Hi everyone, well I met this guy like 3 weeks ago and we went on a date. We slept together on the first night. He would call me and text every once and a while. We went on a second date and slept together again. Everything seemed fine. He aksed be to be his girlfriend. The last time we talked he didnt want to stay on the phone with me because I wasnt talking that much. Im a shy person i cant help it. Well its been a week and a half and I havent heard anything from him. No call, no text, no nothing. I emailed and text him but still nothing from him. I havent called him or text him in days. I wanted to give him some space to see if he will contact me but still nothing. Whats going on? If he doesnt want to be with me y doesnt he just tell me that. Should I just move on and forget about him:nonono: :mad:

He's lost interest. You should probably move on.

Oh, and stop sleeping with guys on the first date. :rolleyes: :nonono:

Pretty much.
Unfortunately the "ignore them and hopefully they'll go away" technique is used by immature guys & gals everywhere...

Sleeping with a guy on the first date isn't necessarilly the problem. Want to make sure he continues to call you and wants to see you again and again? Be the best f*** he's ever had and give the best blowjobs you possible can. He'll want to see you again.

Want to seal the deal? Cook him meals unnanounced. We're so easy.

Simple rules for women to live by, by optimus.

1. Don't be a high maintenance bitch
2. Don't call him 5 times a day
3. Don't pressure him for marriage
4. Don't try to "change" him
5. Don't give him shit or make him feel guilty for hanging out with his friends
6. DO be the best lay he's ever had
7. DO cook him meals occasionally
8. DO treat him as you would like to be treated
9. DO be honest with him
10. DO be cool and fun, and easy to talk to and enjoyable to be with

There you have it ladies. It's as easy as pie. Men aren't asking for much.

Your e-book ain't cuttin it?

http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95504

I have an ebook that will give you tips & secrets on how to get a man and keep him. Great ebook!! email me if interested honeyb2365@yahoo.com

Simple rules for women to live by, by optimus.

1. Don't be a high maintenance bitch
2. Don't call him 5 times a day
3. Don't pressure him for marriage
4. Don't try to "change" him
5. Don't give him shit or make him feel guilty for hanging out with his friends
6. DO be the best lay he's ever had
7. DO cook him meals occasionally
8. DO treat him as you would like to be treated
9. DO be honest with him
10. DO be cool and fun, and easy to talk to and enjoyable to be with

There you have it ladies. It's as easy as pie. Men aren't asking for much.

Yeah, I don't buy it. Guys are more complicated than that, unless I just married a guy with a psuedo vagina.

Simple rules for women to live by, by optimus.

1. Don't be a high maintenance bitch
2. Don't call him 5 times a day
3. Don't pressure him for marriage
4. Don't try to "change" him
5. Don't give him shit or make him feel guilty for hanging out with his friends
6. DO be the best lay he's ever had
7. DO cook him meals occasionally
8. DO treat him as you would like to be treated
9. DO be honest with him
10. DO be cool and fun, and easy to talk to and enjoyable to be with

There you have it ladies. It's as easy as pie. Men aren't asking for much.

That sounds good to me :nice:

But I think it's even simpler than that. Just follow rule #4 all the way. Find a guy who already is who you want him to be, and be happy. Don't stick with a guy who isn't who you want him to be. Once you can do that, everything else comes easy :)

Finding a guy you want may not be easy, but if you keep yourself open to opportunities by not wasting time with the wrong guys, you greatly increase the number of guys you can find, so it won't take as long to find the right one. But you still gotta be patient.

Yeah, I don't buy it. Guys are more complicated than that, unless I just married a guy with a psuedo vagina.

Sounds like you weren't patient enough. :nonono:

Yeah, I don't buy it. Guys are more complicated than that, unless I just married a guy with a psuedo vagina.
Ok, what don't you buy buggy?

Your e-book ain't cuttin it?

http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95504


:lol: :rofl:

Well done, Ironweed!!! :nice:

(Frankly, I have this sneaking suspicion we're being used as "research" for either a revision or a second volume. :mad: )

(Frankly, I have this sneaking suspicion we're being used as "research" for either a revision or a second volume. :mad: )

I want my royalties! :mad:

1. Don't be a high maintenance bitch.

i.e. give but get nothing in return.

2. Don't call him 5 times a day

i.e. allow him to f**k around at his convenience

3. Don't pressure him for marriage

i.e. that way he never gets legally (read financially) punished for adultery and the like

4. Don't try to "change" him

cause that would mean he had to actually have to clean up after himself

5. Don't give him shit or make him feel guilty for hanging out with his friends

cause that's when the real bonding takes place, he's only using you for f**cking and eating, remember?

6. DO be the best lay he's ever had

whatever I said above applies

7. DO cook him meals occasionally

same here

8. DO treat him as you would like to be treated

but remember, he WILL NOT return the favour

9. DO be honest with him

cause your loyalty assures him that the potential offspring has 1/2 of HIS genes, in case he actually needs to invest in you and the offspring

10. DO be cool and fun, and easy to talk to and enjoyable to be with

i.e do not object, disobey, protest or stand in HIS way

There you have it ladies. It's as easy as pie. Men aren't asking for much

Optimus, don't take this personally.

I look at the battle of sexes through the eyes of a biologist. Evolution has created a conflict of interest between the two sexes. There is an overall exploitation of the females in the natural world. Even at the stage of conception, the female egg contributes so much more to the foetus in terms of nourishment (food supply), than the male sperm, whose sole job is to provide his portion of the genetic material. In general, the overall demand when it comes to parental investment is much higher on the female. This explains why females look for a male with significant possessions (in the nature, animals who can't win a territory don't get to mate).

Males are genetically "instructed" to behave selfishly, because they can. The female "adaptation" resulted in a limited ability to bare and care for children. Both sexes want to reproduce. Only, the female only has so many chances. Reproduction puts a strain on the female body. Her best strategy therefore is to bare a smaller number of children so that she could invest more care into each and every one of them simultaneously, so as to increase their chances of survival. The man loses nothing by creating as many children as he can. If one kid dies, he can make another. The woman stands to lose her health, and consequently, the life of her children.

Theoretically, men can make an "infinite" number of offspring during their lifetime, the purpose being to create better chances of the survival of their own genes. However, this only happens in moderation with the human species, because the chances of a human offspring proper survival are better/increased if the father is present, i.e. if he invests actual time and resources. Evidence of what happens in broken homes is en masse: kids who do drugs, crime, go into prostitution, end up in prison etc. Socializing by parents is an important part of bringing up a human - thus more than one parent is beneficial: more money = better nourishment, better schools, better job and so on.

The concept of male selfishness and female exploitation is nothing new. Some species are more equitable than others; whatever promotes gene survival best, you know. :|

:doh:

It was just a matter of time before someone totally misinterpreted what I was saying. Sigh.

i.e. give but get nothing in return.
Not what I was saying at all. I said, don't be a high maintenance bitch because it's annoying, and you become a pain in the ass and the relationship will suck, and then finally end. High maintenance females have no one to blame but themselves when they realize no one wants to be with them for more than a week or two.

i.e. allow him to f**k around at his convenience
Just NO. Do you like it when your needy boyfriend calls you 5 times per day? Didn't think so.

i.e. that way he never gets legally (read financially) punished for adultery and the like
Jesus Christ. NO. Don't pressure a man to get married so that he WILL want to marry you! It will be because HE wanted to propose, not because you forced him into it, or gave him some ultimatum, or whatever. My God.

cause that would mean he had to actually have to clean up after himself
You must be dating some slobs.

cause that's when the real bonding takes place, he's only using you for f**cking and eating, remember?
Sigh. Not what I meant at all. :doh:

whatever I said above applies
Nothing you've said above applies, except through the filter of your own negative experiences.

same here
It's just a simple gesture that men really appreciate. Just like you would really appreciate a man simply listening to your problems without constantly trying to solve them.

but remember, he WILL NOT return the favour
Again with your filter. Don't let your past experiences get in the way.

cause your loyalty assures him that the potential offspring has 1/2 of HIS genes, in case he actually needs to invest in you and the offspring
Honesty and loyalty are two different things. And I mentioned honesty because it's the most important thing in a relationship. Along with trust and respect. This isn't up for debate, either.

i.e do not object, disobey, protest or stand in HIS way
lol...you're something else. No, again that is not what I'm saying. Feel free to object, disobey or protest. That's all part of being honest. I'm saying, instead of being a high maintenence, demanding, spoiled brat, try being fun and have a sense of humor for once. How about, enjoying HIS company instead of thinking of how you're going to benifit from him and his "possesions?"

Optimus, don't take this personally.

I look at the battle of sexes through the eyes of a biologist. Evolution has created a conflict of interest between the two sexes. There is an overall exploitation of the females in the natural world. Even at the stage of conception, the female egg contributes so much more to the foetus in terms of nourishment (food supply), than the male sperm, whose sole job is to provide his portion of the genetic material. In general, the overall demand when it comes to parental investment is much higher on the female. This explains why females look for a male with significant possessions (in the nature, animals who can't win a territory don't get to mate).

Males are genetically "instructed" to behave selfishly, because they can. The female "adaptation" resulted in a limited ability to bare and care for children. Both sexes want to reproduce. Only, the female only has so many chances. Reproduction puts a strain on the female body. Her best strategy therefore is to bare a smaller number of children so that she could invest more care into each and every one of them simultaneously, so as to increase their chances of survival. The man loses nothing by creating as many children as he can. If one kid dies, he can make another. The woman stands to lose her health, and consequently, the life of her children.

Theoretically, men can make an "infinite" number of offspring during their lifetime, the purpose being to create better chances of the survival of their own genes. However, this only happens in moderation with the human species, because the chances of a human offspring proper survival are better/increased if the father is present, i.e. if he invests actual time and resources. Evidence of what happens in broken homes is en masse: kids who do drugs, crime, go into prostitution, end up in prison etc. Socializing by parents is an important part of bringing up a human - thus more than one parent is beneficial: more money = better nourishment, better schools, better job and so on.

The concept of male selfishness and female exploitation is nothing new. Some species are more equitable than others; whatever promotes gene survival best, you know. :|
I agree with most of what you've written here, except I'd add that women are looking to exploit men equally, if not more so because of the desire for long term security. We're designed to need each other. Your pussy isn't any more valuable than our dicks.

Wow, talk about jaded :crazy:

No offense, Canadiense, but I don't understand why any guy would want to be with a girl with that attitude.

Im high maintenance...my babeh loves it :)

Im high maintenance...my babeh loves it :)

You're too cool to be high maintenance.

My girlfriend's high maintenance, too. I don't mind a bit. Sure, it takes her two hours to take a shower, but when she's done she looks better than all those low-maintenance girls, so I'm happy :)

Ok, what don't you buy buggy?

Well, I agree with what you're saying - but I don't agree that all men are that easy to figure out. I was pretty easy going and one of the complaints was "Well, I thought you just didn't care". You have to factor in for the needy types out there. You know the old sayin' "you can please some of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time."

i.e. allow him to f**k around at his convenience


Trying to impede his freedom of choice because you cannot control your paranoia isn't healthy.

If you cannot trust him to keep his pants on, then the issue is with you. If he can't keep his pants on, no amount of watching him & policing him will change him.
(see rule #4 - 4. Don't try to "change" him)

You seem to have spent a lot of time chasing men & conforming them into what you wanted instead of accepting them for who they are. You wouldn't want a man to make you adapt to his ideal, why do you think a man would want it that way?

My girlfriend's high maintenance, too. I don't mind a bit. Sure, it takes her two hours to take a shower, but when she's done she looks better than all those low-maintenance girls, so I'm happy :)


I don't really consider trying to look your best high maintenance. Naggy, whiney... itsallaboutme.com broads are high maintenance.

My girlfriend's high maintenance, too. I don't mind a bit. Sure, it takes her two hours to take a shower, but when she's done she looks better than all those low-maintenance girls, so I'm happy :)

I think my definition of high maintenance is different. I'm not talking about just taking long to get ready, I don't mind that myself. I'm talking about:

-Demanding
-Spoiled
-Always has to have her way
-Always creating unecessary drama
-Always making you feel guilty to maintain control

Stuff like that.

I was pretty easy going and one of the complaints was "Well, I thought you just didn't care".

People caught with their pants down will try their darnedest to make it seem like it was your fault. Don't buy it. That one falls under the 'useless excuse' file.

:werd:

What buggy said about the meaning of "high maintenance".

Trying to impede his freedom of choice because you cannot control your paranoia isn't healthy.

Men have freedom of choice now?! Can they vote too? :mad:

Men have freedom of choice now?! Can they vote too? :mad:

Oh damn!! :(

*reconfigures*

People caught with their pants down will try their darnedest to make it seem like it was your fault. Don't buy it. That one falls under the 'useless excuse' file.

Thanks myst. You're right. I just felt like lashing out for a few seconds. :)

Thanks myst. You're right. I just felt like lashing out for a few seconds. :)

It was never up to you to make him happy. People have to make themselves happy. I'm sure you were loving, compassionate and giving. Don't let him make you feel bad for that. If he couldn't take what you gave him and make it work for him, it's his shortcoming.

Hi everyone, well I met this guy like 3 weeks ago and we went on a date. We slept together on the first night. He would call me and text every once and a while. We went on a second date and slept together again. Everything seemed fine. He aksed be to be his girlfriend. The last time we talked he didnt want to stay on the phone with me because I wasnt talking that much. Im a shy person i cant help it. Well its been a week and a half and I havent heard anything from him. No call, no text, no nothing. I emailed and text him but still nothing from him. I havent called him or text him in days. I wanted to give him some space to see if he will contact me but still nothing. Whats going on? If he doesnt want to be with me y doesnt he just tell me that. Should I just move on and forget about him:nonono: :mad:

it sucks that ppl can't be upfront and honest with ya. I'm going through a similar issue myself. if they don't want to be with ya, why can't they tell the person that? yeah, it hurts like hell, but at least you'll know the trurth instead of wondering. I would maybe send him a email asking him WTF, and that you deserve a explanation. If then you get nothing back after that, you have no choice but to just let it go, and realize you don't want to be with someone like that anyway.

Im high maintenance...my babeh loves it :)
You know...everyone has a different idea of "high maintenance"-if it means long showers and makeup? Whatevah.

My opinion is that to some extent, everyone's high maintenance. I mean really, who hasn't been through some real shit in their lives? Who doesn't have a skeleton in the closet, a freakish pet peeve, and a memory that makes them shudder? And everyone needs at least one other person in some magnitude to love them anyway.

So.

You know...everyone has a different idea of "high maintenance"-if it means long showers and makeup? Whatevah.

My opinion is that to some extent, everyone's high maintenance. I mean really, who hasn't been through some real shit in their lives? Who doesn't have a skeleton in the closet, a freakish pet peeve, and a memory that makes them shudder? And everyone needs at least one other person in some magnitude to love them anyway.

So.

Great post Dotcom.

I agree. Also, I think that to some extent everyone has periods of low maintenance in their lives too. Really knowing someone is knowing all sides of the whole person.

:)

I usually agree with you, Optimus, on a majority of your posts, but I'll have distance myself from you on this one, because whether you meant for it to be or not, your post is very offensive. Very sexist. Very stereotypical.

The first three things you suggested in your post of how to keep a man were **** him, blow him, and cook for him.

How does one not misinterpret that? I think Canandienese was on to something.

A girl shouldn't have to give a guy blowjobs to keep him interested, to make sure he keeps coming back. And I might be crazy, but shouldn't the last thing on your list be the very first? Because otherwise you'd just be "changing" the girl you're with...and like #4 reads, that's a big no no.

Call me old fashioned, but I don't think it should be so easy or so acceptable to call a woman a bitch simply because she's not how you want her to be, how you think she should be.

Women today prefer not to be married. In fact,according to the new study that's recently come out, the majority are NOT in any hurrry to marry/remarry. So don't mistake every woman for wanting a ring, a commitment, or that sex=love to her.

Cook his meals and **** him just to keep him around. Reminds me of some of the excuses I've heard (just recently, too) from female relatives on why their son/brother cheated.."well, she didn't show him enough affection...or if she would have cleaned better and cooked more, he wouldn't have been away from home so much".
Kind of makes you wonder.
1. Don't be a high maintenance bitch
2. Don't call him 5 times a day
3. Don't pressure him for marriage
4. Don't try to "change" him
5. Don't give him shit or make him feel guilty for hanging out with his friends
6. DO be the best lay he's ever had
7. DO cook him meals occasionally
8. DO treat him as you would like to be treated
9. DO be honest with him
10. DO be cool and fun, and easy to talk to and enjoyable to be with

That sounds good to me :nice:

But I think it's even simpler than that. Just follow rule #4 all the way. 4. Don't try to "change" him
Find a guy who already is who you want him to be, and be happy. Don't stick with a guy who isn't who you want him to be. Once you can do that, everything else comes easy :)

Finding a guy you want may not be easy, but if you keep yourself open to opportunities by not wasting time with the wrong guys, you greatly increase the number of guys you can find, so it won't take as long to find the right one. But you still gotta be patient.



Sounds like you weren't patient enough. :nonono:

Heheh...This is too funny. Feenix is actually giving sound advice, even though he categorizes himself (along with Optimus) as a "philanderer" type of male. However, he is honest enough to realize what a more successful strategy would be to a female, and that is - to be "coy".

women are looking to exploit men equally, if not more so because of the desire for long term security. We're designed to need each other.
Yes, both sexes want to maximize their "genetic output" during their lifetimes, but because of the unequal number of female eggs and male sperm, they must use different strategies.

A bit of Maynard-Smith and Dawkins mixed together produce the following theory:

Assume there are two female strategies "coy" and "fast", and two male strategies "faithful" and "philanderer".

The behavioral rules of these strategies are as follows:
- "coy" females will not copulate with a male until he has gone through a long and expensive courtship period;
- "fast" females will copulate immediately with anybody.
- "faithfull" males are prepared to go on courting for a long time, and after copulation, they stay with the female and help her to rear their young;
- "philanderer" males lose patience quickly if a female will not copulate with them straight away; they go off and look for another female; after copulation they do not stay and act as good fathers, but go off in search of fresh females.

Any of this sound familiar to any of you? Heheh, bare with me...:)

Using hypothetical arbitrary values for the various cost and benefits of these strategies, suppose the genetic pay-off for rearing a child successfully is +15 units. The cost of rearing one child (food, time spent and risks taken on it's behalf) is -20 units. The cost of wasting time in prolonged courtship is -3 units.

Suppose we have a population in which all the females are "coy" and all the males are "faithful" (ideal monogamous society). Both male and female pay-off is equal, they both get = +15 (for rearing a child successfully) -10 (sharing the cost of -20 equally) -3 (penalty for wasting time in prolonged courtship), so total pay-off to both = +15-10-3 = +2

Now a twist; suppose a single "fast" female entered this population. She does not pay the -3 penalty because she does not delay, and since all the males in the population are "faithful", she can reckon on finding a good faher for her children whomever she mates with. Her pay-off per child would be = +15-10 = +5. She is 3 units ahead than her "coy" rivals. Therefore "fast" genes will start to spread.

If "fast" females succeed in predominating the population, things will change in the male camp too. If a "philanderer" male arises in the population, he will start to do better than his "faithful" rivals. In a population where all the females are "fast", the pickings for a "philanderer" male are rich indeed. He gets a +15 if a child is successfully reared, and pays none of the two costs. Each of his unfortunate wives struggles on alone with the child, paying the entire cost of -20 units (she does not pay anything for wasting time in courtship). The net payoff for a "fast" female when she encounters a "philanderer" male = +15-20 = -5 units. The pay-off to the "philanderer" is +15.

If "philanderers" succeed in predominating the population, the "coy" females gain advantage over their "fast" rivals. If a "coy" female encounters a "philanderer" no business results. Thus, the net pay off to the "coy" female is zero, since no benefit, nor cost is incurred. Zero may not seem as much, but it is better than -5 which is the score for the "fast" female. So, "coy" genes start to spread through the population again.

To complete the cycle, when "coy" females predominate, "philanderers" start to feel the pinch. He goes from female to female with no business resulting. "Philanderer" net pay-off is thus zero, whereas the net pay-off to a "faithful" male is +2 (as mentioned in the beginning). This way "faithful" genes start to increase, and we come full circle.

The evolutionary stable population turns out to be the one in which 5/6 females are "coy" and 5/8 males ae "faithfull". The Evolutionary Stable Strategy (ESS) could equally be achieved if the female spends 5/6 of her time being "coy" and 1/6 of her time being "fast", and if the male spands 5/8 of his time being "faithful" and the rest of his time philandering. Any tendency from both sexes to deviate from these respective ratios will be penalized by a consequent change in the ratio of strategies of the other sex, which is to the disatvantage to the original deviant. Therefore, the ESS will be preserved.

Now analogous to this, the liberalization of women could be translated into "fast" genes predominating the population. We've seen in the above example of cost benefit analysis, that in a "fast" predominated population, "philanderers" do better than their "faithful" rivals. Allow me to repeat the net pay-off to everybody involved:

"fast" female = +15-20 = -5
"philanderer" = +15
"faithful" = +15-10-3 = +2

So, to put this simply: coyness pays off.

Note to Mimi, the girl who started this thread: in your case, you chose the "fast" female strategy, and he is clearly a "philanderer". Advice: change your strategy from "fast" to "coy". In a population full of "philanderers" any "coy" female has advantage over "fast" female rivals, as you stand to lose nothing, while they will pay a higher price for being "fast". This makes a lot of sense to me, I hope this helps you in the future.

Heheh...This is too funny. Feenix is actually giving sound advice, even though he categorizes himself (along with Optimus) as a "philanderer" type of male. However, he is honest enough to realize what a more successful strategy would be to a female, and that is - to be "coy".


If you think "philanderer" implies that I'm unfaithful, then no I don't categorize myself that way. I've only kissed another girl once, never did anything more than that, and I confessed to it the next day and faced the consequences. I'll never do it again. I'll break up with the girl if I ever have the inclination to do that again.

I'm not suggesting that a woman be coy at all. What I'm suggesting is that you should be impossible to get for the wrong guys, and easily available for the right one.

I think my definition of high maintenance is different. I'm not talking about just taking long to get ready, I don't mind that myself. I'm talking about:

-Demanding
-Spoiled
-Always has to have her way
-Always creating unecessary drama
-Always making you feel guilty to maintain control

Stuff like that.

Yeah, I agree that girls like that are a waste of time.

I usually agree with you, Optimus, on a majority of your posts, but I'll have distance myself from you on this one, because whether you meant for it to be or not, your post is very offensive. Very sexist. Very stereotypical.


I don't think it's fair to call Optimus' advice sexist. Nobody asked him what his advice to men would be. I imagine it would be very similar to his advice to women.

My advice to men is the same as it is to women; be patient and find the one you like. Don't go for the first woman who shows any interest. Wait until you find a woman you like, and then be happy with her the way she is. Don't take a woman you sort-of like and then try to turn her into what you want her to be. Love her or leave her, just don't try to change her.

Hi everyone, well I met this guy like 3 weeks ago and we went on a date. We slept together on the first night. He would call me and text every once and a while. We went on a second date and slept together again. Everything seemed fine. He aksed be to be his girlfriend. The last time we talked he didnt want to stay on the phone with me because I wasnt talking that much. Im a shy person i cant help it. Well its been a week and a half and I havent heard anything from him. No call, no text, no nothing. I emailed and text him but still nothing from him. I havent called him or text him in days. I wanted to give him some space to see if he will contact me but still nothing. Whats going on? If he doesnt want to be with me y doesnt he just tell me that. Should I just move on and forget about him:nonono: :mad:

ROFLMAO, you nailed him twice before you decided to get to know him? What a slut. Have some respect for yourself by not disrespecting yourself. Quality men don't steal home on the first date. You're no more than just another piece of ass for this guy, another trophy.

ROFLMAO, you nailed him twice before you decided to get to know him? What a slut. Have some respect for yourself by not disrespecting yourself. Quality men don't steal home on the first date. You're no more than just another piece of ass for this guy, another trophy.

Is this Venting or Negative Reinforcement?

Chin up Mimi, you're not a bad person, just inexperienced. Don't pay attention to certain posts here, because people whose last words are a personal attack are not even attempting to think critically - they are using this forum as a mental punching bag.

Just remember that "love" is a very calculating business. Feenix used the word "patience", I'm afraid it seems like the best option for a girl nowadays. A bit of patience costs you the time you could spend looking for other men, but that's about it. So if you decide to employ the "patience" strategy, at least make sure you really like this guy at first sight. From there on, it shouldn't be that complicated, I'm sure you can be successful at attracting the right guy, it's only requires moderating one's own impulsive nature, shouldn't be that hard.

No offense, Canadiense, but I don't understand why any guy would want to be with a girl with that attitude.

What attitude is that Feenix? How could you posibly know what every guy would want, in a population of 6.5 Billion (50% of which is male)?

So the point of this post is what, to put me down? That it? Oh but wait, you did say: "no offence"... Try giving an intelligent argument instead.

Oh and btw, none taken.

Is this Venting or Negative Reinforcement?


It's neither, rather just my opinion on the matter. Gentlemen don't take advantage of women like that on a first date so don't try to build a relationship with losers by letting your hormones get in the way of dinner and good conversation. Sex isn't as big a deal to many women and I realize that they let themselves be used like this because they're lonely or whatever but come on, get to know the man first and if he's worth a damn he won't be asking for more than peck on the cheek after the first date.

What attitude is that Feenix? How could you posibly know what every guy would want, in a population of 6.5 Billion (50% of which is male)?

So the point of this post is what, to put me down? That it? Oh but wait, you did say: "no offence"... Try giving an intelligent argument instead.

Oh and btw, none taken.

Allow me to rephrase: You seem to think that every guy wants to cheat on you all the time, and use you for sex and cooking. It's like they're guilty until proven innocent, only they can never be proven innocent. Why would any guy want to be with a girl who thinks that about him?

BTW, I think you and I should start our own talk show. We'd get great ratings :nice:

It's neither, rather just my opinion on the matter. Gentlemen don't take advantage of women like that on a first date so don't try to build a relationship with losers by letting your hormones get in the way of dinner and good conversation. Sex isn't as big a deal to many women and I realize that they let themselves be used like this because they're lonely or whatever but come on, get to know the man first and if he's worth a damn he won't be asking for more than peck on the cheek after the first date.

Sex is a big deal to most women. Women who sleep with a man after one or two dates aren't sluts, they are normal red-blooded females. Most women enjoy and want sex. If a woman has a partner that is inconsiderate of her needs, or she has medical problems that make sex uncomfortable or painful, I could see sex not being an important part of their lives.
Sex, for women, is as much a means of pleasure as it is to men. We have sexual needs, not just emotional needs.
Some men take relationships slow, some try & hook every piece of ass they can. Some men meet a woman in the bar, have sex the first night, and end up having a long term committed relationship with them. Relationships vary as much as they people in them.

I usually agree with you, Optimus, on a majority of your posts, but I'll have distance myself from you on this one, because whether you meant for it to be or not, your post is very offensive. Very sexist. Very stereotypical.

Perhaps. But the relationship between men and women is sexist. It wasn't meant to be offensive, but I realize that when I'm brutally honest someone will be offended. I'm used to it. The smart girls will take my adivce, memorize it, live it and be amazed at how good of a relationship they have after doing just those few things.

The first three things you suggested in your post of how to keep a man were **** him, blow him, and cook for him.

How does one not misinterpret that? I think Canandienese was on to something.

She did misinterpret it, big time.


A girl shouldn't have to give a guy blowjobs to keep him interested, to make sure he keeps coming back. And I might be crazy, but shouldn't the last thing on your list be the very first? Because otherwise you'd just be "changing" the girl you're with...and like #4 reads, that's a big no no.

No, a girl shouldn't "have" to do any of those things to keep him interested. She should be able to just rely on her looks and the fact that she's even interested in him. But that isn't reality. A man shouldn't "have" to wine and dine a woman to gain her interest, buy her things, change himself for her to accept him, make a lot of money to give her "security", or sacrifice certain things in order to keep her happy. This goes both ways.

Personally I'm amazed there is any resistance at all from the females here on what I've suggested. It's SO EASY. So freaking easy, very little effort at all, and you'll get everything you want in return. Compare that to what women typically ask from MEN, and men have to do 10 times the amount of work.

Call me old fashioned, but I don't think it should be so easy or so acceptable to call a woman a bitch simply because she's not how you want her to be, how you think she should be.

Some women are bitches. I'm a realist. I don't sugar coat things, beat around the bush, or censor my thoughts in any way as to not "offend" someone. I don't conform to someone else's standards on what I "should" be or "act" like.

Some men are a-holes.

Women today prefer not to be married. In fact,according to the new study that's recently come out, the majority are NOT in any hurrry to marry/remarry. So don't mistake every woman for wanting a ring, a commitment, or that sex=love to her.

Yes, I am aware of that. I am aware they all say that, but put 8 out of 10 of those women in a relationship for 2 or 3 years, and they'll be thinking marriage. Especially as they watch all their friends getting married, and having to put up with their own mother constantly asking, "When are you gonna get married??"

Cook his meals and **** him just to keep him around. Reminds me of some of the excuses I've heard (just recently, too) from female relatives on why their son/brother cheated.."well, she didn't show him enough affection...or if she would have cleaned better and cooked more, he wouldn't have been away from home so much".
Kind of makes you wonder.

I'm not saying cook his meals and F him just to keep him around, I'm saying, cook a nice meal occasionally (funny how everyone missed that word) and be the best LAY he's had. There's nothing wrong with being a completely awesome in bed. Sex is important to men, and it's important to women too. Make the best of it. It's in your best interest if you want to maintain the relationship. Deal with the simple request. Make your man happy and he'll WANT to make you happy in return. This is not difficult. If you don't want to please him, then what the hell should he do for you?

As far as why their son? brother? cheated, he didn't cheat because she didn't clean well enough, or cook enough. He cheated because a need wasn't being fullfilled by his partner, so he got it elsewhere. It's the same reason women cheat, because they have a need that isn't being fullfilled, so they find it elsewhere.

This is where honesty comes in. It's the most important thing, you have to be honest with your partner, if you're not being fullfilled in the relationship in some way, you need to tell them.

Sex is a big deal to most women. Women who sleep with a man after one or two dates aren't sluts, they are normal red-blooded females. Most women enjoy and want sex. If a woman has a partner that is inconsiderate of her needs, or she has medical problems that make sex uncomfortable or painful, I could see sex not being an important part of their lives.
Sex, for women, is as much a means of pleasure as it is to men. We have sexual needs, not just emotional needs.
Some men take relationships slow, some try & hook every piece of ass they can. Some men meet a woman in the bar, have sex the first night, and end up having a long term committed relationship with them. Relationships vary as much as they people in them.

You realize I'm trying to take the females side here right? Men are pigs. You should use your pussy power wisely. I despise sexual predators.

As far as why their son? brother? cheated, he didn't cheat because she didn't clean well enough, or cook enough. He cheated because a need wasn't being fullfilled by his partner, so he got it elsewhere. It's the same reason women cheat, because they have a need that isn't being fullfilled, so they find it elsewhere.



Woah...back up, buddy.

People cheat because they want to. Cheating doesn't fill a gap, unless someone has a self-image problem that can only be satisfied by sex with another person. Saying 'the wife wouldn't give me a blowjob' is not a reason to cheat. It's a lame-ass excuse to cover a selfish act.

If you think "philanderer" implies that I'm unfaithful, then no I don't categorize myself that way. I've only kissed another girl once, never did anything more than that, and I confessed to it the next day and faced the consequences. I'll never do it again. I'll break up with the girl if I ever have the inclination to do that again.

I'm not suggesting that a woman be coy at all. What I'm suggesting is that you should be impossible to get for the wrong guys, and easily available for the right one.



Yeah, I agree that girls like that are a waste of time.



I don't think it's fair to call Optimus' advice sexist. Nobody asked him what his advice to men would be. I imagine it would be very similar to his advice to women.



I agree with Feenix. I mean, really...everyone has needs. And it's a simple truth that on the whole, when all is considered, men have different fundamental needs than women's fundamental needs. There's nothing wrong or bad about that, just accepting difference. Seems kind of sad to jump all over Optimus about all this. I mean, he's just kind of speaking his gender's piece...we'd be more pissed if he tried to claim he knew exactly what women needed, right?

Woah...back up, buddy.

People cheat because they want to. Cheating doesn't fill a gap, unless someone has a self-image problem that can only be satisfied by sex with another person. Saying 'the wife wouldn't give me a blowjob' is not a reason to cheat. It's a lame-ass excuse to cover a selfish act.

Men do not cheat because their wife wouldn't give them a blowjob (well, some might). In fact, most men do not cheat for phsyical reasons, believe it or not. They cheat because their current partner doesn't make them feel good, and they find someone who does make them feel good, or special, and out of weakness they cheat.

I agree that cheating is selfish, and I'm not defending it. I'm only giving the reasons.

You realize I'm trying to take the females side here right? Men are pigs. You should use your pussy power wisely. I despise sexual predators.

There's nothing wrong with women wanting a one-night stand, or a fling. That doesn't merit you calling them sluts.
A women should never expect more than a casual encounter when that is what the situation warrants. In that respect, you are correct, a woman looking for a relationship of substance should spend more time scouting a potential boyfriend than a pair of jeans at the mall.

Men do not cheat because their wife wouldn't give them a blowjob (well, some might). In fact, most men do not cheat for phsyical reasons, believe it or not. They cheat because their current partner doesn't make them feel good, and they find someone who does make them feel good, or special, and out of weakness they cheat.

I agree that cheating is selfish, and I'm not defending it. I'm only giving the reasons.

People cheat because they feel unfulfilled emotionally, not sexually. Research backs this up. The interest a new sexual partner shows in a cheater strokes their ego.
It's more about feeling wanted than trying something new sexual positions. Having a mistress do something new to you doesn't make you feel special. Her attraction to you is what makes you feel special.
The emotional issues usually come from a breakdown in communication in the relationship, or merely just the tedium of everyday cohabitation. People would rather go humping around than spend some time working at keeping the homefires burning.

There's nothing wrong with women wanting a one-night stand, or a fling. That doesn't merit you calling them sluts.
A women should never expect more than a casual encounter when that is what the situation warrants. In that respect, you are correct, a woman looking for a relationship of substance should spend more time scouting a potential boyfriend than a pair of jeans at the mall.

Alright then, at what point does a women or a man earn the title of slut?

The smart girls will take my adivce, memorize it, live it and be amazed at how good of a relationship they have after doing just those few things.

Are you in a monogamous relationship Optimus? Lemme guess... "NO" right? Because you sound like a very selfish male, and "smart girls" see through that right away. By that logic, you must have gone through a lot of stupid girls in your lifetime, which might explain the whole frustration with women (you use the word bitch and other descriptives a lot), for example:

1. Don't be a high maintenance bitch
you become a pain in the ass
being a high maintenence, demanding, spoiled brat
thinking of how you're going to benifit from him and his "possesions"
-Demanding
-Spoiled
-Always has to have her way
-Always creating unecessary drama
-Always making you feel guilty to maintain control
Some women are bitches. I'm a realist. I don't sugar coat things, beat around the bush, or censor my thoughts

Optimus, there's a lot of hostility in your posts.

And my personal favourite:

Make your man happy and he'll WANT to make you happy in return.

Notice the order? Woman must work hard first, so as to earn some kindness from her man.

She did misinterpret it, big time.
So say YOU. Others could disagree. I could not possibly missinterpret anything. I can interpret according to my logic. If you think you can beat that logic, you should state your contra-argument clearly. Merely stating that I misinterpreted you doesn't cut it. Allow me to illustrate. You argued the following as a rebuttle:

Jesus Christ. NO. Don't pressure a man to get married so that he WILL want to marry you! It will be because HE wanted to propose, not because you forced him into it, or gave him some ultimatum, or whatever. My God.

This is a weak argument. It only proves my point again, and that is that you cannot expect a man to have honest intentions of committing (and investing in the children) equally, if he has waited long enough for the woman to have to pressure him by insisting they get married. The reason women start insisting is that they start feeling their time might be wasted by remaining with a possible PHILANDERER. There are many men out there that actually pretend to have honest intentions, but they don't. Optimus, men and women want different things. Men want the freedom to f**k around and women prefer to keep one male and settle down, for obvious reasons I had already discussed. This is why you should not take anything I say personally. Think of you and me as two neighbouring countries at war. The battle of the sexes is as ancient as life itself, and ever present throughout the natural world. Optimus, if you were truly, truly honest....:) You would have said things that would make the women on this forum turn lesbian. Being partially honest will get the point accross anyway.



No, a girl shouldn't "have" to do any of those things to keep him interested. She should be able to just rely on her looks and the fact that she's even interested in him.

A profoundly romantic type aren't ya?:) Guess we should just shoot all the ugly and fat chicks, cause they are just eating up reasources and not contributing to the human kind, cause they'll never get laid. That's like providing them with wellfare. :)

But that isn't reality.

No... Because even the best looking women wake up with their hair all messed up and smeared make-up, bad breath, and oh yeah, their poop stinks too I guess...Bummer.:hmm:


Personally I'm amazed there is any resistance at all from the females here on what I've suggested.

You know Optimus, I think it's great when a woman takes care of her man. The problem is, a man who won't marry you, shouldn't get such benefits. And this does not imply that cooking for your boyfriend is a bad thing, so don't go on a rampage here. What I'm saying is: women get dooped plenty into serving the man without any guarantee that her time, resources and effort are indeed well spent. A "guarantee" is a relative term, everyone's situation is different. The thing is, woman's time is far more valuable than man's, because of the time span in which a woman can concieve children. Of course women are more susceptable to doubt when you keep delaying the closing of that legal contract. Marriage is a legal contract that binds you to the woman financially. Nothing more nothing less. The purpose of the whole affair is for the man to be (forcefully) committed to invest equally (resources, time and risk) in the rearing of the children. Why do you think it exists in the first place? Because if it didn't, my friends, males would have never become monogamous, it is simply not in their nature (read genes). This would translate into the human kind being in dire straits. If all females were abandoned immediately after copulation, the survival rate of human children would be way lower. And please, all the women out there who managed to get a "faithful" man, don't start with me. I never said that all men are philanderers. Go read my previous posts in this thread.

put 8 out of 10 of those women in a relationship for 2 or 3 years, and they'll be thinking marriage. Especially as they watch all their friends getting married, and having to put up with their own mother constantly asking, "When are you gonna get married??"

And as I stated above, keeping in mind that men and women have different goals and strategies when it comes to achieving maximum output... This is perfectly normal behaviour for women, it is to be expected. Optimus, the fact that, let's say, you don't want to commit, is perfectly normal too. And don't get me wrong - you will commit someday because it will be in your personal interest. In my previous post, I hope you'd noticed that a woman can spend only 1/6 (17%) of her time philandering, while a man can spend 3/8 (38%) of his time doing so, in a an ESS. Men f**k around for a longer period of time. Translated into years, which would be more understandable for everyone, suppose a woman's time span for having children is 26 years (if we assume a girl can concieve after her first period and average age of fertility is 14, until the age of 40 let's say, which means she's got 26 years to have babies). She can spend 16% of that time philandering (changing partners) after which it is not to her benefit anymore. That equates to 26 x .16 = 4 years. Now on the man's side, hahah...:) Look at this: the span itself is approx 56 years (from the age of 14 to the age of 70). Realistically, not a lot of men have kids at 70, but that does not mean they can't. :) So, the math is 56 x .38 = 21 years. Wow. So on average, women get to f**ck around for 4 years, and men for about 20 years, until they settle down. Doesn't this strike a familiar chord with anyone?

However, I believe you should agree that this means WAR. Unfortunately, it seems like the only way to win this war between males and females, for the female, would be to play hard to get. If all females started this trend, the philanderers would never get any opportunities, to the benefit of the few faithful men, who would then get all the benefits. Unfortunately, our Western society is currently (statistically speaking) 95% completely promiscuous (if you look at the stats for ppl having sex before marriage). We can use that as a proxy. That means that philanderers and "fast" females (read females who copulate with anyone immediately) are predominant. That also means that men are getting all the benefits, and that the women are the losers. Read my previous posts in this thread to get the full idea.

It's in your best interest if you want to maintain the relationship.

This is a fallacy. It is only in the interest of the male, if we are talking "interest". Let us be specific. Because once the female egg is fertilized, the female is in effect trapped, i.e. committed to that male. Her options thus end, while he is free to go off in other directions. How is it in the woman's interest exactly, Optimus?

If you don't want to please him, then what the hell should he do for you?
An honest, faithful man, who has semi-altruistic intentions towards the woman, will commit, or in human terms, get married. I say semi-altruistic because the primary goal for the man is to spread his genes, but since the child has 1/2 of fathers genes and 1/2 of mothers, I suppose he is semi-altruistic towards the mother as she contributes 50% to the rearing of the child - in ideal circumstances of course.

He cheated because a need wasn't being fullfilled by his partner, so he got it elsewhere. It's the same reason women cheat, because they have a need that isn't being fullfilled, so they find it elsewhere.

The reason we all cheat is because we are all simply selfish. Cheating, meaning maintaining more than one sexual partner, or in other words, keeping other options open, is nothing but a selfish attempt to maximize your genetic output. Men, biologically predisposed for this, do it more often, as a lot of females in the populution, as I'd mentioned above, are "trapped".

This is where honesty comes in. It's the most important thing, you have to be honest with your partner, if you're not being fullfilled in the relationship in some way, you need to tell them.

Telling would be like discovering your war strategy to the enemy.

Again, this is a discussion that concerns mainly the "fast" female and the "philanderer" male type strategies. There are plenty of faithful men and coy women who'd made their nest and live the domestic bliss scenario.

Alright then, at what point does a women or a man earn the title of slut?

Lemme guess, your parents were peasants? Don't you know anything about good manners or respect? How would you like being called insulting names? Calling someone a slut is, at the least, uncivilized. The only purpose of it is to belittle the other person. This person is in need of advice, it might actually lead this person to a better path. What is so constructive in calling her a slut?

Don't try to argue at what point someone should be undeservedly insulted - try understanding, try listening, try thinking constructively instead of negatively. You should not insult anyone - period. If you disagree with them, say "I disagree", or "I don't support that way of doing things" and then explain why. Calling a stranger a slut is like vandalizing a place and then cowardly running away. It's unintelligent. It makes you look stupid. There, you were just insulted. How do you like it?

People cheat because they feel unfulfilled emotionally, not sexually. Research backs this up. The interest a new sexual partner shows in a cheater strokes their ego.
It's more about feeling wanted than trying something new sexual positions. Having a mistress do something new to you doesn't make you feel special. Her attraction to you is what makes you feel special.
The emotional issues usually come from a breakdown in communication in the relationship, or merely just the tedium of everyday cohabitation. People would rather go humping around than spend some time working at keeping the homefires burning.


I was about to say, it's the 'newness'. In my case, I was traveling for work and the relationship was strained a bit because of it. Granted, I was faithful. I believe my best friend stroked his ego (and then some ;)), so that led to... whatever. Every case is different though. The grass is always greener... until it ain't.

I was about to say, it's the 'newness'. In my case, I was traveling for work and the relationship was strained a bit because of it. Granted, I was faithful. I believe my best friend stroked his ego (and then some ;)), so that led to... whatever. Every case is different though. The grass is always greener... until it ain't.

The 'newness' would be having someone new making you feel attractive & appealing, no?

It gets better, Buggy...hang in there. Some people actually don't take love for granted. :)

Alright then, at what point does a women or a man earn the title of slut?

So what are you, a labeling machine?
Why the need to be able to call someone a slut?

The 'newness' would be having someone new making you feel attractive & appealing, no?

Yup! I was totally agreeing with you. It's all new 'till it ain't. :) I believe you said happy comes from inside, well, it does and until then... maybe you always look for 'the new'.

It gets better, Buggy...hang in there. Some people actually don't take love for granted. :)

I believe you're right and I'm pretty OK. :) Thanks Myst.

I think the thread should've ended after the first reply.

he's only using you for f**cking and eating, remember?

:lol: (Sorry Optimus)

Trying to impede his freedom of choice because you cannot control your paranoia isn't healthy.

If you cannot trust him to keep his pants on, then the issue is with you. If he can't keep his pants on, no amount of watching him & policing him will change him.
(see rule #4 - 4. Don't try to "change" him)

You seem to have spent a lot of time chasing men & conforming them into what you wanted instead of accepting them for who they are. You wouldn't want a man to make you adapt to his ideal, why do you think a man would want it that way?

Whoa whoa whoa...
This is the reality: approximately 80% of men I have known in my lifetime are cheaters. Cheat on their gf, cheat on their wife, even cheat on the ones they're cheating with. And you accept men for who they are, when they sleep with other females, yet you cook his meals and rear his young? There is no basis for this Myst, I'm sorry. I cannot defend them. You may if it pleases you.

Witnessing the state of affairs, I got affected by the cruel truth, at an early age. For the longest time I thought that cheating was the modern way, the way to go. If you can't beat them - join them kind'a thing. What I didn't realize is that my time was valuable and I shouldn't waste it. By the time I woke up, I guess it was too late. I am 30 and unmarried (childless); not to say I had lost hope of finding a man to have kids with, but I know that chances aren't good. Either way, perhaps I would have lost even more if I staid with one of them cheating %$*&^s from my past, and had a child with them.

The cruel truth is that faithful man is rare. If you got one, consider yourself a very, very fortunate woman. There are so many reasons why, but here are two, just to schratch the surface:
-men are naturally predisposed to f**ck around
-women have gone through a sexual revolution, it's a philanderer's paradise

And finally, I have never attempted to change a man. I had however been dooped into believing that he was "in love", back when I still believed in love. Every time another deceit would occur, I felt my hopes sinking a bit deeper. I got even more careless, like a depressive person on crack. I did things that even I myself didn't understand, I was self-destructive. Well, naturally, since I had nothing but let downs in my life. And I kept blaming myself. I said to myself: maybe if I looked prettier, if I lost some weight, if I learned how to cook, if I didn't worry so much when he doesn't answer his phone... But in the end, it was always as I suspected - another woman.

Only when I started reading biology and sociology literature did I start to understand what was actually taking place. I knew there was a strong reason for all of it, completely unrelated to my personality.

Oh, and you're totally wrong about the "no amount of watching him & policing him will change him." The point of watching him is not to change him. Our logic differs greatly. The point of watching him is to spot the signs of deception, in which case you would presumably leave the cheater.

I don't consider myself paranoid at all. We all know very clearly, some of the basic signs of cheating, we all know what liers do to cover up their tracks, because we've all been there. So I am very simple and shrewd in my analysis. I observe how His behaviour deviates from the norm I myself demonstrate and adhere to. Some deviation is normal, but not excessive deviation. If I always come straight home from work, and he rarely ever does (without just cause) - its a deviation. If I am very tactile and show affection, and he never does - deviation. And so on to the infinity. These are trivial examples for illustration purposes. Paranoia is a belief that the actions of others are demeaning or threatening; it is characterized by feelings of being exploited or harmed by others, and questioning loyalty or trustworthiness of friends or associates. Why do you assume that it is paranoia in every case? Or are you stating that you just don't care if you are being used? One way or the other, I don't see the benefit of living in a lie. Sooner or later it breaks, and the later it breaks, the worse the consequences for the woman, that is guaranteed. The more time she wastes, the larger the penalty she pays.


What is sad, is that I often feel quite nostalgic, mostly about men I thought I'd loved once. Well, apparently, they all love other women now. And if I were superficial enough, I suppose I could persuade myself that I can go on loving others the same way or more as well. However, this is not the reality. Love does not bring people together, interest does. Lonelyness, dispair, poverty, insecurity, a need to reproduce, whatever it may be... it's definitely not love. I don't believe in love anymore. I know it's a mental delusion. Myst, if love were real, people wouldn't be so easily replacable. Some people know this, but don't go deeply into the analysis of the problems with this concept, because they prefer the false cushion of safety it gives them; they prefer living in a delusion. I equate this with faith in God. The greatest delusion of them all.

I know I would be a happier person if I had love, but knowing what "love" is, I don't pretend that it's something it isn't. I can appreciate intense sexual attraction and a passion that arises between partners, but anything more than that, to me anyway, equates to down and dirty calculating business. Every partner wanting to maximize their own benefit by having the other invest more into the business than himself. It's called a partnership, and the female always stands to lose so much more.

And Myst, because you stand to lose more, you invest more, you roll with the punches. Whenever an individual stands to lose more, the only possible strategy that assures any chance of survival is to fight harder. It is the same in all battles, whether in wars of nations or war of the sexes. In effect, I understand women like you Myst, the diplomat who tries to paint a brighter image. But you ain't assuring me. You are either very, very fortunate, or you are living a delusion.

I don't believe in love anymore. I know it's a mental delusion. Myst, if love were real, people wouldn't be so easily replacable. Some people know this, but don't go deeply into the analysis of the problems with this concept, because they prefer the false cushion of safety it gives them; they prefer living in a delusion. I equate this with faith in God. The greatest delusion of them all.

Wow, that is so sad, and unnecessary. You don't have to live life so cynically. Yes, it's true that a lot of men are ****heads, but I think many women are going after the wrong type of men. They're not all like that. And I know you don't believe this now, but love is real. It's understandable that if people are in enough shallow or bad relationships based on the wrong things, it could destroy their faith in love. How tragic. People aren't perfect but love exists, it is not a delusion. (I won't bring up God, because that's off topic but I had to respond to your post, it is so, so sad)

Sounds weird to be honest. Maybe the guy was just looking for a quick lay, sorry for the expression!
Otherwise if he really cared, dnt you think that he would have gotten into contact with you?

Wow, that is so sad, and unnecessary. You don't have to live life so cynically. Yes, it's true that a lot of men are ****heads, but I think many women are going after the wrong type of men. They're not all like that. And I know you don't believe this now, but love is real. It's understandable that if people are in enough shallow or bad relationships based on the wrong things, it could destroy their faith in love. How tragic. People aren't perfect but love exists, it is not a delusion. (I won't bring up God, because that's off topic but I had to respond to your post, it is so, so sad)

Is it truly sad, or a normal part of growing up? We've all left the fairy tales behind by now.

The divorce rate proves what I'm trying to point to, point being that love is a myth. There's always that potential of attaining it, but it somehow never materializes. That is because we are guided by instinct, an instinct telling us to look after our own interest.

OK, take a stupid example: Brad and Angelina. I suspect that not even Brad himself realizes why he had left Jen for Ange. "It just happened" - said Angelina. I say it wasn't just an arbitrary chain of events. Fact is, my friends, Angelina Jolie has superior genes when it comes to beauty. As beautiful as Jennifer is, she is obviously not comparable to Angie. Also Jen is 7 years older than Ange. So Ange is younger and prettier. Translated by Brad's subconscious, thus means = better genes for my children, more time to produce as many children as possible with this woman (he would have less time with Jen), and as beautiful children tend to be successful at attracting partners = increased chances of more grandchildren.

Brad does not love neither of these girls, as much as he is actually looking out for himself. If there were love, he would have staid with Jen, cause it seems to me that there is nothing wrong with her. He married her didn't he? When I look at those pictures of them, so happy together, I don't get it. After only 4 years of marriage, without a warning, he splits with a younger prettier chick?

To top it all off... They turn this into a cat fight. Angelina is the villain. Homewrecker. Typical. Fact is, Brad is the most cupable, but it is somehow always the woman's fault. Angie is so gorgeous, ppl are magnetically drawn to her. Brad is too. But folks don't you see.... Brad was the married one - the onus was upon him not to brake the promise to Jen. I think Brad destroyed Jeniffer Aniston emotionally. The proof lies in the fact that she is alone, and disappearing from the spot light.

The purpose of the example was to remind you of how men think. They would all like to be with a younger, prettier woman. Consequently, "love" loses the traditional meaning, BIG TIME. It's a myth.

Some of you will be fortunate enough not to have your bubble burst. But you know the saying, as girls get old, men go cold. Most women will experience being abandoned, more than once. Just take a look around you... No better method of learning than observation.

Canadiense, I think you need to forgive whoever hurt you so bad and filled you with this hate. He's not worth spending the rest of your life being pissed off at all men.

So what are you, a labeling machine?
Why the need to be able to call someone a slut?

Hey, if the shoe fits, and it seems to.

Canadiense, I think you need to forgive whoever hurt you so bad and filled you with this hate. He's not worth spending the rest of your life being pissed off at all men.

I don't hate all men. I rather envy your advantageous position.
Having said that, I don't love ya either.

:hmm:

Advantageous to exploit loose women like the original poster. Don't make it so damn easy, have some self-control and a little self-respect. The original poster is a black hole of emotional need and it's one and done with a girl like that. Guys can smell that a mile off, but that won't stop them from exploiting the situation and never have a thing to do with you again after they get their rocks off. Your hatred for men is not entirely unjustified.

Your hatred for men is not entirely unjustified.

Hatred... Try calling it a "pretty accurate observation" instead...

I might be emotional about a few men in my past, but not of the entire male population. Anyhoo, I don't hate anyone. I think it's a f**king waste, being alone. But given the options... eh, I choose to stay alone anyways. I can't deal with bull crap anymore.

Don't put yourself in a position to get f'd over by men. Men are dogs.

Holy Christ, I opened up a can of worms didn't I?

I don't have time to respond to Canadiense right now, I will later, but the short answer for now is I basically agree with everything that you are saying about men and women at the biological level. But it's only one piece of the puzzle, yes our DNA and biology is pretty much running the show, but there's more to relationships than what men can gain from women, and what women can gain from men.

I don't hate all men. I rather envy your advantageous position.
Having said that, I don't love ya either.

:hmm:

Envy is just another form of hate.

But we don't have an advantageous position. Everybody is right on the same level. The only advantage that anyone ever gets over a member of the opposite sex is what's given to them by that individual, and it happens just as often on both sides of the gender gap.

No, a girl shouldn't "have" to do any of those things to keep him interested. She should be able to just rely on her looks and the fact that she's even interested in him. But that isn't reality. A man shouldn't "have" to wine and dine a woman to gain her interest, buy her things, change himself for her to accept him, make a lot of money to give her "security", or sacrifice certain things in order to keep her happy. This goes both ways.

Personally I'm amazed there is any resistance at all from the females here on what I've suggested. It's SO EASY. So freaking easy, very little effort at all, and you'll get everything you want in return. Compare that to what women typically ask from MEN, and men have to do 10 times the amount of work.

Stereotyping, again. And, I have to be female to disagree with your post?

Yes, I am aware of that. I am aware they all say that, but put 8 out of 10 of those women in a relationship for 2 or 3 years, and they'll be thinking marriage. Especially as they watch all their friends getting married, and having to put up with their own mother constantly asking, "When are you gonna get married??"


Why are you so sure they'll all be thinking marriage? Not all women want the marriage and/or baby thing. Maybe those women just living with their significant other are simply seeking a companion, not a husband.

Make your man happy and he'll WANT to make you happy in return.
Canadiense
Notice the order? Woman must work hard first, so as to earn some kindness from her man.

Canadiense is dead on.

This is where honesty comes in. It's the most important thing, you have to be honest with your partner, if you're not being fullfilled in the relationship in some way, you need to tell them.

I agree. Honesty is very important. My problem with your post(s) is that the nicest things a woman can do for a man, according to you, is cook him a meal and give him great sex. That's what you're focused on, and really, that's your perogative. But don't try to apply your rules to every man and tell everyone that the "smart girls" would be the ones to heed your advice.

In effect, I understand women like you Myst, the diplomat who tries to paint a brighter image. But you ain't assuring me. You are either very, very fortunate, or you are living a delusion.
A woman like me, eh?
Anyone here could tell you I have had a far from fortunate life, and I can assure you I am hardly delusional. My brightness comes from practicality, because I had to fashion a mindset for survival.

Looking at thing optimistically is the only way to accomplish anything of importance. Pessimists don't succeed.

You seem to have made poor choices in men and then you blame the men for your failed expectations and failures. Look at the common denominator.

Canadiense,

I'll try to address your points.

Cheating: In every single one of my relationships, I have been 100% monogamous. I've never cheated on any of my girlfriends. Not once. Cheating goes against everything I believe in, even though I have been tempted, I've never gone through with it. I don't see the point. I also don't appreciate you accusing me of that, perhaps you should stop assuming things about men you don't know, or is that too logical for you? I also find it amusing that you're constantly saying how men are predispositioned to cheat. That's inaccurate (naturally.) Men are predispositioned to have multiple partners - that does not automatically mean they are predispositioned to cheat. There's a difference. Women however ARE. Or did you conveniently choose to omit that little fact? I'm sure you've run across that in your "studies" right? Why didn't you inlcude that? Studies have shown that women are genetically programmed to choose a long term mate who is likely to provide security, who typically have "less masculine" features, and will be in it for the long haul to help raise children. At the same time, women are genetically programmed to MATE with a male who is better looking, has "more masculine" features when she is ovulating. So in other words, women are programmed to find some soft dude to marry and mate with some good looking guy to get his genes. Other studes have shown that at least 10% of the population worldwide is WRONG in who they think their biological father is. And you have the nerve to get all over men for being cheaters? Especially after you've even admitted to being one on this board? Who do you think you are?

Relationships: I am 100% all for relationships. I think they're great thing, with the right person. I think it's interesting that a few women here have jumped to all kinds of conclusions, become telepathic mind readers, are suddenly experts on the inner workings of my brain, based on one post. The females who were in any way offended from what I suggested, were offended because of their own insecurities. Because all of the counter-arguments given to my suggestions have absolutely nothing to do with what I meant, or how I feel, so it's just a reflection of what they think, not me. So, I'll explain why I listed each one.

1. Don't be a high maintenance bitch Every single one of you knows the type. You've all called them a bitch yourself. This goes beyond simply taking 3 hours to get ready, or insisting on having the newest Coach purse or newest Dior sunglasses. They are demanding, usually spoiled, think the world revolves around them, are creating drama everywhere they go just because they're bored and they need the stimulation, they are experts at creating guilt trips - even with their female friends. They are annoying, they drain your energy, and are gifted with the ability to turn any positive outing into a negative one. You have to tip toe your way around them because you don't want to set them off. They're really just more trouble than they're worth and best avoided. If you are this type, listen closely - we don't like you at all.

2. Don't call him 5 times a day. Contrary to what Canadiense said, this is not so that he can run rapant banging every girl he sees and get away with it. When females do this it's because they are needy and insecure, and they really don't trust you at all. They have to call you at all times of the day, constantly keep track of where you are, and they freak out if you don't answer. In a way, they are high maintenence too. They're freaking out over nothing. The issue here is trust. I think this problem can be solved if the couple is willing to work at it. But there is nothing more draining than being in a relationship with a girl like this. It feels like you would have more freedom in prison. Ladies, you're not his mommy. Do this and he'll resent you. The relationship will suffer.

3. Don't pressure him for marriage. The reason why I said this, is because a lot of women do this. Your heart's in the right place, but men do not want to propose to you because they feel forced to. We want to propose to you because it's our idea, because we want to marry you. That's all! It's not so we won't ever propose! And let's say that you're successful in pressuring him for marriage, and he proposes. You know he's only doing it because you pressured him into it! You know his heart wasn't 100% into it! Is that what you want? Don't you want to marry your man because HE wants to marry you because HE loves you and wants to spend the rest of his life with you? Or are you only concerend with getting that ring, and not concerned with love?

4. Don't try to "change" him. Ok, it's common knowledge that women love "projects." They want a guy to "fix." When they're done fixing him, they get bored and move on. Men have all been in relationships with a woman who very subtly tried to change him. It makes us feel like there's something wrong with us, and you're not really happy being with us for how we are. It creates resentment as well. Feenix said it best when he said that if you aren't happy with the guy you're with, find a guy you are.

5. Don't give him shit or make him feel guilty for hanging out with his friends. I would think this one is self explanatory. Again the issue is trust. If you're giving your man guilt trips for hanging out with his friends for gods sake, you really just don't respect your partner very much. This is NOT so that he can go out and pick up chicks behind your back guilt free, or whatever your completely irrational fear is. I mean, jesus why are you even together if you don't trust him? Are you only going to be comfortable with the relationship if he never goes anywhere, and you keep him in your sight at all times? If you can't trust your partner to hang out with his friends, your relationship is little more than a convenient psuedo-relationship by default. You don't really trust him, how can you love him? We don't care when you go hang out with your friends! We know you're coming back home to us at the end of the night. Again, you're not his mommy - stop acting like it.

6. DO be the best lay he's ever had. This isn't because we only want you for sex and food. Christ almighty. This is because if the sex is really really good, we can't stop thinking about you! It's just that sex is important to men, we are biologically programmed that way. This isn't sexist at all. And being a good lay is really all about being incredibly turned on by him, really appreciating him and his body, being vocal, being so turned on by him that you'll do pretty much anything, damn that's hot. It's about making him feel wanted, desired. Kiss his body all over. Suck his dick like your sucking the chrome off a tail pipe. This should be easy if you're attracted to him and enjoy sex. Wanna be a horrible lay? Just lie there like a dead fish. Show little emotion, and expect him to think that he's so incredibly lucky just to be having sex with such a "goddess." Ugh. See being high maintenance above.

7. DO cook him meals occasionally. As if any of you should be suprised at this. All of you know men really appreciate a home cooked meal. It doesn't mean that's all we want you for, please stop your paranoia. It isn't healthy. I've become a better cook than some women, but I still really appreciate it. And I love cooking for women too. I recommended this as a simple gesture to keep in mind to do occasionally, it's just something nice to do for your man. There might be some truth in the old saying, "A way to a mans heart is through his stomach." Ya'll are makin this out to be something way more than it is. We are simple.

8. DO treat him as you would like to be treated. Canadiense said that he would not return the favor. Bullshit. You'll get it back in return. Assuming you picked a halfway decent guy, and not some leftover dregs that you picked up from some shady bar in a drunken stupor. Remember to have some quality control, ladies. This is actually a good test for you anyway. If he doesn't treat you well in return, you know he's not the right guy for you. Move on. But this is really just a simple principle to keep in mind.

9. DO be honest with him. I know, this will be hard for certain females to apply. You all expect men to be honest, yet you do not hold the same standard for yourselves. And when a man is fully honest with you, you can't handle it. Or you don't believe what he says. What exactly do you want out of a relationship anyway? Honesty is without question the most important thing in a relationship. Without honesty your relationship is a lie. If something is bothering you, don't answer "nothing" when he askes you what's wrong. Stop lying, and be honest. Open the lines of communication.

10. DO be cool and fun, and easy to talk to and enjoyable to be with. This does NOT mean become a doormat, and never object or protest anything he says or does. All this really means is be normal. We like you when you're being yourselves, relaxed and enjoying our company, cracking jokes, etc. This doesn't mean, don't ever get upset, or ever get mad, or whatever. Of course you should do those things. You are our compliments, we love spending time with you. We don't have a lot of time on this earth, make the best of spending time with people you care about.

DISCLAIMER: These are recommendations for "actions" to take that WILL improve your relationships with men, 100% of the time - IF you have chosen a good guy and qualified him correctly, and you are very attracted to. These are not, in any way shape or form, a reflection of what men only want women for. These are only things that are basically universally liked and appreciated by men everywhere and have a very positive effect on a relationship.

I'd like to see a list from women for men!

Has the OP even bothered coming back to this post?
I dont think so and I dont blame her; its way off-topic and some posters need a seperate thread in which to continue the debating.

Fact is she slept with someone on the first date and then slept with them again after the second date. Two very big mistakes, who does that anyway?

If I were a guy why would I want to pursue a relationship with someone that allowed me to sleep with her so quickly. Even if I really liked her I would be tauted my a little voice in my head "She's nice but she cant keep her legs closed" or something to that effect.

The OP should move on, the chief mistake she made was to sleep with the guy on the first date. I doubt she will hear from this guy again, right now he's laughing at her or pitying her.

Next time dont give it up so quickly.

Oh, fear not. The OP will probably be back next time she needs "research" for whatever e-book she's writing at the moment. :rolleyes:

What?

A woman like me, eh?
Anyone here could tell you I have had a far from fortunate life, and I can assure you I am hardly delusional. My brightness comes from practicality, because I had to fashion a mindset for survival.

Looking at thing optimistically is the only way to accomplish anything of importance. Pessimists don't succeed.

You seem to have made poor choices in men and then you blame the men for your failed expectations and failures. Look at the common denominator.


Amen to that.

To Canadienese - You're letting your bad experiences cloud your perspective on everything, and trying to tell the rest of the world that love doesn't exist. There are millions and millions of people who would tell you that you are not only wrong, but if you continue with that mindset, you're just hurting yourself and missing out on the best in life. You seem to think you're the wise one, and that everyone else is delusional. But you are the one to be pitied, with that sad, faithless, dismal mentality. I hope that you change that someday.

What?

Ironweed outed her on page 1 of this thread, Adi.

Thanks, interesting, before I replied I did go to her profile and clicked show all threads by this poster because I knew I had replied to one of her threads before.

Well, whatever.

Amen to that.

To Canadienese - You're letting your bad experiences cloud your perspective on everything, and trying to tell the rest of the world that love doesn't exist. There are millions and millions of people who would tell you that you are not only wrong, but if you continue with that mindset, you're just hurting yourself and missing out on the best in life. You seem to think you're the wise one, and that everyone else is delusional. But you are the one to be pitied, with that sad, faithless, dismal mentality. I hope that you change that someday.

Why such statement: "I seem to think I am the wise one"?

Hey, I DEBATE. The problem you obviously have is the fact that I speak in an extremely controversial fashion. Every person in history that ever had the guts to speak so, was never liked or appeciated - AT FIRST. I see that IT OFFENDS YOU to hear what I'm saying.

Truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.

And please, I don't need pity. Aside from my nostalgic nature, I am a very strong person. I am not a "yes" person. Just because I see relationships from a more pragmatic point of view, does not mean that I am miserable. Yes I am faithless, and very practical. Yes it means that I will never live to feel ecstatic happiness that characterises delusional behaviour, because of my dubious mindset. However, I prefer to live knowing the true cause of things, and I am certainly not the only one who ever raised these issues. I am not inviting you to uphold my points of view, you have the right to disagree as much as I have the right to speak my mind. But if your only form of disagreement is an expression of some sort of attack on my personality, then you are a weak rebutter indeed.

You make it look like I am projecting my "negative experiences" outwards. I use my experiences as an illustration of how my persuit of the truth had started, and why. However, to judge solely from my own experiences would be biased. Lily, you make it seem like that's all I do, well tough luck, it ain't so. Most of my posts are quoted works of Dawkins. When I said that to feel in love is to live a delusion, I didn't say that everyone's experience had to be negative, did I?:)

Some of us get a lucky strike. Some don't. Some delusions last a life time. Some don't. It does not diminish the fact that "love" is chemically controlled. By that token, when put through the test, it often fails, for other survival instincts and selfish tendencies will often prevail over our so called "altruistic" nature.

Now the only other question to discuss here could be "what would be the benefit of such a pragmatic view of relationships"?

To all of you who have experienced failure in relationships, the answer should be more than obvious. By examining human relationships fully, not only counting on the morality and emotions (which for me are unstable and thus unreliable factors), one can set appropriate expectations. How do you explain it to yourself if your partner betrays you, doesn't stick up for you, doesn't help you when you expect it? Instead of feeling anger and saddness, wouldn't it be far more constructive to realize why it is happenning, and then to change your dealings with people acording to your conclusions? For example, I will be honest once again and use my own life as an illustration. I had decided never again to have s*x with a man unless he sticks around for a while. The reason for that is learning that majority of men are users, if given the chance, they take it and split in pursuit of a fresh female. It only took me 12 years of experimentation to realize this is a firm fact. Oh well, lily, you would have been dead on if you called me a down right IDIOT for taking so long to realize my error. I was an idiot precisely because I always relied on the "goodness of people". However, that mistake shall not reoccur. And another thing, I will only consider men who show kindness in the form of sacrifice of some sort. I have learned that guys who don't care to pay for your meal, don't care for you when you're sick etc. will never care for you period. I know it sounds retarded, but I used to be a sucker, I used to be a hopeless romantic and guess what - people used it cold-bloodedly to get something out of me. Being romantic can be harmful. Having a healthy understanding of people in general can be beneficial.

And if you have something that disproves the validity of the last argument, please give concrete examples, state something from a scientific book, whatever. Personal attacks for he sake of a rebuttle are shallow, useless sentences. Proof lies in evidence. I have evidence galore to support my point of view. Should I start a new thread with a list??? Where is your evidence?

Cheating: I also find it amusing that you're constantly saying how men are predispositioned to cheat. That's inaccurate (naturally.) Men are predispositioned to have multiple partners - that does not automatically mean they are predispositioned to cheat.

Don't fence with me young man:D
OK, lets make the long story short. Men would prefer multiple females. Females would prefer monogamy. Agree??? Cheating or leaving, does it matter? Is the female at a disatvantage anyway? Yes? Thank you.

I think it's interesting that a few women here have jumped to all kinds of conclusions, become telepathic mind readers, are suddenly experts on the inner workings of my brain, based on one post.

There's more on the table than my life or yours. I was trying to be very neutral in my descriptions of male/female behaviour. I'm trying to say IT IS TO BE EXPECTED that a male would either cheat or leave you; I never expressed moral judgement, therefore, you need not defend yourself.

As for the general response to your 10 commandments...What appears "interesting" to you is a product of female frustration with the fact that men are arrongant in their demands. This apparent arrogance (I'm not insulting you so don't jump from your seat) is explained and justified in the theories of natural selection and evolution. In the human species, females must compete for males. It is the female that tries to please, attract and mame the male, by dressing up, shaving, putting on makeup, perfume etc.

Similarly, for Paradise Birds, it is only the few most beautiful feathered males that will get to reproduce. For Paradise Birds, it is the opposite, the males have to "show off" in order to attract the female.

For humans, because of the fact that men have an infinite number of opportunities to procreate, and females do not, this is how it is. Now, this is at our base, our instinctive nature. The impact of having a highly developed brain is not considered as much in my argument. I do realize that morality tries to correct what is purely instinctive. It is taught. It is after all, what created the civilized society. We often argue that a family is the atom of the human society.

But one should be careful not to rely on an artificial creation. Do we agree that lately, we have experienced a demise of the typical "Christian" values, higher divorce rate (which doesn't even consider the abandonment rate), the 7 year itch theory etcetcetc.??? What we would like to rely on is not proving to be solid, almost as if some strange force is affecting people to disregard what mom and dad faught so hard to teach.

According to theory, this current instability should not last for long, if it is simply a reaction to a deviation. However, the impact could serve as a shift in standard human behaviour. I could argue that such a shift in values could well be a response caused by many interelated, complicated factors, at the root of which is over-population. The more abandonment and the less stability in relationships, the less children would be born, correct? Wouldn't it be amazing, if it were in our genes, to start reacting to an overpopulated Earth by changing our behaviour (value shift)? It's possible. Everything must have a cause. It's a long shot, I realize that. But I am waiting for scientists to explore this possibility, and soon. After all, when studying animals, it has been determined by simple experimentation, that animals start producing less or no offspring when food supplies become extremely scarce.

Funny but true, it is the female's task to control the population size. In the animal world, females observe the size of the flock, or heard, and react accordingly by producing less or more offspring.

Females in feminist movements, females not wanting to get married, females adopting instead of bearing their own, females on a pill, females having a kid later on in life... These females have one thing in common: bearing children is forgone or delayed until he last minute. I believe men are following the trend as well. Having children doesn't seem to be as important nowadays. Why do you gather?

Optimus, sorry if it sounded personal. Really, I have no interest in offending. I just want to discuss.

....



Telling would be like discovering your war strategy to the enemy.

...

I'm sure you meant "revealing", but this still was a very telling post for me.

Why are men the enemy? And why should we withhold information from him? The biggest complaint I hear from my women friends is that, "he just doesn't get me", and my response is always, "have you told him what you need?" and the reply is invariably, "if he really loved me, he would know."

Important safety tip: Men are idiots, (metaphorically speaking), They are not psychic, they do not have some crystal ball with which to divine what is in our hearts. We have to tell them. That doesn't make them bad or wrong or unloving, it just makes them Men.

For every woman who bitches that she's not getting what she wants out of a relationship? Why not take another look at what you are or are not putting in.

And frankly, I've got to agree with Optimus here......you want a man to be happy, (and therefore more likely to make you happy)?

A hot meal
Clean socks
Control of the remote
A blow job.

You'll have to firebomb the house to get rid of him.

A woman like me, eh?
Anyone here could tell you I have had a far from fortunate life, and I can assure you I am hardly delusional. My brightness comes from practicality, because I had to fashion a mindset for survival.

Looking at thing optimistically is the only way to accomplish anything of importance. Pessimists don't succeed.

You seem to have made poor choices in men and then you blame the men for your failed expectations and failures. Look at the common denominator.

Indeed, I am the cause of all my relationship failures, and let me tell you why: I REFUSED TO BE A SLAVE, TO SETTLE FOR LESS THAN I GIVE, TO SHUT UP AND GO HIDE IN THE CORNER, and every other particular shovinist demand the man would make me put up with. I've been with men who judged me because I couldn't cook, because I didn't believe in God, and because I was "opinionated". If I smoked or drank I was questioned. If I looked less then perfect I was criticized. So yeah, I'd either dated A-holes, or this is the way it is between me and men. We're two worlds far apart.

Back to your argument. You say now that you have had an unfortunate life, and that the only way to succeed is to be a optimist, and this is "practical".

Are you willing to back this up by saying that YOU FAILED BECAUSE YOU WERE A PESSIMIST AT THE TIME? Are you succeeding now because you've turned into an optimist? I need to understand why you say this.

How does not believing in love constitute pessimism? I am optimistic of many things, for example: I am optimistic that I shall live for many more years to come, that the sun will rise tomorrow just like it did today, that the birds will keep singing, governments keep changing....:) I am not optimistic about the long term outlook for the Earth climate and the chances of survival of our and all the other species. You say I'm a pessimist as if it were a terminal desease. And Pessimists don't succeed?:) Succeed at what?
Success comes from a feeling of accomplishment. If you think that having a man in your life is the ultimate accomplishment... You've got another thing coming to you.

^you should be alone. Since you view men as "the enemy", then you shouldn't even try to have a relationship.

And frankly, I've got to agree with Optimus here......you want a man to be happy, (and therefore more likely to make you happy)?

A hot meal
Clean socks
Control of the remote
A blow job.

You'll have to firebomb the house to get rid of him.

Bear, you willingly slave for someone who is more than perfectly able to do these things on their own, well, ok, less so when it comes to a blow job... And yet, we are talking about "love"... Mendacity. I do not wish such happiness that is based on the amount of effort I put in and the amount of benefits he sucks out from me. Lets sum it up shall we girls:

- take care of yourself (workout, spend money on cute clothes, look great)
- educate yourself
- have a good job
- bear a few kids in the mean time
- stay slim after having the kids
- contributing financially is not enough, thus you shall, on top of everything else, clean after me and the kids, and cook for me and the kids


If you're allright with this, I ain't gonna dissuade you. I've met many a women who are of the same opinion as yourself. If you can't beat them - join them. If it makes you happy - slave away girl. I am a proponent of change. You are old school.

^you should be alone. Since you view men as "the enemy", then you shouldn't even try to have a relationship.

Why do you think that I view all men as "the enemy"?

What you are referring to was a figure of speech, a mere comparison I used to illustrate a different point I was trying to make. It was like comparing the military strategy with a male/female strategy. It seemed appropriate because the topic was the "battle of the sexes".

And please - refrain from telling me what I should or shouldn't do. I believe in my own judgement, and don't remember asking for your opinion.

If you would like to discuss the particular topic, do express your mind, but by referring to my personal choices in life and expressing judgement as a form of your disagreement, you're not demonstrating any particular brilliance.

The topic was "New Guy Problem", not the battle of the sexes. (personally, I don't think relationships should be a battle, but hey, that's just me)

And I assumed that you viewed men as the enemy because you said men were the enemy, (silly me.)

The topic was "New Guy Problem", not the battle of the sexes. (personally, I don't think relationships should be a battle, but hey, that's just me)

And I assumed that you viewed men as the enemy because you said men were the enemy, (silly me.)

Since I must...


This is where honesty comes in. It's the most important thing, you have to be honest with your partner, if you're not being fullfilled in the relationship in some way, you need to tell them.


Telling would be like discovering your war strategy to the enemy.

I was using a SIMILE: a figure of speech that expresses a resemblance between things of different kinds (usually formed with "like" or "as").

And Bear, I don't think relationships should be a battle either.

However, they often resemble one.

I say often - not always. Obviously, you are satisfied with your relationship, and that's great. Not everyone has to fight, some of us are lucky to have found a good person. So congrats and enjoy.

Do you not see the irony here that, in response to Optimus' plea for honesty your reply is that, "that would be like discovering, (and I'm still sure you meant to say "revealing"), your war strategy to the enemy"?

He was saying, just be honest and you were saying, nope, can't let go of the good intel.

How can you possibly hope to have a successful relationship if you refuse to tell your partner what you want?

I can not even begin to express how idiotic that is.

How can you have a successful relationship when you're so ****ing bitter. Sheesh.

...

I was using a SIMILE: a figure of speech that expresses a resemblance between things of different kinds (usually formed with "like" or "as").
Christ on a bicycle, I promised myself I wasn't going to do this, but the English teacher in me has apparently hijacked my keyboard.

A simile is where a subject, (noun), is compared to another subject, (noun). i.e. "My blanket is as soft as bunny feet.".

The sentence you wrote, "Telling, (not a noun, btw,), is like discovering, (and I'm still sure you mean revealing), war plans to the enemy", is NOT a simile. It's not even close. Simply placing the word, "like", in a sentence does not make it a simile. Do you understand or should I provide more examples?

Do you not see the irony here that, in response to Optimus' plea for honesty your reply is that, "that would be like discovering, (and I'm still sure you meant to say "revealing"), your war strategy to the enemy"?

He was saying, just be honest and you were saying, nope, can't let go of the good intel.

I can not even begin to express how idiotic that is.

Yaiks. Relax with the insults. One more and there is no point for this discussion. I do not see how throwing insults at someone constitutes a debate.

What I meant had a different meaning that I did not bother to explain further in depth. If you look at cheating from the perspective that it is an act of selfishness, than by that token, a person acting on a selfish impulse would naturally not divulge this to their partner ever, or they would set themselves up for a failure. The purpose is to get benefits, not to fail.

Yeah, honesty would be good. There's only one problem - you never know who your dealing with, for the cheater will never tell you that you are being dooped. I too could use terms like "should, would, could", but the reality is, plenty a folk out there are selfish, and if cheating presents more benefits than being strictly monogamous, they will cheat.

My argument stems from the "Selfish Gene" theory. It shouldn't be taken personally, so I do not understand why I must be ofended for using it. I guess I just failed to explain it properly.

Yaiks. Relax with the insults. One more and there is no point for this discussion. I do not see how throwing insults at someone constitutes a debate.

What I meant had a different meaning that I did not bother to explain further in depth. If you look at cheating from the perspective that it is an act of selfishness, than by that token, a person acting on a selfish impulse would naturally not divulge this to their partner ever, or they would set themselves up for a failure. The purpose is to get benefits, not to fail.

Yeah, honesty would be good. There's only one problem - you never know who your dealing with, for the cheater will never tell you that you are being dooped. I too could use terms like "should, would, could", but the reality is, plenty a folk out there are selfish, and if cheating presents more benefits than being strictly monogamous, they will cheat.

My argument stems from the "Selfish Gene" theory. It shouldn't be taken personally, so I do not understand why I must be ofended for using it. I guess I just failed to explain it properly.


No one here has talked about cheating except you, so I would assume that means that you are the cheater, yeah?

Christ on a bicycle, I promised myself I wasn't going to do this, but the English teacher in me has apparently hijacked my keyboard.

A simile is where a subject, (noun), is compared to another subject, (noun). i.e. "My blanket is as soft as bunny feet.".

The sentence you wrote, "Telling, (not a noun, btw,), is like discovering, (and I'm still sure you mean revealing), war plans to the enemy", is NOT a simile. It's not even close. Simply placing the word, "like", in a sentence does not make it a simile. Do you understand or should I provide more examples?


Allright smartypants, if it is not a simile, then what is it, because I definitely did not mean for it to be taken LETERALLY.

Why are you