Female desires and male inadequacy
Virgo Cluster
While taking a break by doing some random surfing,
I came across the article below. I don't recall this
being discussed before, and Usenet google searches
for things like "fiftydates", "Dan Jacobs",
"www.fiftydates.com*", etc. didn't give me
any hits (which I found almost unbelievable).
Female desires, male inadequacy, and reality television
http://www.fiftydates.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.shortsupport.org/News/0469.html
Short guy, long on nerve, seeks 1 date per state
By Libby Copeland
The Washington Post
November 9, 2004
WASHINGTON -- Who has not known a certain kind of sensitive
guy -- the kind who always listens, who holds you when you're
crying and loves you faithfully, with never a hope of getting
even a kiss in return?
On a recent weekday, he wanders Capitol Hill with a hopeful
look in his eyes, trailed by a director with a video camera,
trying to get someone -- anyone -- to go on a date with him.
He is Dan Jacobs, 22 years old and certain that his 5-foot-6
stature turns women off. One woman says "Sorry" when he tries
to stop her, in the curt fashion that people say "Sorry" to
bums. Another looks so mean he doesn't even try. He sees a
young woman with dark, curly hair and a kind face.
"Hey, 'scuse me -- do you have a minute?"
She stops, looking uneasy under the camera's gaze. Jacobs
tells her he's making a documentary about the dating life
of a short, sensitive guy, and asks her what she's doing
the next afternoon. A male bystander pops his head into
the frame.
"Dang! You are crazy!" he tells Jacobs. The woman takes
advantage of the distraction to run in the opposite direction.
"What did I do?" asks Jacobs.
In the annals of documentary filmmaking, there are surely
few projects with as much potential for abject humiliation
as "A Sensitive Guy on the Road." Jacobs' mission, which he
hopes will end in love, is to go on a date with a different
woman in each of the 48 contiguous states and in Washington,
D.C. That date -- if he can get one -- is to be his 10th.
He sees this project as a journey into the heart of the
American woman, to find out what she really wants. He
offers himself as the alternative to the macho bad boy:
a guy who plays the guitar, does yoga and writes love songs.
"Girls are not sex objects for me," he says. "They're,
like, people."
In sixth grade, Jacobs asked out a girl named Joy, who
told him he was "too small," and instead went out with
a bully named Tank. This seems to have been a defining
moment in Jacobs' life. The way he describes it, women
are always passing him over for guys bigger or badder
than he is.
On this particular day, what women might be noticing is
not his size or soulfulness but his aggressively wacky
rainbow-colored propeller cap, and the miniature cello
jutting from the breast pocket of his brown thrift-store
suit. It's unclear why he has chosen this particular
get-up, purchased this morning at a suburban consignment
shop where two elderly sales ladies told him that no,
they would not go out with him.
Jacobs is a precocious version of the sensitive guy, not
the timid kind who loves women from afar but the kind who
befriends the ones he likes, shows them the beauty of an
emotionally open, mutually respectful relationship -- and
then watches in horror as they date meathead football players.
In person and on his Web site, FiftyDates.com, he says
he's never kissed a girl without asking permission first.
He reveals that he calls his mother "mommy" and that he
once stayed with a girlfriend who cheated on him three
times because he was trying to understand.
Recently, he cooked dinner for a female friend, and sang
her some poignant songs he'd written.
"She cried," Jacobs says. "It was a really beautiful night."
Then he found out she had a boyfriend.
Jacobs is not unattractive. Under the cap, his dark hair is
thick and rakish; his neck and biceps are sculpted from years
of wrestling. He is energetic and says he used to get in
trouble at Hebrew school for not sitting still.
He graduated from Williams College in Massachusetts last
January and worked briefly at a market research investment
firm before deciding he needed something more creative.
He considered writing a sensitive-male column for a women's
magazine, but then decided to make a documentary. He says
he solicited investments from Williams alumni and others,
gathering $42,000 of the $72,000 budget.
He and his director, Jennifer Redfearn, went on the road
in early October. He has conceived the film as a critique
of reality dating shows, though truth be told, he doesn't
watch them much. But he knows the male ideal presented on
shows like "The Bachelor" is a tall guy, not too smart,
very handsome, often rich.
In Providence, R.I., he went on a date with seven feminists
from an art co-op; in South Jersey, he went bowling with
a tomboy.
Only one girl really tempted him. She's 18 and a film
student. He met her in New York City, and their first
date "was, like, the most beautiful thing ever."
He broke the rules he'd set up for the documentary
(one date per girl) and went out with her several more
times. He doesn't understand why she keeps agreeing
to go out with him. She's "so too good for me."
On Capitol Hill, Jacobs stops just about every woman
who comes within his 10-foot radius. He tries a woman
in her 50s, whose dry look says, "Yeah, right," and
then an extremely pregnant woman.
"What are you doing tomorrow afternoon?" he asks.
She says she has Lamaze class.
He approaches a woman in a red top and leather pants.
She sees the camera. She stops.
"This is a reality TV show?" asks Karen Davis.
"I'm an aspiring actress!"
Davis, 27, is thrilled. "Do I look that good today?"
she asks. She offers to get her hair done. She gives
him her number and blows him a kiss on his propeller hat.
"You gonna call me?"
Jacobs promises he will.
Davis waits and waits. She never hears from the sensitive guy.
"He stood me up," she says a few days later. (It turns out
Jacobs mixed up her number with someone else's and left
a message for the wrong person.) At home, Davis wonders
what she did wrong.
"Maybe I was too excited when I saw the cameras and stuff,"
Davis says.
Jacobs charges on with his mission, determined to woo the
nation's women with his sensitivity.
He winds up going out with another woman he meets on the
street, who is 42 and takes him to her church and tells
him shortness is a state of mind. No sparks there.
A few days later, he and his director decide they need
a bigger crew and return to Massachusetts, where Jacobs
decides he will either raise more money and return with
more staff and an RV, or scrap the whole documentary and
write a book instead.
But he vows not to give up on this mission.
After all, he says, "This is a journey for love."
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Virgo Cluster
. "Stupid Government and Bureaucracy in the U.S.A.
..
.. The U.S. government -- and all other official and
.. quasi-official bureaucracies -- is the source of much
.. material on the stupid side of things. Perhaps this
.. surprises you. Perhaps you think, as a red-blooded
.. patriot, that it is impossible for the government
.. (whether federal, state, or municipal) to do anything
.. stupid ... and for our elected or appointed officials
.. to do anything stupid. (Perhaps you also haven't been
.. reading the papers, watching television news, or keeping
.. up with current events. But that is none of our business.)
..
.. FUN CONGRESSIONAL FACTS
..
.. Let us now turn our eye on a different group: those who
.. serve the public in Congress.
.. We hare, of course, not putting forth the idea that
.. our esteemed public servants, those men and women who
.. put aside personal gain to toil as representatives or
.. senators, are stupid.
.. Far from it.
.. What might be construed as stupid is the fact that we,
.. the public, call these people "servants". A few salient
.. facts:
..
.. Monthly pension paid to anyone who has served in Congress
.. for any period of time: more than $15,000
..
.. Total pension paid to most representatives and senators:
.. more than $1 million
..
.. Total pension paid to long-tenured representatives and
.. senators: more than $7 million
..
.. Total cash contributions to pension by representatives
.. and senators: zero"
..
<< Kathryn Petras and Ross Petras, "Unusually Stupid
.. Americans: A Compendium of All-American Stupidity",
.. Villard Books, 2003, pp. 33 & 38 & 39 >>
Homo benzodiazepinus
The bit that grabbed my attention the most (apart from subject line,
obviously) was "$72,000 budget". How does wandering around with a
camera trying to chat up women cost $72,000? I used to do that sort of
thing for nothing (OK, the camera was a digital and it was in my pocket
and not, like, using up battery power or anything).
Virgo Cluster
> The bit that grabbed my attention the most (apart from
> subject line, obviously) was "$72,000 budget". How does
> wandering around with a camera trying to chat up women
> cost $72,000? I used to do that sort of thing for nothing
> (OK, the camera was a digital and it was in my pocket and
> not, like, using up battery power or anything).
He's probably paying the five people he has helping
him (see <http://www.fiftydates.com/team_bios.php>),
and then he needs money for gasoline, food, lodging,
and all the long-distance phone calls that are needed
to set things up (I'm thinking of all the publicity
and coordination stuff that needs to be done). I don't
know much about making movies, but my gut reaction is
that it'd be very difficult to carry out something like
this even with a $72,000 budget.
Virgo Cluster
.. Amount congressional salaries have gone up since 1999:
.. $18,000
..
.. Percentage congressional salaries have increased over
.. eight years: 16%
..
.. Total monetary amount in raises members of Congress
.. have granted themselves from 1989 to 2002: $60,500
.. (http://www.counterpunch.org/nader0824.html)
..
.. Hourly minimum wage that Congress has frozen for
.. six years: $5.15
..
.. Median income of American families in 2000: $43,100
..
.. Median income of American families in 2001: $42,148"
Virgo Cluster
> He's probably paying the five people he has helping
> him (see <http://www.fiftydates.com/team_bios.php>), [...]
Errr...this should be "the four people he has helping him".
Virgo Cluster
.. Justification given for a congressional pay raise shortly
.. after 9/11: It was a "national security measure" "
..
<< Kathryn Petras and Ross Petras, "Unusually Stupid
.. Americans: A Compendium of All-American Stupidity",
.. Villard Books, 2003, pp. 33 & 38 & 40 >>
Dolores
> Hehe, now that I've got everyone's attention . . .
>
> While taking a break by doing some random surfing,
> I came across the article below. I don't recall this
> being discussed before, and Usenet google searches
> for things like "fiftydates", "Dan Jacobs",
> "www.fiftydates.com*", etc. didn't give me
> any hits (which I found almost unbelievable).
>
> Female desires, male inadequacy, and reality television
> http://www.fiftydates.com
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> http://www.shortsupport.org/News/0469.html
>
> Short guy, long on nerve, seeks 1 date per state
>
> By Libby Copeland
> The Washington Post
> November 9, 2004
>
> WASHINGTON -- Who has not known a certain kind of sensitive
> guy -- the kind who always listens, who holds you when you're
> crying and loves you faithfully, with never a hope of getting
> even a kiss in return?
-snip-
More like "Extremely freaky guy".
5'6" isn't even short. My former housemate, Jake, was one of the most
sought-after guys I have ever met and he was 5'6". He never even TRIED
to hit on women; they were just all over him. He was super-sweet and
kind of laid-back and quiet, and then he went into the forestry service
to fight fires and I've only seen him once since. I think he left to get
away from people.
--
-=Lola
----------------
You're living in your own private Idaho
Living in your own private Idaho
Underground like a wild potato.
--B52s.
Mxsmanic
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
August Pamplona
How is he freaky, exactly?
Just wondering,
August Pamplona
--
Women bring men they like tasks in much the same
way cats put dead mice on their owner's pillows.
- Lola on a.s.s.
a.a. # 1811 apatriot #20 Eater of smut
Proud member of the reality-based community.
The address in this message's 'From' field, in accordance with
individual.net's TOS, is real. However, almost all messages
reaching this address are deleted without human intervention.
In other words, if you e-mail me there, I will not receive your message.
To make sure that e-mail messages actually reach me,
make sure that my e-mail address is not hot.
Dolores
Well, he's wandering around in public places in a deliberately wierd
getup, with cameras and crew, asking random strangers (old women,
pregnant women, etc.) for a date. I hope it works for him, but I would
be among the legions of women who run away at the sight.
August Pamplona
Hmm, maybe you have a good point there. I guess I thought you
meant that he was generally creepy (before deciding to undertake this
project) and I was wondering what would have made you think that.
> be among the legions of women who run away at the sight.
As one who is not a woman and thus as one who he'd be unlikely
to want to ask for a date, I'd run away too.
August Pamplona
Correction: Freaky, not creepy.
Dolores
Nope, I was definitely basing it on his current activity.
One can't help but wonder what sort of odd ways he devised to court
women before he got to this, though. He might be a great guy with a
unique personality, but eccentricity does limit one's appeal... I would
hope that for every eccentric man out there, there's an equally
eccentric woman looking for him, but that does mean that he'll have to
wade through a lot of disinterested non-eccentrics first.
>
>> be among the legions of women who run away at the sight.
>
>
> As one who is not a woman and thus as one who he'd be unlikely
> to want to ask for a date, I'd run away too.
Flee, August, flee!
>
> August Pamplona
August Pamplona
> August Pamplona wrote:
>
>> Dolores wrote:
>>
>>> August Pamplona wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dolores wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Virgo Cluster wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hehe, now that I've got everyone's attention . . .
[snip]
>>> be among the legions of women who run away at the sight.
>>
>>
>>
>> As one who is not a woman and thus as one who he'd be unlikely
>> to want to ask for a date, I'd run away too.
>
>
> Flee, August, flee!
I probably did not make my meaning clear. I meant to convey
that I don't like cameras.
[running away]
>
>>
>> August Pamplona
shinypenny
Virgo Cluster wrote:
> On a recent weekday, he wanders Capitol Hill with a hopeful
> look in his eyes, trailed by a director with a video camera,
> trying to get someone -- anyone -- to go on a date with him.
Women don't want to be *anyone.* They want to be *the* special someone!
> In person and on his Web site, FiftyDates.com, he says
> he's never kissed a girl without asking permission first.
Ick. Waiting for permission, fine. Not waiting but properly reading our
cues, fine. But asking first? Ick. Too contrived. Sorry!
> He reveals that he calls his mother "mommy"
Oh, double & triple ick.
> and that he
> once stayed with a girlfriend who cheated on him three
> times because he was trying to understand.
Door mat! This turns me off more than all the rest (yes, even the
"mommy" part). I prefer a man who has self-respect, thank you.
> Recently, he cooked dinner for a female friend, and sang
> her some poignant songs he'd written.
This can be okay, but it can be beyond awful if you're only friends and
the guy is singing love songs to you.
> "She cried," Jacobs says. "It was a really beautiful night."
>
> Then he found out she had a boyfriend.
Yeah... as I was saying. Before you start penning love songs, at least
get to know her well enough to know whether she has a boyfriend or
not!!! How can you know someone well enough to love them if you don't
even know they're already taken?
> Jacobs is not unattractive. Under the cap, his dark hair is
> thick and rakish; his neck and biceps are sculpted from years
> of wrestling. He is energetic and says he used to get in
> trouble at Hebrew school for not sitting still.
I'm sure he's attractive. It's not his height. It's all the rest of his
socially clueless personality that's a turnoff.
jen
Homo benzodiazepinus
shinypenny wrote:
>
> Women don't want to be *anyone.* They want to be *the* special someone!
<snip>
> I prefer a man who has self-respect, thank you.
Men with self respect? Third aisle, right at the end there, next to the
meat counter. ("Own brand" are usually cheaper.)
Dolores
> Dolores wrote:
>
>> August Pamplona wrote:
>>
>>> Dolores wrote:
>>>
>>>> August Pamplona wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dolores wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Virgo Cluster wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hehe, now that I've got everyone's attention . . .
>
>
> [snip]
>
>>>> be among the legions of women who run away at the sight.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As one who is not a woman and thus as one who he'd be
>>> unlikely to want to ask for a date, I'd run away too.
>>
>>
>>
>> Flee, August, flee!
>
>
> I probably did not make my meaning clear. I meant to convey that
> I don't like cameras.
>
> [running away]
I don't blame you. Apparently I don't like them either, which was
pointed out to me recently. I wasn't aware that I was avoiding them but
the dearth of pictures indicates something.
>
>>
>>>
>>> August Pamplona
>
>
> August Pamplona
--
the Danimal
> Virgo Cluster wrote:
> > On a recent weekday, he wanders Capitol Hill with a hopeful
> > look in his eyes, trailed by a director with a video camera,
> > trying to get someone -- anyone -- to go on a date with him.
>
> Women don't want to be *anyone.* They want to be *the* special someone!
Like I've said before, a man hits on dozens of women until he
finds one who says "Yes," and then he spends the rest of his
life trying to convince her she's special.
> > In person and on his Web site, FiftyDates.com, he says
> > he's never kissed a girl without asking permission first.
>
> Ick. Waiting for permission, fine. Not waiting but properly reading our
> cues, fine. But asking first? Ick. Too contrived. Sorry!
Another option is for the woman to kiss the man.
> > He reveals that he calls his mother "mommy"
>
> Oh, double & triple ick.
It could be worse, like maybe he keeps her body in a barrel in a
storage rental.
> > and that he
> > once stayed with a girlfriend who cheated on him three
> > times because he was trying to understand.
>
> Door mat! This turns me off more than all the rest (yes, even the
> "mommy" part). I prefer a man who has self-respect, thank you.
That is a peculiar preference you have there. Do you quiz men
on how they handled their previous cheating partners before
you decide whether to sleep with them?
I don't know about you, but I can't recall ever having this
sort of discussion with a woman early enough in the proceedings
for it to have been a factor in our decisions to proceed.
> > Recently, he cooked dinner for a female friend, and sang
> > her some poignant songs he'd written.
>
> This can be okay, but it can be beyond awful if you're only friends and
> the guy is singing love songs to you.
Imagine if he sings them as a Strip-O-Gram.
> > "She cried," Jacobs says. "It was a really beautiful night."
> >
> > Then he found out she had a boyfriend.
I have known hot chicks who had boyfriends and cheated on them
with other men, while rejecting the advances of still other
men with the "I have a boyfriend" line. They did indeed have
boyfriends, but they only played that card with guys they found
unattractive. Heh.
> Yeah... as I was saying. Before you start penning love songs, at least
> get to know her well enough to know whether she has a boyfriend or
> not!!! How can you know someone well enough to love them if you don't
> even know they're already taken?
The question is how can he be chasing women without learning
a little about women in general first?
The first rule is: at any given time, most hot-looking young
women are already in some sort of relationship. When a man
hits on a woman he finds highly attractive, the odds are
similarly high that at least one other man is already in the
picture.
So the first order of business, when hitting on a hot-looking
woman, is to gently probe for information about her other men
of the moment. Listen carefully for her to use the pronoun
"we" when answering questions about what she likes to do for
recreation, etc. Just because she has other men doesn't
automatically make her unavailable, but it does raise the bar
quite a bit. The new guy has to impress her at least as much
as the guys she already has. It does happen occasionally, and
that is how hot chicks do their normal relationship transition
thing, going from one guy to the next with little or no
downtime.
Of course to make things more interesting, plenty of attractive
women who have boyfriends enjoy flirting with other men and
jerking them around. So the other men have to be aware that an
attractive woman is rarely going to squelch her free entertainment
by tossing the "I have a boyfriend" bucket of icewater on other
guys right up front. Unless those other guys are too repulsive
to have any entertainment value.
When a guy sees a hot chick, his working assumption should be
that she has at least one other guy involved with her to some
extent right now, until he confirms any different. And by
"confirms" I mean more than just taking her word for it. Oh
yes, women have been known to fudge about their current
relationship status ("He's just a friend").
> > Jacobs is not unattractive. Under the cap, his dark hair is
> > thick and rakish; his neck and biceps are sculpted from years
> > of wrestling. He is energetic and says he used to get in
> > trouble at Hebrew school for not sitting still.
>
> I'm sure he's attractive. It's not his height. It's all the rest of his
> socially clueless personality that's a turnoff.
His height is probably an important factor that led to
his "social" cluelessness (i.e., cluelessness about women).
But he is probably becoming less clueless even now, as
he learns the hard way by hitting on lots of women and
striking out with most of them.
In any case, note that most men are basically a turnoff
to most women. The average guy would be doing pretty well
if he scores with one of out twenty women he hits on.
(Think about it: imagine if you were only attractive to one
out of 20 men, and the only way for you to find that one man
would be to bare your heart to the other 19 and have them
reject you.)
So the fact that you find yourself turned off by the article's
description of this guy (as if his real-life attractiveness
would translate accurately into a few words like that) is
not necessarily by itself a fatal flaw. It just indicates the
work he has to do.
The fact that this short guy is out there hitting on lots
of women means he does have the one most important clue:
success with women is a numbers game.
The simplest and most effective thing a man can do to
increase his success with women is to hit on more of them.
That's the Donald Rumsfeld approach to seduction: you go
to war with the army you have, not with the army you wish
you had.
-- the Danimal
rdu...@pdq.net
and mammals in particular would make it plain that the females all want
basically the same thing - the fittest, most masterful males when it is
time for a little gene-sharing and they generally do not mind standing
in line for the opportunity. Most female creatures can manage the whole
birthing and raising of young without much help from the male involved;
that is why they generally do not mind sharing an alpha male. When
raising young requires a lot of help from males it becomes necessary
for the females to convince one male in particular that he has a
critical stake in a particular set of offspring and that she is an
eager long term sex partner. Because, in general, he would have better
luck constantly looking for more eager females than committing himself
to one if this were not so..
This scenario tends toward mischief because even though the
females might need the committment of one guy it is mathematically
unlikely that the kind of guy the average woman can entice into
committment is the same kind of guy that she instinctively wants to
hook up with - as she is still within the continuum of female creatures
stretching back into the free-ranging/ independent living past.. But
letting this on would kill the deal, for sure. So the temptation is to
fake great sexual enthusiasm for a reliable beta male type, at least
for a while. But just because she needs him does not translate, at the
groin level, into actually WANTING him.
In times past, this problem was manageable because 1. Low
Expectations. 2. Most people were poor and even a working class guy can
seem sufficiently alpha-like to many women.
Nowadays, many women feel independent and therefore have higher
standards for being honestly turned on. But just because her standards
go up when she gets an MBA does not mean she will have a better chance
of getting what she wants. It really means she has a much worse chance.
More than ever before, I believe that masses of men are being
given a chance to understand these things and act accordingly.
greg...@yahoo.com
> Virgo Cluster wrote:
> > On a recent weekday, he wanders Capitol Hill with a hopeful
> > look in his eyes, trailed by a director with a video camera,
> > trying to get someone -- anyone -- to go on a date with him.
>
> Women don't want to be *anyone.* They want to be *the* special someone!
A boyfriend can't help her there. The fact is that a man who is with
her could just as easily be with other compatible women. If she denies
that reality, she's more in need of a psychiatrist than a boyfriend.
Moreover, our personality traits, and not our significant others, are
what make us all unique.
> > In person and on his Web site, FiftyDates.com, he says
> > he's never kissed a girl without asking permission first.
>
> Ick. Waiting for permission, fine. Not waiting but properly reading our
> cues, fine. But asking first? Ick. Too contrived. Sorry!
Pass this along to Antioch College, will you? Their policy requires
men to get verbal permission before kissing. (They stopped short of
requiring written contracts because campus environmentalists objected
to the excessive use of paper.)
> > He reveals that he calls his mother "mommy"
>
> Oh, double & triple ick.
What a man calls his mother is none of your business, unless you're his
mother.
> > and that he
> > once stayed with a girlfriend who cheated on him three
> > times because he was trying to understand.
>
> Door mat! This turns me off more than all the rest (yes, even the
> "mommy" part). I prefer a man who has self-respect, thank you.
Not only that, but you want a man who will give you self-respect that
you don't have, which is why you fold your arms, tap your foot, and
wait for a man to make you "*the* special someone."
[...]
> Yeah... as I was saying. Before you start penning love songs, at least
> get to know her well enough to know whether she has a boyfriend or
> not!!! How can you know someone well enough to love them if you don't
> even know they're already taken?
[...]
Unless he hires a private investigator, he won't know she has a
boyfriend unless she tells him. I didn't want to remind you that we
aren't mind readers, but you left me no choice.
[...]
> I'm sure he's attractive. It's not his height. It's all the rest of his
> socially clueless personality that's a turnoff.
Any trait that turns you off is a blessing.
the Danimal
> shinypenny wrote:
> > Virgo Cluster wrote:
> > > On a recent weekday, he wanders Capitol Hill with a hopeful
> > > look in his eyes, trailed by a director with a video camera,
> > > trying to get someone -- anyone -- to go on a date with him.
> >
> > Women don't want to be *anyone.* They want to be *the* special someone!
>
> A boyfriend can't help her there. The fact is that a man who is with
> her could just as easily be with other compatible women. If she denies
> that reality, she's more in need of a psychiatrist than a boyfriend.
> Moreover, our personality traits, and not our significant others, are
> what make us all unique.
You sound more interested in telling the truth than in
getting laid.
Although admittedly, sometimes telling a woman she's a worthless
slut just like all the others can make her all the more determined
to prove her worth to you. OK, I'm just repeating a rumor I heard
somewhere. When *I* tell women they are worthless sluts it tends
to backfire. I can handle the jerk part of being a handsome jerk;
it's the other half I have trouble with.
> > > In person and on his Web site, FiftyDates.com, he says
> > > he's never kissed a girl without asking permission first.
> >
> > Ick. Waiting for permission, fine. Not waiting but properly reading our
> > cues, fine. But asking first? Ick. Too contrived. Sorry!
>
> Pass this along to Antioch College, will you? Their policy requires
> men to get verbal permission before kissing. (They stopped short of
> requiring written contracts because campus environmentalists objected
> to the excessive use of paper.)
Yet another reason why we should build artificial companions.
> > > He reveals that he calls his mother "mommy"
> >
> > Oh, double & triple ick.
>
> What a man calls his mother is none of your business, unless
he chooses to reveal it.
> > > and that he
> > > once stayed with a girlfriend who cheated on him three
> > > times because he was trying to understand.
> >
> > Door mat! This turns me off more than all the rest (yes, even the
> > "mommy" part). I prefer a man who has self-respect, thank you.
>
> Not only that, but you want a man who will give you self-respect that
> you don't have, which is why you fold your arms, tap your foot, and
> wait for a man to make you "*the* special someone."
Just because the guy tolerated cheating from one girlfriend
doesn't necessarily mean he would tolerate it from the next
girlfriend. The only way for shinypenny to be sure how much
self-respect a man has now would be to cheat on him and see
how he takes it.
Does Hillary Clinton lack "self-respect"? She stuck with Bill
despite his numerous affairs.
And what about the women who enable a man to cheat? Do they
also lack "self-respect" because they do not first insist the
guy leave his current partner?
I'm wondering how much "self-respect" a person can have while
being in a relationship anyway. Every relationship requires
compromises. The only way to fully respect oneself is to
exclude everybody else.
> [...]
> > Yeah... as I was saying. Before you start penning love songs, at least
> > get to know her well enough to know whether she has a boyfriend or
> > not!!! How can you know someone well enough to love them if you don't
> > even know they're already taken?
> [...]
>
> Unless he hires a private investigator, he won't know she has a
> boyfriend unless she tells him.
Sometimes this information is available by other means. For
example, her friends might know who she's banging, and be
willing to gossip about it. For some reason, it's usually pretty
easy to get a woman to gossip about other people's relationships.
Every woman seems to carry the gossip gene.
> I didn't want to remind you that we
> aren't mind readers, but you left me no choice.
That's true, but shinypenny's question is still valid: if
the short guy has not yet read the woman's mind enough to
know whether she has a boyfriend (a pretty basic chunk of
information, to be sure), how can he "know" her well enough
to think he "loves" her?
Whether he gets to know the woman by reading her mind,
hiring a private investigator, hearing her disclosures,
or listening to her friends gossip, he hasn't gotten very
far with this process if he doesn't yet know her relationship
status. Which means it would be a tad early to claim he
"loves" her.
On the other hand, he can tell if he wants to bang her. He
figured that out in the first five seconds.
> [...]
> > I'm sure he's attractive. It's not his height. It's all the rest of his
> > socially clueless personality that's a turnoff.
>
> Any trait that turns you off is a blessing.
How do you know? Is she fat?
-- the Danimal
Bernd Jendrissek
shinypenny <shinype...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>How can you know someone well enough to love them if you don't even
>know they're already taken?
Do you need to know someone in order to love them?
GoddessBaybee
yep.
Baybee
ps ...but, infatuation is a different story.
Mad Mambo Master of Macedonia
news:d7lgj...@drn.newsguy.com:
Just for the sake of argument, I say it's all infatuation.
--
"You were the chosen one!"
"I'm Rick James, bitch!"
--Revenge of the Sith, New & Improved.
Mxsmanic
> Do you need to know someone in order to love them?
Not for unconditional love, but few people routinely experience
unconditional love.
Dolores
To actually love *them*, yes. To love the idea of them, no.
Dolores
> GoddessBaybee <goddes...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:d7lgj...@drn.newsguy.com:
>
>
>>In article <d7lckj$h94$1...@penguin.wetton.example.org>, Bernd Jendrissek
>>says...
>>
>>>In article <1117596788.0...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
>>>shinypenny <shinype...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>How can you know someone well enough to love them if you don't even
>>>>know they're already taken?
>>>
>>>Do you need to know someone in order to love them?
>>
>>yep.
>>
>>
>>Baybee
>>
>>ps ...but, infatuation is a different story.
>>
>
>
> Just for the sake of argument, I say it's all infatuation.
>
Go for it!
askMe
askMe
NYC XYZ
shinypenny wrote:
>
>
> <SNIP>
>
>
> Ick. Waiting for permission, fine. Not waiting but properly reading our
> cues, fine. But asking first? Ick. Too contrived. Sorry!
Just curious what these cues are supposed to be.
> <SNIP>
>
> Door mat! This turns me off more than all the rest (yes, even the
> "mommy" part). I prefer a man who has self-respect, thank you.
I believe his claim of interest, because part of what keeps one around
-- though surely not the only thing -- is a certain curiosity and/or
disbelief.
> <SNIP>
>
> Yeah... as I was saying. Before you start penning love songs, at least
> get to know her well enough to know whether she has a boyfriend or
> not!!! How can you know someone well enough to love them if you don't
> even know they're already taken?
I want to know how it is that girls go out with me and only then --
sometimes after a whole first date -- inform me that they already have
a b/f! Is it really that hard to just say "not interested," or to be
honest to begin with??
> I'm sure he's attractive. It's not his height. It's all the rest of his
> socially clueless personality that's a turnoff.
I'm shocked this guy was a wrestler. Or so it's alleged.
> jen
NYC XYZ
LOL -- why isn't the Danimal on alt.seduction.fast??
NYC XYZ
rdu...@pdq.net wrote:
>
> <SNIP good stuff>
>
>
> More than ever before, I believe that masses of men are being
> given a chance to understand these things and act accordingly.
Um...what would be"appropriate" behavior, then?
Michaela Mackenzie
> Bernd Jendrissek says...
> >shinypenny wrote:
> >>How can you know someone well enough to love them if you don't even
> >>know they're already taken?
> >
> >Do you need to know someone in order to love them?
>
> yep.
>
> Baybee
>
> ps ...but, infatuation is a different story.
Infatuation = feeling (emotion?)
Love = action and the result of a choice
- Michaela
Dolores
>
> shinypenny wrote:
>
>>
>><SNIP>
>>
>>
>>Ick. Waiting for permission, fine. Not waiting but properly reading our
>>cues, fine. But asking first? Ick. Too contrived. Sorry!
>
>
> Just curious what these cues are supposed to be.
>
>
>><SNIP>
>>
>>Door mat! This turns me off more than all the rest (yes, even the
>>"mommy" part). I prefer a man who has self-respect, thank you.
>
>
> I believe his claim of interest, because part of what keeps one around
> -- though surely not the only thing -- is a certain curiosity and/or
> disbelief.
>
>
>><SNIP>
>>
>>Yeah... as I was saying. Before you start penning love songs, at least
>>get to know her well enough to know whether she has a boyfriend or
>>not!!! How can you know someone well enough to love them if you don't
>>even know they're already taken?
>
>
> I want to know how it is that girls go out with me and only then --
> sometimes after a whole first date -- inform me that they already have
> a b/f! Is it really that hard to just say "not interested," or to be
> honest to begin with??
Is it possible that they're misinterpreting you asking them out as an
overture of friendship, rather than an overture of romance? I just
wonder because I would never accept a romantic date if I already had a
boyfriend, but I might "go hang out" with someone if I didn't think his
intentions were romantic, and I'd definitely mention my boyfriend at
some point just to make sure.
The other possibility is that they really are looking around to see if
they find someone better than their boyfriend, which is despicable
behavior IMO.
>>I'm sure he's attractive. It's not his height. It's all the rest of his
>>socially clueless personality that's a turnoff.
>
>
> I'm shocked this guy was a wrestler. Or so it's alleged.
>
>
>>jen
>
>
NYC XYZ
the Danimal wrote:
>
>
> You sound more interested in telling the truth than in
> getting laid.
>
> Although admittedly, sometimes telling a woman she's a worthless
> slut just like all the others can make her all the more determined
> to prove her worth to you. OK, I'm just repeating a rumor I heard
> somewhere. When *I* tell women they are worthless sluts it tends
> to backfire. I can handle the jerk part of being a handsome jerk;
> it's the other half I have trouble with.
LOL -- me, it's the echo of slamming doors I have a problem with. Not
even the throbbing bloody nose bothers me as much.
> Yet another reason why we should build artificial companions.
Hell, if we had such a level of technology, why not just purge these
damned hormones in the first place.
> <SNIP>
>
> I'm wondering how much "self-respect" a person can have while
> being in a relationship anyway. Every relationship requires
> compromises. The only way to fully respect oneself is to
> exclude everybody else.
Indeed, that's the trick...quite the game of Prisoner's Dilemma!
> <SNIP>
>
> That's true, but shinypenny's question is still valid: if
> the short guy has not yet read the woman's mind enough to
> know whether she has a boyfriend (a pretty basic chunk of
> information, to be sure), how can he "know" her well enough
> to think he "loves" her?
Indeed! So I guess if a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears
it...you'd call for artifical talking trees to be built. =)
> Whether he gets to know the woman by reading her mind,
> hiring a private investigator, hearing her disclosures,
> or listening to her friends gossip, he hasn't gotten very
> far with this process if he doesn't yet know her relationship
> status. Which means it would be a tad early to claim he
> "loves" her.
>
> On the other hand, he can tell if he wants to bang her. He
> figured that out in the first five seconds.
Yeah, but you want to keep banging the girl, and do other things, too
-- if only it were just about sex!
> How do you know? Is she fat?
Well, would you want this kind of a personality to your sexbot?
> -- the Danimal
NYC XYZ
Bernd Jendrissek wrote:
>
>
> Do you need to know someone in order to love them?
No, if by "love" you really mean only "desire."
NYC XYZ
Dolores wrote:
>
>
> Is it possible that they're misinterpreting you asking them out as an
> overture of friendship, rather than an overture of romance? I just
> wonder because I would never accept a romantic date if I already had a
> boyfriend, but I might "go hang out" with someone if I didn't think his
> intentions were romantic, and I'd definitely mention my boyfriend at
> some point just to make sure.
Geez, why not mention it from the outset?
Besides, don't girls know when a guy's amorously interested?? Like,
should I start pinching them or something???
> The other possibility is that they really are looking around to see if
> they find someone better than their boyfriend, which is despicable
> behavior IMO.
Yeah, that's the only conclusion I can think of.
I just think honesty is best -- and honesty, almost by definition,
would call for a show-all-hands right from the beginning.
NYC XYZ
Troll wrote:
>
>
> OR just want male attention as an ego boost. For females, the leader of the
> pack is the one who rejects more men after playing with them.
That too. Most likely they just want an activity pal and walking
Kleenex tissue.
Virgo Cluster
> I want to know how it is that girls go out with me and
> only then -- sometimes after a whole first date -- inform
> me that they already have a b/f! Is it really that hard
> to just say "not interested," or to be honest to begin with??
This sounds strange and I certainly wouldn't like it, but
after thinking about it some more, I wonder if maybe these
girls didn't consider whatever you did to be a *date*. I've
seen posts in some of these groups before by guys getting
together with an unattached woman from work or school for a
movie, or lunch, or dinner and not consider it a real date
because they felt, for one reason or another, that there was
no clear expectation of any romantic potential. Note that
I'm using "potential", so this is less than having a clear
expectation of romance.
Perhaps the girl in question with the boyfriend felt the
same way. However, if you felt she was using you in some
way and want revenge, find out who her boyfriend is and
let him know about her date with you or, if you suspect
she doesn't have a boyfriend, ask her who her boyfriend
is in the presence of her friends.
** shinypenny **
>> I'm sure he's attractive. It's not his height. It's all
>> the rest of his socially clueless personality that's
>> a turnoff.
I'm the same height he is, 5'6", and this is starting
to get short enough that you almost always have to
overcompensate in some other way. To be more precise,
if I and a 5'11" guy stack up equally well in every
other way, he's probably going to be picked over me
by at least 90% of women. However, it's not short
enough that the overcompensation has to be very great.
Ordinary variations in guys along with ordinary variations
with girls' tastes should be enough to provide this
"overcompensation effect" for a significant minority
of women if other negative traits aren't present. The
type of things I'm talking about are that the 5'6" guy
could be in the upper 20% of attractiveness, or have
a college degree, or be earning > $50,000 a year
(or > $40,000 a year if under 30), or something
else that is reasonably positive but not necessarily
earth-shattering.
Regarding Dan Jacobs, he seems to me to be easily in the
upper 20% of attractiveness, if not the upper 10% (this is
for all males his age, not from some subset of males that,
for example, grew up in an upper middle class family and
went to a fairly selective preppy college), so I'd be
inclined to attribute his problems to something besides
his height even if I didn't know anything else about him
besides his height and the photos. But given his athletic
build, having a college degree, his past accomplishments
and present skills (just being able to get people on-board
with a movie project like this sets him above lots of
people), etc., I suspect he has some major personality
flaws, he's extremely picky, or both. My guess is both.
http://www.fiftydates.com/dan_photos.php
** NYC XYZ **
> I'm shocked this guy was a wrestler. Or so it's alleged.
Since he didn't say he wrestled in college, I'd assume
this was when he was in high school, which is not very
difficult to believe. Even in his current photos (see
the URL above), he easily looks like he could wrestle
at the high school level, at least if we're not talking
about some huge 5A city school that does well at the
state level. I think I read once somewhere that only
about 1% of high school athletes (averaged over all
sports) go on to compete in college, so the athletic
difference between high school and college is at least
an order of magnitude greater than the academic difference
between high school and college.
Virgo Cluster
. "Stupid Government and Bureaucracy in the U.S.A.
..
.. The U.S. government -- and all other official and
.. quasi-official bureaucracies -- is the source of much
.. material on the stupid side of things. Perhaps this
.. surprises you. Perhaps you think, as a red-blooded
.. patriot, that it is impossible for the government
.. (whether federal, state, or municipal) to do anything
.. stupid ... and for our elected or appointed officials
.. to do anything stupid. (Perhaps you also haven't been
.. reading the papers, watching television news, or keeping
.. up with current events. But that is none of our business.)
..
.. FUN CONGRESSIONAL FACTS
..
.. Let us now turn our eye on a different group: those who
.. serve the public in Congress.
.. We hare, of course, not putting forth the idea that
.. our esteemed public servants, those men and women who
.. put aside personal gain to toil as representatives or
.. senators, are stupid.
.. Far from it.
.. What might be construed as stupid is the fact that we,
.. the public, call these people "servants". A few salient
.. facts:
..
.. Ratio of lawyers in the House to lawyers in the voting-age
.. population: 38 to 1
..
.. Ratio of House members with real estate, insurance, and
.. finance backgrounds to ordinary citizens with those
.. backgrounds: 4 to 1. (Center for Voting and Democracy,
.. 1998)"
..
<< Kathryn Petras and Ross Petras, "Unusually Stupid
.. Americans: A Compendium of All-American Stupidity",
.. Villard Books, 2003, pp. 33 & 38 & 40 >>
the Danimal
> Dolores wrote:
> > Is it possible that they're misinterpreting you asking them out as an
> > overture of friendship, rather than an overture of romance?
Lots of misunderstandings are possible when two strangers meet
and begin interacting.
> > I just
> > wonder because I would never accept a romantic date if I already had a
> > boyfriend, but I might "go hang out" with someone if I didn't think his
> > intentions were romantic,
By "romantic date" do you mean a date you view as "romantic,"
or a date the guy views as "romantic"?
It's possible for you to date a guy "unromantically" (in your mind)
while he is dating you "romantically" (in his mind). Like all those
stalkers who think celebrities are in love with them. Halle Berry
is crazy about me; she just doesn't realize it yet.
> > and I'd definitely mention my boyfriend at some point just
> > to make sure.
>
> Geez, why not mention it from the outset?
You might also mention the nature of your interest in her,
from the outset.
You probably don't want to be too explicit---for example,
best to avoid going into detail about exactly what you want
to do with her various bodyparts until you know she's
comfortable with that---but if you find her attractive,
you might as well put that idea out there in mild form
at some point during the first conversation. Something like
you find her interesting and you'd like to get to know her
better. If she reacts negatively, then you'd be better off
talking to another woman.
That is, if she has already ruled you out as a romantic
possibility, and you have romantic intensions for her,
it would be better to find out it's going nowhere when
you have only wasted a little conversation, rather than
slogging through however many futile dates she'll go on
before finally discovering what you could have discovered
in the first meeting.
A woman doesn't always know right away if she has ruled
you in, but in many cases she can certainly know she has
ruled you out. It doesn't make sense to waste your
time with someone who is never going to do what you want.
> Besides, don't girls know when a guy's amorously interested??
If a guy has no other reason to be singling a woman out
for special attention, then a woman with any intelligence
would have some idea.
Think back to your own experience. You "go hang out"
with girls for a while, and eventually you make your amorous
interest unambiguously clear. Do girls faint from shock, as if
you suddenly grew three heads? Or do they act like they saw
it coming?
> Like, should I start pinching them or something???
Yes, but for different reasons.
> > The other possibility is that they really are looking around to see if
> > they find someone better than their boyfriend, which is despicable
> > behavior IMO.
It may be despicable but almost everybody who can do it, does it.
A woman has the advantage that she doesn't have to "look
around" to "find someone better." All she has to do is go out,
and men will approach her, if she is attractive and she acts
somewhat friendly. She maintains plausible deniability, because
she's only talking to them.
What's a woman going to do, hold up a sign that says "Stay away
from me, guys; I have a boyfriend"? I don't think so. She will
talk to all sorts of guys, some of whom are hitting on her.
If she likes one of them better than she likes her current
boyfriend, she will probably trade up. She can rationalize
her actions because she did not plan to go out and find someone
else. She doesn't talk to men with the intent of doing anything
besides just talk to them. She doesn't need to have ulterior
motives, because the guys take care of that for her.
It's like going out to the mall with no intention of buying
anything, but you happen to see something you like on sale.
> Yeah, that's the only conclusion I can think of.
Well, before judging them too harshly, imagine yourself in the
analogous situation. Suppose you have a stable relationship with a
partner who you like well enough, but there's room for improvement.
Then one day out of the blue someone drops into your life who
you find overwhelmingly more attractive than your current partner,
and she makes it absolutely clear that she wants to get with you.
Soon you find yourself obsessing over her, as she continues to put
that offer out there.
Very few people could resist that sort of temptation if it
is sustained and continuous. Your best hope for maintaining
your existing relationship would be to get as far away from
that other woman as possible (or for some other man to take
her off the market).
Given that few people happen to be with their ideal partner
right now, there's always a chance they could meet someone
they like better.
Sticking with a less-satisfying relationship out of loyalty
or principle is well and good, but it might mean sacrificing a
substantial amount of pleasure. Not many people are willing
to do that. Most people will take the deal that appears to be
best for them.
> I just think honesty is best -- and honesty, almost by definition,
> would call for a show-all-hands right from the beginning.
Honesty would also include telling a woman what you want
her to be honest with you about.
In my experience, very few women act offended when
you ask them questions like: "Are you married? Do you have
a boyfriend?" They might even laugh if you ask them, "Do
you have a girlfriend?" Most women will answer the questions,
like it's no big deal, rather than screaming that it's none
of your business.
You might as well get in the habit of asking for that information
when you ask for their names.
Look at it this way, the guy is usually initiating everything
anyway. He approaches the woman; he introduces himself; he
asks questions to get the conversation going. He sets the
tone for what their interaction is about. Is it realistic
to expect the woman to volunteer information he isn't asking
for? At this early stage, typically the woman is just following
the man's lead, or brushing him off. She is not directing the
process. If you want her to tell you something, you probably
have to ask for it.
-- the Danimal
Mxsmanic
> Besides, don't girls know when a guy's amorously interested??
Don't boys know when a girl is amorously interested?
Both sexes are of the same species.
Archie Leach
<dmo...@mfm.com> wrote:
>In any case, note that most men are basically a turnoff
>to most women. The average guy would be doing pretty well
>if he scores with one of out twenty women he hits on.
>(Think about it: imagine if you were only attractive to one
>out of 20 men, and the only way for you to find that one man
>would be to bare your heart to the other 19 and have them
>reject you.)
Ye are a prophet. This is the most logical thing I've read either on
Usenet or on Fark.com in at least the last several days.
the Danimal
> The briefest glance at the mating behaviour of creatures in general
> and mammals in particular would make it plain that the females all want
> basically the same thing - the fittest, most masterful males when it is
> time for a little gene-sharing and they generally do not mind standing
> in line for the opportunity.
Among some arthropods, the females not only want to make love
to the fittest, most masterful males, they also want to eat
them afterwards. For example:
http://www.blueplanetbiomes.org/goliath_bird_eating_spider.htm
> Most female creatures can manage the whole
> birthing and raising of young without much help from the male involved;
> that is why they generally do not mind sharing an alpha male.
If by creatures you mean "mammals" I suppose that last assertion
might stand up to an accurate accounting. But usually the alpha male
thing only applies to species that live in social groups. Species
that live solitary lives generally don't produce the concentrated
numbers of individuals that allow males to battle each other and
separate themselves into winners and losers in view of the
females.
Furthermore, the various species of living creatures are spectacularly
diverse with respect to their reproductive behaviors. It would
take a long article to list them all. In some species, both
parents abandon the young and let them fend entirely for
themselves; in others, one or both parents care for the young;
and in still others, social groups of animals care for each other's
young, or there is just one breeding pair in the whole group. Etc.
If we limit the discussion to mammals, female mammals of
course have mammary glands (hence the name "mammals"), and
generally use them to nurse their young, so most if not all
female mammals continue to invest in their young after
bearing them. Many young mammals have faces that look "cute"
to humans, so all this makes for heart-warming nature films.
For some reason that aspect of mammal behavior is more
reassuring for most humans to watch than the equally important
feeding behaviors of predatory species. Humans may find the
hunting behaviors of lions pretty gruesome to watch, for example,
because lions often tackle larger herbivores that they cannot
kill quickly.
> When
> raising young requires a lot of help from males it becomes necessary
> for the females to convince one male in particular that he has a
> critical stake in a particular set of offspring and that she is an
> eager long term sex partner.
To a scientist observing their behavior, such an explanation
makes logical sense, but to the animals involved it's not clear
what they might be thinking, if anything. The animals might simply
be reacting instinctively to odors and so on that cause them to
care for some small creatures (who happen to be their offspring)
while rejecting everything else.
When a penguin swims through the ocean, then waddles across an
ice pack, and picks out its mate and their chick from the
seemingly identical thousands of others in the rookery, is
the penguin thinking "Hey, that's my offspring, and I must now
regurgitate food for it"? The penguin might not be thinking anything
in particular. The ability to think about what one is doing might
have only recently (150,000 years ago?) evolved in humans.
Even the simplest animals can distinguish self from non-self.
A lobster, for example, generally does not eat itself. But the
lobster probably has no ability to have a concept of self.
> Because, in general, he would have better
> luck constantly looking for more eager females than committing himself
> to one if this were not so..
Only if he has a good chance of out-competing his male rivals.
Most males are actually better off, reproductively speaking,
under an assortative-mating scenario.
In a winner-take-all scenario, a tiny minority of males
monopolize most of the females, leaving the majority of males
with nothing.
The mating habits of various species arise not according to what
is good or bad for this or that subset of the species, but mostly
according to how the species lives in its environment.
For example, grazing animals that live on grasslands usually form
herds, because there is enough grass to sustain them, and on open
plains there is more protection from predators in groups. Because
these animals live in groups, the males can compete for females,
and so the males tend to evolve weapons (horns, antlers, tusks)
not so much for defense against predators, but to use in
ritualized battles for dominance over rival males.
Animals that lack concentrated food supplies cannot live together
in large numbers, so their mating habits are different. Basically,
the occasional male and female who happen to run across each other
more or less at random pretty much have to mate, because they might
not get another chance for a long time.
Thus the reproductive behavior of a species generally reflects
how the species has to live.
> This scenario tends toward mischief because even though the
> females might need the committment of one guy it is mathematically
> unlikely that the kind of guy the average woman can entice into
> committment is the same kind of guy that she instinctively wants to
> hook up with - as she is still within the continuum of female creatures
> stretching back into the free-ranging/ independent living past.. But
> letting this on would kill the deal, for sure. So the temptation is to
> fake great sexual enthusiasm for a reliable beta male type, at least
> for a while.
Why does a woman need to fake great sexual enthusiasm? Most
reliable beta male types will probably take a woman who
merely puts up with sex occasionally. That's a pretty good deal
compared to the treatment a beta male gets from most women
(who simply brush him off).
> But just because she needs him does not translate, at the
> groin level, into actually WANTING him.
It's difficult to look at oh, say, about 90% of the
general population and imagine them inspiring upper-case
groin-level WANTING in anybody.
> In times past, this problem was manageable because 1. Low
> Expectations.
I.e., no TV, no movies, no mass media, no well-developed
modeling industry, and most people living in relatively
small stable communities in which the relatively few
attractive young women were mostly covered up by lots
of clothing. So there weren't as many direct comparisons
between the partner you had, and what else was out there.
150 years ago, travel was difficult. The average person's
"courting radius" was not much more than walking distance.
The bicycling boom in the 1800's extended the courting radius
out to about 5 to 10 miles (roads were poor or nonexistent,
and the early bikes were not too great, so that's about as
far as it was practical to ride on a bicycle back then).
Bicycles quickly became popular because they were much
cheaper for personal transportation than horses. Not to
mention better-smelling.
Automobiles extended the courting radius by another factor
of two or three, and also provided a mobile shelter in which
to have sex.
The Internet in theory extends the courting radius to the
entire globe, but in practice the technology isn't good enough
yet to transmit all the information two people exchange while
in direct physical proximity.
> 2. Most people were poor and even a working class guy can
> seem sufficiently alpha-like to many women.
Staying exhausted from laboring on a farm from dawn to dusk
every day reduced the amount of personal energy available
to spend lusting after other partners. Not to mention the
sheer distance to the neighboring farms, a daunting physical
barrier before the arrival of modern motor transport.
3. Few people lived much beyond the age of 40, reducing the
average amount of time a person might spend with a partner
who had aged into serious ugliness.
> Nowadays, many women feel independent and therefore have higher
> standards for being honestly turned on. But just because her standards
> go up when she gets an MBA does not mean she will have a better chance
> of getting what she wants. It really means she has a much worse chance.
You mean her chances of finding a man who meets her now-higher
expectations are probably worse, because her expectations
may have increased while her attractiveness to men did not.
Her actual chances with men are about the same as they would
be if she had not gotten the MBA, assuming the process of getting
the MBA did not affect the way her physical appearance would
otherwise have been at her current age.
> More than ever before, I believe that masses of men are being
> given a chance to understand these things and act accordingly.
Being given a chance and taking it are two different things.
How many men are going to read enough sociobiology to understand
the latest thinking on their situation, let alone formulate some
sort of coherent plan based on their knowledge?
I'm not sure sociobiology in its current form is much more than
a sort of dismal science. It doesn't tell you how to act so much
as it explains how your situation is more or less hopeless.
Basically sociobiology explains why we want certain things we
either will never have, or will never again have after we
reach some particular age.
To put it less abstractly, sociobiology provides a logically
elegant explanation for (New England Patriots quarterback)
Tom Brady's present popularity with the hottest-looking young
women, but the theory says nothing about how a man disadvantaged
by genetics and circumstance might become more like Tom Brady,
or how we might increase the numbers of hot-looking women
who appear to be young (or robots who convincingly simulate
them) and who think schmoes like me are as hot as Tom Brady.
Conversely, sociobiology can help a woman understand the
"why" behind what she already knows too well: when she is
young and attractive, she is automatically popular with
men everywhere she goes; then her looks deteriorate as
she ages until she becomes sexually invisible to men
like she remembers her grandmother being.
Sociobiology doesn't tell a woman how to avoid this
horrible fate. It just delivers the bad news and provides
no solutions. Sort of like a physician saying you
have six months to live.
To transform a dismal science into a form of engineering requires
a lot more work. When NASA finally landed payloads on the Moon,
they used orbit equations that were by then a couple of
centuries old. Science generally works with broad, tidy,
overview-type descriptions, whereas technology requires slogging
through a vast dirty mess of detail and getting all of it right
enough to work.
Scientists can talk about the "beauty" of their equations and
theories while keeping a straight face. Not too many technologists
can describe what they must do to get something to work as
"beautiful." Although the rise of "Big Science" during and
after WWII blurred the distinction somewhat in some fields
such as particle physics that became industrialized. They still
like to maintain the romantic fiction of the lone genius by
rewarding a Nobel prize to one guy, even though he had an army
of assistants who did the real work and independently
solved any number of subordinate but essential problems along
the way.
-- the Danimal
the Danimal
> LOL -- why isn't the Danimal on alt.seduction.fast??
Presumably I would have to seduce something first.
-- the Danimal
Mad Mambo Master of Macedonia
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Subject: Re: Female desires and male inadequacy
The fusion-powered penis pump: The Future is Now.
Alice_in_WunderBraLand
> "the Danimal" <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote in news:1117816267.485893.122180
> @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Subject: Re: Female desires and male inadequacy
>
> The fusion-powered penis pump: The Future is Now.
giving a whole new meaning to the term Toxic Spill.
Mad Mambo Master of Macedonia
news:1117819873.5656458b19815f3ddef4f4479a8cb1e3@bubbanews:
Not with fusion, though the magnetic plama bottle will be a bit tricky.
NYC XYZ
Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>
> Don't boys know when a girl is amorously interested?
When I was a boy, I had no clue.
Now, I'm getting better at screening out the jabbers, the
blah-blah-blahers, the cock-teasers and self-deceived.
> Both sexes are of the same species.
We were talking about sex and such.
NYC XYZ
Virgo Cluster wrote:
>
>
> This sounds strange and I certainly wouldn't like it, but
> after thinking about it some more, I wonder if maybe these
> girls didn't consider whatever you did to be a *date*. I've
> seen posts in some of these groups before by guys getting
> together with an unattached woman from work or school for a
> movie, or lunch, or dinner and not consider it a real date
> because they felt, for one reason or another, that there was
> no clear expectation of any romantic potential. Note that
> I'm using "potential", so this is less than having a clear
> expectation of romance.
I'd love to give them the benefit of the doubt -- 'cause then it's a
matter of "oh, it's them, not me" (if you know what I mean by that) --
but there's no way they grew up on American TV and such and think that
a guy asking them to go to the movies with just him and her, going to
the museum, doing whatever traditional first-date
couple-things...there's just no way they're that clueless!
And in at least one instance that I can think of, the girl actually
claimed to have no time for relationships. When I asked her what she
did for sex, she replied that there were always toys.... Fast-forward
to Monday (we went biking on Saturday and had what seemed to be a good
time) and she informs me via e-mail that her b/f told her something or
other.
Anyway, I'm taking a good look at myself and wondering how the hell I
keep winding up with these kinds of girls...even that dear beloved ex I
was in the habit of pining over on these NGs was being fucked by
another guy all the while we were "dating" (lunch in the park, etc.).
> Perhaps the girl in question with the boyfriend felt the
> same way. However, if you felt she was using you in some
> way and want revenge, find out who her boyfriend is and
> let him know about her date with you or, if you suspect
> she doesn't have a boyfriend, ask her who her boyfriend
> is in the presence of her friends.
Ah, whatever for -- I'm just so sorry to have stepped in shit in the
first place, what do I want to bother the dog's owner about city rules
and regulations?
Actually, that girl I went biking with, who had a b/f -- I found out
about the b/f from another person...only after that did I hear it from
the girl herself (via e-mail, her trying to play it off like it was
some incidental BTW thing, like
"blah-blah-blah-blah-boyfriend-blah-blah-blah-blah...").
> I'm the same height he is, 5'6", and this is starting
> to get short enough that you almost always have to
> overcompensate in some other way.
You know, I must wonder: in middle school, the boy all the girls were
ga-ga over was Micheal Meah, short puertorican-Irish kid...he was
shorter than all the girls (and this was late enough in a guy's puberty
that we were all at least as tall as them if not already taller), and
IIRC the shortest kid in the grade. I don't know if he actually
bagged/plugged any girls -- I was always a nerd despite my athlete's
body so I hung out with "the losers" -- but I never heard of him having
any kind of social problems, whether it be fighting other kids, talking
to girls, dealing with teachers, etc.
> To be more precise,
> if I and a 5'11" guy stack up equally well in every
> other way, he's probably going to be picked over me
> by at least 90% of women.
I should very much like to think this, but I myself lost out to some
blond-haired/blue-eyed skinny guy, so I have to disagree. He's also
shorter than me, less intelligent, and less caring/cuddable/etc. (all
according to the ex) but he's got a monster cock -- and even though the
ex says he doesn't even know how to use it, it's enough for her to take
him back despite the chlamydia he gave her...if only he would take her!
> However, it's not short
> enough that the overcompensation has to be very great.
> Ordinary variations in guys along with ordinary variations
> with girls' tastes should be enough to provide this
> "overcompensation effect" for a significant minority
> of women if other negative traits aren't present. The
> type of things I'm talking about are that the 5'6" guy
> could be in the upper 20% of attractiveness, or have
> a college degree, or be earning > $50,000 a year
> (or > $40,000 a year if under 30), or something
> else that is reasonably positive but not necessarily
> earth-shattering.
Yeah, well, the problem with "spreadsheets" such as what you have there
is that girls, for all their calculating coldness, don't actually go by
them...they go by something called "feminine intuition"...being
inherently less rational creatures, for the most part, most of them
tend towards superstition and aren't going to be logical about
something that's quite emotional anyway at its core....
> Regarding Dan Jacobs, he seems to me to be easily in the
> upper 20% of attractiveness, if not the upper 10% (this is
> for all males his age, not from some subset of males that,
> for example, grew up in an upper middle class family and
> went to a fairly selective preppy college), so I'd be
> inclined to attribute his problems to something besides
> his height even if I didn't know anything else about him
> besides his height and the photos. But given his athletic
> build, having a college degree, his past accomplishments
> and present skills (just being able to get people on-board
> with a movie project like this sets him above lots of
> people), etc., I suspect he has some major personality
> flaws, he's extremely picky, or both. My guess is both.
>
> http://www.fiftydates.com/dan_photos.php
Indeed. Hell, on paper I look even better than I look physically, but
I have very little patience when it comes to girls...I guess I just
figure that it's beneath me to go stooping so low over them -- they
want me to get off my horse and give them a boost, whereas I'm only
really willing to lift them up (one-armed, of course) behind me....
> Since he didn't say he wrestled in college, I'd assume
> this was when he was in high school, which is not very
> difficult to believe. Even in his current photos (see
> the URL above), he easily looks like he could wrestle
> at the high school level, at least if we're not talking
> about some huge 5A city school that does well at the
> state level. I think I read once somewhere that only
> about 1% of high school athletes (averaged over all
> sports) go on to compete in college, so the athletic
> difference between high school and college is at least
> an order of magnitude greater than the academic difference
> between high school and college.
Ah, good point. I didn't assume he meant he wrestled in college, but I
didn't realize there was such a gap between college and high
school...I'd forgotten what I read in "Friday Night Lights."
shinypenny
the Danimal wrote:
> Like I've said before, a man hits on dozens of women until he
> finds one who says "Yes," and then he spends the rest of his
> life trying to convince her she's special.
and...
> The fact that this short guy is out there hitting on lots
> of women means he does have the one most important clue:
> success with women is a numbers game.
I have no problem with this guy playing the numbers game. It *is* a
numbers game. My problem with this guy in particular is the sum of all
the things I pointed out. If he had just one of these flaws, that might
be different. It's the cumulative affect that paints a picture of a guy
I would not personally be interested in (no matter how attractive - and
he is attractive).
While dating is a numbers game, I think it is a grave mistake if your
requirement for a mate is only, "Well, she'd have me." It's important
to also ask yourself, "Do I want her?"
IOW, if you want a successful relationship, spend less time convincing
her she's special and more time convincing yourself she is special to
you. If you can do that easily - if you think you're the luckiest guy
in the world because this particular woman wants you - then it'll come
across to the woman and she will know you view her as special. Women
can sense when a guy is just happy someone - anyone - will go out with
him.
jen
shinypenny
greg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> shinypenny wrote:
> > Virgo Cluster wrote:
> > > On a recent weekday, he wanders Capitol Hill with a hopeful
> > > look in his eyes, trailed by a director with a video camera,
> > > trying to get someone -- anyone -- to go on a date with him.
> >
> > Women don't want to be *anyone.* They want to be *the* special someone!
>
> A boyfriend can't help her there. The fact is that a man who is with
> her could just as easily be with other compatible women. If she denies
> that reality, she's more in need of a psychiatrist than a boyfriend.
> Moreover, our personality traits, and not our significant others, are
> what make us all unique.
Not quite following you here, sorry. I don't disagree with what you
wrote, but having trouble connecting it to what I said. Might be my
current coffee deficit. :-)
Let me ask you: have you ever been in a relationship in which you felt
like you were the luckiest guy in the world to have found her? And vice
versa - she felt like she was the luckiest gal in the world to have
found you?
> Pass this along to Antioch College, will you? Their policy requires
> men to get verbal permission before kissing. (They stopped short of
> requiring written contracts because campus environmentalists objected
> to the excessive use of paper.)
Oh! Forgot about that (I went to college years before all that). Very
good point.
> > > He reveals that he calls his mother "mommy"
> >
> > Oh, double & triple ick.
>
> What a man calls his mother is none of your business, unless you're his
> mother.
If it's none of my business, why is he revealing it to the world?
> > > and that he
> > > once stayed with a girlfriend who cheated on him three
> > > times because he was trying to understand.
> >
> > Door mat! This turns me off more than all the rest (yes, even the
> > "mommy" part). I prefer a man who has self-respect, thank you.
>
> Not only that, but you want a man who will give you self-respect that
> you don't have, which is why you fold your arms, tap your foot, and
> wait for a man to make you "*the* special someone."
Huh?
Ever hear the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame
on me"? What kind of person stays with a partner who cheats on them not
once, but three times?
If a date revealed this bit of relationship history to me, the caution
flags would go up. I would want to know more details to figure out if
he was a person who had little self-respect and no sense of his own
boundaries - key elements if you want a successful, mature
relationship. I'd ask if he'd learned anything from the experience.
Perhaps he grew from the experience and developed boundaries, in which
case it would be okay - everyone makes mistakes. But if he hadn't
learned anything, and it was a pattern both past and present, then I
would steer clear.
> [...]
> > Yeah... as I was saying. Before you start penning love songs, at least
> > get to know her well enough to know whether she has a boyfriend or
> > not!!! How can you know someone well enough to love them if you don't
> > even know they're already taken?
> [...]
>
> Unless he hires a private investigator, he won't know she has a
> boyfriend unless she tells him. I didn't want to remind you that we
> aren't mind readers, but you left me no choice.
And she may not tell him unless he asks.
I can't tell you how many dates I've been on where the guy asks very
few questions of me. Instead, he talks on and on and on about himself.
I usually start to make it an amusing game in my head. I'll continue
asking him all sorts of questions about his career, his family, his
interests, his friends, etc, etc. I deliberately don't jump in and
steer the conversation to myself. I figure at any point he can ask me
if he's interested. That's usually how polite conversation is supposed
to go!
"So tell me more about your job - it sounds interesting!"
"Blah blah blah" for 10 minutes.
Pause.
Here is the part where he's now supposed to politely say, "But enough
about me! What do you do for a living?" Instead, he smiles as he
patiently waits for me to ask him another question about him, since, of
course, he's the most interesting person in the world.
I've been on numerous dates like this in which I walked away knowing a
whole lot about the guy, and he knew very little about me. Because he
didn't ask. I take that as a sign of not being interested in me. So I'm
surprised when he asks me out for a second date. And he's surprised
when I politely turn it down.
jen
shinypenny
the Danimal wrote:
> Just because the guy tolerated cheating from one girlfriend
> doesn't necessarily mean he would tolerate it from the next
> girlfriend.
Yes, that is true. Which is why, if a guy revealed this bit of past
relationship history, I'd probe to find out whether he'd learned
anything from the experience.
> The only way for shinypenny to be sure how much
> self-respect a man has now would be to cheat on him and see
> how he takes it.
Well, I wouldn't go *that* far! You can learn a lot just by talking.
Did he eventually get a backbone and dump her the third time? Or did
she dump him? How has the experience colored his view of relationships?
Is he sour and bitter? Does he have any self-insight? If the guy says
something like, "And sigh... I'd take her back again in a minute" then
he's definetly got some issues.
The fact that he's revealing this information so quickly and seemingly
easily, makes me think he hasn't learned his lesson. Of course I could
be wrong about that and the reporting could be too blame. Perhaps the
reporter is deliberately choosing those facts and comments that make
him come across in a bad light. The media has been known to do that, to
sell papers. :-)
But the way I figure, if you learn your lesson and change your
behavior, you stop viewing yourself as, "the guy who got cheated on
three times." Instead, you view yourself as, "the guy who's got an
essentially forgiving heart, understands that sometimes humans are
complicated, but draws the line and wouldn't tolerate habitual cheaters
in his life because he deserves better than that."
> Does Hillary Clinton lack "self-respect"? She stuck with Bill
> despite his numerous affairs.
Well, it is a bit different when you are married with children, so who
can say. Hillary seems to have her own reasons for putting up with
Bill. Maybe they have an open marriage? Maybe they've worked out an
agreement that it's not cheating if it's just sex. Maybe Bill learned
his lesson this last time. Who knows.
> And what about the women who enable a man to cheat? Do they
> also lack "self-respect" because they do not first insist the
> guy leave his current partner?
Yes. Any person who would get involved with a married person has no
self respect (or "had" if they learned the lesson and it's no longer a
pattern).
> I'm wondering how much "self-respect" a person can have while
> being in a relationship anyway. Every relationship requires
> compromises. The only way to fully respect oneself is to
> exclude everybody else.
A good relationship would not require either partner to compromise
their own self-respect.
> Sometimes this information is available by other means. For
> example, her friends might know who she's banging, and be
> willing to gossip about it. For some reason, it's usually pretty
> easy to get a woman to gossip about other people's relationships.
> Every woman seems to carry the gossip gene.
Or just ask her.
If she tap-dances or denies it, and you find out later she has a
boyfriend, then she's a liar so why would you want to date her anyway?
> That's true, but shinypenny's question is still valid: if
> the short guy has not yet read the woman's mind enough to
> know whether she has a boyfriend (a pretty basic chunk of
> information, to be sure), how can he "know" her well enough
> to think he "loves" her?
Yes. But it doesn't take mind reading - simply asking the question
usually tends to get an answer. Hopefully an honest answer. My
preference is to fall in love with honest people. Sure, sometimes your
heart can get carried away and you can fall in love with a dishonest
person despite your best intentions, but you needn't act on those
feelings by writing love songs or asking for another date.
There is a difference between singing a light-hearted song to a woman
you just met and you're infatuated with, vs declaring undying love and
devotion to someone you barely know and going to the trouble of writing
the lyrics, etc. That is overkill.
It is true that on our 2nd or 3rd date, my DF got down on his knees at
one point and sang a rendition of "she's as pretty as a picture" to me.
He has a beautiful voice. It was all done in a light-hearted manner.
However, if on that 2nd or 3rd date he started professing his undying
love and devotion, and writing me song lyrics to that effect, the
caution flags probably would have gone up for me. We just didn't know
enough about each other at that point to be declaring undying love and
devotion!
> Whether he gets to know the woman by reading her mind,
> hiring a private investigator, hearing her disclosures,
> or listening to her friends gossip, he hasn't gotten very
> far with this process if he doesn't yet know her relationship
> status. Which means it would be a tad early to claim he
> "loves" her.
Agreed.
> On the other hand, he can tell if he wants to bang her. He
> figured that out in the first five seconds.
In which case, he's better off singing her a song that isn't
custom-made for her and doesn't come across as too much-too soon.
Don't guys get turned off when a woman they barely know is already
picking names out for the babies they're going to have together? Or
start measuring you for the tux?
jen
shinypenny
NYC XYZ wrote:
> I want to know how it is that girls go out with me and only then --
> sometimes after a whole first date -- inform me that they already have
> a b/f! Is it really that hard to just say "not interested," or to be
> honest to begin with??
I favor honesty myself. Usually I say something like, "I think you're
really nice, and I'd enjoy a friendship with you, but I don't see this
going anywhere romantically - how about we split this check? Please, I
insist."
I've had guys respond by insisting I didn't know what was best for me,
and continue to pester me into viewing them romantically. For example:
after one
date, I learned that the guy really wanted children, and I don't want
anymore. For me it was an obvious compatibility mismatch and not worth
pursuing further for either of us, and yet, this guy spent *several
weeks* calling me and emailing me repeatedly trying to "change my mind"
and convince me I really did want more children. This is after *one*
date with him.
So I can understand why some women learn to sugar-coat the truth with
white lies.
jen
NYC XYZ
shinypenny wrote:
>
>
> I favor honesty myself. Usually I say something like, "I think you're
> really nice, and I'd enjoy a friendship with you, but I don't see this
> going anywhere romantically - how about we split this check? Please, I
> insist."
Yes, I think "honest" rejection is better than one that comes after
leading someone on.
> I've had guys respond by insisting I didn't know what was best for me,
> and continue to pester me into viewing them romantically.
Oh yes, I'm guilty of that, too. But I don't pester them in the sense
of stalking them or harrassing them, calling them up, etc. In the
spirit of open exchange, I do voice my opinions in turn, but that's
all. Indeed, if it's really the last time I see her, what's the big
deal in speaking frankly to someone who practices honesty.
> For example:
> after one
> date, I learned that the guy really wanted children, and I don't want
> anymore. For me it was an obvious compatibility mismatch and not worth
> pursuing further for either of us, and yet, this guy spent *several
> weeks* calling me and emailing me repeatedly trying to "change my mind"
> and convince me I really did want more children. This is after *one*
> date with him.
Then again, I've also had the experience of actually being able to
convince girls to go out with me and view me romantically -- or so it
would seem, by their accounts. Twice I was able to bed girls who claim
to have no romantic/physical interest in me...but somehow they got with
me, and we wound up in relationships...so it's a hard call, oftentimes,
for a guy: is "no" really "NOGETTHEFUCKAWAYFROMMEBEFOREICALLTHECOPS" or
is that "no" really just "convince me"....
> So I can understand why some women learn to sugar-coat the truth with
> white lies.
But it's no "white lie" to say you've "no time for a relationship" and
afterwards casually mention a b/f in e-mail!
Anyway, whatever. To look on the bright side of it all, at least they
show me, very clearly, the sort of people they are; demonstrate what
their values are.
> jen
Geoff
already I like you. It is better to be honest, but even then some guys
don't get the message. There are some younger lads who work for me who
have been involved in 'unrequited love' situations and their adored
have tried to be kind but the penny did not drop. I had a similar
situation with my nephew recently....I've tried to impart the wisdom of
age to them. These are the key phrases I've heard over my dating
life.........
Its not you, its me
I need some space
I love you, but I;m not in love
I see you like a best friend/brother
I'm confused
We're not right for each other
They all mean the same - your dumped!
When I was in my teens/twenties, I may have pursued someone I had
strong feelings for even after hearing some of the above...not any
more. I agree with you, self respect in a person is something you can
respect yourself.
All the best
Geoff
shinypenny
NYC XYZ wrote:
> shinypenny wrote:
> >
> >
> > I favor honesty myself. Usually I say something like, "I think you're
> > really nice, and I'd enjoy a friendship with you, but I don't see this
> > going anywhere romantically - how about we split this check? Please, I
> > insist."
>
> Yes, I think "honest" rejection is better than one that comes after
> leading someone on.
Well, I hope you don't consider accepting one getting-to-know you date
as leading someone on.
> > I've had guys respond by insisting I didn't know what was best for me,
> > and continue to pester me into viewing them romantically.
>
> Oh yes, I'm guilty of that, too. But I don't pester them in the sense
> of stalking them or harrassing them, calling them up, etc. In the
> spirit of open exchange, I do voice my opinions in turn, but that's
> all.
If it's done in a light-hearted manner, this can be okay. Gotta hand it
to the guy for having confidence in himself that he's a catch. But, I'm
curious, in what age range are you dating? Perhaps that's the
difference here. I'm nearly 40. In my 20s, it is true I probably didn't
know myself well enough to know what I wanted and needed in a potential
partner, so I was probably more prone to being swayed by the hard sell.
But at this age, I do know, which is why when I say, "Sorry this isn't
going to work" I am fairly confident about it. I've dated enough to
know what works for me and what doesn't. And since it is a numbers
game, I figure why wasting my time and his if I already know it's not
going to work?
> Indeed, if it's really the last time I see her, what's the big
> deal in speaking frankly to someone who practices honesty.
This is kind of an aside, but I'm curious why 9 out of 10 times a guy
will not be interested in pursuing a friendship after the romantic
possibilities have been ruled out? That always bums me out. Just
because I may have ruled out romance, does not mean I don't like a guy
enough to truly want a friendship with him. There are a few guys (the 1
out of 10) who have taken me up on the offer and we are still friends.
And even though they might not be romantically right for me, I've
become their number 1 fan and am always on the look-out for potential
single females I know who *are* right for them.
> > For example:
> > after one
> > date, I learned that the guy really wanted children, and I don't want
> > anymore. For me it was an obvious compatibility mismatch and not worth
> > pursuing further for either of us, and yet, this guy spent *several
> > weeks* calling me and emailing me repeatedly trying to "change my mind"
> > and convince me I really did want more children. This is after *one*
> > date with him.
>
> Then again, I've also had the experience of actually being able to
> convince girls to go out with me and view me romantically -- or so it
> would seem, by their accounts. Twice I was able to bed girls who claim
> to have no romantic/physical interest in me...but somehow they got with
> me, and we wound up in relationships...so it's a hard call, oftentimes,
> for a guy: is "no" really "NOGETTHEFUCKAWAYFROMMEBEFOREICALLTHECOPS" or
> is that "no" really just "convince me"....
Well, maybe it depends on why you are dating. If it is just to have a
lot of sex with various people, then sure. I date with the purpose of
finding a compatible long-term mate. Therefore that goal colors how I
go about things. Since it is a numbers game, I don't waste much time on
relationships that I have determined won't go anywhere.
> > So I can understand why some women learn to sugar-coat the truth with
> > white lies.
>
> But it's no "white lie" to say you've "no time for a relationship" and
> afterwards casually mention a b/f in e-mail!
Yes, I saw you later mentioned that anecdote, which is a little
different than the first date ended by the "I have a boyfriend" line.
> Anyway, whatever. To look on the bright side of it all, at least they
> show me, very clearly, the sort of people they are; demonstrate what
> their values are.
Exactly.
jen
shinypenny
Geoff wrote:
> You are a good person Jen. I've only read a couple of your posts and
> already I like you.
Thanks. :-)
> It is better to be honest, but even then some guys
> don't get the message. There are some younger lads who work for me who
> have been involved in 'unrequited love' situations and their adored
> have tried to be kind but the penny did not drop. I had a similar
> situation with my nephew recently....I've tried to impart the wisdom of
> age to them. These are the key phrases I've heard over my dating
> life.........
>
> Its not you, its me
I've learned to take this one at face value. It *is* them and not me.
This is the warning sign that if you get involved anyway, you will be
spending all your time trying to fix them. Move on - find someone who's
already fixed!
> I need some space
When you find the right person, they won't want space. They'll want to
spend as much time as possible with you.
> I love you, but I;m not in love
Run like hell from this person. They will never make a good long-term
partner because they have no idea what it takes to make a commitment.
Tell them you love them too, and you hope they find happiness someday.
Then keep in touch and watch as this person goes from one failed
relationship to the next.
> I see you like a best friend/brother
I know guys hate to hear this (and women do too - I've heard "best
friend/sister" on occasion myself). But why is this really so terrible?
Those that view me in a sisterly fashion have been my fan and
introduced me to other men that didn't view me in a sisterly sort of
way. And vice versa. I am very loyal to my brotherly male friends.
> I'm confused
"For some reason I can't quite express, this relationship is not right
for me, but if you're willing to hang in there with me anyway until I
find someone who is right, that would be great because I would rather
not be alone."
> We're not right for each other
This is being honest. Not everyone is going to be right for you. Why
sweat it and take it as a rejection of who you are as a person? It
doesn't mean that you are not right for *anyone.* It just means you are
not right for this particular person.
> They all mean the same - your dumped!
It's like smoking - you have to quit a zillion times before it finally
sticks. Consider every dumping as getting you one step closer to
finding the perfect match for you. If that is your goal. It only takes
one person who is right for you. Unfortunately, you have to go through
the process and weed out a lot who aren't right along the way.
> When I was in my teens/twenties, I may have pursued someone I had
> strong feelings for even after hearing some of the above...not any
> more. I agree with you, self respect in a person is something you can
> respect yourself.
Yep! Maybe it is an age/maturity issue. The teens/twenties are tough.
It does get easier the older you get.
> All the best
You too!
jen
Bernd Jendrissek
Hash: SHA1
In article <1117902035.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
shinypenny <shinype...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I've been on numerous dates like this in which I walked away knowing a
>whole lot about the guy, and he knew very little about me.
Maybe the kind of things that are important to him to know, are unlike
the things that are important to you to know. Maybe he cares more about
your response to monologues, than about how much money you earn.
>I take that as a sign of not being interested in me.
Maybe he is, and he's obediently "respecting" you by not "prying", which
is what he grew up thinking it was when he asked people personal
questions?
>So I'm surprised when he asks me out for a second date.
Why are you surprised? Maybe he thought your company pleasing.
- --
I have neither the need, the time, or the inclination to put words into your
mouth. You are perfectly capable of damaging your reputation without any help
from me. --Richard Heathfield roasts a troll in comp.lang.c
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQFCoyWv/FmLrNfLpjMRAisFAJ9PvklaIWZKBWQQrUCKyA4FqAlDvQCfc6Wj
ovykqN68VzzkjScumeVhIhk=
=VkCO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bernd Jendrissek
Hash: SHA1
In article <1117904257.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
shinypenny <shinype...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>the Danimal wrote:
>> On the other hand, he can tell if he wants to bang her. He figured
>> that out in the first five seconds.
>
>In which case, he's better off singing her a song that isn't
>custom-made for her and doesn't come across as too much-too soon.
>
>Don't guys get turned off when a woman they barely know is already
>picking names out for the babies they're going to have together? Or
>start measuring you for the tux?
You're making the classical mistake: forgetting to translate wants
across the sexes. Sex is to men what marriage is to women, and marriage
is to men what sex is to women. (Except that both sexes have a common
positive baseline desire for sex.)
Yes, guys get turned off by what you describe. OTOH, many guys might
find encouragement in a woman who talks about one-night-stands often,
has flyers advertising swingers' clubs in her apartment, and has a stack
of "Better Sex" type books on her coffee table. That would be men
looking for no-strings-attached sex, for one.
That a woman gets turned off by a man displaying the textbook symptoms
of "love at first sight" smittenness, seems rather surprising to men who
gre up believing that women actually *wanted* committed-type men.
Sometimes the dogmatic doubt that some women display towards male
commitment leaves me thinking that commitment is best left to the
committed!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQFCoyfn/FmLrNfLpjMRAnPDAJ92U8DHG7q+muiTO4AmSuIg1ytWygCgmfhl
bNUASIDabtlTZnDYsAzBQFk=
=BbG9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
shinypenny
Bernd Jendrissek wrote:
> That a woman gets turned off by a man displaying the textbook symptoms
> of "love at first sight" smittenness, seems rather surprising to men who
> gre up believing that women actually *wanted* committed-type men.
There's a big difference between smitteness, and "I've only known you a
handful of hours, but I've already got our whole life mapped out for
us." And I do think that's true for either gender.
Especially if, as I pointed out in another post, the guy spent the
entire dating time talking incessently about himself while barely
asking any questions about me. In which case he's in love with the idea
of me, but not who I really am. People of either gender can sense that
a mile away, and it's a turn off.
So yes, I would say I want a committed-type man, but not someone who
will commit to me before he even knows me. He may feel like he knows me
- for example, I've heard, "she's a really great listener!"... ahem.
But I know better. If we've spent all the dates talking about him and
not me, then he doesn't know me and his undying devotion is misplaced
and inappropriate.
jen
shinypenny
Bernd Jendrissek wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In article <1117902035.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
> shinypenny <shinype...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >I've been on numerous dates like this in which I walked away knowing a
> >whole lot about the guy, and he knew very little about me.
>
> Maybe the kind of things that are important to him to know, are unlike
> the things that are important to you to know. Maybe he cares more about
> your response to monologues, than about how much money you earn.
Yes, I do believe there are people out there who are not looking for a
partner, but rather a sounding board that makes appropriate empathetic
clucking sounds at appropriate places. :-)
> >I take that as a sign of not being interested in me.
>
> Maybe he is, and he's obediently "respecting" you by not "prying", which
> is what he grew up thinking it was when he asked people personal
> questions?
Sure, I've met people like that, but usually they don't go on and on
and on about their own lives in great detail, because they are equally
private!
But really, how prying is it to ask something simple like, "What's your
favorite color" or "what are your hobbies and interests" or even
"what's your favorite t.v. show"? Basic conversational stuff. There's
plenty of areas that could not be construed as prying.
> >So I'm surprised when he asks me out for a second date.
>
> Why are you surprised? Maybe he thought your company pleasing.
Of course he did.
Look, I think that we all like to believe we're the most interesting
people on the planet. It is flattering when someone puts you at center
stage and asks a lot of questions about you, and is genuinely
interested in your answers. (And yes, I really am genuinely interested
- I find all sorts of people interesting). All I'm saying is that
someone I'd want to continue dating and pursue a potential relationship
with should be likewise genuinely interested in me, and show that
interest by occasionally asking me a few questions about myself. I
don't want to take up the whole stage on the date. I simply find it
most pleasant when it's a back-and-forth sort of thing.
jen
Alex
Danimal at dmo...@mfm.com wrote on 6/3/05 12:32 PM:
> NYC XYZ wrote:
>> LOL -- why isn't the Danimal on alt.seduction.fast??
>
> Presumably I would have to seduce something first.
>
If that were true, Gordon wouldn't be here.
Ray Gordon
>>
>> Presumably I would have to seduce something first.
>>
>
> If that were true, Gordon wouldn't be here.
Alex's need to lie about me that way says all one could ever need to know
about his personal bias.
--
Ray Gordon, Author
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Four FREE books on how to get laid by beautiful women
http://www.cybersheet.com/chess.html
Free Chess E-book: Train Like A Chess Champion
Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech forum.
Mario
>>>> LOL -- why isn't the Danimal on alt.seduction.fast??
>>>
>>> Presumably I would have to seduce something first.
>>>
>>
>> If that were true, Gordon wouldn't be here.
>
> Alex's need to lie about me that way says all one could ever need to know
> about his personal bias.
>
Ray- ray has admitted in his writings to the purloining of his mum's soiled
unmentionables for the purpose of masturbatory fanatsy about underage
gymnasts. He has also written on many occasions that such masturbatory
fanatsy is a precursor to actually committing criminal abuse or an otherwise
violent offense against women. I wonder who will be unlucky enough to fall
prey to his rage when he snaps? The mom?
Any Psycholgy- types want to weigh in?
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
peoplesim
> This is kind of an aside, but I'm curious why 9 out of 10 times a guy
> will not be interested in pursuing a friendship after the romantic
> possibilities have been ruled out?
Because 99/100 times "let's be friends" isn't sincere.
It's merely a responsibility-free way of dumping the guy.
jjt
>Alex's need to lie about me that way says all one could ever need to know
>about his personal bias.
>] From: ask...@hotmail.com
>] Subject: Re: Guess what? Ray won't talk to me!!! =)
>] Date: 1998/03/19
>] Message-ID: <6esj9d$7ak$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
>] Newsgroups: alt.sports.gymnastics
>]
>] As for being her Number One Fan, I claimed that title during our
>] blowout over Bela. What's not to love about a 13 year-old with
>] the intensity of Madonna? Couldn't help it.
--------------------
>] From: ray...@hotmail.com
>] Subject: Re: Confirm it or SHUT UP!
>] Date: 1998/04/05
>] Message-ID: <6g7jat$v9s$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
>] Newsgroups: alt.sports.gymnastics
>]
>] Whether you choose to believe it or not, the story is true.
>] Dominique Moceanu really is An American Slave. To cheer her
>] gymnastics is to root for child abuse, and that is something
>] I refuse to do. To punish her for her personality that cries
>] out that she is an abused child is also a crime in my book,
>] and that is why she has my unconditional love, and why she
>] always will, whether she loves me enough to want to marry me,
>] whether she hates me enough to want to kill me, or both.
-----------------------
>] From: sotw...@mindspring.com (Ray Gordon)
>] Subject: Re: Dominique
>] Date: 1997/12/27
>] Message-ID: <34a5602a...@news.mindspring.com>#1/1
>] X-Deja-AN: 310586820
>] References: <34a43380....@news.mindspring.com>
>] <682vli$52p$1...@newsd-153.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
>] X-Server-Date: 27 Dec 1997 20:11:50 GMT
>] Organization: ICN
>] Reply-To: sotwa...@mindspring.com
>] Newsgroups: alt.sports.gymnastics
>]
>] I talked to Dominique almost every day for SIX MONTHS, and
>] talked to her many times this week alone. Also talked with
>] her for an hour on her 16th birthday. Did you?
>]
>] Have fun with your unrequited obsession. At least Dominique
>] WANTS to talk to me sometimes...
------------------
>] From: ask...@hotmail.com
>] Subject: Re: Dominique Sends A Signal
>] Date: 1998/03/20
>] Message-ID: <6eus1p$fpf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1
>] X-Deja-AN: 336058962
>] Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
>] X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Mar 20 22:55:54 1998 GMT
>] Newsgroups: alt.sports.gymnastics
>]
>] I love Dominique very much. Not sexually, not romantically,
>] don't even know if there's a category for it. She has more
>] class in one of her molecules than the rest of the world seems
>] to have in its collective bodies, minds, and souls.>
----------------
According to the biography on her official website, Dominique
Moceanu was 14 years old at the Atlanta Olympics, meaning that
in 1997 she would have been only 15. She was 16 in 1998..
-------------
] From: Nice Guys Get Screwed Over <you___will...@juno.com>
] Subject: Why Lawyers Are Pathetic BOYS: Sexual Harassment And
] Discrimination In The Legal Profession
] Date: 2000/03/07
] Message-ID: <20000307.084625.-
496475.20.You__...@juno.com>
] X-Deja-AN: 594255687
] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
] Organization: mail...@nym.alias.net
] Mail-To-News-Contact: postm...@nym.alias.net
] X-Juno-Att: 0
] Content-Type: text/plain
] X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 1-2,7-8,14-15,21-28
] MIME version: 1.0
] Newsgroups: alt.lawyers.sue.sue.sue
]
] Sexual harassment and discrimination occur a lot in law because
] men hold the power, and women like the plush office environments
] and relatively easy work at high pay. Many legal secretaries were
] once gymnasts, dominatrixes, strippers, dancers, Hooter Girls,
] and other female sexual performers.
Bernd Jendrissek
Hash: SHA1
In article <1117990061.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
shinypenny <shinype...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Bernd Jendrissek wrote:
>> In article <1117902035.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
>> shinypenny <shinype...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >I've been on numerous dates like this in which I walked away knowing
>> >a whole lot about the guy, and he knew very little about me.
>>
>> Maybe the kind of things that are important to him to know, are
>> unlike the things that are important to you to know. Maybe he cares
>> more about your response to monologues, than about how much money you
>> earn.
>
>Yes, I do believe there are people out there who are not looking for a
>partner, but rather a sounding board that makes appropriate empathetic
>clucking sounds at appropriate places. :-)
Please describe, in your own terms, what you understand a "partner" to
be.
>> >I take that as a sign of not being interested in me.
>>
>> Maybe he is, and he's obediently "respecting" you by not "prying",
>> which is what he grew up thinking it was when he asked people
>> personal questions?
>
>Sure, I've met people like that, but usually they don't go on and on
>and on about their own lives in great detail, because they are equally
>private!
That's true - they project their own desire for privacy onto others.
>But really, how prying is it to ask something simple like, "What's your
>favorite color" or "what are your hobbies and interests" or even
>"what's your favorite t.v. show"?
But really, how important is it to know a person's favourite colour or
favourite TV show? Do you base your relationship decisions on these
data?
(Yes, hobbies and interests might have more predictive value for how
well one might get along.)
>> >So I'm surprised when he asks me out for a second date.
>>
>> Why are you surprised? Maybe he thought your company pleasing.
>
>Of course he did.
Well, that's why he asked you out for a second date. :)
>(And yes, I really am genuinely interested - I find all sorts of people
>interesting).
Even balding, short, ugly men who have never been married at 45 years
old, who ramble on and on and on about themselves?
BTW I believe there's a hypothesis that people, when nervous, will often
act out of character. They might start speaking in long monologues
about the most banal aspects of their lives. Even when they feed the
homeless and teach kids to read on weekends.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQFCpEgA/FmLrNfLpjMRAnoTAJ9+O4IjOTQuKZpR+6QGceWJoiVwpgCgn/o6
m+xohmmVTQ1rm/vdrVQJtfc=
=ypkX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bernd Jendrissek
Hash: SHA1
In article <0001HW.BEC8ADFC...@NEWS.Usenet-Access.com>
Mario <mfo...@pookiewookie.com> wrote:
>Any Psycholgy- types want to weigh in?
No, but when his detractors can't even get straight whether he's a
virgin or got herpes from a hooker, his credibility shines by
comparison.
- --
"IBM has more patent litigation lawyers than SCO has employees." - unknown
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQFCpEok/FmLrNfLpjMRAslqAJ95FtW3Zt4HTfW8FDj9zbS3nZYi/gCfYJvr
9f924Vr4zkynMs5gQNVarkc=
=Y6Cx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
shinypenny
Bernd Jendrissek wrote:
> >Yes, I do believe there are people out there who are not looking for a
> >partner, but rather a sounding board that makes appropriate empathetic
> >clucking sounds at appropriate places. :-)
>
> Please describe, in your own terms, what you understand a "partner" to
> be.
Somebody who's just as good as I am making empathetic clucking noises
when I need a sounding board! IOW, it's about taking turns at listening
and providing mutual - not one-sided - support.
> >But really, how prying is it to ask something simple like, "What's your
> >favorite color" or "what are your hobbies and interests" or even
> >"what's your favorite t.v. show"?
>
> But really, how important is it to know a person's favourite colour or
> favourite TV show? Do you base your relationship decisions on these
> data?
No. And now we're going around in circles, aren't we? You said
something about how some people don't like to pry. I replied that it is
not prying if you ask something like what is your favorite t.v. show.
There's a wealth of innocuous areas that one can use to make
conversation. My point is that I find it a turn-off when a man doesn't
know how to "make" conversation. Making conversation involves taking
turns at listening and talking. If a guy is only good at talking and
not listening, then I'm turned off. I find there's also a strong
correlation between that skill, and "making" love.
> (Yes, hobbies and interests might have more predictive value for how
> well one might get along.)
"What are your hobbies?"
"Oh, I love all kinds of sports <insert 10 minute monologue about the
boat he just bought and how he lettered in football in high school>."
"But enough about me - what about you? Do you like boating too?"
How hard is that?
Why do some guys seem to leave it up to me to jump in and wrestle the
conversation towards me for a change? Sometimes I'll do that if I think
the guy is just nervous, and it may be enough to remind him of his
manners. But you'd be amazed at how many respond like this:
"Oh, I love to go boating too."
"Really? That's great! I've been boating since I was a kid. Did I
mention I got my first job working on a dock? Let me tell you this
funny story about that..."
Maybe they are just trying to impress me, but let me assure you, it's
not impressing me. I don't care if you went on to win the America's
Cup.
If you can't show a smidgen of interest in my own background,
experience, opinions, and thoughts, you're not the sort of partner I
want, and frankly I'm stumped at why you'd want me, since you don't
know me or seem to care to know me.
> >(And yes, I really am genuinely interested - I find all sorts of people
> >interesting).
>
> Even balding, short, ugly men who have never been married at 45 years
> old, who ramble on and on and on about themselves?
Yeah, I can usually find something interesting about anyone, even those
that ramble on and on. Whether I'd continue to date them romantically
is another matter entirely.
I find men who are good conversationalists to be attractive, even if
they happen to be balding, short and ugly. Taking a genuine interest in
me and having good listening skills *is* attractive.
> BTW I believe there's a hypothesis that people, when nervous, will often
> act out of character. They might start speaking in long monologues
> about the most banal aspects of their lives. Even when they feed the
> homeless and teach kids to read on weekends.
Okay, that is true. And I do make allowances for nervousness, as I
noted above. In fact, on my first date with my DF, he was so nervous he
spent the first hour doing this obnoxious name-dropping thing. But I
could tell he was nervous, especially after he tripped while walking me
out to his car.
There was something particularly charming about his nervousness. You
could tell underneath it all he wasn't by nature a selfish,
conversation-monoplozing egotist, but rather he was just flustered and
overwhelmed and trying to make a good initial impression. There were
other little clues that he wasn't overly self-involved, for example,
opening my car door, fretting over where to park since I was wearing
high heels and he didn't want me to have to walk to far, and taking
particular care asking me where I wanted to eat that night.
Finally I told him, "Relax, I won't bite." And he did. He is quite a
talker, but he balances it out and is a good listener, too. He didn't
just ask me about my career and interests; he also wanted to know my
opinions. I felt like he really wanted to get to know me and who I was
and what made me tick.
On that first date we covered a lot of conversational ground. Good
conversation is a back-and-forth volley, like playing a game of tennis
or ping-pong. When you have that with someone on a date, you know the
sex is going to be good, too. :-)
Incidentally we've never stopped talking. We've been together three
years now and the conversation (and the sex) has never gotten stale.
jen
greg...@yahoo.com
> greg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > shinypenny wrote:
[...]
> > > Women don't want to be *anyone.* They want to be *the* special someone!
> >
> > A boyfriend can't help her there. The fact is that a man who is with
> > her could just as easily be with other compatible women. If she denies
> > that reality, she's more in need of a psychiatrist than a boyfriend.
> > Moreover, our personality traits, and not our significant others, are
> > what make us all unique.
>
> Not quite following you here, sorry. I don't disagree with what you
> wrote, but having trouble connecting it to what I said. Might be my
> current coffee deficit. :-)
Well you might feel better for some reason, perhaps due to more fluid
intake or better food. At any rate, try to keep the defecit going.
> Let me ask you: have you ever been in a relationship in which you felt
> like you were the luckiest guy in the world to have found her? And vice
> versa - she felt like she was the luckiest gal in the world to have
> found you?
The latter, yes. The former, no, because I don't really think that
way. I was glad to have found them, but I didn't think it was luck,
nor that some higher force had brought us together. I didn't expect
them to think that way either, although some did.
If I subscribed to that philosophy, but I still didn't think my
girlfriend felt lucky to have me, I wouldn't blame her for that, unless
she was demonstrably mean or indifferent. I would have looked inward
for some underlying insecurity, and this is what more women should do.
Instead, some expect men to fix internal problems, and of course the
men can't do it, and we shouldn't have to anyway.
> > Pass this along to Antioch College, will you? Their policy requires
> > men to get verbal permission before kissing. (They stopped short of
> > requiring written contracts because campus environmentalists objected
> > to the excessive use of paper.)
>
> Oh! Forgot about that (I went to college years before all that). Very
> good point.
Indeed, although I suppose Antioch could have used recycled paper.
(I'm kidding.) The point is that we don't always know what is expected
of us, and we often only get one guess.
> > > > He reveals that he calls his mother "mommy"
> > >
> > > Oh, double & triple ick.
> >
> > What a man calls his mother is none of your business, unless you're his
> > mother.
>
> If it's none of my business, why is he revealing it to the world?
Because someone asked him. It wouldn't have occurred to him to tell
everyone what he calls his mother, unless someone asked, and they asked
because they thought it was the business of potential mates. When this
happens, more thoughtful people should recognize business that isn't
ours and decline to keep the ruckus going.
Instead of deriding him for calling his mother "mommy," why not lament
his lack of backbone, made evident by his answering the question in the
first place? I'd have told the person to clean his or her own house.
> > > > and that he
> > > > once stayed with a girlfriend who cheated on him three
> > > > times because he was trying to understand.
> > >
> > > Door mat! This turns me off more than all the rest (yes, even the
> > > "mommy" part). I prefer a man who has self-respect, thank you.
> >
> > Not only that, but you want a man who will give you self-respect that
> > you don't have, which is why you fold your arms, tap your foot, and
> > wait for a man to make you "*the* special someone."
>
> Huh?
>
> Ever hear the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame
> on me"? What kind of person stays with a partner who cheats on them not
> once, but three times?
Someone lacking in self-respect. But for this, he deserves pity, not
to be dogpiled.
[...]
> > Unless he hires a private investigator, he won't know she has a
> > boyfriend unless she tells him. I didn't want to remind you that we
> > aren't mind readers, but you left me no choice.
>
> And she may not tell him unless he asks.
Why would he ask that question on a date? If she's on a date, it
stands to reason that she has no boyfriend, or she wouldn't be on a
date. A woman with a boyfriend who goes on a date is already in the
wrong, and the least she can do is admit she has a boyfriend. Is this
really too much to expect?
> I can't tell you how many dates I've been on where the guy asks very
> few questions of me. Instead, he talks on and on and on about himself.
I hear you, but I also notice that the most egotistical men are the
most successful. Women say they want good listeners, but what they say
doesn't square with whom they date.
But enough of all that. The best a man can do is be himself, respect
himself, and let the chips fall.
[...]
shinypenny
greg1...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Let me ask you: have you ever been in a relationship in which you felt
> > like you were the luckiest guy in the world to have found her? And vice
> > versa - she felt like she was the luckiest gal in the world to have
> > found you?
>
> The latter, yes. The former, no, because I don't really think that
> way. I was glad to have found them, but I didn't think it was luck,
> nor that some higher force had brought us together. I didn't expect
> them to think that way either, although some did.
>
> If I subscribed to that philosophy, but I still didn't think my
> girlfriend felt lucky to have me, I wouldn't blame her for that, unless
> she was demonstrably mean or indifferent. I would have looked inward
> for some underlying insecurity, and this is what more women should do.
> Instead, some expect men to fix internal problems, and of course the
> men can't do it, and we shouldn't have to anyway.
Perhaps you are getting hung up on my choice of the word "luck." Try
using the phrase "happy and giddy as punch" instead.
Would you rather be with someone who felt happy & giddy as punch to
have found someone as wonderful as you, or with someone who is with you
because, well, you'd have her?
To me, the latter indicates that the person is settling and has
insecurity/self-esteem issues. I don't know about you, but I sure don't
want to be with a partner who is only with me because I'd have him. I
want him to be equally happy and giddy as punch!
jen
NYC XYZ
shinypenny wrote:
>
>
> Well, I hope you don't consider accepting one getting-to-know you date
> as leading someone on.
No, of course not -- but we're talking about a girl who claims to "have
no time for relationships," a girl who, when I ask her what she does
for sex, then, answers that "well, there are always toys"...then she
casually off-handedly mentions a b/f in e-mail about our next
date/outing. That's lying.
> If it's done in a light-hearted manner, this can be okay. Gotta hand it
> to the guy for having confidence in himself that he's a catch.
> But, I'm
> curious, in what age range are you dating? Perhaps that's the
> difference here.
Ah, well, yes, of course. I'm talking, specifically, about
20-something latinas. The dumbest girls I know, but, really, also
about the sexiest, in terms of their bodies and their sexual attitudes.
I know that sounds racist, misogynist, blah blah, but I don't care --
that's based on extensive research.
Also, there's the matter of socioeconomic class...these girls are all
from the ghetto, so it's ghetto culture and lifestyles that factor in,
too.
> I'm nearly 40. In my 20s, it is true I probably didn't
> know myself well enough to know what I wanted and needed in a potential
> partner, so I was probably more prone to being swayed by the hard sell.
Eh? Now what's a "hard sell" to a twenty-something?
> But at this age, I do know, which is why when I say, "Sorry this isn't
> going to work" I am fairly confident about it. I've dated enough to
> know what works for me and what doesn't. And since it is a numbers
> game, I figure why wasting my time and his if I already know it's not
> going to work?
I know what you mean. But even given my convictions about my favorite
species of female (LOL), as outlined above, I keep trying. I know the
odds are against me, but I like to keep trying, because I'm really
interested, the prize is worth it, so to speak.
> This is kind of an aside, but I'm curious why 9 out of 10 times a guy
> will not be interested in pursuing a friendship after the romantic
> possibilities have been ruled out? That always bums me out. Just
> because I may have ruled out romance, does not mean I don't like a guy
> enough to truly want a friendship with him. There are a few guys (the 1
> out of 10) who have taken me up on the offer and we are still friends.
I think the main reason is that sense of personal rejection. A bit
like the feeling you get when Human Resources (or whoever) thinks
you're only good enough for a clerical position but not for an
executive one.
> And even though they might not be romantically right for me, I've
> become their number 1 fan and am always on the look-out for potential
> single females I know who *are* right for them.
Well, that would be cool, but that's never been my experience. All
these girls want to do is blah blah blah about their lives, about their
day, etc. That's their idea of "friendship" -- you get to have an
audience with them on their thoughts.
> Well, maybe it depends on why you are dating. If it is just to have a
> lot of sex with various people, then sure. I date with the purpose of
> finding a compatible long-term mate.
That's actually how I feel, too! But I'm also up for "just fun" -- as
long as it's all honest, from the beginning. And no, I don't think
it's really a case of being too young and not knowing oneself so much
as just being dishonest -- even to oneself.
> Therefore that goal colors how I
> go about things. Since it is a numbers game, I don't waste much time on
> relationships that I have determined won't go anywhere.
I totally agree with this approach. Now I understand if the girl wants
to go on another date just to get a better "feel" -- to mine more data,
as it were -- but really, there are people who are simply cock-teasers,
who like the attention, etc.
> Yes, I saw you later mentioned that anecdote, which is a little
> different than the first date ended by the "I have a boyfriend" line.
Sorry, I probably put it all very badly, giving it out in bits and
pieces.
> Exactly.
Sigh!
> jen
NYC XYZ
peoplesim wrote:
>
>
> Because 99/100 times "let's be friends" isn't sincere.
> It's merely a responsibility-free way of dumping the guy.
Or using him.
I know what you mean, but assuming that it's sincere, I would be too
wrapped up in myself -- feeling rejected -- to be able to "concentrate"
on a real friendship.
Now, if she had a twin sister, that'd be a different story! ^_^
shinypenny
NYC XYZ wrote:
> No, of course not -- but we're talking about a girl who claims to "have
> no time for relationships," a girl who, when I ask her what she does
> for sex, then, answers that "well, there are always toys"...then she
> casually off-handedly mentions a b/f in e-mail about our next
> date/outing. That's lying.
Yep, that's a different situation than the one I originally responded
about. She's lying - why would you want to date a liar? End of story.
:-)
> Ah, well, yes, of course. I'm talking, specifically, about
> 20-something latinas. The dumbest girls I know, but, really, also
> about the sexiest, in terms of their bodies and their sexual attitudes.
> I know that sounds racist, misogynist, blah blah, but I don't care --
> that's based on extensive research.
Hmmm... you say down below you are looking for a long-term partner, and
not just a bed buddy. Yet, you spend your time getting rejecting by
women that (regardless of their race) you consider dumb. In the words
of Dr Phil, "And how's that working for you?"
> Also, there's the matter of socioeconomic class...these girls are all
> from the ghetto, so it's ghetto culture and lifestyles that factor in,
> too.
Why are you spending your time on them? I don't get it, not if you say
you want a long-term, committed, quality partner. It seems you're your
own worst enemy here, and not the girls you date. You *choose* to try
and date women who to you are not quality and are dumb. Then you get
upset when they reject you. I can see why... it must really suck to be
rejected by someone you consider inferior to yourself!
> I know what you mean. But even given my convictions about my favorite
> species of female (LOL), as outlined above, I keep trying. I know the
> odds are against me, but I like to keep trying, because I'm really
> interested, the prize is worth it, so to speak.
A woman you consider - in your own words - "dumb" and "ghetto" is worth
it to you? Just because she's sexy?
Scratching head...
Seems to me that you are someone who wants a diamond, and goes
searching for it at the 5 and dime store. You're bargain-basement
shopping. And these women probably sense that about you. They probably
look at you, a quality guy who deserves a real diamond if he wanted,
and assume you just want something cheap and sparkly that won't last
long..... and so that's what you end up with.
> I think the main reason is that sense of personal rejection. A bit
> like the feeling you get when Human Resources (or whoever) thinks
> you're only good enough for a clerical position but not for an
> executive one.
The problem is not that these women think you're only good enough for a
clerical position. It's that *YOU* are only applying for clerical
positions!
Your personal rejection is not coming from them (although it does
reinforce it, and in the worst possible very damaging way). Your
personal rejection is coming from you. You are deliberately setting
yourself up to be rejected again and again, and not by quality women
but by women you deem beneath you.
Perhaps you've got a personal script in your head that tells you you're
not worth better, and that's why you don't try. You might think about
changing that personal script. See what happens.
> Well, that would be cool, but that's never been my experience. All
> these girls want to do is blah blah blah about their lives, about their
> day, etc. That's their idea of "friendship" -- you get to have an
> audience with them on their thoughts.
Well, then it sounds to me like you're trying to find a quality person
among people you wouldn't even consider quality enough to be your
friend. What is wrong with this picture? Hmmm.
As for me, I like to surround myself with quality people. My friends
are high quality. That means that anyone they know is likely also of
high quality, which means I've effectively increased my pool of quality
people to meet, should I ever find myself back in the dating market
again.
> That's actually how I feel, too! But I'm also up for "just fun" -- as
> long as it's all honest, from the beginning. And no, I don't think
> it's really a case of being too young and not knowing oneself so much
> as just being dishonest -- even to oneself.
I think you sound like a very nice guy, actually. But unfortunately you
don't know your own worth, don't believe in yourself, and deliberately
and methodically set yourself up for repeated rejection from liars who
are beneath you.
You can have a lot of "just fun" with quality people too, you know. :-)
> I totally agree with this approach. Now I understand if the girl wants
> to go on another date just to get a better "feel" -- to mine more data,
> as it were -- but really, there are people who are simply cock-teasers,
> who like the attention, etc.
Apparently it may be the company you are choosing to keep.
I hope I'm not being too harsh on you. You do sound like a nice guy,
I'm not trying to put you down or anything. I'm just trying to help
point out the fallacies in your current thinking and dating strategy,
which is likely the reason you are so frustrated and feeling rejected.
jen
NYC XYZ
shinypenny wrote:
>
>
> <SNIP>
>
> Hmmm... you say down below you are looking for a long-term partner, and
> not just a bed buddy. Yet, you spend your time getting rejecting by
> women that (regardless of their race) you consider dumb. In the words
> of Dr Phil, "And how's that working for you?"
In terms of intellect, I feel like I can handle anything that intellect
alone can, so I don't "need" the girl to be intellectual or even
"smart." I need her to be a long-term bed buddy! ^_^ Seriously: I
can cook and clean, I can do my own laundry, I have enough fun reading
and trolling usenet (LOL) -- the only thing I actually *need* a girl
for, that I can't get nowhere else, is the sex!
That's the truth and I'm stickin' to it.
> Why are you spending your time on them? I don't get it, not if you say
> you want a long-term, committed, quality partner. It seems you're your
> own worst enemy here, and not the girls you date. You *choose* to try
> and date women who to you are not quality and are dumb. Then you get
> upset when they reject you. I can see why... it must really suck to be
> rejected by someone you consider inferior to yourself!
I work in the ghetto, let's put it that way -- so this is really where
I spend most of my waking hours, unfortunately. So I do what I can.
So far, no luck.
> A woman you consider - in your own words - "dumb" and "ghetto" is worth
> it to you? Just because she's sexy?
>
> Scratching head...
No, you're drawing the wrong inferences from my remarks...I'm not
saying that "dumb" and "ghetto" equals sexy...I'm saying that the
sexiest girls I know are latinas, who are usually dumb and ghetto...see
the difference?
Now, as explained before, I don't need them to be "smart," as I've been
on my own since ~19-20...all I need is great sex outta 'em! Yet it'd
still have to be a relationship, after all -- so the "ghetto" part is
problematic (ghetto values, etc.).
> Seems to me that you are someone who wants a diamond, and goes
> searching for it at the 5 and dime store. You're bargain-basement
> shopping. And these women probably sense that about you. They probably
> look at you, a quality guy who deserves a real diamond if he wanted,
> and assume you just want something cheap and sparkly that won't last
> long..... and so that's what you end up with.
Actually, no. In terms of what I "pay," I pay handsomely! (Seriously,
please take my word on this -- though I may come here to vent and troll
some morons, I don't need to lie about myself when having a serious
conversation.)
I will agree, though, that these girls probably think too little of
themselves and so rejecting me makes them feel better -- I can't be
this "Prince Charming" if they reject me...because I'm
intelligent/athletic/blah-blah-blah they seem to feel "naturally
deferential" to me, but that in turn goes against their ghetto 'tude
about being tough and "independent," etc.
Does that make sense? IOW, they dress like sluts, but want to be
respected for their "minds"...and being ghetto, they're used to being
smarter than the guy.
> The problem is not that these women think you're only good enough for a
> clerical position. It's that *YOU* are only applying for clerical
> positions!
Cute, but, um, you're mixing up analogies here.... =)
Anyway, to go along with your point: these are the only positions
available within commuting distance! And I'm comfortable enough being
a clerk...ain't ambitious; just looking to get the bills paid (i.e.,
sex!).
> Your personal rejection is not coming from them (although it does
> reinforce it, and in the worst possible very damaging way). Your
> personal rejection is coming from you. You are deliberately setting
> yourself up to be rejected again and again, and not by quality women
> but by women you deem beneath you.
Ah, like I say, it's just what's available around here. I mean, I
really don't ask for much: is sex every day so much to ask for? I'd do
all the housework, cooking, etc. Sure, I'd even endure going shopping
with her -- can always read while waiting, etc.
> Perhaps you've got a personal script in your head that tells you you're
> not worth better, and that's why you don't try. You might think about
> changing that personal script. See what happens.
It's not that I have low self-esteem. It's simply that this is what I
have been coming up with around here! Anyway, I'm actually hopeful,
believe it or not.
> Well, then it sounds to me like you're trying to find a quality person
> among people you wouldn't even consider quality enough to be your
> friend. What is wrong with this picture? Hmmm.
Sorry, this is all coming out in bits and pieces, hence your questions.
Generally, I'm just looking for that hot latina sex I've come to enjoy
so much. I can get all the other things one can think of out of a
relationship w/o a girl -- companionship, friendship, interesting
conversations, whatever. All I need is the sex! 8-d
> As for me, I like to surround myself with quality people.
Hey, me too. That's why I love usenet. Seriously! More interesting
folks here, mainly 'cause of the anonymity, I think.
> My friends
> are high quality. That means that anyone they know is likely also of
> high quality, which means I've effectively increased my pool of quality
> people to meet, should I ever find myself back in the dating market
> again.
Well, I'm not sure what you mean by this "quality" thing...I can't
think of anything I actually need except sex! I mean, everything else
I already have and would be nice to have in a girl...but the main thing
is I'm young and buff and I need sex now! =D
> I think you sound like a very nice guy, actually. But unfortunately you
> don't know your own worth, don't believe in yourself, and deliberately
> and methodically set yourself up for repeated rejection from liars who
> are beneath you.
Well, how do I know they're liars and cockteasers until I actually
spend time alone with them? It's kinda like the ol' "hoping for the
best, expecting the worst"...that's my motto. =)
> You can have a lot of "just fun" with quality people too, you know. :-)
Well, like I said, it's only here on usenet! But all I need is the
sex, is all. That, I gotta do in person.
> Apparently it may be the company you are choosing to keep.
Well, I just gotta keep sifting through all the chaff. I mean, I live
in NYC, and where I work, it's just latinas. They're sexy as hell, but
as a group they're pretty dumb. But what's more important to me? Me,
I already got smarts -- what I ain't have is the sexy latina in bed!
Unfortunately, this population tends to be single moms, cultural
barbarians, etc. But I keep trying..."many are called, but few are
chosen." (And, unfortunately, those that are called don't call back!)
> I hope I'm not being too harsh on you. You do sound like a nice guy,
> I'm not trying to put you down or anything.
Hey, don't worry -- this is usenet! I'm probably coming across real
obnoxious myself...but that's really how I see the situation. I just
*need* the sex; everything else I already have.
> I'm just trying to help
> point out the fallacies in your current thinking and dating strategy,
> which is likely the reason you are so frustrated and feeling rejected.
It's complicated. I just don't have that many resources, in terms of
time and so forth, to really do a "hunt"...so, yes, it's a grab-bag.
If I turned this into a F/T job, or at least a hobby, even, I'm sure
I'd get better results...but I'm just so "busy"...since all I want is
sex, anyway.
Not to worry -- I'll invite you to the wedding!
> jen
NYC XYZ
Geoff wrote:
> You are a good person Jen. I've only read a couple of your posts and
> already I like you.
And it turns out she's forty! I knew there was a catch...have yet to
meet such "quality" women younger than thirty. =)
> It is better to be honest, but even then some guys
> don't get the message. There are some younger lads who work for me who
> have been involved in 'unrequited love' situations and their adored
> have tried to be kind but the penny did not drop.
I take that as a healthy sign, actually, on the part of young,
red-blooded men!
> I had a similar
> situation with my nephew recently....I've tried to impart the wisdom of
> age to them. These are the key phrases I've heard over my dating
> life.........
>
> Its not you, its me
> I need some space
> I love you, but I;m not in love
> I see you like a best friend/brother
> I'm confused
> We're not right for each other
>
> They all mean the same - your dumped!
Indeed! But I love to know, to analyze and figure out...unfortunately,
no one I've met are honest, or intelligent enough to know, even -- or
have the interest, for that matter -- to do the favor of giving their
reasons.
> When I was in my teens/twenties, I may have pursued someone I had
> strong feelings for even after hearing some of the above...not any
> more. I agree with you, self respect in a person is something you can
> respect yourself.
Actually, it's funny, but I only ever gave pursuit because I already
had enough self-respect and esteem and confidence such that I didn't
view rejection as having to do with shortcomings on *my* part! You get
it? Not that rejections didn't faze me, but that they didn't keep me
from chasing because my self-respect, etc., wasn't tied to whether I
chased -- if anything, maybe the chase, however it turns out,
contributes to my self-esteem, insofar as I consider it a man's duty,
almost, to go after what he wants in life, so that in giving chase I
was participating in a kind of masculinity ritual or something!
> All the best
>
> Geoff
the Danimal
> NYC XYZ wrote:
>
> > No, of course not -- but we're talking about a girl who claims to "have
> > no time for relationships," a girl who, when I ask her what she does
> > for sex, then, answers that "well, there are always toys"...then she
> > casually off-handedly mentions a b/f in e-mail about our next
> > date/outing. That's lying.
>
> Yep, that's a different situation than the one I originally responded
> about. She's lying - why would you want to date a liar? End of story.
> :-)
Nobody tells the complete truth.
Check out any personal ad site. Does anybody tell the complete
truth about themselves? If they did, you might see more ads
like this: "I fart a lot. I haven't cleaned my toilet in
six months. I collect lesbian goat pornography. I shout
profanity and pick my nose while driving. I need a woman
to fetch me snacks and beer while I watch sports television
on the couch in my underpants and wife-beater tank top.
You can be pretty sure I will never find another woman
to cheat on you with, even if you and I both wish I would."
> > Ah, well, yes, of course. I'm talking, specifically, about
> > 20-something latinas. The dumbest girls I know, but, really, also
> > about the sexiest, in terms of their bodies and their sexual attitudes.
> > I know that sounds racist, misogynist, blah blah, but I don't care --
> > that's based on extensive research.
>
> Hmmm... you say down below you are looking for a long-term partner, and
> not just a bed buddy. Yet, you spend your time getting rejecting by
> women that (regardless of their race) you consider dumb. In the words
> of Dr Phil, "And how's that working for you?"
How's living in Iraq working out for Iraqis?
A few Iraqis might move to another country, but they cannot ALL move.
A Dr. Phil genius might listen to an Iraqi's problems (daily car
bombings, mortars landing in the front yard, U.S. soldiers bashing
in the front door looking for insurgents) and brilliantly suggest
moving to another country.
Maybe a lot of Iraqis already thought of that, but found
they lack the resources and/or connections to flee. Doing the
obvious is not always easy. Collectively it may be impossible.
It's like being in a race; to win, you need to move up to the
front. But all the competitors cannot simultaneously move up.
All those "toxic" partners the Dr. Phil types say to avoid,
they have to get with somebody too. And they will. They aren't
going to take a vow of celibacy for the good of the species.
OF COURSE "NYC XYZ" understands that it would be best to find
a woman who is sexy, smart, and who wants him, but maybe that
combination of traits is exceedingly rare. So he cuts women
a break on the trait he considers expendable: their minds.
If "smart" were enough, he would not need to limit himself
to women, after all.
> > Also, there's the matter of socioeconomic class...these girls are all
> > from the ghetto, so it's ghetto culture and lifestyles that factor in,
> > too.
>
> Why are you spending your time on them?
He can only choose from the options available to him. Obviously
if he could attract women he liked better, those are the women
he would get with.
> I don't get it, not if you say
> you want a long-term, committed, quality partner. It seems you're your
> own worst enemy here, and not the girls you date. You *choose* to try
> and date women who to you are not quality and are dumb. Then you get
> upset when they reject you. I can see why... it must really suck to be
> rejected by someone you consider inferior to yourself!
Do you think NY XYZ can choose who to be attracted to?
He sounds like he is sexually attracted to BODIES, not to
particular personalities. And that's pretty much normal for
men. Almost every man chooses a woman who is pretty close to
the most physically attractive woman he can attract, at the
time when he is choosing.
Rarely do you see a man who chooses a woman who is vastly
less physically attractive than the most physically attractive
women he can attract, specifically so he can have a woman with
some particular personality traits.
You know, like the way a company hires employees of every kind
of physical appearance because they all have particular job skills.
If men sought those less-visible personality traits, they would get
with women of every kind of physical appearance.
But that's not how it usually works. You don't see the same guy
dating, successively, a woman who is a '2', then a woman who is
a '9', then a woman who is a '3' and so on. If he can attract
a woman who is a '9', then he probably only dates women who
are '8's and up.
For this to be true, it not only means most men are rating
women according to very similar scales of desirability, but most
women are rating men with similar consistency. You probably will
never find a woman who looks like a '9' and yet has a thing for
men who otherwise can only attract women who look like a '1'.
No, it is overwhelmingly likely she only wants men who themselves
can attract other women who are physically attractive like she is.
For example, a woman who looks like Katie Holmes wants a guy who
looks like Tom Cruise, with a long thick wallet like Tom's, not
some balding impoverished obese homeless midget with bad teeth.
That is, there is a sexual market which emerges from the
broadly similar preferences people have, and this market
operates with an iron fist to punish those who fail to learn
their place.
We even have sexual harassment laws and jails to punish
unattractive people who have unduly high self-esteem and
are particularly slow learners.
> > I know what you mean. But even given my convictions about my favorite
> > species of female (LOL), as outlined above, I keep trying. I know the
> > odds are against me, but I like to keep trying, because I'm really
> > interested, the prize is worth it, so to speak.
>
> A woman you consider - in your own words - "dumb" and "ghetto" is worth
> it to you? Just because she's sexy?
Explain your use of the word "just." Do you have any idea what
it's like to be a man and to have sex with a physically attractive
woman? Even if the relationship turns out to be garbage, the man
will fondly recall the mind-blowing sex until his dying breath.
If there were sexy women who also had worthwhile personalities,
and who are still on the market, of course they would be better.
Can you name one?
> Scratching head...
>
> Seems to me that you are someone who wants a diamond, and goes
> searching for it at the 5 and dime store. You're bargain-basement
> shopping. And these women probably sense that about you. They probably
> look at you, a quality guy who deserves a real diamond if he wanted,
> and assume you just want something cheap and sparkly that won't last
> long..... and so that's what you end up with.
So where exactly should he shop? Where is this magic place
where a man finds his dream girl? Does it exist in the real
world?
You don't seem to understand how the sexual market works. If
a woman is sexy and she has a worthwhile personality, she gets
taken off the market quickly, and she stays off. Some lucky guy
locks her up and stays committed to her.
Therefore, at any given time, a sizable fraction of the sexy
women who are back on the market are probably there for a
reason. They have no problems attracting men, because
their bodies look great and feel great, but some of them have
personality flaws that keep wrecking their relationships and
throwing them back onto the market.
In some cases, the really hot women who are still available
by their late 20's have serious mental illnesses. While we
can't generalize about every sort of mental illness, most of
them make relationships difficult, to say the least. Mental
illness did not earn its stigma for nothing.
One complicating factor is that many people who have problems are
often pretty good at hiding them from a new partner for a few
months. A deal that looks like a good deal at first might turn
out to be something else, and it is difficult to know this ahead of
time. Even a "stupid" person can fool a "smart" person
when it comes to the smart person trying to read the stupid
person's mind. Especially when the blood keeps draining out of
the smart person's brain every time he looks at the stupid person's
smokingly hot body.
> > I think the main reason is that sense of personal rejection. A bit
> > like the feeling you get when Human Resources (or whoever) thinks
> > you're only good enough for a clerical position but not for an
> > executive one.
>
> The problem is not that these women think you're only good enough for a
> clerical position. It's that *YOU* are only applying for clerical
> positions!
Do you think all those people flipping burgers for minimum wage
somehow failed to realize there are better jobs? Perhaps many
of them DO NOT QUALIFY for better jobs. Perhaps they applied and
got laughed out of the room.
The job market is pretty consistent from place to place. A person
who can only flip burgers in one town probably can't do much better
in another town. The burger-flipper does not have to apply for
every job at every company in every town to figure out where he
stands in the job market.
The sexual market is similarly consistent. If a guy can't get laid
with lingerie models and pro sports cheerleaders in one town,
his luck probably won't improve if he tries another town. A man can
figure out his prospects pretty quickly just by reviewing his
own history of successes and rejections from various types of
women. For a given man, there will be some women who are simply
too physically attractive for him. They are "out of his league."
If a woman is way out of a man's league, he doesn't even get one
date with her. The serious problems start when a woman is only
slightly out of a man's league. Then she might agree to date him,
but she will probably treat him like garbage. And he will stick
around for it because she's so hot. (It works the other way too,
when a man who has nothing else better going picks up a woman
who is slightly below his league to serve as his willing doormat.)
This is why men should build sex robots. Then there will be no
limits on how attractive a man's partner(s) can be. A man will
be able to buy a partner with any combination of physical appearance
and personality traits, and still get good treatment from her.
The only limits will be the skill of the designers, and the
production cost. And probably the irrational objections of the
Bible Thumpers. Until they too get seduced by irresistably
attractive ego-pumping sex robots.
> Your personal rejection is not coming from them (although it does
> reinforce it, and in the worst possible very damaging way). Your
> personal rejection is coming from you. You are deliberately setting
> yourself up to be rejected again and again, and not by quality women
> but by women you deem beneath you.
How do I deliberately set myself up to have Halle Berry fall
in love with me? Please be specific.
For all I know, her personality might be a mess, but she is
an actress after all so she could stay in character for a
few months at least.
Can I also deliberately set myself up to get a billion dollars?
And win the Tour de France while we're at it?
> Perhaps you've got a personal script in your head that tells you you're
> not worth better, and that's why you don't try. You might think about
> changing that personal script. See what happens.
You might think about telling us where the beautiful women with
great personalities who will treat us like kings are hiding.
I don't think most men will experience anything like that until
(some) men get smart enough to build what we want.
> > Well, that would be cool, but that's never been my experience. All
> > these girls want to do is blah blah blah about their lives, about their
> > day, etc. That's their idea of "friendship" -- you get to have an
> > audience with them on their thoughts.
>
> Well, then it sounds to me like you're trying to find a quality person
> among people you wouldn't even consider quality enough to be your
> friend. What is wrong with this picture? Hmmm.
Here's what's wrong: it takes a few months to evaluate a woman's
personality, but only a few seconds to evaluate her sexual
attractiveness. The skimpy fashions women wear leave little to
the imagination. Generally the hotter a woman looks, the more
she flaunts it. Even "tasteful" clothing for women is tailored
well enough to give male oglers pretty reliable intelligence.
Women do not similarly advertise their personalities, and
it's quite possible to experience great sex with someone
you barely know. In fact that is pretty much the standard
custom now. After the most superficial introduction, two
people who like what they see can be going at it like
crazed rabbits. How much can you know about someone after
just three dates, with a few shallow conversations
between dinners and movies? Two people are trying to make
a good impression, they are on their best unrealistic behavior,
glossing over their differences, avoiding the difficult
subjects, etc.
Two people might have sex for the first time before they have
even mentioned the most basic issues relating to long-term
compatibility, such as whether they want to get married and
have children, where they expect to be living five years
from now, etc. Sexual attraction is very much a surface thing.
It obviously does not require a detailed knowledge of who you
are with. In general, it seems most couples want to have
sex less the more they get to know each other.
> As for me, I like to surround myself with quality people. My friends
> are high quality. That means that anyone they know is likely also of
> high quality, which means I've effectively increased my pool of quality
> people to meet, should I ever find myself back in the dating market
> again.
Finding quality people is no problem if you don't care what they
look like.
How do I surround myself with quality women who also look like
Victoria's Secret lingerie models? Even if they don't like me,
they would still be fun to look at.
> > That's actually how I feel, too! But I'm also up for "just fun" -- as
> > long as it's all honest, from the beginning. And no, I don't think
> > it's really a case of being too young and not knowing oneself so much
> > as just being dishonest -- even to oneself.
>
> I think you sound like a very nice guy, actually.
<snicker>
> But unfortunately you don't know your own worth,
I have yet to meet a human who underestimates his/her worth.
For example, if your boss gave you a ridiculous raise, is
there any number you would refuse as being too much?
> don't believe in yourself, and deliberately
> and methodically set yourself up for repeated rejection from liars who
> are beneath you.
>
> You can have a lot of "just fun" with quality people too, you know. :-)
What do you know about this guy and the sorts of people who
are around him? Do you even know you are writing to a guy?
For all you know, you might be like an athletically gifted
person trying to tell a quadriplegic how to get in shape.
The athlete's training methods probably won't work for
the cripple.
> > I totally agree with this approach. Now I understand if the girl wants
> > to go on another date just to get a better "feel" -- to mine more data,
> > as it were -- but really, there are people who are simply cock-teasers,
> > who like the attention, etc.
>
> Apparently it may be the company you are choosing to keep.
He sounds like he is dating women who are slightly out of his
league. He may have to ugly his choices down a bit to obtain
better treatment from women.
Most guys who are not at the top of the attractiveness scale
themselves can probably share stories about the beating they
took while figuring out where they rank. Some men, of course,
are still taking that beating.
Women learn where they stand through a gentler process. They
don't have to be repeatedly humiliated by men who are out of
their league. Those men generally ignore them (except when
very drunk and otherwise unoccupied). Women, therefore,
figure out where they stand according to the desirability of
the men who hit on them while sober. A woman rarely has to
directly confront the disdain she would trigger in a man who
is out of her league, if she forced the issue the way men have to.
> I hope I'm not being too harsh on you.
Maybe he likes it harsh. He said he wouldn't mind getting
stalked by some woman's ex-boyfriend. I doubt anything you
would write on Usenet will top that for harshness. To experience
harsh, try "jealous male."
> You do sound like a nice guy,
> I'm not trying to put you down or anything. I'm just trying to help
> point out the fallacies in your current thinking and dating strategy,
> which is likely the reason you are so frustrated and feeling rejected.
I suppose the men in these newsgroups could provide similarly
shaky advice about how to handle things such as childbirth,
menstrual cramps, breastfeeding, menopause, etc. that they cannot
experience directly.
How about that one Texas good ol' boy, who advised women to
"just lie back and enjoy it" if rape is inevitable? Do you
think he understands a woman's perspective?
-- the Danimal
NYC XYZ
the Danimal wrote:
>
>
> Nobody tells the complete truth.
>
> Check out any personal ad site. Does anybody tell the complete
> truth about themselves? If they did, you might see more ads
> like this: "I fart a lot. I haven't cleaned my toilet in
> six months. I collect lesbian goat pornography. I shout
> profanity and pick my nose while driving. I need a woman
> to fetch me snacks and beer while I watch sports television
> on the couch in my underpants and wife-beater tank top.
> You can be pretty sure I will never find another woman
> to cheat on you with, even if you and I both wish I would."
LOL -- hey, you need your own morning commute radio show!
> How's living in Iraq working out for Iraqis?
>
> A few Iraqis might move to another country, but they cannot ALL move.
>
> A Dr. Phil genius might listen to an Iraqi's problems (daily car
> bombings, mortars landing in the front yard, U.S. soldiers bashing
> in the front door looking for insurgents) and brilliantly suggest
> moving to another country.
>
> Maybe a lot of Iraqis already thought of that, but found
> they lack the resources and/or connections to flee. Doing the
> obvious is not always easy. Collectively it may be impossible.
> It's like being in a race; to win, you need to move up to the
> front. But all the competitors cannot simultaneously move up.
> All those "toxic" partners the Dr. Phil types say to avoid,
> they have to get with somebody too. And they will. They aren't
> going to take a vow of celibacy for the good of the species.
>
> OF COURSE "NYC XYZ" understands that it would be best to find
> a woman who is sexy, smart, and who wants him, but maybe that
> combination of traits is exceedingly rare. So he cuts women
> a break on the trait he considers expendable: their minds.
>
> If "smart" were enough, he would not need to limit himself
> to women, after all.
You know, I'm starting to think a woman just wants great sex, too, but
has to pretend otherwise. They're not as often that horny, but I think
that old Yiddish proverb about the penis keeping the peace in the
household is true!
> He can only choose from the options available to him. Obviously
> if he could attract women he liked better, those are the women
> he would get with.
Yup! Supply and demand -- and it's a seller's market.
> Do you think NY XYZ can choose who to be attracted to?
Um, well, actually, yes...I can "reprogram" myself to a great
extent...maybe not absolute choice, but relative choice...I mean, I
wasn't always into latinas' big T&A...maybe I can unlearn that....
> He sounds like he is sexually attracted to BODIES, not to
> particular personalities. And that's pretty much normal for
> men. Almost every man chooses a woman who is pretty close to
> the most physically attractive woman he can attract, at the
> time when he is choosing.
Yes...though I have my preferences as far as personalities go, I can
also see the bright side in fucking a bitch -- I mean a real bitchy
princess type. I've done that and it's real fun, in a sick way. She's
such a bitch, and I bang her harder for it!
> <SNIP more great points>
>
> That is, there is a sexual market which emerges from the
> broadly similar preferences people have, and this market
> operates with an iron fist to punish those who fail to learn
> their place.
>
> We even have sexual harassment laws and jails to punish
> unattractive people who have unduly high self-esteem and
> are particularly slow learners.
Well, I think the sex harrassment laws are overly harsh and p.c., but I
wouldn't toss 'em all...there really are those who abuse their
positions of power, not even sexually. For example, I don't think it's
harrassment to whistle at a woman who's obviously showing off her tits,
etc., but actually forcing physical contact is different.
> Explain your use of the word "just." Do you have any idea what
> it's like to be a man and to have sex with a physically attractive
> woman? Even if the relationship turns out to be garbage, the man
> will fondly recall the mind-blowing sex until his dying breath.
Indeed! Whatever do wimmin imagine we want???
> If there were sexy women who also had worthwhile personalities,
> and who are still on the market, of course they would be better.
> Can you name one?
Yeah, Mrs. Right -- already happily married to Mr. Right.
> So where exactly should he shop? Where is this magic place
> where a man finds his dream girl? Does it exist in the real
> world?
No, no way to tell, though odds might be increased...though I don't
even know anymore...not the job, not class, not the gym, not the
park...it's all hit and miss anyway, it seems.
> You don't seem to understand how the sexual market works. If
> a woman is sexy and she has a worthwhile personality, she gets
> taken off the market quickly, and she stays off. Some lucky guy
> locks her up and stays committed to her.
>
> Therefore, at any given time, a sizable fraction of the sexy
> women who are back on the market are probably there for a
> reason. They have no problems attracting men, because
> their bodies look great and feel great, but some of them have
> personality flaws that keep wrecking their relationships and
> throwing them back onto the market.
>
> In some cases, the really hot women who are still available
> by their late 20's have serious mental illnesses. While we
> can't generalize about every sort of mental illness, most of
> them make relationships difficult, to say the least. Mental
> illness did not earn its stigma for nothing.
Hear, hear! People talk about "getting a girl" like it's as easy as
one-click shopping on amazon.com!
> One complicating factor is that many people who have problems are
> often pretty good at hiding them from a new partner for a few
> months. A deal that looks like a good deal at first might turn
> out to be something else, and it is difficult to know this ahead of
> time. Even a "stupid" person can fool a "smart" person
> when it comes to the smart person trying to read the stupid
> person's mind. Especially when the blood keeps draining out of
> the smart person's brain every time he looks at the stupid person's
> smokingly hot body.
Besides, if you grew up p.c., you try not to prejudge people.
> Do you think all those people flipping burgers for minimum wage
> somehow failed to realize there are better jobs? Perhaps many
> of them DO NOT QUALIFY for better jobs. Perhaps they applied and
> got laughed out of the room.
Yeah, maybe latinas generally go for blacks and hispanics. It's what
they're used to, and they don't want to feel weird dating outside the
norm -- except, of course, for blond blue-eyed whiteboys (who aren't
the norm for them, but the ideal).
> The job market is pretty consistent from place to place. A person
> who can only flip burgers in one town probably can't do much better
> in another town. The burger-flipper does not have to apply for
> every job at every company in every town to figure out where he
> stands in the job market.
That's what I'm starting to wonder more and more...it's a cultural
thing, in the final analysis. I think latinas exhibit both the best
and worst of men's hopes and fears of women: super duper sexy, and
utterly dumb and unreliable. What to do?
Time to wean myself off the cocoa!
> The sexual market is similarly consistent. If a guy can't get laid
> with lingerie models and pro sports cheerleaders in one town,
> his luck probably won't improve if he tries another town. A man can
> figure out his prospects pretty quickly just by reviewing his
> own history of successes and rejections from various types of
> women. For a given man, there will be some women who are simply
> too physically attractive for him. They are "out of his league."
>
> If a woman is way out of a man's league, he doesn't even get one
> date with her. The serious problems start when a woman is only
> slightly out of a man's league. Then she might agree to date him,
> but she will probably treat him like garbage. And he will stick
> around for it because she's so hot. (It works the other way too,
> when a man who has nothing else better going picks up a woman
> who is slightly below his league to serve as his willing doormat.)
Yeah...oh, what the hell am I melancholy for -- this is just how things
are at this level. Crazy to pine after the moon.
> This is why men should build sex robots. Then there will be no
> limits on how attractive a man's partner(s) can be. A man will
> be able to buy a partner with any combination of physical appearance
> and personality traits, and still get good treatment from her.
GODDAMN IT MAN, I think it'll be technologically easier to just remove
these stupid sexual desires in the first place!!!
> The only limits will be the skill of the designers, and the
> production cost. And probably the irrational objections of the
> Bible Thumpers. Until they too get seduced by irresistably
> attractive ego-pumping sex robots.
Heehee...the Mary Magdalene model, no doubt...oooh, wait, Virgin Mary!
Fuck the Mother of God! Jezzebel, Bathsheba, Ruth...hmm, wonderful!
> How do I deliberately set myself up to have Halle Berry fall
> in love with me? Please be specific.
Oh come on, she's not all that sexy. What is it with white people and
stick figures???
> For all I know, her personality might be a mess, but she is
> an actress after all so she could stay in character for a
> few months at least.
Ah, but can you stand to be disappointed once the show's over?
> Can I also deliberately set myself up to get a billion dollars?
> And win the Tour de France while we're at it?
Yeah, like folks who say that if you don't like how things are in the
country, run for office.
> You might think about telling us where the beautiful women with
> great personalities who will treat us like kings are hiding.
>
> I don't think most men will experience anything like that until
> (some) men get smart enough to build what we want.
Part of the problem is that folks think this kind of disappointment is
inevitable, a part of life. But it's much too technologically
difficult...easier to build settlements on Mars, frankly -- or sexual
appetite inhibitors.
> Here's what's wrong: it takes a few months to evaluate a woman's
> personality, but only a few seconds to evaluate her sexual
> attractiveness. The skimpy fashions women wear leave little to
> the imagination. Generally the hotter a woman looks, the more
> she flaunts it. Even "tasteful" clothing for women is tailored
> well enough to give male oglers pretty reliable intelligence.
>
> Women do not similarly advertise their personalities,
How true! And even then, you really just want the sex, anyway. I for
one am perfectly open-minded and can get along with most folks.
Honestly, about the only thing I ask of the girl is sex every day!
> and
> it's quite possible to experience great sex with someone
> you barely know. In fact that is pretty much the standard
> custom now. After the most superficial introduction, two
> people who like what they see can be going at it like
> crazed rabbits.
Ah, well, not for me. These latinas grow up ghetto and start sexing at
age ten, twelve, and often are pregnant by fifteen, but somehow they
still have this sense of themselves as nice girls and sexually
conservative.
> How much can you know about someone after
> just three dates, with a few shallow conversations
> between dinners and movies?
Even deep conversations, actually, which is my m.o.
Unfortunately, these sexy girls are just so blah mentally, you really
can tell within just one date.
> Two people are trying to make
> a good impression, they are on their best unrealistic behavior,
> glossing over their differences, avoiding the difficult
> subjects, etc.
Actually, not me. I like asking about their exes, etc., depending on
the mood. I mean, I don't believe in wasting time.
> Two people might have sex for the first time before they have
> even mentioned the most basic issues relating to long-term
> compatibility, such as whether they want to get married and
> have children, where they expect to be living five years
> from now, etc. Sexual attraction is very much a surface thing.
> It obviously does not require a detailed knowledge of who you
> are with. In general, it seems most couples want to have
> sex less the more they get to know each other.
Very sad expression of their character, actually.
> Finding quality people is no problem if you don't care what they
> look like.
That's true!
> How do I surround myself with quality women who also look like
> Victoria's Secret lingerie models? Even if they don't like me,
> they would still be fun to look at.
Ah, just work in a latina neighborhood. They've only half-crossed the
street and their tits are already on the other side! Tomorrow's 88
degrees in NYC....
> <snicker>
Yeah, the Kiss of Death! Next, she'll LJBF me! (Wink, wink, Penny!)
> I have yet to meet a human who underestimates his/her worth.
Actually, that's all too common.
> For example, if your boss gave you a ridiculous raise, is
> there any number you would refuse as being too much?
She's obviously talking about a different kind of worth.
> What do you know about this guy and the sorts of people who
> are around him? Do you even know you are writing to a guy?
She's just exchanging ideas...it's irrelevant who or what I am....
> For all you know, you might be like an athletically gifted
> person trying to tell a quadriplegic how to get in shape.
> The athlete's training methods probably won't work for
> the cripple.
She's making an educated guess. No harm in that.
> He sounds like he is dating women who are slightly out of his
> league. He may have to ugly his choices down a bit to obtain
> better treatment from women.
Not out of my league at all. A matter of what these women are used to.
But I'm deliberately not playing along in the hope of finding that one
latina who isn't as predictable as a ten-episode telemundo/univision
telenovella.
> Most guys who are not at the top of the attractiveness scale
> themselves can probably share stories about the beating they
> took while figuring out where they rank. Some men, of course,
> are still taking that beating.
I look like a Men's Health cover model. Except for the teeth! And I'm
really a nerd on the inside. And so I dress like a slacker.
Definitely not the perfumado these latinas are used to.
> Women learn where they stand through a gentler process. They
> don't have to be repeatedly humiliated by men who are out of
> their league. Those men generally ignore them (except when
> very drunk and otherwise unoccupied). Women, therefore,
> figure out where they stand according to the desirability of
> the men who hit on them while sober. A woman rarely has to
> directly confront the disdain she would trigger in a man who
> is out of her league, if she forced the issue the way men have to.
Yes, this is a very good and extremely important point.
Small loss, though...after all's said and done, I still think it's
better to be a man! =)
> Maybe he likes it harsh. He said he wouldn't mind getting
> stalked by some woman's ex-boyfriend.
That's not "harsh"...if it's just one-on-one, I'm okay with that.
> I doubt anything you
> would write on Usenet will top that for harshness. To experience
> harsh, try "jealous male."
I've never had the experience, but difficulty has never fazed me. I
signed up for Army infantry, and I really don't like blood!
> I suppose the men in these newsgroups could provide similarly
> shaky advice about how to handle things such as childbirth,
> menstrual cramps, breastfeeding, menopause, etc. that they cannot
> experience directly.
Ah, well, always nice to hear an intelligent woman's POV. Just women's
POV in general, really. Oral intercourse, if nothing else!
> How about that one Texas good ol' boy, who advised women to
> "just lie back and enjoy it" if rape is inevitable? Do you
> think he understands a woman's perspective?
I think he was referring to stuff like making out with a drunken frat
boy, not some stranger in a lone alley. There really are a lot of
sluts out there who like to pretend otherwise. Last month, some
teenie-bopper tried to charge rape on a guy whose friends videotaped
their drunken house party fuck. The jury found him not guilty; the
girl was just embarrassed that the tape made the rounds of her high
school.
> -- the Danimal
Ms Velvet Pnats
>
> Geoff wrote:
> > You are a good person Jen. I've only read a couple of your posts and
> > already I like you.
>
> And it turns out she's forty! I knew there was a catch...have yet to
> meet such "quality" women younger than thirty. =)
>
>
wow that is ancient :p
--
fetch mah socs saveloy!!
Bernd Jendrissek
Hash: SHA1
In article <1118156722.5...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> NYC
XYZ <jack_fo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>shinypenny wrote:
>> I'm nearly 40. In my 20s, it is true I probably didn't know myself
>> well enough to know what I wanted and needed in a potential partner,
>> so I was probably more prone to being swayed by the hard sell.
>
>Eh? Now what's a "hard sell" to a twenty-something?
"I have one of these and you don't!"
The more clueful (among which there are *some* 20-something's) might
respond, "With one of these I can have any one of those that I want!"
>> This is kind of an aside, but I'm curious why 9 out of 10 times a guy
>> will not be interested in pursuing a friendship after the romantic
>> possibilities have been ruled out?
I'm curious why 9 out of 10 times a girl will not be interested in
pursuing no-strings sex after the romantic possibilities have been ruled
out. "I'm not interested in a relationship but we can have sex if you
like..."
>> Just because I may have ruled out romance, does not mean I don't like
>> a guy enough to truly want a friendship with him.
Just because I may have ruled out romance, does not mean I don't like a
girl enough to truly want sex with her.
>> There are a few guys (the 1 out of 10) who have taken me up on the
>> offer and we are still friends.
Did they get to hear about all the *other* guys you were screwing?
Customer: Hi, do you have fresh milk?
Shopkeeper: No, I don't, but you can give me your money anyway! :)
Customer: No thanks...
[To friend] Shopkeeper: I don't understand why customers don't want to
give me their money just because I didn't have milk?
[Lots of gratuitous scarcity mentality inserted for illustration
purposes only.]
>I think the main reason is that sense of personal rejection.
The "sense" of personal rejection is an evolutionary embodiment of a
game theoretic strategy to make giving you what you want, an attractive
option for the other person.
Men who "put out" (with "friendship") easily (IOW, without getting sex
in return) ended up raising another man's children, instead of fathering
his own.
>> And even though they might not be romantically right for me, I've
>> become their number 1 fan and am always on the look-out for potential
>> single females I know who *are* right for them.
>
>Well, that would be cool, but that's never been my experience. All
>these girls want to do is blah blah blah about their lives, about their
>day, etc. That's their idea of "friendship" -- you get to have an
>audience with them on their thoughts.
"Friendship" after romantic rejection is a Trojan Horse of sorts - by
accepting the deal you buy into all the hurt that follows when you hear
the other crying about how badly their lover is treating them, but still
stays in that relationship. Accepting LJBF is a lot like signing an
out-of-court settlement - you relinquish a lot of power.
>> Well, maybe it depends on why you are dating. If it is just to have a
>> lot of sex with various people, then sure. I date with the purpose of
>> finding a compatible long-term mate.
>
>That's actually how I feel, too! But I'm also up for "just fun" -- as
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ah, you like to double-dip then, you like your bread buttered on both
sides?
>long as it's all honest, from the beginning.
How can it be honest if the "just fun" girl is dishonest with herself -
believes that she can "bring you around" and get you to commit, and that
having no-strings sex (if this is what you mean) with you is just her
foot in the door?
>And no, I don't think it's really a case of being too young and not
>knowing oneself so much as just being dishonest -- even to oneself.
Dishonesty implies some sort of calculated deception, doesn't it? How
can one successfully deceive oneself, if one is aware of the plan? No,
I think "clueless" fits better than "dishonest" (at least when applied
to self).
>I totally agree with this approach. Now I understand if the girl wants
>to go on another date just to get a better "feel" -- to mine more data,
>as it were -- but really, there are people who are simply cock-teasers,
>who like the attention, etc.
Yes, it's a bit disingenuous of them to use you as a relationship object
when they accept your date only for the free meal it represents.
- --
"IBM has more patent litigation lawyers than SCO has employees." - unknown
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQFCpsrI/FmLrNfLpjMRApjSAJwKneAdp+ZJoGvGDZ7LJHc3/mbGCQCfTIdn
bcLHU1DwEUgJUpq9vrb3xyo=
=R225
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bernd Jendrissek
Hash: SHA1
In article <1118193800.5...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> the
Danimal <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote:
>Women learn where they stand through a gentler process. They don't have
>to be repeatedly humiliated by men who are out of their league. Those
>men generally ignore them (except when very drunk and otherwise
>unoccupied). Women, therefore, figure out where they stand according to
>the desirability of the men who hit on them while sober. A woman rarely
>has to directly confront the disdain she would trigger in a man who is
>out of her league, if she forced the issue the way men have to.
I imagine it to be rather humiliating for a woman to learn, the next
morning, that she was just a man masturbation toy. That's one other
response she can get from men who are out of her league.
That's a different kind of disdain - post facto. The a priori disdain
that men experience seems pleasant by comparison.
(That's if it's true that women don't like being used for ONSs, as they
claim.)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQFCpts8/FmLrNfLpjMRAo4NAKCfq7P8yDcqzpaK5m+Zs9sPvAxB6wCff61Y
ohvl9aAKVJfFRhS2KSR9iV8=
=TSVg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Michaela Mackenzie
> the Danimal wrote:
> >Women learn where they stand through a gentler process. They don't have
> >to be repeatedly humiliated by men who are out of their league. Those
> >men generally ignore them (except when very drunk and otherwise
> >unoccupied). Women, therefore, figure out where they stand according to
> >the desirability of the men who hit on them while sober. A woman rarely
> >has to directly confront the disdain she would trigger in a man who is
> >out of her league, if she forced the issue the way men have to.
>
> I imagine it to be rather humiliating for a woman to learn, the next
> morning, that she was just a man masturbation toy.
She does it to herself though.
That's one other
> response she can get from men who are out of her league.
I'd rephrase that to say: That's one other
> response she can get from believing that a man is
out of her league.
> (That's if it's true that women don't like being used for ONSs, as they
> claim.)
I'd hate it. Unless I was the one who decided (prolly
only the next morning) it was a ONS. In that case I'd
prolly feel all yeuch and wanna get out of there asap.
- Michaela
shinypenny
NYC XYZ wrote:
> In terms of intellect, I feel like I can handle anything that intellect
> alone can, so I don't "need" the girl to be intellectual or even
> "smart." I need her to be a long-term bed buddy! ^_^ Seriously: I
> can cook and clean, I can do my own laundry, I have enough fun reading
> and trolling usenet (LOL) -- the only thing I actually *need* a girl
> for, that I can't get nowhere else, is the sex!
If that's the case, then why not simply pay for sex, or buy yourself a
made-to-order Latina Real Doll (www.realdoll.com)? Problem solved! No
rejection ever again.
May I share my 40 years of ancient wisdom with you? I used to have the
same attitude as you. I'm fairly smart myself, and at one point I got
really tired of shopping around for a man as bright as me or brighter.
When those are your requirements, and you're in the top 2% of the
population intelligence-wise, it really narrows down the picking,
doesn't it?
So I figured to myself, like you, that I could compromise on this one
requirement, and yes, that sure expanded my dating population. I ended
up marrying someone who's not as smart as I am. He had other qualities.
Big, BIG mistake! The marriage was stifling for me. It is too easy to
get bored with someone, no matter how good looking or good in bed, if
they aren't somewhere within your intellectual realm. You end up with
nothing to talk about. I would be reading Tolstoy; he'd be reading USA
Today. I'd be listening to classical music; he would be listening to
Howard Stern.
I will never make that mistake again, and yes, when I was last in the
market this was one of my major weed-out requirements. My DF passed
that bar (he's got a stratospheric, off-the-charts IQ himself, and he
also found it narrowed his options in a long-term mate considerably).
Now, it is true that I can appreciate a gorgeous hunk of man who's not
all there in the brains department, so I do understand where you're
coming from on that one. I am fine as long as he keeps his mouth shut.
Once the mouth starts flapping, ugh, my desire disappears fairly
quickly. Do you have that problem too? If my lust doesn't disappear
immediately, surely after time wears on and I must sit and listen to
him talk his idiocy. If only good looking but not too intelligent guys
would keep their mouths shut and cultivate an air of mystery and
silence, they'd greatly increase their luck with women. :-)
> Now, as explained before, I don't need them to be "smart," as I've been
> on my own since ~19-20...all I need is great sex outta 'em! Yet it'd
> still have to be a relationship, after all -- so the "ghetto" part is
> problematic (ghetto values, etc.).
I am not following. Do you want sex, or do you want a relationship? In
your earlier post, you indicated you were looking for a committed
relationship. Now, you are indicating all you want is sex, and in fact,
I am quite amused at how gosh-darn often you insist it:
> just looking to get the bills paid (i.e.,
> sex!).
> I mean, I
> really don't ask for much: is sex every day so much to ask for?
> I can get all the other things one can think of out of a
> relationship w/o a girl -- companionship, friendship, interesting
> conversations, whatever. All I need is the sex! 8-d
> Well, I'm not sure what you mean by this "quality" thing...I can't
> think of anything I actually need except sex! I mean, everything else
> I already have and would be nice to have in a girl...but the main thing
> is I'm young and buff and I need sex now! =D
> But all I need is the
> sex, is all.
> They're sexy as hell, but
> as a group they're pretty dumb. But what's more important to me? Me,
> I already got smarts -- what I ain't have is the sexy latina in bed!
> I just
> *need* the sex; everything else I already have.
> since all I want is
> sex, anyway.
If all you need is sex, then why on earth do you care if a woman is a
liar? Why do you care if she later tells you "let's just be friends" or
"I have a boyfriend," if she will have sex with you, who cares what she
says later? You got your sex, now be happy and git.
Or are you saying she won't even have sex with you, and you strike out
completely? Hmmm, if that's the case, could it *possibly* be that she
senses that all you want her for is ..... sex? That you actually think
she's ghetto and dumb, but sexy as hell, so you'd be content to sleep
with her once and then move on? Or maybe willing to have an ongoing
sexual relationship, but you will be hoping she keeps her mouth shut
between sex sessions?
If these women are turning you down after one date, it seems obvious to
me they've got your number and realize you have little respect for
them, little in common with them culturally and intellectually, and
really only want to use their bodies for sex. Oh, sure, you say you
want a relationship, too, but they're wise and already know what you
won't admit to yourself: such a relationship ain't going to last all
that long, because you have nothing in common and they'll only bore the
heck out of you until you chew your arm off and run away screaming.
And I'd have to say that if they turn you down, they are a *lot*
smarter than you give them credit for!! LOL!
To feel rejection over this is just plain silly, IMO. You revealed your
cards, "Hey, I don't think you're very bright and we're from different
cultures with not much in common, but let's have sex anyway." They
rejected you because they have an ounce of common sense & self-respect,
and this is not quite the deal they are looking for. As I said, they
are probably viewing you as a bargain-basement shopper, too cheap to
just pay for sex with a prostitute if that's all you really want.
Nope, you want the freebie deal.
Why on *earth* should you feel rejected over that? That's like offering
someone a vanilla ice cream cone, but they unfortunately are lactose
intolerant, so they turn your offer down. You wouldn't feel rejected,
would you? No.
And then to get pissed at them for just wanting to be friends. Well
that's ridiculous, because as you say yourself, the women bore the heck
out of you with their incessant gabbing. Of course they do. You really
shouldn't be having sex with someone you wouldn't consider friendship
material - unless you want to just go pay for it - at least *that's*
honest! Yep. To accuse these women of being dishonest is pretty ironic,
don't you think? You've verified their good judgement when you later
prove to them you don't even deem them good enough for a friendship.
But if they'd given you sex, then you'd been willing to have a
relationship? Uh huh.
Now back to this intelligence thing again. IME, smart people tend to be
the most creative and sexiest of lovers. What's more, if you have
something in common and can discuss a range of interesting topics, if
you can turn each other on through discourse and shared interests, what
could be sexier than that?
Have you considered if you want a steady supply of sex, it may suit you
better to find a person who is compatible in many ways, someone with
whom you can build a long-term, loving relationship?
jen
shinypenny
the Danimal wrote:
> This is why men should build sex robots. Then there will be no
> limits on how attractive a man's partner(s) can be. A man will
> be able to buy a partner with any combination of physical appearance
> and personality traits, and still get good treatment from her.
>
> The only limits will be the skill of the designers, and the
> production cost. And probably the irrational objections of the
> Bible Thumpers. Until they too get seduced by irresistably
> attractive ego-pumping sex robots.
Been done already:
> You might think about telling us where the beautiful women with
> great personalities who will treat us like kings are hiding.
Well, for starters, not at bars. And they are probably not accepting
invitations for sex with men who appear to only want sex.
> Here's what's wrong: it takes a few months to evaluate a woman's
> personality, but only a few seconds to evaluate her sexual
> attractiveness.
When the woman senses all you want is sex, and she turns you down,
you've got a clue about her personality: she has self-respect.
When the man responds by whining about being rejected and accuses her
of leading him on and even lying to him, then she's got a very good
clue about his personality.
> Finding quality people is no problem if you don't care what they
> look like.
Are you implying that quality people tend to be unattractive?
> He sounds like he is dating women who are slightly out of his
> league.
Maybe so, maybe not. You concentrate your whole argument based on
physical attractiveness rating. Perhaps these women view him as equally
attractive as they are, but they are ruling him out based on other
compatibility measures such as:
- they come from different cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds
- they are not intellectual equals, and these women, as he says, want
to be "appreciated for their minds." It is hard to feel appreciated
when the guy you are dating views you as dumb. Dumb enough you wouldn't
even want a friendship with them because they'd bore you.
- they see right through him and understand that he just wants to use
their body for sex, and that's not quite what they are looking for.
> He may have to ugly his choices down a bit to obtain
> better treatment from women.
You don't consider it ill treatment to approach a person just wanting
sex, all the while thinking they are dumb and inferior to you?
jen
Bernd Jendrissek
Hash: SHA1
In article <1118241630.3...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
shinypenny <shinype...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>the Danimal wrote:
>> This is why men should build sex robots.
[snip]
>
>Been done already:
>
>www.realdoll.com
Nope - they don't cook and they don't clean the house. Also, they're
cold unless heated, and they cannot maintain balance.
Perhaps an incremental improvement would be to equip these dolls with
servo motors and supply the owner with a remote control. I'm sure, too,
that somewhere along the line there'd be a "Java-enabled" version.
Hmm, yes, that's probably the single biggest hurdle to being able to
threaten women's near-monopoly on sex: the (still unsolved?) problem of
maintaining balance (while rhythmically thrusting the hips, of course,
in this application). Otherwise, it's just a glorified sock.
Another problem: where would one store the energy for a sex session, or
would these sexbots come with an umbilical cord connected to the wall
power outlet?
Also: some customers might find that the whirring of motors kills the
mood.
The simulation doesn't need to be of a *perfect* woman IMHO, Danimal; it
need only be better than the women the man *can* get.
Two hikers in a forest turn a corner and meet a Grizzly. They turn and
run. Suddenly one hiker stops and put on his running shoes. "Are you
mad? You're wasting time - you won't be able to outrun it even with
those shoes on!", says his friend. "I know," comes the reply, "but I
don't have to outrun it, I only have to outrun *you*!"
>> You might think about telling us where the beautiful women with
>> great personalities who will treat us like kings are hiding.
>
>Well, for starters, not at bars. And they are probably not accepting
>invitations for sex with men who appear to only want sex.
...
>When the woman senses all you want is sex, and she turns you down,
>you've got a clue about her personality: she has self-respect.
And yet you wonder why 9 men out of 10 turn down your offer of LJBF?
Even if your offer is sincere, *they* have no way of knowing it is for
*friendship* and not for "friendship".
Those 9 men out of 10 have self-respect too.
>When the man responds by whining about being rejected and accuses her
>of leading him on and even lying to him, then she's got a very good
>clue about his personality.
Hmmm, good thing you were wondering and not whining...
>> He sounds like he is dating women who are slightly out of his league.
>
>Maybe so, maybe not. You concentrate your whole argument based on
>physical attractiveness rating.
You're assuming that the Danimal restricts himself to a single "whole"
argument in any one of his posts! :)
>- they see right through him and understand that he just wants to use
>their body for sex, and that's not quite what they are looking for.
>
>> He may have to ugly his choices down a bit to obtain better treatment
>> from women.
>
>You don't consider it ill treatment to approach a person just wanting
>sex, all the while thinking they are dumb and inferior to you?
Do you or don't you agree with his assertion that women who have sex
[with men who turn out to abandon them and their children] debase
themselves?
If you think it is ill treatment, does that mean you "hate women" like
Lefty and Kate suggest he does?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQFCpzeI/FmLrNfLpjMRAs/uAJwOnkPXa0xFyp41mpIbfIJ/J1F1CwCgos8k
JHfP4YsgeCgpWjJZWST3EvE=
=hBqR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Mxsmanic
> I imagine it to be rather humiliating for a woman to learn, the next
> morning, that she was just a man masturbation toy.
Is it any more so than it would be for a woman to learn that a man is
interested in her only for her intellect, or musical talent, or sense of
humor?
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
shinypenny
Bernd Jendrissek wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In article <1118241630.3...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> shinypenny <shinype...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >the Danimal wrote:
> >> This is why men should build sex robots.
> [snip]
> >
> >Been done already:
> >
> >www.realdoll.com
>
> Nope - they don't cook and they don't clean the house.
But, I thought the poster already said he could cook and clean for
himself and was just looking for sex? *I'm so confused.* :-)
> Also, they're
> cold unless heated, and they cannot maintain balance.
Just need a very big microwave. Or an electrical blanket. Or call in a
delivery order from Domi-Ho's and they'll deliver her pipin' hot in one
of those special thermo-containers. :-)
> Perhaps an incremental improvement would be to equip these dolls with
> servo motors and supply the owner with a remote control. I'm sure, too,
> that somewhere along the line there'd be a "Java-enabled" version.
>
> Hmm, yes, that's probably the single biggest hurdle to being able to
> threaten women's near-monopoly on sex: the (still unsolved?) problem of
> maintaining balance (while rhythmically thrusting the hips, of course,
> in this application). Otherwise, it's just a glorified sock.
It seemed to me that's all the OP really wanted, no? At any rate, I'm
fairly confident he's probably giving these real-live women that
impression (which explains why he is being rejected).
> Another problem: where would one store the energy for a sex session, or
> would these sexbots come with an umbilical cord connected to the wall
> power outlet?
Boy, are you men picky!
You say you're not picky... you just want sex.
Then you quibble about stored energy and power outlets.
So hard to please!
Just pay for it already, and leave the rest of us alone. Thank you.
> Also: some customers might find that the whirring of motors kills the
> mood.
Women certainly don't seem to have that problem with their friendly,
reliable vibrators. Ahem.
> And yet you wonder why 9 men out of 10 turn down your offer of LJBF?
> Even if your offer is sincere, *they* have no way of knowing it is for
> *friendship* and not for "friendship".
If it's not for "friendship" then why on earth should they bother with
a *friendship* with you?
> You're assuming that the Danimal restricts himself to a single "whole"
> argument in any one of his posts! :)
:-)
Actually, I liked your post even if I didn't agree with it. You show
intelligence and it's apparent you are an excellent, dogged debator.
> Do you or don't you agree with his assertion that women who have sex
> [with men who turn out to abandon them and their children] debase
> themselves?
As do men who do the same.
> If you think it is ill treatment, does that mean you "hate women" like
> Lefty and Kate suggest he does?
huh?
jen
NYC XYZ
shinypenny wrote:
>
>
> If that's the case, then why not simply pay for sex, or buy yourself a
> made-to-order Latina Real Doll (www.realdoll.com)? Problem solved! No
> rejection ever again.
Prostitution is illegal here, and I don't have enough to go every day
(or even once a week, for that matter! 'Cause I want to spend the
whole night on a date, etc.) -- and the doll doesn't shake right, I'm
sure. ^_^
> May I share my 40 years of ancient wisdom with you? I used to have the
> same attitude as you. I'm fairly smart myself, and at one point I got
> really tired of shopping around for a man as bright as me or brighter.
> When those are your requirements, and you're in the top 2% of the
> population intelligence-wise, it really narrows down the picking,
> doesn't it?
>
> So I figured to myself, like you, that I could compromise on this one
> requirement, and yes, that sure expanded my dating population. I ended
> up marrying someone who's not as smart as I am. He had other qualities.
> Big, BIG mistake! The marriage was stifling for me. It is too easy to
> get bored with someone, no matter how good looking or good in bed, if
> they aren't somewhere within your intellectual realm. You end up with
> nothing to talk about. I would be reading Tolstoy; he'd be reading USA
> Today. I'd be listening to classical music; he would be listening to
> Howard Stern.
Ah, yes...my latina ex would be watching "sabado gigante" (until she
got jealous of all those bouncing latinas on it!) or HGTV, etc. But
that's okay. For me, anyway. For her, maybe...well, maybe girls/women
find that "stuff in common," "common interests" more
important...anyway, believe me, she wouldn't even be reading USA Today
-- not even Cosmo, believe it or not...she doesn't read, period! But
God she fucked like a champ. Four happy years for me, anyway (okay,
sometimes the conversations got silly -- she's so dumb she doesn't even
know how to look up a book in the library [well, she doesn't read,
after all] -- but 90% of what I needed her for was sex, anyway).
> I will never make that mistake again, and yes, when I was last in the
> market this was one of my major weed-out requirements. My DF passed
> that bar (he's got a stratospheric, off-the-charts IQ himself, and he
> also found it narrowed his options in a long-term mate considerably).
What's "DF"?
What's so odd is that I really don't even make intellect an
issue...though, hmm, maybe it comes across somehow. Like if I laugh at
the horoscopes or something...hmm...females are so touchy (in the wrong
way)!
> Now, it is true that I can appreciate a gorgeous hunk of man who's not
> all there in the brains department, so I do understand where you're
> coming from on that one. I am fine as long as he keeps his mouth shut.
> Once the mouth starts flapping, ugh, my desire disappears fairly
> quickly. Do you have that problem too?
Erm...no, actually...my desires are physically-based, after all.
> If my lust doesn't disappear
> immediately, surely after time wears on and I must sit and listen to
> him talk his idiocy.
Well, I don't mind chit-chat and banter of that sort...just like
usenet, actually! But I do wonder -- how does "liberal" Maria Shriver
stay married to Schwarzenegger??
> If only good looking but not too intelligent guys
> would keep their mouths shut and cultivate an air of mystery and
> silence, they'd greatly increase their luck with women. :-)
My only problem is when a gal has intellectual pretensions and has a
kind of chip on her shoulder about it, like she's trying to prove that
she's got both tits and wits.
Yes, I should shut up.... =>
> > Now, as explained before, I don't need them to be "smart," as I've been
> > on my own since ~19-20...all I need is great sex outta 'em! Yet it'd
> > still have to be a relationship, after all -- so the "ghetto" part is
> > problematic (ghetto values, etc.).
>
> I am not following. Do you want sex, or do you want a relationship? In
> your earlier post, you indicated you were looking for a committed
> relationship. Now, you are indicating all you want is sex, and in fact,
> I am quite amused at how gosh-darn often you insist it:
I'm amenable to "just sex," though of course a relationship would be
ideal -- even with a much-less-than-ideal person, as long as the sex is
right! Like I said: I can get everything else, more or less, but the
sex definitely takes someone else (and someone sexy, too!).
> If all you need is sex, then why on earth do you care if a woman is a
> liar? Why do you care if she later tells you "let's just be friends" or
> "I have a boyfriend," if she will have sex with you, who cares what she
> says later? You got your sex, now be happy and git.
It's just a matter of honesty and human decency, common courtesy.
Like, all I need is a pack of gum, but I'd rather buy it from the
honest dealer who charges a fair price, if I can help it.
> Or are you saying she won't even have sex with you, and you strike out
> completely?
No, I just dismiss them. Like with that girl with the "sudden" b/f: I
just told her that I'm not into hanging out with other guy's g/f,
that's all.
> Hmmm, if that's the case, could it *possibly* be that she
> senses that all you want her for is ..... sex? That you actually think
> she's ghetto and dumb, but sexy as hell,
In only one case, yes, but in all others, no.
> so you'd be content to sleep
> with her once and then move on?
Now, that's just what I mean about "honesty" -- I say that I'm game for
whatever happens with a girl, depending on where she's at in life, what
she's looking for, etc.
> Or maybe willing to have an ongoing
> sexual relationship, but you will be hoping she keeps her mouth shut
> between sex sessions?
If anything, I can only imagine that they might want me to keep *my*
mouth shut in-between! But as for myself, it doesn't bother me what
she may think about this, that, or the other.
> If these women are turning you down after one date,
Huh, where's all this coming from?? Didn't you get that I'm the one
doing the picking and choosing? What's "these women"?? I've only been
specific about one....
> it seems obvious to
> me they've got your number and realize you have little respect for
> them, little in common with them culturally and intellectually, and
> really only want to use their bodies for sex.
Of course, they may suspect this, but then again, that's just their
ghetto upbringing, then -- they don't know what to do with a "nice guy"
when they actually meet one!
> Oh, sure, you say you
> want a relationship, too, but they're wise and already know what you
> won't admit to yourself: such a relationship ain't going to last all
> that long, because you have nothing in common and they'll only bore the
> heck out of you until you chew your arm off and run away screaming.
That's totally not true. For example, my ghetto ex who dumped me and
got chlamydia from the guy she dumped me for who then dumped her...I'd
still take her back, sure, 'cause love, even the less-than-perfect one
I have for her, doesn't just go away like that...but the girl's too
stuck on his blond hair and blue eyes and monster cock.
> And I'd have to say that if they turn you down, they are a *lot*
> smarter than you give them credit for!! LOL!
It's funny indeed how you've spun whole scenarios out of some very
general observations, whole scenarios which you take to be the actual
case! Your whole premise is wrong. I think you're reading too much
into me now, as opposed to simply reading what I'd written.
> To feel rejection over this is just plain silly, IMO. You revealed your
> cards, "Hey, I don't think you're very bright and we're from different
> cultures with not much in common, but let's have sex anyway." They
> rejected you because they have an ounce of common sense & self-respect,
> and this is not quite the deal they are looking for. As I said, they
> are probably viewing you as a bargain-basement shopper, too cheap to
> just pay for sex with a prostitute if that's all you really want.
> Nope, you want the freebie deal.
God, this is exactly why I have such a low opinion of women.
Even when I write it out in plain English y'all *insist* on
misunderstanding!! Yet they want to be respected for their minds???
I've already told you I pay "handsomely"...these fucking ghetto types
only get the short end of the stick, don't you know? Or how many child
support payments do they get for bringing up these guys' bastards?
Etc.
They haven't any common sense and self-respect...that's why they reject
a quality guy like me despite all their complaints about no good men
around, etc.
> Why on *earth* should you feel rejected over that? That's like offering
> someone a vanilla ice cream cone, but they unfortunately are lactose
> intolerant, so they turn your offer down. You wouldn't feel rejected,
> would you? No.
I think we may be stumbling over semantics here. It's all very simple,
though: I want sexy girl A. I can't have her. Ergo, disappointment.
That's all! No sophistry required.
> And then to get pissed at them for just wanting to be friends.
As another poster noted: gee, why are you surprised that the milkman's
pissed you want milk without paying for it?
> Well
> that's ridiculous, because as you say yourself, the women bore the heck
> out of you with their incessant gabbing.
Yeah, so why would I want to be just "friends"??
> Of course they do. You really
> shouldn't be having sex with someone you wouldn't consider friendship
> material - unless you want to just go pay for it - at least *that's*
> honest! Yep. To accuse these women of being dishonest is pretty ironic,
> don't you think?
It's ironic that you blow up a very simple situation into this feminist
diatribe of yours, thereby proving that women are irrational and react
as if their feelings are reality.
> You've verified their good judgement when you later
> prove to them you don't even deem them good enough for a friendship.
Circular reasoning. How typical of your sex. Must have something to
do with the moon cycles, eh?
> But if they'd given you sex, then you'd been willing to have a
> relationship? Uh huh.
Uh, yeah. Something wrong with that?
> Now back to this intelligence thing again. IME, smart people tend to be
> the most creative and sexiest of lovers. What's more, if you have
> something in common and can discuss a range of interesting topics, if
> you can turn each other on through discourse and shared interests, what
> could be sexier than that?
"Smart"..."creative"...these are just words, mere short-hand...I use
them as abbreviations, signposts, but you take them to be actual fact.
You're getting caught up on words here: it's like I point to a picture
of a hamburger, and you eat it up like it's the real thing.
> Have you considered if you want a steady supply of sex, it may suit you
> better to find a person who is compatible in many ways, someone with
> whom you can build a long-term, loving relationship?
Sigh...the Danimal and others have already covered that simplistic POV
in their posts.
> jen
Just the facts, really: girls want to be respected for their minds, but
have only their bodies to command male passions. My only problem is
that I don't play along with such pretensions -- but oh, trust me, I
will. Reading ASF really gives me the "encouragement" to treat women
like the pieces of meat they mainly are. Just feed back to them all
their bullshit images of themselves -- and it's instant connection!
I'm a great salesman, believe me -- so much so that I tire of it. I'm
like the old gunfighter who wishes to give up his guns, but
circumstances conspire otherwise, like Shane or something.
Just go with the flow...that's the thing I'm learning from taking up
kayaking. Women are like water...don't expect them to be "solid,"
mentally or otherwise. Precious like water, and abundant too -- and
extremely cheap, very easy.
As a matter of fact, want to know a secret? I come on usenet to vent
-- LOL, really! In real-life, I don't say any of this stuff to the
girls, of course. I don't take advantage of them despite my knowledge,
but I'm getting tired of searching for a real brain among the
beauties...I'll settle for tits and ass instead, now. But I come here
to vent. Then I can go back and smile at her like she's really more
than a talking sex toy.
Sigh!
NYC XYZ
shinypenny wrote:
>
>
> But, I thought the poster already said he could cook and clean for
> himself and was just looking for sex? *I'm so confused.* :-)
See, women *are* naturally dumber!
> <SNIP>
>
> It seemed to me that's all the OP really wanted, no? At any rate, I'm
> fairly confident he's probably giving these real-live women that
> impression (which explains why he is being rejected).
You know, if you had that easy stock explanation for a single guy's
woes ready all along, why didn't you just say so and save me the
bother?
This is exactly what I'm talking about, folks, in dealing with women:
you take them seriously, as they insist, but it turns out that they're
just playing games all along. Is it any wonder why all the world's
ills have traditionally been attributed to them?
One of my liberal friends actually told me, upon his divorce: yeah, now
I can see why some guys kill their wives. This is a NYC liberal Jew --
if you know what that means -- and he actually said that, chilled
himself at his emotions.
Women and children...the two go together in oh-so-many ways.
> <SNIP>
>
>
> If it's not for "friendship" then why on earth should they bother with
> a *friendship* with you?
You wonder?
> <SNIP>
rdu...@pdq.net
Jen, maybe this will help: It is fairly unusual for a guy to have a
conversation with a woman (with whom sex is never going to happen) and
find that the experience is not more draining than energizing. Women do
not get this because for them, mere friendly talking is like breathing
oxygen - it makes them happier. Men rarely are like that. We like too
talk about things that interest us. And very few women know much about
the subjects that we truly care about. So the idea of "just being
friends" with a woman means something really different to a woman than
to a man. To a man, it means she has something worth listening to
regarding cars or politics, etc. Just chatting away for no reason is
likely to feel like work to us.
On the other hand, if the sex/attractiveness is good enough, then we
will find pleasure in hearing them talk about the weather.
You probably do not like hearing this. The men close to you in real
life might well deny it. But you can trust us here in Usenet land.
Go ahead. Take a poll.
Mxsmanic
> Perhaps an incremental improvement would be to equip these dolls with
> servo motors and supply the owner with a remote control. I'm sure, too,
> that somewhere along the line there'd be a "Java-enabled" version.
That would be more than an incremental improvement: it would greatly
complicate design and increase the price, as well as lower the
reliability. And what if the doll's computer caught a virus?
> Hmm, yes, that's probably the single biggest hurdle to being able to
> threaten women's near-monopoly on sex ...
Women do not have a "near monopoly" on sex. They want it just as badly
as men. It's just that men are raised to seek out sex even when they
don't want it, so it is sufficient for women to wait. If all men in the
world suddenly decided that they wished to abstain (unlikely, but
theoretically possible), then men would shortly have a "near monopoly"
on sex, as women became increasingly frustrated.
Women routinely deny their interest in sex, whereas men routinely
exaggerate it. That's the way the sexes are raised. The biological
reality is much less disparate between the sexes, however.
Mxsmanic
> Jen, maybe this will help: It is fairly unusual for a guy to have a
> conversation with a woman (with whom sex is never going to happen) and
> find that the experience is not more draining than energizing.
I disagree. My conversations with women are no less "energizing" than
my conversations with men. It depends entirely on the personality of
the person with whom one is having the conversation, and it has nothing
to do with his or her sex.
> Women do not get this because for them, mere friendly talking is
> like breathing oxygen - it makes them happier.
Not so. Here again, it depends entirely on the person. Some people
like to chat, others don't. Some people like small talk, others prefer
only to talk about more weighty subjects. Their preferences are
unrelated to their sex.
> We like to talk about things that interest us.
So do women.
> And very few women know much about the subjects that we truly care
> about.
Once again, this is a question of individual personality. I have many
mutual interests with women who are my friends; otherwise they wouldn't
be very good friends.
> So the idea of "just being friends" with a woman means something
> really different to a woman than to a man.
No, it does not. Just being friends simply means that the relationship
is not romantic (i.e., it does not include sexual activity).
> To a man, it means she has something worth listening to
> regarding cars or politics, etc.
Some men, including myself, consider cars and politics to be intensely
boring subjects. Some women agree.
> Just chatting away for no reason is likely to feel like work to us.
What does "chatting away for no reason" mean? Nobody chats for no
reason.
> On the other hand, if the sex/attractiveness is good enough, then we
> will find pleasure in hearing them talk about the weather.
No, you will not. If your attraction is sexual, you won't care whether
they are talking or not. Your pleasure will come from looking at them,
irrespective of whether or not they are speaking. You won't find
pleasure in e-mailing them or chatting on the phone.
> You probably do not like hearing this.
Much of what you say is untrue, and thus misleading, although it is
fairly typical of the beliefs of people who make no effort to understand
the opposite sex.
> The men close to you in real life might well deny it.
For many men, it's not true, so it's only natural that they would deny
it.
the Danimal
> rdu...@pdq.net writes:
> > On the other hand, if the sex/attractiveness is good enough, then we
> > will find pleasure in hearing them talk about the weather.
>
> No, you will not. If your attraction is sexual, you won't care whether
> they are talking or not. Your pleasure will come from looking at them,
> irrespective of whether or not they are speaking.
I beg to differ. A RealDoll can be made to look better than most
women (even mannequins at the clothing store look better than
most real women), but real women are still more fun precisely
because some of them are not only worth viewing, but they can
also move and communicate.
For the RealDoll to compete with human companions, it has to
get the movement and speech thing down. Along with the all-
important facial expressions synchronized with everything else.
Granted, there are some guys who can still get turned on by
women who are unconscious. But I'm guessing they would get
turned on more if the women were awake, alert, and into it.
> You won't find
> pleasure in e-mailing them or chatting on the phone.
You've never heard of phone sex?
Once computers gain the ability to communicate by understanding
continuous speech and responding by speaking, one of the first
excellent applications---perhaps a kind of "killer app"---will
be software that enables computers to talk dirty.
-- the Danimal
rdu...@pdq.net
You show here some vague signs of awareness of a basic, simple
truth about gender relations - and that is what a woman means when she
says she "likes" a guy or that he is her "friend" has very little to do
with whether or not she hotly wants to fuck him.
shinypenny
Mxsmanic wrote:
> Women do not have a "near monopoly" on sex. They want it just as badly
> as men.
I agree this is true.
I can't speak for other women, only myself, but sex with someone who is
merely good looking is not enough for me. I don't approach sex like
some of the men here on this thread seem to: it's not just about body
parts and the visual. While that is an element, there has to be more
than that. There has to be a mind and/or emotional connection. I'm not
saying it has to be love, but rather that I like to feel that I am
connecting with a person with a heart and a mind, and not just a body.
And another thing. I'm probably about a 7. I have dated everything from
2's to 10's, so that blows the theory here that women only date men in
their league. You may think that women are systematically ruling you
out based on looks, but I know I don't, and I know a fair amount of
women who don't, either.
A 2 with a great mind who's respectful, interesting, intelligent, and
emotionally mature can easily capture my attention and become a 10 in
my eyes. A 10 who's got an immature attitude, is disrespectful, and
self-absorbed is going to get a pass, no matter how good looking he is.
(Especially if he's one of those pretty-boy jock-types that constantly
talks about nothing but sports.... snooze!)
Some of the guys on this thread, I can tell you now, even if they were
a 10, there's no way I'd be attracted to them enough to have sex with
them. It's their attitude. It's not very evolved. Why would I want to
have sex with someone who is dripping with such obvious hatred and
disdain over half the human race, the half I happen to belong to?
jen
shinypenny
NYC XYZ wrote:
> This is exactly what I'm talking about, folks, in dealing with women:
> you take them seriously, as they insist, but it turns out that they're
> just playing games all along. Is it any wonder why all the world's
> ills have traditionally been attributed to them?
With an attitude like that, a woman might as well ask, "Why the hell do
you want to sleep with me, since I happen to be a woman?"
jen
rdu...@pdq.net
shinypenny wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> > Women do not have a "near monopoly" on sex. They want it just as badly
> > as men.
>
> I agree this is true.
>
> I can't speak for other women, only myself, but sex with someone who is
> merely good looking is not enough for me. I don't approach sex like
> some of the men here on this thread seem to: it's not just about body
> parts and the visual. While that is an element, there has to be more
> than that. There has to be a mind and/or emotional connection. I'm not
> saying it has to be love, but rather that I like to feel that I am
> connecting with a person with a heart and a mind, and not just a body.
Sure. But when I hear this sort of response, I have come to
instinctively fall back onto my observations of what women actually do
in this arena- whom they choose. I do not doubt what you say about
needing to feel a connection.
The problem is, if you are like most women in the world, you are
very selective and specific about the sort of guy you would consider
worthy of a romantical/personal/sexual connection. Not looks
necessarily but success/mastery/prestige and that part is too often
left unsaid.
For several reasons, I do not have a dog in this hunt. But I do have
a good memory.
When I was a poor geek-boy I was invisible to women. When I became a
full partner I was looked at by flocks of women like I was dipped in
their favorite chocalate. And I had not changed that much on the inside
or the outside.
I am not angry about any of this and I do not disdain womenfolk.
They are just trying to get what they need in the middle of an often
harsh and unfeeling world.
But I do think I have a pretty good idea of how the female
scanning/date selection hardware works in the average female brain.
I am damn sure I know about how most men work inside.
shinypenny
NYC XYZ wrote:
> If anything, I can only imagine that they might want me to keep *my*
> mouth shut in-between! But as for myself, it doesn't bother me what
> she may think about this, that, or the other.
Because she's just a masturbatory tool for you?
> > If these women are turning you down after one date,
>
> Huh, where's all this coming from?? Didn't you get that I'm the one
> doing the picking and choosing? What's "these women"?? I've only been
> specific about one....
I must be getting your story confused. I coulda sworn you were
referring to more than one woman, i.e., a pattern of frustration you
were having, but perhaps that was sloppy reading-and-following of posts
on this thread.
> God, this is exactly why I have such a low opinion of women.
> Even when I write it out in plain English y'all *insist* on
> misunderstanding!! Yet they want to be respected for their minds???
>
> I've already told you I pay "handsomely"...these fucking ghetto types
> only get the short end of the stick, don't you know? Or how many child
> support payments do they get for bringing up these guys' bastards?
> Etc.
>
If you have such a low opinion about women, then why would you want to
have sex with us? This is exactly what I'm talking about - your
attitude is pretty obvious here on this thread. I imagine that IRL,
even if you don't say this stuff to the women you are trying to date,
it comes across even more loud and clear. Don't underestimate the
ability of facial expressions to communicate nonverbally. If this is
how you really feel - that you have a low opinion of women but heck you
still need them for a masturbatory tool - then it doesn't matter how
much you wine & dine them and pretend to treat them well. Your attitude
is going to shine through anyway. They are going to know that you view
them as "fucking ghetto types" who aren't very bright.
> They haven't any common sense and self-respect...that's why they reject
> a quality guy like me despite all their complaints about no good men
> around, etc.
Or maybe they figure, "what is worse than someone who lives in the
slums? A: someone who doesn't, but goes slum-diving."
These women may indeed have no common sense or self-respect, but if
they are looking for someone who has those qualities to lift them up, I
don't think you're ranking all that high in their eyes, either.
> I think we may be stumbling over semantics here. It's all very simple,
> though: I want sexy girl A. I can't have her. Ergo, disappointment.
> That's all! No sophistry required.
>
> > And then to get pissed at them for just wanting to be friends.
>
> As another poster noted: gee, why are you surprised that the milkman's
> pissed you want milk without paying for it?
Why are you pissed that the cow doesn't want to give up the milk to
someone who clearly hates milk? And not only that, but views the cow
as a "fucking ghetto type."
And we're not talking about cows here, cows who's primary purpose in
life is to give you or any man that knows how to milk their udders
properly the sustenance (sex) that you crave. We're talking about human
beings.
> It's ironic that you blow up a very simple situation into this feminist
> diatribe of yours, thereby proving that women are irrational and react
> as if their feelings are reality.
Feminist diatribe? Now that's just plain funny.
> Circular reasoning. How typical of your sex. Must have something to
> do with the moon cycles, eh?
You are so not ever going to get laid with that attitude. LOL!
> > But if they'd given you sex, then you'd been willing to have a
> > relationship? Uh huh.
>
> Uh, yeah. Something wrong with that?
You're willing to have a relationship with someone you don't even like.
Yes, I find that rather odd.
> Just the facts, really: girls want to be respected for their minds, but
> have only their bodies to command male passions.
"Only" their bodies, eh? That may be true for *you* ... because you
really can't stand women at all.
> My only problem is
> that I don't play along with such pretensions -- but oh, trust me, I
> will. Reading ASF really gives me the "encouragement" to treat women
> like the pieces of meat they mainly are.
Pieces of meat to you.
> Just feed back to them all
> their bullshit images of themselves -- and it's instant connection!
If that's going to make you happy and give you what you want, go for
it. Enjoy your piece of meat.
> I'm a great salesman, believe me -- so much so that I tire of it. I'm
> like the old gunfighter who wishes to give up his guns, but
> circumstances conspire otherwise, like Shane or something.
>
> Just go with the flow...that's the thing I'm learning from taking up
> kayaking. Women are like water...don't expect them to be "solid,"
> mentally or otherwise. Precious like water, and abundant too -- and
> extremely cheap, very easy.
>
> As a matter of fact, want to know a secret? I come on usenet to vent
> -- LOL, really! In real-life, I don't say any of this stuff to the
> girls, of course. I don't take advantage of them despite my knowledge,
> but I'm getting tired of searching for a real brain among the
> beauties...I'll settle for tits and ass instead, now. But I come here
> to vent. Then I can go back and smile at her like she's really more
> than a talking sex toy.
>
> Sigh!
Okay, I give ample allowances for those who are merely just venting.
:-)
So tell me, then, what *is* it you really want? More than t&a? You want
brains and a connection too?
Because if that's what you want, and you don't really hate all women
(maybe just starting to hate them?), then maybe we can have a
discussion on how to go about finding someone who is not only sexy, but
has brains and a connection with you.
jen
shinypenny
rdu...@pdq.net wrote:
> Sure. But when I hear this sort of response, I have come to
> instinctively fall back onto my observations of what women actually do
> in this arena- whom they choose. I do not doubt what you say about
> needing to feel a connection.
> The problem is, if you are like most women in the world, you are
> very selective and specific about the sort of guy you would consider
> worthy of a romantical/personal/sexual connection. Not looks
> necessarily but success/mastery/prestige and that part is too often
> left unsaid.
> For several reasons, I do not have a dog in this hunt. But I do have
> a good memory.
> When I was a poor geek-boy I was invisible to women. When I became a
> full partner I was looked at by flocks of women like I was dipped in
> their favorite chocalate. And I had not changed that much on the inside
> or the outside.
> I am not angry about any of this and I do not disdain womenfolk.
> They are just trying to get what they need in the middle of an often
> harsh and unfeeling world.
> But I do think I have a pretty good idea of how the female
> scanning/date selection hardware works in the average female brain.
> I am damn sure I know about how most men work inside.
Actually, I don't discount the whole "biological mate selection"
theories. There is some truth to them. But, I prefer to care more about
what works for me as an individual. For example, while I may be
biologically driven to be attracted to males who are successful and
pretigious, I don't have to act on that drive. Especially since the
drawback to that type of man is that they may never be at home because
they're always working and climbing the corporate ladder.
A lot of this, of course, you learn through experience. A 20-something
is not going to have that experience, and will be more driven by the
innate scanning/date selection hardware in their brain. But with time
you start to learn what will really make you most happy and works for
you as an individual, instead of the generalized stuff.
For example, what works for me is a partner who:
1) is respectful and kind.
2) Has an intelligence in the sense that they are curious about life
and never stop wanting to learn.
3) Has a positive, upbeat attitude; someone that rolls with the punches
and is generally enjoyable to be around.
4) generally believes in the good of people, and realizes that we're
all individuals; therefore, doesn't categorize people into gender
stereotypes.
5) Has a dose of self-insight and doesn't go around blaming others for
everything that's gone wrong in his life. Takes responsibility for own
actions and decisions. Learns from his mistakes.
That was my checklist of requirements when I did the internet dating
thing. I did not narrow down my options based on looks, height, income,
or any of that stuff, because that would be too limiting, IMO. The
above are qualities that are not exclusive to a certain "league" of man
or woman.
If I ruled a guy out via email or on the first date, it's because one
or the other of these items were missing.
I can still be friends with someone who has most but not all of these
requirements. For example, if someone has #2 but not say, #5, it can be
fun to hang out and have long "meaning of life" discussions but I'm
certainly not going to get into a relationship with someone who may end
up putting me in their blame bucket with all the other ex's. As for
#3, I do happen to have a few eyeore-type friends who make up for it
with their cynical, dark senses of humor. But in a romantic
relationship I'm likely to find the overall negativity a bit too
draining over the long haul.
If #4 is missing, forget it. I can't have a relationship, friendship or
otherwise, with a person who refuses to see me as an individual. Just
isn't going to work.
jen
Mxsmanic
> A RealDoll can be made to look better than most
> women (even mannequins at the clothing store look better than
> most real women) ...
I've never seen any kind of doll or mannequin that comes even remotely
close to the appearance of a real woman. And yes, that includes Real
Dolls, which I've seen as well.
> ... but real women are still more fun precisely
> because some of them are not only worth viewing, but they can
> also move and communicate.
If all you need is someone who can move and communicate, then it doesn't
matter what she looks like.
> Granted, there are some guys who can still get turned on by
> women who are unconscious. But I'm guessing they would get
> turned on more if the women were awake, alert, and into it.
"And into it" is a key condition.
> You've never heard of phone sex?
Phone sex is a form of masturbation.
> Once computers gain the ability to communicate by understanding
> continuous speech and responding by speaking, one of the first
> excellent applications---perhaps a kind of "killer app"---will
> be software that enables computers to talk dirty.
I don't expect that to happen in the foreseeable future.