>
Recently, “game” guru Roissy offered his readers a list of “Cheap And Easy Ways To Raise Your Value To A Girl.” Most were fairly standard pick up artist tricks of the “act like an aloof jerk and she’ll worship you” variety. According to Roissy, though, these little tricks will miraculously enable guys
to date women one to three points higher than you could be expected to get by societal standards. Do these to a girlfriend and you will be a god to her. A god among penii.
A few examples:
Don’t call back right away. Done properly, you will start to hear girls say things like “I didn’t hear back from you. You were making me nervous!”
Don’t live together. It’s much harder to project mystery living under the same roof, watching each other fold laundry every week. (Not to mention side action will be more difficult to coordinate.)
Cancel dates. (Make the reason seem apparently legitimate, but suspicious.)
Muse wistfully about past lovers.Never do her a favor before you’ve had sex with her.
Never laugh at her jokes, even when they’re funny. If you must, chuckle under your breath.
When at her place, eat all her food, leave the seat up, change her TV channels, and torture her cat. Act like it’s your second home.
Bo-ring. These tricks may have worked on women once upon a time, but today’s women are far too sophisticated to fall for these tired old ruses . If you really want to score with the hot babes of today, you’ve got to kick your game up a notch — or three. To help, I have come up with some “New and Improved Cheap And Easy Ways To Raise Your Value To A Girl.”
Wear a banana peel on your head like a hat. This will help to create an aura of “mystery” around yourself, as well as a lovely banana-y scent that will follow you everywhere.
Poke her nose playfully after sex and say, in a cheerful voice, “Hitler was right about you!” She will ponder this one for days.
Never laugh at her jokes. Instead, fall to the floor and begin singing “Rock Me Amadeus.”
Go out on “dates” with imaginary people. Introduce her to these people, and slyly suggest a “threesome.” (Or a “foursome,” if you are dating two imaginary people at the same time.)
Muse wistfully about butter.
Don’t buy her gifts. Instead, sneak clumps of dirt into her lingerie drawer.
Never call her back right away. Instead, hide under her bed and make low moaning sounds.
If you end up in an argument with her, shout out “mom always loved you better!” Then set her couch on fire.
Don’t move in with her. Instead, move into the apartment above hers, and watch her through tiny holes drilled in the floor.
When at her place, eat her cat, torture her TV, and replace her toilet with a sack of potatoes. Act like Meryl Streep in Sophie’s Choice, including the accent.
Go forth, my young apprentices, and score like never before!
—
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
![A Sexual Assault How-To by a sleazeball Redditor? Thanks, Kickstarter! [UPDATED: Kickstarter: “We were wrong.”]](https://i1.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/redditalienmeme.jpg?resize=50%2C50)
>"No, if you lack confidence you cannot sponge it from someone else. It is because you want a partner who is going to be strong and confident in his abilities, a match to you, not leaning on you for support of his ego."—SandyMany women out there are just like the "nice guys" the claim to complain about. There are people who do just that—"sponge" it from another person. In the 90s, one term that was employed was co-dependency. There were entire books written on the subject alone. It's not too far off the mark from this subject.It gets pretty tedious and sad when all the "nice guy" talk is often a projection of those who can't measure up with the mates they desire, yet expect a laundry list of attributes to be set in place, regardless.
>Well, I see the good Bathrobe Rube couldn't answer my riddle.So I'll have to drop some knowledge. Ready boys and girls?Feminism can not be responsible for every bad thing that happened EVER, because feminism AS A POLITICAL movement is somewhere around 150 years old, depending on how you define it. A lot of people start the "first wave" at the Seneca Falls convention, although there is not universal agreement about that.And that was Daily Troll History Lesson by Clarence.
>Mr. Candle-the use of "torturing cats" is the two extremes. My apologies if it seemed I was accusing you of doing so.Roissy has as part of his list an extreme bad behavior-torturing cats. But on the other side, one could (possibly I guess) read some of the advice telling someone to be confident in one's self and do not let another person walk all over one's self.In other words-you can be using some of his advice to be an actual jerk or you could be using some of his advice to be a more confident individual who does not let a person push you around. That is not being cocky or a jerk.
>"In other words-you can be using some of his advice to be an actual jerk or you could be using some of his advice to be a more confident individual who does not let a person push you around. That is not being cocky or a jerk."You have pretty low standards for advice-givers if only half of the advice has to be right. I wouldn't buy a map on that basis.
>@Clarence, there is a huge difference between dating someone who is a douchebag or abusive to you and dating someone who is otherwise socially deviant. My first boyfriend was the middle school pot dealer. But, he was never disrespectful or abusive to me. We remained close friends for years after we broke up. So, was he a 'nice guy' or a 'bad boy'? Because the same boy who made me mixed cds of love songs was the boy who bashed some kid's face off a locker for not paying up his weed debts. I have also had encounters with clean cut upperclass people who were extremely controlling and disrespectful in a relationship, but were respected university students."Being a jerk" is not such a clear issue. You talk about bikers, but as someone who has lived and worked in poor neighborhoods, I can say that when I was doing minimum wage restaurant work, the bikers were in general far more respectful of the waitresses and tipped better than the after church crowd. You can't look at someone and assume because of the way they dress or because of past criminal convictions (not related to partner or ex-partner abuse) that they are disrespectful or abusive of their romantic partners. There are soft spoken accountants who go home every day and beat their wives, and gangsters who never say a harsh word and buy flowers.
>DarkSideCat:Will you stop assuming I live in some castle with a moat? I know who the bad elements are, and I never said all bikers everywhere, anymore than I mentioned that there's a small crips gang nearby in my neighborhood. And guess what? I don't particularly CARE how Adolf Hitler treated Eva Braun, it has nothing to do with the fact that he was a jerk.Are you supposed to tell some awkward nerd type, bullied and tormented, that he should have respect for his abuser because Sally decides that Mr. Bully makes her vag tingle, and Mr. Bully (or Mr. Jailbird, or Mr. Murderer) is really nice to her after he gets done beating Nerdrick to a pulp?How does this disprove women liking jerks? A girl who would date a downright bully doesn't show that she cares much for character.
>"Feminism can not be responsible for every bad thing that happened EVER, because feminism AS A POLITICAL movement is somewhere around 150 years old, depending on how you define it. A lot of people start the "first wave" at the Seneca Falls convention, although there is not universal agreement about that."Wow…I guess I've been schooled. Next up, Clarence and I debate mathematics:Clarence: (silly, illogical remark)Me: (sarcastically) Oh yeah? I suppose if that's true then 2+2=5.Clarence: NUH UH! It just so happens, Mr. Smartypants, that 2+2=4. Hah! BURN! You thought 2+2=5, but it totally doesn't! I am so smart! S-M-R-T!Seriously, I'm starting to feel sorry for you now. Unless, of course, you're being sarcastic, in which case it was an adequate effort.
>@ Wytch'Is this because you lack the confidence in yourself so you want someone to over-compensate for that?' Nice try. It's because I've dated insecure men and been miserable in the relationship. I am a partner, not a cheering squad and therapist. It was the insecure boyfriend who would continually try and cut me down and make me feel terrible over what I wanted; while simultaneously trying to convince me that I was the love of his life. Ever since dumping him, I've been more aware of that type of man – I know how to spot it and that I should avoid it. And what he did, knowingly or not, is a lot of what PUAs encourage each other to do to women. So yeah. It will get you laid. It might even get you a girlfriend for a short while. But eventually, she'll wise up to the fact that she's worth better than she's been getting, and will leave. @ Ozymandias: I totally agree with your coding for geekhood! I met my current boyfriend over D&D.
>It's because I've dated insecure men and been miserable in the relationship. I am a partner, not a cheering squad and therapist. It was the insecure boyfriend who would continually try and cut me down and make me feel terrible over what I wanted; while simultaneously trying to convince me that I was the love of his life. Ever since dumping him, I've been more aware of that type of man – I know how to spot it and that I should avoid it. And what he did, knowingly or not, is a lot of what PUAs encourage each other to do to women.I can confirm this from the other side, since I was that kind of boyfriend when I was younger. I'm not going to make any excuses for myself; I was unforgivably shitheaded. I like to think I've grown out of it.But it does beg the question: why do men who are supposedly so "high value" need to constantly tear down the woman they're with? And if he's so confident in his high value, why does he need to try so hard to assert it?Seems like a man who's confident in his value (whatever that may be) will be confident enough to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with his partner and celebrate, rather than envy or begrudge, any areas in which she surpasses him.
>To wit:Do these to a girlfriend and you will be a god to her.I'll just say it instead of posing another rhetorical question: Any person who needs another human being to bow down and look up at him/her as a god is a very small, insecure person. If you think you're that awesome, you should be able to feel good about yourself without someone else's validation.
>"Nice try. It's because I've dated insecure men and been miserable in the relationship. I am a partner, not a cheering squad and therapist."—LVvSAnd you don't acknowledge your own culpability there. Nice deflection.
>"Nice try. It's because I've dated insecure men and been miserable in the relationship. I am a partner, not a cheering squad and therapist."—LVvSAnd you don't acknowledge your own culpability there. Nice deflection. It sounds like she took responsibility for herself and got out of a bad relationship. Learning from experience–it's what grown-ups do.
>'"Nice try. It's because I've dated insecure men and been miserable in the relationship. I am a partner, not a cheering squad and therapist."—LVvSAnd you don't acknowledge your own culpability there. Nice deflection. 'That's actually another tactic my ex would use – insist that we bore equal responsibility for every problem we had. Even things like me being mad that he was secretly recording my instant messenger conversations. That would then subvert the discussion to "I am angry you did this" to "I don't really think I bear half the responsibility here," and we'd never resolve the first issue. And yes, eventually I realized that this relationship was unhealthy, we broke up, and I took some time to figure out what it was that I had been looking for that made me end up with this guy. We all make mistakes; adults learn from them. I must have learned at least a few things, the relationship I have now is quite happy.
>@ Clarence, "I don't particularly CARE how Adolf Hitler treated Eva Braun, it has nothing to do with the fact that he was a jerk." Presumably though it has a great deal to do with her reasons for dating him (I also suspect that she was in political agreement and did not see him as evil, even though he objectively was). If the people you see as 'bad boys' do not actually treat their wives or girlfriends worse than those you see as 'nice guys', it makes perfect sense why women who do not have trouble with outside 'badness' (for example, a drug conviction) would be willing to date them. It would also mean that these women are not seeking to date people who are abusive and disrespectful to them simply because they date those you see as 'bad'. Just because someone is a 'jerk' to you does not mean they are acting like a jerk towards their girlfriend, or their mom, or their dog. If you can understand why the person who is an asshole to you can have friends who he is not such an asshole towards (said friends may also be assholes to you), why can't you understand the same phenomenon applies to dating? 'Why are people friends with assholes' has the same answer as 'why do people date assholes'. They do not see the person as an asshole or the person treats them better than they treat certain others. Since you have already gone all Godwin, I will use the Nazis as an example. Sure, they are assholes, but somehow even the arch assholes managed to functionally work in a group with their chosen buddies. I am sure that there were nazis that did favours for and went drinking with their nazi buddies, considering each other dear friends and nazis who lovingly showered their children with presents. In reality, the monsters, no matter how evil, are human ones.On another note, yes, who is seen as 'bad' and who is seen as 'nice' is highly related to culture factors over actual actions in many cases. I have seen pacifists referred to as 'bad boys' and guys known for throwing things at people out car windows while making homophobic slurs referred to as 'nice guys' (by other heteros). I had a classmate who thought that a guy who had punched a girl in the face was a 'nice guy' but saw me with a young black man and a guy with dyed hair, piercings, and tattoos and referred to them as 'scary guys'.
>DarkSideCat:I suppose I should plop this link at you then:http://roissy.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/lies-about-women-who-love-abusers/I mean, supposedly the excuse you would give a girl who dated some hypothetical dude who was known for murdering old ladies is that well, he may be a murderer, but she just doesn't want to be abused!! Well, that's b.s as applies to at least some women.And even if I brought your argument, what's that got to do with the fact that some gals will pick a jerk over a nerd. I must have missed the epidemic of domestic abuse perpetrated by nerds, esp. since many of them tend to be among the most pro-feminist people in high schools and on college campuses.
>ClarenceI'm going to give my youngest son as an example of what you see as a jerk.He played football in school, and has been involved in mixed martial arts since he was a young teen. He's the guy who nerds point to as being a jerk.However nerds (for lack of a better word) do not hang around him and his friends, they might have seen him teasing a girl at school but what they don’t know is, it is mutual teasing. My son has always had a large amount of female friends. He’s confident around women and enjoys the company of women who are confident around him. When he was fifteen I had to convince him that it was not a good idea for his best gal pal to sleep over (alone) after I walked into his room at five in the morning to find her sleeping on his sofa. It’s not that my son wasn’t sexually active, it’s that he’s never seen girls as just for sex.That is the problem with PUA. I don’t have a problem with them finding a way to get human companionship or to have sex, it’s that they don’t see women or perhaps even people as individuals. Actually I don’t have a problem with them at all, I just see them as individuals who seem to have a problem with themselves.
>To Romancandle:No one is saying that Andrea Dworkin was a great woman and that people should forget about the insane things she said. You're saying exactly that about Roissy.You can fall in love with a woman without marrying her. Most people don't get married these day. So you intent to spend the rest of your life having one-night-stand with women and ridicule guys that have a girlfriend like Roissy does ?To Clarencecomments:There is a fucking difference for a woman between a guy that abuse other guys and a guy that abuse her.
>Kave:At least you didn't fall into the trap of "one rule for me, another for thee".Being cocky funny can be seen by some as being jerk behavior, but by others as being confident around women.And I dare say, that even a nerd can tell when a girl is laughing back at some jokes or teasing back, as opposed to finding out the same guy has 3 girls and is cheating on all of them, or having to suffer (like my brother) being everyone's platonic friend and having to hear the same problems from the same girl about the same guy over and over and over. Or of course watching the same girl fall into the same type of relationship again and again and again, all the while knowing he would never treat them that way. He did say he got two useful things out of that time of his life:A. He found that a lot of teenage girls are very superficial in what they like and that there are tons of fucked up guys and gals out thereB. He never got beaten up as the girlfriends protected him. He was their sweetie, the guy they could go to and blab.And yeah, while he later had a very flaming relationship with a hot redhead for about 2 years, he's also the guy we caught with a long time galpal (who is married , but he used to have a crush on) in bed, totally dressed both of them and sleeping like logs. Talk about being able to turn it on and off..I could have a girl sleep in my bed or on my couch and she'd be safe, but there's NO WAY I'm sleeping with a girl I'm interested in and not getting any. I gotta envy him that ability, even as I find the situation rather pathetic.In any case, I can assure you that no, guys that tease girls who tease them back aren't generally regarded as "jerks" at least by anyone I've ever known. It's the guys that the girls are always crying over and then you have to wonder why these girls go back to these guys again and again and again…well, I'll tell you why: mistaken calibration and the girls ignorance of their attraction triggers.
>avpd:And when the world was New and Different and women weren't empowered and they needed help fendng off the saber tooth tigers, then yes, choosing a man for his ability to commit violence and protect made perfect sense.When women (varies over time and place of course) couldn't choose their husbands but had them chosen for them, ending up with a murderous pyschopath who treated you well, was, well ok I guess.But when you have a choice and decide that you like a guy because his multiple jail stays are evidence of an exciting life and the pound down he gave that annoying geek turned you on, then excuse me for saying that you don't get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to your character. Generally women who let their attraction to low-character men lead them are of low character themselves.And yeah, it's partly about drama, but a certain percentage of girls do seek out abusive relationships (not talking bdsm ssc here but actual non-con abuse). Don't take my word for it. Take the word of Erin Prizzy the woman who founded the UK's first women's shelter.
>@Clarence, 'nerd' and 'jerk' are in no way shape or form mutually exclusive and someone being a 'nerd' does not mean they are less sexist or less prone to be an abuser. "esp. since many of them tend to be among the most pro-feminist people in high schools and on college campuses." This is not true at all. Homophobia and sexism is often rampant in geek culture and amoung 'nerds'. And I say this as someone who is a gamer, who is a huge sci-fi nerd, who has a collection of manga that takes up a bookshelf, who actually learned basic Japanese for better anime viewing, who read the Lord of the Rings at least a dozen times between ages eight and thirteen, who was considered the nerdiest member of a philosophy club that met on Friday evenings, and that is just the tip of the iceberg. I wish it were true that geeks and nerds did not have our fair share of jerks, sexists, and abusers, but it isn't. The world isn't divided into a 'nice nerd'/'mean jock' dicotomy like some cheesy 90s teen movie.People who aren't interested in dating nerds are generally just not interested in nerds, it does not mean that they seek out non-nerdy jerks rather than non-nerdy non-jerks. And, again, 'jerk' is rather subjective and individualistic. For example, a libertarian dating another libertarian probably does not think that libertarians are jerks. However, a socialist might think that libertarianism is jerk-ish and avoid dating them. Can the socialist then say that both of the libertarians intentionally try to date jerks? And, as I pointed out before, people behave inconsistently on a group and individual basis. A racist, for example, might be intensely nice to white people and intensely mean to black ones. Some of the white people may get the impression that this person is nice, whereas the black people will get the impression that this person is mean. The bully that beats you up may be very nice to his girlfriend. If she knows that he is a bully to others and does not care or thinks you need a good beating, then we are back to the 'libertarians don't tend to think other libertarians are jerks' category.
>DarkSideCat:So it's all moral relativism to you, then.But then you can't prove that the saying "chicks dig jerks" isn't true 100 percent of the time, because you have no criteria to distinguish between right and wrong or indeed jerk and non-jerk behavior. Of course I don't believe the phrase to be true all the time, just as I believe there are some "nice guys" and some real nice guys. But then I have ethical criteria.I won't be arguing this again with you, as it would be pointless.
>Hell, I'm fucking a guy who's an asshole (of the "I don't care about people" kind, rather than the "actively cruel" kind). But he's really, really nice to me– constant flattery, cares primarily about me in bed, lots of cuddles. So I could care less how he acts to other people.Also, he is a giant nerd, so I'm not sure if he gets to be a Nice Guy just because of that.Datum: the nicest people I've ever met have also had the most distressing piercings, tattoos and fashion sense.
>If your brother is an adult and not around 20, why the heck is he around teenage girls?Also, yes teenage girls are superficial. So are guys at that age. It is part of growing up.
>Elizabeth:Reading is fundamental.This was back in his high school days. You know, note the use of "past tense" in how I wrote it.Not that I'd care if he was hanging around teenage girls. Contrary to feminist propaganda, most guys aren't rapists. You want to complain about that, complain about me. My previous girlfriend was 21, and I'm in my late thirties. Not that I give a crap what you think about appropriate dating ranges is anyway. To me, anyone 18 or over is fair game.
>Clarence-you used a bad example by using teenage girls as evidence that women are superficial and that your brother was/is in perpetual "LJBF" mode because of it.A person who is 16 is going to be very different then a 30 year old. The qualities that make a male a LJBF guy when he is 16 might be the qualities that she desires at 30.
>"That's actually another tactic my ex would use – insist that we bore equal responsibility for every problem we had."—LVvSI'm not your ex. Perhaps there was more than a grain of truth to his insistence?
>"And yes, eventually I realized that this relationship was unhealthy, we broke up, and I took some time to figure out what it was that I had been looking for that made me end up with this guy. We all make mistakes; adults learn from them."Well, there it is.
>To ClarenceComments:These women that seek out abusers have issues and are emotionally dependent on men. And they can depend on any type of men, I've known a woman in a shyness forum that was like that, her first husband was beating her (I don't know if he was popular with women) and her second husband was asexual – he was a 30 years old virgin before meeting her and was never able to have normal sex with her.
>"having to suffer (like my brother) being everyone's platonic friend and having to hear the same problems from the same girl about the same guy over and over and over."No one is required to do this. If he's doing it in hopes of getting some pussy, he's an asshole and an idiot. Pretending to care makes him the asshole; thinking it will work makes him the idiot.
>"And yeah, while he later had a very flaming relationship with a hot redhead for about 2 years,"Here's an example of assholery on your own.Me and my friends didn't and don't refer to my previous boyfriends and male friends as, for example, the longhaired hottie with the big cock, the dark Greek with the gorgeous green eyes, the model and ex-escort, the tight-bodied gymnast, or the brilliant and sultry belly dancer. Judging his worth by the way his girlfriend looks is pretty sad.
>jupiter, ya little dip:Here's why I did that. Because he spent all his high school days being the "I just don't like you that way" best friend for lots of girls. I could easily see someone in and claiming well, if he's not good enough to date there must be something wrong with him.So I decided to mention he did eventually get a girlfriend and have a ltr. I like to add colorful adjectives when I can, if you don't like it, tough nuts. I'm not about to "mea culpa" for thinking my brother had a "hot" girlfriend.
>Elizabeth:So I guess the shy, awkward, or geeky guy is best advised by you to wait until he is thirty and then some gal who's had lots of "experience" if you know what I mean, might decide to "settle" for him. Of course, if he hasn't gotten any help, his social deficits are likely to kill any "real" attraction she might have had for him, but that's ok, she can still "give it up" enough to get him, maybe "think of England" while she's at it. Of course this won't end well, as he senses she doesn't really love him or she considers him second best to all those exciting , experienced lovers she had. Plus, she'll almost certainly end up leaving him, taking any kids with her and some of his money to boot.Line up guys! Sounds like a real deal to me.
>Clarence-my best friend is male, a virgin and turns 31 this year. He is shy, awkward and geeky…except when working where he is a brilliant attorney who does an awesome job of representing his clients. He is also someone who purposely chose to become a public defender despite his being worth much more as an attorney. He is a great saver and has nearly saved enough to buy a house by paying it in full.In other words-he is a caring, reliable, responsible, economical guy who is also socially awkward and not very good with the ladies. It took until he was in his late twenties to have a serious long term relationship because it took him a very long time to figure out how to highlight the positive traits he has and it took that long to start finding women who appreciate those qualities.So when your brother was the LJBF guy, he may have been mature, responsible, reliable, etc…and many a young woman in her teens or early twenties is not going to see those as positive traits because of their lacking understanding why they are important due to simply immaturity. And since I know you would lob this at me-I asked him out, we dated briefly but he never was as interested in me as I was in him. So we became friends instead.
>Clarence: I like how you high-five guys who are "scoring" a lot of women, but look down on women with a lot of what you call "experience" because, apparently, she'll actually expect to enjoy sex? Oh, and then you assume she'll leave a guy and take his kids because, I guess, that's how all women or at least all "experienced" women are?
>David! Good to see you poke your head into the fray:Here's some numbers for you to crunch.A linkyMy issue with Elizabeth's post wasn't just that , however. What my hypothetical guy is , is a 30 year old virgin or near virgin -like I was. I had all of 2 sexual partners by the time I was 30.Now, imagine at that point some lady had heard her biological clock tick and decided I'd make good "provider" material. She'd come in to the relationship with tons sexual experience compared to me, and how could she NOT help but compare? Besides, most women like guys that have been pre-selected by other women. Needless to say, I'm reasonably sure this lady would consider herself "settling" as it was unlikely I'd be rocking her world. So, at the time never even having had a long term relationship, operating on the mostly crappy "mainstream" advice, I'd almost certainly kill her attraction to me. So she's bored, putting up with maybe a kid, and I'm bored never having sex with my wife and there's tensions, and no reason in the world for her to stay in an "unhappy" marriage even if for the sprat's sake. Not to mention if I ever got a clue that she was just "settling" for me I'd have resentment and mistrust (because even when I was 30 thanks to the internet I knew about the marital laws)…And you really don't think that would end badly?
>Or you could stop assuming that a woman who has lots of experience is just "settling" and has grown up enough to appreciate someone being responsible, reliable, economical and other positive traits.Also, most women do not "compare" like you do a person's sexual behavior with other partners.
>Elizabeth:You do know that teens and early 20's are extremely "horny" times for both sexes but even more so for young men, don't you? If you think the LJBF's shit didn't HURT my brother, you have another think coming. And while us males do have an advantage in the fertility area, it's still true that we are better off in our teens/20's then in our 30's, 40's, or 50's when it comes to making healthy or viable babies.In any case, teaching young women to date more responsibly might be a good thing, but I forgot that many people on the "left" don't really give a crap about marriage or family formation anyway, so that will never happen. There's a lot of truth in that what many girls from 15 to 25 need is a good father or grandmother presence in their lives. Someone to say no, or at least tell them the often ugly truth of what following their immediate desires can bring them. No, chances are that arrogant jock you want so badly isn't going to settle down for you or settle down at all for years and years, and no, you probably can't change that violent, multiply paroled boyfriend of yours.Never will happen, though, as our families continue to split up, or never be formed in the first place.
>Elizabeth:Here's another ugly truth for you. Women generally get hit harder by aging then men.A 30 year old just usually doesn't have "it" when compared to my 21 year old. So after this guy waits all those years he can get a gal who appreciates him but is showing signs of aging rapidly. And heaven forbid if he marry her that he insists that she stay in some kind of shape. That would be oppression and probably "psychological abuse" as well. In short "If the kitten don't want me, why should I want the cat"?
>Clarence=immaturity.Your 21 year old is about your level of maturity and too timid to stand up to you the way a woman closer to your age would so naturally you justify it with "well she has a hot body and an older woman would not" when all it is that you are too scared to deal with a woman of your own age. It is also extremely telling that you mention that a need to "teach her" whereas a woman who is closer to your age would be not need such. That says to me that you are too insecure around a woman in your age bracket since she no longer needs your guidance like a young woman does. And that without that guidance, you feel you have nothing to offer a woman.
>Elizabeth :"Shaming language" is never a good idea when in an argument, but you'll quickly find them more than ready to fight fire with fire.But the real reason you got upset is you know I'm right. While I'm willing to date older women and even marry those in their early 30's I have a range and it has a sharp cut off point. 18 to 32 or possibly 35 if she kept herself in shape, and gets a fertility test. Sorry, but the vast majority of women over 32 (even those who are still "hot" and they do exist -laser and plastic surgeries and staying in shape can do wonders) they go into my "one night stand" bin.And yeah, if I ever did marry an "older" (30 or up )woman, I would insist she stay in shape, and try my best to stay in shape for her. Unlike you, I'm not in denial about how important sexual attraction is in a marriage, esp. when one is being asked to be faithful.You see, I want a kid. Now take your "empowerment" and your insults and stick them where the sun never shines.
>I will let you bend over first Clarence and I promise to use lube.The fact is-you are a man in your late thirties who is scared of women your own age. First hint of maturity and you run screaming for the hills.Sexual attraction is important-but who says a human has to be "in shape" to be attractive? Other than a shallow, immature male such as yourself of course.
>Clarence, I'm not going to argue with your ridiculous hypothetical examples. I will note, however, that the study you cited put everyone who'd had more than one sexual partner — that is, the vast majority of people, and virtually every adult woman I've ever dated — in the same category. So, by the standards of the study you cite, you at 30 were hardly in the "virgin" category. Having had 2 sexual partners, you were clearly a dirty "experienced" whore.
>Clarence and Elizabeth, let's just move past the whole "sticking things where the sun don't shine" stuff.
>And yeah, if I ever did marry an "older" (30 or up )woman, I would insist she stay in shape, and try my best to stay in shape for her. And if she doesn't stay in shape, what then?
>Captain Bathrobe:I divorce her. Really simple, right?
>David:Actually what the post linked to says is that women who are experienced are far more likely to divorce than men who are experienced.I mean , I know you didn't take the time to actually read it, now, did you? Prior to that post, he had 3 posts on "Defining slut" which seemed to show the same thing, that study merely backed up the original paper which used the US governments National Survey of Family Growth.Women who bone might have more trouble at "bonding" then men ON AVERAGE.GASP. Could it be a real, genuine, SEX difference that has something to do with the so-called "double standard"?Naw, I'm sure it's not. Because all "enlightened people" know that gender roles are NEVER influenced by genes but ONLY by culture. Right? Right? Basically, I didn't buy into it all at once. I spent a few months passing those posts around to various feminist and masculinist places, and guess what? So far, they've held up. I've even looked at NSFG data myself to make sure they haven't been misused.For a man looking into marriage, it is safest, esp in these days of no-fault divorce, to pick a partner who doesn't have tons of sexual experience. If she does it's my OPINION (no studies go into WHY some girls can be faithful at 50 plus partners, while most can't) that it's probably something to do with girls who prefer drunken hook ups. So I avoid those as marriage material – if she makes a habit of it. Since I've never gotten a girl drunk to get her in my bed, I'm not missing anything, nor being hypocritical.
>Elizabeth:I'm a man in my late thirties who is perfectly normal and is not:A. attracted to MOST aging women, esp those who haven't kept themselves in shape.B. attracted to women whose fertility is on a steep declineC. Wanting to forever be compared to the Captain of the High School football team which I very much was not.I am attracted to youth and fertility. That's perfectly natural for a guy and makes sense evolutionary. That it somehow offends or frightens you is just tough cookies. I don't want a used up, entitled, bitter (because she's had tons of experience , most of it bad) competitive harpy who can't provide with me a kid with or without help from modern medical science.Sorry, but game over for ladies who think they can coast until they are thirties and then men they neglected/insulted/or overlooked will just fall into their arms.
>Clarence, sorry, cupcake, but since you're a slut I don't have to take anything you say seriously.
>David:That's alright dear man. Just like the CONSAD report that pretty much put the nail in the coffin of "pay discrimination" which you never noted in your thread on that subject, I'm half surprised you haven't just banned me and removed the links. After all, it's quite obvious you can't actually deal with them in terms of logical argumentation.I was mostly having fun interacting with your commenters anyway, I know this blog exists only to make fun , very one-sidedly – of the targets of your political blindness, and I'm aware that most of your posts could be written by a robot since they contain the following simple algorithm:Anything feminism/progressivism says is right and proper. Anything some group or person says that critiques said political philosophies is dumb/evil/ or wrongSince no one with any brains (according to your lights) could possibly believe that anything about your favorite political groups or stances is fucked up or incorrect, you don't have to actually, you know, deal with any argumentsRinse/repeat.You don't even show the intellectual honesty or bravery of most of your commenters. Pretty sad, really.
>I can't believe I forgot to mention the good old CONSAD report. Barry did a good post on that; I have now linked to it in my wage-gap post. Now that I've dealt with CONSAD, how about you refute all the other stuff I cited there? As for your study, I'm dubious about it, but I'm not going to dismiss it without actually reading it, and I don't have time at the moment. Maybe I'll get to it later. But in any case, "women who are virgins when they are married" are a fairly small demographic slice. Probably conservative, probably religious, probably quite young, and probably the sort of women I would have absolutely no interest in. I actually prefer women who are — gasp! — "experienced," and who have had, you know, a reasonably normal amount of sex in their lives. I will take my chances with them.