# Women tired of jerks?



## southbound

I’ve been browsing some dating sites lately, and I notice that a lot of women have to state on their profile that they don’t want any nonsense. One statement that got my attention was this:

“Oh my god needing to update: here is my request..... Please... For the love of god please just be normal. Apparently that's really way too much to ask for on here. Normal, people.... NORMAL.” 

I have also seen, “I don’t do drama and am not looking for any.” 

One lady wrote, “I’m so tired of men who play games, I’ve been hurt too many times and am ready for a kind, honest man.”

I’ve noticed that a lot of women complain about guy’s behavior. They often ask, where have all the good guys gone? One of the main things I see written is that women want someone who is honest and caring; they don’t want cheaters, liars, and players. 

I’ve noticed similar attitudes from women where I live too; it seems like women complain about men’s character, but I don’t really see women lining up at the honest, nice guy’s door either. I’ve seen women become single, and the first thing they go for is a jerk. So, what’s that all about?


----------



## Red Sonja

southbound said:


> I’ve noticed similar attitudes from women where I live too; it seems like women complain about men’s character, but I don’t really see women lining up at the honest, nice guy’s door either. I’ve seen women become single, and the first thing they go for is a jerk. So, what’s that all about?


No idea what that's about because I do not associate with people who man/woman bash IRL. (I only harass them on internet forums, )

These people need to learn to say NEXT(!) rather than making general complaints about men (or women) on their dating profiles … it is not attractive. 

Dating profiles are for presenting yourself, what you have to offer and what you are looking for (positives). I would steer clear of anyone who has made the statements you mentioned in your post.


----------



## Starstarfish

"Nice guy" or nice guy? There's a serious difference. Just because someone labels themselves or someone they know as a "nice, honest guy" doesn't automatically make it so.


----------



## TeddieG

I totally get this. I've been going to a favorite restaurant for years, and after my divorce was final, a regular at the restaurant, who I thought at times was looking at me but I convinced myself that he was looking at the tv on the wall above me, introduced himself. At first he was sweet. We spent some time talking and chit-chatting, but it wasn't long until he never let me finish more than two sentences before he interrupted me and started talking about himself, or what he knew about the subject I was talking about, whatever it was. 

This was a sore spot, I guess, because h and I always had great conversations. He really listened to me and I really listened to him. My therapist said I lost a best friend AND a partner. So I started paying attention to how this guy interacted with some of his friends, some of the other regulars. They all spoke in maximums of two sentences at a time. I wasn't sure if that's just a thing around here or if they were trained to talk that way with him because he was going to cut them off. 

But it wasn't long until it was clear that he thought of himself as the king of the hill, and he wanted a consort sitting at his side to smile at him like he is brilliant as he holds court. And it turns out he is very negative and bitter, but it is because he is alone (been divorced since 2002) and he doesn't even know that it is because he is a jerk, not a good listener, but all about him. And the sad thing is, I've made it clear I just want to be friends but he is still trying to win me over and goes back and forth between really friendly and upbeat or being a hang-dog puppy acting like a victim because I won't sit next to him. My iPad, which I take every time I go in there because I want to read a while and visit with a few of the waiters and waitresses who have become dear to me, is a better friend and a date than he is. Ugh. 

Maybe people need time to heal; I know I do and made no promises or gave any overtures that I wanted to date him, but really he is desperate. For me, choosing him would mean I'm settling. But since I'm not, he can keep trying with someone else. 

But I did all this in real life. I can't begin to imagine the potential for people to misrepresent themselves online, but I'm with Red Sonja, I don't think I'd beg and plead online for a decent date!


----------



## sokillme

southbound said:


> I’ve been browsing some dating sites lately, and I notice that a lot of women have to state on their profile that they don’t want any nonsense. One statement that got my attention was this:
> 
> “Oh my god needing to update: here is my request..... Please... For the love of god please just be normal. Apparently that's really way too much to ask for on here. Normal, people.... NORMAL.”
> 
> I have also seen, “I don’t do drama and am not looking for any.”
> 
> One lady wrote, “I’m so tired of men who play games, I’ve been hurt too many times and am ready for a kind, honest man.”
> 
> I’ve noticed that a lot of women complain about guy’s behavior. They often ask, where have all the good guys gone? One of the main things I see written is that women want someone who is honest and caring; they don’t want cheaters, liars, and players.
> 
> I’ve noticed similar attitudes from women where I live too; it seems like women complain about men’s character, but I don’t really see women lining up at the honest, nice guy’s door either. I’ve seen women become single, and the first thing they go for is a jerk. So, what’s that all about?


Honestly I really feel that for the last 30 or so years men have abdicated their responsibly in our western society. There is a lot of factors in play on that. The culture has steadily been making fun of fathers, and making them seem unnecessary. Some of this I think is a backlash (kind of like, since you are not around who needs you anyway). Some of the more toxic aspects of the Woman's movement have also contributed to this too. 

Also the changing role of men in the house has left a lot of men feeling confused about what their role is. It has also left them floundering. Some of the things we are asked to do are not really our strengths.

However the most important thing I think contributed to the problem is was this attitude that I am the most important person in my life. The me first attitude. That is the exact opposite of what a man should be and it is against his nature. I believe for most men this will not make him happy in the long run. However most don't get this, they have never been presented with these facts, sadly. 

Work and sacrifice for his family is the way a man nurtures. That is our nature. We have loss of pride in this, in our honor, partly because we have been told that kind of thinking is at best silly, or at worst sexist. Partly because we have bought the lie that things or sex and selfishness will make us happy. And yes there are just a lot of selfish people out there. All of this has really caused society lots of problems. 

Without fathers both Men and Women don't learn from example. So what you have now is a bunch of Males who don't know how to be Men, and a bunch of females who don't know how to pick Men. 

It's really sad.


----------



## jld

southbound said:


> I’ve been browsing some dating sites lately, and I notice that a lot of women have to state on their profile that they don’t want any nonsense. One statement that got my attention was this:
> 
> “Oh my god needing to update: here is my request..... Please... For the love of god please just be normal. Apparently that's really way too much to ask for on here. Normal, people.... NORMAL.”
> 
> I have also seen, “I don’t do drama and am not looking for any.”
> 
> One lady wrote, “I’m so tired of men who play games, I’ve been hurt too many times and am ready for a kind, honest man.”
> 
> I’ve noticed that a lot of women complain about guy’s behavior. They often ask, where have all the good guys gone? One of the main things I see written is that women want someone who is honest and caring; they don’t want cheaters, liars, and players.
> 
> I’ve noticed similar attitudes from women where I live too; it seems like women complain about men’s character, but I don’t really see women lining up at the honest, nice guy’s door either. I’ve seen women become single, and the first thing they go for is a jerk. So, what’s that all about?


Excitement, maybe? 

I think those gals want the man to be a nice person, but interesting to be with, too. They want to feel attracted, and that may take more than just his being kind and honest.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> Excitement, maybe?
> 
> I think those gals want the man to be a nice person, but interesting to be with, too. They want to feel attracted, and that may take more than just his being kind and honest.


This.

It is the very same thing that leads a man to pursue a hot yet BSC female...lust and attraction, tying up our common sense as we ignore the red flags.


----------



## zookeeper

The head and the heart often want different things. 

Best thing to to (with anyone, not just women) is to pay less attention to what they say and more to what they do. Their actions tell the truth.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> This.
> 
> It is the very same thing that leads a man to pursue a hot yet BSC female...lust and attraction, tying up our common sense as we ignore the red flags.


And then pay the price.

I think there is mature attraction, and immature attraction. I'm attracted to certain things in men that are superficial and would not serve my long term best interests. 

It is like eating candy instead of vegetables. It tastes good, but makes you sick after a short time. But you probably have to do it at least once to learn the lesson.


----------



## jld

zookeeper said:


> The head and the heart often want different things.
> 
> Best thing to to (with anyone, not just women) is to pay less attention to what they say and more to what they do. Their actions tell the truth.


And what do you then do with what you observe?


----------



## Relationship Teacher

southbound said:


> I’ve been browsing some dating sites lately, and I notice that a lot of women have to state on their profile that they don’t want any nonsense. One statement that got my attention was this:


The average person looks to find someone to unload their crap onto....

"til death do you stop taking my crap"

"i do"



> “Oh my god needing to update: here is my request..... Please... For the love of god please just be normal. Apparently that's really way too much to ask for on here. Normal, people.... NORMAL.”


This person seems irritable. I predict drama.


> I have also seen, “I don’t do drama and am not looking for any.”


Same


> One lady wrote, “I’m so tired of men who play games, I’ve been hurt too many times and am ready for a kind, honest man.”


She's the victim. She will be your victim too.


> I’ve noticed that a lot of women complain about guy’s behavior. They often ask, where have all the good guys gone? One of the main things I see written is that women want someone who is honest and caring; they don’t want cheaters, liars, and players.


Everyone says this, even the future cheaters.



> I’ve noticed similar attitudes from women where I live too; it seems like women complain about men’s character, but I don’t really see women lining up at the honest, nice guy’s door either. I’ve seen women become single, and the first thing they go for is a jerk. So, what’s that all about?


There really is no "nice guy" or "jerk." In fact, most "jerks" wouldn't label themselves, in that fashion. The jerk, in many cases, is just someone who feels victimized by their partner. You don't have to agree with their victimhood, or externalized actions, but that is what it stems from.

What we really see, is a lot of men and women that operate in relationships, trying to get what they want. Often, they rationalize lousy behavior. Does the cold-shoulder employing woman label herself as a jerk? Does the righteously indignant man label himself as a jerk?

My advice: Look for someone who doesn't pronounce their victimhood. You are either a victim or a victor. Relationships thrive when both partners rise above adversity. The one that announces everything they don't want, is most likely going to be highly critical of the "good guys" or "good gals", even.

Put bluntly, the "victim" is very often one that excuses much horrible behavior.


----------



## alexm

If I were single and on a dating site looking for a match, any woman who feels she has to state something like that would be passed over, afaic.

Why? Because it states a lot about the person writing that on their profile. Everybody has made a bad choice (or two, or three...) in their lives as far as partner choices go. But there are definitely those out there who continually do this - because they don't learn.

When you get to the point of exasperation where you feel you have to state this on a dating profile, it's probably too late for you, learning-wise.

In other words, if it gets to a point where you feel you have to state something as obvious as that, then you've clearly got a lot of experience with the "wrong" men (or women). At that point, you must look inwards, rather than essentially casting the blame on others.


----------



## Mclane

Relationship Teacher said:


> My advice: Look for someone who doesn't pronounce their victimhood. You are either a victim or a victor. Relationships thrive when both partners rise above adversity. The one that announces everything they don't want, is most likely going to be highly critical of the "good guys" or "good gals", even.
> 
> Put bluntly, the "victim" is very often one that excuses much horrible behavior.


Very well said, I couldn't agree more.

That much being said I can't help it when I read those victim driven web site dating profiles and think "I'll show this poor woman what a good guy is really like and she'll fall for me like a ton of bricks and we'll have great sex and do lots of fun things and live happily ever after".

We meet, and almost invariably she's a psycho.


----------



## jld

alexm said:


> If I were single and on a dating site looking for a match, any woman who feels she has to state something like that would be passed over, afaic.
> 
> Why? Because it states a lot about the person writing that on their profile. Everybody has made a bad choice (or two, or three...) in their lives as far as partner choices go. But there are definitely those out there who continually do this - because they don't learn.
> 
> When you get to the point of exasperation where you feel you have to state this on a dating profile, it's probably too late for you, learning-wise.
> 
> In other words, if it gets to a point where you feel you have to state something as obvious as that, then you've clearly got a lot of experience with the "wrong" men (or women). At that point, you must look inwards, rather than essentially casting the blame on others.


Not every man feels that way, though. I think one of my sisters could have written something similar. She has now been remarried for 15 years, very happily.

If that is how someone feels, isn't it honest and open to put it out there straightaway?


----------



## uhtred

I think there is a tendency for men and women to be attracted to the wrong things. I partially blame Hollywood - the classic romance story seems to involve completely incompatible people falling in love, and having it work.

I don't know if it is natural, or learned, but many women are physically attracted to "bad boys". The problem is that real "bad boys" are well... bad. Being a renegade is great in the movies, but in real life it often means not being able to keep a job. Being aggressive can lead to fights, arrests, and possibly violence against a spouse. Mysterious loners are often that way because they have really poor social skills.

Even the phrase "nice guy" has been co-opted to mean something very negative. 

For casual dating, have fun, date all the ex-cons, bikers, porn stars, whatever floats your boat. Have hot sex, but when they stop making you happy dump them. 

For a long term relationship, look for nice guys (I refuse to accept the negative connotations of that term) who are good to you, who have steady jobs, no emotional outbursts, and who will love you. Then LOVE THEM, they are what you actually want, don't confuse them with the fantasy you have built around bad-boys.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

alexm said:


> If I were single and on a dating site looking for a match, any woman who feels she has to state something like that would be passed over, afaic.
> 
> Why? *Because it states a lot about the person writing that on their profile. Everybody has made a bad choice (or two, or three...) in their lives as far as partner choices go. But there are definitely those out there who continually do this - because they don't learn.
> 
> When you get to the point of exasperation where you feel you have to state this on a dating profile, it's probably too late for you, learning-wise.
> 
> In other words, if it gets to a point where you feel you have to state something as obvious as that, then you've clearly got a lot of experience with the "wrong" men (or women). At that point, you must look inwards, rather than essentially casting the blame on others*.










....I so agree with this post ....it doesn't come off well to state this...as it speaks loudly you have a very bad picker for one...

Me personally.. I am very turned off by certain behaviors / lifestyles... it's a automatic "keep looking -don't even consider it!" ...that another women would JUMP AT....

I've been told by my own mother that I have the weirdest taste in men..she would not be attracted to my husband.. she goes for A-holes.. admittedly, she says she needs to feel "Passion".. Guess what.. Passion was her demise in life.. 

I've always been more attracted to the NICE / GOOD MEN.. some may find them boring.. but I'm a homebody who doesn't drink , smoke & has no use for going to wild parties, I don't get turned on by tattoos or a 6 pack on a Jock.. these things do nothing for me...

If a woman truly wants to be treated with care, if she hopes to marry , settle down & have kids with a faithful man.. his History should be paramount in her mind, don't allow her heart to be fooled... how he treats others...pay close attention... all of it paints a picture .....

Why would she give the bad boy with a lousy reputation the time of day... there is always red flags with these, we're not going to rescue these men.... come on now... just looking at the company they keep will give a mighty clue... Jerks hang with other Jerks...

I saved this clip from The Bachelorette the other day.. because it's so typical to how it goes... listen to how the beautiful woman praises this GOOD GUY.... and his response .... that's all he ever hears.... 

>> JoJo Breaks Up With James T. - The Bachelorette 








I got all mushy watching that.. Heck if was the Bachlorette.. this one would have won hands down!! I knew he'd be canned.. It's a running joke when we watch the show.. the ones I love NEVER WIN, cause "Nice Guys finish last"... 

I do feel it's an EXCITEMENT thing with most women.. Some may need the extra stimulation.. to get going.. to be attracted..

I look at it this way... if the man is good looking ENOUGH (this part does matter to me).. if we have enough in common (also HUGE).. why wouldn't we have the world at our feet to make our own brand of excitement ?? 

I don't think 1 partner needs to "excel" here.. but he or she has to be willing to go for the ride with the other, of course.. but that's the healthy "give & take" we all need or should have. 

I was reading a book the other day about "Emotional Vampires"... the chapter was on the anti-social male.. he is often a RISK TAKER, the dare devil...there is Adventure / EXCITEMENT there - which often brings sexual attraction (even I can admit this.. but I still tell myself.. "not worth it"- too many other things that would pi$$ me off)... 

Many women are allured by these types...these men know how to GIVE ENOUGH -- using their charm to KEEP HER sticking around, dangling .. but then he'll also have this "selfish SOB" side.. it's all about him...their Adventure bar is on the higher side...with this inevitably comes... the risk he's going to be tired of the "same old" this includes his women...


----------



## Anon1111

southbound said:


> “Oh my god needing to update: here is my request..... Please... For the love of god please just be normal. Apparently that's really way too much to ask for on here. Normal, people.... NORMAL.”


Normal = top 5% of men, not actual "normal."



southbound said:


> I have also seen, “I don’t do drama and am not looking for any.”


Translation: I am looking for drama. 



southbound said:


> One lady wrote, “I’m so tired of men who play games, I’ve been hurt too many times and am ready for a kind, honest man.”


Translation: I've been played by players many, many times. I'm ready to try out a weak, insecure guy to see if I can tolerate it.


----------



## uhtred

I think there are a lot of forms of "risk taking", and the common idea that "nice guys" are boring, maybe cowardly simply isn't true. 

I know nice guys who are serious mountaineers, scuba divers, stunt pilots, martial arts experts, deep water sailors, ex special-forces etc. 

They take real risks to do what they love, but they don't get into fights to prove how macho they are, or take risks with no potential reward. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> snip
> I was reading a book the other day about "Emotional Vampires"... the chapter was on the anti-social male.. he is often a RISK TAKER, the dare devil...there is Adventure / EXCITEMENT there - which often brings sexual attraction (even I can admit this.. but I still tell myself.. "not worth it"- too many other things that would pi$$ me off)...
> snip


----------



## SimplyAmorous

uhtred said:


> I think there are a lot of forms of "risk taking", and the common idea that "nice guys" are boring, maybe cowardly simply isn't true.
> 
> I know nice guys who are serious mountaineers, scuba divers, stunt pilots, martial arts experts, deep water sailors, ex special-forces etc.
> 
> They take real risks to do what they love, but they don't get into fights to prove how macho they are, or take risks with no potential reward.


My Nice guy doesn't do anything high risk, not really...I'm pretty content with that...I wouldn't even want him to own a motorcycle to be honest..I want to make it to our rocking chairs together.. 

A coworker of his crashed his Harley, fighting for his life right now in the hospital.. he's got brain damage.. his life will never be the same .. 

So I guess this is where I was coming from.. but of course there are such men... they are well balanced , faithful, Integrity is very important to them, they'd make good husbands / fathers.. you can feel the "ALPHA" appeal from some of them .... True. 

Someone's history is very telling though.. so I feel...never something to overlook when seeking a life partner..


----------



## southbound

SimplyAmorous said:


> Me personally.. I am very turned off by certain behaviors / lifestyles... it's a automatic "keep looking -don't even consider it!" ...that another women would JUMP AT....
> 
> I've been told by my own mother that I have the weirdest taste in men..she would not be attracted to my husband.. she goes for A-holes.. admittedly, she says she needs to feel "Passion".. Guess what.. Passion was her demise in life..
> 
> I've always been more attracted to the NICE / GOOD MEN.. some may find them boring.. but I'm a homebody who doesn't drink , smoke & has no use for going to wild parties, I don't get turned on by tattoos or a 6 pack on a Jock.. these things do nothing for me...
> 
> If a woman truly wants to be treated with care, if she hopes to marry , settle down & have kids with a faithful man.. his History should be paramount in her mind, don't allow her heart to be fooled... how he treats others...pay close attention... all of it paints a picture .....
> 
> Why would she give the bad boy with a lousy reputation the time of day... there is always red flags with these, we're not going to rescue these men.... come on now... just looking at the company they keep will give a mighty clue... Jerks hang with other Jerks...
> 
> I look at it this way... if the man is good looking ENOUGH (this part does matter to me).. if we have enough in common (also HUGE).. why wouldn't we have the world at our feet to make our own brand of excitement ??


For the longest time in my life, I thought what you just described is how all normal women felt; this is what I saw in the women I grew up around; after all, why would a woman who was planning to marry and settle down want anything but a nice, honest guy? I had that belief for so long, it's tough for me to wrap my mind around anything else. I just don't understand that if you have a nice guy behind door number 1, and an a-hole behind door number 2, there are actually women who want to chance door number 2? 

Sure, I know there are women who lead a wilder lifestyle who want a wilder guy, but I always considered them a different breed; I never pictured a woman who wanted a family life and career as such.

I don't understand the draw of the "bad boy." What is it that bad boys do that is so much more exciting? I wasn't aware that just because a man was a nice person that he just sat around on the couch all day and wanted vanilla sex once a month. Is that the case?


----------



## jorgegene

first, i guess we have to define what a jerk is.
I think my brief definition would be a guy who is 'full of themselves', teases women and are full of bravado and (false) confidence.
in other words, someone who acts like they are superior and treats others as such.

in my dating life, i dated more women than not who were also attracted to jerks.
besides my current wife, i dated only one other woman who would probably never been attracted to a jerk.

when i found my wife, i found a real gem, because she is truly repelled by jerks. she has jerk radar, or 'jerkdar'.

either there is something to the idea that more women than not are attracted to jerks, or maybe there is a scarcity of men who are not jerks.


----------



## alexm

jld said:


> Not every man feels that way, though. I think one of my sisters could have written something similar. She has now been remarried for 15 years, very happily.
> 
> If that is how someone feels, isn't it honest and open to put it out there straightaway?


I'm not saying people who state things like that will never find somebody!

I'm saying that I, personally, would skip over a profile that contains that kind of wording. When one is single and looking, it's in your best interests to not openly be bitter about your bad dating (or marriage) experiences prior to even meeting someone, know what I mean?

Get over it and start fresh, or wait.


----------



## jld

alexm said:


> I'm not saying people who state things like that will never find somebody!
> 
> I'm saying that I, personally, would skip over a profile that contains that kind of wording. When one is single and looking, it's in your best interests to not openly be bitter about your bad dating (or marriage) experiences prior to even meeting someone, know what I mean?
> 
> Get over it and start fresh, or wait.


You don't think it is a good idea to just be open and honest about how the writer is feeling?

To me, that would give better odds towards meeting someone he or she is compatible with. And save time for people who are not interested.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jld said:


> You don't think it is a good idea to just be open and honest about how the writer is feeling?
> 
> To me, that would give better odds towards meeting someone he or she is compatible with. And save time for people who are not interested.


I think it would be helpful to list things we enjoy doing with another.. little scenarios in a dating profile to give some sort of picture of who are are.. where we come from...

I've posted on this before > wording/ dating Profile madness...Found the post  on one of chillymorn's old threads.... it was the craziest profile I ever read.. but somehow I respected it..



> A friend of mine was at my house looking up profiles many yrs ago now. she came across one that was HONEST to a fault.. this guy was looking for sex partners.. he laid it out there exactly how he wanted it.. you ever qualify to fit his expectations. or you get off his profile so you won't be wasting his time...
> 
> I wish so bad I would have copied & pasted that.. it was classic...
> 
> I loved it personally.. if you are over this weight ___ click away....
> 
> If you have mental issues, click away.. if you have any expectations I will call you in the morning... click away.. he was HOT, he knew it.. he spoke of his lover skills, and what he will bring the woman for a night.. she won't be disappointed ....he was in it for the pleasure bang, and nothing more..
> 
> My friend was completely repulsed... calling him a D*** and what not..
> 
> I told her he was just being forthright.. rude as it may come off.. many feel just like that..but instead lie & play games to get in the woman's pants...at least he was getting the offense out of the way reading his profile.. so the woman could cuss him up & down , then click away..
> 
> I wish more were this honest up front. then it wouldn't be so weird for the rest of us.. trying to find the perfect words or phrases to not turn anyone off.. what a racket it all is..


----------



## Blondilocks

Mclane said:


> Very well said, I couldn't agree more.
> 
> That much being said I can't help it when I read those victim driven web site dating profiles and think "I'll show this poor woman what a good guy is really like and she'll fall for me like a ton of bricks and we'll have great sex and do lots of fun things and live happily ever after".
> 
> We meet, and almost invariably she's a psycho.


Be honest, Mclane, you haven't been on a dating site in 3-4 years, have you?

Is that where you met your girlfriend?


----------



## norajane

I dunno. Women get a LOT of weirdos who get in touch in online dating. After receiving umpteen d*ck pics, I imagine many women are frustrated and wish for a normal guy (sans d*ck pic).


----------



## Married but Happy

jld said:


> You don't think it is a good idea to just be open and honest about how the writer is feeling?
> 
> To me, that would give better odds towards meeting someone he or she is compatible with. And save time for people who are not interested.


Absolutely they should be open and honest, but you can be that without being negative. And as has been pointed out, those who can't put a positive spin on things and have a history of bad choices that lead them to complain, probably aren't good prospects _most_ of the time. Of course, there are always exceptions, and we all have some bad experiences or poor choices, and not because we routinely make bad choices.

Still, I avoided women with those kinds of profiles, because either they have made too many bad choices, or haven't been able to keep a positive attitude about the next prospect. I'm sure it has saved me a lot of wasted time and bad choices of my own, even if it also means I've missed out on a few good ones. There are many other good ones who manage to avoid this pitfall, after all.


----------



## southbound

jorgegene said:


> either there is something to the idea that more women than not are attracted to jerks, or maybe there is a scarcity of men who are not jerks.


I've wondered about that as well; do most women really want the nice man, but they are in such short supply and many disguise themselves as the respectable man until things get going? 

I'm sure it's different in a larger area, but in my rural area, there isn't much way to hide your bad behaviors very long. It's a place where everybody knows everybody, or at least knows of everybody.
Still, as I said before, I don't necessarily see the women going for the good men.


----------



## wild jade

norajane said:


> I dunno. Women get a LOT of weirdos who get in touch in online dating. After receiving umpteen d*ck pics, I imagine many women are frustrated and wish for a normal guy (sans d*ck pic).


Exactly. There's an awful lot of crazy on the internet, and I'm guessing after wading through tons and tons of messages of crazy, I'd probably put a plea for normal on my profile too.

I don't believe that women are attracted to *******s . There are all kinds of women in this world. We are attracted to people that we have things in common with.


----------



## sokillme

southbound said:


> For the longest time in my life, I thought what you just described is how all normal women felt; this is what I saw in the women I grew up around; after all, why would a woman who was planning to marry and settle down want anything but a nice, honest guy? I had that belief for so long, it's tough for me to wrap my mind around anything else. I just don't understand that if you have a nice guy behind door number 1, and an a-hole behind door number 2, there are actually women who want to chance door number 2?
> 
> Sure, I know there are women who lead a wilder lifestyle who want a wilder guy, but I always considered them a different breed; I never pictured a woman who wanted a family life and career as such.
> 
> I don't understand the draw of the "bad boy." What is it that bad boys do that is so much more exciting? I wasn't aware that just because a man was a nice person that he just sat around on the couch all day and wanted vanilla sex once a month. Is that the case?


The older I get the more I think woman want assertive. I don't think the bad boy is the answer. I think they mistake the bad boy for the assertive type. However our young men have not had fathers to show them how to be. Also our young woman haven't had fathers so some can't pick out the right kind of assertiveness, and some are scared of the assertiveness. This is why some woman think men's nature is toxic. It is foreign to them. 

I nice guy can learn to become assertive and then he has the best of both worlds. It's not about being wild it about taking risks, like risking trying to be sexy. Risking asking a total stranger out. That makes you look strong. And it is about having your Sh*t together, being a leader in your own life.


----------



## MarriedDude

jld said:


> And what do you then do with what you observe?


I can't speak for anyone else....but...I take what i can learn from observing the statements and actions of others---especially any disparities between them and use this information to determine several things..

1. what motivates them? 
2. what concerns them?
3. level of education & street smarts...if any
4. degree that they take cues from their environment and other people around them
5. flesh out the differences between the presentation and self and the real person -what don't they want people to notice...on this thing, specifically , there is always many tells -as most people walk around with the misconception (or delusion) that they are in a spotlight -and that others are constantly observing them -which, of course, isn't really true. 

knowing these things (or as close as you can, knowing that, uncertainty is a constant and that people evolve constantly) -I can predict, with some level of consistency how this person will react to a given event. This allows me to work through different contingencies -in advance -to select the one with the best possible outcome for me. 

Some may view this as manipulation...I disagree...I call it...Paying attention.


----------



## sokillme

SimplyAmorous said:


> I think it would be helpful to list things we enjoy doing with another.. little scenarios in a dating profile to give some sort of picture of who are are.. where we come from...
> 
> I've posted on this before > wording/ dating Profile madness...Found the post  on one of chillymorn's old threads.... it was the craziest profile I ever read.. but somehow I respected it..


I am sure he did quite well too.


----------



## zookeeper

jld said:


> And what do you then do with what you observe?


You choose the people you want in your life by their compatibility with your own values/wants/needs. Anyone can say the words they know you want to hear, but it's not easy at all to carry off the misrepresentation when you get beyond words. 

Most people are not good liars. They rely on our desire to believe them to pull off the deception. In some cases, they are even lying to themselves. Either way, someone who claims to be an animal lover but doesn't even have a picture of himself with an animal in his profile is probably not. A man who claims to be an aggressive, ambitious go-getter but has been living in his parent's basement for the last five years because he is "figuring out his next move"...I'd be suspicious. The woman who says she is looking for a nice guy who will treat her like a lady but only dates guys who look like extras from Sons of Anarchy is at best deluding herself and obviously anyone reading her profille.

I can only shake my head when my SIL cries to my wife about how the latest guy turned out to be a total jerk when everything she told my wife about him up to that point equated to a giant neon "JERK" sign above his head. It's not that on some level she doesn't want a decent guy to share her life with, it's that what excites her is the opposite. With some people excitement trumps all else.


----------



## MarriedDude

zookeeper said:


> You choose the people you want in your life by their compatibility with your own values/wants/needs. Anyone can say the words they know you want to hear, but it's not easy at all to carry off the misrepresentation when you get beyond words.
> 
> Most people are not good liars. *They rely on our desire to believe them to pull off the deception*.


Exactly this...Deception requires both justification and follow-up. You need a reason to do it...and you need to expend energy to make sure the lie is believed. Most people aren't that good at it, i believe for two reasons...

1. They are lazy...deception takes effort...while the truth is easy

2. They lack enough understanding of themselves and their own actions to pull it off.


----------



## uhtred

Yes, this has been a mystery to me too. There is this strange idea that "nice guys" are boring. 

In my experience the nice guys are more likely to be able to plan their lives to do really interesting things. 





southbound said:


> snip
> 
> I don't understand the draw of the "bad boy." What is it that bad boys do that is so much more exciting? I wasn't aware that just because a man was a nice person that he just sat around on the couch all day and wanted vanilla sex once a month. Is that the case?


----------



## southbound

zookeeper said:


> You choose the people you want in your life by their compatibility with your own values/wants/needs. Anyone can say the words they know you want to hear, but it's not easy at all to carry off the misrepresentation when you get beyond words.
> 
> Most people are not good liars. They rely on our desire to believe them to pull off the deception. In some cases, they are even lying to themselves. Either way, someone who claims to be an animal lover but doesn't even have a picture of himself with an animal in his profile is probably not. A man who claims to be an aggressive, ambitious go-getter but has been living in his parent's basement for the last five years because he is "figuring out his next move"...I'd be suspicious. The woman who says she is looking for a nice guy who will treat her like a lady but only dates guys who look like extras from Sons of Anarchy is at best deluding herself and obviously anyone reading her profille.
> 
> I can only shake my head when my SIL cries to my wife about how the latest guy turned out to be a total jerk when everything she told my wife about him up to that point equated to a giant neon "JERK" sign above his head. It's not that on some level she doesn't want a decent guy to share her life with, it's that what excites her is the opposite. With some people excitement trumps all else.


Very well written. You mentioning Sons of Anarchy reminds me of a teacher that I worked with years ago. She was single, and always complaining that there were no good guys left. She would show us a picture of a guy, and, as you said, he looked like someone from Sons of Anarchy. I never knew what to say; I'd just mumble and go on.

I wanted to know the "why." I suppose excitement trumping all else is probably the answer, although I don't understand anyone who thinks that way.


----------



## tech-novelist

southbound said:


> I’ve been browsing some dating sites lately, and I notice that a lot of women have to state on their profile that they don’t want any nonsense. One statement that got my attention was this:
> 
> “Oh my god needing to update: here is my request..... Please... For the love of god please just be normal. Apparently that's really way too much to ask for on here. Normal, people.... NORMAL.”
> 
> I have also seen, “I don’t do drama and am not looking for any.”
> 
> One lady wrote, “I’m so tired of men who play games, I’ve been hurt too many times and am ready for a kind, honest man.”
> 
> I’ve noticed that a lot of women complain about guy’s behavior. They often ask, where have all the good guys gone? One of the main things I see written is that women want someone who is honest and caring; they don’t want cheaters, liars, and players.
> 
> I’ve noticed similar attitudes from women where I live too; it seems like women complain about men’s character, but I don’t really see women lining up at the honest, nice guy’s door either. I’ve seen women become single, and the first thing they go for is a jerk. So, what’s that all about?


They are in the "epiphany" phase, where they can't get the attention of alpha males any more even for casual sex and decide to lock down a beta male for provisioning. They will provide just enough sex to bait the hook, then once they reel in their victims, that will be the end of that.

Hopefully the beta males they have their sights on will be too smart to fall for this scam... but most of them probably won't.


----------



## sokillme

uhtred said:


> Yes, this has been a mystery to me too. There is this strange idea that "nice guys" are boring.
> 
> In my experience the nice guys are more likely to be able to plan their lives to do really interesting things.


Depends on which definition you are talking about when it comes to "nice guys", the term has come to mean passive aggressive men, who like to call themselves "nice guys". As in why not me I'm a "nice guy".


----------



## tech-novelist

uhtred said:


> I think there is a tendency for men and women to be attracted to the wrong things. I partially blame Hollywood - the classic romance story seems to involve completely incompatible people falling in love, and having it work.
> 
> I don't know if it is natural, or learned, but many women are physically attracted to "bad boys". The problem is that real "bad boys" are well... bad. Being a renegade is great in the movies, but in real life it often means not being able to keep a job. Being aggressive can lead to fights, arrests, and possibly violence against a spouse. Mysterious loners are often that way because they have really poor social skills.
> 
> Even the phrase "nice guy" has been co-opted to mean something very negative.
> 
> For casual dating, have fun, date all the ex-cons, bikers, porn stars, whatever floats your boat. Have hot sex, but when they stop making you happy dump them.
> 
> For a long term relationship, look for nice guys (I refuse to accept the negative connotations of that term) who are good to you, who have steady jobs, no emotional outbursts, and who will love you. Then LOVE THEM, they are what you actually want, don't confuse them with the fantasy you have built around bad-boys.


Ha ha, very funny!

(On the off-chance that you are serious, you have a lot to learn about intersexual behavior. You can start with therationalmale.com.)


----------



## norajane

The way I see it: 

SOME people are drawn to excitement, but they are drawn to the excitement they themselves feel, so it's not that the other person is exciting per se. The kind of excitement that is elicited by "bad boys" is the drama of not knowing where you stand in the relationship - the constant "he loves me, he loves me not" ups and downs struggle drama.

The people who are drawn to that kind of drama (drama-llamas) are not good relationship material. Every woman is not a drama-llama, so stop longing for those women who are. Stop wondering why the bad boys get the pretty drama-llamas and you don't even though you're the awesomest who ever awesomed. 

Live your life as your genuine self, and you won't go wrong. You won't attract the drama-llamas, and you won't end up with one. Sounds like you win, right?


----------



## tech-novelist

southbound said:


> For the longest time in my life, I thought what you just described is how all normal women felt; this is what I saw in the women I grew up around; after all, why would a woman who was planning to marry and settle down want anything but a nice, honest guy? I had that belief for so long, it's tough for me to wrap my mind around anything else. I just don't understand that if you have a nice guy behind door number 1, and an a-hole behind door number 2, there are actually women who want to chance door number 2?
> 
> Sure, I know there are women who lead a wilder lifestyle who want a wilder guy, but I always considered them a different breed; I never pictured a woman who wanted a family life and career as such.
> 
> I don't understand the draw of the "bad boy." What is it that bad boys do that is so much more exciting? I wasn't aware that just because a man was a nice person that he just sat around on the couch all day and wanted vanilla sex once a month. Is that the case?


The problem is that female sexual response is not tuned to modern life. It is tuned to life before the last 100 years, in which high testosterone was a survival trait, at least if the man with high-T survived to adulthood. That is because life was very hard and dangerous, thus weeding out softer men. A woman needed a strong man to defend her and her children from the (overall much more violent) society. And softer, less masculine men were less likely to survive at all, or to have surviving offspring if they did.

It is also an inconvenient truth that many women even earlier in history didn't have much of a choice as to which men they would have sex with. There was a lot of rape (much more than in today's so-called "rape culture"), especially in war. So women who were able to switch allegiances easily had a better chance of survival. This explains the apparently bewildering ease with which at least some women switch allegiances from one man to another.

This isn't pretty, but it is true.


----------



## wild jade

tech-novelist said:


> The problem is that female sexual response is not tuned to modern life. It is tuned to life before the last 100 years, in which high testosterone was a survival trait, at least if the man with high-T survived to adulthood. That is because life was very hard and dangerous, thus weeding out softer men. A woman needed a strong man to defend her and her children from the (overall much more violent) society. And softer, less masculine men were less likely to survive at all, or to have surviving offspring if they did.
> 
> It is also an inconvenient truth that many women even earlier in history didn't have much of a choice as to which men they would have sex with. There was a lot of rape (much more than in today's so-called "rape culture"), especially in war. So women who were able to switch allegiances easily had a better chance of survival. This explains the apparently bewildering ease with which at least some women switch allegiances from one man to another.
> 
> This isn't pretty, but it is true.


Dude, I don't know where you get your information, but boy is it bad.


----------



## wild jade

norajane said:


> The way I see it:
> 
> SOME people are drawn to excitement, but they are drawn to the excitement they themselves feel, so it's not that the other person is exciting per se. The kind of excitement that is elicited by "bad boys" is the drama of not knowing where you stand in the relationship - the constant "he loves me, he loves me not" ups and downs struggle drama.
> 
> The people who are drawn to that kind of drama (drama-llamas) are not good relationship material. Every woman is not a drama-llama, so stop longing for those women who are. Stop wondering why the bad boys get the pretty drama-llamas and you don't even though you're the awesomest who ever awesomed.
> 
> Live your life as your genuine self, and you won't go wrong. You won't attract the drama-llamas, and you won't end up with one. Sounds like you win, right?


The way I see it, these dudes who complain that women only like bad boys are actually all just chasing after the bad girls and completely overlooking the nice girls that do want them.

Of course, bad girls are going to dig bad boys and want to party with them. And of course bad girls will find nice straight guys a little less than thrilling.

But why do all these supposedly nice guys chase only the bad girls? Because they are exciting and so much fun?


----------



## MarriedDude

wild jade said:


> Dude, I don't know where you get your information, but boy is it bad.


Its a popular Theory......but attempts to establish causation without much solid evidence.

It kinda seems like a handy way to explain a lack of dates among our nerdier breathern. "Its not my lack of social skills....its evolution!"

But im no expert
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## turnera

Relationship Teacher said:


> The average person looks to find someone to unload their crap onto....
> 
> "til death do you stop taking my crap"
> 
> "i do"
> 
> 
> 
> This person seems irritable. I predict drama.
> 
> 
> Same
> 
> 
> She's the victim. She will be your victim too.
> 
> 
> Everyone says this, even the future cheaters.
> 
> 
> 
> There really is no "nice guy" or "jerk." In fact, most "jerks" wouldn't label themselves, in that fashion. The jerk, in many cases, is just someone who feels victimized by their partner. You don't have to agree with their victimhood, or externalized actions, but that is what it stems from.
> 
> What we really see, is a lot of men and women that operate in relationships, trying to get what they want. Often, they rationalize lousy behavior. Does the cold-shoulder employing woman label herself as a jerk? Does the righteously indignant man label himself as a jerk?
> 
> My advice: Look for someone who doesn't pronounce their victimhood. You are either a victim or a victor. Relationships thrive when both partners rise above adversity. The one that announces everything they don't want, is most likely going to be highly critical of the "good guys" or "good gals", even.
> 
> Put bluntly, the "victim" is very often one that excuses much horrible behavior.


I usually agree with you, but I can tell you're a male. And I'm surprised you aren't, given your background, seeing the REASON behind such comments. Women are raised to put themselves last, to take care of everyone else first, to be silent when trod upon but still make sure everything is taken care of. Men...not so much. 

So it's no surprise that single men in their 30s and 40s are still searching for that elusive June Cleaver who's going to be his love, maid, servant, shoulder to cry on, and cheerleader. And when they treat the women they're dating as such, and the woman - who by now is beyond the naive years when she thinks that's all she's supposed to expect and is now searching for a mature man who will shoulder half the responsibility - quickly tires of the games and says 'why aren't there men who DON'T just want something to fvck and take care of him?'


----------



## Relationship Teacher

turnera said:


> I usually agree with you, but I can tell you're a male. Women are raised to put themselves last, to take care of everyone else first, to be silent when trod upon but still make sure everything is taken care of. Men...not so much.


I understand their comments well. I actually think you missed the point I was making. You see, there isn't a "bad guy", just people that don't know how to interact with one-another. Thus, we get a breakup and two people that run to dating websites, professing that they just want a normal (not mean) guy/gal. However, both of these people were being mean to one-another, all the while excusing their own behavior. I see this on a daily basis.

My comments would be exactly the same if it was a man expressing a demand to just meet a woman that wasn't crazy, or something along those lines. 

The main point is that there are "victims", and they will always be victims. You can treat a woman with unheard of respect, love and compassion, and she can still find dozens of relationship offenses, per day. It is a self-defeating mindset.

The "jerk" that these women are trying to avoid..... it could be the husband that only does the dishes wrong. He could be a "jerk" because he doesn't give into her emotional manipulation. All the while, his romantic partner could be giving great amounts of negativity.

That is what no one will talk about. It is not a gender-specific concept, at all. The average person directs a lot of negativity towards others, when we feel victimized.

I understand that you did not agree with that post of mine. What you don't understand is that a great deal of this information came from my personal transformation and subsequent education. My young self was that victim that I am illuminating here.




> And I'm surprised you aren't, given your background, seeing the REASON behind such comments.


I am extremely well trained in being on the receiving side of any and all negative behavior, but also doing it from the sidelines. What will upset some individuals, is that it can be seen as empowering or dismissive. I understand 100% what went into those women's comments. In that empathetic effort, I also see what all led up to it, from their side. You might call it personal failure, or personal weakness. Either way, individuals need more personal strength, along the lines of increasing their Emotional Intelligence (EIQ). As such, they need no longer be any person's victim.

If we properly identify this propensity, we can teach women (per your points) to no longer do the majority of the housework, child-rearing and still have to hold a full-time occupation. The man that is benefitting isn't going to do a 180, at least overnight. Who can she rely on? She can rely on herself. Normally, she would back down from a confrontation with the "immature" man. As long as we can go beyond coddling victims, we can empower women to make measurable improvements in their lives and interpersonal relationships.


----------



## turnera

Easy to say, hard to enact...


----------



## alexm

jld said:


> You don't think it is a good idea to just be open and honest about how the writer is feeling?
> 
> To me, that would give better odds towards meeting someone he or she is compatible with. And save time for people who are not interested.


To a point, yes, but not in this context.

I think it's something that is not necessary to say on a dating profile. I'm not sure, but I don't think too many people want a jerk/player/idiot. And if they do, then their profile will mirror that.

Using a sentence like "I'm tired of playing games and just want somebody who won't jerk me around" speaks volumes, IMO.

From my POV, I'd pass those profiles by solely for the reason that that person is going to start off already heavily jaded and mistrusting.

My profile, from 7-8 years ago, was honest, but without being overly blunt. I was going through a divorce, from a woman who cheated. Obviously I did not want a woman who would cheat on me. But I didn't feel the need, at all, to state that.


----------



## jld

alexm said:


> To a point, yes, but not in this context.
> 
> I think it's something that is not necessary to say on a dating profile. I'm not sure, but I don't think too many people want a jerk/player/idiot. And if they do, then their profile will mirror that.
> 
> Using a sentence like "I'm tired of playing games and just want somebody who won't jerk me around" speaks volumes, IMO.
> 
> From my POV, I'd pass those profiles by solely for the reason that that person is going to start off already heavily jaded and mistrusting.
> 
> My profile, from 7-8 years ago, was honest, but without being overly blunt. I was going through a divorce, from a woman who cheated. Obviously I did not want a woman who would cheat on me. But I didn't feel the need, at all, to state that.


So her being honest and open about how she feels would have been helpful to you. You would have known to bypass her immediately, saving you both time and trouble.

I guess I just cannot see a downside to her transparency.


----------



## jld

RT, I agree that women's empowerment is largely the key to their living happier lives. 

I think the risk for men is that if they do not improve their relationship skills, they may risk becoming optional in women's lives.


----------



## uhtred

I try to resist redefining terms because they can lead to confusion. 

"nice guy" should mean a guy who is well, nice. If someone wants to talk about a passive-aggressive guy, then they should use that term. Otherwise some people take a phrase with a clear meaning and interpret it to mean something else. 

Similarly "all lives matter" is actually a good thing. If someone means "black lives don't matter" then say that. same for "not all men". 

These phrases are co-opted to make conversation difficult. Its a form of double-speak (from 1984) where the language has been modified to make it impossible to express certain ideas. 






sokillme said:


> Depends on which definition you are talking about when it comes to "nice guys", the term has come to mean passive aggressive men, who like to call themselves "nice guys". As in why not me I'm a "nice guy".


----------



## uhtred

I'm always serious.
seriously though, I am serious about this. 



tech-novelist said:


> Ha ha, very funny!
> 
> (On the off-chance that you are serious, you have a lot to learn about intersexual behavior. You can start with therationalmale.com.)


----------



## sokillme

uhtred said:


> I try to resist redefining terms because they can lead to confusion.
> 
> "nice guy" should mean a guy who is well, nice. If someone wants to talk about a passive-aggressive guy, then they should use that term. Otherwise some people take a phrase with a clear meaning and interpret it to mean something else.
> 
> Similarly "all lives matter" is actually a good thing. If someone means "black lives don't matter" then say that. same for "not all men".
> 
> These phrases are co-opted to make conversation difficult. Its a form of double-speak (from 1984) where the language has been modified to make it impossible to express certain ideas.


Maybe is "should mean that" but it doesn't anymore to a great many people. You really don't have any control over that. There is a whole book with the word Nice Guy in the title which is all about this. It is recommend quite a lot on here. Languages change over time. Gay use to mean happy. So on and so forth.


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> RT, I agree that women's empowerment is largely the key to their living happier lives.
> 
> I think the risk for men is that if they do not improve their relationship skills, they may risk becoming optional in women's lives.


Your misandry is showing.


----------



## Red Sonja

tech-novelist said:


> The problem is that female sexual response is not tuned to modern life. It is tuned to life before the last 100 years, in which high testosterone was a survival trait, at least if the man with high-T survived to adulthood. That is because life was very hard and dangerous, thus weeding out softer men. A woman needed a strong man to defend her and her children from the (overall much more violent) society. And softer, less masculine men were less likely to survive at all, or to have surviving offspring if they did.


:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

That website should be called theirrationalmale.com if they are peddling this crap.


----------



## tech-novelist

Red Sonja said:


> :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
> 
> That website should be called theirrationalmale.com if they are peddling this crap.


The purpose of therationalmale.com is to help men understand and deal with women's actual behavior, and it is pretty good at that subject. Of course most women don't like it.


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> Your misandry is showing.


Oh, please.


----------



## Married but Happy

Red Sonja said:


> :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
> 
> That website should be called theirrationalmale.com if they are peddling this crap.


So, rather than just dismiss it, how would you interpret this rationally? It seems that there is at least some truth to the statement - where does it depart from that?


----------



## NobodySpecial

southbound said:


> I’ve been browsing some dating sites lately, and I notice that a lot of women have to state on their profile that they don’t want any nonsense. One statement that got my attention was this:
> 
> “Oh my god needing to update: here is my request..... Please... For the love of god please just be normal. Apparently that's really way too much to ask for on here. Normal, people.... NORMAL.”
> 
> I have also seen, “I don’t do drama and am not looking for any.”
> 
> One lady wrote, “I’m so tired of men who play games, I’ve been hurt too many times and am ready for a kind, honest man.”
> 
> I’ve noticed that a lot of women complain about guy’s behavior. They often ask, where have all the good guys gone? One of the main things I see written is that women want someone who is honest and caring; they don’t want cheaters, liars, and players.
> 
> I’ve noticed similar attitudes from women where I live too; it seems like women complain about men’s character, but I don’t really see women lining up at the honest, nice guy’s door either. I’ve seen women become single, and the first thing they go for is a jerk. So, what’s that all about?


The things guys will do on dating sites is wild. Ask you on the first IM when you are going to give them a BJ. Send you a c0ck shot. Pester the **** out of you to go out with them when you have already said no. The list goes on and on. There are a lot of weird ass dudes on dating sites. And there are a lot of guys who think dating (which to them just means sex) is a "numbers game". So if you send enough c0ck shots, you will eventually get some. Just nuts.


----------



## uhtred

Its not that common yet, I hadn't heard it until this board.

What then is the new phrase to describe someone who is actually a nice guy?





sokillme said:


> Maybe is "should mean that" but it doesn't anymore to a great many people. You really don't have any control over that. There is a whole book with the word Nice Guy in the title which is all about this. It is recommend quite a lot on here. Languages change over time. Gay use to mean happy. So on and so forth.


----------



## sokillme

uhtred said:


> Its not that common yet, I hadn't heard it until this board.
> 
> What then is the new phrase to describe someone who is actually a nice guy?


You've must have to have heard the book, "No More Mr. Nice Guy". It is mentioned a lot on here. That phrase is used all through it in exactly the context I am referring to, including in the title. I have seen it other places as well. I believe Reddit has a sub under this title and in the same context. As in here is why nice guys are not that. 

Here you go.

I actually believe lots of the woman posting on this are a different side of the same coin though. I think both sides have no empathy for each other, and no introspection and self awareness at all. 

I say good guys. Personally I don't care if I am nice or not.


----------



## Red Sonja

Married but Happy said:


> So, rather than just dismiss it, how would you interpret this rationally? It seems that there is at least some truth to the statement - where does it depart from that?


I can only speak for myself and the other women I have known in my life.

We were/are looking for life-partners … not protectors and providers. Put aside the portion of sexual attraction due to physical appearance (because it’s too complex and varied to quantify) and keep in mind that most of us never engaged in casual sex (unless we knew it was going to be good sex). In that context, the men we were attracted to (beyond eye-candy) were matched to us in values, interests and personal character.

Society and culture are very different that 100 years ago and women have evolved along with it. Life is still “hard” to some degree for a lot of people however it is rarely “dangerous” for most. Women do not need nor are we (universally) sexually attracted to the same things as women were 100 years ago. I personally have never had a protector or provider. I do not need a provider; I can imagine a few situations in which a protector would be a good thing to have but I have not experienced it in my life so I can only speculate.


----------



## Blondilocks

Instead of saying "no jerks" or only "normal guys", they need to define what they consider to be a jerk or normal. Because one person's trash is another person's treasure.


----------



## Mclane

NobodySpecial said:


> The things guys will do on dating sites is wild. Ask you on the first IM when you are going to give them a BJ. Send you a c0ck shot. Pester the **** out of you to go out with them when you have already said no. The list goes on and on. There are a lot of weird ass dudes on dating sites. And there are a lot of guys who think dating (which to them just means sex) is a "numbers game". So if you send enough c0ck shots, you will eventually get some. Just nuts.


Those aren't guys looking to date women. They're dysfunctional losers who are probably afraid to so much as even approach or speak to a real life woman, they hide in the anonymity provided by the internet and vent their pent up sexual frustration by lashing out at innocent women on dating websites because they're easy targets. Of course there are just as many dysfunctional, desperate women out there who just might respond. Those are the types that meet up for quickies in parking lots. It's not much, but for them it's everything.


----------



## sokillme

Red Sonja said:


> I can only speak for myself and the other women I have known in my life.
> 
> We were/are looking for life-partners … not protectors and providers. Put aside the portion of sexual attraction due to physical appearance (because it’s too complex and varied to quantify) and keep in mind that most of us never engaged in casual sex (unless we knew it was going to be good sex). In that context, the men we were attracted to (beyond eye-candy) were matched to us in values, interests and personal character.
> 
> Society and culture are very different that 100 years ago and women have evolved along with it. Life is still “hard” to some degree for a lot of people however it is rarely “dangerous” for most. Women do not need nor are we (universally) sexually attracted to the same things as women were 100 years ago. I personally have never had a protector or provider. I do not need a provider; I can imagine a few situations in which a protector would be a good thing to have but I have not experienced it in my life so I can only speculate.


Interesting but you understand that a lot of men get a great sense of self worth by being those things. Just like woman get something from being nurturing, what they call the maternal instinct. Of course I am generalizing. 

I see my role as still a provider it is just that I am somewhat of an emotional provider for her. The same goes for protection. I am an emotional protection for her as well. 

For example my wife can be very emotional and dramatic as a first reaction (she will tell you this), I see those times as when I have to be calm and provide a stable anchor for her. So I may also be thinking "holy sh*t" but I will keep that on me and try to focus on the best outcome. This is just one example of what I am talking about.


----------



## sokillme

Mclane said:


> Those aren't guys looking to date women. They're dysfunctional losers who are probably afraid to so much as even approach or speak to a real life woman, they hide in the anonymity provided by the internet and vent their pent up sexual frustration by lashing out at innocent women on dating websites because they're easy targets. Of course there are just as many dysfunctional, desperate women out there who just might respond. Those are the types that meet up for quickies in parking lots. It's not much, but for them it's everything.


I think you would be surprised at how many woman go for this kind of stuff, especially if the guy is good looking. They (the guys) wouldn't do it if it didn't work. Remember lots of the world is broken. It also a different world out there then 40 years ago.


----------



## Married but Happy

Red Sonja said:


> I can only speak for myself and the other women I have known in my life.
> 
> We were/are looking for life-partners … not protectors and providers. Put aside the portion of sexual attraction due to physical appearance (because it’s too complex and varied to quantify) and keep in mind that most of us never engaged in casual sex (unless we knew it was going to be good sex). In that context, the men we were attracted to (beyond eye-candy) were matched to us in values, interests and personal character.
> 
> Society and culture are very different that 100 years ago and women have evolved along with it. Life is still “hard” to some degree for a lot of people however it is rarely “dangerous” for most. Women do not need nor are we (universally) sexually attracted to the same things as women were 100 years ago. I personally have never had a protector or provider. I do not need a provider; I can imagine a few situations in which a protector would be a good thing to have but I have not experienced it in my life so I can only speculate.


I agree with what you're saying, with one exception. I would say that women have adapted to the social and cultural changes, but have not evolved - that takes tens of thousands of years, at least. So, the evolved imperatives really haven't changed, and won't for a long time. Since we are very much driven by culture, attitudes have changed quickly, but that can just mean there are some conflicts with our underlying - evolved - nature (for both men and women).


----------



## Steve1000

southbound said:


> I’ve noticed that a lot of women complain about guy’s behavior. They often ask, where have all the good guys gone? One of the main things I see written is that women want someone who is honest and caring; they don’t want cheaters, liars, and players.
> 
> ................but I don’t really see women lining up at the honest, nice guy’s door either. I’ve seen women become single, and the first thing they go for is a jerk. So, what’s that all about?


That's one of the things that turned me off to online dating. Four or five years ago before I was married, I created a fake dating profile and a "bad boy" with my photo, albeit a photo in which my face was too dark to be recognizable. I went from getting zero replies to more replies than I could keep up with.


----------



## Red Sonja

sokillme said:


> Interesting but you understand that a lot of men get a great sense of self worth by being those things. Just like woman get something from being nurturing, what they call the maternal instinct. Of course I am generalizing.
> 
> I see my role as still a provider it is just that I am somewhat of an emotional provider for her. The same goes for protection. I am an emotional protection for her as well.


I see nothing to disagree about in this. I can only say that a man who derives a large portion of his self-worth from financially providing for me would simply not be a good match for me (or him).

I am also a nurturer and the focus for that part of me is my personal relationships. I also have parts that need to create, build and problem-solve and that part is satisfied through my career and hobbies.


----------



## sokillme

Red Sonja said:


> I see nothing to disagree about in this. I can only say that a man who derives a large portion of his self-worth from financially providing for me would simply not be a good match for me (or him).
> 
> I am also a nurturer and the focus for that part of me is my personal relationships. I also have parts that need to create, build and problem-solve and that part is satisfied through my career and hobbies.


To me there is a lot more to providing then just financial, though for sure financial has something to do with it.


----------



## MEM2020

I'd add a zero to this post - and say that: going back 1,000 years: Aggression mattered more, and rape was more common. 

That is a mere 50 generations - out of two hundred thousand generations (4 million years) of evolution. 

A different way of saying it is that for 99.975 percent of our evolutionary history - size, strength and aggression mattered more than intelligence - humor - faithfulness. 

It's also true that the typical 'nice guy' is WAY more controlling and clingy than he realizes.




tech-novelist said:


> The problem is that female sexual response is not tuned to modern life. It is tuned to life before the last 100 years, in which high testosterone was a survival trait, at least if the man with high-T survived to adulthood. That is because life was very hard and dangerous, thus weeding out softer men. A woman needed a strong man to defend her and her children from the (overall much more violent) society. And softer, less masculine men were less likely to survive at all, or to have surviving offspring if they did.
> 
> It is also an inconvenient truth that many women even earlier in history didn't have much of a choice as to which men they would have sex with. There was a lot of rape (much more than in today's so-called "rape culture"), especially in war. So women who were able to switch allegiances easily had a better chance of survival. This explains the apparently bewildering ease with which at least some women switch allegiances from one man to another.
> 
> This isn't pretty, but it is true.


----------



## uhtred

Evolution of behavior can happen very quickly. Search wikipedia for 
"Russian domesticated red foxes" .

Basically some scientists ran a breeding program for foxes to try to select for pet-like behaviors. After 50 years of breeding they have foxes that behave completely differently from their wild ancestors, they act a lot like pets.

So this sort of evolution in humans could be imagined to occur on the same sort of timescales that civilization develops. 

That isn't to say it *has* happened, but it is quite possible that the base personalities of people to day are very different that they were a few centuries ago. 




Married but Happy said:


> I agree with what you're saying, with one exception. I would say that women have adapted to the social and cultural changes, but have not evolved - that takes tens of thousands of years, at least. So, the evolved imperatives really haven't changed, and won't for a long time. Since we are very much driven by culture, attitudes have changed quickly, but that can just mean there are some conflicts with our underlying - evolved - nature (for both men and women).


----------



## sokillme

uhtred said:


> Evolution of behavior can happen very quickly. Search wikipedia for
> "Russian domesticated red foxes" .
> 
> Basically some scientists ran a breeding program for foxes to try to select for pet-like behaviors. After 50 years of breeding they have foxes that behave completely differently from their wild ancestors, they act a lot like pets.
> 
> So this sort of evolution in humans could be imagined to occur on the same sort of timescales that civilization develops.
> 
> That isn't to say it *has* happened, but it is quite possible that the base personalities of people to day are very different that they were a few centuries ago.


But is that evolution or just adaptation. They are still foxes. Saw a great documentary about this I believe it was about dogs too.


----------



## uhtred

New pups would behave differently than their ancestors under the same conditions. So it was an inherited trait. I think that counts as evolution. 

(usual caveats about whether the experiment was done correctly).




sokillme said:


> But is that evolution or just adaptation. They are still foxes. Saw a great documentary about this I believe it was about dogs too.


----------



## wild jade

MEM11363 said:


> I'd add a zero to this post - and say that: going back 1,000 years: Aggression mattered more, and rape was more common.
> 
> That is a mere 50 generations - out of two hundred thousand generations (4 million years) of evolution.
> 
> A different way of saying it is that for 99.975 percent of our evolutionary history - size, strength and aggression mattered more than intelligence - humor - faithfulness.
> 
> It's also true that the typical 'nice guy' is WAY more controlling and clingy than he realizes.


Speed, agility and brains win out over size, strength and aggression. Every. Single. Time.

This idea that humans are all the product of rapists and their victims is a pretty skewed vision of our history IMHO.


----------



## turnera

tech-novelist said:


> The problem is that female sexual response is not tuned to modern life. It is tuned to life before the last 100 years, in which high testosterone was a survival trait, at least if the man with high-T survived to adulthood. That is because life was very hard and dangerous, thus weeding out softer men. A woman needed a strong man to defend her and her children from the (overall much more violent) society. And softer, less masculine men were less likely to survive at all, or to have surviving offspring if they did.
> 
> It is also an inconvenient truth that many women even earlier in history didn't have much of a choice as to which men they would have sex with. There was a lot of rape (much more than in today's so-called "rape culture"), especially in war. So women who were able to switch allegiances easily had a better chance of survival. This explains the apparently bewildering ease with which at least some women switch allegiances from one man to another.
> 
> This isn't pretty, but it is true.


I COMPLETELY agree. In addition, it takes centuries, if not thousands of years, for such biological, DNA-level needs to change. Women won't stop 'wanting' strong men, if ever, for many many centuries.

The bad thing is that that is not the world we now live in. Women have power now. NPR had a story this week that said that, for the first time ever, more women are going to college than men. And they see no change in sight. Scary future, indeed.

I'm glad I won't be around to see the disaster.


----------



## tech-novelist

turnera said:


> I COMPLETELY agree. In addition, it takes centuries, if not thousands of years, for such biological, DNA-level needs to change. Women won't stop 'wanting' strong men, if ever, for many many centuries.
> 
> The bad thing is that that is not the world we now live in. Women have power now. NPR had a story this week that said that, for the first time ever, more women are going to college than men. And they see no change in sight. Scary future, indeed.
> 
> I'm glad I won't be around to see the disaster.


Well, I'm in my mid-late 60's and I think I may very well see the end of this trend, which I believe will be much more abrupt than anyone expects.

One way it could end is if men desert the marital market en masse. Another way is if the public perception of risk rises substantially, which will immediately raise the desirability of "ordinary men" to women.

But I think Dalrock has it right: 

"Feminism has become a central organizing force for western culture. Nearly every decision public and private must consider feminism first, and everything else second. This is true for everything from our last ditch nuclear deterrent to men’s entertainment. Even the Word of God must kneel before the word of feminists. The reason this doesn’t come to mind for most people is it is everywhere. It seems normal, if not natural.

What is too easy to forget is that this is artificial, and therefore requires constant effort to maintain. Feminism didn’t demolish a barrier between two seas and let the water levels adjust; it is a massive pumping operation. Turn off the pumps even for a little bit and reality will come flooding back."

See https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/...age-is-strangling-the-feminist-welfare-state/ for part of his analysis.


----------



## turnera

Hmmm. I wasn't even talking about feminism. Which is about women taking their power from men. This is about day-to-day decisions to make each individual's life better.


----------



## Hopeful Cynic

uhtred said:


> Its not that common yet, I hadn't heard it until this board.
> 
> What then is the new phrase to describe someone who is actually a nice guy?


I think it's 'kind man' now.

The 'nice guy' is someone who does good things for his crush with the expectation of being rewarded later, preferably sexually. Then, when the crush doesn't respond as expected, the nice guy whines that he does all these good things so why won't anybody love him?? Proving that he isn't actually an altruistic person, but only acting selfishly.

A kind man is someone who does good things for everybody because it's the right thing to do, without expectation of any reward or broadcasting the good deed.

As for the related topic at hand, I think women are probably tired of encountering jerks, but aren't willing to examine what factors they did to encourage the jerks, so they just blame the men for being jerks. Women are attracted to confidence, which is easily confused with arrogance.

But yeah, I agree that anyone who puts in her profile that she's tired of jerks and only wants honest people to contact her is just going to attract more jerks.

Same goes for men advertising that they only want non-crazy women to contact them because they don't want drama. That sort of request just invites drama.

So in both cases, the request is really a self-fulfilling prophecy, because jerks and crazies are more likely to respond, reinforcing the despair the 'victim' feels at only encountering the undesired type of person.


----------



## MEM2020

Turnera,

Thing about all this is that - real strength - is often poorly defined in a marital context. 

The single most commonly thing I see on TAM - is men suggesting the use of male on male power plays - with their poorly performing ( smile ) wives. 






turnera said:


> I COMPLETELY agree. In addition, it takes centuries, if not thousands of years, for such biological, DNA-level needs to change. Women won't stop 'wanting' strong men, if ever, for many many centuries.
> 
> The bad thing is that that is not the world we now live in. Women have power now. NPR had a story this week that said that, for the first time ever, more women are going to college than men. And they see no change in sight. Scary future, indeed.
> 
> I'm glad I won't be around to see the disaster.


----------



## tech-novelist

turnera said:


> Hmmm. I wasn't even talking about feminism. Which is about women taking their power from men. This is about day-to-day decisions to make each individual's life better.


But it is only *because *of feminism that women can take power from men. And women taking power from men is what causes the problems you have just mentioned.

So these two issues are really the same issue.


----------



## heartsbeating

farsidejunky said:


> This.
> 
> It is the very same thing that leads a man to pursue a hot yet BSC female...lust and attraction, tying up our common sense as we ignore the red flags.


I can't resist.. what does BSC stand for?


----------



## Red Sonja

@tech-novelist your last two posts are on par with the worst gobbledygook I have read authored by the so-called "radical feminists".

I am just :scratchhead:, what are you on about?


----------



## sokillme

tech-novelist said:


> Well, I'm in my mid-late 60's and I think I may very well see the end of this trend, which I believe will be much more abrupt than anyone expects.
> 
> One way it could end is if men desert the marital market en masse. Another way is if the public perception of risk rises substantially, which will immediately raise the desirability of "ordinary men" to women.
> 
> But I think Dalrock has it right:
> 
> "Feminism has become a central organizing force for western culture. Nearly every decision public and private must consider feminism first, and everything else second. This is true for everything from our last ditch nuclear deterrent to men’s entertainment. Even the Word of God must kneel before the word of feminists. The reason this doesn’t come to mind for most people is it is everywhere. It seems normal, if not natural.
> 
> What is too easy to forget is that this is artificial, and therefore requires constant effort to maintain. Feminism didn’t demolish a barrier between two seas and let the water levels adjust; it is a massive pumping operation. Turn off the pumps even for a little bit and reality will come flooding back."
> 
> See https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/...age-is-strangling-the-feminist-welfare-state/ for part of his analysis.


Personally I think the biggest change in the next 50 years having to do with marital market is going to be the sexbots. They are coming (no pun intended) and once the stigma goes away which it will in about on generation, lots of men are just going to tune out. 

Marriage will be for the few.

In general I think feminism has been a great development in the history of civilization. This whole taking power thing is just week, you're men compete. I do however think this new form of modern feminism with the micro aggressions and such is not really good for anyone.


----------



## heartsbeating

SimplyAmorous said:


> My Nice guy doesn't do anything high risk, not really...I'm pretty content with that...I wouldn't even want him to own a motorcycle to be honest..I want to make it to our rocking chairs together..


My husband is a volunteer firefighter. I tried to talk him _out_ of doing it because of my fear. Of course he still did it and as he went through training, shared various things to reassure me. I've also gotten to know and trust the crew. They are good people. Level-headed, calm in emergencies and have each others backs. They have their sh!t together. I feel a great amount of respect and admiration for them. They wouldn't consider what they do as anything special. He's seen paramedics stopping for lunch and paid their bill... in his eyes, they're the heroes. In my eyes, he's amongst them. That's much too cheesy for him to digest.

He will readily admit that he has moments of being a jerk and moments of being a good-guy. He terms himself a mixed-bag. I'd say most of us are.


----------



## TAM2013

Red Sonja;16153153[B said:


> ]I can only speak for myself and the other women I have known in my life.[/B]
> 
> We were/are looking for life-partners … not protectors and providers. Put aside the portion of sexual attraction due to physical appearance (because it’s too complex and varied to quantify) and keep in mind that *most of us never engaged in casual sex (unless we knew it was going to be good sex).* In that context, the men we were attracted to (beyond eye-candy) were matched to us in values, interests and personal character.


So you've just confirmed what therationalmale.com and the rest of the manosphere is trying to drill into the heads of blue pill nice guys.


----------



## Blondilocks

heartsbeating said:


> I can't resist.. what does BSC stand for?


Bat Shiite Crazy


----------



## Red Sonja

TAM2013 said:


> So you've just confirmed what therationalmale.com and the rest of the manosphere is trying to drill into the heads of blue pill nice guys.


Care to explain this? I am not sure I understand your meaning.


"most of us never engaged in casual sex (unless we knew it was going to be good sex)."

Perhaps I should explain my statement further. What I mean is that (for some women, myself included) casual sex rarely has any appeal because we know that most of the time the other person has no interest in *mutual *enjoyment of the act. We don't expect a relative stranger to be interested in our sexual pleasure.


----------



## NotEasy

heartsbeating said:


> I can't resist.. what does BSC stand for?


Bat Sh1t Crazy

or maybe for your avatar Beautiful Sensual Catwoman


----------



## farsidejunky

heartsbeating said:


> I can't resist.. what does BSC stand for?


Bat Sh!t Crazy


----------



## farsidejunky

NotEasy said:


> ...or maybe for your avatar Beautiful Sensual Catwoman


Um, I mean, this!


----------



## ReformedHubby

I guess I feel like this women only like jerks thing is way overblown. I am actually a lot more Wayne Brady than I am Tupac and I never had any problems. I think it is more about personality type than alpha vs beta. Extroverts meet more women than introverts. Growing up there was no internet, if you wanted the pretty girl you actually had to talk to her. If she wasn't interested move on. A woman isn't obligated to go out with you just because you would be nice to her. Too many men think this. A lot of the introverted shy guys either rarely approached anyone because they were too nervous, or worse they would get stuck trying to woo the same girl for months or even years. Even when she told them she wasn't interested.


----------



## wild jade

turnera said:


> I COMPLETELY agree. In addition, it takes centuries, if not thousands of years, for such biological, DNA-level needs to change. Women won't stop 'wanting' strong men, if ever, for many many centuries.
> 
> The bad thing is that that is not the world we now live in. Women have power now. NPR had a story this week that said that, for the first time ever, more women are going to college than men. And they see no change in sight. Scary future, indeed.
> 
> I'm glad I won't be around to see the disaster.


It's a disaster that women are going to college? Wow!


----------



## TAM2013

Red Sonja said:


> Perhaps I should explain my statement further. What I mean is that (for some women, myself included) casual sex rarely has any appeal because we know that most of the time the other person has no interest in *mutual *enjoyment of the act. We don't expect a relative stranger to be interested in our sexual pleasure.


Well this is very nice Red Sonja, but not my experience at all. Nice guys with commitment in mind get shafted while the jerks get to treat the girl like a piece of meat, quickly and for free.

"If men can sleep around, why can't we". Equally, If women can behave like jerks, why can't we.

It's very, very sad to say but in 2016, behaving like a jerk has your back because in the dating market, the woman is almost always already behaving like one.


----------



## wild jade

TAM2013 said:


> Well this is very nice Red Sonja, but not my experience at all. Nice guys with commitment in mind get shafted while the jerks get to treat the girl like a piece of meat, quickly and for free.
> 
> "If men can sleep around, why can't we". Equally, If women can behave like jerks, why can't we.
> 
> It's very, very sad to say but in 2016, behaving like a jerk has your back because in the dating market, the woman is almost always already behaving like one.


So men have to be jerks because women are jerks? Wow again.

Where am I?


----------



## TAM2013

wild jade said:


> Where am I?


Planet Red Pill.


----------



## turnera

wild jade said:


> It's a disaster that women are going to college? Wow!


No, I'm talking about the gender confusion that's in store when 75% of the workforce becomes female and the men, who are used to being the ones to support the family (pre-1980s) don't know what to do with themselves. There's already a lot of talk in the sociology community about how SAHDs or lower-earning men will work out in the long run.


----------



## jld

TAM2013 said:


> Well this is very nice Red Sonja, but not my experience at all. Nice guys with commitment in mind get shafted while the jerks get to treat the girl like a piece of meat, quickly and for free.
> 
> "If men can sleep around, why can't we". Equally, If women can behave like jerks, why can't we.
> 
> It's very, very sad to say but in 2016, behaving like a jerk has your back because in the dating market, the woman is almost always already behaving like one.


I have known a lot of nice women in churches. I think some of you guys are looking in the wrong places, or for the wrong things.


----------



## alexm

wild jade said:


> So men have to be jerks because women are jerks? Wow again.
> 
> Where am I?


Other way around. Fight fire with fire - which is effective, but not always the best option.

Women being jerks, out for themselves, sleeping around because they want to, all of that - things men have been doing for generations upon generations.

Either gender has been told what their role is in life since the dawn of time. Turns out men and women really aren't that different after all when it comes to needs and wants and desires.

Now you have jerks of either gender, which is unfortunate.

It is what it is, and it will right itself at some point in the coming generations.

What the world needs is less jerks, regardless of gender, and that will come at some point, probably long after most of us are gone. But for now, it's the world's way of balancing things out.


----------



## Rowan

I know many gentlemen will find this shocking, but there's an incredible number of men in the dating world doing the exact same thing the OP accuses women of doing. I lost track of the numbers of men's online dating profiles that robustly proclaimed their distaste with drama, psycos, crazies, fatties, gold-diggers, and on and on. Mostly in a fairly irate and hostile tone. In my experience, anyone - male or female - that approaches life that way has a few issues of their own, and is likely to find themselves attracting, and attracted to, the very things they say they don't want.

And, fellas, let me assure you that there are a whole lot of nice, stable, financially independent, emotionally healthy women who don't get many dates. Why? Because plenty of people of both genders are terrifically shallow, intensely unaware of themselves, and completely blind to their own motivations. I know way too many men who say they want a nice girl, but will go for the BSC 10 over the sane and stable 7 every time. They're continually complaining that all the women they meet are crazy or too high-maintenance, but women who aren't are all but invisible to them. 

The trick, then, is to be emotionally healthy, self-aware, and to pay attention not only to what people say, but to how they behave. So that you can simply move along immediately when you encounter anyone in the dating pool that is clearly broadcasting that they're _not_ healthy, self-aware, or paying attention.


----------



## TAM2013

But Alex, if anyone still thinks the average man sleeps around more than the average woman, they're kidding themselves.

An average woman can click her fingers (or mouse) and get as many sexual partners as she wants, very easily. It's not an achievement. She knows it, society has words for it and men are reluctant to commit with that knowledge. That's why women round down.

For an average man to get anywhere near the same access to women (whether he takes advantage of it or not) he has to be exceptional, not average at all. It's a massive achievement of sorts. Society has words for him. Confident, successful, a genius. Women value confident and successful so it pays to exaggerate. It's not a deal breaker for women. Be over confident if you have to. Be a jerk. Being a jerk is the closest most men get to this status.

Those old stats for lifetime partners were always skewed because of the above. And the stats now? All I can say is there are some huge jerks getting a lot of action.

The only way I see things balancing out is if men reject marriage and commitment across the board and stop behaving like jerks themselves. But there's always lesser jerks to fill the void the selfish jerks left so I can't see it happening any time soon.


----------



## samyeagar

uhtred said:


> Yes, this has been a mystery to me too. There is this strange idea that "nice guys" are boring.
> 
> In my experience the nice guys are more likely to be able to plan their lives to do really interesting things.


For many of these types of people, it's not the excitement of things like ziplining, motorcycle riding, mountain climbing that they are after...Some people thrive on conflict. In part, they are addicted to their own chemicals...the fight or flight response flood of hormones...they don't necessarily like the lows, but they need them because they are addicted to the highs which is why they keep coming back, and picking partners who provide that contrast for them.

Nice people don't typically trigger that fight or flight response. Stability doesn't provide the conflict that triggers the chemicals they want.


----------



## wild jade

turnera said:


> No, I'm talking about the gender confusion that's in store when 75% of the workforce becomes female and the men, who are used to being the ones to support the family (pre-1980s) don't know what to do with themselves. There's already a lot of talk in the sociology community about how SAHDs or lower-earning men will work out in the long run.


Oh. Well given that the cost of living is only going up and up, I think there will always be lots of need for pretty much everyone to work their butts off. No time to ponder one's gender role.

And if there is, they can always go for a round of golf.


----------



## ReformedHubby

TAM2013 said:


> For an average man to get anywhere near the same access to women (whether he takes advantage of it or not) he has to be exceptional, not average at all. It's a massive achievement of sorts. Society has words for him. Confident, successful, a genius. Women value confident and successful so it pays to exaggerate. It's not a deal breaker for women. Be over confident if you have to. Be a jerk. Being a jerk is the closest most men get to this status.


I do agree that successful men are generally more appealing to women. With that said I disagree with you when you say being a jerk gets a "regular" guy closer to that status. I think it would actually get him rejected more. IMO a successful jerk at least has his success going for him, so maybe some women will over look the fact that he is indeed a jerk. I think a regular guy is better off being charming than a jerk.


----------



## uhtred

I"m not sure. I suspect that the average man can have quite good luck if he doesn't have any particular standards for the women he is picking up. Same way that an average woman can pick up men if she doesn't have any standards.

Most people though do have standards and the greatly limits the availability of partners for casual sex. 




TAM2013 said:


> But Alex, if anyone still thinks the average man sleeps around more than the average woman, they're kidding themselves.
> 
> An average woman can click her fingers (or mouse) and get as many sexual partners as she wants, very easily. It's not an achievement. She knows it, society has words for it and men are reluctant to commit with that knowledge. That's why women round down.
> 
> For an average man to get anywhere near the same access to women (whether he takes advantage of it or not) he has to be exceptional, not average at all. It's a massive achievement of sorts. Society has words for him. Confident, successful, a genius. Women value confident and successful so it pays to exaggerate. It's not a deal breaker for women. Be over confident if you have to. Be a jerk. Being a jerk is the closest most men get to this status.
> 
> Those old stats for lifetime partners were always skewed because of the above. And the stats now? All I can say is there are some huge jerks getting a lot of action.
> 
> The only way I see things balancing out is if men reject marriage and commitment across the board and stop behaving like jerks themselves. But there's always lesser jerks to fill the void the selfish jerks left so I can't see it happening any time soon.


----------



## wild jade

Rowan said:


> I know many gentlemen will find this shocking, but there's an incredible number of men in the dating world doing the exact same thing the OP accuses women of doing. I lost track of the numbers of men's online dating profiles that robustly proclaimed their distaste with drama, psycos, crazies, fatties, gold-diggers, and on and on. Mostly in a fairly irate and hostile tone. In my experience, anyone - male or female - that approaches life that way has a few issues of their own, and is likely to find themselves attracting, and attracted to, the very things they say they don't want.
> 
> And, fellas, let me assure you that there are a whole lot of nice, stable, financially independent, emotionally healthy women who don't get many dates. Why? Because plenty of people of both genders are terrifically shallow, intensely unaware of themselves, and completely blind to their own motivations. I know way too many men who say they want a nice girl, but will go for the BSC 10 over the sane and stable 7 every time. They're continually complaining that all the women they meet are crazy or too high-maintenance, but women who aren't are all but invisible to them.
> 
> The trick, then, is to be emotionally healthy, self-aware, and to pay attention not only to what people say, but to how they behave. So that you can simply move along immediately when you encounter anyone in the dating pool that is clearly broadcasting that they're _not_ health, self-aware, or paying attention.


Bingo! Nailed it!

I knew this woman who was super hot and always had a swarm of guys around her doing her bidding. She wasn't interested in any of them, just used them to buy her things, take her out, run errands for her. 

The reason I knew her at all was this old friend of mine was into her. He lost a perfectly lovely girlfriend because he needed to chase after this hottie who treated him like garbage. He followed her around for years and years, doting on her, waiting for her to eventually realize that he was the one. She got married to a different guy, had a couple of kids, and still this guy doted on her. It wasn't until she gained weight and started losing her looks that he finally stopped. But instead of looking for someone else to date, he just retreated into porn.

Sad because he was a decent looking guy who had plenty of interest from women. But he ignored it all to be treated poorly by this selfish hot girl. And he wasn't the only one. Practically every guy she came into contact with tripped all over himself to impress her and cater to her whims.

Anyway, that's what I think of when I hear guys complain that women don't like nice guys. Packs of them waiting to be treated like chumps by a mean girl, just because she is hot, and blowing it with perfectly wonderful women in the process.


----------



## Buddy400

turnera said:


> No, I'm talking about the gender confusion that's in store when 75% of the workforce becomes female and the men, who are used to being the ones to support the family (pre-1980s) don't know what to do with themselves. There's already a lot of talk in the sociology community about how SAHDs or lower-earning men will work out in the long run.


I think the men will just use sexbots and play video games.

The problem for women will be finding men who they are attracted to.


----------



## uhtred

I don't know about sexbots. I could see it as going either way. It might become socially acceptable to have a sexbot, but I think it is just as likely that telling someone you had sex with a robot will be like telling them you used a fleshlight - not exactly something most men will brag about.

I think men show off their beautiful partners as a way of bragging about their achievement - "look what I managed to get". A sexbot doesn't fulfill that - it would just be something you rent / buy. At best like telling someone you hired an expensive hooker. 


BTW: personally, sexbots have no appeal to me except possibly in the context of using one like a sex toy with a real partner. 



sokillme said:


> Personally I think the biggest change in the next 50 years having to do with marital market is going to be the sexbots. They are coming (no pun intended) and once the stigma goes away which it will in about on generation, lots of men are just going to tune out.
> 
> Marriage will be for the few.
> 
> In general I think feminism has been a great development in the history of civilization. This whole taking power thing is just week, you're men compete. I do however think this new form of modern feminism with the micro aggressions and such is not really good for anyone.


----------



## wild jade

Buddy400 said:


> I think the men will just use sexbots and play video games.
> 
> The problem for women will be finding men who they are attracted to.


Do you think their parents will let them live in the basement that long?

How are they going to pay their rent?


----------



## wild jade

uhtred said:


> I don't know about sexbots. I could see it as going either way. It might become socially acceptable to have a sexbot, but I think it is just as likely that telling someone you had sex with a robot will be like telling them you used a fleshlight - not exactly something most men will brag about.
> 
> I think men show off their beautiful partners as a way of bragging about their achievement - "look what I managed to get". A sexbot doesn't fulfill that - it would just be something you rent / buy. At best like telling someone you hired an expensive hooker.
> 
> 
> BTW: personally, sexbots have no appeal to me except possibly in the context of using one like a sex toy with a real partner.


I knew a guy who had a sex doll for a girlfriend. One of those super high end living dolls.

He was kinda creepy. I was glad he had a sex doll for a girlfriend.


----------



## sokillme

uhtred said:


> I don't know about sexbots. I could see it as going either way. It might become socially acceptable to have a sexbot, but I think it is just as likely that telling someone you had sex with a robot will be like telling them you used a fleshlight - not exactly something most men will brag about.
> 
> I think men show off their beautiful partners as a way of bragging about their achievement - "look what I managed to get". A sexbot doesn't fulfill that - it would just be something you rent / buy. At best like telling someone you hired an expensive hooker.
> 
> 
> BTW: personally, sexbots have no appeal to me except possibly in the context of using one like a sex toy with a real partner.


Don't get me wrong I am not saying this is a good thing. I think it will be like a sports car though. Remember when porn was behind closed doors? Not anymore. The idea of free sex will always trump societal pressure for lots of people.


----------



## samyeagar

wild jade said:


> Do you think their parents will let them live in the basement that long?
> 
> How are they going to pay their rent?


At least for a while, the men who'd have a sexbot sure wouldn't be living in the basement, no have any problems paying their rent, because those things are going to be pretty pricey...the type of man who could afford one will likely have some characteristics that many women find extremely desirable.


----------



## Anon1111

Buddy400 said:


> I think the men will just use sexbots and play video games.
> 
> The problem for women will be finding men who they are attracted to.


lesbianism will rise to compensate somewhat


----------



## uhtred

I've seen videos and those things are so creepy. Its like necrophilia. Deep in the uncanny valley. 




wild jade said:


> I knew a guy who had a sex doll for a girlfriend. One of those super high end living dolls.
> 
> He was kinda creepy. I was glad he had a sex doll for a girlfriend.


----------



## farsidejunky

wild jade said:


> Do you think their parents will let them live in the basement that long?
> 
> How are they going to pay their rent?


Is social welfare and the standards for qualifying gradually becoming easier, or harder?


----------



## uhtred

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I don't tell people about my porn habits. 

I don't see sexbots as free sex. I seem them as masturbation aids. Or at absolute best like hiring prostitutes. 




sokillme said:


> Don't get me wrong I am not saying this is a good thing. I think it will be like a sports car though. Remember when porn was behind closed doors? Not anymore. The idea of free sex will always trump societal pressure for lots of people.


----------



## Anon1111

wild jade said:


> I knew a guy who had a sex doll for a girlfriend. One of those super high end living dolls.
> 
> He was kinda creepy. I was glad he had a sex doll for a girlfriend.


it's totally creepy and will always be creepy but it's a cost/benefit thing

the benefit to going this route now is low and the cost is high

as technology improves this will balance out more.

it will never balance out for men who are actually desirable to women, but over time it will take more and more men out of the market who are on the bottom rungs of the ladder.

these men will stop struggling to get the attention of women who are at the bottom of the ladder and just go the easier route

it won't really matter to the desirable people of either sex but it will have a significant effect on the less desirable portions of both sexes


----------



## TAM2013

uhtred said:


> I"m not sure. I suspect that the average man can have quite good luck if he doesn't have any particular standards for the women he is picking up. Same way that an average woman can pick up men if she doesn't have any standards.
> 
> Most people though do have standards and the greatly limits the availability of partners for casual sex.


Maybe. And that also doesn't account for men almost always trading down for casual, while women usually trade up. Did you ever hear the HB10 going out of her way to have sex with the skint 45 year old virgin, geek dude who lives with his mom? But the bad boy jerk won't have a shortage of women in need of validation/elevation to his perceived status.

Again, not a level playing field.


----------



## tech-novelist

sokillme said:


> In general I think feminism has been a great development in the history of civilization. This whole taking power thing is just week, you're men compete. I do however think this new form of modern feminism with the micro aggressions and such is not really good for anyone.


I can't agree with this at all. Feminism has been a disaster for modern civilization, just as it was for every other civilization where it was adopted. Read "Sex and Culture" by Unwin (https://archive.org/details/b20442580) for a study on this topic.

And of course I should have said not that women have taken power from men (because they couldn't and haven't) but that *some *men (men in power, a tiny part of the male population) have given power to women over men (mostly *other *men).


----------



## tech-novelist

wild jade said:


> Do you think their parents will let them live in the basement that long?
> 
> How are they going to pay their rent?


You forgot that they have tiny penises. Otherwise, great job propagating the shaming of men who don't do women's bidding!


----------



## tech-novelist

Red Sonja said:


> @tech-novelist your last two posts are on par with the worst gobbledygook I have read authored by the so-called "radical feminists".
> 
> I am just :scratchhead:, what are you on about?


Sorry, but facts are facts even if they are inconvenient.


----------



## sokillme

tech-novelist said:


> I can't agree with this at all. Feminism has been a disaster for modern civilization, just as it was for every other civilization where it was adopted. Read "Sex and Culture" by Unwin (https://archive.org/details/b20442580) for a study on this topic.
> 
> And of course I should have said not that women have taken power from men (because they couldn't and haven't) but that *some *men (men in power, a tiny part of the male population) have given power to women over men (mostly *other *men).


Well we can agree to disagree. I enjoy having a wife that is NOT my property but my partner the other seems obscene to me. I don't feel threatened by femininity, I quite like it, it adds so much to my life. I think that a lot of guys thing because woman have more power some now do bad things, the truth is there were always woman who did these things it was just swept under the table or hidden. Paternity fraud for instance has been going on for as long as there have been people, it's only in the last 50 years that we are more aware of this stuff. Are there abuses in the woman's movement, sure but there are abuses in all movements.

By the way sex and culture was published in 1934 think of how much our world has changed since then. Just doing laundry was an all day affair. There was no birth control. Society is not static. I would not put to much credence into a paper that talked about transportation written before the birth of the car.


----------



## uhtred

I'm quite happy that my wife has a professional career. For a fraction of her income we can pay for people to do the housework that a "traditional" wife would do. I'm glad that she can take care of herself and doesn't need me. I much prefer that we stay together because she wants me.


----------



## wild jade

samyeagar said:


> At least for a while, the men who'd have a sexbot sure wouldn't be living in the basement, no have any problems paying their rent, because those things are going to be pretty pricey...the type of man who could afford one will likely have some characteristics that many women find extremely desirable.


Oh, okay. So you mean that men in fact do want careers, to be productive members of society,and are absolutely able to commit themselves to a purpose and achieve their goals? 

They won't be all about sexbots and video games, even if women go to college and get jobs?

That's what I would assume too, but it seems a lot of people here think quite differently.


----------



## sokillme

wild jade said:


> Oh, okay. So you mean that men in fact do want careers, to be productive members of society,and are absolutely able to commit themselves to a purpose and achieve their goals?
> 
> They won't be all about sexbots and video games, even if women go to college and get jobs?
> 
> That's what I would assume too, but it seems a lot of people here think quite differently.


I think a lot of it will be about sexbots and video games. Video games are not bad though in moderation. It provides the modern man the ability to be a hunter, or a hero where modern life really doesn't. It is kind of like romance novels or chick flicks for men. 

Well maybe this is a good thing, it will weed out the losers. For some men though who have been burned badly I won't blame them.


----------



## wild jade

TAM2013 said:


> Maybe. And that also doesn't account for men almost always trading down for casual, while women usually trade up. Did you ever hear the HB10 going out of her way to have sex with the skint 45 year old virgin, geek dude who lives with his mom? But the bad boy jerk won't have a shortage of women in need of validation/elevation to his perceived status.
> 
> Again, not a level playing field.


Since when was 45 year old virgin geek dude who lives with his mom considered the pinnacle of manhood, deserving of the hottest hottest?

Is that really the choice? A guy who can't function worth beans or an ******* *********?

Maybe you need to reconsider your view of men.


----------



## wild jade

sokillme said:


> I think a lot of it will be about sexbots and video games. Video games are not bad though in moderation. It provides the modern man the ability to be a hunter, or a hero where modern life really doesn't. It is kind of like romance novels or chick flicks for men.
> 
> Well maybe this is a good thing, it will weed out the losers. For some men though who have been burned badly I won't blame them.


Nope, nothing wrong with video games. I love video games! GTA? I'm there.


----------



## Buddy400

wild jade said:


> Do you think their parents will let them live in the basement that long?


Apparently. It's already happening.



wild jade said:


> How are they going to pay their rent?


Their parents don't charge.

Worst case scenario, four of them find a cheap crash pad.


----------



## wild jade

Buddy400 said:


> Apparently. It's already happening.
> 
> 
> 
> Their parents don't charge.
> 
> Worst case scenario, four of them find a cheap crash pad.


If that's how they want to live their lives, and their parents are okay with supporting them forever, what's the problem?


----------



## Buddy400

wild jade said:


> Oh, okay. So you mean that men in fact do want careers, to be productive members of society,and are absolutely able to commit themselves to a purpose and achieve their goals?
> 
> They won't be all about sexbots and video games, even if women go to college and get jobs?
> 
> That's what I would assume too, but it seems a lot of people here think quite differently.


I don't think men have a problem with women going to college and getting jobs.

I think women may be having a problem only being attracted to men who have more successful jobs, making the pool of attractive men smaller.

The less attractive, less successful men will console themselves with video games and fleshlights.


----------



## Buddy400

wild jade said:


> If that's how they want to live their lives, and their parents are okay with supporting them forever, what's the problem?


There will only be a problem if women complain about the lack of suitable partners.

A bunch of other important social stuff will change. 

There's really nothing to do about it other than adapt.


----------



## Buddy400

Anon1111 said:


> it will never balance out for men who are actually desirable to women, but over time it will take more and more men out of the market who are on the bottom rungs of the ladder.
> 
> these men will stop struggling to get the attention of women who are at the bottom of the ladder and just go the easier route
> 
> it won't really matter to the desirable people of either sex but it will have a significant effect on the less desirable portions of both sexes





TAM2013 said:


> Maybe. And that also doesn't account for men almost always trading down for casual


I don't have a dog in this fight, but this stuff makes a lot of sense and seems very plausible.

Any counter arguments?


----------



## wild jade

Buddy400 said:


> I don't think men have a problem with women going to college and getting jobs.
> 
> I think women may be having a problem only being attracted to men who have more successful jobs, making the pool of attractive men smaller.
> 
> The less attractive, less successful men will console themselves with video games and fleshlights.


Oh, maybe I misunderstood then. I thought some people were saying that women going to college and getting jobs and having power was upsetting the entire social fabric, and made men feel like they were useless and had no role in society. So they want sex bots and video games instead. 

Did I get it wrong?


----------



## wild jade

Buddy400 said:


> There will only be a problem if women complain about the lack of suitable partners.
> 
> *A bunch of other important social stuff will change. *
> 
> There's really nothing to do about it other than adapt.


Like what? Hasn't there always been people who choose to stay single? Or who prefer to drop out of society rather than be a part of it?


----------



## wild jade

Buddy400 said:


> I don't have a dog in this fight, but this stuff makes a lot of sense and seems very plausible.
> 
> Any counter arguments?


I just wonder why someone who is identifying as a really nice guy who just wants commitment and a nice girl to love him is so worried about how hot the women he's going to have all this casual sex with are.

No arguments. I'm just confused about what people are looking for and where the problem is. :scratchhead:

If you want lots of casual sex with hot women, you can always pay for it.

ETA: It's interesting how this conversation has morphed from guys talking about how they would give a woman a pass because she says she wants someone normal to asserting that women do not want anyone normal, and that most men aren't attractive to women, and how men suffer because of this.

Maybe you might consider not rejecting that woman outright, just because she says she wants someone normal.


----------



## Anon1111

wild jade said:


> Oh, maybe I misunderstood then. I thought some people were saying that women going to college and getting jobs and having power was upsetting the entire social fabric, and made men feel like they were useless and had no role in society. So they want sex bots and video games instead.
> 
> Did I get it wrong?


I don't think it that any one sex is "doing it" to the other.

individuals are just doing the best they can with the opportunities that they perceive as being available to them.

it's a fact that women increasingly have opportunities that they lacked a few generations ago. 

this is positive for women.

men on the margin have probably lost some opportunities compared to men a few generations ago. this is negative for men when viewed in isolation (it may be positive for broader society though despite this).

the men on the margin who in the past might have been incentivized to work harder today might find their incentives point to working less.

when the opportunity for "success" seems remote, people tend to drop out of the game.

these are huge social phenomena like tides


----------



## Buddy400

wild jade said:


> Oh, maybe I misunderstood then. I thought some people were saying that women going to college and getting jobs and having power was upsetting the entire social fabric, and made men feel like they were useless and had no role in society. So they want sex bots and video games instead.
> 
> Did I get it wrong?


Men are mostly happy with women working and making money (usually even if it's more than they make).

Women generally want men who are successful, usually more successful than they are.

This should lead, logically, to there being less men that women are interested in.

This could leave a lot of men whom women are not interested in. Therefore, more men may find the process of finding a mate to be problematic. These men may give up the effort and not do those things which would make them more attractive to women.

Women could find the pool of men that they are attracted to shrinking. 

Fewer couples, less two parent families, less motivation for men to work hard, less women with satisfying relationships.

Widening the gap between the upper and lower classes.

Cats and Dogs living together..... mass hysteria!


----------



## norajane

You know, I spend a *lot *of time in meetings with other companies, and conferences with thousands of customers. You know what I see? Rooms full of men. 80-90% men. Highly paid men. It is thoroughly laughable that men are so afraid of women who now have opportunities to succeed. Men, men, men. Mostly white, but not all. Men are not marginalized - they are plentiful at EVERY level of EVERY company, which cannot be said for women.

Men have lost little to no power, money, or opportunity because women are going to college and working. Society - men and women - have gained a workforce with intelligence, creativity and drive. If there are men who feel they can't compete, maybe, just maybe, it's because they are spending their time playing video games in their parents' basement and worrying about why some women like jerks. Maybe if they spent their time hustling and networking and meeting people and taking classes to further their skills and working toward jobs they can succeed in, they would have more of the things they want, including meeting women who would appreciate their intelligence, creativity and drive.

I think men who live in fear of women taking away their power don't work to succeed or gain power, and find comfort in finding someone to blame. No one is owed success or power. Men are not by gender right or any right *owed *good jobs or good women.


----------



## Buddy400

norajane said:


> You know, I spend a *lot *of time in meetings with other companies, and conferences with thousands of customers. You know what I see? Rooms full of men. 80-90% men. Highly paid men. It is thoroughly laughable that men are so afraid of women who now have opportunities to succeed. Men, men, men. Mostly white, but not all. Men are not marginalized - they are plentiful at EVERY level of EVERY company, which cannot be said for women.
> 
> Men have lost little to no power, money, or opportunity because women are going to college and working. Society - men and women - have gained a workforce with intelligence, creativity and drive. If there are men who feel they can't compete, maybe, just maybe, it's because they are spending their time playing video games in their parents' basement and worrying about why some women like jerks. Maybe if they spent their time hustling and networking and meeting people and taking classes to further their skills and working toward jobs they can succeed in, they would have more of the things they want, including meeting women who would appreciate their intelligence, creativity and drive.
> 
> I think men who live in fear of women taking away their power don't work to succeed or gain power, and find comfort in finding someone to blame. No one is owed success or power. Men are not by gender right or any right *owed *good jobs or good women.


The guys you're seeing in those meetings are the "winners". They're doing fine. 

I think what guys want most is just to know what the new rules are; because the old ones stopped working.


----------



## wild jade

Buddy400 said:


> The guys you're seeing in those meetings are the "winners". They're doing fine.
> 
> I think what guys want most is just to know what the new rules are; because the old ones stopped working.


Gosh, I'm even more confused now. If getting a job is all it takes to be a winner, then why don't men just work towards good jobs? There's lots of them, and you can make your own too.

What were the old rules that aren't working anymore?


----------



## Anon1111

norajane said:


> You know, I spend a *lot *of time in meetings with other companies, and conferences with thousands of customers. You know what I see? Rooms full of men. 80-90% men. Highly paid men. It is thoroughly laughable that men are so afraid of women who now have opportunities to succeed. Men, men, men. Mostly white, but not all. Men are not marginalized - they are plentiful at EVERY level of EVERY company, which cannot be said for women.
> 
> Men have lost little to no power, money, or opportunity because women are going to college and working. Society - men and women - have gained a workforce with intelligence, creativity and drive. If there are men who feel they can't compete, maybe, just maybe, it's because they are spending their time playing video games in their parents' basement and worrying about why some women like jerks. Maybe if they spent their time hustling and networking and meeting people and taking classes to further their skills and working toward jobs they can succeed in, they would have more of the things they want, including meeting women who would appreciate their intelligence, creativity and drive.
> 
> I think men who live in fear of women taking away their power don't work to succeed or gain power, and find comfort in finding someone to blame. No one is owed success or power. Men are not by gender right or any right *owed *good jobs or good women.


you're looking at the wrong demographic

look instead at the guy who 2 generations ago could have supported a family single handedly by working in a factory with a high school diploma or less

those guys are the ones who are dropping out of society by various means (living in parents' basement, crime, drugs, prison, etc)

none of this is to suggest that any of these men deserves more. it's just a factual statement that there has been a displacement of these men from the opportunities that they would have once had available. 

that displacement has social costs, in particular in between the sexes.

women understandably don't find men who lack opportunity attractive.

to the extent there is an increasing share of the male population that lacks real opportunity, it is a corollary that an increasingly large share of men will not be realistic prospects for women by and large.

this has cascading effects throughout the dating market


----------



## norajane

Buddy400 said:


> The guys you're seeing in those meetings are the "winners". They're doing fine.
> 
> I think what guys want most is just to know what the new rules are; because the old ones stopped working.


The rules haven't changed. Men still hold most of the power in almost every company, so if some men aren't succeeding, they still need to look into themselves and figure out why they aren't succeeding because it sure isn't women that are holding them back from success. If anyone besides themselves is holding them back, it's still men who are doing the hiring and firing, promoting and downsizing.

Dating rules have changed somewhat. Some people, apparently, don't maintain wide ranging circles of friends and acquaintances and don't socialize in person anymore so they try to meet strangers online instead. I can't knock it entirely - my sister met her wonderful husband on eharmony when she moved to a new city for her job and didn't have many friends yet. But the behavior of most people who do online dating is the last thing that is going to help them find someone compatible. The best way to meet people you are compatible with is still to DO things you enjoy OUT of the house where you can engage with others who are like-minded.

Another change is that fewer women have a financial need for husbands, and fewer women are seeking a husband, any husband. Maybe that's what is confusing to some men - it's not a given that women will accept a guy playing video games (or whatever their vice is) just to have a guy.

IMO, it doesn't matter what perceived "rules" are. The people who are present and fully engaged in making their life choices are the ones who "win." Always have been, and always will be.


----------



## sokillme

wild jade said:


> Nope, nothing wrong with video games. I love video games! GTA? I'm there.


Have you played Red Dead Redemption. GTA but the wild west. Mass Effect is awesome too but you have to play all 3.


----------



## sokillme

Anon1111 said:


> I don't think it that any one sex is "doing it" to the other.
> 
> individuals are just doing the best they can with the opportunities that they perceive as being available to them.
> 
> it's a fact that women increasingly have opportunities that they lacked a few generations ago.
> 
> this is positive for women.
> 
> men on the margin have probably lost some opportunities compared to men a few generations ago. this is negative for men when viewed in isolation (it may be positive for broader society though despite this).
> 
> the men on the margin who in the past might have been incentivized to work harder today might find their incentives point to working less.
> 
> when the opportunity for "success" seems remote, people tend to drop out of the game.
> 
> these are huge social phenomena like tides


But why are these men unsuccessful. I don't believe it is because of the women. I believe it is because they don't know how to be successful. Again going back to having no fathers. They don't know how to compete, they don't know how to struggle, that internal confidence that comes from being a man, they had no example. When you are in your 30's and even 40's it is not too late. Get some training, do something to change this. Again it goes back to being passive. To many men are passive in today's society.


----------



## sokillme

Buddy400 said:


> The guys you're seeing in those meetings are the "winners". They're doing fine.
> 
> I think what guys want most is just to know what the new rules are; because the old ones stopped working.


I don't get this rules stuff. The rules are the same as they have always been, just be decent. Try to have empathy and give everyone a chance. I don't think it is that hard.


----------



## Anon1111

sokillme said:


> But why are these men unsuccessful. I don't believe it is because of the women. I believe it is because they don't know how to be successful. Again going back to having no fathers. They don't know how to compete, they don't know how to struggle, that internal confidence that comes from being a man, they had no example. When you are in your 30's and even 40's it is not too late. Get some training, do something to change this. Again it goes back to being passive. To many men are passive in today's society.


it is possible for any individual to succeed but it is not possible for all individuals to succeed


----------



## tech-novelist

sokillme said:


> Well we can agree to disagree. I enjoy having a wife that is NOT my property but my partner the other seems obscene to me. I don't feel threatened by femininity, I quite like it, it adds so much to my life. I think that a lot of guys thing because woman have more power some now do bad things, the truth is there were always woman who did these things it was just swept under the table or hidden. Paternity fraud for instance has been going on for as long as there have been people, it's only in the last 50 years that we are more aware of this stuff. Are there abuses in the woman's movement, sure but there are abuses in all movements.


My wife is not my property either. She's also not a feminist.

And paternity fraud was considered shameful in the past, which limited its reach and kept men from being legally victimized if they found out the truth. Now there are attempts (successful in some cases) to prevent men from even knowing that they have been victimized, and in a number of places the man has to pay regardless of proof that he is not the father.



sokillme said:


> By the way sex and culture was published in 1934 think of how much our world has changed since then. Just doing laundry was an all day affair. There was no birth control. Society is not static. I would not put to much credence into a paper that talked about transportation written before the birth of the car.


Most people think that feminism is new. It isn't. Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

Unwin's book is a historical survey of what happens when women are allowed to have sex with whomever they want. He covers dozens of cases. The results have been disastrous in *every *case, and we are beginning to see those disastrous results right now. I have no expectation that this time it will be different.

I also have no expectation that most people will realize the seriousness of the situation before calamity is upon us, since that is another thing that we learn from history: most people are very short-sighted. 

The question is only when and how we will reach the precipice. My best guess is that a lot of men will stop being involved with women in any way. Sexbots are certainly no substitute for a good relationship... but they are a superior substitute for being treated like a beast of burden with no rights.


----------



## sapientia

norajane said:


> The rules haven't changed. Men still hold most of the power in almost every company, so *if some men aren't succeeding, they still need to look into themselves and figure out why they aren't succeeding because it sure isn't women that are holding them back from success.* If anyone besides themselves is holding them back, it's still men who are doing the hiring and firing, promoting and downsizing.
> 
> The *people who are present and fully engaged in making their life choices are the ones who "win." *Always have been, and always will be.


Superb post, thanks @norajane.


----------



## sapientia

sokillme said:


> But why are these men unsuccessful. I don't believe it is because of the women. I believe it is because they don't know how to be successful. Again going back to having no fathers. They don't know how to compete, they don't know how to struggle, that internal confidence that comes from being a man, they had no example. When you are in your 30's and even 40's it is not too late. Get some training, do something to change this. Again it goes back to being passive. To many men are passive in today's society.


I'd be interested to learn more about how one is trained for success, to compete, to be confident.


----------



## tech-novelist

norajane said:


> You know, I spend a *lot *of time in meetings with other companies, and conferences with thousands of customers. You know what I see? Rooms full of apex men. 80-90% men. Highly paid apex men. It is thoroughly laughable that non-apex men are so afraid of women who now have opportunities to succeed. Men, men, men. Mostly white, but not all. Apex Men are not marginalized - they are plentiful at EVERY level of EVERY company, which cannot be said for women.
> 
> Apex Men have lost little to no power, money, or opportunity because women are going to college and working. Society - men and women - have gained a workforce with intelligence, creativity and drive. If there are non-apex men who feel they can't compete, maybe, just maybe, it's because they are spending their time playing video games in their parents' basement and worrying about why some women like jerks. Maybe if they spent their time hustling and networking and meeting people and taking classes to further their skills and working toward jobs they can succeed in, they would have more of the things they want, including meeting women who would appreciate their intelligence, creativity and drive.
> 
> I think non-apex men who live in fear of women taking away their power don't work to succeed or gain power, and find comfort in finding someone to blame. No one is owed success or power. Men are not by gender right or any right *owed *good jobs or good women.


This is a textbook example of the apex fallacy.

Yes, *some *men have a lot of power. They are *apex men*.

*Most *men have no power.

Women don't notice the men who don't have any power.

Thus, they can truthfully say that they don't understand why men would think they don't have any power, because they don't see the men who don't have any power.


----------



## tech-novelist

sokillme said:


> But why are these men unsuccessful. I don't believe it is because of the women. I believe it is because they don't know how to be successful. Again going back to having no fathers. They don't know how to compete, they don't know how to struggle, that internal confidence that comes from being a man, they had no example. When you are in your 30's and even 40's it is not too late. Get some training, do something to change this. Again it goes back to being passive. To many men are passive in today's society.


Why don't these men have fathers?

Hint: 70% of divorces are initiated by *women*.

This did not happen before no-fault divorce, which is a staple of feminism.

So it still goes back to feminism.


----------



## norajane

tech-novelist said:


> This is a textbook example of the apex fallacy.
> 
> Yes, *some *men have a lot of power. They are *apex men*.
> 
> *Most *men have no power.
> 
> Women don't notice the men who don't have any power.
> 
> Thus, they can "honestly" say that they don't understand why men would think they don't have any power, because they don't see the men who don't have any power.


I can look beyond the end of my own nose, and don't appreciate the condescension. I come from an immigrant blue collar family who showed up with a suitcase and nothing else, not even education, so yes, I am fully capable of seeing men who are not at the apex. Those men and women are also successful or are failures based on their own level of engagement in their lives, both personal and professional. 

You know what I saw in college? Rich kids, scholarship kids from poor families and everyone in between. There were those who worked hard and there were those who partied hard and there were those who were in between. Their success depended on their own choices and level of engagement. 

If people - men and women - don't take responsibility for their own choices and the direction they are going in life, they get what they settle for.


----------



## norajane

tech-novelist said:


> Why don't these men have fathers?
> 
> Hint: 70% of divorces are initiated by *women*.
> 
> This did not happen before no-fault divorce, which is a staple of feminism.
> 
> So it still goes back to feminism.


So men just abdicate their parental responsibilities when they divorce? 

This is insulting the divorced dads on TAM - and everywhere else - because men care very, very much about being good fathers to their children, divorced or not.


----------



## tech-novelist

norajane said:


> I can look beyond the end of my own nose, and don't appreciate the condescension. I come from an immigrant blue collar family who showed up with a suitcase and nothing else, not even education, so yes, I am fully capable of seeing men who are not at the apex. Those men and women are also successful or are failures based on their own level of engagement in their lives, both personal and professional.
> 
> You know what I saw in college? Rich kids, scholarship kids from poor families and everyone in between. There were those who worked hard and there were those who partied hard and there were those who were in between. Their success depended on their own choices and level of engagement.
> 
> If people - men and women - don't take responsibility for their own choices and the direction they are going in life, they get what they settle for.


Good, then tell me what proportion of men in society have more power than the average woman has, including:

1. Being treated more leniently by law enforcement
2. Being preferred for hiring
3. Being preferred for college entrance
4. Having less chance of being drugged into compliance in grammar and high school
5. Getting child support from an unwilling or even unknowing other parent
6. Getting preference in government contracting
7. Having the power to have their intimate partner hauled away by police at the slightest pretext

I would say the top 5% of men have at least as much power, on the whole, as these totally artificial preferences given to women (although not in exactly the same way).

But certainly the average man has far less power than this.


----------



## norajane

All of that sure looks like you are looking to place blame on women for some men not succeeding rather than taking responsibility for their own choices, behaviors and level of engagement in their own lives. Other men do just fine and succeed in their own spheres whether that be the boardroom or the plant floor, even with what you see as oppression by women. So maybe the successful men are making better choices about their lives since they operate in the same world under the same rules as the unsuccessful men do?


----------



## sapientia

tech-novelist said:


> This is a textbook example of the apex fallacy.
> 
> Yes, *some *men have a lot of power. They are *apex men*.
> 
> *Most *men have no power.
> 
> Women don't notice the men who don't have any power.


Then they can't compete and will be bred out of the gene pool. Red Queen hypothesis and too bad.

Not everyone gets to be an astronaut. Not all women will be attractive to the "apex men" you describe. The non-apex men will have to find a way to be attractive to these women, and vice-versa btw, or find other ways to live their lives.

However you want to slice it, women are not the reason for men's lack of success. Only they themselves are.

Life isn't fair. Never has been, never will be.


----------



## sapientia

norajane said:


> The successful men are making better choices about their lives since they operate in the same world under the same rules as the unsuccessful men do?


Fixed your post so it's not hypothetical. Of course this is true. The most successful men I know don't begrudge women -- or anyone -- their success. We all rise and fall on the same tide.

These men vs. women posts are just sour grapes. To my knowledge, whinging never got anyone success.


----------



## wild jade

tech-novelist said:


> My wife is not my property either. She's also not a feminist.
> 
> And paternity fraud was considered shameful in the past, which limited its reach and kept men from being legally victimized if they found out the truth. Now there are attempts (successful in some cases) to prevent men from even knowing that they have been victimized, and in a number of places the man has to pay regardless of proof that he is not the father.
> 
> 
> 
> Most people think that feminism is new. It isn't. Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.
> 
> Unwin's book is a historical survey of what happens when women are allowed to have sex with whomever they want. He covers dozens of cases. The results have been disastrous in *every *case, and we are beginning to see those disastrous results right now. I have no expectation that this time it will be different.
> 
> I also have no expectation that most people will realize the seriousness of the situation before calamity is upon us, since that is another thing that we learn from history: most people are very short-sighted.
> 
> The question is only when and how we will reach the precipice. My best guess is that a lot of men will stop being involved with women in any way. Sexbots are certainly no substitute for a good relationship... but they are a superior substitute for being treated like a beast of burden with no rights.


LOL, dude! I think you need some new books. :rofl:


----------



## sokillme

Anon1111 said:


> it is possible for any individual to succeed but it is not possible for all individuals to succeed


Who says. I don't believe that, unless there is some kind of mental handicap. At least in the western world.


----------



## wild jade

Just so I understand what this thread is about:

Women who post that they are tired of jerks should be rejected because they are drama queens and have huge amounts of baggage.

Those and other women actually love jerks, and hate nice guys. Nice guys are always overlooked by women, and can never get a date.

Nice guys all want to be jerks because they will get more women to sleep with them, and besides, women are jerks and deserve it.

Nice guys have no opportunities in life, which means they cannot possibly be attractive to women, and so they are going to show everyone by playing video games and buying sex bots.

Women who have jobs and go to college are ruining the world because we are hateful feminists who make everyone do special favours for us and have the audacity to think we should be able to choose who we sleep with.

Did I miss anything?


----------



## Red Sonja

tech-novelist said:


> Sorry, but facts are facts even if they are inconvenient.


Facts?! What facts? I don't even see a verifiable gut feeling in what you posted. Hence *gobbledygook*.

Dalrock's quote is just boo-hoo'ing about an egalitarian society. It is victim-speak and, quite frankly he is inventing facts based on what he feels. Poor baby.

And, please tell me what power do I have and what man did I take it from. That little tidbit is more victim-speak.


----------



## wild jade

The power to choose who you sleep with. And that is apparently enough power to destroy the world. LOL


----------



## Anon1111

the point is that there will inevitably be winners and losers in any society.

the written and unwritten rules of western society up until recently made it easier for below average men to be relative "winners" by default.

that has changed. this is in most respects a good thing, but it has also entailed costs too.

the costs are mostly felt by what would have been formerly marginally successful men. 

whereas before there was a greater likelihood that poor, uneducated white men could make a reasonable living, find a wife, retire, not go to prison, become addicted to drugs, etc, now those chances have lessoned. 

obviously, any individual man can break this trend, just like any individual woman in the 1950s could theoretically have become a surgeon or president, but it's not as likely in reality.

in addition because individuals in a society are to some degree interdependent, changes in one segment of society will never be totally isolated from the rest of society.

so the relative diminishment of this cohort of men has an impact on the women who would have formerly married them.

again, nobody is actually "doing this" to anybody else. there's no intentionality on the macro level. it's not a conspiracy. so there is no point in resenting anybody for this.

but it also doesn't make sense to pretend that there is no issue.


----------



## turnera

norajane said:


> You know, I spend a *lot *of time in meetings with other companies, and conferences with thousands of customers. You know what I see? Rooms full of men. 80-90% men. Highly paid men. It is thoroughly laughable that men are so afraid of women who now have opportunities to succeed. Men, men, men. Mostly white, but not all. Men are not marginalized - they are plentiful at EVERY level of EVERY company, which cannot be said for women.
> 
> Men have lost little to no power, money, or opportunity because women are going to college and working. Society - men and women - have gained a workforce with intelligence, creativity and drive. If there are men who feel they can't compete, maybe, just maybe, it's because they are spending their time playing video games in their parents' basement and worrying about why some women like jerks. Maybe if they spent their time hustling and networking and meeting people and taking classes to further their skills and working toward jobs they can succeed in, they would have more of the things they want, including meeting women who would appreciate their intelligence, creativity and drive.
> 
> I think men who live in fear of women taking away their power don't work to succeed or gain power, and find comfort in finding someone to blame. No one is owed success or power. Men are not by gender right or any right *owed *good jobs or good women.


I think most of this current theme came about when I mentioned the news story that, for the first time ever, more women are enrolling in college than men. Meaning...20 year olds. I'd be interested to look at this topic again in 40 years, if I were still around, to see what really changed in those meetings of yours.

The companies will love it; they can pay the women 70% of what they were paying the men.


----------



## turnera

wild jade said:


> Gosh, I'm even more confused now. If getting a job is all it takes to be a winner, then why don't men just work towards good jobs? There's lots of them, and you can make your own too.


Because as the news story said, fewer men are going to college. Meaning they won't even be able to APPLY for most of the jobs, except low-level, low-paying service jobs, because the blue collar jobs are disappearing from the landscape, at least in the US and Europe.


----------



## turnera

sokillme said:


> But why are these men unsuccessful. I don't believe it is because of the women. I believe it is because they don't know how to be successful. Again going back to having no fathers. They don't know how to compete, they don't know how to struggle, that internal confidence that comes from being a man, they had no example. When you are in your 30's and even 40's it is not too late. Get some training, do something to change this. Again it goes back to being passive. To many men are passive in today's society.


Psychologically speaking, the single most important way for a person to have good self esteem is to have accomplished things. Not own things a parent gives them. Another story I heard said that today's 20 year old already has a weaker hand grip strength owing to not growing up DOING things like shoveling snow, raking leaves, washing dishes, and all the other things that automation has taken off our plates. 

IMO, one of the most important ways to raise a young adult who goes out and gets what they want and becomes a HAPPY productive adult is by raising them to have to EARN what they get. Save up money to buy that bike. Work chores to earn a phone. Build up a savings account so you can pay the insurance on the hand-me-down car your parents might give you. 

Sure, there are people out there still doing this with their kids. But not that many. Why do you think there's such a huge phenomena already of employers whining about the X and Y generation? Because they grew up being told they were special snowflakes and being given stuff without earning it, so why shouldn't they expect their work to promote them in a year?


----------



## Buddy400

tech-novelist said:


> Unwin's book is a historical survey of what happens when women are allowed to have sex with whomever they want. He covers dozens of cases. The results have been disastrous in *every *case, and we are beginning to see those disastrous results right now. I have no expectation that this time it will be different.


The problem is that, even if this were true, it wouldn't be possible to change it anyway. 

I, personally, wouldn't want things to go back to the "old ways" even if it was possible.

What interests me is thinking about the effects on society and wondering if it's possible to adapt.


----------



## Buddy400

sapientia said:


> However you want to slice it, women are not the reason for men's lack of success. Only they themselves are.


Agreed


----------



## Buddy400

wild jade said:


> The power to choose who you sleep with. And that is apparently enough power to destroy the world. LOL


Not destroy the world. But enough power to *change* the world.


----------



## Buddy400

sapientia said:


> Then they can't compete and will be bred out of the gene pool. Red Queen hypothesis and too bad.
> 
> Not everyone gets to be an astronaut. Not all women will be attractive to the "apex men" you describe. The non-apex men will have to find a way to be attractive to these women, and vice-versa btw, or find other ways to live their lives.


I've heard that, for most of human history, less than half of men passed on their genes. Almost all women passed on theirs.

The "one man one wife" thing probably slowed this down for a while.

Maybe we'll get to a situation where 5% or 10% of men pass their genes along, households are almost always run by single mothers and the rest of the men are superfluous. 

It comes down to whether or not women can come up with a good reason to want men around.

I almost not kidding here.


----------



## Buddy400

wild jade said:


> Just so I understand what this thread is about:
> 
> Women who post that they are tired of jerks should be rejected because they are drama queens and have huge amounts of baggage.
> 
> Those and other women actually love jerks, and hate nice guys. Nice guys are always overlooked by women, and can never get a date.
> 
> Nice guys all want to be jerks because they will get more women to sleep with them, and besides, women are jerks and deserve it.
> 
> Nice guys have no opportunities in life, which means they cannot possibly be attractive to women, and so they are going to show everyone by playing video games and buying sex bots.
> 
> Women who have jobs and go to college are ruining the world because we are hateful feminists who make everyone do special favours for us and have the audacity to think we should be able to choose who we sleep with.
> 
> Did I miss anything?


"Nice guys" whine about women always picking jerks.

Women whine about men always chasing the "hotties".

There is a growing problem concerning the separation between the upper and lower classes and the situation of "non-winner" men is a factor.

Women aren't ruining the world but the world is changing in many important ways.

Yes, strangely enough, I think that ability of women to sleep with whomever they want is a factor (not that I have any desire to take this choice away from them).

I think guys will largely do whatever women want them to do in order get their attention. Once upon a time, for many men, just having a steady job was enough.

So that's why I think that, if there's going to be a solution, it's going to be up to women to decide what they want and communicate whatever it is to men.

Some socially inept men who might otherwise be considered "winners" are inappropriately commingling their own problems with larger changes in society. It used to be that almost every guy got a wife because it was difficult for women to make it on their own and it was socially unacceptable to sleep with whoever they wanted.


----------



## ReformedHubby

norajane said:


> You know, I spend a *lot *of time in meetings with other companies, and conferences with thousands of customers. You know what I see? Rooms full of men. 80-90% men. Highly paid men. It is thoroughly laughable that men are so afraid of women who now have opportunities to succeed. Men, men, men. Mostly white, but not all. Men are not marginalized - they are plentiful at EVERY level of EVERY company, which cannot be said for women.
> 
> Men have lost little to no power, money, or opportunity because women are going to college and working. Society - men and women - have gained a workforce with intelligence, creativity and drive. If there are men who feel they can't compete, maybe, just maybe, it's because they are spending their time playing video games in their parents' basement and worrying about why some women like jerks. Maybe if they spent their time hustling and networking and meeting people and taking classes to further their skills and working toward jobs they can succeed in, they would have more of the things they want, including meeting women who would appreciate their intelligence, creativity and drive.
> 
> I think men who live in fear of women taking away their power don't work to succeed or gain power, and find comfort in finding someone to blame. No one is owed success or power. Men are not by gender right or any right *owed *good jobs or good women.


I think you make a great point. As a black male at the apex in corporate america, the only guys whining about my position in life are the ones without the qualifications or even aptitude to sit in my position. They assume that if I wasn't there, that they would be. I don't think thats true. The only thing people at the top regardless of race or gender have in common is that the only color we really see is green. You might as well call us green people. And...we don't make excuses...we get after it. The females at a high level weren't handed those opportunities. They earned them, and yes in my eyes they are more alpha than their male subordinates.


----------



## wild jade

Anon1111 said:


> the point is that there will inevitably be winners and losers in any society.
> 
> the written and unwritten rules of western society up until recently made it easier for below average men to be relative "winners" by default.
> 
> that has changed. this is in most respects a good thing, but it has also entailed costs too.
> 
> the costs are mostly felt by what would have been formerly marginally successful men.
> 
> whereas before there was a greater likelihood that poor, uneducated white men could make a reasonable living, find a wife, retire, not go to prison, become addicted to drugs, etc, now those chances have lessoned.
> 
> obviously, any individual man can break this trend, just like any individual woman in the 1950s could theoretically have become a surgeon or president, but it's not as likely in reality.
> 
> in addition because individuals in a society are to some degree interdependent, changes in one segment of society will never be totally isolated from the rest of society.
> 
> so the relative diminishment of this cohort of men has an impact on the women who would have formerly married them.
> 
> again, nobody is actually "doing this" to anybody else. there's no intentionality on the macro level. it's not a conspiracy. so there is no point in resenting anybody for this.
> 
> but it also doesn't make sense to pretend that there is no issue.


Reality is that more and more people are living on the margins. Men and women. And women are still mostly in lower paid jobs, making less than men. 

So the problem of poverty is not just a male problem, and comparatively most are still doing lots better than women. On average.

And as I said in an earlier post, I don't think this drives men and women apart. It means that we need each other even more, as we all have to work our butts off to get ahead.

In the 50s women weren't in university at all. Men today are still 40%. And the higher up you go, the higher proportion of men. The more lucrative the field, the more men in it.

Comparing the situation for men today with the teeny fraction of women who went to college in the 50s seems apples and oranges to me. Or making a mountain of a molehill.

Which is not to say that we shouldn't encourage boys to excel in school. Just that they'll still have lots of male company in their classes.


----------



## wild jade

Buddy400 said:


> Not destroy the world. But enough power to *change* the world.


This is not the first time in history that women had choice in who they slept with, I promise you. It is also not the first time that men have had to worry about the paternity of their children. It is also not the first time that there have been single people who find it hard to get a mate.

Sorry, but I don't see what's new about this, or why it's a bad thing. Well, the choice part anyway.

I mean, even in most arranged marriages the girls get say in who they are wedded to. And how could anyone see this as a bad thing?


----------



## tech-novelist

norajane said:


> So men just abdicate their parental responsibilities when they divorce?
> 
> This is insulting the divorced dads on TAM - and everywhere else - because men care very, very much about being good fathers to their children, divorced or not.


Divorced fathers are treated like criminals by the "family court" system. This makes it essentially impossible in many cases for them to fulfill their responsibilities.

Actually this understates the problem. Criminals are given due process, whereas divorced fathers are not. They can be thrown in prison indefinitely without trial in a revival of debtor's prison, which anyone with the slightest shred of compassion should abhor.


----------



## tech-novelist

Buddy400 said:


> I've heard that, for most of human history, less than half of men passed on their genes. Almost all women passed on theirs.
> 
> The "one man one wife" thing probably slowed this down for a while.
> 
> Maybe we'll get to a situation where 5% or 10% of men pass their genes along, households are almost always run by single mothers and the rest of the men are superfluous.
> 
> It comes down to whether or not women can come up with a good reason to want men around.
> 
> I almost not kidding here.


All women need is an actual threat like war or famine (not a micro-aggression like "cultural appropriation") and they will suddenly find that men are very useful to have around. Most of the first world's population lives in a bubble insulated from harsh reality. That won't last forever.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

sokillme said:


> The older I get the more I think woman want assertive. I don't think the bad boy is the answer. I think they mistake the bad boy for the assertive type. However our young men have not had fathers to show them how to be. Also our young woman haven't had fathers so some can't pick out the right kind of assertiveness, and some are scared of the assertiveness. This is why some woman think men's nature is toxic. It is foreign to them.
> 
> I nice guy can learn to become assertive and then he has the best of both worlds. It's not about being wild it about taking risks, like risking trying to be sexy. Risking asking a total stranger out. That makes you look strong. And it is about having your Sh*t together, being a leader in your own life.


We have 5 sons... I am the more assertive partner between us...my husband is more soft spoken, more introverted.. Heck I am even more of the disciplinarian.. take tonight for example...

One of our sons accidentally backed up into a friends car about a week ago in our parking lot & caused damage... he damaged his car too (our car).. so we bought the part... got it today in the mail.. husband mentions it to son... son just got done working & took a shower..... he sighed ....as he just got cleaned up...

DAD doesn't like to bother people... he's passive and his attitude is always ... "I can do it myself"... so he lets son off the hook.. and he heads outside.. (I think son thought he would wait till tomorrow -but I knew he wouldn't ).. I seen him through the door one foot in the trunk ... trying to change this part ... 

I hear son in the other room playing video games.. steam is about coming out of my ears now.. I march in there & tell his sorry a$$ to get out there & help his dad... I had some attitude in my voice too. (I didn't say "sorry a** but I felt like it) 

Now my husband should have made him do that.. no excuses... but No.. he's passive like this.. It doesn't bother me all that much... but darn he allows himself to be taken advantage of....

This has happened countless times over the years.. I don't really care if I come off a Bi*ch... I think he doesn't want to "put the kids out".. but that's absurd... that's how they learn... put them to work !

I wonder if our dynamics have hurt them....with mother being the more assertive.. Dad's example is Great as far as taking care of things.. good to his wife.. but they see me taking more charge over stuff...

None of our sons are anything close to being a womanizer , playboy or Jerk.. They are GOOD... even if a little lazy - until Mother cracks the whip... so yeah.. 

Will they all finish last too.. I don't know... I think all our sons are handsome ... but they're not wild / the life of the party types / popular Jocks...those things women seem to turn to mush over. Last relationship 2nd son had, or I should say "almost had".... he told me that girl friend-zoned him.. 

It's kinda ridiculous for Mom to be telling her boys.. "Just go out & act like a son of a Bi*ch.. then you'll get the woman flocking to you".. I have actually said this.. 

I'm not crazy.. really..


----------



## tech-novelist

wild jade said:


> This is not the first time in history that women had choice in who they slept with, I promise you. It is also not the first time that men have had to worry about the paternity of their children. It is also not the first time that there have been single people who find it hard to get a mate.
> 
> Sorry, but I don't see what's new about this, or why it's a bad thing. Well, the choice part anyway.
> 
> I mean, even in most arranged marriages the girls get say in who they are wedded to. And how could anyone see this as a bad thing?


Yes, you are right that this has happened before, numerous times. As to why it is a bad thing, read Unwin's book "Sex and Culture", already cited by me earlier in the thread. He explains the bad consequences in great detail.

Note that I don't agree with his hypothesis as to *why *it is bad. To oversimplify, he thought it was because monogamy made able men sublimate their baser natures in work rather than having harems. However, that hypothesis is unimportant to the question of whether it is in fact bad, which he demonstrates conclusively.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jld said:


> So her being honest and open about how she feels would have been helpful to you. You would have known to bypass her immediately, saving you both time and trouble.
> 
> I guess I just cannot see a downside to her transparency.


The downside is.. she comes off BADLY.. she is only hurting herself... A carefully worded dating profile could = the difference between finding that special person... or turning many off... which would you choose? 

Take me for example.. I don't care for people who drink.. who party... if that's their general lifestyle, their brand of "FUN"... have to hit the bar a couple times a week... It would be helpful to weed these types out to save everyone's time....but how does one do it .... without coming off "offending" in some way or slashing near 90% of the population who reads our profile...

The majority of people DRINK but they don't all go to bars.. a little social drinking would be fine.. if you're a very responsible person.. (my father was like that.. and his type is totally acceptable to me)...

If one tries to do it by speaking they are on the "conservative side"... I'd expect many to immediately assume ....."Well she doesn't like Sex, must be religious ...next thought.. "stuffy, no fun"....CLICK on the next profile (& I don't feel any of those are true of me- even if I am on the conservative side in a # of areas)... but that's the stereotypical view for many.... 

So you gotta play it somewhere in the middle to "catch more" initially...as really.. there are so *many facets to all of us*.. we may be pleasantly surprised.. 

If we speak too negatively, this may dissuade the wrong person away... who might have been a half decent match *but didn't like the tone of our profile.*...

For instance...I went to a Head banging rock concert the other night... I enjoyed it....but at the same time.. it's really not my scene either... we're not tail-gaters, I don't dress in fishnet clothing, dye my hair purple, would never get a piercing in my nose, or tattoos ...not looking for any weed to smoke either... but looking around.. it seems 75% fit these profiles... so I am out of the box so to speak... 

I would be bored out of my mind at a symphony , or an Opera... we don't all fit as nicely packaged as others may assume... if we get too nitty gritty...in this way.. it would be a shame if we missed someone that could have been a good match for us..


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> The downside is.. she comes off BADLY.. she is only hurting herself... A carefully worded dating profile could = the difference between finding that special person... or turning many off... which would you choose?
> 
> Take me for example.. I don't care for people who drink.. who party... if that's their general lifestyle, their brand of "FUN"... have to hit the bar a couple times a week... It would be helpful to weed these types out to save everyone's time....but how does one do it .... without coming off "offending" in some way or slashing near 90% of the population who reads our profile...
> 
> The majority of people DRINK but they don't all go to bars.. a little social drinking would be fine.. if you're a very responsible person.. (my father was like that.. and his type is totally acceptable to me)...
> 
> If one tries to do it by speaking they are on the "conservative side"... I'd expect many to immediately assume ....."Well she doesn't like Sex, must be religious ...next thought.. "stuffy, no fun"....CLICK on the next profile (& I don't feel any of those are true of me- even if I am on the conservative side in a # of areas)... but that's the stereotypical view for many....
> 
> So you gotta play it somewhere in the middle to "catch more" initially...as really.. there are so *many facets to all of us*.. we may be pleasantly surprised..
> 
> If we speak too negatively, this may dissuade the wrong person away... who might have been a half decent match *but didn't like the tone of our profile.*...
> 
> For instance...I went to a Head banging rock concert the other night... I enjoyed it....but at the same time.. it's really not my scene either... we're not tail-gaters, I don't dress in fish hook clothing, dye my hair purple, would never get a piercing in my nose, or tattoos ...not looking for any weed to smoke either... but looking around.. it seems 75% fit these profiles... so I am out of the box so to speak...
> 
> I would be bored out of my mind at a symphony , or an Opera... we don't all fit as nicely packaged as others may assume... if we get too nitty gritty...in this way.. it would be a shame if we missed someone that could have been a good match for us..


Two thoughts:

1) This person has strong feelings. She may not be someone who is looking to throw a wide net. She may already realize the number of people interested in a person like her is small, and she wants to focus in on them. Again, no time wasting for either side.

2) She may not be interested in someone who needs a certain tone to an outline ad (that's what those are, right? Ads?). She may need someone who can look beyond the tone and be intrigued by what has hurt her heart. Not everyone can carry a relationship, or even partially. She may need to be carried.

I do get what you are saying, about its possibly being a numbers game and why turn off too many people unnecessarily. But ultimately I have to vote for transparency. I really think it is the safest route, long term, in personal relationships. Anything else is delaying the inevitable.


----------



## southbound

SimplyAmorous said:


> None of our sons are anything close to being a womanizer , playboy or Jerk.. They are GOOD... even if a little lazy - until Mother cracks the whip... so yeah..
> 
> Will they all finish last too.. I don't know... I think all our sons are handsome ... but they're not wild / the life of the party types / popular Jocks...those things women seem to turn to mush over. Last relationship 2nd son had, or I should say "almost had".... he told me that girl friend-zoned him..
> 
> It's kinda ridiculous for Mom to be telling her boys.. "Just go out & act like a son of a Bi*ch.. then you'll get the woman flocking to you".. I have actually said this..


I understand what you are saying with that last line. It's puzzling when we as parents try to raise our boys to be respectable young men, and then discover that it doesn't always sit well with the girls. I don't get it. 

One a somewhat similar note, my brother jokes sometimes that maybe he should slap women around when he goes out with them. He says that because we have seen women who have abusive boyfriends or husbands, but they just can't seem to leave them. I've never understood how a man's attraction could be so great that it overshadows that he's a butt-hole. 

I have an x sister-in law and two nieces that are very attractive, but they married losers and got in a mess. I can't understand that. One of the nieces married a guy that, as another poster said, looks like he's from Sons of Anarchy, he doesn't work, and he's a butt. I often wonder why she is still with him. What does he have over a nice young man that works and want's to act like a real father?


----------



## jld

Buddy400 said:


> I've heard that, for most of human history, less than half of men passed on their genes. Almost all women passed on theirs.
> 
> The "one man one wife" thing probably slowed this down for a while.
> 
> Maybe we'll get to a situation where 5% or 10% of men pass their genes along, households are almost always run by single mothers and the rest of the men are superfluous.
> 
> *It comes down to whether or not women can come up with a good reason to want men around.*
> 
> I almost not kidding here.


I agree with the bolded. Listening to informed advice, like that of Gottman, could help men remain relevant to women.


----------



## sapientia

turnera said:


> IMO, one of the most important ways to raise a young adult who goes out and gets what they want and becomes a HAPPY productive adult is by raising them to have to EARN what they get. Save up money to buy that bike. Work chores to earn a phone. Build up a savings account so you can pay the insurance on the hand-me-down car your parents might give you.
> 
> Sure, there are people out there still doing this with their kids. But not that many.


I strongly agree with this. I'm one of those parents, and not because we don't have the capacity to give much more.

Even Warren Buffet said about his children--I'm paraphrasing, since can't be bothered to google, something to the effect of "give them enough to do whatever they want, but not so much they do nothing".


----------



## SimplyAmorous

southbound said:


> *I understand what you are saying with that last line. It's puzzling when we as parents try to raise our boys to be respectable young men, and then discover that it doesn't always sit well with the girls. I don't get it.*


 I believe you DO get it @southbound... 

On the one hand...I /we believe it's best to have raised them with the values we have instilled (treat others with respect, be kind to strangers, don't make fun of the outcast, if you speak something -honor your word, stand up for what is RIGHT & Just, don't screw women just cause you can / love is important, marriage is meaningful, integrity is everything)... our sons....they have been so trouble free...their friends the same...basically they have made parenting pretty darn easy....

Son took full responsibility for his friends car, drove over there paid him cash tonight when they got the estimate...he even called the parents the night it happened telling them this... that it was his fault & he would take full responsibility ....the Mom told me about it.. And these things make us proud...

I hate to see him struggle with girls.. when he ran cross country getting medals.. he had the beautiful blonde on his arm.. just seems when she dumped him ....(partly deserved I will admit! very hard lesson for him )... he lost some of his confidence.. maybe half of him no longer cares even.. I'm not sure.. I don't meddle.. I just observe...when I make these crazy comments.. they just give me a face .. 

Once I told 3rd son after being dumped by his 1st love.. he should kiss more girls.. he looks at me.. and tells me he's not a play boy...our oldest has told me I am corrupt...they defend the way they are....in it's own way.. this is standing firm...they KNOW who they are... 

Basically they are not as worried about it - as I am....too much reading here I guess, makes me question many things.... 

Our youngest is a chronic whiner / Drama King, he's only 9, shoots his mouth off too easily... maybe he'll do well with the chicks! 



> One a somewhat similar note, my brother jokes sometimes that maybe he should slap women around when he goes out with them. He says that because we have seen women who have abusive boyfriends or husbands, but they just can't seem to leave them. I've never understood how a man's attraction could be so great that it overshadows that he's a butt-hole.
> 
> *I have an x sister-in law and two nieces that are very attractive, but they married losers and got in a mess. I can't understand that. One of the nieces married a guy that, as another poster said, looks like he's from Sons of Anarchy, he doesn't work, and he's a butt. *I often wonder why she is still with him. What does he have over a nice young man that works and want's to act like a real father?


 Sounds so much like a friend of mine...Every situation is so different.... some stay out of fear, their self esteem has dropped so low to how they have been treated also.. very common...

THis friend is married to an awful man...he's truly a male chauvinistic Pig.. he belittles her, ignores her..I've seen it 1st hand in their home... he seems to have no shame... she's trying to talk to him..he doesn't even look up, or look at her...(I was appalled at his behavior)...she has no love in her marriage.. it's all about HIM...she's a sweet loving christian woman who won't leave the man.. as she fears he'll take her daughters & she'll never see them again.. She's cried on my shoulder...I've seen her lose it , swearing like a truck driver about him.. (this is so not her!)... 

But yet she WILL NOT LEAVE this man.. she will make excuses for him....he's not abusive physically but emotionally.. ...yes ! She's even the one supporting them -for most of the marriage... Many of us just do not understand.. I've had friends who got so frustrated with her -they longer could be friends with her.. I won't do that.. but yeah.. it's not something I understand either.... 

What I see is.. she has other outlets -to give her comfort, some semblance of happiness...her focus is not on her marriage.. it's primarily about her daughters, and her life outside of him.. her friends/ church family are very important to her.. these are her support...


----------



## TAM2013

Buddy400 said:


> Women aren't ruining the world but the world is changing in many important ways.
> 
> Yes, strangely enough, I think that ability of women to sleep with whomever they want is a factor (not that I have any desire to take this choice away from them).
> 
> I think guys will largely do whatever women want them to do in order get their attention. Once upon a time, for many men, just having a steady job was enough.
> 
> So that's why I think that, if there's going to be a solution, it's going to be up to women to decide what they want and communicate whatever it is to men.


Good post.

But they are ruining the way men _view_ them and the best men won't do anything they want to get their attention. The only men who'll wife them up are chumps with no options and aging players. And we'll have broods of boys with useless fathers, hand tied by the feminine imperative, raising the next even more emasculated generation.

This is an excellent read and I quote one of the comments not verbatim:
_
Is there not some irony in that whereas men are the gatekeepers of commitment, commitment now leaves them hostages to fortune yet women being the gatekeepers of sexual access have been persuaded by feminists to leave the gate wide open.

Should we not however desist from using the term double standard, when in reality there is not one but two standards; a different standard for men and for women based on what each sex could bring to a marriage for the benefit of children i.e. respectively assets and chastity*: not that it has ever been considered acceptable for men to screw around, merely that those who succeeded in doing so clearly had an ability which one could only admire even as one deprecated the notion of women across the country being left barefoot and pregnant.

*Poor men are as undesirable as promiscuous women. Men of substance sought chaste women if only to ensure that the fruits of their labours were not wasted on another man’s progeny._

There is hope. 99% of women can not do what I do for a job better than I can because it's A MANS JOB. And thank fvck there are lots and lots of those jobs. There are jobs women can do better and good luck to them.


----------



## alexm

TAM2013 said:


> But Alex, if anyone still thinks the average man sleeps around more than the average woman, they're kidding themselves.
> 
> An average woman can click her fingers (or mouse) and get as many sexual partners as she wants, very easily. It's not an achievement. She knows it, society has words for it and men are reluctant to commit with that knowledge. That's why women round down.


I can't agree with this. The theory is logical, but I think in practice it doesn't quite work that way.

Back in the day, I wasn't a guy to sleep around, mostly because I was rarely single. When I was single, it just wasn't my thing. I did have the occasional thing but I wouldn't call myself experienced with ONS or casual sex. When it did happen, it came to me, not the other way around.

However, most of my male friends were into that, with varying degrees of success.

Where I saw the differences were that my male friends were almost always looking. Some had more success on a weekly basis than others.

My female friends, on the other hand, (of which I had many) only "looked" occasionally (ie. if it had been a while, put bluntly). Their success rate was much higher - as you state, and as is fairly obvious - but the attempt rate was far lower than any males I was around. It was also rare for any of the girls to go home with somebody who had been hitting on them. Basically, when they wanted (needed...) it, they went out and got it, but it was rare, honestly. Unlike the guys who were trying just about every time they went out, the girls would be once or twice a year, if that.

What I'm trying to say is that, in my experience, the guys were still having far more casual sex than the girls I was around. The girls had a far higher success rate, but were making FAR fewer attempts, and were also regularly deflecting attempts made on them.

To be quite honest, the girls would rarely resort to desperation and go home with somebody who hit on them, regardless of the "quality" of the man.

So you ARE right, in that women have a far easier time of getting it then men (but that's obvious, and we already know that), and with 1/10th the effort level, but from my own experience, it just didn't happen very often. And when it did, it was on their own terms. I never once saw any of the women I hung out with do what we men typically do - throw spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks.

I just think a lot of old school men are somewhat threatened by women who -occasionally- do things that are more typically associated with men. Back in the day, I was approached by women every now and again, and it always took me a minute to register what they were after. Some were more blunt than others, but that was okay. I also declined more often than I accepted. But I never once thought anything negative about the woman.


----------



## wild jade

tech-novelist said:


> Yes, you are right that this has happened before, numerous times. As to why it is a bad thing, read Unwin's book "Sex and Culture", already cited by me earlier in the thread. He explains the bad consequences in great detail.
> 
> Note that I don't agree with his hypothesis as to *why *it is bad. To oversimplify, he thought it was because monogamy made able men sublimate their baser natures in work rather than having harems. However, that hypothesis is unimportant to the question of whether it is in fact bad, which he demonstrates conclusively.


Sorry, I have no time to read outdated books that make up ridiculous stories in order to shame women for having sex. And not sure why you would want to shame women for having sex. Have you read this forum? Do you really think telling women we're going to destroy the world because we want to choose who we have sex with is helping anyone? 

I'm pretty sure the guys I've had sex with liked it, and we're happy for it. I am curious, though, why you think it will destroy the world that I can do this. 

Well, sort of curious. I'm guessing it's mostly about wanting to control women.


----------



## jld

wild jade said:


> Sorry, I have no time to read outdated books that make up ridiculous stories in order to shame women for having sex. And not sure why you would want to shame women for having sex. Have you read this forum? Do you really think telling women we're going to destroy the world because we want to choose who we have sex with is helping anyone?
> 
> I'm pretty sure the guys I've had sex with liked it, and we're happy for it. I am curious, though, why you think it will destroy the world that I can do this.
> 
> Well, sort of curious. *I'm guessing it's mostly about wanting to control women*.


And that comes from fearing women.


----------



## TAM2013

Only fear of our daughters ruining themselves through stubbornness, misguidance and short-sightedness.


----------



## Anon1111

Buddy400 said:


> So that's why I think that, if there's going to be a solution, it's going to be up to women to decide what they want and communicate whatever it is to men.


on a large scale, this is like monkeys in cages pushing buttons and candy popping out


----------



## jld

TAM2013 said:


> Only fear of our daughters ruining themselves through stubbornness, misguidance and short-sightedness.


How would they ruin themselves?

By not getting an education, job experience, and, if they choose to marry, marrying wisely?

I have complete faith in dd21, myself.


----------



## Anon1111

wild jade said:


> This is not the first time in history that women had choice in who they slept with, I promise you. It is also not the first time that men have had to worry about the paternity of their children. It is also not the first time that there have been single people who find it hard to get a mate.
> 
> Sorry, but I don't see what's new about this, or why it's a bad thing. Well, the choice part anyway.
> 
> I mean, even in most arranged marriages the girls get say in who they are wedded to. And how could anyone see this as a bad thing?


it's not about "bad" or "good" on the whole.

it's "better" or "worse" depending on which demographic you're in.

I think one issue is that people choose to look at the "better" aspect of social progress for women without honestly acknowledging that there are certain associated social costs.

acknowledging that these costs exist does not mean that you begrudge the social progress.


----------



## wild jade

TAM2013 said:


> Good post.
> 
> But they are ruining the way men _view_ them and the best men won't do anything they want to get their attention. The only men who'll wife them up are chumps with no options and aging players. And we'll have broods of boys with useless fathers, hand tied by the feminine imperative, raising the next even more emasculated generation.
> 
> This is an excellent read and I quote one of the comments not verbatim:
> _
> Is there not some irony in that whereas men are the gatekeepers of commitment, commitment now leaves them hostages to fortune yet women being the gatekeepers of sexual access have been persuaded by feminists to leave the gate wide open.
> 
> Should we not however desist from using the term double standard, when in reality there is not one but two standards; a different standard for men and for women based on what each sex could bring to a marriage for the benefit of children i.e. respectively assets and chastity*: not that it has ever been considered acceptable for men to screw around, merely that those who succeeded in doing so clearly had an ability which one could only admire even as one deprecated the notion of women across the country being left barefoot and pregnant.
> 
> *Poor men are as undesirable as promiscuous women. Men of substance sought chaste women if only to ensure that the fruits of their labours were not wasted on another man’s progeny._
> 
> There is hope. 99% of women can not do what I do for a job better than I can because it's A MANS JOB. And thank fvck there are lots and lots of those jobs. There are jobs women can do better and good luck to them.


I'm having a really hard time figuring out who the supposed good guys vs bad guys are. Maybe you can help?

It sounds like the apex males are the ones who look like Sons of Anarchy and lie around the house all day abusing their girlfriends and wives. And they are apex because women all want sex with them all the time, and won't ever leave them no matter how much a loser they are. 

But then here, you seem to be calling these men chumps. Because they have no options and lie around the house all day abusing their gfs. 

Or are apex guys the players who are getting all the women, not crazy enough to ever settle down, until they are so old that no woman really wants them anymore -- and these guys are the useless fathers because they won't stick around and look after their own children leaving them to become emasculated by their mothers? But when the apex guy falls off his apex, he becomes useless with no options, and still won't raise his children properly? 

:scratchhead:


----------



## wild jade

Anon1111 said:


> it's not about "bad" or "good" on the whole.
> 
> it's "better" or "worse" depending on which demographic you're in.
> 
> I think one issue is that people choose to look at the "better" aspect of social progress for women without honestly acknowledging that there are certain associated social costs.
> 
> acknowledging that these costs exist does not mean that you begrudge the social progress.


But what are the costs to women choosing who they have sex with? The actual real social costs?

And what is the alternative? Women only ever getting raped? Women put into cages with every move they make monitored? Should I be investing in chastity belts?


----------



## NobodySpecial

southbound said:


> I understand what you are saying with that last line. It's puzzling when we as parents try to raise our boys to be respectable young men, and then discover that it doesn't always sit well with the girls. I don't get it.
> 
> One a somewhat similar note, my brother jokes sometimes that maybe he should slap women around when he goes out with them. He says that because we have seen women who have abusive boyfriends or husbands, but they just can't seem to leave them. I've never understood how a man's attraction could be so great that it overshadows that he's a butt-hole.
> 
> I have an x sister-in law and two nieces that are very attractive, but they married losers and got in a mess. I can't understand that. One of the nieces married a guy that, as another poster said, looks like he's from Sons of Anarchy, he doesn't work, and he's a butt. I often wonder why she is still with him. What does he have over a nice young man that works and want's to act like a real father?


I have never cohabited or supported a butt. But I have gone out with one. The thing is, that when you first meet them, they are charming. They can be SO SWEET to you. They make you the moon and starts. They don't start out looking like butts. That comes later and so very slowly you doubt what you are seeing. By then they have their hooks so far into your in terms of occasionally bringing back the sweet, guilt tripping, and gaslighting that it is hard to know. If you throw in marriage and kids, it is hard to pull away. Your brain is addled AND it is very practically challenging to get away.


----------



## wild jade

alexm said:


> I never once saw any of the women I hung out with do what we men typically do - throw spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks.


Are these guys, the ones who throw spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks, are these the nice guys seeking commitment, or the Sons of Anarchy guys who get all the women? 

Either way, it seems a puzzling mating strategy. 

Tell me, if it sticks, is that a good thing or a bad thing?


----------



## tech-novelist

southbound said:


> I understand what you are saying with that last line. It's puzzling when we as parents try to raise our boys to be respectable young men, and then discover that it doesn't always sit well with the girls. I don't get it.
> 
> One a somewhat similar note, my brother jokes sometimes that maybe he should slap women around when he goes out with them. He says that because we have seen women who have abusive boyfriends or husbands, but they just can't seem to leave them. I've never understood how a man's attraction could be so great that it overshadows that he's a butt-hole.
> 
> I have an x sister-in law and two nieces that are very attractive, but they married losers and got in a mess. I can't understand that. One of the nieces married a guy that, as another poster said, looks like he's from Sons of Anarchy, he doesn't work, and he's a butt. I often wonder why she is still with him. What does he have over a nice young man that works and want's to act like a real father?


The reason you don't get this is that you don't understand how the hindbrain works. Evolution is way too slow to deal with social change that happens in years, not millennia, so the hindbrain (in both men and women) is still stuck in the Stone Age, when women who didn't adhere to the most dominant guy had very little chance of survival.

Of course even in the olden days, physical strength wasn't the only indicator of dominance; a man got a lot of status from the way other men treated him. E.g., a king might not be very strong but he was quite dominant, so any woman who didn't get that was unlikely to survive or certainly to thrive. Similarly, a man that other women were hanging on probably had something going for him, which explains "pre-selection".

We like to think that we are "beyond all that", but we aren't.


----------



## sokillme

tech-novelist said:


> Unwin's book is a historical survey of what happens when women are allowed to have sex with whomever they want.


It's very interesting that you put all the onus on the women. Unless they are lesbian's there are just as many men in the equation. Yet you choose to cite the women. This leads me to believe you have more problems with the *women *having sex then the sex itself. 

TN I suspect you are conservative. Would you consider yourself a christian conservative? I wonder if you come to some of this thought from the Bible. If so you know there is no gender in the per-marital sex thing. 

I believe the sexual revelation has had some serious negative impact on society, however I am much more of the mindset let it all come out let people live the way they want. Then let me decided if I want to marry or even hang out with them. This is a much better solution then marrying a charlatan who is only doing so because this is the only choice society has given them. Only to find out later that they are cheating to get the excitement they crave. 

How many marriages were broken up because one of the partners was gay but at the time was unable to live an authentic life without being totally ostracized from society? Now there is no excuse for bearding . This is a much better place to be.

By the way according to the gene studies I have read about paternity fraud was not as rare as you think. Nope nothing new under the sun. Human nature has always been the same.


----------



## sokillme

sapientia said:


> I'd be interested to learn more about how one is trained for success, to compete, to be confident.


They are trained in a skill that makes them successful and from that they get confident. :scratchhead:


----------



## tech-novelist

sokillme said:


> It's very interesting that you put all the onus on the women. Unless they are lesbian's there are just as many men in the equation. Yet you choose to cite the women. This leads me to believe you have more problems with the *women *having sex then the sex itself.
> 
> TN I suspect you are conservative. Would you consider yourself a christian conservative? I wonder if you come to some of this thought from the Bible. If so you know there is no gender in the per-marital sex thing.
> 
> I believe the sexual revelation has had some serious negative impact on society, however I am much more of the mindset let it all come out let people live the way they want. Then let me decided if I want to marry or even hang out with them. This is a much better solution then marrying a charlatan who is only doing so because this is the only choice society has given them. Only to find out later that they are cheating to get the excitement they crave.
> 
> How many marriages were broken up because one of the partners was gay but at the time was unable to live an authentic life without being totally ostracized from society? Now there is no excuse for bearding . This is a much better place to be.


It's not whether women have sex. Of course when there is heterosexual sex, each act involves a man and a woman. The problem is that when women get to decide with whom they will have sex, without external constraints such as a need for financial support, they tend to make very bad choices due to their evolutionary programming (as I have already described). This is why there have been so many constraints on their sexual behavior in past civilizations.

And no, I'm not a conservative of any type, Christian or otherwise. I'm a libertarian. So of course I am in favor of personal liberty for all people, male or female, which means (among other things) that women should have the choice as to whether and with whom they will have sex.

But this also means that men should not be forced to support children they did not wish to father, nor should women have legal or social advantages due to their sex. So to treat both men and women fairly, we need the following reforms, as a start:

1. Since a pregnant woman has the unilateral right to decide whether she will terminate her pregnancy or carry it to term, and if she chooses the latter, whether to keep the baby or put it up for adoption, then men need to have the unilateral right to decide whether he will support that baby if she decides to keep it.
2. Pre-nups must be enforced like any other contract, and should be able to include child support (see above) as well as division of assets upon divorce.
3. Child support orders may be enforced, but only as any other contractual debt is enforced, and only if the father explicitly agrees to support the child and then defaults. No "debtor's prison" or other arbitrary enforcement, including loss of professional licenses, may be used.
4. Allegations of abuse, rape, etc., must be proven like any other criminal charge. False charges, if proven, must be punished in the same way as the original defendant would have been punished if found guilty.
5. No preferences shall be given to anyone on account of sex. This means eliminating Title IX, the Duluth model of abuse, and every other preference given to women for being women.

I'm sure there are plenty of additional changes needed, but that should suffice as a starting point.

Any questions?


----------



## sokillme

tech-novelist said:


> Why don't these men have fathers?
> 
> Hint: 70% of divorces are initiated by *women*.
> 
> This did not happen before no-fault divorce, which is a staple of feminism.
> 
> So it still goes back to feminism.


Sorry tech but this is complete and udder bullsh*t, and again fits your MO of putting all the onus on the women in the relationship. For a guy who seems to have taken some of the red-pill you really don't think men have any ability to have agency in their lives. Do you really think we are week. Any man who has a child and then abandons them for any reason is not a man in my book. 

So my parents were divorced it never stopped my father from being very present in my life. He was a terrible husband but he was a great father to me. 

Nope not buying it, and please don't bring up the outliners and tell me how the courts are keeping them away from their kids. This is the very few and probably has to do with some serious issue on the fathers part. Nope almost all men who are not in their children's life are not there because they abdicated that role. That is on them and it doesn't have anything to do with their ex wives. No matter what your ex did to you, suck it up be a man and be a father to your children. Being a man at times means ignoring up your feeling and doing the right thing. That is what we are and what we are supposed to be. Men stormed the beaches a Normandy for Christ sake.


----------



## Buddy400

southbound said:


> I have an x sister-in law and two nieces that are very attractive, but they married losers and got in a mess. I can't understand that. One of the nieces married a guy that, as another poster said, looks like he's from Sons of Anarchy, he doesn't work, and he's a butt. I often wonder why she is still with him. *What does he have over a nice young man that works and want's to act like a real father?*


She's attracted to the Son's of Anarchy guy; she is not attracted to the "nice young man".

Everybody understands that guys are attracted to the hot, crazy, drama girls and not the nice girls with the "great personality".

It's curious why people are surprised that women are sometimes attracted to guys who aren't good for them when guys do that all the time.

What's needed is the self awareness to know that it's not always a good idea to blindly follow your emotions.


----------



## sokillme

norajane said:


> All of that sure looks like you are looking to place blame on women for some men not succeeding rather than taking responsibility for their own choices, behaviors and level of engagement in their own lives. Other men do just fine and succeed in their own spheres whether that be the boardroom or the plant floor, even with what you see as oppression by women. So maybe the successful men are making better choices about their lives since they operate in the same world under the same rules as the unsuccessful men do?


This is so true, immigrants come here and start businesses and live the American dream. They don't even speak the language well or at all. 

This attitude also hurts these men because it creates a false narrative that prevents them from making changes to themselves that would help them succeed. 

As long as you think you are a victim who has no agency in your life you will never grow and learn so you can start to succeed.


----------



## TAM2013

Jade, you seem very naive considering you have such an adamant stance. Here you will find the answer to all your questions. If you find some of it unsettling, remember the attitudes are a direct backlash to the movement you seem so supportive of.

And remember, no one is suggesting women shouldn't make the best of themselves in every area of their life. Just that some feminist attitudes (and resultant reactions) are damaging to both of us.

WTF has this go to do with women tiring of jerks, anyway? This needs a dedicated thread.


----------



## tech-novelist

TAM2013 said:


> Jade, you seem very naive considering you have such an adamant stance. Here you will find the answer to all your questions. If you find some of it unsettling, remember the attitudes are a direct backlash to the movement you seem so supportive of.
> 
> And remember, no one is suggesting women shouldn't make the best of themselves in every area of their life. Just that some feminist attitudes (and resultant reactions) are damaging to both of us.
> 
> WTF has this go to do with women tiring of jerks, anyway? This needs a dedicated thread.


Well, it is all related, but I agree that a new thread would be good. Why don't you start one and leave a pointer to it here?


----------



## sokillme

tech-novelist said:


> It's not whether women have sex. Of course when there is heterosexual sex, each act involves a man and a woman. The problem is that when women get to decide with whom they will have sex, without external constraints such as a need for financial support, they tend to make very bad choices due to their evolutionary programming (as I have already described). This is why there have been so many constraints on their sexual behavior in past civilizations.
> 
> And no, I'm not a conservative of any type, Christian or otherwise. I'm a libertarian. So of course I am in favor of personal liberty for all people, male or female, which means (among other things) that women should have the choice as to whether and with whom they will have sex.
> 
> But this also means that men should not be forced to support children they did not wish to father, nor should women have legal or social advantages due to their sex. So to treat both men and women fairly, we need the following reforms, as a start:
> 
> 1. Since a pregnant woman has the unilateral right to decide whether she will terminate her pregnancy or carry it to term, and if she chooses the latter, whether to keep the baby or put it up for adoption, then men need to have the unilateral right to decide whether he will support that baby if she decides to keep it.
> 2. Pre-nups must be enforced like any other contract, and should be able to include child support (see above) as well as division of assets upon divorce.
> 3. Child support orders may be enforced, but only as any other contractual debt is enforced, and only if the father explicitly agrees to support the child and then defaults. No "debtor's prison" or other arbitrary enforcement, including loss of professional licenses, may be used.
> 4. Allegations of abuse, rape, etc., must be proven like any other criminal charge. False charges, if proven, must be punished in the same way as the original defendant would have been punished if found guilty.
> 5. No preferences shall be given to anyone on account of sex. This means eliminating Title IX, the Duluth model of abuse, and every other preference given to women for being women.
> 
> I'm sure there are plenty of additional changes needed, but that should suffice as a starting point.
> 
> Any questions?


So 1. what is your solution? Abortion if the father doesn't want the child? Personally I believe when you have the sex that is the moment you have chosen to be responsible for the child. That is where the "contract is signed" so to speak. 

2. See above, you seem to have no concern at all for the child's well being, when you have a child you lose some of your rights. When you have sex you must face the consequences. If you don't want to have kids get your tubes tied. Man up as we say. A man who doesn't support his child is a ****roach and a blight on society. I have no use for him I don't give a sh*t about his genitalia. 

3. It's interesting that you are willing to pass on all the responsibility for raising the child to the mother, and you are fine with the father leaving scott free. You really view men as week. You are kind of the opposite of jld in that respect. 

Where is 4. happening, on any regular basis. Now if you are talking about collage campuses I agree with you that there needs to be much more proof, but even those men are not doing time in jail and they are not suing so they have recourse. Also proven rapist should get life without parole.

5. I am not opposed to this, but in the interest in fairness not so that it is easier on Men.


----------



## uhtred

OK, I started reading the link and got to:
"In any relationship, the person with the most power is the one who needs the other the least."

That is only true in a "selfish" relationship where each is trying to get all that they can. In other relationships the one who needs the most may be the "weaker" one who needs protecting. The one who needs protecting controls the relationship.

Picture a couple, "A" has just been offered an excellent job in Alaska. "A" wants to move, but "B" does not think that they can cope with the harsh conditions and isolation. If A cares about B, A isn't going to drag B off to somewhere where they will be miserable. 

The weaker person "B" controls the decision.

Now if A is selfish, they just say, "I'm going, come along or not. If not, I'll find another spouse". 





TAM2013 said:


> Jade, you seem very naive considering you have such an adamant stance. Here you will find the answer to all your questions. If you find some of it unsettling, remember the attitudes are a direct backlash to the movement you seem so supportive of.
> 
> And remember, no one is suggesting women shouldn't make the best of themselves in every area of their life. Just that some feminist attitudes (and resultant reactions) are damaging to both of us.
> 
> WTF has this go to do with women tiring of jerks, anyway? This needs a dedicated thread.


----------



## sokillme

tech-novelist said:


> Divorced fathers are treated like criminals by the "family court" system. This makes it essentially impossible in many cases for them to fulfill their responsibilities.
> 
> Actually this understates the problem. Criminals are given due process, whereas divorced fathers are not. They can be thrown in prison indefinitely without trial in a revival of debtor's prison, which anyone with the slightest shred of compassion should abhor.



Please give some examples of this criminality of which you speak that prevents them from spending time in their children's lives or being involved.


----------



## Anon1111

wild jade said:


> But what are the costs to women choosing who they have sex with? The actual real social costs?


OK, one potential cost is that when there is total choice, everyone chooses the "best" and no one chooses anything else.

this has the effect of driving up the price of the "best"

to put this in concrete terms, women may now more frequently opt to sleep with top level men and bypass lower level men who might be more apt to give commitment (because they have fewer options).

to the extent women ultimately desire long term commitment from men, this dynamic erodes that.

the top level men are even less likely to commit than previously because they have even greater numbers of potential sexual partners.

the lower level men are less likely to remain in the game at all (living in mom's basement, etc)

none of this is to suggest that women should not have sexual freedom. 

it is just to acknowledge that there may be downsides to sexual freedom when exercised on a large scale.

these downsides are likely acceptable downsides for the great majority of people, but for certain segments of society, they may be disproportionately affected.

for example, if you are a woman who does not feel that she can find a man who is attractive and who will also commit to you, you might be bearing a significant cost of this social change



wild jade said:


> And what is the alternative? Women only ever getting raped? Women put into cages with every move they make monitored? Should I be investing in chastity belts?


I don't think there is any alternative. there is no going back.

at best, I think people can be cognizant that some traditional desires (e.g., marriage) might not be realistic as universal goals any longer.


----------



## Buddy400

wild jade said:


> Sorry, I have no time to read outdated books that make up ridiculous stories in order to shame women for having sex. And not sure why you would want to shame women for having sex. Have you read this forum? Do you really think telling women we're going to destroy the world because we want to choose who we have sex with is helping anyone?
> 
> I'm pretty sure the guys I've had sex with liked it, and we're happy for it. I am curious, though, why you think it will destroy the world that I can do this.
> 
> Well, sort of curious. I'm guessing it's mostly about wanting to control women.


There are major changes in gender relations which are having significant impact on society. My interest is just in acknowledging them and discussing the possible implications.

Discounting such discussion as being about "controlling women" just avoids thinking about the real issues.


----------



## sokillme

southbound said:


> One a somewhat similar note, my brother jokes sometimes that maybe he should slap women around when he goes out with them. He says that because we have seen women who have abusive boyfriends or husbands, but they just can't seem to leave them. I've never understood how a man's attraction could be so great that it overshadows that he's a butt-hole.


Because this person has severe emotional problems. You need to see them like you would the poor soul you see talking to themselves on the street. Why would you make that woman your avatar for women. You wouldn't make the poor soul the example for people who live in cities.


----------



## Anon1111

tech-novelist said:


> 1. Since a pregnant woman has the unilateral right to decide whether she will terminate her pregnancy or carry it to term, and if she chooses the latter, whether to keep the baby or put it up for adoption, then men need to have the unilateral right to decide whether he will support that baby if she decides to keep it.
> 2. Pre-nups must be enforced like any other contract, and should be able to include child support (see above) as well as division of assets upon divorce.
> 3. Child support orders may be enforced, but only as any other contractual debt is enforced, and only if the father explicitly agrees to support the child and then defaults. No "debtor's prison" or other arbitrary enforcement, including loss of professional licenses, may be used.


the big problem with these issues is that there is a third party involved (the child) which has independent rights/interests but which is not in a capacity to advocate for him/herself.

just because a child's mother and father sign a contract between the two of them does not mean that the child has waived its rights.


----------



## Buddy400

sokillme said:


> So 1. what is your solution? Abortion if the father doesn't want the child? Personally I believe when you have the sex that is the moment you have chosen to be responsible for the child. That is where the "contract is signed".
> 
> 2. See above, you seem to have no concern at all for the child's well being, when you have a child you lose some of your rights. When you have sex you must face the consequences. If you don't want to have kids get your tubes tied. Man up as we say. A man who doesn't support his child is a ****roach and a blight on society. I have no use for him I don't give a sh*t about his genitalia.
> 
> 3. It's interesting that you are willing to pass on all the responsibility for raising the child to the mother, and you are fine with the father leaving scott free. You really view men as week. You are kind of the opposite of jld in that respect.


I'm nowhere near as rabid about this as tech is. But there are some problems here.

If a man is committed to supporting a child once he chooses to have sex, would a woman therefore also be committed to having the child once SHE made the decision to have sex?

If a man is evil for not supporting an unwanted child, what about a woman who chooses to not allow the child to be born.

If a woman can unilaterally abort the pregnancy if the child is unwanted, I don't see why a man shouldn't be able to disavow child support.

Would a man be required to provide all the money required to raise the child? Or just half. If all, then why?

I'm neither pro-life or pro-choice, but it does seem to me like men are at a major disadvantage here.


----------



## sokillme

Anon1111 said:


> OK, one potential cost is that when there is total choice, everyone chooses the "best" and no one chooses anything else.
> 
> this has the effect of driving up the price of the "best"
> 
> to put this in concrete terms, women may now more frequently opt to sleep with top level men and bypass lower level men who might be more apt to give commitment (because they have fewer options).
> 
> to the extent women ultimately desire long term commitment from men, this dynamic erodes that.
> 
> the top level men are even less likely to commit than previously because they have even greater numbers of potential sexual partners.
> 
> the lower level men are less likely to remain in the game at all (living in mom's basement, etc)
> 
> none of this is to suggest that women should not have sexual freedom.
> 
> it is just to acknowledge that there may be downsides to sexual freedom when exercised on a large scale.
> 
> these downsides are likely acceptable downsides for the great majority of people, but for certain segments of society, they may be disproportionately affected.
> 
> for example, if you are a woman who does not feel that she can find a man who is attractive and who will also commit to you, you might be bearing a significant cost of this social change
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think there is any alternative. there is no going back.
> 
> at best, I think people can be cognizant that some traditional desires (e.g., marriage) might not be realistic as universal goals any longer.


All of this though assumes that sex it the end all an be all for happiness in life and relationships. If that really is the person's thinking then hire prostitutes you will be happier. 

This is where the sexbot thing comes into play. People who feel this way will most likely switch to the fantasy because reality is never going to live up to that. To me that is the good thing. 

When the sexbots come into vogue sex as a form of personal currency will pretty much go away. Just like hunting skills did for many after with the invent of Neolithic Revolution.


----------



## southbound

NobodySpecial said:


> I have never cohabited or supported a butt. But I have gone out with one. The thing is, that when you first meet them, they are charming. They can be SO SWEET to you. They make you the moon and starts. They don't start out looking like butts. That comes later and so very slowly you doubt what you are seeing. By then they have their hooks so far into your in terms of occasionally bringing back the sweet, guilt tripping, and gaslighting that it is hard to know. If you throw in marriage and kids, it is hard to pull away. Your brain is addled AND it is very practically challenging to get away.


That explanation makes sense. Since I'm not that type of guy, I had no first-hand experience of how it worked. It makes sense that they are charming at first, and then it is difficult to pull away when marriage and kids come along. 

Then there are those women that it doesn't seem difficult to pull away from a good guy; they will divorce because they are "not happy anymore," which will probably include a lot of small reasons, but nothing big.


----------



## Buddy400

Anon1111 said:


> OK, one potential cost is that when there is total choice, everyone chooses the "best" and no one chooses anything else.
> 
> this has the effect of driving up the price of the "best"
> 
> to put this in concrete terms, women may now more frequently opt to sleep with top level men and bypass lower level men who might be more apt to give commitment (because they have fewer options).
> 
> to the extent women ultimately desire long term commitment from men, this dynamic erodes that.
> 
> the top level men are even less likely to commit than previously because they have even greater numbers of potential sexual partners.
> 
> the lower level men are less likely to remain in the game at all (living in mom's basement, etc)
> 
> none of this is to suggest that women should not have sexual freedom.
> 
> it is just to acknowledge that there may be downsides to sexual freedom when exercised on a large scale.
> 
> these downsides are likely acceptable downsides for the great majority of people, but for certain segments of society, they may be disproportionately affected.
> 
> for example, if you are a woman who does not feel that she can find a man who is attractive and who will also commit to you, you might be bearing a significant cost of this social change
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think there is any alternative. there is no going back.
> 
> at best, I think people can be cognizant that some traditional desires (e.g., marriage) might not be realistic as universal goals any longer.


We're trying to say the same things from the same point of view, only you say it better. I'm going to try to just sit back and just "like" your posts instead of going to all the effort of posting myself!
@wild jade Do me a favor and seriously respond to Anon1111's posts once in a while.


----------



## Anon1111

sokillme said:


> All of this though assumes that sex it the end all an be all for happiness in life and relationships. If that really is the person's thinking then hire prostitutes you will be happier.
> 
> This is where the sexbot thing comes into play. People who feel this way will most likely switch to the fantasy because reality is never going to live up to that. To me that is the good thing.
> 
> When the sexbots come into vogue sex as a form of personal currency will pretty much go away. Just like hunting skills did for many after with the invent of Neolithic Revolution.


it just depends on how realistic the sexbots will be.

I don't think sex is the end all / be all. but it's definitely a significant motivating factor. maybe the most significant motivating factor for engaging in relationships with women for a big majority of men.

if you have hyper-realistic sexbots readily available with little social stigma (e.g., comparable to current stigma regarding p-rn), how likely would it be that a sizeable percentage of average men would simply stay home, drink a few beers and hit the sexbot rather than going out?

this would be sad in a way, but it's just a cost/benefit thing.


----------



## Buddy400

sokillme said:


> All of this though assumes that sex it the end all an be all for happiness in life and relationships.


It may not be, but most men probably think it is.


----------



## sokillme

Buddy400 said:


> I'm nowhere near as rabid about this as tech is. But there are some problems here.
> 
> If a man is committed to supporting a child once he chooses to have sex, would a woman therefore also be committed to having the child once SHE made the decision to have sex?
> 
> If a man is evil for not supporting an unwanted child, what about a woman who chooses to not allow the child to be born.
> 
> If a woman can unilaterally abort the pregnancy if the child is unwanted, I don't see why a man shouldn't be able to disavow child support.
> 
> Would a man be required to provide all the money required to raise the child? Or just half. If all, then why?
> 
> I'm neither pro-life or pro-choice, but it does seem to me like men are at a major disadvantage here.


The 50% idea seems fair however this assumes that the father is going to take on 50% of the emotional supportive role that a mother generally has. 

I pretty much agree that a lot of this is unfair, but women are physically at a disadvantage to us in many ways as well, and for centuries men had an advantage because of that. Times change. Modern society has created a state where us as men are now are at a disadvantage. You know what that is life. Once the child is born both parents individual rights go out the window and the child's right should supersede them. Now you could argue what about the child's right before they were born. Yeah well. 

One day there will be artificial wombs and this will solve a lot of these issues. Just like the advent of technology has eliminated some of the inherent strength and stamina advantages that we as men have had. If a man want's to keep the child put it in an artificial womb, and after birth make the mother pay child support. 

Frankly I agree with some of what men's rights groups are pushing for. However a whole lot of them just seem like whiny p*ssys. Their not the Alpha's they seem to think they are.


----------



## Buddy400

southbound said:


> That explanation makes sense. Since I'm not that type of guy, I had no first-hand experience of how it worked. It makes sense that they are charming at first, and then it is difficult to pull away when marriage and kids come along.
> 
> Then there are those women that it doesn't seem difficult to pull away from a good guy; they will divorce because they are "not happy anymore," which will probably include a lot of small reasons, but nothing big.


It's hard to pull away from someone to whom you are attracted.

It's easy to pull away from someone to whom you are NOT attracted.

Would a guy find it harder to leave a crazy hot sexpot or a nice girl that he just wasn't all that attracted to?


----------



## sokillme

Buddy400 said:


> It may not be, but most men probably think it is.


So sexbots will be a good thing for these men. Less competition for the rest of us.


----------



## sokillme

Anon1111 said:


> if you have hyper-realistic sexbots readily available with little social stigma (e.g., comparable to current stigma regarding p-rn), how likely would it be that a sizeable percentage of average men would simply stay home, drink a few beers and hit the sexbot rather than going out?


It's going to happen, it already is with porn. We may be dead but that is where we are going. However the benefit may be to change these men's and woman's (remember sexbots are not only going to be for the men) opinion about what is important in life, and why relationships are needed and important. Empty sex is not a panacea for happiness like society and the media has been telling us for the last 50 years. It's just a drug that releases endorphin like any other. Once people have unfettered access to it they will realize this.


----------



## norajane

Buddy400 said:


> We're trying to say the same things from the same point of view, only you say it better. I'm going to try to just sit back and just "like" your posts instead of going to all the effort of posting myself!
> 
> @*wild jade* Do me a favor and seriously respond to Anon1111's posts once in a while.


Buddy, his entire post starts with a false premise. No one EVER has "total choice," not everyone wants "the best," and "the best" varies from person to person. 

What I consider "the best" is not what jld or SA or Anon Pink would consider "the best." We don't all like the same flavor of ice cream, nor do we all look for or want the same things in men or our lives. Me having a choice in what men I have sex with or marry and wild jade have a choice very likely means we end up with two completely different guys.

So when the initial statement is false, the rest of the points are moot since the scenario does not now nor ever will exist.


----------



## TAM2013

Anon1111 said:


> for example, if you are a woman who does not feel that she can find a man who is attractive and who will also commit to you, you might be bearing a significant cost of this social change.


Nail > Head. Women trade up (or at least they think so) for casual, sleep with who they "choose", hit the wall at 30 and wonder why they can't get commitment from the very men they've given themselves to. Enter AFC/white knight, she settles, he thinks he's struck gold and gets cuckolded or cheated on when she gets bored, ruins his life and spends the next two decades paying for it.

Nice.


----------



## sokillme

TAM2013 said:


> Nail > Head. Women trade up (or at least they think so) for casual, sleep with who they "choose", hit the wall at 30 and wonder why they can't get commitment from the very men they've given themselves to. Enter AFC/white knight, she settles, he thinks he's struck gold and gets cuckolded or cheated on when she gets bored, ruins his life and spends the next two decades paying for it.
> 
> Nice.


Sh*ty women do. Avoid them. Learn, work hard and become a true "alpha" like these redpillers like to say (though there definition and mine differ) Learn to communicate better if you are struggling. Don't depend on anyone for your own happiness. Problem solved. 

All of these complaints remove the man's personal agency in the equation. Be a better man, and get more choices. That doesn't have to be wealth by the way. Find your strengths and enhance them so that you stand out.


----------



## sokillme

No delete. Double post.


----------



## Buddy400

sokillme said:


> Frankly I agree with some of what men's rights groups are pushing for. However a whole lot of them just seem like whiny p*ssys. Their not the Alpha's they seem to think they are.


That's the problem. 

There ARE some real issues, but the whiny p*ssies distract attention from them and draw the attention to themselves.


----------



## TAM2013

sokillme said:


> Sh*ty women do. Avoid them. Learn, work hard and become a true "alpha" like these redpillers like to say (though there definition and mine differ) Learn to communicate better if you are struggling. Don't depend on anyone for your own happiness. Problem solved.
> 
> All of these complaints remove the man's personal agency in the equation. Be a better man, and get more choices. That doesn't have to be wealth by the way. Find your strengths and enhance them so that you stand out.


Thanks man, but I took the red pill years ago.


----------



## Buddy400

norajane said:


> Buddy, his entire post starts with a false premise. No one EVER has "total choice," not everyone wants "the best," and "the best" varies from person to person.
> 
> What I consider "the best" is not what jld or SA or Anon Pink would consider "the best." We don't all like the same flavor of ice cream, nor do we all look for or want the same things in men or our lives. Me having a choice in what men I have sex with or marry and wild jade have a choice very likely means we end up with two completely different guys.
> 
> So when the initial statement is false, the rest of the points are moot since the scenario does not now nor ever will exist.


Then this just devolves into the old discussion about whether or not one can talk in generalizations. 

True, one never know if a particular lion is dangerous until you try to pet it. But I do believe it's worthwhile to have discussions about the behavior of *most* lions. In fact, I think it would be dangerous not to talk about the behavior of most lions.


----------



## farsidejunky

Isn't sociology one big generalization? Any sort of an analysis at the macro level becomes such.


----------



## MAJDEATH

I have a single female friend, and she complains when she posts on CL, all the responses are 1 or 2 lines and a penis pic.


----------



## Anon1111

sokillme said:


> It's going to happen, it already is with porn. We may be dead but that is where we are going. However the benefit may be to change these men's and woman's (remember sexbots are not only going to be for the men) opinion about what is important in life, and why relationships are needed and important. Empty sex is not a panacea for happiness like society and the media has been telling us for the last 50 years. It's just a drug that releases endorphin like any other. Once people have unfettered access to it they will realize this.


you're an optimist!


----------



## norajane

Buddy400 said:


> Then this just devolves into the old discussion about whether or not one can talk in generalizations.
> 
> True, one never know if a particular lion is dangerous until you try to pet it. But I do believe it's worthwhile to have discussions about the behavior of *most* lions. In fact, I think it would be dangerous not to talk about the behavior of most lions.


His analysis goes beyond generalizations and makes up scenarios that could never exist. If one were to base some kind of analysis of animal behavior on Lion King, one shouldn't be surprised if no one gives it any credence since that world does not exist and those aren't actual animals behaving like actual animals, so it's a waste of time to discuss it.


----------



## farsidejunky

FrenchFry said:


> One of my degrees is in sociology, I work in a statistical field. Neither has done me any sort of good when it comes to personal relationships, in fact most of the time looking at my relationships in a quantitative manner would steer me in the absolutely wrong direction.
> 
> Just saying.


This was my point.

Thanks for validating it.


----------



## Anon1111

norajane said:


> His analysis goes beyond generalizations and makes up scenarios that could never exist. If one were to base some kind of analysis of animal behavior on Lion King, one shouldn't be surprised if no one gives it any credence since that world does not exist and those aren't actual animals behaving like actual animals, so it's a waste of time to discuss it.


I guess you're getting hung up on my use of the word "best."

taken literally, this is obviously an overstatement. there is no single "best" man. even if there was, there's no way for all women to pursue one man.

I was using it as a shorthand.

here's the actual point I'm trying to make:

1. casual sex is more acceptable than it used to be

2. women can have casual sex with men who they cannot get to commit to them

3. however, because they are able to get these men to have sex with them, they think commitment is realistic

4. as a result, they are sometimes strung along by one or more of these men

5. in the past, this scenario would not have happened as frequently because a woman would be unlikely to engage in sex without actual commitment

I'd be curious if you disagree with any of the above.


----------



## norajane

If your point is that women often pay a price for having casual sex, I wholeheartedly agree. There are many, many costs to women for having casual sex. Always has been, and always will be.


----------



## Buddy400

norajane said:


> His analysis goes beyond generalizations and makes up scenarios that could never exist.


Disagreeing with his generalizations is perfectly valid.

It sounded like you were disagreeing with the idea of generalizations themselves.


----------



## Anon1111

norajane said:


> If your point is that women often pay a price for having casual sex, I wholeheartedly agree. There are many, many costs to women for having casual sex. Always has been, and always will be.


not my point but it doesn't really matter.


----------



## NobodySpecial

southbound said:


> That explanation makes sense. Since I'm not that type of guy, I had no first-hand experience of how it worked. It makes sense that they are charming at first, and then it is difficult to pull away when marriage and kids come along.
> 
> Then there are those women that it doesn't seem difficult to pull away from a good guy; they will divorce because they are "not happy anymore," which will probably include a lot of small reasons, but nothing big.


I am not quick to discuss this "good guy" / "bad boy" thing. It seems that people really think that this is true. I think it is complete bunk. There are guys who are fun, interesting, exciting and sexy. Some of these will be "bad boys". But the bad boy is not what she is after. She just does not see it because she is in interested in the fun, interesting, exciting and sexy. 

Your average "good guy" is a Nice Guy. That is not fun, interesting, exciting and sexy. A person, like my husband, can be a good man and still be fun, interesting, exciting and sexy.


----------



## Buddy400

FrenchFry said:


> One of my degrees is in sociology, I work in a statistical field. Neither has done me any sort of good when it comes to personal relationships, in fact most of the time looking at my relationships in a quantitative manner would steer me in the absolutely wrong direction.
> 
> Just saying.


True. I would never want to have my interaction with one person driven completely by generalizations about that kind of person.

But it might be handy to be informed by them.

Also, if we're talking about problems at a macro level, there is no one particular personal relationship to consider.


----------



## Begin again

tech-novelist said:


> Why don't these men have fathers?
> 
> Hint: 70% of divorces are initiated by *women*.
> 
> This did not happen before no-fault divorce, which is a staple of feminism.
> 
> So it still goes back to feminism.


Really? So, all these "nice guys" out there who give and give so they can be liked and get stuff back is because they didn't have a father?

Wonder what happened to my soon to be ex, then. Had the most traditional family out there - dad (former military man) as provider, mother as caretaker, dad took care of the cars and the yard on the weekend while mom raised the kids. Father never so much as changed a diaper... But my soon to be ex is textbook "nice guy."
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Buddy400

norajane said:


> If your point is that women often pay a price for having casual sex, I wholeheartedly agree. There are many, many costs to women for having casual sex. Always has been, and always will be.


This is somewhat different because this may be a price that some women are paying because of *other women* engaging in casual sex.

My point is not to be judgmental of women who have casual sex. Women can have casual sex whenever they want. I'm just interested in possible consequences.


----------



## Begin again

I'd never put "I'm tired of jerks" on a profile. What's the point? If it's to stop the so called "jerks" then she's relying on guys to ask themselves, "am I a jerk? Hmmm... I think I am, so I won't contact her." Not likely!

Mature women don't go for jerks. Any woman over 25 who still goes after the guy who has the $ and looks and plays the field gets exactly what she asked for. 

Me? Give me smart and funny all day long! Now... The rules of attraction still apply. If you could be an 8, but you dress like you did in high school, eat poorly, have poor social skills, you are gonna have a tough time. Get some new clothes, eat better, lift a few weights and she will notice you... That's when you get to let your humor and intelligence shine!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## uhtred

I think this is a key question:

Do women actually like "bad boys", or are bad boys more likely to be interesting in other ways that women like?

Hollywood would have us believe that women like bad boys (though always with the heart of gold of course...)








NobodySpecial said:


> I am not quick to discuss this "good guy" / "bad boy" thing. It seems that people really think that this is true. I think it is complete bunk. There are guys who are fun, interesting, exciting and sexy. Some of these will be "bad boys". But the bad boy is not what she is after. She just does not see it because she is in interested in the fun, interesting, exciting and sexy.
> 
> Your average "good guy" is a Nice Guy. That is not fun, interesting, exciting and sexy. A person, like my husband, can be a good man and still be fun, interesting, exciting and sexy.


----------



## NobodySpecial

uhtred said:


> I think this is a key question:
> 
> Do women actually like "bad boys", or are bad boys more likely to be interesting in other ways that women like?


I would say Nice Guys are LESS likely to be interesting. Too busy formulating covert contracts and having no real self esteem to speak of.


----------



## NobodySpecial

That said, you don't have to be a "bad boy" (aka jerk) to be interesting, fun and sexy. You just have to be confident. And actually interesting, fun and sexy.


----------



## Anon1111

ranking

1. confident, nice, fun guy

2. confident, not nice, fun guy

3. unconfident, nice, fun guy

4. unconfident, not nice, fun guy

5. Ben & Jerry's ice cream

6. unconfident, not nice, not fun guy


----------



## southbound

Begin again said:


> Mature women don't go for jerks. Any woman over 25 who still goes after the guy who has the $ and looks and plays the field gets exactly what she asked for.
> 
> Me? Give me smart and funny all day long! Now... The rules of attraction still apply. If you could be an 8, but you dress like you did in high school, eat poorly, have poor social skills, you are gonna have a tough time. Get some new clothes, eat better, lift a few weights and she will notice you... That's when you get to let your humor and intelligence shine!
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


This makes perfect sense to me. There is nothing strange about these expectations in my book; I would assume that is what every woman over 25 would want, but I'm not sure it is. 

I agree that regardless of how good a man is, physical attraction still has to be there. 




NobodySpecial said:


> I am not quick to discuss this "good guy" / "bad boy" thing. It seems that people really think that this is true. I think it is complete bunk. There are guys who are fun, interesting, exciting and sexy. Some of these will be "bad boys". But the bad boy is not what she is after. She just does not see it because she is in interested in the fun, interesting, exciting and sexy.
> 
> Your average "good guy" is a Nice Guy. That is not fun, interesting, exciting and sexy. A person, like my husband, can be a good man and still be fun, interesting, exciting and sexy.


I have to be honest, I'm still not sure what everyone's definition of "bad boy" and "nice guy" is. 

When I say nice guy, I mean a man who would not cheat, treats his wife with kindness, does his share, works to support his family, tries to be a good father, doesn't do drugs, etc. In my mind, I can't see why any woman wouldn't want that. I didn't realize that a man like that was automatically boring. But I believe the new definition for nice guy is a man that does nice things and thinks the woman owes him something for it. Is that correct? Surely just having good character is not a turn off. 

When I think of bad boy, I picture a man whose lifestyle has probably bought him some jail time, not necessarily prison, but jail time, he's probably more likely to want to solve things with his fists instead of communication, etc., however, that may not be what everyone else thinks of as a bad boy. 

I don't know if what I wrote makes any sense, like i said, this bad boy and nice guy thing confuses me.


----------



## MAJDEATH

I volunteer as a mentor to young people and it kills me when young ladies express the desire to date a bad boy or "thug", because it is so exciting that he does drugs, has tattoos and a criminal record. 

And then she acts surprised when he treats her like a thug: taking her for granted, taking her money, cheating and beating, etc.


----------



## jld

uhtred said:


> I think this is a key question:
> 
> Do women actually like "bad boys", or are bad boys more likely to be interesting in other ways that women like?
> 
> Hollywood would have us believe that women like bad boys (though always with the heart of gold of course...)


Do Women Really Go For ?Bad Boys"? Here?s The Science That Settles The Question | IFLScience

_In another study, participants who read dating ads in which people described themselves as altruistic (“I volunteer at the food bank”) were rated as more attractive short-term dates and long-term partners than those who didn’t mention such qualities. Other studies have similarly shown that *women prefer men who are sensitive, confident and easy-going, and that very few (if any) women want to date a man who is aggressive or demanding*. The picture that emerges is clear: when women rate hypothetical partners, they clearly prefer “nice” men.

In fact, the power of niceness shouldn’t be underestimated.* Some studies have shown that having a nice personality can even affect impressions of a person’s physical attractiveness. *Characteristics such as warmth, kindness, and basic decency are valued by both women and men – having them makes us more desirable partners, but also makes us appear more physically attractive.

...

In the end, *the idea that women want to date bad boys really just reinforces the misogynist’s idea of deceitful women and earnest “nice” men baffled by their lack of dating success. It allows some men to blame and hate women as a means of deflecting attention away from their own shortcomings. *So, if you’re looking to science for some advice, it’s simple: be nice._


----------



## alexm

wild jade said:


> Are these guys, the ones who throw spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks, are these the nice guys seeking commitment, or the Sons of Anarchy guys who get all the women?
> 
> Either way, it seems a puzzling mating strategy.
> 
> Tell me, if it sticks, is that a good thing or a bad thing?


No, they were looking for sex, like typical 18 19, 20 year olds.

My point was that that is how men look for sex. Women, on the other hand, typically don't, because they don't have to.

Regardless, my real point was that even though these women COULD have sex whenever they wanted, they didn't. Meanwhile, the guys, for the most part, would be on the prowl constantly.


----------



## wild jade

TAM2013 said:


> Jade, you seem very naive considering you have such an adamant stance. Here you will find the answer to all your questions. If you find some of it unsettling, remember the attitudes are a direct backlash to the movement you seem so supportive of.
> 
> And remember, no one is suggesting women shouldn't make the best of themselves in every area of their life. Just that some feminist attitudes (and resultant reactions) are damaging to both of us.
> 
> WTF has this go to do with women tiring of jerks, anyway? This needs a dedicated thread.


LOL! You're funny! 

Sorry, but I don't have time to sort through your contradictions or those of the site you posted. I was hoping you'd be able to show me that there's actually some sense on your red pill planet, but there really doesn't seem to be. I'll stay on Earth, thank!


----------



## wild jade

southbound said:


> I have to be honest, I'm still not sure what everyone's definition of "bad boy" and "nice guy" is.


Ya, me too. I wish there was some way to know. So far it all sounds topsy turvy and doesn't make any sense.

But boy am I glad that I am married to a normal, good-hearted, nice guy, and if I ever have to date again, I will want it to be with just a normal nice guy. I think I might even post that on my online dating profile.


----------



## wild jade

Anon1111 said:


> it just depends on how realistic the sexbots will be.
> 
> I don't think sex is the end all / be all. but it's definitely a significant motivating factor. maybe the most significant motivating factor for engaging in relationships with women for a big majority of men.
> 
> if you have hyper-realistic sexbots readily available with little social stigma (e.g., comparable to current stigma regarding p-rn), how likely would it be that a sizeable percentage of average men would simply stay home, drink a few beers and hit the sexbot rather than going out?
> 
> this would be sad in a way, but it's just a cost/benefit thing.


If this is how they want to live, then what's wrong with it? 

(I'm guessing most guys don't want to live this way, and this is why they are so upset about this being a potential future. But why they think this is their future because women get to choose who to have sex with is totally beyond me.)


----------



## farsidejunky

Okay. However...

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/head-games/201310/why-do-women-fall-bad-boys

_ Are women predisposed to find men with dark personalities attractive? Although conventional wisdom maintains that women should beware of men who say and do the right thing with too much ease, they often can't help but find them utterly appealing. Now, a study led by Gregory Louis Carter of the University of Durham provides new insights into this vexing phenomenon..._

What does this tell you? While it might not be all women, it certainly is many women.


----------



## Anon1111

wild jade said:


> If this is how they want to live, then what's wrong with it?
> 
> (I'm guessing most guys don't want to live this way, and this is why they are so upset about this being a potential future. But why they think this is their future because women get to choose who to have sex with is totally beyond me.)


nothing morally wrong with it in my opinion

not ideal individually because social isolation tends to lead to depression

not ideal for society to have a swath of disengaged men. I believe we're already seeing the emerging consequences of this now with all of the mass shootings.

again, only misguided people would think one sex is causing this to happen to another


----------



## wild jade

Anon1111 said:


> OK, one potential cost is that when there is total choice, everyone chooses the "best" and no one chooses anything else.
> 
> this has the effect of driving up the price of the "best"
> 
> to put this in concrete terms, women may now more frequently opt to sleep with top level men and bypass lower level men who might be more apt to give commitment (because they have fewer options).
> 
> to the extent women ultimately desire long term commitment from men, this dynamic erodes that.
> 
> the top level men are even less likely to commit than previously because they have even greater numbers of potential sexual partners.
> 
> the lower level men are less likely to remain in the game at all (living in mom's basement, etc)
> 
> none of this is to suggest that women should not have sexual freedom.
> 
> it is just to acknowledge that there may be downsides to sexual freedom when exercised on a large scale.
> 
> these downsides are likely acceptable downsides for the great majority of people, but for certain segments of society, they may be disproportionately affected.
> 
> for example, if you are a woman who does not feel that she can find a man who is attractive and who will also commit to you, you might be bearing a significant cost of this social change
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think there is any alternative. there is no going back.
> 
> at best, I think people can be cognizant that some traditional desires (e.g., marriage) might not be realistic as universal goals any longer.


I'm sorry, but I don't get this. At. All.

I can choose who I sleep with, and I can choose who I marry. And guess what? The guy that I sleep with and married is a very nice, down-to-earth, ordinary guy with a heart of gold. That is who I was looking for and who I chose. 

Who are all these "top" people swooping in and stealing all the women? Are we talking about people like Mick Jagger, on his 8th child and probably banging numbers in the thousands? Who cares who he sleeps with or whether he will commit? 

And why do you think that all and only women want to commit, but only desperate for sex men would dare to stoop that low?


----------



## NobodySpecial

southbound said:


> This makes perfect sense to me. There is nothing strange about these expectations in my book; I would assume that is what every woman over 25 would want, but I'm not sure it is.
> 
> I agree that regardless of how good a man is, physical attraction still has to be there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to be honest, I'm still not sure what everyone's definition of "bad boy" and "nice guy" is.
> 
> When I say nice guy, I mean a man who would not cheat, treats his wife with kindness, does his share, works to support his family, tries to be a good father, doesn't do drugs, etc. In my mind, I can't see why any woman wouldn't want that. I didn't realize that a man like that was automatically boring. But I believe the new definition for nice guy is a man that does nice things and thinks the woman owes him something for it. Is that correct? Surely just having good character is not a turn off.


Capital N Capital G is recent slang for the door mat guy who try to nice their way into relationships but who have no confidence. They often build covert contracts in their mind about how NICE they have been and that women owe them sex for that. It is not just not fun, it is GROSS. A nice guy does not have confidence therefor cannot be much fun. They are always saying sorry as if afraid they said the wrong thing... might turn you off. In so doing they DO turn you off.

By contrast a good man is all the things you say and can still be very fun and exciting.



> When I think of bad boy, I picture a man whose lifestyle has probably bought him some jail time, not necessarily prison, but jail time, he's probably more likely to want to solve things with his fists instead of communication, etc., however, that may not be what everyone else thinks of as a bad boy.


I guess I think jerk. One does not have to be a jerk to be fun, exciting and sexy. So I think you and I are agreeing.


----------



## wild jade

Anon1111 said:


> nothing morally wrong with it in my opinion
> 
> not ideal individually because social isolation tends to lead to depression
> 
> not ideal for society to have a swath of disengaged men. I believe we're already seeing the emerging consequences of this now with all of the mass shootings.
> 
> again, only misguided people would think one sex is causing this to happen to another


Yes, disengagement and social alienation is a real problem. 

Trying to blame it on women having sexual choice, though, seems really far-fetched. Really far-fetched.

All these points being thrown out here seem to be all based on this idea that if we can somehow force women to not find some men more attractive than others, we will solve all of the world's ills because no matter how pathetic the guy, there will be some gorgeous babe for him to have sex with. Or even if she isn't a gorgeous babe, someone he won't feel like he is settling for.

Why don't we instead force men to find all the unattractive women out there stunningly beautiful? Then they'll be super happy with women of all ranks and have that many more to choose from.


----------



## Buddy400

jld said:


> Do Women Really Go For ?Bad Boys"? Here?s The Science That Settles The Question | IFLScience
> [/I]





farsidejunky said:


> Okay. However...
> 
> https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/head-games/201310/why-do-women-fall-bad-boys


Whew, for a moment there, I thought the SCIENCE really had settled the question!

Because SCIENCE works like that, you know.


----------



## Anon1111

wild jade said:


> I'm sorry, but I don't get this. At. All.
> 
> I can choose who I sleep with, and I can choose who I marry. And guess what? The guy that I sleep with and married is a very nice, down-to-earth, ordinary guy with a heart of gold. That is who I was looking for and who I chose.
> 
> Who are all these "top" people swooping in and stealing all the women? Are we talking about people like Mick Jagger, on his 8th child and probably banging numbers in the thousands? Who cares who he sleeps with or whether he will commit?
> 
> And why do you think that all and only women want to commit, but only desperate for sex men would dare to stoop that low?


I don't actually disagree with you and am not really arguing with you.

I don't think you understand my point but no big deal.


----------



## Buddy400

wild jade said:


> Yes, disengagement and social alienation is a real problem.
> 
> Trying to blame it on women having sexual choice, though, seems really far-fetched. Really far-fetched.
> 
> All these points being thrown out here seem to be all based on this idea that if we can somehow force women to not find some men more attractive than others, we will solve all of the world's ills because no matter how pathetic the guy, there will be some gorgeous babe for him to have sex with. Or even if she isn't a gorgeous babe, someone he won't feel like he is settling for.
> 
> Why don't we instead force men to find all the unattractive women out there stunningly beautiful? Then they'll be super happy with women of all ranks and have that many more to choose from.


I think you're reacting to things that Anon and I aren't saying.

We are not *blaming* women.

We're not suggesting that there are any solutions or even problems to solve.

Do you see some of the same things we do? 

What do you think about it?


----------



## Anon1111

Buddy400 said:


> Whew, for a moment there, I thought the SCIENCE really had settled the question!
> 
> Because SCIENCE works like that, you know.


dude, only "settled science" works like that. duh.


----------



## Anon1111

wild jade said:


> Yes, disengagement and social alienation is a real problem.
> 
> Trying to blame it on women having sexual choice, though, seems really far-fetched. Really far-fetched.
> 
> All these points being thrown out here seem to be all based on this idea that if we can somehow force women to not find some men more attractive than others, we will solve all of the world's ills because no matter how pathetic the guy, there will be some gorgeous babe for him to have sex with. Or even if she isn't a gorgeous babe, someone he won't feel like he is settling for.
> 
> Why don't we instead force men to find all the unattractive women out there stunningly beautiful? Then they'll be super happy with women of all ranks and have that many more to choose from.


it seems that you really want to get into a battle with someone who is blaming women for having sexual freedom.

I'm not that guy. I'm totally in favor of sexual freedom


----------



## Begin again

I like to think I want a "good man" and not a "nice man." To me, a good man can be loyal and supportive and stable and kind, but he's not out to try to be "nice" to me or others. People who try to be nice all the time don't appeal to me; it's normal and healthy to put yourself first sometimes. Good men can be nice, but it's not their goal to be nice. And they know when and how to be not nice, when warranted.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Lila

Buddy400 said:


> This is somewhat different because this may be a price that some women are paying because of *other women* engaging in casual sex.
> 
> My point is not to be judgmental of women who have casual sex. Women can have casual sex whenever they want. *I'm just interested in possible consequences*.


We are by no means pioneers in the sexual liberation of women. If you wish to see the possible consequences of this in a functioning society, just look at our Nordic cousins - Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland. They are all egalitarian, sexually liberated, predominantly secular societies. Interestingly enough, they also rank in the top 10 countries having the happiest people. 

Why Scandinavian women make the rest of the world jealous


----------



## sokillme

Anon1111 said:


> you're an optimist!


Well I either believe that or that Mike Judge creator of of the movie Idiocracy was a prophet. :frown2:


----------



## jld

Buddy400 said:


> Whew, for a moment there, I thought the SCIENCE really had settled the question!
> 
> Because SCIENCE works like that, you know.


Far's must be a fraud.





J/K!


----------



## sokillme

Lila said:


> We are by no means pioneers in the sexual liberation of women. If you wish to see the possible consequences of this in a functioning society, just look at our Nordic cousins - Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland. They are all egalitarian, sexually liberated, predominantly secular societies. Interestingly enough, they also rank in the top 10 countries having the happiest people.
> 
> Why Scandinavian women make the rest of the world jealous


I'm weary of using 50 years as a good sample size. I all for an egalitarian society but some of the identity politics really turn me off.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> Okay. However...
> 
> https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/head-games/201310/why-do-women-fall-bad-boys
> 
> _ Are women predisposed to find men with dark personalities attractive? Although conventional wisdom maintains that women should beware of men who say and do the right thing with too much ease, they often can't help but find them utterly appealing. Now, a study led by Gregory Louis Carter of the University of Durham provides new insights into this vexing phenomenon..._
> 
> What does this tell you? While it might not be all women, it certainly is many women.


_"Carter and his team report the limitations of the study, including that the participants were undergraduates, a population that tends to be oriented towards short-term relationships. In addition, the Dark Triad character embodied all of the descriptors of the “Dirty Dozen” measure, while the control character had none. In the real world, the investigators acknowledge that both Dark Triad traits and their derivatives run along a continuum, which was not captured in this study."_


----------



## TAM2013

wild jade said:


> LOL! You're funny!
> 
> Sorry, but I don't have time to sort through your contradictions or those of the site you posted. I was hoping you'd be able to show me that there's actually some sense on your red pill planet, but there really doesn't seem to be. I'll stay on Earth, thank!


Glad you liked the website.


----------



## Lila

sokillme said:


> I'm weary of using 50 years as a good sample size. I all for an egalitarian society but some of the identity politics really turn me off.


The point is they see success where we (general we) see doom and gloom. The sky IS NOT falling. Women's sexual liberation does not equal end of civilized society.

In those countries, men and women report being happy even though: cohabitation is more popular than legal marriage, women and men share power and influence in society, and sexual behavior is viewed equally among the genders.


----------



## Anon1111

Lila said:


> The point is they see success where we (general we) see doom and gloom. The sky IS NOT falling. Women's sexual liberation does not equal end of civilized society.
> 
> In those countries, men and women report being happy even though: cohabitation is more popular than legal marriage, women and men share power and influence in society, and sexual behavior is viewed equally among the genders.


this is a good counterexample.

I think it's important that in these countries, it's not just about sexual liberation in isolation, it's about sexual liberation alongside re-evaluation of gender roles in general


----------



## Lila

Anon1111 said:


> this is a good counterexample.
> 
> I think it's important that in these countries, it's not just about sexual liberation in isolation, it's about sexual liberation alongside re-evaluation of gender roles in general


That's true. The availability of higher education and their secular attitude towards morality (Scandanivian countries are some are the least religious in the world) probably plays the largest role.


----------



## Red Sonja

farsidejunky said:


> Okay. However...
> 
> https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/head-games/201310/why-do-women-fall-bad-boys
> 
> _ Are women predisposed to find men with dark personalities attractive? Although conventional wisdom maintains that women should beware of men who say and do the right thing with too much ease, they often can't help but find them utterly appealing. Now, a study led by Gregory Louis Carter of the University of Durham provides new insights into this vexing phenomenon..._
> 
> What does this tell you? While it might not be all women, it certainly is many women.


That was a study where the subjects were undergraduates (read to the bottom), i.e. 18 to 21 year olds (generally) with brains that are not fully matured and little real-life experience.

For those reasons it's a study with little use, unless you are looking for short-term relationships with the very young.


----------



## uhtred

You seem to be implying that the choice is bad boys or manipulators. (You seem to be using the TAM definition of "nice guys" but I didn't use that term).

What about legitimately good men, or do you believe that they don't exist?



NobodySpecial said:


> I would say Nice Guys are LESS likely to be interesting. Too busy formulating covert contracts and having no real self esteem to speak of.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> Far's must be a fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> J/K!


Just ask Al Gore!


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> Just ask Al Gore!


Hey, I liked Gore! 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## farsidejunky

Red Sonja said:


> That was a study where the subjects were undergraduates (read to the bottom), i.e. 18 to 21 year olds (generally) with brains that are not fully matured and little real-life experience.
> 
> For those reasons it's a study with little use, unless you are looking for short-term relationships with the very young.


Dismiss it if you want to.

I am not suggesting this is all women.

However, it is significant enough to be considered. Or, just close your eyes, cover your ears, and scream "La, la, la" as it happens around you. 

I have seen it in both young, middle aged and older women. There was a period in my life (not one I am necessarily proud of), about aged 25-26, freshly divorced and angry at the world, where I was the bad boy. I have never been with so many different women in so short a time period. They ranged in age from 19 to 45. Most of them approached me. As soon as I started to get a conscience, I was rarely approached. 

After that, I watched several women I wanted to try to date pass me up for the risky types. I became friend zoned. The only thing that changed was that I gained a conscience.

I understand this is anecdotal. But I believe there is a large segment of both males and females that like to dance with a bit of danger and excitement. I think that is the source of it.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> Hey, I liked Gore!
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I didn't!



But we can have some fun at his expense nonetheless.


----------



## Red Sonja

farsidejunky said:


> Dismiss it if you want to.
> 
> I am not suggesting this is all women.
> 
> However, it is significant enough to be considered. Or, just close your eyes, cover your ears, and scream "La, la, la" as it happens around you.


*I did not dismiss it, all I did was point out the demographics and limitations of the study.*

I am assuming the context of this discussion to be within the demographics on THIS website (TAM), some of whom are dating again. Hence the original thread question.

Peace.


----------



## tech-novelist

Anon1111 said:


> the big problem with these issues is that there is a third party involved (the child) which has independent rights/interests but which is not in a capacity to advocate for him/herself.
> 
> just because a child's mother and father sign a contract between the two of them does not mean that the child has waived its rights.


The notion of the child having rights is inconsistent with the woman's right to make a unilateral decision to abort it.

So which is it? Does the child have rights, or does the woman have the right to decide to abort it?


----------



## tech-novelist

MAJDEATH said:


> I volunteer as a mentor to young people and it kills me when young ladies express the desire to date a bad boy or "thug", because it is so exciting that he does drugs, has tattoos and a criminal record.
> 
> And then she acts surprised when he treats her like a thug: taking her for granted, taking her money, cheating and beating, etc.


This is called hybristophilia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybristophilia), and is the single most obvious proof of the maladaptation of women's sexual response to modern society.


----------



## tech-novelist

wild jade said:


> If this is how they want to live, then what's wrong with it?
> 
> (I'm guessing most guys don't want to live this way, and this is why they are so upset about this being a potential future. But why they think this is their future because women get to choose who to have sex with is totally beyond me.)


I would think this is obvious: Because women won't choose to have sex with most guys, only with guys who turn them on, which leaves out about 80% of guys. See Your Looks and Your Inbox « OkTrends for some research on this.


----------



## tech-novelist

Lila said:


> We are by no means pioneers in the sexual liberation of women. If you wish to see the possible consequences of this in a functioning society, just look at our Nordic cousins - Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland. They are all egalitarian, sexually liberated, predominantly secular societies. Interestingly enough, they also rank in the top 10 countries having the happiest people.
> 
> Why Scandinavian women make the rest of the world jealous


And their fertility is way below replacement. So they will become extinct in a few generations.

Not that there is anything wrong with that, of course. But it is a truism that the future belongs to those who show up for it, so we can conclude that feminist countries (including the current USA) will not survive in their current forms for much longer.


----------



## Lila

tech-novelist said:


> And their fertility is way below replacement. So they will become extinct in a few generations.
> 
> Not that there is anything wrong with that, of course. But it is a truism that the future belongs to those who show up for it, so we can conclude that feminist countries (including the current USA) will not survive in their current forms for much longer.


I'm not sure where you're getting your data to make such a claim but it is wrong. 

Fertility rate, total (births per woman) | Data 

The birth rates in most of the countries is on par with most 1st world countries.

2014 Data:

Norway - 1.9
Denmark - 1.6
Finland - 1.8
Iceland - 1.9
Sweden - 1.9

The world birth rate is 2.4 but it's highly skewed by some of the poorest 3rd world and war mongering countries where the infant mortality rate is 30xs higher than average. Additionally, on average, less than 50% of the children born in some of the countries listed with the highest birth rates actually make it to adulthood.

According to the data, looks like the so-called feminist countries are holding their own.


----------



## Kivlor

Lila said:


> I'm not sure where you're getting your data to make such a claim but it is wrong.
> 
> Fertility rate, total (births per woman) | Data
> 
> The birth rates in most of the countries is on par with most 1st world countries.
> 
> 2014 Data:
> 
> Norway - 1.9
> Denmark - 1.6
> Finland - 1.8
> Iceland - 1.9
> Sweden - 1.9
> 
> The world birth rate is 2.4 but it's highly skewed by some of the poorest 3rd world and war mongering countries where the infant mortality rate is 30xs higher than average. Additionally, on average, less than 50% of the children born in some of the countries listed with the highest birth rates actually make it to adulthood.
> 
> According to the data, looks like the so-called feminist countries are holding their own.


Do you understand what a Replacement Rate is?


----------



## NobodySpecial

uhtred said:


> You seem to be implying that the choice is bad boys or manipulators. (You seem to be using the TAM definition of "nice guys" but I didn't use that term).
> 
> What about legitimately good men, or do you believe that they don't exist?


Huh. I know they exist I had one for a father. I am now married to one.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

southbound said:


> *I have to be honest, I'm still not sure what everyone's definition of "bad boy" and "nice guy" is*.
> 
> When I say nice guy, I mean a man who would not cheat, treats his wife with kindness, does his share, works to support his family, tries to be a good father, doesn't do drugs, etc. In my mind, I can't see why any woman wouldn't want that. I didn't realize that a man like that was automatically boring. But I believe the new definition for nice guy is a man that does nice things and thinks the woman owes him something for it. Is that correct? Surely just having good character is not a turn off.
> 
> *When I think of bad boy, I picture a man whose lifestyle has probably bought him some jail time, not necessarily prison, but jail time, he's probably more likely to want to solve things with his fists instead of communication, etc., however, that may not be what everyone else thinks of as a bad boy. *


*BAD BOYS* , my thoughts - an old post of mine....

I understand the attraction to Bad Boys...there is some strong allure to these types...they captivate our senses ...something in us wants to tame them...so he only has eyes for US....suddenly becoming a "one woman" man... though this doesn't always happen.. or it does for just a time, they win our heart , then destroy us when they move on to another.... The movies gave us the wrong script.

So how does one define a Bad boy... for me...it goes something like this.....

I see those type of men as primarily looking to get laid, they have a c0cky confidence about it too...(& think not much of it...it's a common past time)... it's all about "Living it up"... not too much focus on tomorrow...they are generally more emotionally unavailable- because of that "I don't give a sh** attitude" (there goes the romance!)... more on the adrenaline junkie side (maybe he'll crash on his motorcycle!)....Once on the Harley -you can add the booze in one hand, a cigarette in the other ....and notice the tattoos while you're at it... they don't need anyone- just the open road....... they like to party with the boys... and many wouldn't care to get married or to be Fathers...










Everything I just said above would annoy me...GREATLY...though I'd probably still think he was HOT looking...yet NOT what I wanted in a man !

*NICE Guys* (if the niceness is genuine, that is... not what's portrayed in "No More Mr Nice Guy" - putting on an act to camouflage himself to BE whatever she wants thinking he will win her respect & devotion...it doesn't work like that if it's not genuinely who he is... 

Basically Good Beta = Nice men... all men need some Good Beta or they are basically a walking DI**. 

Definition here:



> 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"


Contrast that with...



> 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
Click to expand...


----------



## sokillme

Urban Dictionary: nice guy


wild jade said:


> Ya, me too. I wish there was some way to know. So far it all sounds topsy turvy and doesn't make any sense.
> 
> But boy am I glad that I am married to a normal, good-hearted, nice guy, and if I ever have to date again, I will want it to be with just a normal nice guy. I think I might even post that on my online dating profile.


Nice Guy -- bad boys mean different thing to men and women it seems.

I hate the definition of alpha and beta in SimplyAmorous post by the way. 


I look at Alpha and Beta as 

*Alpha* is proactive in his life and is strong enough to take a back seat when it is the right thing to do, but is always thinking forward and striving to do better. Always does the right thing no matter what the consequence. Cares more about his honor then his own comfort or reward. 

*Beta* just wants to avoid conflict at any cost, because it is easier or because he is manipulative and thinks it will eventually help him get what he wants no matter if it is right or wrong. Has no honor because it is hard. Much easier to go with the flow.


----------



## turnera

> I have to be honest, I'm still not sure what everyone's definition of "bad boy" and "nice guy" is.


Honestly, IMO, it's simple people of the opposite sex who 'don't need you.' If they don't need you, YOU WANT THEM.


----------



## sokillme

turnera said:


> Honestly, IMO, it's simple people of the opposite sex who 'don't need you.' If they don't need you, YOU WANT THEM.


There is a lot of truth in this. Sad that human nature is like that. Those great philosophers Mick and Keith said it right "You can't always get what you want." 

Mick Taylor is awesome and missed.


----------



## southbound

turnera said:


> Honestly, IMO, it's simple people of the opposite sex who 'don't need you.' If they don't need you, YOU WANT THEM.


That's not how it works with me, but i realize that's how it works for other guys i suppose. 

It's discussions like this that make me realize just how complicated relationships can be. I'm 48 years old, and I just am who I am. One can label it bad-boy, nice-guy, beta, or alpha; It just is what it is, and I doubt I will change much at my age. I'm not into games; I guess my brain is just too logical for all this relationship stuff to make sense. I think being single is easier than trying to understand all this stuff.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

sokillme said:


> *I hate the definition of alpha and beta in SimplyAmorous post by the way.*
> 
> 
> I look at Alpha and Beta as
> 
> *Alpha* is proactive in his life and is strong enough to take a back seat when it is the right thing to do, but is always thinking forward and striving to do better. Always does the right thing no matter what the consequence. Cares more about his honor then his own comfort or reward.
> 
> *Beta* just wants to avoid conflict at any cost, because it is easier or because he is manipulative and thinks it will eventually help him get what he wants no matter if it is right or wrong. Has no honor because it is hard. Much easier to go with the flow.


 That's the THING about these terms....I get a little offended when I hear Betas being put down...as MY DEFINITION is different over yours.. Plus my husband is on the naturally passive side, this doesn't mean he's a puzzy whipped doormat either.. it's a inborn temperament thing, if it's something really important, he won't be passive.. but yeah he's a pretty laid back sorta guy... I actually love that.

Who really is to say who is Right or who's Wrong with these definitions.. what I have seen is these "Pick up Artist" sites (disgraceful in my book) have twisted the meanings so pathetically that you'd think Alpha was all a man needed.. (your view)... but some of us feel there is good Alpha and Bad Alpha.. Good Beta and Bad Beta.. explained here :



















I felt this was the greatest TAM post ever sorting out how a man needs BOTH...and just how that works -with the definitions I gave , that is.. 



Entropy3000 said:


> Pure Alpha males are not leaders. Pure Beta men are not leaders. It takes a balance of the positive qualities to be a leader. There pure extremes will not occur in nature but it is a sliding scale.
> 
> The confusion is when folks want to view Alpha as superior to Beta and so on as a scale of a quality man and that is not what it is about at all. In fact magnitude comes into play as well. You can have two fairly balanced men with one of them possessing high Alpha and High Beta traits while the other possesses lower Alpha and lower Beta traits. They both have a balance but they are very different people.
> 
> A child is in a burning home and needs help :
> 
> An extreme Beta male cares very much for the child and only wishes someone could help the child. He is paralyzed by his own fear and lacks the confidence to be decisive and take action. He looks to others to save the child.
> 
> An extreme Alpha male has the capability to do something but is too selfish to risk their own well being.
> 
> *A quality man with high Alpha and high Beta traits of the right combination will be driven to action. They are compelled by their Beta feelings to invoke the Alpha within them. They get past the fear and show courage. They are decisive. They know that they are the child's only chance. They take the risk knowing they may not survive themselves. That is very Beta, but it is also very Alpha. The combination is what makes the man.*
> 
> A good leader cares about their people. They are strong for the group. There are not a lot of good leaders.


----------



## sokillme

SimplyAmorous said:


> That's the THING about these terms....I get a little offended when I hear Betas being put down...as MY DEFINITION is different over yours.. Plus my husband is on the naturally passive side, this doesn't mean he's a puzzy whipped doormat either.. it's a inborn temperament thing, if it's something really important, he won't be passive.. but yeah he's a pretty laid back sorta guy... I actually love that.
> 
> Who really is to say who is Right or who's Wrong with these definitions.. what I have seen is these "Pick up Artist" sites (disgraceful in my book) have twisted the meanings so pathetically that you'd think Alpha was all a man needed.. (your view)... but some of us feel there is good Alpha and Bad Alpha.. Good Beta and Bad Beta.. explained here :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I felt this was the greatest TAM post ever sorting out how a man needs BOTH...and just how that works -with the definitions I gave , that is..


In my description the only one who it the beta is the one who doesn't do anything. I don't think laid back and beta go hand in hand. I get that people do but they are wrong. They confuse laid back with passive or being a push over. Doesn't sound like your husband is these things.

They are loaded terms though.


----------



## tech-novelist

turnera said:


> Honestly, IMO, it's simple people of the opposite sex who 'don't need you.' If they don't need you, YOU WANT THEM.


This is true in general (not in every case) for women.

Most (again, not all) men want women who *do *need them.

This is one of the big differences between the sexes.


----------



## turnera

Men who want women who need them are insecure.

That's the whole thing. 

You have to have decent self esteem to be willing to LEAVE SOMEONE who is harmful to you.

Again, the derogatory definition of a beta is a man who will tolerate being mistreated without leaving. Because he has such low self esteem that he believes he'll never find another person who will want him. Of course, the same goes for females, too.

In the end, it's all about self esteem.


----------



## GusPolinski

You'll know that women are sick of jerks when they stop saying that they're sick of jerks.

Until that happens, they're still dealing w/ jerks... which basically means that they're not sick of them.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## farsidejunky

GusPolinski said:


> You'll know that women are sick of jerks when they stop saying that they're sick of jerks.
> 
> Until that happens, they're still dealing w/ jerks... which basically means that they're not sick of them.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Lol, QFT.


----------



## uhtred

Alpha / beta means very different things to different people. 

Being Alpha seems to involve being in control - but whether that control comes from actual strength, or from obnoxious stubbornness is the question. 

One of the most respected leaders at my work would normally be considered "beta". He is a very pleasant, friendly person. He has no official position, but he is listened to, and followed by a great many people purely out of respect for his abilities, and his fairness. 

That is not saying that all Alphas are bad. We also have a manager who might be considered alpha but is widely respected because in addition to being strong willed, he is very talented, and unbiased. 


I think the alpha / beta thing may have made sense for early human societies, but our interactions now are much too complex. Mostly the term seems to be used by people who believe themselves to be "alpha", and who then define the terms to try to build up their own self worth and put down others. (in a sign of lack of confidence that is the opposite of conventional "alpha").


----------



## tech-novelist

turnera said:


> Men who want women who need them are insecure.
> 
> That's the whole thing.
> 
> You have to have decent self esteem to be willing to LEAVE SOMEONE who is harmful to you.
> 
> Again, the derogatory definition of a beta is a man who will tolerate being mistreated without leaving. Because he has such low self esteem that he believes he'll never find another person who will want him. Of course, the same goes for females, too.
> 
> In the end, it's all about self esteem.


I am a man, and I want my wife to need me because I am happy being her provider and protector.

However, that doesn't mean that I don't think I could find anyone else who would want (or need) me.

In other words, I'm not short on self-esteem.


----------



## Buddy400

uhtred said:


> *I think the alpha / beta thing may have made sense for early human societie*s, but our interactions now are much too complex.


That's the problem. But our subconscious hasn't figured that out yet.


----------



## bandit.45

Newsflash:

Men are tired of entitled greedy women who are empowered by the law and courts to make men's lives miserable if they step out of line.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

Banned-It.45 said:


> Newsflash:
> 
> Men are tired of entitled greedy women who are empowered by the law and courts to make men's lives miserable if they step out of line.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Bandit . . . I think you are a much nicer person than this post makes you sound.


----------



## bandit.45

You can't paint men with broad strokes. We're as different form each other as women are from each other.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## sokillme

Anon1111 said:


> not ideal for society to have a swath of disengaged men. I believe we're already seeing the emerging consequences of this now with all of the mass shootings.


Remember we live in the age of communication. Communication is paramount to your success in today's modern society. Most of these men have very poor communicating abilities. This wouldn't be as big a factor in personal success 100 years ago. 

I believe many of these men disengage form society because they won't or can't ask for help. There is a huge social stigma about this. I believe yes many of them have quirks such as over sharing or they are socially awkward when they are young. Because of this they are ostracized by their peers. They then don't learn the normal social skills that most of us learn in our early teens especially with the opposite sex. By the time they are adults they have developed very bad communications skills and have a very hard time communicating enough to even build standard relationships. This is why they are seen as loners. It is not by choice it's because they can't emotionally communicate enough to make deep friendships. 

This inability to make close relationships eventually comes to a head and the explode. Plus if you have no close relationships you lose some of your ability to empathize. I remember how hard it was in my early teens and late 20's thank God I have a good group of friends that helped me get through that time. I don't know what I would have done without them. These guys don't have that for the most part. 

Young kids who have these problems should be taught social and emotional behavior to help them better assimilate with their peers and older men who are feeling alone and desperate need to be told that it is OK to ask for help. 

However men are told to suck it up, that asking for emotional help makes them week, we are supposed to be stronger then that. We don't get depressed we don't get lonely. We don't even have emotions, emotions are a feminine trait.


----------



## sokillme

tech-novelist said:


> This is called hybristophilia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybristophilia), and is the single most obvious proof of the maladaptation of women's sexual response to modern society.


No it's not you are talking about a small % of woman.


----------



## sokillme

farsidejunky said:


> Okay. However...
> 
> https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/head-games/201310/why-do-women-fall-bad-boys
> 
> _ Are women predisposed to find men with dark personalities attractive? Although conventional wisdom maintains that women should beware of men who say and do the right thing with too much ease, they often can't help but find them utterly appealing. Now, a study led by Gregory Louis Carter of the University of Durham provides new insights into this vexing phenomenon..._
> 
> What does this tell you? While it might not be all women, it certainly is many women.



Even if this is true the type of woman that falls for a bad boy is not the kind of woman that a good guy will want to be with. A lot of that problem is that physical attractiveness overrides our better judgement. Be honest no guy cares about a crazy woman who is not hot. It is the combination of being physically stunning and emotionally stunted that gets us. It would be easier to be blind I think. Again sexbots may help this sort of thing. There is way to much currency in physical attractiveness now a days. 

So if you meet a woman who wants the bad boy remember there are tons of women out there. Just move on to the next one and ignore the silly ones. Those two belong together.


----------



## NotEasy

farsidejunky said:


> ...
> I have seen it in both young, middle aged and older women. There was a period in my life (not one I am necessarily proud of), about aged 25-26, freshly divorced and angry at the world, where I was the bad boy. I have never been with so many different women in so short a time period. They ranged in age from 19 to 45. Most of them approached me. As soon as I started to get a conscience, I was rarely approached.
> 
> After that, I watched several women I wanted to try to date pass me up for the risky types. I became friend zoned. The only thing that changed was that I gained a conscience.
> ...


I doubt your conscience was the only thing that changed. None of us can see anyones conscience. No doubt they were seeing something else, body language, clothing, speech patterns, etc. Something that you didn't notice or control, but something else that changed. Interesting that they could see it so quickly.

If you knew what it was and didn't have a conscience it could probably be a gold mine, fake bad-boy essence. You could sell that to the unsuccessful guys. They could then pretend to be bad boys and pick up the girls.


----------



## wild jade

Anon1111 said:


> it seems that you really want to get into a battle with someone who is blaming women for having sexual freedom.
> 
> I'm not that guy. I'm totally in favor of sexual freedom


Battle? No. I just don't see things the way you seem to at all. I do not see men being excluded or left out because women can choose to have sex with whomever they want. Maybe some guys find it hard to date, but that's always been true. Just like some guys think some women are hot and some are not, women make the same sorts of judgments.

This whole women aren't evolved theme here seems crazy to me.

I'm really sorry that so many guys find it hard to attract women, and are depressed because they think they aren't needed or can't measure up. But I don't think there is anything new about those feelings, and women have them too. Dating sucks and is hard. Unless you want to go back to arranged marriages, that will always be true.


----------



## wild jade

Lila said:


> We are by no means pioneers in the sexual liberation of women. If you wish to see the possible consequences of this in a functioning society, just look at our Nordic cousins - Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland. They are all egalitarian, sexually liberated, predominantly secular societies. Interestingly enough, they also rank in the top 10 countries having the happiest people.
> 
> Why Scandinavian women make the rest of the world jealous


Exactly!!! Women and men still love each other, even when women can choose who they sleep with, have jobs, and go to college.


----------



## heartsbeating

FrenchFry said:


> Which, coincidentally is why I married a total jerk. :smile2: Only a jerk really can handle an emotionally walled off woman who needs immense amount of space.


Gold.


----------



## NotEasy

farsidejunky said:


> Okay. However...
> 
> https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/head-games/201310/why-do-women-fall-bad-boys
> 
> Are women predisposed to find men with dark personalities attractive? Although conventional wisdom maintains that women should beware of men who say and do the right thing with too much ease, they often can't help but find them utterly appealing. Now, a study led by Gregory Louis Carter of the University of Durham provides new insights into this vexing phenomenon...
> 
> What does this tell you? While it might not be all women, it certainly is many women.


Interesting short article, it gives details without assigning blame or seeing conspiracies. This thread wastes too much time casting blame. Yes things are changing, and understand the changes are important, but it isn't necessarily any groups fault.

I finally see a sequence that explains various elements of this thread.

-A women is attracted to a 'bad boy' and they start a relationship. At this stage though she isn't looking for and doesn't describe him as a bad boy or a jerk. She is probably looking for 'exciting'.
-Later she gets sick of his bad behaviour and breaks it off.
-Rinse and repeat. She wasn't consciously looking for a bad boy, so she doesn't see her search criteria was wrong, hence she repeatedly picks bad boys.
-Eventually she posts that she doesn't want a 'jerk', wondering why all these exciting guys keep changing into jerks.
-Others read into that her bad history and don't approach her. So she gets bitter that she has spent so long unsuccessfully searching for Mr Right.
-Bad boys leave her alone as she might have developed immunity to them and they have better chances with the younger, less wise girls. Or worse they see her as a challenge to conquer.
-The 'nice guys' leave her alone as they are bitter she had fun without them. How dare she, they'll show her. They stay in isolation and read MGTOW sites.
-Meanwhile the 'normal guys' have dated and paired up with sensible girls. Now the original woman looks around and says where have all the normal guys gone.

And by 'normal guys' I mean the middle ground between bad boys and nice guys. I need a better label, it sounds too like 'nice guy'. They haven't entered into this thread enough. It seems people see all men as either bad boys or nice guys. I think they are probably who the original women wanted, if she could just see it.

I still don't understand what everyone means by 'bad boy' and 'nice guy' though. My guess is they don't too, everyone has their own fuzzy definitions.
And the original woman perhaps eventually uses 'jerk' to mean something fuzzy like anyone other than Mr Right, that is both bad boys and nice guys.

And all this after only 300 posts, I don't know why people say I am slow.


----------



## NotEasy

NotEasy said:


> ...
> If you knew what it was and didn't have a conscience it could probably be a gold mine, fake bad-boy essence. You could sell that to the unsuccessful guys. They could then pretend to be bad boys and pick up the girls.


Actually I wonder if you could sell fake bad-boy essence with a clear conscience. And if maybe the women who are tired of jerks would approve. It suggests an interesting thought experiment on the nature of the problem.

If somehow the nature of whatever farside was doing was distilled and could be given to a normal guy, then he could attract her. She would happily seek him because he had whatever it was she kept looking for. Later she would hopefully be happy because he is doesn't behave badly. So it would need to be given to a normal guy, if he was a manipulator then later he would also behave badly, just this time with covert contracts. 
Or perhaps she really wants bad boys who treat her badly, and her case is hopeless. Maybe she gets off on the drama of it all, she secretly doesn't want to be happy. Maybe she secretly wants to change a bad boy, when she realises he is not a bad boy she looses the chance to fix him and looses attraction.

Hopefully he would be happy too.

And if both end up happy then I have a clear conscience. I did nothing more than the perfume companies do, helped two people attract each other for long enough for other bonds to form.


----------



## ReformedHubby

I think the jerk thing is overblown. I do agree that generally speaking guys with more alpha traits do better when it comes to picking up women. But that has nothing to do with being a jerk. Just because someone is confident, good looking, successful or whatever, it doesn't make them a jerk. Of all the ladies men I know, I wouldn't call any of them jerks, with that said they aren't exactly who you want if you want a commitment. Is that what makes them jerks?


----------



## tech-novelist

ReformedHubby said:


> I think the jerk thing is overblown. I do agree that generally speaking guys with more alpha traits do better when it comes to picking up women. But that has nothing to do with being a jerk. Just because someone is confident, good looking, successful or whatever, it doesn't make them a jerk. Of all the ladies men I know, I wouldn't call any of them jerks, with that said they aren't exactly who you want if you want a commitment. Is that what makes them jerks?


Here's a lexicon:

Jerk: 
An attractive man who doesn't do what a woman wants him to do.
But she still wants to have sex with him.
(About 10-20% of men.)

Creep:
An unattractive man who doesn't do what a woman wants him to do. She doesn't want to have sex with him.
(The other 80-90% of men.)

Ideal man:
Hunky handyman who is a secret millionaire and possibly a vampire. He does whatever she wants him to do even when she doesn't know what that is.
(Exists only in romance novels.)


----------



## farsidejunky

tech-novelist said:


> Here's a lexicon:
> 
> Jerk:
> An attractive man who doesn't do what a woman wants him to do.
> But she still wants to have sex with him.
> (About 10-20% of men.)
> 
> Creep:
> An unattractive man who doesn't do what a woman wants him to do. She doesn't want to have sex with him.
> (The other 80-90% of men.)
> 
> Ideal man:
> Hunky handyman who is a secret millionaire and possibly a vampire. He does whatever she wants him to do even when she doesn't know what that is.
> (Exists only in romance novels.)


:rofl:


----------



## turnera

ReformedHubby said:


> I think the jerk thing is overblown. I do agree that generally speaking guys with more alpha traits do better when it comes to picking up women. But that has nothing to do with being a jerk. Just because someone is confident, good looking, successful or whatever, it doesn't make them a jerk. Of all the ladies men I know, I wouldn't call any of them jerks, with that said they aren't exactly who you want if you want a commitment. Is that what makes them jerks?


I would imagine that, in the end, it's the repeated disappointments that makes a man a jerk. Men's top needs are usually sex, admiration, and fun. Women's are usually honesty, conversation, and support. Those don't necessarily work together. If the guy's all about getting out and having fun, odds are he's lying to the wife about it or else forgetting those walks he promised her, and she's left at home with nobody to talk to and another broken promise.

Big generalization, but you get the idea.


----------



## wild jade

GusPolinski said:


> You'll know that women are sick of jerks when they stop saying that they're sick of jerks.
> 
> Until that happens, they're still dealing w/ jerks... which basically means that they're not sick of them.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Doesn't follow. The world is full of jerks. And you can minimize your interactions with them, but you're likely to come across them relatively frequently no matter what you do.


----------



## wild jade

Banned-It.45 said:


> Newsflash:
> 
> Men are tired of entitled greedy women who are empowered by the law and courts to make men's lives miserable if they step out of line.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Will you put that on your online dating portfolio?


----------



## wild jade

FrenchFry said:


> People have tried and made a lot of money off of the poor suckers who have bought into the girls like bad boys parable.
> 
> @farsidejunky said it clearly--he grew a conscience. The men who are chasing the hot but crazy girls and the women who are chasing the POS guys don't seem to realize that they themselves are broken and are not chasing but putting out the signals that scream "I have low self-esteem and co-dependent."
> 
> As soon as I worked on those issues myself, I stopped attracting those sort of men in my life immediately. No warnings in dating profiles needed, jerks who prey on women with low self-esteem stopped hitting on me and those who weren't broken in that sort of manner did.
> 
> As soon as farside stopped being broken by his divorce, the women who have not potentiated their worth stopped coming on to him.
> 
> Men who see that "girls love jerks," don't seem to realize that anyone who chases a person who treats them wrong is clearly a broken soul and would be a bad relationship partner. That this person hasn't made the steps in becoming self-aware and will destroy them down the line. I honestly think they overlook this for the attractiveness factor.
> 
> I also don't think thy see the other side that jerks also have low self-esteem and use people in a sociopathic manner to boost themselves up. All the way around, it's terrible for being in a relationship.
> 
> It has nothing to do with being logical or rational. It has everything to do with being honest with what you as a person need and want in a relationship and pursuing it without letting all of the other bull**** get in the way. Being honest with yourself is hard and imo, impossible to do without wither really wise friends who know you well or a really good counselor who can help you sort the wheat from the chaff. It's also an ongoing process, but I honestly believe if you get the absolute core, the peripheral stuff isn't as important.
> 
> Which, coincidentally is why I married a total jerk. :smile2: Only a jerk really can handle an emotionally walled off woman who needs immense amount of space.


Awesome post!! 

Yes, people who go after jerks (man or woman) are often broken and looking to be treated poorly. And so if you are terribly envious of these jerks and all that they are able to score, well, if that's what you want you can have it too. It's not that hard.

But useful to ask yourself if that really is what you want from your relationship.


----------



## wild jade

A little sad that so many people here seem to hold such a poor view of women. 

but I guess on a marriage forum, it's to be expected.


----------



## Haiku

Starstarfish said:


> "Nice guy" or nice guy? There's a serious difference.


Don't I know it! When I was in high school a buddy's girlfriend hosted a French girl for a summer exchange. As a favor I agreed to a double date...a show and dinner...The girl friend's mom knew my family and told Juliette that I was a "nice boy". During the whole evening Juliette was cold as ice. I assumed she had a boyfriend in France and didn't want to lead me on. Later I learned "nice boy" meant gay to her. FML!
😡


----------



## Red Sonja

wild jade said:


> A little sad that so many people here seem to hold such a poor view of women.


... and men.

There will always be people who label all men as "this" and all women as "that".

Where "this" and "that" may be substituted by your favorite insult or pseudo-fact.

I do my best to not associate with these types IRL.

Although, once in a great while it is fun to argue with them on the internet. >


----------



## NotEasy

wild jade said:


> Doesn't follow. The world is full of jerks. And you can minimize your interactions with them, but you're likely to come across them relatively frequently no matter what you do.


I don't think the world is full of jerks. There are some jerks, but there are many who are not jerks.

Sadly we can't live our life without running into some jerks. But I think those posting on dating web-sites that they are tired of jerks have run into mostly jerks. They are getting far more than the statistically expected fraction of jerks. Otherwise they should be in a LTR with a non-jerk.

And if they keep getting jerks then I expect they are picking wrong or the world hates them. If they are picking wrong they should fix their problem and then try again, instead they are almost advertising their flaw. If they think the world hates them, then they are advertising their paranoia. In both cases the correct response requires self-awareness, their response advertises a lack of self-awareness.

Alternately their world (the dating web-sites) are mainly filled by men who are jerks. I kind of think this may be true.


----------



## TAM2013

Why are people putting it so politely saying "women can choose who they have sex with?". This is true, as is what we really mean and that is; women can choose to sleep around and they certainly can. But women who sleep around are not as good a prospect for commitment as the ones who don't.

It really is that simple.


----------



## wild jade

Red Sonja said:


> ... and men.
> 
> There will always be people who label all men as "this" and all women as "that".
> 
> Where "this" and "that" may be substituted by your favorite insult or pseudo-fact.
> 
> I do my best to not associate with these types IRL.
> 
> Although, once in a great while it is fun to argue with them on the internet. >


Too true! None of the guys I know in real life think they are jerks, or try to be jerks, or spend time envying jerks. They don't go around saying that most men are losers who can't get laid, or alpha this and beta that. They don't think that men are only about banging women and playing video games. In fact I think they would be insulted by that.

IRL, the guys I know are the types of guys who will help the little old lady across the street, or give the shirt off their backs to help someone in need. Most are in good LTRs, get laid plenty, and are happy to have their wives pursue careers, and be all that they can be.


----------



## wild jade

NotEasy said:


> I don't think the world is full of jerks. There are some jerks, but there are many who are not jerks.
> 
> Sadly we can't live our life without running into some jerks. But I think those posting on dating web-sites that they are tired of jerks have run into mostly jerks. They are getting far more than the statistically expected fraction of jerks. Otherwise they should be in a LTR with a non-jerk.
> 
> And if they keep getting jerks then I expect they are picking wrong or the world hates them. If they are picking wrong they should fix their problem and then try again, instead they are almost advertising their flaw. If they think the world hates them, then they are advertising their paranoia. In both cases the correct response requires self-awareness, their response advertises a lack of self-awareness.
> 
> Alternately their world (the dating web-sites) are mainly filled by men who are jerks. I kind of think this may be true.



Honestly, most of the jerks I encounter are people driving their cars while talking on their cell phones (or whatever), who can't be bothered to signal, or stay in their lanes, or cut you off, and so on.

My point was more that sometimes you can't avoid jerks. And putting up an online dating profile as an attractive woman is basically putting up a billboard inviting all the jerks of the world to harass you, send you **** pix, insult you for not responding to them, and so on. 

The only reason I can see for not putting "no jerks please" on an online dating profile is that jerks never listen to these kinds of requests. Maybe even encourages them. 

Very interesting to see the different conclusions people reach when they see something like that though.


----------



## ReformedHubby

wild jade said:


> Too true! None of the guys I know in real life think they are jerks, or try to be jerks, or spend time envying jerks. They don't go around saying that most men are losers who can't get laid, or alpha this and beta that. They don't think that men are only about banging women and playing video games. In fact I think they would be insulted by that.
> 
> IRL, the guys I know are the types of guys who will help the little old lady across the street, or give the shirt off their backs to help someone in need. Most are in good LTRs, get laid plenty, and are happy to have their wives pursue careers, and be all that they can be.


I think the guys that are saying women only want to be with jerks are a vocal minority. You're only a jerk because you are with the one they want. My wife has several attractive friends that do the online dating thing, and they encounter a lot of men that for whatever reason just don't handle rejection well. I don't think some guys realize that even the dude that seems to get a lot of women still gets rejected/dumped sometimes. He just handles it like an adult and moves on. Just because a woman doesn't want you, it doesn't mean she wants a jerk, it just means she isn't attracted to you.


----------



## uhtred

Maybe a lot of women are attracted to "risk takers" but real risk taking isn't a very good idea in modern society. (here I am not counting investment / financial risk taking which I doubt anyone finds sexy). 

The modern world is very safe. Generally physical risks are taken by choice, and even then most fun activities are very low risk if done correctly. Climbing mountains, flying airplanes etc is only really risky if you are stupid about it. Someone can take up bat-suit jumping. Its incredibly risky - but while its fun, its really risk for minimal reward. 

Risk taking in jobs rarely works well. Quitting your high paying solid software job to follow your dream to be a nature photographer (which a friend of mine did), is actually sort of dumb and (at least in his case) ended up with him unemployable, and relying on his wife for support. (not sexy).

Social risk taking can be OK, but violating social norms can easily make someone into a jerk. 

There is some socially valuable risk taking - traveling to remote areas to fight Ebola for example - but that sort of risk doesn't seem as appealing. ("I ltravel to underdeveloped countries with dangerous infectious diseases", isn't a great pickup line).


So I think some women are looking for "exciting" risk takers, but that ]doesn't fit well in the modern world. 

Meanwhile Hollywood serves up an endless series of sexy guys taking risks that make sense in the context of the movie, but not in real life.


----------



## ReformedHubby

uhtred said:


> Maybe a lot of women are attracted to "risk takers" but real risk taking isn't a very good idea in modern society. (here I am not counting investment / financial risk taking which I doubt anyone finds sexy).
> 
> The modern world is very safe. Generally physical risks are taken by choice, and even then most fun activities are very low risk if done correctly. Climbing mountains, flying airplanes etc is only really risky if you are stupid about it. Someone can take up bat-suit jumping. Its incredibly risky - but while its fun, its really risk for minimal reward.
> 
> Risk taking in jobs rarely works well. Quitting your high paying solid software job to follow your dream to be a nature photographer (which a friend of mine did), is actually sort of dumb and (at least in his case) ended up with him unemployable, and relying on his wife for support. (not sexy).
> 
> Social risk taking can be OK, but violating social norms can easily make someone into a jerk.
> 
> There is some socially valuable risk taking - traveling to remote areas to fight Ebola for example - but that sort of risk doesn't seem as appealing. ("I ltravel to underdeveloped countries with dangerous infectious diseases", isn't a great pickup line).
> 
> 
> So I think some women are looking for "exciting" risk takers, but that ]doesn't fit well in the modern world.
> 
> Meanwhile Hollywood serves up an endless series of sexy guys taking risks that make sense in the context of the movie, but not in real life.


I get what you are trying to say, but I don't think risk taking is a huge draw IRL either. I work in a field where a lot of the young men I hire are introverts. They often ask me for advice. I tell them all the time to just be yourself and the rest will take care of itself. Chemistry is a funny thing. No two women are alike. If you check enough of her boxes she will be attracted to you, if you don't then she won't see you as the man for her. Its not the end of the world if she isn't in to you, find the one that is. When I went to my first dance in junior high my pops told me "don't find a girl to chase after, find the one that's chasing you". Best advice ever. If you end up with someone that you had to move heaven and earth to impress, the attraction won't last, because you can't keep that up.


----------



## wild jade

ReformedHubby said:


> I get what you are trying to say, but I don't think risk taking is a huge draw IRL either. I work in a field where a lot of the young men I hire are introverts. They often ask me for advice. I tell them all the time to just be yourself and the rest will take care of itself. Chemistry is a funny thing. No two women are alike. If you check enough of her boxes she will be attracted to you, if you don't then she won't see you as the man for her. Its not the end of the world if she isn't in to you, find the one that is. When I went to my first dance in junior high my pops told me "don't find a girl to chase after, find the one that's chasing you". Best advice ever. If you end up with someone that you had to move heaven and earth to impress, the attraction won't last, because you can't keep that up.


The only downside to this advice is that women are told the same thing.

So I wonder how many people are very attracted to each other, but are sitting back waiting for the other one to make the first move.


----------



## NotEasy

wild jade said:


> Honestly, most of the jerks I encounter are people driving their cars while talking on their cell phones (or whatever), who can't be bothered to signal, or stay in their lanes, or cut you off, and so on.


Same here. This is what I think of as a jerk. I have trouble being sure what is meant by the women on a dating site. I doubt they are talking about his lack of care when driving.



wild jade said:


> My point was more that sometimes you can't avoid jerks. And putting up an online dating profile as an attractive woman is basically putting up a billboard inviting all the jerks of the world to harass you, send you **** pix, insult you for not responding to them, and so on.


Perhaps the experience of harassing and **** pix explains the difference. I haven't experienced either, and don't know how I would react. Probably I would leave that dating site, but there aren't many of them.



wild jade said:


> The only reason I can see for not putting "no jerks please" on an online dating profile is that jerks never listen to these kinds of requests. Maybe even encourages them.


Agreed. To me "no jerks please" seems silly as no-one considers themself to be a jerk, so no-one is going to follow it. And worse some jerks may see it as a challenge.



wild jade said:


> Very interesting to see the different conclusions people reach when they see something like that though.


----------



## Vega

Just for jollies, I went on to a few dating sights yesterday, just to look at what the women are posting. 

Then I went to the men's profiles.

Looks like men do the same thing. I saw that men will say things like, "NO DRAMA QUEENS!!!!!!!!!!" Can't tell you all how often I saw that.

As far as jerks are concerned, I see jerks as being men/women who are immature. 

Which is probably about 3/4 of the planet.


----------



## techmom

ReformedHubby said:


> I think the guys that are saying women only want to be with jerks are a vocal minority. You're only a jerk because you are with the one they want. My wife has several attractive friends that do the online dating thing, and they encounter a lot of men that for whatever reason just don't handle rejection well. I don't think some guys realize that even the dude that seems to get a lot of women still gets rejected/dumped sometimes. He just handles it like an adult and moves on. *Just because a woman doesn't want you, it doesn't mean she wants a jerk, it just means she isn't attracted to you.*


Too bad not many of these so-called red-pill men don't get this, I guess it feels better to start a "crusade" than to work on your insecurities. Authors like Athol Kay are making a mint off of these men who want to feel that the odds are stacked against them. They are angry and bitter for being rejected by the hot ladies while they won't give average ladies a second look, interesting that they feel that women's choice to choose the hot men over them will lead to the downfall of society. 

In the past, these men would have married women who were groomed to make marriage a priority over a career, these women looked for men who were the supporters because these women would not look to entering a career. These women were looking forward to lives as house wives and SAHMS. Women are not being groomed towards that anymore, at least not at the rate they were in the past. So, the young men have to adjust to trying to attract women with many more choices than just staying home with the kids, hence feminism. Men who are less attractive and socially inept will have problems, not because women are turning them down but it seems as if all of them are going for the hot women. If they have a choice between a 6 or a 10, they will go for the 10, full stop.

So, most men will go for the most attractive women, big breasts, long hair, clear skin, young, and in shape. They won't CHOOSE to go for women in their own "sex rank", if they consider themselves to be a 6 or 7. So the ladies who do show them interest don't get their attention if they are a 6, they just don't. They don't even appear on their radar, these ladies are invisible when we have discussions like this because they are concentrating on the ladies they are aiming for. They will rather compete for the attention of the hot ladies, while they get outdone by the so-called alpha men.

These low-ranking men then develop these negative attitudes towards all women, however they are only talking about the hot women on their radar who they are chasing, not all types and ranks of women. If they happen to snag a hot woman, their attitude does not change, they still hold their hostility and they demand constant validation from her (preferably through sex acts). Most of these men carry retroactive jealousy towards all of their wife's past lovers, we see this in numerous threads on TAM.

**Please note that I'm using the sex ranking thing not to rank people, but to illustrate how people think.**

Men have had their choices of who they want to sleep with for thousands of years and the world still turns on its axis, why should it be any different for women? All of the posters who feel that this will lead to the downfall of society please answer this post without reverting to anti feminist tropes, why would women choosing their own partners harm society? What do you see as a solution to this, maybe women need to feel pity upon these downtrodden rejected men and pretend to fall in love with them? Boost their egos and self esteem with loads of hot women giving them pity f*cks? What can women do to solve this problem?


----------



## techmom

ReformedHubby said:


> I get what you are trying to say, but I don't think risk taking is a huge draw IRL either. I work in a field where a lot of the young men I hire are introverts. They often ask me for advice. I tell them all the time to just be yourself and the rest will take care of itself. Chemistry is a funny thing. No two women are alike. If you check enough of her boxes she will be attracted to you, if you don't then she won't see you as the man for her. Its not the end of the world if she isn't in to you, find the one that is. When I went to my first dance in junior high my pops told me *"don't find a girl to chase after, find the one that's chasing you". Best advice ever. *If you end up with someone that you had to move heaven and earth to impress, the attraction won't last, because you can't keep that up.


Your father did give you the best advice, that is better than if he had said "just be yourself". His advice guided you to look for the girls who were chasing you, which was a very alpha outlook.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

wild jade said:


> The only downside to this advice is that women are told the same thing.
> 
> So I wonder how many people are very attracted to each other, but are sitting back waiting for the other one to make the first move.


Personally I would never chase a man.. I feel the man should make the 1st move.. even though I am more dominate natured over my husband.. HE WENT AFTER ME.. if he didn't ... we probably wouldn't be together today.. 

Give me some old fashioned Romance please.... He's more introverted over me...yet still...he believes MEN should make the 1st show of affection.. making their feelings known.. then allow the woman to decide...I don't think I could ever shake that... I've always had strong feelings about it.. 

I've seen a few girls chasing our sons...it may be a bit of an ego boost.. but still I've seen their reactions too...I felt a little sorry for some of them.. it just wasn't going to happen..


----------



## SimplyAmorous

techmom said:


> Your father did give you the best advice, that is better than if he had said "just be yourself". His advice guided you to look for the girls who were chasing you, which was a very alpha outlook.


My observations have been.. the women who chase MAY get their hooks in a man.. but I've seen a number of those men CHEAT on the woman too...she doesn't get the ultimate treatment as his options are many.... if he's so ALPHA.. then he can make the 1st move on one of those he fancies... 

If a man isn't "smitten with attraction" quickly after he meets a woman, with a strong desire to get to know her better....I wouldn't think there is all that much to work with..

I guess it's good there is all types out there though..


----------



## wild jade

SimplyAmorous said:


> Personally I would never chase a man.. I feel the man should make the 1st move.. even though I am more dominate natured over my husband.. HE WENT AFTER ME.. if he didn't ... we probably wouldn't be together today..
> 
> Give me some old fashioned Romance please.... He's more introverted over me...yet still...he believes MEN should make the 1st show of affection.. making their feelings known.. then allow the woman to decide...I don't think I could ever shake that... I've always had strong feelings about it..
> 
> I've seen a few girls chasing our sons...it may be a bit of an ego boost.. but still I've seen their reactions too...I felt a little sorry for some of them.. it just wasn't going to happen..



I don't see any reason why women shouldn't go after the men they desire, and I know a few who made it work for them. That said, it never worked out well for me, so I stopped, and decided that I would only even consider a guy if he was chasing me. 

But after ReformedHubby's comment, I really do wonder how many people have made that same decision, and are missing the chance to be with someone they really dig.


----------



## Herschel

I haven't read through this thread, but the first post and title remind me of a simple rule. Whenever someone says they aren't something, it usually means they are.

Women that are looking for a guy who isn't a jerk, well, she probably is one. She wants a "normal" guy, but one that fits all her other "requirements". Usually, those requirements end up leading her to the jerks she has been finding, why? cause she is a jerk too.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

wild jade said:


> I don't see any reason why women shouldn't go after the men they desire, and I know a few who made it work for them. That said, it never worked out well for me, so I stopped, and decided that I would only even consider a guy if he was chasing me.
> 
> But after ReformedHubby's comment, I really do wonder how many people have made that same decision, and are missing the chance to be with someone they really dig.


I look at this way... if a woman is chasing a man.. makes it known she WANTS him.. he's generally going to expect sex -most of them DO.... so she's only going to come off a "D**k tease if she doesn't put out (quickly enough)...would he even care in the morning? Half the time.. probably not.. 

If a woman is JUST looking for a night of pleasure.. no strings attached.. It makes sense to me.. go for it !..

But if she's seeking something lasting... I think it's Best to wait for a man who is head over heels for her...who sees potential, where HE takes the initiative showing her he's interested..."wooing her"...

I just feel such men are more likely to stick around and be true...and it's very romantic too!


----------



## Personal

SimplyAmorous said:


> I look at this way... if a woman is chasing a man.. makes it known she WANTS him.. he's generally going to expect sex -most of them DO.... so she's only going to come off a "D**k tease if she doesn't put out (quickly enough)...would he even care in the morning? Half the time.. probably not..
> 
> If a woman is JUST looking for a night of pleasure.. no strings attached.. It makes sense to me.. go for it !..
> 
> But if she's seeking something lasting... I think it's Best to wait for a man who is head over heels for her...who sees potential, where HE takes the initiative showing her he's interested..."wooing her"...
> 
> I just feel such men are more likely to stick around and be true...and it's very romantic too!


More likely?

Hmmm...

My wife chased me and we've had 20+ happy years of sticking around all while being true.

But hey what do I know I'm only living it.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Personal said:


> More likely?
> 
> Hmmm...
> 
> My wife chased me and we've had 20+ happy years of sticking around all while being true.
> 
> But hey what do I know I'm only living it.


There are always exceptions Personal.. it's just that I feel "statistically speaking" it's best to allow the man to pursue.. Just as the majority thinks those who wait are all prudes..it's NOT always the case (there are exceptions)..

This has influenced my thinking..not to mention a # of girlfriends who have been burned, sucking up to a man...

I learned yrs ago... my Grandmother chased my Grandfather.. they were both dancers... my Grandfather quite the flirt, he was also in a band (typical I suppose)... I sat & listened to this old man tell me he's loved other women more than her, she wasn't the love of his life..

Oh I listened...heck he opened up to me...truth is truth... but it was pretty sad.... he even named my mother after an old girlfriend.. why in the hell my Grandmother allowed this was beyond me.. He also stepped out on her..

He was mostly true to his family.. but I always felt kinda sorry for her.. it surely wasn't the love story my other Grandparents had..


----------



## jld

I would not advise a woman to chase a man either, SA. If she starts out with that level of responsibility, she will likely continue to have to carry it. And some gals are indeed okay with that.

But not ever what I would want for my own daughter.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jld said:


> I would not advise a woman to chase a man either, SA. If she starts out with that level of responsibility, she will likely continue to have to carry it. And some gals are indeed okay with that.
> 
> But not ever what I would want for my own daughter.


Nice to see you pop in @jld... I was thinking of you when I posted my thoughts yesterday... as this is 1 area me & you think strongly the same...it's something that mattered to me a great deal... I had crushes on a few boys in high school.. but they NEVER knew.. I wouldn't change this....

As much as I love the company of a man.. I'd never chase one.. Also the type of men I go for (more conservative traditional types) are generally taught they are THE MAN, it's their place to pursue a worthy woman to marry, have children with...

If I was so undesirable that none were interested...it would surely get me down...yet still I'd feel it PUSHY , even burdensome to pursue a man... I would surely be "friendly" ... that's kinda natural for me...if this doesn't spike his interest.. there is NOTHING there.. Period.. 

Also... I think it's asinine to play stupid games when you meet someone (very common today).... a man wouldn't have to worry about this BS with me.. but yes...he'd have to step up, take some initiative - to show his romantic interest ... 

It's probably even a little odd for ME to feel so strongly here as I don't mind taking responsibility (as you mentioned - some anyway!)... I am the more dominant partner even.. but in this ONE little area.. I expect the man to take the lead... 

I liked this one guy before I met my husband, he was a friends brother.. Big crush going on... I didn't pursue thankfully.. as he was more interested in my best friend...that hurt..but it was a heads up - He was not "the one" for me!


----------



## jld

Totally agree, SA. Totally agree.


----------



## MrsHolland

jld said:


> I would not advise a woman to chase a man either, SA. If she starts out with that level of responsibility, she will likely continue to have to carry it. And some gals are indeed okay with that.
> 
> But not ever what I would want for my own daughter.


I have never chased a man for no reason other than a bit of arrogance. Have always believed "I am worth it" so they can chase me.


----------



## jld

Very smart, Mrs Holland and SA. Very smart.


----------



## wild jade

SimplyAmorous said:


> There are always exceptions Personal.. it's just that I feel "statistically speaking" it's best to allow the man to pursue.. Just as the majority thinks those who wait are all prudes..it's NOT always the case (there are exceptions)..
> 
> This has influenced my thinking..not to mention a # of girlfriends who have been burned, sucking up to a man...
> 
> I learned yrs ago... my Grandmother chased my Grandfather.. they were both dancers... my Grandfather quite the flirt, he was also in a band (typical I suppose)... I sat & listened to this old man tell me he's loved other women more than her, she wasn't the love of his life..
> 
> Oh I listened...heck he opened up to me...truth is truth... but it was pretty sad.... he even named my mother after an old girlfriend.. why in the hell my Grandmother allowed this was beyond me.. He also stepped out on her..
> 
> He was mostly true to his family.. but I always felt kinda sorry for her.. it surely wasn't the love story my other Grandparents had..


That's a sad story.  How awful for your grandmother. I would never want to be with someone who didn't really want to be with me ....

My grandparents had an expression "he chased her til she caught him". What they meant was that even though it often appears that the man is chasing the woman, it is often actually her that is making it happen. She is enticing, encouraging, even telling him that he should ask her out. Even traditionally, women have often been the ones to initiate and control dating, and the man leading was a just a fiction everyone agreed to. And some women are good enough at it to completely turn a guys head around. 

I agree, though, that you can make a fool out of yourself by chasing a guy that isn't into you. But I've seen guys making a fool out themselves over a woman who isn't into him. It's just the risk of the dating game.


----------



## Personal

MrsHolland said:


> "I am worth it" so they can chase me.


That's my approach.


----------



## bandit.45

From a biological perspective, women are driven to have jerks father their children and then want good guys to raise them. 

There is a statistical study out there somewhere that 5% of all children are raised by fathers who are not actually their biological fathers and have no idea they are not.


----------



## Herschel

I want to add, now that I have read through this thread, that tech_nolvelist, while I don't agree with lots of what he said, hit a friggin home run with a lot of what he wrote. While I feel that simple analysis ignores a lot of nuance, it's hard to argue with the basic premise of a lot of it.

I have always felt that when people are looking to "join forces", when looking at the financial structure, women end up having choices while men have responsibilities. One married life and either 1 or 2 incomes. Almost all of the time, the male's income is higher than the females. Why? Is it due to women making less money than men? Possibly. Or is it likely due to women having the choice to marry up while men almost always have to marry down (or equal). How often does a high powered female attorney marry a high school English teacher? And of those times, how often did they meet AFTER they were already in their respective jobs. The average man has to look at his career and his earnings and potential earnings and realize, "this is as good as it's going to get with me as the sole provider or me and my wife making equal or less than me." The average woman can look at her potential life and think, "regardless of what I make, I can find a man to put me in a superior financial position than I already am."

I am not sure how that relates to a lot of what is said, but it definitely has impact on who we choose, why and what jerks we end up with.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

wild jade said:


> That's a sad story.  How awful for your grandmother. I would never want to be with someone who didn't really want to be with me ....
> 
> My grandparents had an expression "he chased her til she caught him". What they meant was that even though it often appears that the man is chasing the woman, it is often actually her that is making it happen. *She is enticing, encouraging,* even telling him that he should ask her out. Even traditionally, women have often been the ones to initiate and control dating, and the man leading was a just a fiction everyone agreed to. And some women are good enough at it to completely turn a guys head around.


 I was very friendly, encouraging when I met my husband.. he was shy / introverted... because I didn't dis him but was my bubbly self, always a  ...he asked me to be his girl within a week of meeting me .. 

He did tell me many yrs later...he thought I'd shoot him down.. he just had to go for it, giving it a shot, he feared someone else would come along & swoop me up... I found that very sweet and endearing that the shy guy put himself out there... And he was a guy who was dumped twice.. so he was a little sensitive here. 

I feel due to pieces of my childhood.. seeing how my Mother was used by uncaring men (and she did it willingly)... then living with a step Mother who didn't want me there...I struggled with feeling like a "burden"... I just wanted to disappear.... I HATED HATED HATED this feeling... so in my young mind.. there was no way in hell I would put myself in a situation where I was "a fool" chasing after someone who didn't think I was anything special..

I wanted to be "special".. I wanted to be treated with care.. Love needs to be passionate & all consuming (I am a romantic after all) or it's not worth it to me. I knew I could "fall easy" ...I always loved to the boys.. but my care for my own well being superseded the thrill of testing waters that may not be good for me. 



> *I agree, though, that you can make a fool out of yourself by chasing a guy that isn't into you.* But I've seen guys making a fool out themselves over a woman who isn't into him. It's just the risk of the dating game.


 I've always cringed for women who did this.. if my daughter does this.. God help me to keep my mouth shut..


----------



## jld

I would not keep my mouth shut. I would tell her she is cheating herself.


----------



## wild jade

But would you do the same for your sons? Or do you expect them to be fine with making fools out of themselves.


----------



## wild jade

bandit.45 said:


> From a biological perspective, women are driven to have jerks father their children and then want good guys to raise them.
> 
> There is a statistical study out there somewhere that 5% of all children are raised by fathers who are not actually their biological fathers and have no idea they are not.


How does 5% paternity dispute translate into a biological perspective?

Why would you think this is a biological perspective? :scratchhead:


----------



## jld

For chasing the wrong girls? Not sure what you mean.


----------



## wild jade

Herschel said:


> I want to add, now that I have read through this thread, that tech_nolvelist, while I don't agree with lots of what he said, hit a friggin home run with a lot of what he wrote. While I feel that simple analysis ignores a lot of nuance, it's hard to argue with the basic premise of a lot of it.
> 
> I have always felt that when people are looking to "join forces", when looking at the financial structure, women end up having choices while men have responsibilities. One married life and either 1 or 2 incomes. Almost all of the time, the male's income is higher than the females. Why? Is it due to women making less money than men? Possibly. Or is it likely due to women having the choice to marry up while men almost always have to marry down (or equal). How often does a high powered female attorney marry a high school English teacher? And of those times, how often did they meet AFTER they were already in their respective jobs. The average man has to look at his career and his earnings and potential earnings and realize, "this is as good as it's going to get with me as the sole provider or me and my wife making equal or less than me." The average woman can look at her potential life and think, "regardless of what I make, I can find a man to put me in a superior financial position than I already am."
> 
> I am not sure how that relates to a lot of what is said, but it definitely has impact on who we choose, why and what jerks we end up with.



Only men have responsibilities? LOL.

A woman can always get a man to up her finances? Double LOL.


----------



## wild jade

jld said:


> For chasing the wrong girls? Not sure what you mean.


For chasing girls that aren't into them. Going out of their way to please her only to be used and discarded like trash.

I've seen girls do this and guys do this. Just wondering if you would warn your sons in the same way you would warn your daughters. 

And if not, why not?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

wild jade said:


> But would you do the same for your sons? Or do you expect them to be fine with making fools out of themselves.


I feel it wise to read subtle signals... that way we are less likely to feel like a fool afterwards... like my husband.. he really wasn't a fool, was he.. as I showed friendliness... 

I would expect our sons to look for cues, signals to read a potential love interest....get a few glances, a smile.. before he approaches.., start a conversation.. before asking someone out...did she show interest in his talking to her?? 

I feel anyone.. male or female.. needs some healthy "give & take" before they go there.. that's just common sense.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

wild jade said:


> *For chasing girls that aren't into them. Going out of their way to please her only to be used and discarded like trash.
> 
> I've seen girls do this and guys do this. *Just wondering if you would warn your sons in the same way you would warn your daughters.
> 
> And if not, why not?


I feel girls who do that are despicable... the lowest form of life.. don't even get me started.. Oh yes.. I have warned our dear sons of women like this.. absolutely.. not everyone has good intentions.. I encourage our sons to look for women who aren't materialistic.. Heck.. I dont' even have to say this.. they are very careful with money.. so if that's what sort of men they are into.. our sons would never qualify anyway..


----------



## Herschel

wild jade said:


> Only men have responsibilities? LOL.
> 
> A woman can always get a man to up her finances? Double LOL.


You missed a point of me saying average. This is in reference to the fiscal future/well being of your family. Women almost always marry up financially while men almost always marry down (obviously ignoring the equal).

It's funny, I am much more of an empowering feminist than you'd assume, but I often feel that equality is deemed as a tit for tat rather than a balance.


----------



## jld

Jade, for some reason, when I try to quote you, SA's posts come up. Not sure why.

I am direct with my kids. They know what I think. I would not encourage them to be with anyone I did not think was a good match for them.

But I do think that for girls, unless they want to be responsible for the relationship forever, it is wiser to let the man pursue them.

And I would advise my boys to stay away from a girl chasing them.


----------



## wild jade

jld said:


> Jade, for some reason, when I try to quote you, SA's posts come up. Not sure why.
> 
> I am direct with my kids. They know what I think. I would not encourage them to be with anyone I did not think was a good match for them.
> 
> But I do think that for girls, unless they want to be responsible for the relationship forever, it is wiser to let the man pursue them.
> 
> *And I would advise my boys to stay away from a girl chasing them.*


Really? Why? Is any woman who expresses interest in a man automatically suspect in her motives?

I know from experience that there's a lot of weirdness in how people perceive a woman who is sexually aggressive. It's interesting to see the thinking behind it.


----------



## jld

wild jade said:


> Really? Why? Is any woman who expresses interest in a man automatically suspect in her motives?
> 
> I know from experience that there's a lot of weirdness in how people perceive a woman who is sexually aggressive. It's interesting to see the thinking behind it.


I am not necessarily talking about a sexually aggressive woman. Honestly, if I thought that were all she wanted, I might not be so bothered. 

What bothers me is the thought that they could end up with the wrong gal for them, but emotionally bonded to her. And I realize that is not showing much faith in my boys. I hope I am worrying needlessly there. But I do think they may be naive.


----------



## Vulcan2013

Interesting discussion. I'm really disappointed that we haven't devolved into the usual battle of the sexes. I had some choice, not-quite-bannable misogyny all teed up, too. :grin2:

I think the term "jerk" is confusing the discussion. As some have mentioned, rejected men often view the successful men as jerks, and blaming women for their bad taste. Telling an already selfish man to be more of a jerk is not going to make him more successful. Telling a beta nice guy type to be more of a "jerk" instead of catering to the woman completely will likely make him be more confident, assertive and his own man. The thing is, he's not really being a "jerk", just more assertive. 

I think female initiation is subtle, not approaching or asking, but a smile and manner that is inviting. Mostly, looking your best, "setting the table", so to speak. Good "girl game" would be an interesting discussion.


----------



## southbound

The last few pages of this thread is a perfect example of why I say a relationship is too exhausting. Perhaps it is not an intentional game, but the ins and outs of getting it all together are game-like. Why can't two people just be natural? If a woman is interested in a man, why not let him know? If a man is interested in a woman, let her know. It's why the thoughts of dating and a relationship seems so exhausting to me.

I’m probably different than most. I realize that the chase and dating someone new is the exciting part for a lot of people, but I enjoy the part after two people get to know each other and are comfortable. I read a profile once that read, “I wish I could just skip all the nonsense and be comfortable with the one I’m meant to be with.” I could relate to that. 

I do understand the reasons that some state for a woman not chasing a man; I do get it, but that is true only because of all the weird behaviors that men and women engage in. 

If a girl shows interest, it’s assumed the green light for sex has been extended. It does make it tough on the respectable guys that some men are only interested in sex and treating women like dirt; then, a lot of women assume most men are like that. Sure, sex comes at some point if two people really care about each other, but it’s a shame an old fashioned guy can’t even ask a woman to dinner and a movie, or if she likes him, she can’t pursue him unless she has to wonder if he will think sex is a given just because she showed interest in him.

I've experienced a woman just "being nice" turn out weird as well. Sometimes a woman is nice and seems to really enjoy a certain man’s company at work or wherever. He asks her out, and then she acts like, OMG, a girl can't even be nice to a guy unless he thinks she wants to date him. 

I know of situations where a guy would ask a woman out, she would turn him down, and due to the fact that she seemed to like him, it seemed odd to me; I thought, what would be wrong with just going out once with a guy you seem ok with, what’s the big deal? Would dinner, movie, and conversation, be that bad for one night? Who knows, it might be more enjoyable than you think. That’s what I would be thinking, but I guess the woman feels the guy isn’t asking her out for that, but she has to assume she is going to experience sexual advances, which puts a date in an entirely different light.


----------



## jld

Southbound, don't overthink all this. Just do what you feel inspired to do.

You seem like a nice person. I think someday you will meet a nice person and the two of you will click. Theories, hang ups, prejudices, etc. will not be a part of it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Phil Anders

I think defining "chase" is critical. If it simply means active logistical escalation toward intimacy (asking someone out, touching, kissing etc) then making it the man's domain is one thing. But if the word is conflated with any & all manner of communicating of interest, as it sometimes seems, then that's a much higher hurdle. 

I've dated aggressive women who didn't worry about acting on their own behalf...no problem. I've dated women who wanted me to make the first move, but they were also liberal in dropping hints and responding in kind, which again made things easy. I've also met women who were passive when it came to mirroring my indications of interest. I eventually gave up and felt more or less puzzlement & frustration depending on the exact circumstance. 

Some of the women in this third group just weren't ever into me, which is fine and pretty much what I'd concluded myself. But it later transpired that a few others had been upset when I gave up, because their aloofness was a feint that I was supposed to see through. They wanted me to prove myself by redoubling my efforts in the face of apparent rejection. Just the first of many hoops I'd be expected to jump thru, I guess. 

I'm completely uninterested in that second kind of "chasing" and would advise men to avoid it like the plague.


----------



## NotEasy

bandit.45 said:


> From a biological perspective, women are driven to have jerks father their children and then want good guys to raise them.


I hear things like this so often that it seems like common knowledge, but I wonder if it is true? Not that I can disprove it. I am agnostic here. 
I have heard presented as a biological or anthropological or social 'truth'. The varied sources are a worry. Can anyone point to a basis for this in biology? Or any other area of study?
And how could anyone know? It is often framed in terms of cave man times. It seems hard to know anything about these hidden actions from the remote past. 
Or it is justified from animal studies, but define the 'jerk' among a group of animals.



bandit.45 said:


> There is a statistical study out there somewhere that 5% of all children are raised by fathers who are not actually their biological fathers and have no idea they are not.


This sounds more relevant, but very hard to measure reliably. Even if a figure can be precisely known and justified, how does anyone know the father doesn't know? 
Or that the woman was driven to do it with a 'jerk'? Maybe she was raped. Maybe they were in a poly relationship. Maybe it was an unplanned result of an affair with a non-jerk.
I can't argue the figure is wrong, but I wonder if any motivation or detailed behaviour can be assigned. Certainly the 5% figure would show things are not as many people assume.


----------



## AliceA

southbound said:


> The last few pages of this thread is a perfect example of why I say a relationship is too exhausting.


Of course, it's going to be exhausting when a person's parents won't keep out of it. Every time I read how "I wouldn't let my precious son/daughter date one of those horrible people!", I just want to vomit.


----------



## southbound

breeze said:


> Of course, it's going to be exhausting when a person's parents won't keep out of it. Every time I read how "I wouldn't let my precious son/daughter date one of those horrible people!", I just want to vomit.


I'm sure most people do consider their own children precious and only want the best for them. there was once such a thing as hanging with the "wrong crowd," and parents didn't want that for their kids, but I guess that's politically incorrect these days; regardless of what anyone does these days, I'm sure it's viewed as wonderful; no such thing as a wrong crowd in these modern times. 

I'm sure parent involvement can certainly create stress; at my age; however, I can take care of myself in that arena, but there is just so much other things that I have mentioned that makes it exhausting for me.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jld said:


> I am not necessarily talking about a sexually aggressive woman. Honestly, if I thought that were all she wanted, I might not be so bothered.
> 
> *What bothers me is the thought that they could end up with the wrong gal for them, but emotionally bonded to her. And I realize that is not showing much faith in my boys. I hope I am worrying needlessly there. But I do think they may be naive*.


But you see there IS truth to this ... scientifically speaking.. if a man & women spend enough time together, if they don't have walls put up... some bonding will take place... emotions start to rise...they may even settle... it can happen both ways. 

My Father pursued my mother.. He was over the top horny allowing his hormones to lead...she was NAIVE didn't know what she wanted in life....enough bonding happened to make it to the alter....neither were focused on "long lasting compatibility".. they were too young & basically clueless...it was a train wreck....

Happy I was born though :...


----------



## SimplyAmorous

southbound said:


> If a girl shows interest, it’s assumed the green light for sex has been extended. *It does make it tough on the respectable guys that some men are only interested in sex and treating women like dirt; then, a lot of women assume most men are like that. * Sure, sex comes at some point if two people really care about each other, but it’s a shame an old fashioned guy can’t even ask a woman to dinner and a movie, or if she likes him, she can’t pursue him unless she has to wonder if he will think sex is a given just because she showed interest in him.
> 
> 
> I know of situations where a guy would ask a woman out, she would turn him down, and due to the fact that she seemed to like him, it seemed odd to me; I thought, what would be wrong with just going out once with a guy you seem ok with, what’s the big deal? Would dinner, movie, and conversation, be that bad for one night? Who knows, it might be more enjoyable than you think. That’s what I would be thinking,* but I guess the woman feels the guy isn’t asking her out for that, but she has to assume she is going to experience sexual advances, which puts a date in an entirely different light.*


This is exactly why I PREFER to know a man's history.. what type of lifestyle he leads.. if you have enough of a clue of this..it's easier to gauge what he may be expecting... The bar guy is much more likely to be expecting sex at the end of a date ....I would think that's a given !


----------



## southbound

SimplyAmorous said:


> This is exactly why I PREFER to know a man's history.. what type of lifestyle he leads.. if you have enough of a clue of this..it's easier to gauge what he may be expecting... The bar guy is much more likely to be expecting sex at the end of a date ....I would think that's a given !


True. I would assume the bar scene is mostly for that type of hook up. 

I too would like to know a woman's past history. I just happened to have a talk show on recently, and a group of women were discussing knowing a guy's past history. Most of them wanted to know, but one woman thought it was crazy to want to know a guy's past history.

I will admit that it's probably not something two people discuss on a first date, but as people get closer, It seems like something two people would just naturally share at some point.


----------



## turnera

I'd rather know about their parents and family history, as that's what is likely to play out in OUR relationship.


----------



## southbound

turnera said:


> I'd rather know about their parents and family history, as that's what is likely to play out in OUR relationship.


True, that would be part of it as well.


----------



## NotEasy

turnera said:


> I'd rather know about their parents and family history, as that's what is likely to play out in OUR relationship.


YES YES YES. 

Women saying they are tired of jerks is ok, but what are their actions, what are they doing about it. Writing this on your dating page is easy, but probably ineffective. It almost seems like someone who complains to friends about the coffee, but keeps going back to the same coffee shop.

My wife refused to marry before meeting my parents and relatives. Non-negotiable. Lots of family history talks first, then it involved her taking 2 weeks off work, travelling overseas and trying to understand country Aussie accents when English was her second language.


----------



## lucy999

turnera said:


> I'd rather know about their parents and family history, as that's what is likely to play out in OUR relationship.


Yes!!! My live-in bf is an excellent father, brother, and son. When his mother was diagnosed with a brain tumor, he moved back home to care for her for 3 years. (His dad's a real jerk. ) i asked why he isnt a jerk like his father, and he told me that ever since he was little, he promised himself he'd never be his dad. He never heard i love you from his dad. He swore he'd never be that type of man. This, and the myriad of positive, loving, and supportive interactions with his siblings through our dating period, really showed he was of good character and not a jerk. 4 years later and he's as solid a man as ever. 



Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

lucy999 said:


> Yes!!! My live-in bf is an excellent father, brother, and son. When his mother was diagnosed with a brain tumor, he moved back home to care for her for 3 years. (His dad's a real jerk. ) i asked why he isnt a jerk like his father, and he told me that ever since he was little, he promised himself he'd never be his dad. He never heard i love you from his dad. He swore he'd never be that type of man. This, and the myriad of positive, loving, and supportive interactions with his siblings through our dating period, really showed he was of good character and not a jerk. 4 years later and he's as solid a man as ever.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


This reminds me of a story my sister told me once, probably made up, but interesting nonetheless. She said an alcoholic had two sons. One became an alcoholic, living on the streets, nothing to show for his life. The other son became very successful.

When asked why he was so down and out in life, the first son replied, "My dad was an alcoholic. What did you expect?"

When the second son was asked why he in turn had been so successful in life, he replied, "My dad was an alcoholic. What did you expect?"


----------



## larry.gray

breeze said:


> Of course, it's going to be exhausting when a person's parents won't keep out of it. Every time I read how "I wouldn't let my precious son/daughter date one of those horrible people!", I just want to vomit.


My mom really liked my brother's ex wife. She also really liked my both my sisters' ex husbands. (Did you note the ex?)

She never liked my wife, and we're going on 23 years now.


----------



## ReturntoZero

larry.gray said:


> My mom really liked my brother's ex wife. She also really liked my both my sisters' ex husbands. (Did you note the ex?)
> 
> She never liked my wife, and we're going on 23 years now.


My wife's mother loved my wife's ex.

Yes, notice the word "ex".


----------



## heartsbeating

turnera said:


> I'd rather know about their parents and family history, as that's what is likely to play out in OUR relationship.


I was sharing with someone how my husband was approaching a direction with work. 

She shared how frustrated she is with her boyfriend in his 30s, hasn't had to make things happen for himself, hasn't had to get a job off his own back as his family have coddled him. She sees the negative impact of his upbringing in how he isn't equipped or motivated to be interdependent. Yet the flip-side is that he's known stability, security and safety with his family. 

She commended my husband in what he was doing. I told her there's always a trade-off. My husband hasn't grown up with stable family support and that does influence his world view. 

The FOO can be telling - how it's dealt with and what is learned, the complete contradicting bundle, is also what makes someone interesting.


----------



## poida

farsidejunky said:


> This.
> 
> It is the very same thing that leads a man to pursue a hot yet BSC female...lust and attraction, tying up our common sense as we ignore the red flags.


Yes, that and the unrealistic expectations made of relationships and marriage these days driving people to expect higher and higher standards of each other.

No longer is it acceptable to be with someone you love being with and someone you care for and love.

It has to be a supermodel sexy, crazy hot, lustful, blissfully romantic perfection every day or it's considered a failure.

I blame social media. It's all so shallow.


----------



## jld

poida said:


> Yes, that and the unrealistic expectations made of relationships and marriage these days driving people to expect higher and higher standards of each other.
> 
> No longer is it acceptable to be with someone you love being with and someone you care for and love.
> 
> *It has to be a supermodel sexy, crazy hot, lustful, blissfully romantic perfection every day or it's considered a failure.
> 
> I blame social media. It's all so shallow*.


I blame human nature. It's pretty superficial.


----------



## turnera

I blame taking pictures of your food.


----------



## LeGenDary_Man

uhtred said:


> I don't know if it is natural, or learned, but many women are physically attracted to "bad boys".


I don't buy into this theory one bit.

_Societal culture_ and _parenting_ massively influence human behavior and an individual's sense of morality in the long-term. 

If a society encourages a woman to choose a life-partner on the basis of who is good in bed, she will be tempted to sleep with many men to make an informed decision in this regard. While she is thinking in terms of relationship in this manner, a number of men are just having a good time with her but are not interested in a relationship with her (or any female) at that time due to various reasons (these are the "bad boys" for you) until she finds a man who is serious about a relationship and genuinely likes her (he is the "nice guy" for you). 

My wife wasn't pursuing so-called "bad guys" for relationship. Her parameters for choosing a life-partner were much broader than "who is good in bed" aspect. We married virgin and are happy. Her conservative upbringing and social circle are contributing factors in shaping her personality in a positive manner.



uhtred said:


> The problem is that real "bad boys" are well... bad. Being a renegade is great in the movies, but in real life it often means not being able to keep a job. Being aggressive can lead to fights, arrests, and possibly violence against a spouse. Mysterious loners are often that way because they have really poor social skills.


A man with poor social skills is not attractive to females in general.



uhtred said:


> Even the phrase "nice guy" has been co-opted to mean something very negative.


Indeed 



uhtred said:


> For casual dating, have fun, date all the ex-cons, bikers, porn stars, whatever floats your boat. Have hot sex, but when they stop making you happy dump them.


This is why you get the impression that women are into "bad boys." You encourage them to have sex with anyone who looks healthy just to have a good time and satiate her carnal desires. One day, she gets tired and asks "where are the nice guys."



uhtred said:


> For a long term relationship, look for nice guys (I refuse to accept the negative connotations of that term) who are good to you, who have steady jobs, no emotional outbursts, and who will love you. Then LOVE THEM, they are what you actually want, don't confuse them with the fantasy you have built around bad-boys.


See above

Human personality is a complex phenomenon. There is no such thing as an (absolute) bad boy [unless he is a criminal or have a significant psychological disorder] or an (absolute) nice guy on average. We all have a _Light Side_ and _Dark Side_ in us and we continue to struggle between our sense of morality and carnal desires from the inside. Problem is that a large number of people don't have their priorities straight and/or are misled. The "bad boys" and "nice guys" stereotyping helps no one. 

In the nutshell, Societal Culture is the culprit you are looking for.


----------



## Apexmale

Women are attracted to the "bad boy" type from a young age. Even as adults, but as adults, most realize the consequences. The rest are just willing to pay the price.

Sent from my SM-T337T using Tapatalk


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

Apexmale said:


> Women are attracted to the "bad boy" type from a young age. Even as adults, but as adults, most realize the consequences. The rest are just willing to pay the price.
> 
> Sent from my SM-T337T using Tapatalk


As adults most are more pragmatic.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

wild jade said:


> For chasing girls that aren't into them. Going out of their way to please her only to be used and discarded like trash.
> 
> I've seen girls do this and guys do this. Just wondering if you would warn your sons in the same way you would warn your daughters.
> 
> And if not, why not?


We do, but many women delight in being able to pick and choose from men they want, and drive them past what is reasonable for the man.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

uhtred said:


> Alpha / beta means very different things to different people.
> 
> Being Alpha seems to involve being in control - but whether that control comes from actual strength, or from obnoxious stubbornness is the question.


Alpha/Beta depends on who calls the shots and who has to follow/ask permission.

Being a successful beta is good, and a lot of people go for that, as it's a bit like the "king's advisor" who has seen out four different kings' reigns. 

But when the top dog roars, see who falls in line.

And yes, very very common to have the world controlled by the keys to the royal coffers... and then guess whose considered the prime marriageable material then (hint: not the target on the throne)


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

tech-novelist said:


> I am a man, and I want my wife to need me because I am happy being her provider and protector.


I can be provider/protector but my interests are way bigger than just sitting in a socially respectful building and having a trophy wife.

For the things I'm interested in I need a partner who challenges me and herself, and is willing to shake the pillars of the temple with me. It can be a thankless job, and doesn't come with fancy dresses in the closet and matching name brand furniture (or indoor outdoor flow).

so re protector, I'm more interested in a woman whom the assassins are scared of....


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

SimplyAmorous said:


> That's the THING about these terms....I get a little offended when I hear Betas being put down...as MY DEFINITION is different over yours.. Plus my husband is on the naturally passive side, this doesn't mean he's a puzzy whipped doormat either.. it's a inborn temperament thing, if it's something really important, he won't be passive.. but yeah he's a pretty laid back sorta guy... I actually love that.
> 
> Who really is to say who is Right or who's Wrong with these definitions.. what I have seen is these "Pick up Artist" sites (disgraceful in my book) have twisted the meanings so pathetically that you'd think Alpha was all a man needed.. (your view)... but some of us feel there is good Alpha and Bad Alpha.. Good Beta and Bad Beta.. explained here :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I felt this was the greatest TAM post ever sorting out how a man needs BOTH...and just how that works -with the definitions I gave , that is..


the tables are crap:

that's just someone putting their match criteria in the better sounding "Alpha" channel and declaring it good.

the terms are already well defined - go look them up before redefining to "what I want list"


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

jld said:


> Do Women Really Go For ?Bad Boys"? Here?s The Science That Settles The Question | IFLScience
> 
> _In another study, participants who read dating ads in which people described themselves as altruistic (“I volunteer at the food bank”) were rated as more attractive short-term dates and long-term partners than those who didn’t mention such qualities. Other studies have similarly shown that *women prefer men who are sensitive, confident and easy-going, and that very few (if any) women want to date a man who is aggressive or demanding*. The picture that emerges is clear: when women rate hypothetical partners, they clearly prefer “nice” men.
> _


_

Actual the picture that emerges is much clearer when more studies are examined, and a factor emerged which has been documented as commonly observed by both studies and non-participatory observation methods:

That women (and slightly fewer men) _lie_ in studies in a direction to which they consider less embarrassing and more socially acceptable in that setting. ask rebels and they'll be more rebelly, ask socially nice people, you'll get a lot giving an answer that they themselves would _prefer_ to hear about themselves. ask a bunch of self-identified "alpha-women" and you'll get answers that respond to the socially and environmental atmosphere and cues you create - many are just looking for someone to tell them they're correct and ok, so seek to ask whatever they perceive to be "more correct". Welcome to education._


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

lucy999 said:


> Yes!!! My live-in bf is an excellent father, brother, and son. When his mother was diagnosed with a brain tumor, he moved back home to care for her for 3 years. (His dad's a real jerk. ) i asked why he isnt a jerk like his father, and he told me that ever since he was little, he promised himself he'd never be his dad. He never heard i love you from his dad. He swore he'd never be that type of man. This, and the myriad of positive, loving, and supportive interactions with his siblings through our dating period, really showed he was of good character and not a jerk. 4 years later and he's as solid a man as ever.


How old are you though....


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

sokillme said:


> So sexbots will be a good thing for these men. Less competition for the rest of us.


sexbots be good for them too - less cost to keep


----------



## SimplyAmorous

spotthedeaddog said:


> the tables are crap:
> 
> that's just someone putting their match criteria in the better sounding "Alpha" channel and declaring it good.
> 
> the terms are already well defined - go look them up before redefining to "what I want list"


So since you feel these terms are so well defined & all, and others are nothing more than crap.... why leave out the definitions ...lay 'em out here...


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

sokillme said:


> Also proven rapist should get life without parole.


I don't see why you want rapists to kill their victims and any potential witnesses (might as be done for a sheep as for stealing a lamb).

Or why you think rape is substantial worse than first degree murder.

I would definitely put it up there with aggravate assault,and wounding with intent. But in the two I just mentioned the _aim_ (mens rea) is to cause deliberate suffering and permanent damage for the entirely the purpose of that harm. And you think rape is somehow worse than that?

Also I would think that rape from a position of authority or duty of care, would be worse than that from other types. Also the level of intoxicants would have to be considered: Are we talking knock out stuff, stuff with long term effects (poisoning), stuff that relaxes inhibitions, and the degree the taker of a substance knew or refused to take reason precautions.

Add to that some observations made in last 6 months. A surprising number of women who get great pleasure and excitement in managing to stimulate and encourage men to a point in which he is emotionally or psychologically overwhelmed. 
so do so sexually, to quote many "so he just can't control himself". surprising number doing so to get him to break the law for petty crimes such as assaults, vandalism, and break ins/theft. And surprisingly theft from an employer or influence work decisions in her favor. The sheer volume of those women who were either emotionally positively excited and/or _highly_ sexually stimulated by these things was the most astonishing part of the observations.
Of those who did not show such things, often the matter was one of personal projections (felt responsible, might get caught/implicated, he might hurt ME too) only about 3% showed any thought to what they might be doing was wrong in a manipulative or damaging to their male "tool" (victim). Far more showed concerned for themselves or any strangers affected, and most felt the blame should fall on the male, despite the excitement being directly linked and timed to the power to drive the other person past the point of self control.


----------



## Apexmale

Women's attraction to the "bad boy" stereotype is not as difficult or complicated as it appears in most of these posts.

Most women are taught from birth, that to get along in our society they need to repress all portions of thier deviant sides. They are taught which of thier behaviors is acceptable and which of thier behaviors is not. Over time, this becomes a sort of lost self underneath thier learned politeness. Women are taught early on not to tell people what they really think of them. They smile at our jokes, act interested in some of our stories, and sometimes even act interested in our problems. Eventually, all this becomes habit. Women become nice, even when it isn't necesary. They are taught that pleasing other people is the proper thing to do. They are taught to try not stepping on anyone's toe's, to try avoiding disagreements, and to try and avoid conflict. 

As adults, women secretly want to rediscover the repressed self, the more adventerous, playfull, childhood part. They become drawn to those who live out thier lives with less boundaries as adults, more so when it involves the "bad boy" who often deviates from that decent and moralyzing role women are forced to play.

Sent from my SM-T337T using Tapatalk


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

Apexmale said:


> Women's attraction to the "bad boy" stereotype is not as difficult or complicated as it appears in most of these posts.
> 
> Most women are taught from birth, that to get along in our society they need to repress all portions of thier deviant sides. They are taught which of thier behaviors is acceptable and which of thier behaviors is not. Over time, this becomes a sort of lost self underneath thier learned politeness. Women are taught early on not to tell people what they really think of them. They smile at our jokes, act interested in some of our stories, and sometimes even act interested in our problems. Eventually, all this becomes habit. Women become nice, even when it isn't necesary. They are taught that pleasing other people is the proper thing to do. They are taught to try not stepping on anyone's toe's, to try avoiding disagreements, and to try and avoid conflict.
> 
> As adults, women secretly want to rediscover the repressed self, the more adventerous, playfull, childhood part. They become drawn to those who live out thier lives with less boundaries as adults, more so when it involves the "bad boy" who often deviates from that decent and moralyzing role women are forced to play.
> 
> Sent from my SM-T337T using Tapatalk


That and the bad boy represents freedom from being told what to do (domestic chores, cooking).

And also genetically a bad boy who has enough influence to hold his position and live outside the social rules is a chance to become top dog for her, especially if she can be his most prized position or his controller. Then through her proxy he gets whatever she wants.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

LeGenDary_Man said:


> Human personality is a complex phenomenon. There is no such thing as an (absolute) bad boy [unless he is a criminal or have a significant psychological disorder] or an (absolute) nice guy on average. We all have a _Light Side_ and _Dark Side_ in us and we continue to struggle between our sense of morality and carnal desires from the inside. Problem is that a large number of people don't have their priorities straight and/or are misled. The "bad boys" and "nice guys" stereotyping helps no one.
> 
> In the nutshell, Societal Culture is the culprit you are looking for.


Your bad boy pockets etc are self-referential which is skewing your results. ie a bad boy is a criminal/broken and criminals are bad boys.
Many very successful business owners are "bad boys". The very factors which leads to them ignoring "their place in society", if they have other attributes such as social appeal and manipulation enables them to take chances and succeed where others fall in line, and stand in the queue. Of course the "success stories" are the ones that "got away with it" and thus win the accolades, where others without the winners pedestal for the crowds to adore at, are considered social and business failures.

There is also a role in the mating process for seeking familiar social patterns which make sense compared to ones upbringing. We see this in a negative sense with privileged young women who runoff to join the likes of ISIS, because they can't personally comprehend their personal risk and danger they undertake such peril....because they are so soaked in privilege they lack the necessary sub-linguistic cues to warn them about the danger of such groups. A similar principle occurs when naive young people used to seek out Hollywood, for its fame and glory; they hear of the hedonistic parties but only comprehend them in the limits of their own upbringing - they seek out those with "leader" or "privilege" cues in other cultures where such cues parallel their own, but they lack the cues and understanding (aka "street smarts") of the local population and in it's absence they substitute those with which they are familar - runaways etc will substitute crime and scams, privilege will assume security. those used to hiding secret masks will assume that is the norm.

Human and animal behavior not that complex , unless you want to start believing the fabrications they give you. This is because certain patterns are sourced and successful but fabrications have no such need for coherence.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

southbound said:


> I’m probably different than most. I realize that the chase and dating someone new is the exciting part for a lot of people, but I enjoy the part after two people get to know each other and are comfortable. I read a profile once that read, “I wish I could just skip all the nonsense and be comfortable with the one I’m meant to be with.” I could relate to that.


"sure you can".... but first how about you change yourself completely and align your wants and desires exactly to conform to the next person who shows interest, without any limitation or hold back....... Don't seem to want to do that? selfish much, why do you expect that of someone else?



southbound said:


> If a girl shows interest, it’s assumed the green light for sex has been extended. It does make it tough on the respectable guys that some men are only interested in sex and treating women like dirt; then, a lot of women assume most men are like that. Sure, sex comes at some point if two people really care about each other, but it’s a shame an old fashioned guy can’t even ask a woman to dinner and a movie, or if she likes him, she can’t pursue him unless she has to wonder if he will think sex is a given just because she showed interest in him.


Almost all guys like sex (of some sort). To devote all your limited time and resources to support and supply to a women whom isn't sexually available.... then what is the one who _is_ sexually available [long term] supposed to get?
If a man wants to have sex, then limited 24hrs a day means that those who aren't going to join with him sexually have to eventually be passed by so his resources and time can focus on someone who is willing to enjoy sex with him. I'm sure more than one guy has said "I wonder if chasing women and hoping for sex is worth it, sometimes I wonder if I shouldn't just turn gay.<sigh for its not a choice of that nature (usually)>"

so yes if she isn't interested in sex, and he is, and he isn't getting that elsewhere (and if he is why is she letting him roam), then it simply a matter of contract negotiation.


sorry for the lots of replies to interest points people, but I was after the original poster of this little comment
*" Sure, sex comes at some point if two people really care about each other, but it’s a shame an old fashioned guy can’t even ask a woman to dinner and a movie,"*

Yeah I won't terribly object to a woman who wants to buy me a nice dinner and an evenings entertainment for free and no strings attached either.... so why Southbound do you seem to think that only women should be entitled to such privileges at the expense of men?


----------



## lucy999

spotthedeaddog said:


> How old are you though....


Getting long in the tooth. :crying: I'm 48 and my BF is 44.


----------



## Personal

lucy999 said:


> Getting long in the tooth. :crying: I'm 48 and my BF is 44.


:surprise: You cradle snatcher! :wink2:


----------



## tech-novelist

spotthedeaddog said:


> Add to that some observations made in last 6 months. A surprising number of women who get great pleasure and excitement in managing to stimulate and encourage men to a point in which he is emotionally or psychologically overwhelmed.
> so do so sexually, to quote many "so he just can't control himself". surprising number doing so to get him to break the law for petty crimes such as assaults, vandalism, and break ins/theft. And surprisingly theft from an employer or influence work decisions in her favor. The sheer volume of those women who were either emotionally positively excited and/or _highly_ sexually stimulated by these things was the most astonishing part of the observations.
> Of those who did not show such things, often the matter was one of personal projections (felt responsible, might get caught/implicated, he might hurt ME too) only about 3% showed any thought to what they might be doing was wrong in a manipulative or damaging to their male "tool" (victim). Far more showed concerned for themselves or any strangers affected, and most felt the blame should fall on the male, despite the excitement being directly linked and timed to the power to drive the other person past the point of self control.


That is very interesting. Do you have a citation?


----------



## southbound

spotthedeaddog said:


> "sure you can".... but first how about you change yourself completely and align your wants and desires exactly to conform to the next person who shows interest, without any limitation or hold back....... Don't seem to want to do that? selfish much, why do you expect that of someone else?
> 
> 
> 
> Almost all guys like sex (of some sort). To devote all your limited time and resources to support and supply to a women whom isn't sexually available.... then what is the one who _is_ sexually available [long term] supposed to get?
> If a man wants to have sex, then limited 24hrs a day means that those who aren't going to join with him sexually have to eventually be passed by so his resources and time can focus on someone who is willing to enjoy sex with him. I'm sure more than one guy has said "I wonder if chasing women and hoping for sex is worth it, sometimes I wonder if I shouldn't just turn gay.<sigh for its not a choice of that nature (usually)>"
> 
> so yes if she isn't interested in sex, and he is, and he isn't getting that elsewhere (and if he is why is she letting him roam), then it simply a matter of contract negotiation.
> 
> 
> sorry for the lots of replies to interest points people, but I was after the original poster of this little comment
> *" Sure, sex comes at some point if two people really care about each other, but it’s a shame an old fashioned guy can’t even ask a woman to dinner and a movie,"*
> 
> Yeah I won't terribly object to a woman who wants to buy me a nice dinner and an evenings entertainment for free and no strings attached either.... so why Southbound do you seem to think that only women should be entitled to such privileges at the expense of men?


About all I can say to all this is, "huh?" I don't get the connection of your comments to mine, and the questions like, "Don't seem to want to do that? selfish much, why do you expect that of someone else?" I didn't realize I did expect that of someone else and don't know how it connects to someone saying they enjoy the relationship once it gets comfortable as opposed to the early stages.


----------



## notmyrealname4

Women love bad boys = Men love strippers and porn performers. You know it's true guys; so please shut-up and stop complaining about something that works both ways.


5% of men unknowingly raise children that aren't theirs. * So, 95% of men raise children that are theirs. *

And what about the women whose husbands sire affair children; and his affair partner wants child support? His wife gets a financial penalty for the rest of her life too.

Oh, but the husband who is cuckolded doesn't get to pass his genes on? Most guys have more than one kid. What are the odds that all of a man's children are cuckoos?

And what about the sterile wife, whose husband humiliates her by having issue with his affair partner.???? She gets a double portion of mortification; my husband wants to F someone other than me----and my genes aren't going anywhere but the grave.

Like anyone gets away from the fallout of affair offspring.



Women only want to date the top 20% of men.

Yeah, and men don't want to date the top 20% of women :crazy:. God how stupid do you think we are? That's what SI swimsuit issue, Victoria's Secret becoming an institution, and all pornography centerfolds are based on: men CRAVE the most attractive, sexually alluring women they can get. Anything less than that; and we get to hear about all our faults and inadequacies and imperfections. Guys used to have stashes of old Playboys and Penthouses; now they've got device folders filled with their favorite visuals of the cream-of-the-crop of young women.



I guess women who ask guys out are still seen as having something wrong with them. It's so weird to me. If it happens that the guy asks first; great. What's wrong with the other way around?

Well, if a woman doesn't want to get her ego bruised; then yes, she has to wait for a guy to ask. Asking means sometimes you will be told "no", by a guy who is not interested in you.

But, wait a minute, all the men who whinge and moan about women not having to take the risk of pursuit; turns out they don't really respect a woman who would ask them; according to what I'm reading here.


Of course, if a woman asks, that kind of puts her in control. And that's not okay.


Another example of how we don't want equality between the sexes. Or, we want the good stuff of equality. Equal pay for equal work. Suffrage. But risk getting rejected by asking a man out; most women say no. Let a man stay at home while a woman earns money; most women say NO WAY.

We just have to be honest about this.

And guys, yes, you are finally eating crow the way women have always had to eat crow.

If you're not pretty enough; no-one asks you to the prom.

Sucks, huh?


----------



## jld

Wow, very thought-proving post, notmyrealname! Thank you for sharing all that!

I identify as a feminist, but not an "equality" feminist. I think that is chasing something that will never be, nor would necessarily be beneficial. My idea of feminism is to respect and value women. Sometimes that will be treating them the same as men, sometimes not. Every situation needs to be looked at individually, and wisdom applied.

Personally, I would not advise pursuing a man. Certainly it could work out, though, particularly if the woman is a natural dominant and the man is a natural submissive. In that case, actually, her pursuing him would be best. But generally speaking, a man's pursuing a woman is going to make her life much easier than trying to persuade him she is worth his time and attention.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

tech-novelist said:


> That is very interesting. Do you have a citation?


The data that was gathered was done so without the subjects knowledge or consent, in several study groups.

The material we got access to "did not violate the privacy of the subjects" as the material had already been gathered so "additional duplication" did not in any way further inconvenience or interrupt the subjects (nor was any of the records containing names or contact information).

However the initial studies would be considered _highly_ unethical, despite the clear proof that knowledge of observers/recording would alter the validity of responses (one of the aims of one of the studies).

Considering that the reputation of the people and their institutions (not all universities or similar) would be smeared, and the careers of those involve would be ended and likely include stays in prison. (the material includes visual recordings, which technically allows subjects to be personally identified, although none of them are sick things like toilet cams, there is footage which would be considered intimate in some cases....so we're talking _multiple_ counts of "intimate recording without subjects consent".

Now... you tell me... am I going to give you any quotable studies/references??


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

jld said:


> Personally, I would not advise pursuing a man. Certainly it could work out, though, particularly if the woman is a natural dominant and the man is a natural submissive. In that case, actually, her pursuing him would be best. But generally speaking, a man's pursuing a woman is going to make her life much easier than trying to persuade him she is worth his time and attention.


It is worth indicating some availablity, but beyond that as JLD indiciates, if he's not interested to enquire/chase just how committed is he going to be to the relationship?? 

It was like a poster about a month ago, whose post I've looked for but can't find - she did everything and lots of sexual stuff for her new BF - but he did almost nothing in return ... because he didn't have to !! What difference, beyond extra workload, would doing more help him? He already had everything as sweet as it gets, so he didn't need to try/work.
People are generally good for chasing what they want but terrible to wanting what they have. If he doesn't have to make an effort, it will be very hard to determine if he's the type of person who will make an effort in the relationship .... and! ... if he is that rare unicorn who will work for/with you, AND he doesn't chase/initiate then the question is what's up that he's so different from the norm?


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

southbound said:


> About all I can say to all this is, "huh?" I don't get the connection of your comments to mine, and the questions like, "Don't seem to want to do that? selfish much, why do you expect that of someone else?" I didn't realize I did expect that of someone else and don't know how it connects to someone saying they enjoy the relationship once it gets comfortable as opposed to the early stages.


I'd replied to a lot of posts so apologised for that. and tossed the non-sequitor reply to your post on the end.

Your comment is about: Gee why can't "an old fashioned gentleman" give forth a bunch of stuff - without expectation of reciprocation. 
Now a lot of women with suspect your motives, because that is a courting technique used to win favor, ...and your "old fashion gentleman" has that in his playbook along with "buy her flowers when she's mad". It's a bunch of cultural roleplays. Ones that have become so cliche that there meanings have got lost. As mentioned the "buy nice meal and show" is still buying female favor, of the emotional sort. Basic prostitution. Except the "old fashioned gentleman" doesn't have knowledge of why and what he does; where the younger man has had many of those "old moves" pulled out from under him.
Yet the original courting/pleasing gifts remaining, and many women accept that as their due by right of being female. so much so that decent feminists are likely to refuse, knowing and intuiting what the purpose is - a treaty that by accepting food and entertainment, that a reciprocation of pleasantry is _required_. thus in order to refuse to enter into delivering on that contract they will not only decline the offer but also frequently depreciate it in its entirety. Less morale women will take you up on your "gift" and not reciprocate in any manner, seeing a fool as a fool.

So that's my comment - you don't see "why a gentleman can't offer a lady meal and entertainment as a gift.
If it was something that equal contract and did not carry reciprocation, then why do women not offer the same to a man, or indeed the old fashioned gent to a young man of his acquaintance.
(although I personally am just as likely to ask men and couples out, but have only been invited out once by a female companion, and in that case reciprocation in the form of sex was _definitely_ demanded)


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

notmyrealname4 said:


> Yeah, and men don't want to date the top 20% of women :crazy:. God how stupid do you think we are? That's what SI swimsuit issue, Victoria's Secret becoming an institution, and all pornography centerfolds are based on: men CRAVE the most attractive, sexually alluring women they can get. Anything less than that; and we get to hear about all our faults and inadequacies and imperfections. Guys used to have stashes of old Playboys and Penthouses; now they've got device folders filled with their favorite visuals of the cream-of-the-crop of young women.


Is that why all the women in the women and fashion magazines are average and with curves?

The skin mags are what they are because of demand - many guys don't get as much of the sexual activity that they enjoy, where do you think they're going to go? Personally many of those in such publications or on the websites aren't to my taste, and aren't to a lot of mens' tastes. Some admittedly are amazing, which really makes one wonder why they can't do better than a skin show, but if I looked like ego-justification on legs then a fistful of cash beats a month working minimum wage in hospo. I know some people who did skin stuff when they were young and pretty (through paganism etc, and they were all love and naked back then, not so much after 40 years of gravity, not quite the ego rush it once was apparently).

but the skin mags, they're the result of the tastes of publishers, and what sells, and who they can get.

Yes it sucks on the genes game for someone who is sterile, but (short of government sterilisation programs) that's not anyone elses tastes or reasoning, if your partner was sterile and you weren't then what? would you deliberately choose, if you had the choice, not to preserve your family line? Or how about in China - where there was a 1 child policy for majority culture in an area, when overpopulation strikes they send the young men off to find wars for territory and resources - population control and increase of resources all in one...but with a 1 child policy that's many 1000's or 100,000s of ends of family lines.


----------



## southbound

notmyrealname4 said:


> Women love bad boys = Men love strippers and porn performers. You know it's true guys; so please shut-up and stop complaining about something that works both ways.


Not I. For me, there is a difference between reality and fantasy. I read once that some men like a woman to be a tigress in the bedroom and June Cleaver the rest of the time. I can relate to that.

In reality, I was always attracted to "the girl next door" type that I could see in a wholesome family life like an 80s sitcom such as "Growing pains." Now, if she's kinky in the bedroom between the two of us, that's great; I'll certainly take it. If she's not, I'd still want her as a wife as opposed to a woman who strips in a club and poses for Playboy, but that's just me. 



notmyrealname4 said:


> But, wait a minute, all the men who whinge and moan about women not having to take the risk of pursuit; turns out they don't really respect a woman who would ask them; according to what I'm reading here.


I've never had an issue with a woman asking a man out at all. When I was three years out of high school, there was a senior girl who called and asked me to go to prom with her. I knew who she was, but it's not like we were big buddies or traveled in the same circle. It so happens, she was the "girl next door" type. I thought that was the sweetest thing ever that she would ask, and I went.


----------



## tech-novelist

notmyrealname4 said:


> Women only want to date the top 20% of men.
> 
> Yeah, and men don't want to date the top 20% of women :crazy:. God how stupid do you think we are?


What we are really talking about is who is willing to have sex with whom, not just women being taken out on a date and having money spent on them without sex being involved.

Of course men would prefer prettier women to uglier women, all other things being equal. But most average men are willing to have sex with average women.

Average women, on the other hand, are willing to have sex with *only * the top 20% (roughly) of men.

Hope that helps.


----------



## tech-novelist

spotthedeaddog said:


> Now... you tell me... am I going to give you any quotable studies/references??


Sure, why not? >


----------



## uhtred

I would only want to date the top 5% of women. The thing is, my top 5% is going to be very different from the next guy's top 5%. That 5% includes a lot of things, not just appearance, and those things will be very different for different men.

Same for women. They are not attracted to all men, but the men they are attracted to vary a lot. 

There is a subset of men and women who are attractive to a very small part of the population.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

spotthedeaddog said:


> It is worth indicating some availablity, *but beyond that as JLD indiciates, if he's not interested to enquire/chase just how committed is he going to be to the relationship?? *
> 
> It was like a poster about a month ago, whose post I've looked for but can't find - she did everything and lots of sexual stuff for her new BF - but he did almost nothing in return ... because he didn't have to !! What difference, beyond extra workload, would doing more help him? *He already had everything as sweet as it gets, so he didn't need to try/work.
> People are generally good for chasing what they want but terrible to wanting what they have. If he doesn't have to make an effort, it will be very hard to determine if he's the type of person who will make an effort in the relationship *.... and! ... if he is that rare unicorn who will work for/with you, AND he doesn't chase/initiate then the question is what's up that he's so different from the norm?


Like this...










I'm going to explain my own feelings on this .. rare as they may be.. I wanted a relationship since I was a young teen.. I dreamed of "*the one*".. I am a giver..*I wanted to attach myself*..... I wanted to share my life/ my ALL with another....I also feel love should be maddening.. where one craves the other, wanting to spend time, desire & affection can't be contained & all that.... 

I feel I am "reactionary" to how I am treated... even though I am more dominate (temperament wise) to my own husband, once all the dust settles.. feeling a man's care & want of me helps me come out of my shell, feel alive, trusting in us..a foundation to build upon basically...

In my world.. if I pursued the guy...I'd feel pushy somehow..this actually makes me cringe .... something is lost on it (for me) maybe because I'd know I was barking up the wrong tree.. I don't know.. Yes...I'd feel I was opening up myself to a sea of hurt, rejection... 

With me- even seeing a guy noticing another or that he liked someone he couldn't have... I'd walk the other way.. I'd not even touch that....

I need to feel the man is "really into me"...I would never want to take this away from my Romantic experience.. truth is.. I DO expect a lot in a relationship... I just feel if the man is initially "head over heels .. then we're going to have a smoother sail.. as I am "reactionary" to this.. it WAS my husband's love & care that won me over to him.. not how HOT he was or anything like this.. 

Chasing after some good looking bad boy who has many women after him, knows it & uses that to his advantage..I am so turned off by men like this... all I see is "someone seeking a good time & variety".. no exclusive material there... not worth the ride...

I wanted to be "set apart" / Special / deeply thought of.. as I longed to give MY ALL to a man.. so best to make sure he felt the same about me first.. as I wouldn't want to scare him away ! 

I feel very blessed that we met as young as we did...my H was smitten with me... I've always felt this, it's never changed.. I know these things have enhanced our union, my adoration to him even...

I grew up with this belief.. I still cling to it -when it comes to love & men.. 








.


----------



## Apexmale

SimplyAmorous said:


> Like this...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to explain my own feelings on this .. rare as they may be.. I wanted a relationship since I was a young teen.. I dreamed of "*the one*".. I am a giver..*I wanted to attach myself*..... I wanted to share my life/ my ALL with another....I also feel love should be maddening.. where one craves the other, wanting to spend time, desire & affection can't be contained & all that....
> 
> I feel I am "reactionary" to how I am treated... even though I am more dominate (temperament wise) to my own husband, once all the dust settles.. feeling a man's care & want of me helps me come out of my shell, feel alive, trusting in us..a foundation to build upon basically...
> 
> In my world.. if I pursued the guy...I'd feel pushy somehow..this actually makes me cringe .... something is lost on it (for me) maybe because I'd know I was barking up the wrong tree.. I don't know.. Yes...I'd feel I was opening up myself to a sea of hurt, rejection...
> 
> With me- even seeing a guy noticing another or that he liked someone he couldn't have... I'd walk the other way.. I'd not even touch that....
> 
> I need to feel the man is "really into me"...I would never want to take this away from my Romantic experience.. truth is.. I DO expect a lot in a relationship... I just feel if the man is initially "head over heels .. then we're going to have a smoother sail.. as I am "reactionary" to this.. it WAS my husband's love & care that won me over to him.. not how HOT he was or anything like this..
> 
> Chasing after some good looking bad boy who has many women after him, knows it & uses that to his advantage..I am so turned off by men like this... all I see is "someone seeking a good time & variety".. no exclusive material there... not worth the ride...
> 
> I wanted to be "set apart" / Special / deeply thought of.. as I longed to give MY ALL to a man.. so best to make sure he felt the same about me first.. as I wouldn't want to scare him away !
> 
> I feel very blessed that we met as young as we did...my H was smitten with me... I've always felt this, it's never changed.. I know these things have enhanced our union, my adoration to him even...
> 
> I grew up with this belief.. I still cling to it -when it comes to love & men..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


What is the title of the book in the pic?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Apexmale said:


> What is the title of the book in the pic?


I don't know what book it is.. I was seeking some quotes on this.. I found this , that's how I've always felt.. so I posted it.. I know not everyone agrees with me.. some would say it's too old fashioned to feel this way in our modern world.. 

I've seen behind the scenes, with our sons, when a girl is pursuing them, things they say...how they try *to avoid her *... I feel bad for the girl wasting her time... I find it very sad .. 

I mean sure.. if we like someone, show friendliness, of course.. but I'd never ask a man out.. or hang all over him hoping he's going to notice me.. I'm watching that "Bachelor in Paradise" show ....stupid I know.. I like it anyway.. seeing how Emily had to go in for the kiss with Jared..... Come on.. the guy was NOT interested... the next girl, he was all over that, had no trouble at all coming on to her .. 

Then this other one... Ash*ley ... OMG is she PUSHY, and obnoxious.. crying all the time chasing Jared around..







...literally obsessed...heart beating on her sleeve -full well knowing he wants someone else.... he was ready to leave the show!!

She needs to contain it & get a grip!!.. turn the other direction.. grieve it !.. whatever... I think I'd shoot myself before I'd come off that desperate... (interesting for ratings, of course)...


----------



## southbound

SimplyAmorous said:


> In my world.. if I pursued the guy...I'd feel pushy somehow..this actually makes me cringe .... something is lost on it (for me) maybe because I'd know I was barking up the wrong tree.. I don't know.. Yes...I'd feel I was opening up myself to a sea of hurt, rejection...
> 
> With me- even seeing a guy noticing another or that he liked someone he couldn't have... I'd walk the other way.. I'd not even touch that....
> 
> I need to feel the man is "really into me"...I would never want to take this away from my Romantic experience.. truth is.. I DO expect a lot in a relationship... I just feel if the man is initially "head over heels .. then we're going to have a smoother sail.. as I am "reactionary" to this.. it WAS my husband's love & care that won me over to him.. not how HOT he was or anything like this..


I don't disagree with anything you said here, nor do I think it's weird. I will say, however, that I can feel the same way.

Personally, I never wanted to feel pushy either. If a woman is interested in me and waiting for me to pursue her and I do, she had better show some interest back instead of playing some kind of game, or I will let it go. I'd kinda like to know a woman is really into me too.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

southbound said:


> I don't disagree with anything you said here, nor do I think it's weird. I will say, however, that I can feel the same way.
> 
> Personally, I never wanted to feel pushy either. *If a woman is interested in me and waiting for me to pursue her and I do, she had better show some interest back instead of playing some kind of game, or I will let it go. I'd kinda like to know a woman is really into me too.*


I so agree with you... Playing games with anyone.. I'm against that, so much.. with everything I laid out there , about a man pursuing.. I also feel as strongly about our role, as women.....if she's interested in him....once he's reached out.. she is to reach back, show her appreciation, her want , then they play off of each other.. it's that "romantic dance"... 

If she suddenly starts playing "hard to get"... not answering his calls, blowing him off with no explanation... thinking this is going to have him want her more... Screw that..she deserves dumped !!


----------



## Married but Happy

If I'm truly interested, sure, I'll pursue. For a time. If there is no sincere reciprocation of interest being shown, I'll move on quickly. I have no time for games, or for someone whose only goal is to marry someone, regardless, as long as they've jumped through all the hoops. In fact, the latter woman would be an immediate deal-breaker.

If we're actually a good match, we'll learn that fairly quickly, and build on that compatibility, trust, and love over time, until we are either consistently sure of each other and able to make a long-term, informed commitment, or we encounter a previously unknown deal-breaker, and go our separate ways. I don't see the necessity for a ring or marriage - especially when older - but neither am I opposed to it. Circumstances would inform that decision.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Married but Happy said:


> If I'm truly interested, sure, I'll pursue. For a time. If there is no sincere reciprocation of interest being shown, I'll move on quickly. *I have no time for games, or for someone whose only goal is to marry someone, regardless, as long as they've jumped through all the hoops. In fact, the latter woman would be an immediate deal-breaker.*


 When I was younger.. my ideal was to find the love of my life and get married.. I surely wasn't looking for the 1st guy willing.. but it would have been a deal breaker if he wasn't the marrying type, wanting to build a family together.. seeing this in his future.... I didn't have to hog tie here in any way. 

Probably very different now.. if something happened to him.. etc.. but back then.. I wasn't going to end up with an uncommitted type, or one who felt shacking up was good enough.. even if he got me pregnant.. I don't find men like this Respectable or Honorable.. I wanted more for my children... a committed father.. the whole package... Seems that's a growing rarity in our society today.. 

Just went to a Baby Shower yesterday... not married.. she's popping one out in 2 weeks.. already has a 5 yr old, wasn't married to that Daddy either...


----------



## Married but Happy

SimplyAmorous said:


> Probably very different now.. if something happened to him.. etc.. but back then.. I wasn't going to end up with an uncommitted type, or one who felt shacking up was good enough.. even if he got me pregnant.. I don't find men like this Respectable or Honorable.. I wanted more for my children... a committed father.. the whole package... Seems that's a growing rarity in our society today..
> 
> Just went to a Baby Shower yesterday... not married.. she's popping one out in 2 weeks.. already has a 5 yr old, wasn't married to that Daddy either...


A man who honors a commitment even without the legal "shackles" of marriage, is more respectable and has greater integrity than one who will marry you, but perhaps divorce you easily. Marriage really guarantees little, beyond what the laws mandate. I tend to agree that marriage is a good idea if you are having children together, but more for the social approval. However, I guess many don't think so, as about 40% of children are born to unwed (not necessarily single) mothers.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Married but Happy said:


> A man who honors a commitment even without the legal "shackles" of marriage, is more respectable and has greater integrity than one who will marry you, but perhaps divorce you easily. Marriage really guarantees little, beyond what the laws mandate. I tend to agree that marriage is a good idea if you are having children together, but more for the social approval. However, I guess many don't think so, as about 40% of children are born to unwed (not necessarily single) mothers.


I think what separates us in our views does come down to how we view marriage & Sex.. I've never looked upon marriage as a Shackle ...but the vows beautiful, and that word again...Honorable ... to cut this from my belief system.. I wouldn't know who I was. ...these were things I always held dear... which makes it only right to seek out men who understand that. 

But you're right....Marriage is frowned upon by the majority, warned against even, see it nothing more than religious "social construct" or whatever they want to call it... more & more are embracing non-monogamous lifestyles.. which makes it more difficult for those who still seek to marry or those who hold ideals like mine.. 

But that's life...I certainly understand this.. doesn't mean I care for where the world is going with it.


----------



## TheTruthHurts

Glad I'm not in the dating game. Too complicated. I met a girl at a party, we made out, we were immediately attracted and we were teens. I got lucky that she WASN'T the type of girl I thought I wanted and wanted to pursue. Instead, she was a keeper. Me too I guess. Dumb luck. But no magic or approach or games or dating scene.

I've told her many times that left to my own devices I'd have 2 or 3 big boobed blond bimbos that I'd be paying alimony to. I got lucky and found the one I wouldn't have noticed. 

Maybe I was spared from being one of those jerks this thread is talking about



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## turnera

Or maybe you're just a pretty good guy.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

southbound said:


> Not I. For me, there is a difference between reality and fantasy. I read once that some men like a woman to be a tigress in the bedroom and June Cleaver the rest of the time. I can relate to that.
> 
> In reality, I was always attracted to "the girl next door" type that I could see in a wholesome family life like an 80s sitcom such as "Growing pains." Now, if she's kinky in the bedroom between the two of us, that's great; I'll certainly take it. If she's not, I'd still want her as a wife as opposed to a woman who strips in a club and poses for Playboy, but that's just me.


 My husband would feel the same here...in fact I am the same ...just turn it around....(more on that below)...

That saying.. about wanting a LADY in the streets but a FREAK in bed JUST FOR HIM..







... I once believed most men felt this way.. but I've since learned from reading here ...I was wrong.. there are a growing segment of men who are perfectly fine with a wild past women.. at least they know she'll perform for them...or so they feel..

As a woman.. I want a Gentleman.. a Man who takes Love seriously, attaches love to his sexuality... believes in marriage/ family, wants to be a father, but to have some Bad BOY.. feeling his strong desire coming on to us -in bed, behind closed doors... Passion, sexual excitement - Hell [email protected]# 

I really don't see why we can't have both...It's very possible, and hopefully a couple, even those inexperienced, when they find each other, with passion between them.. hopefully their craving of each other sets them "on fire" for each other... That's the ultimate.. this shouldn't be just a pipe dream. 

My husband has always been turned on by watching a sexy woman Dance.. yeah.. add the pole.. strippers..that's a fantasy... but true.. his ideals on love & what sex means to him conflict here... it is what it is... 

I completely get this myself...as my hottest fantasy would be with a Rock star with long hair, something like this.... or a young Axle Rose...but ya know what.. I'd NEVER want a man like that in real life...OMG NO!! ...it's not reality.. his lifestyle completely forks everything I deeply care about.....even though I'd find the looks terribly sexually alluring... 

It is a conflict in our psyches (Lust & Love, they are closely related but stimulated in a different area in the brain)....none of us should throw reason to the wind for someone HOT ...it's just not wise... it will bite you in the end... 

So you spice it up with whom you love... I wanted my husband to grow long hair back in the day.. so he could be my personal "rock star"... and I should do all I can to rock his world, keeping it hot in the bedroom...


----------



## jld

Married but Happy said:


> A man who honors a commitment even without the legal "shackles" of marriage, is more respectable and has greater integrity than one who will marry you, but perhaps divorce you easily. Marriage really guarantees little, beyond what the laws mandate.


And the laws do not seem to require much anymore.

I cannot imagine Dug's and my ever divorcing. But if we did, and even if there were no laws surrounding it, I am sure he would pay lifetime alimony. He would not feel right any other way.

Don't rely on laws. Rely on the character of the person you are marrying.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## aston

That's because online dating makes it easy to play the victim role. You'll also observe that some of these women seem to be on those sites for many years....often making their profiles invisible when they "find" a victim..ahem..a guy, only to reappear a short while later back in the victim role. 
The over sexualization and feminist movement has done a disservice to women, and when it comes to dating it's turned most into serial daters who treat dating sites like a shopping catalog, while blaming all their insecurities on men.
Some people need therapy more than they need a boyfriend


----------

