HomeHome  CalendarCalendar  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlist  UsergroupsUsergroups  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share | 
 

 The Hazards of Online Dating

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
AuthorMessage
SAI2



Posts : 240
Join date : 2013-11-08

PostSubject: Re: The Hazards of Online Dating   Sun Jan 05, 2014 10:04 am

Jenni wrote:
needed: method by which to determine a level of respect a man has for agreeing to her terms not just his

One method, yes.

Jenni wrote:
Ok, so what you are actually asking me to agree with there is that testing to see how long a man can hold out, his willpower, is my (as a woman) best tool to find out if he can be those four things there that it's been decided that I want.

... is one tool; might be the best tool or might not. Depends. Also, it's four things a hypothetical woman might want. There are women who want this. My friend being just one of what appears to be many... if sites like Match and POF are to be relied upon.

Jenni wrote:
If his need is sex and her terms include faithful and committed, then aren't we talking a will power situation? He has to stop himself from seeking something that only he wants or at least places great importance upon in exchange for committing to be with this person for a long time with the promise of sex. It's almost a annuity distribution of the sex lottery isn't it? You don't get as much but it's guaranteed for life. (supposedly)

What does this mean? Do you think that willpower is the key to the relationship? I hate to infer something- I don't mean to. Tell me where I've broken it down wrong, please. Because to me that's what it looks like you just said.

Willpower is one way of putting it. I'll defer to NoCo's response which is in my view clear and accurate.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Jenni
Admin
avatar

Posts : 1166
Join date : 2013-01-16
Location : Jackson, MS

PostSubject: Re: The Hazards of Online Dating   Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:17 pm

Richard09 wrote:
Funny you should mention that. In England, you could find machines selling condoms in pub bathrooms, so if your date was unexpectedly going well you weren't desperate for an all-night drug store. I don't think I've ever seen that in an American bar.
Now, that's a damn good idea!

SAI2 wrote:
Well, men cannot assume that women other than yourself will have the same attitude, though I'm sure they might like that. So it is either hit or miss - and more often than not it is grounds for sexual harrassment for a male to make such an assumption with any woman.
I agree, it's hit and miss with men too. I have gotten turned down. Often.  No 

SAI2 wrote:
That is the most awesome paragraph I think you have ever written.
Thanks, but all it is is truth. I think a lot more women think very close to that than we know. I think even more women might think like that given the freedom to even go there. But... I have been wrong.

SAI2 wrote:
Er, yeah.
Further research has proven that they are indeed sort of ripping the men off. You spend credits to talk to a woman but if the woman is a fake profile that's not cool. I don't like that. But I'm not shocked that bad. We really, really overpay for sex toys here. There have been periods of time where the city council made them stop selling them. They know they can overcharge and cheap people because it's related to sex. What guy is going to out himself by suing or complaining?  Evil or Very Mad 

SAI2 wrote:
I do.... but, I interpreted your pov as just that - your pov. Not that I am doubting your learning or experience. I'm just trying to be, uh... agnostic about all this.
Well, yeah, but if I'm saying this is a long term pattern and you are saying but I have observed this in my life that's sort of like people who think there isn't global warming because it's really freaking cold here right now. I mean we are both right, there is global warming and it is fucking cold, I'm just disagreeing with the way your putting it together I think.

And maybe agnostic is the problem. I think this is not really neutral, subjective territory. We had the babies, we couldn't have done it all, we needed men and men wanted the children to be theirs if they had to feed them, and wanted them to help with stuff. So to me the power has always been in the hands of the strong men who rule. Maybe back then they were worthy and they kept their people safe? Maybe they were the same douchebags who sit in congress and decide we don't need the right to abortion after 20 weeks. Idk but there was a definite, objective, hierarchy that set the tone long term.  

SAI2 wrote:
I can and do honestly say women are distinctly different with regard to sex, than men. In my experience they seem, at least on the outside, less interested in sex for sex's sake, with no strings attached, for a majority of their lives...

I do believe that, generally speaking, males are far more hungry and desirous for sex than females. I could very well be wrong about that and probably am. I just haven't heard or read anything that has convinced me otherwise. This is not to say that women don't have their phases, or moments. But overall, over the entire course of the average males or females life...

I would love however to see some female made porn... is there such a thing as feminist porn? Who'da thunk it...?
http://erikalust.com/  That's a good start. Arrowsmith does more hardcore stuff than Lust does.
There is female made porn.
Yes, it struggles. But what new venture doesn't. To me that too speaks to how many women start doing something as soon as it's acceptable. We certainly moved from cucumbers to vibrators fine didn't we? If were interested then why wouldn't we be now? I think all this is a form of prejudice. Sex has long been for men, porn has been by men for men, we haven't had anything worth showing up for. Compare vibrators. The rabbit for example started as a Japanese thing that looked like a rabbit back in 81. I was 7. Today, the one I have is one of 6 million sold. I'm telling you we haven't been given a chance. That 6 million is only first world women. Second and third world men are sex consumers, the women aren't. Give them just even the level of freedom I have and see what happens. Never mind what would happen if you raised the bar for all and really stripped sex of its consequences- or at least the unfair distribution of the burden of them.

And see you admit it's reasonable. So why is it so hard to believe that what you have experienced is a well constructed illusion made necessary by shit you and the women who are doing that dance never had anything to do with? Everybody just goes along because everybody has gone along. It doesn't mean that's how they actually feel if the choice were really theirs.

SAI2 wrote:
You have no argument from me here.
Then how come you get a different conclusion. I don't see where I'm losing you.

SAI2 wrote:
Waiting is wise if you are a woman who desires a faithful loving serious commited relationship, and you are well aware of how likely it is that most men will want only sex and tell you anything you want to hear to get sex. I don't see that tactic as being dumbass. It simply is one way of determining whether the man might desire, and yes.... respect you enough, to meet you when you are ready to give it up on her terms, or on mutual terms, and not just his terms.

For young women in particular... maybe not so much more seasoned and experienced women
.See, that sounds like preachin' there. That sounds like some shit religious men tell all the women and they try to raise us with because for some reason men have come to pride virginity. When I was younger even my friends at that age only cared about virginity in so much as they didn't want negative sex consequences. Never did I have a girlfriend articulate how being a virgin made her personally better off. It's just what you are supposed to do, so you do. For the same reason you don't try drugs. But then, of course some do. And much like with pot once you try it and nothing bad happens there you are. You keep doing it. Which is why older women don't freak out about sex as much. We've been experienced as Hendrix says, we know nobody is going to come and drag us away because we had an orgasm. Least not yet.  Rolling Eyes 

SAI2 wrote:
If you or any women walked up to male strangers randomly I'm willing to bet any amount that you would all get laid far more than males conducting the same random experiment would. In point of fact most males would be arrested after a certain period of lack of success.

... and no women would be arrested.

Any males who would complain are likely just afraid what might happen if they agreed to go with you... like it would be too good to be true. It would have little if anything to do with their societal conditioning (well, excepting the devoutly religious, etc...)

Of course, I am assuming we are discussing western culture.
lol Depends on if we did in the Castro, eh?

But women are arrested over sex. Carry a condom in some cities and you are subject to arrest for prostitution. I just don't think the scale is as tipped as you think it is. Yes, men would respond better but again, conditioning. Or at least that's what I think.  

Useless anecdote: Best boyfriend I could have had at the time was a guy who walked up to me and said "I want your sex" right about the time George Michael had that song out. That was my first contact with him. We have to be a decent percentage of the population. Women like me can't be labeled outliers when the data has been so corrupted.

I think some of it is reaction to contact with us is weird. I mean we avoid touching and getting in each others space a lot in this part of the world. We accidentally brush someone, we apologize. I think there is a bit of a taboo against just saying what you are thinking like that. Like he did, or like the "experimenters" did. I think some other candid expression or platonic touch would almost be as poorly received. I don't think we do expressions of affection well.  

SAI2 wrote:
I don't buy this entirely... men and women approach sex as a transaction. We all transact, and it isn't just about sex. That has more to do with a business culture of impersonal yet appropriate exchanging of goods and services, without the strings, than anything else. And yes it is even that way when not officially business (as in the sex trade or escort services, etc). Women are no different in that regard.
 IDK. I just do not get the same vibes from women. And in my relationships the female is in the dominant/typically masculine position. By choice or biology. I guess I can agree all human interactions are exchanges on some level. But there is something skeezy men bring to sex that is different that is hard to explain. No, not all men. But enough of them it's a thing.
Maybe I'm wrong in what i have labeled that thing. But I do stand by that it's there more with men. I hear other women try to express it too. "I didn't want him to buy me the drink because I didn't want to feel like I owed him" is a taught/ learned behavior.  

NoCo wrote:
Jennitopia sounds a lot like a bonobo colony.

And that is a good thing, a very good thing.
Yes! The bonobos have it down. You know, except for that lack of running water thing.

SAI2 wrote:
She gets an average of 15 to 20 males contacting her per day. In addition she says, as do many women on these sites, that one major complaint they all have is that men don't pay much attention to profiles.... they are more interested in pictures. I'm just making a point regarding what you said about having to make profiles. It seems many men don't really care much about profiles. .. unless there is a test prior to the sex.
Wow. So robbed.
Let's just say that's not my average in life.  Evil or Very Mad 
But she's right about the lack of profile reading. Guess what? The women don't read them either.

My observations: Men are needy.
N.E.E.D.Y. "What's wrong" "Whatcha thinking" omfg What am I thinking? I'm thinking you're a 12 year old girl, that's what I'm thinking. (ok, sorry...focus. )

NoCo wrote:
Although to be fair, men walking up to random "male strangers" seeking sex would probably get punched in the nose 9 times out of 10 and get a blowjob the 10th
Yeah, that tenth time would really be worth it. Maybe I should have considered that tactic more seriously.  

NoCo wrote:
However, if the gal is sumpin' special and THE ONE, the man will pursue her to the ends of the earth and never take no for an answer.
But what makes her The One. Doesn't that just make it a sick game of you only want what you cant have and no matter how hard he pursues when he gets it's over. All the shine is gone. Unless he's trapped and has to pretend it's still blingy.

And do men not realize pussy is not a pie. Just because she gives that person some doesn't mean there won't be any for you. She won't run out. Promise. What is the deal with having to work so hard for first dibs? I guess that's another conversation.  

SAI2 wrote:
Also, it's four things a hypothetical woman might want. There are women who want this. My friend being just one of what appears to be many.
See, I argue with that too. I think people, not just women, can't fully be trusted to name what they want at all points in their lives. They say what they think they want. For various reasons. We can go into that. And I don't mean to call them out, I don't think people realize it. Hell, I did it too at one time. I think they just get shoved back and forth by stuff they don't know how to shove back on. I just wrote a little deal where I came out as bi to my friends. Part of what I discuss in that was how I think young people coming up get just sort of funneled into hetero-normality. I think some of that also applies here. Feminists have had to fight for girls not to just be funneled into Princesses and happily forever afters and big white gowns. I don't think we have an environment for self realization.

SAI2 wrote:
Willpower is one way of putting it. I'll defer to NoCo's response which is in my view clear and accurate.
Yeeeaaah. I smell willpower. You know that doesn't work, right? Willpower is sort of like a pie and when you spend a lot of it on not fucking the neighbor lady you can't do other shit. Or vice versa.

I think as we let feminism and gay culture influence ours openly and the rest of the people weight in we will see a change in roles and relationships. A man pursing a woman saving herself for Mr Right will soon become a theist only thing and after that slowly die out or become an anomaly. Sort of like we think of asexual people now. Those standards won't apply and people will claim they want other things. They may still not be being honest but it will be different lies.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://unintelligibledebate.forumotion.com
SAI2



Posts : 240
Join date : 2013-11-08

PostSubject: Re: The Hazards of Online Dating   Tue Jan 07, 2014 6:06 pm

Jenni wrote:
And maybe agnostic is the problem. I think this is not really neutral, subjective territory. We had the babies, we couldn't have done it all, we needed men and men wanted the children to be theirs if they had to feed them, and wanted them to help with stuff. So to me the power has always been in the hands of the strong men who rule. Maybe back then they were worthy and they kept their people safe? Maybe they were the same douchebags who sit in congress and decide we don't need the right to abortion after 20 weeks. Idk but there was a definite, objective, hierarchy that set the tone long term.

Jenny, here's the quote you made earlier which provoked me to describe myself as "agnostic" about this stuff.

Jenni wrote:
In the end I think men sort of are gonna have to reap what they've sown for so long before it all sorts itself out. You men, as a culture, have made pussy a commodity to be valued, owned, possessed. So women have grown to almost without thought see sex as something the man has to earn. Which creates a wad of shit for both sexes. In recent years women have taken to policing each other and books like "the Rules" came out urging us to wait to give it up. But it all began with women as commodity. It's just gonna take time.

Whenever I am faced with anyone, male or female, defending the position in the way you did in this paragraph, I feel I must be careful because my back starts to go up. You see, the way I see it, is that yes, the general political consensus that men are responsible for all of the world's and all of women's ills, throughout history, does seem to be a well established assumption. But I feel such feministic attitudes are too simple. Too pat. They don't really resolve the gender divide as much as exacerbate the cavern.

It's just too easy to blame men. I think the truth runs a little deeper than the way you describe. You make it sound as if males all got together and conspired to subjugate women, knowing full well what they were doing. I think males and females were the victims of evolution and other natural forces which made them behave how they did. Ancient males did what they believed they had to do to survive right along with their, yes, THEIR women... because they needed women as much as women needed them. Everyone was ignorant of the more subtle differences of gender. Given mankind's limited knowledge, intelligence, and couple with that superstition, and supernatural belief, it's no wonder they behaved like savages - they WERE god-damned savages, but so was everyone regardless of their gender. Judging males "as a culture" as you put it, but specifically lumping us altogether, modern and past, doesn't address actual causes. It separates and isolates us to be judged and ridiculed as some kind of disease of humanity. To accuse men of subjugating women from a comfortable 21st century position of pretending to know all the conditions which mankind had to endure, without actually having been there or lived through them in their moccasins or whatever, is just not fair. Judge men today, yes. Western men specifically. We should know better. But don't judge us in the context of the entirety of history. Men did what they had to do and thought they were doing the best they could... given the circumstances as they and everyone understood it.

Pussy was a commodity to be valued because men understood in their limited and shallow and disgustingly flawed and sexist ways, that women WERE of value. Survival meant protecting them from kidnapping and rape by others, and loving them in their own pathetic ways too. Protecting these strange creatures whom they desired who had the strange power of being able to give them boners and ejaculate and to provide children... they didn't understand how, but they were frightened and probably in awe of women (though they might not ever admit that). They may have been blind to women's needs, but that does not mean their hearts weren't in the right places. That they didn't do their best as they saw it. If women were forced to adapt to male psychology to get their needs and wants met, that is no less and no more tragic than men having to adapt to what they thought nature, the universe, and their Gods might need or want from them. Males and females just didn't understand and hadn't the capacity to understand each other.

Pussy is a commodity because evolution made us value it that way, and made you as women recognize we valued it that way, so you learned it was a valuable bargaining tool to get what you wanted - your beauty and attractiveness, and whatever you found attractive about us, evolved in coordination with both our desires.

We are the way we are because of you, and you are the way you are because of us. We evolved together and endured. So that thus, we are here, now, arguing about who or what to blame for our gender confusion and current state of human affairs in the world.

Possession was love - in their times and context. We didn't want to lose you, even though we may not have known how to make you totally happy. Males have always wanted to make their women happy... so they in turn could also be happy. So they could be loved. So they could have children, and you could have children. Men want to earn your happiness, it's when they don't or can't seem to make you happy that they become frustrated and violent, and feel dejected and alone.

You see, the problem with blaming males for everything is it's like blaming the psychopath for compulsively murdering... it's just not the cause, the 'why psychopaths murder' and how do we stop this madness. It's a circular argument getting nowhere. Lethal injection and electric chairs don't and will never get rid of psychopaths. It's dirt under the rug. A quick temporary fix, but not the underlying reason for why they exist. So they will be born again and will murder again until the real reasons are discovered for their existence.

Same with males and their natures. They won't go away by accusation, blame, and ridicule. If they had the answers, they'd have spewed them out by now. They don't understand, but neither does anyone else. Perhaps the good, constructive thing about feminist criticism is that it makes everyone and males themselves aware that something is wrong in woman land and that maybe they have something to do with that. It creates introspection and self-examination and self-questioning, which is always good.

... so yeah. That's why I described my position as agnostic. I don't accept the shallow and unthoughtful, sexist, biased, and hateful feminist view of the conundrum known as the man.  

Jenni wrote:
Yes, it struggles. But what new venture doesn't. To me that too speaks to how many women start doing something as soon as it's acceptable. We certainly moved from cucumbers to vibrators fine didn't we? If were interested then why wouldn't we be now? I think all this is a form of prejudice. Sex has long been for men, porn has been by men for men, we haven't had anything worth showing up for. Compare vibrators. The rabbit for example started as a Japanese thing that looked like a rabbit back in 81. I was 7. Today, the one I have is one of 6 million sold. I'm telling you we haven't been given a chance. That 6 million is only first world women. Second and third world men are sex consumers, the women aren't. Give them just even the level of freedom I have and see what happens. Never mind what would happen if you raised the bar for all and really stripped sex of its consequences- or at least the unfair distribution of the burden of them.

I believe a big part of the problem is being resolved by the spread of technology, and the improvement of standards of living everywhere. Oh, those bad old men did something right when they were playing with their stone knives and bear skins, no? That women all have access to cucumbers and vibrators is a testament to that.

Jenni wrote:
And see you admit it's reasonable. So why is it so hard to believe that what you have experienced is a well constructed illusion made necessary by shit you and the women who are doing that dance never had anything to do with? Everybody just goes along because everybody has gone along. It doesn't mean that's how they actually feel if the choice were really theirs.

I agree. I don't understand why you don't understand. I'll wait for you to read my previous points though before I put you over my knee and spank you.

Jenni wrote:
SAI2 wrote:
You have no argument from me here.
Then how come you get a different conclusion. I don't see where I'm losing you.

You will.

Jenni wrote:
SAI2 wrote:
Waiting is wise if you are a woman who desires a faithful loving serious commited relationship, and you are well aware of how likely it is that most men will want only sex and tell you anything you want to hear to get sex. I don't see that tactic as being dumbass. It simply is one way of determining whether the man might desire, and yes.... respect you enough, to meet you when you are ready to give it up on her terms, or on mutual terms, and not just his terms.

For young women in particular... maybe not so much more seasoned and experienced women
.See, that sounds like preachin' there. That sounds like some shit religious men tell all the women and they try to raise us with because for some reason men have come to pride virginity...

But you are reading that into it, because I didn't infer or suggest anything like that. I don't take pride in virginity and I am an atheist, so I don't preach. This tactic of withholding until it is safe and clear to give it up is gender neutral. It can hold for males too.  

Jenni wrote:
I don't think we do expressions of affection well.

That I agree with. 

Jenni wrote:
I guess I can agree all human interactions are exchanges on some level. But there is something sleezy men bring to sex that is different that is hard to explain. No, not all men. But enough of them it's a thing.
Maybe I'm wrong in what i have labeled that thing. But I do stand by that it's there more with men. I hear other women try to express it too. "I didn't want him to buy me the drink because I didn't want to feel like I owed him" is a taught/ learned behavior.

Are you sure it's not something women aren't projecting onto us? Because we are men? I'd really like to know what this sleezy quality is. I suspect it may have something to do with the paying for sex, and not the desire for sex itself. The fact males are paying you for sex makes you feel cheap maybe? Or maybe that's what you think men are always implying by offering you money for your 'services'? That you are not a woman offering a service, but a whore/prostitute? An unfortunate necessary evil that can be used discretely, but then must be thrown away?

Btw, I think that's the only reason why women would be arrested for anything sexual - is the suspicion that you were selling yourselves for money. It's not so much about you asking for sex freely, it's about whether you are making money, or a living off it.

Men otoh can't even ask for sex without potentially getting arrested. So it goes without saying the the arresting of johns to stop prostitution becomes much more convenient than having to argue with sex trade women who are simply trying to make a living 'respectfully' taking advantage of their personal commodities.

Jenni wrote:
SAI2 wrote:
She gets an average of 15 to 20 males contacting her per day. In addition she says, as do many women on these sites, that one major complaint they all have is that men don't pay much attention to profiles.... they are more interested in pictures. I'm just making a point regarding what you said about having to make profiles. It seems many men don't really care much about profiles. .. unless there is a test prior to the sex.
Wow. So robbed.
Let's just say that's not my average in life.  Evil or Very Mad 
But she's right about the lack of profile reading. Guess what? The women don't read them either.

My friend is very good looking. And she knows how to take a good photo of herself. (... but she won't fuck me and that just burns my ass. She wants to be just "friends", ... gag. Whenever I hear that mantra I just want to pull down my pants and say 'friend this'.)

Jenni wrote:
My observations: Men are needy.
N.E.E.D.Y. "What's wrong" "Whatcha thinking" omfg What am I thinking? I'm thinking you're a 12 year old girl, that's what I'm thinking. (ok, sorry...focus. )

We're all fucking needy. We suddenly don't become needy when the person we want to fuck wants to fuck us too. It's usually people who don't want us that call us needy.

If a man asks you questions like that it might be because he can't read you and you aren't giving him enough information to go on. He can't read your mind, it's not that he wants a new mother.  

Jenni wrote:
NoCo wrote:
However, if the gal is sumpin' special and THE ONE, the man will pursue her to the ends of the earth and never take no for an answer.
But what makes her The One. Doesn't that just make it a sick game of you only want what you cant have and no matter how hard he pursues when he gets it's over. All the shine is gone. Unless he's trapped and has to pretend it's still blingy.

I'd like to jump in and just say... The One is elusive, mysterious, and difficult to pin down. The One is usually someone out of ones league and a Goddess by comparison to his lowly, mortal self. The One would likely give him a cardiac arrest if he ever had the chance to have sex with her. The One will know when she has found such a man... and promptly have him charged with stalking and issued with a restraining order. She may have to have him killed.

Needless to say, it is best not to find The One, if you are a man.

Jenni wrote:
And do men not realize pussy is not a pie.

No. An exquisite pie is the perfect analogue. How sweet. How orally sensuous.

Jenni wrote:
Just because she gives that person some doesn't mean there won't be any for you. She won't run out. Promise. What is the deal with having to work so hard for first dibs? I guess that's another conversation.

Double dipping. I always like being the first one into the hummous... otherwise I might find other people's... remains... in there. (just kidding. I don't get it either, Jenni. I think its that possession thing. Territorial instincts and all that.) 

Jenni wrote:
SAI2 wrote:
Also, it's four things a hypothetical woman might want. There are women who want this. My friend being just one of what appears to be many.
See, I argue with that too. I think people, not just women, can't fully be trusted to name what they want at all points in their lives. They say what they think they want. For various reasons. We can go into that. And I don't mean to call them out, I don't think people realize it. Hell, I did it too at one time. I think they just get shoved back and forth by stuff they don't know how to shove back on. I just wrote a little deal where I came out as bi to my friends. Part of what I discuss in that was how I think young people coming up get just sort of funneled into hetero-normality. I think some of that also applies here. Feminists have had to fight for girls not to just be funneled into Princesses and happily forever afters and big white gowns. I don't think we have an environment for self realization.

I agree, actually. That's a very good insight. I read one woman's profile once on POF which said something to the effect, "Alot of men here seem to be honest, ambitious, loving, true, and looking for their soul mate... so where the hell are all the cheaters and liars."

I tried to contact her but she didn't respond.

Jenni wrote:
SAI2 wrote:
Willpower is one way of putting it. I'll defer to NoCo's response which is in my view clear and accurate.
Yeeeaaah. I smell willpower. You know that doesn't work, right? Willpower is sort of like a pie and when you spend a lot of it on not fucking the neighbor lady you can't do other shit. Or vice versa.

I didn't quite grasp that last sentence. Could you clarify what you said there?

Willpower is one aspect, but not the whole. The idea isn't merely a test of his willpower. It is also a test to find out what the man really feels. What his intentions are for her and with her. His expectations of her. It's time to get to know the true character of the man before you fuck him and he loses interest. It's a way of not being taken advantage of. It's a way to determine if the man really knows and cares for you and will treat you with respect and the love that you deserve.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Jenni
Admin
avatar

Posts : 1166
Join date : 2013-01-16
Location : Jackson, MS

PostSubject: Re: The Hazards of Online Dating   Fri Jan 10, 2014 10:10 pm

SAI2 wrote:
Whenever I am faced with anyone, male or female, defending the position in the way you did in this paragraph, I feel I must be careful because my back starts to go up. You see, the way I see it, is that yes, the general political consensus that men are responsible for all of the world's and all of women's ills, throughout history, does seem to be a well established assumption. But I feel such feministic attitudes are too simple. Too pat. They don't really resolve the gender divide as much as exacerbate the cavern.
But to me that sounds like you are just rejecting it because you reject anything you perceive as being the "general consensus." I disagree it's even consensus, but I don't see your labeling of it as simple as an argument against it.

SAI2 wrote:
It's just too easy to blame men. I think the truth runs a little deeper than the way you describe. You make it sound as if males all got together and conspired to subjugate women, knowing full well what they were doing. I think males and females were the victims of evolution and other natural forces which made them behave how they did. Ancient males did what they believed they had to do to survive right along with their, yes, THEIR women... because they needed women as much as women needed them. Everyone was ignorant of the more subtle differences of gender. Given mankind's limited knowledge, intelligence, and couple with that superstition, and supernatural belief, it's no wonder they behaved like savages - they WERE god-damned savages, but so was everyone regardless of their gender. Judging males "as a culture" as you put it, but specifically lumping us altogether, modern and past, doesn't address actual causes. It separates and isolates us to be judged and ridiculed as some kind of disease of humanity. To accuse men of subjugating women from a comfortable 21st century position of pretending to know all the conditions which mankind had to endure, without actually having been there or lived through them in their moccasins or whatever, is just not fair. Judge men today, yes. Western men specifically. We should know better. But don't judge us in the context of the entirety of history. Men did what they had to do and thought they were doing the best they could... given the circumstances as they and everyone understood it.
Again, these are arguments I have made before. I want very much to believe this. Some time ago I did. I could have written that. But...reality shows that nope, circumstances gave males a reason to do what they want to do as it is. Given chances to act better they don't, in large numbers.

I honestly think it has to do with the fact that we really are still animals. We are still those savages. But we agreed to do this society/rights thing. So if you ask me, it's incumbent upon whomever is in charge to make sure that all that stuff we evolved to do that may not be appropriate anymore has a place to go or is at least not legally binding. Men may have had reasons for having their thumbs up our butts in the past but now it's time a concerted effort be made to get them out. That's not happening. While I can accept there are exceptions I just think the numbers are in favor of the men who want to retain caveman like control.

SAI2 wrote:
If they had the answers, they'd have spewed them out by now.
I believe we have seen answers. When women are given rights society improves. Yet, because the numbers are in favor of males who want control there are not many places on the planet we have many rights.

We can argue about intentions all day but in the end it doesn't excuse the dickish behavior just because men in some silly way (bless their hearts) wanted women to be happy. One still has to grow up and have some self awareness and realize hey, I'm a dick, perhaps I'm not expressing this well. It's not like women aren't shouting what we want. We go out and demonstrate for it. We get jailed asking for it. How can you say you don't have the answers?!


SAI2 wrote:
... so yeah. That's why I described my position as agnostic. I don't accept the shallow and unthoughtful, sexist, biased, and hateful feminist view of the conundrum known as the man.  
You don't have to. But that does not change our experience of it. And that gap, that refusal to understand the ubiquitous nature of it is a big problem. I don't know how to bridge it.

SAI2 wrote:
Oh, those bad old men did something right when they were playing with their stone knives and bear skins, no? That women all have access to cucumbers and vibrators is a testament to that.
See? That doesn't sound jackassey? Like it really has to be pointed out that we'd rather have the vote and birth control and freedom to wear pants rather than vibrators? (Assuming you buy that women would not have invented them given the freedom or time.) Oh, and let's completely ignore the male failings that create the market for them to start with! \o.O/

Yeah, I see I just really think you are projecting. You assume the best because you are a decent person and people just aren't like that I don't think. There are just so many advantages to men making women commodities in various ways.

SAI2 wrote:
I'll wait for you to read my previous points though before I put you over my knee and spank you.
Fine, but I still disagree. *holds hands over cheeks* lol

SAI2 wrote:
But you are reading that into it, because I didn't infer or suggest anything like that. I don't take pride in virginity and I am an atheist, so I don't preach. This tactic of withholding until it is safe and clear to give it up is gender neutral. It can hold for males too.  
I just find it suspect. I think it sounds like stuff we've been inculcated to believe when there is not any real data to show that that's the key to a successful dealio, be it marriage or partnership.

SAI2 wrote:
Are you sure it's not something women aren't projecting onto us? Because we are men? I'd really like to know what this sleezy quality is. I suspect it may have something to do with the paying for sex, and not the desire for sex itself. The fact males are paying you for sex makes you feel cheap maybe? Or maybe that's what you think men are always implying by offering you money for your 'services'? That you are not a woman offering a service, but a whore/prostitute? An unfortunate necessary evil that can be used discretely, but then must be thrown away?
No, I'm not sure. As I said, I may not be labeling it correctly. But I do know the act of buying sex does not have to be skeezy but there are plenty of other times that skeezy can happen. Wanda Sykes has a bit where she describes it as Drink Man. It's Quagmire. It's the guy who has no class, no discretion, that you have to fear might film you to show to his buddies or You Tube, god forbid. The guy who may not hear you when you say stop. It reaches far beyond just a direct exchange and any complex feelings about that.

SAI2 wrote:
(... but she won't fuck me and that just burns my ass. She wants to be just "friends", ... gag. Whenever I hear that mantra I just want to pull down my pants and say 'friend this'.)
What can I say, man, I hear ya. I mean, to me friends with sex is what a relationship is. I mean that's how deeper connections start. I don't get it but I too have been friend zoned.

SAI2 wrote:
We're all fucking needy. We suddenly don't become needy when the person we want to fuck wants to fuck us too. It's usually people who don't want us that call us needy.

If a man asks you questions like that it might be because he can't read you and you aren't giving him enough information to go on. He can't read your mind, it's not that he wants a new mother.  
Yeah, and to a point I can take it, because I know that and I've been the needy one. But I'm not a complex person, really.
I think the information age has added to the frenzied nature of it. You text someone and expect an instant answer. Instant gratification and feedback.  
And no one ever really means it. What am I thinking. Oh, oh, seriously. No. No one wants to hear that. Because it's either terribly raunchy, illegal, or expensive. I don't do it any other way and if I tell you anything else it's just small talk. Maybe that's really the problem, I feel people don't invest in each other so I get bristly about much time I put into them. People don't connect, it's heyhowyadoin, finthankyouandyou, and off to the rest of the world. So I get pissed about the amount of time I spend heyhowyadoin' people when I could be actually connecting. I don't even need people to like me, I just want them to feel something. Express something real.

SAI2 wrote:
I'd like to jump in and just say... The One is elusive, mysterious, and difficult to pin down. The One is usually someone out of ones league and a Goddess by comparison to his lowly, mortal self. The One would likely give him a cardiac arrest if he ever had the chance to have sex with her. The One will know when she has found such a man... and promptly have him charged with stalking and issued with a restraining order. She may have to have him killed.

Needless to say, it is best not to find The One, if you are a man.
Wow. You guys have some serious issues with putting pussy on a pedestal. Dude, we can't live up to that. The potential for cardiac arrest during sex is not sexy.

SAI2 wrote:
No. An exquisite pie is the perfect analogue. How sweet. How orally sensuous.
Oh, lord, bad analogy, I've totally lost you now, haven't I? *facepalm*
You know I mean it's a renewable resource. Oh FFS never mind...... Rolling Eyes  fine it's a pie.


SAI2 wrote:
didn't quite grasp that last sentence. Could you clarify what you said there?
Yeah, I bet you didn't; you were distracted by the whole pussy pie thing. Focus, man, focus. lol
Willpower is very much a limited resource. You, your brain, you can only use so much willpower. You can probably find articles on this: http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/willpower-limited-resource.pdf If you spend all your willpower trying not to satisfy urges that you want to satisy then you don't have any for other things. Like not serial killing people, or sticking to your New Years smoking resolution or whatever. The point is, it's a finite resource, what do you do when it runs out?


SAI2 wrote:
It is also a test to find out what the man really feels.
Well, hell if you can get that answer may want to let him know. I know plenty of grown adults that don't know how they feel. Intentions change, expectations change. "Never"s become "maybe"s.
I just reject the paradigm. I reject that you can know a person's true character before you fuck them. I think entropy is a thing in relationships and nothing lasts forever. And there is nothing you can do ahead of time you either want someone or you don't, you either feel something or you don't. You can't create what isn't there and you shouldn't deny what is. You will get hurt. Just like you will fall off a bike. But you will get back up again, too. I just reject the idea that there is this "way to do it right".
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://unintelligibledebate.forumotion.com
NoCoPilot

avatar

Posts : 11194
Join date : 2013-01-16
Age : 63
Location : Seattle

PostSubject: Re: The Hazards of Online Dating   Sat Jan 11, 2014 5:38 am

SAI2 wrote:
They don't really resolve the gender divide as much as exacerbate the cavern.
That's what I do. I exacerbate canyons. I'm a canyon exacerbator. It's what I do, exacerbate canyons.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
richard09

avatar

Posts : 2473
Join date : 2013-01-16

PostSubject: Re: The Hazards of Online Dating   Sat Jan 11, 2014 10:39 am

There's a very real argument that religion has a lot to answer for, in particular, that christianity has played a major role in establishing the dysfunctional patriarchy. I strongly recommend When God Was A Woman as an easy read that is very persuasive.

Which is nice for historical perspective, but doesn't really help with how to change things now.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
SAI2



Posts : 240
Join date : 2013-11-08

PostSubject: Re: The Hazards of Online Dating   Sat Jan 11, 2014 7:43 pm

Jenni wrote:
But to me that sounds like you are just rejecting it because you reject anything you perceive as being the "general consensus." I disagree it's even consensus, but I don't see your labeling of it as simple as an argument against it.

Well, you do it so why can't I? If you can give a blanket men are all responsible for all our ills, then I can concoct the same about women.

Jenni wrote:
Again, these are arguments I have made before. I want very much to believe this. Some time ago I did. I could have written that. But...reality shows that nope, circumstances gave males a reason to do what they want to do as it is. Given chances to act better they don't, in large numbers.

You've ignored everything I've said and just gone back to men are responsible for all our ills. Yet you ironically use, "circumstances gave males..." which is exactly what I am saying. Circumstances were responsible. You're also just lumping us, past and present, together. I was talking ancient man. Pre-civilization.

Jenni wrote:
I honestly think it has to do with the fact that we really are still animals. We are still those savages.

Yes, exactly my point.

Jenni wrote:
We can argue about intentions all day but in the end it doesn't excuse the dickish behavior just because men in some silly way (bless their hearts) wanted women to be happy. One still has to grow up and have some self awareness and realize hey, I'm a dick, perhaps I'm not expressing this well. It's not like women aren't shouting what we want. We go out and demonstrate for it. We get jailed asking for it. How can you say you don't have the answers?!

Again, you just want to reduce this down to men are to blame. It's not that simple. Natural forces beyond their control made mankind the they are. Women do need to demand rights, etc, but not at the expense of truth. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.  

Jenni wrote:
SAI2 wrote:
Oh, those bad old men did something right when they were playing with their stone knives and bear skins, no? That women all have access to cucumbers and vibrators is a testament to that.
See? That doesn't sound jackassey? Like it really has to be pointed out that we'd rather have the vote and birth control and freedom to wear pants rather than vibrators? (Assuming you buy that women would not have invented them given the freedom or time.) Oh, and let's completely ignore the male failings that create the market for them to start with! \o.O/

It was no less and no more jackassy than you were being, denigrating men.

Jenni wrote:
Yeah, I see I just really think you are projecting. You assume the best because you are a decent person and people just aren't like that I don't think. There are just so many advantages to men making women commodities in various ways.

No, I'm not assuming the best at all. Like I said, Nature is red in tooth and claw. Evolution and all natural forces made men and women as they are. Males alone were not responsible for natural selection.

Jenni wrote:
SAI2 wrote:
But you are reading that into it, because I didn't infer or suggest anything like that. I don't take pride in virginity and I am an atheist, so I don't preach. This tactic of withholding until it is safe and clear to give it up is gender neutral. It can hold for males too.  
I just find it suspect. I think it sounds like stuff we've been inculcated to believe when there is not any real data to show that that's the key to a successful dealio, be it marriage or partnership.

Religions may have borrowed the idea because it suited their purposes, but withholding sex as a strategy was around I'm sure long before any religion was born. I bet too that women invented it to get what they wanted from men. It's not implausible.

Jenni wrote:
As I said, I may not be labeling it correctly. But I do know the act of buying sex does not have to be skeezy but there are plenty of other times that skeezy can happen. Wanda Sykes has a bit where she describes it as Drink Man. It's Quagmire. It's the guy who has no class, no discretion, that you have to fear might film you to show to his buddies or You Tube, god forbid. The guy who may not hear you when you say stop. It reaches far beyond just a direct exchange and any complex feelings about that.

What is skeazy? I know what sleazy is, but I've never heard of skeazy. Quagmire is a cartoon character.

Jenni wrote:
Yeah, and to a point I can take it, because I know that and I've been the needy one. But I'm not a complex person, really.
I think the information age has added to the frenzied nature of it. You text someone and expect an instant answer. Instant gratification and feedback.  
And no one ever really means it. What am I thinking. Oh, oh, seriously. No. No one wants to hear that. Because it's either terribly raunchy, illegal, or expensive. I don't do it any other way and if I tell you anything else it's just small talk. Maybe that's really the problem, I feel people don't invest in each other so I get bristly about much time I put into them. People don't connect, it's heyhowyadoin, finthankyouandyou, and off to the rest of the world. So I get pissed about the amount of time I spend heyhowyadoin' people when I could be actually connecting. I don't even need people to like me, I just want them to feel something. Express something real.

I hear you, Jenni. I do. That's why we are all here.  Smile 

Jenni wrote:
Wow. You guys have some serious issues with putting pussy on a pedestal. Dude, we can't live up to that. The potential for cardiac arrest during sex is not sexy.

I was joking.

Jenni wrote:
SAI2 wrote:
No. An exquisite pie is the perfect analogue. How sweet. How orally sensuous.
Oh, lord, bad analogy, I've totally lost you now, haven't I? *facepalm*
You know I mean it's a renewable resource. Oh FFS never mind...... Rolling Eyes  fine it's a pie.

Blueberry preserve... Yum.

Jenni wrote:
I just reject the paradigm. I reject that you can know a person's true character before you fuck them. I think entropy is a thing in relationships and nothing lasts forever. And there is nothing you can do ahead of time you either want someone or you don't, you either feel something or you don't. You can't create what isn't there and you shouldn't deny what is. You will get hurt. Just like you will fall off a bike. But you will get back up again, too. I just reject the idea that there is this "way to do it right".

I reject paradigms too... that's something we have in common.  Smile  There is no "right way to do it". I said it is one way, perhaps not the best or only way. Seems a popular strategy though, whether it actually serves its purpose or not.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Lisa

avatar

Posts : 317
Join date : 2013-01-16

PostSubject: Re: The Hazards of Online Dating   Sat Jan 11, 2014 9:09 pm

Wow!  How did I miss this?

<Raises hand and waves feverishly>  Can I go next!!?  Can I?  Huh?


Edit:  I really, really have to change my avatar.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
SAI2



Posts : 240
Join date : 2013-11-08

PostSubject: Re: The Hazards of Online Dating   Sat Jan 11, 2014 11:26 pm

NoCoPilot wrote:
SAI2 wrote:
They don't really resolve the gender divide as much as exacerbate the cavern.
That's what I do.  I exacerbate canyons.  I'm a canyon exacerbator.  It's what I do, exacerbate canyons.

Okay, I admit it. It was a bad attempt at an analogy.  Laughing  I was going to use crevice originally, but then thought against it. The idea I was trying to impart was a simple divide being exacerbated to a point of becoming a wider, deeper, crack or ... crevice. Why I settled on canyon I can't fathom. Too much crack on the mind I guess.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Lisa

avatar

Posts : 317
Join date : 2013-01-16

PostSubject: Re: The Hazards of Online Dating   Tue Jan 14, 2014 6:21 pm

SAI2 wrote:
My friend is very good looking. And she knows how to take a good photo of herself. (... but she won't fuck me and that just burns my ass. She wants to be just "friends", ... gag. Whenever I hear that mantra I just want to pull down my pants and say 'friend this'.)

I'll bet you she already knows that's exactly how you feel.

Jenni wrote:
... It reaches far beyond just a direct exchange and any complex feelings about that.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
SAI2



Posts : 240
Join date : 2013-11-08

PostSubject: Re: The Hazards of Online Dating   Tue Jan 14, 2014 8:36 pm

I don't doubt it for a second. But are you suggesting I should just drop my pants next time?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Lisa

avatar

Posts : 317
Join date : 2013-01-16

PostSubject: Re: The Hazards of Online Dating   Wed Jan 15, 2014 12:04 am

SAI2 wrote:
I don't doubt it for a second.

Maybe she gets off just knowing it burns your ass.


SAI2 wrote:
But are you suggesting I should just drop my pants next time?

No, but I am wondering what kind of vibes she's giving off that keeps you thinking there's a chance for more.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
SAI2



Posts : 240
Join date : 2013-11-08

PostSubject: Re: The Hazards of Online Dating   Wed Jan 15, 2014 5:45 am

Lisa wrote:
SAI2 wrote:
I don't doubt it for a second.

Maybe she gets off just knowing it burns your ass.

That just burns my ass. Laughing 


Lisa wrote:
SAI2 wrote:
But are you suggesting I should just drop my pants next time?

No, but I am wondering what kind of vibes she's giving off that keeps you thinking there's a chance for more.

We've known each other for quite some time. She feels very comfortable around me - she can be relaxed and herself. I suppose I should be grateful, and I really am... But I've always been attracted to her, so maybe it's just me wishfully thinking. Some women I think just like certain men in their lives to be platonic "friends". I can't really complain about it because I've wanted certain women in my life to be the same way; i.e. I like them as friends, but don't have any interest in them sexually. It just makes the "friendship" less messy, easier to cope with and more emotionally satisfying when sex isn't involved sometimes. I suspect I am one of those men for her. She appears to have no problem having sex with near strangers who she meets on dating websites - under the guise of pursuing her seriously and commitedly. I guess I'm just not that kind of guy to her. I think she likes bad boys and I, in her eyes, am not a bad boy. Like I said, burns my ass. Although I know it upsets her when she feels she's been used for sex, it doesn't seem to stop her doing repeat performances with men who just want sex and nothing more and are willing to deceive her to get what they want. She's a little complicated, but maybe that's why I like her. Makes it tough to be around her sometimes too, because every time I see her or talk to her I want to do her/her me. But, hey... we're friends. If I masturbate before I see her it's not so bad. Rolling Eyes 

To more directly answer your question though... I think some women are just vibe factories. You either accept that or you move on. I'm probably a vibe factory to some women too. What can you do.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
NoCoPilot

avatar

Posts : 11194
Join date : 2013-01-16
Age : 63
Location : Seattle

PostSubject: Re: The Hazards of Online Dating   Wed Jan 15, 2014 6:06 am

SAI2 wrote:
I think she likes bad boys and I, in her eyes, am not a bad boy.
Yeah, what's up with that??? I had a good girl friend, always wanted to jump her bones but she told me I "wasn't dangerous enough." She slept with a long succession of really unpleasant characters, most of whom broke her heart and left her emotionally scarred.

I didn't get it then. I don't get it now.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
SAI2



Posts : 240
Join date : 2013-11-08

PostSubject: Re: The Hazards of Online Dating   Wed Jan 15, 2014 6:12 am

NoCoPilot wrote:
SAI2 wrote:
I think she likes bad boys and I, in her eyes, am not a bad boy.  
Yeah, what's up with that???  I had a good girl friend, always wanted to jump her bones but she told me I "wasn't dangerous enough."  She slept with a long succession of really unpleasant characters, most of whom broke her heart and left her emotionally scarred.

I didn't get it then.  I don't get it now.

S & M. That's my theory and I'm sticking to it. I guess I need to be more of a heartless bastard than I already am. (... but then maybe that's the problem. She can see right through me and she knows I'm not a heartless bastard. Go figure.)

... and they wonder why men are assholes.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Jenni
Admin
avatar

Posts : 1166
Join date : 2013-01-16
Location : Jackson, MS

PostSubject: Re: The Hazards of Online Dating   Thu Jan 16, 2014 10:07 pm

SAI2 wrote:
Well, you do it so why can't I? If you can give a blanket men are all responsible for all our ills, then I can concoct the same about women.
Well, you can. But it wouldn't be true.
I also do not believe you effectively thought about and answered my question with good intentions. This answer does not have much bearing on what I was trying to question in your assertion. Getting upset or snide or whatever (playing devils advocate?) is not really going to help get to the root of the issue nor shine a light on a path out.

You began this exercise with your lack of understanding about a lady friend and situations involving how people approach dating. I'm trying to answer honestly about how women think and what leads us to what we do. Getting childish and basically saying "two can play at that" is not going to help you understand what you said you sought.

The fact of the matter is that it's mostly men's beeswax that ensnares women. It's stuff you set out to do that inevitably puts a yoke on our neck. Now, to you this may be completely justifiable by circumstances and nature and outside forces. But to us, we see how much it benefits you men and how reluctant you are to end the practices that serve you. We see the differences, we see the way we are treated every day in small ways called microagressions. Those things are not concoctions. Nor are they of the past.

SAI2 wrote:
Yet you ironically use, "circumstances gave males..."
It wasn't meant ironically.
Circumstances like evolution of size difference gave men something (an advantage in physical confrontation) that they are happy to use now in various forms (abuse, rape) and the other men who may not stoop to such levels certainly aren't knocking themselves out to make such abuses of what nature gave them punishable with something that's a deterrent. That's what I'm accusing. Men use the excuse of nature to say "boys will be boys".

SAI2 wrote:
Yes, exactly my point.
Then why hasn't modern man created a system to address the natural abuses that will happen with such a difference in power? Why is there still such a massive movement against our very human rights? Again, we don't concoct this.

SAI2 wrote:
Women do need to demand rights, etc, but not at the expense of truth. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.  
Says a man, who will never have to worry about being made to give birth against his will, nor will you be put in jail for seeing reproductive care. (Truth? I don't recognize your right to define what I prioritize in my search for rights.) To me, it is you who denies truth. Probably because you aren't a woman, you don't live that difference every day. I find it hard to comprehend white privilege. I see that as something only rich whites get, not me. But I bet you if I could do a run down of my day with a black woman she could point out multiple places where I experienced privilege she doesn't have. The difference is I know better than to tell her "you just want to reduce this down to white people are to blame."


SAI2 wrote:
 It was no less and no more jackassy than you were being, denigrating men.
O'really? Where? Go back and look at that part of the exchange. The part where you suddenly turned snarky was in regards to point I made about female porn. It wasn't technically a point, men invented vibrators because they were literally clueless about female health. So I know it was snark but it was snark completely unrelated to what you were responding to. Which tells me you asked for an opinion and now you are pissed that you are hearing it. I actually have no clue which part you think I'm denigrating men with and I have no idea how any words I could ever say could denigrate a man any worse than the way we are denigrated but I do know that I don't think badly of men as a group or I'd not be so pissed. I do actually think you men can do better. But regardless don't be pissed at me for laying out what a lot of women think. I'm a friendly envoy from the other side. I actually think there's hope for you men. You can slap me down for the message but that won't help you bridge that canyon NoCo is so fantabulous at exacerbating.

SAI2 wrote:
No, I'm not assuming the best at all.
Then help me understand why we still fight for rights that fucking viking women had. If you are not assuming the best of men, that it was simply circumstances that drove men to the power they have and not a need to possess and control women that goes far beyond that then why has so little changed? Why are men's pursuits funded and yet we have to fight for our basics? You have never had such a receptive audience.

SAI2 wrote:
Religions may have borrowed the idea because it suited their purposes, but withholding sex as a strategy was around I'm sure long before any religion was born. I bet too that women invented it to get what they wanted from men. It's not implausible.
I have nothing to back this up. We do have records of times when women have gotten together and stopped sex. Mostly over war. Do you know why? Because women's "no"s are not always respected. You have to have a number of women and a situation that will support that. If you look at societies where the consequences of sex have been lightened or lifted you see societies that have more sexually active women.

SAI2 wrote:
What is skeazy? I know what sleazy is, but I've never heard of skeazy. Quagmire is a cartoon character.
Quagmire is a cartoon, but he works because people know who that is. Most people know a Quagmire. We had a few on DU. DrinkMan, Quagmire, skeazy are hard to describe but women know it when they see it. He's the guy you know you don't want to get drunk around. He's the guy you don't want to get your number. He's the guy you know you don't want to have sex with because he just doesn't seem like he'd give a shit about you in bed. He's the type who secretly films women without permission. Or intentionally rubs against them on trains.

SAI2 wrote:
I was joking.
Yeah....ok.... But seriously, we hate that crap. We're not virgins, madonnas, goddesses, whatever. We don't break and we fuck up and our farts stink too. And putting anyone on a pedestal is going to end badly. Men do this. And it creates problems. If you don't do it great, pass it on to your buddies.

SAI2 wrote:
Seems a popular strategy though, whether it actually serves its purpose or not.
Hence my purpose in vocalization. It's a strategy that needs to be stopped. I speak up to and piss off my women friends too, btw. I think people need to stop doing the stuff they are doing before we just really fuck ourselves needlessly.

Lisa wrote:
<Raises hand and waves feverishly>  Can I go next!!?  Can I?  Huh?
Jump in, it's like double dutch.

Lisa wrote:
SAI2 wrote:
My friend is very good looking. And she knows how to take a good photo of herself. (... but she won't fuck me and that just burns my ass. She wants to be just "friends", ... gag. Whenever I hear that mantra I just want to pull down my pants and say 'friend this'.)

I'll bet you she already knows that's exactly how you feel.
You may not be far off at all. A mutual friend we all know has just recently discovered a male friend has a crush on her. She specifically thought she had this straightened out and feels rather deceived and misused to find out he was basically hanging around hoping he'd be nice enough and she'd want to fuck him. Women find this behavior skeazy. We don't really know what to do with it. Said friend is contemplating making a rule about unattached male friends. I've already had this experience a few times and while I sympathize (we've all been friend-zoned) I still see no reason why men expect sexual interest based on how "nice" you are. I also have a rule that I assume a man is chatting me up if he spends time on me unless I have direct reason to believe otherwise. One could argue this is a bad way to be but it prevents me allowing a man to waste time on me, if possible. In other words, I mostly don't befriend a man I wouldn't fuck, just in case. This radically cuts down on all sorts of issues. Is it a good policy? IDK  

For example:
NoCo wrote:
Yeah, what's up with that??? I had a good girl friend, always wanted to jump her bones but she told me I "wasn't dangerous enough." She slept with a long succession of really unpleasant characters, most of whom broke her heart and left her emotionally scarred.

I didn't get it then. I don't get it now.
Really? You don't get how someone had sex with people they were attracted to rather than you?
No, what I hear is a reflection of the myth that looks don't matter to women. Only if you believe that are you then capable of saying you can't understand that. Yet, in reverse men will tell tales of how mistreated they allowed themselves to be over a piece of ass.

SAI2 wrote:
S & M. That's my theory and I'm sticking to it. I guess I need to be more of a heartless bastard than I already am. (... but then maybe that's the problem. She can see right through me and she knows I'm not a heartless bastard. Go figure.)
No, you radically misunderstand s and m then.
In general, I would recommend you read on it some. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/201206/loving-introduction-bdsm Arguing that is tantamount to insult to those in the community, it's like saying someone is gay because they were abused as a child. I mean, you can think it, you can even say it, but it won't win you any friends and it's not really true.

SAI2 wrote:
... and they wonder why men are assholes.
But we don't. We sort of accept it as a known variable. We all handle it in our own way but there is something to handle. This is why the power differential that we all bring to relationships is bad and needs to be fixed on a systemic level. It creeps into our personal dealings. Men use their power in subtle ways to push what they want and that's all backed up in society in ways that shift power from us to the men. You don't even realize the privilege. And we're just sort of yeah, annoyed about it. And none of this is helped by the institutional factors that make even knowing what one wants an issue.


I'd like to add this:
http://jezebel.com/man-poses-as-woman-on-online-dating-site-barely-lasts-1500707724?utm_campaign=socialflow_jezebel_facebook&utm_source=jezebel_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow
This is what happens when a man tries to be a woman online. What he experienced- yeah- that's not women who did that.
Men are assholes.
Theists are idiots.
Yes, there may be a few exceptions, but their numbers are so small that I have a hard time letting the group off the hook for the bad behaviors of its members. The male/female power dynamic is not a case of he said/she said any more than the black/white power dynamic is. We do not concoct this.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://unintelligibledebate.forumotion.com
Lisa

avatar

Posts : 317
Join date : 2013-01-16

PostSubject: Re: The Hazards of Online Dating   Fri Jan 17, 2014 5:50 am

Jenni wrote:

Lisa wrote:
SAI2 wrote:
My friend is very good looking. And she knows how to take a good photo of herself. (... but she won't fuck me and that just burns my ass. She wants to be just "friends", ... gag. Whenever I hear that mantra I just want to pull down my pants and say 'friend this'.)

I'll bet you she already knows that's exactly how you feel.
You may not be far off at all. A mutual friend we all know has just recently discovered a male friend has a crush on her. She specifically thought she had this straightened out and feels rather deceived and misused to find out he was basically hanging around hoping he'd be nice enough and she'd want to fuck him. Women find this behavior skeazy.

That is exactly what I meant.  The guys 'hanging around hoping' (after being told it isn't going to happen), can be very unsubtle about continuing their begging ways.  It conveys at least two things to the woman.  One being, it's creepy they can't take 'not interested' as an answer.  It's creepiness is why the woman might say she 'just wants to be friends', when she'd much rather say, 'get lost and stay away'.  Another thing it says is, she doesn't know her own mind. 'You can't possibly know what you're saying by rejecting my sexual interest in you'.  It also is a sad display of their lack of pride.  That's never hot.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
NoCoPilot

avatar

Posts : 11194
Join date : 2013-01-16
Age : 63
Location : Seattle

PostSubject: Re: The Hazards of Online Dating   Fri Jan 17, 2014 6:18 am

Lisa wrote:
The guys 'hanging around hoping' (after being told it isn't going to happen), can be very unsubtle about continuing their begging ways.  
Women are apparently much more decisive about who they will and who they won't sleep with. With guys it's more of a sliding scale, depending on how desperate we are.

Also there are lots of movies about "ugly ducklings" who suddenly become imminently fuckable when they take off their glasses and put on a dress. Smile
Jenni wrote:
Really? You don't get how someone had sex with people they were attracted to rather than you? No, what I hear is a reflection of the myth that looks don't matter to women.
It could be my pride speaking but I don't think it was looks. The guys she was attracted to looked like Edward James Olmos and rode motorcycles.

She was a "good girl friend" of mine, even helped me write the personals ad that eventually found me Mrs. NoCo. Several times I had her over for dinner, to catch up on our lives, and she would complain about the mistreatment she was getting from Edward James Olmos 15 or 16. Yet that was all she wanted to date, bad boys. I tried not to beg too much, but I did ask her why she was attracted to bad boys and she couldn't explain it. When we set up a dinner date she always asked if she could bring anything, and I always replied "a toothbrush." When Mrs. NoCo came into the picture we continued to host her at dinner, and she was thrilled I was in love -- but still complaining about the disaster that was her own love life.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
SAI2



Posts : 240
Join date : 2013-11-08

PostSubject: Re: The Hazards of Online Dating   Fri Jan 17, 2014 11:50 am

Lisa wrote:
Jenni wrote:

Lisa wrote:
SAI2 wrote:
My friend is very good looking. And she knows how to take a good photo of herself. (... but she won't fuck me and that just burns my ass. She wants to be just "friends", ... gag. Whenever I hear that mantra I just want to pull down my pants and say 'friend this'.)

I'll bet you she already knows that's exactly how you feel.
You may not be far off at all. A mutual friend we all know has just recently discovered a male friend has a crush on her. She specifically thought she had this straightened out and feels rather deceived and misused to find out he was basically hanging around hoping he'd be nice enough and she'd want to fuck him. Women find this behavior skeazy.

That is exactly what I meant.  The guys 'hanging around hoping' (after being told it isn't going to happen), can be very unsubtle about continuing their begging ways.  It conveys at least two things to the woman.  One being, it's creepy they can't take 'not interested' as an answer.  It's creepiness is why the woman might say she 'just wants to be friends', when she'd much rather say, 'get lost and stay away'.  Another thing it says is, she doesn't know her own mind. 'You can't possibly know what you're saying by rejecting my sexual interest in you'.  It also is a sad display of their lack of pride.  That's never hot.

Lisa, are you serious? Why the insulting insinuation? You don't know my friend at all, or our relationship, yet you seem to want to insinuate by comparison, that I am somehow 'hanging around and begging' like the guy Jenni is describing. Is that your intent here? I mean, if what Jenni described is "exactly what you meant", then why did you say earlier:

Quote :
Maybe she gets off just knowing it burns your ass.

and

Quote :
No, but I am wondering what kind of vibes she's giving off that keeps you thinking there's a chance for more.

What did you mean by these two statements? Because I clearly didn't understand your intent for making them here.

I believe I made it quite clear early on if you read this thread from the beginning, that I care very much about her well being and happiness. I am not so disappointed with her saying no that I would end our friendship, platonic though it may be. I have many platonic female and gay male friends. Also, she has never found me creepy in the way you describe; she is actually quite flattered and has admitted to me as much. She would have told me otherwise if she was just holding back from telling me to fuck off. She doesn't mince words or censor herself to be nice. I mean why call me and invite me out or over to her place if I was such a creep after alll these years?

Like you said prior, before you changed your own goal posts, I think she actually gets off on the fact that I am attracted to her, but she wants us to remain friends in a safe and comfortable way to her. She confides in me a lot of very personal feelings and experiences she has had that she doesn't confide to others, so I don't think, if she thought I was a creep, she would do that. I understand the comfortableness of platonic friendships implicitly because I know others I treat the same way for the same reasons. In all these years we have hung out, I've never once been told to leave or fuck off. I do know she would be very angry and upset if I ended our friendship simply because she wouldn't have sex with me. That would be very cruel of me and it would indeed reveal I was just hanging around hoping.... but not giving a shit about her. That's not the nature of our friendship. I just get frustrated sometimes because I know we are close, but it seems like an excuse to not tell me she's not attracted to me physically. I'm not her type. She might be afraid of hurting my feelings. I get a little resentful because I know about her sexual exploits with virtual strangers... who often take advantage of her, so it bugs me that we can't ever be more intimate when we are so intimate in other ways mentally and emotionally.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Lisa

avatar

Posts : 317
Join date : 2013-01-16

PostSubject: Re: The Hazards of Online Dating   Fri Jan 17, 2014 5:17 pm

SAI2 wrote:
She might be afraid of hurting my feelings.

You say that as though she doesn't already know she's hurting your feelings. (In this case perpetually burning your ass.)  Unless now, instead of your ass burning over this, you've changed your own goal posts:


SAI2 wrote:
I just get frustrated sometimes ...

I'm sure there are nuances to your particular situation that make it more than satisfying for you.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
SAI2



Posts : 240
Join date : 2013-11-08

PostSubject: Re: The Hazards of Online Dating   Fri Jan 17, 2014 6:01 pm

Honestly Lisa, in both those statements, I don't have the slightest idea what it is you are trying to say to me. Could you please help me along here and just be direct and to the point.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Jenni
Admin
avatar

Posts : 1166
Join date : 2013-01-16
Location : Jackson, MS

PostSubject: Re: The Hazards of Online Dating   Sat Jan 18, 2014 10:40 am

NoCo wrote:
Women are apparently much more decisive about who they will and who they won't sleep with. With guys it's more of a sliding scale, depending on how desperate we are.
We often have more to consider. If you get sex it's mostly assured you won't be (fill in blank) against your will and it is fairly assured you will get off. With us, we have to worry about safety and whether or not the guy is a decent, considerate lay.

NoCo wrote:
It could be my pride speaking but I don't think it was looks. The guys she was attracted to looked like Edward James Olmos and rode motorcycles.
You've heard the one about the lovely young maiden from a fishing village and the ugly old man with a mackerel in his pocket? We never really know what it is that stirs us. We have labels and names but whatever it is it's beyond a conscious choice.

I'm sure she tried many times to tell herself to give you a shot but if you don't feel that spark, it's just not there. Maybe she was scared of success, happiness, maybe she just wanted to whine to someone, maybe like SAI's friend it was a confidence boost.

SAI2 wrote:
You don't know my friend at all, or our relationship, yet you seem to want to insinuate by comparison, that I am somehow 'hanging around and begging' like the guy Jenni is describing.
Pardon me, I mean this in the nicest attempting to help way- but are you sure you aren't? You don't have to convince me, this is not part of the debate but a friendly aside, but check with you in your mind. Because from out here, the frustration that leads you to want to go "friend this!" may actually be related to her reaction. You may not feel you are begging, but she may sense the quiet frustration and desperation. Or may think she does. Human communication is not foolproof, many a misunderstanding has been had over such subtleties.

I recognize the situation I mentioned is different because she sought to actively be sure he had no interest in her that way and he actively lied. And my larger point that this happens to all of us at one time or another still stands. I've seen men treated like shit by women way hotter than I while I stand there thinking "I'd never act like that." And yet, the men take it too. Men must like bad girls- I'd say if I was inclined to. But in the end I know what Dita Von Teese says is true- you can be the juiciest, ripest peach and there's still somebody that don't like peaches."

SAI2 wrote:
she is actually quite flattered and has admitted to me as much.
Well, sure who wouldn't be. But that emotion can come alone or with many others. You can be flattered by a stalker too doesn't mean you don't go get a RO. We have to trust this assessment of this woman, but you need to double check you- don't be creepy and be open to being told "knock it off". (I'm sure you are, but for the record.)

SAI2 wrote:
I do know she would be very angry and upset if I ended our friendship simply because she wouldn't have sex with me. That would be very cruel of me
Are you sure? Because it is also very cruel to you to have to be in someone's life when you want more and can't have it. And I have to wonder is some of the resentment you seem to have a result of this? She may be angry, but she's an adult, she'll live. And it wouldn't be you ending it because she wouldn't have sex with you, it would be you ending it because it hurts the heart to have unrequited love right in front of you. To expect that of you is cruel.

SAI2 wrote:
I just get frustrated sometimes because I know we are close, but it seems like an excuse to not tell me she's not attracted to me physically. I'm not her type. She might be afraid of hurting my feelings. I get a little resentful because I know about her sexual exploits with virtual strangers... who often take advantage of her,
And see this takes me in the other direction....so she's nice enough that she doesn't want to hurt your feelings but you are pissed because she's out screwing people she's actually attracted to? That's just one you gotta get over. But I'm telling you, you keep carrying that resentfulness into that friendship and you'll kill it as surely as poison will kill a plant. If she's nice and likes you it may take longer but it will happen. It won't be anyone's fault- no one can help how they feel. But it is toxic. And you are the one bringing it in.

(Have you considered that backing away may even show her a life without you and prompt the interest that you desire? Sort of the absence makes the heart grow fonder rule. How does she act if you mention a sexual conquest of your own? (make one up if need be) )


Lisa wrote:
I'm sure there are nuances to your particular situation that make it more than satisfying for you.
I disagree. I think she may be really using him. He's letting her and then fussing about it but I don't think he's the one in charge in this dynamic. He could be though, and that might be the push she wants to see. The "nut up" she thinks she gets from the bad boys.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://unintelligibledebate.forumotion.com
Lisa

avatar

Posts : 317
Join date : 2013-01-16

PostSubject: Re: The Hazards of Online Dating   Sat Jan 18, 2014 11:18 am

Jenni wrote:


Lisa wrote:
I'm sure there are nuances to your particular situation that make it more than satisfying for you.
I disagree. I think she may be really using him. He's letting her and then fussing about it but I don't think he's the one in charge in this dynamic. He could be though, and that might be the push she wants to see. The "nut up" she thinks she gets from the bad boys.

When I wrote, "I'm sure there are nuances...", I felt a need to end on a more positive note.  No matter what I say, he says it's either indecypherable or unkind.  No matter that you were able to respond to the 'nuance' sentence, he said:


SAI2 wrote:
Honestly Lisa, in both those statements, I don't have the slightest idea what it is you are trying to say to me. Could you please help me along here and just be direct and to the point.

It's as though I speak a different language to him.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Jenni
Admin
avatar

Posts : 1166
Join date : 2013-01-16
Location : Jackson, MS

PostSubject: Re: The Hazards of Online Dating   Sat Jan 18, 2014 12:02 pm

Lisa wrote:
Jenni wrote:


Lisa wrote:
I'm sure there are nuances to your particular situation that make it more than satisfying for you.
I disagree. I think she may be really using him. He's letting her and then fussing about it but I don't think he's the one in charge in this dynamic. He could be though, and that might be the push she wants to see. The "nut up" she thinks she gets from the bad boys.

When I wrote, "I'm sure there are nuances...", I felt a need to end on a more positive note.  No matter what I say, he says it's either indecypherable or unkind.  No matter that you were able to respond to the 'nuance' sentence, he said:


SAI2 wrote:
Honestly Lisa, in both those statements, I don't have the slightest idea what it is you are trying to say to me. Could you please help me along here and just be direct and to the point.

It's as though I speak a different language to him.
I know. And you see I'm trying to bridge that. But yeah, it feels like a mute signing furiously to a blind person.

If I could force myself to forget that one of the players here is a friend and just step back and look with a satanic eye to lesser magic I'd say that these two are in an s and m dynamic already. She's got him cuckolded listening to her and her conquests and still playing the dutiful "friend"(partner). The real problem is none of it was negotiated and it only serves one party's needs.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://unintelligibledebate.forumotion.com
richard09

avatar

Posts : 2473
Join date : 2013-01-16

PostSubject: Re: The Hazards of Online Dating   Sat Jan 18, 2014 3:27 pm

I confess I haven't been bothering with this thread. But I came across an article that seems relevant, at least somewhat.

Why Is OK Cupid A Stew Of Misogynist Harassment?
<snip>
Quote :
All of which is to say that I don’t think it says something about men that harassment is so common on OK Cupid and other dating websites. As in the real world, a small percentage of men see relations between the sexes as inherently hostile and get so obsessed with “winning” that they forget that the point of dating and cruising is to actually meet people you actually get along with.
<snip>
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: The Hazards of Online Dating   

Back to top Go down
 
The Hazards of Online Dating
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 2 of 4Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 Similar topics
-
» Watch The Last of the Unjust Documentary Online Free and Full Movie HD, DVDRip or Blu-ray 720p December 2013
» Watch Khumba 3D Online Free and Full Movie HD, DVDRip or Blu-ray 720p December 2013
» Watch Commitment Online Free and Full Movie HD, DVDRip or Blu-ray 720p December 2013
» Now we're forking out for Miliband's rent TWICE OVER - Mail Online Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2057424/Now-forking-Milibands-rent-TWICE-OVER.html#ixzz1clzcIqCK
» phpbb3 & invision : Indicate the online status of a user in a profile field

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
 :: Topics :: Just For Fun-
Jump to: