question about a term
Mary
apparently had something to do with dating but when I asked for
details no one would tell me what they meant.
Is anyone here familiar with the term.
Mary
Jim Ledford
it is really very ugly and you may remain happier by
continuing with your unknowing.
miguel
>>Mary
It means going out to a night spot and looking for an obese woman who
may be desperate for companionship and using her body for sexual
gratification.
miguel
Mary
wrote:
But how is that differnt from a guy going to a bar to try to pick up
on a woman who may be skinnier?
Mary
Romy
the Danimal
Because the slender woman is likely to be far more attractive to
men than the obese woman, and she knows it. This makes
hitting on her much different. More intimidating and riskier.
A higher-stakes gamble. The man who hits on slender
attractive women can expect to fail more often, and the failures
will hurt more because he finds them more attractive. But
success is so much sweeter, because slender women are
more fun to have sex with.
If he does manage to get involved with a slender woman, she
has substantial negotiating power to dictate terms of the
arrangement. She can easily attract other men, allowing her
to hold out for the deal she wants.
It's like the difference between shooting drugged animals at a
game park (success guaranteed), vs. bow-hunting polar bears
with no backup and no guns. The hunter who tries the latter
might end up as lunch, whereas any clown who can hold a
rifle can shoot something at a game park.
Personally, I don't understand "hogging," because I don't know
how a man can function sexually with an obese woman. Even if
a man can function with an obese woman, I'm not sure how
the idea to do it ever crosses his mind---I don't think it would
ever occur to me to try, much like I would never think of
attempting to have sex with say, a houseplant, even if it were
possible. Unlike women, men have to be highly aroused to
have sex. I can only surmise that men who do have sex with
obese women must feel some degree of attraction for them.
Maybe they are embarrassed about it, and they feel that
by humiliating and disrespecting their "hogs" they maintain
their "cred" or whatever. That's pretty sad. People should
just be honest with themselves and worry less about trying
to impress their peers.
I guess it's like gay men who are on the "down low" and
are ashamed to admit what they are.
There are some aspects of hogging that are pretty funny,
although not to the hogs themselves, most likely. Such as
the story about the baseball player who holds the superstition
that he can break out of a hitting slump by picking up the
fattest, ugliest woman he can find at a bar and having sex
with her.
In a twisted sense, this is similar to other feats of strength,
endurance, or toughness that men do for flimsy reasons
or no real reasons, such as running ultra-marathons, trying
to be the first to scale some mountain that killed the
previous 20 guys, or seeing how cold they can keep their
house in winter. Men will have some respect for other
men who do difficult, unnecessary things, whereas to
most women, these feats of endurance will usually seem
pointless, unless they bring great rewards of fame, money,
or some other objective payoff with resource relevance.
-- the Danimal
deld...@yahoo.com
comes to port, each man in the crew puts $100 into a hat. They then go
out and about, looking for the most overweight woman they can find.
All of them invite their women to a party (mentioning a buffet usually
helps). They bring their "dates" for the evening to an agreed upon
meeting bar. The man who brings the fattest date, decided on by the
consensus of participants, wins the pot of money.
/Roy
Real BBW
Jim Ledford
couldn't leave the poor girl in peace, could you?
the Danimal
It should be prosecuted like any other form of illegal
gambling.
And what a stupid contest anyway. Having to spend time with
a fat woman, with a high chance of losing $100.
To me it sounds like a pointless game invented by military
losers who get to port and find they can't pick up any attractive
women on short notice. Clearly, the military needs to invent
robots not only to hunt for enemy bombs and so on, but
also to simulate beautiful women who somehow want to
have sex with ordinary sailors. Then navy ships would not
have to come to port at all. They could stay out in the ocean
and remain safe from terrorists. Of course if robots could
simulate a woman in bed accurately, robots would have
the dexterity and vision necessary to handle most jobs
aboard ship, and there wouldn't be a need for so many
human sailors to cook food, swab decks, fix machines,
man the weapons, etc. If the robots could work underwater
in flooded compartments (and why not), ships would become
harder to sink, since they could have more and smaller
automatically-sealing spaces that could close off
to minimize flooding, with no worries of drowning any
robots caught in the flooded spaces.
-- the Danimal
Lana
Little difference between shunning an obese person or a dirty stinky
person. Both conditions are with the control of the individual.
Lana
Ragnar
Hate crime? What exactly classifies this type of aberrant behavior as a
hate crime? Since when is picking up an easy lay a crime of any sort?
It is not a crime, it's human nature. But what I find disturbing
about the whole issue of hogging is that these social deviants have so
little self esteem that they go out of their way to score with
individuals that they feel are absolutely worthless. This is an
extremely pathetic mindset. Just how low on the food chain do you have
to be in order have a need to stick your dick into something that you
feel is beneath your contempt?
The bottom line is this whole concept of hogging is ridiculous. If you
can't make it with someone that you feel is socially acceptable, then
you are an obvious loser because the sad fact is that easy women come
in all shapes and sizes. In fact the fuller figured girls, may just be
among the hardest of all to get.
Lets face facts here, most intelligent fat women know exactly where
they stand on the social ladder and are extremely wary of any undue
male attention. It's been my experience that thinner or average women
are much more willing to drop their pants than the more body conscious
fat girl. Most large women that I have had the pleasure of knowing have
been through more degradation in their lifetime than most of her
thinner sisters will ever experience and for the most part, these fat
women are extremely unwilling to expose themselves to any further
ridicule.
So where do these lowlifes find all these easy fat women? I don't
know. Because most of the fat girls I know would be able to spot these
cretins a mile away. Has anyone stopped to think that maybe these so
called easy fat chicks are just out looking for a good time and really
don't expect or want anything in return. Maybe sometimes the joke is
on the creep doing the hogging.
Ragnar
Robin King
news:lv8c5296tvmbkgqga...@4ax.com...
| Little difference between shunning an obese person or a dirty stinky
| person. Both conditions are with the control of the individual.
|
| Lana
Substitute "bigoted" for "obese" and I would agree 100%.
Robin
Robin King
news:1146511095.9...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
|
| Lets face facts here, most intelligent fat women know exactly where
| they stand on the social ladder and are extremely wary of any undue
| male attention. It's been my experience that thinner or average
women
| are much more willing to drop their pants than the more body
conscious
| fat girl. Most large women that I have had the pleasure of knowing
have
| been through more degradation in their lifetime than most of her
| thinner sisters will ever experience and for the most part, these
fat
| women are extremely unwilling to expose themselves to any further
| ridicule.
Very true. And when you say "no", you generally get a
response that makes you feel very happy you didn't say "yes".
Llewellyn "Fat Power" Louderback noted about 35 years
ago that, although fat women attracted fewer men, they generally
attracted a better class of men.
| Has anyone stopped to think
Stop right there. The answer is usually "no".
| Ragnar
Robin
Lana
wrote:
What you wrote here brings to mind a conversation I overheard between
an obese women and her good friend (a female friend) She was a
married woman but yet she was so ashamed of her appearance that as she
stated "My husband never sees me in the nude"
It is hard to imagine that her self imagine would be that rock bottom
and yet she choose to keep stuffing her face and laying on the couch.
Lana
>
>Ragnar
the Danimal
> The bottom line is this whole concept of hogging is ridiculous. If you
> can't make it with someone that you feel is socially acceptable, then
> you are an obvious loser because the sad fact is that easy women come
> in all shapes and sizes. In fact the fuller figured girls, may just be
> among the hardest of all to get.
That's the silliest thing I've heard in a while, and it also
contradicts
the whole principle behind "hogging."
I have known slender, attractive women who got hit on by
hundreds of men per year. Those women were far from easy
for most of those men. A woman typically is not going to sleep
with hundreds of men in a year. If hundreds of men hit on
her, she is going to reject the great majority of them.
An obese woman might get hit on only rarely. Unless she
takes a vow of celibacy, she'll be easier for a higher percentage
of the few men who do hit on her. How could it be any different?
The lonelier a woman is, the more receptive she will be to a
given man.
A woman who gets hit on by large numbers of men is like
an employer who gets hundreds of resumes for one job
opening. She has to screen out large numbers quickly,
so she rejects lots of men on the slightest pretext, just
as the employer will throw out lots of resumes if they contain
one trivial spelling error. The employer with too many applicants
wants to go through the pile quickly and look for any reason to
reject people.
In contrast, if the labor market is very tight, the desperate
employer who needs help will look for ways to make the
deal work when an application finally comes in.
> Lets face facts here, most intelligent fat women know exactly where
> they stand on the social ladder
Yes, they have low sexual market value, which means few
men find them attractive, which in turn means they have
few opportunities with men and cannot afford to be very
selective. It also means that when a man finally does hit
on a fat woman, she is looking for reasons to like him, rather
than looking for reasons to reject him like the hot chick does.
> and are extremely wary of any undue male attention.
Maybe, but they don't reject tons of guys quickly like
every hot chick does.
Hogging is possible, even easy for average guys, whereas the
difficult game would be for guys to have a contest to see who
could pick up the most beautiful girl. It would be difficult for
a group of lowlife guys to play the latter game on short notice.
Maybe the whole group of them could not pick up even
one beautiful girl in a single day.
Whereas picking up fat chicks on short notice is easy even
for lowlife guys.
> It's been my experience that thinner or average women
> are much more willing to drop their pants than the more body conscious
> fat girl.
Attractive women may be more confident in their sexuality, but
that hardly makes them easier, because they have to reject
dozens of men for every one they can entertain.
A woman who gets hit on by 500 men per year isn't going to
sleep with all 500 of them. At most she might sleep with 5 or 10
of them, and she has to be very selective. If she perceives the
slightest flaw with a man or his approach, she rejects him instantly.
Don't take my word for it, just try hitting on some hot chicks.
A fat chick who gets asked out once or twice per year
isn't going to reject 10 guys in a row. Then she would have
no action for 5 or 10 years. She can't afford to be that selective.
She'll give almost any guy who talks to her a good listen.
> Most large women that I have had the pleasure of knowing have
> been through more degradation in their lifetime than most of her
> thinner sisters will ever experience and for the most part, these fat
> women are extremely unwilling to expose themselves to any further
> ridicule.
Did these fat women reject you?
You're probably mistaking a bit of reluctance and suspicion
of your motives on their part for real selectivity.
But notice the difference: the fat woman may be a little
reluctant, but she doesn't brush you off in the first 25
seconds like the hot chick brushes off the majority of
guys who try to hit on her.
To get with the hot chick, you have to get past all the
other guys who are after her at the time. You have to
make a favorable impression right away. She doesn't
necessarily feel obligated to pay attention when you
try to talk to her. In contrast, the fat chick doesn't
have as many other guys to divert her attention. So
you don't have to instantly impress her. She's happy
to have a guy who will talk to her. She doesn't have
the hot chick's Giant Attitude.
> So where do these lowlifes find all these easy fat women?
Any place food is sold.
> I don't
> know. Because most of the fat girls I know would be able to spot these
> cretins a mile away.
If hogging were difficult do you think it would have a name?
And conversely, if picking up attractive women were easy,
why would anybody waste time hogging?
> Has anyone stopped to think that maybe these so
> called easy fat chicks are just out looking for a good time and really
> don't expect or want anything in return. Maybe sometimes the joke is
> on the creep doing the hogging.
The joke is on anyone who thinks hot chicks are easier than
fat chicks.
Do you also think the Earth is flat?
-- the Danimal
Lana
Robin - Just in case you were not aware following is the definition of
the word Bigot.
bigot
n : a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing
from his own
Now Robin, read this and tell me if you are intolerant of anyone whose
opinion is that obesity can be controlled by the individual. and that
obesity is the result of more calories in than calories out.
Do you recognize yourself as a bigot?
Lana
Ragnar
the Danimal wrote:
> Ragnar wrote:
> > The bottom line is this whole concept of hogging is ridiculous. If you
> > can't make it with someone that you feel is socially acceptable, then
> > you are an obvious loser because the sad fact is that easy women come
> > in all shapes and sizes. In fact the fuller figured girls, may just be
> > among the hardest of all to get.
>
> That's the silliest thing I've heard in a while, and it also
> contradicts
> the whole principle behind "hogging."
>
you feel are socially acceptable to you? Well maybe there is a good
reason for that and judging from your statement I would guess you
don't get out much? In fact just a quick check of you're profile
and posting HISTORY I would surmise that you have little time for
anything else but Usenet.
As far as the principle behind hogging goes, I stand by my previous
statements. It is a ridiculous juvinal activity, perpetrated by losers
with low self-esteem and since you appear to be so knowledgeable on the
subject perhaps you are one of those individuals? But then again why
would I think that? Because that would mean that you would need to pry
your fingers away from your keyboard and I don't think you could
handle that.
>
> The lonelier a woman is, the more receptive she will be to a
> given man.
>
You seem to think that all fat women are lonely, desperate and grateful
for any kind of attention. You also seem to be operating under the
premise that women, fat or thin don't need to be sexually aroused in
order to have sexual relations. If that were the case then ALL women
would be a lot easier than they actually are.
>. She has to screen out large numbers quickly,
> so she rejects lots of men on the slightest pretext, just
> as the employer will throw out lots of resumes if they contain
> one trivial spelling error. The employer with too many applicants
> wants to go through the pile quickly and look for any reason to
> reject people.
Not to get off the subject but spelling errors on a resume no matter
how trivial are unacceptable, especially with tools like spell-check at
your disposal. Spelling errors on a resume say volumes about an
applicant's work ethic.
So maybe your so-called trivial flaws are not so trivial after all.
Maybe these men are rejected for good reason.
> > Lets face facts here, most intelligent fat women know exactly where
> > they stand on the social ladder
>
> Yes, they have low sexual market value,
"Low sexual market value" Is that an industry phrase? No wonder you
can't get laid, you talk like an economics major.
which means few
> men find them attractive, which in turn means they have
> few opportunities with men and cannot afford to be very
> selective. It also means that when a man finally does hit
> on a fat woman, she is looking for reasons to like him, rather
> than looking for reasons to reject him like the hot chick does.
Again, you labor under the opinion that all fat women are desperate and
your opinion does not always translate into fact. It appears that you
do not realize that it is the 21st century and preconceived
stereotypical notions such as yours are finding less and less
acceptance in society today.
>
> > and are extremely wary of any undue male attention.
>
> Maybe, but they don't reject tons of guys quickly like
> every hot chick does.
>
Do you often get rejected by what you perceive as a hot chick? Or are
you one of those who don't even bother to try?
> Hogging is possible, even easy for average guys, whereas the
> difficult game would be for guys to have a contest to see who
> could pick up the most beautiful girl.
At this point I'm not going to debate this subject with you any
longer. I'm just going to assume you have much more experience with
this than I.
It would be difficult for
> a group of lowlife guys to play the latter game on short notice.
> Maybe the whole group of them could not pick up even
> one beautiful girl in a single day.
Vain attempt at being clever noted.
> Whereas picking up fat chicks on short notice is easy even
> for lowlife guys.
Do you have a personal experience with this or are you just pulling
shit out of your ass?
>
> > It's been my experience that thinner or average women
> > are much more willing to drop their pants than the more body conscious
> > fat girl.
>
> Attractive women may be more confident in their sexuality, but
> that hardly makes them easier, because they have to reject
> dozens of men for every one they can entertain.
>
> A woman who gets hit on by 500 men per year isn't going to
> sleep with all 500 of them. At most she might sleep with 5 or 10
> of them, and she has to be very selective. If she perceives the
> slightest flaw with a man or his approach, she rejects him instantly.
> Don't take my word for it, just try hitting on some hot chicks.
>
> A fat chick who gets asked out once or twice per year
> isn't going to reject 10 guys in a row. Then she would have
> no action for 5 or 10 years. She can't afford to be that selective.
> She'll give almost any guy who talks to her a good listen.
>
Someone please pass me the no-doze.
> > Most large women that I have had the pleasure of knowing have
> > been through more degradation in their lifetime than most of her
> > thinner sisters will ever experience and for the most part, these fat
> > women are extremely unwilling to expose themselves to any further
> > ridicule.
>
> Did these fat women reject you?
The key phrase you seem to have missed in my last post was "the
pleasure of knowing". Does that answer your question? My success rate
has remained pretty constant across the board. Because you see, I'm a
fan of women in general, most of the time their size is secondary to
me. My criteria for attraction is somewhat more sophisticated than
most. I'm not nearly as one dimensional in my attraction to women as
you appear to be. It generally takes more than just eye contact at some
social event to get me interested
>
> You're probably mistaking a bit of reluctance and suspicion
> of your motives on their part for real selectivity.
So you admit that fat women might just be as selective as their thinner
counterparts? I'm shocked, perhaps there is some hope for you.
>
> But notice the difference: the fat woman may be a little
> reluctant, but she doesn't brush you off in the first 25
> seconds like the hot chick brushes off the majority of
> guys who try to hit on her.
25 seconds!? I hope that's not really how long you last in the ring.
Or maybe your just confused with how long your erection lasts.
>
> To get with the hot chick, you have to get past all the
> other guys who are after her at the time.
Maybe you would have more success if you didn't swarm the bitch.
You have to
> make a favorable impression right away.
I see this as a problem for you.
She doesn't
> necessarily feel obligated to pay attention when you
> try to talk to her. In contrast, the fat chick doesn't
> have as many other guys to divert her attention. So
> you don't have to instantly impress her. She's happy
> to have a guy who will talk to her. She doesn't have
> the hot chick's Giant Attitude.
Most of the hot chicks I've met don't have giant attitudes. Maybe
your moves are just to damn obvious and you set of all her jerk alarms.
>
> > So where do these lowlifes find all these easy fat women?
>
> Any place food is sold.
Cheap shot and well beneath you.
>
> > I don't
> > know. Because most of the fat girls I know would be able to spot these
> > cretins a mile away.
>
> If hogging were difficult do you think it would have a name?
What the hell????
Bigfoot has a name, does that make it real?
> And conversely, if picking up attractive women were easy,
> why would anybody waste time hogging?
Ridiculous question, my opinion on the subject couldn't be plainer.
>
> > Has anyone stopped to think that maybe these so
> > called easy fat chicks are just out looking for a good time and really
> > don't expect or want anything in return. Maybe sometimes the joke is
> > on the creep doing the hogging.
>
> The joke is on anyone who thinks hot chicks are easier than
> fat chicks.
>
> Do you also think the Earth is flat?
Not nearly as flat as your boorish personality.
Ragnar
Gandalf Parker
news:1146587477.8...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>
> the Danimal wrote:
>> Ragnar wrote:
>> > The bottom line is this whole concept of hogging is ridiculous. If
>> > you can't make it with someone that you feel is socially
>> > acceptable, then you are an obvious loser because the sad fact is
>> > that easy women come in all shapes and sizes. In fact the fuller
>> > figured girls, may just be among the hardest of all to get.
>>
>> That's the silliest thing I've heard in a while, and it also
>> contradicts the whole principle behind "hogging."
>>
> Really, do you think it's silly? Do you have trouble getting women
> you feel are socially acceptable to you? Well maybe there is a good
> reason for that and judging from your statement I would guess you
> don't get out much?
> As far as the principle behind hogging goes, I stand by my previous
> statements. It is a ridiculous juvinal activity, perpetrated by losers
> with low self-esteem and since you appear to be so knowledgeable on
> the subject perhaps you are one of those individuals?
I started to agree with you but then I debated myself first (as I often
do to see if maybe arguing another side might be more fun). Extreme views
are rarely right. Its usually something in the middle so looking for a
way to make both people correct can often be quite enlightening. You
might have accidentally stumbled on a truth here.
Maybe they are able to prove to each other that hogging works BECAUSE
they have such low self-esteem? Consider this... a bunch of losers use
their half-brave weak pickup lines on some women that they dont really
believe will ever accept them and they get blown away. Then, as they are
whining to each other about it, they put forth one of the many myths
about picking up women (large, widowed, biker, married, teenage mothers,
certain races or religous groups, whatever) and they convince each other
that it will be an easy pickup. And it WORKS!
But... what if its not because the women were like that? Its because they
managed to convince each other that they had a better chance. They lost
the low self-esteem, the weak pickup lines, the self-defeating walk and
voice. Automatically, believing they have a chance would increase their
chances a good number of notches. And therefore the myth survives.
Of course they are still stuck in the myth. Unless they get some guts
from help either professional (medical, clerical) or nonprofessional
(cult, fanaticism, self-help book) they will never figure out that the
women they were initally hitting on had the same chances if they could
manage to be the same guy with them as they are with the hoggies or
whatever.
Just a thought.
Gandalf Parker
Ragnar
Interesting theory, But it has a fatal flaw. Most guys that would
consider participating in hogging are more than likely so low that even
a woman of average perception would be able to pick up on it. Most
women I know seem to have instinctive radar that can spot a jerk
shortly after meeting him. It usually doesn't matter how charming the
jerk is either. Because there is just know disguising a grotesque sole
for very long. Its kind of like after a cat shits in a litter box. You
might not be able to see it but God damn it you KNOW it's there.
Ragnar
deld...@yahoo.com
I learned about this from a former member of the Coast Guard that I
worked with. Since Coast Guard crew are technically federal officers
(gold badge and all), who outside of the Guard would have jurisdiction
over them?
>> To me it sounds like a pointless game invented by military
losers who get to port and find they can't pick up any attractive
women on short notice.
I make no judgements either way as to content or taste. I merely
defined the term. I myself don't gamble (even legally). I prefer to
spend my money on strippers :).
>> Clearly, the military needs to invent robots not only to hunt for enemy bombs and so on, but also to simulate beautiful women who somehow want to
have sex with ordinary sailors.
You mean like this? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092746/
Or this? http://www.realdoll.com
Once someone perfects a robot that feels and reacts acceptably like a
real woman, a good part of the human race will die out. I mean really,
if I could have sex with a Brooke Burkebot or Heidi Klumbot whenever I
want, why the fuck would I bother with all the headache and trouble of
building a relationship with someone who's going to nag me about how
the lawn looks?
/Roy
the Danimal
> the Danimal wrote:
> > Ragnar wrote:
> > > The bottom line is this whole concept of hogging is ridiculous. If you
> > > can't make it with someone that you feel is socially acceptable, then
> > > you are an obvious loser because the sad fact is that easy women come
> > > in all shapes and sizes. In fact the fuller figured girls, may just be
> > > among the hardest of all to get.
> >
> > That's the silliest thing I've heard in a while, and it also
> > contradicts the whole principle behind "hogging."
> >
> Really, do you think it's silly?
That's what I plainly claimed.
> Do you have trouble getting women
> you feel are socially acceptable to you?
I don't know what you mean by "socially acceptable." I do know
that women who are highly attractive to large numbers of men
are more difficult for a particular man to attract, compared to
women who are attractive to only a few men. That's just
the simple result of supply and demand.
For example, check out the women at a pro sports cheerleader
tryout. Most of the women who get to the tryout have gone
through some preliminary selection process which insures
they are pretty much all young, slender, attractive hotties.
The vast majority of men will find those types of women to
be much tougher customers when it comes to hitting on them,
compared to fatter, older, less attractive women who don't
get much attention from men.
Everybody knows this. I don't know why you bother to
pretend otherwise. The average person can look at a hot
chick, and then look at some schlub guy, and conclude
she is "out of his league" (which is the vernacular for
"she has a much higher Sexual Market Value than he
does").
> Well maybe there is a good
> reason for that and judging from your statement I would guess you
> don't get out much?
I have hit on enough women to learn that the difficulty
of impressing a given woman goes up in proportion to
her attractiveness.
> In fact just a quick check of you're profile
> and posting HISTORY I would surmise that you have little time for
> anything else but Usenet.
Well, I don't have time to check your profile and posting history,
that's for sure. Even if I could somehow be interested.
Perhaps the first thing I would discover about you is a
penchant for getting sidetracked on irrelevancies. For
example, in the present case, the truth of my claim about
women has nothing to do with the number of articles I post.
You or anyone else can easily check my claim by heading
down to your nearest pro sports franchise and trying your
luck with the women at their cheerleader tryouts. If you
are the wagering type, I'd consider wagering against
you actually scoring with any of them. For example, I
would wager $1000 that you could not have sex with any
of the top 50 finalists at the Cincinnati Ben-Gals cheerleader
tryouts this year. That would be an easy $1000.
If you think that the behavior of women in general somehow
changes magically as a result of my posting habits, you
are the victim of an extraordinary delusion.
> As far as the principle behind hogging goes, I stand by my previous
> statements. It is a ridiculous juvinal activity, perpetrated by losers
> with low self-esteem and since you appear to be so knowledgeable on the
> subject perhaps you are one of those individuals? But then again why
> would I think that? Because that would mean that you would need to pry
> your fingers away from your keyboard and I don't think you could
> handle that.
I admit my Usenet addiction and I don't think it is particularly
healthy. How about you?
Nobody doubts that any man who bangs fat women has his
share of problems. I object to your preposterous second
claim, that fat women are somehow harder to seduce than
attractive women.
Your claim contradicts everything I have observed directly and
indirectly about how the sexual market works. Your claim also
contradicts the phenomenon of hogging itself. If fat women really
were harder for loserguys to pick up than attractive women, the
loserguys would be picking up attractive women instead.
The whole basis for hogging is that when a low-SMV man wants
to get laid in a hurry, fat women represent the path of least
resistance.
This is part of the price fat women pay for their gluttony.
> > The lonelier a woman is, the more receptive she will be to a
> > given man.
>
> You seem to think that all fat women are lonely, desperate and grateful
> for any kind of attention.
They certainly seem to be on Usenet, but no, I merely observe
that the proportion of fat women who will be receptive to a
given man's advances will be higher than the proportion of
highly attractive women who will be receptive to the same man.
You don't have to take my word for it, just try hitting on some
fat women and some hot-looking women.
> You also seem to be operating under the
> premise that women, fat or thin don't need to be sexually aroused in
> order to have sexual relations. If that were the case then ALL women
> would be a lot easier than they actually are.
So by the same "logic," if women don't have to be sexually
aroused to fly jet airplanes, then ALL women would be flying
jet airplanes?
Women don't have to be sexually aroused to do lots of things.
What does that have to do with a woman's choice to do those
things?
Have you ever thought about trying to make sense, even if
momentarily?
Women don't need to be very aroused to have sexual
intercourse, any more than you need to be very
aroused to give a woman a handjob. You might choose
to give a woman a handjob without being very aroused,
or you might not. We can't conclude anything from
your lack of arousal alone. You might have other reasons
to give a woman a handjob.
> >. She has to screen out large numbers quickly,
> > so she rejects lots of men on the slightest pretext, just
> > as the employer will throw out lots of resumes if they contain
> > one trivial spelling error. The employer with too many applicants
> > wants to go through the pile quickly and look for any reason to
> > reject people.
>
> Not to get off the subject but spelling errors on a resume no matter
> how trivial are unacceptable, especially with tools like spell-check at
> your disposal. Spelling errors on a resume say volumes about an
> applicant's work ethic.
Sure, but no employee is perfect, and a given employer's
tolerance for imperfection depends on how desperate he
is to fill a position.
For example, if a restaurant owner needs to hire another
dishwasher, and dirty dishes are piling up, he probably
doesn't care if the guy can write, because the job
doesn't require any writing.
If the dishwasher's work ethic turns out to suck, the
restaurant owner will fire him and higher the next
Guatemalan.
> So maybe your so-called trivial flaws are not so trivial after all.
> Maybe these men are rejected for good reason.
The flaws in your ability to follow a logical argument
are not trivial.
The point is not whether a woman's reasons for rejecting
a man are "good." The point is that an attractive woman's
requirements have to be more stringent because she
has to reject large numbers of men. In some cases she
has to reject men who would be perfectly acceptable to
her, if other men hadn't gotten there first. But given that
she has to reject them anyway, she can use any available
pretext, focusing on flaws that might not be any greater
than the flaws of the guy she is with.
The fat woman would ratchet up her requirements
similarly if she had a similar number of men to weed out.
But she doesn't.
> > > Lets face facts here, most intelligent fat women know exactly where
> > > they stand on the social ladder
> >
> > Yes, they have low sexual market value,
>
> "Low sexual market value" Is that an industry phrase? No wonder you
> can't get laid, you talk like an economics major.
Sexual Market Value is a term I introduced to Usenet years
ago. It has found wide use, as you could determine easily
by exercising your exemplary Google skills. I should probably
write a Wikipedia article to define it for latecomers such as yourself.
Sexual Market Value refers to a person's attractiveness to
the opposite sex in the aggregate. One way to measure it
empirically would be to have a random group of 100 men and
100 women interact with each other for some time, and
then have each individual rank the members of the opposite
sex by attractiveness. No two individuals would be likely
to produce the same ranking, but there would be enough
similarity to insure that some individuals would receive
a larger number of high rankings than others.
It's similar to the way that no two people share exactly the
same political views in every detail, but rival politicians
in an election get different numbers of votes. Clearly, a
leading politician such as George W. Bush has higher
political market value than, say, the Libertarian candidate
for President who gets a tiny percentage of votes.
A person's sexual market value reflects the preference trends
of the opposite sex. It appears that men rank women primarily
by their appearance and personality, while women rank men
according to a longer list of traits: looks, stature, personality,
social status, wealth, etc.
Each person seeking a mate has preferences, but must
also satisfy a potential mate's preferences. This leads
to assortative mating by SMV. That is, individuals with
very high SMV tend to pair off, and then rejects pair off
down the line from there. It's similar to the way wealthy
people buy the best houses, and people with lower
incomes buy less desirable houses.
Wikipedia does have an article about assortative mating:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assortative_mating
Although this is irrelevant to the testability of my
claims, writing like an economics major is not necessarily an
impediment to getting laid. While you're furiously Googling
my posting history to further indulge your intense interest in
my personal details, you might come across a few
instances of women making offers in response to my
articles, a result I find as surprising as you will.
My goal on Usenet is not to get laid, but to make sense.
If someone was to Google your posting history, how many
instances of women trying to seduce you online might he
find?
> > which means few
> > men find them attractive, which in turn means they have
> > few opportunities with men and cannot afford to be very
> > selective. It also means that when a man finally does hit
> > on a fat woman, she is looking for reasons to like him, rather
> > than looking for reasons to reject him like the hot chick does.
>
> Again, you labor under the opinion that all fat women are desperate and
> your opinion does not always translate into fact.
You seem to labor under the bizarre notion that all participants
in a market must be identical for trends to result.
Not everyone voted for George W. Bush. Yet he presides. If
you only read his critics, you'd never imagine he could win
anything.
Not everyone wants to buy a given house. Yet it has a definite
appraised value, reflecting its features, amenities, and
location. The value can go up or down, depending
on the supply and demand for real estate.
The price you have to pay for a given house is not solely a
matter between you and the seller. The price also reflects the
influence of thousands of other buyers and sellers. What they
do creates market forces that influence your transaction.
Practically speaking, the seller is thinking about what other
buyers might pay, and the buyer is thinking about other
houses on the market. The seller cannot overcharge easily
because the buyer can choose from other houses. The
buyer cannot underpay easily because there are other buyers.
When a man approaches a woman, it's not as if they are on a
desert island and nobody else matters. Instead, both of them
have expectations shaped by the rest of the sexual market.
Each one evaluates the other according to how they measure
up against their competition (subconsciously for the most
part, but sometimes consciously as well).
Not all fat women have to be "lonely" or "desperate" to feel
the pressure of the sexual market. They are very aware that
few men who can attract slender women will pursue fat women.
Thus the fat women must make do, for the most part, with
men who cannot attract slender women.
This is not necessarily a tragedy, any more than it's a
tragedy for a person with low income to move into a
shabby house. It's only a tragedy if the person with low
income has expensive tastes.
> It appears that you
> do not realize that it is the 21st century and preconceived
> stereotypical notions such as yours are finding less and less
> acceptance in society today.
Stereotypical notions such as your claim that economics
majors don't get laid? You don't seem to have any qualms
about stereotyping nerds. Why do you think it's OK to
disparage nerds but not fat chicks?
Are you afraid that if you disparage fat chicks, they will
stop sleeping with you? Hopefully the reality of hogging
will reassure you.
You should at least try to get to your next article before
lapsing into transparently obvious hypocrisy.
In any case, your specious appeal to political correctness
does nothing to make fat women more attractive.
> > > and are extremely wary of any undue male attention.
> >
> > Maybe, but they don't reject tons of guys quickly like
> > every hot chick does.
>
> Do you often get rejected by what you perceive as a hot chick? Or are
> you one of those who don't even bother to try?
My success rate has been lower with hot chicks. As has
yours, if you have tried.
The odds are that if I hit on the 50 finalists at the pro
cheerleader tryout, I would strike out with all of them.
But even a low-life cretin can pick up a fat chick on
short notice for a hogging contest.
The chicks I perceive as "hot" are generally perceived as
hot. This is easy to observe simply by going out in public
with them. On those occasions when I have been out with
a woman I considered highly attractive, I noticed many other
guys reacting visibly to her as well. It's pretty obvious when
you walk into a club or a restaurant and several dozen male
heads turn in one's direction, or when you walk down the
street and hear the car horns honking and guys yelling out
the windows. That doesn't happen when I'm out with a
nondescript woman.
> > Hogging is possible, even easy for average guys, whereas the
> > difficult game would be for guys to have a contest to see who
> > could pick up the most beautiful girl.
>
> At this point I'm not going to debate this subject with you any
> longer. I'm just going to assume you have much more experience with
> this than I.
You have not been debating. Just making silly claims,
logical fallacies, irrelevant comments, and so on.
> > It would be difficult for
> > a group of lowlife guys to play the latter game on short notice.
> > Maybe the whole group of them could not pick up even
> > one beautiful girl in a single day.
>
> Vain attempt at being clever noted.
It doesn't take much cleverness to know a bunch of lowlifes
who have to pick up fat women don't have a shot at
beautiful women. If they could get beautiful women, they
wouldn't waste their time with fat women.
> > Whereas picking up fat chicks on short notice is easy even
> > for lowlife guys.
>
> Do you have a personal experience with this or are you just pulling
> shit out of your ass?
The truth of my claim does not depend on my personal experience,
because I'm not making a claim about what I can do. I'm making
a claim about what guys in general can do.
You can easily test my claim by hitting on ten fat women and ten
beautiful women. Try it, and tell us how it goes.
> > > It's been my experience that thinner or average women
> > > are much more willing to drop their pants than the more body conscious
> > > fat girl.
> >
> > Attractive women may be more confident in their sexuality, but
> > that hardly makes them easier, because they have to reject
> > dozens of men for every one they can entertain.
> >
> > A woman who gets hit on by 500 men per year isn't going to
> > sleep with all 500 of them. At most she might sleep with 5 or 10
> > of them, and she has to be very selective. If she perceives the
> > slightest flaw with a man or his approach, she rejects him instantly.
> > Don't take my word for it, just try hitting on some hot chicks.
> >
> > A fat chick who gets asked out once or twice per year
> > isn't going to reject 10 guys in a row. Then she would have
> > no action for 5 or 10 years. She can't afford to be that selective.
> > She'll give almost any guy who talks to her a good listen.
>
> Someone please pass me the no-doze.
A better option is to be a man and admit you were wrong.
> > > Most large women that I have had the pleasure of knowing have
> > > been through more degradation in their lifetime than most of her
> > > thinner sisters will ever experience and for the most part, these fat
> > > women are extremely unwilling to expose themselves to any further
> > > ridicule.
> >
> > Did these fat women reject you?
>
> The key phrase you seem to have missed in my last post was "the
> pleasure of knowing". Does that answer your question?
Yes. But you made it sound as if banging fat women was somehow
a challenge for you.
> My success rate has remained pretty constant across the board.
I can almost believe the part about how you have to work
to get sex with fat women.
For the part where you have sex with attractive women, I'll
wait for some evidence.
Even if you are equally attractive to women across the board,
your success with high-SMV women must necessarily be
lower simply because they are less available.
Hot chicks get hit on by hundreds of men per year. They
don't wait around being alone for long, so your odds of
meeting one when she's available are as slim as her
pretty waist.
> Because you see, I'm a
> fan of women in general, most of the time their size is secondary to
> me.
No man is a fan of women in general. It's a simple biological
fact that you find some women more attractive than others,
whether you base your preference on size or other factors.
> My criteria for attraction is somewhat more sophisticated than
> most. I'm not nearly as one dimensional in my attraction to women as
> you appear to be. It generally takes more than just eye contact at some
> social event to get me interested
No arguments there. If a man is going to have sex with a fat
woman, I can believe it will take more than just eye contact to
motivate him.
> > You're probably mistaking a bit of reluctance and suspicion
> > of your motives on their part for real selectivity.
>
> So you admit that fat women might just be as selective as their thinner
> counterparts?
I can believe they might get more selective when talking to
you. After all, there's usually something wrong with a man
who hits on fat women.
> I'm shocked, perhaps there is some hope for you.
If you're hoping I will find fat women attractive, I'm afraid
I have to disappoint you.
> > But notice the difference: the fat woman may be a little
> > reluctant, but she doesn't brush you off in the first 25
> > seconds like the hot chick brushes off the majority of
> > guys who try to hit on her.
>
> 25 seconds!? I hope that's not really how long you last in the ring.
> Or maybe your just confused with how long your erection lasts.
It's not a question of how long I last, it's a question of how long
a woman will talk to the next random guy.
Some women who will talk to you will brush off the next guy.
And some of the women who will talk to him will brush you off.
There are lots of individual variations, but even so, the general
trend is a function of the sexual market. That is, a person
with high sexual market value is more likely to get a good
reception than someone with low sexual market value.
> > To get with the hot chick, you have to get past all the
> > other guys who are after her at the time.
>
> Maybe you would have more success if you didn't swarm the bitch.
Or, like you, I would have more success if I pursued women
who aren't getting swarmed. Such as fat women. However,
I wouldn't consider scoring a fat woman to be "success."
> > You have to
> > make a favorable impression right away.
>
> I see this as a problem for you.
When I have a problem, I admit it. Why are you in denial?
Are you afraid of something?
Of course it is difficult for me to impress women who are
out of my league.
> > She doesn't
> > necessarily feel obligated to pay attention when you
> > try to talk to her. In contrast, the fat chick doesn't
> > have as many other guys to divert her attention. So
> > you don't have to instantly impress her. She's happy
> > to have a guy who will talk to her. She doesn't have
> > the hot chick's Giant Attitude.
>
> Most of the hot chicks I've met don't have giant attitudes. Maybe
> your moves are just to damn obvious and you set of all her jerk alarms.
You can be as obvious as you want with fat women. That's
why even cretins can make the hogging game work. They
might get rejected a few times, but they'll still find a fat
woman who is sufficiently lonely and desperate to go with
them to the hogging contest, on short notice.
When you say "hot chick," do you mean a chick you yourself
find hot, or a chick you believe is generally perceived to be
hot by other men?
Since you have boasted about your "sophisticated" tastes in
women, I can't be sure what you mean by a "hot chick." Maybe
what you consider "hot" is not what 95% of men would consider
"hot."
Help us out here. Use your Google skills to find some photos
of chicks you consider "hot" so we can understand what you
mean.
> > > So where do these lowlifes find all these easy fat women?
> >
> > Any place food is sold.
>
> Cheap shot and well beneath you.
Cheap but accurate. Go to almost any grocery store
or restaurant in the U.S.A. at a crowded time and look around.
Tons of fat people. At least that's how it works in my town.
In contrast, if you go on a 100-mile group bicycle ride, you
won't find as many fat people, especially in the faster speed
groups. (On short, casual rides you may see some remarkably
fat people on bikes, more power to them. When I get to the
end of 100-mile ride, everyone who is still with me is lean
and fit.)
In any case, do you think it is somehow improper to observe
that fat people like to eat? Do you think there is something
shameful about gluttony? If so, what?
It takes lots of food to build and maintain lots of fat. If you
don't see a problem with being fat, then you shouldn't see
a problem with what fat people have to do to get fat and
stay fat.
> > > I don't
> > > know. Because most of the fat girls I know would be able to spot these
> > > cretins a mile away.
> >
> > If hogging were difficult do you think it would have a name?
>
> What the hell????
> Bigfoot has a name, does that make it real?
How do you get from "difficult" to "real"?
Bigfoot is not "difficult." It's easy for Bigfoot hoaxers to
fake sightings and footprints and so on.
The reality of hogging is not in question because it occurs
in plain sight.
> > And conversely, if picking up attractive women were easy,
> > why would anybody waste time hogging?
>
> Ridiculous question, my opinion on the subject couldn't be plainer.
You wonder how lowlifes can pick up fat women easily
on short notice. Does it occur to you that even though a
fat woman can spot a "cretin" a mile away, she may
prefer to entertain his advances anyway because she
can't attract anything better? It doesn't matter if a few
fat women have enough self-respect to reject the hogger.
There are plenty more fat women who *ARE* lonely and
desperate enough at any given time. The sexual market
insures this.
Check out eBay sometime. There is a market, somewhere,
for almost any sort of junk you might think is only good for
throwing away. With all those fat women gorging away on
doughnuts, and only a few men showing them any kind
of attention, for every man willing to stoop to hogging, there
will be some fat women ready to be victimized.
I am sure all the Guatemalans washing dishes in
restaurants are perfectly aware that they don't have their
dream jobs. But they can't do any better at the moment.
They come to the U.S.A. to wash dishes because, evidently,
their situation in Guatemala was even worse.
Similarly, a fat woman may find attention from a "cretin"
better than being totally ignored.
It's like the way a starving person will eventually consider
eating almost anything that is remotely edible. Humans have
a powerful need for companionship that, for many people,
becomes less discriminating the longer it goes unmet.
> > > Has anyone stopped to think that maybe these so
> > > called easy fat chicks are just out looking for a good time and really
> > > don't expect or want anything in return. Maybe sometimes the joke is
> > > on the creep doing the hogging.
> >
> > The joke is on anyone who thinks hot chicks are easier than
> > fat chicks.
> >
> > Do you also think the Earth is flat?
>
> Not nearly as flat as your boorish personality.
In a way I feel sorry for fat chicks who have to settle for
hoggers whose personalities are even more boorish. But
they bring it on themselves by choosing to be gluttons.
-- the Danimal
Ragnar
the Danimal wrote:
> Ragnar wrote:
>
> > Do you have trouble getting women
> > you feel are socially acceptable to you?
>
> I don't know what you mean by "socially acceptable." I do know
> that women who are highly attractive to large numbers of men
> are more difficult for a particular man to attract, compared to
> women who are attractive to only a few men. That's just
> the simple result of supply and demand.
>
You might have great writing skills but your reading comprehension is
for shit. By "socially acceptable to you" I meant women that meet
YOUR standards of what YOU think a woman should look like and meet your
expectations of what YOU think society in general would find
attractive.
Christ I can't believe I had to explain that.
> For example, check out the women at a pro sports cheerleader
> tryout. Most of the women who get to the tryout have gone
> through some preliminary selection process which insures
> they are pretty much all young, slender, attractive hotties.
> The vast majority of men will find those types of women to
> be much tougher customers when it comes to hitting on them,
> compared to fatter, older, less attractive women who don't
> get much attention from men.
While your argument has some validity, most of these ultra hot girls
get much less actual attention from guys than you seem to think they
do. Most men when faced with a one of these ultra hotties become
intimidated and don't really give a sincere effort. You appear to be
one of these types of men. You seem to think that the more attractive a
woman is the lower your chances are. Your attitude is openly defeatist
and perceptive women will quickly pick up on that.
>
> Everybody knows this. I don't know why you bother to
> pretend otherwise. The average person can look at a hot
> chick, and then look at some schlub guy, and conclude
> she is "out of his league" (which is the vernacular for
> "she has a much higher Sexual Market Value than he
> does").
>
> > Well maybe there is a good
> > reason for that and judging from your statement I would guess you
> > don't get out much?
>
> I have hit on enough women to learn that the difficulty
> of impressing a given woman goes up in proportion to
> her attractiveness.
>
> > In fact just a quick check of you're profile
> > and posting HISTORY I would surmise that you have little time for
> > anything else but Usenet.
>
> Well, I don't have time to check your profile and posting history,
> that's for sure. Even if I could somehow be interested.
>
> Perhaps the first thing I would discover about you is a
> penchant for getting sidetracked on irrelevancies. For
> example, in the present case, the truth of my claim about
> women has nothing to do with the number of articles I post.
Oh contraire verbose one, it has everything to do with your article
posting. I merely meant to illustrate the point that your inordinate
amount of Usenet time could quite conceivably be interpreted as someone
who spends most of his free time with his PC. Since that appears to be
the case, then any real word experience you might have in terms of
social activity could be quite limited. Then we all can conclude that
any social interaction you may have had with women during your life was
probably limited as well. Which conceivably makes your truths about
women the irrelevant issue here.
I can't believe I had to spell this out as well.
> You or anyone else can easily check my claim by heading
> down to your nearest pro sports franchise and trying your
> luck with the women at their cheerleader tryouts. If you
> are the wagering type, I'd consider wagering against
> you actually scoring with any of them. For example, I
> would wager $1000 that you could not have sex with any
> of the top 50 finalists at the Cincinnati Ben-Gals cheerleader
> tryouts this year. That would be an easy $1000.
It could quit end up as a fast $1000 for you. But I would at least give
it a shot, unlike guys like you who would tuck tail and run before you
even began.
>
> If you think that the behavior of women in general somehow
> changes magically as a result of my posting habits, you
> are the victim of an extraordinary delusion.
No your posting habits have nothing to do with the behavior of women.
But your posting habits have everything to do with your knowledge
regarding the behavior of women. As I eluded to before you really need
to spend less time with your computer and more time in the company of
real live people.
As for being a victim goes, the only thing I consider myself a victim
of my own stupidity. I should have my head examined for allowing myself
to be dragged into this debate with a Usenet addicted shut-in.
>
> > As far as the principle behind hogging goes, I stand by my previous
> > statements. It is a ridiculous juvinal activity, perpetrated by losers
> > with low self-esteem and since you appear to be so knowledgeable on the
> > subject perhaps you are one of those individuals? But then again why
> > would I think that? Because that would mean that you would need to pry
> > your fingers away from your keyboard and I don't think you could
> > handle that.
>
> I admit my Usenet addiction and I don't think it is particularly
> healthy. How about you?
>
Finally something we can agree on. In fact I have to go, fencing class
calls. Hopefully we will not continue this later.
>Ragnar
rdu...@pdq.net
Ragnar wrote:
> the Danimal wrote:
> > Ragnar wrote:
> > > the Danimal wrote:
> >
> > > Do you have trouble getting women
> > > you feel are socially acceptable to you?
> >
> > I don't know what you mean by "socially acceptable." I do know
> > that women who are highly attractive to large numbers of men
> > are more difficult for a particular man to attract, compared to
> > women who are attractive to only a few men. That's just
> > the simple result of supply and demand.
> >
>
> You might have great writing skills but your reading comprehension is
> for shit. By "socially acceptable to you" I meant women that meet
> YOUR standards of what YOU think a woman should look like and meet your
> expectations of what YOU think society in general would find
> attractive.
> Christ I can't believe I had to explain that.
This is usenet. The only validity in the process comes from the
exchange of ideas in a context that is uniquely disembodied and
abstract. The Danimal understands this very well and speaks of issues
from a detached and objective perspective. Any poster that tries to
make a usenet debate into something ad-hominem is simply confused from
the start. Alert readers instantly figure out, therefore, who is losing
ground in the scrum of ideas.
I cannot believe I had to explain that to you.
>
>
> > For example, check out the women at a pro sports cheerleader
> > tryout. Most of the women who get to the tryout have gone
> > through some preliminary selection process which insures
> > they are pretty much all young, slender, attractive hotties.
> > The vast majority of men will find those types of women to
> > be much tougher customers when it comes to hitting on them,
> > compared to fatter, older, less attractive women who don't
> > get much attention from men.
>
> While your argument has some validity, most of these ultra hot girls
> get much less actual attention from guys than you seem to think they
> do. Most men when faced with a one of these ultra hotties become
> intimidated and don't really give a sincere effort. You appear to be
> one of these types of men.
Danimal wants to talk about the basic dynamics of the dating
process. You want to talk about Danimal. The former is potentialy
informative. The latter wastes everyones time.
Your rebuttal to Danimals well reasoned observations re the human
condition comes down, in the last ditch, to petulantly asserting that
anyone who takes the trouble to write them out on usenet must be not
spending much time with chicks.
Maybe, maybe not. The Danimal might be, in real life, a crippled
old woman with a keyboard, a sense of humor, and a good memory. It
really does not matter here.
But m post> I can't believe I had to spell this out as well.
the Danimal
> the Danimal wrote:
> > Ragnar wrote:
> > > the Danimal wrote:
> > > Do you have trouble getting women
> > > you feel are socially acceptable to you?
> >
> > I don't know what you mean by "socially acceptable." I do know
> > that women who are highly attractive to large numbers of men
> > are more difficult for a particular man to attract, compared to
> > women who are attractive to only a few men. That's just
> > the simple result of supply and demand.
>
> You might have great writing skills but your reading comprehension is
> for shit. By "socially acceptable to you" I meant women that meet
> YOUR standards of what YOU think a woman should look like and meet your
> expectations of what YOU think society in general would find
> attractive.
> Christ I can't believe I had to explain that.
The phrase "socially acceptable to you" doesn't even parse.
If someone is "socially acceptable," that means society accepts
that person, and that is independent of my acceptance of that
person.
If you are asking whether I evaluate women in terms of how
I suspect others might react to her, I imagine I do this to
some degree subconsciously. Since I have to interact with
other people who matter, people who might treat me differently
based on the women I associate with, I suppose it makes
sense to take this into account along with everything else.
Most of the women I have been involved with seemed to fit
into society well enough. In most cases, better than I do.
In general I feel more socially accepted when I am half of
a couple than when I am alone, but that's not my primary
motive for seeking the company of women.
I am puzzled by your relentless interest in
my personal life. What a boring thing to think about, let
alone discuss. Do you find your life especially uninteresting,
or do abstract ideas exceed the bounds of your cognition?
Or are you just too wimpy to admit you made a mistake?
> > For example, check out the women at a pro sports cheerleader
> > tryout. Most of the women who get to the tryout have gone
> > through some preliminary selection process which insures
> > they are pretty much all young, slender, attractive hotties.
> > The vast majority of men will find those types of women to
> > be much tougher customers when it comes to hitting on them,
> > compared to fatter, older, less attractive women who don't
> > get much attention from men.
>
> While your argument has some validity, most of these ultra hot girls
> get much less actual attention from guys than you seem to think they
> do.
The hottest girls I have actually spent time with got plenty of
attention from guys even while I was with them.
I suspect if you spent some time with the hottest girls you
would notice the same thing, unless perhaps you are
extraordinarily large, strong, and intimidating to most other
men.
The hottest women I have known reported getting hit on by
hundreds of men per year. I saw no reason to doubt them
because I observed some of it while we were out together.
There are plenty of men who are not intimidated by highly
attractive women who already appear to be with a man.
Incidentally, your use of the phrase "ultra hottie" suggests you
understand that there is a sexual market, and some individuals
have more value in that market than others. Despite your
petulant denials.
> Most men when faced with a one of these ultra hotties become
> intimidated and don't really give a sincere effort.
Well, certainly, because a woman largely controls whether a
man hits on her, according to whether she encourages his
advances with eye contact, smiling, attentiveness, body
language, and acting happy to talk to him. You can either
take my word for it, pay attention as you hit on the next
dozen women, refer to the published psychological studies,
or trust what I was told by a woman who explained how she
gets guys to approach her at bars.
The average guy isn't going to impress an ultra-hottie, and she
will definitely make sure he knows it. Few guys will persist
when a woman is nonverbally rejecting them. But an ultra-hottie
will attract so many men that if only a percentage try to hit on
her, that will still amount to hundreds of men per year.
On the other hand, if a woman isn't so hot, she is easier.
That means she is easier for more guys to hit on. She is
easier because she MAKES herself easier, by sending
nonverbal signals of receptivity to a larger set of potential
male suitors.
But do continue to reveal more of the contradictions that
riddle your "thinking." First you say ugly women are harder
to seduce than beautiful women. Then you concede that
most guys find beatiful women so intimidating that they don't
even try with them.
How do you suppose all those average schlubs learned to
be intimidated by beautiful women? Since you seem to have
difficulty grasping the obvious, here it is: guys learn to be
intimidated by things they repeatedly fail at.
Wouldn't it make more sense to suspect that if fat ugly women
really were more difficult, guys would learn to be intimidated
by them?
> You appear to be
> one of these types of men. You seem to think that the more attractive a
> woman is the lower your chances are. Your attitude is openly defeatist
> and perceptive women will quickly pick up on that.
I think every perceptive person can pick up on your peculiar
attitude of being intensely interested in me, or what you can
imagine of me given the incomplete data, rather than being
interested in the kinds of objective facts we can meaningfully
discuss on Usenet.
Well, I should say the kinds of objective facts I can meaningfully
discuss on Usenet. Either you lack the ability, or you don't
want to exercise it.
Maybe it's as simple as this:
1. You made some careless general claims that contradict reality
(e.g., beautiful women are actually easier than fat women).
2. I exposed your mistakes.
3. Rather than admit your mistakes, you attempt to make the
discussion about me.
> > Everybody knows this. I don't know why you bother to
> > pretend otherwise. The average person can look at a hot
> > chick, and then look at some schlub guy, and conclude
> > she is "out of his league" (which is the vernacular for
> > "she has a much higher Sexual Market Value than he
> > does").
>
> > > Well maybe there is a good
> > > reason for that and judging from your statement I would guess you
> > > don't get out much?
> >
> > I have hit on enough women to learn that the difficulty
> > of impressing a given woman goes up in proportion to
> > her attractiveness.
> >
> > > In fact just a quick check of you're profile
> > > and posting HISTORY I would surmise that you have little time for
> > > anything else but Usenet.
> >
> > Well, I don't have time to check your profile and posting history,
> > that's for sure. Even if I could somehow be interested.
> >
> > Perhaps the first thing I would discover about you is a
> > penchant for getting sidetracked on irrelevancies. For
> > example, in the present case, the truth of my claim about
> > women has nothing to do with the number of articles I post.
>
> Oh contraire verbose one, it has everything to do with your article
> posting.
Such as what? Everything I claim about women is easy for
you or anyone else to verify independently. Even if I wrote
no articles, women would still be women.
> I merely meant to illustrate the point that your inordinate
> amount of Usenet time could quite conceivably be interpreted as someone
> who spends most of his free time with his PC.
Yes, and so? What does this have to do with the obvious
incorrectness of your claim that ugly women are more difficult
to seduce than beautiful women?
For your next trick will you claim that it's easier to earn
one million dollars than to earn five dollars?
Or will you claim it is easier to climb K2 in winter than to
climb a flight of stairs?
Do you also think brain surgery is easier than working
a crossword puzzle?
Or if you are selling a product, you can reliably increase
sales by increasing the price?
The amount of time I spend at my PC has nothing to do with
your mistake. But if that's what you find interesting to
spend your free time thinking about, hey, I'm happy to help.
> Since that appears to be
> the case, then any real word experience you might have in terms of
> social activity could be quite limited.
Since it is impractical for you to know or verify much about
my personal experience, I am careful to phrase all my claims
in ways anyone else can independently verify.
It's strange that even when I explain this to you repeatedly,
you persist in trying to make the discussion about me.
Or actually, about the "me" you can only imagine.
I wonder, do you operate this way at, say, work? When the
boss is discussing a project, do you ignore everything he
says and speculate about his personal life?
Do you even have the ability to think about ideas rather
than specific persons?
> Then we all can conclude that
> any social interaction you may have had with women during your life was
> probably limited as well. Which conceivably makes your truths about
> women the irrelevant issue here.
Only to someone completely cut off from contact with women.
Are you posting from a maximum security prison cell?
> I can't believe I had to spell this out as well.
You haven't adequately explained your intense interest in me.
> > You or anyone else can easily check my claim by heading
> > down to your nearest pro sports franchise and trying your
> > luck with the women at their cheerleader tryouts. If you
> > are the wagering type, I'd consider wagering against
> > you actually scoring with any of them. For example, I
> > would wager $1000 that you could not have sex with any
> > of the top 50 finalists at the Cincinnati Ben-Gals cheerleader
> > tryouts this year. That would be an easy $1000.
>
> It could quit end up as a fast $1000 for you.
You claimed fat woman are harder to pick up than
slender attractive women. Would you expect to lose the
same bet if we turned you loose in a room with 50 obese
women?
> But I would at least give
> it a shot, unlike guys like you who would tuck tail and run before you
> even began.
So why don't you give logic a shot? Why tuck tail and run
before you even begin to defend your preposterous claim that
fat ugly women are more difficult to seduce than slender
attractive women?
If you are so courageous around beautiful women, I don't
see why you are afraid of mere ideas.
> > If you think that the behavior of women in general somehow
> > changes magically as a result of my posting habits, you
> > are the victim of an extraordinary delusion.
>
> No your posting habits have nothing to do with the behavior of women.
> But your posting habits have everything to do with your knowledge
> regarding the behavior of women. As I eluded to before you really need
> to spend less time with your computer and more time in the company of
> real live people.
This discussion is not about my "needs" as you imagine them.
This discussion is about your claim that slender attractive women
are easier to seduce than fat ugly women. I think my needs pale
in comparison to what your silly claim needs to even start
approaching the level of fact.
> As for being a victim goes, the only thing I consider myself a victim
> of my own stupidity. I should have my head examined for allowing myself
> to be dragged into this debate with a Usenet addicted shut-in.
But you haven't been dragged into a debate. To "debate" you would
need to make a claim, and then defend it with logically valid
inferences
from objectively verifiable facts. I'm trying to drag you into
debating,
but instead you would rather speculate about me. <shrug>
> > > As far as the principle behind hogging goes, I stand by my previous
> > > statements. It is a ridiculous juvinal activity, perpetrated by losers
> > > with low self-esteem and since you appear to be so knowledgeable on the
> > > subject perhaps you are one of those individuals? But then again why
> > > would I think that? Because that would mean that you would need to pry
> > > your fingers away from your keyboard and I don't think you could
> > > handle that.
> >
> > I admit my Usenet addiction and I don't think it is particularly
> > healthy. How about you?
> >
> Finally something we can agree on. In fact I have to go, fencing class
> calls. Hopefully we will not continue this later.
Hopefully you will remove yourself from Usenet altogether and
spend more time fencing, since you seem to imply that you
view fencing as a superior behavior. But I do appreciate your
self-sacrifice and dedication to the socially vital task of writing
endless articles about me.
Note: your response to this article will be further evidence of
your Usenet addiction. You will feel an uncontrollable urge
first to read my article, and then to post your response to it.
If you managed to read my article all the way to the end before
starting your reply, your urge to reply is even now building up
to an explosive intensity.
I freely admit I am addicted to Usenet, and my addiction is not
necessarily healthy.
Why are you in denial about your Usenet addiction? Are you
uncomfortable with what your Usenet addiction says about
your social loser status?
While Usenet is largely a waste of time, I have actually learned
quite a bit here. But only from people who primarily focus on
ideas rather than persons.
One way to turn Usenet into something like a useful exercise
is to look for words or abstract ideas you aren't familiar with,
and look them up on Wikipedia. For example, what I know
about logically valid arguments is largely the result of
filling in gaps in my knowledge about specific logical fallacies
by looking up the ones I've seen mentioned on Usenet.
For example, you could start by reading here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
-- the Danimal
Rosa
In your estimation which womam has the most difficult time in
attrcting suitors?.
A - The morbidly obese woman
B - A woman of normal wieght but with a scare crow face.
C - A woman with attractive facial features but whose weight is less
than what is called normal? In other words, a very skinny woman with
a pretty face?
Rosa
rdu...@pdq.net
You are a woman, aren't you? Guys learn early to NEVER let a woman
pick out a another woman for you.
rdu...@pdq.net
the Danimal
> In your estimation which womam has the most difficult time in
> attrcting suitors?.
>
> A - The morbidly obese woman
>
> B - A woman of normal wieght but with a scare crow face.
Is this a pretty scare crow or an ugly scare crow?
> C - A woman with attractive facial features but whose weight is less
> than what is called normal? In other words, a very skinny woman with
> a pretty face?
My money's on woman A being the least attractive to
men, but there can be some individual exceptions.
A lot depends on how far a woman is willing to relax her
requirements for a man. Almost any woman who is
fairly young can find some man willing to do her.
Only when women get old do their opportunities really
start to dry up.
In some cases, women fitting the description for woman C
can be extremely attractive to many men. It depends on
what you mean by "very skinny." Most of the attractive
women are in fact "very skinny" compared to the average
woman in the USA who is 20 to 30 pounds overweight.
Usually if a woman is getting severely emaciated, as
in a concentration camp victim, her face might not be
pretty because her face appears gaunt after the
subcutaneous fat thins too much. A small amount of
fat is necessary to support the facial skin and give it
some texture.
At the other extreme, the bloated faces common among
morbidly obese women result from too much fat under
the skin.
If woman B has a great body, she'd be fun for doggie style.
When her "scare crow" face is pointing safely away. LOL.
The side benefit would be that she wouldn't see my face
either.
Sekhmet
<1146865071.2...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, the Danimal
(dmo...@mfm.com) laid themselves atop the sacrificial altar, and
recited a testicular dedication mantra, which was then decrypted by *a
source who shall remain nameless*, and roughly translates to...
> Rosa wrote:
> > In your estimation which womam has the most difficult time in
> > attrcting suitors?.
> >
> > A - The morbidly obese woman
> >
> > B - A woman of normal wieght but with a scare crow face.
>
> Is this a pretty scare crow or an ugly scare crow?
>
> > C - A woman with attractive facial features but whose weight is less
> > than what is called normal? In other words, a very skinny woman with
> > a pretty face?
>
> My money's on woman A being the least attractive to
> men, but there can be some individual exceptions.
>
> A lot depends on how far a woman is willing to relax her
> requirements for a man. Almost any woman who is
> fairly young can find some man willing to do her.
> Only when women get old do their opportunities really
> start to dry up.
That statement is TOTALLY not true. My mother is 50, and her social life
is just as active, actually.. even MORE so, than when she was younger. I
think you'd be surprised to know just HOW many guys like older women.
You have been spoon-fed the typical ageism BS by the media for so long,
you haven't a clue about what most men, aside from yourself, are into.
IMO There are two kinds of guys:
Those who pick women whom they feel will make their buddies jealous (i.e.
trophy wives, fake-boobied strippers etc.), regardless of whether they
are TRULY attracted to these women or not.
And then there's the ones who don't care about their *rep* with other
guys, and choose a woman they enjoy being with & are genuinely attracted
to.
I can see that you are of the former variety, and you watch too much TV.
LOL
--
Usenet word of the week...
Tucker-gasm (noun): A term coined by Dr. Thurgood Tucker
which, according to him, describes the incredible, earth-shattering
euphoria that women experience, when he brings them to orgasm.
In use by the Doc: "How was I to know she would soon be convulsing in
Tucker-gasm and become addicted to my probing wand?"
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
the Danimal
> On 5 May 2006 14:37:51 -0700, in article
> <1146865071.2...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, the Danimal
> > start to dry up.
>
> That statement is TOTALLY not true. My mother is 50, and her social life
> is just as active, actually..
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0688100171/002-6666065-9263214?v=glance&n=283155
The Late Show: A Semiwild but Practical Survival Plan for Women over 50
(Hardcover)
by Helen Gurley Brown
``Between fifty and sixty, sex is out there; if you want it, you
can connect. After sixty, you have to supply the sled, the
snow, and the dog team.''
> even MORE so, than when she was younger.
Does she have the 20-something women running scared?
Or is she only dating the younger women's rejects?
I'm guessing she probably had sex with more guys who
had hair, when she was 20.
> I
> think you'd be surprised to know just HOW many guys like older women.
Guys may like older women, but for some reason, most guys
don't seem too crazy about older women starring in porn.
Evidently older women are OK as long as you don't have to
look at them much in good light. LOL. ("The difference between
porn and erotica is lighting.")
I am not surprised that plenty of guys will settle for
older women when they get rejected by all the younger
women. After all, there aren't enough younger women to
go around, and guys have to sleep with something.
> You have been spoon-fed the typical ageism BS by the media for so long,
> you haven't a clue about what most men, aside from yourself, are into.
Do you consider 50 to be old?
Get back to us in another 10 with an update on your mom's social
life. Hope she's got a good team of sled dogs.
> IMO There are two kinds of guys:
Those who divide guys into two groups, and those who do not?
> Those who pick women whom they feel will make their buddies jealous (i.e.
> trophy wives, fake-boobied strippers etc.), regardless of whether they
> are TRULY attracted to these women or not.
Somehow I doubt it. The most attractive women are so difficult to
attract, thanks to the intense competition for them, that only the
truly motivated men do what it takes. That would pretty much rule
out guys who only want to impress their friends.
But hey, don't knock impressing your friends. On those rare occasions
when I've manage to enjoy an exceptionally attractive woman, even
if only briefly, the result was that I heard my friends commenting
about
her for years afterward. You won't hear me knocking that. Hot chicks
would be great even if you had to keep them secret, though. Impressing
people is just a little icing on an already nice cake.
It's kind of like the way earning a billion dollars impresses people,
but the motivation cannot solely be to impress people. People who
make a billion dollars have to like what they do in a way that goes
far beyond merely impressing others, because it usually requires
so much effort and focus.
It's like the Gil Grissom character said on the CSI TV show: people
who are really good at something don't do it for the praise.
> And then there's the ones who don't care about their *rep* with other
> guys, and choose a woman they enjoy being with & are genuinely attracted
> to.
Funny, I've always noticed that the least impressive people shout
the loudest about how much they don't care what other people
think. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sour_grapes
> I can see that you are of the former variety, and you watch too much TV.
> LOL
So if that's true, I should be having a panic attack at my failure to
impress you. When will I start feeling the first waves of overwhelming
anxiety sweeping over me? <tapping foot>
-- the Danimal
Sekhmet
<1146870861.3...@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, the Danimal
recited a testicular dedication mantra, which was then decrypted by *a
source who shall remain nameless*, and roughly translates to...
> Sekhmet wrote:
> > On 5 May 2006 14:37:51 -0700, in article
> > <1146865071.2...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, the Danimal
> > > Only when women get old do their opportunities really
> > > start to dry up.
> >
> > That statement is TOTALLY not true. My mother is 50, and her social life
> > is just as active, actually..
>
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0688100171/002-6666065-9263214?v=glance&n=283155
> The Late Show: A Semiwild but Practical Survival Plan for Women over 50
> (Hardcover)
> by Helen Gurley Brown
>
> ``Between fifty and sixty, sex is out there; if you want it, you
> can connect. After sixty, you have to supply the sled, the
> snow, and the dog team.''
>
> > even MORE so, than when she was younger.
>
> Does she have the 20-something women running scared?
> Or is she only dating the younger women's rejects?
Let's just say she reminds me of a female Hugh Hefner, minus the loot.
LOL
As for the kind of guys she is able to nab.. well, they are usually the
really young ones... twenty-somethings, mostly. She'll do older guys, but
she seems to prefer those who are under 35. I can recall, back when we
were still on speaking terms, that she was ALWAYS hiding out from guys
she had gotten in with. Like, not answering her phone, wouldn't answer
the door... because she thought it was one of her boy-toys, which she
was trying to dump. It was pretty funny, and a bit... odd.
> I'm guessing she probably had sex with more guys who
> had hair, when she was 20.
LOL Way off. See above.
> > I
> > think you'd be surprised to know just HOW many guys like older women.
>
> Guys may like older women, but for some reason, most guys
> don't seem too crazy about older women starring in porn.
> Evidently older women are OK as long as you don't have to
> look at them much in good light. LOL. ("The difference between
> porn and erotica is lighting.")
>
> I am not surprised that plenty of guys will settle for
> older women when they get rejected by all the younger
> women. After all, there aren't enough younger women to
> go around, and guys have to sleep with something.
>
> > You have been spoon-fed the typical ageism BS by the media for so long,
> > you haven't a clue about what most men, aside from yourself, are into.
>
> Do you consider 50 to be old?
>
> Get back to us in another 10 with an update on your mom's social
> life. Hope she's got a good team of sled dogs.
Knowing her, she probably will. Sex maniacs run in the family. : P
--
Jason
Those old enough may recall Twiggy, a supermodel form the UK perhaps
30 years ago since she was at her peak of stardom.
She was very skinny and attractive enough to soar to being a top tier
model.
Jason
the Danimal
> On 5 May 2006 16:14:21 -0700, in article
> <1146870861.3...@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, the Danimal
> > > On 5 May 2006 14:37:51 -0700, in article
> > > <1146865071.2...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, the Danimal
> > > > Only when women get old do their opportunities really
> > > > start to dry up.
> > >
> > > That statement is TOTALLY not true. My mother is 50, and her social life
> > > is just as active, actually..
> >
> > http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0688100171/002-6666065-9263214?v=glance&n=283155
> > The Late Show: A Semiwild but Practical Survival Plan for Women over 50
> > (Hardcover)
> > by Helen Gurley Brown
> >
> > ``Between fifty and sixty, sex is out there; if you want it, you
> > can connect. After sixty, you have to supply the sled, the
> > snow, and the dog team.''
> >
> > > even MORE so, than when she was younger.
> >
> > Does she have the 20-something women running scared?
> > Or is she only dating the younger women's rejects?
>
> Let's just say she reminds me of a female Hugh Hefner, minus the loot.
> LOL
There aren't many of the male versions. Your mom sounds
like an unusual case.
Hugh Hefner can actually get highly desirable young women,
who can choose from large numbers of eager men.
Can your mom out-compete young women for her men? Or
does she primarily do guys who don't have a lot of
options with young women at the moment?
> As for the kind of guys she is able to nab.. well, they are usually the
> really young ones... twenty-somethings, mostly. She'll do older guys, but
> she seems to prefer those who are under 35. I can recall, back when we
> were still on speaking terms, that she was ALWAYS hiding out from guys
> she had gotten in with. Like, not answering her phone, wouldn't answer
> the door... because she thought it was one of her boy-toys, which she
> was trying to dump. It was pretty funny, and a bit... odd.
As a woman gets older, she might keep the good times rolling
by becoming more proactive i.e. aggressive about pursuing men.
Assuming her looks don't deteriorate too fast.
But at some point this gets increasingly harder to maintain, as
Helen Gurley Brown points out. Check back in ten years and
tell us how mom is doing with the young guys.
These young guys your mom bangs, are they dumping young women
to get with her?
> > I'm guessing she probably had sex with more guys who
> > had hair, when she was 20.
>
> LOL Way off. See above.
Some guys go bald early. When they do, they may start
looking older and have more trouble picking up young chicks
at the bar scene. Whereupon your mom can do like
Sir Mixalot and "pull up quick to retrieve it."
I'm guessing your mom looks young for her age. A lot of
50-year-old women would have trouble getting lots of young
guys even if they were as aggressively easy as possible.
> > > I
> > > think you'd be surprised to know just HOW many guys like older women.
> >
> > Guys may like older women, but for some reason, most guys
> > don't seem too crazy about older women starring in porn.
> > Evidently older women are OK as long as you don't have to
> > look at them much in good light. LOL. ("The difference between
> > porn and erotica is lighting.")
> >
> > I am not surprised that plenty of guys will settle for
> > older women when they get rejected by all the younger
> > women. After all, there aren't enough younger women to
> > go around, and guys have to sleep with something.
> >
> > > You have been spoon-fed the typical ageism BS by the media for so long,
> > > you haven't a clue about what most men, aside from yourself, are into.
> >
> > Do you consider 50 to be old?
> >
> > Get back to us in another 10 with an update on your mom's social
> > life. Hope she's got a good team of sled dogs.
>
> Knowing her, she probably will. Sex maniacs run in the family. : P
Are you suggesting your family is typical?
I am well aware that lots of men cannot maintain a steady supply
of young women to have sex with, and so they consider women
farther down the desirability scale, such as older women, on occasion.
I'd be surprised if your mom is doing a lot of guys who can have
their pick of young women. That would make your mom pretty
special.
-- the Danimal
Sekhmet
<1146877582....@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, the Danimal
recited a testicular dedication mantra, which was then decrypted by *a
source who shall remain nameless*, and roughly translates to...
> Sekhmet wrote:
How would I know this? I know very little about the guys she hangs out
with, aside from the fact that they are younger... and are what most
women claim to find attractive, but not me, since I prefer older, more
real-looking guys.
We don't get along & have cut all ties, so I know even less about her
current activities. I know this much though... there's just something
really eerie about her. Like, I would NEVER bring a potential bf around
her. No other woman who is smart, would either. She's done a LOT of
married men, too. Sometimes they would buy her stuff. These guys were
usually in their late 30's. She doesn't really do a lot of aggressive
persuading. Seems to come easy for her, despite the crow's feet. LOLOL
> > > I'm guessing she probably had sex with more guys who
> > > had hair, when she was 20.
> >
> > LOL Way off. See above.
>
> Some guys go bald early. When they do, they may start
> looking older and have more trouble picking up young chicks
> at the bar scene. Whereupon your mom can do like
> Sir Mixalot and "pull up quick to retrieve it."
According to some of your statements in other groups, you're VERY
unattractive. So, don't assume everyone has the same problems as you,
where dating is concerned.
> I'm guessing your mom looks young for her age. A lot of
> 50-year-old women would have trouble getting lots of young
> guys even if they were as aggressively easy as possible.
In a way she does... but as stated above, she's got some crow's feet
going on. OMG! Dare it be that men care about more than looks?!!! And
your imaginary world is not as real as you thought??? LOL
> > > > I
> > > > think you'd be surprised to know just HOW many guys like older women.
> > >
> > > Guys may like older women, but for some reason, most guys
> > > don't seem too crazy about older women starring in porn.
> > > Evidently older women are OK as long as you don't have to
> > > look at them much in good light. LOL. ("The difference between
> > > porn and erotica is lighting.")
> > >
> > > I am not surprised that plenty of guys will settle for
> > > older women when they get rejected by all the younger
> > > women. After all, there aren't enough younger women to
> > > go around, and guys have to sleep with something.
> > >
Would you qualify as "something"??? That was a bit rude.
> > > > You have been spoon-fed the typical ageism BS by the media for so long,
> > > > you haven't a clue about what most men, aside from yourself, are into.
> > >
> > > Do you consider 50 to be old?
> > >
> > > Get back to us in another 10 with an update on your mom's social
> > > life. Hope she's got a good team of sled dogs.
> >
> > Knowing her, she probably will. Sex maniacs run in the family. : P
>
> Are you suggesting your family is typical?
>
> I am well aware that lots of men cannot maintain a steady supply
> of young women to have sex with, and so they consider women
> farther down the desirability scale, such as older women, on occasion.
Aren't you further down the desirability scale? What kind of women do
you manage to catch? Do you use your *gasp* personality???
> I'd be surprised if your mom is doing a lot of guys who can have
> their pick of young women. That would make your mom pretty
> special.
I've found that what a man says, and what he really thinks, are two
completely different things. Physically, yes, she is attractive... but
of course, older. Yet, she has all of these young, good-looking
(according to most women, but not me) guys who hang under her. Something
is up, that's for sure.
yamuna
Sekhmet wrote:
[..]
> >
> > Some guys go bald early. When they do, they may start
> > looking older and have more trouble picking up young chicks
> > at the bar scene. Whereupon your mom can do like
> > Sir Mixalot and "pull up quick to retrieve it."
>
>
> According to some of your statements in other groups, you're VERY
> unattractive.
That might explain why all his views are what's shown and talked about
on TV.
He has very limited practical experience especially spending too much
time on usenet, after watching TV, of course.
Sekhmet
<1147013620.6...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, yamuna
(yamun...@yahoo.com) laid themselves atop the sacrificial altar, and
source who shall remain nameless*, and roughly translates to...
>
> [..]
>
>
> > >
> > > Some guys go bald early. When they do, they may start
> > > looking older and have more trouble picking up young chicks
> > > at the bar scene. Whereupon your mom can do like
> > > Sir Mixalot and "pull up quick to retrieve it."
> >
> >
> > According to some of your statements in other groups, you're VERY
> > unattractive.
>
> That might explain why all his views are what's shown and talked about
> on TV.
> He has very limited practical experience especially spending too much
> time on usenet, after watching TV, of course.
*smirk* Whatever the case may be, he felt it necessary to cease replying
to me.
Hunter
> Let's just say she reminds me of a female Hugh Hefner, minus the
> loot. LOL
>
> As for the kind of guys she is able to nab.. well, they are usually
> the really young ones... twenty-somethings, mostly. She'll do older
> guys, but she seems to prefer those who are under 35. I can recall,
> back when we were still on speaking terms, that she was ALWAYS hiding
> out from guys she had gotten in with. Like, not answering her phone,
> wouldn't answer the door... because she thought it was one of her
> boy-toys, which she was trying to dump. It was pretty funny, and a
> bit... odd.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
-- Carl Sagan
Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
Sekhmet
Hunter (hun...@no-one.org) laid themselves atop the sacrificial altar,
*a source who shall remain nameless*, and roughly translates to...
>
> > Let's just say she reminds me of a female Hugh Hefner, minus the
> > loot. LOL
> >
> > As for the kind of guys she is able to nab.. well, they are usually
> > the really young ones... twenty-somethings, mostly. She'll do older
> > guys, but she seems to prefer those who are under 35. I can recall,
> > back when we were still on speaking terms, that she was ALWAYS hiding
> > out from guys she had gotten in with. Like, not answering her phone,
> > wouldn't answer the door... because she thought it was one of her
> > boy-toys, which she was trying to dump. It was pretty funny, and a
> > bit... odd.
>
> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
I don't really care if anybody believes it or not. It doesn't seem
extraordinary to me. Anyway, how do you figure yourself important enough
to have such a claim proved to you... and by what means would it even be
possible?!! A ridiculous request, by any stretch of the imagination.
Hunter
> I don't really care if anybody believes it or not.
You have committed too much time responding to Danimal for anyone to
believe otherwise.
It could be that your mother is a victim of a geriatric version of
hogging simply because she'll spread her legs for anyone who shows her
a bit of attention.
Sekhmet
and recited a testicular dedication mantra, which was then decrypted by
*a source who shall remain nameless*, and roughly translates to...
>
> > I don't really care if anybody believes it or not.
>
> You have committed too much time responding to Danimal for anyone to
> believe otherwise.
Uh, are you suggesting that, just because I engaged in a three post
Usenet convo with Danimal, that I am somehow desperately concerned about
your opinion???
> It could be that your mother is a victim of a geriatric version of
> hogging simply because she'll spread her legs for anyone who shows her
> a bit of attention.
Ahhh... you're one of those odd people who thinks that sex is
dirty/bad/evil/wrong, aren't ya? What of the men who dropped their
drawers to partake in said sexual acts? We're they hopeless, attention-
seeking sluts, as well? That IS what you're implying, right, you bitter
little man???
--
"Imagine being in the thick of a wild, wet orgy when a copy of "God Is
Watching Your ANUS!" flutters down onto you from the ceiling. Surely
that experience would put the Fear of God into anyone."
Another amusing quote from Dr. Thurgood Tucker