Just Saw the Movie "Tao of Steve"
ALM
suddenly decides that, after years of considering women as nothing
more than objects for sex, he should settle down?! And the lead female
character just accepts him?!
Well, I can't expect Hollywood writers (or was this an indie, either
way it was idiotic) to be negative enough to say it like it is, but I
will: someone who has devoted a portion of their life to sleeping
around (hell, this guy even sleeps with his friend's wife!) has
established that they are INCAPABLE of being in a comitted (if such a
thing is even sought these days) relationship! If such a thing were
in their nature, they would have been previously pursuing it. People
don't change that much. Even then, I don't see how it could be
romantic for you to be nothing more than the last in a VERY long line
to someone.
Anyone agree/disagree?
I'm so SO tired of Hollywood glorifying promiscuity and/or drug abuse.
ALM #129dx-----------------------
E-mail: moc.rr.xoc@mla
(typed backwards to prevent SPAM)
Website: home.cox.rr.com/alm
Nunya
-Shell
"ALM" <moc.rr.xoc@mla> wrote in message news:3bc44989.4788084@news-server...
maddman
> This is romantic (the movie is classified as a romance)?! A male slut
> suddenly decides that, after years of considering women as nothing
> more than objects for sex, he should settle down?! And the lead female
> character just accepts him?!
>
> Well, I can't expect Hollywood writers (or was this an indie, either
> way it was idiotic) to be negative enough to say it like it is, but I
> will: someone who has devoted a portion of their life to sleeping
> around (hell, this guy even sleeps with his friend's wife!) has
> established that they are INCAPABLE of being in a comitted (if such a
> thing is even sought these days) relationship! If such a thing were
> in their nature, they would have been previously pursuing it. People
> don't change that much. Even then, I don't see how it could be
> romantic for you to be nothing more than the last in a VERY long line
> to someone.
>
> Anyone agree/disagree?
>
> I'm so SO tired of Hollywood glorifying promiscuity and/or drug abuse.
Well, I have some different thoughts on it myself. I'm wandering over
from ASF. The movie is recommended viewing over there, and I found it
quite informative. My problem is the same as yours, with the ending,
him running off after Syd.
I don't have a problem with him not wanting monogamy, I don't want it
myself. What I didn't understand is WHY that one chick was worth so
much to him. She even asked him straight out what made her different.
He didn't have an answer. I can't see a guy as introspective and
philisophical as Dex not knowing why he wanted to be with her. I
mean, after the hundreds he'd been with there's one he wants more than
any other, he should be able to say 'I want you because of A,B,and C.'
The movie is based on the life of a real guy, whose name escapes me.
The ending was tacked on to make it a little more mainstream. Still,
there are so few movies with any even halfway realistic portrayls of
seduction that anything is a pleasure.
PS- just because someone is capable of committment does not mean they
desire it.
maddman
Crystal ClearTruth
> suddenly decides that, after years of considering women as nothing
> more than objects for sex, he should settle down?! And the lead female
> character just accepts him?!
>
Interestingly enough, I think that this happens all the time. I can
only think of one RL situation where this happened. The woman refused
to marry the guy because she felt HE wasn't ready and wanted him to
finish sowing his oates before entering the marriage. It worked out
for them.
I think it is wise to forget the past, but it depends on what is in
the past. By that I mean, if I'm the part of your past that you
screwed over, don't look to me to accept 'your past'. I won't be
waiting in the wing, so to speak.
But, I do understand that people change and won't hold a guy's
previously slutty behavior against him. It won't count "FOR" him
either, though. It's just a reality of life.
> Well, I can't expect Hollywood writers (or was this an indie, either
> way it was idiotic) to be negative enough to say it like it is, but I
> will: someone who has devoted a portion of their life to sleeping
> around (hell, this guy even sleeps with his friend's wife!) has
> established that they are INCAPABLE of being in a comitted (if such a
> thing is even sought these days) relationship! If such a thing were
> in their nature, they would have been previously pursuing it. People
> don't change that much.
I can attest that they do.
> Even then, I don't see how it could be
> romantic for you to be nothing more than the last in a VERY long line
> to someone.
>
BTW, I almost got that movie last weekend, but got "The Wedding
Planner" instead. It was a cute, funny movie, but the story was
incredibly stupid. I won't give away the details, but it was very
unrealistic.
> Anyone agree/disagree?
>
> I'm so SO tired of Hollywood glorifying promiscuity and/or drug abuse.
Me too! Supposedly, its art imitating life -- or is it that life
imitates what's presented as art? Hard to tell sometimes!
Justin Hiltscher
wrote:
Huh! I liked it, it wasn't my favorite of the genre, but not too bad.
>
>
>> Anyone agree/disagree?
>>
>> I'm so SO tired of Hollywood glorifying promiscuity and/or drug abuse.
>
>Me too! Supposedly, its art imitating life -- or is it that life
>imitates what's presented as art? Hard to tell sometimes!
>
I think it's both of the above. Art imitates life imitates art.
Repeat for a few iterations until it finally gets too silly because
of feedback loops, then start over. That's why Impressionism was
so nice, and why so many people hated it. They couldn't imitate it,
they had to be creative without a guide. :)
Justin Hiltscher
ALM
>moc.rr.xoc@mla (ALM) wrote in message news:<3bc44989.4788084@news-server>...
>> This is romantic (the movie is classified as a romance)?! A male slut
>> suddenly decides that, after years of considering women as nothing
>> more than objects for sex, he should settle down?! And the lead female
>> character just accepts him?!
>>
>> Well, I can't expect Hollywood writers (or was this an indie, either
>> way it was idiotic) to be negative enough to say it like it is, but I
>> will: someone who has devoted a portion of their life to sleeping
>> around (hell, this guy even sleeps with his friend's wife!) has
>> established that they are INCAPABLE of being in a comitted (if such a
>> thing is even sought these days) relationship! If such a thing were
>> in their nature, they would have been previously pursuing it. People
>> don't change that much. Even then, I don't see how it could be
>> romantic for you to be nothing more than the last in a VERY long line
>> to someone.
>>
>> Anyone agree/disagree?
>>
>> I'm so SO tired of Hollywood glorifying promiscuity and/or drug abuse.
>
>Well, I have some different thoughts on it myself. I'm wandering over
>from ASF. The movie is recommended viewing over there, and I found it
>quite informative. My problem is the same as yours, with the ending,
>him running off after Syd.
Why is it recommended viewing? The main charcter, Dex, sleeps with the
wife of one of his friends. A person with NO respect for anyone else?
Oh, what a terrific rolemodel. Really, that was the thing that made
me HATE the main character. The fact that any woman was just as
fuckable for him than any other.
I think even Ray would be more considerate.
>I don't have a problem with him not wanting monogamy, I don't want it
>myself. What I didn't understand is WHY that one chick was worth so
>much to him. She even asked him straight out what made her different.
> He didn't have an answer.
I can't imagine how anyone could be "different" for someone like that.
That's why I don't believe they're capable of being in a real
relationship.
>I can't see a guy as introspective and
>philisophical as Dex not knowing why he wanted to be with her.
Oh, that one's easy: the writer didn't want to spend much time trying
to work out that kind of thing.
> I
>mean, after the hundreds he'd been with there's one he wants more than
>any other, he should be able to say 'I want you because of A,B,and C.'
>
>The movie is based on the life of a real guy, whose name escapes me.
>The ending was tacked on to make it a little more mainstream. Still,
>there are so few movies with any even halfway realistic portrayls of
>seduction that anything is a pleasure.
I'd imagine the "real life" ending wasn't nearly so ... mainstream.
The woman would have had no reason to care about him.
>PS- just because someone is capable of committment does not mean they
>desire it.
... now, you know, that's a response I wasn't really expecting.
Actually made me think. But ... not want it ever?
>maddman
ALM
ClearTruth) wrote:
>moc.rr.xoc@mla (ALM) wrote in message news:<3bc44989.4788084@news-server>...
>> This is romantic (the movie is classified as a romance)?! A male slut
>> suddenly decides that, after years of considering women as nothing
>> more than objects for sex, he should settle down?! And the lead female
>> character just accepts him?!
>>
>
>Interestingly enough, I think that this happens all the time. I can
>only think of one RL situation where this happened. The woman refused
>to marry the guy because she felt HE wasn't ready and wanted him to
>finish sowing his oates before entering the marriage. It worked out
>for them.
Sounds stupid to me. Maybe I'm just so very wrong and pure physical
fulfillment IS more important.
>I think it is wise to forget the past, but it depends on what is in
>the past. By that I mean, if I'm the part of your past that you
>screwed over, don't look to me to accept 'your past'. I won't be
>waiting in the wing, so to speak.
But the fact that so many other people were screwed over (unless they
were just as immoral) is irrelevant?! This idea that the past in no
way indicates a person's present/future behavior is so alien to me.
I've always found it to be a good indicator.
>But, I do understand that people change and won't hold a guy's
>previously slutty behavior against him. It won't count "FOR" him
>either, though. It's just a reality of life.
I think people can be too forgiving.
>> Well, I can't expect Hollywood writers (or was this an indie, either
>> way it was idiotic) to be negative enough to say it like it is, but I
>> will: someone who has devoted a portion of their life to sleeping
>> around (hell, this guy even sleeps with his friend's wife!) has
>> established that they are INCAPABLE of being in a comitted (if such a
>> thing is even sought these days) relationship! If such a thing were
>> in their nature, they would have been previously pursuing it. People
>> don't change that much.
>
>I can attest that they do.
Well, certainly, a person's behavior ten years ago is not as good an
indicator of their present attitudes ... but a year ago sure is.
Which was what irritated me so much about this movie: the main
character basically just wakes up the next day, says: "I'm ready for
commitment," and his one night stand (of the previous night) accepts
that!
>> Even then, I don't see how it could be
>> romantic for you to be nothing more than the last in a VERY long line
>> to someone.
>BTW, I almost got that movie last weekend, but got "The Wedding
>Planner" instead. It was a cute, funny movie, but the story was
>incredibly stupid. I won't give away the details, but it was very
>unrealistic.
When Harry Met Sally is still my favorite. Mmmm ... Harry Connick Jr.
music back when he was good.
Odious
Crystal ClearTruth wrote:
>
> moc.rr.xoc@mla (ALM) wrote in message news:<3bc44989.4788084@news-server>...
> > This is romantic (the movie is classified as a romance)?! A male slut
> > suddenly decides that, after years of considering women as nothing
> > more than objects for sex, he should settle down?! And the lead female
> > character just accepts him?!
> >
>
> Interestingly enough, I think that this happens all the time.
The movie was based on a true story...
Odious
ALM wrote:
>
> >> I'm so SO tired of Hollywood glorifying promiscuity and/or drug abuse.
> >
> >Well, I have some different thoughts on it myself. I'm wandering over
> >from ASF. The movie is recommended viewing over there, and I found it
> >quite informative. My problem is the same as yours, with the ending,
> >him running off after Syd.
>
> Why is it recommended viewing? The main charcter, Dex, sleeps with the
> wife of one of his friends.
Actually I don't think that was a friend, it seemed to me more that it
was just an acquaintance. There was a set group of friends established
and the husband seemed to me to be outside that group. But then, maybe I
was reading into it.
> A person with NO respect for anyone else?
How do you equate having an affair with not having respect for anyone
else? Does this standard only apply to the man, or do you consider the
woman in an affair to be equally incapable of respect?
I've personally had affairs with 3 married women over the course of my
life and respected them all. Now I certainly did not respect their
husbands... I can't respect a man foolish enough to ignore a beautiful
sensual woman or inept/uncaring enough to leave her sexually unsatisfied.
Frankly guys, the only way that I can seduce your wife or girlfriend, is
if you are not fulfilling her needs. Seducing a woman who is truly
content, is impossible.
> Oh, what a terrific rolemodel. Really, that was the thing that made
> me HATE the main character. The fact that any woman was just as
> fuckable for him than any other.
So what, in your opinion, makes a given woman unfuckable?
I know women truly hate the fact that there are other women besides them
that men consider worth fucking, because it weakens the strength of sex
as a manipulative tool.
And ladies doesn't it just piss you off that other women will just line
up to try and fuck your man? It sure is a good thing for most women that
most men don't know that half the women you know would probably fuck your
man behind your back.
The fact is that most women are fuckable, and a lot of them are more
desirable than you for one reason or another. Most men would be much
better off if they learned this and remembered it when women started
trying to use sex to manipulate men.
> I think even Ray would be more considerate.
Yes, ray never cheats on his inflated girlfriend.
> >I don't have a problem with him not wanting monogamy, I don't want it
> >myself. What I didn't understand is WHY that one chick was worth so
> >much to him. She even asked him straight out what made her different.
> > He didn't have an answer.
>
> I can't imagine how anyone could be "different" for someone like that.
Perhaps because you're not different? Or at least you fear that you're
not different or special, and it really bugs you to think there might be
a woman out there who is special in a way that would change a man's mind
about commitment.
> That's why I don't believe they're capable of being in a real
> relationship.
Does that belief make it easier; the belief that the relationships had
outside of monogamy are not "real" relationships?
Do you believe that someone can only have an emotional connection to you
if they refrain from putting their dick in someone else?
Crystal ClearTruth
Hmmm. Well, I guess it ~was~ sorta geared towards a male fantasy.
Two beautiful women ~want~ him he does the 'right' thing immediately
after doing the 'wrong' thing... Plus, I thought that whole back out
of the wedding bit by the 'new money' bride-to-be was just so full of
it!
Oh. And in this day and age, some high rolling biz woman's gonna let
her dad pick a hubby -- and she can't seem to figure out
diplomatically how to tell the guy to stop being a flea? Yeah right!!
The only new perspective offered, imo, was the portrayal of the
arranged marriage concept. Not the concept itself, but it made me
think about the kids. Remember the part where the dad talks about
arranged marriages to daughter and explained how love can develop if
you let it, blah, blah, blah -- even though her mom 'resisted' at
first. I had never before thought about what the kids must think/feel
over such an arrangement if/when they ever find out mommy and daddy
didn't make 'em out of heat. :-)
> >
> >
> >> Anyone agree/disagree?
> >>
> >> I'm so SO tired of Hollywood glorifying promiscuity and/or drug abuse.
> >
> >Me too! Supposedly, its art imitating life -- or is it that life
> >imitates what's presented as art? Hard to tell sometimes!
> >
>
> I think it's both of the above. Art imitates life imitates art.
> Repeat for a few iterations until it finally gets too silly because
> of feedback loops, then start over. That's why Impressionism was
> so nice, and why so many people hated it. They couldn't imitate it,
> they had to be creative without a guide. :)
>
Darn. I thought it was 'cause they didn't like the pastel colors. :-)
> Justin Hiltscher
Crystal ClearTruth
> On 11 Oct 2001 04:04:42 -0700, Chamaele...@yahoo.com (Crystal
> ClearTruth) wrote:
>
> >moc.rr.xoc@mla (ALM) wrote in message news:<3bc44989.4788084@news-server>...
> >> This is romantic (the movie is classified as a romance)?! A male slut
> >> suddenly decides that, after years of considering women as nothing
> >> more than objects for sex, he should settle down?! And the lead female
> >> character just accepts him?!
> >>
> >
> >Interestingly enough, I think that this happens all the time. I can
> >only think of one RL situation where this happened. The woman refused
> >to marry the guy because she felt HE wasn't ready and wanted him to
> >finish sowing his oates before entering the marriage. It worked out
> >for them.
>
> Sounds stupid to me. Maybe I'm just so very wrong and pure physical
> fulfillment IS more important.
>
I kinda thought she was very smart (and mature) to recognize that it
would be a disaster to try to force a guy who loved her into doing
something he wasn't yet capable of doing. I admit, I couldn't have
done it.
> >I think it is wise to forget the past, but it depends on what is in
> >the past. By that I mean, if I'm the part of your past that you
> >screwed over, don't look to me to accept 'your past'. I won't be
> >waiting in the wing, so to speak.
>
> But the fact that so many other people were screwed over (unless they
> were just as immoral) is irrelevant?!
Kinda. They are nameless, faceless souls that I don't know!
Meantime, I'm looking at this real, live 'human' being that I'm
getting to know whose qualities are apparently worth exploration in
the present. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. Besides, I'm
trusting my own intuition and recognizing that people do change.
> This idea that the past in no
> way indicates a person's present/future behavior is so alien to me.
> I've always found it to be a good indicator.
>
How do you reconcile 'good' people that go 'bad', then?
> >But, I do understand that people change and won't hold a guy's
> >previously slutty behavior against him. It won't count "FOR" him
> >either, though. It's just a reality of life.
>
> I think people can be too forgiving.
>
Yep. Everyone has there own threshholds in that dept.
> >> Well, I can't expect Hollywood writers (or was this an indie, either
> >> way it was idiotic) to be negative enough to say it like it is, but I
> >> will: someone who has devoted a portion of their life to sleeping
> >> around (hell, this guy even sleeps with his friend's wife!) has
> >> established that they are INCAPABLE of being in a comitted (if such a
> >> thing is even sought these days) relationship! If such a thing were
> >> in their nature, they would have been previously pursuing it. People
> >> don't change that much.
> >
> >I can attest that they do.
>
> Well, certainly, a person's behavior ten years ago is not as good an
> indicator of their present attitudes ... but a year ago sure is.
> Which was what irritated me so much about this movie: the main
> character basically just wakes up the next day, says: "I'm ready for
> commitment," and his one night stand (of the previous night) accepts
> that!
>
I'm gonna have to check it out for myself, I guess.
> >> Even then, I don't see how it could be
> >> romantic for you to be nothing more than the last in a VERY long line
> >> to someone.
Most everyone believes their gonna be the last. Most everyone is
disappointed to find out when they're not. Trial and error.
> >BTW, I almost got that movie last weekend, but got "The Wedding
> >Planner" instead. It was a cute, funny movie, but the story was
> >incredibly stupid. I won't give away the details, but it was very
> >unrealistic.
>
> When Harry Met Sally is still my favorite. Mmmm ... Harry Connick Jr.
> music back when he was good.
>
I liked "flash dance", "you've got mail", "titanic". Never saw "harry
and sally".
maddman
Its recommended because its realistic, and Dex's advice reflects a lot
of the group's thought. We all think Ray's an idiot too.
> >I don't have a problem with him not wanting monogamy, I don't want it
> >myself. What I didn't understand is WHY that one chick was worth so
> >much to him. She even asked him straight out what made her different.
> > He didn't have an answer.
>
> I can't imagine how anyone could be "different" for someone like that.
> That's why I don't believe they're capable of being in a real
> relationship.
>
> >I can't see a guy as introspective and
> >philisophical as Dex not knowing why he wanted to be with her.
>
> Oh, that one's easy: the writer didn't want to spend much time trying
> to work out that kind of thing.
>
Agreed. I could envision a story of a player who settles down, but
there would be a REASON. Something that all the other women do for
him that the others don't. The writer was lazy.
> > I
> >mean, after the hundreds he'd been with there's one he wants more than
> >any other, he should be able to say 'I want you because of A,B,and C.'
> >
> >The movie is based on the life of a real guy, whose name escapes me.
> >The ending was tacked on to make it a little more mainstream. Still,
> >there are so few movies with any even halfway realistic portrayls of
> >seduction that anything is a pleasure.
>
> I'd imagine the "real life" ending wasn't nearly so ... mainstream.
> The woman would have had no reason to care about him.
>
> >PS- just because someone is capable of committment does not mean they
> >desire it.
>
> ... now, you know, that's a response I wasn't really expecting.
> Actually made me think. But ... not want it ever?
>
Well, its hard to say. I mean I can't say how I will feel in 10
years. But 10 years after that I can't guarantee I'd feel the same
way. Right now, I really don't see it.
Ray Gordon
"ALM" <moc.rr.xoc@mla> wrote in message news:3bc44989.4788084@news-server...
> suddenly decides that, after years of considering women as nothing
> more than objects for sex, he should settle down?! And the lead female
> character just accepts him?!
Ever see the Ted Nugent "Behind the Music" story? That's what happened with
him. I wrote about that a few years ago out here, how alpha-males have the
best of both worlds: when they play the field, they get their choice of
women, and women constantly try to "tame" them, so when they're ready to
stop hunting (usually late 30s to age 50 where they begin to decline), they
can just settle into married life.
This happens because of how women view men: the man who can conquer many
women is a prize, and the man they can't have is desired.
You are uncomfortable with this apparently because you are uncomfortable
with the reality of the selfish logic of how women think and behave. They
reward men who break the rules over men who play by them. Most men play by
the rules and protest while the few with the courage to break them make out
like bandits.
The question here is who is making the men make out like bandits? Women
could just as easily orchestrate a society where men like Ted Nugent was are
shunned; why haven't they?
> Well, I can't expect Hollywood writers (or was this an indie, either
> way it was idiotic) to be negative enough to say it like it is, but I
> will: someone who has devoted a portion of their life to sleeping
> around (hell, this guy even sleeps with his friend's wife!) has
> established that they are INCAPABLE of being in a comitted (if such a
> thing is even sought these days) relationship!
Another fallacy: the many women the man seduces just don't measure up to
what it would take to keep him loyal. Brad Pitt, for example, committed to
Jennifer Aniston. She was of sufficient quality for him to call off his
hunt.
The ability to keep a partner is directly related to the ability to attract
them over your rivals.
>If such a thing were
> in their nature, they would have been previously pursuing it. People
> don't change that much.
What changes are the women the man is dealing with.
>Even then, I don't see how it could be
> romantic for you to be nothing more than the last in a VERY long line
> to someone.
Again, women behave this way and men don't punish it. Men defend women's
rights to "be women," i.e., to act on a whim, to lie, to be duplicitous,
vindictive, emotional, etc. on the belief that they have to tolerate these
personality traits if they want to get laid.
> Anyone agree/disagree?
>
> I'm so SO tired of Hollywood glorifying promiscuity and/or drug abuse.
Hollywood glorifies what the public buys.
Why is the public buying it if "society" says it's immoral? Those aren't
aliens in the theater.
Ray Gordon
>
>
> The movie was based on a true story...
The ending was true?
Ray Gordon
> > A person with NO respect for anyone else?
>
> How do you equate having an affair with not having respect for anyone
> else? Does this standard only apply to the man, or do you consider the
> woman in an affair to be equally incapable of respect?
>
> I've personally had affairs with 3 married women over the course of my
> life and respected them all.
Wonder if TASH is reading what his "good buddies" do with regard to women.
>Now I certainly did not respect their
> husbands... I can't respect a man foolish enough to ignore a beautiful
> sensual woman or inept/uncaring enough to leave her sexually unsatisfied.
What if the woman just married him for his money or something and is now
screwing him over again? You're trying to justify helping a woman break her
wedding vows; don't you owe it to her man to TELL him that you're a sexual
exposure to his wife? He has a MEDICAL right to know when his slut/wife is
taking risks.
I wonder if all the women here realize that when they are so polite to you
that they are saying, by omission, that your cheating ways are just fine and
dandy? This is what I try to tell men all the time: most women WANT the man
who breaks the rules, even while they claim they don't. It's only the men
who expose women for what they truly are who get attacked.
How pathetic must a man be to have to hit on married sluts? Notice that he
talks about the women being unfulfilled, but doesn't simply allow them to
file for divorce or legal separation. What I said about ASF methods working
primarily on idiot sluts applies here.
> Frankly guys, the only way that I can seduce your wife or girlfriend, is
> if you are not fulfilling her needs. Seducing a woman who is truly
> content, is impossible.
Or who isn't a slut, or who takes the simple and decent step of ending one
relationship before beginning another.
> > Oh, what a terrific rolemodel. Really, that was the thing that made
> > me HATE the main character. The fact that any woman was just as
> > fuckable for him than any other.
>
> So what, in your opinion, makes a given woman unfuckable?
Ugliness?
> I know women truly hate the fact that there are other women besides them
> that men consider worth fucking, because it weakens the strength of sex
> as a manipulative tool.
Are you saying women use sex to manipulate men? Like your new friend, TASH?
I want the readers here to note that "JTash" talks about respecting women
and has been buddy-buddy with Derek here, a man who just admitted above to
having affairs with three married women.
> And ladies doesn't it just piss you off that other women will just line
> up to try and fuck your man?
Well this raises the issue of whether women would choose to settle or be
alone if the few men they wanted suddenly became loyal.
>It sure is a good thing for most women that
> most men don't know that half the women you know would probably fuck your
> man behind your back.
Most men DO know this, at least men who are getting laid. Not all men feel
the need to cheat though.
> The fact is that most women are fuckable, and a lot of them are more
> desirable than you for one reason or another. Most men would be much
> better off if they learned this and remembered it when women started
> trying to use sex to manipulate men.
Hope the chumps who buddied up to you are reading this.....
> > I think even Ray would be more considerate.
>
> Yes, ray never cheats on his inflated girlfriend.
Forgive Derek, as he's still bitter over having too much information about
how he deals with women given to me by a woman he tried very unsuccessfully
to seduce (a woman who was BEGGING me for the better part of a year).
Though he claimed not to talk about her much, she did know his name and a
few other interesting habits he has....
I don't cheat on women. I think it's wrong. Anyone who would cheat on
women should just dump one before starting up with another, but the world
isn't perfect. Often what is called "cheating" is a "correction."
Who is Ross Jeffries' girlfriend again? Did you guys know Ross Jeffries
once threatened a customer's privacy by threatening to reveal his
information from the customer database?
> > >I don't have a problem with him not wanting monogamy, I don't want it
> > >myself. What I didn't understand is WHY that one chick was worth so
> > >much to him. She even asked him straight out what made her different.
> > > He didn't have an answer.
> >
> > I can't imagine how anyone could be "different" for someone like that.
>
> Perhaps because you're not different? Or at least you fear that you're
> not different or special, and it really bugs you to think there might be
> a woman out there who is special in a way that would change a man's mind
> about commitment.
Does such a woman exist for you? If it does, you become as whipped as the
next guy.
> > That's why I don't believe they're capable of being in a real
> > relationship.
>
> Does that belief make it easier; the belief that the relationships had
> outside of monogamy are not "real" relationships?
They aren't real. What happens when more than one person wants the other's
attention at one time? Something has to give.
> Do you believe that someone can only have an emotional connection to you
> if they refrain from putting their dick in someone else?
As a rule, yes. Women like monogamy, and you conveniently dismiss it. The
pathetic creature who turns to her husband emotionally and you physically
has two fractions of a man, not a man.
ALM
>
>
>ALM wrote:
>>
>> >> I'm so SO tired of Hollywood glorifying promiscuity and/or drug abuse.
>> >
>> >Well, I have some different thoughts on it myself. I'm wandering over
>> >from ASF. The movie is recommended viewing over there, and I found it
>> >quite informative. My problem is the same as yours, with the ending,
>> >him running off after Syd.
>>
>> Why is it recommended viewing? The main charcter, Dex, sleeps with the
>> wife of one of his friends.
>
>Actually I don't think that was a friend, it seemed to me more that it
>was just an acquaintance. There was a set group of friends established
>and the husband seemed to me to be outside that group. But then, maybe I
>was reading into it.
[ShruG] And I wasn't paying as much attention. I guess it's easier to
betray an acquaintance than a friend. I still think it would be very
shitty for someone to do that to a friend, though.
>> A person with NO respect for anyone else?
>
>How do you equate having an affair with not having respect for anyone
>else? Does this standard only apply to the man, or do you consider the
>woman in an affair to be equally incapable of respect?
If you're sleeping with your friend's wife you have no respect for
your firend. Obviously, the wife doesn't respect her husband, either.
>I've personally had affairs with 3 married women over the course of my
>life and respected them all.
Uh-huh. That's what it's called. Well, we all evaluate
respectability in different ways. I know a lack of integrity kinda'
loses respect in my eyes.
>Now I certainly did not respect their
>husbands... I can't respect a man foolish enough to ignore a beautiful
>sensual woman or inept/uncaring enough to leave her sexually unsatisfied.
Am I the only person who wants to believe that love and sex are
related somehow?!
>Frankly guys, the only way that I can seduce your wife or girlfriend, is
>if you are not fulfilling her needs. Seducing a woman who is truly
>content, is impossible.
>
>> Oh, what a terrific rolemodel. Really, that was the thing that made
>> me HATE the main character. The fact that any woman was just as
>> fuckable for him than any other.
>
>So what, in your opinion, makes a given woman unfuckable?
Well, if she's married to your friend, and you believe your friend
would be kinda' sorta' unhappy that you banged her ... that would make
her unfuckable to me. Unless I didn't care about my friend, of
course.
>I know women truly hate the fact that there are other women besides them
>that men consider worth fucking, because it weakens the strength of sex
>as a manipulative tool.
Uhh ...
>And ladies doesn't it just piss you off that other women will just line
>up to try and fuck your man? It sure is a good thing for most women that
>most men don't know that half the women you know would probably fuck your
>man behind your back.
I lost track in this paragraph.
>The fact is that most women are fuckable, and a lot of them are more
>desirable than you for one reason or another. Most men would be much
>better off if they learned this and remembered it when women started
>trying to use sex to manipulate men.
Uhm ...
>> I think even Ray would be more considerate.
>
>Yes, ray never cheats on his inflated girlfriend.
Oh?! I thought all you ASF folks worshipped him.
>> >I don't have a problem with him not wanting monogamy, I don't want it
>> >myself. What I didn't understand is WHY that one chick was worth so
>> >much to him. She even asked him straight out what made her different.
>> > He didn't have an answer.
>>
>> I can't imagine how anyone could be "different" for someone like that.
>
>Perhaps because you're not different?
Getting a little personal here. For the record: I've never been in a
relationship and probably never will be. I have too many issues.
>Or at least you fear that you're
>not different or special, and it really bugs you to think there might be
>a woman out there who is special in a way that would change a man's mind
>about commitment.
I think a man who's made it a point in his life to bed a different
woman each night is incapable of ever seeing a woman in a way that
changes his mind about commitment. That would require some degree of
respect for women in general, and considering them as nothing more
than disposable sex toys doesn't seem to fit in with that.
>> That's why I don't believe they're capable of being in a real
>> relationship.
>
>Does that belief make it easier; the belief that the relationships had
>outside of monogamy are not "real" relationships?
A twenty year marriage = a one night stand? How sad ...
>Do you believe that someone can only have an emotional connection to you
>if they refrain from putting their dick in someone else?
Well, considering I'm a guy, I'd be pretty pissed off if anyone put
their dick in me, anyway.
Ray Gordon
> >
>
> Its recommended because its realistic, and Dex's advice reflects a lot
> of the group's thought. We all think Ray's an idiot too.
Of course, Maddman here speaks only for himself but tries to act like he
speaks for the world. He's part of ASF, the group of what are allegedly the
world's best seducers, yet they spend more time talking to each other than
anything else, and you never see them able to tell their women what they are
doing to them.
People don't think I'm an idiot; they're actually threatenened enough by
what I write to even break laws in an attempt to discredit or silence me.
That's a tactic reserved for very few.
What the men of ASF are is simple to define: SLUT ENABLERS. They treat
sluts with social respect and allow them to be sluts. If they were to tell
these women what they really thought of them, or of women, the women would
bail out.
These are not real men in the sense that real men aren't afraid of
disclosure; they are.
> > >PS- just because someone is capable of committment does not mean they
> > >desire it.
> >
> > ... now, you know, that's a response I wasn't really expecting.
> > Actually made me think. But ... not want it ever?
> >
>
> Well, its hard to say. I mean I can't say how I will feel in 10
> years. But 10 years after that I can't guarantee I'd feel the same
> way. Right now, I really don't see it.
Until the day comes when you can't pull women anymore....or as easily. Or
when you want one who is way above what you can pull, and she laughs in your
face.
In 1991, a player and I chased the same 10 women without them knowing we
knew each other to see how we were treated differently. He won 8-1-1, but
the one who wanted me was the one he wanted.
That's ASF in a nutshell for you: quantity over quality, and sluts.
Odious
ALM wrote:
>
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2001 23:55:05 GMT, Odious <Odi...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >ALM wrote:
> >>
> >> >> I'm so SO tired of Hollywood glorifying promiscuity and/or drug abuse.
> >> >
> >> >Well, I have some different thoughts on it myself. I'm wandering over
> >> >from ASF. The movie is recommended viewing over there, and I found it
> >> >quite informative. My problem is the same as yours, with the ending,
> >> >him running off after Syd.
> >>
> >> Why is it recommended viewing? The main charcter, Dex, sleeps with the
> >> wife of one of his friends.
> >
> >Actually I don't think that was a friend, it seemed to me more that it
> >was just an acquaintance. There was a set group of friends established
> >and the husband seemed to me to be outside that group. But then, maybe I
> >was reading into it.
>
> [ShruG] And I wasn't paying as much attention. I guess it's easier to
> betray an acquaintance than a friend. I still think it would be very
> shitty for someone to do that to a friend, though.
>
I think the woman and dex both worked at the school, but I never got the
impression that the husband was dex's friend.
> >> A person with NO respect for anyone else?
> >
> >How do you equate having an affair with not having respect for anyone
> >else? Does this standard only apply to the man, or do you consider the
> >woman in an affair to be equally incapable of respect?
>
> If you're sleeping with your friend's wife you have no respect for
> your firend. Obviously, the wife doesn't respect her husband, either.
>
That's not what I asked. I said nothing about a friend being in the
equation... you seem to want to add that in for some additional moral
leverage. I'm asking about affairs in general.
However even given your answer above, that shows lack of respect for ONE
person, the husband, not everybody. Does being a husband automatically
entitle one to respect? Do you feel there are no bad husbands out there
who do not deserve respect?
> >I've personally had affairs with 3 married women over the course of my
> >life and respected them all.
>
> Uh-huh. That's what it's called. Well, we all evaluate
> respectability in different ways. I know a lack of integrity kinda'
> loses respect in my eyes.
Isn't the husband just as lacking in integrity for not keeping up his end
of the marriage vows and keeping his wife sexually and emotionally
satisfied? If he is not keeping his end of the deal, why should she
remain faithful to him?
I respect the strength it takes for a woman to step out and follow her
passions and her desires, rather than letting her spirit wither and die
while she lives a life devoid of true satisfaction.
> >Now I certainly did not respect their
> >husbands... I can't respect a man foolish enough to ignore a beautiful
> >sensual woman or inept/uncaring enough to leave her sexually unsatisfied.
>
> Am I the only person who wants to believe that love and sex are
> related somehow?!
>
Love and sex are like lobster and steak... good alone, but great
together. The fact that there is a relationship between love and sex,
does not mean that love or sex can not be had outside of that
relationship. Would you agree there can be love without sex? If so,
then can't there also be sex without love? Why is sex without love any
worse than love without sex?
> >Frankly guys, the only way that I can seduce your wife or girlfriend, is
> >if you are not fulfilling her needs. Seducing a woman who is truly
> >content, is impossible.
> >
> >> Oh, what a terrific rolemodel. Really, that was the thing that made
> >> me HATE the main character. The fact that any woman was just as
> >> fuckable for him than any other.
> >
> >So what, in your opinion, makes a given woman unfuckable?
>
> Well, if she's married to your friend, and you believe your friend
> would be kinda' sorta' unhappy that you banged her ... that would make
> her unfuckable to me.
No no, I'm not asking what circumstance would make you refrain from
fucking... I'm asking what about the women herself makes her unfuckable?
> Unless I didn't care about my friend, of
> course.
>
You seem to be ignoring the vast expanse of affairs where the husband is
not a friend. So if your problem more with betraying the trust of a
friend, or with having an affair. You seem to be acting as if the two
are one in the same.
> >I know women truly hate the fact that there are other women besides them
> >that men consider worth fucking, because it weakens the strength of sex
> >as a manipulative tool.
>
> Uhh ...
>
It is quite true. Every watch a room full of attractive women? It is
like a WWF smackdown. Women hate other women, especially if they are
more attractive and willing to put out.
> >And ladies doesn't it just piss you off that other women will just line
> >up to try and fuck your man? It sure is a good thing for most women that
> >most men don't know that half the women you know would probably fuck your
> >man behind your back.
>
> I lost track in this paragraph.
>
No you didn't.
> >The fact is that most women are fuckable, and a lot of them are more
> >desirable than you for one reason or another. Most men would be much
> >better off if they learned this and remembered it when women started
> >trying to use sex to manipulate men.
>
> Uhm ...
>
No response? None at all?
> >> I think even Ray would be more considerate.
> >
> >Yes, ray never cheats on his inflated girlfriend.
>
> Oh?! I thought all you ASF folks worshipped him.
>
LOL no Ray is a pathetic joke in ASF. He doesn't have a clue what he is
talking about, he hates women, and he plagiarizes other people's
writing. Everybody in ASF has either killfiled ray, or routinely points
out what a tard he is.
> >> >I don't have a problem with him not wanting monogamy, I don't want it
> >> >myself. What I didn't understand is WHY that one chick was worth so
> >> >much to him. She even asked him straight out what made her different.
> >> > He didn't have an answer.
> >>
> >> I can't imagine how anyone could be "different" for someone like that.
> >
> >Perhaps because you're not different?
>
> Getting a little personal here.
Simply asking a question I hope will cause you to seriously search
yourself for an answer, rather than attacking things which seem to go
against your conclusions.
> For the record: I've never been in a
> relationship and probably never will be. I have too many issues.
>
It shows. Though if your disposition is any indication, I'd say you were
in some type of relationship at some point that went bad... anger and
cynicism like yours is not spontaneously created out of the blue.
> >Or at least you fear that you're
> >not different or special, and it really bugs you to think there might be
> >a woman out there who is special in a way that would change a man's mind
> >about commitment.
>
> I think a man who's made it a point in his life to bed a different
> woman each night is incapable of ever seeing a woman in a way that
> changes his mind about commitment.
I think that you believe this because it hurts a little less when you do
so... at some point in your life someone probably left you behind or
betrayed you... and you believe they're incapable of doing anything else,
that means it wasn't a choice on their part.
It is a lot easier to believe "that's just the way some people are" than
to ask yourself "why would they choose to do this to me?"
> That would require some degree of
> respect for women in general, and considering them as nothing more
> than disposable sex toys doesn't seem to fit in with that.
You seem to have such a low opinion of sex... you presume sex is a
completely one-sided act where the man gets off and the woman is simply
cast aside afterwards. You must be harboring some serious pain and
repression.
Also don't confuse woman hating idiots like ray gordon with real
seducers. Real seducers do not hate women, real seducers love women...
why else would we take the time and the effort to learn the various ways
of giving them pleasure and opening their minds? I don't give pleasure
to someone I do not respect and care for.
> >> That's why I don't believe they're capable of being in a real
> >> relationship.
> >
> >Does that belief make it easier; the belief that the relationships had
> >outside of monogamy are not "real" relationships?
>
> A twenty year marriage = a one night stand? How sad ...
>
Ahhh you can't answer my question so you create a fallacious statement
and try to pass it off as equivalent. I made no value judgment, nor did
I set forth a time frame or duration for the relationship... in fact I
did not even set marriage as a factor. All I asked was why a
non-monogamous relationship is invalid and a monogamous relationship is
not.
> >Do you believe that someone can only have an emotional connection to you
> >if they refrain from putting their dick in someone else?
>
> Well, considering I'm a guy, I'd be pretty pissed off if anyone put
> their dick in me, anyway.
Wow... were you raised by women with no male influence? Because you've
got a major case of chick logic going on and given the degree of
man-hating you've got going on I could have sworn you were a chick.
Well disregard the gender specific terminology in this post...
Odious
Ray Gordon wrote:
>
> > > I think even Ray would be more considerate.
> > >
> >
> > Its recommended because its realistic, and Dex's advice reflects a lot
> > of the group's thought. We all think Ray's an idiot too.
>
> Of course, Maddman here speaks only for himself but tries to act like he
> speaks for the world.
Nope Madman is right, 99.9% of the posters in ASF think ray is a moron
who knows nothing about seduction. And the rest haven't read his posts
yet.
> He's part of ASF, the group of what are allegedly the
> world's best seducers, yet they spend more time talking to each other than
> anything else, and you never see them able to tell their women what they are
> doing to them.
Odd ray, there are serveral instances of guys bringing their chicks to
ASF and several instances of you tucking your tail and running away when
they prove how full of shit you are.
> People don't think I'm an idiot;
Um, yeah... yeah they do ray. And idiot is on the kinder end of the
spectrum when it comes to what people think about you.
> they're actually threatenened enough by
> what I write to even break laws in an attempt to discredit or silence me.
> That's a tactic reserved for very few.
>
LOL ray like to try and convince himself of this so he can feel
important. The truth of the matter is that ray is a pitiful idiot and
just like here in alt.romance, when people in ASF point out ray's
ignorance or mock his ridiculous and often vulgar behavior... ray tries
to claim it is all some huge conspiracy to get him and discredit his
work.
He's a joke and his work is garbage.
Odious
J Tash wrote:
>
> >People don't think I'm an idiot; they're actually threatenened enough by
> >what I write to even break laws in an attempt to discredit or silence me.
> >That's a tactic reserved for very few.
>
> No gordie, they just sort of hate anyone who wishes death
> and injury on children, thinks the WTC/Wdc horror was
> a GOOD thing, and has no stones to back up anything
> he says. Add to this your cowardly acts (or lack of)
> and your need to anger anyone who may not think
> the way you do, and sheit, yeah. you're an idiot..
>
> "Threatened"by you ? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>
> Only to my funny bone...
>
> J Tash
Tash, ray likes to think of himself as a threat... it gives him a feeling
of power that he rarely experiences living at home with his mommy at age
34.
ALM
>> >Do you believe that someone can only have an emotional connection to you
>> >if they refrain from putting their dick in someone else?
>>
>> Well, considering I'm a guy, I'd be pretty pissed off if anyone put
>> their dick in me, anyway.
>
>Wow... were you raised by women with no male influence? Because you've
>got a major case of chick logic going on and given the degree of
>man-hating you've got going on I could have sworn you were a chick.
... well this is really weird. If anything, I'm commonly
characterized as a misogynist (the aforementioned "issues.")
I just believe that if two people are in a serious relationship
(something which is kinda' sorta' indicated by marriage ... well it
USED to be) those two people should be, well, exclusive. The concept
of love is that there's nobodly else for you EXCEPT that other person
(ah, but now I leve myself open to the distinction between love and
sex). If the partner neglects the other person for a period of time
(working too hard, etc.) I would imagine the proper course of action
is to communicate with the other person, figure out what's wrong, and
eventually get back to a mutually satisfying way of life. Passion/sex
is nice, but why does it have to be such an absolute requirement in a
relationship?! If a woman/man doesn't get banged for a month, they
have every right to just go out and have sex with whomever they want
and it's the partner's fault?! I would imagine that, in a
relationship, there'd be a little patience involved. An eagerness to
go to someone else doesn't seem to fit in with a decent relationship.
I don't believe that physical satisfaction is the end all/be all of
human experience. I guess this is where the argument is coming from:
you believe in hedonism (if her husband isn't getting her off, I will;
and that's just as good as her relationship to her husband) and I
think there should be a little more to life. I obviously won't be
happy until I lower my standards to your level (which also seems to be
the level of most people in this newsgroup.)
For the record, I think promiscuity/unfaithfulness is a shitty thing
to do for people of either sex. Damn me for having morals!
If that's chick logic, so be it. I didn't get it due to a lack of
male influence, though. This conversation has been enlightening,
though.
>Well disregard the gender specific terminology in this post...
That was the stuff I lost track on (even though you insisted
otherwise.)
Anyway, if you were married, got distracted, and your wife was bedded
by someone else, would you really just shrug your shoulders say "I
deserve it" and move on? You wouldn't be in the slightest bit pissed
off?!
ALM
ClearTruth) wrote:
>moc.rr.xoc@mla (ALM) wrote in message news:<3bc5e0e7.27308437@news-server>...
>> On 11 Oct 2001 04:04:42 -0700, Chamaele...@yahoo.com (Crystal
>> ClearTruth) wrote:
>>
>> >moc.rr.xoc@mla (ALM) wrote in message news:<3bc44989.4788084@news-server>...
>> >> This is romantic (the movie is classified as a romance)?! A male slut
>> >> suddenly decides that, after years of considering women as nothing
>> >> more than objects for sex, he should settle down?! And the lead female
>> >> character just accepts him?!
>> >>
>> >
>> >Interestingly enough, I think that this happens all the time. I can
>> >only think of one RL situation where this happened. The woman refused
>> >to marry the guy because she felt HE wasn't ready and wanted him to
>> >finish sowing his oates before entering the marriage. It worked out
>> >for them.
>>
>> Sounds stupid to me. Maybe I'm just so very wrong and pure physical
>> fulfillment IS more important.
>>
>
>I kinda thought she was very smart (and mature) to recognize that it
>would be a disaster to try to force a guy who loved her into doing
>something he wasn't yet capable of doing. I admit, I couldn't have
>done it.
It bothers me to think that a guy could find someone who cares about
him and then say: "Hey, you see all those hot chicks out there? I'm
not yet done screwing all of them. Hold on a few years."
Is having meaningless sex really so important these days?!
>> >I think it is wise to forget the past, but it depends on what is in
>> >the past. By that I mean, if I'm the part of your past that you
>> >screwed over, don't look to me to accept 'your past'. I won't be
>> >waiting in the wing, so to speak.
>>
>> But the fact that so many other people were screwed over (unless they
>> were just as immoral) is irrelevant?!
>
>Kinda. They are nameless, faceless souls that I don't know!
>Meantime, I'm looking at this real, live 'human' being that I'm
>getting to know whose qualities are apparently worth exploration in
>the present. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. Besides, I'm
>trusting my own intuition and recognizing that people do change.
Over a long enough time frame, though. Why are people so afraid to
judge these days?
>> This idea that the past in no
>> way indicates a person's present/future behavior is so alien to me.
>> I've always found it to be a good indicator.
>>
>
>How do you reconcile 'good' people that go 'bad', then?
Just as nobody goes good overnight, I doubt anyone can go bad so
quickly, either.
>> >> Even then, I don't see how it could be
>> >> romantic for you to be nothing more than the last in a VERY long line
>> >> to someone.
>
>Most everyone believes their gonna be the last. Most everyone is
>disappointed to find out when they're not. Trial and error.
From the sound of it, people keep trial and erroring it but simply
don't learn.
>> >BTW, I almost got that movie last weekend, but got "The Wedding
>> >Planner" instead. It was a cute, funny movie, but the story was
>> >incredibly stupid. I won't give away the details, but it was very
>> >unrealistic.
>>
>> When Harry Met Sally is still my favorite. Mmmm ... Harry Connick Jr.
>> music back when he was good.
>>
>
>I liked "flash dance", "you've got mail", "titanic". Never saw "harry
>and sally".
Then you MUST see it. For I say so! And what I say is law ... well I
highly recommend it, anyway.
Odious
Ray Gordon wrote:
>
> > > A person with NO respect for anyone else?
> >
> > How do you equate having an affair with not having respect for anyone
> > else? Does this standard only apply to the man, or do you consider the
> > woman in an affair to be equally incapable of respect?
> >
> > I've personally had affairs with 3 married women over the course of my
> > life and respected them all.
>
> Wonder if TASH is reading what his "good buddies" do with regard to women.
>
Why do you assume that all the people who hate you have anything in
common other than their mutual disdain for your ignorance?
> >Now I certainly did not respect their
> > husbands... I can't respect a man foolish enough to ignore a beautiful
> > sensual woman or inept/uncaring enough to leave her sexually unsatisfied.
>
> What if the woman just married him for his money or something and is now
> screwing him over again?
What if the woman is really a space alien who's only trying to reproduce
so her young can take over the earth?
> You're trying to justify helping a woman break her
> wedding vows;
No justification needed other than the man's inability or unwillingness
to keep his end of the marriage.
> don't you owe it to her man to TELL him that you're a sexual
> exposure to his wife? He has a MEDICAL right to know when his slut/wife is
> taking risks.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Yeah ray... something tells me that your
argument is not motivated by reason, but rather by blisters. Though in
your case ray you have to understand, street whores are going to fuck
other johns... that's their job. So she wasn't really "cheating" on you,
was she?
> I wonder if all the women here realize that when they are so polite to you
> that they are saying, by omission, that your cheating ways are just fine and
> dandy?
My cheating ways? WHo am I cheating on ray? Do you mean the women are
saying their cheating ways are OK? I think most women would agree, that
women cheat for a reason... sometimes for many reasons. Each reason or
set of reasons would need to be evaluated, so you really can't just lay
down a blanket judgment.
> This is what I try to tell men all the time: most women WANT the man
> who breaks the rules, even while they claim they don't. It's only the men
> who expose women for what they truly are who get attacked.
>
You just keep telling yourself that is why women hate you ray....
> How pathetic must a man be to have to hit on married sluts?
How pathetic must a man be to drive her to it?
> Notice that he
> talks about the women being unfulfilled, but doesn't simply allow them to
> file for divorce or legal separation.
Oh I see, ray wants to make sure the marriage breaks up and everybody
gets hurt...
Whereas I prefer to fulfill a woman's desires on the sly so she can stand
to go back to her idiot husband and raise her kids.
Ray, why do you hate happiness so much?
> What I said about ASF methods working
> primarily on idiot sluts applies here.
>
Nothing you've ever said applies anywhere but in your own delusional
world of make-believe.
> > Frankly guys, the only way that I can seduce your wife or girlfriend, is
> > if you are not fulfilling her needs. Seducing a woman who is truly
> > content, is impossible.
>
> Or who isn't a slut, or who takes the simple and decent step of ending one
> relationship before beginning another.
>
Ray really hates women who fulfill their desires... because no women
desire ray.
Crystal ClearTruth
> On 11 Oct 2001 04:04:42 -0700, Chamaele...@yahoo.com (Crystal
> ClearTruth) wrote:
>
> >moc.rr.xoc@mla (ALM) wrote in message news:<3bc44989.4788084@news-server>...
> >> This is romantic (the movie is classified as a romance)?! A male slut
> >> suddenly decides that, after years of considering women as nothing
> >> more than objects for sex, he should settle down?! And the lead female
> >> character just accepts him?!
> >>
Now that I've had the benefit of watching the movie, I have to say
that I thought it was very romantic -- and realistic, too. The only
part that didn't sit well with me was the part where Dex didn't
remember the woman. I have had bouts of believing too much in men, as
well as thinking all men are dogs -- but this whole notion that men
are so low that they don't even remember someone that they've been
intimate with is beyond my scope of belief! Maybe he forgot her name,
or didn't recognize her, but not remember her??? Even after he was
reminded of it??? Ha!
> >Interestingly enough, I think that this happens all the time. I can
> >only think of one RL situation where this happened. The woman refused
> >to marry the guy because she felt HE wasn't ready and wanted him to
> >finish sowing his oates before entering the marriage. It worked out
> >for them.
>
> Sounds stupid to me. Maybe I'm just so very wrong and pure physical
> fulfillment IS more important.
>
Actually, before seeing the movie, I thought you were talking about
something else entirely. But, if you'll reread my post, you'll see
that I said just the opposite of what you think I said. The woman did
NOT think that the physical was more important. She preferred
commitment. She also didn't accept his verbal commitment while his
actions showed something different.
> >I think it is wise to forget the past, but it depends on what is in
> >the past. By that I mean, if I'm the part of your past that you
> >screwed over, don't look to me to accept 'your past'. I won't be
> >waiting in the wing, so to speak.
>
> But the fact that so many other people were screwed over (unless they
> were just as immoral) is irrelevant?! This idea that the past in no
> way indicates a person's present/future behavior is so alien to me.
> I've always found it to be a good indicator.
>
Then what's the point of watching the end of a movie? Why not let it
just get stuck in the middle? Based on the beginning and/or the
middle, the outcome should be predictable, right? No need to further
develop the plot?
Point is, good and bad contribute to the makeup of everybody -- the
growth.
> >But, I do understand that people change and won't hold a guy's
> >previously slutty behavior against him. It won't count "FOR" him
> >either, though. It's just a reality of life.
>
> I think people can be too forgiving.
>
True.
> >> Well, I can't expect Hollywood writers (or was this an indie, either
> >> way it was idiotic) to be negative enough to say it like it is, but I
> >> will: someone who has devoted a portion of their life to sleeping
> >> around (hell, this guy even sleeps with his friend's wife!) has
> >> established that they are INCAPABLE of being in a comitted (if such a
> >> thing is even sought these days) relationship!
The guy wasn't his friend, imo. Besides, he hadn't yet met the right
person to make him feel 'love'.
> >> If such a thing were
> >> in their nature, they would have been previously pursuing it. People
> >> don't change that much.
> >
> >I can attest that they do.
>
> Well, certainly, a person's behavior ten years ago is not as good an
> indicator of their present attitudes ... but a year ago sure is.
A ten-year span is made up of 10 smaller years, 120 smaller spans of
months, 520 smaller weeks, etc., etc. A person can make a decision to
change today, then work at for 10 years before they get it right!
> Which was what irritated me so much about this movie: the main
> character basically just wakes up the next day, says: "I'm ready for
> commitment," and his one night stand (of the previous night) accepts
> that!
>
I didn't see it that way. Dex was really, really feeling low. He was
ashamed of his 'fatness' and had overheard the snickers. He was
reminded of his general failures in the business world by the reunion
crowd. The chick he's targeted as his 'next' victim is hostile
towards him and he didn't yet know why -- his challenge(?). She then
seems to be 'with' the guy he ~used~ to be -- a male hottie. He
didn't commit when he met her. That commitment mindset was developed
over time. Initially, he was physically attracted to her. I got the
feeling that it was her raw energy at the drums set that turned him on
and maybe symbolized the goodness, freedom of expression, and energy
he wanted to feel himself.
> >> Even then, I don't see how it could be
> >> romantic for you to be nothing more than the last in a VERY long line
> >> to someone.
He bruised her ego and, at the same time, became her unconscious
'challenge'.
Crystal ClearTruth
> ALM wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 11 Oct 2001 23:55:05 GMT, Odious <Odi...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >ALM wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >> I'm so SO tired of Hollywood glorifying promiscuity and/or drug abuse.
> > >> >
> > >> >Well, I have some different thoughts on it myself. I'm wandering over
> > >> >from ASF. The movie is recommended viewing over there, and I found it
> > >> >quite informative. My problem is the same as yours, with the ending,
> > >> >him running off after Syd.
> > >>
> > >> Why is it recommended viewing? The main charcter, Dex, sleeps with the
> > >> wife of one of his friends.
> > >
> > >Actually I don't think that was a friend, it seemed to me more that it
> > >was just an acquaintance. There was a set group of friends established
> > >and the husband seemed to me to be outside that group. But then, maybe I
> > >was reading into it.
> >
I agree. They weren't friends.
> > [ShruG] And I wasn't paying as much attention. I guess it's easier to
> > betray an acquaintance than a friend. I still think it would be very
> > shitty for someone to do that to a friend, though.
> >
>
> I think the woman and dex both worked at the school, but I never got the
> impression that the husband was dex's friend.
>
> > >> A person with NO respect for anyone else?
> > >
> > >How do you equate having an affair with not having respect for anyone
> > >else? Does this standard only apply to the man, or do you consider the
> > >woman in an affair to be equally incapable of respect?
> >
> > If you're sleeping with your friend's wife you have no respect for
> > your firend. Obviously, the wife doesn't respect her husband, either.
> >
>
> That's not what I asked. I said nothing about a friend being in the
> equation... you seem to want to add that in for some additional moral
> leverage. I'm asking about affairs in general.
>
Is moral leverage needed? An affair is an affair is an affair is an
affair.
> However even given your answer above, that shows lack of respect for ONE
> person, the husband, not everybody. Does being a husband automatically
> entitle one to respect? Do you feel there are no bad husbands out there
> who do not deserve respect?
>
> > >I've personally had affairs with 3 married women over the course of my
> > >life and respected them all.
> >
> > Uh-huh. That's what it's called. Well, we all evaluate
> > respectability in different ways. I know a lack of integrity kinda'
> > loses respect in my eyes.
>
> Isn't the husband just as lacking in integrity for not keeping up his end
> of the marriage vows and keeping his wife sexually and emotionally
> satisfied? If he is not keeping his end of the deal, why should she
> remain faithful to him?
>
Hmmm... If you were married, if your wife felt that you were
inadequate in the bedroom, would you feel that she is justified if she
sought external satisfaction?
Nowadays, wedding vows are personalized. Would you delete the
traditional "in sickness and in health, blah, blah, blah" stuff and
insert "til I'm no longer satisfying you in the b/r" or "til my
ability t make you have multiple orgs vanishes"?
> I respect the strength it takes for a woman to step out and follow her
> passions and her desires, rather than letting her spirit wither and die
> while she lives a life devoid of true satisfaction.
>
Really? Does one's spirit really wither and die w/o sexual
fulfillment?
>
> > >Now I certainly did not respect their
> > >husbands... I can't respect a man foolish enough to ignore a beautiful
> > >sensual woman or inept/uncaring enough to leave her sexually unsatisfied.
> >
What about the men who try to, yet can't?
> > Am I the only person who wants to believe that love and sex are
> > related somehow?!
> >
>
> Love and sex are like lobster and steak... good alone, but great
> together.
Now that I agree with!
> The fact that there is a relationship between love and sex,
> does not mean that love or sex can not be had outside of that
> relationship.
And that I don't.
> Would you agree there can be love without sex? If so,
> then can't there also be sex without love? Why is sex without love any
> worse than love without sex?
>
Because its not 100% bonding. It's only a small percentage. Some
people like a total package and won't settle for less. Besides, you
can't be fully sexual without love. You're not allowed to be free
enough while you're watching your back (heart). It's like dancing
w/no music. Its boring!
> > >Frankly guys, the only way that I can seduce your wife or girlfriend, is
> > >if you are not fulfilling her needs. Seducing a woman who is truly
> > >content, is impossible.
> > >
True.
> > >> Oh, what a terrific rolemodel. Really, that was the thing that made
> > >> me HATE the main character. The fact that any woman was just as
> > >> fuckable for him than any other.
> > >
> > >So what, in your opinion, makes a given woman unfuckable?
> >
> > Well, if she's married to your friend, and you believe your friend
> > would be kinda' sorta' unhappy that you banged her ... that would make
> > her unfuckable to me.
>
> No no, I'm not asking what circumstance would make you refrain from
> fucking... I'm asking what about the women herself makes her unfuckable?
>
> > Unless I didn't care about my friend, of
> > course.
> >
>
> You seem to be ignoring the vast expanse of affairs where the husband is
> not a friend. So if your problem more with betraying the trust of a
> friend, or with having an affair. You seem to be acting as if the two
> are one in the same.
>
> > >I know women truly hate the fact that there are other women besides them
> > >that men consider worth fucking, because it weakens the strength of sex
> > >as a manipulative tool.
> >
> > Uhh ...
> >
>
Personally, I'm not one of the 'hate it' crowd. Its a fact of life.
That fact works the other way around, too. That's why capturing a
guy's attention has to be beyond the physical. But, if the guy sees
you as his fantasy fulfilled (physically), there's no need to be
manipulative and you can move on to the deeper things.
> It is quite true. Every watch a room full of attractive women? It is
> like a WWF smackdown. Women hate other women, especially if they are
> more attractive and willing to put out.
>
That's sorta true over looks = jealousy. But its usually disgust over
the 'put out' stuff because those women indirectly mislead men into
believing that all women should behave that way, thereby creating
problems for women that won't.
> > >And ladies doesn't it just piss you off that other women will just line
> > >up to try and fuck your man? It sure is a good thing for most women that
> > >most men don't know that half the women you know would probably fuck your
> > >man behind your back.
> >
Do you have any real friends? By friends, I mean people that you
trust? I do. My friends wouldn't *do* my man, just as I wouldn't
*do* theirs.
> > I lost track in this paragraph.
> >
>
> No you didn't.
>
> > >The fact is that most women are fuckable, and a lot of them are more
> > >desirable than you for one reason or another. Most men would be much
> > >better off if they learned this and remembered it when women started
> > >trying to use sex to manipulate men.
> >
So are most men. But I'm trying to find your point, here?
I happen to think that its more than f-ability that makes someone
desirable! Don't you?
<snip>
> > >> >I don't have a problem with him not wanting monogamy, I don't want it
> > >> >myself. What I didn't understand is WHY that one chick was worth so
> > >> >much to him. She even asked him straight out what made her different.
> > >> > He didn't have an answer.
> > >>
He had an answer. He was on the defensive and didn't get to
articulate it for fear of being pre-judged.
<snip>
> > >Do you believe that someone can only have an emotional connection to you
> > >if they refrain from putting their dick in someone else?
> >
But of course! Suga-coat it any way you want, but lacking emotional
connection/commitment is well, er, just sex. Yes, some pleasure can
be derived from it. But not sex at its fullest.
Crystal ClearTruth
> On 11 Oct 2001 17:26:14 -0700, Chamaele...@yahoo.com (Crystal
> ClearTruth) wrote:
>
> >moc.rr.xoc@mla (ALM) wrote in message news:<3bc5e0e7.27308437@news-server>...
> >> On 11 Oct 2001 04:04:42 -0700, Chamaele...@yahoo.com (Crystal
> >> ClearTruth) wrote:
> >>
> >> >moc.rr.xoc@mla (ALM) wrote in message news:<3bc44989.4788084@news-server>...
> >> >> This is romantic (the movie is classified as a romance)?! A male slut
> >> >> suddenly decides that, after years of considering women as nothing
> >> >> more than objects for sex, he should settle down?! And the lead female
> >> >> character just accepts him?!
> >> >>
> >> >
You should see "the contender" re previous sexual indiscretions being
forgiven due to irrelivance! Dynamic!
Hahaha re commands :-) But, anyhoo, I took your advice and got When
Harry met Sally. It was pretty good, too. Very funny in a weird
sorta way. But what would anyone expect out of billy crystal?! Meg
was cool, too. All that being said, I guess I thought of this one as
unrealistic. I can't see 20 years down the road, all of a sudden
these people realize they're in love.