Author mr.dream merchant Posted September 1, 2011 Author Posted September 1, 2011 You are "high" on the art of seduction. You can do it. It's fun. But it's like a drug and can be a very slippery slope. Why don't you tone it down for a while? You know what it is you do to seduce. So just stop it for a while and get off the high. Hmmmm...,it is fun, I can't. I'm good at making them smile and blush, sometimes it just happens as if it is just my personality to be like that with women. All the women at my job love me except for the two resident sluts who I don't pay any mind. Funny enough they're upset with me because I don't speak to them, lol what whores.
dreamingoftigers Posted September 1, 2011 Posted September 1, 2011 If the genders were reversed the women in this thread would be cheering this behavior and calling it empowered while telling any man that takes issue with it that he is bitter and insecure. I am not cheering it but I understand why it happens. I don't condone drug dealing or crime either but I see why conditions push people into doing it. The same applies here. Oh for the love of God. Name the women in this thread who would cheer it on. Seriously, I am curious who would champion this type of "empowerment."
Woggle Posted September 1, 2011 Posted September 1, 2011 Oh for the love of God. Name the women in this thread who would cheer it on. Seriously, I am curious who would champion this type of "empowerment." There have been a few posters and I used to work with two women who high fived each other about their cheating.
Disenchantedly Yours Posted September 1, 2011 Posted September 1, 2011 I don't justify but I want to see men who do the right thing being treated better. And doing it on a thread where we have a man that clearly doesn't treat women with makes sense how? You want to see men treated better? Fantastic. Stand up for that. But not on a thread where a man is treating women like dirt. This makes you more aligned with his kind then the good kind of man we need more of.
Disenchantedly Yours Posted September 1, 2011 Posted September 1, 2011 Hmmmm...,it is fun, I can't. I'm good at making them smile and blush, sometimes it just happens as if it is just my personality to be like that with women. All the women at my job love me except for the two resident sluts who I don't pay any mind. Funny enough they're upset with me because I don't speak to them, lol what whores. And then unicorns came down from a rainbow and crapped gold coins all over my parent's home..that I still live in..because even though I have a job...I still live at home. Sincerely, Dream Merchant
dreamingoftigers Posted September 1, 2011 Posted September 1, 2011 There have been a few posters and I used to work with two women who high fived each other about their cheating. You mentioned the women in this thread would be cheering this behaviour on, which ones? Which women that posted in this thread would cheer this behaviour on if it was a woman doing it? If the women at your work haven't posted in this thread, they aren't part of the answer to the question. PM them if you need.
dasein Posted September 1, 2011 Posted September 1, 2011 But not on a thread where a man is treating women like dirt. 1. There are exactly two women referred to in this thread (unless I missed some). 2. One of them is a woman who willingly has sex with OP... AT WORK, not exactly a late night, boozed up, reduced inhibition environment. How in even any bizarro dimension is that considered "mistreatment" or "treating women like dirt" without more information? If you heard that some dude and gal at YOUR WORK were having sex in the copy room, would you a) laugh about it? b) talk to a lawyer about suing the company for hostile work environment? or c) take up the woman's cause in a knee-jerk fashion and start waving the banner of "mistreatment" and "using?" That's of course rhetorical, I know none of the bashers will answer that honestly. 3. The other woman is someone he met on POF. She has sex with OP on the FIRST DATE, with little hesitation, OP doesn't even mention her protesting or offering an objection of any kind. Now is it more likely that she has lots of first date sex? or that OP used his hypno ray to use, abuse and then toss her aside? Is it more likely that she herself uses POF to set up NSA sex? or that she just left the convent and is walking wide-eyed through the big bad city? And here's the rhetorical question: If an acquaintance of yours got on POF, and went out on a date, had sex with no hesitation, then came to YOU and complained to YOU that they had been used and abused, would you a) laugh in their face and call them a dumbass? or b) go into a seething ranting fit about how that "sociopathic" "dirty lying ass" "waste of skin" should be castrated? 4. Before these TWO women, OP says he hasn't had sex for SEVERAL MONTHS. Here's rhetorical question number 3: What % chance do you think represents the fair likelihood that it has been SEVERAL MONTHS since either of the two women in the thread have had sex? Don't bother rationalizing answers to these questions, and I know none of the raving bashers will answer them honestly, they truly are rhetorical.
Disenchantedly Yours Posted September 1, 2011 Posted September 1, 2011 1. There are exactly two women referred to in this thread (unless I missed some). It doesn't matter if it's 1, 2,3 or 50. Someone can treat one person with disrespect or 50 right? 2. One of them is a woman who willingly has sex with OP... AT WORK, not exactly a late night, boozed up, reduced inhibition environment. How in even any bizarro dimension is that considered "mistreatment" or "treating women like dirt" without more information? It's not the sex at work that bothers me. It's the way he pays compliments to these women faces, makes them feel good, but talks about them badly behind their backs, even though he engaged in the same exact behavior they did. This is somehing 12 year old girls do. Not grown men. I'm not even saying he has to have long term relatoinships with them. But his ideology on sex and women is clearly deranged. If you heard that some dude and gal at YOUR WORK were having sex in the copy room, would you a) laugh about it? b) talk to a lawyer about suing the company for hostile work environment? or c) take up the woman's cause in a knee-jerk fashion and start waving the banner of "mistreatment" and "using?" That's of course rhetorical, I know none of the bashers will answer that honestly. It's rhetorical because you know you won't like the answer you get. Not because of some idea about how *you* are the honest one here and no one else is. To answer your "rhetorical" question is A. I would laugh about it. Again, it's not the sex in the copy room that construes as "mistreatment". It's his attitude about these women for doing the same things he is doing and the way he talks to them nicely to their face but badly behind their backs. If two adults agree to non committed sex, more power to them. If one adult manipulates their level of interest in the other to get something out of the other, which is what the OP is doing, it's shoddy. 3. The other woman is someone he met on POF. She has sex with OP on the FIRST DATE, with little hesitation, OP doesn't even mention her protesting or offering an objection of any kind. Now is it more likely that she has lots of first date sex? Couldn't that same judgement be placed on him? He had sex with soemone he met on POF, on the FIRST DATE, with little hesitation, He didn't protest or offer an objection to it. Now is it more likely that he has had lots of sex on first dates? If your rational works for her, it works for him to no? But earlier you stressed how he only had sex with two women in a several month time span. Couldn't that also be true for this girl? Maybe this was the first date she had sex on ever because she was really attracted to him. Why punish her for the same behavior he is ENGAGING in. You're own "logic" doesn't even make sense. ..or that OP used his hypno ray to use, abuse and then toss her aside? Clearly that's what the OP is doing. He isn't just talking about having a good time and having sex with a matual partner that knows the deal. He is manipulating women into feeling good and safe with them and once they give him what he wants, he starts talking badly about them. He's mentally and emotionally abusing these girls. Infact, this is classic signs of an abuser. 4. Before these TWO women, OP says he hasn't had sex for SEVERAL MONTHS. But he had sex on the FIRST DATE! Lets throw your question back to you regarding this. You said: "The other woman is someone he met on POF. She has sex with OP on the FIRST DATE, with little hesitation....Now is it more likely that she has lots of first date sex?" But if the OP had sex on the first date, and hadn't had sex in months..then I guess that's not the best indicator on how many people someone has actually slept with now is it? OWNED. Here's rhetorical question number 3: What % chance do you think represents the fair likelihood that it has been SEVERAL MONTHS since either of the two women in the thread have had sex? Don't bother rationalizing answers to these questions, and I know none of the raving bashers will answer them honestly, they truly are rhetorical. You, like the OP, are placing judgements on the women and their sexual history based on nothing of actual fact. Further, there is no such thing as a rhetorical question on a message board Dasein. If you didn't want answers to these questions, you just shouldn't have asked them in the first place. But since you did, you're gonna get an answer whether you wanted it or not. And we both know you didn't want the answers. You just wanted to be able to state your case without anyone pointing out the flaws in your thinking.
Yellow_Duck'y Posted September 1, 2011 Posted September 1, 2011 It's because you have no emotional attachment or investment in the women you have sex with. Pretty simple, really.
dasein Posted September 1, 2011 Posted September 1, 2011 Someone can treat one person with disrespect or 50 right? Merely having a bad attitude is not mistreating someone. I have a bad attitude about my boss, but none of our interactions could be described as mistreatment by me. Having a problem with OP's attitude is fine, trying to extrapolate that into an imaginary case of him harming the women in the thread is dishonest and ridiculous. It's not the sex at work that bothers me. It's the way he pays compliments to these women faces, makes them feel good, but talks about them badly behind their backs, even though he engaged in the same exact behavior they did. If they are that gullible to spread their legs AT WORK or on a FIRST DATE for a few compliments, he's doing them a service, as they will likely get conned of their life savings by a TV preacher otherwise at that level of stupidity. Isn't it more likely that these women are responding to the guy's looks and they are just as interested in some NSA as he is? And once more, attitudes aren's mistreatment, as long as he isn't verbally insulting these women, he isn't mistreating them. Again, it's not the sex in the copy room that construes as "mistreatment". It's his attitude about these women for doing the same things he is doing and the way he talks to them nicely to their face but badly behind their backs. Neither attitudes nor posting anonymously on an internet forum are mistreatment of anyone. I dislike cops, am posting it here, behind their backs, though when I interact with them I will be polite or even kiss their ass. This causes them to do what I want, which is leave me alone. Does that mean I am mistreating and using cops? If two adults agree to non committed sex, more power to them. If one adult manipulates their level of interest in the other to get something out of the other, which is what the OP is doing, it's shoddy. What's shoddy is assuming that someone who has sex at work or on a first internet date is being lied to mistreated or used merely because they are a woman. What's plain to me is that someone who has sex at work or who has sex with a complete stranger on a first date most likely set out to HAVE SEX from the start. They didn't really have to be manipulated into it. Couldn't that same judgement be placed on him? Thanks for bringing that up. He isn't complaining about being used or mistreated, nor is he describing these women or anyone else as liars, wastes of skin or sociopaths, is he? In fact, the restraint OP shows after being hissed at in the way he has for 20 pages demonstrates to me that he is probably an even tempered, fair minded person. He's also not denying that his attitude is not as he desires, that something is wrong, that he seeks advice. The point of bringing up the women's sex habits and frequency is not to judge them, but to emphasize that people who are having sex at work and on first dates makes it highly unlikely that anything OP is doing to them is "using," "lying," or damaging to them in any way that they aren't seeking out and choosing themselves. In other words, that he is manipulating these women who probably have lots of NSA sex into doing something they weren't seeking already is a specious argument. You missed the entire point. But if the OP had sex on the first date, and hadn't had sex in months..then I guess that's not the best indicator on how many people someone has actually slept with now is it? OWNED. Actually, it demonstrates something I often say here, that men and women are differently situated in seeking sex. A woman can easily have sex at work if she chooses, whenever she wants, as much as she wants, only a tiny percentage of men can. A woman can easily have sex from going on a first date on POF and merely answering an email and showing up. Only a very tiny percentage of men can do this. Fact is, women have more control over when and how often they have sex... for some reason I just don't feel "owned." Women who have sex at work and on first dates likely have lots of sex, would bet on that in any casino in the world. You, like the OP, are placing judgements on the women and their sexual history based on nothing of actual fact. That swooshing sound? flying right over your head? I'm not judging the women at all, because unlike all the bashers in the thread, I know almost nothing about them. All I know is that one of them enjoys having sex at work and the other one enjoys having sex on first dates. Not exactly poster children for making the case that OP lies, manipulates, uses, abuses, or harms women in any way, are they? You just wanted to be able to state your case without anyone pointing out the flaws in your thinking. Actually was hoping to save my self some typing. Didn't work.
Disenchantedly Yours Posted September 1, 2011 Posted September 1, 2011 Merely having a bad attitude is not mistreating someone Ignoring how he is harming these women is dishonest and ridiculous Dasein. We aren’t talking about a simple case of a bad attitude. He doesn't have a bad attitude when he deals with these women face to face. He only has a bad attitude about these women after they give them exactly what he wants. He brags about how he showers them with compliments but comes here and says erroneous things about them. If they are that gullible to spread their legs AT WORK or on a FIRST DATE for a few compliments, he's doing them a service, as they will likely get conned of their life savings by a TV preacher otherwise at that level of stupidity. Isn't it more likely that these women are responding to the guy's looks and they are just as interested in some NSA as he is? And once more, attitudes aren's mistreatment, as long as he isn't verbally insulting these women, he isn't mistreating them. He is verbally insulting these women, he's just doing it behind their back in most cases. Except for the last girl where he did it right to her face. It's very possible that these girls just want causual sex as much as he does. However, all we have to go on is what he says and how he is describing the situation is that of one of an abuser. Again, it's not the casual sex that bothers me. If two adults want causual sex and they both know the game going in, great. If one person is manipulating the other to give them what they want and leaving afterward, that's a different story and I think you're smart enough to see that. Neither attitudes nor posting anonymously on an internet forum are mistreatment of anyone. I dislike cops, am posting it here, behind their backs, though when I interact with them I will be polite or even kiss their ass. This causes them to do what I want, which is leave me alone. Does that mean I am mistreating and using cops? And it's this example that you've just used that tells me you understand enough about the situation and the OP that you agree he is mistreating them. What's shoddy is assuming that someone who has sex at work or on a first internet date is being lied to mistreated or used merely because they are a woman. What's plain to me is that someone who has sex at work or who has sex with a complete stranger on a first date most likely set out to HAVE SEX from the start. They didn't really have to be manipulated into it. On one hand, you state that you can't assume that someone who has sex at work or on a first date is being lied to or mistreated. Then you go on to make an assumption that someone that has sex at work or on a first date set out to have that sex from the start. Which is it? You're contradicting yourself. Thanks for bringing that up. He isn't complaining about being used or mistreated... You're welcome. It was a rather good point wasn't it. As for your comment, because he's doing his best to make sure he maintains the upperhand. Because he is purposely manipulating the situation. .....nor is he describing these women or anyone else as liars, wastes of skin or sociopaths, is he? Yes, actually, he has basically alluded to their lack of worth because they slept with him quickly. In fact, the restraint OP shows after being hissed at in the way he has for 20 pages demonstrates to me that he is probably an even tempered, fair minded person. He's also not denying that his attitude is not as he desires, that something is wrong, that he seeks advice. Restraint? Even tempered? Fair minded? I haven't seen the OP demonstrate any one of these characteristics. Also, where is he seeking advice? I must have missed that part. So far I just see him perversly bragging about how badly he treats women. The point of bringing up the women's sex habits and frequency is not to judge them, but to emphasize that people who are having sex at work and on first dates makes it highly unlikely that anything OP is doing to them is "using," "lying," or damaging to them in any way that they aren't seeking out and choosing themselves. In other words, that he is manipulating these women who probably have lots of NSA sex into doing something they weren't seeking already is a specious argument. You missed the entire point. No, you missed the point entirely. YOU pointed out how the OP hasn't had sex in months and when he did, he only had sex with two women. Now you're going on about how these girls must have loads of partners themselves. You're making assumptions about their sexual lives based on sleeping with him, just as the OP is doing, and you don't make those same judgements on the OP. It's ridiculous. It makes no rational sense. You don't know the history of these women. Neither does it really matter. Just like the OP hasn't slept with a woman for months, and now sleeps with two, you have no idea if the situation isn't somewhat the same for the women that slept with him. I love men that have such low self esteem in themselves that when a woman sleeps with him, he automatically thinks she only did so because she sleeps with everyone. It's funny because he is actually condemning himself. Actually, it demonstrates something I often say here, that men and women are differently situated in seeking sex. A woman can easily have sex at work if she chooses, whenever she wants, as much as she wants, only a tiny percentage of men can. And yet, when studies are done, men are found to have slightly more partners then women. Maybe that was the case 50 years ago, but not so much in 2011. Men and women can both get sex pretty easily. A woman can easily have sex from going on a first date on POF and merely answering an email and showing up. Only a very tiny percentage of men can do this. Nonsense. Men get sex pretty easy in 2011. Fact is, women have more control over when and how often they have sex... for some reason I just don't feel "owned." Women who have sex at work and on first dates likely have lots of sex, would bet on that in any casino in the world. This is a convenant excuse used to exempt men from responsiblity when it comes to sex. Grow-up. Not exactly poster children for making the case that OP lies, manipulates, uses, abuses, or harms women in any way, are they? The fact alone that a woman slept with him isn't. The way he as acted, maniuplated and talked to and about the women are. Actually was hoping to save my self some typing. Didn't work. No, you wanted to state your case and not have anyone challenge your thoughts.
dasein Posted September 1, 2011 Posted September 1, 2011 @ disenchantedly yours, nothing in your post successfully negates anything I said in my last, so will succeed at saving myself some typing this go-round.
Mme. Chaucer Posted September 1, 2011 Posted September 1, 2011 If this fine example of humanity wanted to enjoy casual sex with likeminded women, he wouldn't disparage the "sluts" and "whores" the way he does. He is specifically interested in "targeting" women who he can trick into thinking there is potential for more than a f*** and then dumping on them. And then bragging about it. Yuck. It's the behavior of a loser. I'm surprised that there is anyone with a brain and consciousness who bothers to defend the behavior. If you guys who are defending it actually do have a brain (I think you do, since you can write sentences and paragraphs) and consciousness. Treating people badly on purpose in order to feel better about yourself, whether you do it to members of the opposite sex, different races than your own, different sexual orientations or religions, is LOW behavior and it is not defensible. The privileges of love, joy and contentment belong to those who believe that it it their DUTY and RESPONSIBILITY to treat other people with respect.
dreamingoftigers Posted September 1, 2011 Posted September 1, 2011 @ disenchantedly yours, nothing in your post successfully negates anything I said in my last, so will succeed at saving myself some typing this go-round. Actually she countered every point pretty nicely. Especially the most obvious point of suggesting a woman's sexual history must be very active because of the fact that she "did drop her panties" on a first encounter. Yet he hasn't been all over legions of women "all the way" for months prior. Simply because he's a guy he would have fewer chances at it? Clearly he had the ability to get it twice within a short time-span. (which is pretty disgusting IMHO). So perhaps his gender isn't much of an obstacle to him getting sex. Just as the female in the situation (not the coworker) could have figured that OP was a generally nice guy and that she finally gave in to scratching an itch after months of online dating where she found no one else particularly appealing. Whereas her behaviour IMHO is pretty short-sighted in regards to having any self-respect, she doesn't deserve to be represented as an old rag.
Woggle Posted September 1, 2011 Posted September 1, 2011 You mentioned the women in this thread would be cheering this behaviour on, which ones? Which women that posted in this thread would cheer this behaviour on if it was a woman doing it? If the women at your work haven't posted in this thread, they aren't part of the answer to the question. PM them if you need. Nobody in this thread but I am imagining what the responses would be if the genders were reversed. I don't condone what he is doing and it is wrong. I will say that much but if women want good men they should be better to the good ones who do respect women and treat them well.
Memphis Raines Posted September 1, 2011 Posted September 1, 2011 Also, it's funny how people try to bring me down with personal attacks and what not. Coincidentally, it's the same 4-5 women who've been hounding me my whole damn Loveshack.org career lol. The women didn't enjoy the sex? Come on. My penis is a good bit above average, I'd have to be limp not to hit their G-Spot. Even then...lol.. well considering the Gspot is ony about 2 inches in, well
serial muse Posted September 1, 2011 Posted September 1, 2011 (edited) Because it really is the heart of the disagreement in this thread - and, oddly, has been overlooked by the very person to whom it was made - I will reiterate one of the most salient points that Disenchantedly Yours posted just now (also reiterated by Dreaming of Tigers). It really bears MULTIPLE repetitions. Yes, actually, he has basically alluded to their lack of worth because they slept with him quickly. No, you missed the point entirely. YOU pointed out how the OP hasn't had sex in months and when he did, he only had sex with two women. Now you're going on about how these girls must have loads of partners themselves. You're making assumptions about their sexual lives based on sleeping with him, just as the OP is doing, and you don't make those same judgements on the OP. It's ridiculous. It makes no rational sense. You don't know the history of these women. Neither does it really matter. Just like the OP hasn't slept with a woman for months, and now sleeps with two, you have no idea if the situation isn't somewhat the same for the women that slept with him. I love men that have such low self esteem in themselves that when a woman sleeps with him, he automatically thinks she only did so because she sleeps with everyone. It's funny because he is actually condemning himself. This. Really, just this. I have read other threads that the OP has made, in which he stated very clearly that yes, he thinks a double standard here is reasonable: Women who have sex on the first date are sluts, to him, and men who do it are just gettin' theirs. But to all those who are knee-jerk defending the OP - do you agree with this double-standard too? Can you get out of the gender war for a minute and understand the rational problem here??? Edited September 1, 2011 by serial muse
LoveandSuch Posted September 1, 2011 Posted September 1, 2011 Mr, Merchant has a problem with women in general which leads me to believe his mother may have been a whore. Not necesarily for money just loose and slutty. It is documented in literature men who treat women badly may have had whores as mothers and they have an extreme Love/HateHate relationship with women.
Elysian Powder Posted September 1, 2011 Posted September 1, 2011 Mr, Merchant has a problem with women in general which leads me to believe his mother may have been a whore. Not necesarily for money just loose and slutty. It is documented in literature men who treat women badly may have had whores as mothers and they have an extreme Love/HateHate relationship with women. Or maybe he just spent too much time with college girls.
A O Posted September 1, 2011 Posted September 1, 2011 But to all those who are knee-jerk defending the OP - do you agree with this double-standard too? Can you get out of the gender war for a minute and understand the rational problem here??? This is not about double standards, this is about poor behavior. Behavior exerted by one person - the OP. People who trash others tend to do so because they have a trashy view of themself also. As for casual sex, as long as people are upfront about their intentions then I don't see a problem. .
LoveandSuch Posted September 1, 2011 Posted September 1, 2011 Or maybe he just spent too much time with college girls. Or his mother was an abusive whore. I believe men who have issues with women have issues with their mother. Then it is after they date "the" woman they finally think is a good woman, and she hurts them, and he is again destroyed, this is when he becomes a threat to women.
Elysian Powder Posted September 1, 2011 Posted September 1, 2011 Or his mother was an abusive whore. I believe men who have issues with women have issues with their mother. Then it is after they date "the" woman they finally think is a good woman, and she hurts them, and he is again destroyed, this is when he becomes a threat to women. You got something there. Many of the serial-killers had bad mothers. Although, many of the young men who worship women(white knights, Christian men etc) had too much of a good relationship with their mothers. Balance seems hard to find.
dasein Posted September 1, 2011 Posted September 1, 2011 Thought I'd seen it all on this forum, and now posters are seriously calling another poster's mother a whore because they don't like his attitude. Disgusting.
Elysian Powder Posted September 1, 2011 Posted September 1, 2011 Thought I'd seen it all on this forum, and now posters are seriously calling another poster's mother a whore because they don't like his attitude. Disgusting. Quite so. I've noticed that many posters here have a complete lack of respect for personal points of view. So much for freedom of speech.
Recommended Posts