clv0116 Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 You keep giving and giving and giving but she is never satisfied until one day she has your balls in a complete vice grip. Most of these men still end up getting cheated on or walked out on anyway. Actually the women I was dating and the one I still date are not like that. You seem to meet people who are or who attract crumby women.
Woggle Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 Hey guys and girls, whatever floats your boat. Just don't go to the divorce forum later and complain how your perfect little 15 year marriage ended because the wife needed some time to herself (new cock) or your husband is having an affair with some "hoe" out there. People are not meant to be lifetime monogamous. Even tho I don't buy into monogamy, I still believe that short term monogamy (3-5 years) is possible. Anyway, I know plenty of guys who travel around the world, "intimately loving" various women and living for experiences instead of tangible end results. I'm one of them. But hey, I'm not forcing anything on anyone... whatever works for you... Am I happy? I wouldn't trade this lifestyle for anything. The stories on the divorce forum speak for themselves yet women get mad at me for pointing out the obvious. Most men end up alone and single anyway so why not keep what you earn and live your life to the fullest instead of trying to appease a woman who will turn on you no matter how well you treat her?
sally4sara Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 Hey guys and girls, whatever floats your boat. Just don't go to the divorce forum later and complain how your perfect little 15 year marriage ended because the wife needed some time to herself (new cock) or your husband is having an affair with some "hoe" out there. People are not meant to be lifetime monogamous. Even tho I don't buy into monogamy, I still believe that short term monogamy (3-5 years) is possible. Anyway, I know plenty of guys who travel around the world, "intimately loving" various women and living for experiences instead of tangible end results. I'm one of them. But hey, I'm not forcing anything on anyone... whatever works for you... Am I happy? I wouldn't trade this lifestyle for anything. I see nothing wrong with your choices. I only wonder why you do not commit to them. Perhaps you have and I missed that post... Have you gone for sterilization? How do you ensure your partners are people who truly understand your lifestyle and don't just agree with the intent of influencing you? What steps have you taken to see to your sexual health and that of your current and future partners?What steps have you taken to ensure you do not contribute to unwanted, unplanned children if you have not gone for sterilization? My uncle has never married and has no children. I do not think less of him for it. I admire his efforts to not mess with other's heads and the fact that he committed to his choice with sterilization.
Woggle Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 Actually the women I was dating and the one I still date are not like that. You seem to meet people who are or who attract crumby women. Not all women are like that but many are and if a man gives off the vibe of not putting up with it he will have better luck in love.
Surfer Dude Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 Have you gone for sterilization? How do you ensure your partners are people who truly understand your lifestyle and don't just agree with the intent of influencing you? What steps have you taken to see to your sexual health and that of your current and future partners?What steps have you taken to ensure you do not contribute to unwanted, unplanned children if you have not gone for sterilization? Why would I get sterilized? Perhaps I will want children some 20 years from now. I never said I wouldn't want children someday. I don't want them now, but who knows what'll happen in the future. I just said I can't and won't be lifetime monogamous. Certainly, there are such arrangements out there that support that kind of lifestyle... As for unwanted pregnancies... with proper precautions, these do not happen. Sister, all I care about is creating great experiences for both women and myself... and why be selfish and limit myself to just one woman... when I can love so many I mean no harm to women. They always fully know where they stand with me and always have the choice to walk away if they so desire. If we just forget about society for a second and give in to our desires, we can have everything. Just follow your heart, not someone's words from TV, your parent's ideas, church BS etc. You'd be surprised to find out how much more pleasurable life is when we do that. Sam thinks my words are BS and stem from nihilistic ideas. I've never even read Neitzche, I know next to nothing about that.. I'm not interested in someone else's life philosophies, especially if he writes a book about that and tries to program people into acting certain ways. We can all come to our own conclusions and realizations, through our own wisdom.
sally4sara Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 Why would I get sterilized? Perhaps I will want children some 20 years from now. I never said I wouldn't want children someday. I don't want them now, but who knows what'll happen in the future. I just said I can't and won't be lifetime monogamous. Certainly, there are such arrangements out there that support that kind of lifestyle... As for unwanted pregnancies... with proper precautions, these do not happen. Sister, all I care about is creating great experiences for both women and myself... and why be selfish and limit myself to just one woman... when I can love so many I mean no harm to women. They always fully know where they stand with me and always have the choice to walk away if they so desire. If we just forget about society for a second and give in to our desires, we can have everything. Just follow your heart, not someone's words from TV, your parent's ideas, church BS etc. You'd be surprised to find out how much more pleasurable life is when we do that. Sam thinks my words are BS and stem from nihilistic ideas. I've never even read Neitzche, I know next to nothing about that.. I'm not interested in someone else's life philosophies, especially if he writes a book about that and tries to program people into acting certain ways. We can all come to our own conclusions and realizations, through our own wisdom. Oh! Pardons. I thought you weighing in on the playboy lifestyle and how you wouldn't trade it for the world was an indication that you've chosen your path in life. You are no different from any other inflated fella on this issue then. I'm sure you're a gift to all women in the mind of at least someone . I do not disrespect you on this either; you've as much right to be your own steward as anyone else. And we all are - with naivety as easily as with wisdom. Let me hope for you then, to find yourself always able to chosen what makes you happy at any stage in life and not wishing you could chose a path that your sexual health, amount of previous offspring, and age do not exclude you from. One thing I've learned is control is often an illusion. Good luck Brother! (you could still bank the surfer dude swimmers and go get sterilized to play safer you know...)
Untouchable_Fire Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 Sounds to me like you don't understand women. What many of us say, we do want. That there maybe some other factors involved that trump the superficial requirements, is human nature. In other words, we don't always throw the baby out with the bathwater. Otherwise, every single male would always be rejected, since no one is perfect. Sam had a good point. The only that keeps most women from throwing the baby out with the bathwater... is the hope that she can make her man CHANGE... and when that doesn't happen... it's 24/7 resentment time! TBF, you may be the exception... but thats probably just because you so darn picky to begin with. Not anymore. Since these things do not hold true (because we've evolved PAST that) it would be a sound move for men to evolve away a bit from their promiscuous standards of the past. They spread more STDs; some of which they cannot test to know they have. They cannot be certain of paternity without testing which cannot be obtained without consent. Once paternity is confirmed, they are monetarily obligated to that child whether the mother was someone they intended to mix their DNA with or not. These risks can be remedied with a less promiscuous lifestyle. Ahhhh evolution! You cannot recognize it for the sake of your argument and then turn around and live as though it doesn't exist without consequenses! I hope you were being sarcastic. Nobody has evolved past anything. We are the same basic people we were 3,000 years ago.
Surfer Dude Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 Actually, human beings haven't changed one bit in the past 200 000 years or so, from evolutionary perspective. 200K years ago is the time around the modern version of man evolved. They were equally smart, curious, wise as we are now. They weren't dumb and they certainly didn't lack sense for social interactions. The only difference between now and then is that our ancestors didn't have knowledge at their disposal, and they also didn't have science as a tool. For better or for worse, they also lacked societal conditioning, because societies were just starting to emerge back then. We are exactly the same men and women that our grandfathers and grandmothers were 200K years ago, homo sapiens sapiens. Emotionally and spiritually, we haven't evolved at all from back then. We're still hardwired to follow our instincts and go in accordance with the way of nature... exactly the same social interactions are going on now as back then. The only difference is that seduction and sex now happen in venues like clubs and bars instead of woods and caves. But if you go to such places, you can still scientifically observe male-female interactions, alpha male behavior vs beta male behavior etc. That wallflower who's standing there with his drink to his chest doesn't get laid today, just as he wouldn't get laid 200K years ago. That high-energy alpha who drives women crazy for sex and leads his social group would also be the leader of his tribe in the past. Nothing has changed.
sally4sara Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 You're both being contrary to no point. We have evolved. My comment about evolving was to the statement made by another poster about women NEEDING a protector and provider for her kids to survive. Women no longer need a protector or provider for their children to simply survive. Its nice and ideal, but not a need. We now know about germs so we live longer. Huge and intrusive predators are not a big concern. We no longer commonly die of simple health conditions like ear infections or the flu. We may physically look very similar, but our lives are very different than 200,000 years ago.
sally4sara Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 Actually, human beings haven't changed one bit in the past 200 000 years or so, from evolutionary perspective. 200K years ago is the time around the modern version of man evolved. They were equally smart, curious, wise as we are now. They weren't dumb and they certainly didn't lack sense for social interactions. The only difference between now and then is that our ancestors didn't have knowledge at their disposal, and they also didn't have science as a tool. For better or for worse, they also lacked societal conditioning, because societies were just starting to emerge back then. We are exactly the same men and women that our grandfathers and grandmothers were 200K years ago, homo sapiens sapiens. Emotionally and spiritually, we haven't evolved at all from back then. We're still hardwired to follow our instincts and go in accordance with the way of nature... exactly the same social interactions are going on now as back then. The only difference is that seduction and sex now happen in venues like clubs and bars instead of woods and caves. But if you go to such places, you can still scientifically observe male-female interactions, alpha male behavior vs beta male behavior etc. That wallflower who's standing there with his drink to his chest doesn't get laid today, just as he wouldn't get laid 200K years ago. That high-energy alpha who drives women crazy for sex and leads his social group would also be the leader of his tribe in the past. Nothing has changed. All the alpha beta stuff is little more than how people prop up their generalizations. Go to those same places and you will find people who define success differently than the average standard and people who fit neither and either alpha and beta. I live it everyday successfully. I'm sure most people do. They just accept the stereotypes with lazy observations because it is assuring to pretend they've got life and people "figured out". Baaa! Baaaaaaaa! Good sheep!
Surfer Dude Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 Sally, evolution has nothing to do with knowledge. Biologically, we are the same people. We just have science and knowledge at our disposal now... which came at a very huge price. And we have society. Those are the only differences. Hardwiring is exactly the same. Remove societal programming and you'd be left with the same instincts that would govern your behavior. And yes, women don't need provider/protector anymore. Security (physical, material, financial) is so easy to obtain these days that marriage is becoming completely obsolete. Perhaps that's why I don't put much stock into it. And I'm not a fan of business contracts that try to control people's behavior. Some say that beta-males invented marriage to prevent alphas from having all the chicks and so that they can treat women like their material possessions. In fact, it's men who are scared ****less these days of being left alone while their wife is screwing the shirtless pool boy. Serves them right for establishing such a stupid system. haha! Oh well... But I believe people will get wise someday and reject these nonsense conventions and the way of the nature will fall back into it's place. It's getting late here... Ladies and gents, it's been lovely exchanging opinions with you. It's very educational Good night
samspade Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 Not anymore. Since these things do not hold true (because we've evolved PAST that) it would be a sound move for men to evolve away a bit from their promiscuous standards of the past. These aren't things that change so drastically within a 50 or 100 year period. While it's true that women are more financially independent than ever, that's not going to undo the biological hard wiring. We obviously HAVEN'T evolved past any of this, or women who have settled down with one man wouldn't feel the urge to mate (cheat) with another. Whatever the rationale in her mind, the biological imperative is for her to seek better genes for her offspring. Similarly, the biological imperative for men is to spread their seed as much as possible. Most people with a middle school education know this, but the vast majority of people choose to delude themselves into thinking there is a "soul mate" out there. Sounds to me like you don't understand women. What many of us say, we do want. Come on, Trial by Fire. You and I both know you could fill volumes of books with the disparity between what a woman says she wants and what she actually wants. Just look around on Loveshack and you'll find plenty of evidence. But if you don't believe me, go to a battered women's shelter. How many women tell their friends they want to date men who physically endanger them to within an inch of their lives? Yet they're out there, legions of women who date - and actually stay with - men who abuse them physically and verbally. That's to say nothing of the millions of Western women who claim they want a "nice, sweet guy" and turn around and date one jerk after another (another common theme in these pages). Or, for a third example, try the Second Chances forum, and you'll find plenty of women who tell guys "go try and win her back" after the poor sap's been dumped; these women would throw up in their mouths if their ex boyfriends (whom they dumped) tried the same. No absolutes, plenty of exceptions, but that's the norm, and it's why I advise men to seek advice about women from men who are successful with women. And it's not that I believe women are being deceitful or duplicitious. I think they're usually answering forthrightly, but I believe that there is still a gap between what they say and what they do (and I accept it and work within it).
samspade Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 But if you don't believe me, go to a battered women's shelter. How many women tell their friends they want to date men who physically endanger them to within an inch of their lives? Yet they're out there, legions of women who date - and actually stay with - men who abuse them physically and verbally. It's sad that I even have to say this preemptively, but I'm not saying that women actually want to be abused. I'm saying that a woman would say the opposite - "I'd never date/put up with a guy like that" - but still do it. Just to clarify before the hounds of hell come after me.
D-Lish Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 I know lots of men that say they never want to get married- say that they want to live a life of freedom, full of sex and adventure and whatever else that comes their way. I say great for recognizing it and doing what you want. Just because society paints this picture that you have to get married, have 2.5 kids and a white picket fence doesn't mean you are nuts if you don't choose that path. Not all guys want to live this lifestyle- I know lots of guys that want to settle down and get married, have children, etc. I think if you're a woman that wants a settled lifestyle- just stay away from the guys that say they don't want to get married or settle down. The genuine guys will be upfront about it, they'll continue to be upfront about it. I don't mind guys like that at all. I do think that most people will get bored with having sex with the same person for the rest of their life. I think that is unavoidable.
Sam Spade Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 Basically, in the face of the *extreme un-likelihood* of ending up with a truly loyal woman and in a relationship based on true intimacy, the life of a playboy definitely wins by a wide margin . But, given that it entails expending energy and effort I personally am not willing to invest in it (where I live anyway), I choose the middle way of settling with a woman to raise a family; while doing this, I'll be prepared for the worst (while always hoping for the best, of course). I'll do my part, hopefuly she'll do hers. If not, off to the curb she goes, and I make do with whatever's left of my life, which I'll take preemptive steps to be good enough, with or without her . Another point to consider is that delaying marriage as much as possible probably increases the odds of success. When cupcake begins to sag, she'll be more likely to grasp that what she has is actually pretty good. It sucks to see so many guys marry in their 20's only to see their women hit their prime in their 30's and graduate to a bigger, better deal .
Sam Spade Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 It cracks me up so many people referring to "the society" telling them what to do . Well, guess what - YOU are "the society". Come on now - you think that a secret caset of jews sits somewhere writing the rules for everybody else? As any sociologist worth their keep will explain easily, regulating sexual relations in some form (typically through some form of marriage and family structure) is actually one of the defining (though of course not the only one) characteristics of any form of social organization (i.e. there is a macro-reason why it exists). So all that talk about doing what we've been biologically programmed is a bunch of horseshet, simply because we have *never* done it, ever in any period of the human history. While there is undeniably some sexual liberation in the last 50 years or so (which is of course to be welcomed), this is not evidence fo us regressing to what we've been biologically programmed :rolleyes: to do, but the result of the fact that marriage is not quite so integral to the system of production as it used to be. Ironically, precisely social change has led to relaxation of the norms of sexual behavior. So in any case, walking around with the idea that you're somehow "above" society is laudable .
Trialbyfire Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 The never-ending battle of who's lifestyle is better! Do what makes you happy, within reason. Just don't expect that everyone believes your lifestyle is the one they want or consider to be the best! I enjoyed being single. I enjoy being in a happy relationship. I also enjoy the concept of my pending nuptials. I enjoyed being married previous to things hitting the fan, the first go-around. The only constant in all four of these, is me.
Sam Spade Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 One thing that kinda got forgotten in this thread is the being a playboy is Hef's JOB. While the life is glamorous and enviable, duh, he's also actually at work - promoting the whole aspirational life/image, since said aspirations help with the sale of the magazine in question. So, it's not just the fact that he's rich and has lots of chicks (there are plenty of people richer than him that can't or won't live this way). My point is that this type of life looks so much better in my eyes when it is a necessary business expense, so to speak. The Hew as a symbol is such a big part of the Playboy machine that after he dies, I bet they will have some serious soul searching to do (and probably see a dip in sales). As for the rest of us, while I'd love to have a flock of chicks/pussay on call downstairs, that's unrealistic. Or more precisely - I don't think it is justified to expend so much energy on getting laid. It was completely different story in my 20s. But I'm currently 32, and after I turn 35, I'd rather not be seen as someone who has nothing better to do with his life rather than chase skirt. (though of course I won't turn the skirt down if it shows at my doorstep with no effort on my side , and no underwear on their side ). The point is that the whole process of going out, picking up chicks I view as increasingly more trouble than it's worth. Very, very few guys can pull it off without coming as sleezbags - for example, JFK, and it was 50 years ago, or the Hef (for whom it's basically work ).
Woggle Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 Women might be independent but most of them still want to be able to depend on a man. There is a part of them that secretly hates having to do it all. Just look at how many independent ballbusting women who have a secret fantasy of being dominated by a man. They will never admit it but many women want that strong and independent man to take the wheel in a relationship from time to time. Many of these so called liberated women these days are just big balls of stress. Also a woman's word is pretty much worthless when it comes to what women want in a relationship. Women say they want a sensitive and nice guy but look at the type of guys most women go for. I don't abuse women or cheat on them but I am quick to put them in their place of they disrespect me and ever since I developed this attitude I have had success with women. If I wanted to I could seduce a sensitive guy's wife but I never would because I do have scruples.
Surfer Dude Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 Women might be independent but most of them still want to be able to depend on a man. There is a part of them that secretly hates having to do it all. Just look at how many independent ballbusting women who have a secret fantasy of being dominated by a man. They will never admit it but many women want that strong and independent man to take the wheel in a relationship from time to time. Many of these so called liberated women these days are just big balls of stress. Those "liberated" women will always keep busting guy's balls and acting like ice queens, but the truth is that they get really bored with all the nice chumps out there (that they despise so much), and soon they will f*ck the first guy who passes their bull**** and pushes their buttons. IME, many of those women like to be dominated. Also a woman's word is pretty much worthless when it comes to what women want in a relationship. Women say they want a sensitive and nice guy but look at the type of guys most women go for. I don't abuse women or cheat on them but I am quick to put them in their place of they disrespect me and ever since I developed this attitude I have had success with women. If I wanted to I could seduce a sensitive guy's wife but I never would because I do have scruples.Exactly. Well, women want guys who can push their emotional buttons. Even a nice guy can do that. But we all know that "nice guy" means - Lets just be friends guy. Typically a man who can't arouse women through his supplication and putting women on pedestal. Interestingly, many women crave emotional confrontation and excitement because that pushes their buttons. I've found that angry behavior in women is very often linked to sex states. That's why angry woman is often a horny woman who just needs sex. Some women don't know how to express their horniness, so they act bitchy in hope a guy will come who can call them out on their BS and lay them. Ever seen a woman starting a nonsense massive drama (that guys hate so much), and the guy gets pissed off and sh*t hits the fan and doesn't recognize that the chick is just horny. Women get bored, just as men... but unlike men, they don't crave variety of partners to the same degree... they need emotional stimulation from the strongest guy (a guy who will put them in their place when they start being bitches). It's sort of an evolutionary mechanism to ensure that the woman always spends time with the strongest guy. Of course, there's a fine line between total disrespect and those minor tests. So called "sh*t tests" are part of the package with most women and they constitute feminine behavior. But when that goes overboard and a woman will not calm down, it's time to call quits.
Woggle Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 I truly have no tolerance for the tests women like to throw at men. If she doesn't know by now what kind of man I am then she will never get it. I truly hate games and emotional and if you ask me anybody that gets off on drama has some serious issues. I worked hard to finally escape the drama that I had in my life so why would I want to invite it back in? These ballbusting women usually fall for the man who will stand up to them and put them in their place but most real men are looking for more softer and loving women. Unless they are willing to soften up themselves the strong alpha man they crave is out of reach and they are utterly turned off by the spineless doormats they attract. This is why so many so called liberated women end up so unlucky in love.
Surfer Dude Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 These ballbusting women usually fall for the man who will stand up to them and put them in their place but most real men are looking for more softer and loving women. Yes. Having the skills and knowledge about dealing with that type of woman is useful, but I'd also rather spend time with more feminine, loving women. We always have a choice.
Woggle Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 Yes. Having the skills and knowledge about dealing with that type of woman is useful, but I'd also rather spend time with more feminine, loving women. We always have a choice. Exactly. Why put the effort into taming a shrew when I already have a beautiful gem in my life? Plus the shrew always has to be tamed. It is a constant effort to keep up her respect level for you and it just gets exhausting. I would rather have a woman who loves me because I treat her right.
Lyssa Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 I truly have no tolerance for the tests women like to throw at men. If she doesn't know by now what kind of man I am then she will never get it. I truly hate games and emotional and if you ask me anybody that gets off on drama has some serious issues. First time ever that I agree with you, Woggle. I too, do not understand why some people thrive on playing games. It's a waste of time and I usually discard those who play games with me.
Surfer Dude Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 First time ever that I agree with you, Woggle. I too, do not understand why some people thrive on playing games. It's a waste of time and I usually discard those who play games with me. Because some women (and perhaps men) seek emotional stimulation through confrontation. It has to do with horniness that they don't know how to express. Ever seen those old movies from the 50s? Like, a woman starts yelling and throwing stuff at Clark Gable, slaps him... he slaps her back, they make out and have hot passionate sex. I'm not saying we should be hitting people, but you get the point. Confrontation is what some people desire.
Recommended Posts