# Think you're an alpha male and got game? Read this



## jennyh80

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/****blocked-by-redistribution

Apparently the evolutionary psychology does not work everywhere - mainly in places where the women are better educated and have good support system in place.


----------



## ozymandias

jennyh80 said:


> http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/****blocked-by-redistribution
> 
> Apparently the evolutionary psychology does not work everywhere - mainly in places where the women are better educated and have good support system in place.



Interesting to compare and contrast this to what's happened to the SMP in America's urban communities where male provisioning has been replaced by the state.

The confluence of feminism and authoritarian politics is always interesting too. I wonder if she recognizes the dissonance between how she evaluates consent in one domain versus the other?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## RandomDude

Don't know about alpha, but I definitely got game. So HA!


----------



## ReformedHubby

I don't know, I think what this guy ran into in Dennmark was several instances of "She's just not that into you". I will concede that pick up artist books do give the average guy a healthy dose of confidence based on a placebo affect. But I don't believe that women will flock to a pick up artist like mindless lemmings. Your target still has to be attracted to you. Spit all the game you want, if you aren't her type you aren't getting anywhere.


----------



## RandomDude

No sh-t

Two things
1) You dont have to a PUA to have game
2) Game represents your ability to charm/seduce a woman, getting shot down a few times doesn't count for sh-t, getting shot all the time though, then yeah - no game


----------



## RandomDude

=/

Seriously I don't know why you think these guys are even considered gpod examples of those who 'have game'

That's just disgusting


----------



## WyshIknew

FrenchFry said:


> I'm going to go ahead and repost this in this thread as well, because isn't a run of the mill PUA (well...TBD tbh)
> 
> rooshv | Search Results | man boobz
> 
> 
> 
> He's a rapey misogynist scumbag who advocates being a rapey misogynist scumbag.


I read this and I'm rather glad I have quite strong beta tendencies.

I can't type what I think of him.


----------



## sparkyjim

WyshIknew said:


> I can't type what I think of him.


Let me help you...

In my opinion the alpha in alpha male stands for the letter "a" which stands for "a**..."

I could go on but I don't think I need to.


----------



## RandomDude

Rapists ain't alpha they are fking scum and quite frankly need to be cleaned out by the numbers, not worth the tax money it costs to feed them in jail

Made a thread about that here:
http://talkaboutmarriage.com/politics-religion/64830-rape-capital-punishment.html


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

FrenchFry said:


> I'm going to go ahead and repost this in this thread as well, because isn't a run of the mill PUA (well...TBD tbh)
> 
> rooshv | Search Results | man boobz
> 
> 
> 
> He's a rapey misogynist scumbag who advocates being a rapey misogynist scumbag.


With the charm of Uday Hussein.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

FrenchFry said:


> I'm going to go ahead and repost this in this thread as well, because isn't a run of the mill PUA (well...TBD tbh)
> 
> rooshv | Search Results | man boobz
> 
> 
> 
> He's a rapey misogynist scumbag who advocates being a rapey misogynist scumbag.


As a PSA, here is his picture. For a guy constantly ripping on how ugly women are, you'd think he would be a supermodel. Judge for yourself. I especially like the greasy hair styled with WD-40 and the eyes that are literally black. 

View attachment 10106


----------



## WyshIknew

Therealbrighteyes said:


> As a PSA, here is his picture. For a guy constantly ripping on how ugly women are, you'd think he would be a supermodel. Judge for yourself. I especially like the greasy hair styled with WD-40 and the eyes that are literally black.
> 
> View attachment 10106


:lol:



Wow, studly.


No wonder the loser needs to get them insensible first!


----------



## PHTlump

jennyh80 said:


> Apparently the evolutionary psychology does not work everywhere - mainly in places where the women are better educated and have good support system in place.


Socialism can overcome evolution and basic human nature? I think not.

Katie J.M. Baker Purposefully Distorted My Work To Advance Her Socialist Agenda | Roosh V



Roosh; said:


> Jezebel writer Katie J.M. Baker recently wrote an article in Dissent magazine that reviews Don’t Bang Denmark. And by “reviews,” I mean cherry-picks the contents to create a fictional narrative that game doesn’t work in socialist countries. Many left-leaning outlets such as The Hairpin, Washington Monthly, Kottke, and NY Magazine celebrated the article as proof of socialism’s doubleplus goodness and game’s ineffectiveness. I imagine it was like hitting two birds with one stone for them. I can forgive these outlets because they didn’t read the book, but Katie did. She knows her argument has no standing, but chose to mislead the public instead.


Also,


Roosh; said:


> I have to admit that my time in Denmark did create temporary sympathies for socialism. The reason is because, unlike Danish citizens, I’m not taxed at 50% or more. This doesn’t include mention of a monstrous 25% VAT on most sales purchases. It’s easy when you’re on the outside looking in to admire the fact that homeless people have health care, but do you want to give up half your income for that and other things which you can easily purchase on the free market?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

PHTlump said:


> Socialism can overcome evolution and basic human nature? I think not.
> 
> Katie J.M. Baker Purposefully Distorted My Work To Advance Her Socialist Agenda | Roosh V
> 
> 
> 
> Also,


Katie Baker has a HELL of a lot more credibility than this sewer dweller. If Roosh says the sky is blue, I recommend you go outside and check. Roosh seems to think that people are misconstruing what he is saying yet he manages to hang himself all on his own, in his words on his blog, one hate piece at a time.


----------



## John Lee

I generally ignore "evolutionary psychology" claims about dating/mating (or anything else!) -- most so-called evopsych is just a lot of conjecturing and surmising, it's not done by any kind of scientific method, it's just what "seems" like it makes sense (or else some broad extrapolation from a really limited study of mice in cages). 

Besides the whole idea that you could "become alpha" or learn to "act alpha" would fly in the face of the whole idea of natural selection, which would give the impression that "alpha" traits are genetic. I have a lot of problems with the simplistic "alpha/beta" thing applied to people too -- in the wild, we use it to describe the single highest ranking male in a pack/herd/group. There can't be like five different male deer "acting alpha" or "being alpha", there's just one alpha male. There's not that much evidence that humans function the same way -- for one thing, we don't travel around in packs or herds.


----------



## PHTlump

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Katie Baker has a HELL of a lot more credibility than this sewer dweller.


Why? Because she's misrepresenting something for the right reasons? I think it would be better if she didn't misrepresent it at all.


----------



## moco82

John, I would largely agree that the extrapolation is a stretch. It doesn't play out in the civilized society around us. But the primal rears its head in enclosed societies rules by violence, e.g. prisons, gangs, or rogue armies.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

PHTlump said:


> Why? Because she's misrepresenting something for the right reasons? I think it would be better if she didn't misrepresent it at all.


She didn't misrepresent anything. He fails (continuously) to own up to what he says when called out on it by the msm. He prefers to bully people online but when his name and face are posted on credible media outlets, suddenly it's "taken out of context". I agree, it would be better if nobody gave him any attention. And with that, I'm done talking about him.


----------



## PHTlump

Therealbrighteyes said:


> She didn't misrepresent anything.


Of course she did. She claimed that Denmark's socialism repelled Roosh's efforts to seduce the local women. Roosh never claimed that. He stated that the country's winter was the culprit. He stated that when the weather warmed in April, and the days got longer, he had much more success with women.

Now, I'll grant that I haven't read the book. I've simply looked at the review of the book, and Roosh's response to the review. But, I don't think it's logical to assume that everything Roosh says must be a lie and everything a Roosh critic says must be true. Actually, it's illogical.


----------



## samyeagar

Therealbrighteyes said:


> As a PSA, here is his picture. For a guy constantly ripping on how ugly women are, you'd think he would be a supermodel. Judge for yourself. I especially like the greasy hair styled with WD-40 and the eyes that are literally black.


The thing is, you put a guitar or football in this guys hands, and a lot of women would be throwning themselves at him, no problems taking their turn to be raped...


----------



## RandomDude

> no problems taking their turn to be raped...


Errr, that aint rape


----------



## PHTlump

John Lee said:


> I generally ignore "evolutionary psychology" claims about dating/mating (or anything else!) -- most so-called evopsych is just a lot of conjecturing and surmising, it's not done by any kind of scientific method, it's just what "seems" like it makes sense (or else some broad extrapolation from a really limited study of mice in cages).


To the contrary. While evo-psych is a relatively young field, there are dozens of studies that support the hypothesis of mate selection predicted by the theories in the field.



> Besides the whole idea that you could "become alpha" or learn to "act alpha" would fly in the face of the whole idea of natural selection, which would give the impression that "alpha" traits are genetic. I have a lot of problems with the simplistic "alpha/beta" thing applied to people too -- in the wild, we use it to describe the single highest ranking male in a pack/herd/group. There can't be like five different male deer "acting alpha" or "being alpha", there's just one alpha male. There's not that much evidence that humans function the same way -- for one thing, we don't travel around in packs or herds.


You are simply misunderstanding how the language is used. You are correct that the alpha/beta language, as used in reference to pack animals, isn't directly applicable to humans. But that's not how the language is used. The alpha/beta words were adapted early on and have just kind of stuck. The general behaviors of alpha males in pack animals (dominance, physical superiority) tend to be attractive in humans as well. That's why the language was adopted.


----------



## PHTlump

I'm just curious, does Icelandic law define sex with an intoxicated woman to be rape? Some here have obviously assumed so. I honestly have no idea.

If the law is consistent with the USA, it seems strange that the sexual culture of Iceland would have developed as it has. Multiple sources, besides Roosh, have described the sexual landscape of young adults in Iceland as spending all night drinking, then hooking up in the early morning hours.


----------



## John Lee

samyeagar said:


> The thing is, you put a guitar or football in this guys hands, and a lot of women would be throwning themselves at him, no problems taking their turn to be raped...


acting butthurt = beta quality


----------



## Caribbean Man

John Lee said:


> I generally ignore "evolutionary psychology" claims about dating/mating (or anything else!) -- most so-called evopsych is just a lot of conjecturing and surmising, it's not done by any kind of scientific method, it's just what "seems" like it makes sense (or else some broad extrapolation from a really limited study of mice in cages).


Do you believe in evolution?

The exact same thing has been said about Darwin's entire theory of evolution. 
There is absolutely no conclusive scientific proof that human beings evolved from a single cell into the complex lifeforms we are today.

In fact I find it fascinating that people who are hardcore evolutionist can be dismissive of it's natural progression, evolutionary psychology.

I view this thread and the articles posted in the same light.


----------



## RandomDude

Well, evolution is one thing, creation also another thing. I don't believe that some jewish god created us nor do I believe I'm descended from a wolf according to my people's ancient beliefs. However evolution has more scientific proof then religious beliefs at present times. Unless one is to believe we were products of alien genetic experimentation!


----------



## John Lee

To be clear, I believe in evolution. Probably saying that I don't believe in evolutionary psychology is not accurate, more that I think a lot of pop science and downright speculative BS gets put out in the name of evolutionary psychology. You get a lot of people just throwing their personal ideas out there about what traits we supposedly are or aren't evolved to be attracted to. Some of it is "common sense," but sometimes what seems like "common sense" is actually nonsense.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Lol,
Well that's the point guys.
All of these things are basically constructs that we make to make things " easier."
So how effective one is compared to another can only be subjective and contextual.
There is no SCIENCE behind it.
But what's the scientific proof behind love , lust and attraction?
Yes?
Does this mean that they don't exist?
Lateral thinking.
There are subtle nuances like race , gender orientation , culture , all of which in themselves are constructs , dictating the possible outcomes in the mating game.

In the act of coitus,at the point of male orgasm,millions of sperm are released, and only ONE is required to fertilize an egg.
That sperm_ is _the strongest, and fastest.
I is, and has always been , and always will be survival of the fittest.

People have sex because they _want_ to have sex.
Whatever techniques they employ to achieve their goal is entirely up to them, and WORKS once they're having consensual sex.


----------



## always_alone

John Lee said:


> I generally ignore "evolutionary psychology" claims about dating/mating (or anything else!) -- most so-called evopsych is just a lot of conjecturing and surmising, it's not done by any kind of scientific method, it's just what "seems" like it makes sense (or else some broad extrapolation from a really limited study of mice in cages).


Exactly! A big pile of self-contradicting and ad hoc claptrap disguised as explanation.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> In fact I find it fascinating that people who are hardcore evolutionist can be dismissive of it's natural progression, evolutionary psychology.


Evolution is descriptive, not explanatory. Evolutionary psychology is an attempt to turn these descriptions into explanations of our psychology and behaviour without evidence or warrant. In the end it becomes completely ad hoc and useless. For example, we are both cooperative because it is "adaptive" to work together and competitive for the same reason (survival of the fittest).


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Lol,
> 
> I is, and has always been , and always will be survival of the fittest.


There's a difference between adaptive and fittest. This is why we have an infinite variety of species with all sorts of various weaknesses.

I agree with you, though, that there's no science in evolutionary psych. Just lots of presuppositions and stories.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> *Evolution is descriptive*, *not explanatory*. Evolutionary psychology is an attempt to turn these descriptions into explanations of our psychology and behaviour without evidence or warrant. In the end it becomes completely ad hoc and useless. For example, we are both cooperative because it is "adaptive" to work together and competitive for the same reason (survival of the fittest).


"_* Exactly! A big pile^^^ of self-contradicting ^^^and ad hoc^^^ claptrap disguised as explanation.."*_
-always_alone.
:iagree: couldn't have said it better myself!:rofl:


----------



## Faithful Wife

Oh Sam....did you really just say that?


----------



## John Lee

Darwin never actually used "survival of the fittest" the way most people think of it. He didnt coin the phrase, and his work was about adaptation not being the strongest/fastest etc. I think this is actually a nice way to think about human mating - there are actually a variety of adaptive traits and strategies for attracting mates just like there is great variety in traits that enable us to survive.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## WyshIknew

John Lee said:


> Darwin never actually used "survival of the fittest" the way most people think of it. He didnt coin the phrase, and his work was about adaptation not being the strongest/fastest etc. I think this is actually a nice way to think about human mating - there are actually a variety of adaptive traits and strategies for attracting mates just like there is great variety in traits that enable us to survive.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_







Exactly.



I hate that phrase 'survival of the fittest'

That is not at all what the theory of evolution is about.

It is more accurate to say 'survival of the most apt' or 'best adapted'

After all you could take a pride of lions from Africa and dump them in the middle of the arctic. They might be the strongest and fittest but they wouldn't last very long before they were dead.


----------



## Caribbean Man

John Lee said:


> Darwin never actually used "survival of the fittest" the way most people think of it. He didnt coin the phrase, and his work was about adaptation not being the strongest/fastest etc.* I think this is actually a nice way to think about human mating - there are actually a variety of adaptive traits and strategies for attracting mates just like there is great variety in traits that enable us to survive.*


Ah the romantic view!

But I agree with you, there are lots of adaptive traits and strategies for attracting mates, and with technological advances, the options are increasing everyday.
There are mail order brides , high priced escorts , webcam girls , massage parlours and the list goes on.
Because people have sex.
Full stop.
Even before Darwin was all over the world looking for clues to our origins, they were still having sex.
So then what are we splitting hairs over?

That some men have sex with multiple women?
That more people are having casual sexual encounters than before?
That in spite of thousands of years of evolution ,the basic structure of our mating ritual has remained the same , ie men pursue and women as gatekeeper ?
That this " mating ritual" has many variations , and can be manipulated by anyone desiring sex with a mate , to achieve his purpose?
That even though people are having sex , they choose whom they have sex with ?

Or are we just splitting hairs over a terminology?

Remember, people _are_ having sex. In the context of adaptation, the how is irrelevant, the real question is why.

Understand why,
And you've got game.


----------



## John Lee

The basic idea that in order to have sex you need to (1) make yourself attractive and (2) find a way to signal to potential partners that you are attractive makes sense. There are a lot of different ways to do these things though.


----------



## PHTlump

John Lee said:


> There are a lot of different ways to do these things though.


Are there? I think we can make a list and get a general consensus on which traits are sexy and which aren't. For men, tall is sexier than short. Thin is sexier than fat. Flawless skin is sexier than pocked. Wealthy is sexier than poor. Assertive is sexier than shy. The idea that a short, fat, poor, pocked, shy man is just as sexy as a tall, thin, wealthy, smooth skinned, assertive man is obviously nonsense.

Now, obviously there can be some variation. A man can be poor, yet so physically irresistible that most women would still find him attractive. Or, he could be physically deficient, yet rich and have a dominant personality that women like. But I think men can obviously take the studies that have proven the general preferences of women and work on the traits where they are weakest in order to improve their overall value.


----------



## Caribbean Man

John Lee said:


> The basic idea that in order to have sex you need to (1) make yourself attractive and (2) find a way to signal to potential partners that you are attractive makes sense. There are a lot of different ways to do these things though.


And again , 
I agree with you.

But if we're speaking strictly in an adaptive evolutionary context, we don't really * need * to do anything to have sex , because we're animals and our limbic system programmes our basic sexual urges, we have functional organs and the know how.

But our cognitive ability has evolved / adapted to the point where we are fooling ourselves into thinking that the fundamentals no longer apply.
The illusion of choice.
lol,
The fundamentals _govern_ our very existence.

On a fundamental level, the urge to have sex is not connected to any notion of romance, or love. 
Just survival of our species = Evopsych 


On a cognitive level we can exploit these urges , choose the persons, manipulate terms and conditions = Social construct.

Evopsych + Social Construct =
" .._there are actually a variety of adaptive traits and strategies for attracting mates._." = Game.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> So then what are we splitting hairs over?
> 
> That some men have sex with multiple women?
> That more people are having casual sexual encounters than before?
> *That in spite of thousands of years of evolution ,the basic structure of our mating ritual has remained the same , ie men pursue and women as gatekeeper ?*
> That this " mating ritual" has many variations , and can be manipulated by anyone desiring sex with a mate , to achieve his purpose?
> That even though people are having sex , they choose whom they have sex with ?
> 
> Or are we just splitting hairs over a terminology?
> 
> Remember, people _are_ having sex. In the context of adaptation, the how is irrelevant, the real question is why.
> 
> Understand why,
> And you've got game.


I have to quibble with the bolded part because women do pursue and men do gatekeep. There's an old trope "I chased her until she caught me", a hint that many men are aware that they are "pursuing" a woman because she has decided it should be so. Just one example. And believe it or not, men actually do say no to sex. They will even sometimes go so far as to go through all of the motions only to decide not to in the end. 

Otherwise, I think this thread is merely to point out that some of the standard "guaranteed to get your laid" strategies aren't guaranteed.

Oh, and that some of us wish the PUA would go the way of the dodo.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Evopsych + Social Construct =
> " .._there are actually a variety of adaptive traits and strategies for attracting mates._." = Game.


I just wanted to say that I this is the best definition of game I've seen. And perhaps the only one that doesn't cause me worry about the future of human society.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> I have to quibble with the bolded part because women do pursue and men do gatekeep. There's an old trope "I chased her until she caught me", a hint that many men are aware that they are "pursuing" a woman because she has decided it should be so. Just one example. And believe it or not, men actually do say no to sex. They will even sometimes go so far as to go through all of the motions only to decide not to in the end.
> 
> Otherwise, I think this thread is merely to point out that some of the standard "guaranteed to get your laid" strategies aren't guaranteed.
> 
> Oh, and that some of us wish the PUA would go the way of the dodo.


In the larger context of things who acts as gatekeeper and pursuer roles does not matter. 
What matters is that people _are_ having sex, that's the only way the human race survives.

What you all are splitting hairs about is the " how ", when in reality, the correct question should be why.

And there will always be PUA's, there has always been and will always be mostly males and recently females too.

It is not my business how many different women some guy on an internet blog is having sex with on a weekly basis , just like it's not my business if my next door neighbour is bisexual , transexual , gay or lesbian.
Thy're all having fun.
Their social constructs of gender and their approach to mating_ is_ getting them sex, so it works, _for them._
I'm in a monogamous marriage and I'm having fun.
My monogamous marriage construct is fulfilling to me, and I'm having sex , so it works, _for me._

Nobody can convince me that monogamous marriage is outdated or useless,
Nobody can convince me that game does not work, or shouldn't exist.


----------



## John Lee

PHTlump said:


> Are there? I think we can make a list and get a general consensus on which traits are sexy and which aren't. For men, tall is sexier than short. Thin is sexier than fat. Flawless skin is sexier than pocked. Wealthy is sexier than poor. Assertive is sexier than shy. The idea that a short, fat, poor, pocked, shy man is just as sexy as a tall, thin, wealthy, smooth skinned, assertive man is obviously nonsense.
> 
> Now, obviously there can be some variation. A man can be poor, yet so physically irresistible that most women would still find him attractive. Or, he could be physically deficient, yet rich and have a dominant personality that women like. But I think men can obviously take the studies that have proven the general preferences of women and work on the traits where they are weakest in order to improve their overall value.


fair


----------



## John Lee

But in my experience, not all women prioritize same traits. Some women want a tall guy and short is a dealbreaker, while other women prize intelligence and would rather have a 5'9" genius than a 6'2" hulk with average intelligence.


----------



## John Lee

And some women are put off by the same personality traits that others are attracted to.


----------



## Caribbean Man

John Lee said:


> But in my experience, not all women prioritize same traits. Some women want a tall guy and short is a dealbreaker, while other women prize intelligence and would rather have a 5'9" genius than a 6'2" hulk with average intelligence.


The same goes for men.

And for some,if none of their preferences are available when biological urges takes over,
Anything will do, especially if it's just for a night.


----------



## Cosmos

John Lee said:


> But in my experience, not all women prioritize same traits. Some women want a tall guy and short is a dealbreaker, while other women prize intelligence and would rather have a 5'9" genius than a 6'2" hulk with average intelligence.


And many of us are subconsciously guided by what would benefit our gene pool...


----------



## always_alone

Cosmos said:


> And many of us are subconsciously guided by what would benefit our gene pool...


And many of us make absolutely sure that no procreation takes place, but still have sex.

How's that for adaptive?


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> And many of us make absolutely sure that no procreation takes place, but still have sex.
> 
> How's that for adaptive?


LOl,

Good observation!

Maybe [ I'n not sure , just thinking aloud] we need to first determine what parts of our mating rituals are purely organic [ or strictly biological ] and what parts are heavily influenced or inextricably linked to different types of constructs.
Somewhere in that matrix of possibilities , lies the answers.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> LOl,
> 
> Good observation!
> 
> Maybe [ I'n not sure , just thinking aloud] we need to first determine what parts of our mating rituals are purely organic [ or strictly biological ] and what parts are heavily influenced or inextricably linked to different types of constructs.
> Somewhere in that matrix of possibilities , lies the answers.


Here's me wearing the evolutionary psych hat:

Overpopulation creates scarcity of resources, ergo lack of procreation is adaptive because it ensures more resources are available to support the survival of more infants to maturity.

Which, of course, then ensures that more people are able to procreate. :scratchhead:


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Here's me wearing the evolutionary psych hat:
> 
> Overpopulation creates scarcity of resources, ergo lack of procreation is adaptive because it ensures more resources are available to support the survival of more infants to maturity.
> 
> Which, of course, then ensures that more people are able to procreate. :scratchhead:


And I'm guessing with the abundance of resources and birth control, the driving forces behind sex became pleasure and recreation.
The " mating ritual " also evolved and is still constantly evolving.


----------



## John Lee

Well while we're pop-theorizing, sometimes I wonder if birth control pushes both men and women to be more promiscuous when they are single -- not only because we "can", but because subconsciously, not having any offspring just makes us redouble our efforts to procreate.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I think we have "evolved" to realize that having sex has more benefits to us than simply procreation, and at the point we "evolved" to realize this, all bets about babies were off.

Therefore, all the theorizing about how EVERYTHING about sex is actually about making babies...I don't buy it. Nature has other things in mind for us.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Nobody can convince me that monogamous marriage is outdated or useless,
> Nobody can convince me that game does not work, or shouldn't exist.


Fair enough, but ...

I wasn't going to say anything this time, as we've already bumped heads on this issue, but I still think there's gotta be a limit on the laissez-faire, everyone's having fun attitude.

I agree that different people have different turn ons and different models of relationships. All well and good. But rape, for example, is also a successful mating strategy and it just isn't okay.

I will continue to object to anything rapey, abusive, or coercive until my last dying breath. And that includes the PUA attitudes of the dude discussed in the OP's article. It just isn't okay, no matter how many times he gets laid or how many children he's produced.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> Therefore, all the theorizing about how EVERYTHING about sex is actually about making babies...I don't buy it. Nature has other things in mind for us.


Agreed! Sex is also one of the best ways of experiencing the warmth and comfort of physical contact -- a very well-established emotional/psychological need in both humans and many other animal species.

Oh, and did I mention that it's fun? What other way would you spend those cold dark nights back before there was electricity and the internet?


----------



## Caribbean Man

I will never support rape.

Just like I will never support men having sex with barely legal aged girls.
They may be just over the legal age , but I can never support it.
However I must face the fact that even thought I thing it is morally reprehensible, these are my personal opinions.
The legal age of consent is 18 and if an 18 yr old agrees to have sex with a man more than twice her age, there is nothing I can do about that.

These are areas I call " blurred lines ."

Man having sex with a drunk woman, no , never my style.
But some men do, and some women agree to get drunk to " release their inhibitions ." 

Blurred lines.

Man seducing vulnerable woman for his own sexual gratification, no , never my style. I was always turned on by how much a woman wanted / desired me, not by her insecurity.
But many men prefer that type of hunt and chase in sex, probably inflates their ego's . it is also said some women like that type of "chase" too. 

Blurred lines.

It's never just that simple.
Human beings are complex.


----------



## always_alone

John Lee said:


> Well while we're pop-theorizing, sometimes I wonder if birth control pushes both men and women to be more promiscuous when they are single -- not only because we "can", but because subconsciously, not having any offspring just makes us redouble our efforts to procreate.


Anthropological evidence indicates that neither promiscuity nor birth control are anything new. Many of our ancestors had a wide range of practices including --get ready for it -- surgically putting a hole in the base of the penis to provide another place for the semen to escape. When he wants to procreate, he then puts a finger over that hole when ejaculating.

Sure makes wearing a condom sound a lot more pleasant, doesn't it?


----------



## PHTlump

always_alone said:


> I will continue to object to anything rapey, abusive, or coercive until my last dying breath. And that includes the PUA attitudes of the dude discussed in the OP's article. It just isn't okay, no matter how many times he gets laid or how many children he's produced.


To be fair, I don't think there's anything in the book Bang Denmark, which promoted rape, abuse, or coercion. To the contrary, the book was dedicated to techniques used to convince the women of Denmark to have sex with the author. A book that promotes rape or abuse would be a very short book, indeed.

I've perused Game websites a bit. But I'm no devotee. I haven't read the books, beyond Athol Kay's. But the only time I've seen rape mentioned on these websites is from posts about false rape accusations. I think it's a gross mistake to equate Game with promoting rape.


----------



## always_alone

PHTlump said:


> To the contrary, the book was dedicated to techniques used to convince the women of Denmark to have sex with the author. A book that promotes rape or abuse would be a very short book, indeed.
> 
> I've perused Game websites a bit. But I'm no devotee. I haven't read the books, beyond Athol Kay's. But the only time I've seen rape mentioned on these websites is from posts about false rape accusations. I think it's a gross mistake to equate Game with promoting rape.


I haven't read Bang Denmark either, but have read enough of PUA literature to know that although they never call it rape, these "techniques to convince women" are often abusive and coercive -- and much too close to rape for my liking.

Seriously. A lot of these guys despise women and want nothing more than to put them down by using and abusing them.


----------



## John Lee

A lot of what I've seen of these PUA guys amounts to targeting a girl with low self esteem and working on her. If your only goal is to "get laid" and it doesn't matter with who, this is highly effective.


----------



## Faithful Wife

John, I liked that post, not because I like the topic...but because it is totally true. If "getting laid" is a man's goal, it is easy to do. But if that IS his goal...he is not a man of much depth or understanding about the rest of the world and of the emotional fulfillment that goes so far beyond "getting laid" that it no longer seems fulfilling in and of itself.

Some women are also not very deep, and they want to "get his wallet"....so in no way am I saying "men are bad, women are good". Both men and women can be bad or good at relationships...but when we do things to further our own selfish goals that hurt other people emotionally, I call that crap behavior.


----------



## PHTlump

always_alone said:


> I haven't read Bang Denmark either, but have read enough of PUA literature to know that although they never call it rape, these "techniques to convince women" are often abusive and coercive -- and much too close to rape for my liking.


Rape involves force, or the threat of force. There are no techniques that you can point to that come remotely close to that.

The issue of rape only came up because the author of the book, in a separate work, allegedly stated that he had sex with an inebriated woman and that might be considered rape in the US. Whether that's true, or not, and I believe that only inebriation to the point of unconsciousness is legitimately rape, it's not something promoted by PUAs.



> Seriously. A lot of these guys despise women and want nothing more than to put them down by using and abusing them.


The only bitterness I have seen toward women have been the Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) group of men who perceive the cultural, sexual, and legal landscape to be too biased in favor of women, so some of them are resolved to withdraw and no longer maintain relationships with women. But that is a small group.

Most of the men who study Game do so because they like women and want to better attract them.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> John, I liked that post, not because I like the topic...but because it is totally true. If "getting laid" is a man's goal, it is easy to do. But if that IS his goal...he is not a man of much depth or understanding about the rest of the world and of the emotional fulfillment that goes so far beyond "getting laid" that it no longer seems fulfilling in and of itself.



Right here^^^ is where we venture too close to the "event horizon" of the black hole called morality.
Are you saying that people [ both male and female ]who have casual sex, friends with benefits and one night stands, have low self esteem, are shallow lack emotional depth, and understanding ?

To me both men and women seem to engage in this type of behaviour and they don't seem to have any issue , in fact they defend their lifestyle choices and strongly advocate it.

I no longer live that lifestyle and don't believe in it.
I think most who are involved in it are at best immature, however I really cannot condemn anyone who practice it, because it's their right to have sex with whoever they want and they can choose the conditions under which they have sex.

Many people are simply net self actualized enough to fully understand this lifestyle only takes.
However, I cannot expect everyone to accept my values simply because I said so.

They live a lifestyle that works _for them_.


----------



## PHTlump

Faithful Wife said:


> John, I liked that post, not because I like the topic...but because it is totally true. If "getting laid" is a man's goal, it is easy to do. But if that IS his goal...he is not a man of much depth or understanding about the rest of the world and of the emotional fulfillment that goes so far beyond "getting laid" that it no longer seems fulfilling in and of itself.
> 
> Some women are also not very deep, and they want to "get his wallet"....so in no way am I saying "men are bad, women are good". Both men and women can be bad or good at relationships...but when we do things to further our own selfish goals that hurt other people emotionally, I call that crap behavior.


Getting back to the adaptive off-shoot of the thread, if casual sex is bad for women, then why do so many of them willingly do it? PUAs don't rape women. They just smooth talk their pants off. It's a voluntary, consensual act. Consensual acts tend to be win/win interactions.

Are woman having casual sex as a sort of covert contract? First comes sex, later will (hopefully) come commitment? If so, I can see how casual sex could lead to emotional distress. But, I wouldn't place the blame for that distress on the men who banged them. Unless a PUA was announcing that he was trolling for a wife, surely the woman wouldn't think that quick and easy sex would signal the beginning of a relationship. And even if the PUA were lying and stating that he WAS interested in a relationship, what kind of rube would believe a man she just met about his long-term intentions?

And I would be just as dismissive of a man who pulled the same victim act. Any man who met a woman at a bar and immediately cosigned a loan for her is an idiot. She is not committed to him anymore than a PUA is committed to the woman he brought home last night.


----------



## always_alone

PHTlump said:


> Rape involves force, or the threat of force. There are no techniques that you can point to that come remotely close to that.
> 
> The issue of rape only came up because the author of the book, in a separate work, allegedly stated that he had sex with an inebriated woman and that might be considered rape in the US. Whether that's true, or not, and I believe that only inebriation to the point of unconsciousness is legitimately rape, it's not something promoted by PUAs.
> 
> 
> The only bitterness I have seen toward women have been the Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) group of men who perceive the cultural, sexual, and legal landscape to be too biased in favor of women, so some of them are resolved to withdraw and no longer maintain relationships with women. But that is a small group.
> 
> Most of the men who study Game do so because they like women and want to better attract them.


Exploiting people's vulnerabilities, getting them drunk and/or dropping drugs in their drinks (all of which I've seen advocated) are plenty close enough in my books. As is eroding confidence, cutting her off from friends, invading her personal space, and so on.

Maybe some guys who study game are nice and just want to attract women. I don't know who all reads the crap. But everything I've seen is chock full of hateful comments towards women that often go unremarked or accepted because they are so bloody common.

I for one wouldn't even drink a cup of coffee with anyone who even remotely displayed any of the attitudes I see all over the PUA literature. That includes Athol Kay.


----------



## Caribbean Man

People,
These are consenting adults we are speaking of.
Each person is supposed to be fully responsible for himself.


----------



## PHTlump

always_alone said:


> Exploiting people's vulnerabilities, getting them drunk and/or dropping drugs in their drinks (all of which I've seen advocated) are plenty close enough in my books. As is eroding confidence, cutting her off from friends, invading her personal space, and so on.


If identifying a self-conscious woman and complimenting her, in order to ingratiate yourself to her, is close to rape, then you have a truly screwed up idea of what rape is. As Inigo Montoya said, "I don't think that word means what you think it means."

If you have seen Game material advocate drugging women, or getting them so inebriated that they can't consent to sex, then please provide a link. I am sure I have read more material than you have, and I've never seen anything like what you're describing.



> I for one wouldn't even drink a cup of coffee with anyone who even remotely displayed any of the attitudes I see all over the PUA literature. That includes Athol Kay.


His loss, right? 

For the record, most of the bitterness on the issue of Game comes not from men advocating it, or learning about it. It comes from women who despise it. Women will say that a man who wants to learn how to be more attractive to women is a potential rapist. They will say that men who are so attracted to women that they want to alter their basic personality tendencies are unworthy of sharing a cup of coffee. And these same women will argue that it's the MEN who have the problem with bitterness and hatred. Ironic, no?


----------



## TiggyBlue

John Lee said:


> A lot of what I've seen of these PUA guys amounts to targeting a girl with low self esteem and working on her. If your only goal is to "get laid" and it doesn't matter with who, this is highly effective.


I think 'negging' is the prime example of that, not all gaming is like that fortunately.


----------



## John Lee

I guess for a guy who has trouble getting laid, there is something to the idea of "breaking the spell" -- teach a guy that, no, actually, it's not out of your reach to get laid, it's not some holy grail. But a guy realizes that, I'd hope he'd eventually grow past it and look for something more in life. It's the guys who get stuck in that stage that I worry about.


----------



## always_alone

PHTlump said:


> If identifying a self-conscious woman and complimenting her, in order to ingratiate yourself to her, is close to rape, then you have a truly screwed up idea of what rape is. As Inigo Montoya said, "I don't think that word means what you think it means."


This is not at all what I am talking about, and I know exactly what rape means. Clearly you have much less experience dating guys than I do.

I will leave the linking to FrenchFry, as she will no doubt do a stellar job of demonstrating exactly what I'm talking about much more easily than I can.

Let me just say that the PUAs I am talking about are about the furthest thing you can imagine from a shy nice guy trying to ingratiate himself with women. And the fact is, the shy nice guys never really end up being actual PUAs because they are -- well, shy and nice.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> I think we have "evolved" to realize that having sex has more benefits to us than simply procreation, and at the point we "evolved" to realize this, all bets about babies were off.
> 
> Therefore, all the theorizing about how EVERYTHING about sex is actually about making babies...I don't buy it. Nature has other things in mind for us.


I agree. If we're only adapting as we go through life and only look for sex to have babies, then based on the need for procreation, our sex drives would either increase or decrease, and none of us would have any sex drive when overpopulation occurs. 

Since this definitely doesn't take place, I have to conclude that sex is about so much more than babies, and is precisely why I believe it to be sacred.


----------



## Created2Write

PHTlump said:


> For the record, most of the bitterness on the issue of Game comes not from men advocating it, or learning about it. It comes from women who despise it. *Women will say that a man who wants to learn how to be more attractive to women is a potential rapist. They will say that men who are so attracted to women that they want to alter their basic personality tendencies are unworthy of sharing a cup of coffee.* And these same women will argue that it's the MEN who have the problem with bitterness and hatred. Ironic, no?


Firstly, I don't think anyone has said that if a man wants to make himself more attractive is a potential rapist. Honestly, these debates are to heated already, do we need to add hyperbole along with it?

My husband works out. He does it for himself as a means of releasing stress, but also because he's not satisfied with his current physical shape. He wants to improve, be better at sports he used to excel at, be more attractive, etc. He cuts his hair because he likes it short and feels more confident about his appearance. He dresses well. He practices the drums and bass and piano, even though he has no cause or place to play them, because he wants to keep his skill level up. He works hard at his job because he's always looking to do better, and it's payed off...he just got a major promotion and raise. 

These things are done for many reasons, one of which being that it makes him more attractive. Does this make him a potential rapist? Hardly. 

What HAS been said is that the _behaviors_ of many who practice PUA _are_ manipulative. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Manipulation doesn't have to have a negative effect. However, when coupled with other behaviors and feelings, it absolutely can lead to many unhealthy things. 

I dated a self-professed PUA once. He'd been a virgin through highschool, and was so desperate for sexual contact that he cheated on his gf at the time and had sex with a stripper. This lead to the downfall of his relationship, and he went along pursuing sex wherever he could find it. He knew how to use his looks, his voice, his laugh, his sense of humor, etc. to his advantage. While I don't think his intentions were to cause me emotional harm, his actions definitely did because of his manipulative, selfish behavior. He was out to pick up girls for sex, and use whatever tactic he could to get it out of them. When he realized I wasn't about to have sex with him yet, as we barely knew each other, he dropped me to go looking for the next girl. Who, as it turns out, he treated horribly. 

Now, a few guys doing stupid things don't define an entire group of people. However, while there are many good qualities about game(bettering oneself, getting healthy, gaining confidence) it seems those things are coupled with a lack of guidance. Even judging by some of what I've read here by those who argue in favor of game, many(if not all) of them don't see anything wrong with having sex with a married spouse, don't seem to take into account the emotional aspects of casual sex, and focus a lot on self gratification, even at the expense of others. _That_, for me, is concerning. And it does paint game to be all about momentary gratification obtained by any means possible. 

Some things about game and PUA I don't, personally, have an issue with...like negging, for instance. My husband and I peg each other all the time, so it's grown to be endearing to me. But other things that I've read here concern me greatly.


----------



## Caribbean Man

FrenchFry said:


> Oh I can't WAIT to get home and unleash the epic amount of PUA garbage I have. It's going to be so fun.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


FrenchFry,

Can an economy work without money?
Yes?
So why is the world's economies based on a construct called the monetary system?

Likewise, PUA tactics exist because people want to have " non procreational sex " whenever their biological urges kicks in.
Lets face it, PUA's aren't having sex with their hands , fleshlights or blow up dolls.
They're having sex with _real females._
I think it would be illogical to categorize all of those women who have casual sex with PUA's into 
" low self esteem" or anything else like that.

Biological urges simply took over, and they got their sexual needs fulfilled, Mr. PUA got his ego and other things stroked.
Economies need labour .

No love lost.

These are adults here, not high school kids.


----------



## Created2Write

Oh, and any man who tries to change a woman's basic personality tendencies ISN'T worth having a cup of coffee with.


----------



## Created2Write

> ignore what she says and physically force her. If you cant verbally and physically dominate a drunk 18 yo girl that likes you, please kill yourself.


WTH?!! First, "ignore what she says and force her"....So, rape. Second, "if you can't do that, kill yourself". Oh, and btw, if you have to force a girl to makeout/have sex with you, _then she doesn't actually like you_. 



> and if she says anything while you take off all your clothes, tell her to shut the f*** up, and make her go on her knees and suck your d***.


.....I have no words to describe how low, shallow, cowardly and repulsive this is.



> Dont be afraid to physically force her to do anything or to tell her no or shut up.


Advocating rape. 

Wow.


----------



## Faithful Wife

That's why FF had to post these things, Created. For the men who do NOT read this tripe (I'm looking at you CM), they really have no idea these things are being said. Yep! These things really are being said. So now having read these things (hopefully you will CM) maybe they can see why we women object to this crap.


----------



## Created2Write

Oh, no I got why she posted it...I just couldn't believe guys were actually saying stuff like that! I thought it'd be more subtle.

Boy was I wrong. Ick.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Oh it gets even worse, she actually did post the main stream stuff. There is much more to it. 

I think CM just thinks that we dislike the very idea of game.

No, game itself is not a problem.

The sh*t FF posted is the problem.


----------



## Created2Write

FrenchFry said:


> I love that the first response to this was "lol ok dumb *****" and the OP "well drr I thought this was overcoming LMR." Oh and the huge amount of "well she got naked, she must have totally wanted it" is not really shocking either.


OH MY GOSH. Guys actually think of women that way? That a girl who _has_ just been raped is a dumb b****? 

Ugh. 

Guys who are about game, please read these articles. They are HIGHLY concerning.


----------



## Created2Write

And read the comments on these posts, too. They're equally concerning. These guys have absolutely no respect for women, boundaries, or true sexual fulfillment. It's only about the physical. They go so far as to berate a girl who wanted losing her virginity to be special(nothing wrong with that!) and call her names, say she must be a spoiled rich kid...

God above, I am lucky to have found my husband!


----------



## Faithful Wife

Zactly, Created. It is just soooooo yucko and frightening, especially since we know many of these are very young men and they are going to enter the real world one day and be married and have children. (shudder)


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> Zactly, Created. It is just soooooo yucko and frightening, especially since we know many of these are very young men and they are going to enter the real world one day and be married and have children. (shudder)


They are young. A couple of the guys talk about being in their twenties. 

I'm realizing now why my parents wanted to shelter me.


----------



## Created2Write

FrenchFry said:


> Yep. A lot of the times on the forums or on blogs, if this kind of stuff gets posted and called out it's immediately countered with "that's how dudes speak!" and/or "It was a joke, don't take it seriously!"
> 
> until, you know...they get arrested for assault.


And those are horrible excuses anyway. If guys talk like that, then they absolutely shouldn't. It's horrible. And if they joke like that, then they absolutely shouldn't. It's horrific. Rape, assault, disrespecting women as a whole and as individuals, mocking their desires regarding sex...NONE of those things are funny.


----------



## Caribbean Man

FrenchFry said:


> Oh hi, it's not that I hate on PUAs cause I'm mad that they are getting hot and getting laid. If that was it, I'd literally have zero issues with the whole shebang.
> 
> It's cause some of them advocate really gross things in the name of "overcoming LMR," for one. I'll focus on that for now.
> .
> RSD forums. OP was deleted but luckily someone downthread quoted him! Whoops. No, he was joking I'm sure.
> 
> 
> Just pull them aside, totally fine. ew ew ew.
> 
> 
> I love that the first response to this was "lol ok dumb *****" and the OP "well drr I thought this was overcoming LMR." Oh and the huge amount of "well she got naked, she must have totally wanted it" is not really shocking either.
> 
> Roosh in particular has a problem with the word no.
> 
> Here is an article that details a post a PUA made that lead to police investigation.
> 
> Not all PUAs use gross tactics to pick-up women, but it's not like this idea is popping out of thin air.


I'm not implying or saying that you mad at PUA's dear.
Actually I think that we're both saying the same thing.
Maybe it's because this type of stuff is things I've grown up knowing and seeing, so it doesn't bother me that much.
i'm pretty old now.
I've seen much stranger things happen.
To me it's like beating a dead horse.
Since I was a boy , PUA's existed. 
Long before IBM desktop PC's ran MS-DOS in black & white and Windows 1.0 was launched.
They were just known by different names like" Matador ", " Love Doctor ", " Loverboy " and so forth.
LOL, nowadays the term " loverboy " has some gay connotations. It too, has evolved to in response to the paradigm shifts on the dating scene.
But there were always a group of men trying to capitalize on their natural skills of picking up women, by way of commercialization.

My take is that the internet and the successful strategy of marketing via online social networking has made this thing appear larger than life. 
But so too , self proclaimed relationship experts , sex coaches , how-to-make-your-penis-bigger products , spellbinders , and snake oil salesmen.
Their effect is infinitesimal , vis-à-vis the wider cross section of people actually having sex without their influence.
People _will_ talk, criticize , critique , endorse , brag , lie ,whatever, it's all part of the to drive traffic.
A type of feedback loop system, very little input , tremendous rewards.
Commercialization of a social phenomenon [ Subculture ]
Another rags to riches story.
Imitations go viral.

Interestingly, some time ago a study was done on some sections of the seduction community , their methods and so forth. The findings would surprise you. You can find that study here:

Ascetic Hedonism: Self and Sexual Conquest in the Seduction Community.

It explains quite a lot of what I've been trying to say.

Just remember , 
If they're having sex, it works, _for them._
Some of them are having the sex, and making tons of money from it.

It';s a mad, mad world.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> Oh it gets even worse, she actually did post the main stream stuff. There is much more to it.
> 
> I think CM just thinks that we dislike the very idea of game.
> 
> No, game itself is not a problem.
> 
> The sh*t FF posted is the problem.


I think you still owe CM a response to the question he posed to you earlier.

Do you think that women who have casual sex , friends with benefits and one night stands are ;

" _not of much depth or understanding about the rest of the world and of the emotional fulfillment that goes so far beyond "getting laid" that it no longer seems fulfilling in and of itself._"

Just like you said men who did it are?

Is anything wrong with a woman having sexual encounters with multiple men for nothing other than her own fulfillment?


----------



## Caribbean Man

FrenchFry said:


> This is where my brain short-circuits.
> 
> What I posted isn't having sex, it's rape. I don't care if they are joking, it's giggling about how to rape women. It's super disturbing that these butts are making money off of how to rape women. It's letting it go that leads to disturbing things like:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not advocating being so smooth that women flock to you, it's ignoring multiple "nos" and justifying it for whatever reason. It's not advocating getting so awesome that women give enthusiastic consent to have sex, it's advocating using negative social standards against women to make sure they feel guilty enough that they don't report a legitimate rape as rape because "maybe I lead him on."
> 
> Your link is broken, I'd love to read it but this isn't old-hat to me, this is something that I actively work to dismantle.
> 
> 
> 
> And I get very mad at it.


I think you misunderstood my post.
I never said rape was ok.
In fact , earlier in my posts today I categorically said that I don't even believe in neither have I ever had sex with a drunk woman.

My post was in in no way a response to the article you linked.
I have not read the article you linked.
And there is no way on earth anyone can read my post or any post that I've posted here today and get where I said that date rape or having sex with an intoxicated woman is ok.


----------



## moco82

Rape comes in all shapes and forms: Hair Stylist Keeps Armed Robber as Sex Slave


----------



## Faithful Wife

CM said: *"Do you think that women who have casual sex , friends with benefits and one night stands are ;

" not of much depth or understanding about the rest of the world and of the emotional fulfillment that goes so far beyond "getting laid" that it no longer seems fulfilling in and of itself."

Just like you said men who did it are?

Is anything wrong with a woman having sexual encounters with multiple men for nothing other than her own fulfillment?"*


You are saying "for nothing other than her own fulfillment." I'm sorry CM, I do not consider what these guys do as being "for nothing but their own fulfillment". 

I consider what they are doing as being for their own selfishness and not for fulfillment. (I'm talking right now only about the guys on the PUA stuff that FF just posted).

If women were doing the same, for selfishness and not for fulfillment, or if women (or men) get fulfillment out of being selfish...then I call that crap behavior for either a man or a woman.

Look CM - I'm part of a hook up culture. We are adults...we know what that means. It means you don't need to game people, there are people who are willing who do not need to be duped to get into bed with you. 

If DUPING someone is part of your (anyone's) fulfillment (as in, they learn these "games" instead of just finding a willing and happy sex partner), then I call that person a danger to others. 

And yes, I do know women who dupe men for sex and for other things. I do not associate with them and I do not keep them as friends. 

On the other hand, I have many friends (both men and women) who have casual sex with happy, willing sex partners.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> CM said: *"Do you think that women who have casual sex , friends with benefits and one night stands are ;
> 
> " not of much depth or understanding about the rest of the world and of the emotional fulfillment that goes so far beyond "getting laid" that it no longer seems fulfilling in and of itself."
> 
> Just like you said men who did it are?
> 
> Is anything wrong with a woman having sexual encounters with multiple men for nothing other than her own fulfillment?"*
> 
> 
> You are saying "for nothing other than her own fulfillment." I'm sorry CM, I do not consider what these guys do as being "for nothing but their own fulfillment".
> 
> I consider what they are doing as being for their own selfishness and not for fulfillment. (I'm talking right now only about the guys on the PUA stuff that FF just posted).
> 
> If women were doing the same, for selfishness and not for fulfillment, or if women (or men) get fulfillment out of being selfish...then I call that crap behavior for either a man or a woman.
> 
> Look CM - I'm part of a hook up culture. We are adults...we know what that means. It means you don't need to game people, there are people who are willing who do not need to be duped to get into bed with you.
> 
> If DUPING someone is part of your (anyone's) fulfillment (as in, they learn these "games" instead of just finding a willing and happy sex partner), then I call that person a danger to others.
> 
> And yes, I do know women who dupe men for sex and for other things. I do not associate with them and I do not keep them as friends.
> 
> On the other hand, I have many friends (both men and women) who have casual sex with happy, willing sex partners.



First of all I categorically said that none of my posts refer to any rape scenario.
Now that that's out of the equation , lets deal with the PUA lifestyle vs the " hooking up " lifestyle.

Six eggs + half a dozen eggs = 1 regular carton of eggs.

Your justification of hooking up lifestyle vs PUA's sounds more like compartmentalization to me, and a clear gender based double standard seems to be emerging.

The fundamental question is this:
If, as you stated earlier in your post that the objective of sex is emotional fulfillment , then how does casual sex or hooking up with someone you either don't know or have no emotional investment in fulfill either participant emotionally?

Here's an excerpt fron the *conclusion* of a study done by Justin R. Garcia
of the Kinsey Institute, Indiana University, Bloomington and Chris Reiber, Sean G. Massey, and
Ann M. Merriwether of Binghampton University.

_" By definition, sexual hookups provide the *allure of sex without strings attached. *Despite their increasing social acceptability, however, developing research suggests that sexual hookups may leave more strings attached than many participants might first assume."_

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2013/02/sexual-hookup-culture.pdf

If you read the entire report,it is even more damning , and categorically states that of the thousands surveyed a high percentage of those in that lifestyle admitted they suffer from mental issues like depression , LOW SELF ESTEEM ,guilt and yes,
many said they sometime felt PRESSURED INTO SEXUAL INTERCOURSE.

The fact is , no matter how we , you ,I or anybody try to sugarcoat it , hook up culture, PUA or casual sex , is a PERVERSION of what human relationships ought to be, and it IS exploitative.
Its distinguishing feature is its lack of discretion, except on the dimensions of physical attractiveness and proximity. Its participants seek out anonymity .They implicitly acknowledge that their actions are never really emotionless, at least probably not for both people.

I don't see how anyone who fully supports and promotes casual sex could justifiably condemn PUA lifestyle.
Economies don't need money to function, what they need is labour or simply put, people willing to work.
Im sorry Faithful, PUA's need women willing to " hook up " and have casual in order to be 
" successful " PUA's.
And yes, hooking up too is a game, and a very deceptive , selfish one at that, because like you correctly stated , the purpose of sex is for emotional fulfillment. How does having sex with someone you hardly know, neither is committed in any way to bring that type of fulfillment to them?

Isn't that the modus operandi of PUA's?

But, IMO they're all adults along a path of self awareness just like you and I and many other once were. Therefore my attitude is let them be , live and let live.
Disliking one and one whilst upholding the other in this case is not only illogical , because both cultures are linked by symbiosis , but also bordering on hypocrisy.

Six eggs + half a dozen eggs = 1 regular carton of eggs.


----------



## TikiKeen

I stopped reading at page 5 because this thread needs a huge trigger warning in its title.

Rape is about power. Sometimes that power is exercised through manipulation, coercion, drugging, silent intimidation or actual physical force. To insinuate that a victim is responsible for not fending off these actions does nothing more than blame her (or him) for a predator's behavior.

That sh!t has nothing to do with PUA, and the entire premise of d!ckweed's "Norwegian Girls Love Me and wah it's all about how the system keeps men down" is a load of self-pitying crap. he's right about one thing: women don't want to f*ck self absorbed men who cry to get their way.

This thread shows me which members to never take seriously.
/rant


----------



## Faithful Wife

CM, stop putting words in MY mouth. You can feel the way you feel without putting down how I feel.

I have no gender bias, have said several examples of how I don't.

To me, having casual sex with a happily willing partner can be a fulfilling and a normal part of a person's sex life, MAN OR WOMAN.

To me, duping someone for ANY reason and for ANY outcome is crap behavior, MAN or WOMAN.

Just because YOU see no difference between casual consensual sex and PUA, doesn't mean I see no difference there. Again, you can have your thoughts on that but it doesn't change how I feel nor does it make you right and me wrong.

Where is my gender bias?

Again, women dupe men TOO....for MANY reasons, and it is wrong when they do it, too. IMO. Your opinion is yours...it doesn't change mine.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Also CM...you didn't actually read FF's links, right?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> CM, stop putting words in MY mouth. You can feel the way you feel without putting down how I feel.
> 
> I have no gender bias, have said several examples of how I don't.
> 
> To me, having casual sex with a *happily willing* partner can be a fulfilling and a normal part of a person's sex life, MAN OR WOMAN.
> 
> To me, duping someone for ANY reason and for ANY outcome is crap behavior, MAN or WOMAN.
> 
> Just because YOU see no difference between casual consensual sex and PUA, doesn't mean I see no difference there. Again, you can have your thoughts on that but it doesn't change how I feel nor does it make you right and me wrong.
> 
> Where is my gender bias?
> 
> Again, women dupe men TOO....for MANY reasons, and it is wrong when they do it, too. IMO. Your opinion is yours...it doesn't change mine.


Pick up artiste are simply men who are " *happy and willing*" to have casual sex with women who are "* happy and willing* " to have casual sex with pick up artistes.

Agree?

I posted an entire study done on casual sex , have you read it?

If you have, then you would know that this statement:

" To me, having casual sex with a* happily willing* partner can be a fulfilling and a normal part of a person's sex life, MAN OR WOMAN."

Is highly subjective.

I was basically stating FACTS.

And on what basis do you say that PUA are men who dupe people into sex?
Do you know of any female PUA's that " dupe" men into sex?

Therein lies the double standard.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> Also CM...you didn't actually read FF's links, right?


Wrong.

I've read parts of it and I fully agree with what TikiKeen has posted in post #98.
That's why I " liked " his / her post.
Rape is about power, not sexual gratification.
Full stop.
Rape has absolutely nothing to do with PUA stuff.

To classify rape as PUA tactics is a bit disingenuous.

EDIT:
I think FrenchFry explained herself perfectly well in post #94, without any bias.


----------



## Faithful Wife

CM, yes I know women who dupe men for sex, I have said this at least THREE times now.


----------



## Caribbean Man

lol, 
Now who's putting words in whose mouth?

My question was " Do you know any FEMALE PUA's that DUPE men into sex?"

And how exactly does a woman " dupe " an man into sex anyway?
What does she say / promise, to marry him if he has sex with her? 
Tell him she's in love with him , so he agrees to have sex with her?

How does a woman " dupe" a man into casual sex or a ONS ?


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Six eggs + half a dozen eggs = 1 regular carton of eggs.


I think there is a problem with your math. The difference between PUA and casual sex is the difference between lies and truth or deliberate manipulation and unintended consequences.

Some people having casual sex are consenting adults who are mostly happy, except when unforseen emotional entanglements arise. Others are deliberately preying on people, lying, exploiting, and have a very hard time taking no for an answer. These ones care only about the end, and are happy to do whatever it takes to get there because they barely even register their targets as human. 

Are women saying yes to them? Sometimes. But sometimes they have been plied with too much alcohol, had substances slipped to them, have decided to accede because they fear actual violence against them, or their no's have been interpreted as yeses.

It's a huge difference.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> lol,
> 
> How does a woman " dupe" a man into casual sex or a ONS ?


She dresses sexy, pulls out all of her sex bag of tricks, gets him too drunk, takes him back to the room, pulls off his clothes and runs away with his wallet. (without actually having sex with him)

Happens with remarkable frequency, especially in sex tourism areas.


----------



## always_alone

FrenchFry said:


> This is where my brain short-circuits.
> 
> What I posted isn't having sex, it's rape. I don't care if they are joking, it's giggling about how to rape women. It's super disturbing that these butts are making money off of how to rape women. It's letting it go that leads to disturbing things like:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not advocating being so smooth that women flock to you, it's ignoring multiple "nos" and justifying it for whatever reason. It's not advocating getting so awesome that women give enthusiastic consent to have sex, it's advocating using negative social standards against women to make sure they feel guilty enough that they don't report a legitimate rape as rape because "maybe I lead him on."
> 
> Your link is broken, I'd love to read it but this isn't old-hat to me, this is something that I actively work to dismantle.
> 
> 
> 
> And I get very mad at it.


Like x 1000


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> I think there is a problem with your math. The difference between PUA and casual sex is the difference between lies and truth or deliberate manipulation and unintended consequences.
> 
> Some people having casual sex are consenting adults who are mostly happy, except when unforseen emotional entanglements arise. Others are deliberately preying on people, lying, exploiting, and have a very hard time taking no for an answer. These ones care only about the end, and are happy to do whatever it takes to get there because they barely even register their targets as human.
> 
> Are women saying yes to them? Sometimes. But sometimes they have been plied with too much alcohol, had substances slipped to them, have decided to accede because they fear actual violence against them, or their no's have been interpreted as yeses.
> 
> It's a huge difference.


This is an excerpt from a study done on hook up culture.

* Hookup Culture and Psychological Well-Being*

"_T*he discrepancy between behaviors and desires, particularly
with respect to socialsexual relationships, has dramatic implications
for physical and mental health. Despite widespread allure,
uncommitted sexual behavior has been shown to elicit a pluralistic
ignorance response promoting individuals to engage in behaviors
regardless of privately feeling uncomfortable with doing so (Lambert
et al., 2003; Reiber & Garcia, 2010). Individuals overestimate
others’ comfort with hookups and assign variable meanings to
those behaviors (Lambert et al., 2003; Reiber & Garcia, 2010).*
Misperception of sexual norms is one potential driver for people to
behave in ways they do not personally endorse. In a replication and
extension of Lambert et al.’s study (2003),* Reiber and Garcia
(2010) found that 78% of individuals overestimated others’ comfort
with many different sexual behaviors, with men particularly
overestimating women’s actual comfort with a variety of sexual
behaviors in hookups.."*_

You can find the entire paper here:

Sexual Hookup Culture, A Review.

And I think it's peer reviewed.

Doesn't look much different than PUA's modus operandi to me.

Especially if the purpose of sex is for emotional fulfillment.
Agree?

PUA's just hook up on a much faster level and with greater frequency.
That's the only difference.
The mathematics is correct,and I've always been good at pure math.:rofl:


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> She dresses sexy, pulls out all of her sex bag of tricks, gets him too drunk, takes him back to the room, pulls off his clothes and runs away with his wallet. (*without actually having sex with him*)
> 
> Happens with remarkable frequency, especially in sex tourism areas.


That's robbery, not being " Duped into having sex"

No sex occurred, and the intention was never to have sex with him.


----------



## Created2Write

CM, I have one simple question: what did you think of the links FF posted as far as the men there and what they were saying about women? Lets take PUA out of it for a moment, and just focus on the things being said by those guys on those forums. What did you think of them?


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> That's robbery, not being " Duped into having sex"
> 
> No sex occurred, and the intention was never to have sex with him.


My guess? A guy will never consider himself duoed into sex because no matter how much of a using a$$ she is, guys have this idea that if they've had sex, they have bragging rights.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> This is an excerpt from a study done on hook up culture.
> 
> * Hookup Culture and Psychological Well-Being*
> 
> "_T*he discrepancy between behaviors and desires, particularly
> with respect to socialsexual relationships, has dramatic implications
> for physical and mental health. Despite widespread allure,
> uncommitted sexual behavior has been shown to elicit a pluralistic
> ignorance response promoting individuals to engage in behaviors
> regardless of privately feeling uncomfortable with doing so (Lambert
> et al., 2003; Reiber & Garcia, 2010). Individuals overestimate
> others’ comfort with hookups and assign variable meanings to
> those behaviors (Lambert et al., 2003; Reiber & Garcia, 2010).*
> Misperception of sexual norms is one potential driver for people to
> behave in ways they do not personally endorse. In a replication and
> extension of Lambert et al.’s study (2003),* Reiber and Garcia
> (2010) found that 78% of individuals overestimated others’ comfort
> with many different sexual behaviors, with men particularly
> overestimating women’s actual comfort with a variety of sexual
> behaviors in hookups.."*_
> 
> You can find the entire paper here:
> 
> Sexual Hookup Culture, A Review.
> 
> And I think it's peer reviewed.
> 
> Doesn't look much different than PUA's modus operandi to me.
> 
> Especially if the purpose of sex is for emotional fulfillment.
> Agree?
> 
> PUA's just hook up on a much faster level and with greater frequency.
> That's the only difference.
> The mathematics is correct,and I've always been good at pure math.:rofl:



Agreed that the lines are sometimes blurred. But I still say the PUA culture is predatory and utterly disrespectful, if not outright hateful, of women.

It surprises me that guys have such a hard time seeing this. It's not like it's uncommon or anything.


----------



## Created2Write

CM?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Created2Write said:


> CM, I have one simple question: what did you think of the links FF posted as far as the men there and what they were saying about women? Lets take PUA out of it for a moment, and just focus on the things being said by those guys on those forums. What did you think of them?


Good.
Once we take PUA out of the equation then the lines become much more clear.

It's dispicable.

That has absolutely nothing to do with " sex between consenting adults " full stop.

Now that I've answered yours maybe you'll answer mine.

What is your take on casual sex , one night stands , and hookup culture?
Is there a real difference between that culture and PUA culture?

Do you think that casual sex is a true representation of emotionally fulfilling sex?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Created2Write said:


> CM?


lol,I'm right here! 
Waiting for your response.


----------



## TikiKeen

I've had plenty of casual sex with fully intentional consequences (when I was single.) It was agreed-upon, fun and not damaging because the expectations were laid out clearly. I wish more casual sex-having folks would use the same communication and boundaries as the BDSM crowd; the 'unintended consequence' of emotional pain was a non-issue.

I've also called out manipulating PUA's for running game on me. I had female friends who ran game on guys in very similar ways (societal behavior constructs accounted for.) No matter the gender or orientation, the goal of running game/PUA is to win by reaching a goal. If the goal is a ONS, then they have 'won' when they get laid. I did notice that my former friends and the PUA dudes alike had one thing in common: a huge sense of entitlement, and an "I've got mine" attitude. (Hence 'former' friends.)

Any man or woman who calls him/herself a PUA and drugs a another person, targets that person for sex while the person is loaded in any form and cannot make an informed decision to consent to sex, or who just outright aggressively rapes that person...that man/woman is a rapist. Violent rape and coersive rape are both rape. 

Rape and manipulation are not "alpha". They're dangerous.


----------



## TikiKeen

Also, here is a more recent study about hookup culture. It's referenced, along with the Garcia study from 2010 that CM posted.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Agreed that the lines are sometimes blurred. But I still say the PUA culture is predatory and utterly disrespectful, if not outright hateful, of women.
> 
> It surprises me that guys have such a hard time seeing this. It's not like it's uncommon or anything.


Because it's subjective always_alone!
And both genders would tend to view it along the lines of the own gender.

That's what I've been trying to tell FW.

Can't you all see that the same tenacity which guys hold on to PUA lifestyle is simply reversed when women defend their choice of casual sex hookups?

The question is why?

The answer is , from a strictly sociological perspective, both genders see sex as liberating and empowering because they no longer have to worry about the evolutionary aspect. Procreation and survival.
I think John Lee made that point yesterday.

The reality is that the relationship between PUA's and women who are willing to indulge in casual sex hookups is symbiotic. One cannot exist without the other.

PUA's are very simple to recognize, they move quickly and never commit to anything, not even a phone call.
All of this fits in well with casual sex hookups or NSA sexual encounters.
Both practices are exploitative and manipulative.


----------



## Created2Write

Caribbean Man said:


> Good.
> Once we take PUA out of the equation then the lines become much more clear.
> 
> It's dispicable.


This may seem unnecessary, but what about those links and the posters was despicable to you?



> That has absolutely nothing to do with " sex between consenting adults " full stop.


I can not agree to this. The potential to be taken advantage of is _always_ present for women. Now, let me be clear: *I do not mean that most or all women are consistently in a position to be raped, or that most or all mean would stoop to such a horrific level*. However, the level of hatred and bitterness and resentment posted by those guys about a woman's view of sex, let alone deciding she doesn't want to have sex with him after all, is concerning. It's clear to me that, if the women being discussed had never objected to sex, never tried to say no, and had just gone with it and responded to the guy's advances from the beginning, these guys wouldn't be so angry and upset. 

But that's unacceptable. Every woman has the right to decide, even at the last minute, that she doesn't want to have sex. It's her body. And that right is precisely what these guys hate so much and try so hard to obliterate. Therefore it everything to do with adults consenting to sex.



> Now that I've answered yours maybe you'll answer mine.


Your answer was incredibly short and unspecific. Like you were passing over it with the smallest answer possible.



> What is your take on casual sex , one night stands , and hookup culture?


You know this already. As a Christian, I do not advocate casual sex, one night stands, etc. 



> Is there a real difference between that culture and PUA culture?


Yes there is. My mother was very sexual as a teenager/young adult. She had sex a lot and with a lot of different guys. Yet, not once did she intentionally try and manipulate a guy into doing what she wanted him to do. And no matter how you argue, manipulation _is_ a substantial part of PUA. It's based on fulfilling one's sexual desires, and from what I've seen, lacks clear boundaries between right and wrong. Even with casual sex and ONSs there are clear lines between right and wrong. 



> Do you think that casual sex is a true representation of emotionally fulfilling sex?


I think casual sex _can_ be emotionally fulfilling for the parties involved, but I don't think that it always is. Too many variables.


----------



## Caribbean Man

TikiKeen said:


> I've had plenty of casual sex with fully intentional consequences (when I was single.) It was agreed-upon, fun and not damaging because the expectations were laid out clearly. I wish more casual sex-having folks would use the same communication and boundaries as the BDSM crowd; the 'unintended consequence' of emotional pain was a non-issue.
> 
> I've also called out manipulating PUA's for running game on me. I had female friends who ran game on guys in very similar ways (societal behavior constructs accounted for.) No matter the gender or orientation, the goal of running game/PUA is to win by reaching a goal. If the goal is a ONS, then they have 'won' when they get laid. I did notice that my former friends and the PUA dudes alike had one thing in common: a huge sense of entitlement, and an "I've got mine" attitude. (Hence 'former' friends.)
> 
> Any man or woman who calls him/herself a PUA and drugs a another person, targets that person for sex while the person is loaded in any form and cannot make an informed decision to consent to sex, or who just outright aggressively rapes that person...that man/woman is a rapist. Violent rape and coersive rape are both rape.
> 
> Rape and manipulation are not "alpha". They're dangerous.


Agree again.
Spot on.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Created2Write said:


> Yes there is. My mother was very sexual as a teenager/young adult. She had sex a lot and with a lot of different guys. Yet, not once did she intentionally try and manipulate a guy into doing what she wanted him to do.* And no matter how you argue, manipulation is a substantial part of PUA. It's based on fulfilling one's sexual desires, and from what I've seen, lacks clear boundaries between right and wrong. Even with casual sex and ONSs there are clear lines between right and wrong. *
> 
> 
> 
> I think casual sex _can_ be emotionally fulfilling for the parties involved, but I don't think that it always is. Too many variables.



I humbly suggest that you have a look at this study below.

Sexual Hookup Culture, A Review.

It's very detailed ,conclusive and might give some more insight.


----------



## sinnister

Not going to read 9 pages on this subject but I just wanted to make it clear that rape is not exclusively about sex. In fact, sex is a small part of the motivation for the act.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> My guess? A guy will never consider himself duoed into sex because no matter how much of a using a$$ she is, guys have this idea that if they've had sex, they have bragging rights.


I don't think that guys alone " brag" about sex.
We do pretty much the same with their friends, especially if the guy was a "hottie" or " cute" or the female equivalent of what guys brag about in women.

Same same.
When I was single I sometimes hung out with women, and I've heard them boast about it.
It's standard behaviour among younger women especially.


----------



## Cosmos

FrenchFry said:


> Oh hi, it's not that I hate on PUAs cause I'm mad that they are getting hot and getting laid. If that was it, I'd literally have zero issues with the whole shebang.
> 
> It's cause some of them advocate really gross things in the name of "overcoming LMR," for one. I'll focus on that for now.
> .
> RSD forums. OP was deleted but luckily someone downthread quoted him! Whoops. No, he was joking I'm sure.
> 
> 
> Just pull them aside, totally fine. ew ew ew.
> 
> 
> I love that the first response to this was "lol ok dumb *****" and the OP "well drr I thought this was overcoming LMR." Oh and the huge amount of "well she got naked, she must have totally wanted it" is not really shocking either.
> 
> Roosh in particular has a problem with the word no.
> 
> Here is an article that details a post a PUA made that lead to police investigation.
> 
> Not all PUAs use gross tactics to pick-up women, but it's not like this idea is popping out of thin air.


I have no words, FF. This is beyond disgusting...


----------



## TikiKeen

Those PUA bloggers? Yeah, no. They remind so much of the guys who damn near had toddler-level temper tantrums when I or my GF's would dare deny them. Again, it's all about entitlement and ego-feeding for PUA's. It's definitely not anywhere close to the give-and-take that even hookups require in order for both partners to have equilibrium. (Created2write and I seem to agree on that, even from different faith standpoints.)

Seriously, can anyone else read those blogs and 'informative web sites' and *not* have images of grown men stomping their feet with clenched fists, whining that their peens are hurt? Guys like this give men a bad rap.


----------



## Caribbean Man

TikiKeen said:


> Those PUA bloggers? Yeah, no. They remind so much of the guys who damn near had toddler-level temper tantrums when I or my GF's would dare deny them. Again, it's all about entitlement and ego-feeding for PUA's. It's definitely not anywhere close to the give-and-take that even hookups require in order for both partners to have equilibrium. (Created2write and I seem to agree on that, even from different faith standpoints.)
> 
> Seriously, can anyone else read those blogs and 'informative web sites' and *not* have images of grown men stomping their feet with clenched fists, whining that their peens are hurt? Guys like this give men a bad rap.


I'm not talking about "PUA bloggers", I'm talking about _real _pick up artiste, players,guys who pick up women for ons, casual sex hookups or regular " booty calls ."

They never commit to anything , never invest any emotions in a relationship with a woman because they are only after sex with her.
They do not value her enough to seek a relationship other than a sexual one.
As long as she says " yes" they're happy.
If she says " no" they always have a " spare " woman.
The only difference between them and a man who has casual sex with one or two women per year is that they do it much faster.
In the end neither partner is emotionally fulfilled and often times one invests too much in the " arrangement" and gets hurt, especially when the other person gets involved with another partner.

But it can be viewed from a different angle.
If two people are involved in a NSA casual sex relationship. 
How can the woman be sure the man is not a PUA?
Doesn't NSA sex fall right within his gambit?
Because in a NSA arrangement, partners are allowed to have sex with other people...
Just a thought.
A different _perspective_.


----------



## TikiKeen

Perhaps; I can see how it might be a different arrangement. 

I know my ONS's were not FB's for a reason: I was afraid _they_ would get attached. I was beyond unavailable after my divorce from ex, and I was so angry. (My feistiness now pales by comparison.)

When I scan PUA blogs, I read as if they actually attempt to practice what they preach. Either way, they look like wannabe predators who are really looking for mommy comforts from hookups. Peter Pan all the way.

I also think some of my marital issues stem from two former players having to relearn how to be in an honest-to-God relationship. Adjusting expectations has been difficult for us both. Emotions and emotional connections are scary to people who embrace a player lifestyle at any point in life; I'm convinced of this. The other former horndogs I know have, for the most part, had similar adjustment issues. I'm not sure WTH we all thought marriage would be like, but it sure would have helped had we grown up some prior to "I do." I'm getting there, though. I now like the emotional security of my marriage. As a femplayer, I ran from that.


----------



## Caribbean Man

TikiKeen said:


> Perhaps; I can see how it might be a different arrangement.
> 
> I know my ONS's were not FB's for a reason: I was afraid _they_ would get attached. I was beyond unavailable after my divorce from ex, and I was so angry. (My feistiness now pales by comparison.)
> 
> When I scan PUA blogs, I read as if they actually attempt to practice what they preach. Either way, they look like wannabe predators who are really looking for mommy comforts from hookups. Peter Pan all the way.
> 
> I also think some of my marital issues stem from two former players having to relearn how to be in an honest-to-God relationship. Adjusting expectations has been difficult for us both. Emotions and emotional connections are scary to people who embrace a player lifestyle at any point in life; I'm convinced of this. The other former horndogs I know have, for the most part, had similar adjustment issues. I'm not sure WTH we all thought marriage would be like, but it sure would have helped had we grown up some prior to "I do." I'm getting there, though. I now like the emotional security of my marriage. As a femplayer, I ran from that.


...and you know what?

Your story is similar to mine.
So I'm talking from a perspective of being involved in that lifestyle.

Someone almost always gets hurt, and there's no one to blame but themselves.
It's a loose - loose game.
Yes, it's a game.

The whole idea behind it is to have sex without any form of emotional commitment or what we used to call " entanglement."

But like I said earlier, people grow and mature at different rates.
So I don't think I should judge anybody involved in that lifestyle, I know for sure what it entails and what the outcome is.

But I will not glamorize it.
Removing rape , date rape or any drugging / forcing / blackmailing scenarios from that lifestyle, the truth is, it's all the same thing.
It's always done just for the sex, its always manipulative.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

TikiKeen said:


> Seriously, can anyone else read those blogs and 'informative web sites' and *not* have images of grown men stomping their feet with clenched fists, whining that their peens are hurt? Guys like this give men a bad rap.


This is all I think of when I read that sh!t:

View attachment 10234


----------



## TikiKeen

CM, I totally see from where you're coming. I woulld hope that if there were hurt feelings from my partners along the way, they would have said something.

I didn't see ONS's as manipulative, mainly because the goal was a common one: sex for the sake of sex. (On the surface. Underneath, people like to connect. If sex is the only way they emotionally can connect at that point, then so be it.)

I'm glad I'm married and can 'pick up' the same guy every time. He falls for it every time. I think it's because he gets to go home with a hottie every time too.

trbe: Yes. That's it!


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Because it's subjective always_alone!


Let me tell you a little story about blurred lines and subjective opinions.

When I was 15, I was raped. That was my subjective take on what happened, and my charge.

According to him, I initiated (lie), it was consensual (lie), we even had a blanket (lie). I had just decided to regret having sex with him, and was seeking unreasonable revenge (lie).

Everyone agreed with his interpretation, including the courts. Word was I must've done something to make him lose control -- or was just as a bunch of people here would have it: a bitter vengeful hag that gets upset when a nice shy guy says she's pretty.

Never mind the bruises on my neck and elsewhere. I led him on and didn't say no. Besides, girls like it rough, don't they?

The apparent gender bias in this issue is because the odds are ever so often stacked against women. True, there are also false accusations. But my story is depressingly common. (Although less so, thankfully, these days because much awareness has been raised on the issue.)

And the rub? This guy taught softball to teenage girls for a living. How much do you want to bet that I was not the first or the last?


----------



## TikiKeen

I also want to point out my experience with the 'symbiosis' you discussed in that post, CM: there was none. 

The PUA's I stumbled upon after my divorce were the ones who promised the moon, or did the duck & dodge routine. Men who wanted hookups were pretty forward about that. The PUA's were about the pea****y show.

Always_Alone, I'm so sorry. I didn't prosecute my rapes because one was date rape and the other was marital. I feared having your experience.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> ..
> Removing rape , date rape or any drugging / forcing / blackmailing scenarios from that lifestyle, the truth is, it's all the same thing.
> It's always done just for the sex, its always manipulative.


I would add lies to your list. As long as people are honest about what they are looking for, sex with zero attachment, and non-coercive about getting it, then I think it really is a case of consenting adults and buyer beware.

Once you introduce lies and coercion, you are acting like a manipulative ass and totally deserve to be called out as such. 

If people are being conned, they are not truly consenting.


----------



## always_alone

TikiKeen said:


> Always_Alone, I'm so sorry. I didn't prosecute my rapes because one was date rape and the other was marital. I feared having your experience.


I hear you and quite understand. I was warned explicitly by the prosecution lawyers that this would happen, and that I would be the one on trial, but was determined to press forward anyway. 

I'm sorry to hear your story too.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> I would add lies to your list. As long as people are honest about what they are looking for, sex with zero attachment, and non-coercive about getting it, then I think it really is a case of consenting adults and buyer beware.
> 
> Once you introduce lies and coercion, you are acting like a manipulative ass and totally deserve to be called out as such.
> 
> If people are being conned, they are not truly consenting.


People don't have casual sex with people they're not attracted to.
Therefore in reality there are _always_ strings attached, its never NSA. So the lies still take place, they are lies of omission because neither partner wants to look " clingy" or " controlling." But sex is by nature about pleasure,dominance and surrender , in an emotionally charged environment , unless of course it's sex with a prostitute, then no emotions are involved. NSA.
NSA sex is manipulative precisely because of this and only one person can come out with their emotions intact. That is the person who's more experienced and knows how to compartmentalize sex .
Reality is, that person usually also has other partners they're investing in for their own selfish reasons.
Lol,
ironically, a good example of NSA sex might be " duty sex " in marriages or LTR's , and even that too, is manipulative.

I;m not saying that people who practice casual sex are bad or anything like that, life is about give and take people have situations and needs. They know best and are free to make decisions, take chances etc.
What I'm saying is that Casual sex is no less manipulative or different from PUA sex . Same manipulative tactic , just that the PUA understands the game and is a master at it.
He doesn't waste time pretending.

It's like the relationship between capitalism and democracy.


----------



## RandomDude

> NSA sex is manipulative precisely because of this and only one person can come out with their emotions intact. That is the person who's more experienced and knows how to compartmentalize sex .


In my experience with NSA sex, yes, sometimes the barriers were crossed but many times it remained intact and was simply fun -> it is incorrect to assume that both parties can't compartmentalise sex.


----------



## Caribbean Man

RandomDude said:


> In my experience with NSA sex, yes, sometimes the barriers were crossed but many times it remained intact and was simply fun -> it is incorrect to assume that both parties can't compartmentalise sex.


That's the point I'm making , RD.
Compartmentalization is a psychological defense mechanism.
That cannot be a healthy relationship. 

In a NSA type " arrangement " both parties agree to the terms and conditions of how it functions, and how it ends.

With a PUA , he doesn't bother with any negotiations after the sexual encounter, in his world, compartmentalization is normal , and he will not waste time pretending to * _care_.*
After sex he doesn't even call , much less come around.
_That's_ what is offensive to women, then they begin to feel
" duped " because they had no control over the outcome of the 
" arrangement ", they feel powerless and used. 
But they willingly went into this " arrangement " without any commitment.
It is their responsibility to say no.

It's all about power and control , not about one "arrangement" being more 
" morally acceptable" than the other.

Both arrangements are games emotionally immature people play.


----------



## TikiKeen

I agree: PUA's remove the option of informed consent from their partners.


----------



## WyshIknew

Apologies if this has been covered.

I love women, I love the way they are different from us guys and a conversation with a woman is always different from a conversation with a guy. Perhaps it's the underlying sexuality?

But I get the impression that these PUA's actually have contempt for women (misogyny?) and feel they have somehow humiliated, beaten or denigrated these women by 'scoring'.

While I would have no problem with a mutually agreed friends with benefits night with the right woman (if I was single) I'd hate to think I could hurt somebody emotionally.

And then they post on blogs etc. about how they shagged this poor girl every which way but loose and dumped her in the morning.

Sad sacks.


----------



## treyvion

WyshIknew said:


> Apologies if this has been covered.
> 
> I love women, I love the way they are different from us guys and a conversation with a woman is always different from a conversation with a guy. Perhaps it's the underlying sexuality?
> 
> But I get the impression that these PUA's actually have contempt for women (misogyny?) and feel they have somehow humiliated, beaten or denigrated these women by 'scoring'.
> 
> While I would have no problem with a mutually agreed friends with benefits night with the right woman (if I was single) I'd hate to think I could hurt somebody emotionally.
> 
> And then they post on blogs etc. about how they shagged this poor girl every which way but loose and dumped her in the morning.
> 
> Sad sacks.


I don't understand how you are grouping PUA's lower than frat boys or male *****s or narcisistic alpha a$$holes who will get a female to just snag, tell her to get out after the deed is done.

Women do it too by the way. The sex interaction is compartamentalized and subcontracted so that's all it is.


----------



## WyshIknew

treyvion said:


> I don't understand how you are grouping PUA's lower than frat boys or male *****s or narcisistic alpha a$$holes who will get a female to just snag, tell her to get out after the deed is done.
> 
> Women do it too by the way. The sex interaction is compartamentalized and subcontracted so that's all it is.


Well I wasn't rating them as lower than anybody else to be honest, just disgusted by the treatment of another human being by them.

I don't know what frat boys are really, is that these Beta Theta Alpha clubs I see in American films?

And I don't know that these narcissistic types are 'alpha'. At least not in my definition anyway. My definition of alpha is a quiet, confident, secure, attractive and successful leader type man who has no need to humiliate women.


----------



## Shell Question Man

jennyh80 said:


> http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/****blocked-by-redistribution
> 
> Apparently the evolutionary psychology does not work everywhere - mainly in places where the women are better educated and have good support system in place.



Link Fail:

This is somewhat embarrassing, isn’t it?

It seems we can’t find what you’re looking for. Perhaps searching, or one of the links below, can help.


----------



## RandomDude

Caribbean Man said:


> Both arrangements are games emotionally immature people play.


Including NSA sex? :scratchhead:


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> What I'm saying is that Casual sex is no less manipulative or different from PUA sex . Same manipulative tactic , just that the PUA understands the game and is a master at it.
> He doesn't waste time pretending.
> 
> It's like the relationship between capitalism and democracy.


Disagree. The PUA does a lot of pretending, and a lot of lying. It is not just lies of omission, although you are right that they almost always omit the fact that they are seeking NSA sex.

I've had guys invest quite a lot of time convincing me to have sex with them, using lies about who they were (rich, famous, successful, important, caring, sensitive, etc.), what they wanted (true love, marriage, to heap gifts upon me, etc.), what they thought of me (special, unique, irresistable), and so on. They also used physical tactics (not allowing me to leave, pinning me up against a wall, etc.), as well as psychological ones (trying to find my weak points and leveraging them).

It doesn't always work, and so the PUA often invests a great deal of effort into getting someone into the sack by any means necessary. Pretending to care is one of the most common approaches out there, in my experience. Always before and up until sex takes place (if it ever does), of course

All of this is much more seriously manipulative than just two people deciding they're up for a night of flirting and fun.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Disagree. The PUA does a lot of pretending, and a lot of lying. It is not just lies of omission, although you are right that they almost always omit the fact that they are seeking NSA sex.
> 
> I've had guys invest quite a lot of time convincing me to have sex with them, using lies about who they were (rich, famous, successful, important, caring, sensitive, etc.), what they wanted (true love, marriage, to heap gifts upon me, etc.), what they thought of me (special, unique, irresistable), and so on. They also used physical tactics (not allowing me to leave, pinning me up against a wall, etc.), as well as psychological ones (trying to find my weak points and leveraging them).
> 
> It doesn't always work, and so the PUA often invests a great deal of effort into getting someone into the sack by any means necessary. Pretending to care is one of the most common approaches out there, in my experience. Always before and up until sex takes place (if it ever does), of course
> 
> All of this is much more seriously manipulative than just two people deciding they're up for a night of flirting and fun.


I think you are confusing " normal", high school, immature guy behaviour with PUA tactics.

PUA's don't try to convince a woman of anything, they use a lot of reverse psychology, innuendoes and inductive reasoning.
They move quickly so there's no time get any details of anything.
There are things that women don't understand about this type of guy.
Extreme narcissism is at the core of his behaviour and he doesn't value intimacy. Having sex with lots of women gives him his narcissistic feed.He's addicted to the dominance of sex and he is a very lousy lover in bed.
Narcissistic women also get their feed from having sex with high numbers of men, and placing very little value on intimacy.
But I digress.
The main technique used by a PUA is to first induce cognitive dissonance in the woman by using what is called " push & pull " in PUA lingo.
Remember ,women are taught from childhood to be defensive and suspicious of men.
Bottom line is , these things cannot work on a woman who is emotionally healthy and grounded. She does not waste her time chatting with a PUA or even hanging out with them , because she has nothing to prove to anybody, she knows herself worth.

She chooses whom she shares her body with and the conditions under which she does so. That is her business. Whether she has sex with a PUA , FWB, ONS, or any other type of casual encounters. She is fully aware of what she's doing.
In that case , she doesn't consider herself a victim or being 
" duped " or anything like that. There are no perpetrators neither victims, just two consenting adults.


----------



## WyshIknew

Nevertheless I still think many of these PUA type people don't do it because they like women. I think they get a twisted sense of power and superiority out of it.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> I think you are confusing " normal", high school, immature guy behaviour with PUA tactics.
> 
> PUA's don't try to convince a woman of anything, they use a lot of reverse psychology, innuendoes and inductive reasoning.
> They move quickly so there's no time get any details of anything.
> There are things that women don't understand about this type of guy.


???? I am not talking about high school, I'm talking about men in their 20s and up. For various reasons, I have very little experience with high school.

And in this post, you are saying pretty much exactly what I have been saying all along: PUAs do whatever underhanded things they deem necessary for their goals (exploit women's insecurities, lie, manipulate, etc.).

So what does it mean to say they move quickly? What, just ram it in there when she's not looking? Of course they will move on if they're getting nowhere -- that's the nature of the beast (and a relief to women who don't want to deal with them). But they will put forth sufficient time to lie, pretend, manipulate, and so on. Unless of course, they only target the women who are happy enough to get it on in the club bathroom, or out back in the snow bank.

Fact is, there is a wide array of tactics which make it difficult to suss whether one is dealing with a PUA or not. I eventually just decided it was easier to just not to believe anything that men say. Which of course pisses my SO off to no end -- but that's another story.

And I still say that if you are being conned, then you *are* being duped. Not just feeling like you are.


----------



## ozymandias

always_alone said:


> I for one wouldn't even drink a cup of coffee with anyone who even remotely displayed any of the attitudes I see all over the PUA literature. That includes Athol Kay.


It's interesting that you would lump him in to this assessment because I think it serves as something of a test case for *your* attitudes about Game.

Athol's work is (was) very exclusively targeted at married men. always_alone, think about how that changes the context. Obviously, there's no coercion in the classic sense. Husband's are not typically drugging their wives for one night stands. It strips away the misrepresentation objection as well because your spouse, you know, actually knows you. If a man changes his behavior to be more attractive to his wife he has to internalize it. You can't be an 'on' PUA spitting game 24/7 in marriage. Instead of learning to emulate those behaviors and attributes that women find attractive, *you have to actually be that guy*.

Athol's language and writing style can be crass sometimes (although if you haven't looked at his stuff lately, he has toned it down considerably in his new book in order to appeal more to women) but at the end of the day, he's using this knowledge for good. The community over there is very much pro-marriage.

IMO, many women have a visceral negative reaction to anything that utilizes these ev-psych principles because it represents a loss of power and agency. It tinkers with one of their core reproductive functions - evaluating the quality of a mate.


----------



## Created2Write

I'm so confused by all of this at this point. One moment PUA is being touted as a positive thing, the next it's being compared to casual sex as if it's the same as casual sex between two consenting adults who understand that it's NSA sex, and then the next the PUA is a narcissist? 

Color me confused.


----------



## Ikaika

Created2Write said:


> I'm so confused by all of this at this point. One moment PUA is being touted as a positive thing, the next it's being compared to casual sex as if it's the same as casual sex between two consenting adults who understand that it's NSA sex, and then the next the PUA is a narcissist?
> 
> Color me confused.


And, does the PUA try to target any woman or is there a radar for specific types of women? If it is the latter is he then a PUA or is it that the woman is allowing the flow of events to happen? I don't have all the answers.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Created2Write said:


> I'm so confused by all of this at this point. One moment PUA is being touted as a positive thing, the next it's being compared to casual sex as if it's the same as casual sex between two consenting adults who understand that it's NSA sex, and then the next the PUA is a narcissist?
> 
> Color me confused.


I understand your confusion.
lol,
believe me , I do.

If I too believed that every woman who had sex with a PUA automatically became a victim of rape because of it,
Then I too, would have to admit ,
That I'm confused.
I don't know that an adult woman with all of her mental faculties in tact would remove her clothing , have sex with a man for dubious motives , and because he treats her like garbage after , claim she's a victim.
A woman whose husband / partner / boyfriend has sex with another woman is a victim of infidelity.
A woman who is forced to have sex is a victim of rape.
A woman whose partner is abusive in any form is a victim of abuse.
Exactly what are women who willingly consent to have sex with PUA's victims of?

Answer _that_ and your confusion will disappear.


----------



## Created2Write

Caribbean Man said:


> I understand your confusion.
> lol,
> believe me , I do.
> 
> If I too believed that every woman who had sex with a PUA automatically became a victim of rape because of it,
> Then I too, would have to admit ,
> That I'm confused.
> I don't know that an adult woman with all of her mental faculties in tact would remove her clothing , have sex with a man for dubious motives , and because he treats her like garbage after , claim she's a victim.
> Exactly what are women who sleep with PUA's victims of?
> Answer _that_ and your confusion will disappear.


CM, forgive me if this sounds...argumentative but my confusion lies in _your_ representations of PUA's. One moment the PUA is a harmless male looking for NSA sex, and the women who sleep with him are victims of nothing more than what they brought on themselves, and then the next PUA's are narcissistic manipulators who only have their own selfish desires at heart, and who are only successful at sleeping with women who don't know their own self-worth enough to identify a PUA when they see one. So answering that question really does nothing to clear my confusions because I still don't even know which PUA you're talking about. 

My confusion is only magnified by the crap touted on the websites FF posted because they, too, believe themselves to be PUA's, and clearly have no respect for the right of a woman to choose when she'll have sex and her right to say "No" if she damn well pleases, and even go so far as to mentally and emotionally manipulate, to ignore any resistance if met with it, and to physically force her if all else fails. _That_ is rape from self-professed PUA's. Now, you can dismiss them as not being real PUA's if you want to, but they certainly believe themselves to be, and by what I saw they aren't a small sector of immature twenty-somethings who make stupid choices based on raging hard-ons. 

So, which PUA are we discussing? Because if we're discussing either the narcissist that you've mentioned or any of the guys on those sites FF posted, then I'd say that the women who sleep/are forced to sleep with them are victims of being completely taken advantage of by manipulation, coercion, and force. I could care less if the chick is naked and hot and steamy for the guy one minute, and then the next is stone cold saying "No"; it should stop the very second she decides she doesn't want to do it. Any guy who says otherwise is scum. 

If you're discussing the PUA who's just looking to make himself more attractive and appealing, and partakes in consensual sex without manipulation or coercion, then I'd say there isn't really a victim in that circumstance. But, I believe this scenario to be a rare one indeed.


----------



## always_alone

ozymandias said:


> It's interesting that you would lump him in to this assessment because I think it serves as something of a test case for *your* attitudes about Game.
> 
> Athol's work is (was) very exclusively targeted at married men. always_alone, think about how that changes the context.


Fair enough. I lumped Athol in there because of the hateful way he speaks about women. I have zero tolerance for that type of talk, and once I hear it will automatically shut it out.


----------



## always_alone

Created2Write said:


> So, which PUA are we discussing? Because if we're discussing either the narcissist that you've mentioned or any of the guys on those sites FF posted, then I'd say that the women who sleep/are forced to sleep with them are victims of being completely taken advantage of by manipulation, coercion, and force. I could care less if the chick is naked and hot and steamy for the guy one minute, and then the next is stone cold saying "No"; it should stop the very second she decides she doesn't want to do it. Any guy who says otherwise is scum.
> 
> If you're discussing the PUA who's just looking to make himself more attractive and appealing, and partakes in consensual sex without manipulation or coercion, then I'd say there isn't really a victim in that circumstance. But, I believe this scenario to be a rare one indeed.


:iagree: What Created2Write said. It may be true that all PUA is casual sex, but IMHO, not all casual sex is PUA, because not all of it is narcissistic, hate-filled or usurious.

What confuses me is why it's so hard to tell the difference.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Created2Write said:


> If you're discussing the PUA who's just looking to make himself more attractive and appealing, and partakes in consensual sex without manipulation or coercion, then I'd say there isn't really a victim in that circumstance. But, *I believe this scenario to be a rare one indeed.*


Right there ^^^ lies your confusion.

To understand anything one must first be willing to examine that issue on a FACT basis only.

You can express how you feel , but that does not make it fact.

I posted the conclusion of a legitimate study done by the Kinsley institute on thousands of people involved in " hookup culture " on Saturday that explains everything I said. Below is the link to it again.
It clearly defines what comes under " hookup culture ", and the 
hype & illusion that goes with it.

Sexual Hookup Culture, A Review.

FrenchFry posted her " facts " from an internet blog / tabloid .

Which do you think would be more accurate in these circumstances?


----------



## remorseful strayer

jennyh80 said:


> http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/****blocked-by-redistribution
> 
> Apparently the evolutionary psychology does not work everywhere - mainly in places where the women are better educated and have good support system in place.


If Alpha male means that women frequently come on to you, then I guess I am. 

I am average in looks, IMO. However I am tall and athletic. I never had a problem getting dates if I was aggressive enough, but the real trick to getting women is to have large bank account. 

When, I started to earn a large income, all of a sudden, women were being aggressive towards me. 

Sad, but true. 

I really don't want that type of women for the long haul, but just sayin'.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Caribbean Man said:


> Right there ^^^ lies your confusion.
> 
> To understand anything one must first be willing to examine that issue on a FACT basis only.
> 
> I posted the conclusion of a legitimate study done by the Kinsley institute on thousands of people involved in " hookup culture " on Saturday that explains everything I said. Below is the link to it again.
> 
> Sexual Hookup Culture, A Review.
> 
> FrenchFry posted her " facts " from an internet blog / tabloid .
> 
> Which do you think would be more accurate in these circumstances?


Link doesn't work and if it is the article about sexual hook up culture, that is not talking about PUA. It is talking about two consenting adults who have a ONS or short lived fling.
French Fry posted links to Roosh who has a following upwards of 500,000 men daily, has written 14 books and is the face of PUA today. The fact that you don't want to acknowledge that doesn't make it less true.


----------



## Created2Write

Caribbean Man said:


> Right there ^^^ lies your confusion.
> 
> To understand anything one must first be willing to examine that issue on a FACT basis only.
> 
> I posted the conclusion of a legitimate study done by the Kinsley institute on thousands of people involved in " hookup culture " on Saturday that explains everything I said. Below is the link to it again.
> 
> Sexual Hookup Culture, A Review.
> 
> FrenchFry posted her " facts " from an internet blog / tabloid .
> 
> Which do you think would be more accurate in these circumstances?


Firstly, studies can always be construed to show desired results. I learned this in college; not every study is done accurately, even those done by reputable sources, and it's not uncommon to see two studies trying to prove opposite points, each one based on legitimate research. I take every study with a grain of salt. 

Secondly, your hastiness to discount the behaviors, actions, attitudes and beliefs of self-professed PUA's as nothing more than extremest views simply because they're on a blog and not found in a study concerns me. Because, let's be realistic here: a study done by a reputable source could find that PUA's pursue nothing more than casual sex based on a study they did on thousands of people involved in hook-up culture, but if even more thousands of self-professed PUAs also profess to care nothing for women and have no respect for them and believe in forcing them to have sex, then I'd say your "study" is null and void. The actions and behaviors and beliefs of those who actually profess to be PUAs trumps any study done on PUAs.

Thirdly, the link didn't work.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> If I too believed that every woman who had sex with a PUA automatically became a victim of rape because of it,
> Then I too, would have to admit ,
> That I'm confused.
> I don't know that an adult woman with all of her mental faculties in tact would remove her clothing , have sex with a man for dubious motives , and because he treats her like garbage after , claim she's a victim.


You seem to be purposefully misrepresenting my point. Let me put it another way:

If you buy a product and are told that it works, do you have the right to complain if it doesn't? If someone promises to meet you at 7, but doesn't show up until 8:30, would you be annoyed at the waste of your time? If you buy a used car and it turns out the dealer reset the mileage, do you feel ripped off?

Same type of thing. I am not trying to say that all PUA is necessarily rape, but that a lot of women *feel* duped because they *have been* duped. Yes, sometimes women are willingly taking off their clothes with greater expectations of what may come of the situation. (Note though that in the article you posted, he differences here weren't much different between men and women.) Maybe some of these women feel duped too, and maybe try shouldn't --especially if it was agreed at the outset that this was NSA sex. This is not what I'm talking about.

What I'm talking about is the type of crap spelled out in gruesome detail in FrenchFry's links. This sort of stuff is all too common, and trust me, such people are very careful to cloak their true feelings and actions to make it sound like it's all just innocent fun.

It isn't.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Link doesn't work and if it is the article about sexual hook up culture, that is not talking about PUA. It is talking about two consenting adults who have a ONS or short lived fling.
> French Fry posted links to Roosh who has a following upwards of 500,000 men daily, has written 14 books and is the face of PUA today. The fact that you don't want to acknowledge that doesn't make it less true.


Are you saying that PUA's _rape_ the women they claim to have sex with?
Or do these women _willingly_ have sex with them?
Because if they gave their consent to have sex with a PUA then it falls under " consenting adults" and also under " hookup culture."

If they don't give their consent then it falls under RAPE.

It's as black & white as that.


----------



## PHTlump

FrenchFry said:


> Not all PUAs use gross tactics to pick-up women, but it's not like this idea is popping out of thin air.


The logical fallacy you're using here is called Illicit Generalization. Because a handful of anonymous internet forum posters have made posts that were positive toward potential sexual crimes, you are assuming that a large percentage of PUAs must agree. That obviously doesn't follow. If I drive down the road and see three white cows standing together, that doesn't mean all cows, or most cows, or a large percentage of cows, are white.

I'll use a few examples to illustrate what I mean. Here are a few quotes from feminists.
“I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” – Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor
“Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear” — Susan Brownmiller
“In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent.” — Catherine MacKinnon

Now, those aren't random posts from anonymous people, which the forum moderators deleted. Those are statements from mainstream, respected feminists.

However, those quotes are radical and clearly misandrist. Does that mean that all feminists, or a large percentage of feminists are misandrists? No. Most feminists are probably people who want unobjectionable things, like the right for women to vote and own property, or favor vague things, like 'girl power.' It would be a logical fallacy to argue that, because some of the leading feminists believe radical things, those beliefs must exist in much wider numbers.

And several of your links weren't even crimes. The consensus advice given to men encountering last minute resistance was to continue turning the women on so that they would consent. That's not a crime.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

I'd like to point out that the Southern Povery Law Center calls Rooshs blogs "a hate group".


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Caribbean Man said:


> Are you saying that PUA's _rape_ the women they claim to have sex with?
> Or do these women _willingly_ have sex with them?
> Because if they gave their consent to have sex with a PUA then it falls under " consenting adults" and also under " hookup culture."
> 
> If they don't give their consent then it falls under RAPE.
> 
> It's as black & white as that.


Roosh wrote a book called "Bang Iceland" that was called a rape book by Icelanders. He's the face of PUA today so you tell me.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Roosh wrote a book called "Bang Iceland" that was called a rape book by Icelanders. He's the face of PUA today so you tell me.


Err No.

Its plain a plain and simple question.
Roosh or anybody for that matter can write or say whatever they want about women.
It doesn't make them a rapist.

My question was , if a woman consents to have sex with a PUA is that rape?
Or is it consensual sex.

Edit: I've NEVER read Roosh so I'm not discussing Roosh.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> does not make it fact.
> 
> I posted the conclusion of a legitimate study done by the Kinsley institute on thousands of people involved in " hookup culture " on Saturday that explains everything I said. Below is the link to it again.
> It clearly defines what comes under " hookup culture ", and the
> hype & illusion that goes with it.
> 
> Sexual Hookup Culture, A Review.


What you linked to was a review of many studies, not a single one. And it did not conclude that all of hook-up culture is the same, and it did not even begin to examine the varying approaches to hookups, or the effects of these on the parties involved. 

It did point that a significant percentage of hookups involved nonconsensual sex. 

Sexual Hookup Culture: A Review


----------



## Cosmos

PHTlump said:


> Here are a few quotes from feminists.
> “I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” – Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor
> “Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear” — Susan Brownmiller
> “In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent.” — Catherine MacKinnon
> 
> Now, those aren't random posts from anonymous people, which the forum moderators deleted. Those are statements from mainstream, respected feminists.


I disagree. Those quotes are not from "mainstream, respected feminists," they are the mouthings of _radical feminists_. 

I've been a feminist for as long as I can remember, but quotes like that are an embarrassment to true feminism, as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> It's as black & white as that.


Again you are ignoring the issue. If you consent to give someone money on the understanding that you will be provided a service, but never received it, are you a victim of fraud? Or did you freely consent to just give away your money?


----------



## TikiKeen

Edited to add: I'll see PTHlump's composition/division fallacy and raise it with my own tu quoque fallacy, as follows.

This might help with some of the semantics being discussed:
Coercion definition and summary

Here is the definition and summary about lying.

PUA's, from what I gather by reading, utilize lying (via false statements and deceptive actions) to set the stage for successful coersion (using those lies to persuade the target to do what the PUA wants.)

Also, feminism historically contains no less than two separate schools of philosophical thought, and three distinct "waves". (Suffragette-era, 1960's-early 1990's, and 1995-ish to current.) The quotes given were from second wavers who established themselves then, but who still write from a 2nd wave perspective during the current third wave. Another discussion is needed to even delve into those intricacies, but suffice it to say that many feminists not only really love men, they equally despise MacKinnon (as an example.) As lovely as an example that was, it was also a direct derailment by comparing apples to oranges. The PUA's are current and cite each others' work supportively, and if a student were to compare the base requirements for PUA "students" of each author's work, commonalities would likely include "misogyny", "deception", "lying" and "coercion", in addition to blaming their targets (and victims, when the word is appropriate to the situation) when the PUA's personal goals are not met. 

Either way, the result is a manipulator blaming the target of the manipulation for his own shortcomings. When the manipulator is, for instance, a gold-digging female, it also applies. 

Note of attempted humor: I promise to never complete the anthropology major when I go back to school. :smthumbup:


----------



## always_alone

PHTlump said:


> The logical fallacy you're using here is called Illicit Generalization. Because a handful of anonymous internet forum posters have made posts that were positive toward potential sexual crimes, you are assuming that a large percentage of PUAs must agree.


No. The generalization isn't based on a handful of Internet posters. It is based on a whole lot of experience, and this handful is but an example of what it looks like.

Just ask CM. He know PUA are narcissistic, exploitive, and preying on women's insecurities. It's just that he also seems to think that the responsibility lies with the women because they are "consenting adults".

ETA:. There probably are a handful of men that easily attract women who are also looking for NSA sex, and this may be the group that CM is pointing to when he talks about PUA. However, I think this is a very small subset, and I wouldn't necessarily label them as PUA, as they have no artistry, per se. They simply have what a lot of women want. The PUA crowd, OTOH, is very much about lies, deception,manipulation and coercion


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Again you are ignoring the issue. If you consent to give someone money on the understanding that you will be provided a service, but never received it, are you a victim of fraud? Or did you freely consent to just give away your money?


Oh, that's simply, you are a victim of fraud.
There was an EXPLICIT understand that this person was supposed to provide you with a service in exchange of your money.

However if you give someone a million dollars cash without any agreement to provide anything ,and told them to do whatever they felt like with it, on the premise that they looked "smart and intilligent " and know what to do with money.
Then you are not a victim, you were just a fool with money to give away.

Again , black & white.


----------



## Created2Write

Caribbean Man said:


> Are you saying that PUA's _rape_ the women they claim to have sex with?
> Or do these women _willingly_ have sex with them?
> Because if they gave their consent to have sex with a PUA then it falls under " consenting adults" and also under " hookup culture."
> 
> If they don't give their consent then it falls under RAPE.
> 
> It's as black & white as that.


You're right, it is as black and white as that. But these guys are specifically talking about forcing a woman if she hasn't consented. Or if she has, and has taken it back, to act as if the "No" was never spoken. 

I mean, did you look at the links?


----------



## Created2Write

Caribbean Man said:


> Err No.
> 
> Its plain a plain and simple question.
> Roosh or anybody for that matter can write or say whatever they want about women.
> It doesn't make them a rapist.


You're ignoring what we're saying CM, and my guess is that you're uncomfortable with the points we're making.



> My question was , if a woman consents to have sex with a PUA is that rape?
> Or is it consensual sex.
> 
> Edit: I've NEVER read Roosh so I'm not discussing Roosh.


If a woman consents throughout the entire act of intercourse, then no it's not rape. But if, at any time, she says "No", and he ignores her, it has crossed over to rape. 

And you may not be discussing Roosh but _we_ are. He's a self-professed PUA, and we are talking about PUA, right?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Created2Write said:


> You're right, it is as black and white as that. But these guys are specifically talking about forcing a woman if she hasn't consented. Or if she has, and has taken it back, to act as if the "No" was never spoken.
> 
> I mean, did you look at the links?


Ok,
Lets establish a _prima facie_ case.

Why do women have sex with PUA?

Is it for employment?
Money?
Favours?
Job Promotion?
Visas?

Why?


----------



## TikiKeen

Motive is the difference, however, and the PUA has the benefit of knowing their own crappy motive(s). The target does not have this. That's why yesterday I referred to it as "informed" consent. Sure, the target can consent to what appears to be a budding relationship including sex, but the PUA in that case (and in some of the 'teachings' I read last night) absolutely does not have the information needed to fully consent to being a test run, a temporary fix or an ego-builder. Then again, that would require the PUA in question to have a sense of true motive, versus masked motive, and that might not be possible for the PUA to see within himself.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Created2Write said:


> You're ignoring what we're saying CM, and my guess is that you're uncomfortable with the points we're making.
> 
> And you may not be discussing Roosh but _we_ are. He's a self-professed PUA, and we are talking about PUA, right?


Exactly. I just can't with this thread anymore. We're talking about PUA and the poster child for it today but no let's toss him aside because his revolting behavior doesn't suit what I am trying to defend. 

View attachment 10282


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Oh, that's simply, you are a victim of fraud.
> There was an EXPLICIT understand that this person was supposed to provide you with a service in exchange of your money.
> 
> However if you give someone a million dollars cash without any agreement to provide anything ,and told them to do whatever they felt like with it, on the premise that they looked "smart and intilligent " and know what to do with money.
> Then you are not a victim, you were just a fool with money to give away.
> 
> Again , black & white.


Yet ever so many PUA types are ever so explicit about what they will offer, and it turns out to be lies.

Why can't you see this? Is it because you think "good PUA strategy" is to always very careful to avoid promises, so that you have plausible deniability?

Insinuating that you will offer something that you have no intention of offering is also a form of deceit.


----------



## Caribbean Man

TikiKeen said:


> Motive is the difference, however, and the PUA has the benefit of knowing their own crappy motive(s).* The target does not have this*.



Everyone has a motive
The woman who's having the sex with the PUA has a motive.
If she didn't , then she cannot be disappointed after.
she too has a motive.
What is it?


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Because if they gave their consent to have sex with a PUA then it falls under " consenting adults" and also under " hookup culture."
> 
> If they don't give their consent then it falls under RAPE.
> 
> It's as black & white as that.


I just wanted to say this again, loudly and clearly:

Nonconsensual sex *is* a part of the hookup culture according to the article you posted!

It is *not* black and white


----------



## Created2Write

Caribbean Man said:


> Ok,
> Lets establish a _prima facie_ case.
> 
> Why do women have sex with PUA?
> 
> Is it for employment?
> Money?
> Favours?
> Job Promotion?
> Visas?
> 
> Why?


Are we assuming she knows he's a PUA? Cause I can tell you right now I would never have sex with any man who said he was a PUA. I don't care how handsome or funny or confident or rich or flattering he is. There's nothing that would induce me to stoop to such a level. 

Why would other women consent to sex with a PUA? If she didn't know he was a PUA, there could be any number of reasons. If she did know, then I'd say she had sex with him because she didn't think she could do better. 

Again, you're ignoring my point.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Created2Write said:


> You're ignoring what we're saying CM, and my guess is that you're uncomfortable with the points we're making.


No,

You are projecting , because I'm not buying your logic that women who have sex with PUA's are victims of rape.

On Saturday you asked me what I thought about the comments on Roosh and I said it was disgusting
I have never defended Roosh nor any of his stuff.
Again , what I've read so far , what FF posted is DISGUSTING.

What I would like to know from you is why do women have sex with PUA's?

Only then can we establish a case.


----------



## Created2Write

Caribbean Man said:


> Everyone has a motive
> The woman who's having the sex with the PUA has a motive.
> If she didn't , then she cannot be disappointed after.
> she too has a motive.
> What is it?


CM, you ignore the points you can't or won't try and argue. You even ignored an entire post of mine where I answered a question of yours, and at this point I think it's because you do not want to admit that the wide spread PUA that exists today simply isn't what you, so very badly, want it to be. You ignore Roosh, you ignore the links FF posted, and you're taking us around in circles.


----------



## PHTlump

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I'd like to point out that the Southern Povery Law Center calls Rooshs blogs "a hate group".


The SPLC also calls Singing Nuns a hate group.
Hate groups watchdog has Mount St. Michael on list - Spokesman.com - March 9, 2013


----------



## Caribbean Man

Created2Write said:


> Are we assuming she knows he's a PUA? Cause I can tell you right now I would never have sex with any man who said he was a PUA. I don't care how handsome or funny or confident or rich or flattering he is. There's nothing that would induce me to stoop to such a level.
> 
> Why would other women consent to sex with a PUA? If she didn't know he was a PUA, there could be any number of reasons. If she did know, then I'd say she had sex with him because she didn't think she could do better.
> 
> Again, you're ignoring my point.


Oh,
So I guess the women in this entire scenario are innocent victims?


----------



## Created2Write

Caribbean Man said:


> No,
> 
> You are projecting , because I'm not buying your logic that women who have sex with PUA's are victims of rape.
> 
> On Saturday you asked me what I thought about the comments on Roosh and I said it was disgusting
> I have never defended Roosh nor any of his stuff.
> Again , what I've read so far , what FF posted is DISGUSTING.
> 
> What I would like to know from you is why do women have sex with PUA's?
> 
> Only then can we establish a case.


What answer are you looking for, exactly? Because it's impossible for me to answer this question. Why don't you get to whatever point you're trying to make?

And I'm not projecting. You said you haven't even read any of Roosh's stuff, and while you think what's on his site is disgusting, you continue to deny that this is widespread PUA behavior.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Yet ever so many PUA types are ever so explicit about what they will offer, and it turns out to be lies.
> 
> Why can't you see this? Is it because you think "good PUA strategy" is to always very careful to avoid promises, so that you have plausible deniability?
> 
> Insinuating that you will offer something that you have no intention of offering is also a form of deceit.


Ok.
Lemme break this argument down to its simplest form.
Have you ever voted?
Are you involved in politics?


----------



## Created2Write

Caribbean Man said:


> Oh,
> So I guess the women in this entire scenario are innocent victims?


You clearly don't see them as such. You expect women to be able to identify PUAs, even though PUA is all about deception, manipulation, being everything you're not, and all to get a woman into bed. Unless a man says that he's a PUA, and/or makes it clear that he wants NSA sex, then the woman is taken advantage of to some degree. Not necessarily rape in all cases, but definitely taken into a situation without the necessary facts. 

As DvlsAdvc8 says, if you can identify him as a PUA, then he doesn't have good game. 

This is all predatory behavior.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Created2Write said:


> What answer are you looking for, exactly? Because it's impossible for me to answer this question. Why don't you get to whatever point you're trying to make?
> 
> And I'm not projecting. You said you haven't even read any of Roosh's stuff, and while you think what's on his site is disgusting, you continue to deny that this is widespread PUA behavior.


Maybe you could start here?

This is a repost of the question I asked you on pg 10 , @ 10.43 am,
Post # 150.

_"..I understand your confusion.
lol,
believe me , I do.

If I too believed that every woman who had sex with a PUA automatically became a victim of rape because of it,
Then I too, would have to admit ,
That I'm confused._
_I don't know that an adult woman with all of her mental faculties in tact would remove her clothing , have sex with a man for dubious motives , and because he treats her like garbage after , claim she's a victim.
A woman whose husband / partner / boyfriend has sex with another woman is a victim of infidelity.
A woman who is forced to have sex is a victim of rape.
A woman whose partner is abusive in any form is a victim of abuse._
*Exactly what are women who willingly consent to have sex with PUA's victims of?*

_Answer that and your confusion will disappear_..."


----------



## PHTlump

Cosmos said:


> I disagree. Those quotes are not from "mainstream, respected feminists," they are the mouthings of _radical feminists_.


Fair enough. But you will have to admit that they are *more* mainstream and *more* respected than a blogger and a few anonymous internet forum posters.



> I've been a feminist for as long as I can remember, but quotes like that are an embarrassment to true feminism, as far as I'm concerned.


Exactly. Good for you. In the same way, most proponents of Game consider rape a crime and would never consider advocating it as a sexual strategy.


----------



## Created2Write

LOL. CM, I did answer that question. You didn't answer mine.



Created2Write said:


> CM, forgive me if this sounds...argumentative but my confusion lies in _your_ representations of PUA's. One moment the PUA is a harmless male looking for NSA sex, and the women who sleep with him are victims of nothing more than what they brought on themselves, and then the next PUA's are narcissistic manipulators who only have their own selfish desires at heart, and who are only successful at sleeping with women who don't know their own self-worth enough to identify a PUA when they see one. So answering that question really does nothing to clear my confusions because I still don't even know which PUA you're talking about.
> 
> My confusion is only magnified by the crap touted on the websites FF posted because they, too, believe themselves to be PUA's, and clearly have no respect for the right of a woman to choose when she'll have sex and her right to say "No" if she damn well pleases, and even go so far as to mentally and emotionally manipulate, to ignore any resistance if met with it, and to physically force her if all else fails. _That_ is rape from self-professed PUA's. Now, you can dismiss them as not being real PUA's if you want to, but they certainly believe themselves to be, and by what I saw they aren't a small sector of immature twenty-somethings who make stupid choices based on raging hard-ons.
> 
> So, which PUA are we discussing? Because if we're discussing either the narcissist that you've mentioned or any of the guys on those sites FF posted, then I'd say that the women who sleep/are forced to sleep with them are victims of being completely taken advantage of by manipulation, coercion, and force. I could care less if the chick is naked and hot and steamy for the guy one minute, and then the next is stone cold saying "No"; it should stop the very second she decides she doesn't want to do it. Any guy who says otherwise is scum.
> 
> *If you're discussing the PUA who's just looking to make himself more attractive and appealing, and partakes in consensual sex without manipulation or coercion, then I'd say there isn't really a victim in that circumstance.* But, I believe this scenario to be a rare one indeed.


And I did answer your question, you just don't like my answer.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Created2Write said:


> You clearly don't see them as such. You expect women to be able to identify PUAs, even though PUA is all about deception, manipulation, being everything you're not, and all to get a woman into bed. Unless a man says that he's a PUA, and/or makes it clear that he wants NSA sex, then the woman is taken advantage of to some degree. Not necessarily rape in all cases, but definitely taken into a situation without the necessary facts.
> 
> As DvlsAdvc8 says, if you can identify him as a PUA, then he doesn't have good game.
> 
> This is all predatory behavior.


Errr no again.

If you're not into casual sex and hookup lifestyle then absolutely nothing a PUA does would have any effect on you.

It's_ your_ body, take full responsibility of what you allow into it.
Do you agree?

Sounds like cake eating at its best to me.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Created2Write said:


> LOL. CM, I did answer that question. You didn't answer mine.
> 
> 
> 
> And I did answer your question, you just don't like my answer.



lol,

Neither do you like mine so where does that leave us?

Maybe we could start with the FACTS?
Kinda hard to disagree with a FACT.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Ok.
> Lemme break this argument down to its simplest form.
> Have you ever voted?
> Are you involved in politics?


????

There is a difference between a sales pitch have and a con. There's a difference between rhetoric and making campaign promises one has no intention of keeping. 

This (among other things) is how we tell the difference between an honest politician and a crooked one.

Yes, I have voted and been involved in politics. What is your point?


----------



## Created2Write

Caribbean Man said:


> Errr no again.
> 
> If you're not into casual sex and hookup lifestyle then absolutely nothing a PUA does would have any effect on you.


Not according to some PUAs here. Their particular enjoyment is in catching the girls who wouldn't usually fall for PUA behavior. Or do you just skim over their posts and ignore them?



> It's_ your_ body, take full responsibility of what you allow into it.
> Do you agree?


Of course, assuming the woman knows the guy is a PUA; assuming he's honest and upfront about being a PUA; assuming he's not going to lie his way into her body. But that's exactly what so many of these guys do. They lie and manipulate and act however they need to to win a girl over. 



> Sounds like cake eating at its best to me.


Sounds like denial to me.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Created2Write said:


> LOL. CM, I did answer that question. You didn't answer mine.
> 
> 
> 
> And I did answer your question, you just don't like my answer.



lol,

Neither do you like mine so where does that leave us?

Maybe we could start with the FACTS?
Kinda hard to disagree with a FACT.

If I simply keep on posting my feelings and you reject them, then you post your feelings and I reject them then the discussion gets nowhere.
But if we stick to the FACTS.
Then I will have to concede or you would have to concede.
I have absolutely no problem conceding if you present factual evidence to back up your claim.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> ????
> 
> *There is a difference between a sales pitch have and a con. There's a difference between rhetoric and making campaign promises one has no intention of keeping.
> *
> This (among other things) is how we tell the difference between an honest politician and a crooked one.
> 
> Yes, I have voted and been involved in politics. What is your point?


Lol,
I think you have just admitted my point !


----------



## Created2Write

Caribbean Man said:


> lol,
> 
> Neither do you like mine so where does that leave us?
> 
> Maybe we could start with the FACTS?
> Kinda hard to disagree with a FACT.


You and I don't see the same facts. You see Roosh as a small sect of immature, selfish pigs who prey on women but don't represent PUA as a whole, and I see those same pigs as the widespread PUAs that litter modern society.

The links FF posted, and the sheer number of posters who join and talk there on a daily basis, would be my facts. But, again, you refuse to acknowledge them. And the supposed "fact" you provided didn't even prove your point, as always alone even said, and you refused to acknowledge that too. 

So no, I don't think you'll concede to factual evidence.


----------



## TikiKeen

The "this" she doesn't have is the benefit of knowing _his_ motive, because he's hiding it under seemingly decent behavior. I didn't mean her motive. I'm operating on the assumption that she is wanting to date (and perhaps have sex with) what appears to be a great guy she's met or has known for a short time.


----------



## TikiKeen

Oh sweet jeebus, the Mansplainin' is strong with this thread.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Created2Write said:


> Not according to some PUAs here. Their particular enjoyment is in catching the girls who wouldn't usually fall for PUA behavior. Or do you just skim over their posts and ignore them?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, assuming the woman knows the guy is a PUA; assuming he's honest and upfront about being a PUA; assuming he's not going to lie his way into her body. But that's exactly what so many of these guys do. They lie and manipulate and act however they need to to win a girl over.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like denial to me.


Sure its denial.
Women denying that they are ultimately responsible for what they do with their body, especially when the outcome doesn't match their expectation.

Classical example of sour grapes.

No different from a guy that marries a woman he knows is an entitled princess and a spoilt brat and then he starts to complain after that all women are bad.
Or the guy who demands that his qualified wife stays at home instead of pursuing a career and when they divorce he's upset that he has to pay her alimony.

We are all responsible for our actions C2W.

That's my view in life, that's what gave me a level of success.
I blame absolutely no one for my actions if I fail. Not the state , not the government , not because I'm black , not because I was born poor , nothing.

It was my fault.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I think that men who have never used the "dupe 'em" tactics to get into a woman's pants probably can't imagine just how far other men will go. CM has enjoyed a life of good sex and likely has never "duped" a woman into bed...even though he has had wonderful consentual casual sex. Since he can't imagine wanting to "dupe" a woman out of her pants, he downplays the men who DO want to "dupe" a woman out of her pants.

He isn't that type of scuz-bag, so he can't relate to those scuz-bags and instead, he assumes that women are just having sour grapes attitudes about "consenting" to sex that they regretted later.

Being an honorable person sometimes makes it difficult to imagine the motives and tactis of dis-honorable people.


----------



## PHTlump

Created2Write said:


> Not according to some PUAs here. Their particular enjoyment is in catching the girls who wouldn't usually fall for PUA behavior. Or do you just skim over their posts and ignore them?


Regardless of what some PUAs believe, the inconvenient fact is that women have free will. If a PUA seduces a woman, then that woman has allowed herself to be seduced. Sex is a consensual act between two people.



> Of course, assuming the woman knows the guy is a PUA; assuming he's honest and upfront about being a PUA; assuming he's not going to lie his way into her body. But that's exactly what so many of these guys do. They lie and manipulate and act however they need to to win a girl over.


You're stating that, if a man approached a woman in a bar and told her that he was an astronaut with a trust fund who was committed to marry the next woman who slept with him, that she would have no culpability in her decision to have sex? I disagree. I have a daughter. And I will certainly advise my daughter to get to know a man before she has sex with him. She should even consider waiting to marry the man before sex. That way, if he is a liar, she will discover it before making a decision she regrets.

I see the objections to women being lied to and "manipulated" similar to people complaining of being scammed by Nigerian princes via email. While that degree of lying may be immoral, a modicum of common sense will render one immune to the lures of a free lunch.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I mean it is easy for a guy, from the outside, to say "How was she hurt? She got sex, she must have wanted to have sex, so what did she lose?" because a guy cannot imagine the thought process that a woman goes through when being duped into sex she really doesn't want to have but she does end up having because she is in a vulnerable state.

To a man, they think they are always in that vulnerable state...the state of wanting to have sex with most every woman and not being able to (having to constantly temper himself). So he feels vulnerable to how women in the world affect his sex drive all the time, without his consenting to it. It just happens to him.

He then thinks the same urges apply to women and that we should just face it that we want that sex, whether committed or casual.

Since a man doesn't have the same problems AFTER having duped-into-sex, he just can't relate at all to "what did she lose by having that sex...how was she harmed".

I can see how this confusion would occur for an honorable man...and CM is certainly one of those. But he clearly has never gotten a thrill out of duping a woman and therefore, he doesn't really have all the data he would need in order to understand what women on this thread are saying.


----------



## Caribbean Man

TikiKeen said:


> The "this" she doesn't have is the benefit of knowing _his_ motive, because he's hiding it under seemingly decent behavior. I didn't mean her motive. I'm operating on the assumption that she is wanting to date (and perhaps have sex with) what appears to be a great guy she's met or has known for a short time.


A doesn't he want the same thing?
He also wants to have sex with what appears to be a great woman he's met and hardly knows. He assumes she's clean, doesn't have a criminal record, isn't trying to manipulate him into fathering a child which is not his, or isn't a nut case that will accuse him falsely of rape and get him into trouble with the law.

So they both have this in common.


----------



## ozymandias

always_alone said:


> Fair enough. I lumped Athol in there because of the hateful way he speaks about women. I have zero tolerance for that type of talk, and once I hear it will automatically shut it out.


Could I trouble you for some examples of Athol speaking hatefully about women as a class?

I am honestly curious. I read some pretty reactionary stuff out in the man-o-sphere - Dalrock, Roissy, Rollo Tomassi... you take what's useful and toss the rest. Athol's voice has always been one of the more diplomatic ones though.

Again, looking specifically for hateful generalizations since I assume that's what you meant. "You may be married to a venomous screetchtard" is not an example. "Women can all be venomous screetchtards at one point or another" would be, IMO. I'm certainly not saying there aren't any, but I'm genuinely curious about what drives your perception.


----------



## BrockLanders

Faithful Wife said:


> I mean it is easy for a guy, from the outside, to say "How was she hurt? She got sex, she must have wanted to have sex, so what did she lose?" because a guy cannot imagine the thought process that a woman goes through when being duped into sex she really doesn't want to have but she does end up having because she is in a vulnerable state.
> 
> To a man, they think they are always in that vulnerable state...the state of wanting to have sex with most every woman and not being able to (having to constantly temper himself). So he feels vulnerable to how women in the world affect his sex drive all the time, without his consenting to it. It just happens to him.
> 
> He then thinks the same urges apply to women and that we should just face it that we want that sex, whether committed or casual.
> 
> Since a man doesn't have the same problems AFTER having duped-into-sex, he just can't relate at all to "what did she lose by having that sex...how was she harmed".
> 
> I can see how this confusion would occur for an honorable man...and CM is certainly one of those. But he clearly has never gotten a thrill out of duping a woman and therefore, he doesn't really have all the data he would need in order to understand what women on this thread are saying.


So in summary, only women can understand both women and men. Men can only understand men. Also, only women can be duped into sex. Women have never feigned affection for a man in order to get something.


----------



## treyvion

BrockLanders said:


> So in summary, only women can understand both women and men. Men can only understand men. Also, only women can be duped into sex. Women have never feigned affection for a man in order to get something.


I know. Lol.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Brock, I'm not saying I understand the urges that men have. Is that what you meant?


----------



## Caribbean Man

BrockLanders said:


> So in summary, only women can understand both women and men. Men can only understand men. *Also, only women can be duped into sex. Women have never feigned affection for a man in order to get something.*



This explains^^^ the logical trajectory on this thread.
The assumptions are all false so the logic is paradoxical / circular.

In casual sex ,there are no legitimate expectation , except personal sexual fulfilment and both partners essentially agree to that _before._ They go into it for their own selfish gratification. If it's not satisfying to them, they simply move on. That's what
" _no strings attached sex means_."

That's why it's called a " hookup."

I also think it's illogical to assume that PUA type sex is not casual sex. PUA sex is the fastest type of casual sex .


----------



## ozymandias

Oh, and just for giggles....

Who thinks this young lady was raped?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Also Brock I have said several times now that women dupe men in the same way, and also for sex. Apparently this has never happened to any man on this thread because they don't seem to believe that I actually believe this happens. But it does and I've seen it many times.


----------



## BrockLanders

Faithful Wife said:


> Brock, I'm not saying I understand the urges that men have. Is that what you meant?


Not really. I can understand why a woman would feel bad after being duped into sex even if I wouldn't feel similarly. To liken such a situation to rape is a ridiculous overamplification of what actually occurred.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Brock, please get your posters straight. I haven't actually ever compared it to rape. I'm calling it "duped" and I described the practices (for either a man or a woman) as "crap behavior". Also I have said this was my OPINION.


----------



## BrockLanders

Faithful Wife said:


> Brock, please get your posters straight. I haven't actually ever compared it to rape. I'm calling it "duped" and I described the practices (for either a man or a woman) as "crap behavior". Also I have said this was my OPINION.


I agree I did omit several pages of this thread as I saw CM virtually banging his head into the wall. As far as it being a crap practice, who is arguing with you?


----------



## ocotillo

Faithful Wife said:


> I think that men who have never used the "dupe 'em" tactics to get into a woman's pants probably can't imagine just how far other men will go.


I can imagine (Sort of.) I worked for a man like that. -Worked for him for 19 years. He was one of the more despicable human beings I've had the misfortune of knowing. Deep down, he did not like or respect women at all and was open and upfront about than when he was in all male company. 

What I don't understand is why women threw themselves at him wherever he went. What I don't understand is why my own wife's first impression of him was in her words, "Very charming." 

I think women can probably see through the social veneer of other women much better than men can. 

And I suspect the reverse is also true.


----------



## WyshIknew

I have no problem with all this stuff when both parties are aware of the rules of the game, an evening of flirting and a night of (great?) sex.
It's a win win situation.

I also have no problem also with a shy man learning some techniques to up his confidence and to make him more marketable. Heck, I could have used some of that as a young man.

I just do not like this trickery and deception, preying on tipsy or insecure girls and then bragging about it on a stupid blog.

It just seems to me that it turns what should be a night of fun into something rather creepy.

Not much consolation but hopefully a night with one of these tossers may teach a woman/girl to be more careful in future.


----------



## Faithful Wife

He he..."tossers".


----------



## Created2Write

ozymandias said:


> Oh, and just for giggles....
> 
> Who thinks this young lady was raped?


Not rape, no. But taking advantage of her? Yes. Lying to her? Yes. Duping her to get what he wanted instead of risking that she might say no if she knew the truth? Yes. Scummy behavior? Yes.


----------



## WyshIknew

Just to add my middle son has a fair bit of luck with the ladies. He obviously doesn't take after his dad.

He doesn't play silly games he just asks them if they wanna come back to his place.

I've had a talk with him about respect and proper behaviour but as he says, "they want to come back with me."


----------



## Created2Write

Duping a woman isn't necessarily rape. I've never said that if she consents and then finds out she's been duped, that that counts as rape. If she consents before knowing the guy well enough, that her own dang fault. Not rape. 

If, at any point, she says "No" and he ignores her(like so many of the guys on all of the links FF posted, not just Roosh), then it has crossed over to rape.


----------



## BrockLanders

Created2Write said:


> Not rape, no. But taking advantage of her? Yes. Lying to her? Yes. Duping her to get what he wanted instead of risking that she might say no if she knew the truth? Yes. Scummy behavior? Yes.


I ask you, are all of the women running around with plastic body parts guilty of the same thing? If a man gets a woman home, gets undressed and realizes that her fantastic looking rack defies gravity and feels like lumps of cement, is he a victim of the same behavior?


----------



## Created2Write

BrockLanders said:


> I ask you, are all of the women running around with plastic body parts guilty of the same thing? If a man gets a woman home, gets undressed and realizes that her fantastic looking rack defies gravity and feels like lumps of cement, is he a victim of the same behavior?


If she said they were real, then yes.


----------



## BrockLanders

LOL

Chinese man sues wife over ugly child ? and wins $120,000 ? RT News


----------



## Caribbean Man

WyshIknew said:


> I have no problem with all this stuff when both parties are aware of the rules of the game, an evening of flirting and a night of (great?) sex.
> It's a win win situation.
> 
> I also have no problem also with a shy man learning some techniques to up his confidence and to make him more marketable. Heck, I could have used some of that as a young man.
> 
> I just do not like this trickery and deception, preying on tipsy or insecure girls and then bragging about it on a stupid blog.
> 
> It just seems to me that it turns what should be a night of fun into something rather creepy.
> 
> Not much consolation but hopefully a night with one of these tossers may teach a woman/girl to be more careful in future.


And this is the point I've been " _banging my head_ " trying to get across on this entire thread.


----------



## Caribbean Man

ocotillo said:


> What I don't understand is why women threw themselves at him wherever he went. What I don't understand is why my own wife's first impression of him was in her words, "Very charming."
> 
> .


That's another can of worms that always cause trouble when discussed here.

Kinda blows the entire " victim" theory to bits and pieces if one really examines it.


----------



## PHTlump

WyshIknew said:


> I also have no problem also with a shy man learning some techniques to up his confidence and to make him more marketable. Heck, I could have used some of that as a young man.


That's really what most of the Game discussion is about. Teaching men how to behave. Stand in a certain way. Don't fold your arms in front of you. Maintain eye contact. Speak in a certain manner. Use certain words. Avoid certain words. It's good information for men to have.



> I just do not like this trickery and deception, preying on tipsy or insecure girls and then bragging about it on a stupid blog.
> 
> It just seems to me that it turns what should be a night of fun into something rather creepy.


Yes, but it's rare. Most of the despicable links previously posted were anonymous commentators. Roosh is a well-known blogger. But even the post of his that was linked to was a recommendation that, when a woman says no, keep trying to seduce her until she changes her mind. That's not advocating anything criminal.

I honestly haven't seen much deception advocated on PUA sites. The ultimate goal for many PUAs is to have a harem of girls and remain uncommitted to each of them for as long as possible. If you've lied and told them that you were rich, or a rocket scientist, or looking to marry, those lies will be discovered quickly and the girls will move on. Therefore, most of them will recommend being truthful, or at worst, vague.

If a woman asks if you're seeing anyone else and you reply, "It's complicated," she can't very well be upset with you for misrepresenting your availability. Well, she can. She just shouldn't.


----------



## Created2Write

I have no issue with two people being _honest_ about who they are and what they want going into a night of consensual sexual activity. I also have no issue with either gender bettering themselves physically, mentally, emotionally, conversationally, socially, financially. 

I take issue with the dishonesty. I take issue with the intentional deception, the disrespect...the targeting of insecure women because they're easier to manipulate. I take issue with using women for sex all the while viewing them as wh0res, b*tches, etc. And these are the things I see that are so common among PUAs. I don't think all PUA's are this way, but there are few that I've met that aren't. And I thank God for them.


----------



## Created2Write

PHTlump said:


> That's really what most of the Game discussion is about. Teaching men how to behave. Stand in a certain way. Don't fold your arms in front of you. Maintain eye contact. Speak in a certain manner. Use certain words. Avoid certain words. It's good information for men to have.
> 
> 
> Yes, but it's rare. Most of the despicable links previously posted were anonymous commentators. Roosh is a well-known blogger. But even the post of his that was linked to was a recommendation that, when a woman says no, keep trying to seduce her until she changes her mind. That's not advocating anything criminal.


He specifically said to tell her to "shut the f--- up" and physically force her...that's not advocating anything criminal?


----------



## PHTlump

Created2Write said:


> He specifically said to tell her to "shut the f--- up" and physically force her...that's not advocating anything criminal?


That wasn't Roosh. That was the anonymous poster whose post was removed from the PUA forum.

Roosh's advice was to keep seducing her and try to change her mind.


----------



## ReformedHubby

From what I've seen most pick up artists don't do a long con. They are only in it to get laid in the short term. They're not going to put in a whole lot of effort to woo and date someone for any significant amount of time just to get sex. If a woman gets picked up by one of these so called artists, and is intimate with him, she was obviously attracted to him enough to have sex with him. In this case both parties got what they wanted out of it. 

Also, I honestly think we're giving way to much power to the PUA in this thread. I think the majority of women know when they're being picked up. Its up to them to decide if the want to go along with it or not. 

Perhaps the women on here are more offended that sleazy guys can still get laid so easily. Not so much about the emotional damage associated with sleeping with someone who turns out to have lied about who they said there were. Who cares if you find out afterwards he has a hair piece and lives in his mom's basement? Especially if you weren't that invested in the relationship in the first place.


----------



## Created2Write

When No Means Yes | Roosh V

I just don't buy this guy. No means no. Dead stop. No doesn't mean keep going, or if it does, then that woman brought her disappointment on herself. A man should stop as soon as the word "No" is uttered, unless there is a mutual agreement regarding a rape fantasy, but that is something else entirely. 

The only good thing I'll say for him is that he, at least, recognizes the word "Stop".  But yes, I do see him as advocating criminal behavior.


----------



## PHTlump

Created2Write said:


> I just don't buy this guy. No means no. Dead stop. No doesn't mean keep going, or if it does, then that woman brought her disappointment on herself. A man should stop as soon as the word "No" is uttered, unless there is a mutual agreement regarding a rape fantasy, but that is something else entirely.
> 
> The only good thing I'll say for him is that he, at least, recognizes the word "Stop".  But yes, I do see him as advocating criminal behavior.


So, in your opinion, a woman doesn't have the right, and/or the ability to change her mind? I disagree. I think that a woman has the right/ability to decline sex at 10pm and consent to sex at 11pm.

Viewing this as criminal behavior is one reason why men and women should educate themselves on sex crimes. Making out with a woman, then proposing sex, being refused, and continuing to make out with a voluntary partner in the hopes of changing her mind is not a crime. Period. I fear for my son that he will enter puberty in a world where so many women believe that sex crimes lay dormant in every sexual encounter.


----------



## ocotillo

Caribbean Man said:


> That's another can of worms that always cause trouble when discussed here.
> 
> Kinda blows the entire " victim" theory to bits and pieces if one really examines it.


There is that, but what I was thinking is that it's easy for a normal man to fall into black/white thinking here. 

I found myself more than once feeling less compassion for the women he used and then blew away like dead leaves than I probably should have.


----------



## Created2Write

If a woman doesn't consent to sex, but is still willing to makeout with a guy, and then consents later, I have no problem with that. What I am saying is that a guy should only, ever, go as far as the woman consents to. Sure, he can makeout with her(if she consents to that) with hopes that she'll change her mind. But until she changes her mind, nothing involving intercourse should take place. If she says no and he still takes off her bra, and she still says no and he tried to take off her pants or panties...this is escalating things toward intercourse while the girl maintains a lack of consent. And that is flirting with criminal behavior.


----------



## Caribbean Man

ReformedHubby said:


> From what I've seen most pick up artists don't do a long con. They are only in it to get laid in the short term. They're not going to put in a whole lot of effort to woo and date someone for any significant amount of time just to get sex. If a woman gets picked up by one of these so called artists, and is intimate with him, she was obviously attracted to him enough to have sex with him. In this case both parties got what they wanted out of it.
> 
> Also, I honestly think we're giving way to much power to the PUA in this thread. I think the majority of women know when they're being picked up. Its up to them to decide if the want to go along with it or not.
> 
> Perhaps the women on here are more offended that sleazy guys can still get laid so easily. Not so much about the emotional damage associated with sleeping with someone who turns out to have lied about who they said there were. Who cares if you find out afterwards he has a hair piece and lives in his mom's basement? Especially if you weren't that invested in the relationship in the first place.


And I called it since esterday.
Thw women on this thread are offended by what happens _after_ the sexual encounter.

PUA don't promise one sh!t, and they select their women carefully.
That's why they have lots of women " on hold."
They don't have time to waste convincing a woman to have sex. She _wants_ to have no strings attached sex.
What she should have done is o some due dilligence before and choose her partner more wisely.
But most of these women get picked up in bars whilst clubbing alone, looking for a partner to have NSA sex with.


----------



## BrockLanders

Created2Write said:


> If a woman doesn't consent to sex, but is still willing to makeout with a guy, and then consents later, I have no problem with that. What I am saying is that a guy should only, ever, go as far as the woman consents to. Sure, he can makeout with her(if she consents to that) with hopes that she'll change her mind. But until she changes her mind, nothing involving intercourse should take place. If she says no and he still takes off her bra, and she still says no and he tried to take off her pants or panties...this is escalating things toward intercourse while the girl maintains a lack of consent. And that is flirting with criminal behavior.


Maybe women should walk away instead of belting out half-hearted "no's" and being surprised at the outcome. If the guy held her down against her will and raped her the restraint would be obvious and no one would second guess her claims as being revenge for buyer's remorse.


----------



## Caribbean Man

I'm still trying to figure what sort of woman would meet a strange man and have sex with him based on something he
" promised " her, then complain after that she was " duped " or manipulated into having sex with him.

Exactly what did he promise her?
To love and respect her?
To marry her?
To not tell anyone about the sex?
To treat her like a princess?

*PUA* ; " _Hi baby, if we have sex I promise I'll treat you like a princess until you get tired of me and dump me for another guy.._"

*Woman*: * swoon * " _your place or mine_?"

lol.

I think what women on this thread are forgetting , and what I have been saying since Friday is that some women _actually_ want to have non committed sex. They meet a guy tonight , want to have sex with him despite not knowing hem. In fact, they don't even want to know him, they only want to have sex with him to get rid of their sexless drought.
They don't want the entanglements of a relationship. They don't care if he's a jerk.
They want sex, he wants sex.
He could boast as much as he wants after,_ they _got what they wanted, sex.


----------



## treyvion

Caribbean Man said:


> And I called it since esterday.
> Thw women on this thread are offended by what happens _after_ the sexual encounter.
> 
> PUA don't promise one sh!t, and they select their women carefully.
> That's why they have lots of women " on hold."
> They don't have time to waste convincing a woman to have sex. She _wants_ to have no strings attached sex.
> What she should have done is o some due dilligence before and choose her partner more wisely.
> But most of these women get picked up in bars whilst clubbing alone, looking for a partner to have NSA sex with.


Right, and PUA wants to maximize opportunity in these realms.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Caribbean Man

BrockLanders said:


> Maybe women should walk away instead of belting out half-hearted "no's" and being surprised at the outcome. If the guy held her down against her will and raped her the restraint would be obvious and no one would second guess her claims as being revenge for buyer's remorse.


Right.

The other funny thing about this entire scenario is,
If a decent , well intentioned man , who's kinda shy and lacks self confidence approach that same woman , especially in a bar amongst her girlfriends ,she will outright REJECT him. In fact, chances are that she will laugh him to scorn, she views him approaching her in public as a disrespect to her.

Even if he wanted to be " just friends " with her and maybe the relationship can start to grow from there. He's not looking for quick sex , but a genuine friendship.
His chances with her are equal to a snowball chances in hell.


----------



## Caribbean Man

treyvion said:


> Right, and PUA wants to maximize opportunity in these realms.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


That's why they are called " meat markets ", they are designed for 
" hookup " culture and fast sex.


----------



## TikiKeen

*trigger warning*

Here is a Clarisse Thorn article at goodmenproject which is NSFW/K and very much address pretty much all of the subjects covered here.

The poster in question cited in that article showed up at her comment section, and posts 89-105 here are a bulk of that discussion. #98 and #105 are telling.

This is the problem with PUA on the whole. Rape Culture is a very real thing. Making excuses for completely vapid, unethical, illegal behavior (because coercion can be prosecuted under my state's rape laws) is inexcusable. And it happens (via admission withing PUA forums at least) often. 

The post did point out that confidence-building is a good facet of both PUA and life, if done ethically and with empathy. What PUA does (in this case, Owen Cook's site) is twist that by combining that confidence-building with lying, coersion, one-upping/denigration of others and in that poster's case, rape.


----------



## TikiKeen

The gist of it IMO is that a true alpha male doesn't have to trod over any other human to 'land' a woman with whom he's flirting. He's direct about who he is, what he wants and how he lives. He communicates his goal, whether it's a one-nighter or just getting to know her. If things progress and the woman says 'no', he doesn't push, doesn't coerce, doesn't whine about it to get laid. He simply stops and trusts that it will happen at another time. He doesn't see a lack of sex on his timeline as a failure. (All these apply to same-sex circumstances as well.) Those are the traits of a true alpha guy. Confidence is sexy. Fake is just...fake.

I dated my guy knowing we'd both been wild in our younger days. He also had every positive trait I described. I wasn't planning on dating him more than once or twice because I wanted his company. I ended up falling in love and getting married. We've looked back and analyzed PUA traits we both still had when dating, and how the attitudes which fed those traits still lingered into marriage. Turns out, selfishness/entitlement was the number one problem, kind of like the PUA assumption that they deserved sex or attention.


----------



## Caribbean Man

TikiKeen said:


> *trigger warning*
> 
> Here is a Clarisse Thorn article at goodmenproject which is NSFW/K and very much address pretty much all of the subjects covered here.
> 
> The poster in question cited in that article showed up at her comment section, and posts 89-105 here are a bulk of that discussion. #98 and #105 are telling.
> 
> This is the problem with PUA on the whole. Rape Culture is a very real thing. Making excuses for completely vapid, unethical, illegal behavior (because coercion can be prosecuted under my state's rape laws) is inexcusable. And it happens (via admission withing PUA forums at least) often.
> 
> The post did point out that confidence-building is a good facet of both PUA and life, if done ethically and with empathy. What PUA does (in this case, Owen Cook's site) is twist that by combining that confidence-building with lying, coersion, one-upping/denigration of others and in that poster's case, rape.


This , from the opening paragraph:

" _Many feminists claim that the culture, mores, and/or tactics within the PUA community encourage rape. In my book, I quote one feminist who said: “I’m just going to come right out and say it: PUAs rape women through coercion and manipulation. Full stop._” *I think that’s an overblown blanket statement rooted in a simplistic view of the community.*<---[ CM has been saying throughout this thread .]
But also in my book, I described a written report from one PUA in which he basically documented a date rape. And after I published the book, a reader sent me a link to one of the more unsettling PUA forum threads I’ve seen (thanks Jon).
I would’ve broken this thread down in the book if I’d seen it before publication. I didn’t, so I’m breaking it down for you now. I do want to start with two important caveats:
*A. This does not represent all PUAs*. Some guys really do get into the community because they’re having trouble figuring out answers to questions like, “How do I ask that cute girl in class for her number?” This kind of thing is, however, one reason that lots of guys who found decent advice in parts of the community won’t associate themselves with the community as a whole.
*B. PUAs are not the only people who do this*. PUAs did not invent this. Other people are doubtless out doing this. PUAs are just the ones who have jargon for it and document it publicly on message boards.."

This is what is called a " Prima facie " case.

The issue is RAPE and only rapist rape.A man who picks up women in bars and has sex with them and never call them after , or dumps them is NOT A RAPIST, neither did her coerce the women to have sex with him. Not a single man on this thread said that they sanctioned rape or rape culture or having sex with a drunk woman you've just met.

Thank goodness the article was written by a woman , balanced with male viewpoints.


----------



## treyvion

Caribbean Man said:


> Right.
> 
> The other funny thing about this entire scenario is,
> If a decent , well intentioned man , who's kinda shy and lacks self confidence approach that same woman , especially in a bar amongst her girlfriends ,she will outright REJECT him. In fact, chances are that she will laugh him to scorn, she views him approaching her in public as a disrespect to her.
> 
> Even if he wanted to be " just friends " with her and maybe the relationship can start to grow from there. He's not looking for quick sex , but a genuine friendship.
> His chances with her are equal to a snowball chances in hell.


After having witnessed the "just friends" situation and hopeing it grows from there. If you are "just friends" and providing "serious boyfriend" or "husband" type of benefits, there is no incentive for them to change.

It's kind of like the sexless WAW situation on here where the husband still supports her. They figure their needs are met, what more is there for them to do?


----------



## Caribbean Man

BrockLanders said:


> The problem is that there are people in this thread who seem to have a widely vascillating view on the definition of rape, which in reality is an easily definable and subjective action. Invoking the BS concept of "rape culture" (the view that society accepts, even encourages rape) shows me that this poster has already drank the kooky feminist kool aid.


Yep,
Beautifully wrapped piece of propaganda , designed to fool women.


----------



## Caribbean Man

treyvion said:


> After having witnessed the "just friends" situation and hopeing it grows from there. If you are "just friends" and providing "serious boyfriend" or "husband" type of benefits, there is no incentive for them to change.
> 
> It's kind of like the sexless WAW situation on here where the husband still supports her. They figure their needs are met, what more is there for them to do?


TED-Barry Schwartz: The paradox of choice.


----------



## BrockLanders

Caribbean Man said:


> TED-Barry Schwartz: The paradox of choice.


Sounds interesting - I'll have to listen to that on my commute home.


----------



## Faithful Wife

CM: "I think what women on this thread are forgetting , and what I have been saying since Friday is that some women actually want to have non committed sex. They meet a guy tonight , want to have sex with him despite not knowing hem. In fact, they don't even want to know him, they only want to have sex with him to get rid of their sexless drought.
They don't want the entanglements of a relationship. They don't care if he's a jerk.
They want sex, he wants sex.
He could boast as much as he wants after, they got what they wanted, sex."


I said the exact same thing CM, several times. Women don't need to be duped into sex. Many of them want unattached sex and are out looking for it. Several of us women have already noted this, said there is nothing wrong with it...and then we have said that the "dupe" PUA-holes (the ones like the blogs that are linked) are NOT playing the same game that these women are. They do NOT look for willing partners, they look for vulnerable women to DUPE.

Then there are the true casual hook up guys...they DO look for the women who are into it and choosing it and don't "need to be duped".

There is a mental condition in people who will dupe others...most normal hookup sex men and women are NOT in that category. Most are consentual. In fact, I doubt any man on this thread has ever DUPED a woman in the way the women here are protesting against.

But the ones who ARE into the DUPE culture are hurting people...both men and women...in various ways (women do plenty of duping, too).

I know you see a clear line between these two types, and so do I. But what the women here are saying is that when this type of "information" gets spread by these PUA-holes it causes blurred lines between consentual and non-consentual acts.


----------



## WyshIknew

Caribbean Man said:


> Right.
> 
> The other funny thing about this entire scenario is,
> If a decent , well intentioned man , who's kinda shy and lacks self confidence approach that same woman , especially in a bar amongst her girlfriends ,she will outright REJECT him. In fact, chances are that she will laugh him to scorn, she views him approaching her in public as a disrespect to her.
> 
> Even if he wanted to be " just friends " with her and maybe the relationship can start to grow from there. He's not looking for quick sex , but a genuine friendship.
> His chances with her are equal to a snowball chances in hell.


Well if she was that shallow and vapid, I'd find someone else who wasn't and leave her for the wham bam thank you ma'm brigade.


----------



## Caribbean Man

WyshIknew said:


> Well if she was that shallow and vapid, I'd find someone else who wasn't and leave her for the wham bam thank you ma'm brigade.


" _All's fair in love and war_.."
- Francis Edward Smedley


----------



## WyshIknew

WyshIknew said:


> Well if she was that shallow and vapid, I'd find someone else who wasn't and leave her for the wham bam thank you ma'm brigade.


Or I'd wait until she's had her 'fill' of alphas and 10 years later I'd be her faithful beta boy.


----------



## ReformedHubby

Faithful Wife said:


> I said the exact same thing CM, several times. Women don't need to be duped into sex. Many of them want unattached sex and are out looking for it. Several of us women have already noted this, said there is nothing wrong with it...and then we have said that the "dupe" PUA-holes (the ones like the blogs that are linked) are NOT playing the same game that these women are. They do NOT look for willing partners, they look for vulnerable women to DUPE.


I am going to need some education on this. I'm not saying that what you are stating doesn't occur. I just can't draw a connection between charming/flirting with someone and getting them into bed vs duping them. 

Whats the difference? What constitutes a dupe? I'm assuming we are all referring to casual encounters so what exactly does one say that would be misleading to get a woman into a ONS. In this scenario both parties barely know each other.

I'm not trying to make light of your post I just don't understand what you mean by vulnerable. My assumption is that the majority of women are more than capable of handling themselves in an environment with PUAs in the crowd.


----------



## TikiKeen

I assume I am "some posters". I don't appreciate the personal attack. Not. One. Bit.

The reality is this: men do have sex with women who are too drunk to consent. That is rape. men do coerce both sober and drunk women into sex, often using physical intimidation. That is also legally rape. "Rape Culture" does exist. it's alive and well on this thread, seen in every post which defends such decisions and blames the woman for being in the situation in the first place. Rape Culture is blaming the victim for having been raped.

CM, your bolded points show me that you didn't grasp the piece, because each of your points is nullified within the first five words of each point you refute.

And Brock. Oh never mind. So. Much. Logical. Fallacy. I won't waste my time on this thread either.

Twice in 24 hours it's "here's the opposite view, with citations showing XYZ really does exist/happen" and the result is personal veiled and direct insults. Classy.


----------



## Faithful Wife

RF....you didn't read FF's links either then, right?

Here is a post from one of the links she supplied:

(begin quote) My game is getting tighter and I am now making out with new girls every week. I'm 21 and the girls are giving me last minute resistance. *Nearly naked on my bed, horny as hell, 4 different girls in the last month have said something like, "I can't do this" or "Those (panties) aren't coming off tonight"*. Basically saying "I am down to make out and have sex, but you have to wait."

I have tried freeze outs...doing something else, acting indifferent. Yet when I go for it again the girls are just as strict about me taking them off.

*To those who experience this: how do you overcome it?* These girls end up sleeping over because I don't want to be a ****, *yet they aren't putting out on day 2*. I'm not the type that would be like "Ok I am going to bed, I'll see you later" yet if so much last minute resistance continues, I may have to.

Thanks in advance. (end quote)


Here is one of the responses to that post:

(begin quote) This sounds sneaky...

but just pull her panties off so quick that she doesn't have time to realize what you're up too.

Then just saying that you want to "touch it" and nothing else which will obviously lead to more.

I think you're thinking of game strategy too much instead of hand placement and removal speed :-D. Seriously though, all you have to do is grab it and yank really fast and they're off. Once they're off she's naked and nothing is stopping you from touching her vagina. this isn't "rapey" because she is making out with you half naked on a bed. She just wants you to make the move or say the magic words. "magic words" are different for every girl so i found that simply removing the panties before they realize it/have time to react to it is much easier.

What she's doing is giving herself "Plausible Deniability" meaning she can always tell herself and her friends that it wasn't her fault.

They're very protective of that area because just like us once it's seriously stimulated there isn't much they can do to stop themselves from having sex.

I've always just said that all I wanted to do was touch it and make her feel good. and "I just want to make you happy" Or "We're not going to have sex" "trust me we're on the same page" etc. (end quote)


Reformed....see how gross this is? There is MUCH more of it...I can copy more...or go read the links yourself. I am curious to your thoughts on it.


----------



## RandomDude

=/

Funny, he sounds like he's coming on too strong. Strange, as when I was young women were practically begging for me to take the panties off, but probably because I tease them silly.

I found sex very easy to get with a woman once she feels comfortable enough with you + no reservations + has a feeling of 'no consequence'. Is my style different from these men? Or was I as you say, a "PUA"? Maybe I should make a thread titled "acceptable 'game' for men"


----------



## Created2Write

It's stuff like what FW just posted that make me so sick. It truly does blur the lines between consent and non-consent. And that his answer is to just take off her panties and stimulate her so that she "can't" choose not to have sex with him, is so shallow and, imo, borders on criminal behavior. Women should feel _safe_ with the guy she's with, even if it is a ONS. Every woman has the right to feel safe with the guy she chooses to have sex. And the moment she no longer feels safe is the moment she gets to say "No", and he absolutely should respect that 110% of the time or he's a scumbag. 

That the men here choose to make light of the very real dangers women face when it comes to consenting to sex is saddening. But it really just proves my point.


----------



## RandomDude

C2W, would you consider my style similar? =/
Or is it acceptable?

AKA; I stimulate with her clothes on, but the same result -> she gets too turned on to refuse


----------



## Created2Write

If she's consenting, I say go for it. But if she says "No", it should stop. 

It's really simple.


----------



## Cosmos

Created2Write said:


> It's stuff like what FW just posted that make me so sick. It truly does blur the lines between consent and non-consent. And that his answer is to just take off her panties and stimulate her so that she "can't" choose not to have sex with him, is so shallow and, imo, borders on criminal behavior. Women should feel _safe_ with the guy she's with, even if it is a ONS. Every woman has the right to feel safe with the guy she chooses to have sex. And the moment she no longer feels safe is the moment she gets to say "No", and he absolutely should respect that 110% of the time or he's a scumbag.
> 
> That the men here choose to make light of the very real dangers women face when it comes to consenting to sex is saddening. But it really just proves my point.


I totally understand where you and others are coming from, C2W, but I'm seriously wondering what would induce any right minded woman to place herself in a situation like that with a man she neither knows nor trusts... 

Of course what those 'men' were discussing in those links is _beyond revolting_, but women cannot afford to place themselves in those sort of situations. It's just playing with fire, IMO.


----------



## Created2Write

Look, my issue isn't with men making out with or stimulating or teasing or flirting with a girl to get her turned on, and then have sex with her. I love that my husband teases me. I love that he flirts and intentionally walks around in nothing but his jeans cause he knows it turns me on. 

Women want to be pleasured, stimulated...all of that is great. The issue I have is when the man is met with resistance and he chooses to continue charging forward. That is wrong.


----------



## RandomDude

:smthumbup: Yay, guess I'm not such a douche after all!


----------



## Created2Write

Cosmos said:


> I totally understand where you and others are coming from, C2W, but I'm seriously wondering what would induce any right minded woman to place herself in a situation like that with a man she neither knows nor trusts...
> 
> Of course what those 'men' were discussing in those links is _beyond revolting_, but women cannot afford to place themselves in those sort of situations, either... It's just playing with fire, IMO.


If a man is intentionally being dishonest about who she is, how would she know that she was putting herself in such a situation? This is exactly why I didn't sleep with any of the other guys I dated. I needed someone I knew well, someone I had spent a lot of time with, someone I trusted. To me, trust just isn't built in a couple of hours at a bar, or spending a couple of hours on the phone every week.

But with casual sex, my guess is that it could be incredibly difficult to tell whether the person you're with is trustworthy or not.


----------



## Faithful Wife

In the example I copied, it is clear these women are saying "no" and have continued to say "no", and the poster's question is "how do I make it happen regardless?"


----------



## RandomDude

This explains why NSA 'game' is superior to PUA 'game' 

Take heed my fellow men, and follow after RD!


----------



## Faithful Wife

Random...agreed.

Nothing wrong with NSA game.

And *some* PUA reading material and the men who use it are just learning to be more sexy, no problem there either.

It is the people who actually WANT to dupe someone into sex that are a problem, for all of us. Women and men both do this. I have seen women do things that just make me shudder...men and women both will dupe people for their own frivolous amusement.


----------



## Cosmos

Created2Write said:


> If a man is intentionally being dishonest about who she is, how would she know that she was putting herself in such a situation? This is exactly why I didn't sleep with any of the other guys I dated. I needed someone I knew well, someone I had spent a lot of time with, someone I trusted. To me, trust just isn't built in a couple of hours at a bar, or spending a couple of hours on the phone every week.
> 
> But with casual sex, my guess is that it could be incredibly difficult to tell whether the person you're with is trustworthy or not.


:iagree:

I'm afraid this is the gamble any woman takes if she's into ONS... The very notion of placing myself in such a vulnerable situation with a man I don't know would fill me with absolute horror.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> :iagree:
> 
> I'm afraid this is the gamble any woman takes if she's into ONS... The very notion of placing myself in such a vulnerable situation with a man I don't know would feel me with absolute horror.


I would think it's as simple as that.
And throughout this thread I've been saying that.
But maybe because I don't have a vagina , I can't understand.

And because I don't understand I cannot agree and this makes me and other men on this thread , get this,

RAPIST, IN SUPPORT OF AND DEFENDING RAPE CULTURE.
Lol,
Whenever logic fails,
Use blackmail, and shaming tactics.
It works. [ except on me of course ]


----------



## RandomDude

Aye, personally I consider that just lame game and perhaps they just need to learn the alternatives that doesn't have to hurt/decieve others to get what they want. The resistance at the last minute would mean bad timing/poor establishment of trust beforehand and I definitely agree that the man should not push it once no means no. 

Guess that what made me different in my youth, some of my mates were the boasting type, proudly proclaiming their confidence, boasting how many women they've had, and it makes me wonder how they even get laid at all :scratchhead: but whatever. I'm more of a quieter dude, who makes a woman feel comfortable; not like a notch on the belt, don't boast and walla, easy piecey.

NSA sex is better anyways, you get to learn each other's buttons and have multiple sessions which get better and better unlike a ONS.


----------



## Caribbean Man

TikiKeen said:


> I assume I am "some posters". I don't appreciate the personal attack. Not. One. Bit.
> 
> The reality is this: men do have sex with women who are too drunk to consent. That is rape. men do coerce both sober and drunk women into sex, often using physical intimidation. That is also legally rape. "Rape Culture" does exist. it's alive and well on this thread, seen in every post which defends such decisions and blames the woman for being in the situation in the first place. Rape Culture is blaming the victim for having been raped.
> 
> CM, your bolded points show me that you didn't grasp the piece, because each of your points is nullified within the first five words of each point you refute.
> 
> And Brock. Oh never mind. So. Much. Logical. Fallacy. I won't waste my time on this thread either.
> 
> Twice in 24 hours it's "here's the opposite view, with citations showing XYZ really does exist/happen" and the result is personal veiled and direct insults. Classy.


No.

I didn't refute ANYTHING in the article you linked.
The article you posted refutes the assumptions women are making about PUA culture on this thread and it does so explicitly, by stating rape is not exclusive to PUA, and the PUA culture is way more complicated than women who claim it supports rape , think it is.

This is what the author said:

" "_ Many feminists claim that the culture, mores, and/or tactics within the PUA community encourage rape. In my book, I quote one feminist who said: “I’m just going to come right out and say it: PUAs rape women through coercion and manipulation. Full stop.” 
*I think that’s an overblown blanket statement rooted in a simplistic view of the community*.._"

Seems very clear to me.
If you like you can refute that.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Random said: "NSA sex is better anyways, you get to learn each other's buttons and have multiple sessions which get better and better unlike a ONS."

True, but ONS can be a lot of fun, too. For both men and women. Some women just don't want to be bothered with multiples because then she'd have to memorize his name and all that.


----------



## theroad

18 pages, 262 posts, people citing scientists, all to build a consensus on the alpha male.


I will point out there has been and will always be the guy that goes into a club and gets laid, relaid, delaid, parlaid, overlaid, underplaid, rest then get laid all over again with every 8, 9, and 10's in the place.

Then there is the guy that walks into a club, flashes a fist full of fifties, then goes home with Rosie Palm. Again.

It is the way of life. Live with it. It is never going to change. Because this is the way the gate keepers (the ladies) to heaven want it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Personally, this gate keeper would like sex to be handled more like in the novel Stranger in a Strange Land...but that is asking too much.


----------



## RandomDude

Haha true, but I guess it wasn't really my thing, NSA has its problems too I guess -> when emotions get involved hence the need to establish early boundaries and know when to cut loose when the boundaries are crossed. However thankfully I've also had very fond experiences with good friends in the past.

I find with alot of younger men back in my youth that they simply just didn't really understand that women do love sex and perhaps more than men. There will always be resistance with the main universal ones being:
- She doesn't want to be seen as a ****
- She doesn't want her reputation tarnished
- If she's going to be alone with a guy he'd better be someone she feels she can trust
- She doesn't want to be disrespected
- She doesn't want to feel that there will be consequences to putting out

These things IMO are understandable, and easy to work around while still working with integrity (I know... RD talking about integrity, weird isn't it?)

EDIT: Actually come to think of it I seem to be rather beta =/
Ironic really


----------



## Caribbean Man

theroad said:


> I will point out there has been and will always be the guy that goes into a club and gets laid, relaid, delaid, parlaid, overlaid, underplaid, rest then get laid all over again with every 8, 9, and 10's in the place.




Well according to the logic on this thread , chances are high that that guy is a rapist.


----------



## ReformedHubby

Faithful Wife said:


> RF....you didn't read FF's links either then, right?
> 
> Here is a post from one of the links she supplied:
> 
> (begin quote) My game is getting tighter and I am now making out with new girls every week. I'm 21 and the girls are giving me last minute resistance. *Nearly naked on my bed, horny as hell, 4 different girls in the last month have said something like, "I can't do this" or "Those (panties) aren't coming off tonight"*. Basically saying "I am down to make out and have sex, but you have to wait."
> 
> I have tried freeze outs...doing something else, acting indifferent. Yet when I go for it again the girls are just as strict about me taking them off.
> 
> *To those who experience this: how do you overcome it?* These girls end up sleeping over because I don't want to be a ****, *yet they aren't putting out on day 2*. I'm not the type that would be like "Ok I am going to bed, I'll see you later" yet if so much last minute resistance continues, I may have to.
> 
> Thanks in advance. (end quote)
> 
> 
> Here is one of the responses to that post:
> 
> (begin quote) This sounds sneaky...
> 
> but just pull her panties off so quick that she doesn't have time to realize what you're up too.
> 
> Then just saying that you want to "touch it" and nothing else which will obviously lead to more.
> 
> I think you're thinking of game strategy too much instead of hand placement and removal speed :-D. Seriously though, all you have to do is grab it and yank really fast and they're off. Once they're off she's naked and nothing is stopping you from touching her vagina. this isn't "rapey" because she is making out with you half naked on a bed. She just wants you to make the move or say the magic words. "magic words" are different for every girl so i found that simply removing the panties before they realize it/have time to react to it is much easier.
> 
> What she's doing is giving herself "Plausible Deniability" meaning she can always tell herself and her friends that it wasn't her fault.
> 
> They're very protective of that area because just like us once it's seriously stimulated there isn't much they can do to stop themselves from having sex.
> 
> I've always just said that all I wanted to do was touch it and make her feel good. and "I just want to make you happy" Or "We're not going to have sex" "trust me we're on the same page" etc. (end quote)
> 
> 
> Reformed....see how gross this is? There is MUCH more of it...I can copy more...or go read the links yourself. I am curious to your thoughts on it.


I am a little confused by what he said. Was he saying he forces them if they say no? Based on my read of it he was trying to figure out how to avoid getting shut down, when in the heat of the moment. The guy isn't someone I'd want my daughter hanging around, but I am torn. I can remember locker room talk as a young man, which was similar to what he said. Considering the fact that he is 21, all most men think about at that age is sex. Its the reason we're scared to death for our daughters to date. I don't know. Him posting about it is creepy. But is it really rape?


----------



## RandomDude

Just tease them silly you can never go wrong!

Though hell if my daughter meets a guy like who I was back in my youth he's a DEAD MAN. No fair, but this is my daughter! 

In the past I seduced women away from their family/personal/religious morals capitalising on their innate lust and was in a position to make them rebel (The dark side of my game - same thing happened with STBX, put her at odds with her church)

Nah nah nah, unacceptable! Next thing you know she'll be listening to him not daddy. Fk that


----------



## Faithful Wife

RF...I never said it was rape. I said it was "duped". If you read more than just the one example I posted, you'll see lots more of the same behavior...targeting drunk girls...telling them lies to get them back to the apartment or whatever, etc.

Again...I'm not saying rape.

But I am saying, there are women who are willing, why don't guys go for those and forget trying to figure out how to make an unwilling woman say "yes" under false pretenses?


----------



## RandomDude

> But I am saying, there are women who are willing, why don't guys go for those and forget trying to figure out how to make an unwilling woman say "yes" under false pretenses?


Well, I made unwilling women say yes under no pretenses so what does that make me? :scratchhead:

Anyways I find this discussion interesting, as my style overcomes the resistance without the need to be pushy, but it's still essentially with similar aims.


----------



## Caribbean Man

"..Many feminists claim that the culture, mores, and/or tactics within the PUA community encourage rape. In my book, I quote one feminist who said: “I’m just going to come right out and say it: PUAs rape women through coercion and manipulation. Full stop.”

* I think that’s an overblown blanket statement rooted in a simplistic view of the community.*."
- Clarisse Thorn, " Goodmen Project."


----------



## Faithful Wife

Random said: "Well, I made unwilling women say yes under no pretenses so what does that make me?"

I have done the same. It makes me a duper, and I'm not proud of it. It is nice to say "oh I was so sexy he/she couldn't resist it"...but if you honestly examine your actions and find yourself duping someone when you know their "real" answer was no....well, if you can live with it, oh well. I couldn't.


----------



## Caribbean Man

RandomDude said:


> Well, I made unwilling women say yes under no pretenses so what does that make me? :scratchhead:


A rapist:rofl:
According to the logic of this thread.


----------



## RandomDude

Faithful Wife said:


> I have done the same. It makes me a duper, and I'm not proud of it. It is nice to say "oh I was so sexy he/she couldn't resist it"...but if you honestly examine your actions and find yourself duping someone when you know their "real" answer was no....well, if you can live with it, oh well. I couldn't.


Guess I am a douche after all! 

But is it really one's responsibility when their date first says no but you managed to make them say yes?
Without any force, or any manipulative acts (unless you consider making one comfortable with themselves and their own sexuality manipulative)

Things are rarely as straightforward as - "I want sex, I want sex too, let's get it on!" And besides a bit of hard to get/challenge is enticing.


----------



## RandomDude

Meh, I say women do know what they want, they fking want it all -.-

Being a dad though, it makes me question my youth at times, knowing full well I wouldn't accept another me as daughter's BF due to the potential rebellion. Although I endorse my own past behaviour I can't endorse others, makes me a bit of a hypocrit doesn't it?

I wonder what's going to happen once my daughter comes to age.

EDIT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ry13kh5O62E


----------



## Caribbean Man

FrenchFry,
What percentage of the PUA culture do you think rape women?

What percentage of the hookup culture do you think rape rape women?


----------



## RandomDude

I make them good girls go BAD! *dances* 

...


----------



## Cosmos

RandomDude said:


> Meh, I say women do know what they want, they fking want it all -.-
> 
> Being a dad though, it makes me question my youth at times, knowing full well I wouldn't accept another me as daughter's BF due to the potential rebellion. Although I endorse my own past behaviour I can't endorse others, makes me a bit of a hypocrit doesn't it?
> 
> I wonder what's going to happen once my daughter comes to age.
> 
> EDIT: Good Girls Go Bad - Cobra Starship - YouTube


You'll probably be like my father was with his 5 daughters... If at all suspicious, he'd get in his car and (unbeknownst to us) _follow us!_:rofl:


----------



## RandomDude

Lol probably, and with a trolley bar on my drivers seat


----------



## Cosmos

FrenchFry said:


> I think those questions are insanely hard to answer because of multiple things:
> 
> *what people consider rape
> 
> *how rape/sexual violence is reported
> 
> *when rape/sexual violence is reported
> 
> but going by the fact that most rape/sexual violence that occurs is the acquaintence/date rape variety, I'd say it's not an insignificant number. Sorry I have no better answer than that.


_
"Rape Myths and Facts

Myth: Rape is caused by lust or uncontrollable sexual urges and the need for sexual gratification.

Fact: Rape is an act of physical violence and domination that is not motivated by sexual gratification.

Myth: Once a man gets sexually aroused, he can't just stop.

Fact: Men do not physically need to have sex after becoming sexually excited. Moreover, they are still able to control themselves after becoming aroused.

Myth: Women often lie about rape or falsely accuse someone of rape.

Fact: Statistical studies indicate false reports make up two percent or less of the reported cases of sexual assault. This figure is approximately the same for other types of crimes. Only one out of 10 rapes are actually reported. Rapes by someone the victim knows are the least likely to be reported.

Myth: Women provoke sexual assault by their appearance. Sexual attractiveness is a primary reason why a rapist selects a victim.

Fact: Rapists do not select their victims by their appearance. They select victims who are vulnerable and accessible. Victims of sexual assault range in age groups from infants to the elderly. Sexual attractiveness is not an issue.

Myth: Sexual assault is a topic that only concerns women, and men do not have to be concerned about sexual assault.

Fact: According to recent rape crisis center statistics, men, both straight and gay, suffered 10 percent of the sexual assaults reported in the United States last year. In addition, men have wives, friends, sisters, mothers and daughters who may someday need assistance in coping with sexual assault. Rape is a concern for everyone.

Myth: If a woman really did not want to be raped, she could fight off her attacker.

Fact: Even if the rapist is not carrying a weapon, the element of surprise, shock and fear or the threat of harm can overpower a survivor.
Facts About Date Rape

Here are some data collected from a national study of college students:

One in four college women have either been raped or suffered attempted rape.

84 percent of the women who are raped knew their assailants.

57 percent of the rapes occurred on a date.

Women, ages 16-24, have four times higher risk of being raped than any other population group.

One in 12 male students surveyed had committed acts that met the legal definition of rape.

16 percent of male students who had committed rape took part in episodes with more than one attacker's gang rape.

75 percent of male students and 55 percent of female students involved in date rape had been drunk or using drugs.*

33 percent of males surveyed said that they would commit rape if they could escape detection.**

25 percent of men surveyed believed that rape was acceptable if the woman asks the man out, the man pays for the date or the woman goes back to the man's room after the date. ***

___________

* Koss, M.P. (1988). Hidden Rape: Incidence, Prevalence and descriptive Characteristics of Sexual Aggression and Victimization in a National Sample of College Students. In Burgers, A.W. (ed.) Sexual Assault. Vol II. New York: Garland Publishing Co.

** Malamuth, N.M. (1986). Predictors of Natural Sexual Aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 953-962.

*** Muehlenhard, C.L., Friedman, D.E. & Thomas, C.M. (1985). Is Date Rape Justifiable? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 297-310"
_

Rape Myths and Facts | Roger Williams University


----------



## WyshIknew

I was never much of a seducer as some of you know but I would have thought it fairly unlikely that having got a woman to the point where she only has her knickers on in your bed you are highly unlikely to have her refuse to let you remove them.

If you've done your job as a man correctly she should be gagging for you to take them off.

I dunno? Too simplistic?


----------



## Caribbean Man

WyshIknew said:


> I was never much of a seducer as some of you know but I would have thought it fairly unlikely that having got a woman to the point where she only has her knickers on in your bed you are highly unlikely to have her refuse to let you remove them.
> 
> If you've done your job as a man correctly she should be gagging for you to take them off.
> 
> I dunno? Too simplistic?


No.
Not simplistic at all.

Any man worth his salt doesn't have to ask a woman who's in his bed to remove her underwear.


----------



## Caribbean Man

FrenchFry said:


> Once I had a good grasp on sexual communication, that's the only way I operated Wysh.
> 
> The problem is getting all people (men and women, to be perfectly clear) to that point. Right now there is a lot of stuff that prevents such clarity.


Exactly what is preventing such clarity in sexual communication between two people who want to have sex?


----------



## RandomDude

Caribbean Man said:


> No.
> Not simplistic at all.
> 
> Any man worth his salt doesn't have to ask a woman who's in his bed to remove her underwear.


lol "please remove your panties"



> If you've done your job as a man correctly she should be gagging for you to take them off.


Damn right


----------



## Caribbean Man

FrenchFry said:


> I don't know what you were thinking of...
> 
> but going back to what Wysh said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said what I did because before I got a good grasp on sexual communication, I would want to be in bed with my partner and not have sex, I would just want a undies on makeout sesh.
> 
> Before clarity, this could have been interpreted as I want sex.
> 
> After, I can clearly say "I don't want to have sex with you, I just want to make out," and with clarity on both sides, there isn't any question.
> 
> It's up to me to say "hey, I don't want to have sex" and for my partner to take it seriously.
> 
> The lack of clarity comes in when one person interprets "naked makeout sesh" as "naked makeout sesh" and the other person interprets it as "prelude to having sex" without any other communication between them. If you are in doubt, if you feel that non-verbal signals are conflicting or hard to read, verbalize it.
> 
> What prevents such verbalization? Things like the notion that once things reach a "certain point" that it's difficult to stop. That a person doesn't want to "lead another person on." The deliberate ignoring of non-verbal or verbal communications, or believing that a "no" is a soft no, with no indications as such.
> 
> Or that having 100% clear consent is hilarious. That too.


Oooook.

But I know that game , because I played it against insecure women.

My wife made it known long before we even kissed that she didn't wan sex outside of marriage. To me , that was good sexual communication , and no 
" mixed signals."
We agreed on those boundaries and kept them intact.
So she was never in my bed fooling around with her panties alone on, say "_ hey I only want to make out , not have sex.._"
I respected that.
Because I would never make out with her to the point where she desperately wanted sex and then I refused her.

Good sexual communication to me means two people being in sync with each other's sexual mood / temperature / barometer. Not one partner holding their feeling as more important than the other.

That was a game I played with women _before_ her and I recognize it as a power play from how it made me feel.
Women don't handle that type of rejection well
Getting a woman all hot and bothered and ready for sex then rejecting her.
IMO, that was immature, and that was a tactic I used to make women feel bad about themselves and question their sexual attractiveness and sensuality.


----------



## Caribbean Man

FrenchFry said:


> What I'm describing is terms of negotiation not playing a game.
> 
> People should be able to have all kinds of sexual agency without it being considered a game or being a tease, if they are 100% upfront about it.
> 
> I didn't want to have sex with my husband on our fourth date, but I absolutely felt comfortable enough to make out with him in his bed. That was as far as I wanted to go at that time, I let him know clearly upfront and he had the option to say "no, I don't think I can stop there" or "sure, sounds great." He picked the second option and made no attempt to guilt me into going further because I had "turned him on so much." When I did want to have sex, I let him know and he again had the option to say "no," or "sure." If he said no, I wouldn't have made attempts to turn him on so much he couldn't say no, nor guilted him by pointing out the fact that we had made out previously.
> 
> That's sexual clarity and it goes both ways.


Yes.
But that can only apply in serious relationships where trust is built.
How can that apply to ONS , casual sex situations or PUA's?

Why would a woman find herself in a strange man's house on his bed , in her panties saying " _I only want to make out, not have sex_?"
Blurred lines.

Like I said, when I was on the dating scene I did that to women to intentionally humiliate them.
That was me saying to them . " _hey look, you're not sexy enough for me, can't even turn me on._"
It was about me being in control.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Caribbean Man said:


> Like I said, when I was on the dating scene I did that to women intentionally humiliate them.
> That was me saying to them . " _hey look, you're not sexy enough for me, can't even turn me on._"
> It was about me being in control.


Just a question, do you know why you did that?
(I just ask because a similar incident happened to me when I was younger).


----------



## Caribbean Man

Still sounds like control issues to me.

There are times in my wife's monthly cycle I know she's horny as hell.
I think it would be downright inconsiderate of me to go spooning her during her heat and tell her that all I wanted to do was hug / cuddle.

If I'm tired I tell her I'm tired but later you can wake me up for sex , right now we'll just cuddle.
I don't leave her high and wet.
She has feelings too, I always take them into consideration.
Even before we were married.
To me , that's good sexual communication.


----------



## RandomDude

I wonder what all this makes me =/


----------



## Caribbean Man

FrenchFry said:


> The easiest way to avoid all of this during NSA hookups is for both people to be clear of their goal, to articulate their goal to their hookup partner, to have the common sense to see if said partner is capable of understanding and acceding to their goals (so, no drugged or drunk) and having the self-control to walk away if terms cannot be agreed to.
> 
> Again, it sounds clinical typed out but sucessful hookups go down just like that.


Shouldn't there be a signed, legal contract also?

Seriously though.
When I was in College, my three friends and I went to a house party which a clip of girlfriends we used to hang out with threw.
They had invited other girls, who in turn invited other girls and so on. we had fun dancing and drinking.
This particular girl , whose parents were rich and she always wanted to fit in with our girls was hanging around acting extremely flirty with us and wild.
I had my eyes on another girl so I ignored her. I danced with my girl.
End of party, time to leave and I saw her in my friend's ride, which was our ride too.
I thought she wanted a ride home, no problem.
We all were in the car heading to my friend's place [ we had planned before to crash over by him] when I realized she was going to my friend's place too , by the way she was talking and laughing in the car. when we got inside , more drinks , he put on some music and she began dancing provocatively and stripping.
There were three of us guys there, and her, one girl.
I decided I wanted no part of her because I didn't trust her, she was way too " easy" and I was never in the habit of sharing a woman I was having sex with, with other men.
They eventually went into his bedroom and I slept on the couch.

That was Saturday night.

Monday morning at school , her parents came with police officers.
Apparently she lied to her parents saying that she was sleeping over at the girls house who threw the party, and they called the house early Sunday , and she was not there.

when pressed ,she lied to her parents , told them she got drunk ,went for a ride with my two guy friends , and ended up by his home and they took turns having sex with her.
Parents decided to report it as rape, police shows up in school.

In the dean's office , the truth came out. I told them what happened, they called the other girls and they too explained exactly what they saw transpiring that night.
She eventually admitted to lying.

That saved my two guy friends, today one works at the World Bank, and the other one like me, own a business.

That girl wanted to have wild sex with three of us that night, she explicitly said so a couple of times and even teased me when I backed out.
She told me I couldn't handle a real woman, and that the girl I had my eyes on in the party was just a little inexperienced girl.

So much for being " explicit and understanding of goals " in NSA hookups.

It is never that clinical nor simple.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Unfortunately a lot of douches of either gender either.
I don't think dirty tactics need to be applied to NSA but unfortunately many do.


----------



## RandomDude

> when pressed ,she lied to her parents , told them she got drunk ,went for a ride with my two guy friends , and ended up by his home and they took turns having sex with her.
> Parents decided to report it as rape, police shows up in school.
> 
> In the dean's office , the truth came out. I told them what happened, they called the other girls and they too explained exactly what they saw transpiring that night.
> She eventually admitted to lying....
> 
> That girl wanted to have wild sex with three of us that night, she explicitly said so a couple of times and even teased me when I backed out.
> She told me I couldn't handle a real woman, and that the girl I had my eyes on in the party was just a little inexperienced girl.


:rofl:


----------



## Caribbean Man

TiggyBlue said:


> Unfortunately a lot of douches of either gender either.
> I don't think dirty tactics need to be applied to NSA but unfortunately many do.


And if it weren't for those other girls account, both my friends and possibly me would have been made to stand trial for rape, face a possible jail term and be labelled as ' RAPIST" for the rest of our lives.
Our lives would have been completely destroyed because of a 
" douche."

So lets extrapolate a little.
Suppose this girl was posting her version of that incident here , everyone on this thread would have taken her side of the story.

Nobody , not even a man ,would have stopped why was she at a strange house at 3.AM in the morning with three men?
Or why did she get into the car with three men in the first place?

Even if a man dared to ask that question he would have been shamed for supporting rape.

And that's the problem with the logic on this thread.

Roosh is supposed to be the " face " of the PUA culture, he has a following of over 500,000 men and he supports rape. So PUA culture is all about rape and any man who defends it must be a rapist.
Think for a minute, do you have brothers, sons , uncles, nephews , and loved ones who happen to be male?
What if of those 500,000 men who subscribed to Roosh's blog , a male relative of yours was a visitor , member to that site?
would you shame them and call them rapist too?

What if a female of questionable character ,whom you saw hanging around your son , partying with him, and who you knew he was having sex with suddenly accused him of rape?
Would you immediately assume that she_ must_ be speaking the truth , because your son is a man and men are supposed to understand that whatever the circumstance, no means no?

I'm not " mansplaining " anything here.
I'm just saying rape is a very serious crime, and I find it alarming and frightening at the same time how easily some women on this thread are throwing around those accusations , without any FACTS to support their position, at an entire section of the masculine gender in society, simply because they dislike PUA culture.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Caribbean Man said:


> And that's the problem with the logic on this thread.
> 
> 
> Think for a minute, do you have brothers, sons , uncles, nephews , and loved ones who happen to be male?
> What if of those 500,000 men who subscribed to Roosh's blog , a male relative of yours was a visitor , member to that site?
> would you shame them and call them rapist too?


Yes, I would. If I was a supporter of the KKK what would you think of me? What if I was a subscriber to a website that supported the brutalization of men? You are the company you keep. If that's "shaming" then so be it. 
I'm still shocked Roosh can even hammer out the posts he does. I didn't think it was possible to type with cloven hooves and the smell of sulfur wafting around. At least he has that one skill.


----------



## PHTlump

Let's see if I can penetrate the "logic" of the ladies here. We're still relying on an anonymous internet poster going by the handle "Fingerman" as a gauge for a significant portion of the PUA community. Obviously, we can use the words of an individual to infer the views of an entire community.

On the other hand, we should dismiss the views of professional feminist writers because their views are radical, misandrist, and represent only themselves. Obviously, we can NOT use the words of an individual to infer the views of an entire community.

Honestly, I'm not seeing much here beyond women=good and men=bad.

If you ladies want to be logically consistent, which is obviously not a given, then we must assume either that Fingerman represents many PUAs just as Robin Morgan represents many feminists, or that Fingerman represents only himself, or a small portion of PUAs just as Robin Morgan represents only herself, or a small portion of feminists. Which is it?


----------



## PHTlump

Faithful Wife said:


> I said the exact same thing CM, several times. Women don't need to be duped into sex. Many of them want unattached sex and are out looking for it.


What you're failing to recognize is that the numbers of women whose default answer for sex with a random man is "yes" is exceedingly small. It's very dismissive to tell the fairly large number of men who desire a short-term sexual relationship that they should simply keep looking until they find one of these women who will eagerly consent to sex with a random stranger with no seduction required. You might as well tell these men to be on the lookout for a unicorn.



> Several of us women have already noted this, said there is nothing wrong with it...and then we have said that the "dupe" PUA-holes (the ones like the blogs that are linked) are NOT playing the same game that these women are. They do NOT look for willing partners, they look for vulnerable women to DUPE.


I question your use of the word "dupe". Is seducing a woman, "duping" her? I would say no.

Let's look at another example of what you would seem to consider "duping" someone. It has been proven that men are attracted to large eyes, full lips, lustrous hair, flawless skin, hourglass figures, and prominent breasts and buttocks. In response to these preferences in men, women wear eye shadow, eye liner, mascara, concealer, blush, lipstick, shampoo, conditioner, pushup bras, support underwear, high heels, low cut blouses, and other garments, perfume, and accouterments designed to take advantage of men's physiological responses to the traits women are trying to enhance. Are these women "duping" the men into thinking they are sexier than they actually are? By your definition, I would have to say that they are. But 99.9% of women "dupe" men in this way.

Should we think up a clever insult for women who disguise their natural appearance in order to look better? Should we dismissively advise women to forego heels, flattering dresses, soap, shampoo, and makeup and simply go to a singles bar unwashed, unadorned, and as plain as can be in the hope of finding a man who thinks unwashed women are sexy? I would say no. Women will have better luck with all of the makeup, slinky dresses, and heels.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

PHTlump said:


> Let's see if I can penetrate the "logic" of the ladies here. We're still relying on an anonymous internet poster going by the handle "Fingerman" as a gauge for a significant portion of the PUA community. Obviously, we can use the words of an individual to infer the views of an entire community.
> 
> On the other hand, we should dismiss the views of professional feminist writers because their views are radical, misandrist, and represent only themselves. Obviously, we can NOT use the words of an individual to infer the views of an entire community.
> 
> Honestly, I'm not seeing much here beyond women=good and men=bad.
> 
> If you ladies want to be logically consistent, which is obviously not a given, then we must assume either that Fingerman represents many PUAs just as Robin Morgan represents many feminists, or that Fingerman represents only himself, or a small portion of PUAs just as Robin Morgan represents only herself, or a small portion of feminists. Which is it?


The 4th post back on page 1 of this thread was about Roosh and nearly every comment since then has been about him. He is a popular figure/leader of the PUA community with a massive following, has written 14 books and literally makes a living peddling this garbage and that's why he has been mentioned so many times. He IS the face of the PUA community. Fingerman appears to be some keyboard commando who makes random misogynistic comments on other peoples websites (kind of like here), not someone who has a following whatsoever. Guess who does though, the person we were talking about since page one. 
Nobody here is saying women = good and men = bad. Where are you even getting that from? What we are saying is you and others want to trivialize the "bad" PUA community saying it's only a small portion when the reality is it is the majority.


----------



## PHTlump

Cosmos said:


> I totally understand where you and others are coming from, C2W, but I'm seriously wondering what would induce any right minded woman to place herself in a situation like that with a man she neither knows nor trusts...
> 
> Of course what those 'men' were discussing in those links is _beyond revolting_, but women cannot afford to place themselves in those sort of situations. It's just playing with fire, IMO.


This is what I will be teaching my daughter. Trust takes time to develop. You shouldn't trust men you don't know. And a random stranger that has spent a few hours chatting you up in a bar is a man you don't know. If you don't want to have sex with a man you don't know, you obviously shouldn't go back to his house and get naked. That obviously doesn't make rape acceptable. But a woman who is naked in a stranger's bed is in a much riskier place than a woman who is partying with her friends.

I do agree that a few of the anonymous posters advised going too far. For PUAs, I recommend Roosh's strategy, that C2W admitted to agreeing with as well. If you encounter resistance, drop back to a mutually agreeable activity and continue the seduction. For women, I recommend the opposite strategy. Don't hook up. Don't be easy. Spend time getting to know and getting to trust your sexual partners. Maybe even wait for marriage.


----------



## TiggyBlue

People like Roosh boasts about being a very specific kind of PUA. The dislike of the kind of games people like Roosh play or/and brag about isn't from sour grapes or bitterness, it's from pure repulsion.


----------



## PHTlump

Therealbrighteyes said:


> The 4th post back on page 1 of this thread was about Roosh and nearly every comment since then has been about him.


You haven't been paying attention is you think most of the posts have been about Roosh. FF's links used "Fingerman" as her smoking gun. He did recommend crossing the line. But, as you admit, he's just a random individual with no following.



> He is a popular figure/leader of the PUA community with a massive following, has written 14 books and literally makes a living peddling this garbage and that's why he has been mentioned so many times. He IS the face of the PUA community.


Well, one of them. I don't deny that. But out of the copious writings that Roosh has published, only two passages have made their way into this thread. 

The first passage was from his book, Bang Iceland, where he described the hookup culture of Iceland as young people getting smashed every night, then having sex with random strangers. He admitted to being one of those strangers and wrote that he thought it might be rape in the USA. He didn't get into details. I don't know if the woman he wrote about was legally unable to consent. I don't even know if sex with an inebriated woman is illegal in Iceland. It would be odd if the dating culture in Iceland revolved around illegal activity. So I didn't spend much time commenting on that passage.

His second passage was from his blog. In that passage, he described encountering resistance from a woman and recommended backing off to a mutually agreeable activity and continuing to seduce her in the hopes that she would change her mind and consent to sex. That's not illegal. Under some religions, it is immoral. But we're not really discussing theology here. We seem to be agreeing that casual sex, when consensual, is fine. Some women just disagree on whether women are able, or have the right, to change their mind to consent to sex. C2W said that she believes women should be allowed to change their minds. I agree with her.



> Logic doesn't seem to be your strong suit if you cannot see the difference.


When logic fails, insults are always at hand. Stay classy.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Yes, I would. If I was a supporter of the KKK what would you think of me? What if I was a subscriber to a website that supported the brutalization of men? You are the company you keep. If that's "shaming" then so be it.
> I'm still shocked Roosh can even hammer out the posts he does. I didn't think it was possible to type with cloven hooves and the smell of sulfur wafting around. At least he has that one skill.


And I'm even more shocked at your response.

I've seen and heard many radical feminist and even seen a few of them being quoted here. I have seen you and many others not defend them, but defend the feminist movement, from their brand of foolishness, and I thought it was quite admirable and very open minded.
I'm sure many of these radical feminist have followers ,and sympathizers maybe even greater in number and legitimacy than Roosh himself. I would even hazzard a guess that they are involved in your country's politics and many different levels lobbying your government.
Now I'm seeing what appears to be a double standard.
Sorry, I cannot accept that.
If radical feminist speak only for themselves ,and not for the feminist movement, then I suppose Roosh or whoever else is advocating rape, speak only for themselves and a handful of men, which FrenchFry described as GPUA or " gross PUA.

Your logic is seriously flawed , because PUA is a very loosely , disorganized subculture that exists mainly in cyberspace.
PUA is not a physical organization ,just a culture, like casual sex or hookup culture. 
The KKK is a very highly organized , recognized, physical group with well documented crimes against humanity.

Sorry, I think that's a bad juxtaposition.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

PHTlump said:


> When logic fails, insults are always at hand. Stay classy.


Says the guy who wrote this: "If you ladies want to be logically consistent, which is obviously not a given".


----------



## Created2Write

Cosmos said:


> _
> "Rape Myths and Facts
> 
> Myth: Rape is caused by lust or uncontrollable sexual urges and the need for sexual gratification.
> 
> Fact: Rape is an act of physical violence and domination that is not motivated by sexual gratification.
> 
> Myth: Once a man gets sexually aroused, he can't just stop.
> 
> Fact: Men do not physically need to have sex after becoming sexually excited. Moreover, they are still able to control themselves after becoming aroused.
> 
> Myth: Women often lie about rape or falsely accuse someone of rape.
> 
> Fact: Statistical studies indicate false reports make up two percent or less of the reported cases of sexual assault. This figure is approximately the same for other types of crimes. Only one out of 10 rapes are actually reported. Rapes by someone the victim knows are the least likely to be reported.
> 
> Myth: Women provoke sexual assault by their appearance. Sexual attractiveness is a primary reason why a rapist selects a victim.
> 
> Fact: Rapists do not select their victims by their appearance. They select victims who are vulnerable and accessible. Victims of sexual assault range in age groups from infants to the elderly. Sexual attractiveness is not an issue.
> 
> Myth: Sexual assault is a topic that only concerns women, and men do not have to be concerned about sexual assault.
> 
> Fact: According to recent rape crisis center statistics, men, both straight and gay, suffered 10 percent of the sexual assaults reported in the United States last year. In addition, men have wives, friends, sisters, mothers and daughters who may someday need assistance in coping with sexual assault. Rape is a concern for everyone.
> 
> Myth: If a woman really did not want to be raped, she could fight off her attacker.
> 
> Fact: Even if the rapist is not carrying a weapon, the element of surprise, shock and fear or the threat of harm can overpower a survivor.
> Facts About Date Rape
> 
> Here are some data collected from a national study of college students:
> 
> One in four college women have either been raped or suffered attempted rape.
> 
> 84 percent of the women who are raped knew their assailants.
> 
> 57 percent of the rapes occurred on a date.
> 
> Women, ages 16-24, have four times higher risk of being raped than any other population group.
> 
> One in 12 male students surveyed had committed acts that met the legal definition of rape.
> 
> 16 percent of male students who had committed rape took part in episodes with more than one attacker's gang rape.
> 
> 75 percent of male students and 55 percent of female students involved in date rape had been drunk or using drugs.*
> 
> 33 percent of males surveyed said that they would commit rape if they could escape detection.**
> 
> 25 percent of men surveyed believed that rape was acceptable if the woman asks the man out, the man pays for the date or the woman goes back to the man's room after the date. ***
> 
> ___________
> 
> * Koss, M.P. (1988). Hidden Rape: Incidence, Prevalence and descriptive Characteristics of Sexual Aggression and Victimization in a National Sample of College Students. In Burgers, A.W. (ed.) Sexual Assault. Vol II. New York: Garland Publishing Co.
> 
> ** Malamuth, N.M. (1986). Predictors of Natural Sexual Aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 953-962.
> 
> *** Muehlenhard, C.L., Friedman, D.E. & Thomas, C.M. (1985). Is Date Rape Justifiable? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 297-310"
> _
> 
> Rape Myths and Facts | Roger Williams University



Ick. Just ick. This is why it's so dangerous to blur the lines between what is acceptable in NSA sex and what is not. This is precisely why I've been so passionate in this thread. 

And, for clarification since CM takes pleasure in grossly exaggeration what I've been saying, I don't think all PUAs are rapists or would-be rapists. I do think that the vast majority of PUAs would rape if they got the chance. I don't think those who support PUA are supporting rape. I do think that they underestimate the number of PUAs who do support it, and the very real danger the PUA lifestyle poses to women.

Women want sex. If you have to manipulate and lie and coerce and threaten and force a girl to have sex with you, you have horrible game.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> What we are saying is you and others want to trivialize the "bad" PUA community saying it's only a small portion when the reality is it is the majority.


But isn't it the same way you and others trivialize radical feminist leaders and their ideology whenever it's bought up here?
Haven't you also said that they're a minority?


----------



## Created2Write

FrenchFry said:


> I don't know what you were thinking of...
> 
> but going back to what Wysh said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said what I did because before I got a good grasp on sexual communication, I would want to be in bed with my partner and not have sex, I would just want a undies on makeout sesh.
> 
> Before clarity, this could have been interpreted as I want sex.
> 
> After, I can clearly say "I don't want to have sex with you, I just want to make out," and with clarity on both sides, there isn't any question.
> 
> It's up to me to say "hey, I don't want to have sex" and for my partner to take it seriously.
> 
> The lack of clarity comes in when one person interprets "naked makeout sesh" as "naked makeout sesh" and the other person interprets it as "prelude to having sex" without any other communication between them. If you are in doubt, if you feel that non-verbal signals are conflicting or hard to read, verbalize it.
> 
> What prevents such verbalization? Things like the notion that once things reach a "certain point" that it's difficult to stop. That a person doesn't want to "lead another person on." The deliberate ignoring of non-verbal or verbal communications, or believing that a "no" is a soft no, with no indications as such.
> 
> Or that having 100% clear consent is hilarious. That too.


All of this. Absolutely. 

And again, a woman might even want sex. But the second she says "No", the guy should assume that she has changed her mind. Your orgasm is not more important than her emotional and mental and physical safety.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Created2Write said:


> Ick. Just ick. This is why it's so dangerous to blur the lines between what is acceptable in NSA sex and what is not. This is precisely why I've been so passionate in this thread.
> 
> And, for clarification since CM takes pleasure in grossly exaggeration what I've been saying, I don't think all PUAs are rapists or would-be rapists. I do think that the vast majority of PUAs would rape if they got the chance. I don't think those who support PUA are supporting rape. I do think that they underestimate the number of PUAs who do support it, and the very real danger the PUA lifestyle poses to women.
> 
> Women want sex. If you have to manipulate and lie and coerce and threaten and force a girl to have sex with you, you have horrible game.


Lets starts with the FACTS.
What is _your_ definition of a Pick up Artiste [ PUA] ?


----------



## Created2Write

I did NOT agree to Roosh's strategy. His advice is, even if a girl says "I don't want to take off my bra", is to take it off anyway and to only stop ignoring the "Nos" when she says "Stop."

I don't agree with that one bit, thank you very much. What I don't _dis_agree with is, after the woman has said "I don't want sex", if she's okay with making out, then keep making out. But you don't keep nudging for sex hoping she'll cave. That's coercion. Mild, but it's coercion nonetheless.


----------



## Created2Write

Caribbean Man said:


> But isn't it the same way you and others trivialize radical feminist leaders and their ideology whenever it's bought up here?
> Haven't you also said that they're a minority?


_*This isn't about feminism*_. This is about GPUA. Extreme feminists could be the minority, but that says NOTHING to whether GPUAs are the minority. Not at all. 

Let's stay on topic.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Caribbean Man said:


> But isn't it the same way you and others trivialize radical feminist leaders and their ideology whenever it's bought up here?
> Haven't you also said that they're a minority?


Yes, because they are. They are not the NOW. Roosh however IS the face of the PUA community. Heck even other PUA's says he is. He's the Pope, regardless if you think he wears the pointy hat.


----------



## Created2Write

Caribbean Man said:


> Lets starts with the FACTS.
> What is _your_ definition of a Pick up Artiste [ PUA] ?


My definition of a PUA is someone who is looking for NSA sex, but, more often than not, will manipulate, lie, coerce or intimidate/physically force a woman to have sex with him. Some are shy, socially awkward men who needed to boost their confidence and choose not to manipulate women, but again, I believe them to be the minority.

That is what I see as FACT.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Created2Write said:


> My definition of a PUA is someone who is looking for NSA sex, but, more often than not, will manipulate, lie, coerce or intimidate/physically force a woman to have sex with him. Some are shy, socially awkward men who needed to boost their confidence and choose not to manipulate women, but again, I believe them to be the minority.
> 
> That is what I see as FACT.


Can you back up your_ facts_?


----------



## PHTlump

Created2Write said:


> I did NOT agree to Roosh's strategy. His advice is, even if a girl says "I don't want to take off my bra", is to take it off anyway and to only stop ignoring the "Nos" when she says "Stop."


No. Roosh's advice was to back off, go back to making out, and try again later.



> I don't agree with that one bit, thank you very much. What I don't _dis_agree with is, after the woman has said "I don't want sex", if she's okay with making out, then keep making out. But you don't keep nudging for sex hoping she'll cave. That's coercion. Mild, but it's coercion nonetheless.


Nudging for sex isn't coercion. It's initiation. What you're recommending is, once a woman says no to sex, then the man has to back off and let the woman initiate all further sexual escalation. While that may be your preference, it's not a moral or legal requirement. A man can initiate sex and escalate sex and still accept a woman's refusal. A woman can also refuse sex at one point and consent to sex at a later point.


----------



## always_alone

PHTlump said:


> What you're failing to recognize is that the numbers of women whose default answer for sex with a random man is "yes" is exceedingly small. It's very dismissive to tell the fairly large number of men who desire a short-term sexual relationship that they should simply keep looking until they find one of these women who will eagerly consent to sex with a random stranger with no seduction required. You might as well tell these men to be on the lookout for a unicorn.


And so then what? He's justified in taking it anyway?

Truth is there are a lot of women who will enthusiastically engage in NSA sex, given the right circumstances and guy. Despite what many here are claiming, no one has ever denied that in this thread (except you in this post).

The complaint here is about a particular attitude and approach to NSA that is advocated by the PUA community. Men here refuse to believe it is common, but that stats show that a huge proportion of women will experience some form of rape or nonconsensual sex, usually without any charges being laid, and nothing but her own sense of shame.

For someone that has never been physically intimidated or had to worry about violence while out on a date, this may be very difficult for you to understand. But it's true. Personally, I've had multiple experiences where I was physically restrained or pinned down, and literally had to kick myself free in order to escape the situation. A lot of guys will not take no for an answer, and will only redouble their efforts to get what they want. Then they spin it as "she wanted it" or "I seduced her", perhaps to feel better about themselves.


----------



## PHTlump

Created2Write said:


> _*This isn't about feminism*_. This is about GPUA. Extreme feminists could be the minority, but that says NOTHING to whether GPUAs are the minority. Not at all.
> 
> Let's stay on topic.


It's an analogy. You have stated that, after reading a blogger and a few anonymous posters, you believe the vast majority of PUAs are potential rapists. Yet you reject the notion that a few leading feminists (not anonymous nobodies, mind you) can speak for feminists. Which is it? See my post on being logically consistent.


----------



## Created2Write

Caribbean Man said:


> Can you back up your_ facts_?


Yeah...look at all of the Links FF posted. And FW.

Can you prove to _me_ that those are just the minority?


----------



## always_alone

PHTlump said:


> This is what I will be teaching my daughter. Trust takes time to develop. You shouldn't trust men you don't know. And a random stranger that has spent a few hours chatting you up in a bar is a man you don't know. If you don't want to have sex with a man you don't know, you obviously shouldn't go back to his house and get naked. That obviously doesn't make rape acceptable. But a woman who is naked in a stranger's bed is in a much riskier place than a woman who is partying with her friends.


This is what you will teach your daughter, but what would you teach your sons (assuming you had them). It's true that women do have responsibility for their choices and the risks that they take. No one has ever denied this. 

But the point of this thread is that men too are responsible for their choices and actions, and to chalk up all nonconsensual sex as "she shouldn't have been there" and "boys will be boys" is to absolve the boys, and shift all responsibility onto the girls.


----------



## Created2Write

PHTlump said:


> No. Roosh's advice was to back off, go back to making out, and try again later.


“No” when you try to take off her jeans or shirt means… “You need to turn me on a lot more.”
“No” when you try to take off her bra means… “Try again in five minutes.”
“No” when you try to take off her panties means… “Don’t give up now!

So, "no" actually means keep going...don't stop...don't listen to my resistance to him. 



> Nudging for sex isn't coercion. It's initiation.


Until the word "No" or "Stop" or any resistance to sex is met with. Then, the nudging for sex should stop until _she_ says otherwise. 



> What you're recommending is, once a woman says no to sex, then the man has to back off and let the woman initiate all further sexual escalation. While that may be your preference, it's not a moral or legal requirement.


If she has said no, the man should assume she means it until further notice. Period. Your desire for sex is not so important that her refusal should be taken lightly. Continuing to nudge toward sex after she has said no _can_ be seen as coercion. Continuing to do so, after repeated objections, can be seen as attempted rape. At least, I see it that way. And I absolutely think that there is both a moral and legal requirement to let the woman lead after she has resisted further sexual advances. 



> A man can initiate sex and escalate sex and still accept a woman's refusal. A woman can also refuse sex at one point and consent to sex at a later point.


Not arguing these two things. But if she has said no, that should take precedent. Period. If you're so horny that you can't take a woman's no seriously, then find a woman who wants to have sex with you.


----------



## always_alone

BrockLanders said:


> Maybe women should walk away instead of belting out half-hearted "no's" and being surprised at the outcome. If the guy held her down against her will and raped her the restraint would be obvious and no one would second guess her claims as being revenge for buyer's remorse.


Oh my freaking gawd! This is exactly the kind of attitude that I am on about here. What, if she doesn't kick you in the 'nads, then she is still saying yes? Please.

Did you read my little story of being held down, beaten and bruised, and *still* told I didn't say no loudly enough? 

Maybe we should teach our daughters that men only understand pepper spray to mean no?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

This entire thread makes me think of this:

View attachment 10338


----------



## Created2Write

PHTlump said:


> It's an analogy. You have stated that, after reading a blogger and a few anonymous posters, you believe the vast majority of PUAs are potential rapists. Yet you reject the notion that a few leading feminists (not anonymous nobodies, mind you) can speak for feminists. Which is it? See my post on being logically consistent.


I haven't rejected anything. Personally, I happen to believe that _a lot_ of modern feminists are extremest. That's why I don't call myself a feminist. But I've left all of this out of the discussion because it's irrelevant. How many women who call themselves feminists and are extremest doesn't have anything to do with GPUAs being the majority. 

And it was far more than one blogger and a few posters...it was more than one link with numerous followers, numerous posts, forums, etc. You can make light of it all you want. You can insult my intelligence all you want(though insulting is the first indication that a person is running out of a logical argument), you can ignore the statistics with regards to rape that were posted a few pages ago, you can ignore what we're saying. Makes no difference to me. The rights of women to feel safe with their potential sex partners, and her right to say no the moment she no longer feels safe or comfortable, isn't something I take lightly. It's precisely why I don't advocate NSA sex. The danger is just too great, what with the men who really don't give a damn about women, and others making light of the threat those men pose. This is why I arm myself when I leave my house with, at the very least, pepper spray.


----------



## DesertRat1978

I have a best friend who has been a chick magnet since his teen years. I will make this short but he is about as pleasant to women as the onset of herpes. However, they flock to him and even when he verbally abuses them and treats them like sh!t they come back for more. He fits the stereotype of alpha male. Tall, very muscular, assertive, outspoken, covered in tattoos and piercings, etc. He looks and acts like someone from the TV show, Sons of Anarchy. I have wondered over the years why he has such appeal to women. Maybe the fact that he is flawed and damaged has this uncanny appeal.


----------



## PHTlump

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Yes, because they are. They are not the NOW. Roosh however IS the face of the PUA community. Heck even other PUA's says he is. He's the Pope, regardless if you think he wears the pointy hat.


Good point. Those women weren't from the NOW.

But, just for fun, let's look at a couple of quotes from NOW.

"The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist" (Sheila Cronin in the National NOW Times, January, 1988).

"I consider the Chinese government's policy [on compulsory abortion] among the most intelligent in the world" (Molly Yard - NOW President)

Here, we have radical statements from NOW. Does that mean that NOW speaks for all women? I don't think so. I doubt they even speak for all feminists.

And, if we expand our definition of feminist beyond the narrow conscripts of NOW to include such fringe figures as Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Margaret Sanger, Gloria Steinhem, and others, we can get even more kooky quotes. And I would say that every one of them carries more legitimacy than an anonymous poster called "Fingerman", or even a moderately popular blogger. And I would say that none of them are particularly representative of the average woman, or average feminist.


----------



## Created2Write

I'm glad my dad taught me self-defense. Any man who assaulted me would leave that situation with an extremely damaged penis. My goal would be to bite it off. I saw a show once where a woman did just that and it saved her life. I've known since then that that is what I would do if in that situation.


----------



## always_alone

Created2Write said:


> Not arguing these two things. But if she has said no, that should take precedent. Period. If you're so horny that you can't take a woman's no seriously, then find a woman who wants to have sex with you.


Thanks you for answering this one. This thread is killing me. I just can't believe so many seemingly smart and honourable men are so utterly dismissive of the connections between PUA and nonconsensual sex. Do they not have sisters, mothers, daughters?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Yes, because they are. They are not the NOW. Roosh however IS the face of the PUA community. Heck even other PUA's says he is. He's the Pope, regardless if you think he wears the pointy hat.


Lol,

I don't even know Roosh.
I have absolutely no opinion of the hat he wears whether it's pointy or flat, or even if he wears a hat.

I've never needed anybody to tell me how to pick up women, and I certainly don't need it now, so you're wrong about that one too. I don't spend my precious time surfing rubbish.
When I go online I simultaneously spend my time here, on B2B forums , and on my suppliers websites in China.
I'v never heard or seen the guy before French Fry mentioned his name.
If he gets your blood pressure boiling, then sorry. 
IMO Roosh and others like him are just capitalizing on a particular niche of NSA sex or " hookup " culture and social media , stirring up controversy whilst making tons of money from it.
My take is that as long as he isn't breaking the law , then I don't care. I don't need his rubbish so I've never wasted my time reading his stuff, and he's never made a dime off me.

If a man wants to rape, he doesn't need Roosh to tell him how to, neither does he need the PUA community to support him.
Even before Roosh and the PUA community, there was rape.
Outside of his PUA kingdom, there is rape.
Statistically every 2 mins someone in the USA is sexually assaulted, that's almost 3000, everyday.And you and others somehow think that Roosh ,the PUA culture , and men like me who think that they're just a bunch of guys fooling themselves _are_ the problem?
So what are you advocating , burning the witches?
If they rape aren't there laws to deal with them?

Have you ever been on a polyamorous website? 
If you ever were, you would think that Poly lifestyle was even larger, and more popular than monogamy.
Have you ever been on a firearms / gun forum?
If you ever were , you would think that everyone in the USA owned a couple of rifles.
Have you ever been on a Republican political forum?
If you've ever been you would swear the Democrats were just bad news for the American economy, and freedom loving way of life.
Have you ever been on the CWI section of TAM?
If you've ever been you would swear every woman was a potential cheater , and they shouldn't be trusted.

Apply the same logic to Roosh , and his claim to fame,
And you'll get a clearer picture.


----------



## always_alone

PHTlump said:


> And, if we expand our definition of feminist beyond the narrow conscripts of NOW to include such fringe figures as Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Margaret Sanger, Gloria Steinhem, and others, we can get even more kooky quotes. And I would say that every one of them carries more legitimacy than an anonymous poster called "Fingerman", or even a moderately popular blogger. And I would say that none of them are particularly representative of the average woman, or average feminist.


The mistake in your logic is that your analogy is way off. If you want to say that radical feminist quotes demonstrate how obnoxious radical feminists are, then you won't get any disagreement bere.

Yet, you are assuming that he complaints about PUA are attacks on all men. No, they are not. They are attacks on the subset of men that would call themselves PUA.

Personally, I would never want to associate with a guy who would be proud to call himself that, as I couldn't muster any respect for him. However, any man that can recognize the douche-baggery of it all would be someone I'd be happy to convo with.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> This entire thread makes me think of this:
> 
> View attachment 10314


FINALLY!

I knew it.
This thread had absolutely nothing to do with Roosh , or PUA.
That's why it was framed in that context.

I expect the :
" _All men are potential rapist_ " ideology next.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Thanks you for answering this one. This thread is killing me. I just can't believe so many seemingly smart and honourable men are so utterly dismissive of the connections between PUA and nonconsensual sex. Do they not have sisters, mothers, daughters?



Nah ,
We're all rapists with horns and hooves.


----------



## PHTlump

always_alone said:


> And so then what? He's justified in taking it anyway?


Just as a woman is justified in wearing makeup and sexy clothes, a man is justified in using seduction, yes.



> Truth is there are a lot of women who will enthusiastically engage in NSA sex, given the right circumstances and guy. Despite what many here are claiming, no one has ever denied that in this thread (except you in this post).


You misunderstand me. I agree that there are many women open to casual sex. That is what the entire PUA movement is founded upon. If women weren't open to casual sex, PUAs would have nothing to do. PUAs wouldn't exist, just as no groups exist dedicated to finding unicorns.

My dispute was FW's belief that no seduction is required. That many women have a default "yes" as their answer to a random stranger proposing sex. Your qualification, "given the right circumstances and guy," is the important thing to remember. PUAs are all about being the right guy and creating the right circumstances.



> The complaint here is about a particular attitude and approach to NSA that is advocated by the PUA community. Men here refuse to believe it is common, but that stats show that a huge proportion of women will experience some form of rape or nonconsensual sex, usually without any charges being laid, and nothing but her own sense of shame.


I dispute many of the rape statistics that are frequently given. First, many of the women on this very thread have exhibited a complete lack of understanding of rape statutes. They will use words like "coercion" in the most broad sense possible, when rape statutes use the word in a very narrow context.

So, if we define "rape" as any sex act that a woman wasn't 100% enthusiastic for, then we get a huge number of "rapes." If we define rape as the act of using violence, or the threat of violence, to have non-consensual sex with someone, the numbers go way down.

And, even though a small number of PUAs have shown a lack of concern for rape, it's not a strategy or attitude that most PUAs have. Most PUAs that I have read describe loving the rush of seduction. They love the sense of accomplishment in talking a woman into their beds.



> For someone that has never been physically intimidated or had to worry about violence while out on a date, this may be very difficult for you to understand. But it's true. Personally, I've had multiple experiences where I was physically restrained or pinned down, and literally had to kick myself free in order to escape the situation. A lot of guys will not take no for an answer, and will only redouble their efforts to get what they want. Then they spin it as "she wanted it" or "I seduced her", perhaps to feel better about themselves.


On the narrow topic of rape, no I have never feared being raped. I think men have more to fear from violence than women, but not the particular violent act of rape.

And it is shameful that some men won't accept a woman's refusal. But it is also shameful to try to generalize that, because some men are shameful, most men must be shameful. That's simply not logical.


----------



## Created2Write

So your answer is to ignore this guys "rubbish" just because you think assume he's a small minority and nothing to worry about? You're right...there was rape before all of this. The difference is that now it's being justified...excused...made light of on a very wide scale. A woman's objections and resistance is now seen as something a man _should_ try and overcome by way of manipulation, coercion and downright force if all else fails. 

The answer isn't to ignore this guy. Even if you're right and he's the minority, judging by the stats given by the University study Cosmos posted, there are a wide number of guys who would rape women if they thought they could get away with it, and that is exactly what Roosh and other GPUAs are trying to do: get away with rape. What he and others are touting is _dangerous_ and should be taken seriously, not ignored just because "you don't need his stuff".

I'm starting to understand man-haters a little bit more if this is what they're met with...such nonchalance with regards to the very real and increasingly common danger of rape. I can't be apart of this discussion any longer if rape isn't going to be treated as the dangerous, very serious and real threat that it is. I'm disappointed today. Very disappointed.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Caribbean Man said:


> IMO Roosh and others like him are just capitalizing on a particular niche of NSA sex or " hookup " culture and social media , stirring up controversy whilst making tons of money from it.
> 
> 
> If a man wants to rape, he doesn't need Roosh to tell him how to, neither does he need the PUA community to support him.
> Even before Roosh and the PUA community, there was rape.
> Outside of his PUA kingdom, there is rape.
> Statistically every 2 mins someone in the USA is sexually assaulted, that's almost 3000, everyday.And you and others somehow think that Roosh ,the PUA culture , and men like me who think that they're just a bunch of guys fooling themselves _are_ the problem?
> So what are you advocating , burning the witches?
> If they rape aren't there laws to deal with them?


In other words since it happens anyways, there's no harm in capitalizing on it. Yeah, people who promote/support it ARE part of the problem.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Nah ,
> We're all rapists with horns and hooves.


Oh for gawd's sake. Such hyperbole. It's as if you are deliberately misunderstanding at every turn. Why? Because you self-styled yourself as a PUA once, and so feel attached to defending the label?

No one has said that all men are rapists, and there has been agreement all along that NSA sex can be honourably conducted. What you don't seem to understand is that Roosh and his cohorts are but examples of the type of behaviour and attitudes that women have to deal with on a regular basis while dating. There are tons of them out there that think they are god's gift to women, and are happy to physically intimidate, coerce, and manipulate women into having sex. Yes, this has been going on longer than Roosh and he has merely popularized it. But that doesn't make it any less real or despicable. PUA had different names in those days, but it was still the same beast.


----------



## PHTlump

always_alone said:


> This is what you will teach your daughter, but what would you teach your sons (assuming you had them).


I will teach my son that women are autonomous beings with free will. I will teach him that they generally respond positively to certain traits and negatively to other traits. I will teach him that they are capable of making a decision and also changing that decision. In fact, I will teach him that women frequently change their minds.



> It's true that women do have responsibility for their choices and the risks that they take. No one has ever denied this.


No one has said those words. But some have come close to asserting the point.



> But the point of this thread is that men too are responsible for their choices and actions, and to chalk up all nonconsensual sex as "she shouldn't have been there" and "boys will be boys" is to absolve the boys, and shift all responsibility onto the girls.


No. I'm not absolving anyone.

If a woman is walking to her car after work and she's attacked from behind, dragged into an alley and raped, she has absolutely no culpability. The man is 100% at fault.

If a woman goes to a bar, gets drunk, goes to a stranger's house, gets naked, gets in bed, and then tries to stop the encounter, she has a good deal of culpability. The man is still wrong if he refuses to stop. But his actions aren't as bad as the random attacker in the first example.


----------



## Created2Write

Oh, and for the record, if I knew that any of my male family members had joined the Roosh blog or any of the other websites FF posted, I'd count them as strangers for the rest of my life.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

This whole thread is now revolting. I'm out.

View attachment 10330


----------



## Created2Write

PHTlump said:


> *If a woman goes to a bar, gets drunk, goes to a stranger's house, gets naked, gets in bed, and then tries to stop the encounter, she has a good deal of culpability. The man is still wrong if he refuses to stop.* But his actions aren't as bad as the random attacker in the first example.


I can, mostly, agree with this. Rape is rape, I don't care if she's drunk and naked and he's about to put his d*** in. If she says no, he should stop. If he doesn't, it's rape. Period. But I can agree with the bold.

And I hope you'll teach your son that women deserve respect, both in and out of the bedroom. That they have the right to feel safe before having sex, even if it's just a ONS. That he shouldn't have to manipulate a girl to have sex with him.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> In other words since it happens anyways, there's no harm in capitalizing on it. Yeah, people who promote/support it ARE part of the problem.


Guess by your logic I'm part of the rape problem because I don't buy into your " anti Roosh " outrage?

In fact I didn't any man buyinto any of you ladies outrage against Roosh.
So that must mean we all support rape

Sweet.


----------



## Created2Write

So CM you don't think rape is an outrage?


----------



## PHTlump

Created2Write said:


> Continuing to nudge toward sex after she has said no _can_ be seen as coercion. Continuing to do so, after repeated objections, can be seen as attempted rape. At least, I see it that way. And I absolutely think that there is both a moral and legal requirement to let the woman lead after she has resisted further sexual advances.


This is exactly what I mean when I say that people have absolutely no idea what rape statues actually say. Throwing around the word "rape" when your idea of what it is is so vague and amorphous really renders the word meaningless. This is a valid complaint used by those who are skeptical of rape claims. Did a rape really happen, or did some poor shmoe try to have sex with a woman who is completely ignorant of what rape is?

California is the largest state in the USA. And, it is a liberal state with, presumably, a liberal rape statute. In California, rape is:
1. Having sex with a disabled person who is unable to consent and the perpetrator knew this. Such as having sex with a mentally handicapped person.
2. Where it is accomplished against a person's will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the person or another. Duress means a direct or implied threat of force, violence, or retribution sufficient to compel a reasonable person to submit to unwanted sex. Menace means a threat, declaration, or act that shows the intent to inflict injury.
3. Where the victim was too inebriated to consent, and the perpetrator knew it.
4. Where the victim was unconscious as to the nature of the act, and the perpetrator knew it. That means the victim was asleep, or duped into thinking a gynecologist was giving door-to-door exams.
5. Where the victim is fooled into believing the perpetrator is his/her spouse.
6. Where the victim submits because of a threat to kidnap, falsely imprison, or inflict bodily injury or death upon the victim or another person in the future.
7. Where the perpetrator is a public official, or impersonates a public official, and threatens official actions, such as arrest, fines, or deportment to get the victim to have sex.

That's it. There's no mention of continuing to try to turn the victim on. There's no mention of trying again in five minutes. It's force, the threat of force, or some other less common elements that define rape.

Rape isn't something that can be personally defined by you as being something that just makes you feel icky. Icky sex isn't rape. Forcible, non-consensual sex is rape.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Oh for gawd's sake. Such hyperbole. It's as if you are deliberately misunderstanding at every turn. Why? Because you self-styled yourself as a PUA once, and so feel attached to defending the label?


Well have a look back through this thread and see how many men were supporting your point of view.

And I've never " styled myself as a PUA." You cannot pinpoint any post in this thread where I've said that I was a PUA, support PUA or even thought that PUA activity was " good."
In fact, I have even said that PUA fell under the umbrella of casual sex and hookup culture, which I'm totally against, which you and others seemed to disagree with because casual sex seems to be a sacred rite mostly to feminist women.

Double standard much.


----------



## Created2Write

So you're saying that, unless a man threatens or forces a woman into having sex, anything else flies even if she has said no under the pretense of seduction and the possibility that she could change her mind?

Remind me never to leave my house with a weapon of some kind, then. To me, "No" is where the line is drawn. If she has said no and the guy pushes beyond what she has consented to, he is flirting with rape. I don't care what the "law" says, "No" is the line. That is the boundary that shouldn't be crossed. That is what defines consent, is it not?


----------



## Caribbean Man

FrenchFry said:


> I'm not understanding how "please respect everyone's sexual agency" gets turned into gender warring.
> 
> .


Well if a group of women told me that I am a rapist because I don't think being a PUA makes a man a rapist , do you think I'm supposed to simply accept that ?

Go back through the thread and see which gender is the antagonist and who are defending against attacks.


----------



## PHTlump

Created2Write said:


> Personally, I happen to believe that _a lot_ of modern feminists are extremest. That's why I don't call myself a feminist. But I've left all of this out of the discussion because it's irrelevant. How many women who call themselves feminists and are extremest doesn't have anything to do with GPUAs being the majority.


Fair enough. You are logically consistent. You believe that a handful of men accurately represent a majority of PUAs and you also believe that a handful of feminists accurately represent a majority of feminists. Some on this thread don't.



> And it was far more than one blogger and a few posters...it was more than one link with numerous followers, numerous posts, forums, etc.


At least two of FF's links were dedicated to "Fingerman." Should Fingerman be given double-consideration because another blogger dedicated a post to his comments on a separate site?

Also, even on the thread where Fingerman posted, the OP was asking for help overcoming resistance to gain a woman's consent. Most posters gave recommendations for turning her on more. One recommended reverse psychology of getting up to leave. Fingerman recommended crossing the line and most of the commentators after that objected. His post was even deleted from the thread by the moderators. You think they deleted his post because they agreed with it?

Yes, one or two of FF's links described something that appeared to be criminal. The Czech story appeared criminal. But that is called an anecdote. Rape happens. I won't pretend it doesn't. But that doesn't mean that we can generalize that most PUAs are rapists anymore than we should generalize that all blacks are rapists, or all men who live in Detroit are rapists.



> ... you can ignore the statistics with regards to rape that were posted a few pages ago, ...


Rape statistics that predict unreported rape are, by definition, unreliable. There is absolutely no way to measure something that isn't known. One person can estimate that 10 rapes a year go unreported and another can estimate, with equal credibility, that 10 million rapes a year go unreported.


----------



## Created2Write

PHTlump said:


> Fair enough. You are logically consistent. You believe that a handful of men accurately represent a majority of PUAs and you also believe that a handful of feminists accurately represent a majority of feminists. Some on this thread don't.
> 
> 
> At least two of FF's links were dedicated to "Fingerman." Should Fingerman be given double-consideration because another blogger dedicated a post to his comments on a separate site?
> 
> Also, even on the thread where Fingerman posted, the OP was asking for help overcoming resistance to gain a woman's consent. Most posters gave recommendations for turning her on more. One recommended reverse psychology of getting up to leave. Fingerman recommended crossing the line and most of the commentators after that objected. His post was even deleted from the thread by the moderators. You think they deleted his post because they agreed with it?
> 
> Yes, one or two of FF's links described something that appeared to be criminal. The Czech story appeared criminal. But that is called an anecdote. Rape happens. I won't pretend it doesn't. But that doesn't mean that we can generalize that most PUAs are rapists anymore than we should generalize that all blacks are rapists, or all men who live in Detroit are rapists.
> 
> 
> Rape statistics that predict unreported rape are, by definition, unreliable. There is absolutely no way to measure something that isn't known. One person can estimate that 10 rapes a year go unreported and another can estimate, with equal credibility, that 10 million rapes a year go unreported.


See, this is my personal issue with all of this: how you keep making light of rape. "Yeah, it happens. I won't pretend it doesn't". You shouldn't _want_ to pretend it doesn't, firstly. And secondly, this entire post personifies exactly why I am so passionate about all of this. 

Let's assume you and CM and Brocker are all right and this stuff that Roosh and Fingerman are posting are the few radicals; it doesn't change the fact that this garbage is out there being said to impressionable young men searching for a way to be more successful with women. CM thinks we should just leave them alone. If they haven't committed a crime no harm, no foul. *puke*

I emphatically disagree. Even if it's the minority now, it doesn't mean it will stay the minority.


----------



## Caribbean Man

FrenchFry said:


> I don't see where that happened for real CM.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


" _*My definition of a PUA is someone who is looking for NSA sex, but, more often than not, will manipulate, lie, coerce or intimidate/physically force a woman to have sex with him. Some are shy, socially awkward men who needed to boost their confidence and choose not to manipulate women, but again, I believe them to be the minority.

That is what I see as FACT*..._"

And it gets worse...


" _*Thanks you for answering this one. This thread is killing me. I just can't believe so many seemingly smart and honourable men are so utterly dismissive of the connections between PUA and nonconsensual sex. Do they not have sisters, mothers, daughters?.*_."

Typical shaming^^^tactic, meaning because these men don't agree with my point of view they are dishonourable men who would probable even rape their own mothers and sisters..

But wait, there's more...

Then there appeared this attached pic which mysteriously disappeared after I quoted it.

Attachment 10314


Need I post more?

The thread started off taking a dig at PUA's and ended up saying that the majority of them were rapist or covert rapist and any man who support or outright refuse to condemn that culture support rape, so they are rapist .
Is my summary inaccurate?


----------



## Created2Write

LOL! Yeah, with that I was calling _you_ a rapist CM.


----------



## Created2Write

There is SUCH a victim mentality from the men in this thread. I mean, honestly, we're against rape and we dislike the striking similarities to what some GPUAs tout as seduction and what often happens with rape. And we really don't like the nonchalance about these dangers and how lightly rape is being taken. 

That suddenly equates to us thinking all of the men here support rape and/or are rapists themselves? Man up. Stop pretending to be a victim of us hateful ladies. No one here has said anything about the men in this thread, other than that their lack of concern for rape is concerning. That's all. Period. If you take that to mean we must think you're rapists, you have no business being in this discussion.


----------



## PHTlump

Created2Write said:


> So you're saying that, unless a man threatens or forces a woman into having sex, anything else flies even if she has said no under the pretense of seduction and the possibility that she could change her mind?


I'm saying that a woman who is seduced, even if she initially refused intercourse, has not been raped. I have too much respect for women to hold such a low opinion of them.



> Remind me never to leave my house with a weapon of some kind, then. To me, "No" is where the line is drawn. If she has said no and the guy pushes beyond what she has consented to, he is flirting with rape. I don't care what the "law" says, "No" is the line. That is the boundary that shouldn't be crossed.


At least you're honest and consistent. You use the illicit generalization fallacy consistently with PUAs and feminists. You show no consideration for the law, even after I take the time to educate you. So I guess kudos for willful, indignant ignorance?


----------



## Created2Write

PHTlump said:


> I'm saying that a woman who is seduced, even if she initially refused intercourse, has not been raped. I have too much respect for women to hold such a low opinion of them.


I'll look past all of your insults and ask, what defines consent, then? Because it appears to me that a woman can say no over and over and, as long as she was never physically forced or threatened, can be said to have "consented" and, thus, no rape occurred.

What defines consent?



> At least you're honest and consistent. You use the illicit generalization fallacy consistently with PUAs and feminists. You show no consideration for the law, even after I take the time to educate you. So I guess kudos for willful, indignant ignorance?


Just because something is a law doesn't mean it's right. Or do you suggest I blindly follow anything and everything that's put into legislation?


----------



## PHTlump

Created2Write said:


> See, this is my personal issue with all of this: how you keep making light of rape. "Yeah, it happens. I won't pretend it doesn't". You shouldn't _want_ to pretend it doesn't, firstly. And secondly, this entire post personifies exactly why I am so passionate about all of this.


Who said I want to pretend rape doesn't exist? This is why I get riled up. First, the notion that women can be seduced by general traits and behaviors somehow gets twisted into the notion that, really, what these men are doing is raping women.

When we dispute that, we become rape apologists. Give me a break.



> Let's assume you and CM and Brocker are all right and this stuff that Roosh and Fingerman are posting are the few radicals; it doesn't change the fact that this garbage is out there being said to impressionable young men searching for a way to be more successful with women. CM thinks we should just leave them alone. If they haven't committed a crime no harm, no foul. *puke*
> 
> I emphatically disagree. Even if it's the minority now, it doesn't mean it will stay the minority.


Fair enough. What is your solution? Censor the internet? Redefine rape to mean whatever makes C2W feel yucky? I don't agree to that.

I think we can leave rape as rape and leave seduction as seduction. And when histrionic ninnies start confusing seduction with rape, we can try to correct them.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Created2Write said:


> There is SUCH a victim mentality from the men in this thread. I mean, honestly, we're against rape and we dislike the striking similarities to what some GPUAs tout as seduction and what often happens with rape. And we really don't like the nonchalance about these dangers and how lightly rape is being taken.
> 
> That suddenly equates to us thinking all of the men here support rape and/or are rapists themselves? Man up. Stop pretending to be a victim of us hateful ladies. No one here has said anything about the men in this thread, other than that their lack of concern for rape is concerning. That's all. Period. If you take that to mean we must think you're rapists, you have no business being in this discussion.


Thank you.


----------



## Created2Write

Caribbean Man said:


> The thread started off taking a dig at PUA's and ended up saying that the majority of them were rapist or covert rapist and any man who support or outright refuse to condemn that culture support rape, so they are rapist .
> *Is my summary inaccurate?*


Entirely inaccurate.


----------



## ozymandias

always_alone said:


> Thanks you for answering this one. This thread is killing me. I just can't believe so many seemingly smart and honourable men are so utterly dismissive of the connections between PUA and nonconsensual sex. Do they not have sisters, mothers, daughters?


Myself, I think most of this thread is a giant ad hom argument. The core idea behind the OPs trolling was that Game, ev-psych attraction principles, are less successful in societies that redistribute everyone's stuff at the point of a gun. I'm not sure what her intent was since this observation seems to support those principles.

It only took a few responses before FF rambled off into ad hom territory with a discussion about Roosh V's character and how reflective it was of PUA/Game/ev-psych relationship culture as a whole. always_alone, I think that conflation is what you are seeing pushback against. I'm almost 40 years old, I've been married to the same woman for 12 years and I am a student of Game. These ideas saved my marriage and kept my family intact. It troubles me to hear the perception that these tools, this model of gender interaction that has helped so many men, is only useful for facilitating rape.

Part of this perception may be historical. For a long time the only places you could read about these skills were in PUA communities. I think of them sometimes as having the same relationship to the larger ev-psych body of knowledge that alchemists have to modern chemistry. In spite of the mysticism and the futility of transmuting elements, alchemists began laying the foundation for chemistry through empirical observation. They learned things despite their methods or ultimate goals.


----------



## Created2Write

PHTlump said:


> Who said I want to pretend rape doesn't exist? This is why I get riled up. First, the notion that women can be seduced by general traits and behaviors somehow gets twisted into the notion that, really, what these men are doing is raping women.
> 
> When we dispute that, we become rape apologists. Give me a break.


Seduction is not something I'm against and I have said this over and over and over. Seduction is an important part of sexual fulfillment and foreplay. I love being seduced. It's when a woman withdraws her consent that I put my foot down. Saying the words "No", "Stop", "Don't", "I don't want to"...means she no longer consents. 



> Fair enough. What is your solution? Censor the internet? Redefine rape to mean whatever makes C2W feel yucky? I don't agree to that.


You're just full of insults today, aren't you? Makes you look really smart. 

For starters, _don't make light of rape_. (And just in case CM gets it in his head to twist what I'm saying, I _don't_ mean that you're supporting rape.) I do think you're making light of it; "Nah, this stuff isn't all that common. It's just some radicals. No big deal". 

No. It is a big deal. It should be treated as such. I, personally, would have taken everything else in this thread much more seriously if someone had bothered to say, "That stuff, while I don't believe it to be the majority of what PUAs say and do, is absolutely disgusting. It's dangerous material that could potentially get more popular as time goes on and I don't blame any woman for being revolted by it. And since these guys are professing PUAs, I can see how it would be easy to think of all PUAs this way. Squeaky wheel gets the grease. But they aren't and here's why..."

Instead CM took us all in circles asking questions I still don't know the point to, we were told that women shouldn't put themselves into positions to be raped(as if they choose it...), and are now being accused of believing every man alive to be a rapist. And all because we want rape to be taken more seriously.



> I think we can leave rape as rape and leave seduction as seduction. And when histrionic ninnies start confusing seduction with rape, we can try to correct them.


"Histrionic ninnies"...nice one. I don't know that I've ever gotten under someone's skin this much before.


----------



## PHTlump

Created2Write said:


> I'll look past all of your insults and ask, what defines consent, then? Because it appears to me that a woman can say no over and over and, as long as she was never physically forced or threatened, can be said to have "consented" and, thus, no rape occurred.
> 
> What defines consent?


Stating that women have enough willpower and mental faculties to make their own sexual decisions, and even change those decision is insulting to you? You take insult at some strange things.

I would generally define consent as the lack of non-consent. Most sexual encounters don't involve an explicit "yes" so much as a lack of a "no." So that's what I would say. Obviously, a woman who said "no," or "stop," or pushed a man away, or simply got up and left could be said to be refusing consent.

The question is, has a woman who says no to intercourse, but continues to kiss a man while naked in his bed, withdrawn consent from all sexual activity? If she has, wouldn't she know that and stop kissing him, or get out of his bed, or put some clothes on, or leave? I would think so. I think a woman kissing a man, while naked in his bed, is giving implicit consent for sexual activity to take place.



> Just because something is a law doesn't mean it's right. Or do you suggest I blindly follow anything and everything that's put into legislation?


Absolutely not. But I do recommend that you not confuse rape with seduction. I see nothing wrong with the rape statute given. I think women are capable enough, as a sex, to allow themselves to be seduced, or not allow themselves to be seduced, as they see fit.

If you want to amend the rape statute to include men who seduce women, then we're going to need a lot more prisons.


----------



## PHTlump

Created2Write said:


> You're just full of insults today, aren't you? Makes you look really smart.


I was being serious. You stated that you had a problem knowing that Roosh's writings were on the internet to be seen by others. And, even though no crime may have been committed, you rejected the idea that we should leave them alone.

So what is your solution for writings which you disagree with, and don't believe should be left alone?



> For starters, _don't make light of rape_. (And just in case CM gets it in his head to twist what I'm saying, I _don't_ mean that you're supporting rape.) I do think you're making light of it; "Nah, this stuff isn't all that common. It's just some radicals. No big deal".


This is the true insult. No one here has made light of rape. Rape happens. And it's terrible.

What I have made light of is your idea that seduction can constitute rape. That is ridiculous and certainly mock-worthy. Don't blame me. I'm only the messenger.



> "Histrionic ninnies"...nice one. I don't know that I've ever gotten under someone's skin this much before.


Don't worry about it. I have small children and a wife. They sometimes get under my skin. I can debate logical fallacies and whether seduction=rape without breaking a sweat.


----------



## Caribbean Man

FrenchFry said:


> The original article posted was about RooshV and how he complained about having less sex in Denmark because of *reasons* I fail to see how pointing out his particular style of PUA is an ad hom.


*1]*
ad hom
Web definitions
An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument. Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as an informal fallacy, more precisely an irrelevance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hom

*2]*
ad hominem
ad ˈhɒmɪnɛm/
adverb & adjective
1.
relating to or associated with a particular person.
"the office was created ad hominem for Fenton"
2.
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"an ad hominem response"


And that's where in meandered into gender bashing territory.
Now it's gone into _poster_ bashing territory.


----------



## Created2Write

PHTlump said:


> Stating that women have enough willpower and mental faculties to make their own sexual decisions, and even change those decision is insulting to you? You take insult at some strange things.


No, this is what I was insulted at: "I have too much respect for women to hold such a low opinion of them."



> I would generally define consent as the lack of non-consent. Most sexual encounters don't involve an explicit "yes" so much as a lack of a "no." So that's what I would say. Obviously, a woman who said "no," or "stop," or pushed a man away, or simply got up and left could be said to be refusing consent.


Okay. For me, a "No" or "Stop" or pushing a man away or leaving _are definite_ refusing consent. 

In your opinion what should the guy do once these "potential" refusals of consent are given?



> The question is, has a woman who says no to intercourse, but continues to kiss a man while naked in his bed, withdrawn consent from all sexual activity? If she has, wouldn't she know that and stop kissing him, or get out of his bed, or put some clothes on, or leave?


Not necessarily. I can think of many reasons why a woman would go that far and then not consent to sex. And besides, whether or not she stays in bed isn't the point. The point is what should a guy do once the refusal to consent has been made. In my opinion there is no sexual gratification that is more important than a woman's safety. If she says "No", it should mean just that unless/until she says otherwise. 



> I would think so. I think a woman kissing a man, while naked in his bed, is giving implicit consent for sexual activity to take place.


Until she has withdrawn that consent by saying "No", then I agree. But if she's said "No", continuing to lay naked in his bed doesn't cancel out her refusal. 



> Absolutely not. But I do recommend that you not confuse rape with seduction. I see nothing wrong with the rape statute given. I think women are capable enough, as a sex, to allow themselves to be seduced, or not allow themselves to be seduced, as they see fit.


I don't disagree with this. And never have.



> If you want to amend the rape statute to include men who seduce women, then we're going to need a lot more prisons.


I don't want to do that. I have no issue with seduction. My issue is when attempted seduction continues after the woman has already refused consent, under the pretense that she might change her mind. 

Look, if a man wants to seduce women into his bed, by all means go for it. DH seduces me all the time. I have no problem with that and I find it to be a particularly enjoyable part of foreplay. 

My only issue has been what happens _after_ the woman refuses to consent to sex. Because I absolutely don't agree that a man should continue seducing her if she has said "No".


----------



## Caribbean Man

FrenchFry said:


> Cool, sorry for calling him a rapey misogynist scumbag. His PUA suggestions are rapey misogynistic and scummy. I'm glad my ad homs didn't lead to a destruction of his character and we were able to have a convo about douchy PUA tactics.


I think the convo about rapey PUA tactics finished more than 10 pages ago.
Everyone on the thread agreed that it was disgusting.
what's taking place here isn't a convo about that.
It's morphed into the unapologetic gender bashing , you complained if two pages ago.


----------



## Created2Write

PHT, your bitterness and resentment is telling. Your continual twisting of my words to make me appear to have said things that I haven't is telling. Your need to mock me is telling. Your need to see the worst in everything I say is telling.

1. I don't think seduction necessarily constitutes rape. I've said it about five times now. Perhaps you should actually read my posts? I don't think seduction is rape. I don't think seduction is rape. _I don't think seduction is rape_. 

Now, hopefully we have that settled. What I take issue with is in a man continuing to try and seduce a woman who has already refused consent. 

2. You make light of rape by passing it off; saying that, unless a woman has been physically forced or threatened, then what happened was just seduction and not rape. That's making light of rape whether you choose to see it or not. As soon as a woman has withdrawn her consent, all attempts to further the sexual encounter should stop. Period. If she's cool with making out naked in a guy's bed, then that's where the line is. If the guy isn't happy with that, he can end the encounter and find someone who will consent to go all the way. 

If a woman doesn't say "No" or stop or resist the guy, then go for it. Seduce away. Go for the kinky stuff. Get wild and naughty. Have a good time.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Created2Write said:


> My only issue has been what happens _after_ the woman refuses to consent to sex. Because I absolutely don't agree that a man should continue seducing her if she has said "No".


See for me this is wear the line get's blurred (or I can see how it is possible it can get blurred) because their are some women that use this in their "game". Verbal is only approx 7% of human communication so someone saying no why giggling and staying will give a very different impression then someone who sternly says NO.


----------



## Created2Write

Tiggy, if a girl is giggling and saying "No", then it'll be her own damn fault for not getting any that night, or it's up to her to communicate that she's joking. A "No" is a "No" in my book. Until she has specifically stated that she was joking, the guy should assume she means it. 

It protects him just as much as it protects her. It protects him from being falsely accused and it protects her so that, if later she really does mean "No", there's no confusion. No means no. Period. (Unless there is a clear and mutual understanding that it's part of the roleplay, like in the case of a rape fantasy or BDSM.)


----------



## Caribbean Man

TiggyBlue said:


> See for me this is wear the line get's blurred (or I can see how it is possible it can get blurred) because their are some women that use this in their "game". Verbal is only approx 7% of human communication so someone saying no why giggling and staying will give a very different impression then someone who sternly says NO.


Anyone who has ever been in a few relationships know that this is fact.
That's what is so illogical about all this rape talk.


----------



## Caribbean Man

FrenchFry said:


> I see the warring because people are reading into things in a way I do not comprehend while breaking down tactics and why they are problematic. The bashing seems only to be from misunderstandings which are getting cleared up.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Yes.

But why the divide on a topic that concerns ALL of us because we are ALL AFFECTED by it?

We have ALL CONDEMNED RAPE . The law clearly defines rape.
Why the need to go on saying that seduction = rape and so on?


----------



## Created2Write

Exactly, FF. I don't care if a woman is giggling. The guy should assume she means it until she says that she was joking.


----------



## Created2Write

I disagree that the law clearly defines rape, btw.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Created2Write said:


> Exactly, FF. I don't care if a woman is giggling. The guy should assume she means it until she says that she was joking.


I think any guy who finds himself with such a woman she immediately _dump_ her to protect himself.

She's immature.

That's one of the reasons why in the example I gave last night of the false rape report, I refused to take part in that girl's orgy.
She was acting immature.


----------



## Created2Write

*NO ONE HAS SAID THAT SEDUCTION = RAPE*.

For the love of God, read the posts.


----------



## Created2Write

Caribbean Man said:


> I think any guy who finds himself with such a woman she immediately dump her to protect himself.
> 
> She is immature.


I agree entirely. 110%.

And any woman whose with a guy who continues to try and seduce her after she has refused consent should dump him to protect herself. He is immature.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Created2Write said:


> *NO ONE HAS SAID THAT SEDUCTION = RAPE*.
> 
> For the love of God, read the posts.


Well I think I have more posts on this thread than other posters.
So I've been reading the posts.
Just in case you haven't noticed, that is the sticking point with the men on this thread. That's what they are disagreeing with.
You hinted that Seduction = " rapey" behaviour.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Created2Write said:


> I agree entirely. 110%.
> 
> And any woman whose with a guy who continues to try and seduce her after she has refused consent should dump him to protect herself. He is immature.


So then why would a real PUA who has tons of options in women , and who has mastered the art of seduction <---[ whatever that means]rape a woman again?


----------



## ozymandias

FrenchFry said:


> The original article posted was about RooshV and how he complained about having less sex in Denmark because of *reasons* I fail to see how pointing out his particular style of PUA is an ad hom.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



The original article was about the efficacy of Game in places with progressive social policies. Go out to the home page of Dissent Magazine and take a look - the content is primarily political in nature. I get the impression that the author sees Roosh's experiences as invalidating ev-psych (I very much get that impression from the OP) but regardless, your first post in this thread doesn't discuss any of these ideas. All it really says is that Roosh is a terrible human being. Which is likely true, but a tangent from the discussion the author (and Roosh) are trying to have about Game, economics and sociology. 

Does that help you see? That fact Roosh is a "rapey misogynist scumbag who advocates being a rapey misogynist scumbag" is only peripherally related to the article. Also, look at the progression of this thread both before and after your comment. You led the charge to turn this into a discussion of how Roosh is a rapist and the PUA community advocates rape. This was shaping up to be a discussion about the efficacy of Game. Isn't the Men's Clubhouse supposed to be a safe place to unpack stuff like this?


----------



## PHTlump

Created2Write said:


> No, this is what I was insulted at: "I have too much respect for women to hold such a low opinion of them."


Exactly.



> Okay. For me, a "No" or "Stop" or pushing a man away or leaving _are definite_ refusing consent.


I never stated that they weren't.



> In your opinion what should the guy do once these "potential" refusals of consent are given?


A great many things, depending upon the situation. He could run away screaming, lest he be accused of non-statutory rape. Or, he could continue seducing the woman, engaging in actions that she found enjoyable and consented to. With the second option, there is a chance that a competent woman, with free will, could change her mind about intercourse and give consent.



> Not necessarily. I can think of many reasons why a woman would go that far and then not consent to sex. And besides, whether or not she stays in bed isn't the point. The point is what should a guy do once the refusal to consent has been made. In my opinion there is no sexual gratification that is more important than a woman's safety. If she says "No", it should mean just that unless/until she says otherwise.


None of that answers my question. Should a refusal for intercourse be an immediate cessation for all sexual activity? If it should, shouldn't the woman get out of bed and put some clothes on? If it shouldn't, then why are we equating a man continuing to seduce a woman with trying to rape her?



> I don't want to do that. I have no issue with seduction. My issue is when attempted seduction continues after the woman has already refused consent, under the pretense that she might change her mind.


And that is the heart of our disagreement. The notion that women aren't capable of changing their minds, or shouldn't be allowed to change their minds, is both unrealistic and insulting to women. Women are complicated. They can feel one thing one minute and a different thing the next. To disregard that, and worse, to want to legally codify the opposite notion, is simply foolish.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Since reading this thread all I can think about is this incident that happened a few years back. My uncle is in the AF and was having to deal with a case where these 2 people got drunk, started having sex, the woman passed out and he finished. The next day she reported him for rape because she passed out in the middle of the act.
Now imo this wasn't rape, they were both drunk, both consented.
This is where rape get's very complicated, because it's such a serious thing and also such a serious thing to accuse someone of it isn't a word that should be taken OR thrown around lightly.


----------



## Created2Write

If the seduction takes place after the woman has clearly refused consent, yes it then becomes rapey behavior. But if she doesn't refuse consent or resist, I have no issue whatsoever with seduction.

Why does any man rape a woman, CM? Do you think those men didn't have tons of women they could sleep with who would consent? Why do husbands rape their wives? Do you think they couldn't get their wives to consent?

Just because a man has "options" doesn't mean those options would keep him from raping. A man doesn't rape a woman just because he doesn't have "options".

Really?


----------



## always_alone

PHTlump said:


> That's it. There's no mention of continuing to try to turn the victim on. There's no mention of trying again in five minutes. It's force, the threat of force, or some other less common elements that define rape.
> 
> Rape isn't something that can be personally defined by you as being something that just makes you feel icky. Icky sex isn't rape. Forcible, non-consensual sex is rape.


Sigh. We all know what rape is. Tell me,.what is your definition of "seduction" or "continuing to turn a person on"?

Does it include removing her clothes when she has said not to? Does it include touching her when she has asked you not to? Does it involve using your physical bulk to make it clear that you can overpower her?

Do you know what threat of violence entails? Or do you think he literally has to have a gun to her head before he is threatening her?

Have you ever heard of date rape or marital rape? Do *you* fully understand the definition you just posted?


----------



## Created2Write

PHTlump said:


> A great many things, depending upon the situation. He could run away screaming, lest he be accused of non-statutory rape. Or, he could continue seducing the woman, engaging in actions that she found enjoyable and consented to. With the second option, there is a chance that a competent woman, with free will, could change her mind about intercourse and give consent.


I don't disagree with this as long as the man doesn't escalate the sexual activity beyond what she has consented to. The moment she says "No", escalation should stop.



> None of that answers my question. Should a refusal for intercourse be an immediate cessation for all sexual activity?


If she wants it to be, then yes. If she's cool with making out still, then the only sexual activity that should continue should be that which she has consented to. Any escalation is then up to her. 



> If it should, shouldn't the woman get out of bed and put some clothes on? If it shouldn't, then why are we equating a man continuing to seduce a woman with trying to rape her?


If she is okay with making out naked, then no. She shouldn't have to get out of bed. But the man should stop attempting to escalate the sexual activity until she says or shows it's okay to do so. If she has said no to intercourse, then the man should respect that. Period. If he tries to push the boundaries by seducing her, after she has made it clear she doesn't want to go that far, he's intentionally disregarding her rights to define how far she's willing to go by taking her further without her consent. 

If she changes her mind, she is more than capable of saying so. Otherwise the guy's attempt to escalate after she has already said "No" _is_ rapey behavior because you're attempting to do exactly what she said "No" to. If she changes her mind, and says so, then consent has been given. Go for it.



> And that is the heart of our disagreement. The notion that women aren't capable of changing their minds, or shouldn't be allowed to change their minds, is both unrealistic and insulting to women.


And that's not what I've said. Women _can_ change their minds and have every right to do so. But it should left entirely up to _them_ to do it. The man stops escalating, stops attempting to seduce. He should wait for her to say she's changed her mind. 

Let me give an example: if a woman says no to oral sex, I would consider it rapey behavior for the man to then attempt to manually stimulate her clitoris. It's a blatant disregard for the boundaries she's attempting to set. If she says no to oral sex, then the clitoris is off limits. If she changes her mind, she can say so, or put your hand there, or shove your face in it. But until she explicitly shows that she has changed her mind _on her own_, the man should respect her boundaries. 



> Women are complicated. They can feel one thing one minute and a different thing the next. To disregard that, and worse, to want to legally codify the opposite notion, is simply foolish.


Yes it is. Good thing that's not my intention, though you're determined to paint it that way.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Created2Write said:


> If the seduction takes place after the woman has clearly refused consent, yes it then becomes rapey behavior. But if she doesn't refuse consent or resist, I have no issue whatsoever with seduction.
> 
> A woman cannot be seduced against her will.
> 
> Why does any man rape a woman, CM? Do you think those men didn't have tons of women they could sleep with who would consent? Why do husbands rape their wives? Do you think they couldn't get their wives to consent?
> 
> Rape is about power , not seduction
> 
> Just because a man has "options" doesn't mean those options would keep him from raping. A man doesn't rape a woman just because he doesn't have "options".
> 
> Correct.
> Conversely , it is inaccurate to assume that PUA = seduction = "rapey" tactics.
> It's also interesting to note that you said that you disagreed with the legal definition of rape. Maybe that's what's causing your confusion. But the law has already defined rape, irrespective of how you feel about that law, IT IS THE LAW.


----------



## Caribbean Man

FrenchFry said:


> I didn't interpret the article as a criticism of ev-psych. My bad.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Well I did.
In fact in my first post I clearly stated it was, and scoffed at it.


----------



## PHTlump

Created2Write said:


> PHT, your bitterness and resentment is telling. Your continual twisting of my words to make me appear to have said things that I haven't is telling. Your need to mock me is telling. Your need to see the worst in everything I say is telling.


Not at all. I am simply trying to understand your position. I have a great respect for the clarity of language. The lack of that clarity in this thread has been frustrating. I don't need to see the worst in you, or mock you. But, again, I detest reducing clear things like rape into mushy, unclear actions.



> 1. I don't think seduction necessarily constitutes rape. I've said it about five times now. Perhaps you should actually read my posts? I don't think seduction is rape. I don't think seduction is rape. _I don't think seduction is rape_.
> 
> Now, hopefully we have that settled. What I take issue with is in a man continuing to try and seduce a woman who has already refused consent.


So, what this means is that you think that SOMETIMES seduction is rape. If a woman has said that she doesn't want sex, you believe that a man continuing to seduce her, even though his seduction involves none of the elements in the rape statute, such as force or threats of force, could be seen as rape.



> 2. You make light of rape by passing it off; saying that, unless a woman has been physically forced or threatened, then what happened was just seduction and not rape. That's making light of rape whether you choose to see it or not.


To the contrary, I think YOU are the one making light of rape. Rape is a violent, awful thing that nobody should ever encounter. To try to expand the definition of rape beyond the traditional elements of the crime to include things like seduction is to diminish the crime to more of a nuisance than a violent felony.


----------



## Created2Write

So, if a woman says "No" to sex or to taking off her clothes or to any part of the evening, you think the man has every right to keep on trying to seduce her? That until he is acting violently it's all well and good?

Note to self: saying no means diddly squat in communicating lack of consent. 

THAT is rapey behavior. You've proven my point clearly, PHT.


----------



## Created2Write

The more I'm apart of this thread, the more my hope for the human race diminishes. We've gotten to where "No" is now a free ride for a man to keep on trying to change the woman's mind. Forget the woman's right to decide what she wants, forget what she says...

And we're back to the beginning where "No" actually means "Yes".

 And the men here wonder why there's such an outrage against all of this.


----------



## Created2Write

Here's what I've learned from this thread: rape isn't really rape without violence.


----------



## PHTlump

always_alone said:


> Sigh. We all know what rape is.


That is debatable.



> Tell me,.what is your definition of "seduction" or "continuing to turn a person on"?


The usual. Kissing. Stroking. Nibbling. Touching. Undressing. And so forth. If she refuses consent for anything and everything, then seduction becomes talking. If she consents to A, but not B, then seduction becomes doing a lot of A really well. Then, if she gets more turned on, proposing B again is not a crime.



> Do you know what threat of violence entails? Or do you think he literally has to have a gun to her head before he is threatening her?


Of course I know what it entails. I read the statute. And I can tell you that being large and imposing is NOT a threat of violence.



> Have you ever heard of date rape or marital rape? Do *you* fully understand the definition you just posted?


Of course. While the California rape statute I read precludes spousal rape, it doesn't preclude date rape. If a woman's date forces her to have sex with him, he would be guilty of rape. If a woman's date tries to seduce her into having sex with him, he would not be guilty of rape. Simple. And I presume that spousal rape is covered by another (probably domestic violence) statute.


----------



## Created2Write

CM, I don't agree with many of the laws we have. Laws are not infallible. Legislators make mistakes. Just because something is law doesn't mean it's perfect. Imo, the rape law/definition of rape excludes _a lot_ of other situations that don't include violence, but are rape. In my book, when a man goes beyond what a woman says "No" to sexually, he is making the step towards rape. Once a woman has said "No" he has no right to sexually escalate things. That is now _her_ choice.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Created2Write said:


> So, if a woman says "No" to sex or to taking off her clothes or to any part of the evening, you think the man has every right to keep on trying to seduce her? That until he is acting violently it's all well and good?
> 
> No.
> She has a right to LEAVE that man because she's uncomfortable with his intentions.
> The problem is that rape has a strict definition , and before penetrative sex actually occurs different layers of personal and physical barriers must be removed.
> Trying to convince a woman to have sex , even after she has said no is not the same as rape.
> 
> Note to self: saying no means diddly squat in communicating lack of consent.
> 
> No means no but
> Reinforcing your boundaries and taking a defensive position, like leaving the environment is a much better form of communicating your actual feelings. Actions speak louder than words..
> Sticking around in such a situation can communicate mixed signals.


----------



## Created2Write

PHTlump said:


> Then, if she gets more turned on, proposing B again is not a crime.


_How_ a man does this absolutely can be a crime.



> Of course I know what it entails. I read the statute. And I can tell you that being large and imposing is NOT a threat of violence.


By itself, perhaps not. How a man using his size absolutely can be. Ever heard of intimidation? A man can be very calm, very collected and not at all violent, and still intimidate a woman into doing something she doesn't want to do.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Created2Write said:


> Here's what I've learned from this thread: rape isn't really rape without violence.


And some women can only enjoy sexual activity that has a certain level of dominance, aggressiveness and mild violence...

See how complicated it is?

Do you understand why the law defines it how it does?


----------



## Created2Write

> No.
> She has a right to LEAVE that man because she's uncomfortable with his intentions.
> The problem is that rape has a strict definition , and before penetrative sex actually occurs different layers of personal and physical barriers must be removed.
> Trying to convince a woman to have sex , even after she has said no is not the same as rape.


Trying to convince a woman to have sex when she has said no, while in itself may not be rape, is still a sh!tty thing to do. How much disrespect does it show for a man to ignore a woman's boundaries in such a blatant way? 

And answer this one for me: how many "Nos" does a woman have to utter before a man will take her seriously?



> No means no but


No. There is not "but". That's like saying, "I'm sorry but..." 

No is no is no. There is no but. If no is no, then the man should _stop_. No more seduction, no more coercion, no more convincing. Otherwise no doesn't really mean no, it means "Maybe." 



> Reinforcing your boundaries and taking a defensive position, like leaving the environment is a much better form of communicating your actual feelings. Actions speak louder than words..


So she's not allowed to want to make out? It has to be all or nothing? 



> Sticking around in such a situation can communicate mixed signals.


So the woman isn't allowed to want anything other than sex? If she's not going to put out then and there, she's not allowed to make out with a guy? It has to be sex or nothing at all?


----------



## Created2Write

Caribbean Man said:


> And some women can only enjoy sexual activity that has a certain level of dominance, aggressiveness and mild violence...
> 
> See how complicated it is?
> 
> Do you understand why the law defines it how it does?


I have addressed this already, CM. This isn't the situation being talked about here, but good attempt to dodge the issue. I've said that in these situations there _is_ a safe-word in relationships where BDSM is practiced in a healthy way, and when that safe word is spoken, it doesn't mean "well, I might not really mean it so keep on going just in case you can get me to change my mind". It means, "I am done...stop right the eff now." And then, when they're ready to continue, they say so. 

It's really not complicated at all, though you keep saying it is. "No"(Or whatever safe word the couple agrees upon) means "Stop". "No more." "I don't want you to do that." "I'm drawing a line...I was okay with everything up til now, and I am not ready to keep going." As soon as she is ready to go further, she is more than capable of saying so. But until she does, the man should have the decency to stop escalating. Otherwise, he is acting in a rapey way.

As for the law, _I don't agree with the law CM_, so your persistence in using it doesn't change how I feel.


----------



## PHTlump

Created2Write said:


> So, if a woman says "No" to sex or to taking off her clothes or to any part of the evening, you think the man has every right to keep on trying to seduce her? That until he is acting violently it's all well and good?


Well, maybe not well and good. But legal. Because I think women are capable of handling themselves. If a woman says that she doesn't want intercourse, and then the man proposed oral sex, I don't think that the woman has been harmed. I don't think the woman is in danger of submitting to something she doesn't want. She can just as easily say no to oral as she did to intercourse. She can easily leave and be free of the insensitive man for as long as she wishes to remain away from him. She has options.



> Note to self: saying no means diddly squat in communicating lack of consent.


Not at all. But saying no to intercourse doesn't necessarily mean no to oral. And it doesn't necessarily mean to to intercourse forever. It means no to intercourse right now.

And, as Tiggy pointed out, there are different kinds of no. If a woman says no and leaves, then that's a pretty definite no. If a woman giggles out a no, then gets naked and continues other sexual activity, that's a much softer no that may easily mean that the man should try again later.



> THAT is rapey behavior. You've proven my point clearly, PHT.


Glad to oblige. I'm just thankful that "rapey behavior" isn't illegal behavior. Because, again, we would need a lot more prisons.


----------



## PHTlump

Created2Write said:


> The more I'm apart of this thread, the more my hope for the human race diminishes. We've gotten to where "No" is now a free ride for a man to keep on trying to change the woman's mind. Forget the woman's right to decide what she wants, forget what she says...
> 
> And we're back to the beginning where "No" actually means "Yes".
> 
> And the men here wonder why there's such an outrage against all of this.


I know what you mean. I'm just glad that I'll be able to have some influence on my daughter. I might be able to teach her some self-respect and that she should trust in her ability to make her own sexual decisions. I would hate for her to think that, if a man asked her for sex more than once, she might be unable to refuse him. I would hate to think that she viewed herself as a helpless victim unable to get away from "rapey behavior". I want her to grow up a strong minded and confident woman who understands the world and is unafraid of it.


----------



## Caribbean Man

C2W,
it's obvious that , either you don't understand or not taking into account the intricate nature of the spectrum of different type of sexual relationships / activities and personalities.

There are women who only respond to sexually aggressive men, they don't like men who talk a lot. They expect him to read their body language , even if he's a complete stranger.
The more aggressive he is they respond positively.
And I'm not talking about BDSM or role play here.

There are men who like women who play hard to get. Women who reject them and put them down verbally, or what some call 
" feisty " women. 

All of these types, and lots more are involved in NSA sexual activity.

Google the term " _Dogging_ " and you would understand what I'm speaking about. _Dogging_ is illegal, but if it's consensual NSA sexual activity among adults, does that make it ok? Suppose someone crosses the line , how does the authorities separate fact from fiction and  prosecute?

Blurred lines.

I'm saying a woman has options. If a man is in her home and she's uncomfortable with his methods of seductions, then tell him to leave. If he doesn't , call the cops.

If she's at a man's house , she can leave if she's uncomfortable being in his company.
What does she have to prove by staying?

The options are clear to me.

Man wants sex, woman doesn't want sex, they have mismatched goals. LEAVE.
She cannot demand that he meet her sexual goals neither can he demand that she meet his sexual goals.
If there's no room for compromise, then LEAVE.


----------



## Created2Write

While I was in boot camp, I was told that "No" means just that and if the guy refuses to take it seriously, he deserves exactly what he gets. Even if that means jail time. Because no mans sexual urge should _ever_ come before a woman's safety. And I intend to raise any sons I have to respect women and their choices. Not all men are blatant and violent in their assault. 

I'm glad my husband isn't like the men in this thread. I'm highly disturbed by the things said here and I hope my sons grow up to be respectful and not have to "convince" a woman to have sex with them.


----------



## Caribbean Man

And I intend to raise any sons I might have to avoid women who indulge in casual sex , it is the domain of false rape accusations and false paternity claims. That is my experience, not stuff I've picked up in the " manosphere."
I have been, there done that.

I intend to tell any daughter I might have to take full responsibility for themselves and NEVER even speak to a man who indulges in or promotes ANY FORM of casual sex.
It's the domain of blurred lines , many women get raped under questionable scenarios, and end up with little or no legal recourse.
I have seen it happen , far too often.

In fact, I have already taught my teenage nieces and nephews, all of these things.


----------



## Cosmos

The trouble with this thread is we're talking about two entirely different things. The 'art' of seduction and some pretty borderline advice given in a PUA forum... We have:-

_"Seduction may be freely indulged in by both sexes. It involves allurement, enticement, or persuasion, to overcome initial unwillingness or resistance. Its ends may be achieved by fair means or foul, but seduction eschews the crudities of force and threats." 

(People v. Evans, 1975,379 N.Y.S.2d 912)_

Versus

_"Shes young, shes drunk, she likes you.she wont resist. Or not a lot.

You need to act quick, dont let her any time to think or lead. Only pace yourself to get a vibe going. Do not hesitate, or youre ****ed. Dont be afraid to physically force her to do anything or to tell her no or shut up. (can make her not like you and **** up the pull so only do it ifnecessary)" 

(Lie your way inside a womans vagina (People with morals DO NOT READ) | RSD Nation)_

:scratchhead:


----------



## Created2Write

Cosmos said:


> The trouble with this thread is we're talking about two entirely different things. The 'art' of seduction and some pretty borderline advice given in a PUA forum... We have:-
> 
> _"Seduction may be freely indulged in by both sexes. It involves allurement, enticement, or persuasion, to overcome initial unwillingness or resistance. Its ends may be achieved by fair means or foul, but seduction eschews the crudities of force and threats."
> 
> (People v. Evans, 1975,379 N.Y.S.2d 912)_
> 
> Versus
> 
> _"Shes young, shes drunk, she likes you.she wont resist. Or not a lot.
> 
> You need to act quick, dont let her any time to think or lead. Only pace yourself to get a vibe going. Do not hesitate, or youre ****ed. Dont be afraid to physically force her to do anything or to tell her no or shut up. (can make her not like you and **** up the pull so only do it ifnecessary)"
> 
> (Lie your way inside a womans vagina (People with morals DO NOT READ) | RSD Nation)_
> 
> :scratchhead:


Even in seduction "it's end may be achieved by fair means or foul"...Not all seduction is right and okay.


----------



## Caribbean Man

There goes the problem in this thread.

An unwillingness to accept facts.


----------



## Created2Write

Sure, CM. Sure.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Created2Write said:


> Even in seduction "it's end may be achieved by fair means or foul"...Not all seduction is right and okay.


I agree some "seduction" techniques are really sh*tty, but it's not necessarily rapey. Kind of like saying someone who throws a punch is murdery, yes punching is horrible and not nice but it's not anywhere near murder.


----------



## Created2Write

No, because murder is _very_ clearly defined. A punch would be more akin to assault. 

Rape is not clearly defined. Not all rape involves violence, and if a woman has said "No", further seduction _can_ be rapey behavior.


----------



## Cosmos

Created2Write said:


> Even in seduction "it's end may be achieved by fair means or foul"...Not all seduction is right and okay.


I agree with you, C2W, and both of the methods I highlighted are dishonest methods of getting into someone's pants.

However, when we go down the route of having ONS with strangers, we've knowingly embarked on potentially dangerous risk taking behaviour.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Created2Write said:


> No, because murder is _very_ clearly defined. A punch would be more akin to assault.


But it's not, theirs self defense, second degree, first degree, manslaughter ect.
Yes a punch that leaves a black eye is assault and that is why it won't be described as murdery.



> Rape is not clearly defined. Not all rape involves violence, and if a woman has said "No", further seduction _can_ be rapey behavior.


No it's definitely not black and white. If a woman said no then three minutes later pulled him in for a kiss and took off her panties, the next day could she really say she was raped (she did say no)?

IMO rape is too serious to describe some things (as tasteless and dirty as they may be) as rapey.


----------



## RandomDude

Created2Write said:


> Even in seduction "it's end may be achieved by fair means or foul"...Not all seduction is right and okay.


Well I consider my style of seduction 'right and okay' 
Unless someone tells me... RD you're a douche!

I respect her boundaries but play within those boundaries via teases, and at the same time I just make the woman feel safe and comfortable and pretty much that's all I needed to do lol

My pretty face does the rest


----------



## Created2Write

Tiggy, if you noticed in the many other posts in this thread, I've said that a woman can say "No" and change her mind. If she says "No" and then pulls him in for a kiss and takes off her panties, I'd say she's changed her mind and he's free to continue seducing, etc. I have no problem with that, nor would I call it anything close to rape.


----------



## Created2Write

RandomDude said:


> Well I consider my style of seduction 'right and okay'
> Unless someone tells me... RD you're a douche!
> 
> I respect her boundaries *but play within those boundaries* via teases, and at the same time I just make the woman feel safe and comfortable and pretty much that's all I needed to do lol
> 
> My pretty face does the rest


The key is in bold and is precisely what I mean. Two thumbs up to you RD!  Seriously. Playing within the boundaries the woman has set is exactly what I mean.


----------



## Created2Write

Cosmos said:


> I agree with you, C2W, and both of the methods I highlighted are dishonest methods of getting into someone's pants.
> 
> However, when we go down the route of having ONS with strangers, we've knowingly embarked on potentially dangerous risk taking behaviour.


I agree and is exactly why I don't agree with casual sex.


----------



## RandomDude

But how about the teasing/making her feel safe/comfortable at the same time? It's still evil no?

Like combined, it tends to undermines a woman's former boundaries, e.g. a common one would be that she thinks of me as a player, but I earn her trust that I'm not -> that can be innocent. But how about when she may have personal morals about sex before marriage, which is undermined by teasing her silly + earning her trust + sharing and influencing her with my morality.

Although I may stay within the boundaries, I still entice a woman to surrender them, doesn't that make me a douche too? :scratchhead:


----------



## TiggyBlue

Created2Write said:


> Tiggy, if you noticed in the many other posts in this thread, I've said that a woman can say "No" and change her mind. If she says "No" and then pulls him in for a kiss and takes off her panties, I'd say she's changed her mind and he's free to continue seducing, etc. I have no problem with that, nor would I call it anything close to rape.


Which is why I think cosmos is right, there's so many crossed wires in this thread. 
There will be a lot of times when someone will be saying "no" "stop" while giggling fully not wanting things to end (idk if it get's them off or something), yes it shouldn't be done but it is and I think that's what the majority who were saying it's not rapey behavior to keep 'seducing' was talking/thinking about, rather than the filth FF posted.


----------



## TiggyBlue

RandomDude said:


> But how about the teasing/making her feel safe/comfortable at the same time? It's still evil no?
> 
> Like combined, it tends to undermines a woman's former boundaries, e.g. a common one would be that she thinks of me as a player, but I earn her trust that I'm not -> that can be innocent. But how about when she may have personal morals about sex before marriage, which is undermined by teasing her silly + earning her trust + sharing and influencing her with my morality.
> 
> Although I may stay within the boundaries, I still entice a woman to surrender them, doesn't that make me a douche too? :scratchhead:


To me it's pretty simple, if you think a guy to doing this kind of thing to your daughter would make him a douche you have your answer.


----------



## Created2Write

*sigh* I've made it very clear exactly what I'm talking about. A chick giggling is not the same a woman setting very clear boundaries that should be respected. I, personally, would say that the guy should play it safe even if the girl is giggling, but if he chooses to move forward I wouldn't say that's rapey behavior, just dangerous for him. But if the woman has made a clear the boundaries she doesn't want crossed, seduction should stop until she escalates it. 

I sound like a broken record at this point.


----------



## RandomDude

Well, if I was to meet 'another me', his style wouldn't bother me ONLY IF -> he puts in the same effort to win MY trust and good graces as well. Otherwise I'm pulling out the pipe! If I don't know him I don't trust him and if he touches my daughter he's a DEAD MAN.

But I'm an understanding dude who believes in both sexes embracing their sexuality without religious 'morals' where IMO the only immorality that comes from sex is if there's dishonesty involved.

Most fathers aren't like me. So hence I can't use my own example. So again, am I a douche?


----------



## Created2Write

RandomDude said:


> But how about the teasing/making her feel safe/comfortable at the same time? It's still evil no?


Not necessarily. A woman could be okay with oral sex, but not necessarily intercourse. If she's said no to intercourse but didn't say no to oral, I see nothing wrong with "playing within those boundaries" as you said. I don't agree with casual sex, but I can imagine that if a guy respected my boundaries and had fun inside the lines I'd drawn, I would likely feel more comfortable with him. It's sexy when a guy respects a woman and doesn't try to "convince" her to do what she's said she doesn't want to do. I can see a woman changing her mind because a guy respected her boundaries.



> Like combined, it tends to undermines a woman's former boundaries, e.g. a common one would be that she thinks of me as a player, but I earn her trust that I'm not -> that can be innocent. But how about when she may have personal morals about sex before marriage, which is undermined by teasing her silly + earning her trust + sharing and influencing her with my morality.
> 
> Although I may stay within the boundaries, I still entice a woman to surrender them, doesn't that make me a douche too? :scratchhead:


Trying to convince a woman to forgo her former morals, while kind of a low thing to do, isn't necessarily rapey behavior. Temptation and teasing doesn't mean the women is incapable of keeping to her morals. It's when a woman says no and a man continuous to try and convince her that she really wants more is what I see as rapey behavior.


----------



## RandomDude

Well, I don't really consciously try to be honest, I just share and inherently end up 'sowing the seeds of doubt' in her mind just by being me =/

So ok, my style isn't rapey (*phew*) but is it really low? :scratchhead:
Like the alternative I guess is to encourage her moral system but I can't do that when I don't believe in it. I can respect it but can't encourage it if you know what I mean. And I like to play / tease / flirt.

EDIT: I'm kinda like the dude in this song heh: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ry13kh5O62E

lol


----------



## ocotillo

Created2Write said:


> I don't agree with casual sex, but I can imagine that if a guy respected my boundaries and had fun inside the lines I'd drawn, I would likely feel more comfortable with him. It's sexy when a guy respects a woman and doesn't try to "convince" her to do what she's said she doesn't want to do. I can see a woman changing her mind because a guy respected her boundaries.


Different context, but that pretty much sums up the courtship and engagement between my wife and myself. (And maybe many others as well.) She said, "No" several times, in the early stages of the relationship, but it didn't mean, "Go away and leave me alone."


----------



## RandomDude

Classic example of my style in action could be STBXW: As I did manage to seduce STBX away from her 'nunnery' when we were first dating. I respected her boundaries sure, but I tapped into her lust. I became her "escape", and for a while as she remained open-minded due to her past worldly mentality it was great.

Then she entered bible college, and although I respected her decision to cut off sex, I wasn't happy about it so I couldn't encourage or support her new beliefs. It's a paradox.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

PHTlump said:


> Well, maybe not well and good. But legal. Because *I think women are capable of handling themselves.* If a woman says that she doesn't want intercourse, and then the man proposed oral sex, I don't think that the woman has been harmed. I don't think the woman is in danger of submitting to something she doesn't want. She can just as easily say no to oral as she did to intercourse. She can easily leave and be free of the insensitive man for as long as she wishes to remain away from him. *She has options*.
> 
> 
> Not at all. But saying no to intercourse doesn't necessarily mean no to oral. And it doesn't necessarily mean to to intercourse forever. It means no to intercourse right now.
> 
> And, as Tiggy pointed out, there are different kinds of no. If a woman says no and leaves, then that's a pretty definite no. If a woman giggles out a no, then gets naked and continues other sexual activity, that's a much softer no that may easily mean that the man should try again later.
> 
> 
> *Glad to oblige. I'm just thankful that "rapey behavior" isn't illegal behavior. Because, again, we would need a lot more prisons.*


I have not been following this thread at all..and the opening link did not work .. so I have no idea what it said..

But I tend to agree with all spoken by PHTlump here ... I do not think any man should be accused of rape or even hinted at rape for being dirty and pushing the verbal...some like extreme flirting...and game playing... 

If it's in the workplace, obviously this could be looked upon as "Sexual harassment " ... I think this can be abused as well, depending. 

If not in the workplace, the woman should put up her boundary...be assertive about it... walk away... even warn to not do that again....and not visit places littered with men like that -if this is not her cup of tea... (Bars come to my mind...these are our "meat markets")..

Me & the husband was just talking today about the 1 woman they work with at his pretty much ALL male job... I guess she wants HIM to sit by her when a group of them eat out cause one of the guys is a real Pervert... he'll pick up a banana, sniff it.. sexual comments galore (wouldn't matter if she was there, or not!)...he must have told her last time if she needed CPR...he'd use the other lips... she just spit something back at him -but she'd never turn him in or anything.. .my husband was saying ...he's lucky...as many women would. 

I guess it's in what a woman can handle , if the heat gets too hot, you do something about it...but as for me, there is no rape no matter what comes of a mans mouth until physical force is taken and I'd be trying to get him off... a woman should not give mixed signals...as truly some do seem to like to play games, hard to get, and like the man to be aggressive.


----------



## RandomDude

Well SA, would you then consider my style of seduction evil?

I saw it as 'broadening her horizons' :rofl:
She had reasons to get into church when I first met her, but I tapped into the sexual side of her, made her feel comfortable, freed her from guilt in the meantime (until bible college got her back into the guilt trip -.- )

Am I evil?


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Pick up artiste are simply men who are " *happy and willing*" to have casual sex with women who are "* happy and willing* " to have casual sex with pick up artistes.






Caribbean Man said:


> ...and you know what?
> 
> Your story is similar to mine.
> So I'm talking from a perspective of being involved in that lifestyle.





Caribbean Man said:


> Well have a look back through this thread and see how many men were supporting your point of view.
> 
> And I've never " styled myself as a PUA." You cannot pinpoint any post in this thread where I've said that I was a PUA, support PUA or even thought that PUA activity was " good."
> In fact, I have even said that PUA fell under the umbrella of casual sex and hookup culture, which I'm totally against, which you and others seemed to disagree with because casual sex seems to be a sacred rite mostly to feminist women.
> 
> Double standard much.


What you said was that PUA is just people happy and willing to have sex with each other, and you admitted to be part of that lifestyle. 

Now granted you are also saying that someone almost always gets hurt and you are against it, and I get that.

I do find it odd that you think feminists are the main proponents of causal sex. Study after study show clearly that it is men.
However, women like it too, and instead of painting everyone who has engaged in casual sex as immature or foolish or worse, I've allowed that NSA sex can be done honourably.

So that's one issue we differ on.

The other is this idea that PUA is all just happy people picking each other up. In my experience, such people never refer to themselves as PUA. Those inclined to identify as such are usually bottom of the barrel. And they know it and try to hide it under a cloak of seduction and having fun.


----------



## RandomDude

I don't need to be a PUA, cause I'm just sexy 

and well now, we're sexy! - YouTube

:rofl:

Ah hell love that movie


----------



## SimplyAmorous

RandomDude said:


> Well SA, would you then consider my style of seduction evil?
> 
> I saw it as 'broadening her horizons' :rofl:
> She had reasons to get into church when I first met her, but I tapped into the sexual side of her, made her feel comfortable, freed her from guilt in the meantime (until bible college got her back into the guilt trip -.- )
> 
> Am I evil?


 Do you have a specific post that explained all that....lead me there... Seduction...it's A LOT OF FUN...isn't it [email protected]#$ 

I believe in personal responsibility above all....what others DO and how they act... I am not trying to put them on a leash..but how I respond to them... this is ON ME.... Where are my convictions... can I be rational in the moment and not be reduced to putty in someone's hands....

Not into blaming someone else for something that I gave into - even in a weak moment... MY mother was Seduced, lied too, she never blamed those men... she knew she had choices... she allowed her baser Lusts to take control of her, this is true....this was on her. 

If your Ex gave in...then NO, you would not be considered evil to me... Good at the game of seduction.. but again... us women need to be very very careful here., a little like dealing with FIRE one might say....and we could get burned.


----------



## always_alone

ozymandias said:


> always_alone, I think that conflation is what you are seeing pushback against. I'm almost 40 years old, I've been married to the same woman for 12 years and I am a student of Game. These ideas saved my marriage and kept my family intact. It troubles me to hear the perception that these tools, this model of gender interaction that has helped so many men, is only useful for facilitating rape.


This makes me sad. Not that you were able to help your marriage. That part is great! But I still can't for the life of me understand how men can read hateful PUA literature and say, Hey, I can learn something from that!

Tell me what value did you derive from it? How do you react when you read something that basically says women are *****es and that you should just shove your c*ck down her throat and show her who's boss? 

How that provides solutions to marital problems, I'll never understand. All I can think is that men have a very high tolerance for talking sh*the about women. And I've seen it all too often in real life too. Not just Internet blogs


----------



## RandomDude

SimplyAmorous said:


> Do you have a specific post that explained all that....lead me there... Seduction...it's A LOT OF FUN...isn't it [email protected]#$
> 
> I believe in personal responsibility above all....what others do and how they act... I am not trying to put them on a leash..but how I respond to them... this is ON ME.... Where are my convictions... can I be rational in the moment and not fall to LUST....
> 
> Not into blaming someone else for something that I gave into - even in a weak moment... MY mother was Seduced, lied too, she never blamed those men... she knew she had choices... she allowed her baser Lusts to take control of her, this is true....this was on her.
> 
> If your Ex gave in...then NO, you would not be considered evil to me... Good at the game of seduction.. but again... us women need to be very careful here., a little like dealing with FIRE one might say....and we could get burned.


So I'm not evil! :smthumbup:
Darn... guess I was never such a 'bad boy' after all in my youth - sucks! (Kidding lol)

Personally though even though I can respect boundaries due to anti-premarital-sex morals if anything bible college really split us apart all those years ago. She had as some would consider a 'personal relationship' with Christ, we loved each other and expressed it physically even though we were not married. We were happy, she felt safe, loved, and freed from guilt with her own personal beliefs.

But then bible college, and the brainwashing... and when she decided to go all churchie on me, sure we stopped the sex as per her decision but that and everything else including her new evangelism bringing pagan me into the fold... BAH! :slap:

Anyways... guess this is why I just don't believe in anti-premarital-sex morals especially when marriage itself is such a serious commitment where I don't believe it's wise to encourage young people to get into simply to get sex!

Ironically as you can guess this ends up being part of seduction -> my belief system itself. See what I mean by undermining personal beliefs?


----------



## TiggyBlue

Funny thing about personal boundaries, you don't really know how strong they are until they're put to the test.


----------



## RandomDude

And only one way to put it to the test...

Meet folks like young RD!


----------



## Faithful Wife

Can we start a seduction post?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

TiggyBlue said:


> *Funny thing about personal boundaries, you don't really know how strong they are until they're put to the test*.


Mine were like IRON I suppose, we even lived together and didn't succumb to intercourse... but we still got off.. we were happy. If My husband ever can't get it up in the future , ED despite Vitamin V... needs a pump (God forbid)..... I will be able to look back upon those years where we used our hands, and remind myself.. I WAS HAPPY, I was fulfilled... maybe that sounds strange to others...

I know Random Dude, what I say is ridiculousness to most everyone who reads my posts -but I found a man - on board... which is what I prayed for - ironically. .... Had I not met this very special man.... my life would have taken a whole different course I suppose...I might have been VERY jaded by men.. I just don't know!


----------



## RandomDude

Why ask? Go for it



> I know Random Dude, what I say is ridiculousness to most everyone who reads my posts -but I found a man - on board... which is what I prayed for - ironically. Had I not met this very special man.... my life would probably have went very different, I might have been jaded by men.. I just don't know!


You're lucky... I can't say the same for STBX though


----------



## Faithful Wife

Come join me in the ladies lounge then Random...you'll be the target.


----------



## RandomDude

Uh oh, I refuse to be eaten alive! -.-

*stays safe in men's clubhouse*


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> This makes me sad. Not that you were able to help your marriage. That part is great! But I still can't for the life of me understand how men can read hateful PUA literature and say, Hey, I can learn something from that!
> 
> Tell me what value did you derive from it? How do you react when you read something that basically says women are *****es and that you should just shove your c*ck down her throat and show her who's boss?


I've stayed out of this one ... until now.

I tried to convey this months back in my 'game' thread, and pretty much got the same response. I'll reiterate, I like you and your posting style. But ... you and I obviously read very, very, different sources and material pertaining to game. Because nowhere, ever, have I read anything that equates to 'women are b*tches and you shove your c*ck down her throat and show her who's boss.' 

I accept that this is your perspective and perhaps experience with 'game'. It isn't REMOTELY mine. Not what I read. Not what I practice. What burned me most about that other thread was the gentleman poster who is no longer with us, consistently referring to any man ... who relates this content in any fashion ... as a manipulative loser, relying on ridiculous crap peddled by other manipulative losers.

That same meme perpetrates lots of the better man content around here. 'A real man doesn't need game' 'A real man doesn't need a book.' 

What I got out of 'all that crap' has served me and my partners for the better. I more attentive, present, fun, thoughtful and reliable as a result. 

Have I met the girl of my dreams? Nope. Not actually trying to. But I have met, interacted with, and become involved with a number of extraordinary people that I would have otherwise never, ever met.

That being the case, I'm very content not being an alpha, or a 'real man'.

I like who I am. So do others. I am looked upon overall, far more favorably that I was 6 years ago when I stayed in the background, didn't make waves, went the extra mile to please others, deferred to an opinion rather than argue, and was considered a very nice guy.

I've gotten pretty damn good at being who I am.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Plus you're cute.


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> Plus you're cute.


And charming ... you forgot that.


----------



## PHTlump

always_alone said:


> Tell me what value did you derive from it? How do you react when you read something that basically says women are *****es and that you should just shove your c*ck down her throat and show her who's boss?
> 
> How that provides solutions to marital problems, I'll never understand.


Given that many married men have reported using information and techniques from Game to improve their marriages, perhaps there is more to Game than you understand.


----------



## RandomDude

This actually reminds me of a friend many years ago who told me something like "for you, you got game because of experience, but for people like me, I need to read books and study to get a love life" :slap:

He was a good guy, but meh... I say experience is the best teacher anyways when it comes to understanding women. Besides I don't agree with alot of these books; I ironically spend my time trying to earn trust / showing off my beta side because women tend to label me as a player due to my inherent confidence. *shrug*


----------



## always_alone

SimplyAmorous said:


> Not into blaming someone else for something that I gave into - even in a weak moment... MY mother was Seduced, lied too, she never blamed those men... she knew she had choices... she allowed her baser Lusts to take control of her, this is true....this was on her.


*All* on her. No matter what he said or did?

I get personal responsibility, I really do. But what this thread seems to be saying that whatever men do in the name of seduction is a-okay and it's all on my he woman. Her responsibility to gatekeeper and protect herself. And of course it is. 

But sometimes, often even, she has a hard go of it...Lots to protect herself from, if you know what I mean.

Let's reverse the genders to help me make my point. Suppose a man gets seduced by a woman. Suppose he later finds out she had aids, and chose not to tell him about it because she thought it might interfere with her ability to get laid. Is the fault *all* on him when he finds out he's positive? Does he have a right to feel duped and used?


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> I've stayed out of this one ... until now.
> 
> I tried to convey this months back in my 'game' thread, and pretty much got the same response. I'll reiterate, I like you and your posting style. But ... you and I obviously read very, very, different sources and material pertaining to game. Because nowhere, ever, have I read anything that equates to 'women are b*tches and you shove your c*ck down her throat and show her who's boss.'
> 
> I accept that this is your perspective and perhaps experience with 'game'. It isn't REMOTELY mine. Not what I read. Not what I practice. What burned me most about that other thread was the gentleman poster who is no longer with us, consistently referring to any man ... who relates this content in any fashion ... as a manipulative loser, relying on ridiculous crap peddled by other manipulative losers.
> 
> That same meme perpetrates lots of the better man content around here. 'A real man doesn't need game' 'A real man doesn't need a book.'
> 
> What I got out of 'all that crap' has served me and my partners for the better. I more attentive, present, fun, thoughtful and reliable as a result.
> 
> Have I met the girl of my dreams? Nope. Not actually trying to. But I have met, interacted with, and become involved with a number of extraordinary people that I would have otherwise never, ever met.
> 
> That being the case, I'm very content not being an alpha, or a 'real man'.
> 
> I like who I am. So do others. I am looked upon overall, far more favorably that I was 6 years ago when I stayed in the background, didn't make waves, went the extra mile to please others, deferred to an opinion rather than argue, and was considered a very nice guy.
> 
> I've gotten pretty damn good at being who I am.


I was thinking of you when I wrote that post. Perhaps your ears were burning?

I get that you somehow made silk from a sow's ear. And I've no quibble with self-improvement and working to be he best you. I'm not even saying that you shouldn't have a book. I just don't see how you can possibly get there from a load of evo psych hooey about alphas and a bunch of immature self-entitled PUAs that think women owe them something.


----------



## RandomDude

always_alone said:


> *All* on her. No matter what he said or did?
> 
> I get personal responsibility, I really do. But what this thread seems to be saying that whatever men do in the name of seduction is a-okay and it's all on my he woman. Her responsibility to gatekeeper and protect herself. And of course it is.
> 
> But sometimes, often even, she has a hard go of it...Lots to protect herself from, if you know what I mean.
> 
> Let's reverse the genders to help me make my point. Suppose a man gets seduced by a woman. Suppose he later finds out she had aids, and chose not to tell him about it because she thought it might interfere with her ability to get laid. Is the fault *all* on him when he finds out he's positive? Does he have a right to feel duped and used?


In that case the woman was being dishonest.

In my case using the examples I've provided in this thread; I've maintained honesty and trust which still undermined boundaries so is it still my fault?


----------



## Cosmos

always_alone said:


> Let's reverse the genders to help me make my point. Suppose a man gets seduced by a woman. Suppose he later finds out she had aids, and chose not to tell him about it because she thought it might interfere with her ability to get laid. Is the fault *all* on him when he finds out he's positive? Does he have a right to feel duped and used?


He would have every right to not only feel duped, but possibly take legal action against her. It is illegal in some states to knowingly infect someone with HIV.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> *All* on her. No matter what he said or did?
> 
> I get personal responsibility, I really do. But what this thread seems to be saying that whatever men do in the name of seduction is a-okay and it's all on my he woman. Her responsibility to gatekeeper and protect herself. And of course it is.
> 
> But sometimes, often even, she has a hard go of it...Lots to protect herself from, if you know what I mean.
> 
> *Let's reverse the genders to help me make my point. Suppose a man gets seduced by a woman. Suppose he later finds out she had aids, and chose not to tell him about it because she thought it might interfere with her ability to get laid. Is the fault *all* on him when he finds out he's positive? Does he have a right to feel duped and used?*


This happens _everyday_
Welcome to the _real _world


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> I was thinking of you when I wrote that post. Perhaps your ears were burning?
> 
> I get that you somehow made silk from a sow's ear. And I've no quibble with self-improvement and working to be he best you. I'm not even saying that you shouldn't have a book. I just don't see how you can possibly get there from a load of evo psych hooey about alphas and a bunch of immature self-entitled PUAs that think women owe them something.


What is it to you , me or anybody else what a man does to work and improve on himself and his attractiveness to women?

Why is that idea so offensive to you and a few other women on TAM?
Whether it's going to the gym and working out, reading a book ,learning new dating techniques , why do you think you have to first approve of it, before they can use it for themselves?


----------



## always_alone

RandomDude said:


> Although I may stay within the boundaries, I still entice a woman to surrender them, doesn't that make me a douche too? :scratchhead:


I'm inclined to say not, just for the simple reason that younare asking these questions, rather than immediately assuming that anything you do in the name of seduction is above reproach.


----------



## RandomDude

But I still undermine boundaries!


----------



## Caribbean Man

Deejo said:


> I like who I am. So do others. I am looked upon overall, far more favorably that I was 6 years ago when I stayed in the background, didn't make waves, went the extra mile to please others, deferred to an opinion rather than argue, and was considered a very nice guy.
> 
> I've gotten pretty damn good at being who I am.


And that's all that matters.

Funny when you were desperately seeking help for your problem not many of them were around nor could help.

And now they want to judge...


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> What you said was that PUA is just people happy and willing to have sex with each other, and you admitted to be part of that lifestyle.
> 
> Now granted you are also saying that someone almost always gets hurt and you are against it, and I get that.
> 
> I do find it odd that you think feminists are the main proponents of causal sex. Study after study show clearly that it is men.
> However, women like it too, and instead of painting everyone who has engaged in casual sex as immature or foolish or worse, I've allowed that NSA sex can be done honourably.
> 
> So that's one issue we differ on.
> 
> The other is this idea that PUA is all just happy people picking each other up. In my experience, such people never refer to themselves as PUA. Those inclined to identify as such are usually bottom of the barrel. And they know it and try to hide it under a cloak of seduction and having fun.


Sorry, but wrong again.
The lifestyle I admitted to being part of was the casual sex culture which the poster I was quoting also said that she was a part of, and glad she came out of.


----------



## RandomDude

You can always tell where the gender wars are at -> just look at the page counts!


----------



## Faithful Wife

Are you talking about me, CM? Did I say I was glad I came out of it? I am just married now, that's all.


----------



## RandomDude

FW why you no reply on your thread 

<--- Wants a good debate on the whole subject!


----------



## Faithful Wife

I will...just only had time for a one liner here. You will get much more than one line.


----------



## RandomDude

=O

*braces himself* lol


----------



## SimplyAmorous

always_alone said:


> *All* on her. No matter what he said or did?
> 
> I get personal responsibility, I really do. But what this thread seems to be saying that whatever men do in the name of seduction is a-okay and it's all on my he woman. Her responsibility to gatekeeper and protect herself. And of course it is.
> 
> But sometimes, often even, she has a hard go of it...Lots to protect herself from, if you know what I mean.
> 
> Let's reverse the genders to help me make my point. Suppose a man gets seduced by a woman. Suppose he later finds out she had aids, and chose not to tell him about it because she thought it might interfere with her ability to get laid. Is the fault *all* on him when he finds out he's positive? Does he have a right to feel duped and used?


I am all for women being STRONG on their "Gate Keeping" ...*if they want more than just a roll in the hay* that is... That is my personal position.

If the shoes are reversed, I near feel the same...there was a poster here, forget his username now... he came on here acting like the women seduced him, OH POOR BOY... and he gave into his lusts, they just made it TOO DIFFICULT .... then he wanted to slam the women for being Sl**ts...he seemed to hold the Romantic View of sex ... that these women just used him...and he was so disappointed... well you know what....he partook..didn't he....and right after meeting them that night...

So his complaints fell on deaf ears to me.... that's on him... He wasn't forced to bang her... he could have turned her down & whacked one out/ cold shower, all of that...... that is just how I feel...

I don't think women should put themselves in situations where these sort of men roam... if they don't want to be seduced and flirted heavily with...if they can not handle it... 

That's just my more conservative view... I do not believe my ranting on such men is going to change anyone... if I don't like them, get out of there, find better places to hang.. a different brand of people to hang with. 

Obviously.. .I never had anything to do with the bar scene, nor ever came close to being forced upon... I can not relate to some of the possible stories some of you may have...the few times I walked into a bar, I felt like a piece of meat.. wanted nothing to do with that scene. 

I feel strongly.. BY OUR BEHAVIOR..... WE influence how men act towards us..... This is not a popular view however.

If more women would stop entertaining the Di**s -giving them the time of day & the sex.... maybe they'd stop being Di**s....and we'd get a little more respect.


----------



## Caribbean Man

SimplyAmorous said:


> * I don't think women should put themselves in situations where these sort of men roam... if they don't want to be seduced and flirted heavily with...if they can not handle it... *
> 
> That's just my more conservative view... I do not believe my ranting on such men is going to change anyone... *if I don't like them, get out of there, find better places to hang.. a different brand of people to hang with. *


It's as simple as that.

My wife doesn't like bars, sometimes I feel like it.
Imagine me complaining about women hitting on me if I should go to bars ALONE, and blaming them because I'm married, and they're supposed to respect that.
That's a false sense of entitlement.

Whenever I feel like hitting a bar, I go either with three close female friends , who are friends of my wife or other married couples who are friends of ours.
I take full responsibility for myself and my actions.
The buck stops with me, not with another woman who might decide to push against my marriage boundaries.


----------



## RandomDude

> If the shoes are reversed, I near feel the same...there was a poster here, forget his username now... he came on here acting like the women seduced him, OH POOR BOY... and he gave into his lusts, they just made it TOO DIFFICULT .... then he wanted to slam the women for being Sl**ts...he seemed to hold the Romantic View of sex ... that these women just used him...and he was so disappointed... well you know what....he partook..didn't he....and right after meeting them that night...
> 
> So his complaints fell on deaf ears to me.... that's on him... He wasn't forced to bang her... he could have turned her down & whacked one out/ cold shower, all of that...... that is just how I feel...


That's the thing too, like alright sure, I seduced women in my youth, but am I really to blame for it? Using that example, all that blameshifting - like come on!

Anyone can stick to their boundaries if they so wish, I've never forced anyone to do so -> so am I in the wrong? :scratchhead:


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> This happens _everyday_
> Welcome to the _real _world


Ummm, well yeah. As it happens, I pulled that example from the headlines, not out of my a$$.

We have no problem recognizing her behaviour as downright scuzzy, but somehow whatever a man does is fine, and it's the woman's problem if she's hurt by it?


----------



## RandomDude

^ If a man was just as dishonest as the woman in your example I would agree with you.

However I never had to be dishonest in my youth, yet I'm at fault for seducing her?


----------



## TiggyBlue

RandomDude said:


> ^ If a man was just as dishonest as the woman in your example I would agree with you.
> 
> However I never had to be dishonest in my youth, yet I'm at fault for seducing her?


I think it's things like negging that's scummy.


----------



## RandomDude

Wow! They have a word for everything it seems, I just looked up the term negging on the urban dictionary! lol

Would you consider me a negger? Like hey I don't put women on pedestals, I DO pull them back down to earth when they are over-confident (I do that to everyone though) and see it as doing them a favor as overconfidence is a turn off, I do mostly focus on my own confidence rather than undermining hers however.

I still remember when STBX negged me once, when I was being an a$$ and boasting in front of her just to see what she would say, this was years ago though and she replied something like "I've had guys bigger than you so I don't know what you're talking about" :rofl:

I replied, "well they obviously didn't know how to use it otherwise you wouldn't be here" lol, but we were really close at that stage so neither of us were offended.


----------



## always_alone

SimplyAmorous said:


> I don't think women should put themselves in situations where these sort of men roam... if they don't want to be seduced and flirted heavily with...if they can not handle it...
> 
> That's just my more conservative view... I do not believe my ranting on such men is going to change anyone... if I don't like them, get out of there, find better places to hang.. a different brand of people to hang with.
> 
> Obviously.. .I never had anything to do with the bar scene, nor ever came close to being forced upon... I can not relate to some of the possible stories some of you may have...the few times I walked into a bar, I felt like a piece of meat.. wanted nothing to do with that scene.


Easier said than done. Such men roam everywhere. Indeed, I don't hang out in nightclubs much either, as I also hate the meat market scene. Yet, I've encountered plenty of people who will treat others very badly in the name of love and sex.

You and CM are absolutely right that complaining about it isn't going to solve the problem. I know that. But I honestly also don't understand why pointing out that certain tactics and behaviours are a$$hole-ish unleashes this tirade of posts seeking to defend said tactics behaviour. No one thought to defend the woman in my example, but there's quite the contingent eager to defend PUA.

Go figure.


----------



## RandomDude

I'm only defending behaviour that maintains honesty -> I don't believe in leading people on, hence why I was more a NSA guy then a "PUA" or whatever.

And I'm still wondering how I'm in the wrong to seduce women while I've still respected boundaries, maintained honesty even though my influence ended up undermining them.


----------



## TiggyBlue

When I think of negger's the barbed wire sandwich always come's to mind, so it's a compliment,insult and then another compliment, a insecure person will notice the insult and start mulling it over and that's what it's designed to do (negger's aren't the only people who do this). 
Negging will get the people who are a bit insecure/easy to manipulate and low self confidence that's easy to erode, it's a cheap, easy game. 
From what you have said it doesn't really sound anything like negging.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *Originally Posted by always_alone*
> 
> Suppose a man gets seduced by a woman. *Suppose he later finds out she had aids, and chose not to tell him about it because she thought it might interfere with her ability to get laid.* Is the fault *all* on him when he finds out he's positive? Does he have a right to feel duped and used?


I didn't really address the AIDS part ...This scenario sounds like a Lusty One Night Stand.... Always a RISK here...obviously no condom used - what happened to "safe sex?"! Probably 2 half drunks... 

If one of our children found themselves in this situation, I would rant at them for being wholly stupid for allowing it to happen.. Who in their right mind is going to trust a stranger who is consumed with LUST ?? They will say anything to get what they want... that is like saying "Hello" to STD's....even if the risk is small...who do we think we are to escape it every time.... 

What is most important to us...should rule our behavior..there is virtue in some sexual self control.... 

I realize I sound like I am no damn fun at all - with these answers...really it's not the case, I even LIKE to flirt -A LOT.. but in doing that, I fully expect to get to know someone on a deeper level before it goes to sharing bodily fluids... To the point of meeting parents, friends, meals at his house, with commitment strings..... 

People who embrace Casual sex = varying forms of RISK - IF you don't use a condom, if you interpret someone intentions wrong, if you expect a call the next week, if_______, if_________... there is no way to get around this. *You must expect nothing*...just a banging...and that may even suck ..and you might get more than you bargained for in the process. 




> Ummm, well yeah. As it happens, I pulled that example from the headlines, not out of my a$$.
> 
> *We have no problem recognizing her behaviour as downright scuzzy, but somehow whatever a man does is fine, and it's the woman's problem if she's hurt by it?*


 I DO NOT believe anything a man does is fine at all... .. many of them are downright atrocious and pathetic to me.... but why would I want to be around that type.... I do not understand why women flock to these A$$holes.... Go for the nice men, there are plenty out there.... yet some are so jaded by our behavior of screwing them over in the past... they may not want much to do with us! 

Good men get hurt by women too, it goes both ways. I'd get myself a "Magic Wand" before I'd sleep with a User man who made me feel "less than".. or just another chick he banged..


----------



## TiggyBlue

always_alone said:


> Easier said than done. Such men roam everywhere. .


:iagree:
They aren't confined to nightclubs.


----------



## always_alone

RandomDude said:


> And I'm still wondering how I'm in the wrong to seduce women while I've still respected boundaries, maintained honesty even though my influence ended up undermining them.


Who said you were in the wrong?


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Sorry, but wrong again.
> The lifestyle I admitted to being part of was the casual sex culture which the poster I was quoting also said that she was a part of, and glad she came out of.


My mistake. You've been arguing that it's all the same thing throughout this thread, and since you were clearly very successful at your game, I thought you would be comfortable with the PUA label.

Kinda glad to see it makes you squirm.


----------



## ozymandias

always_alone said:


> I just don't see how you can possibly get there from a load of evo psych hooey about alphas and a bunch of immature self-entitled PUAs that think women owe them something.


Would anything make you consider the possibility that there is nuance you are missing?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

always_alone said:


> You and CM are absolutely right that complaining about it isn't going to solve the problem. I know that. *But I honestly also don't understand why pointing out that certain tactics and behaviours are a$$hole-ish unleashes this tirade of posts seeking to defend said tactics behaviour. * No one thought to defend the woman in my example, but there's quite the contingent eager to defend PUA.


 actually I don't care for PUA stuff at all...rubs me the wrong way too... though for some men, like the more introverted types with a big heart, it isn't going to hurt them... they are too nice and sweet to begin with & women have shunned them..... so they need to learn some new skills for conversation, to liven it up....to put themselves out there..be more assertive, entertaining...

I would more so recommend this book >> How to Win Friends & Influence People: Dale Carnegie: ...I just feel it is more honorable...of course it's aim was not dating or sexual hook ups (Carnegie would roll over in his grave- with that thought!)..


----------



## RandomDude

TiggyBlue said:


> When I think of negger's the barbed wire sandwich always come's to mind, so it's a compliment,insult and then another compliment, a insecure person will notice the insult and start mulling it over and that's what it's designed to do (negger's aren't the only people who do this).
> Negging will get the people who are a bit insecure/easy to manipulate and low self confidence that's easy to erode, it's a cheap, easy game.
> From what you have said it doesn't really sound anything like negging.


Yay! 



always_alone said:


> Who said you were in the wrong?


I'm under the impression that because I undermined boundaries I'm still in the wrong, no? :scratchhead: It was a few pages ago



SimplyAmorous said:


> actually I don't care for PUA stuff at all...rubs me the wrong way too... though for some men, like the more introverted types with a big heart, it isn't going to hurt them... they are too nice and sweet to begin with & women have shunned them..... so they need to learn some new skills for conversation, to liven it up....to put themselves out there..be more assertive, entertaining...


I would just recommend a few months in a direct sales job to boost their confidence and then let them go - unleashed!

When I was young I was introverted too, minus the big heart - I was anti social and hated everything and anything - almost. I only ended up with 1 girl for years before I came to become more 'balanced' mentally, and sales did boost my confidence in what I had to offer.

Flirting helped break ice + close sales


----------



## TiggyBlue

SimplyAmorous said:


> actually I don't care for PUA stuff at all...rubs me the wrong way too... though for some men, like the more introverted types with a big heart, it isn't going to hurt them... they are too nice and sweet to begin with & women have shunned them..... so they need to learn some new skills for conversation, to liven it up....to put themselves out there..be more assertive, entertaining...
> .


:iagree:
Someone who is a genuinely kind person is never going to participate in the kind of things FF posted, certain types/personalities are drawn to doing those type of things.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Random I remember seeing things you have posted awhile back about casual hookups I wouldn't say behavior was scummy.


----------



## RandomDude

Thanks, but I'm still curious as the main criticism remains due to my style of seduction having undermined the boundaries of women in the past - including my wife! But I've posted on it in the seduction thread. Still no answer though, she promised! bah >.<


----------



## RandomDude

BTW, I just looked up the net for some typical PUA advice that's given to men, I found this one:



> 8 Lessons From Pickup Artists That Guys Should Actually Use
> 
> "Non-creepy PUA tips"
> 
> 1. Take out the headphones when walking. Duh, you can’t interact with people when you’re blaring the new Strokes song. To be open to meeting people in public, you need to be ready to have an actual conversation with them.
> 
> 2. After you speak to a girl on the street, plant your feet and don’t move. A little dramatic but it’s efficient. It makes you appear non-threatening and confident. Ladies, how many times have you been creeped out by some guy following you around and trying to get your number?
> 
> 3. Use a more original line than “What are you doing today?” but still sound natural. If you have nothing else up your sleeve this is an OK line, but something funny or a comment about what’s going around you would be much more engaging. Don’t make the mistake of using a canned pickup line. Women hate those.
> 
> 4. Ask who she is and what she does for fun. Everyone likes talking about themselves and this allows guys to come up with an innovative date she’ll love. That is, if she says yes.
> 
> 5. Don’t be a douche. “I went to Harvard. I work for Goldman. I live in a sick penthouse in SoHo. I’m also an astronaut.” Yes! Barlie talked about the importance of not being a douche, defined as a man who is not paying attention to the woman he’s talking to — only how to impress her. Very important in a class about picking up women.
> 
> 6. Don’t self-deprecate. Starting with something negative like, “I do consulting. It’s really boring,” won’t get you where you want to go. How do you follow up when someone tells you how crappy their life is? It’s awkward.
> 
> 7. Don’t go to dinner on your first date because the table sets up a physical barrier. This was one of the best tips. Dinner is great after you get to know someone a little better. A major physical barrier between you and your date can prevent the natural chemistry from bubbling up.
> 
> 8. Be touchy throughout the date. Consider this a test of her physical interest.There’s nothing more awkward than that end-of-the-night moment when you’re both wondering if you should kiss. If you’re flirting and touching before then it alleviates the tension. But obviously, this touchiness should be well-received — if it’s not, stop.
> 
> I’m sure there are still plenty of guys who will embrace their inner ********* when applying these techniques, but my guess is they already had latent ******* tendencies. Regardless, I learned that it is in fact possible to be a nice normal guy and a PUA. No excessive pea****ing needed.


Doesn't seem too bad IMO, and it seems to speak out against scummy/creepy/douchy behaviour.

http://www.thefrisky.com/2013-04-16/8-lessons-from-pickup-artists-that-guys-should-actually-use/


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> My mistake. You've been arguing that it's all the same thing throughout this thread, and since you were clearly very successful at your game, I thought you would be comfortable with the PUA label.
> 
> Kinda glad to see it makes you squirm.


look,
There's no label anyone here could attach to me that could make me squirm , not the ' rapist label , misogynist label, paedophile label , [ yes , a classy TAM female tried that on me once] ,or anything. No, my skin is very tough.
At age 43, i have lived a full life and I'm certain that I have done my due for humanity including women ,in my life.

I have taken homeless women off the streets given them a job and a fresh start.
I have " adopted " young women whose mothers asked me to help see them through school ,financially and today they are educated and employed and married.
I have worked with organizations that deal with female victims of domestic abuse , HIV AIDS ,, crack & cocaine addicts , PRO BONO.
I own a business and from day one, I have only employed women.
My mother is retired and has worked these charities for most of life through a religious organization.

So labeling me a PUA would be an honor, I pick up disenfranchised women, down on their luck and help them back on their feet again.
The streets are a hostile environment for those types of women and children.
The whole moral and ethical facade on this thread kinda fails when one sees the ad homein and shaming attacks on those who disagree with the notion of PUA being men who rape.
And what could have been an entertaining convo about why most of this mumbo jumbo stuff being sold online as seduction secrets is just snake oil , turned into a histrionic tirade rooted in a false premise.
There is a difference between being passionate about a cause and being irrational. I know what I speak of, I used to be a political activist, for a political organization. 
If a woman is not inclined to casual sex, she would not have sex with a PUA. If a woman is inclined to casual sex, then it is her responsibility to seek out a sex partner who respects her terms and conditions , and whose terms and conditions she respects.
Full stop.
And I don't really agree with all this priggish posturing about honesty and duping and all that sh!t.
As long as you're into casual sex you're into it for selfish gain, not to make the other person " happy" or care deeply for that person's emotional well being. 
That lies squarely within the domain of a serious , romantic , committed relationship. The fundamental principle of NSA sex is avoidance of a commitment to provide a sexual partner with such.
Some people prefer that, and so what?

Down with the self righteous posturing and the pusillanimous attack on men who engage in casual sex on their terms.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

RandomDude said:


> *I would just recommend a few months in a direct sales job to boost their confidence and then let them go - unleashed*!


Can't hurt... I was shy in high school, the thought of doing a speech in front of the class was very "unsettling" to me... but once I DID IT... it got easier... the whole ..."*Feel the Fear and do it anyway*" thing. 



> When I was young I was introverted too, minus the big heart - I was anti social and hated everything and anything - almost. I only ended up with 1 girl for years before I came to become *more 'balanced' mentally*, and sales did boost my confidence in what I had to offer.


 ..... the "more balanced mentally" comment.. well what if a man is content with one girl -genuinely... I would say this about my husband...he'd never cared to be like other popular guys... we've talked about this....he's always LIKED who he was...he just thinks others are Pri**s.... I guess that makes him judgemental... 

Everyone is different.... I am assuming you are not at all naturally introverted -but was angry at the world, chips on your shoulder and not fulfilling your natural potential.. but wanted much more...you secretly wanted/ envied the men who got all the chicks....it's good you found yourself then.. we all need to realize our social potential at some point, this grows our confidence. 



> *Caribbean Man said:* As long as you're into casual sex you're into it for selfish gain, not to make the other person " happy" or care deeply for that person's emotional well being.
> That lies squarely within the domain of a serious , romantic , committed relationship. The fundamental principle of NSA sex is avoidance of a commitment to provide a sexual partner with such.
> *Some people prefer that, and so what?*


 :iagree: ...

Though I can't say I have a "So what" feeling ...it saddens me ....our young people being influenced too much with these attitudes is very unhealthy for our future as a society....


----------



## Caribbean Man

SA, it saddens me too, but it is the way it is , and realistically , I was once involved in that lifestyle and vociverously promoted it so, in reality I contributed to it.
The most I can say in hindsight is that people should choose more wisely, there are better options.
Just when I see people on this thread justifying hookup sex and trying to condemn PUA culture , it comes across as self righteous.
Both are casual sex encounters.

It reminds me of an old saying we have down here in the Caribbean that goes like this:

*" ..Everybody wants to go to heaven , but nobody wants to die.."*

Simply put, _we either benefit tremendously or suffer dearly from the choices we make and we are not entitled to have only good things happen to us , sh!t happens._

But there are always real options,
People need to educate themselves and choose more carefully.


----------



## Caribbean Man

SimplyAmorous said:


> I would more so recommend this book >> How to Win Friends & Influence People: Dale Carnegie: ...I just feel it is more honorable...of course it's aim was not dating or sexual hook ups (Carnegie would roll over in his grave- with that thought!)..


When I was a ten yrs old my mom gave me a paper back version of that book as a birthday present.
I read it from cover to cover over that weekend.
I was a bookworm
Haha!


----------



## PHTlump

always_alone said:


> I just don't see how you can possibly get there from a load of evo psych hooey about alphas and a bunch of immature self-entitled PUAs that think women owe them something.


Don't feel badly. You're normal. It's entirely typical that people hold to their preconceived beliefs even in the face of empirical evidence to the contrary.

For example, many people believe that vaccines cause autism. Several studies have shown no link, and, after many falsifications were uncovered, the original study has been withdrawn from publication and the main author barred from practicing medicine. However, all that won't convince many parents who refuse to vaccinate their children, or parents of autistic children who believe that vaccines are to blame. The same as you, you can't confuse them with facts.


----------



## ReformedHubby

This thread has made me rethink my youth a bit. In retrospect I think most men under 25 are PUAs. Self proclaimed or not. I feel bad because I think the ladies on this thread want to believe that most men don't think this way but a lot of us do. Books or no books. Especially when we're young. Why do you think men are so protective of their daughters?

As a young man when your buddies ask you how a date went. They don't want to hear that she was a nice girl, or you think she is good potential for a relationship. They want to know if you got it or not. 

Don't even get me started on female friends. They may think they are just friends but more than likely you are scheming on how to bed them. Sometimes successful, sometimes not. None of the guys I knew back in the day had ever heard of a PUA book. But they were always looking to get laid first and foremost, simply put your hormones really drive your thought process at that age. 

I guess my point is when I read this thread I see a lot of women pointing at this behavior as disgusting and it is. But as negative as it sounds I think a good percentage of you may even be married to guys that used to think this way. Its just how the male brain is wired. Especially in the late teens to early twenties. PUA books have nothing to do with it, and it will never change. Its just how young men are.


----------



## always_alone

ReformedHubby said:


> I guess my point is when I read this thread I see a lot of women pointing at this behavior as disgusting and it is. But as negative as it sounds I think a good percentage of you may even be married to guys that used to think this way. Its just how the male brain is wired. Especially in the late teens to early twenties. PUA books have nothing to do with it, and it will never change. Its just how young men are.


Which is why women get so heated when encouraging men to respect women!

It's one thing to scheme and want sex. It's another to be a total a$$ about it, and a lot of guys seemingly can't tell the difference.


----------



## always_alone

PHTlump said:


> Don't feel badly. You're normal. It's entirely typical that people hold to their preconceived beliefs even in the face of empirical evidence to the contrary.
> .


One or two self reports on an anonymous internet forum do not count as evidence, especially when hose are outweighed by posts warning women about predatory and selfish men.


----------



## PHTlump

always_alone said:


> One or two self reports on an anonymous internet forum do not count as evidence, especially when hose are outweighed by posts warning women about predatory and selfish men.


So, a few positive anecdotes are outweighed by a few negative anecdotes? Why give so much credence to Fingerman?


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> look,
> There's no label anyone here could attach to me that could make me squirm , not the ' rapist label , misogynist label, paedophile label , [ yes , a classy TAM female tried that on me once] ,or anything. No, my skin is very tough.


Ah okay. So PUAs are actually saviours of homeless women. Who knew?

My mistake. I thought the goal was to bang every girl in sight around the world (except in those damned socialist countries where they prefer guys who respect them.)

His thread *did* start out mocking all the bs in the PUA community and evo psych. Until you and a few others decided that it was very important that us women realize that those men just want to seduce us after spending the day saving homeless women.


----------



## always_alone

PHTlump said:


> So, a few positive anecdotes are outweighed by a few negative anecdotes? Why give so much credence to Fingerman?


I give zero credence to Fingerman. But he echoes crap that I have heard my entire life.

As I keep saying, these guys raise so much ire because they exemplify the worst of what women experience in the dating world. And they are not uncommon, as so many guys here wish to pretend. They are everywhere.


----------



## always_alone

ozymandias said:


> Would anything make you consider the possibility that there is nuance you are missing?


A small acknowledgment that PUA literature is largely about using as many women as possible for self-gratification with little regard for respect or ethics. 

We all know how irresponsible and blame-shifting women can be, as well as the details about those awful types that men complain about (e.g. The gold-digger and the c*cktease). Why is it so terribly difficult to say that men too can be, and often are, very badly behaved too?


----------



## PHTlump

always_alone said:


> I give zero credence to Fingerman. But he echoes crap that I have heard my entire life.


Do you mean that you have heard crap in the same sense that we have all heard of Bigfoot? There are mythical PUAs that women are simultaneously powerless to resist, yet in danger of being raped by, that roam cities like locusts? Or do you mean that you have experienced a great many of these men dating, or trying to date you?

In either case, I think it's fairly likely that the numbers are being skewed. As a prior poster suggested, if you spend time on a polyamorous website, you may think that lifestyle is much more common than it really is. The numbers of men using Game is small. Those men do have more contact with women than their peers, so that could be one reason for your skewed perception, but their actual numbers are low.


----------



## BrockLanders

ReformedHubby said:


> This thread has made me rethink my youth a bit. In retrospect I think most men under 25 are PUAs. Self proclaimed or not. I feel bad because I think the ladies on this thread want to believe that most men don't think this way but a lot of us do. Books or no books. Especially when we're young. Why do you think men are so protective of their daughters?
> 
> As a young man when your buddies ask you how a date went. They don't want to hear that she was a nice girl, or you think she is good potential for a relationship. They want to know if you got it or not.
> 
> Don't even get me started on female friends. They may think they are just friends but more than likely you are scheming on how to bed them. Sometimes successful, sometimes not. None of the guys I knew back in the day had ever heard of a PUA book. But they were always looking to get laid first and foremost, simply put your hormones really drive your thought process at that age.
> 
> I guess my point is when I read this thread I see a lot of women pointing at this behavior as disgusting and it is. But as negative as it sounds I think a good percentage of you may even be married to guys that used to think this way. Its just how the male brain is wired. Especially in the late teens to early twenties. PUA books have nothing to do with it, and it will never change. Its just how young men are.


Patrice O'neal explains it brilliantly

Patrice O'Neal - Time Ho - YouTube


----------



## Faithful Wife

RH...I get what you are saying...but really, most women don't have a problem with the idea that men want to have sex with us. We get it. We know that. We want sex and want down (some of) their pants, too. We sometimes have to work at it and think about how to get it, too.

The PUA-holes and the things they write are different, and we women get that difference, too. The difference between the two types of guys is huge, and I think us women on this thread only have a problem with the PUA-holes, not the regular dudes who just want to have sex.


----------



## always_alone

RandomDude said:


> I'm under the impression that because I undermined boundaries I'm still in the wrong, no? :scratchhead: It was a few pages ago


I think this is a pretty fabulous question! Respecting boundaries is absolutely important. But at the same time growth and self improvement require that you be open to questioning and expanding those boundaries.

My sense is that it depends at least somewhat on the motives. If you are acting out if integrity and love, you're probably golden. If you are full of deceit and only interested in getting yours, you're probably an a$$.


----------



## always_alone

PHTlump said:


> In either case, I think it's fairly likely that the numbers are being skewed. As a prior poster suggested, if you spend time on a polyamorous website, you may think that lifestyle is much more common than it really is. The numbers of men using Game is small. Those men do have more contact with women than their peers, so that could be one reason for your skewed perception, but their actual numbers are low.


The other reason these discussions get so heated is the consistent refusal to believe that women could possibly have evidence to back up our claims.

I mean I personally have much experience with said PUA-holes, as have all of my women friends. In addition, I have heard many a man echo the sentiments expressed in PUA literature with other men simply agreeing and guffawing. I've also heard many a man point out that there are plenty of predatory a-holes out there. Interestingly enough, when a man says it, other men will agree. If a woman says it, she's a bitter jealous hag that doesn't understand men, is jealous and a loser, and thinks a compliment is rape.

Go figure.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> RH...I get what you are saying...but really, most women don't have a problem with the idea that men want to have sex with us. We get it. We know that. We want sex and want down (some of) their pants, too. We sometimes have to work at it and think about how to get it, too.
> 
> The PUA-holes and the things they write are different, and we women get that difference, too. The difference between the two types of guys is huge, and I think us women on this thread only have a problem with the PUA-holes, not the regular dudes who just want to have sex.


Exactly! Why is it so hard to convey this? It seems pretty simple to me.


----------



## ntamph

jennyh80 said:


> http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/****blocked-by-redistribution
> 
> Apparently the evolutionary psychology does not work everywhere - mainly in places where the women are better educated and have good support system in place.


Lol, who was the poster who asked why alpha males spend their free time posting on a pink background marriage forum?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Ok I just posted this about *Seduction* on Faithful Wife's thread... thought it may be useful here as well.. since some talk about RAPE has been brought up...and how men Seduce..(though women can do this just as well)..... since it gives the defining line behind WHY it is not RAPE... though it's intentions can be shady, self serving and down right manipulative... And why women should be "on guard" from such men (or vice versa)....

* >>>*

In one of my books "Bringing sex into focus" ....it has a chapter devoted to "*Flirtation and Seduction*"..... I must say...this was EYE OPENING..and the word itself..is not one to be so proud of... so using it in a Loving mutually pleasuring Marriage... even though us sex hounds don't mind the word, what it REALLY means...is not so pretty.....

It gave a story about Seduction from the Play..."Les Liaisons Dangereuses".....I won't go into all that.. but from the story...the author listed features common to Seduction....



> **** There IS mutual consent to all sexual activities at the time of participation.
> 
> **** The pursuer seeks knowledge of the pursued in order to use that knowledge for purposes of obtaining consent to sexual activity.
> 
> **** Deception, or at least calculated ambiguity, is used as a means to obtaining consent to sexual activity.
> 
> *** *The pursuer is indifferent to the welfare of the pursued , or at least takes the pursued's welfare only as an easily overridden priority.
> 
> **** The pursuer's motives in the pursuit are personal pleasure and self-aggrandizement.
> 
> **** The pursued person consents to sexual activities that he or she as (at least initially) adverse to engaging in or that are at odds with his or her principles or priorities.
> 
> **** The Pursued person would not consent to all the activities engaged in unless he or she were deceived or manipulated.


Then it goes as far as to say...The presence *of consent* is essential to SEDUCTION...for consent is what distinguishes Seduction from rape....Consent is also part or what normally makes the situation enjoyable for the seducer. Getting to "Yes" is intrinsic to "the game"... ...making it an ego enhancing experience for the Seducer. 

So much more explained.. but why Seduction can be wrong >>



> Seduction is wrong because exploiting such personal knowledge is a failure of respect and benevolence.. Intimacy is used as a weapon or a lever...rather than a cherished as a gift....
> 
> and later in that chapter...
> 
> Seduction may look "Romantic" to some... but it is really all about POWER...Coercion is all too common in sexual exchanges and awareness of the "Power Lens" can help us see where it is operative.


----------



## PHTlump

always_alone said:


> A small acknowledgment that PUA literature is largely about using as many women as possible for self-gratification with little regard for respect or ethics.


Yes. Most PUA advice is about how men can get laid. That is the focus. Some bloggers, like Athol Kay and Dalrock, have used the information about building attraction and applied it to marriage. But, the majority of the information is for single men to use to have short term sexual relationships with single women.

However, you're misinterpreting the cause and effect at work. PUA websites and seminars didn't cause the hookup culture that currently exists. They simply reflect the culture.

When young women have decided, in general, to spend as little as an hour or two getting to know a man before having casual sex with him, why should we be shocked and appalled when men develop a short-term seduction strategy to take advantage of what is being offered them?


----------



## ReformedHubby

always_alone said:


> It's one thing to scheme and want sex. It's another to be a total a$$ about it, and a lot of guys seemingly can't tell the difference.


I think I finally get it. A PUA-hole is a guy that has no conscience and pretty much views women solely as sexual objects and has no use for them outside of that. Assuming that I finally understand now what everyone is upset about. I still don't get the anger completely, because these are grown women that choose to let these guys bed them. 

If I were a writer of a PUA book I would be very pleased by this thread because it would demonstrate that people feel that many women are defenseless against PUAs.

On a side note, I only know two guys that subscribe to PUA books, and both of them were guys who didn't date a lot when they were younger, got married, got the ILYBINILWY speech and were absolutely terrified of being single when their marriages ended. The books actually helped them to regain some confidence in themselves.


----------



## Faithful Wife

RH....Yay! You DO get it!

You said: "I still don't get the anger completely, because these are grown women that choose to let these guys bed them."

Maybe I can paint a picture to help. Lets say there are blogs and books and websites out there which help women dupe unsuspecting men into marriage and also, dupe them out of their money, dupe them into buying them gifts, etc. Things like "_how to get a man to pay your rent, without even putting out_!" Lets say the information within describes men as idiots who are waiting for you to separate them from their money, and many women chime in about how this is sooooo true and it is sooooo funny how easy it really is to dupe a man. All you have to do is apply technique A, B, and C, and BAM! You now have blank checks from these guys...oh and these are certain guys needing to be targeted, too. The Nice Guys. The blogs and books tell women these guys are just losers anyway, no need to have any real feelings for them. They help you find these men and target them. They tell you everything to say to get the man to trust you, even though the entire premise of what they are doing is dishonest and deceitful.

Now, there really ARE websites like that out there, and also books, blogs, etc.

If we women posted up one of those blogs and talked about how, well, these guys should have known better anyway....they should have seen through these mean girls who were out for their money...the guys have nothing to complain about because they actually fell for the crap these women dished out so....

Do you see the point?

I mean, we as women (here at TAM) would NOT support that information and we would definitely speak out against it.

But men here don't seem to see the same thing happening on the PUA-hole blogs. They think it should be "obvious" and that buyer beware should always be in play. But if a woman dupes a man out of his money, whether in marriage or any other way, that woman is a horrible person and the man was helpless. Even though that man may have seen many red flags and got together with the woman anyway, in most cases, the men here will still blame the woman entirely.

That is why it is so confusing.

If women are deliberately duping men into or out of anything, it is evil.

If men are doing it, it is just normal?


----------



## always_alone

ReformedHubby said:


> I think I finally get it. A PUA-hole is a guy that has no conscience and pretty much views women solely as sexual objects and has no use for them outside of that. Assuming that I finally understand now what everyone is upset about. I still don't get the anger completely, because these are grown women that choose to let these guys bed them.


Yes! 

And the reason why people get upset is that they don't like to be lied to. It's not like these guys wear a sign on their forehead or admit to women even 1/4 of what they say on Internet blogs. No. They lie, they hide, they pretend to be everything they are not --and so they can be very difficult to spot.

I agree with those here saying that women have to take responsibility for who they go to bed with. Of course. We all do. But it's so easy to judge women as stupid for falling for it, but let's not forget that these guys are also doing everything in their power to prevent her from making an accurate assessment.

Wouldn't you be upset if you were led on by a lying, using b*tch?


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> RH....Yay! You DO get it!


Ha. Same thought, same time, but your answer was better. Think I'll visit your seduction thread now, as I've no doubt said everything I can on this one (and then some).


----------



## always_alone

PHTlump said:


> Yes. Most PUA advice is about how men can get laid. That is the focus. Some bloggers, like Athol Kay and Dalrock, have used the information about building attraction and applied it to marriage. But, the majority of the information is for single men to use to have short term sexual relationships with single women.
> 
> However, you're misinterpreting the cause and effect at work. PUA websites and seminars didn't cause the hookup culture that currently exists. They simply reflect the culture.
> 
> When young women have decided, in general, to spend as little as an hour or two getting to know a man before having casual sex with him, why should we be shocked and appalled when men develop a short-term seduction strategy to take advantage of what is being offered them?


Okay. One last word and I am out of here.

Your logic is flawed. Men would have no need for PUA if there were all these women out to hook-up with them. The whole point of PUA is to get *passed* her defenses.

And no one is saying women are helpless against them. Just that these guys are utterly gross and despicable.


----------



## ReformedHubby

Faithful Wife said:


> RH....Yay! You DO get it!
> 
> You said: "I still don't get the anger completely, because these are grown women that choose to let these guys bed them."
> 
> Maybe I can paint a picture to help. Lets say there are blogs and books and websites out there which help women dupe unsuspecting men into marriage and also, dupe them out of their money, dupe them into buying them gifts, etc. Things like "_how to get a man to pay your rent, without even putting out_!" Lets say the information within describes men as idiots who are waiting for you to separate them from their money, and many women chime in about how this is sooooo true and it is sooooo funny how easy it really is to dupe a man. All you have to do is apply technique A, B, and C, and BAM! You now have blank checks from these guys...oh and these are certain guys needing to be targeted, too. The Nice Guys. The blogs and books tell women these guys are just losers anyway, no need to have any real feelings for them. They help you find these men and target them. They tell you everything to say to get the man to trust you, even though the entire premise of what they are doing is dishonest and deceitful.
> 
> Now, there really ARE websites like that out there, and also books, blogs, etc.
> 
> If we women posted up one of those blogs and talked about how, well, these guys should have known better anyway....they should have seen through these mean girls who were out for their money...the guys have nothing to complain about because they actually fell for the crap these women dished out so....
> 
> Do you see the point?
> 
> I mean, we as women (here at TAM) would NOT support that information and we would definitely speak out against it.
> 
> But men here don't seem to see the same thing happening on the PUA-hole blogs. They think it should be "obvious" and that buyer beware should always be in play. But if a woman dupes a man out of his money, whether in marriage or any other way, that woman is a horrible person and the man was helpless. Even though that man may have seen many red flags and got together with the woman anyway, in most cases, the men here will still blame the woman entirely.
> 
> That is why it is so confusing.
> 
> If women are deliberately duping men into or out of anything, it is evil.
> 
> If men are doing it, it is just normal?


Wow, crystal clear now. I get the whole picture. Sometimes my wife and I talk about what we'd do if one of us was no longer here (morbid I know). My biggest fear is that one day I would fall for a woman that intended to use me solely for financial gain. I'd be even angrier if people were telling me that I should've known better and that it was my fault. Thanks for showing me the light.


----------



## Faithful Wife

You're my new favorite poster, RH. 

And just for kicks, check this out....be sure to scroll down just a little bit to see all the OTHER titles of similar books...

How to Get ANY MAN to do ANYTHING You Want!: How to find the ones you REALLY want. How to GET them. How to get them to buy you stuff!!: Dusty White, Brenda Judy, Katrina Joyner: 9781439204597: Amazon.com: Books


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Ah okay. So PUAs are actually saviours of homeless women. Who knew?
> 
> My mistake. I thought the goal was to bang every girl in sight around the world (except in those damned socialist countries where they prefer guys who respect them.)
> 
> His thread *did* start out mocking all the bs in the PUA community and evo psych. Until you and a few others decided that it was very important that us women realize that those men just want to seduce us after spending the day saving homeless women.



Lol,

I have lived in a Socialist country for all of my life.
My avatar is the embodiment of the Socialist movement in the Caribbean and Latin America.

Again, 
You miss the point.


----------



## RandomDude

Faithful Wife said:


> RH....Yay! You DO get it!
> 
> You said: "I still don't get the anger completely, because these are grown women that choose to let these guys bed them."
> 
> Maybe I can paint a picture to help. Lets say there are blogs and books and websites out there which help women dupe unsuspecting men into marriage and also, dupe them out of their money, dupe them into buying them gifts, etc. Things like "_how to get a man to pay your rent, without even putting out_!" Lets say the information within describes men as idiots who are waiting for you to separate them from their money, and many women chime in about how this is sooooo true and it is sooooo funny how easy it really is to dupe a man. All you have to do is apply technique A, B, and C, and BAM! You now have blank checks from these guys...oh and these are certain guys needing to be targeted, too. The Nice Guys. The blogs and books tell women these guys are just losers anyway, no need to have any real feelings for them. They help you find these men and target them. They tell you everything to say to get the man to trust you, even though the entire premise of what they are doing is dishonest and deceitful.
> 
> Now, there really ARE websites like that out there, and also books, blogs, etc.
> 
> If we women posted up one of those blogs and talked about how, well, these guys should have known better anyway....they should have seen through these mean girls who were out for their money...the guys have nothing to complain about because they actually fell for the crap these women dished out so....
> 
> Do you see the point?
> 
> I mean, we as women (here at TAM) would NOT support that information and we would definitely speak out against it.
> 
> But men here don't seem to see the same thing happening on the PUA-hole blogs. They think it should be "obvious" and that buyer beware should always be in play. But if a woman dupes a man out of his money, whether in marriage or any other way, that woman is a horrible person and the man was helpless. Even though that man may have seen many red flags and got together with the woman anyway, in most cases, the men here will still blame the woman entirely.
> 
> That is why it is so confusing.
> 
> If women are deliberately duping men into or out of anything, it is evil.
> 
> If men are doing it, it is just normal?


If the game is played without leading people on/honesty/no force and people end up being seduced regardless I don't see the problem. Now sure, what some PUA books do however is discourage honesty, and attempt to convince men that women are simply meat. However, there are PUA advice that is much more honorable in its practice - such as the site that I posted (non-creepy PUA tips)

I still don't consider my influence in turning "good girls bad" a dupe, besides they knew what type of person I was very early, I never hid it but I never scared them off either because I was in fact - a very honest and understanding guy!

I've never read such books as you mentioned (obviously because I'm not a woman), but tell me, do they encourage dishonesty/deceit? Then I would say that yes, that is duping. What I did however in the past, I wouldn't call it duping.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes, Random...they encourage dishonesty and deceit. And they call the men who are targets total losers who are just penis's with wallets. And much, much worse. Like "make him pay, afterall, YOU have the p*ssy, therefore YOU have all the power....even though you don't even have to have sex with him in order to dupe him". (I haven't read this particular book, but have see lots of this type of info).


----------



## RandomDude

That's just messed up, now in reference to your above quote:



> If women are deliberately duping men into or out of anything, it is evil.
> 
> If men are doing it, it is just normal?


I don't believe dishonesty and leading people on should ever be a norm. My argument is the issue of responsibility when honesty/respect is still maintained but the man/woman is still seduced. Such as in my case.

I do agree that both those extremist PUAs and extremist man-hating lady books are messed up. But there is a 'good game' IMO - which doesn't rely on deceit to get what one wants.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I agree there is good game. I agree there is bad game. I agree there is a fuzzy line between them sometimes. BUT...sometimes it is just straight up bad and ugly, and when it is, it should be condemned, not excused. And that applies to either boy or girl game.

I can't stand women who talk about men like they are penis's with wallets.

I also can't stand men who talk about women as if they are worthless sl*ts who should just shut up and put out. (NOTE: no man on this thread has said this, just to be clear).


----------



## RandomDude

Well, we can agree on that at last!


----------



## PHTlump

Faithful Wife said:


> If we women posted up one of those blogs and talked about how, well, these guys should have known better anyway....they should have seen through these mean girls who were out for their money...the guys have nothing to complain about because they actually fell for the crap these women dished out so....
> 
> Do you see the point?
> 
> I mean, we as women (here at TAM) would NOT support that information and we would definitely speak out against it.
> 
> But men here don't seem to see the same thing happening on the PUA-hole blogs. They think it should be "obvious" and that buyer beware should always be in play. But if a woman dupes a man out of his money, whether in marriage or any other way, that woman is a horrible person and the man was helpless. Even though that man may have seen many red flags and got together with the woman anyway, in most cases, the men here will still blame the woman entirely.
> 
> That is why it is so confusing.
> 
> If women are deliberately duping men into or out of anything, it is evil.
> 
> If men are doing it, it is just normal?


I don't draw the distinction between the sexes. I draw the distinction between a long con and a short con.

Most women have accepted free drinks from men they had little or no interest in. Men were offering drinks to ingratiate themselves to women and women accepted the gifts without accepting any obligation for romance. That's what you would call duping men. But I have no problem with it. Men shouldn't buy presents, whether the present is a drink or a car, for women they don't know and think there is now a covert contract in effect. It's all the fault of the men.

Conversely, if a woman seduced a man she had no attraction for, strung him along, married him, and then divorced him as soon as she legally qualified as a long-term spouse for the purposes of asset redistribution, then I have sympathy for the man and scorn for the woman. Her actions would be despicable.

In the same manner, a man who seduced a woman he didn't love, spent months dating her, met her parents, planned to marry her, and then finally took her virginity on their first anniversary only to never call her again would be despicable. I agree that he duped her and she didn't deserve it.

However, if a man meets a woman and seduces her into a same-night lay, then I have no sympathy for her. If a woman values her sexuality so little that she is willing to share it with strangers, she shouldn't try to play the victim when those strangers aren't who she thought they were. And she shouldn't try to insist that she has lost something valuable with the gift of her sexual favors.

That is how I distinguish between true victims and cake eaters. Fortunately, long cons are rare. Most women would not consider marrying and spending years of their lives with men they didn't love. And most men would not consider spending months or years seducing women they only had cursory, physical interest in.

It's the short con that people are talking about. And I have little sympathy for victims of a short con. If you thought you could buy a Rolex from a kid on the corner for $10, shame on you. If you thought you could get millions from a Nigerian prince that emailed you randomly, shame on you. If you thought you could enter into a covert sexual contract for the price of a few drinks, shame on you. And if you thought you could jump into the sack with strangers without any negative consequences inherent in dealing with strangers, them shame on you.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes right so, when men dupe women, it is the woman's fault.

When women dupe men, it is the woman's fault.

There's no fault to men in either case.

No gender bias there.


----------



## PHTlump

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes right so, when men dupe women, it is the woman's fault.
> 
> When women dupe men, it is the woman's fault.
> 
> There's no fault to men in either case.
> 
> No gender bias there.


Read the post again. And again, if you still don't comprehend it. That is exactly the opposite of what I wrote.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Oh I read it just fine.

You somehow think your opinion of what is being said here is "the right opinion"....yet it is still just an opinion and so is mine. Neither is right or wrong, but you seem to think you make truth out of your own opinions.

I personally think a con is a con and it is always bad whether it is a con for money, sex, fame, identity, whatever. I put no qualifiers on it about how sl*ts should keep their pants on if they don't want to get conned. 

A person who wants to con another for any reason is, IMO, being a crappy person and there is no reason for victim shaming. IMO.


----------



## PHTlump

Faithful Wife said:


> Oh I read it just fine.


You read quotes of mine such as, "I don't draw the distinction between the sexes." and "It's all the fault of the men." and "I agree that he duped her and she didn't deserve it." and you conclude that I believe that it's never the man's fault and always the woman's fault?

You're obtuse. Whether you're willfully obtuse, or unintentionally obtuse, I can't say.



> You somehow think your opinion of what is being said here is "the right opinion"....yet it is still just an opinion and so is mine. Neither is right or wrong, but you seem to think you make truth out of your own opinions.


If truth is relative, then why are you here arguing? Why do you so fervently need to spew your PUA hatred into the ether? Why isn't it enough for you to state that you, personally, have no use for PUAs, but you acknowledge that millions of women out there are willingly hopping into the sack with them, so bully for them? Different strokes.

As for our opinions, my opinion is about the morality of a group of men exploring what women find sexy, and how to give them what they want. Your latest opinion is about what I think. You're claiming that the men on this thread have a gender bias against women.

I have laid out my biases quite clearly. I have no bias against women. I simply have a bias against stupid people who believe strangers owe them something. Whether those stupid people are women or men, or whether the benefit is a $10 Rolex or sex free from negative consequences, is immaterial to me, although this thread has focused on women. It is you who can't accept my opinion and still insist that I am, somehow, misogynistic.



> I personally think a con is a con and it is always bad whether it is a con for money, sex, fame, identity, whatever. I put no qualifiers on it about how sl*ts should keep their pants on if they don't want to get conned.


I have never argued that con artists are honorable people who deserve none of the blame for running the con. I am simply distinguishing between a long con that can dupe a person who puts forth all the due diligence that one could reasonably expect, and a short con that the "victims" willingly fall for and even participate in. It's a shame you can't, or won't, see the difference.


----------



## Caribbean Man

So I was trying to see how best I can describe the " logic" / logical bankruptcy in this thread.

I think this ecard below does an ideal job of it.



If you still don't get it , ask Siri.

Our smartphones are making us look stupid.


----------



## always_alone

PHTlump said:


> It's the short con that people are talking about. And I have little sympathy for victims of a short con. If you thought you could buy a Rolex from a kid on the corner for $10, shame on you. If you thought you could get millions from a Nigerian prince that emailed you randomly, shame on you. If you thought you could enter into a covert sexual contract for the price of a few drinks, shame on you. And if you thought you could jump into the sack with strangers without any negative consequences inherent in dealing with strangers, them shame on you.


I agree that if you think Africa is teeming with people who select random strangers to trust with millions of dollars, then you are probably a bit of an idiot.

I don't think it is so unreasonable however to think that you could go out on date with someone and have them treat you well. You're right that there are risks involved with dealing with strangers, but I would also be upset if say, it turned out the cashier in the store I went to was palming my change, or if the waiter in the restaurant I went to was spitting in my soup. 

I'd also add that with your covert contract example, the woman hasn't duped anyone. She has merely accepted a drink. Unless she said that she'd do him for a drink, there's no con involved.

This, among other reasons, is why FW has called you out. Accepting a drink is not a con or a dupe. But having the wool pulled over your eyes can be a major one. And you want to blame get women for both.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Lol,
> 
> I have lived in a Socialist country for all of my life.
> My avatar is the embodiment of the Socialist movement in the Caribbean and Latin America.
> 
> Again,
> You miss the point.


You know, it would really help if you'd just state your point rather than a bunch of cryptic comments followed by an assertion that I've missed the point.

So far you seem to have taken everything I've said and twisted into some unrecognizable gibberish, then told me I'm full of it and missing the point.

Truth is, I think you are missing my point --so maybe we're even.

I get that you want this to be all about personal responsibility and choice. I get that the hook-up culture is common, and is participated in willingly by many people. I get that you now dislike this culture, and can see that many are hurt by it, but maintain a laissez-faire attitude because these are adults and you have no say in how they choose to live. 

Lovely. But is it so off the wall to point out that this emphasis on "adults" and "personal choice" masks very real and ugly realities?

I mean, I can say that he's an adult, he chose to destroy his family, go into debt, and lose his job over some bs sexual fantasy that I manipulated him with. But that wouldn't exonerate me, would it? 

Is it so farfetched to want to raise these ethical issues? Rape, including date rape and marital rape, are so often rug-swept, it's downright embarrassing, but so many here want to keep doing it by claiming that it's irrelevant to PUA because it's different -- and besides, the numbers aren't that high anyway.

Well, sorry, it's not a different issue and it isn't black and white because it's through dating and hookups that much non-consensual sex occurs. Further, the numbers are in fact pretty astronomical, and still many women won't talk about it because they are afraid of how they will be judged, that is exactly as many on this thread have done: she was stupid enough to go out with that guy, so she must've deserved it. 

And lest you again decide I'm accusing you and all men of being rapists (and the fact that you even thought to go there tells me you really haven't heard a word of what I'm saying), let me assure you that I can see that there are a bunch of PUA practices that aren't actually rape, but are just sleazy and despicable. 

But does that mean we have no right to call them out as such? Does that mean there's absolutely nothing to be gained by talking about them, why they are so despicable and to encourage people to seek enthusiastic consent, as FrenchFry put it?

Personally, I think it's totally worthwhile to bring these issues to light, and discuss them openly. And accusing all those who agree with that sentiment with logical bankruptcy shows only just how uninformed on these issues you are.


----------



## treyvion

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, Random...they encourage dishonesty and deceit. And they call the men who are targets total losers who are just penis's with wallets. And much, much worse. Like "make him pay, afterall, YOU have the p*ssy, therefore YOU have all the power....even though you don't even have to have sex with him in order to dupe him". (I haven't read this particular book, but have see lots of this type of info).


They don't even need books to get this viewpoint. It's spoken.


----------



## Faithful Wife

trey - Douche-baggery doesn't need books either, it is also spoken.

Both douche-baggery and gold-digging DO have books and websites, though, and IMO, both of these are dispicable.


----------



## treyvion

Faithful Wife said:


> trey - Douche-baggery doesn't need books either, it is also spoken.
> 
> Both douche-baggery and gold-digging DO have books and websites, though, and IMO, both of these are dispicable.


Douchbaggery is going out with the enjoying yourself and possibly hunting for poon? This is a very normal thing that guys do.


----------



## Faithful Wife

No, douche-baggery is talking about how to get a woman who doesn't want to have sex with you to change her mind based on lies and deceit and coercion and alcohol, since it really doesn't matter to him that she doesn't want to have sex with him...they say things like "she's gonna put out for someone, might as well be me".

And gold diggers say "he's gonna fork over his money to some woman, might as well be me".


----------



## treyvion

Faithful Wife said:


> No, douche-baggery is talking about how to get a woman who doesn't want to have sex with you to change her mind based on lies and deceit and coercion and alcohol, since it really doesn't matter to him that she doesn't want to have sex with him...they say things like "she's gonna put out for someone, might as well be me".
> 
> And gold diggers say "he's gonna fork over his money to some woman, might as well be me".


Well yeah, both of those are pretty bogus viewpoints. You shouldn't have to force or trick someone to sleep with you.

And you shouldn't be taking money from someone your not serious about


----------



## Faithful Wife

Thank you.


----------



## Faithful Wife

It would be really great if men and women both only wanted to have sex with people who give enthusiastic consent.

I really don't get why it is ok at all to even *try* to change someone's mind? Find a woman who is already hot for you. Easy.


----------



## treyvion

Faithful Wife said:


> It would be really great if men and women both only wanted to have sex with people who give enthusiastic consent.
> 
> I really don't get why it is ok at all to even *try* to change someone's mind? Find a woman who is already hot for you. Easy.


Sales tactics, has to be done sometimes. Even the courting phase can be a bunch of bobbing, weaving, small games and banter.

But to trick or take someone choice away through drugs and tricks and traps is pretty bad.


----------



## treyvion

treyvion said:


> Sales tactics, has to be done sometimes. Even the courting phase can be a bunch of bobbing, weaving, small games and banter.
> 
> But to trick or take someone choice away through drugs and tricks and traps is pretty bad.


I was only mentioning this, because... For a man it's different. Like I said, I'm not a fan of tricks, traps and taking someones choice away.

But as a man, if I gave up because I got shot down one time, I would probably hardly if ever have had sex in my life from a teenager on to much older.

It's almost always shutdown or shootdown and they watch your composure.

So yeah many times they didn't think they were going to do it, until you communicate, and then they want to do it. 

It may take a very long amount of time to get into some ladies pants, and you may not even count on it, but it's in the back of your mind of being accepting if that opportunity arose.


----------



## Faithful Wife

"Even the courting phase can be a bunch of bobbing, weaving, small games and banter."

During real courtship, a man will find out right away if a woman isn't into him...and will typically move on if she isn't. Of course he can try, and he might "win her over"....but IMO, this is a totally different subject. The douche-bag brigade is not interested in real courtship.


----------



## treyvion

Faithful Wife said:


> It would be really great if men and women both only wanted to have sex with people who give enthusiastic consent.
> 
> I really don't get why it is ok at all to even *try* to change someone's mind? Find a woman who is already hot for you. Easy.


I just re-read your last statement. Yes, it's much easier to just find someone who is hot for you. Trying to white knight one who isn't seeing you like that doesn't have a high rate of success when it comes to having sex.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Trey said: "But as a man, if I gave up because I got shot down one time, I would probably hardly if ever have had sex in my life from a teenager on to much older."

But are still talking about only wanting her if it is by her enthusiastic consent, right?

Would you be happy and go for it anyway if she "consented" with "well, ok I guess...I'm not really into you and am not attracted to you but I am bored so whatever...plus I am hoping to get some money out of you later".


----------



## treyvion

Faithful Wife said:


> Trey said: "But as a man, if I gave up because I got shot down one time, I would probably hardly if ever have had sex in my life from a teenager on to much older."
> 
> But are still talking about only wanting her if it is by her enthusiastic consent, right?
> 
> Would you be happy and go for it anyway if she "consented" with "well, ok I guess...I'm not really into you and am not attracted to you but I am bored so whatever...plus I am hoping to get some money out of you later".


I haven't had sex with an unenthusiastic partner unless it was a long term relationship partner who was done.

And many men wouldn't prefer the sex for cash "barter", but many would do it. Also some would prefer to pay.

I wouldn't. I'd rather have sex with someone who wants to have me.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I love real men who don't want to dupe women into having sex with them. They want a woman who is actually hot FOR THEM and wouldn't accept anything less. That is sexy.


----------



## treyvion

Faithful Wife said:


> I love real men who don't want to dupe women into having sex with them. They want a woman who is actually hot FOR THEM and wouldn't accept anything less. That is sexy.


The sex is better too.


----------



## Racer

Faithful Wife said:


> I really don't get why it is ok at all to even *try* to change someone's mind? Find a woman who is already hot for you. Easy.


Wish it was that easy too. Some women, who are actually into you, like to play 'hard to get' so you don't think 'this or that' about them. Weird rules like some magic number of dates, etc. so they don't come across as a booty call because they really do want something more out of you and this relationship. 

It is very difficult to sort them out without testing their boundaries; Which change as the relationship progresses. I hated dating and the games.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Racer - I get that. But the solution is simple.

"Hey, I'm into you baby...let me know when you are into me, too" and lose her number.

She WILL call if she is into you. If not, she won't.


----------



## ocotillo

Faithful Wife said:


> I really don't get why it is ok at all to even *try* to change someone's mind? Find a woman who is already hot for you. Easy.


You might not accept this, FW, because from what I've read of your writings, it does not seem to align with your life experience.

But for most of us mere mortals, like myself (Or whatever you want to call us....) there are a number of very tall hurdles between, "I'll dance with you" and "I'll sleep with you." 

Please, please don't misunderstand. I got married at nineteen and have a forty-first anniversary on the horizon. I was never a part of PUA or even NSA culture. I had a grand total of three serious girlfriends before I met my wife. 

I'm not defending the smarmy idiots who exploit and use women. They're exactly the type that I've warned my children (All daughters) about. Class III weapons and abandoned mine shafts are too good for them in my book.

At the same time though, I've watched these bastards get socially rewarded by girls and women since I was about fourteen. They're never lonely and their dance cards are always full. Taking and acquiring whatever good things (If any) these guys are doing without actually becoming evil like them is an *absolutely tantalizing prospect* for mere mortals. Some of us simply wish our wives had found us more exciting than an ice-cold lumpy bowl of oatmeal once the day to day routine of married life had set in. 

Some men, (Athol Kay is a good example) have actually tried to codify this in writing, but even his approach seems onerous to a lot of women.


----------



## Faithful Wife

ocotillo...I hear everything you said and agree...but I still don't see why anyone (man or woman) would actually want to be with someone who isn't sexually attracted to them. Pick someone else and move on, I say. (I don't mean that for marriage, I mean it for pursuit and courtship and "getting laid").

It may appear that "those guys" get rewarded...but I'm talking specifically about guys who are duping women. "Those guys" may not be duping women, they might just have good game, good genes, or they just "smell right". Who cares if they get rewarded? It isn't about you (anyone).


----------



## Faithful Wife

Also...we women watch complete b*tches get pursued by really great men...she is blonde, tall, has huge boobs...men fall all over her ONLY because she is hot. She is mean to them, robs them, talks them down to her friends, flirts with his friends. She is nice to him if she wants something, mean to him the rest of the time, brags about what an idiot he is to believe her lies.

We feel bad for that man.

But her?

Who cares...she is a b*tch. Should we want to emulate her? Should we follow her just to be able to get what she has?

F*ck no.

She will get old like all of us and will have no substance of being to rely on once her flower fades. And so what? Her fate is hers. It means nothing about us.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> You know, it would really help if you'd just state your point rather than a bunch of cryptic comments followed by an assertion that I've missed the point.
> 
> So far you seem to have taken everything I've said and twisted into some unrecognizable gibberish, then told me I'm full of it and missing the point.
> 
> Truth is, I think you are missing my point --so maybe we're even.
> 
> I get that you want this to be all about personal responsibility and choice. I get that the hook-up culture is common, and is participated in willingly by many people. I get that you now dislike this culture, and can see that many are hurt by it, but maintain a laissez-faire attitude because these are adults and you have no say in how they choose to live.
> 
> Lovely. But is it so off the wall to point out that this emphasis on "adults" and "personal choice" masks very real and ugly realities?
> 
> I mean, I can say that he's an adult, he chose to destroy his family, go into debt, and lose his job over some bs sexual fantasy that I manipulated him with. But that wouldn't exonerate me, would it?
> 
> Is it so farfetched to want to raise these ethical issues? Rape, including date rape and marital rape, are so often rug-swept, it's downright embarrassing, but so many here want to keep doing it by claiming that it's irrelevant to PUA because it's different -- and besides, the numbers aren't that high anyway.
> 
> Well, sorry, it's not a different issue and it isn't black and white because it's through dating and hookups that much non-consensual sex occurs. Further, the numbers are in fact pretty astronomical, and still many women won't talk about it because they are afraid of how they will be judged, that is exactly as many on this thread have done: she was stupid enough to go out with that guy, so she must've deserved it.
> 
> And lest you again decide I'm accusing you and all men of being rapists (and the fact that you even thought to go there tells me you really haven't heard a word of what I'm saying), let me assure you that I can see that there are a bunch of PUA practices that aren't actually rape, but are just sleazy and despicable.
> 
> But does that mean we have no right to call them out as such? Does that mean there's absolutely nothing to be gained by talking about them, why they are so despicable and to encourage people to seek enthusiastic consent, as FrenchFry put it?
> 
> Personally, I think it's totally worthwhile to bring these issues to light, and discuss them openly. And accusing all those who agree with that sentiment with logical bankruptcy shows only just how uninformed on these issues you are.


What's with all this self righteous posturing?

This can be so _not_ complicated.
I like intellectual stimulation, but I hate choir practise and long, boring Sunday morning sermons with horrible exegesis.

I explained to you the issues are close to my heart, the charities I am involved with and my personal credo.
You scoffed at it and now expect me to sympathize with your quixotic ,utopian causes of saving the unicorns from extinction. 

I do not share your value system so how can I sympathize much less agree with your cause?

I teach kids to value themselves and take responsibility for their lives, you believe that others are responsible for our demise.

I teach them how to build and nurture proper, healthy relationships , you believe casual sex is a better solution.

I teach them to respect themselves first, build a proper value system with boundaries ,enforce it and then others would respect them. You believe that it's ok to take reckless chances, and people should respect you even thought you don't respect yourself.

I teach kids that nobody in this life owes them one sh!t , and they are not entitled to anything but their basic human rights.
You believe that some people are entitled to better treatment than others.

This is simple.
The minute you are honestly willingly to admit that every person is responsible for their own set of values ,actions and outcomes,
Then we can start having a enlightened conversation , examining the subtle nuances , coming to a compromise and possible solutions.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Obviously some people are _hearing_ but not_ listening..._

lol, 
It's like going to the doctor , telling her that you have a pain in your tummy ,and she prescribes a CT scan for your head and announces that you_ urgently need_ brain surgery.

When you ask why, she simply says " trust me, I'm a doctor."


----------



## moco82

Faithful Wife said:


> Racer - I get that. But the solution is simple.
> 
> "Hey, I'm into you baby...let me know when you are into me, too" and lose her number.
> 
> She WILL call if she is into you. If not, she won't.


I wasted my entire life.


----------



## PHTlump

Faithful Wife said:


> It would be really great if men and women both only wanted to have sex with people who give enthusiastic consent.


In general, I think that is what both sexes want. There are a few of each sex that don't care about consent. But they're not worth discussing. The issue at hand is, how does one obtain enthusiastic consent? You seem to think that enthusiastic consent sprouts forth spontaneously and fully formed, like Athena, from the forehead of Zeus. I believe that enthusiastic consent can be cultivated from seeds of attraction. This process may take hours, days, weeks, or months.



> I really don't get why it is ok at all to even *try* to change someone's mind? Find a woman who is already hot for you. Easy.


I think your experience is what has skewed your perception of courtship. For many women, getting sex really is easy. They simply choose a man and say, "Yes." Men approach them and they have relatively little work to do. Women can go as far as they want on whatever date they want. Simple.

Why can't men do this? Because courtship doesn't work that way for them. Most men are rejected far more than not. Even PUAs, who spend a great deal of time and effort learning how to approach women in the way most likely to generate attraction, have a relatively low success rate.

So, although you're only speaking to your own experience, which has been so easy, it's incredibly dismissive to tell a man, who may have been rejected by 95% of the women he has ever approached, to just keep approaching women without worrying about WHY 95% of women aren't interested in him. To say that it's just so easy to find sex illustrates your complete lack of understanding of his situation. To tell that man that he shouldn't try to change his rate of rejection from 95% to 75%, because women shouldn't be expected to take responsibility for their own choices, is not something that man will take to heart.


----------



## Faithful Wife

There is NO comparison between honest pursuit of a woman....and douche-baggery specifically meant to get into her pants when he knows the answer is NO.

There is also NO comparison between the gold-digger books I mentioned earlier, and a woman being honestly interested in a man.

No one said love is easy. Courtship is about love. We don't all get to be with the people we might want to. We all get rejected.

This thread wasn't about THAT.

It was about the douche-bags.

You don't know my experiences. I have not shared my entire life here. You are mixing up two entirely different topics...but I guess if for you, getting a woman who doesn't want to have sex with you IS the same as courtship, then there is nothing more to discuss with you on the topic anyway.


----------



## treyvion

Faithful Wife said:


> Also...we women watch complete b*tches get pursued by really great men...she is blonde, tall, has huge boobs...men fall all over her ONLY because she is hot. She is mean to them, robs them, talks them down to her friends, flirts with his friends. She is nice to him if she wants something, mean to him the rest of the time, brags about what an idiot he is to believe her lies.
> 
> We feel bad for that man.
> 
> But her?
> 
> Who cares...she is a b*tch. Should we want to emulate her? Should we follow her just to be able to get what she has?
> 
> F*ck no.
> 
> She will get old like all of us and will have no substance of being to rely on once her flower fades. And so what? Her fate is hers. It means nothing about us.


You just described a heartless crook.


----------



## remorseful strayer

jennyh80 said:


> http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/****blocked-by-redistribution
> 
> Apparently the evolutionary psychology does not work everywhere - mainly in places where the women are better educated and have good support system in place.


I agree with this. 

That is why there has been a rise in women having affairs. 

Also a rise in women aggressively seeking out affairs.


----------



## Caribbean Man

remorseful strayer said:


> I agree with this.
> 
> That is why there has been a rise in women having affairs.
> 
> Also a rise in women aggressively seeking out affairs.


Care to explain?


----------



## Racer

treyvion said:


> You just described a heartless crook.


But the reality. The Boy Scout who doesn't have game. Let's see... I had 8 sexless girlfriends. Months, liked them, great girls, but my game is horrible. I wanted more than a plantonic friendship. So, you set your sights on "easier women". The "party girl". Because it doesn't take as much game to get some nookie. 

And what about those Nice Girls? Oh yes, they set their standards up there based on how hot a guy could make her. So... set herself right up to fit the profile of a good PUA with game. That’s the only guy who can reach her expectation level. Sorry, “sweet and nice” are cool... but it’s not “hot”. Both of our pickers are way off base because there is a massive difference between what gets the juices flowing and who might be a good fit intellectually. 

Sex and attraction toward a guy isn’t a rational well reasoned decision. But you can’t reason who gets you wet any more than I can who gives me a boner. It’s not like I can just yell down there to like this one or that “just because” my brain tells me I like hanging out with her. It’s an emotional thing that gets those chemical going in you. 

PUA books help the Boy Scout find ways to get that process going in you. Game. Can be used for ONS or for landing that special someone you are really into. Most Boy Scouts are looking for that special someone. The issue is your snatch is setup to respond best to a PUA. 

Without game, that same Boy Scout can’t seem to find the emotional pathway to get from ‘lets go out’ to ‘let screw like bunnies’. And he dumps you because sex is a part of a romantic type relationship. And eventually he finds a sleezy girl. And you... you find a PUA who is ‘hot’. And we all end up here.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> I really don't get why it is ok at all to even *try* to change someone's mind? Find a woman who is already hot for you. Easy.


Everyone tries to get the best mate they can. I don't know anyone who just looks for someone hot for them. Who cares how hot someone is for you if you're not attracted to them? One's own attraction comes FIRST, and you put the best foot forward to ensure that those you're attracted to are attracted to you.

There is a % of attraction that is not visual or instantaneous, but developed. Consider one girl being pursued by two guys. She thinks guy 1 is hot, all he has to do is not screw it up. She thinks guy 2 is decent looking. Advantage to guy 1. But the game isn't over. Add better conversational skills and humor to guy 2, and guy 2 gets the girl. Why? Because guy 2 is better able to build connections and connection seems to carry greater weight. The guy she thinks is better looking isn't the guy that always wins. One thing I hear from women over and over is that personality makes a man a hundred times more attractive.

If a guy goes for the woman that is already hot for him, 9 times out of 10 he'd be selling himself short. Women in particular rarely do this. In fact, quite the opposite: they don't want the guy to be too hot for them up front. The eager guy is scratched off the list in a heartbeat.

This is what is referred to as knowing and retaining your value. We discover our sexual currency by who accepts us. Those below our level are eager to accept us, those above our level are reluctant to accept us. An eager partner is signaling that he thinks you're more valuable than he is. The physical attraction might have been mutual, but the signal is: you can do better. Someone better is less eager because they've gotten plenty of offers from the likes of you. There's some very cool experiments that have proven this. We're not picking mates in a vacuum. There's actually a lot of social signaling going on.

This is why guys are advised not to care too much or show too much interest (at least not until the relationship has developed). This is why the eager guy gets no traction and the cool guy does. In my experience, women are most attracted to me when I'm best able to show that I'm not really trying... and am perfectly happy to walk away. Interesting, funny, engaging, without a hint of effort, desperation and over commitment. It sells the notion that you're used to women of her level. It signals equal value. Even if the guy is physically attractive, he loses all of it once he signals his lower self-worth by over committing. He's basically telling her: you're way better than I can usually get. In other words, women of her level don't pick him.

Much of the determination of whether someone is going to be interested in you, is made by your own actions and what you signal to them. Its also not that you're tying to change their mind. Their mind often isn't really made up. There's a bunch of easy NO's and easy YES's... but a lot of gray too.

The best thing I've learned are live conversation skills. Not really diabolic.


----------



## treyvion

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Everyone tries to get the best mate they can. I don't know anyone who just looks for someone hot for them. Who cares how hot someone is for you if you're not attracted to them? One's own attraction comes FIRST, and you put the best foot forward to ensure that those you're attracted to are attracted to you.
> 
> There is a % of attraction that is not visual or instantaneous, but developed. Consider one girl being pursued by two guys. She thinks guy 1 is hot, all he has to do is not screw it up. She thinks guy 2 is decent looking. Advantage to guy 1. But the game isn't over. Add better conversational skills and humor to guy 2, and guy 2 gets the girl. Why? Because guy 2 is better able to build connections and connection seems to carry greater weight. The guy she thinks is better looking isn't the guy that always wins. One thing I hear from women over and over is that personality makes a man a hundred times more attractive.
> 
> If a guy goes for the woman that is already hot for him, 9 times out of 10 he'd be selling himself short. Women in particular rarely do this. In fact, quite the opposite: they don't want the guy to be too hot for them up front. The eager guy is scratched off the list in a heartbeat.
> 
> This is what is referred to as knowing and retaining your value. We discover our sexual currency by who accepts us. Those below our level are eager to accept us, those above our level are reluctant to accept us. An eager partner is signaling that he thinks you're more valuable than he is. The physical attraction might have been mutual, but the signal is: you can do better. Someone better is less eager because they've gotten plenty of offers from the likes of you. There's some very cool experiments that have proven this. We're not picking mates in a vacuum. There's actually a lot of social signaling going on.
> 
> This is why guys are advised not to care too much or show too much interest (at least not until the relationship has developed). This is why the eager guy gets no traction and the cool guy does. In my experience, women are most attracted to me when I'm best able to show that I'm not really trying... and am perfectly happy to walk away. Interesting, funny, engaging, without a hint of effort, desperation and over commitment. It sells the notion that you're used to women of her level. It signals equal value. Even if the guy is physically attractive, he loses all of it once he signals his lower self-worth by over committing. He's basically telling her: you're way better than I can usually get. In other words, women of her level don't pick him.
> 
> Much of the determination of whether someone is going to be interested in you, is made by your own actions and what you signal to them.


I've made your description of valuation into a text document. This was a great work and people need to not forget it.


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> I love real men who don't want to dupe women into having sex with them. They want a woman who is actually hot FOR THEM and wouldn't accept anything less. That is sexy.


At least until they have sex, don't like the arc of the relationship after the fact, and ... then b*tch about being duped.

I know. I'm in that very circumstance right now.

My point is, that perspective is subjective. There is little doubt in my mind that to some of the women I have been involved with, and then ended the relationship, I am an unmitigated, selfish, cold, sonuvab*tch.

I have had other women refer to me as, "the best man I know." That I am honest, open, and forthright.

Who do you think is telling the truth?

Oh and for the record about a man feeling duped by a woman who accepts his offer of a drink?

Please ... any player worth their salt knows damn well you get HER to buy you a drink. Not the other way around.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Courtship is about love.


Perhaps that is the ultimate objective, yet, I've never known a guy to relate pursuing a girl as having "love" at the forefront of his mind. I think a guy falls in love along the way to trying to get sex.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> I love real men who don't want to dupe women into having sex with them.


Out of curiosity, what qualifies as duping someone into sex? I thought you were on the side that says a woman is into a man physically or she isn't? If that's so, how could she possibly be duped? A tupee? haha... I know what I'm trying this weekend!  j/k

What, other than outright lying, would you consider duping?


----------



## treyvion

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Out of curiosity, what qualifies as duping someone into sex? I thought you were on the side that says a woman is into a man physically or she isn't? If that's so, how could she possibly be duped? A tupee?
> 
> What, other than outright lying, would you consider duping?


Posing as a photographer for one aspiring to be a model, and conning sex out of her through the portrayal of being able to get her in the industry.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

treyvion said:


> Posing as a photographer for one aspiring to be a model, and conning sex out of her through the portrayal of being able to get her in the industry.


That's lying isn't it? Lying isn't game. Lying is what you do when you don't have game.


----------



## treyvion

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That's lying isn't it? Lying isn't game. Lying is what you do when you don't have game.


I was illustrating the "duping".


----------



## Created2Write

PHTlump said:


> In general, I think that is what both sexes want. There are a few of each sex that don't care about consent. But they're not worth discussing. The issue at hand is, how does one obtain enthusiastic consent? You seem to think that enthusiastic consent sprouts forth spontaneously and fully formed, like Athena, from the forehead of Zeus. I believe that enthusiastic consent can be cultivated from seeds of attraction. This process may take hours, days, weeks, or months.
> 
> 
> I think your experience is what has skewed your perception of courtship. For many women, getting sex really is easy. They simply choose a man and say, "Yes." Men approach them and they have relatively little work to do. Women can go as far as they want on whatever date they want. Simple.
> 
> Why can't men do this? Because courtship doesn't work that way for them. Most men are rejected far more than not. Even PUAs, who spend a great deal of time and effort learning how to approach women in the way most likely to generate attraction, have a relatively low success rate.
> 
> So, although you're only speaking to your own experience, which has been so easy, it's incredibly dismissive to tell a man, who may have been rejected by 95% of the women he has ever approached, to just keep approaching women without worrying about WHY 95% of women aren't interested in him. To say that it's just so easy to find sex illustrates your complete lack of understanding of his situation. To tell that man that he shouldn't try to change his rate of rejection from 95% to 75%, because women shouldn't be expected to take responsibility for their own choices, is not something that man will take to heart.


Okay, I was going to stay away and let the conversation go where it may, but this post made me think a bit more as to what "responsibilities" women who have sex with PUAs have. 

I take no issue, whatsoever, with taking responsibilities for ones own actions. If a woman is knowingly having sex with a man she just met a couple of hours ago, she can't really claim to be a victim if nothing he said turns out to be true. She only knew him a few hours. That was her choice, and I don't think anyone is disputing that. 

But, if we're taking about taking responsibility for one's actions, why doesn't the guy have to take responsibility for any dishonesty on his part?

Let's even say the guy was completely honest...why can he try and convince(push, pull, entice...whatever) a woman out of the boundaries she's clearly laid down, and yet he's not responsible for that? How many "No's" does she have to say before he _is_ responsible?


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Everyone tries to get the best mate they can. I don't know anyone who just looks for someone hot for them. Who cares how hot someone is for you if you're not attracted to them? One's own attraction comes FIRST, and you put the best foot forward to ensure that those you're attracted to are attracted to you.
> 
> There is a % of attraction that is not visual or instantaneous, but developed. Consider one girl being pursued by two guys. She thinks guy 1 is hot, all he has to do is not screw it up. She thinks guy 2 is decent looking. Advantage to guy 1. But the game isn't over. Add better conversational skills and humor to guy 2, and guy 2 gets the girl. Why? Because guy 2 is better able to build connections and connection seems to carry greater weight. The guy she thinks is better looking isn't the guy that always wins. One thing I hear from women over and over is that personality makes a man a hundred times more attractive.
> 
> If a guy goes for the woman that is already hot for him, 9 times out of 10 he'd be selling himself short. Women in particular rarely do this. In fact, quite the opposite: they don't want the guy to be too hot for them up front. The eager guy is scratched off the list in a heartbeat.
> 
> This is what is referred to as knowing and retaining your value. We discover our sexual currency by who accepts us. Those below our level are eager to accept us, those above our level are reluctant to accept us. An eager partner is signaling that he thinks you're more valuable than he is. The physical attraction might have been mutual, but the signal is: you can do better. Someone better is less eager because they've gotten plenty of offers from the likes of you. There's some very cool experiments that have proven this. We're not picking mates in a vacuum. There's actually a lot of social signaling going on.
> 
> This is why guys are advised not to care too much or show too much interest (at least not until the relationship has developed). This is why the eager guy gets no traction and the cool guy does. *In my experience, women are most attracted to me when I'm best able to show that I'm not really trying... and am perfectly happy to walk away.* Interesting, funny, engaging, without a hint of effort, desperation and over commitment. It sells the notion that you're used to women of her level. It signals equal value. Even if the guy is physically attractive, he loses all of it once he signals his lower self-worth by over committing. He's basically telling her: you're way better than I can usually get. In other words, women of her level don't pick him.
> 
> Much of the determination of whether someone is going to be interested in you, is made by your own actions and what you signal to them. Its also not that you're tying to change their mind. Their mind often isn't really made up. There's a bunch of easy NO's and easy YES's... but a lot of gray too.
> 
> The best thing I've learned are live conversation skills. Not really diabolic.


Ick...that statement made my skin crawl. And is precisely why I don't believe in casual sex. People are worth _so_ much more than that. If a guy carried himself like he could care less what happened between him and I, I wouldn't give him the time of day. 

That aside, I (kind of) understand everything else you're saying and, to an extent, don't see it as douchey behavior. I'm sure those who practice a lot of ONS and care more about getting laid by as many hot people as possible would care about their level of sexual appeal and how to have the best advantage. That, in and of itself, isn't something I have an issue with. 

When a "No" is said in earnest, it should be respected and taken seriously 100% of the time, though. Seeing it as something you(general you...not you specifically) need to change is what I call douchey behavior.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Perhaps that is the ultimate objective, yet, I've never known a guy to relate pursuing a girl as having "love" at the forefront of his mind. I think a guy falls in love along the way to trying to get sex.


What a horrible view of men you have. I'm glad I've not known men like that. I've known those who had sex without love, and they _hated_ it. DH was one. He had as much sex as he wanted with two of his exes, and because there wasn't any love or anything resembling love between them he ended the relationships. The sex was empty for him, unfulfilling. One of my exes was the same way. He'd had _a lot_ of sex, with girlfriends, ONS, friends with benefits...all of it had been empty and unfulfilling to him because of the lack of love and affection. 

Maybe I just attract the special ones, but I've never met a guy who pursued a girl without hoping they would fall in love.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> But for most of us mere mortals, like myself (Or whatever you want to call us....) there are a number of very tall hurdles between, "I'll dance with you" and "I'll sleep with you."


The thing is that dating sucks for all us mere mortals, men and women included. That's why it's important that we learn to treat each other well.

So many guys seem to think that dating is just an open, free buffet for women. But it's not. We get rejected just as much, and we too sometimes wish for some magic potion that will make us attractive. Just as there are a a handful of men that women flock to, there are but a handful of women that men pursue.

But there is no easy solution, and so we muddle through as best we can. None of it justifies being a douche on either side.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> Ick...that statement made my skin crawl. And is precisely why I don't believe in casual sex. People are worth _so_ much more than that. If a guy carried himself like he could care less what happened between him and I, I wouldn't give him the time of day.


You're taking it too far - not caring at all. That's not the case. 



Created2Write said:


> When a "No" is said in earnest, it should be respected and taken seriously 100% of the time, though. Seeing it as something you(general you...not you specifically) need to change is what I call douchey behavior.


Rarely is a "no" or even a "yes" so explicit. The most common "no" I get is the cold shoulder. I don't think it douchey at all to talk to such women in a way that warms up that shoulder, and you don't do it by expressing how attracted to them you are. Hostile term perhaps, but I consider this "disarming". Once disarmed, I have room to continue building something. I gain a lot more leeway.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Deejo said:


> My point is, that perspective is subjective. There is little doubt in my mind that to some of the women I have been involved with, and then ended the relationship, I am an unmitigated, selfish, cold, sonuvab*tch.


:iagree:
And there were starry -eyed chicks that I was involved with who openly said that we were " soul mates ", at the beginning of the relationship.

After the I ended the relationship, I became the worst thing walking the face of the earth, hooves, horns, et al.

Just because I felt that I could no longer have put up with their false entitlements and selfishness, that special "connection " went " poof!"

Vantage points.
Hindsight = 20 / 20.

Human beings are multidimensional , complex creatures and relationships even more complicated.

They are SELDOM easy as what is being proposed on this thread.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> What a horrible view of men you have. I'm glad I've not known men like that.
> 
> Maybe I just attract the special ones, but I've never met a guy who pursued a girl without hoping they would fall in love.


Get out of church more? I don't know what to tell you. You really think the single guys going out looking for women are seeking love? Is that why women bare so much skin in the single scene?

That seems naïve to me.


----------



## Caribbean Man

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That's lying isn't it? Lying isn't game. Lying is what you do when you don't have game.


Quoted For Truth.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You're taking it too far - not caring at all. That's not the case.


You're totally fine to walk away...sounds like not caring to me. 



> Rarely is a "no" or even a "yes" so explicit. The most common "no" I get is the cold shoulder. I don't think it douchey at all to talk to such women in a way that warms up that shoulder, and you don't do it by expressing how attracted to them you are. Hostile term perhaps, but I consider this "disarming". Once disarmed, I have room to continue building something. I gain a lot more leeway.


I have no issue with trying to warm someone up to you. Once physical intimacy is started and she says "No" to something...be it getting naked, partaking in oral, or going all the way...that boundary is now set and it is up to her to escalate beyond it. No one has the right to try and change her mind if she has said "No".


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Get out of church more? I don't know what to tell you. You really think the single guys going out looking for women are seeking love? Is that why women bare so much skin in the single scene?
> 
> That seems naïve to me.


You just said that men don't pursue women hoping to fall in love. "Pursue" doesn't mean they're only looking for sex. If a guy is only looking for sex, then obviously he's not looking for love. I'm glad I don't know any of those guys. Anyone can look for sex and find it at some point. No big accomplishment there. Finding love is much harder.

And I like being in church, thanks.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> This is simple.
> The minute you are honestly willingly to admit that every person is responsible for their own set of values ,actions and outcomes,
> Then we can start having a enlightened conversation , examining the subtle nuances , coming to a compromise and possible solutions.


Clearly we are talking at cross purposes here. I did not scoff at you or your life, or your help of other people. I think what you are doing sounds admirable! I just didn't understand why you first refused the PUA label, then seemingly embraced it, then started talking about how you help people.

I'm all for personal responsibility, and always like to hear about efforts to empower those who have met with hard times. Nonetheless, personal responsibility isn't enough to protect us from negative experiences, and is not, IMHO, the only conversation topic that can be enlightening. Ethic and behaviour are also very interesting subjects!

And honestly, if you find me that pedantic and boring, you can just stop reading and responding to my posts. It wouldn't be the first time...


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> The thing is that dating sucks for all us mere mortals, men and women included. That's why it's important that we learn to treat each other well.
> 
> So many guys seem to think that dating is just an open, free buffet for women. But it's not. We get rejected just as much, and we too sometimes wish for some magic potion that will make us attractive. Just as there are a a handful of men that women flock to, there are but a handful of women that men pursue.
> 
> But there is no easy solution, and so we muddle through as best we can. None of it justifies being a douche on either side.


I think the confusion stems from the traditional roles that men and women play in the dating game. I know several women here will adamantly disagree with me, but what I see most is women engaged in a more passive game... luring men. And men engaged in a more active game... approaching women. That makes for an entirely different experience.

Average guy is talking to random women he's attracted to and getting the brush off. Average woman is doing her best to lure the men she's attracted to and getting ignored, or only hit on by the guys she doesn't want. So each muddles along.

I'm biased as a guy of course, but I think rejection is a lot harder to take when you forced someone to actively reject you, as opposed to the rejection that is being passed on or going unnoticed. One of the first steps for a guy to up his game is to figure out how not to care about getting rejected - retaining a certain frame of mind that allows you to remain sure of yourself.

Part of my own lack of understanding of what women face is that any given place I go out, I see plenty of women I'm attracted to. Yet, entire nights have gone by where female friends of mine said they didn't spot even one guy they'd consider. When girls do point out a guy they think is hot, he just looks like any other dude to me 90% of the time. It makes me believe that women are really really picky.


----------



## Faithful Wife

To me, there is no confusion between what is straight up douche-baggery and what is just normal male/female behavior.

People keep bringing up examples of women who later regret sleeping with a guy and then claim she was duped or mis-led or whatever.

Yes, that happens, women do say "yes" and then regret it.

But THAT has nothing to do with the ACTUAL douche-baggery that exists out there (as was the original subject of this thread)...so I don't know why that is brought up here as if the two are the same thing or as if we women are saying that it is?

I have known many women who had sex too soon in a relationship and then regretted it. Not one of those women described douche-baggery tactics to me. Instead, they just regretted their own decision. They did not claim the guy duped them or conned them. They knew they shouldn't have done it because they didn't like the outcome. They learn from the experience and hopefully don't make the same mistake. 

Usually these women were asked out on actual dates, were pursued by the guy first, they didn't meet him in a bar and go home that night. Instead, the guy presented as actually liking her and wanting to date her...but then when he went for sex, she "knew she shouldn't have", she did anyway because she told herself somehow this time was different and she was "so hot for him"...and then he loses interest and never calls her again.

THAT is not the same thing that I am calling "conned" and "duped" and douche-baggery. That is simply a bad decision a woman made, and she takes responsibility for it.

I have no doubt that some women who have dated men on this board may have done something similar, or she may have been the one that pushed to have sex too soon, and then she blames in on the man.

Again, THAT is a real thing...but has nothing to do with douche-baggery.

I just wish it could be understood that there is no reason to cross the streams on this subject. I have no problem with the way sometimes things don't work out for a woman who chooses to have sex too soon and then regrets it, and saying that it was HER choice that she regretted, she wasn't duped.

Now on to the fact that some men WILL conn and dupe deliberately, and will use dispicable tactics to do so. THAT is what I object to, and I just wish men wouldn't confuse the two things as if they were the same thing.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> I just didn't understand why you first refused the PUA label, then seemingly embraced it, then started talking about how you help people.


Obviously , you didn't get the metaphor.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> You're totally fine to walk away...sounds like not caring to me.


You're still trying to avoid understanding. "Walk away", as in, I'm not gonna keep pressing this until she's into me. When the conversation slows or naturally ends, I'm going about my business having fun, making a point to initiate subsequent interactions and build on that familiarity. In other words, you have to be willing to let her go. You can't obsess with her. She'll pick up on the obsession and rabbit.



Created2Write said:


> I have no issue with trying to warm someone up to you. Once physical intimacy is started and she says "No" to something...be it getting naked, partaking in oral, or going all the way...that boundary is now set and it is up to her to escalate beyond it. No one has the right to try and change her mind if she has said "No".


Eh, everyone has a right to try and change anyone's mind about anything... doesn't mean it'll work or its the best course of action. She has a right to not change her mind. If she's said "no" in an intimate context, good luck getting her to change her mind anyway. The best play is typically to let it go and again... him not really caring that he didn't get laid (notice, the same advice given to husbands who are shutdown), but rather show that he's having a good time regardless. Given that, she's less likely to shut him down next time.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Sour grapes,
That's all.

If douche - baggery is a male having sex with a female and then dumping her, then a worse form of it must be that said female complaining bitterly and thinking that it's the man's fault that she got duped.

Makes no sense blaming a douchbag for acting like a douchbag.
If you find yoursef having sex with one or several *********s all the time, then you musy be a douchbag too.

There is an old English saying:

_" The third time someone tries to put a saddle on your back and a bridle on your mouth, you should at least be honest enough to admit that you are a donkey.."_


----------



## Faithful Wife

Douch-baggery is NOT a male having sex with a female then dumping her, CM. I keep saying it over and over...that is just normal male/female behavior and is not the behavior I am objecting to.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> You just said that men don't pursue women hoping to fall in love. "Pursue" doesn't mean they're only looking for sex. If a guy is only looking for sex, then obviously he's not looking for love. I'm glad I don't know any of those guys. Anyone can look for sex and find it at some point. No big accomplishment there. Finding love is much harder.
> 
> And I like being in church, thanks.


I did not say men don't pursue women hoping to fall in love. Everyone hopes to fall in love. Men pursue for sex and find love along the way. Its women, far more than men, who have dreams of finding their one and only true love and all the romantic this and that. Men? We dream about sex, not our future wedding day. ADIDAS.

Its not about difficulty or accomplishment. Its that men and women typically come to the same place from different angles. For some reason, you seem to think that the pursuit of sex is to the exclusion of love. Its not, anymore than the pursuit of love is to the exclusion of sex.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> At least until they have sex, don't like the arc of the relationship after the fact, and ... then b*tch about being duped.
> 
> I know. I'm in that very circumstance right now.
> 
> My point is, that perspective is subjective. There is little doubt in my mind that to some of the women I have been involved with, and then ended the relationship, I am an unmitigated, selfish, cold, sonuvab*tch.
> 
> I have had other women refer to me as, "the best man I know." That I am honest, open, and forthright.
> 
> Who do you think is telling the truth?


A few random thoughts:

Just as men get upset by bait and switch, women are also upset when they've been told one thing and had another happen. If one party deliberately led the other astray, I can see cause for griping on either side. If, OTOH, it really was just a product of covert contracts and hidden expectations, then surely they only have themselves to blame. 

Just because someone says something when they're feeling most hurt and rejected, doesn't necessarily mean they'll continue to think that after they have healed a bit and are reflecting back.
We often lash out at these moments, and say things we don't really mean or come to regret later.

Just as men wonder why women always flock to the a$$hole men, women wonder why men are always chasing after the extreme, self-entitled *****es.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

40 pages in on a post from a banned member, are we about ready for a summary to wrap it all up? :lol:


----------



## Faithful Wife

Why was that poster banned, anyway? Was it because of something on this thread?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

What this thread has shown to me is that we all have different comfort levels of what acceptable and unacceptable behavior is. Some call it "game", some call it deception. Some call it PUA behavior, others call it predatory. It really depends on who is doing it, how and to whom, as the identical behavior will net positive and negative results depending on your audience. Yes?


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You're still trying to avoid understanding.


Of course. Since I don't agree or understand it must be intentional on my part.  Ever consider that you're not so great at communicating what you mean? You could _try_ playing nice just once.



> "Walk away", as in, I'm not gonna keep pressing this until she's into me. When the conversation slows or naturally ends, I'm going about my business having fun, making a point to initiate subsequent interactions and build on that familiarity. In other words, you have to be willing to let her go. You can't obsess with her. She'll pick up on the obsession and rabbit.


Okay. Makes more sense. I don't relate one bit to the women you know, so I really can't imagine why a woman would suddenly decide not to be interested in a guy just because he was showing interest in her...You talk about the conversation naturally ending...what's wrong with creating a new topic? Again, I just don't relate to this lifestyle or these women at all. When the conversation/s ended between DH and I, I always sought to continue them. I liked him and wanted him to know it. Ironically, each and every time I had to continue a conversation he was testing me to see if I was just talking with him to be nice, or if I really wanted to talk more. 

So, in my life, "walking away" when he stopped talking with me would have resulted in missing out on the best guy I've known. 



> *Eh, everyone has a right to try and change anyone's mind about anything...*


Oh no they don't. Once a woman has clearly defined the boundaries she has no intention of passing, the guy has no right to try and change her mind. None. It's her body and she decides what will or won't happen. His right to try and change her mind is GONE until she says otherwise. 



> doesn't mean it'll work or its the best course of action. She has a right to not change her mind. If she's said "no" in an intimate context, good luck getting her to change her mind anyway. The best play is typically to let it go and again... him not really caring that he didn't get laid (notice, the same advice given to husbands who are shutdown), but rather show that he's having a good time regardless. Given that, she's less likely to shut him down next time.


If she really wanted him, then maybe. Imo, why waste time trying to change someone's mind? So much energy wasted. Find someone who really will be into you.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> People keep bringing up examples of women who later regret sleeping with a guy and then claim she was duped or mis-led or whatever.
> 
> Yes, that happens, women do say "yes" and then regret it.


There is a little reframing going on there.

Its one thing to say yes and then regret it, and another to claim she was duped or mis-lead. Very different things... and I think some of the guys are saying that just because she claims to have been duped, doesn't mean he actually did so. Plenty of women use a host of rationalizations to excuse their own impulsive actions. Men do to, typically in other areas.



Faithful Wife said:


> Now on to the fact that some men WILL conn and dupe deliberately, and will use dispicable tactics to do so. THAT is what I object to, and I just wish men wouldn't confuse the two things as if they were the same thing.


Heard. But how do you know you were duped? If I'm interested in a girl, we go out a few times, we have sex, and maybe later I realize... no... not it. Have I duped her? Or have I been honest? I was into her until I found reason not to be.

Is that really different from any breakup? Is there an unspoken time frame that must be allowed to pass?

How are women duped without a lie?


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I did not say men don't pursue women hoping to fall in love. Everyone hopes to fall in love. Men pursue for sex and find love along the way. Its women, far more than men, who have dreams of finding their one and only true love and all the romantic this and that. Men? We dream about sex, not our future wedding day. ADIDAS.


I don't agree entirely, but I agree with this statement more than the original. 



> Its not about difficulty or accomplishment. Its that men and women typically come to the same place from different angles.


I can agree with this. 



> For some reason, you seem to think that the pursuit of sex is to the exclusion of love. Its not, anymore than the pursuit of love is to the exclusion of sex.


ROFL. I don't think any such thing. Sex is meant to be sacred, imo, as you've heard me say before and that is because I believe sex to be the ultimate expression of love. I don't water it down to be nothing more than a primal physical urge. So, you're very wrong about my beliefs.


----------



## RandomDude

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Heard. But how do you know you were duped? If I'm interested in a girl, we go out a few times, we have sex, and maybe later I realize... no... not it. Have I duped her? Or have I been honest? I was into her until I found reason not to be.
> 
> Is that really different from any breakup? Is there an unspoken time frame that must be allowed to pass?
> 
> How are women duped without a lie?


Exactly!


----------



## Faithful Wife

Some women WERE lied to in douche-baggery cases...thus "conned" and "duped". And some men WERE lied to by gold-diggery femme-douches, too. Any type of conn and dupe is despicable, IMO...and that is my only feeling on this whole thing.

The sour grapes thing is different and just a normal part of dating/relationships.

But duping/conning actually does happen and it is done by both men and women and it is ALWAYS despicable.

That is my sum up, TBRE.

Obviously there will be several posts now explaining to me how I don't really get what the subject is about now...but I'm done. Ta ta!


----------



## Deejo

Therealbrighteyes said:


> What this thread has shown to me is that we all have different comfort levels of what acceptable and unacceptable behavior is. Some call it "game", some call it deception. Some call it PUA behavior, others call it predatory. It really depends on who is doing it, how and to whom, as the identical behavior will net positive and negative results depending on your audience. Yes?


Perception relies upon the lens, life experience, and bias, of the viewer.

To be clear, I don't remotely support the kind of behavior where this thread started.

People get hurt in relationships all of the time. Nobody, male or female should choose to make sport of it.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> I just wish it could be understood that there is no reason to cross the streams on this subject. I have no problem with the way sometimes things don't work out for a woman who chooses to have sex too soon and then regrets it, and saying that it was HER choice that she regretted, she wasn't duped.
> 
> Now on to the fact that some men WILL conn and dupe deliberately, and will use dispicable tactics to do so. THAT is what I object to, and I just wish men wouldn't confuse the two things as if they were the same thing.


Exactly! It's a very easy distinction. Not complicated at all.

Yet so many are completely stuck in this preconceived idea that if a woman is unhappy it must be because of sour grapes: she wanted eternal love and he had the audacity to want to break up with her. No other explanation possible.

Ridiculous!


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> People get hurt in relationships all of the time. Nobody, male or female should choose to make sport of it.


Yes! Now that's a summary that makes me happy!


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Deejo said:


> Perception relies upon the lens, life experience, and bias, of the viewer.


You said it better than me. I think that's why things get so heated over a topic such as this because we all have our own perception and really, there is no clear cut "this is how it should or should not be". Although I think we all agree that drugging a woman is not game/PUA.....it's rape. So we all agree on something.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> There is a little reframing going on there.
> 
> Its one thing to say yes and then regret it, and another to claim she was duped or mis-lead. Very different things... and I think some of the guys are saying that just because she claims to have been duped, doesn't mean he actually did so. Plenty of women use a host of rationalizations to excuse their own impulsive actions. Men do to, typically in other areas.


Well, yeah, some women may be guilty of this. Both women and men tend to lash out when they are hurt.

What gets me in this thread, though, is the presumption that the douchbag isn't one --it's always the fault of the woman who made false accusations, or had unrealistic expectations, or is suffering from sour grapes because she got dumped.

And yes, men rationalize too, and not always in different areas. For example, this thread illustrates a tendency to pretend that men are all always honest and aboveboard, and never do anything deceitful or coercive when they are trying to get laid. Ummmm, sure.

And yes, for someone to be duped, there definitely has to be some sort of purposeful misdirection or lie.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Therealbrighteyes said:


> You said it better than me. I think that's why things get so heated over a topic such as this because we all have our own perception and really, there is no clear cut "this is how it should or should not be". Although I think we all agree that drugging a woman is not game/PUA.....it's rape. So we all agree on something.


:iagree:
Its a bit like poster 1 someone says example 1 disgusts them,
poster 2 says having this view of example 2 is sour grapes,
poster 1 says their not talking about example 2 and then goes into length about example 1,
poster 2 then goes on a tangent about how example 2 is nothing like poster 1 is talking about,
poster 1 then says they know it's not, they're not talking about example 1 they're talking about example 2 
and this goes on and on.


----------



## RandomDude

I thought we were on the summarizing stage like 20 pages ago :scratchhead:


----------



## Created2Write

Not when people keep misrepresenting what others are saying.


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> The thing is that dating sucks for all us mere mortals, men and women included.  That's why it's important that we learn to treat each other well.
> 
> So many guys seem to think that dating is just an open, free buffet for women. But it's not. We get rejected just as much, and we too sometimes wish for some magic potion that will make us attractive. Just as there are a a handful of men that women flock to, there are but a handful of women that men pursue.
> 
> But there is no easy solution, and so we muddle through as best we can. None of it justifies being a douche on either side.


If my feelings weren't made clear by the hyperbolic statement that Class III weapons and abandoned mine shafts are too good for those who exploit and use women, then I doubt if anything else will make it any clearer. 

I think what some are grasping at in these threads might be too mercurial to express in words.


----------



## WyshIknew

I've tried to avoid posting here but I've had sone cider sp here goes.

I must admit that part of me wishes that I had been more of a ladies man, or at least been more attractive when I was younger.

However if being more successful with the ladies means being an arse like some of these people featured I'm rather pleased at my low number.

There was a question earlier about the difference between the PUA type guys and people like me.

A story from some years before I met my wife.

I had a party at my house and woke up in the morning with a girl in my bed. 'Holy crap' I thought 'play it cool'. So I kept looking under the sheets. "What are you doing?" she said.

I said "I'm experiencing a rebellion, there's a gorgeous woman in bed with me and he's not getting any action."

"We'd best sort that out then" she said, and climbed aboard. I was just congratulating myself on my luck, I didn't have to show my inexperience and she was doing all the work.

She suddenly jumped off and cried "I can't do it. Even though he's an arse I can't do it."

Once I'd stopped her tears it turned out that her boyfriend was a cheat and left her while he went off with someone else which is how she drunkenly ended up in my bed.

She apologised and said we could carry on as she didn't want me left hanging there but I could see her heart wasn't in it and turned her down.

I think the big difference is that one of the PUA types would have just forged ahead regardless and then bragged about it.

One quick question, do the PUA's try to rock the womans world or is it all wham bam thank you m'am?


----------



## WyshIknew

I mean would most guys have forged ahead or did I do the right thing.

I don't regret doing (or not doing) what I did as I think it was right, but do wonder what others would have done.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> Of course. Since I don't agree or understand it must be intentional on my part.  Ever consider that you're not so great at communicating what you mean? You could _try_ playing nice just once.


Every way I put it, you take the most extreme possible interpretation. 



Created2Write said:


> Okay. Makes more sense. I don't relate one bit to the women you know, so I really can't imagine why a woman would suddenly decide not to be interested in a guy just because he was showing interest in her...You talk about the conversation naturally ending...what's wrong with creating a new topic?


Ever forced conversation? The person doing the forcing looks awkward and trying too hard. It doesn't improve interest. If there's no where to go, and the other party hasn't made an effort to help fill the gap, let the conversation go. You can circle back later. A guy should always leave conversations on his terms as opposed to being awkwardly dropped out of them by dead conversation or other people.

Female attraction, in my experience, isn't a binary proposition. Its quite analog. It usually starts pretty slowly and ramps up. A guy is best served to let her stew and keep up his mystery for as long as he is able. I don't know why this is... it just is. A guy who shows too much too soon will not be successful. Hey, if she's head over heels crazy for the guy maybe not... but that's not the usual case and going too far beyond her interest level will cause her to rabbit. I'm not a woman, I can't explain it. I can just say it happens all the time.



Created2Write said:


> Again, I just don't relate to this lifestyle or these women at all. When the conversation/s ended between DH and I, I always sought to continue them. I liked him and wanted him to know it. Ironically, each and every time I had to continue a conversation he was testing me to see if I was just talking with him to be nice, or if I really wanted to talk more.


I don't see that this contradicts what I'm trying to explain. You were very into him. Way more than some random girl is going to be into some random guy in your typical pickup scenario. Similarly, I've had girls purposefully find me and restart conversation after I've moved on. Its a great confirmation of interest... but you don't just keep pressing when the natural flow is lost. You bail and if she was into it she can step up. 

As you describe it, your husband did a variation of this. Her confirmation actually helps things advance.



Created2Write said:


> So, in my life, "walking away" when he stopped talking with me would have resulted in missing out on the best guy I've known.


Your husband's drawing you into continuing the conversation is in the same category of walking away. The point is not pressing the engagement. Letting it go. Walking away. Neither of which means he won't continue later - he should. If he's made an impression, she'll return something. If he hasn't achieved that level, he's still in good shape for round two. If he continues to press and force the conversation, to over play his hand if you will... that's it, game over.

I really can't express to you how successful the tactic of walking away is. It doesn't mean you're not going to talk to her again. It shows you're not desperate. For me, this usually ends up playing out in segments of conversation and a weird familiarity that I play on for awhile; showing up again as if on my way to something else and usually saying something to make her laugh or telling a story... its a little disarming. My willingness to let it go signals lack of negative intent. I'm just a friendly guy, not trying to get something from her. Subsequent conversation ends up much more friendly and conducive to her liking me. A lot of women will play coy and find me later as if they were passing by for some other reason - just as I intend to do on my flybys. "Oh hey!!! You again!!" Yeah... you just took the LONG way back from the bathroom. Its just one of those things... disarming if she's resistant or getting her to show a little pursuit of her own, if not so much a challenge.

You know, there are a couple starbucks barristas who I know are really into me and make a nice example. They get all giddy schoolgirl giggly on me and chat me up. Its pretty awesome. There's a dynamic there that only works with short interaction and this weird short of mystery and anticipation. If I hung around starbucks talking to them all the time, odds are I'm going to lose some of that attraction. The walking away has a part to play there... like keeping them wanting more.

Maybe your hubby has game. He didn't over play his hand. He didn't press the issue. He gave you a chance to want more and left openings for you to do a little chasing. We value more what we had to do something to get. The least attractive guy is the guy seemingly throwing himself at you no? Even if you thought he was hot on first glance.

That's about it... I can't provide any better explanation.



Created2Write said:


> Oh no they don't. Once a woman has clearly defined the boundaries she has no intention of passing, the guy has no right to try and change her mind. None. It's her body and she decides what will or won't happen. His right to try and change her mind is GONE until she says otherwise.


You don't have a right to not be persuaded. People can talk all they want to talk. You have a right to say no. If you don't like his continuing to persuade, you have a right to get rid of him. All along the way you decide what she will or won't do regardless of persuasion.



Created2Write said:


> If she really wanted him, then maybe. Imo, why waste time trying to change someone's mind? So much energy wasted. Find someone who really will be into you.


Because most of the time, its not about her not being into him. If she wasn't into him she wouldn't be there in the intimate setting in the first place. Some women will put up token resistance when they really just want reassurance.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> What gets me in this thread, though, is the presumption that the douchbag isn't one --it's always the fault of the woman who made false accusations, or had unrealistic expectations, or is suffering from sour grapes because she got dumped.


The douch is in the eye of the beholder. 

I don't find the encounter I describe remotely douche-baggy. Yet if she thought I might be "the one", I'm now a serious douche to her. Its neither here nor there.



always_alone said:


> And yes, men rationalize too, and not always in different areas. For example, this thread illustrates a tendency to pretend that men are all always honest and aboveboard, and never do anything deceitful or coercive when they are trying to get laid. Ummmm, sure.


Ha, not me, I said lying is what those with poor game do.


----------



## Caribbean Man

ocotillo said:


> I think what some are grasping at in these threads might be too mercurial to express in words.


Quoted For Truth.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Oh well,
The Choir came out, and sang , stuck to their rehearsed lines and verses.
The preacher did an excellent sermon , poignant and layered with incisive exegesis.

Who's going to do the benediction?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Created2Write said:


> Ick...that statement made my skin crawl. And is precisely why I don't believe in casual sex. People are worth _so_ much more than that. *If a guy carried himself like he could care less what happened between him and I, I wouldn't give him the time of day.*


 Yep, same here...Devil may think he has all women figured out...some of us don't fit the profile.... It would be awful to be single today...wading through all of this... people's expectations, what they ASSUME about the opposite sex... what is heartfuly - or fvckingly (I should say ) important to each of us can be so individual... I bet many get miss read...and relationships totally missed. 



> *DvlsAdvc8 said* : I think the confusion stems from the traditional roles that men and women play in the dating game. I know several women here will adamantly disagree with me, but what I see most is women engaged in a more passive game... luring men.


 Ding ding ding.... I would be one of those (you already know this)....... I abhor Casual sex ...We have lived and tasted the fruit of the traditionally minded lifestyle in every aspect of dating one might say...this has played out well for us. 

Our sons in high school are already feeling "out of the norm"....not that they care, they are stubborn minded just like me & their Father..... as everyone around them seems to be bragging about their sex conquests..... our 15 yr old gets to hear quite the earful from a table beside him at lunch, banging this fat chick, laughing about it (He was sharing all of this the other day in the kitchen with us)... oh how young they start.. maybe it's all HOT AIR even....what a bunch of Jack A**es...(his opinion too)

Meanwhile his GF dumped him... and he has a couple pretty ones after him.. but he is still hooked on that damn girl ...I want to smack him upside the head... The pure at heart fall hard I guess... They don't pick themselves up off the ground the way the habitual casual sex user does, reaching for another body the next night....nor is he into playing games to make her jealous by using someone else, he knows that's wrong..his conscience won't allow it. 

I've always gravitated to the pure of heart...these men have less GAME... but they're real... this is most valuable to someone like myself... I feel the woman who have been hurt so much should aim her sights on the more *attachment focused men*... these ones are good for commitment, for longevity... more the marrying types...treating women with the utmost respect...(if they haven't been so jaded they have lost faith in women yrs ago that is).... they may not be the ball of excitement Mr Alpha & his game playing swings..... but what do we really crave at the end of the day, at the end of a life? Do we even know, are we in touch with what we really NEED.



ocotillo said:


> If my feelings weren't made clear by the hyperbolic statement that Class III weapons and abandoned mine shafts are too good for those who exploit and use women, then I doubt if anything else will make it any clearer.


Yeah.. my feelings too. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:



WyshIknew said:


> A story from some years before I met my wife.


 I enjoyed reading your story Wysh... :smthumbup:....How many guys have that happen -waking up to a naked women in their beds !! 

You did the right thing.. I think my husband would have been even more backwards here ... not because he was afraid of sex or wouldn't enjoy that in the physical ...(OF COURSE)... he's just always said he doesn't feel he COULD ever separate Love & Sex..(also STD's primary put a downer on the thought of a random chick-always has)....this is just how he is geared again.


----------



## Caribbean Man

So here's the Benedictus.

[email protected]y [email protected], Adult Friend Finder ,Latin Cupid ,Caribbean Cupid and hundreds of other so called " dating" websites " are specifically designed to facilitate people wanting to meet to have discrete sexual liaisons, and relationships. A tremendous amount of infidelity takes place on these sites, in fact some even promote and justify infidelity.

Recently I was at a friend's office chatting with her , and I started browsing a Marie Claire women's magazine that was among others on her desk. An article in the " Sex & Relationships " section of the magazine caught my eye. A psychologist was saying that affairs during marriage can make a marriage stronger. And if a marriage was going through the doldrums , a short affair could get in back on track and stronger than before. 
Ok.
I folded the magazine and placed it back neatly where it belonged.
Democracy and Capitalism, I smiled to myself.
See, that's the bottom line in this entire conversation that half of the participants are missing. 
The owners of websites that promote infidelity are within their democratic rights to do so, even though families are being permanently damaged and lives are destroyed.
But Adult Friend Finder and [email protected] [email protected] didn't invent cheating , they are just capitalizing on the baser aspect of human nature.

So what does this have to do with Roosh & other PUA websites / culture?
In case you still don't get it , like I said earlier on in this thread ,it's about the MONEY.
Should I stop reading Marie Claire magazine because it promotes infidelity?
If a divorced woman and a single man meet on [email protected] [email protected], does that make them cheaters?
So how does a young man subscribing to a PUA website in an effort to seek out answers make him a potential rapist ?
Activism is good, feminism is good ,extremism is bad.
Everyone has their own issues , causes and battles they choose to align themselves with.
Your issue , as important as you think it is, isn't more important than my cause. I may not support your issue , but you have a right to identify with it. However , when you condemn and shame others who do not identify with your issues , doesn't do much or your cause.
Balance is the key.
Humanism , is my preferred niche in the gamut of issues facing society at any given time.

Here endeth.


----------



## Deejo




----------



## Caribbean Man

Deejo said:


>


Lol,
...and poor Dilbert hasn't even reached the 
" _your place or mine_ " line as yet.
Where did he go wrong?:rofl:

I think my all time favourite first lady of Jazz, Billie Holiday, said it best,
Billie Holiday - Let's Call The Whole Thing Off.


----------



## remorseful strayer

Caribbean Man said:


> Care to explain?


Evolutionary psychology is theoretical. 

It opines about the evolutionary darwinian biological imperative of the man's desire to spread his seed to have as many offspring as possible, and that is one reason for cheating. 

Women on the other hand have the evolutionary darwinian biological imperative to cheat to secure varied and healthier or more superior genes for their offspring, as well as to secure more males to feel vested in the offspring in order to have a secure life in which more than one man will provide for them. 

However, because women are now capable of earning as much or more than a man, that may be why they are cheating at a higher rate. 

They may be cheating for the same reason men cheat, and that is plain and simply to have sex.

But that's just my .O2.


----------



## ReformedHubby

Cherrelle - I didn't Mean to Turn You On - YouTube


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Part of my own lack of understanding of what women face is that any given place I go out, I see plenty of women I'm attracted to. Yet, entire nights have gone by where female friends of mine said they didn't spot even one guy they'd consider. When girls do point out a guy they think is hot, he just looks like any other dude to me 90% of the time. It makes me believe that women are really really picky.


If you're chasing point, then one is pretty much as food as another. If you're looking to relate to an actual person, there are many more variables to consider.

Some men are very picky; some women are not picky at all.

Oh, and your picture of what "women" like and go after is specific to to women you are chasing and the means you are using.


----------



## RandomDude

"I may not be the worst or the best, but you gotta respect my Ho-Nes-Ty!"
Taio Cruz - Break Your Heart ft. Ludacris - YouTube

lol

Hell I can't believe I forgot about this song!


----------



## ReformedHubby

RandomDude said:


> "I may not be the worst or the best, but you gotta respect my Ho-Nes-Ty!"
> Taio Cruz - Break Your Heart ft. Ludacris - YouTube
> 
> lol
> 
> Hell I can't believe I forgot about this song!


The funny thing is most men that are as open about their intentions end up attracting women that think they can "change them". One of my good friends has always been this way. I don't hang out with him much anymore. Not because he's a bad guy, its because whomever he is "dating" at the time looks to me or my wife for tips on how to get him to commit. Which makes things awkward. Because I know he'll never commit. 

I actually went to high school with Ludacris. We used to call him Little Chris. Its not like we hung out a lot because I'm a little older, but he was always rapping. Even then. Amazing to see how successful he's become.


----------



## Caribbean Man

RandomDude said:


> "I may not be the worst or the best, but you gotta respect my Ho-Nes-Ty!"
> Taio Cruz - Break Your Heart ft. Ludacris - YouTube
> 
> lol
> 
> Hell I can't believe I forgot about this song!


Or how about this one by Miguel:

Miguel - Quickie.

"*Quickie*"

Mami you looking like I'm just another guy
That came to check you
That came to wreck you
No disrespect but mami that's correct cause...
What's in them jeans just got my mind hectic
I can see that you're feeling my passion
Is it cause I'm flashing (hmm)
Or is it this cash that's just way too reckless
Or is it this necklace
Wait, let me interrupt myself with this message. See,

[Chorus:]
I don't wanna be loved
I don't wanna be loved
I just wanna quickie
No bite marks, no scratches, and no hickeys
If you can get with that, mami come get with me
I don't wanna be loved
I don't wanna be loved
I just wanna quick fix
Up in your mix miss
Send me your wishlist
I have you addicted
So mami come hit this

Mami I realize that I'm manish
Speak a language of love like Spanish
"Quero Fugir"
I'm so obscene and know what I mean?
Yeah sorry that was Portuguese
And I speak with ease
Please (aha) get on them knees
I gotta penny for your thoughts
If you know what I mean

[Chorus]

Don't be offended babe
By what I say
It's just a game
And how I play
Pillage and plunder
Call me your plumber
Knock on this wood
Get rocked by this thunder [x2]
- Miguel

No " Duping " going on here , he's just honest about his intention, and yes , this approach works like magic.

Or how can I forget about this one:

Miguel - How Many Drinks? (Remix) ft. Kendrick Lamar.

"_ No, no, no
I ain't judgin'
If you do decide that you might be [email protected]' tonight, what?
More power to you if you do decide that you might be [email protected]' tonight
Le-le-let me dig that out like a fossil
Damn baby that ass is colossal
Pilates and milk did that body so good
You've gotten a pair I wish I could

How many drinks would it take you to leave with me?
You look good and we came to party but I don't wanna waste my time.
Back of my mind I'm hoping you say two or three
Agree? Indeed
You look good and we came to party but I don't wanna waste my time,
Or waste your time, or waste your time, or waste our time
Baby it's alright, baby it's alright, baby it's alright
Oh it's alright now, alright, oh yeah
I don't wanna waste my time
I don't wanna waste no time
I don't wanna waste your time
I don't wanna waste our time,
Or my time_"

For those that didn't know, this^^^ is how a _real _PUA operates.
That's the type of lines they use , because every man worth his salt knows it all comes down to how he uses his tone of voice , his words and projection in that type of mating game. 
No need for Roosh or whatever his name is, and all that " rapey " stuff. If the girl he's dropping lines on isn't quick on the draw he simply moves to another girl.
Cause in his eyes she ain't that important, he's only after sex , and he could get that from another woman who's more willing.
I beginning to wonder if any of the women on this thread has ever been hit on by a _real_ PUA smoothie or even a real Playa.


----------



## RandomDude

> I beginning to wonder if any of the women on this thread has ever been hit on by a real PUA smoothie or even a real Playa.





> The funny thing is most men that are as open about their intentions end up attracting women that think they can "change them".


Damn right, that's the game 

Simply be the best you can be, be confident but don't be stuck up. Be cool, be calm, be collected. Be flirty but be able to get away with it under the guise of humor so anything can be easily taken back with no consequences. 

You'll naturally attract, and be able to pick and choose, it forces women to see the competition, pressures them to claim you before someone else does, and when you have them where you want them, be honest with your intentions, it shows confidence, shows that you respect her, a gentleman. That you're a guy she can go wild with and suffer no consequences, the wild bad boy that she wants to tame. No need for pickup lines or BS lies, that's for amateurs and players.

Heh, good times 

... sad though, cause I fking got tamed by STBX 
And you by your wife CM no? lol



> Not because he's a bad guy, its because whomever he is "dating" at the time looks to me or my wife for tips on how to get him to commit. Which makes things awkward. Because I know he'll never commit.


Never say never... sh-t happens


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SimplyAmorous said:


> Yep, same here...Devil may think he has all women figured out...some of us don't fit the profile.... It would be awful to be single today...wading through all of this... people's expectations, what they ASSUME about the opposite sex... what is heartfuly - or fvckingly (I should say ) important to each of us can be so individual... I bet many get miss read...and relationships totally missed.


If I asked any woman off the street she'd say the same thing as you and C2W. Then I'd watch as she's totally off-put by the guy that shows too much interest too soon or otherwise tries too hard.

I see this over and over again in all sorts of venues.

I guess Chalk it up as another example of where I hear so many women say they'd do one thing, but do something else in practice. I get a lot of flak for statements like that, but truthfully, its seriously frustrating to most men. I'd love to say it wasn't true.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> If you're chasing point, then one is pretty much as food as another. If you're looking to relate to an actual person, there are many more variables to consider.
> 
> Some men are very picky; some women are not picky at all.
> 
> Oh, and your picture of what "women" like and go after is specific to to women you are chasing and the means you are using.


That's just it, from across the room the only thing one knows is how good someone looks. Guys see plenty of good looking girls worth pursuing. The girls don't. At that early point in the game, there's nothing else to go on.

This is one of the many reasons I've said (and been roasted here) looks matter less to women. Counter intuitive considering she's so picky right? Yet, a whole slew of these guys that don't actually stand out to her on looks still have a good shot at landing a date with her. She's more willing to forgo noteworthy looks for the right personality.

Guys mostly seem just the opposite. They'll forgo quite a lot of desirable non-physical qualities for the right looks.

Hence why men are more vulnerable to being conned by beautiful women, and women are more vulnerable to being conned by men with charm and charisma.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Caribbean Man said:


> Or how about this one by Miguel:
> 
> Miguel - Quickie.
> 
> "*Quickie*"


Love that song and "Sure thing".

Miguel - Sure Thing - YouTube


----------



## TiggyBlue

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That's just it, from across the room the only thing one knows is how good someone looks. Guys see plenty of good looking girls worth pursuing. The girls don't. At that early point in the game, there's nothing else to go on.
> 
> This is one of the many reasons I've said (and been roasted here) looks matter less to women.


I personally don't thinking women not seeing many they find physically attractive means look matter less, from what I've personally seen a good looking bloke just needs to stand there to get attention and a date, he really doesn't need to have game or do anything to get a laid.

Plus there was a thread where a lot of guys saying Gisele Bundchen was with Tom Brady because of his status and not his look (rating Gisele a lot higher in the rankings than Tom) it became apparent what men sometimes view as a physically attractive man is a lot different to what woman view as a physically attractive man. 




> Hence why men are more vulnerable to being conned by beautiful women, and women are more vulnerable to being conned by men with charm and charisma.


I don't know I've seen women put up with a massive amount of sh*t because their partner is physically attractive (not saying charisma doesn't work for some).


----------



## ocotillo

Created2Write said:


> Ick...that statement made my skin crawl. And is precisely why I don't believe in casual sex. People are worth _so_ much more than that. If a guy carried himself like he could care less what happened between him and I, I wouldn't give him the time of day.


I'm not trying to be argumentative here. I'm just musing out loud (So to speak)

I suspect there's probably a huge difference between how we believe we're being perceived by others and how they actually perceive us. 

If that is true, then it is conceivable that a person might have to overcorrect internally to project the desired image externally. 

What DvlsAdvc8 said resonates pretty strongly with me, because it completely aligns with my life experience. Even when I think I'm being cool and reserved, I still somehow manage to come across as an exuberant puppy and people have told me as much.


----------



## treyvion

TiggyBlue said:


> I personally don't thinking women not seeing many they find physically attractive means look matter less, from what I've personally seen a good looking bloke just needs to stand there to get attention and a date, he really doesn't need to have game or do anything to get a laid.
> Plus there was a thread where a lot of guys saying Gisele Bundchen was with Tom Brady because of his status and not his look (rating Gisele a lot higher in the rankings than Tom) it became apparent what men view as a physically attractive man is a lot different to what woman view as a physically attractive man.


They do see something different. Plus the guys look is enhanced by his ranking within the "matrix". So she may see a super good looking man.





TiggyBlue said:


> I don't know I've seen women put up with a massive amount of sh*t because their partner is physically attractive (not saying charisma doesn't work for some).


Because they are physically attractive or because of "popularity".


----------



## remorseful strayer

RandomDude said:


> Damn right, that's the game
> 
> Simply be the best you can be, be confident but don't be stuck up. Be cool, be calm, be collected. Be flirty but be able to get away with it under the guise of humor so anything can be easily taken back with no consequences.
> 
> You'll naturally attract, and be able to pick and choose, it forces women to see the competition, pressures them to claim you before someone else does, and when you have them where you want them, be honest with your intentions, it shows confidence, shows that you respect her, a gentleman. That you're a guy she can go wild with and suffer no consequences, the wild bad boy that she wants to tame. No need for pickup lines or BS lies, that's for amateurs and players.
> 
> Heh, good times
> 
> ... sad though, cause I fking got tamed by STBX
> And you by your wife CM no? lol
> 
> 
> 
> Never say never... sh-t happens


Yes, all you have to do is be honest about what you want, have a well packaged appearance (not necessary to be the best looking guy in the room, just well turned out)

And, then.......and this is supremely important, flash your cash around. 

It doesn't matter how good looking you are, if you don't have money to flash around you aren't gonna attract any attractive women. 

You do need to be at least average looking and well packaged and well groomed.

Lastly, it really helps to be above average in height.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> If I asked any woman off the street she'd say the same thing as you and C2W. *Then I'd watch as she's totally off-put by the guy that shows too much interest too soon or otherwise tries too hard.*


 This all depends on if he is overweight or good looking.... I like lanky men only.....their charm with other women does not make me want them...it further makes me feel they are NOT *my type* at all. 



> I guess Chalk it up as another example of where I hear so many women say they'd do one thing, but do something else in practice. I get a lot of flak for statements like that, but truthfully, its seriously frustrating to most men. I'd love to say it wasn't true.


I can be very thick skulled in some ways, haven't you noticed ... I would also admit, I can be vain....I want the man to show he is into me - not playing hard to get.....If I don't have what it takes to garner his attention and hold it ....why would I be foolish enough to pine after someone like that..... 

It was my husbands Love that WON me over Devil... I wouldn't want a man who acted differently....(I speak out of my experience one could say)....he was very obvious...he wore his heart on his sleeve for me... Yeah, most women would have kicked him to the curb... I didn't...I found it endearing. 

That doesn't mean I don't notice good looks, of course I do... but if they don't see me as a potential and show me this in some way... such men are purely a fleeting notice to me... I mean this. 

I prefer humble honest men, they don't need GAME.. just to be able to hold a REAL conversation, and we find we have similar interests/ life goals...it's in the communication and *his showing interest* -where I am the type that envisions attachment... nothing less. 

Seriously.


----------



## TiggyBlue

> Because they are physically attractive or because of "popularity".



Nope because they are physically attractive, some no job, on drugs and sponges of her while living with his parent's, but because he is hot some put up with all of that sh*t (even when her girlfriend's tell her to get rid he's a waste man).


----------



## ReformedHubby

I can recall one instance in my life where I personally knew a woman that was literally duped into a one night stand. Back when I was in college a new hotshot QB was on the rise (He is currently an NFL starter) on campus. 

I was at my girlfriend's apartment one Saturday morning. Her roommate came home still dressed in the same clothes from the previous night. She was a little excited and said I hooked up with so and so last night(the QB). My girlfriend at the time teased her saying "It was your first time hooking up with a black guy how was it?". The look on her roommate's face said it all. Her reply was "He's black?!?". I laughed so hard I started to cry.

Apparently, some guy probably jokingly told her he was in fact the star QB. He most likely thought it would be playful banter, because he was white and the QB was definitely black. When she went with it he never bothered to tell her he was joking. I felt a little bad after laughing at her so hard. The look on her face was a combination of regret and anger.


----------



## RandomDude

Aye, status, it IS part of the game especially with younger women - sorry ladies, but tis truth.


----------



## treyvion

remorseful strayer said:


> Yes, all you have to do is be honest about what you want, have a well packaged appearance (not necessary to be the best looking guy in the room, just well turned out)
> 
> And, then.......and this is supremely important, flash your cash around.
> 
> It doesn't matter how good looking you are, if you don't have money to flash around you aren't gonna attract any attractive women.


Not true... I know of men who are "Drags" off of women having women swarm for them. They know they aren't going to get dinner paid for, they will not get treated super nice, but they can get drunk or hi and pounded out and sent home.



remorseful strayer said:


> You do need to be at least average looking and well packaged and well groomed.
> 
> Lastly, it really helps to be above average in height.



Money helps, but it is not required in all environments. Some of the women will have a "provider" friend, but he's not necessarily getting the tail.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

TiggyBlue said:


> I personally don't thinking women not seeing many they find physically attractive means look matter less, from what I've personally seen a good looking bloke just needs to stand there to get attention and a date, he really doesn't need to have game or do anything to get a laid.


The problem is that the really good looking bloke is the 1%. HE may be able to stand there, do nothing, and get laid. The next tier is "hey, he's good looking"... also a relatively small percentage. Then there's the masses of: "He's decent looking". I'm inclined to believe that I fall somewhere between decent looking and good looking depending on the woman's taste. I'm told I'm good looking all the time (making a point, not bragging), yet its fairly rare occasion that a woman will hit me up if I'm just there and not doing anything... much less get laid. As often as I've been out, I'm baffled by your account. It is an exceptionally rare guy that can just sit around while all the women come to him.



TiggyBlue said:


> what men sometimes view as a physically attractive man is a lot different to what woman view as a physically attractive man.


I totally agree with this. Of course, I wasn't referring to specific good looks, but volume. How many attractive men does she see? From what I'm told, very few... even if the ones picked make little sense to me. Even among those, there are even fewer that she would be so into that she'd make the approach or ramp up her attempts to get his attention.



TiggyBlue said:


> I don't know I've seen women put up with a massive amount of sh*t because their partner is physically attractive (not saying charisma doesn't work for some).


I can't say I have. The women I see putting up with a lot of sh*t are the ones who are more emotionally attached... whether he's really good looking or not. I don't sense a correlation to physical appearance at all.

A hot girl can con a dude out of his shoes within 5 minutes.

The Tom Brady thing still makes my brain misfire. This is a regular dude to me. Decent face, totally hum drum mediocre body (which says little more than, "he's not fat")... nothing special. So its all about the face for women? Baffling.


----------



## RandomDude

Oh come on, even a hot girl can ruin her whole sex appeal easily if she lacks the charm and grace. Or is it just me - in that I'm a picky bastard? Bah -.-


----------



## TiggyBlue

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The Tom Brady thing still makes my brain misfire. This is a regular dude to me. Decent face, totally hum drum mediocre body (which says little more than, "he's not fat")... nothing special. So its all about the face for women? Baffling.


His face, height, body frame. 
Yes his body now is a improvement the pic you've shown but even in that pic you can see he has all the fundamentals there (he isn't a patch on Kellan Lutz though imo).


----------



## Deejo

C'mon now. Same can be said of almost any sex symbol or celebrity. There is a point, prior to all the hoopla and attention that they are just like everyone else. That's the difference between your Tom Brady photo and mine. Same applies with marketing yourself, whether to find Mr. or Mrs. Right, or Mr. or Ms. Right Now.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Please note that Tom Brady is extremely TALL. mmmmmm.....


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

remorseful strayer said:


> Lastly, it really helps to be above average in height.


I've been straight up told that hair and height are my two greatest weaknesses in appearance, in order. I've had a shaved head since I was 19. Fortunately, the hair has mattered less and less as I've gotten older.

Being as slim as I am is third but a little less pervasive. Some women like my build, others want a bigger guy that they sort of disappear into when they hug. 

Oh well on those fronts. 


On women being money grubby, I'll say that it helps to have money in all cases, even while not all women are actively seeking money. From what I've seen, flaunting money is a turn off to all but the most trashy women. It's all in how you show that you have money. Just not caring about money spent (flaunting money without drawing attention to it) is effective; having high taste while not being too uptight to go somewhere cheap or low key because you like it is on target. Show you have money without showing you think you're better than other people because you have money. So yeah, money plays a part, but not quite as direct a part as you'd think for most women. Its more of a nice to have and shows that the guy has his sh*t together from what I gather.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

RandomDude said:


> Oh come on, even a hot girl can ruin her whole sex appeal easily if she lacks the charm and grace. Or is it just me - in that I'm a picky bastard? Bah -.-


I think guy's will take a lot of crap. Of course its a matter of degree... but the ease with which some hot women can open male wallets is proof of my point. They don't even have to hide it. They want, they get.

I've seen too many guys get trampled giving a hot girl everything she wants. They'll even defend her while she's stomping on them.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

I hate sports, especially football (YAWN)... so I had no idea who Tom Brady even was!


----------



## treyvion

Deejo said:


> C'mon now. Same can be said of almost any sex symbol or celebrity. There is a point, prior to all the hoopla and attention that they are just like everyone else. That's the difference between your Tom Brady photo and mine. Same applies with marketing yourself, whether to find Mr. or Mrs. Right, or Mr. or Ms. Right Now.


I can see why that Tom Brady would get some tail. He's poised, confident, not depressed looks like someone who would get some tail.

Now whether it's supermodels or not... Well who does SuperModels date? Atheletes and business men? Well he's an athelete.


----------



## treyvion

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I think guy's will take a lot of crap. Of course its a matter of degree... but the ease with which some hot women can open male wallets is proof of my point. They don't even have to hide it. They want, they get.
> 
> I've seen too many guys get trampled giving a hot girl everything she wants. They'll even defend her while she's stomping on them.


Right, guys take more of the crap due to the looks of the relation partner.

A female would only take crap if she loves the guy.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SimplyAmorous said:


> I want the man to show he is into me - not playing hard to get.....


Correction: you want the man you are already into to show he is into you as well. If you're taking someone higher than you, maybe you're immediately interested. As I've said before, most of us are going to aim high and sure, you want THAT guy to show obvious interest. You already want him. Its entirely different at the margins however. The guy you're not already crazy into... the guy who is chasing you as his "step up" or equal.

This is the majority of cases. The guy at the top of your "hot list", is probably hotter than you. Of course you want him to come at you with anything. But, if he's at the top of your list, you're likely not at the top of his. Thus why most people tend to match up with like partners... and at the margins, if a guy comes on too strong to a woman who's lukewarm because he's not a big catch (in appearance) for her.... she's going to be even less interested.

His best play is to emulate the behaviors of the guy that she's really into - the behaviors of guys at the top of her list - and those guys don't come slobber over her because THEY can do better. In other words, its best for that male to give off only those signals that correspond to his being a high value male.

This takes thinking way outside the romantic box, down to the animal instinct level and what is really going on in human mating.



SimplyAmorous said:


> Yeah, most women would have kicked him to the curb... I didn't...I found it endearing.


You're rare. Every woman seems to say they want a guy who wears his heart on his sleeve and is sensitive... but in practice, few actually do. They want men who act how they believe men are supposed to act. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> I prefer humble honest men, they don't need GAME.. just to be able to hold a REAL conversation, and we find we have similar interests/ life goals...it's in the communication and *his showing interest* -where I am the type that envisions attachment... nothing less.
> 
> Seriously.


Humble/honest and game aren't mutually exclusive. If he's able to really connect with you in conversation right off the bat, keep you engaged and build up your interest... then he has game. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've always felt that you've described your husband as the more reserved, quiet, less assertive type than this communication dynamo. Perhaps this is how he is with you now, but was he this super-conversationalist right off the bat? That doesn't tend to correlate with a more passive and reserved person.

Gonna ramble for a minute...

I know about this, I was one of these passive/reserved guys as a teenager. Once I knew someone I was a great conversationalist... however, good luck trying to get to know me, because if I didn't know you I didn't say much. If I did say something, whatever came out was insanely stupid. I couldn't think. I couldn't talk to girls. I had no game and everything I said was raw and from the heart. I had a ton of confidence in my abilities, but little confidence with women (I might even say an irrational lack of confidence). The girls I dated were all more assertive in the relationship than I was. All of my relationships were "accidental". Nobody asked anybody out... I was completely at the mercy of coincidence and pretty much whatever girl happened along. I was 18 before I asked a girl out the first time and it was the most retarded story imaginable.

I was pretty much subject to whoever would come get me, as opposed to going and getting what I could get. So my high school days were spent dating a bunch of girls that I wasn't all that attracted to - girls for whom I was a catch - because my nature was unattractive to the hotter girls. I'd get initial interest, and be too shy to make anything of it, or I was "too nice". I watched guys no better looking than I was (even lesser looking) dating all the girls I was interested in.

Lame story: I was in bed (well, couch) with a very attractive girl after a party. We met the day before, and really hit it off at the party and she mentioned several times that it was like she had known me for years... like we were old friends. Well, by sheer luck, I'm there on the couch and we're getting serious... I start undoing clothes and she stops me: "Are you sure about this? Is this going to ruin our friendship? I feel like we really hit it off and I don't want to mess that up."

...
..
.

The nice guy I was, said: "Yeah, its really crazy how much we click. Maybe you're right. I don't want to do something you're not comfortable with. We don't have to do anything if you don't want to." (I felt like a champion of virtue)

We slept on the couch together, no further sexual contact.

From then on she avoided me. Huge lesson learned about women: "Disregard the literal content of my words and find what I'm expressing between the lines." She didn't want me to stop, she wanted me to allay her concerns and keep going. I learned from one of our mutual friends later that my so eagerly stopping was off putting. I was supposed to go for what I wanted and sooth her. Instead, I folded like paper. I had no balls. I was a nice and sweet p*ssy caving at the first hint of resistance.

Most women instinctively recognize this weird power balance and find this lack of assertiveness or excessive "nice-ness" unattractive. I was so quick to bow and bend to her mild mention of a concern... it sort of hints that she'd be able to walk all over me. That I lack a proper sense of self. Confidence to go for it and lead. I still look back baffled that this happened... and similar things, on more than one occasion.

Events like that led to my working on myself and getting rid of the nice guy. It was the best thing I ever did in terms of my sex life.


----------



## ocotillo

Faithful Wife said:


> Please note that Tom Brady is extremely TALL. mmmmmm.....


He's one whole inch taller than my wife...


----------



## Faithful Wife

Wow, ocotillo! Married an amazon, eh? Sweet.


----------



## Created2Write

All I know is that, if I were ever single again, I would look for a new mate within the church. The casual sex thing just isn't attractive to me, and neither is the PUA lifestyle as a whole. I prefer the nice guys.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

TiggyBlue said:


> His face, height, body frame.
> Yes his body now is a improvement the pic you've shown but even in that pic you can see he has all the fundamentals there (he isn't a patch on Kellan Lutz though imo).


6'4" is a desirable height for the average female? The average female is 5'4". A 1 foot difference is desirable?

Even today, Tom's body can't be described with any superlatives. He's not fat is really about the only good thing you can say about it. He's not athletic. He's not tone and lean. He doesn't have great skin. He's plain.

So tall, plain body and good face = one of the sexiest men alive? Okay. Baffles me. I see why women would like him for the face.... that's about it. Other than that, he's Joe Average.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> Please note that Tom Brady is extremely TALL. mmmmmm.....


And he has a dashingly handsome face. A guy doesn't have to be ripped to be incredibly attractive.


----------



## TiggyBlue

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> 6'4" is a desirable height for the average female? The average female is 5'4". A 1 foot difference is desirable?


I'm 5'4, 6'4 is a lot more desirable to me than a guy who on the shorter side.



> Even today, Tom's body can't be described with any superlatives. He's not fat is really about the only good thing you can say about it. He's not athletic. He's not tone and lean. He doesn't have great skin. He's plain.



You may see him as plain, kind of irrelevant to what women find physically attractive. 



> So tall, plain body and good face = one of the sexiest men alive? Okay.


Never said he was one of the sexiest men alive (he may be to some women) but imo he is definitely above average, a 6 pack doesn't necessarily make a man attractive neither does a lack of a 6 pack necessarily make a man unattractive.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> And he has a dashingly handsome face. A guy doesn't have to be ripped to be incredibly attractive.


So you're confirming? Handsome face, blah body = incredibly attractive?

Few if any men would say the same about a woman.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

TiggyBlue said:


> I'm 5'4, 6'4 is a lot more desirable to me than a guy who on the shorter side.


6'4" is hotter to you than 5'10" (male average)?



TiggyBlue said:


> You may see him as plain, kind of irrelevant to what women find physically attractive.


Not all irrelevant. I'm objectively identifying the features that turn Brady from Joe Average to mega hottie. So you're saying its all in the face? In the body all a guy has to do is not be fat?



TiggyBlue said:


> Never said he was one of the sexiest men alive (he may be to some women) but imo he is definitely above average, a 6 pack doesn't necessarily make a man attractive neither does a lack of a 6 pack necessarily make a man unattractive.


So the body doesn't matter? Just don't be fat? So if we give Tom big shoulders, nice biceps, an actual chest and a 6 pack... you don't think he'd be hotter?


----------



## Faithful Wife

"6'4" is hotter to you than 5'10" (male average)?"

:lol:


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> "6'4" is hotter to you than 5'10" (male average)?"
> 
> :lol:


Mockery. C2W, per our previous conversation, this is how it starts. This thread is about to rapidly decline.

So FW, women desire a 1 foot height difference? Tiggy said she's 5'4".

How tall are you and sex god pray tell?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes, Dvls. They do. This has been well documented and studied, and I would think you knew this, since you supposedly know all about what women "really" want.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Tall Men - AskMen


----------



## TiggyBlue

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> 6'4" is hotter to you than 5'10" (male average)?


Definitely, 6ft and up is good IMO



> Not all irrelevant. I'm objectively identifying the features that turn Brady from Joe Average to mega hottie. So you're saying its all in the face? In the body all a guy has to do is not be fat?


You are objectifying him as a straight man, not a woman who objectifies men for their genetics. 



> So the body doesn't matter? Just don't be fat? So if we give Tom big shoulders, nice biceps, an actual chest and a 6 pack... you don't think he'd be hotter?


I already he said he's body is better now, I also said even in the picture you posted of him you could see he had all the fundamentals there and a 6 pack, big shoulders doesn't necessarily mean a man has a good body shape.


----------



## ocotillo

Faithful Wife said:


> "6'4" is hotter to you than 5'10" (male average)?"
> 
> :lol:


I'd call that a big yes....

I would imagine there's a point where it would start to become creepy even if a man doesn't have the face of Richard Kiel (?)


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, Dvls. They do. This has been well documented and studied, and I would think you knew this, since you supposedly know all about what women "really" want.


You're right it has been studied, and thank you for taking the bait. Taller is not better. The repeatedly documented female preference is that a male be between 5-8 inches taller. 6'5" and above actually show a negative preference on par with that of men 5'7" and shorter. So your boy Brady is right at the top of the range before his height really begins to cost him, and clearly out of the preferred range of the majority of females.

Unsurprisingly, the average difference between male and female height is 6 inches.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Sure, ok.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Every female I know would pick 6'5" over 5'7" any day...and yes we do discuss this. One of my friends is 5'0" and her hubby is 6'5".


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> So you're confirming? Handsome face, blah body = incredibly attractive?
> 
> Few if any men would say the same about a woman.


I didn't say he has a blah body. FW mentioned one of his attractive qualities, I was adding another. I think he has a nice body. I had a bf once who was short, but muscular...six pack and everything and I would definitely say that Brady's body is much better than his.


----------



## TiggyBlue

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Unsurprisingly, the average difference between male and female height is 6 inches.


Well duh there's not enough tall blokes to go around, not everyone can have one.


----------



## WyshIknew

Shucks.


I'm 5' 10".

Weeping in my beer right now.


But I am purty.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Mockery. C2W, per our previous conversation, this is how it starts. This thread is about to rapidly decline.


Cause this kind of comment always makes things better, Dvls. One person isn't responsible for a conversation, fyi.



> So FW, women desire a 1 foot height difference? Tiggy said she's 5'4".
> 
> How tall are you and sex god pray tell?


Personally, being very short myself, I love my husband's average height. However, men who are tall definitely can have an advantage on attractiveness as tallness implies greater strength and physical ability.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

TiggyBlue said:


> Definitely, 6ft and up is good IMO


And up to what? You defined a lower bound... you don't have an upper bound?



TiggyBlue said:


> You are objectifying him as a straight man, not a woman who objectifies men for their genetics.


Uh... what does the difference in purpose matter? Am I not able to recognize a trait a woman describes as attractive? If I showed pics of Tom's body with no face, it would be met with a collective "meh".

So > 6', pretty face and flabby body. Swoon?



TiggyBlue said:


> I already he said he's body is better now, I also said even in the picture you posted of him you could see he had all the fundamentals there and a 6 pack, big shoulders doesn't necessarily mean a man has a good body shape.


I spoke to that. He doesn't look any better today. He's a little thicker with age that's about it.









March 2013. Still dumpy as ever. ^this is a good body shape? This is pretty much the average-guy-who-isn't-overweight's body shape.

So much for women being picky.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Faithful Wife said:


> "6'4" is hotter to you than 5'10" (male average)?"
> 
> :lol:


I'm a complete height [email protected] and you must be "this" tall to ride this ride.


----------



## Created2Write

My first boyfriend was much taller than I. By a good eight or nine inches, at least. I loved his height. It made me feel very safe. And he didn't have an athletic figure at all. He was very "average", by Dvls standards, and yet looking back on all of the men I dated, next to DH he was the most attractive. Even above the Marines I went out with who had six packs and massive biceps.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> And up to what? You defined a lower bound... you don't have an upper bound?
> 
> 
> 
> Uh... what does the difference in purpose matter? Am I not able to recognize a trait a woman describes as attractive? If I showed pics of Tom's body with no face, it would be met with a collective "meh".
> 
> So > 6', pretty face and flabby body. Swoon?
> 
> 
> 
> I spoke to that. He doesn't look any better today. He's a little thicker with age that's about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> March 2013. Still dumpy as ever. ^this is a good body shape? This is pretty much the average-guy-who-isn't-overweight's body shape.
> 
> So much for women being picky.



Seriously? I think he has a smokin' body. If this is flabby, send it my way!


----------



## TiggyBlue

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> And up to what? You defined a lower bound... you don't have an upper bound?


There was this guy on this dating show awhile ago called Chi, he was 6'8. I wouldn't usually go that tall but he was exceptional. 




> Uh... what does the difference in purpose matter? Am I not able to recognize a trait a woman describes as attractive? If I showed pics of Tom's body with no face, it would be met with a collective "meh".


No offense but obviously not.



> March 2013. Still dumpy as ever. ^this is a good body shape? This is pretty much the average-guy-who-isn't-overweight's body shape.
> 
> So much for women being picky.


Calling his body dumpy,flabby, plain doesn't make his body any less attractive to women.


----------



## Created2Write

To me, this is "flabby" and "meh":


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

TiggyBlue said:


> Well duh there's not enough tall blokes to go around, not everyone can have one.


Actually, contrary to FW, studies on height preference would argue that not everyone wants one.

I've noted the average of what men and women are: 5'4" vs 5'10". I've noted the normal distribution of female height preference - its 5-8 inches taller with a low standard deviation. Meaning few women prefer a difference above or below this range.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Devils, I wanted to point out that you have repeatedly said women are more picky than men yet here you are trying to convince us that Brady is ugly. A guy widely considered by women AND men to be a very good looking man.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> To me, this is "flabby" and "meh":


And if he had Brady's face?


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> And if he had Brady's face?


....His body would still be blah and meh because his body is actually blah and meh. Brady has a very nice body and isn't at all what I would consider "flabby". Or did you not see that I consider Brady smokin?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Devils, I wanted to point out that you have repeatedly said women are more picky than men yet here you are trying to convince us that Brady is ugly. A guy widely considered by women AND men to be a very good looking man.


I'm not trying to convince anyone Brady is ugly. Just that its all in his face and fame. I always use him in these discussions and it always ends up coming down to his face... not even his height. 6'4" is in fact too tall for the preferences of most women under 5'6".

Women are picky... but what exactly you're picky about is practically rocket science.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Not rocket science...here we all are saying it, plain as day.


----------



## treyvion

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Devils, I wanted to point out that you have repeatedly said women are more picky than men yet here you are trying to convince us that Brady is ugly. A guy widely considered by women AND men to be a very good looking man.


Devils may be extremely handsome himself and consider Brady to have average physical looks.


----------



## Faithful Wife

"6'4" is in fact too tall for the preferences of most women under 5'6"."

Interesting that you seem to want to make this be true.


----------



## PHTlump

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> So you're confirming? Handsome face, blah body = incredibly attractive?
> 
> Few if any men would say the same about a woman.


There really is no objective standard for what women find attractive. There are some generalities, like not obese. But even academic studies found a wide range of physical types that appealed to women.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I'm not trying to convince anyone Brady is ugly. Just that its all in his face and fame. I always use him in these discussions and it always ends up coming down to his face... not even his height. 6'4" is in fact too tall for the preferences of most women under 5'6".


His height is a big factor. You mention biology alot around here so I'll use it as well. Women want a tall man because their children will be taller. Tall is perceived as more powerful and successful. Whether that is true or not, society does value height.


----------



## samyeagar

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> 6'4" is a desirable height for the average female? The average female is 5'4". A 1 foot difference is desirable?
> 
> Even today, Tom's body can't be described with any superlatives. He's not fat is really about the only good thing you can say about it. He's not athletic. He's not tone and lean. He doesn't have great skin. He's plain.
> 
> So tall, plain body and good face = one of the sexiest men alive? *Okay. Baffles me. I see why women would like him for the face.... that's about it. Other than that, he's Joe Average*.


Ahh...but once you put a football, or a guitar in Joe Average's hands, his hotness goes way up...


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> ....His body would still be blah and meh because his body is actually blah and meh. Brady has a very nice body and isn't at all what I would consider "flabby". Or did you not see that I consider Brady smokin?


Dude's little spare tire is as wide as his chest and that's a very nice body? That's awesome. Research suggests women prefer an inverted triangle shape... broad chest and lean, narrow waist. Brady doesn't have it... even slightly.

Can you see why I point this out? If I go to the club with some guys, they point out at least a dozen women that are hot. This in spite of men seemingly having a pretty narrow definition of what is hot - its the face, its the hair, its the body, the butt, the breasts, the skin etc etc. Narrow definition and a ton of women meet it.

If I go the club with my girl's girls, they're hard pressed to point out even 1 or 2 attractive guys all night, despite seemingly having fewer requirements for what actually makes a guy hot. Loose definition and nobody meets it.

They always joke that its so easy for guys to find someone. Yet, the guy they point out as hot looks little different from this other guy they dismissed or a dozen others. Its baffling.

I think if Tom Brady really had that more flabby body pic, women here would still think he's super hot. Strange stuff.

btw... for all the female height preference stuff, it works the other way around too. Men prefer women shorter than them, with about the same differential as women have for men.


----------



## Faithful Wife

sam said: "Ahh...but once you put a football, or a guitar in Joe Average's hands, his hotness goes way up..."


Or....you see the guy do an iron cross on the rings.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dvls said: "Can you see why I point this out?"

Yes, it is pretty obvious why you are pointing it out.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

samyeagar said:


> Ahh...but once you put a football, or a guitar in Joe Average's hands, his hotness goes way up...


Joe Average? On what planet is Brady "average"? If I saw him walking down the street and didn't have a clue who he was, he'd still turn my head. Tall, sharp cheekbones, strong jawline, great hair. Who'd want that?! Come on. He's a good looking guy regardless if he throws a football.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> "6'4" is in fact too tall for the preferences of most women under 5'6"."
> 
> Interesting that you seem to want to make this be true.


I don't want it to be anything. According to every height preference study I've seen cited, its true. For the record, I'm 5'10". I prefer women who are 5'1" - 5'6". I don't pursue women who are any taller or shorter. A woman a foot shorter than me is about as appealing as a woman an inch taller than me - as in, not appealing to me at all.

Interesting that you can't talk about something without taking veiled shots. Isn't there a name for women like that?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Aww...I'm hurt. 

Not.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> sam said: "Ahh...but once you put a football, or a guitar in Joe Average's hands, his hotness goes way up..."
> 
> 
> Or....you see the guy do an iron cross on the rings.


Oh damn... my hotness just went way up. Thanks!


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> sam said: "Ahh...but once you put a football, or a guitar in Joe Average's hands, his hotness goes way up..."
> 
> 
> Or....you see the guy do an iron cross on the rings.


True that  Of course, when the chick is showing what she can do on the beam...


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Dude's little spare tire is as wide as his chest and that's a very nice body? That's awesome. Research suggests women prefer an inverted triangle shape... broad chest and lean, narrow waist. Brady doesn't have it... even slightly.


Women have the capability to appreciate a man's unique shape. DH has that triangle you talk about it and, as a woman who is particularly turned on by broad and muscular shoulders, I love his body. But that doesn't mean any man without it is suddenly not attractive. 

Not every woman is as curvy as others. Jillian Michaels doesn't really have curves at all, and yet she's a gorgeous woman. Scarlet Johansen isn't traditionally skinny as she has an hourglass figure with wide hips and big breasts, and she's also gorgeous. 

Brady being smokin' doesn't mean he is the standard by which all male hotness is compared.



> Can you see why I point this out?


Not at all, actually. Brady is hot. So? 



> If I go to the club with some guys, they point out at least a dozen women that are hot. This in spite of men seemingly having a pretty narrow definition of what is hot - its the face, its the hair, its the body, the butt, the breasts, the skin etc etc. Narrow definition and a ton of women meet it.
> 
> If I go the club with my girl's girls, they're hard pressed to point out even 1 or 2 attractive guys all night, despite seemingly having fewer requirements for what actually makes a guy hot. Loose definition and nobody meets it.
> 
> They always joke that its so easy for guys to find someone. Yet, the guy they point out as hot looks little different from this other guy they dismissed or a dozen others. Its baffling.


....That sucks? I really don't know what to say. Those women really do sound picky. I happen to appreciate the various attractive qualities that a lot of men possess. 



> I think if Tom Brady really had that more flabby body pic, women here would still think he's super hot. Strange stuff.
> 
> btw... for all the female height preference stuff, it works the other way around too. Men prefer women shorter than them, with about the same differential as women have for men.


Ok?


----------



## samyeagar

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Joe Average? On what planet is Brady "average"? If I saw him walking down the street and didn't have a clue who he was, he'd still turn my head. Tall, sharp cheekbones, strong jawline, great hair. Who'd want that?! Come on. He's a good looking guy regardless if he throws a football.


Just like "good looking" women, good looking men by popular standards like Tom Brady are a dime a dozen when you really look around.


----------



## WyshIknew

But does this height attractiveness count in anything more than the first glance?
I'm 5' 10" as I've said but I'm pretty sure once I got to know a woman that lack of height would not be a problem. And I don't regard 5' 10" as being particularly short anyway.

Obviously if, like TRBE, height is particularly important to you then it is probably insurmountable D) in a social/sexual setting.

But I'm pretty sure charm, wit, looks and a reasonable body will go a long way to offset height.


----------



## Faithful Wife

sam...I agree, except that his height is exceptional and he is hotter because of it.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

WyshIknew said:


> But does this height attractiveness count in anything more than the first glance?
> I'm 5' 10" as I've said but I'm pretty sure once I got to know a woman that lack of height would not be a problem. And I don't regard 5' 10" as being particularly short anyway.
> 
> Obviously if, like TRBE, height is particularly important to you then it is probably insurmountable D) in a social/sexual setting.
> 
> But I'm pretty sure charm, wit, looks and a reasonable body will go a long way to offset height.


I prefer tall men but that's because I'm tall, nearly 5'10". I also love high heels. That said, I have found men of all heights attractive.


----------



## Created2Write

I really appreciate men who don't look like all of the other men that I see. I like uniqueness. It's why I love my husband's body. He's about 5'11", broad shoulders, very muscular quads and hamstrings, he has that triangle thing, great posture, large hands, and he's super athletic. I love watching him play volleyball. Man oh man, can he jump! I love watching him tumble. I love watching him run. He just has a great persona, along with a great body, that gives him a unique quality.

A guy can have a great body and be traditionally handsome, and be the same as every other guy out there with a great body. Perhaps that's what the girls you talk to are referring to, Dvls? Maybe those guys are lacking that indefinable quality that makes others unique?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Therealbrighteyes said:


> His height is a big factor. You mention biology alot around here so I'll use it as well. Women want a tall man because their children will be taller. Tall is perceived as more powerful and successful. Whether that is true or not, society does value height.


I'd love to agree with that argument, its right up my alley, except that height becomes a negative preference for the majority of women... ironically at 6'5" and above.


----------



## ocotillo

WyshIknew said:


> But does this height attractiveness count in anything more than the first glance?
> I'm 5' 10" as I've said but I'm pretty sure once I got to know a woman that lack of height would not be a problem. And I don't regard 5' 10" as being particularly short anyway.
> 
> Obviously if, like TRBE, height is particularly important to you then it is probably insurmountable D) in a social/sexual setting.
> 
> But I'm pretty sure charm, wit, looks and a reasonable body will go a long way to offset height.



Wouldn't a lot depend upon the height of the woman herself? --The proverbial eye of the beholder?


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> sam...I agree, except that his height is exceptional and he is hotter because of it.


I agree that height is a factor. I am not nearly as tall as Tom, hell, I'm not even the average of 5'10" at 5'7", but I have mostly dated women taller me and some shorter than myself because I do have other qualities that make me attractive, both physically and otherwise. I have only been broken up with once, all the others, with one exception where she died, I was the one who ended it. I would say that my dating life has been very successful with many high quality women despite my height, though it always took a lot of work.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

samyeagar said:


> Just like "good looking" women, good looking men by popular standards like Tom Brady are a dime a dozen when you really look around.


THIS c2w. This is the point.

And yet, there remains some ethereal differentiating factor between cute face Brady and a half-dozen cute faced regular guys at the club. Yet, these guys are overlooked.

I find that bizzare. Brady has a good face and he's tall, but more than that, he has well established status. Take away the status, and he's just another one of these random guys that these girls I know are passing on with comments like "Ugh... no, he's slumpy" or "no, he looks like a d*uche/tool" etc. To be honest, I don't know what they're keying on.

I presume aura... projected personality.


----------



## samyeagar

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> THIS c2w. This is the point.
> 
> And yet, there remains some ethereal differentiating factor between cute face Brady and a half-dozen cute faced regular guys at the club. Yet, these guys are overlooked.
> 
> I find that bizzare. Brady has a good face and he's tall, but more than that, he has well established status. Take away the status, and he's just another one of these random guys that these girls I know are passing on with comments like "Ugh... no, he's slumpy" or "no, he looks like a d*uche/tool" etc. To be honest, I don't know what they're keying on.
> 
> *I presume aura... projected personality*.


Yep, and many women will deny this. They are somewhat aware of his professional accomplishments, his bank account, and decent looks. They then create a mild fantasy around him, and idealize him, and viola, hottest thing walking...


----------



## Faithful Wife

I just call it Sex-dar. I can "see" the ones who have something goin' on. No proof, no research, no polls....yet I have a great track record in picking the ones who actually have a shot at rockin' my world. And being that I've never dated a famous person....there is zero having to do with that.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

samyeagar said:


> Yep, and many women will deny this. They are somewhat aware of his professional accomplishments, his bank account, and decent looks. They then create a mild fantasy around him, and idealize him, and viola, hottest thing walking...


I find any guy that looks like him hot. I've seen guys walking in downtown that look similar and without knowing a flip about them, I found them wildly attractive. 

View attachment 10729



Seriously, this is even being debated?


----------



## TiggyBlue

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Seriously, this is even being debated?


You notice not by women.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> THIS c2w. This is the point.
> 
> And yet, there remains some ethereal differentiating factor between cute face Brady and a half-dozen cute faced regular guys at the club. Yet, these guys are overlooked.
> 
> I find that bizzare. Brady has a good face and he's tall, but more than that, he has well established status. Take away the status, and he's just another one of these random guys that these girls I know are passing on with comments like "Ugh... no, he's slumpy" or "no, he looks like a d*uche/tool" etc. To be honest, I don't know what they're keying on.
> 
> I presume aura... projected personality.


Again I say, ok? Guys who workout are a dime a dozen, too. Guys with six packs are a dime a dozen. Traditionally hot guys are a dime a dozen. Unattractive guys are a dime a dozen. 

The key, imo, is what indefinable qualities Brady has that distinguishes him from other guys. He's successful at his job, he's athletic and has a great body, he's tall, he's dashing, etc. I don't know how he dresses, but clothing is important. 

The issue isn't "Why do women find Brady attractive", it's "Why don't the women you know find guys you think look like Brady unattractive"?


----------



## Created2Write

Sam, I don't think it's so much that the guy is famous. There are some pretty beefy and highly unattractive guys who are famous.


----------



## Created2Write

Oh, and btw, Dvls why are you calling me out so much in your posts? I'm not the only woman disagreeing with you...


----------



## ocotillo

Faithful Wife said:


> Wow, ocotillo! Married an amazon, eh? Sweet.


LOL - Tall men generally have tall daughters. And sisters. And mothers. 

It's hard to have one without the other.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

FrenchFry said:


> Ah, I see now. Dvls and Sam live in Amsterdam where 6'4 pretty blue-eyed dudes are the norm.


Devils lives in L.A which has a congregation of good looking people due to Hollywood. Ugly people don't make it there. Come to Houston though and you will see that 6'4", blue eyed, chiseled cheekbone men are not the norm.


----------



## COGypsy

God I miss Brady Quinn....he was a pretty QB too, even if he wasn't ever a starter! I saw him out and about quite a few times and always...ahem....appreciated the view!

P.S.--I know you meant Tom Brady, but I just had a little moment


----------



## SimplyAmorous

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Correction: you want the man you are already into to show he is into you as well. If you're taking someone higher than you, maybe you're immediately interested. As I've said before, most of us are going to aim high and sure, you want THAT guy to show obvious interest. You already want him. Its entirely different at the margins however. The guy you're not already crazy into... the guy who is chasing you as his "step up" or equal.


 aiming high in which Way Devil.. I don't look to $$ , status, big charm at the bar stool...to aim high..... I look to *lifestyle*,* shared interests*, *Integrity*... *honesty*... this has to sound so boring to you.. ....it's not boring to me... I wouldn't want to waste my time with any fly by nights...to me, those would just be detours along my way to finding a suitable match for who I was. 



> This is the majority of cases. The guy at the top of your "hot list", is probably hotter than you. Of course you want him to come at you with anything. But, if he's at the top of your list, you're likely not at the top of his. Thus why most people tend to match up with like partners... and at the margins, if a guy comes on too strong to a woman who's lukewarm because he's not a big catch (in appearance) for her.... she's going to be even less interested.


 I was on the quiet side in high school -depending -though I always shined one on one...... thought all Jocks were A-holes and leaned towards being a "good girl"...with some attitude... it's not like the popular boys were looking my way...I didn't force my way into that conceited circle, if I didn't like how someone treated the lessor people, it spoke volumes about their character to me. 



> His best play is to emulate the behaviors of the guy that she's really into - the behaviors of guys at the top of her list - and those guys don't come slobber over her because THEY can do better. In other words, its best for that male to give off only those signals that correspond to his being a high value male.


 My husband never thought he was anyone special..in my view.... that just means he didn't see his *true value* and was not a bragger....some of us do look deeper than "outside appearances".. there is always alot more to a person. 



> This takes thinking way outside the romantic box, down to the animal instinct level and what is really going on in human mating.


 We were both more romantically inclined with less animal on our brains I guess... he too, the young 18 yr old Jaded by women --gave up on finding Love but still wanted it deep down....it was NOT about getting laid to him. 




> *You're rare. Every woman seems to say they want a guy who wears his heart on his sleeve and is sensitive... but in practice, few actually do. They want men who act how they believe men are supposed to act.*


My husband often tells me I am "not normal "...he means this in a GOOD way... I DO speak it how I feel it - I know what rocks my boat....I prefer sensitive men , empathetic, Romantic, the family type man... they just have to be cute, totally devoted to me, love sex -but be willing to wait till the time is right ....and we're off to the races... This doesn't mean a man who can't hold his emotions..... I've only seen my husband cry in public twice.. at his dad's funeral & an old friend... He handles himself like a man. He's always been there for me in every way I have needed...He is not Mr Testosterone though, but he'd lay his life on the line to save me or our children...what more do I need. 



> Humble/honest and game aren't mutually exclusive. If he's able to really connect with you in conversation right off the bat, keep you engaged and build up your interest... then he has game.


 Without making myself sound like a master conversationalist here.. I can help anyone carry a conversation...if they are willing... shy boys are a lot of FUN..because they are those deep thinkers... 



> Maybe I'm wrong, *but I've always felt that you've described your husband as the more reserved, quiet, less assertive type than this communication dynamo. Perhaps this is how he is with you now, but was he this super-conversationalist right off the bat? That doesn't tend to correlate with a more passive and reserved person*.


 You are absolutely right, I was the super conversationalist.. we just had a ton in common as I unearthed it... and we grew from there, if he played Mr Passive...uninterested.." it's none of your business"... or gave me some creepy vibe in return---like I was a nuisance... I wouldn't have given him the time of day... but he had what was necessary...ya know... even without GAME...

He was RAW... and he gave me his honesty and his heart....I don't make fun of things like that... he was a good one... I knew early on, if I left this one, I'd never find another like him.....He may not have offered me diamonds & rubies, excitement every weekend at some damn Boozing party...but I didn't need all that to hold MY interest...our romance...what we brought to each other..this was a growing thing..... as this is so hard to find in men at a young age...they are too fickle and want to bang every hot women they see....one is never enough, they get bored...why in the hell would I want that [email protected]#$% 



> Gonna ramble for a minute...
> 
> I know about this, I was one of these passive/reserved guys as a teenager. Once I knew someone I was a great conversationalist... however, good luck trying to get to know me, because if I didn't know you I didn't say much. If I did say something, whatever came out was insanely stupid. I couldn't think. I couldn't talk to girls.* I had no game and everything I said was raw and from the heart.*


 Ha ha ...you WERE so my type...(though your true self was really an animal- not a romantic)....I know how ridiculous this must sound... you see, my best friends brother was a very backwards SHY Boy, he was crazy about me when we met in the 5th grade..-but I liked other boys, had puppy love Bf's.....he held back from showing it too much...but everyone knew...he wasn't cute enough .. but as we grew older I realized the deepness in him.. he also grew some long hair (got a thing for that on guys)..... but by then I had my BF..so it didn't matter anymore... but really...he had SO MUCH to offer...he almost made a move on me one night - so close, the tension was there in the air... but he chickened out...this wouldn't have been sex ,but it would have taken it from friendship to something romantic....I sometimes wonder If I might have ended up with him -had he put himself out there more...He is still single today. 

Being a little shy & awkward in a guy's teen years... I don't think this is all shame....you see.. to me...these are the ones the girls overlook... looking too much to those outward appearances.... Could be some diamonds in the Raw there! 




> Lame story: I was in bed (well, couch) with a very attractive girl after a party. We met the day before, and really hit it off at the party and she mentioned several times that it was like she had known me for years... like we were old friends. Well, by sheer luck, I'm there on the couch and we're getting serious... I start undoing clothes and she stops me: "Are you sure about this? Is this going to ruin our friendship? I feel like we really hit it off and I don't want to mess that up."
> 
> The nice guy I was, said: "Yeah, its really crazy how much we click. Maybe you're right. I don't want to do something you're not comfortable with. We don't have to do anything if you don't want to." (I felt like a champion of virtue)
> 
> We slept on the couch together, no further sexual contact.


 I am not sure what to say about your story ..I am not one to stomp on virtue, I like it.... but you're probably right, women would have liked you just taking her -more firmly not questioning yourself, going for what you wanted....

Though...I wouldn't have allowed the hottest guy to start undressing me - at a party on someone's couch ... to me, that would be disrespectful and I'd feel he was using me...knowing someone a night - and nothing more ...I would be against my moral code...Oh I could succumb but I'd most certain regret that move! 

I need to be friends with a man 1st...before Lovers... I do not believe in the other way around.

I also would know in the 1st 5 minutes of meeting someone if they could be a potential or NOT.. going by looks alone...yet...the rule always for me...take it SLOW....very slow....see where it has the potential to go.. if anywhere... 



> From then on she avoided me. Huge lesson learned about women: "Disregard the literal content of my words and find what I'm expressing between the lines." *She didn't want me to stop, she wanted me to allay her concerns and keep going*. I learned from one of our mutual friends later that my so eagerly stopping was off putting. I was supposed to go for what I wanted and sooth her. Instead, I folded like paper. I had no balls. I was a nice and sweet p*ssy caving at the first hint of resistance.


Well for the casual sex woman, who wants it wild, aggressive..and NOW... likes to drink and party, hang overs & all...yeah...you probably screwed up, this is true! 

I wouldn't be in that situation .... *and if I wanted touched, I sure as hell wouldn't be speaking something else*.. I don't understand women like that..I might have been quiet to some degree... but still assertive and honest -when it came to what I wanted...whether it be a "Yes -baby, don't stop now" -- or "No, this is not going to be working for me" and let him know exactly why....hopefully I'd have enough tact- to be graceful about it.... 



> Most women instinctively recognize this weird power balance and find this lack of assertiveness or excessive "nice-ness" unattractive. I was so quick to bow and bend to her mild mention of a concern... it sort of hints that she'd be able to walk all over me. That I lack a proper sense of self. Confidence to go for it and lead. I still look back baffled that this happened... and similar things, on more than one occasion.


 See my husband vs YOU.....and ME vs the type of women who enjoy that scenario you laid out on the party couch....who speak out of 2 sides of their mouth....

We are all on different pages... the way my husband IS...works for ME... see... in his eyes...when the woman speaks - he takes her at her word...if she is not interested & has expressed such...in his view... *she's spoken.*...why should he question it.. ....We talked about this once in detail.. 

NOW.. I am EXCELLENT for him....why... I wasn't full of all this "double talk"..saying one thing but wanting something else.... I'd be more apt to state clearly - but with some humor , and entertainment exactly what I am after...if I felt comfortable of course...(once someone gets to know me, they would laugh about my being shy)... 

I let him know early on what I was looking for in a relationship......laid it all out....and seeking what he was looking for as well... how uncanny how it matched up like we were heaven picked for each other... if he was faking it (to win me)...... he's been doing a hell of a job for the last 31 yrs.. 

It's a different dynamic...that's all. (and not a common one obviously) 



> Events like that led to my working on myself and getting rid of the nice guy. It was the best thing I ever did in terms of my sex life.


 And that's good, you are living what you wanted (I suppose- your dream in high school as that shy young awkward boy) - different HOT Pu$$y every night.... 

And I....not being the type that would ever want that lifestyle got what I was seeking also... the Gentleman type with the big heart who is a "one woman" type man... and he is NICE... this is good for our children... and I highly appreciate his patience...with me sometimes too!


----------



## Created2Write

See, for me I think this is incredibly simple: women and men are individuals. I don't think that we can generalize about what physical qualities appeal to what gender because attractions change. When I was a teen I was attracted to specific qualities that I'm not attracted to now. I even went through a phase where I wasn't attracted to white guys at all. 

What we're attracted to changes as we go through life, so even in studies where women say that they aren't attracted to men over 6'4", those same women could easily change their mind the next year. 

So I don't think we can generalize about what qualities are more popular.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

samyeagar said:


> Ahh...but once you put a football, or *a guitar in Joe Average's hands, his hotness goes way up.*..


Only the guitar for me...


----------



## Created2Write

SimplyAmorous said:


> aiming high in which Way Devil.. I don't look to $$ , status, big charm at the bar stool...to aim high..... I look to *lifestyle*,* shared interests*, *Integrity*... *honesty*... this has to sound so boring to you.. ....it's not boring to me... I wouldn't want to waste my time with any fly by nights...to me, those would just be detours along my way to finding a suitable match for who I was.
> 
> I was on the quiet side in high school -depending -though I always shined one on one...... thought all Jocks were A-holes and leaned towards being a "good girl"...with some attitude... it's not like the popular boys were looking my way...I didn't force my way into that conceited circle, if I didn't like how someone treated the lessor people, it spoke volumes about their character to me.
> 
> My husband never thought he was anyone special..in my view.... that just means he didn't see his *true value* and was not a bragger....some of us do look deeper than "outside appearances".. there is always alot more to a person.
> 
> We were both more romantically inclined with less animal on our brains I guess... he too, the young 18 yr old Jaded by women --gave up on finding Love but still wanted it deep down....it was NOT about getting laid to him.
> 
> 
> My husband often tells me I am "not normal "...he means this in a GOOD way... I DO speak it how I feel it - I know what rocks my boat....I prefer sensitive men , empathetic, Romantic, the family type man... they just have to be cute, totally devoted to me, love sex -but be willing to wait till the time is right ....and we're off to the races... This doesn't mean a man who can't hold his emotions..... I've only seen my husband cry in public twice.. at his dad's funeral & an old friend... He handles himself like a man. He's always been there for me in every way I have needed...He is not Mr Testosterone though, but he'd lay his life on the line to save me or our children...what more do I need.
> 
> Without making myself sound like a master conversationalist here.. I can help anyone carry a conversation...if they are willing... shy boys are a lot of FUN..because they are those deep thinkers...
> 
> You are absolutely right, I was the super conversationalist.. we just had a ton in common as I unearthed it... and we grew from there, if he played Mr Passive...uninterested.." it's none of your business"... or gave me some creepy vibe in return---like I was a nuisance... I wouldn't have given him the time of day... but he had what was necessary...ya know... even without GAME...
> 
> He was RAW... and he gave me his honesty and his heart....I don't make fun of things like that... he was a good one... I knew early on, if I left this one, I'd never find another like him.....He may not have offered me diamonds & rubies, excitement every weekend at some damn Boozing party...but I didn't need all that to hold MY interest...our romance...what we brought to each other..this was a growing thing..... as this is so hard to find in men at a young age...they are too fickle and want to bang every hot women they see....one is never enough, they get bored...why in the hell would I want that [email protected]#$%
> 
> Ha ha ...you WERE so my type...(though your true self was really an animal- not a romantic)....I know how ridiculous this must sound... you see, my best friends brother was a very backwards SHY Boy, he was crazy about me when we met in the 5th grade..-but I liked other boys, had puppy love Bf's.....he held back from showing it too much...but everyone knew...he wasn't cute enough .. but as we grew older I realized the deepness in him.. he also grew some long hair (got a thing for that on guys)..... but by then I had my BF..so it didn't matter anymore... but really...he had SO MUCH to offer...he almost made a move on me one night - so close, the tension was there in the air... but he chickened out...this wouldn't have been sex ,but it would have taken it from friendship to something romantic....I sometimes wonder If I might have ended up with him -had he put himself out there more...He is still single today.
> 
> Being a little shy & awkward in a guy's teen years... I don't think this is all shame....you see.. to me...these are the ones the girls overlook... looking too much to those outward appearances.... Could be some diamonds in the Raw there!
> 
> 
> I am not sure what to say about your story ..I am not one to stomp on virtue, I like it.... but you're probably right, women would have liked you just taking her -more firmly not questioning yourself, going for what you wanted....
> 
> Though...I wouldn't have allowed the hottest guy to start undressing me - at a party on someone's couch ... to me, that would be disrespectful and I'd feel he was using me...knowing someone a night - and nothing more ...I would be against my moral code...Oh I could succumb but I'd most certain regret that move!
> 
> I need to be friends with a man 1st...before Lovers... I do not believe in the other way around.
> 
> I also would know in the 1st 5 minutes of meeting someone if they could be a potential or NOT.. going by looks alone...yet...the rule always for me...take it SLOW....very slow....see where it has the potential to go.. if anywhere...
> 
> Well for the casual sex woman, who wants it wild, aggressive..and NOW... likes to drink and party, hang overs & all...yeah...you probably screwed up, this is true!
> 
> I wouldn't be in that situation .... *and if I wanted touched, I sure as hell wouldn't be speaking something else*.. I don't understand women like that..I might have been quiet to some degree... but still assertive and honest -when it came to what I wanted...whether it be a "Yes -baby, don't stop now" -- or "No, this is not going to be working for me" and let him know exactly why....hopefully I'd have enough tact- to be graceful about it....
> 
> See my husband vs YOU.....and ME vs the type of women who enjoy that scenario you laid out on the party couch....who speak of 2 sides of their mouth....
> 
> We are all on different pages... the way my husband IS...works for ME... see... in his eyes...when the woman speaks - he takes her at her word...if she is not interested & has expressed such...in his view... *she's spoken.*...why should he question it.. ....We talked about this once in detail..
> 
> NOW.. I am EXCELLENT for him....why... I wasn't full of all this "double talk"..saying one thing but wanting something else.... I'd be more apt to state clearly - but with some humor , and entertainment exactly what I am after...if I felt comfortable of course...(once someone gets to know me, they would laugh about my being shy)...
> 
> I let him know early on what I was looking for in a relationship......laid it all out....and seeking what he was looking for as well... how uncanny how it matched up like we were heaven picked for each other... if he was faking it (to win me)...... he's been doing a hell of a job for the last 31 yrs..
> 
> It's a different dynamic...that's all. (and not a common one obviously)
> 
> And that's good, you are living what you wanted (I suppose- your dream in high school as that shy young awkward boy) - different HOT Pu$$y every night....
> 
> And I....not being the type that would ever want that lifestyle got what I was seeking also... the Gentleman type with the big heart who is a "one woman" type man... and he is NICE... this is good for our children... and I highly appreciate his patience...with me sometimes too!


LOVE this post SA. You and I are a lot alike. 

My husband is the kind of guy who is confident, but he doesn't mingle like everyone else. He listens while others talk, evaluates if he'll have anything in common with the people in the conversation, and can often come across as very quiet. He's really not. He's the most intelligent person I know, and he's a great conversationalist. 

But he's a nice guy. He never had or pursued a ONS or casual sex. He never had sex with his exes before they'd been together for a while(at least a couple of months). He wasn't looking for the next great lay, he was looking for a lifelong mate. And it's one of the reasons he was so irresistible to me.


----------



## ocotillo

SimplyAmorous said:


> Only the guitar for me...


--Like Will Ferrell and Maggie Gyllenhaal in _Stranger Than Fiction? _

Guitar Scene


----------



## WyshIknew

ocotillo said:


> Wouldn't a lot depend upon the height of the woman herself? --The proverbial eye of the beholder?


Yep.

However, figures I've seen state that the average height of women in the UK and US is 5' 4" to 5' 5".

I'm comfortably taller than that therefore I am taller than most women!

Which gives me a wide choice of women to pick.

If they don't want a short arse 5' 10" guy then why should I care.

When they've finished squabbling over all the tall guys I'll pick the tastiest one left.


----------



## RandomDude

<--- 5'11
Wife ---> 5'9

<--- Still got her 

Height isn't everything


----------



## Caribbean Man

WyshIknew said:


> If they don't want a short arse 5' 10" guy then why should I care.
> 
> When they've finished squabbling over all the tall guys I'll pick the tastiest one left.


:iagree:

No complex algebra in that!


----------



## Created2Write

SimplyAmorous said:


> Only the guitar for me...


DH is athletic _and_ musical; piano(soooooooooooooo sexy), drums(also suuuuuuuuper sexy), bass guitar and electric guitar. I love his talents.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I find any guy that looks like him hot. I've seen guys walking in downtown that look similar and without knowing a flip about them, I found them wildly attractive.
> 
> View attachment 10729
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, this is even being debated?


Its not being debated. My whole point in using Tom Brady is that its all face. Height honestly isn't even a factor since most women have no idea how tall he is. That body w an average face and most women probably wouldn't even know who he is.

I have a friend who looks kinda like Matt Damon, a guy I gather is (or at least was) sort of in the Tom Brady style of good looking (not quite, but good looking). Except my friend is 6'2". Women largely seem to think matt Damon is pretty cute, and yet my friend gets no play at all. He's quiet.

Hell, in person Tom Brady probably isn't even Tom Brady, if you know what I mean. Take away fame and put him in an average place and id bet he gets as little direct attention as my friend.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yeah, I'm sure he has absolutely NO GAME whatsoever...poor Giselle.

NOT.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Its not being debated. My whole point in using Tom Brady is that its all face. Height honestly isn't even a factor since most women have no idea how tall he is. That body w an average face and most women probably wouldn't even know who he is.
> 
> I have a friend who looks kinda like Matt Damon, a guy I gather is (or at least was) sort of in the Tom Brady style of good looking (not quite, but good looking). Except my friend is 6'2". Women largely seem to think matt Damon is pretty cute, and yet my friend gets no play at all. He's quiet.
> 
> Hell, in person Tom Brady probably isn't even Tom Brady, if you know what I mean. Take away fame and put him in an average place and id bet he gets as little direct attention as my friend.


You can keep telling yourself that Brady's height isn't part of his appeal. I and most women here disagree. 
About your friend, since I don't know him that's tough to tell what the issue is. You mention quiet and that's cool but oftentimes that comes across as insecure or lacking confidence. Could that be it?


----------



## Created2Write

Matt Damon is only "kind of good looking"? News to me. I happen to think he's incredibly handsome. 

And hasn't every woman in this thread found Brady to be very attractive because of his height and his body? Or am I confusing this with a different thread?


----------



## Created2Write

Double post.


----------



## RandomDude

I noticed taller girls tend to care less about taller guys then shorter ladies. Which is good for me as I like long legs


----------



## Faithful Wife

I would say the opposite Random...taller girls typically want an even taller man the the average height girl.


----------



## Faithful Wife

In fact, more than once I have had a tall girl tell me I should have left my H in the wild for the taller girls as they don't have enough taller guys to date. I just say "sorry, you're on your own sister, he's mine".


----------



## RandomDude

Then I must have game! 

lol


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yummy.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Its not being debated. My whole point in using Tom Brady is that its all face.


Really? Cause every woman here has found a lot more than face to be attracted to. Unless you don't count us as a part of the female population. 



> Height honestly isn't even a factor since most women have no idea how tall he is. That body w an average face and most women probably wouldn't even know who he is.


A lot of women follow football. 

Your continual put down of his height and body as negatives is interesting. Why do you want him to be "average" so badly?



> Hell, in person Tom Brady probably isn't even Tom Brady, if you know what I mean. Take away fame and put him in an average place and id bet he gets as little direct attention as my friend.


Doubtful. Brady's hot, plain and simple. If he has even the barest of essential ability to hold a conversation with a woman, I would bet he'd be hella successful.


----------



## Created2Write

FF, I love it! And damn, is he HOT!!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> Oh, and btw, Dvls why are you calling me out so much in your posts? I'm not the only woman disagreeing with you...


Talking to you is calling you out? If I'm speaking to you, I use your name in the paragraph.

I'm not sure what's up with the hostility. I presented a contradiction in behavior between what women say the like and how those I go out with respond. A weird contradiction of having seemingly wide range of what isthought attractive, yet being really picky in practice.

Honestly, I'm not sure what any of you are disagreeing with. That Tom Brady is attractive? Duh? Thats the reason I use him as an example. Pretty face with a blah body (you say its not blah, but thats pretty much the body of the majority of guys I know... its nothing special). So I really don't get why the girls aren't jumping for these other pretty faces. Its remarkably hard to predict what guy a woman will find attractive in real life. In discussion, even many of the seemingly agreed upon heart throbs get torn down when the group of women dissolves, as though there is a ton of group think going on. I have a LOT of friends. Its what I do. None of the guys, even the obviously good looking ones, get the level of attention implied by women having "sexdar". If they just wait around, they're prob not gonna get laid.

Maybe FW frequented clubs where women were a lot easier than the places I go, because sexdar having women on the prowl for sex is a pretty laughable concept where Ive been. Yeah, there might be a couple... and they're typically the damaged batsh*t crazy ones. Ask me how I know? She still stalks me.


----------



## RandomDude

I don't get the whole 'must tower over me' thing really, STBX and I found our relatively similar heights a great asset especially with her desires for standing positions in the past. And I know I'll never get a bad back from bending down all the time!


----------



## Faithful Wife

Nope, never picked up a dude in a club, not once.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Because being towered over makes me hot?


----------



## WyshIknew

FrenchFry said:


> This is my ideal height ratio. All I can see is crotch? Perfect!
> 
> (totally joking...kinda)


Damn.

If he is proportionate how the heck do they manage?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Oh you bet he is....


----------



## RandomDude

I don't get why guys like girls so much shorter than them either lol


----------



## samyeagar

Created2Write said:


> Sam, I don't think it's so much that the guy is famous. *There are some pretty beefy and highly unattractive guys who are famous*.


Sure there are, but there are still plenty of women falling over themselves for them. Take away the fame, and not a second glance.


----------



## WyshIknew

Well she has got a big smile......


----------



## TiggyBlue

Faithful Wife said:


> Because being towered over makes me hot?


They can throw you around easy to, sooo much fun.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Talking to you is calling you out? If I'm speaking to you, I use your name in the paragraph.
> 
> I'm not sure what's up with the hostility.


I really wasn't trying to be hostile. You kept mentioning me in your posts and I wasn't sure why. I was just asking for clarification. 



> I presented a contradiction in behavior between what women say the like and how those I go out with respond. A weird contradiction of having seemingly wide range of what isthought attractive, yet being really picky in practice.
> 
> Honestly, I'm not sure what any of you are disagreeing with. That Tom Brady is attractive? Duh? Thats the reason I use him as an example. Pretty face with a blah body *(you say its not blah, but thats pretty much the body of the majority of guys I know... its nothing special)*.


See, this is what _I_ am disagreeing with. You used him as an example of a supposedly average looking guy, and the fact is that no woman in this thread sees him as an average looking guy. I've been disagreeing with you because I really don't think women contradict themselves as much as you think. I think women know exactly what they want and are attracted to. I think the issue is the kind of women you pursue, not women in general. Your experience exist in a very specific lifestyle, and that lifestyle does not represent the majority of women. 



> So I really don't get why the girls aren't jumping for these other pretty faces.


You're supposed to be a PUA; doesn't the key to being attractive go beyond the physical appearance? Assuming PUA is true, then a guy can be massively attractive and not have good game. Right? 



> Its remarkably hard to predict what guy a woman will find attractive in real life. In discussion, even many of the seemingly agreed upon heart throbs get torn down when the group of women dissolves, as though there is a ton of group think going on. I have a LOT of friends. Its what I do. None of the guys, even the obviously good looking ones, get the level of attention implied by women having "sexdar". If they just wait around, they're prob not gonna get laid.
> 
> Maybe FW frequented clubs where women were a lot easier than the places I go, because sexdar having women on the prowl for sex is a pretty laughable concept. Yeah, there might be a couple... and they're typically the damaged batsh*t crazy ones. Ask me how I know? She still stalks me.


Okay? I still think that most women know exactly what they want and are attracted to. The context in which these interactions take place, and the type of people being referred to, are essential details in coming to conclusions.


----------



## WyshIknew

TiggyBlue said:


> They can throw you around easy to, sooo much fun.


So can a reasonably buff 5' 10" dude.

Just sayin'


----------



## Created2Write

samyeagar said:


> Sure there are, but there are still plenty of women falling over themselves for them. Take away the fame, and not a second glance.


Sure...those are the women who only care about money. 

Tom Brady actually is hot, so his fame has nothing to do with women in this thread thinking he's attractive.


----------



## RandomDude

Ladies check out my new thread! Please vote!


----------



## WyshIknew

Created2Write said:


> Sure...those are the women who only care about money.
> 
> Tom Brady actually is hot, so his fame has nothing to do with women in this thread thinking he's attractive.


Not necessarily. Their fame could be because of their confidence, humour etc.


----------



## Created2Write

WyshIknew said:


> Not necessarily. Their fame could be because of their confidence, humour etc.


Could be. My point was that the women here don't find Brady hot because of his fame.


----------



## RandomDude

Fame is a factor don't deny!

Same way how a more popular guy has a clear advantage in the game then someone who's relatively unknown.


----------



## WyshIknew

Created2Write said:


> Could be. My point was that the women here don't find Brady hot because of his fame.


Yes, with you.

Hot trumps everything to be honest.


----------



## samyeagar

I see women every day at work and on the streets that I find more attractive than any of the movie stars or models, and I really do think that the same goes for a lot of women too. There are men around every day that they see, but they go largely unnoticed.

I think part of it is that people can generally compartimentalize famous people like Tom Brady into an unattainable category, and it makes them easier to be attracted to. It is easier for most people to tell their spouse about how they find some celebrity hot, but would not dream of telling them about their hot coworker. Hence the list of five freebies thing. Any five famous people on the list you'd get a free pass to sleep with if the chance arose. Wonder why the hot pizza delivery guy can't be on that list...


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Created2Write said:


> My point was that the women here don't find Brady hot because of his fame.


No, no. He's only hot because he's famous. The same way Sophia Vergara is only hot because of a television show.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SA, I didn't quote you for brevity, but by "aim high", I mean in looks. I believe we all go for the most attractive partner we're able to lure. Pretty people going for significantly less attractive people is very rare.

I disagree about the shy awkward teen. There is a lot of shame there. The biggest reason most of them are that way is pure and simple fear. They are afraid of being judged and have a poor sense of self. Weak self esteem. Its ultimately cowardly imo. Again, I was that guy in early high school. I played football, I ran track, I played baseball and I was well liked, but my reserve was about fear. Like all fear, you need to face it and slay it. The sooner the better imo.

Also, the girl I was one the couch with was by no means "easy" even if the time might make you think so. We really did click that well, and in the end my lack of assertiveness was a major turnoff. We rarely spoke thereafter, but by no means did she have any sort of reputation nor was she interested in casual sex. Dispell the notion in your head that having sex early necessarily means you are casual. I was very serious. So much so that I'd rather have not had sex and allowed something to develop with time... Exactly what cost me. She wanted me to lead.


----------



## WyshIknew

Yes it's a wonder how us homely, short arsed, poor, non famous guys even manage to function.


----------



## ocotillo

Therealbrighteyes said:


> No, no. He's only hot because he's famous. The same way Sophia Vergara is only hot because of a television show.


Thank you. Now there's Diet Coke all over my screen....:rofl:


----------



## Created2Write

RandomDude said:


> Fame is a factor don't deny!
> 
> Same way how a more popular guy has a clear advantage in the game then someone who's relatively unknown.


Not for me. I don't follow football and didn't know who the guy was that Dvls posted a picture of and my first thought was that he was hot. 

I know this could be difficult for guys to grasp, but some women really do care about how physically attractive a guy is. Not that she doesn't care about other qualities as well, but we really do care about the physical aspects. What we see has to get us going in some way.


----------



## samyeagar

Therealbrighteyes said:


> No, no. He's only hot because he's famous. The same way Sophia Vergara is only hot because of a television show.


The point was, and I still believe is true is that you take an otherwise average to slightly above average guy, put him in a sexually appealing movie role, put him on a stage with a guitar, or on the field with a football, and his hotness goes through the roof.

Take Tom Brady, make him a part time pizza delivery guy, and he wouldn't get nearly the attention he does.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Yeah, I'm sure he has absolutely NO GAME whatsoever...poor Giselle.
> 
> NOT.


Yeah, being a ba zillionaire athlete doesn't help at all either. Brady was the best looking Gisele could get? Not.


----------



## Created2Write

samyeagar said:


> The point was, and I still believe is true is that you take an otherwise average to slightly above average guy, put him in a sexually appealing movie role, put him on a stage with a guitar, or on the field with a football, and his hotness goes through the roof.
> 
> *Take Tom Brady, make him a part time pizza delivery guy, and he wouldn't get nearly the attention he does.*


Well duh, none of us would know he was. But he would STILL be a smokin' hot pizza guy who would get plenty of attention from the women around him.


----------



## samyeagar

Created2Write said:


> Not for me. I don't follow football and didn't know who the guy was that Dvls posted a picture of and my first thought was that he was hot.
> 
> I know this could be difficult for guys to grasp,* but some women really do care about how physically attractive a guy is*. Not that she doesn't care about other qualities as well, but we really do care about the physical aspects. What we see has to get us going in some way.


I absolutely agree with this, and have no doubts you are correct.


----------



## RandomDude

I find it interesting that alot of men consider someone like Scarlett Johansen hot, but for me, meh. And I'm considered weird because of it lol


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Yeah, being a ba zillionaire athlete doesn't help at all either. Brady was the best looking Gisele could get? Not.


Him having money doesn't suddenly make his looks irrelevant.


----------



## samyeagar

Created2Write said:


> Well duh, none of us would know he was. But he would STILL be a smokin' hot pizza guy who would get plenty of attention from the women around him.


Yes, he would get some attention, but not any different than other guys around him, and a lot less than some other ones.


----------



## WyshIknew

Created2Write said:


> Not for me. I don't follow football and didn't know who the guy was that Dvls posted a picture of and my first thought was that he was hot.
> 
> I know this could be difficult for guys to grasp, but some women really do care about how physically attractive a guy is. Not that she doesn't care about other qualities as well, but we really do care about the physical aspects. What we see has to get us going in some way.


Well this guy doesn't find it difficult to grasp. You do mean physique right?

I try to keep myself physically attractive.

I've got most 50+ men beat, and some younger guys too.


----------



## Created2Write

Scarlett Johansen is sooooo hot. The one woman in the world I'd love to make out with.


----------



## RandomDude

Created2Write said:


> Scarlett Johansen is sooooo hot. The one woman in the world I'd love to make out with.


Bleh not my type lol


----------



## samyeagar

RandomDude said:


> I find it interesting that alot of men consider someone like Scarlett Johansen hot, but for me, meh. And I'm considered weird because of it lol


Yeah, neither do I. And really never saw the huge appeal in Sofia Vergara either. Yeah, she has boobs and a body, but again, good bodied women are a dime a dozen. Nothing special in either of those two to set them apart to me.


----------



## Created2Write

samyeagar said:


> Yes, he would get some attention, but not any different than other guys around him, and a lot less than some other ones.


I can't agree that it wouldn't be any different than other guys around him. His height would get him noticed before any guys who are shorter than he is.


----------



## Ikaika

WyshIknew said:


> Well this guy doesn't find it difficult to grasp. You do mean physique right?
> 
> I try to keep myself physically attractive.
> 
> I've got most 50+ men beat, and some younger guys too.


You got me beat.


----------



## Created2Write

RandomDude said:


> Bleh not my type lol


Good. More for me.


----------



## Created2Write

WyshIknew said:


> Well this guy doesn't find it difficult to grasp. You do mean physique right?
> 
> I try to keep myself physically attractive.
> 
> I've got most 50+ men beat, and some younger guys too.


I wasn't referring to you, Wysh. You're a very, very attractive 50+ man. You have a lot of younger guys beat.


----------



## RandomDude

samyeagar said:


> Yeah, neither do I. And really never saw the huge appeal in Sofia Vergara either. Yeah, she has boobs and a body, but again, good bodied women are a dime a dozen. Nothing special in either of those two to set them apart to me.


Sofia is really unattractive IMO, same par as Penelope Cruz who I also wonder why people find her hot.


----------



## WyshIknew

drerio said:


> You got me beat.


Au contraire.

My online physical guru.


----------



## TiggyBlue

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Yeah, being a ba zillionaire athlete doesn't help at all either. Brady was the best looking Gisele could get? Not.


:scratchhead: Gisele's got a pretty face but not much curves, don't really see what the fuss is about (which by the logic on this thread means men find her more attractive because she's famous ).


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Therealbrighteyes said:


> You can keep telling yourself that Brady's height isn't part of his appeal. I and most women here disagree.
> About your friend, since I don't know him that's tough to tell what the issue is. You mention quiet and that's cool but oftentimes that comes across as insecure or lacking confidence. Could that be it?


Its not much a part of his appeal. To wit: I just asked my gf what she thought of Tom Brady and she said "he's cute". I asked her how tall he is and she has no idea. Vague notion that quarterbacks usually have to be tall. And this girl knows more football than most girls Ive met. I seriously doubt most women have any idea how tall Brady is... most men don't know, and will probably just guess the avg QB height.

No idea why my friend doesn't get more attention other than the fact he doesn't create it like I do. He just sits and waits. Imo, he's better looking than me, and he's a good bit taller than me with roughly the same build proportionally. If he jump out into conversation more or make his presence known he'd do far better.

Instead, he does what a lot of you ladies seem to suggest... nothing. And he gets, appropriately, nothing.


----------



## WyshIknew

Perhaps I'm a strange man but a fun and bubbly woman will trump beauty for a relationship!


----------



## Created2Write

I'm with you, Tiggy. Giselle has a pretty face, but there's not much else to brag about. Maybe her hair? I think Brady could do better, honestly.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

I'm gonna ask him if I can post a pic of him tmw.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

samyeagar said:


> Take Tom Brady, make him a part time pizza delivery guy, and he wouldn't get nearly the attention he does.


Dude is hot despite what he does. Pizza delivery guy or QB.


----------



## Ikaika

Created2Write said:


> Scarlett Johansen is sooooo hot. The one woman in the world I'd love to make out with.


Sometimes it is a matter of preference. Miss Johansen is very attractive but my preference would be Zhang Ziyi


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

TiggyBlue said:


> :scratchhead: Gisele's got a pretty face but not much curves, don't really see what the fuss is about (which by the logic on this thread means men find her more attractive because she's famous ).


lol if by curves you mean body fat.

Gisele has very few flaws to pick at. Namely, I can think of none. Ah yes, you become a super lingerie model by something other than the look of your body. Last I checked, Brady's looks didn't make him famous. Before 2001, few outside of Michigan knew who he was and *gasp*, he wasn't dating supermodels for some reason. Can't imagine why.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> No idea why my friend doesn't get more attention other than the fact he doesn't create it like I do. He just sits and waits. Imo, he's better looking than me, and he's a good bit taller than me with roughly the same build proportionally. If he jump out into conversation more or make his presence known he'd do far better.
> 
> Instead, he does what a lot of you ladies seem to suggest... nothing. And he gets, appropriately, nothing.


What us ladies suggest? Erm, I've mentioned that my husband was really quiet and hated public interactions so in an effort (and my nudging) to overcome that.....he joined Toastmasters. It worked wonders for him and his confidence shot through the roof. That was about 5 years ago now and he feels just as comfortable in social situations as giving a speech in front of hundreds at a conference. Would that be something your friend would consider?


----------



## WyshIknew

Peter Sellers - Pink Panther Outtakes - YouTube


Dyan Cannon laughing at Peter Sellers in this clip absolutely melts my heart (8:09).

I would be all over that like a rash.


That is so damn attractive to me.


----------



## Created2Write

By curves I'm sure Tiggy means above average boob size, hips, a waist. It's called an hour-glass figure and it's highly attractive. A lot of skinny women don't have hour-glass figures, and those women are a dime a dozen. Women who are thin, but have a figure(curves), are much more uncommon.


----------



## TiggyBlue

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> lol if by curves you mean body fat.


See as a man you see what's attractive about her (and by curves I was talking about t*ts and a**). I didn't say she doesn't have have decent body but let's say I started throwing out the b*tchy comments about Gisele's body that you have about Brady's body it's not going to make you or any men find her less attractive, the same goes for women with Brady.



> Gisele has very few flaws to pick at. Namely, I can think of none. Ah yes, you become a super lingerie model by something other than the look of your body.


If her body was the sole reason she became a supermodel then there would be thousands of supermodels (there's plenty of women who have Gisele's kind of body and looks, hardly any get the kind of success she has), she got to where she is because she knows how to work what she has and is a good model, having the appropriate body type for fashion is not all it takes to obtain the level of success she has.



IMO Bundchen and Brady are pretty level in the attractiveness department.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> Him having money doesn't suddenly make his looks irrelevant.


Why wasn't he pulling models in college? By all accounts, Brady wasn't drawing women left and right in college. I haven't been able to find it, but the pic of his college gf is pretty pedestrian. He was Joe Average good looking guy.

Even his first year in the pros saw him take in some well known NFL gold digging skanks because he was still nobody. Some playboy bunny and the Tara Reid. TARA REID! *I* pull better women than Tara Reid!

So what changed? His looks? Not much. To go from pedestrian to Gisele? Its probably those flabby love handles. Swoon.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Devils, 

You only find Gisele attractive because she is famous. 

View attachment 10753


----------



## WyshIknew

I don't see what the argument is here.

Surely it is common knowledge that at least on a 'first view' basis there are a number of things that women find attractive in a man?

They tend to like tall men, physically fit men, outwardly confident men and they like men to be conventionally handsome.

Yes?

Sucks for those that aren't but there are plenty of women around, and if her looks are important then pretty women are a dime a dozen.


----------



## TiggyBlue

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Why wasn't he pulling models in college?


Was he around supermodels in college?

and how do we know Gisele was pulling as fit as Brady before she was a model?


----------



## ntamph

Therealbrighteyes said:


> What us ladies suggest? Erm, I've mentioned that my husband was really quiet and hated public interactions so in an effort (and my nudging) to overcome that.....he joined Toastmasters. It worked wonders for him and his confidence shot through the roof. That was about 5 years ago now and he feels just as comfortable in social situations as giving a speech in front of hundreds at a conference. Would that be something your friend would consider?


This is weird.

As part of my job I often have to give speeches/presentations in front of hundreds of people (sometimes a 1000+) regularly and I actually enjoy public speaking. I like people listening to me because I feel important, lol.

But I'm no where near as confident in smaller settings and especially with women. I sometimes really mess up like a teenager, it's quite embarrassing.

I'm really tired of alpha/beta/omega/whateva. I know that there are some men who have it and women come naturally to them. I'm not one of them but wish I could be.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Why wasn't he pulling models in college?


Maybe because it's not very common for college guys to pull models, regardless of how hot they are? And how do you know he didn't date majorly hot women in college? 



> By all accounts, Brady wasn't drawing women left and right in college. I haven't been able to find it, but the pic of his college gf is pretty pedestrian. He was Joe Average good looking guy.


1. Perhaps he wasn't trying to draw women right and left? 
2. Would you mind posting a picture of his college gf?
3. Still insisting he's Joe Average despite the fact that every woman in this thread has disagreed with you...perhaps that's your own insecurity talking? 



> Even his first year in the pros saw him take in some well known NFL gold digging skanks because he was still nobody.
> Some playboy bunny and the Tara Reid. TARA REID!


1. There are gold diggers, no doubt about it. But that doesn't mean that he's not above-average in attractiveness. Just because a few women saw a potentially successful football player and tried to cash in doesn't mean he's an Average Joe. 
2. You have to be kidding. Tara Reid is breathtaking. A lot more attractive than Gisele, imo.



> *I* pull better women than Tara Reid!


Oh, I doubt that very much.



> So what changed? His looks? Not much. To go from pedestrian to Gisele? Its probably those flabby love handles. Swoon.


Love handles? You think he has _love handles_? Man, you really are jealous.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

ntamph said:


> This is weird.
> 
> As part of my job I often have to give speeches/presentations in front of hundreds of people (sometimes a 1000+) regularly and I actually enjoy public speaking. I like people listening to me because I feel important, lol.
> 
> But I'm no where near as confident in smaller settings and especially with women. I sometimes really mess up like a teenager, it's quite embarrassing.
> 
> I'm really tired of alpha/beta/omega/whateva. I know that there are some men who have it and women come naturally to them. I'm not one of them but wish I could be.


If you can speak in front of large crowds then you do have it and you've already won 75% of the battle! What is it with women that makes you "mess up"?


----------



## WyshIknew

ntamph said:


> This is weird.
> 
> As part of my job I often have to give speeches/presentations in front of hundreds of people (sometimes a 1000+) regularly and I actually enjoy public speaking. I like people listening to me because I feel important, lol.
> 
> But I'm no where near as confident in smaller settings and especially with women. I sometimes really mess up like a teenager, it's quite embarrassing.
> 
> I'm really tired of alpha/beta/omega/whateva. I know that there are some men who have it and women come naturally to them. I'm not one of them but wish I could be.


Don't let it worry you. I spent too much time as a youngster worrying about stupid shet.

Just be yourself. There will always be men that women flock to, it's life. Yes, those guys are 'lucky' *shrugs* there will always be some guy luckier than them.

I was hopeless with women as a youngster, but now been married 25 years, four children and six grandchildren and I've had a great life so far. Would shagging dozens of women have made my life any better now?


----------



## Created2Write

WyshIknew said:


> Don't let it worry you. I spent too much time as a youngster worrying about stupid shet.
> 
> Just be yourself. There will always be men that women flock to, it's life. Yes, those guys are 'lucky' *shrugs* there will always be some guy luckier than them.
> 
> I was hopeless with women as a youngster, but now been married 25 years, four children and six grandchildren and I've had a great life so far. Would shagging dozens of women have made my life any better now?


I knew I liked you, Wysh. Such wisdom.  Your family is very lucky.


----------



## WyshIknew

Created2Write said:


> I knew I liked you, Wysh. Such wisdom.  Your family is very lucky.


Don't get me wrong C2W I can understand where Ntamph is coming from.

It can be very galling as a young guy when you are full of love and passion and you just can't seem to connect with women, while other guys seem to click their fingers and the girls come running.

I think that very desperation plays against you.

It's only from my end of the spectrum that you can realise how silly that part of your life was.


----------



## Created2Write

Oh, and it's pretty convenient that now you can't find the picture of Brady's college gf. My guess is that means she actually was pretty hot.


----------



## WyshIknew

Don't the quarterbacks in American colleges tend to get the girls anyway?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

TiggyBlue said:


> IMO Bundchen and Brady are pretty level in the attractiveness department.


I don't see that at all. They both have good looking faces. Gisele has a great body and Tom's body looks like the average healthy guy.

If you put Gisele in any of those stripper movies like showgirls or striptease, you probably just made a hotter movie. If you put a bunch of Tom Brady bodies in Magic Mike, you'd have a comedy.

They're not at all equal. 

But okay, if a guy can have that body and still be considered Gisele-level hot... awesome for guys. Have a nice face and we don't have to do squat but not be fat. lol alright.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

WyshIknew said:


> Don't the quarterbacks in American colleges tend to get the girls anyway?


Yep. Yet Brady's college gf (the one I've seen) was remarkably average for such a "hot" guy. Maybe he would do better as the pizza guy.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> Scarlett Johansen is sooooo hot. The one woman in the world I'd love to make out with.


Johansen is really hot, but for me, largely because of how I perceive her personality from interviews and the characters she plays. Isolated to physical qualities alone, honestly, I think my gf is hotter.


----------



## WyshIknew

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Yep. Yet Brady's college gf (the one I've seen) was remarkably average for such a "hot" guy. Maybe he would do better as the pizza guy.


But 'hot' isn't everything.

Do you know her personality, her intelligence, humour etc.

They may have just been 'good' for one another.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Therealbrighteyes said:


> What us ladies suggest? Erm, I've mentioned that my husband was really quiet and hated public interactions so in an effort (and my nudging) to overcome that.....he joined Toastmasters. It worked wonders for him and his confidence shot through the roof. That was about 5 years ago now and he feels just as comfortable in social situations as giving a speech in front of hundreds at a conference. Would that be something your friend would consider?


There was some implied suggestion that a good looking guy can just sit back and wait for the ladies to come to him. That's what I was referring to.

I joined toastmasters back in 2001 or 2002 and am still a member. Ive actually suggested it to him. I can't get him to go.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't see that at all. They both have good looking faces. Gisele has a great body and Tom's body looks like the average healthy guy.
> 
> If you put Gisele in any of those stripper movies like showgirls or striptease, you probably just made a hotter movie. If you put a bunch of Tom Brady bodies in Magic Mike, you'd have a comedy.
> 
> They're not at all equal.
> 
> But okay, if a guy can have that body and still be considered Gisele-level hot... awesome for guys. Have a nice face and we don't have to do squat but not be fat. lol alright.


You seem really hung up on him and continue to try and tell us women that he isn't hot. Then at the same time tell us who you think is hot among women and that we are wrong if we disagree. In other words, only your opinion matters. Why do you do that?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

WyshIknew said:


> But 'hot' isn't everything.
> 
> Do you know her personality, her intelligence, humour etc.
> 
> They may have just been 'good' for one another.


Hmmm character analysis: Tom found out long time gf Bridget Moynihan was Prego and subsequently started seeing Gisele, before breaking up with Bridget 2 months later.

Sure, Tom might be a swell guy who really clicked w his college gf for her personality. Somehow I doubt it. She was his best deal at the time imho.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Therealbrighteyes said:


> You seem really hung up on him and continue to try and tell us women that he isn't hot. Then at the same time tell us who you think is hot among women and that we are wrong if we disagree. In other words, only your opinion matters. Why do you do that?


I didn't say whether you think he's hot or not. Answer for yourself: would that Tom Brady body have been appealing in Magic Mike? A movie with the sole purpose of providing female eye candy?

I don't know a guy who'd realistically think Gisele's body wouldn't be an improvement in the male equivalent eye candy movies.

If they both have a great face and only one has a great body...


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Devils,
> 
> You only find Gisele attractive because she is famous.
> 
> View attachment 10753


Ha that's funny because I didn't know her name till she started dating Tom Brady. Till then, she was just that really hot Victoria secret model.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> SA, I didn't quote you for brevity, but by "aim high", I mean in looks. I believe we all go for the most attractive partner we're able to lure. Pretty people going for significantly less attractive people is very rare.


 maybe so but if the HOT dude will be less devoted to me and I feel he is not as serious, *I would NOT want him*, I had a chance with a really good looking boy after I met my husband, he was hotter physically..(oh yes yes yes)..... but I KNEW he would never love me like my Bf/ husband, so I set him up to go to the Prom with my GF... no regrets. Looks ain't the end all with me. I've said this before, I need SO MUCH for attraction ....after that... I weigh the rest of the package.. I always had my eye on the future, what was best for ME.. 



> I disagree about the shy awkward teen. There is a lot of shame there. The biggest reason most of them are that way is pure and simple fear. They are afraid of being judged and have a poor sense of self. Weak self esteem. Its ultimately cowardly imo. Again, I was that guy in early high school. I played football, I ran track, I played baseball and I was well liked, but my reserve was about fear. Like all fear, you need to face it and slay it. The sooner the better imo.


 Maybe so, our 3rd son is an introvert...he is quiet in school..unless around his good friends... then he can be a devious riot....what should I do, throw PAU books at him... One day I asked him if he'd like to read something like that....he told me he'd never read that crap...

When you talk the way you do, I feel you slam some good people, that's all...he will find his way, but he'll never BE what you are... cause having sex with random women is not what he wants... he wants a relationship... I've had some serious talks with him... not so easy to get to open up...I just don't see him changing....but yeah... unfortunately... I see much merit in what you speak... women go for the popular... all our son has is good looks pretty much...unless the girl takes the time.... not all that many are like ME... I've give you that !

Why do I involve myself on these threads, probably because I have sons who go against the grain in society... I want them to do well..... Our oldest is confident but too picky, he wouldn't want a woman who has slept around, he'd remain single over that...He is not normal either...but he's happy...sees no reason to change, just feels he has not met the right woman yet. 



> Also, the girl I was one the couch with was by no means "easy" even if the time might make you think so. We really did click that well, and in the end my lack of assertiveness was a major turnoff. We rarely spoke thereafter, but by no means did she have any sort of reputation nor was she interested in casual sex. Dispell the notion in your head that having sex early necessarily means you are casual. I was very serious. So much so that I'd rather have not had sex and allowed something to develop with time... Exactly what cost me. She wanted me to lead.


I think that was a very silly exchange for you to both go separate ways *-IF SHE WAS INDEED INTO YOU*..... her words screwed it up.....makes little sense to me, I just don't need a man to be like that... to remain interested... not if it was MY MOUTH saying ...."Oh we better just be friends"...how would she expect the guy to take that... you backed off...she started it..

See in my view... As a couple gets to know each other better, not throwing stupid "double talk" lines at each other like that ....*the friend comment* would make any nice guy take a step back.... I wouldn't fault him for that... :wtf:...

Your true self would have come alive in due time with her....(wouldn't even that have been more like you are today??).....that's just how I view it... ...she jumped ship too soon & judged you then... I find it rather shallow.. but if that is what women want, and need - I guess that's on them....I am not of this type...


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I didn't say whether you think he's hot or not. Answer for yourself: would that Tom Brady body have been appealing in Magic Mike? A movie with the sole purpose of providing female eye candy?


Yes and there you go again injecting that his body isn't appealing. 

BTW, my husband doesn't find Giselle attractive at all, especially her face. To each their own.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> Maybe because it's not very common for college guys to pull models, regardless of how hot they are? And how do you know he didn't date majorly hot women in college?
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Perhaps he wasn't trying to draw women right and left?
> 2. Would you mind posting a picture of his college gf?
> 3. Still insisting he's Joe Average despite the fact that every woman in this thread has disagreed with you...perhaps that's your own insecurity talking?
> 
> 
> 
> 1. There are gold diggers, no doubt about it. But that doesn't mean that he's not above-average in attractiveness. Just because a few women saw a potentially successful football player and tried to cash in doesn't mean he's an Average Joe.
> 2. You have to be kidding. Tara Reid is breathtaking. A lot more attractive than Gisele, imo.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I doubt that very much.
> 
> 
> 
> Love handles? You think he has _love handles_? Man, you really are jealous.


Nope, I only know of the one gf... and trust me, Ive been trying to find the pic.

Its not insecurity. Tom has a great face. His body is totally average except for being tall. I'm being objective here. I already mentioned one of my friends being better looking and taller than me, one thing I don't have is insecurity about my looks. I'm quite happy with how I look.

Tara Reid isn't very attractive imo. Better than Gisele? Ha, no. Tara's done some good photo shoots but any time you see candid shots you see the real thing and its not good, regardless of how many times she's had lipo (which she now admits to). She dated my fav teams qb after Brady so I saw a LOT of her trashy butt... some of those pics... woof. Photographers are magical. Yes, several of my gfs have been better looking than Tara. Tara is in that same class as Paris Hilton. Bleh.

Who wouldn't be jealous of Tom? He's rich and married to Gisele! That still doesn't change the fact that he has love handles... most guys do. Of course, most guys aren't sex symbols. If that body is hot you could pull just about any guy of healthy weight and call his body hot. He's got to be around 20% BF at least. That might even be advantageous to an immobile qb. The lean ones tend to be fragile (see mike Vick). But hot? If you say so. Your own hubby likely has a better body than Tom.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Yes and there you go again injecting that his body isn't appealing.
> 
> BTW, my husband doesn't find Giselle attractive at all, especially her face. To each their own.


So Tom Brady bodies for Magic Mike two then? lol


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> Oh, and it's pretty convenient that now you can't find the picture of Brady's college gf. My guess is that means she actually was pretty hot.


Its convenient that I can't find a photo I saw 10+ years ago? Get real.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Ah well, with C2W calling me a liar I think this is where I bow out before I say something mean and she reports me again. Guys don't sweat the gym memberships, we're all good with soft Brady bodies.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Created2Write said:


> LOVE this post SA. *You and I are a lot alike. *


 Happy I am not the only ODD woman on this thread.... though I must admit I don't find any of the men's pics put on this thread attractive, I would not pick those out to look at across the room...Brady -even with the football or dressed up with stubble...or the Beefy Black guy..Matt Damon.. 

Now with the Brady stubble pic.....I would think, however.. ....he might as well have PLAYER written on his forehead...I'd imagine the women clawing.....I just wouldn't trust those to be the faithful types..but the "getting around" types. 



> He wasn't looking for the next great lay, he was looking for a lifelong mate. And it's one of the reasons he was so irresistible to me.


 There is a tremendous appeal for the Man who desires to settle with 1 special woman... I could see myself being very very jealous of women who had this , if I didn't and was foolish enough to let one of the good ones go... and ended up with a Jerk. who cheated on me - cause he wanted some strange ...Oh he was sooooo Hot...

Show me a really HOT man, famous, has status, sex appeal...*who is faithful to one woman.. for a lifetime*....is there any who even come to mind ? ...I'd have to do a google search to even come up with an answer for that.....

We get so bogged down comparing Looks...GAME...at the end of the day ,without character...what the hell good is any of this ?? I see little value in it at all.


----------



## TiggyBlue

SimplyAmorous said:


> Happy I am not the only ODD woman on this thread.... though I must admit I don't find any of the men's pics put on this thread attractive, I would not pick those out to look at across the room...Brady -even with the football or dressed up with stubble...or the Beefy Black guy..Matt Damon..


You're not odd at all, I've seen your other posts you definitely have a type your attracted to


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> So Tom Brady bodies for Magic Mike two then? lol


Sure. Hey, I think the reason he bothers you so much is that he flies in the face of your consistent drum beating here that women aren't as visual as men and that it's money and assets that matter more to us. Every woman here said that he could deliver pizza and still be hot. Tom Brady is hot because he is simply hot and women recognize that. It doesn't fit your narrative though so you continue to argue with us. :slap:


----------



## SimplyAmorous

TiggyBlue said:


> You're not odd at all,* I've seen your other posts you definitely have a type your attracted to *


Yeah but even those types... I still wouldn't want them... the hottest guys (for me) are young men with long hair that look like THIS *>>>* would I be foolish enough to even try to tame a man with that lifestyle.....Hell NO [email protected]#$^% 

My care for my future / my children's future..... weighing the pros & cons of HOTNESS vs character of a man - is tremendous for me.. this supersedes any raw animalistic tendencies I may entertain. 

A few more examples...I'd notice across the room.....may even get a shiver down my spine... (Gary Old man with long hair)

 (one of my favorite porn stars)

With short hair... ...MMMMM

...But still... I'll take *the sensitive Romantic male* who has "oneitis" for me - over comparable Hotties (even in the small time).... who may go through relationships like flies.. (why...because they [email protected]#)....I know that is not something I want to do, so I wouldn't want to be matched with someone who was a risk in this way....

I think I have drummed my preferences enough here.... separating what I see to be *superficial* over what is *REALLY important* at the end of the day.


----------



## RandomDude

Well I know my daughter will grow up being able to tame anything


----------



## TiggyBlue

SimplyAmorous said:


> Yeah but even those types... I still wouldn't want them... the hottest guys (for me) are young men with long hair that look like THIS *>>>* would I be foolish enough to even try to tame a man with that lifestyle.....Hell NO [email protected]#$^%
> 
> My care for my future / my children's future..... weighing the pros & cons of HOTNESS vs character of a man - is tremendous for me.. this supersedes any raw animalistic tendencies I may entertain.
> 
> A few more examples...I'd notice across the room.....may even get a shiver down my spine... (Gary Old man with long hair)
> 
> (one of my favorite porn stars)
> 
> With short hair... ...MMMMM
> 
> ...But still... I'll take *the sensitive Romantic male* who has "oneitis" for me - over comparable Hotties (even in the small time).... who may go through relationships like flies.. (why...because they [email protected]#)....I know that is not something I want to do, so I wouldn't want to be matched with someone who was a risk in this way....
> 
> I think I have drummed my preferences enough here.... separating what I see to be *superficial* over what is *REALLY important* at the end of the day.



I think using celebs as references for what type of look or type you're talking is one thing, but for actually being with a celebrity nothing sounds less appealing to me personally and as for taming someone else, I have enough time trying to tame myself there's no way I'm putting effort into taming someone else 

I think this article may be of interest to you SA http://health.yahoo.net/experts/dayinhealth/study-slim-men-are-sexiest


----------



## SimplyAmorous

TiggyBlue said:


> I think using celebs as references for what type of look or type you're talking is one thing, but for actually being with a celebrity nothing sounds less appealing to me personally and as for taming someone else, I have enough time trying to tame myself *there's no way I'm putting effort into taming someone else *


I have no envy of the Rich & Famous, I would HATE the hurried partying /keeping up appearances / constant traveling / endless temptation lifestyle...Would spit at it... I hear you.. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

And your right....*TAMING *in and of itself....the idea... to get a man like that to notice you....it's Fruitless...or at the very least... Risky.. unlike Random's Dude's comment that "his daughter could tame anyone"... well ...I am not that confident (or should I say conceited).....I AM NOT ALL THAT - but I still love myself, who I am and consider myself a hell of a catch....

I would see that as a SEA of "wishful thinking".... if their lifestyle is a certain path...and it's not the one I'm on or want to be on.....such men would be utterly eliminated from my "Oh I'd love for him to notice me" thoughts...I consider that keeping my feet on the ground.

Forget the Rich & Famous...on a lessor scale / every day scale, in our towns & high schools...isn't this what so many women DO...... they all claw after these Popular guys ...Jocks come to mind (some of the ones I seen in my school were the biggest A-holes alive).....so the prettiest cheerleader falls all over him.... she, too, ends us being expendable ...he wants to try the next one & she what she can do with her pom poms..... Why in the world would women want a man like this ?? Unless you live like that yourself... it make little sense to me. 

No-one is going to change my stripes either... are any of us Tamable...to how we think, how we enjoy living & loving...that is something we have to work out .... I only admire honorable men..I prefer the White Knight type.. .old fashioned Romantic...This is very rare to find today in society cause when one is geared this way... they are told what idiots they are -that if the want to get laid...they have to turn into a D*** ...so when pu$$y becomes more important than finding real love...they conform... 

So yeah... finding them YOUNG is a woman's best bet ... cause they all get ruined after some time.....so if they are introverted, a little awkward, I see that as far less of an ordeal over trying to get those HOT men to be honorable...




> *TiggyBlue said*: I think this article may be of interest to you SA  Study Investigates What Women Really Want


This article said >> "Coetzee theorizes that women use weight, rather than macho features, to subconsciously make hot-or-not judgments about the men they meet."... showing this picture...







to compare....Yep...the THINNER man is definitely more pleasing to the eyes & senses. 

Do you all think lifestyle doesn't matter, just go for HOT...and see what happens ?


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Think you're an alpha male and got game? Read this*



WyshIknew said:


> Yes it's a wonder how us homely, short arsed, poor, non famous guys even manage to function.


And that's exactly why there's game Wysh. MOST guys aren't over 6 foot, chiseled features, or a star quarterback catching the eye of supermodels. Most of us are average. You want to stand out with the ladies, or one lady? Then you find a way to stand out. Be it money, physique, dress, success, musical, theatrical, magical, or just a sparkling conversationalist.

I have written before about a buddy of mine. 6'3" blonde, blue eyes. Good looking guy. Always had women fawning over him when we went out ... until he opened his mouth. Couldn't talk his way out of a paper bag. Women didn't find it cute and charming, they thought he was a dork.

I thought Dvls summed it up well when he highlighted finding what your afraid of and killing it off. That was pretty much the same arc for me.

We've talked about body agenda, sex rank and game plenty here over the years. This isn't new, nor are the standard responses. Although ... had Dvls framed his post as 'women are genetically pre-programmed to find Tom Brady attractive' the chorus would likely be very different. 

Here is what I have learned in my tenure as a universal truth, and I say it with no disrespect. You kmow what women think? They think they never like being told what they think.


----------



## RandomDude

Damn right - you can never go wrong with having game

But you can definitely go wrong with being an automatic stud without game!!!


----------



## Faithful Wife

Sure Deejo! We just hate it when a short man tells us we don't like tall men. Yeah, that really hurts. LOL!


----------



## PHTlump

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Sure. Hey, I think the reason he bothers you so much is that he flies in the face of your consistent drum beating here that women aren't as visual as men and that it's money and assets that matter more to us. Every woman here said that he could deliver pizza and still be hot. Tom Brady is hot because he is simply hot and women recognize that. It doesn't fit your narrative though so you continue to argue with us. :slap:


Actually, I think Tom Brady fits perfectly into evo-psych explanations of attractiveness. Somehow, a physically fit, attractive man at the top of one of the most exclusive professions in the world, who earns millions of dollars a year and dated actresses and models before marrying a supermodel, is almost universally seen as sexy by women. Who could have possibly predicted that?

Now, I know that some women will argue that the money, fame, status, and preselection effect of pulling attention from models have nothing to do with their attraction and it's only appearance that drives their interest. But we can't test that. Brady doesn't have a twin who is a poor man with none of his brother's attributes.

Similarly, I know that Anna Nichole Smith claimed she married J. Howard Marshall, despite his being 63 years older than she was, because of love. The fact that he was a billionaire didn't even enter into the equation. However, we can't test the claim.

If we take evo-psych seriously, then the fact that Brady and Marshall both had money and status can explain the interest of women that most men without those attributes can't attain.


----------



## PHTlump

Deejo said:


> Here is what I have learned in my tenure as a universal truth, and I say it with no disrespect. You kmow what women think? They think they never like being told what they think.


Quoted for truth.

One of the key differences between the sexes is that, if presented with a study, or survey that shows 99% of women prefer A over B, men will use that information to better understand women and predict their behavior. Women will use the information as proof that Not All Women Are Like That (NAWALT).


----------



## RandomDude

PHTlump said:


> Actually, I think Tom Brady fits perfectly into evo-psych explanations of attractiveness. Somehow, a physically fit, attractive man at the top of one of the most exclusive professions in the world, who earns millions of dollars a year and dated actresses and models before marrying a supermodel, is almost universally seen as sexy by women. Who could have possibly predicted that?
> 
> Now, I know that some women will argue that the money, fame, status, and preselection effect of pulling attention from models have nothing to do with their attraction and it's only appearance that drives their interest. But we can't test that. Brady doesn't have a twin who is a poor man with none of his brother's attributes.
> 
> Similarly, I know that Anna Nichole Smith claimed she married J. Howard Marshall, despite his being 63 years older than she was, because of love. The fact that he was a billionaire didn't even enter into the equation. However, we can't test the claim.
> 
> If we take evo-psych seriously, then the fact that Brady and Marshall both had money and status can explain the interest of women that most men without those attributes can't attain.


Well, alot of people that STBX and I met during our marriage had preconceptions why we were married as we were a very rare IR couple even if we were a good-looking couple. As I owned my own business and achieved much success they tended to accredit my wife's attraction to me as due to materialism. Little do they know that when STBX and I were dating I had very little money, no education + criminal record.

Personally I found their accusations rather offensive and so did STBX. Hence we sported a much smaller social circle as time went by, most people were just acquaintances and our closest friends remain the ones who were there at the beginning.


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> Sure Deejo! We just hate it when a short man tells us we don't like tall men. Yeah, that really hurts. LOL!


He said he's 5' 10", Wysh said he's 5' 10". Care to guess how tall I am?

By default you are inferring that we are short ... therefore LESS attractive.

I know that you're kidding, (I think) I've got thick skin anyway ... and I generally prefer my women in the 5' 8" range. Last girlfriend was 5' 9". The height thing doesn't bother me. But do be aware, if a guy were to come on and say women with small boobs are less appealing than women with DD guns, there'd be a friggin riot.


----------



## Faithful Wife

And by making the statement that you did, Deejo...that women don't like being told what they like....you certainly just meant for that to fly past us? You weren't trying to jostle things up? You really meant it in an academic way with complete goodwill?

Or do you just like pulling pigtails but then for some reason when I pulled back you think it is a big deal?

And you honestly think this thread isn't fueled by the insecurities of one particular man? Really? I give you a lot more credit than that. What you are seeing IS the riot in reverse that you mentioned.


----------



## always_alone

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Devils,
> 
> You only find Gisele attractive because she is famous.
> 
> View attachment 10753



Don't forget airbrushed. Nothing like a sexy pose, some good lighting and a bit of photo touch up to get every man to agree a certain woman is hot.

And it's these photos that are always the ones being compared to the "Joe Average", as he *actually* looks.


----------



## RandomDude

Gisele isn't even easy on the eye let alone hot! Even though Scarlett isn't my type either I can say that she's at the very least easy on the eyes. 

So why is Gisele even mentioned on this thread? Bleh


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> And by making the statement that you did, Deejo...that women don't like being told what they like....you certainly just meant for that to fly past us? You weren't trying to jostle things up? You really meant it in an academic way with complete goodwill?
> 
> Or do you just like pulling pigtails but then for some reason when I pulled back you think it is a big deal?
> 
> And you honestly think this thread isn't fueled by the insecurities of one particular man? Really? I give you a lot more credit than that. What you are seeing IS the riot in reverse that you mentioned.


I really don't need to do any jostling at this point. And besides, I wasn't pulling pigtails. What I said is accurate. No doubt just the same as women prefer taller men, and anyone who isn't tall enough, is therefore ... short. 

I smile when I post, by the way.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> I know that you're kidding, (I think) I've got thick skin anyway ... and I generally prefer my women in the 5' 8" range. Last girlfriend was 5' 9". The height thing doesn't bother me. But do be aware, if a guy were to come on and say women with small boobs are less appealing than women with DD guns, there'd be a friggin riot.


Oh, please. Guys spend half their time on here mooning about hot girls, and criticizing women based on their looks (legs too skinny, boobs too small or too big, hair too short, too fat, etc., and so on). Pretty much any problem a woman has is answered by "how hot are you" and a bunch of assertions that all men care about is looks.

But of course, this is okay, because this is just how men are: visual. Women, though, are hurtful?


----------



## Deejo

RandomDude said:


> Gisele isn't even easy on the eye let alone hot! Even though Scarlett isn't my type either I can say that she's at the very least easy on the eyes.
> 
> So why is Gisele even mentioned on this thread? Bleh


Because she's Tom Terrific's wife.


----------



## remorseful strayer

I don't know what happens with other men, but I have been both poor and wealthy. 

I am tall and athletic and average looking with all my hair and angular features. I always dress well.

Here is how I was treated in both situations. 

When I was first starting out and didn't have two dimes to rub together, I had to work to get dates. I had to go after the woman and impress her with personality using conversational skills. 

The majority of women barely paid me any attention. 

When I started earning a lot of money, all of a sudden, it was as if I were wearing catnip. 

Women, nice women, not just golddiggers, were suddenly always interested in talking to me. They would approach me. They would suggest coffee or drinks....just to talk, of course. :scratchhead:

It didn't matter if they were single or married. They just honed in on me. 

This only started happening after I started earning a lot of money.


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> Oh, please. Guys spend half their time on here mooning about hot girls, and criticizing women based on their looks (legs too skinny, boobs too small or too big, hair too short, too fat, etc., and so on). Pretty much any problem a woman has is answered by "how hot are you" and a bunch of assertions that all men care about is looks.
> 
> But of course, this is okay, because this is just how men are: visual. Women, though, are hurtful?


No, no, no. Women aren't hurtful. I feel no need to circle the wagons.

I just don't want the thread to deteriorate to open insults. The veiled ones are sufficient.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Deejo said:


> Here is what I have learned in my tenure as a universal truth, and I say it with no disrespect. You kmow what women think? They think they never like being told what they think.


Devils reminds me of the guy in a restaurant who doesn't allow his date a chance to glance at the menu and tells the waiter "The lady will have...".


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Deejo said:


> *They think they never like being told what they think*.


 Just don't tell me I would put looks over someone's character or lifestyle and I will quit arguing with men on this... I hold certain attributes of a person at a higher level other women may not give much thought to...

And a man's outward confidence & charm would mean very little to me if he was the Philandering type... I would prefer the awkward Romantic over him every singe time...so long as he was good looking "enough".



> *PHTlump said: * *if presented with a study, or survey that shows 99% of women prefer A over B *


Besides possibly agreeing with the LOOKS alone (if they are not too beefy)...I really feel I am in the 1% that would not care to attach myself to the types MOST women go for...

My husband has said a # of times , just talking about our past, how we met... if he didn't meet me, he may have never even gotten married... he was too much of a NICE GUY...*but he liked who he was*... I still think he is amazing...and perfect for ME. Only one small area would I change about him...the rest, which is 95%... I love him just the way he is....and has always been....and he definitely falls under tipped Beta over Alpha... He is full of the GOOD Beta (none of the bad).....he falls short on the GOOD ALPHA...according to these definitions... 



> The *Alpha Traits* are those associated with classic “manly man” strengths. Power, dominance, physical ability, bravery, wealth, cool and confidence. Oh and good genes. These are the things that attract women and turn them on sexually. The Alpha Traits are linked to the dopamine response in women.
> 
> *Alpha *= attraction building = Dopamine = In Love = Excitement





> The *Beta Traits* are those associated with the strengths of being a nice guy / “family man”. Kindness, being a good listener, the ability to help with the children, dependability, thoughtfulness, compassion and patience. These all create a sense of comfort and safety for the woman, and relax her because she feels that if she became pregnant, the Beta Trait male isn’t going to abandon her and the baby.
> 
> *Beta *= comfort building = Oxytocin / Vasopressin = Pair Bond = Calm Enjoyment"


So Alpha Traits create attraction and that “in love” feeling, and Beta Traits create the pair bond and makes her feel relaxed enough to have sex. You need a balance of both Alpha and Beta in a marriage to maximize her desire to have sex with you.


----------



## samyeagar

always_alone said:


> Don't forget airbrushed. Nothing like a sexy pose, some good lighting and a bit of photo touch up to get every man to agree a certain woman is hot.
> 
> And it's these photos that are always the ones being compared to the "Joe Average", as he *actually* looks.


I think that's part of why I do not personally get all hot and bothered by celeb and model women. I have experience in that realm and know full well what many of them look like before and after. My STBW has only worn make up a couple of times since I have known her, and she is absolutely gorgeous in her natural glory.

I think that is part of what happens with attraction to famous people. THey see an image presented, and proceed to some extent to fill in the blanks and create their own idealized persona. Movie stars get associated with the role they play and that is projected on the person, and if the role is attractive, albeit fake, the person in the role takes on the fantasy.

I also think that fame is a more attractive trait in men than in women. A man is more likely to be attractive to women based on his fame than the opposite.


----------



## always_alone

My vote is with SA on the whole looks thing. I don't find Tom Brady or other guys posted here particularly attractive. Have never really gone for the jock type as they look kinda thuggish to me. I prefer lean, but not a particular fan of the pretty boy rock star image either.


----------



## Deejo

Didn't mean for my comment to be as antagonistic as it obviously is.

For the record, I don't think ANYONE likes being told what they think.

Unless what they are being told they are thinking is that the person telling them what they are thinking, thinks that person declaring what they are thinking, they think, is a jerk.


----------



## RandomDude

> When I started earning a lot of money, all of a sudden, it was as if I were wearing catnip.
> 
> Women, nice women, not just golddiggers, were suddenly always interested in talking to me. They would approach me. They would suggest coffee or drinks....just to talk, of course.


Tell me about it, I hide my wealth as best I can nowadays. But it's still hard for me to move on knowing that STBX was there for me in the beginning when I had nothing, my current date - I still suspect.


----------



## ocotillo

In defense of the average height men, (and women too) height is not a panacea

One disadvantage has to do with physics. Dimensional relationships are strictly linear while mass is a diagonal vector relative to those dimensions.

If you had a magic wand that would make somebody exactly twice the size they are now, how much more would they weigh? The answer is not twice as much. Mass increases by the cube of the multiplier, so in this example the person would weigh 2^3, or eight times as much. 

The cube law works against tall people in many ways and I'm not talking about persons with abnormalities in skeletal growth. I'm talking about normally proportioned people who are simply tall. 

Someone on this thread (FW?) said that a man doing the iron cross on the rings is sexy. Well the taller a man gets, the harder it is to perform a show of strength like that, because the increased weight that must be supported is not even remotely proportionate to his increased height. At some point on the height scale, it becomes completely impossible. 

It does seem to me that there is an optimal height range for the human species and perhaps because of this, there does seem to be a point where a man's height starts to be a liability rather than an asset.


----------



## ReformedHubby

remorseful strayer said:


> When I started earning a lot of money, all of a sudden, it was as if I were wearing catnip.
> 
> Women, nice women, not just golddiggers, were suddenly always interested in talking to me. They would approach me. They would suggest coffee or drinks....just to talk, of course. :scratchhead:
> 
> It didn't matter if they were single or married. They just honed in on me.
> 
> This only started happening after I started earning a lot of money.


I hate to say it but if you're a man in America that is doing well for himself I think success literally adds +3 to your sex rank. I'm not flashy but my business partner is. I drove his exotic car once on a short business trip. Never again. One women with her daughter in the car literally followed me until I got where I was going. 

When I got there they pulled up beside me and asked if I was ball player (this was actually offensive to me). Then they asked if I had a girlfriend to go along with the car (I don't where a ring). I was polite, said I was flattered but happily married. Bottom line if I was in a Toyota Camry this does not happen. 

I know all women are not this way but I can't believe that they put themselves out there like that. They literally didn't know anything about me.


----------



## Caribbean Man

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Johansen is really hot, but for me, largely because of how I perceive her personality from interviews and the characters she plays. Isolated to physical qualities alone, honestly, I think my gf is hotter.


Dude,
All I wanted to ask you was, is that guy in your avatar wearing an Under Armour T-shirt?
He reminds me of Russian stuntman/ street fighter , Alexandr Litvinenko who did a UA Ghetto Gym Training Commercial , filmed in a Russian ghetto.

Under Armour - MMA Hard Workout Motivation.

Certified bada$$!


----------



## RandomDude

For me I can easily afford a BMW or Benz with my income but I never see the point. Hell the only reason I got a new car - a mere Maxima was because my daughter wouldn't stop crying in my old sh-tbox! I only bought a house for STBX as well, maintaining her lifestyle (she never asked however) and stupifying my b-tch MIL.

I grew up a poor man and will always be a humble man at heart, knowing that although my hard work paid off many were not so lucky. Gold diggers as a result, disgust me to the full.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> For those that didn't know, this^^^ is how a _real _PUA operates.
> That's the type of lines they use , because every man worth his salt knows it all comes down to how he uses his tone of voice , his words and projection in that type of mating game.
> No need for Roosh or whatever his name is, and all that " rapey " stuff. If the girl he's dropping lines on isn't quick on the draw he simply moves to another girl.
> Cause in his eyes she ain't that important, he's only after sex , and he could get that from another woman who's more willing.
> I beginning to wonder if any of the women on this thread has ever been hit on by a _real_ PUA smoothie or even a real Playa.


LOL!!!! Yeah, encountered many of these and merely laughed in their faces. Seriously? Not even worth a second thought.

True, many will just move on. Often, though, they'll come back with the puppy dog look "Awwww, baby, why so cold?"

Yada, yada, yada, blah, blah, blah.

If this "works like magic", more power to you, I suppose. 

As long as you're not crying about what kinda crazy --or STD --that you stuck it into.

In my experience (as one who doesn't actually jump in the sack with the first guy that says he wants to do me), PUA do have to work a bit harder. Those ones will become whatever they think you want them to be and say whatever they think you want to them to say.

In other words, deceitful and manipulative --and to be avoided at all costs, just like the type of PUA you describe.


----------



## PHTlump

SimplyAmorous said:


> I really feel I am in the 1% that would not care to attach myself to the types MOST women go for...


I agree. You are a rare bird.

Most women, especially at the initial stages of attraction, prefer heavy doses of alpha traits and few beta traits. Over time, as the relationship builds, they want a bit more beta to build their comfort and balance things out.

You seem to be the opposite. Heavy alpha traits make you uneasy. You are more attracted to men heavy on beta and light on alpha. That's fine. You scored a good husband who fits that profile. You're just unusual.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Johansen is really hot, but for me, largely because of how I perceive her personality from interviews and the characters she plays. Isolated to physical qualities alone, honestly, I think my gf is hotter.


Good for you? I think she's damn sexy for both her personality, acting ability and her looks. I actually have a body a lot like hers. She's a few inches taller than I am with an hourglass figure, and I have an hourglass figure.


----------



## RandomDude

always_alone said:


> In other words, deceitful and manipulative --and to be avoided at all costs, just like the type of PUA you describe.


How is the "PUA" CM described manipulative or deceitful? :scratchhead:


----------



## Created2Write

Therealbrighteyes said:


> You seem really hung up on him and continue to try and tell us women that he isn't hot. Then at the same time tell us who you think is hot among women and that we are wrong if we disagree. In other words, only your opinion matters. Why do you do that?


I'd like this answered as well. Because it seems to me like desperation.


----------



## RandomDude

It's funny trying to have a discussion in the middle of a gender war! Peace people! Let's be civilised


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I didn't say whether you think he's hot or not. Answer for yourself: would that Tom Brady body have been appealing in Magic Mike? A movie with the sole purpose of providing female eye candy?
> 
> I don't know a guy who'd realistically think Gisele's body wouldn't be an improvement in the male equivalent eye candy movies.
> 
> If they both have a great face and only one has a great body...


Honestly, I've always considered Channing Tatum to be incredibly overrated. Sure, he has a nice body. But he's not hot _at all_. I can think of so many other actors/athletes who are a lot more attractive. And, frankly, Tom Brady is one of those guys. So yes, I think Brady's body would have been appealing in Magic Mike. He _is_ eye candy.


----------



## Created2Write

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Yes and there you go again injecting that his body isn't appealing.
> 
> BTW, my husband doesn't find Giselle attractive at all, especially her face. To each their own.


Oh yeah. My husband said the same thing. Her body is toned, but she has no boobs and no butt, and without all of the makeup she wears, her face is average. He wasn't impressed. He, like me, thinks Tara Reid is so much hotter.


----------



## always_alone

PHTlump said:


> You're just unusual.


Not so unusual. There are lots of us that find typical male posturing and bravado rather repulsive, and other tactics like flashing money just a crass sign of superficiality.

A lot of men are turned off by this, despite the fact that many say this is what they are looking for.

I wonder: Could it be that men don't really know what they want? :scratchhead:


----------



## RandomDude

*Jumps into the gender war*



> I wonder: Could it be that men don't really know what they want?


Say what?
You can't just lump all men based on a few posts by male members on this board, they are expressing their opinion just like you guys!

...

Ok now where's my getaway vehicle! =O


----------



## always_alone

RandomDude said:


> How is the "PUA" CM described manipulative or deceitful? :scratchhead:


*Not* the ones CM was talking about, as they are completely up front that all they want and care about is a roll in the hay.

The ones I've had to deal with because they're working harder to be what they think the woman wants and say what they think she wants to hear.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Thank you for your post #851, Deejo.

IMO, Men have no problem talking about how universally insecure women are.

This thread shows that it isn't just women, men can become immediately insecure given the right topic.

Women KNOW this about men, by the way and typically we try not to trample them with their own insecurities, because we are nice and we know this wouldn't be good form.

But when it comes to internet forum guys trying to tell us that Tom Brady isn't hot...I'm gonna go right ahead and bring the truth out on display and hold no punches. WE LIKE 'EM TALL.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Nope, I only know of the one gf... and trust me, Ive been trying to find the pic.


I'm sure you have.



> Its not insecurity. Tom has a great face. His body is totally average except for being tall. I'm being objective here. I already mentioned one of my friends being better looking and taller than me, one thing I don't have is insecurity about my looks. I'm quite happy with how I look.


You keep insisting his body is totally average when _women_ keep telling you it's not. I don't know if you're hoping to catch us slipping up and agreeing with you, but dude, it definitely looks like you _want_ Brady to be "average". No matter how many times you repeat it, it's not going to be true. The women here think Brady is hella attractive, and his body is one of the reasons why. He's not ripped like other guys, but that doesn't mean his body is flabby and bleh. He's got a very athletic body built for the sport he plays, and it's wonderful to look at. I keep going back to the pictures you posted of him at the beach and staring.

And, ftr, my own husband thinks the guy has a great body. 



> Tara Reid isn't very attractive imo. Better than Gisele? Ha, no. Tara's done some good photo shoots but any time you see candid shots you see the real thing and its not good, regardless of how many times she's had lipo (which she now admits to). She dated my fav teams qb after Brady so I saw a LOT of her trashy butt... some of those pics... woof. Photographers are magical. Yes, several of my gfs have been better looking than Tara. Tara is in that same class as Paris Hilton. Bleh.


Sorry, I just don't agree. Neither does my husband. She's breathtaking. Gisele looks like so many women I've seen at the gym; pretty but nothing special. Tara Reid is gorgeous. And I could care less about lipo. Do you know how many models and famous actresses get lipo and plastic surgery?

And, sorry, but I don't believe that you've gone out with women as hot as Tara Reid. 



> Who wouldn't be jealous of Tom? He's rich and married to Gisele! That still doesn't change the fact that he has love handles... most guys do.


If by love handles you mean the layer of skin over the muscle that you can pinch between your fingers, then sure. But actual love handles hanging over the side of his pants? No. He doesn't.



> Of course, most guys aren't sex symbols. If that body is hot you could pull just about any guy of healthy weight and call his body hot. He's got to be around 20% BF at least. That might even be advantageous to an immobile qb. The lean ones tend to be fragile (see mike Vick). But hot? If you say so. Your own hubby likely has a better body than Tom.


My hubby has a fantastic body. He's a lot more muscular than Tom and he has a build I find more attractive. But that doesn't mean Tom's body is flabby. Flabby and bleh to me is someone who doesn't work out at all, but manages not to be obese. Tom Brady does not fit that description.


----------



## always_alone

RandomDude said:


> *Jumps into the gender war*
> 
> 
> 
> Say what?
> You can't just lump all men based on a few posts by male members on this board, they are expressing their opinion just like you guys!


Tongue in cheek! And just because women stating their opinion are so often told they don't know what they want, and that 99% of them think what some guy has decided they do.


----------



## RandomDude

@FW

Eh? But we already know that

+ No woman can make me insecure 

@Alwaysalone

I think I posted somewhere on this thread stating that women do know what they want -> they want it ALL 

But no matter, so do we


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> But when it comes to internet forum guys trying to tell us that Tom Brady isn't hot...I'm gonna go right ahead and bring the truth out on display and hold no punches. WE LIKE 'EM TALL.


Oh ... so you really weren't kidding. 

Hey, at least we know this isn't a troll thread.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Um, no I wasn't kidding, we like 'em tall.


----------



## Created2Write

SimplyAmorous said:


> Happy I am not the only ODD woman on this thread.... though I must admit I don't find any of the men's pics put on this thread attractive, I would not pick those out to look at across the room...Brady -even with the football or dressed up with stubble...or the Beefy Black guy..Matt Damon..
> 
> Now with the Brady stubble pic.....I would think, however.. ....he might as well have PLAYER written on his forehead...I'd imagine the women clawing.....I just wouldn't trust those to be the faithful types..but the "getting around" types.
> 
> There is a tremendous appeal for the Man who desires to settle with 1 special woman... I could see myself being very very jealous of women who had this , if I didn't and was foolish enough to let one of the good ones go... and ended up with a Jerk. who cheated on me - cause he wanted some strange ...Oh he was sooooo Hot...
> 
> Show me a really HOT man, famous, has status, sex appeal...*who is faithful to one woman.. for a lifetime*....is there any who even come to mind ? ...I'd have to do a google search to even come up with an answer for that.....
> 
> We get so bogged down comparing Looks...GAME...at the end of the day ,without character...what the hell good is any of this ?? I see little value in it at all.


I think Antonio Banderas is one. He's been with his wife for a really long time, and as far as I know, hasn't ever cheated on her. 

And I agree. What good is having game if you never settle down and have a meaningful long term relationship with someone? Really get to have something special with someone special.


----------



## RandomDude

Faithful Wife said:


> Um, no I wasn't kidding, we like 'em tall.


It's not exactly news of the century lol


----------



## Faithful Wife

Right! That is why it is so odd that it makes men feel insecure.


----------



## always_alone

Created2Write said:


> But that doesn't mean Tom's body is flabby. Flabby and bleh to me is someone who doesn't work out at all, but manages not to be obese. Tom Brady does not fit that description.


Agreed. The US is one of the fattest nations on the planet, and so any guy who is remotely fit is on the higher side of average.

But guys who spend a lot of time working on being ripped want to be acknowledged for that -- and don't realize that a lot of women find that look off-putting.

Me, I'm no real fan of Tom Brady, but will take lean and athletic over beefcake muscle every time.


----------



## ocotillo

Faithful Wife said:


> Thank you for your post #851, Deejo.
> 
> IMO, Men have no problem talking about how universally insecure women are.
> 
> This thread shows that it isn't just women, men can become immediately insecure given the right topic.
> 
> Women KNOW this about men, by the way and typically we try not to trample them with their own insecurities, because we are nice and we know this wouldn't be good form.
> 
> But when it comes to internet forum guys trying to tell us that Tom Brady isn't hot...I'm gonna go right ahead and bring the truth out on display and hold no punches. WE LIKE 'EM TALL.



Some of us are just genuinely curious about how women think. And when we point out something that (From our narrow point of view) seems contradictory on the surface, we're not trying to pick a fight; we're just trying to make sense of things. If I come across as argumentative, I don't mean it that way.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Deejo said:


> *Unless what they are being told they are thinking is that the person telling them what they are thinking, thinks that person declaring what they are thinking, they think, is a jerk.*


 I had to read this 5 times in an attempt to process ...not sure anyone is a jerk....We all think a certain way, and have reasons behind that thinking.... using myself... there are things I can not wrap my brain around..in regards to women.... 

For instance...

How a younger woman can be sexually attracted to OLDER men - salt & pepper look / distinguished lines on their faces.... I have never felt this way in my life...even getting older, youth is hotter, always will be.....but it doesn't mean they are lying...or I am going to throw my old man out (though I do wish we could go back in time sometimes)... 

I also can not wrap my brain around how a woman who'd never give the time of day to that chubby guy over there , but if he gets a BIG promotion, suddenly his *sex rank* shoots up & she sees him in a new sexual light...Status suddenly improves his appearance...lust grows... if the looks weren't there to begin with...to cause a head turn...this makes no sense to me at all...but it happens...so they say....

So even some women do not understand other women!! and they probably can't understand ME...and what motivates my choices... Some are moved by Riches... elevating a lifestyle model of new cars, diamonds, material things ..... Me, I am more moved by Romance / togetherness. 




> *PHTlump said*: *Heavy alpha traits make you uneasy*.


I love your post by the way...everything you said...so true.

Uneasy could fit... Alpha to me = men who bed many women... This turns me OFF. .... A truly dominant man and me would clash....He would need his Man cave, this would annoy me... Wealth to me = workaholic many times... I have no desire to shop till I drop....I'd feel like a lonely desperate housewife & those sweet Beta men who are easy to talk to would be looking really good to me.... .

I wanted a larger family, to marry young... Little about Alphas fit what I deeply craved for the future I envisioned ... 

When I read articles like this... they resonate with me on nearly every point... some may say they are misrepresenting the Alpha males... but this is HOW I see them...whether that is right or wrong (of course all men have a little of both, but what I mean is the TIPPED Alpha's)....

10 Reasons to Date a Beta Male * Hooking Up Smart


----------



## RandomDude

I have no idea which front the gender war is even at, I just know it's in this 59 page thread! lol

BTW I don't think the post about Tom Brady being attractive for his success is odd at all - success IS attractive to many women. I doubt you can deny that - so what IS this fight about anyways?


----------



## Created2Write

always_alone said:


> Oh, please. Guys spend half their time on here mooning about hot girls, and criticizing women based on their looks (legs too skinny, boobs too small or too big, hair too short, too fat, etc., and so on). Pretty much any problem a woman has is answered by "how hot are you" and a bunch of assertions that all men care about is looks.
> 
> But of course, this is okay, because this is just how men are: visual. Women, though, are hurtful?


Yup. I can think of at least two separate threads started about whether or not men liked big boobs or small boobs, and there was no riot then. See, the only man I care about is my husband and his opinion. He loves my body. Smiles every time I'm naked as if he's a virgin seeing a girl naked for the first time in his life. He loves my body, touches it affectionately and lustfully all of the time. So I could care less what a bunch of men on a forum think about boobs, and whether mine would be too small or too big by their likes and dislikes. 

I don't have to fish for compliments like some, and I don't have to argue the attractiveness of popular women(like some) to make myself feel good. 

I think some of the concepts of game are well and good: getting and staying in shape, developing ones hobbies, improving conversational skills. But what good are those things if the guy is still desperate and insecure, he's just better and feigning confidence?


----------



## Faithful Wife

ocotillo...I am so happy to hear you say that! That some of you are just curious what women think. Thank you for that, very much. 

Nothing you have said has offended me at all, btw.


----------



## Created2Write

always_alone said:


> Agreed. The US is one of the fattest nations on the planet, and so any guy who is remotely fit is on the higher side of average.
> 
> But guys who spend a lot of time working on being ripped want to be acknowledged for that -- and don't realize that a lot of women find that look off-putting.
> 
> Me, I'm no real fan of Tom Brady, but will take lean and athletic over beefcake muscle every time.


I have very unique taste in men. I think men like Josh Holloway and Henry Cavill are utterly sexy. Like, they drip sexy just by waking up in the morning. But then, I also think men like Jospeh Gordon-Levitt and the actor who plays Leonard Hofstader in Big Bang Theory are hot too. They drip a very different kind of sexy.


----------



## RandomDude

> ocotillo...I am so happy to hear you say that! That some of you are just curious what women think. Thank you for that, very much.
> 
> Nothing you have said has offended me at all, btw.


Judging by the escalation of the gender war though, I would have to say it truly gives a whole new meaning to:

Curiouscity kills the cat!


----------



## Created2Write

RandomDude said:


> I have no idea which front the gender war is even at, I just know it's in this 59 page thread! lol
> 
> BTW I don't think the post about Tom Brady being attractive for his success is odd at all - success IS attractive to many women. I doubt you can deny that - so what IS this fight about anyways?


It's about the insistence that he's only attractive because of his fame and money, and his height and face. When he has a great body, despite one posters insistence that he doesn't.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

PHTlump said:


> Actually, I think Tom Brady fits perfectly into evo-psych explanations of attractiveness. Somehow, a physically fit, attractive man at the top of one of the most exclusive professions in the world, who earns millions of dollars a year and dated actresses and models before marrying a supermodel, is almost universally seen as sexy by women. Who could have possibly predicted that?
> 
> Now, I know that some women will argue that the money, fame, status, and preselection effect of pulling attention from models have nothing to do with their attraction and it's only appearance that drives their interest. But we can't test that. Brady doesn't have a twin who is a poor man with none of his brother's attributes.
> 
> Similarly, I know that Anna Nichole Smith claimed she married J. Howard Marshall, despite his being 63 years older than she was, because of love. The fact that he was a billionaire didn't even enter into the equation. However, we can't test the claim.
> 
> If we take evo-psych seriously, then the fact that Brady and Marshall both had money and status can explain the interest of women that most men without those attributes can't attain.


My husband is often stopped in the streets being told he looks like Tom Brady. I don't think he does but others do. I can totally see though how you could be jealous of somebody like that.


----------



## RandomDude

Created2Write said:


> It's about the insistence that he's only attractive because of his fame and money, and his height and face. When he has a great body, despite one posters insistence that he doesn't.


Ah! Now I get it, so it's kinda like folks saying girls only like Justin Beiber because he's a woman himself yes (lol) ? But then the girls jump in to defend that he's actually hot?

... :rofl:

Gotta love this forum lol


----------



## Faithful Wife

My husband is tall, athletic, charming, sexy...but definitely not wealthy. Yet women have always thrown themselves at him, even when he WAS poor.

He also thinks that women really do know what they want.


----------



## RandomDude

> He also thinks that women really do know what they want.


Damn right, so do we men

To hell with political correctness I say but that's just me


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> My husband is tall, athletic, charming, sexy...but definitely not wealthy. Yet women have always thrown themselves at him, even when he WAS poor.
> 
> He also thinks that women really do know what they want.


I dated and married my husband when he didn't even have a job. I didn't care about money. We lived in a run-down duplex the first year of our marriage while he worked part time, and some of the best memories I have of us are during those times. 

Money really isn't as important to some women as it is to others, and it's not nearly as important as a lot of men think it is.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Random said: "Ah! Now I get it, so it's kinda like folks saying girls only like Justin Beiber because he's a woman himself yes (lol) ? But then the girls jump in to defend that he's actually hot?"

I literally have NEVER heard any women jump in to defend that the Beave is hot. EVER. You have?


----------



## RandomDude

Oh you have NO idea :rofl:


----------



## Created2Write

Bieber is iiiiicccccckkkkkkk.


----------



## RandomDude

Admitedly it's mostly the younger generation that seem to love him though, still could never really figure out why except for speculation.

EDIT: I suspect with the sudden silence of this thread that the gender war has officially been pacified? Yay! Now where's my peacekeeper medal? 

*touchwood*

But chances are I'll come back tomorrow and this thread will reach page 70!


----------



## Faithful Wife

I am hoping you killed this thread with the mention of Justin Beiber.

I now pronounce thee thread, dead.


----------



## RandomDude

Sorry... couldn't resist :rofl:


----------



## skype

Hilarious, Random. Bieber has that "cute" boyish look that young teenage girls adore. Think of other teen idols--David Cassidy, Leonardo DiCaprio, Jonathan Taylor Thomas, Ricky Martin, Paul McCartney, Elvis, etc. My theory is that young girls are attracted to "cute" boys because they are non-threatening, and present a gateway into sexuality.


----------



## remorseful strayer

always_alone said:


> Not so unusual. There are lots of us that find typical male posturing and bravado rather repulsive, and other tactics like flashing money just a crass sign of superficiality.
> 
> A lot of men are turned off by this, despite the fact that many say this is what they are looking for.
> 
> I wonder: Could it be that men don't really know what they want? :scratchhead:


IMO, a lot of people don't know what they really want. 

Also, maybe what a person wants, changes over time. 

I agree, though testosterone laden male bravado and flashing cash is crass. 

A person, need not flash cash for others to realize they are wealthy. 

In fact, IMO, the low key guys are really catnip. When, a women finds out that type of modest low key guy has money, they just flock. 

Again, I am not talking about just gold diggers. The gold diggers are very obvious. 

Nice women are also attracted to high wage earning men, who dress well and are polite and low key.


----------



## Created2Write

Never mind.


----------



## remorseful strayer

Faithful Wife said:


> My husband is tall, athletic, charming, sexy...but definitely not wealthy. Yet women have always thrown themselves at him, even when he WAS poor.
> 
> He also thinks that women really do know what they want.


I wouldn't classify myself as sexy now or prior to my wage increases 

I would be likely described as athletic and intellectual. 

I agree, though, if a guy is sexy, as well as tall, athletic, charming, he can still attract women. 

So can a short, sexy, athletic, charming guy. 

It's just the short types without looks or game that likely have the most trouble. 

But in the end, I wonder if we gave a women a choice of tall, athletic, sexy, charming, outrageously handsome, but low wage earner as opposed to tall, athletic, intellectual, polite, average looking, well groomed, and very high wage earner, which would be chosen most of the time. 

In my own experience, standing next to the sexy, outrageously handsome, charmer, with a low income job, the women, once they learn what I do for a living, and figure out likely how much I earn....I still sadly get too much attention by comparison. 

My wife married me when I was earning peanuts. That is one thing I love about her and why I fought for her.


----------



## RandomDude

skype said:


> Hilarious, Random. Bieber has that "cute" boyish look that young teenage girls adore. Think of other teen idols--David Cassidy, Leonardo DiCaprio, Jonathan Taylor Thomas, Ricky Martin, Paul McCartney, Elvis, etc. My theory is that young girls are attracted to "cute" boys because they are non-threatening, and present a gateway into sexuality.


:rofl:

Gateway into sexuality LOL!!!


----------



## PHTlump

always_alone said:


> Not so unusual. There are lots of us that find typical male posturing and bravado rather repulsive, and other tactics like flashing money just a crass sign of superficiality.


If you're arguing that wealth and status aren't attractive to women, then you're wrong. If you're arguing that inartful displays of wealth and status can be unattractive to some women, then you're correct.

However, no one has argued that inartful displays of wealth and dominance are guaranteed to be attractive to all women.


----------



## Faithful Wife

That's right Lump....no one will argue that richer is better. Nor will they argue that taller is better. The combo of rich and tall is best. Yep.

However...I'll take tall and sexy over rich, as I personally don't aspire to have wealth as much as I aspire to have a great sex life. Priorities.


----------



## RandomDude

Gender war escalating again, should I inject some more bieber? Or have I tortured your eyes enough? lol


----------



## PHTlump

Therealbrighteyes said:


> My husband is often stopped in the streets being told he looks like Tom Brady. I don't think he does but others do. I can totally see though how you could be jealous of somebody like that.


Again, you misinterpret my post. While I imagine I would enjoy being one of the most highly paid athletes in the world, with all the fame, status, and female attention commensurate with that level of success, I am content to be me. I don't begrudge Brady his achievements. I certainly am not arguing he is unattractive. To the contrary. I agree with most of the women here that he is very attractive. I'm just honest enough to admit that his wealth, fame, and status MIGHT play a teensy part in generating that attraction.

However, as I stated in my earlier post, we will never know. Tom Brady has no identical twin without any wealth, fame, or status. If Twin Brady existed, and if he were also dating models and actresses, then we could be satisfied that Brady is universally appreciated for his looks alone.

Since Twin Brady doesn't exist, we will have to allow for the possibility that women are attracted to wealth, status, and fame, in addition to looks. As it happens, there are many studies that support exactly that hypothesis. Granted, I don't expect these studies to be given the same weight as the anecdotal claims of preferences given by women on this thread. But at least it's something.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

You say King Tom has a vanilla body and all the panties get twisted and you get accused of being insecure. 

I say he has a vanilla body because that's what just about every reasonably healthy guy's body looks like... so sayeth every locker room and beach I've ever been to. For me to get Brady's body I'd have to really work ... on lying on the couch and eating chips. We'll call it the "Body by Brady" routine. Y'all sure don't ask for much.

At least I know who not to ask for personal training advice.


----------



## always_alone

PHTlump said:


> If you're arguing that wealth and status aren't attractive to women, then you're wrong. If you're arguing that inartful displays of wealth and status can be unattractive to some women, then you're correct.


I'm arguing that your generalizations about wmen are false, and that you're pulling stats out of your a$$


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

PHTlump said:


> Again, you misinterpret my post. While I imagine I would enjoy being one of the most highly paid athletes in the world, with all the fame, status, and female attention commensurate with that level of success, I am content to be me. I don't begrudge Brady his achievements. I certainly am not arguing he is unattractive. To the contrary. I agree with most of the women here that he is very attractive. I'm just honest enough to admit that his wealth, fame, and status MIGHT play a teensy part in generating that attraction.
> 
> However, as I stated in my earlier post, we will never know. Tom Brady has no identical twin without any wealth, fame, or status. If Twin Brady existed, and if he were also dating models and actresses, then we could be satisfied that Brady is universally appreciated for his looks alone.
> 
> Since Twin Brady doesn't exist, we will have to allow for the possibility that women are attracted to wealth, status, and fame, in addition to looks. As it happens, there are many studies that support exactly that hypothesis. Granted, I don't expect these studies to be given the same weight as the anecdotal claims of preferences given by women on this thread. But at least it's something.


Keep telling yourself that. Whatever makes you sleep at night and pushes your lack of whatever.


----------



## always_alone

PHTlump said:


> Since Twin Brady doesn't exist, we will have to allow for the possibility that women are attracted to wealth, status, and fame, in addition to looks. As it happens, there are many studies that support exactly that hypothesis. Granted, I don't expect these studies to be given the same weight as the anecdotal claims of preferences given by women on this thread. But at least it's something.


Some women prioritize wealth and status; some women not so much. Why is this so difficult? And where are these mythical studies hat back up your point? They wouldn't happen to be the same rantings produced by the juvenile adolescents that are the subject of this thread, would they?


----------



## PHTlump

always_alone said:


> I'm arguing that your generalizations about wmen are false, and that you're pulling stats out of your a$$


Seriously? The notion that most women find wealth and status to be attractive is threatening to you? Not only is that established by academic studies, it's just common sense.

Can you honestly claim to add anything to this discussion, besides arguing straw men and claiming NAWALT?


----------



## Faithful Wife

I'm totally using my million years of biology in making my sexual decisions, yes I admit that.

And I picked the one who will live the longest in an apocolypse and will still be banging my brains out in a cave somewhere, if it ever comes to that. So yes, I absolutely believe that evolution is behind my sexual choices.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

PHTlump said:


> Seriously? The notion that most women find wealth and status to be attractive is threatening to you? Not only is that established by academic studies, it's just common sense.
> 
> Can you honestly claim to add anything to this discussion, besides arguing straw men and claiming NAWALT?


I'm curious how you feel about a woman who made a man wealthy.


----------



## remorseful strayer

always_alone said:


> Some women prioritize wealth and status; some women not so much. Why is this so difficult? And where are these mythical studies hat back up your point? They wouldn't happen to be the same rantings produced by the juvenile adolescents that are the subject of this thread, would they?


If you reject the hypotheses put forth that most, if not all, women would choose a tall athletic, average male that earns a very high wage over a tall athletic male that earns a low wage, then you can always conduct your own small study. 

Try setting a few friends up with two guys. One tall athletic sexy, outrageously good looking, but who rides the back of a garbage truck in Manhattan as his career...the other, a tall average intellectual male that earns a very high wage, and see which one she chooses. 

If he also chooses her, she will be most likely be very attracted to the high-wage earner. 

Try it?


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You say King Tom has a vanilla body and all the panties get twisted and you get accused of being insecure.
> 
> I say he has a vanilla body because that's what just about every reasonably healthy guy's body looks like... so sayeth every locker room and beach I've ever been to. For me to get Brady's body I'd have to really work ... on lying on the couch and eating chips. We'll call it the "Body by Brady" routine. Y'all sure don't ask for much.
> 
> At least I know who not to ask for personal training advice.


*snort* You're funny.

You can think Brady is vanilla all you want. Doesn't mean he is. You can think women only find him attractive because of his face and his fame. Doesn't mean they do. 

Your insistence that he's nothing special reeks of insecurity. If you'd said it once and then let it go, that would be different. But you insistence over and over again sounds utterly insecure. That his fame _has_ to be why he's so attractive, otherwise you couldn't compete with his sexy body and dashing face. 

It's what it looks like to me, anyway.


----------



## PHTlump

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Keep telling yourself that. Whatever makes you sleep at night and pushes your lack of whatever.


So, Brady is attractive for his looks alone. And we should just trust you on this?

Fair enough. You've convinced me. Your grasp of the female condition is so total, so absolute, that I will discount the academic studies that contradict your personal claims. Thank God we have you, so no further time, money, and effort is wasted studying female preferences.

As for my sleep, I'm good, thanks. I find that an understanding of, and appreciation for, the world at large doesn't upset me very much at all. I think that your kind of solipsism would certainly disturb my sleep. The notion that, all of the men, or women, or children must rely on me to decide what their preferences are would certainly disturb me. But I'm a fairly humble guy, by nature.


----------



## RandomDude

:scratchhead:



> I'm just honest enough to admit that his wealth, fame, and status MIGHT play a teensy part in generating that attraction.


This IS accurate though ladies, no one can deny that wealth, fame, and status do generate attraction. When it comes to the game a man must understand this. Despite my confidence I refuse to fall into the trap of over-confidence, and know that even though I've never had problems hooking up in my youth lacking wealth, fame and status - I still wasn't a super stud that could get any woman I wanted.

In fact it probably just contributed to me being picky as hell!!! Now, in the game one doesn't necessarily have to have wealth, fame, and status to be successful with ladies IMO -> but to understand what do wealthy/high status men have that makes them attractive? When there's a group of guys, there tends to be a bloke who makes the decisions, leads the group -> leadership/decisiveness -> attractive qualities in a man no? Add the wealth -> ability to provide, stability. Add the fame -> Mr. popular vs Mr. unpopular.

So IMO, understanding the phenomenom behind women's desire for men with fame/wealth/status is important. Sure physical attractiveness itself plays a huge part, no doubt about that. But I don't see how PHTlump is saying what you ladies think he's saying.

I just don't get this whole gender war. So should I post more Beiber?


----------



## always_alone

PHTlump said:


> Seriously? The notion that most women find wealth and status to be attractive is threatening to you? Not only is that established by academic studies, it's just common sense.
> 
> Can you honestly claim to add anything to this discussion, besides arguing straw men and claiming NAWALT?


It's not threatening to me at all. I couldn't care less who other women are attracted to.

But this idea that women go for "good providers" because of evolution is no more than a hypothesis, which has been disproven on a number of fronts. On one hand, evolutionary speaking men would be just as interested in women that can advance quality of life. But this is never hypothesize. Why is that? Because it doesn't fit with the presuppositions of people who are insisting that evolution is all about big, strong men providing for poor weak women.

On the other hand, where are the numbers? Culturally women were encouraged to go for "good providers", but this was largely because there were so few options available to them in certain historical contexts. None of that has anything to do with evolutionary theory at all.

So I ask again: where are your numbers to support your generalizations?


----------



## Faithful Wife

When you take out all other factors, we are going to pick the tall one.

When you offer us a tall rich one or a short rich one, we are going to pick the tall rich one.

When you offer us a tall rich one or a tall poor one, we will pick the tall rich one (as long as he isn't a jerk).

When you offer us a tall poor one or a short poor one, we are going to pick the tall poor one.

See the main theme here?


----------



## Created2Write

Yeah. He's totally flabby.  NOT.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

PHTlump said:


> Seriously? The notion that most women find wealth and status to be attractive is threatening to you? Not only is that established by academic studies, it's just common sense.
> 
> Can you honestly claim to add anything to this discussion, besides arguing straw men and claiming NAWALT?


You simply have to believe this. It fits your narrative so much more.


----------



## PHTlump

always_alone said:


> Some women prioritize wealth and status; some women not so much. Why is this so difficult?


What is difficult is penetrating your instinctual NAWALT response. To repeat, no person, at any time, on this thread, or any other, has claimed that 100% of women behave in a certain way. And they never will.

We have argued tendencies. We have pointed out the preferences of many, or most women. Will that satisfy your NAWALT objections? Of course not. You're like a one-trick pony.



> And where are these mythical studies hat back up your point? They wouldn't happen to be the same rantings produced by the juvenile adolescents that are the subject of this thread, would they?


Does your internet have Google? If not, I've linked to one. There are others.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/head-games/201207/are-women-shallow


----------



## PHTlump

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I'm curious how you feel about a woman who made a man wealthy.


I'm in favor of it.


----------



## Created2Write

For _some_ women wealth is the most attractive quality a man can have. For _some_ women wealth is just one of many attractive qualities a man can have. For _some_ women wealth plays a very small role in a man's attractiveness. For _some_ women wealth is irrelevant to a man's physical attraction. 

I am a part of the group that believes wealth to be irrelevant.


----------



## RandomDude

Taking out the height though FW

Leadership/decisiveness/ability to provide/stability/social skills vs none

Would you consider these qualities non influential? Assuming your prospects are both 6ft+ tall.



Created2Write said:


> For _some_ women wealth is the most attractive quality a man can have. For _some_ women wealth is just one of many attractive qualities a man can have. For _some_ women wealth plays a very small role in a man's attractiveness. For _some_ women wealth is irrelevant to a man's physical attraction.
> 
> I am a part of the group that believes wealth to be irrelevant.


So how is PHTlump's posts offending you? I don't get it :scratchhead:


----------



## Faithful Wife

Random...I'm old enough to understand that without PHYSICAL and SEXUAL attraction to a partner, I will not be able to stay in a relationship with them. For ME, that attraction will start with height a few other physical features. Those are the minimums for me, I look for that first because I know myself - - I will lose attraction for men who don't meet those requirements eventually.

So I start from there and then add other things I need and want.

Money is pretty low on the list to keep me sexually attracted...but there is a minimum amount there which I can't go below either (I have a certain lifestyle that I want to maintain and I want a partner in the same range as me).

Leadership/decisiveness/stability...yes those attributes are important, too. But not as much as general self-awareness, kindness, and a positive world view. Including the view that women do know what they want.


----------



## Ikaika

Reading all these replies, I have think first and foremost: If a guy is trying to be alpha, he starts looking like Barney Fife. At the same time I don't think you have to born with some alpha traits (whatever those traits maybe). Does it help? Sure, but so does money help. But, again not a deal maker or breaker. I think confidence level is a definite deal maker in most cases. Why? It speaks of maturity level. Of course one also has to reference girls v women. A woman is more likely to be attracted to a combination of traits but having confidence (maturity) can go a long way to overcoming other shortcomings. On can gain confidence (maturity). 

All this talk of Mr. Brady (QB in the NFL). Let's face it, if a team at that level is going to win, he, the QB has to feel like he is the toughest and most competitive guy on the field. That is confidence. Does his looks, money and fame help? Sure, but I would imagine his confidence is what makes him attractive over someone else with similar traits. 

You can have looks and money but if you can't even approach the woman, you don't even have a shot. If you are unable to carry on an adult conversation, down in flames you will go. 

It comes down to maturity (confidence), the trump card. This is not to suggest you be perfect in all areas. It does help to be able converse with a woman, but maturity is also knowing when to talk and when to listen (converse not just talk). If the conversation is all about you, forget it. Maturity and confidence means you make her feel comfortable with who you are and not trying to be someone you are not. It goes along with finding out who she is without any unrealistic expectations. We all have shortcomings, there are no real true alphas in the sense of having it all. To any guy who doesn't have a lot confidence, even those supermodel types have shortcomings. They are approachable. 

I am far from good looking but I have never allowed looks of a woman to intimidate me in anyway. Not to suggest I have some perfect score (that already speaks of immaturity). Thus I take the approach of, I like people and generally want to find out who they are ahead of some expectation.


----------



## RandomDude

@FW

I do agree with you, I do it too as most men do -> there are the straight out nos, maybes, and yes's. It's just preferences.

I don't see how this gender war has escalated though based on comparing PHTlump's posts and the responses. He's only mentioning the factors that contribute to a man's attractiveness. Factors that I do believe are important to mention in relation to this thread.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Random...all I can say to that is that you seem very respectful when you post. Can't say the same for some others here.


----------



## Created2Write

RandomDude said:


> Taking out the height though FW
> 
> Leadership/decisiveness/ability to provide/stability/social skills vs none
> 
> Would you consider these qualities non influential? Assuming your prospects are both 6ft+ tall.


I think we need to lay a foundation here. In looking for a potential mate, I think most women want a man with potential. A man who works hard. Cares about his life. Leadership looks very different depending on specific situations, and oftentimes very strong and capable women prefer men who follow, so I don't think leadership is always a desired trait. Decisiveness is a desirable quality, but it doesn't effect a man's physical attractiveness. Social skills are, also, not necessary desired traits. A lot of women go for the shy, quiet guy.

In looking for a potential mate, yet, these things are influential. In deciding whether or not a guy is physically hot? Not influential at all, imo.


----------



## RandomDude

@FW

Guess it's just not what you say but how you say it huh? Hehe 

First lesson they taught us in sales! 

Which reminds me of a point I do believe I mentioned earlier in this thread, somewhere, admist the 62 pages! That men don't need books, they just need a few months in a direct marketing job with commission only! They will learn how to break the ice + conversational skills else they won't be able to pay their rent!

@C2W



Created2Write said:


> I think we need to lay a foundation here. In looking for a potential mate, I think most women want a man with potential. A man who works hard. Cares about his life. Leadership looks very different depending on specific situations, and oftentimes very strong and capable women prefer men who follow, so I don't think leadership is always a desired trait. Decisiveness is a desirable quality, but it doesn't effect a man's physical attractiveness. Social skills are, also, not necessary desired traits. A lot of women go for the shy, quiet guy.
> 
> In looking for a potential mate, yet, these things are influential. In deciding whether or not a guy is physically hot? Not influential at all, imo.


So it would seem the two are seperated -> Physical attractiveness and non-physical attractiveness in a guy. I wonder though, because at times it would seem from my observations the two are often blurred. 

How about for certain qualities, especially what drerio mentioned in terms of confidence, as if I lacked the confidence I may walk with a slouched back, etc -> so it would affect my physical attractiveness no?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Random I have no doubt that you have very good game. It is obvious.


----------



## Created2Write

Yup. Random has good game without the need to manipulate women, or the need to know everything there is to know about them, and he has true, rather than feigned, confidence. I'd say he's a catch.


----------



## RandomDude

Thanks for making me blush!

Time for me to escape the spotlight, night all! lol


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

PHTlump;5188769
However said:


> You could be worth a billion dollars and I would still find you revolting.


----------



## PHTlump

Therealbrighteyes said:


> You could be worth a billion dollars and I would still find you revolting.


Since I have no twin, we can't say this for certain.


----------



## always_alone

remorseful strayer said:


> If you reject the hypotheses put forth that most, if not all, women would choose a tall athletic, average male that earns a very high wage over a tall athletic male that earns a low wage, then you can always conduct your own small study.
> 
> Try setting a few friends up with two guys. One tall athletic sexy, outrageously good looking, but who rides the back of a garbage truck in Manhattan as his career...the other, a tall average intellectual male that earns a very high wage, and see which one she chooses.
> 
> If he also chooses her, she will be most likely be very attracted to the high-wage earner.
> 
> Try it?


First of all, your "lab" experiment is too artificial and superficial to ever work in real life. How would we ensure that the two were of "equivalent" looks for the woman? And equal in all other respects?

Second, of my immediate friends, none of them have opted for wealth or status over character or looks. 

Indeed wealth and status often go hand in hand with some very undesirable characteristics (depending on who you are and what you're into, of course).


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

PHTlump said:


> Since I have no twin, we can't say this for certain.


In other wards, stupid times two.


----------



## Created2Write

Also, we don't need a Brady twin to know if Tom Brady is physically hot. Just look at the dang picture and the female reactions in this thread and....you have your answer.


----------



## PHTlump

RandomDude said:


> I don't see how this gender war has escalated though based on comparing PHTlump's posts and the responses. He's only mentioning the factors that contribute to a man's attractiveness. Factors that I do believe are important to mention in relation to this thread.


I think it's based on a lack of self-awareness. As a former salesman, you have a good understanding of people. And people tend to think alike, want similar things, and react similar ways to stimulus. Myers-Briggs only lists 16 personality types on the scale.

But some people, including some of the women on this thread, have an INTENSE need to be unique. They're not typical. They're not one of 16 basic personality types. They're not like other women. They are unique, special snowflakes who are impenetrable mysteries to men trying to attract women.

If you look at some of these women through this lens, then the hostility stops being surprising and becomes expected. Acknowledging the possibility that these women can be attracted to traits A, B, and C, just like most of the other women in the world, is bursting the bubble. And NAWALT.


----------



## always_alone

PHTlump said:


> What is difficult is penetrating your instinctual NAWALT response. To repeat, no person, at any time, on this thread, or any other, has claimed that 100% of women behave in a certain way. And they never will.


No, the number you cited was 99%. And I still say you pulled it out of your a$$



PHTlump said:


> We have argued tendencies. We have pointed out the preferences of many, or most women. Will that satisfy your NAWALT objections? Of course not. You're like a one-trick pony.
> 
> 
> Does your internet have Google? If not, I've linked to one. There are others.
> http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/head-games/201207/are-women-shallow


Ah, okay. So the *6* women in this study are more representative of women than the more than 6 on this thread because they show a slight tendency (23% vs 12%) to take the phone number of a guy in a hot car.

Speaking of one trick ponies.


----------



## PHTlump

Therealbrighteyes said:


> In other wards, stupid times two.


I appreciate that, given your lack of debating skills, you're at least humorous.


----------



## Created2Write

Oh there's a definite need to be unique in this thread, but it's not coming from the women.


----------



## PHTlump

Created2Write said:


> Also, we don't need a Brady twin to know if Tom Brady is physically hot. Just look at the dang picture and the female reactions in this thread and....you have your answer.


You misunderstood my posts. I'm not arguing that Brady is unattractive. I'm simply wondering how much of his attractiveness is based on his wealth, fame, and status. That is impossible to tell, but I very much doubt the claims of some women here that being a famous, wealthy, successful athlete contributes absolutely nothing to a man's attractiveness.


----------



## always_alone

PHTlump said:


> They're not like other women. They are unique, special snowflakes who are impenetrable mysteries to men trying to attract women.


Haven't you been listening? We mostly like good looking non-*********s.

It's really quite simple, and not at all mysterious or unique.


----------



## always_alone

PHTlump said:


> You misunderstood my posts. I'm not arguing that Brady is unattractive. I'm simply wondering how much of his attractiveness is based on his wealth, fame, and status. That is impossible to tell, but I very much doubt the claims of some women here that being a famous, wealthy, successful athlete contributes absolutely nothing to a man's attractiveness.


Let's see. How many rich and high status men are there who aren't even the slightest bit attractive?

LOTS!


----------



## Faithful Wife

Here's what I see...

Men who weren't a natural with the ladies were wondering how they could get with more ladies (or make their wives want to have sex with them).

So they read man-o-crap that says "Hey men! We've figured out what women want FOR YOU so you don't have to wonder anymore!" which they eagerly read.

The main mantra of the man-o-crap is that men are supposed to forget everything they've heard, that women "don't know what they want", and then apply technique A, B, and C. Somehow, this "they don't know what they want" absolutely makes (these particular) men glow with glee! Like "ha ha...they really DO want ME...they just don't even KNOW IT!"

And then...these same men spew this same crap back and forth around the internet.

I happened to be married to one of those guys who had natural game and women throwing themselves at him.

And he would NEVER say something as assanine as a blanket statement that "women don't know what they want" NOR even worse "so I will man-splain it to them". 

All I'm getting at is...perhaps there is actually a correlation in his ATTITUDE that makes him a natural? Perhaps not being constantly pissed off at women because he feels powerless around them and that they hold all the power, is part of his appeal? Chicken or egg?

This is a main theme of my blog, by the way.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

ocotillo said:


> *Some of us are just genuinely curious about how women think.* And when we point out something that (From our narrow point of view) seems contradictory on the surface, we're not trying to pick a fight;* we're just trying to make sense of things. * If I come across as argumentative, I don't mean it that way.


A poster here, Southbound, sent me this Joke once in a pm...I think it captured the magnitude of difficulty in understanding women.. 



> I have a joke for you:
> 
> A man walking along a California beach was deep in prayer when all of a sudden he said aloud, "Lord grant me one wish". The sky clouded and a booming voice said, "Because you have tried to be faithful I will grant you one wish." The man said, " I have always wanted to go to Hawaii, but am afraid to fly or sail. Build a bridge to Hawaii so I can drive over anytime I want to."
> 
> The Lord answered, "Your request is very materialistic. Think of the logistics of that kind of undertaking. The supports required to reach the bottom of the Pacific! The concrete and steel it would take. I can do it, but it is hard for me to justify your desire for worldly things. Take a little more time to think of another wish, a wish you think would honor and glorify me".
> 
> The man thought for a long time and finally said, "Lord, I wish that I could understand women. I want to know what they feel inside, what they are thinking when they give me the silent treatment, why they cry, what they mean when they say 'nothing', and how I can make a woman truly happy?"
> 
> After a few minutes God said, "How many lanes did you want on that bridge?" [URL="
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/URL]


----------



## PHTlump

always_alone said:


> No, the number you cited was 99%. And I still say you pulled it out of your a$$


You would be correct. I was using a hypothetical example to illustrate my point. And you helped me out by rushing in and claiming NAWALT. :rofl:



> Ah, okay. So the *6* women in this study are more representative of women than the more than 6 on this thread because they show a slight tendency (23% vs 12%) to take the phone number of a guy in a hot car.


There were 6 MEN who approached 90 women (each) in the study. That's 540 women in total. That's 540 women whose preferences were, unknowingly to them, recorded. Your belief that a few women trying to argue a point on an internet forum is more scientifically valid than women without an axe to grind participating in a blind study is ... amusing.

And the *slight* tendency you mentioned was an 82% increase in success for men appearing wealthy over middle class, and a 199% increase in success for men appearing wealthy over poor. That's a statistically significant result.


----------



## Created2Write

PHTlump said:


> You misunderstood my posts. I'm not arguing that Brady is unattractive. I'm simply wondering how much of his attractiveness is based on his wealth, fame, and status. That is impossible to tell, but I very much doubt the claims of some women here that being a famous, wealthy, successful athlete contributes absolutely nothing to a man's attractiveness.


Sure, as far as overall attractiveness goes, fame and status could play a part. Whether or not he has a great body and is hot? Nothing to do with it at all.


----------



## always_alone

SimplyAmorous said:


> A poster here, Southbound, sent me this Joke once in a pm...I think it captured the magnitude of difficulty in understanding women..


Are we really so difficult to understand? I don't think so.

Of course, if you're going to insist that we all want the same things, play the same games, think the same way, appreciate the same qualities, then I can see how you might get confused.

Especially when you ask, and then refuse to believe the answer.

But given that men can have quite different tastes and attitudes, I don't see why it's so problematic to observe that women also differ from each other.


----------



## PHTlump

Faithful Wife said:


> The main mantra of the man-o-crap is that men are supposed to forget everything they've heard, that women "don't know what they want", and then apply technique A, B, and C. Somehow, this "they don't know what they want" absolutely makes (these particular) men glow with glee! Like "ha ha...they really DO want ME...they just don't even KNOW IT!"


So, there are two types of relationship materials for men. The first type of materials states that men and women are all unique snowflakes that can't be explained, or understood. That, if your wife doesn't want you, it's not because of you. That's just the way she is, and you can do little to affect her preferences. But, not to worry, because there are plenty of other women out there who will go nuts over your particular, unique personality. In other words, it's easy to get women. Just be yourself and one will eventually take you to pound town.

The second type of material tells men that women are, generally, attracted to particular traits exhibited by men that most women find attractive. And, if your wife isn't attracted to you, it's because you're not exhibiting enough of these traits. In other words, it's your fault. You need to change so that your wife will be attracted to you again.

And you think that the second type of material, advising men that they must accept responsibility for failing to be attractive enough and they must change in order to become more attractive, is the material that men would find more comforting? Hokay.



> This is a main theme of my blog, by the way.


Yes. You've plugged your blog several times before. No thanks. Given the content of your posts here, I have no interest in a vehicle where you can go into even more depth.


----------



## always_alone

PHTlump said:


> There were 6 MEN who approached 90 women (each) in the study. That's 540 women in total. That's 540 women whose preferences were, unknowingly to them, recorded. Your belief that a few women trying to argue a point on an internet forum is more scientifically valid than women without an axe to grind participating in a blind study is ... amusing.


Oops, you're right. My bad for scanning. But the results still do not point to the conclusions you draw, as even the authors note the limitations:. They couldn't tell for sure whether it was looks or the car that drew the women.

And it was still only 23% vs 12% or 7% that got any traction at all. You can convert this into an "increase" if you want, but it's still only 23%. Not many, not most.


----------



## ocotillo

SimplyAmorous said:


> A poster here, Southbound, sent me this Joke once in a pm...I think it captured the magnitude of difficulty in understanding women..


LOL - My BIL told me that joke a few years ago. Funny stuff.

My wife's family is Norwegian. This man is six foot seven, green eyes, blond hair, very intelligent and a successful business owner - He leases heavy equipment to the Forest Service. And he is as confused about his wife's lack of affection and overall behavior as a great many other men are.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Therealbrighteyes said:


> To Devils it has to be otherwise why would a woman be with him. If his narrative is that women don't care about attraction and personality then he only attracts gold diggers.


Uhm... no, that has never been my narrative. I know I'm attractive. I know I'm athletic. I know I'm successful. I know I'm a large, forceful personality - as argumentative as you think me here I'm just as charming, funny and playful when called for. Some people love me, some people hate me, others love to hate me. Not my problem.

I know women have physical attraction standards and have never maintained otherwise. I also know, by AMPLE proof, that those standards are usually pliable even while women say they aren't. A huge array of non-physical elements WILL influence a woman's physical perception of a guy, hand in hand with liking everything else about him. Its a particularly female phenomenon of over-idealization and over-vilification. When you like him, he's crazy hot, and everything about him is great great great. When you don't like him, he's suddenly bad at everything and you're pretty sure he's the anti-Christ.

This whole Tom Brady issue gets at another point I've tried to make many times before about how female attraction is strangely wide-ranging and yet simultaneously picky. The range of body that is acceptable is pretty wide in comparison to male preferences, and in spite of this, women remain pickier relative to men in actually choosing a man. Its entirely bizzare - wide range of acceptable physical attributes to the degree they're even common, yet still picky in choosing the individual. While men have a more narrow definition of attractive physical attributes, and yet are a lot less picky on an individual basis. I use Tom Brady's body as an example because his body type (which is not his height) is downright common. If not for the US being so fat, Tom's body would rightfully be average instead of a bit above... and yet we have all this swooning. I'm sorry, but if your body is anywhere near average and common, then its not hot. Decent looking? Ok. Good looking? Maybe. Hot? No. Hot is a superlative. 

If women think Brady has a hot body, and that body is downright common in regular healthy men, then that says to me that women aren't very discriminating on body type much beyond "don't be fat". Oh but its so much more fun to call me insecure.

I have no insecurity over why a woman would like me. I already know women like me for a hell of a lot of different reasons. A person who thinks insecurity is why I engage in these discussions is incredibly clueless about people. I'm an INTP. About as obvious an INTP as there is. Analyzing, typing, categorizing and theorizing is what I do. Contrary to most people, I do think the world can be boiled down to algorithms, with behavior explained and predicted - even if those algorithms must be tremendously complicated. When something doesn't fit the easily observed pattern I throw a flag... and what you don't see, is women fawning over other men with Brady-esque bodies. The calendar of firemen isn't a calendar of Brady bodies... male strippers aren't Brady bodies. The male actors making the "top 10 hottest" lists aren't Brady bodies. A ton of my friends have Brady bodies, and they'd bust out laughing if someone said they had a hot body. So, I'm sorry... it just doesn't fit. His height and face I get, even if you have to count me in with the few women who don't think he's as good looking as others credit.

For me, its all about a predictive model. Understanding the patterns and predicting. If Tom's body is attractive, then most healthy weight guy's bodies are attractive and women aren't picky about the male body.

This idea that physical attraction means a lot to women, even while a common and rather plain body type is deemed attractive, seems quite contradictory. I'm more discerning than this in buying food for my dog. If you're not very discerning, how can you consider something important?


----------



## remorseful strayer

always_alone said:


> First of all, your "lab" experiment is too artificial and superficial to ever work in real life. How would we ensure that the two were of "equivalent" looks for the woman? And equal in all other respects?
> 
> Second, of my immediate friends, none of them have opted for wealth or status over character or looks.
> 
> Indeed wealth and status often go hand in hand with some very undesirable characteristics (depending on who you are and what you're into, of course).


It's far from artificial, albeit grossly unscientific due to its small size.

Still, this was suggested as an experiment that actually occurred in real life. 

I did the set up and the high-wage earner won the match. Just sayin'

It was not done, at the time, as an experiment, it was just a way to set up a single friend with some single men. 

Don't knock it until you try it. 

Also, have you considered the possibility that perhaps your friend snubbed the wealthier man because she picked up a disinterested vibe from him, or perhaps she felt insecure around him or simply felt more comfortable with the low wage earner. 

There are valid scientific studies that suggest that a person with low confidence may feel uncomfortable around very wealthy people.

In addition, you are assuming the the sole reason your friend turned down the wealthier man was that she did not care about his money, rather than for other reasons. 

For example, maybe it was fear. Fear that a very wealthy man was more likely to have lot of lady friends and that might be too much competition for your friend. 

Also, you are assuming, given she may have declared she did not care about his wealth, that she is telling YOU the truth rather than sheltering her ego.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dvls said: "...even while a common and rather plain body type is deemed attractive..."

It is not "common" to be 6'4".


----------



## ocotillo

Faithful Wife said:


> It is not common to be 6'4".


Definitely not in my generation. Or yours either.

Have you been to high school or college campus lately and noticed the heights of the boys and girls? Holy Moley! It makes you wonder if using growth hormones on animals we eat is really a good thing.


----------



## remorseful strayer

always_alone said:


> Let's see. How many rich and high status men are there who aren't even the slightest bit attractive?
> 
> LOTS!


Exactly. 

Yet, amazingly, these *un*attractive, but wealthy or famous dudes still seem to be able to snag amazingly attractive women. 

I assert that if the guy were a janitor, instead of wealthy or famous, these same women wouldn't give him the time of day. 

C'mon. You see this in Hollywood and in the political arena as well as among high-status CEOs every single day.

We often see really ugly obnoxious dudes, with drop dead, confident, gorgeous women.


----------



## Created2Write

And even more insistence that because you don't see why Brady's body is hot, it simply must not be hot. I could careless if the men you know who look like Brady aren't being fawned over. As a PUA you've said countless times that when it comes to being successful with women, it takes more than looks. So perhaps the men you know who look like Brady should focus on bettering themselves in other ways?

They still do not suddenly make Brady an Average Joe, no matter how badly you want him to be an Average Joe. So, the only obvious conclusion is that you need Brady to be average. Because no matter how the women here repeat that Brady is hot, you still insist that it's for reasons other than his body. You offer no other reason why Brady isn't actually hot other than that the guys you know who have bodies like his aren't successful with women. Sorry, but no. 

I maintain insecurity. At least you finally did admit that he's got an above-average body.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Created2Write said:


> I think Antonio Banderas is one. He's been with his wife for a really long time, and as far as I know, hasn't ever cheated on her.


 I looked this up, he did cheat on his 1st wife with her though... before the divorce, though it sounds they were separated.


> Banderas married his first wife, Ana Leza, on July 27, 1987. They separated in May 1995 when he began a relationship with actress Melanie Griffith while shooting Two Much. Banderas and Leza divorced in April 1996, and one month later, on May 14, 1996, he married Griffith in a private, low-key ceremony in London.





Created2Write said:


> And I agree. What good is having game if you never settle down and have a meaningful long term relationship with someone? Really get to have something special with someone special.


 Thought I would google for some info...Lucky ladies with faithful Hollywood husbands; Matt Damon and a few good men (video) - National Love and marriage ...well we can take Kutcher off this list ...



> *Tom Hanks*: He’s been married to Rita Wilson for 22 years, an impressive feat even by non-Tinseltown standards.
> 
> *Pierce Brosnan* -- The former James Bond star met and fell in love with wife Keely Shaye-Smith on a charity mission to Mexico. The couple has been married since 2001 and have two sons.
> 
> *Ashton Kutcher*: He “flew into a rage” when he heard a partygoer mocking his 16-year age difference with wife Demi Moore.
> 
> *Matt Damon* -- Matt and wife Luciana Barroso are expecting their third child together in five years. So, you know, they've been busy! This low-key couple is rarely in the press. Matt recently told the Hollywood Reporter that even though he doesn't believe in marriage, in general, his wife is the best thing that has ever happened to him.
> 
> *Kevin Bacon*: For some reason, his cute nickname for his wife of 21 years, Kyra Sedgwick, is “sandwich face.”
> 
> .*Jeff Bridges* -- It says something about the state of Hollywood marriage that during the run-up to the Academy Awards this year, Jeff Bridges' three decade strong marriage to his wife, Susan, became such a talking point . Jeff Bridges seconds "get married" advice from Coppola
> 
> *Phil Mickelson* -- This professional golfer has become the anti-Tiger Woods in so many ways, but particularly because of his loyalty to his wife, Amy, who has been battling breast cancer. "We've been through a lot this year and it means a lot to share some joy," Mickelson said following his Masters win. "She's an incredible wife, an incredible mother. It was an amazing week."


10 Longest Lasting Hollywood Marriages... A few more..

*1.* *Dustin Hoffman*/Lisa Gottsegen - 29 years - Oct.12, 1980 

*2. **Ron Howard*/Cheryl Alley - 35 years - June 7, 1975 

*3.* *Will Smith* and Jada Pinkett Smith

*4. **Danny DeVito* and Rhea Perlman - over 25 yrs 

*5.* Kelly Preston and *John Travolta* have been married for 30 years

*6. **Denzel Washington* & wife Pauletta - married for 29 years.

*7.* *Ewan McGregor* & French production designer Eve Mavrakis -married 1995

*8.* *Sting* & his wife Trudie Styler have been married for more than 18 years and have four children together

*9.* *Michael Caine* & his wife Shakira have been married for almost 40 years. Michael first saw Shakira in a Maxwell House Coffee ad and thought she was "the most beautiful girl I'd ever seen."

**** *I think Clint Eastwood is the worst example Hollywood has ever had ...the man had no shame ...Personal life of Clint Eastwood


----------



## remorseful strayer

Created2Write said:


> And even more insistence that because you don't see why Brady's body is hot, it simply must not be hot.


Geesh, maybe he does not think Brady's body is hot 'cause he's a guy and Brady is a guy......ya' think maybe that's the reason?

What guy is gonna' say another guy's body is hot. 

Give us a break.


----------



## Faithful Wife

remorseful said: "We often see really ugly obnoxious dudes, with drop dead, confident, gorgeous women."

But this thread is showing very clearly that men will tend to "not see" what is so hot about another man, ie: Tom Brady.

So what YOU see as and ugly obnoxious dude and a drop dead gorgeous woman, some of us might see as a total hunk with a hoochie.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> Dvls said: "...even while a common and rather plain body type is deemed attractive..."
> 
> It is not "common" to be 6'4".


True! But now Dvls is saying that his height is part of his attractiveness, as opposed to earlier when his height was part of why he was only "average". And now Brady _is_ above average, but only because obesity is so common. 

The inconsistency is laughable.


----------



## Faithful Wife

remorseful....Dvls has told us about PLENTY of men who we "should think" are hot because HE deems them as hot.


----------



## samyeagar

Created2Write said:


> And even more insistence that because you don't see why Brady's body is hot, it simply must not be hot. I could careless if the men you know who look like Brady aren't being fawned over. As a PUA you've said countless times that when it comes to being successful with women, it takes more than looks. So perhaps the men you know who look like Brady should focus on bettering themselves in other ways?
> 
> They still do not suddenly make Brady an Average Joe, no matter how badly you want him to be an Average Joe. So, the only obvious conclusion is that you need Brady to be average. Because no matter how the women here repeat that Brady is hot, you still insist that it's for reasons other than his body. *You offer no other reason why Brady isn't actually hot other than that the guys you know who have bodies like his aren't successful with women. Sorry, but no*.
> 
> I maintain insecurity. At least you finally did admit that he's got an above-average body.


I would submit then that if it is agreed that Tom Brady has a hot body, then there are a ton of guys out there with hot bodies, and even a lot of guys with beyond hot bodies.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes but they still have to be 6'4".


----------



## Created2Write

remorseful strayer said:


> Geesh, maybe he does not think Brady's body is hot 'cause he's a guy and Brady is a guy......ya' think maybe that's the reason?
> 
> What guy is gonna' say another guy's body is hot.
> 
> Give us a break.


lol. Dude, this has been said before. Dvls really has no bearing on which famous guys are or aren't hot because he's a guy, not a woman. Yet he continues to insist that _we_ shouldn't think he's hot; that we wouldn't think he's hot if it weren't for his fame. Despite the fact that nearly every woman(except for SA and AA) in this thread has said Brady is hot. I didn't even know who he was when Dvls posted a picture of him, and my first thought was of how hot he was.


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes but they still have to be 6'4".


So then is the arguement it is the combination of height and body? If you took Tom Brady's body and scaled it exactly to say 5'9", then it would no longer be hot?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Correct.


----------



## Created2Write

samyeagar said:


> I would submit then that if it is agreed that Tom Brady has a hot body, then there are a ton of guys out there with hot bodies, and even a lot of guys with beyond hot bodies.


You can submit that if you want. Everyone has different tastes. I've known a lot of men with totally ripped bodies(they were in the Marine Corps...really into working out) and not found them to be "beyond hot" just because they're ripped. One of my exes had one of the most muscular bodies of anyone I've ever known, and he was one of the most physically unattractive guys I've known. Guys with ripped bodies are extremely common. Brady is so much hotter than any of them. 

Other women will likely disagree with me and not find anything special about Brady. Different strokes. But because one man says that Brady is average, and his body type is common, doesn't mean he's right. One man doesn't get to define what hot is to everyone else. Not matter how much he might try to.


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> Correct.


So it really is the height that makes his body TYPE hot, and not the body type itself. So guys with his body type shouldn't feel all that great that they have a hot body unless they are really tall.

Wish I was a bit taller now...maybe I'd be hot then


----------



## Created2Write

samyeagar said:


> So then is the arguement it is the combination of height and body? If you took Tom Brady's body and scaled it exactly to say 5'9", then it would no longer be hot?


_Less_ hot, yes. But, for me, he'd still be above-average.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Correct about the first line.

No idea about the second line as I haven't seen you...but I gotta figure that, due to pre-selection, you must be fine.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

PHTlump said:


> Again, you misinterpret my post. While I imagine I would enjoy being one of the most highly paid athletes in the world, with all the fame, status, and female attention commensurate with that level of success, I am content to be me. I don't begrudge Brady his achievements. I certainly am not arguing he is unattractive. To the contrary. I agree with most of the women here that he is very attractive. I'm just honest enough to admit that his wealth, fame, and status MIGHT play a teensy part in generating that attraction.
> 
> However, as I stated in my earlier post, we will never know. Tom Brady has no identical twin without any wealth, fame, or status. If Twin Brady existed, and if he were also dating models and actresses, then we could be satisfied that Brady is universally appreciated for his looks alone.
> 
> Since Twin Brady doesn't exist, we will have to allow for the possibility that women are attracted to wealth, status, and fame, in addition to looks. As it happens, there are many studies that support exactly that hypothesis. Granted, I don't expect these studies to be given the same weight as the anecdotal claims of preferences given by women on this thread. But at least it's something.


Yeah because if wealth, status and fame are taken away from Tom Brady he suddenly becomes unattractive. You simply have to believe this, don't you.


----------



## samyeagar

Created2Write said:


> You can submit that if you want. Everyone has different tastes. I've known a lot of men with totally ripped bodies(they were in the Marine Corps...really into working out) and not found them to be "beyond hot" just because they're ripped. One of my exes had one of the most muscular bodies of anyone I've ever known, and he was one of the most physically unattractive guys I've known. Guys with ripped bodies are extremely common. Brady is so much hotter than any of them.
> 
> Other women will likely disagree with me and not find anything special about Brady. Different strokes. But because one man says that Brady is average, and his body type is common, doesn't mean he's right. One man doesn't get to define what hot is to everyone else. Not matter how much he might try to.


THat is one thing I have heard over and over. Body builder buff ripped types aren't really at the top of the general attractivenes scale.

Myself, I am not ripped in a body builder sort of way, but I am toned with definition, much like some of those guys SA posted. The pics of Tom Brady really don't show a whole lot of toning and definition.

He certainly does not have a BAD body, but what is it specifically that would make his body stand out among say 100 other men?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

always_alone said:


> *Are we really so difficult to understand? I don't think so.*


 Even though I am unusual and a rare bird......I am not difficult to understand at all...as I enjoy articulating what I want to a high degree...a man would have to be the biggest duff a$$ alive to have trouble getting ME...

I do not play any "passive games" either...If anything, I can be a little too "forthcoming"... If they wanted Mystery & game playing.... I am not the woman.... if they don't want any BS...and prefer Transparency....I'd be a dream...

I do get emotional like every other woman....over certain things.. ..but I can easily articulate those feelings in the midst of the tears even... I don't push away and say one thing meaning another.. I suppose if I was married to a cold callus Son of a B ...my behavior may be different, but thankfully this is not something I've ever had to deal with....

.... I am sure the dynamics of the couple make a HUGE difference on how we get along...and this amazing "Understanding" we strive with each other. 



> Of course, if you're going to insist that we all want the same things, play the same games, think the same way, appreciate the same qualities, then I can see how you might get confused.


 Absolutely. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:



> *Created2Write said*Despite the fact that nearly every woman(except for SA and AA) in this thread has said Brady is hot.


 That newer pic of him & his wife someone posted....he was *really good looking*, can't deny that one! And so was SHE....yet still...someone so out of our league....why bother....


----------



## Created2Write

samyeagar said:


> THat is one thing I have heard over and over. Body builder buff ripped types aren't really at the top of the general attractivenes scale.
> 
> Myself, I am not ripped in a body builder sort of way, but I am toned with definition, much like some of those guys SA posted. The pics of Tom Brady really don't show a whole lot of toning and definition.
> 
> He certainly does not have a BAD body, but what is it specifically that would make his body stand out among say 100 other men?


See, I disagree. You can see the definition of his abs, his chest, his biceps. Not strongly, but that's because he's not ripped. He's athletic.


----------



## Created2Write

SA, yeah, he's out of our league. Doesn't mean we can't appreciate his gorgeousness.


----------



## ntamph

If I decide to get ripped, it will be something I do for myself to feel better about myself. If it helps me attract women then that would be nice.

I'll just stick to being myself. I'll improve myself in different ways FOR ME. This alpha stuff got to my head and I really don't want it to be there anymore. It makes life complicated even though it's supposed to simplify it.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Created2Write said:


> See, I disagree. You can see the definition of his abs, his chest, his biceps. Not strongly, but that's because he's not ripped. He's athletic.


I do love how some men here are saying Tom Brady is some pansy ass, small armed, not as whatever and add in more. It just makes me laugh and yeah I've seen the pic of the guy daring to question it. Not. Even. Close.


----------



## Created2Write

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I do love how some men here are saying Tom Brady is some pansy ass, small armed, not as whatever and add in more. It just makes me laugh and yeah I've seen the pic of the guy daring to question it. Not. Even. Close.


I know. I don't get it either. If Tom Brady has "lovehandles" then I'll take love handles any day of the week. And I'd bet other guys wish they had his "love handles". rofl.

And you are 100% right about the last two sentences.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I'm still saying I wouldn't think he was hot if he was 5'9" but I do think he is hot at 6'4".


----------



## Created2Write

ntamph said:


> If I decide to get ripped, it will be something I do for myself to feel better about myself. If it helps me attract women then that would be nice.
> 
> I'll just stick to being myself. I'll improve myself in different ways FOR ME. This alpha stuff got to my head and I really don't want it to be there anymore. It makes life complicated even though it's supposed to simplify it.


OMG. You've renewed my faith in humanity.  This is SUCH an attractive attitude. I don't care how manly a guy tries to be, how many hot women he says he gets. If he has to be the most desired guy in existence, he's just desperate. Not attractive at all. But your attitude is refreshing and is a reflection of true confidence and security. 

Thank you for making this post.


----------



## Created2Write

FW, yeah, I know. I'm just super short so 5'9" to me isn't completely unattractive. I wouldn't date anyone shorter than that, though.


----------



## samyeagar

Therealbrighteyes said:


> *I do love how some men here are saying Tom Brady is some pansy ass, small armed, not as whatever and add in more*. It just makes me laugh and yeah I've seen the pic of the guy daring to question it. Not. Even. Close.


Please show me the quotes for this...don't remember anyone saying anything close to that.


----------



## Created2Write

I'm pretty sure she was paraphrasing. Dvls has said over and over and over and over that Brady is just average, that his body is really common, that he's flabby, dumpy, bleh. You said that he's not toned or defined. 

I think that's what she's referring to.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Actually there was another thread (that I started) a while back where Dvls went round and round about how not hot Tom Brady is, too. He has certainly studied Tom Brady's body more than I have, that is for sure.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> Actually there was another thread (that I started) a while back where Dvls went round and round about how not hot Tom Brady is, too. He has certainly studied Tom Brady's body more than I have, that is for sure.


:rofl:


----------



## samyeagar

Created2Write said:


> I'm pretty sure she was paraphrasing. Dvls has said over and over and over and over that Brady is just average, that his body is really common, that he's flabby, dumpy, bleh. *You said that he's not toned or defined.*
> 
> I think that's what she's referring to.




I said it does not show a whole lot of toning and definition. I did not say it shows none. Big difference.

Though you said you disagreed with me...then went on to say it was there, just not strongly...so where is the disagreement? :scratchhead:


----------



## Created2Write

samyeagar said:


> I said it does not show a whole lot of toning and definition. I did not say it shows none. Big difference.
> 
> Though you said you disagreed with me...then went on to say it was there, just not strongly...so where is the disagreement? :scratchhead:


It's likely semantics. He's not ripped, but I don't see how he can be defined is average.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

6'4" is not a body type.

That's called moving the goal posts. In the pics of Brady I posted, you have no basis for judging his height at all - you'd require a frame of reference to do so. Height is actually irrelevant to the point I was making about his body being vanilla, common, average joe's body. If I posted a pic of a fat 6'4" guy you wouldn't be claiming he had a great body because he was 6'4".


----------



## Faithful Wife

:lol:

Do you believe us now, sam?

I actually can tell the approximate height of a man by his photos. There are many clues, such as length of forearms, length of legs, size of feet, etc.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

ReformedHubby said:


> I hate to say it but if you're a man in America that is doing well for himself I think success literally adds +3 to your sex rank. I'm not flashy but my business partner is. *I drove his exotic car once on a short business trip. Never again. One women with her daughter in the car literally followed me until I got where I was going*.
> 
> When I got there they pulled up beside me and asked if I was ball player (this was actually offensive to me). *Then they asked if I had a girlfriend to go along with the car (I don't where a ring). I was polite, said I was flattered but happily married. Bottom line if I was in a Toyota Camry this does not happen.*
> 
> I know all women are not this way but I can't believe that they put themselves out there like that. They literally didn't know anything about me.


 I am the opposite, when I see men with expensive Hot rods like this.. I automatically think they are Materialistic and have women hanging off of them... just a *show off* and it's more of an immediate "Not my type"... 

I would get more of an Ooomph (and I swear to God this is true) ...if I saw a good looking single Father who drove an older Pick up truck... someone who was responsible with his money, loved & spent time with his kids... but I didn't get the "show off" / need to impress vibe.... 

I work for a man who buys cars like shoes, every room in his house could be ripped from a "House beautiful" magazine, we had a conversation once, he's admitted he does all of this to attract women...he wants others to be impressed. People in his workplace & such... he does have the $$ though to live like that. He is also a workaholic. 

In the next breathe, he told me - he should be like me & my husband , not caring about these things...he admired that in us... but yet... it's just the way it is. 

He's an interesting rich man and treats me like a part of his family. He's also told me -a couple times had he married a woman like me, he could have retired at 50 ...but now he'll be working till he dies. (I would never want a man like him, he travels too much, rarely home, a workaholic..I'd rather have a lessor house, lessor cars and the man's *time *to enjoy what we've built together....

He is great to work for though!! So up close & personal, I can see how a Rich man would not satisfy me, using *his lifestyle* as an example..


----------



## PHTlump

always_alone said:


> But the results still do not point to the conclusions you draw, as even the authors note the limitations:. They couldn't tell for sure whether it was looks or the car that drew the women.


I have noted the inherent difficulties in testing before. That's why I stated that we can't conclude how much of Tom Brady's appeal is based on looks and how much is based on other factors. We would need an identical twin and some women without an agenda to be able to estimate that.

However, that doesn't mean any study with limitations is meaningless. The authors chose men with comparable looks to conduct the study. And they approached enough women to hopefully balance out individual preferences and identify group tendencies.



> And it was still only 23% vs 12% or 7% that got any traction at all. You can convert this into an "increase" if you want, but it's still only 23%. Not many, not most.


Earlier in the thread, I admitted that even the most successful men, except perhaps celebrities like Brady, would have limited success with women. Most women have a default setting of "no" when being approached by a stranger.

However, you can't ignore that men with apparent wealth were 300% more successful with women than the same group of men with no apparent means. If a man can triple his success with women, it's a big deal.


----------



## samyeagar

Created2Write said:


> It's likely semantics. He's not ripped, but I don't see how he can be defined is average.


Seeing as how I'm a guy, I've spent plenty of time in guys locker rooms (and not nearly enough in womens  ). I was a competitive athlete for many years, and I have seen plenty of guys with as good, or better bodies by the standards mentioned on this thread. That puts me in a position to make a relatively objective observation to notice that there has to be more than just his body type that makes him attractive.

I never said he didn't have a good body, because he does, but there are tons of guys out there that have just as good if not better. He may be a step above the norm, but not leaps and bounds.


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> Are we really so difficult to understand? I don't think so.


Would you hold to the logical corollary here, always alone? Would you say that you understand men well? This is asked in all sincerity.


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> :lol:
> 
> Do you believe us now, sam?
> 
> I actually can tell the approximate height of a man by his photos. There are many clues, such as length of forearms, length of legs, size of feet, etc.


You do have to have a frame of reference to figure those things out...like a football, or any object that was in some of those photos 

Though just because he has an issue with Tom Brady does not automatically discount everything he says 

My default setting is to dislike Tom Brady, but I have a very legitimate reason....he went to Michigan.

GO BUCKS!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Wow... ladies, if you think Tom is athletic you have no idea what athleticism is. Tom Brady IS NOT ATHLETIC. This is a measureable trait where, thankfully, opinion isn't worth a sh*t.

Tom runs a 5.3 sec 40 yard dash on a good day with months of preparation when he was 10+ years younger. That's bad even for a quarterback. 5.3 sec isn't even a good time for a 300 lb LINEMAN!

Tom is 6'4" and has a 26" vertical jump. I'm a 5'10" programmer who sits in a chair all day and I have a 35" vertical jump.

Qbs are exempt from the combine bench press so there are no official numbers, but Patriots players have routinely joked about Tom's high intensity in the weight room, and the lack of weight. He's widely held to be weak for a guy his size, and you can readily see it on the field as he folds with the slightest contact.

The man is anything but athletic. He's a great quarterback with a good arm, but he's NOT athletic by any measure... and his body reflects that fact.


----------



## Faithful Wife

And on and on and on....


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

We can test that FW. I'll post some pics and you guess their heights. How about an avatar bet?


----------



## Created2Write

samyeagar said:


> Seeing as how I'm a guy, I've spent plenty of time in guys locker rooms (and not nearly enough in womens  ). I was a competitive athlete for many years, and I have seen plenty of guys with as good, or better bodies by the standards mentioned on this thread. That puts me in a position to make a relatively objective observation to notice that there has to be more than just his body type that makes him attractive.
> 
> I never said he didn't have a good body, because he does, but there are tons of guys out there that have just as good if not better. He may be a step above the norm, but not leaps and bounds.


See, this is part of the issue. You assume that, because there are men who are in better shape than Brady, that they must be hotter than him be default. 

As a woman, who has spent plenty of time checking men out, I can tell you that _I_ could care less about other men's bodies. Yeah, other men might be in better shape than Brady. No argument there. Doesn't mean they're hotter.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Sure post some full body shots of whoever you want...I'll take some guesses!


----------



## Faithful Wife

How about making a new thread, though...


----------



## WyshIknew

Deejo said:


> And that's exactly why there's game Wysh. MOST guys aren't over 6 foot, chiseled features, or a star quarterback catching the eye of supermodels. Most of us are average. You want to stand out with the ladies, or one lady? Then you find a way to stand out. Be it money, physique, dress, success, musical, theatrical, magical, or just a sparkling conversationalist.
> 
> I have written before about a buddy of mine. 6'3" blonde, blue eyes. Good looking guy. Always had women fawning over him when we went out ... until he opened his mouth. Couldn't talk his way out of a paper bag. Women didn't find it cute and charming, they thought he was a dork.
> 
> I thought Dvls summed it up well when he highlighted finding what your afraid of and killing it off. That was pretty much the same arc for me.
> 
> We've talked about body agenda, sex rank and game plenty here over the years. This isn't new, nor are the standard responses. Although ... had Dvls framed his post as 'women are genetically pre-programmed to find Tom Brady attractive' the chorus would likely be very different.
> 
> Here is what I have learned in my tenure as a universal truth, and I say it with no disrespect. You kmow what women think? They think they never like being told what they think.


I was being a bit tongue in cheek as you no doubt gathered. I am not an alpha guy by any chalk but could easily 'score' as a single man if I wasn't married. And I wouldn't be using game either.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

You win, you pick my avatar. I win, I pick yours. Sound good?


----------



## Faithful Wife

No. I'm happy to guess the heights of some pics of dudes, though.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Oh we KNOW Wysh..."sausage" will get you far.


----------



## WyshIknew

Faithful Wife said:


> :lol:
> 
> Do you believe us now, sam?
> 
> I actually can tell the approximate height of a man by his photos. There are many clues, such as length of forearms, length of legs, size of feet, etc.


You've seen my photos I believe?

Would you guess my height do you think?

I actually often get overestimated by people, I think it is possibly because my body is long but my legs short.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes, I would have guessed your height correctly, Wysh.

I actually have a freakish ability to eye-ball measure. Not sure why. I used to test myself a lot with inches, feet, etc. Haven't tested myself with men's height but will be happy to try.


----------



## WyshIknew

Faithful Wife said:


> Oh we KNOW Wysh..."sausage" will get you far.


----------



## WyshIknew

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, I would have guessed your height correctly, Wysh.


Cool!


----------



## Created2Write

The desperation gets worse and worse. All of that was gibberish to me. It could have been pulled out of thin air. And heck, maybe it is all true. He could suck at football. I don't care. He has a great body, he looks athletic, he's hot. And that's not going to change just because an insecure guy on the internet who needs to be desired insists that it isn't so.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> No. I'm happy to guess the heights of some pics of dudes, though.


Oh, but you have awesome skill at judging height from pics without a frame of reference by body part ratios. Put up or shut up.


----------



## samyeagar

Oh this is funny now


----------



## WyshIknew

Created2Write said:


> The desperation gets worse and worse. All of that was gibberish to me. It could have been pulled out of thin air. And heck, maybe it is all true. He could suck at football. I don't care. He has a great body, he looks athletic, he's hot. And that's not going to change just because an insecure guy on the internet who needs to be desired insists that it isn't so.


:rofl:

Ding ding. end of round two!


----------



## RandomDude

Gender wars still happening I see, and close to page 70!

Judging by the posts though it seems we haven't moved on past this little debacle... is it Bieber time?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Created2Write said:


> I have very unique taste in men. I think men like Josh Holloway and Henry Cavill are utterly sexy. Like, they drip sexy just by waking up in the morning. But then, I also think men like Jospeh Gordon-Levitt and *the actor who plays Leonard Hofstader in Big Bang Theory are hot too.* They drip a very different kind of sexy.


I have only watched the Big Bang theory a total of 2 times.. so not real familiar with these characters ...Leonard does NOTHING for me.. but this taller Nerd in the front...Sheldon *>>*

 - I think he's gorgeous [email protected]#


----------



## Faithful Wife

I don't know what you meant by that Dvls. I said "yes, lets do it". What do you mean put up or shut up?


----------



## samyeagar

SimplyAmorous said:


> I have only watched the Big Bang theory a total of 2 times.. so not real familiar with these characters ...Leonard does NOTHING for me.. but this taller Nerd in the front...Sheldon *>>*
> 
> - I think he's gorgeous [email protected]#


And Penny is one of the few blondes of any type that I have found even remotely attractive...still love me my red heads


----------



## Faithful Wife

The "no" was about changing avatars, Dvls.


----------



## PHTlump

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Yeah because if wealth, status and fame are taken away from Tom Brady he suddenly becomes unattractive. You simply have to believe this, don't you.


I believe that he becomes LESS attractive, yes. See, unlike you, I believe that appeal is a sliding scale. We could use a crude numerical system of 1-10 to rank sex appeal. Now, say that millionaire, supermodel marrying, fashion trend-setter, NFL MVP, hot-body Tom Brady ranks a perfect 10. Take away the money, the models, the fashion, the status, the job, and talk about Twin Brady the unemployed bartender who looks an awful lot like his brother, and I think we can safely move him down the scale from a 10 to a 9, or perhaps even an 8.

I realize that you are heavily invested in the idea that your idea of attraction is an all-or-nothing binary switch that no man could ever figure out. But you're really just coming across as silly.


----------



## ocotillo

SimplyAmorous said:


> I have only watched the Big Bang theory a total of 2 times.. so not real familiar with these characters ...Leonard does NOTHING for me.. but this taller Nerd in the front...Sheldon....


My wife and I love BBT, but there's something you should probably know about Jim Parsons......

On the other hand, Kunal Nayyar (Koothrappali) plays a metrosexual character that can hardly speak to women, yet in real life he's married to a former Miss India.


----------



## Created2Write

I think he means the avatar thing. It's not enough for you to guess and be wrong. He has to shame you along with it. Rub it in your face, as it were.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> he looks athletic


Uh... no, he looks like a guy who ran a 5.3 sec 40... 13 years ago. He's not athletic, and his body reflects that.

I don't care if you like him so much that you have Brady thoughts during sex, he's not athletic and it shows.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Oh ok, well if that is a deal breaker then, no. I love my little Dr. Seuss guy.

If any other guys want to test this, feel free to open a thread about it...I would love this test.


----------



## skype

ocotillo said:


> My wife and I love BBT, but there's something you should probably know about Jim Parsons......


:rofl:


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Uh... no, he looks like a guy who ran a 5.3 sec 40... 13 years ago. He's not athletic, and his body reflects that.
> 
> I don't care if you like him so much that you have Brady thoughts during sex, he's not athletic and it shows.


To you he may not look athletic. To _me_ he does. You don't get to define how a man looks _to me_. And to me he's athletic and gorgeous. 

And, in case you were wondering, I don't take your word for anything anymore. So, unless you can provide proof of that stats you posted about his athleticism, I'm going to assume you pulled them out of thin air.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> I think he means the avatar thing. It's not enough for you to guess and be wrong. He has to shame you along with it. Rub it in your face, as it were.


Its a common bet on forums. You have so little confidence in her. She might be right and she'd be picking my avatar. That would be me rubbing it in her face? 

Or, you both could keep throwing insults my way and see how far you can go before getting banned... because I'm beginning to wonder.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> To you he may not look athletic. To _me_ he does. You don't get to define how a man looks _to me_. And to me he's athletic and gorgeous.
> 
> And, in case you were wondering, I don't take your word for anything anymore. So, unless you can provide proof of that stats you posted about his athleticism, I'm going to assume you pulled them out of thin air.


Wah!

Tom BradyÂ*|Â*Michigan,Â*QBÂ*:Â*2000 NFL Draft Scout Player Profile

lol To you he looks athletic? Cool. At least you admit to being a poor judge of athleticism.


----------



## samyeagar

Created2Write said:


> To you he may not look athletic. To _me_ he does. You don't get to define how a man looks _to me_. And to me he's athletic and gorgeous.
> 
> And, in case you were wondering, I don't take your word for anything anymore. So, unless you can provide proof of that stats you posted about his athleticism, I'm going to assume you pulled them out of thin air.


Tom Brady - QB - Michigan - 2000 NFL Combine Results


----------



## samyeagar

Orlando Pace by contrast, an offensive lineman, 6'7" 335 lbs ran the 40 in under 5 seconds and has a 30" vertical leap...

Orlando Pace Combine | High on the scale Orlando Pace: With his huge bulk and quick feet, the Ohio State tackle will draw near-No. 1 interest in Saturday's NFL draft - Baltimore Sun


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> True! But now Dvls is saying that his height is part of his attractiveness, as opposed to earlier when his height was part of why he was only "average". And now Brady _is_ above average, but only because obesity is so common.
> 
> The inconsistency is laughable.


Where the heck did I say his height was average in terms of attractiveness? Quote me. Your comprehension skills aren't my problem. You'd think repetition would help it sink in. I said height was attractive and I even gave the average height differential preference.

For the 100 millionth time: Brady's body is entirely pedestrian... AVERAGE. You're easily turned on if that's hot. Only in a nation full of fat does that in any way get billing as above average, much less hot. He's not athletic regardless of your poor judgment. He's carrying about 20% BF, which, when you get a little better at your new personal trainer job you'll begin to recognize. That is a few cheeseburgers short of pudgy, not hot. Yes, those are love handles.. that's what they look like; they are made up of bodyfat... part of that high BF percentage that prevents Brady from having any ab definition. His waist is at least as wide as his chest. Much larger than that and he'd be called "pear shaped". He does not have anywhere close to the body proportion ratios that are scientifically proven factors in attraction. He's tall and has a pretty face.

If you think Brady's body is hot, you'd think every guy in my locker room's body is hot, because they all have that or better. I was wrong about one thing though, you're certainly not picky.


----------



## Created2Write

The stats still don't mean anything to me. They could be great, they could be horrible. I don't follow football. But even his "poor" stats, if they really are that bad, are enough to make him loads of money. More than most men in this world could hope to make. So, I can see why you feel the need to bash him so hard. I mean, you have to beat him in _something_, right? Can't compete with his career, so attack his body instead. Too bad your opinion isn't enough to change mine. You can think I'm a poor judge if it makes you feel better.

It's nice to know you didn't lie, though.


----------



## Faithful Wife

mmmm......Orlando.....


----------



## Created2Write

samyeagar said:


> Orlando Pace by contrast, an offensive lineman, 6'7" 335 lbs ran the 40 in under 5 seconds and has a 30" vertical leap...
> 
> Orlando Pace Combine | High on the scale Orlando Pace: With his huge bulk and quick feet, the Ohio State tackle will draw near-No. 1 interest in Saturday's NFL draft - Baltimore Sun


Now THOSE are love handles. So, for a guy who is supposed to be a better athlete, he looks horrible. 

I think Brady has the better end of the deal.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I think he's hot, too...yeah a little chubby but I bet he makes up for it in other ways.


----------



## ocotillo

Faithful Wife said:


> If any other guys want to test this, feel free to open a thread about it...I would love this test.


How much do you need? I've no doubt at all that you can do it if a picture shows enough of a persons body in relation to things whose size is known, but the devil is in the details when it comes to bets.


----------



## PHTlump

Created2Write said:


> And, in case you were wondering, I don't take your word for anything anymore. So, unless you can provide proof of that stats you posted about his athleticism, I'm going to assume you pulled them out of thin air.


I am fairly decent at Google, so here is the link to the 2000 NFL combine statistics.
2000 NFL Combine QB Results - Historical NFL Scouting Combine Data
Out of 18 quarterbacks at the combine, Brady's overall showing of general athletic ability was poor. However, this is a group of prospective NFL players, so I imagine their overall athleticism is better than the general public.

According to this link:
http://440performance.com/docs/440_Testing_Averages.pdf
Brady's 40 yard dash time, vertical leap, and broad jump are around average for a boy aged 18-19. This local company is still dealing with athletic people, but not college or professional level athletes. These are high school athletes.

Is this enough empirical evidence to say that Brady is not particularly athletic, especially for a professional athlete? Hell you say. :rofl:


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Where the heck did I say his height was average? Quote me. Your comprehension skills aren't my problem. You'd think repetition would help it sink in.


You didn't say his height was average. You said his height was a disadvantage...a trait not to be admired...part of why his body was only "average". 

But then your reading skills aren't my problem.



> For the 100 millionth time. Brady's body is entirely pedestrian... AVERAGE.


For the 100 millionth time, I really don't care what you think about Brady. You can repeat this and insist all you want, it's not going to change my mind. Brady is smokin'. 



> Only in a nation full of fat does that in any way get billing as above average. He's not athletic. He's carrying about 20% BF, which, when you get a little better at your new personal trainer job you'll begin to recognize.


Body fat percentage in and of itself means next to nothing. I remember, I saw a woman in a magazine once with about 22% body fat, and she had a great body. Lean, toned, defined. She was about seven inches taller than I. Yet, I had the same body fat percentage and didn't look like her at all. Body type is very important when considering body fat percentages. And since we know him to be a tall guy, I'd say that plays to his advantage.



> That is borderline pudgy, not hot. Yes, those are love handles. His waist is at least as wide as his chest. Much larger than that and he'd be called "pear shaped". He does not have anywhere close to the body proportion ratios that are scientifically proven to be most attractive.


Call it what you want. The guy is not pudgy, not fat, not flabby, not dumpy. Or did you not see the pictures I posted? I'll post them again.



> If you think Brady's body is hot, you'd think every guy in my locker room's body is hot, because they all have that or better. I was wrong about one thing, you're certainly not picky.


I'd have to see them. What looks great on one guy doesn't necessarily look good on another.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

PHTlump said:


> I believe that he becomes LESS attractive, yes. See, unlike you, I believe that appeal is a sliding scale. We could use a crude numerical system of 1-10 to rank sex appeal. Now, say that millionaire, supermodel marrying, fashion trend-setter, NFL MVP, hot-body Tom Brady ranks a perfect 10. Take away the money, the models, the fashion, the status, the job, and talk about Twin Brady the unemployed bartender who looks an awful lot like his brother, and I think we can safely move him down the scale from a 10 to a 9, or perhaps even an 8.
> 
> I realize that you are heavily invested in the idea that your idea of attraction is an all-or-nothing binary switch that no man could ever figure out. But you're really just coming across as silly.


As I have mentioned here many, many times I married a guy years ago who now happens to look like Tom Brady. I realize you are heavily invested in the idea that you are correct because you simply have to be. It makes it easier to deflect from your own shortcomings. You consistently come across as jealous, simple, misogynistic, petty and silly.


----------



## samyeagar

Created2Write said:


> Now THOSE are love handles. So, for a guy who is supposed to be a better athlete, he looks horrible.
> 
> I think Brady has the better end of the deal.


Well, that is what a guy who can run faster, lift more, jump higher looks like...just sayin 

Yeah, Tom got the better end of the deal, even if he isn't as athletic


----------



## SimplyAmorous

remorseful strayer said:


> *But in the end, I wonder if we gave a women a choice of tall, athletic, sexy, charming, outrageously handsome, but low wage earner as opposed to tall, athletic, intellectual, polite, average looking, well groomed, and very high wage earner, which would be chosen most of the time.
> *
> In my own experience, standing next to the sexy, outrageously handsome, charmer, with a low income job, the women, once they learn what I do for a living, and figure out likely how much I earn....I still sadly get too much attention by comparison.
> 
> *My wife married me when I was earning peanuts. That is one thing I love about her and why I fought for her*.


:smthumbup:

This is rather obvious coming from me... I would choose the better looking hotter low income guy....every time.. if he was the faithful & true type... (and responsible with his $$)... I married my husband when he worked in a Grocery store and I made more than he did ...working in a Hospital. 

He knows I didn't marry him for his $$ and I know he didn't marry me for my abilities in bed...It really was about the .. the emotional attachment we felt so strongly and our compatibility ....and these have remained throughout these years.


----------



## WyshIknew

Why is everyone arguing about an American Football dude?

He'll be famous for five minutes, bonk himself stupid on groupies, other mens wives and any other spare he can find. He'll do drink and drugs, burn out. Piss his money away. lose his houses in divorce go bankrupt and end up a has been.


----------



## Created2Write

PHTlump said:


> I am fairly decent at Google, so here is the link to the 2000 NFL combine statistics.
> 2000 NFL Combine QB Results - Historical NFL Scouting Combine Data
> Out of 18 quarterbacks at the combine, Brady's overall showing of general athletic ability was poor. However, this is a group of prospective NFL players, so I imagine their overall athleticism is better than the general public.
> 
> According to this link:
> http://440performance.com/docs/440_Testing_Averages.pdf
> Brady's 40 yard dash time, vertical leap, and broad jump are around average for a boy aged 18-19. This local company is still dealing with athletic people, but not college or professional level athletes. These are high school athletes.
> 
> Is this enough empirical evidence to say that Brady is not particularly athletic, especially for a professional athlete? Hell you say. :rofl:


Sure. In comparison to others, I'll concede this his ability is lower. Still better than anyone here. And he's still smokin'.

He still looks a million times better than Orlando who is supposed to be the better athlete.


----------



## Faithful Wife

ocotillo....I just need a full body pic. It can be with or without any other objects in the scene.


----------



## Created2Write

samyeagar said:


> Well, that is what a guy who can run faster, lift more, jump higher looks like...just sayin
> 
> Yeah, Tom got the better end of the deal, even if he isn't as athletic


He looks much more athletic than Orlando. So, if the point is that it's all looks and no substance, then fine. I can agree with that. He's still hot, though.


----------



## PHTlump

Therealbrighteyes said:


> As I have mentioned here many, many times I married a guy years ago who now happens to look like Tom Brady.


That's awesome. Obviously, because you married a Tom Brady look alike, that completely disproves all of the academic research about what women are attracted to. Or something.



> I realize you are heavily invested in the idea that you are correct because you simply have to be. It makes it easier to deflect from your own shortcomings. You consistently come across as jealous, simple, misogynistic, petty and silly.


You're adorable. When logic fails, just double down on the personal insults. Some of the sisterhood on this thread will surely fail to notice the former and appreciate the latter. :smthumbup:


----------



## samyeagar

Created2Write said:


> He looks much more athletic than Orlando. So, if the point is that it's all looks and no substance, then fine. I can agree with that. He's still hot, though.


Athletic body type I guess doesn't really have anything to do with athleticism then? If you do a simple google image search on Athletic Body Type, Tom really doesn't fit with the pictures that come up.

I will certainly agree that you do find him smokin' hot...can't really disagree now can I?


----------



## RandomDude

WyshIknew said:


> *Why is everyone arguing about an American Football dude?*
> 
> He'll be famous for five minutes, bonk himself stupid on groupies, other mens wives and any other spare he can find. He'll do drink and drugs, burn out. Piss his money away. lose his houses in divorce go bankrupt and end up a has been.


Tell me about it!

It's probably 40 pages of it! :slap:


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Created2Write said:


> Yeah. He's totally flabby.  NOT.


I do not find this dude good looking at all..is this Brady again? Give me Sheldon from Big Bang Theory over him any day....... 
That one in the top photo ...in blue....TOO muscular ...his thighs are horrendous ! When I see men built like this in Porn...I always click to the next scene ..it's a real turn off to me. Give me "lanky" please.


----------



## Created2Write

samyeagar said:


> Athletic body type I guess doesn't really have anything to do with athleticism then? If you do a simple google image search on Athletic Body Type, Tom really doesn't fit with the pictures that come up.
> 
> I will certainly agree that you do find him smokin' hot...can't really disagree now can I?


I could care less what google brings up about athletic body types. I've been talking about my personal opinions. I find him athletic and hot. Period.


----------



## PHTlump

SimplyAmorous said:


> I do not find this dude good looking at all..is this Brady again? Give me Sheldon from Big Bang Theory over him any day.......


You are clearly an irrational misogynist. 



> That one in the top photo ...in blue....TOO muscular


That isn't Brady. That is Tim Tebow. The bottom two pictures are Brady.

And, to be fair, I think the pants Tebow is wearing include some padding at the thighs. But, he is more muscular than Brady.


----------



## WyshIknew

Created2Write said:


> I could care less what google brings up about athletic body types. I've been talking about my personal opinions. I find him athletic and hot. Period.


You find him attractive?


No you can't, don't be silly.


----------



## Created2Write

SimplyAmorous said:


> I do not find this dude good looking at all..is this Brady again? Give me Sheldon from Big Bang Theory over him any day.......
> That one in the top photo ...in blue....TOO muscular ...his thighs are horrendous ! When I see men built like this in Porn...I always click to the next scene ..it's a real turn off to me. Give me "lanky" please.


To each their own. I think he's yummy.


----------



## Faithful Wife

mmmm....think, long thigh meat....


----------



## WyshIknew

Night all, thanks it's been fun!


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

PHTlump said:


> That's awesome. Obviously, because you married a Tom Brady look alike, that completely disproves all of the academic research about what women are attracted to. Or something.
> 
> 
> You're adorable. When logic fails, just double down on the personal insults. Some of the sisterhood on this thread will surely fail to notice the former and appreciate the latter. :smthumbup:


When logic fails? My logic disproved your "logic". You said women only liked Brady because of money. Oh and it's rich that you say insults when your entire post dripped with buttholeness. :smthumbup: Kuddos.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Created2Write said:


> I could care less what google brings up about athletic body types. I've been talking about my personal opinions. I find him athletic and hot. Period.


Yep we all have our own thing we are/aren't attracted to, attractiveness isn't one size fits all and there really is no point with arguing about what someone else finds attractive.


----------



## PHTlump

Created2Write said:


> I could care less what google brings up about athletic body types. I've been talking about my personal opinions. I find him athletic and hot. Period.


No offense, but if you're using the word athletic to mean a body type that you, personally, appreciate, then you're using the word in a completely nonsensical way.

Language was invented to communicate ideas in common. If you use a word to imply "A" and others see the word and infer "B", then the word, at least as you use it, is meaningless. Worse, it's completely contrary to the intended use of language. You're not using language to clarify, you're using it to obscure and confuse.


----------



## samyeagar

Created2Write said:


> *I could care less what google brings up about athletic body types*. I've been talking about my personal opinions. I find him athletic and hot. Period.


I understand your personal opinion and I don't disagree that you have it, but the term athletic body type does kind of have a certain definition to it, and Tom really doesn't fit the definition.

I think it's time for a new body type to go along with athletic...the Brady ype...then he can be in a league of his own


----------



## PHTlump

Therealbrighteyes said:


> When logic fails? My logic disproved your "logic".


Your logic? Rich, that.



> You said women only liked Brady because of money.


Now, you're just making sh!t up. I have refuted your binary model of attraction. If I said that Brady's money is the only thing women like about him, you should be able to quote me. Or are you "paraphrasing" again to reverse my explicit meaning? 



> Oh and it's rich that you say insults when your entire post dripped with buttholeness. :smthumbup: Kuddos.


Come now. You chose the tactics. You abandoned logic and embraced the last resort of a weak mind. Embrace it. Don't wither when I call you on it.


----------



## TiggyBlue

I would like to make a formal apology to the thread for bringing up Tom Brady.
I really didn't think the exact same debate about him would occur


----------



## Faithful Wife

Oh no Tiggy...thank you for bringing him up! That way we got to see lots of pictures of him again.


----------



## Created2Write

PHTlump said:


> No offense, but if you're using the word athletic to mean a body type that you, personally, appreciate, then you're using the word in a completely nonsensical way.
> 
> Language was invented to communicate ideas in common. If you use a word to imply "A" and others see the word and infer "B", then the word, at least as you use it, is meaningless. Worse, it's completely contrary to the intended use of language. You're not using language to clarify, you're using it to obscure and confuse.


So a guy is a professional athlete, but because others are better at the sport than he is, he's suddenly _not_ athletic? Speaking of language, lets looks up the actual definition of the word.

Here's the definition of the word "athletic":
1. physically active and strong; good at athletics or sports

Here's another from google:
1. of or relating to athletes or athletics.
2. physically strong, fit, and active.

If Orlando meets those criteria with actual love handles and a chubby body, then I'd say Brady meets the criteria as well.


----------



## Created2Write

samyeagar said:


> I understand your personal opinion and I don't disagree that you have it, but the term athletic body type does kind of have a certain definition to it, and Tom really doesn't fit the definition.
> 
> I think it's time for a new body type to go along with athletic...the Brady ype...then he can be in a league of his own


But Orlando _is_ considered athletic based on his performance at football, even though his body is chubby?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

ocotillo said:


> My wife and I love BBT, *but there's something you should probably know about Jim Parsons*......


  I just looked this up - he's GAY !! Oh Well... he's still HOT physically to me. 



> *PHTlump said*: That's awesome. Obviously, because* you married a Tom Brady look alike*, that completely disproves all of the academic research about what women are attracted to. Or something.


 How about if we plaster our Husbands pic on here so we can all check them out...and compare... I'd love to see how close to Brady he looks like... 

I'll show my Beta husband - which I really have nothing to brag about ... but I find him very attractive...no lookalikes... ripped body or anything special....and again, he sucked with women in high school.. this was him at 37 yrs old... (back in 2000) standing with a friend - the one in the white T .... 







..He is Rockin' enough for me!



> *Created2write said: **To each their own. I think he's yummy.*


 Absolutely...and that's the point...thank the Heavens *for Variety*...that there are variations in sex appeal.. or these lanky men (like mine)....wouldn't have anyone to appreciate them!! ... and every man would be working out like a hound to build his body structure.. I just don't find all of that necessary... So long as a man's health is good, is all that body building really necessary...I just don't see it.


----------



## samyeagar

Created2Write said:


> But Orlando _is_ considered athletic based on his performance at football, even though his body is chubby?


Being athletic really has nothing to do with an athletic body type. One can have one with out the other, and one does not automatically lead to the other.

An athletic body type is generally though of as having more toning and definition than Tom has...a little less padding if you will. Think decathletes, soccer players...oh...and swimmers and gymnasts right FW?


----------



## Caribbean Man

SimplyAmorous said:


> I just looked this up - he's GAY !! Oh Well... he's still HOT physically to me.
> 
> 
> How about if we plaster our Husbands pic on here so we can all check them out...and compare... I'd love to see how close to Brady he looks like...
> 
> I'll show my Beta husband - which I really have nothing to brag about ... but I find him very attractive...no lookalikes... ripped body or anything special....and again, he sucked with women in high school.. this was him at 37 yrs old... (back in 2000) standing with a friend - the one in the white T ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..*He is Rockin' enough for me!*
> 
> Absolutely...and that's the point...thank the Heavens *for Variety*...that there are variations in sex appeal.. or these lanky men (like mine)....wouldn't have anyone to appreciate them!! ... and every man would be working out like a hound to build his body structure.. I just don't find all of that necessary... So long as a man's health is good, is all that body building really necessary...I just don't see it.



You just made me smile!


----------



## Faithful Wife

sam...I do agree on your post...but I still think Tom Brady is a hottie. I personally never said that an athletic body type was the top body type for me...I like them because they can throw me around, that's the real deal for myself. I'm pretty sure Tom could throw me.


----------



## Created2Write

samyeagar said:


> Being athletic really has nothing to do with an athletic body type. One can have one with out the other, and one does not automatically lead to the other.


So Orlando can be athletic while being chubby, but Brady can't be athletic because....?



> An athletic body type is generally though of as having more toning and definition than Tom has...a little less padding if you will. Think decathletes, soccer players...oh...and swimmers and gymnasts right FW?


I say again, why is Orlando considered athletic when he actually has quite a lot of fat on his body and Brady doesn't? If it's entirely down to performance(the only thing Orlando has on Brady), then there really isn't any way to define an athletic body at all. If it is based on looks, then Brady has to be considered athletic if Orlando is.


----------



## samyeagar

Created2Write said:


> So Orlando can be athletic while being chubby, but Brady can't be athletic because....?
> 
> 
> 
> I say again, why is Orlando considered athletic when he actually has quite a lot of fat on his body and Brady doesn't? If it's entirely down to performance(the only thing Orlando has on Brady), then there really isn't any way to define an athletic body at all. If it is based on looks, then Brady has to be considered athletic if Orlando is.


Please read what I said again...being athletic has nothing to do with having an athletic body type, and having an athletic body type has nothing to do with being athletic. They ARE mutually exclusive, though they do tend to go hand in hand, athletes do tend to have athletic body types, but not necessarily.

This is an athletic body type:


----------



## always_alone

remorseful strayer said:


> We often see really ugly obnoxious dudes, with drop dead, confident, gorgeous women.


Could be you too. All you need to do is pay the salary.


----------



## always_alone

remorseful strayer said:


> It's far from artificial, albeit grossly unscientific due to its small size.
> 
> Still, this was suggested as an experiment that actually occurred in real life.
> 
> I did the set up and the high-wage earner won the match. Just sayin'


And are you willing to consider it remotely possible that the reason the high-wage earner "won" was because he was better looking or more compatible?

Just saying.


----------



## samyeagar

always_alone said:


> Could be you too. All you need to do is pay the salary.


That is another interesting phenomena...women lining up to be the next one the rock star gets in bed not really caring how she is treated. I suppose it's an ego thing for the women just as much for the guy?


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> Would you hold to the logical corollary here, always alone? Would you say that you understand men well? This is asked in all sincerity.


I understand virtually nothing about men. This may be because I'm a dullard, but my current hypothesis is that you all actually do differ quite a bit in attitude, prediliction, and so on.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> Would you hold to the logical corollary here, always alone? Would you say that you understand men well? This is asked in all sincerity.


I understand virtually nothing about men. This may be because I'm a dullard, but my current hypothesis is that you all actually do differ quite a bit in attitude, predilection, and so on.

So I try to ask the appropriate individual, and then listen to the response.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> And even more insistence that because you don't see why Brady's body is hot, it simply must not be hot. I could careless if the men you know who look like Brady aren't being fawned over. As a PUA you've said countless times that when it comes to being successful with women, it takes more than looks. So perhaps the men you know who look like Brady should focus on bettering themselves in other ways?


I don't know anyone who looks like Brady. I'm talking about men I know with bodies as "athletic" as Brady's. I'll mention this at the gym tmw, it'll get a good laugh. I also never said it takes more than looks. I attract women on looks alone. What Ive said is that game improves the odds and attracts more women, and better looking women.



Created2Write said:


> They still do not suddenly make Brady an Average Joe, no matter how badly you want him to be an Average Joe. So, the only obvious conclusion is that you need Brady to be average. Because no matter how the women here repeat that Brady is hot, you still insist that it's for reasons other than his body. You offer no other reason why Brady isn't actually hot other than that the guys you know who have bodies like his aren't successful with women. Sorry, but no.


Brady is not average Joe. His body type is average Joe. Why? Because everyone has it. Are you slow? How many times do I have to say it? Do you know what an average is? His mediocre body is hot to you, cool... not really helping the case of women having high physical standards. Brady body is everywhere. I don't care a bit about Tom Brady... I don't want or need him to be average, his body type IS average. My whole point is to show how weakly women value the physical, or at least how amazingly broad ranging it is. You and the brigade here defending Brady's body as hot really crack me up. I didn't know your standards were so low. Brady's body is hot... not the outcome I usually get. lol Strange that we don't see Brady bodies marketed to women on book covers, in romantic movies or in movies like magic mike. Those guys actually have some muscle, good physiques, proportion and lean definition. Those guys closely match the scientifically proven body proportion ratios women find attractive, Brady does not. No matter how many times you call me insecure or repeat your sadly low standards for male physique, these things are facts.

You're right, I admit Brady's body is slightly above average... in a nation with an obesity epidemic. That's more sad than anything else. That you'd say that body is hot pretty much makes my case on women having a weaker emphasis on prototype physical traits than men. Half the men in my gym have that body. Its common and plain. Those guys and I certainly don't say the common and plain woman's body is hot. No. The toned, athletic girl with the C cup and great @ss is hot.

I choose Brady for the very reason that women inflate him and his body is unimpressive. Its a setup to get a woman to dismiss the vanilla body... something a guy won't do. Don't have the hot body? Then she's not hot... period. Ive been in this conversation on attractiveness many times... only usually there's a lot of disappointment when I google up some Brady pics on my phone. This is usually followed with "oh well, I don't care what kind of body he has, with those eyes.... swoon". Guys would never say something like that. lol You... you're stubborn. You didn't fall for the dismissal trap, you did one better... Tom Brady's plain ol soft body is hot! In all the times I've had this conversation, this is the first time women claimed that was hot. More than likely the result of hostility to me. Had I shown you the body first, without revealing who it was, I bet Id have heard something entirely different. Funny that online conversations play out so differently than real life conversations. If Brady's body is hot, then average guys bodies are hot, because that's pretty much what most dudes have under their shirt if they're not outright fat. The average woman's body to a guy might be okay, but hot is a superlative rightly reserved for more exceptional women... not the commonplace.

Regardless, don't confuse your low standards in physique for my insecurity.


----------



## RandomDude

Looks like the only way we can end the gender war is if somebody bans the word "Brady" from this thread!!!!

The thing is though, you can't criticise someone's preferences and then try to insist that they are based on this and that. For example, I like Asian girls, and people may insist that I like submissive women (like WTF?!) - which I would also find offensive. As a result, a hot typical western lady would only be considered average to me, and an average asian lady would be considered hot by my tastes. Just how it is.

However I do agree that wealth/fame/status does play a part in the game. It ups your game to have wealth behind you + fame + status. These ladies are not denying it, they do insist that their attraction to him is genuinely based on their physical taste itself, so why argue that? Whatever we may think of their preferences and reasons it's not our place to judge.

On that note, shall we get back to topic instead of Brady bunch discussions? Oh wait... if we end it we might kill this thread...

In that case, nevermind, let the gender wars continue!


----------



## TiggyBlue

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Brady is not average Joe. His body type is average Joe. Why? Because everyone has it. Are you slow? How many times do I have to say it? Do you know what an average is? His mediocre body is hot to you, cool... ..


The fact that he is tall (it was obvious he was tall from the first pic that was posted, had no idea who Tom Brady was before that) is what makes his body attractive (nice body proportions).
I think I said it in one of the golden ratio threads a tall guy with nice face and average tone is more physically attractive than a 5'9 with nice face and great muscle tone (IMO).
Now compare him to Kellan Lutz, nice face, on the taller side and good muscle IMO Kellan Lutz is way more attracive, that doesn't stop Brady being above average attractiveness.


----------



## TiggyBlue

RandomDude said:


> In that case, nevermind, let the gender wars continue!


lol nope no gender wars, Brady body war


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> You didn't say his height was average. You said his height was a disadvantage...a trait not to be admired...part of why his body was only "average".
> 
> But then your reading skills aren't my problem.


Go read it again genius. I said height as an attractive quality turns to disadvantage at 6'5". I didn't make it up. Tom is 6'4". If the disadvantage begins an inch taller than Tom is, please explain how I said his height was a disadvantage? You're right again, my reading skills aren't your problem, your reading skills are your problem.




Created2Write said:


> Body fat percentage in and of itself means next to nothing. I remember, I saw a woman in a magazine once with about 22% body fat, and she had a great body. Lean, toned, defined. She was about seven inches taller than I. Yet, I had the same body fat percentage and didn't look like her at all. Body type is very important when considering body fat percentages. And since we know him to be a tall guy, I'd say that plays to his advantage.


Smh. You need to find a new career path.



Created2Write said:


> Call it what you want. The guy is not pudgy, not fat, not flabby, not dumpy. Or did you not see the pictures I posted? I'll post them again.


The "looks like every non-athletic not fat guy" beach pics I posted are from THIS year, and they're candid shots, not photo shoots. Yes, the pics you posted of him are quite dumpy. He's not fat, flabby might be over the top... soft, pudgy, poochie... yes, yes, yes. Decidedly average. 

And to your earlier point that he's more athletic than anyone here... uhhh... no. I would eat Brady's lunch in any contest of athleticism that didn't involve how far we can throw a football. Pretty much any of the guys I've seen with athletic builds could. His numbers are really really poor. I think I posted mine when I posted his. I'm a career programmer. He's a professional athlete. That's how ridiculously unathletic he is... and he rightly looks so.


----------



## RandomDude

Peace you two, or I shall pull out a Bieber on you both!!!


----------



## TiggyBlue

RandomDude said:


> Peace you two, or I shall pull out a Bieber on you both!!!


 Harsh


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

TiggyBlue said:


> The fact that he is tall (it was obvious he was tall from the first pic that was posted, had no idea who Tom Brady was before that) is what makes his body attractive (nice body proportions).
> I think I said it in one of the golden ratio threads a tall guy with nice face and average tone is more physically attractive than a 5'9 with nice face and great muscle tone (IMO).
> Now compare him to Kellan Lutz, nice face, on the taller side and good muscle IMO Kellan Lutz is way more attracive, that doesn't stop Brady being above average attractiveness.


Tall is not a body proportion. One can be tall and have poor body proportions. Observe men of really extreme height... they lose desirability as the length of their limbs begins to look freakish. I don't object to Tom's height contributing to his attractivess.

Your opinion, entirely valid, still flies in the face of research on attractiveness. Pretty much par for the course on this forum I see. Golden ratios... Kinsey institute studies... screw all that noise, this is TAM, where the taller the better, average is hot, everyone has daily sex and all the ladies hubbys have 7+ in d!cks. Who needs statistics? Haha


----------



## RandomDude

TiggyBlue said:


> Harsh


Harsh times require harsh measures!

Trigger finger on the Bieber gun folks! You have been warned!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

RandomDude said:


> Peace you two, or I shall pull out a Bieber on you both!!!


I'm done. That is way too threatening.


----------



## RandomDude

Better! Now argue about something else lol

GAME! What is considered acceptable, what isn't? Is honesty the one thing that determines a man's integrity despite his intentions? AKA is an honest mansl-t considered a player?


----------



## TiggyBlue

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Tall is not a body proportion


No it's not, but often taller people have different body proportions to short/average (female models aren't 5'8 and up for no reason).
Plus on the whole heads look bigger on shorter people than on taller people.



> Your opinion, entirely valid, still flies in the face of research on attractiveness.


Yep the studies confuse the heck out of me, but then give it 50-100 years there will be a whole new set of studies telling us totally different things and saying 'how did anyone believe this' (if history's anything to go by).


----------



## TiggyBlue

RandomDude said:


> Better! Now argue about something else lol
> 
> GAME! What is considered acceptable, what isn't? Is honesty the one thing that determines a man's integrity despite his intentions? *AKA is an honest mansl-t considered a player*?


I wouldn't say so. To me a player is some one who f*cks's with someone's emotions for personal gain (male or female).


----------



## RandomDude

How about if his influence made her drop her previous boundaries for him? I used the case of religious boundaries (such as no sex before marriage) as an example. The general consensus seems to be in favor on that thread at least is that it's still considered disrespecting boundaries and hence scummy behaviour yet to this day I still don't see anything wrong with it and I'm still not convinced 

Some also mentioned that I should compare my behaviour with that of my daughter's future bfs. In truth, I would skin him alive if he was anything like me in terms of influence! Unless of course he can convince me of his intentions. But I'm not exactly planning to encourage my daughter to forfill the whole no-sex before marriage rule so I hope it wouldn't be a boundary for her - I'd rather she try things out before committing her life to a man but that's just me.

Same way I would feel if I had a son instead!


----------



## TiggyBlue

RandomDude said:


> How about if his influence made her drop her previous boundaries for him? I used the case of religious boundaries (such as no sex before marriage) as an example. The general consensus seems to be in favor on that thread at least is that it's still considered disrespecting boundaries and hence scummy behaviour yet to this day I still don't see anything wrong with it and I'm still not convinced


Yes it's pushy (I wouldn't say it's positive behavior) but then if someone has rock solid boundary's they're not going to be influences out of them (unless someone is exceptionally vulnerable at the time due to a tragic event or excessive stress ect, if someone pushes knowing who their doing it to is going through something like this then I would say that's scummy).


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

No, no... I'm done with this thread. Ive spent waaay to much time reading and replying to this stuff. It has occurred to me that I have a lot better ways to spend my time in spite of my INTP obsessive compulsive desire to debate and explain... which is really a huge statement on what a waste of time this thread has been.

Plus getting distracted here made me late for boxing earlier today! 

That's just embarrassing. Haha. I think to avoid this occurring every other week, its time I got some use out of the ignore feature.


----------



## RandomDude

TiggyBlue said:


> Yes it's pushy (I wouldn't say it's positive behavior) but then if someone has rock solid boundary's they're not going to be influences out of them (unless someone is exceptionally vulnerable at the time due to a tragic event or excessive stress ect, if someone pushes knowing who their doing it to is going through something like this then I would say that's scummy).


Well, with other Christian women I tend to stay away - as its their beliefs and I considered them too 'normal' for me. For my wife however, we were friends for a long time before we became an item. I always found her rather mysterious until she revealed to me that she was just like me in terms of having a past. The difference was that I do not hold too much regret of what I had done, and don't believe guilt is healthy for one to move on. On the other hand, she ran to church as a way to relieve her guilt of her past. Understandable considering the general consensus that an ex-escort past is considered rather shameful in society. I didn't wish for her to continue with her guilt so I shared how I lived without guilt. She wasn't easy to convince however, but would you consider her vulnerable and me being pushy?

Our passions did get the better of us though the first night we kissed. I encountered zero resistance. The sexual tension was built up over a year of flirting and teasing too. We were happy until bible college. I'm reflecting as a means to understand how to better myself as a person. I don't like to think of myself as a manipulative person


----------



## TiggyBlue

RandomDude said:


> . On the other hand, she ran to church as a way to relieve her guilt of her past. Understandable considering the general consensus that an ex-escort past is considered rather shameful in society. I didn't wish for her to continue with her guilt so I shared how I lived without guilt. She wasn't easy to convince however, but would you consider her vulnerable and me being pushy?



I would consider her quite vulnerable (or at least easily influenced) how you've said in the past that she went so deeply into religion after bible college and her personality changed quite a bit. From what you said it sounds like you where just showing her way of dealing with things (and had good intentions), that doesn't really sound pushy imo.


----------



## RandomDude

Yay! I'm officially non-evil! (at least in this) 

Thanks for that, looks like I was walking a thin line though however


----------



## WyshIknew

Created2Write said:


> So a guy is a professional athlete, but because others are better at the sport than he is, he's suddenly _not_ athletic? Speaking of language, lets looks up the actual definition of the word.
> 
> Here's the definition of the word "athletic":
> 1. physically active and strong; good at athletics or sports
> 
> Here's another from google:
> 1. of or relating to athletes or athletics.
> 2. physically strong, fit, and active.
> 
> If Orlando meets those criteria with actual love handles and a chubby body, then I'd say Brady meets the criteria as well.


By those definitions I'm athletic as well.

I'm an athlete! Way to go!


----------



## ReformedHubby

I call BS on that study that says that height is less attractive at 6 foot 5 (yep, you guessed it I'm 6"5). I hate to say it but life is a lot tougher for short men. About the only advantage they have is they live longer. Even when you compare average earnings they get the short end of the stick (no pun intended). Tall men also don't need as much game. You can literally just stand around and women will chat you up. I often wonder how different my life would be if I were 5 foot 9.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Brady is not average Joe. *His body type is average Joe.*


Lets look again ...









Gonna have to agree with  on this one...



> Brady body is everywhere. I don't care a bit about Tom Brady... I don't want or need him to be average, his body type IS average. *My whole point is to show how weakly women value the physical, or at least how amazingly broad ranging it is. You and the brigade here defending Brady's body as hot really crack me up.*


 This is very true of me, I really could care less about a body building body...just give me a flat stomach and thin, no pronounced man boobs going on and let the swooning begin. 



> You're right, I admit Brady's body is slightly above average... in a nation with an obesity epidemic. That's more sad than anything else.


 I have to agree again. 



> *If Brady's body is hot, then average guys bodies are hot, because that's pretty much what most dudes have under their shirt if they're not outright fat*. The average woman's body to a guy might be okay, but hot is a superlative rightly reserved for more exceptional women... not the commonplace.


I definitely find Average Joe bodies HOT when one includes *the face* in the mix...(and/or *personality* with it, *presence *on stage rocking shirtless with a guitar, for example).... it's a whole visual "package" thing for me. ...


----------



## RandomDude

We're STILL on Mr. Brady?

Hell I wonder what he would think of this thread having 60 pages discussing whether he's hot or not :rofl:


----------



## SimplyAmorous

RandomDude said:


> We're STILL on Mr. Brady?
> Hell I wonder what he would think of this thread having 60 pages discussing whether he's hot or not :rofl:


 I'd find my husband in his younger years dressed up sexier than a Tom Brady (physically that is...with the odd tastes I have in men)...besides with his height, many of us would look like a midget next to him...I know I would. 

Most of this is *who someone is*...the fame, the allure, the presence, I never seen him play Football - but the power of his touch downs or whatever....and the star gazing pictures all dressed up with his stunning model wife on his arm ...Oh to be TOM BRADY [email protected]#$%

Take away all the Publicity, the fame, the hot woman, put him in average clothes.... he'd be similar to many other men his height...so I would think....


----------



## TiggyBlue

RandomDude said:


> We're STILL on Mr. Brady?
> 
> Hell I wonder what he would think of this thread having 60 pages discussing whether he's hot or not :rofl:


Funny thing is that he wasn't even bought into the discussion as the epitome of hot or anything, just that some will find his body attractive despite the lack of muscle because of his height and face and because one person doesn't see the physical appeal of him doesn't mean he isn't physically attractive to some (without going to his celebrity status, which happened on a older thread).
The exact same discussion that happened on the old thread then started on this one as well lol


Plus saying how much hotter Gisele is than Tom Brady put a everyday out and about Gisele










Yh she's pretty but not much different to other women I've seen out and about at the shops ect, so IMO they're physically attraction ranks pretty much the same (unless her celebrity status makes her more attractive to men, idk)


----------



## RandomDude

> I'd find my husband in his younger years dressed up sexier than a Tom Brady (physically that is...with the odd tastes I have in men)...besides with his height, many of us would look like a midget next to him...I know I would.


Odd? Nah, just you 

Personally I don't like how people are encouraged to share a universal standard of beauty, and if they don't share it -> they must be weird! In my youth I found my standards made me 'weird' among one ethnic circle and 'normal' among another O.O

Marrying my wife though, I end up being considered 'weird' by both!!! -.-



> so IMO they're physically attraction ranks pretty much the same (unless her celebrity status makes her more attractive to men, idk)


Ever heard of the term 'trophy women'? 
Fame and status is attractive to men as well. Some of us like to show off, with the song "What a man what a man" playing in the background lol. I don't think there's anything wrong with that unless that's all the bloke is looking for -> aka trophy. We all want to be proud to have our spouses. I married a woman who I was ashamed of having however, which led to quite a few problems.

As I grew up thankfully (finally, and only somewhat  ) I stopped giving a sh-t so much.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Those guys and I certainly don't say the common and plain woman's body is hot. No. The toned, athletic girl with the C cup and great @ss is hot.


Guys aren't anywhere near as group-think on this issue as you make them out to be. Some guys really dig curves, and like their women soft. Some are actively turned off by athletic bodies, especially when women go the weight-lifting defined muscle route. Others are turned on by that. I've seen guys say they prefer a slim body, small boobs, and others system they want a minimum D cup. Some guys even say they don't care much about body type, as long as she has a pretty face.

So look at it this way: Women, like men, are a lot like people, each with individual tastes. Just because you are obsessed with toning and defining muscle doesn't mean anyone else is. They may even find it an actual turn-off.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

RandomDude said:


> Odd? Nah, just you
> 
> *Personally I don't like how people are encouraged to share a universal standard of beauty, and if they don't share it -> they must be weird!* In my youth I found my standards made me 'weird' among one ethnic circle and 'normal' among another O.O


My tastes have always been a little out of the box compared to most...I was  last night telling my husband ---Guess what, that dude I like on Big Bang is Gay... he kinda figured that... but I said "IN REAL LIFE".... he told me he wouldn't go around telling anyone I thought he was HOT.....Told him too late....I plastered it all over TAM -saying *HOT HOT HOT * even...that's how I learned he was Gay!...  

Honestly us women could like ANYONE...When I was in high school, I swear I picked out the weirdest boys to CRUSH ON.....many from afar..... One of them..... he was a friends brother, he had a guitar, a little long hair and he'd take it out walking around town with it.. I never really got to know him well (he was older).... He lived in another town, so what did I know... but I came to learn he had a really *strange *reputation ..(ended up living 2 blocks from my soon to be BF /husband) ....

He's told me a few times to not compare him with my previous crushes, it makes him look bad. 



> We all want to be proud to have our spouses. I married a woman who I was ashamed of having however, which led to quite a few problems.


 Awe ...this is so sad  !! Any of us would feel utterly crushed if we knew our husbands felt this way....not sure what to say, but I can see why it caused problems.. you know this. 



always_alone said:


> Guys aren't anywhere near as group-think on this issue as you make them out to be. Some guys really dig curves, and like their women soft. Some are actively turned off by athletic bodies, especially when women go the weight-lifting defined muscle route. Others are turned on by that. I've seen guys say they prefer a slim body, small boobs, and others system they want a minimum D cup.


 mine is turned off by fake boobs...he'd prefer "mosquito bites" in comparison... that's a little exaggeration of course, but he said that once. 



> So look at it this way: Women, like men, are a lot like people, each with individual tastes. Just because you are obsessed with toning and defining muscle doesn't mean anyone else does. *They may even find it an actual turn-off*.


My husband wouldn't want them for the same reason I wouldn't want that type in a man - most especially a very POPULAR MAN..... most of these perfect bodies & faces to die for...these 's....have others clawing at them...LIFE is a revolving door of sexual temptation ...which generally leads to not remaining faithful with 1 special person.... it's very rare to see in the rich & famous.. .so when we do... it's something to highly praise.... 

We'll happily take our *average appearances* & *average lifestyles* ...and live in our Romantic bubble... riding off into the sunset hand in hand....and hopefully we'll make it to the Rocking chairs together.


----------



## always_alone

samyeagar said:


> That is another interesting phenomena...women lining up to be the next one the rock star gets in bed not really caring how she is treated. I suppose it's an ego thing for the women just as much for the guy?


Well, yeah. Some women are just star*****ing for bragging rights. Some are looking for career advancement, gifts, or special favours (backstage passes, etc). And some are straight up paid for services rendered.

Which is not to say that women are not or never actually attracted to these men. It is to say that fame and money doesn't up sex rank in the way guys often think it does. Hugh Hefner, the one guys always wants to be, isn't *attractive* to his bunnies, and his money doesn't make him more attractive. He hires these women for his business and to maintain the illusion of the playboy. Him surrounded by women is nothing more than a photo op. His money and connections give him the ability to afford these girls, and to offer them a means to pursue their ambitions.

Very little to do with sex and desire, and a lot to with pursuit of selfish ends.

Did he get laid along the way? No doubt, and probably more when he was younger. They probably all kissed his a$$ too. And if that's all you (and I mean one generally, not you personally) want, and you don't care if all the sex you have are one-offs with someone who is just using you to get ahead, then by all means, go for it. It's not all that hard to achieve and doesn't take any sex rank at all.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Also who is to say that these rocks stars don't rock in bed? Why would there be an assumption that he/she famous person is a crappy lover? Just because it may be a ONS with a famous (or not) person, doesn't mean the sex will be bad.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Guys aren't anywhere near as group-think on this issue as you make them out to be. Some guys really dig curves, and like their women soft. Some are actively turned off by athletic bodies, especially when women go the weight-lifting defined muscle route. Others are turned on by that. I've seen guys say they prefer a slim body, small boobs, and others system they want a minimum D cup. Some guys even say they don't care much about body type, as long as she has a pretty face.
> 
> So look at it this way: Women, like men, are a lot like people, each with individual tastes. Just because you are obsessed with toning and defining muscle doesn't mean anyone else is. They may even find it an actual turn-off.


Riiiight!

And would you also say that much of what is being describes as " hot " and desirable to both genders on this thread is highly subjective to North America taste's and pop culture ?

And even within that culture, there are different subsets , and among those subsets different variables?

Can it be said that even though people have different individual tastes influenced by nuances, given a large enough sample ,and the influence of popular media, that similar patterns can be found within the set and representative subsets created which accurately forecast those patterns?

Can there be areas of overlap?
Do you think that those in the anolamy / outliers subset, would be more than the group / set itself?

Could some subsets / groups be larger than others?
For example, can a pattern like this exist ; 
Subset [ A ] Men who identify athletic built women as hot.
Subset [ B ] Men who identify chubby built women as hot.

Is it possible that subset [ A ] could be larger than subset [ B] or vice versa?


----------



## RandomDude

@SA

Heh no one wants to be compared I guess. 

And yeah, I was a horrible man in that regard. In recent years I did try to rebuild STBX's esteem after making her feel ashamed by refusing to hold her in public, rejecting public affection, telling her to dye her hair, regretting marriage, considering myself a traitor to my people, stupid crap like that.

She went through similar pressures with her family/church/friends but fought harder for me then I've ever fought for her. Alot of the damage has been done and is rather deep as a result. She did heal over time however, she's tough. Always was, I just never saw it until seperation. I never understood strength in the midst of vulnerability. But that's for another thread


----------



## ocotillo

I think another thing we're wrestling with on this thread is that we tend to judge attractiveness within our own gender differently than the opposite gender does. 

When all is said and done, it doesn't matter what we think about our own gender. What matters is what the opposite gender thinks.


----------



## Caribbean Man

ocotillo said:


> I think another thing we're wrestling with on this thread is that we tend to judge attractiveness within our own gender differently than the opposite gender does.
> 
> When all is said and done, it doesn't matter what we think about our own gender. What matters is what the opposite gender thinks.


And the Herculean task on this thread and TAM is getting an unbiased view , separate of the groupthink.
And that groupthink applies to both genders.


----------



## RandomDude

lol

Guy 1: He's a very attractive guy
Guy 2: What are you a fking poofter?


----------



## remorseful strayer

always_alone said:


> Could be you too. All you need to do is pay the salary.


Be Nice. 

I could say something equally as nasty but if you are not good going forward, I will simply join the others and post another shirtless photograph of the Bieb. :FIREdevil::FIREdevil:

With that said, you are right. Could be me, too.


----------



## remorseful strayer

Faithful Wife said:


> remorseful said: "We often see really ugly obnoxious dudes, with drop dead, confident, gorgeous women."
> 
> But this thread is showing very clearly that men will tend to "not see" what is so hot about another man, ie: Tom Brady.
> 
> So what YOU see as and ugly obnoxious dude and a drop dead gorgeous woman, some of us might see as a total hunk with a hoochie.


Fair enough.


----------



## Caribbean Man

RandomDude said:


> lol
> 
> Guy 1: He's a very attractive guy
> Guy 2: What are you a fking poofter?


My point exactly.
And all of us, both male and female have been having this exact, same argument among our own gender ,
Since elementary school.

I know exactly what I consider attractive in a woman, and I also know what type of women find me attractive since my teen years.
Knowing that gave me confidence.

That has always worked for me.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Could some subsets / groups be larger than others?
> For example, can a pattern like this exist ;
> Subset [ A ] Men who identify athletic built women as hot.
> Subset [ B ] Men who identify chubby built women as hot.
> 
> Is it possible that subset [ A ] could be larger than subset [ B] or vice versa?


Of course some subsets could be larger, depending on how you define them. But I would reject your easy binary between "athletic" and "chubby". Just because you are not highly toned and defined, does not mean you are "chubby". And it's only in the age of stick-figure things that an hourglass figure with a bit of meat on the bones gets classified as "chubby" anyway. Even in the 40s and 50s, supposedly attractive women carried a lot more weight than the models today. And this doesn't even begin to put us into rubenesques territory.

I also think the presumption that male taste must fall on a normal distribution curve problematic.

And I question the value of statistics for the purposes of love, sex, or desire.

Let's suppose that I can "play the odds" by having a hot car or getting a face-lift, or whatever it is that makes me (statistically-speaking) more attractive. Am I sure it's worth the price? Or will it just bring me a lot more of what I don't want, like a lot of shallow players hitting on me?

Now for a PUA of course who is only interested in how many holes he can stick it into, statistics might be valuable. But for the rest of us, who might actually care about people or want to relate on a slightly deeper level?


----------



## remorseful strayer

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Yeah because if wealth, status and fame are taken away from Tom Brady he suddenly becomes unattractive. You simply have to believe this, don't you.



I agree that women might still be attracted to a poor Tom Brady. 

Nevertheless, if he were a poor guy, clinging to the back of a garbage truck, picking up trash cans, at 4 a.m., they might get tired of him fairly quickly and still decide they want to trade up to an average looking or even and ugly, wealthy man. 

Also, looks are somewhat emphemeral. So what happens when Brady, starts getting love handles, and a beer belly and if he suddenly lost all his wealth.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Of course some subsets could be larger, depending on how you define them. But I would reject your easy binary between "athletic" and "chubby". Just because you are not highly toned and defined, does not mean you are "chubby". And it's only in the age of stick-figure things that an hourglass figure with a bit of meat on the bones gets classified as "chubby" anyway. Even in the 40s and 50s, supposedly attractive women carried a lot more weight than the models today. And this doesn't even begin to put us into rubenesques territory.
> 
> I also think the presumption that male taste must fall on a normal distribution curve problematic.
> 
> And I question the value of statistics for the purposes of love, sex, or desire.
> 
> Let's suppose that I can "play the odds" by having a hot car or getting a face-lift, or whatever it is that makes me (statistically-speaking) more attractive. Am I sure it's worth the price? Or will it just bring me a lot more of what I don't want, like a lot of shallow players hitting on me?
> 
> Now for a PUA of course who is only interested in how many holes he can stick it into, statistics might be valuable. But for the rest of us, who might actually care about people or want to relate on a slightly deeper level?


See?

All I did was just ask you a couple of direct yes or no questions, based on your post which I quoted and which I fully agreed with.

Therein lies the Herculean task on this thread.


----------



## Created2Write

samyeagar said:


> Please read what I said again...being athletic has nothing to do with having an athletic body type, and having an athletic body type has nothing to do with being athletic. They ARE mutually exclusive, though they do tend to go hand in hand, athletes do tend to have athletic body types, but not necessarily.
> 
> This is an athletic body type:


Okay. So Orlando _doesn't_ have an athletic body type, but he _is_ athletic?


----------



## samyeagar

Created2Write said:


> *Okay. So Orlando doesn't have an athletic body type, but he is athletic*?


Correct. Both Tom and Orlando are athletes and both are athletic, but neither Tom nor Orlando have an athletic body TYPE.


----------



## samyeagar

At 41, I am no longer an athlete, but I have an athletic body type very similar to the pictures I posted as examples.


----------



## Deejo

Golfers are athletes. Very few of them appear to be athletic.

What is it we're arguing about today, just so I'm up to speed?


----------



## RandomDude

We're not arguing anymore (so far), thanks to threats of using my Beiber gun!


----------



## DesertRat1978

This is a bit unrelated to the most recent posts but here goes.

I have a best friend who has never had any problem attracting the ladies. I have always wondered what attracts them. He attracts women of all ages, sizes, and economic levels. He is this bizaare mix of working class ******* and street thug. 

Most people would perceive him as an "alpha" male. Mostly because he is an extrovert who does not mince words. He also has this undeserved and absurd amount of strength. He does not work out and has done his body no favors but still could lift a small car off the ground (or close to it). He is not all that pleasant to these women and yet they can't get enough of him. My unscientific theory is that they view him as a pet project, of sorts.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't know anyone who looks like Brady. I'm talking about men I know with bodies as "athletic" as Brady's. I'll mention this at the gym tmw, it'll get a good laugh. I also never said it takes more than looks. I attract women on looks alone. What Ive said is that game improves the odds and attracts more women, and better looking women.


Sure. That's exactly what you've been saying for months about game.



> Brady is not average Joe. His body type is average Joe. Why? Because everyone has it.


lol. Yeah, that's what I've been saying. You must be skimming my posts again. 



> Are you slow?


Oooo, hitting low now, are we? 



> How many times do I have to say it? Do you know what an average is?


Yes. 



> His mediocre body is hot to you, cool... not really helping the case of women having high physical standards.


Just because you think his body is mediocre doesn't mean it is. I know you want to be the one who defines male hotness, but you're not. 



> Brady body is everywhere. I don't care a bit about Tom Brady... I don't want or need him to be average, his body type IS average.


According you _you_, a man. But according to me, and other women here, he's not average. Sorry but a man's opinion about another man's body/hotness is not going to change my opinion. 



> My whole point is to show how weakly women value the physical, or at least how amazingly broad ranging it is. You and the brigade here defending Brady's body as hot really crack me up. I didn't know your standards were so low.


You think they're low. I disagree. And, if Brady really is so mediocre and if you're really as hot as you claim, then wouldn't all of this be good fo _you_? I don't know why it's so unbelievable that Brady could be considered hot.



> Brady's body is hot... not the outcome I usually get. lol Strange that we don't see Brady bodies marketed to women on book covers, in romantic movies or in movies like magic mike. Those guys actually have some muscle, good physiques, proportion and lean definition. Those guys closely match the scientifically proven body proportion ratios women find attractive, Brady does not. No matter how many times you call me insecure or repeat your sadly low standards for male physique, these things are facts.


I never said Brady was the hottest guy around, did I? I never said he had the best body of any man I've ever seen, did I? I said he was hot, that I thought he had a great body. Nothing more. Yes, there are other men I find more physically attractive. But just because a man has more muscle doesn't make him more attractive by default. That's my point. Not every man who is ripped is going to be as attractive as Brady.



> You're right, I admit Brady's body is slightly above average... in a nation with an obesity epidemic. That's more sad than anything else. That you'd say that body is hot pretty much makes my case on women having a weaker emphasis on prototype physical traits than men. Half the men in my gym have that body. Its common and plain.


To _you_. Clearly there are those who disagree with you. 



> Those guys and I certainly don't say the common and plain woman's body is hot. No. The toned, athletic girl with the C cup and great @ss is hot.


Then Gisele must not be hot because she definitely doesn't have a C cup or any @ss to speak of. 



> I choose Brady for the very reason that women inflate him and his body is unimpressive. Its a setup to get a woman to dismiss the vanilla body... something a guy won't do. Don't have the hot body? Then she's not hot... period. Ive been in this conversation on attractiveness many times... only usually there's a lot of disappointment when I google up some Brady pics on my phone. This is usually followed with "oh well, I don't care what kind of body he has, with those eyes.... swoon". Guys would never say something like that.


Maybe you wouldn't. There are guys who aren't as shallow. 



> lol You... you're stubborn. You didn't fall for the dismissal trap, you did one better... Tom Brady's plain ol soft body is hot! In all the times I've had this conversation, this is the first time women claimed that was hot. More than likely the result of hostility to me. Had I shown you the body first, without revealing who it was, I bet Id have heard something entirely different.


I didn't know who he was even when you did say his name. I don't follow football. And my first thought was that he was hot, which confused me because the pictures you posted contradicted your posts. So, no. It's not about hostility. It's that you're wrong as far as I am concerned. The guy is damn sexy and has a great body. You can try and convince yourself that I don't mean it,, but I can assure you I do.



> Funny that online conversations play out so differently than real life conversations. If Brady's body is hot, then average guys bodies are hot, because that's pretty much what most dudes have under their shirt if they're not outright fat.


So you keep saying, and yet it _doesn't matter to me_. Not only do I not believe it, but even if it is true, it doesn't matter. If "average" guys really do look like Brady, then fine; the average male body is damn hot. But, like I said, I don't believe this to be the case at all.



> The average woman's body to a guy might be okay, but hot is a superlative rightly reserved for more exceptional women... not the commonplace.


Okay.



> Regardless, don't confuse your low standards in physique for my insecurity.


You can call them low standards if you want. I think I have exceptional taste. I know what I like and what I don't, I know who I would and wouldn't be attracted to.


----------



## samyeagar

Deejo said:


> Golfers are athletes. Very few of them appear to be athletic.
> 
> What is it we're arguing about today, just so I'm up to speed?


Correct. I was explaining that the athletic body type, and being athletic or an athlete are mutually exclusive. One does not necessarily lead to the other. One can have an athletic body type without being an athlete just as one can be an athlete and not have an athletic body type.


----------



## Faithful Wife

tyler said: "He is not all that pleasant to these women and yet they can't get enough of him. My unscientific theory is that they view him as a pet project, of sorts."

What if he is just a really good f*ck?


----------



## RandomDude

-.- 

I forgot touchwood

C2W, Dvls is over it, so am I, so is the rest of the forum. It's getting old - so if we must argue, let us argue about something else alright yes? I'm being a gentleman here! So let us return to civility, please.


----------



## remorseful strayer

SimplyAmorous said:


> most especially a very POPULAR MAN..... most of these perfect bodies & faces to die for...these 's....have others clawing at them...LIFE is a revolving door of sexual temptation ...which generally leads to not remaining faithful with 1 special person.... it's very rare to see in the rich & famous.. .so when we do... it's something to highly praise....
> 
> We'll happily take our *average appearances* & *average lifestyles* ...and live in our Romantic bubble... riding off into the sunset hand in hand....and hopefully we'll make it to the Rocking chairs together.


This meshes with a post I posted earlier, about why SOME women might choose an outrageously good looking but poor guy, over an outrageously good looking but very wealthy guy.

There are likely a subset of women who might feel exactly as you stated.


----------



## DesertRat1978

Faithful Wife said:


> tyler said: "He is not all that pleasant to these women and yet they can't get enough of him. My unscientific theory is that they view him as a pet project, of sorts."
> 
> What if he is just a really good f*ck?


It's possible. I have a hard time believing that sex is the only motivation. His skill level can not be so far above every other male that they are willing to be treated like dirt from the first second to the last. There has to be more to the story. 

I will say that most people that meet him admire his confidence. It is usually misplaced but still he does not back down. He lets it be known what is on his mind. No filter there.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Go read it again genius. I said height as an attractive quality turns to disadvantage at 6'5". I didn't make it up. Tom is 6'4". If the disadvantage begins an inch taller than Tom is, please explain how I said his height was a disadvantage? You're right again, my reading skills aren't your problem, your reading skills are your problem.


You worded his height as a disadvantage with him being so near the end of the spectrum. I have no trouble with reading, but you clearly have trouble with articulating your points if you didn't mean that as an insult to Brady.



> Smh. You need to find a new career path.


I'm actually passing my class with flying colors, but thanks for the concern. 



> The "looks like every non-athletic not fat guy" beach pics I posted are from THIS year, and they're candid shots, not photo shoots. Yes, the pics you posted of him are quite dumpy. He's not fat, flabby might be over the top... soft, pudgy, poochie... yes, yes, yes. Decidedly average.


Maybe you want him to be pudgy so that your body looks better? Regardless, your insistence that he's pudgy doesn't make it so. And I certainly don't think he is.



> And to your earlier point that he's more athletic than anyone here... uhhh... no. I would eat Brady's lunch in any contest of athleticism that didn't involve how far we can throw a football.


You'd beat a professional athlete? I doubt it. 



> Pretty much any of the guys I've seen with athletic builds could. His numbers are really really poor. I think I posted mine when I posted his. I'm a career programmer. He's a professional athlete. That's how ridiculously unathletic he is... and he rightly looks so.


Sorry. Don't buy it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

tyler: "His skill level can not be so far above every other male that they are willing to be treated like dirt from the first second to the last. There has to be more to the story."


I have known a lot of guys like this and no, there usually isn't more to the story. Highly sexual women will seek men like this out. Some women, highly sexual or not, are also damaged and will accept poor treatment from a man...so will some men. But being a great f*ck should not be under-estimated as a reason. Some men are just graced in that department and highly sexual women will ALWAYS snif him out.


----------



## Created2Write

ocotillo said:


> I think another thing we're wrestling with on this thread is that we tend to judge attractiveness within our own gender differently than the opposite gender does.
> 
> When all is said and done, it doesn't matter what we think about our own gender. What matters is what the opposite gender thinks.


Exactly my point!  Thank you.


----------



## RandomDude

The Bieber gun fails, now we need a Bieber bazooka

*sigh* -.-
The war continues it seems, Deejo - your fault! lol


----------



## Created2Write

samyeagar said:


> Correct. Both Tom and Orlando are athletes and both are athletic, but neither Tom nor Orlando have an athletic body TYPE.


Fair enough.


----------



## DesertRat1978

Faithful Wife said:


> tyler: "His skill level can not be so far above every other male that they are willing to be treated like dirt from the first second to the last. There has to be more to the story."
> 
> 
> I have known a lot of guys like this and no, there usually isn't more to the story. Highly sexual women will seek men like this out. Some women, highly sexual or not, are also damaged and will accept poor treatment from a man...so will some men. But being a great f*ck should not be under-estimated as a reason. Some men are just graced in that department and highly sexual women will ALWAYS snif him out.


Again, it is possible. I am not in their head. Some of them have felt this bizaare need to tell me about him and apparently he is quite thick down there, strongly prefers anal, and does not do foreplay. Apparently, it is the winning formula.


----------



## Faithful Wife

tyler...I am sure that doesn't make sense to you, but it does to a highly sexual woman.


----------



## Created2Write

RandomDude said:


> -.-
> 
> I forgot touchwood
> 
> C2W, Dvls is over it, so am I, so is the rest of the forum. It's getting old - so if we must argue, let us argue about something else alright yes? I'm being a gentleman here! So let us return to civility, please.


I don't read through the thread before responding, so I didn't know that until now. If he's put me on ignore, than there shouldn't be any responses anyway.


----------



## RandomDude

Alright, lets at least stop here ya?

Anyways back on topic...

@Tyler



> Again, it is possible. I am not in their head. Some of them have felt this bizaare need to tell me about him and apparently he is quite thick down there, strongly prefers anal, and does not do foreplay. Apparently, it is the winning formula.


He's confident and doesn't a give a sh-t, that's the winning formula mate. Not really rocket science.


----------



## DesertRat1978

Faithful Wife said:


> tyler...I am sure that doesn't make sense to you, but it does to a highly sexual woman.


I will leave it at this but do not complain about being treated like dirt and then come back begging for more. It is like complaining about it being cold in January in Minnesota and then stripping down naked and walking outside. He treats them like dirt from the first second to the last. They know what they are getting themselves into. No bait and switch here. Accept that you like being treated poorly and move along.


----------



## Faithful Wife

tyler said: "I will leave it at this but do not complain about being treated like dirt and then come back begging for more."

Again, some women are damaged and will accept crappy treatment. So are some men. There is no reason to try to make this about "women like crap treatment" because soooooo many men will chase crazy women and let them treat him like crap it is totally an equal thing between genders.

Generally people this messed up are not self-aware enough to also understand that they LIKE this treatment.

But who cares?

They do "like" it on whatever damaged level they are on, and so what if they do? 

It really has nothing to do with "women" and what kind of men they like, it only has to do with these particular damaged woman, and your friend who is likely a really good f*ck but who is also damaged.

I could come back with so many stories about the abuse men will take just to stay in the life of certain man-eating women. That would say nothing about men in general though, just the damaged ones.


----------



## DesertRat1978

Faithful Wife said:


> tyler said: "I will leave it at this but do not complain about being treated like dirt and then come back begging for more."
> 
> Again, some women are damaged and will accept crappy treatment. So are some men. There is no reason to try to make this about "women like crap treatment" because soooooo many men will chase crazy women and let them treat him like crap it is totally an equal thing between genders.


Again, then do not complain about it. I know that not all women would endure this.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Again....you don't get to decide what others are self-aware about.


----------



## samyeagar

tyler1978 said:


> I will leave it at this but do not complain about being treated like dirt and then come back begging for more. It is like complaining about it being cold in January in Minnesota and then stripping down naked and walking outside. He treats them like dirt from the first second to the last. They know what they are getting themselves into. No bait and switch here. Accept that you like being treated poorly and move along.


I wonder though how much of it has to do with the 'It's going to be different with me' mentality some people have. Or 'I'm going to fix him'

How much of the complaining could also be a sort of buyers remorse? He's hot, I want him knowing he'll treat me like sh1t and then feeling bad about the fact that they actually wanted that and have a hard time accepting that about themselves?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Don't you guys know any men who chase crazy women?

This is really no different.


----------



## PHTlump

Created2Write said:


> You'd beat a professional athlete? I doubt it.


Here are some professional athletes.

























Does the fact that these men are professional athletes mean that they must be more "athletic", as in faster, stronger, and more agile, than non-athletes? I wouldn't say so. I would say that these three men have a very specific skill that they are so good at that they can earn a living playing a sport. And I would also say that the particular skill they each have is unrelated to general athleticism.

Now Tom Brady is probably stronger, faster, and more agile than each of these examples. But my point still holds. There are two skills that Brady has that makes him an excellent quarterback. First, his brain can correctly analyze a defense and quickly determine where to throw the ball. Second, he can throw the ball down the field very accurately and deliver it to a very specific spot.

Now, neither of these skills involves speed, strength, or agility. Beyond hand/eye coordination, which the other athletes I posted also have, Brady doesn't need much general athleticism. And, according to the links I posted previously, when he graduated from college, he was only about as athletic as an average high school senior. So I wouldn't be surprised if a non-professional athlete were more generally athletic than Brady.


----------



## RandomDude

Undivided - Blush ft Snoop Dogg (Lyrics) HD - YouTube

Everybody tells me I should walk away
But nothin’ ever felt like this
They say he ain’t right for me
He ain’t the type for me
But I can’t resist
I know that we’re from different worlds
It’s hard for them to see
Maybe I’m crazy but he’s the only one for me

[CHORUS:]
I love him, I love him, I love him
And I don’t care what nobody says
He is mine all mine
And I am his
I love him, I love him, I love him
And everything in me says don’t fight it
When I look into his eyes I know we will be Undivided

[V2:]
People on the outside
Think he’s just a bad boy
They don’t see inside like me
When there ain’t nobody there
He’s like a teddy bear
He treats me like queen
Well he’s got something true and real that
Broke into my heart
And nothin’s ever gonna, gonna tear us apart

[CHORUS:]
I love him, I love him, I love him
And I don’t care what nobody says
He is mine all mine
And I am his
I love him, I love him, I love him
And everything in me says don’t fight it
When I look into his eyes I know we will be Undivided

[SNOOP:]
Slippin' and sliding
Rippin' and riding
Attention Undivided cause I decided
To make amend and make a friend and go all out and rush
To plush
Together forever
And we will never fuss. 
Blush
Take a picture of a memory
Remember me 
We were meant to be
Bad boy, good girl
Perfect combination (like glue)
So much Jubilation. 
Filled with celebration

Bad boys good girls FTW!


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> Don't you guys know any men who chase crazy women?
> 
> This is really no different.


Personally, not really. And I also really don't hear guys complaing about being treated like sh1t and then going back for more. Sorry, just not my experience.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Oh man...I have known so many men who chase crazy chicks and keep coming back for more...she cheats on him, robs him, but f*cks him silly and is really hot....so he's back for more time and time again.


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> Oh man...I have known so many men who chase crazy chicks and keep coming back for more...she cheats on him, robs him, but f*cks him silly and is really hot....so he's back for more time and time again.


And then complains about it in the way women do?


----------



## DesertRat1978

Faithful Wife said:


> Again....you don't get to decide what others are self-aware about.


Back in the day, not only did they want him for sex but they would go on about how they loved him. From my vantage point, their attraction went beyond him just being good in bed. They would keep coming back. Each time, he would call them names, verbally assault them, and damage their property. 

Even women that do not have sex with him, take notice. It all boils down to his being so outwardly expressive and having no filter. Everyone wishes that they could just walk up to somebody and speak their mind. That is why we are friends. He is the outwardly expressive, impulsive, and take-no-sh$t end of it and I am the calm, cool, determined, and rational end of it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Sam...Oh yes....yes, yes yes!!

I'm surprised you haven't seen this yourself, it happens just as often.

I have literally known men who chase strippers around, because she f*cked him a few times, he thought she was his girlfriend...he basically stalks her afterwards, gets banned from her club because he is bullying the customers...she calls him up again when she wants some money or him to buy her some clothes...he cries about it, asks her to marry him. 

People are very damaged.


----------



## Faithful Wife

tyler said: "It all boils down to his being so outwardly expressive and having no filter."

No, it doesn't really. Highly sexual women can "see" him with their Sex-dar.

A quiet guy will ping other highly sexual women's Sex-dar....like SA and her hubby.


----------



## DesertRat1978

samyeagar said:


> I wonder though how much of it has to do with the 'It's going to be different with me' mentality some people have. Or 'I'm going to fix him'
> 
> How much of the complaining could also be a sort of buyers remorse? He's hot, I want him knowing he'll treat me like sh1t and then feeling bad about the fact that they actually wanted that and have a hard time accepting that about themselves?


That is what i was trying to say in the first post. You have summed up in a few sentences what I have rambled on about many times. Good insights.


----------



## Faithful Wife

But you are both off.

Sam is starting to get it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Think of it this way: damaged people attract each other.

Highly sexual people also attract each other.

Damaged AND highly sexual people always attract each other.

There is nothing gender specific if any of those statements.


----------



## DesertRat1978

Faithful Wife said:


> But you are both off.
> 
> Sam is starting to get it.


How do you explain their saying that they love him. They routinely and predictably would want him for more than sex. Their words and their actions would demonstrate this repeatedly.


----------



## Deejo

I'm going to circle back for a moment and refocus this thread like a laser.

It started with a link to Roosh stating that intelligent, non-male dependent women such as those found in Denmark, make pickup challenging if not downright useless. Further, he blames the government.
His 'Bang' books have been referred to as rape guides.

Nobody here agrees with where this started.
No man here sanctions, condones or wants to emulate that kind of behavior.

We've at this point once again ventured into discussion of 'game'. 
And that topic always comes along with baggage.

I still find those discussions fascinating. Still dont understand why they so often veer into the vitriolic.

To argue in the light of common knowledge that women generally prefer taller guys, or a particular socio-economic status, or that men generally prefer youthful and attractive women is the adult equivalent of 'I know you are, but what am I'.

Lets stop, pause a moment, reflect, and the focus on what really matters.

How hot Keira Knightly really is ... sorry, I mean on the things that do ultimately attract us to a person, and the thing(s) that make it stick.


----------



## Faithful Wife

tyler said: "How do you explain their saying that they love him."

This is part of the clue that he is a really great f*ck. Women tend to feel like they are falling in love when they are having good sex. Every guy who is really good at it will attest to this.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo...no argument from me about Keira Knightly.


----------



## RandomDude

> Damaged AND highly sexual people always attract each other.


Proven

<--- my marriage


----------



## DesertRat1978

Faithful Wife said:


> tyler said: "How do you explain their saying that they love him."
> 
> This is part of the clue that he is a really great f*ck. Women tend to feel like they are falling in love when they are having good sex. Every guy who is really good at it will attest to this.


Not to brag but I can attest to that. Still, I think that the appeal comes mostly down to confidence. His confident ways are the main ingredient. His outwardly expressive ways are how he stands out. If he was not confident, he would most likely not be good in bed. Also, they have incentive to want to "fix" him. If he is so good in bed, they do not want to lose him. They would soon learn that he treats women as disposable. To keep the good sex going, they have to do something to not be tossed aside like the 200 or so before them.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Ok tyler...if you want to believe that ALL women have this tendancy to want to be treated like crap...go on and keep believing that.

It really isn't that, and men do it too, all the time. But since you want to see it as if it is only a way that women are damaged and do inexplicable things, then you will never really understand it and will continue to be confused by it.

If instead you could see this as non-gender based problem, you wouldn't be confused. It makes perfect sense.


----------



## DesertRat1978

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok tyler...if you want to believe that ALL women have this tendancy to want to be treated like crap...go on and keep believing that.
> 
> It really isn't that, and men do it too, all the time. But since you want to see it as if it is only a way that women are damaged and do inexplicable things, then you will never really understand it and will continue to be confused by it.
> 
> If instead you could see this as non-gender based problem, you wouldn't be confused. It makes perfect sense.


My point is not that ALL Women like being treated like dirt. The point is that confidence, bravado, and being outwardly expressive are quite helpful in attracting women. The title of the thread is about alpha male so therefore that is what I have been posting about. If I would have witnessed men being treated like crap and to keep coming back for more, then I would have the same observations and same thoughts.


----------



## Faithful Wife

tyler: "The point is that confidence, bravado, and being outwardly expressive are quite helpful in attracting women."

But you keep implying that these women also WANT to be treated like dirt, and that there is some correlation here.

I'm saying your guy friend is damaged and is attracting damaged women, and this has nothing to do with non-damaged women or men.


----------



## DesertRat1978

Faithful Wife said:


> tyler: "The point is that confidence, bravado, and being outwardly expressive are quite helpful in attracting women."
> 
> But you keep implying that these women also WANT to be treated like dirt, and that there is some correlation here.
> 
> I'm saying your guy friend is damaged and is attracting damaged women, and this has nothing to do with non-damaged women or men.


They are willing to be treated like this repeatedly and predictably. There has to be something that draws them in. The prize has to make dealing with him worth it. The attraction starts with him being confident and outwardly expressive. Later on, they find out that he is apparently good in bed. All I am saying is that there is some merit to this idea that "alpha" males have appeal to women.


----------



## Faithful Wife

This man is not "alpha" he is just a damaged good f*ck.

There are lots of them.


----------



## DesertRat1978

Faithful Wife said:


> This man is not "alpha" he is just a damaged good f*ck.
> 
> There are lots of them.


Most people would perceive him an "alpha" type until getting to know him. These women do not know his ways but yet see him from a distance and approach him. There is no way to know that someone is damaged just by looking at them. Anyways, it is just interesting to me. His success rate has slipped recently. My guess is that he has mellowed out and that must have some effect. 

Few, if any, upon meeting me would ever guess that I spent a month on the street or that I endured a summer of CSA.


----------



## Faithful Wife

tyler: "These women do not know his ways but yet see him from a distance and approach him. There is no way to know that someone is damaged just by looking at them."

Yes, there is. Damaged people *always* find each other. Haven't you ever listened to Love Line with Dr. Drew? He knows that any man a damaged woman picks will always also be damaged...he knows before she says anything about the guy, just from HER history, that she will have picked the damaged guy. At first sight, there was *something* she saw that drew her in...they have damage-dar.

Highly sexual people have Sex-dar.

If this guy is the only highly damaged person you know, I can see how it would seem to be something "more" to the equation.

I know so many damaged people. They pair with other damaged people...they always "see" each other.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

tyler1978 said:


> Back in the day, not only did they want him for sex but they would go on about how they loved him. From my vantage point, their attraction went beyond him just being good in bed. They would keep coming back. Each time, he would call them names, verbally assault them, and damage their property.
> 
> Even women that do not have sex with him, take notice. It all boils down to his being so outwardly expressive and having no filter. Everyone wishes that they could just walk up to somebody and speak their mind. That is why we are friends. He is the outwardly expressive, impulsive, and take-no-sh$t end of it and I am the calm, cool, determined, and rational end of it.


I gotta admit there is some truth to the great sex attachment.

Great sex has a tendency to induce feelings of intense love in some women... and they subsequently do a lot of retarded things... even seemingly self-devaluing. Its not something many women are looking for as far as I can tell... but yeah, blow their mind in bed and there are some that just get stupid obsessed. One girl I was really sexually compatible with started showing up at my work with lunch everyday, bought me gifts, and constantly blew up my phone... even though I thought we just had a fling. I didn't want to date her and it was waaaay to soon to be saying some of the lovey things she did. I all but ignored her for quite awhile because it was just bizzare, but she just kept on trucking like we were in love, and showing up at my place all the time. 

Think overly attached girlfriend meme:










Like all we did was have sex. I took her to dinner and a movie... once. Anytime she'd come over we'd have sex... that and text conversations were pretty much the sum of it and she texted so much that I sort of just stopped responding to everything. She'd bring up weird @ss sh*t like what our kids would look like and getting married one day. I'm like woah! Slow your roll babe. You know... I think this is where I get off the crazy train.

Great sex inducing infatuation? Or maybe just crazy. I can see it both ways. I spent most of the time pretty much investing nothing - because she was investing enough for both of us. So I was kind of a d*ck... and she didn't even seem to blink. She seemed pretty normal when I met her and she wasn't "easy" so to speak. ::shrug::

To this day if I called her up for a booty call I'm pretty sure she'd go for it.


----------



## RandomDude

Let me share an experience through a damaged man's eyes:

It's strange really, as despite being judged as a 'bad boy' I would consider myself quite a gentleman when it comes to women - though some may disagree as I still feel it's not my responsibility if a marriage breaks down over a married woman sleeping with me + It's not my responsibility for a woman dropping her boundaries as long as I wasn't being forceful/manipulative/pushy, etc etc. Those things some of you ladies have berated me for, but too bad  for I'm still not convinced I am to blame.

But anyways -> I also prefer NSA over ONSs also due to my pickiness in women, and I can't always just turn them around and just ram them from behind so I don't have to see their faces since I prefer other positions generally - with visual stimulas of her front! If I treat them as nothing more than a lay at least I'm honest about it and don't lead them on for example, probably because I simply just never had to. At the same time I had no quarms in the past about being used as a fkbuddy, nor did I judge women for it as I believed in equality. 

So I guess I'm not really a 'bad boy' in that regard. Alot of times, I see normal people look up to this "alpha" type or whatever. To be honest I was rather surprised to see the term used on a marriage forum. Despite having been able to get my lays easy throughout my life and knowing I do have certain 'bad boy' qualities...

I see all this crap about having to decieve/lie to women to get what they want. And I blatantly disagree with that particular game. Instead IMO they should just focus on the good qualities that comes with the stereotypical "alpha" (that doesn't really exist in any pure form IMO) that Tyler mentioned -> confidence, bravado, outward expression.

That's really all you need, none of this bad boy crap. Besides women grow out of it sooner or later. I'm an old man now and women are much smarter as they age, they look for what is considered a "REAL MAN", which a bad boy isn't. SimplyAmorous made a topic once in regards to what she regards as a real man and it encompasses both the good in both Alpha/Beta qualities and leaves out the bad.

I would recommend it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Highly sexual women snif you on their Sex-dar, Random. It doesn't really matter what "type" of man you are otherwise...personality/alph/beta, etc. If you ping their radar, they "know".

SA's husband pinged her Sex-dar and he is very shy, beta, etc.

It really doesn't matter....but men who are trying to "score" think it does. Thus they read books, etc. on how to "score" babes.

If women snif you out on their own, it is because you ping their Sex-dar. If they don't....


----------



## DesertRat1978

Faithful Wife said:


> tyler: "These women do not know his ways but yet see him from a distance and approach him. There is no way to know that someone is damaged just by looking at them."
> 
> Yes, there is. Damaged people *always* find each other. Haven't you ever listened to Love Line with Dr. Drew? He knows that any man a damaged woman picks will always also be damaged...he knows before she says anything about the guy, just from HER history, that she will have picked the damaged guy. At first sight, there was *something* she saw that drew her in...they have damage-dar.
> 
> Highly sexual people have Sex-dar.
> 
> If this guy is the only highly damaged person you know, I can see how it would seem to be something "more" to the equation.
> 
> I know so many damaged people. They pair with other damaged people...they always "see" each other.


I know other damaged people. What perplexed me over the years was the regularity. Women of all ages, sizes, shapes, economic backgrounds, etc. flocked to him and each time the result was eerily similar. I could almost predict how each one would unfold. 

Wed and Thurs he would take them home and bang them. Friday, he would party it up and ignore them. Saturday, bang them again and then Sunday he would dispose of them, verbally abuse them, and throw their stuff in the driveway. By thursday of the next week, they would show up and tell me about how they loved him and just wished that he would respect them and love them back. He would show up later on, call them back, tell them that they are worthless, and so on. They would keep coming back. Sometimes, these women would be friends with one another. They would even walk in on him having sex with other women. 

It was like Groundhog Day each time. This game continued for the 5 years that we were roommates. A quick estimate is that this scenario got played out 100 or so times.

Last point, some of his appeal comes down to his having no game. No deceiving, no lying here. He tells them that they are worthless and a **** within the first minute of meeting them. He is consistently unpleasant.

Confidence works wonders. As I started coming out of my shell, my success rate has increased as well.

Anyways, time to get back to work.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

tyler1978 said:


> They are willing to be treated like this repeatedly and predictably. There has to be something that draws them in. The prize has to make dealing with him worth it. The attraction starts with him being confident and outwardly expressive. Later on, they find out that he is apparently good in bed. All I am saying is that there is some merit to this idea that "alpha" males have appeal to women.


Be careful not to confuse alpha with treating women like dirt. There's some gray, but definitely different.

I categorize women you describe as more likely to be low in self-esteem. Didn't get enough daddy value. Had a bad ugly duckling stage... whatever. Sounds like low self esteem or a core feeling that they don't deserve better.


----------



## RandomDude

Faithful Wife said:


> *Highly sexual women snif you on their Sex-dar, Random. It doesn't really matter what "type" of man you are otherwise...personality/alph/beta, etc. If you ping their radar, they "know".*
> SA's husband pinged her Sex-dar and he is very shy, beta, etc.
> 
> It really doesn't matter....but men who are trying to "score" think it does. Thus they read books, etc. on how to "score" babes.
> 
> If women snif you out on their own, it is because you ping their Sex-dar. If they don't....


Sure I pinged their sexdars but if I was not confident, lacked social skills, was not secure in myself -> I definitely wouldn't have had much success with women. Before I lost my virginity at 16, I still had young girls asking me out but as I was a very, very anti-social hate-everything person at that age, it never got anywhere despite the initial attraction. But I guess I didn't want it haha

The point is; these are important qualities for both genders, not just men.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Random: "Sure I pinged their sexdars but if I was not confident, lacked social skills, was not secure in myself -> I definitely wouldn't have had much success with women."

Right. That is your particular flavor. Certain women who like your flavor will pick you.

But some highly sexual women will still pick the quiet guy in the corner who pings their Sex-dar. Like SA.


----------



## ocotillo

Faithful Wife said:


> Right. That is your particular flavor. Certain women who like your flavor will pick you.


I can't argue for or against something this ethereal, but have certainly seen some strange things go on between people. 

I have a good friend who is openly flirted with everywhere he goes by ladies of one particular ethnic group. And it's not the ethnic group he was born in. It's become a source of humor with him and he struggles not to burst out laughing when it happens.

My wife scoffs and says it is simply the twinkly eyes of a man on the verge of laughing that does it, which makes it sort of a chicken and egg paradox. In other words, it's hard to say at this point if it's real or if it is his humor and belief that he is attractive to these women that precipitates it. Maybe it's a little of both.


----------



## RandomDude

SA's marriage is in a clear minority, and even she admits it. Reading their story it seems almost fairytale-like and they are both very blessed. Yes, it is true, that there will be different strokes for different people. 

However, many men do not find their SA like her husband did. That's how it is, life isn't fair. They look around, see how others are getting results but they themselves still can't. So yes, they read books, try to learn how to score, etc. Now sure, IMO many of such books give poor advice based on my own experience having used none of the whole typical "alpha" douchy crap. I'm just who I am.

The whole alpha/beta thing is taken out of proportion but the underlying fact remains that confident, secure, and sociable individuals will generally achieve much more success than someone who is unconfident, insecure, and anti-social. Would you encourage a man who is not confident, insecure, and anti-social to continue being how he is in the hopes that he will somehow find love?

That's my point. Natural game is important, no one should be someone they are not, but I wouldn't consider someone who is insecure but learns how to love himself and be more confident to be changing his personality or affecting his natural charm. He simply has to realise who he is and what he has to offer. Same goes with women.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Random said: "SA's marriage is in a clear minority, and even she admits it."


It is only in the minority because most people don't get to marry their high school sweetheart and stay married to them forever.

Their sexual attraction to each other is most definitely NOT a minority.

Shy dudes can f*ck too, you know.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> See?
> 
> All I did was just ask you a couple of direct yes or no questions, based on your post which I quoted and which I fully agreed with.
> 
> Therein lies the Herculean task on this thread.


Well, you did ask quite a lot of questions, so there was bound to be a qualifier or two in my response ...

After all, "yes, but ..." or "no, but ..." are more satisfying conversationally than just simple yeses or no's. -- especially wih so many people and perspectives involved


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> I have known a lot of guys like this and no, there usually isn't more to the story. Highly sexual women will seek men like this out. Some women, highly sexual or not, are also damaged and will accept poor treatment from a man...so will some men. But being a great f*ck should not be under-estimated as a reason. Some men are just graced in that department and highly sexual women will ALWAYS snif him out.


Sadly, there are also a lot of women who have a very poor sense of self worth, and believe they deserve to be treated like crap. They too have an uncanny way of sniffing out men that will be sure to treat them like crap.


----------



## RandomDude

Faithful Wife said:


> Random said: "SA's marriage is in a clear minority, and even she admits it."
> 
> 
> It is only in the minority because most people don't get to marry their high school sweetheart and stay married to them forever.
> 
> Their sexual attraction to each other is most definitely NOT a minority.
> 
> Shy dudes can f*ck too, you know.


Of course they do, SA's husband is testament to that fact.

But how about the shy dudes that aren't getting laid? They will suffer from diminishing confidence, lack of self-esteem, or simply don't know how to deal with women because of inexperience. Many inexperienced dudes may not even be shy, but stupid when it comes to how to talk to women. How does one gain that experience? Now don't worry, I'm not recommending PUA books lol

But they sure as hell need to gather enough confidence to put themselves out there again. That's the real world; high school doesn't last forever. If they wish to meet women, they have to put themselves out there, and without confidence, they won't get very far past their own hole. Without self-esteem they will potentially turn off ALOT of women. And without the experience itself, they will not understand how to deal / talk with women.

I'm not encouraging men to become a douche, so I don't see why you disagree. I do however encourage them to see their own worth, put themselves out there, and learn how to deal with women. The three qualities that Tyler listed: 

1) Confidence
The importance explained in this post
2) Bravado
Not letting fear hold them back from what they want
3) Outward expression
Now this does not mean a shy guy has to suddenly switch into a social animal, SA's husband maybe shy, but he's vulnerable and in touch with his feelings for her and knows how to express them - beta style and it works! If anything I have FAILED in my marriage because of my lack of vulnerability.

So in the end, I don't see why you are disagreeing with all this. People come on this forum after all to learn how to be a better spouse, perhaps to be more confident, to know how to stick to their boundaries (positive alpha qualities), or to be more vulnerable, and less hardened (positive beta qualities).


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> tyler...I am sure that doesn't make sense to you, but it does to a highly sexual woman.


Ewww. Please tell me you're not serious! Given the details, I think my explanation is much more likely. Surely a highly sexual woman can do better than some jack-a$$ that doesn'tough know his way around lady-bits?


----------



## PHTlump

Faithful Wife said:


> If instead you could see this as non-gender based problem, you wouldn't be confused. It makes perfect sense.


I don't know that it is the same for both sexes.
The Dark Triad personality: Attractiveness to women
In this study, women rated dark triad personalities (Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy) as more attractive than other personality types.

They didn't measure men, but I think we just like bewbs.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Random: "But how about the shy dudes that aren't getting laid?"

Not all dudes will ping a woman's Sex-dar. I don't see what is so hard to understand about this.


----------



## Faithful Wife

always...there are more posts about that topic....read them all, then you'll see what I was saying.


----------



## DesertRat1978

always_alone said:


> Ewww. Please tell me you're not serious! Given the details, I think my explanation is much more likely. Surely a highly sexual woman can do better than some jack-a$$ that doesn'tough know his way around lady-bits?


I will quit with this one, I swear. Some of the women involved where incredibly attractive. Women that could have pretty much any man that they wanted. They were sometimes very accomplished and had careers. Keep in mind that we both worked low end restaurant jobs and lived in the ghetto. They would pull up in a car that was worth more than our entire block of trailers. Their available pool was ever so vast and yet they would go out of their way to get with him.


----------



## RandomDude

Faithful Wife said:


> Random: "But how about the shy dudes that aren't getting laid?"
> 
> Not all dudes will ping a woman's Sex-dar. I don't see what is so hard to understand about this.


Simply because a man pings a woman's sex-dar doesn't mean he will automatically know what to do with it! lol

Do you see my point?


----------



## Faithful Wife

tyler...Incredibly attractive, and clearly incredibly damaged. That is the common demonimator.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Random...same goes for women.

Men think women get to pick and choose among all men...yet women have specific tastes and if the guy she wants doesn't also want her, she doesn't get to pick and choose, does she?

Who cares? All of us have troubles. Nothing in life or love is hard.

Do you see my point?


----------



## RandomDude

Well, in truth, I never wanted STBX, until I got to know her over the course of a year.

That's girl game for ya


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yep.


----------



## RandomDude

So what are we arguing about?


----------



## Faithful Wife

You want to think that "all men" need to project confidence and the shy ones need to learn this.

I'm saying that isn't true.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Like all we did was have sex. I took her to dinner and a movie... once. Anytime she'd come over we'd have sex... that and text conversations were pretty much the sum of it and she texted so much that I sort of just stopped responding to everything. She'd bring up weird @ss sh*t like what our kids would look like and getting married one day. I'm like woah! Slow your roll babe. You know... I think this is where I get off the crazy train.
> 
> Great sex inducing infatuation? Or maybe just crazy. I can see it both ways. I spent most of the time pretty much investing nothing - because she was investing enough for both of us. So I was kind of a d*ck... and she didn't even seem to blink. She seemed pretty normal when I met her and she wasn't "easy" so to speak. ::shrug::
> 
> To this day if I called her up for a booty call I'm pretty sure she'd go for it.


Sex isn't "just sex" for everyone..(but you know this)..... feelings can take over, even if we didn't want them to go there...... See I know this would happen *to me* if I slept with a man I really liked too soon.. I just know How I am... . so can you see why some of us need to wait..

I'd rather be Dumped for not putting out ...over pumped & cold shouldered dumped... then I'd know he was not THAT into me... which saves ME alot of pain....some women really should test the men, depending on what she really wants..... this girl was one of those, she gave out too soon...and got hurt....with a man who didn't return her feelings...

And too much of that behavior from a variety of men...there goes her self esteem...plummeting.. and once she's tasted of sex, it's hard to go back... It's a shame really. 



> *RandomDude said: * I'm an old man now and women are much smarter as they age, they look for what is considered a "REAL MAN", which a bad boy isn't. SimplyAmorous made a topic once in regards to what she regards as a real man and it encompasses both the good in both Alpha/Beta qualities and leaves out the bad.


 Ha ha...you an Old man.. I don't think so... the thread here - appreciate you mentioning it Random.. I believe there IS a real Gentleman in there ~ you continue to intrigue me:

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/mens-c...thy-praise-honor-minus-alpha-beta-debate.html



> *Faithful wife said*: But some highly sexual women will still pick the quiet guy in the corner who pings their Sex-dar. Like SA.


 You are really building me UP with some of this FW.. but I have to laugh a little.. although me & the hubby were both horny masturbating teens... we were *MORE ROMANTIC* over sexual by far back in those days... I can't say I seen him as this hot sexual being... just a nice guy...some potential there -without the glasses... he even told me he didn't even THINK of me* like that *until I started putting my hands down his pants... I remember that conversation... I looked at him & said *>>* "What the hell was wrong with you, that's not normal , wasn't I  enough?"... he explained he just REALLY wanted to get to know me... the whole magical "Love at 1st site" thing... We're not the norm... but this was before we got damaged or hurt by other lovers, one might say. 

Trying to catch up on this thread !


----------



## Faithful Wife

We aren't saying anything different, SA.

Some people, both men and women, experience their sexuality through romance.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> always...there are more posts about that topic....read them all, then you'll see what I was saying.


Yup, always a danger to talk before you get to the end of a thread. FWIW, though, I didn't get the impression that tyler's friend was even remotely good in bed -- and so am still inclined to go with the damage-dar explanation.

But maybe I missed something.


----------



## RandomDude

@FW

Confidence isn't something you learn, it's a state of mind 



SimplyAmorous said:


> Ha ha...you an Old man.. I don't think so... the thread here - appreciate you mentioning it Random.. I believe there IS a real Gentleman in there ~ you continue to intrigue me:
> 
> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/mens-c...thy-praise-honor-minus-alpha-beta-debate.html


Thanks 
And well, being an a$$hole for years loving a ghost (who she was) instead of my wife (who she became) and not to mention my less than charming attributes as a husband + seperation... has kinda opened my eyes I guess. I just hope it isn't too late


----------



## Faithful Wife

always..."I didn't get the impression that tyler's friend was even remotely good in bed."

To HIGHLY damaged AND highly sexual women, he would be.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Random...then why did you post this:

"I'm not encouraging men to become a douche, so I don't see why you disagree. I do however encourage them to see their own worth, put themselves out there, and learn how to deal with women. The three qualities that Tyler listed: 

1) Confidence..."


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SA doesn't have sex-dar. She has love-dar.


----------



## DesertRat1978

Say what you want but the last time that I was on the market, I had a much higher success rate than in the past. I had more dates, more physical interaction, more everything. The difference from the past was that I was vastly more confident and did not really go on the prowl for it. The result was getting laid quite often and not really working all that hard to get it.


----------



## RandomDude

Faithful Wife said:


> Random...then why did you post this:
> 
> "I'm not encouraging men to become a douche, so I don't see why you disagree. I do however encourage them to see their own worth, put themselves out there, and learn how to deal with women. The three qualities that Tyler listed:
> 
> 1) Confidence..."


Here is SA's definition of confidence as a quality from her thread:

"3.... Confidence – Real men are confident. Many people confuse confidence with arrogance and self-centeredness. Real men know the difference. Confidence is about being self-assured and self-aware. *Confident men have faith in their abilities and knowledge. *They don’t need to tear others down in order to build themselves up. They earn people’s trust with their radiant, inner strength. When a they walk into the room, everyone takes notice."

If you are refering to my word "learn" on my post however - I was refering to my inability to say more than two words to women before I turned 16.

Those words were:
FK OFF

:rofl:


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> Oh man...I have known so many men who chase crazy chicks and keep coming back for more...she cheats on him, robs him, but f*cks him silly and is really hot....so he's back for more time and time again.


I'm reminded of this friend of mine who was constantly after this woman who treated him like sh*t. One day he was waxing poetically about how feisty and wonderful she was because she had stabbed him in he leg. "Oh she's so amazing because she's willing to stand up to me."

WTF?

It goes on. She stripped him of cash, "made" him run errands, had him all over the place for her ---and never actually slept with him. I believe she even told him straight up that he was not her type and he would never get any. Yet he chased her for years, and ignored all other women to focus on her. 

And he's not the only guy I've seen take a ton of sh*t from women and go back for more.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Exactly, always. You get it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

tyler...nothing surprising about that at all. I'm not saying confidence isn't attractive. But I know plenty of men who are loved and cherished and sexed up by a woman or many women...and who are shy and reserved and may or may not be confident.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SimplyAmorous said:


> Sex isn't "just sex" for everyone..(but you know this)..... feelings can take over, even if we didn't want them to go there...... See I know this would happen *to me* if I slept with a man I really liked too soon.. I just know How I am... . so can you see why some of us need to wait..
> 
> I'd rather be Dumped for not putting out ...over pumped & cold shouldered dumped... then I'd know he was not THAT into me... which saves ME alot of pain....some women really should test the men, depending on what she really wants..... this girl was one of those, she gave out too soon...and got hurt....with a man who didn't return her feelings...
> 
> And too much of that behavior from a variety of men...there goes her self esteem...plummeting.. and once she's tasted of sex, it's hard to go back... It's a shame really.


Yeah... and don't get me wrong, I felt like kind of a turd, but seriously - the level of attachment was WAY too high for that early. She not only became annoying, but she totally creeped me out with the lovey dovey. That awkward feeling when someone says "I love you" too soon. ha... uh... thanks? wtf do you even say to that? That's some awkward and uncomfortable dancing.

I probably would have ended it sooner than I did but... hot girl, great sex.... Ooo decisions decisions... the flesh is weak.


----------



## RandomDude

Her: I love you!
Me: I love me too!

 lol


----------



## Caribbean Man

RandomDude said:


> @FW
> 
> Confidence isn't something you learn, it's a state of mind


Quoted For Truth.:smthumbup:

Damn , this thread has me cracking up.:rofl:


----------



## RandomDude

Aye, and it's better now without Brady talk... *touchwood* this time lol


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> I'm reminded of this friend of mine who was constantly after this woman who treated him like sh*t. One day he was waxing poetically about how feisty and wonderful she was because she had stabbed him in he leg. "Oh she's so amazing because she's willing to stand up to me."
> 
> WTF?
> 
> It goes on. She stripped him of cash, "made" him run errands, had him all over the place for her ---and never actually slept with him. I believe she even told him straight up that he was not her type and he would never get any. Yet he chased her for years, and ignored all other women to focus on her.
> 
> And he's not the only guy I've seen take a ton of sh*t from women and go back for more.



How many guys like this do you know in real life?
And what do you think they're " attracted " to in those type of women?


----------



## Faithful Wife

I know many guys like that in real life. Also many women like that. They are damaged and are attracted to other damaged people. They may or may not be highly sexual.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Well, you did ask quite a lot of questions, so there was bound to be a qualifier or two in my response ...
> 
> After all, "yes, but ..." or "no, but ..." are more satisfying conversationally than just simple yeses or no's. -- especially wih so many people and perspectives involved


I was trying to get to expand on your original point, but your offencive defence mechanisms kicked in.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That awkward feeling when someone says "I love you" too soon. ha... uh... thanks? wtf do you even say to that? That's some awkward and uncomfortable dancing.
> 
> I probably would have ended it sooner than I did but... hot girl, great sex.... Ooo decisions decisions... the flesh is weak.


Ummm, well let's see. You could have made an effort to correct her instead of letting her think you were on board with the whole lovey-dovey forever thing. You know, be honest instead of continuing to take as much advantage of the situation as possible. No wonder she was a bit confused.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> I know many guys like that in real life. Also many women like that. They are damaged and are attracted to other damaged people. They may or may not be highly sexual.


I think that's called codepency , and it's not a healthy state of mind or emotions.
Hence those situations cannot be considered in the gamut of possible combinations when analyzing attractions between the sexes, in emotionally healthy people.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Right, CM. And that is exactly what I said to tyler when he was talking about his guy friend.


----------



## Faithful Wife

My post #1140:

Again, some women are damaged and will accept crappy treatment. So are some men. There is no reason to try to make this about "women like crap treatment" because soooooo many men will chase crazy women and let them treat him like crap it is totally an equal thing between genders.

Generally people this messed up are not self-aware enough to also understand that they LIKE this treatment.

But who cares?

They do "like" it on whatever damaged level they are on, and so what if they do? 

It really has nothing to do with "women" and what kind of men they like, it only has to do with these particular damaged woman, and your friend who is likely a really good f*ck but who is also damaged.

I could come back with so many stories about the abuse men will take just to stay in the life of certain man-eating women. *That would say nothing about men in general though, just the damaged ones.*


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> My post #1140:
> 
> Again, some women are damaged and will accept crappy treatment. So are some men. There is no reason to try to make this about "women like crap treatment" because soooooo many men will chase crazy women and let them treat him like crap it is totally an equal thing between genders.
> 
> Generally people this messed up are not self-aware enough to also understand that they LIKE this treatment.
> 
> But who cares?
> 
> They do "like" it on whatever damaged level they are on, and so what if they do?
> 
> It really has nothing to do with "women" and what kind of men they like, it only has to do with these particular damaged woman, and your friend who is likely a really good f*ck but who is also damaged.
> 
> I could come back with so many stories about the abuse men will take just to stay in the life of certain man-eating women. *That would say nothing about men in general though, just the damaged ones.*



Yes I did read that post.
Just reinforced it because always_alone seemed to be placing it back into the attraction conversation / equation.
When that happens , everything tends to go around in circles with no real resolution.


----------



## RandomDude

Hmmm, I do remember some recommendations from folks here who mentioned that I should find someone without baggages like STBX. My recent/current date is currently one thus far, seemingly 'normal'. But deep down I know I will never be able to be as transparent or to relate to her as well as I was able to with STBX. Sometimes damaged people just get together because they understand each other, and that is all. STBX and I for instance never had issues for example until our interreligious crisis.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> How many guys like this do you know in real life?
> And what do you think they're " attracted " to in those type of women?


How many? I dunno if I could begin to accurately count them. I can say that this particular woman kept a string of men on her chain, and I've seen other women do that too.

I've also listened to quite a few guy friends/acquaintances complain about some "her" that was just using him for money or for errands or drives, or whatever. Some would be complaining after the fact -- that is they were sick of it and ready to walk. But a surprising amount seemed ready enough to go back for more. 

As for the why, I couldn't tell you. My one friend used to be quite the ladies man, and he gave it all up for her, and then eventually gave her up as well. Now he only has his computer screen. It's very sad, but there's no talking him out of it. I assume he's pretty damaged emotionally. Others, I'm guessing are refusing to go beyond looks, and so will chase whoever is hot and just put up with what she doles out. Maybe others just have no idea what a healthy relationship looks like, and so assume it's normal.

But I'm just speculating.


----------



## Caribbean Man

RandomDude said:


> Hmmm, I do remember some recommendations from folks here who mentioned that I should find someone without baggages like STBX. My recent/current date is currently one thus far, seemingly 'normal'. But deep down I know I will never be able to be as transparent or to relate to her as well as I was able to with STBX. *Sometimes damaged people just get together because they understand each other, and that is all. STBX and I for instance never had issues for example until our interreligious crisis.*


Are you saying that both of you were damaged?


----------



## RandomDude

Of course, we both had deep seated issues due to our pasts - hence we could relate and neither judged the other. Another reason why I am finding it very difficult to move on.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> I was trying to get to expand on your original point, but your offencive defence mechanisms kicked in.


Sorry, it's a character flaw of mine. Drives my SO crazy sometimes -- he asks me why I have to fight him all the time.

Things is, I don't really see it as fighting. Just raising different questions or trying to explain my perspectives in more detail.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Awww....maybe you two can kiss and make up??? I like you both and it makes me sad when you fight. I hide under the bed like when my parents fought.

(not really but...)


----------



## SimplyAmorous

RandomDude said:


> The three qualities that Tyler listed:
> 
> 1) Confidence
> The importance explained in this post
> 2) Bravado
> Not letting fear hold them back from what they want
> 3) Outward expression
> Now this does not mean a shy guy has to suddenly switch into a social animal, SA's husband maybe shy, but he's vulnerable and in touch with his feelings for her and knows how to express them - beta style and it works! If anything I have FAILED in my marriage because of my lack of vulnerability.


 Yes, I dearly LOVE the sensitive and vulnerable in my husband... we both give it freely.. we know we are in good hands..

He'd best be described as naturally introverted.....I was more SHY over him (in the sexual front) when we met...though outwardly more socially talkative - so we both took a different lead - one might say...to keep us entertained..and growing.... I just held the brakes and he was content with my boundaries...we still had our FUN.. and I felt very loved & respected at every turn... 



> People come on this forum after all to learn how to be a better spouse, *perhaps to be more confident, to know how to stick to their boundaries (positive alpha qualities), or to be more vulnerable, and less hardened (positive beta qualities)*.


So very true... we see much MORE talk about "manning up" / "get more Alpha" and true.....more of those men end up HERE as their wives have lost RESPECT and Attraction. 

But if I had to guess... on a balancing scale.. there are more wives here complaining they'd love more affection, better listening skills... more Romance... time spent with the family -from their men..... this is more *Beta* geared.



> *DvlsAdvc8 said*: Yeah... and don't get me wrong, I felt like kind of a turd, but seriously - the level of attachment was WAY too high for that early. She not only became annoying, but she totally creeped me out with the lovey dovey. That awkward feeling when someone says "I love you" too soon. ha... uh... thanks? wtf do you even say to that? That's some awkward and uncomfortable dancing.
> 
> I probably would have ended it sooner than I did but... hot girl, great sex.... Ooo decisions decisions... the flesh is weak.


 I am just happy to hear you felt like a turd.. ....It's not all your fault of course... we need to know our selves and what we can handle... especially when rushing before a relationship has time to develop and grow - with some of those attachment strings being felt on both sides... and defined.....

Hopefully for her, and if she was as Hot as you say...she shouldn't have had too much trouble pulling in more men, even some good Beta's who could give her all she wanted...and handle and enjoy all her loving... 



**** *A lot of "Damaged people" Talk here in the last few posts..... what Makes us Emotionally DAMAGED... I looked some of this up for discussion....



> *1*.* Rejection* - sense of being unloved, unwanted, criticized or crushed
> 
> *2.* *Parental tyranny* - loveless authority that crushes and abuses the spirit (Eph.6/4)
> 
> *3.* *Parental indifference* - producing within the child a sense of worthlessness
> 
> *4.* *Bereavement* - significant loss via death or divorce
> 
> *5*. *Physical/Sexual abuse *- painful memories that haunt the emotions & cripple life.


 WHAT ARE SOME OF THE SYMPTOMS OF DAMAGED EMOTIONS



> *1. **Defective Self-Image* - feelings of inferiority, worthlessness and inadequacy. "I'm no good"."No one could accept me or love me".
> 
> *2. * *Inappropriate Guilt *- this person is always atoning, apologizing, doing more, trying harder.
> 
> *3*. *Hyper-Sensitivity* - these people are prisoners to the opinions of others. They are often very critical by nature because that's how they defend themselves from feelings of rejection. This leads to anxiety, withdrawal, tension and depression.
> 
> *4* . *Fear of Failure* - this person has been programmed by 'significant others' to both fear and expect failure. The result is one of two extremes. Attempt everything (with the hope of getting something right). Attempt little (with the hope of getting nothing wrong).
> 
> *5.* *Dysfunctional Relationships* - damaged emotions make it difficult (impossible?) to relate to others healthily and appropriately .


----------



## Created2Write

Confidence is a great trait to have, but there are many forms of confidence. Some people are confident in their abilities in their career. Some are confident in their athleticism. Some are confident in their looks. Some are confident in who they are as a person and have great self-esteem. Some know who they are and won't apologize for it. Some are confident in their abilities to take whatever comes at them. Some people have many of these qualities, others only a couple. Some, maybe none at all. Point being, confidence is great, but not everyone has the same type of confidence. A shy, non social man can be incredibly confident in who he is. My dad was one. My mom pursued him, not vice versa. She loved his shy nature. Made him so much more interesting to her, something to "catch".


----------



## samyeagar

Created2Write said:


> Confidence is a great trait to have, but there are many forms of confidence. Some people are confident in their abilities in their career. Some are confident in their athleticism. Some are confident in their looks. Some are confident in who they are as a person and have great self-esteem. Some know who they are and won't apologize for it. Some are confident in their abilities to take whatever comes at them. Some people have many of these qualities, others only a couple. Some, maybe none at all. Point being, confidence is great, but not everyone has the same type of confidence. A shy, non social man can be incredibly confident in who he is. My dad was one. My mom pursued him, not vice versa. She loved his shy nature. Made him so much more interesting to her, something to "catch".


Often, I come off as shy at first glance, especially in social situations. I can be perfectly comfortable in a crowded room full of people and have no compulsion to mingle. I am perfectly comfortable quietly observing. THe funny thing is, in places like bars and such, I have never once bought a woman a drink, but have had many buy them for me. I guess quiet does not always come off and not confident.


----------



## Faithful Wife

sam....that's because you ping their Sex-dar.

They "see" you and "just know".


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> I think that's called codepency , and it's not a healthy state of mind or emotions.
> Hence those situations cannot be considered in the gamut of possible combinations when analyzing attractions between the sexes, in emotionally healthy people.


Is it really so black and white? Yes, some people like my friend have seemingly huge problems with intimacy and relationships. But some of us are only slightly damaged -- and some are just garden-variety neurotic. 

Just out of curiosity, how many do you think are truly emotionally healthy, with no damage at all?


----------



## WyshIknew

Faithful Wife said:


> Random said: "SA's marriage is in a clear minority, and even she admits it."
> 
> 
> It is only in the minority because most people don't get to marry their high school sweetheart and stay married to them forever.
> 
> Their sexual attraction to each other is most definitely NOT a minority.
> 
> Shy dudes can f*ck too, you know.


Yup, and amazingly well too!


----------



## DesertRat1978

I used to think of myself as damaged goods. Kind of like a piece of chewing gum. I had already been chewed up and spit out so who would someone that was tarnished and ruined. I can somewhat understand why these women would fall for him but not when they had so many better options available. They were intentionally setting themselves up for disappointment in return of what must have been great sex. 

One of these days, it would be interesting to see what would happen if he covered up all of his tattoos and piercings, wore less flashy clothing, and was quiet if he would have the same success rate.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Of course he wouldn't...he wouldn't be authentic then.


----------



## Racer

Faithful Wife said:


> Generally people this messed up are not self-aware enough to also understand that they LIKE this treatment.


And where does that place those of us who do? And it isn't so much "like" the treatment as much as it's "like" that we seem to be able to handle it. I'd liken it to someone with a very high pain tolerance taking some sort of ego boost that they didn't need the pain killers and could suck up that hurt that would bring others to their knees. Masochistic tendencies. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> **** *A lot of "Damaged people" Talk here in the last few posts..... what Makes us Emotionally DAMAGED... I looked some of this up for discussion....


I'd argue the 'parental' requirement part of that list. My parents had 18 years to mess me up and didn't. My WW had 22 years to "mold me". 



> WHAT ARE SOME OF THE SYMPTOMS OF DAMAGED EMOTIONS


Boo... I have all those.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Nutthin' wrong with being a self-aware masochist. There's a lot of them.


----------



## WyshIknew

Faithful Wife said:


> Also who is to say that these rocks stars don't rock in bed? Why would there be an assumption that he/she famous person is a crappy lover? Just because it may be a ONS with a famous (or not) person, doesn't mean the sex will be bad.


Why assume they are good in bed?

Hopefully it's not my insecure p) (before you tell me I'm insecure FW. ) and jealous side coming out but I've always assumed that when it comes easy as it does to these people there is no incentive to try.

If you have women throwing themselves at you why not just pump and dump them?

I've read stories, don't know if they are 100% true, about bands like the Rolling Stones sitting on the balcony of their hotel room choosing the teenage women below that will be allowed up to their rooms and doing that two to three times a day.

Rather like that horrible horrible old statement about going with a 'fat' 'ugly' woman because she'll be grateful as hell, but in a much much nicer manner I've read from some of the more experienced women here that they have settled down with a quiet shier man as they tend to be more considerate, try harder and can be moulded into a better lover. and, apparently, numbers are no indicator of bedroom pleasure.


----------



## Faithful Wife

It could go either way, Wysh...of course. But the other post I was responding to made no reference to the fact that it is possible some of these rock stars ARE rocks stars in bed, too. That was my only point.

Also...insecurity is not the same as jealousy, by the way.

Jealousy is normal and needed in marriage. Insecurity...that may or may not be a problem. But jealousy (in a normal natural amount) is good for marriage.

I know you aren't jealous of the Rollings Stones, though.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> *SA doesn't have sex-dar. She has love-dar.*


 I like that Devil ....

Hey FaithfulWife....I'm kinda dense at times, I read some of your blog and should have remembered this... but the head gets fuzzy...what is this "DAR" business? What does this stand for... 

I got Amorous - DAR ! I love everything about sex, I just need "the Love" and commitment to the intensity* I crave in return* to give into it... otherwise, I wouldn't feel fulfilled..it would be like hanging over a cliff to me....taking a risk I wasn't comfortable with...












> *Created2Write said: *Confidence is a great trait to have, but there are many forms of confidence. Some people are confident in their abilities in their career. Some are confident in their athleticism. Some are confident in their looks. Some are confident in who they are as a person and have great self-esteem. Some know who they are and won't apologize for it. Some are confident in their abilities to take whatever comes at them. Some people have many of these qualities, others only a couple. Some, maybe none at all. Point being, confidence is great, but not everyone has the same type of confidence. *A shy, non social man can be incredibly confident in who he is. My dad was one. My mom pursued him, not vice versa. She loved his shy nature. Made him so much more interesting to her, something to "catch"*.


 I never heard you mention your Father before, I know from your mentioning their marriage how the affection just flows from them... I love that ! 

My Jaded backwards husband did put himself out there for me -even bracing himself for rejection, he just said to himself "might as well get it over with" (what an attitude of disbelief).... and to me, that was the sweetest damn thing ever...he told me this a few yrs ago... (I really had no idea he had all that going on in his head !)... 

Love your post Created !:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: ... I find a quiet confidence very appealing in a man ...


----------



## Faithful Wife

Just a play off the word radar. Some have already coined the term gay-dar (knowing gay people by their look or vibe). I coined Sex-dar to describe the ability to "see" the sexual proclivity level or compatiblity of other people.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Ummm, well let's see. You could have made an effort to correct her instead of letting her think you were on board with the whole lovey-dovey forever thing. You know, be honest instead of continuing to take as much advantage of the situation as possible. No wonder she was a bit confused.


I was honest. I didn't say I loved her back. I gave her zero reason to be so love drunk - I expressed NONE of those feelings.

That's not taking advantage. That's hooking up with a girl and dumping her as a direct result of her crazy antics. Her actions became a huge turnoff and that killed any potential that might have been for a relationship.

I expressed zero love for the girl. The entire thing lasted about a month. She was saying "I love you" before the end of the first week - and I could feel from the day after we hooked up that she seemed "off". Weird. Something not right. I thought she was fun to be around and hot, but that immediate obsession killed it. She was downright suffocating.

You imagine some sort of magic line that determines the very moment that you break it off, and the truth is no such line exists. There is a downhill period where you start thinking about it long before you decide, "yep, this one has to go." I let her down about as easy as I could and we're still quasi-friends.

I had no reason to believe she'd be so clingy and I gave her no reason to believe talking about future plans, marriage and children were even remotely on the menu. That early, you don't even know if you want to keep someone around much less have kids with them. She was creepy and eventually creepy surpassed anything I liked about her.


----------



## Deejo

RandomDude said:


> Aye, and it's better now without Brady talk... *touchwood* this time lol


Oh here you go RD ... here's a pic from yesterday, with Tom dressed as the Cowardly Lion, and Giselle as Dorothy. Awwwww ... he is kind of dreamy.

Can say this. They love each other. She's Latin. She stands by her man. Hoping folks will agree with at least one positive, sweeping generalization.


----------



## Faithful Wife

nom nom nom....


----------



## DesertRat1978

Faithful Wife said:


> Of course he wouldn't...he wouldn't be authentic then.


Confidence comes back into the equation. If he was not so outwardly expressive, he would not be as visible. He tends to stick out like a sore thumb no matter the setting.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Ok tyler...I guess it is just that women are all very messed up and this guy is representative of how all women's attraction works. Is that what you really believe? I can't change your mind but...that really isn't what it is.

Authenticity is not the same as confidence.

If you have no confidence and you act like you do not, that is authentic.


----------



## PHTlump

Deejo said:


> Hoping folks will agree with at least one positive, sweeping generalization.


Yeah, right. NAWALT BIOTCH!!!!!


----------



## Deejo

FrenchFry said:


> Nope, can't stand by it, worked in the restaurant industry too long to not know about the meaning of "sancho."
> 
> Heh.


Hell, was worth a shot.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SimplyAmorous said:


> Hopefully for her, and if she was as Hot as you say...she shouldn't have had too much trouble pulling in more men, even some good Beta's who could give her all she wanted...and handle and enjoy all her loving...


Oh she has no trouble getting attention from guys. I don't know jack about her relationship history before or since though... we're not close, just on friendly terms.

Honestly, I don't think her way of being is healthy if she's like that with everyone. I knew her for about a week before we hooked up, and then BOOM... its like she's planning the wedding. And even my increasing disinterest didn't seem to slow that march one bit. Its as if she was totally oblivious. I didn't even pursue or initiate the sex we had beyond the first few times. She'd come to my place and practically jump me within 10 mins of sitting on the couch. I was good with that.  The turbo nuclear love obsession... that was creepy. In two weeks, I probably don't remember your middle name yet, much less love you.

No ma'am... something not right there.


----------



## DesertRat1978

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok tyler...I guess it is just that women are all very messed up and this guy is representative of how all women's attraction works. Is that what you really believe? I can't change your mind but...that really isn't what it is.
> 
> Authenticity is not the same as confidence.
> 
> If you have no confidence and you act like you do not, that is authentic.


All I am saying is that it is no coincidence that his outwardly expressive ways (regardless of whether he is pleasant or not) have such an effect. 

Earlier this year, I watched it in action. We went to a bar in utah. There were quite a few other attractive and confident men there. Some that had the same beefy, muscular physique as him. it was easy to discern that this was a meat market. The drinking was just a tool in everybody's desire to hook up. The other guys were not nearly as successful as he was. So what did he bring that they did not? Tattoos, piercings, flashy clothing, and no filter. These women had no idea if he was unpleasant or not but yet still came his way. There must be something about confidence, bravado, and being outwardly expressive that draws them in.


----------



## Faithful Wife

tyler...I have a brother who is the same way.

I do get it.

The thing is...he is damaged and the damaged ladies come running. 

That's all there is to it. But he has to be a good f*ck for them to keep coming back for it. My brother, the same.

Call it whatever you want.

It still has nothing to do with what HEALTHY women want.


----------



## Faithful Wife

This is the same brother who used to wear a shirt that said "Wine me, Dine me, 69 me".

And all the DAMAGED ladies went wild for it.


----------



## DesertRat1978

Faithful Wife said:


> This is the same brother who used to wear a shirt that said "Wine me, Dine me, 69 me".
> 
> And the ladies went wild for it.


That is the kind of shirt he wears out in public more often than not. Some of it is that it annoys other men and he likes to strut his stuff. The ladies must like when two men scuffle.


----------



## Faithful Wife

sigh...you missed my edit where I said all the DAMAGED ladies went for it.

He has never ever been in a relationship, short or long, with a non-damaged woman.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Racer said:


> I'd argue the 'parental' requirement part of that list. My parents had 18 years to mess me up and didn't. My WW had 22 years to "mold me".


 You know what is interesting to me.. MY MOTHER had a decent upbringing, but she was Naive, she didn't take life as serious...just kinda went with the flow... a little too much... not demanding what SHE wanted along that path... and others using / abusing her...this damaged HER... 

Then there was me.. I was a casualty of some of her bad choices.. a divorce ensued, nasty step Mom, didn't feel loved at home, Pi$$ed off upbringing - (having friends helped !)... but because of all that... I DID take life more seriously ....I calculated the costs to everything....tried to be very careful about my choices - having the future in mind.....I wanted the rest of my life to be something ENJOYED....I never gave up hope....I didn't want to end up like my Mother.

So It could go either way! Our kids have had it very easy..hopefully not too much so they will think Life is a bowl of cherries... We'll see how that goes.



> *WyshIknew said*:
> But in a much much nicer manner I've read from some of the more experienced women here *that they have settled down with a quiet shier man as they tend to be more considerate, try harder and can be moulded into a better lover.* and, apparently, numbers are no indicator of bedroom pleasure.


 You must have Samyeagar's story in mind...

"Married Man's sex Life Primer" talks about how the *Beta TRAIT* (as it is called) is what gives a Lover his >> *CARING about the pleasure of his partners*.....which could mean - more orgasms for her.. 

I know for me, I am very greedy here, I want mine every single time, so if I had a selfish lover who wham Bammed me, I'd probably want to rip his head off....that just wouldn't be working for me at all. 

It says ...."the man that has the patience & tactile finesse to make her orgasm very probably has the right sort of temperament to also be good with raising children".. 

But then it goes on to say....if he is lacking those Alpha traits...which could lower her interest in him....so they need to have lots of sex & orgasms for that post orgasmic glow that can last for days... this holds her interest. Something like that anyway....works for me. 



> *Faithful Wife said *: *If you have no confidence and you act like you do not, that is authentic*


 Interesting comment.....I never thought about this before... I consider my husband....back then...a quiet confidence -depending, he trusted his own abilities in what he knew he was good at....though not with girls -but he WAS ....*ALWAYS Authentic*... and to me.. this is something that can be worked with.. so long as a pity party is not going on.... and self awareness is in effect, owning our own blunders, etc.. there is always hope for the Authentic individual...

But someone who puts on a Mask... this is just another barrier to intimacy... how I view it all anyway. I try to be authentic even if it makes me look bad.. it is what it is... none of us are perfect, so it's not a big deal to admit to faults.. just makes us more relatable anyway.


----------



## DesertRat1978

Faithful Wife said:


> sigh...you missed my edit where I said all the DAMAGED ladies went for it.
> 
> He has never ever been in a relationship, short or long, with a non-damaged woman.


I do not know all of his relationships. The several that I have known were mostly damaged but not all. After being with him, they may have been damaged but I digress. His success rate has dipped a bit as he aged. Maybe older women are a bit more discerning.


----------



## WyshIknew

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok tyler...I guess it is just that women are all very messed up and this guy is representative of how all women's attraction works. Is that what you really believe? I can't change your mind but...that really isn't what it is.
> 
> Authenticity is not the same as confidence.
> 
> If you have no confidence and you act like you do not, that is authentic.


Obviously not all women, but from the sound of it this guy has something some/many women want. Whether it is the alpha or game of the threads title I don't know.

I suppose as a guy, (or gal if the situation is reversed) it is easy to think it is 'all' women if you see Mr Babe Magnet waltzing off with woman after woman.

If it's a concern the problem may be the social setting. You're in his territory perhaps, try a different social setting where you might score.

I'm also a firm believer that everyone has their day. I may have been a 'love' duffer as a young man but I'm damn sure that were I single tomorrow I'd be sex on legs out there.


----------



## ocotillo

FrenchFry said:


> Nope, can't stand by it, worked in the restaurant industry too long to not know about the meaning of "sancho."


:rofl:

Most people who've lived any length of time in a border state know that term.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Oh she has no trouble getting attention from guys. I don't know jack about her relationship history before or since though... we're not close, just on friendly terms.
> 
> Honestly, I don't think her way of being is healthy if she's like that with everyone. I knew her for about a week before we hooked up, and then BOOM... its like she's planning the wedding. And even my increasing disinterest didn't seem to slow that march one bit. Its as if she was totally oblivious. I didn't even pursue or initiate the sex we had beyond the first few times. She'd come to my place and practically jump me within 10 mins of sitting on the couch. I was good with that.  The turbo nuclear love obsession... that was creepy. In two weeks, I probably don't remember your middle name yet, much less love you.
> 
> No ma'am... something not right there.


 Just saying- although I consider myself a pathetic hopeless Romantic, I would never be like this girl.. it's sooooo against self -awareness to ASSUME SO MUCH with SO LITTLE given in return...

The best relationships always take TIME... some cultivating, watering, a decent # of arguments/ conflict resolution, many deep discussions.... Yes.. what you describe is >> Bat crazy.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Is it really so black and white? Yes, some people like my friend have seemingly huge problems with intimacy and relationships. But some of us are only slightly damaged -- and some are just garden-variety neurotic.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, how many do you think are truly emotionally healthy, with no damage at all?


Yes.

My thoughts exactly!
It is not simply black and white. So in RD's case I don't think that either he or his wife were _that_ damaged.
They probably had some emotional flaws that are common among most of us. Evidence of that is that they choose to end the relationship and move on.
But the men and women you speak of are clearly emotionally damaged, because they don't desire a higher level of intimacy, they can only function at that level.


----------



## Faithful Wife

CM, you must not know some of Random's and his wife's history? They both sound very damaged to me...not that they aren't still lovely people...but we are talking prositution, jail time, etc. Pretty damaging stuff.

I think highly damaged people can still require a high amount of intimacy though. Some can, some don't...but it isn't a foregone conclusion that they can't or won't. IMO.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Sorry, it's a character flaw of mine. Drives my SO crazy sometimes -- he asks me why I have to fight him all the time.
> 
> Things is, I don't really see it as fighting. Just raising different questions or trying to explain my perspectives in more detail.


Yes I'm familiar with that dynamic.
At one time my wife used to do the same to me, challenging every single thing and putting up defences when there was not even a declaration or hint of aggression.

I learned exactly how to disarm her defences_ before_ she even put them up.

With me all she has to do is look me in the eyes, smile and throw her arm around me and my defences are gone.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> CM, you must not know some of Random's and his wife's history? They both sound very damaged to me...not that they aren't still lovely people...but we are talking prositution, jail time, etc. Pretty damaging stuff.
> 
> I think highly damaged people can still require a high amount of intimacy though. Some can, some don't...but it isn't a foregone conclusion that they can't or won't. IMO.



Well I don't think jail time or even prostitution automatically makes a person emotionally damaged.
I know a few ex strippers who are more emotionally healthy than some
" normal " women who have never ever been in a disco.

True ,a person's history helps to shape their present outlook on issues. But that can either be in a positive or negative way.
It's up to that person to determining exactly what effect they would allow their past to have on them.

Based on what I've read from Random, seems to me that he is handling his past like a man should.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes he does seem to be a "real man"....but he also seems very self-aware about his level of damage and his ex-wife's, and how those issues play into their lives.

He is the one self-describing himself and her as damaged people. It wasn't me who said that about him...it was him.

I am just agreeing because some of their stories are pretty sad.


----------



## Created2Write

SimplyAmorous said:


> I like that Devil ....
> 
> Hey FaithfulWife....I'm kinda dense at times, I read some of your blog and should have remembered this... but the head gets fuzzy...what is this "DAR" business? What does this stand for...
> 
> I got Amorous - DAR ! I love everything about sex, I just need "the Love" and commitment to the intensity* I crave in return* to give into it... otherwise, I wouldn't feel fulfilled..it would be like hanging over a cliff to me....taking a risk I wasn't comfortable with...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never heard you mention your Father before, I know from your mentioning their marriage how the affection just flows from them... I love that !
> 
> My Jaded backwards husband did put himself out there for me -even bracing himself for rejection, he just said to himself "might as well get it over with" (what an attitude of disbelief).... and to me, that was the sweetest damn thing ever...he told me this a few yrs ago... (I really had no idea he had all that going on in his head !)...
> 
> Love your post Created !:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: ... I find a quiet confidence very appealing in a man ...


My mom was a popular young woman. He was a part of the maintenance team at her college and he despised the women there; most of them spoiled rotten who would flirt with the maintenance staff when they needed them, and then ignore them later. My dad thought my mom was the same, but she proved differently. Drew him out of his shell, got him to eat with her every day. 

Funny thing is, DH is a lot like my dad. Just more socially adept.


----------



## RandomDude

STBX and I both had issues as our pasts did shape our outlook in life in both negative and positive ways. My inability to be vulnerable and natural defence mechanisms were part of my flaws (my rollercoaster, hot and cold), her inability to accept or appreciate non-sexual affection from my part also part of her flaws for example (don't touch me if it's not sex)

Crime and prostitition were just results of our issues, issues that sure we have overcame over the years to become better people. Being married and living together really let alot of skeletons out of the closet however, as fixed as we thought we were. I don't regret what I did, she does however, but I don't really blame her. My point is that we could both relate and understand each other's issues.

We definitely weren't 'normal' people, and that's why we clicked. I find the idea of meeting a 'normal' woman rather meh compared to what I've had with my STBX. They will always judge me, STBX never did. I will never be able to be close to them like I was with STBX. Just how it is.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

RandomDude said:


> STBX and I both had issues as our pasts did shape our outlook in life in both negative and positive ways. My inability to be vulnerable and natural defence mechanisms were part of my flaws (my rollercoaster, hot and cold), her inability to accept or appreciate non-sexual affection from my part also part of her flaws for example (don't touch me if it's not sex)
> 
> *Crime and prostitition were just results of our issues, issues that sure we have overcame over the years to become better people. *Being married and living together really let alot of skeletons out of the closet however, as fixed as we thought we were. I don't regret what I did, she does however, but I don't really blame her. My point is that we could both relate and understand each other's issues.
> 
> We definitely weren't 'normal' people, and that's why we clicked. I find the idea of meeting a 'normal' woman rather meh compared to what I've had with my STBX. They will always judge me, STBX never did. I will never be able to be close to them like I was with STBX. Just how it is.


Even though I have been a "good girl" pretty much all my life...walked a pretty straight line ...compared to the norm...

In my personal view ...I've always felt (as I have met a variety of amazing people like this)....those who have walked the tougher road, been down in the dirt...Kinda like the







story...(don't kick me for that illustration )...has lived to tell....and come out of that lifestyle...pulled themselves up by their bootstraps....*these make the finest mentors our world will ever know*....to help others not make the same mistakes....because they've been there...they are relateable...and this has more power/ inspiration coming from them -over those who have not. 

We all have a story to tell....You & hers ...it's not finished yet... 
I bet this captures how you FEEL...


----------



## RandomDude

Well I can agree with that, as I have met other folks throughout my life who have been there done that - and I listened to them more than the people who I knew have never seen what I've seen. Though I'm not really much of a mentor myself. STBX wanted to be but her dreams are now rather kaput since marriage.

As for STBX and I... she's still giving me the silent treatment, so meh -> actually how I'm feeling right now is that I'm looking for a hundred more reasons to leave her to cloud out that one reason that makes me still want to fight for her! lol
I wonder what the hell she's doing but I don't know


----------



## Caribbean Man

RandomDude said:


> We definitely weren't 'normal' people, and that's why we clicked. I find the idea of meeting a 'normal' woman rather meh compared to what I've had with my STBX.


Random Dude = Drama King.:rofl:


----------



## RandomDude

What's so dramatic about that? :scratchhead:


----------



## Caribbean Man

You said :

_"..I find the idea of meeting a 'normal' woman rather meh compared to what I've had with my STBX.."_

Means that you prefer women with lots of drama, compared to 
" normal " ones. You are not afraid to take on a challenging woman.


----------



## RandomDude

Ha! Not like I really have much choice, had a discussion about it earlier on this topic:

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/general-relationship-discussion/128170-transparency-secrets.html

In the end I realised:
1) Better to be maintain honesty in relationships, no excuses
2) Even if I was to be transparent with someone else, a "normal" woman - aka, my current date, I will be seen as 'damaged goods' - I trust my instincts and I know she isn't the type of person who would think differently. STBX from day one was always a mystery, my gut was uncertain, I knew there was something there, I could sniff it, and I was right.

Despite having pulled myself out of the gutter I'm still considered 'damaged goods' not to mention if my business gets fked I'm back to square one BSing resumes to land jobs. STBX has never seen me that way, and nor me with her past. We both suffered this problem with "normal" people, hence we were close. It wasn't the issue of challenge, or that our lives were full of drama - it was an issue of being able to understand one another -> the way we could for each other.

This is why I agreed with FW when she said "damaged people" will tend to find one another. But not only was she damaged, but she demonstrated a strength of spirit having pulled herself out of her own gutter just like I have. Women like her are one in a million. 

Not just that but we've also seen each other at our worst, remember the whole V-day bondage drama? Yup, that's her demon. She tortured and broke me once but I still forgave her. She's also seen how violent I could be when pushed when my past mates disrespected our relationship when she became pregnant simply because we were an IR couple. I always knew and even come to accept the passive racism from the majority as it's part of their culture, but when the insults were directed at my child I hunted them down one by one resulting in court charges and the possibility of being sent back to jail.

(Another reason why we adopted a joint-social circle, as she warned me about my friends for a long time but I didn't listen)

The thing is; she stood by me and what I did. Sh-t like that I can't expect from "normal" women. Hence why I'm so conflicted right now when it comes to trying to move on, a drama-free life awaits me with my "normal" date, who's even Korean, so I would be free from all the interracial/interreligious crap that I put up with for the last fking 7-8 years.

But... I know she will never understand me. That's why I end up with "damaged women".


----------



## PHTlump

Faithful Wife said:


> The thing is...he is damaged and the damaged ladies come running.
> 
> That's all there is to it. But he has to be a good f*ck for them to keep coming back for it. My brother, the same.
> 
> Call it whatever you want.
> 
> It still has nothing to do with what HEALTHY women want.


Your logic appears circular. If you define damaged to mean any woman who is attracted to a dark triad personality (tyler's friend, your brother), then you can easily dismiss the appeal of the dark triad personality by insisting that only damaged women fall for it.

But I don't see any reason to define damaged in that way. At some point, we have to acknowledge that the appeal exists. In the study I linked to, the DT personality was the most appealing personality type. Should we dismiss that because your preferences differ? Or should we acknowledge that a large segment of women prefer DT personalities?


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I was honest. I didn't say I loved her back. I gave her zero reason to be so love drunk - I expressed NONE of those feelings.
> 
> That's not taking advantage.


Did you ever once sit her down and say something like:

"What is your with you? We've known each other for less than a month. You must know that is much too soon for love? We hardly know each other. I don't even know if we'd be compatible for the long term, but you are planning our future. You need to stop his because you are making me uncomfortable. And you need to stop bringing me things at work. Let's dial it back a bit, okay?"

If not, then you pretty much did take advantage *and* send her mixed signals.


----------



## RandomDude

@Always_alone

You are neglecting what he mentioned next, which I happen to agree with:



> You imagine some sort of magic line that determines the very moment that you break it off, and the truth is no such line exists. There is a downhill period where you start thinking about it long before you decide, "yep, this one has to go." I let her down about as easy as I could and we're still quasi-friends.
> 
> I had no reason to believe she'd be so clingy and I gave her no reason to believe talking about future plans, marriage and children were even remotely on the menu. That early, you don't even know if you want to keep someone around much less have kids with them. She was creepy and eventually creepy surpassed anything I liked about her.


He did sit her down and let her go after 1 month it's not like he lead her on and kept her around giving her mixed signals. I went through a similar situation with my current date and I told her where she stood after feeling rotten kissing her, but was I leading her on while I was dating her? Come on!


----------



## PHTlump

always_alone said:


> If not, then you pretty much did take advantage *and* send her mixed signals.


It makes me uncomfortable to see someone argue that a man is responsible for the voluntary actions of a grown woman. I think women are more capable than that. I think women can choose to behave however they want without claiming that a man took advantage of their uncoerced actions.


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> tyler...I have a brother who is the same way.
> 
> I do get it.
> 
> The thing is...he is damaged and the damaged ladies come running.
> 
> That's all there is to it. But he has to be a good f*ck for them to keep coming back for it. My brother, the same.
> 
> Call it whatever you want.
> 
> It still has nothing to do with what HEALTHY women want.


I find it very challenging that you actually believe this?

Are you saying that all women that are attracted to bad boys are damaged? That's a lot of women then ...

I'd describe him as what even the PUA literature calls "A natural". You don't have to be a bastard to be a natural. You just have 'It', whatever it is that people are drawn to, and get caught up in. Arguably it is by virtue of the existence of Naturals, or your language, sex-dar, or chick-dar, or dude-dar that behaviors even became observable for wannabe pickup artists to even emulate.

There are, have been, and always will be, men to whom women flock, for no rational reason. Same can be said in reverse. There are womanizers, and man-eaters. I don't believe that everyone who finds themselves enthralled by one of these creatures is somehow f*cked up. It's like moths to a flame. It's what people do. What you choose to do after you have been hurt, and discovered that there is no 'fixing them, taming them, or tying them down' says a lot about how messed up you are. But the reason they chew through partners is often because those partners don't stick around. Healthy people make mistakes and adjust. Doesn't change the fact that the person remains illogically attractive.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Random...I like extra flavor, too. I can't do bland. Need a little spice. This is because I didn't grow up around too many good examples and personally I tend toward the weird and freaky in life. My H and I also have a past, not quite like yours but...still, a past. That is part of what I love about him. Neither he nor I could be with someone who would judge our pasts, so we were both very upfront about it. Thankfully...neither of us even flinched!


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo...My brother and tyler's friend are not your average bad boy, not from his description anyway.

I've dated my share of "regular" bad boys...and they don't immediately call you a piece of **** the next day the way tyler was explaining it.

"Regular" bad boys are not in that category of complete mean bastards. Many bad boys are actually quite sweet behind closed doors...but that isn't want tyler was describing and certainly wasn't my brother.

There is a huge difference between a highly damaged man and a regular bad boy. I don't know what else to tell you.

To me it is surprising that some of you guys have this fantasy that women actually DO want to get treated like sh*t. Yes, there are self-aware masochists who do like it. And then there are very damaged women who don't like it but keep going back. But why on earth do you guys argue that healthy normal women want to be treated like tyler was describing?

Please read his description a few more times about how horrid his friend was.

And then you seem to disregard that this same thing happens in reverse, to dudes who chase femme-douche-bags.


----------



## Caribbean Man

PHTlump said:


> Your logic appears circular. If you define damaged to mean any woman who is attracted to a dark triad personality (tyler's friend, your brother), then you can easily dismiss the appeal of the dark triad personality by insisting that only damaged women fall for it.
> 
> But I don't see any reason to define damaged in that way. At some point, we have to acknowledge that the appeal exists. In the study I linked to, the DT personality was the most appealing personality type. Should we dismiss that because your preferences differ? Or should we acknowledge that a large segment of women prefer DT personalities?


This is why I held my tongue on this topic yesterday.
I think it was always_alone who hinted that there were different levels of damaged people and that we cannot all just lump them into one category because let's face it , all of us have emotional baggage.
I agreed fully with her.

I am involved to a certain degree , in prison reform and reintegration of ex prisoners ( juveniles ) in my country.

I once met the man who runs one of the largest non profit organizations in the Caribbean that deals with prison reform and rehabilitation, himself an ex prisoner who did ten years behind bars for armed robbery with violence. 
He is now a final year law student , social activist ,radio journalist ,recipient of our country's highest Medal of Honor , and a successful businessman.
How does his story fit in here?

Not long after he was released from jail , he met a woman who was a professor at on of the Caribbean's top universities , she fell for him and they quietly got married.
That was over 12 years ago . Today they are still very much married and in love with two kids in their nest.

Reality is, this man had a violent past, did a decade behind bars in a violent prison system, and straight out of prison got married to a mature woman, very stable and advanced in her life/ career path, from the top echelons of the socioeconomic rung of the ladder.
Based on their marriage, I don't think I could say that she was damaged. He was. She apparently became a stabilizing force in his life and he became extremely successful because of it.

My life was very unstable until I got together with my wife.

I also know a few other women who have had that effect on former violent men and also former " playa" type men.

Attraction is never that simple as being suggested by some here and on other threads like this.

There is an almost an infinite amount of permutations and combinations.


----------



## ocotillo

Faithful Wife said:


> To me it is highly surprising that some of you guys have this fantasy that women actually DO want to get treated like sh*t. Yes, there are self-aware masochists who do like it. And then there are very damaged women who don't like it but keep going back. But why on earth do you guys argue that healthy normal women want to be treated like tyler was describing?


I don't think it's fantasy so much as possibly misreading what we see.

Perfect example: I see a young man walk by my property from time to time. He's usually got at least one, sometimes two or three young ladies in tow. They seem very enamored with him.

I've watched this little guy grow up. Ten years or so ago, he was amusing himself by throwing rocks at horses and shooting domestic cats with an air rifle. Cats are tough creatures that don't die easily. They aren't my favorite animal, but no creature deserves to suffer like that. 

Puberty hit, his face lost its roundness and the outward cruelty got buried under a self satisfied smirk. And he became irresistible.

Maybe the source of attraction here is simply teenaged rebellion. Parents with daughters don't approve of this boy and maybe the young ladies in his orbit are too young and inexperienced to realize exactly why their fathers would like to snap his scrawny little neck.


----------



## Caribbean Man

ocotillo said:


> I don't think it's fantasy so much as possibly misreading what we see.


And also a desire to really understand why.


----------



## Faithful Wife

You are calling this kid a "bad boy"?


----------



## Faithful Wife

So you guys are baffled by the reality that many women like bad boys.

Are you also baffled by the reality that many men like bad girls? Or does that make sense to you?

And if it does make sense to you, maybe you could apply it in reverse?

I am a (reformed) bad girl. Guys have always chased me. Good boys sometimes, Nice Guys sometimes...but usually bad boys who know I am "one of them" or whatever.

Is that odd or surprising?

Does it mean men want me to treat them like crap?


----------



## Caribbean Man

I don't think that anybody is saying male or females want to be treated like crap in a relationship.
What's being discussed is exactly what causes the attraction to these types of bad boys/ girls.

And also kinda challenging your theory that " damaged" people tend to only seek out other " damaged" people for relationships.


----------



## RandomDude

Personally I reckon people should just follow SA's topic on the ideal man instead of looking up to the whole 'bad boy' thing not to mention women 25+ grow out of it. A man who isn't a p---y but he isn't an a--hole either. He can be sensitive to his wife's needs but knows how to stand his ground and maintain boundaries. 

This also reminds me of another thread - in relation to aggressive men in bed and the barrier that prevents alot of traditional gentlemanly-raised men from being what the women actually desired - to simply be 'taken', to be 'ravished' etc etc. But you don't need to be a mean bastard to do that, but it seems some men just don't have it in them for reasons I can never understand.

But why look up to this titular "alpha male bully" type of person? He gets girls? Sure but can he keep 'em once they grow out of it and starts realising they deserve better? I had plenty of NSAs but none considered me LTR material, and I gave them what they wanted with none of the consequences as I just wanted fks too.

And to conclude, sensitive Elliot 
Bedazzled - the sensitive man - YouTube


----------



## Faithful Wife

I have to make a guess that other than RD, the guys on this thread have never chased a bad girl?

Because if you have...you would then understand why some women chase bad boys.


----------



## Deejo

You're over-reaching. It's not a fantasy, and certainly not one most men want when looking for a partner. I've seen it. I'm presuming others have seen it as well. It's not something we want to emulate ... it is behavior we have observed, and shaken our heads over, wondering 'what the hell was she thinking'? In some cases it may likely have been sisters or mothers that were on the receiving end of a poor choice in men, not some woman we are attracted to and hoping she sees us for the non-d0uchebags we are. (whaddya know, we filter d0uchebag)

Nobody is arguing that healthy women like being treated like sh!t. The point being made is that FREQUENTLY, very healthy women are in fact HIGHLY attracted to men that do treat them poorly. Once again ... why else would you presume that PUA-holes even think about emulating that kind of crap?

I don't disagree with your point about damaged people, being drawn to damaged people. All you need to do is read "I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell" by Tucker Max to realize this must be the case. But even that self-proclaimed douche bag, who I want to be nothing like, gets laid by gorgeous ... and apparently severely damaged women all of the time. Hell, it's his schtick. At this point, if a woman sticks around him, he can assume she knows damn well what she's in for. 

Do you know that you are often guilty of the same behavior you accuse Dvls of? I'm not taking sides, just curious.

You state that you cannot relate to the observations of others, as you are surrounded by hyper-sexual women, and men, but you are generally dismissive of any anecdotal, or observed contributions of men wondering, "why the hell is she with THAT guy?" which has effectively been the undercurrent of this thread for quite some time.

I didn't disregard anything ... I actually acknowledged that the same happens in reverse in my post. You just chose to gloss over it.





Faithful Wife said:


> To me it is surprising that some of you guys have this fantasy that women actually DO want to get treated like sh*t. Yes, there are self-aware masochists who do like it. And then there are very damaged women who don't like it but keep going back. But why on earth do you guys argue that healthy normal women want to be treated like tyler was describing?
> 
> Please read his description a few more times about how horrid his friend was.
> 
> And then you seem to disregard that this same thing happens in reverse, to dudes who chase femme-douche-bags.


----------



## Caribbean Man

I have NEVER chased a woman in my life.

The only woman I have ever tried to convince that we should be more than just friends , was my wife.


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> I have to make a guess that other than RD, the guys on this thread have never chased a bad girl?


You'd be wrong again.


----------



## RandomDude

> It's not something we want to emulate ...


Heh it's actually quite funny to see though - based on stuff like ManhoodAcademy or something, nice guys trying to be more "alpha" heh. Truth is, bad boys can be nice, or even become nice.

But nice guys being bad... please, don't even fking try :rofl:

And this is why -> I highly recommend SA's topic.


----------



## always_alone

RandomDude said:


> He did sit her down and let her go after 1 month it's not like he lead her on and kept her around giving her mixed signals. I went through a similar situation with my current date and I told her where she stood after feeling rotten kissing her, but was I leading her on while I was dating her? Come on!


Fair enough. But he still chose to keep seeing her for a month even though he was clearly uncomfortable with her behaviour. That's mixed messages to me. How is she supposed to know she is scaring him off if he doesn't have the balls to just tell her that she's suffocating him. Honestly, is that so very hard?

And just to be clear enough for the men are always blameless crew: Yes, I agree that any woman who falls in love that quickly has some serious issues. And yes, she needs to take full responsibility for those. But come on. Is it really that hard to be honest about what you're thinking? You know you hate it when women send mixed messages, but it's okay for you to do it?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Ok Deejo...then why did YOU chase a bad girl?

That is really all I am getting at.

There is no mystery to it! Both men and women do it!

My comments about the highly damaged women and men only applied to tyler's friend and my brother, Deejo. I said that many times.


----------



## ocotillo

Faithful Wife said:


> You are calling this kid a "bad boy"?


'Bad boy' is a nebulous term without a clinical definition. I would call him a sociopath. 

I don't mean to imply that women want to be treated badly. No normal person wants that and that's not what I'm saying at all.

What I'm saying is that there is a lot of extant clinical literature in the behavioral sciences on the nature of female sexual fantasy and that a recurrent motif is a male who's cruel tendencies are reined in and tamed by his fierce love for a woman. 

This is the basis for a lot of fiction that women as a group have gobbled up. It was not men who made Anne Rice, Stephenie Meyer and Erika James bestselling authors. It was women. 

It's easy for a male to get lost in the woods here and fail to grasp the nuances of the attraction. Try to mentally put yourself in the shoes of an inexperienced teenage boy who's starting to look at the world through a man's eyes and figure out what is and is not desirable. How easy would it be to draw a completely wrong conclusion?


----------



## Deejo

RandomDude said:


> Heh it's actually quite funny to see though - based on stuff like ManhoodAcademy or something, nice guys trying to be more "alpha" heh. Truth is, bad boys can be nice, or even become nice.
> 
> But nice guys being bad... please, don't even fking try :rofl:
> 
> And this is why -> I highly recommend SA's topic.


The Manhood Academy dudes actually registered here. Pretty sure they were banned within hours.

THAT stuff, is just hateful. If that is what people want to lump into 'game', then it's no wonder they don't like it. Not my cup of joe.


----------



## Faithful Wife

And Deejo...not you in particular, but some men DO really believe that women "want to be treated like sh*t". Ok? Is that fair to say? Some men do have that fantasy...yes, because they are confused or whatever but they do believe it.

I don't get what you mean by me saying "because I have not observed it..." because I have observed every type of example that has been brought up here and was just saying the thing about highly damaged men and women about that ONE particular and extreme example.

I mean c'mon, do you think I'm saying women don't like bad boys? You are way off if you think I am saying that! I'm married to one fer crissakes.


----------



## Faithful Wife

ocotillo...Do you see the attraction to bad girls for some men?

It is the same.

It really is that simple.

Not all men are attracted to that, but many are.


----------



## Deejo

If you don't think this is funny, something is wrong with you.

Wax On, F*ck Off with Ralph Macchio from Ralph Macchio, Todd Holland, Molly Ringwald, Kevin Connolly, Pat O'Brien, Michael Lerner, Chad Carter, Funny Or Die, Chris Kula, Antonio Scarlata, June Diane Raphael, Shauna O'Toole, and Christin Troga


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Yes I'm familiar with that dynamic.
> At one time my wife used to do the same to me, challenging every single thing and putting up defences when there was not even a declaration or hint of aggression.


Thing is, my SO does this to me too, as he's also one who likes to challenge everything that I say. 

It doesn't bug me, though. Matter of fact, it's one if the things that drew me to him. 

And if asked, he would say the same about me, too, but I guess sometimes I carry it just a bit too far ..


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> And Deejo...not you in particular, but some men DO really believe that women "want to be treated like sh*t". Ok? Is that fair to say? Some men do have that fantasy...yes, because they are confused or whatever but they do believe it.
> 
> I don't get what you mean by me saying "because I have not observed it..." because I have observed every type of example that has been brought up here and was just saying the thing about highly damaged men and women about that ONE particular and extreme example.
> 
> I mean c'mon, do you think I'm saying women don't like bad boys? You are way off if you think I am saying that! I'm married to one fer crissakes.


Nah, I think we're once again caught up in the tempest of argument.

I've seen very healthy women choose men ... that were simply very bad choices. And yes, I've seen men do the same.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Is it or is it not the same Deejo or ocotillo?

Going after a bad girl is the same or not as a woman going after a bad boy?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Did you ever once sit her down and say something like:
> 
> "What is your with you? We've known each other for less than a month. You must know that is much too soon for love? We hardly know each other. I don't even know if we'd be compatible for the long term, but you are planning our future. You need to stop his because you are making me uncomfortable. And you need to stop bringing me things at work. Let's dial it back a bit, okay?"
> 
> If not, then you pretty much did take advantage *and* send her mixed signals.


In those general terms no. I responded on specific terms - usually expressing incredulity or mocking the absurdity of some of the things she said or did. Your tone is not my style in anything... I'm far more informal and unserious.

If I have to strike that serious tone, I'm out. I don't want to. Its not worth it so early in seeing someone (especially when it could barely be described as "seeing" them as opposed to just regularly f*cking). What you describe was closer to what I said when I told her I didn't want to see her anymore. I'd known her about 4 weeks by then. If I have to work on correcting someone's behavior that early on... to me that's a red flag. Its easier to find someone else than go about fixing someone's issues right off the bat (I learned the hard way).

Taking advantage? No. I stopped seeing her when I became fed up with the nonsense. Which was real a shame, because we did have such great sex, and we clicked pretty well until she went nuts.

Any time sex is mentioned the knee jerk reaction of a lot of women here is to believe some sort of abuse/using is going on. Sex is only one of a hundred elements in any relationship - and every person has a number of pros and cons. If I said I stayed a little longer than I should because she was such a wonderful person, but so aimless, sloppy and disorganized... nobody bats an eye. But if I say that I stayed a little longer than I should because we had great sex, but she was batsh*t crazy obsessed with me... I'm using her. 

Was I a bad guy? Meh. I was just a regular guy weighing pros and cons until the cons outweighed the pros. But since sex was involved... oh noes!

All of that is really beside the point I was making anyway: that some women really do get lovey retarded for a guy after sex. I'm not bragging, maybe she's like this with everyone, I don't know... but its not like I was some amazing catch for her either.


----------



## RandomDude

Deejo said:


> If you don't think this is funny, something is wrong with you.
> 
> Wax On, F*ck Off with Ralph Macchio from Ralph Macchio, Todd Holland, Molly Ringwald, Kevin Connolly, Pat O'Brien, Michael Lerner, Chad Carter, Funny Or Die, Chris Kula, Antonio Scarlata, June Diane Raphael, Shauna O'Toole, and Christin Troga


:rofl:

That is AWESOME, and EXACTLY what I'm talking about lol


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> Is it or is it not the same Deejo or ocotillo?
> 
> Going after a bad girl is the same or not as a woman going after a bad boy?


I think men struggle with women going for the bad boy, because well ... we know how it's going to go. And as callous as we may be perceived to be, we don't like seeing people get hurt, especially women. And it's frustrating in those instances where you tell a woman exactly how things are going to roll, they do ... and she's broken-hearted and incredulous. It's like tragic comedy.

As for men chasing the bad girl? We have no such sympathy. Again, jumping into the generalization pool, men are easily seen as risk takers. And we damn well know some women are risky. Those guys? We may applaud there efforts for trying, or mock them for being a naive idiot.

Remember my 6'3" handsome, dork, friend? He was notorious for chasing bad girls. The clincher was when we were at a dive bar in a nearby city and the girl who he was crazy about and wanted me to meet had a kid ... because she had sex ... once ... and got pregnant. Actually she had sex twice ... and got pregnant, but had an abortion the first time. She literally introduced my bud to her girlfriends and said, "Isn't he beautiful?"
Apparently the consensus was that he was not. She never returned his calls after that night. Although when she was dancing with another dude there, I was shaking my head, and my buddy said, "Yeah, she said they're friends, known each other since highschool. He just got out of Billerica (jail)."

This is a true story. 


Who did my buddy dump? Years later there was a brilliant, exceptional, beautiful woman that was part of our group of friends. Owned her own business. Educated, classy. She was crazy about him, and he wouldn't give her the time of day. They had sex a few times and that was it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

But you didn't actually answer the question about the attration part...the part that is the SAME that I am trying to point out to you.

Why were YOU attracted to a bad girl? Whoever she was, whatever made her "bad", whatever happened to the relationship...not really asking that. I am asking, what was the attraction?


----------



## Faithful Wife

"They had sex a few times and that was it."

No surprise there...the sex wasn't great. Some couples just don't have it going on like that.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

ocotillo said:


> What I'm saying is that there is a lot of extant clinical literature in the behavioral sciences on the nature of female sexual fantasy and that a recurrent motif is a male who's cruel tendencies are reined in and tamed by his fierce love for a woman.


This. A LOT of women have this romantic notion that they are going to be the special one that he settles down with and finally appreciates. I've always thought of this as the female equivalent of the "conquest".

In another sense, these guys signal high value. He doesn't dote, care or commit... because he doesn't have to. He always gets what he wants. Some women want to be the woman that he finally wants to commit to. Eager and excessively pleasing beta type behaviors signal desperation and give her the notion that she's not really special... he'd probably suck up to any female that gave him attention. It signals low value. Anecdotally, I associate the willingness to accept the beta-style pleasing eagerness as authentic and special with more naïve women, and the chasing of aphas with less naïve women (more experienced women if you will - these women immediately recognize a guy being nice in order to get laid). Then the apha chasers get burned by enough alpha-ish men and start accepting more beta-ish men again. But that's just my impression. Its all about feeling authentic value I think.

There's so much nuance here that attempts I've made to explain it to women often fail. They usually claim to want the beta qualities even while they only date guys on the more alpha side of the spectrum. I interpret this as wanting the alpha guy who becomes somewhat beta, JUST for them... because then, they're special.

Just as the nuance is hard to grasp for many women, "what? I don't want a jerk... you don't know what you're talking about!", it is similarly hard to grasp for many men, and that's where you get the notion that "Women want to be treated badly."

Hence, most of game is focused on showing high value, which isn't about being a d*ck... but is so much about not being over eager. Not caring if you will... but the inadequacy of language doesn't quite capture this notion, so explaining this is usually met with "that's stupid! Of course I want him to care." Nuance.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> If I have to strike that serious tone, I'm out. I don't want to. Its not worth it so early in seeing someone (especially when it could barely be described as "seeing" them as opposed to just regularly f*cking). What you describe was closer to what I said when I told her I didn't want to see her anymore. I'd known her about 4 weeks by then. If I have to work on correcting someone's behavior that early on... to me that's a red flag. Its easier to find someone else than go about fixing someone's issues right off the bat (I learned the hard way).
> 
> Taking advantage? No. I stopped seeing her when I became fed up with the nonsense. Which was real a shame, because we did have such great sex, and we clicked pretty well until she went nuts.
> 
> Any time sex is mentioned the knee jerk reaction of a lot of women here is to believe some sort of abuse/using is going on. Sex is only one of a hundred elements in any relationship - and every person has a number of pros and cons.


The tone was not what I was after, just the clear expression that what she was doing was over the top and turning you off. If you did that, then I'd agree that it's all on her. But if you're more than happy to accept gifts, go along with the sex, continue to see her without letting her know at all how you really feel, then you'd for sure be sending mixed messages.

It really isn't about the sex. It's about the messages you're sending vs how you actually feel.

As for her going nuts, a lot of women fall in love quickly, or attempt to push a relationship too fast. Have to say, I've never understood it, but I've seen many a woman do it. One date and they have a whole life planned, and are willing to twist themselves into being anything he wants to make that happen. 

Maybe some of it is about great sex,but I suspect it's deeper and more pervasive than all of that.


----------



## ocotillo

Faithful Wife said:


> Is it or is it not the same Deejo or ocotillo?
> 
> Going after a bad girl is the same or not as a woman going after a bad boy?


I honestly don't know. I was used and played a couple of times as a teenager. I didn't like it; didn't go back for more; and became distrustful of the type of female capable of pulling it off.

My sentiment is similar to what Deejo says above. I don't feel protective towards other men and don't have a huge amount of sympathy or respect for a man who repeats the same mistake over and over. On the other hand, it pisses me off to no end to see a woman taken in and used like that. Maybe it's because I had a gang of younger sisters. Maybe it's because my children were all daughters.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Ok ocotillo...it makes sense that if you have not been personally attracted to a bad girl, that you wouldn't understand why a woman would be attracted to a bad boy.


----------



## PHTlump

Faithful Wife said:


> Is it or is it not the same Deejo or ocotillo?
> 
> Going after a bad girl is the same or not as a woman going after a bad boy?


I would say no, it's not the same. Men and women are different. We think differently. We have different motivations. And we are attracted to different traits.

So, while women may be attracted to bad boys, and men may be attracted to bad girls, it is for different reasons. Hell, men and women may not even be classified as "bad" for the same reasons.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Deejo said:


> Nah, I think we're once again caught up in the tempest of argument.
> 
> I've seen very healthy women choose men ... that were simply very bad choices. And yes, I've seen men do the same.


Don't forget that there are also healthy women who pick up men that no woman in her right mind would touch with a 10 " pole,
And had successful relationships with them.


----------



## RandomDude

Who gives a sh-t anyways, women can make their own decisions. This thread has suddenly hit an unexpected note with all this "don't like to see her hurt" crap, reminds me of the discrimination that STBX and I had when we were dating, discrimination that still persists to this day just because I was this supposed "bad boy" pffft


----------



## Caribbean Man

PHTlump said:


> I would say no, it's not the same. Men and women are different. We think differently. We have different motivations. And we are attracted to different traits.
> 
> So, while women may be attracted to bad boys, and men may be attracted to bad girls, it is for different reasons. Hell, men and women may not even be classified as "bad" for the same reasons.


Excellent point.

Bad boy = guy with a 10 foot rap sheet and pending court cases. Usually a gangster.
Bad girl = simply a girl that goes against social mores. Not a criminal nor a gangster.


Men pick up bad girls because they are easy to have sex with.

Women pick up bad boys for many different reasons, including the fantasy of nurturing them into rehabilitation.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> is for a lot of fiction that women as a group have gobbled up. It was not men who made Anne Rice, Stephenie Meyer and Erika James bestselling authors. It was women.
> 
> It's easy for a male to get lost in the woods here and fail to grasp the nuances of the attraction. Try to mentally put yourself in the shoes of an inexperienced teenage boy who's starting to look at the world through a man's eyes and figure out what is and is not desirable. How easy would it be to draw a completely wrong conclusion?


Yeah, I have to admit I can't really make sense of it either, and can appreciate why some might get confused.

The swept away, ravaged, or taming of the psycho? Not for me.

But I did (and do) have a pretty strong desire for adventure, and so understand why women would be attracted to someone they think might provide excitement.

And as FW keeps pointing out, the promise of good sex is a huge draw --although honestly, I wouldn't expect it at all from a narcissistic PUA-hole, or indeed any guy who thought himself some kind of super lover or god's gift to women.


----------



## ocotillo

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok ocotillo...it makes sense that if you have not been personally attracted to a bad girl, that you wouldn't understand why a woman would be attracted to a bad boy.


Well it's not that I don't completely understand. 

My wife at one time belonged to an ultra conservative Christian sect. (Long story) This flavor of Christianity strongly frowns on beards, discourages firearm ownership, and actively preaches against marrying outside of the faith.

Yet young, unusually attractive ladies in this faith frequently marry outside of it. My wife did. When we were dating, I picked her up after her church service one day. You should have seen the looks on the faces of the older ladies when she jumped into my pickup truck. One of them actually dropped her Bible and pamphlets on the sidewalk. 

I'd be lying and fooling myself if I denied that there was some 'Bad boy' appeal going on there, even if it was relatively mild by most people's standards.


----------



## DesertRat1978

Deejo said:


> I find it very challenging that you actually believe this?
> 
> Are you saying that all women that are attracted to bad boys are damaged? That's a lot of women then ...
> 
> I'd describe him as what even the PUA literature calls "A natural". You don't have to be a bastard to be a natural. You just have 'It', whatever it is that people are drawn to, and get caught up in. Arguably it is by virtue of the existence of Naturals, or your language, sex-dar, or chick-dar, or dude-dar that behaviors even became observable for wannabe pickup artists to even emulate.
> 
> There are, have been, and always will be, men to whom women flock, for no rational reason. Same can be said in reverse. There are womanizers, and man-eaters. I don't believe that everyone who finds themselves enthralled by one of these creatures is somehow f*cked up. It's like moths to a flame. It's what people do. What you choose to do after you have been hurt, and discovered that there is no 'fixing them, taming them, or tying them down' says a lot about how messed up you are. But the reason they chew through partners is often because those partners don't stick around. Healthy people make mistakes and adjust. Doesn't change the fact that the person remains illogically attractive.


:iagree:

My point all along is that there must be something about my friend that draws them in. They come from all walks of life. His appeal is pretty widespread. It is not always the young ones, the curvy types, etc. He can be just sitting there in a bar, a gas station, a bus station, a bank, etc. and they will come up to him or at the least they actively respond to him. If he says something (flirtatious, rude, or whatever), you can tell that he has their undivided attention. There has to be something about his tattoos, piercings, leather clothing, and filter-less mouth that draws them in and makes them want to endure his terrible treatment of them. 

FW says that it is damaged people finding other damaged people. However, not all of his partners have been damaged. Some just are attracted to the "bad boy" or at least a man that is very forward and does not mince words. Anyways, I see it all the time. We have an event called Street Vibrations here. It is a celebration of the rough and tough biker culture. Just sit by and watch it. The only attraction is not the bikes.


----------



## always_alone

PHTlump said:


> So, while women may be attracted to bad boys, and men may be attracted to bad girls, it is for different reasons. Hell, men and women may not even be classified as "bad" for the same reasons.


Let's see. Women like bad boys because (we hope) they'll give us good sex. Men like bad girls because they hope to get good sex.

Where's that difference you were talking about?


----------



## RandomDude

> Some just are attracted to the "bad boy" or *at least a man that is very forward and does not mince words.*


And that's really all there is to it mate.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Ok you guys. You are right. It is a complete mystery that you will never understand, that is somehow different than the appeal a bad girl has for some men. No correlation at all.

I'll leave it to you all to try to sort it out amongst yourselves (and still never really understand it).

Meanwhile, bad girl me and bad boy hubby understand it just fine so...not a problem here.


----------



## Caribbean Man

ocotillo said:


> Well it's not that I don't completely understand.
> 
> My wife at one time belonged to an ultra conservative Christian sect. (Long story) This flavor of Christianity strongly frowns on beards, discourages firearm ownership, and actively preaches against marrying outside of the faith.
> 
> Yet young, unusually attractive ladies in this faith frequently marry outside of it. My wife did. When we were dating, I picked her up after her church service one day. You should have seen the looks on the faces of the older ladies when she jumped into my pickup truck. One of them actually dropped her Bible and pamphlets on the sidewalk.
> 
> I'd be lying and fooling myself if I denied that there was some 'Bad boy' appeal going on there, even if it was relatively mild by most people's standards.



My wife got tremendous grief from her social circles when people began to realize that we were together.
Everyone warned her and predicted that she would end up with a broken heart.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Bad boy = guy with a 10 foot rap sheet and pending court cases. Usually a gangster.
> Bad girl = simply a girl that goes against social mores. Not a criminal nor a gangster.


Pfffffffft. Don't you work in rehabilitation of juvenile prisoners?

Surely you've met a real bad girl (not just a girl who *gasp* has sex before marriage)?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Or I'll make it much easier....

Why are (some) men attracted to the bad girl in me?

Because I'm an E ticket ride.

Why am I attracted to the bad boy in my husband?

Same reason.

Not all bad boys and girls are ALSO messed up individuals who treat each other badly. For some reason, a lot of men tend to think that ALL bad boys are something similar to tyler's friend or my brother.

They are not.

Some of them are simply an E ticket ride with an edge and a motorcycle.


----------



## RandomDude

Caribbean Man said:


> My wife got tremendous grief from her social circles when people began to realize that we were together.
> Everyone warned her and predicted that she would end up with a broken heart.


IMO people should mind their own fking business when it comes to sh-t like this.


----------



## PHTlump

always_alone said:


> The tone was not what I was after, just the clear expression that what she was doing was over the top and turning you off. If you did that, then I'd agree that it's all on her. But if you're more than happy to accept gifts, go along with the sex, continue to see her without letting her know at all how you really feel, then you'd for sure be sending mixed messages.


You're saying that devls was implicitly communicating that we wanted to marry the girl he had been banging for a few weeks? Or that he should have been more clear that, after having five or six dates, he wasn't ready for marriage yet? I don't think so.

I don't remember any discussion of mixed messages when the topic was women who jump into bed naked and then half-heartedly back out of sex.


----------



## DesertRat1978

FrenchFry said:


> I think what FW is stressing is that attraction is one thing. Actively staying with a person who treats you like crap means you are damaged and have a higher likelyhood of finding the person who will treat you like crap until you fix yourself. The piercings and tattoos aren't the signifiers of this, it's a personality thing.


So, here is the scenario. We are at a bar in Utah. It is a bit out in the sticks. Lots of alpha male types at this bar. Two of them in particular look pretty similar to my friend. 5'9 or so, 250 lbs or more, very muscular, calloused hands, and so on. Something right of out of "Sons of Anarchy". The difference is that my friends is covered in tattoos and piercings, wears quite a bit of leather, and so on. Also, while not being obnoxious or loud he says what is on his mind right then and there. He is indiscriminate. The other two are getting virtually no action but yet the women flock to him. They have no idea that he treats them like crap before walking up. So what makes them approach him and not others who are similar in stature and appearance?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> But if you're more than happy to accept gifts, go along with the sex, continue to see her without letting her know at all how you really feel, then you'd for sure be sending mixed messages.
> 
> It really isn't about the sex. It's about the messages you're sending vs how you actually feel.


I'm not a "feely" guy. I'm not going to sit someone down for a feely conversation. I don't think this "feely" trait will be found in most men. Besides, its less than a month... I'm not likely to feel anything by then even if she's not crazy. Its all just attraction and fun at that stage.

Ignoring texts and never seeking contact is a pretty clear sign I'm not interested. The more she ramped up, the less interested I became.

A person would have to be downright clueless to not receive that message don't you think?



always_alone said:


> Maybe some of it is about great sex,but I suspect it's deeper and more pervasive than all of that.


I suspect there's more at play as well - nothing is all one thing, but this and a few other (even less clear cut) examples I've had lead me to believe that good sex does play a huge role in sending some women into la la land where they seemingly lose their bearing and start accepting subpar behavior and even making excuses for him.


----------



## Faithful Wife

tyler...the other guys in the bar at 250 at 5'9" is pretty freaking big (and not in the good way). How tall is your friend and what weight?


----------



## Faithful Wife

oh lord I forget how young some of you are....


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> But you didn't actually answer the question about the attration part...the part that is the SAME that I am trying to point out to you.
> 
> Why were YOU attracted to a bad girl? Whoever she was, whatever made her "bad", whatever happened to the relationship...not really asking that. I am asking, what was the attraction?


It's exciting. I've stated in another thread, that I will still choose exciting and short term over mundane, stable, and long term every time.

My most memorable was a girl that got kicked out of her house, lived with her girlfriends family, who were 'in the family', the Angiulo's. Met her friends dad, he liked me.

She ended up dumping me and going back to her boyfriend whom she left, because he beat her up. We worked together, I remember her coming in with a black eye and her saying she got in a fight with another girl. Didn't have sex. Great kisser though.

Now? I steer clear of bad girls. I'm a family man. Young kids. I would never involve myself long term, or pursue, a wild woman.

There are plenty of mild-mannered, soccer mom, closet, wild women out there. I'm pretty good at finding them.





Faithful Wife said:


> "They had sex a few times and that was it."
> 
> No surprise there...the sex wasn't great. Some couples just don't have it going on like that.


I'm not trying to trick or trap you, but are you saying that if the sex is HOT, people will stick around to be treated less than they would tolerate otherwise? 

I think she stopped pursuing because the feelings weren't reciprocal and she felt used. At least that would be my interpretation of a 'healthy' uncoupling. Had she stuck around just for booty calls and put up with him ignoring her then it becomes something else, no?


----------



## PHTlump

always_alone said:


> Let's see. Women like bad boys because (we hope) they'll give us good sex. Men like bad girls because they hope to get good sex.
> 
> Where's that difference you were talking about?


You're saying there's a correlation between a man having tattoos and a man's sexual prowess? Do you also think there's a correlation between the dark triad personality traits and good sex? Is that why women appreciate narcissistic men? Do you have any support for that assertion?


----------



## DesertRat1978

Faithful Wife said:


> tyler...the other guys in the bar at 250 at 5'9" is pretty freaking big (and not in the good way). How tall is your friend and what weight?


He is about 5'9" and somewhere around 250.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo said: "I'm not trying to trick or trap you, but are you saying that if the sex is HOT, people will stick around to be treated less than they would tolerate otherwise?"

Sometimes, yes for sure. Most women I have known who stuck around for idiot men were getting good sex (and that was all they were getting). I won't even call them bad boys, just idiots.

As for your bad girl story, that's awesome! You went for it because it was exciting! You didn't go back for more because you are healthy!

Now why can't you apply that to the choices women make? Why is it so different?


----------



## Faithful Wife

tyler...in that case, I have no clue what they are attracted to in your friend. I thought you had described him as a tall hulk before.


----------



## Deejo

FrenchFry said:


> I think what FW is stressing is that attraction is one thing. Actively staying with a person who treats you like crap means you are damaged and have a higher likelyhood of finding the person who will treat you like crap until you fix yourself. The piercings and tattoos aren't the signifiers of this, it's a personality thing.


Yup. That's what I was agreeing with. Sometimes it just takes some coaxing to get FW to agree with me. If I'm honest ... I like the disagreements.

Consensus is always nice, but I think we generally do pretty well without it as well. I don't think anyone would disagree that these conversations, and disagreements are between some pretty bright, introspective people.


----------



## RandomDude

FrenchFry said:


> I think what FW is stressing is that attraction is one thing. Actively staying with a person who treats you like crap means you are damaged and have a higher likelyhood of finding the person who will treat you like crap until you fix yourself. The piercings and tattoos aren't the signifiers of this, it's a personality thing.


A spiritual friend of mine once put this very eloquently; "You attract those with a similar energy to you" - which is the case of STBX and I, and I do agree with her in this.

What people are stressing on this topic however is the whole "alpha male" "bad boy" appeal and how it also attracts good girls. I disagree with trying to emulate it for obvious reasons, Deejo's video illustrates very well what happens when "normal" people do! And I don't think people here are trying to do that - at least I hope not! :slap:



Faithful Wife said:


> tyler...in that case, I have no clue what they are attracted to in your friend. I thought you had described him as a tall hulk before.


:rofl: FW, it's all about the height lol


----------



## Faithful Wife

I still think the same reasons make men and women both go after bad boys/girls. It is fun, it is exciting, it is risky, and (sometimes) the sex rocks.


----------



## Caribbean Man

FrenchFry said:


> You must not have the show Bad Girls Club.


Nope I have not.

But what I've seen and what I know as " bad girl" with respect to what you linked is far, far , worse.

Remember I have dealt with prison reform .
I have dealt with female prisoners. Women who are charged with murder , shooting with intent , trafficking huge amounts of drugs , really violent women. They are in the minority , but what I've noticed is that they all have a hatred of men. They are usually victims of abuse etc.

However the bad girl I'm referring too is more like this.

When I was 17 yrs old I was involved with a local Asian girl.
She was a " bad girl" in that she only dated gangster type fellers even though her family were upper class.
We were never that close, just partied a lot, had wild sex. But she reveled in drama. She was a real tease , and constant flirt. We eventually lost contact.
( lol, that was before cellphone texting and instant messaging. Jeez I feel so old!)

Years later , after I was married ,I almost ran into her , but I didn't recognize her . She had two bodyguards and drove in a convoy of SUV's.
But she was just now flirting with me !
I was puzzled , who was that woman?
Then I ran into her at a [email protected] function , and then I recognized her. We chatted a little exchanged phone # , and she disappeared.
She told me she owned a couple of stores downtown , blah, blah blah.
Couple days after she call my phone and we begin to chat.
Told me she was married and who she was married to. 
Then it all made sense. The name she called , I knew that character to be a big drug runner. But she called him by his proper name, not his street name which few people knew.
Hence the bodyguards etc.

I was struggling with my business which I had mention to her before, so now she offered to " help" obviously I knew what she wanted in return. But I value my life above everything.
I politely refused.
She called again another time and asked if we could hook up. I declined again , explained to my wife what was happening , lol, I was kinda frightened too, and changed my mobile #.

She's what I would describe as a baaaad girl.
She always had a mindset that any man she has her eyes on , she would get, and it doesn't matter if he's with another woman. That just made her more determined.
That's what I meant by drama. She loved that type of drama.
She's not a criminal , but she loves the criminal type of guys and the drama lifestyle.
She used to call herself " Queen B!tch."
Other women had some very unsavory names for her, but they all feared her.


----------



## RandomDude

Faithful Wife said:


> I still think the same reasons make men and women both go after bad boys/girls. It is fun, it is exciting, it is risky, and (sometimes) the sex rocks.


We are reaching consensus!!!!

=O

Men and women, reaching consensus... in THIS thread? Blasphemy! lol


----------



## DesertRat1978

Faithful Wife said:


> tyler...in that case, I have no clue what they are attracted to in your friend. I thought you had described him as a tall hulk before.


He does have this very undeserved strength to him. He does not work out or anything. However, he is incredibly strong. For example , our jack broke while we were changing a tire. He proceeded to lift the back end of the car while we finished the task. The car was only a Hyundai Excel but still he lifted it and was not all that winded by it. 

In conclusion, it used to make me incredibly resentful that he got so much action. As time went on, I came to the realization that I did not care so much about the quantity as I did the quality. The type of woman that I would find irresistible may be attracted to him initially but would not stick around and keep coming back. In short, he was not impeding on my pool of available partners.


----------



## Faithful Wife

RD - no, that's not what I meant dear....250 at 5'9" is quite large, my dear. QUITE large.


----------



## RandomDude

Faithful Wife said:


> RD - no, that's not what I meant dear....250 at 5'9" is quite large, my dear. QUITE large.


What's that in kg? Aussie here remember? -.-


----------



## Deejo

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I suspect there's more at play as well - nothing is all one thing, but this and a few other (even less clear cut) examples I've had lead me to believe that good sex does play a huge role in sending some women into la la land where they seemingly lose their bearing and start accepting subpar behavior and even making excuses for him.


Interesting, I asked FW about virtually this very same subject a few posts up. 

And I think ... THIS is probably what bothers people. Someone who is attracted and sticks around, despite otherwise negative appearances of the relationship.

I think a more appropriate analogy for a guy would be the woman that emasculates him ... but he can't get enough of her and he can't let go. I don't think that makes her a bad girl. My referral for this kind of woman is a succubus. And she needn't be evil. He allows her to change and or control him ... so ... she does.


----------



## DesertRat1978

Faithful Wife said:


> I still think the same reasons make men and women both go after bad boys/girls. It is fun, it is exciting, it is risky, and (sometimes) the sex rocks.


It makes me think that maybe some of his appeal is that there are fewer barriers to the end goal, sex. Usually, when you first meet someone there is this initial awkwardness and feeling each other out. With him, he just comes right out with what he thinks. He does not need alcohol to have courage. If he thinks that someone is attractive, they know it early on. So in a sense, he offers quicker gratification.


----------



## Caribbean Man

FrenchFry said:


> I don't know, I wasn't there and I don't know this dude.
> 
> But as a lady who a)treated men like crap and b) was treated like crap by men and c)got whacked upside the head into not doing these things anymore, straight up there is a huge difference between who I attracted and was attracted to while damaged and who I am and who is towards me when I'm not. It's nothing to to with my tattoos (still have) my piercings (fewer these days) or how I dress, it was like two terrible magnets pulling towards each other just because we could sense the dysfunction in each other.
> 
> Tattoos and piercings might be an outward attention grabber to widen his scope and I'm not saying the women who are initially attracted to this guy are damaged. The women who figure out his true nature independent of his outward appearance and stay there are messed up in some way, even if just for a little while.



What is your take on women who are attracted to these guys , stick around despite their character flaws and are able to work wonders on these men, and get them to turn their life around and settle down?

Edit;
I don't do too much reality TV.
Like adventure stuff like National Geographic Explorer , History Channel and Sports.
Boring , I know!


----------



## Deejo

Going to call you on this one AA.

This smells an awful lot like a double standard. 

Sounds like you are suggesting that Dvls wasn't up-front about his feelings, and she was. And that somehow one is 'better' than the other.

I'd suggest that her being up-front was a catalyst in tanking the relationship. Her declaring 'how she really felt' was what had the negative impact.

Not saying it's her fault. I'm just saying that it sounds like you are expecting an awful lot of emotional exchange in a relationship that is under 30 days old.



always_alone said:


> The tone was not what I was after, just the clear expression that what she was doing was over the top and turning you off. If you did that, then I'd agree that it's all on her. But if you're more than happy to accept gifts, go along with the sex, continue to see her without letting her know at all how you really feel, then you'd for sure be sending mixed messages.
> 
> It really isn't about the sex. It's about the messages you're sending vs how you actually feel.
> 
> As for her going nuts, a lot of women fall in love quickly, or attempt to push a relationship too fast. Have to say, I've never understood it, but I've seen many a woman do it. One date and they have a whole life planned, and are willing to twist themselves into being anything he wants to make that happen.
> 
> Maybe some of it is about great sex,but I suspect it's deeper and more pervasive than all of that.


----------



## Faithful Wife

CM said: "What is your take on women who are attracted to these guys , stick around despite their character flaws and are able to work wonders on these men, and get them to turn their life around and settle down?"

I know you asked FF not me but...

I don't actually know any couples like this.

My brother, for instance, did eventually gain some awareness and is now with a lovely woman (they are still both very damaged...but being damaged doesn't mean you aren't a nice, loving person). She didn't "tame" him....he just got old and tired.


----------



## RandomDude

tyler1978 said:


> It makes me think that maybe some of his appeal is that there are fewer barriers to the end goal, sex. Usually, when you first meet someone there is this initial awkwardness and feeling each other out. With him, he just comes right out with what he thinks. He does not need alcohol to have courage. If he thinks that someone is attractive, they know it early on. So in a sense, he offers quicker gratification.


Now you're getting it 
There's a reason why the vast majority of experiences that I had with women in my youth were NSAs


----------



## Deejo

Caribbean Man said:


> What is your take on women who are attracted to these guys , stick around despite their character flaws and are able to work wonders on these men, and get them to turn their life around and settle down?


I think this exact scenario is what many women regard as the brass ring of success. They rose to the challenge, and they won. It's like a guy staring down a lion. 

Ever see the movie, Unforgiven with Clint Eastwood? Good woman makes the scoundrel turn into a 'good man'. People love that story.


----------



## DesertRat1978

Faithful Wife said:


> CM said: "What is your take on women who are attracted to these guys , stick around despite their character flaws and are able to work wonders on these men, and get them to turn their life around and settle down?"
> 
> I know you asked FF not me but...
> 
> I don't actually know any couples like this.
> 
> My brother, for instance, did eventually gain some awareness and is now with a lovely woman (they are still both very damaged...but being damaged doesn't mean you aren't a nice, loving person). She didn't "tame" him....he just got old and tired.


I know that you will disagree but I think that some of them do want to "fix" him. It is like the man that loves fixing and restoring old cars. The most decrepit, most rusty, most neglected cars have a special place in his heart. These women see him and view him as a restoration project. They are attracted by his outward "alpha" appearance but sometimes they stick around because they want to fix him.


----------



## Faithful Wife

tyler...I'm not saying women don't want to fix men. I was just saying I have never seen a woman successfully "fix" a true bad boy. But I have seen true bad boys actually grow up and change. Similar to what FF said in the post above mine.


----------



## RandomDude

Don't know about your friend Tyler but from my experience some of my NSAs in the past did become emotionally attached. I'll let you figure out the rest.

Not really the whole "go for a bad boy and fix him" dream
It was the "I like him, no consequences when fking him... wait, what's this I'm feeling... I want him to myself" story


----------



## DesertRat1978

Faithful Wife said:


> tyler...I'm not saying women don't want to fix men. I was just saying I have never seen a woman successfully "fix" a true bad boy. But I have seen true bad boys actually grow up and change. Similar to what FF said in the post above mine.


I have no idea if he will change or if some woman will ever "fix" him. I just think that some have tried and obviously not succeeded. He is coming to visit this weekend so it will be interesting to see if anything has changed.


----------



## RandomDude

Faithful Wife said:


> tyler...I'm not saying women don't want to fix men. I was just saying I have never seen a woman successfully "fix" a true bad boy. But I have seen true bad boys actually grow up and change. Similar to what FF said in the post above mine.


Well, I did come onto this forum complaining about STBX's demands and wanting to "fix" her when all I could really do in the end was learn how to establish some boundaries. 

Maybe this whole 'wanting to fix him' thing is just a simple story of one person loving someone and wanting them to change, and that's common everywhere.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Think of that song by...who, Taylor Swift?

Where she is going on about ....

she wears short skirts
I wear t-shirts
she's cheer captain and I'm in the bleachers...

Do you guys really think it is uncommon that MEN chase bad girls too, while good women are waiting in the bleachers?

I simply don't understand why it is confusing when men do the same thing....it is quite common. I know a lot of true bad girls and they are chased constantly.


----------



## DesertRat1978

RandomDude said:


> Don't know about your friend Tyler but from my experience some of my NSAs in the past did become emotionally attached. I'll let you figure out the rest.
> 
> Not really the whole "go for a bad boy and fix him" dream
> It was the "I like him, no consequences when fking him... wait, what's this I'm feeling... I want him to myself" story


Another element of this story is that he always dumped them. They frequently wanted more but he always unceremoniously dumped them and ended if after one to two weeks. I will not delve into it too much but maybe that is a defense mechanism on his part.


----------



## DesertRat1978

Faithful Wife said:


> Think of that song by...who, Taylor Swift?
> 
> Where she is going on about ....
> 
> she wears short skirts
> I wear t-shirts
> she's cheer captain and I'm in the bleachers...
> 
> Do you guys really think it is uncommon that MEN chase bad girls too, while good women are waiting in the bleachers?
> 
> I simply don't understand why it is confusing when men do the same thing....it is quite common. I know a lot of true bad girls and they are chased constantly.


I am sure that it exists but I have little to no experience with this side of the spectrum. I had front row seats to 10 years of watching hundreds of women chase after the bad boy. The same dynamics probably come into play.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes, tyler...is the same. And it isn't confusing to me, having seen it go both ways so many times.


----------



## RandomDude

Of course he did, he wanted nothing else and so did I when emotions got involved. I did have a stream of at least 2 or more women at the same time so I wouldn't become emotionally attached in my NSA years, some became attached and I didn't like leading them on so I ended it. 

Your friend could be something else though, as everyone's different. But I don't buy the whole "good girls wanna fix bad boys" thing really, as in any relationship when emotions get involved you tend to want to make them yours and to fix the issues that prevents them from commitment/love/etc.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Can you explain your attraction to bad girls, Random?

And do you think it is different than women's attraction to bad boys?


----------



## RandomDude

Considering how I've never become emotionally involved with anyone I can't relate to - I don't exactly have a choice as I mentioned before. 

My current date who is relatively normal would have become an NSA friend by now if I wasn't still in love with STBX.



> And do you think it is different than women's attraction to bad boys?


In some regards, no, in others yes - because STBX's and I's relationship was not the only experience that I've had with women. I did attract women who were definitely not "bad", but then again my perception of the world is so screwed up I can't tell the difference sometimes.

Good/bad - its all grey for me.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Not sure if you understood the question really but that is ok.


----------



## RandomDude

Which one? I just edited - didn't see your 2nd question lol


----------



## Faithful Wife

You just didn't really explain your attraction to bad girls...all you said was "you have no choice" or something. But I was asking you to describe why you are attracted to them. I know you can also be attracted to other women (non bad girls), too. But that wasn't the question.


----------



## always_alone

PHTlump said:


> You're saying that devls was implicitly communicating that we wanted to marry the girl he had been banging for a few weeks? Or that he should have been more clear that, after having five or six dates, he wasn't ready for marriage yet? I don't think so.
> 
> I don't remember any discussion of mixed messages when the topic was women who jump into bed naked and then half-heartedly back out of sex.


I don't know for sure what Devil's should've done because I wasn't there. I was just noting that in the way he described it he didn't ever actually bother to tell her that he thought she was suffocating until he had enough and broke it off. Had he communicated, she may have actually backed off. Or not, but at least he'd have a clear conscience.

And no one disagreed with you about women sending mixed messages. We all said that women should be clear about their own boundaries and signals. This half-naked women with the half-hearted "no" is merely how you've decided to paint the picture and assume it's true of all women. In fact, I have *never* been in this situation, and am very clear with my signals. And many other women here have said the same, but of course you don't believe it because it's always the woman who is at fault for everything in your world view.


----------



## DesertRat1978

RandomDude said:


> Of course he did, he wanted nothing else and so did I when emotions got involved. I did have a stream of at least 2 or more women at the same time so I wouldn't become emotionally attached in my NSA years, some became attached and I didn't like leading them on so I ended it.
> 
> Your friend could be something else though, as everyone's different. But I don't buy the whole "good girls wanna fix bad boys" thing really, as in any relationship when emotions get involved you tend to want to make them yours and to fix the issues that prevents them from commitment/love/etc.


Just like some men are better in bed, some women make the experience better or worse. In the span of many years, I can't buy that they were all the same. At least one of them had to be of higher skill or however you want to describe it. However, he was very predictable in his disposing of them. I am not in his head but it makes me think that he did not want to get attached to them. He wanted the sex and the attention from them but for some reason was afraid of/unwilling to go further.


----------



## RandomDude

Faithful Wife said:


> You just didn't really explain your attraction to bad girls...all you said was "you have no choice" or something. But I was asking you to describe why you are attracted to them. I know you can also be attracted to other women (non bad girls), too. But that wasn't the question.


In terms of sexual attraction, I was attracted the same way as I would have been with any other "normal" girl; tits and a$$! lol

I never actively went out looking for some "bad girl", I just fked whoever I thought was fkable, and only had LTRs with psycho ones due to the fact as I mentioned before - I'm psycho too! 



tyler1978 said:


> Just like some men are better in bed, some women make the experience better or worse. In the span of many years, I can't buy that they were all the same. At least one of them had to be of higher skill or however you want to describe it. However, he was very predictable in his disposing of them. I am not in his head but it makes me think that he did not want to get attached to them. He wanted the sex and the attention from them but for some reason was afraid of/unwilling to go further.


Then he wouldn't have been any different from me back in the day - unwilling to get attached.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Ignoring texts and never seeking contact is a pretty clear sign I'm not interested. The more she ramped up, the less interested I became.
> 
> A person would have to be downright clueless to not receive that message don't you think?


Continuing to go out with her and f*cking her are pretty clear signs that you are interested, aren't they? Didn't you once tell me that your wife *should have known* that you loved and desired her because you wanted to have sex?

What's the difference here?

Men always accuse women of wanting them to be mind-readers, but they too are often guilty of the same behaviour.

And honestly, you don't have to be very "feely" to say, "hey enough with the love talk. It's too soon!"


----------



## always_alone

PHTlump said:


> You're saying there's a correlation between a man having tattoos and a man's sexual prowess? Do you also think there's a correlation between the dark triad personality traits and good sex? Is that why women appreciate narcissistic men? Do you have any support for that assertion?


No, no, no and obviously not.


----------



## RandomDude

always_alone said:


> Men always accuse women of wanting them to be mind-readers, but they too are often guilty of the same behaviour.


Say what now?


----------



## DesertRat1978

RandomDude said:


> In terms of sexual attraction, I was attracted the same way as I would have been with any other "normal" girl; tits and a$$! lol
> 
> I never actively went out looking for some "bad girl", I just fked whoever I thought was fkable, and only had LTRs with psycho ones due to the fact as I mentioned before - I'm psycho too!
> 
> 
> 
> Then he wouldn't have been any different from me back in the day - unwilling to get attached.


Now they would get attached to him. More often than not, they were not at all ready to end it after one to two weeks. I was usually at home when they would come by looking for him, the week after being dumped. I heard dozens of sob stories that were really the same. "I love him, I wish that he just knew that, I want him like no other way, I can't say why I feel like this". After hearing this, I would always stop and think to myself, "how do you fall in love with someone that within five minutes of meeting you has already called you filthy names. Someone who after one night of sex ignores you like you were an empty McDonalds drink cup on the side of the freeway". I get wanting more sex but spouting love, that is weird to me.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Women chased my brother in the same way. Many of them were meth addicts, though.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> Going to call you on this one AA.
> 
> This smells an awful lot like a double standard.
> 
> Sounds like you are suggesting that Dvls wasn't up-front about his feelings, and she was. And that somehow one is 'better' than the other.


Don't get me wrong. I agree that her "feelings" are a mine field of red flags. Anyone who would be that "in love" in so short a time is either completely inexperienced or has huge issues, or both.

I'm *not* trying to suggest that Devil's should have loved her, or been more understanding, or was somehow more "at fault" than she was.

All I'm trying to say is that his mixed messages served to encourage her behaviour and thinking --and by encouraging it when he knew it was "off", he was taking advantage of the situation.


----------



## Created2Write

always_alone said:


> Fair enough. But he still chose to keep seeing her for a month even though he was clearly uncomfortable with her behaviour. That's mixed messages to me. How is she supposed to know she is scaring him off if he doesn't have the balls to just tell her that she's suffocating him. Honestly, is that so very hard?
> 
> And just to be clear enough for the men are always blameless crew: Yes, I agree that any woman who falls in love that quickly has some serious issues. And yes, she needs to take full responsibility for those. But come on. Is it really that hard to be honest about what you're thinking? You know you hate it when women send mixed messages, but it's okay for you to do it?


The issue is that women seem to be held to more responsibility than men. Very little, if anything, the guy does that effects the woman is actually his responsibility because, of course, the woman can simply choose not to be effected.  

The men here talk about taking responsibility, but it seems that only applies to the women.


----------



## DesertRat1978

Faithful Wife said:


> Women chased my brother in the same way. Many of them were meth addicts, though.


Some of his partners were meth addicts as well. I have no idea on what percentage of them.

I get that there are some things about people that more attractive than others. I had a brief fling with a "bad girl". What attracted me was her body (44G bra size) and the challenge. She seemed to be a tough nut to crack, so to speak. I got used a bit but she was good in bed. However, i did not spout love. Maybe I am being unrealistic and expecting people to be self aware.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes tyler...I figured as such. That is why I keep trying to say that those extreme lifestyle type bad men and women are in a different category than just your average bad boy/girl.

How can a drug addict be expected to model normal behavior?


----------



## RandomDude

tyler1978 said:


> Now they would get attached to him. More often than not, they were not at all ready to end it after one to two weeks. I was usually at home when they would come by looking for him, the week after being dumped. I heard dozens of sob stories that were really the same. "I love him, I wish that he just knew that, I want him like no other way, I can't say why I feel like this". After hearing this, I would always stop and think to myself, "how do you fall in love with someone that within five minutes of meeting you has already called you filthy names. Someone who after one night of sex ignores you like you were an empty McDonalds drink cup on the side of the freeway". I get wanting more sex but spouting love, that is weird to me.


Ha! Sometimes when you push someone away they tend to want you more. It happens mate. Anyways 'filthy' can turn into flirty if said right, many couples talk dirty for a reason.


----------



## always_alone

RandomDude said:


> Say what now?


I was just making reference to the large number of posts around TAM by men complaining that women want them to read their minds -- and wishing that she would communicate what she wants more directly.

And pointing out that sometimes the shoe is on the other foot.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I'm not a "feely" guy. I'm not going to sit someone down for a feely conversation. I don't think this "feely" trait will be found in most men. Besides, its less than a month... I'm not likely to feel anything by then even if she's not crazy. Its all just attraction and fun at that stage.
> 
> Ignoring texts and never seeking contact is a pretty clear sign I'm not interested. The more she ramped up, the less interested I became.
> 
> A person would have to be downright clueless to not receive that message don't you think?
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect there's more at play as well - nothing is all one thing, but this and a few other (even less clear cut) examples I've had lead me to believe that good sex does play a huge role in sending some women into la la land where they seemingly lose their bearing and start accepting subpar behavior and even making excuses for him.


I think the point is that it's disrespectful not to be honest. You don't have to be "feely" to accurately and truthfully communicate what you're feeling. It could be as clear and straightforward as "You're moving too fast...we don't know each other well enough to plan a life together...you need to stop." Continuing to have sex, while being turned off by her behavior, implies that you're fine with what she's doing.

And it's not just about her feelings, it's about your expectations as well. A guy shouldn't be pushed out of a relationship with a woman he's attracted to. Her feelings aren't more important than your expectations, and both of you deserve to know what the other feels.


----------



## DesertRat1978

RandomDude said:


> Ha! Sometimes when you push someone away they tend to want you more. It happens mate. Anyways 'filthy' can turn into flirty if said right, many couples talk dirty for a reason.


Possibly. He was pretty harsh though. No wink, no touching, no smile. For instance, they would ask him if he wanted to go home with him and one of his replies was that, "F you, you dirty ho. I will find my own way home". I was not aware that this was a great pickup line but I am wrong.


----------



## Faithful Wife

"I was not aware that this was a great pickup line but I am wrong."

A lot of weird stuff happens when people do meth.

You honestly don't see the correlation?


----------



## PHTlump

always_alone said:


> I don't know for sure what Devil's should've done because I wasn't there. I was just noting that in the way he described it he didn't ever actually bother to tell her that he thought she was suffocating until he had enough and broke it off. Had he communicated, she may have actually backed off. Or not, but at least he'd have a clear conscience.


I think he was consistent in his communication. If he had enthusiastically pursued her for a week, then backed off for a week, that would be sending mixed messages. As it was, he never pursued her. He ranged from indifferent to reluctant.



> This half-naked women with the half-hearted "no" is merely how you've decided to paint the picture and assume it's true of all women. In fact, I have *never* been in this situation, and am very clear with my signals. And many other women here have said the same, but of course you don't believe it because it's always the woman who is at fault for everything in your world view.


Yes, yes, NAWALT. However, that specific scenario was no invention of mine. It was taken from a random poster on a PUA forum asking how to get a reluctant, half-naked woman to change her mind. That's why we got into it. And I never claimed that ALL women are like that. But, that's a convenient straw man if your favorite debating tactic is to shout NAWALT.


----------



## DesertRat1978

Faithful Wife said:


> "I was not aware that this was a great pickup line but I am wrong."
> 
> A lot of weird stuff happens when people do meth.
> 
> You honestly don't see the correlation?


He, himself, has never been a meth addict and only some of his partners were. His drug of choice is whiskey. In the past, marijuana and the hallucingenics have came into play. What about the ones that were perfectly sober?


----------



## RandomDude

always_alone said:


> I was just making reference to the large number of posts around TAM by men complaining that women want them to read their minds -- and wishing that she would communicate what she wants more directly.
> 
> And pointing out that sometimes the shoe is on the other foot.


Personally I, for one, don't expect everyone to be brutally honesty and many times I understand why the woman finds it difficult to find out how to break it out to a man that she's not simply interested. 

The posts made by men in regards to them being led on on this forum I've noticed are in the extent of being lead on for YEARS, having being married for YEARS only to have to find out she never loved him anyway, telling him she loves him but yet doesn't. 

Dvls had this girl for FOUR WEEKS and never told her "I love you", and has given her clear signs to cool down her jets otherwise it was to be over but she didn't get it so in the end he did end it. So give the poor man a break I say


----------



## Faithful Wife

How do you know they were perfectly sober? Do you know if they were recovering addicts? How would you know for sure?


----------



## Deejo

Created2Write said:


> The men here talk about taking responsibility, but it seems that only applies to the women.


I just don't see that. If anything, there are judgements being made about the timeframe of taking responsibility.

Someone ... sometimes both people, get hurt when there's a breakup. Sometimes one party is heartbroken and the other feels overwhelming relief. Sometimes it's simply 'meh' on both parts.

Nobody here is trying to put more onus on women, or duck responsibility. If anything in the case of both sexes, it's a simple equation; you make your bed, you lay in it.

Sometimes it's neat, orderly and tidy.

Sometimes it's a mess and covered with body fluids.

Both happen. One isn't better than the other; at least not in my opinion. 

The dude that some woman thinks is cool and interesting and exciting, odds are another woman thinks is a selfish, cruel, self-serving pr!ck.

Again, it's about perspective. And neither of them may be wrong.


----------



## always_alone

tyler1978 said:


> Possibly. He was pretty harsh though. No wink, no touching, no smile. For instance, they would ask him if he wanted to go home with him and one of his replies was that, "F you, you dirty ho. I will find my own way home". I was not aware that this was a great pickup line but I am wrong.


This just screams damaged. Not anything I'd want to be a part of or jealous of from either side, man or woman.


----------



## DesertRat1978

Faithful Wife said:


> How do you know they were perfectly sober? Do you know if they were recovering addicts? How would you know for sure?


As I have written before, they would come by the house and want him. Instead they would find me and then feel this strange need to confide in me. I got to know some of them quite well. Some claimed to never have taken a single drug or ever drank a drop of alcohol. I have no way to confirm this or not. However, some of them had high paying jobs in banks and government. It's possible that they were addicts or recovering addicts or simply that they were lying.


----------



## RandomDude

tyler1978 said:


> Possibly. He was pretty harsh though. No wink, no touching, no smile. For instance, they would ask him if he wanted to go home with him and one of his replies was that, "F you, you dirty ho. I will find my own way home". I was not aware that this was a great pickup line but I am wrong.


Reminds me in my youth when I told women to get fked but they came after me anyway. I didn't fk 'em though, not until 16. I didn't know how to deal with women. I was a kid, and so were the other girls. So meh.

It could be validation perhaps? Wanting someone you can't have? The challenge? In truth I like a bit of hard to get myself.


----------



## PHTlump

Created2Write said:


> I think the point is that it's disrespectful not to be honest. You don't have to be "feely" to accurately and truthfully communicate what you're feeling. It could be as clear and straightforward as "You're moving too fast...we don't know each other well enough to plan a life together...you need to stop." Continuing to have sex, while being turned off by her behavior, implies that you're fine with what she's doing.


What you're suggesting is a covert contract. I am generally against covert contracts. The first 30 days of a relationship is, frankly, too early for contracts.

I completely agree that husbands and wives, or singles in long-term relationships owe it to each other to be honest and clear with their thoughts, feelings, hopes, dreams, future plans, and everything else. But to suggest that any person who chooses to have sex with another person now has a right, or expectation, to honest and open communication is just silly. Those kinds of expectations come from intimacy, not sex. There is a difference.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Ok Random...would you say/assume that the women who go after you are highly sexual women in general?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Deejo said:


> Going to call you on this one AA.
> 
> This smells an awful lot like a double standard.
> 
> Sounds like you are suggesting that Dvls wasn't up-front about his feelings, and she was. And that somehow one is 'better' than the other.
> 
> I'd suggest that her being up-front was a catalyst in tanking the relationship. Her declaring 'how she really felt' was what had the negative impact.
> 
> Not saying it's her fault. I'm just saying that it sounds like you are expecting an awful lot of emotional exchange in a relationship that is under 30 days old.


Exactly. Its not necessarily even gender specific. When a guy gets this way too soon some people refer to it as sprung. I can't tell you how many stories I've heard from friends about how they were "too into her" and she pulled a rabbit. Guys have a different shade of this same phenomenon.

I think the only relationships that continue to develop are those where both people's emotional interest escalates in tandem.


----------



## RandomDude

Yes

And why do you ask...?


----------



## RandomDude

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Exactly. Its not necessarily even gender specific. When a guy gets this way too soon some people refer to it as sprung. I can't tell you how many stories I've heard from friends about how they were "too into her" and she pulled a rabbit. Guys have a different shade of this same phenomenon.
> 
> I think the only relationships that continue to develop are those where both people's emotional interest escalates in tandem.


Women sure like to pick on you mate :rofl:


----------



## always_alone

PHTlump said:


> He ranged from indifferent to reluctant.


Yes, because we all know that for men sex is absolutely no indicator of interest. Not a sign of love, desire, interest, nothing.

Please make sure to tell this to the guys on the other threads who are desperately wondering why their wives are so misguided as to think sex is not a sign of their love. They won't listen to me.



PHTlump said:


> Yes, yes, NAWALT. However, that specific scenario was no invention of mine. It was taken from a random poster on a PUA forum asking how to get a reluctant, half-naked woman to change her mind. That's why we got into it. And I never claimed that ALL women are like that. But, that's a convenient straw man if your favorite debating tactic is to shout NAWALT.


You may not have invented it, but you're sure sticking to it. And you added in the nice touch about her half-hearted no's. Because to you, of course, it's all too obvious that she never drew a line, never said that she just wanted to make out and not have full on sex, and couldn't possibly mean that she didn't want her panties ripped off. 

You are always throwing your NAWALT expression around like it means something, but the only reason you get these is because you are so insistent that on your ludicrous generalizations despite a complete lack of evidence to support them.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Random...great, thank you. Why do I ask? Because part of my point is that highly sexual agressive women are the ones who are going after you...and there is a reason for that. It is called Sex-dar.

The thing is, there are highly sexual agressive women who go after all different types of men, not just bad boys.

I would consider SA to be a highly sexual agressive woman...even though she is a good girl and married a good man.

What we are seeing when a man draws in women is, in many cases, just ESP's (extremely sexual people) finding each other in the wild.

People watching this happen are many times confused by it because they can't see the same thing that two ESP's are seeing in each other.

This doesn't mean that all ESP's are attracted to each other. Hence, SA will not be attracte to a bad boy.


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> Think of that song by...who, Taylor Swift?
> 
> Where she is going on about ....
> 
> she wears short skirts
> I wear t-shirts
> she's cheer captain and I'm in the bleachers...
> 
> Do you guys really think it is uncommon that MEN chase bad girls too, while good women are waiting in the bleachers?
> 
> I simply don't understand why it is confusing when men do the same thing....it is quite common. I know a lot of true bad girls and they are chased constantly.


It's not confusing. We just regard it differently.

Oh ... Taylor Swift on the flipside:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNoKguSdy4Y


----------



## RandomDude

How about the highly sexual men who are perfect gentleman but have difficulties with women? Why aren't they being picked up on women's sex-dar? Are they on stealth mode?

I would say yup - get out of stealth mode and to put themselves out there!  And that's all I'm saying -> as I mentioned before I disagree with the whole "alpha male" crap, and prefer SA's list of qualities, which does include putting oneself out there.


----------



## DesertRat1978

RandomDude said:


> Reminds me in my youth when I told women to get fked but they came after me anyway. I didn't fk 'em though, not until 16. I didn't know how to deal with women. I was a kid, and so were the other girls. So meh.
> 
> It could be validation perhaps? Wanting someone you can't have? The challenge? In truth I like a bit of hard to get myself.


It's possible that he poses a challenge unlike most guys who would have an instant hard on if these women approached them. Does not come off as desperate or needy. 

I understand that part of it. I posted before but I had a fling where that was one of the things that attracted me. She was attractive and all but she was not an easy one to solve. She was the boss lady who never had a boyfriend and never seemed to show any interest in anyone.


----------



## Faithful Wife

"How about the highly sexual men who are perfect gentleman but have difficulties with women?"

Never met one. The ones I know are happily hitched, have girlfriends, or have lots of bed partners.


----------



## PHTlump

always_alone said:


> Yes, because we all know that for men sex is absolutely no indicator of interest. Not a sign of love, desire, interest, nothing.
> 
> Please make sure to tell this to the guys on the other threads who are desperately wondering why their wives are so misguided as to think sex is not a sign of their love. They won't listen to me.


Nice try. See, sex is an activity that can be conditional. In a marriage, it can be an activity to express intimacy and bond couples together. Between strangers, it's rarely seen as anything more than physical pleasure. Most people get that.

We could compare sex to conversations. Let's assume you enjoy talking to your husband. It's one of your love languages. It brings you closer together. It enhances your intimacy. Does that mean that every person you have a conversation with is someone you're in love with? I wouldn't think so. Even though the action is the same, there is a clear difference.



> And you added in the nice touch about her half-hearted no's. Because to you, of course, it's all too obvious that she never drew a line, never said that she just wanted to make out and not have full on sex, and couldn't possibly mean that she didn't want her panties ripped off.


Oh Christ, we get to go through this again. :slap:

I am simply acknowledging that she is sending mixed messages. Getting topless is a positive signal. Saying you want to wait is a negative signal.

And you seem to forget that I never defended the tactic of charging ahead and ignoring her statements to stop. And neither did most of the PUA forum posters. My preferred course of action was to hold in place, work on turning her on more, and get her to change her mind.



> You are always throwing your NAWALT expression around like it means something, but the only reason you get these is because you are so insistent that on your ludicrous generalizations despite a complete lack of evidence to support them.


Wrong. The only reason that NAWALT is so appropriate is your insistence that any statement I make must apply to ALL women, or NONE of the men. Of course, I never state that I am referring to ALL or NONE of anything. You just like your favorite trick of using straw men.

Let me know if you ever come up with another trick.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo said: "It's not confusing. We just regard it differently."

Why do you regard it differently?

It isn't different.


----------



## ocotillo

Faithful Wife said:


> The thing is, there are highly sexual agressive women who go after all different types of men, not just bad boys.
> 
> I would consider SA to be a highly sexual agressive woman...even though she is a good girl and married a good man.
> 
> What we are seeing when a man draws in women is, in many cases, just ESP's (extremely sexual people) finding each other in the wild.
> 
> People watching this happen are many times confused by it because they can't see the same thing that two ESP's are seeing in each other.
> 
> This doesn't mean that all ESP's are attracted to each other. Hence, SA will not be attracte to a bad boy.



I appreciate your insights FW, but sometimes I feel like a turtle trying to keep up with a bird.

Is what you're calling 'Sexdar' fundamentally different than what other people call 'Good chemistry'?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes...it is different. Highly sexual people tend to "see" other highly sexual people...then they approach each other....but from that point forward, they may or may not have chemistry. If not, usually highly sexual people do not feel rejected. They tend to understand that if you just aren't into each other, it isn't personal.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Exactly. Its not necessarily even gender specific. When a guy gets this way too soon some people refer to it as sprung. I can't tell you how many stories I've heard from friends about how they were "too into her" and she pulled a rabbit.


I've had a couple of guys get too serious too soon, so I know it can happen. Here's how it went down.

Guy: I love you
Me: no you don't. That's ridiculous. How long have we known each other?
Guy: long enough 
Me: nowhere near long enough, so stop it.

How hard is that?


----------



## Faithful Wife

I personally think that if your goal is NSA sex, you both need to be honest about it upfront.


----------



## always_alone

PHTlump said:


> I am simply acknowledging that she is sending mixed messages. Getting topless is a positive signal. Saying you want to wait is a negative signal.


In fact you *insisted* that she was sending mixed signals and refuse to consider the possibility that she wasn't, and was pssobly very clear about how naked she wanted to be. And now you absolutely refuse to consider the possibility that a man might send mixed signals. Because everyone knows that wanting sex is, I mean is not, a sign of interest.

I see this as a blatant double standard, but I'm sure you'll find some way to throw NAWALT at me again.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

FrenchFry said:


> I don't think a good person can turn around a bad person.


Count me as an example of a man who was made better by a woman.

My ex-wife was the prototypical good girl. I was trouble when we met. Partying, drinking, lsd, pot, molly, fighting, I'd been arrested before, and I hung out with other sketchy people looking for trouble. There was a lot of duality to me. On one hand, I was a pretty nice guy... a geek even, an excellent artist, big into deep conversations, interested in everything, and sailing through school with no effort... and on the other hand I pushed every limit I could find and kinda wanted to burn the world down. Rules didn't apply to me. I'd talk my way out of everything and I didn't care about anything. I was an angry teenager who became an angry marine and my thinking was very much along the lines of done unto others before they do unto you. I pretty much saw the world as a really sh*tty place full of sh*tty people and I was just going to get mine.

I saw her as kind of like a clean slate... innocent and naive, yet accepting and non-judgmental, in a way that really appealed to me. Something about her just made me totally trust her... like she didn't have an evil fiber in her entire body. In a world full of sh*tty people, it was like wandering through the desert and finding water.

She got a lot dirtier and I got a lot cleaner. I was infinitely more mentally healthy. She didn't make me a better person, she made me want to be a better person, and I became one.

My bad behavior at the very end of our marriage was sort of rationalized by what I thought of as a sort of betrayal on her part. I gave her everything she wanted and she left me in the mud. In my mind, the only person I'd ever fully trusted still screwed me. What followed was a personality explosion as the guy I was before we met found his way back out with a big fat "I told you there are no good people." What started with a long silent depression turned into burning everything down before I realized I was out of control, couldn't get my head straight, and I needed a therapist (no small step for me... borderline humiliating honestly).


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> Originally Posted by *Caribbean Man*
> My wife got tremendous grief from her social circles when people began to realize that we were together.
> Everyone warned her and predicted that she would end up with a broken heart.





> *Random Dude said: **IMO people should mind their own fking business when it comes to sh-t like this*.


Awe now that is a little harsh Random Dude...remember this when your daughter drags home one *just like YOU* in your youth......you condemn some grief when you'll be sitting there shining your rifle... realize those friends of CB's "not yet to be" wife - had similar concerns...for her welfare... their intentions were about HER.. not him. 

Good girl here (but not in the sense I had no fiestiness, lacking some "attitude" or was a bore).....

I would have warned her about HIM too... but ya know what.. She was a smart woman....she Tested him to see what he was made of... and he passed.. If I was her friend... I would have suggested* the same thing she chose to do*...if she really wanted him - this to guard her heart. ... He proved he was in it for the long haul... Good for them both, it's one story on TAM I highly praise. 

Now had she randomly hooked up & had sex quickly with  over there or even YOU Random Dude before you met your STBX....yeah....just how do you think that would have went... all her friends would have been right on the damn money. 

I prefer tipped Beta men...yes, I am a broken record on this... shut me up somebody! But even I can understand why Women are attracted to Bad Boys.. I always love them in the movies... . especially when they show some sensitive side they haven't yet tapped into , us women eat that up... and Rock stars are notoriously BAD..and they are very very HOT.

But I know the movies are just that... a little fantasy....

In this way, I always put reason before my Lusts...I KNEW they would NOT be good for me...in a variety of ways or could provide me with what I deeply craved...like a Beta male could...and I don't feel that makes them of Lessor value...

.... that is if you capture the heart of 1 Beta male - and he feels you are apple of his eye. My Beta wasn't eager for all the girls... very few as a matter of fact... so I didn't feel lessor ( much of this talk coming from ) ...so my point is.. not all Beta males are salivating for any female that looks their direction.. he wasn't like this at all...but very choosy. This is true of our 1st son as well.


----------



## PHTlump

always_alone said:


> In fact you *insisted* that she was sending mixed signals and refuse to consider the possibility that she wasn't, and was pssobly very clear about how naked she wanted to be.


Of course the signals were mixed. Unless you want to claim that getting topless is a negative signal.



> And now you absolutely refuse to consider the possibility that a man might send mixed signals. Because everyone knows that wanting sex is, I mean is not, a sign of interest.


I'm not refusing to consider the possibility. I even gave an explicit example that would be a man sending mixed signals. Funny how you missed that. I'm just stating that, in dvl's case, he wasn't sending mixed signals.

I'm simply stating the obvious, which is that a man banging a woman he's known for a very short while is not a sign of commitment, love, or anything more than a simple acknowledgment that he finds her sexy.



> I see this as a blatant double standard, but I'm sure you'll find some way to throw NAWALT at me again.


Well, not this time. You managed to make it through an entire post without constructing a straw man by falsely claiming I used the words ALL or NONE. Congratulations.


----------



## PHTlump

always_alone said:


> I've had a couple of guys get too serious too soon, so I know it can happen. Here's how it went down.
> 
> Guy: I love you
> Me: no you don't. That's ridiculous. How long have we known each other?
> Guy: long enough
> Me: nowhere near long enough, so stop it.
> 
> How hard is that?


I've had it happen too. This is how it went down.

Girl: I love you.
Me: Thanks.

You're saying that's too complicated for the average woman to decipher? My one word answer carried the implications of marriage, kids, and a lifetime together? Please.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> I've had a couple of guys get too serious too soon, so I know it can happen. Here's how it went down.
> 
> Guy: I love you
> Me: no you don't. That's ridiculous. How long have we known each other?
> Guy: long enough
> Me: nowhere near long enough, so stop it.
> 
> How hard is that?


That's pretty much what I did by mocking and making light of it. Do you just want to paint me as abusing her?

It would go more like this:

Her: "I love you"
Me: "You're so retarded, no you don't. " (mocking deflection)
Her:  <3 [kiss] [ring] (emoticons)
Her: [humping gif]
Her: [sparkly hearts pic]
Her: "I can't wait to see you!!!!"
-hour later-
Her: "I got you something."
Me: "lol You're crazy. Don't do that... I told you I'm not big on gifts."
Her: "Oh I know, but its cheap, just a little something I know you'd like."
Her: "What you doing?"
Her: "Let's do that thing again."
Her: "I can't wait to give you this!!"
(so on and so forth)

Then she'd show up at my door uninvited with her gift... we'd sit on the couch for a few and then she'd start undoing my pants.

The problem is that at first, this is kinda awesome and maybe even flattering while totally weird. A couple weeks of this and you're downright sick of it, but the sex is still totally awesome and you're conflicted. Another week of it and you're so sick of it you'll forgo the sex just to end the constant annoyance and negative feelings. This is the breakup point.

Telling someone who just randomly showed up at your door again that you don't want to see them anymore because they're way over the top, while knowing that every time she shows up you get laid, is not by any means an easy thing.


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> Deejo said: "It's not confusing. We just regard it differently."
> 
> Why do you regard it differently?
> 
> It isn't different.


Cripes, I can't keep up with this thread.

I don't think the actual dynamic is different. I just think it is regarded differently by the sexes. My perception is that if a woman is treated poorly by a man, most people will feel sympathetic towards her and angry at the guy.

In the case of a guy chasing a bad girl, we just think he's an idiot. I (me, specifically, don't know how others feel)generally don't hold the woman accountable for the guy being a sucker.



Deejo said:


> I think men struggle with women going for the bad boy, because well ... we know how it's going to go. And as callous as we may be perceived to be, we don't like seeing people get hurt, especially women. And it's frustrating in those instances where you tell a woman exactly how things are going to roll, they do ... and she's broken-hearted and incredulous. It's like tragic comedy.
> 
> As for men chasing the bad girl? We have no such sympathy. Again, jumping into the generalization pool, men are easily seen as risk takers. And we damn well know some women are risky. Those guys? We may applaud there efforts for trying, or mock them for being a naive idiot.


----------



## Faithful Wife

So the actual dynamic isn't different...yet you (and others) keep asking what the attraction is to bad boys?


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Telling someone who just randomly showed up at your door again that you don't want to see them anymore because they're way over the top, while knowing that every time she shows up you get laid, is not by any means an easy thing.


Ah yes, the poor, helpless man card.

"Oh dearie, my, whatever could I do? She was willing to have *sex*. Clearly I had no choices or responsibilities of my own."


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

On that other topic, I don't know any guys who chase bad girls personally. We chase hot girls... doesn't matter if they're bad or not. And there's two kinds of bad... bad as in dirty or risk taking, and bad as in causes trouble (criminal, violent, starting drama, trash etc). I'm confident no guy actively seeks the real bad girl. We all have a weakness however, for the sexy dirty bad girl, which to be honest, isn't "bad" at all. Its just less socially accepted behavior for a woman.

Do women see this distinction in men? Some women think I'm a bad guy solely because I'm flirtatious, have tats, like to party and do wheelies on a motorcycle. I don't think I'm a bad guy though.


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> So the actual dynamic isn't different...yet you (and others) keep asking what the attraction is to bad boys?


I picture you asking this question while seductively and devilishly biting your pinky finger ... don't ask me why.

No. I totally get the attraction. PHT has mentioned it, but we haven't focused on 'it'. The Dark Triad stuff, narcissism, machiavellianism, and just being crazier than a sh!t-house-rat with no legs.

There is a difference between discovering your guy is dark triad, such as Tyler's friend, versus fun-loving and exciting Sex God, like your husband.
The only way you find out which one you've got ... is by jumping into the deep end with them, and at first it seems like a blast. All's good. Then ... the other stuff starts to happen. Tyler's buddy treats you like sh!t. You didn't expect that. He's fun and exciting so you let it go, or, you b!tch to Tyler wondering why his friend 'needs to be like that', but you aren't ready to cut loose.

I saw this with a VERY successful and beautiful executive that I dated about a year ago. Her ex was a clinical narcissist. They had been divorced for eight years. He still enjoyed nothing more, than inflicting pain on her. Even using their 8 year old daughter as a pawn to do so.

He was of course remarried. Found someone else and remarried almost immediately.

Narcissists have NO problems attracting partners. People are drawn to them, and oddly, that is exactly what they require.

Both types pull the opposite sex like crazy. There doesn't seem to be any rational explanation. Thus why this thread is hundreds of pages long. We like exploring the irrational. Doesn't mean we don't recognize it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

So is the attraction to bad girls about a dark triad in women?


----------



## RandomDude

SimplyAmorous said:


> Awe now that is a little harsh Random Dude...remember this when your daughter drags home one *just like YOU* in your youth......you condemn some grief when you'll be sitting there shining your rifle... realize those friends of CB's "not yet to be" wife - had similar concerns...for her welfare... their intentions were about HER.. not him.


Sorry SA, it just hit a sour note tis all. I'll still strangle the first bf she brings home though, just out of principle, just to show him I mean business.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Also I disagree with this: "There is a difference between discovering your guy is dark triad, such as Tyler's friend, versus fun-loving and exciting Sex God, like your husband.
The only way you find out which one you've got ... is by jumping into the deep end with them, and at first it seems like a blast."

I have no problem knowing the difference without jumping in the deep end.


----------



## always_alone

PHTlump said:


> I'm simply stating the obvious, which is that a man banging a woman he's known for a very short while is not a sign of commitment, love, or anything more than a simple acknowledgment that he finds her sexy.


Well, yes, it is obvious, and we women quickly learn that men, no matter what they say and do, care little for women and just want to bang us. This is exactly why some of us make this assumptions about all guys, and then even carry it into our marriages. Because it is made so amply clear, constantly and consistently.


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> Ah yes, the poor, helpless man card.
> 
> "Oh dearie, my, whatever could I do? She was willing to have *sex*. Clearly I had no choices or responsibilities of my own."


Well ... no. Not if it's obvious she wants to have sex, and I want to have sex too. 

It feels like you are attaching the sexual aspect of this as almost predatory. 

As I've said, even in this thread, if she makes it obvious that she wants to have sex, I presume it's because she wants to have sex, not because she believes that in the doing she locks me in as a soul-mate. Were that the case, I'd submit, that makes her predatory.

Responsibility is a two way street, and I think it's always going to be colored by the perception of who is looking at it, and what their own experience has been.

Respectfully, you are VERY wary of men. I don't feel the need to fight you or challenge you on that. 

I just don't think that sexual dynamics always come from a nefarious place. Although without a doubt, depending upon whom is telling the story, it can certainly appear that way.


----------



## always_alone

PHTlump said:


> I've had it happen too. This is how it went down.
> 
> Girl: I love you.
> Me: Thanks.
> 
> You're saying that's too complicated for the average woman to decipher? My one word answer carried the implications of marriage, kids, and a lifetime together? Please.


You are asking her to read your mind and see that you are saying, "I don't care a whit for you, but I'll keep my mouth shut so I can keep banging your pretty a$$ a little while longer."

No of course your one word answers doesn't convey any implications of love, commitment or anything BUT that you have heard what she's said and you are accepting it without objection. Which, if you actually do object, is a lie.


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> I have no problem knowing the difference without jumping in the deep end.


Well, yeah ... I know, you know.

But Taylor Swift doesn't ... or she does and she expresses it pretty well in "I Knew You Were Trouble". 

And neither do many other 'healthy' women.

Everybody wants a bite of forbidden fruit. Sometimes it's sweet and delicious. Other times you take that bite and then realize it's rotten.

Man, I love analogies.


----------



## Faithful Wife

So again...when men are attracted to bad girls...is it due to a dark triad in women?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Ah yes, the poor, helpless man card.
> 
> "Oh dearie, my, whatever could I do? She was willing to have *sex*. Clearly I had no choices or responsibilities of my own."


Is it really any different than breaking up with someone who has a nonsexual quality you love and another quality that you want to breakup with them over? You're a machine though right... you suffer from no inner conflict of wants.

You're so hung up about sex its mind blowing. I can not even remotely relate.

You know something cool though? I can break up with someone or not breakup with someone at any point I desire to entirely within my right and without being dishonest. Its really awesome. The only thing that matters is whether I think her pros are greater than her cons. But if her pro was GREAT sex... oh noes! Its not like I deceived her to become lovey crazy.

I broke up with her rather than having sex and you still criticize me. lol :smthumbup:


----------



## DesertRat1978

Faithful Wife said:


> So again...when men are attracted to bad girls...is it due to a dark triad in women?


possibly. That woman that I had the fling with (that I spoke of in the other thread) had some of these dark triad qualities. She had attitude, a bit rough on the edges, and so on. Besides physical qualities, she was a challenge. She was kind of like the Kat Stratford character on the movie, "10 Things that I Hate about you".


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> You are asking her to read your mind and see that you are saying, "I don't care a whit for you, but I'll keep my mouth shut so I can keep banging your pretty a$$ a little while longer."
> 
> No of course your one word answers doesn't convey any implications of love, commitment or anything BUT that you have heard what she's said and *you are accepting it without objection*. Which, if you actually do object, is a lie.


Here's where you go wrong. "You're retarded" is an objection to someone telling you they love you, no?

I gave TONS of such objections and making fun of her professions of love. I did everything short of say, "bish, you cray-cray... we don't love dem hoes." I didn't do so in a mature adult way because it was a few week relationship. If its that serious a problem that soon the relationship needs to go. By the time it was that serious, I got serious: I dumped her. There is no way to put a positive spin on "you are crazy for falling in love so early and being so obsessive. I do not love you." That's a relationship ender right there. If she doesn't get the humor, mocks and disinterest as a clue to dial it down, then its over.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Ok cool, tyler. 

So then...it is no mystery why women go for bad boys, right?

Same reason men go for bad girls.

Is the mystery finally solved now?


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> So is the attraction to bad girls about a dark triad in women?


Sure. As long as she's hot.

The something that sparks that crazy attraction is the ephemeral St. Elmo's Fire.

We know it when we see it, but you can't just bottle it or put in a box.

Yet, we all know it's common. Everybody loves a trainwreck. Hell even here on this site, whose goal is to promote healthy, loving, marriages, nobody wants to hear the boring great stuff. People love the drama ... and the trolls.

Bad boys and bad girls go together like politicians and prostitutes. It's a time honored tradition.

A Timeline of Politicians and Prostitutes - US News and World Report


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> Responsibility is a two way street, and I think it's always going to be colored by the perception of who is looking at it, and what their own experience has been.
> 
> Respectfully, you are VERY wary of men. I don't feel the need to fight you or challenge you on that.
> 
> I just don't think that sexual dynamics always come from a nefarious place. Although without a doubt, depending upon whom is telling the story, it can certainly appear that way.


I hear ya. I really do. It just seems to me that we've made such a huge point of calling out women for mixed signals and expecting men to read their minds, but somehow assume that men's messages are always crystal clear, as they never lie, send mixed messages, or take advantage. 

We can all see that Devil's date had a series of issues, and no one is saying that she didn't want sex or to be with him. But responsibility is a two-way street, so why is it that he doesn't have any. Even if he had to pay the price by having her go all fatal attraction on him, it would all be her fault, never his.

Why is that?


----------



## DesertRat1978

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok cool, tyler.
> 
> So then...it is no mystery why women go for bad boys, right?
> 
> Same reason men go for bad girls.
> 
> Is the mystery finally solved now?


I started posting about the females flocking to my friend. I made no assumptions about the other side of it. The title of the thread does talk about alpha male so I was just staying on topic. My quandary is why women tell you to treat them with respect but then were treated like dirt and kept coming back. However, we have beat that one to death.


----------



## ocotillo

Faithful Wife said:


> So again...when men are attracted to bad girls...is it due to a dark triad in women?



I guess it depends on what the term means. If 'bad girl' includes the notion of unashamedly enjoying sex and rejecting the sexual repression inflicted upon 'good girls' by conservative American morality, religion and other factors then the attraction is obvious and not necessarily a bad thing in the real sense.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Right, Deejo.

So again....why do men wonder why women go for bad boys?

There's no mystery, right?


----------



## Faithful Wife

tyler said: "My quandary is why women tell you to treat them with respect but then were treated like dirt and kept coming back."

But why ask this question without just answering with "but men do it, too".

My point is that for some reason, a lot of men seem to think that there is some reason specific to WOMEN that cause them to want bad treatment, chase bad boys, etc.

I have seen men do the same, so there's no mystery, there's no "one gender does it but the other doesn't". Right?


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> Right, Deejo.
> 
> So again....why do men wonder why women go for bad boys?
> 
> There's no mystery, right?


There is no mystery. Other than accepting it often looks like one.


----------



## Faithful Wife

And it looks like a mystery when a good man chases a bad girl, too.

Outsiders can't see what two people see in each other.

Why would they even try?


----------



## DesertRat1978

Faithful Wife said:


> Right, Deejo.
> 
> So again....why do men wonder why women go for bad boys?
> 
> There's no mystery, right?


A bit of an epiphany but not really. His tattoos, piercings, and confidence are the same as her large breasts, feisty and unapologetic attitude, and bizaare but revealing clothing choices.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Thank you tyler...yep.


----------



## DesertRat1978

Faithful Wife said:


> Thank you tyler...yep.


She had a way of attracting the men. She always had the attitude that she was not interested so go fly a kite. There was no man that was going to get in her way. They would flirt and she would shoot them down. I never flirted. I just treated her like anyone else. That must have been how I cracked the code, so to speak.


----------



## Faithful Wife

There ya go, not so mysterious, eh?


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I broke up with her rather than having sex and you still criticize me. lol :smthumbup:


You misunderstand me. Now that I know more of the story, I'm more inclined to say that you did make efforts to dial her back and weren't encouraging her. I would've been more direct, myself, but that's me.

What really gets under my skin has little to do with sex itself, and very much to do with the apparent justifications of really crappy behaviour in the name of sex.

There's been less of it on this thread than some others I've been on, but I still let it get to me. My bad. Maybe, I'll take that as my cue.


----------



## DesertRat1978

Faithful Wife said:


> There ya go, not so mysterious, eh?


Some people (men and women) try to say that the confident, alpha male types do not attract women with any more success than anybody else. I was arguing that they do. My friend as one example. As for her, most of the men at that job would have welcomed a chance with her but most of them had been shot down before. Which then makes me wonder why if men are supposedly more sexual (which they are not but still...) they would let her rejections slow them down.

Anyways, her attractiveness to men is pretty much equivalent as his attractiveness to women.


----------



## Faithful Wife

tyler said: "Some people (men and women) try to say that the confident, alpha male types do not attract women with any more success than anybody else."

No, what people say is that they (alpha jerks) only attract certain types of women, not ALL women. Some people (mostly men) want to say that ALL women are attracted to that type, and most certainly NOT ALL women are.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

tyler1978 said:


> She had a way of attracting the men. She always had the attitude that she was not interested so go fly a kite. There was no man that was going to get in her way. They would flirt and she would shoot them down.


Bad girl? Pffffft, that's an alpha woman with game.


----------



## RandomDude

tyler1978 said:


> Some people (men and women) try to say that the confident, alpha male types do not attract women with any more success than anybody else. I was arguing that they do. My friend as one example. As for her, most of the men at that job would have welcomed a chance with her but most of them had been shot down before. Which then makes me wonder why if men are supposedly more sexual (which they are not but still...) they would let her rejections slow them down.
> 
> Anyways, her attractiveness to men is pretty much equivalent as his attractiveness to women.




And I'm arguing that you don't need to be this "alpha male" but still be confident, secure, etc etc and that's enough to land p---y. And as for the woman you described - if she has backbone, I want. But not all men want that either.


----------



## DesertRat1978

RandomDude said:


> And I'm arguing that you don't need to be this "alpha male" but still be confident, secure, etc etc and that's enough to land p---y. And as for the woman you described - if she has backbone, I want. But not all men want that either.


She had backbone for sure. That confident almost arrogant way of her made the men drool. She was very well endowed but honestly I think that was more sprinkles on the cake. She would wear clothing that was a bit revealing (not too much) and acted like she could not care less whether you thought she was hot or not.


----------



## WyshIknew

RandomDude said:


> And I'm arguing that you don't need to be this "alpha male" but still be confident, secure, etc etc and that's enough to land p---y. And as for the woman you described - if she has backbone, I want. But not all men want that either.


Yep, one of 'those' guys will always attract women.

But does it really matter if you fill your bucket from a pond or a lake?

Unless you're completely hideous there are women out there who will like you. The trick is finding the right ones.


----------



## RandomDude

tyler1978 said:


> She had backbone for sure. That confident almost arrogant way of her made the men drool. She was very well endowed but honestly I think that was more sprinkles on the cake. She would wear clothing that was a bit revealing (not too much) and *acted like she could not care less whether you thought she was hot or not.*


Security = Turn on


----------



## Faithful Wife

YES WYSH....exactly.

It is annoying that there is a whole slew of "literature" out there that would try to teach men that there is "something wrong with women - - they go for bad boys, clearly this is a mental problem" and blah blah blah. Then they "teach" you how to emulate "bad boys". 

The real thing is...there is no gender difference there. You could just study up on normal human behavior and see it isn't JUST women doing this.

Men who want to believe that ONLY women do this and it is some pathological reason that men do not also possess...this is just bullcrap. Men and women both do it.

AND...the bad boys and girls only appeal to SOME people, not all.

Yet the men who read such "literature" want to believe that the bad boy appeals to ALL women...she doesn't know what she wants...she says one thing and wants another so give it to her good, etc.

It is complete nonsense.

It goes both ways.

Plenty of men and women are attracted to ALL types. Even the "hideous" ones.

So now we come back to "be yourself"....the advice that all readers of that "literature" will tell you is the worst advice ever.


----------



## WyshIknew

Faithful Wife said:


> YES WYSH....exactly.
> 
> It is annoying that there is a whole slew of "literature" out there that would try to teach men that there is "something wrong with women - - they go for bad boys, clearly this is a mental problem" and blah blah blah. Then they "teach" you how to emulate "bad boys".
> 
> The real thing is...there is no gender difference there. You could just study up on normal human behavior and see it isn't JUST women doing this.
> 
> Men who want to believe that ONLY women do this and it is some pathological reason that men do not also possess...this is just bullcrap. Men and women both do it.
> 
> AND...the bad boys and girls only appeal to SOME people, not all.
> 
> Yet the men who read such "literature" want to believe that the bad boy appeals to ALL women...she doesn't know what she wants...she says one thing and wants another so give it to her good, etc.
> 
> It is complete nonsense.
> 
> It goes both ways.
> 
> Plenty of men and women are attracted to ALL types. Even the "hideous" ones.
> 
> So now we come back to "be yourself"....the advice that all readers of that "literature" will tell you is the worst advice ever.


Well obviously the swotty studious nerd of my teens/early twenties wasn't a good 'myself' for attracting women.

But the mature, laid back, confident Wysh of the last 15/20 years is a different kettle of fish.


----------



## RandomDude

> So now we come back to "be yourself"....the advice that all readers of that "literature" will tell you is the worst advice ever.


Three words to those authors and their followers:


----------



## Faithful Wife

Wysh said: "*Well obviously the swotty studious nerd of my teens/early twenties wasn't a good 'myself' for attracting women*."



So the other part of this is that people don't seem to take "luck" into consideration in the equation.

Maybe it wasn't your nerd qualities that is at fault here?

Maybe the "right girls" who like your flavor just weren't in any of your classes?

Maybe a nerdy girl, too shy to even speak to you, was in love with you from across a room all during school?

Maybe you went to a really small school without many prospects?

Maybe there was a higher, more important reason that you didn't meet anyone until your wife (if you believe in that kind of thing)?

Maybe the girls you were hot for simply weren't hot for you...there is nothing wrong with that...but maybe there were girls you would not have given time to who WERE hot for you?

We seem to only have really hard feelings about it when someone WE thought was hot rejects us, or if we don't have a line waiting outside our door. But why do we not feel bad for those WE reject? Why are they not in our equation, yet we expect sympathy for being rejected by others?

It is a much bigger picture than most people assume. Much more in play than just "the bad boys get all the ladies".


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Think you're an alpha male and got game? Read this*



Faithful Wife said:


> So now we come back to "be yourself"....the advice that all readers of that "literature" will tell you is the worst advice ever.


Unless 'being yourself' means you are consistently dateless. I prefer be a better version of yourself. Know what you want and work at it. Just like anything else in life. You may make some interesting discoveries.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes, I get that part, Deejo. Self-improvement is always good.


----------



## DesertRat1978

In my early 20's, my friend would have 50 partners in a year and i would get 0. Some of that was his confident ways. Some of it was that I was too busy being pissed off to attract anyone. He would treat them poorly and get laid. I would be absolutely venomous to them at work and yet I got not a sniff. There had to be a reason.

I get that he was a challenge to the ladies and I was just unpleasant. There has to be some truth to the idea that confidence attracts the women.


----------



## Faithful Wife

What is sad to me, tyler, is that you STILL seem pissed off about it and you STILL want to believe there is some reason you will be able to pin point, discover, identify, and categorize...and that this reason has something to do with "oh women be crazee and don't know what they want".


----------



## RandomDude

Cause its just not you mate.


----------



## DesertRat1978

Faithful Wife said:


> What is sad to me, tyler, is that you STILL seem pissed off about it and you STILL want to believe there is some reason you will be able to pin point, discover, identify, and categorize...and that this reason has something to do with "oh women be crazee and don't know what they want".


Oh, I used to be pissed about it but have got over it. When I was out on the market last time, I had no problem with the ladies. I may not have been as prolific as he was but I was by no means lacking in that dept. just so it makes sense, this time was in the late 20's and early 30's whereas as my time living with him was between 20 and 26. 

My point in bringing up that last post was that we both acted unpleasant to the women but he had confidence where I did not. His confidence and bravado were part of the disparity between the two of us. If one had approached me at this time, I would have been about the same as the Raj character from Big Bang Theory.


----------



## Caribbean Man

RandomDude said:


> Women sure like to pick on you mate :rofl:


lol,
Every man worth his salt knows that , that^^^ too is a form of attraction.


----------



## Created2Write

PHTlump said:


> What you're suggesting is a covert contract. I am generally against covert contracts. The first 30 days of a relationship is, frankly, too early for contracts.
> 
> I completely agree that husbands and wives, or singles in long-term relationships owe it to each other to be honest and clear with their thoughts, feelings, hopes, dreams, future plans, and everything else. But to suggest that any person who chooses to have sex with another person now has a right, or expectation, to honest and open communication is just silly. Those kinds of expectations come from intimacy, not sex. There is a difference.


They were in a relationship. It was a ONS or just casual sex, because he broke up with her. Relationships require communication. I'm not talking about a contract or whatever other labels you like to put on everything; I'm talking about being honest. Plain and simple.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Exactly. Its not necessarily even gender specific. When a guy gets this way too soon some people refer to it as sprung. I can't tell you how many stories I've heard from friends about how they were "too into her" and she pulled a rabbit. Guys have a different shade of this same phenomenon.
> 
> I think the only relationships that continue to develop are those where both people's emotional interest escalates in tandem.


So instead she should have withheld her true feelings? Pretend she felt less than she did? No consequences there.


----------



## Caribbean Man

WyshIknew said:


> Yep, one of 'those' guys will always attract women.
> 
> But does it really matter if you fill your bucket from a pond or a lake?
> 
> Unless you're completely hideous there are women out there who will like you. The trick is finding the right ones.


From my experience, from what I have seen with my own eyes,

Any man could have any woman he wants.


----------



## DesertRat1978

Faithful Wife said:


> What is sad to me, tyler, is that you STILL seem pissed off about it and you STILL want to believe there is some reason you will be able to pin point, discover, identify, and categorize...and that this reason has something to do with "oh women be crazee and don't know what they want".


Ok, here is an example. He was the confident lion walking around doing his thing. He was unpleasant but confident. While I was the wolverine acting like I was being backed into a corner. Not confident and very defensive. It is no wonder that I did not attract anybody or even perceive that anybody was attracted. I get that he was a challenge to the ladies but he had confidence.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> I personally think that if your goal is NSA sex, you both need to be honest about it upfront.


Exactly. It's really not complicated.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes...it is different. Highly sexual people tend to "see" other highly sexual people...then they approach each other....but from that point forward, they may or may not have chemistry. If not, usually highly sexual people do not feel rejected. They tend to understand that if you just aren't into each other, it isn't personal.


I keep seeing you repeating this on this thread and others, and I don't know that it is 100% correct.

In my experience any person could be a very highly sexual person.
Sometimes it takes being with the correct partner they feel comfortable enough with to express themselves in that way.
Sometimes they don't even know how to express themselves naturally, ut once they get with a person they feel comfortable enough with, the open up with ease.

I think most people's sexuality is connected to the other parts of their being. Intellect , Emotional , Spiritual , Physical and Social. Sometimes it takes a complete alignment of the planets for them to experss their sexuality in a way that is considered highly sexual.

Other people can compartmentalize / isolate it and pursue guilt free sexual pleasure , sometimes at the expense of the other areas of their inner being.


----------



## Faithful Wife

That is just the difference between self-aware and not-so-self-aware.

Still highly sexual, just maybe not as self-aware...some are and some aren't. For some, it takes the right partner to "unlock" them.

Usually though by the time we are adults, dating, have had a few relationships...ESP's are pretty aware.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Being highly sexual doesn't imply pursuing guilt-free pleasure, CM.

Like SA...she is highly sexual, but it doesn't over-take her desire to be a good woman and wife...while it DOES make her want to have sex with her H all the time.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I have been highly sexual since childhood.

Clearly I could not also be self-aware on an adult level at that time...yet there is no time in my life, even pre-puberty, that I was not highly sexual.


----------



## DesertRat1978

FrenchFry said:


> I get that he was confident...
> 
> but he also wanted an unhealthy dynamic with women and found women who were willing to play into that.
> 
> I'm guessing you didn't really want that dynamic, so you didn't put on false confidence.


I sure did not.

Later on in life, I found my confidence and it has paid dividends in all aspects of life not just with the ladies. However, it is a quiet and humble confidence. I do not need attention to feel good about myself like he does.


----------



## Faithful Wife

tyler: "However, it is a quiet and humble confidence. I do not need attention to feel good about myself like he does."

So how do you think they realize there is something about you worth knowing?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> That is just the difference between self-aware and not-so-self-aware.
> 
> Still highly sexual, just maybe not as self-aware...some are and some aren't. For some, it takes the right partner to "unlock" them.
> 
> Usually though by the time we are adults, dating, have had a few relationships...ESP's are pretty aware.


I need some clarity.
When you use the term "self aware " , do you mean like self actualization , a person understanding their purpose of existence and pursuing a higher path of understanding in life ?

Have you ever seen the movie Eat , Pray , Love , starring Julia Roberts?


----------



## Faithful Wife

It is a complicated topic. I tried writing a blog post about it...and it ended up taking two posts to explain it. Too much for here.


----------



## DesertRat1978

Faithful Wife said:


> tyler: "However, it is a quiet and humble confidence. I do not need attention to feel good about myself like he does."
> 
> So how do you think they realize there is something about you worth knowing?


I honestly do not have that answer. However, I noticed a profound difference in how the ladies and those around me related to me once I got my confidence. My three years on the market before my current wife were not a time of celibacy whereas between ages 19-26, I had sex maybe 10 times in total.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Just as I thought....Sex-dar.


----------



## Deejo

Created2Write said:


> Exactly. It's really not complicated.


This is going to sound crass, and I don't mean it to be. I mean no disrespect whatsover. Quite the opposite.

You if I understand correctly, have a sample of one. I'm not mocking that. Given what I know of you, and your relationship with your husband, I think that is wonderful. Truly. You both sound like great people.

But trust me, it's ALWAYS complicated. Even when we don't want it to be.

Most people that choose to have sex, do not know each other inside and out. Arguably, they don't need to. They just need to agree that they are going to be naked. Add emotions that nobody planned on, into the equation and it gets funky, fast, as is easily demonstrated on this thread.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> It is a complicated topic. I tried writing a blog post about it...and it ended up taking two posts to explain it. Too much for here.


Well that's why I have my doubts.

Here's a diagram of Maslow's hierarchy of needs or needs.



As you can see, self awareness or self actualization is at the very top. That's the journey of a lifetime. Many people never get to that spot, simply because other basic needs are not met.

What I'm trying to figure out in your theory is if the sexual part of a person is separate or not connected to these other needs.


----------



## DesertRat1978

I definitely noticed a difference when I had that fling with the boss lady. I never flirted. I never made any advances. Nada. I just went about work as if she was not there. Just doing my thing. Not coming off as desperate or needy was the answer. This six month adventure would never have happened had i not been confident or would have came at her with my tongue on the ground like the others.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Please....please don't bash me (anyone) for doing this...please just ignore it if you don't want to read it...please.

CM: I honestly can't boil it down it a yes or no...best I can do is say, in some people they are connected...in other people their sexual self-awareness is a separate thing. 

Here are the blog posts (again...please no one bash me, thank you)

I Married a Sex God: 23. Sexual Self-Awareness, part 1

I Married a Sex God: 24. Sexual Self-Awareness, part 2


----------



## Caribbean Man

Deejo said:


> This is going to sound crass, and I don't mean it to be. I mean no disrespect whatsover. Quite the opposite.
> 
> You if I understand correctly, have a sample of one. I'm not mocking that. Given what I know of you, and your relationship with your husband, I think that is wonderful. Truly. You both sound like great people.
> 
> But trust me, it's ALWAYS complicated. Even when we don't want it to be.
> 
> *Most people that choose to have sex, do not know each other inside and out. Arguably, they don't need to. They just need to agree that they are going to be naked. Add emotions that nobody planned on, into the equation and it gets funky, fast, as is easily demonstrated on this thread.*


I basically said the same thing somewhere during the first 20 pages of this thread.
We are physical beings. All that is really needed to have heterosexual sex is a vagina , a functional penis, and the visceral desire to have sex.

Social constructivism makes that difficult for obvious reasons. Population and disease control being one of them.

Add unresolved , mixed up feelings , emotional baggage to the mixture and voila!
Accusations begin to fly.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> CM: I honestly can't boil it down it a yes or no...best I can do is say, in some people they are connected...in other people their sexual self-awareness is a separate thing.



Well looks like we're going in circles here, because I started off by saying that based on your theory ,some people are able to separate sex from their other needs, they can isolate and compartmentalize. 

What I meant is ,to them their need for sexual gratification is higher than their need for intimacy or any other need. Simply put they can only find real intimacy through sex. after that everything else either falls into place, or some sort of rationalization takes place.

You are saying that such people are more " self aware " and are able to identify others like themselves, without much effort.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I know highly sexual people who need and require high amounts of intimacy...and others who do not...both are sexually-self-aware.

Some highly sexually self-aware people only hit it and run...or are swingers and swap wives...or are in monogamous marriages.

Sexual self-awareness is more a matter of understanding your own personal sexuality, what you like and do not like, what you are capable of, what you aspire to, and the lack of insecurity surrounding these things you know about yourself. You accept and love your own sexuality and you act in accordance with what you know about yourself.

Some people are in varying stages of sexual self-discovery.

It may or may not involve intimacy, depends on the person.

For myself, part of my self-awareness includes knowing that sex with monogamy and close intimacy are better for me...they are "what I want and need in order to be fulfilled".


----------



## ReformedHubby

Caribbean Man said:


> From my experience, from what I have seen with my own eyes,
> 
> Any man could have any woman he wants.


Really? I wouldn't go this far. I think a lot of men go through life never realizing their potential as far as game is concerned. But I'd stop short at saying any man can have any woman he wants. There are just too many variables.


----------



## Caribbean Man

ReformedHubby said:


> Really? I wouldn't go this far. I think a lot of men go through life never realizing their potential as far as game is concerned. But I'd stop short at saying any man can have any woman he wants. There are just too many variables.


Meant in the same context as ;
" _Any man can be anything he wants._"
There are also many variables in there.

But men generally limit themselves , again because of social constructs. They want to be seen as 
" good and decent " men.
The reality is that women wan sex just as much as men do.

Ok.
Like my name suggests , I live in the Caribbean.
I was born on a Tourist resort destination. Beautiful island with beaches, hotels everything.
You know in others vacation resorts like Thailand and so on men go there to have sex with the women. Its called sex tourism.

Well the on the island I was born it's the other way around. Filthy rich women come to have no strings attached sex with men. They buy these men expensive gifts and goive them casj " donations." They take these men to the finest restaurants , best island clubs etc, whilst they're on vacation. These men become their " date" whenever they're on the island. These women sometimes tell their other friends when they return about how they " got their groove on ", pass on the guy's name and their friends come looking for him, when the tour the Caribbean.
Ever since I was a little boy growing up I've been seeing this happening.
These guys are pretty normal guys, not rich, just young and physically well built.
Good looks are optional.

On the Island i now live, there is a yearly , huge , island wide carnival.
Pretty much the same thing happens. Lots of visitors come in by the hundreds of thousands to party and have a good time. 
Lots of young , adventurous women , mostly in their 20's come to " have fun." Part of that fun is hooking up with local men for sex and partying. These men don't need game or anything to pick up any of these blondes with blue eyes.
They came here for fun.
Nothing to it. Just walk up to them , be polite , chit chat , give off a good island vibe and voila!
You just made a new " friend" for the Carnival season.
It's not complicated.

But this is not the same in every situation, I'm just giving an extreme example. But there's an underlying principle.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo said: "Most people that choose to have sex, do not know each other inside and out. Arguably, they don't need to. They just need to agree that they are going to be naked. Add emotions that nobody planned on, into the equation and it gets funky, fast, as is easily demonstrated on this thread."

(which was in response to Created about a comment on being honest re: NSA sex)

Deejo, I have to slightly disagree and just point out what I meant by the thing created responded to...see, the thing is, there is no reason NOT to be upfront with an intended sex partner and say "Look, we might want to get it on here, but I am in no way looking for a relationship...I might not even call you tomorrow or ever again...that isn't why I am here tonight, even if we have the best sex ever in our lives. Are we still good going forward then?"

THAT would be full disclosure and honesty.

But many people would much rather sort of hold that fact close to their chests. They might even try the old "well, I might end up liking her and dating her so..."

That is still misleading and dishonest, IMO.

If the intention is NSA sex, it should be stated openly.

Even if that wasn't the intention and sex is about to "just happen" naturally....it should still be said out loud "you know hey... I realize we are rushing into this but you need to know, I might not call you again, ok? I didn't expect this to happen and I am not just trying to get in your pants but here we are so, full disclosure, I'm not likely to make you my girlfriend. Are we still good to go here?"

NOT doing this creates a LOT of problems. Doing this will possibly stop the sexual activity. It takes integrity to forego sex when there is a possiblity it might hurt the other person...but some would still prefer to forego their integrity instead of the NSA sex.

Same scenario...the girl should say it in her way, too.

"Ok I seem to be taking my pants off and yes I want to have sex with you, but I do actually think you like me and I do expect you to keep calling me and dating me. Are we good to keep going forward then?"


----------



## Caribbean Man

With NSA sex, as Random said,
Feelings ALWAYS get involved one way or the other.
Right there is where the problem starts, after all ,we're just human.
We're not sexbots.


----------



## Created2Write

Deejo said:


> This is going to sound crass, and I don't mean it to be. I mean no disrespect whatsover. Quite the opposite.
> 
> You if I understand correctly, have a sample of one. I'm not mocking that. Given what I know of you, and your relationship with your husband, I think that is wonderful. Truly. You both sound like great people.
> 
> But trust me, it's ALWAYS complicated. Even when we don't want it to be.
> 
> Most people that choose to have sex, do not know each other inside and out. Arguably, they don't need to. They just need to agree that they are going to be naked. Add emotions that nobody planned on, into the equation and it gets funky, fast, as is easily demonstrated on this thread.


And that's why communication is so important. Communicating the emotions that no one planned on gives both people the chance to see the situation for what it truly is, and not what they, individually, think it is. 

Hey, I am not offended at all. I get that I haven't had the experience most everyone else in this thread has had. But if there's one thing my marriage has taught me, it's to _never_ assume that you're being obvious about what you want. I thought I was communicating my needs to my husband in the simplest way possible. I couldn't see how anyone could misunderstand what I thought was obvious and straightforward. As a result, I thought my husband was ignoring my feelings on purpose, and it almost split us up permanently. 

Turns out, I wasn't as obvious as I thought. 

Even in a situation where a man and woman have just started a relationship, communicating their individual desires for the relationship makes things that are, by nature, complicated far less complicated than they would be otherwise.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> Deejo said: "Most people that choose to have sex, do not know each other inside and out. Arguably, they don't need to. They just need to agree that they are going to be naked. Add emotions that nobody planned on, into the equation and it gets funky, fast, as is easily demonstrated on this thread."
> 
> (which was in response to Created about a comment on being honest re: NSA sex)
> 
> Deejo, I have to slightly disagree and just point out what I meant by the thing created responded to...see, the thing is, there is no reason NOT to be upfront with an intended sex partner and say "Look, we might want to get it on here, but I am in no way looking for a relationship...I might not even call you tomorrow or ever again...that isn't why I am here tonight, even if we have the best sex ever in our lives. Are we still good going forward then?"
> 
> THAT would be full disclosure and honesty.
> 
> But many people would much rather sort of hold that fact close to their chests. They might even try the old "well, I might end up liking her and dating her so..."
> 
> That is still misleading and dishonest, IMO.
> 
> If the intention is NSA sex, it should be stated openly.
> 
> Even if that wasn't the intention and sex is about to "just happen" naturally....it should still be said out loud "you know hey... I realize we are rushing into this but you need to know, I might not call you again, ok? I didn't expect this to happen and I am not just trying to get in your pants but here we are so, full disclosure, I'm not likely to make you my girlfriend. Are we still good to go here?"
> 
> NOT doing this creates a LOT of problems. Doing this will possibly stop the sexual activity. It takes integrity to forego sex when there is a possiblity it might hurt the other person...but some would still prefer to forego their integrity instead of the NSA sex.
> 
> Same scenario...the girl should say it in her way, too.
> 
> "Ok I seem to be taking my pants off and yes I want to have sex with you, but I do actually think you like me and I do expect you to keep calling me and dating me. Are we good to keep going forward then?"


VERY well said.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Faithful Wife said:


> The thing is, there are highly sexual agressive women who go after all different types of men, not just bad boys.
> 
> *I would consider SA to be a highly sexual agressive woman.*..even though she is a good girl and married a good man.


 I'm getting a charge out of all these comments about me on here... I must be a rather strange "case study" for you FW....

When I am comfortable in a relationship feeling wholly loved/ wanted/ desired...I come alive...I so *enjoy* tripping his triggers & playing the Aggressor...this comes very natural to me..... Sometimes he'll say ..."Rape" - "Rape" - with a big  ....not the best word to use (not trying to offend anyone)...but the point is... I do go after what I want & seeing what it does to him makes it all the more exciting... so I've learned this is what my Gentlemen craves... he just wants me to USE him for my own pleasure.. .. 

We are a great match in this way.



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Do women see this distinction in men?* Some women think I'm a bad guy solely because I'm flirtatious, have tats, like to party and do wheelies on a motorcycle.* I don't think I'm a bad guy though.


 I am one of those "SOME".. for sure... I would consider most of this the epitome of a *BAD BOY* or teetering there of -if he hasn't been laying the women like tile as yet....

So yeah...what you describe here 9 times out of 10 = Guys who get around...adventure is their High, variety is their aim, carefree living, like John Cougar's old tune *>>*I Need a Lover that won't drive me crazy, some girl to thrill me & just go away"...(loved that song by the way- but Total Bad boy attitude)...this type doesn't give a sh** about much... it's all about living IN THE MOMENT...no cares for tomorrow. 

Doesn't make you a bad person...but if I was single .. and learned a few of these things about a guy... it would be like warning bombs going off in my head... Scratch......... My interest would jump more for the one sitting in the church pew... so long as he wasn't too religious that is... had a bit of a devious side, can laugh at himself...a little bad boy but not -of the variety you spoke of... 

Ya know, like maybe he'll enjoy some "South Park", R rated movies & a little porn... this would be a major Plus for me.


----------



## Faithful Wife

SA, you are an example that proves a lot of what I am saying.

Being highly sexual has nothing to do with personality, how popular you are, what you look like, your alpha/beta, etc.

Nice guys...regular guys...there is nothing that prevents them from being highly sexual. Even being inexperienced doesn't mean someone isn't highly sexual. As you know...we can do ourselves 5 times a day if we really want to. We can be highly sexual and celibate.

Same with good women...moms...women you would not be thinking about as being highly sexual...the lady who works at the school...there is no reason the average every day mild mannered good woman isn't HIGHLY sexual like YOU are.

You ping everyone's Sex-dar, honey. And you don't even mean to.

That doesn't mean people are creepy and want to do you...it just means you are highly sexual and it oozes out of you.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *Faithful wife said:* I have to slightly disagree and just point out what I meant by the thing created responded to...see, the thing is, there is no reason NOT to be upfront with an intended sex partner and say "Look, we might want to get it on here, but I am in no way looking for a relationship...I might not even call you tomorrow or ever again...that isn't why I am here tonight, even if we have the best sex ever in our lives. Are we still good going forward then?"
> 
> THAT would be full disclosure and honesty.
> 
> But many people would much rather sort of hold that fact close to their chests. They might even try the old "well, I might end up liking her and dating her so..."
> 
> That is still misleading and dishonest, IMO.
> 
> If the intention is NSA sex, it should be stated openly.


 Praise you Faithful wife on this one...:smthumbup:

Lets talk about what it REALLY Means / NO STRINGS ATTACHED ... anyone want to disagree with these... 10 Commandments of casual sex 



> Is casual sex possible for women? Absolutely…But if we want to enter the same playing field, we have to play by the same rules. Ladies, I give you the 10 Commandments of Casual Sex ....
> 
> Booty not Brains
> Do not choose a casual sex partner on anything other than physical attraction and sexual chemistry. If the sex is great and they’re smart, funny and sweet, the ‘casual’ will be difficult to maintain. You must be completely disposable to each other.
> 
> Best friend? Don’t even think about it!
> If you’re sleeping together and you’re best friends, you’re in a relationship. It is impossible not to mix the emotional, mental and physical in this situation. The friendship will never be the same again. It will either evolve into dating or be plagued with a tension that takes a long time to shake.
> 
> Know your motives
> Casual sex because you enjoy sex and want to get laid is awesome. However, indulging in some casual sex because you have something to prove is simply skanky. Unless you are having casual sex for the sake of sex, then you are going to feel bad about it and even more insecure. If you start sleeping with a guy under ‘casual’ circumstances but secretly want to date him, then while things are casual to him, they will be serious and personal to you.
> 
> Orgasms only
> Should you be an ice beech and show him the door as soon as you’ve finished? No. But be careful with cuddling. There’s nothing nicer than being wrapped up in affection, but that’s the attention you get from a boyfriend. Orgasms should be the only thing you want from your casual man.
> 
> Don’t introduce him to friends
> Unless he is coming to meet you at 3 am and your friends are still around, he doesn’t need to meet them or be integrated into your life in any way. You do not want your friends to like him or vice versa. It will spark those “what if” thoughts.
> 
> Be naked 97 percent of the time
> This is about sex! No need to plan an outfit unless you’re getting theatrical (see commandment 8), because it should be almost immediately stripped from you. If you’re doing too many activities that require clothing, you’re entering relationship territory.
> 
> Don’t be selfish
> Casual sex can only exist if both parties want the same thing. Using someone for sex who has real feelings for you makes you an A$$****, period. It also means that you’re probably insecure and unaware of your motives. See commandment 3.
> 
> Thou shalt get freaky
> Why the hell not? You literally have nothing to lose. Send inhibitions to the wind and try out new moves and play out your naughty fantasies. Nine times out of 10, he will love it; and if he doesn’t, the he is not serving his sexual purpose. So replace him.
> 
> Wrap it up
> By definition this relationship is not exclusive. He is more than likely sleeping with other people, even if he is polite enough to lie about it. Better safe than sorry.
> 
> Straightforward, direct communication
> Casual relationships are designed to be temporary, so there’s really no harm in full disclosure if or when one of you meets someone else. If you follow these 10 commandments, then no one’s feelings should get hurt.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Now that is a great chart! Using this chart would require sexual self-awareness.


----------



## ReformedHubby

Caribbean Man said:


> But men generally limit themselves , again because of social constructs. They want to be seen as
> " good and decent " men.


Well, yes and no. I would argue that many of these men are limited due to the lack of life experience or just an inability to adapt. I think if they could they'd want to be that player that you described, or at the very least be more appealing to the opposite sex. They just don't know how, or they are afraid of rejection for some reason. I guess I always thought that the appearance of good and decent was something women cared about more than men. In retrospect, back in the day a lot of young ladies lost their virginity a couple of times.


----------



## Caribbean Man

ReformedHubby said:


> In retrospect, back in the day a lot of young ladies lost their virginity a couple of times.


Lol, this^^^just made me laugh! 
But it's a fact how have times changed.
I think both you and I must be around the same age..


----------



## RandomDude

Caribbean Man said:


> With NSA sex, as Random said,
> Feelings ALWAYS get involved one way or the other.
> Right there is where the problem starts, after all ,we're just human.
> We're not sexbots.


Ey? No no, I said feelings do get involved if the appropriate boundaries are not set and followed. I did have NSAs that stayed NSAs, because I 'followed the rules' in other words, and so did they. Besides I was not what some considered what they looked for in a boyfriend and they were not stupid to try and change me. The dumber ones sure, I had to let them go, lovey dovey and all that crap. Not all women are stupid however.


----------



## Caribbean Man

And how exactly does one stop themselves from being attracted on an emotional level to someone they're having consensual sex with?

Can a person really stop themselves from " liking" a person they're constantly in close sexual proximity with?


----------



## RandomDude

Caribbean Man said:


> And how exactly does one stop themselves from being attracted on an emotional level to someone they're having consensual sex with?
> 
> Can a person really stop themselves from " liking" a person they're constantly in close sexual proximity with?


Easy, first of all is the factor of exclusivity, I always had at least 2 women at the same time so I wasn't exclusive to one, it's very easy to get lazy in a NSA relationship and fall into exclusivity with sex whenever you want - preventing you from wanting to meet others, which can lead to emotional attachment. The women who did become successful NSA friends were generally very confident, secure and actively dated/sought out men with more bf material then I could give them. I always ensured my friends knew exactly where they stood and who they were dealing with.

With vulnerable women stricter rules had to ensure; such as no after-sex talk. But even with those, emotions may still get involved so it tends to end with sour feelings. Still, I did have NSA friends who weren't very confident and secure in themselves but emotions remained distant from our relationship as I was very brutally honest with how I felt, hell we could even cuddle, have sex, watch movies, sleep together, kiss, and no emotions were involved either than fun and feeling good. One in particular told me that "I know I'm not your type, don't worry about it" when I was worried of her emotional involvement. She was one of my successful ones.

With my NSAs we were never each other's type for a relationship. I can't fall in love with women very easily either -> I need that emotional chemistry, not just physical. With physical they just end up friends that I like to bone. I do have very fond memories of NSAs, one included my stepsister (no blood relation) who for obvious reasons can never get into a relationship with me and we both knew exactly where we stood. Another example was a very confident friend of mine who told me straight up that I wasn't what she considered good for a LTR and that I was the type she would take out, bone, and never get serious with -> which was a very easy NSA to establish.

That's the funny thing really, alot of men fear the friendzone, but I could always hook up while in the friendzone lol - it just takes open communication, sharing of desires and ensuring that no emotions are invested to jeopardise the friendship.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Interesting...


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Faithful Wife said:


> *Now that is a great chart!* *Using this chart would require sexual self-awareness.*


One needs *self awareness* in these things for sure - also I would consider this "*sexual integrity in casual sex*"... where it's clearly UNDERSTOOD on both sides before the clothes come off...with absolutely no want or intention of strings... 

Even though this is not my cup of tea... I can't really judge that... as it's not hurting anyone...it's mutually wanted & enjoyed for what it is.. JUST pleasure in the moment...wash the juices off and move on. 

Just how often does this happen *in real life though*... 50% of the time ? Young naive girls surely get hurt by the truckloads......People too often go in THINKING - it's all good ...and it ends with someone left feeling like they were pushed aside... nothing special at all...worse than they imagined... yes...feeling used. (yeah I know , such is life, big deal many say... but it does slice into our sensitivities, making us Harder people who learn  how to shut their emotions OFF, to separate...taking them outside of experiences that I am not sure we are meant to do... *this has it's price.*.. doesn't it? 

Someone like myself -has never struggled with vulnerability - though I struggled with repression ...even though I didn't know it was a struggle, it was a mindset... Each side -in it's more extremes has it's "monkey wrench" to screw with something .... am I wrong in this? 

*How important balance is*.... sexual awareness....and sexual integrity...which can lead to the ultimate experience with those like minded in that Sex-dar you speak of. 

I personally resonate with this article....


> Embrace your sexuality | Metro
> 
> *So, you like sex. Shame on you, right? *
> 
> Many women, from post-war baby boomers to the fresh-faced crop of Generation Y, still have problems dealing with—even acknowledging—their own sensuality and sexuality. We navigate a minefield of religious and societal sanctions, health hazards, and a global media that bombards us with sexual imagery while at the same time being capable of uttering the words Sex, Sin and whor** in the same sentence. What are we as women to do? We asked a few readers and friends about embracing our own sexuality, and here’s what they had to say:*
> 
> Sexuality doesn’t mean promiscuity. Being sexual doesn’t mean sleeping around. It’s not the number of men you’ve slept with that make your sex life truly fulfilling, but the quality of the sex, and how you feel about yourself after, that count. A woman can be her truest sexual self within the confines of a monogamous relationship—as a matter of fact, that’s where most women find the sexual identity they were looking for. As one married male musician tells us, “Finding and embracing your sexual self doesn't necessarily mean shame or being a sl**, particularly if your explorations are within the bounds of a loving, responsible relationship.”
> 
> Unshackle your mind
> Although religious and moral codes are invaluable to maintaining order, they’re still rooted in an age where a woman’s sexuality was taboo. Those of us who are strong in our faiths find ourselves conflicted: how do we remain true to what we believe while still finding personal, emotional and sexual fulfilment? Here, the choice is a personal one. But as we try to solve a dilemma that can erroneously be seen as a choice between body and soul, remember that many of the admonitions against what a woman thinks, feels and does are mired in an age when we were barely allowed to do any of the above.
> Even our secular sisters feel the weight of social opinion. It’s especially galling because the condemnation for acting on our sexual feelings falls upon us, rather than on the broader backs of our brothers.“Men count their ‘conquests’ as notches on their belt, but women are considered ‘*****s’,” one banker observes. An article on sexuality suggested, perhaps tongue in cheek, that when women are asked how many people they’ve slept with, they halve their ‘number’, while men double theirs.
> 
> Find a safe place
> We can’t express our sexuality if we feel pressured or threatened. In order to be truly fulfilled, we need to find a safe place... and that ‘place’ doesn’t necessarily mean a location. Safety has to do with being with someone you trust, who will open his mind wide enough to help you open yours.“Finding a safe place” also means making your life a maco-free zone. It’s a small country, and everyone knows somebody who knows somebody who did this, that and the other with somebody else. “Discreet” isn’t synonymous with “prudish”. Being sexual doesn’t mean getting drunk enough to whip off your top while a dozen cell phones upload your antics to the World Wide Web. Don’t feed the gossips. Better yet, get them out of your life. Who needs friends who spend more time getting their jollies over other people’s lives than living for themselves?
> 
> Remember, you’re not alone
> The insurance agent in the grey suit patiently explaining your claim form to you was probably blindfolded and tied up last night. Your post-lady has an account at SexToysRUs.com. “The actions that society condemns in public, it commits behind closed doors,” one man suggests. We all like sex. We’re programmed to like sex. People are having more sex than you could possibly imagine, even those who act like butter won’t melt in their mouths.
> 
> The key to enjoying our own sexuality is to remember that it’s not about what ‘people’ would think, but what we think. How great sex makes us feel, what a healing, bonding joy it is. Set the boundaries you feel comfortable with and play within them. And for the sake of love, don’t be too hard on yourself. A friend adds, “You judge yourself way harder than society does.” Embracing our sexuality is a life-long journey towards self-discovery; get yourself a First Class ticket to ride.*


----------



## Caribbean Man

SimplyAmorous said:


> *Embracing our sexuality is a life-long journey towards self-discovery; get yourself a First Class ticket to ride.."*


:iagree:
This^^^is what I was trying to get at yesterday.
And I don't think selecting a partner who either has or is on the same journey of self discovery for that ride, is an easy matter.
Evidence to the contrary is just, well, _so evident._

A great movie in my opinion , that explains this concept beautifully was:

 EAT PRAY LOVE , starring Julia Roberts

I think it's a really deep philosophical movie every woman should see.
[ lol, two lady friends dragged me into the cinema to see it, then I rented it and bought it home. I hate chic flicks , but this one was definitely a thought provoking one!]


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree:
> This^^^is what I was trying to get at yesterday.
> And I don't think selecting a partner who either has or is on the same journey of self discovery for that ride, is an easy matter.
> Evidence to the contrary is just, well, _so evident._


An understatement... Maybe I am placing  a little TOO highly here ....(very typical of me....as  has explained *>>* I pedestalize it - and this is what is wrong with people like me)...

But I'd go as far as to say....the introduction to emotional "damage" that isn't so easy to rid ourselves of ...many times starts with how we handle our sexuality -- this can hinder us as much as BAD irresponsible parenting ...which is also an epidemic in today's society.



> *EAT PRAY LOVE , starring Julia Roberts*


 Never seen it.... now I want to... Of course I love those Chick Flicks :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: and my Beta husband enjoys them right along with me... until I landed here at TAM....I had no idea men dislike them so much, that was news to me !


----------



## Deejo

I find this discussion about the diplomatic negotiations regarding no strings attached sex interesting.
Probably because I've never had them. 

I've had NSA sex. I've even been a booty call. Both were a long time ago. I don't remember discussing it. It was just understood as a result of how the relationship already operated. These were people I already had a defined and standing relationship with, not people I just met.

If all someone is really looking for is sex, and thats it, I would agree they should disclose that. For those that don't it becomes easy to understand why they are perceived as users.

I've said before, I'm sure based on my relationship history, people would say that I have casual sex.

But to me, sex is not casual. I dont have sex with anyone I am not intersted in. Whether that interest remains long term is simply part of the relationship dynamic. I make no correlation between length or term of the relationship and physical intimacy. Its a matter of whether or not you are ready, and if attraction and desire are in place. I've had sex on the first date, and I've seen women for a few months and not had sex.

As adults, yes there is almost always a conversation involved. But just sometimes, what you both want and where you are heading is clearly understood and you go for it and its a beautiful, synchronous and fulfilling experience.

Having the precursor for sex always be like a job interview takes some of the magic and romance out of it.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> Deejo said: "Most people that choose to have sex, do not know each other inside and out. Arguably, they don't need to. They just need to agree that they are going to be naked. Add emotions that nobody planned on, into the equation and it gets funky, fast, as is easily demonstrated on this thread."
> 
> (which was in response to Created about a comment on being honest re: NSA sex)
> 
> Deejo, I have to slightly disagree and just point out what I meant by the thing created responded to...see, the thing is, there is no reason NOT to be upfront with an intended sex partner and say "Look, we might want to get it on here, but I am in no way looking for a relationship...I might not even call you tomorrow or ever again...that isn't why I am here tonight, even if we have the best sex ever in our lives. Are we still good going forward then?"
> 
> THAT would be full disclosure and honesty.
> 
> But many people would much rather sort of hold that fact close to their chests. They might even try the old "well, I might end up liking her and dating her so..."
> 
> That is still misleading and dishonest, IMO.
> 
> If the intention is NSA sex, it should be stated openly.
> 
> Even if that wasn't the intention and sex is about to "just happen" naturally....it should still be said out loud "you know hey... I realize we are rushing into this but you need to know, I might not call you again, ok? I didn't expect this to happen and I am not just trying to get in your pants but here we are so, full disclosure, I'm not likely to make you my girlfriend. Are we still good to go here?"
> 
> NOT doing this creates a LOT of problems. Doing this will possibly stop the sexual activity. It takes integrity to forego sex when there is a possiblity it might hurt the other person...but some would still prefer to forego their integrity instead of the NSA sex.
> 
> Same scenario...the girl should say it in her way, too.
> 
> "Ok I seem to be taking my pants off and yes I want to have sex with you, but I do actually think you like me and I do expect you to keep calling me and dating me. Are we good to keep going forward then?"


Exactly! It's so easy to be honest, and it forestalls so many problems. Yet so many won't go there for fear they might miss a score in their little game. 

And then justify, justify, justify, why they have every right to act so selfishly.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Truth is, a lot of casual sex just happens at the spur of the moment, hence sometimes feelings get involved and people get hurt.
That they get hurt is really to a great extent their responsibility, because there can be no guarantees.
It is C-A-S-U-A-L, aka temporary.
It takes a certain level of emotional maturity to understand that.
Also it takes a certain level of emotional maturity to understand that casual sex cannot be an ideal , but is really just a small part of the moasic that defines relationships between human beings.

Hence I really don't grasp that concept of strict negotiations before NSA / casual sex.

An example that comes to mind was when i was single I had this friend whom I basically grew up with in high school.
She graduated and went on to study law. She had a nice body and played tennis. She loved tennis actually.
But I didn't think that she was hot in terms of facial appeal, so that's why we probably just remained friends. However , that girl was like a queen bee, lots of men chased her and we sometimes used to hang out in her apartment, and talk about our sexual 
" conquests " , and laugh at each other.
Sometimes we went clubbing in a social group together and both of us would dance really close exclusively,for the entire night.

Anyway I used to massage her after she played tennis , at her apartment, and one time while I massaged her back , she simply turned over and pulled me in and we has sex.
We both knew that that was all it was. We respected each other as friends, I didn't think I could make the grade as her " man" because the guys that chased her were often the affluent types of guys and I was just a " normal guy. She was high maintenance with the attitude to go with it.
We remained great friends, but my wife never liked her so obviously we are no longer in contact.
However, there was never any prior negotiation , just some fun musing afterwards ,we laughed about it, drank some wine and decided not to not let that " _happen_" again.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> If all someone is really looking for is sex, and thats it, I would agree they should disclose that. For those that don't it becomes easy to understand why they are perceived as users.


This is really all there is to it. It needn't be a job interview or even an extended conversation. Just a bit of honesty about who you are and what you're after.

One of the reasons for my heat in this conversation is that, due to circumstances beyond my control, I'm living smack dab in the middle of dating territory and have the "privilege" of hearing a lot of unfiltered conversations. (Strictly as innocent bystander,not as participant) And from what I can tell, the dating game is a bunch of people playing head games with each other to get what they want. I don't think honesty is even a consideration, let alone a priority.

It isn't really my problem to care about, I suppose, but it does remind me of all the lies I've been told and all the stupid games others tried to play with me. Not at all how I want to relate.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Exactly! It's so easy to be honest, and it forestalls so many problems. Yet so many won't go there for fear they might miss a score in their little game.
> 
> And then justify, justify, justify, why they have every right to act so selfishly.


Have you ever had to " negotiate " a sexual encounter and set boundaries and parameters?Eg: 
We will only do X, please don't get your feelings involved, 
Please don't expect me to call after , 
Please don't expect us to have any pillow talk after , 
We can only have sex on precisely six different occasions, after that I'll be looking for a new partner,please don't expect any change, etc, etc, etc.

Sounds like a business transaction to me.

How is that fun and fulfilling?


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Think you're an alpha male and got game? Read this*



Caribbean Man said:


> Truth is, a lot of casual sex just happens at the spur of the moment, hence sometimes feelings get involved and people get hurt.
> That they get hurt is really to a great extent their responsibility, because there can be no guarantees.
> It is C-A-S-U-A-L, aka temporary.
> It takes a certain level of emotional maturity to understand that.
> Also it takes a certain level of emotional maturity to understand that casual sex cannot be an ideal , but is really just a small part of the moasic that defines relationships between human beings.
> 
> Hence I really don't grasp that concept of strict negotiations before NSA / casual sex.


Absolutely, and exactly how I think about as well. Well said.


----------



## Faithful Wife

It isn't any more awkward than having a quick STD/condom discussion...to me, protecting our health OR emotions is very sexy.

If it actually kills the mood to have a short discussion like this, then maybe it really isn't supposed to happen.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> just some fun musing afterwards ,we laughed about it, drank some wine and decided not to not let that " _happen_" again.


And right there was your negotiation. You had a friendship.and prior understanding, followed by a debrief and agreement as to terms.
No one is saying there needs to be a lawyer and two witnesses, with documents signed in triplicate. Just a mutual understanding with bits of clarification as needed. No reason it can't be done with wine and laughter.

Maybe this is just too foreign to you because you don't operate this way, but many people are deliberately dishonest about such things. And it is this dishonesty causes the ire and outrage.

Plus the denial that it exists, and might be considered problematic behaviour.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> And right there was your negotiation. You had a friendship.and prior understanding, followed by a debrief and agreement as to terms.
> No one is saying there needs to be a lawyer and two witnesses, with documents signed in triplicate. Just a mutual understanding with bits of clarification as needed. No reason it can't be done with wine and laughter.
> 
> Maybe this is just too foreign to you because you don't operate this way, but many people are deliberately dishonest about such things. And it is this dishonesty causes the ire and outrage.
> 
> Plus the denial that it exists, and might be considered problematic behaviour.


No dear,

That discussion took place _afterwards_.
We had never discussed sex between ourselves before. In fact I had never even entertained the idea, it just happened.

The " negotiation " that took place after was just making sure that we understood what we just did, how we felt and that we shouldn't expect this to continue.

If either of us were emotionally immature, we would have chosen to entertain negative feelings of being " used ", wondering if it meant anything, hoping against hope in the face of hard evidence etc. etc.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> How is that fun and fulfilling?


You say it takes maturity and personal responsibility to understand that casual sex is CASUAL.

I say it takes even more maturity and personal responsibility to understand that you need to act responsibly in these circumstances, and address the potential consequences and pitfalls.


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> It isn't really my problem to care about, I suppose, but it does remind me of all the lies I've been told and all the stupid games others tried to play with me. Not at all how I want to relate.


Well see, there's the difference. None of my games are stupid. And they aren't meant to trick or trap anyone. They're actually quite awesome.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> If it actually kills the mood to have a short discussion like this, then maybe it really isn't supposed to happen.


Absolutely nothing in this life is " _supposed to happen_" one way or the other.
We create our own reality and outcomes.


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> You say it takes maturity and personal responsibility to understand that casual sex is CASUAL.
> 
> I say it takes even more maturity and personal responsibility to understand that you need to act responsibly in these circumstances, and address the potential consequences and pitfalls.


If a person is focused on responsibility and the potential consequences and pitfalls, then I humbly submit that they are not a person who would even consider casual sex. And there's nothing wrong with that in my mind.

Casual sex by it's nature is risky. Heartbreak, disease, pregnancy. If those are at the forefront of your mind, odds are you aren't participating in frequent, casual sexual encounters.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> You say it takes maturity and personal responsibility to understand that casual sex is CASUAL.
> 
> I say it takes even more maturity and personal responsibility to understand that you need to act responsibly in these circumstances, and address the potential consequences and pitfalls.


What part does attraction and seduction play in this?
How does one negotiate the level of attraction one is allowed to feel during a casual sexual hookup?

The mature approach is to understand that despite how you feel about it afterwards , you went willingly into it and take full responsibility for _your_ actions and _your_ subsequent emotional fallout.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Exactly! It's so easy to be honest, and it forestalls so many problems. Yet so many won't go there for fear they might miss a score in their little game.
> 
> And then justify, justify, justify, why they have every right to act so selfishly.


I think that's crap. There are a billion things that are left unsaid early on in a relationship. The average person assumes these things - a sort of default.

Like most things in life, it is not a negative proof system. AS in: "let me tell you what is NOT".

It is a positive proof system. As in: "let me tell you what IS."

She said she loved me. I did not and dismissed and mocked all of her lovey statements. I didn't love her and I didn't lead on that I did. I didn't need to talk her down and tell her that I don't love her. She had zero reason to believe I did.

So get out of here with that "justify" crap. Grown @ss women are rational free agents able to make their own choices about who they want to be with and the terms of their relationships. I don't have anything to justify. I'm totally good with that. She was accepting what I was investing, which was nothing but sex the last couple weeks... and that was her choice to accept. I left because she became annoying. That was my choice.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Deejo said:


> *If a person is focused on responsibility and the potential consequences and pitfalls, then I humbly submit that they are not a person who would even consider casual sex. And there's nothing wrong with that in my mind.*
> 
> Casual sex by it's nature is risky. Heartbreak, disease, pregnancy. If those are at the forefront of your mind, odds are you aren't participating in frequent, casual sexual encounters.


And that's what I've been banging my head against the wall and , saying _ad nauseam_ since the beginning of this thread.

In fact I'm wondering if we're debating theory vs _practicum_.


----------



## RandomDude

> Sounds like a business transaction to me.
> 
> How is that fun and fulfilling?


How is it a business transaction? :scratchhead:

You simply let her know where she stands, if she feels the same way go for it, if she doesn't -> let her go and save yourself the drama early. Simple as that. It's just the same as dating without the BS. Of course you will break some hearts but you'll do that in dating anyway, the difference is that you won't be leading them on when ensuring honesty.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> No dear,
> 
> That discussion took place _afterwards_.
> We had never discussed sex between ourselves before. In fact I had never even entertained the idea, it just happened.
> 
> The " negotiation " that took place after was just making sure that we understood what we just did, how we felt and that we shouldn't expect this to continue.
> 
> If either of us were emotionally immature, we would have chosen to entertain negative feelings of being " used ", wondering if it meant anything, hoping against hope in the face of hard evidence etc. etc.


Yes dear. I can read. And again you fail to understand what I'm saying.

You both knew that you were not right for each other, but we're friends. *that* is mutual understanding before the fact. The after, you checked in and made sure you were on the same page.

All is good. If you weren't on the same page, you could have discussed more to arrive at a mutual understanding. All still good.

But if either of you were full of lies or deceit or playing mean games with each other, then one of you might have been hurt.

I don't understand your refusal to see this in any other terms than emotional immaturity. Sure, some people are emotionally immature. But it's a short phase, and it's easy and relatively painless to grow up quickly when treated well and responsibly. But the head games, lies, pretenses --all that generates ill will and hurt feelings that can last quite a while.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Well that is a cop out response, CM...IMO.

This is an example where sexual self-awareness comes in.

Woman A is in bed with a man, they are about to have sex, she isn't really sure if he is actually into her or if this is just a casual thing or not...but she likes him and she hopes having sex with him will seal the deal...so she goes ahead with it without inquiring about his intentions. This is not self-aware behavior. Instead, this is a form of magical thinking. "He might fall in love with me if we have sex".

Woman B is in bed with a man, she knows this is casual, she isn't sure if HE knows it is casual...so she stops to have a short convo about it...even if that stops all the fun...just to make sure he doesn't think this "means something" before they proceed. This is sexual self-awareness. She knows she wants it casual, she is not thinking it will "make him love me" and she also wants to protect his feelings (men get attached through sex, too). 

In the first example, the woman could likely end up falling for this guy who has no intention of also falling for her...it requires self-awareness to be able to delay gratification in order to ensure your other needs are met. In this case, her need to know if she is just a casual sex partner or not, since it wasn't fully clear to her. 

Lack of sexual self-awareness is usually the culprit in cases of sour grapes...in both genders.

Another example...Man C goes home with a girl, he is seeing 3 other girls casually and having sex with all of them. He doesn't tell her this but he makes sure she understands he is not looking for an exclusive relationship or love right now but he sure does think she looks fine in that dress. He gives her the choice to bail if she thought that this sexual encounter would "mean something". This man is showing self-awareness because he understands that NOT making it clear to her will cause problems later, and he would rather forego the sex than hurt her or himself. 

Sexy.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Random...you're awesome.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Yes dear. I can read. And again you fail to understand what I'm saying.
> 
> You both knew that you were not right for each other, but we're friends. *that* is mutual understanding before the fact. The after, you checked in and made sure you were on the same page.
> 
> All is good. If you weren't on the same page, you could have discussed more to arrive at a mutual understanding. All still good.
> 
> But if either of you were full of lies or deceit or playing mean games with each other, then one of you might have been hurt.
> 
> I don't understand your refusal to see this in any other terms than emotional immaturity. Sure, some people are emotionally immature. But it's a short phase, and it's easy and relatively painless to grow up quickly when treated well and responsibly. But the head games, lies, pretenses --all that generates ill will and hurt feelings that can last quite a while.


But we were both full of lies an deceit!
We were Y-O-U-N-G & W-I-L-D and playing the field , just exploring our sexuality for our own benefit.

Thank god we were mature enough to understand this.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> Casual sex by it's nature is risky. Heartbreak, disease, pregnancy. If those are at the forefront of your mind, odds are you aren't participating in frequent, casual sexual encounters.


Oh please. So you never wear a condom, never ask if she uses birth control, never consider whether she's been around the block a few times, and basically bang anyone remotely attractive in the middle of an 8 lane highway because it's hot?


----------



## Deejo

Caribbean Man said:


> And that's what I've been banging my head against the wall and , saying _ad nauseam_ since the beginning of this thread.
> 
> In fact I'm wondering if we're debating theory vs _practicum_.


Oh, I know ... 

We get caught in this conundrum with most of these type discussions.

I don't think the problem is disagreement. It is an impenetrable wall between paradigms.

It's like any political debate. The resolution seems straightforward and clear as day ... depending upon which side of the issue you stand on.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo are you saying this is boys against girls? Because I'm pretty sure Random is agreeing with the girls on this one. Also my husband never had any trouble being honest about intentions before sex...never killed the mood...never caused a problem and certainly helped save some emotions in varying degrees. I haven't had a lot of casual encounters, but all of them included agreeing upon "what exactly it is we are doing here".


----------



## RandomDude

Looks like I broke the bro code 

Oops lol

Nevermind, I'm sure I'll be arguing against you ladies in due time once the right topic comes along


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> Well that is a cop out response, CM...IMO.
> 
> This is an example where sexual self-awareness comes in.
> 
> Woman A is in bed with a man, they are about to have sex, she isn't really sure if he is actually into her or if this is just a casual thing or not...but she likes him and she hopes having sex with him will seal the deal...so she goes ahead with it without inquiring about his intentions. This is not self-aware behavior. Instead, this is a form of magical thinking. "He might fall in love with me if we have sex".
> 
> Yup it magical thinking. Just as magical as thinking that her feelings will simply, magically disappear if she does or does not have sex with him. Fact is,there is no gurantee that how she feels will have any real effect on how he feels so best she just enjoy the sex anyway and be a big girl. Big girls don't cry.
> 
> 
> Woman B is in bed with a man, she knows this is casual, she isn't sure if HE knows it is casual...so she stops to have a short convo about it...even if that stops all the fun...just to make sure he doesn't think this "means something" before they proceed. This is sexual self-awareness. She knows she wants it casual, she is not thinking it will "make him love me" and she also wants to protect his feelings (men get attached through sex, too).
> 
> No.
> That is UNSEXY and guaranteed to kill any man's erection.
> 
> In the first example, the woman could likely end up falling for this guy who has no intention of also falling for her...it requires self-awareness to be able to delay gratification in order to ensure your other needs are met. In this case, her need to know if she is just a casual sex partner or not, since it wasn't fully clear to her.
> 
> No again.
> It takes self awareness to first determine if casual sex if for you or not. First determine this and then everything else would fall into place. People should always take FULL RESPONSIBILITY for their actions. Absolutely NOTHING in this life is guaranteed.
> 
> Lack of sexual self-awareness is usually the culprit in cases of sour grapes...in both genders.
> 
> I think it's a lack of a sound value system and a lack of self control is the greater culprit. YVMV
> 
> Another example...Man C goes home with a girl, he is seeing 3 other girls casually and having sex with all of them. He doesn't tell her this but he makes sure she understands he is not looking for an exclusive relationship or love right now but he sure does think she looks fine in that dress. He gives her the choice to bail if she thought that this sexual encounter would "mean something". This man is showing self-awareness because he understands that NOT making it clear to her will cause problems later, and he would rather forego the sex than hurt her or himself.
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don't see this as " Self Awareness."
> This man is simply showing that he has a large appetite for sex with multiple women , is emotionally immature and is high risk candidate for STD's. He has three women he's having sex with and still isn't satisfied, so he's hunting for a fourth.
> He's currently thinking only with his penis, and using women for sex only.
> He has either incapable of or has no intention of developing any relationship further than just casual sex.
> .
> 
> Sexy.
> 
> Only to a woman with low self esteem.


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> Oh please. So you never wear a condom, never ask if she uses birth control, never consider whether she's been around the block a few times, and basically bang anyone remotely attractive in the middle of an 8 lane highway because it's hot?


No, I don't bang anyone I find remotely attractive. And I don't understand what you find so offensive about those who choose to.
That's what I don't get. 

Agency.

I make a choice. She makes a choice. They make a choice.

Whether or not someone does or doesn't like the consequences of the choice doesn't negate the fact that they made it.

You want to focus on the conditions of the choice. That is neither realistic, plausible, or practical outside of the scope of the choices YOU make.

Do people get hurt? Yes.

Do I make choices to hurt people? No.

That's pretty much it. It's why I don't understand the armor and shield you bring to the discussion. Not that I don't think you should participate. But I really don't understand why you see this as a snake oil selling man, and a naive damsel scenario.

Every guy here has panned the premise where this thread started. They wouldn't do it. Don't agree with it. 

But that guy who writes the 'Bang' books? Like it or not, he's having sex with enough people to keep spewing what he has to say. Which means that women are choosing to sleep with him ... regardless of whatever the conditions are.

That's on him, and them. I have no desire to advocate, or emulate that kind of behavior or those kinds of choices.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> And that's what I've been banging my head against the wall and , saying _ad nauseam_ since the beginning of this thread.
> 
> In fact I'm wondering if we're debating theory vs _practicum_.


In *practice*, it is quite possible to have mutual fulfilling, satisfying casual sex with no hurt feelings. What this requires is a level of honesty, a mutual understanding, and a willingness to be open with your partner.

Insisting on one's right to be deceitful, manipulative, and focused on one's own pleasure over that of your partner is much more likely to lead to problems -- and is very easy to avoid.

I have to say, I'm a bit dumbstruck at just how insistent some men are about their right to lie and play games -- and utter lack of concern about basic health and safety issues. 

Really?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Deejo said:


> But that guy who writes the 'Bang' books? Like it or not, he's having sex with enough people to keep spewing what he has to say. Which means that women are choosing to sleep with him ... regardless of whatever the conditions are.


Or he's a flat out liar and wrote the books as his fantasy the way those Penthouse "contributors" do. It has been rumored that he lies and greatly exaggerates. Anyways, what are we talking about anymore?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yeah, really CM and Deejo? Wow. 

Random is very sexually self-aware and a natural ESP. I'm glad he is saying the things he is saying because that is how they act when they are in a casual sex phase of their lives. Thank you for setting a good example Random. And of course feelings still get involved...but you are handling it correctly to mitigate any problems.


----------



## PHTlump

always_alone said:


> Well, yes, it is obvious, and we women quickly learn that men, no matter what they say and do, care little for women and just want to bang us. This is exactly why some of us make this assumptions about all guys, and then even carry it into our marriages. Because it is made so amply clear, constantly and consistently.


But this is just a problem of perception. To assume that your husband must have the exact same attitude toward having sex with you as the guy at the local pickup joint is irrational.

We make distinctions all the time. A glass of wine with dinner is healthy. A bottle of wine is unhealthy. The wine stays constant. It's the amount that determines whether it is healthy or not. Sex with one's spouse is loving. Sex with a stranger isn't. Sex is constant. It's the partner that determines whether it's loving or not.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> I have to say, I'm a bit dumbstruck at just how insistent some men are about their right to lie and play games -- and utter lack of concern about basic health and safety issues.
> 
> Really?


Well that's_ your_ opinion , from _your_ biased vantage point, and we all have our personal biases, and your bias is not more valuable than anyone else's, especially since we're not the same.
However, there's room in the world for more than just your opinion on a matter that has so many _subtle_ nuances?

What do you think?


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> Deejo are you saying this is boys against girls? Because I'm pretty sure Random is agreeing with the girls on this one. Also my husband never had any trouble being honest about intentions before sex...never killed the mood...never caused a problem and certainly helped save some emotions in varying degrees. I haven't had a lot of casual encounters, but all of them included agreeing upon "what exactly it is we are doing here".


No one here is saying don't be honest. No one.

What people are putting forth in terms of experience is that honesty and disclosure doesn't always happen as a precursor to being intimate.

But no one is advocating that you shouldn't communicate or be up-front about where you stand emotionally regarding your desire for or lack of desire to pursue a relationship.

If you DON'T have the conversation, that is still on both parties.

Hell, I've made no secret about the fact that I have ED. You think I don't talk to women about that little detail before getting under the sheets?


----------



## Deejo

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Or he's a flat out liar and wrote the books as his fantasy the way those Penthouse "contributors" do. It has been rumored that he lies and greatly exaggerates. Anyways, what are we talking about anymore?


Yes. And I really don't know. Thought I did.


----------



## RandomDude

Not all women are looking for love mate and even if they are I made sure they knew they wouldn't find it with me. What's so hard about that to understand? As for my feelings I accepted being a fkbuddy as I wanted nothing more either. And as for this:



> That is UNSEXY and guaranteed to kill any man's erection.


Ey? For you perhaps, for me I would have just went "awesome!" and went back to the ramming lol.

Also, how is a woman who desires casual sex having low self esteem?  Would you consider me having low self esteem because I desired the same?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> Yeah, really CM and Deejo? Wow.
> 
> Random is very sexually self-aware and a natural ESP. I'm glad he is saying the things he is saying because that is how they act when they are in a casual sex phase of their lives. Thank you for setting a good example Random. And of course feelings still get involved...but you are handling it correctly to mitigate any problems.


Sounds like a shaming^^^ tactic to me.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> No, I don't bang anyone I find remotely attractive. And I don't understand what you find so offensive about those who choose to.
> That's what I don't get.
> 
> Agency.


You are missing my point, perhaps because of the hyperbolic way I have expressed it. Let me try again:

You say you don't believe in "negotiations" around casual sex or worrying about the consequences. But surely you do? For example, you might wear a condom, or inquire about her method of birth control. You do *something* to protect yourself from STDs and unwanted pregnancies? You probably do something to ensure that you aren't hurt, protecting your own emotional and physical health?

If so, then you are *already* engaging in these negotiations, and planning for the consequences.


----------



## RandomDude

Anyways, how did a civil discussion about NSA become an argument? :scratchhead:


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> Yeah, really CM and Deejo? Wow.
> 
> Random is very sexually self-aware and a natural ESP. I'm glad he is saying the things he is saying because that is how they act when they are in a casual sex phase of their lives. Thank you for setting a good example Random. And of course feelings still get involved...but you are handling it correctly to mitigate any problems.


This has pretty much completely gone off the rails. I don't think either CM or I, disagree about the premise of responsibility with what others have stated. I think he and I have been clear on that point, ad nauseum.

But ... apparently we aren't doing a very good job of communicating. Because there really isn't a disagreement. Somehow, for reasons I still don't understand, what we write, and then when I see how it is being interpreted, are kindly ... grossly incorrect.

It's either willful, or a complete failure to communicate at this point.


----------



## Caribbean Man

RandomDude said:


> Also, how is a woman who desires casual sex having low self esteem?  Would you consider me having low self esteem because I desired the same?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Casual sex with a man who has a harem of women or a woman who has lots of other men she's having sex with at the same time?
> 
> I'll pass, and I'm sure most women on this thread would pass.
> 
> Here's one i learned on TAM. Such men are called
> " _Man [email protected]_."
> Not sexy, not attractive at all to women.


----------



## PHTlump

always_alone said:


> You are asking her to read your mind and see that you are saying, "I don't care a whit for you, but I'll keep my mouth shut so I can keep banging your pretty a$$ a little while longer."


Not at all. If I professed my love for her, and acted like I loved her, then she would be required to read my mind in order to determine that I didn't love her. When she professed her love for me, and I refused to reciprocate, that was a very clear signal that I didn't love her. All it required of her to correctly interpret my statement was to not be an idiot.



> No of course your one word answers doesn't convey any implications of love, commitment or anything BUT that you have heard what she's said and you are accepting it without objection. Which, if you actually do object, is a lie.


So, it is the man's responsibility to determine why a woman wants to have sex with him and then strive to meet that expectation? No offense, but that's crazy.

What if a man goes out of town and rents a luxury car. He meets a woman and takes her home. On the way, she comments on how much she likes his car. If he doesn't stop her to determine whether she is only having sex with him because she believes him to be wealthy, and set her straight, if necessary, is he taking advantage of her? Or can we just treat women like adults who are capable of making their own decisions and dealing with the consequences of those decisions?

That's what scares me about female irrationality in the current legal climate. Believing that a man having consensual sex with a woman is, somehow, taking advantage of her and lying to her is little different to believing that sex with a man who isn't 100% committed to you is, by definition, a criminal act by said man. That also means that nearly all men, by definition, must be sexual criminals.


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> You are missing my point, perhaps because of the hyperbolic way I have expressed it. Let me try again:
> 
> You say you don't believe in "negotiations" around casual sex or worrying about the consequences. But surely you do? For example, you might wear a condom, or inquire about her method of birth control. You do *something* to protect yourself from STDs and unwanted pregnancies? You probably do something to ensure that you aren't hurt, protecting your own emotional and physical health?
> 
> If so, then you are *already* engaging in these negotiations, and planning for the consequences.


All's I was sayin' is that the negotiations do not always happen PRIOR to the event. I also insisted that I don't constitute any of my intimate relations as 'casual'. I never said, "I don't believe in negotiations". What I did say, is sometimes sex just happens spontaneously. And if it CAN'T happen spontaneously for a person, that person likely isn't ever going to be suited to casual, non-committed, or potentially short term intimacy.

I don't have NSA sex now. Had it ... over 2 decades ago. Much like CM's experience, she was a friend. We remained friends.

I hear you saying you don't like deceitful, lying, self-serving scum-bags that harm women for their own gratification.

My contribution has not been intended to bolster deceitful, lying, self-serving, scum-bag behavior.


----------



## RandomDude

:scratchhead: If that's the case then everyone who dates non-exclusively and has sex are all [email protected] and [email protected] mate! Swingers also all [email protected] and [email protected] and not to mention PUAs! =O


----------



## RandomDude

> All's I was sayin' is that the negotiations do not always happen PRIOR to the event.


I can agree with this, however it never stopped me even if the negotiations were made on the next hookup or even after the deed is done, if she felt differently and thought of me as an a$$hole then she can go get fked I simply didn't care, I'm not honest for anyone else but for my own desire to keep my hands clean.

Most of the time they understood, many even felt the same way and we still establish an NSA, and continued having sex without any problems. 

*Awaits female backlash*


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> It's either willful, or a complete failure to communicate at this point.


Not willful, FWIW.

It's just really difficult to parse agreement when I say, for example, it's a good idea to check in and be on the same page when you have casual sex, and you and CM say, no that's just not sexy, fun or fulfilling. 

The only assumption I can draw is that you think it's a bad idea because it "kills the mood". 

And then you attribute the hurt feelings to the emotional immaturity and "sour grapes" of your partners, and I want to point out again that if you would just try to make sure you're on the same page, then you wouldn't have so many problems with this.

Then you object again that being up front and honest is unsexy, which to me says (and I'm sure this is where I'm bringing my own stories into the conversation) that it's more important to ensure the score than it is to take very simple steps to help ensure both partners are on the same page.

No guarantees. We all get that. But it is, as FW says, much sexier to make the effort to care about both you and your partner, rather than only playing your ambiguities and selfish desires.


----------



## Caribbean Man

RandomDude said:


> :scratchhead: If that's the case then everyone who dates non-exclusively and has sex are all [email protected] and [email protected] mate! Swingers also all [email protected] and [email protected] and not to mention PUAs! =O



Well that's the word on TAM.

Isn't that the basis of this thread?

Do you think that women are attracted to men who are having sex with two and three women at the same time?

Would you be interested in running a poll to determine if women are really attracted to men who have sex with lots of women at the same time?


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Not willful, FWIW.
> 
> It's just really difficult to parse agreement when I say, for example, it's a good idea to check in and be on the same page when you have casual sex, and you and CM say, no that's just not sexy, fun or fulfilling.



No always_alone.
We're not saying that.
What we're saying is that it's a lot more complex than that and that that's not what really happens during a casual sex encounter/ hookup, except if you're in a sex club , swinger lifestyle and so forth.

Relationships in general have absolutely no guarantees , they're based on human emotions.
That's why the
" exclusivity" construct became en vogue in dating , and that's why marriage has to be monogamous.

Now imagine if you can a man and a woman " negotiating" before a casual encounter about the emotional parameters of their " relationship."
Afterwards one begins to feel something and the other also does. Then the negotiations before become null and void .
Yes?


----------



## always_alone

PHTlump said:


> That's what scares me about female irrationality in the current legal climate. Believing that a man having consensual sex with a woman is, somehow, taking advantage of her and lying to her is little different to believing that sex with a man who isn't 100% committed to you is, by definition, a criminal act by said man. That also means that nearly all men, by definition, must be sexual criminals.


Honestly, I do not know where you get this stuff from. Others have accused me of reading way too much into what they are saying, and I think you are doing the same to me.

No one has said that having consensual sex is criminal, and no said that it is solely the man's responsibility to look after everything.

Your presumption that I am irrational and have nothing useful to contribute is, I think, coloring your interpretation of everything I say.


----------



## DesertRat1978

I had a NSA relationship with my boss many years ago and while it occasionally drifted into the emotional realm, it was mostly just sex and neither had any issues with that. She did not feel taken advantage of and neither did I. However, we really never had a formal conversation laying out the boundaries. It was just understood. I am not sure if it would have killed the mood. It may have but it is in the past.


----------



## RandomDude

Haven't you ever heard the saying "Don't ask - don't tell"?

It's not like I went around telling them of all my conquests or to compare them with each other not to mention I kept my mouth shut so I could have sex with women no one would even suspect was sleeping with me.

I never lied to them in regards to non-exclusivity nor did I share details either. That's the other thing about NSA -> don't boast or brag, I never get why guys do anyway, and as a result women felt safe and feared no consequences. And of course I never went bareback with them. 

I made sure they knew our relationship was not exclusive, that I could leave for someone else and they could leave or even actively date and fk someone else at the same time, I didn't care.


----------



## RandomDude

And as for the mood-killing part, using the example of my experiences with my non-blood related stepsister the whole 'negotiation' was more of a flirt and a tease then a mood-killer lol!


----------



## Deejo

I just want to say, I'm not having sex with anyone right now. And they are aware of it.


----------



## remorseful strayer

y


Therealbrighteyes said:


> Or he's a flat out liar and wrote the books as his fantasy the way those Penthouse "contributors" do. It has been rumored that he lies and greatly exaggerates. Anyways, what are we talking about anymore?


Actually this might be on target. 

I have a friend who always told conquests stories that sounded as if they came straight out of playboy or penthouse. 

I nor any of our mutual friends however ever saw him pick up a women. 

He finally confessed, when he got sick and thought he was dying, that all his stories were lies. He's still alive.


----------



## Caribbean Man

I've only had sex with ONE woman for this entire week and we didn't have to * negotiate * anything before.
We both understood...


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Or he's a flat out liar and wrote the books as his fantasy the way those Penthouse "contributors" do. *It has been rumored that he lies and greatly exaggerates. *


Took you guys long to realize that!

I've never read him , but he does sound " braggalicious "


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Deejo said:


> I just want to say, I'm not having sex with anyone right now. And they are aware of it.


I'm mind [email protected] you right now.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Caribbean Man said:


> Took you guys long to realize that!
> 
> I've never read him , but he does sound " braggalicious "


I don't think anybody doubted it. He still is the face of that community though and his followers sure think he is real.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I don't think anybody doubted it. He still is the face of that community though and his followers sure think he is real.


Which PUA community,
The Grade B substitute PUA's?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

FrenchFry said:


> So, it was you changing you...and it was short lived because it wasn't rooted down in yourself?
> 
> Sounds familiar. *nods*
> 
> I wish I could say it was just chasing hotness, but it's not past a certain point. Past a point it's crazy mingling together in a detrimental way that only unhealthy crazy can't see. Figuring out the pattern is amazing once you have those breakthroughs.


Not so short lived. 11 years? 12 years? I just finally trusted someone (big thing for me; I don't even trust family... with good reason) and all the negativity and attitude that went into being the "trouble" I was just sort of washed off. She wasn't one of these good girls into bad guys either... she wasn't a fixer. I was new in town and she was among the first people I met, and there's a weird thing that happens when someone sees the good in you. I suddenly saw the world differently and wanted to be different - in fact, it wasn't even any effort. It just happened. I was happy. Like, healthy happy. I've come to realize that my getting into trouble and generally being a bad person was an expression of my unhappiness and negativity even though that guy felt happy... it was an unhealthy happy. A poor replacement happy.

It all came back when I felt like my trust was violated... feeling discarded; neglected. The sense that even this super "good" person... the best person I've ever met, still burned me... and it wasn't a sudden realization... but a gradual decline from healthy trust and love to resentment and the desire for trouble. Rebellion. It felt like breaking out of a cage. I was back. I'm going to get mine, party, and raise hell and f*ck consequences - playing by the rules screwed me, so screw the rules. The bad guy was back and you're soo convinced that its the real you breaking free of a spell or cage. But that's just what the "bad guy" thinks - and it turns out, he's just a defense mechanism.

Quite a weird thing really. You start to question who you really are. You're like a chameleon... and its convincing to everyone, even yourself. Hard to describe really... probably even harder to relate to. I think we all get a random pick from the crazy lot. This is the straw I pulled.


----------



## Deejo

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I'm mind [email protected] you right now.


I'm home sick. You don't want to know what I just coughed up from laughing so hard. Oh and, thank you by the way. I understand we're still just friends and I respect you. Still picture you looking like this however, you will always have an armored bustier in my mind ...










Heading to Austin for a week on the 17th. I need your recommendations list again.


----------



## Caribbean Man

I can't see two people getting down in the heat of passion and then one of them stops , lays down
" terms and conditions" saying that he has three women he's seeing right now so his partner shouldn't get her hopes too high and don't expect him to call or anything after.

I don't that does anything to make her feel sexy, and want to continue.
The idea of casual sex is _just for the moment_, nothing more.
It's understood.
It would amount to an act of lunacy to attach any real emotional value to a ONS or any other NSA sex ,except sexual , whether it was explicitly stated before or not.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Caribbean Man said:


> Which PUA community,
> The Grade B substitute PUA's?


Oh boy there are so many jokes I could make here.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *Caribbean Man said*: It takes self awareness to first determine if casual sex if for you or not. First determine this and then everything else would fall into place. People should always take FULL RESPONSIBILITY for their actions. Absolutely NOTHING in this life is guaranteed.


----------



## WyshIknew

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Or he's a flat out liar and wrote the books as his fantasy the way those Penthouse "contributors" do. It has been rumored that he lies and greatly exaggerates. Anyways, what are we talking about anymore?


No shet Sherlock! :rofl:


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Deejo said:


> Heading to Austin for a week on the 17th. I need your recommendations list again.


I'll get you the list by the end of the weekend. I saved it somewhere and have to figure out where.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SimplyAmorous said:


> I am one of those "SOME".. for sure... I would consider most of this the epitome of a *BAD BOY* or teetering there of -if he hasn't been laying the women like tile as yet....
> 
> So yeah...what you describe here 9 times out of 10 = Guys who get around...adventure is their High, variety is their aim, carefree living, like John Cougar's old tune *>>*I Need a Lover that won't drive me crazy, some girl to thrill me & just go away"...(loved that song by the way- but Total Bad boy attitude)...this type doesn't give a sh** about much... it's all about living IN THE MOMENT...no cares for tomorrow.


Its all stereotype perception. Yeah, I like risk and adventure but you can get all that without being trouble. Tats don't make me trouble, but they are associated with trouble. Wheelies don't make me trouble, but they're associated with trouble. Getting to know me in real life people find out that I'm just a physically active geek - a geeky adrenaline junky. I just occasionally want to jump off a cliff just to be reminded that I'm alive. Those things are my emotional outlets. "I'd rather regret the things I have done than the things I haven't."

Funny though, the bad boy stereotypical stuff seems to lure women, but the geeky depth seems to hook them.

My gf will roll her eyes and call me a dork... then she slinks up to me with her little smirk and says "but my [email protected] sexy dork." She teases it, but she likes it.


----------



## WyshIknew

WyshIknew said:


> No shet Sherlock! :rofl:


TRBE, looking at my post again that could be interpreted as a slightly condescending, insulting post. Wasn't meant to be, honest! It was meant to indicate total agreement!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

deejo said:


> If all someone is really looking for is sex, and thats it, I would agree they should disclose that. For those that don't it becomes easy to understand why they are perceived as users.





always_alone said:


> This is really all there is to it. It needn't be a job interview or even an extended conversation. Just a bit of honesty about who you are and what you're after.


Then we agree! I was seeking a plain old regular developing relationship with the girl who went crazy. I wasn't in it just for the sex. Had her attachment developed in what I would describe a more "normal" way, I wouldn't have been put off.

That relationship became just sex, but not because I just wanted sex. If all I cared about was sex and I had no concern for her well being, I wouldn't have broken up with her.

Follow?


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> I can't see two people getting down in the heat of passion and then one of them stops , lays down
> " terms and conditions" saying that he has three women he's seeing right now so his partner shouldn't get her hopes too high and don't expect him to call or anything after.
> 
> I don't that does anything to make her feel sexy, and want to continue.
> The idea of casual sex is _just for the moment_, nothing more.
> It's understood.


Yeah, that's what a lot of guys say about wearing condoms and practicing safe sex too. Sooooo very unsexy to be worried about birth control or STDs. C'mon baby live for the moment!


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Then we agree!


Uh oh. I think that means the end must be nigh.

Look out, everyone!


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

WyshIknew said:


> TRBE, looking at my post again that could be interpreted as a slightly condescending, insulting post. Wasn't meant to be, honest! It was meant to indicate total agreement!


Oh, I knew that.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Oh please. So you never wear a condom, never ask if she uses birth control, never consider whether she's been around the block a few times, and basically bang anyone remotely attractive in the middle of an 8 lane highway because it's hot?


As a rule, I wear a condom until I've been with someone awhile... but its not an active thought in the moment.

In the moment, little more than her body crosses my mind. The part of your brain that gives a crap about risk goes on vacation. The penance is sweating out your test results.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> As a rule, I wear a condom until I've been with someone awhile... but its not an active thought in the moment.
> 
> In the moment, little more than her body crosses my mind. The part of your brain that gives a crap about risk goes on vacation. The penance is sweating out your test results.


Yikes. That doesn't sound good. 

P.S. Somebody is kicking your pumpkin down the street in your other thread.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Yeah, that's what a lot of guys say about wearing condoms and practicing safe sex too. Sooooo very unsexy to be worried about birth control or STDs. C'mon baby live for the moment!


Ohh! negotiating condom use.

Brings back so many memories, many of them TMI.
But that too was part of the fun.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> In the moment, little more than her body crosses my mind. The part of your brain that gives a crap about risk goes on vacation. The penance is sweating out your test results.


And people think *I'm* the lunatic for suggesting we check in and show a bit of care for ourselves and our partners.

Wow! Glad I'm just that unsexy!


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Caribbean Man said:


> Ohh! negotiating condom use.
> 
> Brings back so many memories, many of them TMI.
> But that too was part of the fun.


Negotiating safe sex was part of the fun? As in what exactly?


----------



## Caribbean Man

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The penance is sweating out your test results.



Man i've had some really nail biting moments after the fact...
It's a miracle I never caught anything.

But reality really b!tch slapped me when my cousin had an emergency surgery , and asked me to give blood. I went to donate and the nurse asked me how many sexual partners I'd had in the last six weeks. I answered honestly , and she then told me I was 
" ineligible " to donate because I was a " _high risk_" donor , even though I used protection..

She gave me a lecture that scared the sh!t out of me.

After that it hit home how reckless I was living my life.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Negotiating safe sex was part of the fun? As in what exactly?


No it's not " negotiating " safe sex.
It was more like either of us taking out a condom and what made it funny was me tearing open the packet and giving _her _it to put on me.
That usually resulting in a few minutes of her fumbling and me just smiling, enjoying the extra attention.
Then there were those who knew _exactly_ what they were doing.
Either way it was pleasurable and added to the fun.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Caribbean Man said:


> No it's not " negotiating " safe sex.
> It was more like either of us taking out a condom and what made it funny was me tearing open the packet and giving her it to put on me.
> That usually resulting in a few minutes of her fumbling and me just smiling.
> Then there were those who knew _exactly_ what they were doing.
> Either way it was pleasurable and added to the fun.


Ah, okay.


----------



## RandomDude

Caribbean Man said:


> I can't see two people getting down in the heat of passion and then one of them stops , lays down
> " terms and conditions" saying that he has three women he's seeing right now so his partner shouldn't get her hopes too high and don't expect him to call or anything after.I don't that does anything to make her feel sexy, and want to continue.


Read what I posted:

"Haven't you ever heard the saying "Don't ask - don't tell"?

It's not like I went around telling them of all my conquests or to compare them with each other not to mention I kept my mouth shut so I could have sex with women no one would even suspect was sleeping with me.

I never lied to them in regards to non-exclusivity nor did I share details either. That's the other thing about NSA -> don't boast or brag, I never get why guys do anyway, and as a result women felt safe and feared no consequences. And of course I never went bareback with them. 

I made sure they knew our relationship was not exclusive, that I could leave for someone else and they could leave or even actively date and fk someone else at the same time, I didn't care. "



> The idea of casual sex is _just for the moment_, nothing more.
> It's understood.
> It would amount to an act of lunacy to attach any real emotional value to a ONS or any other NSA sex ,except sexual , whether it was explicitly stated before or not.


So why we were you saying before that casual sex always leads to emotional attachment and hence disagree that it's acceptable? :scratchhead:


----------



## Caribbean Man

RandomDude said:


> So why we were you saying before that casual sex always leads to emotional attachment and hence disagree that it's acceptable? :scratchhead:


Because Random,
Like you posted this morning in your second post ,

" .._ it's very easy to get lazy in a NSA relationship and fall into exclusivity with sex whenever you want - preventing you from wanting to meet others, which can lead to emotional attachment_..."

There are people who actually_ do_ place value on NSA sex.

In your second post, I think you called them " stupid?"
I called them lunatics.

And like I said earlier , they are emotionally immature and shouldn't even be involved in NSA sex.

NSA sex simply means " _every man for himself_."


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Caribbean Man said:


> And how exactly does one stop themselves from being attracted on an emotional level to someone they're having consensual sex with?
> 
> Can a person really stop themselves from " liking" a person they're constantly in close sexual proximity with?


I've had sex with women I didn't feel any intimate emotional connection to. That's different from "liking" them.

I've had 4 fwbs. I liked and cared for them as friends, but we saw no future in a relationship... sounds retarded and incesty... but they were like sisters. As long as everyone is on the same page and doesn't have sex on a pedestal, this is actually a really nice arrangement as opposed to just being single. You're friends, you're sexually exclusive, you have sex when you get the itch - its laid back and pretty nice. It doesn't have any of that weird stress to impress that dating can sometimes have.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Deejo said:


> If a person is focused on responsibility and the potential consequences and pitfalls, then I humbly submit that they are not a person who would even consider casual sex. And there's nothing wrong with that in my mind.


Except that they're no fun at parties.


----------



## RandomDude

Ah! Well if that's the case then all this is a misunderstanding

Though I may have been too harsh... they were good people in the end I'm sure, just stupid to fall for me after I made it crystal clear.

Then again I reckon STBX is stupid too, for marrying me lol
To my ex: "What were you thinking woman?" :scratchhead: Oh well, will see her soon in a few hours... bah!



> I've had 4 fwbs. I liked and cared for them as friends, but we saw no future in a relationship... sounds retarded and incesty... but they were like sisters. As long as everyone is on the same page and doesn't have sex on a pedestal, this is actually a really nice arrangement as opposed to just being single. You're friends, you're sexually exclusive, you have sex when you get the itch - its laid back and pretty nice. It doesn't have any of that weird stress to impress that dating can sometimes have.


That's the beauty of it, no pretenses, no expectations, no responsibilities (either than those involving friendship and integrity) or emotional baggage, just plain and simple fun and friendship with exchanges of bodily fluids lol


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Women who don't want casual sex have had the solution to being "used" for all eternity: making him wait for it. A guy who wants sex is only going to wait so long before he finds it elsewhere from a woman more willing to have casual sex. If you accept having sex early, then you're accepting that it might just remain casual. I think women need to take responsibility here.

Any of this bizzare, upfront, unsexy negotiation of intent is absolutely worthless. "hey, I just met you and we're having sex... you know this is casual right?" "Uh... duh?" It is worthless because what is said in that contract negotiation means jack in terms of actual OUTCOME - that one or the other may become romantically interested or lose romantic interest. Too little is known about anything.

As a woman scared of being "used" (a term I honestly don't even get absent an explicit lie) you just don't have sex until he's proven his romantic interest. Its that simple.

Out of curiosity, why is it we have so few reports of guys being "used" for sex? Women are more moral? Women aren't seeking sex? Or is it a difference in how men and women tend to view sex?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Yikes. That doesn't sound good.


They're rare, but slip ups happen, we're all human. Everyone knows not to text and drive... but that happens all the time too.


----------



## DesertRat1978

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Women who don't want casual sex have had the solution to being "used" for all eternity: making him wait for it. A guy who wants sex is only going to wait so long before he finds it elsewhere from a woman more willing to have casual sex. If you accept having sex early, then you're accepting that it might just remain casual. I think women need to take responsibility here.
> 
> Any of this bizzare, upfront, unsexy negotiation of intent is absolutely worthless. "hey, I just met you and we're having sex... you know this is casual right?" "Uh... duh?" It is worthless because what is said in that contract negotiation means jack in terms of actual OUTCOME - that one or the other may become romantically interested or lose romantic interest. Too little is known about anything.
> 
> As a woman scared of being "used" (a term I honestly don't even get absent an explicit lie) you just don't have sex until he's proven his romantic interest. Its that simple.
> 
> Out of curiosity, why is it we have so few reports of guys being "used" for sex? Women are more moral? Women aren't seeking sex? Or is it a difference in how men and women tend to view sex?


I have spoken of a NSA-ish relationship with a woman at work many years ago. I pretty much got used for sex and nice lunches. She was my boss and randomly I would get the instant message that we needed to take lunch and that is what we would do. I admit to sometimes wanting more than infrequent, mind-blowing sex but she made it quite clear that was all that she had in mind.


----------



## Caribbean Man

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> As a woman scared of being "used" (a term I honestly don't even get absent an explicit lie) you just don't have sex until he's proven his romantic interest. Its that simple.


:iagree:
It is _that_ simple.
Stop pretending, stop the cake eating.


----------



## RandomDude

NSAs are not as simple as ONSs and not always will it be clear cut and it can happen anywhere, at anytime with anyone; eg, someone picked up at a club, a non-blood related stepsister, a good friend who's transparent with you, etc etc. 

Letting someone know where they stand isn't as awkward as you make it out to be mate and can even be flirty when done right as I mentioned before.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

tyler1978 said:


> I have spoken of a NSA-ish relationship with a woman at work many years ago. I pretty much got used for sex and nice lunches. She was my boss and randomly I would get the instant message that we needed to take lunch and that is what we would do. I admit to sometimes wanting more than infrequent, mind-blowing sex but she made it quite clear that was all that she had in mind.


Did you feel "used"?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

RandomDude said:


> Letting someone know where they stand isn't as awkward as you make it out to be mate and can even be flirty when done right as I mentioned before.


No, you missed the point. Even if you don't think its awkward (which I do... a girl stopping me to lay out how its casual or to confirm my romantic interest? boner killer! We're so loaded with uncontainable passion that we... are stopping to negotiate lol)... but even if you don't think its awkward, doing so is still useless - casual can become romantic and romance can falter.

If you can't take it turning out to be casual, don't have sex until you're sure its romantic.


----------



## DesertRat1978

RandomDude said:


> NSAs are not as simple as ONSs and not always will it be clear cut and it can happen anywhere, at anytime with anyone; eg, someone picked up at a club, a non-blood related stepsister, a good friend who's transparent with you, etc etc.
> 
> Letting someone know where they stand isn't as awkward as you make it out to be mate and can even be flirty when done right as I mentioned before.


I am not sure if you are addressing me. If you are, I was not so much upset or offended as I was surprised. I always thought that a woman would grow emotionally attached and want the more romantic stuff. Not this time.


----------



## DesertRat1978

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Did you feel "used"?


A little background. It was a call center with about 500 people taking calls. over half of these agents were young men. Young men that could not take their eyes off the boss lady. 5'9", 190 or so lbs., F cup breasts. She was supremely confident and a bit of a "bad girl". 

Long story made short, I ended up having an NSA relationship. I felt pretty honored actually. Having been the shy guy in high school and not having had all that much success with the ladies, this was pretty exciting. Including the fact that I really did not have to do much to make this happen. I just went about work as normal and would make sarcastic jokes to her. At the time, I was thinking that there had to be something special about me for her to choose me and not others.

In short, our six month adventure was purely sex. There would be times that I wanted to have more than just sex. She would politely but firmly say no. At the time, I was surprised but mostly unphased. I was having sex with this incredibly attractive woman who was great in bed. Later on, I looked back and figured out that I pretty much got used. She found a new boy toy to have at lunch and after long days.


----------



## Faithful Wife

The only argument for not having "the talk" is that it is a boner killer? Proving the point that it does need to be said...because in that moment if you know your boner will over-ride your ability to show care for yourself or others, then not having the talk is dishonest.


----------



## RandomDude

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> No, you missed the point. Even if you don't think its awkward (which I do... a girl stopping me to lay out how its casual or to confirm my romantic interest? boner killer! We're so loaded with uncontainable passion that we... are stopping to negotiate lol)... but even if you don't think its awkward, doing so is still useless - casual can become romantic and romance can falter.


Of course it would be awkward if you do it in the middle of sex! lol
Do you break up with a woman in the middle of sex too? Of course not! There are plenty of opportunities to lay one's cards out on the table during courtship and they come naturally.

Yes, casual can become romantic and romance can falter but personally I don't see the point to lead on a woman if she's showing obvious emotional interest. Now I'm not saying that you did that with that girl you mentioned (I'm not Always Alone mate), and you did let her go after all.

However I don't see why it's so hard to understand in NSA relationships that boundaries still need to be established and there's plenty of ways you can go around it instead of simply pulling out a rulebook in the middle of sex! You can be flirty and teasy and still let her know what you're looking for and hell that may even build sexual arousal, some may even feel better about it especially if they feel the same way -> like in the case of my friend who told me I'm fkbuddy not bf material for instance which I capitalised on. 

At its worst unfortunately at times it may even cause emotional arousal - as "don't fall in love" itself is a line that can be disastrous on the vulnerable but that's when you cut the strings.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Women who don't want casual sex have had the solution to being "used" for all eternity: making him wait for it. A guy who wants sex is only going to wait so long before he finds it elsewhere from a woman more willing to have casual sex. If you accept having sex early, then you're accepting that it might just remain casual. I think women need to take responsibility here.
> 
> Any of this bizzare, upfront, unsexy negotiation of intent is absolutely worthless. "hey, I just met you and we're having sex... you know this is casual right?" "Uh... duh?" It is worthless because what is said in that contract negotiation means jack in terms of actual OUTCOME - that one or the other may become romantically interested or lose romantic interest. Too little is known about anything.
> 
> As a woman scared of being "used" (a term I honestly don't even get absent an explicit lie) you just don't have sex until he's proven his romantic interest. Its that simple.
> 
> Out of curiosity, why is it we have so few reports of guys being "used" for sex? Women are more moral? Women aren't seeking sex? Or is it a difference in how men and women tend to view sex?


What you define as bizarre upfront and unsexy negotiation, I see as normal human interaction. What's bizarre to me is that it is so off-putting and unreasonable to say, want to practice safe sex or to attend to the feelings and thoughts of your sex partner.

And the endless insistence that these very small and human interactions are an utter mood killer says to me that you're relying on lies or manipulation to mask your true intentions.

Why do women feel used? I've said it before and I'll say it again. Primarily it's the lies! Number one reason, hands down. Maybe you guys here don't lie, but I can assure you that many do. Beyond lies, it's things like slipping her pills or extra drink to make sure she's not in her right mind. Or capitalizing on someone who has had too much by offering to "help" them, or other unsavoury things like that. We've been over this before, and guys keep saying that you agree. But then you're back calling women cake-eaters and thinking it worthless to spoil YOUR mood by checking in with them, slipping on a condom, or whatever. 

One last time: Women generally don't feel used if they've been treated well. We are aware that casual sex is in fact casual, and not all of us wish that every sexual encounter will result in marriage and 2.5 kids, and a white picket fences. We just want to be treated with a modicum of respect. 

But I'm just spinning my wheels now. No matter what I say you will probably still think that a woman who engages in casual sex deserves everything she gets, no matter how nasty, because clearly she asked for it and should've known better. 

I hope you feel the same way about yourselves.


----------



## RandomDude

tyler1978 said:


> I am not sure if you are addressing me. If you are, I was not so much upset or offended as I was surprised.* I always thought that a woman would grow emotionally attached and want the more romantic stuff.* Not this time.


That's a load of bullsh-t mate IMO lol

And people even used that to criticise me having NSA relationships using that crap when I knew my friends were better than that.



tyler1978 said:


> Long story made short, I ended up having an NSA relationship. I felt pretty honored actually. Having been the shy guy in high school and not having had all that much success with the ladies, this was pretty exciting.


Haha, can only imagine, shy guy seduced by his hot boss :rofl:


----------



## Faithful Wife

It would be great if everyone was sexually self-aware enough to know all of their own motives.

Not everyone is, though.


----------



## RandomDude

Meh, all this talk of sex and no strings attached is making me miss my youth, now I'm married, seperated, and 8 coming 9 months CELIBATE!!! Life's a fking joke... bah

Ne ways... carry on


----------



## Faithful Wife

When I was single, one step in becoming sexually self-aware was for me to realize that I *did* want to have sexy fun times, but not necessarily have sex. I didn't want to have PIV sex because I learned that my body - due to hormonal bonding chemical reactions, ie: oxytocin - would want to "bond" with anyone I had sex with, regardless if I actually "liked them liked them", or just wanted casual sex. (At this time I did not want any relationship to develop).

My solution for this, for myself, was to get "make out buddies" instead of f*ck buddies.

I would pick a guy and ask him if he wanted to be my make out buddy. He would want to know what that involved. I explained, no sex but we can make out, fully clothed, and date each other if we want...but it will never be full on sex, and we will never be in a real relationship.

Every guy I proposed this to took me up on it (not that many, maybe 5 or 6 of them?)

Every guy did follow the rules.

Not one of them ever tried to push my boundaries on the making out and move it toward sex, at all. They were all actually delighted to just make out with me, and I was too. It was soooo fun to be making out all for its own sake!

But...everyone of them did end up "liking me liking me", and eventually they wanted to "date me for real", taking away the rule that this will never become a romantic relationship.

I dumped them when they started down that path.

Not mean...not cruel...just with a sweet "sorry honey, I can't go there right now in my life, and I can't make out with you anymore since you are developing real feelings for me".

This was not the entire culmination of my becoming sexuall self-aware...but it was a good step.


----------



## RandomDude

That bond can actually be quite nice and even embraced but it doesn't have to lead to anything btw. I experienced it too, every time. When they do go I also feel the sense of loss like losing a good friend but nothing like losing a loved one or anything. It's just chemicals, physical bonding and familiarity. Love... it's just something else.

My better NSAs were the same way, hence we were fond of each other, close but never made it to real feelings.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yeah, I never developed that bond at all with them...because we didn't go all the way.

That chemical bond can confuse you and make you think you have real feelings.

I never had those feelings at all for these guys. I was fond of them. But not bonded to them, ever. When they went their way, I felt no loss.

I think they might have created a bond with me and felt the loss of me, though. I mean, they would pop back up later in my life and ask me out again "for real this time".


----------



## RandomDude

Interesting, you must have been a really good kisser lol

It's fun though ey? NSA is the same way in that it can be fun like that and nothing else. In my youth I had to move around quite alot as well so I was very used to losing friends, letting NSAs go despite the bond was easy to me as a result.

Emotional attachment as a rule is just difficult for me. Quite frankly I have no idea how I ended up falling for STBX sometimes. We were each other's first true love in that regard, probably why we stuck together for so long despite our issues.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

I can't relate to NOT wanting to bond with someone ....if we enjoy each others time together...talking all hours into the night...lots of laughter, acceptance... if seeing his face brightens my world.....and makes me feel like heaven to be in his arms...and his hands on me..... this makes little sense to my brain...that would be like a freaking War going on....fighting that.

This has been the highlight & Joy of my life..... being in love like that...togetherness... someone to always count on, to be there , have my back & I have his....and to have babies with. 

See...I could never do the casual sex being wired the way I am...I'm fvck'n Hopeless... (but he loves it - so it's OK)


----------



## Faithful Wife

If I had met my H in high school and married him soon after like you did SA, I'm pretty sure I would feel just like you do.

Not all of us are so lucky!


----------



## RandomDude

Well for me I just couldn't lol, it wasn't a matter of wanting it or not 

Really proves the saying true that "You can never make anyone fall in love with you" no matter what you do, they either do or don't. STBX and I... well, sh-t just happens


----------



## Faithful Wife

Actually, the Marriage Builders program advocates that you CAN fall in love and stay in love, at will, by doing certain behaviors. This also explains how affairs quickly turn into "love"...even though they really aren't.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Faithful Wife said:


> If I had met my H in high school and married him soon after like you did SA, I'm pretty sure I would feel just like you do.
> 
> Not all of us are so lucky!


 Ok.. so what was wrong with all these GUYS that YOU REJECTED..as you was learning your sexual awareness as you described...you would only go so far... knowing you didn't want to BOND too much...

You held this boundary (which I think is great by the way)... but I am curious to know what was wrong with them?? .... since it sounds they started to fall FOR YOU? 

It just seems ...the whole wide world frowns on Young love... and I can see where they are coming from too... as so many young people are just not mature enough ... but yet I hate to see it bashed so much too... it's a double edged sword I guess... Love, sex and "attachment"....No ...a tripled edged sword.


----------



## RandomDude

Sounds like a good debate by itself! Can people truly be made to fall in love with each other?

From my experience - definitely not. For others? Maybe - but what if they are confusing what love even is -> the same how people confuse the chemical bond in casual sex as love?

Seduction and sex is one thing but falling in love is something else entirely from my experience.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

RandomDude said:


> Of course it would be awkward if you do it in the middle of sex! lol
> Do you break up with a woman in the middle of sex too? Of course not! There are plenty of opportunities to lay one's cards out on the table during courtship and they come naturally.


If you're courting, you're not casual... so what's the point? I don't get what you're saying at all. NSAs get right to sex and its not ambiguous to begin with.

I think we have far different experiences with NSAs vs courtship.



RandomDude said:


> Yes, casual can become romantic and romance can falter but personally I don't see the point *to lead on *a woman if she's showing obvious emotional interest.


How can one be said to be leading a woman on without showing romantic interest? And if one is showing romantic interest, how can one be said to be leading her on without outright lying? My biggest problem with your thinking is this: a woman needs to own her behavior. If she's become all lovey dovey and he is showing no romantic interest, SHE should leave. He is not giving her what she wants. If you want something from someone, and they are not giving it, take responsibility for yourself: leave. Its no else's job to take care of you or make sure your needs get met but you.

I'm sure I'll get more flak for this (what else is new? ) but I think the notion that the guy bears responsibility to dump the girl he's not romantically interested in because she became romantically interested in him, is just one of many examples where women are treated like children. Chivalry run amok. She's a big girl. She can choose what kind of treatment to accept.

If a woman is not giving me the affection I give her, I'll leave. Its not her responsibility to leave. She might be perfectly satisfied with what I'm giving her.



RandomDude said:


> However I don't see why it's so hard to understand in NSA relationships that boundaries still need to be established


Because they don't *need* to be. That's why its called no strings. Boundaries *can* be established... strings can be added, but they don't have to be. If she hooks up with someone she just met, no strings is the default. She quite clearly hasn't demanded any strings in order for her to have sex. If she's holding out a few dates to let the relationship develop and get him to show some commitment, that's what attaching strings looks like. She isn't just interested in sex or she would have already jumped on it.

There's really not a lot of ambiguity here. The only situation I can conceive of where such negotiation might be helpful is when a platonic friendship goes nsa - but you've already got a good communicative relationship built there so its natural.

Or, I'm wrong and others have what I perceive to be quite weird conversations with their new partners where they try to figure out whether its NSA or romantic. I can't even fathom how that conversation works or why it would be necessary. To me, its obvious: when someone is romantically interested in you, they behave romantically. When they want nsa sex, they just f*ck you without buying you dinner.  When someone wants to go from nsa to romantic, they start behaving romantically and this sometimes happens regardless of whether you both agreed it was just nsa... and poof... that's the beginning of the end of the nsa. Is that really confusing? What point did laying out the rules serve?


----------



## DesertRat1978

RandomDude said:


> That's a load of bullsh-t mate IMO lol


I was under the impression that women did not want true, NSA sexual relationships. Well, as you know, life is a learning experience and that was one of them.



RandomDude said:


> Haha, can only imagine, shy guy seduced by his hot boss :rofl:


At this time, I had come out of the shell quite a bit. I just did not come off as desperate. My tongue was not dragging on the ground.


----------



## Faithful Wife

SA...It was after my divorce that this happened. I was not ready for a relationship, but still wanted some lovin's. Not sex so much as just sexual affection and touching and fooling around. My first marriage was (mostly) sexless and I was starved for it...but I knew that I couldn't really go all the way without getting bonded.

So this was in my 30's. I was very sad about my D and was trying to work through the emotions, while still caring for my body's needs as much as possible without hurting myself or others emotionally.

I don't see how I "rejected" these guys, when I am the one who asked them to join me in the make out buddy agreement? In actuality I "picked them" not rejected them. There was absolutely nothing "wrong" with these guys.

I did not know my current H in high school at all...we are not from the same city. If I had known him somehow though, we both feel sure we would have "found" each other back then.


----------



## RandomDude

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> If you're courting, you're not casual... so what's the point? I don't get what you're saying at all. NSAs get right to sex and its not ambiguous to begin with.
> 
> I think we have far different experiences with NSAs vs courtship...
> 
> ...Because they don't *need* to be. That's why its called no strings. Boundaries *can* be established... strings can be added, but they don't have to be. If she hooks up with someone she just met, no strings is the default. She quite clearly hasn't demanded any strings in order for her to have sex. If she's holding out a few dates to let the relationship develop and get him to show some commitment, that's what attaching strings looks like. She isn't just interested in sex or she would have already jumped on it.
> 
> There's really not a lot of ambiguity here. The only situation I can conceive of where such negotiation might be helpful is when a platonic friendship goes nsa - but you've already got a good communicative relationship built there so its natural.
> 
> Or, I'm wrong and others have what I perceive to be quite weird conversations with their new partners where they try to figure out whether its NSA or romantic. I can't even fathom how that conversation works or why it would be necessary. To me, its obvious: when someone is romantically interested in you, they behave romantically. When they want nsa sex, they just f*ck you without buying you dinner.  When someone wants to go from nsa to romantic, they start behaving romantically and this sometimes happens regardless of whether you both agreed it was just nsa... and poof... that's the beginning of the end of the nsa. Is that really confusing? What point did laying out the rules serve?


I wanted nothing more than sex and made sure they knew who they was dealing with. That's it, just my style, what's wrong with that? Are you saying I should have lied to them for no reason whatsoever? I was honest, I got laid, I was happy. 

The only thing I'm disagreeing with are folks playing the wrong game (dating/romantic game) when they simply want sex. That to me is wrong and I'm sure you can agree.



> How can one be said to be leading a woman on without showing romantic interest? And if one is showing romantic interest, how can one be said to be leading her on without outright lying?


When did I say that?



> My biggest problem with your thinking is this: a woman needs to own her behavior. If she's become all lovey dovey and he is showing no romantic interest, SHE should leave. He is not giving her what she wants. If you want something from someone, and they are not giving it, take responsibility for yourself: leave. Its no else's job to take care of you or make sure your needs get met but you.


Of course she should leave, and I helped them leave by showing them the door (nicely)



> I'm sure I'll get more flak for this (what else is new? ) but I think the notion that the guy bears responsibility to dump the girl he's not romantically interested in because she became romantically interested in him, is just one of many examples where women are treated like children. Chivalry run amok. She's a big girl. She can choose what kind of treatment to accept.


If a woman goes all lovey dovey on me when I've made it clear I ain't going to return the same affection then she in particular is a child to me and hence needs to go.



> If a woman is not giving me the affection I give her, I'll leave. Its not her responsibility to leave. She might be perfectly satisfied with what I'm giving her.


Problem is that some people misunderstand, I didn't want that, especially with my friends.


----------



## RandomDude

tyler1978 said:


> I was under the impression that women did not want true, NSA sexual relationships. Well, as you know, life is a learning experience and that was one of them.
> 
> At this time, I had come out of the shell quite a bit. I just did not come off as desperate. My tongue was not dragging on the ground.


Heh I did have a crush on my team leader on one of first sales jobs back when I was 18, and wish I had your experience! She would have been a root to die for! Haha

I kept things professional though, I'm normally more cautious in work relations


----------



## DesertRat1978

RandomDude said:


> Heh I did have a crush on my team leader on one of first sales jobs back when I was 18, and wish I had your experience! She would have been a root to die for! Haha
> 
> I kept things professional though, I'm normally more cautious in work relations


I thought that I did not have a chance so I just laid low. She was five inches taller than I and I had some serious competition. It was my first experience with a woman that was truly HD.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> What you define as bizarre upfront and unsexy negotiation, I see as normal human interaction. What's bizarre to me is that it is so off-putting and unreasonable to say, want to practice safe sex or to attend to the feelings and thoughts of your sex partner.


I don't believe this is normal at all. This is robotic. So much of this is handled in non-verbal communication and actions. You want to practice safe sex, you take precautions in advance of even meeting someone. I buy condoms before I find the woman. Want to make sure you're partner isn't sleeping around? You don't do it by sleeping with him on day one before you know anything about him. Its a hell of a lot more effective than asking him "just so we're clear, we're exclusive right?" You just met him... he could be the liar of all liars.

You're saying women should protect themselves from liars by having conversations? No. You communicate these intentions much better through actions. By not sleeping with someone until he has proven his intentions... and not crying about his intentions if you didn't require him to prove them out before you slept with him.



always_alone said:


> And the endless insistence that these very small and human interactions are an utter mood killer says to me that you're relying on lies or manipulation to mask your true intentions.


Endless? We just started this discussion. You're off the wall. My whole point is that what you're saying isn't necessary. If you're worried about him "using" you, don't sleep with him yet. If you sleep with him without making him prove anything... well, that's on you. This lawyering might work for a developed relationship, but its totally meaningless in a new relationship. It doesn't grant you any protection. Would it make you feel better if he agreed to everything you said in this little chat but lied? No. See... same outcome as not having the conversation at all. The liars will lie. The only solution is to interpret actions alone. If you want commitment, then make him prove that he wants commitment too... make him wait.



always_alone said:


> Why do women feel used? I've said it before and I'll say it again. Primarily it's the lies! Number one reason, hands down. Maybe you guys here don't lie, but I can assure you that many do.


No need to single out guys. People lie. So what can you do? Have conversations to make sure everyone is on the same page? With a liar? I don't that conversation is going to get you a different outcome.



always_alone said:


> Beyond lies, it's things like slipping her pills or extra drink to make sure she's not in her right mind.


I don't call that using, I call that rape.



always_alone said:


> Or capitalizing on someone who has had too much by offering to "help" them, or other unsavoury things like that.


I don't know what you mean. Help them what? Taking advantage of drunk women is imo, also rape. I know it is in many states... she has to be legally able to give consent.



always_alone said:


> We've been over this before, and guys keep saying that you agree. But then you're back calling women cake-eaters and thinking it worthless to spoil YOUR mood by checking in with them, slipping on a condom, or whatever.


I can slip on a condom without spoiling the mood. I can't have a weird discussion about whether this is really real or nsa... or what is this? How do you feel? Are we a thing? yadda yadda. Its just not necessary... even before the sexual situation.



always_alone said:


> One last time: Women generally don't feel used if they've been treated well. We are aware that casual sex is in fact casual, and not all of us wish that every sexual encounter will result in marriage and 2.5 kids, and a white picket fences. We just want to be treated with a modicum of respect.


Then leave when you don't get what you want. What respect should I have had for my crazy chick for example? She was love drunk and I was giving nothing. She was accepting my zero investment. If that's what she'll accept... that's what she'll accept. Women should take responsibility for themselves.



always_alone said:


> But I'm just spinning my wheels now. No matter what I say you will probably still think that a woman who engages in casual sex deserves everything she gets, no matter how nasty, because clearly she asked for it and should've known better.
> 
> I hope you feel the same way about yourselves.


You're not spinning wheels... we just disagree I suppose. I understand the motivation behind what you're saying, I'm just saying that's just how it goes. Yes, everyone who engages in casual sex deserves what they get. That's the risk for the reward.

Taking risks sometimes doesn't pan out. If the juice isn't worth the squeeze, that is the whole point of waiting.

Actions communicate more than words ever will.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Random...thank you for being an Ethical Sl*t.

The Ethical ****: A Guide to Infinite Sexual Possibilities: Dossie Easton, Catherine A. Liszt: 9781890159016: Amazon.com: Books


----------



## RandomDude

Faithful Wife said:


> Random...thank you for being an Ethical Sl*t.
> 
> The Ethical ****: A Guide to Infinite Sexual Possibilities: Dossie Easton, Catherine A. Liszt: 9781890159016: Amazon.com: Books


Ethical? Me? The same guy who boned a married woman who had a son 5 yrs my junior and refuses to accept responsibility for the breakdown of their marriage + influences good girls to go bad? :rofl:

Nah, not so sure I deserve such a compliment. But you're welcome  lol


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yep..you...if you read the book, you'll see yourself in there, including the married woman thing.


----------



## RandomDude

tyler1978 said:


> I thought that I did not have a chance so I just laid low. She was five inches taller than I and I had some serious competition. It was my first experience with a woman that was truly HD.


All I can say is that you're one lucky bastard mate! 

Nowadays I can only roleplay that crap, and I don't even have a wife to do that with no more! So bah! lol


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Faithful Wife said:


> Actually, the Marriage Builders program advocates that *you CAN fall in love and stay in love, at will, by doing certain behaviors. This also explains how affairs quickly turn into "love".*..even though they really aren't.





> *Random Dude said*: Sounds like a good debate by itself! *Can people truly be made to fall in love with each other?
> 
> From my experience - definitely not. For others? Maybe - but what if they are confusing what love even is -> the same how people confuse the chemical bond in casual sex as love?*


This explains the chemicals / hormones to falling in love >> The *Lust*, *attraction* and *attachment* stages ....

The science of love

Here is the thing, I like to read about stuff like this... in the first 18- 20 months ...we are in that "swept off our feet stage"...the rush of new Love, that whirlwind we think we'll die if the other left us.....if a couple is decently compatible that is... romance can be like a HIGH...similar to cocaine. 

But as time goes on... these chemicals take a dive.. we get used to each other ....settled.. we aren't thinking about each other every moment of the day.....if a couple can get beyond these 18- 20 some months.....still loving on each other, feeling like best friends, still doing everything together... and feeling fulfilled...joined at the hip makes them light up..... they have truly beat the odds... Yes, we were one of these couples... very compatible from the get go....we complimented each other so very well in so many ways. 

I know with me though....although I am an attacher by nature... I would never be able to live with or be able to stand certain things in a man... (If he was an over spender, wasted his money, a partier, liked the city, a workaholic, didn't share the same moral fabric, didn't want kids, bla bla bla...).... and many wouldn't be able to handle me either... it probably takes a special man to do that...

So although attraction may be there, if a guy annoyed me & pissed me off on a regular basis... if I felt hurt, neglected... I'd throw him to the wind.....I'd be looking elsewhere ...

I can be selfish in what I want.. just being honest here (so I needed a man who enjoyed what I enjoyed ).... or we'd be fighting badly... some may be able to overcome BIG differences.. I am self aware enough to know.... This would be a huge struggle for me. ..



> *Faithful wife said*: I don't see how I "rejected" these guys, when I am the one who asked them to join me in the make out buddy agreement? In actuality I "picked them" not rejected them. There was absolutely nothing "wrong" with these guys.


 I was thinking this was high school talk, not after a divorce - where , without having went through this experience or a sexless one at that - but reading so many stories where the last thing a person wants to do is fall in love again -because they fear it may be a repeat of their worse fears... knowing it starts out well -but can go SO BAD.. some vow to never open their heart again.. 

So it makes sense, after all that -you just wanted to have FUN.....and feel some skin [email protected]#$ Would be awfully hard to not go all the way though. Would be tormenting I would think..

I used the term "rejected" -only because it sounded they started falling for you... saying "I think they might have created a bond with me and felt the loss of me, though"....so they may have felt *that sting* .... but YOU was upfront with them, so it was their risk.


----------



## RandomDude

Faithful Wife said:


> Yep..you...if you read the book, you'll see yourself in there, including the married woman thing.


So I'm not so evil after all?  
Hoorah! 

Thanks though


----------



## Faithful Wife

SA said: "Would be awfully hard to not go all the way though. Would be tormenting I would think.."

No, it really wasn't. It wasn't for the guys, either, strangely enough. As I said, none of them even pushed for more.

I think what happened was that since it was set in our minds that there was a spoken boundary line and it was our intention to stay within that boundary...then the focus was on the fun we WERE having rather than on getting more worked up and wanting sex.

I think if you just start making out with someone without any idea where it might go...then you can quickly get into hot water (torment).

But somehow by simply making it an agreement, that never happened.

In my experience, casual sex isn't that good anyway. The partners don't know each other well enough to be good lovers to each other. So having sex with these guys did not appeal to me, but making out with them did, very much appeal to me. To be safe within a stated boundary meant I could really just focus on the kissing and nice feelings generated without thinking about sex at all.

My H and I make out all the time, by the way. I love it all on its own!

Don't feel too bad for those guys though SA...they are good guys who will end up with women better suited for them than I am. 

If they felt a sting, they never said so. They are all casual friends now. (well...not all of them...some of them I don't know where they ended up but most of them are still in my circle/community...)


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

RandomDude said:


> I wanted nothing more than sex and made sure they knew who they was dealing with. That's it, just my style, what's wrong with that? Are you saying I should have lied to them for no reason whatsoever? I was honest, I got laid, I was happy.


If I were a woman, I'd have said "duh". Someone hooks up with you the night they meet you, you think they want the white picket fence? C'mon man! 



RandomDude said:


> The only thing I'm disagreeing with are folks playing the wrong game (dating/romantic game) when they simply want sex. That to me is wrong and I'm sure you can agree.


Yep. But that's lying. "I love you baby" -only wants sex. That's not game.



RandomDude said:


> When did I say that?


I'm asking you. What's the lead on?

The only issue I see is lying... and that's not game.



RandomDude said:


> Of course she should leave, and I helped them leave by showing them the door (nicely)


My problem is that this is being framed as some kind of imperative on the guy's part to show her the door. There's not. He gives her x, she wants more than x... ball in her court. Her responsibility to decide what she will accept.

It bothers me that this is passed to guys and is imo a chivalrous holdover that is insulting to women at its root... taking away their responsibility.


----------



## Faithful Wife

oh yeah...it is soooo insulting to women....


----------



## RandomDude

@SA

It's strange for me -> like I only experienced something like this:



> Here is the thing, I like to read about stuff like this... in the first 18- 20 months ...we are in that "swept off our feet stage"...the rush of new Love, that whirlwind we think we'll die if the other left us.....if a couple is decently compatible that is... romance can be like a HIGH...similar to cocaine.


Twice, first time was with my first gf at 16. And then with STBX, the rest of the time was... meh, just sex and fun. I'm so picky! But can't help it -> it's either there or it's not.



> But as time goes on... these chemicals take a dive.. we get used to each other ....settled.. we aren't thinking about each other every moment of the day.....if a couple can get beyond these 18- 20 some months.....still loving on each other, feeling like best friends, still doing everything together... and feeling fulfilled...joined at the hip makes them light up..... they have truly beat the odds... Yes, we were one of these couples... very compatible from the get go....we complimented each other so very well in so many ways.
> 
> I know with me though....although I am an attacher by nature... I would never be able to live with or be able to stand certain things in a man... (If he was an over spender, wasted his money, a partier, liked the city, a workaholic, didn't share the same moral fabric, didn't want kids, bla bla bla...).... and many wouldn't be able to handle me either... it probably takes a special man to do that...
> 
> So although attraction may be there, if a guy annoyed me & pissed me off on a regular basis... if I felt hurt, neglected... I'd throw him to the wind.....I'd be looking elsewhere ...
> 
> I can be selfish in what I want.. just being honest here (so I needed a man who enjoyed what I enjoyed ).... or we'd be fighting badly... some may be able to overcome BIG differences.. I am self aware enough to know.... This would be a huge struggle for me. ..


Funny, STBX and I had a strange start really, we were best friends for a full year before we became lovers, the sexual tension was there and there were romantic times that we both brushed aside but it only made the tension worse.


----------



## DesertRat1978

Somewhat unrelated but this thread, as a whole, has made me think of a book that I read last year named, "Quiet, The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking". There is this perception that one has to be extroverted to succeed (in work, with the ladies, etc.) and this book shows that the more introverted types are just as successful. The difference being that their successes tend to not be as advertised.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Totally agree, tyler. Introverts can be Sex Gods, too. Some men want to believe it is all about being "out there", but you can be highly sexual no matter what your personality is.

I know a guy who presents like Spock. Highly intelligent, mild mannered, quiet...people think they know him because of the way he presents himself.

With his committed partner, he is a huge sex freak...and I hear he is really great at it, too. He scoffs at the notion that only alpha extroverted dudes get the good sex.


----------



## RandomDude

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> If I were a woman, I'd have said "duh".


And some did! lol and it didn't ruin anything at all, just made us smile and in fact it just helped break the ice even more

Another example could be one of my more vulnerable NSAs who began asking me to go out with her, cooking for me, etc etc. I suspected an emotional attachment, so I confronted her -> she told me "I know I'm not your type so don't worry about it", and that was that. I kept my hands clean and we continued our rumping.



> Someone hooks up with you the night they meet you, you think they want the white picket fence? C'mon man!


Ha! You never know mate as some people can be seriously clueless -> not to mention many of my NSAs definitely didn't start off as ONSs, many were in fact friends or friends of friends.



> Yep. But that's lying. "I love you baby" -only wants sex. That's not game.
> 
> I'm asking you. What's the lead on?
> 
> The only issue I see is lying... and that's not game.


Exactly, so what's the point you're trying to prove?



> My problem is that this is being framed as some kind of imperative on the guy's part to show her the door. There's not. He gives her x, she wants more than x... ball in her court. Her responsibility to decide what she will accept.
> 
> It bothers me that this is passed to guys and is imo a chivalrous holdover that is insulting to women at its root... taking away their responsibility.


As I mentioned before: 

"If a woman goes all lovey dovey on me when I've made it clear I ain't going to return the same affection then *she in particular* is a child to me and hence needs to go."

The point is, some people are just fking clueless mate, that's just how it is -> no offense to them, to be PC about it they are just "unaware/inexperienced" whatever so I prefered to keep my hands clean.


----------



## RandomDude

tyler1978 said:


> Somewhat unrelated but this thread, as a whole, has made me think of a book that I read last year named, "Quiet, The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking". There is this perception that one has to be extroverted to succeed (in work, with the ladies, etc.) and this book shows that the more introverted types are just as successful. The difference being that their successes tend to not be as advertised.


Extroverts are over-rated, if one thinks he has to be a loud braggard to succeed/win ladies then :slap:

Besides my own personal game in itself is introvert by nature.


----------



## DesertRat1978

RandomDude said:


> Extroverts are over-rated, if one thinks he has to be a loud braggard to succeed/win ladies then :slap:
> 
> Besides my own personal game in itself is introvert by nature.


I am quite introverted and the last time that I was on the market, I had no problem with the ladies.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Random said: "The point is, some people are just fking clueless mate, that's just how it is -> no offense to them, to be PC about it they are just "unaware/inexperienced" whatever so I prefered to keep my hands clean."


Right. Not being sexually-self-aware isn't a choice. Some people just aren't (yet), and that means they might not be able to be fully honest about their own intentions and motivations, because they haven't discovered them all within themselves (yet).


----------



## Caribbean Man

Boy meets girl, falls in love. After 3 months they agree to be exclusive and have sex. Next month boy no longer feels as attracted as before and tells girl he's no longer interested in her.
But she always knew this could happen.
_She is heartbroken._

Girl meets boy , sparks fly, they chat for the entire night ,hormonal overload , they have sex the next day, and the next day, and the next. They both share the exact , same feelings, and the days grow into weeks , the weeks grow into months. Absolutely no
" negotiation " ever took place, it was just understood. Three years pass by and they decide to get married.
_They made it work._

Girl is just two weeks out from a nasty break up with her ex boyfriend. Sees a guy she's slightly attracted to. He makes her laugh and he reminds her of someone in her past. He begins to hint at them " hooking up " , but she knows to herself that she's in a vulnerable state right now. Her mind tells her that she should just take it slow, but her body's calling out for sex. She listens to her body , has sex with boy , knowing fully well that nothing will come out of this. They agreed to it_ before._
Afterwards he does call and they chat. Next she sees him with another girl and she begins to feel crappy..
_It was her choice._

Such is the vagaries of human interpersonal relationships. They are by their very nature, unpredictable.

Two people get married , have kids are faithful to each other for more than a decade, and suddenly the wife realizes that she never really loved her husband and marriage isn't what she thought it would be.
She wants a divorce.
Or the husband realizes that somehow his wife doesn't do it for him in the sex department any more
He wants a divorce, you only live once , is his justification.
_There are no guarantees._

If there are no guarantees even in marriage, how does 
" negotiating " anything before having casual, NSA sex guarantee anything?
Honesty starts within oneself.
Any honest person knows that there can be no guarantees in a casual sex relationship.
It is dishonest to pretend not to know that, and to try to impose clauses and conditions that are _ultra vires_ the very nature of those types of relationships, not to mention manipulative.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> oh yeah...it is soooo insulting to women....



Which is kinda ironic.
This thread was started with the exclusive purpose of insulting and denigrating men.

Doubt it?

Reread the title of the thread and the original post, then switch the genders around.


----------



## TiggyBlue

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> My problem is that this is being framed as some kind of imperative on the guy's part to show her the door. There's not. He gives her x, she wants more than x... ball in her court. Her responsibility to decide what she will accept.
> 
> It bothers me that this is passed to guys and is imo a chivalrous holdover that is insulting to women at its root... taking away their responsibility.


That goes both ways imo.


----------



## ReformedHubby

Caribbean Man said:


> Ok.
> Like my name suggests , I live in the Caribbean.
> I was born on a Tourist resort destination. Beautiful island with beaches, hotels everything.
> You know in others vacation resorts like Thailand and so on men go there to have sex with the women. Its called sex tourism.
> 
> Well the on the island I was born it's the other way around. Filthy rich women come to have no strings attached sex with men. They buy these men expensive gifts and goive them casj " donations." They take these men to the finest restaurants , best island clubs etc, whilst they're on vacation. These men become their " date" whenever they're on the island. These women sometimes tell their other friends when they return about how they " got their groove on ", pass on the guy's name and their friends come looking for him, when the tour the Caribbean.
> Ever since I was a little boy growing up I've been seeing this happening.
> These guys are pretty normal guys, not rich, just young and physically well built.
> Good looks are optional.
> 
> On the Island i now live, there is a yearly , huge , island wide carnival.
> Pretty much the same thing happens. Lots of visitors come in by the hundreds of thousands to party and have a good time.
> Lots of young , adventurous women , mostly in their 20's come to " have fun." Part of that fun is hooking up with local men for sex and partying. These men don't need game or anything to pick up any of these blondes with blue eyes.
> They came here for fun.
> Nothing to it. Just walk up to them , be polite , chit chat , give off a good island vibe and voila!
> You just made a new " friend" for the Carnival season.
> It's not complicated.
> 
> But this is not the same in every situation, I'm just giving an extreme example. But there's an underlying principle.


Although you made this post yesterday it really triggered something and made me revisit my past. My experience with women outside my race was very different and really turned me into a heartless SOB for many years. It feels weird siding with the ladies in the Men's Clubhouse, but I was duped and it really affected me. 

I went to a mostly black high school, but ended up at a large mostly white college in the middle of nowhere on scholarship. I had always been the serial monogamous type up to that point. I started dating outside my race mostly because there weren't many girls like me on campus. 

I had two relationships that dramatically effected how I treated females for years to come. In one case I assumed because I was having sex with the girl on the regular that i meant something to her. I found out a few months later that only a handful of her friends even knew I existed, and didn't know we were that involved. She was basically just checking a box by hooking up with me. I was just a fling for her. The second relationship lasted a while longer and I thought it was genuine. But once her family found out and threatened to cut her off she ended it.

What did I do? I pretty much became cold. I really stopped caring. I wasn't necessarily going out to hurt people on purpose but I had no interest in women for anything other than sex until I met my wife. She was able to break through somehow and I'm glad she did. I think for some guys (at least for me) getting played can unleash an unrepentant monster. Granted I made the choice to hook up, but the results still affected me in an adverse way. Don't really have a point, just wanted to share that men can also go through weird things when there is confusion about the status of a relationship.


----------



## Faithful Wife

CM ... my post # 1636 was a saracastic response to the previous post.


----------



## Caribbean Man

ReformedHubby said:


> Although you made this post yesterday it really triggered something and made me revisit my past. My experience with women outside my race was very different and really turned me into a heartless SOB for many years. It feels weird siding with the ladies in the Men's Clubhouse, but I was duped and it really affected me.
> 
> I went to a mostly black high school, but ended up at a large mostly white college in the middle of nowhere on scholarship. I had always been the serial monogamous type up to that point. I started dating outside my race mostly because there weren't many girls like me on campus.
> 
> I had two relationships that dramatically effected how I treated females for years to come. In one case I assumed because I was having sex with the girl on the regular that i meant something to her. I found out a few months later that only a handful of her friends even knew I existed, and didn't know we were that involved. She was basically just checking a box by hooking up with me. I was just a fling for her. The second relationship lasted a while longer and I thought it was genuine. But once her family found out and threatened to cut her off she ended it.
> 
> What did I do? I pretty much became cold. I really stopped caring. I wasn't necessarily going out to hurt people on purpose but I had no interest in women for anything other than sex until I met my wife. She was able to break through somehow and I'm glad she did. I think for some guys (at least for me) getting played can unleash an unrepentant monster. Granted I made the choice to hook up, but the results still affected me in an adverse way. Don't really have a point, just wanted to share that men can also go through weird things when there is confusion about the status of a relationship.


Your story is similar to mine.
I was taught by my mother that sex is supposed to mean something and that :" good men" don't have sex with women and leave them .<----[ sounds pretty familiar]
So although I fooled around girls, I never pushed for sex and silly me , told them that sex was supposed to be * special *, even when they wanted to have it.
I refused, because I felt I " owed" it to them to keep them 
" pure." <---[stupid boy.]
That was until I reached 16.
I met a woman that was about 10 years older than me and just oozing sexuality.
We had sex on the second day after we met over the Christmas Holiday season , on a resort island , and we had sex multiple times every day and night afterwards until she was ready to get beck to the mainland.
When i got back , she contacted me and every weekend, she would jump into her car, come to my home and we would have sex for the entire afternoon. That went on for three months.
We even went out a couple of times. But she was definitely in control of the relationship.
I was in love, I thought she was in love too.
Until one of my guy friends saw her leaving my place, and told me who she was and that she was actually another man's woman. I didn't believe him, so I ignored him.
Then one Friday afternoon, I was hanging out in a bar when a man walked up to me and accused me of "spreading rumours" on his woman, I laughed, because his woman was supposed to be _my _woman.
I held my tongue but I wanted to tell him that the rumours were true, and that she had a red birthmark below her left breast.
In fact , I was wearing her college ring which she gave me when we first met and started having sex.
Anyways after that, I called her up and gave he everything back and told her never to even speak to me again.
But I felt really stupid and duped. I realized that all the passion I thought we had shared , sex all over the house, in the shower, in her car, everywhere possible, the connection I thought we had , never really existed.
My mother was wrong. Sex wasn't all that special, at least not for some women.
It took me years playing stupid games , fooling myself , breaking quite a few hearts before I finally decided I'd had enough and wanted real love and not just sex.

I found that with my wife.

Ironically, she's the only woman I had which met with my mother's approval.
That sealed the deal for me.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

RandomDude said:


> *You simply let her know where she stands, if she feels the same way go for it, if she doesn't -> let her go and save yourself the drama early. Simple as that. It's just the same as dating without the BS. Of course you will break some hearts but you'll do that in dating anyway, the difference is that you won't be leading them on when ensuring honesty*.





RandomDude said:


> *Not all women are looking for love mate and even if they are I made sure they knew they wouldn't find it with me. What's so hard about that to understand? As for my feelings I accepted being a fkbuddy as I wanted nothing more either*. And as for this:
> 
> Ey? For you perhaps, *for me I would have just went "awesome!" and went back to the ramming lol.*





RandomDude said:


> *I wanted nothing more than sex and made sure they knew who they was dealing with. That's it, just my style, what's wrong with that? Are you saying I should have lied to them for no reason whatsoever? I was honest, I got laid, I was happy. *
> 
> The only thing I'm disagreeing with are folks playing the wrong game (dating/romantic game) when they simply want sex. That to me is wrong and I'm sure you can agree.


Hey Random Dude...reading the way you handled these women....I LIKE YOUR STYLE, even though I would run like hell from your type... because it's not what I wanted..... yet *I RESPECT the honesty of it*.. 

Here is the thing... Me & you, couldn't be further opposites on the track in what we were after.... but near identical assertiveness with our intentions & aim...

I always laid it on the line in my youth to EVERY BOY who liked me/showed interest - with overt flirting coming my way...yeah this was PuppyLove-ish before age 15..I had BF's....while I carried strong moral views... I was reading books on premarital sex...pros & cons... In my world...Boys needed tested.. it was that simple...I wasn't into wasting anyone's time either...

Where you let the chick Know >> "Hey baby, all I want is to feel up your dress & take you for a ride....if this ain't for you - hit the road "...-and I met a couple like that, I had one who wanted to take me underneath a Roller coaster once right after meeting me. 

This is what I said to the boys...(Good girl with an attitude here)...I told every one of them upfront ...they'd have to "marry me to get into my pants".... Just imagine the Kill Joy I was [email protected]#$ ...My friends back them told me I was "intimidating"....(I've learned some tact over the years, a blessing for all)... 

I had a senior BF when I was 14...he would write me all these letters..I think when he realized I meant what I was saying... that was the end of me... which was fine...another one bites the dust. 

I asked my husband tonight if he remembers me saying this to him early on.. He says ...."Oh yeah...you let me know"..... I asked him how he felt about that... if I came off obnoxious... he said "No"..as he worded it...that told him I had... "Scruples" ...he felt I was more trustworthy in this regard... plus sex wasn't what he was after, he genuinely wanted to get to know ME...For me.... how in the world did I find one like him ! 

But yeah... I think it's good to be upfront with our intended wants / laying out our boundaries for understanding ... (in your case, NO emotional/ relationship strings.... in my case... where my Physical boundary was).... even though I did let him in my pants.. his hands anyway...gotta have a little fun.


----------



## See_Listen_Love

always_alone said:


> Oh, please. _Guys spend half their time on here mooning about hot girls, and criticizing women based on their looks (legs too skinny, boobs too small or too big, hair too short, too fat, etc., and so on). Pretty much any problem a woman has is answered by "how hot are you" and a bunch of assertions that all men care about is looks._
> 
> But of course, this is okay, because this is just how men are: visual. Women, though, are hurtful?


Well, I felt compelled to maybe help you by pointing out this view looks to me like an error of judgement that may give lots of trouble in your life.

Most guys are really very, very moderate in their critique on women. Yes, they know a hot woman when they see one, but the can appreciate 'hotness' itself in many ways and in many woman that go beyond the features you mention.

I read somewhere women feel most insecure about themselves because of the opinions that of other women may have about them...They dress and groom much more for them than for the males.


----------



## RandomDude

@SA

Aye, I just never saw any reason to lead people on and I have met plenty of women such as yourself who do desire love/affection and I did respect that by staying the hell away lol
I wasn't ready for a relationship and was immune to love until I met someone who I could relate emotionally and mentally with - STBX. In a way it was good that she wasn't my type hence I opened up more to her as a friend and we became closer as a result before anything physical the following year, and even then she was a much harder lay then any of my past girls, but it was really worth the wait, until marriage that is.


----------



## Caribbean Man

This is what I think is a good approach at honesty in relationships.

At the very beginning of our relationship, my wife stated categorically that she wasn't interested in just " having fun."
She was only interested in a serious relationship that could lead to marriage, and she was NOT interested in sex before marriage. Those were her non negotiable terms.
Yup
She told me _point blank ,_ that if I was not interested in that,
Keep walking.






It's hard not to respect a woman like that.


----------



## always_alone

See_Listen_Love said:


> Well, I felt compelled to maybe help you by pointing out this view looks to me like an error of judgement that may give lots of trouble in your life.
> 
> Most guys are really very, very moderate in their critique on women. Yes, they know a hot woman when they see one, but the can appreciate 'hotness' itself in many ways and in many woman that go beyond the features you mention.
> 
> I read somewhere women feel most insecure about themselves because of the opinions that of other women may have about them...They dress and groom much more for them than for the males.


Thanks for the thought! I appreciate it. But I've listened to far too many men ripping on women for the smallest of flaws to be too convinced. 5 extra pounds or a face that's average and she's a dog, not worth the time of day. Not to mention constantly dreaming of someone hotter and better than their current partner, or worse, trying to mold her into the model or porn star they've always dreamed of having. They say women are hypergamous, but I sure see a lot of this (relating to looks only of course) in men

Maybe I hang out with the wrong guys? Must be!

I do hang out with the right women, though, as none I know are the types to criticize other women for how we look or dress. I've witnessed the phenomenon that you're talking about, but it isn't at all who I choose to keep company with.


----------



## ocotillo

See_Listen_Love said:


> Most guys are really very, very moderate in their critique on women. Yes, they know a hot woman when they see one, but the can appreciate 'hotness' itself in many ways and in many woman that go beyond the features you mention.


My father had a pet saying he borrowed from Helena Rubinstein and modified slightly.

It went, "There are no ugly women. Some are just more attractive than others."


----------



## WyshIknew

always_alone said:


> Thanks for the thought! I appreciate it. But I've listened to far too many men ripping on women for the smallest of flaws to be too convinced. 5 extra pounds or a face that's average and she's a dog, not worth the time of day. Not to mention constantly dreaming of someone hotter and better than their current partner, or worse, trying to mold her into the model or porn star they've always dreamed of having. They say women are hypergamous, but I sure see a lot of this (relating to looks only of course) in men
> 
> Maybe I hang out with the wrong guys? Must be!
> 
> I do hang out with the right women, though, as none I know are the types to criticize other women for how we look or dress. I've witnessed the phenomenon that you're talking about, but it isn't at all who I choose to keep company with.


Yep, seen and heard this in action myself. But these aren't real men, just pathetic boys in a (nearly) mans body.

I've been in the pub for instance and seen a pretty attractive girl walk by and heard a couple of guys snickering, and then. "Eeew I wouldn't touch her with a bargepole, look at her tiny tits."
I've turned around to look at them and if I was to call them Fatso and Goofy I'd be doing them a favour. I had to bite my tongue to avoid saying "she probably wouldn't touch you guys if you were the last males on Earth.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Alone...yeah, you do kinda seem like you must be hanging around the wrong men....or reading about the wrong men. I do know what you are saying and I hear it, too. But honestly when I think about the men who say crap like that, they are big man babies, not real guys who I respect.

I guess I just don't hang around anyone I don't respect though, so I only hear these kinds of things on the peripheral by Beavis and Butthead types. The peripheral noises caused by them becomes white noise to me and I don't really regard it like "this is how men are".

Most men I know love and respect women and it is obvious.

While growing up, my mother always had a lot of wonderful friends in her life who were around in our home or we'd go to theirs. Lots of these great 70's house parties with chicks in awesome pant suits and dudes with leather fringe vests. Her friends were always liberals, artists, and community leaders in our small town. They were always very forward thinking, they would discuss radical topics, and they would play piano and sing songs. Every man in these groups of friends was on the equality team. She would never have hung out with a man who was disrespectful of women in those ways you are talking about.

So the only time I was exposed to the kind of behavior you mean...was when around my older brother and his friends. Yeah...that was the gross stuff you are talking about.

(my brother only recently grew out of it by the way...)

What I grew up believing was that weird boys say those things, but full grown men do not..and that is how my adult life has played out, too.

(except my horny ass brother...)


----------



## RandomDude

It's just boys chestbeating, don't take them seriously


----------



## Caribbean Man

RandomDude said:


> It's just boys chestbeating, don't take them seriously



And I've sat in public places with my women friends, me being the only male and they too participate in that type of behaviour.
The chat and laugh among themselves about who's hot , and who's not. 
I see it as ladies having fun among themselves, not to be taken seriously, just as long as it's kept among themselves.


----------



## RandomDude

Agreed

@AA

As a rule - never let anyone dictate how you feel about yourself, too many make that mistake.


----------



## ReformedHubby

always_alone said:


> Thanks for the thought! I appreciate it. But I've listened to far too many men ripping on women for the smallest of flaws to be too convinced. 5 extra pounds or a face that's average and she's a dog, not worth the time of day. Not to mention constantly dreaming of someone hotter and better than their current partner, or worse, trying to mold her into the model or porn star they've always dreamed of having. They say women are hypergamous, but I sure see a lot of this (relating to looks only of course) in men
> 
> Maybe I hang out with the wrong guys? Must be!
> 
> I do hang out with the right women, though, as none I know are the types to criticize other women for how we look or dress. I've witnessed the phenomenon that you're talking about, but it isn't at all who I choose to keep company with.


What men are you hanging out with? The only guys I knew that were this picky I found out later were either gay and eventually came out, or they were virgins and their standards became higher and higher over time (some sort of coping mechanism for not getting any maybe????).

Most hetero dudes, especially young ones will pretty much tag anything. Its a lot easier for a women to get laid by someone with a significantly higher sex rank than she has. There is a whole different set of standards for someone you'd have casual sex with vs. date.


----------



## always_alone

ReformedHubby said:


> Most hetero dudes, especially young ones will pretty much tag anything. Its a lot easier for a women to get laid by someone with a significantly higher sex rank than she has. There is a whole different set of standards for someone you'd have casual sex with vs. date.


Tagging, as I've come to learn, is not a sign of interest, attraction or respect. It's a sign the guy is horny and found a willing partner, nothing more.

You know I've heard guys criticizing women they've just slept with?


----------



## always_alone

A slice of life:

I'm at dinner at a moderately nice restaurant and at the table opposite is 4 couples. All the women are lined up side by side on the bench, their men sitting across from them. The men's backs are to me, and I can see that throughout this dinner they are passing pix of hot girls to one another. None of the hot girls are the ones sitting across the table from them, nor are the women included in this little share-fest.

Made me think of this thread.


----------



## ReformedHubby

always_alone said:


> Tagging, as I've come to learn, is not a sign of interest, attraction or respect. It's a sign the guy is horny and found a willing partner, nothing more.
> 
> You know I've heard guys criticizing women they've just slept with?


I'd agree with the lack of interest and respect part. Its pretty hard for both parties to have interest and respect for one another when they really don't even know each other.


----------



## ReformedHubby

always_alone said:


> A slice of life:
> 
> I'm at dinner at a moderately nice restaurant and at the table opposite is 4 couples. All the women are lined up side by side on the bench, their men sitting across from them. The men's backs are to me, and I can see that throughout this dinner they are passing pix of hot girls to one another. None of the hot girls are the ones sitting across the table from them, nor are the women included in this little share-fest.
> 
> Made me think of this thread.


How old were these "men"? To me it sounds like they were boys. I say this because a lot of the behavior you're describing sounds like something very inexperienced men would engage in. I don't know too many real men that are going to look at still photos of hot chicks when the real thing is sitting right across from them. 

Yes, when men are out with just men we do notice the attractive ladies in the room, and make comments. But we don't waste our time poking fun at and laughing at the unattractive ones.

I guess I'm just puzzled because it sounds like a lot of the men you encounter are people that lack maturity. It does come across in your posts. But I can't fault you if that's been your experience.


----------



## WyshIknew

ReformedHubby said:


> How old were these "men"? To me it sounds like they were boys. I say this because a lot of the behavior you're describing sounds like something very inexperienced men would engage in. I don't know too many real men that are going to look at still photos of hot chicks when the real thing is sitting right across from them.
> 
> Yes, when men are out with just men we do notice the attractive ladies in the room, and make comments. But we don't waste our time poking fun at and laughing at the unattractive ones.
> 
> I guess I'm just puzzled because it sounds like a lot of the men you encounter are people that lack maturity. It does come across in your posts. But I can't fault you if that's been your experience.



Not only that but once you've got chatting it's funny how often the so called 'unattractive' ones become the hot attractive ones. First 'looks' are deceptive!


----------



## ReformedHubby

WyshIknew said:


> Not only that but once you've got chatting it's funny how often the so called 'unattractive' ones become the hot attractive ones. First 'looks' are deceptive!


Yep, I guess that's why I don't get it. Men in my circle don't make catty comments about women who aren't a perfect ten. If anything we'll look at an average woman and say to ourselves, "Well she does have a nice rack, or rear end". We actually try to pick out the positives. Literally any positive. From my experience only women judge other woman's appearance with a fine toothed comb. Men just don't care.


----------



## WyshIknew

ReformedHubby said:


> Yep, I guess that's why I don't get it. Men in my circle don't make catty comments about women who aren't a perfect ten. If anything we'll look at an average woman and say to ourselves, "Well she does have a nice rack, or rear end". We actually try to pick out the positives. Literally any positive. From my experience only women judge other woman's appearance with a fine toothed comb. Men just don't care.


Well I think the operative word here is 'men'.

Something that FW has been banging on about and I don't think I totally got it when I was younger is that despite our obvious differences men and women are remarkably similar.

Women have the same propensity to be stupid selfish jerks just like men, especially when young.

Just because some men are stupid, insensitive, selfish jerks doesn't mean we all are!


----------



## SimplyAmorous

WyshIknew said:


> Women have the same propensity to be stupid selfish jerks just like men, especially when young.
> 
> Just because some men are stupid, insensitive, selfish jerks doesn't mean we all are!


I agree with this statement, I've seen it on both sides... my husband does not participate when the guys at his work place get really vulgar...(some are sick Mothers)... he doesn't go for that...He may have his own thoughts, but he keeps his mouth shut, will not speak badly or participate.....

Women can be just as crude...making fun of men, I've seen it on this forum even...cutting down the guy who doesn't bang her if he takes her home..his Di** size... Goes both ways... The girls keep it to girl talk, just as the guys try to shield it from the ladies in their lives.... both genders can be COLD and heartless... Why we should be careful to choose our friends wisely. I don't like it when anyone is put down, I have a thing for the underdog... so I am no damn fun to be around if women want to chew up on certain types of men...or putting someone down for their looks.. I get a little mouthy...



> *WyshIknew said*: I've been in the pub for instance and seen a pretty attractive girl walk by and heard a couple of guys snickering, and then. "Eeew I wouldn't touch her with a bargepole, look at her tiny tits."
> I've turned around to look at them and if I was to call them Fatso and Goofy I'd be doing them a favour. I had to bite my tongue to avoid saying "she probably wouldn't touch you guys if you were the last males on Earth.


 Biting the tongue is likely for the best since you don't know them & it might start a bar fight.. but when we are friends with these types... Best to give a look, say our peace... let them know they are being jack-a$$es.


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> A slice of life:
> 
> I'm at dinner at a moderately nice restaurant and at the table opposite is 4 couples. All the women are lined up side by side on the bench, their men sitting across from them. The men's backs are to me, and I can see that throughout this dinner they are passing pix of hot girls to one another. None of the hot girls are the ones sitting across the table from them, nor are the women included in this little share-fest.
> 
> Made me think of this thread.


Wow....

Not only does that strike me as juvenile and rude in the extreme, there's almost an effeminate flavor to it comparable to collecting dolls.


----------



## ReformedHubby

ocotillo said:


> Wow....
> 
> Not only does that strike me as juvenile and rude in the extreme, there's almost an effeminate flavor to it comparable to collecting dolls.


LOL,when I read it I actually chuckled at the thought of four men sitting side by side on a bench sitting across from their dates. Even the seating arrangement is something my friends and I wouldn't do. I'm starting to think that perhaps the reason I can't relate to a lot of this stuff is because I don't run in the same circle as the types of guys that a lot of the female posters have issue with.


----------



## always_alone

ReformedHubby said:


> LOL,when I read it I actually chuckled at the thought of four men sitting side by side on a bench sitting across from their dates. Even the seating arrangement is something my friends and I wouldn't do. I'm starting to think that perhaps the reason I can't relate to a lot of this stuff is because I don't run in the same circle as the types of guys that a lot of the female posters have issue with.


No doubt. I can't really imagine being a part of this group either. At least not for very long.

Whenever one of the women would ask what they were looking at, they'd call up a family snap shot and show her, then go back to the girl watch. Very odd.

The age range was around the thirties. Maybe even in the 40s as one had definite greying in his hair and lines forming. These weren't kids -although I won't comment on their maturity.


----------



## RandomDude

Oh come on AA, you're going to keep letting those bad eggs contribute to your preconceptions of men? You know you are targeting half of humanity yes? As I mentioned -> boys chestbeating, don't take them seriously. Women do it too and I don't let it bother me nor make me feel as if 'women are all b-tches'


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> Wow....
> 
> Not only does that strike me as juvenile and rude in the extreme, there's almost an effeminate flavor to it comparable to collecting dolls.


Doll collectors, yes, but not effeminate at all. These guys were very macho. 

It is, though, nice to hear you and others chime in that you find the behaviour odd. I see it so much, even here on TAM as well as in the wild, that sometimes I start believing that all men must think this way. 

Certainly one of my dinner companions felt the need to comment on the looks of every woman that passed his field of vision --and he is 55. Maybe my SO does exactly the same thing, but is just quieter about it because I'm there.


----------



## always_alone

RandomDude said:


> Women do it too and I don't let it bother me nor make me feel as if 'women are all b-tches'


I'm sure you're right, but I honestly don't see very much of that, if at all. Just not the sort of conversation that ever comes up with women. But with guys, I see it all the time.

I guess that skews my perceptions.

ETA: I often find the picture of women presented by men on TAM completely unrecognizable and contrary to my experience and what I see in my friends. So I guess it's not too surprising that the reverse also happens.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> I'm sure you're right, but I honestly don't see very much of that, if at all. Just not the sort of conversation that ever comes up with women. But with guys, I see it all the time.
> 
> I guess that skews my perceptions.


Have you ever came the term " Cognitive Bias " in psychology?
It has to do with perceptions vs reality.


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> Doll collectors, yes, but not effeminate at all. These guys were very macho.


Okay. maybe it's just me. Something about the story conjured up a mental image of grown men collecting and comparing Bild Lilli dolls.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Have you ever came the term " Cognitive Bias " in psychology?
> It has to do with perceptions vs reality.


Why yes I have.

Please enlighten me then. What does it mean when a guy can't let a woman walk by without commenting on her sex appeal?

And how can I tell if my SO is the same way? (I used to think he was different, but am now less sure -'and it's deal-breaking territory that I've been struggling with for a while now.)


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Why yes I have.
> 
> Please enlighten me then. What does it mean when a guy can't let a woman walk by without commenting on her sex appeal?
> 
> And how can I tell if my SO is the same way? (I used to think he was different, but am now less sure -'and it's deal-breaking territory that I've been struggling with for a while now.)


You're getting into a complex area of human behaviours here.

Firstly we both disagree with each other on the fundamental issue of the differences between the genders.
You say there is no difference , I say that there are distinct differences.

One area of difference is in the way we perceive our sexuality, sex drives and so on. What excites a man in a female figure is not the same thing that excites a woman in a male figure.

Understand this and then you begin to comprehend what Reformed Hubby, Octillo, and Random Dude has been trying to tell you all weekend about those guys behaviour in the restaurant.

There are things men must accept from women as is, without constantly challenging it. They must see it through the eyes of a woman and accept it for what it is.
So too, there are some things women need to understand about men, they must see it through a man's eyes as much as possible without constantly challenging it for no justifiable reason other than to rewrite.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

RandomDude said:


> Exactly, so what's the point you're trying to prove?


Not trying to prove anything. This is subjective - I'm opining. I don't believe this to be a common practice, much less an imperative in a brand new relationship. Actions tell you everything you need to know. You mentioned yours were with women who were already friends, so I understand your having that conversation with them.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> You're getting into a complex area of human behaviours here.
> 
> Firstly we both disagree with each other on the fundamental issue of the differences between the genders.
> You say there is no difference , I say that there are distinct differences.
> 
> One area of difference is in the way we perceive our sexuality, sex drives and so on. What excites a man in a female figure is not the same thing that excites a woman in a male figure.
> 
> Understand this and then you begin to comprehend what Reformed Hubby, Octillo, and Random Dude has been trying to tell you all weekend about those guys behaviour in the restaurant.
> 
> There are things men must accept from women as is, without constantly challenging it. They must see it through the eyes of a woman and accept it for what it is.
> So too, there are some things women need to understand about men, they must see it through a man's eyes as much as possible without constantly challenging it for no justifiable reason other than to rewrite.


Well, they all said that these guys were just immature and disrespectful, not to be taken seriously, and that I shouldn't judge all men based on that. Are you saying that my friend is also just childish and disrespectful, and not to be taken seriously? And maybe also my SO? And if I don't like it, just walk away from it all?

Because if I have any questions as to how this thread applies to my life, those would be it.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> You know I've heard guys criticizing women they've just slept with?


Women who have casual sex do the same thing. Whereas a guy having casual sex is apt to mention some physical "flaw" as why he's not interested in something further, women who have casual sex are apt to point out career and non-physical flaws for the same purpose.

I heard one this weekend even. I asked if a friend of mine if this new guy of hers were a thing now... and she said no. I asked why not and there was some cross talk from the girls about him being hot. My friend said, "Yeah, he's hot, but like I'm going to date a lawn guy."

Women are just as shallow as men. We're just shallow in different ways.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Well, they all said that these guys were just immature and disrespectful, not to be taken seriously, and that I shouldn't judge all men based on that. Are you saying that my friend is also just childish and disrespectful, and not to be taken seriously? And maybe also my SO? And if I don't like it, just walk away from it all?
> 
> Because if I have any questions as to how this thread applies to my life, those would be it.


Well, they also said that all men don't act like that.
In fact I think that it was Reformed Hubby that said it best, men usually find something good to comment about on a woman.
We tend to look at the parts, and then the whole.

Some men hanging together might say that a lady they're commenting on has nice legs , hips and butt, but she not so hot in the boobs department.
Or a woman is stunningly beautiful ,but just a bit thin. In that case , they'll quicker give her a " pass " rather than a fail.

But I've rarely ever seen a group of men ripping apart a woman and saying she's ugly

If your SO is engaging in disrespectful, negative behaviour then that's not representative of men.
But then disrespectful and negative can be highly subjective.

I've known women who poke fun at strange men, just among ourselves, when we hang out, but I don't see it as disrespectful, these women are married, and just "misbehavin' and having fun.

In fact I even remember my wife doing it before we were married , with her best female friend.


----------



## Caribbean Man

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Women are just as shallow as men. We're just shallow in different ways.


Yes.

And that doesn't necessarily translate into it being disrespectful towards one gender or the other.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> But I've rarely ever seen a group of men ripping apart a woman and saying she's ugly


Huh. Interesting. I've seen guys rip into the most gorgeous girls (for being too thin, boobs too small, or too fat, boobs to big, or whatever), and I can't help but wonder if they can find so many flaws with such beautiful women, what must they be saying about less attractive women.

Oh, that's right, I see them here saying quite explicitly that they don't even ping the radar.

My SO has expressed sympathy for a woman because she was plain and therefore "undatable". I found this quite obnoxious (and told him so), as she was very nice and sweet, and not exactly ugly, even if she wasn't super gorgeous. Made me sad to see this judgment heaped on her, especially by my SO who I thought was deeper and more caring than all of that. 

I dunno. I suppose you're all right that women are just as shallow and obnoxious as men can be at times. That just makes me sad too.


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> Huh. Interesting. I've seen guys rip into the most gorgeous girls (for being too thin, boobs too small, or too fat, boobs to big, or whatever), and I can't help but wonder if they can find so many flaws with such beautiful women, what must they be saying about less attractive women.


I would guess that these are males who have been shot down in flames regularly and often by women of either the physical type or social standing (Or both) that they are insulting.


----------



## RandomDude

Why does it make you sad? Everyone has their tastes, what is plain to someone could be really hot to another.


----------



## Caribbean Man

@ always_alone,
On both sides of the gender divide I think what we are speaking of is a minority.
And I don't think it is meant to degrade any particular gender.
I agree it's childish , but I don't think it's detrimental unless it forms a permanent part , and shapes those person's attitude towards the opposite gender


----------



## Faithful Wife

Always...I do think that your SO's attitude plays into a lot of your thoughts on these matters.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Faithful Wife said:


> Always...I do think that your SO's attitude plays into a lot of your thoughts on these matters.


 When we have lived with or seen behaviors from those up close & personal...we may have to force ourselves, do a double take, think outside of the box...to realize...it's just not that way everywhere...that not all men are like this....or all women... it helps to have known a variety of people & various lifestyles I suppose...


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

I'll say that my boys and I do point women out to each other and these are occasionally met with criticisms - "eh... too much nose". Its not meant to insult. Its just expressing opinion on taste.

I have female friends that even engage in this. We might notice someone and then she tears them down, not us. Women just destroy other women. My fav is when I think a girl is attractive and these friends say something like "really? You can do better than that! Look at her [some feature]" Its like a weird compliment. lol But these friends also make similar jabs at guys. One girl I know has a thing for muscle definition - specifically arms and shoulders. I'll point out a dude who clearly lifts and say "there ya go girlie, sic 'em!" and she'll say "Him? Ugh no... too big. Gross."


----------



## always_alone

SimplyAmorous said:


> When we have lived with or seen behaviors from those up close & personal...we may have to force ourselves, do a double take, think outside of the box...to realize...it's just not that way everywhere...that not all men are like this....or all women... it helps to have known a variety of people & various lifestyles I suppose...


Oh, I've been all round this great big world and seen all kinds...

I honestly thought I had worked out a pretty good system for avoiding the piggish and overly immature, and associating with those I could admire and respect.

Until recently, when I realized my SO probably just viewed me as a rotting slab of meat, and then I came here and everyone assured me that my worst fears were probably true.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Always...if I "realized" my SO "probably just viewed me as a rotting slab of meat"...I wouldn't bother finding out what any other man thought, I'd just be out the door.

I have never felt like a slab of rotting meat no matter who in the world might think that about women.

But at the same time, if a man treated me in any way that could possibly be construed that way...he'd be gone.

I am not sure why you would ever stay with a man who you think feels that way about you. Of course that is going to make you hate men, how could it not?


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> Always...I do think that your SO's attitude plays into a lot of your thoughts on these matters.


Oh, if only I knew what my SO's attitude was! I could just stop this, and get on with it.

I've asked him, of course. And listened. But I don't think we're dealing in truth yet. He's too afraid that I might leave him, and so what I hear is only what he wants me to think.

So, stupid me comes here looking for clues. And all I end up with is the exact same confusions repeated over and over again. 

I might as well be a teenager with a daisy, picking off the petals one by one. Utterly ridiculous, but I'm not sure how to find my way out of it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

From the things you have reported about him, the things he DOES say, the way he acts...what else do you want to know when you "ask" him? 

To me it seems that you know the truth, but you wish it wasn't true because you want to keep him.

But your mind won't let you forget the things he says and does.

If I understand things correctly, your SO is just like the guys you said you saw passing pic back and forth, and the guys who put down women all the time.

Not sure what more you need to know?


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> If I understand things correctly, your SO is just like the guys you said you saw passing pic back and forth, and the guys who put down women all the time.


Oh no. If he were that blatant, I would've left him long ago. For 15 years he talked the talk and seemingly walked the walk. But turns out he was lying and hiding some things. So the real question for me is *how much* is lying and hiding, and how much is truth.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Some of the things you have reported him saying, I'm sorry sweetie, but they were just as heinous as those guys sharing pics.

Not sure why you want to protect him....you have reported quite a few very horrible things he has said. Can't really take it back. Not sure why you would want to.

Why does it matter how "blatant" he is or isn't when he's talking about wishing to F your bff?


----------



## RandomDude

It only becomes a problem when your issues with your H projects onto other men AA, I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate it if I came on here not only complaining of my marital woes but look down on all women at the same time.


----------



## always_alone

RandomDude said:


> It only becomes a problem when your issues with your H projects onto other men AA, I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate it if I came on here not only complaining of my marital woes but look down on all women at the same time.


Fair enough. And honestly, I'm not trying to paint all men with the same brush. Just those that I think maybe deserve it, and certainly this thread started talking about exactly that kind of person.

And it may be equally true that I am projecting my experiences with other men onto my SO. I know FW thinks I've hooked myself a loser, but really to me it's all just a bit more complicated than that.


----------



## Caribbean Man

I think you sometimes tend to over analyze stuff.

I remember the first time you came here it was about his porn problem and his refusal to respect you.


----------



## Deejo

I just still think you're hot, in an angry intellectual way.

If that behavior is wrong baby ... I don't wanna be right.


----------



## DesertRat1978

The friend that I have written about on this thread so many times is visiting. We went to a rock concert last night and as usual he was a chick magnet. However, his magnetism seems to have declined. He is 33 and looks older than that. He wore a leather jacket that had a large hand flipping the bird. It was very fitting for the rock concert audience. He has mellowed out a bit and so maybe he does not stand out as much as he used to.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> I think you sometimes tend to over analyze stuff.


Whaddya mean by that?

[joking!]


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Caribbean Man said:


> *I think you sometimes tend to over analyze stuff*.


Don't feel bad Always alone... I was told by my Pastor years ago.... that I am "too cerebral"....I was always throwing these monkey wrench questions into the Bible Studies group.....I liked to argue religion a little too much...

I love to Analyze, if this was taken from me... I think I'd go insane....it entertains me many times... But it's true of us thinkers... we can get carried away, if we don't watch ourselves.


----------



## RandomDude

SimplyAmorous said:


> Don't feel bad Always alone... I was told by my Pastor years ago.... that I am "too cerebral"....I was always throwing these monkey wrench questions into the Bible Studies group.....I liked to argue religion a little too much...
> 
> I love to Analyze, if this was taken from me... I think I'd go insane....it entertains me many times... But it's true of us thinkers... we can get carried away, if we don't watch ourselves.


Wife/STBX used to pinch me silly whenever I did that.


----------



## ocotillo

Deejo said:


> I just still think you're hot, in an angry intellectual way.
> 
> If that behavior is wrong baby ... I don't wanna be right.


Yes. Neither do I. 

****

Always_alone, for whatever (little) it may be worth, your online _personae_ reminds me of my wife. Even at the most frustrating points in our marriage, we could still talk for hours on end.


----------



## ReformedHubby

tyler1978 said:


> The friend that I have written about on this thread so many times is visiting. We went to a rock concert last night and as usual he was a chick magnet. However, his magnetism seems to have declined. He is 33 and looks older than that. He wore a leather jacket that had a large hand flipping the bird. It was very fitting for the rock concert audience. He has mellowed out a bit and so maybe he does not stand out as much as he used to.


Oh dear, rule number one of the game is you have to adapt. The stuff that worked for you at 20 won't work at 35, especially if your targets from a demographic stand point have changed. Keep the same level of confidence but you need to embrace your maturity. Don't try and dress and act like you're ten years younger. If he doesn't adapt he'll become that old school player that talks about how good he used to have it. We all know them. That uncle that still wears a members only jacket or other outdated items. Save your friend from this fate!!!!


----------



## RandomDude

Lol who knows - maybe he can still pull it off - the old school charm!


----------



## always_alone

SimplyAmorous said:


> Don't feel bad Always alone... I was told by my Pastor years ago.... that I am "too cerebral"....I was always throwing these monkey wrench questions into the Bible Studies group.....I liked to argue religion a little too much...


Ha. I can relate. Oh the trouble I used to get into for asking questions in school! 

"But isn't this place supposed to be an institution of learning?"

"Of course," they'd answer, "but you'll learn what we tell you to!"

:rofl: As if!


----------



## DesertRat1978

ReformedHubby said:


> Oh dear, rule number one of the game is you have to adapt. The stuff that worked for you at 20 won't work at 35, especially if your targets from a demographic stand point have changed. Keep the same level of confidence but you need to embrace your maturity. Don't try and dress and act like you're ten years younger. If he doesn't adapt he'll become that old school player that talks about how good he used to have it. We all know them. That uncle that still wears a members only jacket or other outdated items. Save your friend from this fate!!!!


Nail meet head. Could not have said it better.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

RandomDude said:


> *Wife/STBX used to pinch me silly whenever I did that*.


I would have very much enjoyed you in those classes... no pinches, probably a few 's though... so long as you weren't being disrespectful...I never was...just genuinely curious/ interested in their "take" on things.....and the why's behind it....I need to *understand *something before I can *accept it*.... 

Too often, in their end of reasoning... I might get a "well the scripture says so and I believe it".....THIS just didn't work for me so well....so yeah... I was a "Reason stirrer" in class.. 

Our oldest has told me he doesn't even want to unleash me around his christian friends.. I'd be a bad influence and they may walk away an agnostic.... in the same vein, he has thanked me for challenging his mind, telling me this was my greatest gift to him.. ...so he is better prepared to tackle atheists who come his way...Loved that !


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SimplyAmorous said:


> Don't feel bad Always alone... I was told by my Pastor years ago.... that I am "too cerebral"....I was always throwing these monkey wrench questions into the Bible Studies group.....I liked to argue religion a little too much...
> 
> I love to Analyze, if this was taken from me... I think I'd go insane....it entertains me many times... But it's true of us thinkers... we can get carried away, if we don't watch ourselves.


I went to a military school for 6th-9th grade that included religious study. By the middle of 7th grade, I was not required to attend bible study anymore (aka - I was kicked out).

:rofl:


----------



## SimplyAmorous

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I went to a military school for 6th-9th grade that included religious study. By the middle of 7th grade, I was not required to attend bible study anymore (aka - I was kicked out).
> :rofl:


 Well then I guess I am more of a calm snake in the grass over you.. I can still hang with people that annoy me and I disagree with...and carry on a conversation..even sit under their instruction while thinking they are basically "full of ___"......You however... are a true







- why they kicked you out ...though you were young....we'll give you a pass...self control is not a young teens greatest asset....You live up to your username here anyway..decades later.


----------



## RandomDude

SimplyAmorous said:


> I would have very much enjoyed you in those classes... no pinches, probably a few 's though... so long as you weren't being disrespectful...I never was...just genuinely curious/ interested in their "take" on things.....and the why's behind it....I need to *understand *something before I can *accept it*....
> 
> Too often, in their end of reasoning... I might get a "well the scripture says so and I believe it".....THIS just didn't work for me so well....so yeah... I was a "Reason stirrer" in class..
> 
> Our oldest has told me he doesn't even want to unleash me around his christian friends.. I'd be a bad influence and they may walk away an agnostic.... in the same vein, he has thanked me for challenging his mind, telling me this was my greatest gift to him.. ...so he is better prepared to tackle atheists who come his way...Loved that !


I happen to be very respectful 
As long as the same respect is granted to me 

I did marry a Christian and supported her faith after all - as long as she laid off the bible bash that the church STILL to this day encourages her to do lol, but she knows better nowadays.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SimplyAmorous said:


> You live up to your username here anyway..decades later.


Hey, I was polite about it. ;P

I wasn't kicked out for being rude. The bible study teacher was also the school Headmaster. I knew my scripture, but I turned everything into a big discussion and she couldn't get through her plan so they sent me to the Master Chief's office. He thought that class was a waste of time anyway and we played chess most days instead. Win!

I don't think the school was very serious about that class anyhow. My 8th grade year was the last year they had it. The next year we had a new headmaster and the school became a lot more secular.


----------



## Created2Write

RandomDude said:


> NSAs are not as simple as ONSs and not always will it be clear cut and it can happen anywhere, at anytime with anyone; eg, someone picked up at a club, a non-blood related stepsister, a good friend who's transparent with you, etc etc.
> 
> Letting someone know where they stand isn't as awkward as you make it out to be mate and can even be flirty when done right as I mentioned before.


Your perspective is so refreshing, RD. Seriously.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> The only argument for not having "the talk" is that it is a boner killer? Proving the point that it does need to be said...because in that moment if you know your boner will over-ride your ability to show care for yourself or others, then not having the talk is dishonest.


Yup. Responsible adults will do the right thing and not use boners as an excuse. A boner is not as important as clear communication with someone about your/their intentions. Leaving things in such ambiguity as whether or not sex communicates "clearly" that things are casual is a cop out. Sex doesn't mean the same thing to everyone, and as others have said, it _is_ easy for feelings to grow where they aren't expected. That's why it's so important to communicate ones intentions.


----------



## Created2Write

always_alone said:


> What you define as bizarre upfront and unsexy negotiation, I see as normal human interaction. What's bizarre to me is that it is so off-putting and unreasonable to say, want to practice safe sex or to attend to the feelings and thoughts of your sex partner.
> 
> And the endless insistence that these very small and human interactions are an utter mood killer says to me that you're relying on lies or manipulation to mask your true intentions.
> 
> Why do women feel used? I've said it before and I'll say it again. Primarily it's the lies! Number one reason, hands down. Maybe you guys here don't lie, but I can assure you that many do. Beyond lies, it's things like slipping her pills or extra drink to make sure she's not in her right mind. Or capitalizing on someone who has had too much by offering to "help" them, or other unsavoury things like that. We've been over this before, and guys keep saying that you agree. But then you're back calling women cake-eaters and thinking it worthless to spoil YOUR mood by checking in with them, slipping on a condom, or whatever.
> 
> One last time: Women generally don't feel used if they've been treated well. We are aware that casual sex is in fact casual, and not all of us wish that every sexual encounter will result in marriage and 2.5 kids, and a white picket fences. We just want to be treated with a modicum of respect.
> 
> But I'm just spinning my wheels now. No matter what I say you will probably still think that a woman who engages in casual sex deserves everything she gets, no matter how nasty, because clearly she asked for it and should've known better.
> 
> I hope you feel the same way about yourselves.


QFT!!


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> oh yeah...it is soooo insulting to women....


I think the issue is that some assume that, because women are adults, they should be able to handle whatever comes from relationships and sex. Whereas you, myself, AA, RD and others see past the fact that we're adults, and see people who deserve to be treated with respect. 

While I utterly disagree with Devils on basically everything he's said, I can see he's not advocating dishonesty. But he's more wrapped up in the ideal of women acting like adults and "manning up", so to speak, than actual respect. And I reject that because, from my background, it's more important to respect people than it is to insist they "own" their behavior. 

I'll add: if a man has communicated to a woman his desire for total NSA sex, like RD has done, and she then tries to make things mean more than they do, then and only then, do I agree with what Dvls is saying. If she's been told clearly and honestly that a romantic relationship is not a possibility, then it's her own fault if she develops feelings that he doesn't return. That truly is 100% on her. 

Actions do not always speak louder than words, and it's naive to think they do. Sex, even NSA, doesn't mean the same thing to each person. That's why it is important to respect the people you bone by being honest. Like you did, FW. Making out often leads to sex, so it was truly respectful of you to be honest that PIV wasn't going to happen, and you were only looking for a makeout buddy. There's nothing bizarre about that. It's called respect.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Frankly, I don't care. I make no assumptions about relationship potential. It could all end tomorrow and I have no expectations. I go with the flow. I feel no need to have a weird "talk" about the circumstances. Do it or don't do it. If YOU feel that need to talk about it, YOU can bring it up. This is outside my experience... no one has been so uptight or bizzarely concerned as to need to talk about the nature of this relationship.

I'm not responsible for whether she's unsure about what she's doing. If she's unsure, maybe she shouldn't be doing it. Personal responsibility. Find some.

If I have a problem, I'll bring it up. But you know what? I don't. I'm not here to babysit and bring up her potential concerns for her.


----------



## Created2Write

Like FW has said, not everyone knows their true intentions/potential. Some women know that they can have NSA sex and not grow attached, other women think they can when they can't. Others can, but feelings grow when they're least expected. Recognizing potential consequences is a must if one intends to be successful in life. FW had the "bizarre" conversation with those men, letting them know she wouldn't be having sex with them. It wasn't about "babysitting", it was about _respect_; understanding that making out causes arousal, and arousal often leads to sex. But this way, they would know where she stood. 

You seem to think that all people should respond to situations the same way you do, without the emotional connection. But they don't. People are not the same. If a woman knows her tendency to get attached, then I agree with you; she has no business having NSA sex. And it's precisely why I never have and never would. . I could never have sex with someone I'd just met, and once I've had sex, it means I love, respect and trust the person with my entire being.

But not every woman knows this about themselves. 

Not every situation involving NSA sex is the same, so to expect all women to respond the same way is absurd. Sure, if a woman has sex with a guy she just met, chances are he wants nothing more than a ONS or NSA sex. But NSA sex is not limited to strangers. 

If you want every woman to respond the same way to a given scenario, then you need to be a responsible adult and be honest about your intentions. Actions do not tell you everything you need to know. Otherwise, don't complain about the consequences.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Created2Write said:


> If you want every woman to respond the same way to a given scenario, then you need to be a responsible adult and be honest about your intentions. Actions do not tell you everything you need to know. Otherwise, don't complain about the consequences.


:iagree:


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

I don't expect anyone to respond the way I do. How they respond it totally up to them. I just don't feel any need to respond FOR them. People will learn to stand up for their own interests... because honestly, nobody else needs to. The sooner this is learned the better.

A major part of life is discovering these things about yourself, for yourself. Its not up to other people to protect you from yourself.

I'm doing what I want to do. You do what you want to do. I spend zero time worrying about what you want to do. That's your job. Its quite simple. If someone has a concern, its on them to bring it up.

Sorry, I don't babysit... and if its about respect, well, my respect is shown in trusting that you're a big girl capable of bringing up your own concerns and making sure your needs get met.

Forgive me if its disrespectful of me to expect an adult to be able to take care of themselves.


----------



## Created2Write

I hope that mentality works out in your relationship, Dvls.


----------



## Created2Write

Something I've learned from relationships is that honesty is always best. Actions are not all you need and, in fact, are often entirely opposite to the truth. Words are very important, as is communicating ones intentions. Assuming that the other person knows what you intend is kind of ridiculous. Sure, some actions can be more obvious than others, but again, actions are not accurate representations of ones intentions. Hearing directly from someone what they want and expect eliminates ambiguity. If someone thinks that this equates to babysitting or hand-holding or keeping the other person from being an adult, then I would say they don't understand healthy human interactions. I'd also say that that's unfortunate, because it's not bizarre to care about the people we meet, and want to treat them well. It's bizarre not to give a sh!t, imo. And also self-centered. And it sets one up to fail in their relationships. 

Now, I don't mean that one person is responsible for bearing all of this on their shoulders. I absolutely think that both people need to be honest about their expectations, regardless of whether or not the other person wants to talk about it. Ideally, both people would care enough about the well being of the other to say what their expectations are, but if one isn't, I do think the other should.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> I hope that mentality works out in your relationship, Dvls.


It does. She voices her own concerns instead of waiting and expecting me check her all the time. I won't have it any other way.


----------



## always_alone

Created2Write said:


> because, from my background, it's more important to respect people than it is to insist they "own" their behavior.


Yes, I like the way you've put this. We all know that we are responsible for our behaviour and must suffer the consequences when we make a mistake or take a risk that doesn't pay off. But putting all emphasis on the responsibility of the *other* person seems to me a way of masking *one's own* responsibility to act well.

Some analogous examples of what I mean:


She left the car door unlocked, so it's totally her fault that her stereo was stolen. If it wasn't me, it would've been someone else.

He should've known better than to trust someone he just met. It's his fault if he's down a few dollars. Besides, I never *promised* I'd pay back that money I borrrowed.


----------



## ReformedHubby

I think both sides of this argument are somewhat flawed. No one should be out there purposefully hurting people. But at the same time if you decide to have a relationship (literally any type of relationship) you are at risk of getting burned. I think women in general are a lot more resilient than some of these posters think. Sleeping with someone and regretting it later is honestly something that most adults will experience in their lifetime. 

I don't know anyone who has never been hurt by someone of the opposite sex. Most of us learn from it and move on. Is it wrong to deceive, sure it is. Both sides acknowledge that there are people out there of both sexes that mislead others for their own benefit. This thread probably should have just ended after CM's benediction. I will acknowledge though that I have enjoyed watching it go around in circles.

The Main Ingredient - Everybody Plays The Fool - YouTube


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Here are my initial thoughts..... although it would be a beautiful world if we all* respected* each other like we should ...ya know...everyone living "the Golden rule"... but the stark reality is this...

We can only count on ourselves to be that sort of person- if it is even important to us.. to respect others rights/ liberties, feelings...careful to read people & do no intentional harm... but for many ... these things are not paramount on their mind or important to them...

People prove this day in & day out with their callous behaviors towards others.. by not keeping their word, lying, manipulating...using people for $$ & in the sexual, using bodies for pleasure with nothing more wanted for the night... so long as LUST is alive in our world.... a lack of integrity in the sexual is here to stay & will flourish in society...it can't be helped..
It's simply a







world.. 

Getting to what I am trying to spit out here... knowing this ....I pretty much think the worst of people until they prove me otherwise.... I do NOT trust easily.....that's my pessimistic nature I suppose (and frankly I like it)..this has always preserved me from getting taken... whether it be financially, sexually, in friendship, you name it. 

If I deeply care about certain aspects in a relationship, it's my responsibility to define them and not settle for anything less... if the Guys feathers are ruffled, he looses a boner.. so be it.. better to know NOW.. and get out... 

Created2Write.....It's funny you mention RD and FW in your one post...... because these 2 also stand out FOR ME... well even Devil in his own twisted way... because all 3 of these posters are very blatant and Open - saying it like it is - no qualms with how they feel , where they are... where they have been ...their intentions....they lay it out there ...This I, too, can respect... 

Well with Devil.... he is jumping around a bit.. that's just cause he wants a piece of ____ 1st...


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> But putting all emphasis on the responsibility of the *other* person seems to me a way of masking *one's own* responsibility to act well.


The analogies you provided don't fit at all.

What we're talking about is whether a person has an imperative to pro-actively clarify their intentions. My position is that no clarification is necessary. The status quo in an immediate hookup is that there is no romantic interest. Unless there has been an expression to the contrary, there is no reason to think differently. If this is ambiguous intention to you, then YOU should ask for the clarification you desire. Its not ambiguous to me at all, and I don't feel any need to babysit you by making sure you're okay with what you're doing. If you want clear romantic intentions its quite simple: hold out until his intentions are proven to your satisfaction. Otherwise, you assume the risk. Its not his responsibility to make sure you're getting the deal you want. It's all yours.

In your first analogy, the promise would be superfluous. Borrow by definition conveys that the money will be returned.

In your second analogy, did you expect the thief to say "hey, I'm going to steal from you", so you're on the same page? The theft had nothing to do with supposedly ambiguous intentions. This analogy would only be valid if someone lied about their romantic interest.

On the plus side, we all agree lying is a no no. We disagree that one has an imperative to announce "Hey, I just want sex!" when one has sex without going through all the romantic and emotional mumbo jumbo. To me, not going through all the romantic and emotional mumbo jumbo says that pretty damn loud and clear. There is zero ambiguity here. If she's about to hop on my d 3 hours after I met her, I'm supposed to wonder if she has romantic intentions? No. She's speaking loud and clear. If I want more than sex, then its my responsibility to make that known... not sit back and wait for her to say "Hey, just so we're clear, I just want sex." ... uh... duh?

Even FW's makeout session isn't a very good analogy, because making out is giving indication that sex is on the table. The proper equivalent for this analogy would be a guy lying about his feelings for her in order to get laid. Because those expressions of emotion give indication that a romantic relationship is on the table.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SimplyAmorous said:


> Well with Devil.... he is jumping around a bit.. that's just cause he wants a piece of ____ 1st...


lol

No. I can get a piece of @ss regardless.

Ultimately, my point is that if you have sex casually but wanted romantic involvement, then you have no room to complain when you get burned by someone for whom it really was only casual.

You're certainly not within your right to shift responsibility from yourself and demand that they should have clarified that it was just casual.

You don't agree with that?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> lol
> 
> No. I can get a piece of @ss regardless.
> 
> Ultimately, my point is that if you have sex casually but wanted romantic involvement, then you have no room to complain when you get burned by someone for whom it really was only casual.
> 
> You certainly not within your right to shift responsibility from yourself and demand that they should have clarified that it was just casual.
> 
> You don't agree with that?


Obviously by the way I THINK...(guarding my own  is #1)....yeah... it falls on me...to get that "Romantic Strings attached" assurance/ feeling of security by his actions and giving it sweet TIME to prove his intentions.....so yeah... I can agree with you... 

But in the same breathe... I wouldn't see your type as a person of character (not that you would care)...more one who preys on the HOT (no matter how naive or weak minded she may be)....

As Created2Write is correct......many women don't know what they want, how they will feel...and they DO get very hurt... by throwing that to the wind saying "It ain't my problem- I ain't no babysitter" to another's emotions... it's a very ugly attitude. 

So yeah..I'd still have more respect for a blatant Random Dude...as with his type, there is less game playing... 

This is what I said in my "What I will teach my daughter " Thread 2 yrs ago now in regards 
*HER responsibility* in SEX...


> Also she MUST take responsibility for those choices. Personal Responsibility is HUGE in our family -I will not allow my TEENS to see themselves as "victims" - if they had a voice & a choice in the matter.
> 
> Sure we all make mistakes, we forge ahead living in the moment, none of us are perfect, but to KNOW the "games" others play, know the "RISKS" of each action before indulging & OWN your own "hand" in it- this is a must.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> On the plus side, we all agree lying is a no no. We disagree that one has an imperative to announce "Hey, I just want sex!" when one has sex without going through all the romantic and emotional mumbo jumbo. To me, not going through all the romantic and emotional mumbo jumbo says that pretty damn loud and clear. There is zero ambiguity here. If she's about to hop on my d 3 hours after I met her, I'm supposed to wonder if she has romantic intentions? No. She's speaking loud and clear. If I want more than sex, then its my responsibility to make that known... not sit back and wait for her to say "Hey, just so we're clear, I just want sex." ... uh... duh?


The imperative is not to say "hey I want sex", as this is both obvious and not really what's at issue. The imperative, if there can be one in a dog eat dog, every man, woman, and child for him/herself world, is to give a tiny bit of a rat's a$$ about the person you are sleeping with.

Compartmentalize all you want, sex is still a fairly intimate act, and if you can't bring yourself to give even the smallest of consideration for your partner's well being, then well... There really is nothing more I can say

Except this: if the simple act of talking to your sex partner is babysitting, then you clearly have little idea about what is involved in either looking after children or conducting a human relationship


----------



## PHTlump

I suggest that this thread is over.

Some believe that adults are free to make their own decisions and face the consequences. Others believe that even the most casual interactions carry with them the expectations and responsibilities of the most intimate relationships, and that we are all obligated to treat other people as emotionally stunted children. And never the twain shall meet.

The last 50 posts have simply been repeated re-phrasings of the above two positions. At this juncture, there is nothing accomplished by it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Oh look! Someone opened another thread so we can go on and on about it over there! Fun.


----------



## TiggyBlue

I'm pretty much with Random with NSA, if someone's expressing the desire of it becoming more then it's time to part ways (yh can be a bit awkward sometimes but saves a load of trouble down the road).


----------



## RandomDude

Awkward? Hell it would be more awkward to have a woman going "I love you I love you I love you" when one obviously doesn't have the same feelings for her. 

Bleh! Makes me wanna puke

My two cents...


----------



## Faithful Wife

The "talk" has never been awkward for me.


----------



## TiggyBlue

RandomDude said:


> Awkward? Hell it would be more awkward to have a woman going "I love you I love you I love you" when you obviously don't have the same feelings for her. Bleh! Makes me wanna puke


That's why I said it saves a load of trouble down the road, I did find it a bit awkward saying "yh when I said I didn't want anything more than NSA I meant it ....sorry......bye" but it's better than not saying anything then getting bombarded with texts, gifts and declarations of love (that's extremely awkward).


----------



## RandomDude

Aye, agreed


----------



## Caribbean Man

I have a simple solution.
Rather than wait for a " decent " man to approach then , and hope that he has " the talk", with them before ,why can't women who are self aware simply take matters into their own hands and make the first approach to the man they're interested in , state whether or not they're interested in just casual sex or a relationship , and lay down their own conditions.
This can be done instead of waiting for him to approach.
That way_ they _can take control of matters and there wouldn't be any misunderstanding.
I don't think there's any law against that.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Also no law against making sure a woman you are about to have sex with understands that this is sex only.


----------



## always_alone

PHTlump said:


> I suggest that this thread is over.
> 
> Some believe that adults are free to make their own decisions and face the consequences. Others believe that even the most casual interactions carry with them the expectations and responsibilities of the most intimate relationships, and that we are all obligated to treat other people as emotionally stunted children. And never the twain shall meet.


Your caricature of the thread neglects to mention those of us who believe that adults are free to make their own decisions and face the consequences, but know that someone whose boner is killed the instant his sex partner starts a simple conversation is the so-called stunted child.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> someone whose boner is killed the instant *his sex partner starts a simple conversation *is the so-called stunted child.


Your phrasing here reveals that you see it from my perspective more than I think you realize. Even if you believe such clarifications are necessary, the person with the concern bears the responsibility of bringing it up. 

To be honest, if it really needed to be brought up like that, its probably the end of the relationship for me. If she's on such different pages that she needs to ask... I'd prefer she goes on her way. I want relationships to come more naturally. My actions are not at all ambiguous as to where I stand in the relationship. I generally have no pre-determined intentions regardless. As I've said, I go with the flow. So exactly what am I supposed to sit a woman down to explain? That its sex while its sex and its serious when its serious? C'mon. I've broken up with a girl with whom I wanted a more settled relationship, because she wasn't investing what I was investing and it made me unhappy. I didn't need to talk about it. Her actions said everything I needed to know. What I didn't do is whine and cry about how she should have made her intentions more clear.

That's personal responsibility. That's owning it. It started casual, I had no reason to expect more. I wanted and invested more while she didn't. My needs weren't being met so I left.

Take control of your own life instead of waiting for someone else to do it for you. If you want more than is being given such that you need to ask where you stand and what their intentions are... well, the answer to where you stand is right there now isn't it?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Also no law against making sure a woman you are about to have sex with understands that this is sex only.


The cool thing about not being the same person, is that we all get to choose what feels right for us.

If a woman has casual sex thinking its something more than sex... good luck to her. If she's not okay with it just being sex, she shouldn't be having casual sex.

Doing so and subsequently crying about his intentions is just plain cake eating.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Your phrasing here reveals that you see it from my perspective more than I think you realize. Even if you believe such clarifications are necessary, the person with the concern bears the responsibility of bringing it up.


Thing is, actions can be ambiguous. And sex in particular is especially ambiguous because it so often is an indicator of positive inclination towards someone, yet so often just masturbation for two. 

Words are just useful to help clarify these ambiguities.

It strikes me a bit odd that you think checking in with your sex partner to see if you are on the same page is a sign that it's time to end the relationship. Really? This isn't asking for mind reading skills? From reading your descriptions, I can't even imagine how anyone would ever have any idea of where they stand with you -- but I guess they figure it out when you dump them (unless they get there first).

My point was never that the responsibility always falls on the man, or that women shouldn't be responsible for their own needs. It was only that we as people should put in a wee bit of effort to respect our fellow humans and try not to add to their pain and suffering.

If I thought we disagreed tremendously on that principle, I probably wouldn't bother continuing to converse with you.

Where I see the disagreement is much more nuanced than all of that. You *say*, for example, that the person with the concern should bring it up. But when the girl decides she has romantic intentions that you are uncomfortable with, did you bring it up? No, you ignored and insulted her and hoped she'd take the hint. Then blamed her for being so stupid as to think you having sex with her (repeatedly, I might add) might mean you return a smidgen of those feelings.

So really what I see in this whole "women are adults, not stunted children" argument is an utter unwillingness to actually own up and take *any* of that personal responsibility that is supposedly the sign of mature adults who are responsible enough to engage in casual sex.


----------



## Lyris

Unless someone is actively lying about feeling more than they do in order to get someone else to have sex, I don't see the problem.

Where I'm from it's normal to assume things aren't serious or moving that way, unless explicitly stated. And there's no better way to learn to guard your heart a bit than by being burned once or twice.

And anyway, how can everything be spelt out ahead of time? People develop feelings, or don't, without planning it.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Warning, long post... I'm feeling all soap-boxy and inspired at the moment. Sorry. If you think this is bad, you should hear me monologue after a few drinks. One of these days we're going to storm the bastille.



always_alone said:


> Thing is, actions can be ambiguous.


I don't find them ambiguous. If every contact is about meeting up for partying and sex, its pretty clear its not romantic. If I'm taking her for long walks through the park, introducing her to all my friends, whispering sweet nothings in her ear and going out of my way to find that perfect little gift that shows how well I know her... its pretty clearly romantic... even if I don't yet love her. I don't think these things need to be said, they are seen with time.



always_alone said:


> It strikes me a bit odd that you think checking in with your sex partner to see if you are on the same page is a sign that it's time to end the relationship. Really? This isn't asking for mind reading skills? From reading your descriptions, I can't even imagine how anyone would ever have any idea of where they stand with you -- but I guess they figure it out when you dump them (unless they get there first).


Yep, its the end of the relationship for a couple different reasons. I don't require mind reading, but I really do see why you'd think that's what this is. Rather, I believe people should take chances. The most important element of "game" I ever learned was to simply put yourself out there, consequences be damned; to put your money down and take risks.

My gf knows exactly where she stands with me and we've never had a single conversation about our relationship. In fact, none of my relationships have had the slightest bit of ambiguity... I'm amazed that this is such a concern to some.

I knew I was feeling something for my gf when I would see things through the course of my day and instantly think "she would like that" or how I couldn't wait to tell her something. One of the first things I did as I began to express my feelings for her was buy her a little plush toy that I saw while looking for a birthday card for my mom. The toy was more than just a stupid gift. That specific toy invoked a memory of our first conversation, something funny she said and something very distinctly US. Meaning and sentimentality. 

She loves cereal and often has a bowl in the evenings when we're just chilling on my couch watching tv. Specifically, she's crazy about the Captain Crunch with the berries. I buy less sugary cereal. She'd complain and pick at me and my crappy health food. It became a sort of running funny thing but she'd still have a bowl and make ugly faces as she chewed. Then one day she got up for a bowl of "cardboard", and found a big box of Captain Crunch in my pantry. She squealed and ran back to kiss me. Small tokens of affection. That silly little box of cereal says, "I like your quirks, and I like having you around here."

I have a tendency to sleep in after we've been out late, but she still wakes up like clockwork. The second time she stayed the night at my place, she made me breakfast. Nice hint there. She's also done my laundry while I was still asleep before. A woman is getting pretty cozy with you when she does your laundry. 

If I didn't share her affection, I still don't have to say "hey, I'm not that into you... don't do my laundry." If I don't reciprocate signs of affection, how long do you think she's going to continue doing my laundry? Not very long unless she's completely mental like the crazy girl I described earlier. The vast majority of communication occurs non-verbally. Words are poor substitutes.

These seemingly stupid little things, and many more like them, are why our relationship has no ambiguity. In fact, none of my relationships are ambiguous. Things naturally ramp up or they don't... affection is shared and reciprocated, or its not. Someone who asks the question of where they stand is doing so for only 1 of 2 reasons to my thinking: 1) they're afraid of the risk inherent in giving affection freely or 2) they are giving, but not receiving. The latter tells you exactly where you stand... there's no need for the question. The former is characteristic of a wuss for whom the risk of rejection or being used is greater than the value of acting freely on their honest feelings. They are so afraid of being hurt or used, that these people stop the train... and say "I'm falling for you, but before I give you jacksh*t, I want to make sure you're going to give me something back."

No. That's not the kind of relationship I want, even if it is a perfectly rational self-defense mechanism. I want freely given affection. Unconditional affection - someone who gives me this affection not because they know I'm going to give it back, but because its how they genuinely feel about me. I want someone who takes that risk with me even though most risks don't payoff... oh so much more value there. If you FEEL it, you should be honest with yourself and just DO it. Sometimes the other person isn't going to feel it and you'll be disappointed. Other times receiving your affection ignites theirs. That's life. It means taking risks.

I should replace this with a conversation and a nice and mature fumbling of words that helps us play it safe because we're afraid of giving without receiving? Oh hell no. You can do that. I won't.

What you consider immature, I consider taking risks and living with passion. Its not like I haven't been burned before. I am not invulnerable... I get hurt. To that I say, "once more unto the breach dear friends". To me, the risk is worth the reward... and I want nothing of a stale dispassionate relationship that needs to sit down and figure out how to define itself.



always_alone said:


> But when the girl decides she has romantic intentions that you are uncomfortable with, did you bring it up? No, you ignored and insulted her and hoped she'd take the hint. Then blamed her for being so stupid as to think you having sex with her (repeatedly, I might add) might mean you return a smidgen of those feelings.


By the time her excessive lovey dovey was uncomfortable for me, I broke it off. As I said, at first it was sort of flattering... I didn't share those feelings, but they were certainly flattering if a little weird. My actions reflected exactly how much I was invested. As her lovey intensity remained just as strong, she became annoying; in fact smothering any feelings I might have begun to develop... indeed, would likely have begun to develop over the course of a month. That is different from blaming someone. She didn't wrong me. I have nothing to blame on her. Rather I learned that she wasn't right for me... too much, too soon, and no balance to the relationship to the point of being annoying. I'm perfectly within my right to pick and choose the qualities of the person I decide to invest in. I didn't want a conversation about how she's moving too fast. I didn't want to make her into something I wanted. I wanted to find someone who fit me better.

You seem to default to thinking this is some kind of abuse as if it was in any way ambiguous how much I was putting into the relationship. But oh my goodness, we're having sex! As if sex is synonymous with love. If that girl falls in love every time she has sex, then she might want to try waiting more than a week before having it. THAT would be personal responsibility.



always_alone said:


> So really what I see in this whole "women are adults, not stunted children" argument is an utter unwillingness to actually own up and take *any* of that personal responsibility that is supposedly the sign of mature adults who are responsible enough to engage in casual sex.


I take full responsibility for myself. I take no responsibility for making sure you are. What I see in your perspective is fear and the desire to have someone else mitigate your risks for you. If risk is one's primary concern, one has no business engaging in casual sex... PERIOD. I'm not taking responsibility for your actions. You're a big girl. 

I believe a good relationship is one where partners SHOW each other they're important... not have sit downs to figure it out. If you need to have a conversation to figure out where you stand, I think you've already got the answer.


----------



## always_alone

Lyris said:


> And anyway, how can everything be spelt out ahead of time? People develop feelings, or don't, without planning it.


But it's not about spelling everything ahead of time, or these long lawyerly conversations that everyone seems to be imagining. It's just to clarify some ambiguities. 

For example, if I have sex with a friend that I've known a long time platonically, it might be ambiguous whether it was a one-off or if our relationship might be changing. I would for sure check in with that person to make sure we were on the same page about what, if anything, comes next.

Or say I meet someone new that I really click with. I might want to know right away if he's married or in a relationship, so I know whether or not to back off. And I might probe a bit further to get a better sense of what, if anything, he's looking for, so I can learn more about what I might be getting myself into if I pursue.

You know, taking just a bit of time to try and know the thoughts and feelings of someone I'm about to sleep with.

Can't for the life of me see why that is awkward, bizarre, or the equivalent of being a stunted child.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Nice hint there. She's also done my laundry while I was still asleep before. A woman is getting pretty cozy with you when she does your laundry.


Laundry? Laundry! OMG, I would never, ever, in a million years do laundry for someone I'm just dating. Seriously. I didn't do anh of my SO's laundry until we were already hitched. I'd way rather have a conversation than mess around with someone else's dirty underwear.




DvlsAdvc8 said:


> If I didn't share her affection, I still don't have to say "hey, I'm not that into you... don't do my laundry." If I don't reciprocate signs of affection, how long do you think she's going to continue doing my laundry? Not very long unless she's completely mental like the crazy girl I described earlier. The vast majority of communication occurs non-verbally. Words are poor substitutes.


Where I differ is that I find the sorts of actions you describe highly ambiguous. I've had guys buy me gifts or do favours for me, and it didn't at all mean that they had romantic intentions. Sometimes they were just being friendly; sometimes they were just looking for a roll in the hay. Without any words, I don't think I could've told the difference.

That said, I've also been lied to a lot, so I get that words aren't any kind of guarantee either.




DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I take full responsibility for myself. I take no responsibility for making sure you are. What I see in your perspective is fear and the desire to have someone else mitigate your risks for you. If risk is one's primary concern, one has no business engaging in casual sex... PERIOD. I'm not taking responsibility for your actions. You're a big girl.


No, it's not about mitigating risk for me. Or rather, if it is, it's not asking you to take care of me (I can do that myself, thank you very much), but to be upfront and straightforward in your dealings. That is, taking ownership of who you are and what you want, and not hiding behind lies or deliberate ambiguities. If you are doing that, then grand, and we're just quibbling over semantics.


----------



## TiggyBlue

always_alone said:


> Laundry? Laundry! OMG, I would never, ever, in a million years do laundry for someone I'm just dating. Seriously. I didn't do anh of my SO's laundry until we were already hitched. I'd way rather have a conversation than mess around with someone else's dirty underwear.


:rofl: that's exactly what was going through my head.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Laundry? Laundry! OMG, I would never, ever, in a million years do laundry for someone I'm just dating. Seriously. I didn't do anh of my SO's laundry until we were already hitched. I'd way rather have a conversation than mess around with someone else's dirty underwear.



When we were dating, my wife used to come to my place and do my laundry . 
Now that we're married, I do the laundry, and I like doing it!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Laundry? Laundry! OMG, I would never, ever, in a million years do laundry for someone I'm just dating. Seriously. I didn't do anh of my SO's laundry until we were already hitched. I'd way rather have a conversation than mess around with someone else's dirty underwear.


Haha yep. Pretty much blew me away. Don't miss the forest for the trees here though. The point was that we naturally began to integrate into each others lives and perform acts of affection that did not depend on the other's response.

I think its important that such integration occur naturally and at the same rate. I think its important to stick your neck out. I'm not much interested in affirmations of the default. The default is casual. When you feel something more than casual, you should express it... maybe you get that affection returned, maybe you won't. If you don't, then you have your answer; maybe its time to go. That to me is fully owning it.

I thought the laundry thing was a BIG sign of affection. I was already beginning to leak out my own signals of romantic interest... and then that... well, I thought it was pretty cool. Its certainly not what someone who just wants to keep it casual does.



always_alone said:


> Where I differ is that I find the sorts of actions you describe highly ambiguous. I've had guys buy me gifts or do favours for me, and it didn't at all mean that they had romantic intentions. Sometimes they were just being friendly; sometimes they were just looking for a roll in the hay. Without any words, I don't think I could've told the difference.


I have to point to missing the forest for the trees again here. Any one of these sorts of acts may simply be dismissed. Taken in their entirety one would literally have to be blind to miss the message.



always_alone said:


> No, it's not about mitigating risk for me. Or rather, if it is, it's not asking you to take care of me (I can do that myself, thank you very much), but to be upfront and straightforward in your dealings. That is, taking ownership of who you are and what you want, and not hiding behind lies or deliberate ambiguities. If you are doing that, then grand, and we're just quibbling over semantics.


I think it is a little bit of semantics. The crux of the difference is that I think casual is the default value. There's no need for conversation because if there is a change from default, a person lets you know by their actions. It is entirely up to them to decide what they will accept from you if you don't share their romantic interest. The deal hasn't changed for you, there's nothing for you to bring up.

I really do understand the desire to mitigate risk, but there really isn't any means to do so other than holding out. Someone can deceptively give you every sign they want to stick around... or they can lie to you when you have your sit down conversation. If being deceived is so traumatic, then best to hold out I figure.

But absent such dishonesty, a conversation to clarify intentions is still meaningless. Just act on how YOU feel... because no matter what either of you say in that conversation things are subject to change. If I'm only interested in a casual relationship and she does my laundry, I just might fall in love.   Regardless, if she's not getting what she wants out of the relationship, she needs to leave the relationship. Personal responsibility and ownership.

Going on a tangent for a moment about the overcommitted girl, one thing I won't knock about her is that she really put herself out there. The ultimate flaw I saw (beyond just being annoying), was in a girl accepting/expecting so little for herself. There's some admirable things about selflessness, but not this sort. I definitely wanted someone with a stronger sense of self... someone who wasn't going to suck up to me; and who would call me on my bs. I was in a marriage that never had any fights (as argumentative as I am? can you even imagine this?). While I wouldn't call my ex weak, everything was civil and plainly discussed. I used to think this was the smart, proper, and even classy way to handle everything. It makes for calm seas, but it creates cold winds. Today I realize the fights must be fought, risks must be taken and everything should just be laid out. There's a sort of yin and yang balance here. A wave of crests and troughs. If you never fight, you probably have no passion... no troughs, no crests. I knew there would never be any fights with the overcommitted girl. She would have always deferred because she had so little sense of self. I realized that despite the great sex we were having now, my passion would have been a flat line with her eventually... if it wasn't already. Emotionally dead. So I let her go.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The default is casual. When you feel something more than casual, you should express it... maybe you get that affection returned, maybe you won't. If you don't, then you have your answer; maybe its time to go. That to me is fully owning it.


Yabbut, you also said that you don't want to talk about it when you *are* getting serious. She's just supposed to figure it out because you do some thoughtful things for her. Just like your wife was supposed to know how much you loved and desired her because you wanted sex from her. It's all in the actions.

Nevermind that you also do all of these very same actions for very different reasons and with very different intentions. What would you do if your gf didn't even realize that you were going all romantic on her? Give up? Double your efforts? Or is that where you break down and finally talk to her? 

Me, I like words. (Maybe you've noticed?) And I don't see why you assume that conversations are all fear-based mitigation of risk. They're simply efforts to know the thoughts and feelings of another person. I still check in with my SO to make sure we're on the same page on some things.


----------



## always_alone

TiggyBlue said:


> :rofl: that's exactly what was going through my head.


But check it out: Laundry is the way to a man's heart!

Oh, well. Still not a precedent I want to set. :rofl:


----------



## RandomDude

always_alone said:


> Laundry? Laundry! OMG, I would never, ever, in a million years do laundry for someone I'm just dating. Seriously. I didn't do anh of my SO's laundry until we were already hitched. I'd way rather have a conversation than mess around with someone else's dirty underwear.


Well, my last date did my laundry for me before we dated so... lol


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Yabbut, you also said that you don't want to talk about it when you *are* getting serious. She's just supposed to figure it out because you do some thoughtful things for her. Just like your wife was supposed to know how much you loved and desired her because you wanted sex from her. It's all in the actions.


Yep. No talking about it is necessary. Its not hard to figure out that someone is being thoughtful, sentimental, and romantic. Someone can tell you they love you all day long, but absent these actions you're not going to feel loved.

As for my ex, I didn't show love by seeking sex... not sure where you got that from. I showed that in many different ways. I showed my physical desire for her by flirtation, touch and sexual escalation. It is all in the actions. To the point, I did have many talks with her when it seemed my actions were ignored. I'm not opposed to talking something over in a well established relationship... I just don't find talking about the nature of an early relationship anything other than superfluous. Those channels are just not the same either. Early relationship is a lot different than long established relationship. Still, lot of good talking about it did. :/



always_alone said:


> Nevermind that you also do all of these very same actions for very different reasons and with very different intentions. What would you do if your gf didn't even realize that you were going all romantic on her? Give up? Double your efforts? Or is that where you break down and finally talk to her?


I do these actions with different intentions?

If she didn't realize I was being romantic, and not being romantic with me, then I want a new relationship with someone I have better chemistry with. I think the ability to read each other is really important. We're not talking about some esoteric economic theory here. We're talking about signals of affection and degree of romantic interest. I don't want her to feel the need to question where I stand. A good match for me can read that simple effortlessly. She needs to be able to feel love by the way I show love and vice versa or theres gonna be a mess if trouble down the road imo.



always_alone said:


> Me, I like words. (Maybe you've noticed?) And I don't see why you assume that conversations are all fear-based mitigation of risk. They're simply efforts to know the thoughts and feelings of another person. I still check in with my SO to make sure we're on the same page on some things.


Because you can't talk yourself into feeling loved. No matter what they say, you feel it or you don't. 

You've chatted with me ling enough to know I'm a big fan of words too. lol But in terms of feeling love, I think they fall incredibly short. Talking doesn't change anything if the actions and signals of love aren't there or either person can't perceive them.


----------



## Caribbean Man

RandomDude said:


> Well, my last date did my laundry for me before we dated so... lol


Maybe it's cultural?


----------



## RandomDude

Lol, yeah it's cultural to sniff and wash your man's boxers before dating him 

Funny, she must have really liked the scent


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> lol
> 
> No. I can get a piece of @ss regardless.
> 
> Ultimately, my point is that if you have sex casually but wanted romantic involvement, then you have no room to complain when you get burned by someone for whom it really was only casual.
> 
> You're certainly not within your right to shift responsibility from yourself and demand that they should have clarified that it was just casual.
> 
> You don't agree with that?


I know this wasn't directed at me but I wanted to answer. Yes, I agree with this. If a woman wants romance, but has sex casually, then she's pretending to want something other than she does. The consequences are her own fault. Which is precisely why it's so important to be honest about what one wants. She shouldn't pretend that her expectations are anything other than what they really are. Being honest about her expectations(wanting romance) aren't, in any way, taking away the man's responsibility. It's her taking her own responsibility into her own hands. 

Just like a man being honest that his expectations are for casual sex and nothing else has nothing to do with the woman shirking her responsibilities, but rather him owning him to his.


----------



## RandomDude

We're STILL on this? =O


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Yep. No talking about it is necessary. Its not hard to figure out that someone is being thoughtful, sentimental, and romantic. Someone can tell you they love you all day long, but absent these actions you're not going to feel loved.


But not everyone responds to actions alone. I know this gets off topic, but as far as relationships go, actions alone simply are not enough. As I've said many times on this forum, my greatest emotional need is Admiration. That requires words. Very few actions meet that need for me, and in fact, I can't think of any. _Affection_ is much more action based.

So it seems to me that, for you, actions are really what speak to you and make you feel appreciated, loved, wanted, desired, etc. But for others this simply isn't the case. They need the words just as much, if not more. Point being: actions can not be the end all, be all to relationship communication. 



> As for my ex, I didn't show love by seeking sex... not sure where you got that from. I showed that in many different ways. I showed my physical desire for her by flirtation, touch and sexual escalation. It is all in the actions. To the point, I did have many talks with her when it seemed my actions were ignored. I'm not opposed to talking something over in a well established relationship... I just don't find talking about the nature of an early relationship anything other than superfluous. Those channels are just not the same either. Early relationship is a lot different than long established relationship. Still, lot of good talking about it did. :/


This is true. Early relationships are very different than established relationships. I still think both people, regardless of what they want and expect, deserve to know upfront in very clear terms where the other wants things to go. 



> I do these actions with different intentions?
> 
> If she didn't realize I was being romantic, and not being romantic with me, then I want a new relationship with someone I have better chemistry with. I think the ability to read each other is really important. We're not talking about some esoteric economic theory here. We're talking about signals of affection and degree of romantic interest. I don't want her to feel the need to question where I stand. A good match for me can read that simple effortlessly. She needs to be able to feel love by the way I show love and vice versa or theres gonna be a mess if trouble down the road imo.


What if the way you show love isn't the primary way she feels loved? Don't get me wrong, sex, for me, is the ultimate expression of love and without it I feel like my marriage is being suffocated. But even so, people need other signs too. Flirtation, sex, foreplay...all great, but not necessarily every woman's ultimate romantic expression. For me, getting roses when it's not a special occasion, being taken to my favorite restaurant just because, being told what a wonderful wife I am throughout the week, cuddling for the sake of cuddling, are just a few of the other things that maintain romance. 



> Because you can't talk yourself into feeling loved. No matter what they say, you feel it or you don't.
> 
> You've chatted with me ling enough to know I'm a big fan of words too. lol But in terms of feeling love, I think they fall incredibly short. Talking doesn't change anything if the actions and signals of love aren't there or either person can't perceive them.


Also true. Saying you love someone doesn't make it so. But actions alone are, also, not always enough. Especially if the woman is like me and needs admiration from their man. Sex, while awesome, doesn't meet the entirety of that need. Words are needed.


----------



## Created2Write

I have work and class. Can't be on here everyday. So I fall behind.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

The love language thing doesn't really apply. People show love and affection a dozen different ways and that's fine. Admiring you IS an action taken to show love for you.

That's vastly different from sitting someone down for some kind of "where do I stand" conversation. If you feel the need to ask, I think that tells you where you stand.

Remember we're talking about a new relationship here... don't you think it most wise to find someone who speaks your languages instead of spending the rest of your life with someone who doesn't and always having to try to "work on it"?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

RandomDude said:


> Lol, yeah it's cultural to sniff and wash your man's boxers before dating him
> 
> Funny, she must have really liked the scent


Side track, but my gf mentioned that she absolutely loves the smell of my man parts and my sweaty smell. She even stole one of my couch pillows because it smells like me. 

She asked if I thought that was weird and I said it wasn't too weird, but if I catch her sniffing my underwear she's out of here. She gave me this scared face as if she already had... then said, "well... I was doing the laundry and..." Joking. 

She also said its a good thing I didn't have skidmarks cuz that would've been a deal breaker. lol


----------



## RandomDude

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Side track, but my gf mentioned that she absolutely loves the smell of my man parts and my sweaty smell. She even stole one of my couch pillows because it smells like me.
> 
> She asked if I thought that was weird and I said it wasn't too weird, but if I catch her sniffing my underwear she's out of here. She gave me this scared face as if she already had... then said, "well... I was doing the laundry and..." Joking.
> 
> She also said its a good thing I didn't have skidmarks cuz that would've been a deal breaker. lol


...

Now that's disturbing... I was joking ya know lol


----------



## Caribbean Man

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Side track, but my gf mentioned that she absolutely loves the smell of my man parts and my sweaty smell. She even stole one of my couch pillows because it smells like me.
> 
> She asked if I thought that was weird and I said it wasn't too weird, but if I catch her sniffing my underwear she's out of here. She gave me this scared face as if she already had... then said, "well... I was doing the laundry and..." Joking.
> 
> She also said its a good thing I didn't have skidmarks cuz that would've been a deal breaker. lol


When we were dating my wife used to take my handkerchief whenever I was at her place and was about to leave.
Said it smelled like me.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Yep. No talking about it is necessary. Its not hard to figure out that someone is being thoughtful, sentimental, and romantic. Someone can tell you they love you all day long, but absent these actions you're not going to feel loved.


Must be very different being a guy, I guess. My dating experience involves plenty of guys who were all about the romantic gestures (gifts, favours, etc) without any real romantic intentions. Many of them would have a much harder time *saying* something, because they would feel like liars. So instead they seduce through actions.

All you describe as clear, I see as ambiguous.

You once expressed surprise that your ex doubted your interest in her, and laughed that the proof was in you chasing her for sex. Is this not a sign of such ambiguity?

But none of that is neither here nor there. I'm still somewhat surprised that so many guys find the idea of being straight up about who they are and what they want so bloody off-putting, but I guess I shouldn't be. After all, the more "mystery" you can summon, the better right? Not to mention plausible deniability.



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> If she didn't realize I was being romantic, and not being romantic with me, then I want a new relationship with someone I have better chemistry with. I think the ability to read each other is really important. We're not talking about some esoteric economic theory here. We're talking about signals of affection and degree of romantic interest. I don't want her to feel the need to question where I stand. A good match for me can read that simple effortlessly. She needs to be able to feel love by the way I show love and vice versa or theres gonna be a mess if trouble down the road imo.


If you keep expecting others to read you mind, and assuming that you can read theirs, you'll be in that mess of trouble in much less time, I'd wager. 

I didn't have you figured as a romantic, but this sounds about as idealistic as it gets. And all the guys I know who have these sorts of expectations are, well, let me just say not exactly successful at LTRs -- or even short term Rs for that matter.


----------



## always_alone

Created2Write said:


> This is true. Early relationships are very different than established relationships. I still think both people, regardless of what they want and expect, deserve to know upfront in very clear terms where the other wants things to go.


Yes. I agree with those who say you can't always predict where things will go, and so can't always be totally clear. And I get that when a relationship is new, you have less invested and may (very!) soon decide that this one isn't for you. 

Indeed, you (and of course I don't mean you personally) may have already decided that tissue person isn't for you, but you want to get off any way.

What I don't get is why this becomes an excuse to avoid treating others with respect and honesty. For that it shouldn't really matter if the relationship is casual or long term.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Remember we're talking about a new relationship here... don't you think it most wise to find someone who speaks your languages instead of spending the rest of your life with someone who doesn't and always having to try to "work on it"?


We're talking about a new relationship here. How are you supposed to know if he/she speaks your languages?

And if you think there's no work involved, you're living in dreamland.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Think you're an alpha male and got game? Read this*



always_alone said:


> We're talking about a new relationship here. How are you supposed to know if he/she speaks your languages?
> 
> And if you think there's no work involved, you're living in dreamland.


But thats what its about. Finding out if they are capable of the work and if you are willing and think they are worth the work, and sometimes the parties are intimate before that decision gets made. 

Sometimes ... the outcome of the decision has nothing to do with who has, or hasn't been up front and honest.


----------



## Deejo

Gotta tell you AA, sometimes things seem to be working out fine until clothes come off.

I've had 2 relationships where I made the call after we had been and as a result of being intimate. Exactly how open and honest do we want or expect?

Do I need a woman to tell me that she cant cope with my ED, despite her reassurance prior to the event?

Nope. I dont need that kind of honesty. Same way I'm not going to tell a woman who makes my grey matter tingle, but not my loins.

I dont think anyone is suggesting being duplicitous, or not being open. My level of informed consent just seems to be different than yours.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Deejo said:


> But thats what its about. Finding out if they are capable of the work and if you are willing and think they are worth the work, *and sometimes the parties are intimate before that decision gets made. *
> 
> Sometimes ... the outcome of the decision has nothing to do with who has, or hasn't been up front and honest.


:iagree:
And sometimes either one or both of them realize after that the _only_ thing that had was the sex, after the having sex..

The mistake being made on the thread is assuming that male - female sexual dynamics and relationships are one dimensional , when in fact they are multi dimensional, simply because human beings are.
Every relationship, at it's genesis is subject to vagaries intrinsic to the persons involved and the dynamics or situations surrounding how they met, environment and background issues.

Discussing intentions at the beginning of what is clearly a casual sex hookup , whether long term , short term, on instant gratification , is really academic because the whole idea behind casual sex is temporary , sensory pleasure.

People who are interested in medium or long term relationships are usually not interested in hookup sex, and state so clearly.
Although some who are into casual hookups might be open to longer term investments. In that case, the " discussion " before would still be academic, because it can go either / or, and they are prepared to accept any outcome.

There will always be disappointments, there will always be sad songs.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> But thats what its about. Finding out if they are capable of the work and if you are willing and think they are worth the work, and sometimes the parties are intimate before that decision gets made.


Well, yes. But the way you've put it here is that there already is a relationship. Nascent, yes. And possibly only short term. Maybe very short term. But your starting point is still two people wanting to get to know each other better, and where it's in both of their best interests to be true to themselves and kind to the other.

The premise of this thread and the way casual sex has been discussed here is that it is literally just sex. There is no relationship, and therefore zero responsibility to consider the thoughts and feelings of one's sex partner. It's this I find objectionable. If you're [email protected] someone, you're in a relationship with them, however stunted.

Honestly,I don't see a problem with casual sex. I personally never felt I needed a man to complete me, and was not at all interested in marriage just for the sake of it, or with someone that I didn't really click with. And as you know, that's not always easy to find. And meanwhile, sex, affection and companionship are all important needs.

So I've had casual sex, and I get why people do. I don't think, like some, that it's necessarily a sign of immaturity, or wrong, or sinful. I do think, though, that this idea that "casual is the default" and that you have zero responsibility to your sex partner is the real cake-eating that's happening in his thread.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> The mistake being made on the thread is assuming that male - female sexual dynamics and relationships are one dimensional , when in fact they are multi dimensional, simply because human beings are.
> Every relationship, at it's genesis is subject to vagaries intrinsic to the persons involved and the dynamics or situations surrounding how they met, environment and background issues.


The mistake being made on this thread, as I see it, is the tired old trope that it is woman's responsibility to manage male desire.

You keep coming back to the disappointment theme because that's the only script that's allowed: She wants true love, he just wants sex, and so she's disappointed. If she wants more, so the story goes, she should just not engage in casual sex at all. Make him wait to prove his interest.

This story puts the entire onus on the woman. If she's dumb enough to have casual sex, then she deserves whatever she gets and has only herself to blame. The only path to being treated well is to deny him --and herself-- of sex.

Implied in all of this is that men can't or won't control their own desires, and so women have to do it for them. Pretty much the same principle as behind burkas and hajibs. Sure women in the west have more freedom to dress sexier, but they are still the ones who have to manage both their own sexuality and that of the men around them.

Tell me, what counts as a "clearly casual hookup"? Because if you're literally talking about doing it in the nightclub bathroom, I might be more inclined to just agree and say, sure, if you're playing games like that, you're asking for trouble (and that goes for both men and women).

But there's a whole range of casual where not very much is clear at all, and I honestly can't understand why it's so bloody hard or terrible to have a second thought for a sex partner. Unless, of course, you really do believe that people who have casual sex deserve to be treated badly.


----------



## ReformedHubby

always_alone said:


> The mistake being made on this thread, as I see it, is the tired old trope that it is woman's responsibility to manage male desire.
> 
> You keep coming back to the disappointment theme because that's the only script that's allowed: She wants true love, he just wants sex, and so she's disappointed. If she wants more, so the story goes, she should just not engage in casual sex at all. Make him wait to prove his interest.
> 
> This story puts the entire onus on the woman. If she's dumb enough to have casual sex, then she deserves whatever she gets and has only herself to blame. The only path to being treated well is to deny him --and herself-- of sex.
> 
> Implied in all of this is that men can't or won't control their own desires, and so women have to do it for them. Pretty much the same principle as behind burkas and hajibs. Sure women in the west have more freedom to dress sexier, but they are still the ones who have to manage both their own sexuality and that of the men around them.
> 
> Tell me, what counts as a "clearly casual hookup"? Because if you're literally talking about doing it in the nightclub bathroom, I might be more inclined to just agree and say, sure, if you're playing games like that, you're asking for trouble (and that goes for both men and women).
> 
> But there's a whole range of casual where not very much is clear at all, and I honestly can't understand why it's so bloody hard or terrible to have a second thought for a sex partner. Unless, of course, you really do believe that people who have casual sex deserve to be treated badly.


You've made some interesting observations in this thread but I can't discern what you are trying to assert. I think I'm having difficulty because so much of what you're saying I assume is just part of dating, I don't think most men purposefully deceive. I just think that both parties (men and women) don't want to have conversations where all options are laid out on the first date. Part of the process is getting to know someone. Sometimes sex happens before this, okay a lot of times sex happens before this.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

always_alone said:


> The premise of this thread and the way casual sex has been discussed here is that it is literally just sex. There is no relationship, and therefore zero responsibility to consider the thoughts and feelings of one's sex partner. It's this I find objectionable. If you're [email protected] someone, you're in a relationship with them, however stunted.
> 
> Honestly,I don't see a problem with casual sex. I personally never felt I needed a man to complete me, and was not at all interested in marriage just for the sake of it, or with someone that I didn't really click with. And as you know, that's not always easy to find. And meanwhile, sex, affection and companionship are all important needs.


On the way Home from taking our son to the Orthodontist this Am, this song came on the radio.. those words.. an official "*casual sex*" song...



> We've got tonight - Bob Seger - YouTube
> 
> I know it's late, I know you're weary
> I know your plans don't include me
> Still here we are, both of us lonely
> Longing for shelter from all that we see
> Why should we worry, no one will care girl
> Look at the stars so far away
> We've got tonight, who needs tomorrow?
> We've got tonight babe
> Why don' you stay?
> 
> Deep in my soul, I've been so lonely
> All of my hopes, fading away
> I've longed for love, like everyone else does
> I know I'll keep searching, even after today
> So there it is girl, I've said it all now
> And here we are babe, what do you say?
> We've got tonight, who needs tomorrow?
> We've got tonight babe
> Why don't you stay?
> 
> I know it's late, I know you're weary
> I know your plans don't include me
> Still here we are, both of us lonely
> Both of us lonely
> 
> We've got tonight, who needs tomorrow?
> Let's make it ast, let's find a way
> Turn out the light, come take my hand now
> We've got tonight babe
> Why don't you stay?
> Why don't you stay?


Sounds you enjoy casual sex, see nothing wrong with it... you need to ask yourself what your expectations really are.. once it's over, what are you looking for...do you find you long for these men to call you back? 

Being one who would never want this.. knowing it would hurt me, there is no way I could put myself in those situations and "expect" anything... I'd consider myself setting myself up for a FALL - every single time.. I would have a very pessimistic attitude towards it... I'd have to "preserve" myself. 

When you don't know these men....how can you expect anything? Many of them live for the thrill of "variety"....some "strange".... You are lowering your odds of being treated decently with such encounters... that's just the reality..


----------



## RandomDude

> You are lowering your odds of being treated decently with such encounters... that's just the reality..


*Ahem*

=/


----------



## Caribbean Man

SimplyAmorous said:


> *When you don't know these men....how can you expect anything?*


Conventional^^^wisdom.:smthumbup:

Even if they promise to "_ stay forever_ " and that it's the 
"_beginning of something beautifu_l ", even if they meant every word of it at that time,
YOU DON'T KNOW THAT PERSON.
Whatever they say means nothing in real terms.

" _A promise is a comfort to a fool_."


----------



## always_alone

SimplyAmorous said:


> Sounds you enjoy casual sex, see nothing wrong with it... you need to ask yourself what your expectations really are.. once it's over, what are you looking for...do you find you long for these men to call you back?


And here again is the "disappointment" script. It must be that I am longing for more when the men just want sex because that's the only way the story can be imagined. A girl who ever engages in casual sex *will* be disappointed because men will just use her. That's what men do.

I find this story very unflattering to both men and women, as it basically paints men as erections with legs, and no accountability, and women as gullible dreamers. But is it true?

I was hesitant to even mention any of my personal experience with casual sex here because I know how it will be judged. But the truth is, I've had very meaningful, pleasant, short term encounters with zero hard feelings and no disappointment when it was over.

How is that possible? Well we both shared enough of ourselves (or already knew enough because we were friends) to know what we were getting into and why.

So where do the hard feelings come from? People who play games and put forward a persona that belies their true self. People who use and then just hide behind a cloak of platitudes and stereotypes.

I totally respect your and your decisions, SA, and I know you were able to do what was right for you from the get go. But those choices would never have been right for me. And so I had the option to either stay celibate or enjoy shorter term relationships.

Why do we insist that women either stay celibate or "lower" themselves? We are happy enough saying men are sexual; we excuse their every behaviour in the pursuit of sex. But as soon as a woman decides to be casual and not hold out for marriage, she is lowering herself? And should expect to be used?

I don't buy this double standard.


----------



## TiggyBlue

always_alone said:


> Why do we insist that women either stay celibate or "lower" themselves? We are happy enough saying men are sexual; we excuse their every behaviour in the pursuit of sex. But as soon as a woman decides to be casual and not hold out for marriage, she is lowering herself? *And should expect to be used?*.


When willing participants in casual sex both are 'using' each other for sexual pleasure, there isn't necessarily one being giving and being used and one having the all the pleasure and benefit of sex.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

always_alone said:


> And here again is the "disappointment" script. It must be that I am longing for more when the men just want sex because that's the only way the story can be imagined. A girl who ever engages in casual sex *will* be disappointed because men will just use her because that's what men do.


If it is just casual sex, *you won't feel used*...you will have enjoyed the pleasure and you move on, no strings, no expectations... 
What on this list offends you, I realize it sounds a little cold, for me, this is how I would have to brace myself , or so I feel, if I wanted to engage in it... I think this is bare bones casual sex... it's about physical pleasure and little else. 



> Is casual sex possible for women? Absolutely…But if we want to enter the same playing field, we have to play by the same rules. Ladies, I give you the 10 Commandments of Casual Sex according to the Jenny University of Texas.
> 
> *Booty not Brains*
> Do not choose a casual sex partner on anything other than physical attraction and sexual chemistry. If the sex is great and they’re smart, funny and sweet, the ‘casual’ will be difficult to maintain. You must be completely disposable to each other.
> 
> *Best friend? Don’t even think about it!*
> If you’re sleeping together and you’re best friends, you’re in a relationship. It is impossible not to mix the emotional, mental and physical in this situation. The friendship will never be the same again. It will either evolve into dating or be plagued with a tension that takes a long time to shake.
> 
> *Know your motives*
> Casual sex because you enjoy sex and want to get laid is awesome. However, indulging in some casual sex because you have something to prove is simply skanky. Unless you are having casual sex for the sake of sex, then you are going to feel bad about it and even more insecure. If you start sleeping with a guy under ‘casual’ circumstances but secretly want to date him, then while things are casual to him, they will be serious and personal to you.
> 
> *Orgasms only*
> Should you be an ice beech and show him the door as soon as you’ve finished? No. But be careful with cuddling. There’s nothing nicer than being wrapped up in affection, but that’s the attention you get from a boyfriend. Orgasms should be the only thing you want from your casual man.
> 
> *Don’t introduce him to friends*
> Unless he is coming to meet you at 3 am and your friends are still around, he doesn’t need to meet them or be integrated into your life in any way. You do not want your friends to like him or vice versa. It will spark those “what if” thoughts.
> 
> *Be naked 97 percent of the time*
> This is about sex! No need to plan an outfit unless you’re getting theatrical (see commandment 8), because it should be almost immediately stripped from you. If you’re doing too many activities that require clothing, you’re entering relationship territory.
> 
> *Don’t be selfish*
> Casual sex can only exist if both parties want the same thing. Using someone for sex who has real feelings for you makes you an *******, period. It also means that you’re probably insecure and unaware of your motives. See commandment 3.
> 
> *Thou shalt get freaky*
> Why the hell not? You literally have nothing to lose. Send inhibitions to the wind and try out new moves and play out your naughty fantasies. Nine times out of 10, he will love it; and if he doesn’t, the he is not serving his sexual purpose. So replace him.
> 
> *Wrap it up*
> By definition this relationship is not exclusive. He is more than likely sleeping with other people, even if he is polite enough to lie about it. Better safe than sorry.
> 
> *Straightforward, direct communication*
> Casual relationships are designed to be temporary, so there’s really no harm in full disclosure if or when one of you meets someone else. If you follow these 10 commandments, then no one’s feelings should get hurt.


Maybe casual isn't what you want Always alone.. you want some strings... can you spell out what it is -that would satisfy feeling they have treated you with dignity and care ?

Maybe this is what you are grappling with, you are tired of this scene ...but aren't you married ? Well lots of us are...just something to talk about. 




> *Always alone said: *
> I totally respect your and your decisions, SARAH, and I know you were able to do what was right for you from the get go. But those choices would never have been right for me. And so my real choice was stay celibate or enjoy shorter term relationships.
> 
> Why do we insist that women either stay celibate or "lower" themselves? We are happy enough saying men are sexual; we excuse their every behaviour in the pursuit of sex. But as soon as a woman decides to be casual and not hold out for marriage, she is lowering herself? And should expect to be used?
> 
> I don't buy this double standard.


Who is SARAH or what does that stand for? I just speak out of my own expectations...that if a woman WANTS MORE....even a little more..and has been met with disappointment after disappointment...she should give it a little more TIME....get to know the heart of the man, what he is made of ...

I wasn't the risk taking type... frankly (in my head)...I'd want to chop a guys balls off if he promised me sh** and didn't live up to it...and most people, unfortunately are Full of sh**... very very few even manage to keep their word...I take pretty much everything someone says with a grain of salt.. because I know how the majority of people ARE...if that makes me sound bad, I don't really care..

Just cause we have higher standards in our own conduct doesn't mean others do....



Caribbean Man said:


> Conventional^^^wisdom.:smthumbup:
> 
> Even if they promise to "_ stay forever_ " and that it's the
> "_beginning of something beautifu_l ", even if they meant every word of it at that time,
> YOU DON'T KNOW THAT PERSON.
> Whatever they say means nothing in real terms.
> 
> " _A promise is a comfort to a fool_."


I love men... really I do... but let's face it...they can be Horny scoundrels.. they will sweet talk you and say anything to get into your pants when they are feeling like that... I copied a couple comments from this forum in preparation for my daughter thread ...these were very telling....



> I would have done/said anything that would get me into bed with them, getting them to flash me, etc etc....





> Puberty, hormones raging. I dont think I once thought about love during that time. Purely a want to put it in something. As I grow older the drive has remained as powerful as ever, but its fueled by more than just hormones.


Far too often they are purely thinking with their other head...it IS what it is...


----------



## always_alone

SimplyAmorous said:


> I love men... really I do... but let's face it...they can be Horny scoundrels.. they will sweet talk you and say anything to get into your pants when they are feeling like that...


And there it is, again. And again and again and again. This idea that men are just scoundrels and women just need to suck it up and be celibate until they find one that wants to marry them for life. And if a woman criticizes or complains ever, then it is clearly her at fault, no matter what he did.

If a guy complains about what a b*tch she was and how he best stay away from her, everyone nods sagely and agrees. Yes, women can be b*tches, they'll say, and you need to stay away from them. But when a woman says virtually the same thing about a man, everyone jumps on her and tells her it's her fault for sleeping with him in the first place, and how she she takes no personal responsibility, and is like a stunted child. Even when talking about the most obnoxious PUA behaviour, everyone just shrugs and says, yeah, what do you expect? Boys will be boys. And it's entirely your fault.

WTF? This is what I mean when I say that women have to bear all of the personal responsibility, while men take none, while calling women cake-eaters and the like.

The truth is that I am married, and all of this is academic to me now. But it still irritates me when I see these double standards consistently applied. All I did was slight some PUA types, and half of this thread is defending them and telling me (and a couple of others) that we are just stunted children that can't handle the game. And then informed that women are basically obligated to be celibate because men can't or won't acknowledge that they might have some sort of responsibility to act like a human being instead of a d*ck on legs. 

Oh, and sorry about the the Sarah reference. That was just auto correct acting up. I meant to be addressing you.

ETA:. I'd also like to point out that two items on your list of rules for casual sex are *exactly* what I've been trying to say: *Don't be selfish and use direct straightforward communication.*

It seems really obvious to me, and I can't for the life of me fathom why it's so difficult, and why such resistance to even the suggestion that it might be a good idea. The only reason I can think of is that there is a vested interest in staying selfish and not communicating.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The love language thing doesn't really apply. People show love and affection a dozen different ways and that's fine. Admiring you IS an action taken to show love for you.
> 
> That's vastly different from sitting someone down for some kind of "where do I stand" conversation. If you feel the need to ask, I think that tells you where you stand.
> 
> Remember we're talking about a new relationship here... don't you think it most wise to find someone who speaks your languages instead of spending the rest of your life with someone who doesn't and always having to try to "work on it"?


You made the comment that, if a woman doesn't know you care about her based on how you treat her, then she's probably not going to know you care regardless of what you do. You mentioned respect, sex, desire, etc. as ways you show affection and interest. I only brought in the love language aspect as a way to show that while an action may be enough for _you_ to feel appreciated/wanted, someone else may not respond the same way. Likewise, just because casual sex may be enough for you to know that romance is, likely, off the table, doesn't mean someone else will think the same thing. Personally, having sex with someone the first or second time you meet them is very obvious; nothing but carnal desire fueling that relationship. But for others this isn't so obvious, and I maintain that both people deserve to know what the other expects.


----------



## Created2Write

always_alone said:


> Yes. I agree with those who say you can't always predict where things will go, and so can't always be totally clear. And I get that when a relationship is new, you have less invested and may (very!) soon decide that this one isn't for you.
> 
> Indeed, you (and of course I don't mean you personally) may have already decided that tissue person isn't for you, but you want to get off any way.
> 
> What I don't get is why this becomes an excuse to avoid treating others with respect and honesty. For that it shouldn't really matter if the relationship is casual or long term.


I was never into the casual sex scene, and is probably why a lot of people here disregard what I have to say. Still, I have an imagination. I know myself and what I find appealing and what I find downright ugly. Withholding ones expectations under the pretense of it only being casual sex, so it should already be obvious, is ugly to me. Expecting others to be on the same page as you by default is precisely why I've never been into men who sleep around. There are thousands of people who sleep around, who all have thousands of different life experiences. Not all of them are going to see casual sex the same way. It's just not realistic. 

For me, very few things are sexier than honesty. It's actually my third most important emotional need. Knowing what a guys intentions are, even if he thinks they're obvious, would turn me on more, not turn me off. I don't see it as a big deal at all. I've had to communicate things to my husband before in the middle of sex, and it didn't slow us down at all. If a person can't be honest without losing their sexual interest, they're trying too hard, imo.


----------



## Created2Write

I started telling DH "I love you" very early in our relationship. I know good and well it could push him away, that he could see me as clingy, as coming on to quickly, and by what many of the men in this thread have said, I did come on to quickly. But it was, really, how I felt. I wasn't going to pretend I felt less than I did just to prolong the relationship and make things more difficult down the road. He was going to know the truth, and the truth was that I started falling in love with him on our first date. A month later I told him how I felt, and he felt the same. 

I could have waited, kept the truth from him for fear that it would ruin what was just beginning, but I don't believe in selfishness. I believe in honesty. So I told him the truth, and was thrilled when I found out he felt the same way. It was a beautiful moment. 

I get that everyone is different. For any other guy beside my husband, my honesty likely would have indicated a time to split. But not my guy. I'm very lucky. He really is the most special man I've ever known. Point being: what I see as a beautiful moment and a wonderful, yet scary, opportunity, others are going to see as clingy behavior. And what they see as a waste of time(communicating their expectations before beginning a sexual relationship with someone), I see as incredibly respectful and desirable behavior. We come to these conclusions based on what we've experienced, and in my life the men who were honest about what they wanted were the ones worth my time and effort. The ones who weren't honest about what they wanted were the ones who cheated, lied, manipulated, and then came begging for me to take them back because they were tired of empty, meaningless relationships.


----------



## samyeagar

Created2Write said:


> I started telling DH "I love you" very early in our relationship. I know good and well it could push him away, that he could see me as clingy, as coming on to quickly, and by what many of the men in this thread have said, I did come on to quickly. But it was, really, how I felt. I wasn't going to pretend I felt less than I did just to prolong the relationship and make things more difficult down the road. He was going to know the truth, and the truth was that I started falling in love with him on our first date. A month later I told him how I felt, and he felt the same.
> 
> I could have waited, kept the truth from him for fear that it would ruin what was just beginning, but I don't believe in selfishness. I believe in honesty. *So I told him the truth, and was thrilled when I found out he felt the same way*. It was a beautiful moment.
> 
> I get that everyone is different. For any other guy beside my husband, my honesty likely would have indicated a time to split. But not my guy. I'm very lucky. He really is the most special man I've ever known. Point being: what I see as a beautiful moment and a wonderful, yet scary, opportunity, others are going to see as clingy behavior. And what they see as a waste of time(communicating their expectations before beginning a sexual relationship with someone), I see as incredibly respectful and desirable behavior. We come to these conclusions based on what we've experienced, and in my life the men who were honest about what they wanted were the ones worth my time and effort. The ones who weren't honest about what they wanted were the ones who cheated, lied, manipulated, and then came begging for me to take them back because they were tired of empty, meaningless relationships.


I told my STBW that I loved her pretty early on as well, and she had been holding back saying the same thing for a while. Nothing wrong with this at all if it works for you and your husband, just as it wasn't wrong for my STBW and I...and don't let anyone make you second guess yourself on that or convince you you were wrong.


----------



## PHTlump

always_alone said:


> WTF? This is what I mean when I say that women have to bear all of the personal responsibility, while men take none, while calling women cake-eaters and the like.


Au contraire. Men should take responsibility the same as women. I have never, and will never, encourage men to try to use casual sex as some kind of tricky maneuver to gain a long term commitment from a woman. Similarly, I will discourage the behavior in women.

If two people want to have casual sex, then God bless them. They are free to do so. But if a woman wants to leverage casual sex into a commitment from a man, I'm not about to excuse her behavior and demand that men who find themselves in that situation man up and marry those slvts.


----------



## Created2Write

A woman who has casual sex hoping to get a long term commitment from a man is a _****_?

Wow. I'd understand calling her naive, ignorant, even foolish. But, to me, a **** is something else entirely.


----------



## RandomDude

Created2Write said:


> A woman who has casual sex hoping to get a long term commitment from a man is a _****_?
> 
> Wow.


I wouldn't say **** but I would say FOOL!


----------



## always_alone

PHTlump said:


> Au contraire. Men should take responsibility the same as women. I have never, and will never, encourage men to try to use casual sex as some kind of tricky maneuver to gain a long term commitment from a woman. Similarly, I will discourage the behavior in women.
> 
> If two people want to have casual sex, then God bless them. They are free to do so. But if a woman wants to leverage casual sex into a commitment from a man, I'm not about to excuse her behavior and demand that men who find themselves in that situation man up and marry those slvts.


Oh, how noble and fair-minded of you! 

And again the same script: The woman is to blame because she was (a) so ****ty as to have sex before wedlock (but he, of course, is just being a man, and is not ****ty at all). Should she have the audacity to call him unpleasant names for being an a$$ afterwards, then (b) she is automatically guilty of trying to leverage marriage out of the situation (no possible chance that he was actually an a$$)

But you, of course, calling women ****s is no problem at all. Should we all nod sagely now?


----------



## always_alone

TiggyBlue said:


> When willing participants in casual sex both are 'using' each other for sexual pleasure, there isn't necessarily one being giving and being used and one having the all the pleasure and benefit of sex.


Yes, and that's how it should be. If it's a using situation, it should be mutual. If it's a "getting to know one another" situation, it should be mutual. And if it's maintaining an LTR situation, it should be mutual.

If it's not, there's a problem.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

always_alone said:


> And there it is, again. And again and again and again. This idea that men are just scoundrels and women just need to suck it up and be celibate until they find one that wants to marry them for life. And if a woman criticizes or complains ever, then it is clearly her at fault, no matter what he did.


 I am not sure how to answer this ....as *I personally am only out to protect myself... I can not change other people & their behaviors*.... .so either I test these men to see what they are made of ..... or I jump in and take a gamble to see what I end up with... I believe GOOD men are out there, caring, kind...honest... but do I feel the majority who engage in "causal sex " are like this... NO , I don't. That's my opinion, I would immediately consider them less sensitive by their very natures..... 

And Yes..women have as much of a right to complain......but at the end of the day... we can only be responsible for ourselves... '

Never forget on the beach oneday... overheard about 4 women going on & on about their Bf's...men in general...those men sounded like real Di**s no doubt...they were *****ing, moaning , whining - it was really entertaining to me ...eye opening even....but yet...they stayed, kept going back for more.....can't they see their own behaviors ...in this... Why do they put up with it... ..*so in fact, they have spoiled these men beyond repair, they know their women will put up with their sh*** ....




> If a guy complains about what a b*tch she was and how he best stay away from her, everyone nods sagely and agrees. Yes, women can be b*tches, they'll say, and you need to stay away from them. But when a woman says virtually the same thing about a man, everyone jumps on her and tells her it's her fault for sleeping with him in the first place, and how she she takes no personal responsibility, and is like a stunted child. Even when talking about the most obnoxious PUA behaviour, everyone just shrugs and says, yeah, what do you expect? Boys will be boys. And it's entirely your fault.


 I hate the PUA literature..you know this... I don't think the majority of men care about lasting relationships these days, more pleasure & getting laid....for some, it is even a ego thing...that's my perspective on the outset.. so yeah...Boys will be Boys..they will take whatever they can get...not to mention men all around them saying "Don't get married, attached, women will suck you dry"....

I don't think the best of the vast majority of people.. If you do, you are more gracious than I.....but it will invite more hurt into your life- when you let them in.. to your vulnerable places.. 



> WTF? This is what I mean when I say that women have to bear all of the personal responsibility, while men take none, while calling women cake-eaters and the like.


 Honestly, how I feel is this... Women have "power over a man"... if he wants her bad enough, he will pursue her...with everything in him...and go out of his way to show he cares about he... but if she gives him too much too early...she is taking the chance of loosing something very valuable.. this is very "old school thinking" mind you... and you are free to judge that...



> The truth is that I am married, and all of this is academic to me now. *But it still irritates me when I see these double standards consistently applied*.


 I am not someone who believes in this double standard at all... I wouldn't want a man who makes a habitual lifestyle of loving them, Fvcking them, and leaving them...this spells a multitude of unfavorable things to me . 



> All I did was slight some PUA types, and half of this thread is defending them and telling me (and a couple of others) that we are just stunted children that can't handle the game. And then informed that women are basically obligated to be celibate because men can't or won't acknowledge that they might have some sort of responsibility to act like a human being instead of a d*ck on legs.


 I agree with you, men should be better men.. but us complaining will not get this accomplished...*our actions in how we reject them and not put up with their lousy behavior will speak the loudest and has the chance of changing them more than anything else*...

It's no different than the foolish men who fall all over HOT bi*chy women when they use these men for their money or whatever.......men & women both should be more careful who they attach themselves to or enter into a relationship with...you feel even casual sex = a relationship... so again...be careful.. this takes a little time to assess a person...surely you agree with this?



> ETA:. I'd also like to point out that two items on your list of rules for casual sex are *exactly* what I've been trying to say: *Don't be selfish and use direct straightforward communication.*


 I agree with you, so get the man to speak his intentions...speak directly.....but again, if you just met him...and it's casual... he is liable to say anything.... so will he be honest....he may act very gentlemanly-you think you caught a good fish there....then turn out to be a real douche or even worse...rape you behind closed doors...


----------



## RandomDude

> I don't think the majority of men care about lasting relationships these days, just pleasure...and getting screwed..that's my perspective on the outset.. so yeah...Boys will be Boys..they will take whatever they can get...while men all around them are saying "Don't get married, attached, women will suck you dry"....
> 
> I don't think the best of the vast majority of people.. If you do, you are more gracious over me....but it will invite more hurt into your life- when you let them in.. to your vulnerable places.. I'd consider sexuality one of those.


Guess I'm not in your good graces then huh? lol

Would you consider me akin to these men having had strings of NSA relationships throughout my youth? LTR quality from both genders aint exactly easy to find these days hence what's wrong with simply having pleasure until the right woman comes along?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Created2Write said:


> *A woman who has casual sex hoping to get a long term commitment from a man is a *****?
> 
> Wow. I'd understand calling her naive, ignorant, even foolish. But, to me, a **** is something else entirely.


I've read a little about women and *sex addiction*...and many of these women are looking for Love...trying to fill a deep void.... these women could be very caring loving individuals... but has allowed their lives to spin out of control... they see their value tied up in how they please men.



> *Random Dude said: *Guess I'm not in your good graces then huh? lol
> 
> Would you consider me akin to these men having had strings of NSA relationships throughout my youth? LTR quality from both genders aint exactly easy to find these days hence what's wrong with simply having pleasure until the right woman comes along?


 There is nothing wrong with it *IF* both parties want the same thing...just pleasure in the moment...I just have never looked through those "sexual lenses" personally.. I am an attacher by my very nature .... this fulfills me... 

Ya know to be brutally honest here...thinking about this..... I was always BOY CRAZY... if I hadn't met my husband , a Great Guy who wanted to fall deeply in love and live out our lives together ... my prayers being answered basically... 

What if I was met with a string of men who kept dumping my a$$ cause I was too serious for them.. ya know you & 's type...eventually I would have given in...let's say I was 20 some never finding love....I mean, heck, I was always horny....... maybe even became a sex addict like I was describing above - using sex, my skills , to win a man... WOW...what a different life I would have led [email protected]#$ YIKES! Then the type of men I wanted, would have rejected ME . 

Maybe I should just admit... my husband saved me from such a fate...I'd probably hate men today if that was all I ever experienced..I'd surely have a bad taste in my mouth.


----------



## RandomDude

SimplyAmorous said:


> There is nothing wrong with it *IF* both parties want the same thing...just pleasure in the moment...I just have never looked through those "sexual lenses" personally.. I am an attacher by my very nature .... this fulfills me...
> 
> Ya know to be brutally honest here...thinking about this..... I was always BOY CRAZY... if I hadn't met my husband , a Great Guy who wanted to fall deeply in love and live out our lives together ... my prayers being answered basically...
> 
> What if I was met with a string of men who kept dumping my a$$ cause I was too serious for them.. ya know you & 's type...eventually I would have given in...let's say I was 20 some never finding love....I mean, heck, I was always horny....... maybe even became a sex addict like I was describing above - using sex, my skills , to win a man... WOW...what a different life I would have led [email protected]#$ YIKES! Then the type of men I wanted, would have rejected ME .
> 
> Maybe I should just admit... my husband saved me from such a fate...I'd probably hate men today if that was all I ever experienced..I'd surely have a bad taste in my mouth.


Ha! I don't think a woman like you would have men dumping you for lack of sex to be honest. Even men immune to love such as myself back in my youth had a weakness that could only be exploited by a woman of proven quality. That happened to be my wife.

As I'm less hardened now I'm beginning to realise the fool I was for all the crap I've put her through. She's not only proven her quality but her strength in her convictions. If anything, especially considering the events that transpired with other women during my 9-month seperation... I can no longer go back to who I was. I've been... spoiled.

Still... I'm sure there are many other men out there not so lucky, and I would bet you would be the one dumping THEM


----------



## PHTlump

always_alone said:


> Oh, how noble and fair-minded of you!


Of course. I have one standard that I hold both sexes to. You should try it.



> And again the same script: The woman is to blame because she was (a) so ****ty as to have sex before wedlock (but he, of course, is just being a man, and is not ****ty at all).


Not at all. I'm a traditional Christian. So I believe that premarital sex is a sin for both men and women. But, I also recognize free will and I'm not comfortable imposing my morality upon others. If a man and woman want to engage in sinful behavior, they should be free to do so.



> Should she have the audacity to call him unpleasant names for being an a$$ afterwards, then (b) she is automatically guilty of trying to leverage marriage out of the situation (no possible chance that he was actually an a$$)


:slap:
So you think this entire stream of posts has been about men tricking women into casual sex? These poor, naive women believe that giving a BJ to a guy whose last name they don't know in the parking lot of a Denny's after the clubs have closed is the way to find a life long commitment? That's the way their mothers and grandmothers found their husbands? And these nefarious men refuse to go to the trouble of saving them from themselves? These "players" who accept this casual sex should be expected to interview these women in depth to find out what relationship goals they may be concealing, and then be expected to provide what these women are hoping for?

No way. If a woman is trying to leverage casual sex into a committed relationship, then shame on her. If you want a committed relationship, the course of action for obtaining one is much different than the course of action for obtaining casual sex. It shouldn't fall to men to prevent women from acting stupidly. I think women should be able to prevent themselves from acting stupidly. But, I guess I have an unreasonably high expectation of women.



> But you, of course, calling women ****s is no problem at all. Should we all nod sagely now?


I was referring to a slightly different, but related, phenomenon. Where women in their teens and twenties pursue casual sex from dozens, or hundreds, of men. Then, in their thirties, decide they are ready for marriage. But, surprisingly, men are reluctant to marry a woman who has spent 10-15 years having casual sex with many men. The general consensus in the mainstream media is that these men should get over it, man up, and marry those slvts.

I see the same sort of thinking in your posts. Women should be free to behave badly. And men should be expected to forgive that behavior when these same women decide that, after having casual sex, they are ready for a committed relationship. If the man refuses to have a committed relationship with the woman he just banged in the bathroom stall of a night club, well he's a jerk. And the woman has fallen victim to a player.


----------



## ReformedHubby

I think a lot of the discussions on this thread are unrealistic as far as expectations are concerned. In a perfect world no one would ever get hurt. I wouldn't have to tell my daughter to be careful and selective with potential sexual partners (okay, actually I would probably just forbid her from having sex ever). I think what the ladies in this thread are missing is that the men fully understand how testosterone affects us. So, yes it really is up to the woman to decide who she lays down with. To me this is a position that holds more power not less. 

The funny thing is when you look at the term slvt I honestly think women throw it around about each other more so than men. Most if not all of the slvt shaming is female on female. Men don't go out of their way to openly judge promiscuous women, however I will acknowledge that most of us don't want to marry the town slvt.

I don't see malice in the intent of the majority of most men. Perhaps its our indifference that is so off putting to some of the posters in this thread. So much of what angers a handful of posters in this thread isn't stuff that most men even think about when in a casual relationship. Of course, every relationship has its turning points. At some point something casual could become more or end altogether for any number of reasons. Which is why its pointless to sit there and talk about what ifs in a casual relationship.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Created2Write said:


> I started telling DH "I love you" very early in our relationship.* I know good and well it could push him away, that he could see me as clingy, as coming on to quickly,* and by what many of the men in this thread have said, I did come on to quickly. But it was, really, how I felt. I wasn't going to pretend I felt less than I did just to prolong the relationship and make things more difficult down the road. He was going to know the truth, and the truth was that I started falling in love with him on our first date. A month later I told him how I felt, and he felt the same.


 I am a little different... I've always had a stick up my butt about feeling like *a Burden* to anyone....(the near though nauseates me)....in part-likely cause I didn't feel wanted at home (living with my step mom) & the other...feeling men should "be the man" and pursue us -let us know their intentions.... so I've always felt it best to emotionally restrain ....

...Until I felt the assurance of being fully embraced ... unequivoically...he wanted me & me alone... then the man might need to brace himself.... Ha ha .... My husband went there with me very early on...with the "*I love you's*"...and I loved it... I probably gave him back something like this..







... 

Being a Time & Touch woman, some would call me *clingy* too...he was the same...so neither of us ever felt it was "too much"...it just flowed ....  



> *I believe in honesty. So I told him the truth, and was thrilled when I found out he felt the same way. It was a beautiful moment.*






> *Random Dude said:* *Ha! I don't think a woman like you would have men dumping you for lack of sex to be honest. Even men immune to love such as myself back in my youth had a weakness that could only be exploited by a woman of proven quality. That happened to be my wife*.


 Oh goodness RD...that was awfully nice of you to say....and coming from the King of "Bad Boys" too ! Once upon a time of course... 



> *As I'm less hardened now I'm beginning to realise the fool I was for all the crap I've put her through. She's not only proven her quality but her strength in her convictions. If anything, especially considering the events that transpired with other women during my 9-month separation... I can no longer go back to who I was. I've been... spoiled*.


 Oh...the tentacles of  never ceases to amaze me...it can break down the hardest of hearts, the King of the Man Cave......when you've been touched by it's grip...

You seem to have it within you to rise above ...if you want it bad enough...to find that Good man who has learned from his mistakes...and hold strong..... .your separation has caused deep reaching & introspection within....That's the beauty of a resilient spirit... I want to see you be that Gallant man for the one you ...simply....can't let go. Excuse all the inspirational quotes, I just like to do that sort of thing...












> *ReformedHubby said*: *I think what the ladies in this thread are missing is that the men fully understand how testosterone affects us. So, yes it really is up to the woman to decide who she lays down with. To me this is a position that holds more power not less.*


 I've read a couple books on Testosterone...men have 10 plus times more of this over women...this is their LUST hormone...it makes them antsy for sex... and beings I feel I had a hormonal surge of this - which was really messing with my head ...(physical symptoms & all).....I really feel I "get it"... it was the 1st time in my life.. I thought to myself.. ."Damn, I need sex so bad, the heck with love...just give me your Lust".. I would say things like this to my husband.. This was not like me. 

... Actually I have always seen men as the *weaker sex.* (except in Mid life against us women)..... My dad used to tell my mom when they were dating, he felt like he was going to die without it, talk about overkill.... when I was feeling that way, it was rather tormenting, I couldn't get my mind on much else... If this is what men deal with day in & day out...God help them!


----------



## always_alone

SimplyAmorous said:


> I am not sure how to answer this ....as *I personally am only out to protect myself... I can not change other people & their behaviors*.... .so either I test these men to see what they are made of ..... or I jump in and take a gamble to see what I end up with... I believe GOOD men are out there, caring, kind...honest... but do I feel the majority who engage in "causal sex " are like this... NO , I don't. That's my opinion, I would immediately consider them less sensitive by their very natures.....
> 
> And Yes..women have as much of a right to complain......but at the end of the day... we can only be responsible for ourselves... '


You are right, of course, as are the others who've been saying the same thing. You can't really trust anyone else to look out for you, and you have to protect your own heart, health, and sanity.

But it still bugs me when women are put down for being ****s and stunted children, and men are seemingly given a free pass on their behavior. (I know that you don't have this double standard, but it is rife on this thread, and elsewhere on TAM.) For boys, it's "you go guy. Bang that b*tch.". For women it's "you stupid ****. Of course he wants to use you up and throw you away. " And for boys, it's "poor little PUA. He's really just a nice guy who didn't get to bang enough b*tches, and of course he needs to do that to feel like a manly man.". Then for women, it's "you stupid ****, you believed that guy was actually interested in you? Of course he thinks you're a skank. Don't you know you're supposed to stay celibate until he decides he wants a real woman?"




SimplyAmorous said:


> Never forget on the beach oneday... overheard about 4 women going on & on about their Bf's...men in general...those men sounded like real Di**s no doubt...they were *****ing, moaning , whining - it was really entertaining to me ...eye opening even....but yet...they stayed, kept going back for more.....can't they see their own behaviors ...in this... Why do they put up with it... ..*so in fact, they have spoiled these men beyond repair, they know their women will put up with their sh*** ....


No doubt this happens, but it isn't the only story. Indeed, none of my circle are bad boy chasers, and none would put up with any abuse or poor treatment. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> I don't think the best of the vast majority of people.. If you do, you are more gracious than I.....but it will invite more hurt into your life- when you let them in.. to your vulnerable places..
> 
> Honestly, how I feel is this... Women have "power over a man"... if he wants her bad enough, he will pursue her...with everything in him...and go out of his way to show he cares about he... but if she gives him too much too early...she is taking the chance of loosing something very valuable.. this is very "old school thinking" mind you... and you are free to judge that...


As I said before, I don't judge you or your choices. I see nothing wrong with playing it old school. But, I do think you were very, very lucky. In my high-school it was commonplace for girls to end up pregnant at 16, and living with abusive spouses. I will never forget the day I visited a friend of mine in that situation. Her family had kicked her out (they were very religious), and she had few options left. When I saw her, she was 8 mths gone, and he and his family (father and two brothers) were lying around on the couch yelling at her to feed them beers, make them food, clean up the house, etc.,while they watched the game. None of them worked or contributed to the household.

I knew then that come h*ll or high water, I would leave that town, and would never ever ever get married or settle down until I was sure that I could support myself, had options, and knew that the guy I was with would treat me well.

I was 30 years old when I met my SO. Should I have held out for that 15 years until some guy proved himself to me? And should I have settled for the first guy who did?

I could only answer no to both those questions. I did have a couple of LTRs, but they had to end, as we really just weren't right for each other. And after a couple of false starts, I was pretty convinced that I would never find someone who would actually appreciate me for who I am, instead of wanting just sex or some crazy ideal that they were trying to project onto me.



SimplyAmorous said:


> I agree with you, men should be better men.. but us complaining will not get this accomplished...*our actions in how we reject them and not put up with their lousy behavior will speak the loudest and has the chance of changing them more than anything else*...


Absolutely, complaining will do no good. But I do think that instead of high-fiving and cheering boys on to bang their little hearts out, instead of condoning this idea that men have every right to do whatever they want and say whatever they want in pursuit of getting laid, that they should be reminded that this isn't acceptable behaviour. Women are people too, not just skanks put there for male pleasure.


----------



## always_alone

PHTlump said:


> :slap:
> So you think this entire stream of posts has been about men tricking women into casual sex? These poor, naive women believe that giving a BJ to a guy whose last name they don't know in the parking lot of a Denny's after the clubs have closed is the way to find a life long commitment?


Yes, I do. You guys keep coming up with these stories about women dropping their pants or volunteering to give bjs in the parking lot, but this myth that you have that makes all women responsible, and all men just hapless victims is just that: a myth. I've never known one woman to get involved in sex in this way.

Correction. I did know one and she was the town ****. But she didn't do this as a way leverage a guy into marriage, nor did she ever complain when they only wanted sex. She was just looking to temporarily fill the void inside of her. And no, I'm not suggesting that guys owed her anything, or should take it upon themselves to solve her problems. But she also wasn't trying to get anything from them, except a few moments of attention.

What is nefarious is guys thinking that because they feel lust, it somehow justifies their desire to say anything and do anything to satisfy that urge. If it's that bad, masturbate. Or just pay for it already. At least there the terms are clear.

I have not and do not condone bad behaviour in women either. I have said time and time again that if a woman really is into sex in the nightclub bathroom, then she needs to look at her own behaviour, not his. But again this is not how it happens, mostly.

What does happen is that guys say anything and do anything to convince the woman that she's special, they have a real connection, that he's interested in knowing her better., etc., and so on. He may do this for days, even weeks, and if she decides to take a chance, poof, he's won and done --and gone.

True, once or twice of this and you learn not to believe anything a man says or does. But that has consequences too. For example, I still don't believe one word of what men say when they talk about love or caring. If they can be so manipulative and compartmentalize so well when it comes to casual sex, then this whole "I feel love through sex" while married is no doubt just a line to guilt wives into being more sexual available.

And since it's just a line, there really isn't any particular reason why she should listen, is there?


----------



## always_alone

ReformedHubby said:


> I don't see malice in the intent of the majority of most men. Perhaps its our indifference that is so off putting to some of the posters in this thread. So much of what angers a handful of posters in this thread isn't stuff that most men even think about when in a casual relationship.


I agree that it's usually not malice (although there is plenty of that). It's indifference. But it is not the indifference itself that's so off-putting, as I don't actually expect guys to necessarily be interested in me.

What's off-putting is the utter indifference wearing a mask of interest. It makes the whole game just a giant lie because it's more important to score than it is to be true to what you feel and think.

And the resistance shown here to even the suggestion of a little bit of communication and caring really drives that point home


----------



## PHTlump

always_alone said:


> Yes, I do.


Well, I think that explains everything.



> You guys keep coming up with these stories about women dropping their pants or volunteering to give bjs in the parking lot, but this myth that you have that makes all women responsible, and all men just hapless victims is just that: a myth. I've never known one woman to get involved in sex in this way.


Do you personally know the sexual habits of a large percentage of American women? Or is it possible that the actions of some of them have escaped you?

I wouldn't say that BJs in a parking lot is a myth. I do acknowledge that most of the women interested in casual sex wait until they get to a house, or an apartment, before sex. But that's really just a matter of geography. Is giving a BJ to a man one just met at his apartment morally superior to giving him a BJ in a parking lot? Why?



> What is nefarious is guys thinking that because they feel lust, it somehow justifies their desire to say anything and do anything to satisfy that urge.


I agree. In fact, everyone agrees. That's why I assumed the disagreement was about something else.

However, just as you believe BJs in parking lots is a myth, I think that men giving promises of commitment to women they just met is also a myth. I've seen a good deal of PUA blogs and I've never seen that tactic espoused. In fact, I have seen PUAs recommend REFUSING to commit to women as a tactic to build attraction.



> What does happen is that guys say anything and do anything to convince the woman that she's special, they have a real connection, that he's interested in knowing her better., etc., and so on. He may do this for days, even weeks, and if she decides to take a chance, poof, he's won and done --and gone.


So general flattery is too manipulative for women to penetrate? Come on. I totally agree that promises of commitment, or pretending to be a billionaire vampire pirate captain is beyond the pale. Although, I will expect my daughter to be skeptical that the man whose last name she forgot is ready for marriage. Or a vampire. But telling a girl that she's cool and interesting is out of bounds?



> True, once or twice of this and you learn not to believe anything a man says or does. But that has consequences too. For example, I still don't believe one word of what men say when they talk about love or caring. If they can be so manipulative and compartmentalize so well when it comes to casual sex, then this whole "I feel love through sex" while married is no doubt just a line to guilt wives into being more sexual available.


Well, communication is a two-way street. In this thread, you have consistently misinterpreted, or misrepresented, the male position. And that same dynamic could well extend to your personal life.

If your husband claimed that the sky is blue, but you interpret his statement to mean that the sky is green, should you blame him for lying to you? I wouldn't think so.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Just stopping in for a sec before grabbing lunch but I wanted to point out..

I don't care for terms like sl*t. She has sex when she wants sex. So what? So do I. I'm a sl*t and give no fks about it. Everyone has sex when they want to have sex.

What you call a myth, AA, is a common experience for me. Some women do in fact throw themselves at a guy. I've gotten bjs in cars, bjs in alley ways... some women are aggressively sexual once you get the ball rolling. I've had 5 such bjs this year. Hell, bjs are a lot of women's go to sexual move when they don't feel quite ready to have PIV sex. I'd say more than half of my casual sexual encounters began with an unsolicited bj. Even on legitimate first dates I usually get laid without making the first move.

You continue to harp on guys "saying anything". Who has defended lying? Do you simply disbelieve that its possible for men to get laid without lying? The point on responsibility is that if you hookup with a on the first night and expected something more than a hookup, then you've burned yourself. Don't have casual sex if you don't view sex as casual. If he lied about something over the course of weeks... so what? What can you do? He's gone... move on knowing that you acted consistent with your own values.

Assuming that every man only lies to you is a sad place to be. In effect, you're letting those past guys rob you over and over again. Let it go.


----------



## always_alone

PHTlump said:


> So general flattery is too manipulative for women to penetrate? Come on.


Ummm, what about if you don't mean it, then don't say it? 

Oh wait, I forgot. Women are always supposed to know exactly what a man is thinking, when what they say or do is genuine and when it is a tactic. 

Because, of course, it's genuine when he really means it and a tactic when he doesn't. Super.


----------



## ReformedHubby

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> What you call a myth, AA, is a common experience for me. Some women do in fact throw themselves at a guy. I've gotten bjs in cars, bjs in alley ways... some women are aggressively sexual once you get the ball rolling. I've had 5 such bjs this year. Hell, bjs are a lot of women's go to sexual move when they don't feel quite ready to have PIV sex. I'd say more than half of my casual sexual encounters began with an unsolicited bj. Even on legitimate first dates I usually get laid without making the first move.


What you wrote is why I don't get what all the complaints are about. There a plethora of women out there that are ready and willing partners for PUAs. Most often this is who they hook up with. When looking for casual sex no one wants a challenge, it could end up being a waste of your time. 

In this thread we are matching up women that want relationships with PUAs. In my reality both of these groups find each other revolting and actually weed one another out.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

always_alone said:


> You are right, of course, as are the others who've been saying the same thing. *You can't really trust anyone else to look out for you, and you have to protect your own heart, health, and sanity.*


 It may be a hard pill to swallow....but yeah...I don't think it's selfish, it's just self preserving.



> But it still bugs me when women are put down for being ****s and stunted children, and men are seemingly given a free pass on their behavior.


 But not *everyone* does this...it is very accepted today, and getting more so .. for men and women, when single to have sex - just for sex...(just read 's last post)....plenty of people with a variety of sexual views to make the world go 'round...



> (I know that you don't have this double standard, but it is rife on this thread, and elsewhere on TAM.) For boys, it's "you go guy. Bang that b*tch.". For women it's "you stupid ****. Of course he wants to use you up and throw you away. " And for boys, it's "poor little PUA. He's really just a nice guy who didn't get to bang enough b*tches, and of course he needs to do that to feel like a manly man.".


 Sexuality to measure a woman's worthiness or a man's Manhood...given your 2 examples.. it's so much more than that..isn't it ?? None of us are this simple to Box.... I'm sure you would agree....



> As I said before, I don't judge you or your choices. I see nothing wrong with playing it old school. But, I do think you were very, very lucky.


 But was I.. I purposely wanted a NICE GUY...I cared about my future.. my husband would have been considered invisible in high school.. a NERD with glasses... I gave the nice guy a chance... 



> In my high-school it was commonplace for girls to end up pregnant at 16, and living with abusive spouses. * I will never forget the day I visited a friend of mine in that situation. Her family had kicked her out (they were very religious), and she had few options left. When I saw her, she was 8 mths gone, and he and his family (father and two brothers) were lying around on the couch yelling at her to feed them beers, make them food, clean up the house, etc.,while they watched the game. None of them worked or contributed to the household.*


I, too, WOULD HAVE BEEN OUT ON THE STREETS had I gotten pregnant, my step Mom ...man she spelled that out loud & clear...I had no reason to doubt her [email protected]#.... 

There is a girl in 11th grade having her 2nd baby in our son's high school... no fathers in the picture, this is a very sad start in life...and for her children as well. 



> I knew then that come h*ll or high water, I would leave that town, and would never ever ever get married or settle down until I was sure that I could support myself, had options, and knew that the guy I was with would treat me well.


 Tell me something always alone...Do you feel seeing the lives of your friend(s)-pregnant at young ages, no choices, living with abusive lazy unmotivated men who took them for granted....do you feel this is the main reason you pushed men away, insisted on Independence -to do for yourself.. Me and you have something in common.. I just took a different route over you...I didn't look to independence, I looked to the inner character of the man... 

I also felt... if I didn't find a good guy while I was young, chances are, the best of them would be taken !...some other girl would swoop them up ... I would have feared looking for this sort of man later in life, feeling most would be married .....just like I wanted to have kids younger, so I had less chance of having a down syndrome baby.. Yes, *I think too much.* Just different perspectives. 



> I was 30 years old when I met my SO. Should I have held out for that 15 years until some guy proved himself to me? And should I have settled for the first guy who did?


I don't think we should ever settle... No.. regardless of age... cause when you settle..you'll be looking over the fence once married.. thinking "Damn, I could have done better"... I wouldn't have held out that long not having sex either...don't feel I am judging you, I'm not. We should DO sex when it makes us feel good..about whom we are with.. this is embracing our sexuality.. sometimes we do get hurt.. do you feel you are carrying past hurts with you...into the here & now ? 



> I could only answer no to both those questions. I did have a couple of LTRs, but they had to end, as we really just weren't right for each other. And after a couple of false starts, I was pretty convinced that I would never find someone who would actually appreciate me for who I am, instead of wanting just sex or some crazy ideal that they were trying to project onto me.


 Compatibility does seem awful hard to find.. 



> Absolutely, complaining will do no good. But I do think that instead of high-fiving and cheering boys on to bang their little hearts out, instead of condoning this idea that men have every right to do whatever they want and say whatever they want in pursuit of getting laid, that they should be reminded that this isn't acceptable behaviour. Women are people too, not just skanks put there for male pleasure.


 Have you thought about joining a PUA forum and giving your thoughts there ... I do wonder how that might go.. I'd be crazy enough to join a forum where I'd get verbally lashed.. -just for the fun of it..... but I am too addicted here to take the time.. 



> *always alone said*: True, once or twice of this and you learn not to believe anything a man says or does. But that has consequences too. For example, *I still don't believe one word of what men say when they talk about love or caring. If they can be so manipulative and compartmentalize so well when it comes to casual sex, then this whole "I feel love through sex" while married is no doubt just a line to guilt wives into being more sexual available*


. I am not a man, but it does appear they have an easier time with this compartmentalization.. the saddest thing to me is this...

When a NICE MAN with very few partners BECAUSE HE DIDN'T compartmentalize sex and always held out for love (like my husband)...when such a man marries a woman who has felt USED by men..they marry....he feels great pain and rejection because this is how he feels loved..and to her...she looks at him through her past BF's behavior..she is blinded to the emotional needs of her good husband who wasn't like those other men.. Plenty of stories like this... Very disheartening to me. 

Our past relationships often scar us, we bring the baggage into our marriages. 



> *PHTlump said:* However, just as you believe BJs in parking lots is a myth, I think that men giving promises of commitment to women they just met is also a myth. *I've seen a good deal of PUA blogs and I've never seen that tactic espoused. In fact, I have seen PUAs recommend REFUSING to commit to women as a tactic to build attraction*.


 Very true, otherwise it would deem him to have Oneitis-heavens, that is the downfall to becoming a "NICE Guy".. Pick up Artist DEATH...


----------



## always_alone

PHTlump said:


> Well, communication is a two-way street. In this thread, you have consistently misinterpreted, or misrepresented, the male position. And that same dynamic could well extend to your personal life.
> 
> If your husband claimed that the sky is blue, but you interpret his statement to mean that the sky is green, should you blame him for lying to you? I wouldn't think so.


Oh yes, everyone agrees that lying is bad. But then so many also say explicitly that they are unwilling to be at all up front about their intentions or motives, and it is not at all their responsibility to consider another's feelings. So, no, they don't lie, they just omit. Or encourage her to think a particular way in order to get what they want, never mind her.

The wolf in sheep's clothing, so to speak.

I see time and time again here on TAM men complaining that their wives don't want sex with them, and don't take them seriously when they explain that sex is how they express love. These wives will consistently say things like, "all you think about is sex", and be utterly dismissive of his emotional needs.

Where do you suppose women get these ideas? Do you think it's remotely possible it comes from being told all their lives that "men only care about sex," and "sex doesn't mean anything", and "just because he wants to [email protected] you doesn't mean he likes or cares about you"?

Let me guess: You see no connection at all and still think women should of course realize that once the man has flipped his sex switch, all of a sudden it really is about caring and bonding. But until then, she is just a fool for thinking he might actually want to get to know her.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You continue to harp on guys "saying anything". Who has defended lying? Do you simply disbelieve that its possible for men to get laid without lying? The point on responsibility is that if you hookup with a on the first night and expected something more than a hookup, then you've burned yourself. Don't have casual sex if you don't view sex as casual. If he lied about something over the course of weeks... so what? What can you do? He's gone... move on knowing that you acted consistent with your own values.
> 
> Assuming that every man only lies to you is a sad place to be. In effect, you're letting those past guys rob you over and over again. Let it go.


:rofl::rofl:

This is hilarious given what you've posted on this and your other thread. Maybe if I'm inspired, I'll respond to you there. Meanwhile, that's some good doublethink you got going there.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

always_alone said:


> Oh yes, everyone agrees that lying is bad. But then so many also say explicitly that they are unwilling to be at all up front about their intentions or motives, *and it is not at all their responsibility to consider another's feelings.* So, no, they don't lie, they just omit.


 Take a moment and read this article.. even though you are for casual sex.. can you really deny this ends up being the reality.. 

Is Casual Sex Destroying Empathy? * Hooking Up Smart

The ending *>>* :


> I’m not sure whether low empathy for others draws us to casual sex, or casual sex reduces empathy as we focus only on our own pleasure. I suspect both are true.
> 
> *Practice empathy.*
> 
> Look for signs of emotional distress in others, and seek to mitigate it.
> Focus on sex as an experience of sharing yourself emotionally, and seek partners who exhibit the same orientation.
> 
> The truth is that lacking empathy for others and from others feels like crap. And that means we need to find another way.


----------



## ReformedHubby

always_alone said:


> I see time and time again here on TAM men complaining that their wives don't want sex with them, and don't take them seriously when they explain that sex is how they express love. These wives will consistently say things like, "all you think about is sex", and be utterly dismissive of his emotional needs.
> 
> Where do you suppose women get these ideas? Do you think it's remotely possible it comes from being told all their lives that "men only care about sex," and "sex doesn't mean anything", and "just because he wants to [email protected] you doesn't mean he likes or cares about you"?
> 
> Let me guess: You see no connection at all and still think women should of course realize that once the man has flipped his sex switch, all of a sudden it really is about caring and bonding. But until then, she is just a fool for thinking he might actually want to get to know her.


Well...sex with someone you love is different than with someone you don't. I'm pretty sure all of us have felt this difference. Not to get all emotional, but its very noticeable.

On another note its just a theory, but I'm going to go ahead and assume that most retired players hardly ever find themselves in sexless marriages. Again, just a theory but a lot of the "game" actually is transferable and works pretty well on the wife too. Yes, I know it sounds bad. We'll call it seduction instead of game if it makes folks feel better.


----------



## PHTlump

always_alone said:


> Ummm, what about if you don't mean it, then don't say it?


Sure. But your example didn't include anything deceptive. A man can think a woman is beautiful, interesting, and sexy without wanting to be in a relationship with her. You think that, if a man uses those words, he has, somehow, communicated in secret code to a woman that he desires commitment? Therefore, he's a bad guy for using such language? I disagree.

I think the words that communicate the desire for commitment are, "I would like to be in a committed relationship with you." If a man uses words other than those, there's a decent chance that he doesn't want a committed relationship.



> Oh wait, I forgot. Women are always supposed to know exactly what a man is thinking, when what they say or do is genuine and when it is a tactic.


I'm certainly not advocating mind reading. You are. I'm suggesting that men and women take each other at face value. If a man tells a woman that she's interesting, she should NOT conclude that he is interested in marrying her. You are suggesting that he is misleading her into picking out china patterns.

That's what I mean when I suggest that women shouldn't be treated like emotionally stunted children. The idea that a woman should be justifiably upset when she concludes that a man wants commitment with her based on nothing in particular is a child's game. And it's one that I suggest men, and women, refrain from playing.

If you want commitment, hooking up at a bar is a poor way to get it. If you want casual sex, don't whine about how unfair it is that your sexual partners took what you were offering and didn't consider you to be marriage material.


----------



## always_alone

SimplyAmorous said:


> Our past relationships often scar us, we bring the baggage into our marriages.
> 
> Very true, otherwise it would deem him to have Oneitis-heavens, that is the downfall to becoming a "NICE Guy".. Pick up Artist DEATH...


Yes, and no doubt that I've been scarred by the way I've been treated, which at times was very poorly indeed. And I was always the one blamed and shamed for it, regardless of how the man behaved. Hence my sensitivity to these issues, and the stupid amounts of time I spend talking about them.

I'm also from a different era or culture as the current PUA crop. In my dating days, this pretending not to care would've fallen flat. Then, it was all about pretending to be a genuine suitor until you managed to get what you want. Granted, a lot was easy to see through (who could be stupid enough to propose marriage on a first dance --yet it has happened to me on 3 separate occasions), and once you've been burned a couple of times, you don't actually fall for it. But just because you're not actually falling for it doesn't make it any less annoying --especially when that's all you ever see.


----------



## PHTlump

always_alone said:


> Oh yes, everyone agrees that lying is bad. But then so many also say explicitly that they are unwilling to be at all up front about their intentions or motives, and it is not at all their responsibility to consider another's feelings. So, no, they don't lie, they just omit. Or encourage her to think a particular way in order to get what they want, never mind her.
> 
> The wolf in sheep's clothing, so to speak.


Let's take a hypothetical example to flesh this out.

John meets Joan at a bar. They talk, dance, drink, and have fun. There is attraction. Sexual tension is building.

First scenario: John flatly tells Joan, "Let's have NSA sex at my place right now." Joan's anti-slvt defenses kick in and she becomes indignant that John would think she is that kind of girl. The evening ends with Joan surprised at how brazen John is. No sex.

Second scenario: John invites Joan back to his place for a drink after last call. No mention of sex. Back at his place, they start making out and things get heavy. Joan asks what is happening, and John tells her, "Let's just have fun." They have sex.

In the second scenario, was Joan tricked? Did John hide his intentions behind an impenetrable smoke screen? Or did they both indulge each other in a wink and a nod kind of agreement?



> I see time and time again here on TAM men complaining that their wives don't want sex with them, and don't take them seriously when they explain that sex is how they express love. These wives will consistently say things like, "all you think about is sex", and be utterly dismissive of his emotional needs.
> 
> Where do you suppose women get these ideas? Do you think it's remotely possible it comes from being told all their lives that "men only care about sex," and "sex doesn't mean anything", and "just because he wants to [email protected] you doesn't mean he likes or cares about you"?


These wives could get their ideas from any of a number of places. Many girls/women have trouble distinguishing between the religious tenets of premarital sex being bad, while marital sex is good. Similarly, many are immersed in feminist clap trap like marital sex is rape. Some women may be unable to properly empathize with their husbands and their needs.

Regardless, none of those explanations means that their beliefs are valid. Men do need sex in marriage. Men do express love through sexual intimacy.



> Let me guess: You see no connection at all and still think women should of course realize that once the man has flipped his sex switch, all of a sudden it really is about caring and bonding. But until then, she is just a fool for thinking he might actually want to get to know her.


If man A suggests sex in the bathroom stall of the night club, and man B suggests a lifetime commitment of love and marriage, I think that most women can differentiate between those two types of men.

I think that a man suggesting interest in a woman should be interpreted as far less than an offer of commitment.

It amazes me that it's women taking me to task for these beliefs. I can understand high school kids on a PUA blog suggesting that these chicks don't know their asses from their elbows and are so easy to fool without really trying. But to have adult women insisting that women are so hapless and helpless around men just leaves me gobsmacked.


----------



## always_alone

PHTlump said:


> Sure. But your example didn't include anything deceptive. A man can think a woman is beautiful, interesting, and sexy without wanting to be in a relationship with her. You think that, if a man uses those words, he has, somehow, communicated in secret code to a woman that he desires commitment? Therefore, he's a bad guy for using such language? I disagree.
> 
> I think the words that communicate the desire for commitment are, "I would like to be in a committed relationship with you." If a man uses words other than those, there's a decent chance that he doesn't want a committed relationship.


And so if you read my response to SA, how should I interpret the guys who proposed marriage to me? Now truth is I didn't believe any of them, nor did I have sex with any of them. I just want to point out that your assumptions about my stupidity level and willingness to read bs into everything are entirely incorrect.




PHTlump said:


> I'm certainly not advocating mind reading. You are. I'm suggesting that men and women take each other at face value. If a man tells a woman that she's interesting, she should NOT conclude that he is interested in marrying her. You are suggesting that he is misleading her into picking out china patterns.
> 
> That's what I mean when I suggest that women shouldn't be treated like emotionally stunted children. The idea that a woman should be justifiably upset when she concludes that a man wants commitment with her based on nothing in particular is a child's game. And it's one that I suggest men, and women, refrain from playing.
> 
> If you want commitment, hooking up at a bar is a poor way to get it. If you want casual sex, don't whine about how unfair it is that your sexual partners took what you were offering and didn't consider you to be marriage material.


Speaking of misinterpreting and entirely misrepresenting someone's position...

I've never said that casual sex should lead to marriage, or that I ever looked for an LTR in a bar. Indeed, I've many times said the exact opposite.

What I'm saying is that with PUA, you cannot take anything a man who wants sex with you says or does at face value. The only words you can actually believe are "I only want sex, nothing more". Odds are anything else is just made up.

Maybe sometimes he really does think she's beautiful or interesting, and is telling the truth on that level. Maybe. I sure wouldn't believe that or anything else in the dating wilds.


----------



## always_alone

PHTlump said:


> It amazes me that it's women taking me to task for these beliefs. I can understand high school kids on a PUA blog suggesting that these chicks don't know their asses from their elbows and are so easy to fool without really trying. But to have adult women insisting that women are so hapless and helpless around men just leaves me gobsmacked.


Since you see everything in such black and white terms, this doesn't surprise me at all. In both your scenarios, for example I don't see any issue either. Why not? Because in both your examples, everyone was up front about what they wanted and we're on board for,and communicated about it directly.

That's *all* I've been saying, but you are he'll bent on seeing me like some entitled idiot who thinks a bj in a parking lot is a proposal on bended knees, and his unzipped fly as his acceptance.

One last time: All I've suggested is that people should be upfront and refrain from being selfish a-holes.

All the other bs about lawyers, contracts, picking out China patterns, blameshifting and so on is just people basically saying that these two simple considerations are altogether too much to ask of a man


----------



## always_alone

SimplyAmorous said:


> Take a moment and read this article.. even though you are for casual sex.. can you really deny this ends up being the reality..
> 
> Is Casual Sex Destroying Empathy? * Hooking Up Smart


Just to clarify, I didn't say that I'm *for* casual sex in that I would promote it. Just that I don't think you are automatically immature or misguided or asking for trouble should you choose to engage in it.

The times it was successful for me was when it was with friends that I cared about very much, and where we were on the same page about what we were doing and why. The times it didn't work so well was when some a$$ was playing games with my head (and succeeded despite my best efforts not to fall into that trap).

Consistent with the article, as well. I'm totally feeling like I'm on repeat function now, but really all I'm saying is that sex can be meaningful and fulfilling without necessarily an LTR, as long as people make the effort to treat each other well. But if they don't the results can be truly awful (unless they really don't feel or care at all).


----------



## always_alone

ReformedHubby said:


> Well...sex with someone you love is different than with someone you don't. I'm pretty sure all of us have felt this difference. Not to get all emotional, but its very noticeable.


Yeah, that's why so many people have affairs while still claiming to love their spouses. And why so many men have mistresses, and so many women have EAs because they are having trouble feeling the love from their husbands



ReformedHubby said:


> On another note its just a theory, but I'm going to go ahead and assume that most retired players hardly ever find themselves in sexless marriages. Again, just a theory but a lot of the "game" actually is transferable and works pretty well on the wife too. Yes, I know it sounds bad. We'll call it seduction instead of game if it makes folks feel better.


Your theory may be true, I don't know. But I do know that a fairly substantial number of women have trouble believing that their men need sex to express their love, and assume that when a man wants sex, it's just so that he can get off. My theory may be false too, but I don't think it's a coincidence that women have also been literally raised to be wary of men because "they only want sex and will do and say anything to get it."


----------



## ReformedHubby

always_alone said:


> Yeah, that's why so many people have affairs while still claiming to love their spouses. And why so many men have mistresses, and so many women have EAs because they are having trouble feeling the love from their husbands


Well, I guess you could look at it that way. Love/relationships don't always end well. But that's no reason to have such a negative view point. I guess we just have different outlooks based on our life experience. I'm waving the white flag on this thread. None of us will change our stance at this point, and honestly we're all saying the same thing but differently.


----------



## Created2Write

RandomDude said:


> I wouldn't say **** but I would say FOOL!


That I agree with. A person who isn't looking for a LTR isn't going to change their mind just because someone is a great lay.


----------



## Created2Write

SimplyAmorous said:


> I've read a little about women and *sex addiction*...and many of these women are looking for Love...trying to fill a deep void.... these women could be very caring loving individuals... but has allowed their lives to spin out of control... they see their value tied up in how they please men.


My mother was one of these. Two close friends of mine were like this as well. They weren't having casual sex because they were ****s, they were looking for attention...acceptance. Sex was the way they thought they would get it. 



> There is nothing wrong with it *IF* both parties want the same thing...just pleasure in the moment...I just have never looked through those "sexual lenses" personally.. I am an attacher by my very nature .... this fulfills me...


The women I've known who have been in this lifestyle didn't set out to leverage a man into a LTR through sex. In fact, LTRs weren't even in their expectations at first. But when they met a guy they really clicked with on a deeper level than just NSA sex, feelings developed. This doesn't make them ****s, this makes them human. 



> Ya know to be brutally honest here...thinking about this..... I was always BOY CRAZY... if I hadn't met my husband , a Great Guy who wanted to fall deeply in love and live out our lives together ... my prayers being answered basically...
> 
> What if I was met with a string of men who kept dumping my a$$ cause I was too serious for them.. ya know you & 's type...eventually I would have given in...let's say I was 20 some never finding love....I mean, heck, I was always horny....... maybe even became a sex addict like I was describing above - using sex, my skills , to win a man... WOW...what a different life I would have led [email protected]#$ YIKES! Then the type of men I wanted, would have rejected ME .
> 
> Maybe I should just admit... my husband saved me from such a fate...I'd probably hate men today if that was all I ever experienced..I'd surely have a bad taste in my mouth.


I had two different boyfriends who really helped me open my eyes to the different kinds of men there are in this world. One was superficially charming and romantic. He said the right things, but it became apparent that what he said just didn't match what he wanted. Sex was what he wanted, not a relationship. Which is fine, but he pretended that he wanted a LTR to get into my pants. He tried to pretend OS would keep him satisfied, but I knew this just wasn't true. Turns out, he wanted to be the one to take my virginity. He wanted to be where no other guy had been. And when he realized that his sweet talking wasn't enough, he dumped me. 

The second told me upfront that, while he was a long way from being a virgin, and while he had a past that involved cheating on his end, what he really wanted was a LTR with a woman he knew he could trust. He told me that waiting for sex would be difficult, but that he would give it his best. And he did. We ended up breaking up over his alcohol addiction, but it was great to have a guy just be honest with me about his expectations. It actually made me want to have sex with him, and had we had the opportunity, I likely would have had sex with him. I felt that he really wanted to know me, not just my body. 

I don't believe that all guys are the same. I believe humans, both men and women, want sex. I also believe they both want love, respect and acceptance. Some put the latter three things before sex in the dating relationship, some put the emphasis on sex. Neither is right or wrong on an individual level, but it is important to find someone whose expectations match your own. And that's why I believe it's so utterly important to be honest, even when it might not make sense to be.


----------



## Created2Write

PHTlump said:


> Of course. I have one standard that I hold both sexes to. You should try it.
> 
> 
> Not at all. I'm a traditional Christian. So I believe that premarital sex is a sin for both men and women. But, I also recognize free will and I'm not comfortable imposing my morality upon others. If a man and woman want to engage in sinful behavior, they should be free to do so.
> 
> 
> :slap:
> So you think this entire stream of posts has been about men tricking women into casual sex? These poor, naive women believe that giving a BJ to a guy whose last name they don't know in the parking lot of a Denny's after the clubs have closed is the way to find a life long commitment?


No. I think we've been clear that any woman who expects a long term commitment from a situation like that is fooling herself. What is being said is that those women are not ****s just because they want an LTR. 



> That's the way their mothers and grandmothers found their husbands? And these nefarious men refuse to go to the trouble of saving them from themselves? These "players" who accept this casual sex should be expected to interview these women in depth to find out what relationship goals they may be concealing, and then be expected to provide what these women are hoping for?


Of course not. "I'm only looking for a casual fling" is _not_ interviewing a woman in depth. It can be said in between kissing, even. If a man doesn't do this, I don't think he's necessarily a player. Just a little too hurried to stick it in her. Also, I think the woman is equally responsible for expressing her expectations, whatever they may be. "I'm only looking for a casual fling", or "I _would_ like an LTR" are quick and easy sentences. I think the guy deserves to know what kind of a woman he's dealing with before he sticks it in her, that way he doesn't have to deal with someone who gets clingy and attached. Just like I think the woman deserves to know whether or not she's going to get the relationship she's looking for. Both of these require honesty, and can be cleared up in one sentence. Ideally, this would come out before even getting into bed. 



> No way. If a woman is trying to leverage casual sex into a committed relationship, then shame on her.


If by leverage you mean using sex to manipulate a man into staying with he, then I agree. 



> If you want a committed relationship, the course of action for obtaining one is much different than the course of action for obtaining casual sex. It shouldn't fall to men to prevent women from acting stupidly. I think women should be able to prevent themselves from acting stupidly. But, I guess I have an unreasonably high expectation of women.


Nope. No one here has advocated a woman acting stupidly, or said that it's up to the man. It's up to both of them to be clear and honest about what they want. Especially since the men here know how common it can be for a woman to get attached after sex, I would think they would want to protect themselves and filter through the women looking for LTR's before they crawl into bed. Yet they reject the idea of preventing the drama by being honest about their expectations. 

I think some men just don't want any responsibility to act like adults. They want women to bear all of the responsibility and take none themselves. And again, I think women should be honest about their expectations too, just like men. Especially since women know that not every man wants an LTR. None of us can read another's mind, so I still think both should voice their expectations before sex happens so to best avoid the drama of finding themselves mismatched.



> I was referring to a slightly different, but related, phenomenon. Where women in their teens and twenties pursue casual sex from dozens, or hundreds, of men. Then, in their thirties, decide they are ready for marriage. But, surprisingly, men are reluctant to marry a woman who has spent 10-15 years having casual sex with many men. The general consensus in the mainstream media is that these men should get over it, man up, and marry those slvts.
> 
> I see the same sort of thinking in your posts. Women should be free to behave badly. And men should be expected to forgive that behavior when these same women decide that, after having casual sex, they are ready for a committed relationship. If the man refuses to have a committed relationship with the woman he just banged in the bathroom stall of a night club, well he's a jerk. And the woman has fallen victim to a player.


Um, no. Firstly, no one here expects anyone to marry someone they aren't attracted to. I would never be attracted to any man who'd lived the casual sex lifestyle. I would never marry a man who'd lived the casual sex lifestyle. That's my personal preference, and I don't judge anyone else who has the opposite preference as I do. My dad loves my moms sexual history. I don't know why, but it's something he finds exciting. If a man doesn't want to marry a woman whose been with a ton of guys, that's his choice. If a woman doesn't want to marry a man whose slept with tons of women, that her choice. No one is jerk or a **** for having the preferences they do. No man is a jerk just because he doesn't want to commit to a woman he banged in a closet at a party. No woman is a **** just because she wants a committed relationship. 

_How_ men and women get what they want is what makes them a jerk or a ****. Lying to the person they're interested in to get what they want makes them a jerk/****. Promising things they don't want to get what they really want makes them a jerk/****. Manipulating them to get what they want makes them a jerk/****. 

That said, people change. They evolve. A man and woman can have an agreement that they're only going to be connected through NSA sex, LTRs are off the table, and based on what they're going through in life, their desires and expectations can change. That doesn't make them a jerk/**** either, unless they keep the truth from the other person. 

All of this jerk/**** stuff can be eliminated through honesty. It's simple. Each person is responsible for their own actions, the other persons actions are irrelevant.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Just stopping in for a sec before grabbing lunch but I wanted to point out..
> 
> I don't care for terms like sl*t. She has sex when she wants sex. So what? So do I. I'm a sl*t and give no fks about it. Everyone has sex when they want to have sex.
> 
> What you call a myth, AA, is a common experience for me. Some women do in fact throw themselves at a guy. I've gotten bjs in cars, bjs in alley ways... some women are aggressively sexual once you get the ball rolling. I've had 5 such bjs this year. Hell, bjs are a lot of women's go to sexual move when they don't feel quite ready to have PIV sex. I'd say more than half of my casual sexual encounters began with an unsolicited bj. Even on legitimate first dates I usually get laid without making the first move.
> 
> You continue to harp on guys "saying anything". Who has defended lying? Do you simply disbelieve that its possible for men to get laid without lying?


I know this was directed AA but I wanted to answer this question: personally, no. I think men absolutely can get laid without lying. Just like women can get laid without wanting an LTR. 



> The point on responsibility is that if you hookup with a on the first night and expected something more than a hookup, then you've burned yourself. Don't have casual sex if you don't view sex as casual.


Couldn't agree more. 



> If he lied about something over the course of weeks... so what? What can you do? He's gone... move on knowing that you acted consistent with your own values.


I don't disagree with this, but the "so what" rubs me the wrong way. I was lied to by a guy who wanted sex, and it hurt. I _did_ move on knowing I kept my dignity and my values, but it left a scar metaphorically speaking. I really liked him. Knowing that he didn't like me in the same way was a blow. And he acted very wrongly.



> Assuming that every man only lies to you is a sad place to be. In effect, you're letting those past guys rob you over and over again. Let it go.


I would agree with this as well. And it's why I think women should be honest about their expectations upfront, to protect themselves. If the guy is honest, then he'll let her know and they can decide where to go from there. If he's dishonest, then as you said, at least she'll know she was honest.


----------



## Created2Write

I guess, for me, it boils down to honesty and compassion. I have compassion for the men who are used and manipulated by women. I think the women who use men for their own personal gain are despicable. It would be nice if I felt that men had compassion on women as well, but that is not something I've felt from most of the men in this thread. Sam, RD, RH and depending on his mood, Devils are the only ones who've shown even an ounce of concern for women as far as sex and relationships go. I don't see this as some kind of battle or competition. There are jerks and btches in both genders, there's no denying that. But not all men are jerks, nor are all women btches. Understanding where the other person is coming from is important, imo.


----------



## RandomDude

SimplyAmorous said:


> Oh goodness RD...that was awfully nice of you to say....and coming from the King of "Bad Boys" too ! Once upon a time of course...


Nice? Me? Naaaah 
Tis just the truth! 

Wasn't really a total bad boy really in my youth - like I wasn't an a$$ to the ladies, not really anyways, if I was - I was still an honest a$$ 



> Oh...the tentacles of  never ceases to amaze me...it can break down the hardest of hearts, the King of the Man Cave......when you've been touched by it's grip...
> 
> You seem to have it within you to rise above ...if you want it bad enough...to find that Good man who has learned from his mistakes...and hold strong..... .your separation has caused deep reaching & introspection within....That's the beauty of a resilient spirit... I want to see you be that Gallant man for the one you ...simply....can't let go. Excuse all the inspirational quotes, I just like to do that sort of thing...


Well, only time will tell if I can practice what I've learnt I'm afraid. Not so sure I'm worthy of such compliments yet, but thank you 



SimplyAmorous said:


> Take a moment and read this article.. even though you are for casual sex.. can you really deny this ends up being the reality..
> 
> Is Casual Sex Destroying Empathy? * Hooking Up Smart
> 
> The ending *>>* :


:scratchhead:

For me empathy is aligned with my instincts, and no way it casual sex could destroy it.


----------



## Karenwalker

For some reason the most "alpha" men I've known don't even know the term "alpha". And the least "alpha" are the ones who talk about it all the time.


----------



## PHTlump

always_alone said:


> And so if you read my response to SA, how should I interpret the guys who proposed marriage to me? Now truth is I didn't believe any of them, nor did I have sex with any of them. I just want to point out that your assumptions about my stupidity level and willingness to read bs into everything are entirely incorrect.


I think you interpreted them correctly. Those men were either sincere, yet completely naive and misguided to believe that a marriage proposal was appropriate on the first date, or they were insincere, yet still completely naive and misguided to think that a marriage proposal might work to get them sex. Either way, they were full of it and you were correct to laugh them off.



> What I'm saying is that with PUA, you cannot take anything a man who wants sex with you says or does at face value. The only words you can actually believe are "I only want sex, nothing more". Odds are anything else is just made up.
> 
> Maybe sometimes he really does think she's beautiful or interesting, and is telling the truth on that level. Maybe. I sure wouldn't believe that or anything else in the dating wilds.


What I can't understand is what you think the men seeking casual sex should do to protect these women. You insist that women who don't want casual sex are constantly being tricked into having casual sex by men they don't know. Now, you take issue to my portrayal of these women as emotionally stunted children. So let's say they're smart, savvy, street wise women who don't fall for cheap tricks. What are these nefarious men going to say to them to trick them out of their clothes?

Are these men going to propose marriage, as your dates did? Obviously that didn't work. It would only work on an emotionally stunted child.

Are these men going to use flattery and say that these women are interesting and fun to hang out with? I wouldn't think that a savvy woman would respond to that by losing all free will.

Say these men go with something less than the marriage proposal. Say they want a committed relationship with the next woman who sleeps with them. Act fast and it could be your lucky day. Is that too tricky for a smart woman to handle?

I just can't imagine a scenario where a capable woman can lose her self-agency by listening to a man she doesn't know. I know you insist that it happens all the time. I'm just not buying it.


----------



## PHTlump

always_alone said:


> In both your scenarios, for example I don't see any issue either. Why not? Because in both your examples, everyone was up front about what they wanted and we're on board for,and communicated about it directly.


Wrong. In my second scenario, John never mentioned sex. He invited Joan back to his place for a drink. He got physical and, when Joan asked for specifics, he used the word "fun" to describe what he wanted. By your prior posts, I would have assumed that you would consider John to be something between a PUAhole and a rapist. I'm surprised, and pleased, that you consider his behavior unobjectionable.



> That's *all* I've been saying, but you are he'll bent on seeing me like some entitled idiot who thinks a bj in a parking lot is a proposal on bended knees, and his unzipped fly as his acceptance.


I've just been taking you at face value and assuming that you meant the words you used. You frequently said that, absent explicit communication from one party, the other party can be excused for filling in the blanks with whatever they want. Using that standard, assuming the man didn't state up front that the BJ in the parking lot wasn't a sign of readiness for commitment, the women might assume that it was.



> All the other bs about lawyers, contracts, picking out China patterns, blameshifting and so on is just people basically saying that these two simple considerations are altogether too much to ask of a man


My point is that, if a woman wants to have casual sex with a man, the man shouldn't be expected to assume responsibility for her and her choices.

A woman being powerless to avoid sex is ugly. It involves force and, usually, violence. It's not being tricked with flattery or vague, meaningless words that a woman's rationalization hamster can twist to imagine that, perhaps, commitment is in the cards.


----------



## PHTlump

Created2Write said:


> What is being said is that those women are not ****s just because they want an LTR.


I wasn't using the word slvt to describe a woman who wanted a LTR. I was using it, properly, to describe a promiscuous woman. A woman who has casual sex is, by definition, a slvt.

I know the word is inflammatory. But I don't know why. Everyone on this thread, women and men, have refused to condemn the practice of promiscuity. We're only disagreeing on what obligations men have in dealing with promiscuous women, or slvts. But I don't know why we can discuss promiscuous women calmly, but get rankled over the term slvts.



> Both of these require honesty, and can be cleared up in one sentence. Ideally, this would come out before even getting into bed.


I think you, and always alone, have unrealistic expectations for people who don't know each other. If a woman asks a man she just met, before having sex with him, whether they will end up in a LTR, the ONLY honest answer the man can give her is, "I don't know."

Even if the man has no intention of having a LTR, the woman may be so amazing that he falls for her. He doesn't yet know her. Maybe she is the love of his life. Conversely, if the man intends to have a LTR with the woman, he may quickly change his mind with increased interaction with her.

Any person, man or woman, who answers "yes" or "no" to the question of whether casual sex will be the beginning of a LTR is lying. They must be. So why is it so crucial that the question be asked and answered?

My theory is that it's just another wink and nod form of anti-slvt defense that many women have. They know that casual sex isn't a good way to find a relationship. But, if a man will lie to her and state that he wants to be in a relationship with her, she can tell herself that she's not really a slvt. She's just had a series of extremely short relationships with jerks.


----------



## RandomDude

What is your alternative exactly? So when a woman goes ILU ILU ILU and freaks the sh-t outta me I should just accept it and keep leading her on when I'm only interested in sex being unable to give her anything more? 

Being honest eliminates expectations, preconceptions, and helps prevent vulnerable people from investing emotions when it which not only could it lead to a nasty breakup but it may lead to the breakdown of a friendship. 

As I've also illustrated using the example of one of my more vulnerable NSA friends -> she took my hint and guarded her heart hence despite her vulnerability our NSA continued for a few months until she left for greener pastures. No feelings were hurt in the process either than the fact that we missed each other for a while due to our friendship.

As for NSAs falling in love, it does happen, but doesn't mean they shouldn't be transparent being NSAs in the first place if that was what they initially desired from each other.


----------



## always_alone

PHTlump said:


> I just can't imagine a scenario where a capable woman can lose her self-agency by listening to a man she doesn't know. I know you insist that it happens all the time. I'm just not buying it.


It's not a question of women losing their self-agency or free will (except in the most nefarious of situations, of course). This is your straw man that you keep building up to attack.

It's a question of how people behave towards each other, and the whole point is to suggest that we should try to treat each other well.

Surely you can agree with that? (And if not, well, we might as well stop here as we'll surely never agree.)

And part of treating people well is having some consideration for them as human beings. For example, I might help a mother pull her stroller onto a bus. Or I might feed my neighbours' cat when they are away. Surely you don't think I'm denying their free will or treating them like stunted children? 

Yet, once it is suggested that a person who is having sex with someone should try to treat them well, all of a sudden, it becomes this horrible, onerous demand that only a child could make. Why?

The more I read justification after justification as to why men owe their sex partners nothing at all, and insult after insult as to just how awful and ****ty their sex partners mustbe, the more it seems to me that men really just want to use women as holes in order to get their rocks off. I mean, honestly, just how onerous and horrible is it to simply talk to your sex partner? As Created pointed out, it's one lousy sentence. Not even. Just some sort of understanding that you're on the same page.

Yet, listen to the outcry. WTF? 

Most of the scenarios put forward so far are essentially about women going sex mad and handing out bjs left, right, and center. And I get why you can't see a whole lot of need for words in such a situation. If she's that aggressive and into it, then it really is on her. I've never said otherwise. No one has.

But this is not where complaints of guys being a$$holes are coming from. Most of the parking lot bjs are probably paid for one way or the other, or the woman doing it is looking for attention and validation, not a relationship.

The complaints come because the guy (or girl, because it happens to men too) is completely indifferent or uncaring about the well-being of their sex partner. They do not care about the other's orgasm or pleasure. They do not care who or what they are getting involved with or their feelings. They basically see the person as a dildo or score card or inflatable doll, treat them as such, and see nothing wrong with that at all. Then to add insult to injury, they actually pretend that they care, or spout platitudes about being open to more. Or boast that they are just hapless recipients of the other person's uncontrolled lust, absolving *themselves* of any personal responsibility for what just happened, and turning around and criticizing the other for being such a ****.

All of that falls on a scale from utterly indifferent to actual ill-will. Frankly, I treat random strangers on the street better than some people apparently treat their sex partners. And I am utterly astounded at how many men here think that is worth defending to the death.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Always...I don't think it is really that many men who are defending the sl*t-shaming. It is just a couple of them.

Random Dude is really the only one with the type of relevant experience necessary to discuss it anyway.

It isn't going to be agreed upon by any man who actually thinks less of women than they do of men. It is pretty obvious which men feel that way and honestly...I think it is dangerous to continue this type of discussion with a man who really does think women are sl*ts but men who do the same thing are not.


----------



## always_alone

PHTlump said:


> If a woman asks a man she just met, before having sex with him, whether they will end up in a LTR, the ONLY honest answer the man can give her is, "I don't know."
> 
> Even if the man has no intention of having a LTR, the woman may be so amazing that he falls for her. He doesn't yet know her. Maybe she is the love of his life. Conversely, if the man intends to have a LTR with the woman, he may quickly change his mind with increased interaction with her.


Pfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffft.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> Always...I don't think it is really that many men who are defending the sl*t-shaming. It is just a couple of them.
> 
> Random Dude is really the only one with the type of relevant experience necessary to discuss it anyway.
> 
> It isn't going to be agreed upon by any man who actually thinks less of women than they do of men. It is pretty obvious which men feel that way and honestly...I think it is dangerous to continue this type of discussion with a man who really does think women are sl*ts but men who do the same thing are not.


Yes, you are absolutely right, and I don't know why I let myself get caught up in these things. 

Give my head a shake!


----------



## PHTlump

always_alone said:


> It's not a question of women losing their self-agency or free will (except in the most nefarious of situations, of course). This is your straw man that you keep building up to attack.


It's not my straw man. It's yours. You insist that women who don't want casual sex are being tricked into consenting to casual sex by nefarious men. I'm asking how.

Men could lie. But, as you yourself proved, An early promise of commitment from a man you don't know isn't sexy. It's pitiful. And it's ineffective for any but the most emotionally stunted women.



> It's a question of how people behave towards each other, and the whole point is to suggest that we should try to treat each other well.
> 
> Surely you can agree with that? (And if not, well, we might as well stop here as we'll surely never agree.)


Sure. I agree. Be nice and polite to each other. But let's stop short of assuming responsibility for the choices of other adults. I would think that notion to be inarguable.

But no. I see several women on this thread insist that men MUST assume responsibility for the choices of women. Any resistance to the idea that men must assume responsibility for the choices of women that they don't even know is met with cries of misogyny and worry that it's the collapse of civilization.



> The more I read justification after justification as to why men owe their sex partners nothing at all, and insult after insult as to just how awful and ****ty their sex partners mustbe, the more it seems to me that men really just want to use women as holes in order to get their rocks off.


Similarly, the more I read justification after justification as to why women are owed commitment from their casual sex partners, and insult after insult as to just how awful their sex partners must be, who tricked them into having casual sex with vague flattery, the more it seems to me that women really just want to use men in order to portray themselves as victims and avoid taking any responsibility for their own lives.


----------



## PHTlump

RandomDude said:


> What is your alternative exactly? So when a woman goes ILU ILU ILU and freaks the sh-t outta me I should just accept it and keep leading her on when I'm only interested in sex being unable to give her anything more?


You can accept it, or not. I certainly wouldn't advise you to lie to her and proclaim your love in order to continue having sex with her.

But if you are honest with her, either by telling her that it's casual, or by refusing to reciprocate her declarations of love, then she has the responsibility to decide whether she wants to continue having sex with a man who clearly isn't into her as much as she is into him.



> As I've also illustrated using the example of one of my more vulnerable NSA friends -> she took my hint and guarded her heart hence despite her vulnerability our NSA continued for a few months until she left for greener pastures. No feelings were hurt in the process either than the fact that we missed each other for a while due to our friendship.


Good for you. As good friends first, I think you had more of an obligation to her and more opportunity to be honest. Since you knew her well, you knew how you felt about her and you knew that you were unlikely to change your feelings into something more.

But I hold that you have both less of an obligation to a stranger, and less information to make an informed opinion. Who can tell whether the attractive girl that you've known for two hours is LTR material? Certainly not me. I need more data. And any proclamation of intent to have a LTR after such a short time frame is, by definition, suspect.


----------



## PHTlump

Faithful Wife said:


> Always...I don't think it is really that many men who are defending the sl*t-shaming. It is just a couple of them.


I guess that I really should know that slvt is one of those words that just overrides the logic function of many women. Mea culpa.

Even though I explicitly avoided any moral condemnation for promiscuous women, I can understand that some women, in the heat of indignation over my use of a word that means promiscuous women, which we're discussing, could entirely miss that point. Again, mea culpa.



> Random Dude is really the only one with the type of relevant experience necessary to discuss it anyway.


The only one to experience casual sex? Hardly.



> It isn't going to be agreed upon by any man who actually thinks less of women than they do of men. It is pretty obvious which men feel that way and honestly...I think it is dangerous to continue this type of discussion with a man who really does think women are sl*ts but men who do the same thing are not.


Unsurprisingly, you're misinterpreting my posts. By arguing that men should treat women as if they are functional adults, I'm not saying that women are less capable than men. I'm saying that they're equally capable. But again, I can see how you would make that mistake.

As for the double standard on promiscuity, I have none. I have stated that I am a Christian who believes premarital sex is sinful for both men and women. Ideally, both men and women would wait until marriage to have sex and we would never have to argue over whether men are responsible for the sins of women, or whether women can be held responsible for their own actions.

But alas, we don't live in such a Utopia. So let the discussion continue.


----------



## Caribbean Man

I just find it pretty ironic that on a thread designed for shaming men who have lots of casual sex with multiple women , some people are now complaining bitterly about men that shame women who have lots of casual sex.

There's a word for that, I think its _hypo_ - something..

Or maybe it's Socratic?


----------



## Faithful Wife

always_alone said:


> Yes, you are absolutely right, and I don't know why I let myself get caught up in these things.
> 
> Give my head a shake!


It is ok, Always.

I get caught up in it, too.

I always forget that for some men, when it comes to this particular issue, they will never see it "the same". Therefore, we can't really expect them to be able to make any conclusion that isn't a double standard. It just is what it is.


----------

