into her career so that her paying is not a struggle…just a choice. Usually 25 is the cutoff. She also has to fully understand on an emotional level that being with you is at the top of her priority list because you can give her the kind of experiences that no other man (at least no one she's met up to this point) can give.
You guys seem to have missed the romance novel stat I gave earlier. Women DREAM about meeting some handsome, sexy, mysterious stranger that gives them unbelievable emotional and physical experiences. If you've ever read a romance novel, they all follow basically the same format. When women go on vacation, they imagine meeting some incredible guy. When they are with their girlfriends, they talk about finding some "alpha" male who's able to reach the woman deep inside, and access all her most private fantasies, dreams and images.
It's quite basic, guys. As men, our sexuality is visually based. We see a hot woman and we want to jump her. Women, by and large, work a little differently. Their sexuality is more emotionally based. Why do you think artists, poets, and musicians are the "master seducers" of our time?!! Because they help women access that part of their mind, where those fantasies, and sexual thoughts are kept. And since HE's the one that opened that doorway, HE's the one she chooses to share it with. This is why women buy so many f---ing romance novels. They're getting their sexual fix, the way guys do when they view Playboy. Most men DON'T HAVE A CLUE when it comes to women, which is why most men are in a condition of scarcity when it comes to sex.
"If you want to be a bull fighter, you must first learn how to be a bull."
-
darkseid>As for threesomes, you MUST date a bisexual...
Thanks for your advice. But in fact, I don't need it. Personally I am quite OK with my life.
joe_zop>Alex, no double standard here at all -- "What about my needs" is whiny regardless of the gender that says it.
No, what you said exactly is :
"No, I get annoyed listening to GUYS complain about women while whining in the same way women are generally put down for whining."
You are not annoyed about women whinning, but about GUYS, WHINNING like women.
Then :
"I provide background, statistics and links to my viewpoints, you provide opinion and anecdote and ignore any fact that doesn't suit your perspective. You make ridiculous and unsupportable blanket statements ("Not only for MY vacation, they never pay for any man's vacation") "
Do you really believe men and women pay equally for vacations, restorants... ?? Do you need special statistics research for this ?
There are certain realities of life, that we all know, without statistical reports. It's not only restaurants, women don't pay equally for houses, cars, anything. There are exceptions, of course... But don't try to convince me that it is not true.
And men and women don't pay equally for sex, just look into a newspaper and compare men's and womens prostitutes ads. Also RN is trying to say, that most men get sex free - RN, darling, it's not free ! They pay with marriage certificate for this - look at my initial post.
Then you say, my position is balanced, I care about children first. Joe, 1/2 of this children are also boys. They don't ask you about this care ! They will grow up and come under press of marriage law - they will not thank you.
Joe, you ignore well known fact, that normal sexual life is of utmost importance for people well-being. It's not less important, that normal food. Everything that screw up sex, screw up lifes of millions. But you prefer to believe, that financial well-being of women is of first importance, and sexual life is second. This is feminists position, clear.
>suppose you help us ... by telling us where we should be going to find women to have sex with
No, I don't want to discuss this. there is a lot of such information already. Yes, I used to go somewhere for adventures, but now I don't do it much.
But what is interesting here, Joe, do you realize, that if situation will be everywhere like in US, you'll simply have nowhere to go ? So why don't you care for Thailand women and children ? No, you are quite OK with the situation, you show interest about how to exploit the opportunities. So why not to make american women work the same way ? Are they of better kind, then in Thailand ?
:) Don't think, I see happy american society with all women go out of hunger to the streets, whoring for everyday meal. They are very far from it.
-
Dragon,
"there are plenty of guys who make over $200/hr" I assume you're one of them. . . that's $400,000 to $500,000 year. I doubt it.
"Women take me out all the time" Great . . .
"I have a habit of dating bi-sexual women . . if you know what to look for . . ." Like we are all dying for a bi-sexual woman or a 3-some. Thanks, but no-thanks. Been there . . .
I'm not attacking the message so much as the messenger. No need to break this guys (Alex) balls. I would rather hear you give advice on HOW to "get your shit together" than to brag about your sex life. Something constructive. I don't hear anything about the quality of your relationships or how you utilize "romance", only who pays and how many fit into your bed. But good luck . . .
And Alex . . . don't whine . . . my Chinese girlfriend is fine and she sends her regards . . . in Chinese. Peace - P
-
>You are not annoyed about women whinning, but about GUYS, WHINNING like women.
I'm annoyed about whining -- period. How much clearer can I be? Look, this is my native language, I am someone with a highly sophisticated sense of syntax and meaning and also someone who gets paid for using that sense, and I was perfectly clear about what I said and meant. Don't blame me because you misunderstood it, and don't attempt to lecture me on what I meant until you're capable of reading nuance better. If you like, I'll be happy break it down for you bit by bit. (I don't normally react like this, but to have you lecture me on what I said and meant is really too much when I've studiously avoided any comment on your unending stream of grammatical and syntactic errors, because I made the specific point of establishing at the very beginning that this was not your native language.)
> Do you really believe men and women pay equally for vacations, restorants... ?? Do you need special statistics research for this ?
Do you really believe that, as you very specifically stated, women "never pay for any man's vacation"? You've had two people in this thread who have contradicted you from direct experience. No, you don't believe it, but you still keep saying it and things like it. That's precisely what I mean about a ridiculous and unsupportable blanket statement. That was exactly what I took you to task on, and once again you are avoiding the issue by fleeing away from your statement.
>But don't try to convince me that it is not true.
Alex, it has become very clear that it is absolutely impossible to convince you of anything, which means that you're basically interested not in thought, dialogue and interaction, but in diatribe. That's boring, and this will be my last engagement of you, as this has turned into an endless repetition of the same whiny complaints without development of any interesting nuances in those whines. There's more to discuss in this thread than your theories.
>Then you say, my position is balanced, I care about children first. Joe, 1/2 of this children are also boys. They don't ask you about this care ! They will grow up and come under press of marriage law - they will not thank you.
No, instead you propose a) asking 14-year old boys if they wouldn't like to not pay for things, and getting sex for free, expecting that the answer you get might actually prove something, and b) setting up a system where children are going to struggle financially because you don't think you should have to pay for helping create them. Wow, that's really caring a lot about those boys, isn't it? Let's just increase their inclusion in some of the negative statistical categories I cited. You're the one who's still dismissing half of the kids because they're not boys, while I'm basically interested in discussing all of their situations as children, not potential adults who may or may not agree with your position. The game is to first get them to adulthood, so they can make their own choices about how they think and live. You consistently just want to skip the realities of that process.
>Joe, you ignore well known fact, that normal sexual life is of utmost importance for people well-being. It's not less important, that normal food. Everything that screw up sex, screw up lifes of millions. But you prefer to believe, that financial well-being of women is of first importance, and sexual life is second. This is feminists position, clear.
You know, that's just complete and utter crap, and you don't know what you're talking about. Psychologists and sociologists of all stripes agree that the baseline issues for humans are food, shelter, and safety, which, in this society, are connected to money. That's not just feminists, that's everyone. Nowhere have I at all disagreed that sex is critically important, and my presence on this board clearly indicates I think so on a personal level, but to say it's more important that food is just hyperbolic baloney -- which isn't surprising, since that's your basic form of argument.
>>suppose you help us ... by telling us where we should be going to find women to have sex with
>No, I don't want to discuss this. there is a lot of such information already.
So, in other words, you're just a troll.
>But what is interesting here, Joe, do you realize, that if situation will be everywhere like in US, you'll simply have nowhere to go ? So why don't you care for Thailand women and children ? No, you are quite OK with the situation, you show interest about how to exploit the opportunities. So why not to make american women work the same way ? Are they of better kind, then in Thailand ?
First of all, I share information about things in the US as well, unlike you. See, that's the purpose of this board -- "sharing information" -- and I do. That's something you've stated you're not interested in doing, and instead you're now going to be judgemental about those who do, by defining it as "exploiting the opportunities." Well, screw you, pal -- opportunist must be your middle name.
Next, you pompous *******, don't dare presume to know how I do or do not care about people in various countries -- I spend a fair amount of my time working with people in third world countries on improving their situations, a large portion of the rest working on community and social issues, and my postings hardly embody pro-exploitation and abuse or lack of caring perspectives. You don't know me, asshole, so don't put attitudes into my mouth. I've quite obviously got no problem expressing them myself.
One thing I decidedly don't presume to do is impose my values on someone else's culture -- that's your game, and it's clear you'd have utterly no problem doing so in the event you were to get laid more and cheaper. In addition, I'm not the one proposing a radical shift in an existing situation without any clear understanding of what would happen. That's you, remember?
>Don't think, I see happy american society with all women go out of hunger to the streets, whoring for everyday meal. They are very far from it.
No, but you're perfectly happy to dismiss the fact that men make 25% more money than women, and still complain that you might have to pay for dinner in a scenario where you're hoping to get laid. Tell you what, since you're into ridiculous and unrealistic scenarios that haven't been thought through -- how about we simply legislate that everyone gets exactly the same amount of money, period, and then we won't have to worry at all about who pays for what? How about you simply talk about sharing the financial load at dinner or wherever -- no, wait, that would involve interaction with a woman other than for sex, and she might somehow trick or force you into marriage, so that won't work.
In the city where I grew up there most certainly were women who were basically out on the streets to make money for food. It ain't always been the good-money 90's, and there's certainly no guarantee that we won't be back in an economic mess at any point. And you've made it crystal clear that your position doesn't really give a damn about whether or not women end up whoring for food in any event, as long as you don't have to pay.
I basically agree with Drgn on his assessment of you, Alex, (and I also think his assessment of the psyche and the reasons men have trouble getting and understanding women are also pretty well dead on.) I've had women pay for things for me my entire life, and I'm far from some god's gift in terms of being handsome or a physical specimen. I've also done the same in return. It just depends on what the situation happens to be, and who the two people involved are. But unlike you, for me it's not all about money, for everything, at all times. Some people walk through life wearing their hearts on their sleeves -- you obviously wear your wallet.
-
joe_zop> don't attempt to lecture me on what I meant until you're capable of reading nuance better
Not to such level as not to understand what "guys whinning like girls" mean. I catched you with this and now you got annoyed.
>Do you really believe that, as you very specifically stated, women "never pay for any man's vacation"? You've had two people in this thread ...
My God ! STATISTICALLY !
Sometimes they do.
>Alex, it has become very clear that it is absolutely impossible to convince you of anything
Same about you. In fact we exchanged our thoughts already, and no one side could convince the other. We can stop it.
>Psychologists and sociologists of all stripes agree that the baseline issues for humans are food, shelter, and safety, which, in this society, are connected to money.
I read other things. Food and sex are of equal importance. And then - look at all world literature. It's about 1. food and material well-being 2. sex. - And it pays appr. equal attention to 1 and 2.
>So, in other words, you're just a troll. See, that's the purpose of this board -- "sharing information" -- and I do. That's something you've stated you're not interested in doing
I put my postings only into American Women part, the purpose of it to discuss american women attitude for sex. Your accusations are foundless.
>I spend a fair amount of my time working with people in third world countries on improving their situations, a large portion of the rest working on community and social issues, and my postings hardly embody pro-exploitation and abuse or lack of caring perspectives.
>You don't know me, asshole,
Now I know you already.
See, Joe, I believe that you worked as social worker and did your best to help people. But in the same time your presence on this site, dedicated to question "Where to find cheap prostitutes ?" shows, that you are OK with it. You even scorned me that I am not active in this discussion. Would I answer : oh, yes, I know a country with such good and cheap prostitutes ! - you'll be interested. When I pointed this out to you you got mad. It's funny.
Do you look at going to prostitutes in poor countries as a part of social help to people of 3rd world ? Or exploitation of their conditions, so you can pay less for a good service ?
C'mon.
>it's clear you'd have utterly no problem doing so in the event you were to get laid more and cheaper.
But it's the purpose of this site - to discuss, how to get laid cheaper ! You just scorned me for refusing to discuss, in what country to go for this.
>No, but you're perfectly happy to dismiss the fact that men make 25% more money than women,
Yes, I do dismiss it ! America is very rich country, even 25% less is a lot of money. There are really poor countries in the world, and you'll not convince me that 25% of US salary is an important thing.
I am against mariage law NOT just because men must pay MONEY after divorce, but because IT CHANGES WOMEN PSYCHOLOGY, their attitude for relationship with men, focusing it on money.
>how about we simply legislate that everyone gets exactly the same amount of money, period, and then we won't have to worry at all about who pays for what
What ? Communism ? Doesn't work. Proved already.
>In the city where I grew up there most certainly were women who were basically out on the streets to make money for food... And you've made it crystal clear that your position doesn't really give a damn about whether or not women end up whoring for food in any event, as long as you don't have to pay.
So what men did in this unfortunate city ? Being not able to prostitute, they probably, all died out of hunger...
How did you survive ?
Again, US is a very rich country, and also there are some bad examples - it's not the main problem of this country to compare with many others.
>I've had women pay for things for me my entire life
You are a great guy ! And I am poor, unfortunate thing, they don't want to pay for me ... whinn... whin... whinn...
>But unlike you, for me it's not all about money, for everything
Just other way around. You calculate 25% and care so much about it - I don't.
-
Prokofiev,
Do me one small favor? Go back and READ ALL OF THE POSTS before you open your mouth. You're WAY off base here. By the way, there are guys in my office who make 10 to 20 times that figure. You don't have a clue as to my background, or what I do for a living...let it go. But, that wasn't my point.
Alex, feels society is responsible for fixing his problems with women to the point where the government should step in and solve the problem. Please, try to keep up. And, as I stated previously, if you would bother to read and then process, I'm not bragging. I'm simply giving examples of what Alex stated was IMPOSSIBLE. Jesus, pal, I have no further use for you...
P.S. Joe_Zop, slam dunk!
-
alex continued to blather:
>not to such level as not to understand what "guys whinning like girls" mean. i catched you with this and now you got annoyed.
and earlier:
>you are not annoyed about women whinning, but about guys, whinning like women.
look, i'll go slow so you might have one last chance chance to catch this. at no point did i say that i was not annoyed about women whining. i find that also extremely annoying, and the fact that i did not specifically state so means nothing -- bud selig, martha stewart and people who drive too close to the rear of my car also annoy me, and i didn't mention them either. my comment was simply that i find it both annoying and ironic to hear men whining in the same way women do, when men constantly complain about women doing it. i find [i]all[/i] whining about how you're a victim and so the world should change for you annoying. in what way is that difficult to comprehend?
>now i know you already.
>see, joe, i believe that you worked as social worker and did your best to help people. but in the same time your presence on this site, dedicated to question "where to find cheap prostitutes ?" shows, that you are ok with it. you even scorned me that i am not active in this discussion. would i answer : oh, yes, i know a country with such good and cheap prostitutes ! - you'll be interested. when i pointed this out to you you got mad. it's funny.
see, there you go again with a complete inability to read, and an even more absolute inability to read between the lines. no, you don't know me, and you're not even close in your assumptions. i am not a social worker and i never said i was one. and the purpose of this site is not finding cheap prostitutes -- to quote from the site itself, it's "finding women and getting laid." you're the one who's obsessed with cheapness -- strange for a guy who says he's not concerned with money -- i've never said a word about that in terms of my own actions.
and my point was very simple -- that's the mission of the board; you've said you're not interested in being part of that, and you're judgmental to boot about those who are. therefore, you're a troll.
>do you look at going to prostitutes in poor countries as a part of social help to people of 3rd world ? or exploitation of their conditions, so you can pay less for a good service ?
c'mon.
first, what exactly does this have to do with anything? (besides your ability to try to make a snide remark.) as far as frequenting sex workers in third world countries (or in the us, or anywhere else) i have absolutely no problem with people deciding what's best for them, what they want to do, and how they want to make money. that includes women who decide to make money by becoming sex workers. i do have a problem with people who are coerced, ****, etc. but somebody's body is their own, and they can choose to do with it whatever they want. i frankly don't see a huge difference between sex workers and day laborers or other independent contractors, as long as it's an option entered by choice. again, you're the one with money on the brain.
if i go to a sex worker, i go to a sex worker. generally, that happens in whatever place i happen to be, as opposed to me magically screwing someone a continent away from where my body is located. (if that were possible, it'd be, hello rn! lol) if i go to sex workers at home, i go to north american sex workers. if i go to sex workers while i'm travelling, i go to sex workers wherever i happen to be located. if i'm elsewhere in the us, they're american. if i'm in europe, i go to european sex workers. thailand, thai. australia, australian. again, what part of that is difficult for you to understand?
most of my experiences with sex workers and with women in general have happened in the us. is that clear enough?
no, probably not.
>you'll not convince me that 25% of us salary is an important thing.
no, but you'll certainly whine about having to give up part of it to a women in whatever way that might happen. if it's not important, why whine about it? why cite third world countries, where 25% of a us salary is often more than a family makes in a year, if it's not important?
>so what men did in this unfortunate city ? being not able to prostitute, they probably, all died out of hunger...
how did you survive ?
many moved away. many turned to crime, as the crime rate went through the roof. others went on welfare, unemployment, tried starting businesses, doing odd jobs, etc. me, i worked my ass off to survive, usually with more than one job, lots of them crappy. that's what anyone does who doesn't have simple options and doesn't just sit around and whine.
>just other way around. you calculate 25% and care so much about it - i don't.
you say you don't care, but absolutely everything you write about and have written about is all about women being after your money. child support, paying for dinner, men having to give half the property, etc. women needing the money equation changed so they'll act right. the unfairness of men needing to pay for sex when women don't. money, money, money, money. to say that you don't care about money says that everything you've posted here is bullshit. either you stand by what you've written, or you don't.
-
joe>At NO POINT did I say that I was not annoyed about women whining. I find that also extremely annoying,
That's what you are saying now. But initially you did'nt say "I am annoyed about women whinning", you specified exactly men's whinnings. That's what feminist attitude is.
>I find ALL whining about how you're a victim and so the world should change for you annoying. In what way is that difficult to comprehend?
OK, here we agree. So women's whinning - "it's so difficult to raise a child, we are victims of husbands, who leave us" - are annoying. Why to support them ?
>And the purpose of this site is not finding cheap prostitutes -- to quote from the site itself, it's "Finding women and getting laid." You're the one who's obsessed with cheapness --
Are you serious ? So why women don't discuss where to go to "Find men and to get laid." ?
To find a women you don't have to go to Brazil, you can lay brazilian prostitute in your own city. the only problem is PRICE and QUALITY of service. That's what this site is discussing - nothing else. All guys that come here are interested in cheap prostitutes, including dgrn, who must be so busy meeting women, chasing for him, that I don't know how he can find time for internet.
So it's nothing wrong to try to find cheap prostitutes - I don't argue. The difference is that while other guys try to go to Philliphines for this, spending thousands for fly tickets and sitting 20 hours inside an airplain, I want to bring Philliphines directly to their doors. Is that bad idea ? You should just destroy marriage law, make women less independent, and prices will go down. Is it bad ?
Men, answer !
>you'll not convince me that 25% of US salary is an important thing. - No, but you'll certainly whine about having to give up part of it to a women in whatever way that might happen. If it's not important, why whine about it?
Because basically I don't want prostitution at all. I am for FREE sex for sex. I repeate, marriage law corrupt women, it shift their sexuality from sex to money. This is the biggest problem in US society, because poverty is exception, but anti-sexuality is rule.
-
alex:
as a first-time, and hopefully last-time, poster on this topic, just my two cents .....
there are those men that generally "have a clue", with joe_zop and drgn being the most recent of few examples on this board, and those that don't (yes, alex, you quickly spring to mind here).
quote: "so why women don't discuss where to go to "find men and to get laid.""
i am not sure what brought you to the above conclusion--i can confidently argue, much as i can on many of your other concepts, that you are squarely wrong. women often do, in fact, go out trying to find sex. (note: i assure you that statement was written, as hard as it may be to believe, in absolute sobriety and with presence of mind.) how do i know this? well, fortunately, or unfortunately depending on how you look at it, most of my closest friends are female (fairly attractive ones at that). as such, i am privy to the types of conversations they have with their other female friends (or i simply listen carefully when i am with a group of them and they are doing their "smack talk"). women do, much like men, but perhaps less frequently, go out looking to satisfy their sexual needs—one-night-stands are certainly an option. in fact, i often joke with them that they are worse than some of my male friends in this regard. and, if they fail that evening, which does happen more often than not, they return home dejected and disappointed (right rn?).
to me, the only real difference between men and women with respect to sex is that men are more willing to have sex without any romantic elements, whereas women tend to require them—they seek warmth, kindness, humor, and emotional security, among other things, rather than just sufficiently good looks and a heartbeat. furthermore, when they seek that one-night-stand, i assure you that the male’s financial position does not really enter the equation—simple logic would dictate as much (unless we're talking about exceptions like "doing" a celebrity where the financial benefits typically do not extend beyond an evening of debauchery). for longer-term relationships, which by definition are altogether different from one-night-stands, financial security may, in some cases, be part of the equation. however, let’s be honest here—don’t men also evaluate women on a variety of criteria (i.e. potential to be a good and/or nurturing long-term partner/wife, potential to be a good mother, intellect, personality, quality/compatibility of sex, family background, economic status, etc. etc.)? the specific criteria may differ, but the purpose is similar. in fact, i know women that do quite well financially and apply solely non-financial criteria to picking their long-term partners.
alex, i really think if you removed those blinders and buried them permanently in your all-too-vast skeleton closet, you would start to see the world as it really is. we do not live in a world, contrary to you wild imagination, where men are the only ones seeking sex and women, being the asexual creatures you deem them, leverage their bodies solely for financial benefit. of course, there are exceptions to this, as there are with everything, but in my experiences they are certainly far from the rule.
alex, you very much appear to be harboring inordinate amounts of anger toward women in general and, consequently, irrationally conclude that the "system" is out to screw you (generalizing the problem as being universally true is a rationalization on your part to make you feel better--imho). my best advice would be to seek the help of a good therapist--and do it quickly.
joe_zop and drgn:
boy, you guys have significantly more patience with people like alex than i could ever muster—i applaud you efforts.
rn:
your thoughts/comments, which i tend to find most insightful and genuine, are often very much in line with my female friends (aside from the 4,000 shags of course--lol)—if only more of the men on this board gave them the attention they deserve.
happy hunting!
fred
-
fred flintstone>
fred, i'm pretty sure that although you are "fred" - you are a woman.
it's your style of writing...
and then:
>well, fortunately, or unfortunately depending on how you look at it, most of my closest friends are female (fairly attractive ones at that). as such, i am privy to the types of conversations they have with their other female friends
> my best advice would be to seek the help of a good therapist--and do it quickly.
yes, women do discuss sex between themselves, in fact more, then men. but in a different way. what i am talking about : look at this site. it's open for everyone, do you see many women, discussing how to go to let's say thailand for sex, and how much male prostitutes will cost them there ? is that my 'crazy hallucination' that i see only men here ?
sorry, miss.
-
Ok, I'm done with Alex, as there's really been nothing new added in quite some time, and I'm bored with reading comprehension games. (Umm, there aren't many women here because the site's mission is clearly stated as being about men finding women, not the other way around... and if Fred's a woman, he's either gay or a good story teller in his other posts, as one of them describes travelling with a long-term girlfriend.)
Fred, I think you make some excellent points, particularly about the romantic elements, echoing the comment by drgn about romance novels, which I'd like to explore a bit more (and drgn I invite comments from you on this. You, too, RN -- feel free to take me to task on my massive generalizing, and I know these novels aren't exactly always bastions of feminist thought, though they do focus strongly on the concept of strong women who make their own choices in the face of difficulty.)
I've rarely been in a woman's home who doesn't have one of these novels, and I think one could also point to soap operas as being part of that same side of the coin. Part of my perspective is that this makes perfect sense -- men are raised (or wired, if that's your take on things) to be competitive, hence our general obsession with sports and things involving fighting, loud machinery and explosions, :) and women are raised to manage interpersonal relationships, so soap operas and romance novels are to women what sports and car chases are to men.
Given that lots of those romantic novels involve recurring themes (the mysterious stranger, the handsome man of means and quite possibly title, the trials of the rather difficult love through a series of trials -- and yes, I've actually looked at these things and even read a couple god help me) what should we non-literary characters make of all this?
My sense is:
1) Attention, attention, attention. That seems to be one of the recurring themes. Lots of attention paid to the woman, not usually manifested in "stuff" but mostly in experiences. And that means unbridled and genuine interest, not obsession. It often manifests itself in an ability to listen.
2) Gestures, gestures, gestures. Preferably unexpected and, at times, unexpectedly public. Not necessarily huge, but irregularly regular.
3) A light or gentle approach. Not too many of these novels involve the male protagonist directly and aggressively pressuring the woman, though he may well be involved in persistant pursuit. Note that consistent low-key pursuit is different from pressure. In those novels where the male is not someone of high social stature, and where he's aggressively macho, he still doesn't turn that on the female protagonist, but only uses it to her benefit.
4) The secret revealed. Less is more is fine as long as she gets inside to some degree and at some point, and giving too much away eliminates the interest. All these guys have some degree of mystery about them, which the women are driven and obsessed with solving and discovering. (Now [i]that[/i] sounds like real life!) Being taciturn about this is ok for the male character only if he give's it up later, so the woman can somehow help.
5) The mind reader or detective. The male protagonist never comes up with a gesture that isn't the right one. He comes up with it because he "knows" what she wants because he "knows" her. Or he's listened to her and takes something she mentioned and was clearly attached to and extrapolated from that. See #1.
6) Amazingly, consistency doesn't seem to be that important, as long as there's a good reason for the inconsistency. A fair amount of the time the female protagonist has to "forgive" the male in order for the relationship to move forward (her test) and he has to then reveal that there was a good reason for his transgression (see #4) and dramatically make it up to her.
The royalty and classic movie star looks side of the equation you've either got or not, but most of these books focus on behavior-based scenarios wherein the guy proves his fidelity, overcomes some great difficulty for her, swoops in and saves/changes her life, etc. Lots of it is about creating the aura, but, of equal importance, managing to sustain it. One aspect you don't see much of in these novels is the movement into the humdrum -- even in those where the protagonists get married, have a kid, and slip into a routine, the routine ends up being the defining critical barrier that must be overcome. Conclusion -- guys may like watching car chases and sports, but women want men to create some degree of that excitement for them in everyday life, in the relationship, specifically, and, better still, to let them help but not have to come up with the idea. This is, I think, one of the cruxes of the matter -- how to deal with routine, which most guys I know tend to absolutely gravitate toward. This tends to undermine #1 and #2.)
Yes, I acknowledge the gross generalizations involved here, and that this is kind of a silly game, but I don't want to go back to the fat discussion again and I don't see where having a bunch of guys telling Alex he's clueless -- freely acknowledging that I've been the worst offender in that -- is going to get anywhere.
Comments and thoughts?