TheBigQuestion Posted February 24, 2010 Posted February 24, 2010 You're just bitter, and it shows - VERY clearly. These women who do what they want with - what was it? THEIR OWN BODIES? LMFAO!!!! They just haven't wanted to do it with you!!! :lmao: Not necessarily. I've been with numerous women who had less than stellar pasts in this regard and still feel the same way about it that this guy does in general. It applies to both men and women.
donnamaybe Posted February 24, 2010 Posted February 24, 2010 Not necessarily. I've been with numerous women who had less than stellar pasts in this regard and still feel the same way about it that this guy does in general. It applies to both men and women. Not for the guy I was posting to. He thinks men are just born to run around and screw anything that can't run fast enough. Women, on the other hand, are supposed to remain pure for him - JUST for him. I gotta wonder, though... Where do all these "pure" women come from if men are supposed to be allowed to f around with whomever they choose?
TheBigQuestion Posted February 24, 2010 Posted February 24, 2010 True. I mean there are some exceptions I'm sure, but generally the people who have been with way too many other people are usually screwed up in some way or another that could eventually translate into relationship issues.
alphamale Posted February 24, 2010 Posted February 24, 2010 Isn't it perfectly logical for somebody to want to maxmize their odds of having a successful relationship? indeed, but many men don't choose the right mate, instead they go for looks and other superficialities
donnamaybe Posted February 24, 2010 Posted February 24, 2010 True. I mean there are some exceptions I'm sure, but generally the people who have been with way too many other people are usually screwed up in some way or another that could eventually translate into relationship issues. Well, take my oldest sister, for example. She was a VERY "free spirit" even back before the sexual revolution. Had nothing to do with her having self esteem issues or anything else someone may deem a "problem." She just liked men and didn't ascribe to a world where men made the rules not only for themselves, but for women as well. Women, by the way, who earn their own money and pay their own way and don't NEED a man to take care of them. However, there ARE women, and we've all seen them, who look to take a guy - ANY guy - home every time they are out because they need to feel somehow worthy in some way. HUGE difference, and I'm sure we can all see it. Some, however, don't WANT to see it because they view the former type of women like my sister a threat to their masculinity.
TheBigQuestion Posted February 24, 2010 Posted February 24, 2010 Well, take my oldest sister, for example. She was a VERY "free spirit" even back before the sexual revolution. Had nothing to do with her having self esteem issues or anything else someone may deem a "problem." She just liked men and didn't ascribe to a world where men made the rules not only for themselves, but for women as well. Women, by the way, who earn their own money and pay their own way and don't NEED a man to take care of them. However, there ARE women, and we've all seen them, who look to take a guy - ANY guy - home every time they are out because they need to feel somehow worthy in some way. HUGE difference, and I'm sure we can all see it. Some, however, don't WANT to see it because they view the former type of women like my sister a threat to their masculinity. Agreed. I feel like I've dealt with both.
sally4sara Posted February 24, 2010 Posted February 24, 2010 Ok, what if you found out he tortured animals in the PAST. In the past he had a gambling and drug problem.. He abused a child in the PAST. Would his past be relevant? The best indicator of future behavior is the past.. Men typically do care how many guys a woman slept with, as they use this to judge the future with her. Why are we shamed for that? Or else we should all just marry prostitutes and expect them to value sex. And no, it is not the same for women.. Women generally SEEK OUT the same males that other women want.. How many women a man slept with is not something that hurts them at the core, as it does for a man. Men are not the same as women in this regard, at all. It might surprise you to learn that there are people out there that know judgmental folks like you exist while continuing to live their lives how they want and really couldn't give two flips what someone like you thinks of it.
stillafool Posted February 24, 2010 Posted February 24, 2010 If you look around it is obvious that certain women just make better wives and partners than others. They are less likely to cheat, become walkaway wives and are also less likely to grow to resent their men for whatever reason. Men want to maximize the odds that we will have a happy marriage that lasts because we have seen so many of our peers go through nasty divorces or end up in marriages where their wives seem to hate them. Why is it that these men are called sexist, misogynistic and closed minded for simply wanting to avoid the drama that goes with picking the wrong woman? Isn't it perfectly logical for somebody to want to maxmize their odds of having a successful relationship? What makes it obvious about certain women that they would be better wives and where do you find them?
Mr White Posted February 24, 2010 Posted February 24, 2010 Well, take my oldest sister, for example. She was a VERY "free spirit" even back before the sexual revolution. Had nothing to do with her having self esteem issues or anything else someone may deem a "problem." She just liked men and didn't ascribe to a world where men made the rules not only for themselves, but for women as well. Women, by the way, who earn their own money and pay their own way and don't NEED a man to take care of them. However, there ARE women, and we've all seen them, who look to take a guy - ANY guy - home every time they are out because they need to feel somehow worthy in some way. HUGE difference, and I'm sure we can all see it. Some, however, don't WANT to see it because they view the former type of women like my sister a threat to their masculinity. We can tell the difference between the two scenarios above, but the thing is, that it just doesn't matter ==> the final outcome will be the same: the insecure girl will cheat as soon as she feels "down", and the "free spirit" will free-spirit herself away as soon as she begins to feel that she "needs to find herself" (or whatever ). So, regardless of the primary drivers/motivators, past promisquity is perfectly valid reason for concern, and not a bad decision rule. Certainly not the only one, but a pretty important one.
sally4sara Posted February 24, 2010 Posted February 24, 2010 If you look around it is obvious that certain women just make better wives and partners than others. They are less likely to cheat, become walkaway wives and are also less likely to grow to resent their men for whatever reason. Men want to maximize the odds that we will have a happy marriage that lasts because we have seen so many of our peers go through nasty divorces or end up in marriages where their wives seem to hate them. Why is it that these men are called sexist, misogynistic and closed minded for simply wanting to avoid the drama that goes with picking the wrong woman? Isn't it perfectly logical for somebody to want to maxmize their odds of having a successful relationship? People maximizing their odds of a successful marriage is a smart thing to do for both men and women. Taking it slow, making sure to appreciate true compatibility, lost of communication about each other's goals - all these things are the smart route to choosing a spouse. Deciding what one or two people's actions, likes, dislikes, or beliefs apply to anyone who possesses one of those same traits is just a short cut to thinking and a chicken **** play. Thinking like below: Man B liked motocross. Man B liked Limbaugh. Man B liked mashed sweet potatoes. Man B cheated. Anyone who likes motocross, Limbaugh, or mashed sweet potatoes must be a cheater and I will not date anyone who likes these things. This will get you no where as it is faulty thinking.
donnamaybe Posted February 24, 2010 Posted February 24, 2010 We can tell the difference between the two scenarios above, but the thing is, that it just doesn't matter ==> the final outcome will be the same: the insecure girl will cheat as soon as she feels "down", and the "free spirit" will free-spirit herself away as soon as she begins to feel that she "needs to find herself" (or whatever ). So, regardless of the primary drivers/motivators, past promisquity is perfectly valid reason for concern, and not a bad decision rule. Certainly not the only one, but a pretty important one. So then, judging by YOUR scenario, any man who has been with a number of women will either cheat or leave. By the way, my sister has been happily and FAITHFULLY married for over 25 years.
Mr White Posted February 24, 2010 Posted February 24, 2010 So then, judging by YOUR scenario, any man who has been with a number of women will either cheat or leave. By the way, my sister has been happily and FAITHFULLY married for over 25 years. Yep, quite possible. The key, in regard to either gender, is not a magical "treshold" number, but what's the pattern, combined with whatever the actual number is. 15 onss is way too much. 15 onss within a year or two is ridiculous. 15 lays over a period of 20 years, some in rels, some ons, chances are most people would be okay with that. 2 lays but in relationships left for frivolous or no reasons at all can be just as strong indicator for future cheating.
Mr White Posted February 24, 2010 Posted February 24, 2010 Man B liked motocross. Man B liked Limbaugh. Man B liked mashed sweet potatoes. Man B cheated. Anyone who likes motocross, Limbaugh, or mashed sweet potatoes must be a cheater and I will not date anyone who likes these things. This will get you no where as it is faulty thinking. Well, it's actually true: the deep conservative South (where the above pleasures are the main pasttime for both men and women) also has the highest divorce rate in the country.
donnamaybe Posted February 24, 2010 Posted February 24, 2010 Well, it's actually true: the deep conservative South (where the above pleasures are the main pasttime for both men and women) also has the highest divorce rate in the country. You obviously missed the point.
sally4sara Posted February 24, 2010 Posted February 24, 2010 Well, it's actually true: the deep conservative South (where the above pleasures are the main pasttime for both men and women) also has the highest divorce rate in the country. As you like then. I hope it gets you the husband you seek.
carhill Posted February 24, 2010 Posted February 24, 2010 What makes it obvious about certain women that they would be better wives and where do you find them? Wog's, since you have identified your current wife as a good woman and wife, would you say that she tends to align herself with other like-minded women? How would you characterize her group of female friends, both married and single? I'm thinking this is one way to 'find them', through friendships/associations with women whom we see in action to be 'wife material'. What are your thoughts on that as an aspect of protection? As to the how, I watch the actions of healthy married couples to identify actions in both partners which facilitate that health. I can see signs, as a man, where I went wrong in my role, as well as where my people-picker was misaligned. The most notable and obvious sign, markedly missing in my M, was a woman who was proactively interested in me; not situationally nor in response to talk but sincerely and obviously. My mistake was being too 'outside myself' , too interested, a trait which evidently a certain subset of women find unattractive in men. This also, in practice, clouded my perception of proactive mutual interest. Just one example of many. Interestingly, the vast majority women I've known who personify such simple traits have been married for a long time and are 'low numbers', simply as a caculation of their decades of marriage. Not an endictment but rather an observation of one person's reality. I'm thinking I really need to network with them a bit more
The Paper Knight Posted February 25, 2010 Posted February 25, 2010 Yep, quite possible. The key, in regard to either gender, is not a magical "treshold" number, but what's the pattern, combined with whatever the actual number is. 15 onss is way too much. 15 onss within a year or two is ridiculous.. Well i am ****ed then, lucky you guys don't know who I am The zipless **** is absolutely pure. It is free of ulterior motives. There is no power game . The man is not "taking" and the woman is not "giving." No one is attempting to cuckold a husband or humiliate a wife. No one is trying to prove anything or get anything out of anyone. The zipless **** is the purest thing there is. And it is rarer than the unicorn. And I have never had one. – Erica Jong, Fear of Flying (1973)
Author Woggle Posted February 25, 2010 Author Posted February 25, 2010 Nobody knows for sure but if a man is observant he can spot what a woman is about before he makes the commitment. You have to read between the lines with women. If she cheated on her ex chances she will cheat on you and if she was a walkaway wife in her first marriage chances are she will repeat history. Also a woman who has a history of dumping men that treat her well will also dump you. I don't begrudge a woman having her wild days but the line between a so called free spirit and a cheater is a very thin one. Most of these women tend to have feminist views and a man only marries a feminist if he likes suffering.
alphamale Posted February 25, 2010 Posted February 25, 2010 Most of these women tend to have feminist views and a man only marries a feminist if he likes suffering. yea my ex wife from 15 yrs ago was a femi-nazi and boy did i suffer
Author Woggle Posted February 25, 2010 Author Posted February 25, 2010 yea my ex wife from 15 yrs ago was a femi-nazi and boy did i suffer I have yet to meet a man who married a feminist and had it turn out well.
alphamale Posted February 25, 2010 Posted February 25, 2010 I have yet to meet a man who married a feminist and had it turn out well. its ok i've gotten my revenge on countless unsuspecting women since then
sally4sara Posted February 25, 2010 Posted February 25, 2010 -Nobody knows for sure but if a woman is observant she can spot what a man is about before she makes the commitment. You have to read between the lines with men. If he cheated on his ex chances he will cheat on you and if he was a walkaway husband in his first marriage chances are he will repeat history. Also a man who has a history of dumping women that treat him well will also dump you. I don't begrudge a man having his wild days but the line between a so called free spirit and a cheater is a very thin one. Most of these men tend to have self serving views and a woman only marries a self serving man if she likes suffering.- This was a hard one Woggle because I am able to recognize that feminism is simply to pursuit of equality rather than misandry. I'll explain it, oohhhh for the 100th time. What you describe as feminism is really a person who is only out for their own gain and thinks it requires the denigration of one gender to get it. A self serving person isn't about promoting equality for anyone. The women you're talking about when you're talking about feminism are not doing what they do for the promotion of equality or even the promotion of women everywhere, they are broken inside and on permanent, hyper self preservation mode. They've been hurt by some man or some men and are always seeing men as perpetrators against women because of it. Sound like anyone YOU know?
spinster Posted February 25, 2010 Posted February 25, 2010 Man, everyone has a different definition of "feminist". This is a big problem I see all the time. Feminism = man and woman equal in every way, no ands, ifs or butts vs. Feminism = man and woman equal but different in certain biological/sociological ways vs. Feminism = man has kept woman down for too long, time for revenge and justice, and/or women are superior, men should be cut up yet should still cater to woman and see how great we are no matter what. I subscribe to the 2nd one.
Author Woggle Posted February 25, 2010 Author Posted February 25, 2010 Man, everyone has a different definition of "feminist". This is a big problem I see all the time. Feminism = man and woman equal in every way, no ands, ifs or butts vs. Feminism = man and woman equal but different in certain biological/sociological ways vs. Feminism = man has kept woman down for too long, time for revenge and justice, and/or women are superior, men should be cut up yet should still cater to woman and see how great we are no matter what. I subscribe to the 2nd one. I believe that most women subscribe to the third one.
sally4sara Posted February 25, 2010 Posted February 25, 2010 I believe that most women subscribe to the third one. You don't know most women so why do you believe this? All you ever do in these threads is describe yourself and then talk about how people (women) who act like this are slime.
Recommended Posts